Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Northeast Region Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2006/069

ON THE COVER Clockwise from top left: Gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in flooded grassland area adjacent to Former Keene Plant Area, eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) encountered underneath a black plastic sheet in PennDOT Quarry, northern red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber ruber) encountered underneath a log in the Waste Channel, and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) exiting a black plastic sheet in PennDOT Quarry; all locations are part of the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Photographs by: Jacob E. Kubel

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park

Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2006/069

Richard H. Yahner, Jacob E. Kubel1, and Bradley D. Ross2

School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802

1current address: Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581

2current address: 734 Partridge Lane State College, PA 16803

November 2006

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Northeast Region Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The Northeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) comprises national parks and related areas in 13 New England and Mid-Atlantic states. The diversity of parks and their resources are reflected in their designations as national parks, seashores, historic sites, recreation areas, military parks, memorials, and rivers and trails. Biological, physical, and social science research results, natural resource inventory and monitoring data, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences related to these park units are disseminated through the NPS/NER Technical Report (NRTR) and Natural Resources Report (NRR) series. The reports are a continuation of series with previous acronyms of NPS/PHSO, NPS/MAR, NPS/BSO-RNR, and NPS/NERBOST. Individual parks may also disseminate information through their own report series.

Technical Reports are the designated medium for initially disseminating data and results of biological, physical, and social science research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventories and monitoring activities; scientific literature reviews; bibliographies; and peer-reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.

Natural Resources Reports are the designated medium for information on technologies and resource management methods; "how to" resource management papers; proceeding of resource management workshops or conferences; and natural resource program descriptions and resource action plans.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service.

This report was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement 4000-8-9028, Supplemental Agreement Number 36 with assistance from the NPS. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are solely those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Print copies of reports in these series, produced in limited quantity and only available as long as the supply lasts, or, preferably, file copies on CD, may be obtained by sending a request to the address on the back cover. Print copies also may be requested from the NPS Technical Information Center (TIC), Denver Service Center, PO Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287. A copy charge may be involved. To order from TIC, refer to document D-090.

This report may also be available as a downloadable portable document format file from the Internet at http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/.

Please cite this publication as:

Yahner, R. H., J. E. Kubel, and B. D. Ross. 2006. Inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR—2006/069. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

NPS D-090 November 2006

Table of Contents

Page

Figures ...... v

Tables ...... vii

Appendixes ...... ix

Executive Summary ...... xi

Acknowledgments ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1

Standards and Compliance ...... 3

Study Area ...... 5

Methods ...... 9

Historical and Predicted Species ...... 9

Sampling Design ...... 9

Data Storage ...... 24

Data Analysis ...... 25

Voucher Specimens ...... 25

Results ...... 27

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations ...... 27

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern ...... 31

Discussion ...... 45

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations ...... 45

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern ...... 46

Conclusions ...... 51

Literature Cited ...... 53

iii

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Cover types (modified from Lundgren et al. 2002) at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania...... 6

Figure 2. Locations of the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania...... 7

Figure 3. Boundaries and cover types (modified from Lundgren et al. 2002) of the 15 individual Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania...... 8

Figure 4. Locations of sampling plots for comparison of species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between Area of Concern plots (A) and reference plots (R) at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004. Sampling plots represent the central location of general searches, anuran-calling surveys, and artificial cover-object and mammal trapping transects...... 14

Figure 5. Schematic of a sampling point within a typical artificial cover- object transect used during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004; each transect traversed 100 m (328 ft) and consisted of 10 sampling points established at 11-m (36-ft) intervals...... 18

Tables

Page

Table 1. Species predicted to occur during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 10

Table 2. Species predicted to occur during the inventory of small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 11

Table 3. Nomenclature and designation of cover types occurring at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania...... 12

Table 4. Distribution of sampling effort (by survey period, plot, and type) for herpetofauna in Area of Concern plots (A) and reference plots (R) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 16

Table 5. Distribution of sampling effort (by survey period, area, and type) for the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 22

Table 6. Distribution of sampling effort for the inventory of small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 24

Table 7. Species encountered (denoted by “X”) at Area of Concern (AOC) plots and reference (REF) plots during paired surveys conducted as part of the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 28

Table 8. Number of individual encounters (by species and protocol) at Area of Concern (AOC) plots (A) and reference (REF) plots (R) during paired surveys conducted as part of the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 29

Table 9. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 32

vii

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 10. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by Area of Concern) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 33

Table 11. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by cover type) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 35

Table 12. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by Area of Concern and cover type) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 36

Table 13. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by protocol) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 38

Table 14. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by month) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 39

Table 15. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by Area of Concern and protocol) during the inventory of small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004...... 44

viii

Appendixes

Page

Appendix A. Sampling locations for anuran-calling surveys and small mammal trapping at Area of Concern plot A1 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 57

Appendix B. Sampling locations for anuran-calling surveys and small mammal trapping at reference plot R1 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 59

Appendix C. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small- mammal trapping transects at Area of Concern plots A0, A3, A5, and A6 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004. The southern half of the trapping transect at plot A0 overlaps with the cover-object transect...... 61

Appendix D. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small- mammal trapping transects at reference plot R0 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 63

Appendix E. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small- mammal trapping transects at reference plot R3 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 65

Appendix F. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small- mammal trapping transects at reference plot R5 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 67

Appendix G. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small- mammal trapping transects at reference plot R6 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004...... 69

Appendixes (continued)

Page

Appendix H. Transects established for live-trapping of small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004. At Area of Concern 2, only one transect was used each season (flooding required establishment of an alternate transect during the fall trapping season)...... 71

Appendix I. Locations of northern red salamanders (Pseudotriton ruber ruber) encountered during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004. One individual each was encountered at AOC 1 (the Waste Channel) and reference plot R1...... 73

Executive Summary

The National Park Service (NPS) purchased an 18.6-ha (46.0-acre) property at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, from an asbestos insulation manufacturing plant, Keene Corporation, in 1976. Presence of asbestos contamination within the park was identified during trench excavation for a fiber-optic cable in 1997, and asbestos contamination since has been detected within a 45.3-ha (111.9-acre) general area now called the Asbestos Release Site (ARS); each of 15 specific areas of contamination within the ARS has been designated as an Area of Concern (AOC). During 1999–2001, H. Tiebout, III, of West Chester University, conducted an inventory of herpetofauna at VAFO. However, the inventory was considered incomplete because researchers were prohibited from entering AOCs. Following soil and air sampling it was determined in 2003 that an inventory of biota could be conducted within AOCs, provided that inventory personnel complete proper safety training with respect to OSHA Standard 1910.120. In order to complete the parkwide inventory of herpetofauna that Tiebout initiated, we conducted an inventory of herpetofauna in the AOCs at VAFO. Additionally, we conducted an inventory of small mammals in the AOCs to further characterize the vertebrate community in the ARS and to supplement existing information about species richness and distribution of mammals at VAFO. Our study also investigated the possibility that presence of asbestos and other contaminants might be influencing species richness or abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals at AOCs. Our objectives were to (1) compare species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between AOC plots and reference plots located outside the ARS but within the park boundary, and (2) document presence, relative abundance, and distribution of herpetofauna and small mammals throughout all 15 AOCs.

To meet objective 1, we paired specific sampling plots (n = 5 plots) within AOCs with reference plots located outside the ARS (but within VAFO) and compared species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between plot types (AOC and reference). Sampling protocols consisted of anuran-calling surveys (listening for vocalizations of toads and frogs), general searches (turning rocks and logs and scanning ground, vegetation, and water surfaces for presence of herpetofauna or their eggs), artificial cover-object surveys (turning wood boards and plastic sheets placed on the ground to attract herpetofauna), and live-traps (for capturing small mammals, which are terrestrial mammals the size of Norway rats [Rattus norvegicus] or smaller). Our hypothesis was that species richness and abundance would be lower at AOC plots than at reference plots because soil containing industrial waste might be expected to have a lower proportion of organic matter than soil lacking artificial components; such circumstances potentially could reduce microbial activity or nutrient availability and impact organisms higher in the food chain. To meet objective 2, we used all the sampling protocols used for objective 1, plus incidental sightings of herpetofauna and mammals.

We did not observe consistent differences in abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between AOC plots and reference plots. Northern brown snakes (Storeria dekayi dekayi) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) tended to be more abundant in reference plots than at AOC plots, but eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) and northern ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii) tended to be more abundant at AOC plots. Species richness of herpetofauna and small mammals was similar between plot types.

We documented 1,695 encounters of 15 species of herpetofauna and 133 encounters of three species of small mammals throughout the AOCs. At least one herpetofauna and small mammal species occurred in each AOC surveyed (all 15 AOCs surveyed for herpetofauna, 12 AOCs surveyed for small mammals). The three most commonly encountered herpetofauna were redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), eastern garter snake, and northern brown snake. Other herpetofauna encountered were long-tailed salamander (Eurycea longicauda longicada), northern red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber ruber), northern two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata bislineata), eastern American toad (Bufo americanus americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon). The three small mammals encountered were white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis), meadow vole, and northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda).

Based on habitat requirements of species that potentially occur at VAFO, we feel that our inventory results accurately reflect herpetofauna and small mammal communities present at AOCs. Overall, our results do not suggest that species richness or abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals are lesser at AOCs than elsewhere in the park. In fact, most species were encountered more often at AOC plots than at reference plots, perhaps because wooded areas in AOCs contain caves and a greater abundance of rocks on the ground surface, and grassland areas in AOCs are not mowed.

xii

Acknowledgments

The National Park Service provided funding for the herpetofauna and small mammal inventory project at Valley Forge National Historical Park. We appreciate cooperation of National Park Service personnel, especially M. Carfioli, J. Karish, and L. Rupp. We extend our thanks to E. Hill for clerical assistance.

xiii

Introduction

The National Park Service (NPS) has determined that park managers need comprehensive information about the biological resources in parks in order to maintain biodiversity and natural ecosystems (NPS 2000). As large tracts of public lands, such as national parks, become more insular from increased habitat fragmentation because of agricultural development, urbanization, or other land uses, these lands will be increasingly valuable for the long-term maintenance of faunal diversity and the functional integrity of landscapes and ecosystems in the eastern United States (Ambrose and Bratton 1990; Yahner 2000). One of the first steps required to achieve the NPS goal of conserving biodiversity in national parks is to conduct baseline inventories of vertebrate and plant species in the parks. Data from such inventories may provide an understanding of relative abundance and distribution of park biota and, therefore, aid in evaluation of management plans and actions for certain species.

Several research projects involving biological resources at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, have been conducted recently. Some consisted of protocol testing for surveys of amphibians and reptiles (hereinafter referred to as herpetofauna) (Lutcher 1996; Carfioli 1998, 2000; Yahner et al. 1999) or small mammals (Yahner et al. 1997). Others were inventories of bird (Yahner et al. 2001a) and herpetofauna (Tiebout 2003a) species at VAFO, and another examined abundance and movement of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) at the park (Lovallo and Tzilkowski 2003).

Although those projects added considerable knowledge about biological resources at VAFO, park managers have expressed needs for additional data. In 1976, the NPS purchased an 18.6-ha (46.0-acre) property at VAFO from an asbestos insulation manufacturing plant, Keene Corporation; this property later became part of VAFO when the park was established officially as a unit of the NPS in 1982 (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003). The presence of asbestos contamination within the park was identified during trench excavation for a fiber-optic cable in 1997, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated an emergency response action to remediate the problem (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003). Asbestos and other chemical contamination since has been detected within a 45.3-ha (111.9-acre) general area now called the Asbestos Release Site (ARS), and each of 15 specific areas of contamination within the ARS has been classified as an Area of Concern (AOC) (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003). In addition, the ARS is classified as a “Superfund” site (EPA identification number PA9141733080) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (EPA 2006). The general public is prohibited from entering AOCs, and entry by park personnel requires special training in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 1910.120 (OSHA 1994). Hence, little biological research has been conducted in AOCs since the discovery of contamination. In particular, there are few data on presence, abundance, and distribution of herpetofauna and small-mammal species in these parts of the park, and there is no information on how vertebrate populations compare between AOCs and other areas within VAFO assumed not to be contaminated with asbestos.

Following a determination by the NPS in 2003 that biological sampling could be performed within AOCs once proper safety training with respect to OSHA Standard 1910.120 (OSHA

1994) was completed, we conducted a three-part, one-year-long inventory project during 2004, with the findings of each part published in a separate report. The first part (this report) consisted of inventories of herpetofauna and small mammals in the AOCs. The second part (Yahner et al. 2006a) consisted of inventories of herpetofauna, mammals, birds, and woody plants in a recently acquired parcel known then as the Schwoebel tract (later renamed “Waggonseller Farm” by the park). The third part (Yahner et al. 2006b) was a parkwide inventory of mammals at VAFO.

Our objectives for the inventories of herpetofauna and small mammals in AOCs were to (1) compare species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between AOC plots and reference plots located outside the ARS but within the park boundary, and (2) document presence, relative abundance, and distribution of herpetofauna and small mammals throughout the AOCs. All observations of mammals during this inventory were used also to meet objectives of the parkwide inventory of mammals (Yahner et al. 2006b).

Standards and Compliance

Activities conducted in this study were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at The Pennsylvania State University (IACUC No. 16262). Investigators that entered AOCs for the purpose of collecting data for this inventory project (J. E. Kubel and B. D. Ross) received certification 3 March 2004 for completion of HAZWOPER training (24-h course plus 8-h site-specific training). After reviewing the research proposal for this study, M. Carfioli (Ecologist at VAFO), E. Cram (Safety Officer at VAFO), and P. Pryor (U.S. Public Health Service) assisted with development and approval of a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan in compliance with OSHA Standard 1910.120 (OSHA 1994). J. E. Kubel and B. D. Ross were certified as Site Supervisors in the plan.

Study Area

VAFO was established in 1976 to commemorate the 6-month encampment of George Washington’s army at Valley Forge during the Revolutionary War. Based on geographic information system (GIS) data provided by park personnel in 2003, the park consists of 1,408 ha (3,479 ac) in Montgomery and Chester counties, southeastern Pennsylvania; approximately 1,316 ha (3,254 ac) were under federal ownership during our inventory. VAFO is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and residential development, as well as major highways to the north, south, and east. The topography is relatively gentle, with rolling uplands and low hills; elevation ranges from 18–161 m (59–528 ft) (Tiebout 2003a). Of the total acreage under federal ownership, 374 ha (924 ac) occurs as forest (relatively mature woodlands and plantations), 362 ha (894 ac) as grassland (mowed not more than once per year), 181 ha (447 ac) as successional forest (old-fields and relatively young woodlots with open or patchy canopy), 135 ha (334 ac) as lawn, 120 ha (297 ac) as developed land (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.), 57 ha (141 ac) as wetland (small ponds, rivers, wet meadows, etc.), 45 ha (111 ac) as cropland, and 42 ha (104 ac) as ornamental plantation and nursery (Lundgren et al. 2002; Figure 1). The Schuylkill River is the major drainage and traverses the park from west to east.

The ARS is located in the eastern and central portion of VAFO and includes 15 individually marked AOCs (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003; Figures 2 and 3). The AOCs total 39 ha (96 ac), and the two dominant cover types are successional forest and grassland, accounting for approximately 41% and 39% of the total AOC area, respectively (Figure 3). Although many grassland patches in the park are mowed once per year, grasslands in AOCs are not mowed. Developed land accounts for approximately 18% of the total AOC area, and the remaining 2% consists of water, lawn, and forest. Surface features of the ARS include rolling hills, caves, sinkholes, and former quarry areas. The central to eastern portion of the ARS is bisected by the Waste Channel (AOC 1), which was used by the Keene Corporation to dispose of waste material in slurry form; the direction of flow in the channel was eastward from the Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5) and northward to the Schuylkill River (Figure 3). Although asbestos may be considered a primary contaminant in AOCs, other waste materials (e.g., volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) have been detected in AOC soils (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003).

Figure 1. Cover types (modified from Lundgren et al. 2002) at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania.

Figure 2. Locations of the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania.

Figure 3. Boundaries and cover types (modified from Lundgren et al. 2002) of the 15 individual Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.

Methods

Historical and Predicted Species

During winter 2004, we generated lists of herpetofauna (Table 1) and small-mammal (Table 2) species that were predicted to occur in AOCs by reviewing the NPSpecies database of the NPS for information about species known to occur at VAFO. The NPSpecies database documents occurrence of vertebrates and vascular plants in national parks based on information from a variety of reliable sources, such as published reports and museum records (NPS 2003). At the time we created our lists, information regarding herpetofauna and small mammals at VAFO had been updated in the NPSpecies database as recently as July 2003 (Jennifer Keefer, NPSpecies Database Manager, pers. comm., 2004). The list of “predicted” herpetofauna included only records in the NPSpecies database because the database contained recent data from a comprehensive inventory conducted at VAFO (excluding AOCs) during 1999–2001 (Tiebout 2003a). However, a recent inventory of small mammals at VAFO does not exist, so our list of “predicted” small mammals was based on information from both NPSpecies and published range maps (Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Merritt 1987).

Sampling Design

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations

Although we are unaware of published research suggesting that asbestos is acutely toxic to herpetofauna or small mammals, soil containing industrial waste near the surface of the ground might be expected to have a relatively low proportion of organic matter compared to soil lacking artificial components. Hence, contaminated soil might exhibit reduced microbial activity or nutrient availability (depending on volume and distribution of asbestos in the soil column), and such conditions might influence presence or abundance of organisms higher in the food chain (e.g., invertebrates, herpetofauna, and small mammals). To meet objective 1, we paired sampling plots within specific AOCs with reference plots located outside the ARS (but within VAFO) to compare species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals between AOC plots and reference plots. Our hypothesis was that richness and abundance would be lower in AOC plots than in reference plots.

The first step in developing our sampling design was to evaluate presence of macrohabitats at AOCs and parkwide. Park personnel provided us with GIS files that were used in combination with ArcView GIS software (ESRI 2000) to develop a cover-type map of VAFO. The GIS files, which are based on data collected during the vegetation mapping project at VAFO (Lundgren et al. 2002), depict 23 distinct vegetation alliances; some of these alliances are classified in accordance with the National Vegetation Classification System (Grossman et al. 1998). For the purpose of simplifying cover types to be considered for sampling efforts, we combined the 23 alliances to create 11 cover types (Figure 1; Table 3). The 11 cover types represent practical classifications of vegetation communities and are based primarily on the importance of vegetation structure to general habitat requirements of various wildlife species. Therefore, these classifications allow for development of species- and habitat-specific management guidelines with respect to future land use or population monitoring.

Table 1. Species predicted to occura during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004.

Common Name Scientific Name Doc./Pred.b Salamanders long-tailed salamander Eurycea l. longicauda D northern dusky salamander Desmognathus f. fuscus D northern red salamander Pseudotriton r. ruber D slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus D northern two-lined salamander Eurycea b. bislineata D redback salamander Plethodon cinereus D red-spotted newt Notophthalmus v. viridescens D Toads and Frogs bullfrog Rana catesbeiana D eastern American toad Bufo a. americanus D eastern spadefoot Scaphiopus h. holbrookii P Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri D gray treefrog Hyla versicolor D green frog Rana clamitans melanota D northern leopard frog Rana pipiens P northern spring peeper Pseudacris c. crucifer D pickerel frog Rana palustris D wood frog Rana sylvatica D Turtles common map turtle Graptemys geographica D common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus D common snapping turtle Chelydra s. serpentina D eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina D eastern painted turtle Chrysemys p. picta D midland painted turtle Chrysemys picta marginata P redbelly turtle Pseudemys rubriventris P red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans D spotted turtle Clemmys guttata P Snakes black rat snake Elaphe o. obsoleta P eastern garter snake Thamnophis s. sirtalis D eastern milk snake Lampropeltis t. triangulum D eastern worm snake Carphophis a. amoenus P northern black racer Coluber c. constrictor D northern brown snake Storeria d. dekayi D northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen D northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsii D northern water snake Nerodia s. sipedon D queen snake Regina septemvittata D aList of species is based on records in the NPSpecies database (NPS 2003), which uses reliable sources (e.g., published reports or museum records) to classify the status of species in national parks. bDocumented or predicted: D = documented during the most recent inventory, 1999–2001 (Tiebout 2003a); P = documented prior to 1999 only and, therefore, predicted.

Table 2. Species predicted to occura during the inventory of small mammalsb in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004.

Common Name Scientific Name Doc./Pred.c Shrews least shrew Cryptotis parva P masked shrew Sorex cinereus D northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda D smoky shrew Sorex fumeus P Moles eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus P hairy-tailed mole Parascalops breweri P star-nosed mole Condylura cristata D Squirrels eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus D southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans D New World Rats, Mice, and Voles deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus D meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus D woodland vole Microtus pinetorum P southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi P southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi P white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis D Old World Rats and Mice house mouse Mus musculus D norway rat Rattus norvegicus D Jumping Mice meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius D aList of species is based on published range maps (Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Merritt 1987) and records in the NPSpecies database (NPS 2003), which uses reliable sources (e.g., published reports or museum records) to classify the status of species in national parks. bSmall mammals are defined as those being the size of Norway rats or smaller. cDocumented or predicted: D = documented between 1979 and 1997; P = never documented, but range maps (Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Merritt 1987) indicate possible presence and, therefore, species is predicted.

Cover Type Cover b . 1998; Lundgren et al. 2002); ndgren(2002). et al. VAFO), Pennsylvania. enoted with “--”. NVCS I.A.8.C.x.8 Forest Forest I.A.8.C.x.8 Alliance No. I.A.8.C.x.70 Forest Forest I.A.8.C.x.70 -- Forest -- Forest -- Forest I.B.2.N.a.24 Forest Forest I.B.2.N.a.24 I.B.2.N.a.36 Forest Forest I.B.2.N.a.36 Forest I.B.2.N.d.4 Forest I.B.2.N.d.13 -- Old Nursery Nursery -- Forest -- Successional -- Old V.A.5.C.x.5 Grassland -- Grassland -- Water -- Ornamental Grove Grove Slope Talus II.B.2.N.a.24 -- Ornamental -- Cropland -- Developed -- Developed l Historical Park ( ) - Temporarily Flooded Forest Flooded - Temporarily )

Acer saccharinum Acer tional et al Vegetation(Grossman (NVCS) Classification System ,

the Vegetation and, National System are d hence, Classification ) Forest over types occurring at Valley Forge Nationa Celtis laevigata ,

s provided by VAFO personnel; most descriptions can be found in a draft report by Lu CultivatedHerbaceous Cultivated Herbaceous Cultivated (Mowed) -- Lawn

Quercus Quercus velutina ,

Woodland

coccinea Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Herbaceous Flooded Seasonally V.A.5.N.k.39 Meadow Wet s Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus Planted Forest Planted Rumex acetosella Rumex acetosella – (

a – – Quercu Temporarily Flooded Forest Flooded Temporarily Planted Forest Planted Forest Planted Quercus prinus prinus Quercus – ( – Planted Forest – Planted Forest Planted Forest Alliance classificationgivennumber is in accordance Na with the Descriptions of alliances given in GIS file givenof alliancesDescriptions in GIS 2004. VAFO, at mammals small and herpetofauna of inventory the during used were that classifications type Cover many alliancesnotrecognized describedfiles are in in the GIS and designation of c Table 3. Nomenclature Alliance Description Tsuga canadensis a b c Pinus strobus Pinus Quercus rubra Quercus Catalpa speciosa Liriodendron tulipifera Quercus prinus Quercus Acer saccharinum occidentalis Platanus Forest Planted Hardwood – Pine White Mixed Successional Forest (Local Type) Forest (Local Successional Type) (Local Shrubland / Field Old Successional Site Old Nursery glomerata Dactylis QuarryOld Site / Reclamation Calamagrostis canadensis Water rubra Quercus -- Successional Planted Ornamental Tree Grove Tree Ornamental Planted Cropland glomerata Dactylis Transportation corridor land Developed

The 11 cover types we used to classify vegetation communities are: 1) forest, 2) successional, 3) old nursery, 4) grassland, 5) wet meadow, 6) water, 7) talus slope, 8) ornamental grove, 9) cropland, 10) lawn, and 11) developed. We define forest cover as relatively mature woodlots or plantations. This cover type typically has a closed canopy dominated by true canopy species (e.g., eastern white pine [Pinus strobus], tulip poplar [Liriodendron tulipifera], sycamore [Platanus occidentalis]); the sub-canopy and shrub layers are relatively open or sparse. Successional cover consists of relatively young woodlots or old-fields/shrublands; the canopy is typically open or patchy, the sub-canopy and shrub layers are relatively dense, and there is usually substantial vine cover. Old nursery cover consists of areas formerly used as tree nurseries. This cover type represents a relatively early successional stage, but we make a distinction between it and successional cover because old nursery cover consists predominantly of exotic or cultivated vegetation. We define grassland cover as grassy areas generally lacking woody vegetation taller than grass and mowed not more than once per year, wet meadow cover as seasonally flooded grasslands, and water cover as permanent or semi-permanent water bodies. Talus slope consists of rocky areas located on hillsides and generally lacking vegetation; canopy is typically sparse or absent, except beyond the periphery of the talus area. Ornamental groves are relatively open areas consisting primarily of planted trees; natural colonization and encroachment by woody plants is generally discouraged (e.g., by mowing). We define cropland cover as agricultural areas, lawn cover as frequently (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly) mowed grassy areas, and developed cover as primarily abiotic areas lacking natural vegetation (e.g., roads, parking lots, buildings).

Six cover types (forest, successional, grassland, water, lawn, and developed) occur in AOCs and, therefore, represent types within which we could sample herpetofauna and small mammals. However, forest and lawn are relatively scarce (Figure 3) and developed areas are of relatively little value to wildlife, so we concentrated our sampling efforts in the successional, grassland, and water types. We selected five AOCs (four terrestrial and one aquatic) for placement of sampling plots. The Waste Channel (AOC 1; Figure 3) was selected as the aquatic AOC because it is the only AOC containing a permanent body of water (a stream called Port Kennedy Run, located in the northern portion of the Waste Channel). Selection of the four terrestrial AOCs was based on the following criteria: 1) the AOC was ≥100 m (328 ft) long and ≥60 m (197 ft) wide (to accommodate an artificial cover-object transect for sampling herpetofauna and to minimize edge effects); 2) cover type within the AOC was relatively homogeneous and consisted predominantly of either successional or grassland cover; and 3) any sampling plot placed within the AOC could be matched with a reference plot elsewhere. Given these criteria, we selected Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), and Waste Pile (AOC 6) (Figure 3) for terrestrial sampling.

We placed one plot in each of the five selected AOCs (plots = A0, A1, A3, A5, and A6; Figure 4). Plots A0, A3, and A6 encompassed the entire AOC within which each was located. Plot A5 encompassed a 1.0-ha [2.5-acre] circular (56.4 m [185.0 ft] radius) area. Plot A1 encompassed a 290-m (951-ft) portion of Port Kennedy Run and an area 5–10 m (16–33 ft) to either side.

We selected reference plots (R0, R1, R3, R5, and R6; Figure 4) to match the five AOC plots in a pairwise fashion, based on the following criteria: 1) each plot center was at least 1.0 km (0.6 mi) away from the nearest AOC (to best ensure that the reference plot was not contaminated with

asbestos, and to minimize chance of individual herpetofauna or small mammals occurring in both AOC plots and reference plots); and 2) each plot was comparable to its AOC plot counterpart in size (area), cover type, and surrounding landscape features. Identification numbers for reference plots were assigned with respect to those of their AOC counterparts (e.g., reference plot R0 matches AOC plot A0). Each reference plot was located within VAFO and encompassed an area the same size as its AOC counterpart.

To minimize the potential influence of certain variables (e.g., weather and time of day) on our results between AOC plots and reference plots, we conducted all surveys in a pairwise fashion. That is, any time we conducted a survey (of any type) at an AOC plot, we then conducted the same type of survey at the respective reference plot as soon as possible (usually ≤1 hr after completion of the first plot) so that environmental conditions were similar during each paired survey. We alternated the order (i.e., AOC vs. reference) in which we surveyed each member of a pair (e.g., if we first conducted a survey at plot A1 of the A1/R1 pair one day, then we first conducted the survey at plot R1 the next time the pair was scheduled to be surveyed). For the purpose of data analysis we defined a “survey trial” as the time all pairs of plots were sampled with a given protocol. We recorded survey trial, location (i.e., plot number), date, protocol used, time elapsed, observer, and weather conditions for all surveys. We recorded weather conditions at the beginning and end of each survey; conditions comprised a sky code, a wind scale, and ambient air temperature (in shade), as described by Tiebout (2003b). All surveys were conducted in 2004.

Herpetofauna: Methods of sampling herpetofauna consisted of techniques modified from established VAFO monitoring protocols (Tiebout 2003a, 2003b) and included anuran-calling surveys, general searches, and artificial cover-object transects (Table 4). General searches were used at all plots, whereas, anuran-calling surveys were used only at aquatic plots (A1/R1) and artificial cover-object transects were used only at terrestrial plots (A0/R0, A3/R3, A5/R5, and A6/R6).

Anuran-calling Surveys: Toad and frog species (members of the Order Anura; hereinafter referred to as anurans) can be distinguished by their vocalizations and typically are heard more often than seen. Therefore, we used anuran-calling surveys (listening for calls of anurans while standing near aquatic habitats) to sample for these species at plots A1 and R1. Because the intensity of calling activity differs by season for some species (Shaffer 1991), we conducted calling surveys once or twice per month from March through July (Table 4). We established three survey points 10–20 m (33–66 ft) from the stream of each plot, spaced at 100-m (328-ft) intervals (Appendixes A and B).

During a calling survey we visited each point for a 10-min period (during wet or humid conditions and between 30 min after sunset and midnight when calling activity typically is greatest) and recorded the anuran species heard during that period. We recorded the number of individuals of each species detected if the individuals could be distinguished from one another. If individuals could not be distinguished from one another we recorded the minimum number of individuals that could be distinguished and noted that an undetermined number of individuals were present. Each individual was classified as occurring inside or outside the plot boundary and as inside or outside a 50-m (164-ft) radius from the survey point.

a Survey Type Anuran-calling General COb Survey Period Plot Survey Search Survey Mar A1, R1 2 A0, A3, A5, A6, R0, R3, R5, R6 1 2 Apr–Jul A1, R1 4 4 A0, A3, A5, A6, R0, R3, R5, R6 4 8 Aug–Sep A1, R1 2 A0, A3, A5, A6, R0, R3, R5, R6 2 4 Oct A1, R1 1 A0, A3, A5, A6, R0, R3, R5 1 2 R6 1 Entire Inventory A1, R1 6 7 A0, A3, A5, A6, R0, R3, R5 8 16 R6 8 14 aValues represent total number of surveys conducted per plot during the survey period. bCO = artificial cover object.

General Searches: General searches entail active searching for animals (e.g., turning cover objects, such as rocks and logs, and scanning ground and water surfaces) and are very effective in detecting presence of certain taxa (Yahner et al. 2002; Tiebout 2003a). Our searching method combined substrate searching (turning rocks, logs, and other existing cover objects), surface searching (scanning ground and water surfaces, vegetation overhanging aquatic habitats, etc.), and listening for calls of anurans. We expected to encounter resting salamanders and snakes during substrate searching, whereas, we expected to encounter foraging, migrating, and breeding amphibians or basking reptiles during surface searching. In addition, we expected to encounter amphibian eggs during surface searching in water bodies.

We conducted general searches at each pair of terrestrial plots (AOC and reference) once per month from March–October and at the pair of aquatic plots from April–October (Table 4). Because exposed asbestos occurs frequently along the streambanks at plot A1, we restricted the sampling area for substrate searching at this plot to the streambed itself (we were advised by the VAFO Health and Safety Officer to avoid sampling areas containing exposed asbestos). We sampled plot R1 in the same fashion. For all other plots, each search encompassed the entire plot.

Searches occurred during daytime hours, and cover objects turned included rocks (>15 cm [5.9 in] in diameter), logs (woody debris >7 cm [2.8 in] in diameter and >30 cm [11.8 in] long), leaf litter retaining moisture beneath, and any other substrate (e.g., trash) meeting the size requirements specified for rocks or logs. For each search we recorded area (ha) searched and number of rocks and logs turned. Animals encountered were handled only when necessary for

purposes of identification, collection of voucher photos, or prevention of physical harm to animals when returning cover objects to their original positions. When capture and handling of animals was necessary, animals were released at the point of capture. For each animal encountered, species, general location (e.g., quadrant of an AOC), time, cover type, and the type of object under which the animal occurred were recorded.

Artificial Cover-Object Transects: Herpetofauna can be encountered readily under artificial substrates, such as flat boards and plastic sheeting; therefore, we used an artificial cover-object transect at each plot (Appendixes C–G) to supplement general searches. We expected this method to be most helpful in grassland plots where natural cover objects were rare. Each transect traversed 100 m (328 ft) and consisted of 10 points established at 11-m (36-ft) intervals (Tiebout 2003a). When possible, we attempted to position the transect centrally within a plot, thereby minimizing chances of capturing individuals that actually spend the majority of their time outside the plot. In addition, we attempted to duplicate positioning and orientation of transects within pairs of AOC plots and reference plots with respect to surrounding landscape features (e.g., cover types).

Each point in a transect comprised three flat boards (Tiebout 2003a) and a black plastic sheet (Kjoss and Litvaitis 2001; Kubel et al. 2002) spaced 0.5–1.0 m (1.6–3.3 ft) apart (Figure 5). The black plastic sheet was 304.8 x 121.9 cm (120.0 x 48.0 in); sheet thickness was negligible. The three boards consisted of a small (30.5 x 30.5 x 2.5 cm [12.0 x 12.0 x 1.0 in]) white oak (Quercus alba) board, a medium (106.7 x 20.3 x 2.5 cm [42.0 x 8.0 x 1.0 in]) white oak board, and a large (121.9 x 61.0 x 1.3 cm [48.0 x 24.0 x 0.5 in]) plywood board. The oak boards, which were acquired directly from a saw mill, were not dried or treated otherwise prior to being placed in the field.

The small board is a size recommended by the Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program (Droege et al. 1997), whereas dimensions of medium and large boards are based on the herpetofauna inventory conducted at VAFO by Tiebout (2003a). We added the black plastic sheet to the scheme used by Tiebout (2003a) because plastic sheets are helpful in documenting snakes, which are believed to use the sheets for cover and thermoregulation (Kjoss and Litvaitis 2001). Among the four types of objects used, we expected to encounter salamanders under small boards, salamanders and snakes under medium boards, and snakes under large boards and plastic sheets.

We placed sheets and small and medium boards flat on the surface of the ground; we propped the large board several centimeters at one end with a rock or block of wood to allow large-bodied herpetofauna (e.g., large snakes) to crawl beneath. We cleared loose debris, such as leaf litter and stones, under the small and medium boards so that boards would lie flush with the soil surface (to retain moisture), and under the large board and plastic sheet so that any animals occurring under the objects would be seen readily. Plastic sheets were anchored at the corners with nails (10.2 cm long, 1.0 cm diameter [4.0 in long, 0.4 in diameter]).

We established transects in February and surveyed all but one (plot 6R) twice per month from March–October (Table 4), with a minimum of six days between surveys. The transect at plot 6R was surveyed twice per month from only March–September because surveys scheduled for that plot in October were cancelled due to theft of cover objects. Times of day during which we

17 d fauna in nia, 2004; each transect traverse ct used during the inventory of herpeto

tional Historical Park, Pennsylva nts established at 11-m (36-ft) intervals. nts established at 11-m in a typical artificial cover-object transe cover-object artificial typical in a cm (120.0 x 48.0 in), thickness negligible thickness 48.0 in), (120.0 x cm ); 30.5 x 30.5 x 2.5 cm (12.0 x 12.0 x 1.0 in) x 1.0 (12.0 x 12.0 cm x 2.5 x 30.5 ); 30.5 Quercus alba 0.5–1.0 m m 0.5–1.0 m 0.5–1.0 m 0.5–1.0 100 m (328 ft) and consisted of 10 sampling poi 100 m Small Board Medium Board Large Board Board = white oak ( Small point with of a sampling Figure 5. Schematic the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge Na Plastic Sheet Medium Board = white oak; 106.7 x 20.3 x 2.5 cm (42.0 x 8.0 x 1.0 in) in) 1.0 x (42.0 x 8.0 cm x 2.5 20.3 x Board = white oak; 106.7 Medium in) x 0.5 x 24.0 cm (48.0 x 1.3 61.0 x 121.9 Large Board = CDX plywood; plastic; 304.8 x 121.9 Sheet = black landscaping

conducted surveys depended on detection probability of salamanders and snakes. For instance, when salamanders forage along the ground surface and away from cover objects, such foraging occurs predominantly during nighttime hours (Petranka 1998); therefore, we believed we would be more likely to encounter salamanders under artificial cover objects during the day than at night. Snakes are most likely to use black plastic sheets during times that aid thermoregulation (Kjoss and Litvaitis 2001), suggesting that they are unlikely to occur under sheets during hot, sunny conditions because temperatures under the sheets may be excessively high. Hence, we usually surveyed artificial cover-object transects between dawn and 10 AM or between 5 PM and dusk during summer, and at any time of day during spring and fall.

During a survey, each cover object was turned and the surface of the ground underneath was scanned. In grassland habitats, we gently disturbed (e.g., prodded or separated) grass occurring underneath the object to reveal hidden animals. Animals that we encountered were handled only when necessary for purposes of identification, collection of voucher photos, or prevention of physical harm to animals when returning cover objects to their original position following turning. When capture and handling of animals was necessary, animals were released at the point of capture. For each animal encountered, species, point number, cover type, type of object under which the animal occurred, and method by which the individual was identified (i.e., visually or by handling) were recorded.

Small Mammals: Small mammals, which we defined as terrestrial mammals the size of Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) or smaller, were sampled via live-trapping (Sherman live-trap [17.3 x 6.4 x 5.1 cm {6.8 x 2.5 x 2.0 in}]). Twenty sampling points were spaced at 10-m (33-ft) intervals along transects at each plot (Appendixes A–G), and one trap was placed at each point. At plot pairs A5/R5 and A6/R6 (Figure 4), we established two 90-m (295-ft) long transects consisting of 10 points each (Appendixes C, F, and G). At pairs A0/R0, A1/R1, and A3/R3 (Figure 4), we established a 190-m (623-ft) transect consisting of 20 points (Appendixes A–E). We attempted to position transects at each terrestrial plot on either side of, parallel to, and at a distance of 15– 25 m (49–82 ft) away from the artificial cover-object transect located at the plot, depending upon size (area) and shape (dimensions) of the plot. However, we were not able to position transects at plots A0, A3, and R3 in such a fashion because irregular features (e.g., pits, quarry walls, downed trees) at the plots made establishment of straight-line transects impossible. At aquatic plots (A1 and R1), we positioned each transect parallel to its respective stream and at a distance of 1–10 m (3–33 ft) from the stream; distance was influenced by susceptibility to flooding, location of irregular features (e.g., sheer rock faces, downed trees), and presence of exposed asbestos. Streams at A1 and R1 crossed under a railbed, but we did not place traps over or under the railbed. Thus, gaps (25–30 m [82–98 ft]) occurred in each transect where the transect path met the railbed.

We sampled each pair of plots once per season (summer = late July; fall = early October) for a total of 40 trap nights (trap night = one trap set over one night) per plot. Traps were baited with a small amount of peanut butter, placed on the ground surface during morning or afternoon hours, left overnight, and checked and removed the following morning. We covered traps with vegetation, leaf litter, or other debris to shade the trap and, thus, minimize chances of overheating during sunny conditions. Additionally, traps were equipped with cotton to provide bedding for captured animals. We identified animals to species and released them at the point of

capture. For each individual captured, we recorded species, point number, and cover type; when possible, we recorded age class (e.g., juvenile or adult) and sex class.

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern

To meet objective 2, we used anuran-calling surveys, general searches, and artificial cover-object transects to sample herpetofauna, and live-trapping to sample small mammals; incidental sightings of animals belonging to either taxonomic group were recorded as “opportunistic observations.” All data collected for the purpose of meeting objective 1 were used to help meet objective 2. As in objective 1, we defined small mammals as terrestrial mammals the size of a Norway rat or smaller. We did not attempt to conduct an inventory of larger mammals in AOCs because most AOCs are <4 ha (10 ac) in size, and species larger than rats (e.g., weasels [Mustela spp.], striped skunks [Mephitis mephitis], common raccoons [Procyon lotor], woodchucks [Marmota monax], and foxes [Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus]) typically have home ranges >4 ha (10 ac; Burt and Grossenheider 1980). Therefore, larger species are unlikely to occur in an AOC exclusively, and an inventory of such species within AOCs would give little information about the ecological importance of AOCs to populations of those species at the park. However, opportunistic observations of larger mammals at AOCs were documented as part of the parkwide inventory of mammals (Yahner et al 2006b).

Pitfall trapping is a commonly used sampling method by which an open container [e.g., coffee can or bucket] is set in the ground such that the rim is flush with the ground surface and animals are expected to fall inside while active at the ground surface (Corn 1994; Jones et al. 1996). We did not use this method to sample herpetofauna and small mammals because it would require digging ≥15 cm (6 in) into the soil, which could pose personal health risks (i.e., disturbance of and exposure to buried asbestos) and would not be compatible with park policy regarding containment of buried asbestos.

Sampling for herpetofauna and small mammals was stratified among cover types for analysis of species richness, relative abundance, and distribution data, which gave the option of addressing species- and habitat-specific management implications for future land-use or monitoring decisions, if necessary. Sampling in each cover type was proportional to the amount of area each cover type represented in all AOCs combined. We recorded location (i.e., AOC number), date, protocol used, time elapsed, observer, and weather conditions for all surveys. We recorded weather conditions at the beginning and end of each survey; conditions comprised a sky code, a wind scale, and ambient air temperature (in shade), as described by Tiebout (2003b). All surveys were conducted in 2004.

Herpetofauna: Sampling effort for inventorying herpetofauna occurred primarily in successional and grassland cover types because these were the two dominant cover types in the AOCs (Figure 3). However, we made an effort to sample all portions of each AOC at least several times during the study. Although we used anuran-calling surveys to sample for herpetofauna, the sampling method was limited to only the northern portion of the Waste Channel (AOC 1; Figure 3) because it was the only sector within the AOCs that contained a permanent body of water (Port Kennedy Run). Use of artificial cover-object transects also was limited because costs of supplies were high and much labor was required for set-up. Given these circumstances, and that general searches have accounted for all or almost all species detected during inventories that

used several other sampling techniques (Yahner et al. 2001b; Kubel et al. 2002; Tiebout 2003a), general searching was the primary method we used to inventory herpetofauna in AOCs (Table 5).

Anuran-calling Surveys: We sampled anurans in AOCs by using the same anuran-calling surveys used at plot A1 (Appendix A) for objective 1. Description, rationale, and schedule for calling surveys are given in the “Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations” section. However, collection of data differed from objective 1 in that we recorded whether anurans occurred inside or outside the Waste Channel boundary (as opposed to the plot A1 boundary).

General Searches: All searches conducted for objective 1 were used to help meet objective 2. Additional general searches conducted for objective 2 followed the protocols described in the “Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations” section. However, on several nights, we also made special visits to listen for calls of anurans in areas not designated for anuran-calling surveys, when calls were heard during other surveys conducted earlier in the day. During such visits, we walked through an AOC, stopped frequently for several minutes at a time, and recorded all anurans heard.

We conducted at least one general search per month from March–October in AOCs 0–3, 5–10, 12, and 13 (Table 5; Figure 3). Because we did not expect developed land to provide suitable habitat for herpetofauna, we conducted general searches in AOCs 4, 11, and 14 (Figure 3) only three to four times during the inventory (Table 5), usually during warm and wet conditions when salamanders, anurans, or turtles might be expected to be active at the ground surface. We conducted most general searches during daytime hours, but some searches occurred at night. With the exception of searches in plots A1 and A5 for objective 1, searches within each AOC usually covered as large an area as logistically possible. However, only portions of some AOCs were searched during July–October because repeated turning of cover objects during March– June appeared to disturb microhabitats excessively.

Artificial Cover-Object Transects: The same transect surveys used at plots A0, A3, A5 and A6 (Appendix C) for objective 1 were used to help meet objective 2. Description, rationale, and schedule for artificial cover-object surveys are given in the “Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations” section.

Small Mammals: We sampled small mammals via live-trapping (same trap type as used for objective 1) primarily in successional and grassland cover types, but some sampling occurred in successional cover adjacent to (i.e., within 5–10 m [16–33 ft]) aquatic habitat. In order to avoid disturbance or destruction of traps, we did not sample small mammals in lawn and developed cover types. Thus, only 12 of 15 AOCs (30 ha [74 ac]) were sampled for small mammals because three AOCs (Lower Visitor Center Quarry, Maintenance Quarry 3, and Maintenance Quarry 1) are predominantly developed (Figure 3). With the exception of perhaps house mouse (Mus musculus) and Norway rat, no mammals on our predicted species list (Table 2) tend to depend on developed habitats (Burt and Grossenheider 1980).

We established sampling points (one trap at each point) at 10-m (33-ft) intervals along transects of varying lengths (Appendix H). Number and positioning of transects were influenced by topographical features (e.g., quarry walls and depressions susceptible to flooding), presence and

Survey Typea Survey Period AOC No. Anuran-calling Survey General Search COb Survey March 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 2 1 2, 7–13 1 4, 14 5 3 2 April 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 1 2 2–4, 7–14 1 5 3 2 May 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 1 2 2, 7, 8, 10–13 1 4, 14 5 4 2 9 2 June 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 1 2 2, 7–10, 12, 13 1 4, 11, 14 5 2 2 July 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 1 2 2, 4, 7–10, 12–14 1 5 2 2 11 August 0, 3 1 2 1, 2, 7–10, 12, 13 2 4 5 3 2 6 2 2 11, 14 1 September 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 2 2, 4, 7–10, 12–14 1 5 2 2 11 October 0, 3, 6 1 2 1 2 2, 7–10, 12, 13 1 4, 11, 14 5 2 2

Survey Typea Survey Period AOC No. Anuran-calling Survey General Search COb Survey Entire Inventory 0, 3 8 16 1 6 15 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 9 4 3 5 21 16 6 9 16 9 10 11, 14 4 aValues represent the number of surveys conducted per AOC during the survey period and include those conducted at plots A0, A1, A3, A5, and A6 for objective 1. bCO = artificial cover object.

distribution of cover types within each AOC, and a desired sampling effort of ≥250 trap nights per season over two seasons (summer = late July; fall = early October). Ultimately, our actual sampling effort was 289 trap nights per season (Table 6), based on goals to ensure that all undeveloped cover types within a given AOC were sampled and numbers of trap nights in each AOC were distributed proportionally relative to total undeveloped AOC area (30 ha [74 ac]). Trapping effort in Small Additional Quarry, PennDOT Quarry, and Waste Pile (AOCs 0, 3, and 6, respectively) was greater than proportional to total undeveloped area (Table 6) because of trapping conducted to help meet objective 1.

When all cover types of a given AOC were represented in the “core” area of the AOC (arbitrarily, ≥25 m [82 ft] distant from the AOC plot boundary), we attempted to position transects centrally within the AOC, thereby minimizing chances of capturing individuals that actually spend the majority of their time outside the AOC. We did not mark mammals captured; so, in order to verify each captured animal was a unique individual, it was necessary to avoid recapturing individuals within the same season. Except for the Waste Channel and Former Keene Plant Area (AOCs 1 and 5, respectively), which for experimental and logistical reasons were sampled over two nights, we sampled all points within a given AOC in one night. The Waste Channel was sampled over two nights (20 traps at plot A1 [Appendix A] during one night, 11 traps near Cave Quarry [Appendix H] during the other) because of constraints associated with scheduling and supply of traps. Former Keene Plant Area was trapped over two nights because we wanted to avoid the possibility of traps used for objective 2 influencing capture success of traps used for objective 1 (e.g., presence of baited traps outside plot A5 might attract and capture individuals that otherwise may have been captured inside the plot). Thus, we used 20 traps along the two transects at plot A5 (Figure 4, Appendix C) in accordance with objective 1 during the first night of trapping, and 96 traps along four other transects at AOC 5 (Appendix H) in accordance with objective 2 during the following night. In order to minimize chance of recapturing individuals caught at plot A5, we positioned the four transects ≥100 m (328 ft) away

Table 6. Distribution of sampling efforta for the inventory of small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004.

AOC No. Area (ha) Minimum No. Trap Nightsb Actual No. Trap Nights 0 0.69 6 20c 1 3.77 31 31 2 2.59 21 21 3 0.97 8 20c 5 14.03 116 116 6 0.88 7 20c 7 0.62 5 5 8 0.57 5 5 9 1.97 16 16 10 0.91 8 8 12 1.23 10 10 13 2.02 17 17 Totals 30.25 250 289 aSampling effort was restricted to undeveloped AOCs and occurred over two seasons (summer = late July; fall = early October); table values represent the sampling effort per season. bNumber of trap nights, in proportion to total undeveloped area (30 ha), needed to meet a minimum goal of 250 trap nights per season among the 12 AOCs. cValue exceeds the minimum number of trap nights because 20 trap nights occurred during sampling conducted to help meet objective 1.

from the plot. Data recorded and protocols used for baiting, setting, and checking traps were the same as described for objective 1.

Data Storage

Spatial Data

We used a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Trimble ProXR) owned by the park to identify locations of all sampling plots, survey transects or transect endpoints, anuran-calling survey points, and extraordinary animal encounters (e.g., observations of rare species in unexpected places). We stored the GPS locations electronically as GIS shapefiles and used those files in combination with files previously provided by park personnel to create GIS data layers containing the post-processed locations. We created all layers using ArcView GIS (ESRI 2000) software. Electronic copies of spatial data sets and FGDC compliant metadata have been submitted to the park.

Non-spatial Data

All survey and animal data were stored electronically in MS Excel spreadsheets and in an MS Access database. We created a database whose format is compatible with that of existing park databases. The database and associated metadata have been submitted to the park.

Data Analysis

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations

We summarized data separately for herpetofauna and small mammals with respect to species richness and abundance. We compared mean abundance between AOC plots and reference plots using paired t-tests (one-sided; Sokal and Rohlf 1995); our null hypothesis was that mean abundance would be lower in AOC plots than in reference plots. Tests were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 and were conducted separately with respect to commonly encountered species or species groups, protocol, and survey trial. We analyzed each survey trial separately because we did not mark animals and, therefore, could not assume that animals encountered over the course of the entire field season were different individuals. We did not compare any species groups with respect to anuran-calling surveys because we did not encounter anurans within plot boundaries during the surveys. For general searches, we compared number of individuals per object turned (i.e., rocks and logs combined) between AOC plots and reference plots for all herpetofauna species combined, all salamander species combined, and redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). For artificial cover-object transects, we compared number of individuals between AOC plots and reference plots for all herpetofauna species combined, all snake species combined, eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), northern brown snakes (Storeria dekayi dekayi), northern ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii), and redback salamanders. For small mammal trapping, we compared number of individuals between AOC plots and reference plots for all mammal species combined, white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and northern short-tailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda).

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern

We summarized data separately for herpetofauna and small mammals with respect to species richness, relative abundance, and distribution in the ARS (i.e., by individual AOC). We further summarized data with respect to cover type, protocol, and season. We included data collected for the purpose of meeting objective 1 in our summaries for objective 2.

Voucher Specimens

We did not collect voucher specimens. Instead, we attempted to photograph at least one individual for each species encountered; however, because of difficulty in subduing mammals for photographs, voucher photos were of herpetofauna only. Digital copies (JPEG files) of all voucher photos have been submitted to the park. Copies of JPEG files are stored at the School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University (contact: Dr. Richard H. Yahner).

Results

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations

Species Richness

We encountered 13 species of herpetofauna and three species of small mammals during paired surveys at AOC plots and reference plots (Table 7). During artificial cover-object surveys for herpetofauna we encountered six species at AOC plots and four species at reference plots (Table 8). During general searches for herpetofauna we encountered 10 species at AOC plots and eight species in reference plots (Table 8). The three species of mammals encountered during live-trapping were present at both plot types (Table 8).

Abundance

Artificial Cover-object Transects: We documented 481 and 266 individual encounters of herpetofauna during 16 paired artificial cover-object surveys (trials) combined at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In 11 of the 16 trials mean abundance of all species combined was greater in AOC plots than in reference plots; in one of those 11 trials abundance was significantly greater (t = 4.98, df = 3, P = 0.016) in AOC plots. In four of the remaining five trials mean abundance of all species combined was greater in reference plots than AOC plots (but not significantly; all P ≥ 0.308). During one trial mean abundance was equal between plot types.

We documented 250 and 109 individual encounters of snakes (n = 16 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In 13 trials, mean abundance of all snakes combined was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots; in one of those 13 trials abundance was significantly greater (t = 4.98, df = 3, P = 0.016) at AOC plots (same trial for which a significant difference was observed for all species combined). In one of the remaining three trials mean abundance of snakes was greater at reference plots (but not significantly; P = 0.379). During two trials mean abundance was equal between plot types.

We documented 189 and 17 individual encounters of eastern garter snakes (n = 16 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). We encountered more individuals at AOC plots than in reference plots in 13 trials; the difference in mean abundance was almost significant (0.147 ≥ P ≥ 0.058) in five of those 13 trials. No individuals were encountered in the remaining three trials.

We documented 34 and 90 individual encounters of northern brown snakes (n = 16 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In 11 trials mean abundance of northern brown snakes was greater at reference plots than at AOC plots; the difference in abundance was almost significant (0.148 ≥ P ≥ 0.100) in seven of those 11 trials. In three of the five remaining trials mean abundance of northern brown snakes was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots (but not significantly; all P ≥ 0.182). Mean abundance was equal between plot types in the remaining two trials.

27 tered via mammal live- tered via mammal d five AOC (A0, A1, A3, b Plot(s) a ference (REF) plots during paired surveys Release Site at Valley Forge National Release Site

X GS X R1 X GS X R1

X X CO, GS A5, R5, A6 R1, A3, R3, A0, R0, A1, X X GS R1 X A1, X GS X A1 X X CO, GS A5, A6 A0, A3, R3, X X CO, GS R5, A6, R6 A0, A3, A5, X CO A6 A0, A3, A5, X X CO, GS R6 A5, R5, A6, A0, R0, A3, X GS R1 X X GS A5 CO, GS X A1, R3, A3, R3, A5 A0, A1, R1, X X X X X MT X MT MT A3, A6 A0, R0, R1, R1, A3, R3 A0, R0, A1, R6 A5, R5, A6, X GS X A1

sects (CO) and general searches (GS); small encoun mammals were (GS); small searches general (CO) and sects

”) at Area of Concern (AOC) plots and re etofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos mammals etofauna and small

Rana palustris Bufo a. americanus Bufo a. Plethodon cinereus Eurycea b. bislineata Pseudotriton r. ruber Eurycea l. longicauda Nerodia s. sipedon Blarina brevicauda

Diadophis punctatus Diadophis punctatus edwardsii Storeria d. dekayi Storeria d. dekayi Lampropeltis t. triangulum Lampropeltis t. triangulum Rana clamitans melanota Rana clamitans Terrapene c. carolina s. Thamnophis sirtalis Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis Microtus pennsylvanicus pickerel frog eastern American toad redback salamander northern two-lined salamander northern red salamander northern red salamander long-tailed salamander long-tailed salamander northern water snake shrew northern short-tailed northern ringneck snake northern brown snake northern brown eastern milk snake eastern milk green frog eastern box turtle eastern garter snake white-footed mouse meadow vole Species Common Name Name Species Common Herpetofauna AOC REF Protocol(s) Small MammalsSmall Four AOC plots (A0, A3, A5, and A6) and REF plots (R0, R3, R5, and R6) were sampled using artificial cover-object transects, an transects, cover-object artificial using sampled were R6) and R5, R3, (R0, plots REF and A6) and A5, A3, (A0, plots AOC Four Herpetofauna were encountered using artificial cover-object tran cover-object artificial using encountered were Herpetofauna A5, and A6) and REF plots (R0, R1, R3, R5, and R6) were sampled using general searches and mammal live-trapping. live-trapping. mammal and searches general using sampled were R6) and R5, R3, R1, (R0, plots REF and A6) and A5, trapping (MT). Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004. Historical Park, by “X (denoted encountered Table 7. Species conducted as part of the inventory herp a b

28 s All REF All AOC

R6 Plot A6 Plot R5 Plot A5 Plot mammals in the Asbestos Release Site at mammals

R3 Plot Area of Concern (AOC) plots (A) and reference (REF) plot Area of Concern (AOC) plots (A) and reference (REF) A3 Plot

R1 Plot A1 Plot the inventory of herpetofauna and small the inventory of herpetofauna and small by species and protocol) at R0 Plot A0 Plot All species 98 2All species All species 146 155 47 153 2 42 37 10 84 36 6 67 54 20 481 266 20 13 2 11 11 0 7 19 13 0 159 5 58 6 53 49 redback salamander eastern American toad eastern garter snake snake eastern milk snake northern brown northern ringneck snake 81 1 2 7 long-tailed salamander northern red salamander 1 1 7 salamander northern two-lined redback salamander eastern American toad green frog pickerel frog eastern box turtle eastern garter snake 47 135 snake northern brown northern ringneck snake 14 153 1northern water snake 6 18 7 10 8 shrew northern short-tailed 1 3 1 white-footed mouse 2 3 meadow vole 5 1 2 1 115 1 4 50 4 1 22 2 2 3 9 18 2 38 3 60 5 2 9 1 230 11 15 157 7 1 20 2 52 1 189 1 1 12 17 2 34 1 1 7 90 21 9 6 1 11 2 14 112 18 6 24 11 6 1 1 2 2 7 11 1 13 3 2 1 1 1 5 2 3 3 9 38 2 28 6 10 19 Live-trapping Species (by protocol) Cover-object transects General searches Live-trapping Table 8. Number of individual encounters ( (R) during paired surveys conducted as part of Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004.

We documented 21 and two individual encounters of northern ringneck snakes (n = 16 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In seven trials mean abundance was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots; the difference in abundance was almost significant (0.080 ≥ P ≥ 0.058) in two of those seven trials. In two of the remaining nine trials mean abundance of northern ringneck snakes was greater at reference plots than at AOC plots (but not significantly; both P = 0.196). No individuals were encountered in seven trials.

We documented 230 and 157 individual encounters of redback salamanders (n = 16 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In seven trials mean abundance was greater in reference plots than in AOC plots (but not significantly; all P ≥ 0.196). In three of the remaining nine trials mean abundance of redback salamanders was greater at AOC plots, but only once was the difference close to significant (t = 2.46, df = 2, P = 0.133). No individuals were encountered in six trials.

General Searches: We documented 159 and 58 individual encounters of herpetofauna and 132 and 43 encounters of salamanders during eight paired general searches (trials) combined at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In all trials the mean number of individuals observed per object turned for all species combined and for all salamanders combined was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots; however, the difference was almost significant in only one trial for each taxonomic category (species combined: t = 2.29, df = 4, P = 0.084; salamanders combined: t = 2.37, df = 4, P = 0.077).

We documented 112 and 24 individual encounters of redback salamanders (n = 8 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In four trials mean number of individuals noted per object turned was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots (but not significantly; all P ≥ 0.177). In one of the remaining four trials mean number of individual redback salamanders noted per object turned was greater at reference plots than at AOC plots (but not significantly; t = 1.00, df = 4, P = 0.187). No individuals were encountered during three trials.

Live-trapping: We documented 53 and 49 individual encounters of small mammals during two paired live-trapping seasons (trials) combined at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In one trial mean abundance of all species combined was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots (but not significantly; t = 0.48, df = 4, P = 0.654). Mean abundance was equal between plot types in the other trial.

We documented five and two individual encounters of northern short-tailed shrews and 38 and 28 encounters of white-footed mice (n = 2 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In both trials mean abundance for both species was greater at AOC plots than at reference plots; the difference was close to significant (t =1.83, df = 4, P = 0.142) in one of those trials for white-footed mouse. We documented 10 and 19 individual encounters of meadow voles (n = 2 trials) at AOC plots and reference plots, respectively (Table 8). In both trials, mean abundance was greater at reference plots than at AOC plots; the difference was almost significant (t =1.61, df = 4, P = 0.092) in one of those trials.

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern

Herpetofauna

We documented 1,695 encounters of 15 species of herpetofauna in the AOCs (Tables 9 and 10): 1,343 encounters of salamanders (n = 4 species); 66 encounters (excluding tadpoles) of anurans (n = 5 species); four encounters of turtles (n = 1 species); and 282 encounters of snakes (n = 5 species). Additionally, we encountered ≥1,000 eastern American toad (Bufo americanus americanus) tadpoles at each of AOCs 5 and 9, Former Keene Plant Area and Amphitheater Quarry, respectively (Figure 3). The three most commonly encountered species at all AOCs combined were redback salamander (n = 1,304 encounters), eastern garter snake (n = 208), and northern brown snake (n = 37); the three least commonly encountered species were northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon; n = 3), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota; n = 3), and northern red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber ruber; n = 1; Table 9). We encountered at least one species at every AOC, with Former Keene Plant Area having the most species (n = 10) and several AOCs (Lower Visitor Center Quarry, Silicate Bank, Maintenance Quarry 4, and Maintenance Quarry 3 [AOCs 4, 8, 10, and 11, respectively; Figure 3]) tied for the least number of species (n = 1; Table 10). Former Keene Plant Area had the most encounters (n = 308 individuals, excluding tadpoles) and Maintenance Quarry 3 had the least (n = 2 individuals; Table 10).

Most encounters of herpetofauna (n = 1,306 individuals) occurred in the successional cover type (Tables 11 and 12), which can be attributed to the high proportion (73%) of total encounters (n = 1,695) being redback salamanders in successional cover (n = 1,233 encounters). Other encounters of herpetofauna occurred in grassland (n = 318 encounters), water (n = 60), developed (n = 8), and forest (n = 3) cover types (Tables 11 and 12). With respect to taxonomic groups, successional cover yielded the most individual encounters of salamanders and anurans (92% and 42% of total encounters of salamanders and anurans, respectively) and grassland cover yielded the most encounters of turtles and snakes (100% and 84% of total encounters of turtles and snakes, respectively; Table 11).

Of 1,695 total encounters of herpetofauna, 1,162 (69%) occurred during general searches, 515 (30%) during artificial cover-object surveys, and 18 (1%) as opportunistic observations (Table 13). We did not encounter herpetofauna within the ARS during anuran-calling surveys. Of the 515 encounters occurring during artificial cover-object surveys, 225 (44%) occurred under plastic sheets, 127 (25%) under medium boards, 88 (17%) under large boards, and 75 (14%) under small boards (Table 13). Snakes were the most commonly encountered taxa (82% of all encounters of herpetofauna) under sheets; eastern garter snakes represented 65% of those encounters. The redback salamander was the most commonly encountered taxon (77% of all encounters of herpetofauna) under all three types of boards.

We encountered herpetofauna during every month (March–October) of the inventory. Although almost 40% of individual encounters occurred during March and October alone, we observed only four species during each of those months (six species combined), and almost all (97%) individual encounters were of redback salamanders (Table 14). We observed 10 species each during April and September (12 species during months combined) and nine species each during May–August (13 species during months combined; Table 14). The fewest individual encounters

No. Individuals at Species Common Name Species Scientific Name All AOCs Salamanders long-tailed salamander Eurycea l. longicauda 12 northern red salamander Pseudotriton r. ruber 1 northern two-lined salamander Eurycea b. bislineata 26 redback salamander Plethodon cinereus 1,304 Anurans eastern American toad Bufo a. americanus 28 a gray treefrog Hyla versicolor 20 green frog Rana clamitans melanota 3 northern spring peeper Pseudacris c. crucifer 10 pickerel frog Rana palustris 5 Turtles eastern box turtle Terrapene c. carolina 4 Snakes eastern garter snake Thamnophis s. sirtalis 208 eastern milk snake Lampropeltis t. triangulum 6 northern brown snake Storeria d. dekayi 37 northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsii 28 northern water snake Nerodia s. sipedon 3 Total no. encounters 1,695 a Total no. species 15 aExcludes ≥2000 larvae of eastern American toad.

Area of Concern Species No. Individuals 0 – Small Additional Quarry redback salamander 128 eastern American toad 3 eastern garter snake 7 eastern milk snake 1 northern brown snake 1 northern ringneck snake 7 1 – Waste Channel long-tailed salamander 12 northern red salamander 1 northern two-lined salamander 26 redback salamander 113 eastern American toad 6 green frog 1 pickerel frog 5 eastern garter snake 1 northern water snake 3 2 – Cave Quarry redback salamander 197 eastern American toad 2 eastern garter snake 1 3 – PennDOT Quarry redback salamander 185 eastern American toad 2 eastern garter snake 9 eastern milk snake 1 northern brown snake 1 northern ringneck snake 4 4 – Lower Visitor Center Quarry eastern American toad 3 5 – Former Keene Plant Area redback salamander 125 eastern American toad 8 a gray treefrog 14 green frog 1 northern spring peeper 8 eastern box turtle 4 eastern garter snake 115 eastern milk snake 2 northern brown snake 24 northern ringneck snake 7 6 – Waste Pile redback salamander 45 gray treefrog 1 eastern garter snake 71 eastern milk snake 2 northern brown snake 11 northern ringneck snake 8 7 – Historic Bridge redback salamander 168 eastern American toad 2

Area of Concern Species No. Individuals 8 – Silicate Bank redback salamander 18 9 – Amphitheater Quarry redback salamander 142 eastern American toad 1 a northern spring peeper 2 eastern garter snake 4 10 – Maintenance Quarry 4 redback salamander 24 11 – Maintenance Quarry 3 redback salamander 2 12 – Maintenance Area Ruins redback salamander 114 eastern American toad 1 northern ringneck snake 2 13 – Maintenance Quarry 2 redback salamander 43 gray treefrog 1 14 – Maintenance Quarry 1 gray treefrog 4 green frog 1 Total no. encounters 1,695 b Total no. species 15 aExcludes ≥1000 larvae of eastern American toad. bExcludes ≥2000 larvae of eastern American toad.

Cover Type % of Total Area Species No. Individuals % of Totala Developed 18.36% redback salamander 1 0.08% eastern American toad 4 14.29% gray treefrog 2 10.00% green frog 1 33.33% Forest 1.05% redback salamander 2 0.15% northern spring peeper 1 10.00% Grassland 38.50% redback salamander 55 4.22% eastern American toad 7b 25.00% gray treefrog 10 50.00% green frog 1 33.33% northern spring peeper 5 50.00% eastern box turtle 4 100.00% eastern garter snake 187 89.90% eastern milk snake 4 66.67% northern brown snake 33 89.19% northern ringneck snake 12 42.86% Lawn 1.12% all species 0 0.00% Successional 40.68% long-tailed salamander 1 8.33% northern red salamander 1 100.00% redback salamander 1,233 94.56% eastern American toad 14 50.00% gray treefrog 8 40.00% green frog 1 33.33% northern spring peeper 4 40.00% pickerel frog 1 20.00% eastern garter snake 21 10.10% eastern milk snake 2 33.33% northern brown snake 4 10.81% northern ringneck snake 16 57.14% Water 0.28% long-tailed salamander 11 91.67% northern two-lined salamander 26 100.00% redback salamander 13 1.00% eastern American toad 3 10.71% pickerel frog 4 80.00% northern water snake 3 100.00% aValues represent the percentage of individual encounters of a species that occurred in the specified cover type (e.g., 1 redback salamander in the developed cover type, out of 1,304 total redback salamanders encountered during the inventory, equals 0.08%). bExcludes ≥2000 larvae of eastern American toad.

Area of Concern Species Cover Type No. Individuals 0 – Small Additional Quarry redback salamander Successional 128 eastern American toad Successional 3 eastern garter snake Successional 7 eastern milk snake Successional 1 northern brown snake Successional 1 northern ringneck snake Successional 7 1– Waste Channel long-tailed salamander Successional 11 Water 1 northern red salamander Successional 1 northern two-lined salamander Water 26 redback salamander Successional 100 Water 13 eastern American toad Developed 1 Successional 2 Water 3 green frog Successional 1 pickerel frog Successional 1 Water 4 eastern garter snake Successional 1 northern water snake Water 3 2 – Cave Quarry redback salamander Successional 197 eastern American toad Successional 2 eastern garter snake Successional 1 3 – PennDOT Quarry redback salamander Successional 185 eastern American toad Successional 2 eastern garter snake Successional 9 eastern milk snake Successional 1 northern brown snake Successional 1 northern ringneck snake Successional 4 4 – Lower Visitor Center Quarry eastern American toad Developed 3 5 – Former Keene Plant Area redback salamander Forest 2 Grassland 10 Successional 113 eastern American toad Grassland 7a Successional 1 gray treefrog Grassland 10 Successional 4 green frog Grassland 1 northern spring peeper Forest 1 Grassland 5 eastern box turtle Grassland 4 eastern garter snake Grassland 115 eastern milk snake Grassland 2 northern brown snake Grassland 22 Successional 2 northern ringneck snake Grassland 4 Successional 3

Area of Concern Plots Species Cover Type No. Individuals 6 – Waste Pile redback salamander Grassland 45 gray treefrog Successional 1 eastern garter snake Grassland 71 eastern milk snake Grassland 2 northern brown snake Grassland 11 northern ringneck snake Grassland 8 7 – Historic Bridge redback salamander Successional 168 eastern American toad Successional 2 8 – Silicate Bank redback salamander Successional 18 9 – Amphitheater Quarry redback salamander Successional 142 eastern American toad Successional 1 Grassland 0a northern spring peeper Successional 2 eastern garter snake Grassland 1 Successional 3 10 – Maintenance Quarry 4 redback salamander Successional 24 11 – Maintenance Quarry 3 redback salamander Developed 1 Successional 1 12 – Maintenance Area Ruins redback salamander Successional 114 eastern American toad Successional 1 northern ringneck snake Successional 2 13 – Maintenance Quarry 2 redback salamander Successional 43 gray treefrog Successional 1 14 – Maintenance Quarry 1 gray treefrog Developed 2 Successional 2 green frog Developed 1 aExcludes ≥1000 larvae of eastern American toad.

Table 13. Total number of individual observations of each species encountered (by protocola) during the inventory of herpetofauna in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004.

Artificial Cover Object Transects Species/Taxa GS SB MB LB PS All Objects OO Totalb long-tailed salamander 12 12 northern red salamander 1 1 northern two-lined salamander 25 1 26 redback salamander 1,040 71 115 37 41 264 1,304 eastern American toad 22c 1 1 5 28c gray treefrog 15 5 20 green frog 3 3 northern spring peeper 9 1 10 pickerel frog 3 2 5 eastern box turtle 2 2 4 eastern garter snake 17 4 5 34 146 189 2 208 eastern milk snake 1 5 6 6 northern brown snake 3 4 13 17 34 37 northern ringneck snake 7 2 3 16 21 28 northern water snake 3 3 Salamanders 1,078 71 115 37 41 264 1 1,343 Anurans 52c 1 1 13 66c Turtles 2 2 4 Snakes 30 411 51 184 250 2 282 All species combined 1,162c 75 127 88 225 515 18 1,695c Total no. species 14 2555 6 7 15 aNo herpetofauna were encountered within Areas of Concern during anuran-calling surveys; other protocols included general searches (GS), artificial cover-object transects (SB = small board, MB = medium board, LB = large board, PS = plastic sheet), and opportunistic observations (OO). bCalculated by summing: 1) GS, SB, MB, LB, PS, and OO, or 2) GS, All Objects, and OO. cExcludes ≥2000 larvae of eastern American toad.

Species/Taxa Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Total long-tailed salamander 2 1 2 4 3 12 northern red salamander 1 1 northern two-lined salamander 1 1 2 6 10 1 5 26 redback salamander 196 238 147 11 258 454 1,304 eastern American toad 1 7a 1a 1 3 12 3 28b gray treefrog 4 16 20 green frog 2 1 3 northern spring peeper 7 3 10 pickerel frog 2 1 2 5 eastern box turtle 1 1 2 4 eastern garter snake 3 24 29 37 29 30 56 208 eastern milk snake 1 2 1 2 6 northern brown snake 1 3 1 7 8 5 8 4 37 northern ringneck snake 3 3 9 3 3 7 28 northern water snake 3 3 Salamanders 196 239 151 14 814 259 462 1,343 Anurans 1 16a 1a 1 8 30 9 66b Turtles 1 12 4 Snakes 4 33 34 55 4039 73 4 282 All species combined 201 289a 186a 71 58 83 341 466 1,695b Total no. species 4 10 9 9 9 9 10 4 15 aExcludes ≥1000 larvae of eastern American toad. bExcludes ≥2000 larvae of eastern American toad.

occurred during June (n = 71), July (n = 58), and August (n = 83).

Species Encountered During the Inventory: We encountered the following species of herpetofauna at the AOCs: long-tailed salamander (Eurycea longicauda longicauda), northern red salamander, northern two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata bislineata), redback salamander, eastern American toad, gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), green frog, northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), eastern garter snake, eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), northern brown snake, northern ringneck snake, and northern water snake. Here, we present details (e.g., locations of observations, evidence of reproduction) regarding encounters of each species.

Long-tailed Salamander: We encountered 12 long-tailed salamanders at AOCs; all encounters occurred in the Waste Channel (AOC 1; Table 10, Figure 3). Eleven of the 12 encounters occurred underneath rocks located along the margins of Port Kennedy Run, and one encounter occurred underneath a rock on the western bank of the stream. Larval, juvenile, and adult age classes were encountered, suggesting that the species breeds successfully in Port Kennedy Run.

Northern Red Salamander: We encountered one northern red salamander at AOCs (Table 9). The encounter was of a young adult and occurred underneath a log in a dry portion of the Waste Channel (AOC 1), across County Line Road from Cave Quarry (AOC 2; Figure 3, Appendix I). We considered this observation to be rather extraordinary because the species is usually associated with springs or streams (Petranka 1998), but the nearest stream or spring (Port Kennedy Run) is approximately 450 m (1,476 ft) away from the location of the encounter. The nearest known water source is a flooded cave located approximately 85 m (279 ft) away, in Cave Quarry. We are not certain whether the species bred successfully at AOCs during our inventory.

Northern Two-lined Salamander: We documented 26 encounters of northern two-lined salamanders at AOCs; all encounters occurred in and along Port Kennedy Run in the Waste Channel (AOC 1; Table 10, Figure 3). Twenty-four observations occurred underneath rocks in the stream and along the margins of the stream, and two encounters occurred underneath a log along the margin of the stream. Larval, juvenile, and adult age classes were encountered, suggesting the species breeds successfully in Port Kennedy Run.

Redback Salamander: We documented 1,304 encounters of red-backed salamanders; 733 were of the red phase and 785 were of the lead phase (color phase was not recorded during three encounters). We encountered redback salamanders in every AOC except Lower Visitor Center Quarry (AOC 4) and Maintenance Quarry 1 (AOC 14; Figure 3, Table 10). Individuals were most commonly encountered underneath rocks and logs during general searches in successional cover (Tables 11 and 13). Hatchling, juvenile, and adult age classes were encountered, suggesting that the species breeds successfully at AOCs.

Eastern American Toad: We documented 28 encounters (excluding ≥2000 tadpoles) of eastern American toads distributed among Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), Waste Channel (AOC 1), Cave Quarry (AOC 2), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Lower Visitor Center Quarry (AOC 4), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), Historic Bridge (AOC 7), Amphitheater Quarry (AOC 9), and Maintenance Area Ruins (AOC12; Figure 3, Table 10). We encountered egg masses, larvae

(tadpoles), juveniles, and adults; breeding activity and larvae were observed only in Former Keene Plant Area and Amphitheater Quarry. We are uncertain whether tadpoles reached metamorphosis because ephemeral pools dried up in mid-May. On 10 May, we observed approximately 200 tadpoles at a pool located in the central portion of Former Keene Plant Area; tadpoles were just beginning to develop hind legs, but water depth was reduced to only 1.0 cm (0.4 in) by that time. We did not visit the pool again until 21 May, whereupon the pool was dry and no larval or juvenile toads were seen. Yet, most observations of eastern American toads were of juveniles in late July and August (AOCs 0, 1, 2, and 3), suggesting that the species bred successfully somewhere at or near AOCs.

Gray Treefrog: We documented 20 encounters of gray treefrogs at AOCs; all encounters were of adults and occurred during late July and early August (Table 14). We recorded 14 encounters in and adjacent to Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5;), one encounter adjacent to Waste Pile (AOC 6), one encounter in Maintenance Quarry 2 (AOC 13), and four encounters in Maintenance Quarry 1 (AOC 14; Figure 3, Table 10). All encounters occurred just prior to and immediately following a period of heavy rain between 27 July and 1 August. We suspected that an individual was heard on several occasions during general searches in May and June in Former Keene Plant Area, but calls were heard only briefly and from far (≥150 m [492 ft]) away. Additionally, positive identification was complicated by presence of a northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) that mimicked the call of gray treefrogs. However, following the rain event in late July, a large (≥0.5 ha [1.2 acres]) ephemeral pool developed in and along either side of the western boundary of Former Keene Plant Area, whereupon ≥10 individual gray treefrogs called from the pool and from trees surrounding the pool. The pool dried up within 3 weeks, so treefrogs probably were unable to breed successfully (transformation to the juvenile stage occurs 45–65 days following egg-laying; Hulse et al. 2001).

Green Frog: We documented three encounters of green frogs; one encounter each occurred at the Waste Channel (AOC 1), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), and Maintenance Area 1 (AOC 14; Figure 3; Table 10). All observations were of sub-adults and adults and occurred during general searches. Green frogs breed in relatively permanent, still bodies of water and tadpoles require 70–360 days to transform (Hulse et al. 2001). Such bodies of water were absent at the AOCs during the inventory; therefore, it is unlikely that green frogs bred successfully there.

Northern Spring Peeper: We documented 10 encounters of northern spring peepers; eight encounters occurred at Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), and two encounters were at Amphitheater Quarry (AOC 9; Figure 3; Table 10). All observations were of individuals calling from ephemeral pools, trees, or quarry walls. Northern spring peepers breed in swamps, marshes, and small woodland ponds (Hulse et al. 2001). Tadpoles may require 90–100 days to transform, but little is known about incubation time or larval ecology (Hulse et al. 2001). Additionally, eggs may be difficult to detect, as they are laid singly and are only 1.0–1.5 mm (0.04–0.06 in) in diameter. Therefore, we are uncertain whether northern spring peepers bred successfully at AOCs during our inventory.

Pickerel Frog: We documented five encounters of pickerel frogs; all encounters were of adults and occurred in and along Port Kennedy Run at the Waste Channel (AOC 1; Figure 3; Table 10). Pickerel frogs breed in relatively permanent, still bodies of water and tadpoles require 70–90

days to transform (Hulse et al. 2001). Such bodies of water were absent at the AOCs during the inventory; therefore, it is unlikely that pickerel frogs bred successfully there.

Eastern Box Turtle: We documented four encounters of eastern box turtles; all encounters were of adults and occurred during general searches and opportunistic observations at Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5; Figure 3, Tables 10 and 13). We are not certain whether box turtles bred successfully at AOCs during our inventory.

Eastern Garter Snake: We documented 208 encounters of eastern garter snakes distributed among Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), Waste Channel (AOC 1), Cave Quarry (AOC 2), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), Waste Pile (AOC 6), and Amphitheater Quarry (AOC 9; Figure 3, Table 10). Most observations occurred in grassland cover (Table 11) and during artificial cover-object surveys (Table 13). Neonates, sub-adults, and adults were encountered, suggesting that the species breeds successfully at AOCs.

Eastern Milk Snake: We documented six encounters of eastern milk snakes distributed among Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), and Waste Pile (AOC 6; Figure 3, Table 10). All observations consisted of adults and juveniles underneath artificial cover objects (Table 13). Because individuals were encountered so infrequently, we are not certain whether the species breeds at AOCs.

Northern Brown Snake: We documented 37 encounters of northern brown snakes distributed among Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), and Waste Pile (AOC 6; Figure 3, Table 10). Observations consisted of adults and juveniles, with most occurring in grasslands (Table 11) and underneath artificial cover objects (Table 13). Individuals were encountered regularly throughout the inventory (Table 14), suggesting that the species breeds at AOCs.

Northern Ringneck Snake: We documented 28 encounters of northern ringneck snakes distributed among Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5), Waste Pile (AOC 6), and Maintenance Area Ruins (AOC 12; Figure 3, Table 10). Observations occurred with nearly equal frequency in grassland and successional cover types (Table 11); most encounters occurred underneath artificial cover objects (Table 13). Hatchlings, sub-adults, and adults were encountered, suggesting that the species breeds successfully at AOCs.

Northern Water Snake: We documented three northern water snakes (two live juveniles, one dead adult); all individuals were encountered during a general search on 27 April in Port Kennedy Run of the Waste Channel (AOC 1; Figure 3, Tables 10 and 13). Because northern water snakes were observed so infrequently, it is unlikely that the species breeds at AOCs. Our records on 27 April may have been of individuals that had emerged recently from hibernacula.

Small Mammals

We documented 133 encounters of three species of small mammals at the AOCs (Table 15), consisting of 12 encounters of northern short-tailed shrews, 88 encounters of white-footed mice, 30 encounters of meadow voles, two visual encounters of an unidentified mouse (likely a white- footed mouse), and one visual encounter of an unidentified vole (likely a meadow vole). We

encountered at least one species of small mammal at every AOC we surveyed (AOC 0–3, 5–10, 12, and 13; Figure 3); we did not encounter any small mammals opportunistically at other AOCs (AOC 4, 11, and 14; Table 15). Of the species we encountered, all three occurred at Former Keene Plant Area (AOC 5) and Amphitheater Quarry (AOC 9) and two occurred at Small Additional Quarry (AOC 0), Waste Channel (AOC 1), Cave Quarry (AOC 2), PennDOT Quarry (AOC 3), Waste Pile (AOC 6), Silicate Bank (AOC 8), and Maintenance Quarry 2 (AOC 13; Figure 3; Table 15). Former Keene Plant Area had the most individual encounters (n = 32), followed by Waste Channel (n = 26), PennDOT Quarry (n = 15), Waste Pile (n = 12), and Small Additional Quarry (n = 10); all other AOCs had <10 individual encounters (Table 15).

Of the 133 total encounters of small mammals, 87 (65%) and 46 (35%) occurred in successional and grassland cover types, respectively. Eight of 12 (67%) encounters of northern short-tailed shrews, 74 of 88 (84%) encounters of white-footed mice, and all encounters of unidentified mice (n = 2) and voles (n = 1) occurred in successional cover. Conversely, 28 of 30 (93%) encounters of meadow voles occurred in grassland cover. We encountered small mammals primarily via live-trapping (89% of all observations), but the remainder of encounters (11%) were via opportunistic observations. We encountered nine of 12 (75%) northern short-tailed shrews, 87 of 88 (99%) white-footed mice, and 22 of 30 (73%) meadow voles via live-trapping (Table 15). Of the 118 encounters of small mammals via live-trapping, 47 (40%) occurred during late July and 71 (60%) occurred during early October. We trapped six of nine (67%) northern short-tailed shrews, 50 of 87 (57%) white-footed mice, and 15 of 22 (68%) meadow voles during early October. Both adult and juvenile age classes were observed for white-footed mouse and meadow vole, suggesting that the species breed at AOCs. Although we observed only the adult age class of northern short-tailed shrew, the species has a small home range (≤0.4 ha [1.0 acres]; Burt and Grossenheider 1980) and, therefore, likely breeds at AOCs.

Area of Concern Species Protocol(s)a No. Individualsb 0 – Small Additional Quarry northern short-tailed shrew MT 1 white-footed mouse MT 9 1– Waste Channel white-footed mouse MT 25 unidentified vole sp. OO 1 2 – Cave Quarry northern short-tailed shrew MT 2 white-footed mouse MT 7 3 – PennDOT Quarry northern short-tailed shrew MT, OO 2; 3 white-footed mouse MT, OO 9; 1 4 – Lower Visitor Center Quarry none 5 – Former Keene Plant Area northern short-tailed shrew MT 1 white-footed mouse MT 19 meadow vole MT, OO 11; 1 6 – Waste Pile northern short-tailed shrew MT 2 meadow vole MT, OO 3; 7 7 – Historic Bridge white-footed mouse MT 1 8 – Silicate Bank meadow vole MT 3 unidentified Peromyscus sp. OO 1 9 – Amphitheater Quarry northern short-tailed shrew MT 1 white-footed mouse MT 2 meadow vole MT 3 unidentified Peromyscus sp. OO 1 10 – Maintenance Quarry 4 white-footed mouse MT 5 11 – Maintenance Quarry 3 none 12 – Maintenance Area Ruins white-footed mouse MT 4 13 – Maintenance Quarry 2 white-footed mouse MT 6 meadow vole MT 2 14 – Maintenance Quarry 1 none All Areas of Concern northern short-tailed shrew MT, OO 9; 3 white-footed mouse MT, OO 87; 1 meadow vole MT, OO 22; 8 unidentified Peromyscus sp. OO 2 unidentified vole sp. OO 1 Total no. encounters 133 Total no. species 3 aProtocols were mammal live-trapping (MT) and opportunistic observation (OO). bWhen two numbers are given, the first is number of individual encounters via live-trapping and the second is number via opportunistic observation.

Discussion

Comparison of Area of Concern and Reference Populations

Our results suggest that species richness and abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals are not lesser in AOCs than in other areas at VAFO. Although reference plots tended to have more northern brown snakes and meadow voles than AOC plots, AOC plots tended to have more eastern garter snakes and northern ringneck snakes than reference plots. Combining all trials of paired surveys, we encountered individual herpetofauna and small mammals more frequently at AOC plots than at reference plots for 10 of 16 species; therefore, if there is a difference in animal populations between AOCs and other locations in the park, it might be that AOCs have a greater abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals than other locations.

One reason why we tended to encounter more herpetofauna at AOC plots is that those plots had many more natural cover objects (especially rocks) than did reference plots. Such circumstances could be expected to benefit herpetofauna by providing more cover at the ground surface and, therefore, enabling subterranean species vulnerable to desiccation (e.g., redback salamanders) greater access to above-ground food resources. A second reason why we encountered more herpetofauna at AOC plots is that one reference plot (R0), for unknown reasons, was virtually barren of herpetofauna. We encountered only three redback salamanders and one eastern garter snake at R0, which likely skewed our overall results.

The most intriguing contrast between AOC plots and reference plots was a seemingly inverse difference in abundance of northern brown snakes and eastern garter snakes, as brown snakes were more abundant at reference plots than at AOC plots, but eastern garter snakes were more abundant at AOC plots than at reference plots. We are puzzled by this result because both species are common to a variety of habitats (Behler and King 1998; Conant and Collins 1998) and, therefore, are considered habitat generalists. Furthermore, pairs of AOC and reference plots were similar in terms of basic habitat type, so we would expect similar patterns of abundance between plot types.

Whatever the cause of the inverse difference in abundance of the two species, we might assume that any difference in plot types that would explain our results would probably exist in grassland habitat, as most encounters of snakes occurred in grasslands. Anecdotally, we did observe differences in microhabitat between grasslands at AOCs and grasslands elsewhere in the park. For example, grasslands in AOCs are not mowed and occur near (≤500 m) caves and other cavities that are of value to snakes as potential den sites; whereas, grasslands at reference plots are mowed once per year and are farther from caves. Another difference is that grasslands at reference plots seem to have a greater diversity of grasses and forbs (AOC grasslands tend to consist mainly of fescue [Festuca sp.]) and, therefore, may support a better or more diverse prey base (i.e., insects) for snakes. Intuitively, we speculate that interspecific competition could result in one species being more abundant than another in particular microhabitats. For instance, perhaps garter snakes are more effective in exploiting resources in monocultures of fescue (AOC grasslands) than are brown snakes. Alternatively, perhaps brown snakes are more tolerant of annual mowing (reference grasslands) than garter snakes. We are not aware of any published research that would suggest either of these ideas is true, so further investigation into habitat

preferences may be worthwhile if long-term monitoring confirms that there are, indeed, inverse differences in abundance of the two species between grasslands in AOCs and grasslands elsewhere in the park.

Inventory of Herpetofauna and Small Mammals in the Areas of Concern

Herpetofauna

As in other inventories (Yahner et al. 2001b; Kubel et al. 2002; Tiebout 2003a) in national parks of the mid-Atlantic, the redback salamander was relatively ubiquitous during our inventory. Old quarries at AOCs provide wooded habitat with an abundance of rocks at the ground surface, thereby facilitating much opportunity to encounter the species. Small-bodied snakes (e.g., eastern garter snake, northern brown snake, northern ringneck snake) seemed to be very abundant at AOCs, perhaps because these areas provide favorable habitat in the form of a mosaic of rocky woodlots and non-mowed grasslands. Additionally, caves and other subterranean cavities are prevalent at AOCs (e.g., Cave Quarry, Former Keene Plant Area, and Maintenance Area Ruins) and might provide den sites for snakes.

Although the AOCs may represent a somewhat unique habitat (i.e., old quarries) at VAFO, we did not encounter any species of herpetofauna at AOCs that had not been documented elsewhere at VAFO by Tiebout (2003a). However, at least nine of the 28 encounters of northern ringneck snakes were of individuals that exhibited markings of the southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus punctatus), a subspecies that has not been documented previously at VAFO and was not on our predicted species list. According to Conant and Collins (1998), the southern ringneck snake differs from the northern subspecies in that the southern ringneck snake has bold, black markings (shaped like “half-moons”) down the venter and the ring around the neck is broken. According to the range map provided by those authors, VAFO is located adjacent to the range of overlap between the two subspecies. The nine northern ringneck snakes that we noticed to be atypical in their markings exhibited varying degrees of black half-moons down the venter, ranging from small, pale half-moons down only a portion of the venter to large, bold half-moons down the entire venter. However, none of these individuals exhibited neck rings that were broken. Given that no individuals fit the physical description of the southern ringneck snake entirely, we cannot conclude that the subspecies occurs at AOCs. Yet, based on our observations and the information provided by Conant and Collins (1998), we suggest that intergrades of northern and southern ringneck snakes occur there. Any future investigation into the subject should include genetic sampling of individuals with and without black markings for comparison to individuals of allopatric populations of the two subspecies.

We did not encounter 21 species on our list of predicted species, including 14 species that were documented by Tiebout (2003a). Of those 14 species, nine (red-spotted newt [Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens], bullfrog [Rana catesbeiana], Fowler’s toad [Bufo woodhousii fowleri], wood frog [Rana sylvatica], common map turtle [Graptemys geographica], common musk turtle [Sternotherus odoratus], common snapping turtle [Chelydra serpentine serpentine], eastern painted turtle [Chrysemys picta picta], and red-eared slider [Trachemys scripta elegans]) were not encountered, probably because suitable aquatic habitat was lacking. Port Kennedy Run is the only permanent body of water at the AOCs, but it has a sandy/rocky bottom and is relatively shaded, shallow, fast-flowing, and barren of aquatic vegetation. The shaded conditions make the

stream an unfavorable site for basking by turtles; furthermore, common map turtles prefer large bodies of water, common musk turtles prefer still waters, and common snapping turtles, eastern painted turtles, and red-eared sliders prefer soft mud bottoms and abundant vegetation (Behler and King 1998; Conant and Collins 1998). The stream is not suitable for breeding by red-spotted newts, bullfrogs, Fowler’s toads, or wood frogs, as they require relatively still bodies of water to lay and anchor eggs/egg masses to vegetation. Vernal pools did occur in Cave Quarry, Former Keene Plant Area, and Amphitheater Quarry, but these dried up by mid-May and did not refill until early October. Because aquatic areas at AOCs were either small or ephemeral, chances of encountering aquatic species were limited.

Of the remaining five species we did not encounter but were documented by Tiebout (2003a), four (northern dusky salamander [Desmognathus fuscus fuscus], slimy salamander [Plethodon glutinosus], northern copperhead [Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen], and queen snake [Regina septemvittata]) were rare or absent at AOCs, probably because preferred habitat is lacking. Northern dusky salamanders prefer seeps and margins of streams where rocks, leaf litter, and mosses are abundant (Petranka 1998; J. E. K., pers. obs.). Port Kennedy Run provides the only potential habitat available in AOCs for this species, but the only seep along that stream was devoid of natural cover. Additionally, most rocks were in the stream (i.e., not along the margins), and leaf litter was not abundant along the streambank. Slimy salamanders typically occur in moist forest floor microhabitats on ravine slopes or shale banks (Behler and King 1998; Petranka 1998) and can be found under leaf litter that accumulates on rock ledges (J. E. K., pers. obs.); the species also is known to use caves (Behler and King 1998; Petranka 1998). Although caves are present at AOCs, leaf litter at the ground surface is not well developed. Given our very thorough searching of above-ground substrates throughout the AOCs, it is unlikely that slimy salamanders occur there, unless the species is restricted to cave microhabitats (which we did not search). Northern copperheads and queen snakes might occur at AOCs, but potential habitats there are not ideal. Copperheads have been encountered only on Mt. Misery (Tiebout 2003a) and Mt. Joy (M. Carfioli, VAFO Ecologist, pers. comm., 2006), which is consistent with the habitat preferences (i.e., wooded hillsides with rock outcrops near water; Behler and King 1998; Conant and Collins 1998) of the species. However, AOCs do not provide major rock outcrops like those present on Mt. Misery and Mt. Joy. Port Kennedy Run, although providing a water source, does not occur in close proximity to a wooded, rocky hillside. Queen snakes occur in and along stony streams and rivers that contain crayfish (Conant and Collins 1998), which is consistent with the habitat occurring at Port Kennedy Run. However, queen snakes, like northern water snakes, are commonly found basking in shrubs overhanging streams (Yahner et al. 2002; Tiebout 2003a), but such vegetation is uncommon along Port Kennedy Run, and the stream is shaded. The fact that the only two encounters of live northern water snakes during our study occurred under stones during early spring attests to the contention that appropriate basking microhabitat was not available to queen snakes at Port Kennedy Run.

The final species documented by Tiebout (2003a) at VAFO but not encountered during our inventory at AOCs, the northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), probably has limited distribution in the park. Tiebout (2003a) described the species as locally abundant and detected it at only two of five cover-object transects established in grassland habitat. Northern black racers represented four of 10 total observations of snakes during the inventory of herpetofauna at the Schwoebel tract (Yahner et al. 2006a), yet we did not encounter a racer out

of 282 total observations of snakes at AOCs. Therefore, despite the availability of seemingly appropriate habitat, northern black racers are probably rare or absent at AOCs.

Eastern spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), midland painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata), redbelly turtle (Pseudemys rubriventris), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), and eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus amoenus) were on our predicted species list but were not encountered during our inventory or during that of Tiebout (2003a). The three species of turtles were not encountered at AOCs probably for the same reasons described for other turtles. According to Conant and Collins (1998), VAFO is outside the range of the eastern spadefoot, and the species also is difficult to detect (Tiebout 2003a). VAFO is near the edge of the range for northern leopard frogs (Conant and Collins 1998) and, as with other anurans not encountered during the inventory, suitable breeding habitat is lacking at AOCs. Eastern worm snakes are subterranean, so they are very elusive; for this reason, we do not speculate whether or not the species occurs at AOCs. Finally, we did not encounter black rat snakes, probably because they are rare at VAFO (Tiebout 2003a). Additional details regarding habitat requirements and historical records of species on our predicted list are discussed by Tiebout (2003a).

Small Mammals

Northern short-tailed shrews, white-footed mice, and meadow voles appeared to be distributed throughout the AOCs, with shrews and mice more common in wooded habitat and voles more common in grassland habitat. Of these three species we encountered, none represents a new record at VAFO (NPS 2004).

We did not encounter 15 species (least shrew [Cryptotis parva], masked shrew [Sorex cinereus], smoky shrew [Sorex fumeus], eastern mole [Scalopus aquaticus], hairy-tailed mole [Parascalops breweri], star-nosed mole [Condylura cristata], eastern chipmunk [Tamias striatus], southern flying squirrel [Glaucomys volans], deer mouse [Peromyscus maniculatus], woodland vole [Microtus pinetorum], southern bog lemming [Synaptomys cooperi], southern red-backed vole [Clethrionomys gapperi], house mouse, Norway rat, and meadow jumping mouse [Zapus hudsonius]) on our predicted species list. We did not record some species probably because suitable habitat is lacking at the AOCs. Smoky shrews prefer moist, cool forest habitat where there is a high accumulation of humus and leaf mold (Merritt 1987), but such habitat is not available at AOCs. Likewise, the southern red-backed vole most commonly occurs in forests with mosses and ferns (Merritt 1987), but this type of habitat also is unavailable at AOCs. We did not encounter house mouse and Norway rat probably because human habitation, other than Maintenance buildings (AOC 14) and a restroom (AOC 4), was non-existent at AOCs.

We believe that the eastern chipmunk either does not inhabit AOCs or occurs at very low densities there. The eastern chipmunk exhibits very conspicuous behavior (e.g., vocal alarm- sounding and burrowing) compared to other species of small mammals on our predicted list and should have been detected easily if present. Wooded areas at AOCs consist primarily of non-oak (Quercus spp.) tree species; therefore, eastern chipmunks may not occur there because acorns (an important food item during winter; Merritt 1987) are not readily available. Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) have dietary needs similar to those of chipmunks and were encountered at

AOCs, but squirrels were commonly observed consuming other food items (e.g., nuts of black walnut [Juglans nigra]) that may be too large for chipmunks to consume or cache efficiently.

We did not detect southern flying squirrel, but the species is nocturnal and, therefore, unlikely to be observed incidentally. Additionally, the species prefers mature deciduous forest with an abundance of mast-producing trees, including oak (Merritt 1987). Moreover, southern flying squirrels nest in cavities and, thus, require snags or other trees with cavities created by woodpeckers. Such trees are virtually non-existent at AOCs because wooded areas there are relatively young. Finally, southern flying squirrels are not captured as easily as other small mammals (see Yahner et al. 2006b).

Deer mouse was not encountered during the study, but the species likely does not occur in the park or is very rare. We included deer mouse on our predicted list because of the existence of a single record listed in the NPSpecies database; however, we are suspicious of that record for several reasons. First, VAFO is outside the range of all subspecies of deer mouse that occur in Pennsylvania (Merritt 1987). Second, the record was an incidental sighting of an individual mouse during a biological survey of Valley Creek, and there is no evidence that the individual was handled. There are several ways to distinguish deer mouse from white-footed mouse (e.g., by measuring proportional length of the tail; Merritt 1987) but all require very close examination and, therefore, handling of animals. We handled individuals during >200 encounters of mice at VAFO during this and other inventory projects (Yahner et al 2006a, 2006b) in 2004, and all encounters were those of white-footed mice.

The remaining eight species not observed may be rare or absent at AOCs. Moles are difficult to sample because they spend the majority of their time underground; however, we did not encounter sign of burrowing activity by moles at AOCs. Least shrews and masked shrews may be difficult to capture with live-traps because of their small size; it can be cumbersome to set trap treadles such that they are sensitive enough to be depressed by the weight of a shrew, yet not so sensitive that they are tripped by wind, rain, or insects. However, we did discover, on several occasions, crickets and earthworms inside traps that had been triggered, so we know that at least some traps were set “lightly” enough to capture shrews. At the very least, we would have expected to encounter masked shrews under cover objects used during surveys for herpetofauna, as this species was encountered several times underneath boards at reference plots and at the Schwoebel tract (Yahner et al. 2006a). Preferred microhabitats of woodland vole, southern bog lemming, and meadow jumping mouse may be lacking at AOCs. All three species prefer lush and diverse ground cover consisting of a variety of grasses, sedges, or mosses (Merritt 1987). However, ground cover in successional habitat of AOCs tends to be dominated by just two plants (Japanese stiltgrass [Microstegium vimineum] and garlic mustard [Alliaria officinalis]), both of which are nonnative. Grassland habitat tends to be a monoculture of fescue. Perhaps a lack of native flora and low diversity of ground cover may contribute to the apparent absence of these species of small mammals.

Conclusions

We conclude that neither species richness nor abundance of herpetofauna and small mammals are lesser at AOCs compared to other locations of the park. Although some species (e.g., eastern garter snake, northern brown snake, northern ringneck snake, meadow vole) tended to be more abundant at either AOC plots or reference plots, we do not believe that abundance was influenced by presence of buried asbestos at the AOCs. We suggest that long-term monitoring of herpetofauna and small mammals is needed to confirm whether the differences in abundance of garter snakes, brown snakes, ringneck snakes, and meadow voles we observed between AOC plots and reference plots are temporary or perpetual. If such differences are perpetual, then AOCs may need to be treated as a distinct management unit with respect to conservation of wildlife. For example, if it were determined that AOCs support a source population of eastern garter snakes at VAFO, then park personnel may want to consider special management policies for AOCs that would ensure long-term maintenance of those areas as high-quality habitat for garter snakes. Similarly, cave habitat present at the AOCs may be rare elsewhere in the park and, therefore, may be critical to maintaining viable populations of certain wildlife (e.g., bats) at VAFO. Future research that investigates the value of caves to populations of wildlife at VAFO would help verify whether AOCs require special management consideration.

Our encounters of herpetofauna are consistent with the types of macro- and microhabitat available at AOCs. Except for eastern worm snake, which is elusive, species on our predicted list that we failed to encounter probably do not occur regularly or breed at AOCs because sufficient or preferred habitats are not available or exist only for a short time (e.g., ephemeral pools). Appropriate habitat does appear to be available for the northern black racer, but we thoroughly surveyed AOCs for this species and conclude that it does not occur there regularly. Therefore, our inventory of herpetofauna was successful in documenting most, if not all, species that occur regularly at AOCs.

All herpetofaunal species that we encountered were observed elsewhere in the park by Tiebout (2003a), suggesting perhaps that AOCs are not a source of habitat critical to short-term conservation of herpetofauna at VAFO. However, further research is necessary to determine the importance of AOCs to long-term conservation of some species. For example, our results suggest that AOCs support relatively large populations of eastern garter snake and northern ringneck snake. An investigation into locations of hibernacula, locations of breeding sites, reproductive success, and juvenile dispersal would be valuable for determining whether or not AOCs act as source habitat for populations of these snakes parkwide.

As with herpetofauna, some species of small mammals on our predicted list that we failed to detect probably do not inhabit AOCs because suitable or preferred habitats are not available. However, we conclude this with caution because some taxa, especially shrews and moles, are difficult to capture or to observe casually. Furthermore, our inventory occurred during only an 8-month period; some taxa may be encountered more readily during some years compared to others because weather patterns (e.g., amount of rainfall) may influence availability of food (e.g., invertebrates) at the ground surface. Thus, long-term monitoring of small mammals in AOCs may be necessary to document species that we did not encounter.

Literature Cited

Ambrose, J. P., and S. P. Bratton. 1990. Trends in landscape heterogeneity along the borders of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Conservation Biology 4:135–143.

Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1998. National Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, NY.

Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider. 1980. A field guide to the mammals: North America north of Mexico. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA.

Carfioli, M. A. 1998. Inventorying and monitoring herpetofaunal populations using coverboards as artificial refugia at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Final Report, Internship in Biological Sciences (BIO 409). West Chester University. West Chester, PA.

Carfioli, M. A. 2000. Influence of coverboard design on microclimate conditions and herpetofaunal patterns of use. M.S. Thesis. West Chester University.

Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA.

Corn, P. S. 1994. Straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps. Pages 109–117 in W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC.

Droege, S., L. Monti, and D. Lantz. 1997. The Terrestrial Salamander Monitoring Program: recommended protocol for running cover object arrays. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/Sally/sally4.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Mid-Atlantic Superfund: Valley Forge National Historic Park. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PA9141733080.htm

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). 2000. ArcView GIS Version 3.2a. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. Redlands, CA.

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 2003. Draft remedial investigation report: Valley Forge Asbestos Release Site. Volume 1. Contract No. ME-359186, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Morris Plains, NJ.

Grossman, D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R. Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. Patterson, and others. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume 1. The National Vegetation Classification System: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA.

Hulse, A. C., C. J. McCoy, and E. Censky. 2001. Amphibians and reptiles of Pennsylvania and the Northeast. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Jones, C., W. J. McShea, M. J. Conroy, and T. H. Kunz. 1996. Capturing mammals. Pages 115–122 in D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC.

Kjoss, V. A., and J. A. Litvaitis. 2001. Comparison of 2 methods to sample snake communities in early successional habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:153–157.

Kubel, J. E., K. L. Derge, J. Williams, and R. H. Yahner. 2002. Amphibian and reptile inventory at Antietam National Battlefield, Maryland. Maryland Naturalist 45:29–44.

Lovallo, M. J., and W. M. Tzilkowski. February 2003. Abundance of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) within Valley Forge National Historical Park and movements related to surrounding private lands. Technical Report NPS/NERCHAL/NRTR-03/091. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Lutcher, F. C. 1996. Surveying herpetofaunal diversity using artificial refugia: a comparison of coverboard designs. Final Report, Internship in Biological Sciences (BIO 409). West Chester University. West Chester, PA.

Lundgren, J., G. Podniesinski, and L. Sneddon. 2002. NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: vegetation classification of Valley Forge National Historical Park. Draft Final Report. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Merritt, J. F. 1987. Guide to the mammals of Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press. Pittsburgh, PA.

National Park Service (NPS). 2000. Natural resource inventory and monitoring in national parks. NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program informational brochure. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/brochure/imbroch.htm.

National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Inventory and monitoring program: NPSpecies home page. http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/index.htm.

National Park Service (NPS). 2004. NPSpecies - The National Park Service species database. Version 2.1. http://science.nature.nps.gov/npspecies (password protected). Information page: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/index.htm.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 1994. Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. OSHA Federal Register Entry 59:43268-43280.

Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC.

Shaffer, L. L. 1991. Pennsylvania amphibians and reptiles. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Education and Information. Harrisburg, PA.

Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York, NY.

Tiebout, H. M., III. 2003a. An inventory of the herpetofauna of Valley Forge National Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/PHSO/NRTR-03/088. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Tiebout, H. M., III. 2003b. Herpetofauna survey handbook: inventory and monitoring data collection methods for Valley Forge National Historical Park. Report, Cooperative Agreement 4000-9-9016. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H. 2000. Eastern deciduous forest: ecology and wildlife conservation. Second edition. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN.

Yahner, R. H., G. L. Storm, G. S. Keller, B. D. Ross, and R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr. 1997. Inventorying and monitoring protocols of vertebrates in national parks of the eastern United States: mammals. Technical Report NPS/PHSO/NRTR-97/073. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H., G. L. Storm, G. S. Keller, B. D. Ross, and R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr. 1999. Inventorying and monitoring protocols of amphibians and reptiles in national parks of the eastern United States. Technical Report NPS/PHSO/NRTR-99/076. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H., B. D. Ross, G. S. Keller, and D. S. Klute. 2001a. Comprehensive inventory program for birds at six Pennsylvania national parks. Technical Report NPS/PHSO/NRTR-01/085. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H., K. L. Derge, and J. Mravintz. 2001b. Inventory of amphibian and reptile species at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site. Technical Report NPS/PHSO/NRTR-01/084. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H., J. E. Kubel, K. L. Derge, and J. Williams. 2002. Inventory of amphibians and reptiles at Antietam National Battlefield, Maryland. Final Report, Cooperative Agreement 4000-8-9028, Supplemental Agreement No. 4. National Park Service. University Park, PA.

Yahner, R. H., J. E. Kubel, and B. D. Ross. 2006a. Biotic inventory in the Schwoebel tract at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2006/068. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Yahner, R. H., J. E. Kubel, and B. D. Ross. 2006b. Inventory of mammals at Valley Forge National Historical Park. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2006/070. National Park Service. Philadelphia, PA.

Appendix C. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small-mammal trapping transects at Area of Concern plots A0, A3, A5, and A6 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania, 2004. The southern half of the trapping transect at plot A0 overlaps with the cover-object transect.

Appendix D. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small-mammal trapping transects at reference plot R0 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004.

Appendix E. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small-mammal trapping transects at reference plot R3 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004.

Appendix F. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small-mammal trapping transects at reference plot R5 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004.

Appendix G. Sampling locations for artificial cover-object and small-mammal trapping transects at reference plot R6 during the inventory of herpetofauna and small mammals in the Asbestos Release Site Areas of Concern at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VAFO), Pennsylvania, 2004.

As the nation's primary conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public land and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-090 November 2006

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior

Northeast Region Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2878 http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM