Monitoring results for breeding American Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003

              Monitoring Results for

Breeding American

Peregrine Falcons (Falco

peregrinus anatum), 2003

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R1005-2006

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Ted Swem, Region 7, USFWS

Monitoring Results for

Breeding American

Peregrine Falcons (Falco

peregrinus anatum), 2003

Biological Technical Publication

BTP-R1005-2006

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 97232-4181.

Phone: (503) 872-2707, Fax: (503) 231-2019, E-mail:

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) 456-0441,

Fax: (907) 456-0208, E-mail: 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) 882-0047, Fax: (520) 882-0370, E-mail:

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) 358-2061,

Fax: (703) 358-1735, E-mail: 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 97232-4181. Phone: (503) 231-

2359, Fax: (503) 231-6243, E-mail: 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) 725-3548, Fax: (612) 725-3609. E-mail: 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) 258-3939, Fax: (828) 258-5330. E-mail: 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 03301-4986. Phone: (603) 223-2541, Fax:

(603) 223-0104, e-mail: 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/BTP-R1005-2006, 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 80225-0486

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 C-1: 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 nation-wide 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 post-delisting 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 full-scale monitoring in that region in

2006. The five other monitoring regions surveyed

sufficient territories to meet the statistical criteria

described in the post-delisting 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 post-delisting

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 three-year

interval spreads the monitoring over 13 years,

reflecting the concern of the Service for the long-term

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 post-delisting 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 1999-2002) 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

post-hatch). 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 Lakes-Big Rivers); R4 (Southeast, excluding Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands);

R5 (Northeast); R6 (Mountain-Prairie); 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

post-hatch 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 (1.25-1.66)

Southwestern 78 (67–89) 77 (64–90) 1.73 (1.36-2.10)

Midwestern/Northeastern 91 (86–95) 76 (69–82) 2.09 (1.85-2.32)

Southeastern 95 (93–98) 78 (70–86) 1.56 (1.32-1.79)

Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 87 (81–92) 74 (66–82) 1.49 (1.29-1.68)

Interior Alaska 89 (84–94) 64 (56–72) 1.494 (1.27-1.72)

All Regions 87 (85–89) 71 (67–74) 1.64 (1.53-1.75)

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 21-28 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 0.95-1.41); 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 year-old 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. Re-establishing 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 re-located 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 full-scale monitoring in

2006. With the caveat that the Southwestern region

was under-sampled, 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 Field-Naturalist 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 59:176-204.

Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1969. The

Peregrine Falcon: life history and population

literature, p. 3-42. 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 82:191-197.

Kiff, L. F. 1988. Commentary—Changes in the status

of the Peregrine in North America: an overview,

p. 123-139. 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. 83-96. 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 61:270-279.

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:

46542-46558.

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 Nelson-Bradley,

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 Romain-Bondi, 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 4-hour 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 C-1: Monitoring Data

FWS ID Nest Substrate1 Occupied?1 Adult/Subadult1 Successful?1 Young1

Pacific Monitoring Region

CA-01 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-02 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CA-04 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-10 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

CA-11 nat Y 2/0 Y 4

CA-14 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CA-15 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

CA-21 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

CA-23 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

CA-26 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

CA-27 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

CA-31 mm Y 2/0 Y 1

CA-32 mm Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-46 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CA-48 nat N 0 N 0

CA-54 nat N 0 N 0

CA-56 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

CA-62 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CA-63 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-64 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-66 mm Y 2/0 Y 4

CA-75 mm Y 2/0 N 0

CA-78 mm Y 2/0 N 0

CA-82 mm Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-84 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

CA-85 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

CA-88 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-89 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CA-17 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

ID-03 nat Y 2/0 N 0

ID-07 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

ID-09 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

ID-11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

ID-12 nat N 0 N 0

ID-16 nat N 0 N 0

ID-17 nat Y 2/0 N 0

ID-20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

ID-24 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

NV-01 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

NV-04 nat N 1/0 N 0

NV-11 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

OR-01 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-05 nat N 1/0 N 0

OR-07 mm Y 2/0 Y 4

OR-10 nat N 0 N 0

OR-13 nat N 1/0 N 0

OR-14 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

OR-15 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-21 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-22 mm Y 2/0 Y 1

OR-23 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-30 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

OR-31 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-39 nat N 0 N 0

OR-41 mm N 0 N 0

OR-47 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-49 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

OR-56 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-57 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-62 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-63 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-68 nat Y 2/0 Y 4

OR-71 nat N 1/0 N 0

OR-72 mm Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-75 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

OR-77 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

OR-79 nat N 1/0 N 0

OR-84 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-86 nat Y 2/0 N 0

OR-90 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

WA-03 nat Y ? Y 2

WA-13 nat Y ? Y 3

WA-15 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

WA-20 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

WA-22 nat Y ? Y 2

WA-24 nat Y 2/0 N 0

WA-25 nat N 0 N 0

WA-29 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

WA-32 nat Y 2/0 Y 4

WA-36 mm Y 2/0 N 0

WA-39 nat N 1/0 N 0

WA-41 nat N 0 N 0

WA-47 mm Y 2/0 N 0

WA-51 nat Y 2/0 N 0

WA-53 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

WA-54 nat Y 2/0 N 0

WA-57 nat Y 2/0 N 0

WA-60 mm Y 1/0 N 0

WA-62 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

WA-63 nat Y ? Y 2

WA-74 mm Y ? N 0

WA-77 nat N 0 N 0

WA-79 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

WA-80 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

Southwestern Monitoring Region

NM-004 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

NM-005 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

NM-007 nat N 1/0 N 0

NM-010 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-011 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-013 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-016 nat Y 2/0 N 0

NM-021 nat N 0 N 0

NM-026 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-029 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-038 nat N 0 N 0

NM-040 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

NM-041 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-042 nat N 0 N 0

NM-046 nat Y 2/0 N 0

NM-050 nat N 0 N 0

NM-055 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-056 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-063 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-066 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

NM-069 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-071 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-074 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-075 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

NM-077 nat Y 2/0 N 0

NM-087 nat Y 2/0 Y 4

NM-089 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

NM-090 nat N 1/0 N 0

NM-092 nat Y 2/0 N 0

NM-097 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

NM-099 nat Y 2/0 N 0

NM-100 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

IA-2 mm Y 2 Y 4

IL-7 mm Y 2 Y 3

IN-10 mm Y 2 Y 4

IN-3 mm Y 2 Y 4

IN-6 mm Y 2 Y 4

IN-7 mm Y 2 Y 4

IN-8 mm Y 2 N 0

MI-5 mm Y 2 Y 4

MI-7 mm Y 2 N 0

MN-11 mm Y 2 Y 1

MN-17 mm Y 2 Y 3

MN-19 mm Y 2 N 0

MN-21 mm Y 2 Y 3

MN-27 mm Y 2 N 0

MN-5 nat Y 2 unk unk

MN-9 mm Y 2 N 0

OH-1 mm Y 2 Y 2

OH-11 mm Y 2 Y 1

OH-15 mm Y 2 Y 3

OH-6 mm Y 2 N 0

WI-14 mm Y 2 Y 3

WI-2 mm Y 2 Y 4

WI-9 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

CO-02 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CO-112 nat Y 2/0 Y 1

CO-115 nat N 0 N 0

CO-122 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CO-123 nat N 1/0 N 0

CO-124 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-131 nat N 0 N 0

CO-132 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CO-138 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-147 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

CO-149 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

CO-152 nat N 1/0 N 0

CO-22 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-32 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

CO-41 nat Y 2/0 unk unk

CO-42 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-43 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-54 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-58 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

CO-69 nat Y 1/1 N 0

CO-71 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-75 nat N 0 N 0

CO-92 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-94 nat Y 2/0 N 0

CO-97 nat Y 2/0 N 0

Mt-03 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

Mt-06 mm N 0 N 0

Mt-10 nat N 0 N 0

Mt-11 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

Mt-12 nat Y 2/0 Y 4

Mt-17 nat N 0 N 0

Mt-24 nat Y 2/0 Y 2

Mt-26 nat Y 2/0 Y 3

Mt-27 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

Mt-29 nat Y 2 Y 3

Mt-33 nat Y 2 Y 3

Mt-34 nat Y 2 Y 1

Mt-35 nat Y 2 Y 2

Mt-41 nat N 0 N 0

Mt-43 nat N 0 N 0

UT-012 mm Y 2 Y 1

UT-016 mm Y 2 N 0

UT-017 mm Y 2 Y 2

UT-024 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-025 nat Y 1 N 0

UT-027 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-029 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-030 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-033 nat Y 2 N 0

UT-037 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-040 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-041 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-046 nat Y 2 N 0

UT-047 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-064 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-072 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-081 nat Y 2 Y 3

UT-090 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-098 nat Y 1 Y 2

UT-099 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-100 nat N 0 N 0

UT-105 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-118 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-124 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-127 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-129 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-131 nat Y 2 unk unk

UT-135 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-136 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-144 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-162 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-163 nat Y 2 Y 1

UT-172 nat N 0 N 0

UT-177 nat Y 2 Y 2

UT-181 nat Y 2 N 0

WY-2 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-10 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

WY-12 nat Y 2 Y 3

WY-14 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-20 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-23 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-24 nat Y 2 N 0

WY-25 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-27 nat Y 2 Y 2

WY-32 nat Y 2 Y 3

WY-33 nat Y 2 Y 4

WY-42 nat Y 1 N 0

WY-45 nat Y 2 Y 1

WY-60 nat Y 2 Y 1

WY-61 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