BLM Seeks Public Comment on Rock Climbing Fixed Anchors in Red Rock Wilderness Areas

Just saw this. Any ideas as to what it means?

blm.gov/nv/st/en/info/newsr…

It means they will be accepting comments from the public. It will be important to keep an eye on the schedule to make sure that people will be attending the meetings.

I don't really know much about the current relationship situation. But I would really like to see something similar to what I have read about at other locations. Some type of committee of park officials, climbers and general public that is able to look at individual routes and make determinations about bolting, retro-bolting, bolt removal etc.

There is no way everyone could be kept happy but any kind of openness to planned and responsible bolting would be great.

Tyson and Eric,
Thanks for posting this announcement. The BLM intends to prepare a Resource Management Plan Amendment to consider new management decision for permanent fixed anchors within BLM portions of La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness areas of RRC. The BLM is accepting comments for 45 days (until November 18, 2012). Currently new fixed anchors are prohibited in La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness areas of RRC under the authority of the Red Rock Canyon Resource Management Plan (RMP).

The BLM will be hosting public workshops to discuss this planning process. See below for details:

The Bureau of Land Management Red Rock/Sloan Field Office will host public scoping workshops on October 20 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Southern Nevada District Office at 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive and October 29 from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. at the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Visitor Center. These workshops will include a 30-minute open house, a 20 minute presentation, and an hour workshop with stations and comment recorders to discuss potential management decision alternatives. A court reporter will also be available to take comments.

The public scoping workshops will focus on new management decisions for permanent fixed anchors used by the climbing, canyoneering, and other recreation communities in the La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness Areas within Red Rock. A planning matrix and timeline will be presented to help stakeholders understand how a resource management plan amendment could change fixed anchor management and how the amendment would fit together with future wilderness plans and a climbing plan. The public will have an opportunity to make formal comments during the workshops. Comments may also be emailed to rrc_fixedanchors@blm.gov or faxed to 702-363-6779 prior to the close of the comment period on November 18, 2012.
If you have any questions please contact Nick Walendziak at 702-515-5358.

If you're not super familiar with the current situation, bolting is prohibited in the Wilderness, which means most of the canyons (not Calico). What Nick is talking about, is that the BLM is considering revising that policy. Scoping means the first round of accepting public comments on whether new bolts are appropriate, and how that process should work. Currently, replacement of old/crappy bolts is permitted, under certain guidelines and hardware standards.
This has been in the works for awhile now, and it would be great for climbers to show up and express their thoughts. If you can't make the meeting, feel free to write some comments. Comments are taken into consideration when planning the next step of this process. If you do comment, make it concise and spell-check it. I have a feeling they're going to have to read quite a few comments...

Access Fund's page

For those who are looking for a few more specifics, here ya go.

smassey wrote: Access Fund's page For those who are looking for a few more specifics, here ya go.

bump, just sent the access fund letter.

kennoyce wrote: bump, just sent the access fund letter.

me too, took 10 seconds!

I'm really not a fan of the wording in the Access Fund letter:

"Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics"

This is throwing the ball back in the BLM's court to "determine through research" whether we need a permit system. It's taken them almost 10 years to address the bolting ban issue, this has the potential to drag on forever if the BLM is the driving force on determining a permit system.

I think we should go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware. Hand drilling a 3/8" X 3" hole should in itself limit the amount of bolts that go in.

Doug Foust wrote:I'm really not a fan of the wording in the Access Fund letter: "Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics" This is throwing the ball back in the BLM's court to "determine through research" whether we need a permit system. It's taken them almost 10 years to address the bolting ban issue, this has the potential to drag on forever if the BLM is the driving force on determining a permit system. I think we should go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware. Hand drilling a 3/8" X 3" hole should in itself limit the amount of bolts that go in.

I think you're reading the letter the wrong way, my understanding is that the letter is saying to go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware, and the sentence that you aren't a fan of is just a caveat saying that if at some future time, the BLM feels that this is not enough, they can then decide to implement a permit system.

kennoyce wrote: I think you're reading the letter the wrong way, my understanding is that the letter is saying to go to a "hand drill only" policy with requirements on the hardware, and the sentence that you aren't a fan of is just a caveat saying that if at some future time, the BLM feels that this is not enough, they can then decide to implement a permit system.

I think you summed up the intent of the letter well, I just think the wording is pretty ambiguous. They specifically say 1 to 1 replacement is allowed without prior approval, they specifically say anchors for descent or emergencies are allowed without prior approval, but then the wording for new bolts on new routes isn't very clear.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I would hate to see this dragging out another 10 years.

Doug Foust wrote: I think you summed up the intent of the letter well, I just think the wording is pretty ambiguous. They specifically say 1 to 1 replacement is allowed without prior approval, they specifically say anchors for descent or emergencies are allowed without prior approval, but then the wording for new bolts on new routes isn't very clear. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I would hate to see this dragging out another 10 years.

I understand, I too would hate to see it dragging out another 10 years.

An understandable concern. BLM Manual 6340 which addresses this, states that the local management "may" require a permit. This gives them the discretion to do so, so comments on the type of permit system could be included. A permit system such as that found in Eldo or the Flatirons, that basically requires the FA party to preview the line and determine #'s and locations of bolts, would obviously not work in RR, due to so many routes going in ground-up, and FA parties having no idea if they're going to need a bolt.

Or just comment that no permit system is desired or needed. The forgotten idea of "community review" over beers may come back into vogue...

"Through research and monitoring" implies that baseline data is needed prior to implementation. Hence, comments could also include something like, "if through monitoring, it was determined that a permit system is needed to protect the resource, the placement of fixed anchors should be allowed to continue, without any sort of de facto prohibition, until the permit system is implemented". or something like that.

As it stands, an open hand drill policy would be sufficient, but it's worth thinking about all ways this could go, prior to being surprised by what may be in the draft plan.

Been doing a little research to clarify my ideas on this proposal and came across this 135 page PhD dissertation:

docstoc.com/docs/77508771/P…

haven't read it though.

Going through various sources it seems a common government solution is some form of developer registration, evaluation and permit system administered locally...Castle Rock, Idaho...Wichita Mountains, Eldo and so forth.

Thomas Beck wrote:Been doing a little research to clarify my ideas on this proposal and came across this 135 page PhD dissertation: docstoc.com/docs/77508771/P… haven't read it though.

Here is a free link to the full document Thomas describes as a pdf.

I think in order to determine the relationship between the impact of bolting in the wilderness and the amount and types of users in the wilderness and the overall ecological impacts associated, the Agency really needs to understand the overall social value for fixed protection and the trade-offs different regulations have to both user's benefits and ecologic change.

A choice experiment, i.e. conjoint analysis, might be a good way to determine the dollar value associated with various attributes of these "goods". Along with these measures of willingness to pay, probabilities on ecologic change given changes in wilderness use (if these probs exist) could prove useful to determining expected net social benefits of bolting/non-bolting/limited bolting which would be instrumental for policy decision about bolting regulations.

To me this problem really has many similarities to the issues the feds face with rising wildfire cost and success and cost of various pre-fire treatments and the goals of ecologically based management.

The Access Fund is advocating for a wilderness fixed anchor policy that incorporates these concepts:

Climbing is a historic and appropriate use of wilderness
Some level of fixed anchor use is necessary to climb safely
Generally bolt intensive “sport” climbs are inappropriate in wilderness
Climbers care for the places they climb and value wilderness climbing experiences
Less restrictive policies are best and can be increased as needed

Access Fund Guidelines

Allows only hand drilling
Allows replacement of old bolts 1:1 without prior approval
Allows placement of new bolts without prior approval only in an un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors, and for safety in descending and emergencies
Allows for a permit or approval system to be developed if the BLM determines through research and monitoring that it is necessary to protect wilderness characteristics

My comments

While Red Rocks and the La Madre is classified “wilderness” it is hardly a “wilderness experience” when planes and helicopters carrying tourists fly over your positions at low elevations. It is hardly a wilderness experience when the development of Summerlin and even downtown Las Vegas is in plain view. It is hardly a wilderness experience when the trail head parking lot is full to capacity at 8:30AM. It is hardly a wilderness experience when you are hanging at a station, viewing a dog fight on the approach trail and hearing the motorcycle cafe racers run the one way loop at high speed. Nevertheless being back in the canyons of Red Rocks can feel serious and be serious if trouble occurs.

It seems that some unique solution is called for if we are going to have written rules about bolting.

Bolt counting, guidebook reading and forum lurking has been tried in the past. How really effective has it been? It all sets a deadly self generating adversarial role between users and administrators. Due to the size of the climbing area, strict policing of a bolting policy by Park Rangers would be costly, self defeating and ineffective, not to mention the need for special climbing training for rangers. Utilizing a third party group to police ( via call in a tip techniques) could lead to costly administrative duties.

Perhaps we should acknowledge the “elephant in the room” and talk about power installations. Given that Red Rock sandstone is somewhat soft and prone to rock fracturing around the drilled hole (most anyone who has climbed in a trade route in Calico Hills has encountered loose bolts), my opinion is a a more uniform power drilled placement lasts longer. I admit I have absolutely no basis, except anecdotal, for this opinion. There is a tendency when drilling by hand to craft an elliptical hole. Corrosion and electrolysis is the issue when drilling in limestone and some education to not mix metals helps. In the theater of the absurd, you can power drill to your heart's content in the Calico Hills but not four miles away in official "Wilderness". Face it though, the BLM is not going to contravene the Wilderness Act and condone power placements. Let's just not talk about it any more. Nobody does it and it never happened.

Then it seems the technology of anchors is currently undergoing some improvements in technology. It might be wise to allow under any rulemaking that those improvements be incorporated

Now let's look at average developer costs to place a 3/8” stainless steel anchor.
Stainless Steel hanger $1.80
Stainless Steel 3/8” x 3.5 ” bolt $5.00
3/8” Stainless steel chain anchor $23.50
drill bit $8.75
A 1/2” diameter set is more expensive. A 12mm stainless glue in bolt is $9.60

Not every climber can or wants to afford these out of pocket costs. Some climbers will use the slightly less costly plain steel hardware. Assuming an 95 ft. sport route and bolts averaging every 11 ft...that is 7 lead bolts and an anchor set...Approximately $95. Not including a cordless power drill, hammer, brush, blow tube, spare drill bit, chisel, very patient belayer, loose rock...etc. Then you pack that back somewhere into a canyon...

Who is going to spend that and endure the carry without strong motivation? Isn't this process, even with power tools self limiting?

Who will be the first willing to come forward to be evaluated by a ranger who possibly knows nothing about route development or bolting technology and get their permission card?

Are we discussing some new rule-making over a trivial bolting issue which is largely irrelevant given the conditions currently existing at Red Rocks and the La Madre areas?

Just some thoughts …..Please feel free to tear into this but no hate mail OK?

Whether or not climbers agree on these being "real" wilderness is not the issue. It is legally defined as wilderness. And I don't think most climbers want every canyon to be impacted like the Gallery.

I agree it's too vague for the AF to suggest, "Allows placement of new bolts without prior approval only in an un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors, and for safety in descending and emergencies."
Maybe that is intentionally vague to allow for more discussion & collaboration.
Different climbers will interpret this very differently. Does every route need a rap descent? If we wanted to be clear, a good way would be to start a list of existing routes that would be considered acceptable under the new policy, and a list of existing routes that would be undesirable.

The real impact of new routes, bolts, and anchors is in the number of additional climbers visiting each canyon. Even gear routes attract additional climbers, especially with so much better beta and descent info available these days. Climber levels have continued to increase despite the existing bolt restrictions. So my opinion is that we should loosen up the rules only a little, not enough to cause a lot of new routes, anchors, climbers, loss of wilderness experience, and impacts.

Allowing bolting to be legal will only increase the amount of unnecessary bolting. Simple as that. If you tell climbers they can place bolts they will. Routes with bolts have been goin up "underground" for years now. What do you sopose will happen when its legal? Less bolting with more "experienced" placements? Get real.

There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.Its your choice to participate. If your convinced that the public and government/state need to cater to your need to be 100% safe from injury or death, your a confused individual and need to get a hobby that offers more safety.

Bolts have their place in climbing but their existance has seemed to ruin the spirit of the sport. At the most a permit process with a hand drill only policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.

Take sesame street area at mount charleston for example. Sport routes,*cough* I mean bolt ladders that are completely unnecessary, especially at the ratings. You could remove half the bolts on those routes and they might become a legit beginner area. As it is now a paraplegic could yard those bolts french free style. Bolting needs restrictions to help keep people from over bolting. Your safety is YOUR concern, stay off the mountains if you cant handle the height.

Just for the record and contrarily to my previous comment, I am for it becomming legal. I believe these concepts should be considered and bolting should be under scrutiny. Bold ethics are a must and catering to non serious climbers creates the controversy in the first place. The climbing experience as a whole should not be compromised because some individuals lack climbing skill and strict bold ethics.

Rudeboy wrote: There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.

Although I agree with other points of your post, climbing isn't an "extreme sport" for most people. Alex Honnold? Dean Potter? Sure, that's "extreme"...but what 98% of us do is most definitely not. I'm comfortable with the prospect of getting hurt while climbing and I enjoy pushing myself on routes with "no fall zones". That being said, I'm a person first and a climber second and I'm not looking to climb to fulfill some deep need for badassery and adrenaline.

Dont anybody let the "extreme sport" thing go to your head, or anything I say for that matter. It simply implies a category of sports such as: bmx, motocross, snowboarding ect. Sports where YOU assume the responsibility for your safety. Not that its crazy. Any reference to free soloing strengthens my points I would think.