Photo of Robert Mesta - from internet
[Note that this is a long document. It is done chronologically and spans approximately six months in time. If you have a short attention span, I would recommend starting at the end and working forward]
My involvement with the Peregrine Falcon closures began with e-mail from a British climber. He was coming to the U.S. in April 2008 and was climbing at J-Tree with a colleague. He was looking for somewhere to climb in Arizona, preferably with multi-pitch climbs. I returned his e-mail, recommending Cochise Stronghold - completely forgetting about the Falcon closures. Anyway, after he corrected my oversight, I told him that indeed there were Falcon closures and I would look into it further.
I had tracked the Falcon closures in the past and they had been fairly static. However in May 2006, John Hayes had reported on the Mountain Project website that there had been a change in the Peregrine Falcon closures in the Stronghold:
|
To: All Southern Arizona Climbers
Bob Kerry, Diane Vetter, and I met with AZ Fish and Game and the NFS in March and April to discuss modifying the raptor closure policy in the Cochise Stronghold. I'm happy to report that we were successful and the access restrictions will be rolled back--starting this year. Here is what was agreed to: 1) Reopening day access to the entire Stronghold area during raptor breeding season. My understanding is that there will be no setback from any of the domes. Overnight camping will not be allowed without a special permit during nesting season. (This wasn't considered a big deal even though it's hard to understand why Fish and Game insisted on this restriction. We'll work on this next year.) 2) The springtime climbing closure will be restricted to three areas; the Rockfellow group, Square Top Dome, and Cochise Dome. Raptor nesting activity will be monitored and areas reopened as early as possible once no nesting activity is confirmed. Other areas outside this group may be closed if raptor nesting activity becomes established. I want everyone to understand that in order to negotiate on behalf of the climbing community, we had to argue that climbers have been responsible and will continue to observe the closure orders. Our ability to continue to work to get the restrictions lifted further will depend heavily on the cooperation of the climbing community. Consequently, I am asking all climbers to strictly observe the closure rules in the Cochise Stronghold so that we can negotiate in good faith next year. Originally we were told that the closure would not be modified until 2007, so we were surprised when we received the NFS notice that I've attached at the end of this post. It looks like good news since only the Rockfellow group will be affected this year.
John Hayes ============================================== Reference Rockfellow Dome Park (aka Cochise Stronghold) Closure, Dragoon Mountains, Coronado National Forest As a result of dedicated, on-site monitoring by the Southern Arizona Climbers Coalition & current monitoring results, please be advised that the Rockfellow Dome Park Closure, Coronado National Forest Special Closure Order 05-189, dated 3/18/02, has been amended as follows: Effective May 5, 2006 through June 30, 2006, Special Closure Order 05-189, dated March 18, 2002, is hereby temporarily modified as follows: All persons are permitted access into or through Rockfellow Dome Park, which includes all existing rock climbing sites and/or domes (i.e. Cochise Dome aka. What's My Line Dome and Waterfall Dome) in Township 17, Range 23 East, West Section 26 except as follows: Being upon any part of the Rockfellow Dome Complex/Group which includes all sites/features from End Pinnacle, Chay Desa Tsay, Rockfellow Dome to Bastion Towers by rock climbing or any other means of access, is prohibited through June 30, 2006; and Access into the Rockfellow Dome Park area is permitted only during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset); No over-night camping is permitted during the closure period.
Gary Helbing |
There had been some significant in-roads into getting some areas open to climbing. Prior to 2006, Waterfall dome had been closed. Also, the start of the closures had been rolled back two weeks from February 15 to March 1. An important thing to note is that, according to Gary Helbing, the Douglas district biologist, the change came "as a result of dedicated, on-site monitoring by the Southern Arizona Climbers Coalition & current monitoring results."
Gary Helbing also said that the closure order was temporarily modified and was "effective May 5, 2006 through June 30, 2006." Since the closure was temporary, I wanted to hear the current closure status directly from the Coronado National Forest. I was fortunate that after a couple of calls I was finally able to talk with Tom Skinner of the Forest Service. He sent me a hard copy of the Douglas district closure order which I scanned and made available on the website:
Cochise Stronghold Closure Order
After receiving the letter, there was an exchange of e-mails between Tom and myself regarding the closures.
On October 14, 2007 I sent Tom the following e-mail:
|
Tom,
Thanks for the info on the falcon closures in the Stronghold. I put my write-up at: http://www.climbaz.com/features/closures/closures.html I had several questions about the closures. First, is there some sort of plan for the closures in the future? As I understand it, the Peregrine Falcon is no longer an endangered species. Is the plan to keep the two areas closed over an extended period of time or is there a plan to open these areas. The Rockfellow group is one of the finest formations for climbing in southern Arizona and if possible, I would like to see it open all year. Secondly, on the document that you sent me, it mentions that climbing can be done in the closed areas with a permit. I haven't heard of the permit concept in regard to closed areas and I was wondering how it works. Can climbers obtain permits and if so, how do they do it? Also, it seems that I receive different answers regarding the closures from whomever I talk with at the Forest Service - so I would like to understand who you are and what is your responsibility. As I understand it, from the woman I talked with on the phone, you supervise the district ranger and the biologist for the Douglas District of the Coronado National Forest. Is this correct? Are they responsible for decisions regarding falcon closures in the Stronghold or is that your responsibility? Who makes the closure decisions and how are the decisions are made? Anyway, thanks for the info, - Bob |
On October 29, 2007, I received the following reply from Tom:
|
Bob, you are correct, the American Peregrine Falcon is no longer a
Federally listed species, but it is still a sensitive species, and
we need to manage for it, so the plan is to continue with the closure order.
Generally, any exemptions to the closure relate to emergency needs, usually
associated with a safety, fire suppression or law enforcement issue.
We do appreciate your recognition of Rockfellow Dome as one of the finest formations for climbing in Southern Arizona. When the closure was first put into effect many years ago, we had meetings with climbing and access groups that included persons from out of state who highlighted the fact that climbers regularly came down to Arizona from northern climates just to recreate in this area. We reviewed our approach with Arizona Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in addition to the climbing groups, and recognized the need to balance what are sometimes conflicting uses of the area. It has not been easy. But we do believe our current approach of monitoring the area for use, and making possible modifications in the closure depending upon our findings, has helped - thanks in great part due to work done by the Southern Arizona Climbers' Coalition. As far as our organization's structure, the Forest Supervisor is the top line officer on the Forest, and she signs the closure orders. I am on her staff, and work with the districts across the Forest to develop and implement our program of work. We have five ranger districts on the Forest, and the top line officer on each district is the District Ranger, who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor. On the Douglas District, Bill Edwards is the newly selected District Ranger. Just like the Forest Supervisor, he, too, has district staff officers, including a district biologist (the new person to fill that position is due to arrive soon). I do coordinate with the district ranger and district biologist on wildlife, fish and rare plant activities and programs of work, but, no, I do not supervise anyone on the Douglas Ranger District. We appreciate your interest in the area, and will try to keep you informed of any changes in the closure order.
Tom Skinner |
Later that day, I sent Tom another e-mail.
|
Tom, Thanks for your explanation and reply. I understand why the Peregrine Falcon Closures were originally created and respect and applaud the conservation efforts that put the closures in place. As with several species in the U.S., the effort to restore the Peregrine Falcon should be viewed as a great success. I come from Wyoming where at one point in time the Pronghorn Antelope was an endangered species. Through conservation efforts, they are now nearly as plentiful as rabbits. From my limited perspective, it appears that there comes a time when the conservation efforts are successful and a given endangered species no longer requires protection. I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether the Peregrine Falcon still needs protection or not, but I do not want to see the Falcon Closures become "status quo". Things change with time. There is going to be a time when the Peregrine Falcon no longer needs any protection. I do not want to see the closures linger for years and years once this time has arrived. I am afraid that from a Forest Service point of view, it may be easier to keep the closures than it is to continually question their existence over time. Anyway, thank you for responding to my questions, - Bob |
On October 31, 2007, I received Tom's reply:
|
Good point, Bob. With the delisting of the peregrine falcon, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed up with a monitoring plan. I believe it calls for monitoring occupancy of a number of selected sites every three years, over a period of fifteen years, totaling 5 years of actual monitoring. I expect to hear from the Service about the results of their monitoring and the status of the falcons. We just received (September 21, 2007) an update of the Forest Service's sensitive species list from our Regional Office. It notes the falcon as "recently de-listed by FWS; trends and status are still under post listing review. The species is also on the FWS Birds of Conservation Concern National Priority list", and continues to be included on our sensitive species list. As staffing and funding allow, we will review our closure orders, preferably annually. I agree that closures should not be continued if not merited, especially when they impact people's opportunities to enjoy and benefit from what the Forest has to offer.
Tom Skinner |
The e-mail exchange with Tom quieted down over the next month. On December 14, 2007, I received another e-mail from Tom:
|
Bob, a short update here. I spoke with the F&WS species lead about the Falcon's delisting and the monitoring plan, which notes, "surveys will be conducted every three years for a total of five surveys" for a 13-year monitoring program post-delisting. If we can find a date and time next month that would be convenient for you and F&WS and the non-game biologist from AZ Game and Fish to get together to discuss the situation, would you be interested?
Tom Skinner |
On Friday morning, January 25th, 2008, at 9:00 am, I met with Tom Skinner and several people associated with the Falcon closures. There was Robert Mesta who was with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, Josh Taiz, the district biologist for the Catalina district of the Coronado National Forest, Glenn Klingler, the new district biologist for the Douglas district of the Coronado National Forest, and Tim Snow, the non-game biologist for the Arizona Game and Fish. Diane Vetter was invited to the meeting but couldn't attend because of work. I was the only non-government person at the meeting.
Josh Taiz opened the meeting by explaining to Glen Klingler (who is new to the area), the importance of climbing on Mt. Lemmon. Josh said that there were over 1800 climbs on Mt. Lemmon and I got the sense that there was some pride in the climbing activities on the mountain.
Robert Mesta was the main speaker at the meeting and he went through the status of the Peregrine Falcon in Arizona. There are five areas in the state where there are Falcon closures: one in the Prescott National Forest, two in the Coconino National Forest and two in the Coronado National Forest.
In 1999, the Peregrine Falcon was de-listed from the endangered species list. The Peregrine Falcon has made a dramatic recovery, primarily due to the banning of DDT and the captive breeding and release programs. Once a species has been de-listed, they must be monitored for at least five years in order to determine the long-term trend of the species. The five years do not have to be concurrent years and for the Peregrine Falcon, they are monitoring the birds nationally every three years over a fifteen-year span. The years for monitoring the Falcons are 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015. Thus, there have been two years of monitoring and the next year will be in 2009.
Two other Acts besides the Endangered Species Act also cover the Peregrine Falcon: the Migratory Bird Act and the Arizona Sensitive Species Act. The Arizona Sensitive Species Act allows the Arizona Game and Fish and the National Forest to take preventative action if it is felt that a species is heading towards the Federal Endangered Species List. Basically, what this means is that even though the Peregrine Falcon has been de-listed and even if the Federal monitoring period is over, the Arizona Game and Fish and the National Forest can still take preventative action if they feel that the Peregrine Falcon is threatened.
For the Peregrine Falcon, there are three phases that are protected: courtship, nesting, and fledgling. Usually in March, the birds arrive and the courtship begins around the middle of the month. Tim Snow recommended that closure dates not be moved past March 15th. Because there are three phases of Peregrine Falcon nesting, the biologists did not feel that they could partially open any areas before May 15 based up monitoring. It would take that long before the birds were nesting and the active nesting sites could be identified. For the Stronghold, this was considered to be too late in the season to be of interest to climbers. The closures on Barnum Rock are due to both Peregrine Falcons and the Mexican Spotted Owl.
Josh was open to new ideas about the closures. He was open to the concept that climbers could be self-policing and that useful information could be gained through climber recon. He did express his personal opinion that he did not want to see any climbers near any nesting raptors - not just Peregrine Falcons. They also thought that climbers could be of use in spotting Falcon poachers. Evidently, in Europe, Peregrine Falcons are in high demand and can be sold for as much as $250,000. They felt that climbers could easily identify non-climber types that might be interested in poaching.
One of the issues that came up late in the meeting was what to do if new nesting areas were identified. Tom mentioned that nesting Peregrine Falcons had been identified on Wasteland Dome and he asked Robert what he recommended. Robert recommended the birds be monitored but not to close the area.
At the end of the meeting, Tom was asking about getting a group together for Falcon monitoring on Rockfellow Dome - which ultimately occurred on the weekend of March 13. Diane Vetter was invited and considered a key individual for the monitoring. I was invited as well but did not attend because I was out of town on business.
I did not go into the meeting with any grand designs. My main purpose was to hear what the Forest Service had to say and to try not to compromise any successes that might have been made in getting areas open in the Stronghold.
My main message to the Forest Service was that communication is key. I expressed my frustration at calling the Forest Service and not getting accurate information on the closures. How can you have closures if you do not provide accurate information about when, where, and what the closures are? I have never known what the penalties for climbing in a closed area was until Josh photocopied the closure orders.
I also expressed the viewpoint that they needed to communicate with the climbing community via a meeting. Climbers should be given the opportunity to hear about the closures and be given the chance to ask questions and give feedback to the Forest Service.
I have repeatedly called the Forest Service over the years and repeatedly, I get a different answer as to what the closures are. After Tom sent me the closure order for the Stronghold, I wanted to get the closure orders for Mt. Lemmon and Josh photocopied them for me after the meeting:
Closures on Mt. Lemmon and Cochise Stronghold
There are many interesting things to note about the Mt. Lemmon closure orders. The main thing of interest is the Mt. Lemmon closures have not been changed since 1995. There has been no revision of the orders nor has there been any change in the last 13 years. The closure on Rappel Rock has been in place, unchanged, since 1991.
Another thing of interest (according to Diane Vetter) is that Wheeler Wall should not be closed - it should be Branching Out Crag. The Access Fund and Coronado National Forest websites list Branching-Out Crag as being closed and Wheeler Wall as being open. This is not the case. The closure order is for the Wheeler Wall.
Access Fund Webpage for Arizona
Coronado National Forest Webpage on the Mt. Lemmon Closures
When compared to Mt. Lemmon, there has been progress in the Stronghold regarding the closures. The Squaretop Domes and Waterfall domes are currently open. John Hayes' post on the Mountain Project website mentions the Southern Arizona Climber's Coalition as well as Diane Vetter as one of the three people involved in getting these areas open. Conversely, Tom Skinner gave Diane a great deal of credit for her involvement in the Falcon monitoring that was going on in the Stronghold. I did not want to go forward with an article for the website without talking with Diane.
Diane works irregular hours and it took several calls to contact her. During one of the first phone mail exchanges, Diane identified herself as the leader of the Southern Arizona Climbers Coalition. I didn't really know anything about the Southern Arizona Climbers Coalition and I was curious about it as well as getting her viewpoint on the Falcon closures.
When I finally got in contact with her, I first asked her about the Falcon monitoring that was going on this year on March 13th. She said it was the first monitoring trip and that typically, there were four or five trips per year. This had been going on for about ten years - since about 1998. She mentioned that the Southern Arizona Climber's Coalition had been involved for nearly 15 years and the climber's coalition had been involved with the early discussions between the Forest Service, the Access Fund and the local climbing community.
I asked her about her position in the Southern Arizona Climber's Coalition and she said that she had inherited the job as the leader. She talked about the involvement of the climber's coalition in the Mt. Lemmon highway project and how they had worked with the Forest service to identify climbing areas that should be preserved. This included the areas around Windy Point and Chimney Rock.
She talked about the closures at the Rockfellow group, about its freestanding nature. It wouldn't be possible to pinpoint the location of nesting Falcons on the Rockfellow group until mid-May or early June. At that time, there was no point in opening the area because there would be no climbing due to the heat.
I asked her about Mt. Lemmon - why there weren't there any monitoring activities going on. She said that there was a lot of attention nation-wide on the stronghold but there wasn't nearly the attention on Mt. Lemmon. Mt. Lemmon was so large that climbers could work around the closures by climbing in other areas. I pointed out that the summit crags are the source of many multi-pitch climbs on Mt. Lemmon and that the closures are typically lifted during the monsoon season.
I mentioned to Diane that I didn't think that any self-respecting climber wanted to climb near nesting birds - that if I saw a big bird nest on a climb, I didn't think much of the climb. She said that nesting Peregrine falcons do not build a physical nest; they just lay their eggs on the rock. This is why their nests are so sensitive. The eggs could be lying on a ledge or in one of the Jacuzzis at the top of a dome. There wouldn't be a nest to identify the location of the eggs or to signal a climber that nesting birds were in the area.
At the January 25th meeting, there wasn't a lot of science. There were some very good discussions on the Falcons, but I didn't see any plots or charts or any scientific information regarding the Falcons. I also didn't get a good sense that there were any goals regarding the Falcon closures themselves.
With the monitoring activity that is going on in the Stronghold, it did look like areas could be open if there were no Falcons were identified in the area. However, it didn't look like any of the government biologists or Diane thought that it was reasonable to be climbing in an area that had nesting Falcons.
As the final phase of doing this report, I wanted to see some Peregrine Falcon science. I started with asking Robert Mesta if any data was available on the 2003 and 2006 Falcon monitoring. I sent Robert the following e-mail:
|
Robert, My name is Bob Hutchins. I am the rock climber that attended the January 25th meeting of Peregrine Falcons at Sabino Canyon. I enjoyed your talk very much and appreciate your time in explaining the situation with the Peregrine Falcon. In the meeting, you mentioned that the Peregrine Falcons were monitored nationally in 2003 and 2006. Is there a report available summarizing the results of this monitoring activity? If so, do you know how I could get a copy of it? Thanks, Bob |
Robert sent me the Arizona Game and Fish results for the 2006 monitoring:
2006 Falcon Nest Site Monitoring in Arizona by the Arizona Game and Fish
This document contains a lot of data on the 2006 monitoring in Arizona, but not much more. The main thing I learned from the document was the Arizona did not participate in the 2003 falcon monitoring (this report was the first one from Arizona). Without the 2003 data, it is tough to get much information about Peregrine Falcon population trends from this report. Considering the fact that some of the information I requested was generally available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service website.
It didn't look like it was going to be easy to get a lot of information from Robert. I wanted to open a dialog with him, but his responses were terse and it didn't appear to me that he wanted to open a dialog. Rather than bugging Robert further, I went to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service website and poked around. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service website contains a gold mine of information on the Peregrine Falcon:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Website on the Peregrine Falcons
The story of the Peregrine Falcon is an incredible story. It is well summarized in this document:
According to this document, Peregrine Falcons have never been very abundant. Studies in the 1930s and 1940s indicate that there were about 500 pairs of breeding birds in the eastern United States and about 1000 pairs of breeding birds in the West and Mexico. Beginning in the late 1940s, there was a severe decline in bird populations and the Peregrine Falcon was virtually eliminated from the eastern United States. Populations in the west were reduced by 80 to 90% by the mid-1970s.
Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center near Laurel, Maryland investigated the decline. They found unusually high concentrations of DDT and its breakdown product DDE in Peregrine Falcons. The chemicals interfered with eggshell formation. Falcons laid eggs with shells so thin they often broke or otherwise failed to hatch.
In 1970, the Peregrine Falcon was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. In 1972, under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA banned DDT for most uses in the U.S.
Scientists at Cornell University successfully bred and raised peregrine falcons. Under a cooperative effort from many groups, more than 6,000 American Peregrine Falcons have been released since 1974. This is an incredible number of birds and represents an enormous effort. Keep in mind that the estimated that the population of the Peregrine Falcons before DDT was approximately 1500 pairs in the continental U.S.
With the banning of DDT and the captive breeding and release programs, the Peregrine Falcon made an amazing comeback. In August 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the American Peregrine Falcon from the list of endangered and threatened species. "Results from 2003 show the population continuing to climb, and was estimated at about 3000 breeding pairs in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity were all at levels considered normal for healthy peregrine falcon populations."
With continued browsing, I found the U.S. Fish and Wildlife report on the 2003 monitoring:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service report on the 2003 Peregrine Falcon Monitoring
This is an exhaustive report on the status of the Peregrine Falcon populations in the U.S. It contains almost everything you want to know about the Peregrine Falcon populations in the U.S. The information that I found most useful was at the top of page 6 - the Peregrine Falcon population in 2003 was estimated at 1435 pairs. There are an estimated 3005 pairs of Peregrine Falcons in North America with 1000 pairs in Alaska, 170 pairs in Mexico, and 400 pairs in Canada. This leaves 1435 pairs in the continental U.S.
The conclusion of this report is that, "… the data collected in 2003 show territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity of Peregrine Falcons to be at healthy levels in every monitoring region, and show numbers of pairs continuing to increase across the United States."
The final report that I found interesting is the Peregrine Falcon monitoring plan (Robert Mesta is a co-author):
2003 Peregrine Falcon PlanThis is a gigantic, 60 page document describing the Peregrine Falcon monitoring plan. The data that I found most interesting was on page 27. It contained the Peregrine Falcon population trends in the U.S. from 1980 to 2002.
I took a further look at the data from this figure. I removed the 2002 data point which is an estimate, and replaced it with the data from the 2003 report. The primary goal is to estimate the 2009 Peregrine Falcon population. I applied linear regression to the data set and derived a straight-line approximation for the Peregrine Falcon population over time. The raw data and the approximation are shown in the plot below:
Note that the historical falcon levels are shown as the horizontal red dotted line (1450). Actual data is plotted as red diamonds and the data obtained via linear regression is shown in blue.
The slope of the line fitted to the data is 59.018 pairs/year. This means that the number of nesting pairs of Peregrine Falcons has been increasing by approximately 60 pairs of birds per year since 1980. The y-intercept is -116819.
Using this data, the estimate for the 2009 Peregrine Falcon population is 1747. This is 20% greater than the historical levels. The Peregrine Falcon population crossed the historical levels in about 2004.
The trend seems very clear over the span of measured data, however, an exponential curve might be a better fit to the data rather than a linear approximation. With an exponential curve fit, the estimated number of pairs of falcons in 2009 would even be greater than 1747. Another thing to note is that the effect of the captive breeding and release programs is unclear. It sounds like most captive breeding and release programs have been stopped. This might cause the slope of the line to decrease. But even with decreased slope, the falcon population should be greater than historical levels in 2009.
The story of the Peregrine Falcon is an incredible story of wildlife biology and conservation. An enormous amount of work and science went into the restoration of the Peregrine Falcon populations to their historical levels.
The key element in this story is time. Peregrine Falcon populations were fairly low when the closures were instituted on Mt. Lemmon and in the stronghold. In 1991, when the first closures went into place, the number of pairs of Peregrine Falcons was about 685 in the continental U.S. This was less than ½ the historical levels of the Peregrine Falcon before DDT. One could make a strong argument that the closures were necessary at that time. Since that time, the falcon population has increased at a rate of about 60 pairs of birds per year with a net increase of almost 1000 pairs of birds in the 17 years since the first closures went into effect.
The Peregrine Falcon population is healthy and has returned to its historical levels. In fact, in 2009, the number of birds should be approximately 20% greater than the historical levels. Thus, my recommendation is that all climbing areas in the U.S. which are presently closed for nesting Peregrine Falcons, should be opened after the existing closures expire this year. The population of Peregrine Falcons is healthy and there is no reason to maintain the closures. Climbers do not present a threat to the Peregrine Falcon population - the threat is DDT.
- Bob