T
T
T
Species Review

Accipiter gentilis, northern goshawk

Written
January, 2013
Contributors
Stone, Katharine R. - 1st Author

Stone, Katharine R. 2013. Accipiter gentilis, northern goshawk. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/acge

DOI
10.2737/feis-species-review-acge

AbbreviationCommon NameScientific NameClassificationStatus
Animals
ACGEnorthern goshawkAccipiter gentilisLife Form: Animals/Bird
Kingdom: Animalia
Class: Bird
Order: Falconiformes
Family: Accipitridae
Genus: Accipiter
Fed. Protected: Yes
Nativity: Native
Invasiveness: Noninvasive

Taxonomy

The scientific name of northern goshawk is Accipiter gentilis Linnaeus (Accipitridae) [1,2]. Subspecies recognized by the American Ornithologists' Union (5th edition) [1] include:

  • Accipiter gentilis atricapillus (Wilson), northern goshawk
  • Accipiter gentilis laingi (Taverner), Queen Charlotte goshawk

Some scientists recognize an additional subspecies, Accipiter gentilis apache Van Rossem, as inhabiting parts of the southwestern United States and Mexico, though this subspecies is not recognized by the American Ornithologists' Union or the US Fish and Wildlife Service [10,26,48].

Synonyms

  • None

Other Common Names

None

General Distribution

All About Birds provides a distributional map of the northern goshawk.

States and Provinces

  • United States: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
  • Canada: AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NL, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT (as of 2012 [34])
  • Mexico [48]

Plant Communities

Northern goshawks breed in most forested plant communities available throughout their range, including coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forest types. In addition to forested areas, they may also use shrublands and open areas while foraging, migrating, or overwintering [48]. Several reviews contain additional information on plant communities used by northern goshawks throughout their range [10,48] and in the western United States [3,10,23,24,26], the Pacific Northwest [17], the Southwest [40,46,53], the Great Lakes region [7,43], and New England [15]. See the Fire Regime Table for a list of plant communities in which the northern goshawk may occur and information on the fire regimes associated with those communities.

Biological Characteristics

This review includes information covering many aspects of northern goshawk life history but focuses on those most relevant to fire. The information presented here relies heavily on syntheses material from several sources, including "The birds of North America Online" [48] species account for the northern goshawk and reviews of the northern goshawk's status and/or habitat needs throughout its range [10] and in the following regions: New England [15], Great Lakes [7,43], central Rocky Mountains [26], Rocky Mountains [23], western United States [3,10,24], the Pacific Northwest [17], and the Southwest [40,53].

Adult northern goshawk.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Adult northern goshawk.

Juvenile northern goshawk.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Juvenile northern goshawk. 

Physical Description

The northern goshawk is a large forest hawk with long, broad wings and a long, rounded tail. Females average 24 inches (61 cm) in length, 41 to 45 inches (105-115 cm) in wingspan, and 30 to 45 ounces (860-1,264 g) in mass, while the smaller males average 22 inches (55 cm) in length, 39 to 41 inches (98-104 cm) in wingspan, and 22 to 39 ounces (631-1,099 g) in mass [48].

Adult northern goshawks are brown-gray to slate-gray on top. The head has a black cap and a pronounced white superciliary line. Underparts are light gray with some black streaking. The tail is dark gray above with 3 to 5 inconspicuous broad, dark bands, and sometimes a thin white terminal band. Juveniles are generally brown on top and have brown streaking on the chest [48].

Life Span

Based on band recoveries at trapping sites, the maximum life span of wild northern goshawks is at least 11 years [48]. One review reports a captive northern goshawk living 19 years [26].

Development and Reproduction

Age at First Reproduction

Northern goshawks may breed as subadults (1-2 years old), young adults (2-3 years old), or adults (≥3 years old). Females are more likely than males to breed at a young age [48].

Mate Fidelity

Northern goshawks may show high mate fidelity. A study from northern California found that over 9 years, 72% of the adults located in subsequent years (18 of 25 instances) retained the mate from the previous year [18].

Nesting Phenology

Northern goshawk pairs occupy nesting areas from February to early April. Some pairs may remain in their nesting areas year-round. Nest construction may begin as soon as individuals return to their territories. Eggs are laid anywhere from mid-April to early May. Cold, wet springs may delay incubation. Incubation varies from 28 to 37 days. Nestlings move from nests to nearby branches when they are around 34 to 35 days of age. Their first flight from the nest tree ranges from 35 to 36 days for males and 40 to 42 days for females. They reach independence approximately 70 days from hatching. Most fledglings disperse from the nest area between 65 and 90 days after hatching, with females dispersing later than males [48].

Clutch Size

Northern goshawks usually produce one clutch per year. Clutch size is usually 2 to 4, but occasionally 1 or 5 eggs. Because northern goshawk chicks hatch asynchronously, older, larger nestlings may attack smaller, younger nestlings [48].

Northern goshawk female with young.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Northern goshawk female with young. 

Nest Success and Productivity

Northern goshawk nest success and productivity vary and may be limited by prey availability [6,46,48], weather [26,48], predation [7,26], disease [26], habitat features [24], and disturbance from timber harvest or other human activities [26,48].

In North America, nest success usually ranges from 80% to 94%, with most successful nests producing an average of 2.0 to 2.8 fledglings. Unsuccessful nests usually fail early in the breeding season, before or soon after laying. Weather, particularly cold temperatures in the spring and exposure to low temperatures and rain, may cause egg and chick mortality. Once chicks reach 3 weeks of age, nests rarely fail. Productivity may differ between years in the same study area and among landscapes within a limited geographic area. The availability of prey strongly affects nest occupancy and productivity. The age of the female may also affect productivity; pairs with a younger female may produce fewer fledglings than pairs with an older female. If food resources are low, siblicide and cannibalism may occur [48].

Nest Description

The northern goshawk constructs a nest of thin sticks, forming a bowl lined with tree bark and greenery. Nests are usually placed on large horizontal limbs against the trunk, or occasionally on large limbs away from the bole. A variety of tree species is used for nesting [48].

Northern goshawk nest high in a tree.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Northern goshawk nest in western Montana. 

Nest Site

Northern goshawks build nests in both deciduous and coniferous trees. They typically use the largest tree in a nest stand. Nest height varies by tree species and regional tree characteristics. The size and structure of a nest tree may be more important than species. Northern goshawks occasionally build nests on dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) clumps and rarely in dead trees [48]. Several reviews provide lists of specific tree species used by northern goshawks for nesting throughout their range [48] and in the Great Lakes region [7] and central Rocky Mountains [26].

Nest and Nest Site Fidelity

Northern goshawks may use the same nest for consecutive years, but they usually alternate between 2 or more nests within a nest area. They may maintain as many as 8 alternate nests within a nest area. It is thought that most nest sites are occupied from 1 to 3 years, though some may be occupied much longer. Though the importance of alternate nest maintenance is not completely understood, it is hypothesized that nest switching reduces exposure to diseases and parasites. This behavior complicates the determination of nest-site fidelity because it is difficult for biologists to locate all alternative nests [48]. A synthesis of 5 studies correlating nest occupancy with habitat features found a consistently positive relationship between closed-canopy forests with large trees and northern goshawk nest occupancy. Occupancy rates were reduced by removing forest cover in the home range, which thereby resulted in reduced productivity because there were fewer active breeding territories [24].

Area Requirements and Movements

Home Range

In North America, home range in the breeding season ranges from 1,400 to 8,600 acres (570-3,500 ha) [48]. Home range size varies depending on sex [26,48], season [48], local prey availability, climate [7], and habitat characteristics [7,26,48]. The male's home range is generally larger than the female's. Within a home range, individuals often have core-use areas that include the nest and primary foraging areas. Outside of a nesting area, the home range of a breeding pair may not be defended and may overlap with the home range of adjacent pairs. The shape of a home range may vary from circular to linear or may be discontinuous, depending on local habitat characteristics [48].

Dispersal

Natal dispersal of the northern goshawk had not been well studied as of this writing (2012). One review notes that very few (24 of 452) fledglings in an Arizona study were recruited into the local breeding population, and mean natal dispersal distance was 9.1 (SD 5.1) miles (14.7 (SD 8.2) km) (range 2.1-22.6 miles (3.4-36.3 km)) [26].

Migration

The northern goshawk is considered a partial migrant. Some individuals, particularly those that inhabit northern latitudes, may migrate long distances. Other individuals make short winter movements to lower elevations and/or more open plant communities. Food availability in the winter may influence the degree to which individuals or populations migrate [40,48].

Population Density and Dynamics

Northern goshawk populations occur at low densities compared to many bird species [43]. One review reports that regular territory dispersion is a consistent characteristic of northern goshawk populations that likely results from territorial behavior. In North America, mean nearest neighbor distances range from 1.9 to 3.5 miles (3.0-5.6 km) [26], and density estimates range from less than 1 to 11 pairs per 100 km². Densities in the range of 10 to 11 occupied nests per 100 km² were reported for 3 study areas in Arizona, California, and the Yukon. However, nest density across a landscape is difficult to determine and often based on either assumed censuses of breeding pairs or the distribution of nearest neighbor distances. Because most searches for nests are conducted in what is predetermined to be "suitable" habitat, reported densities may not accurately reflect the number of territories per unit area. Surveys may also be incomplete or inaccurate [26].

Factors limiting northern goshawk populations may include food availability [10,26,40,48], availability of nest sites [40], and territoriality [26]. Food availability is more of an issue in northern latitudes, where northern goshawks are more dependent on populations of few species (e.g., snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus)). There is less evidence of population fluctuations in response to food in lower latitudes, where a greater variety of prey species are available [40,43]. See Population status for more information on how stand and landscape characteristics may influence northern goshawk populations.

Predation and Mortality

Northern goshawks are vulnerable to predation from red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), short-eared owls (Asio flammeus), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), American martens (Martes americana) [48], fishers (M. pennanti) [7], wolverines (Gulo gulo) [48], coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and northern raccoons (Procyon lotor) [40]. It is likely that other mammals prey on nestlings and/or adults [48]. In the Great Lakes region, great horned owls were the most common nest predator [7]. Other potential sources of northern goshawk mortality include starvation, disease, shooting, trapping, poisoning, and collisions with vehicles [48].

Great gray owls using a nest formerly used by northern goshawks.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) using a nest formerly used by northern goshawks.

Interspecific Competition

Reduction and fragmentation of mature forest habitat may favor early-successional competitors such as red-tailed hawks and great horned owls and reduce occupancy of an area by northern goshawks [26]. One study from California found great horned owls, long-eared owls (Asio otus), spotted owls (Strix occidentalis), red-tailed hawks, and Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperii) occupying traditional northern goshawk nests or nest stands, but the territories were usually not abandoned entirely by northern goshawks. In 3 instances, however, northern goshawks moved out of their traditional nest stand after it was occupied by spotted owls [51].Diet

The northern goshawk opportunistically feeds on a wide diversity of prey items that varies by region, season, and availability. Though the list of potential prey species is extensive, a few taxa are particularly prevalent in most diets [48]. Diet options may be narrower in northerly latitudes, where fewer prey species are available, than in lower latitudes [40,43].

Prey species prevalent in the diet of northern goshawks throughout their range [48].
GroupSpecies
Mammals
Tree squirrelsAbert's squirrel (Sciurus aberti), eastern gray squirrel (S. carolinensis), Douglas's squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), red squirrel (T. hudsonicus), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)
Ground squirrelsBelding's ground squirrel (Spermophilus beldingi), golden-mantled ground squirrel (S. lateralis), Richardson's ground squirrel (S. richardsonii), Townsend's ground squirrel (S. townsendii)
LagomorphsCottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), snowshoe hare
Birds
PhasianidaeDusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), spruce grouse (Falcipennis canadensis)
CorvidaeAmerican crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Steller's jay (C. stelleri), gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis)
PicidaeAmerican three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), black-backed woodpecker (P. arcticus), hairy woodpecker (P. villosus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus),Williamson's sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus)
TurdidaeAmerican robin (Turdus migratorius)

Regional diet summaries are available from the Great Lakes [7,43], South Dakota [47], the central Rocky Mountains [26], and eastern Oregon [17].

Prey Habitat and Availability

Managing for prey species is a major component of habitat recommendations for the northern goshawk (e.g., see [40]). Northern goshawk populations may experience reduced fitness and reproduction, greater interspecific competition for food, and greater susceptibility to predators when food resources are limited [26]. Several reviews emphasize the importance of both prey abundance and availability when determining suitable northern goshawk habitat. In other words, prey need to be both present and huntable, with availability determined by stand structure [24,26].

For information on habitat preferences of northern goshawk prey species, see the following reviews from the Southwest [10,40,53] and central Rocky Mountains [26] or FEIS reviews for the following species: Abert's squirrel, Townsend's ground squirrel, eastern cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, gray jay, and black-backed woodpecker.

Habitat

Northern goshawk habitat includes a variety of forest types and stand structures, depending on geographic location and life history activities. The northern goshawk's large home ranges and ability to move great distances mean that it may encounter a variety of habitats over a short period. In addition to nesting habitat, northern goshawks need foraging habitat in both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons and in postfledging areas where young learn to hunt but are protected from predators [43]. Habitat selection may be shaped by landscape structure and pattern and/or occupancy by other raptors [43]. In general, as the scale of analysis increases (i.e., from stand to landscape), northern goshawks use more diverse habitats and show less preference for specific habitat features [3,10,17,43]. Northern goshawks appear to use a wider range of habitats during the nonbreeding season than the breeding season [3].

In general, northern goshawks appear to prefer relatively dense forests [24,25,47] with large trees [3,24] and relatively high canopy closures [3,24,25,47]. A review noted that 9 of 12 radio telemetry studies from the western United States found northern goshawks selected stands with higher canopy closures, larger trees, and more large trees than found in random stands. But northern goshawks still used stands with a wide range of structural conditions [24]. The use of forests with relatively large trees and high canopy closures may be related to increased protection from predators, increased food availability, limited exposure to cold temperatures and precipitation early in the breeding season, limited exposure to high temperatures in the summer nestling period, high mobility due to a lack of understory structure, and less competition from other raptor species that inhabit more open habitats [3].

The relatively large body size and wingspan of the northern goshawks limit its use of young, dense forests where there is insufficient space in and below the canopy to facilitate flight and capture of prey. There are also few suitably large trees for nesting in young, dense forests [40].

Breeding Habitat

Northern goshawk habitat use may be most selective during the breeding season, mostly due to strong preferences for nest placement [43,48].

Nest Stand

Forest stands containing nests are often small, ranging from approximately 24 to 247 acres (10-100 ha) [48]. Tree species composition is highly variable among nest sites both within a region and a across the range of the northern goshawk [40]. Northern goshawks nests are often found in mature or late-successional forests [3,15,17,43,48] with high canopy closures [9,17,43,47,48] and large trees [43,48] but relatively open understories [26,43,48]. However, due to frequent bias in northern goshawk nest detection methods, the selection of mature forest over other forest successional stages has been demonstrated in only a few studies [43].

Landscape view of forest where northern goshwak nested.
Photo Credit
Photo by Jack Kirkley.

Northern goshawks nested in this conifer forest in western Montana.

Though northern goshawks are most often documented nesting in late-successional forests, they sometimes nest in younger, more open forests. For example, in dry areas of the West such as the Great Basin, northern goshawks nested in high-elevation shrubsteppe habitats supporting small, highly fragmented stands of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) [52]. In a conifer plantation in western Washington, 3 northern goshawk pairs nested in younger, denser stands than previously reported for the region; nest sites were composed of 40- to 54-year-old, second-growth conifer stands with high live tree and snag densities [9].

Northern goshawk nest sites are often located near water [43,47,52], though some studies have shown no association between nest sites and water [26,43] and the presence of water is not considered a habitat requirement [48]. The function of open water during nesting is unknown [43].

Nest sites often are located close to forest openings or other open areas [12,15,26,43,47], which may increase nest access, serve as travel corridors, support open-habitat prey species, or reduce flight barriers to fledglings [48]. However, one study from west-central Montana noted that the number of young fledged per nest was negatively correlated with the size of the nonforested openings near the nest (P≤0.05) [12].

Slope and aspect may influence microclimate conditions important to northern goshawk nesting. Northern goshawk nests are often located at the base of moderate slopes [48] and tend to be on gentle rather than steep terrain [15]. However, there may be no relationship between nesting and slope in areas with low topographic relief, like the Great Lakes region [7]. One study from west-central Montana found that 82.6% of occupied nests were located on north slopes [12]. Preferred aspects may vary regionally; one review noted that in southern parts of the range, northern goshawks nest areas typically had northerly aspects, while nest areas in interior Alaska had southerly aspects [26].

Postfledging Family Areas

A postfledging area represents the area of concentrated use for a northern goshawk family from the time the young leave the nest until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food. Northern goshawks typically defend this area as a territory. Postfledging family areas provide hiding cover and prey for fledglings to develop hunting skills. They typically contain patches of dense trees, developed herbaceous and/or shrubby understories, and habitat attributes that support prey, such as snags, downed logs, and small openings. Postfledging family areas range in size from 300 to 600 acres (120-240 ha) [40].

Wintering Habitat

Northern goshawk breeding habitat has been studied much more intensively than nonbreeding habitat. In general, northern goshawks use a wider range of habitats during the nonbreeding season than during the breeding season [48]. One review reports that northern goshawks in northern Arizona may select winter foraging sites based on forest structure rather than prey abundance, similar to selection in the breeding season [26] (see Foraging habitat). In some regions, northern goshawks appear to remain near breeding areas throughout the year [3,7,43], though there is considerable annual variation and variation between sexes in nonbreeding habitat use [3]. In at least some landscapes, northern goshawks forage in late-successional forest habitats throughout the year [3,24]. However, some northern goshawks move to low-elevation, open plant communities (e.g., woodlands) in the winter [3,24].

Foraging Habitat

Northern goshawks forage by ambush and perching in vegetation to scan for prey items. They occasionally hunt by flying rapidly along forest edges and across openings [26]. Ideal foraging habitat includes space under the canopy to allow for flight, abundant trees perches, and available prey [53]. Preferred perches while hunting are low (usually <3 feet (1 m)), bent-over trees or saplings. Plucking perches where northern goshawks consume prey are usually located in dense vegetation below the main forest canopy and are often upslope and fairly close to the nest in the breeding season [48].

Northern goshawks forage over large areas and encounter a variety of forest structures [23,26] and plant communities [48] when foraging. In the breeding season, a foraging area may encompass 5,400 acres (2,200 ha) surrounding the postfledging family area [40]. Northern goshawks may rely heavily on mature forest while foraging [3,10,17] but may also forage in younger forests, edges, and openings [10,17,26,43]. An open understory may enhance the detection of potential prey [3,40,43].

Prey abundance may be an important feature of foraging habitat, but several sources stress the importance of prey availability [3,5,22,26,40,53], which is often linked to vegetative structure that allows northern goshawks to hunt successfully [3]. For example, over 2 breeding seasons in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests in northern Arizona, 20 adult northern goshawks did not select foraging sites based on prey abundance; abundance of some prey was lower in selected sites than what was generally available. Northern goshawks instead selected foraging sites that had higher canopy closure (P=0.006), greater tree density (P=0.001), and greater density of trees >16.0 inches (40.6 cm) DBH (P<0.0005) than what was generally available. The authors concluded that above a minimal prey threshold, northern goshawks may select sites with favorable structure over those with abundant prey. However, they also suggested that their results only apply to foraging habitat selection within an established home range. Prey abundance may be an important factor when northern goshawks initially establish a home range [5].

In the Great Lakes region, male northern goshawks primarily foraged in mature upland conifer and upland deciduous stands, but other stand types were used and may be important to prey production [7]. In lodgepole pine (P. contorta) and quaking aspen forest in south-central Wyoming, the kill sites of male northern goshawks in the breeding season were more related to stand structure and aspect than prey abundance. Males returned most often to sites with more mature forests (P=0.0), gentler slopes (P=0.011), lower ground cover of woody plants (P=0.023), and greater densities of trees (P<0.089) and conifers (P<0.14) ≥9 inches (23 cm) but ≤15 inches (38 cm) DBH. Average canopy closure at kill sites was 52.8%. Kill sites were often associated with small openings; average distance to the nearest open area was 152.2 feet (46.4 m). The author noted that several prey species were often associated with forest edges. The results of this study suggest that the high density of large trees allowed northern goshawks to approach prey unseen, while the low density of understory vegetation allowed northern goshawks to see potential prey items. At the landscape scale, male northern goshawks intensively used large areas of conifer forests interspersed with small openings in proximity to nests. They used a variety of habitats, from narrow patches of quaking aspen in drainages surrounded by sagebrush (Artemisia) and grassland to areas dominated by conifer forests [22].

Roosting Habitat

Northern goshawks roost alone in the tree canopy and may use several sites for roosting. In the early nesting phase, female northern goshawks roost on the nest while brooding young [48]. In California, roost tree species and roosting stand characteristics varied by season, which the authors hypothesized was in response to changes in prey abundance and availability [42].

Landscape Features

Northern goshawks use large landscapes for many life history activities, though it is difficult to make broad generalizations about the importance of landscape features to northern goshawk populations. Studies and reviews highlight the importance of landscape features such as the presence of large areas of mature forest [10,15,26,40], a mosaic of forest structural stages [17,25,26,40], limited forest fragmentation [26,51], and large patch sizes [9,43,51].

Fire-caused Mortality

A review of the effects of fire on raptor populations suggests that direct mortality from fire is rare [30]. Adult northern goshawks are highly mobile and consequently are probably able to flee an approaching fire. Mortality from fire is most likely to occur during the breeding season when nestlings are unable to flee an approaching fire [30]. One wildlife biologist in western Montana thought a high-severity wildfire in August might have killed 2 northern goshawk nestlings observed 2 weeks prior to the fire [31].

Fire in the spring and summer may disrupt the breeding of northern goshawks.

Indirect Fire Effects

As of this writing (2012), there was little documentation of the indirect effects of fire on northern goshawk individuals or populations. Presumably, the occurrence, extent, and severity of fire could have major impacts on small- and large-scale forest structure which in turn may affect the suitability of an area for life history activities such as breeding and foraging. Effects may be positive or negative and could vary regionally.

A review of the effects of fire on raptor populations suggests that the most significant effect is the modification and/or destruction of habitat. Habitat losses can include small-scale losses like an individual nest tree or a roost site or large-scale losses like the elimination of a foraging area [30]. However, fire may also modify the landscape in ways that improve habitat for northern goshawks (e.g., the creation of a mosaic of stand structures).

Northern goshawk populations have long been exposed to wildfire as a natural disturbance process [23], and some sources suggest that northern goshawks can adjust to changing environmental conditions [10,26]. Northern goshawks exhibit some life history characteristics that make them adaptable to landscape disturbances such as fire. They maintain a large breeding territory that contains several nest sites, so if one nest site is altered or destroyed, they may have other nearby options (see Nest and nest site fidelity). Though most sources report the use of mature forests for nesting, northern goshawks occasionally nest in areas with few trees or in small forest patches [10]. Northern goshawks use a variety of forest structures when foraging [23,26], and though they often rely heavily on mature forest while foraging [3,10,17], they also forage in young forests, edges, and openings [10,17,43] (see Foraging habitat).

Indirect Fire Effects on Nesting

Fire may consume northern goshawk nests, nest stands, and/or breeding territories. A review suggests that stand-replacement wildfire could reduce the suitability of an area for northern goshawk nesting and create forest openings larger than what occurred historically [19].

Two biologists working with northern goshawks in Montana provided observations of fire effects on northern goshawk nesting. It should be noted that these observations are anecdotal and may not be representative of northern goshawk response to fire throughout its range.

One biologist studied northern goshawk nest and territory occupancy over many years in lodgepole pine forests on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, southwestern Montana. A stand-replacing wildfire in 2007 burned 2 historical northern goshawk territories, though the territories were not occupied in the years prior to the fire. The fire resulted in a reduction of suitable nesting habitat, leaving a patchy distribution of unburned forest amidst largely open meadows. Three and 4 years after the fire, northern goshawks nested in an unburned patch of forest midway between the historical territories. These observations show that northern goshawks can shift to remaining suitable nesting stands even when stand-replacing fire has consumed most of the vegetation in an area [27].

A 2nd biologist observed that high-severity wildfires occurring in mixed-conifer forests on the Bitterroot National Forest, western Montana, in August of 2000 consumed 2 known northern goshawk territories and several nests, 1 of which was active 2 weeks prior to the fire. The young in this nest were presumed dead, though it is possible they were able to fly well enough to escape the area. The landscapes surrounding both territories experienced extensive stand-replacement fire, and local biologists described the territories as unsuitable for northern goshawk nesting in the years following fire [31].

Low-severity fires may result in nest abandonment, though not always immediately. In one area on the Bitterroot National Forest, western Montana, a low-severity fire in August of 2000 consumed most of the forest understory but left the overstory intact. The fire killed most of the trees in the sapling and intermediate layers as well as many Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) in the overstory via bole scorch, but almost all of the Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) survived. Douglas-fir beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) began causing overstory canopy mortality by 2002, with many trees exhibiting red needles by the summer of 2003. Northern goshawks nested in the stand prior to fire and continued to nest and successfully fledge young in the stand for several years after the fire, though biologists found a new and different active nest each year from 2001 to 2004. The nesting area was eventually abandoned; none of the 4 known nests were active in 2005, 2006, or 2007, though it is possible that other nests were constructed in the area and not found. Local biologists suspected the area was abandoned because canopy closure decreased as overstory mortality increased [31].

In another area on the Bitterroot National Forest, western Montana, burned by low-severity fire in 2000, a northern goshawk nest tree was killed, but much of the surrounding nest stand was not killed. The nest was abandoned and eventually fell out of the tree. In other instances where nest stands were burned by low-severity fire in 2000, the canopies around the nests gradually thinned out as surrounding trees died, and the nests were not used again. However, in all instances, biologists were unable to determine if northern goshawks left the area completely or if they shifted to unlocated nests within the territory [31].

Indirect Fire Effects on Foraging

The effect of fire on foraging habitat likely varies with fire severity and extent across a landscape. For example, an extensive, high-severity fire that results in major canopy and understory mortality may result in poor habitat for some prey species for many years after fire. The dense regeneration that may follow stand-replacing fire in some forest types (e.g., lodgepole pine) may inhibit the ability of northern goshawks to detect prey. A fire that creates a mosaic of forest structures and openings may offer northern goshawks a variety of foraging opportunities and provide habitat for a wide range of prey species. Since open understories may enhance the detection of prey items, low-severity fires that consume the understory but maintain a live overstory may create foraging opportunities [3,40,43]. The impact of fire on foraging habitat may be greater in the breeding season, when northern goshawks are tied to a nest and breeding territory, than in the winter, when individuals are more flexible in how far and where they travel to forage and use a wider range of habitats (see Foraging habitat).

Northern Goshawk Occurrence in Burned Areas

To date (2012), the documentation of northern goshawks occurring in burned areas is rare and largely incidental, making generalizations difficult. Between 1 and 3 years after a low- to moderate-severity prescribed fire in northern Arizona, one northern goshawk was detected during winter point counts [38,39]. One northern goshawk was detected on the ecotone between burned and unburned lodgepole pine forest 8 years after a high-severity wildfire in north-central Colorado [44]. In mixed-conifer forests on the Lolo National Forest, western Montana, one northern goshawk responded to a playback call in the breeding season in an area treated approximately 10 years previously by a low-severity "ecosystem burn" aimed at retaining the stand's old growth characteristics [11]. In central Alaska, a northern goshawk was killed by an American marten in boreal forest burned approximately 25 years previously. The forest was in a midsuccessional stage of dense tree regeneration, though some severely burned lowlands were in an earlier shrub-sapling stage. Mature forest in the area was primarily black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) [36]. Three years after mixed-severity wildfires in a ponderosa pine forest in Arizona, researchers detected 2 northern goshawks in an unburned area adjacent to burned forest while conducting point counts in the nonbreeding season. Northern goshawks were not detected in any area (unburned, moderately burned, severely burned) in the breeding season or in severely or moderately burned forest in the nonbreeding season [8].

Fire Regimes

Because of their broad distribution, northern goshawks occur in plant communities that experience a wide range of fire regimes, including fire regimes characterized by low-severity, mixed-severity, or stand-replacement fire. Return intervals may be short to long. In the western United States, fire creates a landscape mosaic capable of supporting northern goshawk populations. Northern goshawks and their prey have historically had exposure and adapted to forest conditions maintained by a variety of fire regimes, including nonlethal surface, mixed-severity, mosaic, and stand-replacement fire [23]. However, several reviews discuss how fire regimes within the range of the northern goshawks have shifted away from historic patterns due to fire exclusion and other anthropogenic practices [10,12,23,30,32,40,51]. Changes in the frequency and severity of fire have resulted in shifts in forest composition and structure, which may impact northern goshawks and their prey [26]. Documented forest changes that may result from fire exclusion and other anthropogenic practices include reduced stand structural diversity [32], increased stand density [12,32,40,51], increased understory density [12,40], and changes in species composition [40,51]. Such forest structural and compositional changes may limit the mobility and hunting success of northern goshawks [19] and cause changes to prey populations and diversity [12,19,40]. In some cases, forest structural and compositional changes may increase the probability of high-severity fires [40,51], which would reduce the amount of mature forest on the landscape [10,40], eliminate nesting habitat, and create forest openings larger than what occurred historically [19]. Though these forest changes are generally discussed in the literature as reducing habitat for northern goshawks, it is possible that forest changes in some areas may improve habitat for northern goshawks.

One review discusses how several fire regimes typical of Southwestern forests may have influenced northern goshawk populations in the region. Nonlethal, low-severity surface fires in ponderosa pine forests would "clean" the forest, providing suitable foraging habitat and open canopies that enabled northern goshawks to successfully access prey. Large trees would eventually die from lightning, disease, or insects and provide snags or coarse woody debris, habitat features important to northern goshawk prey. These fires would gradually consume downed logs, but not before the logs contributed to habitat for prey species and added organic matter to the soil. The small openings left would allow for the regeneration of new trees. Mixed-severity fire regimes in relatively moist coniferous forests would create larger openings (>4 acres (2 ha)), greater amounts of coarse woody debris, and multiple canopy layers compared to less severe fires. These fires could create openings of all sizes, leading to a mosaic of forest structural conditions across the landscape. Large openings would likely not provide ideal northern goshawk foraging habitat, but the edges of these openings might be used. Large forest openings may have been historically important for maintaining seral quaking aspen stands, an important component of many northern goshawk home ranges in this region. Forests maintained by high-severity fires may have limited value as northern goshawk habitat because they result in large (>24 acres (10 ha)) openings and/or an even-aged structure across a large landscape [23]. For management recommendations pertaining to these and other fire regimes throughout the range of the northern goshawk, see Fire Management Considerations.

The Fire Regime Table (Appendix A1) summarizes characteristics of fire regimes for vegetation communities in which northern goshawks may occur. Follow the links in the table to documents that provide more detailed information on these fire regimes. Northern goshawks also occur in geographic areas not covered by the Fire Regime Table, including a variety of boreal plant communities in Alaska and Canada, as well as forested plant communities in Mexico. For additional fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering northern goshawk in the advanced search and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.

FEIS also provides reviews of many of the prey species important to the life history and habitat use of northern goshawks. See FEIS reviews for additional information—including information on fire regimes and fire effects on species including: Abert's squirrel, Townsend's ground squirrel, eastern cottontail, black-tailed jackrabbit, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, gray jay, and black-backed woodpecker.

Fire Management Considerations

The lack of scientific information predicting the positive or negative consequences of fire management on the northern goshawk has legal, scientific, and social ramifications for land management agencies attempting to implement national fire programs [45]. Managers may not have many action options to protect northern goshawks in wildfire situations, but forest management activities (e.g., prescribed fire, thinning) aimed at fuels reduction and restoring historic stand structure are widespread in areas inhabited by northern goshawks. Many agencies suggest or require the designation of a buffer around nest trees when treatments occur, but there is some debate over the appropriate buffer size and the effectiveness of this approach, particularly because northern goshawks rely on a large landscape to meet life history needs [17,26,48]. One review critiques the buffer concept because the designation of buffers of a specific size around nests forces a predetermined restriction on all forest types—which may not be appropriate—gives the impression that management is not required beyond the buffer, and ignores the multiple scales at which northern goshawks use a landscape [17]. Reynolds and others [40] recommend avoiding or minimizing direct negative impacts on individual northern goshawks by restricting treatments or activities in the breeding season, particularly when females are incubating and/or young are immobile.

Because current fire regimes and forest conditions may fall outside of the range of historic variability in some parts of the range of northern goshawks, several sources suggest thinning and/or prescribed fire to restore historical stand characteristics and/or improve habitat for northern goshawks and their prey [13,14,26,35,40,53] and to make forests more resilient to high-severity wildfires [35]. In some cases, there is concern that mechanical and/or prescribed fire treatments aimed at converting dense forests to more open stands may result in a loss of habitat for species that use mature forest, like the northern goshawk [10,49]. On the other hand, some evidence suggests that avoiding treatment in areas to protect habitat for northern goshawks may have unintended negative consequences, particularly in the presence of high-severity fire. For example, in a mixed-conifer forest on the Plumas National Forest, northern California, managers left areas designated as protected northern goshawk habitat untreated during a fuels reduction treatment. When a wildfire burned through the region, fire severity in untreated areas was higher than in treated areas, resulting in significantly higher mortality of canopy trees (P<0.001) [21].

One review offers management recommendations for maintaining northern goshawk habitat in several Southwest fire regimes. In areas that experience infrequent fire, managers could create small openings that mimic wind events and other small-scale disturbances that historically maintained a diverse stand structure across the landscape. Such actions would provide a variety of interspersed stand structures that would support habitat for a wide range of prey species. In areas experiencing mixed-severity fire regimes, limiting large openings to small portions of a home range can help prevent fragmentation and ensure that enough mature forest habitat and canopy cover are available for both northern goshawks and their prey. In areas experiencing high-severity fire, northern goshawks may require relatively large home ranges (>9,900 acres (4,000 ha)) to ensure enough mature forest is available to provide adequate prey. Northern goshawks may also benefit from a range of seral to climax plant communities. Given the creation of large openings, rate of forest development, and tree longevity in areas experiencing high severity fire, the proportion of the landscape in various structural stages would likely vary. Management plans in these areas would require a scope of hundreds of years and landscape-level planning [23].

For information on combining management goals to include both habitat for the northern goshawk and fuels reduction projects that improve overall ecosystem function and resiliency to high-severity wildfire, see the following sources: [13,14,23,26,35,40,53]. For information regarding using fire and silvicultural techniques to restore fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwest, see: [23,40,53].

Northern Goshawk Use of Treated Areas

Northern goshawks have been documented occurring and breeding in areas treated for fuels reduction and/or restoration, but their response to these treatments has not been well studied. The anecdotal information presented below suggests that northern goshawks may tolerate fuels reduction activities taking place in the breeding season, but use of treated areas is variable in subsequent years. It is not clear if non-use of a treated area is due to the physical disturbance during the breeding season or the resulting changes in local stand structure. It should also be noted that the lack of northern goshawk detections at particular nests does not mean territory abandonment; use of multiple nests in a territory is common and nests may not be detected by biologists (see Nest and nest side fidelity). The information presented here is largely anecdotal and limited in scope, and may not be representative of northern goshawk response to fuels reduction and restoration treatments throughout their range.

Two fuels reduction treatments occurred in northern goshawk territories in mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests on the Bitterroot National Forest, western Montana. The prescriptions for both treatments left 30 to 40 acres (12-16 ha) untreated immediately surrounding known northern goshawk nests. The prescription also retained 80 to 100 feet²/acre basal area of canopy trees in the postfledging family area. Thinning in one territory containing 3 known nests occurred in 2006 and 2007. A nest successfully fledged young during the 2 years of treatments. No known nesting occurred in the territory in 2008 or 2011, but young were fledged from the territory in 2009, 2010, and 2012, with 2 different nests used. Thinning in a 2nd northern goshawk territory occurred after the northern goshawk breeding season in 2011. Northern goshawks successfully fledged young in 2011 prior to thinning, and in 2012 after thinning [31].

In southwestern Montana, the US Bureau of Land Management conducted a major thinning project to remove ladder fuels in Douglas-fir forest. Low-severity surface fires and pile burning were used to consume slash on the ground. Prior to treatment, the area consisted of a structurally diverse, multiaged stand with a large component of large, mature trees. The treatment resulted in a more "park-like" and open structure, though most of the mature trees were left standing. One female goshawk twice tolerated the activities associated with this project, continuing to incubate despite the presence of an active skid trail within 98 feet (30 m) of her nest the 1st year of treatment, and a burning slash pile within 66 feet (20 m) of her nest the 2nd year of treatment. In both instances, the female did not abandon incubation duties and young were successfully fledged. However, nest location shifted between the 2 years, with the pair building a new nest in a "leave" tree remaining after the thinning occurred. Northern goshawks were not detected nesting in the treated area again, though an adjacent, untreated territory was occasionally occupied [27].

One active northern goshawk nest was discovered during a selection-harvest fuels reduction treatment in 1993 in a mixed-conifer forest on the Bitterroot National Forest, western Montana. After this discovery, a small island of trees was left surrounding the nest, and approximately 100 feet²/acre basal area of canopy trees was left in the surrounding unit. The female continued incubating, and 2 young hatched while the treatments were conducted. Though the nest successfully fledged young that year, it was not used by northern goshawks in subsequent years, presumably because of the reduction in overstory canopy cover. The nest was used by great horned owls and Cooper's hawks after treatment [31].

In mixed-conifer forests on the Lolo National Forest, western Montana, northern goshawks were detected in treated (low-severity fires and selection harvest) and untreated "old growth" stands at frequencies similar to those found throughout the area [11]. One biologist observed northern goshawks nesting for 2 years within thinned lodgepole pine forests on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, southwestern Montana [27].

Federal Status

The Queen Charlotte subspecies of the northern goshawk is listed as Threatened [50].

Other Status

Information on state- and province-level protection status of animals in the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe, though recent changes in status may not be included.

Population Trends

Trends in northern goshawk populations are difficult to assess for several reasons. Northern goshawks are secretive and consequently difficult to survey. Many studies have small sample sizes and are temporally and/or spatially limited in scope. Methodology in some studies may be biased and methods, analyses, and interpretation vary between studies [43]. Attempts to assess the status of northern goshawk populations have not found strong evidence supporting population declines, though most studies were not designed to detect population changes [10,26]. Populations may also vary regionally; some managers in New England suspect northern goshawk populations may be increasing due to widespread reforestation in the region, but they lack definitive data to support this hypothesis [15].

Other Management Information

Northern goshawks exhibit some life history characteristics that facilitate adaptation to landscape change. They maintain a large breeding territory that contains several nest sites, so if one nest site is altered or destroyed, they may have other nearby options (see Nest and nest site fidelity). Though most sources report the use of mature forests for nesting, northern goshawks occasionally nest in areas with few trees or in small forest patches [10]. Similarly, they forage over large areas, using open areas and a variety of forest structures (see Foraging habitat). Several sources suggest that they adjust to changing environmental conditions [10,26]. Northern goshawks also show plasticity in migration strategy, allowing individuals to seasonally avoid areas where habitat has been degraded [26].

Landscape management decisions can influence the success of individuals or pairs of northern goshawks and northern goshawk populations. One review asserts that the primary threat to northern goshawk populations is the modification of forest habitats by management and natural disturbances [10]. Though it is difficult to assess the population status of northern goshawks, managers have raised concerns over destruction and/or modification of northern goshawk habitat via natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Natural disturbances that may impact northern goshawk habitat include severe wildfires [10], insect outbreaks [17], and drought [40]. Diseases, parasites, exposure, and predation tend to impact individuals rather than populations [10]. Potential anthropogenic threats to northern goshawk habitat include silvicultural treatments that result in forest fragmentation, creation of even-aged and/or monotypic stands, potential increase in acreage of young age classes, and loss of tree species diversity [43]. Other anthropogenic threats to northern goshawk populations include fire suppression activities [17,40], livestock grazing, exposure to toxins and chemicals [40], and timber harvest [10,17,26,40].

Timber Harvest

The impact of timber harvest on northern goshawks is much debated in the literature, and centers mostly on the loss of mature forest. Though many believe that extensive habitat modification due to timber harvest is detrimental to northern goshawk populations, a lack of research across a gradient of tree-harvest intensities precludes a clear demonstration of negative effects [10]. Furthermore, few studies have investigated northern goshawk habitats in forests not managed for timber harvest [26].

Forest management for timber extraction can directly impact the structure, function and quality of both nesting and foraging habitat by removing nests and nest trees, modifying or removing entire nest stands, and removing the canopy and mature trees, snags, and downed wood that support prey populations [26]. The loss of important habitat features could impact both the ability of northern goshawks to access prey items (e.g., inability to hunt in areas of dense tree regeneration) and limit prey populations [40]. Reduction and fragmentation of habitat may also favor early-successional competitors and predators such as red-tailed hawks and great horned owls [26]. Indirect impacts of timber harvest on nesting may vary; breeding densities may be lowered or individuals may move to adjacent, undisturbed areas [48]. The threshold at which landscape-altering projects render an area unsuitable to northern goshawks likely varies spatially and/or temporally [26]. However, one source suggests that in some cases (e.g., the inland Pacific Northwest), nonharvest forestry may be just as detrimental to northern goshawk nesting habitat as aggressive, maximum-yield forestry [17].

The following sources provide information on reducing potential negative impacts of timber harvest on northern goshawk individuals and populations: [9,48].

Management actions to benefit northern goshawks: Managers and researchers offer many suggestions for managing forested landscapes to benefit northern goshawk populations. These recommendations include stand-level treatments like maintaining large trees, snags, and large downed logs [40] and larger-scale suggestions such as maintaining and enhancing mature forests [10,15,26,40], limiting forest fragmentation [26], and maintaining a mosaic of structural stages [17,26,40]. Several authors suggest managing at multiple scales [17,26,40]. However, because stand and landscape characteristics, as well as management objectives, vary throughout the range of northern goshawks, no management plan or prescription can encompass the variety of conditions northern goshawks might encounter [40]. For example, in the western United States, 78% of the habitat occupied by nesting northern goshawks occurs on federally managed lands, while in the eastern United States, most forested areas are privately owned [10]. Several sources offer regional recommendations for managing forests for northern goshawk habitat, including recommendations for New England [15], the Great Lakes [7], the Black Hills region of South Dakota [47], the central Rocky Mountains [26], west-central Montana [12], the western United States [24], the southwestern United States [40], the inland Pacific Northwest [17], and California [42]. Several sources offer recommendations for silvicultural and other physical treatments (e.g., forest restoration, understory thinning, prescribed fire) to increase the availability of mature forest and/or restore historical stand conditions to improve habitat for northern goshawks and their prey [10,26,32,40,48]. See Fire Management Considerations for more information on this topic.

Table A1—Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which northern goshawks may occur. This information is taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [29], which were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion. This table summarizes fire regime characteristics for each plant community listed.
Vegetation community (Potential Natural Vegetation Group)Fire severity*Percent of firesMean interval (years)Minimum interval (years)Maximum interval (years)
Pacific Northwest
Alpine and subalpine meadows and grasslandsReplacement68%350200500
Mixed32%750500>1,000
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesertReplacement86%20030200
Mixed9%>1,00020—
Surface or low5%>1,00020—
Wyoming sagebrush steppeReplacement89%9230120
Mixed11%714120—
Low sagebrushReplacement41%180——
Mixed59%125——
Mountain big sagebrush (cool sagebrush)Replacement100%201040
Western juniper (pumice)Replacement33%>1,000——
Mixed67%500——
Oregon white oak-ponderosa pineReplacement16%125100300
Mixed2%90050 
Surface or low81%25530
Pine savannah (ultramafic)Replacement7%200100300
Surface or low93%151020
Ponderosa pineReplacement5%200——
Mixed17%60——
Surface or low78%13——
Oregon white oakReplacement3%275——
Mixed19%50——
Surface or low78%12.5——
Subalpine woodlandReplacement21%300200400
Mixed79%8035120
Sitka spruce-western hemlockReplacement100%700300>1,000
Douglas-fir (Willamette Valley foothills)Replacement18%150100400
Mixed29%9040150
Surface or low53%502080
Oregon coastal tanoakReplacement10%250——
Mixed90%281540
Ponderosa pine (xeric)Replacement37%130——
Mixed48%100——
Surface or low16%300——
Dry ponderosa pine (mesic)Replacement5%125——
Mixed13%50——
Surface or low82%8——
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (dry mesic)Replacement25%300250500
Mixed75%10050150
Douglas-fir-western hemlock (wet mesic)Replacement71%400——
Mixed29%>1,000——
Mixed conifer (southwestern Oregon)Replacement4%400——
Mixed29%50——
Surface or low67%22——
California mixed evergreen (northern California and southern Oregon)Replacement6%150100200
Mixed29%331550
Surface or low64%15530
Mountain hemlockReplacement93%750500>1,000
Mixed7%>1,000——
Lodgepole pine (pumice soils)Replacement78%12565200
Mixed22%4504585
Pacific silver fir (low elevation)Replacement46%350100800
Mixed54%300100400
Pacific silver fir (high elevation)Replacement69%500——
Mixed31%>1,000——
Subalpine firReplacement81%185150300
Mixed19%800500>1,000
Mixed conifer (eastside dry)Replacement14%11570200
Mixed21%7570175
Surface or low64%252025
Mixed conifer (eastside mesic)Replacement35%200——
Mixed47%150——
Surface or low18%400——
Red firReplacement20%400150400
Mixed80%10080130
Spruce-firReplacement84%13580270
Mixed16%700285>1,000
California
Wet mountain meadow-Lodgepole pine (subalpine)Replacement21%100——
Mixed10%200——
Surface or low69%30——
California oak woodlandsReplacement8%120——
Mixed2%500——
Surface or low91%10——
Ponderosa pineReplacement5%200——
Mixed17%60——
Surface or low78%13——
California mixed evergreenReplacement10%14065700
Mixed58%251033
Surface or low32%457—
Coast redwoodReplacement2%≥1,000——
Surface or low98%20——
Mixed conifer (north slopes)Replacement5%250——
Mixed7%200——
Surface or low88%151040
Mixed conifer (south slopes)Replacement4%200——
Mixed16%50——
Surface or low80%10——
Aspen with coniferReplacement24%15550300
Mixed15%240——
Surface or low61%60——
Jeffrey pineReplacement9%250——
Mixed17%130——
Surface or low74%30——
Mixed evergreen-bigcone Douglas-fir (southern coastal)Replacement29%250——
Mixed71%100——
Interior white fir (northeastern California)Replacement47%145——
Mixed32%210——
Surface or low21%325——
Red fir-white firReplacement13%200125500
Mixed36%70——
Surface or low51%501550
Red fir-western white pineReplacement16%250——
Mixed65%602580
Surface or low19%200——
Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (cold wet upper montane)Replacement23%15037764
Mixed70%50——
Surface or low7%500——
Sierra Nevada lodgepole pine (dry subalpine)Replacement11%25031500
Mixed45%6031350
Surface or low45%609350
Southwest
Montane and subalpine grasslandsReplacement55%1810100
Surface or low45%22——
Montane and subalpine grasslands with shrubs or treesReplacement30%7010100
Surface or low70%30——
Southwestern shrub steppeReplacement72%14815
Mixed13%757080
Surface or low15%6960100
Southwestern shrub steppe with treesReplacement52%171025
Mixed22%402550
Surface or low25%3525100
Low sagebrush shrublandReplacement100%12560150
Interior Arizona chaparralReplacement100%12560150
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage)Replacement75%100——
Mixed25%300——
Gambel oakReplacement75%50——
Mixed25%150——
Mountain-mahogany shrublandReplacement73%75——
Mixed27%200——
Mesquite bosquesReplacement32%135——
Mixed67%65——
Madrean oak-conifer woodlandReplacement16%6525—
Mixed8%1405—
Surface or low76%14120
Pinyon-juniper (mixed fire regime)Replacement29%430——
Mixed65%192——
Surface or low6%>1,000——
Pinyon-juniper (rare replacement fire regime)Replacement76%526——
Mixed20%>1,000——
Surface or low4%>1,000——
Ponderosa pine/grassland (Southwest)Replacement3%300——
Surface or low97%10——
Bristlecone-limber pine (Southwest)Replacement67%500——
Surface or low33%>1,000——
Riparian forest with conifersReplacement100%435300550
Riparian deciduous woodlandReplacement50%11015200
Mixed20%27525—
Surface or low30%18010—
Ponderosa pine-Gambel oak (southern Rockies and Southwest)Replacement8%300——
Surface or low92%251030
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir (southern Rockies)Replacement15%460——
Mixed43%160——
Surface or low43%160——
Southwest mixed conifer (warm, dry with aspen)Replacement7%300——
Mixed13%15080200
Surface or low80%25270
Southwest mixed conifer (cool, moist with aspen)Replacement29%20080200
Mixed35%16535—
Surface or low36%16010—
Aspen with spruce-firReplacement38%754090
Mixed38%7540—
Surface or low23%12530250
Stable aspen without conifersReplacement81%15050300
Surface or low19%650600>1,000
Lodgepole pine (Central Rocky Mountains, infrequent fire)Replacement82%300250500
Surface or low18%>1,000>1,000>1,000
Spruce-firReplacement96%210150—
Mixed4%>1,00035>1,000
Great Basin
Mountain meadow (mesic to dry)Replacement66%311545
Mixed34%593090
Basin big sagebrushReplacement80%5010100
Mixed20%20050300
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesertReplacement86%20030200
Mixed9%>1,00020>1,000
Surface or low5%>1,00020>1,000
Wyoming big sagebrush semidesert with treesReplacement84%13730200
Mixed11%>1,00020>1,000
Surface or low5%>1,00020>1,000
Wyoming sagebrush steppeReplacement89%9230120
Mixed11%714120—
Mountain big sagebrushReplacement100%4815100
Mountain big sagebrush with conifersReplacement100%4915100
Mountain sagebrush (cool sage)Replacement75%100——
Mixed25%300——
Montane chaparralReplacement37%93——
Mixed63%54——
Gambel oakReplacement75%50——
Mixed25%150——
Mountain shrubland with treesReplacement22%105100200
Mixed78%2925100
Black and low sagebrushesReplacement33%243100—
Mixed67%11975140
Black and low sagebrushes with treesReplacement37%227150290
Mixed63%13650190
Curlleaf mountain-mahoganyReplacement31%250100500
Mixed37%21250—
Surface or low31%25050—
Juniper and pinyon-juniper steppe woodlandReplacement20%333100>1,000
Mixed31%217100>1,000
Surface or low49%135100—
Ponderosa pineReplacement5%200——
Mixed17%60——
Surface or low78%13——
Interior ponderosa pineReplacement5%161—800
Mixed10%805080
Surface or low86%9810
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-firReplacement10%250—>1,000
Mixed51%5050130
Surface or low39%6515—
Great Basin Douglas-fir (dry)Replacement12%90—600
Mixed14%7645—
Surface or low75%141050
Aspen with conifer (low to midelevations)Replacement53%6120—
Mixed24%13710—
Surface or low23%14310—
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior)Replacement28%17080400
Mixed72%6550250
Aspen with conifer (high elevations)Replacement47%7640—
Mixed18%19610—
Surface or low35%10010—
Stable aspen-cottonwood, no conifersReplacement31%9650300
Surface or low69%442060
Spruce-fir-pine (subalpine)Replacement98%21775300
Mixed2%>1,000——
Aspen with spruce-firReplacement38%754090
Mixed38%7540—
Surface or low23%12530250
Stable aspen without conifersReplacement81%15050300
Surface or low19%650600>1,000
Northern and Central Rockies
Mountain grasslandReplacement60%2010—
Mixed40%30——
Riparian (Wyoming)Mixed100%10025500
Wyoming big sagebrushReplacement63%14580240
Mixed37%250——
Basin big sagebrushReplacement60%10010150
Mixed40%150——
Low sagebrush shrublandReplacement100%12560150
Mountain shrub, nonsagebrushReplacement80%10020150
Mixed20%400——
Mountain big sagebrush steppe and shrublandReplacement100%7030200
Ancient juniperReplacement100%750200>1,000
Ponderosa pine (Northern Great Plains)Replacement5%300——
Mixed20%75——
Surface or low75%201040
Ponderosa pine (Northern and Central Rockies)Replacement4%300100>1,000
Mixed19%6050200
Surface or low77%15330
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, low elevation)Replacement7%300200400
Mixed21%10050400
Surface or low71%30550
Ponderosa pine (Black Hills, high elevation)Replacement12%300——
Mixed18%200——
Surface or low71%50——
Ponderosa pine-Douglas-firReplacement10%250—>1,000
Mixed51%5050130
Surface or low39%6515—
Western redcedarReplacement87%38575>1,000
Mixed13%>1,00025—
Douglas-fir (xeric interior)Replacement12%165100300
Mixed19%10030100
Surface or low69%281540
Douglas-fir (warm mesic interior)Replacement28%17080400
Mixed72%6550250
Douglas-fir (cold)Replacement31%14575250
Mixed69%6535150
Grand fir-Douglas-fir-western larch mixReplacement29%150100200
Mixed71%60375
Mixed conifer-upland western redcedar-western hemlockReplacement67%225150300
Mixed33%45035500
Western larch-lodgepole pine-Douglas-firReplacement33%20050250
Mixed67%10020140
Grand fir-lodgepole pine-western larch-Douglas-firReplacement31%22050250
Mixed69%10035150
Persistent lodgepole pineReplacement89%450300600
Mixed11%>1,000——
Whitebark pine-lodgepole pine (upper subalpine, Northern and Central Rockies)Replacement38%360——
Mixed62%225——
Lower subalpine lodgepole pineReplacement73%17050200
Mixed27%45040500
Lower subalpine (Wyoming and Central Rockies)Replacement100%17530300
Upper subalpine spruce-fir (Central Rockies)Replacement100%300100600
Northern Great Plains
Oak savannaReplacement7%44——
Mixed17%18——
Surface or low76%4——
Oak woodlandReplacement2%450——
Surface or low98%7.5——
Northern Great Plains wooded draws and ravinesReplacement38%4530100
Mixed18%94——
Surface or low43%4010—
Great Plains floodplainReplacement100%500——
Great Lakes
Mosaic of bluestem prairie and oak-hickoryReplacement79%518
Mixed2%260——
Surface or low20%2—33
Great Lakes pine barrensReplacement8%411080
Mixed9%361080
Surface or low83%4120
Jack pine-open lands (frequent fire-return interval)Replacement83%2610100
Mixed17%12510—
Northern oak savannaReplacement4%11050500
Mixed9%5015150
Surface or low87%5120
Northern hardwood maple-beech-eastern hemlockReplacement60%>1,000——
Mixed40%>1,000——
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-prone ecosystem)Replacement45%12090220
Mixed55%100——
Conifer lowland (embedded in fire-resistant ecosystem)Replacement36%540220>1,000
Mixed64%300——
Great Lakes floodplain forestMixed7%833——
Surface or low93%61——
Great Lakes spruce-firReplacement100%8550200
Minnesota spruce-fir (adjacent to Lake Superior and Drift and Lake Plain)Replacement21%300——
Surface or low79%80——
Great Lakes pine forest, jack pineReplacement67%50——
Mixed23%143——
Surface or low10%333——
Maple-basswoodReplacement33%>1,000——
Surface or low67%500——
Maple-basswood mesic hardwood forest (Great Lakes)Replacement100%>1,000>1,000>1,000
Maple-basswood-oak-aspenReplacement4%769——
Mixed7%476——
Surface or low89%35——
Northern hardwood-eastern hemlock forest (Great Lakes)Replacement99%>1,000——
Oak-hickoryReplacement13%661—
Mixed11%775—
Surface or low76%11225
Pine-oakReplacement19%357——
Surface or low81%85——
Red pine-eastern white pine (frequent fire)Replacement38%56——
Mixed36%60——
Surface or low26%84——
Red pine-eastern white pine (less frequent fire)Replacement30%166——
Mixed47%105——
Surface or low23%220——
Great Lakes pine forest, eastern white pine-eastern hemlock (frequent fire)Replacement52%260——
Mixed12%>1,000——
Surface or low35%385——
Eastern white pine-eastern hemlockReplacement54%370——
Mixed12%>1,000——
Surface or low34%588——
Northeast
Eastern woodland mosaicReplacement2%200100300
Mixed9%402060
Surface or low89%417
Rocky outcrop pine (Northeast)Replacement16%128——
Mixed32%65——
Surface or low52%40——
Pine barrensReplacement10%78——
Mixed25%32——
Surface or low65%12——
Oak-pine (eastern dry-xeric)Replacement4%185——
Mixed7%110——
Surface or low90%8——
Northern hardwoods (Northeast)Replacement39%>1,000——
Mixed61%650——
Eastern white pine-northern hardwoodReplacement72%475——
Surface or low28%>1,000——
Northern hardwoods-eastern hemlockReplacement50%>1,000——
Surface or low50%>1,000——
Northern hardwoods-spruceReplacement100%>1,000400>1,000
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic)Replacement2%625500>1,000
Mixed6%250200500
Surface or low92%15726
Beech-mapleReplacement100%>1,000——
Northeast spruce-fir forestReplacement100%265150300
Southeastern red spruce-Fraser firReplacement100%500300>1,000
South-central US
Oak savannaReplacement3%1005110
Mixed5%605250
Surface or low93%314
Southwestern shrub steppeReplacement76%12——
Mixed24%37——
Shinnery oak-mixed grassReplacement96%7——
Mixed4%150——
Shinnery oak-tallgrassReplacement93%7——
Mixed7%100——
Mesquite savannaReplacement5%100——
Mixed4%150——
Surface or low91%6——
Oak-hickory savanna (East Texas)Replacement1%227——
Surface or low99%3.2——
Interior Highlands dry oak/bluestem woodland and gladeReplacement16%2510100
Mixed4%10010—
Surface or low80%527
Oak woodland-shrubland-grassland mosaicReplacement11%50——
Mixed56%10——
Surface or low33%17——
Interior Highlands oak-hickory-pineReplacement3%150100300
Surface or low97%4210
Interior Highlands dry-mesic forest and woodlandReplacement7%25050300
Mixed18%9020150
Surface or low75%22535
Southern floodplainReplacement42%140——
Surface or low58%100——
Southern floodplain (rare fire)Replacement42%>1,000——
Surface or low58%714——
Cross TimbersReplacement3%170——
Mixed2%250——
Surface or low94%6——
Southern Appalachians
Appalachian shortleaf pineReplacement4%125——
Mixed4%155——
Surface or low92%6——
Table Mountain-pitch pineReplacement5%100——
Mixed3%160——
Surface or low92%5——
Oak-ash woodlandReplacement23%119——
Mixed28%95——
Surface or low49%55——
Bottomland hardwood forestReplacement25%435200>1,000
Mixed24%455150500
Surface or low51%21050250
Mixed mesophytic hardwoodReplacement11%665——
Mixed10%715——
Surface or low79%90——
Appalachian oak-hickory-pineReplacement3%18030500
Mixed8%6515150
Surface or low89%6310
Eastern hemlock-eastern white pine-hardwoodReplacement17%>1,000500>1,000
Surface or low83%210100>1,000
Red pine-eastern white pine (frequent fire)Replacement38%56——
Mixed36%60——
Surface or low26%84——
Eastern white pine-northern hardwoodReplacement72%475——
Surface or low28%>1,000——
Oak (eastern dry-xeric)Replacement6%12850100
Mixed16%502030
Surface or low78%10110
Appalachian Virginia pineReplacement20%11025125
Mixed15%145——
Surface or low64%351040
Appalachian oak forest (dry-mesic)Replacement6%220——
Mixed15%90——
Surface or low79%17——
Southern Appalachian high-elevation forestReplacement59%525——
Mixed41%770——

*Fire Severities—

Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.

Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects.

Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [4,28].

1. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Checklist of North American birds. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: The Lord Baltimore Press. 691 p. [21235]

2. American Ornithologists' Union. 2013. The A.O.U. check-list of North American birds, 7th ed., [Online]. American Ornithologists' Union (Producer). Available: http://checklist.aou.org/. [50863]

3. Andersen, David E.; DeStefano, Stephen; Goldstein, Michael I.; Titus, Kimberly; Crocker-Bedford, Cole; Keane, John J.; Anthony, Robert G.; Rosenfield, Robert N. 2005. Technical review of the status of northern goshawks in the western United States. Journal of Raptor Research. 39(3): 192-209. [84132]

4. Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; Hutter, L.; Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0, [Online]. In: Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: http://www.frcc.gov/. [85876]

5. Beier, Paul; Drennan, Joseph E. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications. 7(2): 564-571. [62226]

6. Beier, Paul; Rogan, Erik C.; Ingraldi, Michael F.; Rosenstock, Steven S. 2008. Does forest structure affect reproduction of northern goshawks in ponderosa pine forests? Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: 342-350. [84189]

7. Boal, Clint W.; Andersen, David E.; Kennedy, Patricia L.; Roberson, Aimee M. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology in the western Great Lakes region. Studies in Avian Biology. 31: 126-134. [84224]

8. Bock, Carl E.; Block, William M. 2005. Response of birds to fire in the American Southwest. In: Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D., eds. Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the 3rd international Partners in Flight conference: Vol. 2; 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 1093-1099. [61162]

9. Bosakowski, Thomas; McCullough, Bruce; Lapsansky, Frank J.; Vaughn, Martin E. 1999. Northern goshawks nesting on a private industrial forest in western Washington. Journal of Raptor Research. 33(3): 240-244. [84254]

10. Boyce, Douglas A., Jr.; Reynolds, Richard T.; Graham, Russell T. 2006. Goshawk status and management: what do we know, what have we done, where are we going? Studies in Avian Biology. 31: 312-325. [84260]

11. Brewer, Lorraine; Erickson, Bruce; Kennedy, Beth; Partyka, Chris; Slaughter, Steve; Wrobleski, Dave. 2008. Effects of silvicultural treatments on old growth characteristics and associated wildlife habitat: Preliminary findings of the Lolo National Forest's 2006-2010 old growth monitoring study. Monitoring Paper. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lolo National Forest. 25 p. [+ appendices]. [82402]

12. Clough, Lorraine T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 87 p. Thesis. [84583]

13. Converse, Sarah J.; Block, William M.; White, Gary C. 2006. Small mammal population and habitat responses to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management. 228(1-3): 263-273. [62635]

14. Converse, Sarah J.; White, Gary C.; Farris, Kerry L.; Zack, Steve. 2006. Small mammals and forest fuel reduction: national-scale responses to fire and fire surrogates. Ecological Applications. 16(5): 1717-1729. [65278]

15. DeStefano, Stephen. 2005. A review of the status and distribution of northern goshawks in New England. Journal of Raptor Research. 39(3): 324-332. [84390]

16. DeStefano, Stephen; Daw, Sonya K.; Desimone, Steven M.; Meslow, E. Charles. 1994. Density and productivity of northern goshawks: implications for monitoring and management. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 88-91. [84221]

17. DeStefano, Stephen; McGrath, Michael T.; Daw, Sonya K.; Desimone, Steven M. 2006. Ecology and habitat of breeding northern goshawks in the inland Pacific Northwest: a summary of research in the 1990s. Studies in Avian Biology. 31: 75-84. [84387]

18. Dietrich, Phillip J.; Woodbridge, Brian. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of color-marked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 130-132. [84220]

19. Dodd, Norris L. 1988. Fire management and southwestern raptors. In: Glinski, Richard L.; Pendleton, Beth Giron; Moss, Mary Beth; LeFranc, M. N., Jr.; Millsap, B. A.; Hoffman, S. W., eds. Proceedings of the southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May 21-24; Tucson, AZ. NWF Scientific and Technical Series No. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 341-347. [22648]

20. Engstrom, R. Todd. 2010. First-order fire effects on animals: review and recommendations. Fire Ecology. 6(1): 115-130. [82000]

21. Fites, Jo Ann; Campbell, Mike; Reiner, Alicia; Decker, Todd. 2007. Fire behavior and effects relating to suppression, fuel treatments, and protected areas on the Antelope Complex Wheeler Fire. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 41 p. [74740]

22. Good, Rhett E. 1998. Factors affecting the relative use of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) kill areas in southcentral Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming. 153 p. Thesis. [84092]

23. Graham, Russell T; Jain, Theresa B.; Reynolds, Richard T.; Boyce, Douglas A. 1997. The role of fire in sustaining northern goshawk habitat in Rocky Mountain forests. In: Greenlee, Jason M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats; 1995 November 13-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 69-76. [28124]

24. Greenwald, D. Noah; Crocker-Bedford, D. Coleman; Broberg, Len; Suckling, Kieran; Tibbitts, Timothy. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(1): 120-129. [84508]

25. Hargis, C. D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 66-74. [84191]

26. Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment, [Online]. Golden, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (Producer). 142 p. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf [2012, February 9]. [84509]

27. Kirkley, Jack. 2012. [Email to Kate Stone]. July 5. Regarding northern goshawk responses to fire and fuels treatments. Dillon, MT: University of Montana--Western, Biology Department. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files. [86301]

28. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1), [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (Producers). 72 p. Available: https://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]

29. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models, [Online]. In: LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available: https://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [2008, April 18] [66533]

30. Lehman, Robert N.; Allendorf, John W. 1989. The effects of fire, fire exclusion and fire management on raptor habitats in the western United States. In: Pendleton, B. G., ed. Proceedings of the western raptor management symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID. Scientific and Technical Series No. 12. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation: 236-244. [22324]

31. Lockman, Dave. 2012. [Email to Kate Stone]. November 1. Regarding northern goshawk response to fire and fuels treatment. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bitterroot National Forest, North Zone Biologist. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; FEIS files. [86300]

32. Long, James N.; Smith, Frederick W. 2000. Restructuring the forest: Goshawks and the restoring of southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry. 98(8): 25-30. [38866]

33. Mahon, Todd; Doyle, Frank I. 2005. Effects of timber harvesting near nest sites on the reproductive success of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis). Journal of Raptor Research. 39(3): 335-341. [84979]

34. NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life, [Online]. Version 7.1. Arlington, VA: NatureServe (Producer). Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. [69873]

35. North, Malcolm; Stine, Pete; Zielinski, William; O'Hara, Kevin; Stephens, Scott. 2010. Harnessing fire for wildlife. The Wildlife Professional. 4(1): 30-33. [81864]

36. Paragi, Thomas F.; Johnson, W. N.; Katnik, Donald D.; Magoun, Audrey J. 1996. Marten selection of postfire seres in the Alaskan taiga. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 74: 2226-2237. [28567]

37. Patton, David R.; Gordon, Janet. 1995. Fire, habitats, and wildlife. Final report. Flagstaff, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino National Forest. 85 p. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [61019]

38. Pope, Theresa L. 2006. Effects of prescribed fire on wintering bark-foraging birds in northern Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 70 p. Thesis. [73498]

39. Pope, Theresa L.; Block, William M. 2010. Effects of prescribed fire on winter assemblages of birds in ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 55(1): 22-28. [80632]

40. Reynolds, Richard T.; Graham, Russel T.; Reiser, M. Hildegard; Bassett, Richard L.; Kennedy, Patricia L.; Boyce, Douglas A., Jr.; Goodwin, Greg; Smith, Randall; Fisher, E. Leon. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p. [27983]

41. Reynolds, Richard T.; Joy, Suzanne M.; Leslie, Douglas G. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 106-113. [84222]

42. Rickman, Tom H.; Jones, Bobette E.; Cluck, Danny R.; Richter, David J.; Tate, Kenneth W. 2005. Night roost habitat of radiotagged northern goshawks on Lassen National Forest, California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(4): 1737-1742. [84981]

43. Roberson, Aimee M.; Andersen, David E.; Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the western Great Lakes region: a technical conservation assessment. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit. 91 p. [84982]

44. Roppe, Jerry A.; Hein, Dale. 1978. Effects of fire on wildlife in a lodgepole pine forest. The Southwestern Naturalist. 23(2): 279-287. [261]

45. Saab, Victoria; Block, William; Russell, Robin; Lehmkuhl, John; Bate, Lisa; White, Rachel. 2007. Birds and burns of the interior West: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23 p. [69754]

46. Salafsky, Susan Rebecca. 2004. Covariation between prey abundance and northern goshawk fecundity on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 39 p. Thesis. [61352]

47. Shepperd, Wayne D.; Battaglia, Michael A. 2002. Ecology, silviculture, and management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p. [44794]

48. Squires, John R.; Reynolds, Richard T. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), [Online]. Issue No. 298. In: Poole, A., ed. The birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Producer). Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298 [2012, November 30]. [84032]

49. Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Klemmedson, James O.; Bull, Evelyn L. 2000. Solution of forest health problems with prescribed fire: are forest productivity and wildlife at risk? Forest Ecology and Management. 127(1-3): 1-18. [36435]

50. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. [86564]

51. Woodbridge, Brian; Detrich, Phillip J. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 83-87. [84190]

52. Younk, James V.; Bechard, Marc J. 1994. Breeding ecology of the northern goshawk in high-elevation aspen forests of northern Nevada. Studies in Avian Biology. 16: 119-121. [84223]

53. Youtz, James A.; Graham, Russell T.; Reynolds, Richard T.; Simon, Jerry. 2007. Implementing northern goshawk habitat management in southwestern forests: a template for restoring fire-adapted forest ecosystems. In: Deal, R. L., ed. Proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 173-191. [73716]

Last updated June 25, 2025