U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Monitoring Plan for the 

American Peregrine Falcon 

A Species Recovered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 
Cover Photo: Peregrine falcon chick, Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Photo by Craig 

Koppie, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 
Monitoring Plan for the 

American Peregrine Falcon 

A Species Recovered Under the 

Endangered Species Act 

December 2003 

The Authors 

This plan was written by Michael Green, Robert Mesta, Marie Morin, Michael 

Amaral, Robert Currie, Phil Delphey, Rob Hazlewood, Kathy Hollar, Mary Klee, 

Angela Matz, Martin Miller, and Ted Swem (Appendix A). 

Contact 

Address questions about the monitoring plan to Michael Green, National 

Coordinator, American Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Team, USFWS, Division of 

Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, 911 NE 11th Ave, Portland, 

OR, 97232. michael_green@fws.gov 

Recommended Citation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring Plan for the American 

Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds 

and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp. 

iii 
Table of C ontents


ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS VI


BACKGROUND 1


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


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


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


OBJECTIVE 4


IMPLEMENTATION 5


METHODS 7


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


PEREGRINE STATUS AND MONITORING IN CANADA 14


PEREGRINE STATUS AND MONITORING IN MEXICO 14


CONTAMINANT MONITORING 15


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


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


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


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


DATA EVALUATION 17


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


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


REPORTS 19


FUNDING 20


LITERATURE CITED 21


iv 
APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Authors, National and Regional Coordinators ..................... 28


Appendix B: Reviewers and Cooperators .................................... 31


Appendix C: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form ....................... 35


Appendix D: FWS Regions, Recovery Plan Regions, and Monitoring Plan Regions .. 37


Appendix E: FWS Region Territory Summaries .............................. 38


Appendix F: Calculating Territory Occupancy and Nest Success ................. 42


Appendix G: Collecting, Preparing, and Shipping Egg and Feather Samples ........ 45


LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. FWS, Recovery, and Monitoring Regions ........................... 26


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


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


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


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


v 
Ackno wledgm ents 

This monitoring plan was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 

cooperation with State resource agencies, recovery team members, representatives from 

each FWS Region, the Divisions of Migratory Birds, Endangered Species, and other 

partners. Comments received on previous drafts strengthened this plan in several ways. 

In particular, we acknowledge the statistical assistance of Bob Steidl, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, and the International Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies for 

their assistance distributing the plan for review by State resource agencies. 

In preparation for writing this plan, monitoring data were solicited from individuals 

nationwide (Appendix B). The FWS relied heavily on this information in formulating 

this plan and will continue to rely on this network to achieve its objectives. Post-delisting 

monitoring will be successful only through the same multi-partner cooperation through 

which recovery was accomplished. 

vi 
Background 

The recovery of the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Peregrines) 

following the species’ near total disappearance from much of the United States is a 

remarkable story of cooperation among private and public institutions. Peregrine 

populations were at their lowest in the 1960s and early 1970s, when Peregrines were 

eliminated from the eastern United States and across the Midwest, and reduced to a few 

hundred pairs at most in the western United States and Mexico. Populations in Canada 

and Alaska were probably reduced by 70% or more (Kiff 1988, Enderson et al. 1995). 

The Peregrine was listed as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species 

Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. §§ 1537-1544; see Mesta (1999) for a history of listing actions). Recovery plans 

outlined the goals that were to be reached in four regions of the United States before the 

Peregrine could be considered recovered (USFWS 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1991). Due to a 

ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and to successful captive 

breeding, rearing, and release of over 6,000 Peregrines, there are now over 2,000 pairs 

breeding each year across the United States (White et al. 2002), more than 400 pairs in 

Canada (U. Banasch, pers. commun. Feb. 7, 2003), and an estimated 170 pairs in Mexico 

(Enderson et al. 1995); in addition there are probably as many unpaired “floaters” as 

paired birds across their range (White et al. 2002). As a result of this comeback and 

because other recovery goals such as estimates of productivity, thicker egg-shells, and 

reduced levels of contaminants were nearly completely met in all recovery regions, the 

Peregrine was removed from the FWS List of Threatened and Endangered Species on 

August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46541, Mesta 1999). Population growth has continued since 

delisting (FWS, unpubl. data). 

A. The Current Situation with Environmental Contaminants 

Local and regional data document the continued presence and effects of persistent 

chemical compounds in North American Peregrines. Many studies have documented the 

relationship between concentrations of DDE (a metabolite of DDT) and eggshell thinning 

(Morse 1994, Steidl et al. 1991, Court et al. 1990, Hickey and Anderson 1968). A 20­

year monitoring effort in Alaska suggests that mercury is currently at levels in Peregrines 

that can affect reproduction, and may be increasing over time (Ambrose et al. 2000). In 

Texas, mercury, selenium and perhaps DDE may be contributing to low productivity of 

Peregrines in the Big Bend area (Mora et al. 2002). On the Channel Islands in California, 

analyses of Peregrine eggs yielded notably high organochlorine residues and thin 

eggshells in the early 1990s, the legacy of offshore DDT disposal during the 1940s; eggs 

from six other sites in California and Oregon yielded about half the residue levels found 

in eggs at the Channel Islands (Jarman 1994). On the eastern shore of Virginia and 

Maryland, eggs collected had slightly elevated levels of DDE, dieldrin, and mercury, 

which was associated with reproductive problems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

In New Jersey, concentrations of mercury, DDE, and PCBs in Peregrine eggs were 

theoretically sufficient to impair reproduction, but negative effects on eggshell thickness 

1

and productivity were not apparent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 1997). 

In addition, all Peregrines that winter in countries still using DDT and other pesticides 

may be at risk of accumulating contaminants from their avian prey (Banasch et al. 1992, 

Johnstone et al. 1996), some of which return to nest in the north and are a potential source 

of contaminants for both migratory and nonmigratory Peregrines (Fyfe et al. 1990). In 

spite of these concerns, DDE residues in the blood taken from female Peregrines captured 

between 1978 and 1994 during spring migration at Padre Island, Texas decreased below 

levels that would affect reproduction (Henny et al. 1996). The 1997 North American 

Regional Action Plan, which recommends that the United States, Canada, and Mexico 

cooperate in a phased reduction in the use and distribution of DDT across the continent, 

has been very successful in reducing DDT use in Mexico. It is hoped similar progress 

can be made in other Latin American countries currently using this and other 

bioaccumulating pesticides (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2002). 

Thus, although Peregrines are still accumulating contaminants from their prey, the levels 

are currently low enough to allow for successful reproduction and expansion of the 

population. Nonetheless, the continual introduction of anthropogenic chemicals to the 

environment far outpaces research on their effects on wildlife. Peregrines, as predators, 

remain vulnerable to persistent environmental contaminants. In the final delisting rule, 

we recognized the possible threat that environmental contaminants pose to the sustained 

recovery of this species and stated we would include a contaminant monitoring 

component in the post-delisting monitoring plan. This component is found in the 

Contaminant Monitoring section below. 

B. Peregrine Protections Under Other Laws 

The delisting of Peregrines from ESA did not affect their protection under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The FWS has the legal authority and obligation to regulate 

take of Peregrines under the MBTA. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and 

directed to determine if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds is allowed and to 

adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take (16 U.S.C. § 704). The 

MBTA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Parts 20 and 21) prohibit take (see 

regulations for definition of take). Regulations at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.30 authorize the 

issuance of permits to take, possess, transport and engage in commerce with raptors for 

falconry and for propagation. Other regulations authorize the issuance of permits for 

scientific collecting (50 CFR 21.23), special purposes such as rehabilitation or education 

(50 CFR 21.27), and depredation (50 CFR 21.41). Permits are issued if certain criteria 

are met, including a requirement that the issuance will not threaten a wildlife population 

(50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)). In addition, issuance of raptor propagation permits requires that 

we consider whether suitable captive stock is available and whether wild stock is needed 

to enhance the genetic variability of captive stock. Since delisting, there is renewed 

interest in taking Peregrines for falconry. Thus, in cooperation with State wildlife 

2

agencies, the FWS is analyzing the effects on Peregrine populations of taking wild 

Peregrines for falconry, and developing guidelines for falconry take. 

The delisting rule (Mesta 1999) discussed existing protections to Peregrines that continue 

despite delisting under ESA, such as those offered by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136) for new and existing pesticide registration and use; 

the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600); and the Federal Land 

Management and Policy Act (43 U.S.C. 1701). Peregrines also are protected by State 

laws, many of which continue to list the species as threatened or endangered. States may 

have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife than Federal laws, including restrictions on 

use for falconry (50 CFR 21.29(b)). Peregrines are also protected internationally by the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES). This treaty was established to prevent international trade that may be 

detrimental to the survival of plants and animals. Peregrines were included in Appendix I 

of CITES on July 1, 1975. 

C. The Delisting Monitoring Requirement of ESA 

Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

...implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively 

for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered 

to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act [the ESA] 

are no longer necessary... . 

In keeping with this mandate, the FWS developed this plan in cooperation with State 

wildlife or natural resource agencies (States), recovery team members, and other 

cooperators. It has received extensive review by independent experts. A 30-day public 

comment period was opened with the publication of a Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register on July 31, 2001 (66 FR 39523), and again on September 27, 2001 (66 

FR 49395). The Federal Register notices and the plan were also posted on the FWS 

Endangered Species Program’s web page (http://endangered.fws.gov). Meanwhile, the 

FWS continued to collect and compile data from existing monitoring efforts by States to 

track continued Peregrine recovery after delisting. Monitoring in association with this 

plan was initiated in 2002 as a limited, pilot program. A revised draft was distributed 

within the FWS for comment, to monitoring cooperators, and to the International 

Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies on November 22, 2002, for their distribution 

to States for review. On January 13, 2003, this same version was distributed to 

individuals and organizations who commented on earlier versions. This version of the 

plan is based on data collected in 2002, from experience gained while administering a 

nationwide monitoring program in 2002, and on comments by States and other 

cooperators on earlier versions of the plan. This version of the plan, and FWS responses 

to comments on earlier versions, are posted on both the FWS Endangered Species web 

page (http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/peregrine) and on the Migratory Birds web 

3

page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov). Any revisions and reports will also be available on 

the web. 

While it is the mandate of the FWS to monitor Peregrines for not less than five years after 

delisting, in cooperation with States, it should be clear from the outset that the FWS itself 

will collect only a fraction of the data to fulfill that mandate. The successful 

implementation of this plan relies on a large number of existing Peregrine monitoring 

efforts designed and implemented by States, other Federal agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and individuals. The FWS intends to support and facilitate these existing 

efforts and to standardize data collection protocols (detailed below) for a randomly 

selected subset of nesting territories in each region. It will be necessary to initiate new 

monitoring efforts in only a few states in 2003. The result will be a collaborative network 

of governmental and non-governmental partners contributing to this nationwide effort. 

Ultimately, however, the FWS is responsible for the successful implementation of this 

monitoring plan. 

Objective 

This cooperative plan is primarily designed to detect declines in territory occupancy, nest 

success, and productivity in six regions across the United States. Regional data for all 

population measures will be combined to examine trends nationwide. Territory 

occupancy, nest success, and productivity all are indices of population health. Estimates 

of all three indices were very low between 1950 and 1980 when Peregrine populations 

declined severely, but rebounded during population recovery (Cade et al. 1988, Enderson 

et al. 1995, Mesta 1999, White et al. 2002). 

Data will be collected from a randomly selected subset of Peregrine territories for five 

sampling periods, at three-year intervals, with full implementation to begin in 2003 and 

end in 2015. The plan is designed to achieve an 80% probability ($ = 0.20) of detecting a 

decline of 12.5 percentage points in territory occupancy and nest success after the first 

sampling occasion with a Type I error rate of 10% (" = 0.10; i.e., there is a 10% chance 

that the data will indicate a declining trend in nest success or territory occupancy greater 

than 12.5 percentage points when, in fact, there is no such decline occurring). Smaller 

declines will be detectable over subsequent sampling occasions. Productivity will be 

measured from the same subset of territories. Rates of productivity typical of expanding 

or stable populations average between 1.0 and 2.0 young per occupied territory (refs. in 

White et al. 2002), and most historical and recent productivity estimates fall within that 

range (Hickey 1942, Mesta 1999). Thus, data from the first two sampling seasons will be 

compared to this range; trends will be measurable thereafter. The FWS will also request 

and synthesize population and territory location data collected by States and other 

partners and report this information with a regional perspective for years that fall in 

between the monitoring years suggested by this plan. Finally, we will collect addled eggs 

and feather samples and archive these for later analysis of contaminant levels in 

4

Peregrines nationwide if information indicates that contaminants may be causing a 

significant population decline. 

The FWS will receive data collected by States, other agencies, and partners across the 

nation, and will analyze these after each monitoring effort; we will propose adjustments 

to the sampling design if necessary. The plan is designed to detect declines in regional 

Peregrine populations that might arise from a variety of threats, including but not limited 

to environmental contaminants and disease (such as West Nile Virus). If these data or 

other substantial information indicate that this species is experiencing significant regional 

decreases in territory occupancy, nest success, or productivity, the FWS will initiate more 

intensive review or studies to determine the cause, and to determine whether or not to 

relist the species under ESA § 4(b)(7). 

Implementation 

Region 1 of the FWS has the lead for this monitoring effort. On October 1, 2002, 

primary lead within the Region transferred from the Division of Endangered Species to 

the Division of Migratory Birds and State Programs, although the two Divisions will 

continue to cooperate on implementation of the monitoring plan. A FWS team 

comprising a National Coordinator and coordinators from each of the FWS Regions 

(Regional Coordinators) was established to finalize and implement the monitoring plan 

(Appendix A). 

The role of the National Coordinator is to: 

• convene the team to finalize and update the monitoring plan, as needed; 

• provide guidance to the Regional Coordinators; 

•	 publish the Notice of Availability for the monitoring plan in the Federal 

Register and on the Endangered Species and Migratory Birds web 

sites; 

•	 distribute the plan to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and also to the 

Assistant Directors for Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds 

and State Programs, State resource agency directors, and 

cooperators; 

•	 plan, implement, and analyze the surveys, and summarize monitoring 

results in cooperation with States and other cooperators; 

• prepare interim and final reports; 

•	 organize meetings as necessary to evaluate and plan monitoring efforts 

with Regional, State, and other cooperators; 

•	 publish a Notice of Availability for the interim and final reports in the 

Federal Register and on the Endangered Species and Migratory 

Birds web sites; 

5

•	 provide copies to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and also to the 

Assistant Directors for Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds 

and State Programs, State resource agency directors, and 

cooperators; 

• make recommendations based on survey results; 

•	 report each year to the FWS Director, Regional Directors, and the 

Assistant Directors for Endangered Species and Migratory Birds 

and State Programs, and State resource agency directors on the 

status of the monitoring plan; 

• organize and submit regional budget requests to sources within the FWS; 

• seek partnerships with other agencies to implement the plan; 

•	 seek funding opportunities to complete analyses of samples collected for 

contaminant monitoring. 

The role of Regional Coordinators is to: 

•	 establish or maintain a network of cooperators who monitor Peregrines 

within their FWS Region; 

•	 participate in established regional working group meetings, or establish a 

regional working group, as necessary, to assist in the planning and 

implementation of the triennial surveys; 

•	 coordinate with tribes to monitor the randomly selected territories on tribal 

lands; 

•	 seek partnerships with tribes, governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations within the FWS Region to implement 

the plan; 

• make recommendations to the monitoring team based on survey results; 

• coordinate the collection and compilation of regional survey results; 

•	 provide monitoring results to the National Coordinator for inclusion into 

the interim and final reports by November 1 of the survey year; 

•	 ensure that monitoring data are collected using methods that meet the 

requirements of this monitoring plan; 

•	 inform tribes, States, and other cooperators which territories have been 

selected by the random draw for each State; 

•	 determine budget requirements to carry out monitoring in their FWS 

Region and help secure potential funding from cooperators; 

•	 submit regional funding needs to the National Coordinator, and assist in 

distributing funds to the cooperators; 

•	 coordinate contaminant monitoring within FWS Regions (ensure that 

collection protocols are followed, collection activities are properly 

permitted, and specimens are transferred to the designated 

archiving facility). 

Monitoring already occurs in most states with breeding Peregrines where it is carried out 

by States, some Federal agencies, private organizations, and many individuals. In only a 

few areas will new monitoring efforts begin as a result of this monitoring plan. Regional 

6

coordinators have been working with, and will continue to work with, all of the 

cooperators leading these efforts both established and new. 

Methods 

Territories will be monitored for occupancy, nest success, and productivity in six 

monitoring regions every three years, starting in 2003 and ending in 2015. Parameter 

estimates will be compared to values in the scientific literature considered indicative of 

healthy populations after each sampling period and again at the conclusion of the entire 

monitoring period. 

A. Parameters and Definitions 

Data on occupancy, nest success, and productivity will be collected at each territory 

randomly selected for monitoring. Different States have used different definitions for 

terms such as “Active” or “Occupied” territories, but for the purposes of this postdelisting monitoring plan, the following definitions will be used: 

•	 Occupied Territory - a territory where either a pair of Peregrines is present 

(two adults or an adult/subadult mixed pair), or there is evidence of 

reproduction [e.g., one adult is observed sitting low in the nest, eggs or 

young are seen, or food is delivered into eyrie (nest site)]. Occupancy for 

a territory must be established for at least one of two, and possibly more, 

4-hour site visits. Occupancy within a region is the number of occupied 

territories divided by the number of territories that were checked for 

occupancy. 

•	 Nest Success - the proportion of occupied territories in a monitoring 

region in which one or more young $ 28 days old is observed, with age 

determined following guidelines in Cade et al. (1996). 

•	 Productivity - the number of young observed at $ 28 days old per occupied 

territory, averaged across a monitoring region. 

Typically productivity is determined when nestlings have reached at least 80% of average 

age of fledging (Steenhof 1987) – 34 days in the case of Peregrines, which fledge about 

43 days after hatching. Determining the number of young in a nest with absolute 

certainty is often difficult unless observers actually visit the eyrie (e.g., when banding 

young). Thus, for measuring productivity, this plan encourages observers to spend the 

time necessary to count as many young as possible. This definition of productivity 

allows that some young might not be observed during the final nest visit, resulting in an 

underestimate of productivity. Nonetheless, productivity defined in this way remains a 

more informative index of breeding performance than nest success alone. We will 

7

continue to use all three measures, territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity to 

assess population health. 

Cade et al. (1996) recommend banding nestling Peregrines at 21 to 35 days old; older 

nestlings are more likely to scramble away and potentially be injured or killed in the 

process, and younger chicks are difficult to differentiate by sex. The 28-day minimum 

nestling age we have set to determine nest success and productivity allows banders about 

six days in which to band nestlings and contribute productivity data. If workers band 

birds before day 28, an additional visit on or after day 28 would be necessary to count 

nestlings for this parameter. We acknowledge that some nestling mortality occurs 

between 28 days of age and fledging; for this reason, both measures of breeding success 

may be overestimates (Steenhof 1987). 

The sample data form in Appendix C includes the minimum data requested for this 

monitoring effort. 

B. Monitoring Regions 

The six monitoring regions in this plan follow FWS Region boundaries, but combine 

FWS Region 3 in the Midwest and Region 5 in the Northeast. These monitoring regions 

are similar to the original four recovery regions, except that the Rocky 

Mountain/Southwest recovery region is split into FWS Regions 2 and 6, and the Eastern 

recovery region is split by FWS Region 4 (Figure 1 and Appendix D). We made 

additional boundary adjustments to the original recovery regions to align monitoring 

regions with FWS Regions, particularly in Great Plains states, where there are few known 

breeding Peregrines. Since the recovery of Peregrines was based upon reaching recovery 

goals in designated recovery regions, it seemed prudent to monitor population trends at 

the same, or finer, geographic scale. Splitting the original recovery regions into the 

smaller FWS Regions reflects local and regional concerns within those FWS Regions, 

and administrative convenience. Administratively, the responsibility for implementing 

this monitoring plan will be from within FWS Regions working closely with States and 

other cooperators. 

The monitoring regions follow: 

• Pacific (FWS Region 1): CA, ID, NV, OR, WA; 

• Southwestern (FWS Region 2): AZ, NM, TX, and OK; 

•	 Rocky Mountain/Great Plains (FWS Region 6): CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, 

SD, UT, WY; 

•	 Midwestern/Northeastern (FWS Regions 3 and 5): IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, 

MO, OH, WI, CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, 

VA; 

• Southeastern (FWS Region 4): GA, KY, NC, SC, TN; and 

• Interior Alaska (FWS Region 7): AK. 

8 
C. Frequency and Duration of Sampling 

The Monitoring Team chose to monitor Peregrines five times at three-year intervals, 

beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015 (i.e., sampling will occur in 2003, 2006, 2009, 

2012, and 2015). Five monitoring periods meets the requirement of ESA (to monitor 

“...for not less than five years...”); the three-year interval spreads the monitoring over 13 

years, reflecting our concern for the long-term future of the Peregrine. 

The Peregrine population currently is secure; the population continues to increase as it 

has for 30 years (Figure 2). The Monitoring Team believes this trend will continue at 

least over the short-term. The long-term future is less certain; although the threat to 

Peregrines from some contaminants has been controlled, we believe that contaminants 

still pose the most likely future threat to Peregrine populations. They have a 

demonstrated vulnerability to contaminants, exposure to contaminants still occurs, and 

future compounds might pose a risk to Peregrines (see The Current Situation with 

Environmental Contaminants, above). Population-level effects from contaminants are 

likely to take place over a relatively long- rather than short-term. Monitoring every year 

over the long-term would be unnecessary in the face of increasing population trends and 

it would be costly. In the end, monitoring 5 times at 3 year intervals over 13 years will 

provide sufficient comparative data and trend information on territory occupancy, nest 

success and productivity to measure effects from what we believe to be the most likely 

potential threats to Peregrines, contaminants. 

At the end of the 13-year monitoring plan the FWS will review all available information 

to determine if continuation of monitoring is appropriate (see Reports, below). As a point 

of reference, Canada has been monitoring nest site occupancy and productivity of 

Peregrines every five years since 1970 and populations continue to expand in Canada as 

in the United States (Rowell et al. 2003). 

D. Sample Size 

The minimum number of territories to sample per monitoring region is based on territory 

occupancy and nest success data collected mainly over the past four years (1999-2002) 

from Peregrine territories across the nation (Appendix E). These data were collected 

separately by Regional Coordinators from their networks of cooperators. Nationwide, the 

occupancy rate for territories occupied at least once since 1999 was 84%, ranging from an 

average of 75% to 94% among regions (Appendix F). For occupied territories, nest 

success was 68% nationwide (61% - 73%, Appendix F). These estimates of territory 

occupancy and nest success compare well with rates estimated for populations thought to 

be healthy (70-90% for territory occupancy, 45-66% for nest success, summarizing pre1955 or post-1985 data from Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974, and 

Ratcliffe 1993). In contrast, when Peregrine populations were in serious decline during 

the 1950s and 1960s, rates of territory occupancy and nest success were at or near zero in 

some regions. For example, it was believed that not a single Peregrine fledged in the 

northeast United States in 1962 (Hickey and Anderson 1969). Further, the once healthy 

9

Hudson River population ceased reproducing by 1950 and most sites were unoccupied by 

the mid-1950s (Herbert and Herbert 1969). By 1965 only 33% of known territories in the 

Rocky Mountains remained occupied (Enderson 1969). In Canada and Alaska, territory 

occupancy was 50% or less in the 1970s (Enderson et al. 1995). Ratcliffe (1993) 

demonstrated a similar decline in nest success and territory occupancy in Great Britain 

during in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as recovery since 1980. 

Estimates of nest success from 1999-2002 (68%) and from the period of population 

decline provide upper and lower limits within which we would expect North American 

Peregrines to perform. Because the nationwide estimate of nest success, 68%, is lower 

than territory occupancy, 84%, and was similar across the seven FWS Regions (61% ­

73%, Appendix F), we used this estimate of nest success to establish sample sizes for 

each monitoring region. Considering historical and current rates, we decided that if nest 

success declined to 55% or less (a drop of 13 percentage points), there would be cause for 

concern in the short-term. 

To establish sample sizes, we chose a decline of 12.5 percentage points as a short-term 

monitoring target to represent a potential decline from 68% to 55%. We established the 

rate at which we are willing to accept Type II errors ($) at 20% (or equivalently, power = 

80%) and the rate at which we are willing to accept Type I errors (") at 10%1

. Using 

these constants, we determined that 72 occupied territories per monitoring region would 

need to be checked to detect a drop of 12.5 percentage points or more in nest success 

from current levels (i.e., 68%) with 80% power. We know, however, that on average, 

75% or more territories are occupied in any given year [the range among regional 

averages is 75% (Region 2) to 94% (Region 7) Appendix F]; thus to achieve a sample 

size of 72 occupied territories, we need to check 96 territories in each region (72 ÷ 0.75). 

(Average territory occupancy in Region 2 varied between 67% and 80% from 1999 

through 2002, but these data are considered underestimates for several reasons; thus we 

determined that a sample size calculated from the average, rather than the minimum 

territory occupancy estimate in Region 2, was a reasonable approach.) This sample size 

will allow somewhat greater power to detect a drop of 12.5 percentage points or more in 

territory occupancy than it will for nest success. 

The minimum sample size of 96 territories per monitoring region applies to four of the 

six monitoring regions. The Southeastern monitoring region has only 18 known 

1 – We considered the practical and biological implications of various levels of Type 1 (") and Type 2 

($) errors, and of the magnitudes of declines we wished to detect establishing numbers of territories to monitor. The 

55% n est success tar get is lowe r than exp ected of h ealthy po pulations , higher tha n that of po pulations during th eir 

declines in DDT years, and similar to tha t of a recov ering po pulation in southeas tern Arizo na (58% ; Ellis 1988 ). 

The team thus decided that if nest success declined to 55% we would be concerned, and some management action 

should b e initiated. A strategy recommended when designing monitoring programs for species of conservation 

interest is to minimize $ (the chance of m issing a decline) versus " (the chan ce of wro ngly de terminin g a declin e is 

occurrin g) (Steidl et al. 1 997). T he mo nitoring tea m decid ed that $ = 20% and " = 10% were reasonable levels for 

monito ring at the re gional sca le, unders tanding that $ will be smaller (and power high er) if actual declines in these 

param eters are hig her than r ates establishe d. Furthe r, when data from regions a re com bined fo r analysis, po wer will 

be higher, and thus the ability to detect smaller declines in nest success will increase. 

10 
territories, and all will be monitored. Therefore, noting declines in population parameters 

in this region is not as dependent on sampling because all territories, rather than some 

proportion, will be monitored each monitoring year. FWS Region 7 will continue to 

monitor Peregrines along portions of both the Tanana and Yukon rivers as an index of 

regional population trends; the study area contained 92 territories in 2002. Similarly, all 

Peregrine territories are currently being monitored in the Midwestern/Northeastern 

region, so territories randomly selected for this plan are a subset of what is actually being 

monitored in this region. Summing all monitoring regions, the minimum number of 

territories sampled across the nation will be about 494 in 2003. 

E. Analyses 

Territory occupancy and nest success data will be compared to the regional and 

nationwide estimates from 1999 to 2002; territory occupancy nationwide was estimated at 

84% and ranged from 75% to 94%, and nest success nationwide was estimated at 68% 

and ranged from 61% to 73% (Appendix F). Declines from sample estimates and these 

target values greater than 13 percentage points will trigger a response by the FWS (see 

the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below). Additionally, to determine 

whether or not the estimated sample percentages for nest success and occupancy are 

unusual compared to the target values of each, instead of performing a statistical test we 

will instead calculate a 90% confidence interval on each estimated sample percentage 

(Steidl et al. 1997). If the regional or nationwide target value is included within the 

confidence interval, we will conclude the observed proportion is within normal range and 

take no action. If the upper confidence bound falls below the target value, we will 

conclude the observed proportion is lower than normal, and take some action (see the 

Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below). 

Productivity data will be compared to recent state and local estimates, as well as to 

historical rates. Recent productivity data from recovery regions in the United States 

ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 young per territorial pair (Mesta 1999). Historical rates of 

productivity for various regions of the United States range from 0.7 to 1.5 young per 

occupied site (Hickey 1942). Productivity reported during the period of decline was near 

zero (Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974). Ratcliffe (1993) suggests 

that when productivity drops to # 0.8 young per pair and remains low for several years, 

reproduction is low enough to affect recruitment into the breeding population. Hunt 

(1998) modeled population dynamics of Peregrines under various rates of adult mortality 

and juvenile survival. Peregrine populations are at least stable when productivity is from 

1.0 to 2.0 young per pair, adult mortality is < 15% and juvenile mortality is < 70%; these 

productivity figures are consistent with estimates in expanding or stable populations in 

the United States (Corser et al. 1999, Mesta 1999, Hayes and Buchanan 2002). Regional 

or national estimates of productivity that fall below 1.0 young per pair will initiate a 

special review (see the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below). 

After the completion of three sampling periods (in 2009), we will be able to expand the 

analyses to include trends in rates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity. 

11

Additional analyses might also be appropriate. For example, regional data might be 

combined to examine rates and trends for the entire nation. With a nationwide sample of 

494 territories, an analysis of territory occupancy and nest success will have greater 

statistical power to detect smaller declines at the national level than is possible at the 

regional level. 

Nationwide, the random selection of territories will include both territories with eyries on 

manmade structures and on natural features; to the extent allowed by the data we will 

evaluate the implications of these differences in nest location on territory occupancy, nest 

success, and productivity. If an analysis of the data show declining trends or cause for 

concern, then the FWS, States and other cooperators will evaluate why this might be the 

case (see the Data Evaluation - Response Triggers section, below). 

F. Territory Selection 

In 2003 the monitoring team selected territories randomly from the pool of territories 

within a monitoring region known to have been occupied at least once from 1999 through 

2002 (during or after the delisting year 1999). (Data from 1997 contributed to the pool 

for Arizona, which lacks more recent data.) The Regional Coordinators obtained these 

data from a variety of cooperators. The FWS did not request and does not have 

geographic coordinates for these territories; specific location information is maintained 

separately by States and other partners. 

Territories monitored after 2003 (i.e., in 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015) will either be all of 

the same randomly chosen territories from 2003, a new randomly chosen set, or a mixture 

of the two (as recommended in the Mexican Spotted Owl recovery plan, USFWS 1995). 

Monitoring the same set of territories each sampling year would add efficiency and 

reduce bias as monitors become more familiar with the selected territories over time. 

Following the 2003 season and after initial data analyses, the monitoring team, working 

in cooperation with States, will propose a method for selecting territories to monitor in 

2006 and all subsequent sampling years. 

The Southeastern and Interior Alaska monitoring regions are special cases. The numbers 

of territories are so few, and the level of interest and cooperation so high in the 

Southeastern region, that the FWS, other Federal agencies, States, and cooperators will 

monitor all known territories to the extent possible (18 active territories known as of 

2002). In Alaska, the current monitoring effort is a count along stretches of two rivers 

(Ambrose and Riddle 1988); this sample is used as an index of the larger population (ca. 

1,000 breeding pairs) in a region where most sites are remote and ground access to eyries 

is a challenge. 

In four monitoring regions, the following minimum number of territories were randomly 

selected. In the Interior Alaska monitoring region, the sample comprises territories along 

2 river systems, and in the Southeast monitoring region the entire population is 

monitored: 

12

• Pacific: 96 territories; 

• Southwestern: 96 territories; 

• Rocky Mountains: 96 territories; 

• Midwestern/Northeastern: 96 territories; 

• Southeastern: 18 territories (in 2002); and 

•	 Interior Alaska: a sample of territories along stretches of 2 rivers (48 on 

the Yukon and 44 on the Tanana rivers in 2002). 

G. Monitoring Protocol 

During each sampling iteration, each randomly selected territory will be visited two or 

more times to determine occupancy, nest success, and productivity. Visits to the territory 

will be timed appropriately for the geographic areas. The first visit will occur during late 

courtship, egg laying, or early incubation to determine occupancy; a second visit will 

occur during the early nestling stage to determine the age of the nests, or to check the 

‘unoccupied’ status of territories still in question; and a third visit (or more) will be made 

to occupied territories during the late nestling stage, when young are 28-42 days old to 

determine nest success and productivity. Even if no evidence of territory occupancy is 

found in the first four hour visit, a second visit of four hours (ideally three to four weeks 

later) is required for the territory to be deemed unoccupied. During all visits, the number 

and age (adult or subadult) of Peregrines seen in the territory should be recorded, with 

behavioral or physical evidence of breeding activity if observed. Peregrines sometimes 

have alternate nest sites within a single territory. If the territory checked does not appear 

to be occupied, some realistic survey effort should be expended to try and locate potential 

alternate nest sites within the territory. 

Nest monitoring will be done during favorable weather conditions by observers familiar 

with Peregrine nesting behavior. Observers should avoid flushing incubating Peregrines, 

and should not monitor during poor weather (e.g., heavy rain, snow, high winds), when 

disturbance of incubation could alter the outcome of the nest. If possible, observations 

should occur when Peregrines are likely to be most active; in some areas this is just prior 

to dark or at first light (Fuller and Mosher 1987). Observers must minimize stress to the 

Peregrines caused by their presence, and observation posts, in general, should be far 

enough from the nest so as to not elicit sustained territorial behavior from either adult 

[150 - 1700 meters is recommended (Pagel 1992), although closer approach might be 

tolerated by some pairs, particularly in urban settings]. Observers must have appropriate 

equipment, such as good binoculars, a high quality portable spotting scope, or both. 

Chick age can be determined by reference to Cade et al. (1996; available through The 

Peregrine Fund); this reference has a great deal of additional, helpful survey techniques 

and recommendations. Field notebooks are recommended for detailed field notes. The 

minimum information to be recorded is on the Sample Data Form, Appendix C. Regional 

working groups should convene before the monitoring program is initiated to develop a 

standard logistical protocol for collecting survey data within their monitoring region, if 

necessary. Data collected should be forwarded to the Regional Coordinator for that 

region. 

13

States, FWS Regions, and private programs are encouraged to continue to monitor all 

known Peregrine nesting territories if they are doing so already, and not limit their 

monitoring to the randomly selected territories as in this plan. Many States, some Federal 

agencies, and other partners annually monitor occupancy, nest success, and productivity, 

and they conduct searches for new territories, band and color-mark chicks, collect prey 

remains and unhatched eggs, and trap adults. Through Regional Coordinators, the FWS 

National Coordinator will request population data collected and new territory locations 

found in years that fall between the monitoring years described in this plan. The FWS 

will synthesize these data and report this information with a regional perspective for years 

that fall between the monitoring years suggested in this plan. We also anticipate that 

some States will contribute or conduct other research. These efforts are encouraged, as 

they will contribute to our understanding of the population status of Peregrines. 

Peregrine Status and Monitoring in Canada 

The Canadian Wildlife Service coordinates a national Peregrine population survey once 

every five years and will conduct three surveys (2005, 2010 and 2015) during the 12-year 

monitoring period. Observers in Canada make one or two visits to known territories to 

determine territory occupancy and, if possible, productivity data. In remote locations in 

some Provinces territories are monitored by helicopter, and only once per season. These 

visits are timed to coincide with the nestling stage so a count of nestlings can be made. 

Observers are encouraged to note additional potential habitat and territories while in the 

field for future monitoring. The breeding population in Canada is now estimated at over 

400 pairs (U. Banasch, pers. commun Feb. 7, 2003). The results of these national surveys 

will be considered when evaluating the status of Peregrines in North America. 

Peregrine Status and Monitoring in Mexico 

There are no systematic surveys of Peregrines in Mexico. Mesta (1999) summarizes what 

little information exists on the current status of the species breeding south of the United 

States border. Local data suggest some populations underwent similar declines and are 

recovering as in the United States and Canada. Enderson et al. (1995) estimated 170 

pairs nest in Mexico. Contaminants are more of a concern in Mexico than in the United 

States. As a result of tri-national agreements Mexico is phasing out the use of DDT, but 

use of this and other persistent organic pollutants continues in other Latin American 

countries (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2002); contaminants continue to 

be a concern for Peregrines breeding south of the United States border and for others 

migrating through countries that continue to use bio-accumulating contaminants. 

14

Contaminant Monitoring 

The scientific community widely accepts that exposure to environmental contaminants 

was the single factor that caused the near extirpation of Peregrines from North America, 

and restrictions on the use of persistent organochlorine compounds in the United States 

and Canada allowed Peregrines and other predatory birds to recover. As a result, 

recovery goals in two regions included measures of eggshell thickness; in one of these 

(Alaska), recovery goals also included contaminant loads in eggs (Mesta 1999). 

In spite of restrictions on their use, Peregrines continue to accumulate persistent 

organochlorine pesticides and other compounds, both domestically and in countries 

through which they migrate or winter (see above, The Current Situation with 

Environmental Contaminants). Further, the continual introduction of anthropogenic 

chemicals to the environment requires vigilance and monitoring of vulnerable wildlife, 

especially predators at the top of the food chain such as Peregrines. 

This section provides a plan for monitoring loads of past, current, or emerging 

contaminants of concern in Peregrines. Samples will be collected in conjunction with 

population monitoring as described below and in Appendix G. Federal and State permits 

are required to collect samples. Contact FWS Regional Coordinators for more 

information. 

We believe that monitoring territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity will 

adequately achieve the objectives of ESA requirements for post-delisting monitoring. 

However, we are including a contaminants monitoring component to develop a 

contaminants record that will be available for analysis if information indicates that 

contaminants may be implicated in a significant population decline. Nonetheless, we will 

continue to seek funds for contemporary analysis, regardless of whether or not a 

population decline occurs. 

A. Egg Samples 

A variety of sample types have been used for contaminants monitoring. Eggs can be 

analyzed for at least two major classes of contaminants: persistent organic pollutants 

such as DDT and its metabolite DDE, other organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins; and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury. When 

combined with adequate productivity data, egg contaminants data can be used to assess 

population-level reproductive effects. Eggshell thickness, which was affected by DDE, is 

routinely measured on eggs collected for contaminants. Thickness data are compared to 

pre-DDT era thickness from museum specimens or other reference populations, and can 

be correlated with DDE levels in the sampled eggs. 

Eggs can be collected opportunistically during nest visits, either as “fresh” eggs during 

incubation or as unhatched “addled” eggs during the nestling stage. At this time, only 

15

addled eggs will be collected for monitoring, to avoid removing potentially viable eggs. 

Regardless of timing of collection, embryo development will be noted for all eggs 

collected (among other data, including egg shell thickness; Appendix G). 

B. Feather Samples 

Metals and organic contaminants can be measured in blood, but in general the sample 

volumes required and the relatively invasive technique preclude widespread use of this 

matrix. Feathers (excluding natal down) can be analyzed for metals. With consistent 

collection (identical feathers from same-age Peregrines), nestling feathers (excluding 

natal down) reflect natal area contaminant exposure. Therefore, regional projects which 

include nest visits for banding purposes should also include collection of nestling 

feathers. 

To collect feathers, the largest nestling (which is often the nestling with the most 

advanced feather development) will be the only nestling sampled per nest. Up to 1.5 cm 

of the distal part of the 4th secondary wing feather, from one side only, will be removed 

using clean stainless steel scissors. Care must be taken to not cut the follicle, which is 

vascularized, and therefore prone to bleeding, during feather development. The sample 

will be stored in polyethylene collection envelopes such as Whirlpak® envelopes, then 

transferred to a central storage facility. Collectors will fill out standardized data forms, 

which will include the date, collector, nest identification and location (latitude and 

longitude or UTM), the band number, and whether the sample was collected from the left 

or right side of the nestling. 

C. Sample Size 

Based on comprehensive monitoring in Alaska (Ambrose et al. 2000), an adequate 

sample size and interval for samples is 15-20 (addled eggs or feathers) collected over a 

period of no more than five years. Because the number of available samples may be 

variable and low in any one year, both sample types should always be collected 

opportunistically by States and others engaged in permitted activities requiring nest visits 

(such as banding nestlings), but, at a minimum, samples should be collected in every 

monitoring region in every monitoring year. Samples will be archived at the central 

storage facility (Appendix G). 

Regional Coordinators are responsible for coordinating collection of a minimum of 20 

addled eggs and 20 clipped feathers from nestlings of banding age by September 2009 

(the end of the third population monitoring year), and again by September 2015 (the end 

of the monitoring period). Regional coordinators will also ensure that collection 

protocols are followed and that collection activities are properly permitted, provide 

interstate coordination within regions, and coordinate transfer of specimens to a central 

location. Regions or States already engaged in contaminants analyses are encouraged to 

coordinate their activities and match protocols. The plan recognizes that some regions 

16

may find it difficult to meet minimum sample sizes due to low numbers of nesting pairs, 

but each region should strive to meet collection goals. 

D. Funding and Analyses 

Samples will be chemically analyzed contingent upon funding. Efforts to fully fund 

contaminants analyses will occur regardless of the results of the population monitoring 

efforts. Negative trends or significant drops in regional or national population indices 

will initiate a considerably more pointed effort to find funding, and stimulate more 

funding opportunities. Regardless, funding procurement will require additional 

coordination among FWS Regional Coordinators, FWS Environmental Contaminants 

Specialists, States, and other cooperators. When funding is secured, eggs will be 

analyzed at a minimum for metals and organochlorines, and feathers for metals, 

according to contractual specifications developed by the FWS Environmental Quality 

Division in conjunction with chemists at the Patuxent Analytical Control Facility 

(PACF). Current lists (and costs at FWS contract laboratories) are available through 

PACF (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pacf/). 

Levels of contaminant loading will be compared to measures of reproductive performance 

at national and regional scales and to published data or thresholds (e.g., as in Peakall et al. 

1990), and contaminant loading levels will be analyzed for regional and national trends 

and variation, with specific analyses dependent upon sample sizes (regional and national) 

and levels of contamination. Additional chemical or biological analyses may be pursued 

based upon regional or emerging contaminant concerns. 

Data Evaluation 

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

The FWS, in cooperation with the States, will evaluate the monitoring results to 

determine whether or not the results suggest that a more detailed analysis of the status of 

Peregrines, the monitoring protocol, or both, is necessary. After each triennial 

monitoring year, Regional Coordinators will work with the States to compile the 

monitoring results for their respective monitoring region, evaluate the results, and prepare 

a written assessment. This assessment will include a summary of the monitoring data, 

state whether any of the parameters fell below the “response triggers” shown below, 

determine whether or not the data collection protocols are functioning as anticipated and 

whether or not any changes are needed, and include an initial determination of any threats 

that may warrant further evaluation by the national monitoring team. In addition, the 

FWS will analyze and summarize regional data it receives from States and other 

cooperators in the years between formal surveys. 

17

After completion of these triennial (or more frequent) assessments for each monitoring 

region, the national monitoring team will convene to review the assessments. At that 

time, the national team will determine whether any action is necessary to respond to the 

‘triggers’ described below and to review any other significant issues raised by the FWS or 

States in the regional summaries. In response to any significant issues, the national team 

would consult with regional or national experts to: 

•	 increase the sensitivity of the sampling protocol to detect national or 

regional declines in any of the parameters by, for example, 

increasing sample sizes; 

•	 design research that would determine causes of low parameter values or 

declines in productivity; 

•	 work with States, tribes, or other entities to exercise their regulatory 

authorities to alleviate known or suspected threats; 

•	 conduct regional or national status assessment(s) to evaluate the 

significance of threats to Peregrines; 

• evaluate proposing Peregrines for relisting under the ESA; or, 

•	 evaluate whether or not to list Peregrines under the emergency provisions 

of the ESA. 

The “response triggers” shown below would not automatically prompt a proposal to relist 

Peregrines under the ESA, because not all declines in population parameters or declines 

in productivity would indicate that listing under the ESA would be warranted. Weather, 

for example, might cause temporary declines in either territory occupancy, nest success, 

productivity, or all of these parameters over an entire region, and in more than one 

monitoring season. Also, it is possible that there might be a natural reduction in overall 

rates of occupancy, nest success, and productivity as regional populations reach carrying 

capacity. For example, some territories produce more young and are more often occupied 

than others (refs. in White et al. 2002). After prime locations are taken, less productive 

and less consistently occupied sites remain. Increased use of these marginal nesting 

territories due to an increased number of breeding Peregrines might reduce mean nest 

success and productivity. Should declines be noted, natural causes such as these will be 

evaluated as well as factors that might threaten or endanger Peregrines. Any relisting 

decision would be made by evaluating the status of Peregrines relative to the ESA’s five 

listing factors [ESA § 4(a)(1)]. 

B. Response Triggers 

These “response triggers” will, in addition to other factors described above, prompt an 

evaluation and appropriate response by the national monitoring team, in consultation with 

national or regional experts, as necessary. The national team will evaluate these triggers 

within each monitoring region and for all regions combined after each triennial 

monitoring year: 

18

•	 90% confidence intervals around estimated proportions of territory 

occupancy and nest success, fall below regional and national 

estimates (Appendix F); 

•	 nest success or territory occupancy has declined by more than13 

percentage points from the average of previous monitoring years; 

• average productivity is less than 1.0. 

Reports 

The FWS will issue a triennial report with data summaries and analyses after each 

monitoring season; these will be available in printed form and on the world wide web by 

March of the year following surveys. Reports will also suggest ways to improve 

sampling protocols or other aspects of the plan design if necessary. 

Each report will also comment on the status of Peregrines relative to the need for possible 

relisting. This plan has been devised to allow early detection of substantial declines in 

territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity with reasonable certainty and 

precision. Statistical power to detect smaller declines in these rates will increase with 

successive monitoring seasons, as data from these seasons will likely be combined into 

larger sample sizes. Regardless, if declines in territory occupancy, nest success, or 

productivity become large enough to cause concern in monitoring regions or nationwide, 

then the monitoring team will convene, consult with regional working groups, States and 

other partners, and make recommendations for future action to the FWS Region 1 

Divisions of Endangered Species, and Migratory Birds and State Programs (see the Data 

Evaluation - Response Triggers section, above). 

Reports might also be produced between years, as the FWS will annually request data 

collected by States and cooperators, for regional analyses of population health. At the 

very least, these data will be summarized in the triennial report. 

At the end of the 13-year monitoring period, the FWS will review all available 

information to determine if continuation of monitoring is appropriate. The decision to 

continue or end the monitoring program will be explained in the final monitoring report, 

which will be published in the Federal Register. If the Peregrine population is stable 

range-wide and no significant threats are identified, then monitoring may be terminated, 

or a different monitoring program might be developed with cooperators. 

19

Funding 

Post-delisting monitoring is a cooperative effort between the FWS; State, tribal, and 

foreign governments; other Federal agencies; and other non-governmental partners under 

the ESA. Funding of post-delisting monitoring presents a challenge for all the partners 

committed to ensuring the continued viability of Peregrines following the removal of 

ESA protections. To the extent feasible, the FWS intends to provide funding for postdelisting monitoring efforts from annual Endangered Species general Recovery Program 

appropriations. Nonetheless, nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment 

or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) or any other law or regulation. 

20

Literature Cited


Ambrose, R.E., A. Matz, T. Swem, and P. Bente. 2000. Environmental contaminants in 

American and arctic peregrine falcon eggs in Alaska, 1979-95. Technical Report 

NAES-TR-00-02, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska Ecological 

Services, Fairbanks, AK. 67 pp. 

Ambrose, R.E. and K.E. Riddle. 1988. Population dispersal, turnover, and migration of 

Alaska peregrines. Pp 677-684 In Peregrine falcon populations: their 

management and recovery. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G Thelander, and C.M. 

White, eds. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho. 

Banasch, U., J.P. Goossen, A.E. Riez, C. Casler, and R.D. Barradas. 1992. 

Organochlorine contaminants in migrant and resident prey of peregrine falcons, 

Falco peregrinus, in Panama, Venezuela, and Mexico. Can. Field-Nat. 106:493-

498. 

Bird, D.M, J. Gautier, and V. Montpetit. 1984. Embryonic growth of American kestrels. 

Auk 101:392-396. 

Cade, T.J., J.H. Enderson, C.G Thelander, and C.M. White, eds. 1988. Peregrine falcon 

populations: their management and recovery. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho. 

Cade, T.J., J.H. Enders, and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of Peregrine 

Falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2002. Report on the activities of the 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Montreal, Canada, Fall 2002. 

http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/PUBLICATIONS/rptfall2002e 

Corser, J.D., M. Amaral, C.J. Martin, and C.C. Rimmer. 1999. Recovery of a cliffnesting Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus, population in northern New York and 

New England, 1984-1996. Can. Field- Nat. 113:472-480. 

Court, G.S., C.C. Gates, D.A. Boag, J.D. MacNeil, D.M. Bradley, A.C. Fesser, J.R. 

Patterson, G.B. Stenhouse, and L.W. Oliphant. 1990. A toxicological assessment 

of peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus tundrius, breeding in the Keewatin District 

of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 104:255-272. 

Custer, T.W., G.W. Pendleton, and R.W. Roach. 1992. Determination of hatching date 

for eggs of black-crowned night-heron, snowy egrets, and great egrets. J. Field. 

Ornithol. 63:145-154. 

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook. Simon and 

Schuster, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 785 pp. 

21

Ellis, D.H. 1988. Distribution, productivity, and status of the Peregrine Falcon in 

Arizona. Pp 87-94 In Peregrine falcon populations: their management and 

recovery. T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G Thelander, and C.M. White, eds. The 

Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho. 

Enderson, J.H. 1969. Population trends among Peregrine Falcons in the Rocky Mountain 

region. Pp. 73-79 In Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology and decline. J.J. 

Hickey, ed. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Enderson, J.H. and J. Craig. 1974. Status of the Peregrine Falcon in the Rocky 

Mountains in 1973. The Auk 91: 727-736. 

Enderson, J.H., W. Heinrich, L. Kiff, and C.M. White. 1995. Population changes in 

North American peregrines. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 60:142-161. 

Fuller, M.R. and J.A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pp. 37-66 In Raptor 

management techniques manual. B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline, 

and D.W. Bird, eds. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. 

Fyfe, R.W., U. Banasch, V. Benavides, N.H. de Benavides, A. Luscombe, and J. Sanchez. 

1990. Organochlorine residues in potential prey of peregrine falcons, Falco 

peregrinus, in Latin America. Can. Field-Nat. 104(2):285–292. 

Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, and G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes embryo mortality, 

edema, and deformities syndrome (GLEMEDS) in colonial fish-eating birds: 

similarity to chick-edema disease. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 33:455-520. 

Hayes, G.E., and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the Peregrine 

Falcon. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 77 pp. 

Henny, C.J., W.S. Seegar, and T.L. Maechtle. 1996. DDT decreases in plasma of spring 

migrant peregrine falcons, 1978–94. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:342–349. 

Herbert, R.A., and K.G.S. Herbert. 1969. The extirpation of the Hudson River Peregrine 

Falcon population. Pp. 133-154 In Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology 

and decline. J.J. Hickey, ed. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Hickey, J.J. 1942. Eastern population of the Duck Hawk. Auk 59:176-204. 

Hickey, J.J. and D.W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes 

in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162:271-273. 

Hickey, J.J. and D.W. Anderson. 1969. The peregrine falcon: life history and population 

literature. Pp. 3-42 In Peregrine falcon populations: their biology and decline. 

J.J. Hickey, ed. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 

22 
Hunt, W.G. 1998. Raptor floaters at Moffat’s equilibrium. Oikos 82: 191-197. 

Jarman, W.M. 1994. Levels and trends of DDE in California peregrines. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Report. 16 pp. 

Johnstone, R.M., G.S. Court, A.C. Fesser, D.M. Bradley, L.W. Oliphant, and J.D. 

MacNeil. 1996. Long-term trends and sources of organochlorine contamination 

in Canadian tundra Peregrine Falcons, Falco peregrinus tundrius. Environmental 

Pollution. 93(2): 109-120. 

Kiff, L.F. 1988. Changes in the status of the Peregrine in North America: An overview. 

Pp. 123-139 In Peregrine falcon populations: their management and recovery. 

T.J. Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander, and C.M. White, eds. The Peregrine 

Fund, Boise, Idaho. 

Mesta, R. 1999. Final Rule to Remove the American Peregrine Falcon from the Federal 

list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of 

appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. 

Federal Register 64 (164): 46541-46558. 

Mora, M., R. Skiles, B. McKinney, M. Paredes, D. Buckler, D. Papoulias, and D. Klein. 

2002. Environmental contaminants in prey and tissues of the peregrine falcon in 

the Big Bend Region, Texas, USA. Environmental Pollution 116:169-176. 

Morse, N.J. 1994. Contaminants in peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) eggs from 

Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Virginia Field Office, White Marsh, VA. 19 pp. 

Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in 

the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 83-96 In Proceedings: Symposium on peregrine 

falcons in the Pacific Northwest. J.E. Pagel, ed. Rogue River National Forest, 

Medford, OR 97501. 

Peakall, D.B., D.G. Noble, J.E. Elliott, J.D. Somers, and G. Erickson. 1990. 

Environmental contaminants in Canadian peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus: A 

toxicological assessment. Can. Field-Nat. 104:244-254. 

Powell, D.C., R.J. Aulerich, R.J. Balander, K.L. Stromborg, and S.J. Bursian. 1998. A 

photographic guide to the development of double-crested cormorant embryos. 

Colonial Waterbirds 21(3):348-355. 

Ratcliffe, D. 1993. The Peregrine Falcon, 2nd ed. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. 454 pp. 

Rowell, P., G.L. Holroyd, and U. Banasch. 2003. Summary of the 2000 Canadian 

peregrine falcon survey. Bird Trends, No. 9, Raptors (Winter 2003):52-56. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/birds/news/index_e.cfm 

23

Steenhof, K. 1987. Assessing raptor reproductive success and productivity. p. 157-170 

In Raptor management techniques manual. B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, 

K.W. Cline, and D.W. Bird, eds. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C. 

Steidl, R.J., C.R. Griffin, L.J. Niles, and K.E. Clark. 1991. Reproductive success and 

eggshell thinning of a reestablished peregrine falcon population. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 55:294-299. 

Steidl, R.J., J.P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 1997. Statistical power in wildlife research. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 61:270-279. 

Stickel, L.F., S.N. Wiemeyer, and L.J. Blus. 1973. Pesticide residues in eggs of wild 

birds: adjustment for loss of moisture and lipid. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

9:193-196. 

Tordoff, H.B. and P.T. Redig. 1997. Midwest peregrine falcon demography, 1982-1995. 

J. Raptor Res. 31: 339-346.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Recovery plan for the peregrine falcon -- Alaska 

population. 69 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. The Pacific Coast American peregrine falcon 

recovery plan, dated October 12, 1982, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in cooperation with Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery 

Team. 86 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky 

Mountain/Southwest population). Prepared in cooperation with the American 

Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

105 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. First update of peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), eastern population, revised recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA. 35 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Contaminants in Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus) eggs from Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. Virginia Field 

Office. Pleasantville, New Jersey. 19pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol.I. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

1997. Draft report, reproductive success and egg contaminant concentrations of 

Southern New Jersey peregrine falcons. 34 pp. 

24

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 660. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. 

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

25

1 

6 

2 

4 

3 

7 

5

Excluding HI 

& Paci fic Is. 

Exluding 

Puert o R ico 

& Virgi n Is. 

FWS Regions 

Recovery Regions 

Pacific 

Rocky Mountain/Southwest 

Eastern1 

Alaska 

1 – adapted from 1991 recovery pla n 

update (USFWS 1991). 

Monitoring Regions 

Pacific

Rocky Mountain

Southwestern

Midwestern/Northeastern 

Southeastern 

Alaska 

Figure 1: FWS, Recovery, and Monitoring Regions. FWS Region boudaries outlined in 

bold in each figure. 

26 
Figure 2. Peregrine Population Growth, 1980-2002, in the Contiguous 

United States. Historical data from Enderson et al. (1995) and Mesta (1999). More 

recent data collected from cooperators (FWS, unpubl.). 2002 data includes estimates, 

earlier data are counts. North American population, including Mexico, Canada, and 

Alaska, estimated at nearly 3,000 breeding pairs in 2002 (White et al. 2002; Rowell et al. 

2003; FWS unpubl. data). Historical level in the United States south of Canada roughly 

estimated at 1,450 pairs (interpreted from Enderson et al. 1995). 

27

Appendix A: Authors, National and Regional Coordinators 

National Coordinator 

Mike Green


USFWS, Region 1, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs


911 N.E. 11th Ave.


Portland, OR 97232-4181


Tel. (503) 872 - 2707


Fax (503) 231 - 2019


Regional Coordinators 

Region 1 – California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Pacific Islands, Washington 

Marie Morin 

USFWS, Ecological Services 

Oregon State Office 

2600 S.E. 98th Ave., Suite 100 

Portland, Oregon 97266 

Tel. (503) 231 - 6179 

Fax (503) 231 - 6195 

Region 2 – Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.


Robert Mesta, Coordinator


Sonoran Joint Venture


738, N. Fifth Ave. Ste 215


Tucson, Arizona 85705


Tel. (520) 882 - 0047 


Fax (520) 882 - 0370


Cell (520) 591-4566


Region 3 – Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin. 

Phil Delphey 

USFWS, Ecological Services 

Twin Cities Field Office 

4101 E. 80th St. 

Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 

Tel. (612) 725 - 3548 x 206 

Fax (612) 725 - 3609 

28

Region 4 – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico. 

Robert Currie 

USFWS, Ecological Services 

Asheville Field Office 

160 Zillicoa St. 

Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

Tel. (828) 258 - 3939 ext. 224 

Fax (828) 258 - 5330 

Region 5 – Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia. 

Michael Amaral 

USFWS, Ecological Services 

New England Field Office 

70 Commercial St., Ste. 300 

Concord, New Hampshire 03301-4986 

Tel. (603) 223 - 2541 

Fax (603) 223 - 0104 

Region 6 – Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

Wyoming. 

Rob Hazlewood 

USFWS, Ecological Services 

Montana Field Office 

100 North Park, Suite 320 

Helena, Montana 59604 

Tel. (406) 449 - 5225 ext. 211 

Fax (406) 449 -5339 

Region 7 – Alaska 

Ted Swem 

USFWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office 

101 12th Ave., Box 19 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99501 

Tel. (907) 456 - 0441 

Fax (907) 456 - 0208 

29

Additional Authors 

Kathy Hollar 

USFWS, Region 1, Endangered Species 

911 N.E. 11th Ave. 

Portland, OR 97232-4181 

Tel. (503) 231 - 2359 

Fax (503) 231 - 6243 

Martin Miller and Mary Klee 

USFWS, Division of HCPs, Recovery, and State Grants 

4401 N. Fairfax Dr. 

Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Tel. (703) 358 - 2061 

Fax (703) 358 - 1735 

Angela Matz 

USFWS, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office 

101 12th Ave., Box 19 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99501 

Tel. (907) 456 - 0442 

Fax (907) 456 - 0208 

30

Appendix B: Reviewers and C ooperators 

Name Affiliation Address 

Jennifer Brookshier 

Charlie Bruce 

FWS Region 1 

WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 

2501 SW First Avenue, P.O. Box 59, 

Portland, OR 97207 

Eric Cummins 

Janet Linthicum 

Joel Pagel 

Rex Sallabanks, Ph.D. 

WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research 

Group, Long Marine Laboratory 

USFS, Rogue River National Forest 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501 

100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

645 Washington St., Ashland, OR 97520 

600 South Walnut, P.O. Box 25, Boise, Idaho 

83707-0025 

Cris Tomlinson Nevada Div. of Wildlife 4747 W. Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 

89108 

Brian Walton 

Bryan White 

Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research 

Group, Long Marine Laboratory 

OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

7118 NE Vandenberg Ave, Corvallis, OR 

97330 

FWS Region 2 

Fred Armstrong NPS, Guadalupe Mountains National HC 60 Box 400, Salt Flat, Texas 79847 

Park 

Larry Bell Department of Game and Fish 1 Wildlife Way, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe, 

NM 87504 

Elaine Leslie Grand Canyon National Park, NPS P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon NP, AZ 86023 

Robert Magill AZ Game & Fish Dept. 2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023 

Raymond Skiles NPS, Big Bend National Park P.O. Box 129, Big Bend National Park, TX 

79834 

Robert Steidl, Ph.D. School of Renewable Resources, 325 Biol. Sciences East, Tuscon, AZ 85721 

University of AZ 

31 
Name Affiliation Address 

Sandy Williams Department of Game and Fish 1 Wildlife Way, P.O. Box 25112, Santa Fe, 

NM 87504 

John Castrale 

Mike Cooke 

Mary Hennen 

Tara Kieninger 

Pat Manthey 

Mark Martell 

Lee Pfannmuller 

Ray Rustum 

Pat Schlarbaum 

Dave Scott 

Bud Tordoff 

FWS Region 3 

Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife 

World Bird Sanctuary 

Field Museum of Natural History 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Natural Resources 

The Raptor Center 

Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources 

Boone Wildlife Research Station 

Division of Wildlife 

The Raptor Center 

562 DNR Rd., Mitchell, IN 47446 

P.O. Box 270270, St. Louis, Missouri 63127

1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605 

524 South 2nd St., Springfield, IL 62701 

3550 Mormon Coulee Rd., La Crosse WI 

54601 

Gabbert Raptor Building, 1920 Fitch Ave. St. 

Paul, MN, 55108 

500 Lafayette Rd., St. paul, MN 55155-4025 

MI 

2039 205th St., Boone, Iowa 50036 

8589 Horseshoe Rd., Ashley, OH 43003 

Gabbert Raptor Building, 1920 Fitch Ave. St. 

Mary Bunch 

Kim Delozier 

Roy DeWitt 

Troy Ettel 

Chris McGrath 

Jim Ozier 

Brainard Palmer-Ball 

Tim Slone 

FWS Region 4 

South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources 

Great Smoky Mountains NP 

Georgia Falconry Association 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources 

Kentucky State Nature Preserves 

Commission 

Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Paul, MN, 55108 

PO Box 1806, Clemson, SC 29633 

107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 

37738 

993 Camillia Dr., Marietta, GA 30062 

Ellington Agricultural Center, PO Box 40747, 

Nashville, TN 37204 

315 Morgan Branch Rd.,Leicester, NC 28748 

116 Rum Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA 31029 

801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 

1 Game Farm Rd., Frankfort, KY 40601 

32 
Name Affiliation Address 

Wildlife Resources 

Jim Sorrow South Carolina Department of Natural 4037 India Hook Rd., Rock Hill, SC 29732 

Resources 

Shawchyi Vorisek Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Resources 

1 Game Farm Rd., Frankfort, KY 40601 

Daniel Brauning 

Kathy Clark 

Margaret Fowle 

Tom French 

Craig Koppie 

Barbara Loucks 

Chris Martin 

Holly Niederriter 

Mark Stadler 

Charlie Todd 

Julie Victoria 

Bryan Watts 

FWS Region 5 

Penn. Game Commission 

NJ Dept. of Fish, Game and Wildlife 

National Wildlife Federation 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and 

Wildlife 

FWS, Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

NY State Dept. of Environmental 

Conservation 

Audubon Society of New Hampshire 

DNREC, Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Wildlife Division, Dept. of Inland 

Fisheries and Wildlife 

61 Windy Lane, Montgomery, PA 17752 

Tuckahoe Wildlife Mgmt. Area, Box 236, 

Tuckahoe, NJ 08250 

Northeastern Natural Resource Center, 58 

State St, Montpelier, VT 05602 

Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 

177 Admiral Cochrane Dr., Annapolis, MD 

21401 

625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233 

3 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301 

4876 Hay Point Landing Road, Smyrna, DE 

19977 

284 State St., Augusta, ME 04333 

Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries & Wildlife 284 State St., 41 State House Station, 

Augusta, ME 04333-0041 

Dept. of Environmental Conservation	 Franklin Wildlife Management Area, 391 Rte. 

32, North Franklin, CT 05254 

William and Mary College	 The Center for Conservation Biology, College 

of William & Mary, PO Box 8795, 

Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 

FWS Region 6 

Jerry Craig Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80216 

Frank Howe Utah Division of Wildlife P.O. Box 146301, Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

33

Name Affiliation Address 

Bob Oakleaf Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520 

Jay Sumner Sumner Consulting 

FWS Region 7 

P.O. Box 317, Arlee, MT 59821 

Skip Ambrose NPS Natural Sounds Program, National Park 

Service, 1201 Oakridge, Suite 200, Fort 

Collins, CO 80525 

Bob Ritchie ABR, Inc. P.O. Box 80410, Fairbanks, AK 99708 

John Wright Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1300 

College Rd, Fairbanks, AK 99701 

34

________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix C: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form 

************************ 

* Paperw ork Red uction A ct * 

* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 * 

* Expires 3/31/2005 * 

************************** 

----- Return this form to your State or Regional Coordinator ---­

Observation Date:(M/D/YR)________ Nest Site Name or #___________ 

1st 2nd 3rd 4 Which Territory Visit is this? (circle one)
 th

Nest Site (circle one): Manmade Natural


Observation Time: Begin_________________________ End___________________________ 


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


Observer(s)____________________________________________________________________ 

Phone:_________________ Email:________________________ Agency/NGO__________________ 

WEATHER: Precipitation____________________ Wind (speed estimate) 

 Temperature____________________ Cloud cover (%)______________________

 Note conditions at beginning (beg.) and ending (end) of observation period if different 

Observation post:(distance in meters)__________________________________________________ 

Approx. Nesting Phase (determined how?)_______________________________________________ 

Peregrines present: (define as ad. male, ad. female, ad. unknown, subad. Male, subad. Female, or subad. 

Unknown, and number of each.)_________________________________________________ 

Behaviors observed:____________________________________________________________________ 

Nest observed? Y N Feeding at nest observed? Y N Eggs observed? Y N Unk 

How many eggs?__________Young observed (AGE)?_________________________________ 

How many young?_____________________ Other observations:_______________________ 

35

Occupied Territory - a territory w here eithe r a pair of P eregrines is present (tw o adults or an adult/su badult 

mixed pair), or there is evidence of reproduction [e.g., one adult is observed sitting low in the nest, eggs or 

young are seen, or food is delivered into eyrie (nest site)]. Occupancy for a territory must be established 

for at least one of two, and possibly more, 4-hour site visits. Occupancy within a region is the number of 

occupied territories divided by the number of territories that were checked for occupancy. 

Nest Success - the proportion of occupied territories in a monitoring region in which one or more young $

28 days old is observed, with age determined follow ing guidelines in Cade et al. (1996). 

Produ ctivity - the num ber of yo ung ob served at $ 28 days old p er occupied territory , averaged acro ss a 

monitoring region. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering 

inform ation und er this Pereg rine Falco n mon itoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in 

2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing 

instruction s, gathering and m aintaining data, and preparin g and tran smitting re ports. 

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the reporting 

requirement(s) should be directed to the Service Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, MS 222 ARL SQ, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20240. 

An agency may not conduct and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 

information unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed. 

36

Appendix D: FWS Regions, Recovery Plan Regions, and 

Monitoring Plan Regions 

FWS Regions (7) Recovery Regions1 Monitoring Regions (6) 

(4) 

Region 1 = CA, ID, NV, OR, Pacific: CA, NV, OR, Pacific: CA, ID, NV, OR, WA 

WA, HI, Guam, American WA 

Samoa, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Marianas 

Region 3 = IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, Eastern: all of CT, DE, Midwestern/Northeastern: IL, 

MO, OH, WI MA, ME, MI, MN, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI, 

NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, 

VT, WI, and Wash 

DC; 

parts of IA, IL, IN, 

NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV, 

Region 5 = CT, DE, ME, MD, and Wash DC

MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, 

VA, WV, and Wash DC 

Region 4 = AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, 

LA, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, VI 

OH, WV, MD, VA, 

NC, SC, AL, TN, and 

KY 

Southeastern: AL, AR, FL, 

GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN 

Region 2 = AZ, NM, OK, TX Rocky Mts./Southwest: Southwestern: AZ, NM, OK, 

FWS Regions 2 and 6 TX 

Region 6 = CO, KS, MT, ND, 

NE, SD, UT, WY 

Rocky Mts./Southwest 

Region (plus ID) Rocky Mountains: CO, KS, 

MT, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY 

Region 7 = AK Alaska Alaska 

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

species. 

37

Appendix E: FW S Region Territory Summ aries 

Most data are from 1999 - 2002. Exceptions are noted in parentheses. 

State by FWS 

Region 

Territories 

Occupied > 1 

time in ‘99-‘02† 

Natural 

Nest 

substrate 

Manmade 

substrate 

Data Source‡ 

FWS Region 1 

California 96 77 19 Brian Walton & Janet Linthicum 

Idaho 24 (to year 2001) 22 2 Rex Sallabanks 

Nevada 12 12 Cris Tomlinson 

Oregon 97 93 4 Joel Pagel, Charlie Bruce, & Bryan White 

Washington 81 (to year 2001) 73 8 Eric Cummins & Jennifer Brookshier 

R1 Totals 310 > 277 > 33 

FWS Region 2 

Arizona (in 1997) 172 ? ? Robert Magill & Elaine Leslie 

New Mexico 101 ? ? Sandy Williams 

Texas** 14 14 0 Missy Paul, Raymond Skiles, & Fred Armstrong 

R2 Totals 287 > 14 ? 

FWS Region 3 

Iowa 5 1 4 Pat Schlarbaum 

Illinois 10 0 10 Mary Hennen, Tara Kieninger, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell 

38 
State by FWS 

Region 

Territories 

Occupied > 1 

time in ‘99-‘02† 

Natural 

Nest 

substrate 

Manmade 

substrate 

Data Source‡ 

Indiana 10 0 10 John Castrale, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell 

Michigan 7 1 6 Bud Tordoff, Mark Martell, & Ray Rustem 

Minnesota 27 7 20 Bud Tordoff & Mark Martell 

Missouri 6 0 6 Mike Cooke, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell 

Ohio 14 0 14 Dave Scott, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell 

Wisconsin 17 2 15 Pat Manthey, Bud Tordoff, & Mark Martell 

R3 Totals 96 11 85 

FWS Region 4 

Georgia 1 0 1 Jim Ozier 

Kentucky 4 0 4 Tim Slone & Shawchyi Vorisek 

North Carolina 10 10 0 Chris McGrath 

South Carolina 1 1 0 Bob Currie & Mary Bunch 

Tennessee 2 1 1 Troy Ettel 

R4 Totals 18 12 6 

FWS Region 5 

Connecticut 4 1 3 Julie Victoria 

Delaware 4 0 4 Holly Niederriter & Craig Koppie 

Massachusetts 8 1 7 Tom French 

39

State by FWS 

Region 

t

Territories 

Occupied > 1 

ime in ‘99-‘02† 

Natural 

Nest 

substrate 

Manmade 

substrate 

Data Source‡ 

Maine 16 16 0 Charlie Todd 

Maryland 13 ? ? Craig Koppie & Michael Amaral 

New Hampshire 15 14 1 Chris Martin 

New Jersey 21 1 20 Kathy Clark 

New York 52 32 20 Barbara Loucks 

Pennsylvania 9 0 9 Daniel Brauning 

Rhode Island 2 0 2 Michael Amaral 

Virginia 29 2 27 Bryan Watts, W. & Mary College 

Vermont 31 29 2* Margaret Fowle 

R5 Totals 204 > 96 > 95 

FWS Region 6 

Colorado 132 132 ? Jerry Craig 

Montana 43 (to year 2001) ? ? Jay Sumner 

Nebraska 1 1 Bud Tordoff 

North Dakota 1 1 Bud Tordoff 

Utah 180 168 12 Frank Howe 

Wyoming 62 62 0 Bob Oakleaf 

R6 Totals 419 > 362 > 14 

40

State by FWS Territories Natural Man- Data Source‡ 

Region Occupied > 1 Nest made 

time in ‘99-‘02† substrate substrate 

FWS Region 7 

AK-Tanana River > 44 44 0 Bob Ritchie, John Wright, and Peter Bente 

AK-Yukon River > 48 48 0 Skip Ambrose 

R7 Totals > 92 > 92 0 

40 States > 1,426 > 771 >232 

Of 1093 categorized sites, 864 (79%) were on natural substrates and 232 (21%) were on man-made sites; uncategorized sites are likely 

on natural substrates in Arizona and New Mexico. 

† – Number of territories occupied is a subset of the total population in some western States, e.g., in Alaska and California.


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


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


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


? – Unknown, or data not provided.


41

Appendix F: Calculating Territory Occupancy and Nest Success 

The calculations of territory occupancy and nest success are used for two purposes: to 

help define the appropriate sample size, and to provide benchmarks by which to compare 

future population performance. The data from which we calculated these rates are 

described in more detail below. 

Territory Occupancy 

Table F-1 shows rates of occupancy at territories occupied at least once between 1999 

and 2002. Data from the 4 years are combined, and some data (FWS Regions 1 and 2) 

are from 1997. Occupied territories are those at which there was a pair of Peregrines, or 

evidence of nesting (see the Methods - Parameters and Definitions section, above). 

Table F-1. Territory Occupancy 1999-2002 

FWS Region Checked Occupied Average 

1 860 738 0.86 

2 305 229 0.75 

3 231 214 0.93 

4 90 84 0.93 

5 720 580 0.81 

6 735 608 0.83 

7 33 31 0.94 

All n 2974 2484 0.84 

Nest Success 

The data in Table F-2 are the same as above, except that ‘Occupied’ territories includes 

territories found after initiation (and then were checked again for success); the sample 

size is therefore different from the ‘Occupied’ sample above. States were asked to define 

successful nests as those from which at least one chick fledged. Some consider chicks of 

banding age to meet this criterion. We accepted this definition for these data. 

Table F-2. Nest Success, 1999-2002 

FWS Region Occupied Successful Mean 

1 640 446 0.70 

2 212 144 0.68 

3 214 156 0.73 

4 82 50 0.61 

5 198 136 0.69 

6 812 555 0.68 

7 421 269 0.64 

All n 2579 1756 0.68 

42 
A Note on Territory Occupancy 

This statistic is sensitive to what sort of territory is actually being checked. In some 

states (principally in Region 5) many historical eyries continue to be checked although 

they have not been occupied for decades, while in others only more recently occupied 

territories are checked for activity. In the tables above, we chose to use only territories 

that have been used at least once since 1999 (1997 for some western states without more 

recent data) to represent current and likely future conditions under which Peregrines 

make territory choices. Some historical eyries or territories that remain unoccupied might 

not be as attractive as they once were, for many reasons, than newer, more recently 

occupied territories. Including historical and unoccupied territories in this analysis brings 

the national average to 77% (and Region 5 average to 51%). 

Also, in this plan we will be collecting territory occupancy data from this same 

‘population’ of territories. The data we collect will be directly comparable to the rates 

calculated above, which we think are representative of a healthy, expanding population. 

However, additional data are worth noting here. 

Territory occupancy for 1999 to 2002 was similar during the critical years of recovery. 

For example, data from western states from 1975 (California) to 1997 are presented in 

Table F-3 below; these include only territories known to have been occupied at least once 

in the interval noted. 

Table F-3. Territory Occupancy in Western States, 1975-1997 

FWS Region State (yr) Checked Occupied Average 

R1 

R1 

R2 

R2 

R6 

R6 

R6 

R6 

CA (75 - 97)


WA (78 - 97)


AZ (92 - 97)


TX (79 - 94)


CO (90 - 95, 97)


MT (1995)


UT (91 - 96)


147 111 0.76 

401 298 0.74 

297 265 0.89 

83 67 0.81 

549 444 0.81 

19 15 0.79 

514 465 0.91 

WY (96) 38 36 0.95

Most of these data were acquired by Robert Mesta in 1998 in preparation 

for the Peregrine delisting, from the following cooperators: Santa Cruz 

Predatory Bird Research Group; Arizona Game and Fish Department; 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; the southwest Peregrine recovery 

team; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; the National Park Service. 

Data also from Hayes and Buchanan (2002; full cite in Literature Cited 

section of plan). All data believed to conform to definitions of occupancy 

used in this plan, and are likely lower than actual occupancy for some 

states, e.g., in CA. 

Territory occupancy is 83% summing western states, ranging from 74% to 95% for 

individual states. Nationwide territory occupancy from 1999 - 2002 (Table F-1) is 84%, 

ranging from 75% to 94%, and thus is very similar. These data are also similar to 

All n 2048 1701 0.83 

43 
published rates. Enderson and Craig (1974) state that “at least 10%, perhaps 20%, of 

known eyries would not be used in any one year (p 733),” after citing various published 

rates of territory occupancy that averaged between 55% and 85%. Ratcliffe (1993) 

estimates territory occupancy at 82 % in 1991 (Table 6, p. 411) for Peregrines in Great 

Britain. 

Some Peregrine eyries are famous for their long histories of occupancy; others are much 

less consistently occupied. Some pairs or individuals select alternate nest sites sometimes 

miles apart within a larger territory in successive years, or move erratically back and forth 

among a few eyrie locations among years. Some territories are seemingly occupied only 

once and then abandoned. Observers in the field are thus challenged to find active 

territories in the first place, locate nests in those territories, and then to relocate the same 

pairs and nests in following years. Where several pairs are in close proximity, tracking 

pair locations through time and deciding which territories and pairs are new or previously 

established can be confusing. In these cases, we will rely on the expert opinions of 

observers to match previously documented territories to current pair and territory 

locations. 

44

Appendix G: Collecting, Preparing, and Shipping Egg and Feather 

Samples 

All sample collectors should coordinator with Regional and National Coordinators prior 

to collection and if additional information is required. 

A. Protocol for Collection and Removal of Peregrine Egg Contents 

Objectives 

1. Ensure accurate analysis of contaminants in eggs by providing standard methods to 

transfer egg contents from the shell into a clean container without introducing 

contamination. 

2. Provide a standard method to measure eggshell thickness. 

Materials 

For field collection: Appropriate State and Federal permits; writing utensils; labels; egg 

collection boxes (hard-sided container such as plastic kitchen ware or tackle box with 

foam padding); sheets of chemically-clean2

 aluminum foil, cut to size (approximately 10 

x 15 cm), one per egg; small plastic bags with zip closure. 

For contents removal in laboratory: Data sheets; writing utensils; safety glasses; powderfree latex gloves; laboratory paper wipes such as Kimwipes®; distilled, deionized (DD) 

water or equivalently pure water; clean sponge; balance (to 0.01 g); vernier calipers (to 

0.01 mm); immersion chamber with beaker and wire loops (Figure G-1); Teflon® bags, 

one per egg; chemically-clean stainless steel serrated blades (such as high-quality steak 

knives); chemically-clean stainless steel scalpel blades (No. 21 or No. 22 with No. 4 

handles or similar size); chemically-clean aluminum foil sheets (approximately 30 x 30 

cm square), 1 per egg; ball-tip micrometer (to 0.01 mm). 

Procedures 

In the field, collect all whole, uncracked, addled eggs from nest. Wrap each in clean 

aluminum foil (dull side next to the egg). The foil should act as a second skin, which 

keeps the eggshell together and the contents inside should the egg be cracked in transit. 

Place the wrapped egg inside bag with zip closure, then into hard container for transport 

to refrigeration (within 24 hours). Use padding to immobilize the egg. Place a label 

inside the zip-closure bag with date, collector, nest identification and location (latitude 

2 – Chem ically-clean alumin um fo il has been rinsed w ith reagen t-grade ac etone an d hexan es on the d ull 

side and allowed to air-dry; dull side is then considered the “clean” side. Chemically-clean stainless instruments are 

rinsed w ith 10-20 % nitric ac id, then do ubly-distilled or equiv alently pu rified wate r, air-dried, th en rinsed with 

reagent-grade acetone and hexanes and air-dried. 

45 
and longitude or UTM coordinates), and the egg number if multiple eggs are collected. 

Refrigerate eggs until opened (ideally within 48 hours). 

In the laboratory, use one data form (Figure G-2) per egg. Wear powder-free latex gloves 

and safety glasses (severe eye infection can result from contact with rotting egg contents). 

Carefully check for cracks in shell; if present, do not wet or immerse the egg. If debris is 

present, rinse egg in DD water while gently scrubbing with sponge. Dry the egg. Record 

the mass (g) of the whole egg, then measure the length and breadth of the egg at their 

greatest dimensions with calipers (caliper jaws parallel to the longitudinal axis of the egg 

for length, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the egg for breadth). Compute 

average of three measurements for final width and length measurements. 

Measure total egg volume by water displacement. Fill the immersion chamber (Figure G1a) with distilled water past the point where water comes out of the spigot. Let drain 

until water stops coming out of the spigot. Place a clean beaker on a balance, zero the 

balance, and place the balance and beaker under the spigot (Figure G-1b). Immerse egg 

with wire loops (Figure G-1c) until top of egg is just under the water surface. Hold the 

egg steady until water stops draining out of spigot into the beaker. The readout on the 

balance will reflect only the weight of water that has gone into the beaker, if you zeroed 

the balance after the beaker was placed on it. The weight of water is the approximate egg 

volume, assuming that egg density is similar to water (1gm = 1 ml). For example, 40 gm 

displaced water = 40 ml of water, and 40 ml egg volume. Dry the egg. 

While transferring egg contents to Teflon® bag, avoid letting contents run over your 

hands into the bag. Note that addled eggs can be full of decomposition products, 

producing gaseous explosions at any weak point in the shell, including the score or where 

membranes are first exposed. Working with a refrigerated, cool egg reduces this 

potential, but be prepared for egg explosions – and wear safety glasses. 

Create a catch basin out of the aluminum foil (chemically-clean side up) by turning edges 

up and securing the corners. This will catch egg contents in case they spill over the edge 

of the bag. Use a separate piece of foil for each sample. The foil also is a clean place to 

place your instruments when they are not in use. Tare balance with Teflon® bag, then 

place bag in center of aluminum foil. 

Score egg at the equator with a clean serrated blade or scalpel. Cradle the egg in one 

hand without squeezing too tightly, and gently score while rotating the egg. Many light 

strokes are preferable to a fewer deeper strokes, increasing the evenness of the score and 

decreasing the possibility of fractured eggshells. Continue to score until you see the 

membrane, which usually appears gray underneath the white of the eggshell. Try to 

expose the membrane evenly around the entire egg. 

Place the egg over the open bag and cut through membranes with the scalpel. Pour 

contents into bag, and use the scalpel to gently scrape if necessary. Close the bag. Note 

where the membranes are, as this is important for thickness measurements. For fresh 

eggs, both membranes often stay with the shell, but as the embryo develops the inner 

46

membrane tends to stick with the embryo. If you cannot determine where the membranes 

are, it often becomes clearer after the eggshell and membranes have dried. Record mass 

of full bag, then subtract tare mass to compute egg contents mass. Label the bag with 

nest and egg identification information. Freeze the sample (-40° C is preferable but 0° C 

is adequate) until shipment to central repository. 

If egg is developed, estimate age of embryo. Peregrine incubation is 29-33 days (Ehrlich 

et al. 1988); estimate age of embryo to first, second, third, or fourth quarter. 

Photographic records of avian embryo development provide reference points to make this 

determination (e.g., Powell et al. 1998, Bird et al. 1984). Note amount of decay (no 

decay, slightly decayed, or rotten) and examine for deformities, particularly bill 

deformities such as crossed bills or lack of jaws, but also lack of skull bones, club feet, 

rotated ankles, or dwarfed appendages (Gilbertson et al. 1991). 

Rinse the eggshell halves with cool water and allow to air dry. Using an ultra-fine tip 

marker or pencil, identify each shell half (with nest and egg information). Dry eggshells 

at room temperature for 10-30 days, or until they have attained a constant mass. Then, 

measure thickness at three points near the equator on each shell half using ball-tip 

micrometer. Note whether you measured the membranes, as museum specimen thickness 

measurements often include the membranes. Finally, record the mass of the dried 

eggshell (to 0.001 g). This information is also used to compare to museum specimens. 

Compute conversion factor, as explained on the data sheet. Historically, contaminant 

concentrations were multiplied by this conversion factor to get volume-adjusted residue 

data (Stickel et al. 1973). 

Shipping 

Place frozen, bagged contents in a cooler with dry ice (know the labeling requirements of 

your shipping company for dry ice) for shipping. If you are unable to find dry ice, 

contact Paul Becker (information below) for shipping instructions. Send via overnight 

service to the central storage repository: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Hollings Marine Laboratory 

331 Ft. Johnson Rd. 

Charleston, SC 29412 

Attn: Peregrine Project 

Paul Becker or Rebecca Pugh 

(843) 762-8861 

paul.becker@noaa.gov 

Notify the recipient by telephone prior to shipping, and try to ship on Monday, Tuesday, 

or Wednesday to avoid weekend delays. 

47

B. Protocol for Collection of Peregrine Feathers 

Objective 

1. Ensure accurate and precise analysis of metallic contaminants in feathers by providing 

methods to collect similar feathers from same-age Peregrines. 

Materials 

Appropriate State and Federal permits; writing utensils; labels; Teflon® collection bags; 

clean stainless steel scissors. 

To collect feathers, the largest nestling (which is often the nestling with the most 

advanced feather development) will be the only nestling sampled per nest. Remove up to 

the distal 1.5 cm of the 4th secondary wing feather, from one side only, using clean 

stainless steel scissors. Do not cut the follicle, which is vascularized and therefore prone 

to bleeding during feather development. Store the sample in a Teflon® (Saivellex, Inc. or 

equivalent) collection envelope provided by the National Coordinator. Fill out the 

feather collection data form (Figure G-3). Feathers samples can be frozen or stored at 

room temperature. 

Shipping 

Send feather samples to the central storage repository via overnight or otherwise 

guaranteed service. Notify the recipient by telephone prior to shipping: 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Hollings Marine Laboratory 

331 Ft. Johnson Rd. 

Charleston, SC 29412 

Attn: Peregrine Project 

Paul Becker or Rebecca Pugh 

(843) 762-8861 

paul.becker@noaa.gov 

Literature Cited – Appendix G 

Please see Literature Cited section above. 

48 
a. 

b. 

c. 

Figure G-1. Measuring Total Egg Volume. a. Egg immersion chamber. The top bend of 

the spigot is high enough so that an egg can be completely immersed below it. b. Immersion 

chamber set up to drain into beaker on balance. c. Wire loops used to hold the egg. 

49 
50

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Figure G-2. Peregrine Falcon Egg Contaminants Data Sheet 

************************* 

* Paperw ork Red uction A ct * 

* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 * 

* Expires 3/31/2005 * 

************************** 

Monitoring Region: ___________________________________________________________


Collector name and affiliation: ____________________________________________________


Processor name and affiliation: ____________________________________________________


Date Collected: ________________ Date Processed: ______________ 


Nest Number or location:______________________________________________________ 


Egg Number or description:____________________________________________________


Nest status at time of collection:________________________________________________


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


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


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


Whole Egg Weight (0.01 g): _______


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


Contents weight: 

a) Tare weight of bag (0.01 g) : __________ 

b) Weight of bag plus contents (0.01 g): __________ 

c) Weight of contents (b-a): __________ 

Conversion factor = contents weight = ____________________

 displaced H2O weight 

Contents condition (age of embryo, state of decay, etc.) and other comments:_______________ 

Where are the membranes? Inner: __________________ Outer: _______________________


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


membranes are included in the measurements):


First eggshell half: _____ ______ _____ _____ Avg: ______ 


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


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


Additional comments: ________________________________________________________


51 
Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering 

inform ation und er this Pereg rine Falco n mon itoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in 

2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing 

instruction s, gathering and m aintaining data, and preparin g and tran smitting re ports. 

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the reporting 

requirement(s) should be directed to the Service Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, MS 222 ARL SQ, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20240. 

An agency may not conduct and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 

information unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed. 

52

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Figure G-3. Peregrine Falcon Feather Contaminants Data Sheet 

************************* 

* Paperw ork Red uction A ct * 

* OMB Approval No. 1018-0101 * 

* Expires 3/31/2005 * 

************************** 

Monitoring Region: ___________________________________________________________ 

Collector name and affiliation: ___________________________________________________ 

Date Collected: _________________ 

Nest Number or location:________________________________________________________ 

USFWS band number: __________________________________________________________ 

Additional band description and numbers: ________________________________ 

Estimated age of nestling: _______________________________________________ 

Estimated sex of nestling: _______________________________________________ 

Was feather sample collected from (circle) left or right side of nestling? 

Additional comments: __________________________________________________ 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering 

inform ation und er this Pereg rine Falco n mon itoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in 

2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing 

instruction s, gathering and m aintaining data, and preparin g and tran smitting re ports. 

Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the reporting 

requirement(s) should be directed to the Service Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, MS 222 ARL SQ, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, 

DC 20240. 

An agency may not conduct and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 

information unless a currently valid OMB control number is displayed. 

53

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

(503) 231-6164

http://migratorybirds.pacific.fws.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Information

(800) 244-WILD

http://www.fws.gov

December 2003