National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol 

for Pinnacles National Monument: Standard 

Operating Procedures 

Version 2.2 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/217
ON THE COVER 

Juvenile prairie falcon. 

Photograph by: Gavin Emmons 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for Pinnacles 

National Monument: Standard Operating Procedures 

Version 2.2 

Natural Resource Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/217 

Gavin Emmons 

Jim Petterson 

National Park Service 

Pinnacles National Monument 

Research and Resource Management 

5000 Highway 146 

Paicines, CA 95043 

Marcus Koenen 

David Press 

National Park Service 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

Fort Cronkhite, Bldg 1063 

Sausalito, CA 94965 

June 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Fort Collins, Colorado
 ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the 

physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the 

achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum 

for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page 

limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal, 

high-level peer review based on the importance of its content, or its potentially controversial or 

precedent-setting nature. Peer review was conducted by highly qualified individuals with subject 

area technical expertise and was overseen by a peer review manager. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory and Monitoring 

Program (http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/index.cfm) and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Emmons, G., J. Petterson, M. Koenen, and D. Press. 2010. Raptor monitoring protocol for 

Pinnacles National Monument: standard operating procedures - version 2.2. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/SFAN/NRR—2010/217. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 114/104178, June 2010 

 
 iii 

CONTENTS 

Page 

SOP 1. Field Methods V1.3 ................................................................................................. SOP 1.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 1.2

Field Work ................................................................................................................... SOP 1.9

References .................................................................................................................. SOP 1.14

SOP 2. Watch Spot Locations V1.0 ..................................................................................... SOP 2.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 2.2

Site Descriptions .......................................................................................................... SOP 2.2

SOP 3. Data Management V 3.2 .......................................................................................... SOP 3.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 3.2

Microsoft Access Raptor Monitoring Database ........................................................... SOP 3.2

Data Entry Procedures ............................................................................................... SOP 3.20

Photos: Capturing, Cataloging, and Archiving .......................................................... SOP 3.27

Procedures for Documenting Digital Photos ............................................................. SOP 3.28

Procedures for Documenting Film Photos ................................................................. SOP 3.28

Spatial Data Management .......................................................................................... SOP 3.29

Quality Assurance and Quality Control ..................................................................... SOP 3.30

Metadata Procedures .................................................................................................. SOP 3.31

Data Storage and Archival Procedures ...................................................................... SOP 3.32

Data Distribution ........................................................................................................ SOP 3.33

Appendix SOP 3A. Pinnacles National Monument Raptor Monitoring Data 

Dictionary .................................................................................................................. SOP 3.34

SOP 4. Protocol Revision and Review V 2.0 ....................................................................... SOP 4.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 4.3
 iv 

Protocol Revision Procedures ...................................................................................... SOP 4.3

Protocol Reviews (2005/2008) .................................................................................... SOP 4.4

2005/2006 Peer Review Comments ............................................................................. SOP 4.4

2008 Peer Review Comments .................................................................................... SOP 4.19

SOP 5. Data Analysis and Reporting V 1.1 ......................................................................... SOP 5.1

Bi-Weekly Updates ...................................................................................................... SOP 5.5

Annual Report .............................................................................................................. SOP 5.5

References .................................................................................................................. SOP 5.18

SOP 6. Using Portable Radios V 1.1 ................................................................................... SOP 6.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 6.2

Procedures .................................................................................................................... SOP 6.2

SOP 7. Using GPS V 1.1 ..................................................................................................... SOP 7.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 7.2

Procedures .................................................................................................................... SOP 7.2

SOP 8. Safety Procedures V 1.1 .......................................................................................... SOP 8.1

Overview ...................................................................................................................... SOP 8.2

Communication ............................................................................................................ SOP 8.2

Reporting Non-Compliance ......................................................................................... SOP 8.2

Weather and Field Attire .............................................................................................. SOP 8.2

Field Hazards ............................................................................................................... SOP 8.2

Job Hazard Analysis (JHA).......................................................................................... SOP 8.3
 v 

TABLES 

 Page 

Table SOP 2. 1. Historic territories for all raptor species at Pinnacles. ............................... SOP 2.2 

Table SOP 3. 1. Index abbreviations and definitions. ........................................................ SOP 3.22 

Table SOP 4. 1. Current versions and version dates for PINN Raptor Monitoring Protocol 

narrative and SOPs. .............................................................................................................. SOP 4.4 

Table SOP 5. 1. Summary of reporting and communication products. ............................... SOP 5.3

Table SOP 5. 2. 2006 Nest phenology and success: falconids (prairie falcons and 

peregrine falcons) ................................................................................................................. SOP 5.8

Table SOP 5. 3. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity for 

all territories. ........................................................................................................................ SOP 5.9

Table SOP 5. 4. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity–

core areas. .......................................................................................................................... SOP 5.10

Table SOP 5. 5. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity for 

non-core territories. ............................................................................................................ SOP 5.11

Table SOP 5. 6 Prairie falcon breeding phenology table (early arrival, incubation, 

hatching, and fledging dates) for 1999–2006. ................................................................... SOP 5.13
 vi 

FIGURES 

 Page 

Figure SOP 1. 1. Field equipment list for raptor monitoring work. ..................................... SOP 1.7 

Figure SOP 2. 1. Territory map for Citadel (CI), Crowley Drainage (CD), Crowley 

Towers (CT), Machete (MAC), North Balconies (NB), South and General Balconies 

(SGB), and Tugboat (TUG). .............................................................................................. SOP 2.14

Figure SOP 2. 2. Territory map for Bench Area (BA), Chalone Picnic Area (CPA), D. 

Soto Canyon (DS), Guard Rock (GR), Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), South Wilderness–Drift 

Fence North (SWN), and West of Chalone Picnic Area (WCP). ...................................... SOP 2.15

Figure SOP 2. 3. Territory map for Bench Area (BA), Chalone Picnic Area (CPA), D. 

Soto Canyon (DS), Guard Rock (GR), Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), South Wilderness–Drift 

Fence North (SWN), and West of Chalone Picnic Area (WCP). ...................................... SOP 2.16

Figure SOP 2. 4. Territory map for Citadel (CI), Egg (EGG), Hawkins Peak (HP), 

Hippopotamus (HIPPO), Teapot Dome (TD), Tunnel (TU), and Upper Condor Gulch 

(UCG). ............................................................................................................................... SOP 2.17

Figure SOP 2. 5. Territory map for Frog Canyon (FC), Hanging Valley (HV), and Little 

Pinnacles (LP). ................................................................................................................... SOP 2.19

Figure SOP 2. 6. Territory map for Canyon N of Willow Spring (CNWS), Marion 

Canyon (MAR), Narrows (NARR), and North Wilderness Rock (NWR), and North 

Wilderness Trail (NWT). ................................................................................................... SOP 2.20

Figure SOP 2. 7. Territory map for Crowley Drainage (CD), Crowley Towers (CT), 

Eagle Rock (ER), Mating Rocks (MAT), North Balconies (NB), North Wilderness Rock 

(NWR), South and General Balconies (SGB), and Tugboat (TUG). ................................. SOP 2.21

Figure SOP 2. 8. Territory map for North Chalone (NC), North Chalone West (NCW), 

and NE Section 15 (NES). ................................................................................................. SOP 2.22

Figure SOP 2. 9. Territory map for Eagle Rock (ER), Guard Rock (GR), Hawkins Peak 

(HP), Pig Canyon (PIG), Upper Condor Gulch (UCG), and West of Chalone Picnic Area 

(WCP). ............................................................................................................................... SOP 2.23

Figure SOP 2. 10. Territory map of Discovery Wall (DIS), Hippopotamus (HIPPO), 

Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), Lower Condor Gulch (LCG), Pipsqueak Pinnacle (PP), and 

Upper Bear Gulch (UBG). ................................................................................................. SOP 2.24

Figure SOP 2. 11. Territory map of Frog (FROG), Goat Rock (GOAT), Deserted Valley 

(DV), Discovery (DIS), Hand (HAND), Neglected Valley (NV), Pipsqueak Pinnacles 

(PP), Prescribed Burn Cliffs (PB), and Scout Peak (SP). .................................................. SOP 2.25
 vii 

Figure SOP 2. 12. Territory map for (EGG), Goat Rock (GOAT), Hawkins Peak (HP), 

Prescribed Burn Cliffs (PB), Resurrection Wall (RW), Scout Peak (SP), Teapot Dome 

(TD), Tunnel (TU), and Western Front (WF). ................................................................... SOP 2.26

Figure SOP 2. 13. Territory map for North Chalone (NC) and South Chalone (SC). ....... SOP 2.27

Figure SOP 2. 14. Territory map for South Wilderness Rock (SWR), South Wilderness – 

North End (SWN), South Wilderness – South End (SWS), and South Wilderness Trail 

(SWT). ............................................................................................................................... SOP 2.28

Figure SOP 2. 15. Territory map for Canyon N of Willow Spring (CNWS), Eagle Rock 

(ER), Guard Rock (GR), Mating Rocks (MAT), North Wilderness Trail (NWT), Pig 

Canyon (PIG), Willow Spring Slide (WSS). ..................................................................... SOP 2.29

Figure SOP 3. 1. Table relationships in the raptor monitoring database. ............................ SOP 3.4 

Figure SOP 3. 2. Database switchboard - main screen of the user interface, viewed at 

startup. .................................................................................................................................. SOP 3.6 

Figure SOP 3. 3. Table connections form used to link to the back-end data tables. ........... SOP 3.6 

Figure SOP 3. 4. Form for setting application default values. ............................................. SOP 3.7 

Figure SOP 3. 5. Gateway to the data entry screens, for browsing and selecting from data 

that have already been entered. ............................................................................................ SOP 3.8 

Figure SOP 3. 6. Primary field data entry form, displaying the observer and raptor 

observation, feeding, and copulation subforms. .................................................................. SOP 3.9 

Figure SOP 3. 7. Subform for entering data history records events associated with raptor 

surveys. .............................................................................................................................. SOP 3.10 

Figure SOP 3. 8. Data form for reviewing all raptor survey and observation records. ..... SOP 3.11 

Figure SOP 3. 9. Form for entering and editing project location information. .................. SOP 3.12 

Figure SOP 3. 10. Form to view and edit contact information, displayed in view mode. . SOP 3.13 
 viii 

Figure SOP 3. 11. Form to view and edit media contact information, displayed in edit 

mode. .................................................................................................................................. SOP 3.14 

Figure SOP 3. 12. Form to view and edit photo log records, displayed in view mode. .... SOP 3.15 

Figure SOP 3. 13. Form to view and edit breeding raptor summary records, displayed in 

edit mode. ........................................................................................................................... SOP 3.16 

Figure SOP 3. 14. Form to manage look-up table values, showing the raptor species lookup table as an example. ...................................................................................................... SOP 3.17 

Figure SOP 3. 15. Form for viewing and entering release information with a subform for 

known bug descriptions. .................................................................................................... SOP 3.19 

Figure SOP 3. 16. Example of photo data placement on the back of a field/archived 

photograph. ........................................................................................................................ SOP 3.29 

Figure SOP 5. 1. Sample line graphs depicting average annual number of hatchlings (left) 

and average annual number of fledglings (right) with standard error bars, 1984–2009. ... SOP 5.12

Figure SOP 5. 2. Sample line graphs depicting average annual number of fledglings in the 

Core (left) and Non-Core (right) areas, 1984–2009. ......................................................... SOP 5.12

Figure SOP 5. 3. Estimated detection probabilities by month ........................................... SOP 5.16

Figure SOP 5. 4. Histogram of hatchlings across years, 2002 - 2009 ............................... SOP 5.17

Figure SOP 5. 5. Histogram of fledglings across years, 2002 - 2009 ................................ SOP 5.18

Figure SOP 7. 1. Garmin III Plus GPS unit. ........................................................................ SOP 7.3 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.1 

SOP 1. Field Methods V1.3 

 

Revision History Log 

Prev. 

Version # 

Revisio

n Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for 

Change 

New 

Version 

# 

1.01 06/200

5 

D. Adams Removed references to 

SOP 5, corrected 

references to SOP 6–11 

SOP #5 not 

needed 

1.02 

1.02 09/200

6 

G. 

Emmons 

Revised SOP 1 to include 

citations, literature 

references, consistent use 

of monitoring terminology, 

updated network links 

Needed in 

response to 

2005 peer 

review 

comments 

1.03 

1.03 08/200

7 

G. 

Emmons, 

Marcus 

Koenen 

Included data sheets with 

field notebooks in review 

materials; minor editing for 

consistency 

Needed for 

consistency 

with revisions 

to SOP 3 

1.04 

1.04 5/2008 G. 

Emmons, 

J. 

Petterson 

and M. 

Koenen 

Remove numbering 

system. Combined with 

other short SOPs (2 and 9) 

to remove redundancy. 

Added maps and site 

descriptions 

Needed for 

consistency 

with revisions 

to SOP 3 

1.2 

1.2 7/2009 D. Adams, 

M. 

Koenen 

Formatting; recombined 

with training SOP, 

removed redundancy 

Peer review 

comments 

1.3 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.2 

Overview 

This SOP provides a chronological guide through the field season along with detailed instruction 

for all field activities. Species identification notes are provided along with documentation for 

watch spots including maps. Additional resources are listed that may be useful to technicians 

new to raptor monitoring. Detailed methods for documenting field observations are presented in 

SOP 3: Data Management and safety considerations to be studied before heading out into the 

field are presented in SOP 8: Safety Procedures. 

Field Season Overview 

Advisories are established at the beginning of the breeding season. Field work focuses on 

determining which territories are occupied by single or paired birds. Each territory (see SOP 2: 

Watchspot Locations) in both the core and non-core areas should be visited at least two to three 

times to determine occupancy, with each visit in a different month. Advisories are lifted for 

unused territories. For paired birds, repeated site visits are made to nests to track status of nest. 

After raptor young hatch, estimate ages of young on at least 3 monitoring visits to accurately 

estimate fledging dates. 

In the sections below, activities are detailed by month. 

 

January Activities 

Training Information 

The observation and interpretation of raptor behavior and nesting is the most important 

component of effective raptor monitoring. Correct field identification of species and breeding 

status will be an essential tool to protect nesting species from human disturbance during the 

breeding season (Hickey 1942, 1969; Bond 1946; Fyfe and Olendorff 1976; Ogden and 

Hornocker 1977; Harmata et. al 1978; Newton 1979, 1990; Sitter 1983; Scott 1985; Steidl et. al 

1993; Watson 1997; Steenhof et al. 1997; Steenhof 1998; Kochert et. al 1999). At the beginning 

of the field season, new or returning technicians should review the entire protocol, SOPs, and 

appendixes. 

Other recommended training materials include the following: 

• Field Notebooks and Data Sheets: Field notebooks and data sheets from previous surveys 

provide a framework and a reference for new technicians. Field notes and data sheets are 

stored by breeding season in folders filed in the “Raptors” cabinet in the RRM Office. 

Additional information can be found on the park network under the file path, “S:\RM 

Workgroups\projects\Breeding Raptors\INSTRUCT.” 

• Manuals for some of the equipment (e.g., Kestrel weather meter, GPS, two-way radios) 

are available in the RRM office. 

• Testing Requirements: To maintain consistent note taking over the years, the supervisor 

should test the raptor technician’s note taking abilities. Testing can be done by comparing 

field notes and discussing discrepancies. This should be repeated as the season progresses 

and behaviors change from courtship to incubation and to identify nestlings and 

fledglings. New technicians should maintain 90% accuracy when compared to the 

supervisor to keep data consistent. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.3 

Species Identification 

In addition to consulting a field guide (e.g. Dunn 1999, Dunne et al. 1988, Johnsgard 1990, 

Palmer 1988, Sibley 2000, Wheeler 2003) the following species raptor species have been 

documented at PINN: 

• Prairie falcon: large falconid shape and wings, pale brown-gray above, whitish below; 

dark “armpits” (coverts & axillaries) in flight; thin “moustache” below eye with white 

behind eye, white stripe extending from eyebrows around the back of the head, and 

whitish breast evident, while perched. Stiff “arthritic” flight with wing beats coming 

primarily from the wrist instead of the shoulder. Deep Kik-Kik call, higher than peregrine. 

• Peregrine falcon: large falconid shape and wings, with wingtips more pointed and tail 

shorter than prairies; slate-colored above (with juveniles dark gray-brown above), 

underside uniformly spotted or barred, with white throat, in flight; heavy moustache 

contrasts with white throat, breast and belly heavily marked, head appears hooded, while 

perched. Flight is fluid, with undulating wing beats rippling down length of wings. Deep 

Rek-Rek or Kek-Kek call, similar to prairie but lower, more throaty. 

• American kestrel: small falconid shape and wings; boldly patterned head with two 

moustache marks, small beak, small legs, while perched. Males and females dimorphic. 

Males with blue-gray wings, white pearls along trailing wing edges, solid red tails with 

thick black band on the margin. Females all rufous with barring on tail. High-pitched 

Klee-klee call. 

• Red-tailed hawk: large buteo shape (stocky body, broad wings, bulging secondaries) with 

red tail usually distinctive in adults and white/brown banded tail in juveniles. In flight, 

dark rectangular marking on the underside of the wing’s leading edge and patagium. 

Numerous color morphs, with light morph the most common, rufous morphs less common, 

and dark morphs the least common. For light morphs, dark head contrasts with pale breast 

perched and in flight. For rufous morphs, breast is more distinctly rufous / reddish, dark 

head still distinctive. For dark morphs, dark head blends into color of back, patagial marks, 

and breast/belly, with flight feathers on underwings pale gray to whitish and contrasting 

sharply. 

• Golden eagle: very large and dark, with long, broad wings, in flight wings look like a 

1' x 10' piece of board/lumber, white band on tail base in juveniles, adults with solid dark 

tail, in flight; golden nape, large beak and feathered legs, large-bodied, while perched. In 

flight, wing profile is flat. Heavy steady wing beats coming from shoulder, very little wrist 

movement. Soaring flight is very steady. 

• Turkey vulture: long wings, silvery flight feathers contrasting with dark coverts, small, 

bare head in flight; red head contrasting with brownish body for adults, juveniles’ head 

same as body color, hunched appearance, while perched. In flight, wing profile is “v” 

shaped (dihedral), flight is very light and wobbly in the air. 

• Red-shouldered hawk: medium-small buteo with accipiter-like shape, red-orange 

shoulders/head distinctive, blackish wings have checkerboard appearance and distinctive 

windows, and black tail with narrow white bands, in flight and while perched; orangish 

breast, long legs evident while perched. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.4 

• Cooper’s hawk: medium accipiter shape, with wings held straight, leading line of wing is 

very straight, long, rounded tail (scoop-shaped with an obtuse angle), orange-barred 

breast/underwing coverts in adults, white and brown streaked breast in juveniles. Cooper’s 

appear to have “less” color than sharp-shins. Large head that protudes well in front of 

wing-leading line, giving these hawks the appearance of a cross in flight; long legs, 

distinctly larger than jay-sized, while perching. Adults with slate-gray body color, 

juveniles are brown. Powerful flight that is steady, seldom buffeted by the wind. Cooper’s 

hawks have a shorter wing length as compared to the head-tail length. 

• Sharp-shinned hawk: small accipiter shape, with wings swept forward, square tail, angle 

on tail 90 degrees or less, orange-barred breast/underwing coverts in adults, white and 

brown streaked breast in juveniles. Sharp-shins appear to have more color than Cooper’s 

hawks; small head barely, if at all, extends past leading edge of wing in flight, giving these 

hawks the appearance of a “T” while flying; thin legs, jay-sized, while perching. Flight is 

very light, often appears like a “butterfly” as it is bounced around by the wind. Sharpies 

have a longer wing length as compared to the head-tail length. 

• White-tailed kite: slender raptor with long, pointed wings usually held in dihedral, white 

plumage and black shoulders / wrist spots very distinctive, neck / head orangish-brown 

streaked in juveniles. Often hovers / kites in flight while hunting and in courtship. High, 

thin whistle call. Distinguished from northern harrier male by white head, , breast, belly, 

and tail. 

• Northern harrier: slender raptor with long wings and tail, can be confused with buteo, 

accipiter, or falconid in flight due to variety of flight shapes, but characteristic flapping 

punctuates flight regularly. White rump very distinctive and visible in low hunting flights 

over grassland / marsh habitat. Adult male, female, and juvenile plumages all different and 

distinctive: adult male has ashy, pale gray back, head, and white underwings contrasting 

with black wing tips; adult female has brownish back, pale shoulder bars, boldly barred 

secondaries, and brown-streaked belly / patagial marks’ juvenile has dark head and barred 

secondaries contrasting with orangish breast / belly. All have owlish facial disc and gray / 

brown barring on tail. 

• Barn owl: medium-sized owl with relatively long, pointed wings, distinctive plumage 

characterized by pale tawny back and white breast, belly, underwings. Facial disc round 

and heart-shaped, white, contrasting with black eyes; no horns on head. Call is a long 

hissing shriek, screech, or scream. 

• Long-eared owl: medium-sized owl with relatively long and slender wings. Body plumage 

has dark streaking and barring, with facial disc tawny-orange, characterized by long eartufts and dark vertical stripes through yellow-orange eyes. Has superficial resemblance to 

great-horned owls, but much smaller size, with distinctive facial pattern different and 

facial disc longer. Call is soft, low, monotonous, a single “hoot” given every 3-5 seconds. 

• Great-horned owl: large and bulky owl, rather like red-tailed hawk in flight, with broad 

body and large head, stout ear tufts. Plumage variable, but with dark, brownish, and 

orangish streaking all usually evident. Facial disc grayish to orangish, with ear tufts and 

large yellow eyes evident. No vertical stripes through eyes as in long-eared owl, with face 

more round than long. Call is a deep, muffled hooting in a rhythmic series, similar to that 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.5 

of mourning doves. Vocalizations can be quite loud, and often include a repetition of “hoo 

hoohoo HOOO hoo” with variations common. 

• Western screech-owl: small owl with ear tufts sometimes but not always visible. Grayish 

to brownish streaked plumage, wings broad, eyes yellow, facial disc gray-brownish. Call is 

distinctive, accelerating series of whistle hoots, rather like a bouncing ball, repeated 

regularly. 

• Northern pygmy-owl: very small owl without ear tufts, relatively long-tailed and shortwinged. Plumage brownish overall, with crown / sides spotted white, narrow whie bars 

on tail, and characteristic false eye-spots on back of head. Eyes yellow. Call is a series of 

monotonously repeated single or double toots, quite variable, but often incessant for long 

periods.

Additional species identification resources: 

• Birds of North America (BNA) Online accounts for comprehensive and current 

information on all raptor species at PINN, accessible at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. 

• Tapes or CDs of bird songs for raptor species found at PINN, particularly for owl species, 

as vocalizations are the primary means of identifying owl species, locations, and possible 

nest sites in the field. These tapes and CDs are produced by Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology’s Library of Natural Sounds and may be obtained from State Wildlife 

Agencies. 

• National Audubon Society Interactive CD-ROM Guide to North American Birds. This 

interactive CD-ROM is an excellent resource for learning calls, site ID and background 

information on raptor species. 

• A slide collection and digital photos of bird species likely to be encountered, available in 

the RRM office and museum. 

Digital Supplemental Training Information 

The following information has been assembled to serve as a resource for new technicians. It is all 

available on the SFAN Intranet: 

http://www1.nrintra.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/monitor/raptors/raptors.cfm 

• The “ArcGIS Watchspot Maps” folder contains a PDF file with topographic maps that 

depict all the historical prairie falcon nesting territories and associated observation point 

features including falcon locations and codes, watch spots that provide good vantage areas 

from which to make nest observations to document nestlings and fledglings, advisory sign 

locations, trails used to access watch spots, pig fence boundaries, and area limits of falcon 

territories. All watchspot maps are projected in NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. New 

watchspots may need to be added if new nests are located. Original maps are available in 

ARC GIS. See also SOP 1: Field Methods. 

• The “Datasheet and Notebook Pages” folder contains examples of datasheets and field 

notebook pages used by monitors in the field, as well as a blank raptor monitoring 

datasheet. See also SOP 1. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.6 

• The “Raptor Aging Guides” contains 3 folders representing raptor aging guides (no longer 

available in print), with PDF files covering scanned pages depicting cues for aging raptor 

nestlings in the field. The aging guides are used by raptor monitors to assist in aging 

prairie falcons (as well as peregrine falcons which have very similar phenology patterns), 

golden eagles, and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). 

• The “Unpublished Raptor Monitoring Documents” folder contains 3 unpublished 

documents written by past Pinnacles biologists including: 

• “Fesnock 1993” details the annual raptor monitoring process 

• “Rechtin, Observation Point Directions” provides directions for finding observation points 

• “Rechtin 1992” details raptor monitoring efforts for the years from 1987-1992.

Other Supplemental Training Information 

The following supplemental information has been assembled by previous staff and is available in 

the RRM office. Published articles include: Rechtin and Leatherman 1992, Fesnock 1993, and 

Buranek 1998. Unpublished documents include: “Seasonal Duties of the Raptor Monitoring 

Technician” and “Raptor observations – technique key.” Both are available in the folder titled 

“Instructions – Raptor Monitoring,” filed in the RRM Office cabinet “Raptors,” with the former 

also networked through the file path, “S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM 

Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding Raptors\INSTRUCT \schedule.doc.” Also see 

Field season notes from previous years (especially 2002-2008). Additional reference guides are 

available in the RRM office on the shelves designated as “Wildlife” space, and should be carried 

into the field as quick references in helping to identify unknown birds and behaviors. A park bird 

checklist is also available online at http://www.nps.gov/archive/pinn/pdffiles/BirdList.pdf. 

Other references that may be of interest to staff but have not been cited elsewhere in this 

document include: Moritsch (1983a, 1983b), Dunne et al. (1988), Preston and Beane (1993), 

Crocoll (1994), Marks et al. (1994), MacWhirter and Bildstein (1996), Anderson and Squires 

(1997), Baicich and Harrison (1997), Houston et al. (1998), Kirk and Mossman (1998), Holt and 

Petersen (2000), Cannings and Angell (2001), Smallwood and Bird (2002), Marti et al. (2005), 

and Curtis and Rosenfield (2006). 

Preparing Field Equipment 

Supplies and Equipment: Equipment required to conduct field work is listed in Table 8. The 

equipment should be organized and made ready for the field season several weeks in advance of 

the field season. This allows time to make needed repairs and order equipment. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.7 

Figure SOP 1. 1. Field equipment list for raptor monitoring work. 

Number 

Required Field Equipment Description 

 Equipment for raptor monitoring 

2 Field notebook with Gregg-ruled lines and weather-proof paper 

5+ per day Data sheets with hard copies of digital photos inserted per respective territories to be 

visited 

2+ Catalogued photographs of territories/rocks/nest sites 

1 8x40 or 10x42 binoculars 

1 20-60x spotting scope 

1 Tripod 

1 Waterproof / weather-resistant watch 

1 Kestrel weather meter (with thermometer and measures of wind speed) 

1 Motorola XTS 3000 portable radio for communication with park staff/Sequoia dispatch 

1 Battery charger for Motorola XTS 3000 

1 Trimble Geo Explorer 3 or Garmin III Plus GPS unit for documenting/navigating to watch 

spots. 

1 Laser rangefinder (for measuring nest distance for end-of-season analysis) 

1 Compass (for navigation and describing raptor movement / locations) 

1 SLR camera with 24-120mm zoom and 300mm prime lenses (for post-season) 

1 Reference guides for bird and rock formation identification 

2–3 Ball-point pens 

5+ Handouts of raptor closure areas 

5+ Natural history field observation cards 

 Equipment for general backcountry travel / hiking 

1 Internal or external frame backpack (with at least 4000 cubic in. capacity) 

1 Pair of sturdy hiking boots / shoes 

1 Broad-brimmed hat 

2 Pair of wool / synthetic hiking socks 

1 Rain pants and jacket 

1 Pair of gaiters 

1 Sunblock 

2–4 1-liter water bottle (more bottles dependent on weather & individual monitors) 

1 Topographic map for PINN 

1 Headlamp (preferably with L.E.D. lighting) 

1 First aid kit 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.8 

Climbing and Hiking Advisories 

• Establish Climbing/Hiking Advisories: Climbing / hiking advisories are essential 

management tools promoting the protection of sensitive species of cliff-nesting raptors in 

the core areas of the park, particularly the cliff-nesting California species of concern: 

prairie falcons, peregrine falcons, and golden eagles. 

o Advisories are put into effect every year from the beginning to the end of the 

raptor-breeding season (Jan – July/August) to protect raptors from disturbance by 

climbers and hikers. While advisories are not closures, any visitors found within 

advisory areas can be cited and fined by park law enforcement staff. 

o Success of the advisories depends largely on the effective dissemination of 

information to visitors, and park staff who enforce advisories in effect. The 

communication component includes updating bulletin boards, putting up (and 

taking down) advisory signs, updating advisory brochures, writing press releases, 

and e-mailing biweekly raptor updates to park staff. 

o At the beginning of the season, advisories are established for all core area 

territories occupied by prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, and golden eagle pairs 

within any of the last 3 years, as well as any territories in visitor use areas with 

very limited nest site options, including Egg, Teapot Dome, and Citadel, 

regardless of their use within the last 3 years. Review field notes, data sheets, 

annual reports, and advisory brochures from the last 3 years, available in the 

“Raptors” cabinet in the RRM office, for information on which territories have 

been used in the last 3 years. 

• Post Advisories: By the Friday before MLK day, post advisory signs at sensitive areas 

used by climbers. These include Scout, Hawkins, Frog / Hand, and Little Pinnacles on the 

east side, and Balconies on the west side. 

o Signs are stored in the Gas House at the end of the Condor Gulch Road. 

o The Scout Peak, Little Pinnacles, and General Balconies signs have metal 

foundations they should be bolted to. The metal foundation for General Balconies 

is just below Smiling Simian. The foundation for Little Pinnacles is up the 

Chalone Peak Trail, just left on the ridge that rises to become the Little Pinnacles 

cliffs. The foundation for Scout Peak is south uphill from the Scout outhouse on 

the Rock You’re Not Supposed To Be On. 

o The South Balconies, Frog / Hand, and Hawkins signs must be posted in the 

ground with the use of a shovel or weed tool, available in the Gas House. The 

Hawkins sign should be placed on the main climber access trail, just beyond a 

narrow rocky passage before the access trail splits towards the various formations 

and routes on Hawkins. The Frog / Hand sign should be placed at the SE end of 

the Reservoir along the climber access route to Frog / Hand. The South Balconies 

sign should be placed at the saddle up from the climber access route from the 

Balconies Cliff Trail, near the high base of Tilting Terrace. 

o All sensitive areas have climbing access signs that should be taken down and 

returned to the Gas House. A socket wrench and vise grips are necessary tools for 

affixing these signs, and are stored in the RRM office. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.9 

o For site locations, refer to the GPS coordinates listed in the “Advisory Points” 

table in the “Raptor Monitoring” MS Access Application, and the “advisory 

points.dbf” file incorporated in the “Raptor Nest Map” ArcMap project (for more 

details, see SOP 3: Data Management). 

• Disseminate advisory information through press releasew and web site: Press releases are 

used to inform the public about advisories. 

o Review formats for press releases, available at the network path, 

“S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding 

Raptors\PRESSREL.” These can be reused annually, but make sure they are 

updated to reflect current advisory information. For example, open 

“06press1.doc,” and edit the release to reflect the current date, advisory areas, 

phone numbers, etc. For the January press release for 2007, this would be saved 

as “07press1.doc.” 

o Send a copy of the press release to the Public Information Officer in Interpretive 

Resources for approval of the presentation of information within the release. 

o Mail copies of the press release to climbing shops, newspapers, and Pacific West 

Region. Mailing addresses are available at the network path, " 

S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding 

Raptors\PRESSREL,” in the “names and addresses.FP5” database. To print all the 

addresses on one sheet, make sure the database is in “preview” mode, with the 

“mail labels” layout. These should be printed on sheets of mailing labels available 

in the RRM and Administration offices. Include copies of the advisory brochures 

with the press releases, and mail to the climbing shops only. 

o Post updates on advisories to the park web site and submit to Friends of Pinnacles 

(FOP) web site (http://www.pinnacles.org/). 

Field Work 

Schedule: Developing a schedule for site visits will be helpful at the beginning of the field 

season because there are many potential nesting territories in which to confirm occupancy and 

raptor nesting during the breeding season. Visit other areas of raptor activity as you can, en route 

to observation points for target areas, during lulls in activity in the breeding season, and later in 

the nest season (in March) when you are more likely to see nests and defensive adults active. 

Adhere to the visit schedule generally, but change your visit schedule as necessary to witness 

important events, such as nest selection, incubation/hatching, and especially full fledging of 

young from nests. Territories can be “bumped up (or down)” in priority if you are expecting a 

change in breeding phenology (or not). Other factors (e.g., rain, fog, etc.) are likely to change the 

schedule as well. 

Observations: Priorities for field work at the beginning of the season are to visit territories to 

determine occupancy. Spend 1-4 hours observing at each site before concluding that a territory is 

unoccupied. Behavior to note include defensive territorial displays, perches and holes used, food 

exchanges between males and females, use of night roosts. 

Site Visits: Site visits during the early part of the breeding season need to be timed late in the 

day. During daytime, falcons are typically outside of the park to feed. They typically return to 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.10 

the breeding areas in the park toward dusk. Most observations will take place just before raptors 

fly into cliff crevices to roost for the night. 

When possible, check multiple historical raptor territories during observation periods to make 

efficient use of visits. For example, when visiting North Balconies from the departure point of 

Chalone Picnic Area, pay attention to potential raptor activity en route at Guard Rock (at the foot 

of Pig Canyon), along Old Pinnacles Trail, at the North Wilderness Trail junction, and at Eagle 

Rock. While observing North Balconies, also pay attention to raptor activity at Crowley, and any 

activity at Machete, the Balconies Cave Trail junction, etc. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

Communication 

Write and send first bi-weekly update (see details on updates in SOP 5: Data Analysis and 

Reporting. Also write the status of raptors by territory on the whiteboard in the conference room, 

and update the Breeding Raptors Map in the Superintendent’s Office to provide staff with 

another source of information on the raptor monitoring program. Include species, breeding 

status, and territories for the conference room whiteboard, and raptor specific push pins by 

territorial location on the Breeding Raptors Map in the Superintendent’s Office. 

February Activities 

Field Work 

The best chance of seeing falcons continues to be late in the day as raptors return to roost sites 

from feeding areas. Continue making raptor monitoring observations to determine occupancy 

and nesting status. Look for food exchanges between males and females, copulations, inspection 

of potential nest sites, territorial displays, and territorial defense. Continue to make site visits late 

in the day in increase chance of seeing prairie falcons. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

March Activities 

Field Work 

The best chance of seeing falcons continues to be late in the day as raptors return to roost sites 

from feeding areas. Once nests have started, raptors may be found during any time of the day. 

• Continue making raptor monitoring observations to determine occupancy and nesting 

status. 

• Look for lethargy of egg-laden females, nest switches, and food exchanges. 

• If nests are located, note incubation (usually starting in the middle of the month), and 

note duration to determine “soft” vs. “hard” incubation. 

• Document location of nest and number of eggs. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.11 

• Enter data into database. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

April Activities 

Field Work 

Continue making raptor monitoring observations to determine occupancy and nesting status. In 

addition to previously noted behaviors look for first hatchlings at the end of the month. Enter 

data into database. 

Climbing and Hiking Advisories 

As soon as all prairie falcon pairs have chosen nest sites, usually in late March to mid-April, 

update advisory information, by following the guidelines below: 

• Contact rangers with Interpretive Resources, and inform them about updated advisory 

brochures, notices, and bulletin boards on the east side and west side with additional 

advisory information, re-openings of unoccupied areas, etc. 

• Mail new advisory brochures and notices to climbing shops only; no additional 

notification is done at this point in the season. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

May Activities 

Field Work 

• Continue making raptor monitoring observations to determine occupancy and nesting 

status. 

• Look for number of nestlings and their ages, food drops and caches from adults. 

• Also document possible nest failures or nestling losses. The first fledging may occur at 

the end of the month. 

• Enter data into database. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

June–July Activities 

Field Work 

Continue making raptor monitoring observations to determine nesting status. In addition to 

previously noted behaviors document number of nestlings and their ages. Consider early 

morning/later afternoon field work as chick activity is often diminished in the mid-day heat. 

Climbing and Hiking Advisories 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.12 

Remove Climbing/Hiking Advisories: Two weeks after fledging has finished, usually in June or 

July, lift climbing / hiking advisories at the park, following guidelines listed below: 

• Remove and store all advisory signs in the Gas House at the end of the Condor Gulch 

Road. 

• Retrieve climbing access signs from the Gas House and affix them to the metal 

foundations for Little Pinnacles and General Balconies. 

• Update the bulletin boards with the “all is open” signs, with the assistance of Interpretive 

Resources staff. 

• Send press release to advise media of updated advisories. 

• Update park web page and contact FOP. 

Equipment Maintenance 

• Clean and repair all pieces of equipment prior to returning them to their proper storage 

areas in the Resource Management Office. The Swarovski 20-60x spotting scope and 

Zeiss 10x42 binoculars are both very expensive, and should be stored securely in the 

Resource Management Office, ideally in the Resource Chief’s office. 

• All reference manuals should be re-shelved on their appropriate bookshelves. 

• Other reference materials and extra data sheets need to be filed in their appropriate filing 

cabinets. 

Data Management 

Data sheets and notebooks need to be reviewed for completeness each day. Make corrections and 

make photocopies. 

• Photographs: Update field photos at the end of the field season of new territories (see for 

further details see 3: Data Management). 

• Annual Report: Write the annual raptor monitoring report as outlined in SOP 5: Data 

Analysis and Reporting. 

• Data Sharing: All applicable breeding raptor records for the season should be sent to the 

CDFG, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the SCPBRG, incorporating 

PINN records into a regional and nationwide network of raptor monitoring efforts and 

reports. 

o SCPBRG: Document any peregrine falcon breeding data from the 

“breedingraptors” database by printing a copy of the “FWS_PEFA_Form.doc,” 

accessed through the network path, “S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM 

Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding Raptors\database\important database 

files\SCPBRG Forms.” Print a copy of the form for each breeding record. 

 Photocopy each form and file these in the “Raptors” cabinet in the RRM 

Office. 

 Fill out the SCPBRG forms and mail them to: Predatory Bird Research 

Group, Long Marine Lab, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. For further 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.13 

information, and to receive forms detailing peregrine falcon nest sites, 

contact Janet Linthicum (janetl@ucsc.edu). 

o CNDDB: Document any records for California species of concern from the 

“breedingraptors” database by opening the “natspec.pdf” file through the network 

path, “S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding 

Raptors\database\important database files\CNDDB Forms.” Fill out forms based on 

data for each breeding record documented in the “breedingraptors” database for the 

season. Refer to the “fsfinst.pdf” and “CNDDB_GPSInstructions.pdf” files, and the 

CNDDB website - http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/animals.html - for further 

instructions on how to fill out the “natspec.pdf” form. 

 Print associated topographic maps by opening www.topozone.com and 

zooming into sections of PINN maps to CNDDB standards, listed in the 

above PDF files. With red ink or pencils, circle and label watchspots and 

nest sites documented on the associated “natspec.pdf” form. 

 Photocopy all forms and associated maps, and file these in the “Raptors” 

cabinet in the RRM Office. 

 Mail all breeding record forms and associated maps to: CNDDB, 

Department of Fish and Game, 1807 13th Street, Suite 202, Sacramento, 

CA 95814. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.14 

References 

Anderson, S. H., and J. R. Squires. 1997. The prairie falcon. University of Texas Press. Austin, 

TX. 

Baicich, P. J., and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North 

American birds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 

Bond, R. M. 1946. The peregrine populations of western North America. Condor 48:101–116. 

Buranek, S. 1998. Raptor observations – technique key. Unpublished report. Pinnacles National 

Monument, Paicines, CA. 

Cannings, R. J., and T. Angell. 2001. Western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii). No. 597 in A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Crocoll, S. T. 1994. Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). A. Poole, editor. The birds of North 

America online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from The 

Birds of North American Online database: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Red-shouldered_Hawk/ (accessed 1 September 

2008). 

Curtis, O. E., and R. N. Rosenfield. 2006. Cooper's hawk. (Accipiter cooperii). A. Poole, editor. 

The birds of North America online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Coopers_Hawk/(accessed 1 September 2008). 

Dunn, J. L. 1999. The National Geographic field guide to birds: 3rd edition. National 

Geographic, Washington D.C. 

Dunne, P., D. Sibley, and C. Sutton. 1988. Hawks in flight. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, 

MA. 

Fesnock, A. 1993. Seasonal duties of the raptor technician. Unpublished. Pinnacles National 

Monument, Paicines, CA. 

Fyfe, R. W., and R. R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and 

other sensitive species. Canadian Wildlife Serv. Occas. Pap. 23:1–17. 

Harmata, A. R., J. E. Durr, and H. Geduldig. 1978. Home range, activity patterns and habitat use 

of prairie falcons nesting in the Mojave Desert. Unpublished report to the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, CA. 

Hickey, J. J. 1942. Eastern population of the duck hawk. Auk 59:176–204. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.15 

Hickey, J. J. 1969. Peregrine falcon populations: their biology and decline. University of 

Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 

Holt, D. W., and J. L. Petersen. 2000. Northern pygmy-owl (Glaucidium gnoma). No. 494 in A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Houston, C. S., D. G. Smith, and C. Rohner. 1998. Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). No. 

372 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, & falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

Kirk, D. A., and M. J. Mossman. 1998. Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). No. 339 in A. Poole 

and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, L. B. Carpenter, and J. M. Marzluff. 1999. Effects of fire on golden 

eagle territory occupancy and reproductive success. Journal of Wildlife Management 

63:773–780. 

MacWhirter, R. B., and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). No. 210 in A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Marks, J. S., D. L. Evans, and D. W. Holt. 1994. Long-eared owl (Asio otus). No. 133 in A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural 

Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Marti, C. D., A. F. Poole, and L. R. Bevier. 2005. Barn owl (Tyto alba). A. Poole, editor. The 

Birds of North America Online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Barn_Owl/ (accessed 1 September 2008). 

Moritsch, M. Q. 1983a. Photographic guide for aging nesting prairie falcons. U. S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Snake River Birds of Prey Project, Boise 

District, ID. 

Moritsch, M. Q. 1983b. Photographic guide for aging nesting Red-tailed Hawks. U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Snake River Birds of Prey 

Project, Boise District, ID. 

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Buteo Books, Shipman, VA. 

Newton, I. 1990. Birds of prey. Facts on File, Inc., New York, NY. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 1.16 

Ogden, V. T., and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Nesting density and success of prairie falcons in 

southwestern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:1–11. 

Palmer, R. S. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4. Yale University Press, New 

Haven, CT. 

Preston, C. R., and R. D. Beane. 1993. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). No. 52 in A. Poole 

and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Rechtin, J., and T. Leatherman. 1992. Directions for taking raptor observations. Unpublished 

report. Pinnacles National Monument, Paicines, CA. 

Scott, T. A. 1985. Human impacts on the golden eagle population of San Diego County. Thesis. 

San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 

Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society: The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 

New York, NY. 

Sitter, G. 1983. Feeding activity and behavior of prairie falcons in the Snake River Birds of Prey 

Natural Area in southwestern Idaho. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Smallwood, J. A., and D. M. Bird. 2002. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius). No. 602 in A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Steenhof, K. 1998. Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). No. 346 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. 

The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert, and T. L. McDonald. 1997. Interactive effects of prey and weather 

on golden eagle reproduction. Journal of Animal Ecology 66:350–362. 

Steidl, R. J., K. D. Kozie, G. J. Dodge, T. Pehovski, and E. R. Hogan. 1993. Effects of human 

activity on breeding behavior of golden eagles in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve: a preliminary assessment. WRST Research and Resource Management Report 

no. 93-3. National Park Service, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Copper 

Center, AK. 

Watson, J. 1997. The golden eagle. 1st edition. T and A. D. Poyser Ltd, London, U.K. 

Wheeler, B. 2003. Raptors of western North America: the Wheeler guide. Princeton University 

Press, Princeton, NJ. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.1 

SOP 2. Watch Spot Locations V1.0 

 

Revision History Log 

Prev. 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for 

Change 

New 

Version # 

1.0 6/2009 M Koenen Initial Draft Address 

comments by 

reviewers 

1.0 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.2 

Overview 

This SOP provides detailed directions to watch spots used to monitor historic territories for 

potential nests. The SOP was based on a document by Julie Rechtin (approximately 1992) and 

was updated in 2008. Directions are provided for all raptor species including Prairie Falcons. 

Hard copies of photographs referred to in the directions are available in the metal file box in the 

RRM Office on the “Wildlife” shelves. Digital copies are on the network drive: 

S:\RRM\Images\Raptor_DB_Photos\scans. 

Site Descriptions 

Although this protocol focuses on prairie falcon monitoring, park managers are also interested in 

identifying nesting activity of other raptor species. Directions to prairie falcon watch spots are 

presented as suggested routes that also pass along historic territories of other species. These can 

be easily checked en route to historic prairie falcon sites. Table 6 presents a list of all historic 

raptor territories at Pinnacles National Monument. Directions to watch spots and accompanying 

figures are presented below. 

While most watch spots are relatively easy to locate, remote territories such as South Wilderness 

Rock, North Wilderness Rock, Canyon N of Willow Springs, Willow Spring Slide, Narrows, and 

South Chalone are challenging to find. These sites will require significant off-trail hiking to 

access, map reading skills, and GPS use. Some general guidelines for backcountry navigation to 

territories and watch spots include the following: 

When navigating to watch spots, take advantage of park geography; use high points and rock 

outcrops devoid of vegetation to gain visibility and orient to your location within the park. 

Avoid hiking through virgin chamise and dense chaparral whenever possible, as they limit 

visibility and significantly increase travel time to observation points 

GPS units can also provide points of reference to confirm that you are nearing UTM coordinates 

of historic observation points, documented in field notes and on certain catalogued photographs. 

However, GPS units should not be used as the primary navigation tool to observation points; the 

obstacles of chaparral, rock formations and chaparral will make this nearly impossible. 

Table SOP 2. 1. Historic territories for all raptor species at Pinnacles.Prairie falcon territories area noted 

with (P). Prairie falcon territories in core (C) and non-core (N) areas are identified. 

Territories 

Abbreviation 

Codes 

Core (C) or 

Non-Core (N) 

Area Route 

Figures 

SOP 2.X 

Balconies Cave Trail BCT N 1 - 

Bench Area BA N 10 2, 3 

Canyon N of Willow Springs (P) CNWS N 5 6, 15 

Chalone Picnic Area CPA N 1 2 

Citadel (P) CI C 1 1, 4 

Crowley Drainage CT C 1 1, 7 

Crowley Towers (P) CD N 1 1, 7 

D. Soto Canyon (P) 

Deserted Valley (P) 

DS 

DV 

N 

C 

9 

7 

2 

11 

Discovery Wall (P) DIS N 4 10, 11 

Double Gates DG N 12 - 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.3 

Territories 

Abbreviation 

Codes 

Core (C) or 

Non-Core (N) 

Area Route 

Figures 

SOP 2.X 

Drywall (P) DRY N 10 3 

Eagle Rock ER N 1 7, 9, 15 

Egg (P) EGG C 1, 8 4, 12 

Eucalyptus Grove EG N 12 - 

Frog Canyon (P) FC N 2, 10 5 

Frog/Hand (P) FROG/HAND C 4 11 

General Balconies (P) GB C 1 1, 7 

Goat Rock (P) GOAT/RW C 7, 8 11, 12 

Grassy Canyon -- Creek Crossing East GC N 10 3 

Guard Rock -- Foot of Pig Canyon GR N 1 2, 9, 14 

Hanging Valley (P) HV N 2 5 

Hawkins Peak (P) HP C 6 4, 9, 12 

Hippopotamus HIPPO N 6 4, 10 

Jawbone Canyon JAW N 12 - 

Juniper Canyon JC N 12 - 

Kingman Land North - Regan Rd to Highway 25 KLN N 11 - 

Kingman Land South - Pinn CG to Regan Rd KLS N 11 - 

Little Pinnacles (P) LP C 2 5 

Lower Bear Gulch LBG N 6 2, 10 

Lower Condor Gulch LCG N 6 10 

Machete (P) MAC C 1 1 

Marion Canyon (P) MAR N 5 6 

Mating Rocks (P) MAT N 1 7, 15 

McCabe Canyon MC N 11 - 

Narrows -- East Fork of Marion Canyon (P) NARR N 5 6 

NE Sec 15 (P) NES N 3 7 

Neglected Valley (P) NV C 4 11 

North Balconies (P) NB C 1 1, 7 

North Chalone (P) 

North Chalone West 

NC 

NCW 

N 

N 

3 

3 

8, 13 

8 

North Wilderness Rock (P) NWR N 1 6, 7 

North Wilderness Trail NWT N 5 6, 15 

Old Pinnacles Trail -- Chalone Annex OPTC N 5 - 

Old Pinnacles Trail -- North Wilderness Junct OPTN N 5 - 

Peaks View Area PVA N 10 - 

Pig Canyon (P) PIG N 6 9, 14 

Pinnacles Campground PCG N 11 - 

Pipsqueak Pinnacles (P) PP C 7 10, 11 

Prescribed Burn Cliffs (Gargoyle) (P) PB C 4 11, 12 

Resurrection Wall (P) RW N 7 12 

Scout Peak (P) SP C 7 11, 12 

South Balconies (P) SB C 1 1, 7 

South Chalone (P) SC N 3 13 

South Wilderness -- Drift Fence North SWN N 10 2, 3, 14 

South Wilderness -- South End SWS N 10 14 

South Wilderness Rock (P) SWR N 10 14 

South Wilderness Trail SWT N 10 3, 14 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.4 

Territories 

Abbreviation 

Codes 

Core (C) or 

Non-Core (N) 

Area Route 

Figures 

SOP 2.X 

Teapot Dome (P) TD C 7 4, 12 

Tugboat (P) TUG N 1 1, 7 

Tunnel (P) TU C 8 4, 12 

Upper Bear Gulch -- Moses Spg Trl to Reservoir UBG N 4 10 

Upper Condor Gulch UCG N 6 4, 9 

West of Chalone Picnic Area WCP N 9 3, 9 

West Side Entrance WSE N 12 - 

Western Front WF N 7 12 

Willow Springs Slide (P) WSS N 5 15 

For territories without figures, a park map found in a current park brochure will suffice. 

Route 1. Old Pinnacles Trail (Figures SOP 2.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 15) 

Territories Covered 

Chalone Picnic Area (CPA), Guard Rock (GR), Eagle Rock (ER), North Wilderness Rock 

(NWR), Mating Rocks (MAT), Tugboat (TUG), North Balconies (NB), Crowley Towers (CT), 

Crowley Drainage (CD), South and General Balconies (SGB), Machete (MAC), Citadel (CI), 

Egg (EGG) and Balconies Cave Trail (BCT). 

Description 

Chalone Picnic Area, Guard Rock, Eagle Rock: From the Chalone Housing Area, the live oak 

groves between the housing and maintenance buildings are known as the Chalone Picnic Area. 

Leaving the Chalone Housing area, hike down the paved road to the dirt road to the trail. At the 

trailhead looking north, you can see Guard Rock on the northwest side of Chalone Creek, a large 

greenish rock mass at the base of Pig Canyon. You will cross one bridge then come to a sign 

pointing to the North Wilderness Trail. (This is the trail taken for Willow Spring and Canyon 

North of Willow Spring). Continue down the trail for 200 m, you will see Eagle Rock above and 

to the left in the distance. Generally, monitors stop here and watch for 10-20 minutes looking for 

eagles among the rocks and trees in the area. 

Continuing on, you will cross the stream once and just before crossing the stream a second time, 

head up the hill on your right (North). This is the watch spot for Eagle Rock. If you go high on 

the hill (up about 400 m in elevation) you can see into the Eagle Rocks (ER)-1 and -2 nests. 

Mating Rocks, Tugboat, North Wilderness Rock: Go back down the hill, and continue down the 

trail. You will make several stream crossings. On the east side of Chalone Creek, you will notice 

a rock mass of cliffs to the west. This is Mating Rocks. Right after the stream crossing, hike 

uphill off trail to the main Mating Rocks watchspot (Figure 6). If prairie falcons are nesting at 

Tugboat, hike west uphill of Chalone Creek and just south of the base of Mating Rocks to view 

Tugboat. The next branch point is for the North Wilderness Rock. As you continue down the 

trail, you will see a rock that looks like a wave crashing over the stream (on the right or north 

side). The drainage that precedes this rock is what you hike up (see Figure 1). You will go up the 

drainage, over two clusters of rock and the follow the ridge among the chamise. En route you can 

also see Tugboat. The chamise will continue to get shorter and easier to walk through. You will 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.5 

see North Wilderness Rock on your right (to the Northwest). Hide in the chamise on the south 

west side of the ridge. The Canyon North of Willow Spring watchspot is also a second watch 

spot for North Wilderness Rock, but does not provide a direct view into the North Wilderness 

Rock (NWR)-1 and -2 nest sites. 

North Balconies, Crowley Towers, Crowley Drainage: If you don't go to North Wilderness Rock, 

then you continue down the trail. You will see the only LARGE drainage on the right – Crowley 

Drainage – and the grass hillside we watch from on the east side of the drainage. This provides 

the best viewing of North Balconies and Crowley Towers. 

When the Crowley Towers birds nest in the Nest Knob, you will need to access the top of the 

Balconies to get nestling and fledgling counts. You access this area by going to the base of 

Flimsy Flume (where you would normally start going up the rock) and following the ridge to the 

right up. Then follow the rock wall to an open moss field. Hike up this field. You will have 

Crowley on your left (north) and small rock outcroppings on your right. Move towards these 

outcroppings until you have a good view into the Crowley nests. You will be to the left of the 

main North Balconies area. 

South and General Balconies, Citadel, Machete, Egg, High Peaks: If you are heading to the 

South Balconies watch spot, continue to the end of the Old Pinnacles Trail. Here you will 

junction with the Balconies Cliffs and Balconies Caves Trails. Take the cliffs trail to the right 

and follow it until you reach the climber's access trail for Flimsy Flume (passing the General 

Balconies advisory sign placement near Smiling Simian). You then take this access trail to the 

right, follow it until it dead ends at a saddle where the Flimsy Flume is. This is where the South 

Balconies advisory sign is placed into the ground. From here you will see a 2nd rock mass high 

point ~80m S. Weave through sparse chamise cover to this high point and watch from there. 

Note that this watch spot is also reached – and more easily – by hiking from the Chaparral 

parking area. From the Chaparral parking area, hike past the bathrooms, over 2 bridges on the 

Balconies Trail. Just after the second bridge, turn left, hike up a small drainage; weave through 

chamise on a faint climber access trail, then up to the rock mass high point watch spot. You can 

also see Citadel, Machete, Egg, and some of the Central High Peaks from here. 

Balconies Cave Trail: On occasion, the prairie falcons nest on ledges in the General Balconies 

area. To observe these you will need to be on the hillside just east of Machete. This is accessed 

from the Balconies Caves Trail. At the cliffs and caves junction, go left toward the caves. 

Continue to follow the trail up and down until you come to the first set of concrete and rock 

stairs (small set). At this point you want to cross the stream to the left and travel up the hill 

following deer and social trails. You will need to get quite high to see the nests. There is no 

'right' spot, only spots that you can (or cannot) see. 

Route 2. Little Pinnacles (Figure SOP 2.5) 

Territories Covered 

Hanging Valley (HV), Little Pinnacles (LP) and Frog Canyon (FC). 

Description 

Little Pinnacles: Hike the Moses Springs Trail to the Reservoir. Continue on the Chalone Peak 

Trail. This takes you around the Five Sisters and up Hanging Valley. Historical nest sites for 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.6 

Hanging Valley can be seen clearly from the Chalone Peak Trail. To access Little Pinnacles 

watcspots, continue on Chalone Peak Trail, and make several turns. The first major turn (hairpin) 

to the right that leads the trail south is where we diverge. Instead of following the trail, follow the 

deer/social trail on the left that leads to an open space. This is where we put the Little Pinnacles 

advisory sign. From this point there are three ways to go, two are to general watch spots and one 

is a specific nest watch spot. For the specific nest watch spot, continue up the hill heading north 

until you crest out. You can watch the Little Pinnacles nest sites from this spot or anywhere 

along this ridge. This spot is not good for general observation though because you can't see the 

main cliffs very well from here. 

For the two general spots, at the big open space where the sign is put, go down slope to you 

right. For the first spot about half way down the slope skirt to the left and contour your way 

around the hill. Eventually you will have a good view of the main cliffs and a few rock outcrops 

in front of you. Sit among the distinct orange-red rock outcrop for good visibility of the entire 

wall of Little Pinnacles. This is also a good vantage for the canyon walls of Frog Canyon north 

of Little Pinnacles and in the Mt. Defiance area to the east. 

For the second general spot, continue contouring at the half way point, then down the slope until 

you hit the stream. Climb up the west side of Mt. Defiance until you can see clearly see the Little 

Pinnacles cliffs. This area provides the best view into the Little Pinnacles. 

Route 3. North and South Chalone Peaks (Figures SOP2.8 and 13) 

Territories Covered 

NE Section 15 (NES), North Chalone (NC), North Chalone West NCW) and South Chalone 

(SC). 

Description 

NE Section 15, North Chalone: Follow the Chalone Peak Trail towards the tower. The trail will 

pass through the pig fence gate, then continue on a gravel road up towards the North Chalone 

tower. Right after the trail joins the road, it veers right and starts climbing. A small access path to 

the left leads to the main NE Section 15 watch spot. Follow the access trail to the pig fence, 

climb over it, and walk to the edge of a north-facing rocky bluff. From here the NE Section 15 

rocks / cliffs can be seen clearly. 

To continue up to North Chalone Peak, stay on the gravel road. The road comes to a pig fence 

gate crossing. There is a trail that branches to the right next to the pig fence gate. Follow this trail 

down. There will be a point along the trail where you see the 'knee' of Chalone branching south, 

with the pig fence between you and ridge. If you want to watch for golden eagles in the North 

Chalone West area, you will follow this ridge out to the point and then down the ridge about 

300m. 

If instead you are looking for prairie falcons, continue down the trail. It will level at the saddle 

between North and South Chalone Peaks. From here there are two general watchspots for North 

Chalone Peak (see Figure 32). For the first, continue from the saddle ~120m east up South 

Chalone along the pig fence, stopping when both the general North Chalone cliffs are in view. 

For the second watchspot, continue on the Chalone Peak Trail from the saddle, As you follow the 

trail around to the north, there will be several spots you can stop and see the cliffs. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.7 

There is a third spot to watch the North Chalone cliffs, straight down from the outhouse near the 

lookout tower. Bushwhack down until you have a good view of the cliffs - there is no right spot. 

This is the best spot for watching additional North Chalone sites. 

South Chalone: For watching golden eagles or prairie falcons at South Chalone Peak, continue 

from the second North Chalone watchspot on the Chalone Peak Trail, up and around the north 

side of South Chalone. You will come to the pig fence. Follow the fence right (west) ~50-70m to 

a large juniper just south over the pig fence. Cross south over the fence and descend down the 

grass gulch, then contour west and downslope to a rocky ridge. This is the best watchspot for the 

South Chalone site to the southeast. Prairie falcons may also be active further downslope so 

continue down the rocky ridge until you can see the nest sites clearly. 

Route 4. Bear Creek Drainage (Figures SOP 2.10, 11, and 12) 

Territories Covered 

Upper Bear Gulch (UBG), Discovery Wall (DIS), Frog (FROG), Hand (HAND), Neglected 

Valley (NV), and Prescribed Burn Cliffs (PB). 

Description 

Upper Bear Gulch and Discovery Wall: Hike up the Moses Springs Trail towards the reservoir. 

From the Moses Spring Parking Lot up towards Monolith, the riparian corridor is called Upper 

Bear Gulch. Check archived photos and base survey points on recent raptor nest activity in this 

area. 

From the south end of the tunnel on Moses Spring Trail, the historical Discovery Wall prairie 

falcon territories are just visible. For a clearer view of Discovery Wall, continue up the Moses 

Spring Trail, passing the north side of Monolith and the middle trail junction for the Bear Gulch 

caves. Soon after, veer up off trail and onto the base of Lava Flow, and hike north until the 

entirety of Discovery Wall is visible. 

Frog and Hand: Continue hiking up to the reservoir. Start on the trail to North Chalone. When 

you are next to the Five Sisters - look to the right (west). There is a trail that leads down the red 

rock and into the chaparral on the other side. Follow this trail; weave through the brush on a 

climber access trail towards Frog and Hand. You will parallel the Reservoir about 30m above the 

water line. Continue to the creek inlet to the Reservoir. 

From the creek inlet, go down slope and cross the stream and hike up the slope on the other side. 

Follow the deer/social trails contouring around the hillside to the west. These will lead to an old 

CCC road bed. To watch the Frog and Hand area, continue to parallel Upper Bear Creek, hiking 

upstream on a faint access trail, weaving through chamise. Frog and Hand will become evident 

on your left. Before reaching a small outcrop of pinnacles in front (south) of you, turn right and 

hike ~30m uphill to a watchspot with clear views into the Hand-1 site. 

An alternate watchspot for Frog is along the Chalone Peak Trail. Hike until you are standing 

trailside at the top of Teeth and have a clear view of Frog and Hand down west. This is a good 

watchspot for confirming activity at the Frog site. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.8 

Prescribed Burn Cliffs and Neglected Valley: If you are headed to Prescribed Burn Cliffs and 

Neglected Valley instead, continue to follow the creek to the west boundary. Just after passing a 

rock mass on your left with a pooling of the creek water, then a small group of pinnacles on your 

right, hike gradually upslope on the west side of the creek along a faint access trail. You will 

come to an open field and a gray pine growing on a rock mass. Hike up the open field then 

follow the ridgeline up from the pine. Weave your way through the chamise towards a large rock 

aptly named Square Rock, and set up your watch spot at the base of it. From the Square Rock 

watch spot, Neglected Valley includes the rock formations just right (north and east), and 

Prescribed Burn Cliffs includes the rock cliffs to the left (northwest). Use archived photos to 

determine historical nest sites 

Route 5. Willow Spring Slide and Beyond (Figures SOP 2.6 and 15) 

Territories Covered 

Old Pinnacles Trail (OPTC and OPTN), North Wilderness Trail (NWT), Willow Spring Slide 

(WSS), Canyon North of Willow Spring (CNWS), Marion Canyon (MAR), and Narrows 

(NARR). 

Description 

Old Pinnacles Trail, North Wilderness Trail: Take the Old Pinnacles Trail to the North 

Wilderness Junction. You will go through one spring - big pool- and continue to follow the trail. 

You will then cross through a second spring - very thorny and full of poison oak. When you get 

out of the spring area you will see the North Wilderness Trail (NWT) area, turn to you right, 

climb/hike uphill 20m then contour to the right along this hillside following a deer trail. The trail 

will take you over a blue oak hillside, then next to an old fence line near Willow Spring (covered 

with ferns). You will then hike up a steep chamise slope next to the Willow Spring drainage, and 

Willow Spring Slide will come into view. Set up a watch spot here. A second watch spot for 

Willow Spring Slide can be accessed by parking at the roadside space near the east side entrance 

booth weather station. From here, walk east next to the paved road, then follow a fire break 

uphill to the pig fence. Follow the pig fence north until you come to the south end summit of 

Willow Spring Slide. This is the best watch spot for monitoring the Willow Springs Slide (WSS) 

nests. 

Canyon North of Willow Spring: For Canyon North of Willow Spring instead of going up the 

slope after the second spring, continue to flow the North Wilderness Trail. You will travel for 

approximately 1,600m. You will see a stake next to an oak tree cluster. Go to this stake, make a 

sharp right and go through the bushes. You will hike up this valley. There are several branches of 

deer trails, if you follow these rules you will be okay: 

1. If you have the option - follow the creek bed first 

2. If choosing between a left or right fork (North or South), choose the left (North) 95% of 

the time. 

3. Stay in the bottom of the valley; do not venture into the hillsides: yucky bush 

whacking!!! 

When you first see the cliffs move to the left side of the canyon and up onto the slope. There is a 

pine tree near the base of the slope. Climb up this slope along the ridgeline, weaving through 

chamise, until you come to a rounded red-orange rock. This is a good watch spot for the Canyon 

North of Willow Spring. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.9 

Marion Canyon, Narrows: For the Marion Canyon / Narrows area, continue on the North 

Wilderness Trail from the Canyon north of Willow Spring junction, past a view of North 

Wilderness Rock to the left. Cross a creek that flows most of the year, continue on trail for ~ 

40m then turn left onto a faint access trail. This will lead up along the creek through Marion 

Canyon. Follow the access trail until you reach the pig fence, then turn right and walk along the 

pig fence on a dirt road. The road crosses through the pig fence; cross over the fence, turn right, 

and descend down into the northeast fork of Marion Canyon, following this fork upstream. 

Eventually you will reach a narrowing of rock walls marking the beginning of the Narrows 

section; use archived photos to confirm the area. This provides the best watch spot for the 

Narrows sites. Continue upstream, turning left at the first canyon junction, then right at the 

second canyon junction, to approach the base of the Narrows site. Past a single, small valley oak 

the creek bed, climb right upslope 20m to the best watchspot for Narrows. 

Route 6. Condor Gulch Trail (Figures SOP 2.2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15) 

Territories Covered 

Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), Lower Condor Gulch (LCG), Hippopotamus (HIPPO), Upper Condor 

Gulch (UCG), Hawkins Peak (HP), Pig Canyon (PIG). 

Description 

• Lower Bear Gulch: From the Bear Gulch Nature Center, hike down Bear Gulch past 

administrative buildings and along the trail. There is no “correct” watch spot along the 

riparian corridor; any raptor activity / nesting will dictate appropriate watch spots. 

• Lower Condor Gulch: Start at the Bear Gulch Nature Center, hiking up the Condor Gulch 

Trail. About 100 m past the weather station, you will have the best view of the Lower 

Condor Gulch. To watch this area, hike up the hill on the east side (behind you and to the 

right) until you have a good view into the nest. 

• Hippopotamus and Upper Condor Gulch: Continuing up the trail you will pass 

Hippopotamus Rock on your left. The HIPPO-2 site is best seen from Pipsqueak Pinnacles 

accessed from the High Peaks Trail. The Hippopotamus site can also be watched from the 

Condor Gulch Trail; use archived photos to confirm the site location. From Hippopotamus 

also scan the Upper Condor Gulch area up towards the base of Hawkins Peak for raptor 

activity. 

• Hawkins Peak: As you continue up the trail, you will next come to the Condor Gulch 

Overlook. Past this the trail will make a sharp right hand hairpin turn. This is the point that 

you have your first good view of Hawkins Peak. We sometimes watch Hawkins from this 

spot in order to see birds flying between Hawkins and Tunnel areas. However, the 

best/more commonly used watch spot is further up the trail. Also from this sharp hairpin 

turn you have Casino Rock, Doodlin’ Doody, et al. on your right. 

o You will continue hiking up the trail about 1500 m and will reach a leveling in the 

trail off to you left is Hawkins Peak. Among the rocks on the left, there are good 

views of Hawkins - search around for your best view. 

o If the birds nest in the Hawkins Peak, you will have one more observation spot. It 

will be located on the High Peaks Trail up from the Condor Gulch Trail junction. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.10 

You will be sitting on the left side of the trail among the shrubs. See archived 

photos for the view you are attempting. 

• Pig Canyon: At the end of Condor Gulch Trail, where it junctions with High Peaks Trail 

is Pig Canyon. The common watch spot is just down (North) from the trail on the open 

slope. Maneuver to the east a little to get the best view with as little tree blocking as 

possible. See archived photos for important observation areas. 

o If the birds nest in the Pig Canyon sites you will have a second observation point. 

It is located by going down the High Peaks Trail towards the Chalone Housing 

Area. Continue down trail until a broad, open blue oak slope is on your left. Hike 

downhill through the blue oaks to the base of several gray pines. This is a distant 

but very comfortable watch spot for the Pig sites. 

Route 7. High Peaks Trail - South (Figures SOP 2.4, 10, 11, and 12) 

Territories Covered 

Scout Peak (SP), Pipsqueak Pinnacle (PP), Deserted Valley (DV), Goat Rock (GOAT), 

Resurrection Wall (RW), Teapot Dome (TD), and Western Front (WF). 

Description 

Scout Peak, Pipsqueak Pinnacle, Deserted Valley: This trail starts off the Moses Springs Trail a 

short ways up. You will hike about 1,600m just past Anvil until you have a general view of 

Scout Peak from Beak Peak north to Salathe’s Sliver. Turning right on the trail, you will see the 

Pipsqueak Pinnacles area. Continue on trail, then continue hiking straight for ~20m rather than 

veering left on the High Peaks Trail, until you come to a rocky high point; this is a good watch 

spot for the Pipsqueak Pinnacle site. At this point you will hike about 100m more to the top of a 

mini ridge that separates Deserted Valley from Condor Gulch West Fork. From here the trail will 

be heading west, up a slight grade. This is a good watch spot that allows you to see the entire 

Scout Peak Area, Deserted Valley for the most part and Condor Gulch a little. The Scout Peak 

area has several other watch spots depending upon which nest is used. For the one Scout Peak 

nest you would continue up the trail about 100m until you have a good view of Salathe's Sliver 

to the Northeast. For another you hike up Bear Gulch Creek to the Prescribed Burn Cliffs watch 

spot at the base of Square Block. 

Goat Rock, Resurrection Wall, Teapot Dome, Western Front: A final watch spot for Scout Peak 

is on top of Full Moon Party Rock, the high point to the right of the Scout Peak bench, up an 

access trail just right of the Steep and Narrow Trail. Hike to the very top of this rock for the best 

watch spot. This is also the best initial watch spot for Goat Rock/Resurrection Wall, and Teapot 

Dome. 

For an alternate watch spot for Resurrection Wall, begin at the Scout Peak outhouse, hike up 

towards Scout Peak, along the ridge on top of Goat Rock, and look down. This is also the best 

watch spot for Western Front. 

Route 8. High Peaks Trail – North (Figures SOP 2.4, 11, and 12) 

Territories Covered 

Tunnel (TU), Egg (EGG), Goat Rock (GOAT), and Resurrection Wall (RW). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.11 

Description 

Tunnel, Egg, Goat Rock, Resurrection Wall: Normally, start out on the Condor Gulch Trail 

junction with High Peaks Trail. Turn left onto the High Peaks Trail. You will see the junction to 

the Tunnel Trail, down and to the right after about 1,600m. Go past this junction about 30m. The 

trail will continue to the left and on your right and below you is a gully. This gully is where you 

want to go down and under the oak tree. You will then veer left and see a narrow gully between 

two rocks - it is very steep. Go down this gully - it looks scarier than it is. You will have a 2-3m 

high rock in front of you. This is the rock you sit on top of; access it from the left side. As you 

are sitting on top of this rock, you will be able to watch Tunnel and Egg primarily and Goat Rock 

and Resurrection Wall secondarily. 

There are two other watch spots off this trail (Pig Canyon and Hawkins Peak) covered in the 

Condor Gulch section. 

Route 9. High Peaks Trail (Figures SOP 2.2 and 9) 

Territories Covered 

West of Chalone Picnic Area (WCP), D. Soto Canyon (DS). 

Description 

West of Chalone Picnic Area: From Chalone Housing, the West of Chalone Picnic Area is 

visible as a collection of rock pinnacles along the High Peaks Trail just west of housing, rising 

up from the Bench Trail junction. Sitting anywhere near and just south of the housing area 

provides a good watch spot. 

D. Soto Canyon: To access the main watch spot for D. Soto Canyon, hike up the service road 

east behind the dorm housing near to the water tank, then veer left up the fire managed chamise 

slope 20m, turn left, and the D. Soto Canyon cliffs will be evident. This is the best initial watch 

spot for the D. Soto Canyon sites. Another watch spot, follow the directions for the upper 

Willow Spring Slide watch spot, stopping when the D. Soto Canyon area is in view (see archived 

photos). 

Route 10. Peaks View Area to Drywall and South Wilderness Trail to South 

Wilderness Rock (Figures SOP 2.2, 3, 5, and 14) 

Territories Covered 

Peaks View Area (PVA), Frog Canyon (FC), Bench Area (BA), Grassy Canyon (GC), Drywall 

(DRY), South Wilderness Trail (SWT), South Wilderness Drift Fence North (SWN), South 

Wilderness South End and South Wilderness Rock (SWR). 

Description 

Peaks View Area, Frog Canyon, Bench Area, Grassy Canyon, Drywall: Park at the Peaks View 

Parking Area. To access the Peaks View Area territories, hike from the parking area west across 

Chalone Creek to the live oak grove at the base of a small gulch. Return to the Bench Trail and 

continue south. From the service road from the green gate located 100m east of the entrance 

station booth, hike north to access the Bench Area nests along the trail. To continue towards 

Drywall, continue on the service road, crossing through Sandy Creek. You will pass through the 

pig fence gate and begin to hike up Grassy Canyon, eventually coming to a Y in the road. The 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.12 

historical nest sites in Grassy Canyon are visible along this route. To continue up to Drywall, 

follow the right branch of this y. As you continue to follow the road, you will see the slides to the 

east. Get to the top of the knoll, and instead of following the road down hill, turn 90 degrees to 

the left and hike up the hill a ways until you have a good view of Drywall and the slides to the 

north (see archived photos). 

South Wilderness Trail and South Wilderness Rock: South Wilderness Trail is accessed from the 

same road that you travel down to Drywall. A short way after the first green gate, you will see a 

trail branching to the right that has green stakes marking the path. Follow these green stakes. 

You will cross the creek once in the beginning of the trail and then two more times. To access 

the base of Frog Canyon, veer off trail right after the first creek crossing and hike up through the 

sycamore/oak riparian corridor of lower Frog Canyon. Continue down on the South Wilderness 

Trail, stay on the trail. After the third water crossing, follow the trail past a sycamore grove – 

where South Wilderness Trail is located - veer right, and the trail will have a long straight 

stretch. From here you will see a ridge extending east on the horizon with a live oak grove near 

its base. Follow the trail towards this grove then veer right off-trail to the grove, where another 

South Wilderness trail site is located. From here, continue back along the South Wilderness Trail 

south towards a small cottonwood grove, then along a straight stretch towards a shallow rise. The 

area north towards the service road that is off trail from South Wilderness Trail is called South 

Wilderness Drift Fence North. The area off trail south of this area to the park boundary is South 

Wilderness South End. To access the South Wilderness Rock watch spot, hike up the steep slope 

west along a grassy ridgeline. Continue right on the ridgeline until you can clearly see South 

Wilderness Rock (see archived photos). 

Route 11. Pinnacles Campground and Bottomlands 

Territories Covered 

Pinnacles Campground (PCG), McCabe Canyon (MC), Kingman Land South (KLS), Kingman 

Land North (KLN). 

Description 

Pinnacles Campground and McCabe Canyon: From the Pinnacles Visitor Center, walk through 

the Pinnacles Campground and check historical sites for activity. Use archived photos with GPS 

coordinates for guidance. The blue oak woodland slopes just west of the campground and 

Highway 146 also provide a good vantage point for scanning for activity. 

From the Visitor Center, hike along Highway 146 to the gated road veering northwest up 

McCabe Canyon. Climb over the gate and continue up the canyon, following the road and the 

canyon as dictated by observed raptor activity and archived photos. 

Kingman Land South: Drive from the Visitor Center north to the first paved road junction with a 

wooden road gate. Park here and check the roadside and interior live oak corridors for raptor 

activity as dictated by observations and archived photos. Kingman Land South refers to the 

general bottomlands habitat from near the Bacon homestead north to the Regan Ranch road. 

Kingman Land North: Continue driving north on Highway 146 to a gravel pullout next to a green 

gate. Climb over the gate and hike along the bottomlands portion of the Regan Road. From here 

the northern bottomlands can be accessed, including wooded side canyons and the Butterfield 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.13 

Canyon up east from the historic Butterfield barn. Use archived photos to determine appropriate 

watch spots. 

Route 12. To Chaparral Parking Area via Highway 25 South 

Territories Covered 

Eucalyptus Grove (EG), West Side Entrance (WSE), Jawbone Canyon (JAW), Double Gates 

(DG), Juniper Canyon (JC). 

Description 

Eucalyptus Grove: Drive west from the Pinnacles Visitor Center via Highway 146, Highway 25 

S, and back onto Highway 146 entering towards the west side of Pinnacles National Monument. 

About 2.5-3 miles along Highway 146, pull over next to the road when a eucalyptus grove comes 

into view. This is the Eucalyptus Grove and a historical golden eagle nesting area. 

West Side Entrance: Continue driving on Highway 146 and enter the west side of the park. Park 

next to the Pinnacles entrance sign and hike west uphill along the pig fence through open blue 

oak woodland. Check the West Side Entrance for nesting raptors (see archived photos). 

Jawbone Canyon: From the west side of the Pinnacles entrance sign, hike east through an open 

meadow towards the head of a blue oak riparian corridor. This is the beginning of Jawbone 

Canyon. Continue hiking along the corridor into another open meadow to check historical sites 

for raptor activity. 

Double Gates: Continue driving on the park road downhill through a few turns. At a sharp right 

turn, park at the gates with the gravel pullout. This is the beginning of the Double Gates area. 

Climb over the gates and continue north along the pig fence, checking historical raptor sites for 

nest activity (see archived photos). 

Juniper Canyon: Continue driving until you reach the Chaparral Parking Area. From here hike up 

towards the High Peaks via Juniper Canyon to check the live oak / juniper riparian corridor for 

raptor nest activity. Alternatively, continue on the Balconies Trail to access the main watch spot 

for South Balconies, Machete, and Citadel (see Route 1). 

The following maps were developed to take into the field and use in conjunction with territory 

descriptions presented above. Each map has multiple territories. Digital GIS maps are also 

available on the network drive: S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding 

Raptors\database. 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.14 

Figure SOP 2. 1. Territory map for Citadel (CI), Crowley Drainage (CD), Crowley Towers (CT), Machete 

(MAC), North Balconies (NB), South and General Balconies (SGB), and Tugboat (TUG). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.15 

Figure SOP 2. 2. Territory map for Bench Area (BA), Chalone Picnic Area (CPA), D. Soto Canyon (DS), 

Guard Rock (GR), Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), South Wilderness–Drift Fence North (SWN), and West of 

Chalone Picnic Area (WCP). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.16 

Figure SOP 2. 3. Territory map for Bench Area (BA), Chalone Picnic Area (CPA), D. Soto Canyon (DS), 

Guard Rock (GR), Lower Bear Gulch (LBG), South Wilderness–Drift Fence North (SWN), and West of 

Chalone Picnic Area (WCP). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.17 

Figure SOP 2. 4. Territory map for Citadel (CI), Egg (EGG), Hawkins Peak (HP), Hippopotamus 

(HIPPO), Teapot Dome (TD), Tunnel (TU), and Upper Condor Gulch (UCG). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.18 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.19 

Figure SOP 2. 5. Territory map for Frog Canyon (FC), Hanging Valley (HV), and Little Pinnacles (LP). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.20 

Figure SOP 2. 6. Territory map for Canyon N of Willow Spring (CNWS), Marion Canyon (MAR), Narrows 

(NARR), and North Wilderness Rock (NWR), and North Wilderness Trail (NWT). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.21 

Figure SOP 2. 7. Territory map for Crowley Drainage (CD), Crowley Towers (CT), Eagle Rock (ER), 

Mating Rocks (MAT), North Balconies (NB), North Wilderness Rock (NWR), South and General 

Balconies (SGB), and Tugboat (TUG). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.22 

Figure SOP 2. 8. Territory map for North Chalone (NC), North Chalone West (NCW), and NE Section 15 

(NES). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.23 

Figure SOP 2. 9. Territory map for Eagle Rock (ER), Guard Rock (GR), Hawkins Peak (HP), Pig Canyon 

(PIG), Upper Condor Gulch (UCG), and West of Chalone Picnic Area (WCP). 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.24 

Figure SOP 2. 10. Territory map of Discovery Wall (DIS), Hippopotamus (HIPPO), Lower Bear Gulch 

(LBG), Lower Condor Gulch (LCG), Pipsqueak Pinnacle (PP), and Upper Bear Gulch (UBG). 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.25 

Figure SOP 2. 11. Territory map of Frog (FROG), Goat Rock (GOAT), Deserted Valley (DV), Discovery 

(DIS), Hand (HAND), Neglected Valley (NV), Pipsqueak Pinnacles (PP), Prescribed Burn Cliffs (PB), and 

Scout Peak (SP). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.26 

Figure SOP 2. 12. Territory map for (EGG), Goat Rock (GOAT), Hawkins Peak (HP), Prescribed Burn 

Cliffs (PB), Resurrection Wall (RW), Scout Peak (SP), Teapot Dome (TD), Tunnel (TU), and Western 

Front (WF). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.27 

 

Figure SOP 2. 13. Territory map for North Chalone (NC) and South Chalone (SC). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.28 

 

Figure SOP 2. 14. Territory map for South Wilderness Rock (SWR), South Wilderness – North End 

(SWN), South Wilderness – South End (SWS), and South Wilderness Trail (SWT). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 2.29 

Figure SOP 2. 15. Territory map for Canyon N of Willow Spring (CNWS), Eagle Rock (ER), Guard Rock 

(GR), Mating Rocks (MAT), North Wilderness Trail (NWT), Pig Canyon (PIG), Willow Spring Slide 

(WSS). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.1 

SOP 3. Data Management V 3.2 

 

Revision History Log: 

Prev. 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for 

Change 

New 

Version # 

2.0 3/2008 D. Press; G. 

Emmons; M. 

Koenen 

Updated Updated 

descriptions to 

meet to new 

MS Access 

database; 

general editing 

3.0 

3.0 5/2008 D. Press Added figures, 

general editing, 

appendix 

SOP 

completion 

3.1 

3.1 3/2010 D. Adams, M. 

Koenen, D. 

Press 

Formatting. Add 

data dictionary. 

Peer review 

comments 

3.2 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.2 

Overview 

Two critical long-term goals of the SFAN I&M Program are to: 

• integrate natural resource inventory and monitoring information into National Park Service 

planning, management, and decision making 

• share National Park Service accomplishments and information with other natural resource 

organizations and form partnerships for attaining common goals and objectives 

In order for the raptor monitoring program to meet I&M program goals, a detailed data 

management plan is needed to ensure data quality, interpretability, security, longevity and 

availability. This Standard Operating Procedure describes how the SFAN raptor monitoring 

protocol meets these data management objectives through data entry specifications, database 

design, quality assurance and control measures, metadata development, data maintenance, data 

storage and archiving, and data distribution. The SOP describes the procedures all raptor 

monitoring technicians must follow to learn how to enter, update, and manage data for 1) the 

Microsoft Access Raptor Monitoring Database; 2) the cataloging of photographs; 3) the GIS 

database; and 4) the field notes, annual reports, and photos. 

Data Management: Overview 

Data management is an essential component of the raptor monitoring process. The effectiveness 

of the raptor monitoring study at PINN over the past 21 years lies not only in the field work – the 

raptor observations, the field notes, and the management of climbing advisory areas – but also in 

the documentation of the field work within tabular and geographic projects in the office. Data 

entry is a time-consuming task that requires skill, patience, and a keen attention to detail, but it 

also provides a long-term record of raptor monitoring at the park, what was accomplished from 

year to year by time and location. As such, data management has enormous potential in effecting 

resource management at the park, and provides powerful evidence supporting the continuing 

need for the protection of sensitive species of breeding raptors at the park. Procedures for data 

management tasks are detailed below, covering the use of tabular and geographic databases 

related to raptor monitoring, and guidelines for data entry. Data management includes the 

biweekly summaries of raptor status detailed in raptor updates, and requires use of LotusNotes, 

but these are covered in depth in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

Microsoft Access Raptor Monitoring Database 

Database Model Overview: The SFAN staff has developed a relational Microsoft (MS) Access 

XP database for the raptor monitoring program at Pinnacles National Monument compliant with 

the Natural Resource Database Template (NRDT) Version 3.1, an application developed by the 

NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program. The data are organized around survey 

events from fixed observation points, which are described and geographically defined in a 

locations table. Besides actual raptor observations, copulation, and feeding events, the database 

is used to maintain records of data history, field personnel, photo records, and media contact 

addresses. Table relationships for related tables only (not stand alone tables) are displayed in 

Figure SOP 3.1 and a complete data dictionary is included as Appendix SOP 3A. The raptor 

database has a separate front-end (user interface) and back-end (data tables). The user interface 

for the database is modeled after the NRDT Front-end Application Builder (FAB) Version 1.0, 

an MS Access user-interface template designed by the NPS Natural Resource GIS Program. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.3 

Back-End Data Tables 

The primary raptor monitoring events table, tbl_Events, is linked to tbl_Event_Details in a oneto-one relationship via an EventID Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) (Figure SOP 3.1). 

Whereas, tbl_Events is a standardized table that simply stores event location, date, and time 

values, tbl_Event_Details stores data values specific to the raptor monitoring events, such as 

weather details. Tbl_Events is linked to three tables by one-to-many relationships (Figure SOP 

3.1). Tbl_Raptor_Observations can store several raptor observations during a single monitoring 

event. The species, time of the observation, and territory in which the raptor(s) was observed are 

stored in this table. Tbl_DataHistory records any data verification, validation, or editing 

procedures associated with the monitoring event and related data. Finally, xref_Event_Contacts 

is a cross-reference table linked to tlu_Contacts which documents the field personnel that 

collected the raptor data. 

Two sub-tables related to tbl_Raptor_Observations store raptor copulation and feeding data. The 

Raptor_ID GUID links tbl_Raptor_Observations to related records in tbl_Raptor_Copulation and 

tbl_Raptor_Feeding (Figure SOP 3.1). Details such as time of activity, prey type, and display 

degree are entered into the feeding and copulation tables. 

At the end of the field season, after all field notes observations have been documented and 

entered into the raptor monitoring database and the database has been through QA/QC, breeding 

raptor summary data is compiled for each nesting or territorial pair. This summary data is entered 

and stored in tbl_Breeding_Raptors. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.4 

Figure SOP 3. 1. Table relationships in the raptor monitoring database. 

Photographs of raptor nests and territories provide an essential tool to effectively find and 

observe historic nest sites and territories. Careful cataloging of the photographs allows incoming 

technicians to easily find and identify sites, and provides a historical context in which the photos 

can be linked to their dates of exposure and storage locations in the archives. Photo records are 

stored in tbl_Photo_Log grouped by territory and field season. 

 

Mailing addresses for press releases and climbing advisories sent to newspapers, climbing shops, 

or the NPS Pacific West Region are organized in tbl_Media_Addresses. For more details on this 

process, wee SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting. 

Database User Interface 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.5 

Use of the database is facilitated by a complete user interface which links to the back-end data 

tables modeled after the NRDT Version 3.1. The user interface is adopted from the NRDT FrontEnd Application Builder Version 1.0 and is designed to aid with data entry, data extraction, and 

database documentation. Command buttons and code driven text boxes are used to navigate to 

forms, add data records, locate and edit data records, and print reports. Where possible, default 

values are set and combo boxes with fixed values are used to reduce data entry errors. For 

example, all fields that identify project personnel are set as combo boxes which link to the lookup table tlu_Contacts. Key features of the user interface are described below. 

frm_Switchboard 

This startup form is the entry point for the application, and therefore the first thing users will 

usually see when opening the application (Figure SOP 3.2). 

Double-clicking the unit name at the top left of the form will open the web site for that particular 

unit. Double-clicking the NPS Arrowhead or the title National Park Service at the top right of the 

form will open a browser and navigate to the National Park Service web site (www.nps.gov). 

At the top right of the form is an exit button which can be used to close the application. 

A tabbed menu resides at the lower left corner of the form. It contains tabs for the main menu, 

application defaults, and information about the application. Each of these features will be 

examined in more detail in the sections that follow. 

At the bottom center-right of the form is a box that displays the current location of the data file to 

which the application is linked. 

frm_Connect_Tables 

As previously described, the raptor monitoring database application has separate front-end (user 

interface) and back-end (data tables) files. In order for the application to work properly, the 

front-end file must be connected to the correct back-end file. 

On opening, if the database can not establish a path to the back-end file, an error message 

appears which gives the user the option of fixing the connection. Choosing to do so opens 

frm_Connect_Tables (Figure SOP 3.2), the data table connections form, which can be used to 

establish or correct the link from the front-end to the back-end. Alternatively, clicking the 

“Connect data tables” button on the database switchboard’s “Main Menu” also opens the data 

table connections form. 

The name, path, and file name of the current back-end file are displayed in the data table 

connections form. To change the back-end file connection, click the “Browse” button, select a 

new back-end file, and click the “Open” button. You will be returned to the data table 

connections form and the “New file” and “Path” text boxes will be filled in. To make the new 

connection, click the “Update links” button. If the connection is made, a success message will be 

shown and you will be returned to the database switchboard. As long as the connection 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.6 

Figure SOP 3. 2. Database switchboard - main screen of the user interface, viewed at startup. 

Figure SOP 3. 3. Table connections form used to link to the back-end data tables. 

remains valid, the user does not need to re-establish the link to the back-end file each time the 

database is opened. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.7 

frm_Set_Defaults 

Clicking the “Enter / Edit Data” button on the “Main Menu” tab of frm_Switchboard will open 

frm_Set_Defaults, the application defaults form (Figure SOP 3.4). The form is used to set default 

values which will be applied to new records and to determine which records are initially visible 

on the data gateway form. Each value can be selected from a drop-down list. If you are unable to 

find a user, click the “New user” button to add a new one to the contacts table (tlu_Contacts). 

Current default values can be viewed from frm_Switchboard under the “Defaults” tab. Clicking 

the “Change” button on the “Defaults” tab will also open the defaults form. The control source 

for frm_Set_Defaults is the hidden systems table tsys_App_Defaults. 

Figure SOP 3. 4. Form for setting application default values. 

frm_Data_Gateway 

Once the defaults form is completed, frm_Data_Gateway (Figure SOP 3.5), the data gateway 

form, will be displayed. This form displays location and event information for each raptor survey 

record currently in the database, and is designed to help the user determine which record to 

edit/view. By default, the data gateway form starts off with a filter for the default park that was 

selected on the defaults form, which at this time is restricted to PINN. The control source for 

frm_Data_Gateway is the query qfrm_Data_Gateway. 

Additional filters for Location Name (observation point), Year, and Visit Date can be set by 

selecting from the drop-down lists at the top of the form in the Filters box. Filters can be 

removed by clicking the toggle button that says “Filter Is On”. It will toggle up and say “Filter Is 

Off” when the filter is removed. When the filter is removed, all records will again be displayed. 

Optionally, a specific filter can be removed by deleting the text that is currently displayed in one 

of the filter controls. 

In addition to filters, there are sorting options for the records on the data gateway form. Doubleclicking any of the column headings will cause the records to be sorted in ascending order by 

that column value. The column heading will change to a bold italic format to indicate that it is 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.8 

the column being used to determine sort order. If the same column is double-clicked a second 

time, the records will be sorted in descending order by that column value. 

Figure SOP 3. 5. Gateway to the data entry screens, for browsing and selecting from data that have 

already been entered. 

Double-clicking a “Location Name” value will open the locations form for that particular record 

(see the locations form section that follows). Double-clicking a “Visit Date” will open the data 

entry form for that particular record. If a raptor survey record has not been added for a particular 

location, when that blank “Visit Date” is double-clicked, a new data entry record will be opened. 

To add a new data entry record, click the “Add a new record” button at the top of the data 

gateway form. To view all raptor records in sequential order by date, select the “View all 

records” button. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.9 

frm_Data_Entry 

The data entry form (Figure SOP 3.6), frm_Data_Entry, is used to edit an existing record or to 

add new raptor survey records. The control source for the form is the query qfrm_DataEntry, 

which passes data through to tbl_Events and tbl_Event_Details. The form can be accessed from 

the data gateway by selecting an already existing record or by clicking the “Add a new record” 

button. The data entry form contains three subforms to enter the survey observer(s), raptor 

observations, and any pertinent data history. 

Figure SOP 3. 6. Primary field data entry form, displaying the observer and raptor observation, feeding, 

and copulation subforms. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.10 

fsub_Observers 

The name(s) of people who collected data for the raptor survey event can be entered in the 

observer sub-form (Figure SOP 3.6), fsub_Observers, at the top right of the data entry form. The 

control source for the sub-form is the table xref_Event_Contacts. Contacts can be selected from 

the “Contact” drop-down list. If a new contact needs to be entered, click the “Add a person” 

button to open the contacts form. 

fsub_Raptor_Observations 

From a single observation point on a given survey, multiple raptor observations may be recorded. 

The observations may be of different species and could be located in more than one territory 

visible from the observation point. All of this data is entered into the raptor observation subform 

(Figure SOP 3.6), fsub_Raptor_Observations, found under the “Raptor Observations” tab on the 

lower portion of the data entry form, frm_Data_Entry. Record selectors at the bottom of the 

subform allow the user to scroll to the first, last, previous, and next records or add a new record. 

Associated with a single raptor observation may be one or many copulation or feeding events. 

Raptor feeding events are entered into fsub_Raptor_Feeding (Figure SOP 3.6), located in the top 

right of the raptor observation subform. The control source for the raptor feeding subform is 

tbl_Raptor_Feeding. Raptor copulation events are entered into fsub_Raptor_Copulations (Figure 

SOP 3.6), located in the bottom right of the raptor observation subform. The control source for 

the raptor copulation subform is tbl_Raptor_Copulations. The two subforms contain the same 

record selectors as the parent raptor observation subform. 

fsub_DataHistory 

The data history subform (Figure SOP 3.7) is located under the “Data History” tab on the lower 

portion of the data entry form, frm_Data_Entry. The control source for the subform is 

tbl_DataHistory. Located at the top of the subform are the “Entered By” and “Entered Date” 

fields, which are stored in tbl_Events. The database populates these two fields automatically, 

using the default settings at the time of data entry to assign the “Entered By” contact name. 

Following initial data entry, the data history subform is intended to track when the parent raptor 

survey record is error-checked or edited. 

Figure SOP 3. 7. Subform for entering data history records events associated with raptor surveys. 

frm_Data_Entry_All_Records 

This alternative view of frm_Data_Entry was designed for quick data reference purposes and 

allows the database user to scroll through all of the raptor survey and observation data (Figure 

SOP 3.8). New database records can not be added from frm_Data_Entry_All_Records. The 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.11 

control source for the form is the query qfrm_DataEntry, which passes data through to 

tbl_Events and tbl_Event_Details. The form can be accessed from the data gateway by clicking 

the “View all records” button. Unlike frm_Data_Entry, raptor copulation and feeding events are 

not displayed, and the raptor observation sub-records are displayed in a spreadsheet view. This 

allows for all of the raptor observations for one survey to be displayed at once in the database 

window.

Figure SOP 3. 8. Data form for reviewing all raptor survey and observation records. 

frm_Locations 

The locations form allows the user to enter or edit information, including geographic UTM 

coordinates, for raptor observation points or watch spots (Figure SOP 3.9). The Location ID 

value, which uniquely identifies an observation point, is automatically generated by the database. 

The control source for the form is tbl_Locations. Frm_Locations can be accessed from the data 

gateway form or from the data entry form, both previously described. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.12 

frm_Contacts 

The contact information form (Figure SOP 3.10), frm_Contacts, is used to enter details about 

individuals who participate in data gathering for the raptor monitoring protocol and who enter 

information in the database. The control source is tlu_Contacts. The contact information form 

can be accessed from clicking the “New user” button on the defaults form or the “Add a person” 

button on the data entry form. 

Figure SOP 3. 9. Form for entering and editing project location information. 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.13 

Figure SOP 3. 10. Form to view and edit contact information, displayed in view mode. Values entered in 

the form include name, organization, position, work phone, email address, and mailing address. 

Previously entered addresses can be selected from the Address 1 drop-down list, and the associated 

Street Address, City, State, Zip, and Country values will automatically be filled in. The Organization and 

Position/Title drop-down lists will also allow selection from previously entered values or new entries. The 

Contact ID value, which uniquely identifies a contact, is automatically generated by the application. 

When the contact information form is in view mode, noted by a blue-grey color background, 

individual contacts can be shown by selecting from the “Search” drop-down list at the top right 

of the form. All contact records can be displayed by clicking the “Filter” toggle button to “View 

all contacts”. In order to re-activate the “Search” drop-down list, the toggle button must be set 

back to “Filter by search”. 

In view mode, records can only be read, not edited. To enable editing for a record, click the Edit 

record button. The form can also be set to edit mode, noted by a haystack color background, by 

clicking the “New record” button. Once you have completed entering data, click the “Done’ 

button to return the form to edit mode and view all records. Alternatively, you may cancel your 

edits or additions at any time when in edit mode by clicking the “Undo” button. 

frm_Media 

Mailing addresses for press releases and advisories can be entered and edited in the media 

address form (Figure SOP 3.11), frm_Media. The control source for the form is 

tbl_Media_Addresses, and the form can be accessed by clicking the “Media Addresses” button 

from the “Main Menu” tab of the database switchboard. The form design is modeled after the 

previously described contact information form (frm_Contacts), and therefore retains the same 

view and edit modes of the form, filter capabilities, and command buttons. 

Three command buttons at the bottom of the form allow the user to open pre-formatted reports 

used to print mailing addresses for all the address records (rpt_All_Labels), just those on the 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.14 

press release list (rpt_PressRelease_Labels), or just those on the advisory list 

(rpt_Advisory_Labels). All three reports are designed for Avery 5960 labels (1” x 2 5/8”). In 

order to use a different label type, the reports will have to be re-created using the built-in 

Microsoft Access Report Label Wizard. 

frm_Photo_Log 

During the course of the field season, multiple photos of nests and territories are taken. Prior to 

FY10, film rolls were grouped according to photo series and entered into the photo log form 

(Figure SOP 3.12), frm_Photo_Log. Starting FY10, digital photos are taken and also entered into 

the same log. The control source for the form is tbl_Photo_Log, and the form can be accessed by 

clicking the “Photo Log” button from the “Main Menu” tab of the database switchboard. The 

form design is modeled after the previously described contact information form (frm_Contacts), 

and therefore retains the same view and edit modes of the form, filter capabilities, and command 

buttons. In this case the form is designed to filter records according to unique combinations of 

the territory, year, and photo code. The user can locate specific records and filter the form using 

the “Search” drop-down menu. Specific instructions for cataloging and archiving digital 

photographs are detailed later in this document. 

Figure SOP 3. 11. Form to view and edit media contact information, displayed in edit mode. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.15 

Figure SOP 3. 12. Form to view and edit photo log records, displayed in view mode. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.16 

frm_Breeding_Raptors 

At the end of the field season, after all field notes and observations have been documented and 

entered into the raptor monitoring database and the records have been error-checked, data for 

each of the raptor pairs followed during the season is reviewed and a breeding summary record is 

entered into the breeding raptor form(Figure SOP 3.13), frm_Breeding_Raptors. The control 

source for the form is tbl_Breeding_Raptors, and the form can be accessed by clicking the 

“Breeding Summary” button from the “Main Menu” tab of the database switchboard. Data entry 

fields include estimated arrival and hatching dates, number of eggs, hatchlings, and fledglings. 

The form design is modeled after the previously described contact information form 

(frm_Contacts), and therefore retains the same view and edit modes of the form, filter 

capabilities, and command buttons. In this case the form is designed to filter records according to 

territory, which can result in several records from different survey years and raptor species. The 

user can scroll through the filtered records using the record selectors at the bottom of the form. 

Two command buttons at the bottom of the form allow the user to open pre-formatted reports 

that summarize the breeding raptor data by species or by territory and year. Click the “Report By 

Species” button to open rpt_Breeding_Raptors_Species or the “Report by Territory, Year” button 

to open rpt_Breeding_Raptors_Territories_Year. 

Figure SOP 3. 13. Form to view and edit breeding raptor summary records, displayed in edit mode. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.17 

frm_Lookups 

Clicking the “Lookup Tables” button on the database switchboard’s “Main Menu” tab will open 

frm_Lookups (Figure SOP 3.14), the form for managing lookup tables. On the “Other lookup 

tables” tab, lookup tables can be selected from the “Table” drop-down list. The values in the 

lookup table will be displayed in a datasheet view below the drop-down list. If the table is listed 

as “Editable” in the drop-down list, then records can be edited, deleted, or added in the datasheet 

view. Look-up tables currently editable from the lookup table manager store values for cloud 

cover, copulation behavior, copulation food, feeding details, feeding prey, nest codes, 

observation limits, precipitation, raptor species, territories, and wind direction. 

Additional tabs for frm_Lookups are being designed to better manage the nest and territory lookup tables, tlu_Nest_Codes and tlu_Territories respectively. The tabs will allow users to edit 

location and description data for nest and territories and will contain sub-forms that display 

associated digital images of the nests and territories. 

Figure SOP 3. 14. Form to manage look-up table values, showing the raptor species look-up table as an 

example. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.18 

Database Metadata, Version Control Guidelines, Release and Revision 

Documentation 

Several elements within the Raptor Monitoring Database help to document database metadata, 

release and revision history. First, the database retains two tables (tbl_Db_Meta and 

tbl_Db_Revisions) from the NRDT Version 3.1 for capturing metadata that are maintained by 

the SFAN Data Manager. The table tbl_Db_Meta is designed to facilitate metadata creation and 

integration with I&M metadata systems. At the time of this documentation, elements of this table 

are under review by the NPS I&M Program. The field Db_Meta_ID is the primary key for 

tbl_Db_Meta and provides the link to revision history records in tbl_Db_Revisions. The 

Db_Desc field is a memo field for describing the purpose of the database application. When 

metadata for the NRDT database is uploaded to the NPS Data Store, the Meta_MID field stores 

the metadata master ID generated upon upload. When metadata for the database is created using 

the I&M Dataset Catalog desktop metadata application, the globally unique record ID generated 

by the Dataset Catalog should be copied to the DSC_GUID field. The table tbl_Db_Revisions 

stores the application revision history. Linking tbl_Db_Revisions to tbl_Db_Meta using 

Db_Meta_ID facilitates accessing the revision history for inclusion in each metadata record. 

The hidden systems table tsys_App_Releases is used to document release information for all 

versions of the database application. It is filled in by the SFAN Data Manager before the 

application is distributed. Included in tsys_App_Releases are the title, version, release date, and 

information about the author of the application. Associated with tsys_App_Releases is 

tsys_Bug_Reports, where the SFAN Data Manager can report any known bugs, such as nonworking or dysfunctional features of the database. The table includes details of the problem and 

when / how it was fixed. The form frm_App_Releases (Figure SOP 3.15) allows the database 

user to view the release history and known bug information in a read-only format. The form can 

be accessed from the “About” tab on the database switchboard. 

Significant database re-design may require approval by the project manager and review by other 

data management staff. Following completion of a new database version, metadata records and 

online postings will be updated. 

With proper controls and communication, versioning ensures that only the most current database 

version is used for queries and analyses. Version control guidelines for the MS Access raptor 

monitoring database will follow those presented in the SFAN’s Data Management Plan (Press 

2005). Prior to any major changes to the database design, a back-up copy of the database should 

be made. Once the database design changes are complete, the database should be assigned the 

next incremental version number. Version numbers should increase incrementally by hundredths 

(e.g., version 1_01, version 1_02...etc.) for minor changes. Major revisions should be designated 

with the next whole number (e.g., version 2_0, 3_0, 4_0 ...). The front-end and back-end 

databases should be titled with the same version number, regardless of in which database file 

modifications are made. 

The final copy of the previous database version should be archived by the Network Data 

Manager with the version closing date incorporated into the database title. The files will be 

placed in the “IM_Archive” directory on the GOGA Marin Headlands server. See Data Storage 

and Archival Procedures for more information. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.19 

File Naming Convention, File Locations, Database Back-Ups 

The Raptor Monitoring Database is currently in Version 1.00, with the front-end application 

named Raptor_FE_v1_00.mdb and the back-end file named Raptor_BE_v1_00.mdb. The 

database is stored in the “Shared Data” directory (S:\ Drive) on the Inppinn001 server at 

Pinnacles National Monument in the raptor data directory following the file path: 

S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding Raptors\database\ 

Access_Raptor_Database 

Figure SOP 3. 15. Form for viewing and entering release information with a subform for known bug 

descriptions. 

Within this folder is an additional “Back-Up” folder, which stores back-up copies of the active 

database. Back-up copies of the active back-end database can be made from the “Main Menu” 

tab on the database switchboard. Alternatively, if the back-up options are checked under the 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.20 

“Defaults” tab, the database will prompt the user to back-up the database on start-up or exit. The 

back-up feature of the database stores a copy of the back-end database in the 

“Access_Raptor_Database” folder with a default name based on the original file name and the 

date/time that the back-up was made. The default format for the file name is: 

[Original file name]_yyyymmdd_hhmmss.mdb 

An example of a back-up file name is: Raptor__BE_v1_00_20070323_133107. Back-up copies 

of the database can then be moved to the “Back-Up” folder. 

Data Entry Procedures 

Raptor Survey Events: 

To begin data entry of a new survey record, click the “Enter / Edit Data” on the database 

switchboard, set the user default settings, and click the “Add a new record” button from the data 

gateway form. If you are already working in the data entry form and you wish to begin a new 

record, you can click the “New record” button. 

Before entering any data, you should know what the fields in the database represent and what 

they are used for. These are detailed in Appendix SOP 3A of this document. In addition, 

descriptions of each data entry field are displayed in the status bar at the bottom left of the MS 

Access window. 

Enter the Location (observation point or watch spot), from where the raptor data was collected. 

If you need to document a new location, click the “Add new” button and enter the location name, 

UTM coordinates, and other data into the locations form. When you return to the data entry 

form, the new location will be available in the location drop-down menu. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.21 

• Enter the date in the Start Date field, using mm/dd/yyyy. 

• Enter the Start Time and End Times for each raptor survey period, in 4-number, 24-

hour codes. Please note that if you leave an area for an hour or more, a new survey record 

should be generated. The observation start time is when the first observation of the 

individual (or pair or family) is seen and the last is when the last observation is made or 

the monitor leaves the site with the bird still in view. 

• You may optionally enter the X_Coord (easting) and the Y_Coord (northing) of the 

observation point collected in the field by GPS on the day of the survey. The coordinates 

must use the North American Datum 1983, UTM Zone 10 North. The easting will be the 

6 digit meter number, and the northing will be the 7 digit meter number. Alternatively, 

default UTM coordinates for each observation point are stored in the locations table. 

• Define any observational limits from the value list of the Observation Limits box.

• Enter the High Temp and Low Temp in degrees Fahrenheit. 

• Enter the Avg Wind Speed in miles per hour. 

• Add the Wind Direction and Cloud Cover information from the value lists if the data 

were recorded. 

• Enter any other information or additional conditions pertinent to the entire survey in the 

Summary text box. 

• Enter the name of the Observer who recorded the field notes and all others present 

during the survey in the contacts sub-form. You can add a new contact to the database by 

clicking the “Add a person” button and entering the new contact information into the 

contacts form. When you return to the data entry form, the new name will be available in 

the drop-down menu. 

Raptor Observations – Subform: 

Multiple raptor observations may be made during a single survey period. The navigation buttons 

on the bottom of the sub-form bring you (in order from left to right) to the first, previous, next 

and last raptor observation records for the survey. At the far right, the navigation button with the 

asterisk, allows you to begin a new raptor observation record. 

Individual raptor observations are recorded only if the individual seen is not known to be the 

same one seen previously. For example, at 14:00 a red-tailed hawk is seen flying through and at 

15:50 another (possibly a different RTHA) is seen flying through – two entries are made. But if 

you are watching a PRFA territory and you see one at 15:00, then lose it, regain one at 15:30, 

watch the pair court and then go to bed at 17:30, you would record that as 15:00-17:30. 

• Enter the Territory from the value list. If you observe a raptor in flight, use the territory 

in the value list that the raptor flies to. 

• Enter the name of the raptor Species observed in the event from the value list (Figure 

SOP 3.16). 

• Enter the number of individuals witnessed during the observation in the Number 

Individuals field. 

• Enter the Nest Code that pertains to the area in which you observed the raptors from the 

drop-down menu. In order to enter a new nest into the database, you need to access the 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.22 

nest look-up table data entry view by clicking the “Lookup Tables” button on the 

database switchboard. 

• In the Summary field, enter additional information about the raptor observation. These 

are the most important fields in the raptor observation sub-form. Data entry requires 

attention to detail and the ability to paraphrase raptor observations and the most 

significant activities occurring in a territory on a given date. 

Enter data as described below to keep data entries uniform. 

• Use abbreviations where appropriate, such as 4-letter bird codes (listed in Figure SOP 

3.16 in this SOP). Other important, standard abbreviations are listed in Table 7. 

• Entries should be in the present tense. 

• For nest-related activities observed, always use nest codes in the index entries. These are 

very important, as they let you and future raptor monitors know which nest sites are being 

used by territorial pairs. Nest codes are 2- to 5- letter codes for territories followed by the 

number for the historic nest site (e.g., SP-2 for the #2 Scout Peak nest site, GOAT-1 for 

the #1 Goat Peak nest site). Codes for territories are provided in SOP 2: Watch Spot 

Locations and can also be referenced on the backs of photos for nest/territory sites. 

• State how many birds of the indexed species were observed (e.g., PRFA for a single 

prairie falcons, pr PRFA for a pair, 3 PRFA for three, pr + 1 PRFA for a pair interacting 

with a single, etc.). 

• State “?” if the observation is uncertain. 

• To ease in reading the data entry, keep items separate. For example: 2 f PRFA (for 2 

female prairie falcons) instead of 2fAMKE or 2 fAMKE. Exceptions for this are the “@” 

symbol and “d.” For example, you can say 3 PRFA young@25d. (young at 25 days old). 

Table SOP 3. 1. Index abbreviations and definitions. 

Abbreviations Definitions Abbreviations Definitions 

M male juv juvenile 

F female incub incubation 

ad Adult xchange exchange 

pr Pair 2nd, 3rd second, third 

d. days (i.e., 2d., 3d.) x times (i.e., 2x, 3x) 

fledg Fledgling @ at 

Include the most significant activities observed! Keep the information concise! Use the following 

guidelines to aid in this process: 

• Record only the most important activities. If a PRFA pair are observed flying, 

perching, feeding, calling, and mating during an observation period, you need only record 

the most important activities, e.g., PRFA pr feed, mate. If all of the activities will fit on 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.23 

one line, include them! If the most significant activities require two lines, go ahead and 

use them, just limit the majority of the entries to one line. 

• If activities have not been observed before, include them as significant activities. If a 

PRFA pair has not been seen in a territory in an observation season, then perching and 

flying are important to record in the summary. However, if it is the middle of the season 

and a PRFA pair has an established nest, flying and perching are not as important to note 

as activities like feeding young, nest switches, and number of nestlings. See SOP 1: Field 

Methods for raptor activities and behaviors to look for by month, and to prioritize index 

entries by. 

• If activities change the status of the territory, they should always be noted. Examples 

of this are the first time incubation is confirmed, and the first time food is taken into the 

nest (confirming the hatching of eggs).The number of eggs and chicks, and the age (in 

days) of chicks, should always be included if observed. 

• To say that an area has “no birds,” the observation must be at least 1 hour long and 

ideally 4 hours long. Remember: the observational start time is when the observed raptor 

arrived at the site, and the observational end time is when the observed raptor left the site. 

For the Notes field, enter any supplemental information that is important to mention but not 

significant enough to mention in the Summary field. This includes the following: 

• Any unconfirmed guesses you make based on observations (possible nest failures, 

unobserved fledgings, etc.). 

• Observation entry revisions based on original misidentification (of chick ages, numbers, 

etc.) in field notes. 

• Additional details from field notes that support observations – or lack thereof –such as 

confirmation of chicks in a nest site but not numbers of chicks, due to lack of visibility). 

• Any useful details of raptors observed, such as identifying marks, developmental 

differences in chicks, or a nest that is newly discovered in a territory. 

Raptor Feeding Observations – Subform: 

Zero or multiple raptor feeding events may occur for a single raptor observation record. The 

navigation buttons on the bottom of the sub-form bring you (in order from left to right) to the 

first, previous, next, and last raptor feeding records. At the far right, the navigation button with 

the asterisk, allows you to begin a new raptor feeding record. 

• Enter the beginning time of the feeding behavior in the Start Time field. 

• Enter the time when the feeding behavior finishes in the End Time field. 

• Enter the prey type from the value list in the Prey field. If you are not sure, click on 

“unknown.” 

• In the Details field, enter the type of feeding behavior from the value list. 

• In the Number of Individuals field, enter the total number of individuals observed 

during the event. 

• In the Comments field, enter any additional details worth noting, including: species of 

prey (if confirmed); and additional aspects of feeding behavior (e.g., any chicks that were 

more aggressive in feeding).If several types of feeding behavior occur in succession, 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.24 

include each in separate entries, e.g., food drop by male, female feeding young, female 

feeding self, female caching the rest of the prey. 

Raptor Copulation Observations – Subform: 

Zero or multiple raptor copulation events may occur for a single raptor observation record. The 

navigation buttons on the bottom of the sub-form bring you (in order from left to right) to the 

first, previous, next, and last raptor copulation records. At the far right, the navigation button 

with the asterisk, allows you to begin a new raptor copulation record. 

• Enter the beginning time of the copulation event in the Start Time field. 

• Enter total copulation time in seconds into the Duration field. 

• Enter the amount of display during copulation from the value list in the Behavior field. 

• In the Food field, record whether a food exchange occurred before or after copulation, 

using the value list provided. 

• In the Number of Individuals field, enter the total number of individuals observed 

during the event. 

• In the Comments field, enter any additional details. 

Annual Breeding Raptor Summary: 

At the end of the field season, after all field notes and observations have been documented and 

entered into the raptor monitoring database and the database has been through QA/QC, annual 

breeding raptor summaries are entered into the database. 

• Open the breeding raptor form by clicking the “Breeding Summary” button from the 

database switchboard. To add a record, click the “New record” button. 

• Before entering any data, you should know what the fields in the database represent and 

what they are used for. These are detailed in Appendix SOP 3A of this document. In 

addition, descriptions of each data entry field are displayed in the status bar at the bottom 

left of the MS Access window. 

• Enter the year in the Year field, using yyyy. The year must be 4 digits, or it will not be 

accessible when using the Search mode. 

• Enter the species from the value list provided in the Species field. 

The next 6 fields are the most challenging for data entry within the breeding raptors form. 

Ideally, specific dates should be entered in each field. However, given the reality of checking 

raptor territories every 1 to 4 weeks, this is not always possible. For the Arrival Date, 

Incubation, Abandon Date, and Failed Date fields, follow the guidelines listed below: 

• If you observe a change of territorial / breeding status from one day to the next, enter 

the specific date as m/dd. 

• If you observe a change of territorial / breeding status within two weeks, enter the range 

of dates as m/dd-m/dd. 

• If you observe a change of territorial / breeding status in over two weeks, enter either 

<m/dd, >m/dd, or leave the field blank. Data entry here will depend on the circumstances 

of the observation. For example, for the Arrival Date field, if you see a raptor occupying 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.25 

a territory for the first time on January 24, enter <1/24 to signify that the raptor arrived 

before (i.e., less than) January 24th, the first time you observed the territory. Observations 

over two weeks apart in the Incubation, Abandon Date, and Failed Date fields will 

generally follow this pattern. However, if a nest is found late in the season, just before 

fledge, the Incubation and Arrival Date fields should be left blank because there is not 

enough monitoring information to determine specific dates or date ranges. DO NOT try 

counting backward to get these dates. Occasionally, >m/dd will be necessary for data 

entry. For example, if incubation could not be confirmed due to lack of visibility into a 

nest site, but hatch date could be determined from later nestling agings as 4/30-5/2, and 

raptor pair courtship was observed until March 16th, the Incubation field could be 

assigned an entry of >3/16. 

• For the Abandon Date and Failed Date fields, keep in mind that “failed” refers to failed 

nests, and “abandoned” refers to occupied territories being abandoned. Territories can 

have nest failures with or without territorial abandonment, and territories may be 

abandoned without nesting. Enter data into these fields, or leave them blank, as dictated 

by the occupation status and observations collected. 

• If non-nesting raptors occupy territories, leave the Incubation, Abandon Date, and Failed 

Date fields empty; enter >m/dd for Abandon Date if territories are abandoned after 

observations of territories being occupied. 

For the Hatch Date and Fledge Date fields, data entry will depend on accurate aging of 

nestlings, fledglings, and confirmation of fledging of young from nest sites. Refer to SOP 5: 

Data Analysis and Reporting for more information on monitoring raptor nestlings and 

fledglings. If you do not document the exact dates of hatching and fledging of young, you 

should monitor and age nestlings at a given nest on 3 visits to narrow the range of hatching 

and fledge dates to 3 days, if possible. Additionally, follow the guidelines listed below: 

• If you observe hatching or fledging of young on a particular day or from one day to 

the next, enter the specific date as m/dd. 

• Monitor and age nestlings on at least 3 visits, and determine fledge dates by confirming 

full fledge of young from nest sites. If confirmation of full fledge is not possible, confirm 

that nest sites are empty, and try to confirm at least partial fledge of young. 

• Enter hatch and fledge date ranges based on the total aging and fledging observations 

gathered for a particular nest site. Aging observations should be consistent. If not, 

determine and edit inconsistencies in nestling / fledgling again before entering hatch and 

fledge date ranges. 

• If you are not able to monitor nestlings on at least 3 visits to a nest site – if you discover a 

nest very late in the season, for example – try to at least determine fledging dates, as 

described above. If data is lacking to confirm hatching dates, leave the Hatch Date field 

blank. 

• If you discover young fledglings in a specific territory – such as American kestrel young 

perched near S. Balconies – late in the breeding season, leave all 6 fields from Arrival 

Date to Failed Date blank, but record numbers of young in the Known Fledglings through 

Occupation Status fields. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.26 

• If a territory is occupied by non-nesting raptors, leave the Hatch Date and Fledge Date

fields blank. 

• In the Eggs field, enter the number of eggs observed in a nest site prior to hatching. 

Often, observations of egg numbers can be difficult. If you are not able to see eggs – due 

to lack of visibility in nest site, for example – leave this field blank. 

• For the Hatchlings and Known Fledglings fields, enter the maximum number of 

hatchlings and fledglings confirmed through observations. 

• For the Possible Fledglings field, enter the maximum number of likely fledglings based 

on the maximum number of nestlings observed prior to fledge. 

For the Occupation Status field, enter the appropriate occupation status from the drop-down 

list based on your observations of a given territory throughout the season. Use the guidelines 

listed below: 

• Enter the number of possible fledglings if a territory had a nest site that successfully 

produced fledglings. 

• Enter “Occupied” if non-nesting raptors occupied a territory, OR if a raptor pair that 

nested in a territory – entered in a separate database record – also defended additional 

territories, a common occurrence in N./S. Balconies, and in the High Peaks area. In this 

latter case of a nesting raptor pair defending additional territories, fill in the Year, 

Territory, Species, Arrival Date, and Occupation Status fields for the additional territories 

occupied, and leave the other fields blank. For additional information, see SOP 5: Data 

Analysis and Reporting. 

• Enter “Occupied/Moved” only if a non-nesting raptor pair occupied a territory, and you 

confirmed that the pair abandoned the territory and moved to a new territory. If you did 

not confirm this, document two territories being occupied in separate database records, 

with the first being abandoned. 

• Enter “Failed” if a nesting raptor pair failed to fledge young, etc. 

• Enter “Failed/Moved” only if a nesting raptor pair with a nest failure was confirmed 

moving to a new territory. As with the “Occupied/Moved” option, if you did not confirm 

this, enter two database records. 

• Enter “Not Occupied” only for territories not occupied by prairie falcons, as this 

information is compiled into the breeding phenology chart at the end of the annual report 

(fore more information, see below, and in SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting). To be 

classified as “Not Occupied,” there must be at least 3 observations (each in a different 

month) with “No Birds” being detected for a minimum of 3 hours per visit. (With those 

visits being at “appropriate” times to see birds – i.e., not during the middle of the day.) 

• Enter “Unknown” only if you are not certain as to the occupational status of a raptor pair 

within a given territory (rarely necessary). This status code is mostly used to identify 

territories that due to logistical constraints were not observed a minimum of 3 times 

during the season to be able to classify them as Unoccupied. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.27 

• For the Notes field, enter any unusual or noteworthy observations, such as premature 

fledge from a nest site, first recorded nest sites or territorial occupation by species, etc. 

• For the Nest field, enter the nest code from the value list for actively used nests in the 

season (for nest codes, see SOP 2: Watch Spot Locations). 

• Enter the territory from the value list provided in the Territory field. 

As discussed in SOP 5, the concept of “territories” can be challenging. At PINN, there are 

several areas in the park – the Balconies, the High Peaks, etc. – where territories are concentrated 

enough that prairie falcons and other raptors may nest within one territory but defend additional 

surrounding territories. The confusion here lies in the fact that our human perspective on the 

division of raptor territories does not necessarily correspond from year to year with the 

perspective that the raptors have on territories. As a result, a nesting falcon pair at North 

Balconies often includes South Balconies as part of their nesting territory, but occasionally two 

falcon pairs will respectively nest in North and South Balconies as separate territories. Likewise, 

a falcon pair at Hawkins will defend just Hawkins Peak as a territory on certain years, and will 

include the Tunnel, Teapot, and/or Egg areas in their territorial defense in other years. Other 

examples of territorial complexes that can also be separate territories include Goat / Scout Peak, 

Willow Springs Slide / Canyon North of Willows Springs, and Citadel included in the mix of 

Egg / Tunnel / Teapot / Hawkins. Ultimately, determining territorial boundaries and divisions in 

a given year depends on the careful behavioral observations of the raptor monitors throughout 

the breeding season. For further details, see SOP 5. 

Photos: Capturing, Cataloging, and Archiving 

Photographs of raptor nests and territories provide an essential tool to effectively find and 

observe historic nest sites and territories. Throughout the field season, technicians should take 

pictures of territories and nests. Photos should be framed to include all relevant nest sites – in 

relation to historic nest sites, if contained within or near to existing nest sites – and landmarks en 

route to territory watchspots, if new nest sites and raptor territories are difficult to find. 

Through FY09, film and hard copies of photos were archived in the RM Office. Starting FY10, 

digital photos will be taken to document all work. Digital photos should be taken using the 

highest resolution possible in TIF format. TIF does not compress images and are better suited for 

long-term storage and reproduction. 

• For photos taken, record GPS coordinates in UTMs with a Garmin III Plus GPS unit. If the 

nest can be seen from different watch spots, take photos from each watch spot. Take 

photos at different zoom settings, wide angles to get other reference points in the photo 

frame and then close-ups to help in pulling detail out when looking in a spotting scope. Err 

on the side of taking too many photos. Take photos when the lighting is best illuminating 

the nest ledge – morning light for east facing rocks, evening light for west facing rocks. 

Try to avoid heavy shadowing on the nest ledge. 

• Information about photos is documented in the Photo.Log table in the raptor database. To 

enter data, begin by adding a record into the Photo Log form by opening the raptor 

database front-end through the network path: S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM 

Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding Raptors\database\ Access_Raptor_Database. Open the 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.28 

photo log form from the database switchboard by selecting the “Photo Log” button. Add 

a new photo log record by selecting the “New record” button. Type in the territory, roll 

code (if applicable), photo code, month and year the photo was taken, the photographer, 

photo quality, and exposures in the photo roll that include images of the same territory; 

follow previous entries as examples. When the record is complete, select the “Done” 

button. 

Procedures for Documenting Digital Photos 

Once photos are entered into the photo log table, copies of digital photos can be made. Using 

Photo shop or other photo software, circles or arrows can be placed around nest sites. Copies of 

photos can then be printed out and placed into plastic sleeves and put into a binder that can be 

taken into the field. 

Procedures for Documenting Film Photos 

This information is provided to understand procedures used for documenting film and hard copy 

photos. For photos that were taken through FY09, additional information was written on the back 

of the field and archival copies. Information included photo code in the lower left-hand corner of 

the print. This photo code was a combination of the film roll number, described above, and the 

negative number that the print corresponds to, such as Y-14 for Roll Y and #14 listed on the side 

of the negative. Sometimes the negatives correspond to the half way point between the numbers 

– they are given the “14A” code – the number that is closest to the beginning of the negative. 

Additional information provided on the back of the prints included: GPS coordinates in UTMs 

(NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10 North) in the lower left-hand corner (above the photo code), the 

photographer’s name and photo date in the lower right-hand corner, and the title of the print on 

the top of the photograph, indicating territory name and watchspot location and the direction the 

photo was taken (i.e., looking west) relative to the new territories / nest sites. Descriptive 

location information was also provided on the back of prints. Photos also had tape arrows 

pointing precisely at the new nest sites. See Figure SOP 3.16 for an example. 

South Chalone – S side rocks (prior BLM, now park prop.) 

SC-1 GOEA nest – ’90 (aban.), ‘93 

SC-2 GOEA nest – ’92 (aban.) 

SC-3 PRFA roost (lower crev.) – ’03 (non-nest.) 

SC-3 SC-2 SC-1
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.29 

GPS: 10 S 0663004, 4032754 

Photo Z-3 G. Emmons 6/03 

Figure SOP 3. 16. Example of photo data placement on the back of a field/archived photograph. 

Once prints are notated, store as described below. 

• For new territories, take 4" x 6" notecards from the “Raptor Nest Site Photo Negatives” 

binder, and write the names of the new territories across the top of the notecards, then 

place these cards with respective new photo prints into the field and archival photo boxes. 

Make sure the territory notecards and photo prints are entered in alphabetical order in the 

photo boxes. 

• Store the field copies photo box in the Raptor shelves in the Resources Office, and the 

archival copies photo box and negatives binder in the fire-proof metal file cabinet in the 

RRM Office near the front entrance. 

• If a photo is lost, a duplicate is made from the negative and the data is transferred from 

the archival photograph to the new “field” photograph. Archival photos NEVER go out 

into the field. 

Spatial Data Management 

The raptor program makes extensive use of spatial data to supplement data sheets and to inform 

staff and the public about raptor nest activities. Nest information is stored in the raptor database 

in the table tlu_Nest_Codes, with associated UTM coordinates. These records may be displayed 

in ArcMap by following these procedures: 

• Open ArcMap and begin a new empty map. 

• Select the Add XY Data option under the Tools menu, navigate to the Raptor_NRDT_BE 

(back-end) database and select the table tlu_Nest_Codes. 

• In the Add XY Data window, choose X_Coord for the X field and Y_Coord for the Y 

field. 

• Set the coordinate system (Projected Coordinate Systems>UTM>NAD 1983>NAD 1983 

UTM Zone 10N.prj), and select OK. The table will now appear as a data source in the 

map. 

• To create a new shapefile from the imported table, right click on the nest data layer in the 

display window. Select Data>Export data. In the Saving Data window, keep the default 

options, select a location for the shapefile, and rename the file (e.g., 

raptor_nests_2007.shp). 

• To determine UTM coordinates for new raptor nests, raptor technicians should first use 

topographic and aerial photo GIS themes to pinpoint nest site locations in ArcMap. Once 

the UTMs have been determined, new nest records should be added into the raptor 

monitoring database from frm_Lookups (Figure SOP 3.14), the form for managing 

database lookup tables. The form is accessible by clicking the “Lookup Tables” button on 

the database switchboard’s “Main Menu” tab. Use the table drop-down menu to select 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.30 

tlu_Nest_Codes to add or edit raptor nest records. Because nest UTM coordinates are not

generated from GPS data, raptor technicians must be very careful in transcribing nest 

locations into the raptor database. 

• Any additions or changes made to tlu_Nest_Codes will be reflected when you re-open 

any ArcMap projects in which you have imported the nest records from the database. 

This serves as a good method to double-check edits made to the nest location data in the 

database. Remember, however, that any shape files created with the nest data are static 

and will not reflect edits made in the database. 

• The above guidance is applicable to raptor observation or watch spots as well, with 

location records stored in the raptor database in the table tbl_Locations. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Data must meet certain QA/QC standards in order to ensure that the data are consistent, 

repeatable and reliable, and so that the data stand up to external review. QA ensures that data 

meet defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. QA refers to the overall 

management system, which includes the organization, planning, data collection, documentation, 

metadata, evaluation, and reporting activities of the program. QC refers to the technical 

procedures involved in controlling errors, such as personnel training, calibration of equipment, 

repeated measuring to determine differences among observers and the repeatability of 

measurements by the same person, and exercises to identify the level of error during data 

recording and data entry. 

QA/QC measures built into raptor monitoring data collection include: 

• Training of interns and staff. Refer to SOP 1: Field Methods. 

• Consistency of data sheets and procedures. Data sheets and procedures for documenting 

observations through field notes are consistent over years. Minor improving changes are 

occasionally made, with date on the bottom of each form representing versioning 

changes. 

• Proofing of data. Before the seasonal raptor data is considered final, the handling of the 

data follow a rigorous process, established and refined over many years at PINN. The 

data entry and proofing process, described below, follows guidelines outlined in the 

SFAN Data Management Plan (Press 2005). 

Data entry is best performed by a person who is familiar with the data and ideally takes place as 

soon as data collection is complete. The single goal of data entry is the transcription of the data 

from paper records into the computer with 100% accuracy. However, because transcription 

errors are virtually unavoidable during data entry, they will have to be corrected during the data 

verification process. Observation of certain data entry guidelines, however, will minimize 

verification work. The SFAN Data Manager, in conjunction with the PINN Wildlife Biologist, 

should provide training in the use of the database to all data entry technicians and any other 

users. The Wildlife Biologist will ensure that data entry technicians understand how to enter data 

and that they follow the protocol. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.31 

The most robust QA/QC measures for data entry are built into the raptor database design. Several 

additional QA/QC procedures must be followed by the database user: 

• Have a familiarity with the database software, database structure, and any standard codes 

for data entry that have been developed. 

• Enter data in a timely manner. All data should be entered into the project database as 

soon as possible, preferably no less than once a week. 

• Enter the data, one logical "set" at a time. Record in your notebook errors you know 

you've made or any questions that arise about the data content; these will be useful during 

data verification. Initial and date each paper form as it is completed to avoid confusion 

about what has been entered and what has not with a different color then the data. 

• Interrupt your data entry only at logical stopping points. If you reach stopping points, 

make a working backup copy of the data for safety's sake if your software does not do so 

automatically. 

Manual effort is generally required to get data into electronic format. Any typographical errors 

made will accumulate in the permanent database unless the data are verified and the errors 

detected. By implementing data verification procedures, these errors can be reduced, if not 

eliminated. Data verification immediately follows data entry and involves checking the accuracy 

of computerized records against the original source, usually hard copy field records, and 

identifying and correcting any errors. When the computerized data are verified as accurately 

reflecting the original field data, the paper forms can be archived and most data manipulation can 

be done on the computer. 

The Raptor Monitoring Program utilizes visual and audio review after data entry for data 

verification. Visual review after data entry requires two people. One person sits with the field 

datasheets in hand while the other sits at the computer with the database open. As data sheets are 

read aloud, the database record is followed and analyzed for data entry errors. Errors are 

corrected as they are discovered. Verified data sheets should be dated and initialed. 

Metadata Procedures 

The NPS GIS Committee recently required all NPS GIS data layers be described with the NPS 

Metadata Profile, which combines the FGDC standard, elements of the ESRI metadata profile, 

the Biological Data Profile, and NPS-specific elements. Although no standard has been applied 

to natural resource databases, the SFAN will complete the NPS Metadata Profile to the greatest 

extent possible to document databases developed for the SFAN I&M program. 

A complete metadata record for the raptor monitoring MS Access database will be generated in 

compliance with current NPS standards by the SFAN data manager. The metadata record will 

initially be developed in Dataset Catalog v3.0, an MS Access metadata development and catalog 

tool developed by the NPS I&M Program. Dataset Catalog is currently the preferred tool to begin 

metadata records for MS Access databases because of its ability to harvest entity and attribute 

information from this database format. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.32 

The metadata record will be exported from Dataset Catalog as an XML file and completed in 

NPS Metadata Tools and Editor v1.1, thus allowing for all NPS-specific elements in the 

metadata record to be completed. When completed, the metadata record, but not the data 

themselves, will be posted to the NPS Data Store for public discovery and consumption. Contact 

information within the metadata record will direct interested parties to the Network Data 

Manager for further inquiries. The metadata record posted to the NPS Data Store will be updated 

annually after the annual data has been entered and error-checked or following database revision 

to a new version whole number (i.e., v1_3 to v2_0, but not v2_0 to v2_1). 

The location data for this project is stored as UTM coordinates within the MS Access master 

database. Because GIS spatial data layers are generated from the database for internal use only, 

only simplified metadata records will be developed for these data layers using ArcCatalog and 

the NPS MTE. The metadata records will be saved as XML files and should be stored with the 

spatial data files. 

Data Storage and Archival Procedures 

Each season, once data entries have been entered and proofed, the physical documents, including 

datasheets, field notebooks, printouts of end-of-season reports, nest data forms for CDFG and the 

SCPBRG, are all kept in the RRM office, in a fire-proof cabinet in folders, each marked by 

subject and year. The archived photo negatives and photo prints are also kept in the RRM office 

in another fire-proof cabinet as detailed in the photo management section above. 

All digital documents and data related to the raptor monitoring program are stored on the 

“SharedData” drive on the PINN file server Inppinn001. The PINN server is physically located 

at the NPS Denver Service Center, where the server is maintained and backed up on a daily basis 

beginning at about 5 pm PST. Within the “SharedData” directory, which is mapped to the S:\ 

drive, the file pathway to all stored data related to the raptor monitoring program is: 

S:\RRM\RRM_Data\RM Workgroups\PROJECTS\Breeding Raptors 

Within the “Breeding Raptors” folder are folders related to reports, advisories, the database, and 

more. Digital and scanned photographs related to the raptor monitoring program are kept at: 

S:\RRM\Images\Raptor_DB_Photos. Scans of historical raptor nest / territory photos are kept in 

the “scans” folder, organized by territory folders, with front and back sides of each print scanned. 

At the SFAN offices at GOGA, copies of all final documents and data relating to the raptor 

monitoring program are archived on the Marin Headlands server at: 

Inpgogamahe1\Divisons\Network I&M\IM_Archive\VS_Indicators\Raptors 

Data and documents are stored in separate folders. The raptor database will be copied and 

archived here annually after that year’s field data has been entered and error-checked. All final 

documents relating to the raptor monitoring program, including the protocol and all annual 

reports, will also be stored in the raptor archive directory. All files in the archive directory are 

stored in read-only format. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.33 

NPS Information Technology specialists keep the server at GOGA locked and secure, perform 

regular server maintenance and upgrades, and ensure that frequent server back-up procedures are 

functioning properly with weekly off-site storage. 

Data Distribution 

In order for the raptor monitoring program to inform park management and to share its 

information with other organizations and the general public, guidance documents, reports, and 

data must be easily discoverable and obtainable. The main mechanism for distribution of the 

raptor monitoring documents and data will be the Internet. The raptor monitoring protocol, 

accompanying SOPs, and all annual reports will be made available for download at the SFAN 

website: http://www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/index.htm . 

Although the raptor monitoring database will not be posted for public download, as previously 

mentioned, a metadata record for the database will be maintained at the NPS Data Store. The 

metadata records will direct interested parties to the SFAN lead data manager for further 

inquiries. 

In addition to the NPS Data Store, the NPS I&M Program staff maintains an on-line natural 

resource bibliographic database known as NatureBib. NatureBib records will be created for all of 

the raptor monitoring documents, including the protocol, annual reports, and any resulting 

publications. The public version of NatureBib is in development by the NPS I&M program. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.34 

Appendix SOP 3A. Pinnacles National Monument Raptor Monitoring Data 

Dictionary 

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Events

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Sampling events - raptor surveys.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 9

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Event_ID dbText 50 Event identifier.

Location_ID dbText 50 Unique identifier for each sample 

location. Link to tbl_Locations.

Protocol_Name dbText 100 The name or code of the protocol 

governing the event.

Survey_Purpose dbText 20 Purpose of survey (occupancy, 

reproduction, nestlings, etc)

Start_Date dbDate 8 Starting date for the event.

Start_Time dbDate 8 Starting time for the event.

End_Time dbDate 8 Ending time for the event.

Entered_By dbText 50 Database user at data entry.

Entered_Date dbText 50 Date of data entry.

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Event_Details

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Sampling event details.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 11

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Event_ID dbText 50 Event identifier. Link to tbl_Events.

X_Coord dbDouble 8 X coordinate of observation point.

Y_Coord dbDouble 8 Y coordinate of observation point.

OBS_limits dbText 50 Visibility conditions present. Link to 

tlu_Observation_Limits.

Hi_TempF dbText 50 High temperature condition.

Low_TempF dbText 50 Low temperature condition.

AVG_Windspeed dbText 50 Average wind speed.

Wind_Dir dbText 50 Wind direction. Link to 

tlu_Wind_Direction.

Cloud_Cover dbText 50 Cloud coverage condition. Link to 

tlu_Cloud_Cover.

Precip dbText 50 Precipitation type present. Link to 

tlu_Precipitation.

Summary dbText 255 Summary of the observation session.

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Raptor_Observations

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Raptor observation records collected during unique survey events.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 21

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.35 

Raptor_Data_ID dbText 50 Raptor observation record ID.

Event_ID dbText 50 Event identifier. Link to tbl_Events.

Territory_ID dbText 50 ID of raptor territory. Link to 

tlu_Territories.

Survey_Purpose dbText 50 Purpose of surveying territory.

Detection_Purpose dbText 50 What was observer trying to detect 

during survey?

Detect_Intent_Result dbText 50 Were the detection intentions 

successful?

PRFA_Detected dbText 50 Were PRFA detected during the survey.

OBS_Stime dbDate 8 Beginning of observation entered as 4-

number code (24-hour).

OBS_Ftime dbDate 8 End of observation entered as 4-number 

code (24-hour).

Duration dbDate 8 Departure time (-) arrival time.

Species dbText 255 Raptor species (common name). Link to 

tlu_Species.

Num_Adults dbByte 1 Number of Adults detected

Num_Fledglings dbByte 1 Number of Fledglings detected

Num_Nestlings dbByte 1 Number of Nesltings detected

Num_OtherAge dbByte 1 Number of individuals witnessed for 

which an age either could not be determined 

or falls into another category such as 

subadult (e.g. condors, eagles)

Age dbText 10 Descriptor of age category not reflected 

in the three choices adult, fledglings, 

nestlings - also use "unknown" here for 

brief observations of fly-bys, etc.

Territorial_Behav dbText 50 Was territorial behavior observed?

Summary dbText 255 Summary of the raptor observation 

event.

Notes dbText 255 Additional information important to note 

about the raptor observations.

Comments dbText 255 Additional notes on feeding and 

associated activities.

Nest_Code dbText 50 Nest code for active nest. Link to 

tlu_Nests_Codes.

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Raptor_Copulation

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Raptor copulation events associated with raptor observations.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 8

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Cop_ID dbLong 4 Raptor copulation record ID.

Raptor_Data_ID dbText 50 Raptor observation ID. Link to 

tbl_Raptor_Observations.

Event_Stime dbDate 8 Beginning of copulation event entered 

as 4-number code (24-hour)

Duration dbText 255 Duration of copulation event in seconds.

Behavior dbText 255 Summary of most significant copulation 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.36 

behavior. Link to tlu_CopBehavior.

Comments dbText 255 Additional notes or comments about 

copulation event.

Food dbText 255 Summary of food exchange. Link to 

tlu_CopFood.

No_individuals dbByte 1 Number of raptor individuals related to 

copulation event.

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Raptor_Feeding

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Raptor feeding events associated with raptor observations.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 9

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Feed_ID dbLong 4 Raptor feeding record ID.

Raptor_Data_ID dbText 50 Raptor observation ID. Link to 

tbl_Raptor_Observations.

Event_Stime dbDate 8 Beginning of feeding event entered as 

4-number code (24-hour)

Event_Ftime dbDate 8 End of feeding event entered as 4-

number code (24-hour)

Duration dbText 255 End time (-) beginning time.

Prey dbText 255 Raptor prey. Link to tlu_FeedPrey.

Details dbText 255 Feeding event summary. Link to 

tlu_FeedDetails.

Comments dbText 255 Additional notes or comments about 

feeding event.

Num_individuals dbDouble 8 Number of raptor individuals related to 

feeding event.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: xref_Event_Contacts

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Cross-reference table between events and contacts.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Event_ID dbText 50 Event identifier. Link to tbl_Events.

Contact_ID dbText 50 Field observer. Link to tlu_Contacts. 

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tbl_DataHistory

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Details of data verification and editing of raptor survey event records.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 5

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

History_Data_ID dbLong 4 Data history record ID.

Event_ID dbText 50 Event identifier. Link to tbl_Events.

Updated_Date dbText 50 Date of data verification, validation, or 

last change.

Contact_ID dbText 50 Database user at data entry. Link to 

tlu_Contacts.

Notes dbText 50 Specific description of data history 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.37 

record (error-checking, data fields edited, etc)

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Breeding_Raptors

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: End-of-season occupancy summary information and breeding phenology data collated from raptor 

surveys and observations.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 22

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

AutoID dbLong 4 Autonumber ID. To assist with sorting 

records.

Breed_Data_ID dbText 50 Raptor breeding record ID.

Year dbText 50 Year of observation, entered as yyyy.

Species dbText 255 Raptor species (common name).

Arrival_Date dbText 255 Arrival date of territorial raptors, entered 

as m/dd.

Incubation_Date dbText 255 Beginning date of nest incubation, 

entered as m/dd.

Hatch_Date dbText 255 Hatching date(s) of young in nest.

Fledge_Date dbText 255 Fledging date(s) of young from nest.

Abandon_Date dbText 255 Date of abandonment by territorial 

raptors.

Failed_Date dbText 255 Date of nest failure (due to predation, 

etc.).

Eggs dbText 255 Number of eggs observed in the nest 

site.

Hatchlings dbDouble 8 Number of hatchlings observed in the 

nest site.

Known_Fledglings dbDouble 8 Number of young confirmed fledged by 

observation.

Possible_Fledglings dbDouble 8 Number of possible / likely young 

fledged from the nest site.

Occupation dbText 255 Final occupational status of raptors 

within the territory.

Occupancy_Date dbDate 8 Date that occupancy was determined.

Notes dbText 255 Additional notes / observations for 

breeding record.

Sort dbDouble 8 Sorting code for territories; entered 

automatically.

Nest_Code dbText 255 Nest code for active nest. Link to 

tlu_Nests_Codes.

Territory_Name dbText 50 Name of raptor territory.

Territory_ID dbText 50 ID of raptor territory. Link to 

tlu_Territories.

Territorial dbText 50 Additional territories in which raptors 

were territorial. 

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Photo_Log

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Catalog of raptor nest and territory photographs.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 13
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.38 

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Roll_ID dbText 50 Roll code record ID.

Territory_ID dbText 50 ID of raptor territory. Link to 

tlu_Territories.

Territory dbText 255 Name of raptor territory.

Roll_Code dbText 255 Alpha-numeric roll code unique to the 

season.

Photo_Code dbText 255 Alpha-numeric photo code based on roll 

code and negative number.

Photographer dbText 50 Name of photographer.

Contact_ID dbText 50 Photographer. Link to tlu_Contacts.

Month dbDouble 8 Month the photos were taken.

Year dbDouble 8 Year the photos were taken.

Photo_Quality dbText 255 Photo quality rating: good, average, 

poor.

Roll_Photos dbText 255 Exposures in the photo roll that contain 

images of the same territory.

Sort dbDouble 8 Sort order for records based on territory.

Roll_Comments dbText 255 Additional photo roll comments.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tbl_Locations

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Raptor observation locations - watch spots or observation points.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 19

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Location_ID dbText 50 Location identifier.

Loc_Name dbText 100 Name of the location.

GIS_Location_ID dbText 50 Link to GIS feature, equivalent to 

NPS_Location_ID.

Meta_MID dbText 50 Link to NR-GIS Metadata Database.

Territory_Name dbText 50 Name of raptor territory.

Territory_ID dbText 50 ID of raptor territory. Link to 

tlu_Territories.

UTM_Zone dbText 50 UTM Zone.

X_Coord dbDouble 8 X coordinate.

Y_Coord dbDouble 8 Y coordinate.

Datum dbText 5 Datum of mapping ellipsoid.

Coord_Units dbText 50 Coordinate distance units.

Coord_System dbText 50 Coordinate system.

Coord_Method dbText 50 identify the way in which the coordinates 

were determined, e.g. Garmin eTrex, 

Trimble with BOB; USGS Quad, etc.

Est_H_Error dbSingle 4 Estimated horizontal accuracy.

Accuracy_Notes dbText 255 Positional accuracy notes.

Unit_Code dbText 12 Park, Monument or Network code.

Loc_Type dbText 25 Location type category.

Updated_Date dbText 50 Date of entry or last change.

Loc_Notes dbMemo 0 General notes on the location.
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.39 

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tbl_Media_Addresses

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Media, business, and organization addresses for press releases and advisories.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 6

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Media_ID dbText 50 Media address record ID.

Name dbText 255 Name of business, organization, or 

media outlet.

Address dbText 255 Street number or PO box.

City_State_Zip dbText 255 City, state, and zip code.

Press_Release dbBoolean 1 Send a press release (yes/no).

Advisory dbBoolean 1 Send an advisory (yes/no).

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tbl_Db_Meta

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Database description and links to I&M metadata tools.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 4

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Db_Meta_ID dbText 50 Local primary key.

Db_Desc dbMemo 0 Description of the database purpose.

Meta_MID dbText 50 Link to NR-GIS Metadata Database.

DSC_GUID dbText 50 Link to I&M Dataset Catalog desktop 

metadata tool.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tbl_Db_Revisions

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Database revision history data.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 6

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Revision_ID dbText 50 Database revision (version) number or 

code.

Revision_Contact_ID dbText 50 Link to tlu_Contacts.

Db_Meta_ID dbText 50 Link to tbl_DB_Meta.

Revision_Date dbDate 8 Database revision date.

Revision_Reason dbMemo 0 Reason for the database revision.

Revision_Desc dbMemo 0 Revision description.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Cloud_Cover

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of cloud cover percent ratings.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

CC_ID dbLong 4 Cloud cover ID.

Cloud_cover dbText 50 Cloud cover condition.
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.40 

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Contacts

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Contact data for project-related personnel.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 18

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Contact_ID dbText 50 Contact identifier.

Last_Name dbText 50 Last name.

First_Name dbText 50 First name.

Middle_Init dbText 4 Middle initial.

Initals dbText 255 First letter, Last letter

Organization dbText 50 Organization or employer.

Position_Title dbText 50 Title or position description.

Address_Type dbText 50 Address (mailing, physical, both) type.

Address dbText 50 Street address.

Address2 dbText 50 Address line 2, suite, apartment 

number.

City dbText 50 City or town.

State_Code dbText 8 State or province.

Zip_Code dbText 50 Zip code.

Country dbText 50 Country.

Email_Address dbText 50 E-mail address.

Work_Phone dbText 50 Phone number.

Work_Extension dbText 50 Phone extension.

Contact_Notes dbMemo 0 Contact notes.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_CopBehavior

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of copulation behavior (display) values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

CopBehav_ID dbLong 4 Copulation behavior record ID.

CopBehavior dbText 50 Copulation behavior observed.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_CopFood

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of copulation food exchange values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

CopFood_ID dbLong 4 Copulation food record ID.

CopFood dbText 50 Food exchange description.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_FeedDetails

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of feeding description values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.41 

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Details_ID dbLong 4 Food details record ID.

Details dbText 50 Feeding event summary.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_FeedPrey

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of food prey items.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Prey_ID dbLong 4 Prey record ID.

Prey dbText 50 Raptor prey.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Nest_Codes

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of raptor nests and locations.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 13

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Nest_ID dbLong 4 Nest code record ID.

Nest_Code dbText 7 Nest code for active nest.

Territory_ID dbText 50 ID of raptor territory. Link to 

tlu_Territories.

Territory dbText 50 Name of raptor territory.

X_Coord dbText 15 X coordinate.

Y_Coord dbText 15 Y coordinate.

Coord_System dbText 50 Coordinate system.

Datum dbText 50 Datum of mapping ellipsoid.

Coord_Units dbText 50 Coordinate distance units.

UTM_Zone dbText 50 UTM Zone.

Unit_Code dbText 12 Park, Monument or Network code

Nest_Name dbText 50 Name or description of the nest.

Nest_Notes dbMemo 0 General notes on the nest.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Observation_Limits

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of observation limit values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Limit_ID dbLong 4 Observation limit record ID.

obslimits dbText 50 Visibility conditions present.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Precipitation

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of precipitation values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Precip_ID dbLong 4 Precipitation record ID.
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 3.42 

Precip dbText 50 Precipitation type present.

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Raptor_Species

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of raptor species.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 6

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Species_ID dbLong 4 Raptor species record ID.

Species dbText 4 Four letter species code.

Scientific_Name dbText 50 Raptor species (scientific name).

Common_Name dbText 50 Raptor species (common name).

TSN dbText 50 ITIS Taxonomic Serial Number.

Vouchered dbBoolean 1 Vouchered (yes/no).

___________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE NAME: tlu_Territories

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of raptor territories with link to GIS.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 9

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Territory_ID dbText 50 Territory identifier.

GIS_Location_ID dbText 50 Link to GIS feature, equivalent to 

NPS_Location_ID.

Territory_Name dbText 100 Unique territory name.

Territory_Desc dbText 255 Description for the territory.

Territory_Code dbText 50 Text code abbreviation of the territory.

Unit_Code dbText 12 Park, Monument or Network code.

Territory_Notes dbMemo 0 General notes on the territory.

LocationType dbText 50 "Territory" = an area in which raptors 

have historical nested and therefore is used 

for intensive monitoring. "Survey Area" 

designates larger areas used for casual 

searches, especially for non-target 

species, e.g. North Wilderness Trail.

Core dbText 50 Identifies territory in the core area.

___________________________________________________________________ TABLE NAME: tlu_Wind_direction

FILENAME: Raptor_NRDT_BE.mdb

DESCRIPTION: Look-up table of wind direction values.

FORMAT: Microsoft Access

NO. OF FIELDS: 2

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE FIELD WIDTH FIELD DESCRIPTION

Wind_ID dbLong 4 Wind direction record ID.

Wind_dir dbText 50 Wind direction.
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.1 

SOP 4. Protocol Revision and Review V 2.0 

Revision History Log 

Prev 

Version # 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for Change New Version 

# 

1.01 06/05/05 Dawn 

Adams 

Completed Data 

Management and 

Reporting Sections using 

SOP information. Added 

Revision History Log. 

Removed SOP 5: Raptor 

Monitoring because it was 

not yet written and 

information was provided 

in SOP 1–4. Renumbered 

all other SOPs in narrative.

Needed to complete 

protocol for peer 

review 

1.02 

1.02 09/2006 Gavin 

Emmons, 

Jim 

Petterson 

Updated / revised narrative 

to include citations, 

consistent use of 

terminology, revised 

hypotheses, measurable 

variables / objectives, 

management objectives, 

rewritten sections on 

sampling, data analysis, 

and new section on triggers 

for management actions 

Needed in response to 

2005 peer review 

comments 

1.03 

1.03 10/4/06; 

9/6/07 

Marcus 

Koenen 

Reformatted. Various 

sections edited including 

sections on budget, 

personnel, reporting. 

To meet national 

guidelines: 

http://nature.nps.gov/

publications/NRPM/

1.04 

1.04 3/15/08 Gavin 

Emmons, 

Jim 

Petterson, 

Marcus 

Koenen 

More re-formatting, added 

citations, produced maps. 

Removed and combined 

SOP to reduce overall 

redundancy. Added 

executive summary. Added 

more information about 

sampling design including 

power analyses. 

To address comments 

made by reviewers. 

Incorporate results of 

power analyses and 

other suggestions 

from Connor and 

LeBuhn. 

1.1 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.2 

1.1 7/2009 D. Adams, 

J. 

Petterson, 

G. 

Emmons, 

M. Koenen 

Reformatting based on 

peer review comments 

To address peer 

review comments and 

further suggestion 

from LeBuhn and 

Connor. 

2.0 

2.0 1/2010 M. Koenen Address final comments on 

sample design. 

Incorporate new 

power analysis by 

Starcevich and 

Steinhorst. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.3 

Overview 

This SOP explains how to make changes to the Raptor Monitoring Protocol Narrative and 

accompanying SOPs, and tracking these changes. Observers asked to edit the Protocol Narrative 

or any one of the SOPs need to follow this outlined procedure in order to eliminate confusion in 

how data is collected and analyzed. All observers should be familiar with this SOP in order to 

identify and use the most current methodologies. 

This SOP also contains a table listing the most current version of the protocol narrative and each 

of the SOPs. Table 8 will provide a single reference for ensuring that the most current documents 

are being used. 

Also included in this SOP are comments from protocol reviewer, responses to those comments, 

and approvals. 

Protocol Revision Procedures 

The PINN Raptor Monitoring Protocol Narrative and accompanying SOPs has attempted to 

incorporate the most sound methodologies for collecting and analyzing raptor breeding data. 

However, all protocols regardless of how sound require editing as new and different information 

becomes available. Required edits should be made in a timely manner and appropriate reviews 

undertaken. 

All edits require review for clarity and technical soundness. Small changes or additions to 

existing methods will be reviewed in-house by the SFAN staff. However, if a complete change in 

methods is sought, an outside review is required. Regional and national NPS staff with 

familiarity in avian research and data analysis may also be utilized as reviewers. Also, experts in 

avian research and statistical methodologies outside of the Park Service will be utilized in the 

review process. 

Document edits and protocol versioning in the Revision History Log that accompanies the 

Protocol Narrative and each SOP. Log changes in the Protocol Narrative or SOP being edited 

only. Version numbers increase incrementally by hundredths (e.g., version 1.01, version 1.02, 

etc.) for minor changes. Major revisions should be designated with the next whole number (e.g., 

version 2.0, 3.0, 4.0...). Record the previous version number, date of revision, author of the 

revision, identify paragraphs and pages where changes are made, and the reason for making the 

changes along with the new version number. 

Inform the Data Manager about changes to the Protocol Narrative or SOP so the new version 

number can be incorporated in the Metadata of the project database. The database may have to 

be edited by the Data Manager to accompany changes in the Protocol Narrative and SOPs. 

Post new versions on the internet and forward copies to all individuals with a previous version of 

the effected Protocol Narrative or SOP. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.4 

Table SOP 4. 1. Current versions and version dates for PINN Raptor Monitoring Protocol narrative and 

SOPs. 

Document Name Current 

Version 

Version 

Date 

Raptor Monitoring Protocol for Pinnacles National Monument. 2.2 1/20/10 

SOP 1: Field Methods 1.3 1/20/10 

SOP 2: Site Descriptions 1.0 1/20/10 

SOP 3: Data Management 3.2 1/20/10 

SOP 4: Protocol Revision and Review 2.0 1/20/10 

SOP 5: Data Analysis and Reporting 1.1 1/20/10 

SOP 6: Using Portable Radios 1.1 1/20/10 

SOP 7: Using GPS 1.1 1/20/10 

SOP 8: Safety Procedures 1.1 1/20/10 

Protocol Reviews (2005/2008) 

Reviewer comments received during the 2005 and 2008 reviews are presented below along with 

our italicized responses. Initials of responder are also presented (MK: Marcus Koenen; DA: 

Dawn Adams). 

 

2005/2006 Peer Review Comments 

Review coordinated by Dr. James Agee: 

December 22, 2005 

The scientific review for “Raptor Monitoring Protocol for Pinnacles National Monument, 

California” is complete. The protocol receives the following decision: 

 Unacceptable in Present Form 

This letter summarizes the scientific review of the raptor protocol at Pinnacles National 

Monument. Attached to this letter are several review documents: (1) a PWR Protocol Review 

Checklist. Each question is addressed in the left column; if scientific, it is addressed by me and 

the word is in bold, and if administrative is addressed by Dr. Penelope Latham in normal font, as 

a “yes”, “no”, “in part”, or N.A. [not applicable]. (2) The individual reviews are included with 

author’s names erased, and reviewers are identified as #1, #2, or #3. The park did request Dr. 

Karen Steenhof as a reviewer, and her review is one of the three, although not specifically 

identified. One of the reviews is actually a combined review by two experts, so we had a total of 

four functional reviewers for this protocol. (3) The marked-up copies of the review drafts are 

enclosed, labeled similarly as #1, #2, or #3, although most of the relevant comments are in the 

written reviews submitted. The reviews are self-explanatory, but what I attempt to do here is 

place them in an integrated context beyond the abbreviated response in the PWR Protocol 

Review Checklist. MK: The original marked up documents are on file at the SFAN I&M Office 

at GOGA in Sausalito, California. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.5 

The reviewers were very impressed with the detail and extent of the monitoring plan, and the 

authors did an excellent job of documenting those. But this attention to detail did not obscure 

deficiencies with the broader, overall objectives of the monitoring plan. The primary rationale 

for defining and tracking “vital signs” is essentially to monitor the health of park ecosystems. 

Not only is it important to select important variables, but park staff must be able to track the 

trends in the “vital signs” -- otherwise the monitoring, although perhaps interesting, is not very 

relevant to park decision makers. In the raptor protocol here, the objectives are not well defined, 

the measures for objective 2 (relating visitation to raptors) was not addressed at all, and analysis 

techniques to measure trends, and the thresholds for identifying a problem given that a trend 

might appear, are not addressed, either. While there are a lot of other comments that will be 

summarized later in this letter, they pale in comparison to these deficiencies. In a resubmission, 

you must define testable hypotheses, the variables that will be used to test those hypotheses, how 

those data will be collected (where most of the current effort is placed), how it will be analyzed 

to suggest things are “normal” or not, and what the threshold of deviation is that will trigger 

management concern. Those are basic standards for acceptability for a NPS vital signs protocol. 

MK: Objectives have been revised. Analyses have been conducted to determine the power to 

detect trends. 

Introduction. A broader introduction to the issue at hand would be helpful (Reviewers #1 and 

#2). Reviewer #3 suggests more literature citation. What do we know from previous monitoring 

that might inform the monitoring plan being proposed? MK: The introduction was expanded and 

additional literature was cited.

Objectives. There are two objectives, summarized broadly as: (1) determining annual nesting 

success, and (2) improving understanding of human-raptor interactions. Reviewer #3 notes that 

the plan would be strengthened if testable hypotheses were introduced. For objective 1, Reviewer 

1 notes that it is pretty narrowly focused: wouldn’t you be interested in trend data, suggesting a 

time variable be added? Reviewer 2 notes that it could be written as a testable hypothesis: “there 

is no change in the population (which parameter?) over time (my underline)”. Objective 2 is 

unmeasurable, according to Reviewer #1. Reviewer #2 rewrites the objective as “seasonal fitness 

of prairie falcons decreases with increasing recreational use...”. Reviewer #3 notes there are no 

analytical techniques described for objective 2, likely because it is untestable as written. On the 

top of Reviewer #3’s second page, a list of possible more specific hypotheses is listed, each of 

which would shape the type of monitoring data that would be collected. So the first priority is to 

review and rewrite the objectives. They should imply possibilities of testing within the 

framework of trend analysis mentioned above. It appears that only one raptor is present in high 

enough numbers to present quantifiable data, so the hypotheses should be specific about prairie 

falcons (see reviewer #2, objective 2 above). While the other species can be recorded and 

monitored, it seems apparent that those species are not considered vitals signs because their 

“pulse” is not strong enough to provide enough data for analysis. Yet the prairie falcon seem to 

be treated with the others as “raptors” when it is really the only species about which anything can 

likely be said over time. As reviewer #2 notes, is it worth the effort to collect data on all species 

if there is no possibility of change detection? MK: The monitoring objectives were completely 

rewritten to address these comments. Hypotheses are generally not a part of monitoring 

objectives because we are not proving or disproving a hypothesis. We are only interested in 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.6 

tracking change over time. However, the analysis section has presented an analysis to be 

performed to test the hypothesis idea.

Terms and Definitions. Each of the reviewers suggested changes in the way terms were used. 

Reviewer #1 has almost an entire page of suggested changes and definitions. While this reviewer 

suggests avoiding the word “chick”, the word is used twice in the suggested definition of 

“occupied territory”. I can’t offer clarification here, but suggest you be as specific as possible: 

“young”, “post-fledgling”, etc. Reviewer #2 notes a glossary would be helpful. MK: A glossary 

was added to ensure consistent use of definitions throughout the document.

Sampling. There is some concern by Reviewers (#1 and #2) that the field component is a 

sample, not a census (complete inventory). If you do not measure all the potential areas in the 

park, rather than an a priori prioritization of where to look, then the procedure appears to be a 

sample, not an entire population. Reviewer #1 notes this in the mention of SOP 4. Reviewer #2 

notes that the number of variables actually measured is not specified and some may be less 

valuable than others (direction of flight from nest, reviewer #2, actual fledging dates, reviewer 

#1). Reviewer #3 also notes that the Grinellian approach may be too loose (“no systematic 

constraints” in the words of Reviewer #3) to produce replicated data. There are not standardized 

data forms where the same data will be recorded at each visit. MK: A data sheet was developed 

to standardize data collection. This will be field tested in 2008 and will supplement the 

Grinnelian approach.

There are no protocols for sampling or handling captured birds, yet these are mentioned as 

activities that might be undertaken. Procedures should be summarized. 

Reviewer #3 notes that sampling (or censusing) activity at different rates in different parts of the 

park will result in different quality databases that will not be comparable within or between 

years. What is the implication of this for data analysis? 

For objective 2, Reviewer #2 questions the feasibility of associating recreation (however 

measured) to counts of young due to accuracy limitations in the young falcon count. How would 

you separate out other factors influencing broods? They suggest radiocollaring individuals (it 

appears they mean falcons, not visitors) to assess spatio-temporal patterns of raptor use vs. 

visitor use. Until objective 2 is better defined, more comment on sampling is not useful. 

MK: This aspect of the protocol has been removed and may be identified as a research objective 

in the future. Capturing and handling raptors has been removed from the protocol. 

Field procedures. Generally the reviewers were impressed with the detail and thoroughness of 

the field procedures. Digital photography is suggested (all Reviewers) rather than black and 

white film. Given past experience with unstable color on negatives, black and white was 

preferable, but with digital archives, fading is not a problem. Perhaps this is an NPS standard, but 

it seems archaic in relation to current technology. You might raise this issue internally within 

NPS if black and white is required. MK: Up through FY09, we were still using film that was 

digitally scanned. This has worked well so far and was the preference of the technician who is 

also a fine arts photographer who preferred to use film over digital cameras. Starting next year, 

all photography will be with digital format cameras. The SOP has been updated accordingly. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.7 

Analysis. The Z-test explanation is not described well enough to understand how it would work, 

although it is described briefly in SOP 9. As I understand how it would work, one would take the 

previous data (and each year add one more observation), and either use it or some transformed 

value to create a mean and variance (after all, the data do assume a normal distribution, but this 

needs to be verified before analysis). Any new value could then be compared within that 

distribution at some computed probability. This technique raises several issues: (1) it assumes 

that the previous data used came from a stable, statistically normal population so that deviations 

from the mean over time did not show a trend - do we know that? (2) It has a level of Type I 

error defined, but no Type II error (accepting a false hypothesis). (3) No level of Z is defined that 

creates a finding that the current year sample is not “normal”. Is it at the 90% probability level, 

or 95%, or 99%? Some level has to trigger an action. As multiple variables might be tested in a 

given year, there is some increasing probability as the number of tests increase that one or more 

might by random by judged significant, and therefore Type I error increases (Reviewers 1 and 

#3). Where else has this technique been used, and how successful has it been (Reviewer #3) in 

achieving the objective of detecting change and power (we know it cannot deal with power)? 

Recommendations of reviewers to seek some statistical help are well-taken. MK: In addition to 

supporting the sampling design section and conducting power analyses, statisticians at San 

Francisco State University made suggestions for long-term analyses. These analyses, however, 

have not yet been conducted and developing a long-term trend report employing the suggested 

analyses is a high priority for the network. 

Data Archiving. It appears that this protocol was first drafted when Filemaker Pro 5 was the 

technology in use. However, a switch to MS Access was expected to be complete in 2005. 

Reference to the old technology is now out-of-date, except to note that the older data is being 

converted to be consistent with the new (Reviewer #1). The discussion on metadata is not well 

developed (Reviewer #2). If NPS prohibits use of MS Excel files, its use in Protocol #8 may 

need to be revisited. MK: The database and SOP describing it has been completely revised to 

meet NPS standards. The database is in MS Access.

Other comments: 

Pagination: sometimes the pages are numbered in order and sometimes not. The narrative, for 

example, has page 10 of 9, and SOP 4 has page 7 of 6. 

SOP #2 and #5. A raptor advisory is never well-defined for the reader. It is defined as a “policy”, 

as an “area” (raptor advisory areas). 

SOP #3. References to Richton et al. 1992, Buranek 1998, and Fesnock 1993 not in the literature 

cited section. 

MK: These have been fixed. 

Given the amount of reformulation of the basic questions being posed by this protocol, and how 

analysis will tease out the trends, a second full review is likely needed. While I may overrule this 

decision upon resubmission, I would recommend planning for another full review. I’ll try to 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.8 

arrange for the same reviewers but at this time cannot promise they will be the same folks. I wish 

you much success in the revision. 

Sincerely, 

James K. Agee 

Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Forest Ecology 

Attachments: PWR Protocol Review Checklist, Reviewer comments, Review drafts 

PWR PROTOCOL REVIEW CHECKLIST 

Protocol Name: Raptor Monitoring Protocol for Pinnacles National Monument, California

Reviewer’s name and date: James K. Agee (Sci - bold) and Penelope Latham (Admin) 

Sci/Admin Overall Organization and Presentation of Protocol Narrative 

Yes 1. Is the overall monitoring protocol well-organized with sections clearly 

delineated? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol have a title page with authors’ names, protocol version 

number and date? (Protocol version numbers should be constructed to allow 

for both major and minor changes.) Is there a Table of Contents, abstract, 

and the three basic sections: 1-Narrative, 2-Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs), and 3-Supplementary Materials or Appendices recommended in the 

NPS standards published by Oakley et al. 2003 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocols/ProtocolGuidelines.pdf). 

In part. Yes. 3. Is there a complete and accurate table of contents with page numbers? 

(Chapters should be paginated consecutively, i.e. Chap. 1 (pp. 1-20), Chap. 

2 (pp. 21-28), Chap. 3 (pp. 29-44), etc. to allow for modular updates.) 

Yes 4. Are the tables and figures clearly labeled and understandable? 

N/A 5. Is the protocol bound so that it lies flat, preferably in a 3-ring binder? 

Section 1 A. Background and Objectives (Chapter 1) 

No Yes, this 

section was 

expanded and 

literature support 

provided 

1. Does the protocol narrative provide a rationale or justification for why a 

particular resource or resource issue was selected for monitoring? Is the 

history and background for this resource issue well-referenced with 

supporting literature cited? 

No 2. Does the protocol narrative discuss the linkages between this and other 

monitoring projects? 

No Yes. 

Management 

objectives were 

clarified. 

3. Does the protocol narrative describe how monitoring results will inform 

management decisions? 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.9 

No Yes. 4. Does the protocol narrative contain careful documentation of the 

monitoring objectives or monitoring questions being asked? 

No. Yes, 

management 

thresholds/triggers 

are identified. 

5. Does the protocol narrative identify specific measurable objectives such 

as thresholds or trigger points for management actions? 

Section 1 B. Sampling Design (Chapter 2) 

No. This section 

has been 

augmented along 

with a clear 

distinction 

between work 

conducted for 

long-term 

monitoring versus 

work conducted to 

meet management 

objectives. 

1. Is there a clear and logical rationale for selecting the sampling design 

over others? 

In part 2a. Were the criteria for site selection clearly discussed including 

stratification, spatial design, and whether this monitoring will be co-located 

and/or integrated with other VS monitoring protocols? (See Checklist, 

Section 1A2.) 

No 2b. Has the target population or “sampling frame”, and the sampling units, 

been identified? In other words, is the desired level of inference clear? 

Yes 3. Is the sampling frequency and replication identified? 

Yes 4. Is the timing of sampling defined? 

Yes 5. Are the location of sampling sites clearly identified? 

No 6. Is the level of change that can be detected for the amount or type of 

sampling being instituted identified? (See Checklist, Section 1A5.) 

Section 1 C. Field Methods (Chapter 3) 

Mostly. No 

permits needed 

for this protocol. 

1. Are preparations for the field season and equipment setup included? Are 

requirements for permitting and compliance discussed? 

No, Yes. Data 

sheets now 

available. 

2. Does the protocol include clear and detailed information on taking 

measurements with example survey forms included? (Protocol variables and 

measurements may be discussed in detail in a SOP. A complete set of forms 

should be included in either the supplementary materials or a SOP.) 

Yes 3. Is the method of access for sampling sites provided? 

N.A. 4. Is there an overview of procedures for establishing, monumenting, and 

maintenance of plots discussed in one or more SOPs? 

N.A. 5. Does the protocol include details for the post-collection processing of 

samples or vouchers? 

Yes 6. Does the protocol include procedures to be followed at the end of the 

field season? 

Section 1 D. Data Handling, Analysis and Reporting (Chapter 4) 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.10 

In part 1. Does the protocol provide an overview of the process for entering, 

editing, and storing data, identification of database software, and whether 

the database is consistent with the recommended I&M database template 

structure? (For water quality protocols, see specific water quality guidance 

in Part B or WRD’s General Comments 15, and checklist items in Section 2, 

items 8-10, below.) 

No 2. Are quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures 

presented for the various levels of data collection and analysis? (See water 

quality Part B guidance or General Comments 15 as appropriate.) 

No 3. Is the data structure clearly presented and sufficient to capture the 

required information to meet the stated goal? Is there an overview of the 

database design? 

No 4. Are there recommendations for routine data summaries and statistical 

analysis to detect change? 

Yes 5. Is there a recommended reporting schedule? 

No. Yes. All 

reports follow 

NRTR format. 

Examples are 

cited. Examples 

of summary tables 

provided. 

6. Is there a recommended report format with examples of summary tables 

and figures? 

No 7. Is there a recommendation for long-term trend analysis (e.g. every 5 or 10 

years)? 

In part 8. Does the protocol narrative include an adequate description of metadata 

and data archival procedures? 

No 9. Does the protocol narrative describe the frequency of testing and review 

of protocol effectiveness? 

Section 1 E. Personnel Requirements and Training (Chapter 5) 

Yes 1. Does the narrative include a listing of the personnel and describe their 

roles and responsibilities, and qualifications? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol include a discussion of training procedures for 

personnel? 

Section 1 F. Operational Requirements (Chapter 6) 

Yes 1. Are facility, vehicle and equipment needs identified? 

No. PINN 

contributions 

listed in budget 

and discussed. No 

other specific 

cooperative 

agreements 

relevant at this 

time. 

2. Is there a summary of key partnerships with agencies, organizations and 

individuals that are part of the monitoring program and a description of their 

contribution? Is there a list of relevant cooperative agreements and other 

partnership agreements, if applicable? 

Yes 3. Is a schedule for the annual fieldwork and administrative needs required 

to implement this protocol included? 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.11 

In part. Yes. 4. Is there an overall budget that summarizes the annual and periodic costs 

of implementation of the protocol? Does it seem reasonable? 

No. Yes. Data 

management 

listed in budget 

directly. Also 

conducted by 

Raptor Technician 

to meet 30% 

recommendation. 

5. Does the staffing plan and budget demonstrate that adequate resources 

have been allocated to data management, analysis, and reporting activities 

(ca. 30% are recommended)? 

Section 1 G. Literature Cited (Chapter 7) 

No. Yes 1. Are the literature citations relevant, sufficient and consistently formatted?

Section 2 Standard Operating Procedures (Selected essential SOPs in addition to those 

mentioned in the narrative outline are identified in the checklist below. For 

Water Quality protocols, Part B Guidance or WRD’s General Comments 15 

should be consulted when developing SOPs.) 

N/A Yes 1. Is there a table of contents for the SOPs? 

Yes 2. Are changes to each SOP clearly identified with a title, version number 

or revision date, and page numbers? Changes to protocol modules (Chapters 

or SOPs) should be reflected in the overall protocol version number and 

protocol revision history log either through a minor or major revision; 

however, you may also wish to develop a numbering scheme for SOPs, e.g. 

SOP 1.00, 1.01... 

Yes 3. Is there a SOP with instructions for revising the protocol and a revision 

history log? 

Yes 4. Is there a SOP with instructions for preparation before the field season? Is 

there a SOP with instructions for procedures and equipment storage during 

and after the field season? (Also see numbers 10 and 11 below.) 

Yes 5. Is there a SOP for training field personnel? 

No Yes 6. Is there a SOP that clearly defines protocol variables and how to measure 

them? (See Checklist, Section 1C2.) 

Yes 7. Are there clear and detailed driving and other navigational instructions to 

sampling sites? 

Yes 8. Are the details of Data Management identified in one or more SOPs? 

Topics to be included are at minimum identified in Section 1D and may 

include customized data management routines. Specifically for water 

quality monitoring data, does the SOP specify how data will be reported to 

WRD for entry into the Environmental Protection Agency’s STORET 

database? 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.12 

N.A. SOP 2 also 

highlights training 

needs to ensure 

consistent data 

collection. 

9. For water quality monitoring and other monitoring as appropriate, is there 

a quality control SOP associated with each protocol that adequately 

documents QC objectives for measurement sensitivity (detection limits), 

measurement precision, measurement systematic error (bias as percent 

recovery), data completeness (including adequacy of planned sample sizes 

and statistical power – this topic may be in the SOP on Sampling Design), 

and (if applicable for lab measurements only) blank control? Are instrument 

calibration details included either in the QC SOP or in a separate calibration 

SOP? 

N.A. 10. For water quality protocols, is there a SOP that includes an explanation 

of how data comparability (a quality assurance basic) was considered in 

choosing which protocols and chemical labs to utilize? Do protocol SOPs 

contain enough field and lab method details to allow others to determine if 

data produced is comparable enough to other regional data sets to be 

considered credible by regulatory agencies interested in the data? 

N.A. 11. Do aquatic protocol SOPs adequately describe the details of all 

Sampling Protocols (Field and Laboratory), as well as equipment needs and 

operation, sampling techniques, sample preservation and handling and 

logistics? 

In part. All major 

procedures 

accounted for. 

12. Are all major procedures required for the protocol sufficiently 

explained? Are any SOPs missing? 

No Yes. 13. Are the literature citations with the SOP relevant, sufficient and 

consistently formatted? 

Section 3 Supplementary Materials or Appendices 

N/A. All 

appendices and 

SOP listed in 

table of content. 

1. Is there a table of contents with Section 3 – Supplementary Materials that 

clearly identifies the materials provided in this section of the protocol? 

No. Yes 2. Are the supplementary materials relevant, sufficient and consistently 

presented? Consistent formatting is desirable, but not always possible. 

No. Yes 3. Are data collection forms provided either in this section or in an SOP? 

No. Yes, in each 

SOP and details 

with this SOP. 

4. Is there a section for the Administrative Record that provides the history 

of protocol development and refinement? A summary event table is highly 

recommended in addition to the supporting materials required in the 

Protocol Review File Checklist, e.g. the initial study plan or protocol 

development summary, the results of protocol development studies, peer 

review comments and responses during the development phase, and/or any 

published protocol on which a major portion of the methodology included in 

this protocol is based. (The published protocol may be presented either in 

Section 2 or Section 3 depending upon its contribution to the current 

protocol.) 

Additional Other Comments by Penelope Latham, PWR I&M Regional Coordinator, January 24, 

2006 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.13 

SECTION 1. Narrative 

Overall Organization and Presentation of Protocol Narrative 

1) Is the overall monitoring protocol well-organized with sections clearly delineated? 

Yes, however as the SOPs do not have consecutive page numbers that are continuous with the 

narrative, it would be helpful if dividers were provided. Without dividers, it might help to put 

your page numbers at the bottom, away from the header and develop an easily comprehended 

numbering convention including SOP # and page number that would help if you were flipping 

through the document to find a specific SOP. 

2) Does the protocol have a title page with author’s names, protocol version number and date? Is 

there a Table of Contents, abstract, and the three basic sections recommended by Oakley et al. 

2003? 

The protocol title page has all the required information and in addition lists the SOPs. I would 

suggest moving the listing of SOPs to the Table of Contents. An abstract page is not included. 

This would be very helpful. 

The protocol has two of the three recommended sections (Narrative and SOPs) however it does 

not identify them as such due to the fact that the SOPs are listed on the title page and the sections 

of the narrative are listed on the Table of Contents page. There is no section provided for 

supplemental materials. I think the protocol could benefit tremendously from the addition of this 

section. I would strongly recommend that the authors create a CD for distribution with the hard 

copy of the protocol that has (in addition to a digital copy of the protocol itself) a well-organized 

directory for all of the reference materials that are identified in this document with the exception 

of books and other similar media. 

Once peer reviewed and approved, we will distribute the narrative, SOP, and any other 

supplementary material electronically only. The protocol will not be bound. 

5) Is the protocol bound so it lies flat, preferably in a 3-ring binder? 

No, it was presented in draft form so it is not clear how it will be bound. 

Section C. Field Methods 

1) Are preparations for the field season and equipment setup included? Are requirements for 

permitting and compliance discussed. 

There is a very short summary in the narrative under Field Methods that does not present much 

of an overview of what the pre-season tasks are, how long they might take, or who is responsible 

for different aspects of preparation. For example, from the SOP it appears that the Wildlife 

Biologist is responsible for pre-season training. Isn’t some training also needed for data 

management, safety training, etc? It is not clear how many people are involved in this effort (and 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.14 

consequently need training) until section VII. Operational Requirements where it seems there is 

only one raptor monitor. If so, why is the raptor monitoring schedule dependent upon staff 

workloads (in addition to unpredictable weather)? If at least one person is dedicated to this 

monitoring, that should be their priority. There was no discussion related to compliance or 

permitting. Is this something you have to do in conjunction with this protocol? MK: There is a 

balance of trying to present some broad overview in the narrative and save the details for the 

SOP. The section now clarifies priorities. An annual schedule (including field components) is 

presented in the protocol. Compliance and permitting is addressed in the protocol.

Section E. Personnel Requirements and Training 

1) Does the narrative include a listing of the personnel and describe their roles and 

responsibilities, and qualifications? 

Yes, however, the wildlife biologist might benefit from some data management assistance when 

training the raptor monitor. Also there seems to be several components of the training schedule 

from self-help to hands-on training. 

Section F. Operational Requirements 

1) Are facility, vehicle and equipment needs identified? Yes.

2) Is there a summary of key partnerships with agencies, organizations and individuals that are 

part of the monitoring program and a description of their contribution? Is there a list of relevant 

cooperative agreements and other partnership agreements, if applicable? 

None are mentioned and it appears that this is not applicable to current monitoring efforts. The 

narrative indicates that there may be some in place for California condors (not discussed), but 

condors are not currently part of this monitoring protocol. 

3) Is a schedule for the annual fieldwork and administrative needs required to implement this 

protocol included? 

Yes, there are schedules. However, the rationale behind the fieldwork schedule was not clear to 

all reviewers. 

5) Does the staffing plan and budget demonstrate that adequate resources have been allocated to 

data management, analysis, and reporting activities? 

No budget is provided with this protocol. The staffing plan is listed in the narrative but it does 

not list any assistance by a data manager. I wonder if this is a good idea. Also, see comment 

below. MK: Budget is provided. Budget includes time from data manager, and PINN 

contribution to this project. 

SECTION 2. SOPs 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.15 

1) Is there a table of contents for the SOPs? 

No. None are complex enough to need one. MK: SOP are in the TOC. Each has a TOC as well. 

2) Are changes to each SOP clearly identified with a title, version number or revision date and 

page numbers? 

Yes. Page numbers are not provided but, more importantly, the changes are identified. 

3) Is there a SOP with instructions for revising the protocol and a revision history log? Yes. 

4) Is there a SOP with instructions for preparation before the field season? Is there a SOP with 

instructions for procedures and equipment storage during and after the field season? (Also see 

numbers 10 and 11 below.) 

Pre-field season activities are discussed in great detail, however, it would be helpful to the raptor 

monitor (and reviewers of this protocol) if the reference materials suggested were all collated for 

ease of access. See suggestion below under Supplementary Materials. 

7) Are there clear and detailed driving and other navigational instructions to sampling sites? 

No. This information should be available somewhere – either in an SOP or in the supplemental 

materials. It would be very helpful if a map of historical sites, potential sites, and monitored sites 

(if these are different) were available. MK: This is now available in a separate SOP.

SECTION 3. Supplementary Materials 

1) Is there a table of contents with Section 3 that clearly identifies the materials provided? 

N/A 

2) Are the supplementary materials relevant, sufficient and consistently presented? 

N/A 

3) Are data collection forms provided either in this section or in an SOP? 

There do not seem to be any structured data collection forms. It is hard to imagine all the data 

being collected as natural history observations. I think data forms would greatly improve the 

consistency of information collected. MK: A standard form has been created. It will be used in 

FY08 for field testing.

4) Is there a section for the Administrative Record that provides the history of protocol 

development and refinement? At a minimum, this should include the Protocol Development 

Summary and/or any protocols upon which this protocol is based. 

No. This should be provided. MK: It is included with this SOP.
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.16 

Additional Comments: 

It is hard to determine what species this protocol focuses on. The only species in any number 

seem to be prairie falcons. Lists of species included are found in different places in the protocol 

and should be clearly listed in the narrative. MK: This has been clarified with the objectives. The 

focus is on prairie falcons. 

Given that prairie falcons are the only species of any significant size, it is not clear how much 

effort is being expended on prairie falcons vs. other occasionally observed species and of what 

value the additional monitoring of other species is. 

One of the objectives is to assess human impacts but there is no monitoring of visitor use. MK: 

No longer an objective. This may be research objective with separate funding in the future.

If the purpose is to locate raptors and there is a concern that visitors disturb raptors, it is not clear 

to me why more time is spent monitoring raptors in high visitor use areas than in low visitor use 

areas. MK: Raptors are monitored in high and low use areas. More monitoring occurs in high 

use areas to meet management objectives. 

Although the z-test was described in statistical texts that I had available (though not under that 

name), I question the validity of a z-test on any population of the size that appears to be found at 

Pinnacles including for prairie falcons. Approximate population sizes by species are never 

identified. I agree with other reviewers in strongly recommending statistical assistance. MK: 

Section on types of analyes for annual and long-term trend reports has been significantly revised 

to address this. 

The protocol could be simplified if the text related to advising and admonishing the reader 

(presumably the raptor monitor) to care, etc. were significantly reduced. One would hope that 

any competent biologist would be aware of the importance of these admonitions. In addition, 

they can be conveyed by the wildlife biologist during training. MK: Much of this was removed.

I had the impression that this protocol was underfunded, that a revision of the monitoring plan 

with identified objectives, a sampling plan and more time allocated to a key number of sites 

could produce more useful information than the current plan. The current protocol seems more 

suitable to an earlier stage of natural history (observational) monitoring to gain better 

understanding of raptor biology and help to pose monitoring questions. MK: There are several 

points in this bullet. The program’s funding is based on previous years. It appears to be 

adequately funded. The objectives have been clarified to show that our interest is in tracking 

long term changes in the population and productivity. 

If the data management plan for this protocol is currently under revision, I would suggest waiting 

until the network has obtained statistical assistance in revising their sampling plan, and then 

developing the new database based on that plan. Under DM discuss the new ACCESS database 

and the conversion of old data to the new format but do not spend a lot of time discussing the 

Filemaker database format. A database structure diagram showing linkages among all database 

elements is very important in helping the reader and new raptor monitors understand how 

everything fits together. MK: Data management has been revised and updated to meet current 

NPS standards. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.17 

The relationship of raptor advisories to the monitoring protocol is unclear. They seem to be 

interwoven with monitoring. Are raptor advisories the result of monitoring activities (to meet the 

objectives of the protocol) or are they based on other objectives? I think it’s critical to separate 

and clarify this. MK: This monitoring effort started out to meet management objectives. Over 

time, it has evolved to also evaluate population trends. The protocol clearly states what the 

management and monitoring objectives are. Management is interested in the protecting nesting 

raptors from human disturbance during the breeding season. Monitoring is intended to track 

trends in occupancy and fecundity over time. Of course, tracking trends also informs 

management whose goal is to make sure populations remain stable or increase.

SOP #2 refers to Appendix B. There aren’t any appendices. MK: This reference has been 

removed. 

In SOP #2, there is a long list of identifying characteristics by species. I would put information 

like this in a table or a side bar so that the information is more visible rather than having it be 

part of the regular text. 

Reviewer 1. 

The following bullets summarize comments from anonymous reviewers that were not already 

addressed above. 

Nest success is best assessed at the time that young reach 80% of fledging age (Steenhof 1987) 

which can be thought of as “banding age”...Young are difficult to locate after they have left the 

nest. Counts after young leave the nest tend to “miss” birds.... Counts of young at nests should 

be considered valid only at nests where all young were counted in the nest at or after 

banding age. MK: We collect data in a way to allow us to make comparisons to other studies 

where fledglings are counted at banding age. However, we take it one step further because 

impacts can occur all the way up to and including actual fledging. We are able to determine the 

numbers of young that have fledged b/c in most cases they are still visible at the nest from our 

watch spots. Again, we can report our data so it’s consistent with other studies, but can also talk 

about fledging success. 

I question whether it is possible to determine sex of PF nestlings accurately using remote 

locations. 

Reviewer 2. 

Consider the strategy of searching a sample of areas for nesting birds (then gathering the 

demographic data) rather than monitoring a fixed number of known nests. MK: The sampling 

design has been revised.

Focus on attaining seasonal fitness per nest (ie. Did a territory successfully produce young in a 

certain age range, rather than collecting costly potentially inaccurate and very time consuming 

nestling and fledgling counts. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.18 

Reviewer 3. 

Need to explain and justify why you spend anywhere from 1-2 hours to as much as 8-9 hours 

making observations. MK: This is clarified and cited in the text.

Shorten the protocol. MK: The protocol was greatly shortened by removing much of the 

redundancy. However, some sections as noted previously were expanded. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.19 

2008 Peer Review Comments 

College of Forest Resources Box 352100 

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 

James K. Agee, Professor of Forest Ecology Ph: 206-543-8242 

Fax: 543-3254 

112 Winkenwerder Hall email: 

jagee@u.washington.edu

November 25, 2008 

The second scientific review for “Raptor Monitoring Protocol” for the San Francisco Area 

Network Inventory and Monitoring Program is complete. The protocol receives the following 

decision: 

Possibly Acceptable with Major Revision 

Attached to this letter are review and informational documents: (1) a PWR Protocol Review 

Checklist. Each question is addressed in the left column; if scientific, it is addressed by me and 

the word is in bold, and if administrative is addressed in normal font, as a “yes”, “no”, “in part”, 

or N.A. [not applicable]. Extended administrative review comments follow the checklist. (2) The 

individual reviews are included with author’s names erased, and reviewers are identified as R1 or 

R2; my comments are identified as PRC. The reviews are self-explanatory, but what I attempt to 

do here is place them in an integrated context beyond the abbreviated response in the PWR 

Protocol Review Checklist. 

Overall, the protocol has much more substance than when it was reviewed in the first round 

(some of the same reviewers were used, and generally seemed pleased with the improvement on 

the technical side). There are still substantive technical issues to address, but the real issue in this 

draft of the protocol is style. The extended administrative comments and the PRC review, as well 

as the two peer reviewers, highlight these deficiencies. On the plus side, they are relatively easy 

to fix by someone with attention to detail, but on the minus side there are so many of them that it 

really detracts from the substance of the protocol. 

The major comments can be summarized as: 

Formatting is problematical. It would be best to provide continuous pagination and nonrepetitive numbering of tables, figures, and appendices. It’s quite laborious to scroll through the 

document and understand where one is. Some tables are missing or repetitive. Literature cited is 

inconsistent. As noted in the extended administrative review, “The network needs to do a 

better job of editorial review”, and the bold font is clearly warranted. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.20 

Triggers for management imply a 5% per year decline is the management trigger, but the power 

analyses appear to be built around other thresholds. As R1, R2, and PRC suggest, the authors 

need to “close that loop”. 

Long term analyses are presented in too vague a manner (R1, R2). R2 provides some references 

to help here. A definitive procedure must be included (although it could be changed at the 

initiation of the data analysis if warranted) 

SOP #5 was submitted in incomplete status. Please complete it. 

Reviewers have identified a large number of other concerns. In your response, please provide a 

detailed list of how you addressed each review comment. The response made to the last draft of 

the protocol is not sufficient for this purpose. If this response is comprehensive, it is likely that 

the protocol will not require a second peer review. If there are questions remaining on the 

technical side, it will be sent out again to at least one reviewer. However, it will definitely be 

subject to another administrative review because of the major revision required. 

I look forward to receiving your response. 

Sincerely, 

James K. Agee 

Emeritus Professor of Forest Ecology 

PWR Protocol Review Coordinator 

Attachments: PWR Protocol Review Checklist, Reviewer comments 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.21 

PWR PROTOCOL REVIEW CHECKLIST 

Protocol Name: PINN Raptors (Resubmission) 

Science Reviewer: J.K. Agee Admin. Reviewer: Penelope Latham, 11/18/2008. 

Response indicated by initials of author (MK for Marcus Koenen; DBA for Dawn Adams) and 

text in italics. 

Overall Organization and Presentation of Protocol Narrative 

Partly – 

Needs 

Improvement 

1. Is the overall monitoring protocol well-organized with sections clearly 

delineated? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol have a title page with authors’ names, protocol version 

number and date? (Protocol version numbers should be constructed to allow for 

both major and minor changes.) Is there a Table of Contents, abstract, and the 

three basic sections: 1-Narrative, 2-Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and 

3-Supplementary Materials or Appendices recommended in the NPS standards 

published by Oakley et al. 2003 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/protocols/ProtocolGuidelines.pdf). 

No 3. Is there a complete and accurate table of contents with page numbers? 

(Chapters should be paginated consecutively, i.e. Chap. 1 (pp. 1-20), Chap. 2 (pp. 

21-28), Chap. 3 (pp. 29-44), etc. to allow for modular updates.). 

MK: Table of content has been added. 

No 4. Are the tables and figures clearly labeled and understandable? (See Admin 

comments below.)

Yes – but not 

clear how it 

will be 

bound when 

final. 

5. Is the protocol bound so that it lies flat, preferably in a 3-ring binder? MK:

Protocol will be printed in 3-ring binder. Distribution will be electronically by 

posting to the web.

Section 1 A. Background and Objectives (Chapter 1) 

Yes 1. Does the protocol narrative provide a rationale or justification for why a 

particular resource or resource issue was selected for monitoring? Is the history 

and background for this resource issue well-referenced with supporting literature 

cited? 

N/A 

2. Does the protocol narrative discuss the linkages between this and other 

monitoring projects? 

Yes 3. Does the protocol narrative describe how monitoring results will inform 

management decisions? 

Yes 4. Does the protocol narrative contain careful documentation of the monitoring 

objectives or monitoring questions being asked? 

In part 5. Does the protocol narrative identify specific measurable objectives such as 

thresholds or trigger points for management actions? MK: language added to 

identify assessment points that are congruent with detectable trends. 

Section 1 B. Sampling Design (Chapter 2) 

Yes 1. Is there a clear and logical rationale for selecting the sampling design over 

others? 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.22 

Yes 

2a. Were the criteria for site selection clearly discussed including stratification, 

spatial design, and whether this monitoring will be co-located and/or integrated 

with other VS monitoring protocols? (See Checklist, Section 1A2.) 

Yes 2b. Has the target population or “sampling frame”, and the sampling units, been 

identified? In other words, is the desired level of inference clear? 

Yes 3. Is the sampling frequency and replication identified? 

Yes 4. Is the timing of sampling defined? 

Yes 5. Are the location of sampling sites clearly identified? 

Yes 6. Is the level of change that can be detected for the amount or type of sampling 

being instituted identified? (See Checklist, Section 1A5.) 

Section 1 C. Field Methods (Chapter 3) 

In Part 1. Are preparations for the field season and equipment setup included? Are 

requirements for permitting and compliance discussed? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol include clear and detailed information on taking 

measurements with example survey forms included? (Protocol variables and 

measurements may be discussed in detail in a SOP. A complete set of forms 

should be included in either the supplementary materials or a SOP.) (See Section 

3, #2)

Yes 3. Is the method of access for sampling sites provided? 

N.A. 4. Is there an overview of procedures for establishing, monumenting, and 

maintenance of plots discussed in one or more SOPs? 

N.A. 5. Does the protocol include details for the post-collection processing of samples 

or vouchers? 

Yes 6. Does the protocol include procedures to be followed at the end of the field 

season? (Readers are primarily directed to the appropriate SOP.)

Section 1 D. Data Handling, Analysis and Reporting (Chapter 4) 

Yes 1. Does the protocol provide an overview of the process for entering, editing, and 

storing data, identification of database software, and whether the database is 

consistent with the recommended I&M database template structure? (For water 

quality protocols, see specific water quality guidance in Part B or WRD’s 

General Comments 15, and checklist items in Section 2, items 8-10, below.) 

N.A. 2. Are quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures presented for 

the various levels of data collection and analysis? (See water quality Part B 

guidance or General Comments 15 as appropriate.) 

Yes 3. Is the data structure clearly presented and sufficient to capture the required 

information to meet the stated goal? Is there an overview of the database design? 

Yes 4. Are there recommendations for routine data summaries and statistical analysis 

to detect change? 

Yes 5. Is there a recommended reporting schedule? 

In Part 6. Is there a recommended report format with examples of summary tables and 

figures? MK: Additional language was inserted to describe annual report 

content including format. Details are provided in SOP 5.

Too vague 7. Is there a recommendation for long-term trend analysis (e.g. every 5 or 10 

years)? MK: Additional information was inserted to describe analyses for longterm trends. Details are provided in SOP 5.

Yes 8. Does the protocol narrative include an adequate description of metadata and 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.23 

data archival procedures? 

Yes 9. Does the protocol narrative describe the frequency of testing and review of 

protocol effectiveness? 

Section 1 E. Personnel Requirements and Training (Chapter 5) 

Yes 1. Does the narrative include a listing of the personnel and describe their roles 

and responsibilities, and qualifications? 

Yes 2. Does the protocol include a discussion of training procedures for personnel? 

Section 1 F. Operational Requirements (Chapter 6) 

Yes 1. Are facility, vehicle and equipment needs identified? (Some of this 

information is by way of the budget table.)

N/A 

2. Is there a summary of key partnerships with agencies, organizations and 

individuals that are part of the monitoring program and a description of their 

contribution? Is there a list of relevant cooperative agreements and other 

partnership agreements, if applicable? 

In Part 3. Is a schedule for the annual fieldwork and administrative needs required to 

implement this protocol included? 

Yes, but see 

1F5 

4. Is there an overall budget that summarizes the annual and periodic costs of 

implementation of the protocol? Does it seem reasonable? 

No 

5. Does the staffing plan and budget demonstrate that adequate resources have 

been allocated to data management, analysis, and reporting activities (ca. 30% 

are recommended)? MK: Data management are aspects of various staff 

including field staff. We estimate that approximately 30% of budget goes toward 

data management and reporting. 

Section 1 G. Literature Cited (Chapter 7) 

No 1. Are the literature citations relevant, sufficient and consistently formatted? (See 

Admin Comment below.)

Section 2 Standard Operating Procedures (Selected essential SOPs in addition to those 

mentioned in the narrative outline are identified in the checklist below. For Water 

Quality protocols, Part B Guidance or WRD’s General Comments 15 should be 

consulted when developing SOPs.) 

Yes 1. Is there a table of contents for the SOPs? (See Admin Comment below.)

Yes 

2. Are changes to each SOP clearly identified with a title, version number or

revision date, and page numbers? Changes to protocol modules (Chapters or 

SOPs) should be reflected in the overall protocol version number and protocol 

revision history log either through a minor or major revision; however, you may 

also wish to develop a numbering scheme for SOPs, e.g. SOP 1.00, 1.01... 

In Part 3. Is there a SOP with instructions for revising the protocol and a revision history 

log? MK: Comments and detailed responses from 2008 review have been added 

to the SOP. 

Yes 

4. Is there a SOP with instructions for preparation before the field season? Is 

there a SOP with instructions for procedures and equipment storage during and 

after the field season? (Also see numbers 10 and 11 below.) 

Yes 5. Is there a SOP for training field personnel? 

Yes 6. Is there a SOP that clearly defines protocol variables and how to measure 

them? (See Checklist, Section 1C2.) 

Yes 7. Are there clear and detailed driving and other navigational instructions to 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.24 

sampling sites? (See Admin Comment below.)

Yes 8. Are the details of Data Management identified in one or more SOPs? Topics to 

be included are at minimum identified in Section 1D and may include 

customized data management routines. Specifically for water quality monitoring 

data, does the SOP specify how data will be reported to WRD for entry into the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s STORET database? 

N.A. 9. For water quality monitoring and other monitoring as appropriate, is there a 

quality control SOP associated with each protocol that adequately documents QC 

objectives for measurement sensitivity (detection limits), measurement precision, 

measurement systematic error (bias as percent recovery), data completeness 

(including adequacy of planned sample sizes and statistical power – this topic 

may be in the SOP on Sampling Design), and (if applicable for lab measurements 

only) blank control? Are instrument calibration details included either in the QC 

SOP or in a separate calibration SOP? 

N.A. 10. For water quality protocols, is there a SOP that includes an explanation of 

how data comparability (a quality assurance basic) was considered in choosing 

which protocols and chemical labs to utilize? Do protocol SOPs contain enough 

field and lab method details to allow others to determine if data produced is 

comparable enough to other regional data sets to be considered credible by 

regulatory agencies interested in the data? 

N.A. 11. Do aquatic protocol SOPs adequately describe the details of all Sampling 

Protocols (Field and Laboratory), as well as equipment needs and operation, 

sampling techniques, sample preservation and handling and logistics? 

Yes and Yes, 

SOP #10 

12. Are all major procedures required for the protocol sufficiently explained? Are 

any SOPs missing? 

No 13. Are the literature citations with the SOP relevant, sufficient and consistently 

formatted? 

Section 3 Supplementary Materials or Appendices 

No 1. Is there a table of contents with Section 3 – Supplementary Materials that 

clearly identifies the materials provided in this section of the protocol? (See 

Admin Comment below.)

Yes 2. Are the supplementary materials relevant, sufficient and consistently 

presented? Consistent formatting is desirable, but not always possible. 

Yes – On 

CD 

3. Are data collection forms provided either in this section or in an SOP? 

Yes 

4. Is there a section for the Administrative Record that provides the history of 

protocol development and refinement? A summary event table is highly 

recommended in addition to the supporting materials required in the Protocol 

Review File Checklist, e.g. the initial study plan or protocol development 

summary, the results of protocol development studies, peer review comments and 

responses during the development phase, and/or any published protocol on which 

a major portion of the methodology included in this protocol is based. (The 

published protocol may be presented either in Section 2 or Section 3 depending 

upon its contribution to the current protocol.) 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.25 

Extended Administrative Review Comments: 

Overall Organization and Presentation 

1. Is the overall monitoring protocol well-organized with sections clearly delineated? 

The protocol has been reformatted to comply with the NRRS guidance and the text is mostly 

well-written and procedures are very thoroughly described; however, the document still needs a 

good review for typographical errors and there is considerable confusion regarding the 

numbering of tables and SOPs. The CD provided with supplementary material and the Appendix 

describing the contents were helpful. Except for rare exceptions, I have not commented on 

typographical errors. 

It’s not very clear how you ultimately intend to organize this document. One volume or two? The 

SOPs should be published with the narrative either all in one document or in two volumes. 

Currently the narrative has a back cover at page 49 (no page numbers on covers please). There 

are no covers that surround the SOPs and the pagination starts over for each SOP. Identification 

of Tables and Figures is confusing when they are in a different sections or SOPs as the 

numbering of them starts over and they aren’t always adequately identified. The First Order 

Heading guidance is not consistently followed and the pagination should be continuous 

throughout the document and all the sections including SOPs. SOPs should have page numbers 

in the Table of Contents. The Executive Summary is out of order. It should come after the TOC. 

MK: The protocol has been reformatted by Kris Freeman to meet the current NRR Guidance. 

Additional formatting review will be completed once the peer review has been completed.

Protocol revision logs appear in two separate places, at the beginning of the document and then 

again in SOP 4. I would combine these to avoid confusion into SOP 4. DBA: The logs apply to 

different sections of protocol so both seem necessary. 

Consider moving the paragraph defining Core Areas on pg. 3 to pg. 1 where you first introduce 

the concept of core areas. DBA: Moved the definition to glossary per Rev#2 recommendation.

The names of SOPs in different places throughout the document are not consistent. Suggest 

searching for each SOP and ensuring that the name is correct. For example, SOP 5 is often 

referred to as Data Analysis and Reporting in addition to variations of that. The actual SOP is 

titled “Reporting” which should probably be changed to include Data Analysis. SOP 8 is referred 

to as “Safety” when it is “Safety Procedures”, etc. MK: Document has been reviewed and edited 

to make sure consistent SOP names are used throughout. 

SOP 5 appears incomplete and will need to be finished before the protocol is approved. MK: Its 

unclear from this comment what reviewer wanted to be added. Perhaps the reviewer wanted data 

to be presented in the sample table that was presented. We have added some data and hope that 

addresses this comment. 

2. Is there a complete and accurate table of contents with page numbers? 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.26 

Please recheck the page numbering convention for pages that are numbered with Roman 

numerals. Page ii should be the page that explains about the Natural Resource Report Series. It is 

currently numbered “iii”. Pagination needs to be carefully checked. The reference on this page to 

the Natural Resource Publications Management website is followed by a link to the SFAN 

website. Correct the link to the NRPM website and add your own website if you would like. 

I would suggest only including TOCs for the longest SOPs. Several of the SOPs are short and do 

not need them. Or eliminate the additional TOCs altogether and have one main TOC in a 

separate volume. 

Tables are incorrectly numbered or at least do not coincide with their numbers in the text. For 

example, Table 1 in the TOC is listed on pg. 22. (On pg. 1 you refer to Table 1 for numbers of 

nesting pairs per year, but Table 1 is actually detection probabilities.) On pg. 22, the table is 

identified as Table 2. All references to Table numbers, SOPs and Appendixes should be closely 

checked. I will not list all instances where errors were found but the items below are a sampling. 

Pg. 1, last paragraph. Neither Table 1 nor Table 2 occur as described. Table 1 is discussed above. 

Table 2 appears to be missing. Table 2 is a summary of reporting and communication needs. In 

addition, there is no section titled “Measurable Objectives.” 

On pg. 3, there are two references to Figure 1 but the second is probably a reference to Figure 2. 

On pg. 21, you indicate that a summary of reports is provided in Table (needs capitalization) 5.1. 

but the table appears to be Table 2 on pg. 22. 

On pg. 26, the budget table is referred to as Table 6.1; however, this table is found on the 

following page and is Table 3. 

Not all Tables are listed in the TOC, e.g. Table 4 is missing. 

Table 4 is incorrectly referenced as Table 6.2 on pg. 27. 

In SOP 3, pg. 23 there is a reference to Appendix 1 that should be Appendix A. 

Pg. 32 of SOP 3 refers to SOP 10 but there isn’t any SOP 10. 

SOP 3, pg. 33 refers to Table 4 but doesn’t say where. I assume in the Narrative? There are only 

2 tables in SOP 3. This is an issue for some other references as well. Advise following NRRS 

guidance to consecutively number everything. DBA: All of these typos or other issues with 

tables have been fixed. 

3. Are the tables and figures clearly labeled and understandable? 

Table and figure formats mostly adhere to NRRS guidance. I will not comment on finer details 

of formatting related to the NRRS. Refer to NRRS guidance for how to deal with tables that 

continue onto multiple pages and additional guidance related to placement of captions. It would 

help to give your graphs a more consistent look 

Fig. 1. There are 3 additional areas shown on this map over those described in the Glossary. 

Were they overlooked? 

Table 2. What does the Water Quality Steering Committee and Water Resource Division have to 

do with the Raptor protocol? On pg. 23 there is an incomplete sentence in the summary column 

for Vital Sign Report Card. I would delete some of the information in the summary column for 

photos if this information is in the SOP. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.27 

Table 4. Why is there so much room in the header row of this table? Why is there no information 

for months Aug. through Dec.? Why include them? Also there is no information for any of the 

row items beyond the first 2. It seems like you might present this information more efficiently. 

Pg. 17 refers to Tables 1 and 2 below and a spreadsheet but there aren’t any. MK: All of these 

issues with tables have been fixed. 

Tables in SOP 5: See below for additional discussion but I had a great deal of difficulty with the 

concept of “Possible fledglings”. MK. We changed possible fledglings to fledglings.

Tables 2 and 3 in this SOP are identical. MK: Table 3 was removed. 

Organization: SOPs 

Most of the SOPs have literature citations incorporated into the text but there are no Literature 

Cited sections included in the SOPs although some have extensive lists of references or further 

reading suggestions. MK: Before they were all listed at the end of the protocol. We changed it so 

that a reference list is provided at the end of each SOPs.

SOP 1: 

I would suggest rethinking your Table of Contents plan (see comments above) but the 

organization of this TOC is somewhat confusing as well. There is a list of Figures that one would 

assume would be in the main body of the SOP yet all of these figures appear in Appendix B 

which does not list them. 

The organization of SOP 1 is a little awkward. By having separate month activities as First Order 

Headings you end up with a lot of empty space and extra pages. I would suggest a First Order 

Heading titled “Monthly Activities” followed by Second Order Headings for each month – 

unless you really intend to have them on separate pages that can be printed out. 

Pg. 4 refers to SOP 3 as Field Notes. SOP 3 is Data Management. 

Pg. 4 refers to Tables 1-3 for target areas. Only Table 1 seems appropriate and it is does not refer 

to “target areas”. MK: Headings were changed around. DBA: SOP names were corrected to be 

more consistent. 

The figures in SOP 1 could use some additional identifying information to help orient people not 

familiar with the areas. I found it very difficult to compare the access descriptions to the maps. 

I’d also suggest enlarging the maps and centering them. MK: Site descriptions and figures were 

revised to reduce confusion. A table was added to correlate territory to site description and 

figures. 

SOP 3: 

Remove underline from TOC 

Pg. 5. Reference to SOP 6 seems to infer that this is the Data Management SOP. 

Pg. 6, 23. Appendix 1 is actually Appendix A. 

Pg. 7, Figure 1: Several tables seem to be missing from your ERD, e.g. Photo_Log, 

Media_Addresses, DB_Meta, Db_Revisions and Cloud Cover. 

Pg. 11. Consider repositioning Figure 5 after the paragraph instead of in the middle of it. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.28 

Pg. 24 references 4-letter bird codes found in SOP 3. This is SOP 3 and there aren’t any bird 

codes. There are territory codes in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 (See pg. 33) are missing. 

Pg. 28, refers to SOP 4 for raptor activities by month. SOP 4 is revising the protocol. 

Pg. 32. Refers to non-existent SOP 10. 

Pg. 35. Refers to non-existent SOP 9. 

Pgs. 36-37. The list of photo instructions skips #10. DBA: All of these typos, issues were fixed. 

SOP 4: 

Remove underline from under Table 1 caption. DBA: Underlining was removed. 

SOP 5: 

In the TOC this SOP is called Data Analysis and Reporting. Its only “Reporting” in the SOP 

itself. Also see general comment above. 

This SOP is incomplete and will need to be finished before it is approved. 

Pg. 2. Change AAWRP to AARWP. 

Pg. 6 refers to #6 above. There isn’t a #6. 

Tables 2 and 3 are the same. MK: Much of this was fixed. Again it is unclear what was meant by 

the SOP not being finished. 

SOP 6: 

The first major paragraph references SOP 5 for more information on how radios are used. SOP 5 

is about reporting not field methods. DBA: The reference was removed. 

SOP 7: 

The first major paragraph references a non-existent SOP 9. DBA: Paragraph was revised to 

match SOP 1 text., reference changed to SOP 1 and SOP 3. 

SOP 8: 

Pg. 2 refers to the pinniped monitoring program. Is this supposed to be raptors? MK: The 

reference was corrected. 

The network needs to do a better job of editorial review. A document like this is very difficult to 

review and the reviews are frustrating for both the reviewer and the author alike. It reflects 

poorly on the scientific rigor of the protocol. 

Section 1A. Background and Objectives. Define base jumping or put in glossary. MK: A 

definition has been added.

Page 3 states that there are two measurable objectives but 3 are listed. MK: There were three 

objectives but objectives 2 and 3 have been combined to reduce confusion. There are now two 

objections. . 

Section 1C. Field Methods 

This section begins on pg. 14. A blank page should be inserted as each Major Heading is 

supposed to start on an odd-numbered (right-hand) page. MK: The entire report was reformatted 

to meet the current NRR guidelines. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.29 

There is still no discussion of compliance but I assume this is because none is needed. MK: That 

is correct. There are no permit requirements imposed by PINN. 

Suggest adding a sentence to direct the reader to the appendixes where instructions and maps for 

locating sites are found. 

Also suggest directing reader to field forms on CD. MK: Directions and maps are now a 

separate SOP. Blank data sheet and sample data sheet are Appendices B and C. 

Section 1D. Data Handling..... 

It’s not clear why data summarizing the results of monitoring are kept in a separate spreadsheet 

instead of the database. It seems that a query could be constructed to extract this information in 

whatever form is needed and thus avoid the possibility of the spreadsheet data becoming 

corrupted. MK: A spreadsheet had been used in the past. Currently, all data reside in the 

Raptor Monitoring Database. Simple queries are included that allow annual data summaries. 

Please check that all acronyms are defined either in the text or Glossary. 

Table 2. Remove underline from 3-5 years. Unclear why reference to WRD occurs here. Close 

open paren on pg. 23. Delete “Provides..” or complete sentence. MK: Acronyms were checked. 

WRD was removed. 

There is no reference to or discussion of a draft report format in the narrative. There is some 

discussion of reporting in SOP 5 where some examples of graphs and summary tables are 

displayed. The network appears to be waiting for additional information on trend analysis from 

the cooperator to add to this section. 

MK: Format follows NRTR. The SOP also cites that past annual reports provide a template for 

future annual reports. In particular the most recent annual reports from 2006 and 2008. The 

2008 report has gone through peer review, and through the PWR Peer Review Official. All 

annual reports are posted to the network website: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/vital_signs/Raptors/raptors_condors.cfm. Additional 

language about content for the analysis and synthesis reports including analytical techniques in 

R code are presented. 

Section 1F. Operational Requirements 

There is a budget, tasks by employee, and a partially completed annual schedule, but taken 

together, they do not give the impression that at least 30% of the effort is going toward data 

management. MK: Language was added to the narrative above the table to assert that 30% of 

the budget goes to data management and reporting. It is, of course, impossible to say exactly 

how much goes to data management but given the amount of time that is spent on data entry, 

conducting qa/qc, and writing reports, this seems reasonable. 

Section 1G. Literature Cited 

I recommend that you obtain a copy of the Literature Cited section from Ecology as a template 

for citations. Several of the citations need editing. One common error is to have two periods after 

the initial of the first name of a single author. Only one is needed. Commas aren’t needed before 

“and” for two authors. “And” should be used before the last author on a multiple author citation. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.30 

In-text citations should only use “and Others” or “et al.” for more than 2 authors. Two authors 

should show both authors names followed by the year. There are many 2 author in-text citations 

that use et al. 

Reverse the chronological order of the two LeBuhn and Connor citations. Same for Emmons, G. 

and Steenhof, K. Please check the citations in this section against those in the text. I counted 38 

that I couldn’t find in the text itself. I may have missed some and some may be in SOPs (?) but 

38 is a lot to be missing. 

Abramsky citation says 2002 in the text and 1996 in this section. 

Pg. 1: Steenhof et al. (notice spelling of et al.) 1998 – There is a Steenhof 1998 in the Lit Cited 

section but it is not et al. 

Pg. 1: Millenium Ecosystem Services 2005 should be ...Assessment 2005. 

Pg. 2: Becker et al. 1980 citation is missing in Lit Cited although there is a 2-author citation in 

1981. 

Pg. 7: Marzluff et al. 1992 – There is a 1997 and a 1994 in the Lit Cited but no 1992. 

Pg. 21: Press 2005 citation is missing in Lit Cited. MK: All citations were checked and 

corrected. 

Section 2 

1. Table of Contents for SOPs 

There may be some confusion about the intent of this question. This form was developed before 

the NRRS format became standard so it does not necessarily apply now. You do not need to have 

a TOC for every SOP but you should have a TOC that includes the SOPs somewhere. MK: The 

TOC was revised and TOCs were removed from short SOP. 

3. SOP for Revising the Protocol 

Protocol revision logs appear in two separate places, at the beginning of the document and then 

again in SOP 4. I would combine these to avoid confusion into SOP 4. MK: Previously 

addressed above. The logs are different. 

7. Detailed driving and other navigational instructions 

There are very detailed hiking and navigating instructions to the sites but no driving directions. 

However, the maps should be useful in discovering how to get to the trailheads. MK: Driving 

direction seemed unnecessary since it is a small park in a rural setting. There are only two roads 

in the park. The maps are more than adequate to find trailheads and territories. 

12. Are all major procedures explained? 

If pinnipeds were used as a template for the JHA in SOP 8, are you likely to encounter the same 

types of hazards for pinnipeds and raptors? MK: Hazards presented in the JHA are related to 

raptors. Sea level rise will have to be pretty significant before the pinnipeds hazards become an 

issue but we’ll revise the protocol when that time comes. 

Section 3 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.31 

1. There isn’t a table of contents but the supplemental materials on the CD are well organized. 

PRC Comments 

The style of this protocol is quite sloppy. As others note, it will need a serious edit in order to 

pass muster. Typos, missing tables, consecutive tables with the exact same data in them, 

extraneous literature, miscited literature, etc. etc. My review comments mirror those of the other 

reviewers: 

Narrative: 

Page 1 introduces a lot of literature cited with an incredible number of errors. First, “et al.” is 

consistently presented backwards as “et. al”. Second, the “et al.” is used for many citations 

where there are only two authors, and it is in reality reserved for three or more authors only 

(Lundberg et al 2005, Mazur et al. 2000, Squires et al. 1997, Fife et al. 1976, Ogden et al. 1977, 

Delanoy et al.1988, Marti et al. 1989, Becker et al. 1981) . Sometimes citations should be “et al.” 

(e.g., three or more authors) but are presented a single author publications (Croll 2005, Parrish 

2001, Roemer 2002). Some are missing (Abramsky et al. 2002, Steenhof et al. 1998). Some are 

authored by the same person in the same year and need to be labeled “a” or “b” (Sekercioglu 

2006). Some are misspelled (Millenium Ecosystem Services Assessment). This is just page 1!! 

These errors continue through the narrative although I have only identified those on page 1 -- but 

there are further issues in the literature cited section as noted below. MK: All of these errors 

have been corrected. 

In addition (still on page 1), the Latin name for the peregrine falcon is misspelled, Table 1 does 

not show nesting pairs over time, Table 2 is missing, and appendix 1 is actually labeled appendix 

A. And we have not gotten to page 2 yet. MK: Latin names, formatting and consistency issues 

have been corrected throughout the document. 

Page 3. Line 2 says two measurable objectives, but three are listed. The first sentence of the last 

paragraph is not a complete sentence. MK: There are three measurable objectives. The sentence 

has been rewritten. 

Page 4. The copy of figure 1 I have is very hard to read - it would be improved with color. I see 

three patterns on the map but only two on the legend. MK: Figure 1 was redone. 

Page 5. R1 also notes the confusion about the management trigger - what is “consistent”, and is 

this 5% per year - and can the sampling design actually measure this? MK: Management 

triggers have been revises and are in line with our ability to detect trends per the power analysis 

(50% decline over 10 years). Assessment points are used to trigger review of the data and 

evaluate cause and effect. Management actions can then be identified if cause of declines are 

well understood. If not, additional research may be required before specific actions can be 

taken. 

Page 6 and later. Please take out all the blank pages, they are a waste of paper and a distraction. 

MK: I agree but blank pages are an unfortunate artifact of our formatting requirement. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.32 

Page 8. figure 2 in my copy is unreadable. MK: Figures 1 and 2 were combined and redone.

Page 9. maximum is misspelled on line 1. DBA: Spelling was corrected. 

What constitutes a year of low probability? MK: Low detection probability occurs during years 

of low or no reproductive activity (e.g. 1998 or 2001). This makes documenting territories very 

difficult. 

Page 10. If the management trigger is 5% decline per year (see comment on page 5), then isn’t 

the 5% decline power curve the relevant one to use. Other reviewers have similar concerns. MK: 

Management triggers have been revised as stated above. 

Also, is it reasonable to assume that the sample size will remain constant over time (no new 

territories, no loss of existing, so n=15 over time in core and noncore areas? I am not an expert 

here, but thought that this should be more explicitly defined). MK: All territories in the core 

area will be censused, and the remaining non-core territories will be visited in a panel design. 

The number of territories in this area has been stable over the last 10-15 years so it is 

reasonable to assume that they will remain stable. If a territory is no longer used for nesting, 

then this monitoring approach will detect that local extinction. Given our knowledge of the 

surrounding areas and the specific needs for prairie falcon nesting, we feel that colonization of 

other territories is highly unlikely. Therefore, survey resources will not be used outside this set 

of core and non-core areas. We plan consistent annual sampling effort across years. 

Page 12. Figure 4 did not show up well in B/W. MK: Figure was redone. 

See comments on pages 5 and 10 about relevant power. MK: Power analysis was redone. 

Page 13, Avoid the use of “You can see...”. It’s not good style, and in reality, no one can “see” 

because the data are not presented. MK: All you can sees have been removed. 

Page 19. The first review asked about digital photography, and there is mention of this now, but 

the SOPs still have direction to the nearest B/W photo developing lab. MK: The technician on 

the project is also a fine arts photographer who has published his work. Until this year, he has 

used a film camera. We have now removed archiving procedures for film photos and inserted 

language about digital cameras. 

Page 21. Table 5.1 is really Table 2 (and not the missing Table 2 from page 1)? Press (2005) not 

in lit cit. MK: Tables and figures were corrected throughout the document. Press added to 

literature cited. 

Page 22. The water folks are probably not part of the “audience” here. MK: That is correct. 

Reference to them was removed. 

Page 23. Photo specs here imply digital photos but do not mandate them (see comments page 

19): MK: The protocol now uses digital photos. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.33 

Page 47. Is Rechtin 1992 the Rechtin and Leatherman 1992 in the lit cit? If so it should be cited 

here. MK: No, it’s a separate citation that is in the Literature section. 

Page 37. I found 45 citations here that were not cited in the text (at least I did not find them): 

Abramsky et al., Anderson and Squires, Baicich and Harrison, Bent, CDFG, Cannings and 

Angell, Clarke, Crocoll, Curtis and Rosenfield, Dunn, Dunne et al., Elzinga et al., Emmons (2), 

Emmons and Fesnock, Fischer, Haug et al., Herman, Hintze, Holt and Petersen, Holthuijzen et 

al., Houston et al., Janes, Johnsgard, Johnson, Kirk and Mossman, Lundberg and Moberg, 

MacWhirter and Bildstein, Marks et al., Martell, Marti et al., Marzluff et al., Moritsch (2), 

NOAA, Palmer, Preston and Beane, Roemer et al,, Sekercioglu (once cited but two 2006 refs), 

Sibley, Smallwood and Bird, Steenhof and Kochert, Suter and Joness (really 2 s’s?), Wheeler. 

Remove them. If they refer to SOP’s then cite them there. Order of citations is not always 

correct. Correct order is: Emmons 2006 precedes Emmons 2008, LeBuhn and Connor 2007 

precede their 2008 paper, Marshall precedes Martell, Roemer precedes Rubine, Steenhof 1987 

precedes 1998. Admin review identifies other formatting issues with the lit cit section. MK:

These citations were not cited in the protocol. They were listed, however, because previous 

technicians thought that future staff might be interested. We cited them as useful resources in the 

text and then added them to the list of references to avoid confusion. 

SOP #3 

Page 34. Print copies and negatives imply digital imagery will not be adopted. MK: Digital 

imagery has been adopted. Discussion of film, negatives, and archival procedures have been 

kept in only to provide background on previous procedures. 

Page 44. One whole page is devoted to a header labeled appendix A, but the next page says 

appendix 1? 

Page 20 of appendix 1: the pages I have are punched so the page number is now on the right side 

of the page rather than the left. MK: Appendices have been relabeled. Not sure I understand the 

problem with the page numbers but I think reformatting has fixed the issue. 

SOP#4 

These are punched backwards so that page 1 is the back side of a blank page. 

Appendix A is not needed. Prior review comments are not that newsworthy for the next version 

of the protocol, and the “responses” are rather incomplete. There are punching problems with 

this appendix, too - half of it is inserted upside down and backward. MK: We decided to retain 

previous comments. We believe that the intent of the SOP on Protocol Revision and Review was 

to track changes to the protocol. Significant changes have been made that are worth noting 

especially since changes were made while monitoring continued. If the changes were made to the 

protocol before monitoring began, then we would agree that it does not make sense to keep them. 

I am not sure what you mean by punching problems. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.34 

SOP #5. This SOP is incomplete, and needs to be completed. MK: Not sure what the reviewer 

thought was missing. Changes have been made and we hope that the reviewer’s concerns have 

been addressed. 

SOP #8. On page 2, extreme heat is defines as “<100oF” -- is “>100oF” meant? How would a 

rodent infestation occur - back in the office? MK: Yes, >100 degrees was meant. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.35 

Reviewer #1 Pinnacles Raptors 

 

Below are my comments based on review of the documents entitled “Raptor Monitoring Protocol 

for Pinnacles National Monument.” I found the monitoring protocol to be comprehensive and in 

general well put-together – it could still use some tightening up in a number of sections. I am 

comfortable that the proposed monitoring scheme will be effective to record data relevant to 

prairie falcon occupancy and nesting success (productivity) in the national park and to accurately 

and adequately archive the data. The only potential concern that remains for me is that the report 

contains references to power analyses conducted on previously collected data, but I was left 

uncertain how those analyses related to the current recommendations for triggers for 

management. Triggers for management mentioned were a consistent 25% decrease in occupancy 

based on five-year analyses or two breeding seasons without successful reproduction. These 

seem reasonable enough in and of themselves, but it is unclear how they were derived based on 

the power analyses discussed (if they were at all). It would be helpful if the authors could close 

that loop, as reiterated below. From my reading of the power analysis results and based upon 

what is stated on p. 10 and in figure 3, holding alpha at 0.20, there is an approximately 65% 

chance of detecting a 10% decline. How does this compare to detecting a 25% decrease, which is 

stated as the trigger for management? I am confident that with the help of the biometrician, this 

can be worked out, but I do not see this clarified in the current report. 

 

Background and Objectives: What are the monitoring questions proposed? 

This section is well justified. There is clear information about background and the history of the 

natural resource issue being addressed. The monitoring questions are relevant and well 

described. The cliffs upon which raptors nest have been of interest since the inception of the 

park. These cliffs also are of value to recreationists. Monitoring populations of cliff-nesting 

raptors is the primary objective, but management of potential conflicts with climbers and other 

park users remains important. 

 

Specific objectives relate to monitoring prairie falcons, the most abundant cliff-nesting raptor in 

the park, in both core and non-core areas. Core areas are those areas where climbing potentially 

impacts cliff-nesting raptors because these areas are easily accessible to park visitors. Non-core 

areas are all other areas within the park suitable for cliff-nesting raptors. Monitoring is aimed at 

tracking changes in number of prairie falcon territories (Objective #1), and tracking changes in 

nesting success as determined by number of young per nest that fledge in core and non-core area 

nests (Objectives #2 and #3). 

 

The middle paragraph in the section on Trigger for Management Activity (p. 5) is unclear. First, 

is the statement “in the core areas or the core and non-core areas” the intended one? Should this 

be a reduction in either the core or non-core area that triggers a possible management action, i.e., 

would a 25% reduction in the non-core area alone be of sufficient concern to trigger 

management? Second, and more important, it is stated that “if a 5-year analysis documents a 

consistent 25% decrease....”, then management will be considered. It is not clear (1) what a fiveyear analysis is, and (2) what “consistent” means. Is a five-year analysis one that examines the 

current year in relation to the last five years, or one that takes the current five years and 

compares them to historical data in some fashion? Or, is it an analysis that occurs only once 

every five years? This is not clear here or in later portions of the protocol document. Moreover, 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.36 

does the use of the term consistent mean that # of nests declines by 25% in each year, or 

something else? Can the authors please clarify these issues in this paragraph as well as 

throughout the report? 

 

What is the sampling design chosen? 

Sampling in this case is somewhat simplified because monitoring constitutes almost a complete 

census of prairie falcon territories in the park. The entire core area is searched and monitored 

each year, as are all of the appropriate nesting cliffs in the non-core areas. Occasionally new 

territories arise so the authors suggest periodic extensions of searches into areas not previously 

identified as territories. 

 

Can the authors please provide a definition for territory? Are they discussing nesting territories, 

feeding territories, all inclusive territories, or what? Is ‘nest site’ synonymous with ‘territory’ in 

the description of Study Area on p. 7? MK: A definition already exists in the glossary. 

Additional wording has been added to emphasize that feeding territories are not the focus of the 

protocol and that the “territory” is not synonymous with “nest site”. Additional language in the 

text should clarify what is meant by territory. 

Study Area: p. 7 and fig. 2. Text indicates 30-40 degree slopes, but figure legend mentions 40 

degree slopes only. The statement “The resulting map demonstrated that all expected nest sites 

had been previously searched and could reliably be discounted as nest sites” is a bit confusing. 

Could expected be replaced by potential and discounted be replaced by unlikely or something 

else to help clarify (if I am following this correctly)? DBA: The text was clarified. 

 

Sampling frequency (p. 9) - the first sentence mentions occupancy as presence of at least one 

prairie falcon, whereas the sentence under Table 1 mentions that “pair presence in any of the 

three surveys confirms occupancy...” Is a site occupied if at least one falcon is present, or does it 

take a pair before it is considered occupied? The glossary includes a description of ‘occupied 

territory’ that mentions one or more birds. MK. Occupancy is defined by the presence and 

territorial behavior of at least 1 bird. Territorial occupancy is defined by presence and 

territorial behavior of a pair of falcons Table 1 was clarified. 

 

The sampling frequency data in Table 1 (p. 9) clearly indicate that three site visits is suitable to 

assess occupancy with a 96% or greater chance of detection. This seems well justified. 

 

Length of Site Visit: p. 9. I’m sorry, but the last two sentences on this page do not make sense. 

How can lack of occupancy be determined from observations of bird behavior and verification of 

the phenology stage, and how can this determine the duration of a site visit? MK: Occupancy is 

determined when a variety of territorial behaviors are noted (e.g. defensive/aggressive behavior, 

food exchanges, copulation, etc). As it states in the text, if some of these behaviors are observed 

within an hour, the technician can move on. If however, the behaviors are not noted, at 

technician may have to stay longer, up to 4 hours. Lack of these behaviors within the 4 hour 

suggest that the territory is not occupied and a repeat visit will have to be scheduled. Perhaps 

only a fly-by was noted. We removed reference to phenology in case that caused further 

confusion. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.37 

 

Are the methods proposed within that design appropriate? 

Details about taking measurements. The addition of field forms seems to be an improvement 

over notebooks alone. Testing of the field forms prior to formal adoption seems like a reasonable 

approach, but their incorporation into the study design is a must. MK: I agree that this is a must. 

The reason we stated that we were testing the forms was more about testing the design of the 

form, not testing whether or not to use. We will be using a field form. It is attached as Appendix 

A and a sample filled out form is Appendix B. 

There does not appear to be adoption of digital photography despite that being an issue raised by 

earlier reviews of the protocol, or did I miss this? MK: Digital photography will be used starting 

FY10. 

 

What analytical techniques will be applied to the data, and how often? MK: SOP 5 describes 

data summaries that are part of annual reports. The SOP also outlines the types of trend 

analyses that will be completed every 3-5 years in future Analysis and Synthesis reports. 

Procedures for data entry, validation and archiving appear well described and suitable. Perhaps 

there will be a future role for electronic archival of original materials as compared to storage in a 

fire-proof cabinet alone. 

 

As the entire population of prairie falcons (or close to it) will be under study, there is not 

substantial need to justify sampling procedures in relation to the proportion of the population that 

will be monitored. Thus, a focus on the procedures to detect change are probably most important. 

The description of the power analysis and error calculation based on LeBuhn and Conner (2007, 

2008) adds to the background for the monitoring protocol. However, a direct connection of the 

discussion on pp. 10-13 with the recommendation on p. 5 about a 25% consistent reduction 

based on a five year analysis is a little difficult to see in the current report, if it exists at all. Can 

the authors please close this loop and use the section on pp. 10-12 to justify the recommendation 

for this trigger for management? Moreover, the description on p. 13 of using fecundity data in a 

broad context where a reproductive failure for two years, or if in a single year there were failure 

and no significant establishment of nests in subsequent years, sounds reasonable, but can this 

also be a highlighted approach on p. 5? How is this related to the statement on p. 5 about 

productivity dropping by 25% triggering management? While the recommendation for 

management activity if there is a 25% reduction in occupied territories or if there is reproductive 

failure for two years seems reasonable, my point is that I do not see if and how the analyses by 

LeBuhn and Conner (2007, 2008) lead one to these specific recommendations. 

MK: Management triggers were revised to be consistent with our ability to detect trends of 50% 

declines over 10 years. This includes declines in occupancy or fecundity. Assessment points at 5 

and 7 years are a reminder to review data and determine if declines appear to be occurring and 

if additional research or management activities should be considered. 

 

Other issues that I noted as I read: et al. is incorrectly written throughout the report as et. al 

the scientific name for peregrine falcons is misspelled on p. 1 

DBA: These typos have been fixed. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.38 

scientific names for species mentioned in para. 3, p. 1 should probably be provided, e.g., longeared owls and sharp-shinned hawks. In general, it would be useful to provide sci. name for a 

species the first time it is mentioned and then no need thereafter. DBA: This has been corrected. 

P. 5, last sentence; can the authors add 14 other “species of” raptors? DBA: This has been 

corrected.

Table 1 and Table 2 mentioned on p. 1 seem to be incorrect, i.e., Tables 1 and 2 do not contain 

this information in the printed copy that I received. DBA: This has been corrected.

A few typos on p. 3: chicks/nest rather than chick/nest?; objectives is misspelled in para. 3; the 

first sentence of the last paragraph is a fragment (does it need an “are” after data and before 

collected?). DBA: This has been corrected.

Figure 1 – I had a note asking if “territories” in the legend of this figure can be defined or 

clarified, i.e., are these defended areas around nests, or do they just refer to nest sites rather than 

territories? MK: Figures 1 and 2 were combined to show historical nest sites in the core and 

non-core area. Also potential nesting areas based on slope. There is no mention of territories to 

avoid confusion. 

Scientific names in the first para. of p. 5 would be helpful here. DBA: This has been added.

I could not read the legend on Figure 2 contained within the map on my copy of the report. Can 

it be enlarged where necessary which allows it to come through clearly in reproductions? MK:

Legend was enlarged. 

 P. 7, last sentence; Does the statement about a complete census of the non-core areas need a 

qualification about funding, as earlier in the report? MK: The earlier qualification noted that 

monitoring would not take place in the non-core area if funding became an limited. It is also 

stated with the budget and does not need to be addressed again. . 

Maximum is misspelled on the top of p. 9 DBA: This has been corrected.

 top of p. 9; I’m not certain, but I think historical nesting area is a better description than 

‘historic.’ Can the authors consider a change here and elsewhere in the report where historic is 

used? DBA: All references changed to historical. 

13) p. 9; Is occupancy defined as ‘at least one prairie falcon’ as in the first sentence, or ‘pair 

presence’ as in the first sentence below table 1? Does lack of presence of a pair or an individual 

confirm lack of occupancy (relating to statement below table 1)? [PRC note: I couldn’t get a 

clean transfer from pfd file to Word, so that’s why there are 2 number “13”’s]. MK: Occupied 

territories (occupancy) is defined as presence of at least one prairie falcon as stated in the 

glossary. So lack of the presence of an individual confirms lack of occupancy. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.39 

P. 13, end of last paragraph; there is a close quote but no start quote that I can find. Who is 

quoting whom here? Are these the recommendations from the data analysts or from the authors 

of this report? How do these recommendations relate to those on p. 5 of the report that mentions 

25% decline in occupancy or productivity rates? MK: As noted above, management triggers 

were revised. Quote was removed. 

 P. 14 – first para. states field visits starting in Feb.; I am not sure – did I recall reading that visits 

start in March earlier in the report? Moreover, I saw on p.7 that sampling is limited to the raptorbreeding season, and the dates are shown as Jan-Jul, so does this indicate sampling may be as 

early as Jan.? These are perhaps very minor inconsistencies in the report that could be clarified if 

necessary. DBA: Sampling does begin in January and this was corrected. 

P. 14 – I thought I recalled reading earlier in the report that 2006 was the year for breeding for 

peregrine falcon nesting at PINN, rather than breeding records from 2005 as reported here? 

DBA: 2005 is the correct year. 

P. 17, first paragr.; This section says that data are used by biometricians working with park 

service staff to determine trends over 5-year intervals, “as described further in the Data 

Summaries and Analysis section below.” P. 23, bottom paragr., says that SOP 5: Analysis and 

Reports contains details on the analyses and reports. P. 14 of SOP 5 states that trends will be 

reported on occupancy and fecundity, by “comparing averages for most recent 5 years to 

previous 10 year or longer periods” but it is not clear how this would be done. The same is true 

for the fecundity data. I guess my question is, what type of statistical test is planned here, such 

that a p-value is generated and compared to 0.05? Is this the same z-test approach that the 

original report included? The last paragraph mentions MANCOVA when apparently speaking of 

MANOVA, or is there some covariate that will be included if a multivariate approach including 

the two response variables (occupancy and fecundity) are included? Incidentally, I am having a 

difficult time imagining how a MANOVA on these two variables can be performed, because 

occupancy is yes or no response at a given site, and MANOVA dependent variables are to be 

continuous responses. What is the experimental unit being considered here (a given nest site, or 

the entire suite of possible sites in a given year)? Can the authors give an example of the analyses 

they envision, as I am having difficulty pulling it together based on what is written currently? 

MK: Based on recommendations from a different statistical consulting team, we plan to analyze 

trends in occupancy and fecundity using zero-inflated binomial models and a likelihood ratio 

test. We no longer plan to use MANOVA for these analyses. 

P. 32 glossary – where is the definition for fecundity? Is fecundity synonymous with 

productivity? Note that the latter is usually defined as the number of offspring produced whereas 

it is not hard to find dictionary definitions referring to fecundity as the “capacity to produce 

offspring”. Maybe a definition would be useful in the current report if this term is going to be 

used. MK: Yes, fecundity is synonymous with productivity. We added it to the glossary and 

linked it to productivity. 

Should it be “juvenal” feathers rather than “juvenile” feathers – not sure? MK: consensus is 

juvenal. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.40 

Figure 3 legend. I was uncertain what SFAN stood for here and elsewhere in the protocol. 

Should this be PINN? Perhaps Park Service personnel all know SFAN, so there is no need to 

define in the report?? MK: It is defined the first time it is used. 

Table 2, p. 23, Last column under summary for Vital Sign Report Card the term “Provides” is 

dangling. This occurs in other tables as well. DBA: Corrected. 

SOP #5, p. 1 says that “This section is pending input from SFSU”. Is that still the case??? 

Perhaps this is not the final SOP for review? Hopefully, SFSU will provide the statistical 

approach to assessing trends in occupancy and fecundity for use here. DBA: were waiting for 

SFSU but had intended to take this comment out before submitting. The statement is now 

removed. 

Tables 2 and 3 in SOP #5 contain the same data as far as I can tell. MK: Table 3 was removed. 

The literature cited section on pp. 37-45 could use quite a bit of editing to tighten it up related to 

consistency, punctuation, accuracy and format. DBA: This was reviewed. 

Reviewer #2 Pinnacles Raptors 

I reviewed the monitoring protocol following the review questions outlined in the guidelines 

provided to the reviewers. In addition, I added a general and a minor comment section, 

summarizing stylistic and grammatical comments, at the end of this document. Below is a 

summary of the major findings of my review: 

I thought that the PINN raptor monitoring protocol has vastly improved over the version I first 

reviewed; quite an accomplishment. Comments from my previous review have been addressed. 

The authors improved the sampling design section and added power analyses. Authors also 

added a Glossary. 

I disagree that objective 3 should be dropped when funding is limited. If nesting success Prairie 

Falcons is only measured in core areas, then any decrease in core nesting success cannot be 

attributed to visitor disturbance. The non-core area nesting success estimates provided vital 

information on the variation of nesting success in relation to factors other than visitor 

disturbance, such as climate. If objective 3 cannot be accomplished on an annual basis, I suggest 

that objective 2 should also be dropped and funding should be carried-over to the next fiscal year 

to allow temporal overlap of nesting success assessments in and outside of core areas. MK: We 

acknowledge that dropping an objective is not ideal and only considered if there are serious 

funding shortfalls.. However, we also note that measuring visitor disturbance is not a monitoring 

objective of this protocol any more (it was in an earlier version). Dropping objective 3 is an 

simply a money saving feature while still continue monitoring in the area where it is critical for 

the park to have nesting activity data that support management activities. Dropping objective 2 

would provide additional savings but it would not give the park information it needs to lift 

advisories. Also, given the way our budget works, it is not easy to carry over funds into another 

fiscal year. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.41 

Why does detection probability differ among years? Please explain! Is detection probability 

influenced by observers, weather, or annual fluctuations in Prairie Falcon densities? How are 

differences in detection probability incorporated into the analyses? MK: Low detection 

probabilities occur in years when you have low or no reproduction. That makes finding active 

territories very difficult. For example, 1998 or 2001 were years of low reproductive success and 

also have low detection probabilities. Additional explanation was provided in the text. 

The analyses section needs further expansion. Approaches to analyze long-term trends need to be 

developed in more detail, explicitly outlining which statistical analyses are employed for which 

data set. MK: This section has been expanded to more explicitly address analysis and 

hypotheis testing approaches. 

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: WHAT ARE THE MONITORING QUESTIONS 

PROPOSED? 

a. Background and history: describe the resource issue being addressed 

The Pinnacles National Monument harbors a variety of breeding raptor species, the most 

common of which is the Prairie Falcon. Other less common species include the Golden Eagle, 

Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Northern Harrier, Peregrine Falcon (recently 

established), American Kestrel, Cooper’s Hawk, and Sharp-shinned Hawk. Realizing the 

uniqueness of The Pinnacles National Monument in providing breeding habitat for raptors, 

particularly for the Prairie Falcon, Golden Eagle, and Peregrine Falcon, naturalists have surveyed 

raptors since 1910. The Pinnacles National Monument is also famous for its rock climbing and 

recreation opportunities; rock climbing potentially interferes with breeding raptor species, such 

as the Prairie Falcon. Recognizing the potential interference of rock climbing with breeding 

raptors, the National Monument initiated a study in 1982 under the auspice of the Santa Cruz 

Predatory Bird Research Group. This study recommended monitoring breeding success of 

raptors. As a result, the National Monument established a monitoring protocol in 1986, which 

was implemented in 1987 and has been used since that time (from previous review). 

b. What is the rational for selecting this resource to monitor? 

According to authors, raptor species, being a top food chain predator, are indicator species of the 

overall rock/cliff ecosystem and the surrounding agricultural areas and management of rock 

climbing activities. Moreover, raptors are charismatic species highly valued by park visitors 

(from previous review). 

My comments have been addressed. 

c. What are the measurable objectives? 

The objectives of this monitoring plan are: 

1. “ Track changes in total numbers of prairie falcon territories occupied in a.) the core climbing 

areas and b). non-core areas.” 

2. “Track changes in prairie falcon nesting success as measured by number of chick/nest 

produced and number of chicks/nests fledged in core climbing areas.” 

3. “Track changes in prairie falcon nesting success as measured by number of chick/nest 

produced and number of chicks/nests fledged in non-core climbing areas.” 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.42 

WHAT IS THE SAMPLING DESIGN CHOSEN? 

a. The rational for the design and site selection, and replication in space and time, must be 

addressed. 

Compared to the previous version, I found the rational of the monitoring design to be well 

developed. The new monitoring plan now focuses only on Prairie Falcons, the most common 

species. However, per my previous comment, PINN should consider developing spatial models 

of habitat use for Prairie Falcons and visitor use. 

With regard to productivity estimates, I still think that given the budgetary constraints, the 

monitoring plan should focus on attaining seasonal fitness per nest, i.e., did a territory 

successfully produce young in a certain age range, rather than collecting costly potentially 

inaccurate and very time consuming nestling and fledgling counts. Brood reduction cannot be 

solely attributed to recreational activities; there are many other factors that will influence brood 

size reduction, such as food availability, siblicide, and degree of parasite infestation (see Birds of 

North America Account of prairie falcons by Karen Steenhof). By sampling seasonal fitness, a 

less-costly sampling approach, funding could be invested developing visitor-use spatial surfaces. 

b. Site selection 

(1) Criteria for site selection: Well defined. 

(2) Procedures selecting sampling locations; stratification, spatial design. 

Seems fine. 

c. Sampling frequency and replication. 

Seems fine. 

d. Recommended number and location. 

Seems fine. 

e. Recommended frequency and timing of sampling. 

Seems applicable. 

f. Level of change that can be detected for the amount/type of sampling being instituted. 

This section has vastly improved compared to the previous version. Authors implemented power 

analyses to detected predetermined changes in number territories and fecundity. Power analyses 

suggest that sampling design is sufficient to detect a 10% annual decline in number of territories 

and 15% annual decline over 10-years in fecundity. 

ARE THE METHODS PROPOSED WITHIN THAT DESIGN APPROPRIATE? 

a. Describe the details of taking measurements, with example field forms. 

Authors did a great job describing how behavioral observations are cataloged. Example field 

forms were also provided. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.43 

WHAT ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES WILL BE APPLIED TO THE DATA, AND HOW 

OFTEN? 

a. Describe metadata procedures. 

Well developed and discussed; this section has vastly improved. 

b. Provide an overview of database design. 

Database design seems appropriate. 

c. Describe procedures for data entry, verification, and editing. 

Data verification and editing are well outlined in SOP and seem appropriate. 

d. Describe routine data summary procedures and statistical analyses to detect change. 

This section has much improved. 

e. Describe methods for long-term trend analysis (e.g. over 5-10yrs). 

This is the weakest section of the monitoring plan. Authors need to explicitly outline how longterm data sets are analyzed and which statistical tests are going to be employed. Several 

approaches are available, generalized additive models may be a good start because they allow the 

inclusion of covariates such as number of park visitors and climbing activity. Please refer to 

Fewster et al. for an excellent discussion on the analyses of long-term data and associated 

potential biases (Fewster, R. M., S. T. Buckland, G. M. Siriwardena, S. R. Bailie, and J. D. 

Wilson. 2000. Analysis of population trends for farmland birds using generalized additive 

models. Ecology 81:1970-1984). Associated small sample size biases in long-term analyses need 

to be discussed. MK: Because we are assuming imperfect detection of prairie falcons, zeroinflated binomial models will be used (MacKenzie, et al., 2006). This approach allows the 

inclusion of covariates collected at the site, year, site-by-year, and visit levels. Trend is 

estimated by including a year term in the occupancy model for occupancy monitoring and in the 

binomial probability model for hatchlings/fledglings for fecundity monitoring. Power analyses 

of the likelihood ratio test for the linear trend coefficient indicate that samples of 27 to 30 

territories for occupancy monitoring and 10 occupied territories for fecundity monitoring 

provides an adequate basis to detect a 50% decrease after 10 consecutive survey years. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 

RAPTOR MONITORING PROTOCOL 

General Comments: 

Table 1 is either missing or numbering of Tables is incorrect. However, if numbering of Tables is 

incorrect, reference to Table 1 (now Table 2) on page 1 does not make sense. DBA: Table 1 was 

corrected. 

Terms are inconsistently defined throughout the text. Some are defined within the text whereas 

others are defined in the Glossary only. 

The monitoring plan needs careful editing (see Minor Comments below). 

Consistently use PINN throughout the text. I found deviations from PINN such as “At 

Pinnacles”. DBA: Inconsistencies were found and corrected. 

Pg 13, last paragraph: Authors state that “...fecundity is most likely to be one of the most 

sensitive indicators of threat”. Threat to what? Fecundity is also very sensitive to climate change 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.44 

and annual fluctuations in prey densities. This underlines that fecundity needs to be measured in 

core and non-core areas simultaneously to preclude false conclusions that visitor activities cause 

a decline in fecundity. MK: While fecundity is a sensitive indicator, we acknowledge that by 

simply finding a decline, we will not necessarily know the cause of the decline. It could be 

related to visitor effects, and it may not be. The objective of our monitoring is to inform us about 

status and trends. The concern that by not monitoring non-core areas during years of funding 

shortfalls we would not be able to make conclusions about the visitor effects is valid and we do 

not intend to make them. 

I checked citations against Literature Cited sporadically but authors need to do a thorough check 

of citations. DBA: As noted previously this has been checked and corrected. 

Minor Comments: 

Pg. vi, 4th paragraph: Change “focuses” to focused DBA: This was fixed.

Pg. vi: Combine objectives 2 and 3 into one, following outline of objective 1. MK: We left them 

as separate simply to clarify what would get dropped in case of budget shortfalls. 

Pg. 1, paragraph 4, line: Table 1 not included in review package. 

Pg. 1, last paragraph: I cannot find “Measurable Objectives and Appendix 1” in Table of 

Contents nor in my review package. Should Appendix 1 read Appendix A? DBA: These issues 

were fixed. Yes, Appendix 1 was Appendix A. 

Pg 3: Objectives. Same comment as comment 2. MK: Left separate. 

Pg 3: Why are “core” and “non-core areas” defined here when they were introduced in previous 

pages. To keep consistency, I would add the definition for core and non-core areas to the 

Glossary. Other terms are not defined in the text, so why then define core vs. non-core area in the 

text? 

Pg 3, last paragraph: First sentence does not make sense and needs to be rewritten. 

Pg 3, last paragraph: Change “This data is..” to “These data are ...” 

Pg 5, first paragraph: Change “In Pinnacles” to “PINN”. 

Pg 5, first paragraph: ‘from this list” from which list? 

Pg 5, first paragraph: remove “statistical”; trend analyses will suffice. 

Pg 6: Empty page? 

Pg 7, line 9: Add “of breeding pairs” after “....presence/absence” 

Pg 9, third paragraph: Replace “.” after “Fecundity” with “:” to keep consistent. DBA: 

definitions were moved to the glossary as suggested. Other typos and issues were fixed. 

Pg 9, third paragraph: “Fecundity” not defined in Glossary. MK: Definition has been added. 

Pg 10, line 18: “...data collected to date does...” replace with “data collected to date do.” 

Pg. 10, line 22: Punctuation is incorrect. 

Pg. 11, Fig. 3: Alpha 0.05 not shown in Fig. yet referred in text. In Fig. legend define SFAN and 

where it first mentioned in the text (pg 17 ?). 

Pg 13, last paragraph: Very confusing to read. I omitted editing paragraph because it needs to be 

completely re-written (omit “you”). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 4.45 

Pg. 16: Empty page! 

Pg. 17, line 6: “...Table 1 and 2 below...”? Where below??? 

Pg. 18: Bulleted statements are instructions in some sentences but not others. Change to 

statements (Omit “You”). 

Pg. 18, 4th paragraph: Define “FDGC”. 

Pg. 20: Empty page! 

Pg 23: Add “Table 2 continued” on top of table 

Pg 24: Empty page! 

Pg. 27, 2nd paragraph: “...(Table 6.2)...” Where is this Table??? 

Pg. 27: Should read Table 2 not 3 ? 

Pg. 28: Should read Table 3 not 4? Row headings are difficult to discern. 

Pg. 30: Empty page! 

Pg 33: Change “Observatio” to “Observation” 

Pg 36: Empty page! 

Pg 46: Empty page! 

Pg 48: Empty page! DBA: Typos were fixed. Empty pages are part of our formatting 

requirement. 

STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) 1 

General comments 

Many empty pages throughout SOP. DBA: This is part of our required format. 

Minor Comments 

Pg. 4, 3rd bullet: Table 1-3? Where is Table 3? Provide page number 

Pg. 6 & 7: Add Table 1 Continued to top of Table. 

DBA: Typos were fixed. 

STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) 2-6, Appendix A 

Briefly reviewed with no comments. Protocols are well established. 
 SOP 5.1 

SOP 5. Data Analysis and Reporting V 1.1 

 

Revision History Log 

Prev. Version 

# 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for Change New Version 

# 

1.0 August 

2004 

10/5/06 Marcus 

Koenen 

Added most recent 

guidance on 

formatting. 

New guidance 1.01 

1.01 3/2008 J. Petterson, 

M. Koenen 

Remove numbering 

system. Add details 

for annual reports and 

long-term analyses. 

Maintain 

consistency 

1.02 

1.02 3/2010 D. Adams, M. 

Koenen 

Formatting. Added 

analytical techniques 

and r-code provided 

by Leigh Ann 

Starcevich. 

Peer review 

comments 

1.1 

 
 SOP 5.2 

Overview 

This SOP describes the procedures all monitors must follow to report how the raptor monitoring 

season progressed and concluded. This SOP discusses the within-season updates, the post-season 

summary report, and the 3-5 year analysis and synthesis report. 

Reporting is an essential component of the raptor monitoring process. The effectiveness of the 

raptor monitoring study at PINN over the past 20 years lies not only in the field work and data 

management, but also in how the information is gathered and shared with all levels of park 

management including planning, interpretation, maintenance, and law enforcement. An overall 

communication and outreach strategy is being developed for the SFANand that document will 

contribute to future revisions of this monitoring protocol. 

 

The overall strategy provides detailed information about required reports including 1) annual 

reports and 2) analysis and synthesis reports. Suggested formats are documented in the SFAN 

Data Management Plan – Appendix C (Press 2005) 

In order to complete the annual report, the SFAN Data Management Team will work with the 

raptor technician to summarize data. Management recommendations, along with 

recommendations for revising the protocol (changing monitoring intervals and timing, 

moving/adding sites, etc.) will also be proposed. These annual reports will also be provided to 

the SFAN parks annually. The raptor technician will be responsible for contributing to the 

AARWP required by each network along with additional outreach products summarized in Table 

9. 

A comprehensive data analysis and synthesis will be written every few years in addition to more 

simplified, general annual summaries. Having this extra time allows for more thorough data 

analysis and review of protocols and may give greater opportunity for adaptive management. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

3

Table SOP 5. 1. Summary of reporting and communication products. 

Communication Product Lead Audience Schedule Summary Annual Report Raptor 

Technician 

Park Resource Managers 

Annually Formatting follows the Natural Resour

Series. http://www.nature.nps.gov/

publications/nrpm/ • Archive data and document monit• Describe current condition of the r• Document changes in the monitor• Increase communication within the 

Analysis and Synthesis Report 

PINN Wildlife Biologist 

Park Resource Managers 

3-5 years Formatting follows the Natural Resour

Series. http://www.nature.nps.gov/

publications/nrpm/ • Determine patterns and trends • Discover correlations among reso

monitored 

• Analyze data to determine the lev

be detected using the existing sam

• Provide context, interpret data for 

multi-park, regional, or national co

• Recommend changes to managem

Program and Protocol Reviews 

Network Coordinator 

Program Lead, I&M Technical Steering Committee 

5 years • Periodic formal reviews of operatio

• Review of protocol design and pro

changes are needed 

• Part of the quality assurance–pee

Executive Briefing 

Raptor Technician 

Program Managers, Superintendents, Front line interpretation staff 

Annually (upon completion of annual report) 

Two-page summary that lists monitoriquestions, discusses annual results, aregional context. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

4

Communication Product Lead Audience Schedule Summary Vital Sign Report Card 

Network Coordinator 

Program Managers, Superintendents, Front line interpretation staff 

3-5 years (upon completion of Analysis and Synthesis Report 

Two-page summary that aggregates tindex. Provides 

Web Site Intranet Raptor 

Technician 

Park Staff Annually or as 

needed 

Post all completed reports 

Web Site Internet Raptor 

Technician 

Park Staff, General Public 

Annually or as needed 

Post all Executive Briefings, Report C

Park Presentations 

Raptor Technician 

Park Staff Annually Provide a presentation to park staff du

employee, or division meetings at eacGives staff an opportunity to ask quesprogram. 

Bi-weekly Update Raptor 

Technician 

Park Staff Bi-Weekly during 

the field season. 

Brief update listing species and names Highlights areas where advisories are 

Quarterly IM Update 

Raptor Technician 

Park Staff Quarterly This one-page monthly e-mail provide

short update on vital signs projects. Temore than one paragraph. 

Press Release Raptor 

Technician and Park Information Officer 

Public, media, friends groups 

January, April, June 

Provides updates to public about climbadvisories. 

Photos Raptor 

Technician 

For all reports and publication 

Continuous High quality publication quality photo a

support all communication products. Fmeans 300 pixels per inch resolution icompressed TIF format. Specialist shoeffort to document ongoing work, specvisits for communication purposes. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.5 

Bi-Weekly Updates 

One of the critical components of communicating on-going efforts of each season’s raptor 

program is the Bi-Weekly Updates. These informal updates are critical because of the frequent 

questions to all park staff about the status of climbing advisories. The updates allow for 

information gathered to be transferred quickly to Law Enforcement and Interpretation Rangers 

for the most effective internal support of the project. It also allows visitors to understand now the 

NPS is going about protecting its resources. 

Bi-weekly updates include the following information: 

• number of territories occupied and by what species 

• which territories are occupied and what status the territory is in (e.g., establishment, 

incubation, chicks including number and age). 

• when and where advisories have been put in place, and when they are removed 

• notes on unique or noteworthy observations (new territories or nests, unusual raptor 

sightings, etc.) 

• names of individuals, especially park employee or volunteers, who made important 

observations 

Annual Report 

The post-season annual report provides a concise summary of data collected throughout the 

season, highlights significant findings, and discusses management recommendations. Before 

2006, the annual report followed the Manuscript Guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife 

Management (Ratti and Smith 1997). In 2006, the annual report format was changed to meet the 

guidelines by the Natural Resource Publications Management (NRPM; 

http://nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

In general, content follow that of most scientific journals. See examples from previous years, in 

particular Emmons (2006) and (2008) posted to the network website: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/sfan/vital_signs/Raptors/raptors_condors.cfm. Included in 

the report are cover page, abstract, introduction, study area, methods. These sections can be 

copied year to year. The results and discussion section, however, may vary year to year. 

Results 

The results section can be broken up into subsections based on species of interest: 

• prairie falcons 

• observations of breeding species (e.g., golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, American 

kestrels, red-shouldered hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, Cooper’s hawks, white-tailed kites, 

peregrine falcons and owls). 

• observations of non-Breeding species (e.g., California condor, bald eagles, merlins, 

Swainson’s hawks, and other non-breeding raptors seen during the season). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.6 

Prairie Falcon Results: This section of the report summarizes effort (hours of observations), lists 

status (occupancy and fecundity) of each territory monitored, phenology, and notes any human 

disturbances that were noted during the season. 

1. Effort: Hours of observations are calculated from the time the technician steps on the trail 

and begins the journey to the observation point to the time the technician returns from the 

field (it included the hiking time, not just the time at the watch spot). It is calculated for 

all paid staff and for volunteers (separate categories). Information should also be 

presented about how many volunteers and hours volunteer time supported the season’s 

monitoring. 

2. Prairie Falcon Status (Table SOP 5.2): 

• List status of each territory monitored and number of territories occupied (by singles 

and pairs). 

• Indicate dates for arrivals, incubation, hatch, and fledging. Table identifies if new 

territories were occupied. For territories occupied but not producing a nest, report 

whether it was occupied by a single or pair and if they were territorial throughout the 

season. If any of the nests failed, indicate which ones, when the failure occurred and 

if the cause of failure is known. 

3. Fecundity (Tables SOP 5.3-5, Figure SOP 5.1-2): 

• The number of territorial pairs refers to the number of pairs that were documented to 

show territorial behavior (e.g. territorial defense, food exchanges, copulating, etc.) 

• The term number of successful nests is defined has having at least one chick fledge.

• The term average fecundity is calculated as a. number of chicks per nest and b. 

number of chicks per nest fledged. Include standard error for all years. 

• To meet park managers concerns, fecundity is also presented as average fecundity for 

core and non-core areas. Include standard error for all years. Discussion highlights 

any interesting or unusual incidences. 

4. Phenology (Table SOP 5.6): 

• List first arrivals, hatch dates, fledging dates for each year. 

5. Human Interactions: To address management concerns, the results section also includes a 

human interactions section. In this section information is provided about non-compliance 

observations made during monitoring surveys. Notes should include which territories 

may have been affected by visitors and if any actions were taken by staff. Additionally, 

notes about any visitor contacts including interpretive programs are presented (e.g., 

activities surrounding Migratory Bird Day, nest viewing opportunities, etc.) 

6. Discussion: The discussion section provides a context for each year’s result in 

comparison to other years. A sub-section should highlight recommendations on 

management, research, and protocol changes. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.7 

The draft annual report should be reviewed by the PINN Wildlife Biologist and/or network 

coordinator. Once approved, it can be submitted for publication according to NRPM guidelines. 
8

Table SOP 5. 2. 2006 Nest phenology and success: falconids (prairie falcons and peregrine falcons). 

Nest Species 

Territory Occupied Nest Code Arrival 

Date 

Begin Incub. 

Hatch Date 

Fledge Date 

Abandon Date 

Failed Date 

# of Eggs 

# of Nestlings 

PRFA Drywall DRY-10 <1/18 <4/5 4/18-19 5/30-31 2 2 PRFA D. Soto Canyon DS-1 <1/23 <3/24 4/7-9 5/16-17 5 4 PRFA Willow Springs Slide *CNWS <1/20 PRFA Cyn N of Willow Spgs CNWS-2 <1/20 <4/1 4/25-26 6/6-7 3 3 PRFA Narrows NARR-1 <2/21 <3/31 <4/25 3 PRFA Pig Canyon PIG-8 <1/15 <3/25 4/12-13 <5/25 3 PRFA Little Pinnacles <1/12 PRFA Frog / Hand PRFA Prescribed Burn Cliffs PRFA Pipsqueak Pinnacles PP-1 <2/28 3/23-4/8 5/6-8 6/17-19 2 PRFA Hanging Valley *PP/SP <2/28 PRFA Scout Peak *PP/HV <2/28 PRFA Goat / Resurrection RW-1 <1/11 4/2-15 5/2-3 6/13-14 4 3 PRFA Teapot Dome TD-1 <1/11 <3/17 4/22-24 <5/6 4 2 PRFA Hawkins PRFA Egg *TD <1/11 PRFA Citadel CI-1 <3/4 >3/4 5/9-10 6/20-21 3 PRFA Tugboat *MAT/NWR <1/20 PRFA Mating Rocks MAT-1 <1/20 <4/8 5/1–3 6/12–14 2 PRFA North Wilderness Rock *MAT/TUG <1/20 

PRFA Crowley CT-4 <1/13 <3/25 4/23–24 6/4–5 3 PRFA North Balconies *SGB <1/21 PRFA South Balconies SGB-2 <1/21 3/4-18 4/27–28 6/8 4 PRFA Machete *CI <3/4 PRFA North Chalone NC-1 <1/23 <3/26 4/25–26 6/6–7 4 PRFA South Chalone SC-1 <4/19 <4/19 <5/30 3 PEFA Hawkins HP-1 <1/10 3/12-23 4/25–27 6/6–8 3 3 Total 27 >27 38 

(Note: PRFA = prairie falcon, PEFA = peregrine falcon, for the “Occup. Status” column, # refers to possible fledglings, “Oc

occupation, “Not Occ.” = no occupation, “Failed” = failed nest, “Unknown” = breeding confirmed (see nest code) or likely, b

For the “Nest Code” column, * refers to territorial links for raptor pairs occupying more than one territory. See Glossary for fdefinitions.) 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.9 

Table SOP 5. 3. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity for all territories. 

Year Territorial 

Pairs 

Nesting 

Pairs 

# Nests 

Succeed 

# Nest-lings # 

Nestlings

/ Nest 

SE # Fledge # Fledge/ 

Nest 

SE 

1984 10 9 8 30 3.8 0.25 27 3.4 0.32 

1985 NA 

1986 NA 

1987 6 4 4 13 3.2 0.75 20 2.5 0.87 

1988 12 9 8 24 3.0 0.42 24 3.0 0.42 

1989 12 12 9 24 2.7 0.37 21 2.3 0.37 

1990 14 10 8 31 3.4 0.34 29 3.2 0.94 

1991 14 11 10 36 3.6 0.31 34 3.4 0.40 

1992 13 11 10 38 3.8 0.49 34 3.4 0.48 

1993 13 12 10 39 3.5 0.34 35 3.2 0.44 

1994 13 13 12 45 3.7 0.25 42 3.5 0.31 

1995 13 11 8 24 3.0 0.19 23 3.0 0.19 

1996 12 10 9 35 3.8 0.35 34 3.8 0.32 

1997 12 8 6 26 4.3 0.33 26 4.3 0.33 

1998 10 7 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 

1999 10 8 6 25 4.2 0.31 25 4.2 0.31 

2000 8 8 7 22 3.1 0.50 22 3.1 0.50 

2001 10 10 7 24 3.4 0.43 24 3.4 0.43 

2002 11 9 7 26 3.2 0.36 26 3.3 0.37 

2003 12 9 8 33 3.7 0.42 32 3.6 0.56 

2004 12 11 9 36 3.6 0.40 33 3.3 0.60 

2005 13 10 9 29 3.2 0.40 24 2.7 0.37 

2006 15 14 10 35 2.9 0.23 30 2.5 0.40 

2007 14 12 9 35 3.9 0.31 33 3.7 0.44 

2008 12 5 4 12 3.0 0.57 12 3.0 0.57 

2009 12 11 10 41 4.1 0.35 37 3.7 0.49 

Total/ 

Averages 

(1984–

2009) 283/11.8 234/9.8 188/7.8 686/28.5 3.5 0.78 647/26.9 3.1 0.09 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.10 

Table SOP 5. 4. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity–core areas. 

Year Territorial 

Pairs 

Nesting 

Pairs 

# Nests 

Succeed 

# Nestlings # Nestlings/ 

Nest 

SE # Fledge # Fledge/ 

Nest 

SE 

1984 7 6 6 22 3.7 0.37 20 3.3 0.51 

1985 NA 

1986 NA 

1987 5 4 4 13 3.3 0.75 10 2.5 0.87 

1988 8 6 5 14 2.8 0.58 14 2.8 0.58 

1989 8 8 6 16 2.7 0.60 16 2.7 0.60 

1990 9 7 6 23 3.8 0.40 23 3.8 0.40 

1991 9 8 8 31 3.9 0.29 31 3.9 0.34 

1992 9 7 7 29 4.1 0.65 27 3.8 0.60 

1993 10 9 8 34 4.3 0.30 30 3.8 0.53 

1994 10 10 10 38 3.8 0.22 37 3.7 0.34 

1995 10 9 7 21 3.0 0.26 21 3.0 0.26 

1996 9 8 7 28 4.0 0.37 24 3.4 0.31 

1997 8 6 4 16 4.0 0.33 16 4.0 0.33 

1998 7 5 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 

1999 6 5 3 13 4.3 0.00 13 4.3 0.50 

2000 5 5 4 15 3.8 0.67 15 3.8 0.67 

2001 7 6 4 12 3.0 0.67 12 3.0 0.67 

2002 5 5 4 12 3.0 0.67 12 3.0 0.67 

2003 5 5 5 22 4.4 0.48 22 4.4 0.48 

2004 7 7 5 21 4.2 0.74 18 3.6 1.03 

2005 5 4 4 12 3.0 0.58 11 2.8 0.88 

2006 7 6 5 17 3.4 0.48 15 3.0 0.85 

2007 6 6 6 26 4.3 0.29 26 4.3 0.29 

2008 7 3 2 4 2.0 0.00 4 2.0 0.00 

2009 7 7 6 24 4.0 0.75 20 3.3 0.85 

Total/ 

Average

s (1984–

2009) 176/7.3 152/6.3 126/5.3 463/19.3 3.6 0.11 437/18.2 78/3.3 0.13 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.11 

Table SOP 5. 5. Sample table covering 1984–2009 prairie falcon nesting productivity for non-core 

territories. 

Year Territorial 

Pairs 

Nesting 

Pairs 

# Nests 

Succeed 

# Nestlings # Nestlings/ 

Nest 

SE # Fledge # Fledge/ 

Nest 

SE 

1984 3 3 2 8 4.0 0.33 10 3.3 0.33 

1985 NA 

1986 NA 

1987 1 0 0 0 0 - - - - 

1988 4 3 3 10 3.3 0.67 10 3.3 0.67 

1989 4 4 3 8 2.7 0.48 5 1.7 0.41 

1990 5 3 2 8 4 0.33 6 3 1.00 

1991 4 3 2 3 1.5 0.58 3 1.5 0.88 

1992 4 4 3 9 3 0.75 7 2.3 0.75 

1993 3 3 2 5 2.5 0.88 5 2.5 0.88 

1994 3 3 2 7 3.5 0.82 5 2.5 0.88 

1995 3 2 1 3 3 0.00 3 3 0.00 

1996 3 2 2 7 3.5 0.88 10 5 0.88 

1997 4 2 2 10 5 0.67 10 5 0.67 

1998 3 2 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 

1999 4 3 3 12 4 0.41 12 4 0.41 

2000 3 3 3 7 2.3 0.63 7 2.3 0.63 

2001 3 4 3 12 4 0.65 12 4 0.65 

2002 6 4 3 14 4.7 0.49 10 3.3 0.49 

2003 7 4 3 11 3.7 0.74 10 3.3 0.89 

2004 5 4 4 15 3.8 0.32 15 3.8 0.32 

2005 8 6 5 17 3.4 0.56 13 2.6 0.42 

2006 8 8 5 18 3.6 0.27 15 3 0.46 

2007 8 8 3 9 3 0.40 7 2.3 0.63 

2008 5 2 2 8 4 0.00 8 4 0.00 

2009 5 4 4 17 4.3 0.33 17 4.3 0.33 

Total/ 

Average

s (1984–

2009) 106/4.4 84/3.5 62/2.6 218/9.1 3.2 0.12 200/8.6 70/3.0 0.14 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.12 

Figure SOP 5. 1. Sample line graphs depicting average annual number of hatchlings (left) and average 

annual number of fledglings (right) with standard error bars, 1984–2009. 

Figure SOP 5. 2. Sample line graphs depicting average annual number of fledglings in the Core (left) 

and Non-Core (right) areas, 1984–2009. 

1984

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR$

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

HATCHLINGS

1984

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR$

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

POSSIBLE_FLEDGLINGS

1984

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR$

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

POSSIBLE_FLEDGLINGS

C

1984

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

YEAR$

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

POSSIBLE_FLEDGLINGS

N
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.13 

Table SOP 5. 6 Prairie falcon breeding phenology table (early arrival, incubation, hatching, and fledging 

dates) for 1999–2006. 

Year Arrival Date Beginning of Incubation 

Date 

Hatching Date Fledging Date 

1999 1/6/99 3/5/99 4/10/99 5/25/99 

2000 <1/5/00 <3/11/00 4/21/00 5/31/00 

2001 <1/16/01 3/11/01 4/17/01 5/25/01 

2002 <1/11/02 3/1/02 4/7/02 5/16/02 

2003 <1/7/03 <3/21/03 <4/21/03 6/7/03 

2004 <1/7/04 <3/14/04 4/24/04 6/3/04 

2005 <1/12/05 3/18/05 4/19/05 5/31/05

2006 <1/11/06 <3/17/06 4/7/06 5/16/06

Other Species Results: Because observations of other species are also of interest to the park, this 

section, lists and discusses notable observations of any other raptor species confirmed to nest in 

the park. In past reports, this section has been organized by species. This data will not be 

interpreted for trends. 

Analysis and Synthesis Report 

An analysis and synthesis report is to be completed every 3 to 5 years by the PINN Wildlife 

Biologist and the purpose of the report is to place the last several years of data into a broader, 

long-term context. While the annual report provides information on prairie falcons and other 

raptor species, the analysis and synthesis report only tracks trends of prairie falcons. In general, 

contents follow those of most scientific journals. The report includes cover page, abstract, 

introduction, study area, methods, results, and discussion. The main focus of this report will be to 

try to assess whether the data from the last several years falls within the historical “natural range 

of variability” for the occupancy and fecundity being measured. 

The goals of this report are to: 

• Determine patterns and trends of prairie falcon population change and nesting success. 

• Review the level of fecundity and population change that can be detected using the 

existing sampling scheme. 

• Discover correlations among resources being monitored. 

• Provide context and interpret data for the park within a multi-park, regional, or national 

context. 

• Determine long-term changes in nesting phenology. 

• Recommend any changes to management practices. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.14 

Occupancy

Occupancy estimates will be obtained annually and will provide measures of status. When more 

than three years of monitoring data are available, linear trends in the logged odds of occupancy 

may be estimated and tested for significance. The number of detections is modeled as a zeroinflated binomial random variable (MacKenzie et al. 2006). Let yijk be the outcome for site i, 

year j, and visit k, and let yijk take a value of 1 if a prairie falcon is detected and 0 otherwise. 

Since the outcome is either 0 or 1, the outcome actually has a zero-inflated Bernoulli 

distribution. Let ijk y be the number of detections made at site i and year j during the k

th visit. The 

zero-inflated Bernoulli distribution is expressed as: 

( ) ( )( ) ( ) 1

11 0 ij ij y y PY y p p I y ij j ij ij j ij π π −= = − +− = , 

where πj is the occupancy rate in year j and ij p is the detection rate for site i and year j. There 

are S sites; T years, and K visits to a site each year. Define the indicator function as ( ) 0 ij I y = as 

1 when 0 ij y = and 0 otherwise. This model assumes an equal number of visits to a site within a 

year, but K can vary among sites and/or years. 

Occupancy (π) is modeled with logistic regression as a function of related covariates: 

0 1 log . 1

ij

ij

ij

x

π

γ γ

π

⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ = + ⎜ ⎟ − ⎝ ⎠

To test for linear trend in the logged odds of occupancy, the year covariate, xj, should be 

included as a predictor in the occupancy model. The likelihood ratio test is used to assess the 

significance of the trend coefficient. 

The probability of zero inflation (p) is simultaneously estimated by logistic regression: 

0 1 log 1

ij

ij

ij

p

x

p

β β

⎛ ⎞

= + ′ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ − ⎝ ⎠

. 

Maximum likelihood is used to estimate the parameter values from the models for occupancy 

and detection rates and the zero-inflated Bernouilli distribution. Occupancy can be modeled at 

the site-by-year level so predictors should be collected at the site level, year level, or site-by-year 

level. Detection probabilities are allowed to vary at each visit for each site and year, so 

covariates are often environmental covariates that vary from visit to visit (MacKenzie et al. 

2006). However, if detection rates are also changing over time, a model that includes a year 

covariate may be needed for accurate occupancy estimation. 

The implicit occupancy model is assumed for this analysis. In contrast to the explicit dynamics 

model, estimates of colonization and local extinction are not explicitly measured in the implicit 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.15 

dynamics model (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The net effect of extinction and colonization rates on 

occupancy is monitored rather than estimating the parameters separately since monitoring net 

change over time is the primary goal. 

Model selection is conducted using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Model output is 

examined to be certain that valid variance estimates are obtained. When valid estimates of the 

variance cannot be acquired for the model with the lowest AIC, then the model with the lowest 

AIC and valid variance is used. 

For the 2008 and 2009 pilot data, the occupancy model selected by AIC included a site-level 

covariate (an indicator for core area) and the survey year. Possible detection models were based 

on covariates collected within each site and year such as month, high temperature, low 

temperature, average wind speed, cloud cover, and level of precipitation. The three detection 

models with the lowest AIC are given in Table 3.1. The lowest detection probabilities from the 

first model were obtained for the relatively-few PRFA surveys conducted when precipitation was 

present. Because the AIC for the month-only detection model is only slightly larger, this more 

parsimonious model is used for model stability. 

Table SOP 5. 7: Best detection models from 2008-2009 pilot data 

Detection model variables AIC 

Range of 

estimated 

detection 

rates 

2008 

estimated 

occupancy 

rate (SE) 

2009 

estimated 

occupancy 

rate (SE) 

Hi_TempF, CCPct, Precip_Code 518.31 0.3011 – 

0.6965 

0.9271 

(0.1020) 

1.0000 

(0.0031) 

Month, Precip_Code 519.84 0.3281 – 

0.6511 

0.8788 

(0.0957) 

1.0000 

(0.0016) 

Month 520.27 0.3305 – 

0.6513 

0.8787 

(0.0956) 

1.0000 

(0.0010) 

Plotting the estimated detection probabilities against the month predictor (Figure SOP 5.3), one 

may observe that detection probabilities for PRFA are highest later in the season. A t-test of the 

two-sided hypothesis that the mean detection rate is equal to 1 is highly significant (p-value < 

0.0001). There is no evidence that PRFA detection probabilities are so high as to warrant 

conducting a trend analysis that assumes perfect detectability. Therefore, the zero-inflated 

Bernoulli distribution is assumed. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.16 

Figure SOP 5. 3. Estimated detection probabilities by month 

Fecundity 

Let ij y be the number of hatchlings or fledglings detected in occupied site i and year j. Let n be 

the number of occupied sites and T be the number of years monitored for fecundity. The 

probability mass function of Y is: 

( ) ( ) ( )( ) 11 0 ij ij M y y

ij j ij ij j ij

ij

M

PY y p p I y

y

π π

⎛ ⎞ −

= = − +− = ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠

, 

where πj is the probability that an extra 0 is not observed in year j, pij is the probability of a 

hatchling/fledgling at site i in year j, M is the maximum number of hatchlings/fledglings seen in 

any nest, and I(yij = 0) is 1 when yij = 0 and is 0 otherwise. Similarly to the occupancy analysis, 

the parameters, π ij and ij p , are estimated with maximum likelihood estimation. To test for trend 

in fecundity, the year covariate is included as a predictor in the binomial probability model and 

then tested for significance with a likelihood ratio test. In contrast to the occupancy analysis, 

fecundity inference is made on the change in pij over time. We assume that M is 5 based on 

historical data and recommendations from the SFAN ecologists. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.17 

Analysis code for trend analysis of occupancy and fecundity rates is provided in SOP 5 

Appendix A, and pilot data are provided in SOP 5 Appendix B. Instructions are given for the 

VGAM package of the R Project for Statistical Computing. The VGAM package is used for 

obtaining maximum likelihood estimates from zero-inflated mixture distributions. 

Histograms of prairie falcon hatchlings and fledglings per nest from data pooled over the years 

2002 to 2009 indicate a large number of zeroes in each outcome (Figures SOP 5.4 and 5.5, 

respectively). The additional zeroes may be a result of mechanisms such as imperfect detection 

rates, predation, or environmental factors and are accounted for using a zero-inflated binomial 

model. 

Figure SOP 5. 4. Histogram of hatchlings across years, 2002 - 2009 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.18 

Figure SOP 5. 5. Histogram of fledglings across years, 2002 - 2009 

References 

Emmons, G. 2006. Raptor breeding season report for Pinnacles National Monument – 2006. 

Unpublished report. National Park Service, San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory 

and Monitoring Program, San Francisco, CA. 

Emmons, G. 2008. Raptor breeding season report for Pinnacles National Monument - 2007. 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SFAN/NRTR—2008/087. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, J. A. Royle, K. H. Pollock, L. L. Bailey, J. E. Hines. 

2006. Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of 

Species Occurrence. Elsevier Academic Press. Burlington. 

Ratti, J. T., and L. M. Smith. 1998. Manuscript guidelines for The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1, supplement. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.19 

Appendix A: R code for occupancy and fecundity estimation and trend analysis 

i. Download and open R. 

Use R Version 2.10.1 or higher. Go to http://www.r-project.org/ and click on "CRAN" in 

the left-hand menu. Choose a CRAN mirror site. Under "Download and Install R," 

select the appropriate platform then click on "base." From here, the installation files may 

be downloaded and run. 

Open R and install the VGAM package. Click on the menu item "Package" then select 

"Install package(s)." Select a CRAN mirror site then scroll to the bottom of the dropdown list and select VGAM. Load the package by typing "library(VGAM)" (without the 

quotes) at the R prompt. After an R package is installed, it must be loaded every time it 

is used in a new R session. 

ii. Read the data file. 

For this example, the pilot data for the occupancy and fecundity analyses are provided in 

Appendix B. Data in Appendix B are result of a data dump and can be pasted into the R 

Command line. Follow by typing in “PRFA0809” and “PRFAFec” to format data. 

Typically, the data should be saved as a tab-delimited text file with a header in the first 

row to read a data file into R. First change the working directory to the directory in 

which the data are stored by selecting "File\Change dir..." and selecting the appropriate 

directory. Then use the following command to load the data: 

PRFA0809<- read.table("PRFA0809.txt", header=TRUE, sep = "\t") 

For this example, the pilot data for the occupancy and fecundity analyses are provided in 

Appendix B. Copy and paste the two commands into R to obtain the pilot data. 

iii. Obtain models for occupancy and detection.

Model selection is conducted using AIC as the selection criterion. Use site-level, yearlevel, and site-by-year level predictors for the occupancy model and use variables 

measured at the visit level for detection models. Compare each pair of occupancy and 

detection models and obtain the set that provides the lowest AIC value. The R code 

provided in the next step may serve as a template for coding occupancy and detection 

models for the VGAM package. AIC values may be obtained with the following function 

call for a model names "fit": AICvlm(fit).

If a fit generates a warning message like the following, then a regularity condition has 

been violated and the standard errors may be calculated in error: 

Warning messages: 

1: In checkwz(wz, M = M, trace = trace, wzeps = control$wzepsilon) : 

213 elements replaced by 1.819e-12 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.20 

The standard errors of the predicted values may be quite large, which can be checked by 

examining the output of the predict.vglm function. If this warning message is 

obtained, this model may produce erroneous standard errors. Select a different model 

that meets regularity conditions. 

 

iv. Estimate occupancy and obtain confidence intervals. 

The VGAM package allows the separate modeling for occupancy and detection rates. A 

list of matrices, denoted as H, is used to indicate in which model each term occurs. An 

intercept falls into both the occupancy and the detection model, so the H matrix for the 

intercept term is a 2x2 matrix with rows indicating regression terms and columns 

indicating occupancy and detection model inclusion, respectively. The Year and Core 

terms were included in the occupancy model only and the Month term was used to 

predict detection rates, so each of these terms includes only one column. For more help 

with model specification in VGAM, use help(constraints) or see the following link: 

http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~yee/VGAM/doc/VGAM.pdf. 

# Create "H" matrices to indicate which terms belong in the occupancy model and 

# which belong in the detection model: 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms 

H2<-matrix(c(1,0),2,1) # Year or Core term 

H3<-matrix(c(0,1),2,1) # Month term 

Hlist<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, Year=H2, Core= H2, Month=H3) 

# Copy and paste these general functions into R for summarizing results: 

expit<-function(x) ifelse(x>700,1,exp(x)/(1+exp(x))) 

logit<-function(x) log(x/(1-x)) 

# Obtain the occupancy and detection models: 

fit.full = vgam(PA ~ Year+ Core+ Month, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist, data= PRFA0809, maxit=1000) 

# Examine the fitted values of occupancy and detection rates for each row: 

cbind(1-expit(predict(fit.full))[,1], expit(predict(fit.full))[,2]) 

# Estimate of linear trend of log-odds of occupancy: 

Coefs<-Coef(fit.full) # Regression coefficient estimates 

Coefs 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.21 

# Obtain estimated occupancy probabilities and CI's using the invariance property of 

# MLEs. Account for the fact that VGAM predicts the probability that site is 

# unoccupied: 

Ests<-predict.vglm(fit.full, se.fit=TRUE) 

alpha<-0.20 

Z.alpha<- qnorm(1-alpha/2) 

OccCILow.Untrans<-Ests$fitted.values[,1]- Z.alpha* Ests$ se.fit[,1] 

OccCIHigh.Untrans<-Ests$fitted.values[,1]+ Z.alpha* Ests$ se.fit[,1] 

OccCILow <-1-expit(OccCIHigh.Untrans) # CI low of prob occupied 

OccCIHigh <-1-expit(OccCILow.Untrans) # CI low of prob occupied 

Occ.Ests<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=PRFA0809$Year+2008, 

Month=PRFA0809$Month, Core=PRFA0809$Core, pihat=1-

expit(Ests$fitted.values[,1]), pihat.CI.Low =OccCILow, pihat.CI.High 

=OccCIHigh),6)) 

unique(Occ.Ests[order(Occ.Ests$Year, Occ.Ests$Month, Occ.Ests$Core),]) 

v. Test for decreasing trend in occupancy. 

# To conduct the likelihood ratio test for trend, a reduced model that excludes the 

# year term in the occupancy model is fit and compared to the full model to 

# determine if the year coefficient is significantly smaller than zero: 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms 

H2y<-matrix(c(0,0),2,1) # Year term 

H2<-matrix(c(1,0),2,1) # Core term 

H3<-matrix(c(0,1),2,1) # Month term 

Hlist2<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, Year=H2y, Core=H2,Month =H3) 

fit.red = vgam(PA ~ Core+ Month, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist2, data= PRFA0809, maxit=1000) 

# Note that the reduced model may not have a positive-definite Hessian matrix, 

# but that will not affect the results of the likelihood ratio test. Obtain the 

# likelihood ratio test statistic: 

chisq.test<- -2*(logLik(fit.red)- logLik(fit.full)) 

p.value<-pchisq(chisq.test, 1, lower.tail=FALSE) 

c(chisq.test, p.value) 

# We reject null hypothesis of a one-sided test of decreasing trend if the p-value is 

# greater alpha and if the coefficient for the trend from the full fit is negative. 

# Here we are testing at the 0.20 level so this p-value of 0.2270 indicates that 

# there is no significant decline in the occupancy trend. 

vi. Estimate detection rates and obtain confidence intervals. 

DetCILow.Untrans<-Ests$fitted.values[,2]- Z.alpha* Ests$ se.fit[,2] 

DetCIHigh.Untrans<-Ests$fitted.values[,2]+ Z.alpha* Ests$ se.fit[,2] 

DetCILow <-expit(DetCILow.Untrans) 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.22 

DetCIHigh <-expit(DetCIHigh.Untrans) 

Det.Ests<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=PRFA0809$Year+2008, 

Month=PRFA0809$Month, Core=PRFA0809$Core, 

phat=expit(Ests$fitted.values[,2]), phat.CI.Low=DetCILow, 

phat.CI.High=DetCIHigh),6)) 

unique(Det.Ests[order(Det.Ests$Year, Det.Ests$Month, Det.Ests$Core),])

vii. Estimate fecundity and obtain confidence intervals. 

# Remove rows with NA's for the outcome of interest: 

PRFAFec<- PRFAFec[(!is.na(PRFAFec$ Known_Fledglings))&(!is.na(PRFAFec$ 

Hatchlings)),] 

# Create "H" matrices to specify the models for fecundity rate and the probability 

# of not obtaining a zero: 

 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms 

H2<-matrix(c(0,1),2,1) # Core or Year term 

Hlist<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, Year=H2, Core =H2) 

fit.full = vgam(Hatchlings/5 ~ Year+ Core, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist, data= PRFAFec, maxit=1000, 

weight=rep(5,dim(PRFAFec)[1])) 

# Obtain the estimates of the regression coefficients: 

Coefs<-Coef(fit.full) 

Coefs 

# Obtain estimates of the hatchling fecundity rate: 

Fec.Ests<-predict.vglm(fit.full, se.fit=TRUE) 

alpha<-0.20 

Z.alpha<- qnorm(1-alpha/2) 

FecCILow.Untrans<-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]- Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$ se.fit[,2] 

FecCIHigh.Untrans<-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]+ Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,2] 

FecCILow <-expit(FecCILow.Untrans) # CI low 

FecCIHigh <-expit(FecCIHigh.Untrans) # CI high 

Fec.Ests.CI<-data.frame(round(cbind(Year=PRFAFec$Year+2002, 

Core=PRFAFec$Core, phat=expit(Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,2]), phat.CI.Low 

=FecCILow, phat.CI.High =FecCIHigh),6)) 

unique(Fec.Ests.CI[order(Fec.Ests.CI$Year, Fec.Ests.CI$Core),]) 

# Obtain estimates of the probability of not observing an extra zero: 

ProbZero<-1-expit(Coefs[1]) 

ProbZero.CILow.Untrans<- Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,1]- Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,1] 

ProbZero.CIHigh.Untrans <-Fec.Ests$fitted.values[,1]+ Z.alpha* Fec.Ests$

se.fit[,1] 

ProbZero.CILow <-expit(ProbZero.CILow.Untrans) 

ProbZero.CIHigh <-expit(ProbZero.CIHigh.Untrans) 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.23 

unique(round(cbind(ProbZero, CILow=ProbZero.CILow, 

CIHigh=ProbZero.CIHigh),4)) 

viii. Test for decreasing trend in fecundity. 

# Compute the likelihood ratio test for trend: 

H1<-matrix(c(1,0,0,1),2,2) # Intercept terms 

H2<-matrix(c(0,0),2,1) # Year term - excluded 

H3<-matrix(c(0,1),2,1) # Core term 

Hlist2<-list("(Intercept)"=H1, Year=H2, Core =H3) 

fit.red = vgam(Hatchlings/5 ~ Year+ Core, zibinomial(zero=NULL), 

constraints=Hlist2, data= PRFAFec, maxit=1000, 

weight=rep(5,dim(PRFAFec)[1])) 

# Compute the p-value for LRT statistic: 

chisq.test<- -2*(logLik(fit.red)- logLik(fit.full)) 

p.value<-pchisq(chisq.test, 1, lower.tail=FALSE) 

c(chisq.test, p.value) 

# Reject null hypothesis of a one-sided test of decreasing trend if p-value < alpha 

# = 0.2 and if the coefficient for the trend is negative. Here we fail to reject the 

# null hypothesis with a p-value of 0.2831. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.24 

APPENDIX B: Pilot data for occupancy and fecundity analysis examples 

Occupancy data 

# pilot data: year variable begins at 0 

PRFA0809 <- 

structure(list(PA = c(1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 

0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

1L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 

0L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 1L, 0L, 1L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 0L), 

 Year = c(0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 

 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 

 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 

 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 

 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 

 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 

 0, 1, 0, 0), Core = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.25 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0), Month = c(4L, 1L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 

 2L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 

 5L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 

 6L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 

 5L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 

 3L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 4L, 1L, 5L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 

 3L, 1L, 4L, 4L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 

 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 1L, 6L, 3L, 

 6L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 4L, 

 3L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 

 4L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 

 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 1L, 1L, 5L, 1L, 3L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 

 2L, 3L, 4L, 2L, 6L, 7L, 5L, 6L, 4L, 7L, 4L, 6L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 

 4L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 3L, 6L, 4L, 3L, 

 5L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 

 6L, 6L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 4L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 

 3L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 

 2L, 5L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 1L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 

 2L, 3L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 6L, 

 6L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 5L, 6L, 6L, 6L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 

 3L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 4L, 5L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 5L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 

 6L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 

 2L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 3L, 5L, 3L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 7L, 4L, 3L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 3L, 1L, 5L, 4L, 2L, 

 1L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 6L, 4L, 6L, 3L, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 2L, 

 3L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 1L, 5L, 

 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 6L, 5L, 3L, 

 3L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 4L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 1L, 

 4L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 3L)), .Names = c("PA", "Year", "Core", "Month"), row.names = c(NA, 

-457L), class = "data.frame") 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.26 

Fecundity data

PRFAFec <- 

structure(list(Species = structure(c(1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L), .Label = "Prairie Falcon", class = 

"factor"), 

 Year = c(7, 4, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 

 7, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 2, 3, 4, 7, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7, 2, 

 1, 3, 4, 4, 6, 7, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 3, 4, 

 6, 7, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 

 6, 0, 4, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 4, 7, 1, 3, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 

 6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 2, 3, 6, 7, 2, 6, 7, 4, 1, 7, 0, 1, 

 2, 3, 4, 6), Eggs = c(NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 3L, NA, NA, 

 NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, 5L, NA, NA, NA, NA, 2L, NA, 4L, 

 NA, NA, 5L, NA, NA, 4L, NA, NA, 5L, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, 

 NA, NA, 4L, NA, NA, NA, NA, 2L, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 

 NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, 5L, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, NA, 

 NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 

 NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 

 NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, NA, 4L, NA, NA, 

 NA), Hatchlings = c(NA, 3L, NA, 2L, 0L, 0L, 3L, NA, NA, 2L, 

 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, NA, 4L, 5L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 0L, 

 5L, 4L, 3L, 0L, 4L, NA, NA, 5L, NA, 2L, 0L, 3L, NA, 3L, NA, 

 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 0L, NA, 2L, 3L, 2L, NA, 2L, 2L, 0L, NA, NA, 

 3L, 0L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 0L, 2L, 0L, NA, NA, 4L, 3L, 4L, 

 4L, NA, 5L, NA, 0L, NA, 0L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 2L, NA, 

 0L, 0L, NA, 5L, 0L, 0L, 4L, 2L, 0L, 4L, 0L, 0L, NA, NA, 5L, 

 0L, NA, NA, 0L, NA, NA, NA, 0L, NA, 2L, 0L, 4L, 0L, NA, NA 

 ), Known_Fledglings = c(NA, 3L, NA, 2L, 0L, 0L, 3L, NA, NA, 

 2L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, NA, 4L, 5L, 0L, 0L, 0L, 1L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 

 0L, 2L, 4L, 3L, 0L, 4L, NA, NA, 2L, NA, 1L, 0L, 3L, NA, 3L, 

 NA, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 0L, NA, 2L, 3L, 1L, NA, 2L, 1L, 0L, NA, 

 NA, 3L, 0L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 0L, 2L, 0L, NA, NA, 4L, 1L, 

 3L, 4L, NA, 5L, NA, 0L, NA, 0L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 2L, 

 NA, 0L, 0L, NA, 5L, 0L, 0L, 4L, 2L, 0L, 4L, 0L, 0L, NA, NA, 

 5L, 0L, NA, NA, 0L, NA, NA, NA, 0L, NA, 2L, 0L, 4L, 0L, NA, 

 NA), Possible_Fledglings = c(NA, 3L, NA, 2L, NA, NA, 3L, 

 NA, NA, 2L, 5L, 5L, 3L, 3L, NA, 4L, 5L, NA, NA, NA, 1L, 2L, 

 4L, 4L, NA, 2L, 4L, 3L, NA, 4L, NA, NA, 2L, NA, 1L, NA, 3L, 

 NA, 3L, NA, 5L, 4L, 5L, 5L, NA, NA, 2L, 3L, 1L, NA, 2L, 1L, 

 NA, NA, NA, 3L, NA, 2L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, NA, 2L, NA, NA, NA, 

 4L, 3L, 3L, 4L, NA, 5L, NA, NA, NA, NA, 4L, 4L, 4L, 3L, 4L, 

 5L, 2L, NA, NA, NA, NA, 5L, NA, NA, 4L, 2L, NA, 4L, NA, NA, 

 NA, NA, 5L, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, 2L, NA, 4L, 

 NA, NA, NA), Territory = structure(c(2L, 3L, 3L, 4L, 4L, 

 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 

 7L, 7L, 7L, 7L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 8L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 10L, 

 11L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 12L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 13L, 14L, 

 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 15L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 16L, 17L, 17L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 18L, 19L, 19L, 19L, 

 19L, 19L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 21L, 22L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 23L, 

 23L, 24L, 25L, 26L, 26L, 26L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 27L, 28L, 

 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 28L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 30L, 31L, 31L, 31L, 

 32L, 33L, 33L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L, 34L), .Label = c(".rr", 

 "ball", "ci", "cnws", "ct", "dis", "dry", "ds", "egg", "fc", 

 "frog/hand", "goat/rw", "hp", "hv", "lp", "mac", "mat", "nb", 

 "nc", "nes", "nwr", "pb", "pig", "pp", "rw", "sc", "sgb", 

 "sp", "swr", "td", "tu", "tug", "wcp", "wss"), class = "factor"), 

 Territory_Notes = structure(c(1L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.27 

 1L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 

 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L), .Label = c("", "CORE"), class = "factor"), Occupation = structure(c(1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 

 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L), .Label = "Occupied", class = "factor"), 

 Core = c(0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 

 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 

 0, 0, 0, 0)), .Names = c("Species", "Year", "Eggs", "Hatchlings", 

"Known_Fledglings", "Possible_Fledglings", "Territory", "Territory_Notes", 

"Occupation", "Core"), row.names = c(1L, 6L, 7L, 19L, 20L, 21L, 

22L, 23L, 24L, 36L, 37L, 38L, 39L, 40L, 41L, 42L, 43L, 48L, 49L, 

50L, 51L, 52L, 53L, 54L, 55L, 56L, 57L, 58L, 68L, 69L, 70L, 71L, 

72L, 74L, 80L, 89L, 90L, 91L, 92L, 93L, 94L, 105L, 106L, 107L, 

108L, 109L, 120L, 121L, 122L, 123L, 124L, 125L, 126L, 127L, 128L, 

129L, 130L, 131L, 132L, 133L, 134L, 148L, 149L, 150L, 151L, 152L, 

153L, 159L, 160L, 161L, 162L, 163L, 164L, 165L, 168L, 169L, 178L, 

189L, 190L, 191L, 192L, 193L, 194L, 195L, 196L, 197L, 198L, 199L, 

211L, 212L, 213L, 214L, 215L, 225L, 226L, 227L, 228L, 229L, 230L, 

235L, 236L, 237L, 238L, 247L, 248L, 249L, 250L, 251L, 252L, 258L, 

259L, 260L, 261L, 262L, 263L), class = "data.frame") 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 5.28 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 6.1 

SOP 6. Using Portable Radios V 1.1 

 

Revision History Log 

Prev. Version 

# 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for Change New 

Version #

 9/2003 G. Emmons Initial Draft 1.00 

1.0 3/2008 J. Petterson Remove numbering 

system, other minor 

edits 

Maintain 

consistency with 

other SOPs 

1.01 

1.01 7/2009 D. Adams Formatting Peer review 

comments 

1.1 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 6.2 

Overview 

This SOP describes the procedures all technicians should follow to learn how to use the 

Motorola XTS 3000 portable radios in the field. 

The most important thing that technicians should know about the Motorola XTS 3000 radio is 

that it is a communication tool that helps to ensure the safety of technicians in the field. The 

portable radios allow other staff in the park to know the location and status of raptor technicians 

in the field. Because technicians often work off-trail in the park backcountry, and hike over 

uneven ground, slopes, and near cliff edges, the radios are especially important as a means of 

communication in the event of injuries that technicians might incur in the field. During team 

watches of raptor territories, the radios also provide an invaluable tool for communicating raptor 

observations between technicians, and confirming territorial boundaries and use by one or more 

pairs of breeding raptors within a given area. Raptor technicians should have a working 

knowledge of the protocols for communicating with the radios, and a basic understanding of how 

to use them. Procedures for using radios effectively and appropriately are listed below. 

Procedures 

Read and review the “Digital XTS 3000 Basic Model” user’s guide, filed in the “Radios” folder 

in the “Equipment” cabinet in the RRM office. The manual provides a good introduction to the 

terminology and use of the XTS 3000 model. Also review the section on radio call numbers and 

radio channels in the “Panic File” binder; technicians should know the call numbers and the park 

staff they refer to, especially for law enforcement personnel. The radio call number for the raptor 

technician is 821. If necessary, technicians should photocopy the list of radio call numbers and 

take it in the field as a reference. 

Whenever the portable radio is not in use, make sure that the unit is turned off (with the on/off 

volume control dial turned as far counterclockwise as possible) and charging in a Motorola 

battery charger. Personal chargers are available in the RRM office, and should be assigned to 

raptor technicians at the beginning of the season. 

Before going out into the field, take an extra battery from the general charging unit in the RRM 

office, in the event that the battery already attached to the XTS 3000 radio loses its charge while 

in use. Make sure that the extra battery fits the XTS 3000 unit; although the HT 1000 (also used 

by RRM staff) and XTS 3000 units have similar functions and capacities, the two radios require 

7.5 nickel-cadmium batteries with different shapes. 

Before travelling into the field, you must call Sequoia Dispatch – the dispatch station through 

which all travel plans in the park should be documented – and let them know your plans in the 

field, and your estimated time of arrival (ETA) back at your departure point (such as Bear Gulch 

Visitor Center, Chalone housing area, etc.). This is important because it provides Sequoia 

Dispatch with your general location in the field in the event of an emergency. Follow the 

procedures listed below: 

• Turn on the radio by turning the on/off volume control dial clockwise, until it is facing 

about 11 o’clock. The LED indicator should show a green light, indicating that the 

battery is charged and the unit is on. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 6.3 

• Move the channel selector dial to “1” (for the North Chalone repeater). This channel 

should work for radio communications in most parts of the park, but if it does not, turn 

the channel selector dial to “2” (for the Scout Peak repeater). 

• Make sure the three-position ABC toggle switch is on the “A” setting, for normal 

communications. 

• Make sure the ring at the base of the channel selector dial is pointed towards the open 

circle; the ring should not be pointed towards the crossed circle, as this is meant for 

programming channels for the radio to scan for. 

• Press and firmly hold down the push-to-talk (PTT) switch, and speak into the 

microphone. The LED indicator will show a red light, indicating that your 

communications are being broadcast through the radio. 

• Tell Sequoia Dispatch your travel plans and ETA back at your departure point (see radio 

protocol section under #10 below). 

During your time in the field, keep the radio on with the volume loud enough that you can hear 

and respond to any communications directed at your radio call number (821). 

In most situations, you will not need to communicate with anyone while you are monitoring 

raptors in the field. If you will be arriving off-trail later than your previously stated ETA, let 

Sequoia Dispatch know your revised ETA. This is important: Sequoia Dispatch will begin 

contacting law enforcement personnel if they do not hear back from you 30 minutes after your 

stated ETA! 

If you are conducting a team watch with another technician that requires you to be separated by 

physical distance, keep the channel selector dial turned to channel “1,” until you arrive at your 

respective watch spots. Then, turn the channel selector dial to “4.” This is a special use channel 

(as shown in the “Panic File” binder) that allows technicians to communicate raptor observations 

to each other, while leaving the regular airwaves of channels 1 and 2 open for park-wide use. 

Return to using channels 1 or 2 when team watches are over. 

When you return from the field, contact Sequoia Dispatch again, and let them know that you are 

safe, by stating the time you arrive off-trail: “Sequoia Dispatch, 821 off-trail at 2100 hours.” 

After signing off with Sequoia Dispatch, return the portable unit to your personal charger, and 

make sure that the radio is turned off while it is charging. Return the extra battery to the general 

charger in the RRM office. 

Follow the protocols listed below as general guidelines for appropriate use of the radios: 

• When communicating with the radio, always begin by stating the call number you are 

trying to reach, followed by your own. For example, state: “505, 821.” For Sequoia 

Dispatch, you can simply say, “Sequoia Dispatch, 821.” 

• Be brief and concise when communicating with the radio; this keeps the airwaves clear 

on a given channel and saves battery power. 

• Speak clearly into the radio’s microphone, and press the PTT button firmly while 

speaking. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 6.4 

• Although channels 1 and 2 provide good radio coverage for most of the park, certain 

locations (e.g., next to cliffs, in slot canyons, outside of the park) may not allow for 

effective communication on the radio. If you get no response for a specific call number, 

try again with, “505 (for example), 821, do you copy?” If you still get no response, 

conclude with, “No (or negative) contact, 821 clear.” If the message is important, try 

different call numbers in the park, or move to a more open location (e.g., a hilltop or 

summit). 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 7.1 

SOP 7. Using GPS V 1.1 

 

Revision History Log: 

Prev. Version 

# 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for Change New 

Version 

# 

 9/2003 G. Emmons Initial Draft 1.0 

1.0 3/2008 J. Petterson Remove numbering 

system 

Maintain consistency 

with other SOPs 

1.01 

1.01 7/09 D. Adams Formatting Peer review 

comments 

1.1 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 7.2 

Overview 

This SOP describes procedures observers should follow to learn how to use the Garmin III Plus 

GPS unit to document UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) coordinates at raptor monitoring 

watch spots in the field. 

The Garmin III Plus GPS unit is a general tool for documenting the UTM coordinates of 

observation points. The most important thing to know about the Garmin III Plus GPS unit is that 

it does not have sub-meter accuracy, and for the purposes of raptor monitoring at PINN, it does 

not need to. This GPS unit should not be used to navigate to watch spots for nest sites; rock 

formations, thick chaparral, and twisting canyons in the park make this impossible. The GPS unit 

is only necessary for documenting the general locations of raptor monitoring watch spots, which 

are later entered into the “observationpoints” table located in the “Raptor Monitoring” MS 

Access Application (for details, see SOP 3: Data Management). The file, along with “obs pts for 

possible nests” is imported into ArcView to create spatial maps for use as updated thematic data 

in the “Raptor Nest Map” ArcMap project (for details see SOP 3 and SOP 7. Using GPS). 

Monitors should begin by reviewing the “GPS III Plus Owner’s Manual & Reference,” stored in 

the “Radio Equipment, etc.” cabinet in the RRM office, below the radio chargers, for information 

on the basic functions of the GPS unit. For the purposes of raptor monitoring, procedures listed 

below will focus on what is needed to record UTM coordinates in the field. 

Procedures 

Before going into the field, check the battery level of the GPS unit by pushing the 

Power/Backlight Key (with the red light bulb icon on the keypad) until the unit turns on. The 

GPS unit will automatically transfer to the Satellite Status Page; the battery level is illustrated on 

the left side of the screen. If the battery level is less than two-thirds full, take an extra set of 4 

AA batteries into the field with you. The battery door is on the side of the unit opposite the 

keypad, with proper installation of batteries illustrated on the compartment door. Turn the unit 

off by pressing the Power/Backlight Key until the unit turns off. 

• For every raptor observation, including observations en route and at watch spots, take 

GPS coordinates to document the location from which you observed the raptor activity. 

Repeat this process for every raptor observation. 

• Turn on the GPS unit by pressing the Power/Backlight Key until the unit turns on. A 

“warning” page will appear, letting you know that the unit is for general navigation use 

only. Ignore the page and it will disappear after 10 seconds, transferring to the Satellite 

Status Page. The Satellite Status Page depicts satellites (numbered 1 through 32) on the 

left side of the screen, with bars numbered by satellite on the right side. 

• Raise the antenna on the unit so that it is straight up, giving the best possible satellite 

reading to the unit. Above the left side of the screen will read, “Acquiring Sats,” until 3 

or more satellite signals are acquired (illustrated by dark bars on the right side above 

satellite numbers). 

• After 3 or more satellite signals are acquired, the unit automatically transfers to the “Map 

Page.” Ignore this page, and press the Page Key on the keypad 4 times until you return to 

the Satellite Status Page. Wait until you see at least 4 satellite signals received on the 

unit, depicted as 4 dark bars with satellite numbers beneath them. The message on the 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 7.3 

upper left of the screen should change from “2D Navigation” to “3D Navigation,” 

allowing for better satellite coverage and more specific UTM coordinates of the 

observation site for raptor monitoring. Press the Page Key once more, and you will see 

the Position Page. 

• For the purposes of raptor monitoring, focus only on the current position coordinates in 

the lower, left-hand corner of the screen. These will be depicted in UTM coordinates, 

such as, “10 S 0661707, 4037812.” 

• Record these coordinates in your field notes; these will be transferred to the raptor 

database. 

• Turn off the GPS unit by pressing the Power/Backlight Key until the power is off (i.e. 

empty screen). 

A few notes on the Garmin III Plus GPS unit (Figure SOP 7.1): 

• Always turn off the unit after you finish documenting UTM coordinates for a given watch 

spot; the unit does automatically turn off after several minutes without use, but turning it 

off immediately after use will further conserve battery power. 

• Store the unit with a protective cover; even a handkerchief or plastic bag around it will be 

useful. Also, do not leave the unit exposed to rain or extreme heat! 

• Use the unit in an open area, to allow for greater satellite coverage. Most watch spots in 

the park are very open and this condition is easily met. One exception is the Narrows 

territory, a slot canyon up the east fork of Marion Canyon. Documenting UTM 

coordinates for observation points should still be possible, but may take longer than in 

open areas. 

Figure SOP 7. 1. Garmin III Plus GPS unit. 
 SOP 8.1 

SOP 8. Safety Procedures V 1.1 

 

Revision History Log 

Prev. Version 

# 

Revision 

Date 

Author Changes Made Reason for 

Change 

New Version 

# 

 10/2007 M Koenen Initial Draft Address 

comments by 

reviewers 

1.0 

1.0 7/2009 M. Koenen Added JHA Address 

comments by 

reviewers 

1.1 

 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 8.2 

Overview 

This SOP provides safety information related to monitoring prairie falcons at PINN. 

Also see SFAN Field Safety SOP maintained on the GOGA network drive: X:\Shared\Standard 

Operating Procedures\SFAN Field SOPs\Standard Operating Procedures for information on: 

• Emergency Procedures 

• Emergency Contacts for PINN 

• Vehicle Safety 

• Air Quality Guidelines 

• Slippery Substrates 

• Mandatory Safety Equipment 

• Recommended Personal Gear 

Communication 

Raptor technicians should communicate their monitoring destinations to other staff, document 

them on the white board at the RM office entrance, and use two-way radios to communicate their 

travel plans to park law enforcement and Sequoia Dispatch (see SOP 6. Using Portable Radios). 

Reporting Non-Compliance 

Anytime that non-compliance is noted, technicians should not confront are visitors. Instead, 

technicians should report non-compliant activities to law enforcement rangers. Field notes 

including time, location, description of people, and non-compliance activities seen will be 

helpful. This is especially true for non-compliance relating to species of concern in cliff-nesting 

areas: primarily prairie falcons, peregrine falcons, and golden eagles. 

Weather and Field Attire 

Summer conditions can be extremely hot (>100°F) and it is important to dress for and be ready 

for these weather conditions. Because of the possibility of encountering poison oak and general 

uneven terrain encountered off-trail, field personnel should wear long pants and high topped 

hiking boots. Leg gaiters are also recommended to reduce the exposure to poison oak and the 

risk of tick bites during surveys. Since surveys can last longer than anticipated, field personnel 

are encouraged to take extra food and drinking water into the field. 

Field Hazards 

Biting or stinging invertebrates (wasps, spiders, ticks) may be encountered. The bites or stings 

from these animals can be painful, but usually not fatal. If bitten or stung and painful swelling or 

an allergic reaction occurs, seek medical attention immediately. Check your clothing and 

exposed skins frequently when in the field for ticks and upon returning from the field, do a more 

thorough body search for ticks. 

 

Poison oak is found in the study area. Before doing any fieldwork personnel should become 

familiar with the dangers associated with exposure to this native plant. If exposure occurs wash 

thoroughly with soap and rinse with plenty of water upon returning from the field and then apply 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 8.3 

Tecnu® ointment (provided at headquarters). If a strong reaction occurs, seek medical attention 

and alert your supervisor as soon as possible. 

Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) 

The following table is excerpted from the Job Hazard Analysis for raptor monitoring activities at 

Pinnacles National Monument. 

Work Activities Potential Hazards Safe Behaviors 

Office Work- Computer 

use for email and data 

entry.

Muscle and eye strain, 

repetitive stress injury.

Proper posture and use of ergonomic furniture.

 Take breaks every hour. 

Travel to Field Locations 

in Vehicle. 

Driving hazards such 

as accident. 

Use defensive driving techniques. 

 

 Expect oncoming traffic on one-lane roads in 

park. 

 Be alert for foggy conditions. 

 

 Watch for deer, elk and other wildlife, and 

adjust speeds to safely operate around areas of 

high use. 

` Obey traffic laws and wear seatbelt at all times.

 

 Do not drive when fatigued, be familiar with 

route or prepare for unknown route. 

 

 Do not talk on radio or cell phone while 

driving. 

 Do not put hot drinks on your lap. 

 Be familiar with the vehicle and its operation. 

 

 Check gauges, tires, wipers, fluids and replace 

when necessary. 

 

 Check vehicle has spare tires, jumper cable and 

jack with all parts. 

Hiking to work areas on 

trails, routes or off trail 

navigation.

Getting lost. Have map, compass, gps and other navigational 

aids and know how to use them. 

 

Losing a crew 

member/volunteer. 

Travel together when off-trail. 

 

 Make sure both members of the team are aware 

of location, and can find route out if they are 

separated. 

 

 When trail hiking, plan stops at trail junctions 

to regroup. 

 

 Arrange meeting places and times -- all 

crewmembers must wear a watch. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 8.4 

 Have a travel plan for each day and make sure 

it is understood by all crewmembers. 

 Stay in communication via radio or stay in 

sight. 

 Cell phone and/or radio and spare batteries. 

 If lost or disorientated, stay calm, assess 

location by consulting map and landmarks, and 

proceed to nearest road or trail. 

 Do not panic -- Have a mental plan for what to 

do if lost. 

 If injured, stay put and radio dispatch. 

 Loose footing When traveling in areas with steep or unstable 

terrain, stagger your positions so that you are 

not immediately below someone, yell "rock" if 

you dislodge one. 

 Lightning storms In the event of a lightning storm, turn your 

radio off, if near a vehicle, get entirely inside. If

in the out of doors try to do the following: 

separate the group, get off ridge tops and away 

from trees, get as low as possible and if 

possible lie on non-conductive material. 

 Wind storms If it is windy enough to blow small twigs and 

branches out of the trees, try to get out of the 

woods or find an area away from hazard trees. 

 Exposure to cold, wet 

conditions 

Wear proper equipment- and bring extra layers.

 Recognize the signs of hypothermia in yourself 

and others. 

 

 Carry and eat high-calorie foods, stay wellhydrated. 

 

Exposure to heat and 

sun 

Have hat, sunscreen and sunglasses. 

 Overexertion and 

dehydration 

Recognize the signs of dehydration. 

 Take frequent rest stops (15 min per every 2 

hours) and stay hydrated. 

 Injuries due to hiking 

(aches, sprains and 

blisters) 

Pay attention to footing- plan ahead for the 

route to avoid steep, unstable terrain. 

 Use appropriate footwear, boots and socks. 

 Prevent blisters and have blister treatments 

(moleskin, tape etc) accessible. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 8.5 

 Injuries due to falling 

(lacerations, broken 

bones, head injuries) 

Pay particular attention to traveling on steep 

slopes, unstable terrain, through dense 

vegetation, and in foggy conditions. Practice 

fall- arrest techniques (roll on to stomach, dig 

elbow, feet and knees in). 

 Have first aid kit, stabilize injured person, treat 

for shock and know how to initiate rescue via 

radio. 

 Injuries due to 

carrying a heavy pack

Reduce pack weights when possible. 

 Pay attention to how you put your pack on 

(avoid twisting motions- get help or place pack 

on surface or against tree). 

 Make sure your pack is properly fitted and 

balanced. 

Hiking to work areasStream and river 

crossings

Exposure, sprains, 

broken bones, 

drowning 

Avoid swift or deep water crossings by using 

foot or automobile bridges. 

 Be careful on slippery logs and watch footing 

on either side of stream crossing. 

Working in the outdoors Exposure to allergycausing plants and 

insects 

Alert crew members to possible problems with 

allergens. Be alert for toxic plants and alert to 

common bee and wasp nesting habitat and 

activity-especially the person in front. 

 Carry Benadryl, epi-pen or other antihistamine 

 Exposure to toxic 

plants 

Avoid poison oak when possible. Wear longsleeved shirts, long pants, and 

hiking boots. Wash skin exposed to poison oak 

with Tecnu or other appropriate cleaner and 

change clothes if necessary at end of 

day/survey. 

 Do not eat any fungus or plant unless you are 

100% sure it is edible. 

 Exposure to ticks Wear proper attire (long-sleeved shirts and long 

pants) and do frequent tick checks. If bitten by 

black legged tick, properly remove tick and 

monitor general health condition. 

 Exposure to giardia, E. 

coli and other 

pathogens 

Do not drink any water unless it has been 

filtered, boiled or treated in some fashion. 

 Do not create more contaminated areas- urinate 

away from streams and water, dig a cathole for 

solid waste and bury toilet paper. 
Prairie Falcon Monitoring Protocol for the San Francisco Area Network: SOPs 

 SOP 8.6 

 Wash hands when possible and carry hand 

cleaner. 

 Improper nutrition due 

to inappropriate food 

choices 

Bring a variety of healthy, nutritious food that 

will give you good energy during travel and 

work. Do not rely on sugar snacks. 

 Loss of food to ravens, 

raccoons, small 

animals 

Prevent animals from getting into your food by 

not leaving you backpack open or accessible to 

animals. 

 Cougar attack If approached by cougar make yourself large 

and noisy, wave arms, yell, grab a stick. Back 

away from cougars but do not turn and run, 

ever. If attacked, fight back. 

 Strange or aggressive 

human interactions 

Terminate contact with visitor and leave the 

area, contact dispatch (GOGA: 415-561-5656; 

PORE: 415-464-5170 or emergency numbers 

(911). 

Field work Eye strain from 

looking through 

binoculars Take breaks from looking through binoculars. 

 Do not look into the sun; be aware of sun when 

scoping for raptors. 

 Use focus appropriately. 

 Back strain from 

sitting Sit on an even surface; use “crazy creek chair”.

 Take breaks to stand up and stretch. 
 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS 114/104178, June 2010 
 

 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resource Program Center 

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM