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!

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

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

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:

[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

[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:

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