Ross Lake/Newhalem Comment Period

[Jason_Martin]

November 7, 2003

 

 

CLIMBER COMMENTS NEEDED BY DECEMBER 5 TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA IN WASHINGTON STATE’S NORTH CASCADES

 

On October 28 the National Park Service (NPS) announced that it will begin the scoping process for a Frontcountry Climbing Environmental Assessment and Management Plan (CMP) for the Ross Lake National Recreation Area (Ross Lake NRA).

 

Over the past few years, rock climbers and boulderers have been developing new routes and bouldering areas in the Skagit River Gorge between Newhalem and Diablo along the North Cascades Highway. Potential controversial issues in the CMP may include bolting, cleaning of moss and vegetation away from rocks, and clearing rock and debris to create trails and improve bouldering landing zones. An extensive website has been developed for one of the crags (www.misha.org/Climbing/Newhalem/Map1.html) and word has spread quickly among the climbing community.

 

There are many opportunities for additional climbing routes and bouldering in the Frontcountry (i.e. non-wilderness) of Ross Lake National Recreation Area (NRA), given the ease of access and abundance of rock. Your comments are needed

no later than December 5th to provide input regarding the scope of the CMP.

 

The Scoping Process

The NPS seeks public input to help them identify issues and concerns concerning recreational climbing in the Ross Lake NRA. Climbers should take this opportunity to tell the NPS what they think are important issues that the CMP should cover – that is, the “scope” of the CMP. Once the NPS receives all the public input during this scoping phase, it will then produce a “draft CMP” with range of alternatives that progress from “no action” to increasingly higher levels of regulation and/or management. Once the NPS releases this “draft CMP” – later this winter -- the public will again have the opportunity to comment, both in written form and public meetings. Hopefully a final CMP will be in place by next spring.

 

See the Access Fund’s scoping comments to the Indian Creek Corridor Plan (http://accessfund.org/whoweare/COMMENTS/IndianCreekEA.htm) for an example of how to write scoping comments.

 

The NPS has identified the following preliminary issues that will be addressed in the Ross Lake NRA CMP:

Fixed anchors

Climber paths

Route "cleaning"

Human waste

Cultural resources

Safety

New Climbing Routes

 

See http://accessfund.org/programs/RossLake-scoping-PR.htm for the NPS press release announcing the scoping process.

 

In addition to the issues specified by the NPS noted above, the Access Fund also suggests addressing some of these issues with more specificity:

 

-What level of fixed anchor use is appropriate, and what process, if any, should be used to authorize new fixed anchor placements.

-Should bouldering have its own set of management actions?

The physical extent of the CMP.

-What level of cleaning, if any, should be allowed for the development of climbing routes and bouldering?

-Where and how should access trails be built, and by whom. Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) will need to be a partner on this aspect of the plan.

-How and when should human waste management issues be addressed.

-Where parking should be provided. Both Seattle City Light and WDOT will need to partner on many of these parking issues.

-Safety issues pertaining to auto traffic, hiking access and parking.

-Natural resource management actions.

 

Your scoping comments should also indicate your name, where you live, why climbing is so important to you, and why the climbing and bouldering at Newhalem is so special. Make sure to comment during both the scoping phase as well as during the draft CMP public comment period. The more letters the NPS receives from reasonable sounding climbers offering practical solutions to current or potential impact issues the better.

 

Send you comments by December 5, 2003 to:

 

Superintendent

North Cascades National Park Service Complex

810 State Route 20

Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

 

Comments may also be sent via e-mail to: NOCA_Superintendent@nps.gov

Or by fax: 360-856-1934

 

If you have questions, please contact Roy Mason Zipp, Natural Resources Specialist at (360) 873-7490 extension 31 or e-mail roy_zipp@nps.gov.

 

[mattp]

If anybody feels inclined to write in response to this request for comments, one thing to keep in mind is that it is a NATIONAL RECREATION AREA. In the Ross Lake National Recreation area and in the nearby Mount Baker National Recreation Area, they have expended huge amounts of public money to groom roads for snowmobiling, build and maintain boat ramps, build wheelchair accessible trails for the handicapped, develop extensive campgrounds, maintain parking and access support for a variety of private resorts, and they have built five huge dams. We might have a lengthy debate about the environmental impacts associated with these activities, or whether ANY public land in our precious North Cascades should be subject to such abuse, but I think rock climbing should be seen as belonging in a National Recreation Area just as much as these other uses and the impact associated with rock climbing in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area pales in comparison with these other activities that receive very heavy public sanction and subsidy.

[glassgowkiss]

i agree with you 100 %. and this is what we could do. someone should write a letter and post it here (i am a very bad writer). we can print it and send it to nps. they count something like 600 people behind each signed letter. this could work as far as letting them know climbing is here and should stay this way...

[mattp]

Even a poorly written letter is probably better than one that you would cut and paste from somebody else's form letter, Glasgow. I bet you could take that simple idea that I set forth and which you say that you agree with, and then list the seven points that were listed in Jason's post above mine, and add your comments.

 

We could discuss each of those seven points at length, I'm sure, but my own personal feeling is that:

 

(1) Fixed anchors are OK on a roadside crag and painted bolt hangers and chains should be used rather than brightly colored slings while other rules might apply to more remote areas -- and I don't think the National Park Service should get involved in arguments that may exist between sport and trad climbers;

 

(2) climber paths are not really an enviornmental problem in the lowland North Cascades and certainly far less intrusive than boat ramps, wheelchair trails, etc. though they may not belong next to a viewpoint or something;

 

(3) route "cleaning" would not seem to be a huge issue either, unless somebody cleans a wall right next to a scenic overlook -- there are plenty of mossy choss heaps in the area and so I don't think moss or the creatures that live in it are endangered or needing protection unless there is a particularly unique site;

 

(4) human waste is a mess and they may need to provide an outhouse or a thunderbox somewhere;

 

(5) cultural resources would not seem to be a very big issue as far as I know because I have never heard of petroglyphs or pictographs in the North Cascades;

 

(6) safety is obviously a factor to be considered but the National Parks are not and have not been responsible for climber safety anywhere, as far as I know, and rescues from sport crags or bouldering areas are probably a lot less expensive than search and rescue operations following from boating, snowmobiling, or hiking accidents; and

 

(7) new climbing routes are part of climbing and I would hope they can accommodate those who wish to establish new routes.

 

In addition, I believe that a climbing crag has just as much of a need for parking facilities as does a boat ramp or hiking trailhead which sees the same amount of use. I realize they may not have money or other resources to build a bunch of new parking lots, but I think they should seek to accomodate climbers along with other users.

 

I'm sure, however, that you'll have a different position on some of these points. Have at it, and be sure to send your letter by Monday next week.

[glassgowkiss]

belive it or not i agree with you on this 100%

[mattp]

Get writing! It might actually make a difference.

[Thinker]

Matt, 2 things to consider about your points (strictly in the spirit of discussion and education rather than harshing):

 

Cultural resources may be a bigger issue than pictographs. Old cabins, sites of old buildings that have long since burnt down or rotted away, trash heaps/dumps, trails, paths, and burial sites are all considered 'cultural resources' if they're of a certain age. On federal land and for projects that are even partially funded by federal money, the project area must have a cultural resources survey performed to identify and catalog any such resources, or to rule out their existence.

 

Endangered species issues are also a bit more complicated than portrayed. Even if there's plenty of suitable habitat for an endangered species in the area, if that particular species lives in or uses an area impacted by the route (or climbers accessing the route) then there could be a ruling of 'adverse effect' for the project. Typically a biological assessment (BA)is performed to provide the information necessary to make that determination. In the event of a minor project, it is possible that a 'letter of no effect' can substitute for the full blown BA.

 

I know virtually nothing about this area/project in particular, but I do work with the cultural resources and ESA issues on a pretty regular basis. Obviously if the area has been developed for snow machine users as heavily as you've indicated, the ESA issues may not be a big deal here. I look forward to seeing how this all turns out!

 

ESA = Endangered Species Act

[mattp]

Thinker: similar discussion could reveal the over-simplicity with which I have addressed all the other points, too. Take "safety," for example: I thnk my basic points are probably correct, but one might wonder if more should be considered in relation to safety in the case of the development of new recreational opportunities that are obviously potentially dangerous yet proposed for some kind of official sanction; further, there are safety questions inherent in the climber's use of the roadside to walk from the parking area to their climbs and where a climb can be seen from the roadside it may cause a dangerous traffic jam as does the sight of a moose in Yellowstone. Your points are good ones, though, and we shouldn't dismiss enviornmental or cultural concerns out of hand without considering that there may at times be a significant impact even where we are talking about moss in the North Cascades.

[To_The_Top]

Deadline coming soon.