New NPS bolt policy

[Iceaxe]

"The practical outcome of this proposed policy is that climbers (canyoneers) would need a permit or some other authorization prior to the hand-placement of *****NEW**** bolts in any national park wilderness area. Most parks currently require no such prior-approval. The public will have 60 days to comment on this proposed policy revision. The Access Fund is currently analyzing the policy and working on an advocacy strategy. Stay tuned to Access Fund E-news for our position statement and an action alert for climber comments


Friday, January 21, 2011
NPS Releases New Bolt Policy Proposal

The Access Fund released news about the National Park Services Bolt and Fixed Anchor Policy proposal. Below is a draft of the Access Fund's press release as well as NPS's climbing specific proposal. Check out the changes, and stay tuned to the Access Fund to voice your opinion on NPS's changes.

Access Fund Press Release:

After years of anticipation and direct advocacy by the Access Fund, the National Park Service has released an updated draft of its wilderness management policies in order to provide accountability, consistency, and continuity in its wilderness stewardship program. The update covers a wide range of topics including the long-waited-for provisions specific to climbing fixed anchors. Iconic climbing areas in the U.S.

[denaliguide]

This proposed policy recognizes that the occasional placement of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes does not necessarily impair wilderness, but it requires prior authorization for the placement of new fixed anchors (replacements or removals may also require park approval). The requirements and process for authorization are to be laid out in each park’s climbing management plan.

so what this says to me is that i need to get an authorization before every climb i go out to do. simply just in case i need it. it would be a shame be in the middle of a climb and find i need to fix or replace something and not have the proper authorization in hand. i think if every climber were to request authorization prior to all climbs that the nps would see how much of a folly this really is.

[Felicia]

How would they enforce this - scour the internet for trip reports?

[Scott Card]

You have the right to remain silent.....

[denaliguide]

i may have the right. the question is, do i have the ability?

[Felicia]

i may have the right. the question is, do i have the ability?

....or smarts?

[oldno7]

i may have the right. the question is, do i have the ability?

[ratagonia]

Even if you are vehemently anti-bolt, making it illegal in ALL National Parks is probably not the best strategy. In some Parks, and in some locations, even in Utah, bolts are or can be the best tool for the job. I hope everyone will take time to comment on the proposed regulation, and i will have a model letter out in a few days.

Tom

[Brian in SLC]

Its not just "bolts" per se, but, "fixed anchors". They single out bolts with reference to sport climbing, but, never in the language to they define fixed anchors and bolts to be the same thing.

That deadman with a sling left as a rappel anchor? Fixed anchor. Sling on a tree with a rapide? Fixed anchor. Stopper in a crack, left as a rappel anchor? Fixed anchor. Chockstone with a sling on it? Fixed anchor. Fixed pitons? Fixed anchor. Etc.

Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[Mojave Silence]

It's a dumb law....ignore it

[Bo_Beck]

When the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 created Red Cliffs NCA of which Snow Canyon State Park fell under, there was need for SCSP to create a recreation management plan as well. The various user groups formed respective coalitions. Thus SUCC was formed "Southern Utah Climbers Coalition". We as a group lobbied for rights to enable us continued development of new climbs. A team was formed CAT, "Climbing Advisory Team", and a plan was instituted to enable climbers to establish new, and maintain existing routes with fixed hardware. Very much like what is being proposed by the new National Parks Legislation for their management plan, this Route Proposal and maintenence plan has been a hassle, but has worked successfully. If a climber comes upon a dangerous fixed anchor it generally is considered proper ettiquette to replace the anchor on the spot particularly if it is putting the climber at risk. New routes are submitted with paperwork to the park management and a climbing proposal meeting is scheduled to review the proposal and deem it yay or nay based upon criteria that was set forth upon the creation of the climbing management plan. Criteria includes many factors such as approach impact, descent impact, pre-established zones of minimum, medium and high impact usage etc. I'm not to say that this is what I would want to deal with at the National Park Level, but wanted to throw it out so that you might see how we have dealt with a very similar situation. Keep in mind that Snow Canyon State Park is very small and to try circumventing their management plans can only cause problems for user groups.

[ratagonia]

When the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 created Red Cliffs NCA of which Snow Canyon State Park fell under, there was need for SCSP to create a recreation management plan as well. The various user groups formed respective coalitions. Thus SUCC was formed "Southern Utah Climbers Coalition". We as a group lobbied for rights to enable us continued development of new climbs. A team was formed CAT, "Climbing Advisory Team", and a plan was instituted to enable climbers to establish new, and maintain existing routes with fixed hardware. Very much like what is being proposed by the new National Parks Legislation for their management plan, this Route Proposal and maintenence plan has been a hassle, but has worked successfully. If a climber comes upon a dangerous fixed anchor it generally is considered proper ettiquette to replace the anchor on the spot particularly if it is putting the climber at risk. New routes are submitted with paperwork to the park management and a climbing proposal meeting is scheduled to review the proposal and deem it yay or nay based upon criteria that was set forth upon the creation of the climbing management plan. Criteria includes many factors such as approach impact, descent impact, pre-established zones of minimum, medium and high impact usage etc. I'm not to say that this is what I would want to deal with at the National Park Level, but wanted to throw it out so that you might see how we have dealt with a very similar situation. Keep in mind that Snow Canyon State Park is very small and to try circumventing their management plans can only cause problems for user groups.

Agreed.

The problem is the blanket nature of the proposal, and the removal of control from the local level. Park units already have the authority to manage fixed anchors as appropriate to their situation, with the default position being "allowed". These are the rules that the above took place under. This would change the default position to "not allowed".

"Allowed" recognizes that climbing and canyoneering are Wilderness-appropriate activities, and that fixed anchors are part of that activity and decisions about fixed anchors should be made by individuals, by the climbing/canyoneering community, and by managers at each unit. The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as a place for "primitive and unconfined type of recreation;"

"Not Allowed" views climbing and canyoneering as suspect activities, only allowed at the discretion of the local manager. Sounds like confinement to me.

===

Bo, I thought Snow Canyon State Park was a STATE park. Does the above actions apply to the State Park, or adjacent BLM lands?

Tom

[Iceaxe]

One big downside I see to all of this is.... the regulation would basically make the NPS responsible for anchor maintenance....

I smell a lawsuit at the first death by anchor failure. I can hear it now... "we wanted to replace the sketchy anchor but didn't have the appropriate permits....."

[Redpb]

It's a dumb law....ignore it

You mean like the speed limit?

[Bo_Beck]

Bo, I thought Snow Canyon State Park was a STATE park. Does the above actions apply to the State Park, or adjacent BLM lands?

Tom

Interesting that you should ask Tom. Here is an answer for you that was addressed to Todd Goss yesterday regarding an area that we are wanting to develop with Trad and Sport routes. Keep in mind the other adjacent area is RCNCA and the policy there is "No Bolts or Anchors". Also keep in mind that Snow Canyon State Park is a state park but also designated within the RCNCA! Theoretically there should be no anchors within SCSP, but by going through the process of public input, Snow Canyon SP Management was able to modify certain aspects of the RCNCA management policies within Snow Canyon State Park as an experimental model for future planning.


Interesting question, and one that may (or may not) not be difficult to
answer. Hellhole Canyon currently has two designations: Red Mountain
Wilderness and the Red Cliffs NCA. Both were created by the Omnibus Public
Lands Act of 2009. Essentially, the wilderness area is within the NCA.
However, before I go further, there is one major caveat. Hellhole Canyon
itself is NOT in the wilderness area. The floor of the canyon and the
lower slopes are in the NCA, but outside of wilderness.

Now before you start cheering the Congressional staffers who drew the
boundaries, you need to realize that the wilderness designation would not
be the biggest impediment to new climbing route development. As you noted,
limited bolting can be allowed in wilderness, provided they are installed
with hand drills and are used to provide safe passage through otherwide
unprotectable sections of trad routes, and/or to protect belay stances.

The biggest impediment is the Red Cliffs NCA, but the issue actually
predates NCA status. When the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve was created 11
years ago, it was set aside for protection of the threatened desert
tortoise. In return for setting aside the Reserve, the US Fish and
Wildlife Service allowed Washington County to develop other lands in the
county that were also critical habitat. These are called "take" areas
because developers can actually remove tortoises, transplant them, and then
proceed with development. This was, in large part, what drove the last
local development boom prior to the recent economic collapse.

How does this affect climbing? The Reserve (now the NCA), was divided into
high quality (lowland) and low quality (upland) tortoise habitat. Hellhole
Canyon is in the lowland zone and is considered high quality habitat. In
terms of management action, the major difference between the zones is: Off
trail travel is prohibited in the lowland zone. So technically, leaving
the wash bottom, which is a designated trail, is forbidden, which makes new
climbing route development problematic.

OK, don't get discouraged yet, because your request raises some interesting
issues. How about, "tortoises don't live on cliff faces." Kinda tough to
argue with that logic. Also, we're in the middle of creating a new
management plan for the NCA and one of the things we're looking at are the
existing upland/lowland boundaries. One of the alternatives we're
considering for the new plan IS the potential for new climbing routes in
this area. My role in the planning effort encompasses recreation,
wilderness, visual resources, and transportation planning (including
non-motorized transportation) so this falls in my jurisdiction.

And yes, we are aware of the development that was and is occuring in the
Hellhole Canyon area. That increasing popularity is one of the reasons
were looking at in the plan.

So where does that leave your request? First, I applaud you for
approaching us and being willing to do it right. Not everyone is willing
to do that. What we need to do is sit down and talk about that area, as
well as several others, because the new management plan for the Red Cliffs
NCA will have an integrated climbing management section.

Ideally, I'd like to see a small team of local climbers that was willing to
sit down and identify all the issues. My schedule is pretty booked this
week and next week, but Feb 14-18 would work. I can be flexible if you
need to meet in the evening.

Might not be exactly what you wanted to hear, but at least I didn't say no.
. . .

Dave Kiel
Outdoor Recreation Planner
St. George Field Office
345 E. Riverside Drive
St. George, UT 84790
(435) 688-3210

[Don]

Interesting.