Northern Flicker (Colaptes Auratus) Management Indicator Species Assessment Ochoco National Forest

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Northern Flicker (Colaptes Auratus) Management Indicator Species Assessment Ochoco National Forest Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Management Indicator Species Assessment Ochoco National Forest Introduction – The northern flicker was chosen as a terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) for old growth juniper (LRMP FEIS 3-21 and 4-96). Many researchers have reported on aspects of behavior and nest use by flickers as part of general studies of cavity nesting birds. Recently such interest has intensified as flickers have been recognized as "keystone" excavators which may influence the abundance of secondary cavity nesters in forest systems (Martin et al. 2004). Species Distribution – The Northern Flicker is a common, primarily ground-foraging woodpecker that occurs in most wooded regions of North America. Its taxonomic status has been debated because of hybridization among subspecies groups, each readily distinguished by plumage coloration. Two subspecies, the Yellow-shafted Flicker (Colaptes auratus auratus) of eastern North America and the Red-shafted Flicker (C. a. cafer) of western North America, form a long, narrow hybrid zone on the Great Plains that parallels the rain-shadow of the Rocky Mountains and crosses the Canadian Rockies to reach southern Alaska. This hybrid zone has been of great interest to ornithologists and evolutionary biologists for more than a century. Hybridization occurs on a more limited basis between the Red-shafted Flicker and the Gilded Flicker (C. chrysoides), a separate species that breeds in the Sonoran Desert. Two other subspecies of the Northern Flicker are allopatric; the Cuban Flicker (C. a. chrysocaulosus) occurs on Cuba and Grand Cayman Island, and the Guatemalan Flicker (C. a. mexicanoides) occurs in the highlands of southern Mexico south to northwestern Nicaragua. In western North America, the Cafer Group (Red-Shafted Flicker) includes C. a. cafer (Gmelin, 1788) which includes C. rubricatus (Wagler, 1829), and C. a. saturatior (Ridgway, 1884) and occurs chiefly as a resident in the Pacific Northwest, from southeastern Alaska to northwestern California; vagrant in winter south to southeastern California and east to Great Basin (Patten et al. 2003). This group also includes C. a. canescens (Brodkorb, 1935) which includes C. a. chihuahuae (Brodkorb, 1935) and which breeds throughout Great Basin and Rocky Mountain from southwestern Canada south to north-central Mexico (to Durango and Zacatecas). It winters throughout southern portion of breeding range and to coastal California and Baja California peninsula; vagrant east of Great Plains. Breeding Range (Figure 1) is broadly distributed in diverse woodland habitats throughout North America, generally from tree line in Alaska and Canada, from Pacific Coast to Newfoundland, south to north central Nicaragua, Florida Keys, Cuba, and Grand Cayman I. Yellow-shafted Flicker: central Alaska east to Newfoundland and south to e. Montana, e. Texas, n. Florida Keys, and Gulf Coast. Red-shafted Flicker: w. North America (generally western Great Plains west) south through s. Baja California and in interior and Pacific slope of Mexico to Oaxaca. Guatemalan Flicker: n. Chiapas south through central Honduras and n.-central Nicaragua. Cuban Flicker: Cuba and Grand Cayman Island. 1 Winter Range (Figure 1) for red-shafted Flicker occurs from s. British Columbia and s. Alberta south through remainder of breeding range. Yellow-shafted Flicker generally winters from Newfoundland, extreme s. Quebec, s. Ontario, central Minnesota, s. North Dakota, and s. Alberta south through breeding range and to n. Mexico (recorded from Sonora to Tamaulipas; Howell and Webb 1995). Figure 1. Distribution of the Northern Flicker. Habitat Characteristics – As its broad geographic distribution suggests, the Northern Flicker is a generalist in many respects, but in others it is a specialist. It is clearly a species of open woodlands, savannas, and forest edges. Northern Flickers can be located in woodlands, forest edges, and open fields with scattered trees, as well as city parks and suburbs. In the western mountains they occur in most forest types, including burned forests, all the way up to treeline. You can also find them in wet areas such as streamside woods, flooded swamps, and marsh edges (. Food - Northern Flickers eat mainly insects, especially ants and beetles that they gather from the ground. They also eat fruits and seeds, especially in winter. Flickers often go after ants underground (where the nutritious larvae live), hammering at the soil the way other woodpeckers drill into wood. They’ve been seen breaking into cow patties to eat insects living within. Their tongues can dart out 2 inches beyond the end of the bill to snare prey. Other invertebrates eaten include flies, butterflies, 2 moths, and snails. Flickers also eat berries and seeds, especially in winter, including poison oak and ivy, dogwood, sumac, wild cherry and grape, bayberries, hackberries, and elderberries, and sunflower and thistle seeds. It eats mostly ants but also beetle larvae and—during late autumn, winter, and early spring—a variety of berries. The Northern Flicker is well adapted to habitats altered by humans, commonly breeding in urban as well as suburban and rural environments, and visiting backyard bird feeders. Flickers may be common in clearcuts if snags remain standing (Conner et al. 1975, Conner and Adkisson 1977). In the west, woodland types include subalpine (subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, limber pine, lodgepole pine; Snyder 1950), oak-juniper-pine woodland (Balda 1970), pine-oak woodland (Marshall 1957), pinyon-juniper, and montane forests (yellow pine, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, Douglas fir, white fir, quaking aspen; Rasmussen 1941, Mannan and Meslow 1980). Also found in cottonwoods in riparian woodlands (WSM), and in burned woodlands (Raphael and White 1984). Nest-tree species are strikingly variable; flickers reported nesting in most tree species in the wide range of woodlands they inhabit. Open or savanna-like structure of the habitat which provides space for foraging is more important than species of tree (Conner et al. 1975). In many northern mixed-wood boreal forests, flickers are particularly common in quaking aspen stands, presumably because aspen is preferred as a nesting tree (Wiebe 2001, Aitken et al. 2002). Threats to the Species – No known Historical Changes have occurred at the macro level, but local distributions have doubtless changed as a consequence of habitat alteration by humans. Riparian woodlands that have developed along some drainages of the western Great Plains since 1920 now harbor dense populations of this species (Short 1965a, Moore and Buchanan 1985). In other areas, loss of habitat and competition with the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nest cavities may be the cause of localized population declines. There are numerous reports of starlings usurping nest cavities from Flickers (Shelly 1935, Bent 1939, Howell 1943, Bent 1950, Brackbill 1957, Fisher and Wiebe 2006a). The intensity with which a flicker defends its nest is related to past experience with starlings but often defense is unsuccessful (Wiebe 2004). Flickers may renest after being displaced but they have smaller clutches later in the season so there are still indirect costs to eviction (Wiebe 2003). Populations not seriously endangered by human activities other than habitat destruction. Removal of snags during forestry operations and urban development seems to reduce habitat suitability (Blewett and Marzluff 2005). Density of Red-shafted Flickers decreased on an experimental plot where ponderosa pine was harvested and snags were removed, but increased on a harvested plot where snags were left and on a control plot that was not harvested (Scott and Oldmeyer 1983). Similarly, flicker density decreased to half its pretreatment level when snags were removed from a burned pine-fir site in California, and the density of flickers was at least 5 times as high in the burned forest as at any unburned site (Raphael and White 1984). Anecdotal deaths from pesticides have been reported (Fleischli et al. 2004) but there is no evidence that populations are particularly at risk from chemicals, ingestion of plastics, lead, etc.; or by entrapment in fishing nets, etc. Collisions with human-made objects have been reported 3 (Johnston and Haines 1957), but are probably not a significant source of mortality. Commonly at nests in or near human habitation, birds are adapting well to disturbance from the presence of humans. Conservation Status – The American Ornithologists' Union recently (1995) split the Northern Flicker into two species: Northern and Gilded (Colaptes chrysoides) flicker. Eleven subspecies in four morphologically distinct subspecies groups (Short 1982) have been identified. The group of subspecies that occurs in western North America is cafer, or the red-shafted group. As with the pileated woodpecker above, the conservation status was identified at the global, national and State of Oregon geographical areas by NatureServe; by reviewing Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species lists and Sensitive Species lists; by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern; by the Oregon Conservation Strategy; and by the Partners in Flight bird conservation strategy. Refer to the discussion for pileated woodpecker for further details on these lists and the entities that created them. The result of reviewing these lists is summarized in the table below. Table 1. Conservation Status of the Northern Flicker. NatureServe Status Federal Status State Status Other Global
Recommended publications
  • A Revision of the Mexican Piculus (Picidae) Complex
    THE WILSON BULLETIN A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY Published by the Wilson Ornithological Society VOL. 90, No. 2 JUNE 1978 PAGES 159-334 WilsonBdl., 90(Z), 1978, pp. 159-181 A REVISION OF THE MEXICAN PZCULUS (PICIDAE) COMPLEX LUIS F. BAPTISTA The neotropical woodpeckers of the genus Piculus are closely related to the flickers (Colaptes) (Short 1972). P icu 1us species range from Mexico to southern Brazil, Paraguay, Peru (Ridgway 1914) and Argentina (Salvin and Godman 1892). Peters (1948) lists 46 taxa (9 species and their sub- species) of which 20 are subspecies of Piculus rubiginosus, the most widely distributed species. The latter ranges from southern Veracruz to the north- western provinces of Jujuy, Salta, and Tucuman in Argentina (Peters 1948). Compared with other picids, this genus is generally poorly represented in museum collections. It is possible that they are not as rare as they seem, but being rather silent and secretive birds and difficult to distinguish from the associated vegetation due to their cryptic green coloration, are easily passed unnoticed by collectors in the field. A difference of opinion exists among taxonomists regarding the status of several of the Mexican forms. Two species complexes are recognized in the Mexican check-list (Miller et al. 1957). The Piculus auricularti complex is reported by these authors as consisting of 2 subspecies: sonoriensis known only from the type series of 3 birds taken at Ranch0 Santa Barbara, Sonora, and the nominate race auricularis recorded as ranging from Sinaloa south to Guerrero. They point out the uncertain status of the form sonorien- sis, stating that additional material is needed to substantiate it.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Co-Occurrence in Woodpeckers and Nocturnal Cavity-Nesting Owls Within an Idaho Forest
    VOLUME 13, ISSUE 1, ARTICLE 18 Scholer, M. N., M. Leu, and J. R. Belthoff. 2018. Patterns of co-occurrence in woodpeckers and nocturnal cavity-nesting owls within an Idaho forest. Avian Conservation and Ecology 13(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01209-130118 Copyright © 2018 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Research Paper Patterns of co-occurrence in woodpeckers and nocturnal cavity- nesting owls within an Idaho forest Micah N. Scholer 1, Matthias Leu 2 and James R. Belthoff 1 1Department of Biological Sciences and Raptor Research Center, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA, 2Biology Department, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA ABSTRACT. Few studies have examined the patterns of co-occurrence between diurnal birds such as woodpeckers and nocturnal birds such as owls, which they may facilitate. Flammulated Owls (Psiloscops flammeolus) and Northern Saw-whet Owls (Aegolius acadicus) are nocturnal, secondary cavity-nesting birds that inhabit forests. For nesting and roosting, both species require natural cavities or, more commonly, those that woodpeckers create. Using day and nighttime broadcast surveys (n = 150 locations) in the Rocky Mountain biogeographic region of Idaho, USA, we surveyed for owls and woodpeckers to assess patterns of co-occurrence and evaluated the hypothesis that forest owls and woodpeckers co-occurred more frequently than expected by chance because of the facilitative nature of their biological interaction. We also examined co-occurrence patterns between owl species to understand their possible competitive interactions. Finally, to assess whether co-occurrence patterns arose because of species interactions or selection of similar habitat types, we used canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) to examine habitat associations within this cavity-nesting bird community.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal 2017-C-15 Below)
    AOS Classification Committee – North and Middle America Proposal Set 2017-C 15 March 2017 No. Page Title 01 02 Revise the linear sequence of genera in Fringillidae, and transfer Serinus mozambicus to Crithagra 02 09 Split Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) into two species 03 16 Transfer Violet-bellied Hummingbird from Damophila to Juliamyia 04 18 Elevate Colaptes auratus mexicanoides to species rank 05 23 Split Nashville Warbler (Oreothlypis ruficapilla) into two species 06 26 Adopt new English names for Melozone biarcuata and Melozone cabanisi 07 29 Lump Thayer’s Gull (Larus thayeri) with Iceland Gull (Larus glaucoides) 08 43 Change the spelling of the English names of Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) and Le Conte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) 09 46 Add Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra) to the Main List 10 49 Add Blyth’s Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus dumetorum) to the Main List 11 52 Add Chatham Albatross (Thalassarche eremita) to the Main List 12 55 Add Red-legged Honeycreeper (Cyanerpes cyaneus) to the U.S. list 13 57 Add nine species recorded from Greenland to the Main List 14 68 Split Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii) into two species 1 2017-C-1 N&MA Classification Committee pp. 658-679 Revise the linear sequence of genera in Fringillidae, and transfer Serinus mozambicus to Crithagra Background: In the past decade, several phylogenetic papers have elucidated relationships within the Fringillidae (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2007, 2008, Nguembock et al. 2009, Lerner et al. 2011, Zuccon et al. 2012). NACC already has taken a series of actions (reviewed below) based on this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with Birds Observed Off-Campus During BIOL3400 Field Course
    Birds of the East Texas Baptist University Campus with birds observed off-campus during BIOL3400 Field course Photo Credit: Talton Cooper Species Descriptions and Photos by students of BIOL3400 Edited by Troy A. Ladine Photo Credit: Kenneth Anding Links to Tables, Figures, and Species accounts for birds observed during May-term course or winter bird counts. Figure 1. Location of Environmental Studies Area Table. 1. Number of species and number of days observing birds during the field course from 2005 to 2016 and annual statistics. Table 2. Compilation of species observed during May 2005 - 2016 on campus and off-campus. Table 3. Number of days, by year, species have been observed on the campus of ETBU. Table 4. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during the off-campus trips. Table 5. Number of days, by year, species have been observed during a winter count of birds on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Table 6. Species observed from 1 September to 1 October 2009 on the Environmental Studies Area of ETBU. Alphabetical Listing of Birds with authors of accounts and photographers . A Acadian Flycatcher B Anhinga B Belted Kingfisher Alder Flycatcher Bald Eagle Travis W. Sammons American Bittern Shane Kelehan Bewick's Wren Lynlea Hansen Rusty Collier Black Phoebe American Coot Leslie Fletcher Black-throated Blue Warbler Jordan Bartlett Jovana Nieto Jacob Stone American Crow Baltimore Oriole Black Vulture Zane Gruznina Pete Fitzsimmons Jeremy Alexander Darius Roberts George Plumlee Blair Brown Rachel Hastie Janae Wineland Brent Lewis American Goldfinch Barn Swallow Keely Schlabs Kathleen Santanello Katy Gifford Black-and-white Warbler Matthew Armendarez Jordan Brewer Sheridan A.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest-Site Selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona
    Western North American Naturalist Volume 63 Number 4 Article 16 12-3-2003 Nest-site selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona Paul C. Hardy University of Arizona, Tucson Michael L. Morrison University of California, Bishop Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan Recommended Citation Hardy, Paul C. and Morrison, Michael L. (2003) "Nest-site selection by Western Screech-Owls in the Sonoran Desert, Arizona," Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 63 : No. 4 , Article 16. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol63/iss4/16 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western North American Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Western North American Naturalist 63(4), ©2003, pp. 533-537 NEST~SITE SELECTION BY WESTERN SCREECH~OWLS IN THE SONORAN DESERT, ARIZONA Paul C. Hardyl,2 and Michael L. Morrison3 Key words: Gila Woodpecker, Gilded Flicker, nest-site selection, Otus kennicottii, saguaro cacti, Sonoran Desert, West­ ern Screech~Owl. The Western ScreecbOwl (Otus kennicottii) valley includes the creosote (Larrea triden­ is a small, nocturnal, secondary caVity-nesting tata)~white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) series, bird that is a year-round resident throughout and in runnels and washes, the mixed-scrub much of western North America and Mexico series (Turner and Brown 1994). Temperatures (Marshall 1957, Phillips et al. 1964, AOU 1983, for the Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado Johnsgard 1988, Cannings and Angell 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Programs and Field Trips
    CONTENTS Welcome from Kathy Martin, NAOC-V Conference Chair ………………………….………………..…...…..………………..….…… 2 Conference Organizers & Committees …………………………………………………………………..…...…………..……………….. 3 - 6 NAOC-V General Information ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…..………….. 6 - 11 Registration & Information .. Council & Business Meetings ……………………………………….……………………..……….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..…..……...….. 11 6 Workshops ……………………….………….……...………………………………………………………………………………..………..………... 12 Symposia ………………………………….……...……………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 13 Abstracts – Online login information …………………………..……...………….………………………………………….……..……... 13 Presentation Guidelines for Oral and Poster Presentations …...………...………………………………………...……….…... 14 Instructions for Session Chairs .. 15 Additional Social & Special Events…………… ……………………………..………………….………...………………………...…………………………………………………..…………………………………………………….……….……... 15 Student Travel Awards …………………………………………..………...……………….………………………………..…...………... 18 - 20 Postdoctoral Travel Awardees …………………………………..………...………………………………..……………………….………... 20 Student Presentation Award Information ……………………...………...……………………………………..……………………..... 20 Function Schedule …………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..…………. 22 – 26 Sunday, 12 August Tuesday, 14 August .. .. .. 22 Wednesday, 15 August– ………………………………...…… ………………………………………… ……………..... Thursday, 16 August ……………………………………….…………..………………………………………………………………… …... 23 Friday, 17 August ………………………………………….…………...………………………………………………………………………..... 24 Saturday,
    [Show full text]
  • Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 ON THE COVER Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus). Photo by Moez Ali. Landbird Monitoring in the Sonoran Desert Network 2012 Annual Report Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SODN/NRTR—2013/744 Authors Moez Ali Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Kristen Beaupré National Park Service Sonoran Desert Network 7660 E. Broadway Blvd, Suite 303 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Patricia Valentine-Darby University of West Florida Department of Biology 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, Florida 32514 Chris White Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 230 Cherry Street, Suite 150 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Project Contact Robert E. Bennetts National Park Service Southern Plains Network Capulin Volcano National Monument PO Box 40 Des Moines, New Mexico 88418 May 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colora- do, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource manage- ment, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden-Winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan
    Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan i Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan Editors: Amber M. Roth, Ronald W. Rohrbaugh, Tom Will, and David A. Buehler Front cover art by: Ann-Kathrin Wirth. Back cover art by: Reyn Oriji. Chapter 1: Golden-winged Warbler Status Review Chapter 2: Golden-winged Warbler Full Life Cycle Conservation Strategy Chapter 3: Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Season Conservation Plan Chapter 4: Golden-winged Warbler Non- breeding Season Conservation Plan (to be added in the future) Photo by Roger Erikkson. RECOMMENDED CITATION Roth, A.M., R.W. Rohrbaugh, T. Will, and D.A. Buehler, editors. 2012. Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. www.gwwa.org/ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Recommended Citation ................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ vi Preface ....................................................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: Golden-winged Warbler Status Review................................................................................1–1 CHAPTER 2: Golden-winged Warbler Full Life Cycle Conservation Strategy............................................2–1 Recommended Citation ............................................................................................................................2–1
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Fauna
    United States Department of Agriculture Wildland Fire in Forest Service Rocky Mountain Ecosystems Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42- volume 1 Effects of Fire on Fauna January 2000 Abstract _____________________________________ Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. Fires affect animals mainly through effects on their habitat. Fires often cause short-term increases in wildlife foods that contribute to increases in populations of some animals. These increases are moderated by the animals’ ability to thrive in the altered, often simplified, structure of the postfire environment. The extent of fire effects on animal communities generally depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition caused by fire. Stand-replacement fires usually cause greater changes in the faunal communities of forests than in those of grasslands. Within forests, stand- replacement fires usually alter the animal community more dramatically than understory fires. Animal species are adapted to survive the pattern of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity that characterized their habitat in presettlement times. When fire frequency increases or decreases substantially or fire severity changes from presettlement patterns, habitat for many animal species declines. Keywords: fire effects, fire management, fire regime, habitat, succession, wildlife The volumes in “The Rainbow Series” will be published during the year 2000. To order, check the box or boxes below, fill in the address form, and send to the mailing address listed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Gilded Flicker (Colaptes Chrysoides) (GIFL) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River
    Gilded Flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) (GIFL) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River Photo courtesy of Curtis Marantz June 2015 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District No. 3, Pinal County, Arizona Basic Water Company Golden Shores Water Conservation District Mohave County Water Authority Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Native American Participant Group Mohave Water Conservation District North Gila Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Hualapai Tribe Town of Fredonia Colorado River Indian Tribes Town of Thatcher Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Town of Wickenburg Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Unit “B” Irrigation and Drainage District Conservation Participant Group Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District Yuma County Water Users’ Association Ducks Unlimited Yuma Irrigation District Lower Colorado River RC&D Area, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2
    Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide For Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2 Any reproduction of this present document in any form is illegal without the written authorization of Ducks Unlimited Canada. For additional copies please contact the Edmonton DUC office at (780)489-2002. Published by: Ducks Unlimited Canada www.ducks.ca Acknowledgements Photography provided by : Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC), Jim Potter (Alberta Conservation Association (ACA)), Darwin Chambers (DUC), Jonathan Thompson (DUC), Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor), Sherry Feser (ACA), Gordon Court ( p 16 photo of Pygmy Owl), Myrna Pearman ,(Ellis Bird Farm), Bryan Shantz and Glen Rowan. Portions of this booklet are based on a Nest Box Factsheet prepared by Jim Potter (ACA) and Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor). Myrna Pearman provided editorial comment. Table of Contents Table of Contents Why Nest Boxes? ......................................................................................................1 Natural Cavities ......................................................................................................................................2 Identifying Wildlife Species That Use Your Nest Boxes .....................................3 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................4 Common Goldeneye .........................................................................................................................5 Barrow’s Goldeneye
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Models for Golden Eagle, Costa's Hummingbird, Loggerhead
    Conceptual Models for Golden Eagle, Costa’s Hummingbird, Loggerhead Shrike, and Gilded Flicker (Clark County # CBE 2011‐GBBO‐901A) Prepared by: Great Basin Bird Observatory 1755 E. Plumb Lane #256 Reno, NV 89502 Submitted to: Clark County Government Center Desert Conservation Program 500 Grand Central Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89106 4 February 2015 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Golden Eagle ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Costa’s Hummingbird .................................................................................................................................... 2 Loggerhead Shrike......................................................................................................................................... 3 Gilded Flicker ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 4 GBBO Report on Conceptual Models 2/2/2015 Page 1 Introduction As part of the contract for predictive modeling for four Clark County bird species, the Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) developed conceptual models for the species Golden Eagle, Costa’s
    [Show full text]