File Code: 1920-2-3 

Date: July 6, 2004 

Dear Forest User: 

I stated in my March 15, 2004 Forest Plan Monitoring letter that the Forest planned to release expanded 

monitoring information to include up-to-date old growth survey results from site-specific inventories to 

augment information provided previously. Enclosed for your review are updated Forest Plan 

Monitoring and Evaluation reports for monitoring items C-8 (Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk) and C10 (Cavity Nesting Habitat). These reports include new old growth survey information and discuss the 

monitoring efforts and analysis that has taken place regarding goshawk populations and habitat on the 

Forest. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. For more information on 

programs and events on the Lewis and Clark Forest, please visit our website at 

www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark. We hope you will continue to be involved in the management of your 

National Forest System lands. 

Sincerely, 

 

LESLEY W. THOMPSON 

Forest Supervisor 

Enclosure 
C-8 Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED

REPORTING 

PERIOD

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION

Change 

Monitorin

g Item?

Change 

Forest 

Plan?

Goshawk active nesting 

territories

Annually Decrease of 10% or more in 

active nest territories as 

measured by a 100% annual 

sample of known goshawk 

nest territories

No

This May 2004 update to the Forest Plan 

Monitoring item C-8 is the second update 

reporting on monitoring item C-8 this year. 

The first update was provided to the public 

in March 2004 and provided the new Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) forest-wide old 

growth information. This update includes 

the FIA forest-wide old growth information 

along with the new 2003 old growth survey 

information and goshawk nest territory 

information recently complied by the forest. 

This monitoring item is being divided into 

two segments for this report; the first 

discusses what the Forest has completed in 

relation to old growth monitoring and the 

second discusses the monitoring efforts 

and analysis that has taken place in relation 

to goshawk populations and habitat on the 

Forest. 

OLD GROWTH MONITORING METHODS

In 1992 the Forest completed its required 

five-year review of the Forest Plan. The 

five-year review revealed that the Forest 

was in need of a process that would 

standardize how the Forest would define, 

inventory and allocate old growth across 

the Forest. The Forest wildlife biologists 

developed this process and included in it 

the definitions of “Old growth Forest Types 

of the Northern Region” published by Pat 

Green, John Joy, Dean Sirucek, Wendel 

Hann, Art Zack, and Bob Naumann. This 

process defines how old growth will be 

queried from the existing Timber Stand 

Management Record System (TSMRS) 

database, and how it will be field 

inventoried. This process was finished in 

1993 and is entitled “Lewis and Clark 

National Forest Old Growth Inventory and 

Allocation Process”, and has since been the 

guidance for old growth inventory on the 

Forest. 

A computer program was then developed to 

interact with the Timber Stand Data Base 

and identify timber stands that correlate to 

specific aerial photo interpretation types. 

The timber stands identified by standard 

aerial photo reconnaissance are mapped 

and field inventoried to determine whether 

they meet the definition of old growth forest, 

as defined in the Forest Plan (Glossary, 

page 14) and by the Regional guidance 

written by Green et al (1992)

Old growth stands are selected to provide 

distribution across different habitat types 

and to maintain a minimum of five percent 

within a timber compartment. Using the 

parameters defined in the draft R-1 

Goshawk Habitat Suitability, lower elevation 

Douglas-fir stands are prioritized and 

selected. Higher elevation timber stands 

are generally dominated by lodgepole pine 

with mixtures of alpine fir or spruce. These 

mixed stands are prioritized on the basis of 

their proximity to meadows, seeps, springs, 

streams, or other environmental factors 

which contribute to the diversity of plant and 
animal life beyond that visible in 

surrounding stands. 

Forest Plan direction provides old growth 

“stands will be identified as a part of 

resource program and project level wildlife 

inventories and evaluations (Forest Plan 

p.2-16). On the ground inventories 

continue to be completed (in accordance 

with Forest Plan direction) in regards to 

different projects that the Forest 

undertakes. The major project completed 

this reporting period was an old growth 

inventory within the Judith River watershed 

and the results have been documented in 

the Judith Vegetation Restoration FEIS, 

which covered about 200,000 acres. 

Along with the on the ground inventory 

process the Forest recently received data 

from the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) showing the amount of old growth 

across the Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

(Bush et al. 2004). This data was 

previously reported in the March 2004 

Forest Plan monitoring report update.

FINDINGS 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Data

As reported in the March 2004 Forest Plan 

monitoring report update, a detailed report 

entitled “Detailed Estimates of Old Growth 

and Large-Snags on the Lewis and Clark 

Forest” was received in January 25, 2004. 

(Bush et al. 2004). This report provided 

statistical percentages of old growth forestwide based on vegetative plots gathered as 

part of the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) program were screened by 

commercial forest lands, landscapes 

(mountain range) and watersheds (5th HUC 

(hydrologic unit code)). FIA is a 

Congressionally mandated, comprehensive, 

field-based forest inventory consisting of 

data collected from 120,000 forested field 

plots in the United States. FIA uses field 

plots as it is not practical to measure 

billions of trees within millions of acres of 

forests. The plots measure a diverse 

spectrum of forest conditions. Therefore, 

FIA selects a representative sample of field 

plots, located at randomized points within a 

standardized grid across the entire US, and 

uses data from those plots to estimate 

conditions across a larger landscape. FIA 

uses a probability sample, which allows it to 

quantify the uncertainty in its estimates that 

are caused by random sampling. The grid 

evenly covers all lands, regardless of 

whether or not they are suitable for timber 

production. FIA utilizes sampling and there 

is uncertainty in estimates from any sample. 

The Forest Survey scientist makes these 

estimates and characterizes the degree of 

this uncertainty (Czaplewski et al. 2003). 

This level of inventory is not spatially 

explicit, but quantities of old growth can be 

estimated with statistical confidence for 

large, 5th code watersheds. 

The report provides estimates of old growth 

percentages and snag densities across the 

forest (see monitoring item C-10 for snag 

information). Forested lands are comprised 

of both commercial and noncommercial 

forest. Commercial forest lands were 

determined using landtype information and 

the forest plan criteria for defining 

commercial forest lands. 

The report estimates 12.06% old growth on 

all forested lands within the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest, with a 90% confidence 

interval of 9.5% to 14.47%. On commercial 

forest lands, the FIA data analysis shows 

an estimated 9.67 percent old growth, with 

a 90% confidence interval of 5.86% to 

13.83%. 
The following is a summary of the FIA data. 

Table C-8a Estimates of percentage of Old Growth by Commercial lands across the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest and the associated 90% confidence intervals follow (Bush and Leach 2004). 

Percent Old Growth Plot Frequency 

Commercial 90% CI 

Lower 

Bound 

Point 

Estimate 

90% CI 

Upper 

Bound 

Number of 

Plots 

(Number of 

Subplots) 

% of the

Plots 

Noncommercial 10.00 13.30 16.77 176(880) 52.38 

Commercial 5.86 9.67 13.83 91(455) 27.08 

Table C-8b Estimates of proportion of old growth and associated 90% confidence interval by Landscape 

(Bush and Leach 2004). 

Percent Old Growth Plot Frequency 

Landscape 90% CI

Lower 

Bound 

Point 

Estimate

90% CI 

Upper 

Bound 

Number of 

Plots 

(Number of

Subplots)

Percent 

of the 

Plots 

Big Snowy Mountains 1.82 11.67 23.64 12(60) 3.57 

Castle Mountains 0.00 10.00 30.00 6(30) 1.79 

Crazy Mountains 0.00 13.33 30.00 6(30) 1.79 

Highwood Mountains 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(15) 0.89 

Little Belt Mountains 10.39 14.62 19.06 119(595) 35.42 

Little Snowy Mountains 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(15) 0.89 

Rocky Mountains 6.67 10.17 13.98 118(590) 35.12 

Table C-8c Estimates of old growth and associated 90% confidence intervals by Landscape and 

Commercial/Non-commercial lands (Bush and Leach 2004). 

Percent Old Growth Plot Frequency 

Commercial 

Landscape 90% CI Lower

Bound 

Point 

Estimate 

90% CI Upper

Bound 

Number of Plots 

(Number of Subplots) 

Percent of 

the Plots 

Big Snowy Mtns 0.00 13.33 33.33 6(30) 1.79 

Castle Mountains 0.00 0.00 0.00 4(20) 1.19 

Crazy Mountains 0.00 6.67 20.00 3(15) 0.89 

Highwood Mtns 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(15) 0.89 

Little Belt Mtns 6.91 12.13 17.89 61(305) 18.15 

Little Snowy 

Mountains 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(15) 0.89 

Commercial 

Rocky Mountains 0.00 3.64 10.00 11(55) 3.27 

Big Snowy Mtns 0.00 10.00 25.71 6(30) 1.79 

Castle Mountains 0.00 30.00 80.00 2(10) 0.60 

Crazy Mountains 0.00 20.00 46.67 3(15) 0.89 

Little Belt Mtns 10.70 17.24 24.29 58(290) 17.26 

NonRocky Mountains commercial

6.97 10.84 14.95 107(535) 31.85 
Lewis & Clark NF Ground Inventories: 

Table C-8d is a compilation of timber 

compartments that have been surveyed in 

their entirety for old growth forest and the 

old growth forest acres that have been 

allocated to date, including the results of 

the inventory completed for the Judith 

Analysis area. This table does not break 

out commercial forest lands from noncommercial forest lands, but just considers 

the amount of forested lands within each 

compartment. All of these compartments 

are in the Little Belt Mountains, with the 

exception of three compartments (601-603) 

that make up the Little Snowy Mountains. 
Table C-8d. Acres Designated as Old Growth 1988-2001 

OLD GROWTH INVENTORIED AND ALLOCATED ACROSS THE LCNF (Includes only the compartments that have a complete inventory; acres of forested lands equals commercial and non-commercial lands) 

DISTRICT COMPARTMENT ACRES OF 

COMPARTMENT

ACRES OF 

FORESTED 

LANDS 

EXISTING 

OLD 

GROWTH 

ACRES 

%TOTAL 

OLD 

GROWTH 

ACRES 

ALLOC

ATED 

% 

ALLOCATE 

for FP 

STANDARD

IN

C

D3 366 4101 3301 476 14.4 476 14.4 

367 13767 12956 2437 18.8 2276 17.6 368 16822 15563 1378 8.9 1378 8.9 370 13208 11613 3244 27.9 2484 21.4 372 13909 13107 1328 10.1 1328 10.1 373 11559 11127 2014 18.1 2014 18.1 374 6279 5993 952 15.9 952 15.9 375 8933 8259 1723 20.9 1723 20.9 

376 24201 23275 1632 7 1632

7 

D4 446 5669 5350 972 18.2 Allocatio

448 13229 12077 97 0.8 Allocatio449 13128 11864 1635 13.8 Allocatio450 11077 10611 937 8.8 Allocatio451 14699 11818 1935 16.4 Allocatio452 10390 10066 3640 36.2 Allocatio453 11996 10671 1250 11.7 Allocatio454 11698 10851 2115 19.5 Allocatio455 11436 10325 2439 23.6 Allocatio456 14717 13988 4445 31.8 Allocatio457 17421 15989 1881 11.8 Allocatio458 9777 9180 472 5.1 Allocatio459 13962 12436 1604 12.9 Allocatio460 21718 19304 1891 9.8 Allocatio461 10170 9647 670 6.9 Allocatio

462 12437 11812 1063 9 1063

9 
D6 601 6845 5697 1294 22.7 1294 22.7 

602 5530 4734 304 6.4 304 6.4 603 2813 2043 310 15.2 310 15.2 632 6806 5932 308 5.2 308 5.2 633 9405 8980 801 8.9 801 8.9 634 6703 4889 623 12.7 544 11.1 635 10797 10699 816 7.6 816 7.6 636 9316 8324 1447 17.4 1388 16.7 637 6252 5469 1445 26.4 866 15.8 646 2429 1575 763 48.4 763 48.4 

D7 701 13270 12485 740 5.9 740 5.9 

702 6711 6410 1027 16 1027 16 

703 8592 8225 836 10.2 836 10.2 704 9417 9187 1368 14.9 1368 14.9 705 8496 8081 1733 21.4 1733 21.4 706 8271 7787 225 2.9 225 2.9 707 11655 10609 371 3.5 371 3.5 708 13118 12093 133 1.1 133 1.1 709 9733 9289 337 3.6 337 3.6 711 24534 23797 1947 8.2 1947 8.2 

TOTAL 496998 457487 59058 12.9 

1 The following compartments are within the Judith analysis area and will be allocated in summer of 2004 in the FEIS.
Table C-8e. Acres Designated as Old Growth 1988-2001 (Partial Compartment Inven

DISTRICT COMPARTMENT ACRES OF 

COMPARTMENT

ACRES 

OF 

FORESTE

D LANDS

EXISTING 

OLD 

GROWTH 

ACRES 

%TOTAL 

OLD 

GROWTH 

ACRES 

ALLOC

ATED 

% 

ALLOCATE

D FOR FP 

STANDARD

IN

C

D3 377 16967 16276 578 3.5 

378 6111 5917 0 379 6305 6146 151 2.5 380 14436 14127 0 386 10025 9703 2109 21.7 387 10797 10297 651 6.3 

D4 447 12106 10725 221 2.1 221 2.1 

463 18026 14567 586 4 586 4 464 22332 20018 350 1.7 350 1.7 

D6 631 9296 9063 611 6.7 611 6.7 D7 712 19252 18214 326 1.8 326 1.8 

781 8467 8216 918 11.2 918 11.2 782 7468 7295 1087 14.9 1087 14.9 

TOTAL 161589 150563 7588 5 4099 2.7

1OLD GROWTH INVENTORIED AND ALLOCATED ACROSS THE LCNF, BUT TOTAL COMPARTMENT WAS NOT EXA

THESE ACRES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN PAST MONITORING REPORTS. 
The Forest has completed old 

growth surveys on 42 compartments 

(496,998 acres) within the Little Belt 

Mountains and have 41 

compartments left to survey. Of 

these, 13 compartments have had 

some level of surveys completed. 

These acres and compartments are 

included in Table C-8e. 

When one compares the FIA data at 

the mountain range scale with the 

information that has been gathered 

at the project level, the amount of 

acres of old growth on all forested 

lands falls within the range of old 

growth as described by the FIA data 

for all forested lands. The total old 

growth through project surveys 

reveal there is 12.9 percent old 

growth for the surveyed acres within 

the Little Belts and the FIA data for 

the Little Belts ranges from 10.4 – 

19.1% with a mid point of 14.6%. 

GOSHAWK MONITORING and 

INVENTORY 

METHODS 

The Forest’s goal is to monitor all of 

the known territories each year to 

establish occupancy and production 

and be able to track this information 

through time. A computer program 

has been developed to track all nest 

territories as to their occupancy, 

production, and nest site 

characteristics. 

RESULTS 

Goshawk Nest Territories

The result of the goshawk monitoring 

completed from FY 1990 through FY 

2003 is summarized in Tables C-8f 

and C-8g. In 2002 and 2003, the 

Forest continued to use the 

computer model (see discussion in 

the goshawk model section of this 

report) developed in 1998 for 

determining potential goshawk 

nesting habitat. This model has 

been used to aid in prioritizing areas 

in which forest personnel conduct 

surveys for goshawks. Use of the 

tape recorder playback method in 

potential habitat has resulted in the 

discovery of 12 new nests from 1998 

to 2001. In 2002, 4 additional 

goshawk territories were discovered 

on the Jefferson Division and two 

additional territories were recorded 

on the Rocky Mountain Division. No 

new territories were found through 

contracted surveys on the Forest in 

2003 (see below). No goshawk 

surveys were conducted by Forest 

Service personnel due to limited 

manpower and our efforts were 

directed at monitoring the existing 

territories. 

In 2003 a contract for goshawk 

surveys was awarded to GANDA to 

survey the area in the Hall/Box 

Creek area in the RM1 unit on the 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District. 

This survey was in response to a 

renewed interest in exploratory oil 

and gas drilling in the Hall Creek 

area. No new nests or territories 

were found but the two known 

territories were validated. One was 

active and produced young and one 

was not active, but adult birds were 

seen in the area. 

Another contract for goshawk 

surveys was awarded to MAXIM 

Technologies INC (in 2003) to 

survey the Blackleaf area on the 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District and 

adjacent BLM lands. This survey 

was in response to a renewed 

interest in the Blackleaf gas/oil drill 

sites. No new nests or territories 

were found on Forest Service 
System lands, but the two known 

territories were validated. One was 

active and produced young, one was 

not active, but adult birds were heard 

in the area. One new nest was 

found on BLM lands. This nest was 

active and produced at least one 

young. 

Across the Forest there are currently 

53 historic or currently active 

territories; 14 on the Rocky Mountain 

Division and 39 on the Jefferson 

Division. These territories are 

dispersed across the two Divisions 

as shown in Map 1 and the results of 

monitoring of these territories are 

shown in Tables C-8f and C-8g.

Table C-8f. Goshawk (Nesting Territories on Rocky Mountain Division) 

Table C-8f. 

Goshawk 

(Nesting 

Territories 

on Rocky 

Mountain 

Division) 

Nesting 

Territories1

Territories 

Monitored 

Territories 

Active2

Percent 

Active3

Fledglings 

Produced 

1990 0 0 0 0 0 

1991 3 1 1 100 Unknown 

1992 4 1 1 100 Unknown 

1993 6 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown 

1994 6 6 4 67 1 

1995 7 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown 

1996 7 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown 

1997 7 0 Unknown Unknown Unknown 

1998 8 3 1 33 2 

1999 9 9 7 78 3 

2000 11 9 2 22 2 

2001 12 11 5 45 3 

2002 14 11 3 27 No young 

observed 

2003 14 11 2 18 4 

 AVERAGE ACTIVE TERR = 37% 

1

Territory—defined by a known nest site or an area being defended by a goshawk. 2 Active Territory—a territory that is occupied by a pair of goshawks. 3

Percent Active = number of territories active divided by number of territories monitored.

The average for active territories for 

the Rocky Mountain Front from 

1998-2003 is about 37%. This is 

very comparable to the Jefferson 

Division. As with the Jefferson 

Division, the Rocky Mountain Front 

varies in production of young. 

As the Forest continues to survey 

potential habitat there are more 

territories (nest sites or areas being 

defended) being discovered. 

Therefore, knowledge in the data 

pool is being acquired and a larger 

population of goshawks is being 

discovered. When one looks at the 

active territories in relation to 

territories monitored for the Jefferson 

Division from the period of 1990-

2003 it appears that that on the 
average only about 31 percent of the 

territories are active and the amount 

of young produced varies widely. 

Reasons for low percentage of active 

territories are unknown. It is 

suspected that weather plays an 

important part in amount of young 

being produced (Clough, 2000). 

McGrath et al. (2003) also stated 

that parental experience, weather, 

and prey abundance are the most 

influential in determining nest 

productivity.

Table C-8g Goshawk (Nesting Territories on Jefferson Division) 

Nesting 

Territories 

Territories 

Monitored 

Territories 

Active 

Percent 

Active1

Fledglings 

Produced 

1990 14 9 6 66 * 

1991 17 10 8 80 7 

1992 22 16 3 19 3 

1993 22 10 3 30 4 

1994 22 13 4 29 1 

1995 22 7 0 0 0 

1996 25 14 4 29 Unknown 

1997 25 24 1 4 Unknown 

1998 27 27 10 37 15 

1999 30 30 10 33 16 

2000 34 27 11 41 8 

2001 35 32 9 28 3 

2002 39 25 6 24 4 

2003 39 25 5 20 2 

*Attempted to monitor, but data inconclusive AVERAGE ACTIVE TERR = 31% 

1

Territory—defined by a known nest site or an area being defended by a goshawk. 2 Active Territory—a territory that is occupied by a pair of goshawks. 3

Percent Active = number of territories active divided by number of territories monitored. 

GOSHAWK HABITAT ANALYSIS 

 

Given the mobility of goshawks and 

the wide range of forest types that 

they use, it is difficult if not 

impossible to define discrete 

breeding populations (Woodbridge, 

et al, 2003). This is further 

complicated by some normal 

population change due to 

environmental factors, most notably 

climate and prey abundance (Ibid). 

Because of these difficulties and the 

inability to count all goshawks on the 

forest, the Forest maps habitat and 

uses that as an indicator as to the 

health of the population (as well as 

monitoring goshawk nests) as 

indicated by Boyce (1992). The 

following is a discussion of that 

process. 

Goshawk Habitat Modeling

METHODS 

In 1998 the Forest constructed a 

goshawk nesting habitat model 

based on known nest parameters of 

existing goshawk territories and 

information that was collected by 

Tom Whitford (1991) during his 

Goshawk Masters study on the 

Forest. The base layer for this 

model was the Timber Stand Data 

Base (TSMRS). 

The Rocky Mountain Division has 

not been mapped due to the amount 
of land area that is not covered by 

TSMRS because of the Bob 

Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat 

Wilderness area. The habitat for this 

Division will have to be mapped at a 

later date by the use of other 

vegetation layers (e.g. Silc1 or 

Silc3). 

RESULTS 

The entire Jefferson Division has 

been mapped for distribution of 

potential nesting habitat. This 

information is displayed in Map 2 

and shows habitat as aggregated by 

6th code HUC (Hydrologic Unit 

Code). The modeling effort has 

projected that there is 119,630 acres 

of potential nesting habitat within the 

Jefferson Division and that 96 of 146 

HUCs (66 %) contain nesting habitat, 

and there are 28 HUCs that currently 

contain at least one active or historic 

territory. Not all nesting habitat will 

ever contain a nesting pair because 

of the territoriality of the goshawk. 

Goshawk Habitat Analysis

Reynolds, et al (1992) published the 

Management Recommendations for 

the Northern Goshawk in the 

Southwestern United States. 

Included in this report was the 

recommendation that the desired 

forest vegetative structural stages 

(VSS) for sustaining northern 

goshawks in the southwestern 

United States are 10% 

grass/forb/shub, 10% 

seedling/sapling; 20% young forest; 

20% mid-aged forest; 20% mature 

and 20% old forest. Several 

environmental groups have 

recommended to the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest that these are 

also the desired forest conditions 

that the Forest should be utilizing 

when managing for goshawk habitat. 

In particular some have suggested 

that based on Reynolds 20% old 

growth or old forest is required for 

goshawk. In order to respond, the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest has 

reviewed available literature on the 

matter and has undertaken a review 

of goshawk nesting territories to 

determine what, in fact, are the 

forest conditions on the Lewis and 

Clark that the goshawk nest and rear 

young – particularly in relation to old 

growth First, after reviewing the 

recommendations and several other 

research papers, it is clear that the 

Reynolds recommendations were 

just that, recommendations, and not 

based on what the existing condition 

of the known nest sites were. In fact, 

it is suggested that desired 

vegetative conditions are most 

appropriately determined at the local 

level. Bassett, et al (1994) states: 

“The recommended 10-10-20-20-20-20 VSS 

percentage is now being considered as a 

hard and-fast rule by those implementing 

and reviewing timber sale projects. 

However, the 10-10-20-20-20 distribution 

was intended to describe approximate 

percentages of each VSS throughout the 

post-fledging family and foraging areas 

to sustain suitable goshawk habitat 

(Reynolds, et al. 1992). The achievable 

VSS percentage should be determined by 

considering existing local factors that 

influence forest establishment and growth, 

expected management intensity, and tree 

longevity.” 

See also Graham et al (1994) and 

McGrath, et al, (2003) in their 

Wildlife Society monograph. 

Second, as described below, the 

known and active goshawk territories 

on the Lewis and Clark NF show that 

vegetative conditions in goshawk 

PFAs are composed of an average 
of 14% old forest. The methods of 

our analysis are described below. 

METHODS 

Because of the ever-increasing 

concern of the management of 

goshawks, the Forest undertook an 

analysis of known goshawk 

territories to determine the 

vegetative composition on the Lewis 

and Clark Forest that goshawks 

occupy. Several studies have 

identified the post fledgling family 

area (PFA) as critical to the 

goshawk. This is the area that the 

young birds utilize to learn to hunt 

and evade predators (Kennedy et al, 

1994; Reynolds et al 1992). 

The foraging area or the remainder 

of the goshawks home range has 

also been identified as an area of 

concern. However, in order to 

actually map a home range one 

would need to have telemetry points 

to describe the outside area of use. 

Instead of mapping the home 

ranges, nesting habitat is being 

displayed across the forest in 

relation to 6th code HUC. This is 

more in line with the 

recommendations of Graham et al 

(1994) in examining a larger 

landscape and not just the goshawk 

home range. Also the make up of 

the general forest is provided as 

reference in Table C-8i. 

In the winter of 2003/2004 goshawk 

territories on the Jefferson Division 

that have had some consistency of 

occupancy were analyzed in regards 

to the vegetation composition of the 

post fledgling area as described by 

the above stated literature. 

In order to describe and quantify the 

vegetation makeup of the PFAs 

within known territories, the Forest 

used the ArcGIS system to evaluate 

23 known territories on the Jefferson 

Division that have been occupied 

and have produced young since 

1990. Table C-8c displays the 

vegetation makeup of these PFAs. 

Two other PFAs were developed at 

the Beldon Flat and Neil Creek 

territories because of multiple nests 

and one PFA did not encompass all 

nest sites. 

The process selected the territories 

and then buffered the center of the 

territory by 800 meters to create the 

PFA (Kennedy, 1994). This 

coverage was then intersected with a 

vegetation layer created from 

TSMRS. The vegetation layer was 

unable to break out the coniferous 

forest in young, mid-aged and 

mature vegetative structural stages 

as recommended by Reynolds 

(1992). Therefore, the coniferous 

forest designation includes the 

structural stages of young, mid-aged 

and mature forest. The data files 

from the layer were then analyzed by 

using excel spreadsheet programs. 

In conjunction with the known PFAs 

a random sample of PFAs were 

generated and distributed across the 

Little Belts and Little Snowy 

Mountains. First a GIS layer was 

created from DEM data to determine 

the area within the forest boundary 

below 6800 feet in elevation. This 

was then intersected with the timber 

compartment map of all 

compartments that have had on the 

ground old growth surveys 

completed due to other project work. 

From this layer random sample 

points were generated and buffered 

by 800 meters to generate 

hypothetical PFAs. Using a similar 

process as before we also generated 

random PFAs and intersected them 

with the predicted nesting habitat 
that has been created by the 

goshawk nest model. 

RESULTS 

The goshawks on the Lewis and 

Clark National appear to be selecting 

a habitat make of on the average of 

11 percent grassland, 2 percent 

clearcut/seedlings, 1 percent sapling, 

14 percent old forest, and 68 percent 

coniferous forest (Tables C-8h and 

C-8i). When one examines the 

midpoint of the data it is similar but 

differs from the recommended 

percentage by Reynolds (1992) in 

relation to sapling stage and old 

forest. However, when the 90% 

confidence interval is examined, the 

general recommendations are being 

met with the exception of the sapling 

stage (e.g. 0-2% known territories 

versus 10% from Reynolds). 

Reynolds recommended 10% within 

the grass/forb stage. Examination of 

the data (Table C-8i) also reveals 

that on the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest our grass/forb component is 

being made up of natural grasslands 

plus the clearcuts, and falls within 

the recommended percentage of 

Reynolds (1992). The proximity to 

natural grasslands and meadows 

was also demonstrated by Clough 

(2000) in the Deerlodge National 

Forest. When one looks at the 

distribution of the known nest sites 

on the Jefferson Division, they are 

generally at the interface of the 

prairie and the mountains and these 

appear to be the more productive 

nests also (Table C-8h, map 1). 

Table C-8h summarizes the analysis 

that was done for the known PFAs 

and the randomly sampled PFAs. 

The first two columns are shown to 

provide a broad scale comparison of 

the vegetation makeup of the 

Jefferson Division and Little Belt 

Mountains. The range (90% CI) of 

vegetation composition for PFAs 

across the forest and PFAs in 

potential nesting habitat was within 

the recommendations by Reynolds 

(1992), with the exception of the 

sapling stage. In all samples this 

vegetation stage was less than 

Reynolds (1992) recommended. 

Both sets of random plots contained 

more old forest vegetation type 

(based on the mid point) than the 

known territories and the 

recommendations by Reynolds 

(1992) and the range was also 

somewhat higher. 

The inventoried and modeled old 

growth (old forest) across the 

Jefferson Division is 14%. When 

one examines the FIA data, this also 

predicts that on the Jefferson 

Division there is 14.6% (FIA Tables 

in old growth section of this report) 

with a range from 10.4% to 19.1%. 

The known goshawk PFAs has 14% 

old growth (old forest) within them. 

Therefore, it appears that the 

goshawks are selecting PFAs and 

nesting areas that contain similar 

amounts of old growth within them 

as there is distributed across the 

Jefferson Division. McGrath (2003) 

reported in Oregon that the 

goshawks in their study area were 

using old growth in proportion to its 

availability. 

Based on two different data sets (FIA 

and TSMRS), there appears to be 

adequate amounts of old growth 

across the Forest to insure that it is 

an integral part of goshawk habitat. 

As illustrated in Map 1, the known 

goshawk territories are distributed 

across the Jefferson Division as well 

as nesting habitat. Therefore, it 

appears that the Forest is providing 

adequate habitat to support 

populations of the goshawk and 
contribute to the overall viability of the species. 

TABLE C-8h. VEGETATION COMPOSTION OF 23 PFAs of KNOWN GOSHAWK TERRITORIES. 

BASED ON TSMRS VEGETATION DATA FROM WILDVEG MODEL 

Territory Name Grass/Rock Clearcut/Seedling Sapling Old Forest Coniferous 

Forest 

Ye

Acres Per 

cent 

Acres Per Cent Acres Per 

Cent 

Acres Per 

Cent 

Acres Per 

Cent 

Grand Total Disc

Antelope Gorge-411 0 0 0 82 17 414 83 496 Arrow Creek-45 34 12 0 0 0 238 88 271 Beldon Flat-42 99 20 0 0 4 1 391 79 494 Beldon Flat2-422 59 12 0 0 23 5 414 83 496Blanding Gulch-77 106 21 0 0 223 45 167 34 496 Cabin Creek-72 0 9 2 39 8 107 22 341 69 496 Copper Creek-76 305 61 0 0 91 18 101 20 496 Crawford Creek-78 18 0 0 0 122 0 357 34 496 Daniels Creek-73 7 1 2 0 6 1 26 5 455 92 496 Dry Gulch-44 37 8 5 1 3 1 76 16 362 75 482 Dry Pole-412 29 6 0 0 112 23 355 72 496 Eagle Creek-74 141 28 0 0 145 29 210 42 496 Elephant Rock-64 12 3 7 1 26541 447 90 496 Ettien Ridge-414 26 5 0 0 63 13 407 82 496 Indian Hill-413 15 4 0 5 1 0 357 95 377 Mill Creek-68 1 0 30 6 0 252 51 213 43 496 Neil Creek-62 69 20 45 13 2 1 0 238 67 355 Neil Creek2-622 56 12 11 2 7 2 34 8 347 76 455Pasture Gulch-63 0 69 14 0 181 36 246 50 496 Skunk Gulch-410 18 4 33 7 20 4 128 26 297 60 496 South Bench-612 2 0 31 8 0 0 335 91 368 Tollgate-47 95 23 0 0 10 3 303 74 409 Townsend Gulch-65 81 20 0 0 48 12 271 68 400 Upper Ashbridge-615 42 10 01082 379 88 429 Yogo Creek-46 51 10 56 11 0 33 7 356 72 496 TOTALS 1301 298 109 1773 8000 11482Minimum 0 0 0 0 20 Maximum 61 14 8 51 95 Average 11 2 1 14 68 Median 6 0 0 12 74 Beldon Flat2 is a second PFA for Beldon Flat territory due to distance of nests from one anotherNeil Creek2 is a second PFA from Neil Creek territory due to distance of nests from one another
TABLE C-8i. Vegetation composition of occupied goshawk post-fledging areas (PFAs), 

randomly sampled potential goshawk habitat and randomly sampled forested stands (the size of 

PFAs), and across the Little Belt Mountains and the Jefferson Division. Number of samples (n) 

(for territory column) is based on territories that have consistently been occupied/productive 

1990-2003. 

Vegetation Type 

Jefferson 

Divisiona

Little Belt 

Mtns.a

Forest 

(PFA)b 

(n=45) 90% CIc

Potential 

(PFA)d 

(n=47) 90% CIc

Territory 

(PFA)e 

(n=25) 90% CIc

% Old Forest 14% 16% 22% 18 - 26% 22% 17 - 27% 14% 8 - 20% 

% Coniferous Forest 68% 67% 63% 58 - 63% 65% 58 - 71% 69% 61 - 78% 

% Sapling 2% 3% 4% 2 - 7% 2% 1 - 3% 1% 0 - 2% 

% Clearcut/Seedling/Fire 4% 4% 2% 1 - 4% 0% 0 - 1% 2% 1 - 4% 

% Grass/Rock 12% 11% 8% 8 - 12% 11% 7 - 15% 11% 6 - 17% 

a Data is from a query of cover-types (TSMRS database) below 6,800 across the Jefferson Division and Little Belt 

Mountains and are intended to characterize the overall vegetation composition across the landscape. 

b Data is from randomly sampled areas equivalent in size to goshawk post-fledging area, with sample plot centered in a 

random forested stand. 

c 90% CI: The ninety-percent confidence interval is the predicted range, statistically determined from the distribution of 

actual samples, that one would expect the value to fall in if a random sample was taken. A confidence interval is a range of 

values that has a high probability of containing the parameter being estimated (in this case the average). The 90% 

confidence interval is constructed in such a way that 95% of such intervals will contain the parameter. d Data is from randomly sampled areas equivalent in size to goshawk post-fledging area, with sample plot centered in a 

forested stand that is designated potential nesting habitat by the Lewis and Clark goshawk habitat model).

e Data is from post-fledging area around nesting territories occupied on the Lewis and Clark NF (1990-2003). 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Survey work needs to continue to be completed to detect whether there are new territories 

present, as well as continued monitoring of the known territories. 

Attachments 

Map 1---distribution of all historic and known territories. 

Map 2---Nesting habitat as predicted by the goshawk nest model. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Basset, R. L., D. A. Boyce, Jr, M. H. Reiser, R. T. Graham, and R. T. Reynolds. 1994. Influence of 

site quality and stand density on goshawk habitat in southwestern forest. Studies in Avian Biology 

No. 16:41-45. 

Boyce, M. S. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:481-506. 

Bush, R. and A. Leach. 2004. Detailed estimates of old growth and large snags on the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Region 1. 

Clough, L. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central 

Montana. M.S. Wildlife Biology, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 

Czaplewski, R. L., A. A. Leach, P. L. Patterson, and M. S. Williams. 2003. Application of forest 
inventory and analysis data to estimate amount of old growth forest and snag density on the Lolo 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 

Graham, R. T., R. T. Reynolds, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Basset, and D. A. Boyce. 1994. Sustaining forest 

habitat for the northern goshawk: a question of scale. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16:12-17. 

Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-growth forest types of 

the Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 

Kennedy, P. L., J. M. Ward, G.A. Rinker, and J. A. Gessaman. 1994. Post-fledging area in northern 

goshawk home ranges. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16:75-82. 

McGrath, M. T., S. DeStafano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific northwest. Wildlife 

Mongarph No. 154. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. 

Goodwin, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the 

southwestern United States. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-217. 

Woodbridge, B, C. Hargis. 2003. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide. 

Draft Chpts 1 and 2.U.S. Forest Service. 
TOLLGATE

Dry Pole

DRY GULCH

Neil Creek

MILL CREEK

YOGO CREEK

NEIL CREEK

BELDON FLAT Beldon Flat

Skunk Gulch

CABIN CREEK EAGLE CREEK

ARROW CREEK

Indian Hill

SOUTH BENCH

COPPER CREEK

ELEPHANT ROCK

Ettien Ridge.

PASTURE GULCH

DANIELS CREEK

Antelope Gorge

CRAWFORD CREEK

BLANDING GULCH

Upper Ashbridge

TOWNSEND GULCH SPG

MAP 1. Historic and Active Goshawk Territories

on the Lewis and Clark National Forest

1987-2003

Labelled Diamonds are the Territories

Used for PFA Analysis as Shown in Table 8c.
MAP 2. Goshawk Habitat by 6th Code HUC within

the Jefferson Division

Highwood Mtns

Little Belt Mtns

Caslte Mtns

Crazy Mtns

Big Snowy Mtns

Little Snowy Mtns
C-10 Cavity Nesting Habitat 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

Change 

Monitorin

g Item? 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Cavity Nesting Habitat for 

Northern Three-toed 

woodpecker - percent 

optimum habitat 

5 years Reduction in snags to below 

numbers needed to maintain 

a viable population level of 

woodpeckers in any timber 

compartment as measured 

by a three year running mean 

compared to the existing 

percent optimum habitat 

Yes Yes, at 

revisio

n 

METHODS 

An annual Forest review of selected timber 

sales is conducted to determine 

effectiveness of snag management 

guidelines and timber sale administrative 

guidelines. Monitoring efforts focus on 

stands where snag densities may change 

due to management activities. 

Cavity dependant species habitat was 

measured by examining the gain, loss, or 

no change status of National Forest System 

acres of mature conifer stands. 

Breeding bird plots were used to determine 

the presence or absence of avian species. 

On January 25, 2004, the Lewis and Clark 

Forest received data related to snag 

densities across the forest using data 

compiled through the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) program. As detailed in the 

report entitled “Detailed Estimates of Old 

Growth and Large-Snags on the Lewis and 

Clark Forest” (see updated monitoring 

report for C-8 and C-10; dated March 15, 

2003), vegetative plots gathered as part of 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

program were screened for the whole 

forest, and by commercial and noncommercial forest lands, landscapes 

(mountain range) and watersheds (5th HUC 

(hydrologic unit code)). The FIA data 

provides a forest-wide perspective on snag 

densities across the Lewis and Clark forest 

to aid in understanding the amount of snag 

habitat and its distribution across the 

planning area. 

FIA is a Congressionally mandated, 

comprehensive, field-based forest inventory 

consisting of data collected from 120,000 

forested field plots in the United States. It 

is not practical to measure billions of trees 

within millions of acres of forests. The plots 

measure a diverse spectrum of forest 

conditions. Therefore, FIA draws a 

representative sample of field plots, located 

at randomized points within a standardized 

grid across the entire US, and uses data 

from those plots to estimate conditions 

across a larger landscape. FIA uses a 

probability sample, which allows it to 

quantify the uncertainty in its estimates that 

are caused by random sampling. The grid 

evenly covers all lands, regardless of 

whether or not they are suitable for timber 

production. The FIA inventory is not 

spatially explicit, but quantities of snags can 

be estimated with statistical confidence for 

large, 5th code watersheds and across large 

landscapes such as the lands 

encompassed by the Lewis and Clark 

Forest. 
FINDINGS

The updated monitoring report for C-8 and 

C-10 (dated March 15, 2004) provides 

estimates of old growth percentages and 

snag densities across the forest. Forested 

lands are comprised of both commercial 

and noncommercial forest. Commercial 

forest lands were determined using 

landtype information and the forest plan 

criteria for defining commercial forest lands. 

A subset of commercial forest land is those 

lands identified in the Forest Plan as 

suitable for timber harvesting. Roughly 

41% of commercial forest lands were 

identified in the Forest Plan as suitable for 

timber harvest. 

The report estimates snag density at 11.37 

per acre with a 90% confidence interval of 

8.90 to 14.04 snags per acre. It is further 

broken down by commercial and noncommercial lands as well as by landscape 

(mountain ranges and 5th code HUC) and 

by dominant cover type. 

The following is a summary of the FIA data. 

Table C-10a. Estimates of percentage of snag density by Commercial lands and associated 90% 

confidence intervals (Bush and Leach 2004). 

Ave Snags/Acre ≥ 10" DBH Plot Frequency 

Commercial 90% CI 

Lower 

Bound 

Point 

Estimate

90% CI 

Upper 

Bound 

Number of 

Plots 

(Number of 

Subplots) 

% of the

Plots 

Noncommercial 9.57 12.85 16.43 176(880) 52.38 

Commercial 5.23 8.49 12.14 91(455) 27.08 

Table C-10b. Estimates of snag density and associated 90% confidence interval by Landscape (Bush and 

Leach 2004). 

Ave Number of Snags/Acre

≥ 10" DBH Plot Frequency 

Landscape 90% CI 

Lower 

Bound 

Point 

Estimate

90% CI 

Upper 

Bound 

Number of 

Plots 

(Number of

Subplots)

Percent 

of the 

Plots 

Big Snowy Mountains 0.00 3.14 6.86 12(60) 3.57 

Castle Mountains 0.00 4.36 16.34 6(30) 1.79 

Crazy Mountains 1.57 10.08 19.81 6(30) 1.79 

Highwood Mountains 0.00 0.00 0.00 3(15) 0.89 

Little Belt Mountains 6.98 10.16 13.68 119(595) 35.42 

Little Snowy Mountains 0.00 4.89 14.67 3(15) 0.89 

Rocky Mountains 9.91 14.29 19.10 118(590) 35.12 
Table C-10c. Estimates of snag density and associated 90% confidence intervals by species cover 

type 

Ave Number of Snags/Acre ≥ 10" 

DBH Plot Frequency 

Cover 

Type 90% CI 

Lower Bound

Point 

Estimate 

90% CI 

Upper Bound

Number of 

Plots 

(Number of 

Subplots) 

Percent of 

the Plots 

ABLA-PIAL 8.76 19.29 31.67 23 (115) 6.85 

HW 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 (10) 0.60 

MIXCon 7.13 10.10 13.47 99 (495) 29.46 

NONE 0.00 19.84 45.57 8 (40) 2.38 

PICO 9.07 15.40 22.35 72 (360) 21.43 

PIPO-PSME 2.77 5.13 7.89 63 (315) 18.75 

Note: ABLA = subalpine fir, PIAL = whitebark pine, HW = hardwoods, Mix Con = mixed conifers, 

None = density of live trees precludes the assignment of a cover type, PICO = lodgepole pine, PIPO = 

ponderosa pine, PSME = Douglas-fir. 

Snag standards in the Forest Plan were 

developed using Thomas (1979), and 

prescribed the number of nest and roost 

trees to leave for specified woodpecker 

populations. The numbers proposed by 

Thomas were based on a hypothetical, 

untested model, and did not include snags 

for foraging (Bull et al. 1997). Snag 

standards based on the requirements of 

woodpeckers are known to underestimate 

the number of snags necessary for the 

many roles that snags, and later downedwoody debris, play in the forest ecosystem 

(Bull et al. 1997). In January 2000 a snag 

management protocol was developed for 

Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service using 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data 

from forests west of the Continental Divide 

(Lolo, Bitterroot, Flathead, and Kootenai 

National Forests). The use of FIA data for 

estimating snag densities and consideration 

of Region 1 Snag Retention protocol is 

consistent with Forest Plan direction (Forest 

Plan, p. 2-32) which encourages 

“maintaining active communications with 

research organizations to ensure current 

research data are being used in resource 

planning and administration concerning 

Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive 

species and their habitats.” As mentioned 

above, however, the snag management 

protocol developed for Region 1 was based 

on data from the highly productive forests 

west of the Divide and may not be 

appropriate for the drier, less productive 

forests of the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest especially in the recommendations 

for snags greater than 20 inchs dbh. 

Therefore, management of snag habitat is 

still guided by the Lewis and Clark Forest 

Plan standards. 

The Forest plan standards for snag 

retention on the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest are identified by forest type (Forest 

Plan, p. 2-35). Table C-10d lists the Forest 

Plan standard that is currently in place. 

Comparing the Forest Plan standard with 

FIA data it is clear that the snag densities 

exceed the Forest Plan Standard, with the 

exception of the riparian/aspen type, 

however, there were only 2 plots taken 

within this vegetation type. Table C-10d 

also lists the snag densities that it would 

take to manage for 100% of the potential 

population level of woodpeckers (Thomas, 

1979). Once again the snag levels far 

exceed the required density (except 
riparian/aspen). Therefore it appears that 

the Forest is providing adequate amounts 

of snag habitat to contribute to the overall 

viability of snag dependent species at the 

Forest scale. Snag levels are also 

exceeding snag levels being recommended 

by the Region 1 Snag Protocol in regards to 

Lodgepole pine and Spruce-fir/Whitebark 

Pine types. Information was not available 

to determine the number of snags greater 

than 20 inchs dbh for the Douglasfir/Ponderosa pine types. In general across 

the Forest there are 11.37 snags/acre with 

a 90% confidence interval of 8.90 to 14.04 

snags/acre. Even the lower bound of the 

interval is higher than the Forest Plan 

standard or the standard that it would take 

to manage at 100% of maximum potential 

populations of woodpeckers. Therefore, 

comparing the standard with what is being 

displayed from FIA data, there appears to 

be adequate snag habitat across the forest 

to contribute to maintaining viable 

populations of snag dependent species.

Table C-10d. Density of standing dead trees (snags) on the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest by forest type in Relation to the Forest Plan Standard. 

Forest Type 

FP Standard 

Snags/acre at Various 

Management Levels ( )

Existing 

Snags/acrea

Snags/acre at 

100% of 

management 

Level(Thomas, 

1979)b

Snags/acre as 

per Region 1 

Snag Protocol 

 Douglas-fir/Ponderosa pine 1.58≥10” dbh (70%) 5.1≥10” dbh 2.25≥10” dbh 1-2 >20” dbh 

 Riparian/Aspen (HW) 3.0≥6” dbh (100%) 0.0≥6” dbh 3.0≥6” dbh No 

Recommendation

 Lodgepole pine 0.7≥10” dbh (40%) 15.4≥10” dbh 1.8≥10” dbh 5-10>10” dbh 

 Spruce-fir/Whitebark Pine 1.08≥10” dbh (60%) 19.3≥10” dbh 1.8≥10” dbh 5-10> 10”dbh 

 Mixed Conifer 1.35≥10” dbh (60%) 10.1≥10” dbh 2.25≥10” dbh No 

Recommendation a Existing snags/acre is the current snag density from FIA data using the point estimate. A 

 breakout of snags >20”dbh is not provided. 

 b Snags that would be required to manage for 100% of required management level versus the 

 management level specified in the Forest Plan. 

Snag Management: Even though the 

FIA data displays that there is adequate 

snag habitat at the Forest level, 

retention of snags is still a concern 

within timber harvest units. 

Coordination at the Environmental 

Assessment phase is still important to 

ensure snags are being marked during 

timber sale layout and how many are 

needed. In some cases the snags are 

marked with paint and in others they are 

signed with metal signs, designating 

them as wildlife trees. 

Snag management is also being 

examined more at the landscape level 

on the Forest. Table C-10e looks at the 

total forested acres on the Jefferson 

Division and compares the amount of 

acres that have been harvested as well 

as burned with wildfire from 1940 to 

2003. The percentage of acres treated 

with timber harvest or wildfire is a very 

minor component of the land base within 

the Jefferson Division. Based on acres 

harvested versus acres of forested 

habitat, the timber program on the 

Forest has had an effect on only 6.9 
percent of the forested habitat. While at 

the same time timber harvest has 

removed all or a portion of the snag 

habitat on 6.9% of the forested habitat, 

natural fire has created 41,262 acres 

(4.7%) of snag habitat on the Jefferson 

Division. These are gross acres and 

one cannot make a direct comparison of 

snags lost on 6.9 percent of the forest or 

snags gained on 4.7 percent of the 

forest. But one can make a 

determination that the timber 

management on the Forest is having 

very little effect on snag habitat on the 

Jefferson Division, therefore, very little 

effect on snag dependent species, 

especially when wildfire has created 

snag habitat during the same time 

period. 

In 2003, the Forest surveyed the recent 

Lost Creek Fire of 2001 for blackbacked woodpeckers. One blackbacked woodpecker responded to a 

playback call within the fire. It appears 

that the black-back woodpeckers are 

still utilizing the fires, however in very 

low numbers. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue to survey for presence of 

black-back woodpeckers in the burns on 

the forest. Continue to coordinate with 

the timber sale program in regards to 

snag management objectives and 

standards. 

Table C-10e. Snag Habitat on the Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Division Acres Forested Acres Harvested(1) Acres Burned(2) % Acres Affected by 

Harvest/Burn 

Jefferson 880,000 60,686 41,262 6.9/4.7% 

Rocky Mt 470,000 176,099 37.5% 

(1) Data from TSMRS, March 2003. 

(2) Data from Fire History Map, March 2003. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bull, E.L.; Parks, C.G.; Torgersen, T.R. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the 

interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 55 p. 

Thomas, Jack W. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests, the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553.