#89. Green Willow Wall Bolt Relocation

Information from Applicant

The FHRC has received the following information from the applicant:



Straighten Green Willow Wall: Upgrade bolts and Move 2nd Bolt



Both bolts on Green Willow Wall need to be upgraded, preferably to beefy 1/2 inch stainless steel types, with camouflaged hangers. This is critical, especially for the first bolt which is the only thing between the climber and the ground above a certain point (and before the second bolt).



The second bolt was originally placed about 7 feet off the natural line of holds, necessitating that the leader climb left (contrived and difficult) to clip it, then move back right to continue with the difficult crimp moves comprising the crux. My proposal is to remove the current 2nd bolt, fill the hole, and then place a new bolt in a location (to be determined with FHRC input) on the natural set of holds. (The above photograph shows the location selected by the applicant with input from the FHRC.)

Information from FHRC

The FHRC is required to offer information about the proposed bolts.



Factors in Favor



- In the past in Eldorado (before establishment of the Fixed Hardware Review Committee process), relocation of poorly positioned bolts on existing routes has sometimes seen widespread public approval.



- One first ascentionist (an active climber in the area) has indicated he supports the bolt relocation.



- Safety. The new larger bolts would be safer than the current bolts



Factors Against



- In the past in Eldorado (before establishment of the Fixed Hardware Review Committee process), relocation of poorly positioned bolts on existing routes has sometimes seen widespread public disapproval.



- One first ascentionist (no longer an active climber in the area) has not been contacted regarding the bolt relocation.



- The current FHRC Guidelines state:



"Applications Regarding Existing Routes. Existing routes shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible in the condition of the First Free Ascent (FFA). Bold routes shall remain bold, safe routes shall remain safe. If good fixed protection existed for the FFA, such gear shall be maintained in its original position. This guideline shall govern all applications regardless of the weight of public comment. When fixed hardware is replaced, the replacement shall be made in the same position as the gear being replaced. Any fixed hardware must be made as inconspicuous as possible. Occasionally, the person replacing gear shall not be able to use the same placement as the pre-existing piece. In such case the new gear should be placed as close to the original position as is reasonable, so that the nature of the climb is not affected. This guideline shall govern all applications regardless of the weight of public comment."



It should be noted that the bolts on this route were placed on rappel. According to its authors, the FHRC Guidelines statement quoted above was intended to preserve the location of bolts placed on lead, even though the wording does not make that distinction.



It is an open question for ACE, the FHRC, and the climbing public whether this same standard should be applied on all rap-bolted routes, especially when the first ascentionist agrees with the bolt relocation.



Neutral Factors



None



FHRC:recommended Park:approved Action:

Comments Received From the Climbing Community

9 In Favor, 4 Opposed
No problem, especially since the FA agrees.
Makes sense. Go for it.
An improvement, I'm all for it.
Sounds good to me, just make sure the new position of the second bolt is optimal.
For moving the bolt: I would support this if the first ascentionist listed above as not contacted is contacted and agrees and if the overwhelming majority of folks who comment who have climbed the route agrees.

For beefing up the bolts: Agree
I did probably the 2nd ascent of this route and felt that the location of the 2nd bolt was fine but the 1st bolt was 1' or so too far to the left. I would favor the upgrading of the bolts but more thought needs to to given this relocation.
(me again)...when I led this I climbed directly up from the 2nd bolt before angling rightwards. If this bolt is moved as indicated a fall could result in the leader hitting the rope and possibly flipping over - not safe. It sounds like the proponent of this took a different line of holds than I did, but my path was not harder than the climbing to this point, therefore not the crux.
Beef up the bolts
I remember the bolts being off to the left, but not 6 feet away. Check it out again before you relocate

I've done the route; in favor of beefing up the bolts and relocating them. Care should definitely be given to the placement of the second bolt to be sure that it is optimum.
I believe that an approval of this proposal is for moving the bolt exactly as described - no chance for reconsideration. Please review the responses, network with others to form a conscensous, and reapply next time around with these questions resolved.
There seems to be basic disagreement regarding the route line of weakness itself, and then the appropriate placement of the bolts - both of them! Conflicting opinions only muddy the waters; since questions of safety pertaining to the proposed new location of bolt 2 were brought up, the committee really needs to get involved in checking the facts before jumping the gun based on one climber's assessment. It's impossible to cast an informed vote given these problems, but I had to say NO to get my opinion entered.