Associated Species: Other species that may use similar habitat components or respond positively to management for Northern Goshawk are: Wild Turkey, Flammulated Owl, Williamson’s Sapsucker, Northern Flicker, Steller’s Jay, Pygmy Nuthatch, Western Bluebird, American Robin, Solitary Vireo, Grace’s Warbler, Western Tanager, and Red Crossbill.

Distribution: The Northern Goshawk is Holarctic in distribution. In North America it occurs primarily in boreal forest, but the species also ranges far to the south in montane forest of the western United States and Mexico. The most widespread subspecies (A.g. atricapillus) occurs from the northeastern United States across the boreal forests of Canada to Alaska, and southward through upland forests of the western United States. Two other weakly differentiated subspecies are variously accepted in North America: A.g. laingi in forests on islands and along the coast of extreme northwestern United States and Canada to southeast Alaska (AOU 1957, Palmer 1988), and A.g. apache in montane forests of southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern Mexico (Hubbard 1978, Wattel 1973, Whaley and White 1994).

Ecology: Goshawks are generally non-migratory. However, in the northern portion of their range, large southward migrations occur during winters when prey are limiting (Doyle and Smith 1994, Mueller and Berger 1967, Mueller and others 1977). In the southwestern United States, there is evidence that goshawks move to lower elevation habitats or remain on or near their breeding home range for the winter (Beier 1997, Ingraldi 1998, Reynolds pers. comm.).

Goshawks are believed to be monogamous (Newton 1979), although a few instances of "divorce" have been documented (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994, Reynolds and others 1994). Goshawks generally breed at 3 years, when they achieve full adult plumage. McGowan (1975) hypothesized that subadult females are only able to breed in years of high prey availability.

Goshawks have large breeding home ranges (570 – 3,500 ha) with males’ home ranges generally larger than females’ (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Nest areas within home ranges are defended. Home ranges (but not nest areas) of adjacent pairs may overlap, especially in habitats where nesting populations are at or near saturation (Reynolds and Joy 1998). One to 8 alternate nests may be maintained in a breeding home range. One nest may be used in sequential years, but often an alternate is selected (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Goshawks typically initiate breeding activities in March. Egg-laying usually occurs between late April and early May and hatching between late May and early June. Females may forage in and around the nest stand during the nestling period, but males still provide most of the prey. Only the female directly feeds the young prior to fledging, which usually occurs in July. Fledglings are dependent on their parents for approximately 6 weeks, while they complete feather growth and learn to hunt (Squires and Reynolds 1997). For the first 3 weeks, fledglings tend to stay in or close to the nest stand (Kennedy and others 1994). Dispersal is abrupt, with males dispersing a few days earlier than females (Ingraldi 1998, Kenward and others 1993a,b).

Squires and Reynolds (1997) reported goshawk breeding density estimates from North American populations ranging from less than 1 pair up to 11 pairs per 100 km² . Productivity in North America ranges from 1.4 to 3.9 young per successful nest (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Goshawks prey on a variety of birds and mammals. Reptiles and insects are taken occasionally. Diets differ among populations as prey availability changes regionally and seasonally (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Important prey in the Southwest include cottontails, tree squirrels, ground squirrels, chipmunks, grouse, columbids, woodpeckers, jays, and robins (Reynolds and others 1992).

Habitat Requirements: Goshawk nesting habitat has been extensively described. Generally, goshawk nest sites are in mature and old growth forest stands with relatively high canopy closure (e.g. Austin 1993, Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988, Ingraldi and MacVean 1995, and Kennedy 1988). Across the West, goshawks use a wide variety of forest types, but in the Southwest, goshawks primarily use ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, although use of other forest types (e.g. spruce-fir, Madrean oak woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland) has also been documented (e.g. Snyder 1995, USFWS 1998). In the West, goshawks nest in both deciduous trees (e.g. cottonwoods, aspen) and conifers (USFWS 1998). In the Southwest, goshawks frequently nest in ponderosa pines. Goshawks build large stick nests which are often placed on a horizontal limb close to the trunk in the low portion of the tree’s canopy (Snyder and Snyder 1998). In an Arizona study in ponderosa pine habitat (Ingraldi and MacVean 1995), goshawks selected nest sites with higher canopy density, larger diameter stems and a higher frequency of large ( 30.5 cm(12 in) dbh) stems. Nest sites also had more ground litter. Nest trees were taller, had smaller live crown ratios, tended to be part of a clump of trees with interlocking crowns, and were on the lower third of a slope. These results were similar to Kennedy’s (1988) findings in New Mexico.

Foraging habitat has been less studied. Goshawks have been observed hunting in a diversity of habitats, varying from large openings to dense forests. However, limited evidence suggests goshawks preferentially forage in forests with closed canopies (Austin 1993, Beier and Drennan 1997, Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994).

Reynolds and others (1992) described habitat relationships of primary goshawk prey in the Southwest; some prey species prefer forest openings, but most use mature and older forests. In Arizona, Beier and Drennan (1997) radio-tracked foraging goshawks to determine whether hawks selected foraging habitat based on prey abundance or forest structure. Goshawks apparently did not select foraging sites based on prey abundance; indeed, abundances of some prey were lower on used than on contrast plots. Goshawks selected foraging sites with higher canopy closure, greater tree density, and greater density of large trees (>40.6 cm (16 in) dbh). These results were consistent with the hypothesis that goshawk morphology and behavior are adapted to hunting in moderately dense, mature forests and that prey availability, as influenced by forest structure, is more important than prey density in habitat selection.

Few goshawk studies in North America have investigated winter habitat use. In Arizona, Beier (1997) found adult goshawks wintered in ponderosa pine forest and pinyon-juniper woodlands during two winters. In general, females remained in ponderosa pine in the general vicinity of their nest stands throughout both winters. Most male goshawks moved 5-10 miles from the nesting area and generally into the closest pinyon-juniper woodlands, although one male moved up into the nearest mixed-conifer forest. Most males made return trips to their nesting areas during the winter and did not establish a distinct winter range. The females appeared to exhibit more overwinter fidelity to the nest stand than males. Unlike Beier and Drennan’s (1997) breeding season study, Beier (1997) found winter foraging habitat selection could not be discerned based on vegetation structure. Used vs. unused areas were similar, with used habitat having slightly more medium-sized trees and denser canopy.

Timber harvest practices that remove older, larger trees and simplify forest stand structure, management practices that remove dead and downed trees, and catastrophic fire are the primary management issues facing the Northern Goshawk today. Grazing that reduces or eliminates the herbaceous layer and degrades prey habitat is also a management concern. Northern Goshawks are sensitive to disturbance during the nesting season thus human activities in known nest areas and post fledging family areas (PFA) should be limited. Active management including fuel reduction programs that thin from below and use fire to maintain structural diversity in forest stands is recommended. Management practices that retain and promote large trees are also encouraged.

Northern Goshawk management issues are listed in italics. Below each issue are the Arizona Partners in Flight Conservation Recommendations.

Associated Species: Other species that may use similar habitat components or respond positively to management for Mexican Spotted Owl are: Northern Goshawk, Whiskered Screech-Owl, Whip-poor-will, Strickland’s Woodpecker, Virginia’s Warbler, Red-faced Warbler, Painted Redstart, and Hepatic Tanager.

Distribution: The Mexican Spotted Owl is distributed over a broad geographic area in the southwestern United States. However it is not uniformly distributed throughout its range. It occurs in disjunct locations that correspond to isolated mountain systems and canyons in southern Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico. In Arizona, it primarily occurs in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests and canyons above and below the Mogollon Rim, and in the Madrean pine-oak forests and canyons of the sky island mountain ranges in the southern part of the state (Block and others 1995).

Ecology: The owl, described as a "perch and pounce" predator, primarily consumes small to medium-sized rodents such as woodrats, peromyscid mice, and microtine voles. It also preys on bats, birds, reptiles, and arthropods (Forsman 1976, Ward and Block 1995). This species nests on cliff ledges, stick nests built by other birds, and in tree cavities (Fletcher and Hollis 1994, Ganey 1988). Females normally lay one to three eggs in late March or early April and incubate for approximately 30 days. The eggs usually hatch in early May. Nestling owls generally fledge in four to five weeks after hatching in early to mid-June (Ganey 1988). Fledgling dispersal occurs usually from mid-September to early October. Predation by avian predators (e.g. Great Horned Owls, Northern Goshawks) and starvation from low abundance and availability of prey species are primary mortality factors (Ganey 1988). Seasonal movement patterns are variable. Some are year-round residents, some show shifts in habitat-use patterns, and some migrate short distances (i.e. 19-49 km or 12-31 mi) during the winter. Home ranges are also variable ranging from 261-1550 ha (645-3831 ac). During the nesting season most activity (i.e. nesting/roosting and foraging) occurs within an "activity center" of approximately 242 ha (600 ac) (Block and others 1995).

Habitat Requirements: In northern portions of the range, including southern Utah, southern Colorado, far northern Arizona and in New Mexico, owls occur primarily in steep walled rocky canyons with conifer inclusions (Rinkevich 1991, Willey 1993). Along the Mogollon Rim in Arizona and New Mexico, primary habitat use is within mixed conifer forests, ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests, rocky canyons, and associated riparian forests (Fletcher and Hollis 1994). In southern Arizona and Mexico, Madrean pine-oak forests and canyons provide primary habitat for the owl (Duncan and Taiz 1992, Ganey and Balda 1989). Forest stands used for roosting and nesting often contain mature to old-growth stand characteristics. The forest stands are typically uneven-aged, multistoried, have dense canopy cover, and contain large diameter trees, snags, and downed logs (Block and others 1995).

Habitat and/or Population Objectives:

Population Objectives:

Timber harvest, particularly even-age management, and catastrophic fire over large forested areas are the primary management concerns which can adversely alter owl habitat through habitat fragmentation and the reduction in mature and old-growth forest characteristics (i.e. key for roosting and nesting). In addition, livestock and ungulate grazing (e.g. alteration of prey/nesting/roosting habitat) and recreation (e.g. disturbance to nesting birds) are other key management issues. Management guidelines in the 1995 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, and Block and others 1995, focus on protection and maintenance of nesting/roosting habitat, maintenance of habitat for prey species, and limiting of disturbance during the nesting season.

Mexican Spotted Owl management issues are listed in italics. Below each issue are the Arizona Partners in Flight Conservation Recommendations.

Associated Species: Other species that may use similar habitat components or respond positively to management for the Olive-sided Flycatcher are: Flammulated Owl, Williamson’s Sapsucker, Purple Martin, Violet-green Swallow, Pygmy Nuthatch, and Grace’s Warbler.

Distribution: The Olive-sided Flycatcher’s breeding range extends throughout western North America from western and central Alaska and central Yukon, south through the Sierra Nevada Mountains to northern Baja California and through the Rocky Mountains into northern Arizona and western Texas (Altman 1997). Eastward it extends across Canada and into northeastern United States. The Olive-sided Flycatcher’s winter range extends southward as far as southeastern Brazil and western Peru with most of its wintering grounds in northwestern Venezuela, the Andes Mountains of north and western South America, and Panama (Altman 1997). In Arizona, its range is limited to north of the Mogollon Rim in higher elevation ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.

Ecology: Arrival on breeding grounds is generally late across its range from mid-April to late May in Arizona. Late arrival has been attributed to a higher abundance of their primary diet source, flying insects, especially honey bees (Bryant 1975, Ehrlich and others 1988, Robins 1970). The earliest nesting record in Arizona was an occupied nest found on 11 June near Happy Jack, and the latest record was a nest with young found on 1 August near Green’s Peak in the White Mountains (ABBA unpubl. data). Males are vigorous defenders of their territory and nest area (Altman 1997, Ehrlich and others 1988). Nests are generally placed high up in the tree (usually coniferous), distant from the main trunk, on a horizontal branch (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Ehrlich and others 1988, Harrison 1975). The open cup nest is constructed of twigs, lichens, moss, and pine needles, lined with fine grasses, lichens, and rootlets and held firmly to the branch with spider webs (Bent 1942, Ehrlich and others 1988). Departure to the wintering grounds occurs early across the flycatcher’s range, with most birds leaving breeding areas in late August through late September. This early departure may be a result of the extreme distances they travel to wintering grounds (Altman 1997). Olive-sided Flycatchers travel farther in migration than any other North American breeding flycatcher (Murphy 1989).

Habitat Requirements: In Arizona, the Olive-sided Flycatcher is primarily associated with mixed conifer forests, subalpine forests with Engelmann spruce, pure ponderosa pine forests and montane riparian wetlands with aspen, Douglas-fir, white fir and ponderosa pine (T. Corman, AGFD, pers. observ.). They prefer forest edges and openings either natural or man-made, and tend to increase in density as canopy cover decreases. Olive-sided Flycatchers have been linked to burned areas of mixed conifer and ponderosa pine (Altman 1997, Blake 1982, Lowe and others 1978). A correlation between higher densities of insects and early post-burn areas has been suggested by the presence of other insectivorous birds such as the Western Wood-Pewee and Townsend’s Solitaire (Granholm 1982). The association with burned areas may not only be for the abundance of prey but for the open and edge physiognomy in these areas as well as abundant singing and foraging perches.

Habitat and/or Population Objectives:

The lack of natural history information for this species has made assessment of declines difficult. Loss of extensive tracts of montane evergreen forests on the wintering grounds and habitat loss through conversion to non-forest and younger successional stages on breeding grounds have been suggested as possible factors (Altman 1997). Also, management practices that alter natural fire regimes may reduce the post-fire habitat preferred by the flycatcher. Recent management practices, such as prescribed burns, that attempt to mimic natural fire regimes do create more edge and open areas, but may not capture all necessary components and resources used by the Olive-sided Flycatcher. These practices may not benefit the species as much as expected. Large territory sizes and strong site fidelity on both breeding and wintering grounds have also been speculated to contribute to declines in Olive-sided Flycatchers (Altman 1997).

Olive-sided Flycatcher management issues are listed in italics. Below each issue are the Arizona Partners in Flight Conservation Recommendations.