Mountain Project Logo

Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon (formerly "Clear Creek Bolting Ban?")

Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 903
Monomaniac wrote:[I apologize for meag-posting like a maniac but I keep finding more information] I think this CO Dept of Wildlife document could be very helpful in limiting the scope of the Seasonal Closure: RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS The introduction states: "...the buffer areas and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect an informed opinion that if implemented, should assure that the majority of individuals within a species will continue to occupy the area." For Golden Eagles, it suggests: "No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within ¼ mile radius of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within ½ mile radius of active nests from December 15 through July 15.
This is a great find and provides a good basis for consolidating climbers' counter position on this topic.

I am also concerned that we might be overlooking potential closures in other crags around the county, as it is they were very coy about even introducing the CCC closures on Thursday and it was only discussed after Mark raised the question.

When addressing raptor closures with JeffCo we need to highlight that our concerns are not limited to CCC, but to every location within the county where they are planning to close.
Tzilla Rapdrilla · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 955

Here's more from the 2007 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines from the US Fish and Wildlife Service:

"Category F. Non-motorized recreation and human entry
(e.g., hiking, camping,
fishing, hunting, birdwatching, kayaking, canoeing). No buffer is necessary around nest sites outside the breeding season. If the activity will be visible or highly audible from the nest, maintain a 330-foot buffer during the breeding season, particularly where eagles are unaccustomed to such activity."

Here's another excerpt directly applicable to our situation:

"Existing Uses
Eagles are unlikely to be disturbed by routine use of roads, homes, and other facilities where such use pre-dates the eagles’ successful nesting activity in a given area. Therefore, in most cases ongoing existing uses may proceed with the same intensity with little risk of disturbing bald eagles. However, some
intermittent, occasional, or irregular uses that pre-date eagle nesting in an area may disturb bald eagles. For example: a pair of eagles may begin nesting in an area and subsequently be disturbed by activities associated with an annual outdoor flea market, even though the flea market has been held
annually at the same location. In such situations, human activity should be adjusted or relocated to minimize potential impacts on the nesting pair."

So the feds, whom JCOS claims are the regulator that they are out of compliance with only stipulates a 330 foot buffer, hardly the huge range they are proposing.

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

Hey all,

I'm thinking it would be appropriate to change the name of this thread to something like "Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon". My concern with the current title is that some people may be ignoring this thread figuring it doesn't effect them. Any objections?

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Rui Ferreira wrote: ...they were very coy about even introducing the CCC closures on Thursday and it was only discussed after Mark raised the question. ...
Ya, that part of the meeting was very odd. My personal opinion, based on the discussion/confusion among JCOS reps that resulted from my question, is that some of them honestly did not realize the extent of the closure. I don't think the presenter was deliberately trying to slip that past the community, but I could be wrong.
Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:Here's more from the 2007 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines from the US Fish and Wildlife Service: "Category F. Non-motorized recreation and human entry (e.g., hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, birdwatching, kayaking, canoeing).
Interesting. But that said, these are not Bald Eagles, right? They are Golden Eagles.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Tony B wrote: ... these are not Bald Eagles, right? They are Golden Eagles.
That is my understanding, but it's not in writing anywhere that I've seen.
WAGbag · · Denver, CO · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 1,088

Mono - I'm in favor of changing the title to reflect the more important topic of seasonal closures. I hope it does not change the link that has been sent around in emails among the community that doesn't frequent MP.

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

I changed the title, and it DID change the URL, but it appears that thanks to the geniuses who created Mountain Project the old URL still works: mountainproject.com/v/clear…

Is that good enough Wes?

ErikaNW · · Golden, CO · Joined Sep 2010 · Points: 410
Monomaniac wrote: Ya, that part of the meeting was very odd. My personal opinion, based on the discussion/confusion among JCOS reps that resulted from my question, is that some of them honestly did not realize the extent of the closure. I don't think the presenter was deliberately trying to slip that past the community, but I could be wrong.
This was my impression as well.

Tony - in answer to your question, yes they are talking about golden eagles - we have been seeing at least 1 golden eagle around/above the Tunnel 2 area for the last few weekends, so they are in the area.

I'm not sure that they said the nests haven't been occupied for 12 years - the resource officer said something about 12 years, but I can't remember exactly what was said. Does anyone else remember? I know they said there are several potential nesting sites and they can't predict which one the eagles will settle on as they don't return to the same ones every year.

I thought I'd jump in and add a few thoughts about the meeting. I left feeling fairly optimistic, but then I started processing it a bit more and my optimism has faded. The extremely short period for public comment is disheartening. It seems like they are trying to make us feel like we've had a voice when really everything has already been decided and we have no input at all. I don't see how they can incorporate feedback with a Jan 1 implementation date. They should release a revised version, showing where they have taken our concerns into consideration, with another feedback period prior to implementation. It also sounds like they will not be revisiting or changing the guidelines for at least a year (from what Mark A. was told at the mtg).

A few things really bothered me:
1) There is no way they have the number of bolted routes in CCC that are on JeffCo property correct (they said approx 800?). MP lists 839 routes (this includes Clear Creek County property and both trad and sport lines). When we questioned them they insisted this is the right number and got pretty defensive. Maybe this is not a big deal, but curious where they are sourcing their information - tends to decrease my level of trust in their other stats.

2) They talked about safety and cited a 'drastic' increase in climbing accidents - then used Children's Hospital statistics for climbing injuries. I would love to know what types of injuries are included in those stats - for all we know they might include jungle gym accidents. ANAM would be a better source.

3) Again related to safety, they really focused on fixed hardware failures and referenced the Outside Magazine article as a source. This is pretty reactionary. Yes, fixed hardware is aging. No, it is not a primary cause of climbing accidents, and I don't believe there has ever been a bolt failure resulting in injury in CCC (or anywhere else in JeffCo).

4) More about safety - they said aging hardware is a concern since new climbers coming from the gym don't know what is safe/ not safe as they cannot recognize bad bolts. Where is the education piece? Again, most of the accidents (that I'm aware of) have been the result of miscommunication lowering vs rapping and maybe using 60m ropes on climbs that require 70m - not from aging hardware. I felt like they had an emphasis on safety, but the focus was misplaced (aging bolts) and should be on education (gym to crag programs - AAC and AF are working on this piece already!) I also believe that climbing is an inherently risky sport (doesn't every guide book remind us of that on the 1st page?) and we all have personal responsibility for the amount of risk we are willing to take and steps we take to mitigate it.

5) Erosion: every example/photo they had was from Canal Zone. Yes, there is terrible erosion leading from the parking lot to the community trail. However, the only way to LEGALLY access the trail from the parking lot is to cut the hillside because the church ditch rd is private property and is clearly marked as such. Why use an example where there is no solution? Why not work with the landowners to create a real and sustainable trail from the parking lot to the community trail? I'm 100% sure climbers would be there to help.

No Trespassing.

My overall impression was that a JeffCo committee was tasked with getting some sort of guideline in place by Jan 1, and they are going to do this to meet their deadline, even if it is incomplete and untenable. I find it hard to believe they have worked closely with the AF (will be curious to see what others find out in this regard) - maybe they have had some conversations and consider that to mean they have consulted... I heard one of the JeffCo staff state that these documents have been in the works and open for public comment for years. I am curious if there are any rules that have to be followed for public notification in something like this? I mean, they have public hearings to rezone properties in my neighborhood and have signs up for months to notify people about these it seems like.

TL/DR version: Optimism has turned towards cynicism. I don't trust that our feedback will be incorporated.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

Erika,

Thanks you for your comments and for attending the meeting. In my estimation you were more open-minded than anyone leading up to Thursday's meeting, so your change of heart speaks volumes.

On the plus side, it's very encouraging to see our community coming together to form a broad consensus. I sincerely believe if we are united we have power, and we CAN influence the process.

ZachS00 · · Denver, CO · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 15

All,

I look forward to commenting with you all on this proposed plan. I read the "Draft 2016 Climbing Management Guidelines" PDF available on the website, and noted the vagueness of the "respect closed areas" bullet point, in which JCOS says "Sites may be seasonally closed (for visitor safety or natural resource protection)."

In addition to all your good ideas, I plan to comment that it is premature for JCOS to finalize this plan without some explanation, in writing as part of this management plan, of where and when these closures are contemplated. All we have to go on is the attendees' recollection (thank you) of what sounds like a confused presentation. Moreover, if the primary objective of the guidelines is to "use a collaborative approach between JCOS and the climbing community", I think it's appropriate to ask how does JCOS plan on involving the climbing community in those seasonal closure decisions.

Zach Smith

Shepido · · CO · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 50

I've started to read the history of the thread, and as far as I can tell the raptor closures start in February, when exactly do they end? Forgive me if I missed that somewhere.

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Monomaniac wrote:...After the formal meeting I pleaded to Dave Davenport for more time to review the CMG, discuss with advocacy groups, comment, hold more meetings, and iterate on drafts. He said that he would still accept comments until 31 Dec but the plan would go final on 1 Jan regardless because they had to meet the 1 Feb seasonal closure deadline (he didn't say/I didn't ask what happens during January, maybe printing of signage?). So I asked can we just implement the seasonal closure and leave the rest of the plan open to discussion? He said no, but said the plan could be changed in the future if it didn't work out. Some others pressed him on this and he said the earliest they would re-visit the plan would be "at least a year" from now. During this discussion he said the CMG had already been vetted by the Access Fund. I'm skeptical of this, but if true I'm seriously disappointed that the AF didn't get community input on such sweeping changes. ...
For the record, I've confirmed that the Access Fund did NOT vet the draft CMG. My apologies to the Access Fund.
Patrik · · Third rock from Sun · Joined Jun 2010 · Points: 30
Monomaniac wrote: Thanks Tony, ... Perhaps you could draft a BCC position and then allow any and all climbers to sign a petition in support of that position. Then you could say "this position was endorsed by XXX climbers." ...
Where do I sign on??!!
Mark Rolofson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,000

Shepido, JCOS said the closure would only last for February, but we didn't get that in writing. Look at the Boulder Canyon seasonal raptor closure. Some years, the Forest Service opens up all the crags (except the nest site) in 6 weeks (mid March). If the eagles don't nest in the canyon, the closure isn't lifted until mid May. They wait that long to see if the birds will nest somewhere.
I don't trust land managers. They love to use climbers as an example of how they are protecting the environment and wildlife. We are just people, not big money! Remember this is a corporatocracy not a democracy. Oil companies can destroy people's health with fracking. They own the politicians. A ski area can chop down lots of trees & build a resort. Yet land managers portray bolting & climbing as the real environmental impacts that need to be policed. We are a convenient scapegoat. We are individuals that love freedom & our sport has seen a real revolution.

If decreasing impacts in Clear Creek was really a priority, then the Peak to Plains trail should not be built. Secondly, the gravel trucks wouldn't be allowed to use Highway 6 in the canyon. They would be required to use I-70. These semi trucks are running many trips a day down this canyon. The vibration the trucks cause has led to all the wire mesh & stabilization of the road cuts and slopes. As taxpayers we pay for this. Lastly, a shuttle bus for climbers & other recreationalists would reduce traffic & parking problems.

Tzilla Rapdrilla · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 955

Occupy OUR Open Space

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Monomaniac wrote: For the record, I've confirmed that the Access Fund did NOT vet the draft CMG.
Correct. And as for a statement from the A.F. I was asked to share this with you all here:

Access Fund Statement

You will notice it politely says that are just now reviewing the draft and that they did not review or vet the docs before now.

No problem, but since there were questions...
Leo Paik · · Westminster, Colorado · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 22,800

Hey folks, there are hazards in getting to revved up on online forums. Some of the things here are different than what I got from the meeting. I took ~3 pages of notes.

1) There is no bolting ban.

2) Erosion - they had photos at the meeting including Canal Zone, Wall of the '90s, Independence Wall, Little Eiger...at least from my memory. Seeing things change over the years, we climbers have had measurable impact at our crags; however, I believe this is inevitable and is an acceleration of natural processes.

3) JeffCo OS didn't say that all the purple areas were going to be closed. In fact, they highlighted that they COULD have closed more crags if they followed the federal guidelines. It was a small percentage of the purple area that has been indeed closed - near Bumbling Stock, Stumbling Block, and Blonde Formation.

4) They were clearly stating that more recent data is showing birds are far more individual in their tolerances of humans. In addition, they had limited the closures to viewsheds for the nesting raptors (~90 degree angles from the nests).

5) There are more bolted climbs out there on JeffCo OS land than what is on mp.com...by quite a bit. Don't use mp.com as the be all/end all for data. It's incomplete.

6) Do not use ANAM as a source for injuries. I've spent a bit of time working with the ANAM folks (Jed Williamson, Dougald, and Aram) on data. Theirs is understandable incomplete. Most folks are reluctant to report things to ANAM.

7) It is in our best interest as a climbing community to work with, not against, our landmanagers. Right now, they have a view of us that is a lot better than some user groups. We don't want to become an adversarial user group. History shows that is not in our best interest. Let's work together with them...they are inviting us to do so at this time!

8) One thing that was clear is that the FHRC is not supposed to be much involved in replacement of fixed hardware. From a discussion with Dave Davenport, they envision a much more streamlined process. In fact, this is one area they seemed to be very receptive to application Mark Rolofson's idea of an individual-based approval for replacement. They want to have a clear inventory of what is out there on JeffCo OS land.

9) I strongly recommend that folks who have concerns regarding any and all aspects of the Climbing Management Plan to talk with folks like Eric Krause (303-882-4769) who gave out his email (ekrause@jeffco.us) and the general email (climbing@jeffco.us) at the meeting. Dave Davenport (Outdoor Recreation Coordinator), Don Klima (Visitor & Education Services Manager), and Jim Lile (Natural Resource Specialist - including raptors) were also there. It's hazardous for folks who didn't get to attend the meeting and have not spoken with the JeffCo OS staff to go too far with conclusions at this time. FWIW, I have spoken with Eric Krause and he seems very reasonable...and is a climber, too.

10) The biggest hurdle for folks who are route developers may be the currently envisioned 3 periods a year for applications. However, if the FHRC volunteers are willing and JeffCo OS folks are willing, perhaps we can have something like a "Expedite - please" box to check, and if the FHRC can get to it, maybe it wouldn't have to wait until the 3 times a year period. I suggested this to Eric Krause. It may be a more realistic way of applying the FHRC concept to JeffCo OS land.

11) Still, I think, as some folks also mentioned at the meeting, that the scope of the fixed hardware routes on JeffCo OS land is far, far greater than JeffCo OS staff appreciates at this time.

12) Change is always daunting, but if we volunteer and get involved, we can make this a much better climber-landmanager relationship than other areas nearby have endured.

Monty · · Golden, CO · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 3,520
ErikaNW wrote: 3) Again related to safety, they really focused on fixed hardware failures and referenced the Outside Magazine article as a source. This is pretty reactionary. Yes, fixed hardware is aging. No, it is not a primary cause of climbing accidents, and I don't believe there has ever been a bolt failure resulting in injury in CCC (or anywhere else in JeffCo).
I know of one injury on the Dome that was a result of bolt failure. A leaper hanger on a five piece bolt was swapped out with a quality hanger and the bolt was re-torqued. Climber fell on good looking bolt, bolt sheared resulting in a broken back...

mountainproject.com/v/sea-o…
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

Climbers,

This is a reminder to please continue to send your comments on the draft "Climbing Management Guidelines" to climbing@jeffco.us

Remember, even if you don't climb at Clear Creek, Cathedral Spires, North Table Mountain, Three Sisters, or Lover's Leap, these issues effects you! Climbers displaced from these crags will end up at other Rocky Mountain crags, and the policies adopted here will be used as precedent by other land managers around the country.

Please consider including the following points in your email:

  • The draft Climbing Management Guidelines (CMG) states, "The primary objective in implementing these guidelines is to use a collaborative approach between JCOS and the climbing community to instill proactive climbing management and stewardship." This objective has not been met. Climbers have not been involved in drafting the CMG.
  • The public comment period should be extended beyond December 7th to allow sufficient time for public comment. Finalization/implementation of the CMG should be delayed to allow for revisions to the draft CMG, release of those revisions to the public, and public comment/discussion on those revisions.
  • The proposed Seasonal Closures surrounding inactive Golden Eagle nests in Clear Creek Canyon are unwarranted. The eagles have thrived in Clear Creek Canyon under the existing closure process, which already meets science-based Colorado Department of Wildlife guidance.
  • Proposed rules concerning Fixed Hardware, lowering from routes, and fixed slings reduce climber safety while incurring substantial liability for Jefferson County. In particular:

-- Safety issues related to Fixed Hardware must be addressed immediately. Climbers are in the best position to evaluate and rectify unsafe hardware based on our sheer numbers and specialized experience. Requiring JCOS approval for replacement/removal of unsafe hardware at the very least delays repair efforts and at worst discourages it entirely. This increases risk to the entire community and exposes Jefferson County to unnecessary liability.

-- FHRC processes historically discourage new route development (as demonstrated in the Flatirons, Eldorado Canyon and Staunton State Parks), thus increasing crowding-related hazards and resource stress at existing crags.

-- Rappelling from routes is not always feasible nor as safe as lowering, especially at steep crags like the New River Wall, Wall of Justice, and Wall of the 90s. The proposed rappelling requirement exposes Jefferson County to substantial liability in the event of a future rappelling accident on JCOS property.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.