Final White-tailed Deer Management Plan 

for John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

at Tinicum, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Wildlife Services 

Gino J. D’Angelo, Ph.D. 

Wildlife Biologist 

New Britain, Pennsylvania 

USFWS 

Forested area of refuge showing low regeneration 



2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND .........................................................10

 Refuge History .....................................................................................................................10 

 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................12 

 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................12 

 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................13 

 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................13 

 Statement of Refuge Objectives ...........................................................................................14 

 Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System ..........................................................14 

Purposes of John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum ..................................14 

 Deer Ecology and Management ...........................................................................................14 

 History of Deer in Southeastern Pennsylvania ..........................................................14 

 Deer Ecology .............................................................................................................16 

 Current Deer Management Conditions in Pennsylvania ............................................17 

SECTION 2: PURPOSE and MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ...............................................18

 White-tailed Deer Management Plan: Need, Purpose, and Objectives ..............................18 

 Need for Deer Management Planning ........................................................................18 

 Purpose of Deer Management Planning ....................................................................19 

 Objectives of Deer Management Planning ................................................................19 

 An Integrated Approach to Managing Damage by Deer .....................................................19 

 Components of the Integrated Approach .............................................................................20

 Define Goals ..............................................................................................................20 
3

 Identify the Problem ..................................................................................................20 

 Establish Monitoring ..................................................................................................20 

 Develop a Management Plan .....................................................................................20 

 Options for Management .....................................................................................................20 

 No Action ...................................................................................................................20 

 Non-lethal Damage Management ..............................................................................20 

 Population Management ............................................................................................21 

 Population Management Alternatives ..................................................................................21 

 Sport-hunting .............................................................................................................21 

 Controlled Hunts ........................................................................................................21 

 Professional Deer Removal ........................................................................................21 

 Relocation ..................................................................................................................21 

 Fertility Control .........................................................................................................22 

SECTION 3: METHODS of DEER RESEARCH on the REFUGE ......................................23

 Habitat Analyses ..................................................................................................................23 

 Characterization of Deer Habitat ...............................................................................23 

 Forest Regeneration Surveys .....................................................................................24 

 Deer Density Surveys ...........................................................................................................26 

 Roving Surveys ..........................................................................................................26 

 Baited Surveys ...........................................................................................................27 

 

 Deer Herd Health Check ......................................................................................................30 

 Deer Removal ............................................................................................................30 

 

 Collection of Biological Data ....................................................................................30 
4

 Contaminants Testing ................................................................................................31 

 Other Related Indices ...........................................................................................................31 

SECTION 4: RESULTS, DISCUSSION, and RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................32 

 Habitat Analyses ...................................................................................................................32 

 Characterization of Deer Habitat ...............................................................................32 

 Forest Regeneration Surveys .....................................................................................34 

 Deer Density Surveys ...........................................................................................................39 

 Roving Surveys ..........................................................................................................39 

 Baited Surveys ...........................................................................................................41 

 

 Deer Population Dynamics ........................................................................................42 

 

 Deer Herd Health Check .......................................................................................................45 

 

 Biological Indices ......................................................................................................45 

 Contaminants Testing ................................................................................................47 

 Other Related Indices ...........................................................................................................49 

 Deer-vehicle Collisions ..............................................................................................49 

 Lyme Disease .............................................................................................................50 

 

 Recommendations ................................................................................................................51 

 Deer Management ......................................................................................................51 

 Forest Management ....................................................................................................51 

SECTION 5: PROPOSED DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ........................................53 

 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................53 

 Conformance with Statutory Authority ...............................................................................53 
5

 The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 ..........................53 

 Executive Order 12996 ..............................................................................................53 

 National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act .....................................................53 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 ..................................................................................54 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ...............................................................................54 

 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 50 ............................................................54 

 Deer Management Purpose ..................................................................................................55 

 Objectives ............................................................................................................................55 

 Relationship of Deer Management Program to Goals and Objectives ......................56 

 Relationship to Other Plans and Documents .............................................................56 

 Assessment ...........................................................................................................................57 

 Guidelines for Wildlife Control Specialist Deer Population Management ......................... 57 

 Description of Possible Deer Management Program with Hunting ......................................57 

 Guidelines for Future Archery Hunt Program ...........................................................57 

 If Areas Open to Archery Hunting .............................................................................57 

 Species to be Taken ...................................................................................................59 

 Justification for Requiring Refuge Special Use Hunt Permits .................................. 59 

 Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with the State ...................................59 

 Methods of Control and Enforcement in Potential Future Archery Hunt ..................60 

 Staffing and Funds to Facilitate Archery Hunt if Implemented ................................60 

 Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives ..........................61 

 Biological Conflict .....................................................................................................61 

 Public Use Conflicts ..................................................................................................61 
6

 Administrative Conflicts ............................................................................................61 

 Potential Implementation of Archery Hunt ..........................................................................61

 Federal Regulations ...................................................................................................61 

 State Regulations .......................................................................................................62 

 Refuge-specific Archery Hunting Regulations ..........................................................62 

 Anticipated Public Reaction ......................................................................................64 

 Recommended Hunter Selection Process ..................................................................64 

 Hunter Application and Registration Procedures if Implemented .............................64 

 Recommended Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing Hunts .................65 

 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................65 

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................66 
7

TABLES 

1 Annual Deer Abundance Estimates by Refuge Staff ..............................................................12 

2 Results of Baited Deer Surveys ..............................................................................................43 

3 Indices of Physical Condition of Deer Collected for Herd Health Check ..............................46 

4 Concentrations of Trace Elements in Deer Collected for Herd Health Check .......................48 

5 Rates of Deer-vehicle Collisions Locally ...............................................................................49 

6 Rates of Lyme Disease Infection Locally ...............................................................................50
8

FIGURES

1 Map of Study Area ..................................................................................................................11 

2 Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Management Units ..............................................17 

3 Map of Area Used for Characterization of Deer Habitat ........................................................23 

4 Locations of Forest Regeneration Survey Plots ......................................................................24 

5 Example Photograph of Fenced Forest Regeneration Subplot ...............................................25 

6 Route of Roving Deer Survey and Survey Observation Zones ..............................................26 

7 Photograph Example of Uniquely Identifiable Bucks ............................................................28 

8 Photographic Example of Does and Fawns ............................................................................28 

9 Locations of Baited Infrared Cameras for Deer Surveys ........................................................29 

10 Map of Characterized Deer Habitats .......................................................................................33 

11 Available Deer Habitats ..........................................................................................................34 

12 Vertical Plant Cover in Unfenced Forest Regeneration Subplots ...........................................36 

13 Vertical Plant Cover in Fenced Forest Regeneration Subplots ...............................................37 

14 Aerial Plant Cover in Unfenced and Fenced Forest Regeneration Subplots ..........................38 

15 Annual Results of Roving Deer Surveys ................................................................................39 

16 Monthly Results of Roving Deer Surveys ..............................................................................40 

17 Proportions of Deer Observed per Roving Survey Zone ........................................................41 

18 Map of Characterized Deer Habitats per Baited Camera Service Area ..................................44 

19 Body Weight versus Chest Girth for JHNWR Deer Relative to PA Deer ..............................47 

20 Potential Stand Locations for Archery Sport-hunters .............................................................58 
9

APPENDICES 

A Literature Summary of Deer Spatial Dynamics .....................................................................72 

B Literature Summary of Deer Removal Methods ....................................................................74 

C Overstory Tree Composition of Forest Regeneration Plots ...................................................77 

D Plant Cover Measurements of Forest Regeneration Surveys, Early Growing Season ...........78 

E Plant Cover Measurements of Forest Regeneration Surveys, Late Growing Season .............79 

F Dominant Plant Species of Forest Regeneration Plots ...........................................................80 

G.1 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 1, Early Growing Season 2009 ...........81 

G.2 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 1, Late Growing Season 2009 .............82 

H.1 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 2, Early Growing Season 2009 ...........83 

H.2 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 2, Late Growing Season 2009 .............84 

I.1 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 3, Early Growing Season 2009 .............85 

I.2 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 3, Late Growing Season 2009 ..............86 

J.1 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 4, Early Growing Season 2009 ............87 

J.2 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 4, Late Growing Season 2009 ..............88 

K.1 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 5, Early Growing Season 2009 ...........89 

K.2 Reference Photographs of Forest Regeneration Plot 5, Late Growing Season 2009 .............90 

L Results of Individual Roving Deer Surveys ...........................................................................91 
10

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND 

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population on John Heinz National 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum (herein, JHNWR or Refuge) was believed to surpass the carrying 

capacity of available habitat, causing severe ecological damage that negatively affected all other 

native species of flora and fauna. Refuge staff consulted with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (herein, USDA 

APHIS WS) to study the deer population on JHNWR and the effects of deer on habitat, wildlife, 

and humans. The purpose of this deer management plan is to institute a sound biological 

program to efficiently manage the deer population within a sustainable healthy balance with the 

habitat and objectives of the Refuge. 

Refuge History 

JHNWR was established under Public Law 92-326 (86 Stat. 392), passed by Congress in 

June 1972, in which authorization was given to the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 1,200 

acres to establish the Tinicum National Environmental Center to be administered as a unit of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). In November 1991 the name of the refuge 

was changed to John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum to honor the late Senator who 

helped preserve Tinicum Marsh. The Refuge currently holds title to approximately 993 acres of 

the authorized 1,200 acres. These 993 acres consist of 324 acres of upland habitat, as well as 

337 acres of wetlands, and 332 acres of open water. 

JHNWR was established to preserve and restore the natural resources of Tinicum Marsh, 

which represents the largest freshwater tidal marsh that remains in Pennsylvania. It is an urban 

wildlife refuge located in southeastern Pennsylvania within Delaware County and the City and 

County of Philadelphia. The areas surrounding the Refuge are highly urbanized and include 

Philadelphia International Airport; and industrial, commercial and residential areas. Over many 

years, the refuge has been a resting and feeding area for more than 300 species of birds, 80 of 

which nest on the refuge. A wide variety of wildlife including mammals, birds, reptiles, 

amphibians, and fish inhabit the Refuge. JHNWR is a designated Important Bird Area and an 

Important Mammal Area. The Refuge adjoins or includes portions of six municipalities within 

Delaware County (Figure 1). 

Acreage was acquired under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) 

and the Refuge Recreation Act. Land acquired under the MBCA is “...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary and for any other management purposes for migratory birds...,” Lands acquired under 

the Refuge Recreation Act permit consumptive and non-consumptive forms of recreation 

provided that the activity is compatible with the Refuge’s establishing purpose and sufficient 

funds are available to administer those uses. The Refuge Recreation Act also maintains that 

Refuges are closed to all public use unless the refuge manager expressly “opened” it to that use 

via publication of a notice in the Federal Register. 

JHNWR protects the largest remaining freshwater tidal marsh in Pennsylvania, as well as 

serving as an important link along the Atlantic Flyway for annual bird migrations. The founding 

purpose of the Refuge by Congress was specifically to protect, preserve and enhance 

Pennsylvania’s largest freshwater tidal marsh; to provide for wildlife orientated recreation; and 

to provide for environmental education. Beginning in 1972, when the Refuge was first staffed, 

efforts to achieve this purpose were initiated. Since that time, management programs have been 
11

expanded to other agency objectives, such as the protection of federally listed endangered and 

threatened species, the conservation of native flora and fauna, and the provision of wildlifedependent public uses. 

While deer were hunted in the area prior to the Refuge establishment, they have had 

complete protection within the refuge boundaries since establishment including from managerial 

biological control of the herd. Refuge staff reported a general increase in deer abundance as per 

annual staff deer surveys (Table 1) and a dramatic shift towards nonnative, invasive vegetation in 

response to overbrowsing by deer. 

Figure 1. JHNWR is located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. USDA 

APHIS WS conducted a study examining white-tailed deer ecology on the Refuge during 2008 to 

2011. 
12

Table 1. Annual white-tailed deer abundance estimates derived from standardized deer drives 

conducted by staff and volunteers at JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, 

Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2010. 

Date of Survey Deer Abundance Estimate 

 2001a 86 

2002 106 

Feb. 2003 136 

Jan. 2004 193 

Dec. 2004 224 

Dec. 2005 245 

Dec. 2006 208 

Dec. 2007 199 

Dec. 2008 191 

Dec. 2009 243 

Dec. 2010 188 

a

 Months of surveys during 2001 and 2002 were not specified. 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation.–Ecologically, the historic vegetation types of JHNWR were primarily 

subunits of the freshwater tidal marsh of Pennsylvania’s Coastal Plain Habitat. The distribution 

of stands of recognizably different types of vegetation in JHNWR is unique because it was 

composed of numerous visually distinct subunits that differ in color, height and texture, and that 

differ in position in relation to drainage channels and micro-topography. Several types of 

vegetation were represented by “pure stands” composed almost entirely of plants of a single 

species or of a few, closely related species. This was true of wild rice, common reed 

(phragmites), spatterdock, creeping willow, and smartweed types. Over much of the area in 

which they occurred, the cattail stands were pure, but in part of the area cattail was mixed with 

aquatic plants of various other species.

 The other vegetation types recognized in surveys from the 1983 Tinicum Master Plan 

were much broader, more subjective categories. For example, a mixed-aquatics type was 

mapped in much of the tidal marsh. Generally, stands of mixed aquatics were composed of two 

or more species of smartweed in a mixture with arrowheads, beggerticks, jewelweed, burreed, 

cattail, spatterdock, wild rice, iris, sedges, and grasses. They were woven together in many 

places by masses of dodder, a parasitic, orange colored, herbaceous vine. 

 Woody or semi-woody vegetation is not abundant in the Tinicum area. It may be divided 

on the basis of form and height into a shrub type and a tree type. The shrub type actually is 

composed largely of shrub-like herbs which die to the ground in winter. Stands of the shrub type 
13

occur primarily in impounded areas. They are developed particularly well in the former Bow 

Creek Strip and in the unmapped Green Creek Strip south of the Industrial Highway. Invasive 

purple loosestrife is the most common plant, but rose mallow is scattered throughout the stands. 

In some places, the shrub types are formed by dogwoods and willows and in other places by 

alders and other woody shrubs. The tree type is composed of several dozen species in the 

mapped area, but willows are the chief components in stands on dredged materials and on sites 

adjacent to the tidal marsh. 

 Another habitat type, characterized as old field herbaceous vegetation, is composed of 

many kinds of grasses, goldenrods, asters, fleabanes, and similar plants. This habitat occupies 

fields on higher lands around the marsh that formerly were cultivated, and covers the dikes that 

exist within wetlands. 

 When the Tinicum Marsh was inventoried in 1968, the marsh consisted of approximately 

523 acres of tidal wetlands, and 8 tidal marsh vegetation types were identified. The wild rice 

type occupied the greatest acreage of the tidal wetlands (138 acres), but the spatterdock type (108 

acres) and the mixed aquatic type (103 acres) were nearly as widespread. The common reed type 

was predominant throughout the region that was mapped, but the type occupied only 13 acres of 

the tidal wetlands. It was most characteristic of areas covered with dredged materials. 

Wildlife.–JHNWR provides habitat for the majority of wildlife species known to occur in 

southeastern Pennsylvania. More than 375 vertebrate species and approximately 166 plant 

species have been documented on JHNWR. The Refuge encompasses many of the vegetation 

types found on the southeastern Pennsylvania Coastal Plain, providing habitat for a variety of 

wildlife ranging from forest interior nesting, neotropical migrant birds to freshwater tidal marsh 

species. JHNWR is part of a major migration corridor for a variety of birds including waterfowl, 

waterbirds, raptors, and songbirds along the Atlantic Flyway. 

 Birds represent the largest single class of vertebrates on JHNWR, with 300 bird species 

documented on the Refuge and 80 species known to nest there. Waterfowl use is extensive and 

the Refuge serves as important wintering habitat for waterfowl particularly from September 

through April. The coastal location of the Refuge makes it an important migratory habitat for 

waterfowl and raptors. Songbirds are a conspicuous component on JHNWR and a major 

attraction for many of the visitors. The songbird community is diverse and includes many 

neotropical migrant species during both spring and fall migrations. Approximately 20 species of 

mammals have been documented on the Refuge. Fifteen species of reptiles and amphibians 

occur at the Refuge, including State endangered coastal plain (southern) leopard frogs. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.– There are no federally designated endangered 

and threatened species known to occur on JHNWR. Bald eagles, currently delisted, are regular 

year-round residents that nest on the refuge and use it for diurnal hunting when open water is 

available. They are associated with aquatic and wetland habitats and adjacent terrestrial borders. 

 Pennsylvania State-designated threatened and endangered species occurring on JHNWR 

include great egret, American bittern, least bittern, black-crowned night heron, king rail, least 

bittern, eastern redbelly turtle, and eastern mud turtle. Eastern box turtle is a species of concern 

due to major recent population declines in Pennsylvania, where it was once considered an 

abundant species and was proposed for State protection in 2007. 
14

Statement of Refuge Objectives 

Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System.–The goals established for the Refuge 

System are delineated as follows:

 To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when practicable) 

all animal and plant species that are endangered or threatened with becoming 

endangered. 

 To perpetuate the migratory bird resource. 

 To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on refuge lands. 

 To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and 

man's role in his environment, and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, 

safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife 

to the extent these activities are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge 

was established. 

Purposes of John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum .– John Heinz NWR was 

established in 1972, under special legislation, for the following purpose:

 “To acquire lands necessary for the purpose of preserving, restoring, and 

developing the natural area known as Tinicum Marsh. Also, to construct, 

administer and maintain a wildlife interpretive center for the purpose of 

environmental education and to afford visitors an opportunity for the study of 

wildlife in its natural habitat” (86 Stat. 891, dated June 30, 1972). 

Some additional refuge lands were acquired under the following authorities: 

 To be of “particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management 

program.” 16 U.S.C. §667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife). 

 “Development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources...(16 U.S.C. §742f (a)(4))...for the benefit of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services....” 16 

U.S.C. §742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). 

 “[F]or use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds....” 16 U.S.C. §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). 

Deer Ecology and Management 

History of Deer in Southeastern Pennsylvania.–It is estimated that white-tailed deer 

have been in existence for some 4.5 million years. Yet, with the exception of the Ice Ages, never 
15

before have deer populations seen such change in their habitat as those created by urbanization in 

the last several decades. Deer have adapted well to this change, and their numbers throughout 

the U.S. are estimated to be higher than at any other time in history. Today, the landscape of 

southeastern Pennsylvania presents an ideal combination of ample food resources, few natural 

predators, and sanctuary from hunting in close proximity to human development, which enabled 

the deer population to grow overabundant. 

Within the last 10,000 years, growth of white-tailed deer populations was controlled by 

predators including wolves, mountain lions, and bears; natural mortality such as starvation and 

disease; and harvest by Native Americans. Deer were also limited by the productivity of their 

habitat. Prior to European settlement, much of southeastern Pennsylvania was virgin forests with 

few openings to offer deer young nutritious vegetation. Although Native Americans cultivated 

agricultural crops, it was documented that they reduced damage by deer through persistent 

harvest of deer in the vicinity of their crops and by non-lethal means including fencing and 

harassment. 

Although it is difficult to determine at what densities deer historically occupied 

southeastern Pennsylvania, studies which have examined deer remains at Native American 

encampments suggest that deer densities were far lower than we see today–perhaps less than 10 

deer per square mile. Even at presumably lower densities, deer were an important component of 

the Native American culture. Pennsylvania’s founding father, William Penn, once noted that 

Native American men attained esteem among their tribesman “...by a good return of [deer] 

skins...”. 

By the turn of the 20th century in Pennsylvania and throughout much of its range, the 

white-tailed deer was nearly driven to extinction primarily by unregulated market hunting and 

habitat loss via commercial logging. The reestablishment of white-tailed deer populations has 

been regarded as one of the greatest successes in the history of wildlife conservation. In 

Pennsylvania restocking of deer began in 1906 and continued into the 1920s with deer relocated 

from areas within the State and from stock animals brought from other states including Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Texas among others. The population increase of deer was also enabled by the 

burgeoning growth of young forests after logging with soft mast available during warm months 

and ample woody browse in the winter. By 1923, the Pennsylvania Game Commission began 

receiving complaints of widespread crop damage due to deer. To better manage deer populations 

in balance with the habitat and to reduce damage to agriculture, harvest of antlerless deer (i.e., 

female deer and males with antlers less than 3 inches) became an annual strategy in the wildlife 

management regime of Pennsylvania by the late 1950’s. 

Deer continue to be valued by humans as an important big game animal hunted for 

recreation and a favorite of wildlife watchers. With their voracious consumption of vegetation, 

however, deer have a tremendous impact across the landscape. Deer are the keystone herbivores 

in most ecosystems in which they exist. The shaping of the plant species composition and the 

physical structure of plants by deer determines the ability of other wildlife species to subsist in 

the same habitat. 

Deer-human conflicts occur when overabundant deer threaten human livelihood, health 

and safety, property; and natural resources. These conflicts are common to communities 

throughout the whitetail’s range–especially along the eastern seaboard. Controversy often arises 

at the community level when lethal management is proposed to reduce deer densities and 

associated damage. However, in the absence of natural sources of mortality, managers have a 

responsibility to properly regulate deer populations for the good of humans and deer alike. 
16

Deer Ecology.–White-tailed deer are found in a variety of habitats throughout most of the 

United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America and northern South America. Deer almost 

exclusively consume plants. They are ruminants and have a highly specialized four-chambered 

stomach, which allows them to digest a wide variety of plant species. Deer choose the most 

nutritious plants and plant parts available. Deer thrive in areas with young vegetation, especially 

where the edges of several habitat types converge, such as the suburban/agricultural interface. 

Adult white-tailed deer on average weigh between 100 and 300 pounds with males being 

larger than females. Bucks produce their first set of antlers during their second year of life. 

Females do not grow antlers. The basic social group is the doe family unit including an adult 

doe, and her offspring. Outside of the breeding season, or rut, males may form small herds 

known as bachelor groups. In Pennsylvania, deer breed in the fall, and most fawns are born in 

late May and early June. Does generally produce one or two fawns each year. In ideal habitats, 

does may breed at approximately 6 months of age and some adult does may produce triplets. 

Deer are crepuscular (primarily active near dawn and dusk), with their main movements 

occurring from daytime bedding areas to and from nighttime feeding locations. Bucks have 

larger home ranges than does, especially during the rut when bucks travel widely in search of 

mates. In Pennsylvania, deer home ranges average between 150 and 1,000 acres depending on 

the availability of local resources (Appendix A). 

Winter months in Pennsylvania can be stressful for deer depending on the amount of 

snow fall, days with freezing temperatures, and availability of food (e.g., browse, mast crops, 

supplemental feeding, etc.). Deer populations are normally at their lowest just following the 

winter months, before birthing. The change in population size from year to year is defined as the 

growth rate, which is mainly driven by successful recruitment of young into the population. 

Deer managers must balance the birth and death rates within a population to maintain 

herd health, reduce disease risks, protect ecosystems, and to reduce damage. In natural settings 

deer populations eventually reach the biological carrying capacity, which is the point at which 

deer consume most of the available browse in an area. At this point, the population is unable to 

sustain growth and reproduction. Each habitat has a different biological carrying capacity, which 

is continually dynamic in response to deer numbers, weather conditions, and other factors. 

Although the biological carrying capacity is important to deer population dynamics, the 

social carrying capacity is more relevant in urban areas. The social carrying capacity is the level 

at which deer populations can coexist with the human population without negative impacts. 

Negative impacts on humans can include deer-vehicle collisions, deer damage to landscaping, 

biological damage, disease threats, and the emotional fear by humans of interaction between deer 

and humans; and the damages associated with deer. Deer populations can also experience 

negative impacts in urban settings including stress; trauma from encountering dogs, pools, large 

glass windows, vehicle traffic; and the lack of adequate habitat. Given these factors, the social 

carrying capacity may be lower or higher than the biological carrying capacity. It is important to 

understand that neither the biological or social carrying capacity is static. 

Current Deer Management Conditions in Pennsylvania.–Sport hunting is the primary 

mechanism to regulate deer numbers in Pennsylvania on an annual basis. The Pennsylvania 

Game Commission regulates deer harvest via prescription of licenses for harvest of antlerless 

deer per 22 different Wildlife Management Units (WMU; Figure 2). WMU’s were based on land 

use/habitat, human density, public/private land ownership, and recognizable physical features. 
17

The Statewide goals established in the Pennsylvania Game Commission Deer Management Plan 

include: 1) manage deer for a healthy herd, 2) reduce deer–human conflicts, and 3) manage deer 

for healthy forest habitat. Allocations of antlerless deer licenses are determined annually to 

adjust deer densities relative to these goals within each WMU. 

Figure 2. Pennsylvania Game Commission Wildlife Management Units designated for licensing 

and regulatory guidelines for sport-hunting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Image 

courtesy of Pennsylvania Game Commission at www.pgc.state.us. 

In hunting license year 2008 to 2009, an estimated total of 335,850 deer were harvested 

in Pennsylvania including 213,440 antlerless deer and 122,410 antlered deer. In WMU 5D, 

which includes JHNWR, a relatively large number of antlerless deer licenses per square mile of 

land area are allocated versus other areas of the State to curtail population growth of deer and to 

reduce deer-human conflicts. For the 2008 to 2009 hunting license year, 22,000 antlerless deer 

licenses were allocated in WMU 5D and an estimated 4,500 antlerless deer and 1,300 antlered 

deer were harvested. Sport hunting for deer in WMU 5D occurred, excluding Sundays and 24 to 

25 December, 2009, from 19 September, 2009 to 23 January 2010 during 107 days of hunting. 

This allotment of licenses and days of hunting are similar annually in WMU 5D. Hunters are 

permitted one antlered deer per hunting license year. In WMU 5D, an individual hunter may 

harvest unlimited antlerless deer provided they possess the appropriate number of valid WMUspecific antlerless licenses. 

Because of dense human housing and development, sport hunters in Philadelphia County 

are not permitted to discharge firearms and may only use archery equipment to harvest deer. 

Without specific permission of the occupants, hunters must be a minimum of 50 yards from any 

occupied residence or building to hunt. Around playgrounds, schools, nursery schools or daycare centers, archery hunters must remain a minimum of 150 yards away. Although hunters are 

afforded liberal seasons and bag limits for deer in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, harvest 

of sufficient numbers of deer is confounded by firearms and safety zone restrictions coupled with 

extensive division of property ownership. 
18

SECTION 2: PURPOSE and MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 

White-tailed Deer Management Plan: Need, Purpose, and Objectives 

Need for Deer Management Planning.–Habitats for wildlife have diminished 

considerably over the past few decades as urban and suburban development has expanded into 

southeastern Pennsylvania’s remaining wildlife habitats. As a result, the remaining protected 

lands must support a wide variety of wildlife in a limited area. Competition among wildlife 

species for space and foraging habitat is immense, and white-tailed deer are a major source of 

damage to forest and herbaceous vegetation. 

 Deer foraging habits and preferences are known to change plant composition and 

structure over time (Porter 1991, Van Deelan et al. 1996, Brown and Parker 1997, Augustine 

1998, Russell and Fowler 1999) and such alterations have subsequent impacts on other wildlife, 

such as songbird species richness and abundance (De Calesta 1994). Several other studies 

(Casey and Hein 1983, McShea and Rappole 1992) found reduced songbird species richness 

and/or abundance in areas with high deer densities. 

A concern of land managers regarding deer populations at high densities is the impact to 

biodiversity. Because they are large herbivores, white-tailed deer are effective at altering habitat 

due to their energetic requirements and high reproductive potential (McCullough 1982, 1997). 

Many authors (Behrend et al. 1970, Tilghman 1989, Warren 1991, McShea and Rappole 1992, 

Miller et al. 1999) reported that vegetative species richness and the abundance of herbaceous and 

woody vegetation declined in areas with white-tailed deer densities exceeding 29 deer per square 

mile. In a northwestern Pennsylvania study, Behrend et al. (1970) and Tilghman (1989) 

recommended a herd density of 21 deer per square mile to allow for successful hardwood forest 

regeneration. Refuge staff estimated that the deer herd far exceeded this density for multiple 

years. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that these adverse vegetative effects have also 

occurred on JHNWR for some time. The loss or reduction of woody understories in forests or 

lack of forest regeneration can impact the habitat of migratory birds as well as other wildlife. In 

a Pennsylvania study, DeCalesta (1994) found that changes in vegetation via deer browsing 

impacted intermediate canopy-nesting songbirds and reduced species richness and abundance. 

That study recommended maintaining herds at a density of between 21 and 39 deer per square 

mile to reduce impacts on habitats and songbirds. Alverson et al. (1988) suggested a deer 

density of 10 deer per square mile to minimize impacts caused by overbrowsing. 

The damage caused by deer to forest regeneration on JHNWR is evident. The presence 

of oak and maple saplings within long-term fenced deer exclosures is obvious, while similar 

vegetation outside of the exclosures is browsed to the ground or is not existent. Invasive species 

of plants, which are often consumed to a lesser extent by deer, have become dominant vegetation 

types on the refuge. While such impacts currently affect forest understory and the varied animals 

dependent on this vegetation zone, the longer term implications are that the refuge’s native 

forested areas could lose the ability to replace themselves through time. 

Refuge biologists have been conducting deer population inventories since 2001. These 

surveys involved counting deer that were driven systematically from various portions of the 

Refuge. The results of these surveys have recently recorded population numbers greater than 

150 deer per square mile. 

 
19

The need for action on JHNWR is based on the negative impacts to vegetation caused by 

deer. Such adverse effects are principally impacting two objectives of JHNWR Station Master 

Plan (USFWS 1983): 

 These areas will be managed thereby facilitating the movement of wildlife 

through this habitat (the refuge provides a diversity of breeding and migration 

habitats that support 300 species of passerine, waterfowl, raptors and other 

migratory birds). 

 The existing tidal wetlands will be managed to maintain their integrity and to 

enhance their productivity. 

Purpose of Deer Management Planning.–The purpose of developing a deer 

management plan for JHNWR is to examine the current population ecology of deer on the 

Refuge, to assess the effects of deer on habitat and humans, and to design deer population 

management actions to maintain the deer population within the objectives of JHNWR. 

Objectives of Deer Management Planning.–

 Quantify deer population characteristics including estimates of deer abundance, 

and sex and age ratios. 

 Characterize suitability of habitats for deer on JHNWR and the surrounding area. 

 Examine the effects of browsing by deer on forested areas. 

 Examine the effects of deer on humans. 

 Recommend strategies to manage deer within the objectives of JHNWR. 

 

An Integrated Approach to Managing Damage by Deer 

A well-designed deer damage management program is a progressive approach to wildlife 

management, which includes developing beneficial relationships among the public, landowners, 

hunters, and wildlife professionals to reach and maintain deer densities at desirable levels; 

education about wildlife conservation and deer damage management; implementation of nonlethal deer damage management techniques where practical–fencing, repellents, deterrents; and 

monitoring the impacts of deer on the environment. 

WS recommends that our cooperators adopt an integrated approach to managing damage 

by white-tailed deer. WS provides Federal leadership in the deer management process by 

conducting personal consultations with individuals and communities, educational programs, 

assessments of damage by deer, and direct management in the removal of overabundant deer. 
20

Components of the Integrated Approach 

Define Goals.–Those seeking to make deer damage management decisions should 

involve representatives of all stakeholder groups with an interest in managing deer in the target 

area. Providing education on basic deer biology and damage management techniques is integral 

to the process, so that stakeholders may make informed decisions. Goals should define 

acceptable levels of damage by deer, which minimize deer-human conflicts. 

Identify the Problem.–Stakeholder groups should obtain information on the impacts of 

deer damage such as deer-vehicle accident records, rates of Lyme disease, and estimates of 

damage to landscape and commercial plants. Establishing the extent and timing of how deer 

may be impacting the target area is the first step toward identifying whether a problem exists 

with deer. 

Establish Monitoring.–Information collected during the problem identification phase 

may be used as baseline data for long-term indices relative to goals of the program and as the 

basis for making management decisions. Estimates of deer abundance are necessary to assess 

the effects of any management actions relative to the program goals. WS specializes in 

conducting deer density surveys using a variety of techniques tailored to individual situations. 

Develop a Management Plan.–A deer damage management plan should document 

clearly defined program goals, identify the level of damage caused by deer based on the 

supporting evidence collected, and should propose management actions to achieve the program 

goals. Effective management plans must allow for the flexibility to adapt future management 

actions based on data collected during continued monitoring. 

Options for Management 

No Action.–The “no action” alternative is appropriate if monitoring indicates that current 

management practices are maintaining deer densities in balance with program goals. For 

example, on some public lands such as JHNWR, this means allowing the deer population to 

grow unrestricted. Often, deer numbers grow above levels which the habitat can support and 

above that which humans are willing to tolerate. In urban situations, deer densities may be 

maintained by a high rate of deer-vehicle collisions. In extreme cases, mortality may occur in 

the form of starvation. Alternatively, the “no action” alternative often means that sport hunting 

continues as the established management practice because hunters are achieving adequate 

harvests to meet program goals. 

Non-lethal Damage Management.–A myriad of non-lethal deer damage management 

techniques are available, and fall under three general categories: exclusion, deterrents, and 

repellents. Research has demonstrated that some practices are effective while others appear to be 

marketing ploys. Properly installed and maintained fencing 10 feet in height and secured to the 

ground is the most effective exclusion tactic. Fencing can be cost prohibitive for large acreages, 

and many communities have ordinances limiting the use or height of fences. However, fencing 

used to protect young plant growth can be beneficial in deterring deer browsing until plants are 
21

no longer vulnerable. Deterrents use sound, visual, or tactile cues to frighten deer from areas 

where they are causing damage. Deterrents which are set off by the offending deer or those with 

irregular cues tend to be most effective since deer may easily become acclimated to deterrents. 

Repellents use taste or scent to discourage deer from eating treated plants or entering treated 

areas. A wide variety of commercially available repellents have been reported to be effective in 

independent research. Repellents require reapplication after rain events and may lose 

effectiveness at temperatures below freezing. 

Population Management.–When deer become overabundant, a rapid reduction in deer 

density is necessary to suppress annual population growth and to reduce damages. Once 

management goals are reached, annual deer harvests must be conducted to maintain acceptable 

population levels. The methods used to remove deer will depend on safety, legal restrictions, 

financial constraints, timing of the management action, and effectiveness of the removal methods 

employed (Appendix A). In many deer management situations, using a combination of deer 

removal methods is necessary to achieve management goals. 

Population Management Alternatives 

Sport-hunting.–Sport hunting should be encouraged whenever possible as it is generally 

the most economically feasible strategy to manage deer. However, legal restrictions (e.g., safety 

zones, timing of hunting activity) and other limitations (e.g., hunters resistant to harvesting 

adequate numbers of does) may limit the effectiveness of sport hunting in some situations. In 

recent years, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has provided for additional deer harvest 

opportunities under depredation permits outside of the normal hunting seasons. 

Controlled Hunts.–Controlled hunts using sport hunters can be structured to maximize 

deer removal efforts. Stipulations may include designated dates and times of hunts, weapon 

restrictions, and safety certification of hunters. By concentrating hunting pressure during 

specific times, controlled public hunts usually increase deer harvest and require less time than 

normal sport hunting. 

Professional Deer Removal.–In instances where sport hunting is not practical or 

effective, deer removal may be conducted under a depredation permit by WS, private 

contractors, or other agents of the cooperator. Professional deer removal operators are permitted 

to use specialized equipment and methods such as high-powered rifles fitted with suppressors to 

minimize noise; infrared and night vision technologies for identification of safe shooting 

opportunities and to increase the ability to locate deer; baiting; and shooting at night, from 

vehicles, and in close proximity to buildings. Deer harvested by professional operators provide 

venison for charitable donation. Professional deer removal usually requires the least amount of 

time versus other methods to reach population goals. 

Relocation.–Capturing deer and relocating them to another location is not an option in 

Pennsylvania because this practice is not legal. The Pennsylvania Game Commission does not 

recognize trap and transfer of deer as a viable alternative for localized population reduction and 

prohibits trap and transfer of deer to prevent the spread of disease (Christopher Rosenberry, 

personal communication). Legal considerations not withstanding, trap and transfer of deer is 
22

expensive, ideal relocation sites are limited, and relocated deer suffer greater than 50 percent 

mortality. 

Fertility Control.–WS is conducting ongoing research through its National Wildlife 

Research Center in the development of a fertility control agent to limit deer population growth. 

To date, tests of fertility control in deer populations in fenced enclosures have demonstrated 

limited effectiveness. Currently, no fertility control agents for use in white-tailed deer have been 

approved for use in Pennsylvania. If registered, future use of fertility control will have limited 

applicability, especially for large populations of free-ranging deer. Implementation of a fertility 

control program would be costly and herd reductions would still be necessary to reduce damage 

since fertility control does not directly reduce deer numbers. 
23

SECTION 3: METHODS of DEER RESEARCH on the REFUGE 

To design a long-term management regime for deer on JHNWR, an understanding of 

localized conditions was necessary. WS established standardized indices relative to the deer 

population utilizing JHNWR including deer abundance estimation, assessment of deer herd 

health, characterization of available habitat, and potential effects of deer on humans. 

Habitat Analyses 

Characterization of Deer Habitat.–WS utilized Global Information Systems (ArcMap 

9.1, Environmental Systems Research Institute) to analyze geo-referenced aerial photographs of 

the area encompassing JHNWR and a one half-mile buffer of the refuge boundary to estimate the 

amount of terrestrial habitat and its suitability for use by white-tailed deer (Figure 3). The buffer 

was assumed to contain the home ranges of most deer utilizing JHNWR given the results of 

previous research on the spatial dynamics of deer in urban habitats. The aerial photographs used 

were taken during both annual and daily high water inundation. Therefore, estimates of available 

habitat were conservative. Since JHNWR lies in an urbanized environment and wildlife habitat 

is limited, any terrestrial habitat is likely used by deer to fulfill some life requisites (i.e., food, 

water, cover). 

Figure 3. Overview of JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania 

with the approximate boundary of the Refuge outlined and a half-mile buffer around the 

boundary of the Refuge used to estimate available white-tailed deer habitat. Habitat analyses 

were conducted by USDA APHIS WS as part of a study examining the ecology of white-tailed 

deer on the Refuge. 
24

Habitats were characterized in the following manner: (1) Habitat Unusable for Deer: 

These areas included permanent water, industrialized areas, roadways and inaccessible buffers, 

areas of extremely dense human housing, and high-fenced areas. (2) Marginal Deer Habitat: 

Describes areas with access limited for use by deer due to daily inundation by water (i.e., 

colonies of phragmites and other plant types that withstand some inundation by water), islands, 

moderately dense urban neighborhoods and their margins, and roadway buffers with some 

access. Marginal deer habitat may provide temporary use for deer, whether food or cover. For 

example, small isolated islands are not typically used by deer, but during fawning season females 

isolate themselves and when space is limited deer have been known to utilize islands for 

fawning. (3) Good Deer Habitat: included most upland areas because they theoretically provide 

consistent food and cover resources for deer. On JHNWR, with terrestrial habitats being limited 

and surrounding urban development, any vegetated land accessible to deer may be considered 

“good”. Therefore, any upland habitat greater than 3 acres with connection to other good or 

marginal deer habitats was classified as good deer habitat. 

Forest Regeneration Surveys.–To collect baseline data of the condition of primary 

forested areas on JHNWR, WS conducted vegetation surveys at five sites (Figure 4) during two 

seasonal periods, the early growing season and the late growing season. The center of each site 

was determined via generation of a random compass azimuth followed from a random distance 

from the entry point of the woodlot by the observer. The center of the site was marked by a 6-

foot steel T–post driven into the ground to a depth of 1.5 feet. 

Figure 4. Locations of vegetation plots used by USDA APHIS WS to document the condition of 

forest understory vegetation as part of a study examining the ecology of white-tailed deer on 

JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during 2009 and 2010. 

 
25

At each site, 9 5.5-square foot circular subplots were established including five unfenced 

control subplots and four fenced treatment subplots (Figure 5). Unfenced controls included a 

subplot at the center of the site and four subplots radiating 20 feet from the center of the site in 

the four cardinal directions (i.e., north, south, east, and west). 

Fenced treatments radiated 20 feet from the center of the site in the four intermediate 

directions (northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest). To exclude deer, a 6-foot by 6-foot 

exclosure was erected surrounding fenced subplots with 6-feet high welded–wire fencing strung 

vertically on four 8-feet steel T–posts driven into the ground to a depth of 1.5 feet. 

Within each subplot, the following variables were estimated: 1) woody seedling 

regeneration–species, height, and level of browsing damage by deer; 2) percent ground cover of 

variables including bare ground, forest litter, forbs, grass, or other species groups; 3) percent 

plant cover in vertical zones of 0 to 2 feet, 2 to 4 feet, and 4 to 6 feet as viewed against a vertical 

cover board from a distance of 20 feet at a vertical viewing height of 3 feet. 

Reference photographs of each subplot were taken with a digital camera at a lens focal 

length of 25 mm. The vertical plant cover board was placed in the center of the subplot facing 

the center of the site to indicate scale and provide a reference to gauge the density of vegetation. 

Reference photographs for the 8 subplots in the cardinal and intermediate directions were taken 

from the center of the site toward the center of the subplot. The reference photograph for the 

central subplot was taken from the center of the north subplot toward the center of the central 

subplot. 

All canopy trees greater than 3 inches in diameter within a 40-foot radius of the center of 

the site were inventoried according to species and diameter at breast height. Canopy coverage 

was assessed using a densitometer (Geographic Resource Solutions) at 25 standardized points 

within a 40-foot radius of the center of the site. 

Figure 5. Example of fenced vegetation subplots established in May and June 2009 by USDA 

APHIS WS to document the condition of forest understory vegetation as part of a study 

examining the ecology of white-tailed deer on JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware 

Counties, Pennsylvania. To exclude deer, a 6-foot by 6-foot exclosure was erected surrounding 

fenced subplots with 6-foot high welded–wire fencing strung vertically on 4 8-foot steel T–posts 

driven into the ground to a depth of 1.5 feet. 
26

Deer Density Surveys 

Two survey methods were chosen to most accurately evaluate the abundance of deer on 

JHNWR: 1) a roving infrared camera survey from a vehicle (herein, roving survey), and 2) 

baited infrared camera stations (herein, baited survey). Most areas of the refuge were accessible 

by vehicle and habitat conditions allowed ready observation of deer along the roving survey 

route. For areas not fulfilling the requirements of the roving survey, stationary baited infrared 

cameras were used to estimate deer abundance. 

Roving Surveys.–A standardized 6.5-mile survey route was established throughout 

JHNWR on established roads (Figure 6). WS consulted with JHNWR personnel to design a 

survey route, which would avoid multiple observations of individual deer during a single survey 

and would adequately survey a representative sample of terrestrial and wetland habitats. 

 Roving survey teams of three people consisted of a driver and a data recorder, both 

personnel of JHNWR, and one observer from WS in the back of a mobile truck. Roving surveys 

were initiated each night after sunset. A Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) unit was used to 

initially observe deer. The observer used a spotlight, binoculars, and a laser rangefinder to verify 

the age and gender of deer and their perpendicular distance from the survey route. The survey 

vehicle moved at approximately 5 miles per hour, stopping only to collect data. 

 

Figure 6. Route of roving vehicle traversed for 18 white-tailed deer density surveys completed 

by USDA APHIS WS on JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania 

during November 2008 through January 2011. Shaded areas indicate zones used to characterize 

locations of deer observed during surveys. 
27

A standard deer density estimator (Hahn 1949) was modified to derive logical deer 

density estimates based on available habitat for deer on JHNWR and the surrounding area. The 

deer density estimator determined area surveyed by factoring the survey route distance and the 

distance deer were observed from the closest point on the survey route. The estimator then 

extrapolated deer density estimates by factoring in the proportion of habitat that may be utilized 

by deer per square mile in the survey area. 

Baited Surveys.–Baited surveys were conducted to obtain finer estimates of the number 

of deer utilizing key areas of JHNWR and to provide an additional index to changes in 

population abundance. This method was conducted according to previous research by Jacobson 

et al. (1997). These researchers demonstrated that the abundance of deer in an area could be 

determined using baited surveys, where bucks could be uniquely identified by antler 

characteristics (Figure 7) and their number used to infer the number of does and fawns (Figure 8) 

visiting repeatedly the bait site. 

Baited surveys were conducted in four areas per year (Figure 9) that were not directly 

accessible for roving surveys. However, because of their distribution and limited access by the 

public, these sites would act as reliable sentinels to gauge deer density across JHNWR as a 

whole. Criteria for the bait sites included: 1) regular utilization of the area by deer before bait 

was placed, and 2) uncommon use by humans in the immediate vicinity of the bait site to avoid 

theft or vandalism of equipment, and to avoid disturbance of deer. During a 7-day pre-baiting 

period, whole kernel corn was placed at each bait site in a quantity sufficient to maintain 

consistent access by deer 24 hours per day. Following this acclimatization period, an infrared 

camera was installed in a stationary position and was set to record still photographs of deer 24 

hours a day during a 14-day survey period. As in the pre-baiting period, whole kernel corn was 

provided ad libitum. The infrared cameras were triggered to photograph by movement and/or 

changes in heat within a sensing cone, which was 50-feet long and 30-feet wide at the placement 

of the bait station. 

A WS wildlife biologist analyzed photographs from each camera to ascertain the number 

of deer by age and gender. Photographs selected for analysis were taken >10 minutes apart 

during the 14-day survey period. When possible, adult bucks were identified separately by their 

antler and physical characteristics. To establish an estimator of deer abundance the following 

analyses were conducted. The number of bucks uniquely identified was divided by the total 

number of bucks photographed to calculate a population factor. Jacobson et al. (1997) 

established extrapolation factors for baited cameras set to service particular land areas during 

differing survey lengths. The extrapolation factor adjusts the estimator to account for the 

percentage of the total deer population likely to be photographed at the bait site during the 

survey. Over the 14-day period surveyed in this study, the extrapolation factor used assumed 

that 90 percent of the total deer population in the area of the bait sites was photographed. The 

estimate of the total number of bucks was calculated by multiplying the total number of bucks 

times the extrapolation factor. The total number of does was calculated by multiplying the 

number of does counted in the photographs times the population factor, and times the 

extrapolation factor. The total number of fawns was calculated by multiplying the number of 

fawns counted in the photographs times the population factor, and times the extrapolation factor. 

The total deer abundance in the area of each bait site was calculated by adding the total number 

of bucks, the total number of does, and the total number of fawns. 

 
28

Figure 7. Photograph of two uniquely antlered bucks captured by an infrared-triggered camera 

during surveys conducted by USDA APHIS WS to estimate white-tailed deer abundance on 

JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during December of 

2008, 2009, and 2010. 

Figure 8. Night-time photograph of one adult doe, one yearling doe, and one fawn captured by 

an infrared-triggered camera during surveys conducted by USDA APHIS WS to estimate whitetailed deer abundance on JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania 

during December of 2008, 2009, and 2010. 
29

Figure 9. Locations of infrared cameras used by USDA APHIS WS to estimate white-tailed 

deer abundance on JHNWR located in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during 

December 2008, 2009, and 2010. The location of Camera 1 was changed for 2010 from the 

location used during 2008 and 2009 to minimize disturbance to an active American bald eagle 

nest. 

The amount of area serviced by each baited infrared camera was analyzed relative to the 

useable habitat available to deer. This information will be useful to track the number of acres of 

useable habitat available to deer relative to data from baited infrared camera surveys over time in 

response to possible management actions. Jacobson et al. (1997) reported that the survey 

technique was most reliable when cameras were placed at <200 acres per camera. Home ranges 

of female white-tailed deer may vary in different habitats, latitudes, and deer population 

densities. However, data from previous studies suggested that home ranges for female whitetailed deer in suburban habitats range between approximately 50 to 1,974 acres with most 

averaging less than 640 acres (1 square mile). At Valley Forge National Historical Park, 18 

miles northwest of JHNWR, home ranges for female white-tailed deer averaged 235 acres 

(Lovallo and Tzilkowski 2003). In general, the home ranges of adult males are twice that of 

adult females. Likewise, individual deer establish home ranges that are not symmetrical, 

predictable, or necessarily similar in shape to other deer in the area. Therefore, it is unknown 

exactly the amount of area serviced by an infrared camera station in different localized areas and 

habitat types. 
30

Previous research which examined deer movements relative to bait sites determined that 

deer generally do not leave established home ranges to utilize bait sites (Kilpatrick and Stober 

2002), but may shift their centers of activity to be nearer to bait sites. In West Virginia, deer 

were observed leaving seasonal home ranges to access bait sites, however, these movements 

were less than 110 yards from their estimated home ranges (Campbell et al. 2006). In the same 

study, Campbell et al. (2006) found that the maximum average distance deer would travel from 

the center of their core area to a bait site was 530 yards. A 200-acre circle has a radius of 555.1 

yards. Therefore, with the reported limitations of the infrared baited camera survey technique 

(<200 acres per camera) and previous findings on the movement behavior of deer relative to bait 

sites, it was assumed that a circle of 200 acres in area would encompass most deer activity in the 

area of each camera station. Within a 200-acre circle centered on the bait station for each 

camera, WS calculated the amount of habitat useable by deer from the habitat characterization 

portion of this study, accounting for overlap by circles of adjacent camera stations. This would 

approximate the amount of area of useable deer habitat serviced by each camera. 

Deer Herd Health Check 

Possible future deer population management actions could result in venison being utilized 

by sport-hunters or donated to charitable food distribution networks. Since heavy metal 

contaminants exist on the refuge from past industrial activity and waste soil deposition, 

contaminants in the venison of deer on the Refuge was a concern. Therefore, WS conducted an 

experimental removal of three adult female deer to assess potential contamination of venison and 

to evaluate the current health of the deer herd on the Refuge. 

Deer Removal.– WS conducted operations under the Pennsylvania Game Commission 

(PGC) Special Use Permit (No. 53-2010) issued directly to JHNWR. WS conducted deer 

removal activities based upon a standard protocol used by WS in urban environments. All deer 

were removed from a mobile unit. The mobile unit consisted of two WS personnel and one U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) law enforcement officer. Additional JHNWR staff provided 

security and logistical support. WS utilized a hand-held infrared camera to locate and observe 

deer in darkness. These capabilities also further enhanced WS’ ability to ensure safe removal 

operations by detecting people, non-target animals, ricochet hazards, and buildings. Shots were 

taken using spotlights with red-filtered lights. Shooting was conducted by one WS wildlife 

control specialist using a .243 caliber sound-suppressed rifle. 

Adult female deer were targeted for removal. Adult females maintain established home 

ranges throughout their lives. Therefore, adult female deer would have the highest probability 

within the deer population of demonstrating contamination since they had the longest interaction 

with the local environment and long-term ingestion of potentially contaminated plants and soil. 

Further, female deer would provide information about reproduction in the herd. 

Collection of Biological Data.– Ages of deer were determined by evaluating tooth 

eruption and wear. Ages were recorded to the nearest half year. Live weight was taken before 

deer were eviscerated using a suspended spring scale. Chest girth was measured immediately 

posterior to the front legs. Uteri of female deer were inspected for the presence of fetuses, and 

fetuses were removed, sexed and aged in estimated days to birth using a fetal aging scale. 
31

Analysis of the deposition and retention of fat reserves in deer gives an indication of their 

health and nutrition, especially their preparedness to survive winter. WS selected two fat indices 

commonly used as physiological gauges of health: 1) Kidney Fat Index, and 2) Tail Fat Score. 

As deer accumulate surplus nutrition, fat reserves are deposited first within the bone marrow, 

next around the internal organs (e.g., around the kidneys), then along the inside of the body 

cavity and finally between the muscle and skin (e.g., along the tail). 

Fat reserves are used by the body opposite the order of deposition when food resources 

are limited. Therefore, in years of low or poor food availability, fat will not be deposited 

throughout the body. Likewise, in difficult winter conditions deer will expend fat quickly 

starting with subcutaneous fat. Tail Fat Score is an appropriate, rudimentary measure to assess 

deer health. Tail Fat was scored by palpation at the base of the tail on a scale from 0 to 3. A 

score of 0 represented no fat under the skin with the bones of the tail readily felt. A score of 3 

represented ample fat reserves so that no muscle or bone was readily felt because they were 

padded with fat. To obtain Kidney Fat Index, one kidney was selected randomly from each deer 

and removed whole with fat attached. Kidney fat index was determined by dividing the mass of 

the fat surrounding the kidney by the mass of the bare kidney and the dividend was multiplied by 

100. 

Contaminants Testing.–Samples of liver and muscle tissue were collected by WS for 

toxicological screening for concentrations of minerals. Tissue samples were submitted fresh and 

unfrozen to the Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Laboratory at New Bolton Center (Kennett 

Square, PA) for screening for a panel of common trace mineral elements. Levels of trace 

mineral elements were reported as parts per million (ppm) wet weight and were compared to 

normal ranges reported in previous literature. 

Other Related Indices 

WS contacted the Police and Road Departments of municipalities surrounding JHNWR 

and requested data on deer-vehicle collision rates for years 2004 to 2009. WS also requested 

data on deer-vehicle collisions for the same years from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation for State-controlled roads in the area of JHNWR. The Pennsylvania Game 

Commission maintains subcontractors to pick up deer carcasses along State-owned roads, and 

WS contacted the Pennsylvania Game Commission Southeast Regional Office to request data 

reported by subcontractors in the area of JHNWR. WS contacted the Health Departments of 

Delaware and Philadelphia Counties and requested data on Lyme Disease infection rates. 
32

SECTION 4: RESULTS, DISCUSSION and RECOMMENDATIONS 

Habitat Analyses 

Characterization of Deer Habitat.–Previous analysis of habitat on JHNWR estimated 

that approximately 334 acres of habitat were suitable for deer. While upland areas may be used 

most by deer throughout the annual cycle, wetlands are critically important to deer on JHNWR 

for hiding cover, as fawning sites in areas that are not inundated, and for forage. With the 

extreme daily use of JHNWR by humans, many with dogs, deer rely on wetland areas regularly 

for hiding to minimize stress and physical exertion. WS commonly observed deer on Refuge 

roads and trails during roving surveys, which fled into wetland areas to avoid the passing survey 

vehicle. 

Illustrating the importance of wetlands as refuges to deer was the difference in the timing 

of visitation by deer at Cameras 1 and 2 during 2008. Camera 1 was situated on a small island of 

hardwood trees with little understory vegetation. The island was separated from the mainland by 

wetlands of varying degrees of water inundation, and access was closed to the public. Camera 2 

was in a relatively large, open stand of hardwood trees that received regular use by visitors of the 

Refuge. At Camera 1 during 2008, 100 percent of photographs of deer were recorded during 

daylight or crepuscular periods, whereas only 19 percent of photographs were recorded in 

daylight at the fully upland site of Camera 2. Presumably, restricted access by the public and the 

dense wetland cover afforded in the area of Camera 1 allowed deer to maintain regular use of the 

area throughout the day. 

The home ranges of some unknown proportion of deer utilizing JHNWR overlap the 

boundary of the Refuge and adjacent private lands. WS considered habitat outside of the 

boundaries of JHNWR because these areas provide additional resources to sustain a greater deer 

population size than the habitat on the Refuge would provide alone. It should be noted that 

nearly 70 percent of available habitat for deer in the localized area lies on private lands adjacent 

to the Refuge. Some hunting occurs legally on adjacent lands, however the annual rate of 

harvest of deer is unknown. 

Approximately 1.6-square miles of deer habitat was classified as good within the Refuge 

and the one half-mile buffer (Figures 10 and 11). However, in the context of habitat quality 

throughout the range of white-tailed deer, virtually none of these lands would be considered ideal 

deer habitat. Juxtaposition to human development, isolation of habitat patches, plant species 

composition not preferred by deer for forage, and degradation of forest understory due to 

overbrowsing by deer are several factors limiting the suitability of the habitat for deer. However, 

from a landscape perspective, JHNWR and the surrounding area provides some of the only 

habitat for deer in the immediate area of metropolitan Philadelphia. 
33

Figure 10. Characterization of available habitat for white-tailed deer on JHNWR located in Philadelphia and DePennsylvania and within a half-mile buffer around the boundary of the Refuge. Habitat analyses were conducted 

WS as part of a study examining the ecology of white-tailed deer on the Refuge.
34

Figure 11. Amount of available habitat for white-tailed deer on JHNWR located in Philadelphia 

and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania and within a 1/2-mile buffer around the boundary of the 

Refuge. Habitat analyses were conducted by USDA APHIS WS as part of a study examining the 

ecology of white-tailed deer on the Refuge. 

Good Deer Habitat on Refuge

Marginal Deer Habitat on

Refuge

Good Deer Habitat within 

1/2-mile Refuge Buffer

Marginal Deer Habitat within 

1/2-mile Refuge Buffer

551 acres

919 acres

462 acres

201 acres

Total = 2,133 acres

Forest Regeneration Surveys.–Forest regeneration surveys were initiated in the early 

growing season of May 2009. Between 29 May and 16 June 2009, forest regeneration plots were 

established. Canopy trees within each plot were classified for each plot (Appendix C). After 

initial surveys were completed, fencing was installed on subplots slated for fenced treatments 

and the fencing was closed. Late growing season surveys were conducted between 20 to 24 

August 2009. Fenced subplots were opened for survey and then closed again to exclude deer. 

During 2010, early growing season surveys were conducted between 27 to 28 May 2010. Plot 4 

was not accessed during the early growing season surveys for 2010 to minimize disturbance to 

an active American bald eagle nest on the island. Late growing season surveys were conducted 

on 18 to 19 August 2010. 

Prominent browse lines were evident in all forested areas of JHNWR throughout this 

study as evidenced by lack of understory vegetation, especially woody seedlings, and aerial 

coverage of the forest floor (Figures 12, 13, 14, Appendices D through K.2). Most soil was 

either bare of vegetation or dominated by invasive exotic herbaceous plants. Successful 

regeneration of tree seedlings was not observed to occur on JHNWR during initial forest 

regeneration surveys conducted by WS in 2009. During the early growing season forest 

regeneration surveys of 2009, only 2 tree seedlings were recorded, and these were on unfenced 

control subplots. One seedling was a red maple (Acer rubrum) and one was a non-native white 

mulberry (Morus alba). By the late growing season surveys, no tree seedlings were recorded. 
35

The two seedlings recorded during the early growing season had apparently succumbed to 

browsing by deer and were not found. Thus, data from 2009 on tree seedling regeneration were 

truly baseline since any regeneration recorded in the future would represent an increase. 

During 2010, a total of 15 woody seedlings were observed. Six of 15 (40 percent) were 

non-native invasive white mulberry. Thirteen of 15 (87 percent) of woody seedlings were 

observed on fenced plots after installation of fencing. Nine of 15 (60 percent) of woody 

seedlings were native trees or shrubs, and 9 of 9 (100 percent) native woody seedlings were 

found on fenced plots after installation of fencing. The native woody seedlings included red 

maple (Acer rubrum), alternate-leaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus 

florida), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and Crataegus spp. 

 Apparently, fencing to exclude browsing by white-tailed deer on JHNWR is the only 

reliable treatment that enables growth of woody seedlings currently. The majority of seedlings 

observed in fenced plots were native, which suggests that native seedlings may outcompete nonnative species (i.e., white mulberry), and deer preferentially browse native species outside of 

exclosures. At current deer densities, it appears that regeneration of native trees and shrubs is 

not possible without excluding deer. 

Upland habitat provided little preferred forage for deer and hiding cover was limited to 

low-growing exotic plants. Indices of vertical and aerial plant cover mainly describe coverage 

by invasive exotic species. Their domination of sunlight, soil nutrients, and space is exacerbated 

by nearly complete browsing of native herbaceous species by deer. Across surveys in 2009 and 

2010 and fenced and unfenced subplots, 64 percent (SE = 6.0) of dominant plants were nonnative. 

It appears that a stable state of undesirable exotic plants in the forest understory may have 

been perpetuated by long-term overbrowsing by deer (Stromayer and Warren 1997). Although a 

reduction in deer densities and associated browsing pressure would stimulate plant growth, 

correction of this single factor is unlikely to result in production of a forest of desired structure 

and composition. Other confounding factors included closed overstory canopies in most 

woodlots restricting light infiltration, a seedbank replete with invasive exotic annual and 

perennial plants, and poor soil structure with inorganic foreign materials due to prior land uses 

and soils transported from outside development activities. 

Multiple silvicultural treatments will be required to replace existing forest conditions 

with those more conducive to wildlife. Non-native trees dominating the forest overstory, such as 

gray poplar, paulownia, and white mulberry should be eliminated to change the composition of 

the forest to include more native tree species and to stimulate growth of the understory. 

Treatment of the understory by mechanical means, herbicide, or fire may be required to reduce 

the abundance of exotic weeds and competition for tree seedlings. If deer densities are reduced, 

planted seedlings and natural regeneration should still be protected from browsing by temporary 

exclosures since natural forage for remaining deer may continue to be limited for some time. 

At minimum, the forest regeneration plots established for this study should be maintained 

to gauge the potential for establishment of forest regeneration when browsing by deer is 

suppressed. Forest regeneration will be deemed within acceptable limits when the number and 

viability of individuals of desired plant species in unfenced plots is at least 50 percent of those in 

fenced plots. 
36

Figure 12. Average percent vertical plant cover in unfenced control vegetation subplots during 

the early and late growing seasons of 2009 and 2010 JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware 

Counties, Pennsylvania. Data on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS WS as 

part of a study examining white-tailed deer ecology on the Refuge. 
37

Figure 13. Average percent vertical plant cover in vegetation subplots fenced to exclude 

browsing by white-tailed deer during the early and late growing seasons of 2009 and 2010 on 

JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. Fencing was installed after data 

were collected for the early growing season in 2009. Data on forest regeneration were collected 

by USDA APHIS WS as part of a study examining white-tailed deer ecology on the Refuge. 
38

Figure 14. Average percent aerial plant cover in unfenced subplots and fenced subplots to 

exclude browsing by white-tailed deer during the early and late growing seasons of 2009 and 

2010 on JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. Fencing was installed 

after data were collected for the early growing season of 2009. Data on forest regeneration were 

collected by USDA APHIS WS as part of a study examining white-tailed deer ecology on the 

Refuge. 
39

Deer Density Surveys 

Roving Surveys.–Eighteen separate roving infrared surveys were conducted from 

November 2008 through January 2011 along the standardized survey route to obtain an average 

estimate of the over-winter deer density on JHNWR (Figure 15, 16, Appendix L). 

Characterization of deer habitat on JHNWR and within the one-half mile buffer of the refuge 

boundary indicated that approximately 2,133 acres (3.3 square miles) of habitat are available to 

deer. Standard deer density estimators assume that habitat along the survey route is contiguous 

(i.e., no true barriers) allowing deer accessibility to a 1-square mile area per 1-mile length of 

survey route. Along the roving survey route on JHNWR only 17.8 percent of habitat was 

available to deer. The deer density estimator was adjusted accordingly to estimate deer 

abundance relative to potentially usable habitat for deer. From 2008 to 2011, deer abundance on 

JHNWR appeared to increase by >30 percent based on roving surveys. The average deer density 

estimate for JHNWR based on roving surveys was 61 (SE = 1.5) deer per square mile during 

fall/winter 2008 to 2009, 57 (SE = 6.3) deer per square mile during fall/winter 2009 to 2010, and 

83 (4.2) deer per square mile during fall/winter 2010-11. 

Figure 15. Annual average deer density estimates for 18 white-tailed deer density surveys (2 

per month, 6 total per year) completed by USDA APHIS WS on JHNWR located in Philadelphia 

and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during November 2008 to January 2009, November 2009 

to January 2010, and November 2010 to January 2011. 

The data from roving surveys during 2010 to 2011 indicated with 95 percent statistical 

confidence that deer densities on JHNWR and the surrounding area were between 75 deer per 

square mile and 91 deer per square mile prior to recruitment of young deer into the population 

during 2011. Given an average of 83 deer per square mile on JHNWR and 3.3 square miles of 

available habitat in the local area, these results would suggest that approximately 274 deer utilize 

JHNWR and adjoining areas. 

Deer observations were evenly distributed across the roving survey zones (Figure 17). 

The highest density of deer was observed in survey zone 5 during each of the three years of the 

study. This was likely due to the relatively greater amount of useable deer habitat in this area 

and improved accessibility for roving survey. Several blocks of useable habitat known to hold 

deer were not accessible for roving survey including the peninsula west of survey zone 3, and the 
40

woodlot north of survey zone 7. In part for this reason, these areas were targeted during the 

baited infrared camera surveys. 

While not statistically different (χ4

2

 = 3.06, P = 0.548), surveys during December 

consistently produced deer density estimates, which were less than those during November and 

January within the same survey season. Deer density estimates during November and January 

within a survey year did not differ. Therefore, December should be avoided for future surveys 

that will be used to make management decisions. This difference may be attributed to reduced 

deer activity after peak breeding season or another unknown factor. Deer may have been drawn 

away from the roving survey route by bait stations used simultaneously for infrared camera 

surveys in this study. To avoid possible interactions between baiting for infrared camera surveys 

and the availability of deer for observation during roving surveys, the two survey techniques 

should not be conducted simultaneously in the future. 

Figure 16. Monthly average deer density estimates for 18 white-tailed deer density surveys (2 

per month, 6 total per year) completed by USDA APHIS WS on JHNWR located in Philadelphia 

and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during November 2008 to January 2009, November 2009 

to January 2010, and November 2010 to January 2011. 
41

Figure 17. Proportion of total number of deer observed per survey zone during 18 white-tailed 

deer density surveys completed by USDA APHIS WS on during November 2008 through 

January 2011. 

Baited Surveys.–Baited infrared camera surveys were confined to the month of 

December during 2008, 2009, and 2010. The pre-baiting period was started in early December 

and included 7 days of whole kernel corn provided ad libitum. Infrared cameras were installed 

before day 7 of the pre-baiting period. The 14-day baited surveys concluded on or before 31 

December annually. Deer acclimated well to the bait sites and were photographed throughout 

the day and night. A total of 5,049 photographs with deer, separated by >10-minute intervals, 

were used for analysis. Data for all 4 camera locations cameras were pooled annually (Table 2). 

Individual bucks were recorded as unique only once regardless of whether they were 

photographed on multiple cameras. Individual bucks were recorded on both cameras 3 and 4; 

otherwise, no single buck was recorded on two cameras. 

The total number of deer estimated to use the areas surveyed by the infrared cameras 

were 68 deer in 2008, 84 deer in 2009, and 93 deer in 2010. These data identified an increase of 

26.9 percent in deer numbers from 2008 to 2010. This is similar to the >30 percent increase in 

deer abundance estimated by the roving survey technique during the same timeframe. 

Subsequent use of baited surveys conducted at the same locations and during the same timeframe 

will provide a reliable index of trends in deer abundance over time and in response to potential 

management actions. However, results of these baited surveys were not directly interchangeable 
42

with the results of roving surveys and do not approximate an exact population estimate or deer 

density per square mile. 

The infrared camera stations were located in areas with relatively large amounts of 

useable deer habitat in the context of the JHNWR environment. However, due to fragmentation 

of useable deer habitat, data from baited infrared camera surveys on JHNWR probably do not 

represent broad-scale estimates of deer abundance for more contiguous tracts (Figure 18). Deer 

are artificially concentrated in certain areas during different times of the day or seasons of the 

year on JHNWR. While most deer herds undergo cycles of social concentration and segregation 

during reproduction and variations in food abundance, these variables are likely amplified on 

JHNWR due to high human activity and limited useable habitat. For example, Camera 2 was 

spatially isolated by water and human development, located within an approximately 66-acre 

block of upland habitat and was bordered on two sides by water and on the other two sides by 

major roadways. Therefore, the 200 acres per camera service area normally assumed for baited 

infrared camera surveys would not apply for Camera 2. WS quantified the amount of area 

serviced by each baited infrared camera relative to the useable habitat available to deer derived 

during the habitat characterization portion of this study. During 2008 and 2009, each camera 

serviced an average of 89 acres of good or marginal habitat for deer. During 2010, the location 

of Camera 1 was changed from the location used during 2008 and 2009 to minimize disturbance 

to an active American bald eagle nest. During 2010, each camera serviced an average of 93 

acres of good or marginal habitat for deer. Data for number of acres per deer were quantified 

using these guidelines. As deer densities are reduced in possible future management actions, the 

amount of acreage of useable habitat per deer would be expected to increase. 

Deer Population Dynamics.–Adult doe to buck ratios observed averaged 4.7:1 (SE = 

1.2) during roving surveys and 1.5:1 during baited surveys. Bucks have a tendency to dominate 

bait sites, and a lesser doe to buck ratio for baited surveys was expected. It appears that sport 

hunting has had a minimal impact on the deer population. Compared to other deer populations 

that are exposed to consistent hunting pressure, JHNWR has a relatively high number of adult 

bucks utilizing the property. Bucks are naturally pre-disposed to greater mortality than does 

because they range farther, are more sought after by hunters, and are more susceptible to deervehicle collisions when searching for mates during the fall breeding season. Many deer 

populations regulated by sport hunting display doe to buck ratios in excess of 10:1. Still, 

bringing the balance of does to bucks on JHNWR nearer to 1:1 would provide benefits. When 

males are in sufficient abundance to breed the available females during their first estrous cycle 

for the year, the length of the breeding season is reduced. A shorter breeding season decreases 

physiological stress on individual deer making them less susceptible to disease and starvation. 

Also, deer are required to travel less in search of mates, which may minimize the incidence of 

deer-vehicle collisions common during breeding season. 
43

Table 2. Estimates of deer abundance via baited infrared camera surveys conducted by USDA APHIS WS on JHand Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during December of 2008, 2009, and 2010. 

2008 2009 

Estimated total no. deer 68 84 Estimated no. bucks 24 23 Estimated no. does 36 40 Estimated no. fawns 8 21 Acres per deer 5.2 4.2 Acres surveyed 356 356 

a The location of camera 1 was changed for 2010 from the location used during 2008 and 2009 to minimize distu

American bald eagle nest. 
44

Figure 18. Characterization of available habitat for white-tailed deer during baited infrared 

camera surveys conducted by USDA APHIS WS on JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware 

Counties, Pennsylvania during December of 2008, 2009, and 2010. The amount of area serviced 

by each baited infrared camera was analyzed relative to the useable habitat available to deer 

(yellow and green shaded areas) in a 200-acre circle centered on the baited infrared camera site. 

The red shading within the circle for Camera 2 indicates habitat that would be useable to deer, 

but was inaccessible to deer from the area of Camera 2. The location of Camera 1 was changed 

for 2010 from the location used during 2008 and 2009 to minimize disturbance to an active 

American bald eagle nest. 

Fawns tend to be under-represented in baited surveys since they are socially subordinate 

to adult does and bucks and their presence on bait sites is suppressed. The average fawn to doe 

ratio was 1.17:1 (SE = 0.2) for roving surveys and 0.54:1 (SE = 0.2) during baited surveys. The 

likelihood of observing the different age and sex classes of deer during roving surveys is 

assumed to be directly related to their proportion in the population. Therefore, it appears that 

greater than one fawn per doe is being recruited into the population annually. Given that at least 

one-third of the deer population is composed of adult females, the population has the potential to 

grow at a rate of greater than 33 percent per year. This is consistent with previous studies of deer 

population growth (McDonald et al. 2006). 

The deer densities derived during this study may be considered a conservative estimate of 

deer abundance on JHNWR since over 2 months of sport hunting for deer had occurred outside 

of the refuge boundary by the beginning of the surveys and the majority of deer-vehicle 

collisions had already occurred for the annual population cycle. Despite this, deer density 
45

estimates for JHNWR during this study were a minimum of six times greater than 

recommendations by WS for minimization of deer-human conflicts in suburban habitats (10 deer 

per square mile). Likewise, the density of deer observed on JHNWR was high relative to deer 

densities recommended for maintaining plant diversity in forested areas (6 deer per square mile, 

Alverson et al. 1988). 

Deer Herd Health Check 

Biological Indices.–Deer collection for the herd health check was conducted on 22 

December 2010 between 20:45 and 22:00 hours. There was no disturbance or safety risk to the 

public. Deer were removed whole from the environment and taken to a central processing 

facility for examination. Following examination, the eviscerated deer carcasses were donated to 

a local needy family as per the direction of the district wildlife conservation officer. 

Three adult females were collected on JHNWR (Table 3). Each deer was in fair physical 

condition with no evidence of disease. Deer 1 had signs of trauma from a past accident. The 

right rear leg was healed with obvious calcification. The injury appeared to cause no affliction to 

the deer. With live body weights >120 pounds, all three deer were normal in size for adult 

females relative to other deer herds observed by WS in the urban Philadelphia region (D’Angelo, 

unpublished data). Likewise, the relationship between chest girth and live body weight for deer 

collected on JHNWR was similar a scale developed by the Pennsylvania State University 

Department of Dairy and Animal Science and The Pennsylvania Game Commission for deer 

across Pennsylvania. (http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/deer/11949) 

(Figure 19). This suggests that deer on JHNWR were in physical condition similar to those used 

to develop this scale. 

Because fat is deposited internally first, low to moderate Tail Fat Scores (1 to 2) 

suggested that these individuals were able to build enough internal fat reserves to also achieve 

supplemental fat subcutaneously. Since subcutaneous fat was not utilized by the time of 

collection in late-December, food resources were not extremely limited on JHNWR despite 

relatively high deer densities. Kidney Fat Indices >30 percent of the weight of the kidney 

corroborate that deer on JHNWR obtained sufficient food during fall to generate good fat 

reserves. In very poor habitats with high deer densities and limited forage, some deer may not 

produce a full complement of body fat because of caloric demands for physical maintenance and 

reproduction. However, in excellent habitats with deer herds in balance with the ecosystem, 

kidney fat reserves may be >3 times those observed on JHNWR. 

Reproduction in the female deer collected on JHNWR was less than expected for deer in 

southeastern Pennsylvania. Most adult does produce twins. However, only one doe in this 

sample conceived twins, one conceived a single fawn, and the third doe was not yet pregnant. 

While later in the breeding season, the third doe may have conceived in a subsequent estrous 

cycle if she was not collected. The estimated dates of conception and parturition for the two 

does carrying fetuses were typical of deer in this region. 
46

Table 3. Indices of physical condition for three adult female white-tailed deer collected for a 

herd health check by USDA APHIS WS on 22 December 2010 as part of a study examining the 

ecology of white-tailed deer on JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. 

Variable Deer 1 Deer 2 Deer 3 

 

Sex Female Female Female 

Age (years) 4.5 5.5 5.5 

Live weight (lbs.) 121 128 137 

Chest girth (inches) 34.5 35.0 37.0 

Kidney fat index 30.8 63.2 61.9 

Tail fat index 1 1 2 

No. of fetuses 1 2 0 

Estimated date of conception 01 November 29 October ―

Estimated date of parturition 29 May 26 May ―

 
47

Figure 19. Relationship between chest girth and body weight of white-tailed deer from across 

Pennsylvania observed by the Pennsylvania State University Department of Dairy and Animal 

Science and The Pennsylvania Game Commission (black trend line) as compared to the 

relationship between chest girth and body weight for three adult female white-tailed deer (silver 

diamonds) collected by USDA APHIS WS on 22 December 2010 as part of a study examining 

the ecology of white-tailed deer on JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. 

Contaminants Testing.–Mineral concentrations in the deer collected on JHNWR were 

within or near the limits of ranges known to be normal for white-tailed deer for most elements in 

liver tissues (Table 4). While normal trace element levels for muscle tissue in white-tailed deer 

have not been established, concentrations of most elements would be expected to be less in 

muscle versus liver tissue because the liver functions to filter the blood coming from the 

digestive tract and thus collects more minerals. Most notably from this sample, levels of lead 

were negligible in the liver and muscle of all three deer examined. Deer 1 had a level of iron in 

the liver tissue that was slightly higher than the normal range, however the concentration of iron 

in the muscle tissue was normal. Based on this sample of adult female white-tailed deer 

collected on JHNWR, there appeared to be no concerns for human consumption of venison from 

this herd. Although contamination of venison is unlikely, to minimize risk of toxins, people 

should avoid consuming internal organs (i.e., liver) of deer harvested on JHNWR. 

 
48

Table 4. Concentrations of trace elements contained in liver and muscle tissues of white-tailed 

deer collected for a herd health check by USDA APHIS WS on 22 December 2010 on JHNWR, 

Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. Asterisks indicate values outside of known 

normal ranges for individual elements. 

Mineral Sample Normal 

range (ppm)a Deer 1 (ppm) Deer 2 (ppm) Deer 3 (ppm) 

Arsenic Muscle ― <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Liver <0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cadmium Muscle ― <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 

Liver <0.001-6.5b <0.03 0.21 0.13 

Calcium Muscle ― 36.2 31.0 32.1 

Liver 25-60 42.1 44.2 61.3* 

Cobalt Muscle ― <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 

Liver 0.0-2.2c <0.03 0.07 0.09 

Copper Muscle ― 1.10 1.4 2.0 

Liver 0.0-456b 0.68 16.9 5.2 

Iron Muscle ― 42.4 32.2 42.9 

Liver 70-300d 370* 122 75.1 

Lead Muscle ― <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Liver <1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Magnesium Muscle ― 262 283 281 

Liver 23-422b 183 177 145 

Manganese Muscle ― <0.3 <0.3 1.1 

Liver 1.9-37b 0.30* 2.82 2.7 

Molybdenum Muscle ― <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 

Liver 0.6-1.3e 0.04* 0.95 0.71 

Selenium Muscle ― 0.29 0.21 0.32 

Liver 0.2-1.1 0.57 0.98 0.71 

Thallium Muscle ― <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Liver ― <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 

Zinc Muscle ― 17.4 15.8 16.5 

Liver 30-110 32.3 44.6 33.9 

a Unless specified, trace element levels in the normal range were reported as adequate in liver samples for adult 

white-tailed, black-tailed, and mule deer (ppm wet weight) by the Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Laboratory 

System. Results outside of these ranges do not necessarily indicate deficits or toxicity. 

b

 Normal range of trace element levels derived from those reported as normal by Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic 

Laboratory System and observed by Woolf et al. (1982) and not specified as abnormal in the publication. 

c

 Normal range of trace element levels derived from those observed by Woolf et al. (1982) and not specified as 

abnormal in the publication. 

d

 Normal range of trace element levels derived from those observed by Lewis et al. (2001) and not specified as 

abnormal in the publication. 

e

 Normal range of trace element levels derived from those observed by Eisler (1989) and not specified as abnormal 

in the publication. 
49

Other Related Indices 

Deer-vehicle Collisions.–The direct effects of overabundant deer often are not reliably 

quantifiable. Surprisingly, in requesting data from local municipalities in the area of JHNWR, 

WS found that few deer-vehicle collisions were reported from 2004 to 2009 (Table 5). However, 

since none of the municipalities recorded information specifically identifying accidents as being 

related to deer, rates of deer-vehicle collisions were the impression of the respondent rather than 

recorded data. Since most sources did not specifically record data about deer-vehicle collisions 

and no reliable source of information was available for the area of JHNWR, no additional data 

were solicited in 2010 to 2011. 

Table 5. Information about rates of deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs) in municipalities in the area 

of JHNWR, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. Interviews of Police 

Department officials and Road Department supervisors to obtain deer-vehicle collision data were 

conducted by USDA APHIS WS during September 2009 as part of a study examining the 

ecology of white-tailed deer on the Refuge. 

Municipality Data Recording Specific 

to Deer-vehicle Collisions Comments 

Darby Township No Probably 5 to 10 DVCs annually. 

Folcroft Borough No Probably several DVCs annually. 

Norwood Borough No No data available. 

Prospect Park Borough No About 2 DVCs on Rt. 420 in last 5 

years. 

Ridley Park Borough No Accident investigator felt that no 

DVCs occurred. 

Tinicum Township No Few DVCs. 

 

Additionally, few incidents of deer-vehicle collisions in the area were recorded by the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The 

Pennsylvania Game Commission responded that generating reports on deer-vehicle collisions 

was problematic since they were in hard copy format from the contractor responsible for 

removing reported deer carcasses from State roadways. A search of records for Tinicum 

Township, the largest municipality sharing a border with JHNWR, yielded one deer carcass 

removed from a roadway during 2008. 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation maintains a detailed crash reporting system 

for State-controlled roadways. From 2004 to 2008, four deer-vehicle collisions were 

documented within one mile of JHNWR. These data from all resources polled, suggest that 

deer-vehicle collisions are rare in the area. Still, accidents involving deer are an important issue 
50

causing human death, property damage, and waste of deer as a resource. During each roving 

survey and during day time visits to JHNWR, WS observed deer fleeing along the corridor of 

Interstate 95 in response to the vehicles or pedestrians on the Refuge. This presents a potentially 

dangerous situation on a daily basis. 

Lyme Disease.–Philadelphia County requires the reporting of confirmed cases of Lyme 

Disease, however suspected locations of infection are not specified (Table 6). Information from 

Delaware County could not be obtained. Lyme Disease was consistently the number one 

reportable vector-borne illness and within the top 10 reportable diseases in Philadelphia County. 

JHNWR receives visitors from a broad geographic area, even other States and Countries. 

Neighbors of the Refuge may become infected near their homes or at locations where they may 

have traveled. Undoubtedly, people likely were infected with Lyme Disease by black-legged 

ticks on and near the Refuge, but tracking the rate of infection is difficult. 

Table 6. Confirmed cases of Lyme Disease in Philadelphia County as reported by the 

Philadelphia Department of Public Health Division of Disease Control Annual Reports from 

1996 to 2009. Data after 2010 were not yet available. 

Year 

Confirmed 

cases of 

Lyme Disease 

Year 

Confirmed 

cases of 

Lyme Disease 

 

1996 225 2003 164 

1997 184 2004 182 

1998 179 2005 172 

1999 220 2006 139 

2000 165 2007 172 

2001 99 2008 281 

2002 179 2009 236 

 White-tailed deer are reservoir hosts of the adult black-legged tick and rates of Lyme 

Disease are prevalent where deer become overabundant. However, results of studies differ on 

the relationship between tick abundance and prevalence of Lyme Disease in areas with different 

deer densities. Rand et al. (2003) found that tick abundance increased directly with deer 

densities and few ticks were collected in areas with deer densities less than 18 deer per square 

mile. Jordan et al. (2007) found that an active deer culling operation in which 47 percent of deer 

were removed resulted in no apparent effect on tick abundance over three years after deer were 

reduced. However, deer densities in this study were still >60 deer per square mile. Also, Rand 

et al. (2004) found that after complete removal of deer from an offshore island tick abundance 

and prevalence of Lyme Disease initially increased before crashing several years after deer 

removal. While the exact relationship between deer densities and Lyme Disease infection rates 

are not clearly understood, evidence is sufficient to support justification of managing deer at 

lower densities to reduce the risk of Lyme Disease to the public. 
51

Recommendations

Deer Management.–To reduce the negative effects of overabundant deer on Refuge 

habitats, deer densities on JHNWR should be reduced to a point where acceptable levels of 

damage by deer are aligned with the desire of the public to appreciate deer in a natural state and 

in balance with their habitat. For urban habitats such as JHNWR, deer densities less than 10 deer 

per square mile are appropriate. Likewise, to reduce overbrowsing by deer in forested 

ecosystems, densities of less than 10 deer per square mile are recommended. 

Given that many of the deer utilizing JHNWR have home ranges overlapping adjacent 

private lands and depend on wetland areas for subsistence, deer density objectives should not be 

solely based on 324 acres of upland habitat under Refuge control. Rather, it should be assumed 

that the local deer population has access to approximately 3.3 square miles of suitable habitat as 

estimated by WS analyses. Therefore, with 3.3 square miles of available habitat and a deer 

density goal of less than 10 deer per square mile, annual post-harvest deer abundance should not 

exceed 33 deer at a near even sex ratio of does to bucks. Based on deer abundance data at the 

time of this study, prior to fawning in spring 2011, a reduction of approximately 241 deer would 

be required to achieve this objective. Once the desired herd condition is achieved, the deer 

population must be maintained through persistent annual harvest. Most deer populations require 

approximately 30 percent harvest annually to maintain desired deer densities. Correspondingly, 

fawn to doe ratios on JHNWR suggest that annual population growth may be 30 percent. After 

population goals are met, harvest of approximately 10 deer annually will be required on 

JHNWR. 

Desirable conditions resulting from such lowered deer densities would likely include: 

1) a healthy deer population below biological and social carrying capacities, 2) a reduction in 

human health and safety risks (e.g., Lyme Disease), 3) reduced damage to native vegetation, 5) 

improved habitat conditions for other wildlife including songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians, and 

6) possible recreational opportunities for sport-hunters to help maintain desired deer population 

levels. Deer population densities relative to the goals of JHNWR should continue to be 

monitored. Deer management strategies should be adapted annually to maintain deer densities 

consistent with the goals of JHNWR. 

The methods by which the deer population is reduced and maintained are at the discretion 

of JHNWR within the guidelines set forth by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. WS 

recommends establishment of a controlled public sport-hunting program with archery equipment 

as part of the management regime. Controlled sport-hunting would aid in reducing and 

maintaining deer densities. Given the limitations of archery equipment, space limitations for 

situating hunters safely across the Refuge, financial and logistical costs for the number of days 

hunting can occur on the Refuge, it is likely that supplemental removal of deer will be necessary 

to align deer numbers with objectives of the Refuge. Therefore, professional deer removal via 

wildlife control specialists should be utilized to reduce and maintain deer densities in areas 

where sport hunting cannot be conducted safely, legally, or efficiently. 

Forest Management.–In anticipation of lowered deer densities and the proliferation of 

vegetation with reduced browse pressure, silvicultural treatments should be initiated as soon as 

feasible to substantially reduce non-native tree and herbaceous species. Nonnative trees should 

be culled, and desirable individual trees should be protected during timbering operations. 

Treatment of the understory by mechanical means, herbicide, or fire will be required to reduce 
52

the abundance of exotic weeds and competition for tree seedlings. Seeding to reduce erosion or 

for habitat creation should utilize desired native species. Even at reduced deer densities, 

establishment of tree seedlings may be challenging due to limited forage. Therefore, multiple 

large deer exclosures (i.e., >10 acres) should be created where non-native plant species may be 

intensively removed and desired vegetation will be protected. At minimum, the forest 

regeneration plots established for this study should be maintained to gauge the potential for 

establishment of forest regeneration when browsing by deer is suppressed. Forest regeneration 

will be deemed within acceptable limits when the number and viability of individuals of desired 

plant species in unfenced plots is at least 50 percent of those in fenced plots. 

 
53

SECTION 5: PROPOSED DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

Introduction 

Based on the information collected during the study of deer ecology on JHNWR, a deer 

management program was developed to balance deer with the habitat for the health of deer and 

the ecosystem, and to reduce health and safety risks to the public. The proposed deer 

management program emphasizes reducing and maintaining the deer population to stimulate 

desired growth of native plants. It may provide a high-quality recreational opportunity to the 

sport-hunting public in the future. 

Conformance with Statutory Authorities 

Several laws and a recent executive order apply to hunting on national wildlife refuges. 

They are summarized below. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.–The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 consolidated the various categories of lands 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the Service into a single Refuge 

System. The Act establishes a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a process for 

determining compatible uses of refuges, and a requirement for preparing comprehensive 

conservation plans. This Act states first and foremost that the mission of the Refuge System is to 

be focused singularly on wildlife conservation. This Act identifies six priority wildlifedepending recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation), clarifies the Secretary’s authority to accept 

donations of money for land acquisition and places restrictions on the transfer, exchange or other 

disposal of lands within the Refuge System. Most importantly, this Act reinforces and expands 

the “compatibility standard” of the Refuge Recreation Act. The Refuge Administration Act 

authorizes the Secretary, under such regulation as he/she may prescribe, to “permit the use of any 

area within the System for any purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public 

recreation and accommodation, and access whenever he/she determines that such uses are 

compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established”. 

Executive Order 12996 (March 25, 1996).–This Executive Order, entitled “Management 

and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System,” contains a directive to: 

"...recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as priority 

general public uses of the Refuge System..." 

National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act.–The Centennial Act was passed as 

part of Public Law 106-408 on November 21, 2000. The purpose of the legislation was to: (1) 

establish a commission to promote awareness by the public; (2) develop a long-term plan to meet 

the priority needs; (3) require an annual report on the needs of the System; and (4) improve 

public use programs and facilities.
54

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962.–This Act (16 U.S.C. 460k) authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to administer such areas for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or 

secondary use only to the extent that it is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary 

objectives for which the area was established. In addition, the Refuge Recreation Act requires 

that funds are available for the development, operation, and maintenance of the permitted forms 

of recreation. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.–The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, did 

not specifically address the Refuge System but it does directly affect management activities 

within the Refuge System. The Act directed Federal agencies to take actions that would further 

the purposes of the Act and to ensure that actions they carry out, authorize or fund do not 

jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitat.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 50.–Section 31.1 Determination of surplus 

wildlife populations states that the population and requirements of wildlife species on wildlife 

refuge areas shall be determined by population census, habitat evaluation, and other means of 

ecological study.

Section 31.2 Methods of surplus wildlife population control states that upon a determination that 

wildlife are surplus to a balanced conservation program on any wildlife refuge area, the surplus 

may be reduced or utilized in accordance with Federal and State law and regulation by: 

(a) Donation or loan to public agencies and institutions. 

(d) Official wildlife control operations. 

(e) Public hunting or fishing. 

Section 31.11 Donation and loan of wildlife specimens states that wildlife specimens may be 

donated or loaned to public institutions for specific purposes. Donations or loans of resident 

species of wildlife will not be made unless the recipient has secured the approval of the State. 

Section 31.14 Official animal control operations states. 

(a) Animal species which are surplus or detrimental to the management program of a 

wildlife refuge area may be taken in accordance with Federal and State laws and 

regulations by Federal or State personnel or by permit issued to private individuals. 

(b) Animal species which are damaging or destroying Federal property within a wildlife 

refuge area may be taken or destroyed by Federal personnel. 

Section 31.15 states that the privilege of hunting may be extended to the general public. 

Section 32.1 states that the opening of a wildlife refuge area to hunting will be dependent upon 

the provisions of law applicable to the area and upon a determination by the Secretary of the 

Interior that the opening of the area to the hunting of migratory game birds, upland game, or big 

game will be compatible with the principles of sound wildlife management and will otherwise be 

in the public interest. 
55

Section 32.2 has provisions applicable to each person engaged in public hunting on a wildlife 

refuge area. 

Section 32.3 explains the procedure for publication of special regulations.

Deer Management Purpose

The purpose of the white-tailed deer management program is to balance the deer 

population on the Refuge relative to the objectives of JHNWR. It may also provide the public 

with an opportunity for high quality deer hunting after additional National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis and public review and comment. The deer management program will 

benefit habitat management objectives of the Refuge, specifically in controlling the deer 

population and improving stands of native vegetation capable of supporting a greater diversity of 

wildlife. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Refuge Improvement Act) 

establishes as the policy of Service that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible with 

refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, is a legitimate and appropriate public use 

of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish 

and wildlife. The Refuge Improvement Act directs the Service to facilitate such recreation, 

including hunting (50 CFR Part 32, Page 46346, Sept. 4, 2001). In addition, the Service policy 

on hunting as stated in the Refuge Manual (8RM 5.1) is: “....to permit hunting on any Refuge 

within the Refuge System upon a determination that hunting is compatible with the major 

purposes for which such areas are established.” In addition to a compatibility determination, the 

Refuge Recreation Act requires verification that funds are available for the development, 

operation and maintenance of the hunting program. 

The Service has long recognized that deer management through wildlife control 

specialists and/or controlled refuge hunts are an integral part of a comprehensive wildlife 

management program. Such deer control programs are also recognized as acceptable 

management tools to effectively manipulate wildlife population levels. 

 

Objectives 

 Improve vegetative conditions for the benefit of Federal trust species such as migratory 

birds and threatened and endangered species; 

 Conform to the State deer damage management policy; 

 Reduce damage to forested areas within 5 years of project implementation; 

 Utilize wildlife control specialists to rapidly achieve deer density goals; 

 Evaluate potential to open the refuge to a limited deer hunt (e.g., youth hunt, hunters with 

disabilities) to provide additional recreational opportunities for the public and to aid in 

reducing and maintaining deer density goals on an annual basis; 
56

 Perform all deer population control activities in a manner safe for participants, neighbors, 

the public, and Refuge employees. 

Initial reduction and maintenance of the white-tailed deer population will be with wildlife 

control specialists. Pre-harvest deer density estimates will be conducted annually in the fall to 

prescribe the number of deer to be removed to regulate deer abundance to less than 10 deer per 

square mile. 

Once population goals are achieved, annual deer population management will potentially 

be a combination of wildlife control specialists. If warranted in the future, JHNWR will partner 

with PGC to evaluate in detail a proposal to provide opportunities for deer hunting on the refuge 

consistent with State and local regulations and laws. Other alternatives, including no action (i.e., 

no hunting) would be considered in this evaluation, and there would be additional opportunities 

for public involvement before a final decision would be made. 

 Prior to opening any refuge to hunting, the Service must complete several steps. First, we 

must meet the requirements of NEPA including involving the public and preparing the 

appropriate NEPA document (an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement) 

to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives and the associated effects on the human 

environment. Next, we must prepare the NEPA decision document which documents the 

alternative (or combination of alternatives) we are choosing to implement. As part of this 

process, we must complete an evaluation of effects on federally listed species under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. We must also prepare a news release, an outreach plan, a hunt plan, 

a compatibility determination, and revise the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR) as needed. 

If implemented, all future public archery hunting on JHNWR would be in accordance with State, 

Federal and Refuge Regulations. The Refuge would likely institute a permit system, weapons 

restrictions, safety zones, and similar special conditions for safety and wildlife management 

purposes at that time. If any portions of the Refuge are opened for hunting in the future, they 

would be designated by signs and/or shown on permits or maps. Special regulations and maps 

would then be available to the public. 

 Relationship of Deer Management Program to Goals and Purposes.– Potential negative 

effects of using wildlife control specialists to control the deer population on the Refuge are 

discussed in this document and in the John Heinz NWR at Tinicum Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2012). As mentioned previously, 

any effects of implementing a public deer hunt on the refuge would need to be addressed in a 

subsequent NEPA document (i.e., an environmental assessment or environmental impact 

statement). Additional information on effects of white-tailed deer management on Pennsylvania 

deer populations are available in the environmental assessment prepared by USDA APHIS 

(2003). 

Relationship to Other Plans and Documents.– All Refuges are required to develop a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that will provide long-range guidance and 

management to achieve Refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each Refuge and the Refuge System and 

help meet other mandates. Currently, JHNWR is completing a CCP concurrent with this Deer 

Management Plan. The CCP encompasses management activities on the refuge. The deer 
57

management plan is a “step-down” management plan of the CCP. This plan has been 

incorporated and amended as necessary for the completion of the CCP. 

Assessment 

An assessment of Refuge resources can be found in the JHNWR Draft CCP and 

Environmental Assessment (USFWS 2012). As mentioned previously, before the Refuge could 

be opened to public hunting, a separate hunt environmental assessment would need to be 

prepared, as well as a hunt plan, outreach plan, Refuge-specific regulations (if any) and a 

compatibility determination. These documents address environmental impacts of implementing 

a public hunt program. 

Guidelines for Wildlife Control Specialist Deer Population Management 

Supplemental deer removal will be conducted by WS, private contractors, or other agents 

of JHNWR under the guidelines of a Deer Control Permit through the Pennsylvania Game 

Commission. Professional deer removal operators could be permitted to use specialized 

equipment and methods such as baiting, high-powered rifles fitted with suppressors to minimize 

noise; infrared and night vision technologies for identification of safe shooting opportunities and 

to increase the ability to locate deer; and shooting at night, from vehicles, and in close proximity 

to buildings. Deer harvested by professional operators will provide venison for charitable 

donation. 

Description of Possible Deer Management Program with Hunting 

Guidelines for Future Archery Hunt Program.– The following administrative 

procedures for refuge hunting programs can be found in the Service Refuge Manual (8 RM 5.5): 

 "Refuge hunting programs should be planned, supervised, conducted, and evaluated to 

promote positive hunting values and hunter ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship. 

In general, hunting on Refuges should be superior to that available on other public or 

private lands and should provide participants with reasonable harvest opportunities, 

uncrowded conditions, limited interference from or dependence on mechanized aspects of 

the sport. This may require zoning the hunt unit and limiting the number of participants. 

Good planning will minimize the controls and regimentation needed to achieve hunting 

objectives." 

If Areas are Opened to Archery Hunting.–For reasons of safety, preventing disturbance 

among hunters and from the public, and for best controlling harvest of deer in key areas of the 

Refuge (see Figure 20), WS recommends the following guidelines if areas are opened to archery 

hunting: 1) Refuge staff should install elevated hunting stands with access by ladder in areas 

determined to be used regularly by deer; are posted to restrict access by the public; and are 

minimum 400 yards from other hunter stand locations, 200 yards from Refuge boundaries, and 

200 yards from Refuge roads and paths; 2) hunters should be required to utilize approved safety 

harnesses while in elevated stands; 3) hunters should be directed to stand locations by Refuge 

staff and required to remain in the immediate area of the stand for the hunt duration; 4) stand 
58

locations should be moved between hunts as necessary to most effectively control hunting effort. 

Initial recommendations would achieve approximate hunter densities of approximately 23 acres 

per hunter. 

Figure 20. Recommended elevated stand locations with 400-yard buffers (orange circles 

encompass stand locations and 400-yard buffer) around each stand for archery sport-hunters if 

the refuge is opened to limited hunts for white-tailed deer on JHNWR located in Philadelphia 

and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. USDA APHIS WS recommends buffering stand 

locations to ensure safety; provide quality hunting experiences; and contain deer harvest 

locations away from other hunters, public areas, and roadways. 

Accommodations may be made for disabled hunters involved in the controlled archery 

sport-hunting program. Limited vehicular access that may include ATVs could be made 

available on an as needed basis at approved areas and times. Construction of a temporary hunting 

blind with wheelchair accessibility could be available and those hunters recognized by 

Pennsylvania Game Commission as disabled would have preference regarding such use. 

PA Title 34 Game and Wildlife Code, Sec. 2504(a) “It is unlawful for any person to shoot 

at any game or wildlife while it is on a public highway or on a highway open to use or 

used by the public or to shoot across a public highway or a highway or roadway open to 

use or used by the public unless the line of fire is high enough above the elevation of the 
59

highway to preclude any danger to the users of the highway. It shall be unlawful for any 

person, after alighting from a motor vehicle being driven on or stopped on or along a 

public highway or road open to public travel, to shoot at any wild bird or wild animal 

while the person doing the shooting is within 25 yards of the traveled portion of the 

public highway or road open to public travel.”

Species to be Taken.–As defined by the Service’s Refuge Manual, hunting on refuges 

may be allowed for migratory game birds and resident game species, which are generally subdivided into big game and upland (small) game categories. Only archery hunting for white-tailed 

deer (big game) is recommended on JHNWR. The take of white-tailed deer should be in 

accordance with State bag limits and seasons, although antlerless deer should be targeted, with 

the goal of reducing deer overabundance. The refuge manager should determine the ratio of 

antlerless to antlered deer to be taken prior to the hunting season. This determination should be 

based on the Refuge’s habitat management objectives and the annual deer surveys. The hunt 

should occur within dates established by the refuge manager within guidelines of the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission. 

Justification for Requiring Refuge Special Use Hunt Permits.–All archery hunters 

should be required to apply for and obtain a bow hunting special use permit to hunt on JHNWR. 

This system would enable the Refuge to ensure control over the quality and safety of the hunt. 

Permits should be awarded on a name-drawn lottery basis to fairly distribute archery access 

while balancing the number of hunters with available acreage and projected annual harvest. An 

application fee should be assessed each applicant, which should be used to offset the hunt’s 

administrative costs. This fee should be non-transferable, and non-refundable. Maps delineating 

hunt zones should be part of the permit package. The permit should inform hunters of current 

refuge regulations, assignment of hunt units, and other pertinent information for the current 

year’s hunt. It should be given to hunters at the mandatory hunter orientation program prior to 

the hunt. When bow hunting on JHNWR, hunters should be required to have in their possession 

the Refuge special use permit at all times.

The entire perimeter of JHNWR is posted with appropriate boundary and/or closed area 

signs, therefore the signed hunting permit would comply with the State general trespass law 

which states in Pennsylvania that the land owner must assert their rights to enforce trespass. 

Procedures for Consultation and Coordination with the State.–The development of the 

Deer Management Plan was done in consultation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. If 

we propose a public hunt program on the refuge, a letter of concurrence should be obtained from 

the Pennsylvania Game Commission. JHNWR should consult with Pennsylvania Game 

Commission, annually, or on an as-needed basis, to discuss archery hunt issues and the 

management of wildlife control specialists. Aspects in which Refuge regulations may be more 

restrictive than State regulations are: 1) in the number of days of the hunt-the refuge should have 

fewer days due to the administrative constraints imposed by limited available staff and the desire 

to minimize disturbance to non-target species; 2) to continue to provide the other priority 

wildlife-dependent public uses which include environmental education, wildlife photography, 

and interpretation; and 3) methods of take.
60

Methods of Control and Enforcement in Archery Hunt, if Implemented.–The Refuge 

special use permit system should be used to control hunter placement, density, and safety. 

Enforcement of State and Federal regulations should be maintained through check-in and checkout stations and spot checks of hunters in the field by State and Service law enforcement officials 

should occur, as available. A check-in station should be established where hunters will check-in 

for the day and be assigned a specific hunting location.

Staffing and Funds to Facilitate Potential Future Archery Hunt.–The initial startup 

cost of implementing an archery hunt is expected to be $4,000 for boundary posting, flyers, 

public notices, posters, maps, etc. The annual cost of running this program is expected to be 

$9,000 which includes a substantial portion of overtime for law enforcement personnel. Refuge 

staff would need to prepare the annual Refuge hunting regulations leaflet, make changes to the 

hunt plan and regulations as needed, prepare annual output reports, and respond to public 

inquiries about the hunt program. Refuge staff should collaborate with and receive assistance 

from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and WS in checking hunters in and out and collecting 

biological information from harvested deer. 

In addition to general staffing, Service and/or other authorized law enforcement 

personnel at the Federal, State, County and local levels should be requested to assist during each 

day of the hunt. Service law enforcement assistance would need to be authorized by the 

Regional Office to ensure the involvement of a minimum of one additional refuge officer to 

assist with the hunt. In addition to staff expenses, the refuge would incur costs for signs, vehicle 

maintenance, leaflet printing, and miscellaneous supplies. 

Initial Costs: 

 Boundary posting (materials): $1,000 

 Production of hunt flyers, public notices, posters, etc: $1,500 

 Design hunter orientation course and target qualifications: $1,500 

 Total $4,000 

Additional Staffing Need: 

 Detailed GS-9 Law Enforcement Officer: $5,000 

Annual (recurring costs): 

 Hunt staff administration (reservations, check-in/out, deer check): $2,000 

Law Enforcement Officer (over time): $5,000 

Printing: $1,000 

Miscellaneous (signs, equipment, vehicle, etc.) $1,000 

 Total $9,000 
61

Measures Taken to Avoid Conflicts with Other Management Objectives 

Biological Conflict.–The proposed deer management program will cause few biological 

conflicts with other wildlife species. Some disturbance of other animals is unavoidable when 

sport-hunters and wildlife control specialists are on the Refuge and when they are using firearms. 

However, disturbance will be minimized because many spring and summer nesting forest 

songbirds will have migrated south and reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals will have 

entered a dormant stage prior to either portion of the deer management program. If an archery 

hunt is implemented, disturbance to resident wildlife or winter migrants is not anticipated given 

the low density of hunters recommended (i.e., 1 bow hunter per 23 acres of the Refuge’s 324 

acres of upland habitat) and archery hunting is recommended on fewer than half of the days 

allotted for the Pennsylvania hunting season. 

JHNWR is within the range of American bald eagle and these majestic birds are fairly 

regular users of the refuge for nesting and roosting areas along the Delaware River. Although 

the hunting season would coincide with the time of year that eagles are potentially present, it is 

not expected that the proposed archery hunt would affect bald eagles. Hunters would primarily 

use the Refuge upland habitat, while the wetland areas and open water are those more often 

occupied by eagles and they could not be possibly be confused with any legal game species (deer 

only) on the Refuge. 

 To ensure sound wildlife management, the Refuge should monitor the deer population, 

both through a continuation of the annual deer survey and the collection of age, sex, and weight 

information from harvested deer. Some of this information would be necessary if a hunt 

program is implemented and has been included in the cost of administering the hunts. 

Public Use Conflicts.–The Refuge is sensitive to the proximity of its neighbors and is 

committed to ensure their safety. For this reason, the Refuge should establish safety zones 

adjacent to residential areas (i.e., a 500-foot, no-shooting zone around the Refuge’s perimeter). 

Other Refuge uses consist of individuals hiking the nature trails and canoeists/kayakers paddling 

the Darby Creek and Tinicum Marsh. Use of the nature trails is variable during the fall and light 

during January. However, to ensure visitor safety and a quality experience for all Refuge 

visitors, nature trails should be closed to the public on hunt days. JHNWR should post signs at 

the main creek access points (i.e., canoe launch and west end at lagoons) to notify the public that 

a deer hunt is in progress. JHNWR should coordinate with the local marinas to ensure that they 

are aware of the hunt season on the refuge and that they notify their customers. JHNWR should 

further instruct hunters that they are not authorized to shoot across waterways; this should be 

reinforced by using appropriately defining hunt zone boundaries. 

Administrative Conflicts.–No administrative conflicts are anticipated. 

Potential Implementation of Archery Hunt 

Federal Regulations.–Archery hunting on the Refuge would be contingent on specific 

regulations enacted by the Service for refuges in general and JHNWR in particular. These are in 

addition to State regulations, and would take precedence where they are more restrictive than the 

State regulations. General stipulations for refuge hunting as contained in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR Part 32) state that hunters must have a valid State license, comply with all 
62

current Federal hunting regulations including the migratory bird regulations (50 CFR Part 20), 

and comply with all state hunting and safety regulations. Additionally, hunters would be 

required to comply with the terms and conditions established by JHNWR for access to the 

Refuge itself and for the Refuge’s site-specific archery hunting program. Some of the more 

pertinent Federal regulations for hunting on a national wildlife refuge follow: 

1. Each person shall secure and possess the required State license. 

2. Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of the laws and 

regulations of the State. 

3. Each person shall comply with the terms and conditions authorizing access and/or 

use of national wildlife refuges. 

4. Each person must comply with the provisions of any refuge-specific regulations. 

Regulations, special conditions, and maps of the hunting areas for a particular 

wildlife refuge are available at Refuge office. Information concerning hunter 

orientation is available by phoning the Refuge office. 

5. The use of any drug on any arrow for bow hunting on national wildlife refuges is 

prohibited. Archers may not have arrows employing such drugs in their 

possession. 

6. The unauthorized distribution of bait and hunting over bait is prohibited. 

7. The use of nails, wire, screws or bolts to attach a stand to a tree, or hunting from a 

tree into which a metal object has been driven to support a hunter is prohibited. 

8. The use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is prohibited. 

State Regulations.–All State regulations would apply to hunting on the Refuge, including 

weapons restrictions and hunting hours. The applicable State hunting license and deer tags 

would be required. 

Refuge-specific Archery Hunting Regulations.–Hunting on the Refuge should be 

contingent on specific regulations enacted by the Service for refuges in general and JHNWR in 

particular. These are in addition to State regulations, and would take precedence where they are 

more restrictive than the State regulations. The regulations listed below should govern the 

hunting program on JHNWR.

1. Refuge should be closed to hunting between February 1 and September 14 of each year, 

with specific “open” archery hunting dates between September 15 and January 31 

established by annual rule. 

2. Only white-tailed deer should be taken on the Refuge and by archery only. Hunters 

should be required to first take at least one antlerless deer before taking an antlered deer. 
63

Total refuge archery special use permits and deer gender ratios for harvest should be set 

annually by refuge manager based on annual deer surveys. 

3. Hunters should be required to have in their possession a valid JHNWR hunting special 

use permit and photo identification on their person while hunting Refuge property. 

Hunters would obtain permits from the Refuge. 

4. Hunters should be required to possess proof of completion of a State archery hunter 

education course, any Refuge-specific orientation program and target qualification upon 

daily check-in at the designated Refuge location(s). 

5. Hunters should be limited to driving on open public access roads and parking in public 

areas as noted on a map with the JHNWR Hunting Regulations. Hunters requiring 

additional accommodations for disability access should contact refuge manager in 

advance to make such arrangements as needed. 

6. Parking permits distributed by the Refuge should be displayed face-up on the vehicle 

dashboard while hunting. 

7. Hunters should be required to check in and be at assigned parking area as noted on 

Refuge permit and hunters must check out by designated time on Refuge permit. 

8. Use of dogs to hunt or pursue game should be prohibited. 

9. Only Pennsylvania licensed hunters with valid Refuge special use permit and photo ID 

should be allowed to carry archery equipment on the refuge and only within refuge bow 

season and hours. No firearms or ammunition should be permitted on the Refuge except 

by law enforcement officers and Refuge permitted wildlife control specialists during 

times of official operations. 

 

10. Shots should only be taken from assigned stands. 

11. No person should kill or cripple any deer without making reasonable effort to retrieve the 

deer and retain it in his/her actual custody. Hunters should be required to notify Refuge 

staff prior to pursuing wounded deer outside of their assigned hunt zone. 

12. Refuge installed stands or blinds should be the only type permitted on the Refuge. 

13. Hunters should be required to utilize approved safety harnesses while in elevated stands. 

14. Deer hunters should be required to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of hunter 

orange clothing, visible on head, chest, and back during Refuge archery season. 

Camouflage orange should not qualify. 

15. Screw in steps, bolts, or other screw in materials for attachment to trees should be 

prohibited. 
64

16. Hunters should be required to report all accidents and injuries to Refuge personnel as 

soon as possible and no later than departure from the Refuge. 

17. Failure to comply with Federal, State, and/or Refuge regulations should lead to dismissal 

from the Refuge and participation in future hunts. 

18. Refuge hunting regulations, as listed on the archery hunting special use permit should be 

in effect. 

19. Use or possession of alcohol should be prohibited. 

20. Use of any bait, salt or enticement would be prohibited. 

21. Junior hunters selected should be required to be accompanied by a non-hunting adult who 

has a valid Pennsylvania State hunting license. 

22. Use of flagging or reflective trail markers should be prohibited. 

23. Scouting should only be allowed during designated times and days as noted in the Refuge 

hunting regulations. 

Anticipated Public Reaction.–Currently, most local residents support a deer management 

program because of personal property damage to landscaping and forested areas. However, deer 

management hunts elsewhere have met with opposition in recent years. 

There may be negative reactions to the deer hunt by anti-hunting groups. Response to 

any potential demonstrations or protests would be coordinated through the Northeast Regional 

Office of the Service, and may require assistance from Refuges who have dealt with these 

situations in the past. If necessary, State and local law enforcement officials may be asked to 

assist. 

Recommended Hunter Selection Process.–Based on the size of available upland habitats 

and intention of providing a safe and quality hunt, the daily number of hunters on the 324 acres 

of refuge uplands should not exceed 14, for a density of 1 hunter per 23 acres. Additional limits 

should be placed on the number of hunters permitted in each area by assigning hunters to a 

designated hunt zone (one hunter per hunt zone). The number of archery sport-hunters permitted 

per day of hunting could be adjusted annually based on population surveys, data collected from 

deer assessed at check-in stations, the response of forest vegetation to browsing, and safety 

considerations. All hunters should be required to check-in at the Refuge headquarters and should 

be assigned to a hunt zone. At that time they should sign and retain a copy of the Refuge 

Hunting Permit. 

Hunter Application and Registration Procedures if Implemented.–All persons 

interested in hunting on the Refuge would be required to possess a valid State hunting license 

and necessary deer tag(s) prior to submitting their application and the non-refundable application 

fee to the Refuge. Hunters should be selected by a random drawing. Selected hunters should be 
65

required to attend a State archery hunter education course, a scheduled Refuge hunter orientation 

program if available, and refuge archery target qualification in order to hunt on the Refuge. 

Upon arriving at the Refuge for the hunt, hunters should be required to display the 

following items to Refuge Personnel to participate in the hunt: State hunting license and tags, 

valid Refuge archery hunting special use permit, proof of hunter education course, Refuge 

archery hunt orientation and target qualification (if applicable), and the appropriate hunter 

orange. Hunters should be required to check out at the designated Refuge location prior to 

leaving the Refuge at the end of the day. 

Hunter numbers should be modified in the future if necessary to promote safety, relieve 

hunter congestion or public use conflicts, increase harvest, or ensure compatibility with other 

Refuge objectives. Procedures for hunter selection may need to be modified as improvements to 

the system are necessary. 

Recommended Media Selection for Announcing and Publicizing Hunts.– If the Refuge 

implements a public hunt, staff should prepare an annual news release announcing the 

availability of permit applications and provide a summary of the hunting program for that year. 

The public should be informed of Refuge hunting regulations and seasons through news releases 

to local and widely distributed media outlets, as well as through the Refuge Hunting Regulations 

Permit. Hunt days should also be posted at the Refuge headquarters and information kiosk, as 

well as on the Refuge’s Web site (http://www.fws.gov/heinz/index.html). The Refuge Manager 

could also announce the hunt to Refuge neighbors and other interested parties by letter. The 

Refuge’s contact information (address and phone number) should be included in the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission hunting brochures. An annual program update should be filed 

each year as required, outlining any changes in the current hunt program. Rules and regulations 

should be published in the Federal Register as required. 

Conclusion 

The proposed deer management program will be an integrated approach to balancing deer 

with the habitat for the good of the ecosystem, public users of the Refuge, and the health of the 

deer population. The management program will be driven by regular collection of site-specific 

data on the Refuge to adapt the program to fulfill the objectives of the Refuge. 
66

REFERENCES 

Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too edge: edge effects in 

northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358. 

Andrewsm E. J., et al. 1993. Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Journal of American 

Veterinary Medicine Association 202:229-249. 

Augustine, D. J. and P. A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white-tailed deer grazing intensity in 

fragmented deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076-1085. 

Australian Society for Reproductive Biology. 1997. Reproduction, fertility and 

development. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference on Fertility Control for 

Wildlife Management 9:1-186. 

Baker, S. V., and J. Fritsch. 1997. New territory for deer management: human conflicts on the 

suburban frontier. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:404-407. 

Behrend, D. F., G. F. Mattfeld, W. C. Tierson and J. E. Wiley III. 1970. Deer density control 

for comprehensive forest management. Journal of Forestry 68:695-700. 

Bell, R. L. and T. J. Peterle. 1975. Hormone implants control reproduction in white-tailed deer. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 3:152-156. 

Bernatas, S. B. 2004. White-tailed deer survey for Brookhaven National Laboratory, Wertheim 

National Wildlife Refuge, and Rocky Point Wilderness Area, Long Island, New York. 

Vision Air Research, Inc. Boise, Idaho, USA. 

Brown, S.E. and G. R. Parker. 1997. Impact of white-tailed deer on forest communities within 

Brown County State Park, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences. 

106:39-51. 

Butfiloski, J. W., D. J. Hall, D. M. Hoffman, and D. L. Forester. 1997. White-tailed deer 

management in a coastal Georgia residential community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

25:491-495. 

Campbell, T. A., C. A. Langdon, B. R. Laseter, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, and K. V. Miller. 

2006. Movements of female white-tailed deer to bait sites in West Virginia, USA. 

Wildlife Research 33:1-4. 

Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous 

forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:829-836. 

Coffey, M. A., and G. H. Johnston. 1997. A planning process for managing white-tailed deer in 

protected areas: integrated pest management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:433-439. 
67

Cohn, P. N., E. D. Plotka, and U. S. Seal. 1996. Contraception in wildlife, Book 1. Edwin 

 Mellen Press, Ltd. Lampster, Wales, United Kingdom. 

Conover, M. R. 1984. Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deer damage in nurseries. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:399-404. 

Conover, M. R. 1997. Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States: 

 practices, perception, costs, and values. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:306-311. 

Creekmore, T. E., D. G. Whittaker, R. R. Roy, J. C. Franson, and D. L. Baker. 1998. Health 

Status and Relative Exposure of Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer to Soil Contaminants 

at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:272-279. 

Curtis, P. D., and R. J. Warren. 1998. Proceedings of the workshop on the status and future of 

wildlife fertility control. 5th Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society, Buffalo, New 

York. 

Cypher, B. L. and E. A. Cypher. 1988. Ecology and management of white-tailed deer in 

northeastern coastal habitats: a synthesis of the literature pertinent to National Wildlife 

Refuges from Maine to Virginia. USFWS Biological Report 88(15). 

D’Angelo, G. J., R. J. Warren, K. V. Miller, and G. R. Gallagher. 2004. Evaluation of strategies 

designed to reduce deer-vehicle collisions: An annotated bibliography. 74 pp. Posted on 

the Internet at: www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/construction/materialsresearch/badmin/research/onlinereports/Deer_Review.pdf. 

D'Angelo, G. J., J. G. D'Angelo, G. R. Gallagher, D. A. Osborn, K. V. Miller, and R. J. Warren. 

2006. Evaluation of wildlife warning reflectors for altering white-tailed deer roadside 

behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1175-1183. 

DeCalesta, D. S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711-718. 

DeNicola, A. J., and R. K. Swihart. 1997. Capture-induced stress in white-tailed deer. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:500-503. 

DeNicola, A. J., S. J. Weber, C. A. Bridges, and J. L. Stokes. 1997. Nontraditional techniques 

for management of overabundant deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:496-499. 

Eisler, R. 1989. Molybdenum hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contaminants Hazards Review Report No. 19, Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

 

Ellingwood, M. R. and S. L. Caturano. 1988. An evaluation of deer management options. 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection DR-11. 12pp. 

 
68

Fagerstone, K. A. and W. H. Clay. 1997. Overview of USDA Animal Damage Control efforts 

 to manage overabundant deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:413-417. 

Frost, H. C., G. L. Storm, M. J. Batcheller, and M. J. Lovallo. 1997. White-tailed deer 

management at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:462-469. 

Glbert, J. R. 1982. Evaluation of mirrors for reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Federal Highway 

Administration Washington, D.C. RD-82/061 16pp. 

Grund, M. D., J. B. McAninch, and E. P. Wiggers. 2002. Seasonal movements and habitat use 

of female white-tailed deer associated with an urban park. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 66:123-130. 

Hall, L. K. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA 

870pp. 

Healy, W. M., D. S. deCalesta, and S. L. Stout. 1997. A research perspective on white-tailed 

deer overabundance in the northeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:259-

263. 

Henderson, D. W., R. J. Warren, J. A. Cromwell, and R. J. Hamilton. 2000. Responses of urban 

deer to a 50% reduction in local herd density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:902-910. 

Ishmael, W. E. and O. J. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer removal program. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:394-398. 

Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. A. Conway. 1997. Infraredtriggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:547-556. 

Jones, J. M. and J. H. Witham. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of 

metropolitan white-tailed Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:434-441. 

Jordan, R. A., T. L. Schulze, and M. B. Jahn. 2007. Effects of reduced deer density on the 

abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) and Lyme Disease in a northern New 

Jersey endemic area. Journal of Medical Entomology 44:752-757. 

Kilpatrick, H. J., S. M. Spohr, and K. K. Lima. 2001. Effects of population reduction on home 

ranges of female white-tailed deer at high densities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

79:949-954. 

Kilpatrick, H. J. and W. A. Stober. 2002. Effects of temporary bait sites on movements of 

suburban white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:760-766. 

Kirkpatrick, J. F., I. K. M. Liu, and J. W. Turner. 1990. Remotely-delivered 

immunocontraceptive in feral horses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:326-330. 
69

Lewis, L. A., R. J. Poppenga, W. R. Davidson, J. R. Fischer, and K. A. Morgan. 2001. Lead 

toxicosis and trace element levels in wild birds and mammals at a firearms training 

facility. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 41:208-214. 

Lovallo, M. J., and W. M. Tzilkowski. 2003. Abundance of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus) within Valley Forge National Historical Park and movements related to 

surrounding private lands. National Park Service Technical Report 

NPS/NERCHAL/NRTR-03/091, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 

Mason, R. M. 1997. Vertebrate repellents: mechanisms, practical applications, possibilities. 

Wildlife Damage Management for Natural Resource Managers 11-16. 

McCullough, D. R. 1982. The theory and management of Odocoileus populations. in Biology 

and Management of the Cervidae. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1987:535-549. Res. Symp. Natl. 

Zoo. Park. 

McCullough, D. R. 1997. Irruptive behavior in ungulates. Pages 69-93 in W.J. McShea, H.B. 

Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds., The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and 

Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

McDonald, J. E., D. E. Clark, and W. A. Woytek. 2006. Reduction and maintenance of a whitetailed deer herd in central Massachusetts. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1585-

1593. 

McShea, W. J., H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole. 1997. The science of overabundance–

Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, 

D.C. 402pp. 

Miller, L. A., B. E. Johns, D. J. Elias, and G. J. Killian. 1999. Oral Vaccination of white-tailed 

deer using a Recombinant Bacillus Calmette-Guerin Vaccine expressing the Borrelia

burgdorferi outer surface protein A: Prospects for Immunocontraception. Amererican 

Journal of Reproductive Immunizology 41:279-285. 

Peddicord, R.K. and J.S. LaKind. 2000. Ecology and Human Health Risks at an Outdoor Firing 

Range. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: No. 19, pp. 2602-2613. 

Piccolo, B. P., K. M. Hollis, R. E. Warner, T. R. Van Deelen, D. R. Etter, and C. Anchor. 2000. 

Variation of white-tailed deer home ranges in fragmented urban habitats around Chicago, 

Illinois. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conferences 9:351-356. 

Porter, W. F.1991. White-tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: implications for management and 

research in National Parks. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRSSUNY/NRR-91/05. 
70

Porter, W. F., N. E. Mathews, H. B. Underwood, R. W. Sage, and D. F. Behrend. 1991. Social 

organization in deer: implications for localized management. Environmental 

Management 15:809-814. 

Porter, W. F., H. B. Underwood, and J. L. Woodard. 2004. Movement, behavior, dispersal, and 

the potential for localized management of deer in a suburban landscape. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68:247-256. 

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, G. R. Lavigne, S. Elias, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. 

Smith. 2003. Deer density and the abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae). 

Journal of Medical Entomology 40:179-184. 

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. Smith. 2004. Abundance 

of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) after the complete removal of deer from an isolated 

offshore island, endemic for Lyme Disease. Journal of Medical Entomology 41:779-784. 

Romin, L. A., and L. B. Dalton. 1992. Lack of response by mule deer to wildlife warning 

whistles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:382-384. 

Romin, L. A., and J. A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring 

activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:276-283. 

Rosenberry, C. S., J. T. Fleegle, and B. D. Wallingford. 2009. Management and biology of 

white-tailed deer in Pennsylvania 2009-2018. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Russell, F. L. and N. L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak saplings in savannas and woodlands of the 

eastern Edwards Plateau, TX. Southwestern Naturalist 44:31-41. 

Stout, R. J., B. A. Knuth, and P. D. Curtis. 1997. Preferences of suburban landowners for deer 

management techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

25:348-359. 

Tilghman, N. G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern 

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524-532. 

Turner, J. W., I. K. M. Liu, and J. F. Kirkpatrick. 1992. Remotely delivered 

immunocontraceptive in captive white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 

56:154-157. 

United States. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDAAPHIS). 2003. Environmental Assessment White-tailed Deer Damage Management in 

Pennsylvania. September 2003. 94 pp. 
71

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. March 2012. 

326 pp plus appendixes. 

Warren, R. J. 1997. Deer overabundance–special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25. 

Warren, R. J. 2000. Overview of fertility control in urban deer management. Proceedings of the 

2000 Annual Conference of the Society for Theriogenolgy. San Antonio, Texas. 237-246. 

Woolf, A., and J. D. Harder. 1979. Population dynamics of a captive white-tailed deer herd with 

emphasis on reproduction and mortality. Wildlife Monographs 67. 

Woolf, A., J. R. Smith, and L. Small. 1982. Metals in livers of white-tailed deer in Illinois. 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:189-194. 
72

APPENDIX A. Summary table derived from studies which examined effort required to remove 

white-tailed deer by various methods. 

a

 Butfiloski, J. W., D. I. Hall, D. H. Hoffman, and D. L. Forster. 1999. White-tailed deer management 

in a coastal Georgia residential community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:491-495. 

Note: Data averaged for 3 years of study. 

Deer Removal Method Hours per deer removed 

Sharpshooting from stands over baita 4.1 

Sharpshooting from stands over baitb 2.2 

Sharpshooting from vehicles at nighta 1.1 

Sharpshooting from stands over bait and 

Sharpshooting from vehicles at nightsimultaneous effort in same areac

1.2 

Opportunistic sharpshooting by conservation 

officers on patrolb 5.1 

Controlled archery huntd 97.3 

Archery hunting during combined 

shotgun-archery controlled hunte 38.0 

Shotgun hunting during combined shotgunarchery controlled hunte

 23.5 

Controlled shotgun huntb 33.7 

Controlled hunt with assigned stands (weapons 

not specified-probably shotguns with slugs)f 6.8 
73

APPENDIX A. Continued.

b

 Doerr, M. L., J. B. McAninch, and E. P. Wiggers. 2001. Comparison of four methods to reduce white-tailed deer 

abundance in an urban community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1105-1113. Note: Data averaged for 3 

years of study. Sharpshooting from a stand over bait includes sharpshooting effort by police and park 

rangers. 

c

 DeNicola, A. J., S. J. Weber, C. A. Bridges, and J. L. Stokes. 1997. Nontraditional techniques for management of 

overabundant deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:496-499. 

d

 Kilpatrick, H. J., and W. D. Walter. 1999. A controlled archery deer hunt in a residential community: cost, 

effectiveness, and deer recovery rates. Note: Based on total effort of 1,848 person-hours by archery 

hunters and 19 deer recovered. 

e

 Kilpatrick, H. J., A. M. LaBonte, and J. T. Seymour. 2002. A shotgun-archery hunt in a residential community: 

evaluation of hunt strategies and effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:478-486. Note: Actual hours 

hunted per day were not reported. Data presented were based on assumption of 5 hours hunted per 

individual hunter per day. 

f

 Kilpatrick, H. J., S. M. Spohr, and G. G. Chasko. 1997. A controlled deer hunt on a state-owned coastal reserve 

in Connecticut: controversies, strategies, and results. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:451-456. 

Please note: All estimates of effort for deer control methods do not include time for planning, law enforcement, or 

venison processing. This compilation represents studies of deer herds with differing densities and management 

histories in a variety of habitats and hunt structures.
74

APPENDIX B. Spatial dynamics of white-tailed deer in suburban habitats. 

Foreword on Deer Spatial Dynamics: 

Data on the spatial dynamics of suburban white-tailed deer are limited by individual 

study design. The information presented below represents a compilation from the primary 

literature. Data collection, ages of deer studied, and methods of home range size calculation 

differed among studies. Also, home ranges of female white-tailed deer may vary in different 

habitats, latitudes, and deer population densities. However, data from these studies suggested 

that home ranges for female white-tailed deer in suburban habitats ranged between 

approximately 50 to 1,974 acres with most averaging less than 640 acres (1 square miles). In 

general, the authors of these studies indicated that home range sizes of suburban deer were less 

than deer in rural forested and agricultural habitats. 

Dispersal from their natal range by female white-tailed deer occurs at a very low rate 

regardless of habitat. Correspondingly, descriptions of dispersal rates of female white-tailed deer 

are rare in the literature. Only one study (Porter et al. 2004) described dispersal of female whitetailed deer in a suburban habitat. This suggests that immigration and emigration of female 

white-tailed deer has negligible effects on the change in abundance of deer populations. This is 

especially true for suburban habitats. 

Please Note: Comparative table on following page. 
75

APPENDIX B. Continued. Home ranges of female white-tailed deer in suburban habitats. 

a

 Home ranges were calculated for locations collected over an annual period unless otherwise 

noted. 

b

 Represents average summer home range size for female white-tailed deer in several locales in 

Irondequoit, New York. Deer in this population exhibit winter migration. 

c

 Pooled average for adult female white-tailed deer for years 1997, 1998, and 1999. 

d

 Average seasonal home range size for spring. Other seasonal home ranges were less: winter = 

211 acres, summer = 124 acres, and fall = 230 acres. 

e

 Kilpatrick et al. (2001) illustrates the effects of an experimental population reduction on home 

range size of female white-tailed deer. They reported a decrease in home range size from prereduction to post-reduction on the treatment area. Since no change in home range size was 

Location Home Range 

Size (acres) a Study 

Irondequoit, New York 53b Porter et al. (2004) 

Chicago, Illinois 150 Piccolo et al. (2000) 

Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 235c Lovallo and Tzilkowski (2003) 

Bloomington, Minnesota 355d Grund et al. (2002) 

Northeastern Massachusetts 1,050 Gaughan and DeStefano (2005) 

Northwestern Massachusetts 1,974 Gaughan and DeStefano (2005) 

Groton, Connecticut 

(control area, no reduction)e 84 Kilpatrick et al. (2001) 

Groton, Connecticut 

(treatment area, pre-reduction)e 241 Kilpatrick et al. (2001) 

Groton, Connecticut 

(treatment area, post-reduction)e 93 Kilpatrick et al. (2001) 

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 

(control area, no reduction)f 80 Henderson et al. (2000) 

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 

(treatment area, pre-reduction)f 108 Henderson et al. (2000) 

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 

(treatment area, post-reduction)f 130 Henderson et al. (2000) 
76

APPENDIX B. Continued. 

observed for deer in the control area, the home range size presented in the table represents an 

average for the years 1995, 1996, and 1997. The pre-reduction home range size on the treatment 

area represents an average for the years 1994 and 1995. The post-reduction home range size on 

the treatment area represents an average for the years 1996 and 1997. 

f

 Henderson et al. (2000) illustrates the effects on home range size of female white-tailed deer 

exposed to an experimental 50 percent population reduction. They reported an increase in home 

range size from pre-reduction to post-reduction on the treatment area. Since no change in home 

range size was observed for deer in the control area, the home range size presented in the table 

represents an average for the winter season for years 1996 and 1997. For the treatment area, the 

pre-reduction home range size is for the winter of 1996 and post-reduction home range size is for 

the winter of 1997. 
77

APPENDIX C. Species and diameter at breast height (DBH) of individual overstory trees with 

stems within 40 feet of the center of 5 forest regeneration survey plots on John Heinz National 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early 

growing season of May and June 2009. 

 Canopy Tree Species / DBH 

 

Plot 1 White mulberry/12” Paulownia/8”/4.5” Choke cherry/4.5” 

Plot 2 Red maple/4”/6”/7” Black 

cherry/8”/9”/12” – 

Plot 3 American elm/27” White 

mulberry/5”/19” Tree of Heaven/6” 

Plot 4 Pin oak/26” – – 

Plot 5 Boxelder/5” – – 
78

APPENDIX D. Average measures of the composition of the forest understory for 5 survey plots, each with 5 unand 4 fenced subplots (F) to exclude white-tailed deer browsing of vegetation, on John Heinz National Wildlife R

Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of May and June of 2009 and 201

installed in Spring 2009. Note: percentages may not add to 100 percent due to averaging. Early Growing Season 

 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4  2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 201 UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF 

Percent aerial 

ground cover 

Bare 33 28 22 15 97 98 99 76 13 45 50 4 78 82 ― 

Forb 63 50 60 60 3 2 1 5 87 33 40 76 12 8 ― 

Grass 0 2 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 ― 

Percent vertical 

plant cover 

0-2 feet 20 25 32 41 0 0 0 0 10 9 42 56 21 5 ― 2-4 feet 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 17 10 0 ― 4-6 feet 0 0 4 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ― 

No. woody seedlings 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 ― 

Percent forest 

canopy cover 

85 92 88 77 69 65 98 ― 

a Plot 4 was not accessed during the early growing season of 2010 to minimize disturbance to an active America
79

APPENDIX E. Average measures of the composition of the forest understory for 5 survey plots, each with 5 un

and 4 fenced subplots (F) to exclude white-tailed deer browsing of vegetation, on John Heinz National Wildlife R

Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of August of 2009 and 2010. FencSpring 2009. Note: percentages may not add to 100 percent due to averaging. Late Growing Season 

 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4  2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 20 UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF F UF 

Percent aerial 

ground cover 

Bare 62 50 50 25 98 80 99 79 39 42 52 27 70 53 64 

Forb 38 30 47 54 1 1 1 1 61 36 30 53 30 15 6 

Grass 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 30 

Percent vertical 

plant cover 

0-2 feet 3 10 27 23 1 0 0 0 61 12 90 59 35 42 31 2-4 feet 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 3 0 38 12 18 10 2 4-6 feet 24 4 7 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 4 5 2 25 0 

No. woody seedlings 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Percent forest 

canopy cover 

92 89 96 92 74 85 70 6
80

APPENDIX F. Dominant herbaceous plant composition of the forest understory for 5 survey plots, each with 5 

(UF) and 4 fenced subplots (F) to exclude white-tailed deer browsing of vegetation, on John Heinz National Wild

Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in early growing season of May and June 2009 and 

installed in Spring 2009. Shading indicates that a dominant plant was non-native. Plot 4 was not accessed durin

season of 2010 to minimize disturbance to an active American bald eagle nest. 

 Early Growing Season Late Growing Sea 2009 2010 2009 

Dominant 

Plant 1 

Dominant 

Plant 2 

Dominant 

Plant 3 

Dominant 

Plant 1 

Dominant 

Plant 2 

Dominant 

Plant 3 

Dominant 

Plant 1 

Dominant 

Plant 2 

Dominant 

Plant 3 

Dom

Pla

Plot 1 

Unfenced 

Stinging 

nettle 

Garlic 

mustard 

Japanese 

honey. 

Garlic 

mustard 

Stinging 

nettle 

Japanese 

honey. 

Garlic 

mustard 

Stinging 

nettle 

―

Stin

ne

Plot 2 

Unfenced Poison ivy ― ― Japanese honey. ― ― Poison ivy Japanese stiltgrass ― Pois

Plot 3 

Unfenced 

Garlic 

mustard 

Indian 

strawberry 

Virginia 

creeper 

Garlic 

mustard 

Japanese 

honey. 

Wine 

raspberry 

Stinging 

nettle 

Garlic 

mustard 

Indian 

strawberry Pois

Plot 4 

Unfenced 

Japanese 

stiltgrass 

Stinging 

nettle 

Mile-aminute 

vine 

― ― ―

Mile-aminute 

vine 

Smartweed ―

Mi

mi

v

Plot 5 

Unfenced 

Japanese 

stiltgrass Wild rose ― Japanese stiltgrass Phragmites ― Japanese stiltgrass Purpletop grass ― Jap

stilt

% nonnative 60 100 70 

Plot 1 

Fenced 

Stinging 

nettle 

Garlic 

mustard 

Setaria 

grass 

Garlic 

mustard 

Stinging 

nettle Desmodium Garlic mustard Stinging nettle Japanese honey. Stin

ne

Plot 2 

Fenced 

Virginia 

creeper 

Wild rose ― Poison ivy Virginia creeper ― Virginia creeper Poison ivy ― Vir

cre

Plot 3 

Fenced 

Indian 

strawberry 

Virginia 

creeper 

Garlic 

mustard 

Garlic 

mustard 

Stinging 

nettle 

Virginia 

creeper 

Garlic 

mustard 

Virginia 

creeper 

Japanese 

honeysuckle 

Vir

cre

Plot 4 

Fenced 

Japanese 

stiltgrass 

Stinging 

nettle 

Mile-aminute 

vine 

― ― ―

Japanese 

stiltgrass 

Mile-aminute 

vine 

Virginia 

creeper 

Jap

stilt

Plot 5 

Fenced 

Japanese 

stiltgrass Phragmites Purpletop grass Japanese stiltgrass Phragmites ― Japanese stiltgrass ― ― Jap

stilt

% nonnative 60 42 67 
81

APPENDIX G.1. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 1 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of M

Data on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining whiton the Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots to be fenced in June 2009 after photographs were takenPlot 1. Early Growing Season 2009. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
82

APPENDIX G.2. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 1 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of Au

forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining white-tailed Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots that were fenced in June 2009. Plot 1. Late Growing Season 2009. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
83

APPENDIX H.1. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 2 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of M

Data on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining whiton the Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots to be fenced in June 2009 after photographs were takenPlot 2. Early Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
84

APPENDIX H.2. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 2 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of Au

forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining white-tailed Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots that were fenced in June 2009. Plot 2. Late Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
85

APPENDIX I.1. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 3 on John Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of MData on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining whiton the Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots to be fenced in June 2009 after photographs were takenPlot 3. Early Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
86

APPENDIX I.2. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 3 on John Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of Au

forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining white-tailed 

Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots that were fenced in June 2009. Plot 3. Late Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
87

APPENDIX J.1. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 4 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of M

Data on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining whiton the Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots to be fenced in June 2009 after photographs were takenPlot 4. Early Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
88

APPENDIX J.2. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 4 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of Au

forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining white-tailed Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots that were fenced in June 2009. Plot 4. Late Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
89

APPENDIX K.1. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 5 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the early growing season of M

Data on forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining whiton the Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots to be fenced in June 2009 after photographs were takenPlot 5. Early Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
90

APPENDIX K.2. Reference photographs for unfenced and fenced subplots of forest regeneration Plot 5 on John 

Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania in the late growing season of Au

forest regeneration were collected by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services as part of a study examining white-tailed Refuge. Cross-hatched headings indicate subplots that were fenced in June 2009. Plot 5. Late Growing Season. 

Northwest North Nort

West Central Ea

Southwest South Sout
91

APPENDIX L. Summary of eighteen roving white-tailed deer density surveys completed by 

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services on John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum, 

Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania during November, December and January of 

2008-2011. 

Date of survey # deer observed Approximate area 

observed (acres) 

Deer density estimate 

(deer/square mile) 

20 Nov. 2008 75 147 58 

25 Nov. 2008 82 142 66 

04 Dec. 2008 82 156 60 

15 Dec. 2008 84 170 57 

05 Jan. 2009 85 151 64 

08 Jan. 2009 55 104 60 

23 Nov. 2009 47 94 57 

24 Nov. 2009 58 95 70 

21 Dec. 2009 40 137 33 

22 Dec. 2009 39 86 52 

26 Jan. 2010 46 97 54 

27 Jan. 2010 44 64 78 

22 Nov. 2010 74 107 79 

23 Nov. 2010 60 72 95 

21 Dec. 2010 83 115 82 

22 Dec. 2010 77 116 76 

19 Jan. 2011 72 115 71 

20 Jan. 2011 85 101 96