Fixed Anchors & Wilderness

Comments submitted this morning. Took 10 minutes. Also sent example letters to all of my climbing friends to encourage them to comment. 

ddriver wrote:

Not sure about that.

From Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, 2355.32 – Placement, Replacement, and Retention of Fixed Anchors and Fixed Equipment in Congressionally Designated Wilderness, 5.

"Existing fixed anchors and fixed equipment in wilderness may be retained pending completion of a Minimum Requirements Analysis, as funding and resources allow, that determines they are the minimum necessary to facilitate primitive or unconfined recreation or otherwise preserve wilderness character."

I would interpret "may be retained" to mean that USFS will not act until they can perform an analysis. This should be a point of emphasis in comments to USFS. They should not be unilaterally authorized to prohibit use of fixed hardware lacking said analysis. A related case is BLM banning climbing routes just outside the boundaries of Castle Rock in Idaho because cultural resource inventories had not been completed.  Both situations potentially involve using the excuse of limited resources to prohibit an activity.

This. We have a chance here to influence FS policy going into the long term. Our comments should encourage the involvement of local organizations/climbing community in assessing which and whether certan anchors should be retained/replaced. This also goes for non wilderness areas, which are also undergoing a policy change in this document. (Although it's vague what is actually going to happen... potentially intentionally vague... Which is why our comments are important at this stage).

Sarah Holditch wrote:

In case anyone else wants to have a drink about it. 

https://fb.me/e/1vUGqTis

Sarah, any chance of this being recorded or transcribed? 

One has to wonder a couple of things:  

What egregious action fired up some policy wonk to kick this phase off?

What happens when the first death occurs due to a bad bolt not having been replaced on a route or anchor because of the poorly thought out law?  The cost of that lawsuit should make land managers think twice about going down such a dangerous road.

Scott M - thanks for your well-reasoned thoughts.  And JS for your years of internal insight (or is that incite? ;-)

One thing is certain, the clock is ticking on letters.

Paul Davidson wrote:

What happens when the first death occurs due to a bad bolt not having been replaced on a route or anchor because of the poorly thought out law?  The cost of that lawsuit should make land managers think twice about going down such a dangerous road.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2273906&tn=80

Already happened. Nothing came of it… hard to sue Federal Gov for following their own rules. 

Paul Davidson wrote:

One has to wonder a couple of things:  

What egregious action fired up some policy wonk to kick this phase off?

This for one planetmountain.com/en/news/…

JJ Schlick wrote:

Sarah, any chance of this being recorded or transcribed? 

I'll see if we can set something up but no guarantees on quality... We met with an Access Fund policy analyst last week and she mentioned they will be having a webinar on the 11th regarding this issue and will record it. They haven't released info about it yet, but keep an eye out for it. I'll share it in this thread when I see it posted.

The NAZCC recently spoke to Access Fund Policy Analyst, Katie Goodwin, to ask some questions. Here are some key take-aways:

1. This policy is not to be taken lightly. If this goes through "as is" it will give legal standing for NPS and USFS to press charges against anyone replacing bolts or developing routes (they currently do not have this). 

2. The MRA process they are proposing is extensive (essentially the same process as installing a bridge in wilderness) and would open the door to public input. This means if there is an active wilderness defending organization in the area, they can submit comments and could file an appeal to remove a route all together. And there's no mandate for them to follow through with an MRA (meaning you could submit a request and it might just sit there with no reply for years).

3. This policy will set precedent and whatever is passed will likely be adopted in other areas. This doesn't just affect wilderness, it could affect climbing on any public land. 

4. Unique, individual comments are most impactful. They don't have to be flowery college essays, just make your points. Access Fund has provided some key bullet points. ( accessfund.org/latest-news/…)

5. If this policy goest though "as is" the Access Fund's next step is to file an appeal. They can't file an appeal on anything that's not addressed in their comments. I imagine it would be helpful to have a surplus of comments that address the same points they make. 

NPS just extended the comment period 14 days. The deadline to submit comments is now January 30th. 

USFS still remains January 16th. 

Sarah Holditch wrote:

NPS just extended the comment period 14 days. The deadline to submit comments is now January 30th. 

USFS still remains January 16th. 

The CASA president (Nicki M) has an email from the NPS indicating that the FS will follow suit and extend their comment period to Jan 30 as well. 

Sarah Holditch wrote:

The NAZCC recently spoke to Access Fund Policy Analyst, Katie Goodwin, to ask some questions. Here are some key take-aways:

1. This policy is not to be taken lightly. If this goes through "as is" it will give legal standing for NPS and USFS to press charges against anyone replacing bolts or developing routes (they currently do not have this). 

2. The MRA process they are proposing is extensive (essentially the same process as installing a bridge in wilderness) and would open the door to public input. This means if there is an active wilderness defending organization in the area, they can submit comments and could file an appeal to remove a route all together. And there's no mandate for them to follow through with an MRA (meaning you could submit a request and it might just sit there with no reply for years).

3. This policy will set precedent and whatever is passed will likely be adopted in other areas. This doesn't just affect wilderness, it could affect climbing on any public land. 

4. Unique, individual comments are most impactful. They don't have to be flowery college essays, just make your points. Access Fund has provided some key bullet points. ( accessfund.org/latest-news/…)

5. If this policy goest though "as is" the Access Fund's next step is to file an appeal. They can't file an appeal on anything that's not addressed in their comments. I imagine it would be helpful to have a surplus of comments that address the same points they make. 

Thank you Sarah and Nick. What’s the interpretation of the comment period extensions? Are they looking for more supportive comments from preservationist groups? Or did NPS and USFS do this because of some sort of pressure from our side? What’s your take?

@JJ There were requests from quite a few LCOs and I believe also the AF to extend the comment period, mainly because it fell primarily over the holidays. It’s not clear what effect it will have but for our part (I’m on the CASA board), we have only gotten mobilized to get the word out since Jan 1. So having the extra 2 weeks will make it possible to get many more comments submitted from here in S.AZ.

Access Fund webinar Thursday, January 11th at 5PM 

https://www.accessfund.org/events-calendar/stop-the-bolt-prohibition-webinar

Nick Henscheid wrote:

@JJ There were requests from quite a few LCOs and I believe also the AF to extend the comment period, mainly because it fell primarily over the holidays. It’s not clear what effect it will have but for our part (I’m on the CASA board), we have only gotten mobilized to get the word out since Jan 1. So having the extra 2 weeks will make it possible to get many more comments submitted from here in S.AZ.

Got it. Thanks! That does give us a little more breathing room and time to get everyone on the same page. Or attempt to….

Thanks for sharing all of this info, Sarah! Yes. I don't think climbers realize the seriousness of these proposed measures and how they will impact what is a favorite activity for many of us. This could be a death blow to many iconic routes and areas, and the script is being written by what appear to be non-climbers. Climbing is a rapidly growing activity that needs to be better managed on Federal land, but not with this approach. You don't hear this kind of rhetoric applied to pack animals, for example, which arguably do much more damage to wilderness areas. I've been shocked by popular wilderness areas that are utterly bulldozed by stock traffic. But you don't touch that user group with a ten foot pole. Let's be equally vocal. 

Again people, you have until January 30th to comment! Take 20min to write a personalized letter using the AF's points as guidelines and, if you're lucky enough to have a local org, look to them.

Pernell Tomasi wrote:

The classic extend the vote parliamentary procedure. It's a crap shoot who this (is perhaps designed) to benefit. Their slippery slope argument unfortunately seems logical. If I was a betting man, I'd guess we might have to get used to a new system. Hopefully apathy doesn't rue the day. Time will tell.

I don’t think this perspective is beneficial to either party. As someone who works in government and has worked closely with the USFS, public input does hold weight. This policy does not seem logical to me, there are some major flaws. Likely because it was written by people who don’t understand rock climbing and have been given misinformation. Does every bolt replacement or installation really need to go through the same process as a bridge? Is adding a lengthy bureaucratic process to climbing management a good use of taxpayer dollars? I don’t think promoting apathy and idle action is going to help the future of climbing here. 

Now is the time for climbers to be united, Pern.

Pernell Tomasi wrote:

This story isn't about me. Back off .

Case in point ladies and gents

The question of whether agencies, after fifty (50) or sixty (60) years, can now re-interpret the word "installation" to include fixed anchors is a legal question.

What did Congress mean when it used the word "installation" in the Wilderness Act of 1964?  

There is no definition for the word "installation." The question then is what did Congress intend.

Were they aware that climbing was going on----in what would become wilderness---in 1964?

This issue of the authority of government agencies to make new law (as may be the case with us) is a very hot topic.

A variant of this issue was argued today (01/17/2024) before the U.S. Supreme Court in Loper Bright v. Raimondo & Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-regulations-environment-herring-fish-chevron-3ccc7cde83f9e6a4ea570e8b1d362077

Here is a link to the Forest Service's reading room on this topic----if you wish to peruse the comments:

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-3524

You can also admire your own comments or anyone else's---if you put a name in the search engine.