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. Kubel1¹, 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 16803November 2006

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

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 (I), 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.

_____________________________

The entire report is available to view or download in PDF file format. Using PDF files requires the free Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you do not already have it installed on your computer, you may download it now. Download Reader.

To download a pdf file, click on this icon in the toolbar of the pdf window: . This will allow you to save the file on your computer. If you want to copy or print only a small part of the saved file, click on this icon to select the desired text: .

The file for this report is large, therefore it has been divided into two pdf files. Click on a file to open it.

pdf file 1
Front Matter through Methods

pdf file 2
Results to end