| OCR Text |
Show for commercial day use hiking in the park backcountry.” "Ambiguity" hardly does justice to what occurred here. To suggest that these commercial tours include some "occasional rappels" as if they were an afterthought is ludicrous. The technical rock climbing aspect of the tour IS the tour. It is the vortex, the centerpiece, the highlight, if you will, of these day trips. If the multiple-technical rappels were removed from these tours, the companies would have significantly fewer customers. But if you removed the obligatory nature lessons that are supposed to give educational legitimacy to these tours,.I doubt there would be a significant drop in business. This is a commercial technical rock climbing business. But to broaden its customer base, it sticks to the "descending" aspect of the climb which requires | much less technical skill. Still, it’s difficult to. fault the company as much as it is the Park Service. The former superintendent, in effect, gave Moore permission. In addition, there didn’t seem to be much communication between Supt. Dabney and the Arches staff. As late as September 2000, Chief Ranger Webster insisted that he had no knowledge of any backcountry commercial activities; yet Dabney’s letter was already more than two years old. How could a commercial canyoneering company run tours almost daily for two years without the Arches staff knowing it? Later, as Arches personnel dealt with Moore’s IBP application, they seemed determined to ignore issues, conflicts, and concerns raised to them by this publication. Among the Anew "trail" created by the commercial company... Hl This trail did not exist in 1998. documents that were obtained via the FOIA request was the "Environmental Screening Form (N-16"), a part of the permitting process. Included in this form is a checklist called “Section B: Mandatory Criteria." It asked a series of questions about the short-term and long-term effects of the proposal, in this case, granting an IBP to the canyoneering company. Among the items were the following: “Would the proposal, if implemented... * Have highly controversial environmental effects? * Be directly related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant, environmental effects? * Establish a precedent for future action or fepiecent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects? * Have the potential to be controversial because of disagreement over possible environmental effects?" All four of those questions, if answered honestly, deserved a "YES" reply. Yet Arches Superintendent Smith signed the "Categorical Exclusion" attached to this document, writing, "On the basis of the environmental impact information in the statutory compliance file, with which I am familiar, I am categorically excluding the described project from further NEPA analysis (National Environmental Policy Act). No exceptional circumstances (i.e. all boxes "in Section B...are marked ’NO.’) or conditions in section 3-6 apply.) To approve the IBP, the Screening Form’s Section B required all "NO" answers and that is what the Park Service provided. Of particular concern in the Mandatory Criteria were the ‘future actions" and "cumulative effects" created by the establishment of commercial backcountry activity, an issue that I raised with the NPS as far back as the autumn of 2000In an earlier email to the park, I had posed this question: What if these companies are successful and their businesses expand? What if the NPS sets limits on use for a particular tour? What would stop a company from expanding the number of tours it offers? If it meets the criteria that it so easily met this time, what would keep these companies from offering 20 backcountry tours a day in the park? Or 30? What would stop a company from exploiting every backcountry region of Arches National Park? And what would stop other individuals from forming their own companies? After reviewing the permit, it was apparent that there aren’t that many hoops a commercial canyoneering company has to jump through. In fact, I posed that concern to Chief Ranger Webster when I interviewed him and Supt. Rock Smith in May... "If I don’t damage any endangered plants and animals, get a first aid card, a general liability insurance policy, pay the Park Service $250, and you BBD LOVE my routes, I could get a commercial oo I asked. "Sure," said Webster. “You want an application?” It was about that ey for Matt Moore and his company. In late March, et four months after he was told to "cease operations,” his company was issued an IBP and he was back in the park. Moore and his guides have already led more than 100 tours into remote backcountry areas of Arches since April on five different routes. But Webster and Smith insist this is not a done deal. As the new regulations grind their way slowly through the political and administrative process, commercial activities at many levels in the park may be affected when that process is complete. Smith and Webster spoke at length on the topic and here are some of their observations during an interview with both NPS administrators in May. Smith: "We are expecting new commercial regulations at any time. They’re in rulemaking right now. When that happens, I think the commercial service plan for the whole SE Utah Group will be re-done and all these activities looked at: Whether they’re appropriate or allowed. And what restrictions if they are allowed. That'll all be developed in that document....The IBP that Matt Moore has is just for one year. We did look at it as a temporary thing because we knew these new regulations were coming out.” Webster: "We have to look at the big picture and it takes resources to do that--money and people and expertise. Until then the commercial services plan is a way to manage that kind of use and we're going to be looking very closely at canyoneering outfits, understanding that there’s a lot of interest in it and a lot of people trying to make a living from it. "We're going to look at all those uses that are now being handled by Incidental Business Permits. We need a framework from which to work. Also, talking about a Backcountry Management Plan, the need is great. We have a lot of issues--boundaries, access issues, rock climbing...these are all things we can look at in a systematic way. and look at all that damage." But when will these protections be put in place? According to Webster it could be years. "The Park Service is writing regulations currently, not us locally. The concessions regulations. So it’s all wrapped up in that whole concessions bill that the Congress has debated for years...We’re waiting for those regulations that still haven’t come out yet because it’s been massaged and negotiated at the U.S. Congressional level. You and others will have the opportunity to comment on those regulations once they are in place. Then we have guidance in how we can begin the commercial planning process. So it takes a long time... The law comes out of Congress and we write the regulations.” Would the Park Service have the authority to limit the number of locations in the Arches backcountry that commercial tours could be allowed? Webster: "I would say we would. There are all kinds of opportunities and options. Smith: “Putting limits on the number of concessions is something the park can do. We will be able to interpret those new regulations to fit the resources of this park. : But will they? If years pass before these park rules are in place, and, canyoneering companies have established themselves in the park, will the NPS have the wherewithal to stop those operations, even if resource damage from those activities is clear? And why weren't there enough questions raised by the "Mandatory. Criteria" form to delay the issuance of an IBP in March? What was the rush? These canyoneering companies represent a whole new ballgame in the way pa are used commercially. There is nothing like this, so nobody can be sure just how successful they will be, but there is a similar precedent. Forty years ago, the commercial river running industry was in its ac. No one dreamed that in a very short decade or two, commercial river use would explode. Motorized trips through the canyons allowed many companies to significantly increase their business and, of course, with increased traffic came comparable impacts. But by the time the NPS attempted to deal with the motorized river industry, it was too late--the industry was too entrenched to be eliminated. Today the river companies are highly regulated but the river is over-used. You can’t run that many people through a wilderness and say it’s ~ a wilderness experience. It’s a recreational experience. That, ultimately, is what these canyoneering companies are offering. And the Park Service and the public has to decide if that kind of use for fun and profit is appropriate for wilderness lands that are best protected by being left alone. DAVE'S {'m so darn proud of you. CORNER MARKET -EVERYBODY COMES TO DAVE'S! 400 East & Mill Creek Dr. EXTREME? Well...that all depends on how you define ‘extreme.’ If you mean 'EX-treme,' that's one thing. But if you mean ‘ex-TREME,' well...that's a whole new ballgame. 259.6999 and coming soon... www.davescornermarket.com He's doing that politician stuff. |
