Just Released - Arches Climbing & Canyoneering Management Plan

[Iceaxe]

The National Park Service (NPS) has announced that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Arches National Park’s Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan was signed by the Acting Intermountain Regional Director on December 13, 2013.

This decision was reached after review of the environmental impact analysis and consideration of public comments on the Environmental Assessment released in June of 2013.

Canyoneering and rock climbing activities in Arches National Park will be actively managed and monitored to maintain desired resource and visitor experience conditions. Monitoring data will be used to determine whether desired conditions are being met. A variety of management strategies will be utilized (such as trail delineations, group-size limit changes, seasonal route closures, additional permit requirements, and placement and replacement of fixed gear) to help maintain these desirable conditions.

Rock climbers will be encouraged to complete a free online self-registration process and groups will be limited to five persons. Canyoneers will be required to complete the free online self-registration process for all routes except for those in the Fiery Furnace. Fiery Furnace permits will still need to be obtained at the park’s visitor center. Canyoneering groups on the Fiery Furnace and Lost Spring Canyon routes will be limited to six persons, while group size elsewhere will be limited to ten persons.

While establishment of new routes will be allowed, installation of new fixed gear on new and existing routes will require a free special use permit. In order to minimize resource impacts, the park will actively seek input and assistance from the climbing and canyoneering community in assessing the suitability and quality of new fixed gear placement proposals, and replacement of existing fixed gear.

Climbing, scrambling, or walking upon, wrapping webbing or rope around, or rappelling off any named and unnamed arch with an opening greater than three feet will be prohibited in the park.

The signed FONSI and public comments may be viewed on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/arch_CCMP_FONSI.

Climbing and canyoneering regulations and route information will be posted on the park’s official website, and permits will be available online by early spring.

Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches National Park
http://www.nps.gov/arch/parknews/news011314.htm

[jman]

Ah...permits...of course.

So they say a permit size of 10/group, but just curious, it didn't reference a daily quota...hopefully that will last a long time...

[Iceaxe]

The part that scares me is Zion started out with a free voluntary permit system. The idea was to allow the backcountry rangers and canyoneers to interact and learn from each other. But the original intention was soon forgotten and the train wreck we now have is the results. My hopes rest on the fact that Arches is much better managed then Zion.

With the options available in the Arches NP backcountry study I believe canyoneers came out about as well as could be hoped for.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[peakbaggers]

So if I'm reading this document right, it will impact the following:
Dragonfly route is effectively closed unless you can avoid entering any of the water in the potholes; a route like Not Tierdrop may be in jeopardy of closure unless you can find a way to do it without a deadman; on the Lomatiun route, we will no longer be able to set up sling around the big arch for the 135' rappel; and at this point, nothing has been decided regarding commerial guiding, so that is still excluded.
So on Lomatium, if we can't use the arch and cannot build an anchor by moving rocks, what choices might be left? It's been a while since I was there, but it seems that just before you get to the arch, there was another place you could rappel down, but the only anchor I remember was quite a ways back from the edge and would utilize a tree or fallen log?

[Kuya]

Ugh. YAY for more government regulation of our "public" lands! :cry1::facepalm1:

Yeah, it looks like we will have to find an alternative anchor for the Lomatium route. Too bad too, using Abby Arch as the anchor was kind fun!

I am kinda wondering why they won't allow a deadman anchor? why it is a problem to dig in the sand in a slot canyon is beyond me.

Additionally, I find it confusing when they say: Bathing and immersing human bodies will be prohibited in water sources that do not have water flowing both in and out at the time of the activity. Swimming and wading also will be prohibited in water sources that do not currently have water flowing both in and out, except in cases where it will be necessary to enter the water source in order to traverse a route (36 CFR 1.5)"

So if it is necessary for me to traverse the route, it is OK for me to get in the water? Sound like Dragonfly canyon is still OK to do with that exception.

[peakbaggers]

I am kinda wondering why they won't allow a deadman anchor? why it is a problem to dig in the sand in a slot canyon is beyond me.

Additionally, I find it confusing when they say: Bathing and immersing human bodies will be prohibited in water sources that do not have water flowing both in and out at the time of the activity. Swimming and wading also will be prohibited in water sources that do not currently have water flowing both in and out, except in cases where it will be necessary to enter the water source in order to traverse a route (36 CFR 1.5)"

So if it is necessary for me to traverse the route, it is OK for me to get in the water? Sound like Dragonfly canyon is still OK to do with that exception.

Since they are always trying to protect the cryptobiotic soils, I assume that they regard any form of digging as potentially doing so. In the video you watch prior to obtaining a Lomatium permit, they don't even want you walking on open sandy slopes with no visible evidence of cryptobiotic activity or growth. In addition, to create a deadman as they describe, it would require "moving" a rock or rocks or log from one location into the hole you have dug - again, a disturbance of the" natural features."

When it comes to the water/potholes, the park officials regard these water sources as critical habitat for many organisms which they maintain can be significantly damaged by human intrusion, and the oils from our sklin and even the suntan lotions we use.
It is difficult to interpret what they are saying here. One possibility: If you're on a route that crosses say a pothole and to continue on your route, you MUST enter and exit the pothole, to continue on your route, it's okay to do so? Or, are they simply saying that unless Dragonfly (or other) has an actual flow that allows replenishment of the pothole(s) you cannot go through/down that route?

[deagol]

The way I read this, you CAN go through the potholes in Dragonfly...
as it is necessary to "traversing the route"

[oldno7]

on the Lomatiun route, we will no longer be able to set up sling around the big arch for the 135' rappel; and at this point, nothing has been decided regarding commerial guiding, so that is still excluded.
So on Lomatium, if we can't use the arch and cannot build an anchor by moving rocks, what choices might be left? It's been a while since I was there, but it seems that just before you get to the arch, there was another place you could rappel down, but the only anchor I remember was quite a ways back from the edge and would utilize a tree or fallen log?



Seems the park service has allowed for this.

"While establishment of new routes will be allowed, installation of new fixed gear on new and existing routes will require a free special use permit."

Theres already bolts at the second rap.The arch was fun and required a bit of thinking to rig.

[peakbaggers]

Seems the park service has allowed for this.

"While establishment of new routes will be allowed, installation of new fixed gear on new and existing routes will require a free special use permit."

Theres already bolts at the second rap.The arch was fun and required a bit of thinking to rig.

Thisstatement by the park at this link seems to specifically prohibit using Abbeyarch as the anchor for the 135' rappel.
"Climbing, scrambling, or walking upon, wrapping webbing or rope around,or rappelling off any named and unnamed arch with an opening greater than threefeet will be prohibited in the park."
http://www.nps.gov/arch/parknews/news011314.htm (http://www.nps.gov/arch/parknews/news011314.htm)

What do others think?

[deagol]

"....wrapping webbing or rope around, or rappelling off any named and unnamed arch
with an opening greater than three feet will be prohibited in the park..."


seems pretty clear to me: no using the arch

[oldno7]

Thisstatement by the park at this link seems to specifically prohibit using Abbeyarch as the anchor for the 135' rappel.
"Climbing, scrambling, or walking upon, wrapping webbing or rope around,or rappelling off any named and unnamed arch with an opening greater than threefeet will be prohibited in the park."
http://www.nps.gov/arch/parknews/news011314.htm (http://www.nps.gov/arch/parknews/news011314.htm)

What do others think?



I guess your not reading what I said or I'm not being clear.

Yes the use of the arch as an anchor will likely not be allowed in the future.

Yes, the use of bolts is allowed by special permit, for free.

So while it would require park approval, it seems bolting this rap will be the likely solution.

[Iceaxe]

FWIW- instead of using Abbey Arch you can rappel in at the head of the slot. I've seen it done with a chokestone as an anchor. I would also have no problem with properly placed bolts for this rappel. The second rap already has bolts so not a big deal to me to go natural.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[jaredr]

Additionally, I find it confusing when they say: Bathing and immersing human bodies will be prohibited in water sources that do not have water flowing both in and out at the time of the activity. Swimming and wading also will be prohibited in water sources that do not currently have water flowing both in and out, except in cases where it will be necessary to enter the water source in order to traverse a route (36 CFR 1.5)"


So if it is necessary for me to traverse the route, it is OK for me to get in the water? Sound like Dragonfly canyon is still OK to do with that exception.


You ARE allowed to traverse through the potholes in Dragonfly. At the BSA Canyon Leader Rendezvous in November 2012 one of the park rangers (I believe her name is Tricia) gave a presentation and one of first things she said was that the "except in cases where it will be necessary to enter the water source in order to traverse a route" part was being added specifically to allow canyoneers to traverse through potholes. It elicited many cheers from those in attendance.

[canyondevil]

So if I'm reading this document right, it will impact the following:
Dragonfly route is effectively closed unless you can avoid entering any of the water in the potholes; a route like Not Tierdrop may be in jeopardy of closure unless you can find a way to do it without a deadman; on the Lomatiun route, we will no longer be able to set up sling around the big arch for the 135' rappel; and at this point, nothing has been decided regarding commerial guiding, so that is still excluded.
So on Lomatium, if we can't use the arch and cannot build an anchor by moving rocks, what choices might be left? It's been a while since I was there, but it seems that just before you get to the arch, there was another place you could rappel down, but the only anchor I remember was quite a ways back from the edge and would utilize a tree or fallen log?



There is a tree just on the other side of the arch that would be an ideal spot for a Fiddlestick/Smooth Operator:
71529

[Kuya]

No doubt there are other ways to rig a rappel to descend into this canyon. But half the fun of doing Lomatium was slinging the arch! Oh well, at least they are still letting us in there to canyoneer. Even though I still don't get why they will let 25 Hikers in there on a single permits, but only 6 canyoneers :ne_nau:

[peakbaggers]

So while it would require park approval, it seems bolting this rap will be the likely solution.

Agree - if the park allows, bolting may be the simplest solution, however, the way the rock sgradually slopes off to vertical there may lead to further rope grooving problems.

[peakbaggers]

You ARE allowed to traverse through the potholes in Dragonfly. At the BSA Canyon Leader Rendezvous in November 2012 one of the park rangers (I believe her name is Tricia) gave a presentation and one of first things she said was that the "except in cases where it will be necessary to enter the water source in order to traverse a route" part was being added specifically to allow canyoneers to traverse through potholes. It elicited many cheers from those in attendance.

This is very good to know. Thanks for the clarification!

[peakbaggers]

There is a tree just on the other side of the arch that would be an ideal spot for a Fiddlestick/Smooth Operator:
71529

Matt,
If the tree in the photo is the one you mean, then would you think the rappelwould probably require a full 200 ft rope and equal pull cord??

[oldno7]

Agree - if the park allows, bolting may be the simplest solution, however, the way the rock sgradually slopes off to vertical there may lead to further rope grooving problems.

Agree.....it is a gentle slope. That would be a reason that the tree would NOT be a viable anchor.
The amount of friction would be astronomical.
Maybe a place for a multi stage, with the 2nd stage being at or near the lip. Such a set up would eliminate any possibility of rope grooving.
A similar spot is part of the wall sequence in upper Imlay.

[deagol]

Fiddlestick would solve most of the friction problem

[canyondevil]

Matt,
If the tree in the photo is the one you mean, then would you think the rappelwould probably require a full 200 ft rope and equal pull cord??


Yeah, I would think 200 would probably be plenty but it might not hurt to throw in a little extra. Although now that I look at that picture more, there is a big rock right that you could probably also use.

[Iceaxe]

Fiddlestick would solve most of the friction problem

Your typical weekend canyoneer is never going to adapt the Fiddlestick as standard equipment, nor should they. As this is a trade route the rappel needs to be set up with a safe anchor that can be safely used by your typical rap-n-swim canyoneer.The LAST thing the canyon community needs is a death at this rappel.

One of the reasons the rangers at Arches are so easy to work with is the canyoneering community has been very helpful when a problem arises.

[Iceaxe]

There is a tree just on the other side of the arch that would be an ideal spot for a Fiddlestick/Smooth Operator:

Anchoring from the tree would still require that your ropes run over the buttress of Abbey Arch, which probably won't make the rangers real happy.

[deagol]

might as well be afraid of your own shadow...

[moab mark]

Anchoring from the tree would still require that your ropes run over the buttress of Abbey Arch, which probably won't make the rangers real happy.

If you go back up canyon about 30 ft there is a nice pine tree that is not to far from the edge. We use to use it when Desert Highlights was using the arch. It is not quite as cool as Abbey rappel but still pretty good.

[Iceaxe]

If you go back up canyon about 30 ft there is a nice pine tree that is not to far from the edge. We use to use it when Desert Highlights was using the arch. It is not quite as cool as Abbey rappel but still pretty good.

Does that rappel drop you into the head of the canyon?

I know there are several options that don't include Abbey Arch. I've looked at them before but never used them.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Taylor]

Is this route doable in winter?

[Kuya]

Is this route doable in winter?

It depends.

Hehe

I imagine it probably is allot of the time though.

[moab mark]

Does that rappel drop you into the head of the canyon?

I know there are several options that don't include Abbey Arch. I've looked at them before but never used them.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Not right at the head but close. It's been awhile but it seems like it is free hanging.

[Iceaxe]

Is this route doable in winter?

Yes, but there are two spots that become a little tricky if there is snow on the ground.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Scott P]

There is probably snow on the ground. Elephant Butte was really sketchy Saturday and I would bet that the Fiery Furnace routes are as well.

[Slot Machine]

Yes, but there are two spots that become a little tricky if there is snow on the ground.

Snow on the ground? Snow in the air? Since when did you care? :lol8:

Shane rapping from Abbey Arch. February 2012.
71599

[deagol]

nice picture

[Iceaxe]

Shane rapping from Abbey Arch. October 2011.

February 20, 2012

Here is another pic from that day. That's Stormy in the picture.

71600

[Rick Demarest]

Arches National Park - Fiery Furnace Access Regulations

After reading through the new Arches NP Climbing & Canyoneering Management Plan and looking at the existing regulations, the list below represents our understanding of the current regulations in regards to the Fiery Furnace. Some regulations only pertain to canyoneering, which was within the scope of the plan. Other regulations, particular those regarding hiking were not part of the scoping process and remain from the past. We feel this is an ongoing process with the park and will be subject to review and possible adjustments. The Coalition of American Canyoneers remains committed to following up and working with Arches NP as issues come under consideration. Current and historical information can be found on the CAC web site: http://www.americancanyoneers.org/arches-np/

• The daily limit in the Fiery Furnace is 75 people
• This does NOT included the ranger guided tours
• Limit for canyoneering is 6 people per permit
• Limit for hiking permit is 25 people per permit
• Total daily quota for canyoneering and hiking permits is 50 per day
• 25 permits are reserved daily for commercial use authorization holders (CUA's).
• Commercial use authorization holders are both local businesses in Moab and out of area tour groups who have applied for a CUA and acquired a Fiery Furnace permit
• Commercial use authorization holders are for profit businesses
• CUA holders are commercial operations who are authorized via a federal permit to provide a visitor service like guided day hiking in the Fiery Furnace
• Commercial use authorization holders are restricted to the ranger guided tour route
• Commercial use authorization holders make up 17% of the annual Fiery Furnace use, ranger tours excluded
• The stated reason for these imbalances are that that the Arches Management Plan did not have the scope to address hikers and CUA's access numbers
• The park plans to create what is called a "Site Strategy" for the Fiery Furnace to balance those usages.

Potential service projects:
A volunteer based resource stewardship program could be developed in partnership with the canyoneering community to enhance monitoring capacity and resource protection. Our chance to actively take care of the canyons we visit.

Establish communication in both directions on all information that impacts Arches NP canyoneering.

Rick Demarest
Coalition of American Canyoneers

[Kuya]

• Limit for canyoneering is 6 people per permit
• Limit for hiking permit is 25 people per permit

Yeah, cuz that makes A LOT of sense! :crazycobasa::facepalm1:

6 Hikers with ropes are so much more impactful to the area than 25 hikers without :fitz:

[Rick Demarest]

Yeah, cuz that makes A LOT of sense! :crazycobasa::facepalm1:

6 Hikers with ropes are so much more impactful to the area than 25 hikers without :fitz:

Ram's response to this issue on http://canyoncollective.com/threads/arches-has-a-plan.19046/page-2

Yeah, me too. Its crazy out of balance. Here is the reason

"Some regulations only pertain to canyoneering, which was within the scope of the plan. Other regulations, particularly those regarding hiking were not part of the scoping process and remain from the past."

In other words, hikers and commercial users were not part of the scoping process so those numbers exist from the past. I suspect that in time a comprehensive program will be in place. The park called it a "site strategy."

Some caution here. In the Grand Canyon, user groups tended not to support each other, in the past. There was a sense that if one group got something, then it had to have been taken away from another group, thus river people, hikers and later canyoneers did not support each other. It is through the herculean efforts of Rich Rudow and the CAC that mentality has shifted and the hopefully will result in pack rafting being allowed. It better be or half the canyons in the ditch become impractical. The river people, who wait years for a thru canyon river permit were very against these pack rafters jumping in front of the line, as they saw it. It didn't matter that the canyoneers were doing 5 miles and they were doing 250. That has changed. Most support pack rafting now. My point? Just because the group size is unbalanced now, canyoneers can still get all the permits they want on a daily basis up to the 50 allowed. The fact that a hiker group can have 25 in a group is NUTS. But it is access and it would be a shame if total non-commerical access were reduced. Given time, I am sure that the "25" per group number will go down to reasonable numbers. We have to make sure the 50 per day doesn't go away. Besides, if you avoid the three rappels in the Furnace and leave the rope and harness behind, then you ARE a hiker.

By the way, the park settled on the 6 per permit because of the statistics. Over 80% of the groups were 6 or less for canyoneering. They didn't pull the number out of a hat. Personally, I would like to see the # on the permit go up to 8. We will have our opportunity to advocate for what we want, as these issues come up on the park docket.

Join the CAC and swell our numbers and our influence
http://www.americancanyoneers.org/join-now/ (http://www.americancanyoneers.org/join-now/)

Ram