Mountain Project Logo

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

Kirk Miller · · Catalina, AZ and Ilwaco, WA · Joined May 2003 · Points: 1,824

What if hunters had to take a picture of their intended game then report to a hunting committee for consideration and approval....

Are climbers being singled out?

Perhaps it is time to unify behind the concept of permitting qualified climbers to bolt within defined areas, following guidelines, as opposed to permitting routes, one at a time, by committee.

Pretty sure there's precedents, I seem to remember some of Castlewood Canyon got bolted by a use permit allowing the climbers to complete a set number of routes in specific corridors.

The initial routes at Staunton went in real quick by a select group...
I could be wrong but I don't think they submitted their routes to a committee.

Mike Lane · · AnCapistan · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 880

The reason routes were bolted at Castlewood under a permit system was that Ranger Bob Finch was also a climber, and he advocated a now ignored concept in land management called Front Country. Front country being viewed primarily in terms of recreational development, thus lessening the pressures on Back Country. Since it was proactive and actually made sense, it has been eschewed by the state.

Whenever the state inserts itself into any situation, nothing good comes out. You can pretend all you want that approaching them and interacting with them will yield a positive outcome. But the state (in this case JCOS) is going to do whatever it has predetermined it is going to do. Just like it always does.
But if it makes you feel better to think that you can generate a positive outcome then go ahead.

On a side nite, so depressing to see so many just jump in on the 'collective good', times have changed, people are inherently bad and need leashes mindset.

Jon Welchans · · Longmont Colorado · Joined Jun 2010 · Points: 75
Kirk Miller wrote:What if hunters had to take a picture of their intended game then report to a hunting committee for consideration and approval.... Are climbers being singled out? Perhaps it is time to unify behind the concept of permitting qualified climbers to bolt within defined areas, following guidelines, as opposed to permitting routes, one at a time, by committee. Pretty sure there's precedents, I seem to remember some of Castlewood Canyon got bolted by a use permit allowing the climbers to complete a set number of routes in specific corridors. The initial routes at Staunton went in real quick by a select group... I could be wrong but I don't think they submitted their routes to a committee.
Actually hunters do, kind of... There are roadside check points where you have to show that your take is legal. You always have to have you license with you. A game warden can come into your home without a warrant, if they suspect that you have exceeded bag limits or poached. I have had to show my license tag every time I have taken an elk.

So, it could be worse....

I think a lot of the issue is going to be regulations from those that don't understand climbing...I have always been suspect of giving authority to a committee. They always become authoritarian.

What we have already have has worked well, so far. Climbers, as a whole are more aware of, and prone to natural resource protection than any other group I know of. I think that we have one of the best records of protecting and working with other groups, land, etc. I really feel that this whole thing is unwarranted. We are one of the lowest impact user groups there is and we are very small compared to most other groups...also reducing impact.

Maybe it is all part of agenda 21...tinfoil....
Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974
Peter Beal wrote:Thanks for your thoughts Tony.
Yes Tony, thanks for your kind words.

And Peter, sincere thanks to you too, for your great routes, your volunteer work and for your thoughtful insights into climbing.

Regardless, I think this is a time the climbing community needs to act as advocates for our interests. This isn't a reasoned discussion between equals who intend to come to a happy compromise. Jeffco will rule and if we aren't united could easily end up like the local mountain bikers. Driving somewhere else to recreate.

Reading reports of the meeting, I don't know what to say. Tony B comes out discouraged, Mark R encouraged, and Mark A's summary looks dreadful.

Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write?
Personally I think bolting should be allowed except where prohibited at sensitive cliffs, ask developers to notify Jeffco (but not get permission) and would be OK with vetting developers ahead of time.

I think the idea of monitoring all the fixed hardware is impossibly ambitious. And doing so in the interest of safety is impossible. Might as well pass a regulation requiring climbing to be safe and outlawing injury and risk. And a law making gravity less burdensome too.
Tzilla Rapdrilla · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 955

Mark, thanks for your excellent summary of the meeting. I too left the meeting without a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of climbing in CCC. JCOS whole approach to this seems to me to be the classic “decide and defend” method. By allowing such a short comment period and waiting until they claim they’re pressured by a self-imposed February 1st deadline to get this whole thing in place leads one to believe that they already have their mind made up and are just trying to go through an illusionary public input process. Keeping the timeframe short allow some interaction so they can claim they had public input and then let the whole storm blow over as quickly as possible seems to be the tactic here.

Furthermore, they are taking an unwarranted approach to the raptor nesting issue. The fact that a current pair of golden eagles is nesting in the canyon and has been for at least the past 10 years means that there really isn’t a problem to begin with. They are hanging their hat on the Eagle Protection Act that has a couple of key provisions, they are as follows:

“the Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.
The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to not agitate the bald and golden eagle to the extent of not 1.) Abusing an eagle, 2.) Interfering with its substantial lifestyle, including shelter, breeding, feeding, or 3.) Nest abandonment.”
The first paragraph speaks to actually killing (taking) eagles and selling their parts as had been done many years ago. The second part seems to be what they are applying in this case. A reasonable person would probably not interpret walking, climbing, boating or driving a car a half mile or more from a nest as agitating an eagle to the point described in the paragraph. Was the real intent of this paragraph to prevent a rancher from cutting down a tree with an eagles nest in it perhaps? This is especially true when in literally hundreds of other locations around the U.S. eagles have been prove to not need a half mile or more of space.

In the meeting this week JCOS used the bogus assertion in one of their statements when questioned with something like, “Would you want to be the person to cause an eagle to abandon a nest?” If the concern is really that great then US6 should be closed too. One could also make an assertion like “Would you like to be the land manager who prevented a middle age climber from obtaining needed exercise and then had a heart attack. Would you like to explain this to his family?” Clearly it would be hard to prove cause and effect in the heart attack example, just as it is with climbing a half mile or more from a nest when recreational, commercial, and other activities occur all the time much closer to nesting sites than a half mile. It seems that JCOS has too much time on their hands to create excessive regulations and administrative processes.

Monty · · Golden, CO · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 3,520
Kirk Miller wrote:The initial routes at Staunton went in real quick by a select group... I could be wrong but I don't think they submitted their routes to a committee.
The initial 10-15 routes went through an application process, but when the park became inundated by our emails they decided to trust our abilities and let us self govern. If there was a route that we thought might ruffle feathers, we would submit it (which happened a time or two).

This system worked great, but as opening day approached the park went back to wanting a permit process (though we argued tirelessly for an approved bolter program). I believe that we can leverage an approved bolter system in Jeffco, and from the conversations I've had with staff, they don't want a process like what was forced on us at Staunton. On a side note, it sounds like they are willing to adjust their current system as the FHRC there has fallen apart (tired of unnecessary process) and the park is under new management.
Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 903
David Barbour wrote:The raptor closure sounds disastrous. Basically the entire canyon. The remaining areas will become a shit show of biblical proportions.
I am really concerned with this development as it directly restricts climbing on a yearly basis and based on what has been observed in Palisades and other areas in the Front Range, the closures can remain in place throughout the Summer.

Eagles actively seek nesting sites in January, so by early to mid-February they likely have picked a site, so to close just about all of the canyon is unwarranted, even worse if the crags remain closed for whatever capricious reason staff find appropriate.

I guess I was not that far off with at least one of my "rumors" earlier on this thread.
Rui Ferreira · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jul 2003 · Points: 903
Mark E Dixon wrote: Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write?
This should be a role for the Access Fund, even though the AF has been conspicuously quiet throughout this process and the AF member attending the meeting did not speak up...
Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,665
Rui Ferreira wrote: This should be a role for the Access Fund, even though the AF has been conspicuously quiet throughout this process and the AF member attending the meeting did not speak up...
I don't and can't speak for the Access Fund. Hopefully they can all touch base with all of their board and make a response to that.

All of what I said unto now has been personal, but I'm going to address one point as a BCC Board member:

The BCC had no role in this thing. The board was not offered a copy of the draft plan and it was not discussed in our last meeting, 7 weeks ago other than that something was coming. If some individual on the board knew more or was in a discussion, I can't say, but they sure as heck never mentioned it to me and I'd think that they would have.
But before saying that 'no member had any involvement,' I'll have to touch base with all of them to make sure nothing was misunderstood or what have you.
The BCC can, as a board, respond to this thing. But the problem with that is that we have no official charter to speak for climbers at large. We presume the general support of our membership, but can't even claim to represent them in unanimity.
I expect this to become a topic for the BCC board after the thanksgiving holiday and hopefully wrap up before Dec 7.
Peter Beal · · Boulder Colorado · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 1,825

I also will contact the AF as well as the FCC about this. It should be noted that the bird closures, which are certainly a problem for winter/early spring climbing on Boulder OSMP lands, were not part of the draft JeffCo climbing management plan per se. A PDF of the draft plan is here: jeffco.us/WorkArea/Download… at jeffco.us/open-space/activi…

I would agree with those saying this roll-out was done with very short notice and minimal opportunity for public comment. It seems there are two very different agendas at work here. One is management of fixed hardware which I would argue will ultimately cause minimal interference for the average climber in the canyon. While a FHRC would slow down route installation, I doubt it would significantly reduce it, let alone terminate it altogether. The second one, extensive raptor closures of established climbing areas, would have far more impact on route developers and climbers alike and deserves serious scrutiny from all climber advocacy groups in the area.

If Jeffco Open Space is serious about the following objective, as stated in the draft climbing plan,

"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."

so far the impression I get is of a mismanaged presentation and following discussion which serves only to undermine collaboration or proactive management and stewardship. I will certainly do my part to make sure that unnecessary hindrances to climbing access do not go unchallenged and advocate for a transparent process and fair outcomes.

Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Mark E Dixon wrote: ...if we aren't united could easily end up like the local mountain bikers. Driving somewhere else to recreate.
Indeed, Ranger Krause actually said during his presentation: "You know there are other areas to climb within an hour drive of Clear Creek..." I think JCOS would be perfectly happy with us driving somewhere else to recreate.

More importantly, I absolutely agree we must be united at least on the broad points. Fortunately(?!) I think we can all agree that the seasonal closure will substantially impact the climbing community.

Mark E Dixon wrote: Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write?
Great idea. I have some ideas. EDIT: I've been and will continue to edit these as I learn more information.

-Regarding Natural Resource Protection:
  • The damage done by climbers to soil and vegetation on JOCS lands is minuscule compared to the damage being done by the Peaks-to-Plains trail.
  • Climbing crags in CCC represent a very small percentage of total JCOS land area in CCC Park, and the vast majority of those crags are adjacent to the heavily developed highway corridor. The remainder of CCC Park is essentially pristine and untrammeled by climbers.

-Regarding Eagles:

  • Golden Eagles have thrived in CCC Park under the existing CMG, with seasonal closures limited to the three crags directly in the viewshed of the active nest. Based on the success of the existing approach, additional closures are unwarranted.
  • JCOS' planned seasonal closure increase will close 78% of the crags in CCC Park for much of the prime climbing season each year. This directly contradicts the wishes of Jefferson County citizens who desire a 50/50 balance between resource protection and recreation (according to JCOS).

[I calculated the 78% number by dividing the number of CCC crags east of Junction 119 shown on the MP CCC page (60) by the number of crags included in the list I posted last night (47). These mumbers may not be perfectly accurate, but it's a good estimate. If we went by number of routes, I think the % would be higher, but that would take a lot more time to tally. Regarding the 50/50 statement, during the presentation, JCOS showed the results of a random, statistically significant survey of 10,000 JeffCO residents who were asked how JCOS should balance resource protection with recreation on JCOS lands]

  • Most of the crags affected by the planned closure are approximately three miles from the active Eagle nest and separated by substantial "intervening terrain" created by the twisting canyon. Other crags are more than 5 miles from the active nest. The inactive nests precipitating the larger closure area have not been used by eagles in at least 12 years.

-Regarding Aging Fixed Hardware:

  • It is not in the County's best interest for JCOS to micro-manage fixed climber hardware on JCOS lands. Hardware is paid for and installed by climbers, for use by climbers, and this system ensures each user accepts personal responsibility for said hardware. Official management of this process is unfeasible and exposes the County to undesirable liability. [maybe its unwise to mention liability?]
  • Requiring permitting for fixed hardware replacement discourages replacement of aging hardware, which JCOS acknowledges is desirable. In the event a piece of aged hardware fails while a permit is pending JCOS review, JCOS may incur direct liability for the accident.
  • Climbers have self-policed fixed hardware for the entire 85-year history of climbing on what are now JCOS lands. This system has resulted in zero hardware-caused accidents. Climbers are proactive in tracking hardware status and replacing hardware when necessary, as evidenced by "Mountain Project.com's" fixed hardware database and the massive hardware replacement event staged in CCC Park by the Boulder Climbing Coalition in 2013.

Let me know what you think of these (feel free to add on/edit etc and re-post). I'm getting pretty exhausted at this point, but if I come up with more later I'll share them here. Others feel free to do the same.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Monty wrote: The initial 10-15 routes went through an application process, but when the park became inundated by our emails they decided to trust our abilities and let us self govern. If there was a route that we thought might ruffle feathers, we would submit it (which happened a time or two). This system worked great, but as opening day approached the park went back to wanting a permit process (though we argued tirelessly for an approved bolter program). I believe that we can leverage an approved bolter system in Jeffco, and from the conversations I've had with staff, they don't want a process like what was forced on us at Staunton. On a side note, it sounds like they are willing to adjust their current system as the FHRC there has fallen apart (tired of unnecessary process) and the park is under new management.
Monty, thanks for sharing, and it was great to see you at the meeting. Would you be willing to provide some more details on what went wrong with the Staunton FHRC? We could use those deficiencies as an example of how an FHRC may not be the ideal solution for JCOS.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Tony B wrote: The BCC had no role in this thing. The board was not offered a copy of the draft plan and it was not discussed in our last meeting, 7 weeks ago other than that something was coming. If some individual on the board knew more or was in a discussion, I can't say, but they sure as heck never mentioned it to me and I'd think that they would have. But before saying that 'no member had any involvement,' I'll have to touch base with all of them to make sure nothing was misunderstood or what have you. The BCC can, as a board, respond to this thing. But the problem with that is that we have no official charter to speak for climbers at large. We presume the general support of our membership, but can't even claim to represent them in unanimity. I expect this to become a topic for the BCC board after the thanksgiving holiday and hopefully wrap up before Dec 7.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate that and certainly I do not hold the BCC responsible in any way. I really appreciate your desire to bring this to the BCC board. We need all the help we can get. I think if nothing else, it's safe to say that the BCC represents more climbers in the local area than any other LCO (since there basically is no other LCO). 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."

One thing perhaps some Front Range climbers do not realize is that the seasonal closure will impact EVERY climber on the Front Range. Even if you never plan to set foot in CCC, you only climb trad, or only climb in the gym, or only north of HWY 72. This closure will displace literally hundreds, if not thousands, of climbers. Those climbers are going to end up somewhere else. Maybe Shelf, maybe Eldo, maybe The Spot or Indian Creek. If you desire some measure of solitude in your outdoor recreation experience, you should be in favor of maximizing the number of potential destinations, because that spreads people out and thins out the crowds.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
Peter Beal wrote:...It seems there are two very different agendas at work here. One is management of fixed hardware which I would argue will ultimately cause minimal interference for the average climber in the canyon. While a FHRC would slow down route installation, I doubt it would significantly reduce it, let alone terminate it altogether. The second one, extensive raptor closures of established climbing areas, would have far more impact on route developers and climbers alike and deserves serious scrutiny from all climber advocacy groups in the area. ...
Amen and thanks for emphasizing that. The FHRC is a big pain for someone like me, who bolts extensively in CCC (17 routes on JCOS land in 2015 so far). However, it really only directly affects a few of us. Just a handful of people are putting in the vast majority of new routes in CCC. Granted, the other 99+% may eventually be affected indirectly if fewer new areas are developed, but that pales in comparison to the effect of the seasonal closure.

If you look at it in terms of user-days, at a minimum, if we go by JCOS' best intentions (1 month closure), the seasonal closure will reduce user-days by 8%. More likely it will be closer to 3-4 months, or a 25-33% reduction in user-days. The FHRC will never come close to having the same negative impact. Realistically I'm probably the ONLY person who will spend less days in CCC as a result of the FHRC. Maybe that will someday trickle down to guys like Cardwell and Seigrist if there's nothing new for them to flash and downgrade :) but that's not a major concern for the community at large.

As stated above, every climber on the Front Range should be seriously concerned about the seasonal closure, whether you climb in CCC or not.
Bruce Hildenbrand · · Silicon Valley/Boulder · Joined Apr 2003 · Points: 3,615

As someone who does a lot of hardware replacement in Colorado I really appreciate the 'one-for-one no permit required" policy at Eldorado State Park. Having to submit a request for every single bolt is really cumbersome especially if there is any any turnaround time when an application is submitted.

Maybe a good compromise is to have a list of qualified rebolters who can do 'one-for-one' replacement without having to submit an application.

Mark Rolofson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,000

When I said I felt more positive after the meeting, I wasn't referring to the raptor closures. It is worse than I thought. I couldn't see the map at the back of the room, but Highlander was bad enough.
Large numbers of climbers complaining won't change the Land Managers mind. We are going to need the careful analysis of other wildlife biologists. That could possibly change their minds.

I have been down this road before since the 1990s. The Flatirons closures led to the development of Boulder Canyon. In 2001, Boulder Canyon saw its expanded closures from 1 cliff (Eagle Rock) to over 8 crags. The expanded closure went from Eagle Rock to the Bihedral including Happy Hour. That is when we formed Friends of Boulder Canyon. We met with the Forest Service & got two wildlife biologists to examine the nest at Security Risk. They found egg shells that were 25 years old from a Raven. No evidence of eagle nesting. The Forest Service scaled back the buffer zone of the closure & reopened Happy Hour & The Bihedral. To this day, they still close Security Risk every February. It is a totally unjustified closure.

People often look at me like I am crazy when I get angry & complain about this closure. I have felt that land managers contribute to climate change by forcing climbers to drive further to go climbing. The Flatirons has a ridiculous amount of closures. Most climbers just drive down to Clear Creek or N. Table. The Access Fund has always refused to take on the battle to reduce raptor closures. They want don't want to butt heads with land managers or be perceived as anti-wildlife. It is monkey see, monkey do when it comes to land managers copying each other. It is going to take some real pain before enough climbers get involved in fighting this issue to force the AF into action or find other political moves. It is amazing it has taken this long for Jeffco to copy other land managers on the seasonal raptor closures.

I can't believe that so many cliffs are being closed that have no old nests.
In Boulder Canyon, there are only 4 crags where nesting would even be possible. In Clear Creek closing the Little Eiger, Red Slab, High Wire, Wall of Justice, River Wall, Sex Cave & many more is either a slap a face to the climbing community or just plain incompetence.

Mike C · · Co · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 1,046

....has anyone purposed a 7 day wait limit on hammer drills? :) good thing they don't sell bolts at walmart. I think jeffco needs to get their priorities strait. The bird thing is a joke!!!!! the highway,its noise,its pollution,its traffic,its toxicity to the environment is ok and a peaceful climber like a lizard crawling over the rock as natural as the sun itself is being reigned in?out of all the construction, diversion of the watershed, radioactive antennas, fisherman,gamblers,miners, powerlines, trash, biohazards, signs,etc. ......i think climbers are the least of the evils........when they are climbing and not trying to form committees to control.

evan h · · Longmont, CO · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 360
Monomaniac wrote: Those climbers are going to end up somewhere else. Maybe Shelf, maybe Eldo, maybe The Spot or Indian Creek. If you desire some measure of solitude in your outdoor recreation experience, you should be in favor of maximizing the number of potential destinations, because that spreads people out and thins out the crowds.
This. I just don't understand how these birds are just now threatened in this busy, loud, semi-urban corridor. The whole crux of the argument for regulations is to reduce or minimize impact, but this closure creates a catch 22 as mono has highlighted.

I wrote to JCOS and insisted that the timing is not sufficient for public input. The response was essentially: "We expect that this will be a learning process and later amendments will likely be made". Don't count on these regulations changing much by January 1.
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295
evan h wrote: I wrote to JCOS and insisted that the timing is not sufficient for public input. The response was essentially: "We expect that this will be a learning process and later amendments will likely be made". Don't count on these regulations changing much by January 1.
Perhaps it would be more effective to send our letters/emails to someone higher in the JeffCo food chain, emphasizing that JCOS is violating its own policy by not collaborating with the climbing community.

JCOS Senior Management

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

[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. "

Active Nests are defined as: "Any nest that is frequented or occupied by a raptor during the breeding season, or which has been active in any of the five previous breeding seasons. Many raptors use alternate nests in various years. Thus, a nest may be active even if it is not occupied in a given year. "

Note that according to JeffCo's Natural Resource Specialist, the proposed seasonal closure is based on nests that have not been active in at least 12 years.

Clearly the proposed Seasonal Closure drastically exceeds these guidelines, which CO DOW Biologists believe are sufficient to protect Golden Eagles.

Highlights are mine:

CDOW RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 1.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 2.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 3.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 4.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 5.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 6.

RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR COLORADO RAPTORS Page 7.

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.