Defend the rules for designated BLM wilderness

What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document

• I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
• This review is not limited to climbing. Manual 6340 is the policy that implements the Wilderness Act on every BLM-managed wilderness area: preserving wilderness character; administering the "recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical" public purposes; the section 4(c) limits on commercial enterprise, motorized equipment, structures, and installations; and the section 4(d) special provisions. Say which of those protections matter to the areas you know and ask the BLM to keep them at least as strong as the current manual.
• The notice asks an open question: whether "updates, clarifications, or other revisions to existing Manual 6340 may be appropriate." Ask the BLM to identify in the final policy every provision it changes from the current manual, and to explain each change against its duty to preserve wilderness character, so the revision cannot arrive as a quiet rewrite.
• The BLM proposes that fixed anchors for recreational rock climbing 'will not be considered installations' and thus exempt from minimum requirements analysis (New section 2.5D(6)), but this directly contradicts the stated purpose that structures must meet 'the minimum requirement to administer the area as wilderness' (Revised section 2.5A). The agency provides no reasoned explanation for why climbing anchors alone warrant categorical exemption from the MRA standard applied to all other structures. The BLM should provide detailed justification for this exception or prepare an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing the wilderness character impacts of allowing fixed anchor placement and maintenance.
• The revised guidance states that 'the occasional placement and maintenance of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes will be allowed in wilderness, and does not violate the Wilderness Act or necessarily impair the future enjoyment of wilderness' (New section 2.5D(6)), but offers no analysis of cumulative impacts from repeated placement across multiple climbing areas or over time. The word 'necessarily' creates ambiguity about what level of impairment would actually violate the Wilderness Act. The BLM should clarify this standard and analyze how repeated anchor placement across all BLM wilderness areas affects wilderness character cumulatively.