The recovery of the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Peregrines) following the species' near total disappearance from much of the United States is a remarkable story of cooperation among private and public institutions. Peregrine populations were at their lowest in the 1960s and early 1970s, when Peregrines were eliminated from the eastern United States and across the Midwest, and reduced to a few hundred pairs at most in the western United States and Mexico. Populations in Canada and Alaska were probably reduced by 70% or more (Kiff 1988, Enderson et al. 1995). The Peregrine was listed as endangered in 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1537-1544; see Mesta (1999) for a history of listing actions). Recovery plans outlined the goals that were to be reached in four regions of the United States before the Peregrine could be considered recovered (USFWS 1982a, 1982b, 1984, 1991). Due to a ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and to successful captive breeding, rearing, and release of over 6,000 Peregrines, there are now over 2,000 pairs breeding each year across the United States (White et al. 2002), more than 400 pairs in Canada (U. Banasch, pers. commun. Feb. 7, 2003), and an estimated 170 pairs in Mexico (Enderson et al. 1995); in addition there are probably as many unpaired “floaters” as paired birds across their range (White et al. 2002). As a result of this comeback and because other recovery goals such as estimates of productivity, thicker egg-shells, and reduced levels of contaminants were nearly completely met in all recovery regions, the Peregrine was removed from the FWS List of Threatened and Endangered Species on August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46541, Mesta 1999). Population growth has continued since delisting (FWS, unpubl. data). This monitoring plan was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in cooperation with State resource agencies, recovery team members, representatives from each FWS Region, the Divisions of Migratory Birds, Endangered Species, and other partners. Comments received on previous drafts strengthened this plan in several ways. In particular, we acknowledge the statistical assistance of Bob Steidl, University of Arizona, Tucson, and the International Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies for their assistance distributing the plan for review by State resource agencies. In preparation for writing this plan, monitoring data were solicited from individuals nationwide (Appendix B). The FWS relied heavily on this information in formulating this plan and will continue to rely on this network to achieve its objectives. Post-delisting monitoring will be successful only through the same multi-partner cooperation through which recovery was accomplished.