INTRODUCTION

Background and Justification

A wildlife management plan addresses the goals and objectives desired by either public or private landowners.  The goals and objectives of this management plan were derived through direct consultation with the property owners, Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan and Robert Lynn.  The landowners stressed that:

v                 they were concerned with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), squirrels (Sciurus spp.), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), barred owls (Strix varia), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus).

v                 they wanted to determine habitat structure and composition in order to make management recommendations that would be consistent with the specified species.

v                 they wanted to coordinate private farming, timber practices (hay, firewood, etc.), and wildlife management of specified species.

v                 they wanted maps with clear defining borders, cover types, wildlife trails, and management activities.

v                 they wanted management practices that would enhance the overall hunting, bird watching, and hiking on the property.

The wildlife management plan produced will give the landowners a true assessment of their property’s resources.  This will not only allow for fulfillment of specified management objectives, but gives the landowner an opportunity to choose other management options in the future.  Conducting management on the property will increase all desired species and will directly benefit you in the long run.  The investment that you make will directly result in property that contains proper habitat, food, and resources that will benefit desired wildlife species.

Literature Review

White-tailed Deer

Introduction

The white-tailed deer is known widely as the premier big game mammal in most parts of North and Central America (Halls 1984).  This animal has provided millions of people with recreation, food, clothing, footwear, decorations, and even utensils for hundreds of years (Halls 1984).  Throughout its extensive range, the whitetail is at home in many north-temperate to tropical environments where ground cover, shrubs, and low trees are features of the landscape (Halls 1984).  Habitat manipulations resulting from human encroachment have allowed the species to expand its range in areas that do not normally contain woody vegetation (Halls 1984).  The carrying capacity for this species has been greatly increased by cutting and clearing in forested areas that have created edge and brush growth (Halls 1984).

History 

            When Europeans reached the New World, the white-tailed deer thrived in forest edges, upland glades, riverine woodlands, on the fringes of deserts, and in pockets of montane foothills (Halls 1984).  The animals were most abundant on islands and in coastal wetlands along the eastern seaboard and Gulf Region (Trefethen 1970).  In the Northeast Region, riverbanks and forests supported large numbers of deer (Halls 1984). 

            In early times, meteorological events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, and insect and disease damage continually contributed to the rejuvenation of seral stage vegetation and edge that favored deer (Halls 1984).  The most influential was fire.  Each year, lightning from electrical storms ignited millions of hectares of vegetation (Halls 1984).  Setting back plant succession by fire was also a common practice among most North American Indian tribes (Stewart 1951).  Each year the aboriginals intentionally fired thousands of square miles in the historic range of whitetails and helped sustain deer populations in many areas (Halls 1984). 

Throughout time, it has been suggested that white-tailed deer populations went through 3 distinct stages (Halls 1984).  The first stage was from 1500 to the early 1800s that involved massive harvest (Halls 1984).  This massive harvest was primarily related to the Indians that were fanatical with trader gee-gaws, metalwares, guns, alcohol, and textiles (Halls 1984).  The period began with a population about 23 to 34 million whitetails in size (Halls 1984).  It ended with a whitetail population of about 35% to 50% less (Halls 1984). 

The second stage was from 1800 to 1865 at a time when whitetail populations began to rebound (Halls 1984).  Settlers invaded the continental interior and Indian influence on the landscape in whitetail range was eliminated (Halls 1984).  The increase in population was minute; however, whitetails were being observed in new habitats and by people who had not witnessed whitetails in the once pristine East (Halls 1984).  Unfortunately, this population would become the target for market and subsistence hunters in the exploitation era (Halls 1984).

The third stage, the exploitation era, was from 1850 to 1900.  This period represents the greatest hunting pressure that was ever put on wildlife (Halls 1984).  Settlement growth, expansion of agricultural clearings, competition with livestock, and the overkilling of deer in all seasons forced a sharp decline or almost extirpation of the deer population altogether (Halls 1984).  Deer were used extensively for food and clothing, perceived as a menace to crop production, and provided income from the renewed hide trade and growing market for venison (Halls 1984).  Other than hides, it was found that deer parts such as antlers for chandeliers, umbrella stands, coat and hat racks, gun racks, bootjacks, knife handles, forks, buttons, and ornaments were quite profitable. 

After exploitation, unlimited views of white-tailed deer, and ineffective regulations, the white-tailed deer survived because it was so scarce at the turn of the 20^th century.  T. S. Palmer of the United States Bureau of Biological Survey estimated that 300,000 whitetails remained in the United States in 1890 (Trefethen 1970).  Seton (1909) suggested that the whitetail count was 500,000 for all of North America at the turn of the century.  The white-tailed deer was no longer a featured commodity in the marketplace (Halls 1984).  The whitetail was rarely hunted and rarely seen (Halls 1984). 

Ironically, this standstill of use on the whitetail was perfect timing.  This allowed whitetails to live without hunting pressure in possibly the most favorable conditions for success.  The whitetails at the turn of the century were offered early successional habitats throughout the eastern United States as timber exploitation stripped the land of almost all forest.  These conditions were optimal for the whitetails living at this time and it is the primary reason that we have so many today.

Home Range

White-tailed deer often use the same home range from year to year (Halls 1984).  Deer have even been found to starve to death rather than leave depleted range, but it has been found that some will move away from normal ranges to meet their needs (Halls 1984).  The whitetails home range must be large enough to provide all the essentials for life and reproduction, yet small enough for the animal to be familiar with the area to increase survival (Halls 1984).  The home range of whitetails does not usually exceed 1.6 km, but ranges do differ in size according to various environmental factors and individual characteristics (Halls 1984).  Climate directly effects home range size.  For example, home ranges tend to be larger in more northern climates and less stable in the South (Halls 1984).  Overall, white-tailed deer usually have elongated home range patterns, although circular and irregularly shaped ranges have been found (Halls 1984). 

Daily Movements

     The knowledge of daily movements is useful in dispersing food plots on forest regeneration areas, developing census techniques, and determining the optimum size of harvest units (Halls 1984).  One approach to measure daily movement is to radio-locate telemetry-marked individual deer every 2 hr through a complete 24 hr period (Halls 1984).  Distances moved by individuals may vary greatly according to sex, age, season, habitat, weather, and physical condition (Halls 1984).  Reduced movement in winter and during severe weather events is common.  Daily movements are greatest in the breeding season and least in the gestation period (Halls 1984). 

Bedding Patterns

Bedding patterns of white-tailed deer vary according to location and the individual species (Halls 1984).  Whitetails generally remain bedded for less than 2 hr at a time, and most of that time is spent ruminating or grooming (Halls 1984).  Occasionally, a deer will rest its head flat on the ground or curl up by tucking its nose into its flanks with its eyes closed (Halls 1984).  These interludes of sleep usually last for less than a few minutes and even then the animal is still quite alert (Halls 1984).  If deer have an abundant supply of high-energy food, cover is of little importance (Halls 1984).  When temperatures are moderate, beds can be in the open with little or no shelter (Halls 1984).  During severe weather, whitetails usually bed in sites that offer the best shelter (Halls 1984).

Circadian Cycles

White-tailed deer tend to be most active around dawn and dusk; however, they are capable of much cycle flexibility (Halls 1984).  The time of peak activity differs among individual animals primarily in response to environmental variables and human activities (Halls 1984).  The combined interaction of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, cloud cover, and wind probably affects deer activity more than any single meteorological factor (Halls 1984).  It is evident that deer adjust their activity rhythms to maintain physical comfort and to minimize energy consumption (Halls 1984). 

Rutting

     The rut consists of various phases extending over a 3 to 4 month period, starting with  sparring among bucks and ending after breeding (Halls 1984).  In much of North America, the rut begins in September and ends by January.  Sparring appears among bucks once the velvet is removed from the antlers.  At this time, bucks are in groups (Teer et al. 1965) and show no interest in does (Halls 1984).  Sparring represents low-level aggressive encounters and is distinct from antler fights that occur later when competition for breeding takes place (Halls 1984).  The establishment of a well defined rank-order or hierarchy among males is the primary function of this event (Halls 1984).  These pushing contests enable each buck to assess his own strength compared to other males (Halls 1984).  Often, larger bucks will tolerate the challenges of smaller bucks and will stand still while yearlings push at them with all their strength (Halls 1984).  The most vigorous sparring takes place between males of similar size, and it is doubted what the outcome might be (Halls 1984). 

Courtship

Courtship or chasing of does begins 4 to 6 weeks after the onset of sparring (Halls 1984).  Buck groups break up and mature bucks start to travel alone as they chase does (Halls 1984).  This behavior may be triggered by an increased level of male hormone production, a change in the scent of does approaching estrus, or a combination of the 2 (Halls 1984).  Bucks will trail does at distances of 50 m or more and trot along with their noses to the ground to follow the doe’s scent (Halls 1984).  The does do not allow bucks to approach at close range during this time (Halls 1984). 

At closer range, a buck follows a doe in a courtship posture with his neck extended and lowered and his chin slightly elevated (Brown and Hirth 1979).  While being pursued a doe may pause to urinate, and the buck frequently stops to sniff and test the doe’s stage of estrus (Halls 1984).  After scenting the urine the buck will often perform a lip-curl, or “flehmen” (Dagg and Taub 1970, Geist 1971, 1981 Hirth 1977). 

During courtship, tolerance among bucks disappears, and the male hierarchy appears (Halls 1984).  All breeding-age bucks participate in courtship chases, but only the largest buck follows close behind the doe (Halls 1984).  Threatening bucks of similar size may charge at each other from distances of 1 to 2 m, or will circle before coming together (Halls 1984).  Both bucks will push their antlers hard together until one is driven back and forced to retreat (Halls 1984).  The victor may chase his opponent a short distance, but will return to the doe quickly (Halls 1984). 

The actual estrus period when a doe is willing to stand for copulation last perhaps only 24 hr (Haugen 1959, Michael 1966, More and Marchinton 1974).  Does will not run from bucks at this time and single pairs will isolate themselves (Halls 1984).  The buck tends the doe by standing behind her, occasionally noses her rump to test for copulation readiness, and feeds and beds in unison with her for several hours (Hirth 1977, Brown and Hirth 1979).  Copulation begins with a single hard thrust by the buck that frequently knocks the doe out from under him (Haugen 1959, Warren et al. 1978).  After copulation the buck remains with the doe and drives other bucks away for several hours and perhaps as many as 24 hr (Halls 1984).  Does that fail to become pregnant at their first estrus will come into estrus again 28 days later (Halls 1984).  Younger bucks are capable of breeding, but they may not have the chance until they are 3.5 to 4.5 years of age (Halls 1984). 

Buck Displays and Signalposts

Bucks display at least 2 distinct types of visual and olfactory signalposts during courtship and breeding periods (Moore and Marchinton 1974).  “Buck rubs” are stems of shrubs or saplings debarked by bucks rubbing them with their antlers and head (Halls 1984).  The forehead skin contains glands that will leave scent on the objects rubbed during the breeding season (Halls 1984).  Rubbing is most intense during or shortly after velvet removal and continues throughout the rut (Halls 1984).  Rubs can function in communication between the sexes as does sniff, lick, or mark buck rubs with their foreheads (Halls 1984). 

A “buck scrape” usually consists of a broken twig or branch 1 to 2 m above the ground with a depression pawed in the soil beneath it (Halls 1984).  These scrapes usually appear during courtship and breeding periods and bucks will return to freshen them or make other scrapes near by (Halls 1984).  A buck that locates the scent of a doe near the scrape will trail her fast with his nose near the ground and make a characteristic grunting sound (Halls 1984).  These 2 signals are not only useful to attract does, but it is also used to make threat displays at other bucks (Halls 1984).

Feeding Habits and Food 

White-tailed deer feeding habits in the Appalachian region primarily relate to forest and browsing.  Deer move slowly while browsing on twigs and leaves, and usually feed on more than one plant picking and selecting as they move (Halls 1984).  They graze and utilize herbaceous plants, depending on the availability of the plants, time of year, and soil type (Halls 1984).  The most favored foods in the spring are yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) fruits, green leaves, acorns, apples (Malus spp.), leaves of sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and legumes (Halls 1984).  The most favored foods in the summer are green leaves of red maple (Acer rubrum), oak (Quercus spp.), sourwood, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), honeysuckle, leaves and stems of legumes, fruits of chinaberry (Melia spp.), and fungi (Halls 1984).  The most favored foods in the fall are oak mast, fruits of apples, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and grape (Vitis spp.), and green leaves of rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) and honeysuckle (Halls 1984).  The most favored foods in the winter are dried leaves of deciduous woody plants, green herbaceous stems and leaves, grasses, sedges, and mushrooms (Halls 1984). 

Habitat

In the Appalachian Region white-tailed deer can be found in three major forest types.  These include the mixed mesophtyic forest, the Appalachian oak forest, and the northern hardwood forest.  Most of West Virginia is located in the mixed mesophytic forest that occupies the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau from northern Alabama to northwestern Pennsylvania (Halls 1984).  Vegetation in this region has changed substantially since presettlement times and a considerable amount has been converted to crop or forage production and to urban and industrial development (Halls 1984).  Land remaining in forests has been cut repeatedly (often selectively or high-graded), burned, and often grazed (Halls 1984).  Most of these forests contain overstory trees less than 100 years old and of poor form (Halls 1984).  The lands are usually understocked and even-aged, but some are two-aged as a result of high grading (Halls 1984).  In this region forests are primarily mixed with black cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), black oak (Quercus velutina), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), yellow poplar, red maple, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), hickory (Carya spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), elm (Ulmus spp.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and many other deciduous hardwoods.  White-tailed deer use many of these species, as well as, many of the agricultural crops such as corn and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) that have been cultivated in the region. 

In relation to habitat, white-tailed deer management has focused on the effects of forest cutting for lumber and pulp on food production and animal distribution (Halls 1984).  It was found that clearcutting supplies an abundance of forage for up to 10 years (Halls 1984).  In cases where mast-producing oaks and other types of deer food are removed, forest cuttings may detract habitat values (Halls 1984).  The ideal habitat in hardwood forests is one that consists of at least 50% of the area in mature mast trees with the remaining percentage containing a mixture of evergreens, shrubs, vines, and openings with herbaceous and young-growth woody vegetation (Halls 1984). 

Wild Turkey

History

The wild turkey has had an extensive history.  English colonists brought the domestic turkey to America (Schorger 1966).  These colonists were initially unaware of the native wild turkey’s presence on the North American continent.  The wild turkey was abundant and became an important food source for the colonists.  This led to hunting exploitation that initiated a decline in wild turkey populations for over 3 centuries (Williams 1981).  The wild turkey almost reached extinction when the forests fell to the axe and saw as the settlers moved west (Kennamer et al. 1992).  Their populations reached the lowest numbers near the end of the 19^th century, surviving only in the most inaccessible habitats (Kennamer et al. 1992). 

As forested stands regenerated in the early 20^th century, wild turkey populations increased.  Federal laws such as the Lacey Act in 1905, that prohibited the interstate sale of taken wildlife, and the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, that put an excise tax on sporting goods and ammunition, provided funds to initiate wildlife restoration programs (Kennamer et al. 1992).  Active restoration programs and research efforts by state agencies after World War II contributed to sizable increases in turkey populations (Kennamer et al. 1992).  Turkey populations have increased substantially.  Estimated U.S. population figures from 1959 to 1990 show an increase from 467,809 turkeys to 3,500,562 turkeys, respectively (Mosby 1959, Kennamer and Kennamer 1990).  Turkey populations occupy more square kilometers of habitat than any other game bird in North America. 

Distribution

Environmental factors influence the distribution of wild turkey in the United States.  The original range extended from southern Maine westward to South Dakota and south to central Mexico (Dickson 1992).  Climatic factors like precipitation and temperature were the limits affecting the turkey’s threshold to survive.  The amount and duration of snowfall affects the population’s northern bounds.  Healy (1992b) states that deaths occur in the Northeast during winter when deep, fluffy snow persists for more than 2 weeks.  The western limit seems to be more dependent on rainfall than on the soil (Schorger 1966).  The deficiency of rainfall limits the number of roost trees.  Williams (1981) states that turkeys lived in the Great Plains region only along wooded rivers.

The current wild turkey distribution has extended.  State game agencies have utilized trap-and-transplant programs to accelerate range growth across the United States.  Wild turkeys can be found in every state except Alaska.  However, snowfall still limits the northern range to below the Canadian border.  Water and roosting trees still limit turkeys in the western states to specific regions where the 2 are abundant.

Feeding Habits and Food    

            Food is a very important factor affecting turkey populations.  Searching and finding abundant food sources is critical for poult (1-4 weeks old), juvenile (4-8 weeks old) and adult turkey survival.  Turkey food can be divided into plant and animal food.  Plant and animal food preferences vary by a turkey’s age class.  These preferences affect growth and feeding behavior. 

            A turkey poult’s survival is based on its diet.  A poult exists on nutrients from its yolk sac for about 3 days after hatching.  A high protein demand causes a great increase in body weight during the first 4 weeks of a poult’s life.  Important food sources containing high protein are insects and small animals.  Beetles (Coleoptera) and grasshoppers (Orthoptera) constitute the major insect species sought (Hurst 1992).  Green vegetation constitutes the food source when insects are not available.  Water is essential for the well being of poults, but it need not be free (unbound) water (Hewitt 1967).

            Turkey juveniles grow at a fast rate.  Unlike young poults, juvenile turkeys prefer plant food to animal food.  Juvenile turkeys in Alabama consumed 73.2% plant and 26.8% animal matter between July and September in mixed field-forest habitats (Hurst1992).  Important foods are grass seeds, fruits, insects, and green forage.  Like poults, juvenile turkeys require water; however, they can get free or metabolic water easier by their greater mobility (Hurst 1992).  

            Food quality, quantity, and distribution affect the growth of adult wild turkeys.  They even affect reproduction, habitat use, and movement.  Thus, wild turkeys feed on the available foods in the region.  About 90% of the food requirements for adult turkeys come from plants (Williams 1981).  In the Northeast, wild turkeys eat hard mast like acorns and beechnuts, soft mast like dogwood and grape, grains like corn and oats (Avena spp.), grass seed and leaves, and animal matter (Hurst 1992).  Acorns are consumed in the largest quantity procurable, especially during the fall and winter months (Schorger 1966).  Turkeys eat a variety of cultivated crops including corn and oats when other food sources are not available (Hurst 1992).        

Habitat          

The exceptional adaptability of wild turkey to new habitat was a success for turkey transplant programs.  Adaptable habitats contain a combination of water, trees, and grasses.  Water maintains growth of trees and grasses.  The trees provide general needs like food, cover, daytime resting, and nighttime roosting.  Grass provides food for adults and is an important environment that allows poults to forage for insects. 

There are 3 broad habitat requirements that turkeys need to possess in their home range.  They are breeding and nesting habitat, brood-rearing habitat, and fall and winter habitat.  Turkeys are assured maximum survival when each of these habitat requirements is met.  An absence of any one of these habitats severely limits a turkey and its offspring’s survival.

The first requirement is adequate breeding and nesting habitat.  A hen needs to reproduce before the turkey population sustains itself or increases.  A nest has to be properly concealed to protect it from predators and adverse weather conditions.  A hen’s nest must possess lateral cover that obscures horizontal vision from its perimeter (Porter 1992b).  A forest characterized as possessing an open overstory and a well-developed understory has lateral cover.  Lateral cover represents dense edge.  Holbrook et al. (1987) states edge provides a variety of resources for the less mobile incubating hen.  It provides desirable nesting cover because increased lighting and/or the addition of logging slash increases understory density (Holbrook et al. 1987).  Woodland sites furnish dense edge early in the spring.  Hens locate their nests near small openings in the forest, for example.  They place nests along forest roads and edges between forest and open field.  Power line right-of-ways through forests attract turkey nests.  Fields of herbaceous vegetation close to forests are key nesting sites. 

The second requirement is broad-rearing habitat.  Three essential ingredients maximize  broad habitat within the first 8 weeks.  Porter (1992b) first believes that poults need a habitat that produces insects that can be easily foraged.  Second, poults need a habitat that permits frequent foraging all day (Porter 1992b).  Third, Porter (1992b) feels poults crave areas that provide cover to hide in and that allow adult female vision for predation protection.  The key to achieving this requirement is to have herbaceous vegetation interspersed with forests. The optimal vegetation height is 30 to 70 centimeters (12 to 28 inches) tall (Porter 1992b).  This height grants poults the cover needed for concealment, yet it would not obstruct the poult from escaping from a predator.  Unmowed fields produce a greater population of insects for poults to eat.

The third requirement is fall and winter habitat.  This habitat must possess 2 critical characteristics to guarantee survival of the poults, juveniles, and adults so they will grow and reproduce in the spring.  They include winter food and roosting habitat.  Winter food sources are critical for turkey survival.  Mast is the principal food preference in the fall and winter.  Pine seeds, acorns, and other fruits are prevalent at this time.  Turkey habitat values increase as the percent of mast-producing species expands and the degree of maturity increases (Porter 1992b).  Spring seeps act like an important food source provider by maintaining invertebrates, mast species, and green vegetation during winter months.     

Turkey habitats that mix cropland and forestland are extremely productive nutrient wise.  Turkey forage extensively on corn because compared to acorns, it possesses higher protein, lower fat, and similar carbohydrates.  Norman et al. (2001) contrasts the low production rates of turkey in West Virginia and Virginia to the high rates in Minnesota and New York caused from extensive secondary foods (i.e., agricultural crops and dairy by-products).  Current research is determining if supplementing natural foods with agricultural crops will reduce winter death and enhance reproduction of the wild turkey (Porter 1992b).     

            Roosting habitat is also critical to turkey survival over the winter.  Turkeys choose areas that are protected from prevailing winds and cold-air drainage.  They achieve this by roosting on the northeasterly slope to block the prevailing wind and on the upper third of the slope.  Roosting high on the slope minimizes the affects of the cold-air drainage.  Turkeys use conifers during severe storms.  These conifers allow the turkeys to reduce energy by maintaining their core body temperatures.  Turkeys chose the tallest and largest diameter roost trees with open crowns and layered, horizontal branching (Kilpatrick et al. 1988).

 Breeding

Breeding is triggered in the spring by increasing daylight hours or by unseasonably warm weather (Williams 1981).  Gobbling and strutting of adult males signals the beginning of breeding activity.  A pecking order characterizes the basic social organization of turkeys.  The pecking order signifies a linear hierarchy where each bird dominates, or pecks, those birds lower in social rank (Healy 1992a).  Dominant males do the breeding in the flocks.

Courtship 

Gobbling and strutting is the characteristic male courtship behavior.  Gobbling calls the hens in for mating at greater distances away.  The strut is a short-range signal directed toward the hen (Williams 1981).  The hen assumes a promiscuous posture to signal her receptivity to the gobbler.  The mating sequence begins when the hens crouches and lets the gobbler mount her from the rear.  The second step involves the gobbler treading the hen.  Treading stimulates the hen to raise her tail and avert her oviduct, while the gobbler lowers his tail (Healy 1992a).  Copulation is completed with a brief orgasmic response as their cloacae come in to contact (Schorger 1966).  The mating sequence takes between 4 to 5 minutes to complete (Healy 1992a). 

Nesting

Nesting sites are selected on the forest floor usually near the strutting ground and near water.  Concealment is critical where dense brush, vines, tangles, deep grass, or fallen treetops are prevalent (Williams 1981).  The nest consists of a shallow depression formed from scratching, squatting, and laying eggs rather than by construction (Healy 1992a).  Nests are placed close to trails and open areas for access to feeding areas during incubation and for rapid escape from predators (Schorger 1966). 

Reproduction

Laying a full clutch takes about 2 weeks (Healy 1992a).  The average clutch is between 10 to 12 eggs (Williams 1981).  Incubating follows the laying process.  A hen’s incubation technique is variable.  When they leave the nest, hens find water, drink, defecate, and proceed to feed.  During the later stage of incubation, the hen spends most of her time sitting and turning the eggs (Healy 1992a).  The incubation period lasts about 26 days (Williams et al. 1972).

Hatching follows incubation and takes about 30 hours (Williams 1981).  Pipping starts the hatching process, and the brood leaving the nest finalizes the process.  The poults must next be imprinted, a special form of learning that helps them recognize their own species (Healy 1992a).  It is essential for the development of normal adult social behaviors in the poults.

Ruffed Grouse

Introduction

The ruffed grouse is the most popular upland game bird throughout much of its range in the eastern United States, yet due to cyclic populations it has been a difficult sport species to manage (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  The ruffed grouse is widely distributed throughout much of the eastern United States, however is commonly found only in areas with extensive tracts of forest-dominated landscape (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  The distribution of ruffed grouse in the eastern United States ranges from the northern Great Lakes to the central and southern Appalachian Mountains (Kaufman 2000). 

Home Range

Ruffed grouse tend to show no specific habitat preference in locating a home range, yet they do show a strong preference in habitat selection within their home range (Thompson and Fritzell 1989).  Due to changes in habitat and food availability, winter home ranges are significantly larger than in warmer seasons (Thompson and Fritzell 1989).  Seasonal shifts, from summer to winter, correspond with a decrease in abundance of food, therefore movement increases.  Survival rates are inversely related to seasonal home range size and mean daily movement (Thompson and Fritzell 1989).  Survival rates of ruffed grouse are 0.350, 0.486, and 0.721 for annual, fall-winter, and spring-summer, respectively (Thompson and Fritzell 1989).

Feeding Habits and Food

Ruffed grouse use a wide variety of foods throughout the year (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  Ruffed grouse forage on 5 primary food types that include hard fruits, soft fruits, buds and twigs, woody plants, and herbaceous plants (Norman and Kirkpatrick 1984).  The hard fruits used by ruffed grouse are primarily white oak, scrub oak (Q. ilicifolia), northern red oak, and sumac (Rhus spp.).  Soft fruits consist of primarily willow (Smilax spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), and Rosa spp.   Buds and twigs of interest are primarily birch (Betula spp.) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia).  Woody plants are primarily willow, mountain laurel, and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).  Primary herbaceous plants include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), Canada cinquefoil (Potentilla Canadensis), teaberry (Gaultheria procumbens), and avens (Geum spp.) (Norman and Kirkpatrick 1984).  Principal food types, in the diet, shift from hard and soft fruits in the fall, to soft fruits in winter, to leaves of herbaceous plants in spring and summer (Norman and Kirkpatrick 1984).  Due to changes in food availability and quality, late fall and winter may be critical periods in the health of ruffed grouse.

Habitat

Ruffed grouse are early successional forest specialists, commonly identified as an “edge” species.  The diversity and abundance of wildlife, especially game animals, is often greatest near an edge (Hunter 1990).  However, ruffed grouse typically avoid hard-contrast edges (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  Ruffed grouse typically use young stands of various deciduous forest types throughout much of North America (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  Forest attributes such as the occurrence of different aged stands and diverse structure within these stands are believed to influence the habitat suitability of forest wildlife species such as ruffed grouse (Wiggers et al. 1992). 

Extensively cut deciduous woodlands and even-aged regeneration stands are important feeding and brood habitat for ruffed grouse (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Young deciduous forests and shrub-dominated old-field habitats protect ruffed grouse from predators throughout the year (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  Within these cut woodlands, grouse are abundant where 7 to 15 year old hardwood regeneration habitat comprises a minimum of 14% of the area.  Basal area and percent canopy closure are the 2 primary attributes of this habitat that exhibit a positive relationship to ruffed grouse densities (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Basal area shows a positive linear relationship with grouse density whereas percent canopy closure exhibits a curvilinear relationship.  Basal area of 16.9 m² ha^-1 (20.5 ft² acre^-1) and greater, as well as percent canopy closure between 70 and 89%, correlates to high grouse densities (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Sapling stands are often associated with dense understories resulting in secure cover, which prompts ruffed grouse to exploit such habitat in proportions greater than availability in most all seasons (McDonald et al.1998).  Ground vegetation may be important either as browse or as a substrate that supports other forage such as insects (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Research shows that ruffed grouse respond to forest structure rather than forest tree species composition (McDonald et al.1998).  Small clearcuts about 1 ha in size increase available habitat for ruffed grouse (McDonald et al. 1998).  Allowing forests to progress through successional stages to maturity provides habitat that will support increasingly lower populations of ruffed grouse (Gullion and Alm 1983).

Reproduction

Reproduction of ruffed grouse occurs in the spring of the year.  Male courtship rituals consist of strutting displays, with tail and neck ruffs puffed, and rapid wing drumming.  Such displays are commonly associated with large logs, called drumming logs (Kaufman 2000). 

Stem density is a critical factor determining both breeding and wintering habitat (Thompson and Fritzell).  Studies have shown that breeding male grouse and their mates rarely live more than 100 m from a stand containing high stem densities (Gullion and Alm).  A study of drumming males showed 84% of drumming logs were either located in or within sight of stands providing heavy overhead cover (Gullion and Alm).

Nesting

Nest sights are commonly selected within an edge habitat, coinciding with travel routes of many predators (Yahner and Wright 1985).  Potential mammalian predators on ground nests are raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).  The primary avian predator of ruffed grouse nests is the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (Yahner and Wright 1985).  Forest stands with many mature trees serve as perch sites for foraging avian predators allowing increased foraging effort and increased nest disturbance (Yahner and Wright 1985).  Forest stands of early successional ages contain higher densities of small shrubs, providing increased vertical layering of vegetation at the ground level, reducing detection of nests (Yahner and Wright 1985).  Vertical concealment provided by grassland vegetation has been suggested to reduce predation by American crows on ground nests (Wray and Whitmore 1979).

Squirrels

Introduction

The eastern fox squirrel, Sciurus niger, and the eastern gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis, are sympatric members of the Scuirid family that are native to West Virginia.  Both species are not only popular game animals, but they are also an important element of oak forest ecosystems because they are often indicators of mast tree productivity and disperse seeds (Healy et al. 1992).  The gray squirrel has been the focus of many studies while the eastern fox squirrel has been studied much less than other Scuirids.

Home Range

Densities of the eastern fox squirrel vary from 0.05-5.0 squirrels per ha while the home range is between 3-10 ha.  Gray squirrels can occur up to 50 per ha with a respective home range less than 4 ha (Merritt 1987).  Compared to gray squirrels the fox squirrel exhibits a larger home range (Flyger and Gates, 1982) and is more solitary in nature (Koprowski 1991).    

Feeding Habits and Food

Hickory, oak, and beech mast was found to be the preferred forage for both squirrel species, comprising over 73% of the gray squirrels and 52% of the fox squirrel’s overall diets (Korschgen 1981). Nixon and McCain (1969) noted a strong relationship between squirrel abundances and acorn crops.  Yet seasonal variations in available food are the dominant factors in the species’ diets (Nixon et al 1968).  Squirrels eat a wide array of seasonal plant foods including fungi, buds and flowers, and berries (Nixon et al. 1968). 

Habitat

Eastern fox squirrels prefer open woodlands with little understory in close proximity to fields and water (Flyger and Gates 1982, Brenner et al. 1989), thus making them ideal species for old farmlands that are common throughout north-central West Virginia.  Gray squirrels prefer large stands of mature, mixed hardwood timber with dense understory growth (Flyger and Gates 1982, Merritt 1987). 

Reproduction

Both the gray and the fox squirrel will usually produce 2 litters of young per year.  The breeding period begins at the end of December (Moore 1957) and the gestation normally lasts 44 to 45 days (Baumgartner 1940, Goodrum 1940, Allen 1942, Brown and Yeager 1945, Shorten 1954, Madson 1964).  Litters that generally average 3 young are usually born in late January to mid-March and July (Madson 1964). Adult females usually have larger litters than yearling females, and summer litters are usually larger than winter litters (Flyger and Gates 1982).  At birth, both fox and gray squirrels are very small, naked, blind, deaf, and helpless (Madson 1964).  At around 10 days of age, the young squirrels begin to grow hair.  After 3 weeks, the ears open and the lower front teeth begin to appear.  The upper front incisors appear at 5 weeks, and the nestling’s eyes begin to open. 

Weaning occurs at 6 to 12 weeks of age (Madson 1964, Flyger and Gates 1982).  By the time the young squirrels are weaned the trees are producing acorns in the fall or buds are sprouting in the spring (Madson 1964).  These 2 items are excellent food sources for young squirrels.  Squirrels generally feed in the first 2-3 hours of daylight and from late afternoon until dusk, unless severe weather conditions occur (Derger and Yahner 2000). 

Nesting

For nesting, bedding, and escape cover, squirrels use leaf and twig nests as well as dens in tree cavities (Edwards and Guynn 1995, Teaford 1986).  Leaf nests are temporary structures and are seldom used longer than 1 season.  Dens are often used for many years and have been found to be superior to leaf nests (Nixon et al. 1978, Brown and Yeager 1945) even though they can become infested with fleas.  Dens offer protection from cold and wet weather, safety from predators, and have been shown to increase survival rates 2.5 times versus litters raised in leaf nests (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2000).  Even though fox squirrels are less-cavity dependent than gray squirrels, tree dens are necessary to maintain high squirrel populations (Derge and Yahner 2000, Edwards and Guynn 1995). 

Habitat preferences and diurnal activity patterns of both species have shown that sympatric populations of gray and fox squirrels vary little compared to non-sympatric populations (Derge and Yahner 2000).  Competitive interactions and habitat segregations were found to be very low when nesting habitat and food availability was high (Derge and Yahner 2000).   Further, the percent basal area of hickory and oaks was directly correlated to squirrel abundances (Derge and Yahner 2000).  Habitat use by both species has been correlated to edge proximity (Robb et al. 1995, Derge and Yahner 2000).  Fox squirrels have been shown to select for edge habitat (Robb et al. 1995), while gray squirrels may forage near field edges.  In general, gray squirrels tend to avoid grassy corridors (Gates 1991, Burger 1969). 

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit

Introduction 

The eastern cottontail rabbit is the most common Lagomorpha in North America (Lawrence 1974).  They range as far north as southern Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and south extending to Mexico and below (Hamilton 1943).  The eastern cottontail rabbit reaches an average length of 15-18 inches and an average weight of 3-4 pounds (Lawrence 1974). 

Cottontails can be considered a principal game animal in the United States (Chapman et al. 1982).  They can withstand heavy hunting pressures because of extremely high reproduction rates and give sportsmen the opportunity to harvest more game and spend more time in the field.

Feeding Habits and Food

Eastern cottontails utilize agricultural crops such as corn, soybeans (Glycine max), and wheat (Triticum spp.) during the entire year (Klimstra and Corder 1957).  Digestible energy may be limiting in the winter and early spring.  Winter diet trees include gray birch (Betula populifolia), red maple, apple trees, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) and wild black cherry.  Shrubs and vines include blackberry, dewberry (Rubus villosus), willow (Salix spp.), black alder (Ilex berticillata), male berry (Lyonia ligustrina), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) (Dalke and Sime 1941).  Dewberry and blackberry are utilized the greatest during the fall and winter period (Kilmstra and Corder 1957). 

The spring diets of eastern cottontails consists of herbaceous plants, mainly clover (Trifolium spp.) and alfalfa are preferred throughout October (Dalke and Sime 1941).  October through December, with the onset of winter, is the transition period between herbaceous to woody plant materials. 

Habitat

      Habitat selection of cottontails can be described simply as the heaviest cover available throughout the year.  Dense vegetation near the ground is a key determinate of suitable habitat for cottontails (Lawrence 1974).  Preferable habitat types include shrubland, old-field, and shrub-woodland (Althoff et al. 1997).  During early spring shrubs with early leaf out are preferable habitat due to protection from avian predators, as well as extreme weather conditions often associated with early spring. 

            Cottontails vertically and horizontally select microhabitats with denser vegetation during all seasons (Althoff et al. 1997).  This helps reduce the effect of weather on the animal to help conserve energy.  Dense vegetation and shrubs are essential to cottontail habitat because it allows the animal to maintain a positive energy balance as well as avoid predators (Althoff et al. 1997).

Reproduction

Cottontail rabbits use an “r” reproductive strategy meaning they have high reproduction rates with minimal paternal care invested.  Rabbits naturally rely on mortality/survival and dispersal to regulate population density.

Cottontail rabbits are born with their eyes closed tightly and legs developed just enough to crawl into the nest (Ecke 1955).  Within a 2 week period the rabbits are able to leave the nest and begin ingestion of vegetative materials (Lawrence 1974).   Younger rabbits have a tendency to choose foods that contain more digestible energy and proteins than larger rabbits (Chapman et al. 1982).

The breeding season for rabbits usually last from late February through August (Chapman et al. 1977).  Temperature and day length rather than diet is the primary factor controlling the onset (date) of breeding each year (Hill 1966).  Correlations have been made with severe weather and delays in the onset of the breeding season.  Reproduction is correlated with the ending of adverse weather (Conway and Wight 1962).  The onset of breeding anticipates the availability of succulent green foods 28 days later (Hamilton 1943).

            Juvenile breeding is well documented in rabbit populations but represents a relatively small number of the total reproduction (Chapman et al. 1977).  Five months after parturition, rabbits are fully-grown (Lawrence 1974).  At the age of 6 months they are capable of mating (Lawrence 1974).  After conception the gestation period is usually 28 days with a range of 25 to 35 days (Conway and Marsden 1963).  Conception usually follows parturition of the previous litter that usually starts a cycle for the breeding season (Johnson 1973).

Table 1. – The mean sizes of eastern cottontail rabbit litters throughout the eastern United States.

Mean litter sizes from areas of highly fertile soils have been shown to be significantly larger than those from areas of low-fertility soils (Rongstad 1966).

Nesting

            Nest are constructed by the female in a sheltered spot with the use of leaves and lined with fur plucked from the female’s stomach (Hamilton 1943).  It is not uncommon for two individual rabbits to use the same nest at the same time (Chapman et al. 1982).  The offspring nurse only 1-2 times per day, allowing the paternal female to have minimum daily energy expenditure (Chapman et al. 1982).

Survival/Mortality

            Seasonal aspects of natality and/or juvenile mortality are variable in space and time (Chapman et al. 1982).  In effect, the relative contribution of spring and summer litters to fall cottontail populations is variable among areas.  Rainfall affects the amount of succulent vegetation available.  With a decrease in succulent vegetation from early season drought, survivorship of early season offspring is going to be low.  Common predators of the eastern cottontail include (Chapman et al. 1982):

v     Raccoon

v     Weasel (Mustela spp.)

v     Red fox

v     Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

v     Coyote (Canis latrans)

v     Feral cat (Felis domesticus)

Great Horned Owl

Introduction

The great horned owl is 1 of 2 owl species being managed for in this plan on the Fajvan-Lynn property.  In order to best manage for this species, its life history must be studied and understood.

The great horned owl belongs to the group of eagle owls and is the only member of its genus in America (Voous 1988).  It is very closely related to its Old World counterpart, the Eurasian eagle owl (Bubo bubo) and like this species, the great horned owl varies in both size and color depending on latitude and altitude (Burton 1973).  Great horned owls occur throughout all of North and South America, from Alaska in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the southernmost tip of South America (Voous 1988).

            Known to be one of the fiercest and most aggressive owls (Voous 1988), the great horned owl weighs up to 3.5 lbs and is 50.8-58.4 cm long.  Great horned owls have a wingspan of 1.5 m, with females being slightly larger than the males.  The plumage is light brown above and mottled with grayish-white, and the undersides are light gray barred with dark colorations.  The owl has a rust-colored face with a collar of white feathers, and also has prominent ear tufts that can be up to 5.08 cm long.  Furthermore, the great horned owl has 2 color phases: white-breasted and orange-breasted (Burton 1973).  The color pattern varies between regions.

Feeding Habits and Food

            The prey of the great horned owl ranges from rabbits (Lepus spp.), mice (Rithrodontomys spp.), smaller birds (including owls), squirrels, foxes, and skunks (Mephitis spp.).  Often times, it is a generalized and opportunistic feeder and has a wider range of prey than any other known bird of prey in North and South America (Voous 1988).  They are mainly nocturnal and are active after sunset, catching prey by capitalizing on their great sense of visual acuity.

Habitat 

            Great horned owls are habitat generalists and are often more tolerant of fragmentation and edge habitats than are other forest dwelling raptors (Bosakowski and Smith 1997).  The size of habitat used by a pair of great horned owls depends on many conditions including topography, cover types, and other environmental factors (Austing et al. 1966).  Favored habitats include remote wilderness areas, but they can also be found in farm, mixed, and forested habitats (Morrell and Yahner 1995).  Great horned owls prefer a canopy cover that has small openings.  This is especially important when rearing young, as it allows for easier access to the nest, greater detection of potential predators, and increased sunlight for developing chicks (Smith et al. 1999).  Often, a great horned owl will pick a roosting site that is somewhat conspicuous from the surrounding area, presumably to make it easier for the birds to identify their individual roosting trees (Austing et al. 1966).

Nesting

            Great horned owls nest in tree cavities or hollow stumps, often using abandoned crow, hawk, or heron nests.  They are believed to mate for life and are the earliest nesters of all owl species, causing their nests to be very conspicuous in the bare trees in which they nest (Voous 1988).  The mated pair does not make any improvements to the nest site, but the female will line the nest with feathers.

Reproduction 

Egg-laying usually begins in February and it is not uncommon for the female to sit through blizzards while incubating the eggs (Voous 1988).  The female lays 2 to 3 eggs in a clutch, and the number of clutches ranges from 1-6, depending on the geographic region (Burton 1973).  Eggs hatch in about a month and the nestlings are downy and blind.  The male hunts for the brooding female and the nestlings (Voous 1988).  The young cannot fly until about 3 months of age and typically leave the nest during the first part of April.

Barred Owl

Introduction

The barred owl is the other owl species being managed for on the Fajvan-Lynn property. Although it was not originally considered in the proposal, the species was detected on the property and a survey was subsequently conducted.  In order to best manage for this species, its life history must be studied and understood.

The barred owl is the most common of the medium-sized owls in North America (Voous 1988).  In all physical aspects and habits it resembles the Old World tawny owl (Strix aluco), but taxonomically it is more closely related to the ural owl (Strix uralensis).  Barred owls occur throughout eastern North America to the Rockies and in a narrow belt through southern Canada, as well as south into Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Montana (Allen 1987). 

            The most vocal of owls, the barred owl weighs up to 2 lbs and is up to 50.8 cm long.  Barred owls have a wingspan of about 111.76 cm.  The plumage is gray-brown with white spots on the back.  The owl has whitish or grayish underparts that are barred with brown, and there is horizontal barring on the breast and vertical barring on the belly.  It has black eyes, a rounded head, and lacks ear tufts (Burton 1973).  The females are usually larger than the males.

Feeding Habits and Food

            The prey of the barred owl is quite varied, although it prefers small rodents whenever possible.  Prey items range from voles, mice, and rats to shrews, moles, and squirrels.  Barred owls will also prey upon smaller bird species and some have even been known to learn how to fish (Burton 1973).  The barred owl is nocturnal and is rarely observed in the sunlight; however, it has been observed hunting and calling in the daytime during cloudy weather (Burton 1973).

Habitat

            Barred owls in eastern North America prefer densely forested woodlands and deciduous and mixed/deciduous coniferous forests.  Although barred owls have been observed in a wide variety of stand types, a common factor has been the presence of large, mature, old growth trees.   They have a definite preference for certain cover types, including oak woodland and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest (Nicholls and Warner 1972).  Several of the preferred cover types are usually lacking a dense understory, providing increased visibility and reduced impediments to flight.  Barred owls have also been observed to prefer drier sites, as prey may be easier to detect on the drier forest floor (Nicholls and Warner 1972).

Nesting 

            Barred owls nest in hollow trees, preferring cavities in large living or dead trees (Allen 1987).  Living trees are thought to be better nest sites than snags because of the additional protection that the foliage provides.  Nesting pairs may become strongly attached to the nest site and return year after year, regardless of better cavity availability. 

Reproduction

The female lays 2-4 eggs that hatch in about 4 weeks.  The eggs are brooded by the female alone, though the male provides food after the young have hatched.  The young take about 6 weeks to fledge (Burton 1973). 

STUDY AREA

Legal Description

            The Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan and Robert Lynn property is an 83.74 ha (206.93 acres) parcel that is located within the Lyon District of Preston County, WV.  The property is split into 2 adjoining parcels that consist of 77.18 ha (Parcel 1) and 6.57 ha (Parcel 2).  The property can be found on the Newburg Quadrangle USGS topographic map (Figure 4).  It can be accessed via Independence-Gladesville Road-County Route 33.  This road can be reached from Morgantown, West Virginia, by way of Route 119 South and Gladesville Road (Figure 3).

The boundaries of the Fajvan-Lynn property have been recently surveyed and distinct markers have been set in each corner.  The boundary on the eastern side of the property is still disputed with the adjacent landowner (Figure 4). 

One-fourth of all veins or seams of coal, known as the Freeport or Austin coal and the Kittanning or Newburg Shaft coal, are owned by the landowners.  The landowners also own one-half of the undivided interest in all other minerals, including oil and gas.  The parcel is also subject to a certain right-of-way or easement that was granted to the Monongalia West Penn Service Company in 1938 by J. M. Baylor and Myrtle Baylor.

Tract History

            Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan and Robert Lynn purchased the 83.74 ha tract for $160,000 on February 15, 1993, from Edmond G. Vanden Bosche and Kathryn M. Vanden Bosche.  The property consists of 44.31 ha of forestland and 39.43 ha of pasture and agricultural fields

(Figure 5). 

            Timber was last harvested from the Fajvan-Lynn property around 1985.  The landowners identified this as a high-grade cut with northern red oak as a target species.  This cut was confirmed when northern red oak stumps were found with minimal rot.  The property has been used extensively for agriculture and livestock for many years.  Fajvan and Lynn now use the property for hay production, goats, chickens, firewood, and a minimal amount of lumber that is used for building purposes (Figure 3).  There is a pond on the property that is used primarily for swimming and recreational fishing (Figure 3). 

Soil Types

            The Fajvan-Lynn property contains 7 different soil types (Figure 6), that largely relates to the topographic, geologic, and hydrologic characteristics of the property.  These soils are primarily in the Gilpin Series (Soil Conservation Service).

Table 2. – Soil Types of the Fajvan-Lynn Property.

Topography

The topography of the Fajvan-Lynn property can be viewed on the topographic map provided in Figure 1.  The lowest elevation found on the property is 396.24 m (1,300 feet) and the highest elevation is 513.59 m (1,685 feet) (Figure 4).  One cove in the northeast portion of the property contains a southeast-northwest running intermittent stream, and 1 cove in the west-central portion of the property contains an east-west running ephemeral stream.  The management area begins at the driveway entrance to the property.  The driveway entrance lies in a southwest aspect.  From the driveway entrance, the property lies at a western slope running northward along the Gladesville-Independence Road until it hits the northwest corner.  This slope ranges in steepness from 10-30%.  The driveway portion runs up a south-facing slope, ranging from 10-30% in steepness to the southeast corner.  If you follow a northeast bearing from the entrance, you will engage steep slopes ranging from 10-30% that will lead to a high elevation field that is about 30.48 m (100 feet) wide and 304.80 m (1,000 feet) long.  The northern boundary is a southeast-facing slope with 10-20% steepness.  It is the likely origin of the intermittent stream.  The eastern boundary is primarily a southwest-facing slope with a gradual 5-15% steepness.    

Cover Type

            The Fajvan-Lynn property has 10 cover types that were assessed through a stratum rank walk of the tract.  These cover types are based on vegetation, tree cover, and other defining characteristics.

            Cover Type I is a forest stand that is due north of the red pine (Pinus resinosa) plantation.  This cover type consists of a diverse overstory of red maple, pignut hickory (Carya glabra), northern red oak, yellow poplar, grapevine, black oak, black walnut (Juglans nigra), and American beech.  The understory is a dense mixture of spicebush (Lindera benzoin), oak, hickory, red maple, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate), and ironwood (Ostrya virginiana).  The ground cover was a mix of Christmas fern, New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), bedstraw (Galium spp.), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).  This mix among all canopy layers was distinct and therefore easily represented a cover type.

            Cover Type II was a forest stand due north of Cover Type I.  The overstory consisted of black oak, yellow poplar, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and black birch (Betula lenta).  The understory was sparse with only black cherry and spicebush.  The ground layer supported Virginia creeper, black oak, Christmas fern, red maple, and New York fern.  It was apparent in this cover type that a large change in overstory and understory composition took place in comparison to the first cover type.  Yellow poplar became the dominant overstory species and a change in slope aspect affected the overall understory.

            Cover Type III was a forest stand on a northwest slope near the northwest corner of the property.  The overstory consisted of red maple, grapevine, northern red oak, black oak, yellow poplar, and black cherry.  The understory supported spicebush, black cherry, American beech, and black birch.  The ground layer was a dense mixture of common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), red maple, Virginia creeper, yellow poplar, white oak, New York fern, Christmas fern, sassafras, bedstraw, and an abundance of small woody debris.  In respects to slope aspect and vegetation, this cover type differed again from Cover Type I and II.

            Cover Type IV is a combination of open pasture on the northern and central portion of the property.  A few open grown yellow poplar, American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and red maple were found.  Shining sumac (Rhus copallina), black cherry, and flowering dogwood were found in a sparse understory.  A thick, low ground layer of common thistle (Cirsium vulgare), groundpine tree clubmoss (Lycopodium obscurum), northern red oak, yellow poplar, common greenbrier, shining sumac, and milkweed (Asclepias spp.) was found.  This open pasture was the first crossed and was obviously different from a forested stand.

            Cover Type V was a finger ridge on the western portion of the property.  The overstory consisted of American beech, sugar maple, and a large component of white oak.  The understory was a sparse layer of American beech, red maple, ironwood, greenbrier, and sugar maple.  The ground layer was sparse with only few observations of American beech, white oak, northern red oak, sugar maple, Virginia creeper, and hickory.  This cover type was depicted by the large component of white oak that was absent in almost every other area of the property.

            Cover Type VI was a forest stand adjacent to the finger with a north-facing aspect.  The overstory was a mixture of red maple, white oak, black cherry, black walnut, hawthorn, sugar maple, and American beech.  The understory consisted of shining sumac, sassafras, hickory, hawthorn, ironwood, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), American beech, and white oak.  The ground contained a dense layer of white oak, red maple, spicebush, hickory, sugar maple, Virginia creeper, deer tongue (Panicum clandestinum), bedstraw, American beech, northern red oak, and common greenbrier.  This stand was diverse and dense within all of its layers.  Again, a heavy white oak component depicted this cover type from other dense forest stands.

            Cover Type VII was a forest stand adjacent to the ephemeral stream on the western boundary.  The white oak component began to fade and species such as black cherry, sugar maple, black walnut, sassafras, shagbark hickory, and yellow-poplar were found.  The understory was sparse with only spicebush, hawthorn, and white oak present.  The ground layer, mixed in with large outcroppings, was a mixture of Christmas fern, New York fern, Virginia creeper, red maple, sugar maple, witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), sassafras, groundpine tree clubmoss, and an abundant amount of small woody debris.  With a loss of overstory density, in conjunction with rock outcroppings, this cover type took on an early successional stage unlike many of the other cover types.

            Cover Type VIII was a forest stand consisting of hickory, sassafras, northern red oak, sugar maple, white oak, and red maple.  The understory supported red maple, blackgum, and hickory.  The ground layer was extremely dense with common greenbrier, white oak, American beech, northern red oak, hickory, red maple, New York fern, yellow poplar, deer tongue, and Virginia creeper.  In this cover type, the forest stand returned to the normal state found on the property, but because of its sparseness, a dense ground layer with many invasive species existed.

            Cover Type IX was a forest stand on the southern boundary.  The overstory consisted of black cherry, red maple, yellow poplar, hickory, northern red oak, and slippery elm.  The understory was sparse, only consisting of a few white oak, American beech, and sassafras.  The ground layer was extremely sparse with only a small amount of common greenbrier and New York fern.  This forest stand changed to a southeast slope and its open understory was uncharacteristic of most cover types found on the property.

            Cover Type X is a combination of open hay fields located on the eastern and central portions of the property.  This large area is used for agriculture and livestock.  They contain species of flowers and other herbaceous plants that are obviously distinct from the pasture and forest stands. 

METHODS

Flora

Field Methods

The field methods for the 83.74 ha tract will first be calculated and prepared in the classroom.  It was determined that an inventory of the overstory, understory, and regeneration would be necessary for an effective analysis of the tract in relation to wildlife and forest management.

Stratified systematic sampling will be used to collect the overstory data.  This method will reduce error by separating stands in relation to their overall tree species, slope aspect, and other related characteristics (Avery and Burkhart 1994).  Within each stand, trees will be tallied on the basis of their size, rather than by their frequency of occurrence.  The method requires the use of a 10 basal area factor (BAF) prism, which is commonly used in second-growth sawtimber or dense pole timber stands (Avery and Burkhart 1994).  The BAF is usually chosen to provide an average of 5 to 12 trees per plot.  It will be important to use this criterion to estimate the number of plots that will be needed for each stand to provide an accurate sampling of the entire tract.  If you select a BAF that will result in an average sample of 5 to 12 trees per plot, then you can use the same number of points as you would when sampling 0.08 ha fixed-area plots (Avery and Burkhart 1994).  Using the calculation:

v     Area of all plots = stand size X 0.1 (10% cruise) = number of acres

v     Number of acres (area of plots)/0.08 ha/plot (area of one plot) = number of plots needed.

This equation will provide the number of plots needed per stand to generate a cruise with less than 10% error (Avery and Burkhart 1994).  The spacing of cruise lines will be based on the size of the stand and the number of plots that are needed.  Based on these criteria the number of plots and cruise-line spacing were calculated as:

v     Stand 1:            9.65 plots / 4.5 X 4.5 chain – square grid spacing

v     Stand 2:            4.50 plots / 4.5 X 4.5 chain – square grid spacing

v     Stand 3:            17.10 plots / 4.5 X 4.5 chain – square grid spacing

v     Stand 4:            13.00 plots / 4.5 X 4.5 chain – square grid spacing

v     Stand 5:            10.50 plots / 4.5 X 4.5 chain – square grid spacing

The criteria for the overstory inventory will be:

1)                  diameter at breast height (DBH) will be measured for each tree tallied on the plots and placed into 2.54 cm diameter classes.

2)                  any tree with a diameter of 0.6 and above will be tallied in the next to highest 2.54 cm class and any tree with a diameter of 0.5 and below will be tallied into the next lowest 2.54 cm class.

The understory inventory will be conducted using circular fixed-area plots.  On a fixed-area plot, the likelihood of selecting trees of a given size for measurement depends on the frequency that trees of that size occur in the stand (Avery and Burkhart 1994).  To inventory understory, 0.004 ha plots (3.60 m radius) will be established at each overstory plot.  All trees 2.54-15.24 cm will be tallied by species and DBH.  The regeneration will be inventoried using a checkmark tally while running cruise lines.  Information from the cover types can also be used to evaluate regeneration composition.

The stand inventory will provide the information needed to address several of the management objectives and to formulate future prescriptions on the tract.  The data can be used to determine habitat availability, biodiversity, and many other parameters that relate to wildlife management.  By applying all of these parameters to individual wildlife species, you will be able to assess the overall productivity and likelihood that a species will be successful on the property.

Stand Designation

The forested area of the Fajvan-Lynn Property was estimated by using a dot grid layover on a topographic map.  Using this system, it was found that the property consisted of 44.31 ha of forest.  The entire forested area was then stratified into 5 Stands primarily based on species composition, topography, and slope aspect.  These stands were delineated on the topographic map and designated to be (Figure 5):

v     Stand 1:            7.81 ha

v     Stand 2:            3.64 ha

v     Stand 3:            13.84 ha

v     Stand 4:            10.52 ha

v     Stand 5:            8.50 ha

Fauna

To address the management objectives of the landowners, it will be critical to observe, assess, and evaluate the wildlife resources on the property.  As stated, the landowners expressed an interest in white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, and great horned owls.  It will be essential that accurate methods be used to measure the population and habitat availability for each of these species.

White-tailed Deer Methods

            To estimate the white-tailed deer population, a pellet count was used and performed on 17 October 2001.  The count was conducted on 50-3.048 m radius plots that were systematically stratified throughout the property.  These plots were stratified throughout the 5 designated stands and the number of plots was related to the size of the stands.  The number of plots in each stand was:

v     Stand 1:            8

v     Stand 2:            4

v     Stand 3:            15

v     Stand 4:            13

v     Stand 5:            10

At each plot the center was located and marked with a pin.  The measuring tape was then stretched from plot center to the plot edge (3.048 m), and a starting point was marked (Eberhardt and Van Etten 1956).  In a clockwise motion, all pellet groups in the plot that were lying above the leaf litter were tallied (Eberhardt and Van Etten 1956).  This same motion was then conducted in a counterclockwise motion and pellet groups were tallied to recheck possibly missed groups (Eberhardt and Van Etten 1956).  The 2 tallies from each motion were then averaged.        

After completing this procedure on all 50 plots, the number of pellet groups was averaged and then used in the calculation below.

Calculation

v     # of deer per ha = (average # pellet groups per plot) (# plots per ha)

                                                             (# days since leaf fall) (# pellet groups/deer/day)

v     Where, the defecation rate is set at 13 pellet groups per deer per day (Eberhardt and Van Etten 1956).

Wild Turkey Methods

Turkey population estimation remains a critical priority for management.  The line transect method was utilized to determine the population.  We walked our line transects on 20 October 2001.  We recorded no wild turkey observations (Figure 7). 

We decided to use a pattern recognition technique to estimate turkey populations.  The model we used is PATREC.  It is a predictive procedure discerning habitat characteristics associated with high and low wildlife populations (Porter 1992a).  The model uses Bayesian statistics to predict midpoint population levels from high-density and low-density standards (Porter 1992a).  Table 1 shows the relationship among habitat measurements and habitat conditions illustrating the application of PATREC (Porter 1992a).  High and low population values represent the proportion of the sample units likely to be associated with given habitat conditions (Porter 1992a).             

Table 3. – Average DBH and oak percent on the Fajvan-Lynn Property.

       There are three assumptions that have to be made for this model (Porter 1992a).  The first assumption is that the property’s high-density standard equals 7.7 turkeys/kilometer² (20 turkeys/mile²).  The second assumption is that the property’s low-density standard equals 0.8 turkeys/kilometer² (2 turkeys/mile²).  The final assumption is that prior probability_high equals 0.6, and prior probability_low equals 0.4. 

The average DBH and the percentage of trees that are oak species are calculated from our vegetative cruise of the property to determine the condition values to use from Table 1.  The property’s average DBH was 30 centimeters (12.02 inches), and the percentage of trees that are oak species is 46%.  The high population condition values are 0.4 for average DBH and 0.5 for percent of oak species.  The low population condition values are 0.3 for the average DBH and 0.1 for the percent of oak species.  

The prediction of population can be determined by a series of three calculations (Porter 1992a).  The calculations for this property are:

Calculation 1

            High population = 0.6 x (0.4 x 0.5) = 0.12

Where:

            0.6 is the prior probability_high;

            0.4 is the value for the condition class containing 30 cm (12.02 inches) at high density;

            0.5 is the value for the condition containing percent at high density.

            Low population = 0.4 x (0.3 x 0.1) = 0.012

Where:

            0.4 is the prior probability_low;

            0.3 is the value for the condition class containing 30 cm (12.02 inches) at low density;

            0.1 is the value for the condition containing  percent at low density.

Calculation 2

            Probability_{high population} = 0.12/(0.12 + 0.012) = 0.91

Where:

            0.12 is the high-population value;

            0.012 is the low-population value.

            Probability_{low population} = 0.012/(0.12 + 0.012) = 0.091

Where:

            0.12 is the high-population value;

            0.012 is the low-population value.

Calculation 3

Predicted population per kilometer² = (7.7 x 0.91) + (0.8 x 0.09) = 7 turkeys/kilometer². 

            Predicted population per mile² = (20 x 0.91) + (2 x 0.091) = 18 turkeys/mile².

Ruffed Grouse Methods

      To sample the population of ruffed grouse on the property, the line-transect method was used

(Burnham et al. 1980, Healy et al. 1992).  This method was found to be efficient and effective for

estimating the population size of ruffed grouse (Healy et al. 1992).  The limitations of the line-

transect method was addressed and methods were used to remain within these limits,

specifically, observers used compasses and range finders to determine distances and angles from

the transect line (Burnham et al. 1980). The line-transect method was used at 3 equidistant sites

across the property (Figure 7.  The designated transects crossed the entire property and sampling

was conducted over 2 consecutive Saturdays in late October (Healy et al. 1992).  

Once all total observations and measurements are performed on the property, the density of the species will be calculated.  Population estimates from the collected data were calculated using the DISTANCE program and are shown below in the results section.

Relative edge was calculated from the area and perimeter information by the total edges and the total land base.  Relative edge is defined as the fractal values of total edge length per unit area (Baskent 1997).  Relative edge is calculated as:

v     Relative edge = 2*log (total edge length)

      log (total land base)  

The estimate of relative edge will be correlated to the success of ruffed grouse because they

benefit from edge habitats.   

Squirrel Methods

      Sampling of the vegetation on the property will be carried out using the stratum rank

method (Linsay et al. 1961).  To sample the population of eastern gray and the eastern fox

squirrel, the line-transect method was used (Burnham et al. 1980, Healy et al. 1992).  This

method was shown to be efficient and effective at estimating population size of Scuirids

(Healy et al. 1992).  Sampling was conducted during the first hours of daylight, since this is the

most productive period of time to observe squirrels and observers will move at speeds less than 1

km/hour (Healy et al. 1992).  The limitations of the line-transect method was addressed and

methods were used to remain within these limits, specifically, observers used compasses and

range finders to determine distances and angles from the transect line (Burnham et al. 1980). The

line-transect method was used at 3 equidistant sites across the property (Figure 7).  The

designated transects crossed the entire property and sampling was conducted over 2 consecutive

Saturdays in late October (Healy et al. 1992). 

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Methods

Population estimates will be calculated using line-transect sampling.  Line-transect sampling is a practical, efficient, and inexpensive method of calculating population density (Anderson et al. 1979).  Velaquez (1994) found that the line-transect method gives an adequate estimate of rabbit population.  Lines will be equally distributed throughout the property in order to cover all habitat types and then observations of individual cottontails will be measured by angle and distance from the transect line (Figure 7).  Once all total observations and measurements are performed on the property, the density of the species will be calculated.  Population estimates from the collected data were calculated using the DISTANCE program and are shown below in the results section.

Great Horned Owl Methods

As stated in the proposal, a systematic sample was used try to obtain a population estimate of great horned owls on the Fajvan-Lynn property.  Thirty points were plotted on a grid of the property placed 167 m apart; however, to minimize costs, 6 of the 30 points were randomly selected and surveyed. The results for the property were extrapolated from these 6 points.  At each point, the observer listened for owl calls for 7 min prior to the broadcast to record individuals seen or heard.  The broadcast was played for 5 min, with each broadcast consisting of 6 sets of 20 sec calls. Each set was separated by a 40 sec period of silence. After the broadcast, the observer remained to listen for another 7 min (Morrell and Yahner 1995).  The surveying was conducted from the hours of 1730-2000.  The winds were about 5-10 mph and the temperature was 2°C.  The broadcast played consisted of a great horned owl and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) fight. 

Surveying forest-dwelling raptors is often challenging because they are so secretive, making them difficult to locate (McLeod and Andersen 1998).  However, methods of surveying have been developed by which great horned owls are surveyed using con-specific recordings or broadcasts (Morrell and Yahner 1995).

Barred Owl Methods

            Methods of surveying of barred owls were identical to that of the great horned owl and were performed under the same conditions.

RESULTS

Flora Results

Stand 1 Results

            Stand 1, located in the southwest portion of the property, is a 7.81 ha mixed hardwood site (Figure 5).  This cover type includes a majority of oak and various other hardwoods such as maple, beech, and yellow poplar.  The site index for this stand is 63 for white oak.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 overstory was comprised of:

Table 4. – Overstory Inventory for Stand 1.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 understory was comprised of:

Table 5. – Understory Inventory for Stand 1.

Stand 2 Results

            Stand 2, located in the west central portion of the property, is comprised of 3.64 ha and contains a mixed-cove hardwood cover type (Figure 5).  This moist forest stand includes yellow poplar, oaks, red maple, ferns, common greenbrier, and clubmoss.  The site index for the stand is 73 for white oak.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 overstory was comprised of:   

Table 6. – Overstory Inventory for Stand 2.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 understory was comprised of:

Table 7. – Understory Inventory for Stand 2.  

Stand 3 Results

            Stand 3, located in the northern portion of the property, is comprised of 13.84 ha that consist of mixed hardwoods (Figure 5).  This forest type includes a majority of oak and various other hardwoods such as maple, beech, and yellow poplar.  The site index for this stand is 70 for white oak.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 overstory was comprised of:   

Table 8. – Overstory Inventory for Stand 3.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 understory was comprised of:   

Table 9. – Understory Inventory for Stand 3.

Stand 4 Results

Stand 4, the southern most stand, is 10.52 ha in size and is primarily composed of an oak-hickory cover type (Figure 5).  The most dominant species in the stand was white oak.  The site index is 75 for white oak.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 overstory was comprised of:   

Table 10. – Overstory Inventory for Stand 4.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 understory was comprised of:

Table 11. – Understory Inventory for Stand 4.

Stand 5 Results

Stand 5, the most easterly stand, is 8.50 ha and is covered by a yellow-poplar/red maple/hickory composition (Figure 5).  Yellow poplar and red maple dominates the overstory on this site.  The site index is 88 for yellow poplar.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 overstory was comprised of:

Table 12. – Overstory Inventory for Stand 5.

After conducting the inventory and calculating several stand parameters, it was found that the Stand 1 understory was comprised of:

Table 13. – Understory Inventory for Stand 5.

Regeneration Results

The forest regeneration was measured by a checkmark tally.  The following regeneration was recorded as being present in the stands:

v     black cherry

v     red maple

v     pignut hickory

v     Christmas fern

v     sensitive fern

v     hawthorn

v     multiflora rose

v     bedstraw

v     Virginia creeper

v     black oak

v     yellow-poplar

v     white oak

v     sassafras

v     shining sumac (Rhus copallina)

v     thistle

v     groundpine tree clubmoss

v     northern red oak

v     milkweed

v     American beech

v     sugar maple

v     deer tongue

v     New York fern

v     common greenbrier

v     grapevine

Fauna Results

White-tailed Deer Results

            After completing the pellet count, the next step was to compile the data and enter it into the equation given in the methods section for white-tailed deer on page .  To calculate the population, the parts of the overall equation were discovered and set at:

v     average number of pellet groups per plot was 4 (200 pellet groups/50 plots)

v     the number of plots per ha was 1.67 (83.74 ha/50 plots)

v     3 days past since leaf fall

v     the defecation rate was set at 13 pellet groups per deer per day

v     # of deer per ha = 4 X 1.67   = 0.171 deer per ha

      3 X 13

v     0.171 deer per ha X 83.74 ha = 14.3 deer on the property

v     14.3 deer/83.74 ha = 44.22 deer/square kilometers

This population estimate is similar to other estimates that have been done in the region.  This number has been found to be slightly detrimental to forest regeneration and species diversity.  Population estimates ranging from 18 to 25 deer per km² have been found to be more desirable in relation to forest growth, regeneration, and composition.

Wild Turkey Results

The calculation of 7 turkeys/kilometer² (18 turkeys/mile²) is our predicted wild turkey population for the property from the pattern recognition technique.  In addition to this estimate, other observation allowed for support of our population estimate. 

Wild turkey flocks are present from our direct observations when walking the property on other occasions.  We observed a flock of 15 turkeys on the preliminary walk of the property on 25 September 2001.  Tony Scardina observed a flock with a similar number of turkeys on 23 October 2001 and 27 October 2001.

Ruffed Grouse Results

            The 83.74 ha tract was found to sustain 0.078 ruffed grouse per ha.  It is estimated that there are 6.53 (83.74 ha X 0.078 ruffed grouse per ha) ruffed grouse on the property.  This number is low because the property lacks proper habitat to sustain this species. 

The relative edge on the property was found by using the calculation and setting the equation parameters as:

v     4,371.21 m of edge on the property

v     83.74 ha

v     Relative edge = 2*log (3.79)  = 3.79 m/ha of edge on the property

  log 4,371.21   

Squirrel Results

The 83.74 ha tract was found to sustain 1.410 squirrels per ha.  Therefore, it is estimated that there are 118.07 (83.74 ha X 1.410 squirrels per ha) squirrels on the property.  This low number is primarily due to the lack of habitat continuity.  The forest stands compose only 44.31 ha or 53% of the property.  These stands form the outer border of the property and surround mowed pasture (FIG 1).  The stands support a limited number of squirrels due to the limited availability of den trees within the stands and the food patchiness within the property.  Since large open areas separate food patches and den sites, squirrels are further from safe retreat and are more apt to predation (Smith and Follmer 1972). 

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Results

            The population density for the 83.74 ha on the property is 0.406 rabbits per ha.  Therefore, the density on the property is estimated to be 34.00 rabbits (83.74 ha X 0.406 rabbits per ha).  This population is low because the property lacks vertical and horizontal structure close to the ground.  Without this structure, a viable rabbit population cannot be maintained.

Great Horned Owl Results 

The broadcasts did not succeed in producing a response from any individuals, so it is not possible to produce an accurate population estimate of great horned owls on the Fajvan-Lynn property at this time. However, it should be noted that it is known that the species is present on the property, as both the landowners and other members of this group have observed great horned owls several times. 

Great horned owls are habitat generalists and often tolerate more fragmentation and edge habitats than other forest-dwelling raptors (Bosakowski and Smith 1997).  They can be found in farm, mixed, or forested habitats (Morrell and Yahner 1995).  When a conifer stand is present, like the one on the Fajvan-Lynn property, it makes for a suitable habitat (Smith et al. 1999).  Great horned owls prefer a canopy cover that has small openings.  This is especially important when rearing young, as it allows for easier access to the nest, greater detection of potential predators, and increased sunlight for developing chicks (Smith et al. 1999).

            In order to estimate the abundance of great horned owls on the Fajvan-Lynn property, we should have conducted a systematic sample of the entire acreage.  Thirty points would be placed 167 m apart based on a square grid of the property to ensure that all of the area and habitats will be surveyed.  At each point, an observer would listen for owl calls prior to the broadcast and record individuals seen or heard.  A broadcast would then be played for 5 min with each responding individual being recorded (unless recorded 2 min prior).  A broadcast would consist of 6 sets of 20 sec calls.  Each set would be separated by a 40 sec period of silence.  After the 5 min of broadcast, the observer would remain for 5 min to listen further (Morrell and Yahner 1995).  Surveys should be conducted between 1600 and 0800 h and should not be conducted during periods of high wind or precipitation.  Each point would be surveyed once, for a total listening time of 360 min.  Mosher and Fuller (1996) used great-horned owl calls to survey species of woodland hawks, mainly red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus) and Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii).  If more than 4 hawks of either species are recorded while conducting surveys for great-horned owls, abundance estimates would be calculated for those species as well.

Barred Owl Results

The broadcasts did not succeed in eliciting a response from any individuals, so it is not possible to provide an accurate population estimate of barred owls on the Fajvan-Lynn property.  The landowner has observed the species previously.  However, a habitat suitability index (HSI) does exist for the barred owl and can be used to provide information in regards to the management of this species.

DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Fauna

White-tailed Deer

Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan and Robert Lynn highly stressed their concerns on the importance and use of white-tailed deer on the property.  The deer are hunted throughout the designated seasons and used as food whenever available.  They stressed that antler size would be attractive, but their use of deer for sustenance is more important.  Mr. Lynn also asked if food plots would be beneficial to the population, but he was concerned with the overall cost and maintenance.

Whitetails make extensive use of forest openings, so management efforts are often made to retain these areas (Halls 1984) and this should be done on the property.  These openings can be areas where woody growth is the expected natural cover, uncultivated natural openings, unmaintained agricultural plots, and places where tree cover has been reduced by means other than commercial clearcuttings (Halls 1984).  The goal is to hold these openings in an early seral stage for a longer period of time than normal (Halls 1984).  Mechanical equipment can be used to maintain and improve the openings on the property and it is suggested that the fields be mowed to maintain the herbaceous plants.  The property currently has a sufficient amount of openings but it is recommended that they be maintained to favor whitetail populations.

The use of silvicultural practices can be beneficial to whitetail populations on the property.  Although, this method of management can be uniformly beneficial or detrimental to deer habitat (Halls 1984).  A given intensity of cutting in a mature stand on 1 site may cause renewed growth of deer forage that will remain available for as long as 10 years (Halls 1984).  On another site a similar intense cutting may cause rapid growth of the understory beyond the reach of deer and resulting in habitat poorer in value than before (Halls 1984).  Shaw (1971) has recommended that periodic thinning in oak stands can produce the quantity of acorns required by deer and other wildlife species.  This type of practice could be implemented in Stand 2 and 3 on the property (Figure).  Clearcutting has also been found to be beneficial to deer populations, but it is obvious that the property has a sufficient amount of open areas and early successional habitats. 

On the property it is suggested that white-tailed deer management be primarily conducted through hunting methods.  Hunting management can manipulate the population, sex ratios, age class, and antler size of deer.  To reduce or maintain the deer population on the property is critical that the population’s annual recruitment be removed (Halls 1984).  Since annual recruitment in a healthy population averages 30% to 40%, mature animals must be harvested at about the same rate to keep the population in check with its habitat (Halls 1984).  To achieve this goal, it must be emphasized on the property to harvest does and yearlings more than bucks.  Decreasing the doe population and overall numbers of the local herd will supply surviving does and bucks with optimal forage and cover.  This affect will directly result in larger antler sizes and possibly future trophy whitetail status.

Supplemental plantings is another way to increase whitetail populations and antler size on the property.  The objective of planting is to provide palatable, digestible, and nutritious food for deer (Halls 1984).  These plantings will be affective for viewing deer, harvesting deer, increasing antler size, and assisting deer in severe, harsh weather conditions.  The plant species chosen for the property should be adaptable to the site, easy to establish, and maintainable at a minimum cost (Halls 1984).  Agricultural crops are often selected for planting and a number of wildlife agencies will plant crops to provide food and cover for deer (Halls 1984).  Plant species that are rich in protein and phosphorus include orchard grass, winter wheat, oats, rye, perennial ryegrasses, and forbs such as clover, alfalfa, and lespedezas (Halls 1984).  Fertilizing of these plants will increase the quality, nutritional value, and palatability (Halls 1984).  Woody species such as honeysuckle have also been planted for food and cover (Halls 1984).  Unfortunately, food plantings are costly and they require the preparation of a seedbed and investment in heavy equipment.  Many of these costs can be reduced with the use of your own equipment and funding from federal and state wildlife agencies for planting specific crops.  Still, plantings require commitment and a great deal of maintenance. 

Wildlife clearings and supplemental agriculture plantings may increase habitat potential, but they afford only temporary improvement, are costly to maintain, and are not widespread enough to influence critical land areas (Halls 1984).  The property satisfies many of these characteristics for providing proper habitat to white-tailed deer, but an increase in forests harvest may provide better food and cover for the population.

Wild Turkey

The property contains a sizable flock of turkeys.  Further observation in the spring should determine if the turkeys are reproducing on the property.  The available habitat is supporting this flock of turkeys.  Forest management should continue how it has been.  The timber needs to mature further.  The turkeys will benefit from increased mast yield from more mature trees. 

            Pertaining to habitat, there is significant lateral cover for breeding and nesting purposes.  Water is prevalent on the property so it would not be a limiting factor for poults.  There is one recommendation for brood-rearing habitat.  For the most part, the habitat for brood rearing is good.  We have observed the flock of turkeys near the northeastern corner of the property in the field.  I feel they use this field often because landowner disturbance is infrequent.  This field would be prime brood-rearing habitat if left unmowed until mid to late summer.  This would furnish the young poults with the cover needed to search for an abundance of insects.  A healthy diet of insects will guarantee survival of the poults.  The turkeys could benefit from the escape routes from that field to the red pine plantation to the southwest, Stand 3, consisting of mixed hardwoods directly north and west, or to Stand 5 consisting of cove hardwoods directly south.

There can be some adjustments to fall and winter habitat.  Available food on the property is prevalent.  This was a good year for mast, and there are plenty of acorns and other fruit-producing species.  Apart from the landowner’s garden, I would recommend planting 2 or 3 rows of corn along the southern edge of the northeastern field.  This would further benefit the wild turkey population over the winter on the property.

Turkey hunting is not an issue on the property.  If permission were granted for turkey hunting, I would recommend only a spring gobbler season hunt.  Norman et al. (2001) concluded that fall hunting affects population dynamics more than production.  Pack et al. (1999) indicates that restricting fall hunting may accelerate the growth rate of a wild turkey population.  Until actual turkey population and reproduction figures are determined, I will recommend a halt to fall turkey hunting.      

Ruffed Grouse

Habitat management is critical to ruffed grouse management.  The early successional habitat required by ruffed grouse is by nature ephemeral (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  However, it is impractical to allow the return of natural or prescribed fires on many landscapes, therefore timber harvest and proactive habitat management must be regularly implemented (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  

Most all aspects of a ruffed grouse’s life are dependent upon forest structure (McDonald et al. 1989).  Forest attributes of importance are natural edge habitat, even aged stands in early successional stages, a high basal area, moderate to high percent canopy closure, high stem densities, extensive vertical layering of vegetation, and optimum forage.  Implementation of habitat management practices about every 10 years will provide a continuous supply of quality ruffed grouse habitat to the landscape.  Forest types that reach maturity at a faster rate can be managed using shorter rotations (Dessecker and McAuley 2001). 

The relative edge for the property is 3.79 m per ha.  Ruffed grouse require natural edge, meaning the transition from one cover type to the next is gradual (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).   Negative-edge-type harvesting patterns reduce both dissimilar edge types among stands as well as distinct edges between cut and uncut stands (Baskent 1997).  This harvest pattern mimics natural disturbance, creating patch size distributions similar to primal forests (Baskent 1997).

Negative-edge-type harvesting strategy is based on edge contrasts or similarities between neighboring stands (Baskent 1997).  Dissimilar forest conditions are favored for harvest over similar forest conditions (Baskent 1997).  Similarity is based on the developmental stages of over mature, mature, immature, young, and clearcut stands.  The less the developmental stages are different from each other, the more similar the edge (Baskent 1997).  This harvesting pattern maximizes core area, while providing natural edge habitat (Baskent 1997). 

Based on negative-edge-type harvesting strategy, strip clearcuts should be performed around the edges of all the fields to reduce hard contrast edges.  Strip width should be equal to the height of the surrounding boarder trees (Nyland 1996).  After the strip clearcut is done on the edges, it is recommended that these areas should be cut in ways to maintain an early succsional habitat.  Additional strip clearcuts could be performed between different stands to increase edge and promote regeneration. 

Forest structure associated with high grouse densities relies on a balance between partial canopy closure and high basal area (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Forest stands with a canopy closure of 70%-89% have shown to support high ruffed grouse densities (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Basal area is influenced by stem density and diameter, while diameter is a function of age and site quality (Wiggers et al. 1992).  High stem densities are important structural attributes of grouse habitat (Wiggers et al. 1992).  Forest age classes between 7-15 years provide sufficient percent canopy closure and basal area, however forest stands must be comprised of 14% or more of these age classes to support high grouse densities (Wigger et al. 1992).  This correlation between grouse densities, basal area, and canopy closure suggests that 7-15 year-old hardwood regeneration stands have a high potential as habitat for ruffed grouse (Wiggers et al. 1992).  The larger stems and shrubs provided by this age class yield over head protection and vertical screening from predators, as well as allowing growth of ground vegetation (Wiggers et al. 1992). 

      Even-aged timber harvesting practices are the most appropriate methods to create ruffed grouse habitat.  Group selection methods are capable of producing stem densities comparable to clearcuts, while still retaining high basal area and percent canopy closure (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  These methods remove sufficient canopy from the parent stand which will result in understory development, providing protection and browse for ruffed grouse (Dessecker and McAuley 2001). 

      An individual selection harvest of shelterwood trees in the stand would also open sufficient canopy to allow growth of the understory and increase basal area (Dessecker and McAuley 2001).  Timber should be harvested upon reaching maturity.  All coniferous trees should be maintained and kept at a height less than 5 meters.  This will promote clumps and low-lying branches.  Due to the landowner’s desire to retain the red pine plantation, this management practice may not be implemented.

Silvicultural practices that maintain production of herbaceous leaves should increase carrying capacity through out winter and spring (Norman and Kirkpatrick 1984).  Management practices insuring abundances of hard and soft mast species should also be considered due to the available energy stored as fat reserves (Norman and Kirkpatrick 1984). 

The implementation of recommended strip clearcuts along fields would insure constant forage, as well as increase insect availability.  Stands 1-4 are dominated by white oak, and provide hard mast, as a fall-winter food crop.  Yearly mowing and rotary brush cutting should maintain the fields on the property in order to provide a diverse variety of wild herbaceous plants.  Any one of the small fields should be disked yearly prior to 15 April to encourage early succession of wild herbaceous plants.  Shrub thickets should be maintained by removing all trees greater than 5 m in height.  This again can be accomplished by implementing the strip clearcuts around the field.  All skid roads on the property, as well as forested openings can be seeded with  alfalfa, crown vetch (Coronilla varia), orchard grass (Dactylis spp.), or clover and should be fertilized.  Warm season grasses could be planted on any of the small fields on the property.  These should occur in pure stands and be maintained by haying between mid July and early September.

All recommended management practices are designed to increase desirable habitat structure and increase food availability for ruffed grouse.  It is apparent that most of these practices will require a commitment to forest management techniques if so desired.

Squirrels

There are several ways to increase squirrel populations on the property, yet some give prompt results while others may take years until the effects are noticed.  We will address the need for nesting habitat and forage availability.  Although the 5 stands on the property support favorable squirrel forage in both hard and soft mast species, they are relatively low in basal area.   By improving the living conditions of the property, squirrel populations should be able to attain relatively high densities per ha due to the abundance of food and increased cover.  To improve squirrel populations in the long-term, 4-6 mast trees per ha should be maintained, which can provide den sites once they reach the 50 year age class.  Also the stands should be thinned periodically to promote crown magnification of favored mast species, such as oak and hickory.  The thinning should remove less than 40% of mast producing age (25-30 years old) trees (Davis 1978).  

Short term nesting improvements on the property to increase den sites can be done by using nest boxes, since existing cull trees are very few in number.  Nesting boxes have been shown to increase successful reproduction up to 2.5 times versus the use of den trees or leaf nests (Mississippi State University Extension Service 2000).  Nesting boxes have been also been shown to increase populations of squirrels (Nixon and Donohoe 1979, Burger et al. 1969).  A study conducted in West Virginia illustrated that up to 50% of introduced nesting boxes were utilized by squirrels (Smith 1965).   Therefore nesting boxes can play an important role in squirrel management.

The landowners can increase forage by leaving unharvested grain crops, such as corn, along the forest edges and fencerows.  In doing so the landowner will enhance forage availability for both squirrels and other target game species.   By selecting high fat content crops to plant along fencerows and forest edges the landowner can increase the nutritional benefits to the property’s abundance of mast species already present (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2000). 

Ideal nesting box position, locations, and sizes have been outlined in numerous studies. (Davis 1978, Nixon et al. 1984, McComb et al. 1981, Ivey and Frampton 1987).  One method of constructing boxes is from 2.54 cm weather resistant lumber, yet any type will work.  A wooden example from Mississippi State University Extension Service (2001), Special Publication 884 is shown below:

Figure 1. – Wooden Nest Box Construction for Squirrels.

      Another method for constructing next boxes is by using old automobile tires. An example from Mississippi State University Extension Service (2001), Special Publication 884 shows how to build nest boxes using a tire and is shown below:

Figure 2. – Tire Nest Box Construction for Squirrels.

	Insert the "U-shaped" support wire into the metal tube fixed to one end of the rope. Throw free end of rope over selected branch and pull tire up to branch. U-shaped support wire slips over branch. Shake rope free of wire tire support.

Squirrel nest boxes have been found to be effective when placed in numerous habitat types from fencerows (Hesselschwerdt 1942) and woodlots (Allen 1943) to extensive forest stands (Barkalow and Soot 1965a).  Since the stands average 30.53 cm in DBH, the nest boxes will allow squirrels to use immature timber where food supplies are adequate, but den tree cavities are few (Nixon and Donohoe 1979, Burger 1969).  Wooden boxes should be mounted 8 to 10 m above the ground using 40-penny aluminum nails and a metal hanging wire, and should be placed in non-cavity trees (Teaford 1986).  Tire boxes should be suspended from a large limb near the tree trunk using a bent steel rod in the shape of a hook (Teaford 1986).  Dry leaves or straw should be used to fill the box halfway to encourage use.  Each summer the boxes should be inspected and have the bedding replaced.  Barkalow and Soots (1965a) noted that 2 boxes per ha was a reasonable goal where squirrels are considered the target species, yet Sanderson (1975) noted that 6-12 boxes per ha should be installed in high priority management areas.  Therefore 2-5 nest boxes per ha should be installed by the landowner to maximize the long-term benefits of nest boxes and also because a family of squirrels may utilize 3 different boxes in the same year.  Therefore 89-222 nest boxes should be constructed and placed within the forest stands and fencerows of the property.  After installation of the boxes, records should be maintained on box location, height above ground, squirrel species usage, etc. so that relocation of boxes can more easily be determined and the success rate of the boxes can be assessed.

Teaford (1986) estimates that considering breakage, etc. it would take 725 bd ft of lumber per 100 wooden nest boxes, 10 lb of 6-penny galvanized nails, 11 lb of 8-penny galvanized nails, 220 40-penny non-ferrous nails, 2 lb of ¾” staples hangers, and 64 in² roll of galvanized ½” wire mesh would be needed to complete construction. For 100 tire nest boxes Teaford (1986) states it would require 50 automobile tires, 150 ft. of 3/8” hot-rolled steel rod, 3/4lb of 2” galvanized roofing nails, and 1 lb of roofing caps. It would further require a total 10-20 man-hours to build 100 nest boxes and an additional 12 man-days to install the 100 boxes.

Barkalow and Soots (1965b) noted that to help prevent predation from occurring on nesting squirrels, the openings of the boxes should always be round and never exceed 6.35 cm.  The dimensions of the wooden box should also be adhered to, since predation was a large factor in the design of the box (Teaford 1986).  Also when doing maintenance checks caution should be exercised since stinging insects and snakes may be found in the boxes (Flyger and Cooper 1967).

Cottontail Rabbits

Research has shown that dense vegetation near the ground is a key habitat determinate for eastern cottontails (Althoff et al. 1997).  The mowing of fescue along dense woody edge has been found to increase cottontail use and could substantially increase overall populations (Morgan and Gates 1983).  Early leaf out common with shrubs provides shelter from predators as well as adverse weather conditions (Althoff et al. 1997).  Old-fields, shrublands, and shrub-woodlands were considered highly suitable resting cover for cottontails (Althoff et al. 1997).  Cottontails prefer vegetation that allows them to move with agility and speed through and under cover to avoid predation (Morgan and Gates 1983). 

The creation of brush piles 4-6 m in diameter, 1-2 m high, and placed 50-100 m apart should be placed near the edges of woodlots, weedy fencerows, or the edges of pastures and hay fields (Chapman et al. 1982).  The brush piles offer instant cover for the cottontails and will dramatically increase the number of cottontails quickly; however, this is only a temporary solution unless piles are replaced every 3-5 years. 

Strip mowing of old fields will also be beneficial to cottontail habitat by increasing edge and maintaining early succession.  The planting of a mixture of warm and cool season grasses in the strips will increase the desirable habitat of cottontails (Althoff et al. 1997).  The strips should be mowed periodically over the growing season to ensure succulent vegetation is maximized for juvenile cottontails. 

Early succession must be kept to ensure a viable cottontail population.  If old-fields are allowed to grow into forested sites, than that habitat is no longer suitable for cottontails and has grown into the range of squirrels and turkey.      

The edges of all hay meadows should be mowed at least twice a year to ensure succulent new growth that is beneficial and preferred by eastern cottontails.  Mowing once in mid to late spring and then again in mid summer will ensure that there is succulent vegetation throughout the spring and summer into the fall.  One strip should be placed in the center of the old field beside the barn and mowed at the same times as the hay fields.  This will improve feeding sites for eastern cottontails allowing them to feed close to necessary cover to avoid predation.

Brush piles should be constructed every 50 to 100 m along the edges of the hay fields along mowing lines.  The brush piles will provide the necessary cover to increase and distribute populations throughout the property.  The brush piles can be constructed from course woody debris found on the forest floor or from small cuts along the forest edge to promote early successional habitat.  The brush piles will provide important vertical and horizontal structure for the eastern cottontail enabling them to survive and reproduce.  Due to decomposition of the woody debris, the brush piles should be replaced every 3 to 5 years.

Great Horned Owls

Two major requirements of the great horned owl are prey availability and suitable roosting sites.  There is a sufficient amount of prey on the property, so the major management factor is habitat selection.  Because, a Habitat Selection Index does not exist for this species, it makes it more difficult to make recommendations in regards to habitat.  However, the great horned owl is a habitat generalist, making it easier to manage for than other owl species. 

            The Fajvan-Lynn property is divided into forested stands numbered 1 through 5.  Hagar (1957) reported that great horned owls preferred nesting in woodlots 8 ha or larger.  Stand 2 is a smaller area and would need either plantings or a sufficient amount of time for regeneration to occur to make this stand suitable for great horned owls.  This species prefers fragmented forested habitats so edges should be left as they are on the property.

            Snags and large trees with cavities are not abundant on the property.  Therefore, any new snags or cavities that are encountered should be left in place.  Furthermore, platforms may be constructed in larger trees to encourage nests to be placed there.  A 60.96 X 60.96 cm platform placed in the branch of a large deciduous or conifer tree with abundant canopy cover would suffice.  Because great horned owls occupy the nests’ of other species, it may take a little while for great horned owl nests to be found on these platforms.

            Surveys should be conducted at a later date to review and revise these recommendations for great horned owls on the property.   

Barred Owls                                                           

The three habitat variables for the barred owl HSI pertain to reproductive habitat quality.  The first variable is a function of the number of trees > 51 cm DBH/0.4 ha.  The second variable is the number of trees that have a mean overstory DBH > 51 cm.  Finally, the third variable is whether or not the canopy cover of the overstory trees is > 60% (Allen 1987).  When these three variables are met, it is supposed to be indicative of a mature old-growth stand with a canopy that is more closed.  Ironically, none of the stands present on the Fajvan-Lynn property meet any of these criteria; however, several of the stand types are the optimal types for barred owls.  Stands 3 and 4 contain the desired tree species, while Stand 1 contains American beech (Fagus grandifolia), which was recorded to be one of the most frequently used nest trees (Apfelbaum and Seelbach 1983). 

Therefore, while forest conditions are not optimal for the barred owl at this time, the existing cover types and stand compositions could provide suitable barred owl habitat; however adequate time is needed before they mature into larger, old growth stands that are necessary for prime barred owl habitat.  Additionally, artificial structures for nesting can be emplaced successfully (Johnson 1980). These structures should be placed in larger oaks, beech, and hickories.  Surveys should be conducted at a later date to review and revise these recommendations for barred owls on this property.

Management Strategies

Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan and Robert Lynn have proposed interest in managing white-tailed deer, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, squirrels, eastern cottontail rabbits, great horned owls, and barred owls on their 84.73 ha tract.  Our goal is to provide the landowners with management options that integrate the desired species.  These management options include:

No Management

This option entails no manipulation or management on the current flora and fauna of the property.  This option is possible but desired species may not be as abundant throughout the property and may not be have adequate habitat, cover, and food.

Management Option

       This option integrates the desired species, yet gives specific management scenarios that apply to each individual species.  This option allows you to individually select which management techniques you may like to pursue in relation to specific species.  You can perform all management techniques for all of the species or you can choose a few.  The management techniques recommended are (Figure 8):

v     White-tailed deer:   Harvest adult does and yearlings on the property and reduce the buck harvest.  This will reduce habitat competition and food competition and will create larger antler sizes and healthier deer. 

v     Wild Turkey:   Plant 2-3 rows of corn in the southern edge of the northeastern field to provide turkey with supplemental food for winter months.  Reduce or eliminate all fall turkey hunting to ensure a viable population and protect poults.

v     Ruffed Grouse:   Perform strip clearcuts along field edges to maintain a natural transition zone between fields and mature forest stands.  Seed skid roads with alfalfa to provide desired herbaceous plant growth. 

v     Squirrels:   Singletree selection harvests should be performed to promote the growth of mast producing trees.  In the stands where adequate den trees are not present, nest boxes should be constructed to raise population densities on the property.

v     Eastern cottontail rabbit:  Brush piles should be constructed along field edges to increase population numbers on the property.  These piles can be constructed from timber harvested from the prescribed strip clearcuts or from the single tree selection harvest.  Field edges should also be mowed at least twice a growing season to ensure adequate succulent vegetation.

v     Owls:   Platforms should be constructed in large coniferous and deciduous trees to promote nesting activity of great horned and barred owls.  Trees can be girdled to release oaks to increase mast production and at the same time create nesting habitat for owls, this practice can be used as a substitute to a singletree selection harvest. 

       Revenue generated from timber harvests could be used to fund seeding, and the construction of nesting boxes and platforms on the property.  Additional assistance for some of these activities can be found through the West Virginia Division of Forestry and the USDA private landowner assistance program.

Table 14. – Time schedule to create management plan. 

Table 15. – Time schedule to conduct management activities.

Table 16. – Cost estimate for the wildlife management plan and assessment.

Table 17. – Cost estimate for the wildlife management implementation.