Why
is a monitoring plan necessary?
The Endangered
Species Act (ESA) requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor
species recovered and removed from the endangered species list "...in
cooperation with States..." and "...for not less than
five years." In order to fulfill this requirement, the Service
developed this plan in cooperation with State resource agencies,
representatives from each Fish and Wildlife Service Region, the
Divisions of Migratory Birds, Endangered Species, and other cooperators.
(back to top)
Who
wrote the plan?
A team of
Fish and Wildlife Service employees from each of the Service’s
regions, plus a National Coordinator from our Pacific Northwest
region wrote the monitoring plan. They are listed in Appendix A
of the plan. The members brought to the team different levels of
experience with peregrines, bird biology, and designing population
monitoring programs. The team benefitted from the advice of a few
members with many years of experience monitoring peregrines, and
from outside review by biologists in other Federal agencies, State
agencies, and other interested parties.
(back to top)
American
peregrine falcons were removed from the Endangered Species List
in 1999; why did it take the Service until 2003 to develop a monitoring
plan?
This plan
has been under development since the species was delisted in 1999.
Although other species have recovered, and been delisted, and monitored,
this is the first monitoring plan to be written for such a wide-ranging
species (nesting in 40 States). In addition, midway through the
planning process, responsibility for writing and implementing the
monitoring plan shifted within the Service from the Division of
Endangered Species to Migratory Birds and State Programs. Migratory
Birds and State Programs oversees the conservation of birds protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, a combination of administrative
and biological challenges, plus opening several comment periods
and the large number of commenters, delayed publication of the plan.
Meanwhile, the Service has continued to collect data from State
programs and other organizations monitoring peregrines since 1999,
and those data show that the peregrine population continues to grow.
In addition, a pilot program began in 2002; full implementation
began this year.
(back to top)
How
will the American peregrine falcon be monitored?
Biologists
will visit previously occupied territories of nesting pairs of American
peregrine falcons at least two times during the breeding season.
First, observers will determine whether or not the territory is
occupied, then they will return later in the nesting season to determine
whether or not territories occupied by pairs of birds also have
nests that are successful, i.e. have young older than 28 days of
age. At that point, the monitors will count the young they see as
a measure of productivity.
(back to top)
Who
will do the monitoring?
Many Federal
and State resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, and
volunteers have been closely monitoring peregrines during their
recovery, from the 1970s to the present. The Service will be supporting
these existing monitoring efforts, and helping to establish new
monitoring programs wherever necessary, to fulfill the requirements
of the monitoring plan.
(back to top)
Why
did the Service choose to monitor American peregrines falcons 5
times at 3-year intervals?
The Monitoring
Team chose to monitor Peregrines five times at three-year intervals,
beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015 (i.e., sampling will occur
in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015). Five monitoring periods meets
the requirement of ESA (to monitor "...for not less than five
years..."); the three-year interval spreads the monitoring
over 13 years, reflecting our concern for the long-term rather than
short-term future of the Peregrine.
The Peregrine
population currently is secure; the population continues to increase
as it has for 30 years. The Monitoring Team believes this trend
will continue at least over the short-term. The long-term future
is less certain; although the threat to Peregrines from some contaminants
has been controlled, we believe that contaminants still pose the
most likely future threat to Peregrine populations: they have a
demonstrated vulnerability to contaminants, exposure to contaminants
still occurs, and future compounds might pose a risk to Peregrines.
Population-level effects from contaminants are likely to take place
over a relatively long- rather than short-term. Monitoring every
year over the long-term would be excessive, unnecessary in the face
of increasing population trends, and costly. In the end, monitoring
5 times at 3 year intervals over 13 years will provide sufficient
comparative data and trend information on territory occupancy, nest
success and productivity to measure effects from what we believe
to be the most likely potential threats to Peregrines, contaminants.
(back to top)
Why
is the Service monitoring contaminants if DDT is banned?
Peregrines,
as predators, remain vulnerable to persistent environmental contaminants.
Although contaminants played a large role in the decline of peregrines,
there has been no systematic nationwide effort to monitor exposure
of these birds (or other similarly-affected species) to chemical
threats. Research over the past 20 years in Alaska suggests that
mercury is currently at levels in peregrines that can affect reproduction,
and may be increasing over time. In the Big Bend area of Texas,
mercury, selenium and perhaps DDE may be contributing to low productivity
of peregrines. The continual introduction of anthropogenic chemicals
to the environment far outpaces research on their effects on wildlife.
Considering the peregrine’s history with contaminants, and
the potential for future contaminant threats, the monitoring team
decided to include in the plan requirements for collecting addled
eggs (eggs that failed to hatch), and snippets of feather tips from
nestlings for analysis, to monitor loads of past, current, or emerging
contaminants that may pose a threat to peregrines.
(back to top)
Will
the Service be able to detect potential effects of West Nile Virus?
The monitoring
plan is designed to detect declines in regional peregrine populations
that might arise from a variety of threats, including West Nile
Virus. First documented in the United States in 1999 in northeastern
States, West Nile Virus spread rapidly. As of August 20, 2003, it
was reported in all but 2 of the contiguous United States (NV and
OR). Birds are a reservoir for the virus and mosquitoes are the
vector between birds, horses, and people. As of August 2003, 163
species of birds have been found to be at least somewhat susceptible
to the virus. The list includes several species of hawks, including
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), merlin (Falco
columbarius), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
which are closely related to peregrines. In September of 2002, a
moribund 2-year old peregrine was picked up in New Jersey; it died
two weeks later. Extensive tests showed definite exposure to, and
probable death from, West Nile Virus. In July 2003, evidence emerged
from one nest in Virginia that three of four peregrine nestlings
might have succumbed to West Nile Virus; the fourth nestling and
one moribund adult were rehabilitated, and tests are underway to
evaluate whether or not they had been exposed. These cases suggest
that peregrines are also succeptible; however, species apparently
vary in their abilities to develop immunity to the disease. The
falconry community is alert to the possibility of infection from
the virus, and will be quick to report deaths of peregrines from
this disease should they be found. The Service, State agency biologists,
and cooperators are also asked to report birds found dead, and to
submit them for analysis using protocols suggested by State and
local health departments (see links at the Centers
for Disease Control West Nile virus page and also the USGS
West Nile virus map page.
The Service
will depend on its extensive network of contacts with other government
officials, State wildlife agencies, and other cooperators to detect
and report cases of WNV in peregrines. If peregrines are found to
be susceptible to WNV to the point of threatening falcon populations,
the Service will work with other agencies to attempt to stabilize
populations, as well as initiate a review to determine what measures
might be taken to curb this threat and whether or not to relist
the species under ESA § 4(b)(7).
(back to top)
|
