Conservation Assessment

for the Northern Goshawk

in Southeast Alaska

George C. Iverson, Gregory D. Hayward, Kimberly Titus,

Eugene DeGayner, Richard E. Lowell, D. Coleman

Crocker-Bedford, Philip F. Schempf, and John Lindell

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-387

November 1996
Authors GEORGE C. IVERSON is the Regional Ecology Program leader, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801;

GREGORY D. HAYWARD is an assistant professor, Department of Zoology and

Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071; KIMBERLY TITUS is the

regional supervisor, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife

Conservation, P.O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK 99824; EUGENE DeGAYNER is the

regional wildlife ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska

Region, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, AK 99833; RICHARD E. LOWELL is a wildlife

biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation,

P.O. Box 24002, Douglas, AK 99824; D. COLEMAN CROCKER-BEDFORD is a

forest wildlife biologist, Ketchikan Administrative Area, Tongass National Forest,

Federal Building, Ketchikan, AK 99901; PHILIP F. SCHEMPF is the project leader for

raptor management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 240,

Juneau, AK 99801; and JOHN LINDELL is a wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Juneau, AK 99801.
Conservation and Resource

Assessments for the Tongass Land

Management Plan Revision

Charles G. Shaw III, Technical Coordinator

Conservation Assessment for the Northern Goshawk

in Southeast Alaska

George C. Iverson

Gregory D. Hayward

Kimberly Titus

Eugene DeGayner

Richard E. Lowell

D. Coleman Crocker-Bedford

Philip F. Schempf

John Lindell

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-387

November 1996

In cooperation with:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Abstract Iverson, George C.; Hayward, Gregory D.; Titus, Kimberly; DeGayner, Eugene;

Lowell, Richard E.; Crocker-Bedford, D. Coleman; Schempf, Philip F.; Lindell,

John. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast

Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 p. (Shaw,

Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource assessments for the

Tongass land management plan revision).

The conservation status of northern goshawks in southeast Alaska is examined

through developing an understanding of goshawk ecology in relation to past, present, and potential future habitat conditions in the region under the current Tongass

land management plan. Forest ecosystem dynamics are described, and a history of

forest and goshawk management in the Tongass National Forest is reviewed. Nearly

900,000 acres of the most productive old-growth temperate rain forest in southeast

Alaska (public and private lands) have been harvested during the past 90 years

and changed to early seral conifer forests. Goshawk habitat relations are described

through a review of the goshawk literature. Significant preliminary findings of a habitat relation study in southeast Alaska include the following: goshawks select productive old-growth forests with > 60 percent of all adult goshawk telemetry relocations

occurring in this cover type; nonforest, clearcut, and alpine cover types were least

used and were avoided relative to their availability; and the median breeding season

minimum convex polygon use areas of adult goshawks was about 10,000 acres.

Goshawks predominantly use gentle slopes (70 percent of relocations) at elevations

below 800 feet (54-74 percent of relocations); 24 percent of relocations occurred in

riparian habitat zones, and nearly 20 percent of all relocations occurred within the

beach fringe habitat extending 1,000 feet inland from the ocean shoreline. Goshawk

nesting habitat is a nonrandom subset of the landscape with a significantly higher

proportion of productive old-growth forest within a 600-acre analysis area surrounding

known nests. The probability of persistence of goshawks has declined over the past

50 years owing to habitat loss and likely will continue to decline under current management plan regimes; however, the goshawk population likely is not in immediate

peril. The predicted consequences of several alternative habitat management approaches are compared. This analysis suggests that long rotation forestry (e.g.,

300 years) and uneven-aged silvicultural management may maintain habitat characteristics important to sustaining goshawk populations well distributed across the

region. Although habitat reserves are not considered an essential component of a

forest-wide goshawk conservation strategy, reserves, in combination with extended

rotations, may be important where the intensity of past management actions has

precluded the opportunity to attain a desired combination of forest age classes

achieveable under long rotations. Reserves are most likely critical if extensive

clearcut logging continues.

Keywords: Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis laingi, habitat, conservation,

assessment, management.
Preface This assessment synthesizes the best available science information regarding the

ecology and habitat relations of the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in southeast Alaska. By building on these relations, it examines the conservation status of

the goshawk relative to past, present, and anticipated habitat conditions throughout

southeast Alaska. Finally, it provides management considerations for sustaining goshawk populations across the Tongass National Forest. This conservation assessment was chartered under the Tongass [National Forest] land management plan

(TLMP) revision and the interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) among

the Alaska Region of the Forest Service (FS), the Alaska Region of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

to conserve species tending toward listing under the Federal or State endangered

species acts.1

Revision efforts for the TLMP resumed in fall 1994 with a focus on five major land

management issues considered to be inadequately addressed in the existing TLMP:

wildlife viability, fish and riparian habitat, caves and karst, alternatives to clearcutting,

and socioeconomic considerations. Goshawk conservation is an important component within the wildlife viability issue.

Concern for goshawk population viability in southeast Alaska evolved during the

past decade and culminated with the petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk

(A. g. laingi) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The

FWS concluded in 1995 that listing the goshawk was not warranted at that time

owing to insufficient information, but stated that “...without significant changes in

the existing Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the

longterm viability of the Queen Charlotte goshawk may be seriously imperiled”

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Specific management recommendations

or strategies for managing goshawk habitat were not a component of the charters

for this assessment and are not included in this report. This synthesis of available

information provides planners and the public with a scientific basis for evaluating

the consequences of habitat management choices. It presents ecological relations

as well as management considerations that should be examined in crafting and

evaluating an ecosystem management plan that sustains all resources, including

goshawks. Although this assessment presents some new and preliminary results

of current research, its main use is as a synthesis of current information to assist

conservation planning and not to report the results of original research.

This assessment represents a collaborative product of management and research

biologists. The authors brought experience in managing and investigating goshawks

plus a variety of perspectives from several government agencies. Consensus was

obtained on the science and conclusions commensurate with information data available through early 1996. Ongoing goshawk inventories and studies in the Tongass

National Forest will continue to provide new knowledge, and this document represents an incremental step in understanding goshawk ecology. Adaptive management can be a useful tool to respond to new information.

1 The primary objective of the MOU was to foster interagency

cooperation for the conservation of candidate and sensitive

species to avoid the need for listing and protection under

the Endangered Species Act. The goshawk, in addition

to the marbled murrelet (Branchyramphus marmoratus)

and Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), were

identified as priority species for conducting a conservation

assessment to achieve MOU objectives.
Contents 1 The Forest Ecosystem and Its Management

1 Natural Disturbance Regimes

3 Forest Stand Development

5 Forest Inventory

6 History of Forest Management in Southeast Alaska

8 History of Northern Goshawk Management in the Tongass National Forest

11 Management Update Since Assessment Initiation

11 Review of Northern Goshawk Ecology in North America

11 Introduction

12 Review of Technical Knowledge

22 Analysis of Northern Goshawk Ecology in Southeast Alaska

22 Systematics, Distribution, and Abundance

27 Patterns of Goshawk Movements, Habitat Use, and Habitat Selection Based

on Radio Telemetry

40 Pattern of Topographic Characteristics of Goshawk Habitat Use

47 Nest Area Habitat Associations

53 Landscape Patterns in Vegetation Cover Around Known Goshawk Nests

56 Goshawk Survival Rates

57 Patterns in Habitat Use of Principal Goshawk Prey in Southeast Alaska

60 Goshawk Relations with Other Predators

61 Conservation Status of Northern Goshawks in Southeast Alaska

69 Management Considerations

69 Goshawk Response to Forest Disturbance

75 Risk Assessment

80 Goshawk Conservation Strategies

84 Acknowledgments

84 Metric Equivalents

84 References

98 Appendices
The Forest

Ecosystem and Its

Management

The coastal forests of southeast Alaska are part of the temperate rain forest that

extends along the Pacific coast from northern California to Cook Inlet in Alaska

(Alaback 1991). Most of the forest is composed of old-growth conifers dominated

by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and Sitka spruce (Picea

sitchensis (Borg.) Carr). The region is characterized by a cool and wet maritime

climate where precipitation ranges from 60 to 235 inches per year and is distributed

throughout the year without noticeable droughts (Harris and Farr 1974). Climate

strongly influences forest development within southeast Alaska. Fire is generally

absent (Harris and Farr 1974), moisture is not limiting to regeneration, and windthrow is common (Harris 1989). Southeast Alaska is characterized by steep rugged

topography and coastal fjords. The Alexander Archipelago consists of over 22,000

islands ranging from less than 0.01 acre to over 1,750,686 acres (Prince of Wales

Island) with over 11,000 miles of shoreline (fig.1). Together these attributes represent

features of large-scale landscape heterogeneity.

Conifer forests of the Tongass National Forest (NF) are characterized by finescale habitat heterogeneity created by mountainous terrain, wetlands, and various

disturbance regimes (see below) that have resulted in a naturally fragmented landscape mosaic. Because of the considerable precipitation, landform diversity has a

significant influence on drainage patterns and thus local site vegetation characteristics. Well-drained sites generally have higher forest site productivity, whereas

nonforested peatlands (muskegs) generally occur on benches, terraces, or gentle

terrain where poorly drained, deep organic soils predominate. Forests of intermediate

productivity form transitional ecotones between the well-drained productive forests

and poorly drained nonforest areas. Local landform diversity and drainage patterns

also contribute to an irregular pattern of fine-scale habitat heterogeneity. For example,

imbedded within a highly productive forest, benches of poorly drained soil may occur

in small patches (e.g., each less than an acre). Conversely, in an otherwise poorly

drained extensive peatland, a narrow riparian corridor of well-drained soils may

support a highly productive stand of large trees.

The Tongass NF contains about 16.9 million acres, representing over 85 percent

of southeast Alaska. Of the total Tongass acres, 59 percent are classified as forested land with at least 10 percent tree cover, and 41 percent are nonforested

land, including rock and ice, alpine areas, and peatland.

Natural Disturbance

Regimes

The natural disturbance regimes of the temperate rain forests of southeast Alaska

are poorly understood. A comprehensive review of disturbance in temperate rain

forests is provided in Alaback (1996), Nowacki and Kramer (in prep.), and Veblen

and Alaback (1996). Wind is the primary disturbance agent (Harris and Farr 1974),

but other disturbances such as landslides, debris flows, soil slumping, insects, fungi,

and snow breakage also influence forest structure; all contribute to a fine-scale habitat heterogeneity. The forest environment is dynamic and characterized by frequent

small-scale disturbances (Brady and Hanley 1984). These foster “gap phase” regeneration (Watt 1947), where individual or small groups of trees die or are blown down

by wind, thereby creating canopy gaps (Alaback and Tappeiner 1991). Frequent

small-scale disturbances may be punctuated by large wind storms causing extensive

damage (Harris 1989).

1
Figure 1—Southeast Alaska vicinity map.

2
Relatively frequent, low-magnitude natural disturbances, such as the death of single

trees or small groups of trees, create small gaps in the overstory canopy. Light penetrating through these canopy gaps and reaching the forest floor stimulates microcyclic succession within the gap. Canopy gap openings range from 0.1 to 0.2 acre

and represent an average of 9 percent of the forested land area (Ott 1995). Over

time and in the absence of major stand replacement disturbances (e.g., 300-500

years; Deal et al. 1991), gap dynamic processes occur across the stand, but at any

one point in time the stand is characterized by multiple canopy openings in various

stages of succession. Thus, within a stand, trees of all ages occur in this shifting

steady state mosaic (Bormann and Likens 1979), with the death of old trees balanced

by the growth of new trees. Most dominant trees typically exceed 300 years of age

(Farr et al. 1976), and in some stands, dominant trees may range from 450 to nearly

800 years of age (Farr et al. 1976, Alaback and Juday 1989).

The rain forest is also subject to less frequent but higher intensity wind disturbance

events that may result in nearly complete stand replacement (Alaback 1982, Deal

et al. 1991). These events generally are associated with fall or winter storms (Harris

1989). A range of windthrow severity occurs and depends on many factors, including

soil type, elevation, wind direction and strength, forest type, and local topography

(Harris 1989). Catastrophic windthrow (with an intensity that spares little residual

structure) can affect large areas up to hundreds of acres, and intermediate events

(with significant residual trees withstanding the event) can cover tens of acres (Harris

1989; Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.). The long-term rate of catastrophic disturbance

affecting the productive old-growth forest has been estimated at an average of 0.3

percent per decade (Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.). Nowacki and Kramer (in prep.)

also report on a preponderance of multicohort stands that may exist in landscape

positions that are highly susceptible to repeated catastrophic events with apparent

return intervals that are shorter than the time necessary for complete development

of the full complement of old-growth characteristics. These events and the resulting

regeneration generally result in a single-cohort or multicohort generation stand (Oliver

1981, Deal et al. 1991). A combination of both major and minor disturbances can

contribute to stand development (Deal et al. 1991).

Forest Stand

Development

Oliver (1981) outlines a conceptual model of forest stand development following

stand-replacing disturbance that is generally applicable to the temperate rain forest

of southeast Alaska. Stand development occurs in four general stages: stand initiation, stem exclusion, understory reinitiation, and old growth. Each stage is briefly

reviewed below as a component of secondary forest succession resulting from major

disturbance events (e.g., large-scale windthrow). The stages also may be generally

applicable to small-scale disturbances (canopy gap dynamics), although the fine

scale structure may result in a multigeneration stand (Deal et al. 1991). Figure 2

illustrates a conceptual chronosequece of secondary forest succession in forests

of southeast Alaska.

Stand initiation—Immediately after a disturbance, secondary forest succession

begins as new individuals and species grow from sprouts, seeds, or advanced

regeneration and continue to appear for several years. In southeast Alaska, the wet

and moderate climate permits hemlock surviving from the previous stand to rapidly

regenerate (Harris 1974) within 2 to 3 years after a disturbance. Shrub and herb

biomass production increases for up to 10 to 15 years after disturbance. Gradual

overstory dominance by hemlock and spruce results in canopy closure after 25 to

35 years, nearly eliminating all tree seedlings, shrubs, and herbs (Alaback 1982).

3
Stem exclusion—During this phase new individuals or new species do not appear.

Competition for growing space results in the death of many existing individuals with

surviving individuals growing larger and expressing dominance. Overstory canopy closure occurs with little light penetration to the forest floor (< 1 percent open sunlight;

Alaback and Tappeiner 1991), which results in an understory poor in vegetative abundance or diversity. In southeast Alaska, hemlock and spruce dominate the closed

canopy overstory, and the understory is dominated by a carpet of ferns with little

other vegetation—a stage that may persist for over 100 years (Alaback 1982).

Understory reinitiation—During this phase of stand development, shade-tolerant

shrubs, such as Vaccinium spp., capable of surviving under low light intensity develop

first. Eventually evergreen herbs or short shrubs, such as Cornus spp., Rubus spp.,

and Tiarella spp., begin to appear. Advance regeneration reappears in the understory

but grows very little. In southeast Alaska, this phase generally begins by stand age

140 to 160 years (Alaback 1982). The mature, even-aged forest stage represents

Figure 2—Forest developmental stages in the temperate rain forest of southeast Alaska.

4
the peak in gross timber volume, after which biomass accumulation begins to decline

(Alaback 1982). Tree growth rates begin to decline as mortality increases (Taylor

1934), resulting in the opening and vertical stratification of the overstory canopy

(Alaback 1984). Many structural features of old growth, such as large standing

and down snags and an all-aged stand with a multilayered canopy, have not yet

developed.

Old growth—In the absence of catastrophic disturbance, overstory trees die in an

irregular pattern from a variety of agents, including insects, drought, pathogens, or

wind. Some understory trees begin growing into the overstory. Death of overstory

trees from internal factors or autogenic effects, without the influence of external

disturbances, is a characteristic condition of old-growth forests (Oliver 1981). The

old-growth stage of stand development has a number of characteristic structural

features (Alaback and Juday 1989, USDA Forest Service 1992a): large and old

standing trees, a diversity of tree size classes, large downed logs, a multilayered

canopy with irregular canopy gaps, and a diverse understory.

The minimum stand age necessary to attain the large tree component of the oldgrowth stand ranges from 150 to 260 years for the major forest types in southeast

Alaska (USDA Forest Service 1992a). Dominant trees in the old-growth stands of

southeast Alaska generally exceed 300 years. Old growth has the greatest horizontal

and vertical variation in structure with both large and small trees growing in separate

and intermixed patches (Alaback 1982). This structure takes at least two cohorts of

dominant trees or 300 to 500 years to fully develop (Alaback 1990). Ages when specific stages of stand development begin are approximations and may differ owing to

differences in local site characteristics. Factors such as aspect, elevation, soil type,

drainage, and past disturbances (Alaback 1982) can affect overstory and understory

development patterns within these broad successional stand development stages.

Studies to date have emphasized highly productive, well-drained sites. Studies of

poorly drained sites or high-elevation sites in similar forest types in other regions

suggest that stand development and regeneration may take double the time as

compared to productive sites (Alaback 1996). Riparian sites in particular appear

to take the longest times (up to 600 years) to recover both structural diversity and

species diversity (Alaback 1996).

Forest Inventory An ecologically based inventory describing the structure and composition of forest

resources within the Tongass NF does not exist. The existing Tongass NF vegetation

inventory (Julin and Caouette, in prep.) is characterized primarily by timber production

capability; productive versus nonproductive forests. (These terms are further defined

in table 7 relative to goshawk habitat use analyses). Productive forest sites are by

definition capable of growing 20 cubic feet per acre of usable timber volume per year

and include both old growth and younger seral stages. Productive old-growth forest

represents nearly 30 percent of the total 16.9 million acres on the Tongass NF. Unproductive forests comprise about 21 percent of the Tongass NF. Of the 5.05 million

acres of productive old-growth forest remaining in the Tongass NF, about 54 percent

is western hemlock; 38 percent is hemlock (including mountain hemlock, Tsuga

mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.)-Sitka spruce; 4 percent is Sitka spruce; and less than

2 percent is western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) and Alaska-cedar

5
(Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D.Don) Spach) (USDA Forest Service 1996a). Productive forests are primarily associated with the western hemlock, western hemlockAlaska-cedar, Sitka spruce, western hemlock-redcedar and mountain hemlock plant

association series (Martin et al. 1995). Unproductive forests are primarily associated

with the mixed conifer, mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.

ex Loud.) plant association series (Martin et al. 1995).

Productive forests can be stratified into four volume strata (Forest-wide scale) based

on average net timber volume content expressed in thousand board feet per acre

(Mbf/acre) (Julin and Caouette, in prep.). These four strata also are broadly indicative of ecological site productivity: (1) low volume = 15.7 Mbf [+/- 1.9 Mbf, 95%

confidence interval (CI)]; (2) medium volume = 25.1 Mbf (+/-1.9, 95% CI); (3) high

volume = 31.4 Mbf (+/-2.5, 95% CI); and (4) very high volume = 39.0 Mbf (+/- 3.2,

95% CI). The Forest-wide average across all four classes is 27.3 Mbf (+/- 1.4 95%

CI). These four strata are identified in the Tongass NF Geographical Information

System (GIS) database and were used for the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

habitat use analysis (see “Analysis of Northern Goshawk Ecology in Southeast

Alaska,” below). The minimum mapping resolution of generally homogeneous forest

stand polygons was 1 to 10 acres; however, the average polygon size Forest-wide

ranged from 60 to 115 acres (Julin and Caouette, in prep.).

Forest stands in the GIS forest inventory also are classified into one of four classes

of approximate stand age based on timber size class. The characterization of stand

size is independent of stand origin and may include both silvicultural stand management (primarily clearcut even-aged timber harvest) and natural disturbance events,

especially large-scale windthrow. The timber size classes are not entirely coincident

with the four stages of secondary forest succession discussed above. (1) Seedlingsapling is less than 5 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), closely approximates

the stand initiation stage of forest development (fig. 2), and includes early clearcuts.

There are presently 208,000 acres of this stand age in the Tongass NF. (2) Poletimber contains trees from 5 to 9 inches DBH. Poletimber stands range from about

30 to 80 years of age and represent the stem exclusion stage of forest development

(fig. 2). There are an estimated 196,000 acres of this stand age in the Tongass NF.

(3) Young-growth sawtimber is over 9 inches DBH but less than 150 years of age.

Most stands in this age class are in the stem exclusion stage, although some features

of understory reinitiation may begin to occur in the latter stages of this age class from

about 100 to 150 years, depending on site productivity. An estimated 149,000 acres

of this forest structure currently occur in the Tongass NF. (4) Old-growth sawtimber

is classified as being over 150 years old. Because the full complement of features

associated with old-growth forests do not occur until about 250 years, the old-growth

sawtimber timber age class may by definition include stands in the understory

reinitiation stage of forest development ranging in age from 150 to 250 years that

resulted from large-scale windthrow events. Broad-scale habitat use analysis (see

“Analysis of Northern Goshawk Ecology in Southeast Alaska”, below) predicated on

ecological features of forest stand structure is, therefore, limited by a nonecological

resource inventory classification scheme and a coarse mapping resolution unable

to depict the fine-scale heterogeneity characteristic of the temperate rain forest.

6
History of Forest

Management in

Southeast Alaska

Because goshawks generally are associated with forested habitats, an understanding

of the timber harvest history across southeast Alaska is important for assessing the

effects of habitat alteration on the conservation status of goshawks. Before Russian

occupation and continuing into recent times, Alaska natives have harvested trees for

constructing canoes, framing and planking homes, carving totem poles, and other

personal subsistence applications. Beginning with Russian occupation in the 1790s,

trees were cut to produce charcoal and construct forts, homes, and ships. By 1853,

three sawmills were operating in Sitka. Early Russian logging was primarily selection

harvest with some clearcuts for fuelwood and charcoal, primarily along beaches and

rivers.

Russian holdings were sold to the United States in 1867, and by 1900 there were

14 wood processing mills in operation with an annual tree harvest of about 8 million

board feet (MMbf). Most harvest was used for sawtimber and pilings. Interest in

developing a pulp industry evolved in the 1920s. Efforts to establish a pulp industry

were successful, with the preliminary award by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, in 1948 of a 50-year sale of 1.5 billion cubic feet of timber to the

Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC). The Ketchikan pulpmill was completed in 1954,

and this signaled the beginning of large-scale timber harvest operations in southeast

Alaska. The Forest Service soon entered into three additional long-term contracts.

Only the KPC long-term contract remains in effect as of this writing.

Average annual harvest from 1909 through 1990 was 197 MMbf. Since industrial

scale timber harvest began in 1955, however, the total annual harvests have been

substantially higher, averaging 394 MMbf/year (range 167 to 588 MMbf). The average

volume per acre of timber harvested between 1955 and 1990 was about 41,500 Mbf

(USDA Forest Service 1991). Forests capable of producing this high net volume of

timber are considered the most highly productive sites in the Tongass NF.

About 5.6 million acres of productive forest occur within the current boundaries of the

Tongass NF (USDA Forest Service 1996a). About 405,000 acres of productive oldgrowth forest were harvested between 1954 and 1995 (USDA Forest Service 1996a).

A total of 1,895 MMbf saw-log volume was reported harvested from 1909 to 1954

(USDA Forest Service 1991). Assuming the average volume per acre was not lower

than the mean of 41,500 board feet/acre harvested from 1954 to 1990, an estimated

total of 45,000 acres was harvested from 1909 to 1954. Thus an estimated total of

450,000 acres of productive old-growth forest has been harvested in the Tongass NF

since 1909, generally on sites with the highest timber production capability and largest

trees (high and very high timber volume strata). This level of timber harvest activity

represents a significant transition of old-growth and mature forests, with structurally

diverse and complex stands, to early (0-35 years) seral stages of forest succession

on nearly half a million acres of productive forest lands.

Timber harvest has not been evenly distributed across the Tongass NF. There are

21 biogeographic provinces within the Tongass NF (USDA Forest Service 1996a),

and several have had little or no harvest (e.g., Admiralty Island and the mainland

provinces). Other provinces have had substantial timber harvest activity (e.g., northeast Chichagof and Prince of Wales Islands). The risk assessment section (see “Management Considerations,” below) provides additional information on the magnitude

and distribution of timber harvest in the Tongass NF.

7
Nearly 750,000 acres of lands previously contained within the Tongass NF have

been conveyed to the State of Alaska or to Native Corporations (USDA Forest

Service 1996a). About 60 percent of these lands were harvested by 1995 (Knapp

1992, USDA Forest Service 1996b). Thus, an estimated 900,000 acres of productive old-growth forests (15 percent of the total), and generally on the most productive sites, in southeast Alaska have been converted to early seral forests.

Clearcut, even-aged management with opening sizes from 20 to 60 acres or more

has been the predominant silvicultural technique used to harvest timber in southeast

Alaska, with only incidental use of uneven-aged management techniques (USDA

Forest Service 1996a). Forests where tree harvesting has occurred are being managed with a rotation age (harvest age of a regenerated stand) of generally 100 years

or less. Thus, stands managed for timber production emphasis will cycle through only

the stand reinitiation and stem exclusion stages of stand development (fig. 2). The

old-growth stage will not reoccur on these lands.

The intensity of forest management for timber production emphasis differs significantly

from the natural disturbance regimes. The absence of uneven-aged silvicultural management techniques has precluded most opportunities to emulate the small-scale disturbance processes to regenerate or retain remnants of old-growth structure coincident with timber harvest. Even though even-aged clearcut harvest may generally

emulate a catastrophic windthrow event, the rate of early seral forest stage creation

(clearcutting) over the past 40 years has increased by about 5 to 10 times over estimated rates of natural disturbance (Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.). Specific consequences of this departure from the scale and frequency of natural disturbance events

to the composition, structure, function, and distribution of the old-growth forest and

associated biota are unknown in southeast Alaska.

History of

Northern Goshawk

Management in the

Tongass National

Forest

Interest in the conservation status of the goshawk in the Alaska Region began in

1986 when the northern goshawk was recommended as a management indicator

species for the revision of the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). A review

of habitat relations suggested a close association with spruce-hemlock forests and

interior spruce forests, and old-growth forests were rated as the most important forest

successional stage for both nesting and foraging (Sidle and Suring 1986). The goshawk was not selected as a management indicator species for the TLMP revision

owing to a lack of specific information and great monitoring difficulty. The review

also suggested that the goshawk should be considered a Forest Service “sensitive

species” in the Alaska Region.

In 1990, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) recommended that at

least one old-growth-associated forest raptor with a large home range be added to

the Alaska Region sensitive species list and be considered in the TLMP revision

process. The northern goshawk was specifically identified along with other forest

birds of prey. The ADF&G also recommended initiation of a study on the effects

of forest fragmentation on birds of prey. The Ketchikan Area of the Tongass NF

supported this recommendation and began a cooperative study with ADF&G in

1991. The study adopted a Tongass-wide perspective in 1992 as a result of the

difficulty in locating nesting goshawks in the Ketchikan Area, the identification of

nests elsewhere in the Tongass, and the emerging regional and national interest

in the issue.

8
In November 1991, the northern goshawk was designated a category 2 candidate

species to be reviewed for possible addition to the Federal list of endangered and

threatened species throughout its range. By inclusion as a subspecies, the Queen

Charlotte goshawk (A. g. laingi) also was designated as a category 2 candidate species. Category 2 candidates were species and subspecies for which the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS) had information indicating that listing may be appropriate,

but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat were not then available to

support such actions. The FWS no longer maintains a list of category 2 candidate

species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

The Alaska Natural Heritage Program also has recognized the potential sensitivity of

the goshawk population in southeast Alaska and ranks the Queen Charlotte goshawk

as a “T1/T2" species (West 1993). This ranking indicates that this subspecies is either

imperiled globally or critically imperiled globally.

Interim goshawk habitat management guidelines for the Tongass NF were issued by

the Regional Forester in August 1992 (USDA Forest Service 1992b), in recognition

of the national category 2 designation and of the potential for adverse effects from

Forest Service land management actions on key elements of goshawk habitat.

Because specific habitat use information from southeast Alaska was not available,

these guidelines relied on concepts developed for goshawk habitat management in

National Forests in the Southwest United States (Reynolds et al. 1992). Tongass NF

habitat guides established a 600-acre postfledgling area (PFA) around known nests

and limited early seral forest stands to no more than 5 percent of the PFA. Management guidelines for a 6,000-acre potential foraging area surrounding the nest were

suggested to minimally maintain components of forested habitats. An interagency

goshawk meeting reviewed these guides and suggested that all nesting habitat was

essential and that no timber harvest should be permitted within the PFA. The original

1992 guidelines allowing 5 percent harvest of the PFA were reissued by the Regional

Forester in 1993 without modification (USDA Forest Service 1993).

Forest Service interim management guidelines were repeatedly identified as inadequate to sustain goshawk habitat by the FWS in project-specific environmental reviews such as those for timber sales. The FWS suggested that to sustain a viable

goshawk population in southeast Alaska, a landscape management approach should

be adopted by the Forest Service in lieu of nest-by-nest management.1

The Alaska Region of the Forest Service formally designated the Queen Charlotte

goshawk as a sensitive species in January 1994, as a result of a viability concern

over the declining trend in goshawk habitat within portions of the Tongass NF. Sensitive species designation by the Regional Forester triggered the requirement that all

projects conduct biological evaluations to assess potential impacts of proposed management activities. The Queen Charlotte goshawk also was designated a species of

special concern by the ADF&G in 1994.

1 Fish and Wildlife Service correspondence. On file with:

Ecological Services, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201, Juneau,

AK 99801.

9
On May 9, 1994, the FWS received a petition from the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and nine additional organizations and individuals to list the Queen

Charlotte goshawk as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The primary reason was concern over the loss of habitat owing to timber harvest in

southeast Alaska. The FWS concluded in their 90-day finding that the petitioners had

presented substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. The FWS

initiated a more comprehensive review of goshawk conservation status for a required

12-month finding for the petitioned action. During the public comment period ending

February 28, 1995, both the Forest Service and ADF&G submitted comments to the

FWS recommending that the goshawk did not warrant listing. On May 29, 1995, the

FWS concluded that listing was not warranted at that time because of insufficient

information. However, the FWS also stated that “...without significant changes in the

existing Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the longterm viability of the Queen Charlotte goshawk may be seriously imperiled” (USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).

The Forest Service sponsored an interagency workshop in June 1994 to consider

the conservation status of the goshawk in southeast Alaska and to develop habitat

management recommendations for Tongass NF lands. The recent listing petition

and the expiration of the 1993 interim guidelines were principal factors in convening

the workshop. Workshop participants concluded that the status of the goshawk was

unknown, but that the population probably was declining as a result of habitat loss

of old-growth forests from timber harvest. They also concluded that the goshawk was

not likely significantly threatened at that time because of the abundance of available

habitat, the likelihood of locating additional nests, and the conservation benefits of

following habitat management recommendations provided by workshop participants.

Two principal recommendations were developed at the workshop. First, the Forest

Service should develop a long-term goshawk conservation strategy as an interagency

effort. Second, in the absence of a comprehensive assessment and strategy, the

FS should adopt a conservative management approach and preserve management

options around identified goshawk nests. Interim habitat management recommendations included no commercial timber harvest within the home range of goshawks

(as determined by radio telemetry) or, lacking telemetry data, within an empirically

derived radius around current and historical goshawk nests: 2 miles in the northern

half of the Tongass, and 8.4 miles in the southern half. These recommendations

(USDA Forest Service 1994a) were considered an interim approach until a full

assessment and strategy was developed.

The Forest Service immediately incorporated components of the recommendations

from the interagency goshawk workshop into the 1994-95 timber sale schedule developed in June 1994. As an interim approach to retain management options, all planned

timber harvest activity within the recommended home ranges around historical nests

(1986 to 1993), and within a 600-acre zone around newly discovered nests (1994),

was deferred. Timber harvest was also deferred in large and medium habitat conservation areas identified pursuant to a landscape conservation strategy to maintain

habitat to support well-distributed viable populations of old-growth-associated wildlife

species (Suring et al. 1993). Protection of habitat reserves and known goshawk nest

sites represented primary components of the preferred alternative of a draft environmental assessment issued in September 1994 that proposed interim direction as a

TLMP amendment (USDA Forest Service 1994b). A final environmental assessment

has not been issued and there are no specific goshawk habitat management guidelines.

10
A followup workshop of the same participants was convened in October 1994 to

reconsider the June recommendations in light of additional inventory, nest site, and

study information. Similar but refined recommendations were made (USDA Forest

Service 1994c). Where telemetry data were available, the combined male and female

breeding season home range was to be protected. Instead of the 2.0- and 8.4-mileradius home ranges, a Forest-wide, 2.9-mile-radius home range was recommended

for all historical and current nest sites in the absence of telemetry data. These recommendations also were considered interim until a complete assessment could be

completed.

Participants at this workshop reiterated their recommendation that development of a

thorough assessment of goshawk conservation status was essential to better define

the habitat components important to sustaining goshawks on the Tongass. Findings

from that assessment would represent important considerations for the TLMP revision to manage habitat to sustain viable goshawk populations. This assessment

represents the product of that workshop recommendation.

Management Update

Since Assessment

Initiation

This interagency assessment was initiated in January 1995. At that same time the

Forest Service was deliberating on components of a final Environmental Assessment

to specifically address goshawk habitat conservation. As described above, the FWS

issued a finding on May 29, 1995, that listing the goshawk as endangered was not

warranted at that time. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed legislation in the Fiscal

Year 1995 Rescissions Bill (Section 502, Public Law 104-19) that prevented the

Forest Service from implementing habitat conservation areas on the Tongass NF and

limited goshawk nest protection to 300 acres in fiscal year 1995. This law effectively

precluded, for at least the remainder of the Federal fiscal year, implementation of

interim habitat conservation areas or goshawk nest protection measures under consideration as a TLMP amendment. Language from Public Law 104-19 expired as

of September 30, 1995. A proposal to make Section 502 provisions permanent was

under Congressional consideration in the Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Bill but

was not enacted. By mid-1995, progress on the TLMP revision and this assessment indicated that an interim amendment was unnecessary and that goshawk

conservation could be fully addressed in the TLMP revision.

In September 1995, authors of the petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as

endangered filed suit in court to challenge the FWS finding that listing the goshawk

was not warranted. In September 1996 the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs and

remanded the not warranted listing decision back to the FWS for reconsideration.

Review of

Northern Goshawk

Ecology in North

America

Introduction

There is substantial literature describing the biology and ecology of goshawks in

Europe and North America. The scientific information regarding goshawk population

status, trends, and life history accumulated before 1987 was reviewed by Reynolds

(1989), who focused on goshawk nesting habitat use, diet, nesting success, and

estimates of density. Likely threats to populations of goshawks in western North

America were identified. In 1992, as a part of the management strategy developed

by the Northern Goshawk Scientific Committee, the Forest Service published a more

thorough treatment of the relation of goshawks to habitats and prey in forests of

the Southwest (Reynolds et al. 1992). This management strategy emphasized the

dynamics of Southwestern forests and the link between forest structure and the

abundance of primary goshawk prey. The report also stressed the similarities and

differences in forest areas used by breeding goshawks and divided the home range

11
into a nesting area, postfledging family area (Kennedy et al. 1994), and a foraging

area. The management strategy was critically reviewed by Braun et al. (1996) who

concluded that the scientific basis for the management recommendations and the

recommendations themselves were sound and represented the basis for adaptive

management that strives for a naturally functioning ecosystem.

In 1993, the Tongass NF released a report of an interagency committee on management of wildlife associated with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska (Suring et

al. 1993). This report included a chapter on goshawks, which reviewed knowledge of

goshawk ecology in the context of forest management of the Tongass NF and made

management recommendations for goshawk conservation (Crocker-Bedford 1993).

Following a peer review of the report (Kiester and Eckhardt 1994), the goshawk

chapter was updated (Crocker-Bedford 1994). Also in 1993, the Cooper Ornithological Society sponsored a national symposium on the ecology and management

of northern goshawks (Block et al. 1994).

Goshawk ecology and biology is currently being synthesized in a comprehensive

review and assessment of goshawk ecology in North America (Reynolds et al., in

prep.). This document will describe diverse aspects of goshawk life history, ecology,

and biology in different forest types and geographic settings. It also will critically

evaluate the conservation status of goshawks in North America.

Considering the scope of the North American goshawk assessment (Reynolds et al.,

in prep.) and the number of previous reviews of goshawk ecology, we only highlight

those aspects of earlier reviews and recent scientific publications most applicable

and relevant to management of goshawks in southeast Alaska. For other reviews of

the scientific literature on goshawk ecology and management, see Arizona Game

and Fish (1993), Reynolds (1989), Reynolds et al. (1992), Reynolds et al. (in prep.),

and Crocker-Bedford (1994).

Review of Technical

Knowledge

Distribution—The northern goshawk inhabits boreal and montane forest throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere in boreal, temperate, and highland subtropical

areas (Beebe 1974). In North America, goshawks are broadly distributed from Mexico

northward through most of the conterminous United States, Canada, and Alaska

(Brown and Amadon 1968, Palmer 1988, Johnsgard 1990). Southeast Alaska likely

represents the periphery of North American populations. As noted by Lawton et al.

(1994), many aspects of species demography, and persistence probabilities, differ at

the center versus the edge of a geographic range. In general, species exhibit higher

density and occupy a greater proportion of suitable habitat near the center of their

geographic range.

Systematics—In North America, most authorities recognize three subspecies of

goshawks (Johnsgard 1990). Accipiter gentilis apache, a group of North American

goshawks with the largest body size and more robust feet, occurs in a long, narrow,

geographic range extending from southern Arizona south to Jalisco in the mountains

of Mexico. The Queen Charlotte goshawk (A. g. laingi) is the smallest bodied form

(Johnson 1989) that breeds on Queen Charlotte and Vancouver Islands (Taverner

1940) and may extend north to Baranof Island in southeast Alaska (Webster 1988)

or Prince William Sound in south-central Alaska (Jones 1981). The northern goshawk, A. g. atricapillus, is intermediate in size and inhabits most of the North American range of the species. The American Ornithologist’s Union (1957) recognizes

A. g. laingi and A. g atricapillus.

12
Until recently, public, scientific, and management attention focused principally on

A. g. atricapillus, largely to the exclusion of A. g. laingi and A. g. apache. Many

inferences concerning goshawk ecology and potential response to management

in southeast Alaska therefore must come from knowledge of the species elsewhere

and be modified by the data originating from the local population.

As noted above, most authors suggest that a portion, if not all, of the goshawks in

southeast Alaska belong to the Queen Charlotte subspecies A. g. laingi. Webster

(1988) examined seven specimens from southeast Alaska, from as far north as the

Taku River near Juneau, of which five were dark forms suggesting affinity to A. g.

laingi. Whaley and White (1994) thoroughly examined 10 morphological variables in

museum specimens to determine the amount and pattern of measurable geographic

variation in goshawks across their range in North America. The study focused on

evaluating clinal patterns in morphology and relating these to potential selective

pressures; they did not emphasize distinguishing subspecies. Their analysis demonstrated the small size of A. g. laingi relative to goshawks collected from the nearby

mainland and elsewhere on the continent. The subspecies A. g. laingi does not seem

to be as small as suggested by Beebe (1974), but goshawks in this geographic region

tend to be smaller than individuals from populations elsewhere in North America. A

recent preliminary study was unable to detect significant genetic variation among

samples representing the three described subspecies obtained from across North

America (Gavin and May 1995). This preliminary genetic study did not address

goshawk taxonomy, however. Because both A. g. laingi and A. g atricapillus may

occur within the southeast Alaska region considered in this assessment, we refer

to the goshawk population of southeast Alaska as the northern goshawk, or just

goshawk.

Abundance—Only a few North American studies have produced reliable estimates

of goshawk relative abundance. The majority of estimates are based on searches

for active nests and often are based on the assumption that all nesting pairs were

located. Pair densities across the goshawk’s range varied from 28.5/100 square miles

in Arizona (Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988), 7.4/100 square miles in Colorado

(Shuster 1976), an average of 17 to 18/100 square miles in Oregon over 2 years

(DeStefano et al. 1994a), 9.3/100 square miles in Oregon (Reynolds and Wight

1978), 7.3/100 square miles in New Mexico (Kennedy 1989), 1.1 to 3.2/100 square

miles over multiple years in California (Bloom et al. 1986), to 0.3 to 2.4/100 square

miles over multiple years in central Alaska (McGowan 1975). In northern Arizona,

Reynolds et al. (1994) measured 59 nearest-neighbor distances, which averaged

1.9 miles. In northern California, nearest-neighbor distances averaged 2.0 miles

(Detrich and Woodbridge 1994).

During a peak prey year, 40 goshawk pairs occupied 154 square miles in the southeast Yukon Territory, based on goshawk sightings during the breeding season, which

likely included nonbreeders (Doyle and Smith 1994). Doyle and Smith (1994) also

examined variations in goshawk abundance across years. An index of breeding

goshawk abundance changed by more than a factor of four over a 2-year period

in response to cyclical changes in hare (Lepus americanus) populations.

13
Breeding biology—Several factors can influence whether goshawks attempt to reproduce in any given year, including the availability of sufficient prey, adult mortality, the

availability of suitable mates, and the availability of suitable and unoccupied nesting

habitat. The male captures nearly all prey during preincubation, egg laying, and incubation periods (Beebe 1974), and unless prey is sufficiently abundant to permit the

female to cease hunting altogether during the early nesting and incubation periods,

nesting does not occur (Beebe 1974, McGowan 1975, Doyle and Smith 1994). Prey

availability also can influence nesting success and productivity (Reynolds and Meslow

1984, Widen 1989, Doyle and Smith 1994). Adult mortality and the availability of

suitable mates can influence the ability of birds to locate or replace a mate.

Where migratory, many goshawks return to nesting territories by mid-March (Beebe

1974). In Oregon, goshawks appeared at their nests in late March and early April

(Reynolds and Wight 1978), and in interior Alaska, birds were observed near nest

sites as early as March (McGowan 1975). Courtship flight displays involve both

sexes and occur before and during nest repair or construction. Goshawks usually are

silent but become vocal during the reproductive period. The dawn call is a series of

woodpeckerlike clucks, closely and evenly spaced. During flight displays, the birds

scream a loud, clear gull-like “kree-ah, kree-ah” call in an evenly spaced, continuous

sequence (Beebe 1974).

Goshawks build large nests averaging about 3 feet across and up to 3 feet deep.

Nests consist of sticks and bark (Beebe 1974) and usually are situated well below

the canopy of the nest tree, within the lower quarter of the canopy of the nest site

(Hall 1984). Goshawks may use the same nest for multiple years, build a new nest

in the same or different stand, or repair an old nest. Both sexes participate in nest

construction and repair. Alternate nests may be loosely clustered within a single stand

or widely separated in different stands (Beebe 1974, McGowan 1975, Woodbridge

and Detrich 1994). In interior Alaska, nest construction or repair occurred from mid

to late April (McGowan 1975). Alterations in forest structure caused by disturbances

such as timber harvest (Reynolds 1989, Crocker-Bedford 1990), stand size and level

of fragmentation (Woodbridge 1988, Woodbridge and Detrich 1994), annual fluctuations in the abundance of prey (McGowan 1975, Doyle and Smith 1994), and adult

mortality can influence whether goshawks reoccupy a particular nest site or stand.

Goshawks begin egg laying in early to mid April, and three to five eggs are laid at 48-

to 72-hour intervals (Beebe 1974). In northern Nevada, egg laying was completed by

May 1 (Younk and Bechard 1994). Incubation is initiated with the laying of the first

egg and lasts 29 to 32 days (Beebe 1974, McGowan 1975, Reynolds and Wight

1978). Eggs hatch by mid to late May (Beebe 1974). In interior Alaska, the range

of hatching dates was May 13 to June 25 (McGowan 1975).

Estimates of the length of the nestling period differ geographically but range from

35 to 42 days, with males fledging first (McGowan 1975, Reynolds and Wight 1978,

Newton 1979, Johnsgard 1990, Kenward et al. 1993, Boal and Mannan 1994). Variation in fledging ages may be related to nestling condition, geographic location, or

different definitions of branching and fledging (Boal and Mannan 1994). Fledging is

preceded by a branching period when juveniles leave the nest platform but remain

in the nest tree, walking or hopping onto branches near the nest (Newton 1986, Boal

and Mannan 1994).

14
The postfledging period spans the approximate 4-week time between nest desertion

and full independence. During this period, juveniles are fed and protected by the

adults while they complete their growth and develop the skills necessary for independent existence (Newton 1986). Juvenile dispersal is enabled by completion of feather

growth, is accelerated by food shortage, but probably results from behavioral maturation when food is abundant (Johnsgard 1990, Kenward et al. 1993).

Juveniles were considered to have dispersed when they ventured farther than 0.9

mile from the nest without returning (Kenward et al. 1993). Juvenile dispersal from

nest sites occurs from 65 to 90 days after hatching. Juvenile females disperse

significantly later than juvenile males. Males may disperse even earlier when food

supply is poor, and dispersal may be associated with the beginning of active hunting

(Kenward et al. 1993).

Seasonal movements—Goshawks in many populations remain in the same area

throughout the year; however, recent studies suggest geographic variability in seasonal movement patterns. During two winters, four adult goshawks that nested in

Wyoming moved up to 114 miles from their breeding areas to winter in a variety of

habitats in Colorado (Squires and Ruggiero 1995). In the Yukon, goshawks remained

within the 154-square-mile study area some winters but became nomadic during a

prey decline (Doyle and Smith 1994). In Arizona, Reynolds et al. (1994) described

goshawks as sedentary year round.

Dispersal—In Arizona, juveniles begin dispersing from the nest areas in mid-August

(Reynolds et al. 1994). Kennedy et al. (1994) intensively monitored initial juvenile

postfledging movement. During the period from 4 to 8 weeks after fledging, 75.9 percent of locations were within 880 yards of the nest. Six of seven juveniles monitored

for several months remained on the Kaibab Plateau where they hatched, and one

moved 100 miles before dying. In Sweden, the maximum distance that juveniles

moved from their nest averaged 19 miles for males (n = 7) in rabbit-rich areas and

20 miles (n = 20) elsewhere; the average maximum distance for female young was

5 miles (n = 12) in dense rabbit areas and 14 miles (n = 22) elsewhere (Kenward et

al. 1993). In south-central Sweden, recoveries of banded birds indicated that six of

eight juveniles dispersed over 35 miles (Widen 1985). Based on 303 recoveries of

juveniles banded in northern Sweden, 44 percent dispersed more than 35 miles

(Hoglund 1964 as reported in Widen 1985). In contrast, only 4 percent of the juveniles in Germany dispersed over 35 miles (Glutz et al. 1971 as reported in Widen

1985). In central Alaska, dispersal by eight juveniles averaged 14 miles (McGowan

1975).

Detrich and Woodbridge (1994) examined adult fidelity to nesting territories for

9 years in northern California. Territory occupancy by females ranged from 1 to

7 years, and by males from 1 to 3 years. The authors note the difficulties in monitoring males and suggest that the male values are biased low. Among females

relocated in different territories, movements ranged from 3.4 to 8 miles (n = 22).

Males that moved and were relocated (n = 13) moved from 2.6 to 6.4 miles. These

values are biased low, owing to the difficulty in relocating banded birds that move

long distances.

15
Diet—Studies of goshawk diet in North America emphasize breeding season prey

captures. Winter diets cannot be inferred from breeding season data. Furthermore,

because of the potential differences in prey consumed by the male away from the

nest and prey delivered to the nest, quantitative characterizations of diet may be

biased. During the breeding season, goshawks prey predominantly on medium-size

birds and mammals (mammals averaging 16 ounces and birds averaging 7 ounces)

in Oregon (Reynolds and Meslow 1984). In central Alaska and the Yukon, snowshoe

hare (Lepus americanus) dominate goshawk diets; goshawk population abundance

and productivity respond dramatically to cyclic changes in snowshoe hare abundance

(Doyle and Smith 1994, McGowan 1975). Reynolds et al. (1992: appendix 2) summarize goshawk diets in North America based on five studies from California, New

York and Pennsylvania, Oregon, Arizona, and New Mexico. Examples of important

prey in North America include snowshoe hare and other lagomorphs, tree and

ground squirrels, woodpeckers, jays, and thrushes.

Based on observational data and inferences from a variety of studies, Widen (1989)

concluded that goshawk populations are generally food limited. McGowan (1975),

in Alaska, and Doyle and Smith (1994), in southwest Yukon, reached the same conclusion. Ward and Kennedy (1996) conducted a feeding experiment in New Mexico

that further supports the hypothesis of food limitation; nestling survival increased at

nests where food was supplemented in one of two years. Crocker-Bedford (1990)

found reduced reoccupancy after timber harvest in the landscape around nests sites

despite protection of nest stands; he attributed this to changes in foraging opportunities. Food limitation has been demonstrated in other raptor species as well (e.g.,

Hirons 1985, Korpimaki 1987).

The assertion that goshawks are food limited contrasts with the past emphasis

placed on management of goshawk nest sites. Recently, however, the goshawk

management plan for the Southwestern United States and the goshawk strategy

recommended for the Tongass NF (Crocker-Bedford 1993) stress foraging habitat

management or management of prey populations. The Southwest plan, in particular,

places primary emphasis on providing habitat for a variety of prey populations over

the long term.

Habitat use—Throughout North America, goshawks typically nest in various forest

types generally associated with mature or old-growth coniferous or deciduous forest

structures having relatively dense canopies (Shuster 1980; Jones 1981; Reynolds

et al. 1982; Moore and Henny 1983; Erickson 1987; Speiser and Bosakowski 1987;

Kennedy 1988; Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988; Hayward and Escano 1989;

Reynolds 1983, 1989; Marshall 1992). Most studies of habitat use concentrate on

forest structure at the nest tree and in the immediate vicinity. Far less is known about

roosting and foraging habitat used during the breeding season and about important

habitat use in winter.

Goshawks in the Western United States nest in the upper Sonoran through the

Hudsonian life zones. Studies from several states suggest that the species nests

in large coniferous or deciduous trees in older stands. Nesting stands have a high

degree of canopy closure (Reynolds 1989:97). Studies of nesting habitat can be

biased if samples of nests are located mainly through activities related to timber

harvest (e.g., Hayward and Escano 1989). Reynolds et al. (1992) characterize the

16
nest area (the habitat covering about 30 acres immediately around the nest) as typically on a northerly aspect in a drainage or canyon and often near a stream. The

importance of a cool microsite (north exposure and near water) seems important

mainly in more southern latitudes of the species’ range. Variation in nesting habitat

is evident when comparing nest sites used in Nevada, which are in parklike aspen

with little understory and high canopy closure (Younk and Bechard 1994), to nest

sites in Oregon, which are in stands with the complex structure of old-growth forest

(Reynolds et al. 1982). Some evidence suggests that reoccupancy of nest stands

is related to nest stand size. In northern California, reuse of nest stands was

measurably lower in clusters of stands smaller than 26 acres (Woodbridge and

Detrich 1994).

Habitat within the postfledging family area (Kennedy et al. 1994) is not as well

defined as nesting habitat. This larger landscape (approximately 420 acres surrounding the nest area) inherently includes a wider range of vegetation compared

to nest areas due to its greater size. Reynolds et al. (1992) suggest that this area

should include patches of dense trees, developed herbaceous or shrubby understories, and habitat attributes (snags, downed logs, small openings) critical for many

goshawk prey. Kenward et al. (1993) also reported that fledglings generally remain

within 0.6 mile of the nest tree until they begin to actively hunt, at which time they

disperse.

Not enough data are available to allow a definitive characterization of goshawk

foraging habitat. Until recently this aspect of habitat use was virtually unstudied in

North America (Fischer 1986). Crocker-Bedford and Chaney (1988) suggest that

stands with large trees and dense canopies are used for nesting in Arizona because

these sites are associated with similar stands for foraging. Management guidelines

for goshawk foraging areas in the Southwest (Reynolds et al. 1992) recommend a

landscape interspersed with mature forest and small forest openings. Reynolds et

al. (1992) note, however, that few data exist on goshawk foraging.

Several recent studies indicate the range of habitats used for foraging. Hargis et

al. (1994) found that goshawks in eastern California use home ranges having more

patchy vegetation than random sites and includes diverse open habitats. There was

no statistically distinguishable habitat selection within the home range of 6 of 11 radiomarked goshawks in northern Arizona (Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994). The most

obvious pattern was an increase in relative preference for forest types with increased

canopy closure. In a study examining goshawk productivity in five study areas in

Oregon, DeStephano et al. (1994a), recorded higher fledging rates in the area dominated by lodgepole pine than in areas dominated by more typical mixed-conifer

forest. In the boreal forest of central Sweden, adult males and females foraged less

in young and middle-aged stands than expected, based on availability, and used

mature forest approximately twice as frequently as its availability; furthermore, a

majority of successful foraging attempts were documented in mature forest (Widen

1989). Widen (1989) concluded that increased prey availability did not lead to the

preference for mature, taller forest; older forests did not exhibit higher prey densities,

but the more dense, younger forests may have impaired goshawk hunting. In contrast, some studies in North America have found higher densities of some small

mammals in old forest (Carey and Johnson 1995, Hayward and Hayward 1995).

17
During the breeding season, foraging goshawks include an extensive area in their

home range. Graham et al. (1994) suggest that goshawk home ranges in the Southwestern United States need 6,900 acres of mid-aged, mature, and old forest interspersed with openings and patches of small trees. In northern Arizona, home ranges

of 14 male goshawks averaged 3,800 acres (range 2,121 to 5,730 acres) during the

breeding season (based on a 95-percent harmonic mean) (Bright-Smith and Mannan

1994). Two males in eastern California used areas of 1,600 and 1,724 acres (based

on an adaptive kernel estimator) (Hargis et al. 1994). Three male goshawks in New

Mexico used 5,200 ± 1,567 acres during the breeding season (Kennedy et al. 1994).

Reynolds et al. (1992) characterize goshawk home ranges as 5,000 to 6,000 acres.

Few studies provide estimates of winter season home ranges. In the boreal forest of

central Sweden, Widen (1985) studied relocated goshawks from September to June

and estimated home ranges by using the minimum convex polygon. Male winter

ranges averaged 12,600 acres (range 4,400 to 19,800 acres, n = 23), and female

ranges averaged 15,300 acres (range 7,900 to 22,700 acres, n = 20). Home ranges

outside the breeding season averaged 20,480 acres for males and 7,872 acres for

females in California, representing a three- to four-fold increase over breeding season

home ranges (Keane and Morrison 1994).

Demography and breeding biology—Goshawk demography has received less

attention by scientists in North America than habitat use. Productivity, as measured

by the number of fledglings per nest, is the vital rate most easily quantified. Studies

throughout western North America indicate that production ranges from 0 to 2.8 young

fledged per nest (table 1). Kennedy (1989) reports nestling mortality of 25 percent. In

an experiment with food supplementation at some nests, Ward and Kennedy (1996)

observed nestling survival ranging from 37 to 100 percent over 2 years with the

lowest survival occurring in nests not supplemented with food. Long-term survival

rates of fledglings and recruitment rates into the adult population are unknown.

DeStefeno et al. (1994b) examined adult goshawk mortality but found a lack of fit

to the capture-recapture model.

The general lack of demographic data precludes attempts to model population

persistence or examine persistence qualitatively. Several authors (Crocker-Bedford

1990, Patla 1990, Reynolds et al. 1992, Ward et al. 1992) have reported loss of

nesting areas and predicted declines in local or state populations.

Characteristics of the nonbreeding portion of the population—Estimates of

goshawk abundance focus on the breeding portion of the population because survey methods are designed to detect breeders. Sampling of nonbreeding individuals

requires different methods, and efficient techniques are unavailable. Nonbreeding

individuals may play significant roles in goshawk demography, however, as they

do in other species (Newton 1991:5). Nonbreeding individuals may buffer populations during stress, stabilize breeding population abundance by quickly filling in

when breeders die, or serve to quickly increase the breeding density during periods

of prey abundance.

18
Although it is difficult to estimate the proportion of the adult population made up of

nonbreeders, several studies in Europe have indicated a substantial portion of the

population does not breed. In Sweden, Kenward et al. (1990) found that many

adults are nonbreeders, especially females. In Finland, Linden and Wikman (1983)

estimated that 35 to 52 percent of the goshawks are nonbreeders, with the higher

proportion occurring during periods of low grouse populations. Similarly, Widen

(1985) estimated one-third of the adult, sedentary population in Sweden is

nonbreeding.

Metapopulation structure—We are unaware of literature that discusses goshawk

population dynamics in a metapopulation framework. Because of the relatively continuous nature of goshawk habitat and the scale of the use of the landscape by

individuals, goshawk dynamics may not fit a metapopulation framework.

Population limitations—Although several authors (Widen 1989, Reynolds et al.

1992, Doyle and Smith 1994) emphasize the role of prey in limiting goshawk populations, abundance and distribution may be limited by a variety of factors. Reynolds

(1989) examined threats to goshawk populations and discusses nesting habitat,

foraging habitat, pesticides, and human disturbance. Marquiss and Newton (1982)

discuss the importance of human persecution (shooting, trapping, poisoning) in the

status of goshawks in Great Britain.

Table 1—Productivity of goshawks in North America as measured by

the mean number of young fledged per nesting attempt

Number

Location of nests Productivity Source

Alaska 33 2.0 McGowan 1975

Oregon 48 1.7 Reynolds and Wight 1978

Oregon 3-6a 0.3-2.2 DeStefano et al. 1994a

Oregon 10 1.2 Bull and Hohmann 1994

Nevada 88 2.2 Herron et al. 1985

California 127 1.7 Bloom et al. 1986

New Mexico 16 0.9 Kennedy 1989

Arizona 19b 2.1 Crocker-Bedford 1990

Arizona 12 0.5 Crocker-Bedford 1990

Arizona 83 2.2 Reynolds et al. 1994

Nevada 36 2.2 Younk and Bechard 1994

Yukon, Canada 11 2.8c Doyle and Smith 1994

a Range from 5 sites studied over 2 years.

b Study included 19 control territories and 12 treatment territories.

c Value reported here was peak prey year; no young were produced in poor prey years.

19
Reynolds et al. (1992) stressed the importance of prey in limiting goshawk populations. During periods when prey availability limits populations, exploitative competition with other carnivores could influence goshawk abundance and distribution. A

number of avian and mammalian predators consume prey taken by goshawk, and

potential competitors include lynx (Lynx rufus) (Ward and Krebs 1985) and great

horned owls (Marti et al. 1993). The link between great horned owls and goshawks

through consumption of similar prey was illustrated in studies of cyclic prey populations in Canada (Rusch et al. 1972). Reynolds (1979), Bosakowski (1990), and

Siders and Kennedy (1994, 1996) examined habitat use by sympatric accipiter

populations, and Reynolds and Meslow (1984) discuss food characteristics of three

coexisting accipiters. Schoener (1984) examined size ratios of coexisting accipiters

throughout the world; he found little evidence for the constant ratios hypothesized

by Hutchinson (1959). The degree to which accipiters influence the distribution or

abundance of one another is not established, however.

Changes in habitat structure may directly and indirectly influence population status.

Young forests lack the physical structure necessary for the large goshawk nest

platform. Forest structure immediately around the nest and in the landscape may

influence the probability of predation on nestlings and adults as well as influence the

thermal environment, which is tied to energy budgets and ultimately to productivity.

Forest structure also influences the abundance and accessibility of prey. In the long

term, vegetation condition at the landscape scale will influence goshawk populations.

Reynolds et al. (1992) emphasize this concept by focusing on desired forest conditions and the link between forest structure and prey availability.

Natural predation also could limit population growth. In northern Arizona, predation

by the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) was the single most important cause

of nestling mortality (Boal and Mannan 1994). Great horned owls and eagle owls

(B. bubo), in particular, prey on both adult and young goshawks (Rohner and Doyle

1992, Tella and Ma–osa 1993, Boal and Mannan 1994). Goshawks foraging in open

habitats may be vulnerable to a wide range of larger hawks or eagles. In Colorado,

Squires and Ruggiero (1995) found a dead, radio-marked goshawk that appeared

to have been killed (but not eaten) by a large raptor. Ward and Kennedy (1996)

suggest that female nest attentiveness is responsible for lower nestling mortality

at nests with food supplementation. When food was more abundant, females spent

more time near the nest and presumably were able to defend against predators more

effectively.

Williamson and Rausch (1956) suggest potential competitive relations between goshawk and ravens (Corvus corax) in response to four observations of the species

occurring together in nonaggressive flight. Recent observations in Wyoming suggest

that goshawks will consume carrion (Squires 1995), a resource also used by ravens.

Competition for nest sites also could be important (Crocker-Bedford 1990). Kenward

(1996) speculates that fewer raptors may compete for nest sites with goshawks in

Europe than in North America, and this may explain why goshawks in Europe often

nest in more open environments than in North America.

20
Species response to timber harvest—The mechanism for inferred impacts of

timber harvest on goshawks has not been established. Several factors may contribute to decreased productivity and density in goshawk populations following

particular changes in forest structure and composition: (1) increased predation

on adults and young goshawks as hiding cover is reduced and potential predator

populations increase (e.g., great horned owls); (2) loss of cool thermal conditions

at nest sites; (3) reduced prey abundance or availability, or both; (4) increased

competition as predators that adapt to more open forest become abundant; and

(5) increased disturbance and human-caused mortality due to increased access

from the timber harvest road network.

Many authors who have studied goshawks in the Western United States have suggested that extensive timber harvesting may result in reductions in goshawk abundance (e.g., Hennessy 1978, Reynolds et al. 1982, Moore and Henny 1983, Hall

1984, Bloom et al. 1986, Woodbridge 1988, Crocker-Bedford 1990, Patla 1990).

Two studies document reduced nest reoccupancy after timber harvesting (CrockerBedford 1990, Patla 1990). Other studies quantify lower breeding density in more

fragmented coniferous forest (Bloom et al. 1986), or reduced nest reoccupancy in

smaller stands (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). Some studies compared moreharvested home ranges to less-harvested home ranges and found less reoccupancy

and lower reproduction when greater harvest occurred in the landscape around the

nest (Crocker-Bedford 1990, Patla 1990, Ward et al. 1992). Reynolds (1989) suggests

that timber harvest threatens goshawk populations through loss of both breeding and

wintering habitat.

Goshawks typically nest in stands with higher canopy densities and larger trees

relative to other forested stands within a locale (see previous discussion). Goshawks

also exhibit strong fidelity to their nesting stands, though they may alternate among

nests and stands over a series of years (Reynolds and Wight 1978, Woodbridge

1988, Crocker-Bedford 1990, Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). Nest site fidelity is also

lower where nest stands are smaller and more fragmented (Woodbridge and Detrich

1994).

Some authors suggest that goshawk populations may be limited by prey consumption

(McGowan 1975, Mueller and Berger 1967, Kenward 1982, Widen 1985, Kenward

and Widen 1989, Doyle and Smith 1994). Limitation might be due to the absolute

abundance of prey or prey availability, which is related to forest structure that

impedes goshawk flight or provides prey escape cover (Reynolds and Meslow 1984,

Fischer 1986, Kenward and Widen 1989, Crocker-Bedford 1990, Reynolds et al.

1992, Austin 1993). The goshawk’s ability to capture prey therefore may be altered

by forest management that changes prey vulnerability (Reynolds 1989, Widen 1989,

Crocker-Bedford 1990).

Moore and Henny (1983) suggest that timber harvest could increase nest site competition with raptors adapted to open habitat. More goshawk nest sites became used

by red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owls, or great grey owls (Strix

nebulosa) in harvested areas than in unharvested locales (Crocker-Bedford 1990,

Patla 1990). Great horned owl predation on goshawks may increase if portions of

the canopy of nesting stands are removed (Reynolds et al. 1982, Moore and Henny

1983) or if nesting stands become smaller or more fragmented (Woodbridge and

Detrich 1994).

21
Response to human disturbance—Goshawks actively defend their nest site against

intrusion by humans, frequently attacking or calling loudly when a person ventures

within a 20- to 25-acre area around the nest (Reynolds 1983). The impact of disturbance on occupancy and productivity has not been established, however.

Analysis of

Northern Goshawk

Ecology in

Southeast Alaska

Systematics,

Distribution, and

Abundance

Systematics and distribution—The best available information indicates that in

southeast Alaska, the Queen Charlotte goshawk subspecies occurs from the U.S.-

Canadian border at Dixon Entrance, north through the coastal mainland and islands

of the Alexander Archipelago, to Icy Strait and Lynn Canal (Webster 1988, Titus et

al. 1994) and west to Peril Strait.2 Preliminary examination of morphological and

plumage characteristics of 35 goshawks (17 adults, 18 juveniles) captured at nest

sites in southeast Alaska between 1991 and 1993 suggests that a gradient of characteristics exists between the Queen Charlotte goshawk and northern goshawk, with

birds becoming darker and smaller from north to south and east to west (Titus et al.

1994). For example, goshawks captured in the northern areas of southeast Alaska,

(e.g., Juneau), possess some characteristics of the northern goshawk, but these

goshawks were still within the range of characteristics considered descriptive of the

Queen Charlotte subspecies. These data suggest that a “cline” may exist within the

southeast Alaska population, possibly in response to characteristics of the temperate

rain forest environment.

Breeding and nonbreeding range—The southernmost confirmed northern goshawk

nest (in southeast Alaska) was located at Port Refugio on eastern Suemez Island;

the northernmost confirmed northern goshawk nest was located near the Lace River,

about 50 miles north of Juneau (Titus et al. 1994). Though not confirmed, observations indicate that goshawks nest on southern Prince of Wales and Gravina Islands

in southern southeast Alaska, north to near Skagway.2 Taverner (1940) and Beebe

(1974) characterize the Queen Charlotte goshawk as nonmigratory. Radio-telemetry

results indicate that most goshawks nesting in southeast Alaska remain in the region

year-round (Titus et al. 1994, ADF&G 1996). Of 26 radio-marked adult goshawks,

individuals were located a maximum of 2.8 to 58.7 miles (median 7.58 miles) from

their respective nest sites. The maximum movement of individual juvenile goshawks

from their respective nest sites after fledging and throughout their first winter ranged

from 7.2 to 101.1 miles (median 33 miles) (Titus et al. 1994).

Abundance, population trend, and density—There are insufficient quantitative

data to determine abundance or population trend for goshawks in southeast Alaska.

Speculation of goshawk abundance in southeast Alaska has ranged from 100 to 800

pairs (Crocker-Bedford 1990, 1994; Iverson 1990). Titus et al. (1994) characterized

goshawk densities in southeast Alaska as low.

Goshawk survey results—Data collected from standardized goshawk surveys

provide some indication of the success rate for locating goshawk nests in southeast

Alaska. The Regional Forester for the Alaska Region issued direction to survey for

goshawks and emphasized the importance of locating goshawk nests before land

management activities occur, such as finding nests while preparing timber harvest

units (USDA Forest Service 1992c). The Region adopted a survey protocol similar

to the technique described by Kennedy and Stahlecker (1993) where tape-recorded

goshawk calls are played at broadcast stations within a study area during the nesting

season to elicit responses from nesting goshawks.

2 Personal communication. 1996. R. Lowell.

22
For this analysis, only confirmed nests with goshawks observed at the nests were

considered. Bird detections believed to be goshawks, but not associated with nests,

were not included because reliability differed among observers. Highly probable nests

were not considered. This analysis therefore is consistent with the “confirmed nest

pool” described by Titus et al. (1994). For each home range, only the first nest found

was included in the summary. New nests used as alternates to previously known

nests were not considered because knowledge of the previous nest biased the likelihood of finding the alternate nest. Similarly, new nests found by following radiocollared birds were not considered. The following analysis began in July 1992 and

continued through September 1994.

Twenty nests met the stated criteria (i.e., new territories found July 1, 1992,

to September 1994). In four cases, the initial detection occurred during broadcast

surveys for goshawks. In 12 cases, the initial goshawk detection occurred during

some type of timber preparation activity, such as layout of a harvest unit boundary

or road, timber volume cruise, fish stream analysis or buffer layout, soil surveys,

or wildlife analyses other than goshawk surveys. In four cases, the initial goshawk

detection did not relate to either timber harvesting or goshawk surveys: The Mitchell

Creek nest (Petersburg Ranger District [RD]) and Margaret Lake nest (Ketchikan RD)

stemmed from sightings related to fish habitat activities, and the Blueberry and Point

Bridget nests (Juneau RD) stemmed from sightings related to recreational activities.

Data for the four nest locations resulting from initial goshawk detections during broadcast surveys appear in table 2. Table 2 also shows the number of broadcast survey

stations in each Ranger District of the Tongass NF. Data from all broadcast survey

stations were totaled, including data from efforts to find alternate nests relative to

known nests, as well as from surveys that followed up on detections from sale preparation activities. Thus, the number of broadcast survey stations in table 2 is greater

than the number that led to the four nest locations in table 2, and the “success” rate

cannot be calculated by determining the number of nests per broadcast station. Data

for the 12 nests located as a result of goshawk detections during timber preparation

activities are shown in table 3. Also shown are the millions of board feet (MMbf) of

timber prepared from July 1, 1992, to September 30, 1994, as recorded in the Alaska

Region timber management database. In general, the amount of timber prepared

for sale is positively related to personnel field effort and serves as a surrogate for

goshawk “survey” effort.

In the northwest region (Sitka and Hoonah RDs), only one nest was found during

preparation of 385 MMbf for sale. A large proportion of the timber sale preparation

here occurred in watersheds with substantial historical timber harvest.3 After goshawk

detections during timber sale preparation, relatively little effort was made to locate

nest sites in the northwest and northeast Tongass regions—in the Hoonah and Sitka

RDs, usually less than a day by two people (average about one-half day each by

two people; see footnote 3). Efforts to locate goshawk nests after initial observations were generally greater in the southwest and southeast Tongass regions. In the

Ketchikan RD, 5 to 10 days by a crew of two people was typical of the amount of

time allocated to nest searches after an initial observation.4 In the Thorne Bay RD,

3 Personal communication, May 1, 1995, T. Schenck,

wildlife biologist, Chatham Area, Sitka, AK 99835.

4 Personal communication, May 4, 1995, K. Burns,

wildlife biologist, Ketchikan RD, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

23
10 to 20 staff days were spent in efforts to find active nests after reported detections

of goshawks, though 3 days by a crew of two biologists was more typical.5 The Craig

RD spent nearly 20 staff days following up on goshawk detections in the vicinity of

Old Franks Lake. Followup survey effort in the central Tongass region was generally

intermediate, where typically 2 days by a two-person crew were spent following up

on goshawk reports.6 Therefore, the fewer nests located in the Ketchikan Area were

likely not due to less effort. Despite generally greater nest search effort following

reports of goshawk detections, the southern Tongass (especially the Thorne Bay

and Craig RDs) exhibited a lower relative nest discovery rate, based on the volume

of timber prepared, than did the central portion of the Tongass.

The locations prepared for timber harvest and surveyed for goshawks were not

randomly chosen; thus the variation among different areas of southeast Alaska

could be due to the characteristics of the specific locations searched, which may

5 Personal communication, May 5, 1995, C. Ford, wildlife

biologist, Thorne Bay RD, Thorne Bay, AK 99919.

6 Personal communication, May 5, 1995, E. DeGayner,

regional wildlife ecologist, Petersburg, AK 99833.

Table 2—Goshawk survey broadcast stations and related

nest discoveries in southeast Alaska, 1992-94a

Ranger District (RD) or subregion Broadcast stations Nests located

Number

Sitka RD 960 1

Hoonah RD 506 0

Total, northwest Tongass NF 1466 1

Yakutat RD 248 0

Juneau RD 789 1

Admiralty National Monument 255 1

Total, northeast Tongass NF 1292 2

Petersburg RD 2338 0

Wrangell RD 459 0

Total, central Tongass NF 2797 0

Thorne Bay RD 1405 0

Craig RD 1461 0

Total, southwest Tongass NF 2866 0

Ketchikan RD 1005 1

Misty Fiords National Monument 179 0

Total, southeast Tongass NF 1184 1

Total, Tongass NF 9605 4

a Only new nest discoveries (new territories) resulting from initial

goshawk detections during the broadcast surveys are included.

24
not be representative of the most typical or common habitats of southeast Alaska.

For example, many timber sale preparation activities in the southern region (where

the majority of goshawk surveys occurred) were in areas that had experienced

considerable previous timber harvest and had highly modified landscapes. In

contrast, most new nests on the central region were located through surveys in

areas that often contained less past timber harvest.7 Information on goshawk

relative abundance collected during the past 7 years suggests that goshawks

exist as a relatively low-density population in southeast Alaska. Since the first

confirmed goshawk nest was located on Suemez Island in 1989, a cumulative

total of only 36 goshawk nesting areas have been located in southeast Alaska

(table 4), despite intensive survey efforts. Most known active nests were located

in 1994 when 21 active nests were monitored; despite active monitoring of historical nest areas as well as searches for new nest sites, the number of active nests

located dropped to only 10 in 1995.

7 Personal communication, May 5, 1995, C. Flatten,

wildlife biologist, ADF&G, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

Table 3—Timber sale field preparation and related goshawk

nest discoveries, 1992-94

Ranger District (RD) or subregiona Timber prepared Nests located

MMbfb Number

Sitka RD 331 0

Hoonah RD 54 1

Total, northwest Tongass NF 385 1

Yakutat RD 0 0

Juneau RD 1 0

Admiralty National Monument 1 0

Total, northeast Tongass NF 2 0

Petersburg RD 124 9

Wrangell RD 49 0

Total, central Tongass NF 173 9

Thorne Bay RD 122 1

Craig RD 82 0

Total, southwest Tongass NF 204 1

Ketchikan RD 83 1

Misty Fiords National Monument 0 0

Total, southeast Tongass NF 83 1

Total, Tongass NF 847 12

a After initial detection, the effort to locate nests differed considerably among

Ranger Districts.

b MMbf = million board feet.

25
Goshawk surveys in wilderness and roadless areas—Because many goshawk

nests have been located in southeast Alaska as a result of timber sale preparation

activities (e.g., 58 percent; ADF&G 1996) an evaluation was needed to determine

if this sample of nests was representative of the relative density of goshawks throughout the region. Lands not subject to timber harvest, typically wilderness areas or

areas set aside by the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), also may contain goshawks. Schempf et al. (1996) conducted a preliminary survey of goshawks with the

following objectives:

• Sample wilderness and roadless areas not subject to timber harvest for nesting

goshawks.

• Determine representative detection rates for goshawks in the coastal forests of

southeast Alaska through standardized methods.

• Quantify prey species and habitat characteristics at each broadcast point.

Schempf et al. (1996) surveyed 724 points in 62 plots for goshawks during summer

1995, covering about 26 square miles, by broadcasting conspecific taped goshawk

calls and using a survey protocol similar to that employed by the Forest Service

(FS) (USDA Forest Service 1992c). They obtained responses at four stations in

one plot by a single adult goshawk for a detection rate of 1.6-percent per plot and a

station detection rate of 0.15 percent. Their results were lower than the 1.15-percent

goshawk detection rate reported by Kvaalen and Iverson (1994) that summarized a

FS goshawk survey effort that used the FS survey protocol, primarily in timber sale

preparation areas. Detection rates reported by Kvaalen and Iverson (1994) are likely

biased overestimates because many detections were related to previously reported

goshawk observations and suspected nest sites. Schempf et al. (1996) reported that

detection rates using comparable techniques were 9 times higher in Arizona (Joy et

al. 1994) and 7 times higher in Idaho (Patla and Trost 1995) than in southeast Alaska

and concluded that low detection rates relative to other regions suggests a low density and widely dispersed population of goshawks in southeast Alaska. Schempf et al.

(1996) also concluded that their data could not support the hypothesis that wilderness

and roadless areas of the Tongass NF support a substantial reservoir of goshawks

that may buffer population losses from lands intensively managed for timber harvest.

Table 4—Numbers of active goshawk nests, by year,

and cumulative number of all identified nesting areas

(including active and inactive nests) in southeast

Alaska

Year Active goshawk nests Goshawk nesting areas

Number Cumulative number

1989 1 1

1990 0 1

1991 3 7

1992 3 8

1993 8 16

1994 21 33

1995 10 36

26
Goshawk breeding biology in southeast Alaska—Relocation data collected

throughout the year from goshawks radio tagged in southeast Alaska suggest that

adults do not migrate and they begin to frequent nest stands in late February and

early March (ADF&G 1996). Pairs engage in courtship flight displays before and

during nest repair (Beebe 1974). During the current southeast Alaska study, only

one goshawk flight display was documented involving an adult male; that occurred

on June 15, 1994, following a failed nesting attempt at a nest site near Port Refugio

on Suemez Island (see footnote 2, p. 22).

Goshawk nesting chronology in southeast Alaska was estimated by backdating from

estimated dispersal dates of 21 juveniles radio tagged at 15 nest sites between 1992

and 1994 (Titus et al. 1994). Juvenile goshawks were considered to have dispersed

when they moved more than (>) 0.9 mile from the nest without returning (Kenward

et al. 1993). Dispersal dates were estimated as the midpoint between the date of the

first relocation > 0.9 mile from the nest and the date of the last relocation less than

(<) 0.9 mile from the nest. Age at dispersal was estimated by comparing observed

morphological development of 14 juvenile goshawks at nine nest sites with the agespecific characteristics given by McGowan (1975). Fledging dates for southeast

Alaska juveniles were calculated by using nestling periods of 36 days for males

and 42 days for females, based on the 35- to 42-day range reported for the goshawk

nestling period (McGowan 1975, Reynolds and Wright 1978, Newton 1979, Johnsgard

1990, Kenward et al. 1993, Boal and Mannan 1994). The date of egg laying was

estimated by using an incubation period of 30 days (Beebe 1974, McGowan 1975,

Reynolds and Wight 1978).

In southeast Alaska, egg laying was estimated to occur between April 12 and May 24

(ADF&G 1996). Based on the apparent age of nestlings when first observed, the

mean hatching date for 21 juveniles at 15 nests was June 3 (range, May 12 to June

23) (ADF&G 1996). Mean estimated fledging date for 21 juveniles in southeast Alaska

was July 13 (range, June 23 to August 4) (ADF&G 1996). Mean estimated postfledging period for 14 juveniles was 40 days (range, 35 to 47 days) (ADF&G 1994). In

southeast Alaska, estimated dispersal from nest sites occurred 76 to 82 days after

hatching and the mean estimated age at dispersal for 7 males was 75 days, and

for 7 females was 82 days (Titus et al. 1994). Mean estimated dispersal date for

21 radio-tagged southeast Alaska juveniles was August 21 (range August 2 to

September 13) (ADF&G 1996).

Patterns of Goshawk

Movements, Habitat

Use, and Habitat

Selection Based On

Radio Telemetry

Radio-telemetry methodology—Before 1992, no information was available on

habitat use or movement patterns of goshawks inhabiting the Tongass NF. Between

1992 and 1995, ADF&G biologists radio tagged 67 goshawks, including 61 (33 adults,

28 juveniles) captures at 23 nest sites, and 6 (2 adults, 1 juvenile, 3 immatures)

captures away from nest sites (ADF&G 1996). Between June 17, 1992, and January 1, 1996, goshawks were located 2,333 times by using fixed-wing aircraft and

standard aerial radio-tracking techniques (Kenward 1987, Samuel and Fuller 1994).

Mountainous terrain, the lack of a road system, and goshawk movement patterns

precluded the use of ground-based telemetry. In contrast to ground-based tracking

techniques, aerial tracking minimizes occasions when goshawks cannot be relocated

owing to long-range movements or restricted observer access. Aerial tracking surveys

generally covered 400 to 600 square miles, but often were increased substantially

27
(doubled) to relocate birds that went undetected in the principal use area. Error associated with relocation points is estimated to be up to 300 feet, based on historical

tracking experience in a variety of radio-telemetry projects in southeast Alaska

(Schoen and Kirchhoff 1983).

Observers collected information on cover type based on their estimate of the location

of the telemetry signal. Observers also plotted telemetry location on maps and aerial

photographs that were subsequently transposed into the Tongass NF GIS. The GIS

maps were then edited by investigators who collected the data by using check maps.

This editing protocol minimized errors. The GIS provided a land cover classification

system to assign a cover type and physiographic information (e.g., slope, aspect,

and elevation) to each relocation.

Goshawk movements—Relocation data collected from 26 adult goshawks radio

tagged at nest sites in southeast Alaska between 1992 and 1994 suggest that most

goshawks do not undergo long-range annual migration (ADF&G 1996). Some adults

were monitored for more than 1 year for a combined total of 38 bird years (i.e., 1 bird

monitored for 1 year). Of the total 38 bird years, 28 extended throughout the winter,

indicating that the birds did not migrate out of the region. Of the remaining 10 birds,

2 died in fall, 6 were lost during fall or early winter (migratory status unknown), and

2 either had their transmitters stop functioning or fall off, or they died (ADF&G 1996).

Two of the six adult goshawks whose radio signals were lost during fall or early winter were subsequently relocated the following spring with functioning radio transmitters. It could not be determined if these two individuals moved outside Alaska, or if

they remained in Alaska but beyond the range of aerial tracking flights. Researchers

studying goshawks elsewhere have noted that migration often is tied to regional fluctuations in prey, and winter irruptions in more southerly regions sometimes occur as

a result of reductions in the availability of prey to the north (Beebe 1974, McGowan

1975, Doyle and Smith 1994). Several ornithologists have speculated that the Queen

Charlotte goshawk does not migrate (Taverner 1940, Beebe 1974, Jones 1981,

Webster 1988).

Adult goshawks exhibited two separate patterns of seasonal movement at nest

sites in southeast Alaska. Some adults used winter and breeding season areas

that overlapped extensively, and others used largely exclusive winter and breeding

season areas with little or no overlap. Eleven of 15 adults (7 males, 4 females) radio

tagged in 1992 and 1993 and monitored through winter had breeding season and

winter use areas that overlapped extensively. These birds expanded the size of

breeding season use areas during the nonbreeding season but continued to use

their breeding territories and nest sites. Although this pattern of seasonal movement

was documented for both sexes, it was most prevalent among adult males. Six of

eight adult males radio tagged at nest sites and monitored throughout winter maintained loose, year-round associations with their respective breeding season use

areas. Of the two adult males with the greatest documented winter movements

away from breeding sites, 58.7 and 26.8 miles, both were deserted by females,

who then selected new mates at different nesting territories. During the breeding

season immediately following desertion of their mates, these two males maintained

use areas similar to those documented the preceding year but were nomadic during

the ensuing winter. It is not known if these two males successfully remated or

attempted to nest during the next breeding season.

28
Radio-tagged adult females exhibited seasonal movement patterns (previous paragraph) but had a greater tendency to be nomadic than did adult males. Some

females moved from their breeding season home range during fall and winter, and

one established a winter use area 33.5 miles from the previous nest, the maximum

distance documented. There was no evidence, however, of migration or consistent

seasonal movements (Titus et al. 1994). Four of seven adult females radio tagged at

nest sites in 1992 and 1993 and monitored throughout the winter had seasonal use

areas that overlapped extensively. Three others used exlusive winter and breeding

season areas with little or no overlap; their movements from breeding areas to winter

areas occurred during or immediately after the fledgling-dependency period.

Site fidelity—Seventeen instances of renesting in successive years were documented between 1992 and 1995 in southeast Alaska (ADF&G 1996). These included 13

sites where the active nest occurred in the same territory in successive years and

4 sites where the active nest occurred in a different territory. Both members of the

previous years nesting pair were known to be present at 5 of 13 instances where the

same territory was reoccupied. The identity of only one pair member was known at

two sites and the identity of neither pair member was known at six sites. All four

instances where the active nest occurred in different territories in successive years

involved radio-tagged adult females with spatially separated seasonal use areas.

These females selected new mates and established breeding territories within previously documented winter use areas. Distances between sequential-year nests for

these four females ranged from 2.3 to 26.9 miles. Radio-tagged adult males have

not moved to a new breeding territory to date and have displayed greater nest site

fidelity than adult females.

Adult goshawk movements suggest a complex pattern of nomadism and site tenacity

that differs between sexes. The pattern is similar to the more extensively documented

pattern observed in boreal owls (Aegolius funereus). In this northern owl, food stress

favors nomadism and nest site scarcity favors site tenacity, resulting in different

movement patterns for males and females: females exhibited nomadism and males

exhibited site tenacity (Lundberg 1979, Lofgren et al. 1986).

Nest site abandonment during the fledgling dependency period—Between 1992

and 1995, there were three instances in which adult goshawks abandoned nest sites

and care of young during the fledgling dependency period. In all three cases, adult

females abandoned care of fledglings and began movements toward winter use areas

spatially separated from breeding season use areas. Adult males continued to provide

for fledglings until dispersal (ADF&G 1996). Some Cooper’s hawks exhibit this pattern, which may be associated with females in poor condition (Kelly and Kennedy

1993).

Juvenile postfledging movements—Between 1992 and 1995, 28 radio-tagged fledgling goshawks (8 males, 20 females) at 19 nest sites in southeast Alaska were monitored for postfledging movements by using fixed-wing aircraft. These movements

were assumed to begin when juveniles moved > 0.9 mile from their nests and did not

return for at least 2 days (Kenward et al. 1993). Juveniles were monitored at irregular

intervals through autumn and winter or until signals were lost, radio packages were

shed, or the birds died.

29
Of the 28 juveniles captured and radio tagged, 23 moved > 0.9 mile from the nest

while being monitored. Four juveniles could not be relocated after moving from the

nest area, and one died during the fledgling-dependency period. The mean maximum dispersal distance for 23 juveniles relocated after dispersing from nest sites

was 39 miles with a range of 7 to 101 miles. Both the lengths of time when individual juveniles were monitored and the number of relocations varied greatly. The monitoring period for 23 juveniles relocated after dispersal ranged from 9 to 319 days

(mean 126 days). Mean and maximum dispersal distances from the nest likely are

underestimates because transmitter failure or long-range movements beyond the

range of tracking flights prevented documentation of greater dispersal distances.

Following initial nomadic movements away from nest sites, juveniles often established

use areas in late fall and winter where they were consistently relocated until radio

tags either failed or were shed, or mortality occurred.

Size of goshawk use areas—Aerial radio-telemetry relocation estimates were used

to calculate the size of adult goshawk use areas during the breeding season from

15 March through 15 August (table 6). Sample sizes used to estimate size of the use

areas were relatively small (mean = 26 relocations per individual) and were limited

by costs and weather associated with aerial radio telemetry. The advantage of these

data was that goshawks were relocated even if they were some distance away from

their nest area, such as over a ridge or mountain where ground-based telemetry likely

would not locate the individual. We estimated the size of use areas by calculating

minimum convex polygon (MCP) areas, and 90-percent and 50-percent mononuclear

probability polygons (MPP) (White and Garrott 1990). We assumed that all telemetry

relocations were independent because in most all instances telemetry flights were

conducted at intervals of 24 hours or more. The number of use areas was greater

than the number of radio-tagged adult goshawks because some birds used different

areas in different years, and these were considered separately.

The median size of female use areas (9,469 acres) were only slightly smaller

(table 5) than those of males (11,425 acres) (table 6) during the breeding season.

There was considerable variation in the size of use areas among individuals, even

though some individual relocations were eliminated for goshawks that had very

large use areas because they abandoned their breeding season use area before

completion of the breeding period (table 5). Median 50-percent MPPs were much

smaller for females (96 acres) than for males (1663 acres), indicating a female

affinity for the immediate nesting area during much of the breeding season. The

size of these breeding season use areas is larger than generally described for the

species (see “Review of Northern Goshawk Ecology in North America,” above).

Twelve of 17 adult females had use areas > 6,000 acres during the breeding season

(table 5). By contrast, home range size for goshawks in other regions was smaller

than found in southeast Alaska. Bright-Smith and Mannan (1994) estimated mean

breeding season home range size for 11 male goshawks at 4,342 acres in Arizona,

and Austin (1993) estimated mean home range size at 5,989 acres in California.

Caution needs to be used in comparing among studies, because radio-telemetry

locations were obtained in southeast Alaska from aircraft whereas other researchers

usually used ground-based telemetry methods.

30
Table 5—Use areas for adult female goshawks during breeding (nesting) and

nonbreeding seasons, as determined by the 100-percent minimum convex

polygon (MCP) area and 90-percent and 50-percent mononuclear probability

polygons (MPP)

Bird Relocations 100% MCP 90% MPP 50% MPP

Number −−−−−−−−−− Acres −−−−−−−−−−

Breeding season:

BBF1 67 8,369 2,659 22

BJF1 19 214,313 149,696 175

BJF1 19 4,690 1,285 96

AF12 10 6,701 3,976 74

ECF1 62 17,001 16,042 7

MCF1 20 6,714 5,674 895

MPF1 18 3,652 3,193 519

NCF1 34 5,844 2,439 37

PBF1 9 492 334 89

PBF1 20 11,495 4,994 27

PRF1 16 4,562 3,005 586

RNF1 13 9,469 8,471 487

RRF1 25 203,391 46,974 10,608

SLF1 29 59,552 42,354 4,455

SLF1 28 13,371 5,372 86

TRF1 44 10,408 9,301 44

WPF1 9 16,259 16,010 4,478

Mean 26 35,076 18,928 1,335

Median 20 9,469 5,372 96

n 17

SD 17 66,728 36,337 2,782

Nonbreeding season:

BBF1 42 64,049 32,074 9,084

BJF1 40 31,185 22,768 3,754

ECF1 36 25,748 22,825 10,247

MCF1 23 2,436 2,105 52

MPF1 35 34,026 14,253 6,484

NCF1 25 8,377 6,291 2,471

PBF1 16 213,300 67,706 10,588

PRF1 10 4,416 3,499 667

RNF1 106 59,503 37,955 16,403

RRF1 27 255,258 161,359 6,047

RRF2 13 452,200 445,281 227,879

SLF1 35 79,444 74,205 17,695

SLF1 24 105,019 53,029 17,663

TCF2 27 411,675 172,825 872

TRF1 68 30,048 27,404 8,703

WPF1 16 5,977 1,567 603

Mean 34 111,416 71,572 21,201

Median 27 46,764 29,739 7,594

n 16

SD 24 144,870 112,441 55,442

31
Table 6—Use areas for adult male goshawks during breeding (nesting) and

nonbreeding seasons, as determined by the 100-percent minimum convex

polygon (MCP) area and 90-percent and 50-percent mononuclear probability

polygons (MPP)

Bird Relocations 100% MCP 90% MPP 50% MPP

Number −−−−− −−−−− Acres −−−−−−−−−−

Breeding season:

BBM1 63 10,089 7,897 2,182

BJM1 27 16,282 10,596 1,910

BPM1 22 6,813 3,432 467

ECM1 30 10,539 6,192 979

FCM1 44 10,255 6,531 840

HCM1 22 12,311 8,224 1,834

LRM1 39 23,853 18,429 2,780

MCM1 12 10,532 6,798 618

MIM1 14 8,063 6,533 1,198

MPM1 19 9,417 7,653 2,120

NCM1 62 21,108 11,085 1,475

RNM1 38 15,133 11,720 6,647

RRM1 30 38,375 29,529 5,293

SLM1 40 48,185 17,312 1,493

TRM1 25 26,341 24,933 5,716

WPM1 9 4,440 3,109 734

Mean 31 16,983 11,248 2,268

Median 29 11,425 8,061 1,663

n 16

SD 16 12,062 7,576 1,919

Nonbreeding season:

BBM1 39 26,341 11,055 3,699

BJM1 57 60,961 32,321 8,535

BPM1 34 29,825 20,043 3,973

ECM1 18 36,300 16,717 1,075

FCM1 23 26,638 13,620 7,124

LJM1 22 29,405 23,070 8,715

LRM1 18 38,474 24,028 3,534

MCM1 27 442,069 50,236 6,099

MPM1 28 14,945 11,584 2,698

NCM1 25 14,841 7,979 1,893

PBM1 11 16,385 14,861 2,916

RNM1 54 561,667 430,702 11,690

RRM1 24 94,913 54,561 25,452

SLM1 20 157,726 152,859 51,521

TRM1 25 71,586 55,203 12,859

Mean 28 108,138 61,256 10,119

Median 25 36,300 23,070 6,099

n 15

SD 13 165,806 108,462 13,004

32
The size of use areas also ranged greatly among individuals during the nonbreeding

season from 16 August through 14 March; mean and median sizes of both adult

female and adult male use areas were much larger than during the breeding season

(tables 5 and 6). Ninety-percent MPP use areas eliminated 10 percent of the outermost location estimates, but even these median areas exceeded 20,000 acres for

both sexes. Only 4 of 18 female use areas were < 10,000 acres, indicating that these

birds make extensive movements over large areas during autumn, winter, and early

spring. No male MCP use areas were < 10,000 acres and only 1 of 15 90-percent

MPPs was < 10,000 acres. There are few North American nonbreeding season data

to compare with those presented here.

We also examined the size of local areas used by juveniles after leaving the nest

but prior to permanent departure from the nesting area. Our objective was to evaluate the concept of the postfledging area concept reviewed earlier (see “Review of

Northern Goshawk Ecology in North America,” above) to determine if this behavior

and relation occurs in southeast Alaska. We assumed that juveniles departed the

nest area when they moved > 0.9 mile from their nests and did not return for at least

2 days (Kenward et al. 1993). The average MCP of radio-marked juveniles having

over five relocations was 58 acres (n = 7, range 6 - 253 acres, SD = 88.5), much

smaller than the 400- to 600-acre value reported by Kennedy et al. (1994). These

estimates may be conservative owing to a limited number of relocations; many

juveniles are captured and radio marked after fledging but before dispersal.

Habitat use and selection within seasonal use areas—We recognize that habitat

selection processes occur at a variety of spatial scales (Hilden 1965, Johnson 1980).

However, we examined only habitat selection within seasonal use areas (home

ranges) by comparing patterns of habitat use with estimates of habitat availability

(ADF&G 1996). Habitat use was defined as the proportion of goshawk telemetry

relocations occurring in each habitat cover type. Habitat availability was defined as

the proportion of each habitat cover type occurring within the 100-percent MCP for

each bird within a season (breeding and nonbreeding) and year. Individual goshawks

were the sampling unit, and a different number of relocations were collected from

each goshawk throughout the year.

Minimum convex polygons (MCP) were produced for each adult goshawk by using

the GIS to estimate areas used by goshawks. Because of high variability in our

sampling intensity and the spatial patterns exhibited by individual birds, we do not

feel we described home ranges adequately for many birds; we thus prefer to use

the term “use areas” rather than “home ranges.”

Within the MCP use area for each individual goshawk, five landscape positions and

eight habitat cover types were discerned by using GIS (table 7). Very high volume

and high volume old-growth cover types were pooled for a seven-variable analysis.

In all analyses, very high volume was never different from high volume (P > 0.05),

which may be due to coarse similarities in vegetation structure among these two

classes relative to other cover types. This data set constituted the within-use-area

habitat available to an individual bird. Not all goshawks had all cover types available

in their seasonal use area. For instance, at broader levels of habitat selection (Hilden

1965) alpine habitat is theoretically available to all birds in southeast Alaska. However, some birds have selected seasonal use areas without alpine habitat; thus they

have no opportunity to select this type within the scale of our habitat use analysis.

33
Table 7—Landscape position and habitat cover types as determined by the

Tongass NF GIS and used for goshawk radio-telemetry habitat analyses

Cover type or landscape Code Description

Landscape position:

Riparian R 200- to 300-foot buffers on each side of

anadromous and resident fish streams

Beach and estuary fringe B1 Habitat zone 0-500 feet inland from the

shoreline and 0-1000 feet inland from

estuaries

Extended beach fringe B2 Habitat zone 500-1000 feet inland from the

shoreline

Alpine A Alpine, rock, and nonforest above 2,000 feet

elevation

General upland G General upland areas not included in any

defined zone

Vegetation structure:

Productive old-growth forest— Old-growth forest capable of producing > 20

cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year

Very high productivitya VH Very high volume old-growth: = 39,000

Mbf/acreb

High productivitya H High-volume old-growth: = 31,400 Mbf/acre

Moderate productivitya M Moderate volume old-growth: = 25,100

Mbf/acre

Low productivitya L Low-volume old-growth: = 15,700 Mbf/acre

Scrub forest S Unproductive old-growth forest producing < 20

cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year

Clearcut C Mostly clearcut but also primary succession

areas

Mature sawtimber MS Approximately 75- to 150-year-old sawtimber

stands

Nonforest N < 10-percent tree cover

a See Julin and Caouette (in prep.) for further clarification of timber volume categories.

b Mbf = thousand board feet.

x

x

x

x

34
We considered the breeding season to occur from 16 March through 15 August. All

telemetry locations for adult goshawks were used including those associated with females during incubation. These form a small percentage of the entire data set. Some

goshawks moved > 15 miles from their nest site during the breeding season. Movements by individuals > 24 miles from the nest site during the breeding season suggested fundamental shifts in use areas (primarily by females) or nomadic movements

and were eliminated as data points in the estimation of MCP use areas. For the

breeding season compositional analyses, our sampling units were individual goshawks. Habitat use by an individual goshawk within a season was considered unique

and if the bird moved to a different nesting area between years it represented an

additional sample unit. For the breeding season analysis, 14 adult female goshawks

represented 17 goshawk sampling units and 16 adult male goshawks represented

16 sampling units (tables 5, 6).

We considered the nonbreeding season to occur from 16 August through 15 March.

All telemetry locations for 31 adult goshawk sampling units during the winter season

(tables 5, 6) were used to determine an MCP use area for estimating abundance of

available cover types.

Habitat use—We described patterns of habitat use within use areas by analyzing

seven habitat cover types. Estimates of goshawk habitat use were made by the

proportion of radio-telemetry relocation points occurring in each cover type. The

habitat selection analyses used a log-ratio difference test developed by Aebischer

et al. (1993) and was based on the compositional analyses of Aitchison (1986). We

chose this method to take advantage of the use of each goshawk as the sampling

unit, to minimize the problems of nonindependence of proportions, to scale the test

for selection by the use-availability difference between each animal, and then to test

for between group (e.g., sex, season, study location) differences.8

The compositional analysis method of Aebischer et al. (1993) uses the log-ratios of

use habitat composition paired with its corresponding log-ratios of available habitat

composition. We then used a linear model MANOVA, to test for various differences

in model parameters. The MANOVA model tested for the overall null hypothesis that

use and availability did not differ among all cover types. If differences were noted

based on Wilks’ lambda ( ), then we performed a series of t-tests and Wilcoxon

rank tests measuring the difference between random use among all pairs of habitat

variables. This approach allows one to assess patterns of differences in paired habitat

variable combinations. Finally, we followed Aebischer et al. (1993) and Johnson’s

(1980) methods to rank cover types. Tied ranks were not permitted because of the

antisymmetry properties and independence of the log-ratios. Like the descriptions of

Aebischer et al. (1993), our data sets were composed of some missing cover types

that are not permitted in the log-ratio analyses. Rather than removing these from

the analysis, we substituted the value of 0.0001 for missing cover types, which

was much smaller than any corresponding real habitat value.

8 The compositional analysis program was developed by J.

Blick using WINSAS (1993); ADF&G, Box 240020, Douglas,

AK 99824. Contact K. Titus for information.

λ

35
We treated most individual goshawks equally in terms of weighting for the compositional analyses regardless of the number of radio-telemetry relocations for that bird.

Exceptions were those birds for which multiple years of data existed and we knew

they moved to different use areas between years. This approach had some effect

of weighting, in that the seven birds that moved to different areas during the nesting

season and for which more relocations existed counted >1 time in the analysis. We

performed a seven-variable analysis to test within-use-area habitat selection with

tests for season and sex effect.

Our sample of 64 goshawk sampling units was based on 1,906 radio-telemetry relocations that ranged from 9 to 106 relocations per bird per season, each at least

1 day apart. Goshawks with less than 11 relocations were removed from the analysis, leaving 59 goshawk sampling units. Based on the seven-variable analysis,

there was overall habitat selection by goshawks (MANOVA, P < 0.0001) (table 8).

There was no seasonal effect (P = 0.189) and no sex effect (P = 0.341) in the

model. Patterns of selection for specific habitat variables indicated selection for

very high/high volume old-growth forest and medium-volume old-growth forest

relative to their availability within goshawk use areas; they were the two highest

ranked cover types. Mature sawtimber (older second growth), scrub forest, and low

volume old-growth forest were selected significantly less than the two higher volume

old-growth forest types. Nonforest and clearcut or early succession habitat cover

types were statistically avoided relative to availability and were the lowest ranked

cover types. Pooling mean differences for all goshawks by each of the seven habitat variables allows a depiction of relative habitat selection and compliments the

statistical test we performed based on Aebischer et al. (1993). Combining both

Table 8—Ranking matrix of habitat selection by adult goshawks that tests for within minimum convex

polygon (MCP) use area selection compared with individual radio-telemetry relocationsa

Cover typeb c VH/Hx Mx MSy Sy Ly Nz Cz Rankd

Very high/high productivity (VH/H) 0 + +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ 6

Moderate productivity (M) − 0 +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ 5

Mature sawtimber (MS) — — 0 + + +++ +++ 4

Scrub forest (S) — — − 0 + +++ +++ 3

Low productivity (L) — — − − 0 +++ +++ 2

Nonforest (N) — ————0 + 1

Clearcut (C) — ———— − 0 0

a +++ = selection for a habitat type P < 0.05;  = selection against a habitat type P < 0.05; + = positive selection, not significant;

− = negative selection, not significant. b Habitat cover types are further described in table 7.

c Habitat cover types with the same subscript letter (x, y, z) do not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

d Greatest value = highest rank.

36
breeding and nonbreeding seasons, a mean of 23 percent of the use areas was

composed of very high and high volume old-growth while 32 percent of the mean

telemetry relocations were in this habitat type (table 9). In contrast, a mean of

14 percent of the combined breeding and nonbreeding season use areas was in

nonforest habitat types, but only 6 percent of the mean telemetry relocations were

in this type. These values, averaged across birds, support the results from the compositional analysis.

We interpret these results as indicating a strong pattern for selection of very high

to moderately productive old-growth forest with a combined 58 percent of all habitat

use occurring in these cover types. Mature sawtimber, scrub forest, and low productive old-growth combined represented 30 percent of all goshawk relocations and

were used relative to their availability within goshawk use areas. A total of 19.5

percent of the radio-telemetry relocations occurred in scrub forest. The GIS-defined

scrub forest habitat cover type contained a variety of vegetative types and some

smaller patches of productive old-growth forest too small to be mapped in GIS.

Visual inspection of goshawk relocation points on aerial photographs indicated that

the point was often in a patch of productive old-growth forest imbedded within a

larger scrub forest polygon. Because of this mapping resolution limitation, data

may overestimate the use of scrub forest and underestimate the use of productive

old-growth forest patches contained therein. Only 9 percent of goshawk relocations

occurred in nonforest and clearcut, and these habitat cover types were avoided

relative to other cover types.

Our analyses did not indicate any differences between adult male and adult female

habitat selection, and seasonal effects could not be detected. The established nonbreeding season was 7 months, and we did not perform a seasonal habitat analysis

during periods of deep mid-winter snowpack that occur periodically across central

and northern southeast Alaska.

Table 9—Goshawk use of various cover types throughout the year

in southeast Alaska

Percent use Percent available

Cover typeb No. mean SDc mean SDc

Very high/high productivity 59 32.2 (18.5) 23.1 (13.9)

Moderate productivity 59 26.4 (12.8) 19.5 (8.2)

Mature sawtimber 59 2.6 (6.8) 1.4 (2.8)

Scrub forest 59 19.5 (13.3) 27.6 (14.1)

Low productivity 59 9.3 (10.7) 6.6 (5.7)

Nonforest 58 5.9 (8.7) 13.9 (14.8)

Clearcut 58 3.7 (9.6) 8.9 (11.5)

a Percent availability is the proportion of each cover

type represented in the MCP use area.

b Cover types are further described in table 7.

c Standard deviation (SD) given in parnetheses.

37
We also analyzed goshawk occurrence within five landscape positions (table 7) by

radio-marked goshawks relative to the availability of those landscapes within the

MCP use areas. Based on the five-variable analysis, there was an overall habitat

selection for landscape position by goshawks (MANOVA, P < 0.0001). Patterns of

selection indicated an avoidance of alpine relative to the four remaining features

except the extended beach zone (table 10). Alpine represented only 6 percent of

goshawk habitat use, and alpine represented 10 percent of the available landscape

within use areas (table 11). There were no significant differences among the four

remaining landscape positions (table 10). Riparian zones were the highest ranked

habitat and represented 24 percent of all goshawk relocations, whereas riparian

habitats were only 19 percent of the available habitat in goshawk MCPs (table 11).

Use of the riparian habitat zone may be underestimated because when a goshawk

was relocated in the relatively small area of overlap where a riparian zone intersects

the beach zone, we assigned the relocation to the beach habitat zone. Relative use

of the combined beach and extended beach zones by goshawks (15 percent) was

nearly double its availability as a landscape zone within goshawk MCPs (8 percent),

thereby suggesting a selection for this ecological interface between the terrestrial

and marine environments. Failure to detect a significant relation may by due to

relatively high variability in use of these habitat types (table 11). We did not detect

any effect by season (P = 0.4129) or sex (P = 0. 3460).

Analysis of habitat edge—Fragmentation of forest habitats and the ecological

influence of resulting edge is an issue relative to goshawk conservation and habitat

relations in southeast Alaska (Crocker-Bedford 1993). We recognize that at least

two distinct edge types exist and may differ functionally and structurally relative to

goshawk habitat relations. Natural forest edge represents the ecotone among

productive and nonproductive (scrub) forest lands or between forest and nonforest

lands. Induced edge is primarily the abrupt edge created by clearcut timber harvest

and adjacent old-growth forest. Edge effects on goshawks, if any, may persist until

canopy height of seral conifer stands attains 50 to 75 percent of the adjacent mature

or old-growth forest. Abrupt edges can be created through natural disturbance events

such as catastrophic windthrow (see “The Forest Ecosystem and Its Management,”

above).

Table 10—Ranking matrix of habitat selection by adult goshawks that

tests for within minimum convex polygon (MCP) use area selection

compared with individual radio-telemetry relocations among 5 levels

of landscape position in southeast Alaskaa

Landscape positionb c Rx Gx B1x B2xy Ay Rank

Riparian (R) 0 + + + +++ 4

General upland (G) − 0 + + +++ 3

Beach and estuary fringe (B1)d − − 0 + +++ 2

Extended beach fringe (B2)e −− − 0+ 1

Alpine (A)   +0 0

a +++ = selection for a habitat type P < 0.05;  = selection against a habitat type P < 0.05;

+ = positive selection, not significant; − = negative selection, not significant. b Landscape positions are further defined in table 7.

c Landscape positions with the same subscript letter (x, y) do not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

d Extends 500 feet inland from shoreline.

e Extends from 500 to 1,000 feet inland from the shoreline.

38
We used goshawk telemetry relocation data and systematic points from the GIS grid

database (20-acre pixel resolution) within each goshawk MCP to test the hypothesis

that natural and induced edges have no effect on goshawk habitat use patterns. The

ADF&G (1996) reports that goshawks in southeast Alaska exhibit less selection for

productive old-growth forest that is close to clearcuts than for productive old-growth

forest >600 feet from clearcuts, but the ADF&G was unable to find differences in

selection between productive old-growth forest edges compared with productive oldgrowth forest interior patches. They concluded that all ecotones are not structurally

and functionally similar for goshawks. Our analysis includes data collected since that

initial ADF&G analysis (nearly double the goshawk relocation data points) as well as

the earlier data. Forest edge was defined in GIS as the polygon boundary between

productive old-growth forest and unproductive scrub forest or nonforest.

Mean distances to the nearest clearcut edge were compared among goshawk relocation points determined by using radio telemetry and systematically located points

(GIS grid points) within the goshawks MCP use areas. Only goshawks with clearcuts

in their MCP were included in these analyses. Points (relocation or systematic) within

clearcuts were not used, because we were interested in goshawk response to the

old-growth forest immediately adjacent to the clearcut, and not the clearcut habitat

that goshawks avoid (see tables 8, 9).

Point-to-old-growth edge distances were similarly measured but only for points within old growth. Means were compared by using a mixed factor analysis-of-variance

appropriate for unequal sample sizes (SAS Type III; Milliken and Johnson 1984). In

the analysis, point type (location vs systematic), season (breeding vs nonbreeding),

and sex were fixed effects and individual goshawks were random effects with points

nested within goshawk ranges. Because of the unequal sample sizes, sums-ofsquares and degrees-of-freedom were adjusted by using Satterthwaite’s method

prior to conducting tests (Milliken and Johnson 1984). Also, because of skewed

data, point-to-clearcut and point-to-edge distances were transformed to natural

logarithms before analyses. Geometric means (i.e., on the original scale) are

presented.

Table 11—Goshawk use of various landscape positions throughout the

year in southeast Alaskaa

Percent use Percent availability

Landscapeb No. mean (SD)c mean (SD)c

General upland 59 54.9 (18.3) 61.4 (14.5)

Riparian 59 24.2 (17.0) 19.4 (7.7)

Beach and estuary fringed 59 9.5 (14.7) 4.6 (6.1)

Extended beach fringee 59 5.3 (7.7) 4.1 (4.9)

Alpine 59 6.1 (10.4) 10.5 (13.3)

a Percent availability is the proportion of each landscape position represented

in the MCP use area.

b Landscape positions are further described in table 7.

c Standard deviation (SD) given in parentheses.

d Extends 500 feet inland from shoreline.

e Extends from 500 to 1,000 feet inland from the shoreline.

39
The difference in point-to-clearcut edge distances between goshawk locations and

systematic points varied among seasons and between sexes (season*sex*type

interaction, F1,53=5.24, p=0.026), but, when goshawk and systematic points were

compared separately for each season-sex combination, there were no differences

(table 12, figs. 3-6). Point-to-old-growth edge for goshawk relocations and systematic

points were not affected by season, including interactions (p>0.05); however, point-toold-growth edge differences between locations and systematic points were affected

by sex (sex*type interaction, F1,106.7=4.71, p=0.032). In separate analyses for each

sex, no difference in mean point-to-old-growth edge for goshawk locations and systematic points was found (table 13, figs. 7, 8).

This inability to discern selection for or against edge and interior forest patches or

clearcut edges may result from several factors. Goshawks may not be selecting

for edges or for the interior of large forest patches or clearcut edges. They may

be selecting forested areas based on structure and not location relative to edge.

Alternatively, goshawks may be selecting or avoiding edge, but our analyses, scale

of resolution, and sampling error may preclude our recognizing a pattern. Finally,

a pattern may exist but more samples are needed to discern it.

Pattern of Topographic

Characteristics of

Goshawk Habitat Use

We examined goshawk telemetry relocation data to determine if goshawks differentially select or avoid topographic features across the landscape within their use

areas. The slope, aspect, and elevation of each goshawk relocation point was

identified in GIS to obtain the proportional use of each feature. Availability was

quantified by using systematically located grid points from GIS within the same

goshawk’s MCP use area. Use was compared to availability by using the composition analysis (Aebischer et al. 1993) described earlier. Elevation was divided into

six classes: 0-500 feet; 501-800 feet; 801-1200 feet; 1201-1500 feet; 1501-2000 feet;

and over 2000 feet. Slope was divided into four classes: 0-35 percent; 36-55 percent;

56-75 percent and over 75 percent. Aspect had five classes—the four cardinal

directions (north, south, east, and west) and level terrain.

Table 12—Mean point-to-clearcut edge distances for goshawks and

systematic points within their minimum convex polygon use areas

Sex Season Point type Mean (geometric) F (df)a pb

Feet

F Breeding Goshawk 1631.5 2.97 (1, 12.2) 0.110

F Breeding Systematic 1656.9

F Nonbreeding Goshawk 2355.1 1.50 (1, 20.0) 0.235

F Nonbreeding Systematic 1810.7

M Breeding Goshawk 2031.3 0.11 (1, 10.8) 0.742

M Breeding Systematic 1965.6

M Nonbreeding Goshawk 2269.6 1.51 (1, 9.6) 0.248

M Nonbreeding Systematic 2504.6

a F statistic, df = degrees of freedom.

b p = probability level.

40
Figure 4—Distance to clearcut edge of breeding season relocations of male goshawks and systematic points within the goshawk

minimum convex polygon.

Figure 3—Distance to clearcut edge of breeding season relocations of female goshawks and systematic points within the goshawk

minimum convex polygon.

41
Figure 6—Distance to clearcut edge of winter relocations of male goshawks and systematic points within the goshawk minimum

convex polygon.

Figure 5—Distance to clearcut edge of winter relocations of female goshawks and systematic points within the goshawk

minimum convex polygon.

42
Table 13—Mean point-to-old-growth edge distances for goshawks

and systematic points within their minimum convex polygon use

areas

Sex Point type Mean (geometric) F (df)a pb

Feet

F Goshawk 281.2 2.12 (1,61.3) 0.151

Systematic 241.4

M Goshawk 215.0 2.79 (1,43.9) 0.102

Systematic 237.5

a F statistic, df = degrees of freedom.

b p = probability level.

Figure 7—Distance to the edge of productive old-growth forest for female goshawk relocations throughout the year and

systematic points within the goshawk minimum convex polygon.

43
Figure 8—Distance to the edge of productive old-growth forest of male goshawk relocations throughout the year and systematic

points within the goshawk minimum convex polygon.

Table 14—Relative use and availability of elevation classes within male and female goshawk minimum

convex polygon (MCP) use areas

Male Female

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Elevation class No.a use available Testb No.a use available Testb

Feet Mean (SD)c Mean (SD)c Mean (SD)c Mean (SD)c

0-500 26 40.3 (30.9) 41.2 (26.1) a b 25 57.3 (32.2) 39.9 (26.6) a

501-800 26 13.5 (8.9) 11.5 (5.7) a 25 17.4 (19.2) 14.0 (9.1) b

801-1200 26 13.4 (8.8) 13.0 (5.8) a b 25 12.3 (14.2) 14.1 (6.4) b c

1201-1500 26 7.4 (6.0) 8.2 (4.2) b 25 4.4 6.1) 9.1 (5.3) d

1501-2000 26 12.9 (10.4) 11.4 (8.0) a b 25 4.5 (7.0) 13.2 (10.3) d

>2000 26 12.6 (16.1) 14.8 (16.3) a b 25 4.1 (6.0) 9.7 (10.6) c d

a No. = number of goshawk MCP use area polygons included in the anlaysis.

b Classes with the same letter do not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

c Mean (SD) = mean percent (standard deviation).

44
Elevation—Most goshawk relocations occurred in lower elevations. Nearly 54 percent of male and 75 percent of female relocations occurred below 800 feet in elevation (table 14), but use of each elevation interval by each sex closely approximated the relative availability. Relative use of elevation intervals differed between

sexes (P = 0.047). Females had a stronger pattern of selection for lower elevation

classes than did males (table 14). Males generally used all elevation classes relative

to availability, possibly due to extensive foraging movements necessary to supply

food during the nesting period to nestlings and the adult female. There was no

seasonal effect (breeding versus nonbreeding) among females (P = 0.9461) or

males (P = 0.5110).

Slope—Most relocation points (70 percent) were on slopes of less than 35 percent

(table 15), and use of this slope class was not different relative to availability from

the 0- to 35- and 56- to 75-percent classes. The three more gentle slope classes

were not significantly different in use compared to availability among the classes. The

association with gentle slopes could be related to the goshawk’s association with

productive old-growth forests. Steeper slopes often have thinner soils and are subject to avalanches, resulting in many stands of smaller, scrubby trees that may be

classified as unproductive scrub forest in the GIS. There was no seasonal (breeding

vs nonbreeding) effect (P = 0.3811) or sex effect ( P = 0.7013). Few relocations were

obtained on slopes over 75 percent (2.3 percent), yet this slope class is a relatively

rare feature across the landscape and represents less than 1 percent of goshawk

use areas.

Aspect—Goshawk use relative to availability of aspects classes within their use

areas differed (MANOVA P < 0.0001); east was selected over north and south but

not west. Level terrain was the least used aspect (1.8 percent) and selected less

(P < 0.05) than all other categories (table 16). Level terrain is generally characterized

by poorly drained and deep organic soils with generally lower forest site productivity

(see “The Forest Ecosystem and Its Management” above). Eastern exposures had

the greatest absolute use (28 percent), but the overall differences among the four

cardinal directions were relatively minor. Thus, while differences in aspect use could

be detected statistically, the biological significance remains uncertain given the small

magnitude of difference in use among all aspects (e.g., all within 7 percent).

Table 15—Relative use and availability of 4 slope classes within

goshawk minimum convex polygon (MCP) use areas

Slope class No.a Percent use Percent available Testb

Percent Mean (SD)c Mean (SD)c

0-35 58 70.3 (24.9) 65.1 (20.6) a b

36-55 58 20.3 (16.6) 30.2 (16.4) b c

56-75 58 7.1 (8.9) 4.6 (5.1) a b

>75 58 2.3 (5.0) 0.1 (0.3) a

a No. = number of goshawk MCP use area polygons included in the anlaysis.

b Classes with the same letter do not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

c Mean (SD) = mean percent (standard deviation).

45
Distance to beach—We further examined the relation between goshawk habitat

use and the beach fringe zone because use of these areas by goshawks generally

exceeded the availability of this landscape region (tables 10, 11). Mean point-tobeach distances were compared between goshawk telemetry relocations and

systematically located points within the goshawks MCP use area. Only goshawks

with beach in their MCP were included in this analysis. Means were compared by

using a mixed-factor analysis of variance appropriate for unequal sample sizes

(SAS Type III; Milliken and Johnson 1984). In the analysis, point type (location vs

systematic), season (breeding vs nonbreeding), and sex were fixed effects, and

individual goshawks were random effects with points nested within goshawk ranges.

Because of unequal sample sizes, sums-of-squares and degrees-of-freedom were

adjusted by using Satterthwaite’s method before conducting tests (Milliken and

Johnson 1984). Point-to-beach data were analyzed untransformed and, because

of a skewed data set, transformed to natural logarithms.

Results of the analyses for transformed and untransformed data were comparable;

only those for the original data are presented. Point-to-beach distances did not differ

by season or any interaction terms involving season (p>0.10). Point-to-beach distances differed by point type (F1,42.8=5.40, p=0.025), and there was a type-by-sex

interaction (F1,42.7=5.50, p=0.024) indicating that male and female goshawks were

not equally distant from the beach in relation to systematic points in their home

ranges. There also were strong individual patterns within the sex classes (p<0.001).

In separate analyses for each sex, relocations of female goshawks were closer to the

Table 16—Relative use and availability of aspects within

goshawk minimum convex polygon (MCP) use areas

Aspect No.a Percent use Percent available Testb

Mean (SD)c Mean (SD)c

East 59 28.4 (15.1) 25.7 (8.5) a

South 59 21.2 (15.7) 22.5 (9.1) b

West 59 26.6 (16.0) 24.7 (7.4) a b

North 59 22.2 (14.8) 24.4 (9.4) b

Level 59 1.8 (3.3) 2.8 (4.4) c

a No. = number of goshawk MCP use area polygons included in the anlaysis.

b Classes with the same letter do not differ significantly (P > 0.05).

c Mean (SD) = mean percent (standard deviation).

46
beach than were systematic points (F1,22.3=6.910, p=0.015) (fig. 9) but there was no

difference for males (F1,24.1=0.001, p=0.980) (fig. 10) (table 17). Nearly 21 percent of

all female relocations and 18 percent of all male goshawk relocations throughout the

year occurred within the first 1000 feet from the shoreline. This ecological interface

between the marine and terrestrial environment likely supports a greater diversity or

abundance of goshawk prey species.

Nest Area Habitat

Associations

For birds of prey, nesting areas often differ from the surrounding landscape and are

not randomly placed even within otherwise suitable habitat (Newton 1979, Janes

1985). The nesting habitat associations of forest hawks (Accipitridae spp.) are difficult to understand because these species have broad distributions and are capable

of building nests in many types of forest situations, and their selection of certain nest

areas is less obvious. Nest site habitat selection by forest hawks may take place at

various scales, from the selection of a tree that has the proper limb geometry for

constructing a nest, to the selection of a watershed that provides suitable foraging

habitat and adequate prey. Many studies have evaluated the nesting habitat of

northern goshawks at the scale of the nest tree and adjacent habitat (e.g., 1 to

20 acres).

Figure 9—Distance inland from the shoreline for female goshawk relocations throughout the year and for systematic points

within the goshawk minimum convex polygon.

47
Our objective was to determine whether goshawks in southeast Alaska select specific forest stands or habitat cover types for nesting that differ from nearby forested

habitats. Goshawk nesting habitat was examined at two scales, 30 and 160 acres

surrounding the nest tree, to evaluate whether habitat cover types and location

relative to landscape features differed from other nearby forested habitats. Habitat

attributes at known goshawk nest locations from southeast Alaska were measured

within a 30- and 160-acre plot centered on the nest by analyzing color and blackand-white aerial photographs at scales ranging from 1:15,000 to 1:22,000. A random

plot paired with the nest tree plot was selected by moving, in a randomly selected

cardinal direction, ~4.5 inches on the aerial photograph from the center of each

nest plot. All random points were centered in productive old-growth forest. Variables

(tables 18 and 19) were measured by an experienced aerial photograph interpreter

who had no prior knowledge of goshawk nests or nesting habitat. Forest stand

Figure 10—Distance inland from the shoreline for male goshawk relocations throughout the year and for systematic points within

the goshawk minimum convex polygon.

Table 17—Mean point-to-beach distances (in feet)

for goshawks and systematic points within their

minimum convex polygon use area

Sex Point type Mean Standard deviation

−−−−−− Feet −−−−−−

F Goshawk 7056 7819

Systematic 9679 8733

M Goshawk 8009 7994

Systematic 8154 7643

48
openings <3 acres were not counted in the forest cover typing because most Forest

Service timber typing does not consider small openings. Most clearcuts were considered as nonforest land except where trees were large and well established (about

30 years of age). Depending on the scale of the photo imagery, from seven to nine

subplots were chosen in the 30-acre plot to estimate canopy structure, canopy closure, and species composition. Canopy or crown closure was determined by comparing photo observations with crown density scales graduated in 10-percent classes

and interpolated to the nearest 5 percent. Species composition was expressed as a

percentage of hemlock. Canopy structure was characterized as being either single

story or multistory. Canopy texture was estimated as coarse, medium, or fine. Riparian areas were estimated by applying a 300-foot buffer on class 1 (anadromous fish)

and class 2 (resident fish only) streams to both stream banks and calculating the

area by using a dot grid. Only perennial streams readily visible on aerial photos

were included in this analysis. Wilcoxon-matched pairs sign tests and accompanying

Z-statistics and P-values were used to evaluate differences in distributions between

random samples and goshawk nest sites. Additional methodological details are

provided in ADF&G (1996).

Table 18—Habitat cover type of areas surrounding 39 goshawk nest sitesa and paired random plots as

determined by analysis of aerial photographs, Tongass NF

Nest sites Random sites

Variableb Mean SDc Range Mean SDc Range P-valued

−−−−−−−− Acres −−−−−−−− −−−−−−− Acres −−−−−−−

30-acre plots:

Nonforest 0.70 1.10 0-4.3 2.50 3.8 0-14.0 0.002

Forest 29.30 1.10 25.7-30.0 27.10 4.1 16.0-30.0 0.001

Productive forest 26.10 4.50 13.6-30.0 23.40 6.9 5.8-30.0 0.006

Scrub forest 3.50 4.20 0-16.4 3.70 5.8 0-24.2 0.659

Riparian 1.50 3.10 0-13.7 1.60 2.6 0-8.8 0.833

Beach1 0.02 0.13 0-0.8 0.46 2.6 0-16.0 0.285

Fresh water 0 — — 0.14 0.7 0-3.9 0.180

Salt water 0 — — 0.20 1.1 0-7.1 0.180

160-acre plots: — 

Nonforest 7.00 8.90 0-39.9 14.70 16.0 0-58.1 0.010

Forest 149.40 11.60 104.6-160.0 141.30 19.7 82-160.0 0.108

Productive forest 128.10 27.50 47.9-160.0 119.40 38.0 10-160.0 0.192

Scrub forest 21.40 24.80 0-104.5 20.40 27.1 0-119.1 0.827

Riparian 10.40 9.40 0-36.1 10.40 10.1 0-50.4 0.777

Beach1 4.00 11.20 0-155.4 3.20 9.7 0-44.7 0.779

Fresh water 1.20 3.60 0-14.2 1.60 7.6 0-44.2 0.753

Salt water 2.40 7.40 0-29.6 2.40 10.1 0-58.8 0.866

a The 39 nest sites occur in 29 nesting areas.

b Habitat cover types are further described in table 7.

c SD = standard deviation.

d P-value based on Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

49
The analyses included 39 goshawk nests: 14 in the Chatham, 16 in the Stikine, and

9 in the Ketchikan Administrative Areas of the Tongass NF. Eighty-seven percent of

the 39 goshawk nest trees were in productive old-growth forest stands, 2 nests occurring in one nesting area were in mature sawtimber, and 3 nests at two nesting

areas were in forest stands with a mixture of productive old-growth and secondgrowth trees. Goshawk nests in southeast Alaska were mainly identified as a result

of searches associated with timber management planning. Of 25 nests (in 22 nest

areas) reported by Titus et al. (1994), 83 percent occurred in productive old-growth

forest and 17 percent occurred in mature sawtimber, which was over 90 years old

and contained some residual old-growth forest structure.

Habitat cover types—Forest cover (98 and 87 percent) and to a lesser extent

productive old-growth forest (93 and 80 percent), dominated the area in the 30-

and 160-acre plots surrounding goshawk nests, respectively (table 18). There was

less variation in the amount of forested area in nest plots of both 30 and 160 acres

than in random plots, thereby indicating that few large openings occurred near goshawk nests. Beach and riparian cover types occurred in relatively small amounts

in both 30-acre and 160-acre plots (table 18).

Table 19—Lengths of ecotones and linear features within 39 goshawk nest sitesa and paired random

plots as determined by analysis of aerial photographs, Tongass NF

Nest sites Random sites

Variable length Mean SDb Range Mean SDb Range P-valuec

−−−−−−− Feet −−−−−−− −−−−−−− Feet −−−−−−−

30-acre plots:

Forest-nonforest edge 400 884 0-4,488 667 872 0-2,957 0.014

Freshwater shoreline 45 162 0-762 39 169 0-760 0.715

Saltwater shoreline 29 12 0-75 36 179 0-1,080 0.285

Stream 339 680 0-2,976 341 556 0-1,920 0.909

Road 53 188 0-794 53 242 0-1,361 0.893

Trail 48 216 0-1,188 39 183 0-1,056 0.593

160-acre plots:

Forest-nonforest edge 2,674 2,957 0-11,672 3,687 2,670 0-10,428 0.026

Freshwater shoreline 417 1,305 0-5,143 177 634 0-2,661 0.249

Saltwater shoreline 305 960 0-4,338 289 880 0-4,139 0.866

Stream 2,336 2,017 0-7,855 2,066 1,660 0-6,336 0.913

Road 359 876 0-2,956 228 793 0-3,770 0.575

Trail 245 718 0-2,772 229 751 0-2,945 0.892

a The 39 nest sites occur in 29 nesting areas.

b SD = standard deviation.

c P-value based on Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

50
There was a greater amount (7.3 percent) of forest area associated with goshawk

nest plots than with 30-acre random plots centered on forest (table 18). Mean

difference in forested area between nest site versus random plots was 2.2 acres.

There also was less variability in the amount of forest area surrounding goshawk

nest areas than forested random samples. No goshawk nest site had < 25 acres

of forest in the 30-acre plot. The amount of productive old-growth forest land area

in the 30-acre plot was significantly higher (2.7 acres or 9 percent) at goshawk

nests than a nearby random sample centered on forest (table 18).

At the 160-acre scale, there was no difference in the amount of forest area surrounding goshawk nests versus nearby random samples (table 18). The lack of

statistical differences found in the sampling of the 160-acre plots may have been

due to a decrease in power associated with higher variability. For example, the

coefficient of variation (CV) of area of forest lands for the nest site data increased

from 3.7 to 7.8 percent between the 30-acre and 160-acre plots.

Habitat cover types examined may not be directly comparable to other goshawk nest

site habitat studies. Those studies used direct measurements of trees and forest

stands rather than land cover attributes encompassing a larger area surrounding the

nest (e.g., Moore and Henny 1983, Hayward and Escano 1989). In addition, most

of these studies did not sample available habitat or make inferences about habitat

selection. Falk (1990) used aerial photography to evaluate nest site habitat selection

by goshawks within paired 200-acre nest site random plots. She found that goshawks

avoided forest openings and that nests were associated with unbroken forest tracts

compared with availability. Results from southeast Alaska support the hypothesis that

goshawks nest in areas containing more forest when compared with the landscape

in general. Yet some Tongass NF goshawk nests are near natural forest openings,

perhaps the result of the heterogeneous and patchy forest stands that occur in

some portions of the Forest.

Land cover border lengths—Border lengths were considered as indices of cover

type heterogeneity. At both the 30- and 160-acre plots, less forest to nonforest edge

was measured at goshawk nesting areas compared to random samples (table 19).

This likely occurred because of the lack of other habitat cover types at goshawk nest

plots. Hence, low cover type heterogeneity was found at goshawk nests compared

with randomly selected forested areas. There was no difference in other ecotone

variables measured between goshawk nests and randomly selected forest plots

(table 19).

Distances to land cover features—No differences were found in the distance

from the goshawk nest or plot center to land cover features (e.g., shoreline, roads,

trails, and streams) between goshawk nests and random samples (table 20). These

results are in contrast to Bosakowski and Speiser (1994) and Falk (1990), who found

goshawks nesting farther from forest openings, paved roads, and human habitation

than from random samples of forested habitat.

51
Canopy cover and forest composition—Percentage of canopy closure was higher

(P = 0.06, Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign-ranked test) in the 30-acre area surrounding

goshawk nests (49.6 percent) than in randomly selected forest areas (42.9 percent).

Although the canopy cover difference was only 6.7 percent, the analysis was a narrow comparison of forest canopy at and away from goshawk nests. We would not

expect great differences in forest canopy cover between goshawk nesting areas

and random forested samples unless goshawks were selecting rare features of the

habitat that did not occur elsewhere. There is high variability in forested canopy

cover across the Tongass NF with goshawks using areas with slightly more cover.

The mean percentage of canopy cover value of 50 percent in southeast Alaska was

lower than that reported in the literature for this species, which generally ranges from

60 to 95 percent (see “Review of Northern Goshawk Ecology in North America”).

In nearly all other studies, however, canopy cover was determined differently from

how we estimated it in our study, which evaluated canopy cover across 30 acres

and used subsamples and aerial photography. Selection for dense canopy may

be more important in warmer climates where denser canopies may provide cooler

microclimates for nesting goshawks (Hall 1984, Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988,

Reynolds et al. 1992).

There was significantly (P = 0.03, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test) more

hemlock at goshawk nest sites (81 percent) than paired random sites (75 percent).

The difference may have come from goshawk nesting areas being associated with

productive old-growth forest and hemlock-spruce cover types, whereas some random samples may have contained a greater component of cedar or spruce only.

Forest stands with multistory canopies occurred in 89 percent of the goshawk nest

sites compared to only 84 percent of the random samples. Only 1 of 39 goshawk

nesting areas had the majority of nine subsamples defined as a single-canopy

layer, thereby supporting the hypothesis that goshawks generally nest in stands

with complex structure associated with multiple canopy layers.

Table 20—Distances of goshawk nests or random plot centers to the nearest land cover feature as

determined by analysis of aerial photographs, Tongass NF

Nest site Random site

Feature No.a Mean SDb Range No.a Mean SDb Range P-valuec

–––––– Feet –––––– –––––– Feet ––––––

Forest-nonforest edge 39 1,177 1,190 62-5,984 38 887 1,215 56-7,480 0.230

Freshwater shoreline 30 5,902 4,269 479-16,368 30 6,047 4,389 302-17,952 0.705

Saltwater shoreline 39 11,066 4,269 600-29,040 36 11,258 8,586 352-29,040 0.480

Stream 39 917 528 150-2,426 39 984 798 54-3,184 0.965

Road 28 5,850 7,324 227-36,960 29 5,781 4,247 0-17,952 0.118

Trail 9 5,885 11,824 264-36,960 11 1,932 2,355 0-7,920 0.398

Forest opening 29 4,510 3,143 1161-11,300 28 5,017 4,175 0-13,800 0.409

a No. = number of nest sites included in the of the feature.

b SD = standard deviation.

c P-value based on Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

52
Based on the aerial photograph interpretations, 30-acre areas surrounding goshawk

nests were, on average, composed of 56 percent medium-grained canopy texture,

24 percent fine-grained canopy texture, 19 percent coarse-grained canopy texture,

and 1 percent nonforested. Comparable areas surrounding randomly selected points

were composed of 49 percent medium-grained canopy texture, 25 percent finegrained canopy texture, 17 percent coarse-grained canopy texture, and 9 percent

nonforest. Canopy texture may be associated with tree size and canopy heterogeneity. Coarse-grained canopies contain large trees and higher volume old-growth,

and medium- and fine-grained canopy textures are either lower volume or younger

even-aged stands. In relation to the variation among sample plots, differences

between nest plots and random plots were small. The CVs for the average percentage of medium-grained canopy texture was 31 percent for nest plots and

45 percent for random plots.

Only minor differences were detected between goshawk nest sites and random 30-

and 160-acre forested sites. These differences were not insignificant, however, given

that random sites were constrained to productive old-growth forest. Thus, even when

comparing two productive old-growth forest stands, we concluded that goshawks are

selecting nesting habitat with specific features. Goshawks select nest sites with a

greater proportion of forest cover and productive old-growth forest in the immediate

30-acre nesting area compared to random forest areas and accordingly the forestnonforest edge was smaller in nest areas. Nesting habitat was generally far from the

shoreline (an average of nearly 2 miles), lakes (1 mile), and streams (900 feet).

Landscape Patterns

in Vegetation Cover

Around Known

Goshawk Nests

Field data on habitat use by goshawks in southeast Alaska fit into several broad

categories. Point locations of radio-marked birds and nest locations represent two

forms of data. Radio telemetry provides an opportunity to estimate the pattern of

habitat use by goshawks around their nests and in wintering areas. Logistical

problems in obtaining an adequate sample and problems in translating the point

samples to estimates of utilization distributions constrain the analyses, however.

In contrast, nesting habitat can be identified without the aid of radio telemetry, and

the sample of nest sites represents more individual birds than can be obtained to

estimate foraging habitat use.

In the case of known nest locations, the functional use of the site is apparent;

goshawks produce and rear their young at the site. Choice of the nest site, at scale

of the stand, may be driven by features influencing the probability of predation, the

thermal environment for the incubating female, the thermal environment for the

young, the ease of access to the nest for prey delivery, and the ease of relocating

the nest by the adults (e.g., when the male makes prey deliveries). The choice of

nest sites also may be driven by characteristics of the surrounding area at a variety

of scales (e.g., Sherry and Holmes 1985).

The pattern of habitat surrounding the nest at the scale of hundreds to thousands

of acres also may influence the likelihood of predation for adults and young, the

thermal environment of the nest, and the availability of prey for the adults and

young. Kennedy et al. (1994) drew attention to the potential influence of a large

53
postfledging area (PFA) around the nest on the success of nesting goshawks.

Reynolds et al. (1992:13-14) identified a PFA of 300 to 600 acres around the

active nest as an important consideration in managing goshawks in the Southwestern United States. Reynolds et al. (1992) implied that forest conditions in the

PFA influence goshawk nesting success.

The importance of a 300- to 600-acre area around the nest for goshawks in southeast Alaska is largely undetermined. We therefore examined whether goshawk nests

occurred in sites with unique vegetation characteristics at a scale similar to the PFA

(Kennedy et al. 1994). Specifically, we tested the null hypothesis that composition

of cover types in a circular area corresponding to an area equivalent to the PFA

was similar to a random 600-acre circle or to a larger, concentric circle corresponding

approximately to the area of the median goshawk MCP for southeast Alaska (10,000

acres). This comparison used a sample of known goshawk nest sites in southeast

Alaska to test whether goshawk nests occur in particular 600-acre portions of the

landscape relative to the land available within a 10,000-acre circle around the nest.

Sample of nest sites—A total of 34 goshawk nest areas located in southeast Alaska

were included in this analysis.9 Some areas contained several alternate nests, but

the analysis was centered over the most recently active nest. Nests located on nonFederal lands (n = 3) with incomplete cover type resource inventories were not included in the analysis. These 34 nest sites represent an ad hoc sample of nest

locations from southeast Alaska. Biologists located nests through various methods

but did not use a formal sampling scheme to extract a sample from a definable

sampling frame or parent population. Many sites were located during nest searches

and management activities associated with timber sales. Some nest locations came

from reports of goshawk defense behavior provided by persons using recreational

trails near centers of human activity. Still other locations resulted from surveys targeted to search for goshawk nests, or from locations of radio-marked goshawks

captured the previous year at a different nest site (Titus et al. 1994).

Habitat characterization—Habitat around goshawk nests was characterized by the

proportion of the seven vegetation habitat cover types (see table 7) in the vicinity

based on the Tongass NF GIS database. Based on this classification, the number

of acres of each cover type was determined for 600- and 10,000-acre circular plots

centered around each nest. These two geographic scales are referred to as the

600-acre fledging area and the 10,000-acre use area. Because salt water occurs

near some goshawk nests, the proportion of the environment occupied by each

cover type was determined by dividing the acreage of the habitat cover type by the

area of the circular plot, minus salt water. The Tongass GIS database uses a minimum mapping unit (pixel) of 20 acres, which limits the resolution of the analysis. The

600-acre area around the nest chosen as the focus for this analysis corresponds to

the PFA and represents a scale effectively characterized by the GIS data.

9 Slight differences in nest area samples for different

analyses resulted from minor changes in criteria (see

table 4).

54
The composition of seven cover types (very high/high productivity, moderate productivity, low productivity, scrub forest, mature sawtimber, clearcut, nonforest) was

compared between 600-acre circles surrounding a goshawk nest and a randomly

located 600-acre circle by using the composition analysis method of Aebischer et al.

(1993) described earlier. Similar analyses compared the composition of the 600-acre

nest circle to the 10,000-acre use-area circle, also centered on the nest (table 21).

There were no differences (P=0.631) in the percentages of the seven habitat types

in the 600-acre nest area and random 600-acre circles. Habitat cover types within

the 600 acres around goshawk nests did differ, however, from cover types within the

10,000-acre circle centered over the same nests (P < 0.001). There was a greater

amount of VH/H, M, and L cover types in the 600-acre circle relative to the larger

10,000-acre scale, which suggests a nonrandom selection for greater amounts of

very high, high, and moderately productive old-growth forests in the immediate

vicinity of the nest stand (table 21). There was also a relatively large component

of unproductive forest in both the 600-acre nest circle (27 percent) and in the 10,000-

acre circle (30 percent) (table 21) that may result from the naturally heterogeneous

character of the conifer forests in southeast Alaska. The proportion of clearcut and

nonforest in the 600-acre circle was less than was available in the 10,000-acre use

area and were cover types avoided by goshawks (table 21). The amount of mature

sawtimber in the 600-acre circle (2.7 percent) was nearly three times greater than its

availability (0.9 percent) (table 21). Mature sawtimber is a relatively rare cover type,

but these data suggest that it may be selected as nesting habitat cover type relative

to low volume old-growth, clearcut, and nonforest cover types.

The distribution of seven habitat cover types at two geographic scales illustrates the

degree of variation in habitat among goshawk nest sites. The proportion of productive

old-growth forest (sum of very high + high + moderate + low) in the 600-acre circle

averaged 59 percent (range 16 to 96 percent). The amount of productive old-growth

in the 10,000-acre use area averaged 50 percent (range 22 to 89 percent). The proportion of clearcut ranged from 0 to 53 percent for both the 600- and 10,000-acre

areas.

Table 21—Composition of habitat cover types in 600-acre circles as an estimate of use relative

to the composition of cover types in 10,000-acre circles as an estimate of habitat availabilitya

600-acre circle 10,000-acre circle

Habitat cover typeb No.c Mean SDd Range Mean SDd Range Teste

Very high/high productivity 34 24.0 19.2 0-82.7 21.8 13.4 3.8-58.9 a b

Moderate productivity 34 24.3 15.0 3.1-66.7 19.9 7.5 8.4-36.5 a

Low productivity 34 10.7 11.3 0-41.4 8.5 6.5 0-23.6 b

Scrub forest 34 27.3 17.9 0-65.5 30.0 16.7 6.6-68.5 a b

Mature sawtimber 34 2.7 8.3 0-36.3 0.9 2.4 0-12.4 a b

Clearcut 34 6.6 11.2 0-53.2 9.9 13.2 0-53.3 c

Nonforest 34 4.4 8.0 0-30.0 9.0 12.0 0.1-48.5 c

a Circles are centered on nests.

b Habitat cover types are further described in table 7.

c No. = number of nest sites included in the analysis.

d SD = standard deviation.

e Cover types with the same letters do not differ significantly (P > 0.05) in

a test of use (600-acre circle) vs. availability (10,000-acre circle).

55
The magnitude of the mean difference in abundance of particular habitat cover types

between 600- and 10,000-acre circles was generally small despite statistical significance. For a majority of cover types, the mean difference in abundance was less

than 4 percent. These analyses demonstrate, however, that productive old-growth

lands were more common near goshawk nests than in the larger use area and

goshawks nest sites are not a random subsample of the landscape.

The interpretation of results must consider the characteristics of the sample used in

the analyses. The goshawk nests available for analysis represent a potentially biased

sample of nests relative to the entire southeast Alaska geographic area. The sample

reflects the difficulty biologists encounter in locating goshawk nests, especially an

unbiased sample of nests. Patterns observed in these data thus apply specifically

to the particular sample obtained. The relation between patterns associated with

these nests and patterns of all goshawks throughout southeast Alaska cannot be

determined.

Despite the potentially biased sample, the data define the minimum degree of variation around goshawk nests in southeast Alaska. The data also illustrate patterns

from a 34-nest sample in the region. As such, these analyses provide valuable

insights to local conditions not available from existing literature on goshawk nesting

habitat.

To test hypotheses of whether goshawk nests occur in particular landscape conditions, the nature of the test performed and the observational nature of the sample

must be considered. A significant difference in habitat between the 600 acres around

the nests and a larger 10,000-acre plot does not confirm that goshawks choose nests

based on differences in vegetation within 600 acres of the nest, because selection of

some other habitat feature correlated with vegetation cover could be involved. Conversely, failure to detect a pattern does not indicate the absence of one; the test may

lack sufficient power to detect significant differences.

Goshawk Survival Rates Survival rates of adult goshawks in southeast Alaska were estimated by using information from goshawks radio marked to study habitat use and movements (Titus

et al. 1994). The ADF&G (1996) provides a detailed description of methodology and

assumptions used to estimate survival rates. Annual survival rates were estimated

for goshawks across southeast Alaska by using the staggered-entry Kaplan-Meier

estimator (Pollock et al. 1989). Data were partitioned into monthly periods and for

each goshawk; the month when a bird entered the analysis and the fate of the

individual through the analysis period were determined. A total of 39 radio-marked

adult goshawks were monitored during the analysis period that began in July 1992

and ended in August 1996. Data for males and females were pooled because of

small sample sizes. Three possible fates were dead, survived, or censored. Goshawks were considered censored when their fate was unknown, when they lost

transmitters and were subsequently recaptured and fitted with a new radio tag, or

were not found for over 2 months but subsequently relocated. They were classed

as survived from the time of recapture or relocation.

56
Thirteen goshawks became censored, and their fates were unknown. Nine adult

female goshawks and six adult male goshawks were monitored for > 12 months. On

three occasions, adult goshawks became censored and disappeared during winter

but were relocated the next spring. Three years of data were pooled into a 1-year

period beginning in June (table 22). This increased the number of adult goshawks at

risk in any given month and allowed monthly and confidence interval estimations to

be made with larger sample sizes than were possible with multiyear analyses. A total

of 466 “at-risk months” were available for an estimated annual survival rate of 0.72

(95-percent CI = 0.56-0.88) (fig. 11), given the 11 birds that died during the study.

Our results are not readily comparable to other studies because there have been

few studies of goshawk survival (DeStefano et al. 1994b).

Patterns in Habitat Use

of Principal Goshawk

Prey in Southeast Alaska

Habitat associations of principal prey species are important elements in understanding

goshawk habitat use patterns (Reynolds et al. 1992). A list of 10 important northern

goshawk prey species or species groups was developed based on data from Titus et

al. (1994). Each species or species group occurred in prey remains collected at > 2

of 15 northern goshawk nests in southeast Alaska (table 23). Knowledge is limited on

the importance of individual prey species to northern goshawks in southeast Alaska.

Titus et al. (1994) suggest some limitations to their data:

1. The amount of a given prey species at a nest could not be determined, only its

presence.

2. Prey remains were identified by gross characteristics and were not microscopically

examined.

3. Prey remains of more colorful species (such as Steller’s jay, Cyanocitta stelleri)

have a higher probability of being found and identified than the remains of drab

species (for instance, murrelets−Alcidae species).

Table 22—Pooled monthly Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for radio-tagged goshawks, Tongass NF,

1992-96

No. at No. of No. No. Survival Lower Upper

Month risk deaths censored added ratea Variance CLa CLa

June 28 0 0 13 1.00 0.0000 1.00 1.00

July 43 0 0 25 1.00 0.0000 1.00 1.00

August 55 0 0 2 1.00 0.0000 1.00 1.00

September 53 0 0 0 1.00 0.0000 1.00 1.00

October 46 2 2 0 0.96 0.0009 0.90 1.01

November 41 1 1 0 0.93 0.0014 0.86 1.01

December 38 0 0 1 0.93 0.0015 0.86 1.01

January 37 0 0 0 0.93 0.0016 0.86 1.01

February 37 1 1 0 0.91 0.0021 0.82 1.00

March 35 2 4 2 0.86 0.0030 0.75 0.97

April 31 5 5 1 0.72 0.0047 0.58 0.85

May 22 0 0 0 0.72 0.0066 0.56 0.88

Total 466 11 13 44

a The cumulative survival probability from each June (see text).

b CL = 95-percent confidence limit.

57
4. Prey remains were collected only at nest sites and only during the breeding

season. Mammals may be underrepresented in prey remains (Boal and Mannan

1994). Furthermore, the importance of particular prey species may not be reflected

in their frequency of occurrence. Comparison of prey body mass and relative abundance also may be useful for determining the relative importance of prey species

(table 23).

5. Some prey items occur only on some islands and this may confound preference

with the geographical availability of prey items.

Knowledge regarding the ecology of northern goshawk prey in southeast Alaska

is also relatively limited. Quantified cover type associations, forest structure associations, and density estimates do not exist for most of these species. The importance of habitat edge for these species also is mostly unknown. The northwestern

crow (Corvus caurinus) inhabits the beach zone and might be considered an edge

species. Steller’s jays tend to be denser along edges but also occur in interior

habitats (Rosenburg and Raphael 1986). In studies outside southeast Alaska,

some prey used forest interior habitat more than forest edges: sharp-shinned hawk

(Accipiter striatus), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa

umbellus) (Rosenburg and Raphael 1986), and varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius).

Other species may attain their highest densities in larger forest stands: red

squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) in stands > 30 acres, red breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus ruber) in stands > 250 acres, hairy woodpeckers (Picoides

villosus) in stands > 500 acres, and marbled murrelets in stands > 600 acres

(USDA Forest Service 1991).

Figure 11—Pooled annual survival rates of adult goshawks, Tongass National Forest, 1992-96.

58
Little is known about geographic variation in population density for these species

within southeast Alaska. Red squirrels are not found on Prince of Wales Island

or the islands west of Prince of Wales (MacDonald and Cook 1994). Although

grouse are found throughout southeast Alaska, the larger blue grouse is absent

from Prince of Wales Island and associated islands; the smaller spruce grouse

(Canachites canadensis) occurs there but not on the islands to the north.

There is seasonal variation in the abundance of some prey species (table 23).

Yellowlegs (Tringa sp.) and sharp-shinned hawks are absent or nearly absent

from southeast Alaska during winter. Steller’s jays, varied thrushes, and woodpeckers are common or very common during summer but rare or uncommon

during winter.

All seven species or species groups, which were found at 20 percent of northern goshawk nests, primarily use forested habitats (table 24). One of the other

principal prey species, the northwestern crow, inhabits mostly beach fringe habitats, especially the edge of old-growth forests. Steller’s jay, grouse, varied thrush,

red squirrel, and woodpeckers appear to be the most important prey species during

the breeding season. Each occurred in 40 percent of the nest site prey examinations, are abundant in southeast Alaska, and are associated primarily with forested

habitats (tables 23, 24). Thrushes migrate south for most of the winter, and most jays

and woodpeckers appear to leave southeast Alaska (table 23); so Alcidae species,

ptarmigan (Lagopus sp.), northwestern crow, and other species groups may become

more important during winter. In general, the distribution of “H’s” in table 24 (highest

use of cover type) for principal prey species corresponds to productive old-growth

forest, especially for the most important prey species. This distribution also is consistent with the selection for productive old-growth forests by radio-marked goshawks.

≥

≥

Table 23—Goshawk prey occurrence obtained from a sample of 15 goshawk

nests

Nests Body

Relative abundance in key habitats

Species (15) mass Summer Winter

Percent Ounces

Steller’s jay 100 4-5 Common Uncommon

Grouse species 73 18-46 Common Common

Varied thrush 60 3-4 Very common Rare

Red squirrel 47 7-8 Common Common

Woodpecker species 40 2-3 Common Uncommon

Sharp-shinned hawk 27 3-8 Very uncommon Absent

Alcidae species 20 5-6 Common Common

Yellowlegs species 13 10-25 Uncommon Absent

Ptarmigan species 13 11-25 Uncommon Uncommon

Northwestern crow 13 11-18 Common Common

Source: Titus et al. 1994.

59
Goshawk Relations With

Other Predators

In addition to goshawks, other large raptors that occur in southeast Alaska include

the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), redtailed hawk, and great horned owl. There are probably 100 to 200 pairs of peregrine

falcons in southeast Alaska (Ambrose et al. 1988), but they occur primarily on the

outer coast facing the open Pacific Ocean and likely have little interaction with goshawks. The bald eagle population in southeast Alaska is estimated to be 13,340

(Jacobson and Hodges 1993) and may exclude goshawks from some coastal areas.

Goshawk nest site records show only limited use of beach areas. This may be due

to competition or direct aggression by bald eagles.

Red-tailed hawks occur sporadically across the Tongass NF and are associated

mainly with open habitats, such as low-elevation scrub forests and early successional stages after timber harvest. Great horned owls occur widely throughout the

forests of southeast Alaska but are thought to be rarer on the islands than in mainland forests, perhaps due to more abundant mammalian prey on the mainland. Both

red-tailed hawks and great horned owls have been documented as predators of goshawks and their nestlings (Boal and Mannan 1994, Woodbridge and Detrich 1994)

and may occupy a large proportion of goshawk nests after logging (Crocker-Bedford

1990, Patla 1990). There is no evidence suggesting that either owls or red-tailed

hawks have an adverse effect on goshawks in southeast Alaska. Where other raptor

populations are dense, they also may compete with goshawks for limited resources

such as prey or nest sites.

Table 24—Association of 10 goshawk prey species or species groups with 11 cover types in southeast

Alaska

Cover typea b

Species VH H M L R B S C MS A N

Most important:

Stellar’s jay MMMH H H H L ML M

Grouse species H H H H H H ML ML M

Varied thrush H H H H H MML ML L

Red squirrel H H H H H H L L ML L

Woodpecker species HHHHHH LLLLL

Total “high’s” (H) 4 4 4 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0

Less important:

Sharp-shinned hawk H H H H H H ML H L L

Alcidae species HHHHHH LLLLL

Yellowlegs species L L L L L L ML L L H

Ptarmigan species LLLLLLLLLHM

Northwestern crow LLLLLHLLLLL

Total “high’s” (H) 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 1

a VH = very high, H = high, M = moderate, L = low, R = riparian, B = beach, S = scrub forest, C = clearcut, MS = mature sawtimber,

A = alpine, and N = nonforest. Cover types are further described in table 7.

b L = little or no use, M = moderate use, and H = highest use of a cover type for that species or species group.

60
Conservation

Status of Northern

Goshawks in

Southeast Alaska

Conservation status refers to the demographic condition of a species as it relates

to the likelihood of local and regional persistence of that species over the long term.

The conservation status of goshawks in southeast Alaska is examined relative to

the information already presented in this assessment.

Given incomplete knowledge about goshawk ecology in southeast Alaska, the status

of goshawks can be evaluated by asking a series of critical questions about its biology and habitat. This approach has been used elsewhere (Murphy and Noon 1992,

Verner et al. 1992, Hayward and Verner 1994). The available information is evaluated to distinguish among three broad conclusions relative to long-term conservation

status of goshawks in southeast Alaska: (1) populations of goshawks are secure and

likely will remain so given current land management practices, (2) populations of goshawks are in peril (declining or experiencing some demographic trauma) or likely

will be in peril in the future given current management practices, or (3) there is insufficient evidence to determine or predict the conservation status of the species.

Goshawk populations differ in biology and ecology depending on geographic setting.

Therefore, when answering the critical questions, we first relied on evidence from

studies in southeast Alaska and secondarily on information from elsewhere in North

America and Europe. Few references are presented here because literature was

reviewed earlier.

1. Do habitats differ in their capacity to support the principal prey species used

by goshawks?

Our review of the limited literature available does indicate that habitats in southeast

Alaska differ in their capacity to support prey populations. Productive old-growth

forests support a wider range of important prey than do other habitat cover types.

Except for ptarmigan, Steller’s jay, and yellowlegs, the principal prey species

generally occur in higher densities in productive old-growth forest than other habitats.

Ptarmigan occur most in alpine and subalpine areas; Steller’s jays seem most

common near forest edges, and yellowlegs use peatlands, beaches, and estuaries.

Timber harvest may reduce populations of primary goshawk prey species owing to

the association of these prey species with productive old-growth forests where timber

management occurs. Our understanding of the habitat associations of principal prey

populations and forest dynamics suggests that clearcut, even-aged, short-rotation

management reduces habitat quality for these species. The loss of habitat begins

immediately after harvest and continues over many decades. Furthermore, partial

cutting likely has less adverse impact on prey abundance per acre than does clearcutting. Forest features in leave-tree patches will influence the quality of the site for

prey species. Landscapes with partial cuts that retain patches of old trees will provide

a greater diversity of forest structure that likely will support larger prey populations

than will landscapes with uniform even-aged forest structure.

Management activities other than timber harvest also can influence the abundance of

principal goshawk prey species. For instance, forest roads remove vegetation, initiate

secondary succession, and affect vegetation in plant communities along roadways

and in adjacent stands.

61
Key prey species are not evenly distributed across southeast Alaska. Red squirrels

are absent from Prince of Wales Island and islands west of it. On these same islands

spruce grouse are present, replacing the blue grouse that are common throughout

most of the remainder of southeast Alaska. Further, marten (Martes americana) and

red squirrels may have been introduced on several islands and may have altered the

natural ecological systems. Even though marten diets may overlap goshawk diets in

this region, the consequences of possible marten introductions on principal goshawk

prey are unknown. Introduction of the red squirrel, however, has likely increased prey

availability for goshawks.

2. Do habitats differ in their capacity to support goshawk populations or to

support particular functional activities? What are the characteristics of those

habitats? Are these habitats limiting goshawk populations? How does forest

management influence habitat quality for goshawks?

Observations of goshawk habitat use in southeast Alaska demonstrate selection for

specific habitat cover types and locations. Although the available data do not confirm

differences in goshawk fitness among habitats or directly show that goshawks obtain

more prey in any particular habitat, data on nonrandom habitat use provide indirect

evidence that habitat quality differs among habitat cover types.

Characteristics of habitat within 600 acres around the nest—Our sample suggested that goshawk nests occur in a subset of available forest habitats. Documented

nests occur below 1,000 feet in elevation in productive old-growth forest stands but

not in beach fringe or estuary forests. Nests have not been discovered in scrub forest

or early seral stages after clearcutting despite the high visibility such nests would

have had in these open habitats. Although nests have not been found in scrub

forests, nests have been found in small stands (less than 10 acres) of productive

old-growth forest generally surrounded by scrub forest.

Literature on goshawk nesting behavior (e.g., Crocker-Bedford 1990, Woodbridge

and Detrich 1994, Reynolds et al. 1994) demonstrates that goshawks show strong,

but variable, nest site fidelity. This behavior is thought to indicate that selected sites

have unique characteristics associated with increased goshawk fitness. Newton

(1986) showed that sites differ in quality for sparrowhawk (Accipiter nicus), and

quality is associated with nesting success. If we consider the landscape context of

nest site locations, our sample of goshawk nests occurred in areas that differ from

the surrounding landscape. Studies in southeast Alaska show that goshawks chose

nest sites with an average of 9 to 11 percent more productive old-growth forest

around the nest than in the surrounding 10,000-acre plot, respectively. Even in this

respect, however, goshawk nest areas showed broad variation. Cover of productive

old-growth forest ranged from 16 to 96 percent within 600 acres of the site; some

portion of this variation may be an artifact of circles not representing the

concentrated goshawk use areas.

Forest management influence on goshawk nesting habitat—Given the strong

association of nest sites with productive old-growth forest in southeast Alaska and

the lower probability of reoccupancy of small nest stands observed elsewhere

(Woodbridge and Detrich 1994), nesting by goshawks is likely to be lower in areas

with fewer acres of productive old-growth forest, whether due to natural conditions

or as a result of timber harvest. Reduction in the size of suitable nest stands or in

the total extent of productive old-growth forest will reduce goshawk nesting habitat,

especially in areas where productive old-growth forests are less common.

62
Selection and characteristics of other habitats—Without intensive observations

of goshawk behavior, investigators cannot distinguish among habitats used for different functions; e.g., foraging, roosting, and loafing habitats or habitats used for

other diurnal activities. No data are available on nocturnal activities. (Throughout

this discussion, we have assumed that goshawk radio-telemetry locations represent

suitable foraging habitat.) During the diurnal period in southeast Alaska, 57 percent

of female and 41 percent of male goshawk relocations occurred below 500 feet in

elevation; 74 percent of females and 54 percent of males occurred below 900 feet in

elevation. Goshawks were relocated in productive old-growth forest 67 percent of the

time and half of that occurred in the very high or high volume class strata. About

20 percent of goshawk relocations occurred in the narrow 1,000-foot beach fringe

and 24 percent occurred in narrow riparian buffers. These observations indicate

that goshawks are using a nonrandom subset of the environment.

The amount and distribution of productive old-growth forest (especially the moderate

to very high volume components), mature sawtimber, and riparian and beach zones

are likely to set a limit on goshawk distribution and abundance. Clearcuts reduce

the amount of productive old-growth forest and thus the area frequently used by

goshawks. Although scrub forests are used occasionally by goshawks (19 percent),

this was not a selected cover type relative to availability (28 percent, table 10). Also,

this cover type is relatively abundant (27.6 percent of the landscape) and not threatened by management; consequently, changes in the abundance of scrub forest are

not likely to play a key role in goshawk population change in southeast Alaska. Goshawk relocations in scrub forest areas frequently occurred in patches of productive

old-growth forest too small (e.g., < 5-10 acres) to be mapped in the GIS database.

Thus the use of scrub forest types may depend on the amount of inclusions of

productive old-growth forest patches within them.

Goshawks occur in a variety of habitats at the landscape scale (e.g., thousands of

acres); some occur in landscapes dominated by productive old-growth forest, and

others use landscapes dominated by scrub forest or clearcut lands. The goshawks

we observed in each of these situations reproduced successfully and may demonstrate their adaptability to a variety of landscapes. We have no data, however, to

indicate relative abundance or fitness of nesting goshawks among these varied

landscapes, which would serve as an indirect measure of relative habitat quality.

The geographic extent of goshawk use areas also differed dramatically; breeding

season use areas of adult males averaged 17,000 acres (range 6,800 to 48,185

acres) and for females averaged 35,076 acres (range 492 to 203,391 acres). Differences in the number of sample relocations accounted for much of the variation in

the size of the use areas; however, there is likely variation in use-area size among

individuals that exploits the variety of landscape compositions. Goshawk use areas

documented in southeast Alaska are exceptionally large relative to other regions and

may be related to low prey diversity or abundance. Kenward (1982) suggests that

home ranges in his study area were of a size to encompass an adequate amount

of key foraging habitat.

Data from southeast Alaska demonstrate differential use of cover types and topographical locations by radio-marked goshawks. A definitive assessment of the relative value of different combinations of cover types to goshawk fitness would require

information for landscapes on the relative density of goshawks, reproductive success,

mortality rates for adults and juveniles, and prey habitat relations and abundance.

63
Forest management influence on foraging habitat—Natural disturbance in the

coastal, temperate rain forest of southeast Alaska generally occurs in small patches

(0.1 to 0.2 acre) as a result of small-scale windthrow. Because of the cool, moist,

maritime climate, fire does not produce the disturbance patterns characteristic of

many other conifer forest types in other regions. Catastrophic windthrow events

generally affect much larger areas, up to 1,000 acres, but much more infrequently,

an average of only 0.3 percent of the productive old-growth forest is affected within

a landscape per decade (Nowacki and Kramer, in prep.).

Past timber harvest in southeast Alaska has emphasized even-aged clearcut silviculture that differs from natural disturbance processes and has long-term consequences on forest structure and goshawk habitat. Clearcutting removes high-quality

goshawk habitat (i.e., productive old-growth forest) and creates low-quality habitat

(i.e., clearcut and early seral conifer stands). Clearcut stands likely remain poor

quality goshawk habitat for over 100 years, through the stand initiation and stem

exclusion stages of forest succession (fig.2). The rate of habitat recovery after

clearcutting depends on site productivity, the amount of stand structure remaining

after timber harvest, the forest types that regenerate on the site, and many, sitespecific, chance events that influence secondary succession. Evaluating the extent

of habitat decline resulting from clearcutting is further complicated because productive old-growth forest sites probably differ in their value to goshawks according to

prey density and forest structure, which facilitate goshawk flight and prey capture

(Moore and Henny 1983, Fisher 1986, Spieser and Busakowski 1987, Widen 1989,

Crocker-Bedford 1990, Reynolds et al. 1992).

Evaluating the influence of forest management becomes especially complex in a

landscape context. The effects of clearcutting on habitat quality depend on the

amount and distribution of cover types (especially productive old-growth forest)

present before and after harvest. For instance, harvest of 1,000 acres of productive

old-growth forest from a 10,000-acre watershed likely will have different consequences if, before harvest, productive old-growth forest occupied 2,000 acres or

9,000 acres. The geographic dispersion of various cover types before and after

harvest also likely influence the impact of clearcut harvest on goshawks. Despite

wide variation in the size and habitat composition of goshawk use areas, 23 and

28 percent was the minimum proportion of productive old growth present in any

breeding season use area for adult males and females, respectively. We do not

know the consequences to goshawk nesting if landscapes are managed below

these levels. We also do not know the relation between the amount of productive

old-growth forest and either goshawk fitness or relative abundance. As selected

habitat components decline at the landscape scale, home range size may increase

(Kenward 1982), and population density may decrease. Goodman (1987) suggests

that any management that reduces habitat quality to near minimum conditions will

substantially increase the probability of extinction resulting from chance environmental events or catastrophes.

64
3. Do the life history and ecology of the goshawk suggest that populations are

vulnerable to habitat change?

Several aspects of goshawk life history suggest that the species may be vulnerable

to habitat changes. Goshawks are long-lived birds, have a low reproductive rate,

occur in low densities, and at least in southeast Alaska do not migrate. As such,

goshawk life history parallels that of other large avian predators, such as the bald

eagle and spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). Demographic sensitivity analysis of the

life history strategy for these species shows that population growth rates are most

sensitive to changes in adult survival rates (Noon and Biles 1990). Habitat changes

that decrease adult survival would decrease the probability of persistence. In particular, reductions in prey populations or prey availability as a consequence of forest

management could increase goshawk mortality, especially during periods of stress.

Goshawks in other regions exhibit dramatic movement patterns in response to winter

prey shortages (Doyle and Smith 1994), suggesting the potential for food stress

during winter.

Habitat change also could influence adult and juvenile survival rates by changing the

vulnerability of goshawks to predation or interactions with competitors. Elsewhere,

great horned owls prey on goshawks, and red-tailed hawks may compete with goshawks. Although both great horned owls and red-tailed hawks are associated with

openings in other conifer forests, neither species would likely benefit from clearcuts

for a long period in southeast Alaska, owing to low structural diversity and prey

productivity of the stem exclusion stage of secondary forest succession.

The very large areas used by goshawks in southeast Alaska may lead to high energy

expenditure during daily movements. Hirons (1985) has shown that, for the tawny

owl (S. aluco), clutch size is limited by energy available to the female prior to laying.

Palmer (1988) emphasizes the importance of late winter and early spring habitat in

determining the breeding condition of female raptors. In this context, the large areas

used by goshawks are a conservation issue for two reasons: (1) populations of individuals requiring large ranges may be energetically stressed, have lower reproductive success, and be less resilient to further stress; and (2) land management must

provide habitat within large areas to meet individual as well as population needs.

Reductions in productive old-growth forest that reduce prey populations likely would

further stress individual goshawks, especially in landscapes with relatively low prey

populations. Goshawks occupy an upper trophic level in a broad food web; they rely

on the integrity of trophic levels two to three lower levels. This food web is poorly

understood; however, changes in habitat that negatively influence prey populations

likely would reduce the probability of persistence for goshawks.

The influence of habitat change on successful dispersal of young goshawks, or on

movements of adult goshawks, is unknown. Likewise, the influence of habitat change

on other demographic characteristics of goshawks in southeast Alaska is not understood. Several authors have provided deductive arguments, and some empirical

data, indicating reduced nest occupancy or reduced reproduction per occupied nest

following timber harvest (see “Species response to forest harvest” in “Review of

Northern Goshawk Ecology in North America,” above).

65
4. Given that goshawks select particular habitats, are these habitats declining

or at risk under current management?

Nearly 900,000 acres of productive old-growth forests have been converted to early

seral forests within the temperate rain forest ecosystem in southeast Alaska. The

amount of habitats used and selected by goshawks for nesting and foraging, and

most likely important habitats for principal prey species, have declined in the past

and continue to decline under current management. Clearcut stands represent one

of the least-used cover types by goshawks. Most clearcut stands are currently less

than 40 years old and provide poor habitat for goshawks and will continue to provide

poor habitat for another 60 to 100 years. Evaluating the risk of further reductions in

the extent and quality of goshawk habitat depends on several aspects of future

management direction. We can conclude, however, that the projected harvest of an

additional estimated 1.5 million acres of productive old-growth forest planned under

the current Tongass Land Management Plan (USDA 1979) can only further adversely

affect the conservation status of the goshawk. The distribution of timber harvest,

the silvicultural prescriptions used, and the overall timber volume harvested will all

influence risk as discussed further in “Management Considerations”(below).

5. Is evidence available that goshawk distribution or abundance is declining in

all or part of southeast Alaska?

Data on goshawk density, survival, reproduction, and dispersal in southeast Alaska

are too limited to directly determine the trend in any demographic characteristic for

the population. Due to the lack of historical information, direct estimates of status

and trend will be difficult for the near future. Preliminary data and literature review

suggest that adult goshawk survival in southeast Alaska might be within the range

judged necessary for population stability. The annual estimated survival of adult

goshawks averaged 72 percent (56 to 88 percent for the 95-percent confidence

interval), not too different from the minimum 80- to 86-percent adult survival calculated by McGuire and Call (Arizona Game & Fish 1993) and believed necessary

for stability in goshawk populations.

Although demographic data are not available to determine population trends, patterns

may be inferred based on trends in habitat, if it is assumed that habitat or a process

related to habitat abundance and quality is limiting goshawk populations. Considerable amounts of the most productive old-growth forest habitats selected by goshawks

have been removed in southeast Alaska, and the decline will continue under the current Tongass land management plan. It is likely that productive old-growth forest that

has been harvested once supported goshawks and their prey at densities comparable to those currently observed in unharvested areas. Although goshawk abundance is not likely linearly related to the proportion of productive old-growth forest,

goshawks likely require some unknown abundance of productive old-growth forest at

large spatial scales (e.g., >10,000 acres), and that below that level goshawk abundance declines. Reducing the amount of productive old-growth forest to a level still

above this critical amount may or may not have a significant effect.

Despite the lack of direct data on current population size or trend, where habitat

abundance and quality has been reduced, relative goshawk density will likely also

be lower. Therefore, based on significant reductions in the amount of highly productive old-growth forest habitat, goshawk abundance has likely declined during the past

period of intensive timber harvest. Data are, however, insufficient to estimate the

magnitude of decline or the likelihood of long-term goshawk persistence.

66
6. What is the current conservation status of the goshawk in southeast Alaska?

The current conservation status of goshawks in southeast Alaska cannot be precisely

defined and this situation is not unique. Sound estimates of persistence probabilities

are not available for many more intensively studied species (e.g., goshawks in other

areas or the northern spotted owl). Principal barriers include insufficient information

about important population parameters. In particular, population growth rates for

species with life histories similar to goshawks are most sensitive to changes in adult

survival rates. Available ecological information on goshawk habitat use, trends in

habitat condition for goshawks and their prey, life history characteristics of the goshawk, and characteristics of its prey together form the basis for making inferences

to assess the conservation status of the goshawk in southeast Alaska.

Based on the information presented in this document and summarized earlier in

this section, we can draw three main conclusions. The first is that the probability

of persistence for goshawks throughout southeast Alaska has declined since

the middle of the 20th century. Secondly, although persistence may be in immediate peril in specific areas with highly modified landscapes (see “Management

Considerations,” “Risk Assessment,” below) goshawks in most ecological provinces with limited or no habitat modification are likely not in immediate peril.

Thirdly, we concluded that a sound habitat management strategy is important

to maintain long-term, well-distributed populations. These three conclusions

are based on the following points:

• Habitats selected by goshawks remain abundant in many portions of southeast

Alaska, especially in wilderness areas. Some habitats used for activities other

than nesting are not significantly altered by current management practices (e.g.,

scrub forests with inclusions of large trees).

• Goshawks studied in southeast Alaska produce numbers of young similar to

goshawks elsewhere, however they likely exist in lower nesting densities in

southeast Alaska.

• Goshawks in southeast Alaska appear to use a variety of landscape conditions

and to prey on a variety of vertebrates occurring in several cover types, thereby

suggesting the species may be resilient to some degree of change. Use of a

particular habitat (e.g., scrub or nonforest) does not, however, necessarily imply

a positive contribution to fitness (Van Horne 1983). Nonetheless, the productive

old-growth forest component on the landscape is selected by goshawks, and some

of these forests are at risk of habitat loss because of current forest management

direction.

• Evidence suggests that goshawks in southeast Alaska are not migratory. They

would therefore not be placed at increased risk due to loss of wintering habitat

outside the region or be faced with potential increased mortality during migratory

movements. Correspondingly, however, habitat within the region must be adequate to support goshawks throughout the year.

• Goshawks in southeast Alaska move extensively within the region. This movement suggests that the probability of recolonizing areas that have experienced

local extirpations would be high once habitat quality was restored; but given forest

succession rates, this response may take several decades or centuries to occur.

67
• Goshawks in southeast Alaska exhibit color and morphological features suggesting

distinct genetic characteristics. These features imply that the group of goshawks

in the region have not been a sink population, at least in the past. The different

morphology furthermore suggests that a population with minimal demographic

support from outside populations has remained viable and distinct within the

region for a relatively long period.

• Risks to long-term (e.g., 100 years or more) and short-term persistence of goshawks in specific areas are management challenges for the immediate future.

These challenges were identified from available information on goshawk habitat

use and nest area habitat, the dynamics of those habitats, the consequences of

current forest management, and goshawk life history. Specifically:

• Goshawks have been identified as a species of viability concern by several

agencies because they occur at low densities, have low reproductive rates,

and use habitats for nesting and other activities that have been reduced or

markedly altered by timber management. These population characteristics

have been associated with a decreased probability of persistence for other

vertebrates (Pimm et al. 1988, Shaffer 1981).

• Habitat associated with goshawk nest areas has been reduced in southeast

Alaska during the latter half of the 20th century owing to timber harvest. Goshawks have not been found nesting in clearcuts or early seral stage forests.

If goshawks are limited to mature and productive old-growth habitat, then

extensive clearcut harvest likely will result in a reduction in the number of

breeding goshawks, breeding goshawks no longer occurring in particular

areas, and reduced abundance of goshawks in selected watersheds. Contractions in the range of a species decrease the probability of persistence

owing to chance environmental events (implied by Goodman 1987, Pimm

et al. 1988).

• Harvest of productive old-growth forest reduces habitat quality for 8 of the

10 goshawk principal prey species and may negatively affect forest structure

for foraging goshawks. Productive old-growth forest habitats are selected by

goshawks when away from the nest, and the principal prey species are probably most abundant and accessible in productive old-growth stands. Although

goshawks in this region appear to forage in a variety of habitats, reductions

in prey abundance and accessibility likely will lead to a lower abundance of

goshawks, to reduced goshawk survival, and to reduced productivity.

• The large use areas exhibited by goshawks in southeast Alaska suggest that

the population may be more sensitive to reduction in habitat quality than populations elsewhere. There is some indication that goshawk use areas in southeast

Alaska are even larger in the more modified landscapes (e.g., North Prince of

Wales Island Province); however, this speculation is confounded by lower prey

species richness in these same areas.

• Some biologists have suggested that goshawks are rarely seen, and their nests

rarely found, in landscapes with the most clearcutting. However, substantial

surveys in landscapes where timber harvest has not occurred also have failed

to detect nesting goshawks (Schempf et al. 1996).

68
• The degree to which population growth is density dependent, especially at low

population densities, is important to carefully consider in assessing goshawk

demography and the potential consequences of habitat change. The extent that

goshawk population growth is density dependent is specifically unknown, and we

do not know whether goshawks are likely to experience an Allee effect (negative

density dependence at low populations size; Allee 1931) at modest population

sizes. A strong Allee effect could result if goshawks experience difficulty in locating

mates at low population densities, or if low population densities are associated with

large use areas, which affect energy needs and subject the birds to more predation

and competition.

In general, then, trends in habitat condition throughout the region suggest that the

probability of persistence for goshawks in southeast Alaska has decreased relative

to conditions prior to or earlier in the 20th century. The actual degree to which the

probability of persistence has been reduced is unknown. Under the management

direction of the current Tongass National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1979)

the probability of persistence will continue to decline.

Management

Considerations

Management considerations are developed and presented as a framework for

goshawk conservation in southeast Alaska. They represent an integration of the

available literature, results of research and surveys conducted in southeast Alaska,

past and planned forest management practices relative to the ecology of the temperate rain forest, and conclusions regarding the conservation status of goshawks

in southeast Alaska, elements described in earlier sections. Statements made here

also represent management hypotheses that need to be tested through research,

rigorous monitoring, and adaptive management.

Goshawk Response to

Forest Disturbance

Response to forest change at the stand scale—We examined a variety of silvicultural systems to assess the impact of fine-scale habitat change on goshawk

habitat use. Goshawks disproportionately select productive old-growth forest habitats

among all available habitat types. Clearcutting of productive old-growth stands

initiates secondary forest succession which results in fundamental changes to forest

structure avoided by goshawks. Thus, the dual effects of clearcutting—eliminating a

selected habitat type and creating an avoided habitat type at the stand scale—serve

to focus management considerations on the productive old-growth forest component

of the landscape. For purposes of this discussion, we consider a “stand” to be a

relatively homogeneous forest in structure and composition in the size range of 20

to 100 acres.

Five stand structures that result from a range of silvicultural treatments were evaluated by integrating our knowledge of forest dynamics and goshawk ecology to

estimate relative habitat suitability for nesting and foraging use by goshawks

(table 25). Old-growth forest was used as a basis for comparison. Value assignments for foraging were based on our prediction of prey abundance within stands

and whether stands would facilitate goshawk hunting behavior. The general assumption was made that goshawk habitat use not related to the immediate nesting habitat

is either directly or indirectly related to foraging activities.

69
Goshawks likely have adapted to forest processes of gap dynamics and catastrophic

windthrow and the resulting fine- and coarse-scale seral stand mosaic, as evidenced

by their apparent long-term presence in southeast Alaska. Thus, the assumption is

made that the more closely active forest management emulates the size, frequency, and intensity of natural forest dynamic processes in time and space, the more

suitable the resulting combination of stand structures will be to sustain goshawks.

However, any application of silvicultural treatments likely is additive to “residual”

(e.g., natural) forest disturbance processes already occurring, possibly resulting in

more frequent and intense disturbances.

Old-growth forest is rated highest for nesting and foraging because goshawks select

it for nesting and nonnesting activities and it provides a greater diversity and abundance of prey. Old-growth forest stand structure also provides the canopy closure

and relatively open understory suitable for foraging.

Uneven-aged silviculture—Group selection resulting in up to 2-acre openings occurring at different stages of succession may emulate aspects of the gap-dynamic,

shifting-mosaic characteristic of temperate rain forests. To employ both a time and

space control, we assumed that no more than 3.3 percent of the stand is removed in

any decade (approximating a 300-year rotation) and that some groups of trees that

are at least 300 years old will always remain.

Group selection sites may not provide nesting habitat equivalent to old-growth forest

because of the degree of increased patchiness (over residual gap processes) that

will result over time; however, the value for nesting likely would remain adequate

over the entire area throughout the rotation. Light, single-tree selection is expected

to retain high-value nesting habitat as long as large, old trees remain on the site

through time. Group or single-tree selection also maintains relatively high-value

foraging habitat throughout the management cycle (table 25). Thus, uneven-aged

silviculture that emulates natural disturbance patterns will have a high likelihood of

sustaining suitable goshawk habitat (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Table 25—Estimated value of forest stands with different structures for

goshawk nesting and foraging habitat, southeast Alaskaa

Estimated value Estimated value

Forest structure for nesting for foraging

Old growth (>250-300 years old) H H

Mature sawtimber (75-250 years old) M M

Uneven-aged management prescription:

Single-tree selection (300-year

“rotation”) H H

Group selection (1- to 2-acre openings)

(300-year “rotation”) M+ HEven-aged management prescription:

Shelterwood with reserves L- MClearcut L- L

a All cases evaluate stands on sites that can support productive old-growth forest. Ratings: L = low value,

M = medium value, H = high value; + and - provide finer resolution among categories.

70
Even-aged silviculture—Shelterwood is a clearcut-type harvest that leaves scattered

residual trees after the initial harvest of most (e.g., 80 percent) of the trees on a site.

In the “shelterwood with reserves” system (table 25), retained trees are never harvested. Even with reserve trees, shelterwood treatment is considered among the

least valuable treatments for nesting or foraging owing to inadequate forest structure

remaining in the stand. Compared to clearcut sites, residual large trees and snags

retained on shelterwood sites likely would contribute to increased structural complexity with at least two canopy layers. They also would function as a source of future

recruitment of snags and downed woody material leading to accelerated development

of stand structure for nesting and foraging habitat, especially during the period from

about 100 to 150 years. The more windfirm residual structure retained in a shelterwood harvest, the higher the habitat suitability for goshawks and prey species,

especially 1 to 2 centuries after the shelterwood harvest.

Clearcut refers to a complete removal of all trees within a stand to restart secondary

forest succession at the stand initiation stage. This even-aged seral condition resulting

from clearcutting persists for at least 100 years (current TLMP rotation length) and

up to 150 years through the stem exclusion stage of forest succession. The value of

clearcut stands (20 to 100 acres) for goshawk nesting or foraging is initially very low

because nearly all vertical structure is removed at harvest, but suitability changes as

the stand matures. During the stand initiation phase (about 0 to 25 years after harvest), the stand provides no nesting habitat but may provide some minimal foraging

habitat, depending on seral conditions, opening size, and the landscape context of

the stands. During the stem exclusion phase (30 to 150 years), nesting habitat is

generally absent until late in this period of stand development. The dense forest

provides little flight space and goshawk foraging is unlikely. During understory

reinitiation (starting at about 150 years) and as the stand continues to mature, the

foraging habitat quality will gradually improve as conditions increase for a variety of

prey species, and the more open stand provides necessary flight space. Nesting

also becomes more likely as tree size increases and the stand becomes more open.

Intermediate treatments—Intermediate silvicultural treatments such as precommercial and commercial thinnings that open the canopy, could theoretically enhance stand

suitability for goshawk habitat use. The greatest benefits would not be in direct habitat improvement, but rather in reducing the time to develop stand structural characteristics necessary to provide suitable goshawk nesting and foraging habitat (e.g.,

120 years instead of 150 years on an average site). Opening the canopy could

theoretically enhance understory development of herbaceous vegetation to enhance

habitat for prey species, but the vegetative responses would likely be very slow

(Alaback 1982), and known prey species apparently do not respond to precommercial thinning in southeast Alaska (DellaSalla et al. 1994). To the extent that these

silvicultural treatments increase natural disturbances that further alter stand structure,

such as additional windthrow, the consequences for goshawks are less certain.

71
Response to forest change at the landscape scale—When the consequences of

implementing stand-scale treatments across large landscapes and over long periods

are considered, then several considerations emerge concerning goshawk response

to forest management. Applying various silvicultural treatments to a landscape over

time creates a mosaic of stand structures. Characteristics of the mosaic and resulting

consequences to goshawk habitat suitability depend on the type and combination

of silvicultural treatments applied (e.g., single-tree selection versus clearcut); the

intensity, frequency, and size of these silvicultural treatments; the existing landscape

composition and structure; and interactions with natural disturbance events. In theory,

forest management through uneven-aged silviculture approximating the size, scale,

and intensity of natural disturbance processes should provide continuous moderateto high-quality habitat when applied across the landscape, if treated stands retain

some old trees with complex forest structure. An uneven-aged management framework has no actual rotation age; however, the choice of patches and scheduling of

harvest determines the mix of structures present in the forest.

The size of seral stands created by various silvicultural treatments impacts goshawk

habitat. Goshawks in southeast Alaska preferentially select against use of clearcuts.

These data are, however, based on relatively large clearcuts (e.g., generally 20 to

100 acres); the likely impact of small clearcuts or group selection harvests are much

less known and will depend, in part, on patch size. Prey availability for goshawks

may increase if average treatment openings are smaller, because (1) prey within harvested patchs will all be closer to the edge (where hawks can perch), and (2) any

prey species favoring edge habitat will have more edge habitat relative to clearcut

area. The tradeoffs between group selection and clearcutting, then, may depend on

the proportion of the landscape in early seral stages and the habitat value of edge

areas to goshawks. Regardless of the silvicultural system used (even vs uneven

aged), the total amount of early seral forest stand structure (cover types avoided

by goshawks) within a landscape strongly influences habitat quality.

We do not suggest that goshawks require extensive tracts of productive old-growth

forest on the Tongass NF, but rather that landscapes with large proportions of early

seral forest reduce the cumulative habitat quality for goshawks across the landscape.

When productive old-growth forest stands are clearcut in a landscape having a large

scrub forest component, the landscape will retain some foraging habitat quality

because goshawks use scrub forests (especially their inclusions of small patches

of productive old-growth forest) but avoid clearcuts. The use and contribution of the

scrub forest component and the variability in its abundance across the landscape

is a likely cause for the high variability in the amounts of productive old-growth forest

within goshawk use areas. The overall habitat capability and probable goshawk persistence are likely to be most reduced when landscapes dominated by productive

old-growth forests are converted to predominantly early seral habitats and contain

little scrub in the resulting mosaic that may provide compensatory foraging habitat.

Rotation length—Because productive old-growth forests provide important nesting

habitat for goshawks and habitat for their prey, the effective rotation period for a

stand (the maximum age before each stand is harvested again) has a significant

influence on the value of habitats to goshawk conservation after silvicultural treatment.

72
Under a theoretical 200-year rotation for all current old growth, about half of the

forest is maintained at all times in either the stand initiation or stem exclusion stages

(less than 100 years) and half in the understory reinitiation stage (100 to 200 years).

A 200-year rotation may double the effective landscape goshawk habitat capability

over a comparable 100-year rotation, with nearly half of the landscape in a mature

sawtimber cover type. Because 100- to 200-year-old stands are currently uncommon

in the Tongass NF, data are insufficient to accurately assess their habitat value to

goshawks. However, based on likely stand structure, forest successional pathways,

and goshawk foraging behavior, these stands would provide at least intermediate

quality goshawk habitat (see table 26), and they represent the mature sawtimber

component used by goshawks in greater proportion than its relative availability.

When 200-year-old stands begin to exhibit increased structural complexity through

development of gap dynamic processes that lead to the initial expression of some

old-growth characteristics under a 200-year rotation, they are harvested and set back

to the stand initiation stage. We cannot judge if all prey species niches are present

within stands managed under 200-year rotations. There would be no old-growth

forest component under this scenario.

By contrast, a 300-year rotation for all old growth provides up to 10 decades for

development of late successional forest stand structure (stand age 200 to 300 years)

for use by goshawks. Under a 300-year rotation, at least one-third of a landscape

would be productive old-growth forest with associated niches to support diverse prey

populations. A second third of the landscape would be in the intermediate-valued

mature sawtimber stage. The remaining landscape would be in the least valuable

0- to 100-year-old conifer stand structure. Extended rotations with time controls (e.g.,

3.3 percent of productive old-growth forest harvested per decade) and area controls

(e.g., Value Comparison Units averaging 15,000 acres) present an opportunity to

both harvest timber and provide habitat likely to sustain goshawk populations.

Data from southeast Alaska suggest that goshawks can successfully produce young

in landscapes with moderate amounts of early seral forest stand structure. This relation is not unexpected because large-scale windthrow, an occasional disturbance

event, creates essentially even-aged stands that may occupy hundreds of acres, and

goshawks have either adapted to or can tolerate this disturbance regime. Use of a

300-year rotation that maintains nearly two-thirds of the landscape in either understory

reinitiation (moderate value) or old-growth forest (high value) development stages

is consistent with the habitat use patterns exhibited by goshawks (see “Analysis

of Northern Goshawk Ecology in Southeast Alaska,” above) where 70.5 percent of

goshawk habitat use occurred in mature sawtimber or productive old-growth forest.

Further support that a 300-year rotation would provide this theoretical dynamic landscape composition of seral age classes was developed from observed variation in

goshawk use of landscapes. Productive old-growth forests within individual goshawk

breeding season use areas ranged from 23 to 88 percent of the area. The mean of

this distribution is about 48 percent productive old-growth (standard deviation is

15 percent). Thus, even though some birds occurred in landscapes with as low

as a 24 percent component of productive old-growth forest, they represent a small

proportion of the sample population. If the management objective is that 48 percent

of the landscape should be composed of late seral or old-growth forest, then habitat

73
Table 26—Goshawk risk assessment at the biogeographic province

scale for the Tongass NF showing the percentage of the productive

old-growth forest harvested in 1995 and the potential harvest in

2055 with continued implementation of the current Tongass NF

land management plana b

Productive old growth harvested

Biogeographic province 1995 2055

Percent

East Chichagof Island 8.6 38.6c

West Chichagof Island 0.0 6.0

East Baranof Island 8.0 37.0c

West Baranof Island 4.5 22.5

Admiralty Island 0.0 3.0

Lynn Canal 3.0 26.2

North Coast Range 0.4 32.0

Kupreanof Island and Mitkof Island 9.1 47.3c

Kuiu Island 7.2 37.0c

Central Coast Range 2.3 25.6

Etolin Island and vicinity 11.7 49.2c

North Prince of Wales Island 20.8d 66.9c

Revilla and Cleveland Peninsula 4.8 35.5c

Southern outer islands 11.6 36.3c

Dall Island and vicinity 1.1 55.7c

South Prince of Wales Island 1.9 34.3c

North Misty Fiords 0.4 3.8

South Misty Fiords 0.0 0.0

Ice fields 2.4 6.3

Tongass National Forest 6.5 31.4

a The Yakutat area is excluded from the analysis.

b Harvest rates exceeding 13 percent (1995) and 33 percent (2055) represent

increased risk to long-term goshawk persistence.

c Province harvest rates exceed 33-percent threshold; 300-year rotation harvest rate.

d Province harvest rates exceed 13-percent threshold; 300-year rotation harvest rate.

74
needs of, at best, only 50 percent of the population will be met. Thus, some proportion of the population above the mean may be a prudent management objective,

perhaps 1 standard deviation. This level would approximate the 60- to 70-percent

range demonstrated by the proportion of goshawk relocations that occurred in productive old-growth forest. This analysis assumes that the proportion of a selected habitat

component used by goshawks equates to the proportion of that habitat type needed

within the landscape to have a high probability of sustaining goshawks.

We conclude that timber harvest management regimes with longer effective rotations

will provide a higher probability of goshawk population persistence than shorter rotations. One possibly goshawk conservation strategy is to manage 66 percent of the

productive forest in equal proportions of mature sawtimber and productive old-growth

forest habitat cover types with the remaining one-third managed under an even-aged,

short rotation design. These conclusions are consistent with previously published

recommendations for goshawks (Crocker-Bedford 1990, Reynolds et al. 1992).

Risk Assessment A risk assessment was conducted under the assumption that a 300-year-rotation timber management regime applied to all productive forests would provide a relatively

high probability of long-term goshawk persistence throughout their current range in

southeast Alaska. This assumption implies that the probability of goshawk persistence increases if less than one-third of the forested landscape is in early successional stand structure (e.g., 100 years), nearly one-third is in a understory reinitiation

stage of secondary succession (e.g., 100- to 200-year-old mature sawtimber) and

more than one-third is in stands 200 years or older and containing the full complement of old-growth forest characteristics.

The risk analysis was conducted at three spatial scales (described below) and at two

points in time: (1) the current situation after four decades of timber harvest beginning

on an extensive scale in 1955; and (2) projecting another six-plus decades assuming

full implementation of current TLMP (USDA Forest Service 1979) using a 100-year

rotation. From these analyses, two thresholds of early seral (e.g., less than 100 years)

forest composition present on the Tongass were developed: 13 percent (the current

situation—four decades divided by 30 decades), and 33 percent (the end of the

first 100-year rotation—10 decades divided by 30 decades). Areas with less than

13 percent (1995 situation) or 33 percent (2055 situation) of the productive oldgrowth forest harvested were consistent with the habitat capability of a 300-year

rotation schedule and were judged as having a relatively high probability of sustaining goshawks. Areas exceeding these thresholds presented a higher risk of not

providing the amount and distribution of habitat necessary to sustain goshawks.

A risk assessment could also examine a theoretical 200-year rotation where one-half

of all forests managed in 0 to 100 age classes and one-half in 100 to 200 age classes

with commensurate thresholds of 20 percent (current) and 70 percent in 2055 of the

landscape in productive old-growth forest. This scenario was not examined in detail,

however, because this rotation length is unlikely to regenerate much old-growth stand

structure known to be selected by goshawks. Furthermore, the relative value of 100-

to 200-year-old regenerating forest stands to goshawks is unclear, because it is a

75
relatively rare feature across the landscape and goshawk habitat relations are

not well tested. It is doubtful that this stand structure, without an accompanying

old-growth forest component, could sustain goshawks across all landscapes.

This risk assessment should be placed within the following context and assumptions:

1. Goshawks are not entirely dependent on productive old-growth forests included

in the timber base. Productive old-growth forests not suitable or available for timber

harvest (e.g., wilderness and riparian buffers) provide significant amounts of habitat.

The abundance of these habitats that are not suitable or available for timber harvest

differs among landscapes. Specifically, 46 percent of goshawk habitat use occurred

in riparian buffers and other areas of productive old-growth forest stands unsuitable

for timber harvest during the 100-year planning horizon under the current TLMP.

These unsuitable timber management acres of productive old-growth forest remain a

permanent contribution to the old-growth habitat component across the landscape.

2. Forest lands will be managed under the current TLMP for the next 100 years at

the projected maximum average annual harvest of 450 million board feet, with no

amendments occurring to change that level.

3. Relative risk is a function of prey richness and availability as determined by the

percentage of productive old-growth forest lands harvested.

4. This analysis includes only Tongass NF lands; non-Federal lands are not included

in this analysis. Trees on over 50 percent of the 700,000 acres of forests on nonFederal lands in southeast Alaska have been harvested (USDA Forest Service 1991).

Given this level of habitat change, ecological risks to goshawks are higher for areas

with significant amounts of non-Federal forests that have been harvested.

5. The analysis assumes that all productive old-growth forests are of equal value

to goshawks.

Southeast Alaska regional scale—At the scale of the entire Tongass NF (excluding

Yakutat), 6.5 percent of the productive old-growth forest has been harvested since

1955 (table 26). Under the current TLMP, an estimated 32.1 percent of the productive old-growth forest land will be harvested by 2055. Thus, at the regional scale,

management is currently consistent with a 300-year scheduling regime in terms

of goshawk habitat capability and should remain consistent in 2055. However, this

broad scale of analysis fails to consider distribution of habitats throughout southeast

Alaska.

Biogeographic province scale—The Tongass NF has been stratified into 21 biogeographic provinces representing ecologically distinct landscapes (e.g., Admiralty

Island, Kuiu Island, West Baranof Island, etc.) (USDA Forest Service 1991). Of the

20 provinces corresponding to the regional area used above (i.e., Yakutat excluded),

only the North Central Prince of Wales Province currently exceeds the 13-percent

threshold level (table 26). Under the current TLMP, 10 of 20 provinces would exceed

the 33-percent threshold by 2055, including all island provinces within the Stikine and

Ketchikan Administrative Areas of the Tongass (table 26, fig. 12).

76
Figure 12—Goshawk risk assessment at the biogeographic province scale. Figure shows distribution

of the productive old-growth forest harvested in 1995 and the potential harvest in 2055 with continual

implementation of the current Tongass NF land management plan.

77
Management area scale—Management areas represent 140 land divisions used

in the current TLMP to identify landscapes on the order of tens to hundreds of

thousands of acres. In the Chatham Administrative Area, 6 of 54 management

areas currently exceed the 13-percent harvest threshold, and 23 management

areas are expected to exceed the 33-percent harvest threshold by 2055; in the

Stikine Administrative Area, 9 of 37 management areas currently exceed the

13-percent harvest threshold and 22 management areas are expected to exceed

the 33-percent harvest threshold by 2055; and in the Ketchikan Administrative

Area, 12 of 48 management areas currently exceed the 13-percent threshold

and 28 management areas are expected to exceed the 33-percent threshold

by 2055 (table 27, fig. 13).

Table 27—Tongass NF management areas, exceeding a 300-year timber harvest schedulea

Administrative Management Areas exceeding Management Areas exceeding

location 13% harvest level in 1995b 33% harvest level in 2055b

Chatham C44 (13.5), C41 (14.1), C27 (15.0), C07 (37.5), C29 (40.3), C43 (40.3),

C30 (15.1), C37 (18.4), C32 (12.3) C10 (42.5), C18 (42.8), C40 (43.1),

C39 (43.1), C44 (43.3), C25 (45.5),

C15 (47.9), C03 (48.1), C27 (48.1),

C21 (49.2), C34 (51.3), C32 (53.5),

C28 (55.0), C13 (56.2), C30 (56.8),

C37 (57.0), C14 (60.1), C19 (60.3),

C41 (61.6), C31 (65.5)

Ketchikan K32 (14.1), K15 (14.5), K08 (17.7), K44 (35.7), K13 (39.8), K28 (50.7),

K10 (23.4), K04 (23.6), K01 (24.9), K39 (53.3), K19 (54.1), K34 (56.0),

K17 (28.7), K03 (29.3), K09 (35.5), K30 (57.5), K24 (57.9), K22 (58.8),

K07 (38.6), K11 (38.7), K05 (44.6) K25 (60.4), K32 (60.6), K21 (62.8),

K35 (63.1), K10 (64.4), K04 (66.0),

K14 (66.2), K17 (66.6), K20 (66.7),

K29 (67.0), K18 (67.1), K01 (76.0),

K08 (77.0), K03 (78.4), K15 (81.3),

K07 (81.6), K09 (83.5), K11 (84.0),

K05(86.7)

Stikine S35 (12.9), S11 (13.4), S29 (14.4), S29 (36.2), S20 (44.2), S26 (45.8),

S22 (15.7), S17 (16.8), S04 (17.8), S07 (46.3), S33 (48.6), S16 (49.9),

S19 (19.5), S21 (31.5), S18 (41.8) S22 (51.1), S35 (51.5), S23 (52.1),

S13 (54.1), S25 (54.3), S21 (55.3),

S08 (56.4), S14 (57.1), S18 (57.5),

S17 (57.8), S09 (58.7), S01 (59.2),

S10 (61.0), S04 (62.7), S19 (66.0),

S11 (58.7)

a Based on a 3.3-percent harvest rate per decade (1955 base). Potential harvest levels in 2055 were predicted by using the

current Tongass NF land management plan.

b Management area identifier is followed by the percentage of harvested old growth (in parentheses).

78
Figure 13—Goshawk risk assessment at the management area scale. Figure shows distribution of

the productive old-growth forest harvested in 1995 and the potential harvest in 2055 with continual

implementation of the current Tongass NF land management plan.

79
Goshawk Conservation

Strategies

Our knowledge and understanding of goshawk ecology is insufficient to fully address

all specific components of a strategy for sustaining goshawks throughout southeast

Alaska. We do not know how many goshawks occurred in the past or the original

habitat capability. We do know that over 900,000 acres (including State, private,

and National Forest lands) of productive old-growth forest habitat, a cover type preferentially selected by goshawks, has been replaced by early seral stages avoided

by goshawks. Short silvicultural rotations, currently applied on Federal, State, and

private lands, are unlikely to regenerate forest stand structures suitable for goshawk

use. Gross estimates of this habitat change range from 15 to 20 percent of the entire

area within the temperate rain forest ecosystem in southeast Alaska. This range

represents a crude estimate of current habitat capability reduction.

We do not know how many goshawks currently exist in this region. Goshawks likely

exist in lower densities in southeast Alaska than elsewhere within their range, especially because of relatively low prey diversity and abundance. Relatively low goshawk

densities, combined with a small subspecific range, suggest a relatively low absolute

population size. Populations with low numbers are more susceptible to local extirpation than larger populations.

We do not know how many goshawks are necessary, or in what spatial distribution

they need to occur, to assure their long-term persistence in southeast Alaska. Data

are insufficient to craft robust population dynamics or habitat capability models that

could be used to provide a spatially explicit habitat conservation strategy to sustain

goshawk populations throughout southeast Alaska.

Given these unknowns, spatial scale is a critical parameter on which to design and

implement a goshawk conservation strategy in southeast Alaska. Management strategies applied at too broad a scale (e.g., a management area or province), or that rely

solely on landscapes currently in a permanent reserve status (e.g. wilderness and

other congressionally legislated Land Use Designation II lands in the Tongass NF)

may present significant management risks. Habitats capable of sustaining goshawks

will likely be clumped, resulting in significant gaps in area-wide distribution that could

leave insufficient intervening habitat suitable to support a well-distributed population.

Gaps in distribution jeopardize population interaction and thus long-term persistence.

Management risks likely would be reduced if all landscapes were managed to sustain

goshawks in their current distribution throughout southeast Alaska, though not necessarily in the same relative density. The probability of persistence would most likely

remain relatively high if habitat capable of sustaining goshawks was distributed

across the landscape at a scale consistent with known goshawk use areas (for

instance, 10,000 to 20,000 acres, or the scale of TLMP Value Comparison Units).

Sustaining goshawk habitat at such a scale across the landscape would enhance

the interaction between individuals within the population.

Two principal landscape approaches to conserving species at the landscape scale

dominate the conservation biology literature: a static reserve design and a dynamic

landscape equilibrium. These two approaches were examined for their potential to

80
assure goshawk persistence in southeast Alaska. For comparative purposes, it is

assumed that the total harvest of timber from southeast Alaska remains the same

for both alternatives. Under that assumption, if stands are not harvested in one area,

then a commensurate volume would need to be harvested from some other area.

Static habitat reserves—The concept of habitat conservation areas (HCAs), or

reserves of protected habitat distributed across the landscape, is a management

approach with a long history in wildlife conservation (Diamond 1975, 1976; Harris

1984; Noss and Harris 1986; Thomas et al. 1990), and has been recommended

once for goshawk management in southeast Alaska (Crocker-Bedford 1993). In

addition to reserve design criteria, the utility of habitat reserves depends on the

relation between the habitat needs of the species and the factors influencing the

availability of quality habitat. If a species’ fitness depends on the abundance of a

habitat that would become rare as a result of human land uses, then reserves form

a necessary part of a conservation strategy. Alternatively, when land uses do not

place important habitat in jeopardy, then reserves may not be necessary or

warranted.

Evidence suggests that goshawks in southeast Alaska use and successfully reproduce in mosaics of forested habitat cover types occurring across the landscape.

Productive old-growth forest provides important nesting habitat, but the acreage of

productive old-growth forest needed for nesting is relatively small compared to the

large areas used by goshawks. Goshawk use areas encompass a mosaic of forested

habitat cover types (primarily productive old-growth and scrub forests) that likely provide foraging habitat, because landscapes with high amounts of natural edge are not

selectively avoided. These patterns suggest that goshawks use some habitats not

at risk from silvicultural treatments (e.g., productive old-growth forest in protected

riparian corridors, scrub forest, etc.), because about 46 percent of goshawk use

of old-growth forest occurs in productive old growth not suitable for timber harvest.

Secondly, the mixture of habitats within a goshawk use area may influence the

relative value of productive old-growth forest to goshawks. In landscapes with lower

quality alternative habitats (e.g., rock and ice, clearcuts), any reduction of productive

old-growth forest may have greater relative effects than in landscapes with higher

quality alternative foraging habitat (e.g., scrub forests containing a fine-scale mosaic

of productive old-growth). Thus, the extent of productive old-growth forest necessary

for individual goshawks likely varies across the landscape. Given observed landscape patterns, if spatially static reserves are a component of landscape conservation strategy (although habitat composition of reserves is not static but rather

very dynamic because of natural forest processes discussed earlier), then goshawk

persistence likely will benefit from more and larger reserves in landscapes that have

a greater proportion of the forested land base in early seral stand conditions.

Disturbance ecology-based matrix management—Habitat needs for a species

may be strongly linked to specific structural features. When natural disturbance

processes are considered, conservation may dictate reliance on an extensive area

of constant habitat change (e.g., a dynamic landscape equilibrium), such as the

conservation strategy for the California spotted owl (Verner et al. 1992) or northern

goshawk in the Southwest (Crocker-Bedford 1990, Reynolds et al. 1992), rather

than a static reserve design.

81
In the most general sense, we hypothesize that management strategies that do not

employ reserves, but rather provide suitable habitat throughout a larger area such as

all lands available for timber harvest, will lead to higher persistence probabilities than

a reserve-based approach. This conclusion assumes that our hypotheses about nonclearcut silviculture are correct, and also stems from our current inability, due to lack

of knowledge, to accurately define the size and composition of a reserve system adequate to sustain a well distributed goshawk population. However, in landscapes (management areas or Value Comparison Units) where past timber harvest has removed

over one-third of the productive old-growth forest component, reserves may be an

important complementary component of a conservation strategy designed to protect

sufficient productive old-growth forest necessary to achieve a dynamic equilibrium

mosaic (e.g., 300-year rotation on all productive old-growth forests).

Goshawk conservation strategies and landscape risk—A goshawk conservation

strategy, then, will consider two basic questions: (1) What does a habitat reserve

strategy provide for this species and its prey (and what are the tradeoffs in alternative size and placement)? and (2) Is there an alternative landscape conservation approach other than reserves that also would meet conservation objectives?

Throughout this assessment, we have emphasized that productive old-growth forest

is a critical component of goshawk habitat use, and that the amount of this cover

type needed likely depends on the landscape context—what occurred naturally in

the past and currently exists. Owing to the high variability in landscapes across

the Tongass, a specific approach providing the highest long-term probability of

persistence in one landscape may not be the most effective approach in another

landscape. Thus, judicious use of both reserves and dynamic landscape strategies

depends on local landscape conditions and habitat cover type composition.

Based on landscape context, then, a management approach across the Tongass

emphasizing reserves in areas with high levels of past or currently projected extensive timber harvest (e.g., Value Comparison Unit-sized units currently exceeding 13 percent of productive old-growth forest land or planned harvest exceeding

33 percent by 2055), and long rotation or uneven-aged management schemes

elsewhere, likely will provide the highest persistence probability. This hypothesis

assumes that reserve placements and silvicultural prescriptions consider both

goshawk habitat needs within the context of existing conditions and the desired

long-term landscape habitat pattern. This hypothesis also assumes a hierarchy of

landscapes (or ecosystems), with larger scales predominating, and that landscapes

judged necessary to be managed as reserves are not subject to any further timber

management. If our judgments regarding stand-scale uneven-aged management

treatments are correct, then they may be used to sustain important structural characteristics to support goshawk use within the matrix among reserves, and in other

landscapes where reserves are not needed.

82
Where a reserve strategy is used, the size, habitat composition, and geographic

distribution of reserves must be prescribed. Currently, local Tongass data are insufficient to develop an optimum design, and therefore a combination of the available

data and the concepts discussed here are necessary to guide application of reserve

design. In areas of extensive past timber harvest (i.e., exceeding the 13-percent

threshold shown in tables 26, 27), larger reserves that encompass considerable

productive old-growth forest should most effectively increase goshawk persistence.

In areas where the extent of past timber management is low to moderate, and the

availability of suitable alternative foraging habitats in diverse landscapes and with

a variety of vegetation types is relatively high, smaller reserves may provide persistence probabilities similar to large area reserve systems over the long term.

These hypothesis are based on the following assumptions and observations:

1. Goshawks will obtain some resources from habitats outside reserves when those

outside areas include foraging habitats such as scrub forest (with small inclusions

of productive old-growth forest) and productive old-growth forests not available for

timber harvest.

2. Goshawks will move among reserves dispersed across the landscape when

habitat is not available within the matrix between reserves.

3. In areas with extensive past timber harvest, much of the landscape is now poor

quality habitat for goshawks, and potential sites for reserves (i.e., productive oldgrowth forest) are concentrated in large blocks.

One of the most important criterion for selecting a landscape approach to conserve

goshawk habitat is the estimated risk to long-term goshawk persistence. It is important to consider how potential changes in the way productive old-growth forests are

harvested today may influence choices available for future goshawk management

strategies. If Forest Service management continues even-aged, short-rotation silviculture, then options for a habitat conservation strategy of uneven-aged management

and long-rotation, even-aged management diminish. As these options become less

feasible, the reserve approach becomes an increasingly important management

approach.

Reserves and long timber harvest rotations have complementary roles in minimizing

risk. Reserves provide the means to increase the probability of persistence by providing high-quality habitats, especially in landscapes where options for long-rotation

silviculture have been lost. The degree to which a reserve network reduces risk

depends on placement, size, and composition, as discussed above. Long rotations

minimize the local intensity of timber harvest and provide a forest age class distribution of stands more favorable to the goshawk. Long rotations maintain the majority

(e.g., over 66 percent) of a landscape in a marginal or suitable habitat cover type for

goshawk habitat use well distributed across a landscape and precludes the need to

explicitly quantify, with insufficient information, the size, spacing and composition

of reserves. However, both strategies can provide opportunities to apply adaptive

management concepts and to learn more about goshawk habitat relations.

83
Acknowledgments E. Forsman, M. Fuller, and R. Reynolds provided valuable technical guidance and

reviewed initial assessment outlines and early drafts of the manuscript. Two anonymous peer reviewers and S. Patla provided valuable comments that strengthened

the document. The Northwest Scientific Association assisted with manuscript review.

B. René and B. Pendleton provided valuable editorial assistance. G. Nowacki and

P. Alaback reviewed the forest ecosystem chapter. C. Flatten provided oversight for

the goshawk field research program in southern southeast Alaska. P. Walsh assisted

in field data collection and data management. This assessment would have not been

possible without innumerable scientists studying goshawks and forest environments.

J. Blick (Commercial Fisheries Management and Development, Alaska Department

of Fish and Game) developed the original compositional analysis computer code and

we are grateful for his expertise. G. Pendleton, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

biometrician, performed the subsequent compositional analysis and we appreciate

his statistical guidance and assistance with interpretation on many of the habitat

selection tests included in this assessment.

Metric Equivalents 1 inch = 2.54 centimeters

1 foot = 0.305 meter

1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 mile = 1.609 kilometers

1 square mile = 2.59 square kilometers

424 board feet = 1 cubic meter

1 cubic foot = 0.028 cubic meter

1 ounce = 28.35 grams

References Aebisher, N.J.; Robertson R.A.; Kenward, R.E. 1993. Compositional analysis

habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology. 74: 1313-1325.

Aitchison, J. 1986. The statistical analysis of compositional data. London: Chapman

and Hall.

Alaback, P.B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western

hemlock forests of southeast Alaska. Ecology. 63: 1932-1948.

Alaback, P.B. 1984. Plant succession following logging in the Sitka spruce-western

hemlock forests of southeast Alaska: implications for management. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-173. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Alaback, P.B. 1990. Dynamics of old-growth temperate rainforests in southeast

Alaska. In: Milner, A.M.; Woods, J.D., eds. Proceedings of the 2d Glacier Bay

science symposium; 1988 September 19-22; Gustavus, AK. Anchorage, AK:

National Park Service, Alaska Region: 150-153.

Alaback, P.B. 1991. Comparative ecology of temperate rainforests of the

Americas along analogous climatic gradients. Revista Chilena de Historia

Natural. 64: 399-412.

Alaback, P.B. 1996. Biodiversity patterns in relation to climate: the coastal temperate rainforests of North America. In: Lawford, R.; Alaback, P.; Fuentes,

E.R., eds. High latitude rain forests of the west coast of the Americas: climate,

hydrology, ecology, and conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

84
Alaback, P.B.; Juday, G.P. 1989. Structure and composition of low elevation

old growth forests in research natural areas of southeast Alaska. Natural

Areas Journal. 9: 27-39.

Alaback, P.B.; Tappeiner, J.C., II. 1991. Response of western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla) and early huckleberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium) seedlings following

forest windthrow. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 534-539.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Goshawk ecology and habitat

relationships on the Tongass National Forest. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation; field season progress report.

Prepared for: USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Goshawk ecology and habitat

relationships on the Tongass National Forest. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation; 1995 field season progress

report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Allee, W.C. 1931. Animal aggregations; a study in general sociology. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Amborse, R.E.; Ritchie, R.J.; White, C.M.; Schempf, P.F.; Swem, T.; Dittrick, R.

1988. Changes in the status of peregrine falcon populations in Alaska. In: Cade,

T.J.; Enderson, J.H.; Thelander, C.G.; White, C.M., eds. Peregrine falcon populations, their management and recovery. Boise, ID: The Peregrine Fund Inc.: 73-82.

American Ornithologist’s Union. 1957. Check list of North American birds. 5th ed.

Baltimore, MD.

Arizona Game and Fish. 1993. Review of U.S. Forest Service strategy for managing

northern goshawk habitat in the southwestern United States. Unpublished report.

On file with: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 West Greenway Road,

Phoenix, AZ 85023.

Austin, K.K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks

in the southern Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. M.S. thesis.

Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. Occas.

Pap. 17. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. 1994. The northern goshawk:

ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology.

Cooper Ornithological Society.

Bloom, P.H.; Stewart, G.R.; Walton, B.J. 1986. The status of the northern goshawk in California, 1981-1983. Administrative report. Sacramento, CA: State of

California, Department of Fish and Game.

Boal, C.W.; Mannan, R.W. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests

on the Kaibab Plateau. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The

northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the

Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in

Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 97-102.

Bormann, F.H.; Likens, G.E. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem.

New York: Springer-Verlag. 253 p.

85
Bosakowski, T. 1990. Community structure, niche overlap, and conservation ecology

of temperate forest raptors during the breeding season. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University. 178 p.

Bosakowski, T.; Speiser, R. 1994. Macrohabitat selection by nesting northern

goshawks: implications for managing eastern forests. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison,

M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management:

Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April

14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological

Society; 16: 46-49.

Brady, W.W.; Hanley, T.A. 1984. The role of disturbance in old-growth forests: some

theoretical implications for southeastern Alaska. In: Meehan, W.R.; Merrell, T.R.,

Jr.; Hanley, T.A., eds. Fish and wildlife relationships in old growth forests: proceeding of a symposium; 12-15 April 1982; Juneau, AK. [Place of publication

unknown]: American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists: 213-218.

Braun, C.E.; Enderson, J.H.; Fuller, M.R.; Linhart, Y.B.; Marti, C.D. 1996.

Northern goshawk and forest management in the Southwestern United States.

Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society, Technical Review: 96-2.

Bright-Smith, D.J.; Mannan, R.W. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern

goshawks in northern Arizona. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds.

The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of

the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies

in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 58-65.

Brown, L.; Amadon, D. 1968. Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Bull, E.L.; Hohmann, J.H. 1994. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in

northeastern Oregon. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The

northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium

of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In:

Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 103-105.

Carey, A.B.; Johnson, M.L. 1995. Small mammals in managed naturally young,

and old-growth forests. Ecological Applications. 5: 336-352.

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. Goshawk reproduction and forest management.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 18: 262-269.

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1993. A conservation strategy for the Queen Charlotte

goshawk on the Tongass National Forest. In: Suring, L.H.; Crocker-Bedford, D.C.;

Flynn, R.W. [and others], eds. A proposed strategy for maintaining well-distributed,

viable populations of wildlife associated with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska.

Draft report of an interagency committee. Juneau, AK: 113-143. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK.

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1994. Conservation of the Queen Charlotte goshawk in

southeast Alaska. Appendix to the revised proposed strategy for maintaining

well-distributed, viable populations of wildlife associated with old-growth forests

in southeast Alaska, by the interagency viable population committee, Suring, L.H.,

chair. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau,

AK.

86
Crocker-Bedford, D.C.; Chaney, B. 1988. Characteristics of goshawk nesting

stands. In: Glinski, R.L.; Pendleton, B.G.; Moss, M.B. [and others], eds. Proceedings southwest raptor management symposium and workshop; 1986 May

21-24; Tucson, AZ. Sci. Tech. Ser. 11. Washington, DC: National Wildlife

Federation: 210-217.

Deal, R.L.; Oliver, C.D.; Bormann, B.T. 1991. Reconstruction of mixed hemlockspruce stands in coastal southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal Forest Research.

21: 643-654.

DellaSala, D.A.; Engel, U.A.; Volsen, D.P.; Fairbanks, R.L. 1994. Effectiveness

of silvicultural modifications of young-growth forests as enhancement for wildlife

habitat on the Tongass National Forest, southeast Alaska. Unpublished report.

On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK

99801.

DeStefano, S.; Daw, S.K.; Desimone, S.M.; Meslow, E.C. 1994a. Density and

productivity of northern goshawks: implications for monitoring and management.

In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology

and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological

Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper

Ornithological Society; 16: 88-91.

DeStefeno, S.; Woodbridge, B.; Detrich, P.J. 1994b. Survival of northern goshawks

in the sourthern cascades of California. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser,

M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a

symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento,

CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 133-136.

Detrich, P.J.; Woodbridge, B. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements

of color-marked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. In:

Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology

and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological

Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper

Ornithological Society; 16: 130-132.

Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies

for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 7: 129-146.

Diamond, J.M. 1976. Island biogeographic theory and conservation: strategies and

limitations. Science. 193: 1027-1029.

Doyle, F.I.; Smith, J.M. 1994. Population responses of northern goshawks to the

10-year cycle in numbers of snowshoe hares. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.;

Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15;

Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society;

16: 122-129.

Erickson, M.G. 1987. Nest site selection of the goshawk (Acciptier gentilis) in the

Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota. Springfield, SD: University of South

Dakota. M.S. thesis.

87
Falk, J.A. 1990. Landscape level raptor habitat associations in northwest Connecticut. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

M.S. thesis.

Farr, W.A.; LaBau, J.V.; Laurent; T.H. 1976. Estimation of decay in old-growth

western hemlock and Sitka spruce in southeast Alaska. Res. Pap. PNW-204.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 18 p.

Fisher, D.L. 1986. Daily activity patterns and habitat use of accipiter hawks in Utah.

Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Gavin, T.A.; May, B. 1995. Genetic variation and taxonomic status of northern

goshawks in Arizona; implications for management. New York: Cornell University. Unpublished report. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region,

P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. In: Soule, M.E., ed.

Viable populations for conservation. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press:

11-34

Graham, R.T.; Reynolds, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; Bassett, R.L.; Boyce, D.A. 1994.

Sustaining forest habitat for the northern goshawk: a question of scale. In: Block,

W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and

management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society;

1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper

Ornithological Society; 16: 12-17.

Hall, P.A. 1984. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawks (Accipiter gentilis)

in northwestern California. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. M.S. thesis.

Hargis, C.D.; McCarthy, C.; Perloff, R.D. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of

northern goshawks in eastern California. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser,

M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a

symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento,

CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 66-75.

Harris, A.S. 1974. Clearcutting, reforestation and stand development on Alaska’s

Tongass National Forest. Journal of Forestry. 72: 330-337.

Harris, A.S. 1989. Wind in the forests of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing

damage. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-244. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station.

Harris, A.S.; Farr, W.A. 1974. The forest ecosystems of southeast Alaska: 7. Forest

ecology and timber management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-25. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest, island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hayward, G.D.; Escano, R.E. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western

Montana and northern Idaho. Condor. 91: 476-479.

88
Hayward, G.D.; Hayward, P.H. 1995. Relative abundance and habitat associations

of small mammals in Chamberlain basin, central Idaho. Northwest Science.

69: 114-125.

Hayward, G.D.; Verner, J., eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in

the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Hennessy, S.P. 1978. Ecological relationships of accipiters in northern Utah with

special emphasis on the effects of human disturbance. Logan, UT: Utah State

University. M.S. thesis.

Herron, G.B.; Mortimore, C.A.; Rawlings, M.S. 1985. Nevada raptors: their

biology and management. Biol. Bull. 8. [Place of publication unknown]: Nevada

Department of Wildlife.

Hilden, O. 1965. Habitat selection in birds. Annales Zoologiei Fennici. 2: 53-75.

Hirons, G.J.M. 1985. The importance of body reserves for successful reproduction

in the tawny owl (Strix aluco). Journal of Zoology (London) Series B. 1: 1-20.

Hutchinson, G.E. 1959. Homage to Santa Rosalia, or Why are there so many kinds

of animals? American Naturalist. 93: 145-159.

Iverson, G.C. 1990. Goshawk review. Unpublished report dated November 21.

On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK

99801.

Jacobson, M.J.; Hodges, J.I. 1993. A twenty-five year population trend of adult

bald eagles in southeast Alaska. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd., Juneau, AK 99801.

Janes, S.W. 1985. Habitat selection in raptorial birds. In: Cody, M.L., ed. Habitat

selection in birds. New York: Academic Press: 159-188.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America: biology and

natural history. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for

evaluating resource preference. Ecology. 61: 65-71.

Johnson, D.R. 1989. Body size of northern goshawks on coastal islands of British

Columbia. Wilson Bulletin. 101: 637-639.

Jones, S. 1981. The accipiters: goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk.

Tech. Note 335. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

Joy, S.M.; Reynolds, R.T.; Leslie, D.G. 1994. Northern goshawk broadcast surveys:

hawk response variables and survey cost. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser,

M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a

symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento,

CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 24-30.

89
Julin, K.R.; Caouette, J.P. [In prep.]. Options for defining timber volume classes:

a resource assessment. In: Shaw, C.G., III; Julin, K.R., tech. coords. Conservation

and resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision. Gen.

Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Keane, J.K.; Morrison, M.L. 1994. Northern goshawk ecology: effects of scale

and levels of biological organization. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser,

M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a

symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento,

CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 3-11.

Kelly, C.J; Kennedy, P.L. 1993. A dynamic state variable model of mate desertion

in Cooper’s hawks. Ecology. 74: 351-366.

Kennedy, P.L. 1988. Habitat characteristics of Cooper’s hawks and northern goshawks nesting in New Mexico. In: Glinski, R.L.; Pendleton, B.G.; Moss, M.B. [and

others], eds. Proceedings, southwest raptor management symposium and workshop: [Dates of meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. Sci. Tech. Ser.

11. [Place of publication unknown]: National Wildlife Federation: 218-227

Kennedy, P.L. 1989. The nesting ecology of Cooper’s hawks and northern goshawks in the Jamez Mountains, NM: a summary of results, 1984-1988. Unpublished report. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest,

1220 St. Francis Drive, Sante Fe, NM 87504.

Kennedy, P.L.; Stahlecker, D.W. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern

goshawks to taped broadcasts of three conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 57: 249-257.

Kennedy, P.L.; Ward, J.M.; Rinker, G.A.; Gessaman, J.A. 1994. Post-fledging

areas in northern goshawk home ranges. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser,

M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a

symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento,

CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 75-82.

Kenward, R.E. 1982. Goshawk hunting behavior and range size as a function of

food and habitat availability. Journal of Animal Ecology. 51: 69-80.

Kenward, R.E. 1987. Wildlife radio tagging. London: Academic Press.

Kenward, R.E. 1996. Goshawk adaptation to deforestation: Does Europe differ from

North America? In: Bird, D.M.; Varland, D.E.; Negro, J.J., eds. Raptors in human

landscapes. New York: Academic Press: 233-243.

Kenward, R.E.; Marcstrom, V.; Karlbom, M. 1990. The impacts of man and other

mortality on radio-tagged goshawks. Transactions of the International Union of

Game Biologists. 19(1): 116.

Kenward, R.E.; Marcstrom, V.; Karlbom, M. 1993. Post-nestling behavior in

goshawks, Accipiter gentilis: I. The causes of dispersal. Animal Behaviour.

46: 365-370.

Kenward, R.E.; Widen, P. 1989. Do goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) need forests?

Some conservation lessons from radio tracking. In: Meyburd, B.U.; Chancellor,

R.D., eds. Raptors in the modern world. Berlin: Lentz Druck: 561-567

90
Kiester, A.R.; Eckhardt, C. 1994. Review of wildlife management and conservation biology on the Tongass National Forest: a synthesis with recommendations.

Corvallis, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station.

Knapp, G. 1992. Native timber harvests in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-284. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Korpimaki, E. 1987. Breeding performance of Tengmalm’s owl Aegolius funereus:

effects of supplementary feeding in a peak vole year. Ibis. 131: 51-56.

Kvaalen, L.; Iverson, C. 1994. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring report,

Tongass National Forest, 1992 and 1993. On file with: USDA Forest Service,

Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

Lawton, J.H.; Nee, S.; Letcher, A.J.; Harvey, P.H. 1994. Animal distributions:

patterns and processes. In: Edwards, P.J.; May, R.M.; Webb, N.R., eds.

Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. London: Blackwell Scientific

Publications: 41-58.

Linden, H.; Wikman, M. 1983. Goshawk predation on tetranoids: availability of

prey and diet of the predator in the breeding season. Journal of Animal Ecology.

52(3): 953-968.

Lofgren, O.; Hornfeldt, B.; Carlsson, G. 1986. Site tenacity and nomadism in

Tengmalm’s owl (Aegolius funereus) in relation to cyclic food production.

Oecologia. 69: 321-326.

Lundberg, A. 1979. Residency, migration and a compromise: adaptations to

nest-site scarcity and food specialization in three Fennoscandian owl species.

Oecologia. 41: 273-281.

MacDonald, S.O.; Cook, J.A. 1994. The mammals of southeast Alaska, a distribution and taxonomic update. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Museum.

Marquiss, M.; Newton, I. 1982. The goshawk in Britain. British Birds. 75: 243-260.

Marshall, D.B. 1992. Status of the northern goshawk in Oregon and Washington.

Portland, OR: Audubon Society.

Marti, C.D.; Korpimaki, E.; Jaksic, F.M. 1993. Trophic structure of raptor communities: a three continent comparison and synthesis. Current Ornithology.

10: 41-137.

Martin, J.R.; Trull, S.J.; Brady, W.W. [and others]. 1995. Forest plant association

management guide, Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest. R10-TP-57. Juneau,

AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region.

McGowan, J.D. 1975. Distribution, density, and productivity of goshawks in interior

Alaska. Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor. Proj. Rep. W-17-4, W17-5, W-17-6. Juneau, AK:

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Mielke, P.W.; Berry, K.J.; Brockwell, P.J.; Williams, J.S. 1981. A class of nonparametric tests based on multiresponse permutation procedures. Biometrica.

68: 720-724.

91
Milliken, G.A.; Johnson, D.E. 1984. Analysis of messy data. Vol. 1: Designed

experiments. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Moore, K.R.; Henny, C.J. 1983. Nest site characteristics of three coexisting

accipiter hawks in northeastern Oregon. Raptor Research. 17: 65-76.

Mueller, H.C.; Berger, D.D. 1967. Some observations and comments on the

periodic invasions of goshawks. Auk. 84: 183-191.

Murphy, D.D.; Noon, B.R. 1992. Integrating scientific methods with habitat

conservation planning: reserve design for northern spotted owls. Ecological

Applications. 2: 3-17.

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Vermillion, SD: Buteo Books.

Newton, I. 1986. The sparrowhawk. Staffordshire, England: T&AD Poyser Ltd.

Newton, I. 1991. Population limitation in birds of prey: a comparative approach.

In: Perrins, C.M.; Lebreton, J.D.; Hirons, G.J.M., eds. Bird population studies:

relevance to conservation and management. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press: 3-21.

Noon, B.R.; Biles, C.M. 1990. Mathematical demography of spotted owls in the

Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54: 18-27.

Noss, R.F.; Harris, L.D. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUM’s: preserving diversity

at all scales. Environmental Management. 10: 299-309.

Nowacki, G.N.; Kramer, M. [In prep.]. The natural disturbance regime of the

Tongass National Forest with emphasis on wind disturbance: a resource

assessment. In: Shaw, C.G., III; Julin, K.R., tech. coords. Conservation and

resource assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision. Gen.

Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Oliver, C.D. 1981. Forest development in North America following major disturbances.

Forest Ecology and Management. 3: 153-168.

Ott, R.A. 1995. Small-scale disturbance regimes in temperate rainforests of southeast Alaska. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Draft report to U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, contract P.O. 43-0109-5-0187. On file with: Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane,

Juneau, AK 99801.

Palmer, R.S. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4: Diurnal raptors

(part 1). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Patla, S. 1990. Northern goshawk monitoring report no. 2, 1989. On file with: U.S.

Deptartment of Agriculture, Targhee National Forest, P.O. Box 208, St. Anthony,

ID 83445.

Patla, S.; Trost, C.H. 1995. The relationship of northern goshawk nest site locations

to riparian areas in the Centennial Mountains, Idaho. Final report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agreement INT-92738-RJVA. On file with:

Targee National Forest, P.O. Box 208, St. Anthony, ID 83445.

Pimm, S.L.; Jones, H.L.; Diamond, J. 1988. On the risk of extinction. American

Naturalist. 132: 757-785.

92
Pollock, K.H.; Winterstein, S.R.; Conroy, M.J. 1989. Estimation and analysis of

survival distributions for radio-tagged animals. Biometrics. 45: 99-109.

Reynolds, R.T. 1979. Food and habitat partitioning in groups of coexisting accipiter.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting

accipiter hawks. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Reynolds, R.T. 1989. Accipiters. In: Pendleton, B.G.; Ruibal, C.E.; Krahe, D.L.;

Steenhof, K.; Kockert, M.N.; LeFranc, M.L., Jr., eds. Proceedings of the western

raptor management symposium and workshop; 1987 October 26-28; Boise, ID.

Sci. Tech. Ser. 12. Washington, DC: Natlional Wildlife Federation: 92-101.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H. [and others]. 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.

Reynolds, R.T.; Hamre, R.H., tech. eds. [In prep]. The northern goshawk: a

technical assessment of its status, ecology, and management. [Draft]. On file

with: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526.

Reynolds, R.T.; Joy, S.M.; Leslie, D.G. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing

of northern goshawks in Arizona. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H.,

eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA.

In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society; 16: 106-113.

Reynolds, R.T.; Meslow, E.C. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics

of coexisting accipiter during breeding. Auk. 101: 761-777.

Reynolds, R.T.; Meslow, E.C.; Wight, H.M. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting

accipiter in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46: 124-138.

Reynolds, R.T.; Wight, H.M. 1978. Distribution, density, and productivity of accipiter

hawks breeding in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin. 90: 182-196.

Rohner, C.; Doyle, F.I. 1992. Food-stressed great horned owl kills adult goshawk:

exceptional observation or community process? Journal of Raptor Research.

26: 261-263.

Rosenburg, K.V.; Raphael, M.G. 1986. Effects of forest fragmentation in vertebrates

in Douglas-fir forests. In: Verner, J.; Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, C.J., eds. Wildlife

2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates: Proceedings of an

international symposium; 1984 October 7-11; Fallen Leaf Lake, CA. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin Press: 263-272.

Rusch, D.H.; Meslow, E.C.; Doerr, P.D.; Keith, L.B. 1972. Response of greathorned owl populations to changing prey densities. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36: 282-296.

Samuel, M.D.; Fuller, M.R. 1994. Wildlife radiotelemetry. In: Bookout, T.A., ed.

Research and management techiques for wildlife and habitats. Bethesda, MD:

The Wildlife Society: 370-418.

93
SAS. 1993. SAS Institute Inc. SAS companion or the Microsoft Windows

environment. Version 6, 1st ed. Cary, NC.

Schempf, P.; Merge, K.; Patla, S., Daniel, L.; Jacobson, M. 1996. Goshawk

surveys in wilderness and roadless areas of southeast Alaska in 1995. Final

report. On file with: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000

Vintage Blvd., Juneau, AK 99801.

Schoen, J.W.; Kirchhoff, M.D. 1983. Seasonal distribution and habitat use by

Sitka black-tailed deer in southeastern Alaska. Progress Report, Fed. Aid in

Wildlife Restoration, Project W-22-1, Job 2.6R, Alaska Department of Fish and

Game. Juneau, AK.

Schoener, T.W. 1984. Size differences among sympatric, bird-eating hawks: a

worldwide survey. In: Strong, D.R.; Simberloff, D.; Abele, L.G.; Thistle, A.B.,

eds. Ecological communities: conceptual issue and the evidence. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press: 254-281.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience.

31: 131-134.

Sherry, T.W.; Holmes, R.T. 1985. Dispersion patterns and habitat responses of

birds in northern hardwoods forests. In: Cody, M.L., ed. Habitat selection in

birds. New York: Academic Press: 283-310.

Shuster, W.C. 1976. Northern goshawk nesting densities in montane Colorado.

Western Birds. 7: 108-110.

Shuster, W.C. 1980. Northern goshawk nest site requirements in the Colorado

Rockies. Western Birds. 11: 89-96.

Siders, M.S.; Kennedy, P.L. 1994. Nesting habitat of accipiter hawks: is body size

a consistent predictor of nest habitat characteristics? In: Block, W.M.; Morrison,

M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management:

Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April

14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological

Society; 16: 92-96.

Siders, M.S.; Kennedy, P.L. 1996. Forest structural characteristics of accipiter

nesting habitat: is there an allometric relationship? Condor. 98: 123-132.

Sidle, W.B.; Suring, L.H. 1986. Management indicator species for the National

Forest lands in Alaska. Tech. Publ. R10-TP-2. Notes 10. Juneau AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. Wildlife and Fisheries.

Speiser, R.; Bosakowski, T. 1987. Nest site selection by northern goshawks in

northern New Jersey and southeastern New York. Condor. 89: 387-394.

Squires, J.R. 1995. Carrion use by northern goshawks. Journal of Raptor Research.

9: 283.

Squires, J.R.; Ruggiero, L.F. 1995. Winter movements of adult northern goshawks

that nested in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Raptor Research. 29: 5-9.

94
Suring, L.H.; Crocker-Bedford, D.C.; Flynn, R.W. [and others]. 1993. A proposed

strategy for maintaining well-distributed, viable populations of wildlife associated

with old-growth forests in southeast Alaska. Draft. On file with: USDA, Forest

Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

Taverner, P.A. 1940. Variation in the American goshawk. Condor. 42: 157-160.

Taylor, R.F. 1934. Yield of second growth western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands

in southeastern Alaska. Tech. Bull. 412. Washington, DC: U.S. Deptartment of

Agriculture.

Tella, J.L.; Ma-osa, S. 1993. Eagle owl predation on Egyptian vulture and northern

goshawk: possible effect of a decrease in European rabbit availability. Journal of

Raptor Research. 27: 111-112.

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B. [and others]. 1990. A conservation

strategy for the northern spotted owl: report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.

Titus, K. 1995. Survival rates of adult northern goshawks on the Tongass National

Forest as determined by radiotelemetry. Ann. Prog. Rep. Douglas, AK: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Alaska Region; Alaska Department of

Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. Southeast Regional Office.

Titus, K.; Flatten, C.J.; Lowell, R.E. 1994. Northern goshawk ecology and habitat

relationships on the Tongass National Forest: goshawk nest sites, food habits,

morphology, home range and habitat data. Ann. Prog. Rep. Douglas, AK: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region; Alaska Department

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Southeast Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1979. Tongass land management

plan and final EIS. R10-57. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Tongass land management

plan revision: supplement to the draft environmental impact statement. R10-MB149. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992a. Ecological definitions

for old-growth forest types in southeast Alaska. R10-TP-28. Juneau, AK: Alaska

Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992b. Interim guidelines for

goshawk habitat management. Unpublished report dated August 18. On file

with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992c. Protocol direction. Unpublished report dated August 18. On file with: USDA Forest Service, Alaska

Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Interim guidelines for

goshawk habitat management. Unpublished report dated August 27. On file with:

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99801.

95
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994a. Queen Charlotte goshawk

workshop report. Unpublished report dated June 30. On file with: USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK. 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994b. Interim habitat management guidelines for maintaining well-distributed viable wildlife populations within

the Tongass National Forest. Draft Environmental Assessment. R10-MB-271.

Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994c. Queen Charlotte goshawk

workshop notes: October 26-28, 1994. Unpublished report. On file with: USDA

Forest Service, Tongass Forest Plan Revision Team, 8465 Old Dairy Road,

Juneau, AK 99801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996a. Tongass land management plan revision: revised supplement to the environmental impact statement.

R10-MB-314a. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1996b. Timber supply and

demand 1995: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Sect. 706(A)

Report to Congress. Juneau, AK: Alaska Region.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered

and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the Queen

Charlotte goshawk as endangered. Federal Register. 60: 33784-33785.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates

for listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register. 61: 7596-7613.

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal

of Wildlife Management. 47: 893-901.

Veblen, T.T.; Alaback, P.B. 1996. A comparative review of forest dynamics and

disturbance in the temperate rainforests in North and South America. In: Lawford,

R.; Alaback, P.B.; Fuentes, E.R., eds. High latitude rain forests in the west coast

of the Americas: climate, hydrology, ecology and conservation. New York:

SpringerVerlag: 173-213.

Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R [and others]. 1992. The California spotted

owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133.

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ward, J.M.; Kennedy, P.L. 1996. Effects of supplemental food on size and survival

of juvenile northern goshawks. Auk. 113: 200-208.

Ward, L.Z.; Ward, D.K.; Tibbitts, T.J. 1992. Canopy density analysis at goshawk

nesting territories on the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest.

Unpublished report. On file with: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2221 West

Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023.

96
Ward, R.M.P.; Krebs, C.J. 1985. Behavioral responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 63: 2817-2824.

Watt, A.S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology.

35: 1-22.

Webster, D.J. 1988. Some bird specimens from Sitka, Alaska. The Murrelet.

69: 46-48.

West, E.W. 1993. Rare vertebrate species of the Chugach and Tongass National

Forests, Alaska. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Natural Heritage Program, The Nature

Conservancy.

Whaley, W.H.; White, C.M. 1994. Trends in geographic variation of Cooper’s hawk

and northern goshawk in North America: a multivariate analysis. Proceedings

Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. 5: 161-209.

White, G.C.; Garrott, R.A. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. New York:

Academic Press.

Widen, P. 1985. Breeding and movements of goshawks in boreal forests in Sweden.

Holarctic Ecology. 8: 273-279.

Widen, P. 1989. The hunting habitats of goshawks Accipiter gentilis in boreal forests

of central Sweden. Ibis. 131: 205-231.

Williamson, F.S.L.; Rausch, R. 1956. Interspecific relations between goshawks

and ravens. Condor. 58: 165.

Woodbridge, B. 1988. The goshawk and forest fragmentation. Unpublished report.

On file with: USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, 1312 Fairland Road,

Yreka, CA 96097.

Woodbridge, B.; Detrich, P.J. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size

of northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. In: Block, W.M.;

Morrison, M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society;

1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper

Ornithological Society; 16: 83-87.

Younk, J.V.; Bechard, M.J. 1994. Breeding ecology of the northern goshawk in

high-elevation aspen forests of northern Nevada. In: Block, W.M.; Morrison,

M.L.; Reiser, M.H., eds. The northern goshawk: ecology and management:

Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April

14-15; Sacramento, CA. In: Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological

Society; 16: 119-121.

97




Iverson, George C.; Hayward, Gregory D.; Titus, Kimberly; DeGayner,

Eugene; Lowell, Richard E.; Crocker-Bedford, D. Coleman; Schempf,

Philip F.; Lindell, John. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern

goshawk in southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 101 p. (Shaw, Charles G., III, tech. coord.; Conservation and resource

assessments for the Tongass land management plan revision).

The conservation status of northern goshawks in southeast Alaska is examined

through developing an understanding of goshawk ecology in relation to past, present,

and potential future habitat conditions in the region under the current Tongass land

management plan. The probability of persistence of goshawks has declined over the

past 50 years owing to habitat loss and likely will continue to decline under current

management plan regimes; however, the goshawk population likely is not in immediate

peril. Reserves are most likely critical if extensive clearcut logging continues.

Keywords: Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis laingi, habitat, conservation,

assessment, management.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife,

and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest

owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by

Congress—to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications

at (202) 720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call 800-245-6340 (voice), or (202) 720-1127 (TDD).

USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890