WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES SCIENCE 447W
Management Plan for
Stone Valley Site
Joshua Sean Detweiler
12/10/2013
Property Description
The property chosen for management is in the Stone Valley forest directly off of Scare
Pond Road in Petersburg, Pennsylvania. The property contains secondary successional forest
habitat and mature forest habitat. About half of the property includes secondary successional
habitat and the other half is made up of mature forest habitat. Some small fields also exist outside
and around the property, but it is mainly enclosed by mature forest stands. The property is
approximately a 1.5 to 2 hectare section that parallels Scare Pond Road (see figure 1.1). There is
a small creek that is part of the Shaver’s Creek Watershed that runs directly through the property.
The creek varies in size along the entire stretch, but its average size is 5m wide.
Figure 1.1- Aerial map of plot sites 1 and 2. Plot site 1 is the
early successional forest and plot site 2 is the mature growth
forest
Landowner Objectives
The property is owned by The Pennsylvania State University. Their main campus,
University Park, is located in State College PA, about 20 minutes from the property, with 23
other commonwealth campuses all over Pennsylvania. Penn State wants to manage properties to
increase the abundance and diversity of wildlife and plant composition. They take pride in the
wildlife and habitat that they manage in order to provide recreational services including bird
watching, hunting, hiking and also educational opportunities. The management objectives chosen
for this site include:

Increase ruffed grouse sightings by 25%

Double the amount of red-tailed hawk and cooper’s hawk sightings

Increase native shrub species to half of property by 75%
Inventory of Current Conditions
The property in Stone Valley is divided into two different plots each about 1 hectare. The
first plot (plot site 1) is a secondary successional area that has been inhabited mostly by shrubs
and ground cover. There is a small canopy layer made up from immature tree species. This
canopy allows for a lot of light thereby increasing the abundance of shrub species. The type of
shrub species includes: Obtuse leaf privet (Ligustrum obtusifolium), Honeysuckle (Lonicera
spp.), and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii). All of these species are invasive and provide
a very limited amount of space for native plant and shrub species.
There is a small variety of wildlife species that inhabit plot site 1. They include: Whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Fox Squirrel (Sciurus
niger), Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaiccensis), and Cooper’s
Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The diversity of the wildlife species is not overwhelming, but they
are species that are typically found in areas similar to this one.
Plot site 1 will be managed for birds of prey species including the Red-tailed hawk and
Cooper’s hawk. This plot site has a good water source from the creek that runs through the plot
site and there is also good forest habitat for songbird species that birds of prey can use for a food
source. This plot site lacks the forest edge habitat needed to birds of prey species to thrive. There
is too much low cover in which they cannot hunt for food. A mature forest stand with an edge
leading into a small field is needed (“Red-tailed Hawk”).
Figure 2.2- Plot site 1
Figure 2.1- Plot site 1
The second plot (plot site 2) is a mature forest stand with little secondary successional
cover. Even with the mature forest stand, the canopy is relatively sparse and open. The mature
forest is surrounded by secondary successional habitat. The tree species that occupy this plot site
include: Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), White Pine
(Pinus strobus), Musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and White Oak (Quercus alba).
The creek runs through the middle of plot site 2 similar to plot site 1. The size of the
creek does not vary in size considerably with a continued average size of 5m. Some of the
wildlife species in plot site 2 include: White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Gray Squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), and Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger).
Plot site 2 will primarily be managed in order to increase ruffed grouse populations in the
plot site. Plot site 2 has a good water source with the presence of the creek to provide for the
ruffed grouse populations. Most of the plant species that inhabit plot site 2 are native and not
invasive, but more introductions of native shrub species are needed in order to develop a
secondary successional habitat stage. Grouse prefer areas with an abundance of cover and fallen
down trees in order for them to participate in their courtship behaviors of drumming. This
behavior is when male grouse finds a fallen log to stand on while he beats his wings back and
forth to create a drumming sound. This in turn attracts a female in order to mate. This plot site
has the water supply, but needs the cover habitat for ruffed grouse to reside in (Jones).
Figure 3.1- Plot site 2
Figure 3.2- Plot site 2
Habitat Management Practices
This management plan is a 5 year plan. It will involve processes such as clear cuttings
followed by regenerations, deer fencing, and introductions of native plant species. The first year
would be focused on plot site 2 and increasing ruffed grouse sightings. In order to allow for
secondary successional species to regenerate in plot site 2, it is recommended that a deer fence
enclosure be put around the 1 hectare section. This deer fence would encompass the entire 1
hectare section and have a height of 8-10ft. This will keep deer out in order for the secondary
plant species to regenerate and create a thicker base layer on the forest floor. This will create
more woody debris and thick cover in which the ruffed grouse can inhabit. This deer fence
would continue to remain up for the entire 5 years.
The second year would focus on both plot sites. First would be an introduction of native
shrub and tree species into plot site 2 where they would be protected by the deer fence. Species
including: Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), Black Birch (Betula
lenta, and Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) would be introduced.
50 of each species would be introduced in plot site 2. These introductions would promote native
plant species in the area and restrict invasive species. These species will also help in the
introduction of a secondary successional forest stand. In the second year, initiation of managing
plot site 1 to double the bird of prey populations will also take place. This would be
accomplished through clear cutting sections of plot site 1. Half of plot site 1 would be clear cut
to create a forest edge habitat with an open area that connects to it. The clear cutting would begin
directly off of the road that runs perpendicular to the entire property and would continue into half
of plot site 2 towards plot site 1. This will add habitat for small mammals such as mice and
rodents that Red-tailed hawks and Cooper’s hawks can prey on. It will also create habitat for
these birds to live and make nests in which will aid in increasing population sizes in the area.
Years three and four of this plan would be years of observation. No specific actions
would occur this year, but observations of the areas would be recorded in order to make sure
things are going as planned. These two years will give more time for the secondary successional
forest stand, in plot site 2, to regenerate and thrive and then mix in with the forest habitat that
was not clear cut in plot site 1. These years would also give the introduced native plant species in
plot site 2 time to grow and fill the whole plot site.
Year 5 would then focus on observation of the sites and removing the deer fence to allow
wildlife species to acclimate to the area. This would include more ruffed grouse populations that
congregate in the new secondary successional and mature forest habitat created by the actions
over the last 5 years.
Plan Evaluation
Evaluating the success of this plan would come in a variety of ways. In order to evaluate
the success of increasing ruffed grouse populations, there would be surveys given out to hunters
in order to find out if they saw any ruffed grouse in these plot site areas of Stone Valley and if
any of these hunters bagged any ruffed grouse. Bird watchers can also be surveyed in order to
figure how many ruffed grouse were sighted. Drumming surveys would also be administered in
the area to get a rough estimate on the population of male ruffed grouse in the area. Point count
surveys would also take place to provide another population number of ruffed grouse. To
evaluate the success of doubling Red-tailed and Cooper’s hawk sightings, surveys would again
be given to bird watchers in order to get an exact number of birds sighted and recorded in the
area. Nest surveys would also take place to get the number of nesting pairs in the area. To
evaluate the introductions of native plant species in the area, native plant species abundance
surveys would take place. This would give a good population estimate of native plant species in
the area. These studies and surveys would be conducted 4 times each year (spring, summer, fall,
and winter) for 3 years in order to develop an accurate number of individuals that congregated
the area over the 3 year period.
Budget
This management plan would incur a good amount of costs to it. The total amount of
fencing that would be needed for this plan would be around 2.5 acres. With the current pricing
on fencing, this job would cost about $25,000 in materials. Labor would add another few
thousand dollars. Labor for maintenance on the fence would add a couple hundred dollars each
year the fence remains intact. The price of saplings that would be planted would be around $75
for 50. This adds another $225 to the amount. Because of the little mature forest stand in plot site
1, no timber sales would occur as a result of little to know valuable timber. In all, this plan would
cost between $28,000 and $30,000.
Figure 4.1- Budget for Stone Valley Site Management Plan
Costs
Fencing
Labor for fencing
Saplings
Totals
Total Cost
Year 1
Year 2
25,000
100
3,000
300
0
225
28,000
625
29,425
Year
Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
100
100
0
300
300
0
0
0
0
400
400
0
References
Jones C. Benjamin, Miller H. Eric, Williams, Lisa. “Habitat Management for Pennsylvania
Ruffed Grouse.” Pennsylvania Game Commission.
“Red-tailed Hawk.” Audobon. 2013. http://birds.audubon.org/birds/red-tailed-hawk