Accipiter gentilis - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Northern Goshawk
Other English Common Names: northern goshawk
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 175300)
French Common Names: autour des palombes
Spanish Common Names: Gavilán Azor
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104351
Element Code: ABNKC12060
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Accipitriformes Accipitridae Accipiter
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Accipiter gentilis
Taxonomic Comments: Contains two groups: atricapillus of North America and gentilis of Eurasia (AOU 1998). See Whaley and White (1994) for information on geographic variation in North America. Validity of subspecies apache is questionable (see Banks 1995).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 06Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 22Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Relatively abundant and widespread, Holarctic; population trends are difficult to determine; no hard evidence of a significant decline in recent decades, but probably declining in some areas primarily as a result of habitat alteration (especially logging), which can be expected to continue; effectiveness of forest management guidelines in providing adequate protection remains to be determined.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B,N4N (05Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (09Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alaska (S4), Arizona (S3), California (S3), Colorado (S3B), Connecticut (S4B), Delaware (SNA), Idaho (S3), Illinois (SNA), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (SNA), Kansas (SNA), Kentucky (SNA), Maine (S3?B,S3?N), Maryland (S1B), Massachusetts (S3), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (SNRB,SNRN), Montana (S3), Navajo Nation (S3), Nebraska (SNRN), Nevada (S2), New Hampshire (S3), New Jersey (S1B,S3N), New Mexico (S2B,S3N), New York (S3S4B,S3N), North Carolina (SUB), North Dakota (SNA), Ohio (SNRN), Oklahoma (S2N), Oregon (S3), Pennsylvania (S2S3B,S3N), Rhode Island (S1B,S1N), South Carolina (SNA), South Dakota (S3B,S2N), Tennessee (S2N), Utah (S4), Vermont (S2B,S3N), Washington (S2S3B,S3N), West Virginia (S1B,S1N), Wisconsin (S2B,S2N), Wyoming (S2B,S3N)
Canada Alberta (S3S4), British Columbia (S4B,S4N), Labrador (S3?), Manitoba (S4), New Brunswick (S4), Newfoundland Island (S3B), Northwest Territories (S5), Nova Scotia (S3S4), Nunavut (SNRN), Ontario (S4), Prince Edward Island (S4), Quebec (S4), Saskatchewan (S4B,S4M,S3N), Yukon Territory (S4)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS
Comments on USESA: USFWS found that listing the population in the contiguous U.S. west of the 100th meridian as threatened or endangered was not warranted (Federal Register 63:35183-35184, 29 June 1998). USFWS (Federal Register, 3 November 2009) proposed to list the British Columbia distinct population segment (DPS) of subspecies laingi as threatened, except on the Queen Charlotte Islands (a significant portion of the DPS's range), where they proposed to list the goshawk as endangered.
Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):T,NAR
Comments on COSEWIC: The Northern Goshawk atricapillus subspecies was designated Not At Risk in April 1995.
The Northern Goshawk laingi subspecies was designated as Special Concern in April 1995. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2000 and May 2013.

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

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING: North America: western and central Alaska to northeastern Manitoba, Labrador, and Newfoundland, south to central California, southern Arizona, eastern foothills of Rockies, central Alberta, southern Manitoba, central Michigan, Pennsylvania, northwestern Connecticut, and in the Appalachians south to West Virginia and Maryland; locally in highlands of Mexico to Jalisco and Guerrero. Eurasia: British Isles, Scandinavia, northern Russia, and northern Siberia south to the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Iran, the Himalayas, eastern China, and Japan (Squires and Reynolds 1997, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: throughout breeding range and irregularly southward (Squires and Reynolds 1997, AOU 1998). In some years there are large flights (irruptions) south beyond the usual wintering range. These excursions are prompted by changing conditions on the northern breeding grounds (Mueller et al. 1977). Recorded occasionally as far south as Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina (Adkisson 1990). The three subspecies in the U.S. have the following ranges: 1) ATRICAPILLUS: Alaska, Canada, eastern U.S., and the more northerly mountains of the west. 2) LAINGI: islands off the Canadian Pacific coast. 3) APACHE: southern Arizona, New Mexico, and the mountains of northwestern Mexico (Jones 1979).

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Unknown, but likely to be more than 300.

Population Size: 10,000 - 1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Relatively common in the main part of its range.

Overall Threat Impact: Medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: HABITAT: Timber harvest is the principal threat to breeding populations (Squires and Reynolds 1997). In addition to the relatively long-term impacts of removing nest trees and degrading habitat by reducing stand density and canopy cover, logging activities conducted near nests during the incubation and nestling periods can have an immediate impact: nest failure due to abandonment (Boal and Mannan 1994, Squires and Reynolds 1997). Following canopy reduction by logging, goshawks are often replaced by other raptors including Red-tailed Hawk (BUTEO JAMAICENSIS), Great Horned Owl (BUBO VIRGINIANUS), and Long-eared Owl (ASIO OTUS; Crocker-Bedford 1990, Erdman et al. 1998). Fire suppression, grazing, and insect and tree disease outbreaks can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat (Graham et al. 1999). PREDATION: The incursion of Great Horned Owls is especially significant as they prey on both adult and nestling goshawks (Boal and Mannan 1994, Erdman et al. 1998, Rohner and Doyle 1992). Other known or suspected predators include martens (MARTES AMERICANA), fishers (MARTES PENNANTI), and wolverines (GULO GULO; Doyle 1995, Erdman et al. 1998, Graham et al. 1999, Paragi and Wholecheese 1994). PESTICIDES: Presently, pesticides do not appear to be a major threat, presumably since agricultural landscapes are seldom used. In the early 1970s, pesticide levels in tested birds were low, and egg thinning due to DDT contamination had not occurred in most populations (Snyder et al. 1973). In addition, population trends derived from counts of migrants at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, were generally upward during DDT period, 1946-1972 (Squires and Reynolds 1997). HUMAN DISTURBANCE: Although often persecuted in the past (Bent 1937), intentional shooting or trapping is no longer considered a significant source of mortality. The impact of falconry is generally unknown; however, in northern Wisconsin falconers removed an estimated 5 percent of young annually from monitored nests during a 21-year period (Erdman et al. 1998). DISEASE: Bacterial and fungal diseases have been observed, as have infestations of both external and internal parasites (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Infections of the fungus ASPERGILLUS were found to be more prevalent in migrants captured in Minnesota during invasion years than non-invasion years, possibly due to stress (Redig et al. 1980).

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Trends are difficult to determine due to the paucity of historic quantitative data and because of biases inherent in the various methodologies used to track bird populations. Nesting range in the eastern U.S. is currently expanding as second-growth forests mature (Squires and Reynolds 1997). In the west, clearcut logging of old-growth forests, fire suppression, and catastrophic fire are postulated to be reducing habitat and thus populations, especially that of the subspecies LAINGI (USFWS 1994). However, conclusive data supporting the purported decline in the western U.S. are lacking (USFWS 1997, Kennedy 1997). Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data (1959-1988; Sauer et al. 1996), North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data (1966-1996; Sauer et al. 1997), and counts of migrants in the eastern U.S. (1972-1987; Titus and Fuller 1990) do not indicate any significant changes in populations. Data derived from CBC and BBS are difficult to interpret due to low sample sizes and the possibility that birds counted may not be a random sample of the breeding population. Counts from migration monitoring stations are complicated by population fluctuations resulting from periodic invasions of large numbers of birds (Bednarz et al. 1990, Titus and Fuller 1990, USFWS 1998).

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: Bent (1937) reported a population decline in Pennsylvania and implied that the extinction of the passenger pigeon (ECTOPISTES MIGRATORIUS) played a role. However, extensive logging likely contributed to the decline in Pennsylvania and other eastern states (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Better estimates of population size and distribution of this species are needed, especially on nonfederal lands. Good baseline data is needed in areas expected to experience increased logging of mature forests in next decade.

Protection Needs: Protection needs are still being debated among experts. Critical habitat needs better definition for the various parts of the range before protection needs can be clearly detailed. However, in general, protection of large, mature to old-growth forest tracts should be beneficial.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING: North America: western and central Alaska to northeastern Manitoba, Labrador, and Newfoundland, south to central California, southern Arizona, eastern foothills of Rockies, central Alberta, southern Manitoba, central Michigan, Pennsylvania, northwestern Connecticut, and in the Appalachians south to West Virginia and Maryland; locally in highlands of Mexico to Jalisco and Guerrero. Eurasia: British Isles, Scandinavia, northern Russia, and northern Siberia south to the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Iran, the Himalayas, eastern China, and Japan (Squires and Reynolds 1997, AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING: throughout breeding range and irregularly southward (Squires and Reynolds 1997, AOU 1998). In some years there are large flights (irruptions) south beyond the usual wintering range. These excursions are prompted by changing conditions on the northern breeding grounds (Mueller et al. 1977). Recorded occasionally as far south as Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina (Adkisson 1990). The three subspecies in the U.S. have the following ranges: 1) ATRICAPILLUS: Alaska, Canada, eastern U.S., and the more northerly mountains of the west. 2) LAINGI: islands off the Canadian Pacific coast. 3) APACHE: southern Arizona, New Mexico, and the mountains of northwestern Mexico (Jones 1979).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NN, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

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

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Juneau (02110), Ketchikan Gateway (02130), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (CA) (02201), Sitka (02220), Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon (CA) (02232), Wrangell-Petersburg (CA) (02280)
AZ Apache (04001), Cochise (04003), Coconino (04005), Gila (04007), Graham (04009), Greenlee (04011), Mohave (04015), Navajo (04017), Pima (04019), Santa Cruz (04023), Yavapai (04025)
CA Alpine (06003)*, Butte (06007), Calaveras (06009), El Dorado (06017), Fresno (06019), Glenn (06021), Humboldt (06023)*, Inyo (06027), Kern (06029), Lake (06033), Lassen (06035), Mariposa (06043), Mendocino (06045), Modoc (06049), Mono (06051), Nevada (06057), Placer (06061), Plumas (06063), Shasta (06089), Sierra (06091), Siskiyou (06093), Tehama (06103), Trinity (06105), Tulare (06107), Tuolumne (06109)
ID Ada (16001), Adams (16003), Bannock (16005), Bear Lake (16007), Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Camas (16025), Caribou (16029), Cassia (16031), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Franklin (16041), Fremont (16043), Gem (16045), Idaho (16049), Kootenai (16055), Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Lincoln (16063), Madison (16065), Nez Perce (16069), Owyhee (16073), Power (16077), Shoshone (16079), Teton (16081), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085), Washington (16087)
MD Allegany (24001), Garrett (24023)
MI Alcona (26001), Alger (26003), Antrim (26009), Bay (26017), Benzie (26019), Charlevoix (26029)*, Cheboygan (26031), Chippewa (26033), Clare (26035), Crawford (26039), Delta (26041), Dickinson (26043), Gogebic (26053), Grand Traverse (26055), Iosco (26069), Iron (26071), Kalamazoo (26077), Kalkaska (26079), Lake (26085), Luce (26095), Mackinac (26097), Manistee (26101), Marquette (26103), Mason (26105), Menominee (26109), Midland (26111), Montcalm (26117), Muskegon (26121), Newaygo (26123), Oceana (26127), Ogemaw (26129), Ontonagon (26131), Oscoda (26135), Otsego (26137), Schoolcraft (26153), Tuscola (26157), Wexford (26165)
MN Aitkin (27001), Anoka (27003)*, Becker (27005), Beltrami (27007), Carlton (27017), Carver (27019)*, Cass (27021), Clearwater (27029), Cook (27031), Dakota (27037)*, Hennepin (27053)*, Hubbard (27057), Itasca (27061), Koochiching (27071), Lake (27075), Lake of the Woods (27077), Morrison (27097)*, Pine (27115), Ramsey (27123)*, Roseau (27135), Scott (27139)*, Sherburne (27141)*, St. Louis (27137), Wadena (27159), Wright (27171)*
MT Beaverhead (30001), Broadwater (30007), Carbon (30009), Carter (30011), Deer Lodge (30023), Fergus (30027), Flathead (30029), Gallatin (30031), Glacier (30035), Granite (30039), Jefferson (30043), Judith Basin (30045), Lake (30047), Lewis and Clark (30049), Liberty (30051), Lincoln (30053), Madison (30057), Meagher (30059), Mineral (30061), Missoula (30063), Park (30067), Powder River (30075), Powell (30077), Ravalli (30081), Rosebud (30087), Sanders (30089), Silver Bow (30093), Stillwater (30095), Sweet Grass (30097), Teton (30099), Wheatland (30107)
NH Carroll (33003), Rockingham (33015)
NJ Cape May (34009), Hunterdon (34019), Morris (34027), Passaic (34031), Somerset (34035), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
NM Bernalillo (35001), Catron (35003), Cibola (35006), Dona Ana (35013), Grant (35017), Hidalgo (35023), Lincoln (35027), Los Alamos (35028), Mckinley (35031), Mora (35033), Otero (35035), Rio Arriba (35039), San Juan (35045), San Miguel (35047), Sandoval (35043), Sierra (35051), Socorro (35053), Taos (35055), Torrance (35057)
NV Elko (32007), Eureka (32011), Lyon (32019), Washoe (32031), White Pine (32033)
OR Baker (41001), Clackamas (41005), Crook (41013), Deschutes (41017), Douglas (41019), Grant (41023)*, Harney (41025), Jackson (41029), Jefferson (41031), Klamath (41035), Lane (41039), Malheur (41045), Marion (41047), Umatilla (41059)*, Union (41061), Wallowa (41063), Wasco (41065)*, Wheeler (41069)
PA Berks (42011), Cameron (42023), Centre (42027), Clearfield (42033), Clinton (42035), Crawford (42039), Elk (42047), Forest (42053), Huntingdon (42061), Jefferson (42065), Lackawanna (42069)*, Luzerne (42079), Lycoming (42081)*, McKean (42083), Mifflin (42087), Monroe (42089)*, Pike (42103)*, Potter (42105), Schuylkill (42107), Sullivan (42113), Susquehanna (42115), Tioga (42117), Union (42119), Warren (42123), Wayne (42127)*
RI Providence (44007)
SD Custer (46033), Harding (46063), Lawrence (46081), Meade (46093), Pennington (46103)
UT Beaver (49001)*, Box Elder (49003), Cache (49005), Carbon (49007), Daggett (49009), Duchesne (49013), Emery (49015), Garfield (49017), Grand (49019), Iron (49021), Juab (49023), Kane (49025), Millard (49027)*, Morgan (49029)*, Piute (49031), Rich (49033), Salt Lake (49035), San Juan (49037), Sanpete (49039), Sevier (49041), Summit (49043), Tooele (49045)*, Uintah (49047), Utah (49049), Wasatch (49051), Washington (49053), Wayne (49055), Weber (49057)*
VT Essex (50009)
WA Asotin (53003)+, Benton (53005)+, Chelan (53007)+, Clallam (53009)+, Clark (53011)+, Columbia (53013)+, Cowlitz (53015)+, Ferry (53019)+, Garfield (53023)+, Grays Harbor (53027)+, Jefferson (53031)+, King (53033)+, Kittitas (53037)+, Klickitat (53039)+, Lewis (53041)+, Lincoln (53043)+, Mason (53045)+, Okanogan (53047)+, Pacific (53049)+, Pend Oreille (53051)+, Pierce (53053)+, Skagit (53057)+, Skamania (53059)+, Snohomish (53061)+, Spokane (53063)+, Stevens (53065)+, Whatcom (53073)+, Whitman (53075)+, Yakima (53077)+
WI Ashland (55003), Barron (55005), Bayfield (55007), Burnett (55013), Clark (55019), Door (55029), Douglas (55031), Florence (55037), Forest (55041), Iron (55051), Jackson (55053), Juneau (55057), Langlade (55067), Lincoln (55069), Marathon (55073), Marinette (55075), Monroe (55081), Oconto (55083), Oneida (55085), Portage (55097), Price (55099), Rusk (55107), Sawyer (55113), Shawano (55115), Sheboygan (55117), Taylor (55119), Vilas (55125), Washburn (55129), Waushara (55137), Wood (55141)
WV Hampshire (54027), Pocahontas (54075), Randolph (54083), Tucker (54093), Webster (54101)
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003), Campbell (56005), Carbon (56007), Converse (56009), Crook (56011), Fremont (56013), Goshen (56015), Hot Springs (56017), Johnson (56019), Laramie (56021), Lincoln (56023), Natrona (56025), Niobrara (56027), Park (56029), Platte (56031), Sheridan (56033), Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037), Teton (56039), Uinta (56041), Washakie (56043), Weston (56045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Saco (01060002)+, Merrimack (01070006)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Quinebaug (01100001)+
02 Rondout (02020007)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Raritan (02030105)+, Lackawaxen (02040103)+*, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock (02050106)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+, Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201)+, Sinnemahoning (02050202)+, Middle West Branch Susquehanna (02050203)+, Bald Eagle (02050204)+, Pine (02050205)+, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+, Upper Juniata (02050302)+, Lower Juniata (02050304)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+
04 Baptism-Brule (04010101)+, Beaver-Lester (04010102)+, St. Louis (04010201)+, Cloquet (04010202)+, Beartrap-Nemadji (04010301)+, Bad-Montreal (04010302)+, Black-Presque Isle (04020101)+, Ontonagon (04020102)+, Sturgeon (04020104)+, Betsy-Chocolay (04020201)+, Tahquamenon (04020202)+, Waiska (04020203)+, Lake Superior (04020300)+*, Manitowoc-Sheboygan (04030101)+, Door-Kewaunee (04030102)+, Oconto (04030104)+, Peshtigo (04030105)+, Brule (04030106)+, Menominee (04030108)+, Cedar-Ford (04030109)+, Tacoosh-Whitefish (04030111)+, Fishdam-Sturgeon (04030112)+, Wolf (04030202)+, St. Joseph (04050001)+, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Muskegon (04060102)+, Manistee (04060103)+, Betsie-Platte (04060104)+, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+, Manistique (04060106)+, Carp-Pine (04070002)+, Lone Lake-Ocqueoc (04070003)+, Cheboygan (04070004)+, Black (04070005)+, Au Sable (04070007)+, Au Gres-Rifle (04080101)+, Kawkawlin-Pine (04080102)+, Tittabawassee (04080201)+, Cass (04080205)+, St. Francois River (04150500)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, Middle Allegheny-Tionesta (05010003)+, Clarion (05010005)+, Middle Allegheny-Redbank (05010006)+, Tygart Valley (05020001)+, Cheat (05020004)+, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Greenbrier (05050003)+, Gauley (05050005)+
07 Mississippi Headwaters (07010101)+, Leech Lake (07010102)+, Prairie-Willow (07010103)+, Elk-Nokasippi (07010104)+*, Crow Wing (07010106)+, Long Prairie (07010108)+*, Crow (07010204)+*, South Fork Crow (07010205)+*, Twin Cities (07010206)+*, Lower Minnesota (07020012)+*, Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Namekagon (07030002)+, Kettle (07030003)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Black (07040007)+, Upper Chippewa (07050001)+, Flambeau (07050002)+, South Fork Flambeau (07050003)+, Jump (07050004)+, Lower Chippewa (07050005)+, Red Cedar (07050007)+, Upper Wisconsin (07070001)+, Lake Dubay (07070002)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+
09 Red Lakes (09020302)+, Two Rivers (09020312)+*, Roseau (09020314)+, Rainy Headwaters (09030001)+, Vermilion (09030002)+, Rainy Lake (09030003)+*, Little Fork (09030005)+, Big Fork (09030006)+, Lower Rainy (09030008)+, Lake of the Woods (09030009)+, St. Marys (09040001)+
10 Red Rock (10020001)+, Beaverhead (10020002)+, Ruby (10020003)+, Big Hole (10020004)+, Jefferson (10020005)+, Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Upper Missouri (10030101)+, Upper Missouri-Dearborn (10030102)+, Smith (10030103)+, Sun (10030104)+, Marias (10030203)+, Teton (10030205)+, Arrow (10040102)+, Judith (10040103)+, Upper Musselshell (10040201)+, Box Elder (10040204)+, Sage (10050006)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Upper Yellowstone (10070002)+, Shields (10070003)+, Stillwater (10070005)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Little Wind (10080002)+, Popo Agie (10080003)+, Upper Bighorn (10080007)+, Nowood (10080008)+, Greybull (10080009)+, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+, South Fork Shoshone (10080013)+, Shoshone (10080014)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+, Upper Tongue (10090101)+, Lower Tongue (10090102)+, Middle Fork Powder (10090201)+, Upper Powder (10090202)+, South Fork Powder (10090203)+, Crazy Woman (10090205)+, Clear (10090206)+, Middle Powder (10090207)+, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday (10100001)+, Rosebud (10100003)+, Upper Little Missouri (10110201)+, Boxelder (10110202)+, Angostura Reservoir (10120106)+, Beaver (10120107)+, Middle Cheyenne-Spring (10120109)+, Rapid (10120110)+, Middle Cheyenne-Elk (10120111)+, Upper Belle Fourche (10120201)+, Lower Belle Fourche (10120202)+, Redwater (10120203)+, Upper Moreau (10130305)+, Niobrara Headwaters (10150002)+, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoirs (10180003)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Little Medicine Bow (10180005)+, Sweetwater (10180006)+, Middle North Platte-Casper (10180007)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, Lower Laramie (10180011)+, Crow (10190009)+
11 Mora (11080004)+
13 Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Jemez (13020202)+, Rio Grande-Albuquerque (13020203)+, Arroyo Chico (13020205)+, Rio San Jose (13020207)+, Elephant Butte Reservoir (13020211)+, El Paso-Las Cruces (13030102)+, Mimbres (13030202)+, Western Estancia (13050001)+, Tularosa Valley (13050003)+, Salt Basin (13050004)+, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+, Arroyo Del Macho (13060005)+, Gallo Arroyo (13060006)+, Rio Hondo (13060008)+, Rio Penasco (13060010)+
14 Lower Dolores (14030004)+, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+, Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+, Big Sandy (14040104)+, Bitter (14040105)+, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Muddy (14040108)+, Vermilion (14040109)+, Great Divide closed basin (14040200)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Muddy (14050004)+, Ashley-Brush (14060002)+, Duchesne (14060003)+, Strawberry (14060004)+, Lower Green-Desolation Canyon (14060005)+, Willow (14060006)+, Price (14060007)+, San Rafael (14060009)+, Upper Lake Powell (14070001)+, Muddy (14070002)+, Fremont (14070003)+, Escalante (14070005)+, Lower Lake Powell (14070006)+, Paria (14070007)+, Middle San Juan (14080105)+, Chaco (14080106)+, Lower San Juan-Four Corners (14080201)+, Montezuma (14080203)+, Chinle (14080204)+
15 Lower Colorado-Marble Canyon (15010001)+, Grand Canyon (15010002)+, Kanab (15010003)+, Havasu Canyon (15010004)+, Upper Virgin (15010008)+, Fort Pierce Wash (15010009)+, Lower Virgin (15010010)+, Little Colorado headwaters (15020001)+, Upper Little Colorado (15020002)+, Carrizo Wash (15020003)+, Zuni (15020004)+, Silver (15020005)+, Upper Puerco (15020006)+, Middle Little Colorado (15020008)+, Chevelon Canyon (15020010)+, Corn-Oraibi (15020012)+, Canyon Diablo (15020015)+, Lower Little Colorado (15020016)+, Moenkopi Wash (15020018)+, Big Sandy (15030201)+, Burro (15030202)+, Upper Gila (15040001)+, Upper Gila-Mangas (15040002)+, Animas Valley (15040003)+, San Francisco (15040004)+, Upper Gila-San Carlos Reservoir (15040005)+, San Simon (15040006)+, Willcox Playa (15050201)+, Upper San Pedro (15050202)+, Lower San Pedro (15050203)+, Upper Santa Cruz (15050301)+, Rillito (15050302)+, Black (15060101)+, Upper Salt (15060103)+, Carrizo (15060104)+, Tonto (15060105)+, Big Chino-Williamson Valley (15060201)+, Upper Verde (15060202)+, Lower Verde (15060203)+, Agua Fria (15070102)+, Hassayampa (15070103)+, Whitewater Draw (15080301)+
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+, Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+, Middle Bear (16010202)+, Little Bear-Logan (16010203)+, Upper Weber (16020101)+, Lower Weber (16020102)+, Utah Lake (16020201)+, Spanish Fork (16020202)+, Provo (16020203)+, Jordan (16020204)+, Hamlin-Snake Valleys (16020301)+, Pine Valley (16020302)+*, Tule Valley (16020303)+*, Rush-Tooele Valleys (16020304)+*, Southern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020306)+*, Northern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020308)+, Curlew Valley (16020309)+, Upper Sevier (16030001)+, East Fork Sevier (16030002)+, Middle Sevier (16030003)+, Lower Sevier (16030005)+*, Escalante Desert (16030006)+, Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver (16030007)+*, Lower Beaver (16030008)+*, Sevier Lake (16030009)+*, North Fork Humboldt (16040102)+, Lake Tahoe (16050101)+, Truckee (16050102)+, Middle Carson (16050202)+, East Walker (16050301)+*, West Walker (16050302)+*, Diamond-Monitor Valleys (16060005)+, Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys (16060010)+*
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Fisher (17010102)+, Yaak (17010103)+, Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Elk (17010106)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Blackfoot (17010203)+, Middle Clark Fork (17010204)+, Bitterroot (17010205)+, North Fork Flathead (17010206)+, Middle Fork Flathead (17010207)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, South Fork Flathead (17010209)+, Swan (17010211)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216), South Fork Coeur D'alene (17010302)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305)+, Little Spokane (17010308), Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001), Kettle (17020002), Colville (17020003), Sanpoil (17020004), Chief Joseph (17020005), Okanogan (17020006), Similkameen (17020007), Methow (17020008), Lake Chelan (17020009), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Wenatchee (17020011), Upper Yakima (17030001), Naches (17030002), Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003), Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Salt (17040105)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Willow (17040205)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Raft (17040210)+, Goose (17040211)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Salmon Falls (17040213)+, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Big Lost (17040218)+, Camas (17040220)+, Little Wood (17040221)+, Middle Snake-Succor (17050103)+, Upper Owyhee (17050104)+, South Fork Owyhee (17050105)+, Middle Owyhee (17050107)+, North and Middle Forks Boise (17050111)+, Boise-Mores (17050112)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, Lower Malheur (17050117)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, Payette (17050122)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Weiser (17050124)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Burnt (17050202)+, Powder (17050203)+, Hells Canyon (17060101)+, Imnaha (17060102)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Upper Grande Ronde (17060104)+, Wallowa (17060105)+, Lower Grande Ronde (17060106)+, Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107), Palouse (17060108)+, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+, Lower Selway (17060302)+, Lochsa (17060303)+, Middle Fork Clearwater (17060304)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Lower North Fork Clearwater (17060308)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101), Walla Walla (17070102), Umatilla (17070103)+*, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105), Klickitat (17070106), Upper John Day (17070201)+, North Fork John Day (17070202)+, Upper Deschutes (17070301)+, Little Deschutes (17070302)+*, Upper Crooked (17070304)+, Lower Deschutes (17070306)+*, Lower Columbia-Sandy (17080001), Lewis (17080002), Lower Columbia-Clatskanie (17080003), Upper Cowlitz (17080004), Lower Cowlitz (17080005), North Santiam (17090005)+, Clackamas (17090011)+, Hoh-Quillayute (17100101), Queets-Quinault (17100102), Upper Chehalis (17100103), Lower Chehalis (17100104), Grays Harbor (17100105), Willapa Bay (17100106), Alsea (17100205)+, Siuslaw (17100206)+, North Umpqua (17100301)+, South Umpqua (17100302)+, Upper Rogue (17100307)+, Middle Rogue (17100308)+, Applegate (17100309)+, Nooksack (17110004), Upper Skagit (17110005), Sauk (17110006), Lower Skagit (17110007), Stillaguamish (17110008), Skykomish (17110009), Snoqualmie (17110010), Snohomish (17110011), Lake Washington (17110012), Duwamish (17110013), Puyallup (17110014), Nisqually (17110015), Deschutes (17110016), Skokomish (17110017), Hood Canal (17110018), Puget Sound (17110019), Dungeness-Elwha (17110020), Crescent-Hoko (17110021), Alvord Lake (17120009)+
18 Mad-Redwood (18010102)+*, Upper Eel (18010103)+, Middle Fork Eel (18010104)+, Lower Eel (18010105)+*, South Fork Eel (18010106)+, Big-Navarro-Garcia (18010108)+, Russian (18010110)+, Williamson (18010201)+, Upper Klamath Lake (18010203)+, Lost (18010204)+, Butte (18010205)+*, Upper Klamath (18010206)+, Shasta (18010207)+, Scott (18010208)+*, Lower Klamath (18010209)+*, Salmon (18010210)+*, Trinity (18010211)+, South Fork Trinity (18010212)+*, Goose Lake (18020001)+, Upper Pit (18020002)+, Lower Pit (18020003)+, Mccloud (18020004)+, Sacramento headwaters (18020005)+, Upper Stony (18020115)+, North Fork Feather (18020121)+, East Branch North Fork Feather (18020122)+, Middle Fork Feather (18020123)+, Upper Yuba (18020125)+, North Fork American (18020128)+, South Fork American (18020129)+, Cow Creek (18020151)+, Battle Creek (18020153)+, Clear Creek-Sacramento River (18020154)+*, Thomes Creek-Sacramento River (18020156)+, Big Chico Creek-Sacramento River (18020157)+, Butte Creek (18020158)+, Upper Kern (18030001)+*, South Fork Kern (18030002)+, Upper Poso (18030004)+, Upper Deer-Upper White (18030005)+*, Upper Kaweah (18030007)+*, Upper King (18030010)+, Upper San Joaquin (18040006)+, Upper Merced (18040008)+, Upper Tuolumne (18040009)+, Upper Stanislaus (18040010)+, Upper Calaveras (18040011)+, Upper Mokelumne (18040012)+, Upper Cosumnes (18040013)+, Surprise Valley (18080001)+, Madeline Plains (18080002)+, Honey-Eagle Lakes (18080003)+, Mono Lake (18090101)+*, Crowley Lake (18090102)+
19 Southeast Mainland (19010101)+, Ketchikan (19010102)+, Prince of Wales (19010103)+, Mainland (19010201)+, Kuiu-Kupreanof-Mitkof-Etolin-Zarembo-Wrangell Isla (19010202)+, Baranof-Chichagof Islands (19010203)+, Admiralty Island (19010204)+, Lynn Canal (19010301)+, Chilkat-Skagway Rivers (19010303)+, Taku River (19010304)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A fairly large hawk; male 55 cm in length with a wingspan of 98-104 cm, female 61 cm in length with a wingspan of 105-115 cm (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Male is brown-gray to slate gray on back, head with black cap and pronounced white supercilary line. Undersides are light gray with fine horizontal vermiculations and fine black vertical streaks. Long, rounded tail, white undertail coverts, dark gray above with 3-5 dark bands and a think, white terminal band (reduced or absent with wear). Female is similar to male but browner on back and more heavily marked on underside, sometimes appearing barred. Feet, cere, toes, legs, and mouth-lining are yellow, eyes are red. Juveniles dark brown to brown-black on back with buff white and cinnamon streaks. Undersides buff white with thick cinnamon to blackish brown streaks on throat. Tail is dark brown with wavy dark-brown bands that are bordered by thin whitish bands, forming a zigzag pattern.
General Description: A fairly large hawk with a long tail, rounded wing tips, and a conspicuous pale eyebrow; adult has dark crown, blue-gray back, white underparts with dense gray barring, and conspicuous fluffy white undertail coverts; immature is brown above, buffy below, with dense blurry streaking, undertail coverts are dark-streaked, and tail has wavy dark bands bordered with white and a thin white tip; total length is 53-66 cm, with females averaging lager than males (NGS 1983).
Reproduction Comments: Usually one clutch produced per year, from late April through early May (Squire and Reynolds 1997); however, some individuals may not breed during cold, wet springs (DeStefano et al. 1994). Egg-laying may begin later at higher elevations and during cold, wet springs (Henny et al. 1985, Younk and Bechard 1994). Clutch is typically two to four eggs, rarely one to five (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Average clutch size of 44 North American clutches is 2.7 eggs (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983 cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Eggs are laid every two to three days and incubation usually begins after the second egg is laid. Incubation, conducted principally by the female, takes 28-38 days; hatching is asynchronous.

Few data regarding hatching success. In Oregon, hatching success in five nests was 81 percent (Reynolds and Wight 1978 cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Nest success (percentage of active nests that fledge greater than one young) in North America ranges from 44-94 percent and most populations produce 2-2.8 fledglings per successful nest (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Egg/nestling mortality has been attributed to exposure to cold and rain and siblicide (Boal and Bacorn 1994, Squires and Reynolds 1997). In northern Wisconsin, nest success dropped from 94 percent to 62 percent due to an increase in predation of nest contents and adult females by fishers. Increased predation by fishers was attributed to an increase in the fisher population and nest exposure due to tree defoliation by forest tent caterpillars (MALACOSOMA DISSTRIA; Erdman et al. 1998).

Brooding and feeding of nestlings is performed principally by the female; the male brings food to the nest. The young begin flying at 35-42 days and become independent at about 70 days (Boal 1994, Squires and Reynolds 1997). Maintain one to eight alternate nests within a nest area (Squire and Reynolds 1997). Alternate nests range from 15-2066 meters apart (Reynolds and Wight 1978, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997; Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). The average distance between nests of nearest neighboring pairs in Arizona was 3 kilometers (range = 1.6-6.4 kilometers; Reynolds et al. 1994). A small percentage (less than 10 percent) of subadults (1-2 years old) are sexually mature; however, most breeding birds are young adults (2-3 years old) or adults (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Nesting by subadults is more frequent in expanding populations and less frequent in stable populations (Reynolds and Wight 1978, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Ecology Comments: Nesting densities of most western U.S. populations range from 6.6-10.7 pairs per 100 square kilometers (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997). The single nesting density estimate for the eastern U.S. is 1.17 pairs per 100 square kilometers (Kimmel and Yahner 1994, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Home ranges during nesting vary from 95-3500 hectares depending on sex and habitat characteristics (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Home ranges of males are typically larger than those of females (Hargis et al. 1994, Keane and Morrison 1994, Kennedy et al. 1994). Exclusive of nesting areas, home ranges of adjacent pairs are not defended and may overlap (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The core area (encompasses nest site) constitutes 32 percent of the home range (Kennedy et al. 1994). Individuals typically enlarge or sometimes shift location of home ranges after breeding (Hargis et al. 1994, Keane and Morrison 1994).

Home ranges of non-breeders are poorly known, but may be larger than those of breeders (Squires and Reynolds 1997). In North America, winter home ranges are unknown. In Sweden, winter home-ranges of males and females were similar and averaged 5700 hectares (Widen 1989).

In California, 76.5 percent of males and 71.4 percent of females returned to the same nesting area in subsequent years. Males were significantly more likely to return to previously-inhabited territories in consecutive years than females (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994). In Arizona, 80 percent of nest areas examined in two consecutive years were re-used the second year by one or both members of the pair banded the first year (Reynolds et al. 1994). Sixty to 72 percent of adults located in consecutive years retained the mate from the previous year (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994, Reynolds et al. 1994).

Dispersal of young is not well documented. Detrich and Woodbridge (1994) recaptured two adult females, banded as nestlings 5-7 years prior, 16 and 24 kilometers from their natal sites. Three females, banded as nestlings and recaptured as breeding adults, moved an average of 21.5 kilometers from their natal sites, and another female, captured as a breeding adult seven years after being banded as a nestling, moved 100 kilometers from its natal site (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Little is known regarding survivorship in the U.S. In Arizona, annual survivorship of male and females more than 1 year old was estimated to be 68.8 percent and 86.6 percent, respectively (Squires and Reynolds 1997). In Yukon, Canada, an observed population decline was attributed to increased mortality of eggs, nestlings, immatures and adults, as well as to dispersal following a precipitous decline in number of snowshoe hares (Doyle and Smith 1994). The maximum lifespan of a wild bird is 11 years (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The sex ratio is 1:1 prior to fledging and among adults (Mueller and Berger 1968, Reynolds et al. 1994).

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Generally a permanent resident or conducts only short-distance movements over most of range, but periodically has irruptions of movement out of northern portions of range. Fall migration appears to be influenced by prey availability (Squires and Reynolds 1997). For example, in Yukon Territory, Canada, year-round residents are abundant when snowshoe hares (LEPUS AMERICANUS) are abundant, but scarce in winter when hare population is low (Doyle and Smith 1994). Approximately once per decade, large numbers migrate southward, apparently in response to a decline in prey populations, particularly snowshoe hares and ruffed grouse (BONASA UMBELLUS; Bent 1937, Doyle and Smith 1994, Mueller et al. 1977, Squires and Reynolds 1997). Depending on location and year, fall movements begin in late August through September, peak in late September through mid-November, and typically end in December. Spring movements, which are less pronounced, begin in late February and continue through late May. Movement routes are poorly defined, particularly in the western U.S. In the eastern U.S., migrates along the Great lakes, the Appalachian Mountains and the Atlantic coast (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Some birds make extensive movements; four individuals, banded in Minnesota, were recovered up to 2400 kilometers away in British Columbia (Evans and Rosenfield 1985, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997; Campbell et al. 1990). Other birds, however, undergo short movements from one elevation to another (Squires and Reynolds 1997).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Nests in a wide variety of forest types including deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests. Has a complexity of habitat needs in the breeding season, which vary among forest types and region (Johnsgard 1990). Typically nests in mature or old-growth forests (Hayward and Escano 1989, Reynolds et al. 1982, Speiser and Bosakowski 1987, Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Squires and Reynolds 1997, McClaren 1998, Daw and Stefano 2001), and generally selects larger tracts of forest over smaller tracts (Bosakowski and Speiser 1994, Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). In the eastern U.S., nests in hardwood-hemlock (TSUGA CANADENSIS) forests, where black birch (BETULA LENTA) and American beech (FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA) are preferred nest trees (Speiser and Bosakowski 1987). In the western U.S., characteristically nests in coniferous forests including those dominated by ponderosa pine (PINUS PONDEROSA; Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994, Reynolds et al. 1992), lodgepole pine (PINUS CONTORTA; Squires and Ruggiero 1996), or in mixed forests dominated by various coniferous species including fir (ABIES spp.), Douglas-fir (PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII), cedar (THUJA spp.), hemlock, spruce (PICEA spp.), and larch (LARIX spp.; Hayward and Escano 1989, Reynolds et al. 1982). Western birds also nest in deciduous forests dominated by aspen (POPULUS TREMULOIDES), paper birch (BETULA PAPYRIFERA), or willow (SALIX spp.; McGowan 1975, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997; Swem and Adams 1992, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997; Younk and Bechard 1994).

While generally associated with remote habitat, goshawks in Europe apparently have adapted to human-occupied landscapes and nest near farms and settlements (Palmer 1988). Palmer noted that this species may be undergoing similar adaptation in northeastern U.S.; for example, it is apparently not uncommon in suburbs of Boston (L. Master, pers. comm.).

Nests are generally constructed in the largest trees of dense, old or mature stands with high canopy closure (60-95 percent) and sparse groundcover, near the bottom of moderate slopes, and near water or dry openings(Bull and Hohmann 1994, Daw and DeStefano 2001, Hargis et al. 1994, Reynolds et al 1982, Siders and Kennedy 1994, Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Younk and Bechard 1994). Occasionally will nest in relatively open stands (10 percent canopy coverage; Reynolds et al. 1982). Nest height above the ground is significantly correlated with nest-tree height (Kennedy 1988, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Nest height ranges from 2.5-43 meters (Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959, Siders and Kennedy 1994). May use same nest in successive years. May use other hawk nest as base. Nests in arctic tundra and taiga have also been documented in interior Alaska (Olendorff et al. 1989).

Forages in both heavily forested and relatively open habitats. In Ponderosa pine forest of Arizona, habitat on sites selected for foraging had higher canopy coverage, greater tree density, and greater density of large trees (greater than 40.5 centimeter DBH), but lower prey abundance than non-foraging sites (Beier and Drennan 1997). In Nevada, foraged in open sagebrush (ARTEMISIA spp.) adjacent to riparian aspen stands (Younk and Bechard 1992, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997).

NON-BREEDING: habitat requirements during winter are poorly understood, especially in the U.S. (Squires and Reynolds 1997). During winter in Sweden, inhabits a fragmented landscape of forests, clearcuts, wetlands and agricultural lands. Whereas non-forested habitats were used in proportion to their availability, large tracts of mature forest were used preferentially (Widen 1989).

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore
Food Comments: Forages during short flights alternated with brief prey searches from perches. Also hunts by flying rapidly along forest edges, across openings, and through dense vegetation. An opportunistic hunter, preys on a wide variety of vertebrates and, occasionally, insects. Prey is taken on the ground, in vegetation, or in the air. Despite their larger size, females do not capture larger or heavier prey than males (Boal and Mannan 1996). Dominant mammalian prey include five species of tree squirrels, four ground squirrels, and lagomorphs. Frequently killed birds include three galliformes, four corvids, six woodpeckers (piciformes) and the American robin (TURDUS MIGRATORIUS; Squires and Reynolds 1997). During the nesting season, the diet can vary with prey availability. For example, as more fledgling passerines become available, they make up a greater portion of the diet (Linden and Wikman 1983, Reynolds and Meslow 1984). Ratio of mammalian prey to avian prey in the diet during the breeding season (in percent): Arizona, 76:24 and 62:38 (Boal and Mannan 1994, Reynolds et al. 1994); Nevada, 67:32 (Younk and Bechard 1994); New York, 39:61 (Grzybowski and Eaton 1976); and Oregon, 42:59 and 45:55 (Bull and Hohmann 1994, Reynolds and Meslow 1984).

Nonbreeding season food habits are unknown for North American populations. In Sweden, birds dominate the diet during the nesting season (86 percent of prey), whereas in winter, red squirrels (SCIURUS VULGARIS) comprise the bulk of the diet (79 percent; Widen 1987, cited in Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 66 centimeters
Weight: 1137 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Population trends are obscured by the lack of historic data and periodic fall irruptions of large numbers of individuals. The principal threat to breeding populations is timber harvest and large tree-killing fires. Large, landscape-level ecological units need to be identified and managed in such a way that all necessary habitat attributes, from nesting sites to foraging areas, are available to support the species at the population level. Monitoring methods include broadcasting taped conspecific vocalizations along transects during the nesting season or listening for spontaneous vocalizations of breeding pairs prior to egg-laying.
Restoration Potential: Given that this species re-inhabits forests recovering from logging, restoration potential is good (Squires and Reynolds 1997).
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: In addition to forest cover type, other habitat attributes such as stand structure, patch size, landscape features, woody debris, snags, understory vegetation, openings, and canopy closure are important to goshawks and their prey, and therefore must be considered in preserve design (Graham et al. 1999). On the Colorado Plateau, estimated area requirements are 500 square kilometers of forest for 40 pairs and 1000 square kilometers for 80 pairs (Reynolds and Joy 1998). Habitat patch connectivity is also important to consider. One suggestion is that patches of high quality habitat should not be separated by more than 96 kilometers (recommendation based on known dispersal distances; Graham et al. 1999). Scale is another important consideration. Rather than concentrating on breeding home-ranges, entire ecological units (about 100,000 hectares in extent) need to be managed across vegetation types, land ownership, and political boundaries (Graham et al. 1994). Ecological units need to include a wide variety of forest conditions, from regenerating stands to mature second-growth or old-growth stands (Reynolds et al. 1992).
Management Requirements: The U.S. Forest Service has developed forest management recommendations for the southwestern U.S. designed to sustain forest composition and structure necessary for goshawk reproduction (Reynolds et al. 1992, Graham, et al. 1994). Reynolds et al. (1992) divided the nesting home range (about 2400 hectares) into three components - nesting area, post-fledging family area (PFA), and foraging area - and provided size and management recommendations for each. Three nesting areas per home range - each encompassing approximately 12 hectares of large, mature trees - should be available. In addition, three replacement nesting areas per home range should be in some phase of development to provide alternates to currently used sites. The PFA should encompass approximately 170 hectares and be maintained by management tools such as timber harvest and prescribed fire to provide a variety of forest conditions and prey habitat attributes. Management activities should be confined to the non-breeding period. The foraging area should encompass approximately 2200 hectares and be managed similarly to the PFA except that it should provide larger forest openings and less canopy coverage. To replace the late-seral stages of forest lost through natural or anthropogenic events, Bassett et al. (1994) and Graham et al. (1994) recommended that 10 percent of the forest be regenerated every 20 years. Minimum recommendations for timber harvest include leaving an 8-hectare forest buffer around nests (Reynolds et al. 1982).
Monitoring Requirements: Playing taped goshawk vocalizations along transects during the nesting season is an effective means of detecting breeding birds (Joy et al. 1994; Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993; Kimmel and Yahner 1990, cited in Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993). Responses by adults are highest when vocalizations are broadcast during the nestling and fledgling-dependency periods. In New Mexico, the alarm call elicited the greatest response during the nestling period, whereas the wail and food-begging calls resulted in a greater response during the fledgling stage (Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993). In Arizona, adults responded at similar rates to the alarm and food-begging calls during the fledgling stage. However, when combining both nesting stages, adults approached more often to the alarm call than to the begging call (Joy et al. 1994). Both sexes respond to broadcast calls, although males are more likely to approach silently than females (Joy et al. 1994). In steep, rugged terrain, where transects are difficult to follow, broadcasting calls from a vehicle on roads can be a labor-efficient and equally effective method of detecting breeding birds, depending on road density and distribution (Bosakowski and Vaughn 1996). Researchers relying on responses to broadcasted calls must be mindful of vocal mimicry by Steller's jays (CYANOCITTA STELLERI; Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993). Rather than using taped calls, Penteriani (1999) found that listening for spontaneous vocalizations of breeding pairs in the three months preceding egg laying, from 0.5 hour before dawn to approximately 3.25 hours after dawn, resulted in a 100 percent detection rate. However, this technique may have limited usefulness since it requires prior knowledge of territory and nest locations (Reynolds, pers. comm.). Because not all nest sites are used every year, multiple-year surveys may be necessary to determine site use (DeStefano et al. 1994). New monitoring procedures are needed to assess population status (Squires and Reynolds 1997).
Management Research Needs: Additional studies are needed on population size and structure; population trend and rate of population change; age-specific fecundity and survival; life span; mate and territory fidelity; adult and juvenile dispersal; variations in diet composition and prey abundance in various forest types; response of populations to variations in prey abundance; seasonal and annual variations in habitat use (particularly winter habitat selection; Beier and Drennan 1997), in home range size, and in dietary composition; foraging behavior; and activity budgets. In addition, monitoring and inventorying techniques need to be improved, the factor or combination of factors that limit population size need to determined, and forest dynamics, as they relate to maintenance and enhancement of preferred habitat, need to be better understood (Keane and Morrison 1994, Reynolds, et al. 1992).
Biological Research Needs: Need to evaluate effects of pesticides and extent of movement patterns for all populations. Also need information on preferred habitat characteristics in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions and size of home range, feeding areas, and post-fledging area, especially in areas where harvest of mature forests is ongoing or anticipated in the next decade. Need to develop compatible forest management practices and an effective means of tracking population trends through time.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Foraging area, Nest site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of breeding (including historical); and potential recurring breeding at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 15 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 15 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Where an occurrence is at least twice the size of a minimum A-ranked occurrence, it may be divided into two or more A-ranked occurrences along divisions that are narrower than the separation distances given. The dividing lines should be made as much as possible along lines of limited goshawk use; for example, along rugged, alpine ridges or bodies of water 0.5-10 kilometers wide.
Separation Justification: Separation distance is arbitrary and is not intended to establish occurrences that represent discrete populations. Instead, it attempts to balance the high mobility of these birds against the need for occurrences of practical size for conservation purposes. Separation distance is based on nest sites or nesting territories; nest sites separated by a gap that is less than the separation distance represent the same occurrence.

Home ranges are highly variable in size and during nesting vary from 95-3500 hectares depending on sex and habitat characteristics (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a modest home range of 500 hectares.
Date: 28Sep2004
Author: Cannings, S., and G. Hammerson
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 30Nov1999
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Palis, J., J. Soule, and G. Hammerson; revisions by D.W. Mehlman and M. Koenen
Management Information Edition Date: 30Nov1999
Management Information Edition Author: PALIS, J., J. SOULE, AND G. HAMMERSON; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN AND M. KOENEN
Management Information Acknowledgments: A critical review of a draft of this abstract was provided by R. Reynolds. Funding for the preparation of this abstract was made possible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 30Nov1999
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): PALIS, J., AND G. HAMMERSON; REVISIONS BY D.W. MEHLMAN AND M. KOENEN

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

References
Help
  • Adkisson, C. S. 1990. Accipiters. Pages 63-9 in B. G. Pendleton (editors). Proceedings of the Southeast Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 14.

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

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

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Anonymous. 1989. Goshawk breeding habitat in lowland Britain. British Birds. 82(2):56-67.

  • Apfelbaum, S. I., and P. Seelbach. 1983. Nest tree, habitat selection and productivity of seven North American raptor species based on the Cornell University Nest Record Card Program. Raptor Research 17:97-113.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des oiseaux du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 13 pages.

  • B83COM01NAUS - Added from 2005 data exchange with Alberta, Canada.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P. 1999. VERTEBRATES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ON THE PITCHFORK RANCH. Unpublished report for the Pitchfork Ranch by WYNDD-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • Banks, R. C. 1995. Taxonomic Validation for Bird Species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Category 2 Species List. In Biological Survey Project, Patuxent Environmental Research Center, National Biological Service (compilers). Taxonomic Review of Category 2 Species.

  • Bassett, 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 forests. Studies in Avian Biology 16:41-45.

  • Beauvais, G. B. 2000. Vertebrate Targets for the Black Hills Ecoregional Plan. 24 p.

  • Bednarz, J. C., D. Klem Jr., L. J. Goodrich, and S. E. Senner. 1990. Migration counts of raptors at Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, as indicators of population trends, 1934-1986. The Auk 107:96-109.

  • Beier, P., and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571.

  • Bent, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part 1. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. 137. 409 pp.

  • Bighorn National Forest. 1996. Endangered and Sensitive animal species of the Bighorn National Forest. Unpublished draft report on file at Bighorn NF Supervisor's Office, Sheridan, Wyoming.

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

  • Boal, C. W. 1994. A photographic and behavioral guide to aging nestling northern goshawks. Studies in Avian Biology 16:32-40.

  • Boal, C. W., and J. E. Bacorn. 1994. Siblicide and cannibalism in northern goshawk nests. Auk 111:748-750.

  • Boal, C. W., and R. W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the Kaibab Plateau. Studies in Avian Biology 16:97-102.

  • Boal, C. W., and R. W. Mannan. 1996. Prey sizes of male and female northern goshawks. Southwestern Naturalist 41:355-358.

  • Bosakowski, T., and M. E. Vaughn. 1996. Developing a practical method for surveying northern goshawks in managed forests of the western Cascades. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11:109-113.

  • Bosakowski, T., and R. Speiser. 1994. Macrohabitat selection by nesting northern goshawks: implications for managing eastern forests. Studies in Avian Biology 16:46-49

  • Bright-Smith, D. J., and R. W. Mannan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in northern Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:58-65.

  • Bull, E. L. and J. E. Hohmann. 1994. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeastern Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology 16:103-105.

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

  • Crocker-Bedford, D. C. 1990. Goshawk reproduction and forest management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:262-269.

  • Crocker-Bedford, D. C., and B. Chaney. 1988. Characteristics of goshawk nesting stands. Pages 210-7 in Glinski et al., editors. Proc. Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 11.

  • Daw, S. K., and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of Northern Goshawk nest stands and post-fledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:59-65.

  • DeStafano, S., S. K. Daw, S. M. Desimone, and E. C. Meslow. 1994. Density and productivity of northern goshawks: implications for monitoring and management. Studies in Avian Biology 16:88-91.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Detrich, P. J. and B. Woodbridge. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of color-marked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:130-132.

  • Dionne C. 1906. Les oiseaux de la province de Québec. Dussault et Proulx.

  • Dorn, Jane L. and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publishing, Cheyenne.

  • Doyle, F. I. 1995. Bald eagle (HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS) and northern goshawk (ACCIPITER GENTILIS) nests apparently preyed upon by a wolverine(s), (GULO GULO) in the southwestern Yukon Territory. Canadian Field-Naturalist 109:115-116.

  • Doyle, F. I. and J. M. N. Smith. 1994. Population responses of northern goshawks to the 10-year cycle in numbers of snowshoe hares. Studies in Avian Biology 16:122-129.

  • Duncan, P. and D.A. Kirk. 1995. Status report on the Queen Charlotte Goshawk (ACCIPITER GENTILLIS LAINGI) and Northern Goshawk (ACCIPITER GENTILIS ATRICAPILLUS) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 44 pp.

  • Erdman, T. C., D. F. Brinker, J. P. Jacobs, J. Wilde, and T. O. Meyer. 1998. Productivity, population trend, and status of northern goshawks, ACCIPITER GENTILIS ATRICAPILLUS, in northeastern Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist 112:17-27.

  • Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus Publishing and the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Evans, D.L., and R.N. Rosenfield. 1985. Migration and mortality of sharp-shinned hawks ringed at Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Pages 311-316 in I. Newton and R.D. Chancellor, editors. Proceedings of the World Conference on Birds of Prey. ICBP Technical Publication No. 5.

  • Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report RM-215. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 38 p.

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

  • Gabrielson, I. N. and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

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

  • Graham, R. T., R. T. Reynolds, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, and D. A. Boyce. 1994. Sustaining forest habitat for the northern goshawk: a question of scale. Studies in Avian Biology 16:12-17.

  • Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R.L. Player, A.P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The Northern Goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-22. 48 pp.

  • Grzybowski, J. A. and S. W. Eaton. 1976. Prey items of Goshawks in southwestern New York. Wilson Bulletin 88:669-670.

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

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

  • Harrison, H. H. 1979. A field guide to western birds' nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 279 pp.

  • Hayward, G. D., and R. E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.

  • Hayward, Gregory D. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476-479.

  • Henny, C. J., R. A. Olson, and T. L. Fleming. 1985. Breeding chronology, molt, and measurements of accipiter hawks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:97-112.

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

  • Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. Crocker-Bedford, P.F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast Alaska. C.G. Shaw III, Technical Coordinator. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 pp.

  • Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. Crocker-Bedford, P.F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk in southeast Alaska. C.G. Shaw III, Technical Coordinator. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-387. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 101 pp.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and F. W. 1995. Ecological evaluation for the potential Threemile Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and W. Fertig. 1995. Ecological assessment for the potential Standard Park and Bogs Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and W. Fertig. 1995. Ecological evaluation for the potential Many Ponds Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Albany County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and W. Fertig. 1995. Ecological evaluation for the potential Platte Ridge and North Platte River Canyon Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

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

  • Jones, S. 1979. The Accipiters: Goshawk, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Technical Note No. 335. 51 pp.

  • Joy, S. M., R. T. Reynolds, and D. G. Leslie. 1994. Northern goshawk broadcast surveys: hawk response variables and survey costs. Studies in Avian Biology 16:24-30.

  • Keane, J. J. and M. L. Morrison. 1994. Northern goshawk ecology: effects of scale and levels of biological organization. Studies in Avian Biology 16:3-11.

  • Keinath, D.A., H. Smith, and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Inventory and monitoring of avian management indicator species for the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming; year one progress report. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Kennedy, P. L. 1988. Habitat characteristics of Cooper's hawks and northern goshawks nesting in New Mexico. Pages 216-227 in Glinski et al., eds. Proc. Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. and Tech. Ser. No. 11.

  • Kennedy, P. L. 1997. The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): is there evidence of a population decline? Journal of Raptor Research 31:95-106.

  • Kennedy, P. L., J. M. Ward, G. A. Rinker, and J. A. Gessaman. 1994. Post-fledging areas in northern goshawk home ranges. Studies in Avian Biology 16:75-82.

  • Kennedy, P.L., and D.W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):249-257.

  • Kimmel, J. T. and R. H. Yahner. 1990. Response of northern goshawks to taped conspecific and great horned owl calls. Journal of Raptor Research 24:107-112.

  • Kimmel, J. T. and R. H. Yahner. 1994. The northern goshawk in Pennsylvania: habitat use, survey protocols, and status. Final Report. School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

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

  • Kirk, D.A., and C. Hyslop. 1998. Population status and recent trends in Canadian raptors: a review. Biological Conservation 83 (1): 91-118.

  • Lagacé M., L. Blais et D. Banville. 1983. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Première édition. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 100

  • Lefranc, M. N., Jr., and R. L. Glinski. 1988. Southwest raptor management issues and recommendations. Pages 375-392 in Glinski et al., eds. Proc. Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. National Wildlife Federation Science and Tech. Ser. No. 11.

  • Linden, H. and M. Wikman. 1983. Goshawk predation on tetraonids: availability of prey and diet of the predator in the breeding season. Journal of Animal Ecology 52:953-968.

  • Madson, C. 1998. One for the list? Wyoming Wildlife 62(3): 28-35.

  • McAtee W.L. 1959. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. Folk - names of candian birds. National Museum of Canada. 74 pages.

  • McCreary, O. 1937. Wyoming Bird Life. Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN. 124pp.

  • McGowan, J. D. 1975. Distribution, density and productivity of goshawks in interior Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. Reports. Nos. W-17-3 to W-17-6. Job 10.6R. 65 pp.

  • Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, and M.E. Herdendorf. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis terrestrial vertebrate species map atlas. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY. 982 pp. in 2 volumes.

  • Mills, S. and M. Neighbours. 1995. Intensive data gathering project (fine-filter analysis) for occurrences of rare, threatened, endangered and sensitive species in sections M331H and M331I, north central highlands and northern parks and ranges, in Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

  • Mueller, H. C. and D. D. Berger. 1968. Sex ratios and measurements of migrant goshawks. Auk 85:431-436.

  • Mueller, H. S., D. Berger, and G. Allez. 1977. The periodic invasions of goshawks. Auk. 85:652-3.

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

  • Oakleaf B., A. Cerovski, and B. Luce. 1997. Interim Completion Report -Sensitive Species Inventory. Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Lander, WY. 31pp.

  • Oakleaf, B, B. Luce, S. Ritter and A. Cerovski, eds. 1992. Wyoming bird and mammal atlas. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Game Division, Biological Services; Cheyenne, WY. 170 p. + 1994 addendum.

  • Olendorff, R. R., D. D. Bibles, M. T. Dean, J. R. Haugh, M. N. Kochert. 1989. Raptor habitat management under the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Multiple-use Mandate. Raptor Research Reports. 8:1-80.

  • Ouellet H., M. Gosselin et J.P. Artigau. 1990. Nomenclature française des oiseaux d'Amérique du Nord. Secrétariat d'État du Canada. 457 p.

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

  • Palmer, R. S., editor. 1988a. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4. [Diurnal raptors, part 1]. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. vii + 433 pp.

  • Paragi, T. G. and G. M. Wholecheese. 1994. Marten, MARTES AMERICANA, predation on a northern goshawk, ACCIPITER GENTILIS. Canadian Field-Naturalist 108:81-82.

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

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

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

  • Penteriani, V. 1999. Dawn and morning goshawk courtship vocalizations as a method for detecting nest sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:511-516.

  • Peterson, R. T. 1980a. A Field Guide to the Birds East of the Rockies. Houghton Mifflin Company. 383 pp.

  • Peterson, R.T. 1980b. A field guide to the birds of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

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

  • Postupalsky, S. 1991. Northern goshawk. Pages 169 in R. Brewer, G. A. McPeek, R. J. Adams Jr. (editors). Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.

  • Redig, P. T., M. R. Fuller, and D. L. Evans. 1980. Prevalence of ASPERGILLUS FUMIGATUS in free-living goshawks (ACCIPITER GENTILIS ATRICAPILLUS). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 16:169-174.

  • Reynolds, R. T. and H. M. Wight. 1978. Distribution, density, and productivity of accipiter hawks breeding in Oregon. Wils. Bull. 90:182-96.

  • Reynolds, R. T., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habits of coexisting Accipiter in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:124-31.

  • Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Hildegard, et. al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-17. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, CO. 90 pp.

  • Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-102. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiement Station, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G.G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region US Forest Service, USDA General Technical Report RM-217.

  • Reynolds, R.T., S.M. Joy, and D.G. Leslie. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:106-113.

  • Reynolds, R.T., and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101(4):761-779.

  • Reynolds, R.T., and S.M. Joy. 1998. Distribution, territory occupancy, dispersal, and demography of Northern Goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Final Report for Arizona Game and Fish, Heritage Project No. I94045.

  • Rohner, C. and F. I. Doyle. 1992. Food-stressed great horned owl kills adult goshawk: exceptional observation or community process? Journal of Raptor Research 26:261-263.

  • Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997a. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3. Online. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J.R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1 U.S.G.S. Biological Resource Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Online. Available: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

  • Shuster, W. C. 1980. Northern goshawk nest site requirements in the Colorado Rockies. Western Birds 11: 89-96.

  • Siders, M. S. and P. L. Kennedy. 1994. Nesting habitat of ACCIPITER hawks: is body size a consistent predictor of nest habitat characteristics? Studies in Avian Biology 16:92-96.

  • Smith, H. and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Smith, H., G.P. Beauvais, and D. Keinath. 2005. Survey of Historic Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Locations on the Shoshone National Forest ~ 2004. Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service - Shoshone National Forest by the University of Wyoming - Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Snyder, N.F.R., H.A. Snyder, J.L. Lincer, and R.T. Reynolds. 1973. Organochlorines, heavy metals, and the biology of North American accipiters. BioScience 23:300-305.

  • Speiser, R., and T. Bosakowski. 1987. Nest site selection by northern goshawks in northern New Jersey and southeastern New York. Condor 89:387-394.

  • Squires, J. R. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in south-central Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:170-177.

  • Squires, J.R. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1):170-177.

  • Squires, J.R., and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 298. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp.

  • Squires, J.R., and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, No. 298. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. 32 pp.

  • Swem, T. and M. Adams. 1992. A northern goshawk nest in the tundra biome. Journal of Raptor Research 26:102.

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

  • Thomas, J. W., Ward, J., Raphael, M.G., Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Gunderson, A.G., Holthausen, R.S., Marcot, B.G., Reeves, G.H., Sedell, J.R. and Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service, Spotted Owl EIS Team, Portland Oregon. 530 pp.

  • Titus, K., and M. R. Fuller. 1990. Recent trends in counts of migrant hawks from northeastern North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:463-470.

  • Travsky, A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2005. Species assessment for the Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Real West Natural Resource Consulting and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database-University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding for a petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk and request for additional information. Federal Register 59:44124-44125.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the Queen Charlotte goshawk as endangered and to designate critical habitat. Federal Register 62:46710-46712.

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of 12-month finding on a petition to list the northern goshawk in the contiguous United States west of the 100th meridian. Federal Register 63:35183-35184.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Crazy Woman Creek Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Johnson County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential McLain Lake Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Big Horn and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Poison Creek Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Johnson County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Tensleep Canyon Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Washakie County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Whaley, W. H., and C. M. White. 1994. Trends in geographic variation of Cooper's hawk and northern goshawk in North America. Proc. Western Foundation Vertebrate Zoology 5(3):161-209.

  • Widen, P. 1989. The hunting habitat of goshawks ACCIPITER GENTILIIS in boreal forests of central Sweden. Ibis. 131(2):205-31.

  • Woodbridge, B. and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:83-87.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division. 1997. Atlas of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in Wyoming. Produced by the Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Non Game Program, Lander, WY, November 1997.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1998. Threatened, endangered, and nongame bird and mammal investigations: Annual completion report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department - Nongame Program, Biological Services Section. 299 p.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan, a plan for inventories and management of nongame birds and mammals in Wyoming. Prepared by B. Oakleaf, A.O. Cerovski, and B. Luce, Nongame Program Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 183 pp.

  • Younk, J. V. and M. J. Bechard. 1992. Effects of gold mining activity on northern goshawks breeding in Nevada'a Independence and Bull Run Mountains. Annual Report, Raptor Research Center, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.

  • Younk, J. V. and M. J. Bechard. 1994. Breeding ecology of the northern goshawk in high-elevation aspen forests of northern Nevada. Studies in Avian Biology 16:119-121.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

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

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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