ROSCHERITES, THE BLACK HILLS, AND A DANCE IN THE WIND

 

I find my happiness in doing. To paraphrase an old Persian scholar--A Minnesota lake, a boat, a rod and reel, a can of worms, beside me in the wilderness.  Be happy for these moments for they are your life. 

If you are a fan of the great outdoors, you have probably noticed that you feel happier beyond the confines of your home.

This little tidbit of wisdom is not my original writing; however, I suspect all rockhounds probably have “thought this” and just neglected to place it on paper.  Instead, we waited for Michael Bassey Johnson to publish such in Song of a Nature Lover. He also noted that “it is scientifically proven that flowers make you feel better?  And even just looking at pictures of nature lowers your stress level?”  

Orchids on the window sill lower my stress level!

That is one reason that my office is crowded, and I mean crowded, with paintings, sculptures, do dads, and photographs of “nature.”  In fact, my wall time piece sounds like a Minnesota loon every hour. No cuckoo for me.   

A print by Terry Redlin: Pure Contentment. Was I there, or was this a dream?  

From my desk chair I look directly at seven framed prints by South Dakotan Terry Redlin. They all remind me of past experiences, both real and in my dreams.  I look to them for inspiration in releasing words and thoughts from the back recesses of my mind.  For example, how do specimens of roscherite (a tiny secondary phosphate) from the Tip Top Mine in the Black Hills compare with specimens from the mines in Maine?  I need to check that out—and off I go. Yea, I know my mind works in mysterious ways and I am again reminded of Michael Bassey Johnson:  “I saw a tree dancing in the wind, and it said to me, I’m not doing this to entertain you, but to remind you of what life is — a dance in the wind!”  That sort of sums it up for my great life thus far, a dance in the wind!

Front Range, Colorado: A dance in the wind.

So, these thoughts bring me back to roscherite, a beryllium phosphate with additional calcium and manganese cations: Ca₂Mn₃Be₄(PO₄)(OH)₄-6H₂O.  I am most familiar with roscherite from the Tip Top Mine in Custer Counter, South Dakota. This former tin (cassiterite), mica, lithium, feldspar, beryl (beryllium)  mine is the Type Locality for something like 12 colorful phosphate minerals and tens of others are mostly hidden away in vugs and fractures; most are microscopic, but all seem to have beautiful crystals. The pegmatite at the Tip Top, like most others in the area, is related to the 1.7 Ga Harney Peak Granite that forms the core of the Black Hills (Lufkin and others, 2009). Tom Loomis, he of Dakota Matrix fame, is the mine owner.

Roscherite usually appears as tiny rounded spherical grains with a variety of colors possible—red, orange, brown, brownish yellow, yellowish green.  They have a measured hardness of ~4.5 (Mohs), sort of a greasy to resinous luster, and leave a white streak.  Tom Loomis at Dakota Matrix has stated that the Roscherites at Tip Top are crystallized in a range of colors and the lilac colored crystals may be Zanazziite, the Mg member. My specimen from the Tip Top has tens of tiny greenish to yellowish spheres clustered together on a quartz matrix. They are very pretty crystals, but small.

 

Photomicrographs off roscherite crystals on a quartz matrix collected at Tip Top Quarry.  Individual crystals are sub-millimeter in size, ~.5 mm.

I recently was able to purchase a couple of micromounts (roscherites) put together by Art Smith: one from the P.Y. Estes Quarry, West Baldwin, Cumberland County, Maine, and the other from the Black Mountain Quarry, Rumford, Oxford County, Maine.  Both specimens were collected by Gene Bearss, a noted collector of minerals from the mines of New England, and a member of the Micromounters Hall of Fame.

The Estes Quarry is an aggregate excavation located in southwestern Maine and has been extensively studied by Thompson and others (2000).  They described the exposed granite pegmatite as alternating layers of fine-grained pegmatite, coarse -grained pegmatite, and sugary aplite.  The rock forming minerals are albite, microcline, muscovite, and quartz.  MinDat lists 63 valid minerals known from the quarry including a very large suite of accessory minerals and secondary phosphates associated with triphylite.  Among the more common accessory minerals are beryl, columbite, and columbite; however, the quarry is best known for its assemblage of rare secondary phosphate minerals.

Thompson and others (2000) described the beryllium phosphate roscherite as microcrystals with a wide variety of habits: single, composite, bow-ties, fans, botryoids, and drusy encrustations. The crystals are a variety of colors ranging from colorless and white to many different shades of green, yellow, and amber. Roscherite is one of the latest minerals to crystalize in the pegmatite paragenesis (sequence in which the minerals form).

However, since Thompson and others (2000) published their seminal paper, much has been discovered in the roscherite arena. It seems that in the first decade of this century several studies were able to identify new roscherite-like minerals with strings of beryllium and phosphate tetrahedra anions with different amounts and kinds of the cations Ca, Fe⁺⁺, Fe⁺⁺⁺, Mn, Zn, Mg.  MinDat described these Roscherite Group minerals as “complex monoclinic or triclinic metal-beryllium phosphate (with one arsenate).” These Group minerals (eight of them) are often tough to visually identify (at least to an ole plugger like me).

Photomicrographs of a vug in matrix from the Estes Quarry; width FOV ~5 mm. The green botryoids are greifensteinite while the orangeish crystals in the lower portion are eosphorite (I presume).  I don't have the slightest idea about the light colored, mushroom- looking, mass in the upper portion of the print.

 

I believe these crystals are eosphorite in the lower part of the vug.  Almost impossible to see are the exceedingly tiny crystals of graphite scattered on the eosphorite.  The vug in these five photomicrographs also contains other unknown minerals I simply cannot identify.

 Another small vug (width ~1.8 mm) filled with an unknown.  It might be the same as the unidentified mass in the upper photomicrographs.

So, what do these studies mean to roscherite identifications form the Estes Quarry?  Well, there is a good answer for that question if you can locate a copy of the abstracts for the 30^th Rochester Mineralogical Symposium and zero in on a paper by Nizamoff and others (2003): specimens from the Estes quarry…exhibit a considerable range in composition from roscherite  to greifensteinite and are associated with beryllonite, childrenite-eosphorite, and muscovite.  MinDat, in its list of minerals for the Estes Quarry, noted that all roscherite-like specimens should now be listed as greifensteinite, a group mineral that is isostructural with roscherite—same crystal structure but a different chemical composition.  In this case ferrous iron with a +2 oxidation state has substituted for manganese [Ca2Fe₅Be4(PO₄)(OH)₄-6H₂O].  Again, visually the two minerals look similar and have fairly identical properities.  One may need a microprobe to distinguish between the two!

Sub-millimeter crystals from the Black Mountain Quarry of greifensteinite scattered on albite crystals.

My second micromount was collected from the Black Mountain Quarry, Rumford, Oxford County, Maine, also by Gene Bearss, with identified roscherite.  The pegmatites near Rumford are part of the Oxford County pegmatite field and “are situated in the Central Maine Belt, a belt of meta-sedimentary rocks that were deposited in the Late Ordovician, Silurian, and earliest Devonian periods. These rocks originated as marine sediments deposited in a deep-water basin, the Central Maine Basin, immediately before and during the Acadian orogeny (Bradley et al. 2000). Deformation and metamorphism of the lithified sediments took place during the Acadian, Neoacadian, and Alleghenian orogenies” [Devonian through Permian Periods; ~375 Ma-- 260 Ma] (Falster and others, 2019).

The Black Mountain pegmatite is well-known for opaque pink rubellite variety of elbaite tourmaline fans in lepidolite and quartz.  MinDat lists 57 valid minerals known from the pegmatite including one Type, kosnarite.  This phosphate was named to honor Rich Kosnar, a Colorado Mineral Dealer (Mineral Classics).

Nizamoff and others (2004) stated, “the Black Mountain, Rumford Maine, samples yield compositions ranging from greifensteinite to roscherite with virtually no Mg composition [zanazziite].” MinDat has two photos of greifensteinite only but does list roscherite as occurring in the quarry.  I cannot locate the paper that made the decision about greifensteinite occurring as the dominant Roscherite Group mineral. Thompson (1998) in his guide to Maine minerals stated that the localities Buckfield, Newry, Paris, and Rumford (Black Mountain) had yielded Roscherite Group specimens. At that time, I believe the term Roscherite Group was informal and referred to three minerals:  roscherite, the manganese analog, greifensteinite the iron analog, and zanazziite, the magnesium analog.

King (1988), in his studies of the nearby Dutton Pegmatite, noted a series of alterations and replacement in the parent rock. The sodium beryllium phosphate mineral beryllonite was attacked by calcium-bearing fluids with the sequence of alteration as: beryllonite, hydroxylherderite, rhodochrosite, eosphorite, and manganese-rich? roscherite.

The specimen in my collection has exceedingly tiny crystals (submillimeter) of what I presume is greifensteinite scattered on albite feldspar.

I suppose this little exercise has taught me that: 1) unless I have access to electronic gizmos it might be best to refer any unknown roscherite-like specimens to Roscherite Group;  2) one ole plugger can have a great time learning about minerals and the unknown; and 3) "A life spent in nature is a life well lived” M B. Johnson.

REFERENCES CITED

Bradley, D. C., R. D. Tucker, D. Lux, A. G. Harris, and D. C. McGregor, 2000, Migration of the Acadian orogen and Foreland Basin across the northern Appalachians: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1615.

Falster, A.U., W.B. Simmons, K. L. Webber, D.A. Dallaire, J. W. Nizamoff, and R.A. Sprague, 2019, The Emmons Pegmatite, Greenwood, Oxford County, Maine: Rocks & Minerals vol. 94, no. 6.

King, V.T., 1988, Beryllium phosphate alteration at a Newry, Maine, pegmatite: Contributed Papers in Specimen Mineralogy: 14th Rochester Academy of Science Mineralogical Symposium, Rocks & Minerals, vol. 63, no. 2.

Lufkin, J.L., J.A. Redden, A. Lisenbee, and T. Loomis, 2009, Guidebook to the Geology of the Black Hills:Golden Publishers, Golden, CO.

Nizamoff, J.W., A.U. Falster, C.A. Francis, D.B. Lange, L. Menezes, and W.B. Simmons, 2004, New data on Roscherite -Group minerals from New England, South Dakota, and Brazil:  Contributed Papers in Specimen Mineralogy: 30th Rochester Academy of Science Mineralogical Symposium, Rocks & Minerals, vol. 79, no. 5.

Thompson, W.B., 1998, A collector’s guide to Maine mineral localities, 3^rd Ed., Maine Geological Survey, Natural Resources Information and Mapping Center, Dept. of Conservation.

 

 

OLMIITE FROM THE KALAHARI

 

THE DESERT

Hot Kalahari

Mining dark black manganese

Finding pink olmiite

 

A section of the Kalahari Desert, southern Africa.  Public Domain photo.

This last fall I was able to purchase, at a great price, several back issues of Rocks and Minerals, issues starting before my subscription begin.  I enjoy, immensely, reading the journal from cover to cover.  The May/April 2012 issue had, as its cover photo, a specimen of olmiite, a newly discovered mineral (2007) from the N’Chwaning Mine II, Kalahari manganese fields, Republic of South Africa.  I thought the mineral and photo were pretty spectacular and decided to look for such while touring the Tucson Shows in February.  I was always peering at the different booths and tables and was about ready to admit defeat when there it was, olmiite in a perky box on a table with many other thumbnails.  The proprietor told me he wasn’t certain what olmiite was except a manganese mineral.  He originally had two specimens but had sold one and since the show was drawing to a close I could have it for half price, $7.  I grabbed it out of his hand and handed him the cash.  At least it seemed like a good deal to me.

The photo that started it all! 

I was interested in the mineral, not only for its good looks, but also due to its rarity.  According to MinDat most olmiite specimens on the market have from the N’Chwaning Mine II, the Type Locality, but a few specimens are known from the nearby Wessels Mine (four photos in MinDat) and N’Chwaning III Mine (one photo in MinDat). Olmiite is also listed by MinDat as being found in the Långban Mine (no photos) in Sweden.  For a little interesting trivia, note that the iron ore and manganese mining at Långban has produced ~300 different minerals and is the Type Locality for ~60!

The Kalahari, home to the N’Chwaning and associated mines is the world’s most prolific producer of manganese (and also home to a famous desert). The deposits are in the Hotazel Formation of Proterozoic age (Precambrian) and are the largest land-based (deep sea deposits are larger but nearly impossible to mine) sedimentary manganese deposits in the world, perhaps covering ~425 sq. miles. The ore has been subjected to both hydrothermal alteration (temperatures up to 450°C) and to metamorphism. The origin of the giant manganese deposits has been debated for many years but remain controversial: “Proposed models cover a diverse spectrum of genetic processes, from large-scale epigenetic replacement mechanisms, to submarine volcanogenic-exhalative activity, to purely chemical sedimentation whereby the influence of volcanism is of reduced significance” (Tsikos and Moore, 2006).

Olmiite, CaMn⁺⁺[SiO₃(OH)](OH), is best known for its reddish pink color (pale to intense) but also occurs in various shades of raspberry, honey, pinkish tan, white to gray, while the crystals at N’Chwaning III are gemmy clear and some at Wessels are translucent clear.  However, the reddish pink is the color that sticks in the minds of collectors.

Olmiite with white crystals of bultfonteinite. Width FOV ~1.3 cm. 

Orthorhombic olmiite, a product of hydrothermal alteration, is transparent, has a vitreous luster and a white streak; hardness is ~5.0-5.5 (Mohs). Crystal habits include prismatic, spherical radial bundles, crystal sprays and what has been termed wheat-sheaf-like aggregates.  The olmiite in my collection, as do most other olmiite specimens, has a deep red fluorescence under short wave UV. 

 A closely related mineral termed poldervaarite is the manganese analogue of olmiite and they have a solid solution relationship and a long history of misidentification. Robert Cook, in the 2012 Rocks and Minerals article, articulates a great story about the history and discovery of these two minerals and presents some nice photos. Great reading.

My specimen of olmiite, as do many others, is associated with a little-known mineral (at least to me) named bultfonteinite, a fluorine bearing calc-silicate---Ca₂(HSiO₄)F-H₂O. Calc-silicates are rocks, or their composing minerals (common minerals include diopside, wollastonite, the “garnets” grossular-andradite, and epidote) that usually form in high-temperature, contact metamorphic zones where a mafic magma (high magnesium and iron content, low silica content) intrudes into limestone or other carbonate rocks, as in a skarn. The Type Locality of bultfonteinite is at the famous diamond-bearing kimberlites in present-day Kimberley, Northern Cape, South Africa. Bultfonteinite was first found in a large, isolated block of dolerite (an igneous rock like basalt)) and shale fragments that were enclosed in a kimberlite pipe. These pipes consist of an igneous rock known as peridotite (lots of iron, silica, olivine, amphibole, magnesium) that form deep within the earth’s mantle and then rapidly and violently eject to the surface. Evidently the ejecting pipe picked up this large hunk of dolerite and shale on its way to the surface.  In the U.S. bultfonteinite is  uncommon but is found in the famous calc-silicate rocks from the Crestmore Quarries in California.

Prismatic acicular crystals of bultfonteinite associated with olmiite shown above. Width FOV: top (spray) ~1.5 mm, middle ~1.1 cm, bottom ~1.0 mm.

Bultfonteinite is usually found as small, transparent, colorless to pale pink or white, radiating prismatic acicular crystals. Crystals are vitreous, have a white streak and a hardness of ~4.5 (Mohs).  They seem to look like many other white acicular globs of crystals I have seen since beginning my quest for nifty micromounts and thumbnails.   

REFERENCES CITED

Cook, R. B., 2012, Connoisseur’s Choice, Olmiite: Rocks and Minerals, Vol. 87, No. 2.

Tsikos, H. and J.M. Moore, 2006, The chemostratigraphy of a Paleoproterozoic MnF- BIF succession -the Voelwater Subgroup of the Transvaal Supergroup in Griqualand West, South Africa:  South African Journal of Geology, v. 109.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FINAL RULE ON COLLECTING FOSSILS, AUGUST 2, 2022

 Often when you think you're at the end of something, you're at the beginning of something else.      Fred Rogers

On August 1, The Department of Interior published its Final Rule signaling the upcoming implementation of the Paleontological Resources and Protection Act. That is, Interior’s plans to protect and access fossils located lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Bur Rec), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F&W), and the National Park Service (NPS). In reality, these are plans to access and regulate the collection and preservation of invertebrate and plant fossils (paleontological resources) since vertebrate fossils are protected and regulated on all federal lands—if one does not have a permit just leave the vertebrate fossils alone; you may not collect them.  Essentially, these published rules regulate the collection on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the 800-pound gorilla in Interior.  All fossil collecting on lands administered by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife is prohibited.  Reclamation is a “maybe” since the Bureau will establish special collecting areas for the public, at least that is the word from Interior.

Interior defines paleontological resources (fossils) as: any fossilized remains, traces or imprints of organisms preserved in or on the Earth’s crust. These resources are valuable because they provide unique information about the history of life on Earth. That seems a straight forward definition but there is a long history behind the collecting aspect.

Amid much controversy the Paleontological Resources Protection Act became law in 2009:  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/02/2022-16405/paleontological-resources-preservation.  In 2015 the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), a part of the Department of Agriculture, implemented their paleontological regulations for collecting fossils, essentially invertebrate and plant fossils since petrified wood has its own regulations and vertebrate fossils are prohibited (see Federal Register May 18, 2015).  Being the old curmudgeon that I am, my Blog Post of June 21, 2015, was very critical of these new regulations and I presumably lost long time friends.  The Posting received hundreds/thousands of hits with one of the major “jokes” being short-handle shovels are OK for collecting but long-handle shovels are verboten.  In addition, I thought the requirements for permits and repositories were much too prescriptive. I have since given up on advising any child or adult about collecting fossils on USFS lands.

The Paleontology web site of the USFS (https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/paleontology) states: Can I collect fossils?

If you plan to collect fossils, make sure you know the rules.  Forest Service regulations allow for casual collection of ‘common’ fossils that are not connected with scientific study. However, such opportunities are allowed only under certain circumstances, and collection is a privilege that carries with it responsibilities. Contact the national forest or grassland where you are interested in searching to understand what you can and cannot do, and how you might assist in reporting fossil locations to scientists. If you are unsure whether a particular invertebrate or plant fossil is common and abundant, or otherwise meets the conditions established for casual collection, a good rule of thumb is to not remove or disturb it without seeking advice from the local Forest Service office. This ensures these resources are managed for the benefit of future scientific work and for the enjoyment of visitors. Unauthorized fossil collection is a violation of federal law. You are responsible to know what and where it is legal to collect fossils. Know before you go.

On the other hand, I tried to check out requirements for collecting fossils on specific USFS “forests.”  Guess what? I simply could not locate much, or any, collecting information and certainly not information on the definition of common fossils.  That pretty much puts the stop to mom and dad taking the kids out on a Saturday field trip to hunt for invertebrate fossils---where can they locate information?  Most forests have a hot link for recreation activities where one can learn (just a little) about rockhounding, and flying a drone, but nothing about collecting fossils.  As I previously stated I no longer tell a kid where to pound on the rocks to find a fossil snail. Too complicated. In my opinion, and only my opinion, people just go out and pound on rocks and dig in the shale to find fossils.  Sort of undercover.  I am certain that USFS personnel would be happy to visit with a family about collecting (they are really nice people) but all of that takes parental time and energy, something that that most people cannot afford, or information is completely lacking.

But back to the BLM.  I believe, but my mind is aging, that BLM’s position on collecting fossils was going to be “identical” or nearly so as the USFS regs.  Such BLM information was published on December 7, 2016, in the Federal Register (great bedtime reading).  But then something, whatever something means, happened and approval of the BLM collecting regs was put on hold.  Rumors floating around here in Colorado said the “hold” was put in place by pressure from a member(s) of Congress.  And so now, five and a half years later, the “Final Rule” pops up again in the Federal Register.

I do not have the energy to completely compare the recently revised Final Rule with the 2016 version.  However, it appears that BLM listened to comments submitted by a variety of fossil collectors and rockhounds about the 2016 version.  The best that I can say is that people, especially rockhounds, were very angry with the prescriptive rules found in the USFS and BLM regulations.  All of this “rule writing” was occurring in a time of unrest in many western states citizens were complaining about presumed overreaching regulations concerning federal lands. These were the days of Bears Ear National Monument battles, etc. In reality, many rockhounds simply went on collecting  invertebrate fossils and paid little attention to rules and regulations.  As usual, most rockhounds informed professional paleontologists when they stumbled on a vertebrate fossil.

With that in mind, I believe that Scott Foss, the Division Chief in BLM (and a paleontologist I have known since his undergraduate days) has overseen a reasonable revision and workable (with a few changes) guidelines for the collecting of invertebrate fossils and plants.  The two provisions of the 2016 Final Rule that were of greatest concern to rockhounds were the permit requirements and the definition of causal collecting. 

The 2022 Final Rule states: Regulations at 43 CFR 49 (promulgated under PRPA, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-9) require the Bureau to clarify guidance on the following topics:

1.   Paleontology Permitting. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA; 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-3) and regulations at 43 CFR 49.100 authorize the Bureau to issue paleontology collection permits.  Permitting program guidance is clarified to state that the BLM will issue one type of paleontology permit and simplify the permit application process to improve public access to paleontological resources. Permit applicants are not required to possess an advanced degree in paleontology to receive a permit. Rather, the applicant must show they possesses the experience and qualifications to carry out the work that would be authorized by the permit.

3.   Casual Collection. For the purposes of casual collection on BLM-administered lands, non-vertebrate paleontological resources may be assumed to be common unless or until they are discovered not to be common (I have bolded the script).

I am still a little fuzzy about the permitting process; however,  PRPA and the regulations at Part 49 require the Bureau to do the following: 

• Manage paleontological resources using scientific principles and expertise 
• Maintain a program of inventory and monitoring of paleontological resources 
• Establish an education program to increase public awareness about paleontological resources 

The regulations also require the Bureau to: 

• Implement a program of permitting for the collection of paleontological resources 
• Require the preservation of paleontological objects for the public in approved museum collections.

It is my opinion that most rockhounds will not need a permit since their collecting will fall under Interior’s rule for causal collecting: Provide for casual collection of common non-vertebrate fossils by the public without a permit (BLM and Reclamation lands only).

Proposed § 49.50 would clarify when a permit is required and who must have a permit. A permit would be required for collecting paleontological resources or disturbing paleontological sites except for casual collecting on certain lands managed by BLM or Reclamation where casual collecting is allowed.

Persons who need a permit are those who are studying, in detail, specific locations where fossils might be rare or scientifically important and such fossils will end up in museums.  I collected fossils, mostly vertebrates, for decades and deposited such in museums and other repositories.  I always had a permit and in the “olden days” some small federal offices and I constructed our own permits from mining or logging permits.  The best idea for persons interesting in obtaining a permit is to arrange a visit with BLM paleontologists.  The Federal Register has tens of pages devoted to “permits.”  Read at your discretion with much caffeine.

As for Causal Collecting: 3 CFR § 49.810 defines casual collection:

Casual collecting means the collecting without a permit of a reasonable amount of common invertebrate or plant paleontological resources for non-commercial personal use, either by surface collection or the use of non-powered hand tools, resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth’s surface or paleontological or other resources.

Non-vertebrate fossils are considered common until they are recognized to not be common. Established that Federal land managers will consult with knowledgeable paleontologists to determine which plant and invertebrate paleontological resources are not common. The BLM wants collectors to share their discoveries without fear.

And now, for more details:

CAUSAL COLLECTORS MUST KNOW THE RULES, THE NITTY GRITTY DETAILS SINCE § 49.805(c) clearly places full responsibility on persons interested in casual collecting to ascertain which bureau manages the land where those persons would like to collect paleontological resources, whether the land is open to casual collecting, and what may be collected in an area, and to obtain information about the managing bureau's casual collecting procedures.

NOT ALL BLM AND BUR REC LANDS ARE OPEN TO CAUSAL COLLECTING: (§ 49.805) Casual collecting will not be allowed on BLM lands that are or become closed to casual collecting, BLM-administered national monuments, BLM-administered national conservation areas, outstanding natural areas, forest reserves, or cooperative management and protection areas, except where the bureau has specifically determined that casual collection would not impair the intent of the preservation designation. § 49.40(b) would clarify that other authorities may also be used to restrict access to or close areas in order to preserve or protect paleontological resources or provide for public safety.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT: (1) Fossils found in an archaeological context are an archaeological resource as defined in section 3(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)).

And now for my opinions:

RULES THAT IRRITATE #1: § 49.810(a)(2) establishes a “reasonable amount” for casual collecting as 25 pounds per day per collector, not to exceed 100 pounds per year per collector. These amounts represent a balance between PRPA's mandate to allow casual collecting and other laws that require the bureaus to protect and manage other natural and cultural resources. However, a person may collect more than a 25-pound hunk if such is needed to protect the integrity of the specimen.

My irritation with this rule is that it seems unenforceable—must collectors haul along a scale for determining weight? In addition, if a rockhound hauled home four 25-pound pieces of limestone their collecting for the year would be over.  But wait! What if the collector did not want to chance breaking their paleontological resource in the field and instead removed fossils from the 25-pound hunk while at home? After removing and cleaning they might end up with two pounds of fossil brachiopods.  What is the final total of collected paleontological resources! Would you want to take that mess to court?  It might be better to ”suggest” limits since rules are constructed to be enforced.

RULES THAT IRRITATE #2: § 49.810(a)(5) defines the kinds of tools that may be used to casually collect these resources. These tools must be small, such as a geologic hammer, trowel, or sieve; they cannot use or be operated by a motor, engine, or other mechanized power source; and they must be light and small enough to be hand-carried by one person. A tool that exceeds this definition cannot be used to casually collect these resources.

I do congratulate the BLM for ridding the regs of short handle vs long handle shovels. However, I believe the regulation is overkill and reinforces the perception that rules of the Federal Government are too prescriptive and places the federal paleontologists in a boogeyman environment.  Rockhounds know the definition of a hand tool and would want to include pry bars to crack limestone and wedges to split shale.  I also want to ask if a person with a physical handicap would need to carry personal tools?

RULES THAT IRRITATE #3: § 49.810(a)(3) clarifies that “negligible disturbance” for casual collecting means little or no change to the surface of the land, and minimal or no effect to natural and cultural resources. This proposed definition would specify that in no circumstance may the surface disturbance exceed 1 square yard (3 feet by 3 feet) per individual collector; that in cases of multiple collectors each square yard of surface disturbance must be separated by at least 10 feet; and that all areas of surface disturbance must be backfilled with the material that was removed in order to render the disturbance substantially unnoticeable to the casual observer.

Again, this rule seems overkill and unenforceable.  Instead specify that must backfill disturbance and try to leave the land surface as natural as possible—or something like that. Why should there be a difference between fossil collectors and mineral collectors in the disturbance factor?  In the USFS lands near Colorado Springs mineral collectors dig “holes”, sometimes large holes looking for quartz and amazonite. The holes are then backfilled (as least by respectable collectors).  Examine the petrified wood collecting localities in western Wyoming and notice “holes.”  But not all fossil collecting involves digging---what about pounding on limestone.  How does one measure 1 square yard?  And the rule also means that your collecting friend cannot work next to you---stay 10 feet away! Again, unenforceable, and better stated as suggestions---take care of the collecting site before you leave.

A RULE: •  Casually collected resources may be used only for noncommercial personal use, which means a use other than purchase, sale, financial gain, or research.

I understand this rule but is it enforceable?  Take a look at specimens “for sale” at rock and mineral shows and see if the specimens have provenance data.  The vertebrates contain such but invertebrates?  Not so much. The laughable rule is that “minerals” collected from BLM lands (without a permit or claim) must not be sold. Sure. Also, the BLM reg is written in a way that specifies if a collector wants to do “research” on a single specimen they must acquire a permit.  Research has a wide variety of definitions.  Of course, “research” on an important non-common specimen does not meet the meaning of causal collecting anyway.  But if a collector wants to “research” a found specimen to see if it is important, is a permit needed? There is a difference between a professional doing research for publication and a rockhound researching a specimen for identification.  What the reg should state is that collectors can’t sell of barter their fossils.

So, there it is, an old curmudgeon’s take on the new fossil collecting rules and regs of the BLM. .Much of the above information was copied directly from BLM material; some was paraphrased.  Interested readers may find the entire BLM document in the Federal register at:  43 CFR Part 49 – Paleontological Resources Preservation.   Although this is the “Final Rule” the document has a comment period that ended in on 09/01/2022.

In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on.         Robert Frost