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

Peter

There are plenty of areas, such as wilderness, where heavy sport route development is not appropriate. It is great to go hike the Joint Trail in Canyonlands and see the natural state of the rocks. Clear Creek & North Table are a much different setting. There aren't that many bolters. I think they should have the same freedoms you & I enjoyed here. I think your rhetoric & attitude does the climbing community of Clear Creek & N. Table real harm & a huge disservice. It is not what we need to hear at tonight's meeting.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Maybe the committee needs to start approving new boulder problems too.

How about this guideline: "Boulderers shall not crimp on tiny holds, as those can break unexpectedly, defacing the rock, & the resulting debris can be hazardous to surrounding spotters" :|

Edit to add: To whom I was referring to above, that was purely intended to be some fun, please don't take seriously.

Mark Rolofson wrote:Peter There are plenty of areas, such as wilderness, where heavy sport route development is not appropriate. It is great to go hike the Joint Trail in Canyonlands and see the natural state of the rocks. Clear Creek & North Table are a much different setting. There aren't that many bolters. I think they should have the same freedoms you & I enjoyed here. I think your rhetoric & attitude does the climbing community of Clear Creek & N. Table real harm & a huge disservice. It is not what we need to hear at tonight's meeting.

Mark:

Peter's opinion differs from yours, but is no less considered. I agree with him, myself.

To suggest that any local climber with an interest in the future of our climbing areas shouldn't express his opinion at a meeting (called for that very purpose) because you disagree with him is inappropriate.

Well, after reading the proposed JeffCo regulations, perhaps a fixed hardware committee staffed by individuals who are knowledgeable about climbing may be useful. If for anything, then to just talk some sense into whoever came up with this asinine document.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:Tony, JCOS may have plans to do some real trail work next year, but so far the limited trail construction that has been done is the result of climber's volunteer work.

There are big plans next year. That part is true.
And I don't want to say you don't have any credible complaints (IE: Ralston)

I don't want to get into a big argument here, but I also don't think it is appropriate to misinform the public, as you are, right before this event.

To say that this past year they did nothing but volunteer work is factually incorrect. They have spent money, resources, and man hours at Tiers of Zion, the Canal Zone, and at Cathedral Spires. There are other places where they have done work as well. We did help recruit some vol's for this kind of stuff, but it was not all volunteer labor.
They also pay internal teams to do and plan the work and they also have paid external teams to do and plan some of the work. Resources like acquisition and delivery of materials are also non-trival.

3 thoughts:
1) When all you got is a gun, everything looks like a target.
2) A polite knock will open doors that pitchforks will not.
3) It is my impression that the development of Tiers of Zion really took Jeffco by surprise, and to note, they have spent time and money trying to make that sustainable. Note that they didn't close it or try to reverse it. What they did was sponsor a series of trail days and make it sustainable.

i take it back. Peter's argument is much more considered than yours. indeed, if that's how you intend to proceed at the meeting, the community would be far better off without you speaking.

ton wrote:i take it back. Peter's argument is much more considered than yours. indeed, if that's how you intend to proceed at the meeting, the community would be far better off without you speaking.

No worries, I can't make it.

And personally, if the authorities were trying to restrict access for a style of climbing I didn't appreciate, I'd just keep my mouth shut.

You and Peter can be as considered as you like, but the bottom line is you are helping take away access from other climbers. For no good reason that I can see. What are the environmental and cultural resources that are being damaged in CCC? It's a highway corridor with countless semis roaring down canyon. And if the environmental and cultural concerns really are paramount, then I stick by my suggestion that trad and boulder routes have nearly as much impact.

I get it that Peter doesn't think many of the new routes are classics. He may be right. But you know what, many of us like to climb and a new 1 star route is still pretty fun.

Perhaps my comments were unclear, it's not that JCOS isn't spending any dollars on trails, it's that the spending is minuscule compared to other items. I'm sure it takes a lot of effort for an intrepid JCOS staff person to obtain approval through their bureaucracy to even allow volunteers to work on trails, thus costing money. I do think that JCOS needs to be reminded who they work for, the taxpayers of Jefferson County. I have also witnessed a perspective from them that they are the only source for preserving natural lands in the county. A quick glance at the map reveals huge tracks of land preserved in National Forest and State Parks. JCOS should spend more of their efforts doing more with the land they already have rather than buying up more land. Their efforts to work with climbers in CCC and Cyn Pin are laudable and should be fostered.

Fair enough Todd.
I think that's much better stated.
Hopefully the meeting will start with a positive dialog about our expectations as climbers and end with a healthy and open dialog.
Climbers are a very small user group in the tax base, so we have to bear that in mind as well. One need not look further than the dog-walking contingent of the Boulder OSMP planning meetings to know that we are outnumbered at least 10:1 by other groups. Fishermen, rafters, etc...
And even all user groups are small compared to the total tax base.

I want to be sure to ask for what we can get and keep what we can keep, but I want to come tot he table with a realistic voice so as not to appear the fool.

I'll be unable to make the meeting tonight. Could someone who is attending the meeting take notes or find out how to get the meeting minutes if they are recorded? Maybe someone could record video or audio if that's allowed. That would be awesome and greatly appreciated - you could post to this thread or PM directly.

Thanks very much.

I second that request. I am unable to make it tonight, but am very interested in what goes down. Minutes or any notes/record would be nice.

The meeting was very well attended (60+ climbers and 8-10 staff). Some take-aways: they do not intend to ban bolting. They do intend to have a Fixed Hardware Review Committee. It seems that they are open to how that is facilitated, so there is an opportunity for a less onerous process being developed. While I am opposed to the FHRC, I did feel that the suggestion to appoint a handful of "approved" bolting mentors, that can be contacted by the first ascensionist and provide guidance to the bolting process, is far better than the proposed process (3 deadlines annually, spaced months apart, a committee that meets, forwards their decision to paid staff for final approval, etc.).

I can not see the financial justification for a complex process, as proposed by JeffCo. I also can not see why JeffCo open space wants to open itself up to additional liability by controlling the bolting (and the bolt maintenance). As an unregulated resource, the burden of assumption of risk falls ever more on the individual, as opposed to the management entity. For instance, Jeffco has been attaching notes to unsafe hardware, asking the person to remove it within 30 days. If that hardware fails after being posted, would Jeffco be found negligent for not removing that hardware when it determined it to be dangerous?

I truly appreciate the work done by JCOS and the thousands of volunteers. I also appreciate the hard work done by the crag development community. Outdoor recreation, as stated by Eric Krause of JCOS, is worth an estimated $43,000,000 annually to the Jeffco economy. So many of us have chosen to live in Jeffco, raising our families here because of the recreation resources.

I believe that focusing time and money on the bolting issue is missing the point. The real areas that need focus are on access trail building, erosion mitigation and climber education resources. I think a data based approach would support this: failing bolts is not the leading cause of accidents, in fact does it even rank in the top ten? Meanwhile not tying a knot in the belayer's end of the rope is the leading cause of climbing accidents.

We all know that more and more climbers, mountain bikers, dog walkers and extreme "snow-angelers" are coming to JeffCo. JCOS needs to focus on making the currently popular climbing spots more erosion proof to withstand the impact.

We need a JCOS board of advisors that embraces the economic driver and quality of life benefits that outdoor recreation brings to our community. North Table Mountain should have 35+ miles of trails, not 18. CCC should have 1000s of routes, not 900.

I really feel that the staff, certainly well meaning and enthusiastic about climbing as a user group, is missing the bigger issues of preparing for an ever greater number of users. New route development will spread those users out, so should be encouraged. The staff should be using our tax dollars and grants to "fix" the sacrifice areas (Canal Zone, Little Eiger, etc.)I can only imagine the Return On Investment of a dollar spent on erosion control will yield far more than a dollar spent on Bolting committees.

I'd second that the meeting was mostly constructive and well attended. I'm in agreement with CBW that the larger issues facing climbing in this area are not fixed hardware, although I'm not completely against some standards given there is efficiency to allow steady development. The main curve ball of the evening for me and likely many others was the announcement of raptor closures for many of the CCC crags starting February 1, 2016. On this day, many lower canyon crags will close (including all Tunnel 2 crags) for approximately one month, until eagles have nested, at which point a much smaller area will remain closed and only in the eagles' view shed. However, this means that prime winter crags (e.g. Highlander) will be closed at least for all of February, resulting in the displacement of climbers to other crags. Much of JeffCo's argument for increased regulations is based on heavy traffic at crags, but this will certainly concentrate traffic at the other precious few winter crags in the area during these closures. While I'm in complete understanding of the need to protect wildlife, this is a sudden change in management style with definite implications for crowding. At any rate, I encourage everyone to get online and submit constructive feedback over the next two weeks. Ultimately JeffCO will make the call, but it's important that we have lots of feedback for them to consider.

evan h wrote: The main curve ball of the evening for me and likely many others was the announcement of raptor closures for many of the CCC crags starting February 1, 2016. ... At any rate, I encourage everyone to get online and submit constructive feedback over the next two weeks. Ultimately JeffCO will make the call, but it's important that we have lots of feedback for them to consider.

Raptor closures, while understandable, often seem to be poorly managed. Sounds like the meeting was mostly focused on CCC. Any news related to Cathedral Spires area? Will the raptor closure there now start Feb 1 as well? In past years it was Mar 1. The JeffCo open space page would then say the closure would be reduced by end April, but in the past years they didn't get around to it until June/July when it was too hot to climb. Where can we submit feedback?

Jonathan Stickel wrote: Raptor closures, while understandable, often seem to be poorly managed. Sounds like the meeting was mostly focused on CCC. Any news related to Cathedral Spires area? Will the raptor closure there now start Feb 1 as well? In past years it was Mar 1. The JeffCo open space page would then say the closure would be reduced by end April, but in the past years they didn't get around to it until June/July when it was too hot to climb. Where can we submit feedback?

I'm not sure about Cathedral Spires closure dates. All feedback can be submitted to Climbing@jeffco.us.

You can email climbing@jeffco.us to be added to their email notification list and also to ask any specific questions - Eric Krause is the ranger and seems to be very responsive.

The draft guidelines are posted here:

mountainproject.com/v/jeffc…

Just a reminder to everyone - the deadline for public comment is Dec 7 which is fast approaching! So if you have something to add, please take the time to do it before then.

I thought the meeting was overall very positive and the county seems very interested in working with climbers and listening to our concerns.

I agree the raptor closure came as a bit of a surprise and everyone is still processing this. It did sound like they will try to avoid blanket closures and will work hard to monitor actual nesting sites (in CCC at least). I had the privilege of watching a golden eagle catch the thermals above Highlander while climbing there last weekend which was pretty cool. While I dislike the idea of closing prime winter crags for nesting, I also recognize the importance of protecting these birds and sometimes we have to look beyond ourselves and our own personal interests. But yes - the closures need to be reasonable and based on facts/data (ie; observed raptor activity and nesting sites).

Jonathan Stickel wrote: Raptor closures, while understandable, often seem to be poorly managed. Sounds like the meeting was mostly focused on CCC. Any news related to Cathedral Spires area? Will the raptor closure there now start Feb 1 as well? In past years it was Mar 1. The JeffCo open space page would then say the closure would be reduced by end April, but in the past years they didn't get around to it until June/July when it was too hot to climb. Where can we submit feedback?

During the meeting I asked if they had sufficient staff to monitor and administer the raptor closure program and they said "Yes" but then asked for volunteers to join their monitoring program.

I see this as potentially an issue going forward, the default position will be to keep areas closed for the entire period if staff are not available to conducted field research and locate nesting sites.

As climbers we should/need to volunteer to monitor the raptors and preempt extended closures.

post edit: they only showed a map of Raptor Closures in CCC (far more than just the crags around tunnel 2). Areas outside of CCC were not discussed, but I presume that the policy will be expanded to other locations with known raptor activity.

In regards to climbers' concerns about limited, unsafe parking and lack of bathroom facilities in CCC, JeffCo is fairly powerless on both fronts as CDOT is the governing agency.

Also, sobering is the fact that CDOT could restrict climbing altogether by barricading/closing current pull-off areas.

Here is the personal take I have on some elements I see here.
I was unable to attend the meeting, so I'd love to hear public discussion on this stuff, then perhaps I'll try to meet with the staff there, or even drag some other folks into it.

So overall....

This seems heavy handed to me, so...

1) I'd like to know what perceived need precipitated this shift in policy so that I can understand if it is necessary at all. Some specifics would be nice, becuase imaginary hobgoblins never went far for me...
Are the regulations as minimal as possible to address those concerns?

2) I understand the suggestion to rap from anchors instead of lower. Requirement is an absurd term, and guideline has no teeth. Why not call a duck a duck and call it a request or suggestion?

3) I wanted to know why only 3x permit periods per year (6 would be much better, with summer and fall being dense in reviews).

4) Likewise, if a FHRC is really needed, then the powers that want to be should consider delegating that authority of approval entirely to them on existing crags until such time as it proves insufficient to regulate the resource. The officials will be simply rubber stamping these expert's opinions anyway, right? That can be done if the committee has a guidance document and assures that routes follow it.

5) So let me get this straight... we are to incorporate all concerns and comments by Dec 7, and then this document becomes permanent? Where is the time allotted for revision of this plan and document? That sounds like a ram-rod to me. So I guess I propose not approving the document until adequate time for a community response to coalesce has been had, and then time for the land agency to review that response, discuss it, REVISE the proposal, and then pass it after the revisions are reviewed.

The document claims to be the basis of collaboration between the climbing community and JCOS, but if there is not significant revision, or explanation of the need for each questioned line item (not from me, from climbers in general) upon comment, it undermines any perception of earnestness or earned trust in the process.

Tony B wrote: 5) So let me get this straight... we are to incorporate all concerns and comments by Dec 7, and then this document becomes permanent? Where is the time allotted for revision of this plan and document? That sounds like a ram-rod to me. So I guess I propose not approving the document until adequate time for a community response to coalesce has been had, and then time for the land agency to review that response, discuss it, REVISE the proposal, and then pass it after the revisions are reviewed.

These are proposed "guidelines" that allow JeffCo staff to interpret and implement the guidelines as necessary. They will be figuring out things as they go along and some items will change as they are clearly not workable.

The peril with these being guidelines is that a perceived staff friendly to climbing today could change to a less receptive agency in the future.