BLM RESOURCES FOR ROCKHOUNDS

West Mojave Route Network Project

Comment Period Deadline: June 14, 2018

BLM has prepared a Draft Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) within the West Mojave (WEMO) Planning Area of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). A 90-day comment period was opened on March 16th. Its scope:
"The WMRNP will delineate travel management areas, adopt transportation and travel management strategies, and designate routes on public lands in the WEMO Planning Area. The WEMO Planning Area covers 9.4-million acres of the CDCA in the western portion of the Mojave Desert in southern California, including parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside, Kern, and Inyo counties. The WMRNP applies to the 3.1-million acres of public lands within the WEMO Planning Area."

Why is the Route Network Plan
important for Rockhounds?

The WMNRP is a critical component of the DRECP for Rockhounds, because its maps incorporate routes to collecting areas. Destinations without vehicular access will make it impossible for many rockhounds to visit them. Rockhounds should review BLM's map data and submit comments for routes that are missing or delineated inaccurately to ensure continued access to ther favorite collecting areas. The best way to make route specific comments is directly in the WMRNP Online Interactive Map. You can click on individual routes and route segments and submit a comment on the selection.

Some tips. Check out the menu options (top left corner of the map) to customize the view to make the map easier for you to use.

• Layer list. There are four alternative plans, which includes one no-action plan. The Preferred Plan is Alternative 4 – this is the plan most likely to be adopted. When you visit the map page for the first time, the default view is Alternative 1, the no-action plan. Alternative 2 favors conservation, and Alternative 3 favors recreation; although, recreational access in some areas actually looks better in Alternative 4. Be sure to activate the map layer for the Alternative Plan you prefer, comment on that plan and consider commenting on Alternative 4, since that's the one that probably will be adopted.
  Find all the patterns too busy to see the features that interest you? Turn them off in the layer list.
• Basemap gallery. Features are difficult to recognize in the default view of the map, because there are so few labels and recognizable landmarks. You can change the base map – there are 9 choices! Rockhounds may find the USA Topo map base layer provides the best view; it includes labels for features that help with orientation such as some known mines, historical landmarks, names of topographic features such as "Baxter Wash".
• Search. If you know specific route numbers or place names, you can type them into the search box (top right corner of the map). Since this is a world map, the syntax of the input is important, for instance "AC9606" is a route in the Cady Mountains; "AC 9606" will take you to New Jersey.
• Making comments on the route segments. You can provide descriptive information in the comment.
• Keep a copy of your comments. Yes, how tedious. But if you go to the effort in the first place, you may need to refer back to the comments you provided. If, for some reason, you don't see them in the next round of review, you've got a complete list to re-submit. BLM has lost comments before, so it's a good idea to back-up everything you communicate to BLM (don't forget to note the date and address where you submitted – s-mail letter, email, online upload, etc).
• Tutorial. Here's a great tip from Ruth Hidalgo: a tutorial on how to use the interactive map can be found at: jawbone.org/index.php/seekritmodules/471-offroader-s-guide-to-wemo-online-map

Yes, making comments is tedious, but it's important. BLM has not provided map views with a Rockhound layer. Wouldn't that make things easy? BLM has data specifically for hobby collecting areas based on inputs from the public (from previous comment periods) and inputs made by former DAC member Kim Erb on behalf of Rockhounds, and inputs made by the agency's own staff. However, the maps made available for the comment period may not include all these data, and what data are available are not readily intelligible as "Rockhound" routes. If you have submitted comments in the past, you may want to double-check that your inputs made it into the WEMO map. We have asked BLM's Matt Toedtli to provide maps with the Rockhound-specific layers in time to review them before the comment period closes. It doesn't look like that's going to happen. According to Toedtli,

"Closer to the release of the Final EIS, tentatively scheduled for October 2019, we will consult with the field office, district and/or state geologist to determine if and how rockhounding sites will be available on public route maps. It may be decided that it is better to release as a separate set of maps, rather than on our route-centric subregion maps."

Federal Register doc 2018-05272
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-05272

BLM's proposed review of DRECP

Special DAC meeting
March 20, 2018, noon to 5pm
Hilton Garden Inn, Mirage Room, 12603 Mariposa Rd.
Victorville, CA 92395

Come to the meeting and tell BLM to leave the DRECP alone.

Download the BLM press release for details »

BLM's Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) will hold its first meeting in over one year. The DRECP Review prompted the special meeting. There is no upside for Rockhounds, if BLM opens DRECP to review, but there is risk of downside. Download a Fact Sheet on What Rockhounds got in DRECP, misconceptions about what DRECP did not do, and what the unintended consequences could be for Rockhounds, if BLM goes forward with amending the DRECP to make more opportunities for renewable energy projects in the desert. Read more »

Comment Period Deadline: March 22, 2018
Rockhounds, get your name on a letter…

BLM opened a 45-day comment period on February 2nd. Rockhounds have until March 22nd to submit letters.
Read an article on why amending DRECP is unnecessary and could be bad for Rockhounds ».
Download a FAQs sheet on the DRECP »

To ensure continued access to hobby collecting areas in California's deserts, BLM needs to hear from Rockhound advocates. SDMG has prepared a detailed comment letter. If you or your club would like to sign onto our letter:
  ● Download the current draft version of SDMG's letter at: https://goo.gl/kNbkiM (short URL).
  ● Download a flyer on how to sign onto SDMG's letter (2 easy steps) »

Want to write your own letter? Download a flyer with FAQs and useful comments on DRECP »

Writing a Good Comment Letter
What's Effective, What's Not

Download a flyer:
https://www.sdmg.org/blmdocs/comment_letters_whats_effective_whats_not.pdf

Left: DRECP Preferred Alternative Plan in February 2015 showing Development Focus Areas (DFAs)(magenta-colored areas), targeted for utility-scale renewable energy projects. Right: Final DRECP as of Sept 14, 2016 showing changes to DFAs, some of which were made accommodate Rockhounds based on comment letters. The 2018 DRECP Review could take away concessions made to Rockhounds.

 

If you or your club would like to sign a joint letter to support hobby collecting, contact editor@sdmg.org for more information.

 

DRECP do-over may give lands designated for
recreational uses to industrial-scale projects
by Lisbet Thoresen
Public Lands Representative
for San Diego Mineral & Gem Society
February 2, 2017

BLM notice of intent (2/2/2018): Docket Number 2018-02098
What it proposes: Amend DRECP to seek greater opportunities for renewable energy generation.
Where to find it: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-02098
Comment period deadline: 3/19/2018

After a bruising 8-year battle and 16,000+ comment letters later, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) is in full implemention and on pace to fast-track permits for 500 renewable energy projects over the next 10 years. Apparently, that's not enough for Industry advocates. After less than 18 months, BLM will consider rewriting DRECP to give Industry lands set aside for conservation and recreation, including hobby collecting. Some of these lands were originally designated for development in the Draft DRECP, but after receiving numerous detailed comment letters from Rockhounds, they were re-designated to accommodate hobby collecting in the DRECP Record of Decision published on September 14, 2016.

BLM opened a 45-day comment period on February 2, 2018. To ensure that access to collecting areas is not lost to industrial projects Rockhounds must reiterate anew their concerns to BLM by the comment period deadline on March 19, 2018.

Read more about DRECP and why it matters to Rockhounds »

Left: Draft (preferred alternative) DRECP showing Development Focus Areas (DFAs)(magenta-colored areas), where utility-scale renewable energy projects could be built. Right: Final DRECP showing removal of DFAs, some of which were changed to accommodate Rockhounds based on comment letters.

 

 

A blueprint for comment letters
by Lisbet Thoresen
Public Lands Representative
for San Diego Mineral & Gem Society
November 1, 2016

Everyone who has ever written a comment letter knows what a labor-intensive, time-consuming exercise it is to gather all the information required to get collecting sites written into a Management Plan. We feel your pain.

In a joint effort, SDMG and CFMS prepared a comment letter on the Management Plan for the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument (SGMNM). Other clubs, non-profit organizations, and academic-affiliated and professional individuals were invited to be signatories. The SGMNM comment letter was submitted to the U.S. Forest Service on October 17th. Thank you to everyone who signed onto the letter:

• American Federation of Mineralogical Societies
• Diamond Pacific Tool Corporation
• North Orange County Gem & Mineral Society
• Oxnard Gem & Mineral Society
• Palomar Gem & Mineral Club
• Rocky Mountain Federation of Mineralogical Societies
• Stewards of the Sequoia

The SGMNM letter will be our template for submitting comment letters going forward. We will need signatories – but a whole lot more of them.

Rockhounds, help us help you.

We would like every gem-mineral club in California and more AFMS affiliates, as well as Stakeholder organizations nationwide to sign onto our comment letters. We will still need your input on collecting area information – we cannot know everything – but we'll do most of the heavy lifting to write a good letter.

Our next big effort has already started on the Management Plan for the Mojave Trails National Monument (MTNM). To learn more about what's in store, read Lisbet Thoresen's report on the Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) meeting held in Riverside in October 2016 (the report also appears in SDMG's November 2016 bulletin).

The future of Rockhounding in the Cady Mountains, Lavic Siding, Afton Canyon, and many other favorite collecting areas within MTNM's footprint is going to be decided with or without your input. So, let's pull together. Contact Lisbet Thoresen at info@sdmg.org, if you have questions, input, or you want to ask her to make a presentation to your club.

 

 

DAC meeting report:
Progress and process on managing desert public lands
by Lisbet Thoresen
Public Lands Representative
for San Diego Mineral & Gem Society
October 31, 2016

The DAC business meeting held in Riverside on October 15th was a full day of good presentations and productive discussion focused mostly on Phase II (implementation) of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and the Management Plan process for the Mojave Trails National Monument (MTNM). Among the topics of particular interest to Rockhounds was a presentation on DRECP by Russell Scofield, BLM Natural Resource Specialist. He is new to Southern California, and perhaps more than any other single person, Mr. Scofield may decide what accommodation of Rockhounding will be made in Southern California's desert in the future.

Mr. Scofield has been tasked with overseeing implementation of DRECP with the local counties. He is currently working on the First 100 Days Plan – the start date was the signing of the Record of Decision on September 14, 2016. The First 100 Days Plan is a schedule of actionable items, then priorities, budget, and scoping. He wants to reach out to special interest groups (Stakeholders) as part of his commitment to public engagement.

Other important topics were covered at the DAC business meeting. The Management Plan process for Mojave Trails National Monument (MTNM) was outlined by Mike Ahrens, BLM Field Officer, Needles. BLM appears intent on creating a final Plan for the monument within the three-year time limit allowed by law. MTNM is the second largest monument in the system. Given its size and the number of collecting areas within its footprint, Rockhounds have a lot of work ahead of them to identify the collecting areas that need to go into the Plan. (SDMG and CFMS are working on a comment letter that other organizations can sign onto. Stay tuned for more about this joint effort in the weeks ahead.)

Another meeting topic was the bureaucratic morass of Land Use Plan Amendments (LUPAs) and the processes guiding them, which are becoming increasingly complicated. Overlaps and conflicting directives exist in multiple plans, including DRECP, WMRNP and potentially, Planning 2.0 initiative. The issue of conflicts was visited several times throughout the day-long DAC meeting, because it touched on almost every topic and planning effort under discussion.

We will be hearing a lot about Disturbance Caps (DCs) in the future. DCs are a measure of the intrusion or harm imposed by human activity on the environment. BLM FO Katrina Symons (Barstow) is currently preparing a Disturbance baseline study, which will be released in May-June, 2017. DCs will be calculated for all the different activities in the desert, including Rockhounding. DCs accrue cumulatively against the activity overall; they are not segregated and measured as locality-specific impacts. Rockhounds stand to lose a lot, if our DCs are lumped together with commercial mining. Also, high disturbance measured at a single collecting area can skew the overall scoring or cap. The criteria for scoring DCs could adversely impact access to any collecting area, even if it individually scores "low," because the score will be averaged across all areas and applied to all of them. Read the entire DAC mtg report »

Public Lands Policy Milestones
October 4, 2016

Three major Public Lands Policy milestones have significant near- and long-term implications for Rockhounding in Southern California:

• the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP)
• Mojave Trails National Monument
• San Gabriel Mountains National Monument

A presentation made by Lisbet Thoresen at the SDMG General Meeting in September discusses these watershed milestones in the context of land use policy developments and what they portend for the next 25 years. The presentation also addresses what Rockhounds need to understand about the National Monument Management Plan drafting process and how to participate in it, so that it works for them. (Download a print-friendly PDF of the presentation slide deck.)

Read the Public Lands update »

San Gabriel Mountains National Monument (SGMNM)
Management Plan
Speak up by October 17, 2016
to ask for access to collecting areas
by Lisbet Thoresen
Public Lands Representative for San Diego Mineral & Gem Society
October 4, 2016

For everyone who bemoaned the loss of Rockhound habitat when the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument (SGMNM) was created on October 10, 2014, a small window of opportunity exists to petition for getting some of it back. A joint comment letter is being prepared by SDMG and CFMS, which we hope will result in accommodation of rock collecting being written into the Final Record of Decision. We are optimistic about restoring accommodations for recreational rock collecting, if we can galvanize enough support.

To be effective, letters need to be specific and detailed. They take a lot of time to research and write well, so to make it easier for Rockhounds to lend their support, SDMG and CFMS, would like to invite signatories to our letter, specifically other gem-mineral clubs and individuals who have professional affiliations or academic credentials, for example, geologists, mineralogists, museum curators.

We need your help with identifying and describing the collecting areas and also road access within the Monument. Any collecting area not identified in the Management Plan will be off-limits forevermore. (To find out what we need from you, read the article on this topic in the SDMG October bulletin). The article also provides useful resources gathered for your convenience, in case you decide to write your own letter.

If your club/org wants to sign onto the SDMG-CFMS comment letter, please email Lisbet Thoresen (editor@sdmg.org) no later than October 10, 2016.

Download a copy of the current Draft Comment letter (Word doc).

Download a PDF of the current annotated SGMNM maps.

The author's public lands report slide deck covers this topic and provides specific suggestions on what to include in an effective comment letter. It also includes links to useful resources.

Attend one of
the Envisioning Sessions
5:00–7:30pm
at all three venues

 

Barstow · Tue, Aug 30, 2016

 

Location: Hampton Inn

2710 Lenwood Road
Barstow, CA, 92311

 

Yucca Valley · Wed, Aug 31, 2016

 

Location: Yucca Valley Community Center

57090 Twentynine Palms Hwy
Yucca Valley, CA, 92284

 

Needles · Thu, Sept 1, 2016

 

Location: El Garces Hotel

950 Front Street
Needles, CA, 92363

 

For more information contact:

Stephen Razo
BLM California Desert District External Affairs
951-697-5217 or srazo@blm.gov

View the "Envisioning Sessions" flyer »

 

Here we go Rockhounds –
the planning process for
Mojave Trails National Monument
(MTNM)
is about to begin
by Ruth Hidalgo, ALAA
May 18, 2016

ALL THE COLLECTING AREAS within the Cady Mountains, most of the Lavic collecting areas and all the spots along the Route 66 corridor are now within the MTNM. If Rockhounds are going to have any chance at all of being able to continue collecting within the new National Monument, we are going to have to PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS. The Management Plan for this Monument will be undertaken under a new Planning Process called Planning 2.0. As part of that process, the BLM is hosting "Envisioning Sessions."

This is your chance to let BLM know that Rockhounds ENVISION being able to continue collecting rocks as we have done for over 70 years on the lands now within the monument; that we ENVISION the roads and trails we use to reach our known collecting areas should remain open in the Travel Management Plan; that we ENVISION a net zero loss of trails that provide access to the collecting areas we use; that we ENVISION unlocked gates, staging areas and parking areas for club outings, as well as other amenities that would enhance recreational experiences in the MTNM.

Participating is not hard or complicated. Just show up and speak up. This is a scoping session, and it would be great if Recreational Rockhounding was at the top of the list of the input BLM receives.

There are three meetings scheduled at the end of August and first day of September. All sessions will be from 5:00 to 7:30 pm. See venue addresses in the box at right. View the "Envisioning Sessions" flyer for more info.

BLM Field Tour: Lavic Siding
May 20, 2016
DAC Business Meeting: Barstow
May 21, 2016
June 1, 2016
Read the whole riveting report »

IT'S OFFICIAL.  Rockhounds may continue to collect – temporarily – at their favorite sites located within the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument (MTNM) while a Management Plan for the monument is being drafted. BLM Field Manager Katrina Symons organized a day-long tour of sites near Barstow that are located within the monument. The objective was to familiarize the public and the eleven members of Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) with the monument – its unique geological and ecological features, as well as the customs and culture of the land, from grazing to recreational activities such as rockhounding and off-roading. She invited former DAC member Kim Campbell Erb to make a presentation for the rockhounding segment of the tour, which was held at the main collecting site at Lavic Siding. Kim did a fabulous job of explaining the values of Rockhounds and the significance of the collecting areas within the MTNM. As a Rockhound and former DAC member, she was the perfect messenger.

Kim got a great deal of support from a lot of Rockhounds who showed up at Lavic carrying placards and bringing rocks and pictures to share with the visitors. Members from several clubs turned out in impressive numbers, including Antelope Valley Gem & Mineral Club, Culver City Gem & Mineral Society, North Orange County Gem & Mineral Society, Orange Belt Mineralogical Society, Sierra Pelona Rock Club, and Mojave Desert Gem & Mineral Society. Kris Rowe led a group of Rockhound Fanatics on a Lavic Rockhound Round-Up. The BLM field managers and DAC members were pretty impressed by the turn-out and what they learned about Rockhounding. Thanks to one and all who showed up. A big shout-out to Katrina Symons, who gave Rockhounds a soapbox.

The warm fuzzy feelings continued right on through the DAC business meeting, which was held the next day in Barstow. Rockhounding was not an agenda item, but Rockhounds got two chances to have comments entered into the record. More Rockhounds spoke at the meeting than any other group represented. A comment letter on the MTNM Management Plan from SDMG was entered into record.

Read SDMG's comment letter on the MTNM; also at: http://goo.gl/t7urKB (short url). Heaps of thanks to Bill Depue and John J. Pickett of Diamond Pacific Tool Corporation for providing geographic references and pictures for the letter. Thanks also to Tim and Diane Brady George for lending their lovely pictures for the exhibit appended to the letter.

DAC Field Tour
Route 66 and Mojave Trails National Monument

Friday, May 20, 2016 8:00am – 5:00pm

Join an all-day tour of BLM public lands within the newly designated Mojave Trails National Monument. Various topics will be highlighted for discussion at the different stops. Kim Campbell Erb will talk to rockhounds at Lavic from 2:00pm to 2:45pm.

The public is welcome, but you are responsible for providing your own transportation, food, and beverages. Departure from Hampton Inn parking lot in Barstow.

Details and itinerary to be published at:

http://goo.gl/5vr3hW (BLM short url)

PDF of May 20 DAC Field Tour itinerary, May 21 DAC meeting and letter writing resources concerning CalNatMonuments

Contact:  Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs
951-697-5217 or srazo@blm.gov

Mojave Trails National Monument:
Rockhounds get some
rock solid support
by Lisbet Thoresen
May 18, 2016

MOJAVE TRAILS is the largest of three national monuments created in California's deserts in February.  It covers 1.6 million acres and many collecting areas popular with rockhounds.  Because the Proclamation did not specifically include rockhounding as a permissible activity within the new national monument, it left many members of the rockhound community wondering how the BLM was going to interpret the Proclamation while a Management Plan was being drafted.  A Management Plan is supposed to be published within three years, which is a long time for rockhounds to linger in limbo.

The BLM's position since February had been vague, intimating, when asked, that it hoped to implement an interim policy favorable to rockhounds.  In the meantime, several Gem & Mineral clubs and the California Federation of Mineralogical Societies (CFMS) suspended sponsorship or participation in field trips to the National Monuments until there was a clear policy.  It was not apparent as recently as one week ago that there would be guidance forthcoming any time soon.

Fortunately, the plight of rockhounds caught the attention of Los Angeles Times writer Louis Sahagun. His May 7th article, "A lost gem? New Mojave Trails monument rules appear to bar rock hunting" elevated the dilemma to the awareness of the general public.  The reverberation for rockhounds – or perhaps, symmetry in the universe – was swift and positive.

On May 12th, SDMG received a copy of a letter Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA-D) sent to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell.  The Senator asked for clarification about rockhounding during the interim period while a Management Plan is being drafted.  Her letter went a lot further.  It described the values and activities of rock collecting hobbyists in a genuinely positive light, noting that rockhounding has long been regarded and managed by BLM as a permissible recreational activity on public lands.  She advocated for the policy to continue, whether under oversight of the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, or the National Park Service.  She asked for inclusion of clear language to that effect in the Management Plans for the three new National Monuments, which were created because of her advocacy dating back two decades. 

The next day, on May 13th, California State BLM Director Jerome Perez made it official, publishing on the BLM website that rockhounding is a permissible activity in the Mojave Trails National Monument.  It says:

The Presidential proclamation that designated the Monument provides latitude for existing uses and activities and does not limit or prohibit rock hunting. Rockhounders are welcome to continue collecting limited amounts of rocks, minerals, and gemstones in the Monument in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management's rock collecting guidelines.

Some critics of Senator Feinstein have a jaundiced view about the motivations behind her actions.  That's a pity, because whatever grievances they have had in the past, her recent letter benefits the rockhound community in a rock solid act of support that is sorely needed now.  If Secretary Jewell accepts Feinstein's recommendations, accommodation for rockhounding just may find its way into the Department's broader policy position.  Let's hope so.

There is good reason for Secretary Jewell to heed Feinstein's recommendation.  As the leading proponent championing the National Monument designations in California, the Senator's opinion is more consequential than that of just about any other public figure (besides the President).  Lending the authority of her office and personal role in the monument designations, Feinstein went on record recognizing rockhounding as a recreational activity which should be permissible in the monuments.  The appropriate response for her support is a full-throated "thank you."

Now it's time for rockhounds to get busy and be proactive on their own behalf.  That includes reciprocating the conciliatory overtures made by BLM Director Perez and Senator Feinstein with respectful, constructive input.  Write a letter asking for explicit language protecting rockhounding in the final Management Plan.  It is important to include comments about keeping staging areas and vehicular access via existing roads and trails open, including the minor routes criss-crossing the monument area.  Access means not having to pack or hike in and out more than a quarter mile.  (Download a sample letter. Look for it in your downloads folder; it will not open in a browser window.)

Rockhounds,
help craft a Management Plan
for the three new National Monuments
in California's desert
by Lisbet Thoresen
May 4, 2016

A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION surrounds the recent designation of three National Monuments in the California deserts in February 2016 and what the impact will be on rock collecting within them.  The three new National Monuments cover 1.8 millions acres: 1.) Mojave Trails (1.6 million acres), 2.) Sand To Snow (154,000 acres), and 3.) Castle Mountains (<21,000 acres).  Mojave Trails, which is the largest of the three, encompasses many favorite collecting areas.

Fortunately, the constraints imposed on permissible activities in National Monuments are not the same as in Wilderness Areas.  A National Monument designation calls for drafting a Management Plan with public input.  There is a timeline for drafting the Management Plan – a final Plan has to be produced within three years.  Unfortunately, it is not clear what is permissible in the interim period.  In the May CFMS Newsletter (vol. LIII no.5), John Martin investigated and did not get a definitive green or red light signal.  His takeaway was that one should call the relevant BLM office and ask before heading out on a field trip.  What BLM allows from one place to another or one outing to another is apt to be handled in a more or less discretionary manner.  It appears that prohibitions may be selectively enforced, with non-commercial collecting likely to be allowed as previously until a Management Plan is published. 

Based on input from the public (including rockhounds) and special interest groups (such as CFMS and gem-mineral clubs), the permissible and non-permissible activities will be spelled out in the Management Plan.  We have the chance – from the start – to give input on what goes into it.  We need to ensure that crystal clear language provides an exception for rock collecting within the three new National Monuments.  BLM and the Forest Service will not be knocking on our doors to ask what our concerns are, so we have to tell them, and then make sure the final Plan reflects the input we gave.

According to John Martin's article, the funds are not available to produce a Management Plan.  It would be ill-advised for rockhounds to be lulled into taking no action.  Rockhounds need to show up at the many public meetings that will be scheduled between now and the end of the road for the Management Plan, whenever that date arrives.  And most important, we need to get our concerns written down and sent to the attention of the right agencies and individuals.  Read the entire article on this topic »

When you retweet the article, use the hashtag #CalNatMonuments.  Tweet

Download a print-friendly PDF with details of the DAC Field Tour on May 20, the DAC meeting on May 21 and resources on writing letters concerning California National Monuments

National Monument
vs. industrialization of the desert

WHERE WILDLANDS ARE NOT PROTECTED from commercial development in California, energy companies are staking claims, negotiating land swaps, and making public-private deals that will enable them to build industrial scale projects and carve transmission corridors through desert wildlands. Do not expect accountability to the public. These projects will irrevocably change the natural landscape and impede access to ever dwindling islands of unspoiled land.  The detriments will redound to one and all, including but not limited to nature lovers and naturalists, desert fauna such as the Mojave (Agassiz's) desert tortoise, and recreational users such as mineral collectors.

Even as three new National Monuments were designated to protect large areas of California's deserts from development as recently as February, the Swedish wind power development company Eolus has re-filed an old application bought from another company to develop an area covering nearly 40,000 acres on the Nevada side of the California–Nevada border.  Eolus reportedly plans to erect 750-foot wind turbines at Crescent Peak. The turbines will be visible from parts of the Mojave National Preserve, Castle Peaks, Wee Thump Wilderness, Walking Box Ranch, and Spirit Mountain.  Naturally, those turbines will have to be connected to civilization, so the footprint of the completed project with its transmission corridors will spread like tentacles over many miles across the landscape.  Eolus looks forward to start building in 2021.

While National Monuments provide protection of fragile ecosystems and habitat from the destruction or depredations of development, conservation values are not supposed to preclude other non-destructive values.  In practice, however, proponents who advocate their own interests are more likely to ensure the preservation of their values than groups that do not.  Therefore, it is incumbent on us to be proactive and voice our concerns.

Rockhounds are a large constituency, and numbers make a difference.  Even though the prospects seem discouraging, perseverance beats the alternatives.  On many levels, the National Monument designation is preferable to commercial exploitation – these are the choices. 

Excerpt from the article at: https://www.sdmg.org/articles/201605/to-collect-or-not-to-collect/.

ALAA Open Meeting
at Quartzsite, Arizona
by Shirley Leeson, ALAA
Friday, January 22, 2016

IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS American Lands Access Association (ALAA) has dealt with local issues, including the BLM closing many roads and trails around the Quartzsite area, much to the dismay of the snow birds and off-road enthusiasts. This year was different. We were fortunate to have Mike Hunerlach, US Forest Service Head Geologist (recently retired) speak to us on "Rockhounding on Public Lands managed by the Forest Service." He provided insight into the laws, rules and regulations that affect collecting rocks, minerals and non-vertebrate fossils.

This was a big subject to cover in such a short time. Mike did a great job of explaining the Mining Law of 1872 and how it is interpreted today by Forest Service personnel. It isn't necessarily interpreted the way the law is written.

Mike strongly advised the audience to get a copy of the CODE OF REGULATIONS, Title 36, Parks, Forests and Public Property, and he offered to help us locate the sections that are pertinent to rockhounds. This is important, because the rangers coming out of liberal universities are leaning toward protecting plants, animals, trees, grasses and other non-human entities. Mike found that rangers who mediate misunderstandings between visitors and the Forest Service personnel often did not follow the letter of the law, but instead relied upon their own subjective interpretation of the law. Therefore, rockhounds need to know the actual language of the text as written.

In addition to the Title for Parks, Forests, et cetera, there is also Title 43, Public Lands, Interior Department, you can obtain your own personal copy from the U.S. Printing Office or from amazon.com. Or, you may also visit www.amlands.org (home page) and scroll down to the article about the meeting, where you can click on the text hyperlinks for either of these titles and download any part of either Title 36 or Title 43.

BEWARE, if you decide you want a hard copy, I strongly suggest you get the second book from 1000 on, for Title 43, I bought the first of two books, and all the information I needed wasn't there – it's all in the second book.

Mike has offered his help in learning more about the Code of Regulations and how to use it to our advantage and this is huge. San Diego Mineral & Gem Society is a member of ALAA, and we will keep you updated as to what is going on regarding 'our public lands.'

Photo: Lavic Siding, by Kris Rowe, wind turbines by Wiki user Z22, composite art by L. Thoresen.

 

DRECP, one year later:
implications for rockhounding
by Lisbet Thoresen
January 1, 2016

ROCKHOUNDS AND PROSPECTORS may remember the big push this time last year to get comment letters to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) before the February 23rd deadline.  Access to some favorite collecting areas were at risk of being blocked by an ambitious "re-districting" plan in the works for public lands in California's deserts. 

SDMG sent a 48-page comment letter that included results of a SDMG-sponsored Rockhound Survey.  There were many other great – really great – comment letters submitted by individuals.  The letters provided succinct but specific details about the exceptions that needed to be applied to land use designations.  The comments very specifically targeted the areas where access was a concern.  It appears that all the comment letters submitted and all the appearances rockhounds made at BLM-sponsored public meetings made a difference. 

If you go online, you'll see that the DRECP LUPA responded point-by-point to letters from SDMG and others saying no changes were made to the Final Plan because of our letters.  However, indeed there were accommodations made specifically for rockhounding activity and for at-risk areas that our letters identified.  Good work! Read the article highlighting some of the rock collecting accommodations now incorporated into the Phase I part of the DRECP »

Another bite at the apple:
West Mojave (WEMO)
Route Network Project
Comment Period re-opened
deadline is January 25, 2016
December 9, 2015

Way back in March, the BLM released the Draft Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).  The CDCA and SEIS provide direction and guidance on public lands administered by the BLM in San Bernardino, Inyo, Kern, Riverside and Los Angeles counties.  The area under management is 3.1 million acres, which is about one-third of the 9.24 million acres covered by the travel management plan.  (A description of the WMRNP Draft Amendment Plans under consideration was originally posted in an SDMG article on March 15, with an update on May 1 and an update on June 4.)

The Comment Period has been re-opened.  It was prompted by comments received previously and court-ordered adjustments to specific aspects of the plan (primarily focused on correcting errors in some of the maps). 

Tips on writing a good comment letter can be found in the March 15th article posted below.

Timing is everything:
Making your voice heard,
and making your words count
by Lisbet Thoresen
December 8, 2015

Written comments submitted to
the Forest Service should:

1. Identify changes that need to be made in the existing plan.
2. Further develop the proposed action/s under consideration (the first revision of the revised plan).
3. Identify "significant issues."

The "significant issues" provide the rationale to develop alternatives that will be considered in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  The EIS is the second major step in the NEPA process.

 

ROCKHOUNDS NEED TO PARTICIPATE MORE in the forums that guide government decision-making, if they want to continue collecting rocks on public lands.  Limits on access to collecting sites located on Federal Forest Lands, BLM-administered Parks and Recreational Areas is a problem confronting rockhounds throughout the United States.  "Rocking the Vote" where public lands are concerned is one of those rare circumstances when the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, i.e., the clubs.  It is up to the individual members to provide the critical mass to make the kind of difference that clubs cannot. 

Yes, it seems like an endless cycle of rallying to yet another call for a nationwide response every time a new Revised Plan for Forests, Parks or Recreational Areas is proposed.  It is an endless cycle.  And it isn't going to end anytime soon.  At least, the process is formulaic, so let's look at one of the most important parts of the formula for Revised Forest Plans, so that we know precisely when action is required and when the window of opportunity closes.  The key variable in the formula is to submit written comments during the Scoping Period of a proposed Revised Forest Plan.

How and When to Comment Effectively

Like most things, it matters not only what to say or how to say it, but also when and where to say it.  The Scoping Phase is one of several steps in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that must be undertaken before projects can be authorized to effect Plan changes for Federal Forest Lands.  The Scoping Phase gives the public the opportunity to influence the provisions of alternative plans that will be developed and considered later in the Plan revision process.

"Scoping" is the first phase of the NEPA process required for revising a Forest Plan.  The Scoping Phase is the opportunity for the Public to voice concerns about policy changes that could adversely impact public interests, if they are incorporated into the alternative plans that will be drafted.  The Scoping Period is the time to comment on the rights and privileges you want to retain and do not want to lose.

Why is it important for rockhounds to comment during the Scoping Phase of a Federal Forest Plan?

After the Scoping Phase concludes and the next phase of the Plan revision process has begun, it will too late to propose modifications to provisions of the alternative plans as drafted.  That's right, it will not be possible to change elements of the alternative plans or propose creating additional alternative plans.  After the Scoping Period concludes, the available options for public comment will be to choose between the alternative plans as drafted.  Therefore, it is critically important for rockhounds to comment during the Scoping Period.

Federal regulations require all Forest projects and activities to be consistent with the Forest Plan.  If a proposed project is not consistent with the Plan, the project cannot proceed as proposed unless the Plan is amended to conform with the Plan.  For example, new motorized routes cannot be approved unless the Forest Plan describes a need for additional motorized routes or meeting motorized recreation needs.  Although the Forest Plan itself has no actionable authority, its provisions guide actions that will be taken, so it is VERY important.

What is a good Scoping comment?

The most effective Scoping comments identify issues that you want the Forest Service to address in the new Forest Plan.  You do not necessarily have to suggest solutions to a given problem (that is what the Forest Service is supposed to develop during its analysis).

It is unproductive to complain about what you think does not matter, especially criticizing other special interest groups who have their own concerns about preserving wildlands and habitat.  (Remember, the BLM has to balance the interests of many special interest groups.)  Stick to making points about what does matter – leave access roads open, ensure that onerous permitting requirements are not implemented (e.g., 25 lb. limit per permit), ensure that claims are not revoked or rendered useless because access will be made impractical (e.g., hike or pack in/out only or only the owner of a claim may use an access road).   Remind the BLM that recreational rockhounding is a minimally intrusive activity, and rockhounds have a good track record of being responsible stewards of public lands.  Rockhounds carry out what we carry in, we don't litter, and we leave the landscape the way we found it.  We like coming back to the same places to enjoy their natural beauty unmarred by careless individuals who came before us.

National Park Service proposes incorporating
thousands of acres in Eagle Mountain and Chuckwalla Valley
into Joshua Tree National Park:
Access and collecting areas for rockhounds at stake

Referring to the NPS Newsletter as a reference, public input is sought on the following questions:

1. Among the many factors that the NPS will consider in evaluating the criteria and options for a proposed boundary adjustment are public access and the need for the protection of resources associated with the park's purpose.  What information should NPS consider in further investigating these topics?  Your knowledge of these lands will help inform the evaluation.
2. Of the various options presented in the newsletter, which one(s) do think would be most appropriate? Are there other options that you think the NPS should consider?
3. What resources in the area do you think are most important? Why?
4. Are there other specific areas of concern that the National Park Service should be aware of?

How to Comment

Submit comments online

Mail comment letters to:
Joshua Tree National Park
74485 National Park Drive
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277-3597

    OR

Email:  jotr_study@nps.gov

 

MORE THAN 100 miners and multiple land use proponents showed up at the August 5th scoping meeting held in Joshua Tree, where the National Park Service (NPS) presented an overview of a Boundary Study that proposes to bring 32,000 acres of land in the Eagle Mountain area and Chuckwalla Valley into Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP).  During the 39-day scoping period, public comment is invited on the study and the land use amendments under consideration.  The study outlines three alternative action plans plus one No-Action option.  According to Walt Wegner, President of Public Lands for the People, his organization, along with First Class Miners and Minerals and the Mining Advisory Council, took the lead at the meeting, with twice as many supporters in attendance than advocates representing environmental groups.  Given the location and time of the meeting, the turn-out was better than expected.

After the meeting Wegner wrote: "It is important to become an active participant in this process…. If you like to really 'get out there' and participate in prospecting, mining, primitive camping or hunting, it won't be happening there once it gets designated National Park land.  We realize most of you will never visit this area, but what must be accepted is any public land under threat requires a response from us all."

Ostensibly, the Boundary Study is under consideration at least in part because BLM lacks sufficient resources to administer these areas adequately.  However, NPS, which is also strapped for resources, acknowledges that it will have to find the funds to take over management of these areas.  Details remain to be developed about how NPS will go about it.

Existing mining claims stand to be revoked under the alternatives under consideration.  The No-Action alternative is favored by mining groups.  Said Wegner: "Our goal is to have 500 comments sent before the August 21, 2015 deadline." 

Any boundary adjustments made under the three alternative action plans will also affect traditional recreational uses such as rock collecting in the Eagle Mountain and Chuckwalla Valley areas.  Rockhounds need to lend their voices to the actions plans under review, not only the No-Action alternative.  Should one of the alternative action plans gain traction it will be important to articulate specific exceptions to exclusions under the changed land use designation.

 

 

Boundary adjustments for Eagle Mountain area under review:
Input from Rockhounds needed to preserve collecting areas and access

How to Comment

Attend one of the public meetings, mail or e-mail your written comments (see contact information below), or submit your comments online via the study website.

Public Scoping Meetings:
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study – Joshua Tree
August 4, 5 and 6, 2015

Time: 6:00–8:00pm

• Tue, Aug 4 – Desert Center
  Lake Tamarisk Community Center
  26251 Parkview Dr. 92239
• Wed, Aug 5 – Joshua Tree
  Joshua Tree Community Center
  6171 Sunburst St. 92252
• Thu, Aug 6 – Palm Desert
  UCR Palm Desert Center
  75080 Frank Sinatra Dr. 92211

The public is welcome to join park staff and planners to learn about and discuss planning.

Public meeting details »

 

Comment period closes 8/21/2015

Submit comments online

Mail comment letters to:
Joshua Tree National Park
74485 National Park Drive
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277-3597

    OR

Email:  jotr_study@nps.gov

 

THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND ACRES in the Eagle Mountain area of Riverside County are under review by the National Park Service (NPS) for annexation into Joshua Tree National Park.  The study area is bounded by the park to the west, north and south.  The Colorado River Aqueduct and Chuckwalla Valley lies to the east.  The Public Scoping, Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Newsletter 1 provides maps and detailed information about the study and how the public can participate.  Four alternative plans (including a No-action Plan) are under consideration, and collecting and/or access to collecting areas will be impacted under the proposed options.

Rockhounds are encouraged to join The First Class Miners and Public Lands for the People at the August 5th public meeting in Joshua Tree to voice your opposition to changes that will curtail collecting or inhibit access to collecting areas.  At this meeting, the mining community needs to be seen and heard like never before.  Your attendance is important.

Referring to the Newsletter as a reference, the National Park Service is asking for public input on the following questions:

1. Among the many factors that the National Park Service will consider in evaluating the criteria and options for a proposed boundary adjustment are public access and the need for the protection of resources associated with the park's purpose.  What information should NPS consider in further investigating these topics?  Your knowledge of these lands will help inform the evaluation.
2. Of the various options presented in the newsletter, which one(s) do think would be most appropriate? Are there other options that you think the NPS should consider?
3. What resources in the area do you think are most important? Why?
4. Are there other specific areas of concern that the National Park Service should be aware of?

 

Pew puts a positive spin on DRECP:
Garbage in, garbage out?
by Lisbet Thoresen
July 27, 2015

High favorability for renewable energy plan's premise,
but poll omits questions about the actual plan

LOST IN TRANSLATION.  Concluding its 5-year gestation period in February, and weighing in at a whopping 8,000+ pages, the Desert Renewable Conservation Plan (DRECP) has entered its next phase of development, which aims to create an energy-independent California through development of a renewable energy strategy encompassing 22 million acres of public lands in Southern California deserts.  No one disputes the laudability of its intent, which purports to balance a broadly based renewable energy program with conservation concerns for wilderness areas.  However, by the close of the comment period on February 23rd, the Draft Plan had drawn more than 12,000 comment letters, many of which were extremely negative – a generally good idea had been poorly developed and badly mangled translating it into functional blueprint that would guide energy development and land use for the next 25 years.  No one advocates doing nothing, but careful review of the DRECP raised real concerns that a thing done badly not only may not fix our energy problems, it may introduce a cascade of unintended, costly and irrevocably bad consequences.

The DRECP drew withering criticism from concerned individuals, watchdog groups and even government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Environmental journalist Chris Clarke pointed out, "Five of the seven counties included in the plan area have expressed reservations about participating, and both environmental groups and energy companies have slammed the DRECP's mind-numbing complexity and apparent inconsistencies."  Many special interest groups contributed comments, including a large number of rockhounds, who participated in a survey sponsored by SDMG in which they expressed their concerns about the potentially negative impact on access to collecting areas.  Advocacy groups based in the Mojave Valley were especially effective in raising public awareness and galvanizing public sentiment.  Alliance for Desert Preservation (A4DP) and Mojave Communities Conservation Collaborative co-authored a 215-page comment letter, providing surgically targeted comments on detailed aspects of the entire 8,000+ page tome, focusing on defective arguments derived from faulty or incomplete data, inconsistencies peppered throughout the document, and vague language that left key provisions open to later interpretation and decision-making without public accountability.  (In January, A4DP had submitted a comment letter exposing the DRECP's potentially fatal flaws and calling out the Plan's inherent vice.  It cited, among its several critical arguments, the Plan's explicit scope – administering 22.5 million acres within the defined DRECP area – in fact, may be extended implicitly, at the discretion of the BLM, beyond the Plan's current boundaries.)

Following a deluge of excoriating comment letters on the Desert Renewable Conservation Plan (DRECP), its sponsors drastically revised its planned implementation, announcing in March that the DRECP would be rolled out in phases.  It would focus first on about 10 million acres of public lands and delay action on the portion of the Plan covering private land.  Since March, few details have been forthcoming about serious overhauling of the document or other indications that remediation is planned in response to public comment.  Perhaps, the main strategy may be to enlist support for the DRECP with little or no revision by mounting a public relations campaign.  A Pew Poll conducted in June may be the harbinger of precisely such a strategy.

In stark contrast to the relentlessly negative public feedback during the comment period, the U.S. Public Lands Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts published a remarkably upbeat public opinion poll on the DRECP.  Among the 807 California voters polled, fewer than one in four had ever heard of the DRECP.  But when given a brief description, 74 percent expressed approval.  Although Pew enjoys a sterling reputation as an unbiased pollster, the DRECP comment letter from the Pew Charitable Trusts may have presaged the quality of the survey administered in the aftermath of the DRECP's lambasting from so many other quarters, including from state and federal agencies.  Pew's eight-page letter was overall very positive on the Draft DRECP, offering only mildly critical input. 

In a July 22 article reflecting sentiment in the local community, the Victorville Daily Press voiced concern that the Pew poll pitched softball, even misleading questions.  As reported in the article, Betty Munson, who is a member of the Lucerne Valley-Johnson Valley Municipal Advisory Council, echoed Pew's own memorandum (D. Metz, M. Everitt, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, 7 July 2015), observing that only about one in four respondents who were polled had heard of the DRECP, but of those who knew of the plan 67 percent supported it.  According to Munson, the voters polled had not read the public comments posted on drecp.org website.  And according to John Zemanek, spokesman for Alliance for Desert Preservation: "most of the people polled had never even heard of the DRECP.  During the telephone interviews, pollsters told respondents that the DRECP 'uses the best available science to identify places most appropriate for developing additional renewable energy over the next 25 years, as well as places where natural areas and wildlife species should be protected.'"  Said Zemanek: "In other words, the plan was characterized in the glowing terminology of the plan's own authors.  It's a wonder only 74% indicated support."  He went on to say: "Pollsters failed to inform those whom they called that the DRECP would site 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy projects on hundreds of thousands of acres of California desert."  Interviewed subjects were not told other facts, such as the current status of projects begun recently or online since 2008.  They were not told current information about distributed energy generation alternatives (e.g., rooftop solar) or that only utility-scale projects were proposed in the DRECP.  They were not told cost estimates or who would bear them to build, maintain or decommission the facilities or the infrastructure (transmission corridors) needed to connect them to the power grid.  (In fairness, the DRECP does not spell out any of this, so the pollsters could not be faulted for withholding information no one knows.)

Zemanek voiced the concerns of citizens who are disturbed about the manner in which the Pew survey was administered, saying: "We attended a number of the public-comment meetings after the draft plan was released…The vast majority of people who spoke – people well informed of the proposed plan's actual content – were strongly opposed to major parts, if not all, of the draft.  The objections clearly prompted the DRECP agencies to go back to the drawing board.  We don't want to see these objections drowned out by a misleading poll."  Indeed, rather than cultivating anew a different consensus from an uninformed survey pool, the DRECP sponsors should heed the voluminous and thoughtful input received already from informed individuals and groups.  It's time the DRECP's authors roll up their sleeves and overhaul the document, not rebrand it.  They could help hasten the process toward a workable solution by inviting to the table advocates from the diverse special interest groups who have reviewed the DRECP and have submitted detailed, constructive letters. 

West Mojave Route Network Project (WMRNP) –
Blue Ribbon Coalition letter generator
by Ron Schiller
June 4, 2015

LAST CHANCE TO WEIGH IN!
Deadline for comments is June 4, 2015
Input from Rockhounds is needed TODAY
Tell BLM to keep camping, staging areas and access roads OPEN

As I'm sure you know, many of us have been working hard to provide meaningful comments to the BLM regarding the West Mojave Management Plan (WEMO) by the June 4th deadline.

There is a way that you can very easily provide comments electronically, and it only takes a few minutes of your time.  The Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) has set up a very easy-to-use letter generator on its website to help you write your own letter and send it to the BLM via the Internet.  The basic letter is already written and you only have to fill in your name, email address and street address.  You can add your own words or select from a menu of pre-written optional comments and then click on the send option and you're done!

Although the Blue Ribbon Coalition is primarily an off-road interest, you can input your own personal interests in the letter and tailor it to address your personal concerns.  For example, under current regulations you must park or camp within 300 feet of a designated road, but the preferred alternative favored by the BLM limits parking and camping to within 100 feet.  Many times a group of rockhounds on an overnight field trip or a group of equestrians camping with horses and trailers need to be a little farther away from the traffic, noise and dust caused by passing vehicles.  If this is an issue for you, then you can add it before submitting your comment.  Include in your letter how you and your family recreate on our public lands in the desert, and be sure to support the Alternative Plan 3 for the final WEMO plan.  Make it look personal because the BLM hates form letters.

The BRC letter generator is online at: www.sharetrails.org/issues/rapid-response-center.  Please go to the website to formulate your letter NOW. 

West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project:
Draft Plan Amendment
by Lisbet Thoresen
May 1, 2015

The clock is running down…
comment period deadline is June 4, 2015
Input from Rockhounds is needed NOW
Tell BLM to keep camping, staging areas and access roads OPEN

A proposed land use amendment for 3.1 million acres of BLM-administered lands in five southern California counties is under review now, with barely 30 days remaining for public comment. Three Alternative Action Plans are under consideration.  Proposed revisions embodied in these Plans will affect travel management networks and off-highway vehicle (OHV) access and other recreational uses (including rockhounding).

What's the issue for rockhounds?  The Preferred Alternative Plan (PAP), which is the likeliest plan to be adopted, limits off-route stopping/parking within the planning area.  The current locations of camping and staging areas may be moved and/or consolidated into fewer locations.  New designations will be based on trying to balance competing concerns such as environmental values and recreational uses.

Calling all rockhounds (yes, input is still needed).  It's up to us to submit comments identifying the specific collecting areas and access roads/trails that should remain open to rockhounding activity.  The train has already left the station concerning areas previously designated as "Closed" to motorized access.

There is no use commenting on these "Closed" areas, they are outside the scope of the current review.  The areas covered in the WMRNP/SEIS were previously defined as "Limited" to designated routes for motorized access.  Only these "Limited" areas are within the scope of review.

Write an effective comment letter –
what helps, what doesn't.

Factual and detailed information voiced in a respectful tone reflects positively on all rockhounds as a community.  Coming to the discussion as proactive stakeholders improves the prospect of getting the outcome we want.  Just like the DRECP, maps are useful tools to show the BLM precisely which areas and access roads/routes concern rockhounds.

Be specific.  Comments such as "Don't close any access roads to collecting areas in the Mojave Desert" are too generalized to be effective.

Target comments on areas designated "Limited."  Refer to the WMRNP/SEIS maps that identify these areas. (See links in adjacent Resources box.)

WEMO map of Federal Wilderness Areas and road access.

Stick to facts couched in a positive tone.  Diplomatic restraint will bolster an argument, emotional frothiness only detracts and undermines the credibility of a good argument.  Critical comments about the values of other stakeholders (e.g., OHV, environmentalists, etc.) are counter-productive.

Which land use designations protect recreational uses over the long term and which may not?  Designations intent on protecting critical habitat, environmentally sensitive areas, or scenic and wilderness areas do not have to be at odds with rockhounding or other recreational activities, if BLM incorporates language that specifically stipulates exceptions for rockhounding.

Indeed, the tougher environmental protective designations (e.g., NLCS, ACEC) – qualified by exceptions for rockhounds – may save the desert from future industrialization and preserve it for the enjoyment of the public, whereas Special Recreational Management Areas (SRMAs) and other designations, which are vulnerable to future revision allowed by the DRECP, may not (see Alliance for Desert Preservation's excellent comment letter to the DRECP at: http://goo.gl/czCP4U [short url], see especially pp. 6, 53ff).

For more about this topic, see the March 21 article on the SDMG website at: blm.sdmg.org/#awemo0315

West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project: Draft Plan Amendment Released
Camping, staging areas and access roads need Rockhound input
90-day comment period deadline is June 4, 2015
March 21, 2015