National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Inventory of Mammals (Excluding Bats) of George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/311 
ON THE COVER 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument 

Photograph by Tressa Dolbeare
Inventory of Mammals (Excluding Bats) of George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument 

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/311 

Ronald E. Barry 

Bates College 

Biology Department 

409 Carnegie Science Hall 

44 Campus Avenue 

Lewiston, Maine 04240 

Tressa L. Dolbeare 

Department of Biology 

201 Compton Science Center 

Frostburg State University 

101 Braddock Road 

Frostburg, Maryland 21532-2303 

April 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies 

in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the 

achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum 

for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page 

limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly 

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected 

and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed 

and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from (http://www.nps.gov/nero/science/) and the Natural Resource 

Publications Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Barry, R. E., T. L. Dolbeare. 2010. Inventory of mammals (excluding bats) of George 

Washington Birthplace Monument. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—

2010/311. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 332/102045, April 2010 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Figures............................................................................................................................................. v

Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... xi

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Delineation of habitats ............................................................................................................. 3

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5

Sampling protocol .................................................................................................................... 5

Yearly Sampling Protocol ................................................................................................... 8

Compilation and analysis of data ............................................................................................. 9

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Historical records and predicted species ................................................................................ 11

Field survey ........................................................................................................................... 11

Voucher specimens ................................................................................................................ 16

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Species records ...................................................................................................................... 19

Habitat generalists ............................................................................................................ 19

Habitat specialists ............................................................................................................. 20

Exotic species .................................................................................................................... 21

Habitat-specific species diversity ..................................................................................... 22

Sampling efficiency ............................................................................................................... 22

Conclusions and Management Recommendations ....................................................................... 23
iv 

Additional inventories ........................................................................................................... 23

Habitat Management .............................................................................................................. 24

Species Management ............................................................................................................. 24

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 27

Appendix A. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for 2002 in George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument. ............................................................................... 33

Appendix B. Capture record for mammals caught in George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument from July through November 2002. ............................................................ 35

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap configurations, and efforts for 

Sherman traps for 2003 at George Washington Birthplace National Monument. ........................ 37

Appendix D. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for Tomahawk, pitfall, and 

mole harpoon traps for 2003 at GEWA. ....................................................................................... 41

Appendix E. Capture record for mammals caught in George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument from March to December 2003. .................................................................. 43

Appendix F. Voucher specimens (bats excluded) from George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument collected by Painter and Eckerlin (1993) and housed in the mammal 

collection at Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC), Annandale, Virginia. ................. 45
v

Figures 

Page 

Figure 1. Location of George Washington Birthplace National Monument (GEWA) in 

Virginia. .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Map showing features and habitat types of George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument ........................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 3. USGS aerial photograph of George Washington Birthplace National Monument ....... 6

Figure 4. Rarefaction curves showing the estimated number of species of small mammals 

for variable sample sizes (number of individuals) for six habitat types in George Washington 

Birthplace National Monument. .................................................................................................... 17

vii

 

Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Sherman trap configuration for sampling sites at George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument for 2002 and 2003 .......................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Comparison of predicted species for GEWA ................................................................ 12

Table 3. Summary of numbers and relative abundances1 of small mammals captured with 

Sherman traps among five principal habitat types2 and one edge habitat at George 

Washington Birthplace National Park, 2002-2003. ...................................................................... 13

Table 4. Total captures of mammals in Tomahawk traps1 among four principal habitat 

types and one edge habitat at George Washington Birthplace National Park, 2002-2003 ........... 15

Table 5. Mammal sightings or sign in George Washington Birthplace National Monument, 

2002-2003 ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 6. Brillouin diversity index (H, determined using log2) and Smith and Wilson’s 

measure of evenness (Krebs 1999) for small mammals captured in five habitats and one 

edge habitat in George Washington Birthplace National Monument, 2002-2003. ....................... 16

Table 7. Specimens collected in George Washington Birthplace National Monument that 

were assigned NPS accession and catalog numbers and accessioned into the FSU mammal 

collection (museum) in 2004. ....................................................................................................... 18

 ix

Abstract 

A survey of mammals (bats excluded) at George Washington Birthplace National Monument 

(GEWA) was conducted from 2002 to 2003 to document the presence of > 90% of the mammals 

in the park, describe their distributions and relative abundances, quantify habitat-specific species 

diversity, and provide recommendations for management and conservation. Surveys relied on 

live trapping with Sherman and Tomahawk traps for small to medium-size mammals, the use of 

pitfall traps to capture small shrews, direct observation of individuals and their sign (tracks, 

scats), and remote photography. We identified five principal habitats – grassland (fields), mixed 

deciduous-coniferous forest, pine plantations, logged areas (of mixed forest), and wetlands – and 

several less expansive habitats, and targeted locations for sampling. 

Twenty-one species of mammals were either captured or observed within GEWA, resulting in 

six new records (species) for the park. Altogether, six orders and 12 families of mammals are 

represented by these species. Including the new records, we documented 70% (21 of 30) of the 

species (excluding bats) predicted to occur and 75% (15 of 20) of those for which historical 

records exist. New species we recorded include the American least shrew (Cryptotis parva), 

southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), red 

fox (Vulpes vulpes), North American river otter (Lontra canadensis), and long-tailed weasel 

(Mustela frenata). The white-footed deermouse (Peromyscus leucopus) occupied all of the 

principal habitats and was the most abundant mammal in the park. Multiple individuals of two 

grassland specialists, the seldom captured least shrew and spottily distributed eastern harvest 

mouse, were captured. Also of note, river otters (or their sign) were observed in two locations, 

on the beach along the Potomac River and along the park’s eastern boundary at Popes Creek. 

Grasslands exhibited the greatest species diversity of small mammals, and logged areas exhibited 

the least diversity. 

The park supports a predictable assemblage of mammals given the diversity of habitats present. 

Habitat generalists, such as the white-footed deermouse, northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina 

brevicauda), Virginia opossum (Didielphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), are widely distributed. Adequate quality and quantity of 

habitat exist to sustain populations of grassland specialists such as the least shrew, eastern 

harvest mouse, and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). 

Additional inventory and monitoring work should be conducted to determine the status of a 

number of species either detected in low numbers – the southeastern shrew, marsh oryzomys or 

rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), long-tailed weasel – 

or not confirmed but for which previous records exist – woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), 

muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), and 

mink (Neovison vison). This work would necessarily include additional sampling of wetlands 

and grasslands. A concerted effort should be directed toward documenting the populations of 

small shrews (Sorex spp.) in the park with greater use of pitfall traps (only after proper 

archeological compliance or oversight has been completed). In addition, the following resource 

management strategies might be considered, continued, or enhanced: 1) affording special 

consideration for the protection and conservation of wetlands that support a number of mammal 

species in GEWA; 2) regulating visitor use of specific areas where sensitive wetland species (e.g, 

the river otter) are found; 3) maintaining diverse herbaceous communities and interrupting 
 x

succession in managed fields by careful attention to mowing and burning schedules; 4) acquiring 

adjoining agricultural land so that it can be managed for native vegetation and mammal species 

(and reduction in populations of the exotic house mouse); 5) periodically monitoring for exotic 

house mouse, brown rat, and black rat (Rattus rattus) populations; 6) using management 

practices (e.g., fumigants or live trapping and relocation) to control groundhog (Marmota 

monax) populations; 7) using management practices (e.g., live trapping and relocation) to 

eliminate problematic mammalian predators such as foxes and weasels that prey on GEWA farm 

fowl; 8) using management practices that either reduce the raccoon population or the 

consequences of human activities that sustain it (e.g., more frequent monitoring of picnic areas 

and trash removal); and 9) monitoring and, if necessary, using management practices to regulate 

the white-tailed deer population to ensure the preservation of vegetation communities and 

understory cover important to mammals and birds. Raccoon and white-tailed deer populations, 

particularly because of rabies and Lyme disease (and abundance of the black-legged [deer] tick 

larvae and nymph reservoir-competent host, the white-footed deermouse), also are of potential 

public health significance in a historical park with high human visitation like GEWA. 
 xi

Acknowledgments 

Tressa Dolbeare, M.S. student at FSU and co-author of this report, under the supervision of the 

senior author conducted the bulk of the field work and prepared voucher specimens for the FSU 

mammal museum. Rijk Morawe, Chris Upperman, Jeff Schnebelen, and Alan Bateman assisted 

in the field. We thank Rijk Morawe, Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources Management, for 

providing information on the park, collection permits, maps, and other materials and for the time 

he spent introducing us to the park and discussing the project with us. Ralph Eckerlin provided 

records of voucher specimens housed in the mammal collection at Northern Virginia Community 

College that were collected in GEWA in the 1980s. John Karish, James Comiskey, Sara 

Stevens, Bryan Milstead, and Rijk Morawe provided comments on and information for drafts of 

this report. We are indebted to John Karish, Beth Johnson, Sara Stevens, and the National Park 

Service for funding the project. Frostburg State University provided much-appreciated matching 

funds and logistical support. 

1 

Introduction 

Surveys of mammals in coastal and mid-Atlantic national parks in the Northeast Region are in 

compliance with the Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring Program of the National Park 

Service (NPS 1998). One of the five long-term goals established by this program is to complete 

baseline inventories of basic biological and geophysical natural resources for the national parks. 

During Phase 1 of the natural resource inventory the National Park Service (NPS) has set an 

objective of documenting the presence of > 80% of all plant and animal species (excluding 

invertebrates) occurring within a park's boundaries; the stated objective for the mammal survey 

of the parks is 90%. Surveys will attempt to confirm the existence of currently listed species and 

document the presence of additional expected species. Of particular importance is the detection 

of any threatened and endangered species that merit special attention. Data collected can be used 

by park natural resource specialists in the proper stewardship of the park. 

We conducted a survey of mammals (except bats, order Chiroptera) in George Washington 

Birthplace National Monument (GEWA), Virginia, in 2002-2003. The park lies in the Coastal 

Plain physiographic province east of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in Westmoreland County within 

the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem (Figure 1). Located on the Northern Neck of rural Virginia, 

GEWA shares boundaries with tidal portions of the Potomac River, Pope's Creek Estuary, and 

other historic lands. The monument was authorized by Congress as a unit of the NPS in the Act 

of January 23, 1930, and opened under the administration of the NPS in 1932. The park’s 

strategic plan (NPS 2004) indicates the need for implementing programs that foster the wise 

management, restoration and use of natural resources and impeding the invasion, expansion, and 

establishment of exotic species. 

One previous survey of mammals has been conducted in GEWA. That survey produced records 

for 22 species of mammals, including two species of bats (Painter and Eckerlin 1993). Our 

inventory work began in summer 2002 and continued through 2003. Surveys included sampling 

of small to medium-size mammals using Sherman and Tomahawk live traps. Small shrews 

(Sorex spp.) were targeted with arrays of pitfall kill traps so that individuals could be collected 

for accurate identification to species by skull morphology and dentition. Observations and sign, 

including scats and road kills, were used to account for mammals squirrel-size and larger. 
2 

 

 

 40 0 40 km 25 25 miles 

Figure 1. Location of George Washington Birthplace National Monument (GEWA) in Virginia. 

GEWA 

 Fredericksburg 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Maryland 

 

 Chesapeake 

 Bay

 Washington, 

 DC 

N
3 

Study Area 

The George Washington Birthplace National Monument consists of 223 ha (551 acres) of 

primarily open grasslands (fields) and upland forests, includes Potomac River beach, and has 10 

ha of marshes and estuaries. Its forest resources represent a unique assemblage of loblolly pine 

and willow oak. Elevation ranges from sea level to nearly 8 m (25 ft.) (Figure 2). 

Delineation of habitats 

The recognition of major habitat types allowed stratification of the sampling effort in GEWA. 

This permitted a representative and comprehensive survey of the small mammal fauna by 

increasing the efficiency with which individual species were detected. 

Five principal habitat types – managed fields (grasslands), mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, 

pine plantations, logged area (within mixed forest), and wetlands (including forested wetlands) – 

and several less expansive habitats (e.g., deciduous stands, mixed forest/logged area edge, pond 

edge) were identified for inventorying small mammals in GEWA (Figure 2). In addition, a barn 

and dormitory lawn were sampled for targeted small mammal species. The secure NPSpecies 

website, https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies, lists vascular plants certified for the park. 

Fields are dominated by broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), Carolina foxtail (Alopecurus

carolinianus), and other grasses (Poaceae), white heath aster (Aster pilosus), goldenrod 

(Solidago spp.), and white clover (Trifolium repens). Soils are variably loam, clay and sand 

(including silt loam, clay, clay loam, silty clay, loam, sandy clay loam, fine sandy loam, sand, 

loamy sand. Fields are brush-hogged once or twice yearly (R. Morawe, pers. comm., George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument). 

Mixed deciduous-coniferous forests constitute approximately 80 ha (200 acres) of the park 

(Painter and Eckerlin 1993) and are dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), willow oak 

(Quercus phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and swee tgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). 

Soils in mixed forested areas are predominantly loam and clay (including silt loam, silty clay 

loam, silty clay, clay) (R. Morawe, pers. comm.). 

At the beginning of this study the pine plantations were 25-year old stands of loblolly pine, with 

occasional sweetgum. Soils in the pine plantations are predominantly loam and clay (including 

silt loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, clay) (R. Morawe, pers. comm.) 

The approximately 5-ha (12-acre) logged area was cut within the mixed forest in 1995. Loblolly 

pine is now the most abundant tree in the logged area, with significant numbers of red maple 

(Acer rubrum) and sweetgum. Deciduous stands near the logged area and within one of the pine 

plantations are dominated by sweetgum, with loblolly pine and eastern red cedar (Juniperus 

virginiana) present. 

Wetlands are dominated by common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), American holly (Ilex 

opaca), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and willow oak. Additional species found in wetlands 

include narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), poison-ivy 

(Toxicodendron radicans), eastern baccharis (Baccharis halimifolia), white oak (Quercus alba), 

pin oak (Quercus. palustris), red oak, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum, and loblolly pine. 
 4

Soils are sand and clay (R Morawe, pers. comm.., Georgre Washington Birthplace National 

Monument). Dominant vegetation associated with the forest/swamp edge includes greenbriar, 

willow oak, sweetgum, American holly, and red oak. Woody vegetation in pond-edge habitat 

consists of hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), paw paw (Asimina triloba), and sweetgum. Soils are 

loam and clay (including silty clay loam, silty clay, clay, sandy clay, loam, sandy clay loam, clay 

loam) (R. Morawe, pers. comm.). 

Figure 2. Map showing features and habitat types of George Washington Birthplace National Monument

(the most inclusive area outlined). 

 N Potomac River 

Field 

Pine 

plantation

Pine plantation 

Field Agricultural 

field 

Field 

Logged area 

Mixed forest 

Field 

 0.5 mile 0 0.5 mile 

 0.8 km 0.8 km
5 

Methods 

Sampling protocol 

Sampling sites were located within the five identified habitat types to permit stratified sampling. 

In addition, unusual or less common habitats (e.g., barn and dormitory lawn) were sampled 

opportunistically because they often harbor small populations or rare or exotic species. Habitats 

initially were identified by aerial photo (Figure 3). Strata were ground-truthed before final 

selection of sampling sites. The number of sampling locations (sample units) was dependent on 

1) number, size and distribution of habitat types, and 2) constraints imposed by accessibility, 

equipment, and personnel. 

To identify sampling points a systematic grid (composed of 30 x 30-m cells) of UTM 

coordinates was overlaid on an aerial photograph that depicted habitat types (NPS 2000; Figure 

3). Points on the grid, within a habitat type, were selected without replacement by the generation 

of random numbers representing grid cells (Rudran and Foster 1996). Once selected on a map, a 

sampling point was identified in real space using a Garmin 12 or comparable GPS unit. Portions 

of the park frequented by the public, and areas inaccessible to ground personnel, generally were 

removed from consideration as sampling locations after the initial visit. 

Sampling of small mammals relied primarily on capture with rat-sized (7.6 x 8.9 x 22.9 cm) 

Sherman live traps. These traps are generally highly effective for capture of rodents and large 

shrews such as Blarina spp. (Mitchell et al. 1993). Pitfall traps were used to capture shrews and 

small mammals < 10 g (Kirkland and Sheppard 1994). Pitfalls for shrews were used as kill-type 

traps containing 3-5 cm of water because careful measurements and examination of skull 

morphology, dentition, and internal anatomy were required for identification of species, sex, and 

reproductive condition (Caldwell and Bryan 1982). 

Sherman traps were configured at sampling points in randomly positioned linear transects and 

grids (Table 1; Appendices A and C), with a trap interval of 10 or 15 m. Trap configuration and 

number of traps (i.e., grid size or transect length) was dependent on habitat type, patch size, 

availability of traps, and need for detailed demographic information. Transects were used where 

practical because they traverse more home ranges per effort than grids and are especially 

appropriate for inventory work where accurate estimates of abundance or density are not 

necessary (Jones et al. 1996). Effective sampling area of a grid was computed by adding a 

boundary strip equal to one-half the trap interval to all four sides of the grid (Krebs 1999). 

Effective sampling length of a transect was computed by adding one-half trap interval to each 

end of the transect. Sampling periods of consecutive days of trapping ranged from 1 to 8 days. 

This sampling regime permitted estimates of species richness and relative abundance (unique 

individuals per 100 trap nights) for the principal habitat types. While sampling for small 

mammals at designated locations, we also observed and noted sign of larger mammals; species, 

location, and date for each such observation were recorded. 
 6

Gewa_roads.shp

Parkboundary.shp

0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles

N

George Washington Birthplace

National Monument

Figure 3. USGS aerial photograph of George Washington Birthplace National Monument (within green 

line) showing points sampled in 2002 and 2003. AG = agricultural, DF = deciduous stand, FLD = field, 

LOG = logged area, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged area edge, 

PP = pine plantation, Pond = pond edge, WL = wetland, PT indicates proximity to the Potomac River. 

Black indicates agricultural field adjacent to the park that was sampled in 2003. 

● PP 1

● PT Pond

● PT 

 FLD 1 

● FLD 3

● PT

 FLD 2

●

Digwood 

Swamp

● AG FLD

● FLD 1

 ●DF

● PP 2

● MF 1

● MF 2

● MF

● LOG 

● ●LOG 2

MF/LOG

● FLD 2

● WL 1

● WL 2

●

WL 3

● WL 4

● Barn

 ● Dorm
 7

Table 1. Sherman trap configuration for sampling sites at George Washington Birthplace National 

Monument for 2002 and 2003. 

 Trap Nights 

Year Habitat/Site1 Sherman Trap Configuration2 

Sherman 

Traps 

Tomahawk 

Traps3

Pitfall 

Array 

Mole Harpoon 

Traps 

2002 

 FLD 1 Transect (0.30) 120 8m 

 FLD 2 Grid (0.49) 196 16m 

 FLD 3 Transect (0.24) 48 

 MF 1 Grid (0.49) 196 16m 

 MF 2 Grid (0.49) 196 16m 

 DF Grid (0.49) 98 

 PP 1 Grid (0.49) 196 16m 

 WL 2 Transect (0.09) 36 

2003 

 FLD 1 Transect (0.14) 322 

 PT FLD 1 Transect (0.45) 120 

 PT FLD 2 Transect (0.45) 120 

 MF Grid (1.10) 3049 59m 18 

 MF 1 66 

 MF/LOG Transect (0.30) 520 3s, 10m 

 DF in PP 1 Transect (0.15) 30 

 PP 1 Grid (1.10) 3105 51m 

 PP 2 Grid (1.10) 196 63 

 LOG 1 Grid (1.12) 2850 59m 

 LOG 2 Grid (0.32) 322 9s 

 WL 3 Transect (0.08) 20 9s, 3m 

 WL 4 Transect (0.45) 120 12s 

Digwood 

Swamp Transect (0.32) 84 16s, 8m 

 PT Pond 8s, 4m 

 Barn Random 21 

 Dorm Lawn 32 

1

 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field, LOG = logged area, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous 

forest, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged area edge, Pond = pond edge, PP = pine plantation, WL = 

wetland. PT = near the Potomac River. See Figure 3 for site locations within GEWA. 

2

 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration represent effective sampling areas in ha 

for grids and effective sampling lengths in km for transects. 

3

 Tomahawk live traps (s = small, m = medium) 
 8

Muskrat- (small – 15.2 x 15.2 x 48.3 cm) and raccoon-size (medium - 25.4 x 30.5 x 81.3 cm) 

Tomahawk live traps were used to capture mammals of squirrel size and larger, butparticularly 

to target mesocarnivores such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and red (Vulpes vulpes) and gray 

(Urocyon cinereoargenteus) foxes. One to several of these traps were placed in small mammal 

(Sherman) trapping grids and transects (Appendix D) and opportunistically in habitats where 

mammal sign was detected or where habitat features suggested the presence of larger species. 

Pitfall traps were arranged in arrays. Each array was 10 m long and consisted of a silt fence and 

pitfall trap (#10 vegetable can) at each end and in the middle. Each array was placed in 

association within a Sherman trap grid and at least 30 m from another array. Remote cameras 

were used sporadically to document the presence of larger, secretive and elusive species (such as 

foxes) where sign was evident. 

Dominant vegetation, percent canopy cover, percent ground cover, degree of disturbance (e.g., 

primary or secondary forest or plantation, agricultural use of grassland), soil type, presence of 

rock piles, topography and elevation were noted for each sampling site at 5-15 (proportional to 

the number of Sherman traps) random locations within Sherman live-trap transects and grids 

(McDiarmid and Wilson 1996; Barry et al. 1999; Boyce 2001). These detailed observations 

were recorded as baseline habitat information. 

Sherman traps were baited with a combination of peanut butter and rolled oats. Tomahawk traps 

usually were baited with canned cat food. Pitfall, mole harpoon traps, and remote camera 

locations were not baited. Captured individuals of small species (those in Sherman and pitfall 

traps) were removed from traps, identified to species, weighed using a Pesola scale, and 

examined for age, sex, and reproductive condition (Jones et al. 1996). Individuals captured in 

Tomahawk traps were identified to species and examined for age, sex, and reproductive 

condition. Because recognition of individuals was used for determining relative abundances and 

measures of species diversity, captured individuals of small mammal species were marked by 

toe-clipping (Rudran 1996; ASM 1998). To obtain meaningful scientific data about shrews, they 

were collected by kill trapping (see above). Release of captured individuals (other than shrews 

or accidental deaths) was immediate at the capture location after measurements were obtained. 

Live-trapping, handling procedures, pitfall trapping, and specimen collection were conducted 

humanely (Rudran and Kunz 1996), consistent with the animal handling guidelines of the 

American Society of Mammalogists (ASM 1998), and were approved by the Institutional 

Review Board/Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC # A2002-01) at Frostburg State 

University. Proper precautions were taken by investigators to prevent human injury and 

exposure to disease, especially rabies, Lyme disease, hantaviral pulmonary syndrome (HPS), and 

human ehrlichiosis (Gage et al. 1995; Mills et al. 1995; Kunz et al. 1996). Animals found dead 

in traps (most frequently in pitfalls), if salvageable, were collected, prepared, deposited, and 

maintained in the Frostburg State University (FSU) mammal museum. 

Yearly Sampling Protocol 

Sampling using Sherman and medium Tomahawk live traps was conducted in five habitats – 

managed fields (grassland), pine plantation, mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, a small tract of 

deciduous forest, and wetland – in nine sampling periods from July through November 2002 

(Table 1; see Appendix A). At nine sampling points Sherman traps comprised six grids (7 x 7 

traps each) covering a total of 2.9 ha (7.2 acres) and three transects of variable length along 0.6 

km (0.4 miles). Sherman trap interval was 10 m for all transects and grids. Trap nights totaled 
 9

1,282 trap nights with Sherman traps and 88 with Tomahawk traps. In addition to these 

sampling periods, direct observations of mammals (or their sign) and remote photography 

yielded records of mammals in May and July. 

Sherman, small and medium Tomahawk live traps, and pitfall traps were opened during 31 

sampling periods (typically three to four nights each) from March through December 2003. We 

sampled managed field (grassland), mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, pine plantation, logged 

area, wetland, pond edge (PT Pond), and mixed forest/logged area edge (MF/LOG) habitat, a 

barn, and a lawn (Table 1; Appendixes C, D). At 13 sampling locations where Sherman traps 

were used, five grids (3 x 10, 5 x 10, or 7 x 7 traps, depending on size and shape of the patch) 

covered a total of 4.7 ha (11.6 acres), and eight transects of variable length spanned a total of 2.3 

km (1.4 miles). Sherman traps were placed randomly at the barn location in an attempt to 

capture house mice and rats. Traps were spaced at 15-m intervals in grids and transects, except 

for FLD 1 where we used 10-m intervals (i.e., a higher concentration of traps per linear space; 

Appendix C) in a location where we failed to capture any mammals in 2002. Twenty-one pitfalls 

(7 arrays) total were used at three locations (Appendix D). Six locations were sampled with 

small Tomahawk traps, and seven were sampled with medium Tomahawk traps (Appendix D). 

Pitfall arrays and Tomahawk traps were spatially associated with Sherman traps. Four mole 

(harpoon) kill traps were used in the dormitory lawn (Appendix D) to obtain a voucher specimen 

of the eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus). Trap nights totaled 10,849 with Sherman traps, 57 

with small Tomahawk traps, 194 with medium Tomahawk traps, 147 with pitfall arrays, and 32 

with harpoon traps in 2003. Higher numbers of trap nights with traps in grid configurations in 

mixed forest, pine plantation, and logged habitat are attributable to targeted sampling for a study 

of the comparative demography of Peromyscus leucopus in these three habitat types (Dolbeare, 

in prep.). 

Compilation and analysis of data 

Species distributions among habitats were summarized. Marking and recognition of individuals 

captured in Sherman traps permitted estimates of relative abundance, species diversity 

(Brillouin’s H), rarefaction estimates of richness (number of species), and Smith and Wilson’s 

measure of evenness (distribution of individuals among the species) for small species for 

principal habitat types. Analyses followed Krebs (1999) and were conducted at Frostburg State 

University using EcoMeth software (Krebs 2003). 

Data on habitat characteristics and all mammals captured or observed were stored in an 

electronic database (Microsoft Access). Voucher specimens were prepared and accessioned into 

the mammal museum at Frostburg State University. Color photographs taken with digital and 

remote cameras were stored and copies provided to the Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources 

Management of the park. 

 11

Results 

Historical records and predicted species 

The National Park Service’s NPSpecies database (https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies) 

contains historical records of plants and animals for each park. Publications and park records 

pertaining to the mammals of GEWA were sought, and the summary of existing records was 

obtained from the NPSpecies database. The 20 species of mammals (bats excluded) recorded in 

the NPSpecies database resulted from a survey conducted by Painter and Eckerlin (1993), who 

deposited a number of specimens as vouchers in the collection at Northern Virginia Community 

College in Annandale, Virginia (Appendix F). According to current taxonomy (Wilson and 

Reeder 2005), six orders and 12 families are represented among the species recorded prior to this 

report (Table 2). 

We have listed species predicted to occur in GEWA (Table 2) based on Virginia GAP species 

range maps, Webster et al. (1985), and Linzey (1998). This list contains 30 species within six 

orders and 14 families of mammals (excluding bats). 

Field survey 

Our survey of 2002-2003 resulted in 21 species of mammals either captured or observed within 

GEWA. These results included six new species records for the park (Table 2). The species 

detected belong to six orders and 12 families of mammals. 

In 2002 30 individuals representing five species of mammals were captured a total of 54 times at 

six of the nine sampling locations and a targeted location, a horse pasture (Appendixes A and B). 

In 2003 216 individuals representing 14 species of mammals were captured a total of 530 times 

at 16 of the 17 sampling locations (Appendixes C, D, and E). Types of habitats, sampling dates, 

numbers of trap nights, individuals captured, capture frequencies, and relative abundances for 

mammal species are summarized for each sampling location, by year, in Appendixes A-E. 

The most abundant small mammal in GEWA was the white-footed deermouse, Peromyscus 

leucopus. This species was captured in Sherman traps in all five principal habitats and mixed 

forest/logged area edge (Table 3) and was the most abundant species in mixed forest, pine 

plantation, logged areas, wetland, and mixed forest/logged area edge. The northern short-tailed 

shrew was captured in Sherman traps in all habitat types except the logged area, although in 

relatively low numbers. The white-footed deermouse also was captured more often with pitfall 

traps than any other species. These traps, used sparingly in 2003 in mixed forest (MF and MF 1; 

see Appendix D) and pine plantation 2, were successful only in the pine plantation where four 

white-footed deermice (relative abundance = 6.35), three northern short-tailed shrews (Blarina 

brevicauda; relative abundance = 4.76), and a southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris; relative 

abundance = 1.59) were captured. 

 
 12

Table 2. Comparison of predicted species for GEWA (based on Gap Analysis, 

http://gapmap.nbii.gov/generatemap.php?species=GENUS%SPECIES&statelist=VA, Webster et al. 1985, 

and Linzey 1998), historical records (Painter and Eckerlin 1993), and species observed during this study 

(2002-2003). Taxonomy and common names follow Wilson and Reeder (2005). 

Order 

 Family Species Common Name Predicted 

GEWA 

Historical 

GEWA 

Observed 

Didelphimorphia 

 Didelphidae Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum X X X 

Soricomorpha 

 Soricidae Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew X X X 

Cryptotis parva North American least shrew X X 

Sorex hoyi American pygmy shrew X 

Sorex longirostris Southeastern shrew X X 

 Talpidae Condylura cristata Star-nosed mole X 

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole X X X 

Lagomorpha 

 Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail X X X 

Rodentia 

 Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver X X X 

 Cricetidae Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole X X X 

Microtus pinetorum Woodland vole X X 

Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat X X 

Oryzomys palustris Marsh oryzomys (rice rat) X X X 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse X X X 

 Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse X X 

 Muridae Mus musculus House mouse X X 

Rattus norvegicus Brown rat X X 

 Sciuridae Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel X X X 

Marmota monax Woodchuck X X X 

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern gray squirrel X X X 

Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk X 

Carnivora 

 Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox X X X 

Vulpes vulpes Red fox X X 

 Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat X 

 Mephitidae Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk X X X 

 Mustelidae Lontra Canadensis North American river otter X X 

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel X X 

Neovison vison American mink X X 

 Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon X X X 

Artiodactyla 

 Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer X X X 
 13

Table 3. Summary of numbers and relative abundances1 of small mammals captured with Sherman 

traps among five principal habitat types2 and one edge habitat at George Washington Birthplace National 

Park, 2002-2003. 

 Habitat 

Common name Species name FLD MF PP LOG WL MF/LOG

Northern short-tailed 

shrew Blarina brevicauda 2(0.20) 5(0.15) 1(0.03) 1(0.26) 1(0.19) 

American least shrew Cryptotis parva 7(0.70) 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 10(1.00) 

Marsh oryzomys Oryzomys palustris 2(0.53) 

White-footed 

deermouse Peromyscus leucopus 4(0.40) 37(1.08) 44(1.26) 64(2.02) 20(5.26) 15(2.88) 

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis 2(0.20) 1(0.03) 

Southern flying 

squirrel Glaucomys volans 1(0.03) 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 1(0.03) 

Total number of trap 

nights 1,002 3,441 3,595 3,172 380 520 

1

 Relative abundance calculated as the number of individuals per 100 trap nights and shown in 

parentheses 

2

 FLD = fields, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, PP = pine plantations, LOG = logged 

area, WL = wetland, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged area edge. 

 

Several species were associated solely or primarily with field habitats. The meadow vole 

(Microtus pennsylvanicus) was the most abundant species found in field habitat (Table 3). 

American least shrews (Cryptotis parva) were abundant in one field (FLD 1; Appendix E) in 

2003. The eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) was found in two fields and logged 

area 1, and two individuals of this species were captured in only 21 Sherman trap nights in 

thebarn (relative abundance = 9.52). An eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) was captured in a 

harpoon trap in the dormitory lawn area. 

Several other species were captured infrequently in Sherman traps. Two marsh rice rats 

(Oryzomys palustris) were captured in Dancing Marsh (WL 3; Appendix E) at the southern end 

of the park. One southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) was caught in pine plantation 1. A 

single long-tailed weasel was captured in logged area 1. 

Capture frequencies of larger mammals captured in Tomahawk traps were recorded, but relative 

abundances were not obtained because individuals of these larger species were not marked for 

individual recognition. No captures occurred in 2002. In 2003 Virginia opossums (Didelphis 

virginiana) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were distributed widely within the park, occurring in 

all four of the principal habitats sampled (Table 4). In addition, raccoons were captured in the 

mixed forest/logged area and pond edge habitats (see Appendix E). Striped skunks (Mephitis 

mephitis) were documented in the mixed forest. We captured a female opossum with a juvenile 

while we were targeting foxes near a den in the horse pasture about 5 m from the edge of woods. 
 14

Thirteen species of mammals were documented based on either observation or sign during the 

study. Four of these species – the white-footed deermouse, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

raccoon, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) - were documented by remote camera 

(Table 5). A white-footed deermouse was photographed in the mouth of a Barred Owl (Strix 

varia) in November 2002. Raccoons were photographed on two occasions in pine plantation 1. 

White- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were observed frequently, most often in fields near 

forest, and photographed in pine plantation 1. A striped skunk was photographed in a deciduous 

stand in pine plantation 1. 

Mole sign was observed in historical areas and the dormitory lawn in the southern portion of the 

park. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) were observed often in open, grassy areas, and 

in pond-edge and wetland habitat (Longwood Swamp) near the Potomac River. A beaver 

(Castor canadensis) lodge was found in Digwood Swamp, and an individual was observed 

swimming in the pond near the dormitory. Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) were 

observed frequently in open areas within the park or on roads adjacent to wooded habitat, and 

woodchucks (Marmota monax) were seen and documented most often in grassy areas and along 

roads. 

Of particular note, multiple tracks of North American river otters (Lontra canadensis) were 

observed on the beach at 1324 h on 24 July 2002, and three otters were seen along Popes Creek 

at 1400 h on 24 August 2003. We saw a gray fox (Urocyon cinereogenteus) in a field near the 

Potomac River at 1030 h on 24 March 2003 and a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in a field near the 

maintenance area at 1000 h on 24 September 2003. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were 

observed roaming in the park on a few occasions but were assumed to be from nearby residences 

and not included in the inventory. 

 
 15

Table 4. Total captures of mammals in Tomahawk traps1 among four principal habitat types and one 

edge habitat at George Washington Birthplace National Park, 2002-2003. 

 Habitat 

Common name Species name MF PP LOG WL MF/LOG 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana 3 3 2 1 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 4 2 9 2 3 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 2 

1

 See Appendices 1 and 3 for trap nights for each size Tomahawk trap in each habitat. 

2

 MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, PP = pine plantations, LOG = logged area, WL = 

wetland, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged area edge. 

 

Table 5. Mammal sightings or sign in George Washington Birthplace National Monument, 2002-2003. 

Means of Observation 

Common name Scientific Name 

Direct 

Observation 

Signs or 

Remains 

Remote 

Camera 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus X X 

White-footed deermouse Peromyscus leucopus X 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus X 

American beaver Castor canadensis X X 

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis X X 

Woodchuck Marmota monax X 

Domestic dog Canis lupus X a 

Gray fox 

Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus X X 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes X 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X X 

North American river otter Lontra canadensis X X 

Raccoon Procyon lotor X X 

White-tailed deer 

Odocoileus 

virginianus X X X 

a Not included in the inventory
 16

Species diversity and evenness of small mammals captured with Sherman traps was greatest in 

grassy fields and lowest in the logged area (Table 6). Similarly, species richness was greatest in 

grassy fields where five species were captured (Table 3) in a total of 1,002 trap nights; only three 

species were caught in the logged area in 3,172 trap nights. At a sample size of 15 individuals 

asa basis for comparison of richness among habitats, the rarefaction estimate of expected number 

of species for fields was nearly twice that for wetlands, the habitat with the next highest 

estimated richness (Figure 4).

Voucher specimens 

Thirty-one specimens of eight species were collected from GEWA and prepared, assigned NPS 

accession and catalog numbers, and accessioned into the FSU mammal museum in 2004 (Table 

7). Seventeen of the preparations consisted of skin and skull. Multiple preparations were made 

of northern short-tailed shrews, least shrews, and white-footed deermice. In addition, three 

specimens of house mice, Mus musculus, were collected from the agricultural field we sampled 

just outside the park (Figure 3); these specimens were prepared as museum skins and skull and 

accessioned into the FSU mammal museum. 

Table 6. Brillouin diversity index (H, determined using log2) and Smith and Wilson’s measure of 

evenness (Krebs 1999) for small mammals captured in five habitats and one edge habitat in George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument, 2002-2003. 

Habitat Brillouin Index (H) Smith and Wilson’s Evenness 

Fields 1.720 0.746 

Mixed forest 0.469 0.500 

Pine plantations 0.239 0.194 

Logged areas 0.183 0.162 

Wetlands 0.538 0.349 

Mixed forest/logged area edge 0.250 0.318 
17 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Number of Individuals

Expected No. of Species .

FLD 

WL 

MF/LOG 

PP 

LOG 

MF 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Rarefaction curves showing the estimated number of species of small mammals for variable 

sample sizes (number of individuals) for six habitat types in George Washington Birthplace National 

Monument. 
18 

Table 7. Specimens collected in George Washington Birthplace National Monument that were assigned 

NPS accession and catalog numbers and accessioned into the FSU mammal collection (museum) in 

2004. 

Common Name Scientific Name Sex Specimen Type1

NPS Accession/ 

Catalog Numbers 

FSU Catalog 

Number 

Northern short-tailed 

shrew Blarina brevicauda F Sk 1770/21002 2661 

 F SS 1770/21002 2662 

 M SS 1770/21002 2663 

 F SS 1770/21002 2668 

 M Sl 1770/21002 2675 

 F Sl 1770/21002 2677 

 Sl 1770/21002 2679 

 F Sl 1770/21002 2680 

 M Sk 1770/21002 2682 

American least shrew Cryptotis parva SS 1770/21009 2656 

 F SS 1770/21009 2658 

 F SS 1770/21009 2660 

 F Sl 1770/21009 2670 

 F Sl 1770/21009 2672 

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris F Sl 1770/21005 2657 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus M SS 1770/21008 2665 

White-footed 

deermouse Peromyscus leucopus F SS 1770/21001 2646 

 M SS 1770/21001 2647 

 F SS 1770/21001 2648 

 M SS 1770/21001 2649 

 M SS 1770/21001 2650 

 M SS 1770/21001 2651 

 M SS 1770/21001 2652 

 F SS 1770/21001 2653 

 M SS 1770/21001 2654 

 F Sl 1770/21001 2673 

 M Sl 1770/21001 2676 

 Sl 1770/21001 2678 

Southern flying 

squirrel Glaucomys volans F SS 1770/21007 2666 

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis M SS 1770/21006 2667 

Gray fox 

Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus Sl 1770/21003 2681 

1

 Sk = skin, Sl = skull, SS = skin and skull. 
19 

Discussion 

Species records 

Including the six new records, we have documented the presence in GEWA of 70% (21 of 30) of 

the species predicted to occur and 75% (15 of 20) of the nonchiropteran species listed for GEWA 

on NPSpecies. We were not able to confirm by capture or observation the presence of the 

following species for which there are historical records: woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), 

muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), house mouse, brown rat, and mink (Neovison vison). The recent 

switch by GEWA personnel to new storage bins for livestock food apparently has reduced or 

eliminated rats in the food storage area. 

Habitat generalists 

The white-footed deermouse is a woodland species that is present statewide (Linzey 1998). It 

was captured more frequently than any other species in Sherman traps in all of the principal 

habitat types except fields and is the most frequently captured mammal in park structures (R. 

Morawe, pers. comm.). It commonly occupies brushy habitat or wooded areas dominated by 

deciduous species and ample, downed woody debris (Barry and Francq 1980; Lackey et al. 

1985). Its predominance in the logged area in GEWA is consistent with the results of other 

studies that have demonstrated its abundance in recently logged sites. For instance, Buckner and 

Shure (1985) found that this species in the southern Appalachians reached high densities in forest 

openings created by clearcuts with ample stumps, logs, and other low-lying cover. Kirkland 

(1990) observed high numbers of captures in sapling-pole stands (8-18 years post-clearcutting). 

The northern short-tailed shrew occurs within a wide variety of habitats throughout its 

range(George et al. 1986) and was distributed widely in GEWA. We captured this species in all 

habitats except the logged area, although one individual was captured within the mixed 

forest/logged area edge. Numbers were not high at any of the sampling locations, but relative 

abundance was high in pine plantation 2. Absence in the logged area may be due to reduced 

canopy cover and a poorly developed leaf litter layer, contributing to a dry substrate. Merritt 

(1987) suggested that short-tailed shrews may avoid dry areas. Mammone (1997) found this 

species associated with herbaceous ground cover and leaf litter but not logs in clearcuts and 

adjacent woodlands in western Maryland. 

The southeastern shrew is a diminutive species that is captured more commonly with pitfall 

traps. Our detection of this species in GEWA represents a new record for the park. We captured 

only one, in a pitfall trap in the pine plantation. Nevertheless, it has been found in a variety of 

habitats within its range, although it seems to be more abundant in wet areas bordering marshes, 

swamps or rivers (French 1980). In this case, GEWA would seem to present abundant habitat 

for this species. We likely would have captured more individuals if we had used pitfall traps 

around wetlands and in wet areas along or near the river. 

Eastern cottontails, gray squirrels, and woodchucks were observed frequently in open, grassy 

areas, cultivated fields, field-forest edges, and urban parks; we documented all three species in 

open areas within GEWA. Eastern cottontails are widely distributed among habitats within their 

range (Chapman et al. 1980), although they prefer old fields, brushy areas, field-woodland edge 

(Linzey 1998), and early successional habitat (Chapman and Litvaitis 2003). Eastern gray 

squirrels are most common in mature, intact deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous 
 20

woodlands but use a variety of habitats throughout their range (Koprowski 1994; Linzey 1998; 

Edwards et al. 2003). Woodchucks typically occupy field-forest ecotone (Kwiecinski 1998). 

GEWA provides numerous grassy patches adjacent to forest tracts capable of supporting healthy 

populations of these three species. 

The raccoon and Virginia opossum exhibit a wide breadth of habitat use, with predilection for 

wooded areas near water (McManus 1974; Lotze and Anderson 1979; Gardner and Sunquist 

2003; Gehrt 2003). Both species were distributed widely within the park and were captured 

within all four of the principal habitat types sampled with Tomahawk traps, including wetlands. 

The raccoon was persistent in the logged area and also was captured in the mixed forest/logged 

area edge. In addition, it was photographed within pine plantation habitat by remote camera. 

Wetland habitat within GEWA, including Digwood and Longwood swamps, Dancing Marsh, 

Potomac River beach and associated riparian habitat, several small ponds, wetland at the 

northwestern boundary, and intervening mixed forest provide ideal habitat for the opossum and 

raccoon. 

The detection of striped skunks only in mixed forest and a deciduous stand in the pine plantation 

was somewhat surprising, given that it is a habitat generalist. We suspect that skunks in GEWA 

visit a variety of habitats as they move from place to place within their home ranges to forage 

primarily on insects, notably beetles (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). 

Our detection of the long-tailed weasel in GEWA represents a new record for the park. 

Although this mammal is a habitat generalist, it is generally found close to standing water 

(Sheffield and Thomas 1997). We captured only one individual in GEWA, probably because 

this species is at the upper size limit for capture in rat-sized Sherman traps and is too small to be 

contained within medium and large Tomahawk traps. We suspect this species is widespread 

within the park because of ample suitable habitat and small mammal prey. 

A single gray fox was observed in a field in both our study and in that conducted by Painter and 

Eckerlin (1993). Both gray and red foxes traverse a variety of habitats within their considerable 

home ranges. Gray foxes are more often associated with woodlands and red foxes with 

fragmented landscapes, but gray foxes in eastern North America prefer a mix of fields and forest 

(Cypher 2003). The resource requirements of both species are provided by the diversity of 

habitat and small mammal fauna found in GEWA and the surrounding terrain. Our observation 

of a red fox represents a new species record for GEWA. 

White-tailed deer are cosmopolitan in their habitat affinities, occupying both open and forested 

habitats (Miller et al. 2003). Nevertheless, they are most often associated with woodlands 

(Linzey 1998). We observed them often in fields near forest (where they are most visible), but 

they also were seen and photographed remotely in forested habitats. They appear to be abundant 

in GEWA with its diversity of habitats that provide concealment and thermal cover and satisfy 

the foraging needs of this species. 

Habitat specialists 

The most abundant small mammal in GEWA fields was the meadow vole. This mammal is 

found primarily in open grasslands (Reich 1981; Linzey 1998). The least shrew also was 

common in GEWA fields. Our discovery of this species represents a new record for GEWA. 
 21

Typical habitat for the least shrew is grassy fields (Whitaker 1974; Linzey 1998).

The eastern harvest mouse was captured in two fields, a logged area (LOG 1) and the barn. In 

addition, several were captured in 2003 in the agricultural field adjoining the park. Detection of 

this species in GEWA represents a new record for the park. This species has been found 

primarily in old fields (Stalling 1997) containing plants such as broomsedge (Andropogon spp.) 

and goldenrod (Solidago spp.), two prominent taxa in GEWA fields. 

The marsh rice rat is semiaquatic and found most often in wetland habitats (Wolfe 1982). The 

rice rat is an important species at GEWA where it is approaching the northern extreme of its 

geographic range. Painter and Eckerlin (1993) trapped them frequently in marshes and wet 

meadows in the 1980s in GEWA. We suspect that more intensive sampling of the abundant 

wetland habitats in the park would demonstrate a still healthy population of marsh rice rats.

We captured and observed sign of eastern moles in the soft soil of the dormitory lawn and 

historical areas of the park. Soil type is a limiting factor for the eastern mole, which prefers 

moist soils of loam or sand and avoids clay and gravel (Yates and Schmidly 1978). Within this 

restriction this species can be found in meadows, gardens, cultivated fields, forests, and river 

bottoms (Linzey 1998). Painter and Eckerlin (1993) captured one individual in 1988 and found 

runways (tunnels) in the sandy soil near Pope’s Creek. 

Our capture of the southern flying squirrel in the pine plantation is perhaps uncharacteristic for a 

species that prefers mature hardwood or mixed deciduous-coniferous forests (Linzey 1998); one 

was observed in GEWA by Painter and Eckerlin (1993) in a white oak tree. However, pine 

plantations in GEWA may provide suitable nest sites in tree cavities (Dolan and Carter 1977) 

and opportunities for movement (gliding) among the regularly spaced trees.

The river otter represents a new and important species record for GEWA. This mammal is 

restricted to permanent watersheds within its range and is often associated with beavers or beaver 

lodges in bodies of water with banked shores (Lariviere and Walton 1998). The bank of the 

Potomac River, where signs of otter were documented, the bordering Popes Creek where three 

were seen, and Digwood Swamp where a beaver lodge was found, would seem to provide 

important habitat for otters. Beavers typically are associated with flowing water or other habitats 

that permit dam construction (Linzey 1998); availability of food is an important factor in the 

suitability of a habitat for occupation (Jenkins and Busher 1979). 

Exotic species 

Dogs were observed on a few occasions in the park. We do not know if these animals are feral 

or merely individuals from adjacent residential neighborhoods (we suspect the latter). 

House mice were not captured within the park but in 2003 were captured and more abundant 

(relative abundance = 1.3; T. L. Dolbeare, in prep.) than any other small mammal in an 

agricultural field just outside the park boundary and near pine plantation 1. Thus, it is likely that 

this species occurs in the park. Painter and Eckerlin (1993) previously detected this mammal 

within the park around barns and outbuildings where domestic livestock and their food were 

housed. The house mouse is introduced from Eurasia and commensal with humans, but often 

forms feral populations. It is commonly the most abundant mammal in cultivated fields (Linzey 

1998). 
 22

Habitat-specific species diversity 

The managed fields of GEWA supported the greatest species diversity and richness of small 

mammals among the principal habitats sampled. These fields supported grassland specialists, 

least shrews, meadow voles, and eastern harvest mice, and the two habitat generalists, the 

northern short-tailed shrew and white-footed deermouse. The comparatively high Brillouin 

index for this habitat was attributable to both greater richness and evenness than other habitats. 

Grassy fields provide important resources, especially food, for a variety of small mammals. 

Meadow voles subsist chiefly on available grasses, sedges, and herbaceous plants (Reich 1981). 

Harvest mice eat seeds of grasses and other herbaceous plants, green vegetation, and crickets and 

grasshoppers (Stalling 1997). Northern short-tailed shrews are often associated with meadow 

voles, and earthworms and millipedes make up most of their diet. Lepidopteran larvae 

(caterpillars), earthworms, spiders, crickets and grasshoppers, and beetles are important foods of 

least shrews (Whitaker and Mumford 1972). White-footed deer mice, although chiefly woodland 

creatures, visit fields to forage for insects and seeds and also use grasses to line their nests 

(Lackey et al. 1985).

The logged habitat provided the least diversity of small mammals despite the high sampling 

effort. Approximately 97% of individuals captured in this habitat type were white-footed deer 

mice. As indicated earlier, this species does especially well in such habitats. Our failure to 

capture shrews in logged areas may be attributable to two factors, lack of soil moisture due to the 

reduction in canopy and/or failure to use pitfall traps in this habitat. 

Sampling Efficiency 

Sherman traps are the industry standard for live capture of rodents and shrews of body mass 

> 10 g (Mitchell et al. 1993) and were used with success to capture a number of species in a 

variety of habitats. However, for smaller species pitfall traps are more efficient (Szaro et al. 

1988; Kirkland and Sheppard 1994). Our comparative success with pitfall traps demonstrates 

that these traps also can be effective in capturing northern short-tailed shrews and small rodents 

> 10 g in size. However, we used these traps on a very limited basis specifically to target small 

shrews that cannot be captured by any other means. The placement of pitfall traps is laborintensive, and these traps must be used as kill traps because small shrews are difficult to identify 

to species and sex without close examination of the dentition and internal reproductive anatomy.

Tomahawk traps baited with canned cat food were efficient at sampling medium-size mammals 

(especially mesocarnivores) that are secretive or elusive. Remote cameras were labor-intensive 

and not very productive but were useful in detecting and confirming the identification of 

individuals that left sign in frequently traveled terrain. Occasionally, they rendered the 

unexpected, such as the image of the white-footed deermouse in the grasp of the Barred Owl. 

Direct observation, especially while conducting trap sampling, is efficient for detecting sign and 

medium to large, nonsecretive species. 
23 

Conclusions and Management Recommendations 

Although no General Management Plan currently exists for GEWA, objectives have been 

established by the Resources Management Plan that provide for the preservation, restoration, 

maintenance, and protection of the cultural and natural resources of the park. Our inventory of 

the mammals of GEWA addresses and provides for the future attainment of these objectives. 

Most important, it documents the presence of particular species of mammals, notes their habitat 

associations, describes sampling protocol and provides information that can be used to monitor 

mammal populations, and provides recommendations for their conservation and management. 

The park supports a predictable assemblage of mammals, based on the types of habitat present. 

Both habitat generalist and specialist species are widely distributed geographically in the park, 

usually in reasonable abundance where they are found. Two of the most common mammals in 

eastern North America, the northern short-tailed shrew and white-footed deermouse, occur in 

most of the principal habitats (the latter in all); the white-footed deermouse is especially 

abundant, as it is in most habitats where it occurs. Similarly, other common species, such as 

meadow voles, eastern cottontail rabbits, gray squirrels, woodchucks, Virginia opossums, 

raccoons, and white-tailed deer, were trapped or observed frequently in their preferred habitats. 

Especially noteworthy was the presence and relative abundance of two grassland species that 

either typically do not occur as dense populations or are relatively difficult to capture, or both. A 

number of least shrews were captured in one of the managed fields. These individuals were 

caught solely in Sherman traps. The use of pitfall traps in this habitat likely would have yielded 

an even greater number of individuals. These results suggest a relatively dense population of 

least shrews in the park. Also, the eastern harvest mouse was captured in several locations. 

Although this species does not appear to be abundant in the park, it is notable that current 

grassland management practices support this species. 

Additional Inventories 

Additional inventory and monitoring work should be conducted to determine the status of a 

number of the species we either detected in low numbers (e.g., the southeastern shrew, marsh 

rice rat, southern flying squirrel, long-tailed weasel) or could not confirm but that have been 

recorded previously (woodland vole, muskrat, house mouse, brown rat, and mink). Wetlands 

should be sampled more intensively with the use of more traps providing greater coverage over 

additional sampling periods. Based on the findings of Painter and Eckerlin (1993), it is likely 

that the marsh rice rat is distributed more widely within this habitat type than we found. We 

captured only two individuals of this species, which signals an inadequate sampling effort for 

wetland habitat. Selective attention to wetland habitat might result in documentation of the starnosed mole (Condylura cristata). Additional locations in fields should be sampled to determine 

if least shrews are more widespread than we discovered. The third dimension of forests could be 

sampled so that a more accurate accounting of arboreal (e.g., the southern flying squirrel) and 

semiarboreal (e.g., the white-footed deermouse, Virginia opossum) species could be made. 

Sherman traps can be mounted in trees (Barry et al. 1984) using aluminum nails so that safety in 

future logging operations is not jeopardized. Pitfall trap arrays should be used more extensively 

for sampling to establish the presence and status of small shrew species. Pitfall traps must be 

used responsibly and with adequate supervision only after archeological compliance or oversight 
 24

has been completed so that archeological remains are not disturbed and large numbers of 

individuals of any single species are not sacrificed. The range of the pygmy shrew includes all 

of Virginia (Linzey 1998), and it may be a resident of the park that was not revealed by our 

limited sampling effort with pitfall traps. 

Habitat Management 

Inventorying and monitoring activities will continue to provide important information on how 

habitats should be managed for the conservation of the park’s natural resources. Wetlands are 

important to a number of mammals found in GEWA and should receive special consideration for 

conservation efforts. It may be desirable to regulate visitor use of areas where sensitive wetland 

species (e.g., the river otter) are found. Logged areas, and to a lesser extent pine plantations, did 

not support small mammal diversity. However, fields exhibited considerably more diversity and 

should be maintained and managed carefully to retain healthy populations of small mammals, 

which in turn sustain larger species. Properly scheduled mowing and prescribed burns, as per 

The Fire Management Plan (www.nps.gov/gewa/gewafiremp/gewawildfiremp2.htm), can be 

used to interrupt succession and maintain a diversity of herbaceous vegetation suitable to the 

resource requirements of a variety of mammal species. 

Species Management 

Management for the control of particular mammal species in GEWA might be warranted. 

Woodchucks are proliferating in the historic core of the park (R. Morawe, pers. Comm.). 

Individuals are plentiful in fields and burrow along fencelines, at the bases of trees, and beneath 

buildings. The use of fumigants or live trapping and relocation might be justifiable procedures to 

control the woodchuck population. Live trapping and relocation also might be useful in the 

elimination of problematic individuals such as foxes and weasels that prey on GEWA farm fowl 

(R. Morawe, pers. comm.). 

The NPS might consider purchasing the agricultural field adjacent to pine plantation 1 so that it 

can be managed for native vegetation and mammal species. This field either supports or acts as a 

sink for a population of the nonnative house mouse, at least seasonally, based on captures of 10 

individuals of this species at this location in the fall of 2003 (T. L. Dolbeare, in prep.). This 

species was more abundant than any other small mammal in this field, which is often the case in 

cultivated fields (Linzey 1998). 

Based on total captures in multiple habitats, several occasions of multiple captures on the same 

day (including a remote photograph that shows two individuals), the extent of Sherman trap 

disturbances, and seasonal captures of distinct individuals (based on size), it is apparent that the 

raccoon is abundant in the park and is of special concern for several reasons. In numbers it can 

be a significant predator on bird and reptile eggs and nestlings. It is also the primary terrestrial 

reservoir of rabies in the Southeast, and raccoon rabies is easily spread to feral cats. Most cases 

of human exposure to rabies result from contact with cats (Gehrt 2003). Although measures to 

reduce the number of raccoons in GEWA may not be justified or practical, management 

practices that would reduce the consequences of human activities that sustain raccoon 

populations (e.g., frequent monitoring of picnic areas and trash disposal) can be intensified. 
 25

Based on frequent sightings (including a number of records obtained by remote photography) 

and abundant sign, the white-tailed deer would appear to be abundant in GEWA. When 

overabundant, deer potentially pose several problems. These can include an alteration of the 

stable state of a northern temperate forest (Stromayer and Warren 1997), which can affect 

understory cover important to mammals and birds. Also, deer serve as hosts to an extraordinary 

diversity of ectoparasites, including adult, breeding Ixodes scapularis, the black-legged tick that 

is the vector of the etiologic agent for Lyme disease, the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi (Miller 

et al. 2003). Monitoring the deer population (e.g., with pellet-group counts) and understory 

browse in the park is recommended. If such monitoring suggests that deer may be altering the 

habitat to the detriment of other fauna, management practices to control the deer population may 

be worthy of consideration, especially considering the abundance of the white-footed deermouse, 

a highly competent host for black-legged tick larvae and nymphs (Ostfeld 1997). 

Populations of GEWA mammals we documented should be monitored, and efforts to confirm the 

presence or absence of those species expected to be residents should be continued. In addition to 

the impacts of larger species on systems, such as those described earlier, the roles of small 

mammals as critical components of biological communities has been recognized for some time 

(e.g., Chew 1978). Small mammals consume, transport, and deposit spores and mycelia of 

mycorrhizal fungi (Fogel and Trappe 1978; Maser et al. 1988) and seeds of many plant species, 

mix soil and decompose organic matter and litter, regulate invertebrate (e.g., insect) populations, 

and serve as prey for numerous terrestrial and avian predators (Sekgororoane and Dilworth 1995; 

Carey and Harrington 2001). Management decisions that can affect proper stewardship of 

natural systems necessarily rely on periodic assessments of species diversity and abundances 

from inventory and monitoring activities. 

27 

Literature Cited 

ASM. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the 

 American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy 79:1416-1431. 

Barry, R. E., K. A. Boyce, and A. C. Sucke. 1999. Local distribution, habitat, and home range 

 of the Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus) at Dolly Sods. Final report 

 submitted to the Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia 

 Division of Natural Resources. 

Barry, R. E., Jr., M. A. Botje, and L. B. Grantham. 1984. Vertical stratification of Peromyscus 

 leucopus and P. maniculatus in southwestern Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 65:145-

 148. 

Barry, R. E., Jr., and E. N. Francq. 1980. Orientation to landmarks within the preferred habitat 

 by Peromyscus leucopus. Journal of Mammalogy 61:292-303. 

Boyce, K. A. 2001. Distribution, seasonal home range, movements and habitat of the 

 Appalachian cottontail, Sylvilagus obscurus, at Dolly Sods, West Virginia. M. S. thesis, 

 Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland. 

Buckner, C. A., and D. J. Shure. 1985. The response of Peromyscus to forest opening size in the 

 southern Appalachian mountains. Journal of Mammalogy 66:299-307. 

Caldwell, R. S., and H. Bryan. 1982. Notes on distribution and habitats of Sorex and 

Microsorex (Insectivora: Soricidae) in Kentucky. Brimleyana 8:91-100. 

Carey, A. B., and C. A. Harrington. 2001. Small mammals in young forests: implication for 

 management for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management 154:289-309. 

Chapman, J. A., J. G. Hockman, and Ojeda C., M. M. 1980. Sylvilagus floridanus. Mammalian 

 Species 136:1-8. 

Chapman, J. A., and J. A. Litvaitis. 2003. Eastern cottontail: Sylvilagus floridanus and allies. 

 Pp. 101-125 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and 

 conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Chew, R. M. 1978. The impact of small mammals on ecosystem structure and function. Pp. 

167-180 in Populations of small mammals under natural conditions (R. T. Hartman, ed.). 

Special Publication Series Vol. 5, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of 

Pittsburgh. 
 28

Cypher, B. L. 2003. Foxes: Vulpes species, Urocyon species, and Alopex lagopus. Pp. 511-546 

 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. 

 A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University 

 Press, Baltimore. 

Dolan, P.G., and D. C. Carter. 1977. Glaucomys volans. Mammalian Species 78:1-6. 

Dolbeare, T. L. In prep. Small mammal diversity and demography of the white-footed mouse, 

Peromyscus leucopus, in George Washington Birthplace National Monument in Virginia. 

M.S. thesis, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland. 

Edwards, J., M. Ford, and D. Guynn. 2003. Fox and gray squirrels: Sciurus niger and S. 

 carolinensis. Pp. 248-267 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, 

 and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Fogel, R., and J. M. Trappe. 1978. Fungus consumption (mycophagy) by small animals. 

Northwest Science 52:1:31. 

French, T. W. 1980. Sorex longirostris. Mammalian Species 143:1-3. 

Gage, K. L., R. S. Ostfeld, and J. G. Olson. 1995. Nonviral vector-borne zoonoses associated 

 with mammals in the United States. Journal of Mammalogy 76:695-715. 

Gardner, A. L., and M. E. Sunquist. 2003. Opossum: Didelphis virginiana. Pp. 3-29 in Wild 

 mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. 

 Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University Press, 

 Baltimore. 

Gehrt, S. D. 2003. Raccoon: Procyon lotor and allies. Pp. 611-634 in Wild mammals of North 

 America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. 

 Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

George, S. D., J. R. Choate, and H. H. Genoways. 1986. Blarina brevicauda. Mammalian 

 Species 261:1-9. 

Jenkins, S. H., and P. E. Busher. 1979. Castor canadensis. Mammalian Species 120:1-8. 

Jones, C., W. J. McShea, M. J. Conroy, and T. H. Kunz. 1996. Capturing mammals. Pp. 115-

 122 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals 

 (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian 

 Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Kirkland, G. L., Jr. 1990. Patterns of initial small mammals after clearcutting of temperate 

 North American forests. Oikos 59:313-320. 
 29

Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and P. K. Sheppard. 1994. Proposed standard protocol for sampling of 

 small mammal communities. Pp. 277-283 in Advances in the biology of shrews (J. F. 

 Merritt, G. L. Kirkland, Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.). Special Publication of the Carnegie 

 Museum of Natural History 18, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Koprowski, J. L. 1994. Sciurus carolinensis. Mammalian Species 480:1-9. 

Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. Addison Wesley Longman,Inc., Menlo 

 Park, California, 620 pp. 

Krebs, C. J. 2003. Programs for ecological methodology. 2nd ed.© Exeter Software, East 

 Setauket, New York. 

Kunz, T. H., R. Rudran, and G. Gurri-Glass. 1996. Appendix 2: Human health concerns. Pp. 

 255-264 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for 

 mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). 

 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Kwiecinski, G. G. 1998. Marmota monax. Mammalian Species 591:1-8. 

Lackey, J. A., D. G. Huckaby, and B. G. Ormiston. 1985. Peromyscus leucopus. Mammalian 

 Species 247:1-10. 

Lariviere, S., and L. R. Walton. 1998. Lontra canadensis. Mammalian Species 587:1-8. 

Linzey, D. W. 1998. The mammals of Virginia. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Co., 

 Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Lotze, J.-H., and S. Anderson. 1979. Procyon lotor. Mammalian Species 119:1-8. 

Mammone, K. A. 1997. Small mammal communities of structurally diverse clearcuts and 

 adjacent woodlands in western Maryland. M. S. thesis, Frostburg State University, 

 Frostburg, Maryland. 

Maser, C., Z. Maser, and R. Molina. 1988. Small-mammal mycophagy in rangelands of central 

and southeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 41:309-312. 

McDiarmid, R. W., and D. E. Wilson. 1996. Data standards. Pp. 56-60 in Measuring and 

 monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. 

 Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, 

 Washington, District of Columbia. 

McManus, J. J. 1974. Didelphis virginiana. Mammalian Species 40:1-6. 

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

 The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 
 30

Miller, K. V., L. I. Muller, and S. Demarais. 2003. White-tailed deer: Odocoileus virginianus. 

 Pp. 906-930 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and 

 conservation. 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). 

 John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Mills, J. N., T. L. Yates, J. E. Childs, R. R. Parmenter, T. G. Ksiazek, P. E. Rollin, and C. J. 

 Peters. 1995. Guidelines for working with rodents potentially infected with hantavirus. 

 Journal of Mammalogy 76:716-722. 

Mitchell, J.C., S.Y. Erdle and J.F. Pagels. 1993. Evaluation of capture techniques for 

 amphibian, reptile, and small mammal communities in saturated forested wetlands. 

 Wetlands 13:130-136. 

NPS. 1998. Natural resource inventory & monitoring in national parks. NPS Inventory and 

 Monitoring Informational Brochure. http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/imbroch.htm. 

NPS. 2000. Guidance for the design of sampling schemes for inventory and monitoring of 

 biological resources in national parks. National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring 

 Program. 

NPS. 2004. Strategic plan for George Washington Birthplace National Monument: fiscal year 

 2005-2008. 

www.nps.gov/applications/parks/gewa/ppdocuments/GEWA%20FY2005-FY2008.pdf. 

NPS. 2005. Labeling natural history specimens. Conserve O Gram 11/6:1-4. 

www.cr.nps.gov/museum/publications/conserveogram/constoc.html 

NPSpecies Proper: NPSpecies - The National Park Service Biodiversity Database. Secure online 

version. https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start (accessed April 2010). 

Ostfeld, R. S. 1997. The ecology of Lyme-disease risk. American Scientist 85:338-346. 

Painter, H. F., and R. P. Eckerlin. 1993. The mammalian fauna and ectoparasites of George 

Washington Birthplace National Monument, Westmoreland County, Virginia. Banisteria 

2:10-13. 

Reich, L. M. 1981. Microtus pennsylvanicus. Mammalian Species 159:1-8. 

Rosatte, R., and S. Lariviere. 2003. Skunks: genera Mephitis, Spilogale, and Conepatus. Pp. 

 692-707 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 

 2nd ed. (G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds.). John Hopkins 

 University Press, Baltimore. 
 31

Rudran, R. 1996. General marking techniques. Pp. 299-304 in Measuring and monitoring 

 biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. 

 Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

 District of Columbia. 

Rudran, R., and M. S. Foster. 1996. Conducting a survey to assess mammalian diversity. Pp. 

 71-79 in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals 

 (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian 

 Institution Press, Washington, District of Columbia. 

Rudran, R., and T. H. Kunz. 1996. Appendix 1: Ethics in research. Pp. 251-254 in Measuring 

 and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. 

 Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, 

 Washington, District of Columbia. 

Sekgororoane, G. B., and T. G. Dilworth. 1995. Relative abundance, richness, and diversity of 

 small mammals at induced forest edges. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1432-1437. 

Sheffield, S. R., and H. H. Thomas. 1997. Mustela frenata. Mammalian Species 570:1-9. 

Stalling, D. T. 1997. Reithrodontomys humulis. Mammalian Species 565:1-6. 

Stromayer, K. A. K., and R. J. Warren. 1997. Are overabundant deer herds in the eastern United 

States creating alternate stable states in forest plant communities? Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 25:227-234. 

Szaro, R. D., L. H. Simons, and S. C. Belfit. 1988. Comparative effectiveness of pitfalls and 

 live-traps in measuring small mammal community structure. Pp. 224-230 in 

 Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. U.S. 

 Department of Agriculture. Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, 

and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1974. Cryptotis parva. Mammalian Species 43:1-8. 

Whitaker, J. O., Jr., and R. E. Mumford. 1972. Food and ectoparasites of Indiana shrews. 

 Journal of Mammalogy 53:329-335. 

Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (eds.). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and 

geographic reference (Vols. 1 and 2). 3rd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Wolfe, J. L. 1982. Oryzomys palustris. Mammalian Species 176:1-5. 

Yates, T. L., and D. J. Schmidly. 1978. Scalopus aquaticus. Mammalian Species 105:1-4. 

33 

Appendix A. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for 200Washington Birthplace National Monument. 

 Trap NighDates1 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Sherman Trap Configuration4 Sherman Medium 

7/16 - 7/19 MF 1 0331580 4228558 Grid (0.49) 196 

7/16 - 7/19 PP 1 0332182 4229351 Grid (0.49) 196 7/23 - 7/26 FLD 1 0331790 4229083 Grid (0.49) 196 7/23 - 7/26 WL 1 0332829 4229190 Tran (0.30) 120 7/23 - 7/26 MF 2 0331895 4228757 Grid (0.49) 196 7/30 - 8/2 FLD 2 0331684 4228214 Grid (0.49) 196 7/30 - 8/2 WL 2 0331794 4228128 Tran (0.09) 36 9/21 - 9/22 DF 0331728 4228954 Grid (0.49) 98 11/9 - 11/10 FLD 3 0330830 4229657 Tran (0.24) 48 

1 Dates are nights traps were open. 2 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = mixed forest, PP = pine plantation, WL = wetland. 3 UTM coordinates are for middle of grid or one end of transect; zone 18. See Figure 3 for map of locations. 4 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration are effective sampling area in ha for grids (Grid) and ef

length in km for transects (Tran). 

35 

Appendix B. Capture record for mammals caught in George WashingtoNational Monument from July through November 2002. **Sherman live traps were used to capture small mammals and Tomahawk traps to capture Procyon lotor. 

 Total Trap Nights Habitat/ site1 Sherman 

Medium 

Tomohawk Scientific Name Common Name 

Total 

captures 

No. 

Individual

s 

MF 1 196 16 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 6 17 

Blarina brevicauda

Northern short-tailed shrew 1 1 

PP 1 196 16 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 5 5 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 2 2 

WL 1 120 8 

Peromyscus leucopus

White-footed deermouse 6 14 

MF 2 196 16 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 5 10 

DF 98 

Peromyscus leucopus 

White-footed deermouse 1 1 

FLD 3 48 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 2 2 

Pasture* 1 Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 2 2 

1 DF = deciduous forest, FLD = field, MF = mixed forest, PP = pine plantation, WL = wetland. 

*Targeted trapping resulting in capture of female and juvenile in 1 trap night using a large Tomahawk trap (se

2 Relative abundances (individuals/100 TNs) were determined only for small mammals captured in Sherman trap

 37

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap 

configurations, and efforts for Sherman traps for 2003 at 

George Washington Birthplace National Monument. 

Dates1 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Trap Configuration4 Trap Nights 

3/7 – 3/9 MF 0331824 4228854 Grid (1.10) 3049 

4/11 – 4/13 

4/25 - 4/27 

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

7/15 – 7/18 

8/13 – 8/16 

8/28 – 8/31 

9/11 – 9/13 

10/3 – 10/5T 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 

3/14 – 3/16 PP 1 0332166 4229380 Grid (1.10) 3105 

4/11 – 4/13 

4/25 - 4/27 

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

7/15 – 7/18 

7/30 – 8/2 

8/13 – 8/16 

8/28 – 8/31 

9/11 – 9/13 

10/3 – 10/5 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 
 38

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap configurations, and efforts for Sherman 

traps for 2003 at George Washington Birthplace National Monument (continued). 

Dates1 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Trap Configuration4 Trap Nights 

3/25 – 3/28 PT FLD 1 0331181 4229668 Tran (0.45) 120 

3/25 – 3/28 PT FLD 2 0331325 4229320 Tran (0.45) 120 

3/25 – 3/28 DigSwamp 0331689 4229560 Tran (0.32) 84 

5/28 - 5/30 

4/11 – 4/13 LOG 1 0331943 4229002 Grid (1.12) 2850 

4/25 - 4/27 

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

7/15 – 7/18 

7/30 – 8/2 

8/13 – 8/16 

8/28 – 8/31 

9/11 – 9/13 

10/3 – 10/5 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 

5/28 – 5/30 MF/LOG 0331939 4228936 Tran (0.30) 520 

6/16 – 6/18 

7/22 – 7/25 

8/5 – 8/8 

8/25 – 8/27 

9/5 – 9/7 

10/17 – 10/19 

11/14 – 11/16 

6/16 – 6/18 FLD 1 0331780 4229096 Tran (0.14) 322 

7/22 – 7/25 

8/5 – 8/8 

8/25 – 8/27 

9/5 – 9/7 

10/17 – 10/19 

11/14 – 11/16 
 39

Appendix C. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, trap configurations, and efforts for Sherman 

traps for 2003 at George Washington Birthplace National Monument (continued). 

Dates1 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Trap Configuration4 Trap Nights 

6/16 – 6/18 LOG 2 0332116 4228937 Grid (0.32) 322 

7/22 – 7/25 

8/5 – 8/8 

8/25 – 8/27 

9/5 – 9/7 

10/17 – 10/19 

11/14 – 11/16 

7/2 – 7/4 Barn 0331978 4228227 Random 21 

7/18 – 7/21 WL 3 0331904 4228240 Tran (0.08) 20 

7/22 – 7/25 PP 2 0331552 4228870 Grid (1.10) 196 

8/5 – 8/8 WL 4 0331811 4228521 Tran (0.45) 120 

10/24 – 10/26 DF in PP 1 0332166 4229380 Tran (0.15) 30 

1

 Dates are nights Sherman traps were open at the habitat/site. 

2

 DF = deciduous forest (within PP 1), FLD = field, LOG = logged area, MF = mixed deciduousconiferous forest, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged area edge, PP = pine plantation, WL = 

wetland. PT = near the Potomac River, DigSwamp = Digwood Swamp 

3

 UTM coordinates (zone 18) are for middle of grid or one end of transect 

4

 Numbers in parentheses for Sherman trap configuration are effective sampling area in ha for 

grids (Grid) and effective sampling length in km for transects (Tran). 

41 

Appendix D. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and 

efforts for Tomahawk, pitfall, and mole harpoon traps for 

2003 at GEWA. 

 Trap Nights4 

Dates1

 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Tomahawk Pitfall Mole Traps 

3/25 – 3/28 DigSwamp 0331689 4229560 16s, 8m

3/25 – 3/28 PT Pond 0331121 4229799 8s, 4m

4/25 – 4/27 MF 0331824 4228854 59m [18] 

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

7/30 – 8/2P 

10/3 – 10/5 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 

4/25 – 4/27 PP 1 0332166 4229380 51m

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

10/3 – 10/5 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 
42 

Appendix D. Trapping schedule, habitats, locations, and efforts for Tomahawk, pitfall, and mole 

harpoon traps for 2003 at GEWA (continued). 

 Trap Nights4

Dates1

 Habitat/Site2 Location3 Tomahawk Pitfall Mole Traps 

4/25 – 4/27 LOG 1 0331943 4229002 59m

5/9 – 5/11 

5/20 – 5/22 

6/10 – 6/13 

7/1 – 7/4 

10/3 – 10/5 

10/10 – 10/12 

10/24 – 10/26 

11/7 – 11/9 

11/21 – 11/23 

12/5 – 12/7 

6/10 – 6/12 PP 2 0331552 4228870 [63] 

7/1 – 7/4 

8/5 – 8/8 WL 4 0331811 4228521 12s

8/5 – 8/15 MF 1 0331588 4228558 [66] 

10/16 – 10/19 MF/LOG 0331939 4228936 3s, 10m

11/14 – 11/16 

10/17 – 10/19 LOG 2 0332116 4228937 9s

10/10 – 10/12 WL 3 0331904 4228240 9s, 3m

10/24-10/26 Dorm Lawn 0331876 4228250 32 

11/6 - 11/9 

11/13 – 11/16 

1

 Dates are nights traps were open at the habitat/site. 

P

 Pitfall traps only used during this period at this location. 

2

 LOG = logged area, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, MF/LOG = mixed forest/logged 

area edge, Pond = pond edge, PP = pine plantation, WL = wetland, PT = near the Potomac River, 

DigSwamp = Digwood Swamp 

3

 UTM coordinates (zone 18) are for middle of spatially associated Sherman trap grid or one end 

of Sherman trap transect. 

4

 Tomahawk traps s = small, m = medium 
43 

Appendix E. Capture record for mammals caught in George WashingtoNational Monument from March to December 2003. 

 TNs Habitat/site1 Sherman Tomahawk2 Pitfall 

Mole 

Harpoon Species name Common name 

No. 

individuals

MF 2 3049 59m 18 Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum ? 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 4 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 26 Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk ? Procyon lotor Raccoon ? 

PP 1 3105 51m Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum ? 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 1 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 32 Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel 1 

LOG 1 2850 59m Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum ? 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 53 Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse 1 Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel 1 Procyon lotor Raccoon ? 

PT Field 1 120 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 4 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 1 

PT Field 2 120 Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse 1 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 4 

DigSwamp 84 16s, 8m Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 4 

Procyon lotor Raccoon ? 

PT Pond 8s, 4m Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail 1 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 

MF/LOG 520 3s, 10m Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 1 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 15 Procyon lotor Raccoon ? 
44

Appendix E. Capture record for mammals caught in George Washington Birthplace National Monument from M

2003 (continued). 

 TNs Habitat/site1 Sherman Tomahawk2 Pitfall 

Mole 

Harpoon Species name Common name 

No. 

individual

FLD 1 322 Cryptotis parva* North American least shrew 7 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 2 Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse 1 Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 3 

LOG 2 322 9s Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 1 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 11 

Barn 21 Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern harvest mouse 2 WL 3 20 9s, 3m Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 2 

Oryzomys palustris Marsh oryzomys (rice rat) 2 

 PP 2 196 63 Sorex longirostris** Southeastern shrew 1 

Blarina brevicauda** Northern short-tailed shrew 3 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 7 Peromyscus leucopus** White-footed deermouse 4 

WL 4 120 12s Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum 1 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew 1 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 8 

DF in PP 1 30 Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse 3 Dorm law 32 Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole 1 

1 DF = deciduous forest (within PP 1), FLD = field, LOG = logged area, MF = mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, MF/LOG = mixed fo

Pond = pond edge, PP = pine plantation, WL = wetland. 

2 s = small Tomahawk traps, m = medium Tomahawk traps 

* Identifications based on 4 of these individuals collected and prepared as voucher specimens ** Pitfall trap 

3 ? indicates that individuals were not marked for recognition upon recapture. 4 Relative abundance is individuals/100 Sherman trap nights. Relative abundances are not determined for captures in Tomahawk, pitfa
45 

Appendix F. Voucher specimens (bats excluded) from 

George Washington Birthplace National Monument collected 

by Painter and Eckerlin (1993) and housed in the mammal 

collection at Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC), 

Annandale, Virginia. 

Species Name Common name Sex 

Date 

Collected NVCC Number 

Blarina brevicauda Northern short-tailed shrew M 19-Oct-86 6107 

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole F 24-Apr-88 6356 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole F 24-Apr-88 6357 

Microtus pinetorum Woodland vole M 18-Apr-87 6859 

Mus musculus House mouse F 16-Jan-87 6165 

Oryzomys palustris Marsh oryzomys (rice rat) M 19-Oct-86 6156 

Oryzomys palustris Marsh oryzomys (rice rat) M 16-Jan-87 6167 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed deermouse M 16-Jan-87 6166 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 332/102045, April 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM