Access Fund Climbing Management Guide

CLIMBING MANAGEMENTCLIMBING MANAGEMENTCLIMBING MANAGEMENT

A Guide to Climbing Issues and the DevelopmentA Guide to Climbing Issues and the DevelopmentA Guide to Climbing Issues and the Development

of a Climbing Management Planof a Climbing Management Planof a Climbing Management Plan

››1

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > The Access Fund

The Access Fund

PO Box 17010

Boulder, CO 80308

Tel: (303) 545-6772

Fax: (303) 545-6774

E-mail: info@accessfund.org

Website: www.accessfund.org

The Access Fund is the only national advocacy organization whose mission keeps climbing areas open and conserves

the climbing environment. A 501(c)3 non-proﬁ t supporting and representing over 1.6 million climbers nationwide in all

forms of climbing—rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, and bouldering—the Access Fund is the largest US

climbing organization with over 15,000 members and afﬁ liates.

The Access Fund promotes the responsible use and sound management of climbing resources by working in

cooperation with climbers, other recreational users, public land managers and private land owners. We encourage

an ethic of personal responsibility, self-regulation, strong conservation values, and minimum impact practices among

climbers.

Working toward a future in which climbing and access to climbing resources are viewed as legitimate, valued,

and positive uses of the land, the Access Fund advocates to federal, state, and local legislators concerning public

lands legislation; works closely with federal and state land managers and other interest groups in planning and

implementing public lands management and policy; provides funding for conservation and resource management

projects; develops, produces, and distributes climber education materials and programs; and assists in the

acquisition and management of climbing resources.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACCESS FUND:

Visit http://www.accessfund.org.

Copies of this publication are available from the Access Fund and will also be posted on the Access Fund website:

http://www.accessfund.org.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT:

A Guide to Climbing Issues and the Production of a Climbing Management Plan. Compiled by Aram Attarian, Ph.D.

and Jason Keith, Access Fund Policy Director.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

For assistance with this publication, special thanks go to: Access Fund staff; Mark Eller and Jeff Achey, Editor; The

American Alpine Club; Steve Dieckhoff, Illustrator; Timothy Duck, Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management,

UT; Leave No Trace, Inc., CO; The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS); Claudia Nissley, Cultural Resource

Specialist, CO; Outdoor Industry Association; Jane Rodgers, Vegetation Specialist, Joshua Tree National Park, CA;

and Wildlife Conservation Society, NY.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONTROL NUMBER: 2001130563

››2

CMP

| Executive Summary

Climbing, once an obscure activity with few participants, has become a mainstream form of outdoor recreation.

Climbing occurs in unique environmental settings such as cliff sides, canyons, and alpine areas, which can also

harbor valuable natural and cultural resources. These unique settings also present land managers with distinctive

challenges. Climbing activities take place primarily off-trail, away from developed facilities, and historically have

had little oversight by land managers or owners. Given the ever-growing popularity of climbing and other outdoor

recreation activities, potential impacts on resource values must be considered and appropriate management

actions taken. This need to develop climbing management strategies has led the Access Fund to offer the climbing

management guidelines presented herein. This document outlines successful climbing management practices that

provide for climbing access while protecting resource values. The following chapters address both fundamental

aspects and narrowly-focused issues pertaining to climbing management.

Chapters 1 provides a schematic assessment of a typical climbing area that may prove helpful in examining the

effects of climbing activity on resource values. This illustration is applied to the section on impacts to vegetation.

Chapter 2 presents information on various climbing management issues related to natural resources. Each

topic is discussed by identifying primary issues, citing relevant literature and research, and providing examples

of Management Practices that Work. These practices are well-deﬁ ned methods and management techniques

developed and successfully implemented by various resource management agencies and climber organizations

across the nation to help address climbing management concerns.

Chapter 3 includes a presentation on Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity with an emphasis on issues

relating to Native American sacred sites, archeological and historic sites, pictographs and petroglyphs, and issues

pertinent to the National Historic Preservation Act. A schematic assessment of a climbing area is presented in this

section in relation to cultural resources. Chapter 4, Social Impacts and Climbing, addresses visual impacts and

other considerations such as pets, noise, and litter. Chapter 5 analyzes Activities and Areas of Special Concern

to provide information and awareness on a growing number of climbing activities such as bouldering, ice climbing,

dry tooling, and alpine climbing. This chapter also discusses unique and sometimes controversial climbing

environments like wilderness and caves, and presents a short summary on climbing and economic considerations.

Chapter 6 outlines Climbing Management Methods and discusses speciﬁ c Philosophies and Tools used by land

managers to respond to speciﬁ c climbing issues such as visitor capacity, recent increases in climber visitation,

and the development of new climbing routes. Chapter 7 provides a template for the Production of a Climbing

Management Plan. Emphasis in this chapter is placed on developing clearly stated goals and objectives, deﬁ ning

the scope and longevity of the CMP, and conducting a thorough review of climbing activity by including members of

the relevant user group. An outline for a successful CMP is also suggested.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > The Access Fund

››3

CMP

| Table of Contents

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT:

A Guide to Climbing Management and the Production of a Climbing Management Plan

FORWARD: Introduction and the Purpose and Need of a Climbing Management Plan 1

Chapter 1. Assessment of a Climbing Area 7

Chapter 2. Climbing and Natural Resources 8

Ecological Impacts 8

Climber Trails 9

Bivouac and Backcountry Camping 10

Human Waste 11

Vegetation 13

Water Resources 16

Wildlife 17

Chapter 3. Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity 21

Assessment of Impacts to Cultural Resources 22

Chapter 4. Social Impacts and Climbing 24

Visual or Aesthetic Impacts 25

Fixed Safety Anchors 27

Placement of Bolts as a Resource Protection Tool 27

Liability and Fixed Anchors 28

Pets 30

Noise 31

Litter 31

Guide Services and Organized Climbing Groups 32

Parking and Transportation 34

User Fees 35

Safety and Risk Management 35

Liability 35

Search And Rescue 36

Economic Considerations 37

Chapter 5. Activities and Areas of Special Concern 38

Bouldering 39

Ice Climbing 42

Alpine Areas 43

Designated Wilderness 44

Wilderness and Solitude 45

Wilderness and Fixed Anchors 46

Caves 48

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Table of Contents

››4

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Table of Contents

CMP

| Table of Contents | Continued

CHAPTER 6: Climbing Management Methods 49

Philosophies and Tools 49

Visitor Capacity 50

Increase in Climber Visitation 51

New Climbing Routes 52

CHAPTER 7: Production of a Climbing Management Plan (CMP) 55

Suggested Outline of CMP Contents 56

Hallmarks of a Successful CMP 56

Guidelines for Preparing a CMP 56

APPENDICES:

A ) Types of Climbing Deﬁ ned 62

B ) Glossary of Climbing Terms 64

C ) Outreach and the Development of Education Materials 66

D ) Funding and Volunteer Assistance for Climbing Management 68

E ) Contacts on Climbing Issues 69

F ) Utilizing the Resources of the Access Fund 69

G ) Bibliography and References 71

INDEX: 75

››5

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Introduction

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS

DOCUMENT

The Access Fund was established in 1990 to resolve

issues of climbing access and education. The

organization provides information, human resources,

and grants for access improvements or impact

mitigation, and works closely with climbing advocates

and land managers on access issues, resource

protection, and climbing management initiatives. With

climbing activity on the increase (Outdoor Industry

Foundation 2006), policies and management plans

are being developed throughout the United States that

will have signiﬁ cant effects on climbing access and

experiences in the future. We intend this document

to assist to those involved or interested in climbing

management, and encourage greater consistency in

climbing management policy.

This document is intended for use by land managers,

recreation planners, and climbing representatives (and

any other interested members of the public) who are

working on climbing management issues. It is designed

to reach a range of audiences, with widely varying

management experience and needs. This manual

introduces typical climbing-related issues and suggests

management responses that have proven successful

in the past. The level of management will depend on

the mandate of the managing agency, the relative

importance of climbing compared to other recreation

uses in that area, and stafﬁ ng and budgetary resources.

This document can assist with:

•Providing an enjoyable public land climbing

experience.

•Review of issues related to climbing management

•Production of a climbing management plan

•Identiﬁ cation of management alternatives to address

climbing and resource-protection issues

•Identifying the different recreational values associated

with climbing.

•Coordinating with climbing organizations and local

climbing representatives for the purposes of gathering

information and participating in development and

implementation of climbing management policy.

If you have additional information or comments on

this document please contact the Access Fund:

info@accessfund.org, (303) 545-6772.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, outdoor recreation

activities that contain the elements of risk and

adventure have grown in popularity (Cordell 1999). The

adventure sport of rock climbing, a highly visible and

diverse activity, is no exception to this growth. More

people than ever are participating in climbing in its

many forms—bouldering, sport climbing, ice climbing,

big-wall climbing, and mountaineering (Appendix A).

The primary resources for climbing include cliffs, talus,

glaciers, frozen waterfalls, and boulderﬁ elds, which

are found in a variety of environments. Currently, more

than 2,000 climbing areas have been documented

in the United States, with almost half (47%) of these

found on federal lands (Toula 2003; Stuart-Smith 2003).

Participation rates have been on the rise for the past 25

years. Beginning in the 1980s, participation in climbing

increased 8% from 1980 to 1984 and 12% between

1985 and 1989 (Moser 1990). The 1994-95 National

Survey on Recreation and the Environment reported

300,00 to 400,000 active rock climbers in the United

States, with this number expected to increase 50

percent by year 2050 (Cordell 1999).

More than any other issue, the increase in climber

visitation has driven recent discussions about climbing

management and the development of climbing

management plans. Climbing is as much about

intimacy with nature and exploration of wild places

as it is about personal challenge. As the number of

climbers increases, greater demands will be placed on

the vertical and surrounding environments to support

the various types of climbing activities. As a result,

the climbing experience may be diminished when

the environment is degraded. However, the impacts

associated with climbing activities depend less on

the total number of climbers than on the spatial and

temporal concentrations of climbers in particular

areas. Historically, climbers have had a high standard

of environmental awareness and stewardship—for

example, climbers such as David Brower were

instrumental in passing the 1964 Wilderness Act. Most

managers will acknowledge that climbers as a group

support programs that protect natural resources, as

well as those that protect resources with cultural and

historic values.

CMP

| Forward

››6

CMP

| Chapter 1 | A Guide to Climbing Management

A Schematic Breakdown of a Climbing Area

Illustration: © S. Dieckhoff

CHAPTER 1: A GUIDE TO CLIMBING MANAGEMENT

This chapter addresses the various climbing management issues and

examples of management responses. Assessment of a Climbing Area

introduces the reader to issues that have historically appeared when

climbers begin to use a climbing area in signiﬁ cant numbers.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > A Guide to Climbing Management

› › 7

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Assesment of a Climbing area

ASSESSMENT OF A CLIMBING AREA

This section provides an overview of the unique

management issues related to climbing.

The areas affected by a climbing visit can be split into six

zones. Inspecting these individual zones can help clarify

how, where, and during what stage of a visit climbing

activity may affect rare plants, animals, or archaeological

deposits. This scheme can also assist in distinguishing

the effects of climbers from the effects of other less

conspicuous recreation visitors, such as hikers, who

may also frequent the various zones. The zone scheme

of assessment and other information-gathering tools

can help ensure that management responses accurately

target the correct sites of impact and the use practices

responsible for impact.

A typical climbing visit may be considered to pass

through six zones:

1. The approach to the climb (see glossary for

technical deﬁ nitions of climbing terminology). The

“approach” is the route used to travel from the parking

area to the base of the rock or mountain. It may or may

not include discernible climber trails.

2. The staging area. The approach ends at the “staging

area,” typically the base of the cliff where climbers

prepare to climb and sometimes leave backpacks which

will be retrieved after the descent. In some cases, the

staging area will be at the top of the cliff. Of all the zones

used by climbing visitors, the staging area is typically the

most heavily impacted.

3. The climb. The “climb,” often called the “route,” is

the line of travel up the cliff or mountain. This zone is

typically 6 to 8 feet in width, follows a line that may be

straight or very irregular, depending upon the climbing

terrain, and will extend from the base to the summit, or

sometimes to a ﬁ xed anchor below the summit.

4. The summit. The “summit” is either the top of a

mountain or the rim of a cliff, where one or more climbs

terminate.

5. The descent. The “descent” is the route by which

climbers return to either the staging area or to the

parking area where their visit originated. In some cases,

the descent will involve a climber trail, while in other

cases it may entail a rappel down the rock face.

6. The camping or bivouac area. This zone is the area

used by climbers for overnight stays during the climbing

visit.

In this document, the schematic assessment will be

used in the sections on Impacts to Vegetation and

Cultural Resources. In addition to these sample uses,

the scheme can also be applied in the assessment of

other resources or effects mentioned in this document.

Site visits and surveys may be carried out periodically to

record effects in each zone. Ideally, some baseline data

will be available from prior inventory and monitoring.

This information may then be evaluated in its contextual

environment to determine whether management

intervention is required.

CMP

| Chapter 1 | Assessment of a Climbing Area

Climbers at the base of Super Crack Buttress, Indian Creek, UT.

Photo: © Celin Serbo

››8

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Ecological Impacts

Both resource managers and researchers have reported

a variety of impacts related to rock climbing (Attarian

and Pyke 2000). Soil erosion, the development of

social trails, damage to vegetation both on and off

the rock, improper disposal of human waste, and

disturbance to wildlife have been reported as a result

of climbing activity. Visual impacts to the rock and its

environs, the use of ﬁ xed anchors, potential damage

to historical and cultural sites, and negative recreation

experiences by non-climbers have also been identiﬁ ed

as climbing-related concerns. Impacts have the

potential to compromise the objectives of conserving

the natural environment, can make recreation areas less

attractive or functional to the visitor, and can detract

from the recreation experience through crowding,

conﬂ icts between users, and depreciative behavior

(Cole 1986; McAvoy and Dustin 1983). The potential

impacts associated with outdoor recreation activities like

rock climbing can be divided into three primary areas:

ecological, cultural, and social impacts.

The term “impact” was deﬁ ned by Lucas (1979), as

a neutral term synonymous with change. In contrast,

“damage” and “deterioration” suggest negative changes

in natural resource conditions. However, at least one

study, Hammitt and Cole (1998), deﬁ nes “impact”

as an undesirable change in environmental or social

condition of a recreation site or experience. Impacts are

dependent on three major factors: (1) the amount and

distribution of use, (2) the type and behavior of visitors,

and (3) the ecosystem and its condition (Hendee,

Stankey and Lucas 2005).

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Ecological impacts are those impacts that have

a potential effect on the biological and physical

characteristics of a site or resource, thus making the

area less natural (Hendee, Stankey and Lucas 1990).

While some climbing impacts are similar to those found

in other recreation environments (for example camping

and hiking), managing rock climbing activity poses

special challenges due to the unique character of the

climbing environment, which is spatially diverse and

encompasses both a horizontal and vertical perspective.

The ecological issues presented in the following section

focus on climber trails, bivouacking and backcountry

camping, human waste disposal, vegetation, water

resources, and wildlife.

CLIMBER TRAILS

Many of the trails found in park and natural areas were

originally designed to serve non-recreational uses.

Some of these uses include ﬁ re and logging roads,

livestock and game trails, and trade and travel routes.

Climbers use trails to access and egress climbing areas.

Unlike hiking trails that are designed, constructed, and

maintained by professionals, some trails to climbing

sites are created by climbers when new climbing areas

are developed. Climber trails usually “follow the path

of least resistance,” avoiding obstacles and minimizing

the effort to reach a climbing destination (DeBenedetti

1990). In some cases trails may be ill-deﬁ ned causing

climbers to unknowingly take several trails to the same

destination.

Sometimes called “social trails,” these trails develop

as climbers make repeated visits to climbing-speciﬁ c

destinations that are not serviced by existing trail

systems, or move around in predictable ways within a

climbing area. Typically, climber trails develop in three

general locations: 1) along the quickest route from a

parking area to the climbing site; 2) on the simplest

descent from the top of a mountain or cliff; and 3) on

routes between cliffs and boulders within the climbing

site (DeBenedetti 1990).

The most critical problems associated with trails are soil

compaction, trail widening, trail incision, and soil loss.

Trail degradation is usually a function of site durability,

type of use, and use behavior rather than simply the

amount of use (Leung and Marion 1996). The majority of

environmental changes to trails occur during initial trail

development. Once a trail becomes established, factors

such as soil characteristics, topography, ecosystem

characteristics, climate, and local vegetation’s

resistance and resilience will dictate its prominence in

the landscape (Hammitt and Cole 1998). Climber trails

tend to be primitive with minimal improvements, are

often sited on steep slopes, with loose soils and “scree”

common elements.

Climbers, like other outdoor enthusiasts, have the

potential to disturb soil, particularly in heavily used areas

or where environmental and other factors cause these

areas to be more susceptible to damage. Damage to

soil can limit aeration, affect soil temperature, moisture

content, nutrition, and soil micro-organisms. Erosion,

the most damaging impact to soil, occurs primarily

through the development and use of trails. Problems

may be more serious at higher elevations where the soil

is poor and the growing season shorter (Hammitt and

Cole 1998). Climber trails that are located on soils with

high gravel or mineral content have been found to be

less prone to soil erosion. These materials are not as

easily eroded by water or wind and act as ﬁ lters, binding

and holding on to ﬁ ner soil particles (Leung and Marion

1996).

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Ecological Impacts

CHAPTER 2: CLIMBING AND NATURAL RESOURCES

This chapter introduces and discusses a variety of environmental concerns including trails, camping, human waste,

vegetation, water resources, and wildlife.

› › 9

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Climber Trails

Staging areas and cliff tops are subject to impacts by

other recreationsists such as hikers, backpackers, and

sightseers (Wood, Lawson and Marion 2006; Williams

1990; Long et al. 2003). For example, in California’s

Yosemite National Park, El Capitan Meadow, located

just south of the base of El Capitan, is a popular visitor

destination, especially for tourists observing rock

climbers on “El Cap.” Conditions in the meadow are

becoming increasingly degraded, due in part to a lack of

designated trails and extensive use of social trails. Soil

compaction in this area has been identiﬁ ed as a potential

problem (Ortiz 2006).

The type of climbing that occurs in an area may also

have an affect on the amount of impact an area receives.

Recent research conducted in Kentucky’s Red River

Gorge found impacts to staging areas are different for

sport and traditional (“trad”) climbing. Trail quality, the

number of similarly rated climbs in the area, and the

presence of overhanging rock were found to contribute

to staging area impacts for sport climbs. Factors

contributing to impacts associated with traditional

climbs, on the other hand, include the rating of the climb,

climb quality, approach trail length, and the presence of

overhanging rock (Carr 2006).

Soils in arid environments like those found in Joshua

Tree National Park, CA, and in Arches and Canyonlands

National Parks, UT, may contain cryptobiotic crusts,

which consist of mosses, lichens and blue-green algae

known as cynobacteria. These crusts are important

to the environment, since they increase the water-

holding capacity of soil, increase nutrient cycling, limit

the invasion of weedy, non-native annual grasses,

and reduce soil erosion. Any type of disturbance—for

example hiking and climbing—can compromise the

sediment associated with these crusts (Overlin et al.

1999).

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

CLIMBER TRAILS

If many climbers use an area, some degree of

formalization and stabilization of climber trails will

eventually become desirable. Some climber trails

may be redundant or adversely affect resource or

aesthetic values. Such trails can be minimized or in

some cases eliminated. Local climbing representatives

can provide input on the minimum trail requirements

to access climbing locations. Management response

may initially include conducting a climber trail inventory.

Local climbing guidebooks will often describe climber

access routes, descent routes, and locations of other

climbing-related trails. Consultation with a local climbing

representative or arranging a joint site visit may also help

with climber-trail inventory.

Once trails are documented (typically GPS techniques

are used), a map is created. If necessary, a trails plan

can be developed to eliminate redundant or unnecessary

trails. Some trails may be targeted for stabilization or

upgrading to withstand heavier trafﬁ c, while others may

be closed to protect sensitive resources, and replaced

with new, re-routed trails. This approach was taken by

managers in North Cascades National Park, WA, to

restore the Eldorado Creek drainage, a popular route

used by climbers to access the Eldorado Glacier. The

route had become deeply rutted and eroded. Following

an environmental assessment, a 1,300 foot section of

the trail was rerouted to divert climbers to more resilient

terrain which could withstand impacts that the damaged

area could not. This project was the ﬁ rst attempt by

the park to rehabilitate recreational climbing impacts in

a cross-country or non-trailed area. (North Cascades

National Park 1997).

Local climbing representatives may prove helpful in

dispersing information concerning desired changes in

climber-trail use. Other management options include

signing of management-preferred trails, and brochure,

kiosk, and poster information concerning site advisories

or area closures. There have been many examples of

successful climber trail management. At City of Rocks

National Reserve, ID, climbers and hikers originally used

(and then expanded) livestock trails through sagebrush

vegetation. A park-wide trails plan was developed to

identify a rational trails network and mitigate impacts

(U.S. Department of the Interior 1988).

At Joshua Tree National Park, CA, climber-trail networks

have been formalized using a special climber-speciﬁ c

symbol. This is produced in the form of a weather-

resistant sticker that can be applied to standard trail-

marking carsonite posts.

The symbol (an image of a carabiner—a piece of

climbing equipment) is recognizable to climbers, but

not the general public (Joshua Tree National Park et al.

2000).

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Climber Trails

At Joshua Tree National Park, CA. A special climbing

symbol is used on standard path–marking carsonite

posts to mark climbing access trails. These signs on

the approach to the Hall of Horrors climbing area direct

visitors and reduce the development of duplicate trails.

Photo: © The Access Fund Collection

››10

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Bivouac and Backcountry Camping

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Bivouac and Backcountry Camping

“Cryptic” trails have also been used to limit non-climber

access in areas with sensitive habitat. Such trails are

designated on a park-wide trails plan but not signed

to the general public. This technique has been used

at Snow Canyon State Park, UT, to allow climbing

access to Hidden Canyon, a narrow riparian canyon

with high ecological value. Climber trails may see low

trafﬁ c volume or access steep and difﬁ cult terrain,

and thus may merit special design and maintenance

speciﬁ cations that would be inappropriate for high

volume multi-visitor use trails. Collaboration between

park management and the climbing community

improved trails, created belay platforms, and erected

directional signs at Smith Rock State Park, OR,

to control trail erosion and enhance the climbing

experience.

BIVOUAC AND BACKCOUNTRY CAMPING

Camping or bivouacking may be required as part of

a climbing objective. This may take place either on

the approach, on the climb itself, or on the descent.

Unplanned bivouacs are not uncommon, and typically

occur after a long backcountry route not completed

by nightfall. Climbing in the interior of mountain ranges

or on remote cliffs usually requires a planned camping

experience to put the climbers in position to do a long

route requiring an early start. Sometimes there will be

a need to camp for several days in one area if a long

and challenging route is intended (which might require

several attempts), or if there are several route objectives

in the area. Climbing on some of the large cliff faces

of Yosemite, Zion, Rocky Mountain, and Black Canyon

of the Gunnison National Parks may require bivouacs

on the climb itself. Hanging tents called “portaledges”

provide shelter and are designed to withstand minor

storms during a multi-day climbing ascent.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

As climbing becomes more popular, climbers

visiting well known climbing areas will require additional

camping areas. Climbers in the New River Gorge

National River, WV, and the Obed Wild and Scenic River,

TN, have indicated a need for public campgrounds.

The American Alpine Club is working with the Mohonk

Preserve and the state of New York in developing a

climbers’ campground. Under the proposal, the state

would assist in the development of a 45-acre, 20-site

campground scheduled to open in 2008 (American

Alpine Club 2005).

Volunteers on a trail-building project at North Table

Mountain, Colorado. Funding for materials and

trail design can also be obtained from climbing

organizations. Photo: © Access Fund Collection

Permits are required for overnight bivouacs

in Rocky Mountain National Park to access

popular alpine climbing areas such as the

Petit Grepon. At the backcountry ranger

ofﬁ ce, permit holders are provided with a

mapped location of the site they should

use and information on minimizing impacts

at bivouac sites. Photo: © K. Pyke

››11

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Human Waste Disposal

Bivouacking must be considered a fundamental aspect

of the climbing experience in many areas. If the area

receives a high level of use, management response

may include outreach to ensure low-impact practices,

site monitoring, the designation of bivouac sites,

permit requirements, or, occasionally, the provision of a

primitive facility in order to reduce human impacts over

a wider area. For a sample of a heavily used area, see

the backcountry camping and bivouac policy for Rocky

Mountain National Park, CO (Table 1).

Table 1.

Bivouac Permit Rocky Mountain National Park

A bivouac is a temporary, open-air encampment

established between dusk and dawn and is issued only

to technical climbers. The permit also provides technical

climbers with an advanced position on long, one-day

climbs and/or climbs that require an overnight stay on

the rock face. All bivouacs require permits. Permits must

be in your possession while in the backcountry.

You must be within a designated bivouac area. Your

bivouac should on a durable surface such as rock or

snow as close to the base of the climb as possible or on

the face. Reservations may be made for the restricted

areas on or after March 1st, by mail, in person, and by

phone (through May 15th).

A total of 7 nights may be used in the SUMMER. Stay no

more than 3 nights at any spot, then move. An additional

14 nights are allowed in WINTER. In Winter, you may use

a tent.

A vehicle/parking permit will be issued for all vehicles

parked at the trailhead. Have the vehicle license

number(s) available when you get your bivouac permit.

The parking permit must be displayed on the vehicle

dashboard.

Bivouac Parameters:

• A climbing party is limited to a maximum of 4 people;

all must climb.

• A site must be 3-1/2 miles or more from the trailhead

• A climb must be 4 or more pitches, roped, technical

climbing.

• A site must be off all vegetation. You must sleep on

rock or snow.

• No tents are allowed. You may use a ground cloth.

• Pets, weapons, & vehicles are not allowed.

(Rocky Mountain National Park 1999)

In some areas with big-wall climbing opportunities, such

as Zion National Park, UT,

http://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/permits.htm, a

permit is required to bivouac on multi-day climbs.

Where permit processes are in place, they should be

well advertised to users to avoid unintentional non-

compliance. The process for obtaining a permit should

be straightforward. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison

National Park, CO, uses a self-service permit system

located at a kiosk near the climber descent route into the

canyon. Reservation-only permit systems have proven

to be problematical for both climbers and managers.

Climbing is a weather-dependent activity, and bad

weather conditions lead to late cancellations, while

good weather may create a sudden demand for permits.

Depending upon the speciﬁ c climbing route, it may be

daily or weekly forecasts that inﬂ uence demand, creating

signiﬁ cant administrative challenges for a fair and

accessible permit-distribution system.

HUMAN WASTE DISPOSAL

The disposal of human waste is an important issue in the

management of climbing as it can create human health

problems through direct or indirect contact with drinking

water, cause negative reactions of climbers and non-

climbers who come in contact with improperly disposed

of human waste (and the impact this may have on their

recreation experience), and the transmission of disease-

causing pathogens from human feces (Cilimburg, Monz

and Kehoe 2000).

Human waste generated by climbers can be managed in

the same ways as waste from backcountry hikers. Site

assessment can identify whether impacts are due to

poor disposal methods or long-term cumulative effects,

and appropriate management strategies can then be

designed. In general, trailhead toilets and other waste-

disposal facilities will be used if available. Many climbers

may be aware of minimum-impact waste disposal

practices, and this knowledge can be reinforced by

education outreach. The handbook Skills and Ethics for

Rock Climbing (Leave No Trace

2001) describes ways

climbers can minimize their impacts. Climbers from

foreign countries may have different waste-disposal

standards. Building awareness and compliance among

foreign visitors should be incorporated in outreach

programs, for example, by producing education

materials in the primary languages of foreign climbers.

Grant assistance can be obtained from climbing

organizations for such projects. The best methods

for human waste disposal will vary with different

environments.

Educating climbers on the proper disposal of waste is an

important management and public health consideration.

In the past, ﬁ nding a solution to the human-waste

problem was difﬁ cult due to a lack of climber

compliance, inadequate funding, disposal issues, and

differences in environments (Nickel 1994). However this

attitude towards human waste disposal is changing.

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Human Waste Disposal

››12

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Humna Waste Management

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

HUMAN WASTE DISPOSAL

Managers in Grand Teton National Park, WY, recently

implemented a new system of human waste removal and

reduce the need for the vault toilet located on the Grand

Teton’s Lower Saddle (Anzelmo and Skaggs 2002). The

new system provides mountain guides, their clients, and

individual climbers with special triple-layer mylar bags,

called “Restop2,”

http://www.whennaturecalls.com to encourage a new

“pack-out” method, replacing the need for the stationary,

high-elevation toilet. Restop2 is a blend of polymers and

enzymes housed in a specially designed plastic bag.

The system works by containing human waste and then

converting it into an environmentally friendly material

that can be packed out in the onetime-use bags and

deposited in the appropriate trash receptacles located

at the Lupine Meadows trailhead. Similar practices are

being tried by Utah Open Lands at Castle Valley and the

BLM at Indian Creek, UT (Osius 2006), where a pack-in/

pack-out policy has been instituted promoting the use of

Wag Bags http://www.thepett.com/, a product similar to

Restop2, to pack out human waste.

Poop Tubes: In popular big-wall climbing areas that

require bivouacs such as Zion and Yosemite National

Parks it is mandatory to remove human waste by

carrying a “poop tube” (specially designed human waste

storage container) or other type of container, which is

hauled with equipment up the climb. The poop tube

is constructed from PVC pipe. The climber defecates

into a paper bag, adds a small amount of kitty litter

to reduce odors, and places the bag into the tube.

After descending, the climber empties the contents of

the tube (less any plastics bags) into any vault toilet.

If climbers are using Wag Bags or Restop2 with their

poop tubes then the bags may be disposed of in any

conventional garbage can, thus making waste disposal

more convenient for climbers and less problematic for

agencies to manage.

Climbing equipment manufacturers are beginning

to promote the “pack it in, pack it out” principle by

developing waste management systems. One product,

the Waste Case, developed by Metolius

http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/wastecase.htm is

designed to carry waste bags on big walls.

Waste Case Disposal System: Clean Mountain Can

(CMC). Denali National Park and Preserve, AK, has

an ongoing research program on human waste in the

glacier environment. Outhouses are provided on glaciers

at some of the most popular Denali camping areas and

climbs. During 2001, the NPS ran a series of successful

trials with “clean mountain cans” (CMC)—plastic waste-

disposal receptacles (a smaller, lighter version of a

commercially designed river toilet box) issued voluntarily

to climbers going above 14,200 feet on the West

Buttress route. During the 2003 climbing season, the

box toilet was removed from its 17,200-foot location and

replaced by the CMC. The CMC is now the method for

the removal of human waste from the mountain above

14,200 feet. http://www.nps.gov/archive/dena/home/

mountaineering/cmc.htm. This project was supported

by a $5500 Access Fund grant and has been very

successful.

Blue Bags: On Mount Rainier and other Cascade peaks,

human waste is deposited in “Blue Bags” available from

ranger stations and high camps. The Blue Bag system

contains one clear bag, one blue bag, and twist ties. To

use the “Blue Bag,” the climber defecates on the snow

and collects the waste by using the light blue bag like a

glove. The blue bag is turned inside out, secured with a

twist tie, placed in the clear bag and closed with a twist

tie. Finally, the bag is deposited in one of many labeled

collection barrels throughout the park. http://www.nps.

gov/mora/climb/climb.htm.

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Human Waste Disposal

The Leave No Trace,

Inc. publication on rock

climbing provides guidance

on how impacts from

climbing can be reduced by

following the seren Leave

No Trace principles.

› › 1 3

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Impacts to Vegetation

Similar practices have been implemented in North

Cascades National Park, WA, and at Mount Shasta,

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA, where visitors are

provided with plastic bags for packing out human waste.

EDUCATIONAL VIDEO:

The use of video to educate visitors on various safety,

environmental, or local procedures has become popular

in recent years due the advances in technology. Videos

can be shown online in visitor centers, ranger stations,

rented, or copied. They should be entertaining and

professionally produced, and ought to be considered

as a supplement to other informational media. Careful

consideration should also be given to their length (ideally

5-10 minutes) (Douchette and Cole 1993). The Friends

of Indian Creek (UT) recently produced a public service

announcement video called: The Wag Bag Movement

to promote responsible waste management at Indian

Creek. The video see http://accessfund.org/extras/tic.

php supports the use of Wag Bags and other portable

human waste bags as a way to protect the desert

environment. It also helps educate visitors on why

waste should be packed out and will help guarantee

the success of the BLM’s new management plan for

Indian Creek. In addition, kiosks have been installed

with climber information and free Wag Bag dispensers

(Friends of Indian Creek 2006).

IMPACTS TO VEGETATION

Of all the changes that occur as a result of recreational

use, impacts to vegetation are the most visible

(Hammitt and Cole 1998). The most common impacts

to vegetation at climbing sites occur through trampling

or by mechanically removing vegetation from the rock

surface when establishing new climbing routes. Trees

can also be compromised due to the effects of trampling

and their use as rappel or belay anchors, or manually

removed to make way for a climbing route. Most damage

to vegetation occurs during the initial development of a

new climbing site. Climbers may contribute to vegetation

damage by removing (commonly referred to as

“cleaning” or “gardening”) lichen, ferns, mosses, small

trees, and other vegetation from the cliff face (Rocky

Mountain National Park 1990). Camping in sensitive

areas such as cliff tops and staging areas may also

compromise vegetation.

Recreational impacts to vegetation are caused by

either direct or indirect ways and vary according to

season of use, frequency and amount of use, and the

type of activity (Hammitt and Cole 1998). A number of

intervening factors can inﬂ uence the susceptibility of

vegetation to the impacts associated with climbing and

the recreational use of parks and natural areas.

For example, the response of vegetation to outdoor

recreation activities like hiking, camping, backpacking,

and climbing can vary according to the genetic make-

up of the plant, the characteristics of its life cycle, the

ability to adapt to its environment, and the anatomical

differences inherent to growth habit and morphology

(Kuss, Graefe and Vaske 1990).

Environmental factors like soil moisture levels, canopy

density, elevation, aspect, microclimate, soil drainage,

texture, fertility, and productivity may make plants more

susceptible to impacts (Kuss, Graefe and Vaske 1990;

Spear and Schifman 1979; Monz et al. 1994). Cliff-edge

vegetation and soil are strongly inﬂ uenced by human

factors (Parkikeist, Larson and Matthes-Sears 1995)

and seasonal inﬂ uences may also affect vegetation.

Care should be taken in deserts and alpine areas since

these areas are highly susceptible to vegetation damage

due to the lack of vegetation, water, and organic soils.

Alpine environments are the most fragile and impacts

very noticeable due to a short growing season and the

presence of low temperatures, which preserve impacts

and extend the time needed for recovery (Hampton and

Cole 2003).

Until recently, cliffs were completely overlooked by

scientists as they represented geological rather than

biological habitats, and were viewed as inaccessible,

unsafe, unimportant, or impossible to sample

(Larson 1989). However, recent exploration of these

vertical environments has discovered diverse natural

communities that contain rare ﬂ ora and fauna. This

interest in “cliff ecology” has led some researchers

to explore the effects of rock climbing on cliff

environments. Early research suggested that climbing

activity has the potential to impact vegetation. Farris

(1998) hypothesized that differences in vegetation

between climbed and unclimbed cliffs were a result of

climbers avoiding heavily vegetated cliffs due to the

presence of the vegetation itself. More recent reports

support the notion that some of the studies exploring

the impact of climbing on cliff plant communities did

not take into account habitat, physical (topography)

differences between climbed and unclimbed cliffs, the

style of climbing (e.g. sport, traditional, aid, bouldering)

or the difﬁ culty of the routes sampled (Kuntz and Larson

2006; Walker et. al. 2004). Scientists and academics

continue to study the relationship between climbing and

cliff ecologies, sometimes with inconsistent conclusions.

However, research examining climbing and vegetation

impacts suggests that some types of vegetation are

more resistant to the effects of trampling than others

(Nuzzo 1995; 1996). Vegetation may be more or less

affected by climbing activity based on their location

on the cliff-face (Nuzzo 1996) and by the presence of

cracks, ledges, crevices, and other topographic features

(Kuntz and Larson 2006).

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Impacts to Vegetation

››14

The types of vegetation and percent coverage on

climbed cliff faces may differ from vegetation found on

unclimbed cliffs (Smith 1998; Rusterholtz, Muller and

Bauer 2004). Some species may be more susceptible

to impacts during early stages of development (Malkin

2002). Researchers have also noted that lichens and

mosses may be more vulnerable to the effects of

climbing activity than vascular plants (Malkin 2002;

Smith 1998) and exotic species may increase with more

disturbance (Overlin et al. 1999).

SCHEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

TO VEGETATION

Vegetation concerns at climbing areas will vary between

the different zones used by the climber: the approach

(both on and off trail), the staging area, climb, summit,

descent, and camping or bivouac area.

1. The approach. The proximity of undesignated

climber approach trails to federal- and state-listed

species or special plant communities may be of concern,

especially if trampling and disturbance affect the species

in question. Management responses to these concerns

often focus on trail diversion or area closures away from

sensitive vegetation and soils. For example, at the Echo

Cliffs climbing area in San Monica Mountains National

Recreation Area, CA, trails were diverted around areas

containing coyote bush, a sensitive endemic plant.

2. The staging area. Typically, staging areas receive

the most concentrated effects from climbing visitors.

Management responses to mitigate impacts have

included site hardening, barriers, exclusion zones,

and visitor dispersion to more robust sites through

selective publicity, signing, and trail management. Often,

heavy trafﬁ c on speciﬁ c climbs will lead to isolated

occurrences of trampling and subsequent erosion at

certain staging areas. Local climbers can provide useful

information, such as locations of particularly popular

climbs, or multiple climbs that share a common staging

area.

Penitente Canyon, CO: to address climbing impacts to

vegetation the BLM has produced educational materials

that encourage minimum-impact practices and allow

recognition of signiﬁ cant species. Such information

may also be printed in area climbing guidebooks. Local

climbing groups or representatives may be able to assist

managers to develop an effective outreach strategy. For

example, managers at White Mountain National Forest,

NH, worked with the Rumney Climbers Association to

highlight the sensitivity of the fern Dryopteris fragans

through pictures and special symbols in guidebooks,

brochures, and on notice boards. Climbers may also be

able to assist with vegetation surveys.

3. The climb. Climbers may traverse important plant

habitat on the cliff face itself. Effects may include

dislodging of organic matter from cracks, or direct

contact with plants by climbing shoes, hands, or

ropes. Damage to ferns, mosses, and lichens may

be of particular concern (Nuzzo 1996; Farris 1998).

Management responses to vegetation concerns on

the cliff face include placement of ﬁ xed anchors to

protect tree specimens. They can also be used to

protect vegetation communities on belay ledges from

trampling by diverting use away from their occurrence.

Other measures include targeted outreach on species

recognition and avoidance practices, and individual

climbing route restrictions.

4. The summit. Vegetation at the summit or cliff rim

is often especially susceptible to trampling due to its

exposed position and thin soils (Figure 4). In some

locations, intensive summit activity has led to severe

erosion around cliff-top trees used for anchors, and

their destabilization at the cliff edge. At Leominster State

Park, MA, this type of erosion problem was successfully

addressed with domestic landscaping techniques.

The cliff edge was stabilized using wood and stone

materials, and ﬁ xed anchors were placed at the cliff

edge as an alternative to tree belays. If climbing activity

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Impacts to Vegetation

A Schematic Breakdown of a Climbing

Area | Illustration: © S. Dieckhoff

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Impacts to Vegetation

› › 1 5

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Impacts to Vegetation

impacts sensitive vegetation on the cliff edge, consider

promoting the use of ﬁ xed anchors below the summit.

Such anchors can allow climbers to descend by

rappelling instead of needing to exit over cliff edges to

access descent trails. Such rappel stations have been

successfully used at New River Gorge National River,

WV, and Chickamauga and Chattanooga National

Military Park (Sunset Rock), TN to reduce impacts on

summit vegetation.

5. The descent. Descent from cliffs or summits may

involve any combination of walking, down-climbing,

and rappelling. Although rappelling is generally

more dangerous than walking off, it causes the least

disturbance to vegetation. This practice is required at

Shiprock, NC, where rare and sensitive vegetation are

known to exist. Descent by walk-off may destabilize

loose-soiled slopes and gullies and accelerate natural

erosion processes. Where climbing activity has been

determined to affect sensitive resource values, consider

placing signs to divert use from sensitive or impacted

areas, stabilization of existing descent trails, trail

diversion, or construction of new trails. Refer to the

study on the effects of human disturbance on summit

vegetation on Devils Tower (Driese and Roth 1992),

which describes how the summit vegetation was

protected through discrete signing and trail deﬁ nition.

6. Camping or Bivouac Areas. Bivouac areas may

show trampling and soil-disturbance impacts similar to

those in staging areas, and management response may

be desirable. Education should focus on minimum-

impact camping and Leave No Trace principles. In

some areas, climbers are required to camp and cook

on “durable surfaces” such as rock, gravel, or snow,

instead of on vegetated areas. For more information, see

the Leave No Trace, Inc. website: http://www.lnt.org and

the backcountry camping and bivouac policy for Rocky

Mountain National Park, CO, described in the public-

education brochure Rocky Mountain National Park

Technical Climbing and the Bivouac Permit.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

IMPACTS TO VEGETATION

Effects on vegetation at a climbing area should be

considered within the context of the overall resource.

Analysis should address how much of the overall habitat

or resource value is impacted by climbing. For example,

an approach trail may disrupt or destroy small quantities

of a valued vegetation type, but if this vegetation occurs

in large quantities elsewhere in the area, the effect of

the trail may be deemed insigniﬁ cant. Conversely, if

the affected area represents a signiﬁ cant portion of

the resource or its habitat, then the same quantity of

disturbance would be considered a serious impact. The

staging area for a climb might have isolated occurrences

of a special-status plant, but the habitat may be marginal

compared with other sites. Conversely, the cliff-side

site might represent prime habitat and support a high-

quality occurrence of the plant. Each scenario suggests

a different management response.

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Impacts to Vegetation

Typical example of a top rope anchor using

webbing to extend the anchor from tree belays.

Impacts to vegetation at the cliff top are caused

by climbers accessing the cliff top to install and

later remove the webbing belay anchor. These

may include exposed roots, soil compaction and

vegetation loss. The placement of bolt anchors

below the cliff edge could reduce these impacts.

The top rope can be seen running through the

carabiner just over the edge of the cliff–this is the

approximate location where the ﬁ xed anchors

could be positioned. Illustration: © S. Dieckhoff

Trees are often used on multi-pitch climbs for

belay anchors or rappel descent. Despite the

placement of slings, the tree will be subject to

trampling effects and abrasion. Impacts to the

tree can be reduced, or avoided by the placement

of ﬁ xed anchors (shown here). Local conditions

(e.g. where the climb ends, rock suitability,

topography, land designation) will dictate whether

placement of anchors is practical or appropriate.

Illustration: © S. Dieckhoff

››16

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Water Resources

As the popularity of rock climbing continues to grow,

monitoring vegetation in areas heavily impacted by rock

climbing becomes an important tool for developing

sound management practices. Monitoring is a way

of identifying a change in population, density, size,

or distribution using some form of periodic survey.

Ecosystems are complex, so appropriate monitoring

can require considerable commitment of time and

resources. The ﬁ rst step should be to speciﬁ cally

deﬁ ne the objectives for monitoring, which will then

allow an appropriate monitoring method to be selected.

For example, a photo-monitoring system can be

implemented establishing photo points, with a protocol

and an implementation plan including who will do the

photography, and how often. A more complex monitoring

method could involve permanent plots to be sampled

by a specialist at appropriate intervals. The Cliff Ecology

Research Group (University of Guelph in Ontario,

Canada) and Appalachian State University, Boone, NC,

have developed consistent techniques to monitor and

measure human disturbance on cliff environments.

Joshua Tree National Park and the California Native

Plant Society established a system to monitor approach

trails to climbing sites (Joshua Tree National Park et al.

2000). Other methodologies for monitoring cliff habitat

in the eastern U.S. are described in the studies by Farris

(1998) and Nuzzo (1996). Monitoring programs should

include direction on management response based on

the scientiﬁ c data collected. Programs should be able to

address questions such as:

•At what point are the data evaluated?

•If change is slow, and severe impacts will not be

detectable for many years, what is the best interim

management approach?

•Conversely, if change is fast, what should the response

be?

•What education and outreach mechanisms are in

place between managers and users to relay monitoring

information and proposed responses?

WATER RESOURCES

The impact of recreation on water resources is the

least mentioned and understood feature of visitor

management (Kuss, Graefe and Vaske 1990). Like

other outdoor recreationists, climbers may unknowingly

impact the quality of surface water through a variety of

mechanisms, including improper human waste disposal,

trampling of soft soils and vegetation, and poor camping

practices.

The presence of humans in the backcountry can lead

to the contamination of surface water with Giardia and

other protozoan and viruses. Water sources may be

contaminated through surface run-off, especially when

fecal matter is deposited improperly by humans (or

dogs) and where little soil or organic matter is present

(Cilimburg, Monz and Kehoe 2000). Water contamination

may also be linked to an increase in the population

of rodents and other mammals made possible by the

availability of human food sources.

Water resources are critical to the ecological value of

an area. The extended presence of climbers or other

visitors in an area may deter the use of water sources

by wildlife. Approaches or descents from climbing

areas may pass near water sources such as desert

guzzlers, seeps, pools, creeks, and lakes. Undesignated

climber trails may lead to encounters with water sources

more frequently than trails planned with knowledge of

sensitive water-source locations.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

WATER RESOURCES

If there are concerns about effects from climbing activity

on a speciﬁ c water resource, the pattern of climbing use

for that area and interactions with the resource should

be determined. It may help to consult local guidebooks

and climbing representatives when gathering this

information. Resource specialists can advise on

the sensitivity of local wildlife to human intrusion.

Management responses may include education, re-

routing or closure of trails, seasonal climbing restrictions

on climbing areas proximal to water sources, or limits on

visitor numbers in an area.

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Water Resources

› › 1 7

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wildlife

WILDLIFE

Both climbers and wildlife share cliffs: climbers use

them to pursue their sport and wildlife needthem for

feeding, breeding, and nesting (Knight and Gutzwiller

1995). For some wildlife species, the mere presence of

recreationists can cause disturbance, regardless of the

activity involved. Recreational activities that take place

in wildlife habitats may also cause a change in behavior,

alter reproductive behavior, and cause wildlife to avoid

parts of their normal range (Gander and Ingold 1997).

There are some studies that suggest that the tolerance

for a given species depends on when and where human

disturbance occurs. For example, White, Kendall

and Picton (1999) examined the effects of climber

disturbance on Grizzly Bears and found that when bears

detected climbers they subsequently spent 53% less

time foraging, 52% more time moving within the foraging

area, and 23% more time behaving aggressively.

Rock outcrops and cliffs are important wildlife habitat,

especially for birds and other species. Birds beneﬁ t

directly by these features as they provide shelter

and nesting sites, and indirectly by providing diverse

vegetation structure. Cliffs and rock formations are also

important to birds because of their stability, promoting

the continuous use of these areas as breeding habitat.

Birds that use these habitats for nesting tend to be highly

specialized and therefore more likely to experience

loss and degradation of nesting habitat. Recreational

activities like climbing have the potential to disrupt

normal activity by altering species distribution, disrupting

nest attentiveness patterns, causing abandonment of

breeding territories, reducing productivity, and affecting

foraging behavior even when climbers do not have direct

contact with eggs, young, or adults.

Although undocumented, climbers have the potential to

cause negative effects on birds (especially raptors) by:

(1) ﬂ ushing a bird from its nest, leading to nest failure

during incubation, (2) opening the nest to predation,

(3) exposing eggs or young to inclement weather, (4)

knocking eggs or young birds from the nest by a startled

bird, (5) dehydration or changes in humidity occurring if

eggs are left unprotected, (6) feeding disruption when

adults are kept from the nest for extended periods, and

(7) physical damage to young birds that become lost

or abandoned if they ﬂ edge prematurely (Lanier and

Joseph 1989; Knight and Skagen 1988; Rocky Mountain

National Park 1990). In some instances, climbers have

reported being harassed by raptors when climbing near

a nest, compromising the safety of the climber (Rocky

Mountain National Park 1990).

As the popularity of rock climbing increases, the nesting

success of some birds may be reduced and changes

in cliff bird communities questioned, although this has

yet to be scientiﬁ cally determined. To investigate these

potential issues some studies have been conducted. An

early study in Pinnacles National Monument, CA, was

undertaken to collect baseline information to develop

management decisions concerning conﬂ icts between

climbers and raptors (Cymerys and Walton 1988).

Although no conﬂ icts were reported between raptors

and climbers, it was noted that potential for conﬂ ict did

exist. Researchers in Joshua Tree National Park, CA,

recorded observations for both climbed and unclimbed

cliffs (Camp and Knight 1998) and discovered that

bird species and bird behavior differed between sites

with different levels of rock climbing. Researchers at

the Mohonk Preserve, NY, (the “Gunks”) documented

the ﬁ rst black vulture nest in New York State near

Bonticou Crag in 1997. This ﬁ nding is signiﬁ cant, as the

Shawangunk Ridge is currently the northern range of the

black vulture.

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Wildlife

City of Boulder, Colorado manages over a dozen

seasonal wildlife restrictions each year to protect

three species of cliff-nesting raptor. Shown here is

an example of interpretative material posted on

trails for hikers and climbers.

››18

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wildlife

››18

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Wildlife

In a popular rock climbing area like the Gunks, it is

important for this species’ successful establishment to

determine its sensitivity to human presence. Since the

black vulture can tolerate humans at close range the

Preserve may need to close climbs or sections of cliffs

to avoid disturbing nesting activities (Mohonk Preserve

2006).

Managers with input from climbers at the Gunks are also

addressing issues surrounding the Common Raven, a

non-threatened species. During spring 2004, about 20

climbs were closed as part of an “ecological restriction”

to accommodate nesting ravens in the Scrotum Pole

area. These birds may be impacted by technical rock

climbers as they nest directly on the cliffs. If a nest is

discovered, the nesting area will be closed to climbers

until ﬂ edglings have left the nest (Mohonk Preserve

2006).

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

WILDLIFE

Climbing activity can affect wildlife in ways including

attraction, habituation, and avoidance. Human presence

can affect the reproductive success of wildlife by

causing disturbance during breeding, feeding, or

resting, or by disruption of habitat. Local climbing

representatives can provide information on climbing

activity and use patterns to assist resource specialists

in understanding where and how climbing may affect

wildlife values. Evaluation of climbing effects on wildlife

should also consider effects by non-climbing visitors.

Education strategies may focus on promoting awareness

and recognition of sensitive species, utilization of

wildlife-proof food-storage techniques, and general

minimum-impact practices to protect habitat.

Management techniques may include diversion

of approach or descent trails to minimize habitat

fragmentation or wildlife disturbance, and use limits and

seasonal restrictions for species with special-protection

status.

The majority of existing wildlife-related climbing

restrictions have been implemented to protect cliff-

nesting raptors (e.g., Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon,

and Golden Eagle). Seasonal climbing restrictions

protect nest sites during the breeding season by

partial or complete closure of cliffs where raptors nest.

Restrictions usually extend from February through to

mid-August, but vary with elevation and latitude. Ideally,

sites are regularly monitored and restrictions may be

lifted or altered if birds fail to nest, change nest sites, or

if birds ﬂ edge before the end of the restriction date. If

seasonal restrictions are deemed necessary, their spatial

extent will depend on many factors. Considerations will

include the species-speciﬁ c factors such as distribution,

history of breeding success, ecological requirements,

and how climbing or other recreation activities affect

behavior or nesting requirements.

Example of outreach for a seasonal climbing restriction at Eldorado

Canyon State Park, Colorado, to protect nesting prairie falcons.

The image indicates by picture and name of climbing routes the

restricted area. This information is posted on approach paths at the

climbing area and on the park’s web site.

Seasonal climbing restrictions protect cliff-nesting raptors during their

most vulnerable time. There are over 100 restrictions in place at U.S.

climbing locations each year (see www.accessfund.org).

Photo: © Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

› › 1 9

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wildlife

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Wildlife

Restriction boundaries typically take into account cliff

features such as protruding buttresses that may serve

as visual and sound barriers, vertical height of nests,

pattern of climbing use such as proximity of established

climbing routes, and tolerance of individual pairs of

birds.

Several seasonal restrictions on climbing and hiking

use managed by City of Boulder Open Space and

Mountain Parks, CO, range from 160 to 1,300 feet from

the nest site. Restrictions to protect nesting prairie

falcons at Devils Tower National Monument, WY are

initially based on a standard distance of 50 meters from

the nest site, but can be greater or smaller from year

to year depending on the location of the nest sites and

the conﬁ guration of the cliff sector and adjacent rock

climbing routes. There are many examples of managers

working closely with local climbing groups on raptor

issues.

In the Southeastern United States, the North Carolina

Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has carried

out some observational work on falcon behavior in

response to climbing activity (Cecil and McGrath 2000).

This study, conducted on Whitesides Mountain, NC,

used controlled climbing activity to determine if climbers

using speciﬁ c routes caused any visible disturbance to

the nesting Peregrine Falcons.

Documentation of the falcons’ behavior (data was

gathered by watching nest sites and recording

disturbance activities) allowed the NCWRC to make

recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service that certain

routes be opened for climbing.

This study, as well as the NCWRC’s monitoring work at

nearby Linville Gorge Wilderness, illustrates how it may

be possible to mitigate the effects of raptor closures on

recreation access, while still meeting resource protection

objectives. The NCWRC also coordinates a statewide

intra-agency program to provide the public with regular

updates on the status of seasonal restrictions during the

nesting season.

In another example, climbers and NPS managers

are working together in New River Gorge (WVA) to

successfully monitor peregrine activity. The Park Service

is asking climbers to voluntarily limit their use of the

Endless Wall area and consider alternative sites because

of the Peregrine’s sensitivity to human activities when

seeking suitable nesting sites. To date climbers have

been responsive to the NPS request and have not only

directed their activities to other areas within the Gorge,

but have also helped the NPS release chicks in the area.

See www.nps.gov/neri/naturescience/peregrine.htm.

Sign used to notify the public of a seasonal climbing

restriction to protect a Golden Eagle nest site at Smith

Rock State Park, Oregon. Photo: © K. Pyke

Volunteers can provide technical assistance for

surveying and monitoring projects, and may be

interested in being trained to participate in ﬁ eld projects

that require climbing skills. Local climbing

groups can be contacted to seek interested volunteers.

Conversely climbers should contact their local agency

or management unit to inquire about volunteer

opportunities.Photo: New Hampshire Audubon Society

››20

CMP

| Chapter 2 | Climbing and Natural Resources | Wildlife

Climbers may travel long distances to climb speciﬁ c

routes or cliffs, so management concerns have often

included ways to make closure information easily

available to the climbing public. Eldorado Canyon State

Park, CO, and Pinnacles National Monument, CA,

provide excellent outreach to users with information

posted on their own or linked websites. See:

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/EldoradoCanyon/ and

http://www.nps.gov/archive/pinn/home.htm.

In addition, managers at these areas have posted

signs at trailheads and approach trails. The City of

Boulder, CO, provides a dedicated 24-hour telephone

information line to update visitors on seasonal raptor

restrictions. Another example of public outreach on

cliff-nesting raptor issues is the education brochure

Raptor Protection Closures (Rocky Mountain National

Park 1998). There are currently (2007) over 100 climbing

locations in the United States with seasonal climbing

restrictions to protect nesting raptors. A complete listing

of these sites is provided on the Access Fund website:

http://www.accessfund.org.

Other species that have received protection during

the breeding season through seasonal restrictions

include Desert Bighorn Sheep, various bat species, and

several desert reptiles. The City of Boulder protects

maternity colonies of Fringed Myotis Bat through annual

restrictions from April 1 to September 1. In the Pusch

Ridge Wilderness, Coronado National Forest, AZ,

desert bighorn sheep populations are protected during

the lambing season from January 1 to April 1. In Snow

Canyon State Park, UT, riparian corridors supporting Gila

Monster, Desert Tortoise, and Chuckwalla populations

are restricted to access from March 1 to November 15.

For further information on the management of raptor

issues, refer to the handbook “Raptors and Climbers

– Guidance for managing technical climbing to protect

raptor nest sites” (Pyke, 1997); and to “Climbing and

Resource Management –An Annotated Bibliography”

(Access Fund and North Carolina State University, 2000).

The Access Fund website also serves as a clearinghouse

for information on climbing management practices

around the country, including wildlife management

policies implemented by various public land agencies.

See http://accessfund.org/resources/ncms.php.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wildlife

The New River Gorge Peregrine Falcon Program, Fayetteville, WV.

Photo: © Gary Hartley www.garyhartley.com

› › 2 1

CMP

| Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3: CULTURAL RESOURCES AND CLIMBING ACTIVITY

This chapter discusses issues relevant to Native American sacred sites, archeological and historic sites, pictographs

and petroglyphs, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Compiled with assistance from Claudia Nissley, Cultural Resource Specialist.

Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, Native American sacred sites, archaeological sites, petroglyphs

and pictographs, ancient and historic trails, historic mining areas, cabins, springs, and landscapes that may include

a mountain or a river. Foot trafﬁ c, climber trails, ground compaction, chalk residue, and other effects associated with

climbing activities may affect cultural resources just as they do natural resources. Climbing activity often interfaces

with cultural resources and may result in the development of climbing management plans on federal lands.

Climbers are often attracted to the same geologic formations that Native Americans identify as traditional cultural

and religious places. One example of this type of geologic feature is Devils Tower National Monument near Hulett,

WY. Devils Tower is an international climbing destination and is also known as Bear’s Lodge by the Lakota people.

It is sacred to over 40 American Native tribes. Another example is the unique geological formations in the City of

Rocks National Reserve, ID, which is managed by the National Park Service as a signiﬁ cant historic park. The rocks

and surrounding area served as an important meeting place for emigrants heading West on foot and by wagons in

the 1860s. Hueco Tanks State Historical Park, TX, is a unique environment and ecosystem that includes exceptional

rock art, unusual climbing, and rare fauna and ﬂ ora. Hueco Tanks State Historical Park is managed for its unique

environmental diversity and diverse user groups.

On federal land, cultural resources must be considered and managed under the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other laws that pertain to the cultural heritage of Native

Americans, archaeological sites and districts, and historic buildings and landscapes. Cultural resource professionals,

Native American traditionalists, and other qualiﬁ ed people determine if cultural resources may be “historic properties”

and therefore given special consideration under federal laws. An important principle when determining a cultural site’s

signiﬁ cance and eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is its contextual environment. Age,

function, and areas with evidence of activity will factor into the signiﬁ cance of the cultural resource. For example, a

few scattered pieces of pottery and stone lying on the ground may not contain enough information to be signiﬁ cant if

there are no other sites within the area. If the same pottery and stone was found in a valley with many activity areas,

artifacts, and other features, they would be part of a prehistoric landscape. Within the context of a landscape, the

pottery and stone may provide information about practices of the indigenous people. The importance of a site is

related to its overall environment and cultural context.

When a cultural resource is determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, it is deﬁ ned in law and

federal regulations as a historic property and merits speciﬁ c treatments and management practices. A cultural

resource that is determined ineligible requires no further consideration by the federal agency. In state, county, and

city parks, there may be state laws or local ordinances that regulate use of the park and consideration of cultural

resources. When a federal agency plans an undertaking such as construction of a foot bridge or trail, developing a

campsite, or writing a management plan, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that they consult with interested parties

on the undertaking’s effects on historic properties. Decisions regarding treatment of cultural sites important to tribes

should be made in consultation with tribes that ascribe signiﬁ cance to the area.

On federal land, there are legal requirements that tribes, interested groups, and the public must be consulted prior

to a ﬁ nal decision. In the case of climbing areas, consultation may include such groups as climbers’ coalitions or

clubs, other user groups, and Native Americans. The purpose of this consultation process is to develop management

alternatives that take into account the activities and preferences of the diverse parties that attach importance to the

area. Climbers have responded well to advisories and restrictions aimed at protecting cultural resources and historic

properties. For example, the Devils Tower climbing management plan was based on consultation with climbers and

representatives from over 25 Native American tribes. The outcome of the consultation is a voluntary restriction on

climbing at Devils Tower during the month of June. It was implemented to accommodate Native Americans a speciﬁ c

period of time without interference for traditional religious and cultural practices (U.S. Department of the Interior,

1995).

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity

››22

CMP

| Chapter 3 | Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

CLIMBING AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

Management response to protect cultural resources

will range from education and outreach to selective

site closures and barrier construction. Respect for the

resource and the afﬁ liated culture can be encouraged

with brochures, signs, interpretive displays, campﬁ re

presentations, guided tours, and write-ups in local

climbing guidebooks. The management response

should be appropriate to the type of cultural resource.

For example, a historic cabin might warrant an

interpretive sign, while a place of traditional cultural or

religious practice may be best managed by not drawing

attention to it. Native Americans may consult with the

federal agency to ensure that interpretation of the area

and educational materials are acceptable from their

perspective for places of religious and cultural value.

Climbers may consult with both the federal agency

and the Native Americans to identify routes that may

warrant closure or limitations due to excessive use

and subsequent environmental damage to the cultural

resources. These discussions often result in a proposed

draft management plan that addresses restrictions,

temporary closures, and alternative routes. When all

interested parties have reviewed and commented on the

plan, it will be made into ﬁ nal plan and implemented by

the federal agency.

Within the Indian Creek corridor near Monticello, UT,

individual climbing routes with either rock art or ruins

at the base have been closed. Some of the routes

now have closure signs posted because the climbing

route traverses rock art panels. At Red Rocks Canyon

National Conservation Area, NV, 50-foot buffer zones

around rock-art sites have been delineated with split-

rail fences. Educational signs are erected at the rock

art panels and explanatory brochures are distributed at

the visitor center, the fee booth, and during the rangers’

visitor-contact patrols. In some locations, buffer zones of

less than 50 feet have been implemented. Hueco Tanks

State Historical Park near El Paso, TX, requires a permit

for climbers that speciﬁ es the area and dates of where

the climbing will take place and the number of people

that will be climbing. The permit system is part of an

overall park management plan that facilitates protection

of cultural resources by closing some areas of the park

to climbing and controls the amount of activity and

use by climbers in other areas. Military Wall, KY, was

temporarily closed while the federal agency assessed

damage to an archaeological site located at the base of

the sandstone outcrop.

A SCHEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

TO CULTURAL RESOURCES

Evaluation of effects from climbing on cultural resources

may be aided by considering that the climbing

experience typically involves six “phases” which

correspond to zones on the ground.

1. The approach: Clearly marked approach trails will

divert foot trafﬁ c away from sensitive sites will help

prevent damage to cultural resources. If a large site

cannot be avoided, trail improvements such as wood

chips, soil, gravel, or paving may help minimize damage.

Excavation where the trail crosses the site can recover

artifacts or information and function as a legal mitigative

action if the site is eligible for the National Register.

2. The staging area: Climbers gathering in a small area

may compact soils and disturb surface artifacts. Loss

of vegetation can increase natural erosion processes

and loss of site soil or midden. If staging areas occur

where signiﬁ cant cultural resources exist, management

response may involve aggressive mitigation, including

construction or placement of artiﬁ cial surfaces,

excavation and data recovery at the site, or temporary

or permanent closure. Data recovery or archaeological

excavations have proven to be an effective management

response when archaeological sites of uncertain quality

and signiﬁ cance have coincided with climbing staging

areas. A sample area, rather than the entire site, is

excavated. The sample may target that portion of the

site that is or will be heavily impacted, and sampling

may be done at various sections of the site to determine

human use patterns that may have occurred at the site.

Data recovery may be conducted by volunteers such

as a local chapter of an archaeological organization, a

university or college, or contracted to resource analysis

professionals. Once data recovery is completed,

artifacts analyzed, and the report written, visitor use may

resume in the area. Federal agencies typically use this

procedure. For example, the National Park Service uses

data recovery if they are going to build a visitor center or

interpretative trails in an area where cultural resources

exist. An example where data recovery has been

undertaken at a climbing site is at Daniel Boone National

Forest, KY, where a Phase II archaeological survey

was carried out at the climbing site known as Military

Wall. This project received grant funding support from

the Access Fund. See Access Fund Climbing Grants

Program and guidelines at the website:

http://www.accessfund.org.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity

› › 2 3

3. The climb: The cliff face may have important

cultural resources, including petroglyphs (etched art),

pictographs (drawn or painted art), cliff dwellings,

ancient or historic carved steps or ladders, and the rock

itself, which may be considered signiﬁ cant by Native

Americans and other groups. Management response

can include instituting buffer zones, or temporary

voluntary climbing moratoriums such as that at Devils

Tower National Monument. In areas with cliff-side

cultural resources that may be difﬁ cult to reach, a federal

agency may consider using climbing volunteers to help

with inventories or surveys for the presence of cultural

resources.

4. The summit: Cultural resources may be present

on the tops of cliffs, spires, mesas, buttes, and

other geologic formations. They might include rock

cairns and vision quest sites. Identiﬁ cation of cultural

resources at the summit of climbs can be conducted

by a professional that may utilize information obtained

from climbers who have summited the route. Technical

information may also be obtained from the climbers

as to access to the cultural resource and how to avoid

damaging it. Such resources can be protected through

education, signage, fencing, or limited closure.

5. The descent: Cultural resources near climbing

descent routes can generally be protected by the same

trail routing and soil stabilization measures mentioned

in the discussion of climbing approaches. Impacts

associated with descents made by rappel can be treated

in the same way as those related to ascent.

6. Camping, bivouac areas or other areas where

climbers stay overnight: Management response to

effects at camping or bivouac areas will be similar to

those discussed for staging areas. Even more aggressive

mitigation action may be appropriate. Camping areas

are typically large areas with higher levels of impact, and

in general should not be located in areas with cultural

resources. Low-trafﬁ c backcountry bivouac sites will

see much lower levels of impact. Management options

in camping or bivouac areas should include designating

speciﬁ c bivouac sites, deﬁ ning trails within camping

areas to avoid cultural resources, and relocating

campgrounds away from cultural sites. Educational

materials that describe cultural resources and how

to respect them should be made available. In some

cases, the most desirable management option may be

complete closure of an area to the public. For certain

sites, particularly those areas that may have traditional

cultural and religious values for Native Americans, there

may be no acceptable alternatives.

A decision to close a climbing site completely due

to cultural resource concerns should be made and

implemented in consultation with all affected user

groups. All alternative options should be discussed

among all parties and carefully considered. Voluntary

and seasonal closures may be sufﬁ cient mitigation

and are a preferred alternative to complete closure

for climbers. Rotating areas of closure on a seasonal

basis or impact basis may also be an option in lieu of

permanent closure.

CMP

| Chapter 3 | Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Cultural Resources and Climbing Activity

CHAPTER 4: SOCIAL IMPACTS AND CLIMBING

This chapter presents concerns which have the potential to compromise a climbing or recreation experience,

and focuses on visual impacts, ﬁ xed safety anchors, pets, noise, litter, guiding, parking, user fees, safety and risk

management, and economic considerations.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Social Impacts and Climbing

››24

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Social Impacts and Climbing

Climbing at Indian Creek, UT. Photo: © Celin Serbo

SOCIAL IMPACTS AND CLIMBING

Social impacts have a potential effect on an individual’s

recreation experience through the interaction or behavior

of others (climber-to-climber or climber-to-non-climber).

Examples include: crowding, litter, brightly colored

equipment that contrasts with the rock, shiny hardware

(bolts, carabiners), the use of chalk, other visitors in

the area, and the presence of climbers. The impacts of

trail and rock erosion and vegetation damage may also

detract from the aesthetic quality of a recreation area.

In this section a variety of social issues are presented:

visual or aesthetic impacts, ﬁ xed anchors, pets, noise,

litter, guide services and organized groups, parking

and transportation, user fees, visitor capacity, climber

visitation, safety and risk management, and new

climbing routes.

VISUAL OR AESTHETIC IMPACTS

In some areas, climbing can be a conspicuous activity.

Some non-climbing visitors enjoy the presence of

climbers in the natural landscape, while for others it will

detract from their experience. At climbing areas such

as Yosemite National Park, CA, and Zion National Park,

UT, watching climbers has become a popular activity

in itself. Resource managers should expect questions

about climbing from the general public. Devils Tower

National Monument provides an outdoor interpretative

display about climbing to help the general public

understand this prominent recreation activity.

Aesthetic impacts are an important issue in parks

and natural areas because they can diminish the

visitor’s enjoyment and appreciation of a resource,

or spoil the character or quality of such a place. The

visual impacts in climbing are usually associated with

a direct impact on a speciﬁ c resource. For example

trail damage or modiﬁ cation to the rock surface, rock

climbing equipment left in situ (bolts, slings, ﬁ xed ropes,

chain anchors, etc.), chalk residue on the rock, or bare

soil associated with some staging areas (Carr 2006;

Skrzypczynski 1994).

Brightly colored sling material at belay and rappel

stations may be visible from considerable distances.

Visual intrusion is difﬁ cult to assess, since other users

of the area will display a range of positive and negative

responses.

Visitors may also notice the white marks left on the rock

by the gymnast’s chalk (magnesium carbonate) that

climbers use on their hands. To most observers, chalk

causes the most common climbing related visual impact.

Magnesium carbonate, or “chalk,” is a frictional aid and

hand-drying agent widely used by gymnasts and rock

climbers.

It is possible to climb without chalk, but when used in

moderation, it improves friction between skin and rock.

An early study by Stannard (1978) suggested that the

accumulation of chalk on coarse-grained rock could

reduce friction below that which is obtained by using

only small amounts of chalk.

More recently, Margetts and Fowler (2001) found that

magnesium carbonate dries the skin reducing the

coefﬁ cient of friction, creating a slippery granular layer.

The authors suggest that to improve the coefﬁ cient

of friction in rock climbing other methods for drying

the ﬁ ngers be explored. When white colored chalk

makes contact with a rock’s dark surface it creates a

contrasting visual effect. Anecdotal evidence suggests

that the remaining residue may be a distraction to some

climbers, giving away the next handhold and marking the

route for others to follow.

Sweaty hands are slippery, so despite chalk’s visual

effects, climbers will be highly resistant to “no-chalk”

policies. Chalk can be expected to accumulate wherever

popular routes are found, though its white color is more

visible on dark rocks such as basalt than on other lighter

colored rocks such as limestone and granite. Although

chalk is soluble and removed by rainfall, chalk marks

will persist on rock faces that are steep, not directly

exposed to weathering, or in areas that receive very

little rainfall. Resource managers have tended to treat

the impacts of chalk exclusively as a visual effect.

However, there have been additional concerns generated

over the use of chalk. For example, MacGowan (1987)

reported that chalk and sweat dissolved in water may

raise the solubility of carbonate minerals in rock. This

suggests that the natural weathering of rock containing

carbonates such as dolomite and limestone would be

accelerated. However, this ﬁ nding has been questioned

(Swineford 1994).

On many types of rock with smooth surfaces such as

granite or limestone, and in hot or humid environments,

climbers consider chalk to be an essential tool for its

friction enhancing and hand-drying properties.

Photo: Courtesy of Troll, UK.

››25

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Social Impacts and Climbing

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Visual or Aesthetic Impacts

››26

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

VISUAL OR AESTHETIC IMPACTS

If visual impacts from climbing become a problem, much

can be done via education and outreach. Climbers can

camouﬂ age ﬁ xed anchors, clean chalk from prominent

or heavily used climbs, wear clothing of muted colors,

and refrain from climbing in areas considered to have

especially signiﬁ cant scenic values. In Yosemite National

Park, CA, for example, climbers are requested not to

climb in the Lower Yosemite Falls amphitheater.

Climbers have complied with this voluntary request,

without need of formal regulations. Arches and

Canyonlands National Parks, UT, requires that software

left in place must match the rock surface in color. At

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park,

TN, concerns over the historic viewshed led to the

placement of ﬁ xed anchors below the top of the cliff,

greatly reducing the number of climbers at the summit of

Sunset Rock (U.S. Department of the Interior 1998).

The visual impacts of permanently ﬁ xed equipment like

bolts and webbing can be managed by camouﬂ aging

equipment, educating climbers on the use of chalk,

education on reducing the use of chalk, and encouraging

chalk clean-up projects. Bolts and ﬁ xed anchors can be

camouﬂ aged by applying a durable coating that blends

in with the rock and withstands weathering and repeated

clippings. It is recommended that ﬂ at or matte colors be

used rather than glossy ﬁ nishes, which tend to reﬂ ect

light and are easy to spot (Martin 2003). Webbing left

behind as rappel anchors and bail-out slings should

match the color of the rock. Gray, brown, green, black,

and tan are the best color choices for webbing.

“Earth-tone” chalks were developed in the 1980s in

response to calls from some resource managers to

match chalk color to the native rock colors. It was found,

however, that adding dyes to chalk left longer-lasting

stains on the rock and introduced new chemicals (dye

components) into the cliff environment. Today, colored

chalk is not widely used. In the absence of further

research and product development resource managers

have not encouraged colored chalk. Future management

responses to chalk use will depend on the extent of

impacts. Education and outreach can focus on practices

to minimize use (e.g., “chalk balls” help avoid spillage).

Some alternatives to chalk blocks or powder are

available, for example, the Eco Ball

http://www.metoliusclimbing.com contains a powder

enclosed in a ball and leaves a limited residue on the

rock. Rock Chalk (www.rockchalk.net) is a colored chalk

made by mixing magnesium carbonate with a pigment to

match rock color.

And Mega-Grip http://www.megagrip.co.uk is an

alcohol-based liquid chalk that does not leave a white

residue. Use of these products can reduce the extent

of white marking on the rock surface. To date, however,

there has been no documentation that compares the

level of use of these products and their effectiveness in

minimizing residue accumulation on rock compared to

the more widely used white chalk powder products.

In some areas, for example Eldorado Canyon State Park,

and Boulder Mountain Parks, CO, resource managers

recommend that climbers remove chalk residue when

rappelling or being lowered from top-roped routes. In

addition, climbers hold annual chalk clean-ups. Similar

practices are encouraged by the NPS in the Obed

River Gorge, TN, where park personnel with the help of

climbers instigate chalk clean-ups, especially in high

visibility climbing and bouldering areas (National Park

Service 2002). Although chalk can be removed using

water and a brush, caution should be exercised to

minimize abrasive effects on the rock surface and water

run off on the immediate cliff environment. In some

environments, is appropriate to prohibit chalk use within

50 feet of critical resources such as rock art, as has

been done at Red Rocks National Conservation Area, a

major climbing and bouldering area near Las Vegas, NV.

Weathered anchors and slings such as at this rappel

arrangement in Monument Basin, Cannyonlands National

Park, Utah can be replaced with two camouﬂ aged anchor

points. If webbing is still required to extend the anchor

this can be supplied in earth-tone colors to reduce overall

visual impact. Photo: © K. Pyke

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Visual or Aesthetic Impacts

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Visual or Aesthetic Impacts

››27

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Fixed Safety Anchors

FIXED SAFETY ANCHORS

Of all the impacts identiﬁ ed, the use of permanent

or ﬁ xed anchors has received the most attention by

resource managers. The controversy derives from the

fact that ﬁ xed anchors remain in place, often for long

periods of time. One of the most common forms of ﬁ xed

protection, bolts, require the drilling of a small hole in the

rock, typically 3/8-inch, or 1/2-inch in diameter. These

drilled holes and the attached metal hangers focus much

of the discussion on ﬁ xed anchors which may cover

issues such as location, density of placement, impact

to the rock, visibility from the ground, and how their

placement will inﬂ uence climbing activity and visitor-use

patterns in a given area.

Technical climbing is deﬁ ned as the use of specialized

equipment to provide a margin of safety while ascending

and descending steep terrain. Most of this equipment

is carried by each climbing party, to be placed and

removed during the ascent. In places, however, the

nature of the rock requires a drilled or hammered

protection device for safe passage.

The need for such “ﬁ xed anchors” is determined by the

ﬁ rst climbers to encounter the passage, and the anchors

are then left in place for use by subsequent climbers.

Bolted routes are typically safer and more convenient

to climb. Other ﬁ xed anchors are left in place when

climbers descend from difﬁ cult summits by rappelling.

From a management perspective, it is difﬁ cult and

sometimes impossible to allow climbing in an area but

also prohibit the use of ﬁ xed anchors. The frequency and

type of ﬁ xed-anchor use varies according to geology

and topography, and the type of climbing. Limestone,

for example, typically has few natural cracks, and safe

climbing will likely require more ﬁ xed anchors than on a

comparable granite cliff. Sport climbing will rely almost

entirely on bolts, while traditional climbing typically

requires only widely dispersed use of ﬁ xed anchors,

and bouldering requires no ﬁ xed anchors at all. Some

have noted that this change in use patterns signiﬁ cantly

increased the number of climbers and resulted in

the proliferation of ﬁ xed anchors and increased ﬁ xed

anchor restrictions. (Jones and Hollenhorst 2002).

Managers have reported that this growth in numbers

results indirectly in the creation of multiple trails, soil and

vegetation damage, waste accumulation and crowding

(Scholl and Wichman 1990). Members of the climbing

community, especially traditional climbers, have different

views when it comes to the use of bolts (Schuster,

Thompson and Hammitt 2001).

Fixed anchors may have effects on natural resources,

scenic and aesthetic values, and visitor-use patterns

(Baker 1999). Despite the lack of empirical evidence to

justify the claims of resource managers, an increasing

number of climbing management plans have stated that

ﬁ xed anchors are a visual impact (National Park Service

2002). Sites where studies have provided an analysis

of effects on scenic and natural resources include City

of Rocks National Reserve, ID (U.S. Department of the

Interior 1988) and the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge,

OK (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995).

PLACEMENT OF BOLTS AS A

RESOURCE-PROTECTION TOOL

Strategic bolt placement has been increasingly used

to protect sensitive resources such as cliff-edge

vegetation, soils, and specimen cliff trees that might

otherwise be directly used as rope anchors. For

example, at Eldorado Canyon State Park, CO, managers

and local climbing organization have been able to

protect cliff trees that were previously used as rappel

stations by placing adjacent bolt anchors. The use of

ﬁ xed anchors and a “no top out policy” at the NPS-

managed Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN, has been

successful in limiting the impact of climbing on cliff-edge

habitat where researchers reported that “disturbed

areas were relatively infrequent” (Walker, et al., 2003).

Research at Shenandoah National Park, VA, supports

this management strategy by recommending that

installing ﬁ xed anchors on the cliff-edge could minimize

damage to cliff top trees and cliff-edge vegetation

caused by rope abrasion (Wood, Lawson & Marion,

2006).

Management agencies have also used bolts to protect

scenic and historic viewsheds. At Sunset Rock,

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park,

TN, climbers were highly visible on the summit, but not

on the cliffs screened by trees below. Bolt anchors were

placed below the summit, enabling climbers to lower to

the ground rather than exiting via the summit at the end

of a climb.

Example of a modern ﬁ xed safety anchor. The

arrow marks the load-bearing direction for correct

placement. Photo: © S. Levin

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Fixed Saftey Anchors

››28

LIABILITY AND FIXED ANCHORS

Fixed anchors are standard components of a climber’s

safety system that remain in place on the cliff face or

mountain. These tools have historically been placed,

inspected, and replaced if necessary by the climbers

who use them, and not by land-managing agencies. This

has served an important role in limiting potential liability

for landowners, land managers, and agencies. Under

federal and most state law, the government has no

“duty of care” provided there is no “fee for service,” no

interference with climbers’ ability to use standard safety

equipment, and no administrative “improvements” to the

climbing environment. However, if managers attempt to

mitigate risks in climbing by intervening in ﬁ xed-anchor

placement, this action could increase exposure to

liability.

As a general rule, the placement and maintenance of

ﬁ xed anchors should be undertaken by knowledgeable

climbers and climber groups dedicated to ﬁ xed anchor

maintenance and replacement such as the American

Safe Climbing Association http://www.safeclimbing.org/,

and not by the land management agency. This approach

removes land managers from potential legal liability

issues, and is therefore an important risk management

consideration. The fundamental issue is that more

regulations create more legal obligations and duties.

Therefore, the less an agency regulates ﬁ xed anchors,

the less potential liability they will experience.

There are a number of cases where agencies have

chosen to be involved, at least to a limited degree, in the

management of ﬁ xed anchors. Usually the respective

agencies have worked in close collaboration with the

local community to ensure that anchor placement and

maintenance remains the sole responsibility of climbers,

thereby limiting both the agencies’ responsibility and

potential liability.

Existing statutes also indicate that land managers can

further limit their liability by not becoming involved in

decisions concerning when and where ﬁ xed anchors

should be placed. See http://www.accessfund.org/pdf/

riskmgmt05.pdf. Climbers and climber organizations

have the expertise to install and maintain these anchors,

and thus it is appropriate that climbers should provide

this valuable community service.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Liability and Fixed Anchors

Photo of a weathered ﬁ xed safety anchor over 30 years old. Old anchors

can be removed cleanly and the same hole used to place a new anchor

of a higher standard of safety. If use of the anchor is redundant the

hole can be ﬁ lled with a resin and natural rock dust mixture so as to be

indiscernible. Photo: © Access Fund Collection

Fixed anchors can serve as a resource protection tool. Their strategic

placement lets climbers descend to the ground without needing to exit

over the cliff edge, allowing cliff-top vegetation to remain undisturbed.

Rappel anchors are available in earth-tone colors for low visual impact.

Illustration: © S. Dieckhoff

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Liability and Fixed Anchors

››29

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Liability and Fixed Anchors

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

LIABILITY AND FIXED ANCHORS

Management response to the use of ﬁ xed safety

anchors may include no action, ﬁ xed-anchor inventories,

prohibition of power drills, or other more restrictive

interventions. Often, changes in patterns of climbing

activity or rapid ﬁ xed-anchor proliferation are of greater

management concern than ﬁ xed-anchor use itself.

Because ﬁ xed-anchor use is integral to many but not all

types of climbing opportunities, management response

should be undertaken carefully. Focusing on bolts or

pitons, rather than patterns of the climbing activity as

a whole, may not achieve management objectives. For

example, the time and effort required to place a bolt

is greatly reduced by use of a battery-powered drill,

and the NPS has used this fact indirectly to regulate

the frequency of bolt placement. Rather than placing

restrictions on bolts, managers in areas such as Rocky

Mountain National Park, CO, have controlled the

potential increase in ﬁ xed anchors by restricting the use

of power drills in certain locations. In areas where ﬁ xed-

anchor use has approached maximum desirable levels,

other management responses have been used. Joshua

Tree National Park, CA, allows new ﬁ xed anchors in non-

wilderness through a required reporting process that

helps the park monitor ﬁ xed anchor proliferation.

The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain

Parks, CO, uses a permit process for replacement of

ﬁ xed anchors. Other approaches or considerations

for controlling the use of ﬁ xed anchors may include

camouﬂ aging anchors, placing the initial ﬁ xed anchor

on a climbing route out of sight from hikers, properly

using a hand drill, placing ﬁ xed anchors only when

traditional types of protection is unreasonable, placing

ﬁ xed anchors at least 30 feet away from existing routes

to deter excessive bolting, placing ﬁ xed anchors on

quality routes with little vegetation, placing ﬁ xed anchors

at intervals necessary to maintain a sense of adventure,

and discourage the placement of ﬁ xed anchors unless

their use is absolutely necessary to ascend quality

climbs. Prior to any management response, an analysis

should be made to determine the need for and role of

ﬁ xed anchors (Jones and Hollenhorst 2002).

Local climbing organizations and the Access Fund may

be able to assist with gathering information on climbing

history and opportunities, both locally and regionally. If

management intervention is required, decisions can then

be made about whether restrictions are warranted and

how signiﬁ cant these should be. In general, education

and outreach should encourage climbers to minimize

their use of ﬁ xed anchors. Exceptions are the instances

where ﬁ xed-anchor use helps protect resources.

(See Appendix III – Outreach and the development

of education materials). However, many climbing

areas, such as Shelf Road, CO, are supportive of sport

climbing practices; indeed, liberal bolting practices are

considered acceptable at hundreds of areas across the

country. See http://www.accessfund.org/resources/

ncms.php for examples of various ﬁ xed anchor

management practices from across the Unite States.

Management alternatives for agencies with concerns

about safety standards include working with local or

national climbing organizations, which may be able to

replace and upgrade aging ﬁ xed safety anchors. For

example, the American Safe Climbing Association

http://www.safeclimbing.org has replaced ﬁ xed anchors

in climbing areas throughout Arizona, California, Idaho,

Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. In North Carolina,

the Carolina Climbers Coalition upgraded anchors

at Stone Mountain, Pilot Mountain, Laurel Knob, and

Crowder’s Mountain State Parks.

In New Hampshire, the Rumney Climbers Association

in a partnership (deﬁ ned through a Memorandum of

Understanding) with White Mountain National Forest

has sole responsibility for overseeing ﬁ xed-anchor

use. Some ﬁ eld units—such as City of Rocks National

Reserve, ID, and the Mohonk Preserve, NY–form

an exception to the general rule and have assumed

responsibility for ﬁ xed-anchor standards, their

placement, and safety-monitoring procedures.

Carolina Climbers Coalition assisted North Carolina State Parks with the

removal of old ﬁ xed anchors and rappel slings from Pilot Mountain, near

Winston Salem, North Carolina. Photo: © A. Attarian

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Liability and Fixed Anchors

› › 3 0

PETS

The presence of pets on public lands, even where legal,

can raise issues about impacts to natural resource

values or social conﬂ icts. Impacts from dogs may be

especially concentrated in climbing areas, since animals

may spend considerable time (sometimes all day) in

the staging area, waiting for their owners to complete a

climb or several climbs. Impacts may include cumulative

effects from dog feces and urine accumulation. This

may pose a signiﬁ cant problem, as dog feces may take

up to two months to break down (Taylor et al. 2005).

It also has the potential to cause vegetation change,

depending on spatial distribution, timing, and intensity

of deposition. Nitrogen (the main ingredient in dog urine)

may have detrimental ecological effects on an area.

Dogs also have an innate tendency to chase wildlife,

especially ground-nesting birds (Taylor et al. 2005).

Additional impacts may include ground or vegetation

disturbance through digging and chewing vegetation.

Social impacts may consist of noise (barking), and

unacceptable behavior of leashed or unleashed animals

(ﬁ ghting, obstruction, distraction) affecting other visitors’

enjoyment of the area. In bouldering areas, unleashed

animals may present obstruction or safety issues.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

PETS

Dog management by various land management agencies

varies from agency to agency. The NPS requires that

dogs must be on a leash or “under physical restraint at

all times.” Dogs are permitted in front-country areas,

but are prohibited from backcountry trails, with some

exceptions. The USFS requires that pets be restrained

or on a leash at all times while in developed recreation

areas. Generally the BLM has the least restrictive

policy concerning dogs, requiring a leash where habitat

or wildlife restorations exist. State park and local

government policies will vary. Smith Rocks State Park,

OR, has a very strict policy regarding dogs. It requires

that “no pets shall be tied to any trees, belay stations,

fences, rocks or any other object.” Failure to do so will

result in future restrictions on visitors bringing pets into

the park, and result in the issuance of a citation to the

owner or guardian of unleashed or unattended pets.

This policy has a signiﬁ cant impact on those climbers

doing multi-pitch climbs. Climbers with an unattended

leashed dog at the base of a route will be cited. It

is recommended that a “dog sitter” be available for

climbers to play it safe. See:

http://www.smithrock.com/ﬂ ash/news/dog.html.

Jefferson County Open Space, Boulder, CO has a

similar policy. Pets may be tied to trees or other ﬁ xed

objects but should not be left unattended.

Regulation 5.84.20 states:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any

pet under his custody, control, or ownership to be

off leash and not under physical control on any Open

Space lands.” In addition climbers and other visitors are

required to pick up after their pet: “It shall be unlawful

for any person to fail to pick up and dispose of pet

excrement deposited by any pet under their custody,

control, or ownership in a waste receptacle”

(Jefferson County Open Space 2006).

In addition climbers and other visitors are required to

pick up after their pets:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to fail to pickup

and dispose of pet excrement deposited by any pet

under their custody, control, or ownership in a waste

receptacle.” In contrast, North Carolina State Parks

requires that “pets must be on a leash no longer

than six feet.”

See: http://web.eenorthcarolina.org/net/content/

go.aspx?s = 44787.0.108.37430.

Where impacts from pets at climbing areas are identiﬁ ed

as unacceptable and no regulations exist for the area,

special guidelines on pet management may need to be

developed. These may include leash or voice and sight

control requirements, or tethering pets away from the

base of climbs. Owners may also be asked to remove

their animal’s waste from the staging area of a climb

and either bury it away from the area or pack it out.

Education strategies should be developed to support

the requested management practice. Dog management

policies vary in effectiveness but personnel (i.e. ranger)

contacts and regulations appear to work best. Brochures

and signage are the least effective, unless these

methods are part of a more comprehensive strategy.

Consider working with local climbing representatives

to assist with developing the education message and

distributing information through climbing outlets.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Pets

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Pets

››31

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Noise

Table 2. lists some guidelines that land managers may

encourage climbers to consider when bringing dogs to

climbing sites.

Table 2.

Managing Dogs at Climbing Sites

1. Use common sense. When visiting a popular area

with lots of climbers, or are planning to climb long multi-

pitch routes, or if the day is hot and the approach is long

you may want to leave your pet at home. This will create

less hassles for you and others.

2. Respect the rights of others. If and when you have to

leave your dog make sure s/he is tethered, especially in

high-use sites, like bouldering areas or staging areas for

climbs. Tethering your pet will keep them out of the way

of spotters, belayers, other visitors, and prevent packs

from being pilfered for food. If at all possible consider,

bringing along a “dog-sitter” to look after your pet while

you climb.

3. Respect the rights of your dog. If you insist on

bringing your dog to the crag, then take care of it. Make

sure you spot your pet on those exposed slabs, or

provide support as they negotiate demanding terrain.

Make sure they have plenty of food and water, let others

know your dogs’ name so they can get your dog’s

attention if need be.

4. Keep your dog under control. Before venturing

out with your canine be sure it responds to verbal

commands. This will help keep your animal under

control, especially around others. Train your dog to stay

with your gear and not someone else’s.

5. Clean up after your dog. Canine feces is unsightly,

smells, and can become a problem underfoot. Dogs are

also known to be vectors (carriers) of Giardia. In a recent

study of 7500 dogs, 1 in 8 were found to be infected

with Giardia. In some instances cysts of Giardia can

reach streams directly or via surface runoff. Dogs most

susceptible to Giardia include those dogs that spend a

lot of time outdoors especially hunting and farm dogs.

Dog waste should be buried in a “cathole” or carried out.

NOISE

Noise is seldom reported as a climbing-related

management issue. Nevertheless, noise associated with

climbing activity may cause others to have difﬁ culty in

concentrating on their climbing, affect the experience

of their visit, or disturb wildlife. To some, noise is an

inexcusable intrusion on the experience of others

(Waterman 1993). Climbing requires occasional voice

communication between members of the climbing party.

Factors such as the distance between climbers,

topographic features, and strong winds may force

climbers to yell in order to be understood.

Although voice communication is part of the climber’s

safety system, climbers are expected to keep noise to

a minimum. Education of other visitors about climbers’

safety signals may help address complaints. In some

locations, climbers generate noise by placing and

removing safety equipment such as pitons, which require

a hammer. Such activity is not part of the everyday

climbing experience and is only carried out by a very

small percentage of the climbing population in special

circumstances, such as undertaking a ﬁ rst ascent or aid-

climbing.

Bolts, a form of ﬁ xed anchor, require hammering

and drilling in their placement, and such activity also

generates noise. Bolt holes can be drilled with a simple

hand drill, but will often be bored with a portable,

battery-powered drill. In the case of general concerns

over noise, where power-tool prohibition is not an issue,

it is worth noting that although power drilling is louder

than hand drilling, the noise will be shorter lived. With

a power drill, a bolt placement will take only 30 to 60

seconds, while hand drilling the same hole might take

15 to 30 minutes. In instances where noise has been a

problem, management responses to noise associated

with placement of ﬁ xed equipment have included

restrictions ranging from voluntary closures and zoning,

to restrictions on battery-powered devices. In rare

instances the use of audio devices by climbers can pose

a problem to other climbers and visitors and these may

be restricted as well.

LITTER

Litter is often caused by careless or accidental handling

of trash and waste instead of disposing it properly.

Litter is an unacceptable impact that tends to negatively

impact the recreation experience (Noe, Hammit and

Bixler 1997). Litter can also have an indirect impact on

wildlife and water resources. Research has identiﬁ ed

four reasons why people litter:

1. Human behavior says it’s okay to litter (for example,

smokers throwing their cigarette butts out of car

windows is an acceptable practice);

2. People are unwilling to take personal “ownership” in,

or responsibility for, areas in their community that are

shared by all community members;

3. People litter when they believe someone else will pick

up after them; and

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Noise and Litter

› › 3 2

4. People are more likely to litter when other litter has

accumulated in a given place.

(Keep America Beautiful 2006)

There is no excuse for litter left by climbers, who

should be expected to practice a “pack in, pack out”

policy and to clean up after less considerate visitors.

Nevertheless, small items such as fragments of athletic

tape (used to protect ﬁ ngers) or marker tape (used to

mark climbing equipment), cigarette butts, and food

wrappers may accumulate at high use areas. On big-wall

or long backcountry routes, equipment or refuse may

be dropped during the course of a climb and may be

irretrievable.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

LITTER

Research suggests that littering is behavioral in origin

and can be changed with awareness and education

directed towards individuals or groups of individuals

engaged various outdoor recreation activities. Education

has worked well in many areas to bolster climber

commitment to keeping climbing areas litter free,

particularly where outreach has focused on persistent

small items such as tape fragments. Role modeling and

verbal appeal by guides has also been found to be an

effective way to control litter (Wagstaff and Wilson 1988).

Organized clean-ups are also widespread at popular

climbing areas. There are many examples of climbing

groups organizing clean-ups at areas impacted by

activities such as illegal dumping. Each year, the Access

Fund coordinates the national event “Adopt-a-Crag Day”

which entails local climbing groups working with agency

units to initiate a stewardship project at a local climbing

area, which may include litter removal or trail projects.

Information packages about this event can be obtained

from the Access Fund website:

http://www.accessfund.org.

GUIDE SERVICES

Climbing guide services and climbing programs

operate on many types of public land, usually under

the conditions of a commercial use permit or incidental

business permit. Professional guide services can be

an important part of any climbing and conservation

education program within a park. Guide services can be

held to a high standard of risk management, client care,

and Leave No Trace (LNT) environmental ethics. The

fact that they hold a permit that can be revoked ensures

accountability. The administrators of many popular and

well established climbing locations have considerable

experience working with climbing guide services.

Examples include Yosemite, Grand Teton, and Mount

Rainier National Parks; Red Rock Canyon National

Conservation Area; White Mountain National Forest; and

New River Gorge National River.

Guide services provide an important recreational

opportunity and instruction to those learning to climb

safely while also instilling environmental responsibility

and LNT practices. A preliminary assessment of the

need for this type of climbing experience can be gained

by consulting with climbing representatives, nearby

climbing stores and indoor climbing gyms, and by

gauging the number of unsolicited requests from guides

and outdoor educators for permission to operate in a

management area.

It may be difﬁ cult to determine which guide companies

offer better quality of service. Services permitted

to operate on federal lands undergo a great deal of

scrutiny from the managing agency, while elsewhere

there may be greater variation in quality. Standards are

being raised through recognized certiﬁ cation programs

such as those run by the American Mountain Guides

Association (AMGA). The AMGA maintains a current list

of accredited institutions on their website:

http://www.amga.org.

Issuance and renewal of guiding permits provides

managers with an opportunity to provide guidance on

resource-protection or other issues. These may include

practices to reduce visitor effects on natural resources;

camping, parking, and transportation concerns; group-

size limits; limits on days and seasons of operation;

liability insurance; and safety procedures. In some areas,

climbing guides knowingly operate without a permit.

Generally such operations are small (one-person) and

infrequent. In such cases, enforcement of permit or

other requirements is difﬁ cult. Consult with legitimate

guide services and the AMGA about possible responses.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Litter

Each year, the Access Fund coordinates the national

event “Adopt-a-Crag Day.” Climbing groups work with

agencies on a stewardship project at a local climbing

area. Information packages about this event can

be obtained from the Access Fund web site: www.

accessfund.org. Photo: Access Fund Collection

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Guide Services

››33

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Guiding Services

Park administrators may wish to encourage operators’

involvement in resource-protection programs such as

trail monitoring and maintenance, education brochures

and signing, or assistance with ﬁ eld observations at

sites with cliff-nesting raptors and seasonal wildlife

restrictions. Guide services can assist resource

managers by helping with awareness-raising efforts

with clients and by providing feedback on climbing

use patterns or proposed management actions. Any

general outreach efforts concerning climbing should

ensure that local guide services are informed. Not-for-

proﬁ t educational services such as the National Outdoor

Leadership School (NOLS) and Outward Bound conduct

climbing courses throughout the country and are also

managed through the commercial permit process.

These organizations have distinguished histories of

working cooperatively with resource managers to

develop backcountry etiquette and minimum impact

practices (e.g., the Leave No Trace education program).

NOLS is increasingly involved in research projects

on recreation and resource protection. For further

information see the NOLS website:

http://www.nols.edu/.

ORGANIZED CLIMBING GROUPS

In addition to commercial guide and outﬁ tter operations,

popular climbing areas nationwide receive a signiﬁ cant

amount of use from organized climbing groups. These

groups include but are not limited to climbing gyms,

summer camps, college and university programs,

church and scout groups, and other human service

organizations. The increases in the number of groups

engaged in climbing activities have the potential

to contribute to an already difﬁ cult and sometimes

impossible task for resource managers to accommodate

the growth of climbing with administering lands for

recreation.

Managers at the Seneca Rocks-Spruce Knob National

Recreation Area, WV, reported individual climbers felt

that large climbing groups posed a safety hazard and

affected their climbing experience (U.S. Department

of Agriculture 1996). Climbers also reported that large

groups tended to monopolize climbing routes for several

hours, could be loud and obnoxious, and interfere

with rappel routes. Climbers in New River Gorge, WV,

and Crowders Mountain State Park, NC, suggested

that group size should be limited, and groups should

climb only in designated group areas. Climbers also

reported that large climbing groups detracted from their

climbing experience and posed a safety hazard and

group leaders should be qualiﬁ ed to teach rock climbing

(Attarian 1999).

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

GUIDE SERVICES AND ORGANIZED

CLIMBING GROUPS

To address these issues and others, both climbers

and resource managers are implementing “light-

handed” approaches to help manage climbing groups.

For instance, in North Carolina’s Pisgah National

Forest, The Pisgah Commercial Climbers Association,

(Brevard, NC) in cooperation with Pisgah National

Forest managers have developed a set of Minimum

Standards of Commercial Use. The new standards

were created to make organizations more responsible

in their hiring practices and for the USFS to hold

organizations accountable for operating within industry

standards. The revised standards focus on leader and

staff qualiﬁ cations, group size, staff/participant ratios,

anchor and site development, group management,

and equipment requirements. The (Pisgah Commercial

Climbers’ Association 2002). The PCCA has also

initiated a web-based calendar system as a means to

communicate climbing days and avoid overcrowding

at local crags. The calendar is not intended as a way

to “reserve” a climbing site. Instead it gives climbing

groups and other visitors a “heads up” on what climbing

areas are being used by other groups and provides an

outlet for contacting the organization and discussing

options. For more information on the PCCA calendar

visit their website: http://www.pisgahclimbers.org/.

In West Virginia’s New River Gorge, guides and

commercial climbing outﬁ tters are cooperating with

National Park Service managers to ease congestion and

minimize the impact of climbing on the ecology of the

gorge’s cliff areas and historic sites. A variety of ideas

have been proposed to help mitigate these problems,

including the creation of new parking areas and access

points, developing educational and interpretive programs

on climbing to beneﬁ t all park visitors, the creation of

a climbing route reservation system (via e-mail or web

site postings), or erecting sign-in stations at trailheads

to popular climbs (Steelhammer 2000). Through the use

of information and education, climbing group leaders

should be encouraged to follow the guidelines listed

below to mitigate potential problems associated with

climbing groups, while providing a quality climbing

experience for their clientele.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Guiding Services

› › 3 4

Planning and Group Management

Thorough planning, effective group management,

and knowledge of “clean climbing” practices has

the potential to reduce resource impacts and social

problems. Some of the criteria for choosing an

appropriate climbing site should be based on group size,

experience, staff, sensitivity of the site, and carrying

capacity. Take into consideration the following when

planning a group climbing trip:

Choosing a climbing area.

•What level of impact can the area withstand?

•Are there any unique historical, cultural, environmental,

or sensitive areas to consider?

•Any access issues?

Group size and stafﬁ ng ratios. Limiting group size

is an acceptable management technique, especially in

federally designated wilderness areas. To address the

issue of group size, resource managers may provide

information on alternative climbing sites; impose

restrictions on parking such as time and space limits,

and increase the distance or difﬁ culty of access.

Resource managers implement group size restrictions

to mitigate environmental impacts, maintain consistency

with neighboring areas, reduce conﬂ ict between groups,

address facility or site constraints, manage overall high

use of the area, and to address public complaints and

pressure (Monz et al. 2000).

Group leaders should consider a variety of factors

before traveling to climbing sites:

•Is the group a manageable size?

•Is there adequate staff to manage safety effectively?

•Can overcrowding be reduced through closer

communication and scheduling with other climbing

groups?

•Timing visits—Avoid popular climbing areas during

periods of high demand, for example weekends and

holidays.

•Skills training—Consider preliminary teaching before

leaving for the climbing site (equipment, knots, belaying).

Artiﬁ cial climbing walls are ideal for this type of training.

•Transportation and Parking – What are the parking

considerations at the

climbing site? Is there adequate parking available?

•Climber education—What opportunities are there for

educating participants on the merits of “clean climbing”

or LNT?

•What are the local rules, regulations, and ethics, for the

area you plan to visit?

PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION

Climbing sites may develop their own informal parking

areas, including road shoulders and pullouts, or

may lead to increased use of existing parking areas.

Management issues may include demand for parking

exceeding capacity, particularly during peak visitor

periods; increasing use of undesignated areas for

overﬂ ow parking; and vehicular congestion at popular

visitor areas. Other concerns include vehicle camping in

sensitive areas and visitor effects on natural resources

(vegetation trampling, wildlife disturbance, improper

human waste disposal).

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION

Management responses to address parking issues

may include deﬁ nition and containment of sites to

prevent vehicle encroachment, use of barriers and

regulations to prevent parking at undesignated sites,

the identiﬁ cation and promotion of alternative parking

sites, and policies that encourage car-pooling. Climbers

can be encouraged to visit during off-season and

off-peak hours if local climate considerations allow

climbing at these times. In particularly congested

areas, designating parking spaces with varying time

limits may be a useful measure to reserve short-term

parking for non-climbing visitors. This approach was

used at Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military

Park, TN (U.S. Department of the Interior 1998), where

climbing visitors required all-day parking while history

enthusiasts typically visited for one hour or less. The

Access Fund provided grant funding to address parking

issues in areas including Jefferson County Open Space,

CO; McConnells Mill State Park, PA; on BLM land near

Durango, CO; and at Joshua Tree National Park, CA.

Some park and recreation areas have addressed trafﬁ c

and parking problems at popular sites by developing

park and shuttle systems. These systems may be

problematic for climbing visitors. Existing access may

be essential for climbing opportunities that require

early starts or late ﬁ nishes (e.g. long rock climbs or

alpine climbing opportunities), or those that require the

transferring of heavy equipment (e.g., big-wall climbing

opportunities). Information can be obtained from local

climbing representatives about climbing use patterns

and locations, to determine the practical implications

of changes in access from parking and transportation

proposals. In some areas where there have been

proposals to change existing parking and introduce new

public transportation arrangements, climbing visitors

have been given special consideration.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Organized Climbing Groups

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Planning and Group Management

››35

CMP

| Chapter 4 | User Fees

At Zion National Park, UT ranger staff worked closely

with local climbers over the introduction of the new

shuttle transportation scheme, resulting in a system

that accommodated big-wall climbing opportunities and

provided for access for pre-dawn starts to long climbs.

USER FEES

Many parks and recreation areas charge fees for general

entry. As authorized by Congress under the 1997 federal

budget bill, the Recreation Fee Demonstration (Fee

Demo) program authorized the federal land management

agencies (National Park Service United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and

United States Forest Service) to implement and test

new fees throughout the recreation sites each of these

agencies manage. These include speciﬁ c use fees,

facility-use fees (e.g., campgrounds), and parking fees.

Each agency is allowed to retain all monies generated

from the Fee Demo revenues from the program. Eighty

percent of the revenue must be spent at the sites where

the fees were collected to help pay for improvements

at recreation sites managed by the Departments. As

of September 30, 2004, there were over 666 fee sites

involved in the program, some of which include climbing

areas (United States Department of the Interior 2005).

During 2005, The Federal Lands Recreation

Enhancement Act, replaced the Fee Demo program. In

the Act, each agency was given the authority to charge

and expand recreation fees and special use permit fees

for recreation on public lands through 2014 (United

States Department of the Interior 2005).

While collection of new and higher fees has given a

boost to some administrative programs, there have

been problems with fee collection, public support,

and compliance. For example, the user fee system at

Mt. Lemmon, AZ was appealed by the US Attorney’s

ofﬁ ce when a US magistrate ruled that the USFS

exceeded its congressional authorization when it began

charging a $5.00 daily fee for recreational use of the

area. The appeal is important because (1) user fees

have been an important source of operating revenue

for the Forest Service and (2) the courts need to clarify

whether those fees are legitimate (Davis 2006). If the

USFS is unsuccessful in its appeal, this case could set

precedence for other federal areas which charge a fee

for recreation.

With tight budgets for recreation management and

resource protection, land managers may seek funds to

assist with management costs of speciﬁ c activities such

as climbing. There are presently fees for climbing at

Denali National Park, AK, Mt. Rainier National Park, WA,

and Mt. Shasta in Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA.

User fees can raise strong opinions from the affected

user group particularly if there is a perception that other

recreation use groups are not being charged.

This has been a particular issue in Denali National Park,

where climbers make up less than 10 percent of park

visitors accessing the park through the Talkeetna Ranger

Station and are the only user group required to pay

additional fees (Loomis, 2006).

Before introducing or raising fees for climbing activities,

managers may wish to contact the Access Fund, the

American Alpine Club, or local climbing groups. These

organizations can often provide some funding for

management at climbing areas through grant programs

and targeted fundraising for special projects. Climbing

organizations can also help obtain more funding through

appropriations by working directly with Congress and

state legislatures to identify needs. Before introducing or

raising fees for climbing activities, managers may wish to

contact the Access Fund, the American Alpine Club, or

local climbing groups, to discuss the need for fees and

whether other management alternatives exist.

SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Although climbing has a very reasonable safety record

(Williamson 2006), it is perceived as a high-risk activity.

Some types of climbing, such as mountaineering, are

statistically much more dangerous than others, such

as bouldering or sport climbing. The opportunity to

experience climbing through the full spectrum of risk

is appealing to climbers. One of the most common

management concerns about climbing is over the

landowner’s and land managers’ liability in the case of

accidents. Common law principles regarding assumption

of risk suggest that climbers assume all responsibility for

their safety and well being while climbing. At the federal

level, the Federal Tort Claims Act protects resource

managers from liability.

LANDOWNER LIABILITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

As a general rule, under Governmental Immunity

Acts and Governmental Tort Claims Acts, political

subdivisions of the government, including federal and

state agencies, and their employees are generally

protected from liability for acts conducted within the

scope of their duties and employment. This is also

referred to as governmental or “sovereign” immunity

(you cannot sue the government without its permission).

Willful and wanton acts of public employees are

generally not protected under these acts. See:

http://www.accessfund.org/pdf/riskmgmt05.pdf for

more information.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > User Fees

››36

State laws generally provide liability protection to both

public and private landowners through recreational

use statutes and/or landowner liability statutes. These

laws, which exist in some form in all 50 states, provide

public and private landowners with protection from

liability when they allow their lands or facilities to be

used for a recreational purpose, with the provision that

no fee is charged for that use. For example, an agency

that charges a climbing entrance or permit fee would

likely be held to higher duty of care than one that does

not. Recreational User Statues do not grant immunity

(i.e., provided that the landowner cannot be held liable),

rather they limit the duty of care owed by a landowner

to recreational users subject to s few key conditions

such as malicious failure to warn of hidden dangers.

The protections afforded under RUS’s vary from state-

to-state. Consult with legal counsel to determine the

applicability of these statutes to speciﬁ c public lands.

Recreational Use Statutes for all 50 states can be found

by logging on to: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/

recreate/recreate.htm

ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE.

The perceived risk associated with climbing is good

news for land managers concerned about liability. In

cases that have gone to trial, the courts have applied

the “assumption of risk” doctrine, ruling that climbers

are engaged in a recreational activity with known

safety hazards, and are responsible for their own

safety. The Assumption of Risk Doctrine states that

a person assumes the risk of injury or damage if he

or she voluntarily or unreasonably exposes oneself to

injury or damage with knowledge or appreciation of the

danger and risk involved. This doctrine is fundamental

to all forms of outdoor recreation including climbing.

Assumption of risk requires knowledge of the danger,

and consent to it. As a practical matter assumption of

risk has broad applicability to recreational rock climbing

and is frequently used as an afﬁ rmative defense in

recreational sports cases. In other words, someone

engaged in an obviously risky activity like rock climbing

assumes the risk of injury as a result. The defense is

generally effective regardless of whether the theory of

recovery is based on negligence, reckless conduct, or

strict liability.

Climbers cannot win damages against landowners or

land managers for simply allowing climbing to occur.

Relevant to such rulings is the fact that the hazards arise

from the direct interaction of the visitor with the natural

environment, rather than with human-made facilities, and

that land managers and private property owners have

made their lands available for recreation, without any fee

for service and without acting negligently. On the other

hand, where a land owner or manager has developed an

infrastructure to facilitate a recreational use, for example,

ski areas on national forest lands, the owner or permittee

may be liable for damages for accidents suffered as a

result of use of that infrastructure, where negligence has

been shown.

ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine imposes liability for

landowner negligence resulting in a physical injury to a

child (for example, in Colorado this doctrine only applies

to children under 14 years of age). It was developed to

permit recovery when a landowner 1. keeps an artiﬁ cial

(non-natural) condition on his or her premises which

is an attraction or allurement to a child; 2. involves an

unreasonable risk of injury, and 3. is located in a place

where it might be expected that children are likely

to congregate. Generally the object that caused the

attraction must be unusual and extraordinarily attractive,

not an ordinary matter. Generally, negligence exists

where a person (in this case a land manager) owes a

recognized duty of care to take reasonable precautions

to prevent or alleviate unreasonable risks of harm to

other persons and fails to do so. However, an important

exception to a landowner’s duty to reasonably guard

or warn others of harm is the common law idea that no

duty to guard or warn exists where the risk is an “open

and obvious natural condition.” The primary reason for

this exception is that a land user is as capable as the

owner (land manager) of recognizing and appreciating

the risk of injury presented by an “open and obvious”

danger, and because it is “natural,” the owner does

not bear responsibility for its creation. The “open and

obvious natural condition” of cliffs means that, in nearly

every situation, landowners and land managers will not

appreciably increase their liability merely by allowing

climbing.

SEARCH AND RESCUE

Like hikers, ﬁ shermen, and boaters, climbers sometimes

ﬁ nd themselves the subjects of search-and-rescue

operations. The courts have ruled that public lands

managers have no “duty to rescue” climbers or

other visitors who are lost, injured, or killed through

engagement in their activity (for example, see Johnson

v. United States, Department of Interior, 949 F.2d 332,

335 (10th Circuit 1991); and Kiehn v. United States,

984 F.2d 1100, 1108 (10th Cir. 1993)). Even though the

government may regularly carry out search-and rescue

(SAR) operations for lost or injured visitors on public

lands, it has been found not liable for ineffective or

unsuccessful rescues. Examples of such operations

include those carried out by the National Park Service

in national parks, and volunteer SAR organizations in

conjunction with local law enforcement agencies and/or

land management agencies in other areas.

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Saftey and Risk Management

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Saftey and Risk Management

››37

CMP

| Chapter 4 | Economic Concerns

Some public SAR organizations have started to

charge fees for rescue if the person(s) being rescued

have contributed to their demise. For example, New

Hampshire Fish and Game, the agency responsible for

SAR in New Hampshire is subject to state law which

declares that a “person shall be liable for response

expenses if, in the judgment of the court, such person

recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring

an emergency response” (New Hampshire Fish and

Game 2001). A person’s liability under this subdivision

for response expenses shall not exceed $10,000

for any single public agency response incident. Any

money collected will support training and purchases

of equipment for volunteers of search and rescue

organizations who help with rescue missions (New

Hampshire Fish and Game 2001).

Access Fund survey outlining how liability risk is

managed at the nation’s key private climbing areas can

be found at: http://www.accessfund.org/pdf/riskstrat.pdf

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Local economies can beneﬁ t signiﬁ cantly from climbing

activity in nearby locations. Climbers often travel long

distances to visit popular locations, paying for fuel,

food, lodging, and other services from local businesses.

Several studies have examined economic contribution

from climbing activity to municipalities and regions

near important climbing areas and have found these

contributions to be signiﬁ cant. See Travel Cost Models

of the Demand for Rock Climbing (Shaw and Jakus

1996), Meta-Analysis of Outdoor Recreational Use Value

Estimates (Rosenberger, Loomis and Shrestha 1999)

and Gateways to Adventure Tourism (Ewert 1996). Some

businesses or towns actively promote climbing and

attract climbers through special discounts or special

events. Examples include a winter ice-climbing festival

in Ouray, CO, and a summer rock-climbing festival in

Lander, WY. Restrictions on climbing access may have

repercussions for local businesses. Local chambers of

commerce and climbing businesses such as outdoor

retail stores, climbing gyms and guide services can

provide feedback on how new fees or use restrictions

may affect climbing activity and use of associated

services from the local community.

New regulations of climbing at the national level will

require analysis of possible economic effects to satisfy

legal mandates provided by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act 1980, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act 1996, and Executive Order 12866 (Exec.

Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (1993)). The

NEPA planning process also requires an assessment of

effects of proposed management actions on the human

environment, including an evaluation of how “gateway

communities” and climbers themselves are likely to be

affected in an economic sense by changes in policy.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Economic Concerns

The Access Fund and local climbing groups worked

with Joshua Tree National Park on the development of a

park-wide policy for climbing in the 1998 Backcounty and

Wilderness Management Plan which includes a special

section on climbing management.

Photo: R. Vogel

››38

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern

CHAPTER 5: ACTIVITIES AND AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN

The following chapter addresses activities and areas of special concern such as bouldering, ice climbing, alpine

areas, wilderness areas, and caves.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Activities and areas of Special Concern

Ice Climbing at Hyalite Canyon, MT. Photo: © Jay Beyer

BOULDERING

Bouldering is the practice of climbing on small rock

formations or boulders that are short enough in height

that ropes and gear are not necessary. A route up a

boulder is typically referred to as a “boulder problem”

or “problem,” and rarely exceeds 15 to 20 feet in height.

Surmounting a boulder via a speciﬁ c side or problem

is the general objective of the activity. Some boulder

problems are “traverses,” climbing from one end of the

boulder to the other. Since bouldering does not utilize

ropes, relying on fellow boulderers to act as “spotters”

is the common practice. In general, bouldering falls are

frequent, but short. Spotters redirect falling climbers

away from hazards and towards the safest landing

zone. For this reason, most boulderers climb in a group

(usually 2-6 people), relying on one another not only for

technical climbing advice and positive encouragement,

but for safety beneﬁ ts as well.

Historically, bouldering developed as a means of training

for bigger climbing and mountaineering objectives. In the

past 30 years, bouldering evolved into a sport unto itself.

The emergence of bouldering as an acknowledged,

distinguished, and respected form of climbing is the

result of several cultural, social, and economical factors.

Bouldering’s initial appeal to climbers was the ability

to practice extremely difﬁ cult and gymnastic climbing

movements close to the ground and repeatedly.

As a result, bouldering became the avenue for achieving

climbing’s most technically difﬁ cult accomplishments.

This has made bouldering the climbing form of choice

for many top climbers and legitimized bouldering as a

respectable and distinguished form of climbing.

As bouldering evolved, so have the tools necessary

for boulderers to maximize their potential. Specialized

shoes, with sticky rubber soles, and gymnastic chalk,

for improved hand grip, are used by boulderers to

improve performance. Bouldering pioneers invented

(and eventually made commercial available) “bouldering

pads,” portable cushioned mats used to pad the

immediate area around a boulder to provide a soft

landing surface if climbers jump or fall off the boulder.

These three elements are the essential tools for

bouldering.

[group bouldering photo]

Bouldering’s growing popularity can be attributed to

the low cost of entry, accessibility, progressive athletic

potential, community, and mainstream publicity.

Because entry into the sport only requires shoes, chalk,

and a pad, bouldering has strong appeal to a health-

conscious public as an ‘entrance-activity’ form of

human-powered recreation. Youth climbing teams and

an increase in competitive indoor bouldering events

have increased its popularity among children and

adolescents, as well. Bouldering’s social aspects of

community and camaraderie are fostered in the spotter/

climber relationship that has uniﬁ ed the bouldering

community and created an expanding sub-culture

among many enthusiasts. Finally, a growing market of

magazines, companies, products, and events contribute

to bouldering’s growing popularity.

The bouldering culture that is growing from these

inﬂ uences is primarily younger and energetic, the

majority of whom are in their teens and twenties.

Bouldering is not an activity only for the young, but for

the “young at heart” as well. The difference being that

many older climbers learned to climb on a rope, so

today they, unlike the new generation of climbers, do

not practice bouldering exclusively. A visit to any nearby

bouldering area, however, will reveal the sports appeal

all age levels and abilities of the climbing society.

Bouldering at Horsepen’s 40 in Alabama. Photo: © Andrew Kornylak

››39

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Bouldering

Bouldering at Carter Lake, Colorado. Photo: © K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Bouldering

››40

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Bouldering

Like all forms of outdoor recreation, bouldering causes

impacts to natural resources. The recent increase in

bouldering’s popularity contributes to the potential

for the establishment of new terrain and the rise in

user numbers also increases impacts on the climbing

environment. The Access Fund strives to educate all

those who rock climb about the nature of climbers’

impacts as well as techniques to minimize or prevent

impacts. Impacts from bouldering activity tend to be

concentrated around the rocks themselves.

The climbing community has proven receptive to

management where there has been thorough outreach

during the development of management plans.

Conversely, where actions which limit or eliminate

bouldering opportunities are undertaken without

consulting climbers, with little documentation of impacts,

or that only affect climbing, the climbing community may

be less cooperative.

Typically, the most concentrated effects of bouldering

activity occur on the ground below and directly adjacent

to heavily used boulders. Here, in the “landing zone”

and “staging area,” soils and vegetation can quickly

become compressed as climbers walk around below

the problems, sit down to put on shoes, socialize, place

protective bouldering pads, and fall or jump to the

ground. Management responses to mitigate impacts

have included site hardening, barriers, exclusion zones,

and visitor dispersion to more robust sites through

selective publicity, signing, and trail management.

Heavy trafﬁ c on and to speciﬁ c boulders often leads to

occurrences of trampling and subsequent erosion. In

addition, in order to make the landing safer, climbers

at times will move ankle-turning rocks from under the

boulder problem. Since the soils directly below and

adjacent to boulders often collect run-off and retain

moisture better than other areas, they may prove

to be critical habitat for certain plants and wildlife.

Local climbers can provide useful information, such

as locations of particularly popular bouldering areas.

Outreach and education have been used successfully in

many climbing areas to minimize such impacts before

they become critical.

Bouldering pads are an important tool for bouldering.

Pads positioned on the ground below boulders may

reduce erosion by distributing and absorbing the

force of bouldering falls. Pads can, however, cause

damage to vegetation if they are draped over or

leaned against grass, shrubs, bushes or ﬂ owers.

Management responses to reducing impact include

outreach, at trailhead kiosk postings and educational

brochures, to place pads only on durable surfaces.

For more information on bouldering, related concerns

and management responses, see the Access Fund’s

Bouldering: Understanding and Managing Climbing on

Small Rock Formations found at http://accessfund.org/

pdf/BoulderingPaper.pdf

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

BOULDERING

The hallmarks of successful management of bouldering

are open communication between resource managers

and climbers, and proactive management responses

that rely principally on education and outreach to

achieve objectives. Management planning for areas with

bouldering opportunities should include consideration

of the views and priorities of climbers. When boulderers

feel that they have been included in the decision making

process, they are more likely to comply with restrictions,

and to help enforce those restrictions among their peers.

In virtually all areas where bouldering is practiced, the

activity has been found to be compatible with other land

uses and values. Many bouldering areas have enjoyed

largely unrestricted access for decades, yet have

experienced minimal environmental impacts and few

management problems.

Determining just what measures can accomplish

management goals without needlessly reducing, or

affecting the quality of, recreational opportunities

requires a solid knowledge of the way bouldering is

practiced in a speciﬁ c management area.

Portable crash pads are placed below boulders to

reduce injury from falling. Photo: © Andrew Burr

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Bouldering

››41

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Bouldering

Both this knowledge, and good relations with the

bouldering user group, are informed greatly by the

assignment of a speciﬁ c liaison to handle bouldering-

related issues. What is important is that boulderers

perceive the liaison as willing to listen and learn

about their activity, and more importantly, that he/

she consider bouldering to be a valid and worthwhile

activity. Boulderers, especially young boulderers, have

an extensive network of Internet sites devoted to their

activity, and this fact can be put to great use by resource

managers the BLM has already done this to support

education and outreach in the popular bouldering

locations around Bishop, CA http://www.ca.blm.gov/

bishop. Bouldering websites are receptive to postings

from resource managers, and these sites can be a very

efﬁ cient and cost-effective method for reaching this user

group.

Management responses at bouldering areas may

include planning for efﬁ cient and effective of trail

networks, stabilization or ground hardening at points

of concentrated use, and selective restrictions on

boulders to protect sites with signiﬁ cant natural or

cultural resource values. Education and outreach

should promote low-impact use of crash pads (e.g.,

avoiding placing pads on top of delicate vegetation)

and distinguish areas with special resource sensitivities

where use of pads may cause adverse impacts.

Management responses for protection of rock art may

include voluntary buffer zones, signing, and fencing off

of sensitive areas.

At Red Rocks Canyon National Conservation Area, NV,

rock climbing is restricted within 50 feet of rock art.

At other locations the restriction zone may be greater

or smaller depending on site-speciﬁ c conditions.

Occasionally climbers may discover previously unknown

cultural resources. If it is not clear that the land

managing agency is aware of the cultural resources

or impacts that might be occurring, climbers should

inform and work with managers to establish practices

that will prevent cumulative damage. Other responses

addressing cultural resource protection may include

construction or placement of artiﬁ cial surfaces, site

excavation (data recovery), or exclusion zones

More general concerns related to climbing activity at

bouldering sites may include human waste disposal,

vehicle parking, pets, and camping. These issues are

covered in greater detail elsewhere in this document.

Several areas (including the Buttermilks area in Inyo

National Forest and the BLM Proposed Wilderness

Study Area Volcanic Tablelands), near Bishop, CA have

seen a large increase in bouldering activity since 1998

http://www.blm.gov/ca/bishop/bouldering/index.html.

Management responses developed with local climbing

representatives have included trail deﬁ nition, cultural

resource inventories, raptor and vegetation monitoring,

deﬁ nition of parking areas, education materials

promoting special use considerations and minimum-

impact practices, selective publicity policy for areas

with signiﬁ cant cultural resource values, designation

of camping areas, provision of trailhead toilets, and

monitoring visitor numbers through trail counters and

vehicle parking surveys.

Flagstaff Mountain, City of Boulder Open Space and

Mountain Parks, Colorado, receives both high climber

and general visitor levels due to its proximity to an urban

area. Here, management efforts have focused on erosion

control, and have included trail deﬁ nition with wooden

barriers, ground hardening by importing material under

heavily used boulders, and vegetation restoration

using raised beds, mulch, and native planting. Similar

practices have been initiated by climbers at Atlanta’s

Boat Rock where native vegetation, mulch and pine

straw is put in twice annually at eroded staging areas

(Jacques 2006). Local and national climbing groups

may be able to provide assistance with information on

visitor use patterns, developing education strategies and

outreach on sensitive resource issues, and raising funds

towards mitigation efforts. For example the Access Fund

developed the The boulderProject

http://www.accessfund.org/boulderproject to promote

and responsible bouldering.

Bouldering is a series of short sequential moves usually

no more than 15 feet off the ground. The person on

the ground is “spotting” the climber to help prevent an

awkward landing if the person falls. Photo: © S. Green

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Bouldering

Table 3. Leave No Trace Bouldering:

THE ACCESS FUND’S BOULDERPROJECT

Local Low Down – Check websites, guidebooks, and

talk to locals. Not only do locals know the best lines,

they know the beta (information) to keep areas open.

Boulder Green – keep nature pristine helps to keep it...

well... natural. Some tips to keep it clean:

•Speak up when the actions of others threaten access.

Remember it’s your climbing future at stake.

•Pick up & pack out tape, spilled chalk, and wrappers.

•Brush off with a nylon brush or shirt slap tick marks &

holds after you send the problem.

•Never chip, alter, sculpt, glue-on holds, or landscape.

Your project is someone else’s warm-up.

•Limit group size & sprawl.

Pad Lightly – Crash Pads can save your ankles;

however they have the potential kill, abrade, or crush

small trees, cactus and other vegetation. Some tips to

coexist:

•Clever pad placements and attentive spotters turn

dangerous landings into safe, enviro-friendly landing

zones.

•Place your crash pads on rocks or areas free of

vegetation.

The Road More Traveled – Stay on existing trails.

•Off-trail travel between boulders can create a network

of trails and is a major problem at many areas.

Hard Choices – If no trail exists keep you and your gear

on hard, durable surfaces.

Way Old-School – One of the quickest ways to shut

down an area is to climb on or around rock art and

cultural sites.

•If someone way older and wiser than you was there

ﬁ rst, ﬁ nd a new problem on a different boulder.

A Climber’s Best Friend – It’s up to all of us to make

sure our pets comply with local regulations or it’s to the

dog house for both them and us.

Whas’s up? – Someone owns the land that you’re

bouldering on and chances are it’s not you.

•Know who owns or manages the land and abide by

their regulations, including closures.

The New Frontier – New areas warrant special care.

boulderProject (Access Fund 2006)

ICE CLIMBING

Ice climbing like rock climbing has a long and varied

history. The origin of ice climbing can be traced back

to 19th Century European mountaineering. During this

period, ice climbing was not considered a discrete sport,

but instead viewed as one of the many disciplines of

mountaineering. Due to the development of crampons

and the modern ice axe, and other technological

innovations, ice climbing has evolved into the singular

pursuit as we know it today.

As ice climbing continues to evolve, a few ecological

and social impacts are beginning to emerge. Both ice

and snow are relatively resistant to impacts, however,

with limited ice and snow cover, impacts to trails and

soils can emerge. One of the more severe impacts of ice

climbing can occur when crampon-clad climbers down-

climb steep social trails causing signiﬁ cant disruption

to the soil furthering erosion. Litter and human waste

buried or discarded in snow can also emerge following

the spring thaw creating an unsightly and potentially

hazardous health concern, especially in heavily used

areas.

Climber speciﬁ c litter has the USFS concerned over

the quantity of “V-thread” slings littering drainages near

Cody, WY, home to some of the best ice climbs in the

continental United States. The V-thread anchor is a

common practice for rappelling ice climbs.

› › 4 2

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Ice Climbing

Ice climbing at Provo Canyon, Utah. Photo: © K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Ice Climbing

››43

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Alpine Areas

A V-thread is constructed by drilling two intersecting

holes into solid ice (using a long ice screw) creating a

V-shaped hole in the ice. A sling is threaded through the

holes and tied off for an anchor. Many climbs contain

multiple V-threads within a few feet of each other. Once

the ice melts slings and rap rings are found hundreds of

yards downhill from Cody’s ice formations.

The Central Rockies Section of the American Alpine Club

has donated materials for locals to install permanent

rappel anchors on the most popular climbs where

V-threads have been used (American Alpine Club 2005).

In recent years the development of ice farming has

become popular, especially in the Rocky Mountain

West creating both environmental and legal concerns.

Ice activists have farmed ice both legally and illegally

by diverting watercourses at cliff tops to enhance the

quality of ice climbs.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WORK

ICE CLIMBING

With a few exceptions, very little is known about the

impacts of ice climbing on the environment. Continued

monitoring of this activity by the climbing community

and managers is warranted. Ice farming and the

increased interest in ice climbing have led to the creation

of Ice climbing festivals. These events have the ability

to educate climbers on the potential impacts of ice

climbing and ways to minimize their impact.

Climbers, climbing organizations, and land managers

should continue to utilize education and outreach to

inform the climbing community of the potential impacts

associated with ice climbing. In the mean time, Ice

climbers can minimize their impact by following a few

common practices:

• Optimum conditions for ice climbing should be under

frozen and snow covered conditions.

• The cliff should have a ”winter” appearance with snow,

hoarfrost, rime-ice or “verglass” covering rock, not just

snow covering ledges.

• Vegetation as a climbing medium is best when it is

frozen or covered in snow or “neve.” In this condition it

is least likely to be dislodged.

• Rock climbing routes that are of good quality and

considered classic climbs should only be attempted in

winter when fully coated with snow and ice in order to

prevent damage to the underlying rock.

(Mountaineering Council of Scotland 2006).

DRY TOOLING

“Dry tooling” or mixed climbing was developed by

ice climbers searching for new ice routes as obvious

possibilities ran out. This practice led to climbers look

for ice stalactites, which were accessed by using aid

climbing techniques. After reaching the ice, free climbing

techniques were used to gain the top. Today, with a new

and stronger generation of climbers, points of aid are

being removed. To accomplish this dry tooling was born.

Dry tooling is the climbing of very steep or overhanging

rock using axes and crampons to free them. Often loose

or dirty rock needs to be climbed in order to reach free

hanging stalactites of ice. It would be almost impossible

to climb purely by hand, however hands are used for a

move or two on the rock or ice before switching back to

tools, making routes truly mixed.

Dry tooling is a rising sport in its own right and has

been associated with damaging of established rock

climbs and out of condition winter routes. Dry tooling is

controversial among many climbers. Some favor it as a

new and exciting kind of climbing, while others dislike

it for its nontraditional methods and the long-lasting

damage it inherently causes to rock faces.

ALPINE AREAS

Climbers travel and camp in alpine areas throughout

the mountain ranges across United States. In some

of the most remote locations, climbers may be the

only human visitors. Alpine environments—including

alpine meadows, talus slopes, and water sources—and

their associated wildlife can be particularly sensitive

to human disturbance since concentrated visitor use

coincides with the short growth and reproductive season

during the prime climbing months of July and August.

Minimum-impact camping and travel practices should

always be encouraged in alpine areas.

The effects of climbing in alpine areas will accrue

largely from the hiking and camping in the backcountry

necessary for the activity. In many areas it will be hard

to distinguish the effects of climbers from the effects of

other users, except in the case of obvious approach and

descent routes to and from climbs. Often, climbers will

use bivouac sites in high boulder ﬁ elds or other locations

seldom used by non-climbing visitors. In some popular

climbing areas, primitive camping or bivouac sites have

been designated to focus or disperse overnight visitor

use. See the backcountry camping and bivouac policy

described in the public education brochure: Rocky

Mountain National Park Technical Climbing and the

Bivouac Permit (1999).

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Alpine Areas

› › 4 4

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Designated Wilderness

Climbing in alpine areas where the ground is covered

with snow and ice may require special management

considerations regarding human waste disposal.

Clear guidance on waste-disposal practice should be

provided. See - Human Waste Disposal, page 11.

Management responses in alpine areas may include

climber education, pack-out waste requirements,

suggested or mandatory bear-proof or other wildlife food

containers, and use limits to mitigate effects in sensitive

areas or allow rehabilitation of impacted areas.

DESIGNATED WILDERNESS

Legal deﬁ nitions of wilderness are provided under

the 1964 Wilderness Act and various state statutes.

“Wilderness” generally describes lands that have not

been noticeably modiﬁ ed by man and which possess

outstanding ecological values. Congress may also

designate wilderness formally through legislation and

each federal land management agency promulgates

regulations to fulﬁ ll the mandate of the 1964 Wilderness

Act and speciﬁ c wilderness bills.

Wilderness lands often feature dramatic topography and

unusual scenic qualities that often make wilderness of

interest to climbers. Some of America’s most historic,

scenic, and challenging climbing routes are found

in wilderness. As a rule, the climbing experience in

wilderness should afford: a primitive and unconﬁ ned

type of recreation; opportunities for adventure

and exploration that offer a different (sometimes

greater) degree of risk and physical and mental

challenge; opportunities for solitude; and a minimum

of administrative oversight in the ﬁ eld. Climbing is

considered a historic and appropriate use of wilderness

by federal wilderness managers.

Climbers such as John Muir, David Brower, and Norman

Clyde were instrumental in developing a “wilderness

ethic” in this country; Brower played an important role

in drafting and passing the Wilderness Act. Climbers

have a century-long history of activity in some areas that

have only recently been designated as wilderness. For

a list of climbing locations in designated wilderness see

Climbing in Wilderness: An Inventory of Recreational

Climbing use in the National Wilderness Preservation

System (Bartlett 1995). Managing climbing activity

in designated wilderness will involve special attention

to preserving the wilderness qualities of an area, and

preserving values on classic and historic routes that

make the wilderness climbing experience unique. For a

general discussion on how philosophical and practical

issues of visitor management can be integrated in

wilderness areas, see the publication Wilderness

Management (Hendee et al. 2005).

Managing climbing activity in wilderness may address

issues such as:

•camping and bivouac practice in pristine environments

•possible disturbance to wildlife, vegetation, and soils

•human waste disposal

•the development of climber trails

•the use of ﬁ xed anchors

•climber visitor levels

•effects of climbing activity on other visitor experiences.

Speciﬁ c management responses may include:

•education and outreach strategies promoting minimum-

impact practices and raising awareness of wilderness

values

•seasonal wildlife restrictions; establishment of

designated camp or bivouac sites

•establishment of exclusion zones to protect sensitive

environments.

For an example of how a federal agency has addressed

climbing management in backcountry and wilderness,

see the Backcountry & Wilderness Management Plan for

Joshua Tree National Park, California (U.S. Department

of the Interior 1998).

Climbing on Mt. Hooker in the Wind River Range, Wyoming

usually requires several days of camping or bivouacking in this

alpine location. Photo: © K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Designated WIlderness

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Wilderness and Solitude

WILDERNESS AND SOLITUDE

Climbers are drawn to wilderness in part because of the

opportunities for solitude. The sense of solitude while

climbing in wilderness is enhanced by the positions on

the landscape that climbers visit. These may include

high, wild, trail-less places with spectacular views, and

places where people cannot go unless they are skilled

in climbing techniques. Management considerations will

include the effects that climbing may have on general

opportunities for solitude in an area, and the level of

solitude preferred by climbers. Since solitude is an

essentially subjective quality relative to the preferences

and background experiences of the individual visitor, its

value can be difﬁ cult to assess.

Solitude is usually quantiﬁ ed in terms of social

encounters (meetings with other visitors) over a selected

period of time. Such information can be gathered by

visitor exit surveys. Social-encounters standards may

be developed by evaluating preferences of climbers

and other visitors through surveys or questionnaires.

These standards may then be included in a resource

management plan. If desired standards are exceeded,

education and outreach can encourage visits at

alternative times, seasons, and locations within the area.

If necessary, restrictions such as trailhead quotas can be

implemented.

Quotas are put into place to limit the number of visitors

to an area to help mitigate social and ecological impacts,

especially in popular areas like the Enchantment

area of Washington’s Alpine Lakes Wilderness,

Wenatchee National Forest. For this area, the USFS

has implemented a seasonal quota permit system for

overnight camping from June 15 to October 15 (Alpine

Lakes Wilderness 2006).

Recent management decisions on solitude indicate that

it may be preferable to condense visitor levels (raise

social-encounters standards) in a few popular areas

in order to preserve greater opportunities for solitude

elsewhere. For example the South Climb route on Mount

Hood in Oregon’s Mount Hood National Forest, is a very

popular non-technical climb. During peak season, visitor

numbers reach over 200 people per day, which exceeds

forest-wide social-encounters standards. A decision

was made to allow high levels of use on this route and

the trailhead serving it, while lowering use levels in other

areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2000). Climbing

advocates have noted that the conventional “human

encounter” methodology for developing solitude quotas

may not be as applicable to vast wide-open alpine

landscapes. See Access Fund and American Alpine Club

administrative comments at http://www.accessfund.org/

pdf/AFdenali.pdf and http://www.americanalpineclub.

org/pages/page/32.

For further information on established guidelines and

existing policy for wilderness management, see the

USDA publication, Forest Service Manual, Section

2300 http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/

fsm?2300 and the National Park Service Natural

Resource Management Reference Manual #77

http://www.nature.nps.gov/rm77/ and Wilderness

Preservation and Management policies (U.S. Department

of the Interior 2006).

››45

Climbing in wilderness is a unique experience. Climbers

value wilderness for its greater solitude, remoteness,

higher adventure and scenic qualities. Shown here is the

Weaver’s Needle in the Superstition Wilderness, AZ.

Photo: © Access Fund Collection

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wilderness and Solitude

››46

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Wilderness and Fixed Anchors

WILDERNESS AND FIXED ANCHORS

In recent years some wilderness managers have

expressed concern that the use of ﬁ xed safety anchors

may not be consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act, and

that their use should be prohibited. This has led to the

development of management policies in some locations

that restrict the continued placement of ﬁ xed anchors

(e.g., Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Sawtooth

National Forest, Idaho). Other wilderness managers

have not found such restrictions to be necessary for

compliance with the Wilderness Act. For example in the

Mount Charleston Wilderness, Toiyabe National Forest,

NV, placement of new bolts is permitted subject to limits

on the number of climbing routes in a given area.

In 2006 this US Forest Service unit began planning

with the BLM on an interagency wilderness plan

that will also encompass Red Rock canyon National

Conservation Area. By the end of 2006 the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) was the only federal agency

that had issued speciﬁ c guidelines on the legality and

management of ﬁ xed-anchor use. In 2006 the BLM

issued an internal memo to assist the Las Vegas Field

Ofﬁ ce with ﬁ xed anchor management direction for an

upcoming wilderness plan. The US Forest Service and

National Park Service will likely provide language for

policy and regulations on ﬁ xed anchors in 2008. Contact

the Access Fund regarding ﬁ xed anchor policies that are

pending.

Some environmental organizations have taken

an interest in the ﬁ xed anchor issue. The Sierra

Club, Wilderness Society, and National Parks and

Conservation Association have adopted positions

favoring management rather than prohibition of ﬁ xed

anchors in wilderness. Historically, climbers have used

ﬁ xed anchors in wilderness, most commonly to enable

rappel descents from difﬁ cult summits where there is no

walk-off, or to descend mid-route in case of bad weather

or medical emergency. The most common type of

ﬁ xed anchor in wilderness is a small loop of nylon sling

left around a horn of rock, tree trunk, or other natural

feature. Slings deteriorate over time, requiring climbers

to periodically remove and replace them.

Bolts are less frequently used in wilderness because of

the special equipment and signiﬁ cant time and physical

effort required in their placement. In some front-country

areas, concentration of ﬁ xed anchors (associated with

certain types of climbing activity) has led to changes in

use patterns including an increase in number of climbers

visiting an area.

The effects on natural resource values associated with

such use change has sometimes led to a perceived

need to regulate ﬁ xed-anchor use in backcountry or

wilderness areas in order to avoid similar effects. This

type of high-impact use pattern, however, is extremely

rare in wilderness climbing areas. These areas are

generally protected from high climbing-visitor levels by

long approaches, descents, and a requirement for a

high level of climbing skill and self-sufﬁ ciency. Also, high

densities of ﬁ xed anchors generally develop only where

battery-powered drills are permitted for bolt placement.

Power drill use is speciﬁ cally restricted in designated

wilderness, and such restrictions have proven effective

for controlling excessive proliferation of ﬁ xed anchors

without prohibiting the occasional use of ﬁ xed anchors.

Management responses to ﬁ xed-anchor concerns in

wilderness may include gathering of baseline data in

order to determine acceptable change thresholds. Local

climbing groups or representatives may be able to

assist agencies with gathering information on the history

and density of ﬁ xed anchor use in the management

area. Education and outreach should inform climbers

that power drills are illegal in wilderness. If more direct

action is deemed necessary, public meetings can

assess the potential for cooperation in decision-making

and assess possible points of conﬂ ict. Techniques

to address ﬁ xed anchor use may include requests for

voluntary compliance with ﬁ xed anchor standards

(guidelines developed through consultation with local

climbing representatives and/or climbing working

group), regulation through a permit system for new ﬁ xed

anchors, requirements for use of earth-tone colored

anchors to reduce visual prominence, establishment

of zoned areas for types of ﬁ xed-anchor use, and

restrictions or moratoriums to limit or prohibit additional

ﬁ xed anchors.

Examples of wilderness areas that are unusually

accessible and receive heavy climbing use include

portions of Joshua Tree National Park, CA. The

Backcountry and Wilderness Management Plan for this

area (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998) provides

examples of public involvement in ﬁ xed-anchor issues,

as well as examples of how restrictions on ﬁ xed anchors

may be considered and implemented. Table 4 provides

a chronology of the ﬁ xed anchor in Wilderness issues.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Wilderness and Fixed Anchors

››47

Table 4.

CHRONOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT RELATED

TO FIXED ANCHORS IN WILDERNESS

1988

Public complaints to US Forest Service managers of

Arizona’s Superstition Wilderness, Tonto National Forest,

about chalk and bolts located in a cluster of pinnacles

near popular hiking trail. Managers respond by posting a

sign at the trailhead banning all new ﬁ xed anchors in the

Superstition Wilderness.

January 1991

USFS convenes a National Task Group on Fixed Anchors

in Wilderness to study the management ﬁ xed anchor use

in wilderness areas throughout the country.

May 1991

Task group issues a report but the Forest Service never

acts on the recommendations.

June 1996

USFS issues an “Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking” on establishing a national policy on ﬁ xed

anchor use. The proposed ﬁ xed anchor rule receives

strong opposition from climbers, causing the Forest

Service to retract policy.

1997

Sawtooth National Forest, ID, bans the use of ﬁ xed

anchors in the Sawtooth Wilderness area.

June 1998

USFS uses a “discretionary review” of a wilderness plan

ruling in the Sawtooth Wilderness to impose a ban on

the use of ﬁ xed climbing anchors in all Forest Service-

administered wildernesses in the United States. The

ruling affects all forms of ﬁ xed anchors (bolts, pitons,

and nylon slings placed around rocks and trees).

Implications: (1) no new ﬁ xed anchors could be placed,

and (2) existing ﬁ xed anchors were to be removed.

August 1998

Forest Service stays the national ban up to one year

so that negotiated rulemaking could occur in hopes of

reaching a compromise. This means that ﬁ xed anchors

remain legal in all wilderness areas except the Sawtooth

Wilderness (where the original ruling was judged to be

appropriate). No new rules regarding ﬁ xed climbing

anchors were to be implemented until the negotiated

rulemaking was completed.

February 1999

A US Forest Service facilitator issues a report indicating

that negotiated rulemaking may be useful to solve the

ﬁ xed anchor problem.

Summer 2000

The negotiated rulemaking committee meets for four

two-day sessions and fails to reach full consensus on a

proposed regulation. However, most members support

a principle of limited ﬁ xed anchor use in wilderness and

agree to a set of general principles for managing ﬁ xed

anchors.

2001

The Interagency Wilderness Policy Council, comprised

of senior wilderness ofﬁ cials from the NPS, USFS, BLM,

USFWS meet and adopt in principle general and speciﬁ c

guidelines for consistently managing ﬁ xed anchors in

wilderness per the principles acknowledged by the

majority of the negotiated rulemaking committee.

2001-2006

Federal land management agencies develop draft

regulations and policies for managing ﬁ xed anchors.

June 2006

BLM issues internal memo to Las Vegas Field Ofﬁ ce

intended to guide ﬁ xed anchor management in an

ongoing BLM wilderness plan for Red Rocks National

Conservation Area.

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Wilderness and Fixed Anchors

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Anchors in Wilderness

Sport climbing in RIﬂ e, CO. Photo: © Keith Ladzinski

››48

CAVES

Caves can have high ecological, geological, or cultural

values. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of

1988 provides general guidelines for the preservation

and management of caves (Jones et al. 2003). In

general, caves are of little interest for climbing since

their structure rarely provides the necessary height and

rock type. Exceptions include certain cave entrances,

for example the lava tubes near Bend, Oregon, and the

limestone caves in the USFWS Desert Wildlife Refuge,

Nevada. There has been limited documentation of how

climbing in the outer fringes of a cave affects cave

resource values. Current federal law or agency manuals

contain no clear deﬁ nition of a cave, and certain climbing

sites, such as large cliff alcoves, may have cave-like

characteristics. At Nevada’s Mount Charleston in the

Toiyabe National Forest, bat populations are protected

from disturbance through seasonal restrictions on

climbing access. If resource managers have concerns

about a particular site, they may wish to contact the

Access Fund and the National Speleological Society for

assistance with development of management response.

CMP

| Chapter 5 | Activities and Areas of Special Concern | Caves

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Caves

PHILOSOPHIES AND TOOLS

Climbing presents unique management challenges due

to its historic associations, the equipment used, the

different forms of climbing activity, and the diversity of

environments where climbing takes place. Management

response to the effects of climbing activity will depend

on many factors, including the mission of the agency

or ﬁ eld unit, and stafﬁ ng or budgetary resources.

Each natural area is unique, requiring land managers

to exercise broad discretion in managing recreational

activities. This discretion is encoded in law and

policy directives. If legislation such as the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is applicable

to the area where a change in management approach is

being proposed, then a formal use plan will be prepared

which will present a range of management alternatives

or responses. Other legislation such as the Endangered

Species Act, 1973; the National Historic Preservation

Act, 1966; the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act, 1990; or other forms of state or special

designations may also affect management approaches.

Beyond the requirements of law, hard rules are seldom

possible, but one useful document that can give

direction on developing a management response is

NPS-77 Natural Resources Management Guidelines

(U.S. Department of the Interior 2006) especially

Chapter 3, “Backcountry Recreation Management.”

These guidelines outline a management scheme where

action is implemented on a graduated scale, from

indirect measures such as education and outreach, to

direct measures such as area restrictions and closures.

In general, recommended actions are the minimum

necessary to protect resources.

Climbing activity, as with any use of a natural area,

creates impact. It may be useful to consider impact in

terms of a threshold, and differentiate acceptable or

inconsequential effects on the resource from detrimental

impact or impairment. The speciﬁ c threshold between

effects and impairment will depend upon complex

factors including the mission of the agency and the

status of the area. Degree of impact will be weighed

with considerations such as the signiﬁ cance of resource

values within the contextual environment, and high-

quality occurrences of resource values or important

populations.

Land managers can expect above-average concern for

the environment from participants in climbing activity.

Findings from a sample of climbers in Montana’s

Bitterroot Valley found that the way people are

introduced to climbing has an important inﬂ uence on

their attitudes towards low-impact practices. Results

found signiﬁ cant differences between those climbers

who learned to climb indoors and those who learned

to climb outdoors. And those who were introduced

to the sport using ﬁ xed anchors (sport climbing) and

climbers introduced to the sport using removable

protection (traditional climbers) (Borrie and Harding

2002). Research by Indiana University, Department of

Recreation and Park Administration (Ewert, personal

communication 2000) has shown that participants in

“adventure recreation” (including climbing, paragliding,

and spelunking) have above average awareness about

environmental concerns and minimum-impact practices.

These groups, which are relatively easily identiﬁ ed by

their activity and equipment, respond well to targeted

education, outreach and voluntary restrictions on use.

Opportunities for outreach include guidebooks,

outdoor retail stores, climbing gyms, guide services,

magazines, and local climbing groups. Climbers have

been visiting parks and natural areas for a long time,

and may be in the habit of assuming a protective

attitude of stewardship toward areas that have had little

direct administrative oversight. This notion is support

by research conducted in the Grandfather Mountain

Corridor (GMC) of North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Parkway

and home to a number of world-class bouldering

destinations where over three-fourths (77%) of the

climbers interviewed reported being active in one or

more climbing or conservation organizations, read one

or more popular climbing publications, exhibited strong

stewardship practices, and placed an importance on

maintaining the area’s climbing and natural resource

base (Attarian 2005).

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Visitor Capacity

››49

CMP

| Chapter 6 | Visitor Capacity

CHAPTER 6: CLIMBING MANAGEMENT METHODS

This chapter outlines philosophies and tools thata land managers use to manage climbing and address speciﬁ c

management concerns such as visitor capacity, increases in climber visitation, and the development of new climbing

routes.

Education brochures such

as this one for New River

Gorge National Recreation

Area, West Virginia are

produced jointly with the

National Park Service and

the local climbing group.

They focus on special

practices to minimize

climbing impacts and raise

awareness on special

access or resource issues

in the area. Funding for

education brochures can

be provided by climbing

organizations on a cost-

share basis.

Climbers’ compliance with new management

approaches is generally good in areas where

management priorities are well publicized and there

have been opportunities for public involvement in

development of management policy. Poor compliance

often arises in situations where there has been limited

communication between climbers and resource

managers, where management policies show poor

understanding of climbing activity and use patterns,

or where new restrictions have arisen without the

identiﬁ cation of problems through ﬁ eld observation. As

with other types of outdoor recreation, there are climbers

with extreme philosophical positions or uncooperative

attitudes. Often, it is the behavior or statements of such

individuals that ﬁ rst come to the attention of resource

managers. It should not be assumed that this behavior

or attitude is characteristic of the user group in general.

Better information on local climber attitudes and

preferences will be obtained by consulting with local

climbing representatives.

The Access Fund manages databases on climbing and

resource-management contacts and may be able to

assist with identifying helpful individuals. Information on

climbing use patterns can be gathered through visitor

registration. Typically this takes place at the trailhead.

Climbers have responded well to both voluntary and

mandatory registration. See the climbing management

plan for Devils Tower National Monument, WY (National

Park Service 1995) for an example of how climber

registers can assist in an area’s comprehensive

management strategy.

Comprehensive information about climbing and the

equipment required can be found in many publications

available from outdoor retail stores. Local information

such as speciﬁ c climbing locations, approach trails, or

campsites will be found in local climbing guidebooks,

also available from outdoor retail stores.

More current information and news stories can be

gleaned from the nationally distributed climbing

magazines and by reviewing back issues on their

websites: Alpinist (www.alpinist.com), Climbing (www.

climbing.com), Rock & Ice (www.rockandice.com), and

Urban Climber (www.urbanclimbermag.com). Other

valuable climbing websites that receive considerable

online trafﬁ c include www.mountainproject.com, www.

rockclimbing.com, and www.supertopo.com. Perhaps

the best source of information on climbing, however,

will be local climbers. The level of resources available

for management oversight will vary. Managers will

want to evaluate whether resources are available for

direct management intervention, or whether resource

protection objectives can be met through indirect

measures such as education. With either approach,

resources must be committed to support the proposed

action and costs determined for this.

A checklist of considerations to assess effects from

climbing activity may include:

•What is the agency mandate?

•Is climbing activity affecting resource values?

•Given the contextual environment, what is the threshold

of impairment?

•Do other non-climbing users contribute to the effects in

question?

•What are the patterns of use and types of climbing

activity present? Where, during the climbing visit, is the

resource value impacted?

•Can user groups help gather information?

Management intervention considerations may

include:

•Is it possible to build stewardship through community

involvement in the development of management

response?

•What mechanisms are available for involving the user

group in development of the management decision, and

subsequently for involvement in monitoring, evaluation

and review?

•Can education and outreach strategies be developed

as part of any implemented management action?

• What budgetary or stafﬁ ng constraints will affect

management response?

VISITOR CAPACITY

The visitor or carrying capacity of an area can be deﬁ ned

as the maximum number and type of visitors that an

area can accommodate, given desired future natural

and cultural resource conditions, visitor experience

opportunities, and the management program. In a

climbing context, visitor-capacity issues may arise

when visitor levels increase to the extent that visitor

use adversely affects the climbing experience, the

experience of other visitors, or natural and cultural

resource values (Figure 6). Managers may be concerned

about a speciﬁ c climbing location, or they may be

concerned about climber visitor numbers within the

area as a whole. This concern is evident at Hueco Tanks

State Historical Park, TX. The park contains thousands

of painted rock images from several cultural groups,

archeological sites, and signiﬁ cant natural resources.

The park is also an internationally known bouldering

destination. Because of a variety of impacts and other

problems, Texas State Parks initiated a Public Use plan

in 2000 to help preserve the park’s natural resources

and accommodate recreation use. The park allows 70

persons in the park per day–60 through reservation

and 10 walk-in. Currently climbers can climb almost

everywhere on North Mountain, without a guide (Hueco

Tanks State Historical Park 2000). For more information

on climbing in Hueco Tanks go to:

http://www.huecotanks.com/.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Visitor Capacity

CMP

| Chapter 6 | Visitor Capacity

› › 5 0

› › 5 1

For a discussion on visitor capacity with respect to

recreation management in general, see the National Park

Service manual, Management Policies, NPS-77, Natural

Resources Management Guidelines (U.S. Department

of the Interior 2006). This document describes and

employs the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) method

of assessing and mitigating user impacts, providing for

both resource protection, and recreation-management

goals. The LAC method provides for opportunities to

interface with the climbing public about management

goals and priorities, proposed changes in policy and/or

regulation, and cooperative solutions to visitor-impact

problems. This document describes and employs the

Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) method of assessing

and mitigating user impacts, providing for both resource

protection and recreation-management goals.

The LAC process consists of 9 steps (1. Identify area

issues and concerns, 2. Deﬁ ne and describe opportunity

zones, 3. Select indicators of resource and social

conditions, 4. Inventory resource and social conditions,

5. Specify standards for both, 6. Identify alternative

opportunity zone allocations, 7. Identify management

actions for each alternative, 8. Evaluate and select a

preferred alternative, 9. Implement actions and monitor

conditions and provides for opportunities to interface

with the climbing public and other recreationists about

management goals and priorities, proposed changes

in policy and/or regulation, and cooperative solutions

to visitor-impact problems. This approach is currently

being undertaken by the USFS at the Red River Gorge

in Kentucky where land managers initiated the process

during summer 2004 and are currently (2007) working

on Steps 5 and 6. The climbing community has played

a signiﬁ cant role throughout the process (United States

Department of Agriculture 2006).

Climbing organizations generally welcome this and

other planning strategies such as the Visitor Experience

and Resource Protection (VERP) for the development

of climbing management concepts. Recent work by

the Federal Interagency Task Force on visitor capacity

on public lands has also developed guidelines to

assist decision-makers on visitor-capacity issues (U.S.

Department of the Interior 2001). Additional planning

strategies such as the Visitor Experience and Resource

Protection (VERP) may be used for the development of

climbing management concepts. Another management

“tool” Visitor Impact Management (VIM) was developed

by researchers to address three basic issues relating to

impact: problem conditions; potential causal factors;

and potential management strategies. VIM provides

for a balanced use of both scientiﬁ c and judgmental

considerations, and places emphasis on understanding

causal factors to identify management strategies. The

process also provides a classiﬁ cation of management

strategies and a matrix for evaluating them (Kuss,

Graefe and Vaske 1990). Recent work by the Federal

Interagency Task Force on visitor capacity on public

lands has also developed guidelines to assist decision-

makers on visitor-capacity issues (U.S. Department of

the Interior 2001).

INCREASE IN CLIMBER VISITATION AND

CHANGES IN USE

More people than ever are participating in climbing

activities. (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2006). Increase

in climber visitor numbers is often the driving factor

leading to the production of a climbing management

plan. Climbing’s new popularity can be attributed to

a variety of factors. These include newer, safer, and

more available equipment; more college and university

outdoor programs that offer climbing; new instructional

texts and videos; the growth of commercial guide

and instructional programs; coverage of climbing by

television, newspapers, and advertising; and greater

availability of information on climbing areas through

new publications and the internet; and the widespread

appearance of indoor climbing walls (Attarian 2001).

An indication of the numbers of U.S. climbers is available

from the Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIA)–8th Annual

Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey (2006). The

2006 study shows that during the year 2005, 5 million

Americans 16 years of age and older participated in

some form of climbing on natural rock. Males outnumber

females 5 to 1 and over half (54%) are between 16

to 24 years of age. More than one third (36%) live

in the Western United States. Income averages

$40-$79,000.00 for almost half of participants (48%).

In addition, it’s estimated that 6.7 million Americans

climbed on an artiﬁ cial wall and 1.0 million climbed ice.

Conﬂ icts between climbing and resource protection

often arise from surges in use. Factors such as the

publication of information about a relatively unknown

climbing site may lead to a sharp rise in climber

numbers. If a general increase in climber visitor levels

is an issue, it may be helpful to gather more speciﬁ c

information. An apparent change in overall visitor levels

may in fact reﬂ ect a change in use patterns within the

climbing area. Impacts may be unevenly distributed, and

it may be possible to identify trends and better predict

effects on speciﬁ c resource values and other user

interests. Volunteers from local climbing groups may

be able to assist agencies in gathering information. The

choice and popularity of a climbing site can be affected

by a variety of factors Table 6.

CMP

| Chapter 6 | Visitor Capacity

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Visitor Capacity

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > New Climbing Routes

››52

Table 6. Some Factors to Consider when Choosing a

Climbing Site

•Length of climb

•Type of climbing available

•Approach time

•Crowding

•Overall quality of the climb

•Difﬁ culty of the climb

•Scenic Quality

•Distance from home

•Presence of other visitors

•Availability of parking

•Area ethics

•Regulations governing use

(Attarian 2002; Cavlovic 2000; Hanley et. al. 2002)

Management tools that have been effective in controlling

climber numbers include providing information on

alternative climbing locations; imposing restrictions on

parking such as time or space limits; increasing the

distance or difﬁ culty of walk-in access. For areas where

climber visitor levels is not an issue but is anticipated

in the future, management efforts can be directed

towards gathering baseline information using trailhead

registration, trail counters, number counts, or surveys.

For an example of how increasing climber visits to

popular climbing routes was assessed, see the Mount

Hood National Forest Wilderness Protection Plan (U.S.

Department of Agriculture 2000). For a discussion of

setting up a climbing working group or advisory group

of interested parties to work on increased visitor-use

issues, see Climbing working groups, page 56.

NEW CLIMBING ROUTES

Exploration of new climbing routes is central to the core

values of climbing, and is generally associated with a

high degree of adventure and exploration. Climbing

previously unknown routes may explore frontiers of

climbing skill—on smooth or steep sections of well-

known rock faces—or more tangible frontiers such as

unclimbed peaks or ranges. In remote areas, solitude

and intimacy with nature are highly valued as part of

the experience of climbing new routes. In general, new

routes are a small but normal part of climbing activity.

Oversight need not be rigorous if there is no identiﬁ ed

threat to natural resources or other values. Many areas,

including Zion and Black Canyon of the Gunnison

National Parks, have traditionally kept new route logs at

visitor centers to document climbing activity and assist

climbers.

The establishment of new climbs occasionally raises

management concerns because climbers may be

exploring territory that has seen no prior visitation, and

such areas may represent pristine environments and

habitats.

d

The unexplored or remote nature of these locations may

mean there is little or no record of the resource values

of these areas. Hence, the potential of these areas to

be impacted from recreation activities is uncertain.

Management efforts need to determine: 1) the degree of

impact to resource values from new-route activity, and 2)

the contextual environment of the impact. In determining

impact, distinction should also be made between effects

of the one-time activity of establishing a new route, and

effects from the potential increase in visitors to the area

that may (but does not always) follow.

One-time effects may result from the “cleaning” of new

routes (i.e., brushing of lichen or moss from hand- and

footholds and the clearing of loose rock). Such activity

can make climbs safer, and the need for it will vary

with the type of rock, climate, and length and difﬁ culty

of the climb. If visual effects or resource values are a

concern, climbers can be encouraged to keep brushing

to the minimum necessary, or cleaning activity may be

restricted. The potential for increase in visitor levels to a

new climbing route will vary according to factors such as

ease of access, type of climbing opportunity (e.g. sport

or traditional), and technical difﬁ culty of the climbing

routes. The contextual environment of the impact will

vary according to factors such as whether the area

represents a signiﬁ cant portion of a resource or habitat,

or if the impact occurs in areas of marginal or high-

quality occurrence or important habitat.

Consult with local climbing representatives about

developing a system of self-registration for new routes to

assist monitoring of this activity.

Where new-route activity conﬂ icts with management

priorities and mandates, management responses such

as zoning of areas for low, medium, or high use may

be appropriate, with certain areas closed to new-route

activity. This approach has been used at Snow Canyon

State Park, Utah (see Table 5). The Access Fund can

assist with information on policies and management

programs at other climbing areas.

CMP

| Chapter 6 | New Climbing Routes

Exploration of new climbing routes is one of the core values of

climbing. These sandstone towers above Castle Valley, Utah were ﬁ rst

climbed in the 1960’s. Additional climbs at higher technical difﬁ culties

› › 5 3

CMP

| Chapter 6 | Zones for Rock Climbing

Table 5.

Snow Canyon State Park, UT. Zones for Rock Climbing

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Zones for Rock Climbing

ZONE TYPE DEFINITION CRITERIA

High Impact Zone

Medium Impact Zone

Low Impact Zone

Specially Managed

Areas

Climbing is the primary use of

these areas and is anticipated to

cause signiﬁ cant impact to biotic

and abiotic resources. Impacts are

considered to be acceptable since

concentrating climbing activity

reduces impacts to other areas.

•on a busy day several climbing parties in area;

•adjacent routes may share the same start and top anchors,

but not common holds;

•trails to climbs are designated and impacts at the base of

routes are contained;

•ﬁ xed hardware is camouﬂ aged and chains are used for

anchor extensions, not webbing;

•periodic clean-ups of chalk residue are organized as

necessary;

•climbers disperse at least 200’ from area to urinate or use a

portable urine container, human feces are packed out in an

appropriate container;

•new routes are established without removal of signiﬁ cant

vegetation and minimal pruning;

•vegetation shall not be used as belay anchors;

•the area is kept clean and trash free; and

•applications for new routes, which cannot demonstrate

compliance with these criteria, will be denied.

Climbing is one of the uses in

these areas and though the impact

of climbing on biotic and abiotic

resources may be noticeable, it is

minor and does not interfere with

other park uses.

•on a busy day, a couple of climbing parties may be in the

area;

•and those criteria listed above.

Climbing use of these areas

produces minimal impact visually

or physically to biotic and abiotic

resources as well as scenic and

historic resources.

•climbers are in the area infrequently–usually no more than

one party in the area at a time;

•routes are typically not near one another;

•trails to climbs may be designated and the impacts at the

base of routes are contained;

•ﬁ xed hardware is camouﬂ aged and webbing is strongly

discouraged;

•climbers disperse to urinate and human feces are packed

out to an appropriate receptacle;

•new routes are established without removal of signiﬁ cant

vegetation and minimal pruning;

•wildlife is not noticeably displaced by climbing activities;

•vegetation shall not be used as belay anchors;

•the area is kept clean and trash free; and

•applications for new routes, which cannot demonstrate

compliance with these criteria, will be denied.

Area identiﬁ ed as a special

management area because of the

pristine nature of its biotic and

abiotic resources.

•Climbing resources in this area are considered to be very

high with great variety of climbing available;

•Unique and undisturbed vegetation, aesthetic beauty and

opportunity for solitude are important resources. Desirable

for park management and the climbing community to

cooperatively manage climbing activity, with the goal to

minimize resource impacts while allowing for a high level of

use.

•Climbers and park management see this area as an

opportunity to develop creative and highly effective

partnership using the Climbing Advisory Team model.

››54

CMP

| Chapter 7 | Production of a Climbing Management Plan

This chapter provides guiding information on how to develop a climbing management plan. The material is designed

to reach a wide range of audiences with different experience levels in planning, resource-protection mandates, and

budgetary resources. See Chapter 1 of this document, A Guide to Climbing Management, page 6, for information on

management concerns and examples of responses. Refer to the bibliography in Appendix G, page 70, for information

on the publications cited in this document. See also the Access Fund’s website at www.accessfund.org for a detailed

list of federal and state agency climbing-management documents, and Memorada of Understanding (MOUs) between

agencies and climbing groups. Also, Climbing Management Methods, page 49, provides a general overview of

considerations concerning management responses.

CHAPTER 7: PRODUCTION OF A CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP)

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

››55

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

THE CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN

A SUGGESTED OUTLINE OF CMP CONTENT

A climbing management document may incorporate the

following contents depending on scope and extent of the

project:

1. Introduction

2. Purpose and need

3. Goal and objectives

4. Authorities, policies, guidelines for resource and

recreation management

5. Description of present condition of natural, historic

and cultural resources

A. General description

B. Vegetation communities

C. Wildlife communities

D. Speciﬁ c resources (special-status species/

cultural/historic)

E. Existing condition of identiﬁ ed resources

6. Description of relevant management infrastructure

(trails, camping facilities, waste disposal, parking)

7. Description of climbing activity

A. History

B. National/regional importance

C. Who are the climbers? (user proﬁ le)

D. Description of existing and potential climbing

opportunities

E. Description of use patterns

F. Potential for new climbing areas

G. Maps/location of climbing resources

8. Description/summary of climbing management

issues/concerns

9. Desired future resource conditions

10. Description of climbing management, past and

present

11. Management recommendations for policy, guidelines,

and action

12. Summary of internal/public review process (including

any changes made to the draft)

13. Future review/liaison procedures

14. Glossary of terms

15. Bibliography

16. Contacts (interested parties/organizations)

17. Appendices

HALLMARKS OF A SUCCESSFUL

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN

Analysis of successful climbing management plans

reveals certain key elements. Successful CMPs:

•Satisfy statutory requirements and internal agency

guidance where applicable.

•Provide information about status and contextual

importance of resource values, climbing activity and use

patterns, and effects of climbing activity on identiﬁ ed

resource values.

•Build cooperative relationships between climbers and

resource managers.

•Provide management direction that is the minimum

necessary to protect resources and is implemented on a

graduated scale from indirect measures (e.g. education)

to direct measures (restrictions).

•Articulate climbing as a recreational experience, and

describe the variety of climbing opportunities as values

(see Appendix A- Types of climbing - deﬁ ned, page

61).

•Identify management alternatives that address climbing

impacts in a manner that is consistent with management

approach to other recreation groups.

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A CMP

This section outlines a procedure for developing a

climbing management document. Federal agencies will

ﬁ rst need to determine if the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is applicable to their action. If

so, the NEPA will direct agencies to develop procedures

to ensure that the natural, physical, and cultural aspects

of the environment are given due consideration. Key

elements of the NEPA process are documentation of

existing resources and the potential effects to these

resources as a result of a proposed project or action,

and public involvement in planning. The following

procedure can either be used if NEPA is not applicable,

or incorporated into NEPA analysis. Here, the procedure

for developing a CMP is broken down into steps: 1) Initial

considerations, 2) The planning process, 3) Preparation

of the Draft CMP, 4) Review and revision of the draft

plan, and 5) Implementation of the CMP.

CMP

| Chapter 7 | Guidelines for Preparing a Climbing Management Plan

› › 5 6

CMP

| Chapter 7 | Initial Considerations

STEP 1. INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The following questions and considerations will provide

guidance for the planning process:

Deﬁ ne the Purpose and the Need for the CMP.

Purpose is a statement of goals and objectives that the

land manager intends to fulﬁ ll by taking action. These

goals can come from management objectives or mission

goals, from implementing regulations or other legislation,

or a general management plan or other plan. Because

some of these objectives should also resolve needs,

there may be overlap between purpose and need. Need

is a discussion of existing conditions that need to be

changed, problems that need to be remedied, decisions

that need to be made, and policies or mandates that

need to be implemented. In other words, it explains why

the land manager is proposing this action at this time.

There may be one or several needs that an action will

resolve. Need is not a discussion of the need for NEPA

or other regulatory compliance, but rather reasons why

the land manager must take action at this time and in this

place.

Who will help prepare the plan, and who will use it?

Who are the interested parties? How will the climbing

public help prepare and implement the plan? Who are

the agencies, ﬁ eld units, or special-interest groups that

should be involved?

Deﬁ ne the scope and scale of the CMP. The plan

should reﬂ ect current use conditions as well as probable

future conditions. If climbing use of the area is heavy, or

is predicted to be heavy, more management issues must

be addressed. Other scope and scale considerations

include: the size of the management unit, its resource

protection mandate, the budgetary resources available,

and the commitment of local climbing groups to the

management process.

What is the time frame for consultation and

production of the CMP? Allow sufﬁ cient time for

consultation with resource managers and the interested

public. Consultation often takes longer than initially

planned, and may need special budgetary provision.

Consider the presentation and format of the CMP.

Technical resource management language can be

confusing to the public. Consider summarizing into a

brochure or pamphlet.

STEP 2. THE PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process involves gathering information,

identifying interested parties, and establishing important

relationships that will help with the production of the

CMP. The process involves several phases and elements.

Scoping. Scoping is the planning phase that identiﬁ es

which issues need to be addressed in a plan, and

should be completed before Goals and Objectives are

determined and described in the draft CMP. Scoping

encourages public investment in response to issues,

and helps deﬁ ne values, goals, and strategies. A primary

beneﬁ t of scoping is the opportunity to compile mailing

lists and identify interested parties. The scoping process

may include consultation with national user groups for

assistance in identiﬁ cation of issues and local contacts.

Climbing working groups. The interested public is a

management resource, and this resource may be utilized

in various forms. Some of the ﬁ rst climbing management

plans, produced for locations such as City of Rocks,

Idaho (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988), involved the

public through a series of planning meetings, and then

subsequently established a climbing committee. A more

recent approach has been to form a climbing working

group at the start of the planning process to focus on

issues identiﬁ ed through scoping. Climbing working

groups can be formal or informal. Their role is advisory,

and their aim is to consider issues through a cooperative

and consensus building approach. Climbing working

groups are often established when a CMP is being

produced, but they can also assist with the development

The popularity of the Indian Creek river corridor near Monticello, Utah,

led to the development of a recreation plan in 2005 to better protect

riparian corridor, desert habitat, and cultural resources. Camping will

be restricted to designated sites in order to address human waste

issues and minimize impacts on the local environment. Photo: A. Kvale

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

Access Fund representatives provided input to the National

Park Service about climbing in the inner canyon during

the information-gathering stage for a Backcountry and

Wilderness Management Plan for Black Canyon of the

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

››57

of climbing management policy on an ongoing basis.

Such groups can help management respond to speciﬁ c

climbing issues such as ﬁ xed anchors, developing

outreach strategies, and focusing volunteer assistance.

A long-term working group should periodically review

its membership and provide opportunities for new

individuals to serve on the team. Opportunities should

also be provided for specialists on subjects related

to climbing and resource management to make

presentations to the group. Working groups typically

range in size from six to fourteen members and may

include resource managers, members of environmental

organizations, climbing guides, climber advocacy groups,

Native American tribes, and historical and cultural

experts. The Access Fund can help identify local climbing

contacts who may serve as climbing representatives

in working groups. Groups will require a management

representative to facilitate and serve as liaison. The

working group should develop a mission statement, and

members should be assigned speciﬁ c tasks. Decisions

should be made by consensus, consistent with statutory

requirements. It is possible to establish an informal

working group without conﬂ icting with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act of 1972.

For a helpful explanatory publication, see: http://www.

blm.gov/publications/adr/ADR-FACA_Brochure.pdf.

The climbing working group should:

•Bring together all interested parties and representatives

of uses occurring on the designated management area.

•Hold sufﬁ cient meetings and exchange background

information so that suggestions come forth that reﬂ ect

the wider management picture.

•Prepare and publish a concise mission statement.

•Deﬁ ne the goal of the project and the objectives of

the working group in reaching possible solutions, and

alternatives. As this process takes place, ensure that

representatives represent their speciﬁ c user groups.

•Produce recommendations based on consensus

decision making.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

CMP

| Chapter 7 | The Planning Process

› › 5 8

CMP

| Chapter 7 | Preparation of the Draft CMP

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

Outreach. An outreach plan is needed to encourage

maximum public involvement. Early involvement will

help lay the groundwork for good reception of possible

changes in access and/or types or patterns of use.

Distribute information via local climbing outlets (outdoor

retail stores, climbing gyms), climbing media (national

climbing magazines), as well as postings on trailhead

kiosks, bulletin boards, and direct mailing to “friends

and advocates” lists. Use e-mail and websites as an

additional mechanism to facilitate public involvement.

For further discussion, see Appendix C - Outreach

and the development of education materials, page

65. Summary of scoping results and working group

recommendations.

The initial planning phase of CMP preparation will

end with 1) a summary of scoping results, and 2) the

incorporation of scoping results and working-group

recommendations into an internal preliminary document

identifying issues and need for response. Publicize

scoping results to demonstrate that the identiﬁ ed issues

and planning objectives are in alignment with public

sentiment to the extent that this is consistent with

management mandates. Use the preliminary summarizing

document to set the stage for draft CMP production. This

document will provide objective rationale for decision-

making, and should include reference to available data

regarding resource conditions, visitor preferences,

climbing activities, and history.

STEP 3. PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT CMP

Preparation of the draft CMP will involve the development

of management strategy, and describe management

alternatives to address the issues identiﬁ ed through

scoping. Climbing representatives or a climbing working

group may be able to provide assistance at this stage by

helping with issues of terminology, and by serving as a

sounding board for clariﬁ cation of the intent of various

management alternatives. The draft CMP document is

prepared by a designated agency staff member and will

be subject to internal agency review.

COMMENTS ON WRITING THE CMP

Not only the content but also the written form of the

CMP will inﬂ uence its success. If the draft document

contains a high level of technical language, it may be

useful to consider a summary document that allows the

public to better understand the plan’s intent. The ﬁ rst

three sections of the CMP will introduce the document

to the affected user groups and can help set the tone

for the reception of the plan. The following suggestions

and comments are based on management plans that

have been well received by user groups and have proven

successful in their implementation.

1. Introduction

The introduction sets a positive, proactive tone for the

plan. It refers to climbing as a value, and deﬁ nes the need

to preserve a high-quality climbing experience consistent

with the protection of other values. The unique character

and history of climbing in the area is described, and

general issues and concerns are raised. The introduction

will refer to a timeframe for planning, the importance

of public input, and ﬂ exibility of the ﬁ nal document to

respond to changing conditions, use patterns, and

statutes or regulations.

2. Purpose and Need

This section is important not only as a compass for

the planning process, but also as a “sales pitch” to the

public. It highlights management concerns; legislative

and regulatory mandates; and changes in resource

conditions, visitation, administrative resources, facilities,

and public opinion that compel a management response.

It will make a case for present action rather than

postponing management response. The “Purpose and

Need” of the CMP document is to respond to changing

conditions, which may threaten values; these should not

be confused with the “Goals and Objectives,” which will

be to protect natural and cultural resources and provide

climbing opportunities.

3. Goals and Objectives

Goals may be introduced in a hierarchy. The primary

goals of the CMP will be to preserve and protect natural

resources and other values and provide for a diversity

of enjoyable recreational experiences. Secondary goals

may be to engage the climbing community in cooperative

stewardship; to build a foundation of data (status of

natural resources, climbing use patterns, visitor effects

on resource values) as a basis for decision-making; and

to articulate and preserve area climbing traditions and

historical values. Other goals and objectives may include:

clarifying management concerns, needs, and priorities;

analyzing and describing administrative requirements

for climbing activity; providing a clear decision-making

framework and action timetable; initiating or continuing

a planning process to address recreation issues (e.g.,

The National Park Service Limits of Acceptable Change

procedure); assuring regular monitoring of use and

resources; and providing for timely plan review.

››59

STEP 4.

REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE DRAFT PLAN

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD

NEPA will require a public review period if the CMP

falls under its jurisdiction. Such a review period is

recommended even if the CMP is not subject to NEPA

requirements. Post the draft plan on the agency

website and distribute it to interested parties. Set a

60-days minimum period for submission of comments.

National and local climbing organizations may be able

to assist agencies by promoting notice of the plan.

Indicate how public comments can be accepted (e.g.,

by letter and/or e-mail). Revisions to the draft CMP will

incorporate feedback from the public and other resource-

management agencies received during the review period.

The resulting document will be the completed climbing

management plan.

STEP 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CMP

Ensure that sufﬁ cient administrative resources have

been allocated for implementation and periodic review

of the CMP. Designate an agency staff member as

a climbing liaison contact, and if resources permit,

consider establishing a seasonal or full-time climbing

ranger position. Monitor progress of planning actions

and of changes in use and condition of the climbing

area(s). Use volunteer resources where available, and

consider maintaining and using the working group for

help with education outreach and coordinating volunteer

assistance.

REVIEW AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Review the CMP for successes and shortcomings.

Incorporate adjustments or possible amendments

according to an established timetable. Plan to review

the CMP regularly, typically every ﬁ ve years, but more

frequently if use patterns or other key factors change

dramatically.

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (MOUs)

Consider formalizing the relationship with a local climbing

group with the development of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU). A Memorandum of Understanding

(or Memorandum of Agreement - MOA) is a written

understanding that frames a cooperative relationship

between two or more parties. The MOU deﬁ nes the

common interests that parties share, and deﬁ nes the way

they will work together to reach common goals. These

brief documents (typically less than ﬁ ve pages) can cover

a range of objectives, from very broad partnership and

stewardship responsibilities to very speciﬁ c applications

such as land acquisition. The Access Fund has nation-

wide MOUs with both the BLM and USFS which solidify

relationships to expand a framework of cooperation

upon which mutually beneﬁ cial programs, projects,

training, and other recreation activities may be planned

and accomplished at climbing areas nationwide. These

documents can be found at http://accessfund.org/advo/

mous.php. Similarly, an MOU between Red River Gorge

Climbers Coalition and the USDA Forest Service, Daniel

Boone National Forest, for example, outlines a framework

for planning and accomplishing projects speciﬁ cally

in the Red River Gorge Geological Area, Kentucky.

This document is available at the website: http://www.

seclimbers.org/uploads/mou_sample_rrgcc.doc.

CMP

| Chapter 7 | Review and Revision of the Draft Plan

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Production of a CMP

APPENDICES

A – Types of Climbing - Deﬁ ned

B – Glossary of Climbing Terms

C – Outreach and Educational Materials

D – Funding and Volunteer Assistance

E – Contacts on Climbing Issues

F – Utilizing the Resources of the Access Fund

G – Bibliography and References

Climbing in Kolob Canyon Zion, UT.

› › 6 0

CMP

| Appendices

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendices

››61

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix A

APPENDIX A

TYPES OF CLIMBING - DEFINED

This section deﬁ nes the different types of climbing

activity (sometimes referred to in strategic planning

documents as “climbing experience opportunities”).

Deﬁ nitions are included here not just for general

reference, but because different types of climbing

opportunity may warrant different management

concerns and responses. The sport of climbing

hosts a spectrum of experiences. These can range

from the adventure into the unknown of wilderness

mountaineering, to the relatively controlled environment

of the indoor rock gym. While climbers may align

themselves more closely with one type of climbing than

another, many climbers will practice a range of different

disciplines depending on time, season, and access to

climbing locations.

Aid Climbing: Aid climbing is the direct use of climbing

equipment (pitons, wired nuts, “camming” devices) for

upward progress. The challenge of aid climbing is to

ascend very smooth faces with minimal tools. This type

of climbing is particularly associated with “big-wall”

areas such as Yosemite and Zion national parks, where

traditional climbing techniques (both aid and free) are

utilized to ascend long routes on sheer rock walls. These

ascents may take many days, entail hauling personal and

climbing equipment, and can require overnight bivouacs

on the climb. “Clean” aid climbing entails the use of

hand-placed protection only, instead of using pitons or

other types of protection that require being drilled or

hammered into the rock.

Alpine Climbing: see Mountaineering

Bouldering: Bouldering is the term given to rope-

less climbing that concentrates on short, sequential

moves on rock usually no more than 15 feet off the

ground. Typically, falls are very short (a few feet) and

inconsequential. Each climb-able sequence of moves

is called a “boulder problem.” Boulder problems vary in

difﬁ culty, and are usually given difﬁ culty grades from V1,

V2 . . . and on up to V15 and above. Boulderers typically

will try difﬁ cult moves many times before succeeding on

a given boulder problem. Since it takes place near the

ground, bouldering can be a very social form of climbing,

and requires relatively little equipment other than rock

shoes. Use of a bouldering “crash pad” is common.

These are placed below climbs to soften falls.

Free Climbing: see Traditional climbing

Guided Climbing: This term is given when an

experienced climber (the guide, who sometimes has

special training qualiﬁ cations) takes on a supervisory

role and the responsibility for the safety of less-

experienced individuals, to guide them up a rock-

climbing or mountaineering route. Guided climbing may

occur in a one-to-one ratio, or a guide may instruct a

group, usually of no more than six individuals. Guide

services are usually provided on a commercial basis

with a client exchanging a fee to be guided up a route or

instructed in a technique of his or her choice.

Ice Climbing: Ice climbing takes place on frozen water

ice or very hard snow, using ice axes and crampons.

For protection, climbers screw metal tubes into the ice.

This activity can occur in a variety of environments,

from relatively small frozen waterfalls with easy access,

to mountaineering situations with long approaches and

involving multiple pitches of climbing. More recently,

the development of ice parks has presented a different

type of climbing opportunity. In this situation ice

formations are artiﬁ cially constructed from dripping

water hoses positioned on cliff edges at sites with winter

temperatures below freezing. An internationally known

site is Ouray Ice Park, CO, developed in 1995 by the

County of Ouray and the local climbing group, Ouray Ice

Climbers Coalition.

Indoor climbing: Indoor climbing takes place on walls

covered in artiﬁ cially molded hand- and footholds,

typically in venues known as climbing gyms. Commercial

climbing gyms were ﬁ rst developed in the 1980s, and

have become so popular that they can now be found in

most major towns and cities in the United States.

CMP

| Appendix A | Types of Climbing

Aid climbing directly uses climbing

equipment for upward progress

Photo: K. Pyke

››62

Climbers are attracted to indoor gyms because they

offer a convenient place to practice and train, and they

can be used at night and in bad weather. Gyms have

contributed to an enormous increase in the average

standard of climbing ability in recent years, and often

serve as the entry point for individuals wanting to take

up rock climbing. Climbs in gyms are bolt protected,

so the knowledge developed in gyms allows a relatively

easy transition outdoors to sport-climbing venues. Gym

climbing has become a legitimate activity in itself, and

some gym climbers rarely climb outdoors.

Mountaineering: Mountaineering can be deﬁ ned as

traditional climbing skills (see Traditional climbing)

applied in an alpine or mountain setting. Typically, such

climbs entail long approaches, take a day or more to

complete, and can include an overnight bivouac.

The term “Alpine” usually implies that the climber is

equipped and experienced to deal with snow and ice

conditions and objective hazards such as rock falls and

shifts in weather conditions in a remote setting.

Soloing: Some climbers occasionally tackle a route

alone–either without a rope or self-belayed with a rope

and protection. Neither type of solo climbing is common.

Roped soloing is much like ordinary roped climbing with

a partner in terms of protection, though the system of

rope management is more cumbersome. In unroped

soloing (often called “free soloing”), however a fall will

almost certainly result in death.

Nevertheless, such climbing is simple and

unencumbered, and many climbers regard it as a

reasonable way to climb on routes that are well within

a climber’s ability. Free soloing is not the same as “free

climbing” (see Traditional climbing), although the two

are frequently confused.

Sport Climbing: Climbs that are protected exclusively

with ﬁ xed protection, usually bolts, are called sport

climbs. Sport climbs are typically short–generally a

single rope-length (50 to 60 meters) or less. They rarely

continue to summits, but end at ﬁ xed anchors where the

sustained difﬁ culty of the climb diminishes, the character

of the rock changes, or simply at the half-rope point to

allow the climber to descend by being lowered. Sport

climbing is relatively easy to learn, and requires less

equipment than traditional climbing. Due to the ﬁ xed

bolted protection and limited height, it provides a safer

climbing environment than that found in a traditional

climbing venue. These qualities have made sport

climbing very popular. Another important and attractive

factor is that sport climbing has also allowed climbers to

push their ability to very high standards of difﬁ culty with

little fear from repeated falls. It is common for boulderers

to preview and practice boulder problems repeatedly,

with an emphasis on technical difﬁ culty.

Typically mountaineering routes take place in an

alpine setting, entail long approaches and take a day

or more to complete such as Warbonnet in the Cirque

of the Towers, Wind River Range, Wyoming.

Photo: K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix A

CMP

| Appendix A | Types of Climbing

Traditional Climbing: Traditional climbing (sometimes

also referred to as “free climbing”), is how the sport of

rock climbing has been practiced since its inception,

and has strong historic associations. It is the foundation

for the development of the different types of climbing

activity that we see today. The term applies to a style of

climbing where protection is placed by the ascending

climber and removed by the seconding partner.

Value is placed on unpracticed ascents. Traditional

climbers progress up the rock face using natural hand-

and footholds, with the rope and technical climbing

equipment used only for safety in case of a fall. Typically,

traditional climbs are protected by climbing equipment

that is removable and does not impact the rock surface.

Traditional climbing can be practiced on small cliffs or in

remote mountaineering or alpine locations. It generally

involves multi-pitch climbs with the summits as common

objectives, and is still what most climbers do most of the

time. Many traditional climbs may have an occasional

ﬁ xed piton or bolt, and they often have ﬁ xed anchors

for rappels or belays. On a traditional route, however,

climbers are always prepared to arrange most of their

own protection, which distinguishes this type of climbing

from sport climbing.

APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY OF CLIMBING TERMS

Aid route: A route where the method of ascent involves

some piece of equipment—the rope, a piton, a nut,

or sling—is hung on or pulled on to aid the climber’s

ascent.

Anchor: Any piece of protection used to secure climbers

to a cliff face for belaying or rappelling. Most are

removable. “Fixed anchors” are left in place permanently

for all climbers to use.

Belay or belaying: The method by which one climber

secures the rope to safeguard another climber in the

event of a fall. Typically one climber (the belayer) remains

on the ground and belays the other climber (the leader)

while he or she ascends the rock and places protection.

Once the leader reaches the top, or an intermediate

ledge, that person then belays the other climber up.

The rope, which serves as a safety line while climbing,

is usually fed through a device controlled by the

belayer. These friction-creating “belay devices” attach

to climbers’ harnesses and allow small climbers, even

children, to stop the falls of much larger climbers so

long as the lighter climber is adequately anchored to the

ground or rock.

Bivouac or Bivy: A night spent at the base of a climb or

on the route itself. Big-wall climbers sometimes carry a

collapsible hanging cot, called a “portaledge,” which can

be suspended from the cliff. Portaledges are designed

to withstand minor storms and are hauled up routes that

can take many days to complete.

Bolt: Bolts are small anchoring devices (usually 3/8”

diameter by about 3” length) used to protect climbers

where there are no cracks for other types of protection.

They are placed by drilling a hole, using either a hand-

turned or battery-powered drill, and then driving in the

device, which is designed to hold through mechanical

expansion, forced compression, or (rarely) an epoxy

adhesive. The placement of bolts allows climbers to

attempt extremely difﬁ cult and previously unprotected

rock faces, and to place ﬁ xed anchors for descent via

rappel. The term “ﬁ xed” means they are permanently

placed in the rock, although deterioration will occur

over time, depending on the bolt speciﬁ cation and local

weathering processes.

Camming devices: Mechanical, spring-loaded devices

used for protection from falling. They are designed to

expand once placed in a crack and are removed by

manually retracting the spring. They should leave no

trace of use on the rock. “Friends” and “Camalots” are

examples of brand-name camming devices.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix B

››63

CMP

| Appendix B | Glossary of Climbing Terms

Examples of camming devices used

byclimbers for protection in large cracks.

These spring-loaded devices are removed

by manually retracting the spring and leave

no trace on the rock. Photo: K. Pyke

››64

Carabiners: These are snap-links, generally of

aluminum alloy, used to connect a climber’s rope to

intermediate protection and anchors.

Chains: Short lengths of metal chain are sometimes

used instead of slings at a rappel or belay station.

Chains are attached permanently to anchor bolts

and climbers thread their ropes through them while

rappeling.

Chalk: This is the common name for magnesium

carbonate powder, which climbers carry in a pouch

(chalk bag) at the waist. It dries the hands and is used in

rock climbing in the same way it is used in gymnastics to

improve grip.

Climb (or “Route”): As a noun, this is any independent

line of ascent on a rock face. A climb may follow a

crack system or other natural features, or it may strike

out across a “blank” face. A climb is considered to be

created when it is ﬁ rst ascended, and is usually given

a name by the ﬁ rst ascensionist. The climb is typically

recorded and described in a guidebook so that other

climbers can identify and climb the route.

Climbing shoes: Snug-ﬁ tting shoes with high-friction

rubber soles and carefully designed edges that allow

climbers to stand on tiny footholds.

Fixed anchors: see Anchors and Bolt

Gear: Equipment used for anchor protection (see

Anchors and Hardware).

Harness: Nylon straps and sewn ﬁ ttings, buckled

around the waist and thighs, providing a safe,

comfortable way to tie into the rope for climbing,

rappelling, and belaying.

Hardware: Climbing equipment placed in cracks or on

faces to protect climbers from falling, including wired

nuts, camming devices, hexes (hexcentric-shaped metal

wedges), pitons and bolts.

Multi-pitch: A climb of two or more roped pitches (see

Pitch) in length.

Natural gear: Removable, non-hammered protection

equipment. In addition to sharing the broad deﬁ nition of

“gear,” natural gear placement can also include slings

around trees, horns of rock, or rock chockstones in

cracks.

Pitch: The distance a lead climber ascends before he

or she stops to belay the second climber’s ascent. The

distance of a pitch is limited by the length of rope and

the location of ledges and belay stations. Typically a

60-meter rope length constitutes one pitch. Some climbs

are single-pitch, others have many pitches.

Piton: These anchors are small metal spikes, generally

two to four inches long, that are placed by hammering

them into existing cracks in the rock. Once the only

form of climbing safety protection, pitons have been

supplanted by easily removable protection such as metal

stoppers or cams. Today, pitons are used only when no

other form of protection is available, and are typically left

in place for other climbers to use.

Protection: Any form of anchor removable or ﬁ xed

used between belays to protect a climber.

Rack: The assortment of protective hardware (see Gear)

carried on a climb.

Rappel: The method by which a climber descends a

rope, usually by using a mechanical friction device. The

descent is made on either a doubled rope, or two ropes

tied together, looped through a ﬁ xed anchor. After the

rappel is ﬁ nished, the rope is retrieved by pulling on one

end.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix B

CMP

| Appendix B | Glossary of Climbing Terms

Rappeling off Dark Angel tower in Arches National Park,

UT. Photo: K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix C

››65

Rating: A numerical value assigned to indicate the

difﬁ culty of the climbing on a particular route. The rating

is typically estimated by the ﬁ rst ascensionists, then

revised by subsequent parties if necessary. The most

commonly used rating index for free climbing ranges

from 5.0 to a current maximum of 5.15. (The “5” is a

constant in most of the difﬁ culty ratings used in rock

climbing, and indicates that the type of climbing is

technical free climbing rather than easier scrambling

class 3 or class 4 climbing). Virtually any able-bodied

person can climb 5.0 with little practice, but only

extremely ﬁ t climbers can climb 5.12 or above. Aid

climbs are typically rated A1 through A5, and bouldering

problems rated from V0 to V15 and above.

Scrambler: a person who is not a trained climber, and is

not using climbing equipment for protection on a cliff.

Slings: Knotted or sewn loops of nylon webbing that

have many climbing uses. Slings are occasionally left

behind when a climber descends from the top of a route

by rappelling. At high-use sites, metal chains may be

used instead of slings because they are easier to use

once in place, last longer, and are less conspicuous.

Top rope: Technique of practice climbing where the

rope is anchored above the climber.

APPENDIX C

OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL

MATERIALS

Education outreach is referenced in all sections of this

document. Any climbing management intervention

should be backed up by outreach to the climbing

community. Too frequently, climbing management

problems are associated with lack of information,

misinterpretation, or untargeted information. While all of

the federal land management agencies have endorsed

education as the primary tool for achieving their

objectives, few programs dealing with recreation user

groups use this tool to its full potential.

Climbing organizations also advocate education as the

most important tool in climbing management. Carefully

designed education programs that focus on minimizing

impacts can reduce the need for regulation and

strengthen community support. Any direct management

intervention should be accompanied by outreach, and

sufﬁ cient funding should be allocated for this purpose.

Leave No Trace education principles and an ethic of

personal responsibility should be incorporated into all

education materials.

DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS

The challenge of outreach is to explore as many different

means of communication as possible to reach target

audiences. Innovative approaches should always be

welcomed, as every situation is unique. No matter

how straightforward the education effort, the following

approach is encouraged:

1. Sharing information to develop understanding

Information gathering is key to the process of developing

education materials, and enough time should be built

into the process to ensure thorough consultation.

Different interest groups should collaborate in sharing

information, identifying the pattern of activity and land

use, and determining the target audience. Different

departments from the same land-management

agency may be involved in education outreach, and

each should be involved in the planning process. For

example, in producing an education brochure for some

of the larger resource management agencies, initial

discussions may include personnel from interpretation

and design divisions, recreation or ranger services, as

well as natural-resource specialists. The Access Fund

has produced outreach brochures for climbers at the

City of Rocks, ID, and Indian Creek, UT. For copies,

see http://accessfund.org/pubs/index.php and http://

friendsoﬁ ndiancreek.org/ICbrochure.pdf.

Different situations call for different levels of effort.

Some situations may be dealt with by a local climbing

representative working with a resource manager over the

telephone or by meeting on site. Where the issues are

more complex and affect a number of different interest

groups, a useful approach may be to set up a small

working group meeting (See Chapter 7– Production

of a Climbing Management Plan, Climbing working

groups, page 56. Although working groups can

become unwieldy it is important to consult every user

group that is likely to be targeted with the education

message. E-mail can serve as a useful tool to assist with

communication and consultation. The importance of

local climbing stores, indoor gyms, and guide services

should not be underestimated; climbing outlets have a

high visitor throughput and serve as good focal points

for information distribution and feedback.

CMP

| Appendix C | Mechanisms to Provide Information on Climbing

››66

2. Identiﬁ cation of the education message

Sharing information will clarify common aims for an

education message, and identify the style of wording to

be used and key components of the message. Deﬁ ning

the target audience will help suggest the appropriate

visual aspects of the educational materials, such as

symbols that are understandable to children, or foreign-

language components.

3. Use of joint logos

Where possible, partner logos should be incorporated

in education materials. The presence of a user-group

logo alongside the managing agency logo indicates an

endorsement to the message or access arrangement, as

well as a easily identiﬁ ed contact point for the user.

4. Effective distribution of education materials

Education materials should be designed to suit the

chosen method for dispersing the education message.

For example, a newsletter, signs and website posting

will require different approaches to the design and

content of the education message. The 1999 Access

Fund membership survey indicated that notice boards

and on-site signs were the most effective way to inform

the climbing community about changes in access or

wildlife restrictions. Newsletters and websites were

also regarded as important ways to gain information.

The following is a list of different modes for education

outreach. The most effective information and education

program will be implemented by using as many different

methods as appropriate.

MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION

ON CLIMBING

1. LOCAL OUTREACH

•Brochures—on websites, in climbing stores and at

trailheads.

•Trailhead signs—at the start of approach trails.

•Trail-side signs and trail markers—on approach

trails.

•Notice boards—at parking lots, cliffs, campgrounds,

restrooms.

•Information kiosks—at the parking lot, visitor

facilities, or visitor center. dispensers on notice boards,

information kiosks, visitor centers, and climbing outlets

(e.g. retail stores, indoor gyms).

•Posters and ﬂ yers—displayed on notice boards at

parking lots, visitor facilities, and climbing outlets.

•Ranger presence—staff personnel presence to assist

with outreach (e.g., at Yosemite National Park, the

seasonal ranger assists with outreach on bear-proof

food storage, camping practices, and general climbing

management policies).

•Ranger interpretative program—Programs

coordinated by rangers can assist with outreach (e.g.,

at Joshua Tree National Park, CA, coffee sessions

titled “Meet the Climbing Ranger” were held in climber

campgrounds provided information on management

issues).

•Visitor center—Notice boards that display weather

forecast information are a good focal point to provide

climbing information.

•Talks and slide presentations in the local

community—Where there is a high climbing population,

resource managers have presented slide shows and run

open question sessions at venues such as a climbing

gym or outdoor retail store. Presentations have focused

on a speciﬁ c climbing-management issue or have been

part of a public-planning process.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix C

CMP

| Appendix C | Mechanisms to Provide Information on Climbing

Climber access trail sign at a bouldering area on

City of Boulder Open Space, CO.

Photo: K. Pyke

Example of signage at

Arches National Park,

UT, to raise awareness

about protecting desert

soils. Some climbs at

Arches National Park

require off trail access

to reach their base.

Photo: K. Pyke

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix D

››67

2. NATIONAL OUTREACH

•Direct mailing or e-mail circulars—to climbing

representatives or individuals on a mailing list.

•Newsletters—Some parks run their own newsletters

where it is possible to include a climbing outreach

section.

•National climbing magazines—National climbing

magazines (published typically every six to eight weeks)

provide opportunities to disperse climbing access and

conservation information through articles and dedicated

columns on access issues and information.

•Press releases—to newspapers, climbing magazines,

and special-interest group newsletters.

•Agency websites—Many federal and state parks and

local authorities now have websites devoted to speciﬁ c

locations or activities and can incorporate climbing

access information.

•Telephone information lines—Some agencies and

parks (e.g., City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain

Parks, CO) run a dedicated 24-hour information line

to provide details on their program of seasonal raptor

climbing restrictions.

•Climbing guidebooks—Climbing guidebooks are

produced on an irregular basis with intervals of ﬁ ve

to ten years or more. Although information in these

publications can change and become out of date, it

is possible to incorporate general access information

and provide a telephone contact for an update. Local

climbing representatives may be able to help resource

managers ﬁ nd out if a new guide is being produced for

their area, and assist with contacting the author.

•Recreation or climbing organization websites—

An increasing number of local climbing clubs and

organizations have websites (e.g. Friends of Pinnacles

National Monument website:

http://www.pinnacles.org provides information to

climbers about this popular California climbing area).

These groups can work with land management agencies

to provide current access updates (e.g., on seasonal

climbing restrictions to protect cliff nesting raptors),

outreach on special education or management issues,

and links to agency websites. Videos, which can easily

be posted on websites, are an effective way to entertain

the user community while also providing an educational

message. See http://accessfund.org/extras/tic.php.

Also see Appendix E - Contacts on climbing issues,

page 68 and Appendix F - Utilizing the resources of the

Access Fund, page 69.

APPENDIX D

FUNDING AND VOLUNTEER ASSISTANCE

Many ﬁ eld units face budget shortfalls, which may mean

postponement of improvements to area infrastructure

and implementation of management plans and

programs. There are substantial and growing resources

in the non-proﬁ t and private sectors that can ease these

hardships. The Access Fund works with other recreation

and conservation advocacy groups to boost federal and

state appropriations for public lands administration (for

example, support for the Land and Water Conservation

Fund in 2001, which can be used for land acquisitions

and resource protection). In addition, climbing

organizations can provide some grants for resource

protection in the climbing environment, including funds

for land acquisition. Typically, the Access Fund Climbing

Preservation Grants Program makes available over

$100,000 annually for conservation projects at or near

cliff environments. See the website:

http://www.accessfund.org to download a copy of the

grant guidelines. The American Alpine Club also has

funds for conservation projects in U.S. climbing areas.

See the website: http://www.americanalpineclub.org.

Local climbing organizations can also contribute funds

and services in-kind towards climbing management

projects.

CMP

| Appendix D | Funding and Volunteer Assistance

The funding, design, and installation of this

climber education booth at Coopers Rock State

Park, West Virginia was carried out by the local

climbing organization. Photo: C. Samples

› › 6 8

VOLUNTEER ASSISTANCE

In addition to funds, climbing organizations can provide

technical and volunteer assistance for climbing-related

management projects. For example, they can support

or assist with volunteer recruitment for projects such

as wildlife monitoring and vegetation surveys, trail

construction and maintenance, education and public

outreach, and resource mitigation. Examples include:

West Virginia where the New River Alliance of Climbers

and the NPS-managed New River Gorge National River

have worked together on trail maintenance and a bird

ﬂ edging project; Oklahoma where the Wichita Mountain

Climbers Coalition and US Fish & Wildlife Service

jointly developed education brochures and signs at the

USFWS-managed Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

Contact information for Access Fund representatives,

climbing organizations, or local climbing representatives

can be obtained from the website:

http://www.accessfund.org or by calling the Access

Fund at 303-545-6772.

APPENDIX E

CONTACTS ON CLIMBING ISSUES

The following national organizations have been referred

to in this document as sources of information or advice

on speciﬁ c climbing management issues.

American Safe Climbing Association

PO Box 1814

Bishop, CA 93515

Tel: (650) 843 1473

E-mail: greg@safeclimbing.org

Website: http://www.safeclimbing.org

The Access Fund

P.O. Box 17010

Boulder, CO 80308

Tel: (303) 545-6772

Fax: (303) 545-6774

E-mail: info@accessfund.org

Website: http://www.accessfund.org

The American Alpine Club

710 10th Street, Suite 100

Golden, CO 80401

Tel: (303) 384-0110

Fax: (303) 384-0111

E-mail: getinfo@americanalpineclub.org

Website: http://www.americanalpineclub.org

The American Mountain Guides Association

PO Box 1739

Boulder, CO. 80302

Tel: 303-271-0984

E-mail: info@amga.com

Website: http://www.amga.com

Leave No Trace, Inc.

PO Box 997

Boulder, CO 80306

Tel: (303) 442-8222

Tel: 1-800-332-4100

Fax: (303) 442-8217

Website: http://www.LNT.org

National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS)

284 Lincoln Street

Lander, WY 82520

Tel: (307) 332-5300

Fax: (307) 332-1220

E-mail: info@nols.edu

Website: http://www.nols.edu

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix E

CMP

| Appendix E | Contacts on Climbing Issues

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix F

››69

APPENDIX F

UTILIZING THE RESOURCES OF

THE ACCESS FUND

This section outlines how the Access Fund can provide

assistance to management agencies and ﬁ eld units.

1. INFORMATION

Access Fund ofﬁ ce staff can provide advice on such

subjects as liability, land acquisition, conservation

easements, agency and climbing representative

contacts, seasonal raptor climbing restrictions, and

education and outreach strategies. Samples of outreach

material from different climbing management projects

can be provided on request. Staff also ﬁ eld general

inquiries on access from the climbing public and provide

updates to queries on climbing access arrangements.

2. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Text—Access Fund representatives can assist

agencies in producing technically correct wording and

presentation of text compatible with current usage and

information in climbing guides.

Logo—The Access Fund can supply a logo template via

mail or e-mail.

Distribution—Local Access Fund representatives can

provide advice on distribution outlets and display points

for education materials. For example, they can assist

with determining the best location for signing trailheads

with seasonal raptor climbing restrictions.

Publications—The following publications are available

from the Access Fund website:

http://www.accessfund.org:

•Bouldering: Understanding and Managing Climbing on

Small Rock Formations (2004);

•Climbing and natural resources management: An

annotated bibliography —Access Fund and North

Carolina State University (2000)

•Supplement to Climbing and natural resources

management: An annotated bibliography (2001) (Update

from April 2000-April 2001);

•Risk management for climbing (2000);

•Climbing in wilderness: An inventory of recreational

climbing use in the National Wilderness Preservation

system, Bartlett, A. (1995);

•Raptors and Climbers: Guidance for managing

technical climbing to protect raptor nest sites, Pyke, K.

(1997).

Website—The Access Fund website (http://www.

accessfund.org) provides information about special

access issues, wildlife and conservation issues, news

updates, forthcoming events and projects and local

contacts. For example, the website lists U.S. locations

with seasonal raptor and other wildlife climbing

restrictions, climbing and resource management

publications, and federal and state public lands planning

initiatives.

E-mail news —Monthly e-mail news sent to individuals

who have registered through the Access Fund website,

provides access information and updates, details of new

agency planning initiatives and management plans, and

upcoming events.

Newsletter—The Access Fund’s membership

newsletter, The Vertical Times, is produced quarterly and

covers climbing access and conservation issues.

Membership handbook—The Access Fund’s

membership handbook, sent out to all new members,

provides general access information about climbing on

federal and state-owned public lands, and how to work

with land managers on access issues.

3. REGIONAL CONTACTS

The Access Fund supports a national network of

volunteer regional coordinators and works closely

with local climbing organizations. Regional climbing

representatives can provide input on climbing

management issues and assist with the production

of climber-education materials. They can also have a

key role in the development of a climbing management

plan and are usually available to provide input on local

management issues. The Access Fund website lists

current contacts. In addition, the Access Fund can

help provide other local contacts (e.g., individuals from

climbing gyms, guide services, retail stores, and web

and guidebook publishing).

4. PROJECT SUPPORT

Grants Program—The Access Fund provides funding

for access and conservation projects. Project funding

categories include education, mitigation, research,

facilities, and acquisition. See website: http://

accessfund.org/cons/guidelines.php for details and to

download a copy of the grant guidelines.

Special events/stewardship projects—The Access

Fund supports projects such as conservation work-

days and clean-up events by assisting with publicity

and donations of climbing equipment and other prizes.

For example, the Access Fund’s national Adopt-a-Crag

Day is held every year (previously held annually during

the month of September, this stewardship event now

occurs year-round). Refer to the Access Fund website

for more information about this event. Access Fund

representatives can also work with land managers to

organize other local projects or assist with community

involvement.

CMP

| Appendix F | Utlizing the Resources of the Access Fund

››70

APPENDIX G

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Access Fund. “The Boulder Project.” http://www.

accessfund.org/boulderproject/teamworks/index.php

(accessed June 3, 2008).

Access Fund. Supplement to Climbing and natural

resources management-—An annotated bibliography.

Boulder, CO: The Access Fund, 2001.

Access Fund. Risk management for climbing - Advice

for public land owners and managers. Boulder, CO: The

Access Fund, 2000.

American Alpine Club. “The American Alpine

Club E-News - February 2005.” http://www.

americanalpineclub.org/pubs/enews/enews_2005_

February.htm (accessed June 3, 2008).

Anzelmo, J. and J. Skaggs. “Grand Teton National Park

News Release. Backcountry toilet to be removed from

lower saddle of Grand Teton.” http://www.nps.gov/grte/

news/2002/02-53.pdf (accessed June 3, 2008).

Attarian, A. “Survey of rock climbing in the Grandfather

Mountain Corridor, Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina.”

Unpublished manuscript, 2005.

Attarian, A. “Managing rock climbing groups at

Crowder’s Mountain State Park, North Carolina.”

Unpublished manuscript, 2003.

Attarian, A. “Trends in outdoor adventure education.”

Journal of Experiential Education 24(3) (2001): 141-149.

Attarian, A. and K. Pyke. Climbing and natural resources

management—An annotated bibliography. Boulder, CO:

The Access Fund, 2000.

Attarian, A. “Collaborative resource management: The

Stone Mountain Project. North Carolina Division of State

Parks.” Parks and Recreation 38(7) (1999): 75-79.

Baker, B. “Controversy over use of rock-climbing

anchors may be missing the mark.” Bioscience 49 (7)

(1999): 529.

Bartlett, A. Climbing in wilderness. An inventory of

recreational climbing use in the National Wilderness

Preservation System. Boulder, CO: The Access Fund,

1995.

Borrie, W. T. and J. A. Harding. “Effective recreation

visitor communication strategies: rock climbers in the

Bitterroot Valley, Montana. Research Note, RMRS—

RN-15.” Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Forest Service, 2002.

Camp, R. J. and R. L. Knight. “Effects of rock climbing

on cliff plant communities at Joshua Tree National

Park, California.” Conservation Biology 12(6) (1998):

1302-1306.

Carr, C. “A model of environmental impact at rock

climb areas, Red River Gorge Geological Area, Daniel

Boone National Forest, Kentucky.” Presented at 28th

Southeastern Recreation Research Conference,

February 26-28, Wilmington, NC, 2006.

Cavlovic, T. A. “Valuing the loss in access: An

institutional and welfare analysis of rock climbing on U.

S. public lands.” PhD diss., University of New Mexico,

2000.

Cecil, J. P. and C. McGrath. North Carolina Peregrine

Falcon Restoration and Monitoring, Nongame Project

Report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission, 2000.

Cilimburg, A., C. Monz. and S. Kehoe. “Wildland

recreation and human waste: A review of problems,

practices and concerns.” Environmental Management

25(6) (2000): 587-598.

Cole, D. N. “Resource impacts caused by recreation.”

In A literature review: The President’s Commission

on Americans Outdoors, 1-11. Washington, DC: The

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors:

Management, 1986.

Cordell, H. K. Outdoor recreation in American life: A

national assessment of demand and supply trends.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.

Cymerys, M. and B. J. Walton. “Raptors of the Pinnacles

National Monument: Past and present nesting and

possible impacts of rock climbers. Technical Report No.

30.” Davis, CA: University of California, 1988.

Davis, T. “Ruling to halt forest fee will be appealed-$5.00

requirement for Mt. Lemmon Canyons at Stake.” http://

www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/146907.php (accessed

June 4, 2008).

DeBenedetti, S. “Impacts of rock climbing and mitigation

actions taken at Pinnacles National Monument.” Paper

presented at the George Wright Society Conference

on Research and Resource Management in Parks and

Public Lands, El Paso, TX, 1990.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix G

CMP

| Appendix G | Bibliography and References

››71

Driese, K. and D. Roth. A description of the vascular

ﬂ ora and mammal fauna and the effects of human

disturbance on the summit of Devils Tower. Department

of Plant, Soil and Insect sciences, Report number

UWY-21. Laramie: University of Wyoming, 1992.

Douchette, J. E. and D.N. Cole. “Wilderness Visitor

Education: Information About Alternatives Techniques.”

In Intermountain Research Station, General Technical

Report-INT-295. US Department of Agriculture Forest

Service, 1993.

Ells, M. D. “Impact of human waste disposal on surface

water runoff—The Muir Snowﬁ eld, Mount Rainier.”

Environmental Health (1997): 6-12.

Ewert, A. W. “Gateways to adventure tourism: The

economic impacts of mountaineering on one portal

community.” Tourism Analysis 1 (1996): 59-63.

Farris, M. A.. “The effects of rock climbing on the

vegetation of three Minnesota cliff systems.” Canadian

Journal of Botany 76 (1998): 1-10.

Friends of Indian Creek. “The Wag Bag Movement.”

http://www.accessfund.org/extras/tic.php (accessed

June 4, 2008).

Gander, H. and P. Ingold. “Reactions of male alpine

chamois (Rupicapra r. rupicapra) to hikers, joggers and

mountain bikers.” Biological Conservation 79 (1997):

107-109.

Hammitt, W. E, and D. N. Cole. Wildland Recreation

—Ecology and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley

& Sons, 1988.

Hanley, N., R. E. Wright, and G. Koop. “Modelling

recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing

in Scotland.” Environment and Resource Economics 22

(2002): 449-466.

Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas.

Wilderness management. Honolulu, HI: University Press

of the Paciﬁ c, 2005.

Jefferson County Open Space. “Re: Jefferson County

Open Space Climbing Guidelines.” http://www.

co.jefferson.co.us/news/news_item_T3_R156.htm

(accessed June 4, 2008).

Jones, C. D. “Evaluating Visual Impacts of Near-View

Rock Climbing Scenes.” Journal of Park and Recreation

Administration 22(3) (2004): 39-49.

Jones, C. D. and S. Hollenhorst. “Toward a resolution of

the ﬁ xed-anchors in wilderness debate.” International

Journal of Wilderness 8(3) (2002): 39.

Jones, W. K., H. H. Hobbs, C. M. Wicks, R. R. Currie,

L. D. Hose, R. C. Kerbo, J. R. Goodbar, and J. Trout.

Recommendations and guidelines for managing caves

on protected lands. Charlestown, WV: Karst Waters

Institute, 2003.

Joshua Tree National Park, The Access Fund, & The

California Native Plant Society. Vertical Vegetation: A

Partnership project to address resources protection

and quality visitor experience in rock- climbing areas of

Joshua Tree National Park. Twenty-nine Palms: National

Park Service, 2000.

Kelly, P. E. and D. W. Larson. “Effects of rock climbing

on presettlement eastern white cedar on cliffs of the

Niagra Escarpment.” Conservation Biology 11(5) (1997):

1125 -1132.

Knight, R. L. and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and

Recreationists: Coexistence through management and

research. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995.

Kuntz, K. L. and D. Larson. “Inﬂ uences of microhabitat

constraints and rock-climbing disturbance on cliff face

vegetation communities.” Conservation Biology 20(3)

(2006): 821-832.

Kuss, F. R., A. R. Graefe and J. J. Vaske. Visitor Impact

Management, Volume 1: A Review of Research.

Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation

Association, 1990.

Lanier, J. W. and R. A. Joseph. “Managing human

recreational impacts on hacked or free-nesting

peregrines.” In Proceedings of the Northeast Raptor

Management Symposium and Workshop, B. G.

Pendelton, editor, 149-153. Washington, DC: Institute of

Wildlife Research, 1989.

Larson, D. W. “Effects of disturbance on old-growth

thuja occidentalis at cliff edges.” Canadian Journal of

Botany 68 (1990): 1147-1155.

Larson, D. W., U. Matthes, and P. E. Kelly. Cliff ecology

- Pattern and process in cliff ecosystems. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Leave No Trace, Inc. Skills and ethics for rock climbing.

Boulder, CO: Leave No Trace Center for Environmental

Ethics, 2001.

Leung, Y. F. and J. Marion. “Rail degradation as

inﬂ uenced by environmental factors: A state of

the knowledge review.” Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation 51(2) (1996): 130-136.

Loomis, M. “‘Denial’ National Park—Special use fee

targets climbers.” Rock & Ice, July, 2006.

CMP

| Appendix G | Bibliography and References

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix G

››72

Lucas, J. “Perceptions of non-motorized recreational

impacts: A review of research ﬁ ndings.” In Recreational

Impacts on Wildlands, 24-31. Seattle, WA: USDA Forest

Service and USDI National Park Service, 1979.

Malkin, D. R. “Effects of rock climbing on populations

of Silene seelyi, a rare perennial plant.” Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Washington, 2002.

Margetts, L. S. and I. Fowler. “Use of chalk in rock

climbing: sine qua non or myth?” Journal of Sport

Sciences 19(6) (2001): 427.

Martin, R. “Reducing the visual impact of bolt hangers

and other ﬁ xed gear.” http://www.safeclimbing.org/

education/visualimpact.htm (accessed June 4, 2008).

MacGowan, D. “Reliving the chalk wars, a geochemical

view.” Climbing, April, 1987.

McAvoy, L. and D. Dustin. “Indirect versus direct

regulation of recreation behavior.” Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration 1(4) (1983): 12-17.

Mohonk Preserve. “Research Studies Underway:

Black vultures expand northward.” http://www.

mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?researchstudies

(accessed June 4, 2008).

Monz, C., J. Roggenbuck, D. N. Cole, R. Brame, and A.

Yoder. “Wilderness party size regulations: Implications

for management and a decision making framework.” In

Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference—

Volume 4: Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and

Visitor Management. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, 2000.

Monz, C. A., D. N. Cole, L. A. Johnson, and D. R. Spildie.

“Vegetation response to trampling in ﬁ ve native plant

communities in the Wind River Range, Wyoming.”

Bulletin, Ecological Society of America 75 (1994): 158.

Moser, S. “A tenuous hold.” Outside Business, April,

1990.

Mountaineering Council of Scotland. “Scottish Winter

Climbing: A Code of Good Practice.” http://www.

mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/council/wintercode.html

(accessed June 4, 2008).

National Park Service. “Clean Mountain Cans.” http://

www.nps.gov/archive/dena/home/mountaineering/cmc.

htm (accessed June 4, 2008).

National Park Service. “Things To Know Before You

Climb.” http://www.nps.gov/mora/planyourvisit/things-

to-know-before-you-climb.htm (accessed June 4, 2008).

National Park Service. New River Gorge National

River climbing management plan and environmental

assessment. Glen Jean, WV: United States Department

of the Interior, 2005.

National Park Service. Obed Wild and Scenic River ﬁ nal

climbing management plan. Wartburg, TN: United States

Department of the Interior, 2002.

National Park Service. “Management Policies, Natural

Resources Management Reference Manual #77.” http://

www.nature.nps.gov/rm77/ (accessed June 4, 2008)

National Park Service. Final climbing management plan,

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.

Fort Oglethorpe, GA: United States Department of the

Interior, 1998.

National Park Service. Joshua Tree National Park—

Supplement to the draft general management plan

amendment—supplemental environmental impact

statement: Backcountry and wilderness management

plan. Twenty-nine Palms, CA: United States Department

of the Interior, 1998.

National Park Service. City of Rocks National Reserve

climbing management plan. Almo, ID: United States

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1988.

New Hampshire Fish and Game. “New Search and

Rescue Rules Could Be Costly for Reckless Hikers.”

www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2001_and_

previous/news_search_and_rescue_99.htm (accessed

June 4, 2008).

Nickel, J. “No shit!” Rock & Ice, September/October,

1994.

Noe, F. P., W. E. Hammit, and R. D. Bixler. “Park

user perceptions of resource and use impacts under

varied situations in three national parks.” Journal of

Environmental Management 49 (1997): 323–336.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Learn

the Facts About Litter.” http://www.ncdot.org/doh/

operations/dp_chief_eng/roadside/Beautiﬁ cation/

America/litterfacts.html (accessed June 4, 2008).

North Cascades National Park. “Climbing Notes -1997

Season.” www.nps.gov/noca/climbing-1997.htm

(accessed June 4, 2008).

Nuzzo, V. A. “Effects of rock climbing on cliff goldenrod

(Solodago sciaphila Steele) in Northwest Illinois.” The

American Midland Naturalist 133 (2) (1995): 229-241.

Nuzzo, V. A. “Structure of cliff vegetation on exposed

cliffs and the effect of rock climbing.” Canadian Journal

of Botany 74 (1996): 607-617.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix G

CMP

| Appendix G | Bibliography and References

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Appendix G

North Carolina Department of Transportation. “Learn

the Facts About Litter.” http://www.ncdot.org/doh/

operations/dp_chief_eng/roadside/Beautiﬁ cation/

America/litterfacts.html (accessed June 4, 2008).

North Cascades National Park. “Climbing Notes -1997

Season.” www.nps.gov/noca/climbing-1997.htm

(accessed June 4, 2008).

Nuzzo, V. A. “Effects of rock climbing on cliff goldenrod

(Solodago sciaphila Steele) in Northwest Illinois.” The

American Midland Naturalist 133 (2) (1995): 229-241.

Nuzzo, V. A. “Structure of cliff vegetation on exposed

cliffs and the effect of rock climbing.” Canadian Journal

of Botany 74 (1996): 607-617.

Ortiz, M. “El Capitan meadow restoration project.”

Yosemite National Park Planning Update 29 (2006): 5.

Osius, A. “Waste Case.” Rock & Ice, July, 2006.

Outdoor Industry Foundation. Outdoor Industry

Foundation outdoor recreation participation study.

Boulder, CO: Outdoor Industry Foundation, 2006.

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America. Outdoor

Recreation Participation Study for the United States.

Second Edition. Boulder, CO: Leisure Trends Group/

Gallup, 2000.

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America. The journalist’s

guide to climbing. Boulder, CO: Outdoor Recreation

Coalition of America, 1997.

Parikesit, P., D. W. Larson, and U. Matthes-Sears.

“Impact of trails on cliff edge forest structure.” Canadian

Journal of Botany 73 (1995): 943-953.

Pisgah Commercial Climbers Association. “’Industry

Standard’ Guidelines for Pisgah National Forest.” http://

www.pisgahclimbers.org/Climbing_Standards.htm

(accessed June 5, 2008).

Pyke, K. Raptors and climbers: Guidance for managing

technical climbing to protect raptor nest sites. Boulder,

CO: The Access Fund, 1997.

Rocky Mountain National Park. Raptor protection

closures. Estes Park, CO: U.S. Department of the

Interior, 1998.

Rocky Mountain National Park. Technical climbing

and the bivouac permit. Estes Park, CO: United States

Department of the Interior, 1999.

Rocky Mountain National Park. “Task force ﬁ ndings:

Climbing in Rocky Mountain National Park.” Unpublished

manuscript, Rocky Mountain National Park, 1990.

Rusterholtz, H. P., S. W. Muller. and B. Baur. “Effect

of rock climbing on plant communities on exposed

limestone cliffs in the Swiss Jura mountains.” Applied

Vegetation Science 7 (2004): 35-40.

Scholl, J. and A. Wichman. Draft climbing management

plan. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder Mountain Parks and

Open Space, 1990.

Schuster, R. M., J. G. Thompson, and W. E. Hammitt.

“Rock climbers’ attitudes toward management

of climbing and the use of bolts.” Environmental

Management 28(3) (2001): 403-412.

Shaw, W. D. and P. Jakus. “Travel cost models of the

demand for rock climbing.” Agricultural and Economics

Review (1996): 131-142.

Skrzypczynski, J. “Environmental management of rock

climbing.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of

Calgary, Alberta, 1994.

Smith, P. “A vegetational characterization of cliff faces

in the Linville Gorge Wilderness area.” Unpublished

master’s thesis, Appalachian State University, Boone,

North Carolina., 1998.

Smith Rocks State Park. “Attention park visitors and pet

owners.” http://www.smithrock.com/ﬂ ash/news/dog.

html (accessed June 5, 2008).

Spear P. W. and M. J. Schiffman. “Rock climbing and

endangered plants: A case study.” In Proceedings of

the Specialty Conference, National Conference on

Recreation Planning and Development, 630-636. New

York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1979.

Stannard, J. “Too much of a good thing.” Summit, June/

July, 1978.

Steelhammer, R. “At the end of their rope: Success of

New River Gorge rock climbing brings overcrowding.”

Charleston Gazzette, October 27, 2000.

Swineford, S. “Chalk talk.” Rock and Ice, July, 1994.

Taylor, K., P. Anderson, R. Taylor, K. Longden, and

P. Fisher. English Nature Research Reports: Dogs,

Access and Nature Conservation. Peterborough, UK:

Northminster House, 2005.

Toula, T. Rock ‘n Road: An atlas of North American Rock

climbing Areas. Guilford, CT: Falcon Press, 2003.

United States Department of Agriculture. “Alpine

Lakes Wilderness—Wilderness permit information

and application.” http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/

passes/enchantments/ (accessed June 3, 2008).

››73

CMP

| Appendix G | Bibliography and References

››74

United States Department of Agriculture. “Daniel Boone

National Forest, Red River Gorge - Cumberland Ranger

District.” http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/districts/

cumberland/redriver_gorge.shtml (accessed June 5,

2008).

United States Department of Agriculture. Environmental

assessment: An analysis of commercial guided rock

climbing at Seneca Rocks, West Virginia. Monongahela

National Forest, Seneca Rocks Opportunity Area

# 57.002. Petersburg, WV: United States Forest Service,

1996.

United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service

Manual—Section 2300. Agency resource management

guidelines. Washington, DC: United States Forest

Service, 1997.

United States Department of the Interior. “Minimum

Requirements References in National Park Service

Policy, 2006 NPS Management Policies, Chapter 6:

Wilderness Preservation and Management.” www.

wilderness.net/MRDG/documents/MRDG_NPS_

wilderness_policy.doc (accessed June 5, 2008).

United States Department of the Interior. Visitor capacity

on public lands and waters—Making better decisions.

Report of the Federal Interagency Task Force on Visitor

Capacity on Public Lands. Washington, DC: United

States Department of the Interior, 2001.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. Use of ﬁ xed anchors on BLM designated

wilderness areas, 65 Fed. Reg. 78358, (to be codiﬁ ed

at 40 CFR parts 6300 & 8560) (proposed December 14,

2000).

United States Department of the Interior. Final climbing

management plan, Chickamauga and Chattanooga

National Military Park. Fort Oglethorpe, GA: National

Park Service, 1998.

United States Department of the Interior. Final climbing

management plan, Devils Tower National Monument.

Devils Tower, WY: National Park Service, 1995.

United States Department of the Interior. Wichita

Mountains Wildlife Refuge ﬁ nal environmental

assessment for technical rock climbing: Decision notice

and ﬁ nding of no signiﬁ cant impact. Indiahoma, OK:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995.

United States Forest Service. “FY 2004 Recreation Fee

Demonstration Program Summary: Visitation, Revenue,

Cost, and Obligations Information.” http://www.fs.fed.

us/passespermits/docs/accomps/wo-rpt-congress/

fy04.pdf (accessed June 5, 2008).

Wagstaff, M. C. and B. E. Wilson. The evaluation of litter

behavior modiﬁ cation in a river environment. Journal of

Environmental Education 20(1) (1988): 39-44.

Walker, G. “Characterization of plant community

structure and abiotic conditions on climbed and

unclimbed cliff faces in the Obed River Gorge.”

Unpublished manuscript, Appalachian State University,

Boone, NC, 2004.

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Index

CMP

| Appendix G | Bibliography and References

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Index

› › 7 5

INDEX

A

Access Fund 1, 2, 5

Aid climbing 61, 63, 65

Alpine Areas 13, 43, 44, 61-63

Anchor 15, 25, 27,

bolt 27, 63

earth-tone anchors 26

ﬁ xed 27, 28

liability 28, 29

top rope 15, 65

wilderness 46, 47

B

Bat populations 20, 48

Belay 63

Bibliography 70-74

Bivouac 7, 10, 15, 61, 63

policy 11

Bolts 26, 27, 31, 46, 62, 63

as a resource-protection tool 27

Boulder habitats 40, 41

Bouldering 39

Buffer zones 22, 23, 41

C

Caves 48

Chalk 25, 39, 64

chalk balls 26

earth-tone 26

Cleaning 13, 52

Cliff ecology 13, 16

Climber trails 7-10, 21

Climbing

climber compliance 11, 34, 46, 50, 56

gyms 33, 37, 49, 58, 61, 62, 65, 69

information 9, 50, 52, 65, 66, 69

issues 2, 5, 7, 8, 17, 21, 25, 55, 56

management plan 5, 21, 22, 54-59

organizations 27-29, 33, 59, 65, 67-69

representatives 9, 41, 52, 58, 69

use patterns 18, 27, 29, 50, 51, 55, 58

working groups 46, 52, 56-59, 65,

Commercial use 32, 33, 51, 61

Contacts on climbing issues 68, 69

Contextual environment 7, 21, 49, 50, 52

Crash pad 40-42, 61

“Cryptic” trails 10

Cultural resources 2, 7, 21, 41

assessment of impact 22, 23

D

Desert bighorn sheep 20

Drill 27, 29, 31, 46, 61, 63

E

Economic considerations 37, 39

Education and Outreach 16, 22, 26, 29, 40, 41, 43-45, 69

Endangered Species Act 49

F

Federal Advisory Committee Act 57

Fixed anchors 27-29, 46, 47, 63, 64

Free climbing 43, 61-63, 65

Funding 11, 22, 34, 67

G

Glossary of climbing terms 63-65

Group use 25, 33-35

Guide services 32, 33, 50, 51, 61, 65, 69

Guidebooks 9, 14, 16, 22, 49, 50, 64, 67, 69

Guided climbing 61

Guiding permits 32

H

Hand-drying agent 25

Human waste disposal 8, 11-13, 16, 41, 44

I

Ice climbing 42, 43, 61

Ice parks 61

Impact 7, 13-16, 25, 26, 40, 49, 53

schematic assessment of 7, 14, 22, 23

context of 7, 15, 50, 55

threshold 46, 49, 50

Impairment 49, 50

Increase in climber visitor levels 51

Indoor climbing 32, 51, 61

Information on climbing 20, 29, 50, 65, 66

L

Leave No Trace principles 11, 12, 15, 32, 33, 42, 65, 68

Liability 69

ﬁ xed anchors 28, 29

search and rescue concerns 37

Limits of Acceptable Change 51, 58

Litter 25, 31, 32

CMP

| Index

››76

CLIMBING MANAGEMENT PLAN > Index

CMP

| Index continued

M

Memoranda of Understanding 59

Monitoring programs 16

Mountaineering 42, 61-63

N

National Environmental Policy Act 21, 49, 55

National Historic Preservation Act 21, 49

National Register of Historic Places 21

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

49

Native American sites 21-23

New climbing routes 13, 26, 49, 52

Noise 31

O

Outreach 49, 50, 58, 59, 65-69

P

Parking 7, 11, 25, 34, 35, 41, 52, 55, 66

Petroglyphs 21, 23

Pets 30

Pictographs 21, 23

Piton 29, 31, 47, 61, 63, 64

Portaledges 10, 63

Public comment period 22, 58, 59

R

Rappel 7, 15, 23, 27, 46, 63, 64

anchors 13, 15, 26, 28, 64

rappel stations 15, 25, 27, 65

Raptor closures 17-20, 33, 41, 67, 69

Raptor nest sites 17-20

References 70-74

Rock art 21, 22, 26, 41

S

Schematic breakdown of a climbing area 6, 14

Scoping 56, 58

Seasonal climbing restrictions 16, 18, 20, 67

Shuttle systems 34

Signs 9, 10, 15, 20, 22, 66, 68

Slings 15, 25, 26, 29, 42, 43, 46, 47, 64, 65

Social trails 8, 9, 42

Social-encounter standards 45

Solitude 44, 45, 52, 53

Soloing 62

Special-status plants 7, 14, 40

Sport climbing 5, 9, 27, 29, 35, 62

Staging area 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 40, 41

Stewardship 32, 49, 50, 58, 59, 69

T

Top rope 15, 26, 65

Top rope anchor 15

Traditional climbing 27, 61-63

Trails 7-10, 14-18, 20-23, 27, 30, 42, 44, 50, 53, 66

Transportation 25, 32, 34, 35

U

User fees 25, 35

V

Vegetation 7-9, 11, 13-17, 22, 25, 27-30, 34, 40-44, 53,

55, 68

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 51

Visitor-capacity 50, 51

Visual effects of climbing activity 8, 25-28, 52, 66

Volunteer assistance 10, 19, 37, 57, 59, 67, 69

monitoring 22, 23, 51, 68

W

Water Sources 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 43

Webbing 15, 26, 53, 65

Wilderness 44-47

Wilderness and ﬁ xed anchors 46, 47

Wildlife 8, 17-20, 33, 40, 43, 44, 53, 55, 66, 68, 69