Arches NP Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan

Arches seeks public input on new climbing management plan
Managers may widen ban that was stressed after a 2006 incident.
By Tom Wharton - The Salt Lake Tribune
Jul 24, 2010

Climber Dean Potter drew the wrath of environmentalists and many of his fellow climbers in May 2006 with his controversial “free solo” climb of Utah’s iconic Delicate Arch, but vague regulations prevented Arches National Park managers from ever prosecuting him.

Instead, they quickly clarified what they thought had been a well-understood rule prohibiting all rock climbing on any arch or natural bridge named on the United States Geological Survey 7.5 topographical maps. The rule also prohibits slacklining, or walking on a flat nylon webbing or rope anchored between rock formations, trees or any other natural feature.

Now park managers want to revisit — and possibly expand — the rule. They’re seeking public input as they begin development of a new Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.

Managers recognize rock climbing and canyoneering as significant park activities, said Sabrina Henry, planning and compliance coordinator for the park.

The plan’s goal is to ensure it can continue with an assurance the park’s unique natural and cultural resources will be preserved and protected.

Canyoneering will get a particularly close look because of the increased popularity of the activity, which involves cross-country travel that requires the use of climbing gear to ascend and descend some challenging areas.

According to the project scope document issued earlier this month by Superintendent Kate Cannon, park managers will evaluate the effects of increased use, the development of new routes, the use of fixed hardware, the designation of climbing and canyoneering routes, the development of approach trails, the visual impacts and the effects of climbing and canyoneering on visitor safety and experience.

Commercial guiding will also be examined as well as the need for a possible permit system, group size limits and the policy on installing or replacing bolts, anchors and software.

The document says the management plan will do the following:

• Seek to involve the climbing community in shared stewardship of natural resources;

• Build a foundation of data (status of natural resources, climbing/canyoneering routes and use patterns, and visitor effects on resource values) as a basis for future decision making;

• Provide a framework for a climber education program;

• Provide a clear decision-making framework and action timetable;

• Initiate a continuing planning process that responds to new data and changes over time;

• Assure regular monitoring and use of resources.

The public has until Aug. 10 to comment on the project scope document. Managers also will schedule a public workshop in Moab during which interested parties can share information and ask questions about the planning process.

A second opportunity for public comment will follow the release of an environmental assessment as development of the plan proceeds.

Matt Moore, owner of Desert Highlights in Moab, had the lone commercial climbing permit inside Arches National Park for 11 years until it was pulled this year as part of the planning process. He didn’t like losing his permit, but supports the process itself.

He recognizes that growth in canyoneering makes it necessary for managers to do more planning.

Moore said he will wait to see which alternatives the management plan recommends before deciding whether he’ll support it.

You're not trying to pull this back on-topic, are you? :cool2:

Tom :moses:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Guides and beta peddlers (websites and guidebooks) all make money from canyons. Public at large might complain about the profit motive, but many take advantage of the beta generated by the guides and beta peddlers. Who are the better stewards of the canyons? Guides? Beta peddlers? Recreational canyoneers?

---

What you (or anyone else) thinks in regards to beta peddlers is irrelevant. Beta Peddler's (websites and guidebooks) are protected and guaranteed the freedom to spray as much as they wish by the First Amendment. While guides in National Parks are at the whim of the superintendent. Fair or not.... that is the system we all must work in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

My personal beliefs are that commercial guiding should be eliminated from all National Parks...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

Would you like to put forth a reason for that, Shane? Or, do you just hate America?
Tom :moses:

---

As I've said.... my views have nothing to do with guiding or Matt personally. I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting. I'd like to see all commercial concessions removed...

Horsey rides, guiding, boat rides, t-shirt shacks should all be removed IMHO.... I would like to see the National Parks Service remove the part about "promoting" from their mission statement and focus more on preservation, conservation, regulation and management.....

How you manage to get un-American out of that I have no clue..... or are you just trying to paint me as the bad guy?

I have always considered the part about a National Park being required to promote its self as kind of a Catch-22 in the grand scheme of preservation.... this is also the main reason I usually oppose the creation of more National Parks and the reason I would hate to see the Swell become a NP.... It would be a really fun time following a giant motorhome out to the National Park Services new Hidden Splendor Campground, complete with 50 parking places, store, gas station, ranger station, yada, yada....

One last item.... are those of you supporting Matt keeping his Arches guiding permit (Tom, Rich, Ect) also supporting Moab Adventures recent request for a guiding permit? If not, why not? What is the difference? I'm just trying to understand all sides of this issue....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

.... I would like to see the National Parks Service remove the part about "promoting" from their mission statement and focus more on preservation, conservation, regulation and management.

---

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

---

Maybe Shane was referring to just the development of cabins, lodges, big asphalt parking lots for RVs....etc. I think he could careless about the canyons itself - as publishing the beta for them goes. People want canyons, and secret ones will eventually become published.

I do agree with Rich that with a permit system, it's easier to preserve and conserve. (I just think of that infamous day of when the hundreds of boy scouts went through the subway in one day....:nono: That's a LOT of traffic).

btw, have you guys read some of the comments of KSL posters on the article. Wow.

to quote one person: "They're only hunks of sandstone eroded into wierd shapes......It' beyond me why people insist on worshiping them.....They don't have anything else to worship I suppose................."

Hello all...first post on Bogley. Here's my comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.

I am 47 years old, have considerable experience in various outdoor activities, and have visited numerous National Parks and other public lands. I value sustainability, and rationally limiting human impact on our environment, especially in special places such as Arches.

I have had the pleasure of going on a couple canyoneering outings in Arches with Matt Moore, and as a result, have a heightened sensitivity to environmental impacts and a better ability to avoid causing them. Matt explains impacts and how to avoid them in a tangible, meaningful way without coming across as preachy or extreme. For example, he demonstrates that "all-rock routes" are often possible, and not just possible, but fun.

Therefore, I believe that commercial guiding by people with the right expertise and values is a benefit to the environment and the public, by virtue not just of such guided trips being very low impact, but via the customers getting an education that pays dividends into the future.

It would be entirely appropriate to selectively approve guiding operations based on their proven ability to accomplish and promote low impact, rather than letting in anyone who wants to.

If a permit system is adopted for the public to pursue canyoneering in Arches, a similar principle could be adopted for that. A daily permit system, or any based strictly on numbers, is an onerous imposition on visitors, and of dubious effectiveness. Far better would be a license of indefinite duration issued to people who can show at least some evidence that they can pursue the desired activity safely and responsibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

Hmmmm .... Kind of ironic. You are exercising your first amendment right to PROMOTE canyons within the national parks.

---

The irony depends on how you look at it I guess.... my thought is there are thousands of people around who now promote the National Parks. The state of Utah spends millions promoting the parks within its borders..... So there is no need for the Parks to spend their own coin and manpower promoting themselves.... I would prefer to see the money and manpower better spent.... and when I say better spent I don't mean building more multi-million dollar visitor centers.....

I also stated that I'd like my National Park experience to be less government intrusive.... which means few permits.... I would like to see many of our National Parks managed as more of a wilderness setting with all commercial concessions removed... I believe my comments are easier to understand when you look at the post as a whole and not try to dissect each sentence as a separate entity. My comments were based on what I thought was best for the Park and not me personally....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

And ... it is so much easier to preserve and conserve when regulation and management includes permits and use limits.

---

True.... but I didn't know we were just looking for the EASY way.... if that's the case lets just fence the place off and allow no visitation.... or jack up the entrance fee to $1000 per person... that should keep out the riff-raff and create a nice slush.... err.... I mean operating budget....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkmatter

Hello all...first post on Bogley. Here's my comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Climbing and Canyoneering Management Plan for Arches.

I am 47 years old, have considerable experience in various outdoor activities, and have visited numerous National Parks and other public lands. I value sustainability, and rationally limiting human impact on our environment, especially in special places such as Arches.

I have had the pleasure of going on a couple canyoneering outings in Arches with Matt Moore, and as a result, have a heightened sensitivity to environmental impacts and a better ability to avoid causing them. Matt explains impacts and how to avoid them in a tangible, meaningful way without coming across as preachy or extreme. For example, he demonstrates that "all-rock routes" are often possible, and not just possible, but fun.

Therefore, I believe that commercial guiding by people with the right expertise and values is a benefit to the environment and the public, by virtue not just of such guided trips being very low impact, but via the customers getting an education that pays dividends into the future.

It would be entirely appropriate to selectively approve guiding operations based on their proven ability to accomplish and promote low impact, rather than letting in anyone who wants to.

If a permit system is adopted for the public to pursue canyoneering in Arches, a similar principle could be adopted for that. A daily permit system, or any based strictly on numbers, is an onerous imposition on visitors, and of dubious effectiveness. Far better would be a license of indefinite duration issued to people who can show at least some evidence that they can pursue the desired activity safely and responsibly.

---

Nice well thought out and easy to understand comments.... :2thumbs:

And for the record.... I'm not fueling this thread with the intent of recruiting anyone to supporting my personal thoughts or ideas... I just hope that some of you take the time to send the park your comments. I think it's important that the park hears form the canyoneering community.

:cool2:

Boy - little Theo born Jan. 18th.

No official inside track. I do know the person responsible for writing the management plan is a local climber, so I think she will be very open to input and isn't looking to shut down opportunities in the park.

Here is a press release concerning an upcoming public meeting in Moab:

"Arches National Park is developing a management plan to determine what impacts climbing, canyoneering, and associated activities, commercial and noncommercial, may have on the park, and to consider how the NPS should manage or possibly limit those activities. A public scoping workshop has been scheduled for Thursday August 5, 2010 at the Grand Center in Moab from 2-7pm where the public is encouraged to come and speak with park officials in an open house forum regarding the development of this management plan.
Despite regular use by climbers and canyoneering groups in Arches NP, climbing and canyoneering have remained largely unmanaged leaving climbers and canyoneers essentially self-regulated. The increase in activity is exceeding the park's ability to manage under current actions. Issues identified to date include effects on natural and cultural resources, increase in use levels, the development of new routes, use of fixed hardware, designation of climbing/canyoneering routes, development of approach trails, visual impacts and the effects of climbing/canyoneering on visitor safety and experiences.
A climbing/canyoneering management planning effort will consider a full range of alternatives to protect resources, visitors and visitor experience while providing for recreational climbing activities. The NPS is encouraging public participation throughout the NEPA process and is currently in the scoping phase of this project. The NPS invites the public to voice alternatives, comments, or concerns in this effort. These comments will be considered during preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Arches National Park will seek to involve as many individuals as possible who have an interest in or concerns about climbing activities at Arches."

Those of you who are local, this would be a great chance to learn more and give feedback.

Did anyone attend the public meeting on the management plan?

Matt? Rebecca? Anyone?

If so, it would be helpful to hear a short report..... thanks..

The direct link to the comment form is: http://tinyurl.com/archescomments

Please please please provide at least some comments and ask to be involved in the process. My (extensive) comments to follow (next post).

Tom :moses:

Zion Canyoneering Coalition aka Tom Jones comments on Arches Plan:


August 9, 2010

Arches National Park
Planning Team

(Part 2)

GENERAL COMMENTS

Canyoneering is NOT Climbing

While it is perhaps appropriate to develop the management plan for both of these technical, Wilderness-appropriate activities at the same time, I hope it is clear that from a planning perspective, the differences between the sports (patterns of use, social impacts, physical impacts) are perhaps more important than their similarities. Canyoneers like climbers are drawn from a wide range of Americans, though the overlap between the two groups is small. Canyoneering can be done in small groups of one or two, but also easily adapts to groups of considerably large size, even twenty or thirty. Experienced veterans and first-time canyoneers will often be in the same group, and enjoy the same canyon in the same way at the same time. Families with children as young as six can be expected to canyoneer together.

Canyoneering occurs almost entirely in specific, well-documented places, following specific approaches and exits. Impacts from canyoneers are likely to be very specific in location and type, thus making it relatively simple for the land manager to manage the impacts. All popular locations are known, and are currently limited to nine routes. Exploration is not widespread, and may identify two or three additional “good routes” in the next couple of years; but is unlikely to cover more terrain than that.

Canyoneering generally takes place in terrain which is especially resistant to human impacts. Most canyoneering occurs in watercourses where the surface is renewed by flash floods on a regular basis, or on slickrock which is impact-resistant. There may be short social trails through vegetated terrain to get to a wash bottom or to a slickrock approach – social trails that can be managed to minimize physical impacts. In-canyon, rappels sometimes result in rope grooves and sling grooves that scar the Entrada sandstone. These are away from the routes travelled by casual Arches visitors, and usually only seen by canyoneers.

The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is an organization of canyoneers, and we have no comments on the climbing portion of the Technical Backcountry Management Plan.

Science-based Planning

The ZCC calls on the Arches Planning Team to develop a flexible management plan based on verifiable facts. The first part of the planning process then becomes figuring out what is actually going on, on the ground, such as by finding un-burdensome ways to measure actual use in the canyons, and objective ways of measuring physical impacts. Park statements indicate a need for this plan because “increased climbing and canyoneering use” is “straining the park’s ability to effectively manage those activities in Arches.” Does the Park have data to back up this claim?

We have seen National Park planning processes for canyoneering that have been based upon “feelings” and “personal observations” of Park personnel, and applied Park personnel norms rather than sport-participant norms to such items as target encounter rates and acceptable limits of change. We claim (ironically, without evidence) that the best management plan can only be developed with a strict devotion to actual verifiable facts, careful analysis of the data, and a reluctant application of burdens to the Park visitor.

The Planning Team should avoid surveys to justify burdens placed on Park visitors. Asking visitors what they want you to do is unlikely to produce good management plans, but it is easy to manipulate surveys to produce the results desired, and justify management actions that the prejudices of the Planning Team favor. The ZCC considers this a tactical error.

As an example: if asked, many recreational canyoneers would say there should not be commercial guiding on canyoneering routes, because it interferes with their access to the same routes. A move to quash commercial guiding based on this “opinion poll” would be misguided and counter to Park Goals. Commercial guiding clients are also visitors to the Park, but unlikely to be involved in and have a voice in the planning process. The planning team would do better to study the facts on the ground: are there actual conflicts between commercial and private canyoneers? Where and when? How can these conflicts be mitigated while imposing the least burden on both user groups?

Planning Issues Identified in the Scoping Document July 2010

The ZCC supports the stated goals of the CCMP, namely:

Protect and conserve the park’s natural and cultural resources and values, and the integrity of wilderness character for present and future generations.

Ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.

In addition to the authorizing legislation, the areas in question are managed under NPS policy as Wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. We would like to bring the Planning Team’s attention the defining characteristics of statutory Wilderness:

(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

In many places, the Park Service has concentrated on minimizing social encounters in Wilderness to the exclusion of all other goals, focusing on a simple definition of “Solitude”. A more nuanced understanding of “Solitude” indicates that, for Wilderness travelers, it mainly focuses on the feeling of being an animal in the wild lands, free from the social and governmental constraints that enclose our daily lives in society. In this reading, the three attributes “solitude”, “primitive” and “unconfined” all point toward the same kind of Wilderness, a Wilderness that is substantially degraded by aggressive management actions and restraints on Visitor activites. We consider it consistent with the Wilderness Act that the Park manage visitor Wilderness activities with the least-burdensome actions that can achieve the desired result.

Unacceptable Impacts

A primary goal of this CCMP is to “ensure that recreational uses and activities in the park are consistent with its authorizing legislation or proclamation and do not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values.”

Management policies that emerge from this plan will result from how Park planners define what constitutes an “unacceptable impact.” This standard should be clearly outlined in the draft CCMP (with similar references in other NPS plans). The term “unacceptable impact” as a standard for land management raises many more questions than it answers:

Could an “appropriate use” also sometimes cause “unacceptable impacts”?
Does Arches have specific examples of an “unacceptable impact”?
What is the difference between an activity that causes "unacceptable impacts" and an activity that causes "impairment"?
How significant are “unacceptable impacts” when compared to “impairment”?
Can a significant impact be acceptable? Can an “unacceptable impact” not be significant?

Specifically, the ZCC is looking for a science-based analysis of what constitutes an unacceptable impact, rather than using the norms of Park staff without critical analysis.

“Unacceptable impacts” is context dependent. An extraordinary and popular canyoneering route will have a higher level of impact considered acceptable than an obscure and barely-used route. Impacts that are in plain site of casual Arches visitors must be taken more seriously than impacts deep in the backcountry, only seen by canyoneers.


Public Involvement

We hope that the Arches Planning Team is genuinely interested in working with the public to develop a plan that will protect the Park resources while degrading the visitor’s Wilderness experience as little as possible. Meeting the statutory requirements for public participation (two comment periods, of which this is one) has proven ineffective in the past to produce a plan with public buy-in. In the interest of producing a plan that is in alignment with Park values and current standards of the democratic process, we encourage the Planning Team to step beyond the statutory obligations and involve the public more fully in the process.

The Zion Canyoneering Coalition is interested in participating in the Planning process to the fullest extent possible.


We thank Arches National Park for the opportunity to provide Scoping Comments. We look forward to working with the Planning Team in developing a workable, equitable Canyoneering Plan for Arches National Park.


Tom Jones, chairman
Zion Canyoneering Coalition

bump

How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcwild

How many dues-paying members in the ZCC?

---

Rich, why do you ask this question? Is your agenda constructive in nature or destructive?

Does the ACA have a position on this issue? Do you have a position on this issue? Is/has the ACA, or yourself, expressed your position to the Park? If so, would you care to share with Bogley?

As I understand tomorrow is the last day for comments.