Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Plan.pdf

Monitoring Recovered Species After Delisting--American Peregrine Falcon

Monitoring Plan

OMB: 1018-0101

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Monitoring Plan for the
American Peregrine Falcon
A Species Recovered Under the
Endangered Species Act

Cover Photo: Peregrine falcon chick, Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Photo by Craig
Koppie, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Monitoring Plan for the
American Peregrine Falcon
A Species Recovered Under the
Endangered Species Act
December 2003

The Authors
This plan was written by Michael Green, Robert Mesta, Marie Morin, Michael
Amaral, Robert Currie, Phil Delphey, Rob Hazlewood, Kathy Hollar, Mary Klee,
Angela Matz, Martin Miller, and Ted Swem (Appendix A).

Contact
Address questions about the monitoring plan to Michael Green, National
Coordinator, American Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Team, USFWS, Division of
Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, 911 NE 11th Ave, Portland,
OR, 97232. [email protected]

Recommended Citation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring Plan for the American
Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds
and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp.

iii

Table of C ontents

ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS

BACKGROUND
1

A. The Current Situation with Environmental Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Peregrine Protections Under Other Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. The Delisting Monitoring Requirement of ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OBJECTIVE

IMPLEMENTATION

METHODS
7

A. Parameters and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. Monitoring Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

C. Frequency and Duration of Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

D. Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

E. Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

F. Territory Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

G. Monitoring Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

PEREGRINE STATUS AND MONITORING IN CANADA

PEREGRINE STATUS AND MONITORING IN MEXICO

CONTAMINANT MONITORING
15

A. Egg Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

B. Feather Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C. Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

D. Funding and Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

DATA EVALUATION
17

A. Review of Monitoring Data Relative to ‘Response Triggers’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

B. Response Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

REPORTS

FUNDING

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:

Authors, National and Regional Coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Reviewers and Cooperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

FWS Regions, Recovery Plan Regions, and Monitoring Plan Regions . . 37

FWS Region Territory Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Calculating Territory Occupancy and Nest Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Collecting, Preparing, and Shipping Egg and Feather Samples . . . . . . . . 45

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. FWS, Recovery, and Monitoring Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 2. Peregrine Population Growth, 1980-2002, in the Contiguous United States . 27

Figure G-1. Measuring Total Egg Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure G-2. Peregrine Falcon Egg Contaminants Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure G-3. Peregrine Falcon Feather Contaminants Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Ackno wledgm ents
This monitoring plan was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in
cooperation with State resource agencies, recovery team members, representatives from
each FWS Region, the Divisions of Migratory Birds, Endangered Species, and other
partners. Comments received on previous drafts strengthened this plan in several ways.
In particular, we acknowledge the statistical assistance of Bob Steidl, University of
Arizona, Tucson, and the International Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies for
their assistance distributing the plan for review by State resource agencies.
In preparation for writing this plan, monitoring data were solicited from individuals
nationwide (Appendix B). The FWS relied heavily on this information in formulating
this plan and will continue to rely on this network to achieve its objectives. Post-delisting
monitoring will be successful only through the same multi-partner cooperation through
which recovery was accomplished.

Background
The recovery of the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Peregrines)
following the species’ near total disappearance from much of the United States is a
remarkable story of cooperation among private and public institutions. Peregrine
populations were at their lowest in the 1960s and early 1970s, when Peregrines were
eliminated from the eastern United States and across the Midwest, and reduced to a few
hundred pairs at most in the western United States and Mexico. Populations in Canada
and Alaska were probably reduced by 70% or more (Kiff 1988, Enderson et al. 1995).
The Peregrine was listed as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16
U.S.C. §§ 1537-1544; see Mesta (1999) for a history of listing actions). Recovery plans
outlined the goals that were to be reached in four regions of the United States before the
Peregrine could be considered recovered (USFWS 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1991). Due to a
ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and to successful captive
breeding, rearing, and release of over 6,000 Peregrines, there are now over 2,000 pairs
breeding each year across the United States (White et al. 2002), more than 400 pairs in
Canada (U. Banasch, pers. commun. Feb. 7, 2003), and an estimated 170 pairs in Mexico
(Enderson et al. 1995); in addition there are probably as many unpaired “floaters” as
paired birds across their range (White et al. 2002). As a result of this comeback and
because other recovery goals such as estimates of productivity, thicker egg-shells, and
reduced levels of contaminants were nearly completely met in all recovery regions, the
Peregrine was removed from the FWS List of Threatened and Endangered Species on
August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46541, Mesta 1999). Population growth has continued since
delisting (FWS, unpubl. data).
A. The Current Situation with Environmental Contaminants
Local and regional data document the continued presence and effects of persistent
chemical compounds in North American Peregrines. Many studies have documented the
relationship between concentrations of DDE (a metabolite of DDT) and eggshell thinning
(Morse 1994, Steidl et al. 1991, Court et al. 1990, Hickey and Anderson 1968). A 20
year monitoring effort in Alaska suggests that mercury is currently at levels in Peregrines
that can affect reproduction, and may be increasing over time (Ambrose et al. 2000). In
Texas, mercury, selenium and perhaps DDE may be contributing to low productivity of
Peregrines in the Big Bend area (Mora et al. 2002). On the Channel Islands in California,
analyses of Peregrine eggs yielded notably high organochlorine residues and thin
eggshells in the early 1990s, the legacy of offshore DDT disposal during the 1940s; eggs
from six other sites in California and Oregon yielded about half the residue levels found
in eggs at the Channel Islands (Jarman 1994). On the eastern shore of Virginia and
Maryland, eggs collected had slightly elevated levels of DDE, dieldrin, and mercury,
which was associated with reproductive problems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).
In New Jersey, concentrations of mercury, DDE, and PCBs in Peregrine eggs were
theoretically sufficient to impair reproduction, but negative effects on eggshell thickness

and productivity were not apparent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection 1997).
In addition, all Peregrines that winter in countries still using DDT and other pesticides
may be at risk of accumulating contaminants from their avian prey (Banasch et al. 1992,
Johnstone et al. 1996), some of which return to nest in the north and are a potential source
of contaminants for both migratory and nonmigratory Peregrines (Fyfe et al. 1990). In
spite of these concerns, DDE residues in the blood taken from female Peregrines captured
between 1978 and 1994 during spring migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased below
levels that would affect reproduction (Henny et al. 1996). The 1997 North American
Regional Action Plan, which recommends that the United States, Canada, and Mexico
cooperate in a phased reduction in the use and distribution of DDT across the continent,
has been very successful in reducing DDT use in Mexico. It is hoped similar progress
can be made in other Latin American countries currently using this and other
bioaccumulating pesticides (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2002).
Thus, although Peregrines are still accumulating contaminants from their prey, the levels
are currently low enough to allow for successful reproduction and expansion of the
population. Nonetheless, the continual introduction of anthropogenic chemicals to the
environment far outpaces research on their effects on wildlife. Peregrines, as predators,
remain vulnerable to persistent environmental contaminants. In the final delisting rule,
we recognized the possible threat that environmental contaminants pose to the sustained
recovery of this species and stated we would include a contaminant monitoring
component in the post-delisting monitoring plan. This component is found in the
Contaminant Monitoring section below.
B. Peregrine Protections Under Other Laws
The delisting of Peregrines from ESA did not affect their protection under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The FWS has the legal authority and obligation to regulate
take of Peregrines under the MBTA. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and
directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds is allowed and to
adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take (16 U.S.C. § 704). The
MBTA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Parts 20 and 21) prohibit take (see
regulations for definition of take). Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.30 authorize the
issuance of permits to take, possess, transport and engage in commerce with raptors for
falconry and for propagation. Other regulations authorize the issuance of permits for
scientific collecting (50 CFR 21.23), special purposes such as rehabilitation or education
(50 CFR 21.27), and depredation (50 CFR 21.41). Permits are issued if certain criteria
are met, including a requirement that the issuance will not threaten a wildlife population
(50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). In addition, issuance of raptor propagation permits requires that
we consider whether suitable captive stock is available and whether wild stock is needed
to enhance the genetic variability of captive stock. Since delisting, there is renewed
interest in taking Peregrines for falconry. Thus, in cooperation with State wildlife

agencies, the FWS is analyzing the effects on Peregrine populations of taking wild
Peregrines for falconry, and developing guidelines for falconry take.
The delisting rule (Mesta 1999) discussed existing protections to Peregrines that continue
despite delisting under ESA, such as those offered by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136) for new and existing pesticide registration and use;
the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600); and the Federal Land
Management and Policy Act (43 U.S.C. 1701). Peregrines also are protected by State
laws, many of which continue to list the species as threatened or endangered. States may
have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife than Federal laws, including restrictions on
use for falconry (50 CFR 21.29(b)). Peregrines are also protected internationally by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). This treaty was established to prevent international trade that may be
detrimental to the survival of plants and animals. Peregrines were included in Appendix I
of CITES on July 1, 1975.
C. The Delisting Monitoring Requirement of ESA
Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
...implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively
for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered
to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act [the ESA]
are no longer necessary... .
In keeping with this mandate, the FWS developed this plan in cooperation with State
wildlife or natural resource agencies (States), recovery team members, and other
cooperators. It has received extensive review by independent experts. A 30-day public
comment period was opened with the publication of a Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register on July 31, 2001 (66 FR 39523), and again on September 27, 2001 (66
FR 49395). The Federal Register notices and the plan were also posted on the FWS
Endangered Species Program’s web page (http://endangered.fws.gov). Meanwhile, the
FWS continued to collect and compile data from existing monitoring efforts by States to
track continued Peregrine recovery after delisting. Monitoring in association with this
plan was initiated in 2002 as a limited, pilot program. A revised draft was distributed
within the FWS for comment, to monitoring cooperators, and to the International
Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies on November 22, 2002, for their distribution
to States for review. On January 13, 2003, this same version was distributed to
individuals and organizations who commented on earlier versions. This version of the
plan is based on data collected in 2002, from experience gained while administering a
nationwide monitoring program in 2002, and on comments by States and other
cooperators on earlier versions of the plan. This version of the plan, and FWS responses
to comments on earlier versions, are posted on both the FWS Endangered Species web
page (http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/peregrine) and on the Migratory Birds web

page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov). Any revisions and reports will also be available on
the web.
While it is the mandate of the FWS to monitor Peregrines for not less than five years after
delisting, in cooperation with States, it should be clear from the outset that the FWS itself
will collect only a fraction of the data to fulfill that mandate. The successful
implementation of this plan relies on a large number of existing Peregrine monitoring
efforts designed and implemented by States, other Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, and individuals. The FWS intends to support and facilitate these existing
efforts and to standardize data collection protocols (detailed below) for a randomly
selected subset of nesting territories in each region. It will be necessary to initiate new
monitoring efforts in only a few states in 2003. The result will be a collaborative network
of governmental and non-governmental partners contributing to this nationwide effort.
Ultimately, however, the FWS is responsible for the successful implementation of this
monitoring plan.

Objective
This cooperative plan is primarily designed to detect declines in territory occupancy, nest
success, and productivity in six regions across the United States. Regional data for all
population measures will be combined to examine trends nationwide. Territory
occupancy, nest success, and productivity all are indices of population health. Estimates
of all three indices were very low between 1950 and 1980 when Peregrine populations
declined severely, but rebounded during population recovery (Cade et al. 1988, Enderson
et al. 1995, Mesta 1999, White et al. 2002).
Data will be collected from a randomly selected subset of Peregrine territories for five
sampling periods, at three-year intervals, with full implementation to begin in 2003 and
end in 2015. The plan is designed to achieve an 80% probability ($ = 0.20) of detecting a
decline of 12.5 percentage points in territory occupancy and nest success after the first
sampling occasion with a Type I error rate of 10% (" = 0.10; i.e., there is a 10% chance
that the data will indicate a declining trend in nest success or territory occupancy greater
than 12.5 percentage points when, in fact, there is no such decline occurring). Smaller
declines will be detectable over subsequent sampling occasions. Productivity will be
measured from the same subset of territories. Rates of productivity typical of expanding
or stable populations average between 1.0 and 2.0 young per occupied territory (refs. in
White et al. 2002), and most historical and recent productivity estimates fall within that
range (Hickey 1942, Mesta 1999). Thus, data from the first two sampling seasons will be
compared to this range; trends will be measurable thereafter. The FWS will also request
and synthesize population and territory location data collected by States and other
partners and report this information with a regional perspective for years that fall in
between the monitoring years suggested by this plan. Finally, we will collect addled eggs
and feather samples and archive these for later analysis of contaminant levels in

Peregrines nationwide if information indicates that contaminants may be causing a
significant population decline.
The FWS will receive data collected by States, other agencies, and partners across the
nation, and will analyze these after each monitoring effort; we will propose adjustments
to the sampling design if necessary. The plan is designed to detect declines in regional
Peregrine populations that might arise from a variety of threats, including but not limited
to environmental contaminants and disease (such as West Nile Virus). If these data or
other substantial information indicate that this species is experiencing significant regional
decreases in territory occupancy, nest success, or productivity, the FWS will initiate more
intensive review or studies to determine the cause, and to determine whether or not to
relist the species under ESA § 4(b)(7).

Implementation
Region 1 of the FWS has the lead for this monitoring effort. On October 1, 2002,
primary lead within the Region transferred from the Division of Endangered Species to
the Division of Migratory Birds and State Programs, although the two Divisions will
continue to cooperate on implementation of the monitoring plan. A FWS team
comprising a National Coordinator and coordinators from each of the FWS Regions
(Regional Coordinators) was established to finalize and implement the monitoring plan
(Appendix A).
The role of the National Coordinator is to:
•
convene the team to finalize and update the monitoring plan, as needed;
•
provide guidance to the Regional Coordinators;
•
publish the Notice of Availability for the monitoring plan in the Federal
Register and on the Endangered Species and Migratory Birds web
sites;
•
distribute the plan to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and also to the
Assistant Directors for Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds
and State Programs, State resource agency directors, and
cooperators;
•
plan, implement, and analyze the surveys, and summarize monitoring
results in cooperation with States and other cooperators;
•
prepare interim and final reports;
•
organize meetings as necessary to evaluate and plan monitoring efforts
with Regional, State, and other cooperators;
•
publish a Notice of Availability for the interim and final reports in the
Federal Register and on the Endangered Species and Migratory
Birds web sites;

•

•
•

•
•
•

provide copies to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and also to the
Assistant Directors for Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds
and State Programs, State resource agency directors, and
cooperators;
make recommendations based on survey results;
report each year to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and the
Assistant Directors for Endangered Species and Migratory Birds
and State Programs, and State resource agency directors on the
status of the monitoring plan;
organize and submit regional budget requests to sources within the FWS;
seek partnerships with other agencies to implement the plan;
seek funding opportunities to complete analyses of samples collected for
contaminant monitoring.

The role of Regional Coordinators is to:
•
establish or maintain a network of cooperators who monitor Peregrines
within their FWS Region;
•
participate in established regional working group meetings, or establish a
regional working group, as necessary, to assist in the planning and
implementation of the triennial surveys;
•
coordinate with tribes to monitor the randomly selected territories on tribal
lands;
•
seek partnerships with tribes, governmental agencies and non
governmental organizations within the FWS Region to implement
the plan;
•
make recommendations to the monitoring team based on survey results;
•
coordinate the collection and compilation of regional survey results;
•
provide monitoring results to the National Coordinator for inclusion into
the interim and final reports by November 1 of the survey year;
•
ensure that monitoring data are collected using methods that meet the
requirements of this monitoring plan;
•
inform tribes, States, and other cooperators which territories have been
selected by the random draw for each State;
•
determine budget requirements to carry out monitoring in their FWS
Region and help secure potential funding from cooperators;
•
submit regional funding needs to the National Coordinator, and assist in
distributing funds to the cooperators;
•
coordinate contaminant monitoring within FWS Regions (ensure that
collection protocols are followed, collection activities are properly
permitted, and specimens are transferred to the designated
archiving facility).
Monitoring already occurs in most states with breeding Peregrines where it is carried out
by States, some Federal agencies, private organizations, and many individuals. In only a
few areas will new monitoring efforts begin as a result of this monitoring plan. Regional
6

coordinators have been working with, and will continue to work with, all of the
cooperators leading these efforts both established and new.

Methods
Territories will be monitored for occupancy, nest success, and productivity in six
monitoring regions every three years, starting in 2003 and ending in 2015. Parameter
estimates will be compared to values in the scientific literature considered indicative of
healthy populations after each sampling period and again at the conclusion of the entire
monitoring period.
A. Parameters and Definitions
Data on occupancy, nest success, and productivity will be collected at each territory
randomly selected for monitoring. Different States have used different definitions for
terms such as “Active” or “Occupied” territories, but for the purposes of this postdelisting monitoring plan, the following definitions will be used:
•

•

Nest Success - the proportion of occupied territories in a monitoring
region in which one or more young $ 28 days old is observed, with age
determined following guidelines in Cade et al. (1996).

•

Productivity - the number of young observed at $ 28 days old per occupied
territory, averaged across a monitoring region.

Typically productivity is determined when nestlings have reached at least 80% of average
age of fledging (Steenhof 1987) – 34 days in the case of Peregrines, which fledge about
43 days after hatching. Determining the number of young in a nest with absolute
certainty is often difficult unless observers actually visit the eyrie (e.g., when banding
young). Thus, for measuring productivity, this plan encourages observers to spend the
time necessary to count as many young as possible. This definition of productivity
allows that some young might not be observed during the final nest visit, resulting in an
underestimate of productivity. Nonetheless, productivity defined in this way remains a
more informative index of breeding performance than nest success alone. We will
7

continue to use all three measures, territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity to
assess population health.
Cade et al. (1996) recommend banding nestling Peregrines at 21 to 35 days old; older
nestlings are more likely to scramble away and potentially be injured or killed in the
process, and younger chicks are difficult to differentiate by sex. The 28-day minimum
nestling age we have set to determine nest success and productivity allows banders about
six days in which to band nestlings and contribute productivity data. If workers band
birds before day 28, an additional visit on or after day 28 would be necessary to count
nestlings for this parameter. We acknowledge that some nestling mortality occurs
between 28 days of age and fledging; for this reason, both measures of breeding success
may be overestimates (Steenhof 1987).
The sample data form in Appendix C includes the minimum data requested for this
monitoring effort.
B. Monitoring Regions
The six monitoring regions in this plan follow FWS Region boundaries, but combine
FWS Region 3 in the Midwest and Region 5 in the Northeast. These monitoring regions
are similar to the original four recovery regions, except that the Rocky
Mountain/Southwest recovery region is split into FWS Regions 2 and 6, and the Eastern
recovery region is split by FWS Region 4 (Figure 1 and Appendix D). We made
additional boundary adjustments to the original recovery regions to align monitoring
regions with FWS Regions, particularly in Great Plains states, where there are few known
breeding Peregrines. Since the recovery of Peregrines was based upon reaching recovery
goals in designated recovery regions, it seemed prudent to monitor population trends at
the same, or finer, geographic scale. Splitting the original recovery regions into the
smaller FWS Regions reflects local and regional concerns within those FWS Regions,
and administrative convenience. Administratively, the responsibility for implementing
this monitoring plan will be from within FWS Regions working closely with States and
other cooperators.
The monitoring regions follow:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Pacific (FWS Region 1): CA, ID, NV, OR, WA;
Southwestern (FWS Region 2): AZ, NM, TX, and OK;
Rocky Mountain/Great Plains (FWS Region 6): CO, KS, MT, ND, NE,
SD, UT, WY;
Midwestern/Northeastern (FWS Regions 3 and 5): IL, IN, IA, MI, MN,
MO, OH, WI, CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT,
VA;
Southeastern (FWS Region 4): GA, KY, NC, SC, TN; and
Interior Alaska (FWS Region 7): AK.

C. Frequency and Duration of Sampling
The Monitoring Team chose to monitor Peregrines five times at three-year intervals,
beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015 (i.e., sampling will occur in 2003, 2006, 2009,
2012, and 2015). Five monitoring periods meets the requirement of ESA (to monitor
“...for not less than five years...”); the three-year interval spreads the monitoring over 13
years, reflecting our concern for the long-term future of the Peregrine.
The Peregrine population currently is secure; the population continues to increase as it
has for 30 years (Figure 2). The Monitoring Team believes this trend will continue at
least over the short-term. The long-term future is less certain; although the threat to
Peregrines from some contaminants has been controlled, we believe that contaminants
still pose the most likely future threat to Peregrine populations. They have a
demonstrated vulnerability to contaminants, exposure to contaminants still occurs, and
future compounds might pose a risk to Peregrines (see The Current Situation with
Environmental Contaminants, above). Population-level effects from contaminants are
likely to take place over a relatively long- rather than short-term. Monitoring every year
over the long-term would be unnecessary in the face of increasing population trends and
it would be costly. In the end, monitoring 5 times at 3 year intervals over 13 years will
provide sufficient comparative data and trend information on territory occupancy, nest
success and productivity to measure effects from what we believe to be the most likely
potential threats to Peregrines, contaminants.
At the end of the 13-year monitoring plan the FWS will review all available information
to determine if continuation of monitoring is appropriate (see Reports, below). As a point
of reference, Canada has been monitoring nest site occupancy and productivity of
Peregrines every five years since 1970 and populations continue to expand in Canada as
in the United States (Rowell et al. 2003).
D. Sample Size
The minimum number of territories to sample per monitoring region is based on territory
occupancy and nest success data collected mainly over the past four years (1999-2002)
from Peregrine territories across the nation (Appendix E). These data were collected
separately by Regional Coordinators from their networks of cooperators. Nationwide, the
occupancy rate for territories occupied at least once since 1999 was 84%, ranging from an
average of 75% to 94% among regions (Appendix F). For occupied territories, nest
success was 68% nationwide (61% - 73%, Appendix F). These estimates of territory
occupancy and nest success compare well with rates estimated for populations thought to
be healthy (70-90% for territory occupancy, 45-66% for nest success, summarizing pre
1955 or post-1985 data from Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974, and
Ratcliffe 1993). In contrast, when Peregrine populations were in serious decline during
the 1950s and 1960s, rates of territory occupancy and nest success were at or near zero in
some regions. For example, it was believed that not a single Peregrine fledged in the
northeast United States in 1962 (Hickey and Anderson 1969). Further, the once healthy
9

Hudson River population ceased reproducing by 1950 and most sites were unoccupied by
the mid-1950s (Herbert and Herbert 1969). By 1965 only 33% of known territories in the
Rocky Mountains remained occupied (Enderson 1969). In Canada and Alaska, territory
occupancy was 50% or less in the 1970s (Enderson et al. 1995). Ratcliffe (1993)
demonstrated a similar decline in nest success and territory occupancy in Great Britain
during in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as recovery since 1980.
Estimates of nest success from 1999-2002 (68%) and from the period of population
decline provide upper and lower limits within which we would expect North American
Peregrines to perform. Because the nationwide estimate of nest success, 68%, is lower
than territory occupancy, 84%, and was similar across the seven FWS Regions (61%
73%, Appendix F), we used this estimate of nest success to establish sample sizes for
each monitoring region. Considering historical and current rates, we decided that if nest
success declined to 55% or less (a drop of 13 percentage points), there would be cause for
concern in the short-term.
To establish sample sizes, we chose a decline of 12.5 percentage points as a short-term
monitoring target to represent a potential decline from 68% to 55%. We established the
rate at which we are willing to accept Type II errors ($ ) at 20% (or equivalently, power =
80%) and the rate at which we are willing to accept Type I errors (" ) at 10%1. Using
these constants, we determined that 72 occupied territories per monitoring region would
need to be checked to detect a drop of 12.5 percentage points or more in nest success
from current levels (i.e., 68%) with 80% power. We know, however, that on average,
75% or more territories are occupied in any given year [the range among regional
averages is 75% (Region 2) to 94% (Region 7) Appendix F]; thus to achieve a sample
size of 72 occupied territories, we need to check 96 territories in each region (72 ÷ 0.75).
(Average territory occupancy in Region 2 varied between 67% and 80% from 1999
through 2002, but these data are considered underestimates for several reasons; thus we
determined that a sample size calculated from the average, rather than the minimum
territory occupancy estimate in Region 2, was a reasonable approach.) This sample size
will allow somewhat greater power to detect a drop of 12.5 percentage points or more in
territory occupancy than it will for nest success.
The minimum sample size of 96 territories per monitoring region applies to four of the
six monitoring regions. The Southeastern monitoring region has only 18 known

–

We considered the practical and biological implications of various levels of Type 1 (") and Type 2
($) errors, and of the magnitudes of declines we wished to detect establishing numbers of territories to monitor. The
55% n est success tar get is lowe r than exp ected of h ealthy po pulations , higher tha n that of po pulations during th eir
declines in DDT years, and similar to tha t of a recov ering po pulation in southeas tern Arizo na (58% ; Ellis 1988 ).
The team thus decided that if nest success declined to 55% we would be concerned, and some management action
should b e initiated. A strategy recommended when designing monitoring programs for species of conservation
interest is to minimize $ (the chance of m issing a decline) versus " (the chan ce of wro ngly de terminin g a declin e is
occurrin g) (Steidl et al. 1 997). T he mo nitoring tea m decid ed that $ = 20% and " = 10% were reasonable levels for
monito ring at the re gional sca le, unders tanding that $ will be smaller (and power high er) if actual declines in these
param eters are hig her than r ates establishe d. Furthe r, when data from regions a re com bined fo r analysis, po wer will
be higher, and thus the ability to detect smaller declines in nest success will increase.

territories, and all will be monitored. Therefore, noting declines in population parameters
in this region is not as dependent on sampling because all territories, rather than some
proportion, will be monitored each monitoring year. FWS Region 7 will continue to
monitor Peregrines along portions of both the Tanana and Yukon rivers as an index of
regional population trends; the study area contained 92 territories in 2002. Similarly, all
Peregrine territories are currently being monitored in the Midwestern/Northeastern
region, so territories randomly selected for this plan are a subset of what is actually being
monitored in this region. Summing all monitoring regions, the minimum number of
territories sampled across the nation will be about 494 in 2003.
E. Analyses
Territory occupancy and nest success data will be compared to the regional and
nationwide estimates from 1999 to 2002; territory occupancy nationwide was estimated at
84% and ranged from 75% to 94%, and nest success nationwide was estimated at 68%
and ranged from 61% to 73% (Appendix F). Declines from sample estimates and these
target values greater than 13 percentage points will trigger a response by the FWS (see
the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below). Additionally, to determine
whether or not the estimated sample percentages for nest success and occupancy are
unusual compared to the target values of each, instead of performing a statistical test we
will instead calculate a 90% confidence interval on each estimated sample percentage
(Steidl et al. 1997). If the regional or nationwide target value is included within the
confidence interval, we will conclude the observed proportion is within normal range and
take no action. If the upper confidence bound falls below the target value, we will
conclude the observed proportion is lower than normal, and take some action (see the
Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below).
Productivity data will be compared to recent state and local estimates, as well as to
historical rates. Recent productivity data from recovery regions in the United States
ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 young per territorial pair (Mesta 1999). Historical rates of
productivity for various regions of the United States range from 0.7 to 1.5 young per
occupied site (Hickey 1942). Productivity reported during the period of decline was near
zero (Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974). Ratcliffe (1993) suggests
that when productivity drops to # 0.8 young per pair and remains low for several years,
reproduction is low enough to affect recruitment into the breeding population. Hunt
(1998) modeled population dynamics of Peregrines under various rates of adult mortality
and juvenile survival. Peregrine populations are at least stable when productivity is from
1.0 to 2.0 young per pair, adult mortality is < 15% and juvenile mortality is < 70%; these
productivity figures are consistent with estimates in expanding or stable populations in
the United States (Corser et al. 1999, Mesta 1999, Hayes and Buchanan 2002). Regional
or national estimates of productivity that fall below 1.0 young per pair will initiate a
special review (see the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below).
After the completion of three sampling periods (in 2009), we will be able to expand the
analyses to include trends in rates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity.
11

Additional analyses might also be appropriate. For example, regional data might be
combined to examine rates and trends for the entire nation. With a nationwide sample of
494 territories, an analysis of territory occupancy and nest success will have greater
statistical power to detect smaller declines at the national level than is possible at the
regional level.
Nationwide, the random selection of territories will include both territories with eyries on
manmade structures and on natural features; to the extent allowed by the data we will
evaluate the implications of these differences in nest location on territory occupancy, nest
success, and productivity. If an analysis of the data show declining trends or cause for
concern, then the FWS, States and other cooperators will evaluate why this might be the
case (see the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below).
F. Territory Selection
In 2003 the monitoring team selected territories randomly from the pool of territories
within a monitoring region known to have been occupied at least once from 1999 through
2002 (during or after the delisting year 1999). (Data from 1997 contributed to the pool
for Arizona, which lacks more recent data.) The Regional Coordinators obtained these
data from a variety of cooperators. The FWS did not request and does not have
geographic coordinates for these territories; specific location information is maintained
separately by States and other partners.
Territories monitored after 2003 (i.e., in 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015) will either be all of
the same randomly chosen territories from 2003, a new randomly chosen set, or a mixture
of the two (as recommended in the Mexican Spotted Owl recovery plan, USFWS 1995).
Monitoring the same set of territories each sampling year would add efficiency and
reduce bias as monitors become more familiar with the selected territories over time.
Following the 2003 season and after initial data analyses, the monitoring team, working
in cooperation with States, will propose a method for selecting territories to monitor in
2006 and all subsequent sampling years.
The Southeastern and Interior Alaska monitoring regions are special cases. The numbers
of territories are so few, and the level of interest and cooperation so high in the
Southeastern region, that the FWS, other Federal agencies, States, and cooperators will
monitor all known territories to the extent possible (18 active territories known as of
2002). In Alaska, the current monitoring effort is a count along stretches of two rivers
(Ambrose and Riddle 1988); this sample is used as an index of the larger population (ca.
1,000 breeding pairs) in a region where most sites are remote and ground access to eyries
is a challenge.
In four monitoring regions, the following minimum number of territories were randomly
selected. In the Interior Alaska monitoring region, the sample comprises territories along
2 river systems, and in the Southeast monitoring region the entire population is
monitored:
12

•
•
•
•
•
•

Pacific: 96 territories;
Southwestern: 96 territories;
Rocky Mountains: 96 territories;
Midwestern/Northeastern: 96 territories;
Southeastern: 18 territories (in 2002); and
Interior Alaska: a sample of territories along stretches of 2 rivers (48 on
the Yukon and 44 on the Tanana rivers in 2002).

G. Monitoring Protocol
During each sampling iteration, each randomly selected territory will be visited two or
more times to determine occupancy, nest success, and productivity. Visits to the territory
will be timed appropriately for the geographic areas. The first visit will occur during late
courtship, egg laying, or early incubation to determine occupancy; a second visit will
occur during the early nestling stage to determine the age of the nests, or to check the
‘unoccupied’ status of territories still in question; and a third visit (or more) will be made
to occupied territories during the late nestling stage, when young are 28-42 days old to
determine nest success and productivity. Even if no evidence of territory occupancy is
found in the first four hour visit, a second visit of four hours (ideally three to four weeks
later) is required for the territory to be deemed unoccupied. During all visits, the number
and age (adult or subadult) of Peregrines seen in the territory should be recorded, with
behavioral or physical evidence of breeding activity if observed. Peregrines sometimes
have alternate nest sites within a single territory. If the territory checked does not appear
to be occupied, some realistic survey effort should be expended to try and locate potential
alternate nest sites within the territory.
Nest monitoring will be done during favorable weather conditions by observers familiar
with Peregrine nesting behavior. Observers should avoid flushing incubating Peregrines,
and should not monitor during poor weather (e.g., heavy rain, snow, high winds), when
disturbance of incubation could alter the outcome of the nest. If possible, observations
should occur when Peregrines are likely to be most active; in some areas this is just prior
to dark or at first light (Fuller and Mosher 1987). Observers must minimize stress to the
Peregrines caused by their presence, and observation posts, in general, should be far
enough from the nest so as to not elicit sustained territorial behavior from either adult
[150 - 1700 meters is recommended (Pagel 1992), although closer approach might be
tolerated by some pairs, particularly in urban settings]. Observers must have appropriate
equipment, such as good binoculars, a high quality portable spotting scope, or both.
Chick age can be determined by reference to Cade et al. (1996; available through The
Peregrine Fund); this reference has a great deal of additional, helpful survey techniques
and recommendations. Field notebooks are recommended for detailed field notes. The
minimum information to be recorded is on the Sample Data Form, Appendix C. Regional
working groups should convene before the monitoring program is initiated to develop a
standard logistical protocol for collecting survey data within their monitoring region, if
necessary. Data collected should be forwarded to the Regional Coordinator for that
region.
13

States, FWS Regions, and private programs are encouraged to continue to monitor all
known Peregrine nesting territories if they are doing so already, and not limit their
monitoring to the randomly selected territories as in this plan. Many States, some Federal
agencies, and other partners annually monitor occupancy, nest success, and productivity,
and they conduct searches for new territories, band and color-mark chicks, collect prey
remains and unhatched eggs, and trap adults. Through Regional Coordinators, the FWS
National Coordinator will request population data collected and new territory locations
found in years that fall between the monitoring years described in this plan. The FWS
will synthesize these data and report this information with a regional perspective for years
that fall between the monitoring years suggested in this plan. We also anticipate that
some States will contribute or conduct other research. These efforts are encouraged, as
they will contribute to our understanding of the population status of Peregrines.

Peregrine Status and Monitoring in Canada
The Canadian Wildlife Service coordinates a national Peregrine population survey once
every five years and will conduct three surveys (2005, 2010 and 2015) during the 12-year
monitoring period. Observers in Canada make one or two visits to known territories to
determine territory occupancy and, if possible, productivity data. In remote locations in
some Provinces territories are monitored by helicopter, and only once per season. These
visits are timed to coincide with the nestling stage so a count of nestlings can be made.
Observers are encouraged to note additional potential habitat and territories while in the
field for future monitoring. The breeding population in Canada is now estimated at over
400 pairs (U. Banasch, pers. commun Feb. 7, 2003). The results of these national surveys
will be considered when evaluating the status of Peregrines in North America.

Peregrine Status and Monitoring in Mexico
There are no systematic surveys of Peregrines in Mexico. Mesta (1999) summarizes what
little information exists on the current status of the species breeding south of the United
States border. Local data suggest some populations underwent similar declines and are
recovering as in the United States and Canada. Enderson et al. (1995) estimated 170
pairs nest in Mexico. Contaminants are more of a concern in Mexico than in the United
States. As a result of tri-national agreements Mexico is phasing out the use of DDT, but
use of this and other persistent organic pollutants continues in other Latin American
countries (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2002); contaminants continue to
be a concern for Peregrines breeding south of the United States border and for others
migrating through countries that continue to use bio-accumulating contaminants.

Contaminant Monitoring
The scientific community widely accepts that exposure to environmental contaminants
was the single factor that caused the near extirpation of Peregrines from North America,
and restrictions on the use of persistent organochlorine compounds in the United States
and Canada allowed Peregrines and other predatory birds to recover. As a result,
recovery goals in two regions included measures of eggshell thickness; in one of these
(Alaska), recovery goals also included contaminant loads in eggs (Mesta 1999).
In spite of restrictions on their use, Peregrines continue to accumulate persistent
organochlorine pesticides and other compounds, both domestically and in countries
through which they migrate or winter (see above, The Current Situation with
Environmental Contaminants). Further, the continual introduction of anthropogenic
chemicals to the environment requires vigilance and monitoring of vulnerable wildlife,
especially predators at the top of the food chain such as Peregrines.
This section provides a plan for monitoring loads of past, current, or emerging
contaminants of concern in Peregrines. Samples will be collected in conjunction with
population monitoring as described below and in Appendix G. Federal and State permits
are required to collect samples. Contact FWS Regional Coordinators for more
information.
We believe that monitoring territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity will
adequately achieve the objectives of ESA requirements for post-delisting monitoring.
However, we are including a contaminants monitoring component to develop a
contaminants record that will be available for analysis if information indicates that
contaminants may be implicated in a significant population decline. Nonetheless, we will
continue to seek funds for contemporary analysis, regardless of whether or not a
population decline occurs.
A. Egg Samples
A variety of sample types have been used for contaminants monitoring. Eggs can be
analyzed for at least two major classes of contaminants: persistent organic pollutants
such as DDT and its metabolite DDE, other organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins; and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury. When
combined with adequate productivity data, egg contaminants data can be used to assess
population-level reproductive effects. Eggshell thickness, which was affected by DDE, is
routinely measured on eggs collected for contaminants. Thickness data are compared to
pre-DDT era thickness from museum specimens or other reference populations, and can
be correlated with DDE levels in the sampled eggs.
Eggs can be collected opportunistically during nest visits, either as “fresh” eggs during
incubation or as unhatched “addled” eggs during the nestling stage. At this time, only
15

addled eggs will be collected for monitoring, to avoid removing potentially viable eggs.
Regardless of timing of collection, embryo development will be noted for all eggs
collected (among other data, including egg shell thickness; Appendix G).
B. Feather Samples
Metals and organic contaminants can be measured in blood, but in general the sample
volumes required and the relatively invasive technique preclude widespread use of this
matrix. Feathers (excluding natal down) can be analyzed for metals. With consistent
collection (identical feathers from same-age Peregrines), nestling feathers (excluding
natal down) reflect natal area contaminant exposure. Therefore, regional projects which
include nest visits for banding purposes should also include collection of nestling
feathers.
To collect feathers, the largest nestling (which is often the nestling with the most
advanced feather development) will be the only nestling sampled per nest. Up to 1.5 cm
of the distal part of the 4th secondary wing feather, from one side only, will be removed
using clean stainless steel scissors. Care must be taken to not cut the follicle, which is
vascularized, and therefore prone to bleeding, during feather development. The sample
will be stored in polyethylene collection envelopes such as Whirlpak® envelopes, then
transferred to a central storage facility. Collectors will fill out standardized data forms,
which will include the date, collector, nest identification and location (latitude and
longitude or UTM), the band number, and whether the sample was collected from the left
or right side of the nestling.
C. Sample Size
Based on comprehensive monitoring in Alaska (Ambrose et al. 2000), an adequate
sample size and interval for samples is 15-20 (addled eggs or feathers) collected over a
period of no more than five years. Because the number of available samples may be
variable and low in any one year, both sample types should always be collected
opportunistically by States and others engaged in permitted activities requiring nest visits
(such as banding nestlings), but, at a minimum, samples should be collected in every
monitoring region in every monitoring year. Samples will be archived at the central
storage facility (Appendix G).
Regional Coordinators are responsible for coordinating collection of a minimum of 20
addled eggs and 20 clipped feathers from nestlings of banding age by September 2009
(the end of the third population monitoring year), and again by September 2015 (the end
of the monitoring period). Regional coordinators will also ensure that collection
protocols are followed and that collection activities are properly permitted, provide
interstate coordination within regions, and coordinate transfer of specimens to a central
location. Regions or States already engaged in contaminants analyses are encouraged to
coordinate their activities and match protocols. The plan recognizes that some regions
16

may find it difficult to meet minimum sample sizes due to low numbers of nesting pairs,
but each region should strive to meet collection goals.
D. Funding and Analyses
Samples will be chemically analyzed contingent upon funding. Efforts to fully fund
contaminants analyses will occur regardless of the results of the population monitoring
efforts. Negative trends or significant drops in regional or national population indices
will initiate a considerably more pointed effort to find funding, and stimulate more
funding opportunities. Regardless, funding procurement will require additional
coordination among FWS Regional Coordinators, FWS Environmental Contaminants
Specialists, States, and other cooperators. When funding is secured, eggs will be
analyzed at a minimum for metals and organochlorines, and feathers for metals,
according to contractual specifications developed by the FWS Environmental Quality
Division in conjunction with chemists at the Patuxent Analytical Control Facility
(PACF). Current lists (and costs at FWS contract laboratories) are available through
PACF (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pacf/).
Levels of contaminant loading will be compared to measures of reproductive performance
at national and regional scales and to published data or thresholds (e.g., as in Peakall et al.
1990), and contaminant loading levels will be analyzed for regional and national trends
and variation, with specific analyses dependent upon sample sizes (regional and national)
and levels of contamination. Additional chemical or biological analyses may be pursued
based upon regional or emerging contaminant concerns.

Data Evaluation
A. Review of Monitoring Data Relative to ‘Response Triggers’
The FWS, in cooperation with the States, will evaluate the monitoring results to
determine whether or not the results suggest that a more detailed analysis of the status of
Peregrines, the monitoring protocol, or both, is necessary. After each triennial
monitoring year, Regional Coordinators will work with the States to compile the
monitoring results for their respective monitoring region, evaluate the results, and prepare
a written assessment. This assessment will include a summary of the monitoring data,
state whether any of the parameters fell below the “response triggers” shown below,
determine whether or not the data collection protocols are functioning as anticipated and
whether or not any changes are needed, and include an initial determination of any threats
that may warrant further evaluation by the national monitoring team. In addition, the
FWS will analyze and summarize regional data it receives from States and other
cooperators in the years between formal surveys.

After completion of these triennial (or more frequent) assessments for each monitoring
region, the national monitoring team will convene to review the assessments. At that
time, the national team will determine whether any action is necessary to respond to the
‘triggers’ described below and to review any other significant issues raised by the FWS or
States in the regional summaries. In response to any significant issues, the national team
would consult with regional or national experts to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

increase the sensitivity of the sampling protocol to detect national or
regional declines in any of the parameters by, for example,
increasing sample sizes;
design research that would determine causes of low parameter values or
declines in productivity;
work with States, tribes, or other entities to exercise their regulatory
authorities to alleviate known or suspected threats;
conduct regional or national status assessment(s) to evaluate the
significance of threats to Peregrines;
evaluate proposing Peregrines for relisting under the ESA; or,
evaluate whether or not to list Peregrines under the emergency provisions
of the ESA.

The “response triggers” shown below would not automatically prompt a proposal to relist
Peregrines under the ESA, because not all declines in population parameters or declines
in productivity would indicate that listing under the ESA would be warranted. Weather,
for example, might cause temporary declines in either territory occupancy, nest success,
productivity, or all of these parameters over an entire region, and in more than one
monitoring season. Also, it is possible that there might be a natural reduction in overall
rates of occupancy, nest success, and productivity as regional populations reach carrying
capacity. For example, some territories produce more young and are more often occupied
than others (refs. in White et al. 2002). After prime locations are taken, less productive
and less consistently occupied sites remain. Increased use of these marginal nesting
territories due to an increased number of breeding Peregrines might reduce mean nest
success and productivity. Should declines be noted, natural causes such as these will be
evaluated as well as factors that might threaten or endanger Peregrines. Any relisting
decision would be made by evaluating the status of Peregrines relative to the ESA’s five
listing factors [ESA § 4(a)(1)].
B. Response Triggers
These “response triggers” will, in addition to other factors described above, prompt an
evaluation and appropriate response by the national monitoring team, in consultation with
national or regional experts, as necessary. The national team will evaluate these triggers
within each monitoring region and for all regions combined after each triennial
monitoring year:

•
•
•

90% confidence intervals around estimated proportions of territory
occupancy and nest success, fall below regional and national
estimates (Appendix F);
nest success or territory occupancy has declined by more than13
percentage points from the average of previous monitoring years;
average productivity is less than 1.0.

Reports
The FWS will issue a triennial report with data summaries and analyses after each
monitoring season; these will be available in printed form and on the world wide web by
March of the year following surveys. Reports will also suggest ways to improve
sampling protocols or other aspects of the plan design if necessary.
Each report will also comment on the status of Peregrines relative to the need for possible
relisting. This plan has been devised to allow early detection of substantial declines in
territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity with reasonable certainty and
precision. Statistical power to detect smaller declines in these rates will increase with
successive monitoring seasons, as data from these seasons will likely be combined into
larger sample sizes. Regardless, if declines in territory occupancy, nest success, or
productivity become large enough to cause concern in monitoring regions or nationwide,
then the monitoring team will convene, consult with regional working groups, States and
other partners, and make recommendations for future action to the FWS Region 1
Divisions of Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds and State Programs (see the Data
Evaluation - Response Triggers section, above).
Reports might also be produced between years, as the FWS will annually request data
collected by States and cooperators, for regional analyses of population health. At the
very least, these data will be summarized in the triennial report.
At the end of the 13-year monitoring period, the FWS will review all available
information to determine if continuation of monitoring is appropriate. The decision to
continue or end the monitoring program will be explained in the final monitoring report,
which will be published in the Federal Register. If the Peregrine population is stable
range-wide and no significant threats are identified, then monitoring may be terminated,
or a different monitoring program might be developed with cooperators.

Funding
Post-delisting monitoring is a cooperative effort between the FWS; State, tribal, and
foreign governments; other Federal agencies; and other non-governmental partners under
the ESA. Funding of post-delisting monitoring presents a challenge for all the partners
committed to ensuring the continued viability of Peregrines following the removal of
ESA protections. To the extent feasible, the FWS intends to provide funding for postdelisting monitoring efforts from annual Endangered Species general Recovery Program
appropriations. Nonetheless, nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment
or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the
Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) or any other law or regulation.

Literature Cited

Ambrose, R.E., A. Matz, T. Swem, and P. Bente. 2000. Environmental contaminants in
American and arctic peregrine falcon eggs in Alaska, 1979-95. Technical Report
NAES-TR-00-02, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska Ecological
Services, Fairbanks, AK. 67 pp.
Ambrose, R.E. and K.E. Riddle. 1988. Population dispersal, turnover, and migration of
Alaska peregrines. Pp 677-684 In Peregrine falcon populations: their
management and recovery. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G Thelander, and C.M.
White, eds. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.
Banasch, U., J.P. Goossen, A.E. Riez, C. Casler, and R.D. Barradas. 1992.
Organochlorine contaminants in migrant and resident prey of peregrine falcons,
Falco peregrinus, in Panama, Venezuela, and Mexico. Can. Field-Nat. 106:493498.
Bird, D.M, J. Gautier, and V. Montpetit. 1984. Embryonic growth of American kestrels.
Auk 101:392-396.
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, Boise, Idaho.
Cade, T.J., J.H. Enders, and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of Peregrine
Falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2002. Report on the activities of the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Montreal, Canada, Fall 2002.
http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/PUBLICATIONS/rptfall2002e
Corser, J.D., M. Amaral, C.J. Martin, and C.C. Rimmer. 1999. Recovery of a cliffnesting Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus, population in northern New York and
New England, 1984-1996. Can. Field- Nat. 113:472-480.
Court, G.S., C.C. Gates, D.A. Boag, J.D. MacNeil, D.M. Bradley, A.C. Fesser, J.R.
Patterson, G.B. Stenhouse, and L.W. Oliphant. 1990. A toxicological assessment
of peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus tundrius, breeding in the Keewatin District
of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 104:255-272.
Custer, T.W., G.W. Pendleton, and R.W. Roach. 1992. Determination of hatching date
for eggs of black-crowned night-heron, snowy egrets, and great egrets. J. Field.
Ornithol. 63:145-154.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook. Simon and
Schuster, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 785 pp.
21

Ellis, D.H. 1988. Distribution, productivity, and status of the Peregrine Falcon in
Arizona. Pp 87-94 In Peregrine falcon populations: their management and
recovery. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G Thelander, and C.M. White, eds. The
Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho.
Enderson, J.H. 1969. Population trends among Peregrine Falcons in the Rocky Mountain
region. Pp. 73-79 In Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology and decline. J.J.
Hickey, ed. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Enderson, J.H. and J. Craig. 1974. Status of the Peregrine Falcon in the Rocky
Mountains in 1973. The Auk 91: 727-736.
Enderson, J.H., W. Heinrich, L. Kiff, and C.M. White. 1995. Population changes in
North American peregrines. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 60:142-161.
Fuller, M.R. and J.A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pp. 37-66 In Raptor
management techniques manual. B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline,
and D.W. Bird, eds. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.
Fyfe, R.W., U. Banasch, V. Benavides, N.H. de Benavides, A. Luscombe, and J. Sanchez.
1990. Organochlorine residues in potential prey of peregrine falcons, Falco
peregrinus, in Latin America. Can. Field-Nat. 104(2):285–292.
Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, and G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes embryo mortality,
edema, and deformities syndrome (GLEMEDS) in colonial fish-eating birds:
similarity to chick-edema disease. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 33:455-520.
Hayes, G.E., and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the Peregrine
Falcon. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 77 pp.
Henny, C.J., W.S. Seegar, and T.L. Maechtle. 1996. DDT decreases in plasma of spring
migrant peregrine falcons, 1978–94. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:342–349.
Herbert, R.A., and K.G.S. Herbert. 1969. The extirpation of the Hudson River Peregrine
Falcon population. Pp. 133-154 In Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology
and decline. J.J. Hickey, ed. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Hickey, J.J. 1942. Eastern population of the Duck Hawk. Auk 59:176-204.
Hickey, J.J. and D.W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes
in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162:271-273.
Hickey, J.J. and D.W. Anderson. 1969. The peregrine falcon: life history and population
literature. Pp. 3-42 In Peregrine falcon populations: their biology and decline.
J.J. Hickey, ed. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
22

Hunt, W.G. 1998. Raptor floaters at Moffat’s equilibrium. Oikos 82: 191-197.
Jarman, W.M. 1994. Levels and trends of DDE in California peregrines. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Report. 16 pp.
Johnstone, R.M., G.S. Court, A.C. Fesser, D.M. Bradley, L.W. Oliphant, and J.D.
MacNeil. 1996. Long-term trends and sources of organochlorine contamination
in Canadian tundra Peregrine Falcons, Falco peregrinus tundrius. Environmental
Pollution. 93(2): 109-120.
Kiff, L.F. 1988. Changes in the status of the Peregrine in North America: An overview.
Pp. 123-139 In Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery.
T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander, and C.M. White, eds. The Peregrine
Fund, Boise, Idaho.
Mesta, R. 1999. Final Rule to Remove the American Peregrine Falcon from the Federal
list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of
appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States.
Federal Register 64 (164): 46541-46558.
Mora, M., R. Skiles, B. McKinney, M. Paredes, D. Buckler, D. Papoulias, and D. Klein.
2002. Environmental contaminants in prey and tissues of the peregrine falcon in
the Big Bend Region, Texas, USA. Environmental Pollution 116:169-176.
Morse, N.J. 1994. Contaminants in peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) eggs from
Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Virginia Field Office, White Marsh, VA. 19 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in
the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 83-96 In Proceedings: Symposium on peregrine
falcons in the Pacific Northwest. J.E. Pagel, ed. Rogue River National Forest,
Medford, OR 97501.
Peakall, D.B., D.G. Noble, J.E. Elliott, J.D. Somers, and G. Erickson. 1990.
Environmental contaminants in Canadian peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus: A
toxicological assessment. Can. Field-Nat. 104:244-254.
Powell, D.C., R.J. Aulerich, R.J. Balander, K.L. Stromborg, and S.J. Bursian. 1998. A
photographic guide to the development of double-crested cormorant embryos.
Colonial Waterbirds 21(3):348-355.
Ratcliffe, D. 1993. The Peregrine Falcon, 2nd ed. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. 454 pp.
Rowell, P., G.L. Holroyd, and U. Banasch. 2003. Summary of the 2000 Canadian
peregrine falcon survey. Bird Trends, No. 9, Raptors (Winter 2003):52-56.
Canadian Wildlife Service, http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/birds/news/index_e.cfm
23

Steenhof, K. 1987. Assessing raptor reproductive success and productivity. p. 157-170
In Raptor management techniques manual. B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Millsap,
K.W. Cline, and D.W. Bird, eds. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.
Steidl, R.J., C.R. Griffin, L.J. Niles, and K.E. Clark. 1991. Reproductive success and
eggshell thinning of a reestablished peregrine falcon population. J. Wildl.
Manage. 55:294-299.
Steidl, R.J., J.P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 1997. Statistical power in wildlife research. J.
Wildl. Manage. 61:270-279.
Stickel, L.F., S.N. Wiemeyer, and L.J. Blus. 1973. Pesticide residues in eggs of wild
birds: adjustment for loss of moisture and lipid. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
9:193-196.
Tordoff, H.B. and P.T. Redig. 1997. Midwest peregrine falcon demography, 1982-1995.
J. Raptor Res. 31: 339-346.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Recovery plan for the peregrine falcon -- Alaska
population. 69 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. The Pacific Coast American peregrine falcon
recovery plan, dated October 12, 1982, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in cooperation with Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team. 86 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky
Mountain/Southwest population). Prepared in cooperation with the American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
105 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. First update of peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus), eastern population, revised recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA. 35
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Contaminants in Peregrine Falcon (Falco
peregrinus) eggs from Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Virginia Field
Office. Pleasantville, New Jersey. 19pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I.
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
1997. Draft report, reproductive success and egg contaminant concentrations of
Southern New Jersey peregrine falcons. 34 pp.

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco
peregrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 660. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.
The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

FWS Regions

Excluding HI
& Paci fic Is.

3
4

Exluding
Puert o R ico
& Virgi n Is.

Recovery Regions
Pacific
Rocky Mountain/Southwest
Eastern1
Alaska
1 – adapted from 1991 recovery pla n
update (USFWS 1991).

Monitoring Regions
Pacific

Rocky Mountain

Southwestern

Midwestern/Northeastern
Southeastern
Alaska

Figure 1: FWS, Recovery, and Monitoring Regions. FWS Region boudaries outlined in
bold in each figure.
26

Figure 2. Peregrine Population Growth, 1980-2002, in the Contiguous
United States. Historical data from Enderson et al. (1995) and Mesta (1999). More
recent data collected from cooperators (FWS, unpubl.). 2002 data includes estimates,
earlier data are counts. North American population, including Mexico, Canada, and
Alaska, estimated at nearly 3,000 breeding pairs in 2002 (White et al. 2002; Rowell et al.
2003; FWS unpubl. data). Historical level in the United States south of Canada roughly
estimated at 1,450 pairs (interpreted from Enderson et al. 1995).

Appendix A: Authors, National and R egional Coordinators
National Coordinator
Mike Green

USFWS, Region 1, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs

911 N.E. 11th Ave.

Portland, OR 97232-4181

Tel. (503) 872 - 2707

Fax (503) 231 - 2019

Regional Coordinators
Region 1 – California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Pacific Islands, Washington
Marie Morin
USFWS, Ecological Services
Oregon State Office
2600 S.E. 98th Ave., Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
Tel. (503) 231 - 6179
Fax (503) 231 - 6195
Region 2 – Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.

Robert Mesta, Coordinator

Sonoran Joint Venture

738, N. Fifth Ave. Ste 215

Tucson, Arizona 85705

Tel. (520) 882 - 0047

Fax (520) 882 - 0370

Cell (520) 591-4566

Region 3 – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin.
Phil Delphey
USFWS, Ecological Services
Twin Cities Field Office
4101 E. 80th St.
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425
Tel. (612) 725 - 3548 x 206
Fax (612) 725 - 3609

Region 4 – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico.
Robert Currie
USFWS, Ecological Services
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Tel. (828) 258 - 3939 ext. 224
Fax (828) 258 - 5330
Region 5 – Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia.
Michael Amaral
USFWS, Ecological Services
New England Field Office
70 Commercial St., Ste. 300
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-4986
Tel. (603) 223 - 2541
Fax (603) 223 - 0104
Region 6 – Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming.
Rob Hazlewood
USFWS, Ecological Services
Montana Field Office
100 North Park, Suite 320
Helena, Montana 59604
Tel. (406) 449 - 5225 ext. 211
Fax (406) 449 -5339
Region 7 – Alaska
Ted Swem
USFWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office
101 12th Ave., Box 19
Fairbanks, Alaska 99501
Tel. (907) 456 - 0441
Fax (907) 456 - 0208

Additional Authors
Kathy Hollar
USFWS, Region 1, Endangered Species
911 N.E. 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-4181
Tel. (503) 231 - 2359
Fax (503) 231 - 6243
Martin Miller and Mary Klee
USFWS, Division of HCPs, Recovery, and State Grants
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel. (703) 358 - 2061
Fax (703) 358 - 1735
Angela Matz
USFWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office
101 12th Ave., Box 19
Fairbanks, Alaska 99501
Tel. (907) 456 - 0442
Fax (907) 456 - 0208

Appendix B: Reviewers and C ooperators

Name

Affiliation

Address
FWS Region 1
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jennifer Brookshier
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501
OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Charlie Bruce
2501 SW First Avenue, P.O. Box 59,
Portland, OR 97207
Eric Cummins
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501
Janet Linthicum
Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research
100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Group, Long Marine Laboratory
Joel Pagel
USFS, Rogue River National Forest
645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520
Rex Sallabanks, Ph.D. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25, Boise, Idaho
83707-0025
Cris Tomlinson
Nevada Div. of Wildlife
4747 W. Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada
89108
Brian Walton
Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research
100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Group, Long Marine Laboratory
Bryan White
OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
7118 NE Vandenberg Ave, Corvallis, OR
97330
FWS Region 2
Fred Armstrong
NPS, Guadalupe Mountains National
HC 60 Box 400, Salt Flat, Texas 79847
Park
Larry Bell
Department of Game and Fish
1 Wildlife Way, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe,
NM 87504
Elaine Leslie
Grand Canyon National Park, NPS
P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon NP, AZ 86023
Robert Magill
AZ Game & Fish Dept.
2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023
Raymond Skiles
NPS, Big Bend National Park
P.O. Box 129, Big Bend National Park, TX
79834
Robert Steidl, Ph.D.
School of Renewable Resources,
325 Biol. Sciences East, Tuscon, AZ 85721
University of AZ
31

Name
Sandy Williams

Affiliation
Department of Game and Fish

John Castrale
Mike Cooke
Mary Hennen
Tara Kieninger
Pat Manthey

FWS Region 3
Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife
World Bird Sanctuary
Field Museum of Natural History
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Natural Resources

Mark Martell

The Raptor Center

Lee Pfannmuller
Ray Rustum
Pat Schlarbaum
Dave Scott
Bud Tordoff

Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources

Mary Bunch
Kim Delozier
Roy DeWitt
Troy Ettel
Chris McGrath
Jim Ozier
Brainard Palmer-Ball
Tim Slone

Address
1 Wildlife Way, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe,
NM 87504

Boone Wildlife Research Station
Division of Wildlife
The Raptor Center

562 DNR Rd., Mitchell, IN 47446
P.O. Box 270270, St. Louis, Missouri 63127
1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605
524 South 2nd St., Springfield, IL 62701
3550 Mormon Coulee Rd., La Crosse WI
54601
Gabbert Raptor Building, 1920 Fitch Ave. St.
Paul, MN, 55108
500 Lafayette Rd., St. paul, MN 55155-4025
MI
2039 205th St., Boone, Iowa 50036
8589 Horseshoe Rd., Ashley, OH 43003
Gabbert Raptor Building, 1920 Fitch Ave. St.
Paul, MN, 55108

FWS Region 4
South Carolina Department of Natural PO Box 1806, Clemson, SC 29633
Resources
107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN
Great Smoky Mountains NP
37738
993 Camillia Dr., Marietta, GA 30062
Georgia Falconry Association
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Ellington Agricultural Center, PO Box 40747,
Nashville, TN 37204
315 Morgan Branch Rd.,Leicester, NC 28748
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
116 Rum Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA 31029
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601
Kentucky State Nature Preserves
Commission
1 Game Farm Rd., Frankfort, KY 40601
Kentucky Department of Fish and
32

Name
Jim Sorrow
Shawchyi Vorisek
Daniel Brauning
Kathy Clark
Margaret Fowle
Tom French
Craig Koppie
Barbara Loucks
Chris Martin
Holly Niederriter
Mark Stadler
Charlie Todd
Julie Victoria
Bryan Watts

Jerry Craig
Frank Howe

Affiliation
Wildlife Resources
South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources
FWS Region 5
Penn. Game Commission
NJ Dept. of Fish, Game and Wildlife

Address
4037 India Hook Rd., Rock Hill, SC 29732
1 Game Farm Rd., Frankfort, KY 40601

61 Windy Lane, Montgomery, PA 17752
Tuckahoe Wildlife Mgmt. Area, Box 236,
Tuckahoe, NJ 08250
Northeastern Natural Resource Center, 58
National Wildlife Federation
State St, Montpelier, VT 05602
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581
Wildlife
177 Admiral Cochrane Dr., Annapolis, MD
FWS, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
21401
NY State Dept. of Environmental
625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233
Conservation
Audubon Society of New Hampshire
3 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301
DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife 4876 Hay Point Landing Road, Smyrna, DE
19977
284 State St., Augusta, ME 04333
Wildlife Division, Dept. of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife
Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries & Wildlife 284 State St., 41 State House Station,
Augusta, ME 04333-0041
Dept. of Environmental Conservation Franklin Wildlife Management Area, 391 Rte.
32, North Franklin, CT 05254
William and Mary College
The Center for Conservation Biology, College
of William & Mary, PO Box 8795,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
FWS Region 6
Colorado Division of Wildlife
6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80216
Utah Division of Wildlife
P.O. Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114
33

Name
Bob Oakleaf
Jay Sumner
Skip Ambrose

Affiliation
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Sumner Consulting
FWS Region 7
NPS

Bob Ritchie
John Wright

ABR, Inc.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Address
260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520
P.O. Box 317, Arlee, MT 59821
Natural Sounds Program, National Park
Service, 1201 Oakridge, Suite 200, Fort
Collins, CO 80525
P.O. Box 80410, Fairbanks, AK 99708
Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1300
College Rd, Fairbanks, AK 99701

Appendix C: Sam ple Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form
************************
* Paperw ork Red uction A ct
*
* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 *
*
Expires 3/31/2005
*
**************************

----- Return this form to your State or Regional Coordinator ---
Observation Date:(M/D/YR)________
Nest Site Name or #___________
Which Territory Visit is this? (circle one)

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Nest Site (circle one):
Manmade
Natural

Observation Time: Begin_________________________ End___________________________

(Should be at least 4 hrs if occupancy, nest age, or nestling number are in question)

Observer(s)____________________________________________________________________
Phone:_________________ Email:________________________ Agency/NGO__________________
WEATHER: Precipitation____________________ Wind (speed estimate)
Temperature____________________ Cloud cover (%)______________________
Note conditions at beginning (beg.) and ending (end) of observation period if different
Observation post:(distance in meters)__________________________________________________
Approx. Nesting Phase (determined how?)_______________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Peregrines present: (define as ad. male, ad. female, ad. unknown, subad. Male, subad. Female, or subad.
Unknown, and number of each.)_________________________________________________
Behaviors observed:____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Eggs observed? Y N Unk
How many eggs?__________Young observed (AGE)?_________________________________
How many young?_____________________ Other observations:_______________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Nest observed?

Feeding at nest observed?

Occupied Territory - a territory w here eithe r a pair of P eregrines is present (tw o adults or an adult/su badult
mixed pair), or there is evidence of reproduction [e.g., one adult is observed sitting low in the nest, eggs or
young are seen, or food is delivered into eyrie (nest site)]. Occupancy for a territory must be established
for at least one of two, and possibly more, 4-hour site visits. Occupancy within a region is the number of
occupied territories divided by the number of territories that were checked for occupancy.
Nest Success - the proportion of occupied territories in a monitoring region in which one or more young $
28 days old is observed, with age determined follow ing guidelines in Cade et al. (1996).
Produ ctivity - the num ber of yo ung ob served at $ 28 days old p er occupied territory , averaged acro ss a
monitoring region.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering
inform ation und er this Pereg rine Falco n mon itoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in
2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing
instruction s, gathering and m aintaining data, and preparin g and tran smitting re ports.
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the reporting
requirement(s) should be directed to the Service Information Collection Clearance
Officer, MS 222 ARL SQ, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington,
DC 20240.
An agency may not conduct and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed.

Appendix D: FWS Regions, Recovery Plan Regions, and
Monitoring Plan Regions
FWS Regions (7)

Recovery Regions1
(4)

Monitoring Regions (6)

Region 1 = CA, ID, NV, OR,
WA, HI, Guam, American
Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas

Pacific: CA, NV, OR,
WA

Pacific: CA, ID, NV, OR, WA

Region 3 = IL, IN, IA, MI, MN,
MO, OH, WI

Eastern: all of CT, DE,
MA, ME, MI, MN,
NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI,
VT, WI, and Wash
DC;

Midwestern/Northeastern: IL,
IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI,
CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH,
NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV,
and Wash DC

parts of IA, IL, IN,
OH, WV, MD, VA,
NC, SC, AL, TN, and
KY

Southeastern: AL, AR, FL,
GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN

Region 5 = CT, DE, ME, MD,
MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT,
VA, WV, and Wash DC
Region 4 = AL, AR, FL, GA, KY,
LA, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI
Region 2 = AZ, NM, OK, TX
Region 6 = CO, KS, MT, ND,
NE, SD, UT, WY
Region 7 = AK

Rocky Mts./Southwest:
FWS Regions 2 and 6
Rocky Mts./Southwest
Region (plus ID)

Southwestern: AZ, NM, OK,
TX

Alaska

Rocky Mountains: CO, KS,
MT, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY

1 – Recovery regions are for the American Peregrine Falcon only; recovery areas vary for each listed
species.

Appendix E: FW S Region Territory Summ aries
Most data are from 1999 - 2002. Exceptions are noted in parentheses.

State by FWS
Region

Data Source‡

Territories
Occupied > 1
time in ‘99-‘02†

Natural
Nest
substrate

Manmade
substrate

Brian Walton & Janet Linthicum

24 (to year 2001)

Rex Sallabanks

Nevada

Oregon

Joel Pagel, Charlie Bruce, & Bryan White

81 (to year 2001)

Eric Cummins & Jennifer Brookshier

310

> 277

> 33

Arizona (in 1997)

172

Robert Magill & Elaine Leslie

New Mexico

101

Sandy Williams

Texas**

Missy Paul, Raymond Skiles, & Fred Armstrong

R2 Totals

287

> 14

Iowa

Pat Schlarbaum

Illinois

Mary Hennen, Tara Kieninger, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell

FWS Region 1
California
Idaho

Washington
R1 Totals

Cris Tomlinson

FWS Region 2

FWS Region 3

State by FWS
Region

Data Source‡

Territories
Occupied > 1
time in ‘99-‘02†

Natural
Nest
substrate

Manmade
substrate

Indiana

John Castrale, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell

Michigan

Bud Tordoff, Mark Martell, & Ray Rustem

Minnesota

Bud Tordoff & Mark Martell

Missouri

Mike Cooke, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell

Ohio

Dave Scott, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell

Wisconsin

Pat Manthey, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell

R3 Totals

Georgia

Jim Ozier

Kentucky

Tim Slone & Shawchyi Vorisek

North Carolina

Chris McGrath

South Carolina

Bob Currie & Mary Bunch

Tennessee

Troy Ettel

R4 Totals

Connecticut

Julie Victoria

Delaware

Holly Niederriter & Craig Koppie

Massachusetts

Tom French

FWS Region 4

FWS Region 5

State by FWS
Region

Data Source‡

Territories
Occupied > 1
time in ‘99-‘02†

Natural
Nest
substrate

Manmade
substrate

Maine

Charlie Todd

Maryland

Craig Koppie & Michael Amaral

New Hampshire

Chris Martin

New Jersey

Kathy Clark

New York

Barbara Loucks

Pennsylvania

Daniel Brauning

Rhode Island

Michael Amaral

Virginia

Bryan Watts, W. & Mary College

Vermont

Margaret Fowle

R5 Totals

204

> 96

> 95

Colorado

132

Jerry Craig

Montana

43 (to year 2001)

Jay Sumner

Nebraska

Bud Tordoff

North Dakota

Bud Tordoff

FWS Region 6

Utah

180

168

Frank Howe

Wyoming

Bob Oakleaf

R6 Totals

419

> 362

> 14

State by FWS
Region

Data Source‡

Territories
Occupied > 1
time in ‘99-‘02†

Natural
Nest
substrate

Manmade
substrate

AK-Tanana River

> 44

Bob Ritchie, John Wright, and Peter Bente

AK-Yukon River

> 48

Skip Ambrose

R7 Totals

> 92

40 States

> 1,426

> 771

>232

FWS Region 7

Of 1093 categorized sites, 864 (79%) were on natural substrates and 232 (21%) were on man-made sites; uncategorized sites are likely
on natural substrates in Arizona and New Mexico.
† – Number of territories occupied is a subset of the total population in some western States, e.g., in Alaska and California.

‡ – Affiliations and addresses of those supplying data are list ed in Appendix B.

* – These 2 are in a quarry and road cut.

** – Information from Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks only.

? – Unknown, or data not provided.

Appendix F: Calculating Territory Occupancy and Nest Success
The calculations of territory occupancy and nest success are used for two purposes: to
help define the appropriate sample size, and to provide benchmarks by which to compare
future population performance. The data from which we calculated these rates are
described in more detail below.
Territory Occupancy
Table F-1 shows rates of occupancy at territories occupied at least once between 1999
and 2002. Data from the 4 years are combined, and some data (FWS Regions 1 and 2)
are from 1997. Occupied territories are those at which there was a pair of Peregrines, or
evidence of nesting (see the Methods - Parameters and Definitions section, above).
Table F-1. Territory Occupancy 1999-2002
FWS Region Checked Occupied Average
1
860
738
0.86
2
305
229
0.75
3
231
214
0.93
4
90
84
0.93
5
720
580
0.81
6
735
608
0.83
7
33
31
0.94
All n
2974
2484
0.84
Nest Success
The data in Table F-2 are the same as above, except that ‘Occupied’ territories includes
territories found after initiation (and then were checked again for success); the sample
size is therefore different from the ‘Occupied’ sample above. States were asked to define
successful nests as those from which at least one chick fledged. Some consider chicks of
banding age to meet this criterion. We accepted this definition for these data.
Table F-2. Nest Success, 1999-2002
FWS Region Occupied Successful
Mean
1
640
446
0.70
2
212
144
0.68
3
214
156
0.73
4
82
50
0.61
5
198
136
0.69
6
812
555
0.68
7
421
269
0.64
All n
2579
1756
0.68

A Note on Territory Occupancy
This statistic is sensitive to what sort of territory is actually being checked. In some
states (principally in Region 5) many historical eyries continue to be checked although
they have not been occupied for decades, while in others only more recently occupied
territories are checked for activity. In the tables above, we chose to use only territories
that have been used at least once since 1999 (1997 for some western states without more
recent data) to represent current and likely future conditions under which Peregrines
make territory choices. Some historical eyries or territories that remain unoccupied might
not be as attractive as they once were, for many reasons, than newer, more recently
occupied territories. Including historical and unoccupied territories in this analysis brings
the national average to 77% (and Region 5 average to 51%).
Also, in this plan we will be collecting territory occupancy data from this same
‘population’ of territories. The data we collect will be directly comparable to the rates
calculated above, which we think are representative of a healthy, expanding population.
However, additional data are worth noting here.
Territory occupancy for 1999 to 2002 was similar during the critical years of recovery.
For example, data from western states from 1975 (California) to 1997 are presented in
Table F-3 below; these include only territories known to have been occupied at least once
in the interval noted.
Table F-3. Territory Occupancy in Western States, 1975-1997
FWS Region State (yr)
Checked Occupied Average
R1
CA (75 - 97)

147
111
0.76
R1
WA (78 - 97)

401
298
0.74
R2
AZ (92 - 97)

297
265
0.89
R2
TX (79 - 94)

83
67
0.81
R6
CO (90 - 95, 97)

549
444
0.81
R6
MT (1995)

19
15
0.79
R6
UT (91 - 96)

514
465
0.91
R6
38
36
0.95
WY (96)
All n
2048
1701
0.83
Most of these data were acquired by Robert Mesta in 1998 in preparation
for the Peregrine delisting, from the following cooperators: Santa Cruz
Predatory Bird Research Group; Arizona Game and Fish Department;
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; the southwest Peregrine recovery
team; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; the National Park Service.
Data also from Hayes and Buchanan (2002; full cite in Literature Cited
section of plan). All data believed to conform to definitions of occupancy
used in this plan, and are likely lower than actual occupancy for some
states, e.g., in CA.

Territory occupancy is 83% summing western states, ranging from 74% to 95% for
individual states. Nationwide territory occupancy from 1999 - 2002 (Table F-1) is 84%,
ranging from 75% to 94%, and thus is very similar. These data are also similar to
43

published rates. Enderson and Craig (1974) state that “at least 10%, perhaps 20%, of
known eyries would not be used in any one year (p 733),” after citing various published
rates of territory occupancy that averaged between 55% and 85%. Ratcliffe (1993)
estimates territory occupancy at 82 % in 1991 (Table 6, p. 411) for Peregrines in Great
Britain.
Some Peregrine eyries are famous for their long histories of occupancy; others are much
less consistently occupied. Some pairs or individuals select alternate nest sites sometimes
miles apart within a larger territory in successive years, or move erratically back and forth
among a few eyrie locations among years. Some territories are seemingly occupied only
once and then abandoned. Observers in the field are thus challenged to find active
territories in the first place, locate nests in those territories, and then to relocate the same
pairs and nests in following years. Where several pairs are in close proximity, tracking
pair locations through time and deciding which territories and pairs are new or previously
established can be confusing. In these cases, we will rely on the expert opinions of
observers to match previously documented territories to current pair and territory
locations.

Appendix G: Collecting, Preparing, and Shipping Egg and F eather
Samples
All sample collectors should coordinator with Regional and National Coordinators prior
to collection and if additional information is required.
A. Protocol for Collection and Removal of Peregrine Egg Contents
Objectives
1. Ensure accurate analysis of contaminants in eggs by providing standard methods to
transfer egg contents from the shell into a clean container without introducing
contamination.
2. Provide a standard method to measure eggshell thickness.
Materials
For field collection: Appropriate State and Federal permits; writing utensils; labels; egg
collection boxes (hard-sided container such as plastic kitchen ware or tackle box with
foam padding); sheets of chemically-clean2 aluminum foil, cut to size (approximately 10
x 15 cm), one per egg; small plastic bags with zip closure.
For contents removal in laboratory: Data sheets; writing utensils; safety glasses; powderfree latex gloves; laboratory paper wipes such as Kimwipes®; distilled, deionized (DD)
water or equivalently pure water; clean sponge; balance (to 0.01 g); vernier calipers (to
0.01 mm); immersion chamber with beaker and wire loops (Figure G-1); Teflon® bags,
one per egg; chemically-clean stainless steel serrated blades (such as high-quality steak
knives); chemically-clean stainless steel scalpel blades (No. 21 or No. 22 with No. 4
handles or similar size); chemically-clean aluminum foil sheets (approximately 30 x 30
cm square), 1 per egg; ball-tip micrometer (to 0.01 mm).
Procedures
In the field, collect all whole, uncracked, addled eggs from nest. Wrap each in clean
aluminum foil (dull side next to the egg). The foil should act as a second skin, which
keeps the eggshell together and the contents inside should the egg be cracked in transit.
Place the wrapped egg inside bag with zip closure, then into hard container for transport
to refrigeration (within 24 hours). Use padding to immobilize the egg. Place a label
inside the zip-closure bag with date, collector, nest identification and location (latitude

–

Chem ically-clean alumin um fo il has been rinsed w ith reagen t-grade ac etone an d hexan es on the d ull
side and allowed to air-dry; dull side is then considered the “clean” side. Chemically-clean stainless instruments are
rinsed w ith 10-20 % nitric ac id, then do ubly-distilled or equiv alently pu rified wate r, air-dried, th en rinsed with
reagent-grade acetone and hexanes and air-dried.

and longitude or UTM coordinates), and the egg number if multiple eggs are collected.
Refrigerate eggs until opened (ideally within 48 hours).
In the laboratory, use one data form (Figure G-2) per egg. Wear powder-free latex gloves
and safety glasses (severe eye infection can result from contact with rotting egg contents).
Carefully check for cracks in shell; if present, do not wet or immerse the egg. If debris is
present, rinse egg in DD water while gently scrubbing with sponge. Dry the egg. Record
the mass (g) of the whole egg, then measure the length and breadth of the egg at their
greatest dimensions with calipers (caliper jaws parallel to the longitudinal axis of the egg
for length, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the egg for breadth). Compute
average of three measurements for final width and length measurements.
Measure total egg volume by water displacement. Fill the immersion chamber (Figure G
1a) with distilled water past the point where water comes out of the spigot. Let drain
until water stops coming out of the spigot. Place a clean beaker on a balance, zero the
balance, and place the balance and beaker under the spigot (Figure G-1b). Immerse egg
with wire loops (Figure G-1c) until top of egg is just under the water surface. Hold the
egg steady until water stops draining out of spigot into the beaker. The readout on the
balance will reflect only the weight of water that has gone into the beaker, if you zeroed
the balance after the beaker was placed on it. The weight of water is the approximate egg
volume, assuming that egg density is similar to water (1gm = 1 ml). For example, 40 gm
displaced water = 40 ml of water, and 40 ml egg volume. Dry the egg.
While transferring egg contents to Teflon® bag, avoid letting contents run over your
hands into the bag. Note that addled eggs can be full of decomposition products,
producing gaseous explosions at any weak point in the shell, including the score or where
membranes are first exposed. Working with a refrigerated, cool egg reduces this
potential, but be prepared for egg explosions – and wear safety glasses.
Create a catch basin out of the aluminum foil (chemically-clean side up) by turning edges
up and securing the corners. This will catch egg contents in case they spill over the edge
of the bag. Use a separate piece of foil for each sample. The foil also is a clean place to
place your instruments when they are not in use. Tare balance with Teflon® bag, then
place bag in center of aluminum foil.
Score egg at the equator with a clean serrated blade or scalpel. Cradle the egg in one
hand without squeezing too tightly, and gently score while rotating the egg. Many light
strokes are preferable to a fewer deeper strokes, increasing the evenness of the score and
decreasing the possibility of fractured eggshells. Continue to score until you see the
membrane, which usually appears gray underneath the white of the eggshell. Try to
expose the membrane evenly around the entire egg.
Place the egg over the open bag and cut through membranes with the scalpel. Pour
contents into bag, and use the scalpel to gently scrape if necessary. Close the bag. Note
where the membranes are, as this is important for thickness measurements. For fresh
eggs, both membranes often stay with the shell, but as the embryo develops the inner
46

membrane tends to stick with the embryo. If you cannot determine where the membranes
are, it often becomes clearer after the eggshell and membranes have dried. Record mass
of full bag, then subtract tare mass to compute egg contents mass. Label the bag with
nest and egg identification information. Freeze the sample (-40° C is preferable but 0° C
is adequate) until shipment to central repository.
If egg is developed, estimate age of embryo. Peregrine incubation is 29-33 days (Ehrlich
et al. 1988); estimate age of embryo to first, second, third, or fourth quarter.
Photographic records of avian embryo development provide reference points to make this
determination (e.g., Powell et al. 1998, Bird et al. 1984). Note amount of decay (no
decay, slightly decayed, or rotten) and examine for deformities, particularly bill
deformities such as crossed bills or lack of jaws, but also lack of skull bones, club feet,
rotated ankles, or dwarfed appendages (Gilbertson et al. 1991).
Rinse the eggshell halves with cool water and allow to air dry. Using an ultra-fine tip
marker or pencil, identify each shell half (with nest and egg information). Dry eggshells
at room temperature for 10-30 days, or until they have attained a constant mass. Then,
measure thickness at three points near the equator on each shell half using ball-tip
micrometer. Note whether you measured the membranes, as museum specimen thickness
measurements often include the membranes. Finally, record the mass of the dried
eggshell (to 0.001 g). This information is also used to compare to museum specimens.
Compute conversion factor, as explained on the data sheet. Historically, contaminant
concentrations were multiplied by this conversion factor to get volume-adjusted residue
data (Stickel et al. 1973).
Shipping
Place frozen, bagged contents in a cooler with dry ice (know the labeling requirements of
your shipping company for dry ice) for shipping. If you are unable to find dry ice,
contact Paul Becker (information below) for shipping instructions. Send via overnight
service to the central storage repository:
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Hollings Marine Laboratory
331 Ft. Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412
Attn: Peregrine Project
Paul Becker or Rebecca Pugh
(843) 762-8861
[email protected]
Notify the recipient by telephone prior to shipping, and try to ship on Monday, Tuesday,
or Wednesday to avoid weekend delays.

B. Protocol for Collection of Peregrine Feathers
Objective
1. Ensure accurate and precise analysis of metallic contaminants in feathers by providing
methods to collect similar feathers from same-age Peregrines.
Materials
Appropriate State and Federal permits; writing utensils; labels; Teflon® collection bags;
clean stainless steel scissors.
To collect feathers, the largest nestling (which is often the nestling with the most
advanced feather development) will be the only nestling sampled per nest. Remove up to
the distal 1.5 cm of the 4th secondary wing feather, from one side only, using clean
stainless steel scissors. Do not cut the follicle, which is vascularized and therefore prone
to bleeding during feather development. Store the sample in a Teflon® (Saivellex, Inc. or
equivalent) collection envelope provided by the National Coordinator. Fill out the
feather collection data form (Figure G-3). Feathers samples can be frozen or stored at
room temperature.
Shipping
Send feather samples to the central storage repository via overnight or otherwise
guaranteed service. Notify the recipient by telephone prior to shipping:
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Hollings Marine Laboratory
331 Ft. Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412
Attn: Peregrine Project
Paul Becker or Rebecca Pugh
(843) 762-8861
[email protected]
Literature Cited – Appendix G
Please see Literature Cited section above.

Figure G-1. Measuring Total Egg Volume. a. Egg immersion chamber. The top bend of
the spigot is high enough so that an egg can be completely immersed below it. b. Immersion
chamber set up to drain into beaker on balance. c. Wire loops used to hold the egg.
49

Figure G-2. Peregrine Falcon Egg Contaminants Data Sheet
*************************
* Paperw ork Red uction A ct
*
* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 *
*
Expires 3/31/2005
*
**************************

Monitoring Region: ___________________________________________________________

Collector name and affiliation: ____________________________________________________

Processor name and affiliation: ____________________________________________________

Date Collected: ________________ Date Processed: ______________

Nest Number or location:______________________________________________________

Egg Number or description:____________________________________________________

Nest status at time of collection:________________________________________________

(laying, incubating, abandoned, with chicks - how many, post-fledging, etc.)

Egg Length (three measurements, 0.1 mm):______ , ______ , ________ _______Average

Egg Width (three measurements, mm): _______ , _______ , ________ _______Average

Whole Egg Weight (0.01 g): _______

Weight of displaced H2O (egg volume) (0.01 g): __________

Contents weight:
a) Tare weight of bag (0.01 g) : __________
b) Weight of bag plus contents (0.01 g): __________
c) Weight of contents (b-a):
__________
Conversion factor = contents weight
= ____________________
displaced H2O weight
Contents condition (age of embryo, state of decay, etc.) and other comments:_______________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Where are the membranes? Inner: __________________ Outer: _______________________

Eggshell thickness (0.01 mm) after > 10 days of air drying (note whether either, neither, or both

membranes are included in the measurements):

First eggshell half: _____ ______ _____ _____ Avg: ______

Second eggshell half:_____ ______ _____ _____ Avg: ______ Overall Average: _______

Dry shell weight (mg) after > 10 days of air drying: ___________________

Additional comments: ________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
51

Figure G-3. Peregrine Falcon Feather Contaminants Data Sheet
*************************
* Paperw ork Red uction A ct
*
* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 *
*
Expires 3/31/2005
*
**************************

Monitoring Region: ___________________________________________________________
Collector name and affiliation: ___________________________________________________
Date Collected: _________________
Nest Number or location:________________________________________________________
USFWS band number: __________________________________________________________
Additional band description and numbers: ________________________________
Estimated age of nestling: _______________________________________________
Estimated sex of nestling: _______________________________________________
Was feather sample collected from (circle) left or right side of nestling?
Additional comments: __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs
911 N.E. 11th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
(503) 231-6164
http://migratorybirds.pacific.fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information
(800) 244-WILD
http://www.fws.gov

December 2003

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	2003-12-04
File Created	2003-12-01