Help shape the future of America’s climbing on public lands.

Federal land management agencies have released draft climbing management guidance that will shape how climbing is managed on public lands for decades to come. Required under the bipartisan Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act, the proposals recognize climbing and fixed anchors as appropriate uses in federally designated Wilderness while protecting historic routes and Wilderness character. Access Fund generally supports the draft guidance but is recommending key technical improvements to make the policies practical and effective for climbers and land managers. This FAQ breaks down what the guidance means, who it affects, and how you can submit comments before the public comment periods close on July 20th for the U.S. Forest Service and August 14th for the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

  • Guidance for federal lands with climbing in designated wilderness is required by the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act. Federal land management agencies have contemplated national-scale climbing guidance for three decades. Some agencies, including NPS and BLM, issued wilderness climbing guidance in 2007 and 2013 respectively. The new guidance will update any existing guidance.

  • The Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act is section 122 of the EXPLORE Act, a package of recreation-related bills that modernizes policy, promotes access to public lands and supports gateway communities. The PARC passed the US Congress unanimously and was signed into law by President Biden on January 4, 2026.

    The PARC Act is a straightforward law that:

    1. Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to issue national guidance on management of climbing within Wilderness areas;

    2. Clarifies that climbing and the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors (including bolts, pins, and slings) are appropriate, and not prohibited, within Wilderness areas;

    3. Preserves the existing authority of land management agencies to regulate climbing to ensure it protects Wilderness character, natural resources, and cultural values; and

    4. Provides for public participation in decisions affecting climbing in Wilderness areas.

    The PARC Act provides a clear legal determination that supersedes the now-withdrawn 2023 proposals from the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) that would have undermined sustainable Wilderness climbing access by classifying fixed anchors as prohibited “installations” by default. The proposed guidance would have prohibited all existing slings, pins, and bolts in Wilderness areas until an intensive bureaucratic process determined whether they should stay in place or be removed. It would have impacted more than 50,000 routes in 28 states, including some of America’s most iconic climbing routes such as The Nose on El Capitan, big walls in Utah’s Zion National Park, adventures in Wyoming’s Wind River Range, historic climbs in Washington’s North Cascades, and many more.

  • Career federal land management administrators wrote the July 2026 draft guidance. Each agency drafted their own version of the required national-scale climbing management guidance. The proposals share some common themes, such as clarifying that fixed anchors are not prohibited in wilderness, but each draft guidance document is unique and crafted to meet the needs of different federal agencies.

    • The draft USFS directive covers both wilderness and non-wilderness Forest Service lands in one national policy. This broad, practical approach deserves support because a unified policy avoids the district-by-district fragmentation that has long plagued USFS climbing management.

    • It correctly recognizes climbing as a legitimate use of USFS lands, including wilderness, consistent with the Wilderness Act's  protection of primitive and unconfined recreation.

    • Most importantly, the directive recognizes that limited, safety-based fixed anchors should not automatically be treated as prohibited “installations” requiring a formal minimum requirements analysis. That is the key improvement over earlier proposals and is consistent with the EXPLORE Act’s protection of climbing that relies on fixed anchors.

    • It distinguishes “fixed anchors” (bolts, pitons, and similar small safety hardware) from “fixed equipment” (larger installations like fixed lines or ladders). This distinction should be preserved.

    • It discourages bolt-intensive development in wilderness, convenience bolting, chipping, and manufactured holds while still allowing restrained, safety-based anchor placement. Support this appropriate balance.

    • It confirms climbers, not the USFS, are responsible for assessing anchor safety, and allows emergency anchor placement or replacement for imminent safety threats, in or out of wilderness.

  • The USFS guidance should be revised in these ways:

    • Strengthen protection for legacy routes and anchors (pre-2025). Presume them eligible for continued use and maintenance; make removal a last resort after consideration of less restrictive options and site-specific review indicates measurable impact to sensitive resources and. A minimum requirement analysis is inappropriate for this process.

    • Clarify that ordinary bolts, pitons, and rappel anchors generally qualify as “limited in size, scope, and function” when they are small, low-visibility, safety-related, and hand-placed in wilderness. The final directive should avoid rigid numeric caps that do not fit real-world climbing situations.

    • Confirm that a climbing management plan is not required before routine anchor maintenance, one-for-one replacement, or ordinary new route authorization. Because CMPs often take years and may not be funded quickly, making them a prerequisite would create a de facto moratorium inconsistent with the EXPLORE Act’s protection for legacy routes and anchors. Currently, the national forest system only has three forest-wide or district CMPs yet it manages 30% of America’s climbing.

    • Describe a preferred authorization process for wilderness new route requests and provide options, ranging from “programmatic” to “case-by-case”, for acceptable prior authorization processes.

    • Recognize that fixed anchors outside wilderness are appropriate and primarily serve climber safety—not only resource protection—by preventing falls and allowing safe rappel or retreat.

    • Revise the wilderness examples. It is appropriate to direct climbing away from sensitive cultural or natural resources and toward durable routes, but the directive should not cite prior chipping damage as a reason to authorize anchors. Chipping and manufactured holds should be prohibited

    • Allow climbers to address urgent safety needs without prior approval when delay would create unnecessary risk—for example, replacing a dangerously corroded bolt, adding a missing rappel anchor, or retreating safely in sudden weather.

    • Provide national templates and sideboards for local climbing management plans so implementation does not vary widely by district. These should include common standards for legacy routes, safety situations, cultural resources, wildlife resources, and consultation with local climbing organizations. National forests should apply management prescriptions with the least burden on both land managers and climbers.

    • Prioritize education, stewardship, and partnership with local climbing organizations, Tribes, and land managers over blanket restrictions. Climbers should be treated as stewardship partners, not merely as a regulated user group.

    • Continue managing climbing as primitive, low-development recreation. Developed-recreation standards should not be imposed on climbing areas unless they are truly necessary for site-specific resource protection or visitor safety.

    • The National Park Service’s draft guidance affirms that climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of park lands, including designated wilderness, and recognizes that removable protection does not always eliminate the need for occasional fixed anchors.

    • It states that hand-placed fixed anchors used for belay, rappel, or protection are not installations under Wilderness Act § 4(c) and that authorizing new or replacement anchors generally does not require a minimum requirements analysis; this builds on the EXPLORE Act/PARC’s recognition of climbing as an appropriate primitive recreation activity.

    • The policy distinguishes fixed anchors from fixed equipment such as ladders, cables, or via ferrata and directs that larger equipment, or the use of power drills, undergo additional review, thereby protecting wilderness character while allowing essential safety anchors.

    • It acknowledges that clean climbing is the norm but allows placement of small, safety-based anchors when clean climbing is not viable and presumes that routes and anchors established before January 4, 2025 may be used and maintained so long as wilderness character is preserved.

    • Some parks may preauthorize routine replacement of existing anchors through a superintendent’s compendium, and the guidance encourages parks to consult with climbing organizations and stakeholders when developing climbing management plans and special use conditions.

    • The proposal explicitly excludes recreational activities such as slacklining, highlining, and via ferrata from the climbing guidance, ensuring that fixed-anchor policies are tailored to climbing rather than other activities.

    • The document emphasizes resource protection, cultural sensitivity, and the protection of wilderness character while recognizing that occasional fixed anchors may be necessary to ensure climber safety and prevent impacts from repeated removal and replacement of natural gear.

  • The NPS guidance should be revised in these ways:

    • Replace the default requirement that new fixed anchors obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) with a more flexible “programmatic” or compendium-based approval system that allows parks to preauthorize low-impact anchors without individual permit applications. This revision would align the NPS guidance with existing climbing management models common to several park units.

    • Clarify that a superintendent’s compendium-based waiver of the SUP requirement functions as programmatic authorization and is not just a discretionary waiver, so climbers and parks understand when permits are needed.

    • Strongly encourage all parks with climbing to preauthorize routine maintenance or replacement of existing anchors, including one-for-one replacement of unsafe anchors, so that climbers can address safety issues without unnecessary delays. The draft guidance establishes the potential for too many unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles in the way of standard maintenance of established climbing routes.

    • Strengthen the presumption that climbing routes and anchors existing before January 4, 2025 are eligible for continued use and maintenance, and make removal a last resort after site-specific review shows that continued use would harm wilderness character or sensitive resources.

    • Provide clear timelines, cost limits, and other guardrails for the SUP process so that permit review does not become prohibitively slow, inconsistent, or costly for climbers and local organizations.

    • Clarify that fixed anchors outside wilderness primarily serve climber safety—not only resource protection—and should not be subject to the same permit requirements as installations or developments.

    • Encourage parks to develop climbing management plans in consultation with local climbing groups, resource specialists, and other stakeholders and provide national templates and standards to reduce variability in how parks manage climbing.

    • Add an emergency or exigent-circumstances provision similar to BLM’s, allowing climbers to place or replace anchors without prior authorization when delay would compromise safety, and ensure that removal of anchors placed during an emergency is required only when it is safe and beneficial to wilderness character.

    • Reinforce education, stewardship, and partnership with the climbing community so that climbers are treated as partners in protecting wilderness and cultural resources rather than as a regulated user group.

    • Maintain climbing as a primitive, self-reliant, low-development activity and avoid imposing developed-recreation standards or services on climbing areas except where necessary for site-specific resource protection or visitor safety.

    • The Bureau of Land Management’s draft guidance rightly recognizes that recreational climbing—including rock climbing, canyoneering, mountaineering, and caving—is an appropriate use of wilderness and non-wilderness BLM lands when managed consistent with the Wilderness Act, the EXPLORE Act/PARC, and other laws.

    • It abandons the outdated view that fixed anchors are categorically prohibited installations by stating that small, low-visibility, safety-based anchors used to facilitate ascent or descent do not violate Wilderness Act § 4(c).

    • The proposal creates a “casual-use” framework that allows climbers to place, use, and one-for-one replace safety anchors on existing routes without prior authorization or formal minimum requirements analysis when anchors are hand-placed, limited in number (less than 5), and do not compromise wilderness character (more than 100 feet from a “human-placed objects”. The casual use criteria is subject to interpretation.

    • In cases where the establishment of new climbing routes do not meet the “casual use” criteria, BLM requires authorization through an “authorization process appropriately tailored to the proposal.” The guidance does not describe a preferred authorization process or provide options for acceptable prior authorization processes.

    • It presumes continued use and maintenance of fixed anchors on routes established before January 4, 2025, recognizing that legacy routes and anchors are part of the historic climbing environment and that their removal should require careful site-specific review.

    • The guidance distinguishes small safety anchors from larger fixed equipment such as fixed ropes, ladders, or cables and reserves minimum requirements analyses for the latter, preserving the integrity of the Wilderness Act without impeding safe climbing practices.

    • It provides an emergency provision allowing climbers to place or maintain anchors in excess of casual-use criteria when necessary to prevent injury or address imminent safety threats, affirming that safety should never be compromised by bureaucratic delay.

    • The proposal encourages collaboration with local climbing organizations and other stakeholders to educate climbers, protect sensitive resources, and ensure that climbing remains a primitive, low-impact activity consistent with wilderness values.

  • The BLM guidance should be revised in these ways:

    • Treat the casual-use numeric thresholds (five anchors, 100-foot spacing) as flexible guideposts rather than strict limits so that climbers can address real-world safety needs without fear of violating an arbitrary cap. Define “human-placed object”.

    • Clarify the types of prior authorization processes that could be applied to new climbing route proposals that do not meet the “casual-use” criteria. Guidance should recommend that appropriate prior authorization processes range from “programmatic” to “case-by-case”.

    • Clarify that the voluntary 10-day advance notice for new anchors is truly voluntary, not a prerequisite for casual use, and that lack of notice cannot be used to penalize climbers who comply with all other casual-use criteria.

    • Confirm that a minimum requirements analysis or permit is not required for small, safety-based fixed anchors that meet the casual-use criteria as well as requests for prior authorization for new climbing routes that don’t meet casual-use criteria. , and eExplain why an analysis would be needed only for larger installations or motorized drilling.

    • Ensure that removal of anchors placed in an emergency is required only when it is safe, practical, and beneficial to wilderness character; otherwise allow emergency anchors to remain in place as part of the safety infrastructure.

    • Strengthen the presumption that fixed anchors existing before January 4, 2025 are eligible for continued use and maintenance unless a site-specific analysis clearly shows that removal is necessary to protect wilderness character or sensitive resources.

    • Add an explicit statement that slings, webbing, or other small anchor components are not “fixed equipment” requiring minimum requirements analysis when used as part of a safety anchor.

    • Offer national templates and sideboards for local climbing management plans so that implementation of the guidance does not vary widely by field office and to ensure consistent standards for legacy routes, safety situations, cultural and wildlife resources, and consultation with local climbing groups.

    • Emphasize education, stewardship, and partnerships with climbers over blanket restrictions, and encourage land managers to treat climbers as stewardship partners rather than as a regulated user group.

    • Continue managing climbing as a primitive, low-development recreational activity and avoid imposing developed-recreation standards on climbing areas except where truly necessary to protect site-specific resources or visitor safety.

    • The Fish and Wildlife Service’s draft guidance acknowledges that recreational climbing may be appropriate on National Wildlife Refuge System lands when it is found compatible with refuge purposes, wildlife conservation, habitat protection, and visitor experience.

    • It incorporates the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing Act (PARC), stating that continued use and maintenance of climbing routes—including fixed anchors—established prior to January 4, 2025 must be allowed and that both pre-existing and new safety anchors are not installations because they are de minimis.

    • The guidance distinguishes small safety anchors from larger fixed equipment such as chains, ladders, ropes, and battery-powered drills, reserving minimum requirements analysis for the latter and affirming that hand-placed bolts and pitons may be used when climbing is authorized.

    • It recognizes that fixed anchors can be important safety tools and that their continued use helps preserve the primitive, self-reliant character of climbing by preventing repeated installation and removal of natural gear that could damage fragile habitats.

    • The proposal emphasizes consultation with stakeholders and resource specialists when determining whether climbing is appropriate and compatible, and it directs refuge managers to consider climbing’s impacts on wildlife, cultural sites, and visitor experience.

    • By acknowledging that new fixed anchors are de minimis and not installations, the guidance aligns FWS policy with BLM, NPS, and USFS and marks a significant shift away from treating all anchors as prohibited installations.

    • The document reinforces that climbing in refuges must remain primitive, low-impact, and self-reliant, and that refuge managers retain authority to restrict climbing to protect wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources.

  • The FWS guidance should be revised in these ways:

    • Ensure that the appropriateness and compatibility determination process does not become a categorical barrier to climbing by setting reasonable timelines, clear criteria, and a presumption in favor of allowing low-impact climbing where impacts can be managed.

    • Clarify the process for placement, maintenance, and replacement of safety-based fixed anchors once climbing is found appropriate, including when permits or prior authorization are required and when one-for-one replacement may occur without additional authorization.

    • Confirm that ordinary sling, webbing, or cord components used as part of a fixed anchor are not “fixed equipment” requiring minimum requirements analysis and that FWS will not treat small anchor components as installations.

    • Add an emergency or exigent-circumstances provision similar to those in BLM and NPS guidance, allowing climbers to place or replace anchors without prior approval when delay would create safety risks, and require removal of emergency anchors only when it is safe, practical, and improves refuge values.

    • Strengthen the requirement that legacy routes and anchors established before January 4, 2025 be allowed to remain unless a site-specific analysis shows that removal is necessary to protect refuge purposes or wildlife, and make removal a last resort.

    • Provide national templates and sideboards for refuge-level climbing management plans so that the process for evaluating appropriateness, compatibility, and anchor management is consistent across refuges and developed in collaboration with local climbing groups and Tribes.

    • Emphasize education, stewardship, and partnership with the climbing community so that climbers are viewed as allies in wildlife and habitat protection rather than as a regulated user group, and encourage wildlife refuges to develop voluntary best-practices programs for climbers.

    • Continue managing climbing as a primitive, low-development activity and avoid imposing developed-recreation standards or blanket bans unless necessary to protect wildlife, habitat, or cultural resources.

  • The USFS comment period is 30 days, starting June 18th and ends July 20th. Access Fund filed for an extension but it has yet to be granted.

    The NPS, BLM and FWS comment period is 60 days, starting June 15th and ends August 14th.

  • Yes, Access Fund is offering to support LCOs as they draft comments specific to local climbing areas and regions. Contact the Access Fund policy team at policy@accessfund.org or reach out to Billy Simek, Access Fund’s national affiliate director at localsupport@accessfund.org

 

Take Action

Use our easy letter-writing tool to submit your comments today. Thank you for staying informed and for your advocacy.

Take Action Now

Policy Rx with the Rock Doc

Watch the latest episode of Policy Rx for a breakdown on these long-awaited proposals, and what they mean for the future of climbing in America.