Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon (formerly "Clear Creek Bolting Ban?")
|
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. |
|
Here's more from the 2007 Bald Eagle Management Guidelines from the US Fish and Wildlife Service: |
|
Hey all, |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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… |
|
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. |
|
Erika, |
|
All, |
|
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 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. |
|
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??!! |
|
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. |
|
Occupy OUR Open Space |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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… |
|
Climbers,
-- 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. |