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

Eric Chabot wrote: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.

Hi Eric,
The picture you've painted in your mind is a little harsh.
In a world where the birds are BANDED in the nest, honestly, going to an area 300 yards away that climbers have used continuously for 30 years prior to any closures, and progressively getting more active to see if you can even get them to turn a fixed eye to you is not really so intrusive.
We're not talking about flushing them off the nest here.
And the person doing this for the USFS (their lead biologist for our district) has offered assistance to the county in terms of discussing or executing this sort of plan.
Full Disclosure: I am the liaison to the USFS/Boulder Canyon Eagle monitoring program for the BCC and one of the bird monitors.

Recent developments in the JCOS Clear Creek saga sure don’t sound very encouraging for climbers. The whole idea that somehow all the traffic through CCC has no impact on raptors, but one person walking along the highway does is ludicrous. Armadas of gravel trucks Jake braking 6 days per week down canyon don’t seem to impact bird nesting nor does Mr. fat guy riding on his Harley in his wife beater t-shirt. But when Mr. fat guy stops, turns off the racket of his hog and steps off the bike, suddenly the birds flee to Kansas, really? What a bunch of bullshit. The state guideline that JCOS falsely equates to being a federal law states “The term ‘disturbance’ is ambiguous and experts disagree on what actually constitutes a disturbance.” So all this supposed exact science is actually just speculation. The same state guideline also includes driving along with hiking and boating in its definition of human encroachment and things that should be limited. Therefore, there is no reason to restrict hiking when the driving cannot be practically restricted unless US6 is closed. Clearly any raptors in the CCC have become tolerant of human activity as evidenced by the current success of the nesting eagles, but it appears that JCOS is after a self-fulfilling prophecy of adding more restrictions that would then also be proven successful and then impossible for the bureaucrats to unravel.

It was noted by a previous poster that, the parking area for Tunnel 2 may fall within the radius of needed closure by JCOS. Is this the same CDOT right of way that JCOS claims that they have no influence over when it comes to helping get better parking for climbing, or an area that falls under JCOS jurisdiction? Which is it? Either JCOS is lying, or they don’t have any authority on any of the land within the CDOT right of way. This appears to be a pattern of deceit, like cherry picking guidelines that restrict hiking, but ignoring the same guideline that restricts automobiles too.

Another massive incongruity is the construction of the bike path. This path is costing one million dollars per mile to construct. If human presence outside of vehicles is such an impact to raptors, then the bike path would have to be closed for most of the year. Perhaps the county commissioners should arrange a meeting with Governor Hickenlooper to explain the future of the Peak to Plains Trail and how their Open Space Department will be “forced” to close it once it’s built.

Finally, is it just coincidence that after all these years of pretty much leaving CCC alone that JCOS now has to impose more regulations, conveniently just months after they acquired the Table Mountain parcel from us, the climbing community? Now that JCOS has gotten what they wanted from us and there isn’t anything else that they want, they feel free to stab us in the back. So instead of doing something positive for climbing like opening already purchased historical climbing areas like Ralston Buttes, or buying one like the Wild West/West Bank they impose more closures on what little climbing remains in JCOS lands. I wouldn’t be surprised if they close Table next, suckas…..

If there is any possibility of influencing this latest ratcheting of restrictions on climbing it is likely only achievable through contacting the county commissioners too when commenting on the JCOS proposal. They can be reached here:

jeffco.us/bcc/contact/

It is conceivable that the JCOS staff that we have been interacting with are at least somewhat on our side and are having an agenda foisted upon them by their “superiors.” If that is the case, then they won’t mind our thoughts being shared with the county commissioners.

Tod - were you at the meeting this week? They actually addressed some of the things you've mentioned here and explained how/why (i.e.: who has jurisdiction over what related to the road etc, and also the bike path issues). You should write in with your concerns, but honestly, they seem to be trying hard to work with us and I don't think we are losing as much as you seem to think. Maybe I am a sucker but I think the JCOS staff are operating in good faith.

Edit to add - it actually sounds like their superiors are wanting a lot MORE restriction on us, so I'd be very careful about contacting the commissioners at this point.

One question for Mark Rolofson on the subject of Lowering versus Rappelling:

Whats seems to be a decent compromise for most climbers is that if there are multiple climbers on a route, the first person up clips their own hardware into the anchors. That hardware is then used to lower all the climbers except the last climber who puts the rope through the anchor and then lowers.

My personal observation is that there are still groups of climbers who have the first climber up the route thread the rope through the fixed hardware and then proceed to belay and lower every subsequent climber through that hardware. I hope we can all agree that this is not the ideal situation and does lead to unnecessary wear on fixed anchors.

Todd,
Please read the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act:
fws.gov/midwest/midwestbird…

And also look into JCOS agreement with the CDOT with the agreements about co-management of Rights of Way "beyond the white lines" of the highway.

Your arguments will be a lot more credible if the underlying tenants are not either overly simplistic or factually incorrect. I think you would have gotten a lot out of attending the recent meeting, and I wish you could have attended. I think talking with Dave might be useful for you and he has said that he's happy to hear from climbers and answer questions. Please consider talking to him about these matters and how you can help him and help Eric push a climber-friendly agenda forward.

The JCOS staff we are dealing with here, particularly Dave and Eric, are used to some level of 'ignoring the noise' of the uninformed part of a passionate climbing population's concerns and getting to the heart of things. But my greatest fear is that a few misinformed people make enough noise that is obviously incredible, and then the higher-ups start viewing the whole of the climbing community as ignorant, and thus - ignore us.

In short, while I agree with most of that you want, I think you need to have your facts all lined up before becoming an effective voice for our side.

Oh- and BTW, the P2P trail is a huge internal matter already. They are aware of the conflicts, but it seems that few people see it as a here and now exercise. I've heard them debating the 'what now' aspects of the different pushes that are behind and against it.
Thinking in positive terms, (though I hope it doesn't come to that), if we do get closures and that thing gets built through them, we'll sure have a good argument for reversing or trimming some of the closures. But that's 10 years + away, I think.

In all, thanks for caring and contributing to the discussion and push for a more reasonable plan. Please help in the most effective way, which means formulating sound arguments if you take them up the chain.

Bruce Hildenbrand wrote: My personal observation is that there are still groups of climbers who have the first climber up the route thread the rope through the fixed hardware and then proceed to belay and lower every subsequent climber through that hardware. I hope we can all agree that this is not the ideal situation and does lead to unnecessary wear on fixed anchors.

Is that still people who are taking out folks they worry can't manage the anchors or perhaps can't reach the top and they are just trying to make it easy for them?
I don't have a solution, but it's my normal perception, and the answer I get when I suggest to gang-banging TR parties that they run the rope through their own gear...

Bruce, I agree that top roping through the anchor rings or chains (coldshuts especially) should be discouraged. On winch hooks it is different. There is a lot more metal to wear through. They are meant to clip into, lower & even top rope off. But this topic is pretty minor. The concern here is having bad regulations.
We owe Tony Bubb (of the BCC) a debt of gratitude for all the hours of hard work he has done meeting with JCOS & drafting a response to CMG. We also owe much thanks to Brady Robinson (director) & Katie Goodwin (policy analyst) of the Access Fund for negotiating with JCOS & responding in the CMG.

I agree with the BCC response to the draft of the CMG. I agree that that role of the FHRC should be limited in its scope. I personally think it should be limited to just Clear Creek for now. I feel that fixed hardware on other JCOS lands should remain unregulated, especially the Golden Cliffs.
I do realize in the struggle to preserve climbing access, often compromises have to be made. I feel our climbing organizations are doing their best to fight for us. We should support them. Thanks Tony, Brady & Katie.

Yes Todd, I feel your pain brother. This closure around Tunnel 2 seems crazy to me too. I think it needs further review. It caught my attention too, that JCOS said they don't control the parking at the first meeting, but now they manage everything past the white line. I don't think they are lying but they could be mistaken about the scope of their authority. There should be independent verification of this claim. We need the analysis of other qualified wildlife biologists on the closure.

Tony B wrote: Is that still people who are taking out folks they worry can't manage the anchors or perhaps can't reach the top and they are just trying to make it easy for them? I don't have a solution, but it's my normal perception, and the answer I get when I suggest to gang-banging TR parties that they run the rope through their own gear...

Tony,

from my experience there are two kinds of people who thread their rope directly through the anchors and belay/lower all their climbers up and down.

First, there are people who just don't know any better. They see the rings or quick links and think that is the proper practice. For these people, education is the key, though I am not sure what form that education takes. Clearly, not everyone reads climbing forums or magazines since this topic is covered ad infinitum in the media.

The second group is lazy group leaders who come to a crag with a whole bunch of people and string up a bunch of top ropes for the day's festivities. It is much easier for the lazy group leader to put the rope through the existing hardware so that at the end of the day they can just pull their ropes. These leaders should know better. It is not an education issue.

I have read the Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act and at one point in the past I was a federal land manager responsible for complying with that act as well as the endangered species act along with many others. What I was pointing out were the inconsistencies in what I see as claims made by the JCOS staff as requirement in law vs. things subject to broad interpretation. JCOS, in the first meeting that I attended at the Mountaineering Center did reference the state guidelines that lump cars in with free range humans. I'm pointing out how JCOS is being incredibly selective in what they cite as laws and guidelines and that they ignore things that would contradict their current plan, up to and including the fact that things seem to be OK the way they are now. So, facts are facts, depending one what source you use, and I have referenced the same source used by JCOS.

It seems unlikely that Eric and Dave, if they are advocating for climbers would be able to get something past the Open Space Director if that individual had a different bias. Making sure that the county commissioners are aware of the perspectives of the climbing community will likely only help our cause and enlightening them on the immense good deed done by the climbing community in allowing our land to become part of a JCOS park should not go unnoticed.

Mark Rolofson wrote: We also owe Brady Robinson (director) & Katie Goodwin (policy analyst) of the Access Fund for negotiating with JCOS & responding in the CMG.

I just wanted to highlight the importance of that statement.
While I have less policy restriction on the use of (anti-) social media to stop me from being active here, that is just that.
I post more here and the Access Fund have different guidelines.

A LOT of work has gone into this from people other than me, and I want to be sure that it is well understood that the A.F. has done a majority of the very heavy lifting here.

The credibility that a national policy expert who has a decade of experience dealing with various levels of governments who have gone through this before is something that very few people can bring to the table. In one meeting I started talking about limited scope and application of the FHRC and how it would be good if it didn't apply to every route and could be streamlined. I didn't have any real shape for molding that into. Next ting you know, Katie is giving examples of what programmatic approval can look like and who does it already and...

People like me don't have that experience. The participation of the professional policy and access people is really critical and makes the effort to roll this back credible. I couldn't offer to help them draft language for the plan. The Access Fund can.

So, I guess the message is here that if you've never thought about supporting your national or local climbing organizations, think about it. This is why they are here.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote: It seems unlikely that Eric and Dave, if they are advocating for climbers would be able to get something past the Open Space Director if that individual had a different bias. Making sure that the county commissioners are aware of the perspectives of the climbing community will likely only help our cause and enlightening them on the immense good deed done by the climbing community in allowing our land to become part of a JCOS park should not go unnoticed.

For my own part, I want to see what the redraft looks like before doing too much more. But yeah, I think that supporting the requested changes and other general to specific requests for lighter regulation are worth pursing. More voices = good, so long as we don't look foolish.

Thanks for adding your energy to this.

Tony, I'm very interested in the work you have done in the boulder area, pm sent

Bump - today is the last day for public comment on this! If you care and want to have your voice heard, make sure you send your comments to Jeffco today!

I emailed my comments via the Access Fund tool. Tony - Thanks for summarizing the key issues and recommended revisions. That made it easy to get up to speed on this quickly and voice my support for the revisions.

I was procrastinating a little, but I’ve also submitted my comments to JeffCo.

I just submitted my comments. It only took a few minutes. Here's that link Tony provided again: accessfund.org/take-action/…
Thanks to those who have put all this effort in!

I hope JCOS is flooded with comments. I think it is important to note, (because it hasn't been mentioned on this thread before) that the eagle nests near Tunnel 2 are on the south side of the canyon. Prior to last Wednesday's meeting, I assumed the nests must be the north side of the canyon, where most of the crags in closure zone are located. Simply because the eagles can view human activity at Highlander Crag, New River Wall, etc., these crags are being closed. If you are climbing on the north side of the canyon, you are walking away from the direction of the nest to approach & you separated from the nest by a highway, a river & a hillside (or two at Highlander).

Think about this fact. The north side of Fern Canyon in the Flatirons, has a seasonal raptor closure, but The Slab on the south side remains open. Blob Rock on the north side of Boulder Canyon has a golden eagle nest & a seasonal closure, but Cob Rock & Sherwood Forest on the south side remain open. These crags are all in the viewshed of the nests.

Mark Rolofson wrote:I hope JCOS is flooded with comments. I think it is important to note, (because it hasn't been mentioned on this thread before) that the eagle nests near Tunnel 2 are on the south side of the canyon. Prior to last Wednesday's meeting, I assumed the nests must be the north side of the canyon, where most of the crags in closure zone are located. Simply because the eagles can view human activity at Highlander Crag, New River Wall, etc., these crags are being closed. If you are climbing on the north side of the canyon, you are walking away from the direction of the nest to approach & you separated from the nest by a highway, a river & a hillside (or two at Highlander). Think about this fact. The north side of Fern Canyon in the Flatirons, has a seasonal raptor closure, but The Slab on the south side remains open. Blob Rock on the north side of Boulder Canyon has a golden eagle nest & a seasonal closure, but Cob Rock & Sherwood Forest on the south side remain open. These crags are all in the viewshed of the nests.

That is confusing. What about all the people who park in front of New River Wall for sightseeing? Or fly fishing?

David Barbour wrote: That is confusing. What about all the people who park in front of New River Wall for sightseeing? Or fly fishing?

JeffCo is proposing closing all or part of the pullout east of tunnel two, in addition to closing the above-mentioned crags, as part of the raptor closure. (Yes, this means that High Wire, Left Wire, & Wall of Justice will be effectively closed.)

They say they will close the creek to flyfishers and kayakers too.