Zion Backcountry Management Plan Approved

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:

> Hey Tom, I spent some time this morning going through the > statistics that you have on the ZCC group and noticed one item > that just jumped out at me from the daily use in Behunin, Mystery, > and Kolob Creek. That was the high number of people going into > Mystery on Saturdays i.e. 12,14,24,29,39,45 plus others in > between. This is a tremendous number of people utilizing that > canyon and indicates the impact being placed on the approach and > descent into Mystery. And this is for June. Probably could > deduce that July and August might see even higher numbers.

Thank you for engaging, Bruce.

This was June 2003, the last year before quotas. Mystery June 2003 was chosen because it has the highest use days recorded for Mystery. This information was taken from permits, and since it was before quotas, permit numbers and actual numbers are pretty close. July and August numbers were not higher.

There is not more data like this because the database program the permits are on is extremely awkward to pull data out of. So these numbers were pulled out “manually”.

“Tremendous” is a loaded word. 45 people on one day is “tremendous”? A matter of opinion.

Question: when were limits imposed on Mystery and the other canyons?

2004

Observation: for Mystery, it appears that limits were justified > for the sole reason of resource damage, and one has to remember > that it appears that the collection of data was on an irregular > basis so we cannot know what the use was on those days where no > monitoring was conducted (looking at the data it appears that it > was from observation and not extracting data from the permits > themselves).

It is not obvious to me that X number of people produces an unacceptable level of resource damage, without a careful evaluation of the specific physical resources and how the physical resource changes (ie, is impacted) over time. In other words, just because there are more people on that Saturday in June than you find suits your taste, does not mean that the canyon got tore up on that day.

For example, is 45 people on a day a “tremendous” number for using the West Rim Trail to Angels Landing? It is not, it is a low number for that trail, and we can probably instantly agree that it does not produce unacceptable impacts because the trail is paved or slickrock for its entire length.

I have continually suggested to the Park that they should monitor physical impacts by (drumroll…) looking at the physical impacts; rather than by counting the number of people using the canyon. Counting the people implies that we know how much damage X people cause, and therefore we don’t need to monitor the physical impact. We don’t know how much damage X people cause because each case and each canyon is different.

My observation on the Mystery trail is that it does not change very much over time. It certainly changed a lot with the big winter of 2005 when 2/3 of it slid; but even the slide mostly had an impact in the crown area, and many of the trail landmarks in the slide area remained intact (if moved a bit). Half the trail was on a former slide path, now 2/3 of it is. My observations based on going down and UP the trail many times in the last 10 years is that the surface of the trail is stable, and changes very little with human use.

That said, 45 people seems like a lot of people to me in Mystery, and would be something that even I would label as crowded. One thing the permit/quota system can do is knock the top off the usage spikes and spread people out over more days. Note that this decreases overall usage only slightly. We proposed a limit of 24 in Mystery, which I felt would make the permit not too hard to get, but still prevent gross over-crowding.

Observation #2: when using statistics data collected must be > consistently collected or its value is diminished. In looking at > all of the data that you posted there is so much difference among > the various data collected to make it questionable.

That is the data available from the Park. Part of the problem may be that there are not data geeks like me working there; therefore, the Park is not REAL interested in the data and has little interest in carefully analyzing it – therefore it does not get done, or presented in a way that allows much useful analysis.

Observation #3: in my limited experience with # user days I am > skepticle of the number. It seems, at least in one instance, that > a fudge factor is added to increase the number to make the parks > look better in the eyes of higher management, the congress and the > public. > While I am a skeptic, I am not that much of a skeptic. I believe the numbers provided have not been monkeyed with; since backcountry is such a small part of what the Park does, I doubt it is worth the trouble and risk of fabrication.

There are, however, some troubles with the numbers, which I asked the Park to address in the planning process and they did not. I believe that because the Subway permit is SO HARD to get, that the number of actual Subway hikers is a LOT less than the number of permits issued. I asked the Park to count the actual number of hikers on ‘permit full’ days, but they declined to do so. My theory is that on most ‘permit full days’ (quota = 50), the actual number of hikers is usually between 30 and 40. Thankfully, the Park has upped the quota on the Subway, which should make it considerably easier to get.

Thanks Bruce, good to hear your comments and observations.

Tom

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Rich Carlson” wrote:

Take a look at raw numbers, not how they are presented to suit one > person’s idea of logic and science. Canyoneering has been growing > dramatically in popularity.

Yes, it has – but this seems to be more a statement of hyperbole than anything specifically useful. Is there an issue with the solid growth of canyoneering? If so, what is it? Can we measure it? Can we characterize the problem in some way?

> Toward the end of the 90s an internet search pulled up a couple > dozen results. Now a Google search shows 250,000 results. There > was very little public beta available for Zion canyons then. Now > there are websites, guidebooks and at least four guide services > promoting the area.

Entirely true, but largely irrelevant. The Internet has grown enourmously since 1999 – therefore it makes a poor gauge of how a sport (or any other topic) has expanded in that time period.

> How many people were doing canyons in Zion in 1999? Not many. In > 2007 they issued permits for 22,000+ people (user days). How many > more people would have been in the canyons if there were no > limits? Nobody knows. Nobody can present any valid science to > prove that natural resources were protected because limits were > set. Likewise, nobody can present any valid science to prove that > natural resources would not have been damaged if > no or higher limits were set. The only thing either side of the > argument has are opinions and the “logic” they used to back up > their opinions. But they’re still just opinions. > There IS some interesting Visitor Use data coming from the Park, some of which is available on the ZCC site here:

http://canyoneeringusa.com/zcc/research.htm

My apologies for having data only through 2004.

I think the 2004 Backcountry Statistics and the 2004 Backcountry Report are most interesting.

For 2004, there were 20,321 users with permits in Narrow Canyons, with a total of 23,380 User Days (= Narrow Day # of people plus Narrow Overnight # of people plus Narrow Overnight # of Visitor Use Nights). WOW! 23,380 User Days – the place must be really crowded!!!!

This was the first year with quotas (outside the Subway). Rich’s question was – what would the use have been without Use Limits? I fail to see the relevance of THAT question – why does that matter?

The questions are: are there canyons that are too crowded? Which ones? What is an appropriate reaction?

Of those almost 24,000 User Days, 8603 of them were in the Narrows; and another 6650 were for The Subway. Leaving 8127 user days for the other canyons. Pine Creek had 2753 of them; Keyhole 1573; Orderville 1565; Mystery 1010; Behunin 554; Spry 581 – and the rest fewer than that.

To me – just my opinion mind you – that quite a few people are going to Zion and having a good time in backcountry canyons is not really a problem. And the observation that canyoneering use has increased substantially in the last five years is not, in and of itself, a problem. If there was a problem, it would be one of several: A. over-use is tearing up substantial portions of X, Y and Z canyons (discussed elsewhere, this does not seem to be a problem); B. tremendous crowding has backed up people at rappels, compromising their safety (while not a general trend, this does seem to happen from time to time); or C. too many people in the canyons at the same time creates a social crowding situation that severely negatively impacts people’s wilderness experience (which is what the VERP study was for, and which some of the discussion is about).

My analysis of the research, both the park’s VERP study and prior research on the subject of how people view social encounters in Wilderness, tends to indicate that the number of occurances of type C above (significant over-crowding) are very few.

The problem for me, as an advocate, is that the Park is rather uninterested in whether the social encounters at the rate they are occuring significantly impacts the visitors Wilderness Experience. The Park has already decided to to manage for a (IMO artificially low) specific number of social encounters per zone and has little interest in changing its mind.

I label this (for propoganda purposes) a failure of planning, and a failure to go with the science. The Park’s response was that they have to go with the numbers produced by the scientist they hired, regardless of other factors or critical analysis of their interpretation that points out flaws in their technique. Again, THIS RESPONSE is NOT SCIENCE – their response is pseudo-science and politics masquerading as science, because applying research in that manner is against the principles of science.

Again, perhaps I have strayed from the original line of argument. I believe the proposition was “There’s too many canyoneers, the canyons would be overrun without a quota and permit system”. My response is – take a careful look at the data, most of that use is in the Narrows and The Subway; and the rest of the canyons do not look like they are “too crowded” by looking at it three ways: 1. physical impacts; 2. statistics of use; and 3. VERP study lack of finding that social encounters was a significant problem despite trying very hard to produce this result.

Tom

— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Rich Carlson” wrote:

Tom has no idea how many times I’ve been in Pine Creek or any > other Zion canyon and has no idea what months, days or times I was > referring to in my post. I could come on this group and announce > that the sun rises in the east and he would find a way to argue > with me about it.

Nice deflection, Rich, and quite successful at quashing the discussion. But, belive it or not, this is not about the Rich and Tom drama – this discussion is about the Backcountry Management Plan and the resulting permit system. I thought we were having a discussion – though I do tend to state my viewpoint rather strongly.

I believe that discussion is part of the democratic process. I’d like to have a dialogue based on facts, evidence and opinions – and you are correct in asserting that the disctinction between these often gets confused.

I will attempt to be somewhat more civil, while still making my points with vigor.

I’m not defending the permit PROCESS; there is definitely room for > improvement. But there are sound reasons for limits. NPS has > stated their priorities repeatedly – 1. resource protection, 2. > safety (liability), and 3. wilderness experience – in THAT order. > People can rant about their desire for wilderness experience or > their willingness to forego it, but the “logic and science” behind > the decisions is primarily about resource protection, not visitor > experience.

The Park is not real proactive on stating why they plan to do things – generally, the Park states it’s objectives and goals, and then what it plans to do, and then what it thinks the effects of these actions will be. It makes their reasoning and reasons a bit murky, but, I have developed a difference conclusion than yours, Rich. The evidence tends to indicate that the primary purpose of the permit/quota system is to manage social encounters – but let’s take the points in order:

1. Resource Protection: definitely Job One for the Park Service. Highly supported by me, and most (if not all) others in this discussion, which is why it does not really get much discussion. There is agreement on this issue.

For instance, The Subway was getting out of control, and ZNP jumped in and imposed reasonable limits that protected the resource and left plenty of availability headroom. The camp spots up by the Subway recovered considerably – a success story. Over the years, the hike became more popular and permits became harder to get.

To me, this is the best point of the new Backcountry Plan. Considerably increased quotas for the Subway. Conditions on the ground (ie, Resource Impacts) and visitor encounter rates will be monitored and it is possible that the quota will need to be moved back down. Add to this the “two days in advance” rule rather than the “one day in advance” rule, and I think the tension and turmoil associated with getting a Subway Permit will decrease substantially. I also believe that the actual usage will increase only slightly. Just my belief – no real facts to link to it.

It should be noted that the Management Plan and the Draft Backcountry Plan talk some, but not very directly re canyoneering about Physical Impacts.

2. Visitor Safety – not surprisingly, we all seem to agree that visitors should be safe. There is little discussion and debate about what actions the Park will take re Safety, partly because the Park has only a limited range of options it CAN do, and we all agree that what the Park is doing now is appropriate.

3. Visitor Experience / Encounter Rates by Zone / Quotas to manage encounter rates.

This is the big one. In public and private discussions with Ray and Cindy, in public discussions with the same, in the General Management Plan and in the Draft Backcountry Management Plan; the Park makes it very clear that they have selected targets for encounter rates and that they WILL manage to try to meet those targets, thank you very much. This is the PRIMARY reason for canyon quotas.

Some of the quotas are effected by Resource Issues. In the Draft Plan, they list slightly lower quotas for some canyons due to Owl Nesting issues and due to erosion issues.

So – let me conclude this section with this statement of opinion:

I think the preponderance of the evidence supports the theory that the main contention and main reason for the permit/quota system is to manage social encounters.

To some degree, this is a tangential issue. The Park has the legal right to manage for minimal social encounters if it chooses to – but I claim that this is a poor policy choice, that it is inconsistent with Park purposes, goals and objectives, and is counter to the research on the subject.

(More on other points in separate posts).

Tom