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

I recieved two emails from Eric Krause at JCOS last week. I don't see any revisions to the CMG regarding rappelling / lowering or quickdraws. They could save everyone a lot of work commenting on this plan by amending what they intend to change.

I don't think we should lose our outrage. I have never heard of climbing regulations at any area that made lowering a violation. It is one regulation I promise to NEVER comply with.

Secondly, seasonal raptor closures of the Merlin Wall, Point Break & New River Wall that are next to the river & lower than the highway should alarm every climber. Even more alarming is closing crags in the CDOT right of way. The Evil Cave is literally above the highway on the south side of the road. The Tetanus Crag is only 100-200 ft. above the highway on the south side. The Blonde Formation is next to the road. Twitch Rock is only a 100-200 ft from the Highway. I fail to see how climbers are disturbing eagles by climbing on these crags. We should be closing the highway if climbing is disturbing raptors.

I find very disturbing to live in a country where it is impossible to pass sensible gun legislation inspite of hundreds of mass shootings, but more land managers see an urgent need to regulate peaceful, low impact activities like rock climbing. This country is going to hell & we're wasting our time defending our climbing freedoms thanks to JCOS versus focusing on real problems.

Mark Rolofson wrote:Secondly, seasonal raptor closures of the Merlin Wall, Point Break & New River Wall that are next to the river & lower than the highway should alarm every climber.

I wrote to Eric and JCOS about this issue specifically last week, and he forwarded on to their natural resources staff (no response yet). As far as crags like Highlander go -- as unfortunate as it is, considering the season -- I can actually understand a seasonal closure there. Eagles have been spotted there (as mentioned in this thread), and while it may be debatable on whether or not they need protection, at least this crag sits high above the canyon and seems more suitable to me for a habitat (full disclosure: I'm not a biologist!). Twitch and New River Wall, on the other hand, are more concerning to me. They sit very close to the highway and busy parking area, are of high quality, but see relatively low traffic compared to crags like Canal Zone, which has been used as a show piece for the negative effects of under regulation. What concerns me maybe even more is that the parking lot that serves all of the Tunnel 2 crags could be shut down as well, which effectively gets us back to square one on closing many crags for half the year. The parking lot definitely falls within the closure radius.

As it was explained to us at the meeting with JCOS last week, apparently eagles (and other raptors) don't react to cars that are passing through. The moment a person gets out of a car, they are perceived as a threat, the cars themselves don't seem to impact the eagles that way. We also raised concerns about traffic versus climbers, and this is what we were told.

I would recommend anyone who is interested in learning more about raptors try and make the raptor monitor training that will be offered on Dec 17 at the AMC. I can't make that one, but they are offering a second one in January.

Evan - you are correct that the parking area for Tunnel 2 will likely be affected which will make accessing the open crags difficult.

Climbers have dealt with raptor closures in many other areas, and it isn't the end of the world for us. We emphasized that climbers would be receptive to these closures as long as they are based on current science, are data driven, and are monitored so they don't become automatic (ie; are lifted in non-impact areas once the eagles have selected their nesting sites).

Mark R. - you are obviously very passionate about all of this and I respect that. Please keep in mind that Eric was not able to send out the final wording of the documents, but it seems very clear (also from his previous communications) that lowering vs rapping is no longer on the table. Rapping when feasible will be a recommendation for best practices to save wear on anchors, but will certainly not be mandated.

Let's try and keep this dialogue respectful - JCOS is trying very hard to work with our community and they have been very receptive so far (again - THANK YOU to the Access Fund and BCC for helping to facilitate these conversations!).

Hope to see a lot of you at the Earth Treks meeting Weds - please remember to RSVP to Tony B. (PM through this site) so ET can plan space for us.

Mark Rolofson wrote:I recieved two emails from Eric Krause at JCOS last week. I don't see any revisions to the CMG regarding rappelling / lowering or quickdraws. They could save everyone a lot of work commenting on this plan by amending what they intend to change. I don't think we should lose our outrage.

Well, if you want to focus on something non-constructive, you can keep fighting about that. I can't stop you.
If you want to hear about what is changing, come to the Wednesday meeting.
We are still in the comment period and a redraft will be issued. But Eric Kraus can't just update the plan himself - it takes the a group of people's approval to release something new. Others besides Eric will be at the meeting, BTW.

It is also a fact that raptors ignore moving cars, but don't like it when they stop nearby or when people get out and walk. As a photographer who tries to take pictures of them, I've found that I can drive right under one on a utility pole, but the moment I stop and get out the camera... and it's not just me, either. It's a common issue.

That said, They have not determined if Twitch and others are indeed in the direct view-shed of the nest that's within CPW's reccomended closure radius. It's within the distance so it is a candidate for closure, but perhaps not in the line of site. If it isn't, it will probably end up open. That particular site visit was to be done late last week after or meeting, so I didn't expect an update until this Weds.

Thank you Tony and others for your updates and volunteer work to get us to a better place with respect to Clear Creek Canyon climbing.

Wally

ErikaNW: Regarding Rappelling vs. Lowering, it shouldn't even be a
recommendation. Some anchors have winch hooks that are meant to simply clip & lower. JCOS still has some liability if they recommend rappelling, should an accident occur. Land managers should not dictate or recommend how a climber descends a route.

Guidebook publishers & authors who recommend rappelling should be horse whipped. The exceptions are: Very worn anchors, anchor back from the edge of the cliff & soft rock. On soft sandstone, the sand gets in ropes and then wears into metal much faster. So I can see this recommendation in soft rock areas. The rock that is on JCOS lands is very hard stone.

Tony, I agree that what it most important is what JCOS bans or regulates. That said, I have replaced lots of top anchors & I addressed this issue on page 6 of this thread. Fixe rap ring hangers & chains can be safely and inexpensively bypassed with quicklinks. The wear is very slow on most routes (decades). JCOS got its concern from some other source (probably guidebooks). I am trying to point the consequences that guidebook recommendations are having.

What really bothers me is the serious impacts that a hardware review process & the seasonal closures will have on the environment. You can say I'm getting off topic, crazy etc. Closing popular crags near a city will cause more people to drive further to go climbing. An FHRC may have to travel to the crags just to scope the proposed new routes. Boulder climbers are driving to Golden tommorow night for thus meeting. We are adding to our carbon footprint at a time when climate change is dramatic & devastating.

After listening to scientists & activists attending the Climate Conference in Paris, the fact is we're not addressing this issue fast enough. NOAA recommends reducing carbon emissions by 80% if we are going to counter the effects of climate change. This is very real. We as a society a failing on this issue that will destroy us & wildlife.

There is no evidence that climbing in Clear Creek is negatively effecting the Golden Eagles. There is overwhelming evidence that climate change & pollution is negatively effecting all life on this planet. So JCOS is now responsible for contributing more to serious impacts (climate change & pollution) while attempting to mitigate minor impacts. It is downright shameful and disgusting.

Thanks for keeping your thoughts flowing - we do need to understand people's positions here. I hate to think that they'd be too rigid prior to hearing what changes are made though...

Maybe this is good practice to talk it through.
Saying that the FHRC is adding to a carbon footprint sounds pretty vitriolic. Saying that having people drive to other places to climb more broadly does so, well, that makes a little more sense as it is a lot more people. But then again, my sensibilities may be off.

For my own part, I'd personally not start that argument. they are not chartered to deal with the % of global warming change that cars driving further to climb will add, they are hired to manage recreation on JCOS property and deal with public needs. We've been pretty successful engaging them in meaningful discussion while focusing on that.

As for the birds - We'll have them explain what happened that prompted the change in policy and have you hear that out and if you still feel the same way, you can voice that.

The meeting is moderated, but you can ask/say what you want, as long as it's civil and allows time for all attendees to express their views. I/We can't speak for everyone and that's the point of the meeting.

While I think the carbon footprint argument is too abstract to matter in this instance, there is a bigger reason to worry about people recreating in Jeff CO. According to the Jeff Co meeting in November, the county's share of the recreation economy is currently $45Million annually. In addition how many of us chose to move to, open businesses in, Jeff Co because of the recreation access. I did. And I pay $130,000 annually just in property taxes (which don't fund JCOS, but fund the county). The Jeff Co commissioners should be very interested in this discussion as it has an impact on all citizens. JCOS should be expanding access to recreation not limiting it. The truth is that demographic shifts will bring ever more users to our crags, our trails and our water. JCOS needs to embrace a mentality of preparing the land to accept the hordes of climbers, bikers and hikers that are coming. No one can stop them. Parking lots will have to expand. More trails have to be built (North Table Mountain should have 50 miles of trails not 15: look at the recreation resources that Moab or Santa Fe or Fruita have built to support the recreation economy). We need to be spending dollars, emotions and sweat on erosion control at the crags not on staff monitoring bolts (which are not the major liability or maintenance issue that it is being portrayed as). We need to be establishing new crags and upping the density of climbs at many crags we currently have. Why do "people" love the canal zone and north table? they are accessible to your car and accessible to folks of moderate climbing ability. Clear Creek is an ideal place to send the masses, as it is NOT a wilderness. Concerned about safety: We should be installing cable quick draws with captured steel biners at the top of most moderate climbs to encourage lowering to prevent accidents (ask Phil Powers -AAC Exec Director- and many many others about the mistakes that are made when lowering v. rappelling on sport routes). We should be installing signage that educate safe behaviors (don't drink PBR and climb...tie a knot in BOTH ends of your rope...etc) there is a long tradition in outdoor recreation of creating hard scaped, people friendly zones that are "sacraficed" in order to have other areas preserved. I would like to see the small JCOS budget spent on erosion control, trail building and policing behavior (drinking is a problem at Clear Creek crags, especially the canal zone) at the crags, not on the administration of a data base of bolts and making decisions on route development.

Thank you for your comment CBW. I agree with your broader argument. If you are spending $130,000 in property taxes in Jeffco, then you must also be spending a huge amount in retail sales tax that goes to supporting JCOS. They understand where their bread is buttered (the huge amount of money outdoor sports are bringing to the county), but seem to think they can bite the hand that feeds them.

JCOS is calling their CMG a collaborative approach with the climbing community, but that is a half truth. They are giving us a short time for public comment & may concede with us on a few parts of the CMG. Overall they are telling us they want control over fixed hardware & are going to close a significant amount of public land for raptors that are neither endangered or threatened. They are acting like our bosses & I think they need to be reminded of who they really work for.

I think we should stop negotiating with JCOS & have a conversation with the county commissioners. I have looked at the pros & cons of the CMG & the closures. I strongly object to it. I plan on sending my response to the county commissioners as well as JCOS.

Mark,

Are you aware of the guidance the state and federal governments give on raptor closures? That will be the first line item in the meeting after the introductions, so we can get that out of the way right away.
Have you seen the drafted changes in the CMP already? I haven't. To the best of my knowledge, nobody outside of the county officials has.

Beating war drums before the those are released seems premature. So in my view, we'll have to see if the content offered is sufficient to help things go well.

If you are at the point of bypassing the JCOS already, I'm not sure how constructive your discussion with them can be tonight. I'd still encourage you to come and get your facts lined up before going to the county commissioners especially because I'm not sure you get who is on your side here and why, or who compelled JCOS to write this thing in the first place. But if you have no intent in a discussion with JCOS folks, maybe it's not the place for you to speak. I mean, they ARE reading this right now, so they've already heard quite a bit. It looks to some folks that you are itching to pick a fight no matter the outcome.

On the other hand, if things don't look a lot better (a lot better) in the revisions than they did in the draft, I'll be the first to join you in a civil letter writing campaign/petition, and I'll drag the BCC/AF/AAC into it too if I can. I know that Dave/Erik went to bat for us to revise the document with a lot of our suggestions from last week's meeting, so I'm waiting see what happened first.

Regardless, please keep it clean and professional in our meeting. I am putting a lot of effort into this conversation/dialog and meeting and I want it to be a place where everyone can speak. I would hate to see it sabotaged. I think the fact that JCOS is coming to our house for this one is a huge move of good faith (talk about a hostile audience) on their part and I think that they feel the same way, they want this to go well. Hopefully new content in the plan will facilitate that.

I look forward to the meeting this evening and hearing about the changes to the initial draft that have now been accepted.

I continue to be concerned with Raptor closures that could stay closed for the full duration due to the lack of staff to monitor and assess the nesting activities in all of JeffCo's Open Space lands.

Beyond the proposed Climbing Management Plan, the climbing community needs to voice its displeasure over the lack of facilities and hazards associated with the limited parking up and down CCC.

Rui Ferreira wrote:I look forward to the meeting this evening and hearing about the changes to the initial draft that have been accepted. I continue to be concerned with Raptor closures that could stay closed for the full duration due to the lack of staff to monitor and assess the nesting activities in all of JeffCo's Open Space lands. Beyond the proposed Climbing Management Plan, the climbing needs to voice its displeasure over the lack of facilities and hazards associated with the limited parking up and down CCC.

Thanks!
1) JEFFCO just announced a Raptor monitoring program for volunteers.
They will use data from climbers to inform them of when the raptors settle in, then they can verify and open other areas. This model is up and running already with the USFS in Boulder Canyon in the last few years. And it works. (Full disclosure, I am the BCC board member Liaison to the USFS for the program and one of the monitors as well.) JEFFCO will discuss this at the meeting.
Local climbers can directly contribute to this effort if they want to.

2)Limited parking in CCC is also a C-DOT problem. The Colorado Department of Transportation owns most of the would be parking there as part of the right of way on the highway. We're going to need a very organized effort if we expect a positive response from them. It's a real mixed bag. Tell them that it's unsafe, they may close it. They manage traffic, not recreation, so they seem to be able to do what they want. We'll have to be delicate with that. Maybe Jeffco can help us with that, but it's outside of the scope of the CMP as I know it unless you are talking about areas specifically regulated therein.
In short - yes, good point, but with limited time we'll probably focus the conversation on more immediate issues.

Tony, don't single me out. I wasn't the first person to mention involving the county commissioners in this conversation. Secondly, I was at the last meeting on November 19th. I was both polite & friendly. I have no intention of being anything but polite & civilized. I recognize the fact that JCOS has the best of intentions. I just happen to disagree with their approach.

So...
The meeting has come and passed and a good number of folks attended.
I'm really not the best person to share my impressions of it, as I think public understanding and perception was the more important thing.
I'd like to hear from others at this point what they heard and how they felt about it.

For my own part, I thikn that the most important thing was:
While I have asked them for a presentation of the re-draft, they said that they are not permitted to re-issue this prior publicly to approval at the end of the comment period. (12/15) but hope to reissue ASAP then. Meanwhile, the Two JCOS officials/empolyees in attendance publicly stated that they 'support and are pushing for all of the substantial changes outlined by the BCC and AF.'
I asked them if they thought I should publish our requests now and also their statement of support. They did consent to that.
So tomorrow I'll try to write something up.

Also forthcoming will be some documents from the Access Fund. Please watch for a media outreach from them in the very near future for an opportunity to voice your support of our requested changes for the JCOS commissioners that we may not yet have on our side.

I was at the meeting and enjoyed meeting Dave and Eric, the Jeffco Outdoor Rec Director (?) and climbing ranger respectively. I got the impression they were fairly pro-climbing. Which is certainly better than alternative possibilities.

It sounds like some changes have been made to the proposed regulations. Unfortunately, IIUC, the final regulations will be issued and further comment after that will not be accepted.

SO WRITE JEFFCO NOW WITH YOUR CONCERNS!
climbing@jeffco.us
Comments accepted until December 14, 2015.

It sounds like the rap vs lowering guideline will be dropped. It sounds like the permits for project draws will be dropped. It sounds like permadraws (cable or chain required) will be allowed, either grandfathered in, or as part of the permit process for new routes. So those issues have receded.

Furthermore, they clarified the eagle closures, which are projected to be much narrower than originally feared- west side of tunnel 1 and east side of tunnel 2. Highwire is not in the closure, but the parking very well may be. This would be most unfortunate for moderate climbers! They are trying to find a way to keep the parking at least partially open. If this matters to you, write! Again, IIUC, Twitch, New River Wall, Highlander, and some others I can't remember will be closed, probably Feb 1- July 31.

They seem determined to have a FHRC. They need to structure the responsibilities of the committee in a realistic way. It would be impossible to approve every route or worse yet, every bolt in all of Jefferson County. Even approving new crags only would be a big undertaking. I didn't get the impression they understand this. I am also very concerned that even if new areas get approved, access may be delayed pending official trail building, mitigation, etc. This could easily take years.

On the whole, I'm discouraged. I think there is good will on both sides, but I think the effective outcome is going to be the end of new development in Jefferson County.

I would like to single out Tony B for his efforts. The revised plan sounds like a distinct improvement over the initial proposal and he has been instrumental in that improvement.

The officials/Staff of Jefferson County Open Space (JCOS) we have been working with have offered support to these ideas in a public meeting 12/9/15 and agreed that each of these comments and suggestions will be moved forward in consideration for redraft after the Dec. 14th deadline for comment. This is not a guarantee that they will be finalized, and the review process does include additional staff and officials who have not yet stated support for these changes.
Since JCOS has asked me to relay to the community that "all comments will be considered and are greatly appreciated" I request that concerned parties contact JCOS and let them know of your support for the revisions suggested by the BCC and Access Fund

Please watch for an upcomming Access Fund Action Alert so that you can easily offer your support to the following, as we have discussed with JCOS Staff.

-Tony Bubb, Board of Directors, Boulder Climbing Community (BCC, a 501c3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Under required permits: "Temporary synthetic fixed draws and slings for “project routes” where leaving temporary gear is required for safety may be permitted to be left for a maximum of 30 days..."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: The ban or permit requirements on leaving (short term) project-draws in place should be eliminated. Fixed draws should be allowed as needed for a climber to work a route.
It will be understood that they may be removed by the county or by climbers at large if they hang so long as to become unsafe or are present as an eyesore for an extended period of time.
The county should adopt and retain the position that climbers should self-police this activity, being mindful of other climbers and other user groups.

2) Under Required Permits: "Permanent synthetic draws and slings are not permitted." And under Fixed hardware Guidelines: "Permanent fixed draws and slings are prohibited."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: The ban on fixed slings for anchors and belays should be eliminated. JCOS should expect that users will be sensitive about trees and visible tat wherever possible, but climbers should use their own judgement in terms of safety and visual impact with respect to this particular matter. The county may want to suggest but not require that climbers use appropriately colored webbing in discrete areas to place or replace sling anchors.

3) Under Required Permits: "Permanent chain anchors and protection bolts may be permitted on a case by case basis and use of these should be reflected in your permit."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: The regulation on permanent fixed draws should be clearly limited to only new perma-draws or chain, and simply require that steel equipment should be used to as to minimize the frequency of heavy wear creating unsafe conditions, and to minimize visual impacts. Replacement of any components of these with like materials should not require permitting. Climbers should self-police this activity.

4) Under Fixed Hardware Guidelines: "Rappel from fixed anchors in place of being lowered after cleaning a route."

BCC SUGGESTS COMPLETE ELIMINATION: This is an impractical and dangerous suggestion. In some cases such as on very steep routes and with certain types of anchors designed for lowering, rapping a route to retreat or clean it can be difficult and even dangerous. This particular decision should be left to climbers to make on their own. It is our understanding that JCOS has already agreed to eliminate this clause, but our opposition is documented for the record.

5) Under Permitting Process: "Permits for all new routes and new crag development are first reviewed by the volunteer citizen Fixed Hardware Review Committee (FHRC). Permits approved by the volunteer FHRC are forwarded to JCOS for final inspection and review. ... Unpermitted hardware and routes will be removed immediately."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: The FHRC as proposed in the preliminary draft is far too broad and not necessary to achieve the stated goals of JCOS. Not every route needs a permit and review prior to installation to assure minimal environmental impact and safety. The discussion around this point has been quite broad, and the revision of the proposal more extensive than a simple discussion that I can put here. In short, while we acknowledge that there have been impacts on JCOS property due to unexpected new developments in the past, we counter-propose that if the FHRC process is necessary to counter that then it be applied only at new areas with no documented or existing development, or in areas of the greatest concern. The FHRC requirement should be very limited in scope or procedure or it will be not only a burden, but so cumbersome as to be set up for failure.
Programmatic approval of development should be allowed (IE: Once a developer is approved for a route, then additional routes should not require additional applications within a developed area.) The Access Fund is now working with JCOS to propose draft language around these requests.

6) Under Permitting Process: "Permits for hardware replacement or removal will be sent directly to JCOS for expedited review and notification."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: Rebolting efforts to replace old, worn, or otherwise non-ideal hardware with new SS/Ti hardware should not require individual permits. We suggest that the requirement be dropped or that there be a method of permitting climbers who have demonstrated the ability to do this safely and cleanly to replace hardware "like for like" without advanced notification. Perhaps reporting of rebolting after the fact should be requested if the county wants that inventory detail.

7) In the FHRC Code of Conduct, under "Terms of members": "In the first (2016) selection of the FHRC, three members will be given one year terms and two members will be given two year terms. If the selected members cannot determine who will make up the initial one year term, the JCOS Climbing Committee will make the determination on their behalf."

BCC SUGGESTS REVISION: Expanding the number of FHRC members to 7 and only requiring 4 or 5 affirmative responses to any new route application would be better. This would allow for a broad or even unanimous consensus, but alleviate members who are busy, traveling, injured, or not available to review a route from being required to submit an uninformed opinion or from holding up the approval process.

8) JCOS staff has been very apologetic about causing that unnecessary alarm with respect to the Eagle Closures shown in November.

The BCC understands and acknowledges the much smaller area of potential closure on their website, and that this is a work in progress with further revision downward expected by considering view-shed, (lines-of-site) from the nests.
While we are very pleased by the reduction in the closure so far, we think that the actual and timely execution in the monitoring of nest sites should and must lead to immediate openings of non-used nest areas. Furthermore, we ask that the natural resources staff ACTIVELY test the reactivity of nested pairs to visitors at the closed crags and parking areas to verify if they can be opened without disturbing the birds, as has been done by the USFS staff in Boulder Canyon. If it can not be substantiated that there is some disruption, the crags and parking in question should be re-opened. Preliminary closures should be reduced for future years to reflect the findings of these visits.

Lastly:
The BCC would like to note that, without suggestion of this idea from anyone, JCOS has publicly made clear their intent to earmark funds from climbing sources specifically to be spent on climbing-related matters. This would apply to professional guide or filming permits, which already exist. We were pleasantly surprised to hear this, as such things are usually routed to a general fund. We see this as a move of good faith towards climbers.

PS: get involved in letter writing the easy way with the Access Fund's directed letters tool:
Tell JCOS you agree with our concerns and support change in the draft.

Tony, BCC and the Access Fund,

Thank you for your diligent and persistent efforts in preserving climbing opportunities in Jefferson County. We wouldn't have a sliver of hope without your concerted efforts. It is greatly appreciated.

JeffCo climbers, please take the time to submit your comments. It DOES make a difference. JeffCo Open Space officials were very clear that having our views 'on the record' will help them make their case to upper management.

Only a few minutes can make a big difference in preserving your climbing access for years to come. Once it's lost, it will be very difficult to get back.

As a climber and raptor researcher out of SLC, I have been lurking around on this thread for a bit because of my interest in the closure issue but I want to comment here.

Actively testing the eagles' tolerance to disturbance will be tough to get in to the plan.

If this caused an eagle to leave the nest while incubating for instance, it would constitute 'take', which is prohibited under the bald and golden eagle protection act enforced by the usfws. Even a brief interruption during incubation can cause nest failure when eggs get too cold and die.

I don't think a land management agency will go for a plan that would risk this. Surprised to hear the usfws does this in some areas.

More research is definitely needed to quantify the response of eagles' and other raptors' response to pedestrians and climbers, and their ability to habituate to human presence. But I'd be surprised if land managers in this situation have the desire or resources to conduct a study like that.

Federal land managers are pretty concerned about eagle populations across the west (they are broadly declining) and it seems like their concerns are trickling down to state and local levels.

Good luck to the local climbers involved in the process in preserving appropriate access. The viewshed approach to bird closures is a good sign from the land managers.