#82. Hawkeagle Ridge New Route

Information from Applicant

Information is contained in the image.

Information from FHRC

Factors in Favor

Independent Line- The proposed route is a minimum of twenty feet from the nearest existing route. It would be impossible to clip any of the bolts from the adjacent routes, and hard to even see the bolts from adjacent routes. The lower section follows holds up a shallow dihedral/arete/slab, and is an obvious line. The upper half heads up an attractive sweep of very clean rock in an area of heavy lichen. The left-facing dihedral just to the right of the upper section of the proposed line appears to be a possible easier line, but is less inviting (as a potential new route) than it appears from a distance, being covered in lichen and very hard to gain access to. The dihedral to the left looks loose, hard to access, and dirty. Either of these two alternatives would likely require climbing the lower section of the proposed route.

Direct Line- The proposed route climbs almost straight up. The lower section follows a shallow right-facing dihedral, and the upper section follows small holds up a steep clean face.Good Rock- The proposed new route has mostly good quality rock. There are two holds on the upper section which are somewhat fragile. One, a small undercling/pinch on the arete left of the eighth bolt, should not affect the climbing very much if it breaks. The other, a right-facing flake a little higher, will change the moves if it fractures, but it is not certain it will make the moves any harder. It appears that if it breaks, it will produce a smaller lieback/sidepull handhold, but at the same time, a rather larger foothold.

Interesting combination of moves- The proposed route has an interesting variety of face climbing moves. The lower section is sustained at around 5.11, the overhang will be around 5.11+, and the upper section has a sustained section of very hard (5.12/5.13) and interesting climbing

Safety- The proposed route will be safe. There are only two short section of the route (for about ten feet above the roof, and the moves gaining the roof) which is any easier than 5.11. These sections will have no bolts. The rest will be bolted with approximately body-length spacing.

Location- The proposed route is located high up on the Hawkeagle Ridge, where there is currently little visitation. There is a climber's trail to the base. This trail may suffer from a large increase in traffic, but the difficulty of the climb will likely preclude a large increase of visitation to this area. There will be little or no visual impact from the bolts, as this is a seldom visited area.

Aesthetic Position- The upper section of the proposed route climbs an attractive curved, steep and clean pink wall.

Factors Against

Altered Routes- The proposed route has not been chipped or chiseled. There are already two bolts and three empty holes on the line, in addition to the two-bolt anchor at the top, all dating from the late 1980s. Since this means that the rock has already been impacted, if anything this may be a factor arguing in favor of the installation of the rest of the hardware.

Rock Quality- There are two holds in the crux area which may break off. It is not clear how this will change the climb. The route may become harder, but it is unlikely to become unclimbable.

Protection Reachable from Neighboring Routes- Absolutely not.

Natural Protection Possibilities- There is little chance of any substantial protection for this line. There is a small spike about five foot right of the sixth bolt, and a TCU/Loweball placement about eight feet right of the eighth bolt.

Neutral Factors

Dangerous Routes- The proposed route is safe for an Eldorado climber competent at the grade.

Ability to toprope- The proposed route could be toproped with a 55 meter rope, off the existing two-bolt anchor. This would be safe, but not be very convenient, as the rock is steep enough that a swing would result from a fall.

Results

FHRC:recommended Park:approved Action: placed

Comments Received From the Climbing Community

14 In Favor, 7 Opposed
Looks like a good line. I am somewhat concerned about the applican'ts judgment regarding bolt placement and ability to place bolts, but if the FHRC agrees that the bolts are in the optimum places, I'd support the route
The route doesn't seem to impact any other climbing nearby and the bolts seem necessary.
I support this route addition with all of the proposed bolts. It is a new clean line. Several holes, nad the two top anchor bolts are already in place. It is a little traveled area, and shopuld mostly be visible by thoser that are able to climb this potenntial grade. I see no disadvantages to this route addition to a little visiyed area of Eldo, with the two adjacent routes being many feet apart.
Looks like another good one!
looks like a good route
What an awesome looking line!
Go fer it.
The line can be top-roped...
The addition of these anchors will not substantially improve climbing access to this area because of the existing toprope anchors. This type of short-one pitch- sport climbing is not in keeping with the spirit of eldorado canyon climbing which has always valued removable protection. The area is already highly impacted and the removal of existing bolts and the drilling of new ones would only add to this impact.
Anchors are already in place. Some bolts are already in place. I don't mind new climbs in Eldo, in fact I'd like to see more, but the fact is apparent that this would not be a new climb.

As it is, it seems that a route is being altered, not created. If there is another explaination for why the existing hardware is there, then perhaps the applicant should do more to explain this.

This relatively pristine area does not need a bolt ladder. The exisitng drilled holes do not justify completion of the line (just as easy to fill in the holes). The line appears contrived, and the friable nature of some of the holds make the "classic" status of this line questionable. Finally, the applicant has not top roped this line clean- is this not a requirement for acceptance of a proposal (according to FHRC guidelines)?


I have toproped this route up to the roof (as far as I could get) and thought the part that I climbed was a good route. Since the upper part of the climb looks even more compelling (for those who can do it), I am in favor of bolting this route.
The line is contrived. If holds are to go, the line may not even be climbable. There are already many routes like this around town, so why put one in an area where it will be out of its place?
Fits into the Eldo guidelines. Minimal impact. Leslie has shown determination and dedication in this routes approval (for years), which in my opinion, embodies the true spirit of climbing.
Looks like a pretty (& quite difficult) line. Let's allow it!
There's little reason to prevent the bolting of the line.
i guess putting the bolts in is not a problem because there are many examples in the canyon of routes that have great climbing but are blank faces...that being said, i wonder how many people will actually climb this route besides the author?
I may not climb hard enough to be allowed an opinion but it seems to me that what you have in Eldorado Canyon is a uniquely authentic history of hardcore trad climbing. It seems a shame to give up on it.