Proposed Arches NP Management Plan

[Iceaxe]

June 7, 2013
Dear Interested Party:


The National Park Service (NPS) has developed an environmental assessment/assessment of effect (ENAEF) to determine what the impacts of rock climbing, canyoneering, and associated activities are in Arches National Park and to consider how the NPS should further manage those activities in a management plan. Issues identified include effects on natural and cultural resources and wilderness character, increase in use levels, the development of new routes, use of fixed gear, development of approach trails, rock alteration, visual impacts and the effects of climbinglcanyoneering on visitor safety and experiences.


This ENAEF evaluates three alternatives: a no

[Iceaxe]

Alternative B (Preferred) proposes to manage climbing and canyoneering activities through group size limits and a permit system as well as other management strategies based on an assessment of current climbing and canyoneering uses and resource conditions. Monitoring data would be used to evaluate patterns in usage and resource conditions over time, and to determine the need for future actions to improve visitor experience and protection of park resources and values.

Oh sweet.... a new permit system that will be a total failure.

Where is the American Canyoneers on this? What is the response? What is the proposed course of action for their membership?

And for the record, I have never seen one of these public comments come down where the "preferred alternative" was not the final action taken. The other two options are just the dog and pony show required by law. I have seen groups provide pressure to where the "preferred alternative" was slightly modified.

Thoughts?

[Scott P]

Although the establishment of new routes is prohibit~d in this alternative

How would the NPS know if something was a "new route"? Newly betaed on the internet? Or perhaps they mean no more anchor stations, rather than a new route.

[Iceaxe]

Yeah, I saw that also. There is no way they can stop "new routes", just bolted anchors. I'm thinking this applies more to climbing.

Publishing where you walked (routes) to the interwebs and guidebooks is protected under the 1st amendment (and the 1st amendment is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. ).

[peakbaggers]

Below are some items I copied out of the plan that may be of the most interest. I've included their assessment of designated routes. I'm confused as to whether or not a canyon such as Dragonfly could be done if you have to get into the wet/full potholes. At first, it seems to prohibit it, but then does it allow an exception clause? Registration looks to be a self-registration with a point being added for the Lost Spring area. (takes care of the driving around to Moab side to get a permit problem.) Could not find whether or not you could anchor off an arch for descent such as Abbey Arch for Lomatium. At one point, the plan would have prevented using the arch itself. Also notice the restriction on a deadman - but only a buried one?? Could we still build an above ground, cairn type anchor? Seems like they would not like that any more than a deadman.

Bathing and immersing human bodies would 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 would be prohibited in water sources that do not currently have water flowing both
in and out, except in cases where it would be necessary to enter the water source in
order to traverse a route. (36 CFR 1.5).
Use of deadman anchors is prohibited. A deadman is a buried object (e.g., a large rock
or log) that functions as an anchor for an attached rope. The action of digging a hole to
bury an object for use as an anchor would be prohibited by 36 CFR Section 2.1.
New Route Establishment
Establishment of new routes would be allowed. The following guidelines for new routes
are provided to maximize visitor safety and minimize potential impacts on park resources
and values:
Travel to and from routes must be within dry wash systems or on rock.
Use of retrievable anchor systems would be encouraged.
No new fixed gear can be installed without a special use permit.
Canyoneering group size limits would be initially established at 10 people per group for most
canyons. In analyzing the Fiery Furnace permits and sizes of groups who entered, 90% of
canyoneering groups entered the Fiery Furnace with 10 or fewer people per group. The IDT
determined that 10 people per group allowed for a large enough party without diminishing
he backcountry (Figure 8).
The park
For the Lost Spring canyoneering routes (MMI and Undercover Canyon) group size would also
be limited to 6 persons per group. Lost Spring Canyon is a very remote and pristine area of the
park and park management would like to ensure it remains this way. Natural resource
assessments as well as routine staff observations have shown an increase in visitor use as well as
resource damage in this area of the park along canyoneering routes.
Large groups (e.g,. school groups, Boy Scout troops, church groups) must split up and use
different routes or use the same route at different times of the day to avoid queuing at rappel
sites and minimize impacts on resources and on other visitors.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]By regulating group sizes, the impacts to visitor use and experience would be beneficial

[Iceaxe]

Potholes - It appears that you can cross through a pothole when required to traverse a route (example Dragonfly). It appears swimming, bathing and wading are prohibited.

Anchors - I see nothing wrong with encouraging retrievable anchors. Personally I hate deadman anchors (both above and below ground) and have only constructed a half dozen in my entire life (I've used them many times when they are there). I much prefer knot chokes and rock chokes, faster, simpler and I have a lot more experience with them. For the record, we are currently working on a slight variation of Elephant Butte that is simple to anchor and requires no bolts. Just a single sling will be left behind at both the required rappels.

Group Size - Seems like a reasonable number to me. They are not saying you can't take a large group, only that a large group should be broken up into smaller groups. It at least appears Arches did some homework on group size and didn't just pull a number out of the air.

Permits - I hate ALL permits. Permits have a bad habit of snowballing. Please remember, the permit system in Zion was free and voluntary at first. It began as a way for the backcountry rangers to interact with the canyoneers. But it took little time for Zion to lose sight of the original objective and turn it into a bureaucratic cluskerf**k.


Anyhoo.... that's my 2 cents.... It will be interesting to see where American Canyoneer comes in on this.

[peakbaggers]

"Permits - I hate ALL permits. Permits have a bad habit of snowballing. Please remember, the permit system in Zion was free and voluntary at first. It began as a way for the backcountry rangers to interact with the canyoneers. But it took little time for Zion to lose sight of the original objective and turn it into a bureaucratic cluskerf**k."

Agree! This is the general trend in all federally managed properties. Increased demand is always met with increased regulation, closures and restrictions including quotas. This is the only logical end from their perspective.

[Wolf]

Peakbaggers, Shane, I couldn't agree with you more, a permit system is BS. That if the NPS wants to do something , they can pretty much do what they want. That was the whole purpose of American Canyoneers to begin with, so that canyoneers have a bigger say with a bigger voice and more influence. I personally do not know a lot about the local issues and politics at hand. Matt Moore is the liaison for Arches and has been contacted. Information needs to be collected. Discussions on Bogley, Yahoo and CC need to continue.
We have a little time to play with, 09 July is the closeout date. A position will be taken, a call to action will take place. I don't think there is an advantage to a quick response, but we need to make the correct response.
No matter what, the park service may decide to do whatever they want. We can cross that bridge when we get there.

WOLF

[Iceaxe]

We have a little time to play with, 09 July is the closeout date. A position will be taken, a call to action will take place. I don't think there is an advantage to a quick response, but we need to make the correct response.

A strong and organized response is the correct approach. Looking forward to hearing the AC direction and suggestions.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Mudface]

A strong and organized response is the correct approach.

We recently gave a strong and organized response to the threat of permits for cave access on fed. lands here in CO. Of course, the "preferred" Alternative was adopted with no pretense of consideration for the objections. It took about a month for the system to be "bureaucratized" and the former cooperation between the UFSF and cavers to disappear.

Group statements are a good start, however, individuals should respond as well.

Sucks to hear that we've lost Arches to this same nonsense.

[Iceaxe]

Of course, the "preferred" Alternative was adopted with no pretense of consideration for the objections. It took about a month for the system to be "bureaucratized" and the former cooperation between the UFSF and cavers to disappear.

Group statements are a good start, however, individuals should respond as well.

I'm under no illusions... I know full well the "preferred" method is just waiting for the ink to dry before they chisel it into stone. When this happened with Zion we were able to get a couple minor amendments made to the preferred method before it was written in stone.


As for a strong organized approach I meant we need to get all canyoneers requesting the same thing. And yes, every individual needs to make their voice heard, it's just better if we are not talking over one another.


I think I know how this is going to end

[Canyoneerman]

For my work, I am a highway and transit engineer. I have worked on Environmental Assessments for both UDOT and UTA, developing alternatives and calculated their impacts. I’m not a NEPA specialist, but have an understanding of the process. I have never worked on an EA for NPS, but I assume that it follows a similar process as a highway project.

Unfortunately after seeing the other alternatives, I think the writing is on the wall on this one. Comments such as, “I hate the permits system” are just thrown out. In NEPA talk, they can be thrown out, because they don’t have any substantive content that pertains to any environmental resource that is being analyzed. They are going to make the argument that by using a permits system they can control the number of users and the activities in the park, which therefore they can calculate how the environment will be better with a permits system. Any comments we provide need to be substantive and need to be able to be quantifiable, so it could be calculated how it would be beneficial. Comments like that have to be taken seriously.

The way I see it is we have 2 options:

1. Accept that the preferred alt is going to happen and just make comments that ask for concession that the canyoneering community feels would be beneficial.
2. Propose a new alternative or make comments that would suggest a new alternative could be studied that would provide greater environmental benefits.

[JennyMae]

Oh sweet.... a new permit system that will be a total failure.

Where is the American Canyoneers on this? What is the response? What is the proposed course of action for their membership?

Shane, thank you for your original post which brought this issue to the attention of the American Canyoneers and for your faithful support of canyon and canyoneering issues.

[LIST][*]It appears that several forum readers here, have read the hefty document presented by the NPS and will know that the process on this plan has been well underway for several years. Since the issue came to our attention, a committee of American Canyoneers Board of Directors carefully reviewd all the documents and a proposal draft has been prepared.[*]

And for the record, I have never seen one of these public comments come down where the "preferred alternative" was not the final action taken. The other two options are just the dog and pony show required by law. I have seen groups provide pressure to where the "preferred alternative" was slightly modified.

Thoughts?

[*]After careful consideration, we've agreed to alignment with the NPS' "preferred alternative". Shane, you predicted this! However, American Canyoneers is proposing some key changes to Alternative B, in regard to certain details specific to canyoneering. Now, we need the numbers to bring about the pressure, as you say, " to where the 'preferred alternative' was slightly modified."[*]Prior to June 30th, American Canyoneers hopes to hear more comments from canyoneers and particularly our members. We