Falco mexicanus - Schlegel, 1851
Prairie Falcon
Other English Common Names: prairie falcon
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Falco mexicanus Schlegel, 1850 (TSN 175603)
French Common Names: faucon des prairies
Spanish Common Names: Halcón Mexicano
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106120
Element Code: ABNKD06090
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Raptors
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Falconiformes Falconidae Falco
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Falco mexicanus
Taxonomic Comments: See Olsen et al. (1989) for a study of relationships within the genus Falco based on electrophoretic patterns of feather proteins.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 22Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in western and central North America; mostly stable, with some local declines.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5B,N5N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3B,N4N,N3M (06Dec2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arizona (S4), Arkansas (SNA), California (S4), Colorado (S4B,S4N), Idaho (S4), Kansas (SNA), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNA), Montana (S4), Navajo Nation (S4), Nebraska (S2), Nevada (S4), New Mexico (S4), North Dakota (S3), Oklahoma (S3), Oregon (S4), South Dakota (S3S4B,S4N), Texas (S3B), Utah (S4), Washington (S3B,S3N), Wyoming (S4B,S4N)
Canada Alberta (S3), British Columbia (S1), Manitoba (SNA), Saskatchewan (S3B,S3M,S3N)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (01Apr1996)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for designation: This species is present in Canada as a relatively small population with no evidence of decline.

Status history: Designated Not at Risk in April 1978, April 1982 and April 1996.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix II

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: southeastern British Columbia, southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and northern North Dakota south to Baja California, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, western and northern Texas, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, and San Luis Potosi (AOU 1983, Lanning and Hitchcock 1991, Steenhof 1998); formerly also northwestern Missouri. NON-BREEDING: from breeding range in southern Canada south to Baja California and central Mexico (AOU 1983, Steenhof 1998). Most abundant in winter in the Great Basin and the central and central-southern latitudes of the Great Plains (Root 1988).

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: An estimated 5000-6000 pairs attempted to breed annually in the late 1970s (Palmer 1988). Estimated number of breeding pairs in Canada in the early 1990s was 500 (Kirk et al. 1995).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: HUMAN DISTURBANCE: The effect of direct human disturbance depends on a number of factors, including the type of activity, proximity to the nest or roost site, time of year and duration of the activity (Steenhof 1998). Falcons are most sensitive just prior to egg laying. In certain cases, disturbance has negative effects (Platt 1974, Boyce 1982) while in others, there appears to be no significant effect (Edwards 1968, Holthuijzen 1989). Birds also seem able to habituate to aircraft (Harmata et al. 1978, Ellis et al. 1991) and even simulated sonic booms (Ellis et al. 1991). However, large-scale and complex disturbances, such as military tank training, can disrupt foraging behavior and efficiency (Steenhof 1998). Prolonged disturbance is more harmful than periodic, short-term disturbance (Bednarz 1984). GRAZING: The effects of livestock grazing are neither simple nor well understood. The removal of vegetation may impact prey populations, especially in drought years (Steenhof 1998). Grazing also increases the invasion of sites by exotic invasive plants, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), which increase fire return intervals and accelerate the loss of native vegetation (Steenhof 1998, Wisdom et al. 2000). On the other hand, grazing removes vegetation which in some cases may make prey more available to falcons (Anderson and Squires 1997). However, this short-term, local benefit may be offset by negative effects at larger scales and in longer time frames. INVASIVE EXOTICS: In Idaho, home ranges had a lower cover of exotic annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass, than expected by chance (Marzluff et al. 1997). ENERGY DEVELOPMENT: Prairie Falcons appear to be relatively tolerant of oil and gas (Harmata 1991, Squires et al. 1993) and coal development (Phillips et al. 1990) in foraging areas, except where nest sites are destroyed or direct human disturbance is excessive. Falcons forage in spaces among oil wells where well densities were 1.5 wells per sq km (Anderson and Squires 1997). But the latter site was remote and not frequented by humans. This implies that it is direct human disturbance, not development per se, that is most harmful. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Falcons are notably tolerant of the Common Raven (Corvus corax) throughout its range (Cade, 1987, Steenhof 1998). Falcons frequently lay eggs in old raven stick nests. As raven populations and distribution are increasing, this may be a management factor deserving more attention. Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos, Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus) typically are not tolerated by falcons near nesting territories (Platt 1974, Harmata et al. 1978, Kaiser 1986, Holthuijzen 1989). These species prey on Prairie Falcon adults and nestlings. Peregrine Falcons often attack Prairie Falcons that enter a peregrine's territory (Porter and White 1973, Walton 1978). Thus, management actions to benefit these other raptor species may be detrimental to Prairie Falcon populations. SHOOTING: Shooting is the most commonly reported source of adult mortality (Webster 1944, Enderson 1964, van Tighem 1967). Shooting near nests also may cause adults to leave the nests temporarily, exposing eggs or nestlings to additional mortality (Harmata et al. 1978). PREDATORS: Mammalian predators, primarily coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus), are the main predators of falcon nests where nests are accessible (Steenhof 1998). DISEASE: Rock Doves (Columba livia) infected with trichomoniasis and herpesvirus can spread the infections to falcons when Rock Doves are consumed (Aini et al. 1993, Steenhof 1998). The impact of these diseases on falcon populations is not known. ELECTROCUTION: Electrocution is apparently uncommon (Steenhof 1998). FALCONRY: Legally harvested in 19 states (Conway et al. 1995). Although state agencies set harvest guidelines, these often are established without adequate data or analysis of population impacts. Steenhof (1998) states that the low level of harvest, about 0.2% of the population annually, probably does not affect overall population size. However, adults disturbed by harvest show lower inter-year territory fidelity (Conway et al. 1995). COLLISIONS: Collisions with wires, and fences in particular, cause some mortality, particularly during the fast, low foraging flights (Boyce 1982, Beauvais et al. 1992). Falcons also collide with vehicles. STOCK TANKS: Adults have been known to drown in stock watering tanks (Enderson 1964). ECTOPARASITES: Several ectoparasites contribute to nestling mortality and subsequent reproductive failure (review in Steenhof 1998). PESTICIDES: Susceptible to eggshell thinning from DDE (Noble and Elliot 1990) and may have had more recent reproductive failure as a result of hexachlorobenzene and DDE (Jarman et al. 1996). Although Prairie Falcons eat more mammals than birds, the species may be vulnerable to organophosphates and carbamates where it feeds on birds in agricultural areas (Kirk and Banasch 1996). Heptachlor epoxide and mercury residues also have been detected in falcons. These chemicals are used to treat wheat seeds and were presumable picked up by birds such as Horned Larks. Neither contaminant was thought to be high enough to affect the population level in the study area (Fyfe et al. 1969, 1976).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Appears secure overall, although there have been local declines. In Canada, Woodsworth and Freemark (1982) concluded that populations were increasing in the early 1980s; trend was reported as "stable" by Kirk et al. (1995).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: southeastern British Columbia, southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and northern North Dakota south to Baja California, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, western and northern Texas, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, and San Luis Potosi (AOU 1983, Lanning and Hitchcock 1991, Steenhof 1998); formerly also northwestern Missouri. NON-BREEDING: from breeding range in southern Canada south to Baja California and central Mexico (AOU 1983, Steenhof 1998). Most abundant in winter in the Great Basin and the central and central-southern latitudes of the Great Plains (Root 1988).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AR, AZ, CA, CO, ID, KS, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NM, NN, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, SK

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AZ Apache (04001)
CA Alameda (06001), Amador (06005)*, Colusa (06011)*, Contra Costa (06013), Fresno (06019), Imperial (06025)*, Inyo (06027)*, Kern (06029), Kings (06031)*, Lake (06033), Lassen (06035), Los Angeles (06037), Madera (06039)*, Mariposa (06043)*, Merced (06047), Modoc (06049), Mono (06051), Monterey (06053), Napa (06055), Plumas (06063)*, Riverside (06065)*, San Benito (06069), San Bernardino (06071), San Diego (06073), San Luis Obispo (06079), Santa Barbara (06083)*, Santa Clara (06085), Sierra (06091)*, Siskiyou (06093), Stanislaus (06099), Tehama (06103)*, Tuolumne (06109), Ventura (06111)*, Yolo (06113)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Bingham (16011), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonneville (16019), Butte (16023), Camas (16025), Canyon (16027), Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Gem (16045), Gooding (16047), Idaho (16049), Jefferson (16051), Jerome (16053), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Lincoln (16063), Madison (16065), Minidoka (16067), Nez Perce (16069), Oneida (16071), Owyhee (16073), Payette (16075), Power (16077), Teton (16081), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085), Washington (16087)
ND Billings (38007), Dunn (38025), Golden Valley (38033), McKenzie (38053), Mercer (38057), Slope (38087)
NE Banner (31007), Box Butte (31013), Cheyenne (31033), Dawes (31045), Garden (31069), Morrill (31123), Scotts Bluff (31157), Sheridan (31161), Sioux (31165)
NM Mckinley (35031), Otero (35035), San Juan (35045), Sandoval (35043)
NV Elko (32007)
OK Beaver (40007), Blaine (40011)*, Cimarron (40025), Dewey (40043)*, Harper (40059), Major (40093), McClain (40087), Tillman (40141)
SD Custer (46033), Fall River (46047), Harding (46063), Jackson (46071), Meade (46093), Pennington (46103), Shannon (46113)*
UT San Juan (49037)
WA Adams (53001), Asotin (53003), Benton (53005), Columbia (53013), Douglas (53017), Franklin (53021), Garfield (53023), Grant (53025), Kittitas (53037), Klickitat (53039), Lincoln (53043), Okanogan (53047), Spokane (53063), Walla Walla (53071), Whitman (53075), Yakima (53077)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
10 Lower Yellowstone (10100004)+, Lake Sakakawea (10110101)+, Middle Little Missouri (10110203)+, Lower Little Missouri (10110205)+, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+, Hat (10120108)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Knife (10130201)+, North Fork Grand (10130301)+, South Fork Grand (10130302)+, Upper Moreau (10130305)+, Bad (10140102)+, Upper White (10140201)+, Middle White (10140202)+, Niobrara Headwaters (10150002)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Pumpkin (10180013)+, Lower Lodgepole (10190016)+, Sidney Draw (10190017)+
11 Cimarron headwaters (11040001)+*, Upper Cimarron (11040002)+, Upper Cimarron-Liberal (11040006)+, Upper Cimarron-Bluff (11040008)+, Lower Cimarron-Eagle Chief (11050001)+, Lower Cimarron-Skeleton (11050002)+*, Upper Beaver (11100101)+, Lower Beaver (11100201)+, Middle North Canadian (11100301)+*, Blue-China (11130102)+, West Cache (11130203)+, Middle Washita (11130303)+
13 Jemez (13020202)+, Tularosa Valley (13050003)+
14 Chaco (14080106)+, Lower San Juan (14080205)+
15 Upper Puerco (15020006)+, Havasu-Mohave Lakes (15030101)+*, Piute Wash (15030102)+*, Imperial Reservoir (15030104)+*
16 Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Lower Bear-Malad (16010204)+, Curlew Valley (16020309)+, Rock (16040106)+, Ivanpah-Pahrump Valleys (16060015)+*
17 Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Chief Joseph (17020005)+, Okanogan (17020006)+, Methow (17020008)+, Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010)+, Moses Coulee (17020012)+, Upper Crab (17020013)+, Banks Lake (17020014)+, Lower Crab (17020015)+, Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids (17020016)+, Upper Yakima (17030001)+, Naches (17030002)+, Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Idaho Falls (17040201)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, American Falls (17040206)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Goose (17040211)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Birch (17040216)+, Little Lost (17040217)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, C. J. Idaho (17050101)+, Bruneau (17050102)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, Jordan (17050108)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Middle Snake-Payette (17050115)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107)+, Palouse (17060108)+, Rock (17060109)+, Lower Snake (17060110)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Pahsimeroi (17060202)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Upper Selway (17060301)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101)+, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105)+
18 Lost (18010204)+, Butte (18010205)+*, Upper Klamath (18010206)+, Shasta (18010207)+*, Scott (18010208)+*, Goose Lake (18020001)+*, Upper Pit (18020002)+, Lower Pit (18020003)+*, Upper Stony (18020115)+*, Upper Cache (18020116)+, East Branch North Fork Feather (18020122)+*, Middle Fork Feather (18020123)+*, Thomes Creek-Sacramento River (18020156)+*, Upper Putah (18020162)+, South Fork Kern (18030002)+*, Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- (18030003)+, Upper Dry (18030009)+, Upper King (18030010)+*, Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes (18030012)+, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040001)+, Middle San Joaquin-Lower (18040002)+, San Joaquin Delta (18040003)+, Upper San Joaquin (18040006)+*, Upper Merced (18040008)+*, Upper Stanislaus (18040010)+, Upper Mokelumne (18040012)+*, Panoche-San Luis Reservoir (18040014)+, Suisun Bay (18050001)+, San Pablo Bay (18050002)+*, San Francisco Bay (18050004)+, Pajaro (18060002)+*, Carrizo Plain (18060003)+, Estrella (18060004)+*, Salinas (18060005)+, Central Coastal (18060006)+*, Cuyama (18060007)+*, Carmel (18060012)+*, Santa Clara (18070102)+*, Santa Margarita (18070302)+*, San Luis Rey-Escondido (18070303)+*, San Diego (18070304)+*, Cottonwood-Tijuana (18070305)+, Surprise Valley (18080001)+, Madeline Plains (18080002)+*, Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+, Mono Lake (18090101)+, Crowley Lake (18090102)+*, Eureka-Saline Valleys (18090201)+*, Upper Amargosa (18090202)+*, Panamint Valley (18090204)+*, Indian Wells-Searles Valleys (18090205)+*, Antelope-Fremont Valleys (18090206)+, Coyote-Cuddeback Lakes (18090207)+, Mojave (18090208)+, Southern Mojave (18100100)+, Whitewater River (18100201)+*, Carrizo Creek (18100202)+, San Felipe Creek (18100203)+, Salton Sea (18100204)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A brown falcon.
General Description: A medium-sized falcon with pointed wings, a hooked bill, and conspicuous (in flight) dark patches near the body on the underside of the wings (axillaries and coverts); adults are pale brown above, whitish with heavy spotting below; head has narrow dark streak extending downward from each eye; immatures are buffy below; average length 39-50 cm, wingspan 89-109 cm (NGS 1983).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Differs from all other North American falcons in having dark patches in the "wingpits." Paler above than peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and merlin (Falco columbarius). Lacks the heavy dark wedge on the side of the face of the peregrine falcon.
Reproduction Comments: Laying may begin as early as February in Texas and Mexico; March in California, Washington, Arizona, and Oregon; April in Montana and Wyoming. Clutch size usually is 4-5. Incubation lasts 29-33 days, mostly by female (male brings food). Young are tended by both parents, remain at nest site 36-41 days. First breeds usually at 2 years (sometimes 1 year).
Ecology Comments: Annual mortality estimated at 74% in immatures, 25% in adults (see Evans 1982). Recorded nesting density: 23 pairs on 26 kilometers of cliffs in Colorado, 101 pairs in 72 kilometers along Snake River, Idaho (see Palmer 1988).

Defend relatively small areas around the nest site. These may extend 300 - 400 meters around the typical cliff nest and about 100 meters above the site (Ogden and Hornocker 1977, Harmata et al. 1978, Kaiser 1986).

Foraging areas are large, overlapping and not defended (Haak 1982, Squires 1986, Hunt 1993). Steenhof (1998) reports nesting season home ranges from six studies that ranged from 59 - 314 square kilometers.

Where nesting cliffs are suitable and continuous, will nest at higher densities than most other large North American falcons (Steenhof 1998). At higher densities, nest sites tend to be visually isolated from one another (Anderson and Squires 1997). Densities of nesting falcons ranged from 0.2 pair per kilometer of linear cliff in Montana (DuBois 1984) to 0.66 pair per km in southwestern Idaho, with some stretches of canyon in Idaho having 4.3 pair per kilometer (Steenhof 1988).

Winter home ranges are much smaller than breeding season home ranges but still averaged over 30 square kilometers in Colorado (Beauvais et al. 1992). Winter roosts may be far from winter foraging areas, much as nest sites may be far from breeding season foraging areas.

Fidelity to breeding territories is very high in some areas. Runde (1987) reports an average 88% return rate in Colorado, Wyoming, and Alberta with Alberta females returning at a very high rate (96%). Return rates in Idaho, where nest sites and mates are at high densities, were substantially lower.

Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Some birds winter in breeding range, some migrate south as far as central Mexico, and, in the mountains, some birds migrate to lower elevations. See Palmer (1988) for details.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Alpine, Cliff, Cropland/hedgerow, Desert, Grassland/herbaceous
Habitat Comments: Primarily open situations, especially in mountainous areas, steppe, plains or prairies (AOU 1983). Typically nests in pot hole or well-sheltered ledge on rocky cliff or steep earth embankment, 10 to more than 100 meters above base. May nest in man-made excavations on otherwise unsuitable cliffs (Cade 1982). Vertical cliffs with rock structure overhanging the site are preferred. Nests typically are placed on south-facing aspects, with overhangs offering some protection from solar radiation. May use old nest of raven, hawk, eagle, etc. Commonly changes nest site within territory in successive years (see Palmer 1988). In Mojave Desert, remote nests had higher productivity than did nests that were closer to human activity (Boyce 1988).

During winter, falcons use a number of other habitats that are not typical of those used during the breeding season. Dryland wheat fields, irrigated winter wheat and other irrigated croplands also are used for foraging in winter (Enderson 1964, White and Roseneau 1970, Parker 1972, Beauvais et al. 1992). In all cases, large patches with low vegetation stature characterize the habitats used. Depend on Horned Larks (Enderson 1964) and grassland species in general (Schmutz et al. 1991) for prey. Early successional stages, low vegetation height and large percentages of bare ground are an inferred requirement.

The use of forested habitat during migration by some Canadian birds (Schmutz et al. 1991) appears to be rare, but use of these habitats is little studied.

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore
Food Comments: Primarily feeds opportunistically on mammals (especially ground squirrels), lizards, and birds, generally up to size of quail and rabbits. In southwestern Idaho, reproduction is closely linked to the abundance of the ground squirrel Spermophilus mollis. Even following a prolonged crash in ground squirrel populations, and in the absence of important alternate prey, falcons continued to seek ground squirrels (Steenhof and Kochert 1988). Had a much more specialized diet than other raptors in southwestern Idaho and variation among individuals was low (Steenhof 1998). Ground squirrel populations fluctuate with drought cycles, thus potentially affecting productivity and population trends (Van Horne et al. 1997).

In winter, often takes Horned Larks (Eremophila alpestris) on fields of winter wheat. Young may take large insects.

Usually captures prey on or near ground; rapidly pursues birds in flight (see Palmer 1988 for many details). May cache prey in vegetation, on ledge, or in small crevice or cavity; caching most common during early brood rearing.

Length: 50 centimeters
Weight: 975 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: Harvested for use in falconry in several states.
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Prairie Falcons nest successfully in a wide array of landscapes and open, low-stature vegetation types as long as two main features are available: suitable nest sites, primarily cliffs; and an adequate prey base, primarily ground squirrels. Large home ranges during the breeding season (59 - 314 square kilometers) and wintering season (30 square kilometers) dictate management based at the landscape level, not at the site level. Nesting birds are relatively tolerant of human activities that do not occur close to the nest and that are not persistent. Loss of ground squirrel populations and their habitats may be the single biggest factor impacting falcon populations.
Restoration Potential: Will use artificial nest sites excavated or blasted into cliff faces. Construction of artificial nest sites has been effective where natural sites are limited but other features of the cliff and the surrounding landscape, particularly the prey base, are suitable (Fyfe and Armbruster 1977, Boyce et al. 1980, Mayer and Licht 1995). As nesting densities frequently are limited by site availability (Squires 1986), this provides a management tool to attract falcons into areas with insufficient nest sites. Prairie Falcons also use "high walls" that can be left behind following coal strip mining (Anderson and Squires 1997). This practice creates artificial cliffs where none existed before. Artificial nest sites should be on south-facing exposures and 2/3 of the way up the cliff face. The floor area of the site should be 7000 sq cm, with a 5-10% slope toward the front. Other characteristics are given by Runde and Anderson (1986), Runde (1987) and Anderson and Squires (1997).

Falcons can be bred in captivity but the reintroduction of captive Prairie Falcons has been very limited (Granger 1977, Anderson and Squires 1997). All evidence is that such extreme measures are not needed or useful at this time, given the many other characteristics of the species that make it amenable to a variety of habitat management actions.

Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: NEST SITES: Will use a variety of landscapes and vegetation types if suitable nest sites are available. The most common type of nest site is a cliff, ledge, rock cavity, isolated rock outcrop or similar site. However, some birds will use trees, power poles or even buildings (Steenhof 1998).

NEST SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS: The size of the nest site territory is not as important from a spatial management standpoint as is the size of the areas required for foraging. Some stretches of canyon in Idaho have nesting densities as high as 4.3 pairs per kilometer (Steenhof 1998). This density might serve as an upper limit for management objectives in areas that are suitable for nesting falcons.

FORAGING AREA REQUIREMENTS: Foraging areas are large, overlapping and not defended (Haak 1982, Squires 1986, Hunt 1993). Steenhof (1998) reports nesting season home ranges from six studies that ranged from 59-314 square kilometers.

Populations are strongly dependent on populations of ground squirrels during the breeding season, especially SPERMOPHILUS species. Thus, maintaining healthy source populations of Prairie Falcons is directly dependent on managing habitat for ground squirrels. The ground squirrels almost uniformly thrive in early successional vegetation. Popular secondary prey species, Horned Lark (EREMOPHILA ALPESTRIS) and Western Meadowlark (STURNELLA NEGLECTA), also are common in low stature, early successional types. Falcons take most prey on or near the ground by "strafing" wherein birds fly fast at only 3-6 m above the ground and surprise prey items (Phipps 1979, Squires et al. 1989, Steenhof 1998). Thus, falcons must have clear vision of the ground level, unobstructed by tall and/or dense vegetation (Brown and Amadon 1968, Haak 1982, Peterson 1988, Squires 1986, Squires et al. 1993). Many North American habitat types generally meet this description: shrub-steppe desert, grasslands, tundra, and arid plains. Periods of higher than average precipitation may affect foraging efficiency in some vegetation types when vegetation grows taller and more dense (Steenhof 1998).

Core use areas in Alberta had lower proportions of irrigated cropland than expected by chance (Hunt 1993) and prey biomass is lower in agricultural lands. This suggests that fragmentation caused by this factor at least, may have adverse effects. Simulations for southwestern Idaho (Steenhof 1998) predicted that loss of as little as 15% of the land to agricultural conversion could reduce falcon productivity below replacement levels. Although large-scale agricultural development is implicated in population declines in several areas (reviewed in Steenhof 1998), small-scale agriculture may benefit falcon populations when it provides edge for prey populations (Harmata 1991, Hunt 1993, Marzluff et al. 1997).

During winter, and in some geographic areas during the breeding season, individuals hunted most often from perches (Enderson 1964, Phipps 1979) or by soaring (Kaiser 1986). This suggests that in some cases, birds could persist in smaller habitat patches, other factors being equal.

High levels of site fidelity suggest that in many nesting areas, it is important to protect the nesting territory and adjacent foraging sites with permanent, long-term strategies and not force birds to move among years or expect them to disperse and breed successfully elsewhere when habitat conditions deteriorate. Although data on fidelity to winter sites is much more limited, those data also suggest a strong site fidelity. Thus, identification and proper management of winter sites also may be important.
Management Requirements: NEST SITES: Because nest sites are relatively specialized and because site fidelity is high, the protection of nest sites obviously is a high priority. In geographic areas where inventories for nesting falcons have not been conducted, topographic maps will provide excellent information on cliffs that might support breeding birds. All known and potential nesting cliffs should be considered for conservation action.

GROUND SQUIRREL PREY POPULATIONS: Ground squirrel prey populations are as essential to falcons as are good nest sites. Ground squirrel populations can be lost or greatly reduced when habitat is altered by conversion to agricultural lands, improper livestock grazing, invasion of exotic vegetation or by other activities. As reviewed above, certain small-scale agricultural conversions may be beneficial to ground squirrels but large-scale conversions are almost certainly detrimental. Poisoning of ground squirrel populations has been underway for many years in many geographic areas and this activity likely has contributed to severely reduced populations of several ground squirrel species (Wisdom et al. 2000). Management to protect, enhance and restore ground squirrel populations in key areas should be considered.

FORAGING AREA REQUIREMENTS: The large breeding season and winter foraging areas (30 - 314 sq km) give us a clear perspective on the geographic scale of areas where falcons are to be conserved. Although falcons do not use all the areas within these large home ranges, land managers truly must think in terms of managing landscapes, not sites.

HUMAN DISTURBANCE: Limiting the types and levels of human activities near nests has been a common management strategy, particularly among federal land management agencies. Suter and Joness (1981) recommended buffer zones of 1 km around nests while Becker and Ball (1981) recommended 400 m. Holthuijzen et al. (1990) found that blasting need not be restricted at distances greater than 125 meters from occupied nests. Land management agencies use quasi-standardized distances for oil and gas development, coal development and other activities. Birds can tolerate some development in foraging habitat if nest sites are not overly disturbed (Anderson and Squires 1997). Where nesting falcons occur in high densities, permanent protection of the nesting cliffs, with sufficient buffers, should be sought.

GRAZING: The effects of livestock grazing are not simple and likely vary by region, soil type, vegetation type and many other factors. Thus, it is necessary to study the relationships among the grazing programs, the vegetation and the prey populations to determine the best course of action on any particular site.

INVASIVE EXOTICS: Fire management, livestock management and other actions to slow or stop the spread of invasive exotic plants is critical to the future quality of Prairie Falcon foraging habitat in southern Idaho and other areas susceptible to dominance by weedy species (Marzluff et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 2000). Direct habitat restoration likely will be required in some areas to augment and rebuild falcon foraging habitat.

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT: Where coal, oil and gas development has occurred, it may be direct human disturbance (see above) more than the physical alteration of the land that impacts falcons. Thus, buffer zones and seasonal restrictions of the timing of human activity and site occupancy may be the most critical factors to manage.

In the United States, management of oil and gas, coal, oil shale, phosphate and other leasable minerals is regulated under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR 3000). The best opportunity to protect habitat comes during federal land use planning (USDA Forest Service 2000, USDI Bureau of Land Management 2000a, b). Objectives, standards and guidelines can be incorporated into the Management Situation Analysis and for coal, the Unsuitability Criteria. Where necessary for maximum protection, plans can allocate areas to No Surface Disturbance or Unsuitability. Another opportunity to protect habitat from the adverse effects of these developments occurs during the leasing process. A Notice of Intent is required for exploratory activity that can be very disruptive in the short-term on local sites. Stipulations that protect an area from disturbance during a particular period of the year or that require buffer zones also can be specified. These and other restrictions can be placed as Conditions of Approval when an Application for Permit to Drill is filed, in the case of oil and gas development. Once enough successful wells (5-6) are in place, then a Plan of Development is required for the field. Detailed NEPA analysis is required at this stage and a variety of mitigation measures can be negotiated.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER SPECIES: Because falcons are tolerant of Common Ravens and use old raven nests, raven management should be carefully considered where they do, or could, co-occur with falcons. Conversely, Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, Great Horned Owls, and Peregrine Falcons all are detrimental to Prairie Falcon populations. Tradeoffs in management of these various species must be carefully weighed.

PREDATORS: The chief mammalian predators of Prairie Falcon nests and nestlings (coyotes and bobcats) are common and widespread. As with most predator issues, the best approach to minimize predation is to provide high-quality habitat for the focal species. In this case, the provision and protection of good nest sites is the best strategy.

DISEASE: The impact of Rock Doves infected with trichomoniasis and herpesvirus on falcon populations is not known. However, Rock Dove control should be an obvious option where these doves are nesting in the wild on cliffs frequented by falcons or where they are otherwise available to falcons as prey.

SHOOTING: Shooting can be prevented through a constant program to educate the public on the value of falcons and the illegality of shooting them. Road access to areas where falcons need further protection from shooting can be eliminated or reduced.

ELECTROCUTION: Electrocution losses can be eliminated or greatly reduced by continuing to pursue programs that make power lines and facilities raptor safe (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 1996).

FALCONRY: Although Steenhof (1998) states that the low level of harvest probably does not affect overall population size, disturbance at the nest site (Conway et al. 1995) does have impacts and should be further investigated. Further, in the absence of population data sufficient to model impacts, the continued harvest of wild birds for falconry must be questioned.

COLLISIONS: Elimination of fences in important foraging habitats could reduce this source of mortality. Unfortunately, this is apt to be impractical in many areas. Placing marker balls on wires to minimize collision mortality (Anderson and Squires 1997) might also be effective for problem sites. Where vehicle collisions are a problem, road closures, rerouting or signing (i.e., "Falcon Crossing") should be considered.

STOCK TANKS: Federal land management agencies have policies to provide escape ramps in livestock watering tanks. These policies and their enforcement should be examined for all land within the range of the Prairie Falcon. Similar policies should be implemented on grazing lands controlled by state agencies. Education and encouragement for private landowners also should be pursued.

ECTOPARASITES: Several ectoparasites contribute to nestling mortality and subsequent reproductive failure (review in Steenhof 1998). Hand treatment of nestlings to kill parasites is one option to improve nest success.

PESTICIDES: The use of pesticides known to be harmful to falcons should be discouraged or eliminated in foraging areas where falcons nest and winter. Although this may be impractical on a broad basis, it should be pursued where falcons concentrate and where agricultural lands are interspersed with frequently used native vegetation.

Monitoring Requirements: Christmas Bird Count (http://birdsource.cornell.edu/cbc/index.html#Reports) and North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2001) both provide information on population trends of Prairie Falcons. Although neither technique is well suited for falcons or raptors in general, trends calculated over large geographic areas, such as the West or North America, may have some validity. Specially designed migration counts, such as those conducted by HawkWatch International (Hoffman et al. 1992), provide the best information on population trends. However, migration counts assess trends over large, and substantially undefined, geographic regions.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging area, Nest site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of breeding (including historical); and potential recurring breeding at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs with occupied nests in appropriate habitat. Occurrence includes not only the nest sites, but also the surrounding areas used for feeding during the nesting season.
Mapping Guidance: Although separations are based on nest sites, occurrences include nesting areas as well as foraging areas. Foraging areas for different occurrences may overlap.

Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 20 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 20 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Where an occurrence is at least twice the size of a minimum A-ranked occurrence, it may be divided into two or more A-ranked occurrences along divisions that are narrower (or absent) than the separation distances given. The dividing lines should be made as much as possible along lines of limited falcon use; for example, along major urban areas or very wide bodies of water.
Separation Justification: Occurrences represent relatively distinct clusters of one or more nest sites and do not necessarily represent demographically distinct populations. Occurrence separation is based on nest sites; nest sites separated by a gap smaller than the separation distance represent the same occurrence.

Breeding home ranges vary a great deal: Idaho, 26-142 square kilometers (U. S. Bureau of Land Management 1979), southern California 31-78 square kilometers (Harmata et al. 1978), northern California 34-389 square kilometers (Haak 1982), Wyoming 26 square kilometers (Craighead and Craighead 1956), 59 to 314 square kilometers (six studies reported by Steenhof 1998). Squires et al. (1993) found that prairie falcons typically forage within 10 km of nests during the breeding season.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 8.7 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a relatively small home range of 59 square kilometers (Steenhof 1998).
Date: 24Sep2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering individuals outside their breeding area (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location. Occurrences should be areas where more than one individual is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence over at least 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Justification: Separation distance somewhat arbitrary; nonbreeding occurrences based primarily on concentrations of wintering individuals, rather than on distinct populations.
Date: 16Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Management Information Edition Date: 08Oct2001
Management Information Edition Author: RICH, T., MINOR REVISIONS BY D. MEHLMAN AND S. CANNINGS.
Management Information Acknowledgments: Funding for the preparation of this abstract was provided by the Department of Defense, Partners in Flight Program, through The Nature Conservancy, Wings of the Americas Program.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Mar1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., REVISED BY S. CANNINGS

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Aini, I., L. M. Shih, A. E. Castro, and Y. C. Zee. 1993. Comparison of herpesvirus isolates from falcons, pigeons and psittacines by restriction endonuclease analysis. J. Wildl. Dis. 29:196-202.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Allen, G. T. 1987. Prairie falcon aerie site characteristics and aerie use in North Dakota. Condor 89: 187-190.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • Anderson, S. H. and J. R. Squires. 1997. The Prairie Falcon. Univ. Texas Press. Austin. 162 pp.

  • Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines: the state of the art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation. Washington, D.C.

  • B.C. Conservation Data Centre. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment Victoria, BC. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 2017d. Identified Wildlife Management Strategy homepage. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/index.html

  • Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

  • Beauvais, G., J. H. Enderson, and A. J. Magro. 1992. Home range, habitat use and behavior of Prairie Falcons wintering in east-central Colorado. J. Raptor Res. 26:13-18.

  • Becker, D. M. and I. J. Ball. 1981. Impacts of surface mining on Prairie Falcons: Recommendations for monitoring and mitigation. Unpubl. Rep. Montana Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. Montana, Missoula.

  • Bednarz, J. C. 1984. Effect of mining and blasting on breeding Prairie Falcon (FALCO MEXICANUS) occupancy in the Caballo Mountains, New Mexico. Raptor Res. 18:16-19.

  • Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia: vultures, hawks, falcons, eagles. B.C. Prov. Mus. Occas. Pap. No. 17, Victoria, 163pp.

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

  • Boyce, D. A. 1988. Factors affecting prairie falcon fledgling productivity in the Mojave Desert, California. Pages 237-248 in Glinski et al., eds. Proc. Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 11.

  • Boyce, D. A., Jr. 1982. Prairie Falcon fledgling productivity in the Mojave Desert, California. MS Thesis. Humboldt State Univ. Arcata, CA.

  • Boyce, D. A., Jr., L. Fisher, W. E. Lehman, B. Hipp, and J. Peterson. 1980. Prairie Falcons nest on an artificial ledge. Raptor Res. 14:46-50.

  • Boyce, D.A. Jr., L. Fisher, W.E. Lehman, B. Hipp and J. Peterson J. 1980. Prairie Falcons nest on an artificial ledge. Raptor Research, 14:46-50. Available: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/jrr/v014n02/p00046-p00050.pdf.

  • British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004az. Prairie Falcon, Falco mexicanus in Identified Wildlife Management Strategy ? accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. 9 pp.

  • Brown, L. and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks, and falcons of the world, Vol. 2. Country Life Books. London. 945 pp.

  • COSEWIC 2007r. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (pealei subspecies - Falco peregrinus and pealei anatum/tundrius - Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius ) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 45 pp.

  • Cade, T. J. 1987. The falcons of the world. Cornell Univ. Press. Ithaca, NY.

  • Cade, T.J. 1982. The Falcons of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 192 pp.

  • Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, A. C. Stewart, and M. C. E. McNall. 2001. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 4. Passerines: wood-warblers through Old World sparrows. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 739 pages.

  • Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. McNall. 1990b. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 2. Nonpasserines: diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C. 636 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia Vol. 2: Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

  • Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2016. Wild Species 2015: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1995. Last Mountain Lake and Stalwart National Wildlife Areas: Bird Checklist - Fourth Edition. Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON.

  • Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley, B.C. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, BC. 420pp.

  • Cannings, R.J. 1998. The Birds of British Columbia - a taxonomic catalogue. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, Wildl. Bull. B-86. 266pp.

  • Cannings, R.J., E. Durance, and L.K. Scott. 1998. South Okanagan Ecosystem Recovery Plan: Scientific Assessment Draft Report Submitted to B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Penticton, BC. 110pp.

  • Chutter, M. 2015. Prairie Falcon in: Davidson, P.J.A., R.J. Cannings, A.R. Couturier, D. Lepage, and C.M. Di Corrado (eds.). The atlas of the breeding birds of British Columbia, 2008-2012. Bird Studies Canada. Delta, BC. Available: http://www.birdatlas.bc.ca/accounts/speciesaccount.jsp?sp=PRFA&lang=en.

  • Clark, W.S. and B.K. Wheeler. 1987. A Field Guide to Hawks of North America. Peterson Field Guide Series 35. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston. 198p.

  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 1999. Canadian Species at Risk: April 1999. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 17 pp.

  • Conway, C. J., S. H. Anderson, D. E. Runde and D. Abbate. 1995. Effects of experimental nestling harvest on Prairie Falcons. J. Wildl. Manage. 59:311-316.

  • Cooper, J.M. 1998. An Inventory Report on the Status of Diurnal Raptors (Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson's Hawk, Prairie Falcon, Peregrine Falcon) at Risk in the Southern Grasslands of British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-92. 24pp.

  • Cooper, J.M., and S.M. Beauchesne. 2004. Status of the Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. No. B-116.


  • Copland, H.C. 1994. Prairie Nest Record Card Scheme. c/o Museum of Man and Nature. 190 Rupert Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba.

  • Davidson, P.J.A., R.J. Cannings, A.R. Couturier, D. Lepage, and C.M. Di Corrado (eds.). 2014. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of British Columbia, 2008-2012. Bird Studies Canada, Delta, B.C.

  • DeLong, J. P., and K. Steenhof. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Prairie Falcon. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 25pp.

  • Demarchi, M.W. and M.D. Bently. 2005. Best Management Practices for Raptor Conservation during Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. of Environ., Victoria, B.C. MoE BMP Series.

  • DuBois, K. 1984. Rocky Mountain front raptor survey. Final report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT.

  • Edwards, B. F. 1973. A nesting study of a small population of Prairie Falcons in southern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87:322-324.

  • Elliot, J.E., P.A. Martin, T.W. Arnold, and P.H. Sinclair. 1994. Organochlorines and reproductive success of birds in orchard and non-orchard area of central British Columbia, 1990-91. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:435-443.

  • Ellis, D. H., C. H. Ellis, and D. P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor responses to low-level jet aircraft and sonic booms. Env. Poll. 74:53-83.

  • Enderson, J. H. 1964. A study of the Prairie Falcon in the central Rocky Mountain region. Auk 81:332-352.

  • Evans, D. L. 1982. Status reports on twelve raptors. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report No. 238. 68 pp.

  • Falco mexicanus/Prairie Falcon. Copyright Dave Fraser.

  • Fisher, A.K. 1893. The hawks and owls of the United States in their relation to agriculture. Washington U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Bull. no. 6. 210 pp.

  • Forest Practices Code. 1997. Prairie Falcon in Species and Plant Community Accounts for Identified Wildlife: Vol. 1. B.C. Minist. For. and B.C. Environ. 184pp.

  • Fraser, D. F., W. L. Harper, S. G. Cannings, and J. M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch and Resources Inventory Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 244pp.

  • Fyfe, R. W. and H. I. Armbruster. 1977. Raptor research and management in Canada, pp. 282-293 IN World Conference on Birds of Prey, Report of proceedings. R. D. Chancellor, Ed. International Council for Bird Preservation, London.

  • Fyfe, R. W., J. Campbell, B. Hayson and K. Hodson. 1969. Regional population declines and organochlorine insecticides in Canadian Prairie Falcons. Can. Field-Nat. 83:191-200.

  • Fyfe, R. W., R. W. Risebrough and W. Walker. 1976. Pollutant effects on the reproduction of the Prairie Falcons and Merlins of the Canadian prairies. Can. Field-Nat. 90:346-355.

  • Fyfe, R. W., and R. R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and other sensitive species. Canadian Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap. 23. 17 pp.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • Gollop, J.E. 1981. Breeding Biology of Prairie Falcons Along Battle Creek, Saskatchewan 1979, 1980.

  • Granger, S. E. 1977. Reintroduction of captive-bred Prairie Falcons in California--1976. Raptor Research 11:73.

  • Haak, B.A. 1982. Foraging ecology of prairie falcons in Northern California. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 64 pp.

  • Harmata, A. R. 1991. Impacts of oil and gas development on raptors associated with Kevin Rim, Montana. Unpubl. Rep. Kevin Rim Raptor Study Group, Biology Department, Montana State University, Bozeman. Prepared for the USDI Bur. Land Manage., Great Falls Resource Area, Great Falls, MT. 98 pp.

  • Harmata, A. R., J. E. Durr, and H. Geduldig. 1978. Home range, activity patterns, and habitat use of Prairie Falcon nesting in the Mohave Desert. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Report, Contract YA-512-ct8-43. 89 pp.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Hobbs, J. 2010. Provincial interior falcon breeding surveys - 2010. Unpubl. rep. prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 31 pp.

  • Hoffman, S. W., J. P. Smith, and T. D. Meehan. 2002. Breeding grounds, winter ranges, and migratory routes of raptors in the Mountain West. J. Raptor Res. 36: 97-110.

  • Hoffman, S. W., W. R. De Ragon, and J. C. Bednarz. 1992. Patterns and recent trends in counts of migrant hawks in western North America. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Purchase Order No. 98210-0-1171, Washington, D.C.

  • Hoffman, S.W., et.al. 1992. Patterns and recent trends in counts of migrant hawks in western North America: 1977-1991. Draft. Prepared by HawkWatch International, Albuquerque, NM, for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DC.

  • Holthuijzen, A. M. A. 1989. Behavior and productivity of nesting Prairie Falcons in relation to construction activities at Swan Falls Dam. Final report. Idaho Power Co, Boise, ID.

  • Holthuijzen, A. M. A., W. G. Eastland, A. R. Ansell, M. N. Kochert, R. D. Williams and L. S. Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting Prairie Falcons. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:270-281.

  • Hooper, T.D. 1997. Status of the Prairie Falcon in the Chilcotin-Cariboo Region. British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. Working Rep. WR-85. 22pp.

  • Hooper, T.D., and J.M. Cooper. 1997. Managing for high priority Identified Wildlife species in the Cariboo Region - A problem analysis. Unpubl. rep. for B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Williams Lake, BC, 212pp.

  • Hooper, T.D., and M.D. Pitt. 1995. Problem analysis for Chilcotin-Cariboo grassland biodiversity. Wildl. Bull. No. B-82, B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 116pp.

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Hunt, L. E. 1993. Diet and habitat use of nesting Prairie Falcons (FALCO MEXICANUS) in an agricultural landscape in southern Alberta. MS Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 61 pp.

  • Jarman, W. M., S. A. Burns, C. E. Bacon, J. Rechtin, S. DeBenedetti, J. L. Linthicum and B. J. Walton. 1996. High levels of HCB and DDE associated with reproductive failure in Prairie Falcons (FALCO MEXICANUS) from California. Bull. Env. Contam. Tox. 57:8-15.

  • Jehl, J.R. Jr. & B.A. Smith. 1970. Birds of the Churchill Region, Manitoba. Museum of Man and Nature, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 87 pp.

  • Jenkins, J.E. 1978. Saskatchewan Prairie Falcon Survey. Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources.

  • Jobin, L. 1954. Notes on the Prairie Falcon and Peregrine Falcon in the Cariboo District of British Columbia. Murrelet 35:11.

  • Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. xvi + 403 pp.

  • Kaiser, T. J. 1986. Behavior and energetics of Prairie Falcons (FALCO MEXICANUS) breeding in the western Mojave Desert. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 160 pp.

  • Keith, D. 1991. A Landowner's Guide to Raptors of the Prairies. unpublished paper.

  • Kirk, D. A. and U. Banasch. 1996. Second updated status report on the Prairie Falcon FALCO MEXICANUS in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Ottawa, ON, Canada.

  • Kirk, D. A., D. Hussell, and E. Dunn. 1995. Raptor population status and trends in Canada. Bird Trends (Canadian Wildlife Service) 4:2-9.

  • Kirk, D.A., and U. Banasch. 1995. Updated status report on the Prairie Falcon, Falco mexicanus, in Canada. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Comm. on the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can., Ottawa. 7pp.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

  • Lanning, D. V., and M. A. Hitchcock. 1991. Breeding distribution and habitat of prairie falcons in northern Mexico. Condor 93:762-765.

  • Manitoba Avian Research Committee. 1986. Field checklist of the birds of Manitoba. Pamphlet. 16pp. Manitoba Naturalists Society

  • Marzluff, J. M., B. A. Kimsey, L. S. Schueck, M.E . McFadzen, M. S. Vekasy and J. C. Bednarz. 1997. The influence of habitat, prey abundance, sex, and breeding success on the ranging behavior of Prairie Falcons. Condor 99:567-584.

  • Mayer, P. M. and D. S. Licht. 1995. Persistence and use of artificial Prairie Falcon aeries in North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:532-534.

  • National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

  • Noble, D. G. and J. E. Elliott. 1990. Levels of contaminants in Canadian raptors, 1966 to 1988; Effects and temporal trends. Can. Field-Nat. 104:222-243.

  • Ogden, V. T. and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Nesting density and success of Prairie Falcons in southwestern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:1-11.

  • Olsen, P. D., R. C. Marshall, and A. Gaal. 1989. Relationships within the genus FALCO: a comparison of the electrophoretic patterns of feather proteins. Emu 89:193-203.

  • Palmer, R. S., ed. 1988b. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 5. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven. 465 pp.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • Parker, R. C. 1972. Prairie Falcon management in Washington State. Proc. West. Assoc. State Game Fish Comm. 52:394-408.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Paton, D. 2002. Status of the Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) in Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, WildlifeStatus Report No. 42, Edmonton, AB. 28 pp.

  • Pendleton, B. A. G., B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird. 1987. Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 10. 420 pp.

  • Peterson, D. L. 1988. Nesting and habitat parameters for selected raptors in the desert of northern Utah. MS Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan. 110 pp.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1990b. A field guide to western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Phillips, R. L., A. H. Wheeler, J. M. Lockhart, T. P. McEneaney, and N. C. Forrester. 1990. Nesting ecology of Golden Eagles and other raptors in southeastern Montana and northern Wyoming. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Wildl. Tech. Rep. 26. Washington, DC.

  • Phipps, K. B. 1979. Hunting methods, habitat use and activity patterns of Prairie Falcons in the Snake River Birds of Prey Natural Area, Idaho. MS Thesis, Western Illinois Univ. 58 pp.

  • Platt, S. W. 1974. Breeding status and distribution of the Prairie Falcon in northern New Mexico. MS Thesis, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater. 68 pp.

  • Porter, R. D. and C. M. White. 1973. Peregrine Falcon in Utah, emphasizing ecology and competition with the Prairie Falcon. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biol. Series 18:1-74.

  • Porter, R.D., et.al. 1973. The peregrine falcon in Utah, emphasizing ecology and competition with the prairie falcon. Brigham Young University, Science Bulletin, Biological Series, Volume XVIII, No. 1.

  • Rappole, J.H., Morton, E.S., Lovejoy, T.E. and Ruos, J.L. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in the Neotropics. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

  • Reeves, T. and A. Nelson. 1996. Birds of Morgan Lake: a guide to common species. Arizona Public Service, Four Corners Power Plant. 25 p.

  • Resource Inventory Committee. 1997e. Standardized Inventory Methodologies for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity: Raptors, version 1.1. Prepared for the Resour. Inventory Comm., B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 56pp.

  • Root, T. 1988. Atlas of Wintering North American Birds: An Analysis of Christmas Bird Count Data. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 312 pp.

  • Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds: An analysis of Christmas Bird Count data. University of Chicago Press. 336 pp.

  • Runde, D. E. 1987. Population dynamics, habitat use and movement patterns of the Prairie Falcon (FALCO MEXICANUS). PhD Dissertation, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 166 pp.

  • Runde, D. E. and S. H. Anderson. 1986. Characteristics of cliffs and nest sites used by breeding Prairie Falcons. Raptor Res. 20:21-28.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966-2015. Version 2.07.2017. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 1999. The North American Breeding Bird Survey: Results and Analysis 1966 - 1998. Version 98.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. December 3-last update. Online. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Schmutz, J. K., R. W. Fyfe, U. Banasch and H. Armbruster. 1991. Routes and timing of migration of falcons banded in Canada. Wilson Bull. 103:44-58.

  • Scott, S. L. 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

  • Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists. 391 pp.

  • Sibley, D. A. 2000a. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • Sinclair, P.H., and J.E. Elliot. 1993. A survey of birds and pesticide use in orchards in the South Okanagan/Similkameen region of British Columbia, 1991. Tech. Rep. 185. Available from Pacific and Yukon Region. 54pp.

  • Snow, C. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species, Report No. 8, Prairie Falcon, FALCO MEXICANUS. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Dept. of Int., Technical Note, T-N-240, Denver.

  • Squires, J. R. 1986. Movements, food habits, and productivity for a small population of Prairie Falcon utilizing oil developed lands, Campbell County, Wyoming. MS Thesis, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 185 pp.

  • Squires, J. R., S. H. Anderson and R. Oakleaf. 1989. Food habits of nesting Prairie Falcons in Campbell County, Wyoming. J. Raptor Res. 23:157-161.

  • Squires, J. R., S. H. Anderson, and R. Oakleaf. 1993. Home range size and habitat-use patterns of nesting Prairie Falcons near oil developments in northeastern Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:1-10.

  • Steenhof, K. 1998. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus). in A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 346. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC. 28pp.

  • Steenhof, K. 1998. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 346. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pp.

  • Steenhof, K. and M. N. Kochert. 1988. Dietary responses of three raptor species to changing prey densities in a natural environment. J. Anim. Ecol. 57:37-48.

  • Suter, G. W., II and J. L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and Prairie Falcon nest site protection. Raptor Res. 15:12-18.

  • THOMPSON,M.C., AND C. ELY.1989. BIRDS IN KANSAS VOLUME ONE.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000. National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning; Final Rule. 36 CFR Parts 217 and 219. Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218. Thursday, November 9, 2000. Washington, DC.

  • USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000a. Land use planning handbook H-1601-1. USDI Bur. Land Manage. Washington, DC. 122 pp.

  • USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2000b. Land use planning. BLM Manual 1601. USDI Bur. Land Manage. Washington, DC. 24 pp.

  • United States Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Snake River birds of prey special research report to the Secretary of Interior. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho.

  • Van Horne, B. G. S. Olson, R. L. Schooley, J. G. Corn and K. P. Burnham. 1997. The effects of drought and prolonged winter on Townsend's ground squirrels in shrubsteppe habitats. Ecological Monographs 67(3):295-315.

  • Walton, B. J. 1978. Peregrine Prairie Falcon interaction. Raptor Res. 12:46-47.

  • Webster, H., Jr. 1944. Survey of the Prairie Falcon in Colorado. Auk 61:609-616.

  • White, C. M. and D. G. Roseneau. 1970. Observations on food, nesting, and winter populations of large North American falcons. Condor 72:113-115.

  • White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), ver. 2.0. In: The birds of North America (P.G. Rodewald, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

  • Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. U. S. For. Serv. Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., Portland, Oregon.

  • Woodsworth, G. and K. Freemark. 1981. Status Report on the Prairie Falcon, Falco mexicanus, in Canada. COSEWIC Report. Canada Wildlife Service. Ottawa, ON.

  • Woodsworth, G. and K. Freemark. 1982. Updated status report on the Prairie Falcon, FALCO MEXICANUS, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 32 pp.

  • Woodsworth, G., and K. Freemark. 1981. Status report on the Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) in Canada. Comm. on the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can.. Available from Can. Nat. Fed., Ottawa, ON.

  • van Tighem, K. 1967. Destruction of the Prairie Falcon at Calgary, Alberta. Blue Jay 25:108.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.