Canyon Country Zephyr page 32

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

The “Stabilization” of Delicate Arch

The National Park Service plan to glue an icon.

Jim Stiles

The general superintendent in Globe Arizona was delighted. “It is encouraging indeed,” he said, “to know that Mr. Miller is in accord with our view.” Although the NPS Advisory Board opposed the stabilization of geological formations in national parks, Davis insisted that Delicate Arch should be an exception. On December 22, 1952 he wrote:

“I believe we are all agreed that one use of our Parks and Monuments is as great outdoor museums and, as such, Arches National Monument has perhaps its most effective exhibit in Delicate Arch. To allow this unique formation to fall without making some effort to prolong its existence would be to lose forever an integral part of the story justifying the existence of Arches National Monument.”

Within months, memorandums no longer asked if the arch should be stabilized but

“....there have been some, even in the Park Service, who advocate spraying Delicate Arch with a fxative of some sort -- Elmer’s Glue perhaps or Lady Clairol Spray-Net.”

-E. Abbey...Desert Solitaire

When I frst read that passage by Abbey, I thought he was kidding; I had learned, over the years, to take some of Cactus Ed’s “facts” with a grain of salt. The idea of spraying Delicate Arch with a fixative was too ridiculous to be taken seriously. This, of course, was before my decade of employment with the federal government.

During my first winter at Arches, when the tourists were few and far between, I spent

“where and what method should be used.” By the spring of 1954, the memorandums were flying at a fever pitch. A meeting was proposed for March 3, 1954 and were to include representatives from the Engineering Division and the Landscape Architectural Division. They were to “discuss the stabilization of Delicate Arch and to make arrangements for the execution of the proposed work.”

And then came landscape architect David Van Pelt. Obviously not caught up in the stabilization fever that had affected others, Van Pelt met with Arches superintendent Bates Wilson at Arches, discussed the question of stabilization and fled his report. He was the first to see that meddling with Mother Nature might very well backfire. “It should be realized,” he wrote, “that the wisdom and success of whatever action may or may not be taken to stabilize the arch can never be accurately appraised.”

much of my day rummaging through file cabinets reading old monthly reports and looking at the black & white photo collection. One day, a labeled folder caught my eye. It read: Delicate Arch Stabilization Project. I remembered the remark in Desert Solitaire but still couldn’t quite believe my eyes.

What I found inside was a decade’s worth of memorandums, letters, and reports, all dedicated to the question - should the Park Service save Delicate Arch from imminent collapse?

The issue was first raised by Arches Custodian Russ Mahan on August 28, 1947 in a memo to the Regional Director. On a recent hike, Russ had observed “the eroded condition of the east leg of Delicate Arch ... It is my opinion that some measures should be taken to prevent further erosion and to stabilize this particular point. If we lost this arch we would be losing one

of the most important features of Arches National Monument.”

Mahan was convinced apparently that the collapse of Delicate Arch might very well take away any incentive to visit the park at all. If that were true, I’d go out there with a load of dynamite tomorrow.

Van Pelt proposed two alternatives:

“1. To take no measures toward stabilization. This view arises not out of indifference or apathy, but from a consideration of the uncertain benefits of stabilization, of the very

On a recent hike, Russ had observed “the eroded condition of the east leg of Delicate Arch ... It is my opinion that some measures should be taken to prevent further erosion

and to stabilize this particular point.

If we lost this arch we would be losing

one of the most important features of Arches National Monument.”

In any case, the letter got the ball rolling, but just barely. The acting Regional director sent Mahan’s concerns to the Director in Washington. “There was,” he added, “the possibility that (the) condition of the formation may endanger visitors there.” But the threat of an arch squashing innocent tourists was not enough to elicit much interest. The next memorandum, dated September 13, 1951 said only that, “with specifc data, previously lacking, the matter can be discussed again to determine what action, if any, this offce is willing to recommend.”

Obviously, there was not a great deal of enthusiasm for this project. But 18 months later, interest was re-kindled when Southwest Regional Assistant Director Hugh Miller visited the arch and threw his support behind the plan:

“I have decided to join, as a result of this trip, those who believe that stabilization of Delicate Arch is warranted. I would favor the proposal only with the understanding that a very simple plaster jacket could be placed over the weak point in the arch at which erosion threatens to topple it, suffcient only to arrest further erosion at that point. Careful staining would suffce to make such minor support unobjectionable in appearance and it seems to me that it might reasonably be effective. From my own point of view, the Delicate Arch is so outstandingly unique a formation as to merit the adoption of stabilization methods.”

real possibility that more harm than beneft may be done, and in the knowledge that Delicate Arch is ‘in extremis,’ its collapse only deferred by the efforts of man.

“The stabilization of ruins does not offer a precedent in the analysis of the weaknesses of the arch, nor in procedures for strengthening it. The collapse of ruins follows defnite patterns according to their methods of construction, such methods being few in number and not fully understood. They are restored by proven techniques, based on known forces, strength of materials, etc.

“A complete stabilization, using methods common to ruins stabilization, of Delicate Arch would involve uncertain results, not inconsiderable danger to arch and workmen, and great expense. The arch is in a relatively inaccessible location, to which all materials and equipment would have to be hauled by pack-animal or small tractor. It is poised on the edge of a deep canyon, necessitating extra safety precautions. No one can say that it would not partially or wholly collapse while work was in progress.

“2. The contention that nothing should be done is prey to the equally defensible argument that, since the patient is doomed anyway, we are justifed in making some attempt to prolong his life.”

www.walkabouttravelgear.com

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>


	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>

	The “Stabilization” of Delicate Arch The National Park Service plan to glue an icon. Jim Stiles The general superintendent in Globe Arizona was delighted. “It is encouraging indeed,” he said, “to know that Mr. Miller is in accord with our view.” Although the NPS Advisory Board opposed the stabilization of geological formations in national parks, Davis insisted that Delicate Arch should be an exception. On December 22, 1952 he wrote: “I believe we are all agreed that one use of our Parks and Monuments is as great outdoor museums and, as such, Arches National Monument has perhaps its most effective exhibit in Delicate Arch. To allow this unique formation to fall without making some effort to prolong its existence would be to lose forever an integral part of the story justifying the existence of Arches National Monument.” Within months, memorandums no longer asked if the arch should be stabilized but “....there have been some, even in the Park Service, who advocate spraying Delicate Arch with a fxative of some sort -- Elmer’s Glue perhaps or Lady Clairol Spray-Net.” -E. Abbey...Desert Solitaire When I frst read that passage by Abbey, I thought he was kidding; I had learned, over the years, to take some of Cactus Ed’s “facts” with a grain of salt. The idea of spraying Delicate Arch with a fixative was too ridiculous to be taken seriously. This, of course, was before my decade of employment with the federal government. During my first winter at Arches, when the tourists were few and far between, I spent “where and what method should be used.” By the spring of 1954, the memorandums were flying at a fever pitch. A meeting was proposed for March 3, 1954 and were to include representatives from the Engineering Division and the Landscape Architectural Division. They were to “discuss the stabilization of Delicate Arch and to make arrangements for the execution of the proposed work.” And then came landscape architect David Van Pelt. Obviously not caught up in the stabilization fever that had affected others, Van Pelt met with Arches superintendent Bates Wilson at Arches, discussed the question of stabilization and fled his report. He was the first to see that meddling with Mother Nature might very well backfire. “It should be realized,” he wrote, “that the wisdom and success of whatever action may or may not be taken to stabilize the arch can never be accurately appraised.” much of my day rummaging through file cabinets reading old monthly reports and looking at the black & white photo collection. One day, a labeled folder caught my eye. It read: Delicate Arch Stabilization Project. I remembered the remark in Desert Solitaire but still couldn’t quite believe my eyes. What I found inside was a decade’s worth of memorandums, letters, and reports, all dedicated to the question - should the Park Service save Delicate Arch from imminent collapse? The issue was first raised by Arches Custodian Russ Mahan on August 28, 1947 in a memo to the Regional Director. On a recent hike, Russ had observed “the eroded condition of the east leg of Delicate Arch ... It is my opinion that some measures should be taken to prevent further erosion and to stabilize this particular point. If we lost this arch we would be losing one of the most important features of Arches National Monument.” Mahan was convinced apparently that the collapse of Delicate Arch might very well take away any incentive to visit the park at all. If that were true, I’d go out there with a load of dynamite tomorrow. Van Pelt proposed two alternatives: “1. To take no measures toward stabilization. This view arises not out of indifference or apathy, but from a consideration of the uncertain benefits of stabilization, of the very On a recent hike, Russ had observed “the eroded condition of the east leg of Delicate Arch ... It is my opinion that some measures should be taken to prevent further erosion and to stabilize this particular point. If we lost this arch we would be losing one of the most important features of Arches National Monument.” In any case, the letter got the ball rolling, but just barely. The acting Regional director sent Mahan’s concerns to the Director in Washington. “There was,” he added, “the possibility that (the) condition of the formation may endanger visitors there.” But the threat of an arch squashing innocent tourists was not enough to elicit much interest. The next memorandum, dated September 13, 1951 said only that, “with specifc data, previously lacking, the matter can be discussed again to determine what action, if any, this offce is willing to recommend.” Obviously, there was not a great deal of enthusiasm for this project. But 18 months later, interest was re-kindled when Southwest Regional Assistant Director Hugh Miller visited the arch and threw his support behind the plan: “I have decided to join, as a result of this trip, those who believe that stabilization of Delicate Arch is warranted. I would favor the proposal only with the understanding that a very simple plaster jacket could be placed over the weak point in the arch at which erosion threatens to topple it, suffcient only to arrest further erosion at that point. Careful staining would suffce to make such minor support unobjectionable in appearance and it seems to me that it might reasonably be effective. From my own point of view, the Delicate Arch is so outstandingly unique a formation as to merit the adoption of stabilization methods.” real possibility that more harm than beneft may be done, and in the knowledge that Delicate Arch is ‘in extremis,’ its collapse only deferred by the efforts of man. “The stabilization of ruins does not offer a precedent in the analysis of the weaknesses of the arch, nor in procedures for strengthening it. The collapse of ruins follows defnite patterns according to their methods of construction, such methods being few in number and not fully understood. They are restored by proven techniques, based on known forces, strength of materials, etc. “A complete stabilization, using methods common to ruins stabilization, of Delicate Arch would involve uncertain results, not inconsiderable danger to arch and workmen, and great expense. The arch is in a relatively inaccessible location, to which all materials and equipment would have to be hauled by pack-animal or small tractor. It is poised on the edge of a deep canyon, necessitating extra safety precautions. No one can say that it would not partially or wholly collapse while work was in progress. “2. The contention that nothing should be done is prey to the equally defensible argument that, since the patient is doomed anyway, we are justifed in making some attempt to prolong his life.” www.walkabouttravelgear.com

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>