
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution


Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Biological Technical Publication BTPR10052006 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ted Swem, Region 7, USFWS Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Biological Technical Publication BTPR10052006 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Michael Green1, Ted Swem2, Marie Morin3,11, Robert Mesta4, Mary Klee5, Kathy Hollar6, Rob Hazlewood7,12, Phil Delphey8, Robert Currie9, Michael Amaral10 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Portland, OR Michael_green@fws.gov 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Ecological Services, Portland, OR 4 Sonoran Joint Venture, Tucson, AZ 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 9, Ecological Services, Arlington, VA 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Ecological Services, Portland, OR 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Ecological Services, Helena, MT 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ecological Services, Bloomington, MN 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Ecological Services, Asheville, NC 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Ecological Services, Concord, NH 11 Current address: 4920 SE 140th Ave, Portland, OR 97236 12 Current address: P.O. Box 4322, Helena, MT 59604 ii Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Author Contact information: Michael Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 972324181. Phone: (503) 8722707, Fax: (503) 2312019, Email: Michael_Green@fws.gov Ted Swem, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office, 101 12th Ave., Box 19, Fairbanks, Alaska 99501. Phone: (907) 4560441, Fax: (907) 4560208, Email: Ted_Swem@fws.gov. Marie Morin (Current address), 4920 SE 140th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97236. marie_p_morin@hotmail. com Robert Mesta, Coordinator, Sonoran Joint Venture, 738 N. Fifth Ave. Suite 215, Tucson, Arizona 85705. Phone: (520) 8820047, Fax: (520) 8820370, Email: Robert_Mesta@fws.gov. Mary Klee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat Conservation Plans, Recovery, and State Grants, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square, Arlington, VA 22203. Phone: (703) 3582061, Fax: (703) 3581735, Email: Mary_Klee@fws.gov. Kathy Hollar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Division of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 972324181. Phone: (503) 231 2359, Fax: (503) 2316243, Email: Kathy_Hollar@ fws.gov. Robert Hazlewood (Current address), P.O. Box 4322, Helena, MT 59604. Tierra1@theglobal.net Phil Delphey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Twin Cities Field Office, 4101 E. 80th St., Bloomington, Minnesota 55425. Phone: (612) 7253548, Fax: (612) 7253609. Email: Phil_ Delphey@fws.gov. Robert Currie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, North Carolina 28801. Phone: (828) 2583939, Fax: (828) 2585330. Email: Robert_ Currie@fws.gov. Michael Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Ecological Services, New England Field Office, 70 Commercial St., Ste. 300, Concord, New Hampshire 033014986. Phone: (603) 2232541, Fax: (603) 2230104, email: Michael_Amaral@fws.gov. For additional copies or information, contact: Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Ave Portland, OR 97232 Recommended citation: Green, M.G., T. Swem, M. Morin, R. Mesta, M. Klee, K. Hollar, R. Hazlewood, P. Delphey, R. Currie, and M. Amaral. 2006. Monitoring results for breeding American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTPR10052006, Washington DC. Series Senior Technical Editor: Stephanie L. Jones USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator P.O. Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 802250486 iii Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables..................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vi Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2 Methods.......................................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Regions............................................................................................................. 3 Sample Size Determination................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Protocol............................................................................................................ 3 Analyses......................................................................................................................... 4 Results........................................................................................................................... 5 Discussion....................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion......................................................................................................................10 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................11 Appendix A: List of Data Collectors by Monitoring Region and State...................................................13 Appendix B: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form.................................................................15 Appendix C: Monitoring Data.................................................................................................16 iv Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 List of Figures Figure 1........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2........................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3........................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1: Territory and nest data, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003.................................................... 5 Table 2: Territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003......... 6 Table 3: 2003 continental population estimate, American Peregrine Falcon.......................................... 6 Table 4: Numbers of nest sites on natural versus manmade substrates, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003..... 8 Table C1: Monitoring Data..................................................................................................16 vi Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Acknowledgments The monitoring team is especially grateful to Bob Steidl for his statistical guidance. However, we would have no data to analyze were it not for more than 300 observers, volunteers and paid personnel, who ventured into the field in 2003 at least two and sometimes many more times over a three to four month period to observe Peregrine Falcons. Territory accessibility ranged from roadside to remote; the latter requiring hiking, rafting, or access by air. This nationwide monitoring effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is completely dependent on the network of State and Federal agencies, Tribes, and many other organizations that marshal this cadre of dedicated observers, annually in many States or regions. The observers themselves, united by their collective dedication to Peregrine Falcons, might not be aware of the larger network to which they belong. We know that Appendix A fails to list all participants and apologize to those overlooked. We hope this list gives some perspective on the number of people involved. Funding for this effort was provided to States and other cooperators by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thanks to George Allen, Brad Bortner, Susan Earnst, Suzanne Fellows, Stephanie L. Jones, Bob Steidl, and Tara Zimmerman for reviewing earlier versions of this report. Summary In 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) implemented the first of five nationwide monitoring efforts for American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Peregrine Falcons) as described in the Service’s postdelisting monitoring plan (USFWS 2003). More than 300 observers monitored 438 Peregrine Falcon territories across six monitoring regions. Monitoring in the Southwestern monitoring region fell short of the monitoring goal, where 36 of the targeted 96 territories were monitored; efforts are underway to implement fullscale monitoring in that region in 2006. The five other monitoring regions surveyed sufficient territories to meet the statistical criteria described in the postdelisting monitoring plan. Our estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity were above the target values that we set in the monitoring plan for those nesting parameters. Additional data collected by this effort documented that the total number of nesting pairs of Peregrine Falcons is estimated at 3,005. Additional data show that 92% of pairs nest on natural substrates in all regions except the Midwestern/ Northeastern region, where only 32% nest on natural substrates. Our estimates of the nesting parameters and the additional data from across the United States indicate that the Peregrine Falcon population is secure and vital. The next coordinated nationwide monitoring effort is scheduled for 2006 (USFWS 2003). Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Introduction The history of Peregrine Falcons in the United States, their population decline caused by environmental contaminants and their recovery following bans on those chemicals, is a tale of conservation success. By the late 1960’s Peregrine Falcons had disappeared from the eastern United States and Midwest and were substantially reduced in the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico (Kiff 1988, Enderson et al. 1995). The Service officially listed Peregrine Falcons as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (for a history of listing actions see USFWS 1999) and set recovery goals based on abundance and productivity in four regions of the United States. In some of these regions it also established goals for reduced contaminant effects (USFWS 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1991, 1993; Figure 1). By 1999, recovery goals had been almost completely met in all regions, primarily due to a ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons and to the successful captive breeding, rearing, and release of over 6,000 Peregrine Falcons (White et al. 2002). Peregrine Falcons were removed from the Service’s List of Threatened and Endangered Species on August 25, 1999 (USFWS 1999). From 1999 to 2003 the Service developed a postdelisting monitoring plan (USFWS 2003) for Peregrine Falcons in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and nongovernmental organizations (USFWS 2003). This plan is designed to detect a significant decline in territory occupancy, nest success, or productivity in six monitoring regions across the United States. These three indices of population health were low between 1950 and 1980 when Peregrine Falcon populations declined severely; the three measures then rebounded during population recovery (Cade et al. 1988, Enderson et al. 1995, USFWS 1999, White et al. 2002). The monitoring plan (USFWS 2003) calls for monitoring every three years beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015. These five monitoring periods meet the requirement of ESA (to monitor “. . . for not less than five years . . .”) and the threeyear interval spreads the monitoring over 13 years, reflecting the concern of the Service for the longterm future of Peregrine Falcon populations. The monitoring plan is also designed to collect baseline information on contaminant loads in each monitoring region through the annual collection and archiving of addled eggs and feather samples. Those samples will be analyzed and reported in future years. This report is of results from Peregrine Falcon monitoring in 2003, which yielded data on territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity from across the United States. This is the first report of postdelisting monitoring results for Peregrine Falcons. Methods Monitoring Regions The six monitoring regions are: Pacific, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains, Southwestern, Midwestern/ Northeastern, Southeastern, and Interior Alaska (Figure 1). The monitoring region boundaries conform to the Service’s regional divisions with the exception that Service regions 3 (Great Lakes and Big Rivers) and 5 (Northeast) are combined into a single monitoring region. These monitoring regions are similar to the original four Peregrine Falcon recovery regions, with some minor boundary adjustments (USFWS 2003). Sample Size Determination In each of the Pacific, Southwestern, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains, and Midwestern Northeastern monitoring regions, we randomly selected 96 territories from the set of territories occupied at least once from 1999 through 2002. This is the estimated sample size required to detect a decline in nest success from 68% (average nationwide nest success from 19992002) to 55% (potentially indicating an unhealthy population) with a type I error (alpha) of 0.1, and a type II error (beta) less than or equal to 0.2; the statistical power to detect declines of that magnitude is thus greater than or equal to 0.80 (1–beta), or 80% (USFWS 2003). In this effort, power measures the ability of our sampling of the population to accurately reveal the 13 percentage point decline of interest; beta indicates the probability of making a type II statistical error, that is, of incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis that nest success or territory occupancy did not fall by 13 points, when in fact it did. The calculated number of adequately monitored occupied territories to achieve these statistical criteria is 67. The sample size calculation of 96 territories accounts for the fact that Peregrine Falcons occupy about 75% of monitored territories in any year, and a margin of error of 7 (10%) territories per monitoring region to ensure that a sufficient number of nests are monitored. If the initial random selection of territories included a territory that was too difficult to monitor adequately, usually because of inaccessibility, then we randomly selected an alternate from the same pool of territories from the same State. Although this introduces a potential bias to territory selection, we considered it a reasonable way to maintain a sufficient sample in the face of practical considerations of monitoring. Six territories were reselected in this way in 2003. In the Southeastern Region all known territories (n = 21) were monitored. In Interior Alaska, we monitored all territories (n = 100) along portions of both the Tanana and Yukon rivers, mostly by boat; these remote stretches of river have been monitored in this way for 20 years, and thus we took advantage of established protocols and manpower to determine the health of Peregrine Falcons in Interior Alaska. Monitoring Protocol Peregrine Falcon nest sites were observed by volunteers, agency personnel and other partners (Appendix A). Observers reported data to regional coordinators on a data collection form (Appendix B), who then consolidated the regional monitoring data and sent it to the national coordinator for analysis. Observers visited each randomly selected territory to determine occupancy, nest success, and productivity. Observers were instructed to maintain sufficient distance from nests so as not to elicit sustained territorial behavior from either adult (Pagel 1992). Occupied territories were those where either a pair of Peregrine Falcons was present (two adults or an adult/subadult mixed pair) or there was 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). Territories were considered unoccupied if the above criteria were not met after the territory was visited during two observer visits of four or more hours each during the appropriate months (USFWS 2003). The calculation of territory occupancy is the number of occupied territories divided by the number of territories that were monitored. Nest success is the percentage of occupied territories in a monitoring region with one or more young ≥ 28 days old, with age determined following guidelines in Cade et al. (1996). Productivity is the number of young observed at ≥ 28 days old per occupied territory averaged across a monitoring region (USFWS 2003). Most counts were made of young 28 days old to fledging age (ca. 45 days posthatch). However, some observers reported the number of young fledged based on visits conducted immediately after fledging. These data were used if they were the only counts of young ≥ 28 days old from that territory. In Interior Alaska, productivity is estimated from observations made during the final transect, regardless of nestling age, although average nestling age is usually between 14 and 28 days. Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Some States, Service regions, and private programs monitored all known Peregrine Falcon nesting territories, not just those selected as part of this monitoring effort. Data from these efforts are also summarized here. Analyses We compared territory occupancy, nest success, and their 90% confidence intervals, to target values derived from nationwide data collected from 1999 through 2002 (Steidl et al. 1997). These target values are 84% (90% CI = ± 2%) territory occupancy and 68% (90% CI = ± 2%) nest success (USFWS 2003). We also compared the estimates of territory occupancy and nest success and their confidence intervals to “. . . thresholds for agency response . . .” 13 percentage points lower than the target values. The thresholds are 71% for territory occupancy and 55% for nest success (USFWS 2003). We compared estimates of productivity and their 90% confidence limits to a threshold value of 1.0 nestling per occupied territory; historic, and contemporary productivity; and to estimates of this parameter in Peregrine Falcon population models (USFWS 2003). We used the finite population correction in our calculations of confidence intervals around estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity (Scheaffer et al. 1996). The finite population correction requires knowledge of the overall population size. For Peregrine Falcons, we are fairly confident in our estimate of overall population size in each region. Regardless, we made the conservative assumption that the total nesting population was 10% larger in each region than is currently known, perhaps more likely in Western than in Midwestern, Eastern, or Southern regions. Figure 1: Monitoring and recovery regions for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Service Region boundaries outlined in each map—Region 1 (Pacific, excluding Hawaii and other Pacific Islands); R2 (Southwest); R3 (Great LakesBig Rivers); R4 (Southeast, excluding Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands); R5 (Northeast); R6 (MountainPrairie); R7 (Alaska). Monitoring Regions Pacific Southwestern Midwestern/Northeastern Southeastern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Interior Alaska Recovery Regions Pacific Eastern Rocky Mountain/Southwestern Alaska Results Across the nation, 438 Peregrine Falcon territories were monitored (Table 1; Appendix C): 36 in the Southwestern Region (New Mexico and Big Bend National Park, TX); 21 in the Southeastern Region; 100 in Interior Alaska; 96 in the Pacific Region; 95 in the Midwestern/Northeastern Region; and 90 in the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Region. Some territories were incompletely monitored and were omitted from further analysis. Regardless, sample sizes were sufficient to achieve the statistical targets of the monitoring plan for all monitoring regions except the Southwestern Region (Table 1). In the Southwestern Region, the power to detect 13 point declines in nest success and territory occupancy dropped to 53% and 63%, respectively, due to limited sample sizes. Estimates of territory occupancy varied from 78% to 95% across regions and averaged 87% for the nation (Table 2). Ninety percent confidence intervals around their means included or exceeded the target value of 84% (Figure 2). In the Southwestern Region the estimated territory occupancy was 78%; the 90% confidence interval (67% to 89%) included the threshold for Service response for territory occupancy, which is 71%, 13 points lower than the target of 84% (USFWS 2003). Estimates of nest success ranged from 64% to 78% across regions and averaged 71% for the nation (Table 2). Ninety percent confidence limits around nest success means included or exceeded the 68% target value, and were all above the threshold for agency response (Figure 2). Estimates of productivity varied from 1.45–2.09 across regions and averaged 1.64 for the nation (Table 2), and 90% confidence intervals exceeded the threshold for agency response of 1.0 (Figure 2). In the Southeastern Region observers monitor every known territory. Thus, the summarized data from this region likely represent true values for southeastern Peregrine Falcons rather than estimates of those values as in other regions. Nevertheless, we assumed there are a few territories that have not been discovered and thus also show confidence intervals around the ‘estimates’ of the population parameters in the Southeast. Data beyond that requested in the Monitoring Plan were reported by States or monitoring regions, including the number of newly discovered territories in 2003, updated counts of occupied territories, and the number of pairs using manmade structures Table 1: Territory and nest data, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Region Territories Checked Territories Occupied (known outcome)1 Successful Nests2 Number of Young3 Pacific 96 80 (75) 49 109 Southwestern 36 28 (26) 20 45 Midwestern/Northeastern 95 86 (82) 62 171 Southeastern 21 20 (18) 14 28 Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 90 78 (70) 52 104 Interior Alaska 100 89 (89) 57 133 All Regions 438 381 (360) 254 590 1 Some territories were excluded from nest success and productivity calculations because they were not checked when nestlings were ≥28 days old, and thus the outcome was considered unknown. 2 Includes only territories with young ≥28 days old. 3 Maximum number of nestlings ≥28 days old detected on last visit to nest, or count of fledged young if the only nest visit after 27 days posthatch was made after young fledged. Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 versus natural. Using this information, the estimated number of Peregrine Falcon territories in North America in 2003 was conservatively estimated at 3005, including recent data from Canada (400 pairs; U. Banasch, pers. commun.), an older estimate from Mexico (170 pairs; Enderson et al. 1995), and a rough estimate for Interior Alaska (1000 pairs; T. Swem, pers. commun.). In the contiguous United States, the total number of active territories was estimated to be 1435 (Table 3). Of the 438 territories checked, 350 were on natural substrates and 88 were on manmade structures (Table 4). Artificial substrates supported 64% of eyries in the Midwestern/Northeastern region, but only 8% of nests in all other regions combined (Figure 3). Table 2: Territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Region % Territory Occupancy1 (90% CI) % Nest Success2 (90% CI) Productivity3 (90% CI) Pacific 83 (78–89) 65 (57–74) 1.45 (1.251.66) Southwestern 78 (67–89) 77 (64–90) 1.73 (1.362.10) Midwestern/Northeastern 91 (86–95) 76 (69–82) 2.09 (1.852.32) Southeastern 95 (93–98) 78 (70–86) 1.56 (1.321.79) Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 87 (81–92) 74 (66–82) 1.49 (1.291.68) Interior Alaska 89 (84–94) 64 (56–72) 1.494 (1.271.72) All Regions 87 (85–89) 71 (67–74) 1.64 (1.531.75) 1 Percent of checked territories occupied by a pair. 2 Percent of occupied territories with one or more young ≥28 days old. 3 Average number of young ≥28 days old produced by occupied territories with known outcomes. 4 Average age of young was 14 days on Yukon and 2128 days on Tanana rivers, thus productivity estimates are unlike in other regions. In a previous year on Yukon, a count of nestlings and later of fledglings of a sample of nests yielded a 21% mortality rate (Skip Ambrose, pers. comm.). If applied to both rivers, this mortality correction would result in a productivity estimate of 1.18 (90% CI 0.951.41); however, this calculation is also not equivalent to our method of estimating productivity in other regions. Table 3: 2003 continental population estimate, American Peregrine Falcon. Region Pairs (new1) Total Pacific 472 (87) Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 367 (10) Southwestern 260 (0) 1099 (97) Midwestern/Northeastern 315 (24) Southeastern 21 (2) 336 (26) Subtotal (lower 48) 1435 (123) Interior Alaska 1000 (8) Canada 400 Mexico 170 Total2 3005 (131) 1Number of new territories reported in 2003 versus 2002; in some cases these updated older data (5 yearold data in one case). 2Includes conservative estimates for some States (e.g. CA, AK) where exact pair count not known. Results Figure 2: American Peregrine Falcon, 2003, regional estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, productivity, and 90% confidence intervals. Target values (solid lines at 84% territory occupancy and 68% nest success), and threshold levels (dashed lines at 71% territory occupancy, 55% nest success, and 1.0 Productivity). Monitoring Regions are: P, Pacific; SW, Southwestern; M/N, Midwestern/Northeastern; SE, Southeastern; RM, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains; AK, Interior Alaska; and combined data for all regions. 78 91 95 87 89 87 83 40 60 80 100 120 % Territory Occupancy 65 77 76 78 64 74 71 40 60 80 100 % Nest Success 1.45 1.73 2.09 1.56 1.49 1.49 1.64 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Monitoring Regions Young/Occupied Territory P SW M/N SE RM AK All Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Table 4: Numbers of nest sites on natural versus manmade substrates, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Regions Nest Site Substrate Territories Checked Territories Occupied (known outcome) Successful Nests Young Pacific Manmade 15 14 (14) 8 21 Natural 81 66 (61) 41 88 Southwestern Manmade 0 0 0 0 Natural 36 28 (26) 20 45 Midwestern/ Northeastern Manmade 61 58 (57) 45 132 Natural 34 28 (25) 17 39 Southeastern Manmade 8 7 (7) 7 13 Natural 13 13 (11) 7 15 Rocky Mountain/ Great Plains Manmade 4 3 (3) 2 3 Natural 86 75 (67) 50 101 Interior Alaska Manmade 0 0 0 0 Natural 100 89 (89) 57 133 All Regions Manmade 88 82 (81) 62 169 Natural 350 299 (279) 192 421 Total 438 381 (360) 254 590 Figure 3: Percentage of eyries on natural versus manmade substrates in the Midwestern/Northeastern Monitoring Region and all other regions combined, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Midwestern/Northeastern Region (n = 95) Manmade 64% Natural 36% All Other Regions (n = 343) Manmade 8% Natural 92% Discussion The Monitoring Plan describes three conditions that might cause concern about Peregrine Falcons in a region or regions and lead to additional action by the Service. The three conditions are: estimates of territory occupancy or nest success at or below the thresholds for agency response, that is, 13 percentage points below the 1999–2002 targets; or if the upper bound of the 90% confidence intervals around those estimates are below the 1999–2002 targets; or if estimates of productivity are below 1.0 young per successful territory. These thresholds were based on data thought to represent healthy Peregrine Falcon populations (Hickey 1942, Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974, Ratcliffe 1993, Hunt 1998, Corser et al. 1999, Hayes and Buchanan 2002). In 2003, none of these conditions was met (Table 2; Figure 2), giving us reasonable confidence that Peregrine Falcons continued to thrive in 2003. In the Southwestern region, however, the confidence interval for territory occupancy (67% to 89%) is particularly wide; it included the threshold for agency response (71%) (Figure 2); this was a result not considered in the Monitoring Plan. This simply means that territory occupancy may be at or below the threshold for agency response. The wide confidence interval is due in part to the small sample (n = 36), 60 fewer, all in Arizona, than our goal of 96 territories per region. Unlike most other states, Arizona discontinued monitoring in 1997 when the number of active territories in the State approached 170 (USFWS 1993); this number far exceeded the goal in the recovery plan of 46 territories for Arizona (USFWS 1984) and approached the 183 territory recovery goal for the entire Rocky Mountain/Southwestern recovery region. Reestablishing the network of volunteers and agency contacts necessary to carry out monitoring in 2003 and compiling an updated list of recently occupied territories was difficult. These and other factors contributed to the shortfall of territories in the Southwestern Region. In 2004 and 2005 territories were relocated throughout Arizona. Sixty of these will be monitored in 2006, increasing our Southwestern sample to 96, and thus achieving our monitoring objectives for statistical power in the Southwestern region. Although it is not the intent of the Monitoring Plan to track the total numbers of breeding Peregrine Falcons in any region, the monitoring effort does incidentally reveal new territories. The estimate of 3005 pairs in North America is similar to the 2500–3000 pairs estimated in White et al. (2002). Reporting of these data was not universal, however, so the regional and North American sums should be considered conservative estimates. Data on nest placement were also additional to the main purpose of the monitoring plan. It is not surprising that the majority of nesting pairs in the Midwestern/Northeastern Region selected manmade structures for their eyries; steep, tall cliff faces, classical Peregrine Falcon nesting sites, are fewer in the Midwest than in Western or some Northeastern States. Nonetheless, Peregrine Falcons thrive on smokestacks, tall structures in cities, and on bridges over rivers in this region, where territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity are among the highest in the nation (Table 2). In 13 Midwestern states, Ontario, and Manitoba, productivity from nests on smokestacks and buildings was higher than on cliffs or bridges (Tordoff et al. 2003). 10 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Conclusion The Monitoring Plan was carried out with few complications at the national level. The sample from the Southwestern region was smaller than recommended, however steps were taken in 2004 and 2005 to prepare for fullscale monitoring in 2006. With the caveat that the Southwestern region was undersampled, the data collected in 2003 show territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity of Peregrine Falcons to be at healthy levels in every monitoring region, and show numbers of pairs continuing to increase across the United States. No additional reviews or requests for additional research or monitoring occurred as a result of these data. Monitoring will be conducted again in 2006 in accordance with the monitoring plan (USFWS 2003), and funding has already been received by regional coordinators to ensure that States and other partners receive timely support in advance of the 2006 field season to carry out their monitoring activities in accord with the monitoring plan (USFWS 2003). 1 Literature Cited Cade, T. J., J. H. Enderson, and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of Peregrine Falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. 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, ID. Corser, J. D., M. Amaral, C. J. Martin, and C.C. Rimmer. 1999. Recovery of a cliff‑nesting Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus, population in northern New York and New England, 1984‑1996. Canadian FieldNaturalist 113:472‑480. Enderson, J. H., and J. Craig. 1974. Status of the Peregrine Falcon in the Rocky Mountains in 1973. 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 60th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 1995:142‑161. Hayes, G. E., and J. B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the Peregrine Falcon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Hickey, J. J. 1942. Eastern population of the Duck Hawk. Auk 59:176204. Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1969. The Peregrine Falcon: life history and population literature, p. 342. In J. J. Hickey [ed.], Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Hunt. W. G. 1998. Raptor floaters at Moffat’s equilibrium. Oikos 82:191197. Kiff, L. F. 1988. Commentary—Changes in the status of the Peregrine in North America: an overview, p. 123139. In T. J. Cade, J. H. Enderson, C. G. Thelander, and C. M. White [eds.], Peregrine Falcon populations: their management and recovery. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. Pagel, J. E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential Peregrine Falcon eyries in the Pacific Northwest, p. 8396. In J. E. Pagel [ed.]. Proceedings: Symposium on Peregrine Falcons in the Pacific Northwest. Administrative Report, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. Ratcliffe, D. 1993. The Peregrine Falcon, Second edition. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall III, and R. L. Ott. 1996. Elementary Survey Sampling, 5th ed. Duxbury Press, Boston, MA. Steidl, R. J., J. P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 1997. Statistical power in wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:270279. Tordoff, H. B, J. A. Goggin, and J. S. Castrale. 2003. Midwest Peregrine Falcon restoration, 2003 annual report. Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. Recovery plan for the Peregrine Falcon, Alaska population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) eastern population revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. American Peregrine Falcon (Western States) (Falco peregrinus anatum): addendum to the Pacific Coast (1982) and Rocky Mountain/Southwest (revised, 1984) American Peregrine Falcon recovery plans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 12 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 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. U.S. DOI., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 64: 4654246558. 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. White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 660. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 13 Appendix A: List of Data Collectors by Monitoring Region and State Pacific Region California: Paul Andreano, Doug Bell, Dave Bogener, John Boyd, Jeb Bridges, Kristi Bridges, Roy Burke, Ken Dexter, Gregg Doney, Sandra Fleming, Jerry Franklin, Dennis Garrison, Larry Goldzband, David Gregoire, Bill Grummer, Gary Guliasi, Jim Hallisey, Keith Hamm, Terry Hunt, Bob Isenberg, Josh Koepke, Christopher Kuntzsch, Brian Latta, Janet Linthicum, Jeff Maurer, David Moore, Laura NelsonBradley, Henry Pontarelli, Richard Rowlette, Andrew Santa Cruz, Christy Sherr, Steve Shubert, Jeff Sipple, Glenn Stewart, David Suddjian, Nick Todd, Brian Walton. Idaho: Brian Aber, Carl Anderson, Bill Arnold, Mike Biggs, Joanne Bonn, Michael Boyles, Rita Dixon, Robin Garwood, Bruce Haak, Lauri Hanauska Brown, Kristin Hassalblad, Jim Johnston, Jim Juza, Ed Levine, Alvin McCollough, Julie Mulholland, Greg Painter, Dave Roberts, Hadley Roberts, Rex Sallabanks, Audra Serrian, Dave Spicer, Beth Waterbury, Rick Weaver. Nevada: Pat Cummings, Bob Furtek, Ross Haley, Kris Kenney, Christy Klinger, Sara McFarland, Julien Peligrini, Vaughan Spearman, Cris Tomlinson, Jason Williams, Oregon: Ken Allison, David Anderson, Ralph Anderson, Janet Anthony, Norm Barrett, Jean Battle, Matteo Bianchi, Gary Birch, Jeff Bohler, Laura Bradley, Cindy Bright, Bonnie Brown, Matt Broyles, Charlie Bruce, Tim Burnett, Steve Burns, Todd Bush, Francesca Cafferata, Doug Calvin, Steve Carter, Gary Clowers, Kevin Crowell, Eric Cummings, Dick Davis, Ray Davis, Marilyn Elston, Kendel Emmerson, Bus Engsberg, Delena Engsberg, Ron Escano, Roli Espinosa, Sharnelle Fee, Bev Fenske, Dan Fenske, Kim Garvey, Elizabeth Gayner, Lynn Gemlo, Damon Goodman, Eric Greenquist, Bob Gritsky, Lori Haack, Jim Harper, Jim Heaney, Jaime Heinzelmann, Mark Henjum, Will High, Kelli Hoffman, Cindy Humphreys, Frank Isaacs, Kimberly Judson, Shane Kamrath, Anthony Kerwin, Kevin Kocarek, Anson Koehler, Tuch Korevia, Rod Krahmer, Katrina Krause, Karen Kronner, Kirk Lunstrum, Bill Marshall, Jay Martini, Nathan Maxon, Chad McLane, Tom Meek, Michael Mefford, Rolando Mendez Treneman, Mike Miller, John Moore, Raul Morales, Gail Morris, Reed Mortenson, Bill Munro, Tom Murtagh, Jane Olson, Charlotte Opp, Ralph Opp, Joel Pagel, Rosa Palarino, Amanda Pantovich, Dan Patterson, Mark Penninger, Lindsey Perrine, Dave Peterson, Summer Phelps, Glenn Phillips, Dave Pitkin, Kristal Plotts, Bill Price, Jim Quincy, Erich Reeder, Rick Rodriguez, Trisha Roninger, Bob Sallinger, Jennifer Sanborn, Kevin Sands, Ruby Seitz, Hud Sherlock, Jean Sherlock, Ryan Siebdrath, Devin Simmons, Melonie Smeltz, Jeff Stephens, Terri Stone, Kristin Thompson, Melinda Trask, Sally Villegas, Angie Voigt, Eugene Voyton, Daryl Whitmore, Grant Wiegert, Holly Witt, Barbara Woodhouse, John Woodhouse, Tiff Young. Washington: Chris Addison, Bud Anderson, David Anderson, Jeff Bernatowicz, Russ Canniff, Tom Cyra, Bob Davies, Howard Ferguson, Pat Fowler, Steve Goodman, Stuart Johnson, Lee Kantar, Michael MacDonald, Tom McCall, Ruth Milner, Kim RomainBondi, Tricia Thompson, Dave Volsen. Southwestern Region New Mexico: Sandy Williams Texas: Judy Brinkerhoff, Jessica Erickson, Joselyn Fenstermacher, Allison Freeman, Meaghan Hicks, Katrina Jensen, Dan Leavitt, Gary Luce, Steve McAllister, Colm Moore, Amy Mowat, Marcos Paredes, Casey Parks, Melissa Powell, Michael Ryan, Joe Sirotnak, Raymond Skiles, Reine Winote, David Yim, Mark Yuhas. Midwestern/Northeastern Connecticut: Julie Victoria. Delaware: Holly Niederriter. Iowa: Theresa Chapel, Pat Schlarbaum Illinois: Matt Gies, Mary Hennen, Kanae Hirabayashi, Dave Sysczak, Friends of the Uptown Theatre. Indiana: Susan Banta, Dwayne Burke, John Castrale, Greg Costakis, Tony DiPaolo, Susan Laflin, John Meyer, Jeff Neumeier, Ted Weitzel, John Winebrenner, Wayne Yoder. Maine: Charlie Todd. 14 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Maryland: Craig Koppie. Massachusetts: Tom French. Michigan: Tim Payne, Ray Rustem, Judy Yerkey. Minnesota: Bob Anderson, Jim Fitzpatrick, Brad Johnson, Warren Lind, Marco Restani, Wendell Snider, Bud Tordoff. New Hampshire: John Kanter, Chris Martin. New Jersey: Kathy Clark. New York: Barbara Loucks, Chris Nadareski. Ohio: Tom Henry, Rick Jasper, Dave Scott. Pennsylvania: Dan Brauning. Virginia: Jeff Cooper, Rick Reynolds, Bryan Watt. Vermont: Doug Blodgett, Steve Faccio, Margaret Fowle. Wisconsin: Mike Crivello, Greg Septon. Southeastern Georgia: Jim Ozier. Kentucky: Shawchyi Vorisek. North Carolina: Chris McGrath. South Carolina: Mary Bunch, Harrison. Tennessee: Dubke, Stiver, Keith Watson. Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Colorado: Jerry Craig, Jim Enderson, Jeff Lucas, Terry Meyers, Dinosaur National Monument, Mark Roberts, Marni Zaborac. Montana: Byron Crow, David Lockman, Ralph Rogers, Jay Sumner. Utah: Frank Howe. Wyoming: Terry McEneaney, Bob Oakleaf, Susan Patla. Interior Alaska Skip Ambrose, Peter Bente, Bob Ritchie, John Wright. We apologize to anyone we left off the list. 15 Appendix B: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form (Used in 2003; updated version at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/peregrine/.) Observation Date:(M/D/YR) Nest Site Name or # Which Territory Visit is this? (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Nest Site (circle one): Manmade Natural Observation Time: Begin End (Should be at least 4 hrs if occupancy, nest age, or nestling number are in question) Observer(s) Phone:_________________ Email:________________________ Agency/NGO WEATHER: Precipitation Wind (speed estimate) Temperature Cloud cover (%) Note conditions at beginning (beg.) and ending (end) of observation period if different Observation post: (distance in meters) Approx. Nesting Phase (determined how?) Peregrines present: (define as ad. male, ad. female, ad. unknown, subad. Male, subad. Female, or subad. Unknown, and number of each.) Behaviors observed: 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: Occupied Territory—a territory where either a pair of Peregrines are present (2 adults or 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). Occupancy must be established for at least one of two or more 4hour site visits. Nest Success—the percentage of occupied territories 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 the monitoring region. Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering information under this Peregrine Falcon monitoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in 2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and preparing and transmitting reports. 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. 16 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Appendix C: Monitoring Data Table C1: Monitoring Data FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 Pacific Monitoring Region CA01 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA02 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA04 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA10 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA11 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 CA14 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA15 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA21 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CA23 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA26 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA27 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CA31 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 CA32 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 CA46 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA48 nat N 0 N 0 CA54 nat N 0 N 0 CA56 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA62 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA63 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA64 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA66 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 CA75 mm Y 2/0 N 0 CA78 mm Y 2/0 N 0 CA82 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 CA84 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA85 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA88 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA89 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA17 nat Y 2/0 unk unk ID03 nat Y 2/0 N 0 ID07 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 17 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 ID09 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 ID11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 ID12 nat N 0 N 0 ID16 nat N 0 N 0 ID17 nat Y 2/0 N 0 ID20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 ID24 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NV01 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NV04 nat N 1/0 N 0 NV11 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 OR01 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR05 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR07 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 OR10 nat N 0 N 0 OR13 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR14 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR15 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR21 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR22 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 OR23 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR30 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR31 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR39 nat N 0 N 0 OR41 mm N 0 N 0 OR47 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR49 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 OR56 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR57 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR62 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR63 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR68 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 OR71 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR72 mm Y 2/0 Y 3 OR75 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR77 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR79 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR84 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR86 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA03 nat Y ? Y 2 WA13 nat Y ? Y 3 WA15 nat Y 2/0 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 18 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 WA20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA22 nat Y ? Y 2 WA24 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA25 nat N 0 N 0 WA29 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 WA32 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 WA36 mm Y 2/0 N 0 WA39 nat N 1/0 N 0 WA41 nat N 0 N 0 WA47 mm Y 2/0 N 0 WA51 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 WA54 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA57 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA60 mm Y 1/0 N 0 WA62 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 WA63 nat Y ? Y 2 WA74 mm Y ? N 0 WA77 nat N 0 N 0 WA79 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA80 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 Southwestern Monitoring Region NM004 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NM005 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NM007 nat N 1/0 N 0 NM010 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM011 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM013 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM016 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM021 nat N 0 N 0 NM026 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM029 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM038 nat N 0 N 0 NM040 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NM041 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM042 nat N 0 N 0 NM046 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM050 nat N 0 N 0 NM055 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM056 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM063 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM066 nat N 1/0 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 19 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NM069 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM071 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM074 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM075 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NM077 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM087 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 NM089 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM090 nat N 1/0 N 0 NM092 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM097 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM099 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM100 nat N 1/0 N 0 TX nat Y 2 Y 1 TX nat Y 2 Y 1 TX nat Y 2 N 0 TX nat Y 2 Y 2 Midwestern/Northeastern Monitoring Region IA2 mm Y 2 Y 4 IL7 mm Y 2 Y 3 IN10 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN3 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN6 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN7 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN8 mm Y 2 N 0 MI5 mm Y 2 Y 4 MI7 mm Y 2 N 0 MN11 mm Y 2 Y 1 MN17 mm Y 2 Y 3 MN19 mm Y 2 N 0 MN21 mm Y 2 Y 3 MN27 mm Y 2 N 0 MN5 nat Y 2 unk unk MN9 mm Y 2 N 0 OH1 mm Y 2 Y 2 OH11 mm Y 2 Y 1 OH15 mm Y 2 Y 3 OH6 mm Y 2 N 0 WI14 mm Y 2 Y 3 WI2 mm Y 2 Y 4 WI9 mm N 1 N 0 NH05 nat Y 2 Y 2 NH06 nat Y 2 Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 20 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NH07 nat Y 2 Y 2 NH11 nat Y 2 N 0 NH14 nat Y 2 Y 2 VT5 nat Y 2 N 0 VT6 nat Y 2 N 0 VT12 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT13 nat N 1 N 0 VT14 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT15 nat Y 2 N 0 VT16 nat Y 2 Y 1 VT17 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT20 nat Y 2 N 0 VT22 nat Y 2 N 0 VT28 nat Y 2 Y 2 DE04 mm Y 2 Y 3 MD01 mm Y 2 Y 4 MD04 mm Y 2 Y 2 MD05 mm Y 2 N 0 MD06 mm Y 2 Y 4 MD07 mm Y 2 Y 3 MD11 mm Y 2 Y 3 CT03 nat N 1 N 0 ME01 nat Y 2 N 0 ME03 nat Y 2 Y 2 ME04 nat Y 2 N 0 ME07 nat Y 2 Y 3 ME16 nat N 0 N 0 NY01 nat Y 2 unk unk NY05 nat N 0 N 0 NY06 nat Y 2 Y 2 NY08 nat Y 2 unk unk NY10 nat Y 1 Y 3 NY15 nat N 0 N 0 NY16 nat Y 2 Y 3 NY28 nat Y 2 Y 2 NY30 mm Y 2 Y 4 NY34 mm Y 2 N 0 NY35 mm Y 2 N 0 NY40 mm Y 2 Y 2 NY41 mm Y 2 Y 4 NY42 mm N 0 N 0 NY44 nat Y 2 Y 1 NY46 mm Y 2 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 21 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NY48 mm Y 2 Y 3 NY51 nat Y 2 Y 3 NY53 nat N 2 N 0 MA01 mm Y 2 Y 3 MA04 mm Y 2 Y 1 MA08 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ02 mm Y 2 N 0 NJ06 mm Y 2 Y 4 NJ07 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ09 mm Y 2 Y 1 NJ12 mm Y 2 Y 2 NJ14 mm Y 2 Y 4 NJ19 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ21 mm Y 2 Y 2 PA11 mm Y 2 Y 2 RI02 mm Y 2 unk unk VA02 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA05 mm Y 2 Y 5 VA09 mm Y 2 Y 2 VA10 mm Y 2 Y 4 VA14 mm N 0 N 0 VA17 mm Y 2 Y 2 VA18 mm Y 2 N 0 VA22 mm Y 2 Y 0 VA24 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA25 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA26 mm Y 2 N 0 Southeastern Monitoring Region NC1 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC2 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NC3 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC4 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NC5 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC6 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC7 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NC8 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NC9 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NC10 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 SC1 nat Y 2/0 unk unk KY1 mm N 1/0 N 0 KY2 mm Y ? Y 4 KY3 mm Y ? Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 22 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 KY4 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 KY5 mm Y 2/0 Y 3 TN1 nat Y 2/0 unk unk TN2 mm Y 1/1 Y 0 TN3 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 GA1 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 GA2 mm Y 1/? Y 1 Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Monitoring Region CO02 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO112 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CO115 nat N 0 N 0 CO122 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO123 nat N 1/0 N 0 CO124 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO131 nat N 0 N 0 CO132 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO138 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO147 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CO149 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CO152 nat N 1/0 N 0 CO22 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO32 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO41 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CO42 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO43 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO54 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO58 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CO69 nat Y 1/1 N 0 CO71 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO75 nat N 0 N 0 CO92 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO94 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO97 nat Y 2/0 N 0 Mt03 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt06 mm N 0 N 0 Mt10 nat N 0 N 0 Mt11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt12 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 Mt17 nat N 0 N 0 Mt24 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt26 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 Mt27 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 23 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 Mt29 nat Y 2 Y 3 Mt33 nat Y 2 Y 3 Mt34 nat Y 2 Y 1 Mt35 nat Y 2 Y 2 Mt41 nat N 0 N 0 Mt43 nat N 0 N 0 UT012 mm Y 2 Y 1 UT016 mm Y 2 N 0 UT017 mm Y 2 Y 2 UT024 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT025 nat Y 1 N 0 UT027 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT029 nat Y 2 unk unk UT030 nat Y 2 unk unk UT033 nat Y 2 N 0 UT037 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT040 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT041 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT046 nat Y 2 N 0 UT047 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT064 nat Y 2 unk unk UT072 nat Y 2 unk unk UT081 nat Y 2 Y 3 UT090 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT098 nat Y 1 Y 2 UT099 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT100 nat N 0 N 0 UT105 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT118 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT124 nat Y 2 unk unk UT127 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT129 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT131 nat Y 2 unk unk UT135 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT136 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT144 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT162 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT163 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT172 nat N 0 N 0 UT177 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT181 nat Y 2 N 0 WY2 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY10 nat Y 2 Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 24 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 WY12 nat Y 2 Y 3 WY14 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY20 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY23 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY24 nat Y 2 N 0 WY25 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY27 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY32 nat Y 2 Y 3 WY33 nat Y 2 Y 4 WY42 nat Y 1 N 0 WY45 nat Y 2 Y 1 WY60 nat Y 2 Y 1 WY61 nat Y 2 Y 2 Interior Alaska Monitoring Region Yukon River km 3 nat Y 2 Y 2 9.5 nat Y 2 N 0 14 nat Y 2 Y 2 20 nat Y 2 Y 2 26 nat Y 2 Y 3 31.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 38 nat Y 2 N 0 45 nat Y 2 N 0 48.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 51.5 nat Y 2 N 0 56 nat Y 2 Y 2 57.5 nat Y 2 N 0 73.5 nat Y 2 N 0 76.5 nat Y 2 Y 4 82.5 nat Y 2 N 0 88 nat Y 2 Y 3 90.5 nat Y 3 Y 3 95.5 nat Y 2 N 0 112 nat Y 2 Y 1 117 nat Y 3 Y 2 123_0 nat Y 2 N 0 124 nat Y 2 Y 2 128 nat Y 3 N 0 138 nat Y 2 Y 3 141.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 149.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 154 nat Y 2 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 25 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 180 nat Y 2 Y 2 184 nat Y 2 N 0 187 nat Y 2 Y 2 191.5 nat Y 2 N 0 195 nat Y 2 Y 2 196.6 nat Y 2 N 0 197 nat Y 2 N 0 199 nat Y 2 Y 3 200.5 nat Y 4 Y 2 205 nat Y 2 N 0 208.5 nat Y 2 N 0 210.5 nat Y 2 N 0 211.5 nat Y 2 N 0 224.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 229 nat Y 2 N 0 233 nat Y 2 Y 2 235 nat Y 2 N 0 239.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 243.2 nat Y 2 N 0 248.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 254 nat Y 2 Y 1 Tanana River km 96.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 103 nat Y 2 Y 1 130 nat Y 2 N 0 135 nat Y 2 Y 4 181 nat Y 2 Y 3 188 nat Y 2 N 0 205 nat Y 2 Y 4 211 nat N 1 N 0 214 nat N 0 N 0 221.5 nat Y 2 Y 4 243 nat Y 2 Y 4 244.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 246 nat N 0 N 0 247 nat N 0 N 0 248 nat Y 2 Y 4 257 nat Y 2 Y 2 258.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 269.5 nat Y 2 N 0 273 nat Y 2 Y 3 280.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 26 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 281.5 nat N 0 N 0 283.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 288.5 nat N 0 N 0 299 nat Y 2 N 0 320 nat Y 2 Y 4 323 nat Y 2 N 0 335 nat N 0 N 0 337.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 371 nat Y 2 Y 4 376 nat Y 2 N 0 380 nat Y 2 Y 1 386 nat Y 2 Y 1 405 nat Y 2 Y 3 408 nat N 0 N 0 411 nat Y 2 Y 2 412 nat Y 2 Y 2 414.5 nat N 1 N 0 427 nat Y 2 Y 1 431 nat Y 2 N 0 436.5 nat Y 2 N 0 438.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 443 nat Y 2 N 0 449 nat Y 2 N 0 459.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 470.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 544.5 nat N 1 N 0 550.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 551.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 578 nat Y 2 Y 2 586 nat Y 2 Y 2 610 nat N 1 N 0 613 nat Y 2 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Route 1, Box 166 Sheperdstown, WV 25443 http://www.fws.gov March 2006
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Rating  
Title  Monitoring results for breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 
Alternative Title  Biological Technical Publication BTPR10052006 
Contact  mailto:library@fws.gov 
Creator  Green, Michael; Swem, Ted; Morin, Marie; Mesta, Robert; Klee, Mary; Hollar, Kathy; Hazlewood, Rob; Delphey, Phil; Currie, Robert; Amaral, Michael 
Description  These are the results of the 2003 peregrine falcon monitoring plan. The plan was established after the species' delisting from the endangered species list, and takes place every three years. The report includes a description of methodology as well as detailed result tables per region inhabited by peregrine falcons. 
Subject 
Birds Monitoring Predators Predator control Species of concern Statistics 
Publisher  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Date of Original  200603 
Type  Text 
Format  
Item ID  BTP\peregrine_breeding.pdf 
Source  NCTC Conservation Library 
Language  English 
Rights  Public domain 
Audience  General 
File Size  489 KB 
Original Format  Digital 
Length  36 p. 
Transcript  Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Biological Technical Publication BTPR10052006 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ted Swem, Region 7, USFWS Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Biological Technical Publication BTPR10052006 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Michael Green1, Ted Swem2, Marie Morin3,11, Robert Mesta4, Mary Klee5, Kathy Hollar6, Rob Hazlewood7,12, Phil Delphey8, Robert Currie9, Michael Amaral10 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Division of Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Portland, OR Michael_green@fws.gov 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Ecological Services, Portland, OR 4 Sonoran Joint Venture, Tucson, AZ 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 9, Ecological Services, Arlington, VA 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Ecological Services, Portland, OR 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Ecological Services, Helena, MT 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Ecological Services, Bloomington, MN 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Ecological Services, Asheville, NC 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Ecological Services, Concord, NH 11 Current address: 4920 SE 140th Ave, Portland, OR 97236 12 Current address: P.O. Box 4322, Helena, MT 59604 ii Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Author Contact information: Michael Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 972324181. Phone: (503) 8722707, Fax: (503) 2312019, Email: Michael_Green@fws.gov Ted Swem, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office, 101 12th Ave., Box 19, Fairbanks, Alaska 99501. Phone: (907) 4560441, Fax: (907) 4560208, Email: Ted_Swem@fws.gov. Marie Morin (Current address), 4920 SE 140th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97236. marie_p_morin@hotmail. com Robert Mesta, Coordinator, Sonoran Joint Venture, 738 N. Fifth Ave. Suite 215, Tucson, Arizona 85705. Phone: (520) 8820047, Fax: (520) 8820370, Email: Robert_Mesta@fws.gov. Mary Klee, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Habitat Conservation Plans, Recovery, and State Grants, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square, Arlington, VA 22203. Phone: (703) 3582061, Fax: (703) 3581735, Email: Mary_Klee@fws.gov. Kathy Hollar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Division of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 972324181. Phone: (503) 231 2359, Fax: (503) 2316243, Email: Kathy_Hollar@ fws.gov. Robert Hazlewood (Current address), P.O. Box 4322, Helena, MT 59604. Tierra1@theglobal.net Phil Delphey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Twin Cities Field Office, 4101 E. 80th St., Bloomington, Minnesota 55425. Phone: (612) 7253548, Fax: (612) 7253609. Email: Phil_ Delphey@fws.gov. Robert Currie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, North Carolina 28801. Phone: (828) 2583939, Fax: (828) 2585330. Email: Robert_ Currie@fws.gov. Michael Amaral, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Ecological Services, New England Field Office, 70 Commercial St., Ste. 300, Concord, New Hampshire 033014986. Phone: (603) 2232541, Fax: (603) 2230104, email: Michael_Amaral@fws.gov. For additional copies or information, contact: Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Ave Portland, OR 97232 Recommended citation: Green, M.G., T. Swem, M. Morin, R. Mesta, M. Klee, K. Hollar, R. Hazlewood, P. Delphey, R. Currie, and M. Amaral. 2006. Monitoring results for breeding American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTPR10052006, Washington DC. Series Senior Technical Editor: Stephanie L. Jones USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator P.O. Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 802250486 iii Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables..................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vi Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2 Methods.......................................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Regions............................................................................................................. 3 Sample Size Determination................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Protocol............................................................................................................ 3 Analyses......................................................................................................................... 4 Results........................................................................................................................... 5 Discussion....................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion......................................................................................................................10 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................11 Appendix A: List of Data Collectors by Monitoring Region and State...................................................13 Appendix B: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form.................................................................15 Appendix C: Monitoring Data.................................................................................................16 iv Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 List of Figures Figure 1........................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2........................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3........................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables Table 1: Territory and nest data, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003.................................................... 5 Table 2: Territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003......... 6 Table 3: 2003 continental population estimate, American Peregrine Falcon.......................................... 6 Table 4: Numbers of nest sites on natural versus manmade substrates, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003..... 8 Table C1: Monitoring Data..................................................................................................16 vi Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Acknowledgments The monitoring team is especially grateful to Bob Steidl for his statistical guidance. However, we would have no data to analyze were it not for more than 300 observers, volunteers and paid personnel, who ventured into the field in 2003 at least two and sometimes many more times over a three to four month period to observe Peregrine Falcons. Territory accessibility ranged from roadside to remote; the latter requiring hiking, rafting, or access by air. This nationwide monitoring effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is completely dependent on the network of State and Federal agencies, Tribes, and many other organizations that marshal this cadre of dedicated observers, annually in many States or regions. The observers themselves, united by their collective dedication to Peregrine Falcons, might not be aware of the larger network to which they belong. We know that Appendix A fails to list all participants and apologize to those overlooked. We hope this list gives some perspective on the number of people involved. Funding for this effort was provided to States and other cooperators by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thanks to George Allen, Brad Bortner, Susan Earnst, Suzanne Fellows, Stephanie L. Jones, Bob Steidl, and Tara Zimmerman for reviewing earlier versions of this report. Summary In 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) implemented the first of five nationwide monitoring efforts for American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Peregrine Falcons) as described in the Service’s postdelisting monitoring plan (USFWS 2003). More than 300 observers monitored 438 Peregrine Falcon territories across six monitoring regions. Monitoring in the Southwestern monitoring region fell short of the monitoring goal, where 36 of the targeted 96 territories were monitored; efforts are underway to implement fullscale monitoring in that region in 2006. The five other monitoring regions surveyed sufficient territories to meet the statistical criteria described in the postdelisting monitoring plan. Our estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity were above the target values that we set in the monitoring plan for those nesting parameters. Additional data collected by this effort documented that the total number of nesting pairs of Peregrine Falcons is estimated at 3,005. Additional data show that 92% of pairs nest on natural substrates in all regions except the Midwestern/ Northeastern region, where only 32% nest on natural substrates. Our estimates of the nesting parameters and the additional data from across the United States indicate that the Peregrine Falcon population is secure and vital. The next coordinated nationwide monitoring effort is scheduled for 2006 (USFWS 2003). Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Introduction The history of Peregrine Falcons in the United States, their population decline caused by environmental contaminants and their recovery following bans on those chemicals, is a tale of conservation success. By the late 1960’s Peregrine Falcons had disappeared from the eastern United States and Midwest and were substantially reduced in the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico (Kiff 1988, Enderson et al. 1995). The Service officially listed Peregrine Falcons as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (for a history of listing actions see USFWS 1999) and set recovery goals based on abundance and productivity in four regions of the United States. In some of these regions it also established goals for reduced contaminant effects (USFWS 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1991, 1993; Figure 1). By 1999, recovery goals had been almost completely met in all regions, primarily due to a ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons and to the successful captive breeding, rearing, and release of over 6,000 Peregrine Falcons (White et al. 2002). Peregrine Falcons were removed from the Service’s List of Threatened and Endangered Species on August 25, 1999 (USFWS 1999). From 1999 to 2003 the Service developed a postdelisting monitoring plan (USFWS 2003) for Peregrine Falcons in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, Tribes, and nongovernmental organizations (USFWS 2003). This plan is designed to detect a significant decline in territory occupancy, nest success, or productivity in six monitoring regions across the United States. These three indices of population health were low between 1950 and 1980 when Peregrine Falcon populations declined severely; the three measures then rebounded during population recovery (Cade et al. 1988, Enderson et al. 1995, USFWS 1999, White et al. 2002). The monitoring plan (USFWS 2003) calls for monitoring every three years beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015. These five monitoring periods meet the requirement of ESA (to monitor “. . . for not less than five years . . .”) and the threeyear interval spreads the monitoring over 13 years, reflecting the concern of the Service for the longterm future of Peregrine Falcon populations. The monitoring plan is also designed to collect baseline information on contaminant loads in each monitoring region through the annual collection and archiving of addled eggs and feather samples. Those samples will be analyzed and reported in future years. This report is of results from Peregrine Falcon monitoring in 2003, which yielded data on territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity from across the United States. This is the first report of postdelisting monitoring results for Peregrine Falcons. Methods Monitoring Regions The six monitoring regions are: Pacific, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains, Southwestern, Midwestern/ Northeastern, Southeastern, and Interior Alaska (Figure 1). The monitoring region boundaries conform to the Service’s regional divisions with the exception that Service regions 3 (Great Lakes and Big Rivers) and 5 (Northeast) are combined into a single monitoring region. These monitoring regions are similar to the original four Peregrine Falcon recovery regions, with some minor boundary adjustments (USFWS 2003). Sample Size Determination In each of the Pacific, Southwestern, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains, and Midwestern Northeastern monitoring regions, we randomly selected 96 territories from the set of territories occupied at least once from 1999 through 2002. This is the estimated sample size required to detect a decline in nest success from 68% (average nationwide nest success from 19992002) to 55% (potentially indicating an unhealthy population) with a type I error (alpha) of 0.1, and a type II error (beta) less than or equal to 0.2; the statistical power to detect declines of that magnitude is thus greater than or equal to 0.80 (1–beta), or 80% (USFWS 2003). In this effort, power measures the ability of our sampling of the population to accurately reveal the 13 percentage point decline of interest; beta indicates the probability of making a type II statistical error, that is, of incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis that nest success or territory occupancy did not fall by 13 points, when in fact it did. The calculated number of adequately monitored occupied territories to achieve these statistical criteria is 67. The sample size calculation of 96 territories accounts for the fact that Peregrine Falcons occupy about 75% of monitored territories in any year, and a margin of error of 7 (10%) territories per monitoring region to ensure that a sufficient number of nests are monitored. If the initial random selection of territories included a territory that was too difficult to monitor adequately, usually because of inaccessibility, then we randomly selected an alternate from the same pool of territories from the same State. Although this introduces a potential bias to territory selection, we considered it a reasonable way to maintain a sufficient sample in the face of practical considerations of monitoring. Six territories were reselected in this way in 2003. In the Southeastern Region all known territories (n = 21) were monitored. In Interior Alaska, we monitored all territories (n = 100) along portions of both the Tanana and Yukon rivers, mostly by boat; these remote stretches of river have been monitored in this way for 20 years, and thus we took advantage of established protocols and manpower to determine the health of Peregrine Falcons in Interior Alaska. Monitoring Protocol Peregrine Falcon nest sites were observed by volunteers, agency personnel and other partners (Appendix A). Observers reported data to regional coordinators on a data collection form (Appendix B), who then consolidated the regional monitoring data and sent it to the national coordinator for analysis. Observers visited each randomly selected territory to determine occupancy, nest success, and productivity. Observers were instructed to maintain sufficient distance from nests so as not to elicit sustained territorial behavior from either adult (Pagel 1992). Occupied territories were those where either a pair of Peregrine Falcons was present (two adults or an adult/subadult mixed pair) or there was 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). Territories were considered unoccupied if the above criteria were not met after the territory was visited during two observer visits of four or more hours each during the appropriate months (USFWS 2003). The calculation of territory occupancy is the number of occupied territories divided by the number of territories that were monitored. Nest success is the percentage of occupied territories in a monitoring region with one or more young ≥ 28 days old, with age determined following guidelines in Cade et al. (1996). Productivity is the number of young observed at ≥ 28 days old per occupied territory averaged across a monitoring region (USFWS 2003). Most counts were made of young 28 days old to fledging age (ca. 45 days posthatch). However, some observers reported the number of young fledged based on visits conducted immediately after fledging. These data were used if they were the only counts of young ≥ 28 days old from that territory. In Interior Alaska, productivity is estimated from observations made during the final transect, regardless of nestling age, although average nestling age is usually between 14 and 28 days. Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Some States, Service regions, and private programs monitored all known Peregrine Falcon nesting territories, not just those selected as part of this monitoring effort. Data from these efforts are also summarized here. Analyses We compared territory occupancy, nest success, and their 90% confidence intervals, to target values derived from nationwide data collected from 1999 through 2002 (Steidl et al. 1997). These target values are 84% (90% CI = ± 2%) territory occupancy and 68% (90% CI = ± 2%) nest success (USFWS 2003). We also compared the estimates of territory occupancy and nest success and their confidence intervals to “. . . thresholds for agency response . . .” 13 percentage points lower than the target values. The thresholds are 71% for territory occupancy and 55% for nest success (USFWS 2003). We compared estimates of productivity and their 90% confidence limits to a threshold value of 1.0 nestling per occupied territory; historic, and contemporary productivity; and to estimates of this parameter in Peregrine Falcon population models (USFWS 2003). We used the finite population correction in our calculations of confidence intervals around estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity (Scheaffer et al. 1996). The finite population correction requires knowledge of the overall population size. For Peregrine Falcons, we are fairly confident in our estimate of overall population size in each region. Regardless, we made the conservative assumption that the total nesting population was 10% larger in each region than is currently known, perhaps more likely in Western than in Midwestern, Eastern, or Southern regions. Figure 1: Monitoring and recovery regions for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Service Region boundaries outlined in each map—Region 1 (Pacific, excluding Hawaii and other Pacific Islands); R2 (Southwest); R3 (Great LakesBig Rivers); R4 (Southeast, excluding Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands); R5 (Northeast); R6 (MountainPrairie); R7 (Alaska). Monitoring Regions Pacific Southwestern Midwestern/Northeastern Southeastern Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Interior Alaska Recovery Regions Pacific Eastern Rocky Mountain/Southwestern Alaska Results Across the nation, 438 Peregrine Falcon territories were monitored (Table 1; Appendix C): 36 in the Southwestern Region (New Mexico and Big Bend National Park, TX); 21 in the Southeastern Region; 100 in Interior Alaska; 96 in the Pacific Region; 95 in the Midwestern/Northeastern Region; and 90 in the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Region. Some territories were incompletely monitored and were omitted from further analysis. Regardless, sample sizes were sufficient to achieve the statistical targets of the monitoring plan for all monitoring regions except the Southwestern Region (Table 1). In the Southwestern Region, the power to detect 13 point declines in nest success and territory occupancy dropped to 53% and 63%, respectively, due to limited sample sizes. Estimates of territory occupancy varied from 78% to 95% across regions and averaged 87% for the nation (Table 2). Ninety percent confidence intervals around their means included or exceeded the target value of 84% (Figure 2). In the Southwestern Region the estimated territory occupancy was 78%; the 90% confidence interval (67% to 89%) included the threshold for Service response for territory occupancy, which is 71%, 13 points lower than the target of 84% (USFWS 2003). Estimates of nest success ranged from 64% to 78% across regions and averaged 71% for the nation (Table 2). Ninety percent confidence limits around nest success means included or exceeded the 68% target value, and were all above the threshold for agency response (Figure 2). Estimates of productivity varied from 1.45–2.09 across regions and averaged 1.64 for the nation (Table 2), and 90% confidence intervals exceeded the threshold for agency response of 1.0 (Figure 2). In the Southeastern Region observers monitor every known territory. Thus, the summarized data from this region likely represent true values for southeastern Peregrine Falcons rather than estimates of those values as in other regions. Nevertheless, we assumed there are a few territories that have not been discovered and thus also show confidence intervals around the ‘estimates’ of the population parameters in the Southeast. Data beyond that requested in the Monitoring Plan were reported by States or monitoring regions, including the number of newly discovered territories in 2003, updated counts of occupied territories, and the number of pairs using manmade structures Table 1: Territory and nest data, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Region Territories Checked Territories Occupied (known outcome)1 Successful Nests2 Number of Young3 Pacific 96 80 (75) 49 109 Southwestern 36 28 (26) 20 45 Midwestern/Northeastern 95 86 (82) 62 171 Southeastern 21 20 (18) 14 28 Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 90 78 (70) 52 104 Interior Alaska 100 89 (89) 57 133 All Regions 438 381 (360) 254 590 1 Some territories were excluded from nest success and productivity calculations because they were not checked when nestlings were ≥28 days old, and thus the outcome was considered unknown. 2 Includes only territories with young ≥28 days old. 3 Maximum number of nestlings ≥28 days old detected on last visit to nest, or count of fledged young if the only nest visit after 27 days posthatch was made after young fledged. Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 versus natural. Using this information, the estimated number of Peregrine Falcon territories in North America in 2003 was conservatively estimated at 3005, including recent data from Canada (400 pairs; U. Banasch, pers. commun.), an older estimate from Mexico (170 pairs; Enderson et al. 1995), and a rough estimate for Interior Alaska (1000 pairs; T. Swem, pers. commun.). In the contiguous United States, the total number of active territories was estimated to be 1435 (Table 3). Of the 438 territories checked, 350 were on natural substrates and 88 were on manmade structures (Table 4). Artificial substrates supported 64% of eyries in the Midwestern/Northeastern region, but only 8% of nests in all other regions combined (Figure 3). Table 2: Territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity for the American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Region % Territory Occupancy1 (90% CI) % Nest Success2 (90% CI) Productivity3 (90% CI) Pacific 83 (78–89) 65 (57–74) 1.45 (1.251.66) Southwestern 78 (67–89) 77 (64–90) 1.73 (1.362.10) Midwestern/Northeastern 91 (86–95) 76 (69–82) 2.09 (1.852.32) Southeastern 95 (93–98) 78 (70–86) 1.56 (1.321.79) Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 87 (81–92) 74 (66–82) 1.49 (1.291.68) Interior Alaska 89 (84–94) 64 (56–72) 1.494 (1.271.72) All Regions 87 (85–89) 71 (67–74) 1.64 (1.531.75) 1 Percent of checked territories occupied by a pair. 2 Percent of occupied territories with one or more young ≥28 days old. 3 Average number of young ≥28 days old produced by occupied territories with known outcomes. 4 Average age of young was 14 days on Yukon and 2128 days on Tanana rivers, thus productivity estimates are unlike in other regions. In a previous year on Yukon, a count of nestlings and later of fledglings of a sample of nests yielded a 21% mortality rate (Skip Ambrose, pers. comm.). If applied to both rivers, this mortality correction would result in a productivity estimate of 1.18 (90% CI 0.951.41); however, this calculation is also not equivalent to our method of estimating productivity in other regions. Table 3: 2003 continental population estimate, American Peregrine Falcon. Region Pairs (new1) Total Pacific 472 (87) Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 367 (10) Southwestern 260 (0) 1099 (97) Midwestern/Northeastern 315 (24) Southeastern 21 (2) 336 (26) Subtotal (lower 48) 1435 (123) Interior Alaska 1000 (8) Canada 400 Mexico 170 Total2 3005 (131) 1Number of new territories reported in 2003 versus 2002; in some cases these updated older data (5 yearold data in one case). 2Includes conservative estimates for some States (e.g. CA, AK) where exact pair count not known. Results Figure 2: American Peregrine Falcon, 2003, regional estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, productivity, and 90% confidence intervals. Target values (solid lines at 84% territory occupancy and 68% nest success), and threshold levels (dashed lines at 71% territory occupancy, 55% nest success, and 1.0 Productivity). Monitoring Regions are: P, Pacific; SW, Southwestern; M/N, Midwestern/Northeastern; SE, Southeastern; RM, Rocky Mountain/Great Plains; AK, Interior Alaska; and combined data for all regions. 78 91 95 87 89 87 83 40 60 80 100 120 % Territory Occupancy 65 77 76 78 64 74 71 40 60 80 100 % Nest Success 1.45 1.73 2.09 1.56 1.49 1.49 1.64 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Monitoring Regions Young/Occupied Territory P SW M/N SE RM AK All Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Table 4: Numbers of nest sites on natural versus manmade substrates, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Regions Nest Site Substrate Territories Checked Territories Occupied (known outcome) Successful Nests Young Pacific Manmade 15 14 (14) 8 21 Natural 81 66 (61) 41 88 Southwestern Manmade 0 0 0 0 Natural 36 28 (26) 20 45 Midwestern/ Northeastern Manmade 61 58 (57) 45 132 Natural 34 28 (25) 17 39 Southeastern Manmade 8 7 (7) 7 13 Natural 13 13 (11) 7 15 Rocky Mountain/ Great Plains Manmade 4 3 (3) 2 3 Natural 86 75 (67) 50 101 Interior Alaska Manmade 0 0 0 0 Natural 100 89 (89) 57 133 All Regions Manmade 88 82 (81) 62 169 Natural 350 299 (279) 192 421 Total 438 381 (360) 254 590 Figure 3: Percentage of eyries on natural versus manmade substrates in the Midwestern/Northeastern Monitoring Region and all other regions combined, American Peregrine Falcon, 2003. Midwestern/Northeastern Region (n = 95) Manmade 64% Natural 36% All Other Regions (n = 343) Manmade 8% Natural 92% Discussion The Monitoring Plan describes three conditions that might cause concern about Peregrine Falcons in a region or regions and lead to additional action by the Service. The three conditions are: estimates of territory occupancy or nest success at or below the thresholds for agency response, that is, 13 percentage points below the 1999–2002 targets; or if the upper bound of the 90% confidence intervals around those estimates are below the 1999–2002 targets; or if estimates of productivity are below 1.0 young per successful territory. These thresholds were based on data thought to represent healthy Peregrine Falcon populations (Hickey 1942, Hickey and Anderson 1969, Enderson and Craig 1974, Ratcliffe 1993, Hunt 1998, Corser et al. 1999, Hayes and Buchanan 2002). In 2003, none of these conditions was met (Table 2; Figure 2), giving us reasonable confidence that Peregrine Falcons continued to thrive in 2003. In the Southwestern region, however, the confidence interval for territory occupancy (67% to 89%) is particularly wide; it included the threshold for agency response (71%) (Figure 2); this was a result not considered in the Monitoring Plan. This simply means that territory occupancy may be at or below the threshold for agency response. The wide confidence interval is due in part to the small sample (n = 36), 60 fewer, all in Arizona, than our goal of 96 territories per region. Unlike most other states, Arizona discontinued monitoring in 1997 when the number of active territories in the State approached 170 (USFWS 1993); this number far exceeded the goal in the recovery plan of 46 territories for Arizona (USFWS 1984) and approached the 183 territory recovery goal for the entire Rocky Mountain/Southwestern recovery region. Reestablishing the network of volunteers and agency contacts necessary to carry out monitoring in 2003 and compiling an updated list of recently occupied territories was difficult. These and other factors contributed to the shortfall of territories in the Southwestern Region. In 2004 and 2005 territories were relocated throughout Arizona. Sixty of these will be monitored in 2006, increasing our Southwestern sample to 96, and thus achieving our monitoring objectives for statistical power in the Southwestern region. Although it is not the intent of the Monitoring Plan to track the total numbers of breeding Peregrine Falcons in any region, the monitoring effort does incidentally reveal new territories. The estimate of 3005 pairs in North America is similar to the 2500–3000 pairs estimated in White et al. (2002). Reporting of these data was not universal, however, so the regional and North American sums should be considered conservative estimates. Data on nest placement were also additional to the main purpose of the monitoring plan. It is not surprising that the majority of nesting pairs in the Midwestern/Northeastern Region selected manmade structures for their eyries; steep, tall cliff faces, classical Peregrine Falcon nesting sites, are fewer in the Midwest than in Western or some Northeastern States. Nonetheless, Peregrine Falcons thrive on smokestacks, tall structures in cities, and on bridges over rivers in this region, where territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity are among the highest in the nation (Table 2). In 13 Midwestern states, Ontario, and Manitoba, productivity from nests on smokestacks and buildings was higher than on cliffs or bridges (Tordoff et al. 2003). 10 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Conclusion The Monitoring Plan was carried out with few complications at the national level. The sample from the Southwestern region was smaller than recommended, however steps were taken in 2004 and 2005 to prepare for fullscale monitoring in 2006. With the caveat that the Southwestern region was undersampled, the data collected in 2003 show territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity of Peregrine Falcons to be at healthy levels in every monitoring region, and show numbers of pairs continuing to increase across the United States. No additional reviews or requests for additional research or monitoring occurred as a result of these data. Monitoring will be conducted again in 2006 in accordance with the monitoring plan (USFWS 2003), and funding has already been received by regional coordinators to ensure that States and other partners receive timely support in advance of the 2006 field season to carry out their monitoring activities in accord with the monitoring plan (USFWS 2003). 1 Literature Cited Cade, T. J., J. H. Enderson, and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of Peregrine Falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. 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, ID. Corser, J. D., M. Amaral, C. J. Martin, and C.C. Rimmer. 1999. Recovery of a cliff‑nesting Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus, population in northern New York and New England, 1984‑1996. Canadian FieldNaturalist 113:472‑480. Enderson, J. H., and J. Craig. 1974. Status of the Peregrine Falcon in the Rocky Mountains in 1973. 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 60th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 1995:142‑161. Hayes, G. E., and J. B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the Peregrine Falcon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Hickey, J. J. 1942. Eastern population of the Duck Hawk. Auk 59:176204. Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1969. The Peregrine Falcon: life history and population literature, p. 342. In J. J. Hickey [ed.], Peregrine Falcon populations: their biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Hunt. W. G. 1998. Raptor floaters at Moffat’s equilibrium. Oikos 82:191197. Kiff, L. F. 1988. Commentary—Changes in the status of the Peregrine in North America: an overview, p. 123139. In T. J. Cade, J. H. Enderson, C. G. Thelander, and C. M. White [eds.], Peregrine Falcon populations: their management and recovery. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID. Pagel, J. E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential Peregrine Falcon eyries in the Pacific Northwest, p. 8396. In J. E. Pagel [ed.]. Proceedings: Symposium on Peregrine Falcons in the Pacific Northwest. Administrative Report, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. Ratcliffe, D. 1993. The Peregrine Falcon, Second edition. T. & A. D. Poyser, London. Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall III, and R. L. Ott. 1996. Elementary Survey Sampling, 5th ed. Duxbury Press, Boston, MA. Steidl, R. J., J. P. Hayes, and E. Schauber. 1997. Statistical power in wildlife research. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:270279. Tordoff, H. B, J. A. Goggin, and J. S. Castrale. 2003. Midwest Peregrine Falcon restoration, 2003 annual report. Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982a. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. Recovery plan for the Peregrine Falcon, Alaska population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American Peregrine Falcon Rocky Mountain population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) eastern population revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. American Peregrine Falcon (Western States) (Falco peregrinus anatum): addendum to the Pacific Coast (1982) and Rocky Mountain/Southwest (revised, 1984) American Peregrine Falcon recovery plans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 12 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 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. U.S. DOI., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 64: 4654246558. 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. White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 660. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 13 Appendix A: List of Data Collectors by Monitoring Region and State Pacific Region California: Paul Andreano, Doug Bell, Dave Bogener, John Boyd, Jeb Bridges, Kristi Bridges, Roy Burke, Ken Dexter, Gregg Doney, Sandra Fleming, Jerry Franklin, Dennis Garrison, Larry Goldzband, David Gregoire, Bill Grummer, Gary Guliasi, Jim Hallisey, Keith Hamm, Terry Hunt, Bob Isenberg, Josh Koepke, Christopher Kuntzsch, Brian Latta, Janet Linthicum, Jeff Maurer, David Moore, Laura NelsonBradley, Henry Pontarelli, Richard Rowlette, Andrew Santa Cruz, Christy Sherr, Steve Shubert, Jeff Sipple, Glenn Stewart, David Suddjian, Nick Todd, Brian Walton. Idaho: Brian Aber, Carl Anderson, Bill Arnold, Mike Biggs, Joanne Bonn, Michael Boyles, Rita Dixon, Robin Garwood, Bruce Haak, Lauri Hanauska Brown, Kristin Hassalblad, Jim Johnston, Jim Juza, Ed Levine, Alvin McCollough, Julie Mulholland, Greg Painter, Dave Roberts, Hadley Roberts, Rex Sallabanks, Audra Serrian, Dave Spicer, Beth Waterbury, Rick Weaver. Nevada: Pat Cummings, Bob Furtek, Ross Haley, Kris Kenney, Christy Klinger, Sara McFarland, Julien Peligrini, Vaughan Spearman, Cris Tomlinson, Jason Williams, Oregon: Ken Allison, David Anderson, Ralph Anderson, Janet Anthony, Norm Barrett, Jean Battle, Matteo Bianchi, Gary Birch, Jeff Bohler, Laura Bradley, Cindy Bright, Bonnie Brown, Matt Broyles, Charlie Bruce, Tim Burnett, Steve Burns, Todd Bush, Francesca Cafferata, Doug Calvin, Steve Carter, Gary Clowers, Kevin Crowell, Eric Cummings, Dick Davis, Ray Davis, Marilyn Elston, Kendel Emmerson, Bus Engsberg, Delena Engsberg, Ron Escano, Roli Espinosa, Sharnelle Fee, Bev Fenske, Dan Fenske, Kim Garvey, Elizabeth Gayner, Lynn Gemlo, Damon Goodman, Eric Greenquist, Bob Gritsky, Lori Haack, Jim Harper, Jim Heaney, Jaime Heinzelmann, Mark Henjum, Will High, Kelli Hoffman, Cindy Humphreys, Frank Isaacs, Kimberly Judson, Shane Kamrath, Anthony Kerwin, Kevin Kocarek, Anson Koehler, Tuch Korevia, Rod Krahmer, Katrina Krause, Karen Kronner, Kirk Lunstrum, Bill Marshall, Jay Martini, Nathan Maxon, Chad McLane, Tom Meek, Michael Mefford, Rolando Mendez Treneman, Mike Miller, John Moore, Raul Morales, Gail Morris, Reed Mortenson, Bill Munro, Tom Murtagh, Jane Olson, Charlotte Opp, Ralph Opp, Joel Pagel, Rosa Palarino, Amanda Pantovich, Dan Patterson, Mark Penninger, Lindsey Perrine, Dave Peterson, Summer Phelps, Glenn Phillips, Dave Pitkin, Kristal Plotts, Bill Price, Jim Quincy, Erich Reeder, Rick Rodriguez, Trisha Roninger, Bob Sallinger, Jennifer Sanborn, Kevin Sands, Ruby Seitz, Hud Sherlock, Jean Sherlock, Ryan Siebdrath, Devin Simmons, Melonie Smeltz, Jeff Stephens, Terri Stone, Kristin Thompson, Melinda Trask, Sally Villegas, Angie Voigt, Eugene Voyton, Daryl Whitmore, Grant Wiegert, Holly Witt, Barbara Woodhouse, John Woodhouse, Tiff Young. Washington: Chris Addison, Bud Anderson, David Anderson, Jeff Bernatowicz, Russ Canniff, Tom Cyra, Bob Davies, Howard Ferguson, Pat Fowler, Steve Goodman, Stuart Johnson, Lee Kantar, Michael MacDonald, Tom McCall, Ruth Milner, Kim RomainBondi, Tricia Thompson, Dave Volsen. Southwestern Region New Mexico: Sandy Williams Texas: Judy Brinkerhoff, Jessica Erickson, Joselyn Fenstermacher, Allison Freeman, Meaghan Hicks, Katrina Jensen, Dan Leavitt, Gary Luce, Steve McAllister, Colm Moore, Amy Mowat, Marcos Paredes, Casey Parks, Melissa Powell, Michael Ryan, Joe Sirotnak, Raymond Skiles, Reine Winote, David Yim, Mark Yuhas. Midwestern/Northeastern Connecticut: Julie Victoria. Delaware: Holly Niederriter. Iowa: Theresa Chapel, Pat Schlarbaum Illinois: Matt Gies, Mary Hennen, Kanae Hirabayashi, Dave Sysczak, Friends of the Uptown Theatre. Indiana: Susan Banta, Dwayne Burke, John Castrale, Greg Costakis, Tony DiPaolo, Susan Laflin, John Meyer, Jeff Neumeier, Ted Weitzel, John Winebrenner, Wayne Yoder. Maine: Charlie Todd. 14 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Maryland: Craig Koppie. Massachusetts: Tom French. Michigan: Tim Payne, Ray Rustem, Judy Yerkey. Minnesota: Bob Anderson, Jim Fitzpatrick, Brad Johnson, Warren Lind, Marco Restani, Wendell Snider, Bud Tordoff. New Hampshire: John Kanter, Chris Martin. New Jersey: Kathy Clark. New York: Barbara Loucks, Chris Nadareski. Ohio: Tom Henry, Rick Jasper, Dave Scott. Pennsylvania: Dan Brauning. Virginia: Jeff Cooper, Rick Reynolds, Bryan Watt. Vermont: Doug Blodgett, Steve Faccio, Margaret Fowle. Wisconsin: Mike Crivello, Greg Septon. Southeastern Georgia: Jim Ozier. Kentucky: Shawchyi Vorisek. North Carolina: Chris McGrath. South Carolina: Mary Bunch, Harrison. Tennessee: Dubke, Stiver, Keith Watson. Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Colorado: Jerry Craig, Jim Enderson, Jeff Lucas, Terry Meyers, Dinosaur National Monument, Mark Roberts, Marni Zaborac. Montana: Byron Crow, David Lockman, Ralph Rogers, Jay Sumner. Utah: Frank Howe. Wyoming: Terry McEneaney, Bob Oakleaf, Susan Patla. Interior Alaska Skip Ambrose, Peter Bente, Bob Ritchie, John Wright. We apologize to anyone we left off the list. 15 Appendix B: Sample Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Form (Used in 2003; updated version at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/peregrine/.) Observation Date:(M/D/YR) Nest Site Name or # Which Territory Visit is this? (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Nest Site (circle one): Manmade Natural Observation Time: Begin End (Should be at least 4 hrs if occupancy, nest age, or nestling number are in question) Observer(s) Phone:_________________ Email:________________________ Agency/NGO WEATHER: Precipitation Wind (speed estimate) Temperature Cloud cover (%) Note conditions at beginning (beg.) and ending (end) of observation period if different Observation post: (distance in meters) Approx. Nesting Phase (determined how?) Peregrines present: (define as ad. male, ad. female, ad. unknown, subad. Male, subad. Female, or subad. Unknown, and number of each.) Behaviors observed: 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: Occupied Territory—a territory where either a pair of Peregrines are present (2 adults or 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). Occupancy must be established for at least one of two or more 4hour site visits. Nest Success—the percentage of occupied territories 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 the monitoring region. Paperwork Reduction Act: The total annual public reporting burden for gathering information under this Peregrine Falcon monitoring plan is estimated to be 190 hours in 2002, 220 hours in 2003, and 270 hours in 2004. This includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and preparing and transmitting reports. 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. 16 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 Appendix C: Monitoring Data Table C1: Monitoring Data FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 Pacific Monitoring Region CA01 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA02 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA04 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA10 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA11 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 CA14 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA15 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA21 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CA23 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA26 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA27 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CA31 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 CA32 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 CA46 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA48 nat N 0 N 0 CA54 nat N 0 N 0 CA56 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA62 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CA63 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA64 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA66 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 CA75 mm Y 2/0 N 0 CA78 mm Y 2/0 N 0 CA82 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 CA84 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CA85 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CA88 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA89 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CA17 nat Y 2/0 unk unk ID03 nat Y 2/0 N 0 ID07 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 17 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 ID09 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 ID11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 ID12 nat N 0 N 0 ID16 nat N 0 N 0 ID17 nat Y 2/0 N 0 ID20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 ID24 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NV01 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NV04 nat N 1/0 N 0 NV11 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 OR01 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR05 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR07 mm Y 2/0 Y 4 OR10 nat N 0 N 0 OR13 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR14 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR15 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR21 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR22 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 OR23 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR30 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR31 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR39 nat N 0 N 0 OR41 mm N 0 N 0 OR47 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR49 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 OR56 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR57 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR62 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR63 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR68 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 OR71 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR72 mm Y 2/0 Y 3 OR75 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 OR77 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 OR79 nat N 1/0 N 0 OR84 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR86 nat Y 2/0 N 0 OR90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA03 nat Y ? Y 2 WA13 nat Y ? Y 3 WA15 nat Y 2/0 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 18 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 WA20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA22 nat Y ? Y 2 WA24 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA25 nat N 0 N 0 WA29 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 WA32 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 WA36 mm Y 2/0 N 0 WA39 nat N 1/0 N 0 WA41 nat N 0 N 0 WA47 mm Y 2/0 N 0 WA51 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 WA54 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA57 nat Y 2/0 N 0 WA60 mm Y 1/0 N 0 WA62 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 WA63 nat Y ? Y 2 WA74 mm Y ? N 0 WA77 nat N 0 N 0 WA79 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 WA80 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 Southwestern Monitoring Region NM004 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NM005 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NM007 nat N 1/0 N 0 NM010 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM011 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM013 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM016 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM021 nat N 0 N 0 NM026 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM029 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM038 nat N 0 N 0 NM040 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NM041 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM042 nat N 0 N 0 NM046 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM050 nat N 0 N 0 NM055 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM056 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM063 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM066 nat N 1/0 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 19 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NM069 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM071 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM074 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM075 nat Y 2/0 unk unk NM077 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM087 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 NM089 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NM090 nat N 1/0 N 0 NM092 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM097 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NM099 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NM100 nat N 1/0 N 0 TX nat Y 2 Y 1 TX nat Y 2 Y 1 TX nat Y 2 N 0 TX nat Y 2 Y 2 Midwestern/Northeastern Monitoring Region IA2 mm Y 2 Y 4 IL7 mm Y 2 Y 3 IN10 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN3 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN6 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN7 mm Y 2 Y 4 IN8 mm Y 2 N 0 MI5 mm Y 2 Y 4 MI7 mm Y 2 N 0 MN11 mm Y 2 Y 1 MN17 mm Y 2 Y 3 MN19 mm Y 2 N 0 MN21 mm Y 2 Y 3 MN27 mm Y 2 N 0 MN5 nat Y 2 unk unk MN9 mm Y 2 N 0 OH1 mm Y 2 Y 2 OH11 mm Y 2 Y 1 OH15 mm Y 2 Y 3 OH6 mm Y 2 N 0 WI14 mm Y 2 Y 3 WI2 mm Y 2 Y 4 WI9 mm N 1 N 0 NH05 nat Y 2 Y 2 NH06 nat Y 2 Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 20 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NH07 nat Y 2 Y 2 NH11 nat Y 2 N 0 NH14 nat Y 2 Y 2 VT5 nat Y 2 N 0 VT6 nat Y 2 N 0 VT12 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT13 nat N 1 N 0 VT14 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT15 nat Y 2 N 0 VT16 nat Y 2 Y 1 VT17 nat Y 2 Y 3 VT20 nat Y 2 N 0 VT22 nat Y 2 N 0 VT28 nat Y 2 Y 2 DE04 mm Y 2 Y 3 MD01 mm Y 2 Y 4 MD04 mm Y 2 Y 2 MD05 mm Y 2 N 0 MD06 mm Y 2 Y 4 MD07 mm Y 2 Y 3 MD11 mm Y 2 Y 3 CT03 nat N 1 N 0 ME01 nat Y 2 N 0 ME03 nat Y 2 Y 2 ME04 nat Y 2 N 0 ME07 nat Y 2 Y 3 ME16 nat N 0 N 0 NY01 nat Y 2 unk unk NY05 nat N 0 N 0 NY06 nat Y 2 Y 2 NY08 nat Y 2 unk unk NY10 nat Y 1 Y 3 NY15 nat N 0 N 0 NY16 nat Y 2 Y 3 NY28 nat Y 2 Y 2 NY30 mm Y 2 Y 4 NY34 mm Y 2 N 0 NY35 mm Y 2 N 0 NY40 mm Y 2 Y 2 NY41 mm Y 2 Y 4 NY42 mm N 0 N 0 NY44 nat Y 2 Y 1 NY46 mm Y 2 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 21 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 NY48 mm Y 2 Y 3 NY51 nat Y 2 Y 3 NY53 nat N 2 N 0 MA01 mm Y 2 Y 3 MA04 mm Y 2 Y 1 MA08 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ02 mm Y 2 N 0 NJ06 mm Y 2 Y 4 NJ07 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ09 mm Y 2 Y 1 NJ12 mm Y 2 Y 2 NJ14 mm Y 2 Y 4 NJ19 mm Y 2 Y 3 NJ21 mm Y 2 Y 2 PA11 mm Y 2 Y 2 RI02 mm Y 2 unk unk VA02 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA05 mm Y 2 Y 5 VA09 mm Y 2 Y 2 VA10 mm Y 2 Y 4 VA14 mm N 0 N 0 VA17 mm Y 2 Y 2 VA18 mm Y 2 N 0 VA22 mm Y 2 Y 0 VA24 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA25 mm Y 2 Y 3 VA26 mm Y 2 N 0 Southeastern Monitoring Region NC1 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC2 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NC3 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC4 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 NC5 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC6 nat Y 2/0 N 0 NC7 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 NC8 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NC9 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 NC10 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 SC1 nat Y 2/0 unk unk KY1 mm N 1/0 N 0 KY2 mm Y ? Y 4 KY3 mm Y ? Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 22 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 KY4 mm Y 2/0 Y 1 KY5 mm Y 2/0 Y 3 TN1 nat Y 2/0 unk unk TN2 mm Y 1/1 Y 0 TN3 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 GA1 mm Y 2/0 Y 2 GA2 mm Y 1/? Y 1 Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Monitoring Region CO02 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO112 nat Y 2/0 Y 1 CO115 nat N 0 N 0 CO122 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO123 nat N 1/0 N 0 CO124 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO131 nat N 0 N 0 CO132 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO138 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO147 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CO149 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CO152 nat N 1/0 N 0 CO22 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO32 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 CO41 nat Y 2/0 unk unk CO42 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO43 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO54 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO58 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 CO69 nat Y 1/1 N 0 CO71 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO75 nat N 0 N 0 CO92 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO94 nat Y 2/0 N 0 CO97 nat Y 2/0 N 0 Mt03 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt06 mm N 0 N 0 Mt10 nat N 0 N 0 Mt11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt12 nat Y 2/0 Y 4 Mt17 nat N 0 N 0 Mt24 nat Y 2/0 Y 2 Mt26 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 Mt27 nat Y 2/0 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 23 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 Mt29 nat Y 2 Y 3 Mt33 nat Y 2 Y 3 Mt34 nat Y 2 Y 1 Mt35 nat Y 2 Y 2 Mt41 nat N 0 N 0 Mt43 nat N 0 N 0 UT012 mm Y 2 Y 1 UT016 mm Y 2 N 0 UT017 mm Y 2 Y 2 UT024 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT025 nat Y 1 N 0 UT027 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT029 nat Y 2 unk unk UT030 nat Y 2 unk unk UT033 nat Y 2 N 0 UT037 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT040 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT041 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT046 nat Y 2 N 0 UT047 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT064 nat Y 2 unk unk UT072 nat Y 2 unk unk UT081 nat Y 2 Y 3 UT090 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT098 nat Y 1 Y 2 UT099 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT100 nat N 0 N 0 UT105 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT118 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT124 nat Y 2 unk unk UT127 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT129 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT131 nat Y 2 unk unk UT135 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT136 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT144 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT162 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT163 nat Y 2 Y 1 UT172 nat N 0 N 0 UT177 nat Y 2 Y 2 UT181 nat Y 2 N 0 WY2 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY10 nat Y 2 Y 2 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 24 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 WY12 nat Y 2 Y 3 WY14 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY20 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY23 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY24 nat Y 2 N 0 WY25 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY27 nat Y 2 Y 2 WY32 nat Y 2 Y 3 WY33 nat Y 2 Y 4 WY42 nat Y 1 N 0 WY45 nat Y 2 Y 1 WY60 nat Y 2 Y 1 WY61 nat Y 2 Y 2 Interior Alaska Monitoring Region Yukon River km 3 nat Y 2 Y 2 9.5 nat Y 2 N 0 14 nat Y 2 Y 2 20 nat Y 2 Y 2 26 nat Y 2 Y 3 31.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 38 nat Y 2 N 0 45 nat Y 2 N 0 48.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 51.5 nat Y 2 N 0 56 nat Y 2 Y 2 57.5 nat Y 2 N 0 73.5 nat Y 2 N 0 76.5 nat Y 2 Y 4 82.5 nat Y 2 N 0 88 nat Y 2 Y 3 90.5 nat Y 3 Y 3 95.5 nat Y 2 N 0 112 nat Y 2 Y 1 117 nat Y 3 Y 2 123_0 nat Y 2 N 0 124 nat Y 2 Y 2 128 nat Y 3 N 0 138 nat Y 2 Y 3 141.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 149.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 154 nat Y 2 Y 3 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. Appendix C 25 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 180 nat Y 2 Y 2 184 nat Y 2 N 0 187 nat Y 2 Y 2 191.5 nat Y 2 N 0 195 nat Y 2 Y 2 196.6 nat Y 2 N 0 197 nat Y 2 N 0 199 nat Y 2 Y 3 200.5 nat Y 4 Y 2 205 nat Y 2 N 0 208.5 nat Y 2 N 0 210.5 nat Y 2 N 0 211.5 nat Y 2 N 0 224.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 229 nat Y 2 N 0 233 nat Y 2 Y 2 235 nat Y 2 N 0 239.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 243.2 nat Y 2 N 0 248.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 254 nat Y 2 Y 1 Tanana River km 96.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 103 nat Y 2 Y 1 130 nat Y 2 N 0 135 nat Y 2 Y 4 181 nat Y 2 Y 3 188 nat Y 2 N 0 205 nat Y 2 Y 4 211 nat N 1 N 0 214 nat N 0 N 0 221.5 nat Y 2 Y 4 243 nat Y 2 Y 4 244.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 246 nat N 0 N 0 247 nat N 0 N 0 248 nat Y 2 Y 4 257 nat Y 2 Y 2 258.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 269.5 nat Y 2 N 0 273 nat Y 2 Y 3 280.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. 26 Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1 281.5 nat N 0 N 0 283.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 288.5 nat N 0 N 0 299 nat Y 2 N 0 320 nat Y 2 Y 4 323 nat Y 2 N 0 335 nat N 0 N 0 337.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 371 nat Y 2 Y 4 376 nat Y 2 N 0 380 nat Y 2 Y 1 386 nat Y 2 Y 1 405 nat Y 2 Y 3 408 nat N 0 N 0 411 nat Y 2 Y 2 412 nat Y 2 Y 2 414.5 nat N 1 N 0 427 nat Y 2 Y 1 431 nat Y 2 N 0 436.5 nat Y 2 N 0 438.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 443 nat Y 2 N 0 449 nat Y 2 N 0 459.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 470.5 nat Y 2 Y 2 544.5 nat N 1 N 0 550.5 nat Y 2 Y 3 551.5 nat Y 2 Y 1 578 nat Y 2 Y 2 586 nat Y 2 Y 2 610 nat N 1 N 0 613 nat Y 2 N 0 1–Nest Substrate (s) are nat (natural, e.g. cliffs) or mm (manmade, e.g. bridges and buildings). Occupied and Successful nests either Y = Yes or N = No (definitions in Methods). Adult/Subadult often not recorded, thus one number appears. Number of Young listed, or unk if last visit was made with young <28 d old. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Route 1, Box 166 Sheperdstown, WV 25443 http://www.fws.gov March 2006 
Images Source File Name  6740.pdf 
Date created  20121212 
Date modified  20130306 

