Developing A Climbing Management Plan

The Bitterroot National Forest is undertaking the development of a comprehensive climbing management plan (CMP), with the purpose of promoting sustainable climbing activities into the future. The plan will seek to reduce user conflicts, minimize impacts to resource values, and protect the unique climbing attributes found here on the Bitterroot National Forest. 

The Forest will be using this Story Map as both progress tracker and information hub so that all interested parties can readily obtain information on the process and the status of the CMP development. The purpose of the information contained here is to start to define the issues as they are identified, providing a means for an inclusive, collaborative process where interested members of the public can assist in highlighting issues that the Forest may have overlooked and provide recommendations for management solutions.

This Story Map contains insight into the "why" of climbing here on the Bitterroot as well as some of the resource concerns that we are faced with by increased use in these sometimes fragile environments. We will explore the management issues around recreational climbing and provide examples of how some other areas around the country have chosen to handle the management of climbing to see if their approach meets our needs. As we go forward we will also develop a proposal for climbing management on the Forest through feedback from people involved both personally, and virtually through this Story Map. All of the information used in this process will be available here for all to access.

Climbing has an illustrious history both globally and here in the Bitterroot. It is our desire that the CMP will serve not only to enhance and protect the resources that are currently enjoyed, but will also help to promote the sustainable and responsible management of climbing so that future generations will be equally enriched by their experience of this magnificent landscape. We appreciate your help in getting to our goal.

The Forest’s desire is that this Climbing Management Plan (CMP) will be built by the community so that it reflects the conservation and recreation values held by all those affected by the guidelines here-in. In order to accomplish that the Bitterroot National Forest is inviting interested members of the public to come together and cooperatively define how climbing will be managed on the Bitterroot National Forest. The CMP will ultimately describe the desired condition for responsible climbing activities across the Forest, considering the need for maintaining recreation access while also providing for appropriate natural and cultural resource protections.

The issues identified through public feedback on the information contained in this Story Map will form the basis for follow up public meetings (likely in a virtual setting) to discuss recommendations for management actions to address the issue. The plan is to host one meeting per month, starting in late April/early May, where we will collaboratively decide on the appropriate management actions for each issue.  

The goal of the CMP is to provide for recreational climbing opportunities while minimizing/mitigating the impacts of recreational use on sensitive resources. 

The Bitterroot National Forest Management Plan (1987) divides the forest into a series of Management Areas with specific management goals, resource potential, and limitations.

The management areas serve as a guide for how to implement plans and actions. They provide direction with consideration of unique natural resource features. Our CMP will tier to the management direction contained in the Forest Plan.  

Research has shown that people choose a specific setting for a variety of recreation activities in order to realize a desired set of experiences. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) offers a framework for understanding these relationships and interactions by establishing standards and guidelines for experience opportunities and physical, social and managerial settings. This will provide a framework for the development of the CMP. We want to be sure that areas recommended for higher levels of climbing development are consistent with the ROS classes and the recreational expectations that correspond to each. 

Above is the Bitterroot National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map from 1987. This map is Interactive. To better see the Topo lines and drainages, use the side bar (Properties button) on the right to adjust the Transparency function to desired setting.

This is an initial posting for the BNF-ROS Map. The style of this map will soon be updated for better function and layout. Please email the Climbing Management Plan inbox at  sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov  if you have any questions.

Part of what makes Montana great, specifically the Bitterroot Valley, is its breathtaking scenery and availability for outdoor recreation. Many consider themselves a climber, but most may also be a hiker, backpacker, skier, etc. The greatest joy in life for many folks in the Bitterroot is outdoor recreation. The difference between an average day and great day can be a short jaunt in the local forest. 

As a nation we are battling a growing epidemic of nature deficit disorder. There are generations of families that have not had the availability to visit local forests. This contributes to the growth in serious health conditions such as morbid obesity, diabetes, chronic pain, joint pain, depression, anxiety, attention deficit, and even ineffective coping.

Taking care of one’s self, both physically and mentally, is paramount to providing great care to our community. What better place to find mental rejuvenation then in our amazing surrounding mountains. Not only do you find clarity of mind, you find the physical activity to keep yourself healthy to care for others. The sport of climbing also allows for such personal growth. You push yourself both physically and mentally, problem solving your way up the cliff, battling with anxieties and fear, only to drive through and come out on top. It helps you to become a better person.

While many are drawn to climbing initially out of a sense of adventure, the process of climbing is one of the surest paths to form a deep connection with the natural world. To find a way up a challenging section of rock, be it a roadside boulder or remote spire, one must get to know it at a level beyond familiarity. To succeed on a difficult climb a climber will revisit the same place many times over months, if not years. They will memorize each nuance of the rock and learn to adapt their body to it, studying the careful placement of each finger and toe.

Beyond this they will get to know the local environment. They will learn when the sun hits the rock they wish to climb and warms it in winter, when it is shaded and cool in summer and how long it takes to dry after the rain. They will learn when roads and trails are open and when areas should be avoided due to nesting raptors.

Through this revisitation and study, most climbers form a deep bond with their favorite areas. They often host cleanups of climbing areas and can often be found picking up trash left by those who do not plan on being back in the same spot week after week.

Climbing is also one of those rare activities that truly appeals across generations and age groups. It is common to see retirees climbing with college kids and groups of parents with small children climbing and playing amongst the boulders and crags.

Its adventurous nature seems also to appeal to teenagers who might not otherwise be easily convinced to venture into the mountains. Indeed many first ascents in the Bitterroot including an early technical route on Trapper Peak and most of the classic boulder problems in Lost Horse were done by local high school students. The draw of climbing in this group is so strong that teenagers may even occasionally be seen climbing with their parents. There are also several local groups that use climbing as a way to mentor children and teenagers.

Climbing can also contribute to the local economy. Some amount of money is brought in by traveling climbers but beyond this many young people choose to stay in the area in part because of the deep bond they form with the mountains. In the past few years climbers have started everything from small farms to breweries and distilleries to general contracting businesses.

Here is a quick run-down of different types of climbing that may occur throughout the Bitterroot National Forest.

Bouldering refers to rope-less climbing that concentrates on short, sequential moves on rock usually no more than 15 feet off the ground. Typically, falls are very short and inconsequential. Each climb-able sequence of moves is called a "boulder problem." Boulder problems vary in difficulty. Near the ground, bouldering requires relatively little equipment other than rock shoes and can be a very social form of climbing.

Sport Climbing involves climbs that are protected exclusively with fixed protection, usually with bolts. Sport climbs are typically short-generally a single rope-length (50-60 meters) or less. They rarely continue to summits, but end at fixed anchors where the sustained difficulty of the climb diminishes, the character of the rock changes, or simply at the half-rope point to allow the climber to descend by being lowered. Due to the fixed bolt protection and limited height, it provides a safer climbing environment than that found in a traditional climbing venue, and has become very popular.

Traditional Climbing, sometimes referred to as "free climbing", is how the sport of rock climbing has been practiced since its inception, and has strong historic associations. It is a style of climbing where the protection is placed by the ascending climber and removed by the seconding partner. Traditional climbers progress up the rock face using natural hand and footholds, with the rope and technical climbing equipment used only for safety in case of a fall. Typically, traditional climbs are protected by climbing equipment that is removable and does not impact the rock surface.

Ice Climbing occurs on frozen water ice or very hard snow, using ice axes and crampons. For protection, climbers screw metal tubes into the ice. This activity can occur in a variety of environments, from relatively small frozen waterfalls with easy access, to mountaineering situations with long approaches involving multiple pitches of climbing.

Educational resources are available to climbers who are seeking to expand their skills and experience from climbing gyms to outdoor climbing recreation while preserving access to climbers on National Forests and public lands. Other education programs include conservation efforts and promoting responsible recreation practices. 

Climbing information courtesy of accessfund.org.

More information about rock climbing in the Bitterroot can be found at the Western Montana Climbing Coalition website:

Questions or Comments?  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

Questions or Comments?  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

The Bitterroot National Forest is home to outstanding natural resource values within its many glacier-carved canyons. The Forest’s natural wonders cover a broad range of inanimate and living resources from soils and rock features to wildlife, vegetation, and their many diverse habitats. Resource impacts can potentially occur during some or all of the six zones of a climbing visit, from the approach route, during the climb itself, and after the summit has been reached. 

The Bitterroot cliff ecosystem is where the primary impacts from climbing can occur. This relatively rare ecosystem has the least disturbed and least studied habitat on our forest. They are as much biological gems as they are geological wonders. The cliffs are so much more than rock! 

Starting at the base, this remarkable ecosystem runs up the cliff’s often vertical face and ends at the plateau, rim, or summit. There are cracks, caves, crevices and ledges, replete with microclimates, providing habitat and resources for a myriad of animals and plants.

The cliff’s biodiversity is indeed rich. They can be seen as habitat islands, starkly different from surrounding lands, home to many species of flora and fauna which are uniquely adapted to the harsh vertical environs. From the well- suited anatomy of a mountain goat’s hoof and pads, to the fighter plane design of a peregrine’s wings, the cliff inhabitants are specialized marvels of nature. But they are vulnerable too as they try to scrape out a living in such an inhospitable environment. In winter, mountain goats occupy small areas of the canyon mouths and are vulnerable to displacement. Eagles and falcons can be flushed from their nests by disturbances, jeopardizing their eggs or chicks.

The cliffs provide refugia for many species, especially as climatic conditions change. From bats to pack rats, delicate alums to 400-year-old wind-bent junipers, the cliffs of the Bitterroots are an invaluable ecosystem that merits consideration in a climbing management plan.

The granite cliffs of the BNF canyons make for magnificent views but also result in a granitic soil that is highly susceptible to erosion. User-created approach trails often wind-up steep slopes with loose soil and scree and can result in increased erosion. Both erosion and soil compaction, depending on the surface, are also seen at the base of the cliffs and staging areas. Damage to soils can limit aeration, affect soil temperature, moisture content nutrition, and soil micro-organisms

Climbers participating in bouldering often use a crash pad for safety. Use of the pad may cause soil compaction or soil erosion depending on the surface, and may cause vegetation damage.

Just like there can be damage to soils through the establishment and use of a route there can also be damage to vegetation through trampling and the removal of plant material along approach routes and at cliff bases. The practice of removing lichen, ferns, mosses, small trees, and other cliff side vegetation (commonly called “cleaning” or “gardening”) is impactful not only to the vegetation itself but also the wildlife that depends on it. 

Live trees that are used as belay anchors can also be damaged by abrasion and trampling. Sapphire Rockcress, Sandweed, Western Joepye-weed, scalepod, Idaho goldenweed are a few of Montana Species of Concern that grow in and around climbing areas on the Bitterroot that are at risk of being harmed.

Camping in sensitive areas such as cliff tops and staging areas may also compromise vegetation.  

On some vertical rock walls and cliffs in the Bitterroot National Forest’s western canyons, ideal climbing locations overlap with ideal nesting locations for native raptors, including Prairie Falcons and two Species of Concern in Montana, Peregrine Falcons and Golden Eagles (State of Montana Field Guide). These species nest on cliff ledges; the falcons just scratch out a shallow depression in soft ledge substrate. Golden Eagles build very large nests, usually 5-6 feet wide, out of sticks, grasses, bark, lichens, leaves, and other materials. Climbing near an active nest can cause visual and/or auditory disturbance to nesting raptors, which could possibly result in abandonment of nests, even those already holding eggs.

In addition to raptors, climbing recreationists share BNF cliff faces with mountain goats, bighorn sheep, various bats, swifts and swallows, rubber boas, pack rats, northern alligator lizards, western skinks, and Coeur d’Alene salamanders among other creatures. Many of these specialized cliff dwellers are listed as Species of Concern in Montana. Mountain goat winter range is often located in the westside canyon mouths, overlapping with the routes taken by climbers seeking early season climbing, and the potential for disturbance exists.

UPDATE ON PROPOSED RAPTOR MANAGMENT- (September 16th, 2021)

Bitterroot National Forest Climbing Management Plan

Proposed Raptor Management Guidelines (dated 2021-08-31)

Introduction

The following are proposed as management guidelines for golden eagles and peregrine falcons on the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF), and are intended to be incorporated into the upcoming BNF Climbing Management Plan. In the spirit of cooperation and good natural resource stewardship that should be practiced by all users of the BNF, the Forest encourages individuals and user groups to help us monitor the status of raptor nests and territories, as well as other cliff-dwelling wildlife. Compliance with any closures or buffers intended to minimize disturbance to raptors or other cliff-dwelling wildlife from recreational activities will depend largely on cooperation and self-policing from individual recreationists and associated user groups. Implementation of raptor management guidelines will be most successful if recreationists and associated user groups understand and support the rationale and objectives for those guidelines.

Golden Eagle

Context

In general, recent data point to stable or declining trends in golden eagle numbers in western North America (Katzner et al. 2020). Long-term surveys show declines in nesting populations in the western United States, but not in Alaska or western Canada (Ibid). Suggested causes for declines include: climate change resulting in habitat deterioration for the eagles’ prey species; loss of nesting habitat resulting from residential development; widespread lead contamination from scavenging the remains of animals killed with lead bullets; electrocution, traumatic collisions with vehicles, fences or power lines, and large-scale energy developments such as open pit coal mines, oil drilling and wind farms.

Most golden eagles do not acquire a nerritory until they are at least four years old. Once an individual establishes a territory, it tends to remain there during the nesting season, defending from conspecifics a territory that generally ranges from 20–30 km², but that can be substantially smaller or larger depending on region, habitat quality and prey availability. This species usually builds and maintains many stick nests within their territories (Katzner et al. 2020).

Most populations include non-territorial adults often called “floaters,” individuals that cannot nest because all suitable territories are occupied. Floaters fill vacancies as they occur and thereby contribute to population stability. For most eagles and large raptors, floaters are a buffer against fluctuation in the nesting population. Reduction in the floater pool can indicate either a growing or declining population (Katzner et al. 2020).

Most golden eagles that nest in the Bitterroot drainage appear to be year-long residents, but their numbers are supplemented during the winter by migratory individuals that breed in Alaska or Canada. Most known golden eagle nests in the Bitterroots are built on cliff ledges. Known golden eagle nests in the Sapphires tend to be built in large trees, and some nests in the Bitterroots may also be located in trees.

Rationale

The BNF has monitored golden eagles to some extent, but mostly as a side-product of peregrine falcon monitoring. We do not have enough monitoring data to address local population trends. Several of the territories we have monitored more frequently (e.g. in lower Mill Creek canyon) have successfully fledged young most years. Other known nests are infrequently occupied and are likely alternate nests. We frequently see both adult and immature eagles flying in many of the canyons, but for the most part we don’t know where these birds nest. Therefore, with the exception of a few territories, we know little about the level of recreational disturbance that may be affecting this species. However, golden eagles are generally thought to be relatively intolerant of human presence in the vicinity of active nests (reviewed in Katzner et al. 2020, Ruddock and Whitfield 2007, Richardson and Miller 1987).

Objective

Minimize disturbance to active golden eagle nests to support successful reproduction and continued occupancy of golden eagle territories on the BNF.

Methods

1.      Implement seasonal closures for rock climbing and other potentially disturbing activities within an 800 meter buffer on known golden eagle nests in Bitterroot canyons that are in the vicinity of known climbing routes or other disturbing activities.

2.      Closures will begin on February 1 each year and will continue until the affected nests are determined to be inactive, or if active, until after any young have fledged.

3.      The 800 meter buffer can be modified using the adaptive management concepts of viewsheds (Camp et al. 1997) and prior experience with the effects of recreational activities to individual nests. This recognizes the concepts that physiographic features may limit potential disturbance to individual nests, that individual eagles have different tolerance levels for disturbance, and that some can become habituated to and accept at least some forms of disturbance over time.

4.      The BNF will work with interested groups to alert the climbing community and the general public to the presence of closures and buffers around golden eagle nests, and request that climbers and other recreationists avoid these buffers around active nests until the young have fledged. This procedure has worked well in the recent past when the BNF has contacted the Western Montana Climbers’ Coalition to request postings of alerts on websites and social media relevant to climbers. The BNF will continue to post alerts on the Forest website and distribute press releases to increase public awareness of such closures.

Literature Cited

Camp, R.J., D.T. Sinton and R.L. Knight. 1997. Viewsheds: a complimentary management approach to buffer zones. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3): 612-615.

Katzner, T. E., M. N. Kochert, K. Steenhof, C. L. McIntyre, E. H. Craig, and T. A. Miller (2020). Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), version 2.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald and B. K. Keeney, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.  https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.goleag.02 

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):634-638.

Ruddock, M. and D.P. Whitfield. 2007. A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. 181 pp.

Peregrine Falcon

Context

The steep, widespread population decline of peregrine falcons in many parts of the world in the 1950s, 60s and 70s has been extensively documented (Ratcliffe 1993, Cade et al. 1988). Bioaccumulation of byproducts of DDT (an organochlroine pesticide) resulted in eggshell thinning that drastically reduced or eliminated successful reproduction in large portions of the species’ range. After peregrines were listed as endangered in the U.S. and DDT was banned in many areas, the species underwent a dramatic recovery (Ratcliffe 1993, Cade et al. 1988) that continues to present (White et al. 2020, Enderson et al. 2012). Peregrines were removed from the endangered species list in the U.S. in 1999.

Peregrine populations in the Rocky Mountain region suffered nearly complete collapse during this decline. Enderson et al. (1988) found that only six pairs (including six released birds) were known to nest in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and northern Utah where over 84 historical territories had been recorded. Montana had 27 recorded historical territories (Ibid), but there were no known nesting pairs in the state by the mid-1970s (MPI website). None of the historical territories were identified in the Bitterroot drainage, but surely some must have existed here given the vast amount of excellent cliff habitat available for nesting.

Following reintroduction efforts led by the Peregrine Fund in the western U.S., peregrines began to repopulate suitable habitat in the Rocky Mountain states in the mid 1980s. There were 529 known occupied eyries in Rocky Mountain states by the late 1990s (White et al. 2020). Survey efforts by Montana observers identified 224 different active eyries between 1998 and 2018 (MPI website). One hundred and ten of these eyries were known to be active in 2018 (Ibid), and many of the others were likely active but were not surveyed due to lack of observers.

In partnership with the Peregrine Fund, the BNF released young peregrines in several locations from 1989 - 1993, when it became obvious that wild adult peregrines were inhabiting some of the canyons. Since that time we have identified 17 different peregrine territories on the BNF that were active at least one year. It is likely that other undiscovered territories exist. Many of our known territories have been active every year since they were discovered, some for over 25 straight years. Most of these long-term territories are known to have successfully fledged young most years. This long-term occupancy and regular nesting success implies high-quality nesting habitat. In most territories in most years, we have been unable to locate the actual eyrie ledge. Despite this lack of specific knowledge of eyrie locations, we have documented 447 juvenile peregrines fledged from Bitterroot eyries from 1992-2021. This is a minimum count of juveniles actually observed, as determining total fledge counts in our huge canyons is very challenging, and many territories were not surveyed in many years. It is likely that the actual number of young peregrines fledged from Bitterroot eyries since 1992 is at least twice the number documented.

Given the high number of known, persistently occupied territories, the territory density (one of the highest in Montana), the number of known young fledged and the relatively long life expectancy of wild adult peregrines, it is likely that the peregrine population in the Bitterroot drainage is at or very near the carrying capacity of the habitat. High-quality cliff habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for Bitterroot peregrines, but the limits of the available prey base are expressed as territoriality, whereby established pairs exclude other falcons from their territories and thus partition the available habitat.

Cade et al. (1996) stated that “The widely spaced pattern of breeding dispersion adopted by pairs and the high reproductive rates common in healthy peregrine populations typically result in the production of a reserve of adults above the number that can find places to nest within the rather rigid, territorial system. These surplus adults – or “floaters” – are available to rapidly replace lost or moribund breeders at the eyries. In a healthy peregrine population that is at the environmental carrying capacity for number of pairs, these floaters may equal or exceed the number of breeders, depending on the rate of reproductive success and survivorship (Hunt 1988, Newton 1988)”.

Rationale

Some authors (e.g. Richardson and Miller 1997) recommend an 800 meter buffer around peregrine eyries to reduce the risk of nest failure due to disturbance. Some areas that manage rock climbing cliffs with nesting peregrines follow this recommendation, although there is apparently variation between areas (Chrobak 2018). Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) summarized expert opinion that indicated that peregrines exhibited active disturbance at a median of 125 meters during incubation, and 225 meters during chick rearing. However, several of the researchers and managers most involved in and responsible for the recovery of peregrine populations both in North America and in Europe make the point that peregrines will often tolerate considerable disturbance that is not in the immediate vicinity of the eyrie.

Derrick Ratcliffe, who was instrumental in identifying the DDT/DDE connection to eggshell thinning and subsequent reproductive failure in British peregrines, stated : “Where large numbers of fell walkers pass close to small cliffs, they create unacceptable intrusion, and the bigger crag-nesting birds then quit. But where the crags are large and the nesting ledges safe, almost any amount of casual disturbance will be endured by birds such as peregrines and ravens. Rock climbing has so increased in popularity that in the more accessible districts many peregrine cliffs are subject to this very direct disturbance, but even this close intrusion has adverse effects only in certain places, again mainly where the crags are small. In districts with many large cliffs the peregrines usually adapt in one way or another”. (Ratcliffe 1993).

The late Tom Cade, founder and president/chairman of the Peregrine Fund stated: “Rock climbing increased greatly in popularity during the years in which peregrines were relatively scarce or absent. Consequently, as peregrine numbers increase, falcons are re-inhabiting cliffs that have in the interim become favorite climbing routes. Rock climbing is serious if it occurs in close proximity to the nest. Unlike most forms of disturbance caused by recreationalists such as hikers and picknickers, a climbing party may be on the rock face all day or even a number of days, and could cause nest failure if the peregrines are disturbed by the activity. However, it must be borne in mind that in many cases the peregrines have chosen to reoccupy a cliff that is already being climbed, and many pairs do not seem disturbed by climbing that does not directly approach the nest. For example, El Capitan in Yosemite Valley has hosted a pair of peregrines since 1978. This rock face undergoes tremendous climbing pressure throughout the nesting season, except in an area of seasonal closure around the actual eyrie. The peregrines are not at all disturbed by climbers on other portions of the face where there can be five to ten or more parties at a time”. (Cade et al. 1996).

Yosemite National Park has the highest density of nesting peregrines in the Sierra Nevada, and manages climbing on other cliffs with nesting peregrines. They do not necessarily close entire cliff faces, but only the routes in the vicinity of the eyrie. In some cases, if the eyrie is near the top of a tall cliff (as is typical with peregrines), Yosemite will keep the whole bottom portion of the nesting cliff open to climbing (Chrobak 2018).

There have been numerous demographic studies and other types of research and monitoring that required rappelling into peregrine eyries to band and measure nestlings, take blood samples, etc. Other studies have entailed clearing prey remains from active peregrine nesting ledges every three days to study food habits or conduct brood manipulation studies (summarized in Ruddock and Whitfield 2007). In addition, many of the early peregrine restoration efforts involved climbers rappelling into eyries to replace fragile, thin-shelled eggs with dummy eggs, and then later rappelling into the same eyries again to replace those dummy eggs with chicks hatched in incubators to increase the chance of successful fledging (Cade et al. 1996, Ratcliffe 1993). Although these direct invasions of the eyries resulted in temporarily agitated adults, actual eyrie abandonment and negative impacts to reproduction were rare. Ratcliffe (1993) stated “Peregrines do not readily desert their eggs and seldom do so as a result of people visiting their eyrie ledges.”

Cade et al. (1996) concluded: “Otherwise, historically the peregrine was known to be a remarkably adaptable and resilient species, able to survive most of the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” From the Eighteenth Century right into the early decades of the Twentieth Century, the peregrine was relentlessly persecuted by gamekeepers, gunhunters, egg and museum skin collectors, pigeon fanciers, and vandals of all sorts. These human enemies accounted for the destruction of many thousands of peregrines and their eggs and young in both Europe and North America, but the falcon populations of these continents remained little changed by these human causes of death. Breeding populations, reflected by the number of occupied eyries, changed little over spans of time measured in decades and centuries, except for localized regions where human uses of land reduced the abundance of prey below densities that can sustain nesting falcons or made specific eyries unacceptable.”

In their introduction, Cade et al. (1996) stated: “Once the breeding populations have reached environmental carrying capacity, and the “serviceable breeding locations”(SBLs, Hunt 1988) are all as serviceable as they can be made, monitoring and some regulation of human activities around eyries are all the management that should be necessary. We should remember that for centuries peregrines existed and occupied their traditional eyries year after year with no management at all and indeed, often in the face of heavy human persecution. Wherever they are tolerated and left alone, and are not incidentally poisoned by chemical pollutants in the environment, peregrines can survive and reproduce quite well in close association with human beings and their activities.”

Montana FWP currently allows falconry take of up to 10 young peregrine falcons every two years by Montana resident falconers, plus an additional bird by an out-of-state falconer. The take season is June 1 to August 31. Nestlings must be between 5 and 28 days old, and at least one nestling must be left in the eyrie. Fledglings may also be trapped “in the vicinity of the eyrie”. Falconry take is currently legal from any Bitterroot territory except Blodgett and Painted Rocks, where take is prohibited due to high value wildlife viewing opportunities. See:  https://fwp.mt.gov/buyandapply/commercialwildlifeandscientificpermits/falconry-and-nonresident-raptor-permits ). USFWS is currently assessing the “normalization” of falconry take for peregrines based on their conclusion that peregrine populations in the west have completely recovered. Normalization would mean that the state wildlife management agencies could remove any quotas on falconry take of peregrine falcons.

Objective

Maintain Bitterroot peregrine population levels at or near the carrying capacity of the habitat.

Methods

1.      The BNF (including willing cooperators) will continue to monitor Bitterroot peregrine territories in conjunction with the Montana Peregrine Institute (MPI), and will continue to provide any occupancy and productivity data gathered to MPI and to interested parties.

2.      No preemptive spring closures of large sections of cliff will be implemented. Peregrines have re-established territories in the Bitterroot in the presence of climbing, and have likely adjusted eyrie locations to avoid areas that are frequently climbed.

3.      If the BNF becomes aware of the actual location of an active eyrie through monitoring or reports from individual recreationists or groups, the BNF will work with climbing groups to alert the climbing community to the presence of the eyrie and request that climbers avoid using routes in the vicinity of the eyrie until the young have fledged. This procedure has worked well in the recent past when the BNF has contacted the Western Montana Climbers’ Coalition to request postings of alerts on websites and social media relevant to climbers.

Literature Cited

Cade, T.J., J.H. Enderson and J. Linthicum, eds. 1996. Guide to management of peregrine falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, ID.  http://assets.peregrinefund.org/docs/pdf/research-library/manuals/manual-eyrie-management.pdf 

Cade, T.J., J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White, eds. 1988. Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, ID. 949 pp.

Chrobak, U. 2018. Raptor closures are evolving, thanks to climbers. Outside Online.  https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/climbers-changing-outdated-raptor-closures-peregrine-falcon/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=onsiteshare 

Enderson, J.H., R.J. Oakleaf, R.R. Rogers and J.S. Sumner. 2012. Nesting performance of peregrine falcons in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 124(1): 127-132.

Enderson, J.H., G.R. Craig and W.A. Burnham. 1988. Status of peregrines in the Rocky Mountains and the Colorado Plateau. Chapter 12 in Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, ID

Hunt, W.G. 1988. The natural regulation of peregrine falcon populations. Chapter 63 in Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, ID

Montana Peregrine Institute (MPI) website:  https://www.montanaperegrine.org/ 

Newton, I. 1988. Population regulation in peregrines: an overview. Commentary on pp. 761-770 in Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery, ed. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander and C.M. White. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Boise, ID

Ratcliffe, D. 1993. The peregrine falcon. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA 92101. 454 pp.

Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3):634-638.

Ruddock, M. and D.P. Whitfield. 2007. A review of disturbance distances in selected bird species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. 181 pp.

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2020. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.  https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.perfal.01 

Rock features may be altered through climbing-related activities. Alterations to the cliff face or vegetation can damage critical habitat for many cliff dwelling species who depend on these areas to live and raise their young.  The visual impact of shiny fixed anchors, chains, or other climbing gear can also detract from an area’s wild character.  

Of all the impacts identified, the use of permanent, fixed anchors has received the most attention by resource managers. Fixed anchors remain in place, often for long periods of time, and to some, reduce scenic and aesthetic values as well as the character of an area.  Sport climbing relies almost entirely on fixed hardware installation.  Unlike removable hardware associated with traditional climbing, fixed, permanent anchors can lead to increased use in an area. 

Chalk is sometimes used by climbers to improve their grip.  Chalk can also increase alkalinity and alter the chemical balance of the rock’s surface. This can impact micro flora, and fauna such as lichens, which various animals rely on as a food source.  Lichens are ecologically important as food, shelter, and nesting material for many animals who need cliff and rock face environments to survive.  Mountain goats, bighorn sheep, chipmunks, pikas, mice, and bats eat lichens or use them for insulation and in nest building.

Questions or Comments?  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

As climbing, and the Bitterroot Valley in general, becomes more popular the increase in visitation is more likely to have increased social impacts.  Forest visitors seeking solitude or a more primitive experience may also have their experience diminished.   As the popularity of climbing increases recreation sites that boast excellent climbing may contribute to a larger volume of users, crowding not only the crags but also trailhead parking and other recreational site infrastructure. Some examples of other social impacts include crowding, noise, litter, brightly colored equipment that contrasts with rock, shiny hardware (bolts, carabiners), and chalk.  

The improper disposal of human waste, especially at designated, highly used climbing or other recreational sites can pose significant problems.  Improperly disposed of waste can cause health problems, through direct or indirect contact with drinking water and the transmission of disease-causing pathogens from human feces. In these dry, rocky environments waste does not break down very readily and burying it may not be an option, packing out of waste is often the only option. 

Many of us love to bring our dogs on outdoor trips. Dogs love it too. However, dogs, if not trained or under the control of their owners, can have negative impacts on animals who depend on these areas to live. Barking and chasing wildlife are examples of stressors to wildlife (Rock Climbing – LNT – Center for Outdoor Ethics, Access Fund).  Dog feces is unsightly, smelly, and can be a problem under foot. Dogs are known to be carriers of Giardia. (Access Fund. Climbing Management – A Guide to Climbing Issues and the Development of a Climbing Management Plan. Page 31, 2008).

Social media is increasingly used by recreationists of all types to promote areas and highlight their adventures. Climbing is no exception.  “There is little question that social media plays a role in the promotion of various outdoor locations, and in some cases has led to significant resource and social impacts” (Leave No Trace- Center for Outdoor Ethics, Website, 5-20-19). Factors such as the publication of information about a relatively unknown climbing site may lead to a sharp rise in climber numbers. 

When areas are promoted, increased use occurs. For many forest visitors, social media promotion and the subsequent increased use takes away from the sense of adventure and exploration many hope to find.  Growth in numbers can indirectly result in the creation of non-system trails, soil and vegetation damage, waste accumulation and crowding.

Questions or Comments?  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

Americans treasure wild lands and each visitor to the Bitterroot NF is enriched by the experience of expansive, remote, truly wild country. In recognition of these unique lands, the Bitterroot manages portions of the forest as Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Recommended Wilderness. In fact, the Bitterroot NF has a Congressionally mandated responsibility to preserve wilderness character in three designated Wilderness Areas and two Wilderness Study Areas along with similar guidance for other wild lands recommended for wilderness designation. These responsibilities will need to be considered when developing this Climbing Management Plan. Important components of these responsibilities include minimizing human development and maximizing opportunities for recreation that is dependent on self-reliance and acceptance of risk.

Since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, approximately 47% of the Bitterroot National Forest has been designated wilderness, including portions of the Anaconda-Pintler (41,000 acres), Selway-Bitterroot (508,000 acres), and the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness areas (194,000 acres). While the majority of climbing on the Bitterroot National Forest occurs outside of designated Wilderness, some limited climbing does occur in Wilderness, particularly in Roaring Lion . Management of climbing in Wilderness will take into account unique responsibilities the Forest Service must fulfill in these areas.

The philosophical principle that guides management of wilderness areas, regardless of which agency administers them, is found in Section 4(b) of the Act which states that, while the agency administers the area for public purposes (recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use), the agency must preserve its wilderness character. Historical records show the drafters believed that wilderness character consists of a unique combination of tangible and intangible components. Howard Zahniser, primary author of the Wilderness Act, wrote that “to know the wilderness is to know a profound humility, to recognize one’s littleness, to sense dependence and interdependence, indebtedness, and responsibility.”

What exactly is wilderness character? The Definition of Wilderness, Section 2(c) in the 1964 Wilderness Act focuses on four tangible qualities: Untrammeled (not hindered or restricted and free from modern human control or manipulation); Natural (conditions are substantially free from the effects of modern civilization); Undeveloped (retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation and where man is a visitor who does not remain); and with Opportunities for Solitude or a Primitive and Unconfined Type of Recreation. This Climbing Management Plan will need to address these elements of wilderness character when providing guidance for all climbing that occurs in Wilderness areas, Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas.

Some wilderness managers have expressed concern that the use of fixed safety anchors may not be consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act, and that their use should be prohibited. In 1996 the Sawtooth National Forest supervisor reviewed the Forest policy and decided that, while existing bolts/anchors would be maintained and replaced as needed, no additional fixed anchors/bolts would be permitted in the Sawtooth Wilderness thereby making the Forest Service the first land management agency to prohibit the use of bolts as fixed anchors.  Under the Wilderness Act, permanent installations for other than administrative purposes are prohibited in designated wilderness areas (Public Law 88-577, Sec. 4 (c)), with the ensuing controversy centered around whether or not bolts should be classed as “installations” or “necessary safety precautions”.   

 This decision was appealed by both the Access Fund, a climbing advocacy group, and Wilderness Watch, a conservation group focused on wilderness management.  The former feeling that the rule was too restrictive and the latter feeling that existing anchors needed to be removed.   

 In 1998, it was decided that the Forest Service would initiate  negotiated rulemaking  to clarify national policy around permanent fixed anchors for rock climbing in wilderness areas. The decision meant that metal bolts would remain legal in national forest wilderness areas (except for the Sawtooth Wilderness) for up to 1 year pending final policy.   

The key issues to be considered for negotiation were:  

• What type of rock climbing-related equipment should be allowed in wilderness areas and under what circumstances should certain types of equipment be allowed. 
• What process should be used to decide whether the insertion or removal of a fixed anchor should take place and who should be party to the decision.
• Who should be responsible for the insertion and removal of fixed anchors.
• What is the impact on the Forest Service and the climbing industry if the agency assumes an active role in regulating use, insertion, and removal of fixed anchors

 In 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture established a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop recommendations for a proposed rule regarding the use, insertion, and removal of fixed anchors placed by recreational rock climbers in congressionally designated wilderness areas administered by the Forest Service. This committee, called the Fixed Anchors in Wilderness Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee, included 23 people representing a cross section of interests with a definable stake in the outcome of the proposed rule (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 111, June 8, 2000). Four meetings were held between June 27 and September 19, 2000 but, unfortunately, the issue proved to be too contentious to resolve to a final policy decision.   It was , however, recommended that where rock climbing and the use or potential use of fixed anchors is applicable, units should prepare climbing management plans to address resource issues and that these plans need to be completed with full public involvement. 

This has led to a good deal of variety in management policies across the National Forest System, with some locations restricting the placement of fixed anchors (e.g., Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho) and others where new bolts are permitted subject to limits on the number of climbing routes in a given area (e.g., Mount Charleston Wilderness, Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada).   

Interestingly, in the most recent Federal Omnibus budget bill passed in December of 2020 there is language indicating that Congress desires that the Forest Service will resolve this issue in a timely manner.

Questions or Comments?  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

As you can see there are a myriad of issues to consider when building a comprehensive CMP. Some of the issues are specific only to climbing (i.e., installation of permanent fixed hardware) and others are more general but where climbing development might contribute to the issue (i.e., crowding at trailheads from increased use due to route development). All of them, though, warrant consideration in a CMP either through restrictions, mitigation measures, required practices, recommendations, or simply education. Our ask from you is two things. 

First, which of the issues that we have identified here do you think needs to be addressed in a CMP and have we left anything out? Second, what would be your recommendation for management actions, education, etc. for handling the issue in a CMP? Keeping in mind that the recommendation could likely change based on the area of the Forest (i.e., ROS category) we are dealing with. 

The issues and recommendations that we receive will form the basis for future public engagement through meetings to discuss the individual issues/recommendations prior to adoption into the CMP. These meetings will be virtual to facilitate participation by a broad audience and will be held monthly starting in May 2021. In each meeting we will address 2-3 issues and we will work through the issues together. Once meetings are scheduled the information for each meeting will be posted here on the Story Map as well as available through a press release from the Bitterroot National Forest. 

We want to hear your thoughts, and you don’t even have to leave home!

Please submit comments, questions, or suggestions by email at  sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

The intent of the Bitterroot National Forest Climbing Management Plan Story Map is to share information and collaborate with those who are interested in participating in the development of the Climbing Management Plan. We recognize that while issues have been identified here, we may not have identified them all.

If you have questions, concerns, comments, or would like to coordinate an event,  Email us at sm.fs.brfclimbing@usda.gov .

Future CMP Meetings: July 27th, 2022.

Please join the Bitterroot National Forest in person meeting that will initiate the beginning stages in the development of a forest Climbing Management Plan. In addition to being an opportunity to learn about and participate in the process of the development of the Plan, this meeting will:

• Introduce a framework for working together to understand critical issues, explore solutions, and provide recommended elements of a future Climbing Management Plan.

• Engage in a discussion around a critical issue (e.g., considerations around impacts to raptors) to pilot test the proposed framework.

• Seek feedback on the process with the aim of providing meaningful engagement opportunities to all 

Below we have listed a number of resources that will be helpful in educating yourself on the issue. We have provided links to a number of existing CMPs around the country so that you can see how other places have chosen to handle these issues. There are also links to an outdoor recreation education organization (Leave No Trace), a national climbing advocacy group (the Access Fund), and to various climbing definitions on Wikipedia.  

 2008 & 2015 Rumney Rocks, White Mountain National Forest  

 2015 South Platte Area, Pike National Forest  

2005 New River Gorge National Park (Unavailable online)

 2015 Sequoia and Kings Canyon (Wilderness) 

 2001 Rocky Mountain National Park (Wilderness) 

 2011 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (Wilderness) 

 2012 Shenandoah National Park 

 2019 North Carolina State Parks Rock Climbing Management Guidelines 

 2016 Jefferson County, Colorado Countywide Guidelines 

 2016 Castle Rocks State Park, Idaho 

 2008 Pennsylvania State Lands 

 2011 Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (Wilderness 

  2019 North Carolina State Parks Rock Climbing Management Guidelines 

 Jefferson County, Colorado 

 Lory State Park, Colorado 

 Yosemite National Park 

 Arches National Park 

 Climbing 

 Mountaineering 

 Clean Climbing 

 Aid Climbing 

 Traditional Climbing 

 Sport Climbing