Share your observations of plants or non-game animals with the Natural Heritage Inventory
Help care for rare plants and animals by ordering an Endangered Resources plate.
Photo © Len Blumin
Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), a Special Concern species in Wisconsin, is a large flycatcher with gray plumage and a distinctive white throat, center of breast, and belly that gives the bird a vested appearance. Its wings are dark gray with olive-gray sides and flanks. The Olive-sided Flycatcher is found in a variety of coniferous forests in northern Wisconsin. Other habitats include sparsely forested spruce-tamarack bogs and swamps with openings or meadows created by rivers or streams, or burns. During the breeding season, the species typically builds nests in trees where tall dead snags are present or at forest edges and openings. Two-five eggs are laid that are creamy white with a ring of brown spots on the large end. Its nest is an open cup composed of twigs and rootlets. The recommended avoidance period is June 1 - August 1.
The table below provides information about the protected status - both state and federal - and the rank (S and G Ranks) for Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). See the Working List Key for more information about abbreviations. Counties shaded blue have documented occurrences for this species in the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory database. The map is provided as a general reference of where occurrences of this species meet NHI data standards and is not meant as a comprehensive map of all observations.
Note: Species recently added to the NHI Working List may temporarily have blank occurrence maps.
| Summary Information | |
|---|---|
| State Status | SC/M |
| Federal Status in Wisconsin | none |
| State Rank | S2B |
| Global Rank | G4 |
| Tracked by NHI | Y |
| WWAP | SGCN |
A guidance document is not available at this time. However, the bird calendar [PDF] contains dates for avoiding impacts to this and other rare Wisconsin birds when planning management activities.
Click to view a larger version. Please considering donating a photo to the Natural Heritage Conservation Program for educational uses. Photo use
Watercolor reproduction.
Artwork by © Louis Agassiz Fuertes.
Photo © Len Blumin.
The table below lists the natural communities that are associated with Olive-sided Flycatcher. Only natural communities for which Olive-sided Flycatcher is "high" (score=3) or "moderate" (score=2) associated are shown. See the key to association scores for complete definitions. Please see the Wildlife Action Plan to learn how this information was developed.
| Natural community | Score |
|---|---|
| Black Spruce Swamp | 3 |
| Northern Tamarack Swamp | 3 |
| Northern Wet Forest | 3 |
| Boreal Forest | 2 |
| Central Poor Fen | 2 |
| Great Lakes Ridge and Swale | 2 |
| Muskeg | 2 |
| Northern Wet-mesic Forest | 2 |
| Open Bog | 2 |
| Poor Fen | 2 |
The table below lists the ecological landscape association scores for Olive-sided Flycatcher. The scores correspond to the map (3=High, 2=Moderate, 1=Low, 0=None). For more information, please see the Wildlife Action Plan.
| Ecological landscape | score |
|---|---|
| North Central Forest | 3 |
| Northern Highland | 3 |
| Northern Lake Michigan Coastal | 3 |
| Northwest Lowlands | 3 |
| Northwest Sands | 2 |
| Superior Coastal Plain | 2 |
| Central Sand Plains | 1 |
| Forest Transition | 1 |
| Northeast Sands | 1 |
Ecological priorities are the combinations of natural communities and ecological landscapes that provide Wisconsin's best opportunities to conserve important habitats for a given Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The 10 highest scoring combinations are considered ecological priorities and are listed below. More than 10 combinations are listed if multiple combinations tied for 10th place. For more information, please see the Wildlife Action Plan.
* Ecological priority score is a relative measure that is not meant for comparison between species. This score does not consider socio-economical factors that may dictate protection and/or management priorities differently than those determined solely by ecological analysis. Further, a low ecological priority score does not imply that management or preservation should not occur on a site if there are important reasons for doing so locally.
Conservation actions respond to issues or threats, which adversely affect species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) or their habitats. Besides actions such as restoring wetlands or planting resilient tree species in northern communities, research, surveys and monitoring are also among conservation actions described in the WWAP because lack of information can threaten our ability to successfully preserve and care for natural resources.