RRC Archives

They are definitely not bluffing as they are required to protect arch sites and T&E species by law. Perhaps they are still in an evaluation mode? Also for arch sites there is the problem of potential looting.

This where the logic breaks down. If they are in an evaluation mode, then an evaluation process exist. Why spent two years developing a second one.

Second why not share the closures plans with the RRGCC. They proclaim, they believe the RRGCC has the lands best interest in mind.

Regarding an arch site, how long do you believe it would take from the time chichen wire shows up in an area before the information hit this site. You might as well tape a big red arrow to it during the installation.

I really would like to see the scientific research behind the arch sites. In the meeting they indicated the money was not available for research and they doubted if it would be available in the future. Therefore if pottery is not sticking out of the ground and no research has been done, how do they determine what is an ach site? Are they reluctant to share the information? Or is it that the information does not exist or has not been properly verified? If someone would like to debate me on this, just explain to me the scientific verification process and document when it was done.

For those who have seen the Indian Stairway, and believe it to be notched by ancient man, some historians believe that it may have been notched by the Niter Miners and the overhang around the corner may have been mined also.

Now don't get me wrong, Ancient Man or Niter Miner's, I'm all for preserving the past. It's just that I can't get all the information to line up. If we don't have enough research to determine how the notches came to be in Indian Stairway, how are other decisions being made?

Then again it's probably clear to everone else, just fuzzy in in my sector.

The best I can do on arch site procedures is to refer you to this website - http://www.kyopa.org/
Go to the Resources section and you can find info on various assessment procedures and laws. What is important to note is that the ultimate authority here actually lies with the State, not the Forest Service. The Forest Service has an MOU with the State for doing these assessments on behalf of the State.

From a practically, commom sense standpoint, I would assume an initial assessment would consist of having a trained person look at an area and apply their judgement. Using Indian Staircase as an example, in addition to the "supposed" stairs, there are two apparent burial mounds and a petroglyph nearby. I think I may have also seen a "hominy hole" in one of the overhangs in that area.

For sure, putting up the chicken wire and signs is problematic to say the least.

As far as the 2 year Limits of Acceptable Change process, this would be in addition to arch & T&E considerations. It would likely put limitations directly on climbing. If you want to get yourself worked up, just enter "rock climbing limits of acceptable change" in your favorite search engine.

I believe you are right on several points. Last year an archeologist did enter the picture. He has kept a low profile, but I have met him a couple of times.

It is my belief that someone has ordered a “shovel test” in several areas. A report has been written. If the report is biased it may be slanted towards the archeological community. This trump card is being held back. However my guess is that the report is full of hypothesis and recommendations for closures. The limited testing done may not be enough to generate conclusive evidence.

If the government paid for this study then it should be public knowledge.

The USFS indicated closures would take place. This is not the rattling of swords. It was stated and it is in the process. The fact that information was with-held put the hair up on the back of my neck.

My dear kinfolk: I hear the rat tat tat of battle drums over yonder dale. I smell the dust of marching armies. Mediation, build a castle on your own land, or draw swords and prepare to fight. The strength of the leadership within the RRGCC is about to be tested.

You could always submit an FOIA request asking for a copy of the study. You could even state that you need such information for making informed comments on the Draft Plan. Frankly, I do not fear arch site or T&E closures of specific routes as long as the evaluations identifing such are fair and supportable. What I do fear is potential LAC restrictions such as limiting the number of climbs that may be located at a certain crag, limiting the amount of people who can be climbing or what crags they may be climbing at, limitations that if exceeded may result in the route closures beyond arch or T&E considerations, etc.

Publication of the location of unprotected archaelogical sites is prohibited by Federal law in order to prevent degredation. I don't know the title of the specific act. I agree that fencing an overhang off is like putting a big welcome mat out. A phase one sudy consists of a literature search (therfore a report), phase two requires field investigations, If they are digging its to confirm what they already suspect. I learned at one of the workshops last fall that the Sate has been all over the Forest Service to gain control of archaelogical sites.

I may be biased and opinionated, but basiclly the state has figured out how to make money from digging up my ancestors and you climbers are SOL if the two are in the same space.

In those early days, hunters and surveyors traveling the Old Harper's Trace that led from Boonesborough to this part of the country, passed by a large mound about 125 feet high and covered with great trees like those in the surrounding forests. They called it The Little Mountain. Later excavations proved the mound to be a burial site of an ancient tribe of mound builders. This mound stood at what is now the intersection of Queen and Locust Streets in Mount Sterling.

The whole friggen gorge is an arch site! Bring an intersection thru, no problem. Stand at the base of the cliff to become one with the rock and your SOL.

What I do find interesting is the very issues (arch and endangered species) we used in our fight to kept this area from being dammed and 200 feet under water (the argument was that a lake would increase recreational use and bring income into the area) is now being used to stop recreational use by the same folks who wanted it.

God sometimes I get so confused!

Gretchen, If it weren't for visual impacts the F.S. wouldn't know we were there, my dear! This is exactly what they are concerned about! The Red River Gorge Geologic Area is to be thier area of formost concern! Military and Left Flank will be the first areas closed! They being the most impacted in said Area! So as usaual Gretchen, do your homework before making your comments on Site. You're giving false hope to the other uniformed!

TN - Here is the link to the Code of Federal Regulations applicable to the USFS regarding arch sites -
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 96_01.html