RRC Archives

Notes from the July 12, 2003 meeting with the US Forest service and RRGCC

The following is an unofficial summery based on one individuals perspective and in no way should be deemed as an official report from the RRGCC

Approximately 10 individuals attended on behalf of the RRGCC. I found it interesting and refreshing that both “Trad” and “Sport” climbing was equally represented. The USFS sent 4 representatives including Joy Malone, Stanton District Ranger. I missed the introduction but believe the two gentlemen to be senior staff planning officer, Kevin Lawerence, and recreational officer, Mason Miller. A second lady was present whom I did not get her title and name. If anyone knows please let me know.

The meeting room was set in the tradition setting with “them” sitting in the front, with their over used USFS flip charts, and “us” sitting in our chairs facing the front of the class. If we can be proactive for future meeting, let us arrange the room in a round table fashion and burn the flip charts. A representative began by explaining the bureaucratic methodology of determine and establishing a new forest service plan. Unfortunately most of everyone presented had attended at least one public forum previous to this and found most of this information redundant.

The meeting did have some moments of enlightenments combined with two hours of typical babble. Here are some points I found interesting:

1) It is my understanding the forest service plan most likely to be approved will place more emphasis on “recreation management”. The term “management” and what it implies will be greatly influenced by the interpretation and view points of the “authority having jurisdiction at the local level” which for the most part will be the District Ranger

2) The Stanton Ranger District has been in a constant state of flux for the last two years. Five individuals have held the position of “District Ranger” during this time frame.

3) Approving the new Forest Plan is far from complete and will take months of work, meetings, editing, posturing, realignment, revising, da, da, da. Editorial note: God, I’m glad I don’t work within a government institution.

4) Once this is approved, The District is planning to hire an individual to facilitate the impact evaluation process to determine if a climbing area is to remain open or to be closed. Keep in mind that this is NOT the actual evaluation, but designing the “test” itself. The USFS has allocated and budgeted two years for this procedure. Yes that’s right two years. This means that no new routes will be approved for the next 2.5 years. No existing routes will be officially approved and grand-fathered into the system for 2.5 years.

5) Until step 4 is complete the acting District Manager has only one management tool. That is “route closure”.

6) When ask, “Are there plans for additional closures?” The answer was, “Yes”.

7) When ask, “if these routes could be identified?” The answer was, “No, I cannot share this information at this time.”

8 ) When ask, “can the RRGCC be proactive with positive land management techniques to keeps these routes open?” The answer was, “No”

9) The USFS does recognize the RRGCC as a organized group that is...proactive, has the lands best interest in mind and is a political force.

The stage is set. Additional closures will take place in the near future. I’m interested in the readers’ viewpoints of what the RRGCC should or should not do.

Will legal action be required?

Does the RRGCC have enough funds for legal action and the purchase of private property?

If private property is purchased will there still remain a concentrated effort to keep routes open in the Gorge?

Will closing areas in the Gorge increase traffic to the private property and therefore increase revenue from the RRGCC owned property.

If the USFS is paying for an evaluation process to be developed, does the existing District Ranger have the tools to evaluate existing routes? If He/She does, why spend the time and money to develop it? If He/She does not, how can a decision be reached to close a route?

Have at it folks, I would love to have your feedback.

Wow. How frustrating (to say the least)...

Damn. I better get to work on Fuzzy Undercling. Shit. I'm sure that Military and Left Flank are teed up for closure. The human impact is pretty severe there.

I wouldn't say that. Outside of the already closed section at Military, the other areas are "safe" from endangered whatevers. The trails are already cut. AS long as the community continues to service the areas like we have done on trail days, it should be OK.What we consider as impact, like the trail out to WOD, doesn't flash up on the FS radar because there is nothing to protect there! Visual impact is not a big deal to the FS.

That's good news. What should we look for or anticipate then?

The forest service did say the did not like visual impact at the meeting. the said things like trail days helped but that did not insure anything. We will have a better understanding after they define what The limits of acceptable change are, it really sounded like a long drawn out process. many more climbers should have attended.

Soil compaction at the base of routes and the "construction" of authorized and unauthorized trails. Did come up as future issues of evaluation. The term "construction" was open to interpretation and was interpreted by USFS as “any trail visible to the naked eye had been “constructed” regardless as to how it came to be. If it was not “authorized”, it was therefore “unauthorized” and subject to future review and closure. Shannon may be able to give more insight on those technical issues that can used or ignored by the acting District Ranger.

Tbone good to see you at the meeting, I'm going to step away for awhile to get some work done.

I agree that many more climbers should have attended. I found the entire meeting very helpful even though much of their presentation was redundant. This helped me focus on what they thought was important to us. I was also glad that Shannon made them walk us through the Limits of Acceptable change process. From what I understand, the LAC process was developed specifically for evaluating Wilderness Areas. In the Draft Forest Plan, the FS is proposing to also use this process in evaluating the National Wild & Scenic River Area and the Geologic Area.

This is where formal written comments could be crucial to the future of climbing. The LAC process will no doubt be meticulous and restrictive. If you do not want to see the LAC process applied to climbing, then now is the time to say so in your comments on the Plan. To make effective comments, your letter needs to say what you don't like in the Plan and what flaws there are in what you don't like. Your comments need to be as specific as possible and give your rationale as to why you think the Plan should be changed. I will be posting more on this later as I get into writing my own comments.

As far as any more closure in the interim, I have the impression that this will only be as a last resort and then only to protect arch sites or T&E species?

I'm still trying to figure out, why the USFS would not identify which areas they planned to close. And I know they are not bluffing about their intent.