United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
EPA9-03-R-00013C
June 2003
Draft Programmatic
Environmental Imoact Statement
-------
APPENDIX E
Terrestrial Technical Studies
-------
APPENDIX E:
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS Ji-1 Draft - December 2001
-------
Terrestrial Study Category, Appendix E
Study Topic
Terrestrial Plant (Spring Herbs, Woody Plants)
Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Terrestrial Vertebrate (Breeding Songbird,
Raptor, Small Mammal, Herpetofaunal)
Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Soil Health of Mountaintop Removal Mines in
Southern West Virginia
Soil and Forest Productivity
Bird Populations Along Edges
File Date
03/2003
9/2002
1/2001
10/2002, presented in Chapter III.B.4
5/2002
These reports are included in the appendix in black and white. Color versions may be viewed on
the following website, http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm
Terrestrial Plant (Spring Herbs, Woody Plants) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed
Sites by Dr. Steven N. Handel of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources
of Rutgers University
The objective of this study was the following:
To determine the patterns of terrestrial vegetation on areas affected by MTM/VF and on
adjacent, non-mined areas in order to understand the potential for re-establishment of
native vegetation.
Researchers used 55 transects from mine sites examined in southern West Virginia ranging in
age from 8 to 26 years since revegetation. Even on the oldest sites, invasion of native tree
species onto reclaimed mines from adjacent forests was minimal, and restricted to the first
several meters from the adjacent forest edge. The study supports the conclusions of other
researchers that past mining reclamation procedures limited the overall ecological health and
plant invasion of mined sites, and that these lands reclaimed in this manner will take much
longer than observed in old field succession to return to pre-mining forest vegetation. Less soil
compaction, smaller mine areas, establishing healthy soil profiles, less aggressive grass covers
along with salvaging and redistributing native plant material would support the return of a
healthier ecosystem, although pre-mining biodiversity may be difficult to achieve.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
The mined areas studied were not designed, engineered, reclaimed or revegetated with a post
mining land use (PMLU) of forest (commercial or otherwise). The questions remains what
effect the reforestation initiative recently started will have on reestablishing a healthy forest
ecosystem. Past reclamation practices have impeded returning these areas to forests, and without
changes in these practices, existing forest would be converted to grasslands for many years.
Terrestrial Vertebrate (Breeding Songbird, Raptor, Small Mammal, Herpetofaunal)
Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites by Drs. Petra Wood and John Edwards of West
Virginia University
This study evaluated wildlife use of reclaimed mountaintop mining sites compared to intact
forest habitat in southern West Virginia. The objectives of the study are as follows:
Quantify the richness and abundance of the wildlife community in relatively intact forest
sites of the pre-mining landscape and in the grassland, shrub/pole, and fragmented forest
sites of the post-mining landscape to provide objective data on gains and losses in
terrestrial wildlife communities. Specifically, for species that require forested habitats,
compare the abundance of species in intact and fragmented forests. Quantify nesting
success of grassland birds on the reclaimed grassland sites because grassland birds are
declining in the U.S. due partially to the loss of habitat, and there has been the
suggestion that these newly created grasslands are providing important habitat for
grassland species.
Four different habitat types were evaluated: 1) grasslands and 2) shrub/pole habitats on
reclaimed mines, 3) fragmented forests predominantly surrounded by reclaimed land, and 4)
large tracts of intact forest (to represent what would have been present before mining). The
number of bird species and the abundance of birds were highest in shrub/pole habitats on the
mines since the mix of habitat conditions provided more niches for greater bird diversity.
Shrub/pole habitats were dominated by bird species that typically use "edge" habitats. Golden-
winged warblers, a species of concern known to use shrub habitat created by contour mines,
were observed at only three stations (out of 33 shrub/pole stations), all on the Cannelton mine.
Grassland habitats were dominated, by grassland bird species such as grasshopper sparrows and
meadowlarks. Forest-interior bird species were significantly more abundant in intact forest than
in any other habitat type; the cerulean warbler, a species of concern, occurred at higher densities
in intact forests in the study area than has been reported from other locations in West Virginia.
The report concluded that populations of forest birds may be adversely affected by the loss and
fragmentation of mature forest habitat in the mixed mesophytic forest region, which has the
highest bird diversity in forested habitats in the eastern United States. Fragmentation-sensitive
species such as the cerulean warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, worm-eating warbler, black-and-
white warbler, and yellow-throated vireo will likely be negatively impacted as forested habitat is
lost and fragmented from mining. Extensive areas of grasslands are not natural habitats in the
study area, and most of the grassland bird species that use the reclaimed mines have extensive
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
breeding areas in North America. In contrast, some of the forest interior species that disappear
after mining have small geographical ranges, and the core of their geographic range is centered
on the forests of the study area.
Raptors were found to use the various habitats as would be expected depending on habitat
requirements of each species. Species richness of small mammals did not differ between the four
habitat types. Reclaimed grassland habitats may produce more Peromyscus spp. (white-footed
and deer mice). The Allegheny woodrat, a species listed as threatened/endangered in nine states
including Virginia and West Virginia, was present in ten out of 20 riprap drainage channels
surveyed on two different mines; however, woodrat habitat in intact forests was not surveyed so
a comparison of woodrat abundance on reclaimed mines vs. intact forests cannot be made.
Abundance and richness of herpetiles did not differ significantly between the four habitat types,
but a shift was observed from a majority of amphibian species in the two forested habitat types to
a majority of reptile species on the reclaimed areas. In particular, salamanders decreased while
snakes increased.
The study answered questions related to the effects of mountaintop mining on wildlife and their
habitats, including species of concern. The researchers were not asked to evaluate game species.
Although this is not a shortcoming from the standpoint of understanding the ecological
implications of mountaintop mining (most game species are generalists and, therefore, poor
indicators of ecological health) some may see this as an issue.
Bird Populations Along Edges by Dr. Ron Canterbury of the Department of Biology, Concord
College
Shrub/forest edges were used by more forest interior bird species, interior-edge species, and edge
species than other edge habitat types. Grassland birds were more abundant at edges between
grasslands and fragmented forests than at other edge types. Forest interior birds generally
declined in grassland/forest fragment edges as opposed to grassland/intact forest edge.
This study was designed to evaluate the following characteristics:
Specific habitat areas on mines and seasonal use of habitats by birds to Jill in data gaps
about bird use of mountaintop removal mines and edge habitats on the mines to
determine the extent to which they are used by birds.
Canterbury also documented winter use of habitats. American crows and dark-eyed juncos were
the most abundant species observed in winter. Blue jay, Carolina chickadee, pileated
woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk, tufted titmouse, white-breasted nuthatch, and yellow-bellied
sapsucker were more abundant in forest interior than in edge locations. European starlings,
eastern bluebirds, eastern meadowlarks, and horned larks were abundant in mine grassland and
shrub habitats.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
During the spring migration period, mine grasslands were used by European starlings, turkey
vultures, eastern meadowlarks, and tree sparrows. Field sparrows were the most common
species observed in shrub habitats. Red-eyed vireos and wood thrushes were the most abundant
migrants in forested habitats. During the fall migration season, no long-distance migrant that
does not breed in the area was noted on mine grasslands; however, the migration counts were
terminated early due to deadlines in the EIS process. The white-eyed vireo was the most
abundant fall migrant in shrub habitats, while the Carolina chickadee was the most abundant fall
migrant in forested habitats.
The study addresses another aspect of the effects of mountaintop mining on wildlife and their
habitats. Bird use of mines during fall migration may not have been fully characterized, as
migration counts were terminated early due to EIS deadlines.
Soil Health of Mountaintop Removal Mines in Southern West Virginia by John Sencindiver,
Kyle Stephens, Jeff Skousen, and Alan Sexstone of West Virginia University
This study, was designed to evaluate physical, chemical, and microbiological properties of
minesoils developing on reclaimed mountaintop removal coal mines in southern West Virginia.
Minesoils of different ages and the contiguous native soils were described and sampled on three
mines. Routine physical and chemical properties were determined as well as microbial biomass
C and N, potentially minerizable N, and microbial respiration. All minesoils were weakly
developed compared to native soils, but most had a transition horizon (AC) or a weak B horizon
developing. The authors concluded that the minesoils are approaching stable, developed soils
and should become more like the native soils as they continue to develop.
The study does not attempt to answer questions such as how long it might take the mined soils to
become like native soils.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies.
-------
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL AND VALLEY-FILL MINING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
BIRD POPULATIONS ALONG EDGES
REPORT FOR TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
May 10, 2002
Principal Investigator:
Ronald A. Canterbury, Department of Biology, Concord College
Primary Project Personnel:
Dollie M. Stover, The Southern West Virginia Bird Research Center (SWVBRC)
George Towers, Department of Geography, Concord College
Assistants
Sandra I. Canterbury, SWVBRC
Billie Jean Crigger, Concord College
Josh R. Daniel, SWVBRC
Amanda Hayes, Concord College
Janet Meyer, SWVBRC
Jim Meyer, SWVBRC
Chris Parrish, Concord College
Tommy R. Stover, SWVBRC
Allen Waldron, SWVBRC
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Problem Statement 1
Background 1
Historical Perspective 4
Methods 8
Study Areas 8
Historical Sites 11
Avian Species Diversity 13
Topology 15
Vegetation Analyses 15
Statistical Analyses 16
Quality Control 17
Historical Study 17
Results and Discussion 20
Winter Season 20
Spring Migration 20
Breeding Season 21
Fall Migration 22
Guild Analyses 23
Habitat & Topology 23
Historical Dataset 24
Summary 27
Literature Cited 31
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
Appendix 1 136
Appendix 2 151
-------
List of Tables
Table # Title Page
1 Total Land Cover of Study Sites 46
2 Distribution of Study Points 47
3 Study Points per Watershed 48
4 Historical Mine Sites 55
5 Avian Winter Abundance 64
6 Avian IV in Wnter 67
7 Avian Spring and Fall Abundances 68
8 Mean Avian Species Diversity 74
9 Detection Variability along Transects 75
10 Point Count Data sWV and MTRVF EIS 76
11 Avian IV in Summer 90
12 Fall Banding Data 91
13 Guild Analysis (Detections) 96
14 Guild Analysis (Edge Length) 98
15 Correlations among Variables (Topology) 99
16 Correlations among Variables (Vegetation) 100
17 Vegetation Components 101
18 Avian sWV Population Trends 102
19 Predictors of Shrubland Bird Abundance 129
20 Abundance of Avian Forest Species 130
21 Guild Abundance 132
22 Summer Banding Data 133
23 PIF sWV Priority Birds 134
in
-------
List of Figures
Figure# Title Page
1 Cannelton Edge Points 49
2 Cannelton Transects 50
3 Hobet21 Edge Points 51
4 Hobet 21 Transects 52
5 Daltex Edge Points 53
6 Daltex Transects 54
7 Raleigh County Study Sites 63
8 Foraging Height Profile 97
9 GISMaps 110
10 Bird Density vs. Edge Distance 131
IV
-------
EIS REPORT
Bird Populations Along Edges
Introduction
Problem Statement
Mountaintop mining is a method of removing soil and rock to expose multiple coal seams.
Valley fills are produced when earth and rock, extracted from a mountaintop mining site, are
placed into an adjacent valley. Mountaintop mining, like contour mining and logging activity,
creates considerable edges and patchy habitats. The impacts of edges and patch size and
type produced by mining activity are largely unknown. Despite a large number of avian edge
studies in forest-dominated landscapes, studies in mine-altered landscapes are scarce.
Likewise, recent effort has focused on breeding bird communities without much attention
directed to avian stopover ecology and migration and relative abundance during the winter
months. Because of increasing size of mountaintop removal/valley fill (MTRVF) operations as
well as in the number of mining permit applications, West Virginia may continue to become
increasingly fragmented. For example, there were at least 26 permits issued for operations on
Kayford Mountain from 1971-1983 and at least 70 mountaintop removal permits issued since
1970. Although suburban sprawl and other factors contribute to forest fragmentation and edge
effects, MTRVF has generated considerable concern as to whether it contributes to the
commonplace phenomenon of edge effects. Edge effects include increased rates of nest
parasitism by cowbirds, nest depredation, and changes in population structure. In this study,
we quantified avian diversity and relative abundance along four treatment habitats. Habitats
studied were young (grassland) reclaimed mines, older (shrub/pole) reclaimed mines,
fragmented forests, and relatively large (intact) forests. Specifically, we sampled birds along
ecotones where two treatment habitats joined and compared avian abundances in edge and
interior habitats in contour and MTRVF mines. Data were collected in spring, summer, fall, and
winter months in order to examine seasonal changes in avian species composition across
treatment habitats.
Background and Justification
Edges or ecotones can be defined as areas created by the juxtaposition of distinctly
different habitats or as zones of transition between habitat types (Ricklefs 1979). There is a
tendency for increased variety and density of organisms at habitat junctions (Odum 1971,
Alverson et al. 1988, Reese and Ratti 1998, Robinson 1988, Yahner 1988). During the last
several decades, researchers have collected evidence that edge or ecotone habitats generally
harbor higher avian diversity than interior forests. Others argue that edge populations are
sinks, where reproductive output is inadequate to maintain local population levels. Sink
populations must be replenished by emigration from source populations. However, most
studies in forest-dominated areas have not documented a relationship among sink
populations, nest predation, and edges (Yahner and Wright 1985, Small and Hunter 1988,
Storch 1991, Rudnicky and Hunter 1993, Haskell 1995, Hanski et al. 1996). A few researchers
have found higher nest predation and cowbird parasitism along edges (Brittingham and
Temple 1983, Gates and Gysel 1978, Chasko and Gates 1982, Wilcove 1985, Martin 1988,
-------
EIS REPORT
Small and Hunter 1988, Robinson et al. 1995). Apparently, variation exists across edge types
and spatial and temporal patterns.
Landscapes across the world are highly fragmented with little interior forests remaining,
except for a few places such as eastern North America (Riitters et al. 2000). Clearly, many
problems arise because of the variation in types (and causes) of fragmentation and the
definition of forest (by size, vegetation, etc.). Nevertheless, studies of the effects of forest
fragmentation on breeding birds have suggested that some bird species are sensitive to a
reduction in forest area (e.g., seeWhitcomb et al. 1981, Robbinset al. 1989). We know that
many species of songbirds are declining (e.g., see Askins et al. 1990). This is true of both
forest-interior and open-country species. Some specialists, however, argue that many forest
species have recovered (from dedines that probably started in the 1960s) with advancing
forest regeneration in the Eastern U.S., and that we should therefore be more concerned with
the sharp dedines of many grassland and shrub/edge species (Hill and Hagan 1991,
Peterjohn and Sauer 1994a and 1994b, Thomas and Martin 1996, Saueret al. 2000). For
example, data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicate that populations
of the Dickcissel and Henslows Sparrows have declined by about 39% and 91%, respectively,
during the last 30 years (Peterjohn et al. 1994b, Pruitt 1996, Herkert 1997). Hunter et al.
(2001) documented that none of the 60 species of eastern, forest-associated landbirds are
considered vulnerable in eastern North America at this time, and that only two non-disturbance
dependent forest species (Bicknell s Thrush and Prothonotary Warbler) are on the Watch List.
The Watch (Blue) List is a National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy
documentation of avian spedes in rapid decline and before they are federally listed as
threatened or endangered (Arbib 1971, Tate 1981, 1986, Ehrlich etal. 1988, Carter etal.
1996, Pashley et al. 2000). Of the 60 avian species in eastern North America that are not
dependent upon disturbance, only 15% are declining. Therefore, Hunter etal. (2001) focused
their attention on the rapid declines of grassland and shrubland birds (disturbance-dependent
species). Studies show that Eastern North America had considerable pre-colonial shrub
habitat and that many localized areas supported extensive areas of secondary succession
(Litvaitis etal. 1999, Askins 2000, Hunter etal. 2001). Consequently, the prevailing view of
the Eastern deciduous forest as the exclusive pre-colonial habitat is unfounded (Day 1953,
Litvaitis et al. 1999), and the disappearance of shrub/grassland birds in the eastern U.S. is of
great concern.
Despite the concern over disturbance-dependent species, many researchers have focused
attention on forest-interior species in areas such as West Virginia, where large tracts of forest
remain that harbor potentially viable source populations for species such as the Cerulean
Warbler and Wood Thrush. A number of mature forest-associated species are dependent
upon some disturbance that maintain small openings and are declining (W. Hunter, pers.
comm.), and some argue that the forest-dwelling, short-distance migrants are no longer doing
better than long-distance forest migrants (J. Confer, pers. comm., Sauer et al. 2001).
Mountaintop removal and valley fill mining creates grasslands and forest fragments of
various sizes and degrees of isolation, in addition to a mosaic of edge types. As a
consequence, species richness and abundance within different trophic assemblages may vary
with forest size and structure (e.g., see Martin 1981). Some forest-interior species require a
minimum forested area, while others (e.g., shrub guild) expand in number in patchy,
-------
EIS REPORT
fragmented habitat with increasing edge. Small patches of forest consist of mainly edge
habitat (Forman and Godron 1981) and are dominated by birds that feed on a wide variety of
food items along the edge (Martin 1981). Forest edge often supports a greater diversity and
abundance of food than does forest interior (Ranney et a I. 1981, Lovejoy et al. 1986, Fowler et
al. 1993, but see Burke and Nol 1998, Robinson 1998), which may favor short-distance
migrants at the expense of foliage insectivores. Foliage insectivores are predominantly long
distance-migrants and many prefer large tracts of forest (Whitcomb et al. 1981). Thus, habitat
change, such as that induced by MTRVF, is likely to produce trade-offs between forest-interior
species (many of which are Neotropical migrants) and grassland/shrub guild birds (many of
which are short-distance migrants or resident species). However, long-term studies on mine
lands in secondary succession in southern West Virginia suggest that secondary succession
occurs faster than predicted on contour mines and that edges created by mineland are, in fact,
more diverse in avian species richness and abundance than interior forest (Canterbury et al.
1996, Canterbury and Stover 1999, Stover and Canterbury, in press). These contour mines
were created by cutting into the hillsides and creating a level bench with highwalls. These
studies further demonstrated that edge and shrub species occur in the same general area and
territories as forest-species, and that the relative abundance of both groups is exceptionally
high for short periods of time (up to 20 years after reclamation).
In this study, we test whether there is an edge effect, i.e., whether avian population
structure is drastically altered by MTRVF induced-habitat changes. Specifically, we test for a
relationship between avian species richness or density and edge, and whether there is a trade
off between forest-interior species and disturbance-dependent (grassland and shrub-guild)
birds? To determine the impact mountaintop mining on avian abundances along a mosaic of
edge habitats, we quantify bird-habitat associations along edge habitats produced by MTRVFs
and compare avian abundances at edges and interior plots throughout mine sites in southern
West Virginia.
Many previous studies of birds on mine lands were conducted during the breeding season
and often did not stress migration and winter season bird-habitat assodations (see Brewer
1958, Yahnerand Howell 1975, Chapman et al. 1978, Whitmore and Hall 1978, Allaire 1979,
1980, Whitmore 1979, 1980, Strait 1981, LeClerc 1982, Wray et al. 1982). We know very little
about the impacts of edges on avian migration and stopover ecology and winter ecology.
What avian species are using edge habitats of MTRVF in winter and migration periods? A
major objective of this study was to assess serai and edge stage variation in bird distributions
along mountaintop mine sites and intact forest watersheds during the winter and migration
periods.
Winter is a time when populations are resident and relatively stable, and thus, provide
important data on survivorship and interpretation of population trends (e.g., see Robbins 1981,
Yahner 1993). Survivorship is highly dependent upon successful migration and/or winter
ecology (Stearns 1992). Migration is also a critical time in the lives of migratory birds,
especially the Nearctic-Neotropical migrants that breed in temperate North American and
spend their winter in Central and South America. Neotropical migrants must find adequate
fueling and shelter areas during migration and, thus, a changing landscape pattern may prove
detrimental to their survival.
Stopover ecology of migrant landbirds is a pressing environmental issue, since many key
-------
EIS REPORT
stopover areas in North America have been degraded or destroyed by suburban sprawl and
development Consequently, monitoring programs have generally focused on delineating
migration pathways and critical stopover habitats (Moore et al. 1990, Wilson et al. 2000).
Studies of avian migration biology in West Virginia and throughout the Eastern U.S. have
disclosed some interesting phenomena and trends. Rrst, it is clearly documented that a
substantial amount of shrub habitat in a mosaic of forests is needed for migrant landbirds (Hall
1999). This would implicate older (shrub/pole succession) mountaintop and contour mines as
potentially important habitats for avian stopover. On the other hand, there may also be a need
for forested ridgetop habitat where significant migratory flights occur. This latter type of habitat
is where most migrants are captured for banding within the state at our two major banding
stations (Allegheny Front Migration Observatory or AFMO in Grant County, and Three Rivers
Migration Observatory or TRMO in Raleigh County).
Avian migration biology has been traditionally documented by labor-intensive mist-netting
and bird banding (e.g., Wnker et al. 1992, Morris et al. 1994), which is one of the most robust
methods for determining species richness and abundances as well as estimating population
trends (Karr 1981, Wlliamsetal. 1981, Conner etal. 1983, Hagan etal. 1992, Rappoleetal.
1993, Buckley et al. 1998). However, less labor-intensive methods (e.g., those that rely on
count surveys) are often also employed. The line transect method of counting birds, for
example, is one of the most frequently used and accurate assessment techniques to assess
bird populations. The ecological literature on line transect methods is enormous. The line
transect method is often employed in open terrain, but is also used along forest trails. Line
transects in forested landscapes have been shown to be more useful for monitoring spring
migrants than point counts (Wilson et al. 2000). Variable size transects are often employed in
research protocols and include, for example, 100, 250, and 400 meter length transects (see
Ralph et al. 1993 and Wilson et al. 2000).
Therefore, another objective of this study was to quantify avian relative abundances along
transects during the spring and fall migration seasons at MTRVF sites. The study will serve as
an indicator of which bird species are utilizing MTRVFs, but should not serve as a replacement
for long-term bird-banding studies (see Canterbury and Stover 1998, Hall 1999). This is
especially important since substantial between-year variation exists in migration patterns, as
well as significant species-specific, temporal, and spatial variation in avian migration ecology.
Historical Perspective
In the late 1980s, studies suggested that forest-dwelling Neotropical migrants were in
widespread decline (e.g., Terborgh 1989). Studies that now encompass a longer time span
suggest that these early warnings were overstated. After decades of analyses, a much
different, albeit murkier, overall picture for forest birds indicates that their populations are in
relatively good shape. Overall populations of many forest dwelling species are stable or
increasing (Rosenberg etal. 1999a, 1999b, Saueretal. 2000),while grassland-dwelling birds
tend to be worse-off (Knopf 1994, Herkert et al. 1993, Vickery and Herkert 1999, Sauer et al.
2000). Grassland bird populations have shown steeper, more consistent, and more
geographically widespread declines than any other avian guild in North America (Knopf 1994,
Ruth 1996, Askins 2000). BBS data from 1966-1993 show that almost 70% of the 29
grassland bird species had negative population trends (Peterjohn et al. 1994, Hunter et al.
-------
EIS REPORT
2001). Grasshopper Sparrows have declined by nearly 70% during the past 25 years (average
of 6% decline per year), while the Eastern Meadowlark is down 43% (Peterjohn et al. 1994).
Avian composition is noted to change with advancing secondary succession (Bock et al.
1978). Grassland birds distribute vertically in feeding height and horizontally by habitat
preference (Cody 1968). Forest species are known to show vertical and horizontal distribution
along a continuum from forest edge to mature forest (James 1971), while old field birds are
known to be scattered along a cline in shrubbiness habitat (Posey 1974). Vegetation-bird
associations of grassland birds are fairly well studied (e.g., Grzybowski 1983, citations in
Swanson 1996). However, grasslands are considered by many to be the most endangered
ecosystem worldwide (Herkert et al. 1993, Samson 1998) and support a group of birds whose
distributions are not centered in heavily forested states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Gross in Crossley
1999). Some heavily forested states (e.g., West Virginia), and states with little forest cover
(e.g., Ohio) have both experienced drastic declines of species such as the Bobolink and
Henslow s Sparrow. The Henslow s and Bachman s sparrows, for example, have been nearly
extirpated from West Virginia as breeding birds (Buckelew and Hall 1994, Canterbury, unpubl.
data).
Population trends vary in space and time and much contradictory information exists. For
example, the East Coast and Midwest have suffered significant forest bird losses, while bird
populations in some Appalachian forests have been maintained or increased. Variation in
avian population structure exists, where some forest-dwelling species are doing well in the
Allegheny Plateau and Ohio Hills, but declining in the Southern Blue Ridge (W. Hunter, pers.
comm.). The Cerulean Warbler has declined by 51% and the Wood Thrush and Eastern
Wood-Pewee have declined by 41 and 34%, respectively (Sauer et al. 2000). Others, such as
the Scarlet Tanager, show stable populations but significant local declines, such as along the
Atlantic Coast (Rosenberg et al. 1999a). A dose examination of forest-dwelling species
associated with small forest openings and forest edges reveals that 45% of 30 species are
undergoing long-term declines or are recently declining in eastern North America (see Table 5,
p. 450-451 in Hunter et al. 2001). Conversely, some forest species, such as the Cerulean
Warbler, are numerous and probably not declining in parts of West Virginia (see BBS data
cited in Buckelew and Hall 1994, Rosenberg and Wells 1995, Rosenberg et al. 2000). West
Virginia is the center of abundance for some forest species, such as the Cerulean Warbler
and, thus, any manipulation to the forest and forest management practices should be
evaluated.
Despite massive habitat changes (e.g., the entire eastern US was heavily logged during the
late 1800s and today we are faced with rapid suburban sprawl), many forest species have
shown resilience. Adaptation of forest dwelling species to mine-altered lands provides another
example of the resilience of forest species (Canterbury and Stover 1999). Although a few
eastern spedes, such as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, Carolina Parakeet, and the Bachman s
Warbler, disappeared, there is now more forest than a century ago and new trouble for the
grassland and shrub birds. Advandng succession has favored forest-dwelling species over
shrubland birds, but industry practices (logging and mining) have created a mosaic of habitats
that can support both shrub and forest spedes (Canterbury and Stover 1999). The question
remains for how long will shrub species, such as the Golden-winged Warbler, continue to
thrive in the heavily forested, second-growth areas that dominate our contour mines in
-------
EIS REPORT
southern West Virginia (Canterbury et al. 1993, 1996)? Second-growth forests that may
appear good habitat for Golden-winged Warblers, however, may be a trap or sink for forest-
dwelling species such as the Cerulean Warbler. Such differences in source and sink
populations may explain contradictory data and geographical variation in avian population
declines.
The literature is full of papers that show a dedine of forest-dwelling species (e.g., Wood
Thrush) due to habitat fragmentation produced by agriculture and suburban sprawl (see review
by Robinson [1988] and synopsis of Villard [1998]). A comparison of edge types created by
mining/logging activity in heavily forested West Virginia with those created by agriculture and
suburban sprawl should be made with caution, since these edge types are strikingly different
and surrounded by different landscapes. It is not valid to assume that the fragmentation
impacts due to mining will mirror those due to agriculture and small, patchy forested
landscapes created by sprawl. Data from southern West Virginia suggest that some species
of forest bird populations are depressed by increasing sprawl / development and burgeoning
deer populations rather than mining and logging activities (Canterbury 1999, Canterbury
2000a, Stover and Canterbury, in press). This may explain why most forest-canopy species,
such as the Red-eyed Vireo and Scarlet Tanager, are increasing, while a number of ground
and understory nesting songbirds (e.g., Hooded and Kentucky warblers) are declining (Stover
and Canterbury, in press).
Substantial research has documented that edge effects depend upon landscape context
and percent forest cover in eco-regions (e.g., Appalachian) and that overall landscape must be
considered in evaluating impacts of fragmentation (Donovan et al. 1997). Recent approaches
have been aimed at forest management for declining songbirds (Thompson et al. 1992, 2000).
Most studies that document negative impacts of fragmentation on forest-dwelling birds have
been conducted in highly fragmented landscapes with agriculture edges (Herkert 1995, but
see Hoover et al. 1995). It remains unknown whether negative effects occur in the highly
forested West Virginia landscape with edges created mainly by logging and mining activities.
Predation rates are often higher near the forest/farmland edge than in forest interior or large
forest tracts (Gates and Gysel 1978, Wilcove 1985, Andren and Angelstam 1988, Andren
1992, Angelstam 1992, Hoover etal. 1995), but the same does not apply for edges between
forests and clearcuts or edges produced by MTRVFs (Canterbury and Stover, in press).
Variation in predation rates and number of predators in rural vs. suburban settings and
forest/farmland mosaics exists (Yahner and Morrell 1991, Donovan et al. 1997). This may
indicate that the notion of an ecological trap (by attracting birds to establish territories on
edges where food supplies may be greater but nest predation is increased) [Gates and Gysel
1978]), may not apply in all fragmented landscapes (Wens 1995).
A clearer picture about the impacts of MTRVF mining can be drawn if we consider bird
populations across a variety of successional stages and edge types and document changes
accordingly. Effort should be made try to conserve for the future rather than predict the past
(i.e, what birds should be present and in what densities before mining disturbance). Many
studies on mine-altered landscapes have compared pre-mined with post-mined lands or
fragmented forest tracts with contiguous tracts. Such comparisons are problematic for at least
two reasons. These indude (1) a continuum of human-induced habitat alterations and (2) the
misconception that the pre-colonial eastern landscape was almost entirely forested. Habitats
-------
EIS REPORT
will continue to be altered, whether through suburban sprawl, forestry industry, parks and
tourism, agriculture, or even mining. It seems logical to document how birds respond to
changing landscapes rather than to try to predict the presence or absence of forest species or
document potential declines of forest-interior species in post-mined land as compared to pre-
mined.
At the time of arrival of Europeans in North America about 50% (445 million ha.) of the land
was forested (Yahner 1995). About three-fourths of this forested land was located in the
eastern half of the continent and remained relatively undisturbed until the late 18th century
(Rosenberg et al. 1999b). By 1850, an estimated 48 million ha. of forest in the eastern United
States was converted to agriculture, and much of the remaining forest land was cut
(Rosenberg et al. 1999b). Today, despite extensive fragmentation throughout the eastern
U.S., many regions, such as the Appalachians are still heavily forested (Rosenberg et. al.
1999b). West Virginia, like many other areas in the Appalachian Region, is primarily covered
in forest (76% of the land cover) and is the third most heavily forested state in the nation (West
Virginia Forestry Association, pers. comm.). The amount of land in West Virginia affected by
large scale surface coal mining, including mountaintop mining, is small but steadily increasing.
Mountaintop removal mining dates back to the early 1970s and Arch Coal, for example, has
conducted MTRVF mining since 1975. Since 1977, 0.6% of the total West Virginia land cover
has been large scale surface mined (West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association).
Mountaintop mining is a specific technique of land use that requires forest harvest before
coal extraction. The current harvest of trees from West Virginia forests is exceedingly high
and based on numerous economic motives. Despite the fact that much of the forest lands in
West Virginia have been recently subjected to selective and dear-cutting, forestry practices
have not been subjected to similar scrutiny as mining practices. Both logging and mining merit
further study on whether they promote the loss of forest-dwelling birds due to fragmentation.
Both techniques of mining and logging promote forest disturbance and an increase in gaps
and edges. These methods of land use create habitat for shrub/edge spedes such as the
Chestnut-sided and Golden-winged warblers, whose pre-European populations may have
been maintained by naturally-induced modes of secondary succession.
Heavily forested states such as Pennsylvania had some open habitats, such as grasslands
and old fields, prior to European settlement (Day 1953, Cronon 1983, Wlliams 1989, Gross in
Crossley 1999, Askins 1994, 2000). Prior to European colonization, early-successional and
shrub-dominated habitats were widely distributed throughout the northeastern United States
(Litvaitis et al. 1999). Fires (induding those intentionally set by aboriginal people), wind
storms, and especially beavers (Castor canadensis) were likely the major forces that set back
succession and perpetuated shrub habitats (Litvaitis 1993, Litvaitis et al. 1999, Hunter et al.
2001). These factors promoted the expansion and increase of shrub species, such as the
Chestnut-sided Warbler. At present, shrubland birds, such as the Yellow-billed Cuckoo,
Golden-winged Warbler, Prairie Warbler, and Field Sparrow are declining (Peterjohn et al.
1994). Only 1 (the Blue Grosbeak) of 16 Eastern shrubland bird species has shown a
significant population increase since 1966 (Sauer et al. 2000). Loss of substantial amounts of
early successional habitat is widespread, especially evident in the reforested northeastern
United States, and has been documented as a major cause of the widespread reduction in
shrubland bird species (Hill and Hagan 1991, Witham and Hunter 1992, Litvaitis 1993).
7
-------
EIS REPORT
In eastern North America, shrub habitat is ephemeral and, if left to succeed, is replaced by
forest at variable rates (Confer and Larkin 1998). In New York and West Virginia, for example,
early successional fields are dominated by herbaceous growth for about 10-20 years and
shrubs are abundant for about 15-30 years after cessation of farming (Confer and Larkin 1998,
Canterbury, unpubl. data). Succession after dear-cutting is rapidly dominated by sapling
growth (Confer 1998). Pimm and Askins (1995) described the regional shift in farmland
abandonment which started in New England and moved westward across the United States
with emphasis on local extirpation of both shrub and forest bird species. Although grassland
birds as a group are in severe decline, management practices are underway and it is
anticipated that the beef and dairy industry will maintain some pasture and hay fields (Confer
and Larkin 1998). Despite the creation of successional habitats by these industries, they may
not be good for grassland spedes because of frequent mowing and too much grazing.
Similarly, previous declines in some forest-dwelling species have been reversed by advancing
reforestation (Confer and Larkin 1998). In contrast, the shrub habitat has no economic
incentive for management and the decline in the rate of farmland abandonment (Census of
Agriculture 1992) may cause the shrub guild birds to surpass all other guilds in the rate of
decline (Confer and Larkin 1998, Litvaitis etal. 1999). Practically, the only management of
shrub habitat is usually on state land for game species and utility rights-of-way, which is not
enough.
The trade-off between forested and non-forested lands will continue because of human
population growth. The US population is currently estimated at 281.4 million (Census Bureau,
http://www.census.gov), and increasing rapidly. The burgeoning human population and their
destruction of habitats will continue to increase our demand for fuel and anthropogenic
changes of the landscape. These pressures will lead to additional fragmentation of the eastern
U.S. forests by additional mining and timbering. Therefore, as part of the environmental
impact study (EIS), we include some data on a long-term study of birds in the southern West
Virginia coalfields. This long-term study may facilitate management plans by providing a
clearer picture of bird-habitat associations.
Methods
Study Areas and Selection of Sampling Plots
This research was part of a larger EIS study and a subcomponent of the terrestrial studies.
The study areas included three mountaintop mining sites chosen for study by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), namely Hobet 21 (Boone County), Daltex (Logan
County) and Cannelton (Kanawha/Fayette counties) in southwestern West Virginia. Major
watersheds include Mud and Little Coal Rivers (Hobet 21), Spruce Fork (Daltex), and
Twentymile Creek (Cannelton). The study areas are in the Allegheny Plateau physiographic
province (Hall 1983). The Cannelton mine is approximately 2,474 ha. with 510 hectares (ha.)
of shrub/pole habitat, while Daltex is approximately 2,834 ha. with 296 ha. of shrubland and
Hobet 21 is about 4,394 ha. with 428 ha. of shrubland (Table 1). These mine sites and
associated watersheds surveyed were thoroughly surveyed for availability of edge habitats.
Edge habitat categories (treatments) studied corresponded with P. Woods simultaneous study
-------
EIS REPORT
of interior treatments (grassland, shrubland, forest fragment, and relatively intact forest).
However, edge studies precluded any robust selection of relatively intact forest, since the
mineland had to abut forest tracts in order to be considered an edge. The following edge-
types were studied: (1) intact (large) forest-grassland ecotone, (2) forest fragment (or woody
patches)-grassland ecotone, (3) forest fragment-shrub ecotone and (4) shrub-grassland
ecotone. These edges selected were comparable in vegetation and age to interior habitat
plots chosen by P. Wood, except study points were placed at areas where two habitat types
join. Table 2 shows the number of edge habitats studied at each site. Three of these habitat
types or treatments (fragmented forest, young reclaimed mine or grassland, and older
reclaimed mine or shrub/pole) are the results of mining activities. Intact forest sites are
relatively large forest areas undisturbed by mining activities and located in the same
watersheds as the mine sites or in adjacent watersheds near the reclaimed sites. These
generally consist of large forest lands abutting mine property. Fragmented forest tracts are
stands (islands) of small woodlots surrounded by reclaimed mine land and/or ravines with
valley fill/overburden. Fragmented forests also included ridges bordered by reclaimed
minelandsand were typically harvested between 5-30 years ago by selective-cutting.
Intact and fragmented areas consist mostly of relatively mature hardwood trees, including
oak species (red, white, black, etc.), hickory species (bitternut, pignut, and shagbark), maples
(red and sugar), American sycamore, white ash, and black birch (see Appendix 1). Young
reclaimed mine areas consisted mostly of grasses and were less than 20 years of age. These
grasslands varied in slope and some areas were terraced. Tall fescue, sericea, autumn olive,
black locust, European black alder, and pines (mainly Virginia pine) dominated young
reclaimed habitat. Older redaimed mine areas contained shrub and pole-size vegetation of
approximately 10-32 years in age. Much of the older reclaimed areas, especially on Cannelton
mine, were created by contour mining ratherthan MTRVF. The primary vegetation was similar
to that of young reclaimed mines, except older reclaimed areas often harbored more black
locust, as well asgoldenrod species, blackberry/raspberry, multiflora rose, red maple,
American sycamore, tuliptree, and sumac. The major distinguishing feature between young
and older reclaimed areas was the presence of stands of pole-size trees in the latter habitat.
Mine ages were estimated from the time of reclamation and age analysis of conifers
throughout the study areas. Age data of redaimed sites were obtained from Arch Coal and
Cannelton Mining companies and from examination of permits.
Edge plots (point count stations and line transects) were selected based on vegetation
type, i.e., where significantly large, relatively homogenous treatment habitats bordered each
other. Edge plots were selected systematically to obtain at least 30 points per treatment and
to survey all three of the mine sites and not just a few specific areas. Sampling plots were
selected after P. Wood selected her interior plots and were placed at least 250 m away from
her interior plots. This insured independence in data collection as well as avoided counting
birds twice. In addition, plots were selected as randomly as possible by using a computerized
random-number generator, taking into account the position of P. Wood s points, number of
previously established edge plots in treatment habitats, and availability of suitable habitat on
each mine site. To select plots, we GPS coordinates for used and available sites into a
computer random-number generator and used the program to randomly select points. Edge
points were also selected randomly within each mine site, and where chosen by habitat
-------
EIS REPORT
availability and size of watersheds and by the need to avoid proximity to interior plots.
Both ravine and ridgetop forest ecotones were studied. Grassland and forest fragment
plots were located in the mines at ecotones, while intact forest treatment plots started at an
ecotone on the periphery of the mines and extended into relatively large forest tracts. The lack
of aerial photographs precluded precise confirmation of intact plots and the relative term
intact was judged based on what we could see on the ground, from ridgetops, and from
surveying the mines and adjacent landscape by car and examining topographic and mining
maps. However, in March 2001 we obtained and examined aerial photographs and concluded
correct assignment of edge treatments. Reclaimed grassland points were often placed in
both head-of-hollow fills and on ridgetops above the valley fills.
Point counts in the Cannelton mine extended mainly along Sixmile Hollow of Hughes Fork,
Hughes Creek, Bullpush, and Lynch Creek and tributaries of Smithers Creek (Table 3 and
Figure 1). The ecotones were mainly grassland/forest fragments or shrub/forest fragments.
Cannelton is an older mine site than Daltex and Hobet 21 and mining activity redamation
dates back to the mid 1980s through about 1992. The Cannelton mine also has considerably
more contour mine areas than MTRVF and a higher percentage of reclaimed land in
pole/shrub secondary succession. Consequently, most points were placed in shrub or
pole/forest fragment ecotones and grassland/shrub ecotones. Ecotones extending east from
Smithers Creek served as edge plots at the ecotone of intact forest and reclaimed mine.
Relatively intact forest located along Ash Fork and Neil Branch of Twentymile Creek were too
far from the reclaimed mine to warrant establishment of edge plots. Line transects were
placed in Bullpush, Sixmile Hollow, and Jim Hollow (Figure 2).
Hobet 21 point counts were located mainly along tributaries of Mud River and Little Coal
River. The area consists of mostly fragmented forest islands interspersed among grassland.
Apparently, first order-streams had valley fills and second-order streams were left intact. The
Hobet 21 mine is the largest surface mine in West Virginia and mountaintop removal was
started in 1983 (J. McDaniel, pers. comm.). Older contourmine areas were redaimed in 1975-
1978 with black locust and fescue (e.g. Bragg Fork). Adkins Fork was permitted in 1975
(contour) and 1992 (mountaintop). Significant valley fill occurred in 1985-1987, but a variety of
reclaimed valley-fills from 1988-1997 are prevalent. Some reclaimed areas are a result of point
removal, where the tops of the mountains were removed, e.g., Big Buck Creek. European
black alder, dogwood, and hawthorn were planted during reclamation. Edge points were
established along intact forest of Hewitt Creek, while a variety of grassland/forest fragment and
shrub or pole/forest fragment plots were established in Little Horse Creek, Big Horse Creek,
Stanley Fork, Gum Hollow, Black Hog Hollow, and White Beech Hollow (Table 3 and Figure 3).
Figure 4 shows localities of transects used for avian migration counts. The major watershed,
Mud River, comprises 1,635 ha. and significant contour mining was permitted in 1975 and
1978. Significant contour mining is adjacent to Hobet 21, e.g., Hewitt Creek (a contour mine
area reclaimed in 1989).
The Daltex mine consisted of mainly grassland and contained relatively little shrub/pole
habitat, while edges along intact forest were located along Bend Branch of Spruce Fork Both
Daltex and Cannelton mines have significant amounts of their shrub/pole habitat created by
contour mining, while Hobet 21 had more land cover in MTRVF. Left Fork of Beech Creek was
contour mined in 1968-1969 and 1976-1978. Pigeonroost Branch was permitted in 1972-1974
10
-------
EIS REPORT
and contour mines cover 181 ha. Table 3 and Figure 5 show location of point counts, while
Figure 6 shows localities of transects.
Line transect localities were selected based on availability of treatment habitats. Elevation
of the 40 transects was not normally distributed (Levene statistic = 6.42, p < 0.004), and varied
significantly (Kruskal-Wallis test, x2 = 10.02, p < 0.007). Elevation of 12 transects at
Cannelton averaged 409.6 m (range = 107 m), 15 transects at Daltex averaged 397.7 m
(range = 199 m ), while 13 transects at Hobet21 averaged 349.2 m (range = 129 m).
Historical Study Sites and Areas Sampled Prior to the MTRVF EIS
In 1987, we started a long-term study of bird populations in the southern West Virginia
coalfields (Canterbury 1990, Canterbury et al. 1993). We refer to these sites (prior to the
MTRVF EIS data collection that started in 2000) as Historical Sites. As part of our contractual
agreement, we offered the MTRVF EIS committee an analysis of these data for comparing
mountaintop removal with contour mining. This was because most of the mined areas we
examined, prior to the MTRVF EIS, were pre-law land use (before 1977) and a large number of
the sites contained unreclaimed areas including highwalls with natural succession. However, a
significant number of sites (mined areas) had reclaimed areas in which trees (mainly black
locusts and conifer spp.) were planted. One of us (Tommy Stover) spent many years planting
trees on mined areas, and so we know exactly when these trees were planted.
Most of the 80 mine sites that we have examined from 1987-2000 were contour mines and
were dominated by shrub habitat and second-growth forest. Some of these sites, however,
were partial mountaintop sites with minimal valley fill and overburden. Table 4 shows the
historical sites studied. These sites are found in the Allegheny Plateau and mainly within
southern West Virginia, extending south of northern Summersville (Nicholas County), west to
Logan, east to the Greenbrier River and south to Mercer/McDowell counties. Counties
thoroughly sampled included Kanawha, Nicholas, Boone, Logan, Mingo, McDowell, Wyoming,
Raleigh, Fayette, Summers and Mercer. Sites sampled within Raleigh County and extending
into Pax, Fayette County, West Virginia are noted in Figure 7.
Most sites studied were mined in the mid 1960s to the late 1970s, and mine ages were
determined by interviewing miners and coal company personnel and examination of permits.
Contour mines were generally older, smaller in size, and more heavily forested than MTRVFs.
The shrub habitat on these historical sites was comprised mostly of black locust and red maple
bordering mature and second-growth deciduous forests. Much of the land mined in the 1960s
and 1970s is now second-growth forest (upland oak-hickory/Appalachian mixed-hardwood).
Thus, natural forest succession and reforestation procedures (see Burger and Torbert 1997)
have converted many of these 30-40 year old mines into second-growth forest. Remnants of
pioneer (legumes and grasses) and shrub (black locust, autumn olive, and serecia) spedes
remain in edges and forest patches in the contour mines. Edges along these historical sites
were primarily transitional ecotones between shrub and extensive forest and forest-road
edges. Relatively large grasslands (> 40 ha.) were rare on these mines (4% of the sites
surveyed) and were more abundant in mountaintop rather than contour sites. Edges on
historical MTRVFs were as described above, except there were some abrupt grassland-forest
edges. In other words, edge sampling points at historical sites were selected as described for
the three EIS MTRVF sites discussed above. Undisturbed sites bordering these mines were
11
-------
EIS REPORT
generally mature oak-maple-hickory forests. Dominate tree species included red maple, sugar
maple, yellow poplar, red oak, hickory spp., sourwood, black birch, and black gum.
Outslope areas of reclaimed mine sites were dominated by black locust, red maple,
sourwood, black birch, tulip tree, pitch pine and Virginia pine. Flat areas were dominated by
pine spp., black locust and red maple. Highwalls and un-reclaimed areas were dominated by
black locust. Reforestation occurred faster on outslope areas than flat tops. Reclamation
practices (e.g., seed mix, whether trees were planted) were noted and used in analyses.
Canterbury (1990) described the typical habitats of these mines, and some of these study sites
are noted and described in Canterbury et al. (1993,1996) and Canterbury and Stover (1999).
Pitch, Virginia, and white pines were the most commonly found pines of these areas. Autumn
olive, multiflora rose, goldenrod spp. and blackberry spp. predominate in the shrub and herb
layers. Vegetation in these 80 mine sites is similar in composition and structure to the
MTRVFs noted above, except contour mines are steeper (Sparks and Canterbury 1999,
Watson and Canterbury 1999, Canterbury, unpubl. data).
Historical mine sites were classified by methods of mining activity, which included (1)
contour/auger, (2) partial mountaintop with outslope and minimal valley fill (PMTRVF), (3)
mountaintop removal and valley fill (MTRVF), and (4) mixed (combination of methods
employed in about equal proportion). Data for dassifying sites were obtained by examination
of permits, interviewing miners and mine and forestry experts, and extensive field experience.
The following two paragraphs are descriptions of some of the historical mine sites studied.
An extensive amount of mining has occurred in the area between Valley and Clear Fork
districts of Fayette and Raleigh counties with discharge into tributaries and streams feeding
Paint Creek and Clear Fork (Table 4). Much of the mined areas near Pax, West Virginia are
contour mines. A study plot (29 ha.) was placed in the Plateau district of Fayette County that
was permitted in 1985 and completely revegetated by 1989. Disturbance impacted Bee
Branch, Georges Branch, Long Branch and Shotgun Hollow of Paint Creek of Kanawha River.
The Coopertown mine in Boone County was a MTRVF and auger operation with approximate
original contour (AOC) variance (Office of Surface Mining, OSM). The permit called for
creating a level plateau along the ridgetop. A mountaintop-removal AOC variance, leaving a
level plateau or gently rolling contour, is granted if it is capable of supporting certain
postmining land uses (OSM). A permit was issued for this site in 1976 and about 39 ha. were
disturbed. Valley fills are now well vegetated with trees (OSM). The ridgetop between two
valley fills along the eastern AOC is forested, and disturbed areas are mainly in the shrub
stage of secondary forest. A MTRVF site northwest of Gilbert disturbed about 35 ha. and had
three valley-fills, while the mined areas were back-filled to within 12 m of the original contour
(OSM).
The Sandlick/Stover area of Raleigh County have operations discharging into Harpers
Branch and Sandlick Creek of Marsh Fork of Coal River (Table 4). The mining methods
appear mixed with mountaintop-removal AOC variance and the initial application listed the
operation as steep-slope mining and returning the land to AOC, but we found little evidence of
the latter. We sampled several mine sites along Sandlick Creek that were permitted in 1978
and where no coal has been removed since 1993. One study plot was placed on an area
permitted for 190 ha., where 11.3 % of the land has not been disturbed. All mined area have
been completely revegetated and the area harbors dense locust stands with a breeding
12
-------
EIS REPORT
population of imperiled Golden-winged Warblers (Canterbury et al. 1993). Over the past
several decades the Golden-winged Warbler has been gradually replaced by Blue-winged
Warblers, and hybrids between the two species have been documented (Canterbury et al.
1996). However, the potential loss of elevation due to mining did not favor Blue-winged
Warblers over Golden-winged Warblers, since both species readily coexist throughout the
Marsh Fork and Sandlick watersheds where the habitat is heavily forested with some relatively
old contour mines (mined in the 1960-1970s). The area to the west of Sandlick, namely
Guyandotte (Bolt) Mountain harbors the highest known breeding population of Golden-winged
Warblers (Canterbury et al. 1996; Buehler et al. 2002, Canterbury, submitted;
(http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/iba map.html). Areas such as Peachtree Ridge, Pilot Knob
and Coal River Mountain harbor large source populations of Golden-winged Warblers along
contour mines, but Blue-winged are encroaching into these higher elevations (Canterbury et al.
1993, 1996). Despite encroachment of advancing Blue-winged Warblers, Golden-winged
Warblers have remained relatively common throughout the southern West Virginia coalfields,
which is true for both contour and MTRVFs (Canterbury and Stover 1999, Buehler et al. 2002).
Avian Species-richness and Abundance
Avian abundance was quantified by fixed-radius 50-m point count plots during the winter
and breeding seasons and line transects during the migration periods (Ralph et al. 1993). All
point counts and line transects were geographically referenced with a global positioning
system (GPS) and downloaded into Garmin MapSource 3.02. The point count method is a
standard, published technique for quantifying avian abundance along edge and other habitats
and provides an index of relative abundance of species encountered. All point count stations
were located along abutting habitat types within a 50-m radius and were placed at least 75 m
from major strip mine roads. Counts were conducted using standardized methods of Ralph et
al. (1993), such as 10 min. counts per point and conducting counts from 0630 to 1030 hrs.
during the breeding season. Winter point counts were conducted from 0730 to 1600 hr
because birds can forage at any time throughout the day during the winter months. We visited
each edge point count twice during both the winter (January - mid April) and breeding (June -
mid July) season. Plots were visited randomly between counts and not in the same order both
times (Ralph et al. 1993). Surveys were not conducted during heavy snow fall or during windy
or rainy weather. Percent cloud cover and wind speed (obtained with a wind meter) were
recorded using standard scoring codes (Ralph et al. 1993). Seven observers with experience
ranging from 2-14 years conducted point counts. Birds were counted at 134 edge plots during
the winter and breeding seasons and were also counted at 80 interior treatment plots of P.
Wood during the winter months. We recorded the number of birds per spedes seen or heard,
as well as noted breeding pairs, number of flyovers, and whether each bird was observed
within or outside the 50-m plot (aided by Bushnell range finder).
Three observers (each with 5 to 14 years experience) conducted migration counts. At 40
random sampling points per treatment habitat, we established 300-meter line transects
throughout the three mine sites. Of the 40 line transects, we had 10 each in treatment
habitat chosen by P. Wood during a pilot study. These included grassland, pole or shrub
succession, forest fragment and forest plots. Transects were fixed width of 50 meters and
started at edges and extended 300 meters into the appropriate treatment habitat. Migrants
13
-------
EIS REPORT
were counted from 0630 - 1200 hr. and counting times varied slightly between spring and fall
migration periods, but were generally within 15 minutes of local sunrise and spanned three to
four hours after sunrise. Birds were counted by walking the transects at a rate of 100m/10
minutes. Each transect was visited twice during the spring (April 11 - May 31, 2000) and fall
migration (August 1 - September 10, 2000). We did not sample during the latter part of fall
migration (i.e., no data collection in late September and October), because of the cut-off for
ending the EIS. All birds were counted, including resident species, short-distance migrants,
and Neotropical or long-distance migrants. Migrants are reported as number of birds observed
per count in each habitat type along 300-meter transects extending from edges to interior
plots.
Relative and total abundances were computed as the number of birds per point and
birds/ha. Diversity of birds was calculated for each edge type with the Shannon-Weiner
formula. When ecologists study an ecosystem they want to know what are the most important
species and why are they important? So that different ecosystems or communities can be
compared, standard measures of importance have been agreed on and studied. A species
may be important because of its relative abundance, size, and dispersal, e.g., relative density
measures the abundance of a species, relative to the abundances of the other spedes
present. Once we have calculated a species' relative abundance, size, and dispersion, we use
this as a measure of its total importance in the community. Importance Value (IV) can sum to
200 or 300 depending upon whether two or all three of these parameters are used. IV is used
mainly to quantify vegetational communities, but plants and habitat structure often dictate
occurrence of animals. We computed an importance value for each spedes in winter and
summer as a means of comparing the presence of a given spedes to the total bird community
(Yahner1986, 1993, Rollfinke and Yahner 1990). An IV was the sum of a relative numerical
component (RN) and a relative distribution component (RD), giving a maximum possible of 200
(Yahner 1986). The RN was the total number of detections of a given species with points
pooled divided by the abundance recorded for the most abundant spedes. This is a way of
comparing the abundance of a species relative to the most abundant species detected. The
RD was computed as the proportion of the four edge type plots in which a given species was
detected (Gutzwiller 1993). We classified high IV as 125, moderate as 50-124, and low as
49 (Yahner 1986, 1993, Rollfinke and Yahner 1990).
Birds were assigned to foraging height (low or high) and habitat guild (e.g., forest-interior,
shrub, and edge, based on habitat preference). Birds were assigned to guilds and residency
and migratory status based on the literature (see Hall 1983, Ehrlich et al. 1988, Buckelew and
Hall 1994) and our 14 years of research experience with birds of West Virginia. For example,
we assigned Downy Woodpecker and White-breasted Nuthatch to the trunk gleaner (bark
forager) guild. Root (1967) and Yahner (1993) provide excellent examples of assigning avian
species guilds. Typically three principal foraging guilds were used and noted as ground-shrub
foragers (species that often feed on or < 2 m above the ground level), trunk-bark foragers
(species that forage on tree trunks or large branches), and sallier-canopy foragers (species
that often forage > 2 m above ground level in vegetation).
Edge type was used as the independent variable in analysis of variance (ANOVA), and we
tested for differences in species richness, relative abundance, and foraging guilds (e.g.,
ground/shrub, bark, canopy) across habitat (treatment) types. Additional analyses are
14
-------
EIS REPORT
described in the Statistical Analyses section. Bird species that are typically difficult to survey
with point counts, such as flocking and highly gregarious species, inconspicuous and non-
vocal spedes, and species with large territories or home range, were excluded from the
analyses of abundance, species richness, and guild structure. Avian nomenclature follows the
American Ornithologists Union checklist of North American Birds (AOU 2000, see Appendix 2).
Topology and Spatial Variation
Because MTRVF produces forest fragments (patches) and edges of varying length and
width, we assessed edge variation at each point by quantifying the length of each edge,
aspect, elevation, and percent slope with GIS (see below). The area or size of a patch (e.g., in
units of a map scale such as m2 or a proportion of the total map/study area) may be subdivided
into edge and interior (core) area, where edges are defined in terms of some buffering
distance. Virtually all GIS package can quantify the area or perimeter (edge) of patches (e.g.,
polygons). We took GPS coordinates where habitats changed and plotted these coordinates
on a topo map. We overlaid the topo maps with a grid of 999 boxes (2.5 acres each) that are
typically used with 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps or aerial photographs with a scale of
1:24,000 (1 in. = 2,000 ft.) and determined the approximate length and width of edges. The
total length of each edge was verified using a spatial analysis program (APACK, Boeder et al.
1995). Elevation was obtained from topological maps by plotting localities of points on maps,
while aspect was recorded with a compass. Percent slope was obtained from a clinometer.
Slope aspectwas transformed using Beers (1966) equation, where A = (COS(45-A)+1)x 2 +
1. In this equation A is the transformation index and A is the direction the slope faces in
degrees (Frazer 1992). Slope transformations range from 5 (northeastern facing, mesic
condition) to 1 (southwestern, xeric condition). We assigned an aspect index of 1 to dry, xeric
ridgetop points and 5 to points in mesic valley floors, since they have no slope and aspect
(Frazer 1992).
We quantified patch size of forest fragments and habitat variation among sites and
treatments with FragsStats computer software, GIS, ANOVA, and product-moment correlation
(see Statistical Analyses). GPS coordinates of all edge points were transferred to GIS
(ARC/VIEW 3.2 or ARC/INFO software 3.4D GIS, ESRI 1987) and data from the WVDEP
spatial data interface was used to develop GIS maps, which were created by delineating
habitat patches along the points and transects. ArcView extensions spatial analyst, 3D
analyst, TIFF 6.0 image support, geoprocessing, and MrSID image support were used in GIS
analysis. We compared the number of birds (density estimates and species richness) in
various edge habitats (treatments) and watersheds by topology (edge length and width,
elevation, and slope) and vegetation (described below) using multiple regression. In other
words, we used multiple regression analysis to examine which of these variables (slope, edge
length, plant richness) were significant predictors of avian species abundance.
Vegetation Analysis
Vegetation analysis was used to quantify edge types among the watersheds and treatment
habitats. Vegetation characteristics at each edge point were quantified in July - early
September at the end of the growing season and after avian count surveys were completed.
We used a modification of the James and Shugart (1970) circular sample-plot method to
15
-------
EIS REPORT
sample the vegetation within edge point counts. We placed four circular plots of 0.032 ha (20
m diameteror 10 m on either side of the edge) within the bird sampling plots and recorded (1)
height and species of all trees 3 cm diameter at breast height (DBH), (2) the number of all
woody stems < 3 cm DBH and 0.5 m tall within two perpendicular, 2 m wide x 20 m long
transects, (3) a count of all vine stems or vine leaves that intersected the centerline of the two
perpendicular transects, and (4) an estimation of vertical structural diversity by noting the
presence or absence of vegetation at height intervals of 0-0.3 m, 0.31 - 4 m, 4.1 - 10m, and >
10 m as observed with a sighting tube. Ground cover type was recorded as either green
herbaceous (grasses, shrubs, ferns), bareground/rock, moss, woody debris (any material 4
cm diameter), water, or leaf litter. Percent ground cover and canopy cover was estimated
using a 4 cm diameter ocular siting tube (James and Shugart 1970). Average canopy height
was measured with a clinometer. Canopy cover and structural diversity was measured in
shrub/pole and forest plots. Plants were identified using standard field guides and
Strausbaugh and Core (1977). Diversity of shrubs and trees were calculated with the
Shannon-Weiner formula (Magurran 1988), but we found plant species richness not to be a
significant predictor of avian richness and abundances along edges.
Along grassland edges, a meter stick was randomly placed on the ground within each point
count circle and a 6 mm diameter metal rod was passed vertically through the vegetation at
each end of the meter stick and the number of contacts by different vegetative life forms (e.g.,
standing dead vegetation, grasses and sedges, forbs, shrubs 15 cm and shrubs 15 cm
high) were counted in each successive 1 decimeter (dm) height interval (Rotenberryand
Wiens 1980). Litter depth was measured from the surface of the ground to the top of the litter
with a metric ruler.
We also performed a separate analysis of shrubland ecotones (abbreviates for variables
measured are indicated in parentheses), in which we counted trees with DBH > 7 cm (TREE),
shrub stems 3-5 m in height and 7 cm DBH (TALL), shrub stems 1-3 m tall and 7 cm DBH
(SHORT), and standing dead trees greater than 7 cm DBH (DEAD). We estimated height
(HEIGHT) of overstory trees with a clinometer and measured their DBH.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed following Sokal and Rohlf (1981). We tested our data for normality
(e.g., spedes richness and abundances) and for most of our datasets we found no evidence of
deviation from normality (Levene statistic or Shapiro-Wlks test, p > 0.05). Non-normal data
were transformed for parametric analysis. All percentage variables (i.e., slope, ground cover,
and canopy cover) were arcsine-square root transformed (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). Pearson
product-moment correlation was used to examine the relationship among all variables in this
study, e.g., serai stage (age of succession) or treatment, edge length, edge type, elevation,
percent slope, aspect, species richness, and relative abundance. Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis was also used to examine the relationship among species diversity and
vegetation components measured at shrub or pole/forest fragment edge study plots in
MTRVFs. Significant correlations were further analyzed with general factorial ANOVA. Day of
data collection in count studies was used as a covariate within analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) models, but was found not to be a significant covariate in each seasonal analysis.
Habitat association data were analyzed with Principle Component Analysis (PCA). All data
16
-------
EIS REPORT
were analyzed with SPSS for Windows (Norusis 1993) and are reported as mean ( ) ± 1
standard error (SE). Graphs were constructed using SigmaPlot 5.0 and study plots were
plotted with Garmin 3.02 topomap software.
Quality Control Procedures
Four treatment designs (habitats) selected by P. Wood and edge plots similar to these
treatments were replicated at each site, but an unbalanced sampling design among edge plots
was necessary because of the lack of specific treatment habitats in some areas and to avoid
overlap with point counts in interior plots. Confounding variation was reduced by sampling with
multiple replicates across edge types, which provided adequate statistical inferences about
avian abundance and diversity among habitats or treatments. The selected edge points were
representative of the edge habitats on the three mines and were selected to maintain sampling
efficiency per unit time.
Quality control was also maintained by using 2-7 person teams from the SWVBRC and
Concord College that minimally have two years of point count and avian research experience.
Student assistants with two years experience were teamed with more experienced researchers
and conducted trial point counts prior to initiating surveys. These induded at least three
practice sessions in each habitat type (grass, shrub, and forest) at the beginning of the winter
and breeding seasons. These researchers also practiced completing standardized point count
data sheets and placing birds within or outside 50-m radius circles with distance sampling
verification (i.e., measuring off 50 meters). The Chief Naturalist of SWVBRC, Dollie Stover,
has over 14 years of avian research experience and is highly respected as a birder by the
West Virginia birding community. Allen Waldron of the SWVBRC has over 20 years of
experience with forestry and botanical techniques, and five years of avian research
experience. The PI was in the field 475 hours, comprising 60 field days, which insured quality
control of data collection and that data collection adhered to standardized protocols (e.g, Hutto
etal. 1986).
Quality control for winter point count data was insured, for example, by adhering to
standard protocols, where data were collected only when wind speed was < 20 km/h, air
temperature was > 0°C with no more than a light precipitation, and the ground was relatively
snow-free (i.e, ground not completed covered with snow). The estimation of sampling error in
bird surveys often involves replication in space or time (Gates 1981). The large sample sizes,
i.e., number of point counts pertreatment and edge type, improved the statistical power.
Rarefaction was employed in this study. Rarefaction is a statistical technique for estimating
the number of species expected in a random sample of individuals from a collection, and
allows the comparison of the species richness of collections with varying numbers of
individuals (James and Rathbun 1982). Data entry from field data sheets was checked by a
second technician after entry for any potential errors. In summary, the standard sampling
methods, experience of researchers identifying birds by sight and sound, and sound statistical
approaches (e.g., habitat data analysis with PCA) used in this study insured quality control.
Methods used to Collect and Analyze Data from Historical Sites
Vegetation sampling followed procedures outlined above for MTRVFs, except that slight
modifications were made in someshrubland plots for specific studies on the imperiled Golden-
17
-------
EIS REPORT
winged Warbler (see Canterbury et a I. 1996, Sparks and Canterbury 1999, and Watson and
Canterbury 1999). Other modifications in sampling design is shrub habitats included spot
mapping and an intensive multiyear investigation of breeding populations of color-banded birds
using netting, playback, and observation. These latter data are reported elsewhere (e.g.,
Canterbury et al. 1996), but are occasionally referred to in this report.
Point count methods on historical sites followed methods described above for the surveys
on the MTRVFs. Point count data were collected in June at each site. All interior points were
at least 250 m from the nearest edge. We placed at least 12 interior and 12 edge plots at
each site with some sites (e.g., Peachtree Ridge) having 32 of each. Thus at each mine site,
we conducted at least 24 point counts per year. Point count data were compared between
edge and interior plots and we calculated avian relative abundances from these point count
data as described in the methods for the MTRVF EIS study sites. Point counts were placed
along contour mines and valley-fills of mountaintop sites.
In addition to point counts, singing male censuses (SMC) modified from the methods of the
BBS and outlined in Hall (1983) and Canterbury et al. (1996) were taken at 32 sites. These
SMCs started at the historical mine site and extended along roads and forested areas and
were denoted as routes for estimating population trends. The SMC routes were not the same
as point count stations. During the past 14 years, SWVBRC staff have conducted a multitude
of BBS and SMC censuses on 80 mine sites, which consisted of relatively remote roads
through extensively forested areas with contour mine edges (Stover and Canterbury 2001).
These historical study sites averaged 79% forest cover and 21% shrub edge and other
habitats (Canterbury, unpubl. GIS data). Researchers from the SWVBRC collected SMC and
BBS data in June and followed the standardized BBS protocol. Many different methods have
been used to analyze BBS and SMC data and there is little agreement on which are best
(Thomas and Martin 1996). We used trend estimation (an exponential curve was fitted to the
mean number of birds recorded per route in each year) and regression methods of Geissler
and Sauer (1990) and Link and Sauer (1994). Due to the volume of this report, we have
omitted graphs of population trends of southern West Virginia birds, but these can be obtained
from the senior author.
Species recorded on fewer than 14 routes were omitted from trend analysis (Peterjohn et
al. 1996). Migratory status was assigned to each species based on the most common
wintering grounds of each species (Rappole et al. 1983). Permanent residents were
delineated as those species in which most individuals breeding in West Virginia also winter in
the state. Temperate migrants were considered species that winter mainly in the southern
U.S. and have large migratory flights through the area (see Canterbury and Stover 1998,
Canterbury et al. 1999, Canterbury 2000b). Central Neotropical migrants winter in Mexico,
Central America, and the Caribbean, and southern Neotropical migrants winter mainly in South
America. Considerable variation exists among spedes and some have large winter ranges
encompassing southern U.S. to Panama, but we labeled each bird species by where the bulk
of their winter populations occurs. For example, Central and southern Neotropical migrants
were defined as those that winter primarily south of the U.S., and temperate migrants included
those that winter extensively in North America but have some populations that winter south of
the U.S. (Gauthreaux 1991). Similarly, some resident species such as the Song Sparrow have
large winter populations consisting of short-distance migrants from farther north and are
18
-------
EIS REPORT
classified as both permanent residents and temperate migrants. For association with breeding
population trends, each species abundance (per SMC route) was classified as either very
abundant (VA, 50.0), abundant (A, 12.0-49.9), common (C, 4.0- 11.9), fairly common (FC,
2.0 - 3.9), uncommon (U, 1.0-1.9), or rare (R, < 1.0) and these classifications correspond to
regional abundances (Peterjohn et al. 1987). Routes were the typical 24.5 mile routes with 50
stops and observers recorded numbers of individuals of each species seen or heard within a
0.25 mile radius during a 3-min. period. Routes consisted mostly of forested areas with remote
roads created mainly by contour mining. Population trends were estimated from data from
these routes.
At TRMO (Metalton, Raleigh County), we placed 12 300-meter transects for counting birds
and compared count data with mist-netting data. Procedures for counting birds along these
transects followed standard methods (Ralph et al. 1993). We randomly picked three interior
forest species (Ovenbird, Acadian Flycatcher, and Kentucky Warbler) and three shrub/edge
species (Eastern Towhee, Northern Cardinal, and Indigo Bunting) and plotted the number of
birds/40 ha. from edge to interior forest. Banding methods used at TRMO followed those
described in Karr 1981, Moore et al. (1990), Morris et al. (1994), Pyle (1997), and Canterbury
and Stover (1998). These methods allowed comparison between edge and interior areas.
The TRMO study site is described in Canterbury (1990), but has been modified slightly in
recent years by selective logging and contour mining. The contour mine habitat characteristics
are similar to the MTRVFs, except the contour mine at TRMO is smaller than the MTRVFs
described above. We use bird banding data to illustrate what migrants potentially use mine
habitats and show data collected from 1996-2000, where fall migrants were captured from late
July to early November (see Canterbury and Stover 1998, Canterbury et al. 1999, Canterbury
2000b). This is important, since the MTRVF EIS data collected excluded October and much of
September, which are suitable for bird migrations in southern West Virginia (Canterbury et al.
1999).
Vegetation quantification at 19 (12 contour and seven MTRVF) randomly selected historical
mine sites followed the James and Shugart (1970) circular sample-plot method and GIS
technology was performed for only three of these historical sites because of time constraints.
These three historical sites (Peachtree Ridge, Highland Mountain, and Whitby)were selected
because they are localities where the long-term data collection began and are areas where we
have the most data, including avian reproductive success data (see Canterbury and Stover
1999 and Stover and Canterbury 2001). Statistical analyses of historical data follow
procedures outlined above and those described in Canterbury et al. (1996). Association
among variables were examined with Pearson product-moment correlations. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression analyses were the main types of tests employed.
These latter tests were used to partition variation among measured variables and to test for
significance in dependent variables (e.g., avian abundance, species richness) as explained by
independent variables (e.g., mine size, mine age, type of mining in study plots, slope,
elevation, canopy cover, herbaceous cover, tree density, tree size (height), stem density, and
age of forest succession). A multiple regression was used to determine which habitat
variables were significant predictors of five randomly chosen shrubland species.
Nonparametric tests were used on non-normal datasets (see Sparks and Canterbury 1999,
Watson and Canterbury 1999). For example, we used the Mann-Whitney U-test to examine
19
-------
EIS REPORT
difference in abundance between edge and interior plots at TRMO.
Results and Discussion
Avian Abundances across Seasons and Edge Habitat (Treatment) Types
Winter Season
Table 5 shows the average number of birds observed per point count in the winter season.
This table also shows a comparison between interior and edge plots. Of the 59 species listed
in Table 5, only seven species were more abundant in interior as opposed to edge plots.
These are Blue Jay, Carolina Chickadee, Pileated Woodpecker, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Tufted
Titmouse, White-breasted Nuthatch, and Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Seven species were found
in higher densities at forest fragment/grassland ecotones than in intact (large) forest/ grassland
ecotone, forest fragment/shrub ecotone, and shrub/grassland ecotone (data not shown, but
summarized as one-way ANOVA, F 2.95, p 0.05). These included the Eastern
Meadowlark, European Starling, Horned Lark, Killdeer, Northern Harrier, and the Wood Duck.
The remaining species did not vary by edge type during the winter (one-way ANOVA, p >
0.05). Overall, the American Crow and Dark-eyed Juncowere the most abundant species
observed during the winter, which is consistent with most Christmas bird counts in the regions
(Canterbury 1998). These species also had the highest importancr values (Table 6).
However, the high abundance of Eastern Bluebirds, Eastern Meadowlarks, and Horned Larks
in MTRVF grasslands and shrub habitats are especially noteworthy in comparison to regional
Christmas bird counts. During winter point counts, foraging-flocks of American Robins,
Eastern Bluebirds, European Starlings, Horned Larks, Northern (Yellow-shafted) Flickers, or
Wld Turkeys were noted almost daily in grasslands and shrub habitats. In addition, some
species were higher in the winter than summer season. These induded, for example,
American Crow, Blue Jay, and Pileated Woodpecker. Reasons for these seasonal abundance
differences vary. The American Crow congregates in large foraging and communal roosting
areas (Canterbury and Stover 1992), while the Pileated Woodpecker may be more easily
detected in winter than summer. Many overwintering Blue Jays, Dark-eyed Juncos, and Song
Sparrows breed farther north and represent short-distance migration.
Spring Migration
The number of birds observed per transect during the spring migration period is shown in
Table 7. Of the 29 species noted in predominantly grasslands, the European Starling, Turkey
Vulture, Eastern Meadowlark, and Tree Sparrow were noted in highest numbers (from highest
to lowest), respectively. Of the 63 species that were found in mainly shrub habitats, the Field
Sparrow was the most abundant, followed by the White-throated Sparrow, American Robin,
Blue-winged Warbler, and Chipping Sparrow (exduding the Wild Turkey since it does not
migrate). Of the 40 spedes that predominated in forests, the Red-eyed Vireo and Wood
Thrush were the most abundant migrants (exduding American Crow, which overwinters in the
area). Table 8 shows the mean spedes richness and total abundance of birds detected along
treatment habitats in spring. Fewer species were detected in intact forest, while shrub habitats
20
-------
EIS REPORT
harbored the greatest species richness. Similar trends were noted for density and total
abundance estimates. We compared species richness and avian abundance along variable
distances of the transect (0, 150, and 300 m) and found no differences (Table 9).
Breeding Season
Table 10 shows the average number of birds observed per point count in the breeding
season. In general, the overall trend was higher abundance in shrub/forest fragment ecotones
for forest interior species, interior-edge species, and edge species. Grassland species were
significantly higher at grassland/forest fragment ecotones. Forest interior species generally
declined in grassland/forest fragment plots as opposed to grassland/intact forest edge. Table
9 also shows a comparison of avian abundances between this study and southern West
Virginia (at smaller contour mines in relatively late stages of secondary succession - see
Canterbury et al. 1996, Canterbury and Stover 1999, and historical sites described above).
For this comparison, we randomly picked sites in southern West Virginia with relatively similar
habitat (vegetation and topography) and approximate age as the MTRVF sites. We selected
30 points in each edge habitat type in southern West Virginia from a pool of hundreds of
counts distributed over 80 sites (Canterbury, unpubl. data). In general, the contour/partial
mountaintop sites selected for this comparison were slightly older and smaller than the
MTRVFs used in this study. However, a significant amount of similar edge habitat created by
contour mining occurs on both the MTRFV sites and older contour mines in southern West
Virginia.
Abundance of each forest interior species, except Louisiana Waterthush and Swainson s
Warbler (no birds observed) and Yellow-throated Warbler, was slightly lower at the
grassland/intact forest edges of the MTRVFs of this study than at similar habitats throughout
southern West Virginia. This difference may be due to the slightly younger ages of the MTRVF
grasslands as compared to the contour mines, but was not tested for significance (we chose
not to test across studies - historical contour mine data and present MTRVF). A similar trend
was noted for grassland/forest fragments, except for Cerulean Warbler (no birds observed,
see Table 10), Eastern Wood-Pewee, Kentucky Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush (no birds
observed), Summer Tanager, and Yellow-throated Warbler. The latter two species were more
abundant on MTRVFs than older contours, and are typically found in open woodlands. In
general, similar trends were also noted during comparisons of the other two edge types, where
birds were in slightly higher densities in older contours than at MTRVF shrub edges. These
comparisons, however, should be interpreted with caution, because abundance estimates of
birds on contour mines throughout southern West Virginia are based on 14-years of data and
the MTRVF EIS study was only for one year. Likewise, each forest interior species should be
examined carefully. For example, the Acadian Flycatcher was found in about equal numbers
across all edge types in the MTRVFs, except grassland/shrub. It did not, for example, decline
in comparison with the larger, relatively intact forest edge bordering the MTRVF mine sites. In
the MTRVF sites of this study, forest-interior species were often found in the same relative
densities in both grassland/intact forest edge and grassland/forest fragment edge, but
exceptions did occur (e.g., Blue-headed Vireo, Cerulean Warbler, Eastern Wood-Pewee).
The species with the highest IV (ranked in descending order) during the summer (breeding
season) were Red-eyed Vireo, Indigo Bunting, Grasshopper Sparrow, Field Sparrow, Common
21
-------
EIS REPORT
Yellowthroat and Eastern Meadowlark (Table 11). Two of these are considered grassland
species (GrasshopperSparrow and Eastern Meadowlark), three are edge/shrub birds (Indigo
Bunting, Field Sparrow, and Common Yellowthroat), while the species with the highest OV, the
Red-eyed Vireo, is considered an interior-edge species of the eastern dedduous forest.
Species richness varied from 10.02 (± 0.31 SE) in grassland/shrub, 12.05 (± 0.40) in
grassland/intact forest, and 12.61 (± 0.37) in grassland/forest fragment to 15.56 (± 0.32) in
shrub/forest fragment.
Table 10 shows a group of spedes listed in an Other category and not in a particular
habitat. These are generally birds of large open habitats or aerial insectivores. The species in
the Other category were generally more abundant in grassland/shrub edges. The Canada
Goose, Green Heron, Black-billed Cuckoo, Eastern Kingbird, Eastern Wild Turkey, Rock Dove
(Feral Pigeon), Chestnut-sided Warbler, Common Raven, House Wren, Rose-breasted
Grosbeak, and Wood Duck were also observed during the breeding season, but were outside
of standard point counts and not used in calculating abundance estimates. Reasons for this
vary. For example, some are more abundant at higher elevations outside EIS study sites (e.g.,
Chestnut-sided Warbler and Rose-breasted Grosbeak), some require specialized or localized
habitats such as open oak-hickory woodlands and localized areas with tent caterpillar or other
lepidopteran outbreaks (e.g., Black-billed Cuckoo), and some occur in the vicinity of human
dwellings (e.g., House Wren and Rock Dove).
Fall Migration
The most abundant birds observed in grasslands during the fall were Turkey Vulture,
Mourning Dove, and Grasshopper Sparrow (Table 7). However, these probably represent
post-breeding dispersal rather than migration, because data were collected too early for their
migration cycles (Hall 1983). In grasslands, no long-distance migrant that does not breed in
the area or in close vicinity of the MTRVFs was noted. This was probably due to a time
limitation rather than habitat, since we observed migrants only from August to mid September.
Optimal dates for many fall migrants in southern West Virginia span into late October
(Canterbury and Stover 1998, Canterbury et al. 1999, Canterbury 2000b). In shrub habitat, the
White-eyed Vireo was the most abundant, followed by the Tennessee Warbler and Gray
Catbird. In forest habitat, the Carolina Chickadee was the most abundant species in fall
season, the population in winter is generally higher than the breeding population (Hall 1983).
This may represent an influx from the north. The Red-eyed Vireo was the most abundant long-
distance migrant, but like the White-eyed Vireo and Gray Catbird in shrub habitat, it is often
difficult to distinguish migrant from breeding individuals without banding. The Cape May
Warbler and Swainson s Thrush may be better indicators of forest migrants along MTRVF,
since they do not breed in the area (Table 7). Bird banding, rather than migration counts, is
generally a more precise method for evaluating indicator species during migration. Table 12
shows the number of birds banded at TRMO during the past five seasons and the percentage
of the total migrants captured on a contour mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia. Clearly,
shrub habitats are valuable for migration for many avian species and migrants are not limited
to mature forest tracts. However, shrub habitats may be important for migration only in the
context of the surrounding landscape (i.e., contiguous forest).
22
-------
EIS REPORT
Guild Analyses
The number of birds per guild type did not differ across edge habitats (Table 13, MANOVA,
F 1.36, p 0.29), but did vary with season (F = 4.48, p 0.03). As expected, more birds
were noted in summer than during the winter season. There was a significant difference in the
number of low and high foraging birds across age of secondary succession (Figure 8, 2 =
7.41, p < 0.02). Table 14 shows linear regression analysis of species richness and relative
abundance on length of edges along MTVFVs in southwestern West Virginia. Species
richness within the five major trophic groups was significantly correlated with edge length.
Areas with large amounts of edge and forested island patches contained significantly more
omnivores, ground insectivores, and aerial insectivores (mainly flycatchers) and had fewer
foliage and bark insectivores. The rate of increase (slope) of ground and aerial insectivore
richness with edge length was high and indicates the importance of increasing amount of edge
habitat to these species. This was further demonstrated by intercepts that did not differ from
zero, which suggest that large tracts of forests are not preferred by these groups. In contrast,
foliage and bark insectivores had higher intercepts, which indicate their preference for larger
forest tracts and less edge. In addition, the negative slope of relative abundance of bark
insectivores suggests that they prefer large tracts of forest and that abundance decreases with
decreasing richness. Foliage insectivores, however, did not follow the same pattern as bark
insectivores with regard to relative abundance, i.e., abundance increased with decreasing
species richness. Omnivores and aerial insectivores increased abundance in fragmented
landscapes (patches) according to their slopes in Table 14, while relative abundance declined
in ground insectivores as species diversity increased in fragmented, high edge areas.
Habitat and Topology at Sampling Points
The percent slope of grassland/forest ecotones averaged 23.8 ± 2.61 (SE) and did not vary
between intact and fragmented forests (t= 0.12, p > 0.92). Slopes were not as steep along
shrub ecotones and averaged 17.51%. Aspect code varied from 2.10± 0.30 in grassland/
forest ecotones to 1.95 ± 0.20 in shrub/forest ecotones. There was no difference between
intact and fragmented forest aspects (t = 0.19, p > 0.65). Percent green ground cover varied
along edge types and was highest in the grassland/forest fragment ecotone, where it averaged
69.23 ± 1.88 %. The percent litter cover (grand = 29.61 ± 1.40 % among the four edge
types) did not vary much, since most plots were placed along forested ecotones that receive
leaf-fall-off during the fall season, but was lower in shrub/grassland ecotones ( = 12.73 ±
1.28%). Stem densities (no/ha of those < 3.0 cm DBH) of trees were lowest in grassland/intact
forest ecotone ( = 3,102.61) and highest along pole/forest fragment ecotones ( = 5,200.11).
Percent canopy cover varied from 37.69% along shrub/forest fragment ecotones to 9.81%
along grassland/ shrub ecotones. The amount of woody debris was highest in shrub/intact
forest ecotones ( = 2.95 ± 0.32%) and lowest in grassland/shrub ecotones 0.75 ± 0.01%).
Vine stem counts varied from 1.6% in grassland/shrub ecotones to 4.9% in shrub/intact forest
ecotones.
The number of different vegetative life forms (i.e., standing dead vegetation, grasses and
sedges, forbs, shrubs 15 cm and shrubs 15 cm high) were counted in plots along the four
ecotone types and varied as expected. For example, there were significantly more grasses,
sedges, forbs, and shrubs less than 15 cm high in grassland/forest ecotones, where Sericea
23
-------
EIS REPORT
lespedeza made up 20.4% of the vegetation. The highest number of shrubs > 15 cm high was
noted in shrub/forest fragment ecotones, where it averaged 31.4%. As expected tree height
increased with age of succession, but we found no significant difference in tree height
between fragmented and intact forests (t = 0.175, p >0.85). Plant species diversity did not
differ significantly across edge types (one-way ANOVA, F = 0.38, p > 40), but was slightly
higher in shrub/forest fragment ecotones. The species of plants identified on MTRVFs in this
studies are listed in Appendix 1.
Pearson product-moment correlations among topology variables (percent slope, aspect,
elevation, age of secondary succession, and edge length) and species richness are shown in
Table 15. Avian species richness was significantly related only to edge length. Table 16
shows correlations among species richness and number of trees with DBH > 7 cm (live tree),
shrub stems 3-5 m in height and 7 cm DBH (tall shrub), shrub stems 1-3 m tall and 7 cm
DBH (short shrub), and standing dead trees greater than 7 cm DBH (dead tree). Table 16 also
shows association of species richness with estimated height and DBH of overstory trees.
Species richness was not significantly correlated with any of these vegetation components,
which may indicate that species richness is driven by some other non-measured environmental
variable such as food supply. On the other hand, perhaps the vegetation data in shrub/pole
plots were too finely defined divided, so that species richness is due to a simple factor such as
percent shrub cover.
In a principal component analysis, the first three principal components explained 63.9% of
the total variance in the vegetation variables. Prindpal component (PC) I (stratification or
vertical structural diversity) explained 31.4%, while PC II (open cover or amount of grass cover)
counted for an additional 19.1% of the variance), and PC III (% shrubs) explained the
additional 13.4%. The most significant factor explaining avian species richness among
ecotone habitats in the breeding season was vertical structural diversity (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.001).
The influence of horizontal and vertical vegetation structure on bird communities is well studied
(Brown 1992). Natural and human-induced disturbances play significant roles in structuring
habitat and bird communities (Mushinsky and Gibson 1991). Disturbance caused by mining
may create a mosaic of suitable niches and, like silvcultural disturbance, it may mimic the
natural-intensity disturbance regime by creating habitat features required by open grassland
and shrub species. In addition, edge habitat bordering mine land is suitable for many forest
interior species linking a continuum of grassland, shrub, and forest species in the same
general area.
Historical Dataset
Table 17 shows variables (percent slope and vegetation components) measured on 12
historical contour and seven MTRVF mines in southern West Virginia. These 12 contour and
seven MTRVFs were randomly selected (among the 80 surveyed historical sites) for assessing
vegetation because we could not quantify vegetation at all 80 sites. Vegetation was similar on
these historical sites to those on the EIS MTRVFs, but contour mines were generally steeper,
smaller in size, and had more advanced stages of succession.
Point count data pooled for all the historical sites showed that spedes richness was higher
along edges 13.41 (± 0.88 SE) than interior plots (9.29 ±0.69). This was a significant
difference (paired t-test, t = 93.7, p < 0.001). The most abundant species on the 80 mine sites
24
-------
EIS REPORT
we have examined since 1987 were mostly shrub and forest-dwelling species (Canterbury et
al. 1996, Canterbury and Stover 1999). These include, for example, Eastern Towhee, Golden-
winged Warbler, and Field Sparrow of the edge / shrub guild, and the Red-eyed Vireo,
Ovenbird, and Black-and-White Warbler of the forest-interior guild.
In this report, we compare bird populations at three of the historical sites (Peachtree Ridge,
Highland Mountain and Whitby) where we have concentrated our efforts and produced GIS
maps (see below). The number of individuals of the 15 most abundant bird species at these
sites are listed in Canterbury and Stover (1999). The most abundant species was the Red-
eyed Vireo (98 males per 100 ha.), which is considered a forest-interior species. This was
followed by the Eastern Towhee, a habitat generalist of edge and shrub (79 males per 100
ha.). The imperiled Golden-winged Warbler was the third most numerous species at 77 males
per 100 ha. Another forest-species, the Ovenbird, ranked fourth at 68 males per 100 ha. The
Indigo Bunting (edge specialist) and the Black-and-White Warbler (forest-dwelling species)
ranked fifth, with 52 males per 100 ha. for both species. Of the remaining 9 species, we found
Chestnut-sided Warbler (shrub specialist, 44 males per 100 ha.), Hooded Warbler (forest-
interior species, 39 males per 100 ha.), Field Sparrow (edge specialist, 36 males per 100 ha.),
Yellow-breasted Chat (shrub specialist, 35 males per 100 ha.), Gray Catbird (shrub species, 27
males per 100 ha.), Wood Thrush (forest-interiorspecies, 26 males per 100 ha.), Common
Yellowthroat (shrub specialist, 24 males per 100 ha.), American Redstart (forest generalist, 23
males per 100 ha.), and Tufted Titmouse (forest generalist, 14 males per 100 ha.). Thus, five
forest-interior species are rather abundant on these mine types.
Avian population trends from 1989-2000 in 32 southern West Virginia historical mine sites
are shown in Table 18. Data were collected along SMC routes that consisted mainly of narrow
contour mines surrounded by dense forest. Thus, the routes consisted of a combination of
forest and mine habitats. Of the 15 most abundant species mentioned above, seven exhibited
negative population trends and eight showed positive trends (Table 18). Of those with
negative trends, four were significant. The three with nonsignificant downward trends were the
Golden-winged Warbler (0.25% per yr.), Ovenbird (2.3% per yr.) and Common Yellowthroat
(1.3% per yr.). The Golden-winged Warbler has shown a steep decline throughout its range
since 1966 (7.6% per yr, Sauer et al. 2000), has virtually disappeared from Ohio (Peterjohn
and Rice 1991) and the New England states (Confer 1992), and is considered to be declining
in West Virginia, having dropped by 4.8% per year from 1966-1987 (BBS data cited in
Buckelewand Hall 1994).
The Ovenbird has shown negative local and regional trends, but is not in an overall decline
throughout its range (Sauer et al. 2000). Research has shown it is highly impacted by
fragmentation throughout its range, but increased by about 18% in the Northeast during the
1994-1995 seasons (DeSante et al. 1998) and increased annually by 2.3% from 1966-2000 in
West Virginia (Sauer et al. 2001). Although the Ovenbird is sensitive to habitat fragmentation
(Robbins et al. 1989), it does occupy small (about 1 ha) forests tracts and is most likely not
declining in West Virginia (BBS data cited in Buckelew and Hall 1994, Sauer et al. 2001). Yet,
pairing success has been shown to increase away from edges in Missouri (Gibbs and Faaborg
1990, Villard et al. 1993, Van Horn et al. 1995), southern Ontario (Burke and Nol 1998), and
Vermont (Ortega and Capen 1999). Missouri is a highly fragmented landscape (Geissman et
al. 1986) and at the periphery of the Ovenbird s breeding range (Villard et al. 1993), and
25
-------
EIS REPORT
studies (see Sabine etal. 1996) in heavily forested landscapes contradict those of Gibbs and
Faaborg (1990), Villard et al. 1993, and Van Horn (1995). Clearly, the data are mixed and
contradictory for this well-studied, forest-interior species.
The shrub species are not as well studied as forest-interior species. Some relatively
abundant and wide-ranging shrubland birds are declining. For example, the Common
Yellowthroat has shown negative populations trends in West Virginia (BBS data cited in
Buckelew and Hall 1994) and virtually rangewide (Sauer et al. 2000). Significant negative
trends were noted in the Chestnut-sided Warbler (4.5% per yr.), Yellow-breasted Chat (3.5%),
and Field Sparrow (7.3%) in our study sites in southern West Virginia (Table 18). Statewide
BBS data have suggested that the Chestnut-sided Warbler is increasing in West Virginia, while
the Yellow-breasted Chat and Field Sparrow have shown rangewide declines (BBS data cited
in Buckelew and Hall 1994, Sauer etal. 2001). The only significant decline of forest-interior
species of the most abundant 15 species at our southern West Virginia sites was the Hooded
Warbler (4.3% per yr.), which is probably related to negative impacts of deer (Canterbury
2000a). Nonsignificant positive trends were noted in the Indigo Bunting (2.4% per yr.) and the
Eastern Towhee (0.95% peryr.). Both these edge/ shrub spedes, however, appear to be
declining in many areas of their range (BBS data cited in Buckelew and Hall 1994, Sauer et al.
2000). Notable declines in the Eastern Towhee population are discussed in Hagan (1993).
Significant increases in the Tufted Titmouse (7.2% per yr), Wood Thrush (3.0%), Gray
Catbird (5.0%), Red-eyed Vireo (6.5%), Black-and-White Warbler (4.8%), and American
Redstart (6.0%) were noted in southern West Virginia (Table 18). All of these are forest
species, except the Gray Catbird. Further examination of Table 18, however, showed that
there are some additional negative trends in forest-interior species. The Red-shouldered Hawk
declined by 3.4% and Broad-winged Hawk by 10.8%. The Kentucky Warbler has dedined by
7.5% in southern West Virginia and local extirpation of some populations has been noted
(Canterbury, unpubl. data). There are numerous forest species that appear to be showing
positive trends, and a significant number of shrub species are declining.
Figure 9 shows GIS maps for three historical sites (Peachtree Ridge, Highland Mountain,
and Whitby). For each site, we have displayed (1) types of land cover, (2) location of roads,
(3) location of water, (4) the distribution of elevation, (5) percent slope, and (6) location of
houses. One feature displayed by these sites is that they are remote with relatively little
fragmentation due to houses, except for a small cluster of houses in the Whitby area. This is
believed to be an important factor in contributing to the relatively high densities of both shrub
and forest-dwelling species (Canterbury and Stover 1999). Highland Mountain is the most
forested of the three sites and had the highest number of Ovenbirds (88 males per 100 ha. as
compared to 83 males per 100 ha. at Peachtree Ridge and 33 males per 100 ha. at Whitby).
A similar trend holds for Black-and-White Warblers (63, 45, and 47 males per 100 ha. at
Highland Mountain, Peachtree Ridge, and Whitby, respectively). However, Highland Mountain
also had the highest density of Chestnut-sided Warblers, a shrubland species (Canterbury and
Stover 1999). Peachtree Ridge had a higher percentage of total land cover disturbed by
mining (Figure 9), but had the highest densities of the Wood Thrush, Red-eyed Vireo, and
American Redstart (Canterbury and Stover 1999). Succession at Peachtree Ridge is older
(Table 4). All three sites had about equal densities of Golden-winged Warblers (Canterbury
and Stover 1999). Elevation and percent slope have been shown to be important predictors of
26
-------
EIS REPORT
the number of birds of some species, such as the Golden-winged Warbler, on contour and
partial mountaintop mine sites (Canterbury et al. 1996, Canterbury and Stover 1999, Stover
and Canterbury, in press). A sample of stepwise multiple regression models used to predict
abundance of five shrub species is shown in Table 19. Similar analyses for forest-species are
needed, such as the ongoing work by Rosenberg et al. (2000) on Cerulean Warblers.
The Cerulean Warbler is considered to be an area-sensitive forest species (Robbins et al.
1989, Rosenberg et al. 2000), but in southern West Virginia there is apparently no increase in
number of birds in interior vs. edge plots and more Cerulean Warblers were found on contours
than MTRVFs (Table 20, Canterbury 2000c). The Cerulean Warbler, however, is difficult to
assess with point counts and Jones et al. (2000) recommend the variable circular plot method.
The relatively large number of singing, male Cerulean Warblers in edge habitats may be
predominantly first-time breeders (Canterbury 2000c), and area-sensitive species may not
show negative impacts of forest fragmentation in moderately or heavily forested landscapes
(Rosenberg et al. 1999b). Nevertheless, the Cerulean is a critically imperilled songbird
(Robbins etal. 1992) and declined across its range by 2.7% peryr. from 1966-1991 (Peterjohn
et al. 1996). Current estimate now is-3.5% per year from 1966-1999 (Sauer et al. 2000).
Thus, additional work is needed where Cerulean and Golden-winged Warblers coexist, and
where forest-interior and shrubland birds overlap breeding territories (Canterbury et al. 1996,
Canterbury 200 Oc).
Figure 10 shows examples of bird density vs. distance from edge for three forest-interior
and three shrub/edge species. In one case, the Ovenbird increased much more dramatically
away from edges than did the Acadian Flycatcher and Kentucky Warbler, while shrub/edge
species (Indigo Bunting, Eastern Towhee, and Northern Cardinal) declined toward the interior
of a habitat. The Kentucky Warbler increased in number in interior forest as compared to edge
(Figure 10), but has relatively high nesting success (73% of 22 nests successfully fledged
young from 1987-1996) in edges not over-browsed by White-tailed deer (Canterbury and
Stover, unpubl. data). Negative impacts of deer populations on understory nesting songbirds
are growing (Casey and Hein 1983, Alversonet al. 1988, McShea and Rappole 1992,
DeCalesta 1994, McShea et al. 1995).
Before we can adequately evaluate the impacts of mining on bird populations, data from
multiple methods (e.g., song counts and mist-netting) must be considered. Tables 21 and 22
show samples of these data from TRMO (historical data and not MTRVF EIS sites), where
guild abundance is compared between edge and interior plots as well as between methods
(counts and mist-netting). Mist-netting produced more detections and the only guild with
higher abundance in the forest interior was the bark-foraging guild (Table 21). Comparing the
number of birds captured, we find that considerably more shrubland bird species were
detected in a primarily forested habitat than in the other two habitats and by far the smallest
number of captures were in grasslands (Table 22). It should be noted, however, that no
canopy nets were used and these results would likely differ if canopy netting was conducted
(see Stokes et al. 2000).
Summary
This report documents bird populations along edges at three large MTRVFs in southern
West Virginia, and presents a comparison between bird populations along contour and MTRVF
27
-------
EIS REPORT
mines. The report incorporates 14 years of data from a long-term analysis of bird populations
throughout the southern West Virginia coalfields. The report documents that, for the most
part, both forest-interior and disturbance-dependent species are doing fairly well in the
southern West Virginia coalfields. Yet, there are some exceptions and the decline of forest
species such as Kentucky Warbler is of concern. We found the highest avian abundance in
shrub/forest fragment ecotones in the IVTTRVF EIS sites, but some keyforest-spedes, such as
the Louisiana Waterthrush and Kentucky Warbler were in low numbers or missing from edges
on the MTRVFs. Land use patterns in West Virginia are most likely why we have some of the
best, if not the highest, concentrations of two umbrella species (Golden-winged and Cerulean
warblers). The topology of West Virginia with large forests tracts with minimal disturbance
(e.g., gaps, contour mine edges) may be why this is the only state that we know of that can
claim to support vast populations of these two umbrella species. Yet, MTRVF mining has
become a major method of vast landscape change, where Golden-winged and Cerulean
warblers may disappear with the changing proportion of mature forest to cleared land. Both
species are apparently doing much better on contour mines than MTRVFs, and this study
documents that MTRVFs are considerably different from contour mines. Contour mining is not
nearly as common as once was in the 1960s, for example, and has virtually been replaced by
MTRVF mining. This may explain why these umbrella species are declining in West Virginia.
Less individuals of these two umbrella species are returning each year to breed in West
Virginia because of the advancing succession of contour mines and may be settling into areas
where forest-contour mine edges are now suitable for breeding. This may explain why
Tennessee, for example, has seen an increase in Golden-winged Warblers recently (anecdotal
evidence seen throughout ListServs, North American Birds, Birdscope, and personal
communications).
Recent declines in songbird populations have generated much concern in the lay and
scientific community and sparked considerable research that has disclosed serious dedines of
interior forest species. A large number of studies have documented a correlation between
decline of forest-interior bird species and edges (Wilcove 1985, Andren and Angelstram 1988,
Harris 1988, Martin 1988, Ratti and Reese 1988, Yahner1988, Yahnerand Scott 1988,
Porneluzi etal. 1993, Paton 1994, Hoover etal. 1995, Under and Bellinger 1995, Marini etal.
1995, Bayne and Hobson 1997, Donovan et al. 1997, Hartley and Hunter 1998, Keyser et al.
1998). Neotropical migrants have received the most attention thus far, but several studies
have shown that patterns of population tends vary by geographic region and landscape
pattern. The greater decline of Neotropical migrants compared to temperate migrants or
residents has been well documented for Eastern forest-dwelling species during the last two
decades (Robbins et al. 1989, Sauer and Droege 1992, Peterjohn and Sauer1994b).
However, there is evidence that non-forest breeding birds should be of even greater concern in
some areas (Sauer and Droege 1992, James et al. 1992, Witham and Hunter 1992). Growing
evidence suggests widespread, steep declines in grassland and shrub-breeding species
(Knopf 1994, Vickery and Herkert 1999), and that temperate migrants are declining in equal or
greater proportion to Neotropical migrants in some areas and habitats (Hagan et al. 1992,
Witham and Hunter 1992, Bohning-Gaese et al. 1993). In West Virginia and elsewhere, there
is considerable variation in population decline among forest, shrub, and grassland bird groups
(Hall 1983, BBS data cited in Buckelew and Hall 1994, Sauer et al. 2001).
28
-------
EIS REPORT
Examination of avian abundances across seasons shows that species relative abundance
and species richness are generally highest in shrub habitats. We found that abundances of
birds varied among the MTRVF edge types studied. The documentation of the occurrence of
fairly good numbers of forest interior species along edge habitats, especially contour shrub
edges bordering mature forest is nothing new to West Virginia ornithology (see Canterbury et
al. 1996 and Canterbury and Stover 1999). This study documents that many bird species
occur predominantly in shrub/forest fragment ecotones. Historical (and long-term) data
collected since 1987 throughout southern West Virginia indicate that there is little evidence of
negative impacts of forest fragmentation on relative abundance of most forest-dwelling birds,
such as the Acadian Flycatcher, Wood Thrush, and Black-and-White Warbler. Despite
centuries of habitat fragmentation, the population status and relatively high densities of
eastern, forest-dwelling birds throughout their range support this assertion. Advancing forest
succession and landscape-induced factors (highly forested states such as West Virginia and
other areas throughout eastern North America) probably play important roles in regulating
forest species populations. Most likely, we experience local declines of forest species in some
areas and increasing, expanding source populations in others. The Acadian Flycatcher is the
most numerous bird banded in highly fragmented forest patches during the breeding season in
northeastern Ohio (J. Pogacnik, unpubl. data), and increasing in northern Ohio (Canterbury,
unpubl. data), despite an annual 1.2% decline in West Virginia from 1966-2000 (Sauer et al.
2001). The Wood Thrush was found in about equal numbers throughout the forested
ecotones of this study (Table 10), while the Black-and-White Warbler appears to be increasing
in West Virginia and not impacted by deer herbivory.
A group of ground-nesting forest-species, including the Kentucky and Worm-eating
warblers, appear to be declining and this may be due to impacts of deer herbivory. This is
contradictory to that mentioned above for the Black-and-White Warbler, which has similar
nesting habits to the Worm-eating Warbler. Microhabitat differences and ecological
competition may explain why some ground-nesting birds of the deciduous forest are declining,
while others are increasing.
The most significant analysis may be of priority species identified by Partners In Flight as in
need of further study and conservation, and are declining significantly throughout much of their
range. Table 23 shows priority species for the study area (Northern Cumberland Plateau
Physiographic Province of West Virginia) and list nationally the species on the Watch List. At
the national and local level, the Cerulean Warbler (hardwood and mixed mature forest guild)
and Golden-winged Warbler (shrub-scrub guild) are of extremely high concern because of their
continental population declines. The landscape pattern with the most birds, namely large
forested areas with small edges or minimal disturbance from contour mines should be
evaluated fora management option for these two species. Of the spedes of high priority for
the hardwood and mixed mature forest of the Northern Cumberland Plateau, namely the
Acadian Flycatcher, Yellow-throated Vireo, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Warbler, Worm-
eating Warbler, Ovenbird, Louisiana Waterthrush, Kentucky Warbler, and Hooded Warbler,
two are declining significantly and the others are increasing. The two with an overall
continental decline are the Wood Thrush and Kentucky Warbler.
The highest priority bird species, other than the Golden-winged Warbler, in this region are
forest-breeders (Cerulean Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler, and Louisiana Waterthrush) whose
29
-------
EIS REPORT
center of global abundance is along the Appalachian ridges most affected by MTRVF mining
(Rosenberg and Wells 1995). Because the Golden-winged Warbler is apparently not being
replaced by its sister species in MTRVFs (it would not occur on the Cannelton site, which is in
an area that has experienced Blue-wing invasion since the late 1950s), focus should be
directed mainly on the forest-interior species.
In closing, in our study of bird populations of southern West Virginia coalfields, we found
that the highest avian richness and abundance occurred in shrub/pole habitat on MTRVFs and
other mine types in southern West Virginia and that species diversity and abundances varied
with edge type. The clearing of forests often results in edge effects, in which species diversity
and densities are often higher than in interior forest (see Lay 1938, Johnston 1947, Anderson
et al. 1977, McElveen 1979, Strelke and Dickson 1980). The considerable amount of edge
created by MTRVF mining is apparently no exception to this pattern, but critical studies are
needed to assess additional parameters, such as nesting success, before we make final
decisions about the impacts of MTRVF. This is especially true since our work suggest that
MTRVF edges differ from those heavily studied in the literature for which considerable impacts
due to forest fragmentation have been documented. This study also does not consider any
impacts of tropical deforestation on declining Neotropical migrants, nor does it consider the
impacts of Brown-headed Cowbirds. Finally, this study, like all those conducted on forest
fragmentation, should be evaluated in respect that numerous studies have documented the
adverse effects of forest fragmentation.
30
-------
EIS REPORT
Literature Cited
Allaire, P. 1979. The avifauna of reclaimed surface mine lands: its composition and role in
land use planning. Ph.D. diss., Univ. Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Allaire, P. 1980. Bird species on mined lands: assessment and utilization in Eastern
Kentucky. Inst. Mining and Minerals Res., Kentucky Center for Energy and Res. Lab., Univ.
Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Alverson, W. W., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in
northern Wisconsin. Conserv. Biol. 2:348-358.
American Ornithologists Union. 2000. The A.O.U. check-list of North American birds, 7th ed.
Anderson, S. H., K. Mann, and H. H. Shugart, JR. 1977. The effect of transmission-line
corridors on bird populations. Am. Midi. Nat. 97:216-221.
Andren, H. P. 1992. Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a
landscape perspective. Ecology 73:794-804.
Andren, H. P., and P. Angelstam. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat
islands: experimental evidene. Ecology 69:544-547.
Angelstam, P. 1992. Conservation of communities - The importance of edges, surroundings
and landscape mosaic structures. Pp. 9-70 in Ecological principles of nature conservation.
L. Hansson, ed. Elsevier: London, U.K.
Arbib, R. 1971. Announcing - The Blue List: an early warning system for birds. Am. Birds
25: 948-949.
Askins, R. A. 1994. Open corridors in a heavily forested landscape: impact on shrubland and
forest-interior birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:339-347
Askins, R. A. 2000. Restoring North American birds: Lessons from landscape ecology. Yale
Univ. Press: New Haven, CT. 320 pp.
Askins, R. A., J. F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in
eastern North America. Current Ornithol. 7:1-57
Bayne, E. M., and K. A. Hobson. 1997. Comparing the effects of landscape fragmentation by
forestry and agriculture on predation of artificial nests. Conserv. Biol. 11:1418-1429.
Beers, T. W., P. E. Dress, and L. C. Wensel. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity
research. J. Forestry 64:691-692.
31
-------
EIS REPORT
Bock, C. E., M. Raphael, and J. H. Bock. 1978. Changing avian community structure during
early post-fire succession in the Sierra Nevada. Wilson Bull. 90:119-123.
Boeder, J. E., Y. Xin, M. A. White, D. J. Mladenoff, and G. E. Host. 1995. Spatial analysis
program (APACK): Users guide and technical documentation. Natural Res. Research Inst,
Duluth, MN.
Bohning-Gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown. 1993. Are declines in North American
insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range? Conserv. Biol. 7:76-86.
Brewer, R. 1958. Breeding-bird populations of strip-mined land in Perry County, Illinois.
Ecology 39:543-545.
Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to
decline? Bioscience 33:31-35.
Brown, V. K 1992. The effects of changes in habitat structure during succession in territorial
communities. Pp. 141-168 in Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in
space. S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, eds. Chapman and Hall: London,
U.K.
Buckelew, A. R., and G. A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia breeding bird atlas. Univ. Pitt.
Press: Pittsburgh, PA. 215 pp.
Buckley, P. A., C. M. Francis, P. Blancher, D. F. DeSante, C. S. Robbins, G. Smith, and P.
Cannell. 1998. The North American bird banding program: Into the 21st century. J. Field
Ornithol. 69:511-529.
Buehler, D. A., J. L. Confer, and R. A. Canterbury. 2002. Status assessment of Golden-
winged and Blue-winged Warblers. USFWS (in peer review).
Burger, J. A., and J. L. Torbert. 1997. Powell Riverproject: Reclamation guidelines for
surface-mined land in southwest Virginia. Publ. 460-123 in Surface-mined land in
southwest Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension.
Burke, D. M., and E. Nol. 1998. Influence of food abundance, nest-site habitat, and forest
fragmentation on breeding Ovenbirds. Auk 115:96-104.
Canterbury, R. A. 1990. Breeding ecology of the Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora
chrysoptera) in Raleigh County, West Virginia. Proc. W. Virginia Acad. Sci. 62:83-93.
Canterbury, R. A. 1998. The 1997 Christmas bird count summary. Redstart 65:132-135.
Canterbury, R. A. 1999. Point count surveys in the Bluestone National Scenic River Area.
32
-------
EIS REPORT
Unpubl. Rep. submitted to the Marshall University (Huntington) and the New River Gorge
National Park Service, Glen Jean, WV. January 11,1999.
Canterbury 2000a. Avian point count surveys in the Bluestone National Scenic River. Unpubl.
Rep. submitted to the New River Gorge National Park Service, Glen Jean, WV. January
31, 2000.
Canterbury, R. A. 2000b. Three Rivers Migration Observatory: Fall migration 1999. Redstart
67:97-100.
Canterbury, R. A. 2000c. Cerulean Warbler atlasing in the Western Hill physiographic
province. Unpubl. Rep., Cornell Lab. of Ornithology.
Canterbury, R. A., J. Meyer, and D. M. Stover. 1999. Three Rivers Migration Observatory: Fall
migration 1998. Redstart 66:115-123.
Canterbury, R. A., and D. M. Stover. 1998. Three Rivers Migration Observatory: Fall migration
1995-1997. Redstart 65:119-131.
Canterbury, R. A., and D. M. Stover. 1999. The Golden-winged Warbler: an imperilled migrant
songbird of the southern West Virginia coalfields. Green Lands 29:44-51.
Canterbury, R. A., and D. M. Stover. 1992. Observational of communal roosting of American
Crows at Beckley, Raleigh County, West Virginia. Redstart 59:82.
Canterbury, R. A., D. M. Stover, and N. J. Kotesovec, JR. 1996. Population ecology of
Golden-winged Warblers in southern West Virginia. Unpubl. Rep. WV DNR, Elkins, WV.
34pp.
Canterbury, R. A., D. M. Stover, and T. C. Nelson. 1993. Golden-winged Warblers in
southern West Virginia: status and population ecology. Redstart 60:97-106.
Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Forthe
future (Watch List 1996). Aud. Field Notes 50(3).
Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation
priorities for landbirds in the United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk 117:541-
548.
Casey, D., and D. Hein. 1984. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in a deciduous
forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:829-836.
Census of Agriculture. 1992. Vol. I. Geographic area series. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
33
-------
EIS REPORT
Chapman, D. L, B. S. McGinnes, and R. L. Downing. 1978. Breeding bird populations in
response to natural revegetation of abandoned contour mines. Pp. 328-332 in D. E.
Samuel, J. R. Stauffer, C. H. Hocutt, and W. T. Mason, JR., eds. Surface mining and
fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United States. U.S. Fish & Wild. Serv., FWS/OBS-78-81.
Chasko, G. G., and J. E. Gates. 1982. Avian habitat suitability along a transmission-line
corridorin a oak-hickory forest region. Wild. Monogr. 82:1-41.
Cody, M. L. 1968. On the methods of resource division in grassland bird communities. Am.
Nat. 102:107-147.
Confer, J. L. 1992. The Golden -winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). No. 20 in The birds
of North America. A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. B. Gill, eds. Acad. Nat. Sci.,
Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.
Confer, J. L, and J. L. Larkin. 1998. Birds of shrub habitats. SCO Spec. Publ.
Conner, R. N., J. G. Dickson, and J. H. Williamson. 1983. A comparison of breeding bird
census techniques with mist netting results. Wilson. Bull. 95:276-280.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land. Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England.
Hill and Wang, New York, New York, USA.
DeCalesta, D. S. 1994. Effect of White-tailed Deer on songbirds within managed forests in
Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:711-718.
DeSante, D. F., D. R. OGrady, K. M. Butron, P. Velez, D. Froehlich, E. E. Feuss, H. Smith,
and E. D. Ruhlen. 1998. The Monitoring avian productivity and survivorship (MAPS)
program sixth and seventh annual report (1995 and 1996).
Day, G. M. 1953. The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern forest. Ecology 34:
329-346.
Donovan, T., P. W. Jones, E. M. Annand, and F. R. Thompson, III. 1997. Variation in local-
scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78:2064-2075.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birders handbook. Simon and
Schuster, Inc: New York, NY. 785 pp.
ESRI. 1987. ARC/INFO users manual. Environmental Systems Research Institute.,
Redlands, CA.
Forman, R. T. T., and M Godron. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape
ecology. BioScience 31:733-740.
34
-------
EIS REPORT
Fowler, H. G., C. A. Silva, and E. Venticinque. 1993. Size, taxonomic and biomass
distributions of flying insects in Central America: forest edge vs. understory. Revista de
Biologia Tropical 41:755-760.
Frazer, C. F. 1992. Factors influencing the habitat selection of breeding birds in Hoosier
National Forest, Indiana: clearcutting and edges. Ph.D. dissertation , Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Gates, C. E. 1981. Optimizing sampling frequency and numbers of transects and stations. Pp.
399-404 in Estimating the numbers of terrestrial birds. C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott, eds.
Stud. Avian Biol. 6.
Gates, J. E., and L. W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field-
forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871-883.
Gauthreaux, S. A., JR. 1991. Preliminary lists of migrants for neotropical migrant bird
conservation program. Neotropical Migr. BirdConserv. Program. Washington, D.C. 3 pp.
Geissler, P. H., and J. A. Sauer. 1990. Topics in route regression analysis. Pp. 54-57 in
Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian population trends. U.S.
Fish&Wildl.Serv. Rep. 90.
Geissman, N. F., T. W. Barney, T. C. Haithcoat, J. W. Myers, and R. Massengale. 1986.
Distribution of forest land in Missouri. Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 20:5-14.
Gibbs, J. P., and J. Faaborg. 1990. Estimating the viability of Ovenbirds and Kentucky
Warbler populations in forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 4:193-196.
Gross, D. 1999. Ecosystems for Pennsylvania birds. Pp. 3-22 in A guide to critical bird
habitat in Pennsylvania. G. J. Crossley, compiler. Penn. Aud. Soc.: Mechanicsburg, PA.
219pp.
Grzybowski, J. A. 1983. Patterns of space use in grassland bird communities during winter.
Wilson Bull. 95:591-602.
Gutzwiller, K. J. 1993. Refining the use of point counts for winter studies of individual species.
Wilson Bull. 105:612-627.
Hagan, J. M., III. 1993. Dedine of the Rufous-sided Towhee in the Eastern United States.
Auk 110:863-874.
Hagan, J. M., Ill, T. L. Lloyd-Evans, J. L. Atwood, and D. Scott Wood. 1992. Long-term
changes in migratory landbirds in the northeastern United States: evidence from migration
capture data. Pp. 115-130 in Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds.
35
-------
EIS REPORT
J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Smithsonian Inst. Press: Washington, D.C. 609
pp.
Hall, G. A. 1983. West Virginia birds. Spec. Publ. No. 7. Carnegie Mus. Nat. His.: Pittsburgh,
PA. 180pp.
Hall, G. A. 1999. Allegheny Front Migration Observatory: Fall migration 1998. Redstart66:
52-57.
Hanski, I. K., T. J. Fenske, and G. J. Niemi. 1996. Nest success of breeding birds in forested
landscapes of northern Minnesota. Auk 113:578-585.
Hartley, M. J., and M. L. Hunter, JR. 1998. Meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and
artificial nest predation rates. Conserv. Biol. 12:465-469.
Harris, L. D. 1988. Edge effects and conservation of biotic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2:330-
332.
Haskell, D. G. 1995. A reevaluation of the effects of forest fragmentation on rates of bird-nest
predation. Conserv. Biol. 9:1316-1318.
Herkert, J. R. 1995. Status and habitat requirements of the Veery in Illinois. Auk 112:794-
797.
Herkert, J. R. 1997. Population trends of the Henslows Sparrow in relation to the
Conservation Reserve Program in Illinois, 1975-1995. J. Field Ornithol. 68:235-244.
Herkert, J. R., R. B. Szafoni, V. M. Kleen, and J. E. Schwegman. 1993. Habitat
establishment, enhancement and management for forest and grassland birds in Illinois.
Div. Nat. Herit, Illinois Dep. Conserv. Nat. Herit. Publ. No. 1, Springfield, II.
Hill, N. P., and J. M. Hagan, III. 1991. Population trends of some northeastern North American
landbirds: a half-century of data. Wlson Bull. 103:165-182.
Hoover, J. P., M. C. Brittingham, and L. J. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest patch size on
nesting success of Wood Thrushes. Auk 112:146-155.
Hovind, H. J., and C. E. Rieck. 1970. Basal area and point sampling: interpretation and
application. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res. Bull. 23.
Hunter, W. C., D. A. Buehler, R. A. Canterbury, J. L. Confer, and P. B. Hamel. 2001.
Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wld. Soc. Bull.
29:440-455.
36
-------
EIS REPORT
Hutto, R. L, S. M. Pletschet, and P. Hendricks. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for
nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk 103:593-602.
James, F. C. 1971. Ordinations of habitat relationships among breeding birds. Wilson Bull.
83:215-236.
James, F. C., and S. Rathbun. 1982. Rarefaction, relative abundance, and diversity of avian
communities. Auk 98:785-800.
James, F. C., and H. H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Aud.
Field Notes 24:727-736.
James, F. C., D. A. Wiedenfield, and C. E. McCulloch. 1992. Trends in breeding populations
of warblers: declines in the southern highlands and increases in the lowlands. Pp. 43-56 in
Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. J. M. Hagan III, and D. W.
Johnston, eds. Smithsonian Inst Press: Washington, D.C. 609 pp.
Johnston, V. R. 1947. Breeding birds of the forest edge in Illinois. Condor 49:45-53.
Jones, J., W. J. McLeish, and R. J. Robertson. 2000. Density influences census technique
accuracy for Cerulean Warblers in eastern Ontario. J. Field Ornithol. 71:46-56.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Surveying birds with mist nets. Pp. 62-67 in Estimating numbers of
terrestrial landbirds. C. J. Ralph and M. J. Scott, eds. Stud. Avian Biol., No. 6.
Keyser, A.J., G.E. Hill, and E.G. Soehren. 1998. Effects of forest fragment size, nest density,
and proximity to edge on the risk of predation to ground-nesting passerine birds. Conserv.
Biol. 12:985-994.
Knopf, F. L. 1994. Avian assemblages on altered grasslands. Stud. Avian Biol. 15:247-257.
Lay, D. W. 1938. How valuable are woodland clearings to birdlife? Wilson Bull. 50:254-256.
LeClerc, M. 1982. Bird communities and vegetation structure of reclaimed surface mines in
West Virginia. M.S. thesis, West Virginia Univ., Morgantown, WV.
Linder, E. T., and E. K. Bellinger. 1995. Depredation of artificial ovenbird nests in a forest
patch. Wilson Bull. 107:174-178.
Link, W. A., and J. R. Sauer. 1994. Estimating equation estimates of trends. Bird Popul.
2:23-32.
Litvaitis, J. A. 1993. Response of early successional vertebrates to historic changes in land
use. Conserv. Biol. 7:866-873.
37
-------
EIS REPORT
Litvaitis, J. A., D. L Wagner, J. L Confer, M. D. Tarr, and E. L Snyder. 1999. Early
successional forests and shrub-dominated habitats: land-use artifact or critical community
in the northeastern United States? Northeast Wildl. 54:101-118.
Lovejoy, T. E., R. Bierregaard, J. Rankin, and H. Schubart. 1986. Edge and other effects of
isolation of Amazon forest fragments. Pp. 257-285 in Conservation biology: the science of
scarcity and diversity. M. E. Soule, Ed. Sinauer & Assoc.: Sunderland, MA.
Marini, M. A., S. Robinson, and E. J. Henske. 1995. Edge effects on nestpredation in the
Shawnee National Forest, southern Illinois. Biol. Conserv. 74:203-213.
Martin, T. E. 1981. Limitation in small habitat islands: chance or competition. Auk 98:715-
733.
Martin, T. E. 1988. Habitat and area effects on forest bird assemblages: is nest predationan
influence? Ecology 69:74-84.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton Univ. Press.:
Princeton, NJ.
McElveen, J. D. 1979. The edge effect on a forest bird community in North Florida. Proc.
Ann. Conf. Southeastern Assoc. Fish Wild. Agencies 31:212-215.
McShea, W. J., M. V. McDonald, E. S. Morton, R. Meier, and J. H. Rappole. 1995. Long-term
trends in habitat selection by Kentucky Warblers. Auk 112:375-381.
McShea, W. J., and J. H. Rappole. 1992. White-tailed deer as keystone species within
forested habitats of Virginia. VA. J. Sci. 43:177-186.
Moore, F. R., P. Keriinger, and T. R. Simmons. 1990. Stopover on a Gulf coast barrier island
by spring trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bull. 102:487-500.
Morris, S. R., M. E. Richmond, and D. W. Holmes. 1994. Patterns of stopover by warblers
during spring and fall migration on Appledore Island, Maine. Wilson Bull. 106: 703-718.
Mushinsky, H. R., and D. J. Gibson. 1991. The influence of fire periodicity on habitat
structure. Pp. 237-259 in Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space.
S. S. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, eds. Chapman and Hall: London, U.K.
Norusis, M. J. 1993. SPSS for Windows. Version 6.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. 828 pp.
Odum, E. S. 1950. Bird populations of the Highlands (North Carolina) Plateau in relation to
plant succession and avian invasion. Ecology 31:587-605.
38
-------
EIS REPORT
Odum, E. S. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders: Philadelphia, PA. 284pp.
Ortega, Y. K., D. E. Capen. 1999. Effects of forest roads on habitat quality forOvenbirds in a
forested landscape. Auk 116:937-946.
Pashley, D.N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. P. Ford, W. C. Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and
K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight: conservation of the landbirds of the United
States: American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia, USA.
Paton, P. W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence?
Conserv. Biol. 8:17-26.
Peterjohn, B. G., R. L. Hannikman, J. M. Hoffman, and E. J. Tramer. 1987. Abundance and
distribution of the birds of Ohio. Ohio Biol. Surv. Biol. Notes No. 19: 52pp.
Peterjohn, B. G., and D. L. Rice. 1991. The Ohio breeding bird atlas. Ohio Dept. Nat. Res.:
Columbus, OH. 416 pp.
Peterjohn, B. G., and J. R. Sauer. 1994a. The North American breeding bird survey. Birding
26:386-398.
Peterjohn, B. G., and J. R. Sauer. 1994b. Population trends of woodland birds from the North
American breeding bird survey. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:155-161.
Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer, and C. S. Robbins. 1996. Population trends from the North
American breeding bird survey. Pp. 3-39 in Ecology and management of neotropical
migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds.
Oxford Univ. Press: New York, NY. 489pp.
Peterjohn, B. G., J. R. Sauer, and W. A. Link. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the
North American breeding bird survey. Bird Popul. 2:46-61.
Pimm, S. I., and R. A. Askins. 1995. Forest losses predict extinctions in eastern North
America. Proc. Nal Acad. Sd, USA. 92:9343-9347.
Porneluzi, P., J. C. Bednarz, L. J. Goodrich, N. Zawada, and J. Hoover. 1993. Reproductive
performance of territorial Ovenbirds occupying forest fragments and a contiguous forest in
Pennsylvania. Conserv. Biol. 7:618-622.
Posey, A. F. 1974. VegetationaI habitats of breeding birds in Ozark shrubby old fields. Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslows Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Sen/., Bloomington,
IN. 113pp.
39
-------
EIS REPORT
Pyle, P. 1997. Identification guide to North American birds. Part I. Columbidae to Ploceidae.
Slate Creek Press: Bolinas, CA. 732 pp.
Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field
methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144, Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Sen/., U.S. Dept. Agric. 41 pp.
Ranney, J. W., M. C. Bruner, and J. B. Levenson. 1981. The importance of edge in the
structure and dynamics of forest islands. Pp. 67-95 in Forest island dynamics in man-
dominated landscapes. R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, eds. Springer-Verlag: New York,
NY.
Rappole, J. H., W. J. McShea, and J. Vega-Rivera. 1993. Evaluation of two survey methods
in upland avian breeding communities. J. Field Ornithol. 64:55-70.
Rappole, J. H., E. S. Morton, T. E. Lovejoy, and J. L. Ruos. 1983. Nearctic avian migrants in
the Neotropics. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. 646 pp.
Ratti, J. T., and K. P. Reese. 1988. Preliminary test of the ecological trap hypothesis. J.
Wildl. Manage. 52:484-491.
Reese, K. P., and J. R. Ratti. 1988. Edge effects: a concept under scrutiny. Trans. N.A.
Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 53:127-136.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1979. Ecology. Chiron Press: New York, NY.
Riitters, K., J. Wickham, R. ONeill, B. Jones, and E. Smith. 2000. Global-scale patterns of
forest fragmentation. Conserv. Ecol. 4.
Robbins, C. S. 1981. Reappraisal of the winter bird population study technique. Pp. 52-57 in
Estimating the numbers of terrestrial birds. C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott, eds. Stud. Avian
Biol.6.
Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirement of breeding
forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildl. Monogr. 103:1-34.
Robbins, C. S., J. W. Fitzpatrick, and P. B. Hamel. 1992. A warbler in trouble: Dendroica
cerulea. Pp. 549-562 in Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. J. M.
Hagan, III, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Smithsonian Inst. Press: Washington, D.C. 609 pp.
Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989. Population declines in
North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 86:7658-7662.
40
-------
EIS REPORT
Robinson, S. K. 1988. Reappraisal of the costs and benefits of habitat heterogeneity for
nongame wildlife. Trans. N.A. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 53:145-155.
Robinson, S. K. 1998. Another threat posed by forest fragmentation: reduced food supply.
Auk 115:1-3.
Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson, III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995.
Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science
267:1987-1990.
Rollfinke, B. F., and R. H. Yahner. 1990. Community structure and composition of breeding
and wintering birds in a wastewater-irrigated oak forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 54:493-500.
Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr.
37:317-350.
Rosenberg, K. V., S. E. Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An atlas of Cerulean Warbler
populations. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. and Cornell Lab. of Ornithology Rep. December
2000. 56 pp.
Rosenberg, K. V., J. D. Lowe, and A. A. Dhondt. 1999a. Effects of forest fragmentation on
breeding tanagers: a continental perspective. Conserv. Biol. 13:568-583.
Rosenberg, K. V., R. W. Rohrbaugh, JR., S. E. Barker, J. D. Lowe, R. S. Names, and A. A.
Dhondt. 1999b. A land managers guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other
forest-interior birds. Cornell Lab. Ornithology. 23 pp.
Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells. 1995. Final report: importance of geographic areas to
Neotropical migrants in the Northeast. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv. and Cornell Lab of
Ornithology. July 1995.
Rotenberry, J. T., and J. A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian
communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology
61:1228-1250.
Rudnicky, T. C., and M. L. Hunter, JR. 1993. Avian nest predation in clearcuts, forests, and
edges in a forested-dominated landscape. J. Wildl. Manage. 57:358-364.
Ruth, J. (convener). 1996. Declining birds in grassland ecosystems: A Department of the
Interior conservation strategy. Report from the DOI grassland bird working group. Fort
Collins, CO.
41
-------
EIS REPORT
Sabine, D. L, A. H. Boer, W. B. Balland. 1996. Impacts of habitat fragmentatipn on pairing
success of male Ovenbinds, Seiurus aurocapillus, in southern New Brunswick. Can. Field
Nat. 110:688-693.
Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 1998. Grasslands. Pp. 437-472 in Status and
trends of the Nation s biological resources, Vol. 2. M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. P. Haecker,
and P. D. Doran, eds. U.S. Dept. Interior, USGS
Sauer, J. R, and S. Droege. 1992. Geographic patterns in population trends of Neotropical
migrants in North America. Pp. 26-42 in Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant
landbirds. J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Smithsonian Inst. Press: Washington,
D.C. 609 pp.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Mines, I. Thomas, and J. Fallen. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird
Survey results and analysis 1966 -2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/trend/tf98.html.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Mines, I. Thomas, J. Fallen, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American
Breeding Bird Survey results and analysis 1966 -1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/trend/tf98.html.
Small, M. F., and M. L. Hunter. 1988. Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in
forested landscapes. Oecologia 76:62-64.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Co.: San Francisco, CA.
859 pp.
Sparks, T, and R. A. Canterbury. 1999. Distributional survey of the Golden-winged Warbler
and the effect of tree size on choosing a habitat. McNair Scholars Symposium, Vol. II.
Concord College, Athens, WV.
Stearns, S. C. 1992. Evolution of life histories. Oxford Univ. Press: Oxford, U.K. 249 pp.
Stokes, A. E, B. B. Schultz, R. M. Degraaf, and C. R. Griffin. 2000. Setting mist nets from
platforms in the forest canopy. J. Field Ornithol. 71:57-65.
Storch, I. 1991. Habitat fragmentation, nest site selection, and nest predation risk in
Capercaillie. Ornis Scand. 22:213-217.
Stover, D. M., and R. A. Canterbury. 2001. Avian diversity at edge and interior forest plots in
southern West Virginia. Proc. W. Virginia. Acad. Sci. 73 (in press).
42
-------
EIS REPORT
Strait, K 1981. Vegetation changes and breeding biology of four sparrow spedes on
reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia. M. S. thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV.
Strausbaugh, P. D., and E. L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. Second ed. Seneca Books
Inc.: Granstville, WV. 1079 pp.
Strelke, W. K., and J. G. Dickson. 1980. Effect of forest-clear cut edge on breeding birds in
east Texas. J. Wldl. Manage. 44:559-567.
Swanson, D. A. 1996. Nesting ecology and nesting habitat requirements of Ohio s grassland-
nesting birds: a literature review. Ohio Dep. Nat. Res., Ohio Fish & Wildl. Rep. 13.
Tate, J., JR. 1981. The Blue List for 1981: the first decade. Am. Birds 35:3-10.
Tate, J..JR. 1986. The Blue List for 1981. Am. Birds 40:227-236.
Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, NJ.
Thomas, L., and K. Martin. 1996. The importance of analysis method for breeding bird survey
population trend estimates. Conserv. Biol. 10:479-490.
Thompson, F.R., III, J.D. Brawn, S. Robinson, J. Faaborg, and R.L. Clawson. 2000.
Approaches to investigate effects of forest management on birds in eastern dedduous
forests: how reliable is our knowledge? Wild. Soc. Bull. 28:1111-1122.
Thompson, F.R., III, W.D. Dijak, T.G. Kulowiec, and D.A. Hamilton. 1992. Effects of even-
aged forest management on breeding bird densities. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:23-29.
Van Horn, M. A., R. M. Gentry, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Patterns of Ovenbird (Seiurus
aurocapillis) pairing success in Missouri Forest Tracts. Auk 112:98-106.
Vickery, P. D., and J. R. Herkert. 1999. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the
western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology No. 19.
Villard, M.-A. 1998. On forest-interior species, edge avoidance, area sensitivity, and dogmas
in avian conservation. Auk 115:801-805.
Villard, M.-A., P. A. Martin, C. G. Drummond. 1993. Habitat fragmentation and pairing
success in the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus). Auk 110:759-768.
Watson, E. L., and R. A. Canterbury. 1999. Distributional survey of Golden-winged and Blue-
winged warblers. McNairScholars Symposium, Vol. II. Concord College, Athens, WV.
43
-------
EIS REPORT
Whitcomb, R. F., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D.
Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest.
Pp. 125-206 in Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes. R. L. Burgess and
D. M. Sharpe, eds. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY.
Whitmore, R. C. 1979. Short-term change in vegetation structure and its effect on
Grasshopper Sparrows in West Virginia. Auk 96:621-625.
Whitmore, R. C. 1980. Reclaimed surface mines as avian habitat islands in the Eastern forest.
Am. Birds 34:13-14.
Whitmore, R. C., and G. A. Hall. 1978. The response of passerine species to a new resource:
reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia. Am. Birds 32:6-9.
Wiens, J. A. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird
conservatbn. Ibis 137:597-5104.
Williams, M. 1989. Americans and theirforests: a historical geography. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Williams, T. C., J. E. Marsden, T. L. Lloyd-Evans, V. Krauthamer, and H. Krauthamer. 1981.
Spring migration studied by mist-netting, ceilometer, and radar. J. Field Ornithol. 52:177-
190.
Wlcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the dedine of migratory songbirds.
Ecology 66:1211-1214.
Wilson, R. R., D. J. Twedt, and A. B. Elliott. 2000. Comparison of line transects and point
counts for monitoring spring migration in forested wetlands. J. Field Ornithol. 71:345-355.
Winker, K. D., D. W. Warner, and A. R. Weisbrod. 1992. Migration of woodland birds at a
fragmented inland stopover site. Wilson Bull. 109:853-862.
Witham, J. W., and M. L. Hunter, JR. 1992. Population trends of Neotropical migrant
landbirds in northern coastal New England. Pp. 85-95 in Ecology and conservatbn of
Neotropical migrant landbirds. J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Smithsonian Inst.
Press: Washington, D.C. 609 pp.
Wray, T., II, K. A. Strait, and R. C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of grassland
sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. Auk99:157-163.
Yahner, R. H. 1986. Structure, seasonal dynamics, and habitat relationships of avian
communities in small even-aged forest stands. Wilson Bull. 98:61-82.
44
-------
EIS REPORT
Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conserv. Biol. 2:333-339.
Yahner, R. H. 1993. Effects of long-term clear-cutting on wintering and breeding birds. Wilson
Bull. 105:239-255.
Yahner, R. H. 1995. Eastern deciduous forest: ecology and wildlife conservation. Univ.
Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN. 220 pp.
Yahner, R. H., and J. C. Howell. 1975. Habitat use and species composition of breeding
avifauna in a deciduous forest altered by strip mining. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 50:142-144.
Yahner, R. H., and T. E. Morrell. 1991. Depredation of artificial nests in irrigated forests.
Wilson Bull. 103:113-117.
Yahner, R. H., and D. P. Scott. 1988. Effects of forest fragmentation on depredation of
artificial nests. J. Wldl. Manage. 52:158-161.
Yahner, R. H., and A. L. Wright. 1985. Depredation on artificial ground nests: effects of edge
and plot age. J. Wild. Manage. 49:508-513.
45
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 1. Total land cover (ha.) of available habitats
within MTVRV sites used in this study and percent
secondary succession that resulted from
reclamation of contour mining rather than MTRVF.
Habitat
Grassland
Shrub/pole
Forest Fragment
Total b
% Contour Mine
Cannelton
1,673
510a
291
2,474
44%
Hobet21
2,003
428
339
4,394
17%
Daltex
1,835
296 a
125
2,834
25%
3 produced mainly by reclamation of contour mining.
b includes additional habitats other than the three
treatment habitats shown.
46
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 2. Distribution of 134 edge points per habitat and MTRVF site (watershed)
in southwestern West Virginia.
Ecotone
Grassland / forest
Grassland / fragment1
Grassland / pole2
Pole / fragment1
Total
1 = forest fragment, 2 =
Cannelton
(TwentymileCr.)
2
25
11
6
44
reclaimed pole-size
Daltex
(Spruce Fork)
17
3
12
10
42
succession
Hobet21
(Mud River)
17
10
7
14
48
Total
36
38
30
30
134
47
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 3. Number of points (N) per watershed /
stream in the MTRVF sites of southwestern West
Virginia.
Watershed / Stream
Adkins Fork
Beech Creek
Big Horse Creek
Bullpush
Gum Hollow
Hewett Creek
Horse Branch
Hughes Fork
Hurricane Branch
Jim Hollow of Hughes Fork
Lavender Fork
Left Fork of Beech Creek
Little Horse Creek
Lynch / Smithers Creek
Rockhouse Fork
Sally Fork
Sixmile Hollow of Hughes
Creek
Slippery Gut Branch
Spruce Fork
Spruce Lick
Stanley Fork
Sugartree Branch
Mine Site
Hobet21
Daltex
Hobet21
Cannelton
Hobet21
Daltex
Hobet21
Cannelton
Daltex
Cannelton
Hobet21
Daltex
Hobet21
Cannelton
Daltex
Hobet21
Cannelton
Hobet21
Daltex
Hobet21
Hobet21
Hobet21
N
4
10
1
13
5
12
3
5
3
6
6
3
5
15
12
6
5
4
2
4
3
7
48
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Sample of historical mine sites examined during an on-going, long-term analysis of edge
and shrub habitats in southern West Virginia.3
Mine
Ameagle
(Mare Br.)
Artie
(White Oak
Creek)
Bee &
Georges Br.
(Shotgun
Hollow)
Berry Branch
Beury Mt.
Big Branch
Big Creek
County
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Raleigh
Fayette
Wyoming
McDowell
Coordinates"
and Topo
37° 56' 49" N
81 ° 22' 55" W
Pax
37° 55' 53" N
81° 18'22"W
Pax
37° 55' 43" N
81° 16'57"W
Pax
37° 40' 00" N
81° 17'30"W
Lester
37° 57' 24.7" N
81° 03' 45.8" W
Thurmond
37° 45' 30.7" N
81° 27' 16.0" W
McGraws
37° 16' 47.4" N
Mine
Typec
Contour
Mixed
Contour
MTRVF
MTRVF
Mixed
Contour
Contour
Years Size
Studied (ha)d
12 14.8
9 91
5 97.2
1 150.7
12 33
7 105
1 97
Mine
Agee
1989
1980
1986
1995
1999
1965
1985
1968
Elev.
(m)f
690
732
629
700
755
758
725
Bottom Creek McDowell
Brooklyn
(Chestnut
Flat)
Fayette
Buffalo Fork Raleigh
81° 34'43.4" W
Gary
37° 25' 47.4" N
81° 28' 17.5" W
Keystone
37° 34' 26" N
81 ° 02'30" W
Thurmond
37° 53' 23" N
81° 17'40" W
Pax
Contour 1
Mixed
MTRVF 5
43.7 1972 669
63 1980 685
120.2 1992 600
55
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Cooperstown Boone
Crab Orchard Raleigh
(Thompson
Ridge)
Crane Creek Wyoming
Cunard
Fayette
Dry Creek Boone
38° 05' 18"N
81° 35' 11" W
Sylvester
37° 42' 10"N
81° 14'W
Crab Orchard
37° 45' 33.4" N
81° 31'22.7" W
Arnett
37° 58'29.1" N
81° 02'25.1" W
Fayettville
37° 49' 44" N
81° 31'41" W
Pilot Knob /
Arnett
Mixed
MTRVF
Contour
Mixed
PMTRVF
13
12
39
79.6
37.6
88.5
15.7
1976 490
1970 723
1969 964
1969 723
1994 700
East Gulf
(Stonecoal
Cr. & Willibet)
Eccles
(Millers Camp
Branch)
Egeria
Ellison Br.
Ellis Creek
(Marsh Fork)
Raleigh
Raleigh
Mercer
Fayette
Raleigh
37° 37° 28" N Contour 12
81° 11'08"W
Rhodell
37°46'39.1"N Contour 14
81° 15' 52.5" W
Eccles
37° 30' N Contour 8
81° 12' W
Odd
37° 54' 56.8" N Contour 4
80° 53' 58.1" W
Danese
37° 55' 37" N PMTRVF 6
81 ° 29' 32" W
Whitesville /
Dorothy
83 1983 690
68.5 1983 703
51.6 1974 879
47.3 1972 703
10.2 1993 475
56
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Ephraim Cr.
Garden
Ground Mt.
Gary
Ghent
Gilbert
(Rich Creek)
Glen Rogers
Guyandotte
(Bolt) Mt
Harper
Harpers Br.
(Sandlick Cr.)
Hazy Creek
Highland Mt.
Fayette
Fayette
McDowell
Raleigh
Logan
Wyoming
Raleigh /
Wyoming
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
37° 57' 02.5" N
80° 52' 59.3" W
Danese
37° 54.4' N
81° 05.7' W
Thurmond
37° 18' 50.2" N
81 ° 33' 09.2" W
Gary
37° 37' 10" N
81 ° 06' 43" W
Flat Top
37° 40' 55" N
81° 56' 10"W
Gilbert
37° 45' 33.2" N
81° 26' 45.4" W
Glen Rogers
37° 47' 10"N
81 ° 29' 48" W
Arnett
37° 48' 33" N
81° 15'07"W
Beckley / Eccles
37° 49' 25" N
81° 19'56"W
Eccles
37° 51' 17"N
81 ° 33' 24" W
Pilot Knob
37° 55.3' N
81° 0.6' W
Thurmond
PMTMVF 5
Contour 12
Mixed 3
Contour 12
MTRVF 2
PMTMVF 3
Contour 12
Contour 14
Mixed 14
Contour 14
MTRVF 11
48.6 1975
159 1965
370 1970
31.7 1972
35 1998
85.9 1985
28.5 1969
2.5 1983
52.4 1983
39.4 1987
108 1973
747
749
780
903
570
741
970
690
712
722
742
57
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Kayford Mt.
Horse Creek
James Creek
Laurel Br.
(Big Coal
River)
Lester
Lick Creek
Little Brushy
Fork (Little
Marsh FK.)
Lillybrook
Long Creek
Low Gap Br.
(Coon Hollow
- Dorothy)
Mann Mt.
Boone /
Raleigh
Raleigh
Boone
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Raleigh
Fayette
37° 58' 23.1" N
81 ° 22' 09.9" W
Whites ville
37° 55' 44" N
81° 19'45"W
Pax
37° 55' 27" N
81 ° 33' 53" W
Whites ville
37° 57 49" N
81° 27" 16" W
Dorothy
37° 44' 10"N
81° 17'30"W
Lester
37° 56' 05" N
81° 19'29"W
Pax
37°55' 08" N
81° 29' 10"W
Dorothy
37° 38' 15.3" N
81° 13' 03.1" W
Crab Orchard
37° 57' 08.2" N
80° 52' 34.9" W
Danese
37° 56' 33" N
81° 30' 15"W
Dorothy /
Whites ville
38° 02' 44.4" N
80° 53' 30.9" W
Danese
MTRVF 9
Contour 12
MTRVF
MTRVF 1
Contour 5
Contour 12
PMTRVF 6
Mixed 1
PMTMVF 8
Auger
Contour 2
Mixed 6
MTRVF 7
1,862 1971 746
180 1987 590
1999
538 1999 600
6.84 1994 478
20.4 1975 715
42.5 1988 730
25.6 1999 591
63.8 1969 697
1998
71 1972 715
28 1993 602
82 1978 746
58
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Manns Creek
Maple
Meadow
McAlpin
McDowell
Branch
Meadow Fork
Metal ton
Midway
Mill Creek
Millers Fork
Mount Hope
(Sun Mine
Rd.)
Muddlety
Fayette
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Nicholas
37° 59' 44.1" N
80° 53' 22.4" W
Danese
37° 45' 29.8" N
81° 21' 53.1" W
Lester
37° 41' 50" N
81° 17' 17" W
McAlpin
37° 54' 24" N
81 ° 22' 28" W
Pax
37° 55' 31 "N
81° 06' 10"W
Thurmond
37° 46' 35" N
81° 17' 17" W
Eccles
37° 42' 40" N
81° 13'41"W
Crab Orchard
37° 51 '41. 4" N
81° 08' 42.7" W
Oak Hill
37° 48' 43" N
81° 27' 01" W
Arnett
37° 55' 28" N
81° 10' 37.6" W
Oak Hill
37° 17' 21. 4" N
81 ° 49' 43" W
Summersville
MTRVF 4
Contour 14
Contour 12
MTRVF 12
Contour 12
Contour 14
Contour 12
Contour 3
Contour 12
Mixed 2
MTRVF 7
150 1973
133 1969
60.2 1983
28.5 1983
79.1 1966
73.3 1974
32.7 1982
63.9 1969
6.3 1982
90 1983
219 1988
729
591
703
585
725
602
600
664
587
609
721
59
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Odd
(Piney Cr.)
Panther Br.
(Clear Fork)
Payne Knob
(Paint Creek)
Peachtree
Ridge
Pinnacle Cr.
Princewick
(Stonecoal
Creek)
Rock Creek
(Left Fork)
Scarbro
Seng Creek
Shumate
Creek
Slab Fork
(Mill Branch)
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Raleigh
Wyoming
Raleigh
Raleigh
Fayette
Boone
Raleigh
Raleigh
37° 36' 43.5" N
81° 10' 24.0" W
Odd
37° 56' 53" N
81 ° 27' 36" W
Dorothy
38° 00' 26" N
81° 19'06"W
Pax
37° 50' 27.0" N
81° 28' 18.7" W
Arnett
37° 33' 24" N
81 ° 29' 09" W
Pineville
37° 40' N
81° 15.7' W
Crab Orchard
37° 52' 22" N
81 ° 22' 25" W
Arnett
37° 50' 36" N
81° 10'34"W
Oak Hill
37° 59' 06" N
81 ° 37' 02" W
Whites ville
37° 51' 19" N
81 ° 31' 36" W
Pilot Knob
37° 40' 34.7" N
81° 19' 12.0" W
Lester
Contour 6
Contour 6
MTRVF 3
Contour 12
MTRVF 5
Contour 3
PMTRVF 12
Contour 12
MTRVF 3
Contour 7
Contour 5
37 1972 848
20.6 1990 590
59 1991 822
160 1962 939
135 1979 856
38 1966 727
23.6 1981 579
13 1983 600
49 1977 523
28.7 1996 725
375 1973 689
60
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
Stover
(Sandlick)
Sweeny burg
Sycamore
Creek
Table Rock
Tarns
Tarns Creek
(Paint Mt.)
Tiller Camp
Branch
(Devil s Fork)
Tommy Cr.
Toney Fork
Welch
West Fork
(Pond Fork)
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
McDowell
Boone /
Raleigh
37° 50' 39" N Mixed 8
81 ° 20' 00" W
Eccles
37° 50' 20" N Contour 13
81° 15'41"W
Eccles
37° 52' 33" N MTRVF 13
81 ° 23' 02" W
Pax
37° 47' 12" N Contour 12
81 ° 02' 40" W
Prince
37° 40' 20" N Contour 13
81° 18'06"W
37° 56' 21 "N PMTRVF 5
81° 17'OrW
Pax
37° 33' 32" N Mixed 8
81° 16'46"W
Rhodell
37° 35' 41 "N Contour 12
81° 14'52"W
Rhodell
37° 54' 48" N MTRVF 9
81° 18'04"W
Pax
37° 24' 54" N MTRVF 6
81 ° 33' 30" W
Welch
37° 54' 51 "N MTRVF 12
81 ° 36' 02" W
Whites ville
171.3 1978 526
5.5 1988 550
37.2 1983 531
56 1977 848
5.6 1983 700
8 1991 769
3.5 1990 605
24.5 1985 500
106.7 1989 800
77 1974 587
137 1988 500
61
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 4. Continued.
White Oak
Creek
Whitby
(Spencer Br.)
Workmans
Creek
Boone
Raleigh
Raleigh
37° 08' 40.9" N
81 ° 30' 42.9" W
Whites ville
37° 39' 48.3" N
81° 10' 37.0" W
Crab Orchard
37° 53' 17" N
81° 21' 43" W
Pax
Mixed 3
MTRVF
Contour 12
MTRVF 13
147 1985
1995
175 1974
142 1983
597
712
699
a Additional sites can be obtained from the senior author, including vast areas with old contour
mining activity such as Rhodell, Raleigh County. These sites are also described in Canterbury et
al. 1993, 1996, Canterbury and Stover 1999 and 2000c. b Center of the study area and empty
blocks denote coordinates not yet obtained. ° Primary mining method (see Canterbury and Stover
1999). d Land originally disturbed by mining activity (but 79% of this land is now second-growth
forest). E Date of earliest surface mining activity, but permits may span several decades. f Modal
value.
62
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 5. Relative abundance (number/point) of birds
observed during the winter season (January- April 10, 2000)
at interior (n = 80) and edge (n = 134) points at MTRVFs of
southwestern West Virginia.
Species
American Crow
American Goldfinch
American Kestrel
American Robin
American Tree
Sparrow
American Woodcock
Belted Kingfisher
Black-capped
Chickadee
Blue Jay
Brewers Blackbird
Brown-headed
Cowbird
Canada Goose
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
Common Raven
Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Bluebird
Interior
±1 SE
0.82 ±0.27
0.08 ±0.02
0.00 ±0.00
0.10 ±0.06
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.12 ±0.07
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.27 ±0.10
0.10 ±0.04
0.14 ±0.04
0.02 ± 0.008
0.0 ±0.0
1.65 ±0.72
0.12 ±0.05
0.35 ±0.12
Edge
±1 SE
3.04 ± 1.09
0.08 ±0.02
0.10 ±0.03
0.70 ±0.30
0.12 ±0.04
0.05 ±0.02
0.01 ±0.005
0.03 ± 0.009
0.07 ±0.02
0.01 ±0.005
0.05 ±0.03
0.08 ±0.05
0.19 ±0.08
0.21 ±0.09
0.16 ±0.05
0.02 ± 0.008
0.04 ±0.01
1.87 ±0.75
0.17 ±0.09
1.13±0.61
64
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 5. Continued.
Species
Eastern Meadowlark
Eastern Phoebe
European Starling
Field Sparrow
Golden-crowned
Kinglet
Hairy Woodpecker
Hermit Thrush
Horned Lark
Killdeer
Mallard
Mourning Dove
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Harrier
Northern Mockingbird
Peregrine Falcon1
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied
Woodpecker
Red-shouldered Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-winged Blackbird
Ring-necked Pheasant
Interior
±1 SE
0.10 ±0.05
0.00 ±0.00
0.0 ±0.0
0.40 ±0.11
0.02 ± 0.005
0.0 ±0.0
0.12 ±0.05
0.07 ±0.03
0.0 ±0.0
0.12 ±0.08
0.07 ±0.04
0.15 ±0.07
0.40 ±0.18
0.07 ±0.04
0.0 ±0.0
—
0.40 ±0.16
0.02 ± 0.007
0.04 ±0.01
0.07 ±0.02
0.22 ± 0.09
0.0 ±0.0
Edge
±1 SE
1.15 ±0.63
0.09 ±0.03
2.27 ± 1.03
0.80 ±0.51
0.04 ± 0.02
0.04 ± 0.009
0.12 ±0.04
0.65 ± 0.22
0.29 ±0.10
0.56 ± 0.20
0.09 ±0.04
0.22 ±0.09
0.64 ± 0.28
0.17±0.12
0.04 ±0.01
—
0.23 ±0.10
0.05 ±0.01
0.05 ±0.009
0.17 ±0.09
0.28 ±0.10
0.03 ±0.01
65
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 5. Continued.
Species
Rock Dove
Rough-legged hawk
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Ruffed Grouse
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Song Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Tufted Titmouse
Turkey Vulture
Vesper Sparrow
Water Pipit
White-breasted
Nuthatch
White-throated
Sparrow
Wild Turkey
Winter Wren
Wood Duck
Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker
Gull species2
Interior
±1 SE
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.02 ±0.01
0.05 ±0.01
0.37 ±0.20
0.0 ±0.0
0.32 ±0.18
0.22 ±0.10
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.17 ±0.09
0.12 ±0.06
0.0 ±0.0
0.0 ±0.0
0.15 ±0.07
0.05 ±0.02
—
Edge
±1 SE
0.07 ± 0.02
0.03 ±0.008
0.04 ±0.01
0.03 ±0.01
0.0 ±0.0
0.83 ±0.31
0.08 ±0.05
0.29 ±0.18
0.70 ±0.30
0.12 ±0.05
0.03 ± 0.009
0.03 ±0.01
0.12 ±0.06
0.90 ±0.41
0.02 ± 0.008
0.29 ±0.14
0.0 ±0.0
—
1 Single bird observed on Cannelton mine. Incidental
sightings (outside areas of point counts) included: Brown
Thrasher, Bufflehead, Eastern Towhee, Golden Eagle,
Greater Yellowlegs, Hooded Merganser, Lesser Yellowlegs,
Marsh Wren, Ring-billed Gull, Rock Dove, and Savannah
Sparrow. 2 = unidentified.
66
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 6. Importance values (IV) of selected bird spedes in winter on
MTRVFs.
Species
IV
Species
IV
HighOccurence
American Crow 174
Dark-eyed Junco 149
Moderate Occurence
European Starling 97
Eastern Bluebird 88
Eastern Meadowlark 75
Field Sparrow 63
Song Sparrow 63
Northern Flicker 53
Low Occurence
Turkey Vulture 44
Wild Turkey 40
American Robin 37
Pileated Woodpecker 33
Horned Lark 29
Mallard 27
Tufted Titmouse 24
Red-winged Blackbird 18
Carolina Chickadee 10
67
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Relative abundance (mean ± 1 SE) of birds detected along
grassland, shrub, forest fragment, and intact forest transects within
MTRVF EIS sites of southwestern West Virginia. Data collected
during the spring and fall migration periods.
Species (by Habitat) Spring Fall
Abundance Abundance
Grassland
American Kestrel 0.10 ± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.006
Barn Swallow 0.51 ± 0.20 0.21 ±0.10
Bobolink 0.21 ± 0.08 0.44 ±0.18
Brown-headed Cowbird 0.13 ±0.07 0.22 ±0.10
Chimney Swift 0.29 ±0.10 0.19 ±0.12
Common Crackle 0.30 ±0.10 0.33 ±0.15
Common Nighthawk 0.01 ± 0.003 0.22 ±0.12
Common Raven 0.06 ± 0.004 0.12 ±0.05
Common Snipe 0.03 ± 0.005 0.04 ± 0.009
Eastern Bluebird 0.15 ± 0.08 0.24 ± 0.09
Eastern Kingbird 0.15 ±0.09 0.23 ±0.10
Eastern Meadowlark 0.57 ± 0.29 0.41 ± 0.22
European Starling 0.69 ± 0.30 0.40 ±0.18
Grasshopper Sparrow 0.13 ± 0.07 0.58 ± 0.23
Great Blue Heron 0.08 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.04
Horned Lark 0.30 ± 0.18 0.40 ± 0.21
Killdeer 0.32 ±0.19 0.20 ±0.11
Mallard 0.12 ±0.05 0.16 ±0.05
Mourning Dove 0.43 ± 0.25 0.59 ± 0.30
Northern Harrier 0.06 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.009
Northern Rough-winged Swallow 0.29 ± 0.13 0.20 ± 0.09
Red-tailed Hawk 0.08 ± 0.04 0.03 ± 0.007
68
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Continued.
Species
Red-winged Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Savannah Sparrow
Tree Swallow
Turkey Vulture
Vesper Sparrow
Wood Duck
Shrubland
American Goldfinch
American Redstart
American Robin
American Woodcock
Baltimore Oriole
Bay-breasted Warbler
Black-billed Cuckoo
Blackpoll Warbler
Blue Grosbeak
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Carolina Wren
Cedar Waxwing
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Dark-eyed Junco
Spring
Abundance
0.48 ± 0.23
0.16 ±0.06
0.25 ±0.09
0.61 ± 0.22
0.63 ± 0.22
0.19 ±0.09
0.04 ±0.003
0.30 ±0.12
0.39 ±0.17
0.59 ±0.20
0.33 ±0.19
0.15 ±0.06
0.05 ±0.02
0.18±0.10
0.02 ±0.008
0.23 ±0.13
0.59 ±0.23
0.42 ±0.19
0.44 ±0.21
0.20 ±0.13
0.20 ±0.09
0.59 ±0.23
0.40 ±0.18
0.31 ±0.17
Fall
Abundance
0.38 ±0.20
0.0
0.08 ±0.04
0.49 ± 0.25
0.92 ±0.38
0.0
0.0
0.45 ± 0.20
0.10 ±0.06
0.35 ±0.16
0.06 ±0.008
0.12 ±0.06
0.15 ±0.07
0.23 ±0.15
0.0
0.08 ±0.05
0.22 ±0.12
0.28 ±0.10
0.33 ±0.17
0.09 ±0.05
0.36 ±0.15
0.45 ±0.19
0.30 ±0.18
0.0
69
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Continued.
Species
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Great-crested Flycatcher
Hairy Woodpecker
House Finch
House Wren
Indigo Bunting
Kentucky Warbler
Least Flycatcher
Lincoln s Sparrow
Magnolia Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Mockingbird
Northern Waterthrush
Orange-crowned Warbler
Palm Warbler
Pine Siskin
Pine Warbler
Spring
Abundance
0.41 ±0.21
0.46 ±0.18
0.68 ±0.31
0.24 ±0.14
0.61 ±28
0.33 ±0.19
0.20 ±0.11
0.07 ±0.03
0.25 ±0.10
0.45 ± 0.22
0.08 ±0.03
0.17 ±0.09
0.10 ±0.04
0.50 ±0.21
0.18 ±0.07
0.31 ±0.13
0.05 ±0.001
0.33 ±0.15
0.39 ±0.19
0.12 ±0.06
0.13 ±0.07
0.05 ±0.01
0.16 ±0.09
0.18 ±0.07
0.12 ±0.05
Fall
Abundance
0.35 ±0.17
0.43 ± 0.20
0.21 ±0.10
0.11 ±0.06
0.55 ±0.25
0.11 ±0.05
0.21 ±0.08
0.0
0.25 ±0.13
0.40 ±0.19
0.0
0.27 ±0.15
0.0
0.29 ±0.12
0.08 ±0.05
0.21 ±0.10
0.02 ±0.001
0.27 ±0.14
0.33 ±0.15
0.21 ±0.09
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.06 ± 0.02
70
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Continued.
Species
Prairie Warbler
Purple Finch
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-shouldered Hawk
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Ruffed Grouse
Scarlet Tanager
Song Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Tennessee Warbler
White-crowned Sparrow
White-eyed Vireo
White-throated Sparrow
Wild Turkey
Willow Flycatcher
Worm -eating Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Forest
Acadian Flycatcher
American Crow
Barred Owl
Spring
Abundance
0.40 ±0.16
0.13 ±0.06
0.42 ± 0.22
0.00
0.15±0.10
0.20 ±0.12
0.30 ±0.18
0.46 ± 0.20
0.38 ±0.16
0.14 ±0.07
0.45 ±0.20
0.16 ±0.06
0.33 ±0.17
0.63 ± 0.27
0.63 ±0.33
0.31 ±0.13
0.19 ±0.08
0.20 ±0.08
0.15 ±0.04
0.52 ± 0.23
0.31 ±0.13
0.56 ±0.30
0.66 ± 0.28
0.06 ± 0.003
Fall
Abundance
0.08 ±0.04
0.0
0.40 ±0.25
0.15 ±0.09
0.11 ±0.007
0.31 ±0.15
0.40 ±0.23
0.13 ±0.05
0.27 ±0.10
0.0
0.63 ±0.25
0.0
0.65 ± 0.29
0.0
0.53 ±0.29
0.22 ±0.12
0.13 ±0.06
0.11 ±0.05
0.29 ±0.13
0.0
0.08 ±0.04
0.45 ± 0.20
0.49 ± 0.23
0.02 ±0.001
71
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Continued.
Species
Belted Kingfisher
Black-and-White Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Blue Jay
Blue-headed Vireo
Broad- winged Hawk
Cape May Warbler
Carolina Chickadee
Cerulean Warbler
Cooper s Hawk
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Screech-Owl
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Hermit Thrush
Hooded Warbler
Louisiana Waterthush
Northern Parula
Orchard Oriole
Oven bird
Philadelphia Vireo
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Spring
Abundance
0.13 ±0.07
0.30 ±0.13
0.14 ±0.05
0.12 ±0.05
0.31 ±0.14
0.51 ±0.23
0.46 ± 0.26
0.45 ± 0.20
0.16 ±0.06
0.23 ±0.09
0.55 ±0.21
0.22 ±0.12
0.05 ±0.008
0.59 ±0.20
0.09 ±0.05
0.15 ±0.04
0.30 ±0.18
0.24 ±0.12
0.14 ±0.08
0.16 ±0.08
0.17 ±0.08
0.35 ±0.13
0.14 ±0.06
0.18 ±0.08
0.67 ± 0.26
Fall
Abundance
0.25 ±0.12
0.10 ±0.04
0.09 ±0.04
0.05 ±0.01
0.09 ±0.03
0.28 ±0.14
0.29 ±0.12
0.08 ± 0.04
0.24 ±0.1 3
0.19 ±0.09
0.61 ±0.29
0.0
0.10 ±0.004
0.27 ±0.14
0.01 ±0.004
0.0
0.0
0.14 ±0.07
0.0
0.09 ±0.05
0.05 ±0.008
0.15 ±0.09
0.09 ±0.03
0.18 ±0.08
0.51 ±0.21
72
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 7. Continued.
Species
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Swainsons Thrush
Tufted Titmouse
Whip-poor-will
White-breasted Nuthatch
Winter Wren
Wood Thrush
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Spring
Abundance
0.15±0.10
0.29 ±0.11
0.02 ±0.001
0.32 ±0.14
0.31 ±0.12
0.19 ±0.08
0.22 ±0.13
0.08 ±0.01
0.63 ± 0.28
0.27 ±0.15
0.17±0.11
0.20 ± 0.09
Fall
Abundance
0.26 ±0.12
0.0
0.04 ±0.001
0.26 ±0.12
0.40 ±0.18
0.0
0.33 ±0.15
0.0
0.20 ±0.12
0.0
0.28 ±0.14
0.06 ± 0.02
Additional sightings: American Bittern, American Black Duck,
American Coot, King Rail, Pied-billed Grebe, Solitary Sandpiper,
and Spotted Sandpiper were on or near ponds in grasslands. Ringed-
necked Pheasants were seen in grassland and shrub/pole habitats.
73
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 8. Mean (± SE) avian species richness and total abundance along 300 meter line transects (50
meters fixed width) within four edge habitat types of the MTRVF sites in southwestern West Virginia.
Data were compiled from spring migration counts from April 11 - May 31, 2000.
Grassland Shrub Forest Forest (intact) F2
(fragment) (p)
Species 12.31 ±0.93 18.58 ±1.29 9.16 ±0.85 7.23 ± 0.49 38.5
(within 50 meters) (0.01)
Density1 8.35 ± 0.51 12.39 ±0.83 6.59 ± 0.44 5.10 ±0.40 32.0
(within 50 meters) (0.02)
Total Abundance 23.85 ±1.3 30.98 ±1.05 19.27 ±1.12 12.34 ±0.99 43.1
(0.01)
1 Birds / ha. 2 One-way ANOVA comparing species richness, density or total abundance across edge
types.
74
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 9. Mean (± SE) avian species richness and abundance
along 300 meter line transects (50 meters fixed width) within
four edge habitat types of the MTRVF sites in southwestern
West Virginia. Data were compiled from spring migration
counts from April 11 - May 31, 2000. Data from fall migration
counts (from August 1 - September 10, 2000) showed
similarity with spring, and, thus, are not shown.
Spring
Species
Grassland
(Distance from edge, m)
0 150 300
Shrub
(Distance from edge, m)
0 150 300
12.02 12.66
(0.84) (0.95)
12.90
(0.87)
19.0 18.29
(1.20) (1.25)
Density1 8.30 8.44 8.23
(0.60) (0.45) (0.52)
Forest (fragment)
(Distance from edge, m)
0 150 300
12.47
(0.78)
12.26
(0.84)
18.56
(1.13)
12.38
(0.85)
Forest (intact)
(Distance from edge, m)
0 150 300
Species
Density1
9.04
(0.82)
6.66
(0.43)
9.10
(0.90)
6.63
(0.45)
9.19
(0.81)
6.55
(0.50)
7.30
(0.49)
5.24
(0.45)
7.25
(0.45)
5.20
(0.40)
7.17
(0.51)
5.02
(0.40)
1 Birds / ha. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for treatment
differences in species richness or density across edge types
and by distance. Dependent variables differed across habitats
(p < 0.05), but did not vary within groups by distance (p >
0.05).
75
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Bird spedes observed (mean with standard errors in parentheses) during 50-m radius point count surveys on MTRVF (this
study = TS) edges in June - mid July 2000 and throughout contour mine sites in southern West Virginia (sWV) during the breeding
season. N = 30 points in each edge type selected at random throughout sVW.
Habitats1
Species
Forest Interior Species
Acadian Flycatcher
G/F
sWV
0.22B
(0.03)
TS
0.18B
(0.02)
G/FF
sWV
0.15C
(0.02)
TS
0.14B
(0.02)
G/S
sWV
0.03°
(0.007)
TS
0.02C
(0.006)
S/FF
sWV
0.23B
(0.03)
ANOVA Results2
F P
TS
0.19B
(0.03)
27.41
17.91
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
0.08C'D
(0.01)
0.12B
(0.03)
0.04B
(0.009)
0.03B
(0.005)
0.06B'C
(0.01)
0.04C
(0.007)
0.03B
(0.004)
0.03B
(0.008)
0.04B
(0.008)
0.02C
(0.004)
0.04B
(0.004)
0.01B
(0.003)
0.11°
(0.02)
0.15B
(0.03)
0.10C
(0.02)
0.06C
(0.009)
4.
8.
12.
.75
.68
.10
3.84
Cerulean Warbler
0.10B
(0.00)
0.04B
(0.00)
0.00C
(0.00)
0.00C
(0.00)
0.00C
(0.00)
0.00C
(0.00)
0.31°
(0.08)
0.23°
(0.05)
14.02
13.49
Eastern Wood-Pewee
0.25B
(0.09)
0.18B
(0.03)
0.08C
(0.02)
0.08C
(0.02)
0.00°
(0.00)
0.00°
(0.00)
0.30B
(0.10)
0.18B
(0.08)
10
8
.14
.00
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
0.004
TS
0.001
sWV
0.001
TS
0.025
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
76
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Great-crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Oven bird
Pileated Woodpecker
Scarlet Tanager
G/F
sWV
0.08B
(0.01)
0.04
(0.008)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.23B
(0.04)
0.08B
(0.003)
0.28B
(0.07)
TS
0.07B
(0.02)
0.02
(0.006)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.10B
(0.03)
0.05
(0.004)
0.20B
(0.05)
G/FF
sWV
0.10B
(0.02)
0.03
(0.009)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.18B
(0.04)
0.06B
(0.003)
0.25B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Summer Tanager
Swainson s Warbler
Wood Thrush
Worm -eating Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-edge Species
American Redstart
G/F
sWV
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.32B
(0.07)
0.19B
(0.06)
0.06B
(0.004)
0.09B
(0.003)
TS
0.03B
(0.006)
0.00
(0.00)
0.30B
(0.08)
0.13B
(0.04)
0.08B
(0.005)
0.11B
(0.02)
G/FF
sWV
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.29B
(0.08)
0.16B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
American Robin
Black-and-white Warbler
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
G/F
sWV
0.24B
(0.06)
0.27B
(0.08)
0.15B
(0.04)
0.10
(0.03)
0.20B
(0.05)
TS
0.18B
(0.05)
0.25B
(0.05)
0.17B
(0.05)
0.11
(0.02)
0.22B
(0.04)
G/FF
sWV
0.30C
(0.09)
0.22C
(0.03)
0.18B
(0.05)
0.08
(0.02)
0.24C
(0.07}
TS
0.22C
(0.07)
0.21C
(0.04)
0.19B
(0.06)
0.10
(0.02)
0.30C
(0.05)
G/S
sWV
0.20B
(0.04)
0.03°
(0.005)
0.11C
(0.02)
0.08
(0.02)
0.14°
(0.04)
TS
0.12C
(0.02)
0.03°
(0.007)
0.13C
(0.02)
0.10
(0.03)
0.16°
(0.05)
S/FF
sWV
0.24B
(0.05)
0.23C
(0.05)
0.25°
(0.06)
0.11
(0.04)
0.31E
(0.07)
ANOVA Results3
F P
TS
0.12C
(0.03)
023B,c
(0.06)
0.26°
(0.08)
0.11
(0.02)
0.38E
(0.08)
4.61
9.88
28.05
25.91
18.75
16.39
1.33
1.27
46.84
67.05
sWV
0.
TS
0.
sWV
0.
TS
0.
sWV
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0
.005
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.28
.31
.001
.001
79
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Northern Flicker
G/F
sWV
0.11
(0.02)
0.13
(0.02)
0.21B
(0.04)
0.05
(0.006)
0.28B
(0.07)
012B,c
(0.02)
TS
013C,D
(0.03)
0.15
(0.04)
0.18B
(0.05)
0.04B
(0.005)
0.23B
(0.05)
014B,c
(0.03)
G/FF
sWV
0.11
(0.04)
0.16
(0.02)
0.17C
(0.02)
0.05
(0.007)
0.23C
(0.03)
014c,D
(0.04)
TS
0.10C
(0.02)
0.15
(0.02)
0.17B
(0.04)
0.07B
(0.005)
0.20B
(0.04)
0.16C
(0.03)
G/S
sWV
0.10
(0.03)
0.13
(0.02)
0.24B
(0.04)
0.03
(0.007)
0.00°
(0.00)
0.10B
(0.02)
TS
0.05B
(0.009)
0.12
(0.04)
0.16B
(0.04)
0.02C
(0.004)
0.00C
(0.00)
0.11B
(0.02)
S/FF
sWV
0.13
(0.02)
0.15
(0.02)
0.33°
(0.08)
0.05
(0.004)
0.32E
(0.08)
0.18°
(0.05)
ANOVA Results3
F P
TS
0.15°
(0.04)
0.15
(0.03)
0.22C
(0.02)
0.07B
(0.003)
0.30°
(0.07)
0.20°
(0.04)
2.56
3.95
1.12
0.91
16.02
13.89
0.79
3.40
22.71
31.96
sWV
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0.
sWV
.07
.01
.34
.43
.001
.001
.48
047
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
15.10
19.23
0
TS
0
.001
.001
80
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Northern Parula
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
G/F
sWV
0.16B
(0.02)
0.06B
(0.007)
0.78B
(0.04)
0.18B
(0.04)
0.24B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Edge Species
American Crow
American Goldfinch
Baltimore Oriole
Blue Grosbeak
G/F
sWV
013B,C
(0.04)
0.15B
(0.07)
0.13
(0.05)
0.16
(0.06)
0.06
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
TS
0.10B
(0.02)
0.19B
(0.07)
0.08
(0.03)
0.12
(0.04)
0.08
(0.04)
0.00B
(0.00)
G/FF
sWV
0.10B
(0.008)
0.12B
(0.05)
0.16
(0.07)
0.17
(0.08)
0.04
(0.008)
0.00
(0.00)
TS
013B,C
(0.02)
Q22B,C
(0.08)
0.10
(0.04)
0.12
(0.06)
0.07
(0.01)
0.00B
(0.00)
G/S
sWV
0.16C
(0.04)
0.05C
(0.008)
0.13
(0.05)
0.18
(0.06)
0.04
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
TS
0.16C
(0.03)
0.07°
(0.01)
0.07
(0.01)
0.15
(0.07)
0.06
(0.02)
0.08C
(0.04)
S/FF
sWV
0.27°
(0.05)
0.26°
(0.07)
0.15
(0.06)
0.18
(0.07)
0.06
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
ANOVA Results3
F P
TS
0.25°
(0.04)
0.24C
(0.08)
0.10
(0.05)
0.14
(0.05)
0.08
(0.02)
0.17°
(0.08)
3.37
4.08
17.04
13.67
2.03
1.96
0.83
0.97
0.77
0.81
40.51
sVW
0
TS
0
sVW
0
TS
0
sVW
.05
.01
.001
.001
0.16
TS
0.17
sWV
0
TS
0
sVW
TS
TS
0
.47
.387
0.50
0.48
.001
82
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Blue Jay
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
G/F
sWV
0.14
(0.08)
0.14B
(0.06)
0.05B
(0.01)
0.10B
(0.03)
0.07B
(0.02)
0.10B
(0.04)
TS
0.18
(0.07)
0.10B
(0.06)
0.04B
(0.009)
0.03B
(0.005)
0.04B
(0.02)
0.08B
(0.02)
G/FF
sWV
0.16
(0.08)
0.10B
(0.05)
0.08B
(0.04)
0.13B
(0.04)
0.07B
(0.03)
0.15C
(0.06)
TS
0.18
(0.06)
0.12B
(0.06)
0.06B
(0.02)
0.05B
(0.02)
0.07C
(0.03)
0.12B
(0.06)
G/S
sWV
0.13
(0.05)
0.38C
(0.07)
0.17C
(0.10)
0.17C
(0.08)
0.06B
(0.02)
0.20°
(0.07)
TS
0.15
(0.07)
0.50C
(0.06)
0.20C
(0.09)
0.12C
(0.06)
0.04B
(0.007)
0.23C
(0.08)
S/FF
sWV
0.16
(0.07)
1.22°
(0.06)
0.15C
(0.07)
0.10B
(0.05)
0.10C
(0.04)
0.22°
(0.07)
ANOVA Results3
F P
TS
0.18
(0.08)
1.02°
(0.07)
0.20C
(0.08)
0.05B
(0.01)
0.12°
(0.05)
0.27°
(0.08)
2.05
0.82
70.09
67.34
35.91
43.82
23.85
17.54
3.36
3.73
53.48
63.10
sVW
0.
TS
0.
sWV
0.
TS
0.
sVW
0.
TS
0.
sVW
.16
.48
.001
.001
.001
.001
0.001
TS
0.001
sVW
0
TS
0
sWV
0
TS
0
.05
.018
.001
.001
83
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Common Yellow/throat
Eastern Bluebird
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Indigo Bunting
G/F
sWV
0.18B
(0.06)
0.13
(0.04)
0.26B
(0.05)
0.11B
(0.02)
0.07B
(0.03)
0.50B
(0.07)
TS
0.22B
(0.09)
0.16
(0.05)
0.28B
(0.05)
0.02B
(0.007)
0.02B
(0.007)
0.54B
(0.08)
G/FF
sWV
0.20B
(0.08)
0.18
(0.03)
0.38B
(0.05)
0.13B
(0.02)
010B,c
(0.02)
0.48B
(0.08)
TS
0.25B
(0
0.
(0
0
(0
0
.10)
20
.03)
.45C
.15)
.04B
(0.009)
0
(0
0
(0
.05B
.009)
.57B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Mourning Dove
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Cardinal
Orchard Oriole
Prairie Warbler
Song Sparrow
G/F
sWV
0.05
(0.007)
0.03
(0.01)
0.11B
(0.03)
0.09B
(0.03)
0.05B
(0.01)
0.17B
(0.03)
TS
0.07
(0.02)
0.03
(0.02)
0.15B
(0.04)
0.11B
(0.02)
0.07B
(0.02)
0.14B
(0.03)
G/FF
sWV
0.07
(0.02)
0.03
(0.02)
0.15B
(0.02)
0.05B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
White-eyed Vireo
Willow Flycatcher
G/F
sWV
0.05B
(0.01)
0.00B
(0.00)
TS
0.08B
(0.02)
0.00B
(0.00)
G/FF
sWV
0.05B
(0.01)
0.00B
(0.00)
TS
0.10B
(0.02)
0.00B
(0.00)
G/S
sWV
0.27C
(0.04)
0.20C
(0.03)
TS
0.33C
(0.05)
0.12C
(0.02)
S/FF
sWV
0.24C
(0.03)
0.11°
(0.02)
ANOVA Results3
F P
TS
0.27C
(0.04)
0.10C
(0.02)
42.
26.
35
81
43.54
21.48
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Bobolink
Dickcissel
0.06B
(0.02)
0.18B
(0.04)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.10B
(0.03)
0.15B
(0.05)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.10B
(0.03)
0.21 B
(0.05)
0.04C
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11B
(0.02)
0.20B
(0.03)
0.03C
(0.008)
0.03
(0.002)
0.24C
(0.04)
0.20B
(0.03)
0.05C
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.31C
(0.04)
0.20B
(0.04)
0.03C
(0.007)
0.03
(0.002)
0.06B
(0.01)
1.27C
(0.05)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.07B
(0.01)
1.00C
(0.05)
0.00B
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
22
29.
238.
200.
9
8
2
.64
.35
08
65
.23
.75
.15
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
SWV
0.001
TS
0.001
sWV
0.001
TS
0.001
TS
0.14
86
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
Vesper Sparrow
G/F
sWV
0.32B
(0.04)
0.30B
(0.03)
0.11B
(0.02)
0.22B
(0.02)
0.08B
(0.02)
TS
0.40B
(0.05)
0.38B
(0.04)
0.19B
(0.03)
022B,c
(0.05)
0.05B
(0.03)
G/FF
sWV
0.36B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Other Species
American Kestrel
Bank Swallow
Barn Swallow
Chimney Swift
G/F
sWV
0.09B
(0.03)
0.07B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 10. Continued.
Habitats
Species
G/F
G/FF
G/S
S/FF
ANOVA Results3
F P
sWV TS
sWV TS
sWV TS
sWV TS
Tree Swallow
Turkey Vulture
0.25B
(0.02)
0.04
(0.009)
0.20B
(0.02)
0.03B
(0.008)
0.30B
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 11. Importance values (IV) of selected bird species in summer on
MTRVFs.
Species
High Occurence
Red-eyed Vireo
Indigo Bunting
Grasshopper Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Eastern Meadowlark
Moderate Occurence
Blue-winged Warbler
Red-winged Blackbird
Prairie Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Carolina Wren
Chimney Swift
Tree Swallow
IV
200
193
190
170
150
127
115
100
99
90
63
60
53
Species
Low Occurence
Northern Cardinal
Ruby-thr. Hummingbird
Wood Thrush
Song Sparrow
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
White-eyed Vireo
N. Rough-winged
Swallow
Eastern Towhee
Hooded Warbler
Black-and-White
Warbler
Tufted Titmouse
Yellow-throated Vireo
Horned Lark
Carolina Chickadee
IV
49
42
35
32
30
30
25
24
24
20
20
19
15
10
90
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 12. Number of birds (total and mean) banded during five fall
migration seasons (1996-2000) in southern West Virginia at Three
Rivers Migration Observatory (TRMO) and percent (%) of total that
were captured on a contour mine (10% of the TRMO observatory
area) in Raleigh County, West Virginia.
Species
Grassland
Common Crackle
Eastern Bluebird
Eastern Kingbird
Eastern Meadowlark
European Starling
Grasshopper Sparrow
Horned Lark
Mourning Dove
Red-winged Blackbird
Savannah Sparrow
Shrubland
American Goldfinch
American Redstart
American Robin
Baltimore Oriole
Bay-breasted Warbler
Black-billed Cuckoo
Blackpoll Warbler
Blue Grosbeak
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Carolina Wren
Total
13
17
1
1
1
15
1
40
6
1
1842
203
48
6
71
2
24
2
22
41
128
Mean
2.6
3.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
3.0
0.2
8.0
1.2
0.2
368.4
40.6
9.6
1.2
14.2
0.4
4.8
0.4
4.4
8.2
25.6
%
0%
58.8%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
33.3%
100%
20%
7.9%
6.2%
0%
31%
0%
3%
100%
31 .8%
24.4%
27.3%
91
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 12. Continued.
Species
Cedar Waxwing
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Dark-eyed Junco
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Great-crested Flycatcher
Hairy Woodpecker
House Finch
House Wren
Indigo Bunting
Kentucky Warbler
Least Flycatcher
Lincoln s Sparrow
Magnolia Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Mockingbird
Northern Waterthrush
Total
75
80
178
322
182
74
150
191
22
467
2
3
1695
81
520
22
18
87
405
14
46
266
2
12
26
Mean
15.0
16.0
35.6
64.4
36.4
14.8
30.0
38.2
4.4
93.4
0.4
0.6
339.0
16.2
104.0
4.4
3.6
17.4
81.0
2.8
9.2
53.2
0.4
2.4
5.2
%
14.7%
40%
42.1%
31.1%
2.7%
18.9%
22%
31 .9%
36.4%
19.3%
0%
33.3%
0.6%
14.8
36.5%
18.2%
22.2%
37.9%
5.7%
0%
30.4%
18.4%
0%
0%
23.1%
92
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 12. Continued.
Species
Orange-crowned Warbler
Palm Warbler
Pine Siskin
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Purple Finch
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Scarlet Tanager
Song Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Tennessee Warbler
Traill s Flycatcher
White-crowned Sparrow
White-eyed Vireo
White-throated Sparrow
Worm -eating Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Forest
Acadian Flycatcher
Belted Kingfisher
Black-and-White Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Total
2
96
711
6
19
14
9
557
62
695
195
1131
38
18
40
440
48
9
7
338
20
18
1
45
22
Mean
0.4
19.2
142.2
1.2
3.8
2.8
1.8
111.4
12.4
139.0
39.0
226.2
7.6
3.6
8.0
88.0
9.6
1.8
1.4
67.6
4.0
3.6
0.2
9.0
4.4
%
0%
27.1%
0%
0%
26.3%
0%
11.1%
20%
12.9%
14.8%
1 1 .8%
22.1%
13.2%
27.8%
37.5%
15.7%
37.5%
22.2%
28.6%
10.4%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
93
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 12. Continued.
Species
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Blue Jay
Blue-headed Vireo
Cape May Warbler
Carolina Chickadee
Cerulean Warbler
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Screech-Owl
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Hermit Thrush
Hooded Warbler
Louisiana Waterthush
Northern Parula
Orchard Oriole
Ovenbird
Philadelphia Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Swainsons Thrush
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Total
59
84
80
106
69
18
178
1
42
2
42
29
107
10
22
1
120
2
139
28
171
5
144
209
27
Mean
11.8
16.8
16.0
21.2
13.8
3.6
35.6
0.2
8.4
0.4
8.4
5.8
21.4
2.0
4.4
0.2
24.0
0.4
27.8
5.6
34.2
1.0
28.8
41.8
5.4
%
30.5%
31%
15%
17%
42%
22.2%
22.5%
0%
26.2%
0%
1 1 .9%
34.5%
34.6%
0%
9.1%
0%
25.8%
0%
23%
0%
16.4%
0%
22.2%
35%
0%
94
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 12. Continued.
Species
Winter Wren
Wood Thrush
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Total
38
26
22
10
Mean
7.6
5.2
4.4
2.0
%
18.4%
26.9%
27.3%
20%
Birds were classified into habitat categories based on primary place
of capture.
95
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 13. Mean number of detections per foraging guild during winter and breeding
seasons on edge plots (N = 38) of MTRVF sites in southwestern West Virginia. Data
analyzed for 38 randomly selected point counts of the 134 plots due to time
constraints.
G/F
G/FF
G/S
S/FF
G/F
G/FF G/S
Winter
Foraging Guild
Ground-shrub
Trunk-bark
Sallier-canopy
6
3
6
6
3
4
8
2
4
10
5
8
9
6
11
12
4
10
Breeding
15
4
7
S/FF
13
8
14
G/F = grassland/forest (intact), G/FF = grassland/forest fragment, G/S = grassland /
shrub (pole), and S/FF = shrub (pole)/ forest (fragment). Data were normally
distributed (Shapiro-Wilks test, p > 0.13).
96
-------
EIS REPORT
97
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 14. Relationship between edge length and number of
spedes and individuals (singing males/point) in major trophic
groups.
Trophic group Slope Intercept R p
Species richness
Omnivores
Bark Insectivores
Ground Insectivores
Foliage Insectivores
Aerial Insectivores
Abundance
Omnivores
Bark Insectivores
Ground Insectivores
Foliage Insectivores
Aerial Insectivores
0.73
0.40
0.63
0.22
0.69
0.85
-0.30
-0.19
0.25
0.61
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.2
0.3
0.6
5.0
2.2
1.9
0.8
0.88
0.79
0.92
0.64
0.93
0.80
-0.58
0.75
-0.60
0.69
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.05
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.05
98
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 15. Pearson product-moment correlations (r) among variables measured on
three MTRFV sites in southwestern West Virginia.
Species
Richness
Percent
Slope
Aspect
Elevation (m)
Serai Stage3
Percent Aspect Elevation
Slope (meters)
-0.371 -0.325 -0.386
-0.275
0.993
-0.383
Serai
Stage
-0.108
*
0.925
0.888
-0.129
Edge Length
(meters)
0.951*
-0.164
-0.093
-0.647
0.015
a Young reclaimed grassland (3-22 years), shrub/pole succession (12-30 years),
and forested land ( 35 years). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
99
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 16. Pearson product-moment correlations among species diversity and vegetation components
measured at shrub or pole/ forest fragment edge study plots in MTRVFs of southwestern West
Virginia.
Species
Richness
Live Tree
Tall shrub
Short
shrub
Dead tree
Tree height
Tree DBH
Species
Richness
-0.235
-0.018
0.007
0.374
-0.145
0.074
Live
Tree
-0.235
0.869"
0.799"
-0.703"
-0.778"
0.003
Tall
shrub
-0.018
0.869"
0.983"
-0.721"
0.917"
-0.887"
Short
shrub
0.007
0.799"
0.983"
-0.640*
-0.957"
-0.871"
Dead
tree
0.374
-0.703"
-0.721"
-0.871"
0.540*
0.710"
Tree height
-0.145
-0.778"
-0.971"
-0.957"
0.540*
0.921"
Tree DBH
0.074
-0.897"
-0.887"
-0.871"
0.710"
0.921"
Abbreviations for each vegetation category are defined in the text, p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
100
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 17. Percent slope and vegetation components (mean ± 1 SE) at edge and interior plots at 12
historical contour and seven historical MTRVF mines in southern West Virginia3. Comparisons were
made using factorial ANOVA. Data were normally distributed (Levene statistic, p > 0.05). NS = no
significant difference.
Contour
Variable
% Slope
Tree Height (m)
Litter Depth (cm)
Percent Ground
Cover
Percent Canopy
Cover
Shrub Height (cm)
Stem density/ hab
Basal areac
Interior
38.7 ±6.4
22. 9 ±2. 5
4.0 ±1.4
40. 5 ±2.2
48.1 ±2.3
34.5 ±6.0
3.9 ±0.05
112. 5± 13.1
Edge
41.6 ±7.5
18. 5 ±2.1
3.4 ±1.1
37. 9 ±1.7
39.0 ±2. 3
40.7 ±7.5
3.2 ±0.08
100.3 ± 10.6
Interior
33.8 ±6.1
20.3 ±2. 5
3.8 ±1.1
39.2 ±2.0
41.2±2.4
32.8 ±6.6
3.6 ±0.06
104. 7 ± 12.6
MTRVFs
Edge
37.5 ±7.0
17.9 ± 1.8
3.5 ±0.9
35.6 ±1.5
36. 5 ±2. 7
37.0 ±7.0
3.0 ±0.05
90.2 ±10. 9
p< 0.05
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
yes
NS
yes
a All data were collected in July - August at the end of the growing season. A clinometer was used to
measure tree height and slope; all other measures followed James and Shugart (1970). b log-
transformed values. c We used a 10-factor prism to estimate basal area at 0.032 ha. vegetation plots
within the study areas (Hovind and Rieck 1970).
101
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Population trends (percent annual change) of breeding birds of sWV coalfields (n = 32 historical
sites). Data collected from 1989-2000. Methods follow from Geissler and Sauer (1990) and the BBS.
Species
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Wood Duck
Mallard
Canada Goose
Turkey Vulture
Cooper s Hawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered
Hawk
Migratory Status1
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate and
central neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Status &
Abundance
(birds per
route)2
FC (2.4)
R(0.81)
R (0.43)
C (4.0)
FC (3.1)
FC (2.7)
R (0.85)
R (0.05)
R(0.61)
R(0.12)
Distribution
(out of 32
routes)
25
23
23
27
20
32
26
19
27
20
Trend (%
annual change)
±SE
8.4 (± 3.8)
- 2.6 (±1.7)
- 2.0 (±1.3)
- 0.9 (±0.06)
1 1 .6 (± 1 .9)
4.4 (± 1 .8)
6.3 (± 2.0)
2.4 (± 1 .7)
2.8 (± 0.9)
- 3.4 (±2.0)
P
0.01
0.12
0.15
0.68
0.001
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.09
0.04
102
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Broad- winged Hawk
American Kestrel
Killdeer
Mourning Dove
Black-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated
Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Red-headed
Woodpecker
Red-bellied
Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Southern neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Permanent resident
Southern neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Permanent resident
Permanent resident
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
R(0.10)
R (0.05)
U(1.3)
A (15. 6)
C (4.9)
FC (2.6)
FC (2.9)
FC (3.3)
U(1.4)
R (0.75)
C (5.6)
C (4.1)
U(1.2)
C (5.6)
18
14
15
32
32
25
23
32
29
14
30
24
18
29
-10.8 (±2.4)
- 5.1 (±1.1)
- 4.7 (± 1 .2)
14.4 (±1.6)
- 3.3 (± 0.8)
- 5.9 (±1.2)
2.5 (±1.1)
6.1 (± 0.8)
0.8 (± 0.9)
- 15.4 (±2.8)
8.0 (±1.3)
2.9 (± 0.7)
1.5 (±0.9)
- 6.5 (±1.4)
0.001
0.02
0.03
0.001
0.04
0.02
0.16
0.02
0.72
0.001
0.015
0.10
0.23
0.02
103
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Pileated Woodpecker
Eastern Wood-
Pewee
Acadian Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Great-crested
Flycatcher
Eastern Kingbird
Horned Lark
Tree Swallow
Northern Rough-
Winged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Permanent resident
Southern neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Central and southern
neotropical migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
R (0.73)
C (6.7)
FC (3.5)
FC (2.0)
R(0.16)
FC (2.0)
FC (2.5)
U(1.1)
U(1.7)
R (0.5)
U (1 .8)
U(1.3)
22
32
29
29
14
30
32
20
15
28
27
22
4. 8 (±1.5)
1.9 (±0.8)
3.5 (± 1 .0)
- 5.0 (±1.2)
- 7. 9 (±1.0)
- 5. 8 (±1.3)
1.5 (±0.7)
- 0.9 (±0.9)
- 8.0 (± 1 .2)
1 .2 (± 0.9)
4.8 (±1.5)
1 .6 (± 2.0)
0.035
0.18
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.20
0.65
0.01
0.24
0.03
0.20
104
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
American Crow
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted
Nuthatch
Carolina Wren
House Wren
Blue-gray
Gnatcatcher
Eastern Bluebird
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Southern neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate resident
Permanent resident
Temperate resident
Permanent resident
Permanent resident
Permanent resident
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
C(10.2)
A (13.0)
A (25.3)
FC (3.9)
A (14.1)
FC (2.8)
0(10.7)
C (4.0)
C (4.5)
C (4.2)
A (17. 5)
A (14.6)
C (9.0)
30
32
32
32
32
31
32
18
26
30
32
32
32
- 6. 5 (±1.8)
0.8 (± 0.5)
17.0 (±1.9)
- 1.4 (±0.9)
7.2 (±2.0)
3.5 (±1.0)
1.7 (±0.8)
5.9 (± 2.4)
3.9 (± 0.7)
2.2 (± 0.9)
3.0 (± 0.5)
4.1 (± 0.9)
5.0 (±1.1)
0.02
0.72
0.001
0.22
0.01
0.04
0.19
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.047
0.03
0.02
105
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Brown Thrasher
Cedar Waxwing
White-eyed Vireo
Blue-headed Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue-winged Warbler
Golden-winged
Warbler
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided
Warbler
Black-throated Green
Warbler
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central and southern
neotropical migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central and southern
neotropical migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
C (6.6)
FC (3.1)
C(10.4)
FC (2.5)
FC (3.7)
A (27.9)
C (9.2)
A (17.0)
FC (3.3)
R (0.6)
C (6.7)
U(1.7)
32
30
29
15
32
32
23
29
20
14
25
15
- 3.7 (± 0.8)
0.4 (± 0.7)
- 7.0 (± 1 .3)
1.1 (±0.4)
1.5 (±0.5)
6.5 (± 0.9)
7.2 (± 0.6)
- 0.25 (±0.2)
0.35 (±0.1)
- 1.6 (±0.3)
- 4.5 (±0.5)
1 .0 (± 0.7)
0.04
0.83
0.01
0.24
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.90
0.81
0.19
0.03
0.30
106
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Prairie Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Black-and-White
Warbler
American Redstart
Worm -eating
Warbler
Ovenbird
Kentucky Warbler
Common
Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Scarlet Tanager
Northern Cardinal
Central neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Southern neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
C (7.2)
A (12.0)
A (15.6)
A (13.9)
C(9.1)
A (16. 5)
FC (3.7)
C (7.3)
A (14.4)
C (7.2)
C(10.5)
A (18.6)
24
26
32
32
25
32
20
27
32
26
32
32
- 9.0 (± 2.0)
- 1.3 (±0.7)
4.8 (± 0.8)
6.0 (± 1 .0)
- 1.9 (±0.5)
- 2.3 (± 0.9)
- 7.5 (±0.6)
- 1.3 (±0.7)
- 4. 3 (±1.0)
- 3.5 (±0.8)
6.1 (±1.2)
- 2.9 (±0.7)
0.001
0.22
0.03
0.02
0.17
0.12
0.01
0.22
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.05
107
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Rose-breasted
Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Eastern Towhee
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Grasshopper
Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Red-winged
Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
Brown-headed
Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Southern neotropical
migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate and
central neotropical
migrant
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
Permanent resident
Temperate migrant
Temperate migrant
Temperate and
southern neotropical
migrant
Temperate migrant
Central neotropical
migrant
C (7.0)
A (25.7)
C(10.7)
C (8.9)
C(11.7)
U (1 .9)
FC (3.5)
A (16.1)
C (9.6)
FC (3.7)
U(1.4)
FC (2.2)
23
32
32
32
27
16
20
29
24
19
15
15
4.1 (±0.9)
2.4 (± 0.8)
0.95 (± 0.5)
- 4.9 (±0.7)
- 7.3 (± 0.9)
-16.2 (±1.2)
- 7.9 (±0.9)
- 6.4 (±1.0)
- 8.1 (±1.3)
- 8.5 (± 0.8)
- 9.1 (±1.5)
1 .7 (± 1 .0)
0.03
0.06
0.33
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.19
108
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 18. Continued.
Baltimore Oriole Central neotropical R (0.6) 14 - 1.2 (±0.9) 0.22
migrant
American Goldfinch Permanent resident C (11.4) 32 - 7.4 (± 1.3) 0.01
Temperate migrant
1 Hall (1983), Rappole et al. 1983, and Ehrlichet al. (1988). 2 Peterjohn et al. 1987. The 32 routes were
mainly along narrow contour mines running along forested slopes and ridges.
109
-------
EIS REPORT
Figure 9. GIS data enclosed. Six maps for each of three sites
(Peachtree Ridge, Highland Mountain, and Whitby).
no
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 19. Independent variables included in stepwise multiple regressions of
abundances of five species of shrubland birds on contour mines in southern West
Virginia.
Species
Independent Variables3
Golden-winged Warbler 0.73
Chestnut-sided Warbler 0.69
Indigo Bunting
Eastern Towhee
Field Sparrow
0.56
0.35
0.27
+ edge length (0.15) + elevation (0.14) +
slope (0.07).
+ elevation (0.22) - canopy cover (0.09) +
shrub height (0.03).
- tree height (0.25) + edge length (0.11) +
shrub height (0.05)
- tree height (0.38) + edge length (0.11) +
shrub height (0.06)
+ edge length (0.21) + elevation (0.10) -
tree height (0.07).
a Independent variables are listed in order in which they were included in the model.
All variables listed were significant (p < 0.05).
129
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 20. Abundance (mean with standard errors in parentheses) of a few selected forest species during 50-m radius point count
surveys on historical contour mine (n = 30) and historical MTRVF (n = 12) sites throughout southern West Virginia during the breeding
season (June).
Contour
Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Edge
0.15(0.04)
Black-throated Green Warbler 0.07 (0.02)
Blue-headed Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Great-crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Oven bird
Scarlet Tanager
Wood Thrush
Worm -eating Warbler
0.11 (0.03) -A
0.25 (0.04) - A
0.16 (0.02) -A,
0.12(0.01)
0.04 (0.004)
0.08 (0.003) - A
0.22 (0.08) - A
0.20 (0.12)
0.23(0.12)
0.15 (0.05) -A,
a Includes partial MTRVFs. b One-way ANOVA was
different letters are significantly different (Duncan s
Interior
0.19(0.03)
0.08 (0.01)
0.12 (0.03) -A
0.28 (0.04) - A
B 0.20 (0.08) - B
0.09 (0.007)
0.06 (0.006)
, B 0. 15 (0.02) -C
0.30(0.10)-B
0.20 (0.09)
0.25 (0.08)
B 0. 18 (0.07) -B
used to test for mean
multiple comparisons
MTRVF3
Edge
0.15(0.05)
0.03 (0.009)
0.03 (0.007) - B
0.06 (0.007) - B
0.11 (0.03) -A
0.10(0.03)
0.04 (0.003)
0.05 (0.009) - A, B
0. 15 (0.07) -C
0.17(0.11)
0.20(0.11)
0.11 (0.03) -A
Interior
0.13(0.03)
0.05 (0.01)
0.04 (0.009) - B
0.04 (0.005) - B
0.13 (0.03) -A
0.08 (0.04)
0.04 (0.007)
0.1 0(0.02) -A
0.20 (0.10) -A
0.19(0.09)
0.22 (0.08)
0.11 (0.05) -A
abundance differences across habitat types
test).
ANOVA
F
2.26
2.06
3.90
4.78
3.87
2.10
1.19
4.06
5.13
1.99
3.82
4.10
. Means
Results'3
P
0.09
0.13
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.32
0.04
0.01
0.17
0.06
0.04
with
130
-------
EIS REPORT
131
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 21. Guild abundance in edge (shrub/forest) and interior forest plots at Metalton, Raleigh
County, West Virginia during the breeding season (June). Data collected from 1996-2000. Values
are ± 1 SE for captures per 100 mist-net hours (n = 12 days) and number of birds detected per
300-meter transect (n = 12)a.
Nets
Guilds
Ground-shrub
Trunk-bark
Sallier-canopy
Edge
22.4 ±3.4
12. 3 ±2. 9
25.1 ±2.8
Interior
18.9 ±3.7
13. 5 ±2. 7
20.7 ±3.0
Pb
0.01
NS
0.01
Transects
Edge
18.0 ±3.1
10.4 ±2. 8
20.9 ±2.7
Interior
16.9 ±2.7
11.5±2.1
17.7±2.2
Pb
NS
NS
0.05
a Transect methods were same as those reported for methods of the migration counts on MTRVFs. b
Mann-Whitney U-test. NS = not significant (p > 0.05).
132
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 22. Summary of captured birds at TRMO (Metalton
contour edges and intact forest) during the breeding season
from 1996-2000.
Habitat Group
Grassland Species
Shrub
Woodland
Captured
49
451
268
Recaptured3
12
181
86
a Does not include multiple recaptures for single birds.
Habitats (grassland, shrub, and forest) were sampled
equally with the same net hours.
133
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 23. Partners in Flight West Virginia Northern Cumberland Plateau
priority bird species grouped by habitats and occurrence as either higher
on contour or MTRVF in southern West Virginia. The continental
population trend from the BBS is shown.
Species
Forest Interior Watch
List3
Acadian Flycatcher
Black-throated Green
Warbler
Cerulean Warbler EH
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Kentucky Warbler M
Louisiana Waterthrush
Ovenbird
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Wood Thrush MH
Worm -eating Warbler MH
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-Edge Species
American Redstart
Black-and-White Warbler
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Carolina Wren
Hooded Warbler
Northern Parula
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Higher Numbers in Continental
which Forest Edgeb Trendc
Contour +
Contour +
Contour -*
Contour -*
Contour -*
Contour +
Contour +*
Contour
MTRVF
Contour -*
Contour +
MTRVF +
Contour
Contour +
MTRVF +*
MTRVF +*
Contour +
Contour +*
Equal +*
Equal
MTRVF +*
134
-------
EIS REPORT
Table 23. Continued.
Edge Species
Watch Higher Numbers in Continental
List3 which Forest Edgeb Trendc
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Common Yellowthroat
Chipping Sparrow
Eastern Towhee
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Indigo Bunting
Prairie Warbler
White-eyed Vireo
Willow Flycatcher
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
M Contour
MTRVF
MTRVF
Equal
EH
M
MTRVF
Contour
Contour
MTRVF
MTRVF
Contour
Contour
MTRVF
Contour
MTRVF
MTRVF
MTRVF
MTRVF
O
+*
a Watch List species are identified by Partners in Flight as in need for
conservation at the national level (codes, adapted from Hunter et al. 2001
and Carter et al. 1996, 2000; EH = extremely high priority, MH =
moderately high priority, M = moderate priority).b Taken from data used
to compile this report and noted as occurring higher on contour vs.
MTRVF or in about equal numbers at both mine types. c Continental
population trends were taken from Hunter et al. (2001) and the BBS 1966-
1999 data (Sauer et al. 2000), and are adapted from Carter et al. (2000)
as follows: -* = significant decrease, - = possible decrease, O = trend
uncertain, + = stable or possible increase, +* = significant increase.
135
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Common and scientific names of plants found on edge sampling points.
Common Name
Agrimony spp.
Alternate-leaf dogwood
Giant ragweed
American basswood
American beech
American elm
American hazelnut
American Holly
American sycamore
Aster spp.
Autumn olive
Bedstraw spp.
Beechdrops
Beggars-lice stickseed
Bicolor lespedeza
Scientific Name
Agrimonia spp.
Cornus alternifolia
Ambrosia trifida
Tilia americana
Fagus grandifolia
Ulmus americana
Corylus americana
Ilex opaca
Platanus occidentalis
Aster spp.
Elaeagnus umbellata
Galium spp.
Epifagus virginiana
Hackelia virginiana
Lespedeza bicolor
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
136
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Bigtooth aspen
Birdsfoot-trefoil
Bitternut hickory
Black birch
Black cherry
Black gum
Blackjack oak
Black locust
Black nightshade
Black oak
Black poplar
Black snakeroot
Black willow
Black walnut
Bladdernut
Blueberry
Scientific Name
Populus gtandidentata
Lotus corniculatus
Carya cordiformis
Betula lenta
Prunus serotina
Nyssa sylvatica
Quercus marilandica
Robinia pseudo-acacia
Solanum americanum
Quercus velutina
Populus nigra
Sanicula canadensis
Salix nigra
Juglans nigra
Staphylea trifolia
Vaccinium spp.
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
137
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Blue curls
Blue vervain
Box Elder
Broad beech fern
Broad-leaved cattail
Broomsedge
Buffalo-bur
Buffalonut
Buttercup spp.
Butternut
Carex spp.
Catalpa spp.
Catnip
Chestnut oak
Chicory
Christmas fern
Scientific Name
Trichostema dichotomum
Verbena hastata
Acer negundo
Phegopteris hexagonoptera
Typha latifolia
Andropogon virginicus
Solarium rostratum
Pyrularia pubera
Ranunculus spp.
Juglans cinerea
Carex spp.
Catalpa spp.
Nepeta cataria
Quercus prinus
Cichorium intybus
Polystichum acrostichoides
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
138
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Cicely spp.
Cinnamon fern
Clover spp.
Coltsfoot
Common burdock
Common chickweed
Common clubmoss
Common dandelion
Common elderberry
Common greenbrier
Common Joe-Pye weed
Common mouse-ear
chickweed
Common pigweed
Common purslane
Common ragweed
Scientific Name
Osmorhiza spp.
Osmunda cinnamomea
Trifolium spp.
Asarum virginicum
Arctium minus
Stellaria media
Lycopodium clavatum
Taraxacum officinale
Sambucus canadensis
Smilax rotundifolia
Eupatorium fistulosum
Cerastium vulgatum
Amaranthus hybridus
Portulaca oleracea
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
139
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Common teasel
Common thistle
Cottonwood
Crab apple spp.
Crabgrass
Crown vetch
Cucumber tree
Cudweed
Curly dock
Cutleaf grapefern
Deertongue grass
Deptfork pink
Devilweed
Eastern hemlock
Eastern redbud
Elephants-foot
Scientific Name
Dipsacus sylvestris
Cirsium vulgare
Populus deltoides
Pyrus spp.
Digitaria sanguinalis
Coronilla varia
Magnolia acuminata
Gnaphalium obtusifolium
Rumex crispus
Botrychium dissectum
Panicum clandestinum
Dianthus armeria
Lactuca canadensis
Tsuga canadensis
Cercis canadensi
Elephantopus carolinianus
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
140
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
English daisy
European black alder
Fall phlox
Fescue spp.
Field cress
Field penny cress
Field sorrel
Field sow thistle
Flame azalea
Flowering dogwood
Flowering wintergreen
Goldenrod spp.
Greenbrier
Great mullein
Great plaintain
Ground -ivy
Scientific Name
8e//;s perennis
Alnus glutinosa
Phlox paniculate
Festuca spp.
Lepidium campestre
Thlaspi arvense
Rumex acetosella
Sonchus arvensis
Rhododendron calendulaceum
Cornus florida
Polygala paucifolia
Solidago spp.
Smilax spp.
Verbascum thapsus
Plantago major
Glechoma hederacea
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
141
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Habitat
Scientific Name
G/F
G/FF
G/S
S/FF
Groundpine
Groundpine (tree clubmoss)
Hairy-body cocklebur
Hawkweed spp.
Hawthorn species
Hay-scented fern
Henbit
Hercule s club
Honeylocust
Honeysuckle
Horse-nettle
Indian strawberry
Intermediate wood fern
Interrupeted fern
I ran wood
Japanese honeysuckle
Lycopodiun flabelliforme X
Lycopodium obscurum X
Xanthium italicum X
Hieracium spp. X
Crataegus spp.
Dennstaedtia punctilobula X
Lamium amplexicaule X
Aralia spinosa
Gleditsia triacanthos X
Rhododendron spp. X
Solanum carolinense
Duchesnea indica X
Dryopteris intermedia X
Osmunda claytoniana X
Carpinus caroliniana X
Lonicera japonica
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
142
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Japanese knotweed
Japanese spiraea
Jewelweed
Jimson weed
Knotweed
Kudzu
Laciniate wild teasel
Lambs quarters
Large-flowered tickseed
Little Bluestem
Loblolly pine
Long-leaved summer bluets
Loosestrife spp.
Mallow spp.
Maple-leaf arrowood
Maple leaf viburnum
Scientific Name
Polygonum cuspidatum
Spiraea japonica
Impatiens pallida
Datura stramonium
Polygonum spp.
Pueraria bbata
Dipsacus laciniatus
Chenopodium album
Coreopsis grand/flora
Andropogon scoparius
Pinus taeda
Houston/a longifolia
Lysimachia spp.
Malva spp.
Viburnum acerifolium
Viburnum acerifolium
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
143
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
May-apple
Milkweed spp.
Mimosa
Mockernut hickory
Moth mullein
Mountain laurel
Multiflora rose
Mustard spp.
New York fern
Oakleaf goosefoot
Ohio buckeye
Parsnip
Partridge berry
Pasture thistle
Pawpaw
Persimmon
Scientific Name
Podophyllum peltatum
Asclepias spp.
Albizia julibrissin
Carya tomentosa
Verbascum blattaria
Kalmia latifolia
Rosa multiflora
Brassica spp.
Thelypteris noveboracensis
Chenopodium glaucum
Aesculus glabra
Pastinaca sativa
Mitchella repens
Cirsium pumilum
Asimina triloba
Diospyros virginiana
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
144
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Philadelphia fleabane
Pignut hickory
Pitch pine
Poison ivy
Pokeweed
Prickly lettuce
Princess-tree
Purple dead-nettle
Purple sneezeweed
Queen Annes lace
Raspberry/blackberry
Rattlesnake fern
Redbud
Red cedar
Red maple
Red mulberry
Scientific Name
Erigeron philadelphicus
Carya glabra
Pinus rigida
Toxicodendron radicans
Phytolacca americana
Lactuca scariola
Paulownia tomentosa
Lamium purpureum
Helenium flexuosum
Daucus carcta
Rubus spp.
Botrychium virginianum
Cercis canadensis
Juniperus virginiana
Acerrubrum
Morus rubra
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
145
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Habitat
Scientific Name
G/F
G/FF
G/S
S/FF
Red oak
Red pine
River birch
Rhododendron
Rockspikemoss
Rose pink
Sassafras
Scarlet Oak
Scotch pine
Serviceberry
Shagbark hickory
Shortleaf pine
Small-headed sunflower
Smooth-body cocklebur
Smooth forked-chickweed
Smooth sumac
Quercus rubra X
Pin us resinosa X
Betula nigra
Rhododendron maximum X
Selaginella rupestris X
Sabatia angularis
Sassafras albidum X
Quercus coccinea X
Pinus sylvestris X
Amelanchier spp. X
Carya ovata X
Pinus echinata X
Helianthus microcephalus X
Xanthium pennsylvanicum X
Paronychia canadensis X
Rhus glabra X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
146
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Sourwood
Spicebush
Spotted knapweed
Spreading dogbane
Staghorn sumac
Star flower
Stinging nettle
Strawberry-tomato
Striped maple
Sugarmaple
Sweetbrier
Sweet fern
Sweetgum
Switch grass
Tall ironweed
Tall thistle
Scientific Name
Oxydendrum arboreum
Lindera benzoin
Centaurea maculosa
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Rhus typhina
Trientalis borealis
Urtica dioica
Physalis pruinosa
Acer pensylvanicum
Acer saccharum
Rosa eglanteria
Comptonia peregrina
Liquidambar styraciflua
Panicum virgatum
Vernonia altissima
Cirsium altissimum
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
147
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Tartarean honeysuckle
Tea berry
Thinleaved sunflower
Timothy
Trailing arbutus
Tree of heaven
Tumbleweed
Umbrella tree
Upland willow
Vetch spp.
Violet spp.
Virginia creeper
Virginia pine
Virginia strawberry
Wh ite ash
White-flowered leafcup
Scientific Name
Lonicera tatarica
Gaultheria procumbens
Helianthus decapetalus
Phleum pratense
Epigaea repens
Ailanthus altissima
Panicum capillare
Magnolia tripetala
Salix humilis
Vicia spp.
Viola spp.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Pinus virginiana
Fragaria virginiana
Fraxinus americana
Polymnia canadensis
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
148
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
White oak
White pine
Wild grape
Wild indigo
Wisteria
Witchhazel
Wild geranium
Wild hydrangea
Wi Id rose
Wild sage
Wild sweet William
Winter cress
Wood sorrel spp.
Wood tickseed
Yarrow milfoil
Yellow birch
Scientific Name
Quercus alba
Pinus strobus
Vitis spp.
Baptisia tinctoria
Wisteria frutescens
Hamamelis virginiana
Geranium maculatum
Hydrangea arborescens
Rosa spp.
Salvia lyrata
Phlox maculata
Barbarea vulgaris
Oxalis spp.
Coreopsis major
Achillea millefolium
Betula alleghaniensis
G/F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
G/S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S/FF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
149
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 1. Continued.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat
G/F
G/FF
G/S
S/FF
Yellowcorydalis
Yellow foxtail
Yellow oak
Yellowstargrass
Corydalis flavula
Setaria glauca
Quercus muehlenbergii
Hypoxis hrsuta
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
150
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Orders, vernacular names, and scientific names of all bird species observed in this study or typically found in the region
(Hall 1983, AOU 2000). Those with an asterisk were not observed on the MTRVF EIS study sites. Referto Hall (1983) for status (i.e.,
breeding, migrant, rare visitant or hypothetical) for each species.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order Gaviiformes
Red-throated Loon *
Common Loon *
Order Podicepediformes
Pied-billed Grebe
Horned Grebe *
Red-necked Grebe *
Eared Grebe *
Order Pelecaniformes
American White Pelican *
Great Cormorant *
Double-crested Cormorant
Order Ciconiiformes
American Bittern
Least Bittern *
Gavia stellata
Gavia immer
Podilymbus podiceps
Podiceps auritus
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps nigricollis
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Phalacrocorax carbo
Phalacrocorax auritus
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ixobrychus exilis
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret *
Snowy Egret *
Little Blue Heron *
Cattle Egret *
Green Heron
Black-crowned Night-Heron *
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron *
Wh ite I bis *
Wood Stork *
Order Anseriformes
Tundra Swan *
Trumpeter Swan *
Mute Swan *
Greater White-fronted Goose
Ardea herodias
Casmerodius albus
Egretta thula
Egretta caerulea
Bubulcus ibis
Butorides striatus
Nycticorax nycticorax
Nyctanassa violacea
Eudocimus albus
Mycteria americana
Cygnus columbianus
Cygnus buccinator
Cygnus olor
Anser albifrons
151
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Snow Goose *
Brant *
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
Green-winged Teal
American Black Duck
Mallard
Northern Pintail *
Blue-winged Teal *
Northern Shoveler*
Gadwall *
Eurasian Wigeon *
American Wigeon *
Canvasback *
Redhead *
Ring-necked Duck *
Greater Scaup *
Chen caerulescens
Branta bernicla
Branta canadensis
Aix sponsa
Anas crecca
Anas rubripes
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas acuta
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Anas strepera
Anas penelope
Anas americana
Aythya valisneria
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya marila
Lesser Scaup *
Common Goldeneye *
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser*
Red-breasted Merganser:
Ruddy Duck*
King Eider*
Harlequin Duck*
Long-tailed Duck *
Black Scoter *
Surf Scoter*
White-winged Scoter *
Order Falconiformes
Black Vulture*
Turkey Vulture
Osprey *
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala albeola
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Mergus serrator
Oxyura jamaicensis
Somateria spectabilis
Histrionicus histrionicus
Clangula hyemalis
Melanitta nigra
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta fusca
Coragyps atratus
Cathartes aura
Pandion haliaeetus
152
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
American Swallow-tailed Kite *
Bald Eagle *
Golden Eagle
Northern Harrier
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper s Hawk
Northern Goshawk*
Red-shouldered hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Swansons Hawk*
Rough-legged Hawk
American Kestrel
Merlin
Peregrine Falcon
Order Galliformes
Ring-necked Pheasant
Elanoides forficatus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Aquila chrysaetos
Circus cyaneus
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter cooper/7
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo lineatus
Buteo platypterus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo swainsonii
Buteo lagopus
Falco sparverius
Falco columarius
Falco peregrin us
Phasianus colchicus
Ruffed Grouse
Wild Turkey
Northern Bobwhite
Order Gruiformes
Yellow Rail*
Black Rail *
Clapper Rail *
King Rail
Virginia Rail *
Sora*
Purple Gallinule *
Common Moorhen *
American Coot
Sandhill Crane *
Order Charadriiformes
American Golden-plover*
Black-bellied Plover*
Bonasa umbellus
Meleagris gallopavo
Colinus virginianus
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Lateral!us jamaicensis
Rallus longirostris
Rallus elegans
Rallus limicola
Porzana Carolina
Porphyrula martinica
Gallinula chloropus
Fulica americana
Grus canadensis
Pluvialis dominba
Pluvialis squatarola
153
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Piping Plover*
Semipalmated Plover*
Killdeer
American Avocet *
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Solitary Sandpiper
Willet *
Spotted Sandpiper
Upland Sandpiper*
Whimbrel *
Hudsonian Godwit *
Ruddy Turnstone *
Sanderling *
Semipalmated Sandpiper*
Western Sandpiper*
Least Sandpiper*
White-rumped Sandpiper*
Charadrius melodus
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
Recurvirostra americana
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Tringa solitaria
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Actitis macularia
Bartramia longicauda
Numenius phaeopus
Limosa haemastica
Arenia interpres
Calidrus alba
Calidris pusilla
Calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris fuscicollis
Bairds Sandpiper*
Pectoral Sandpiper*
Dunlin *
Stilt Sandpiper*
Buff-breasted Sandpiper *
Short-billed Dowitcher*
Common Snipe
American Woodcock
Wilsons Phalarope *
Red-necked Phalarope *
Red Phalarope *
Parasitic Jaeger*
Laughing Gull *
Bonapartes Gull *
Ring-billed Gull
Herring Gull
Greater Black-backed Gull *
Black-legged Kittiwake *
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotos
Calidris alpina
Calidris himantopus
Tryngites subruficollis
Limnodromus griseus
Gallinago galliango
Scolopax minor
Phalaropus tricolor
Phalaropus lobatus
Phalaropus fulicaria
Stercorarius parasticus
Larus atricilla
Larus Philadelphia
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Larus marinus
Rissa tridactyla
154
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Caspian Tern *
Common Tern *
Forsters Tern *
Least Tern *
Sooty Tern *
Black Tern *
Order Columbiformes
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Order Cuculiformes
Black-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Order Strigiformes
Barn Owl *
Eastern Screech-Owl
Great Horned Owl
Snowy Owl *
Barred Owl
Sterna caspia
Sterna hirundo
Sterna forsteri
Sterna albifrons
Sterna fuscata
Chlidonias niger
Columba livia
Zenaida macroura
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Coccyzus americanus
Tyto alba
Otus as/o
Bubo virginianus
Nyctea scandiaca
Strix varia
Long-eared Owl *
Short-eared Owl *
Northern Saw-whet Owl *
Order Caprimulgiformes
Common Nighthawk
Chuck-will s-widow *
Whip-poor-will
Order Apodiformes
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Order Coraciiformes
Belted Kingfisher
Order Piciformes
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Asio otus
Asio flammeus
Aegolius acadicus
Chordeiles minor
Caprimulgus carolinensis
Caprimulgus vociferus
Chaetura pelagica
Arch/locus colubris
Ceryle torquata
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Melanerpes carolinus
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Sphyrapicus varius
155
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Black-backed Woodpecker*
Order Passeriformes
Olive-sided Flycatcher *
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher *
Acadian Flycatcher
Alder Flycatcher *
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Vermillion Flycatcher *
Great Crested Flycatcher
Western Kingbird *
Eastern Kingbird
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher *
Horned Lark
Colaptes auratus
Dryocopus pileatus
Picoides arcticus
Contopus borealis
Contopus virens
Empidonax flaviventris
Empidonax virescens
Empidonax alnorum
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax minimus
Sayornis phoebe
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Myiarchus crinitus
Tyrannus verticalis
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus forficatus
Eremophila alpestris
Purple Martin
Tree Swallow
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
Black-billed Magpie *
American Crow
Fish C row *
Common Raven
Black-capped Chickadee
Carolina Chickadee
Boreal Chickadee *
Tufted Titmouse
Red-breasted Nuthatch *
White-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Progne subis
Tachycineta bicolor
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Riparia riparia
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Cyanocitta cristata
Pica pica
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus ossifragus
Corvus corax
Poecile atricapillus
Poecile carolinensis
Poecile hudsonicus
Baeolophus bicolor
Sitta canadensis
Sitta carolinensis
Certhia americana
156
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Carolina Wren
Bewick s Wren *
House Wren
Winter Wren
Sedge Wren *
Marsh Wren *
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Eastern Bluebird
Veery *
Gray-cheeked Thrush *
Swainsons Thrush
Herm it Th rush
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Thryomanes bewickii
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Cistothorus platensis
Cistothorus palustris
Regulus satrapa
Regulus calendula
Polioptila caerulea
Sialia sialis
Catharus fuscescens
Catharus minimus
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus guttatus
Hylocichla fuscescens
Turdus migratorius
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Brown Thrasher
American Pipit
Bohemian Waxwing *
Cedar Waxwing
Northern Shrike *
Loggerhead Shrike *
European Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Blue-headed Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Philadelphia Vireo *
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue-winged Warbler
Golden-winged Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler *
Nashville Warbler
Toxostoma rufum
Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla garrulus
Bombycilla cedrorum
Lanius excubitor
Lanius ludovicianus
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo griseus
Vireo solitarius
Vireo gilvus
Vireo flavifrons
Vireo philadelphicus
Vireo olivaceus
Vermivora pinus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora peregrina
Vermivora celata
Vermivora ruficapilla
157
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler *
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Button s Warbler *
Pine Warbler
Kirtland s Warbler *
Prairie Warbler
Palm Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Blackpoll Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Parula americana
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica tigrina
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica virens
Dendroica fusca
Dendroica dominica
Dendroica potomac
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica kirtlandii
Dendroica discolor
Dendroica palmarum
Dendroica castanea
Dendroica striata
Dendroica cerulea
Black-and-white Warbler
American Redstart
Prothonotary Warbler *
Worm-eating Warbler
Swainson s Warbler *
Ovenbird
Northern Waterthrush *
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Connecticut Warbler *
Mourning Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Wilson s Warbler *
Canada Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Summer Tanager
Scarlet Tanager
Mniotilta varia
Setophaga ruticilla
Protonotaria citrea
Helmitheros vermivorus
Limnothlypis swainsonii
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus noveboracensis
Seiurus motacilla
Oporornis formosus
Oporornis agilis
Oporornis Philadelphia
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia pusilla
Wilsonia canadensis
Icteria virens
Piranga rubra
Piranga olivacea
158
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Western Tanager *
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Blue-headed Grosbeak*
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Painted Bunting *
Dickcissel
Green-tailed Towhee *
Eastern Towhee
Brown Towhee *
Bachman s Sparrow *
American Tree Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Clay-colored Sparrow *
Field Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
Lark S parrow *
Piranga ludoviciana
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Pheuticus melanocephalus
Guiraca caerulea
Passerina cyanea
Passerina ciris
Spiza americana
Pipilo chlorurus
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Pipilo fuscus
Aimophila aestivalis
Spizella arborea
Spizella passerina
Spizella pallida
Spizella pusilla
Pooecetes gramineus
Chondestes grammacus
Lark Bunting *
Savannah Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslows Sparrow *
LeConte s Sparrow *
Sharp-tailed Sparrow *
Fox S parrow *
Song Sparrow
Lincoln s Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Harris Sparrow*
Dark-eyed Junco
Lapland Lonspur*
Snow Bunting *
Bobolink
Red-winged Blackbird
Calamospiza melanocorys
Passerculus sandwichensis
Ammodramus savannarum
Ammodramus henslowii
Ammodramus leconteii
Ammodramus caudacutus
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza melodia
Melospiza lincolnii
Melospiza georgiana
Zonotrichia albicollis
Zonotrichia leucophtys
Zonotrichia querula
Junco hyemalis
Calcarius lapponicus
Plectrophenax nivalis
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Agelaius phoeniceus
159
-------
EIS REPORT
Appendix 2. Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Eastern Meadowlark
Western Meadowlark *
Yellow-headed Blackbird *
Rusty Blackbird *
Brewers Blackbird
Common Crackle
Brown-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Baltimore Oriole
Pine Grosbeak*
Sturnella magna
Sturnella neglecta
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Euphagus carolinus
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Quiscalus quiscula
Molothrus ater
Icterus spurius
Icterus galbula
Pinicola enucleator
Purple Finch
House Finch
Red Crossbill *
White-winged Crossbill
Common Redpoll *
Pine Siskin *
American Goldfinch
Evening Grosbeak*
House Sparrow
Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus mexicanus
Loxia curvirostra
Loxia leucoptera
Carduelis flammea
Carduelis pinus
Carduelis tristis
Coccothraustes vespertina
Passer domesticus
160
-------
EIS REPORT
Address all correspondence to:
Ronald A. Canterbury
Assistant Professor
Chair, WV Partners In Flight Research and Monitoring
Editor, WV Academy of Science
Department of Biology
Concord College
Athens, WV24712
Voice: (304)384-5214
Fax: (304) 384-6225
E-mail: canterburyr(S)concord.edu
Technical Reviewers of this Report
John Confer, William Hunter, Donna Mitchell, Charles Nicholson, Ken Rosenberg, Leo
Shapiro, Cindy Tibbott, Darla Wise, and Petra Wood.
-------
EIS REPORT
Figure 1. Location of edge points at the Cannelton mine.
49
-------
EIS REPORT
Figure 2. Location of line transects at the Cannelton mine.
50
-------
EIS REPORT
Hollow
Figure 3. Location of edge points at the Hobet 21 mine.
51
-------
EIS REPORT
lollow
High
yne Hollo
JadwKmith Branch
White Beech Hollow
Black Hog Hollow
Figure 4. Location of line transects at the Hobet 21 mine.
52
-------
EIS REPORT
i mix ^\
^% 2 C V
Figure 5. Location of point counts at the Daltex mine.
53
-------
EIS REPORT
i mix ^\
^% 2 C V
Figure 6. Location of line transects at the Daltex mine.
54
-------
EIS REPORT
.Sylvester
\Shady Spring
Coal ri^f Is"*—
Figure 7. Location of Raleigh County historical mine sites.
63
-------
Highland Mt. - Land cover
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
Cleared land
Strip mines
Wooded
-------
Highland Mt. - Roads
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
/\/ Roads
Distance to roads - meters
0-46
46-92
92-138
138-184
184 - 230
230 - 276
276 - 322
322 - 368
368-414
414-460
oo
-------
Highland Mt. - Water
AV Streams and ponds
Distance to water - meters
r^j 0 - 57.983
[ 157.983-115.966
] 115.966- 173.948
[ | 173.948-231.931
] 231.931 -289.914
J 289.914-347.897
| 347.897 - 405.879
405.879 - 463.862
463.862-521.845
- 579.828
m
O)
33
m
TI
O
-------
Highland Mt. - Elevation
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
\
to
o
0.5
w
0.5
1 Kilometers
Elevation Range
^B 1300- 1440ft.
1440-1580
1580-1720
, 1720-1860
] 1860-2000
|2000-2140
§2140-2280
| 2280 - 2420
^ 2420 - 2560
2560-2700
Study area
/\/ Streams and ponds
/\/ Roads
-------
Highland Mt. - Land cover
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
Cleared land
Strip mines
Wooded
-------
Highland Mt. - Roads
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
/\/ Roads
Distance to roads - meters
0-46
46-92
92-138
138-184
184 - 230
230 - 276
276 - 322
322 - 368
368-414
414-460
oo
-------
Highland Mt. - Water
AV Streams and ponds
Distance to water - meters
r^j 0 - 57.983
[ 157.983-115.966
] 115.966- 173.948
[ | 173.948-231.931
] 231.931 -289.914
J 289.914-347.897
| 347.897 - 405.879
405.879 - 463.862
463.862-521.845
- 579.828
m
O)
33
m
TI
O
-------
Highland Mt. - Elevation
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
\
to
o
0.5
w
0.5
1 Kilometers
Elevation Range
^B 1300- 1440ft.
1440-1580
1580-1720
, 1720-1860
] 1860-2000
|2000-2140
§2140-2280
| 2280 - 2420
^ 2420 - 2560
2560-2700
Study area
/\/ Streams and ponds
/\/ Roads
-------
Highland Mt. - Slope
Slope %
0 - 8.038
8.038 -16.075
16.075-24.113
| 1 24.113-32.15
[ [32.15-40.188
j 140.188-48.225
| | 48.225 - 56.263
| 56.263 - 64.3
| 64.3 - 72.338
I 72.338 - 80.376
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
-------
Highland Mt. - Houses
m
O)
73
m
TI
O
• Houses
Distance to houses - meters
0-150.403
150.403-300.806
300.806-451.208
451.208-601.611
601.611 -752.014
752.014-902.417
902.417- 1052.82
1052.82-1203.223
1203.223-1353.625
1353.625-1504.028
to
to
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
Land cover
Strip mines
Cleared land
Wooded
0.5 0 0.5 Kilometers
N
w -*jyp H
S
111
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
Roads
/\/ Roads
Distance to roads - meters
rn 0-109.371
' 109.371 -218.742
218.742-328.113
328.113-437.484
437.484 - 546.854
546.854 - 656.225
656.225 - 765.596
765.596-874.967
874.967 - 984.338
984.338-1093.709
0.5
0.5 Kilometers
112
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
Water
/\/ Streams
Distance to streams - meters
0-40.804
140.804-81.609
H 81.609-122.413
] 122.413-163.218
] 163.218-204.022
'204.022-244.826
] 244.826 - 285.631
| 285.631 - 326.435
| 326.435-367.24
1367.24-408.044
0.5 Kilometers
113
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
Elevation
Study area
/\/ Roads
Streams
Elevation Range
^H 2000-2120 ft.
| 2120-2240
] 2240 - 2360
2360 - 2480
2480 - 2600
2600 - 2720
2720 - 2840
2840 - 2960
2960 - 3080
2080 - 3200
0.3
0.3
0.6 Kilometers
N
W
114
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
Slope
Pet. slope
0 - 7.737
7.737-15.474
15.474-23.211
23.211 -30.948
30.948 - 38.685
38.685 - 46.422
46.422-54.159
54.159-61.896
61.896-69.633
69.633 - 77.37
0.5
0.5 Kilometers
115
-------
EIS REPORT
Peachtree
Ridge
.Houses
• Houses
Distance to houses - meters
[ | 475.395 - 599.448
[ | 599.448 - 723.501
[ | 723.501 - 847.554
r~~l 847.554 -971.607
] 971.607-1095.66
1095.66-1219.713
1219.713-1343.766
1343.766-1467.82
1467.82-1591.873
1591.873-1715.926
0.5
0.5 Kilometers
116
-------
123
-------
EIS REPORT
124
-------
EIS REPORT
CO LO CO CO
co
IO LO
125
-------
EIS REPORT
niOOOOOOOOOO
& A » 9 TC O 0 0 W W O
,. 5r>^rw)tcr*-r*-Goa>D*-
«i I*?™™"™™™'?'?1?
•0(0 K
IB CV
o
U)
CD
126
-------
EIS REPORT
Is- CD 10
CD 10
O5 O} O>
-f CO CO CM T-
CO CM T- O CD
O> O5 O) O5 CO
CO CO O5 O)
127
-------
EIS REPORT
128
-------
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING/VALLEY FILL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL STUDY
PROJECT REPORT FOR TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
October 2002
Terrestrial Plant (spring herbs, woody plants) Populations
of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Principal Investigator:
Steven N. Handel, PhD, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural
Resources, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
1 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1582
Project Personnel:
Amy E. K. Long, Field Researcher, Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers
University
Zachary T. Long, Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University
Jessica DiCicco, Field Technician, Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers
University
Kate Burke, Graduate Program in Plant Biology, Rutgers University
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The data presented in this report were collected in the spring and summer of 2000.
They examine the pattern of revegetation of mountaintop removal and valley fill mining
sites in southern West Virginia. The forests that are being removed by mountaintop
removal and surface mining activities are located in the Mixed Mesophytic Forest
Region. This region has very high biodiversity at the community level, and is among the
most biologically rich temperate regions of the world (Figure 1. Hinkle et al. 1993).
These forested mountaintops are predominantly being replaced by grasslands, although
grasslands are not a naturally occurring habitat in this region (Figure 2. Hinkle et al.
1993). Blocks of young trees, some exotic, are often added to the final revegetation mix
after grass establishment is successful. There is now great interest in developing and
implementing mining practices that will have the least impact on future economic and
ecosystem health.
Fifty-five transects on sites ranging in age from eight to twenty-six years since
revegetation were visited in southern West Virginia by this investigation team. Plant
species, sizes, and distribution were recorded across these sites for all woody species.
Data from adjacent, unmined mature forests were also recorded. Invasion of native
species onto reclaimed mined sites and valley fills was very low and restricted to the first
several meters from the adjacent forest edge. Most of the plants found on mined sites
were in the smallest (
-------
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to determine the patterns of terrestrial vegetation
on areas affected by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills in the southern
Appalachian region, and on adjacent, non-mined areas. Specific goals were to identify
plant species present, determine the relative numbers of species present, record the size
class distribution based on diameter at base or diameter at breast height of each species,
and to document the pattern of vegetation from toe of slope to top of slope and from
forested areas to mined areas. These data will enable investigators to understand the
potential for re-establishment of native vegetation and document the actual change in
vegetation since revegetation of the mined sites.
Importance of the objectives:
It is important to know the fate of the mined lands after reclamation, to determine
the potential for re-establishment of surrounding native vegetation, and to see if a flora
different from the vegetative mix installed upon reclamation can establish. The soils,
seed pool, and local conditions on mined sites are quite different from the original
conditions. It must be understood if mined areas will develop differently from the
forested terrestrial communities surrounding the mined sites. These data are also needed
to assess the quality of the habitat for animals of the region. If current reclamation
methods are creating different habitat types, this must be known precisely, so that
regulatory actions can be created to account for such changes.
METHODS:
Tree and shrub studies - site selection:
In order to assess the progress of invasion of woody species onto reclaimed mine
lands, sites were selected that had a remnant forest adjacent to the mined area. A remnant
forest is a forest that is directly bordering an active mining site or in this case, reclaimed
sites. They are passively disturbed by mining activity through many ways including
pollution, ground disturbance from blasting, hydrology changes and siltation, and
increased edge area. These reclaimed areas were considered most relevant for this study
because they included a seed source for the mined area, therefore offering an opportunity
for woody species to invade the open, disturbed land. Study of mined lands adjacent to
mature forests, of course, maximizes the potential for invasion of species, and potentially
weighs the data sets towards higher invasion rates. However, it is necessary to see
invasion, and the intensive sampling of edge areas gives the investigator a higher
potential for determining invasion rates.
Sites across the mining region of southern West Virginia were selected to
represent a wide variety of ages, conditions, and treatments. The sites in this study were
recommended by EPA, WVDEP, FWS, and mining officials and engineers who worked
for the mining companies that participated in the study. Knowing that the goal of this
study was to record re-establishment of woody vegetation on mined lands, mining
officials (list of personnel can be provided by investigators) directed our team towards
the richest sites available. All of the recommended sites were studied and included in this
report, in standing with the policy to visit every site recommended. At each specific
-------
locale, transects were positioned in a standardized location and vegetative cover and
density were similar. The total number of forest transects surveyed and reported is 25
and the total number of mined land transects is 30. Ten different mine properties were
surveyed, with ages ranging from eight to twenty-six years since revegetation. Emphasis
was on surveys of sites that were older, but reclaimed after the 1977 surface mining law
(SMCRA) was put into effect. Changes in reclamation protocols necessitated by that law
caused important differences in reclamation practice (Vories and Throgmorton, 1999). A
complete list of study sites is in the Appendix (Table 1).
Tree and shrub studies - data collection:
The first aspect of this study involves twelve transects that were run vertically
down slope from a mined land (i.e. valley fill, mountain-top removal area, backfill, or
contour mine) into an adjacent, mature, remnant forest apparently unaffected by mining
activity (Figure 3a). (Many of these forested sites were once logged and showed vestiges
of former rough logging roads. Consequently, these forests have been modified by human
activity and are not considered intact or pristine forests. However, all forested areas
contained large, diverse canopy trees with well-developed stands and unexcavated soil.)
The transect line was continuous from mined area to the adjacent remnant forest, or in
some instances started in the remnant forest above the reclaimed site and ran down into
the mined land.
It is important to note the structure and nature of the valley fills. Transects were
arrayed from top of slope to toe of slope (toe of slope in this study was defined as the
bottom of the hill/fill where the ground leveled off, and/or the stream bank was reached),
and ran the entire length of the fill. Because of the triangular geometry of valley fills
(Figures 3 a and 3b), areas at the toe (base) of the slope were surrounded on two sides by
remnant forests. They were much moister areas than the top of the fill, due to storm
water run-off and ground water. Because the toe of slope is wetter, much narrower, and
much closer to remnant forests (on both sides), we see an increase in stem density that is
indicative of an "edge effect." Some of the valley fills had forest remnants at the top of
the slope as well as at the bottom, therefore creating two zones of forest edges. Where
this was the case, the top forest remnant was sampled and the bottom one was not.
There were an additional 43 transects studied where it was not possible to run
continuous transects, as above. In these cases, the forest remnant transect was run
perpendicular or adjacent to the mined area transect, as shown in Figure 3b.
Data were collected during the year 2000 growing season only. The presence of
woody plants on these sites represents the reproductive performance of many years. The
boundary, or edge, between forests and reclaimed mine land was recorded for each
transect and is the "0" point on all data sets and graphs. The point-quarter sampling
method was used to survey the woody plant community (Barbour, Burk, et al. 1999).
This technique was used as it allowed the investigating team to cover the most ground,
the most sites, and collect the most data points in the time frame given. There is a
potential to underestimate rare species with this technique, as a census of all plants in an
area is not done. However, a species effort curve performed on the data indicates that
few, if any, rare species were missed given the large data set that covers thousands of
individual plant records. Consequently, the field sampling technique is representative of
the woody species on site.
-------
At each sampling point, located at 20 meter intervals along the transect line, the
area was divided into four quadrats. In each quadrat the distance was measured from the
sample point on the transect line to the nearest woody plant and recorded for three
different size classes, for a potential of twelve individuals per transect point. The size
classes were defined as "small" (0-2.54cm), "medium" (2.54-7.62cm), and "large" (more
than 7.62cm) based on diameter at base of stem. For each of these stems, the nearest
neighbor's distance and species identification were recorded, as well as the distance to
the nearest conspecific (individual of the same species). Trees that were obvious parts of
an implemented planting program (determined by plantation spacing and diameter at
breast height) were not included in the counts, as these did not naturally arrive on the
sites and are not part of any invasion process. Any offspring produced by planted
individuals were included in the data, however. We were not interested in survival of the
planted trees, as all planted species we encountered are either forestry created hybrids or
non-native and in fact illegal to plant in many states. Data were entered on computer
databases for further study. Leaves and stems of questionable plants were collected and
keyed out using herbarium specimens. Occasionally, specimens could not be keyed to
species because they were barren of flowers or fruits; it was impossible, given the rapid
time frame of the study, to return to each site at other seasonal times in the year 2000 to
search for reproductive specimens.
Tree and shrub studies -data analysis:
Comparing the mined sites to the adjacent remnant forests is difficult at best.
Mines are viewed by some as representatives of "primary success!onal soil/plant
systems." Comparing them to the "native forest stands [as] largely secondary
successional systems" is therefore like comparing apples and oranges. (W. Lee Daniels,
personal communication). First, the mined lands are not primary successional
landscapes. Primary succession is defined as "The development of an ecosystem in an
area that has never had a living community Examples of areas in which a community
has never lived before would be new lava or a rock from a volcano that makes a new
island or a new landscape, or a sand bar that arises from shifting sands in the ocean"
(University of North Carolina Wilmington). The question is not how the data were
compared, but the task set before us was to document the invasion process from forest
remnants to reclaimed land, to describe the vegetation and note patterns based on our
knowledge and experience as restoration ecologists. We documented the successes and
failures of natural recruitment onto these early successional landscapes, and analyzed our
findings with statistics that allowed for such comparisons, which follow.
As previously mentioned, the objective of this terrestrial study was to determine
the success of woody plant invasion onto the disturbed mining areas. The data were
examined in several ways. Transects were categorized as one of six types: continuous
forest (CF); remnant forest (RF); valley fill (W); mountaintop removal area (MTR);
backfill (BF); or contour mine (CM). Continuous forests are forests located away from
mining activity and therefore not significantly impacted by mining activity, whereas
remnant forests, as previously defined, are forests directly adjacent to and affected by
mining activity. Remnant forests are typically smaller parcels than the continuous forests,
but this is not a defining characteristic. Data were displayed within each of the six
categories by the three size groupings of plants: small; medium; and large. The density
-------
of woody plants by size class was also determined. These densities were compared in
order to evaluate the progress of the woody invasion. Species lists of forests and mined
areas were developed and comparisons between native forests and mined lands were
performed. Plant diversity was estimated using the Shannon-Weiner statistic, which
includes measures of number of species and their relative abundances. For example, if
you had two stands with the same number of plants and the same number of species, they
can be distinguished from one another if one stand has these species in more or less equal
proportions; a more diverse stand would have these species in more equal numbers.
Herb studies - site selection:
Nineteen forested sites, considered to be either "intact" forest (11) or
"engineered" forest (8), were chosen to evaluate the herb community, adjacent to the
EPA aquatic biology team's locations. The terms "intact" and "engineered" forests
comply with EPA terminology and are equated to "continuous" and "remnant",
respectively, as described in the paragraph previously. Sections of watersheds that had
been mined (the engineered forest) and areas that were distant from mining activity (the
intact forest) were selected. Sites are listed in the Appendix (Table 2). This protocol
allows comparison and correlation of herb data with the aquatic study, for a more
complete understanding of these sites.
Herb studies - data collection:
The study team visited all sites during April and May 2000, to sample the spring
herbaceous vegetation. Early season sampling of the herb flora was necessary, as many
spring herbs often complete their life history before the summer months, then persist
underground until the following year (Schemske, et al., 1978; Bierzychudek, 1982).
Transects were sampled every 10 meters, starting at the base of the slope, up hill for an
additional 50 meters. It was determined by the investigating team that the herb cover
significantly diminished around 40 or 50 meters from base of slope, and data from a
broader geographical range could be collected if this was a decided end point. At each
sample location, a 5xlm plot across the face of the slope was censused for all herbs.
Species identity and stem count for each species were recorded for each 5xlm plot.
Samples of species were collected for herbarium records and identification verification.
Herb studies - data analysis:
Data were summarized to determine relative distribution and number of species
on undisturbed forest slopes compared to forest slopes adjacent to disturbed areas (i.e.
mines and wide road cuts). These data were entered in a database for statistical analyses
to determine vegetation distribution patterns. Shannon-Weiner Index of Diversity was
performed to determine diversity values for both forest types using mean number of
stems counted and mean number of species present in both forest types.
RESULTS:
TREE AND SHRUB STUDIES:
Presence of trees and shrubs on the study sites:
-------
The 99 species listed in Table 3 were found collectively on the 25 forest transects
and 30 mined transects. Table 4 shows the differences in species composition across
these two types, ranked from most to least commonly present. The species did not have
to be abundant at a particular site to be included, merely present on the site (i.e. whether
the species has one or one thousand individuals, it is recorded as "present"). These
numbers do not include data that were collected from contour mine sites or their
associated remnant forests, which have been treated and reported separately, so the
sample size here is 23 forest transects and 25 mined transects. Most of the species found
in the majority of forest transects were found on only a few mine transects, with the
exception of Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, andRubus sp., which are regularly
found as small plants in disturbed areas. There are twenty species occurring on the mined
lands that are not found in the forested lands and thirty forest species not found on the
mined lands. Of the twenty unique mine species, many of these are typical early
successional species (Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Rubus sp.j and many others
(Pinus sp. and Robiniapseudoacacid) are offspring of the trees planted as part of
reclamation efforts. Overall, there are ten more species found in the forest than on the
reclaimed mined lands. This is not unusual given the very different stages of succession
that these lands are in.
The data from Table 4 can also be summarized across sites by richness, defined as
the number of species found regardless of abundance. Figure 4 shows that the forested
category always contains more species than the sites in the reclaimed mine category,
when listed from most to least rich site (i.e., the woody species are not growing in as
much variety on the mined sites as in the forests.). In other words, the forests have higher
plant species richness and more plant biodiversity than the mine sites (Figure 4).
Species-presence data can also be arrayed by individual species, in addition to the
site values shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. Figures 5a and 5b illustrate the number and
percent of transects studied where each species in the data set was found. Forested sites
have a higher percent of transects represented for the majority of species. These data
indicate that woody species occur across the entire forest transect, they are not just
sequestered in a few unusually rich transects that happened to be included in the surveys.
There is special interest in the major tree species of the forest, as these are of
possible commercial interest. Figures 6a and 6b display six of the most common
hardwood tree species found by absolute number and percent of all woody stems found
(total of 4,140 stems in the data sets, including all size classes). These trees are always
more abundant as a proportion of stems on the forested sites. Five of the six are more
common by absolute number on the forested sites; only Acer rubrum has more
individuals on the mined sites, as many seedlings of this species were present. Further
observations should be made on the reclaimed mine lands to see how well these
economically viable species establish and grow.
Woody species found can also be displayed according to mine type (Table 5), to
more clearly see if there are special determinants associated with species presence.
Again, these numbers are based simply on being present at all, not abundance. Remnant
forests have the most species, and mountaintop removal sites (MTR) have the fewest,
when grouped in this way. However, only four MTR sites were examined as opposed to
twenty remnant forest sites. If one examines the average number of species by site (see
site table in appendix to see number of species per site), MTR's have 6.25 and remnant
-------
forests have 17.7 species on average. Table 5 also illustrates that some species (for
example Acer rubrum and Liriodendron tulipiferd) are more generalist (i.e. are found on
all the site types). Others were found only on mined areas (Lespedeza bicolor) or only in
forests (Acerpensylvanicum, Lindera benzoin). Once again, these species differences can
be greatly attributed to varying successional stages.
The distribution of species can also be considered in terms of how abundant, or
how frequently, the species appeared on the site (Table 6). Most species found in great
number in the forests are not found in similar abundance on the mined sites. At the same
time, common woody species on the mined sites, typical of earlier successional stages,
are not found as abundantly in the forests. This is simply a matter of succession. The
reclaimed mine lands are in a much earlier stage of succession or development than the
forests, and one would expect to find different species compositions as a result of the
various stages.
The forest community is comprised of a greater number of species. It is also a
more diverse community than the mine land communities. More uncommon species
occur in the forest and there is less dominance by a few common species. That is, the
mine sites have a few dominant species making up most of their communities and few
rare species present. Figures 7a and 7b illustrate the number of woody plants found
during the point quarter sampling. The mine plot in Figure 7b is based on percentages,
which allows a simpler comparison, as sampling effort was unequal between mine and
forestlands. The mine species distribution starts quite low on the y-axis because there
were many points, about 1600, where woody stems were not present at all (this very high
point is not plotted on this graphic). Absence (not falling within sampling range) of a
woody plant was rarely experienced on any of the forest sample points. Having more
species that occur more evenly or frequently (i.e. not having a population dominated by
only a few species) creates a more diverse environment. For many of the species found,
the percent occurrence is high in forests. Having all the species occur only once or twice,
such as on the mine lands, and being dominated by only a few species, creates a less
diverse community.
There is growing concern over alien and invasive plants across all landscape types
throughout the United States. This survey encountered very few invasive or alien plant
species on mined-lands or in the forests (Tables 3, 7a and 7b note non-native species).
Most of the non-native individuals observed were those that were planted as part of a
reclamation effort (i.e. Autumn olive is both exotic and very invasive and every mine
visited was using it for reclamation). There were several other exotic species that were
observed, including Tree-of-heaven, Japanese honeysuckle, Princess-tree, and Multiflora
rose that arrived on site naturally. Japanese Knotweed was also observed along the
stream banks in developed areas.
Distribution of trees and shrubs across the study transects:
To spatially study the process of invasion, data were displayed across the x axis in
figures 8-12, where "0" represents the edge, the sharp boundary between forest and
reclaimed mine area. In these graphics, all alien species were removed from the data sets,
as the interest in this study is the reappearance of the native West Virginia plant
community. These data (in Figures 8-12) are from the twelve continuous transects
described earlier (page 1). There are three Mountain-top Removal (MTR), three Valley
-------
Fill (VF), three Backfill (BF), and three Contour Mine (CM) sites, all with paired forest
remnants. The following figures graph the mean stem densities per 25m2.
Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c illustrate the stem densities calculated for the small,
medium, and large size-classes, for woody individuals on nine continuous mine to forest
transects (contour mines not included in total density graphs). A "continuous transect"
(Figure 3a) is a location where only one line was run, going from mine land directly into
the remnant forest, or vice versa. Figure 8a shows that the small individuals (2.54cm and
smaller diameter at base) are not regenerating on the mined lands as abundantly as they
do in the forest. Figure 8b shows that establishment of the medium size class individuals
(2.54-7.62cm diameter at base) is not as high on the mined lands as it is in the forests.
(Figure 8c) Large individuals (7.62cm diameter at base) are barely present on the mining
areas. There is little to no growth into this size class. This is not an unreasonable size
class to reach given the age of these mines (range of 8 to 26 years old since revegetation).
The six most common forest tree species have the following age and size
projections under optimum soil conditions: Acer rubrum can reproduce at an age as early
as 4 years, with a size of 5-20cm diameter at breast height (DBH). Quercus rubra is 25
years at first reproduction with 60-90cm DBH. Liriodendron tulipifera is 15-20 years at
first reproduction, with DBH of 17-25cm. Acer saccharum will reproduce as early as 22
years, with DBH equal to 20cm. Fagus grandifolia reaches substantial seed production
at age 40 or with a DBH of 6cm. Magnolia acuminata starts reproducing at age 30,
optimum at age 50, with DBH unreported (Burns and Honkala, 1990, for these data).
These data should be carefully interpreted, as they are in optimum conditions, conditions
that are not experienced on reclaimed mine lands. However, there are no age estimates
published for such lands, with similar aspect, elevation, topography, etc. that we are
aware of to compare our data to. The age and size estimates given above are at breast
height, roughly 1.22m (4') high, for the average adult. The size classes used in this report
were determined at the base of the plants, as most of the individuals were no taller than
61cm. The reclamation age of many of the mine sites is nearing or has reached the
reproductive age for several of these trees, but this study's data indicates that trees in
mine spoils have not approached the correlated sizes.
The woody data from reclaimed mine transects can also be divided into the four
mining categories: Mountain-top Removal (MTR), Valley Fill (VF), Backfills (BF), and
Contour Mine (CM). Figures 9a, 9b, and 9c illustrate the stem densities calculated for
woody individuals in all three size-classes, on three MTR sites and the paired remnant
forest transects. Figure 9a shows that the small individuals (2.54cm and smaller diameter
at base) are not regenerating on the mine lands as they do in the forest, which is expected
given the vast differences in soils. Of the three MTR's surveyed, one was eight years old
since revegetation and the other two were both 17 years since revegetation. It is expected
to see small size-class individuals well before 17 years is reached. The medium
individuals (2.54-7.62cm diameter at base) (Figure 9b) are not present on these mined
lands, and there are only a few large individuals (7.62cm diameter at base) present on the
surveyed, reclaimed mine lands (Figure 9c).
Figures lOa, lOb, and lOc illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Valley Fill sites, that accompany MTR sites,
and the paired remnant forest transects. The remnant forests of two of these transects
were located above the fill (Colony Bay: Cazy fill; Hobet Mine: Bragg Fork fill) and the
-------
other was located at the bottom of the fill (Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob). Due to the
triangular geometry of Valley Fills (Figure 3a), which (a) allows closer proximity to
forest edge, and (b) provides a moisture gradient created by the drainage ravines at the
toe of the slope, there was an increase in stem densities with decreasing elevation in the
Valley Fill sites. This has apparently increased the presence of the small size-class plants
in this mining area. However, the data for the medium and large size classes shows a
decrease in this trend over time. Valley fills remain stressful sites for these seedlings,
and slow growth or lack of survival could underlie these low data points. As these sites
are ages 16, 21, and 25 years, a higher representation in all three sizes would be expected
during successional change, even without optimal soil conditions.
Figures 1 la, 1 Ib, and lie illustrate the mean stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Backfill sites and the paired remnant forest
transects. One Backfill is 14 and the other two are 16 years old since revegetation.
Figure 1 la shows that the small size-class individuals are regenerating along the forest
edge as would be expected, but taper off rapidly beyond 60 meters and are not found
further from the edge. An edge effect can also be observed in the medium size-class
(Figure 1 Ib) in the first 20 meters that quickly fades until there are no medium
individuals found beyond that point in great number. Few large size-class individuals
were found on the mined sites (Figure lie).
Figures 12a, 12b, and 12c illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes, on three Contour Mine sites and their paired remnant
forest transects. All three of these sites are 12 years since revegetation. The contour
mines that our investigators visited were much shorter in length than the other mine lands
and were typically less compacted upon completion than flat areas, because of less
grading activity (Vories and Throgmorton, 1999). Bonferroni T tests (Proc GLM in
SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990) were run on the mean densities of the four mine
types, by size class. The Contour Mines' plant densities in the small and medium size
classes were significantly greater than all three other mine types (psmaii =0.0011 and
Pmedium =0.0004) (Figure 13). Because all four mine types included in this study had so
few large individuals, there was no significant difference among any of the mine
treatments.
Regeneration of the small size-class individuals on the CMs illustrates the edge
effect of a forest (Figure 12a). The CM's trend of regeneration falls abruptly after 10
meters, and suggests that few woody stems would be present beyond 50 meters (the local
limit of this site). Figure 12b shows a pattern similar to Figure 12a, the smaller
individuals are surviving into the next size class. No large individuals occurred within
our sampling efforts on these CMs (Figure 12c). However, it has only been 12 years
since revegetation at these sites and not many tree species are expected in this size class
from seed this quickly (see maturation information in previous text).
Finally, one transect studied represents a unique site where it is possible to
compare three types of land engineering, all at the same age, to determine what woody
plants have naturally recruited into the site. This site was at Peerless Eagle Mine, and its
age is estimated between 12 and 17 years. The top third is mountaintop removal, the
middle third is a clear-cut forest remnant (apparently cut in preparation for the fill, but
never filled to that height, and has since revegetated), and the bottom third is valley fill
(Figure 14a). Consequently, the soil in the clear-cut area was only minimally disturbed;
10
-------
soil was removed or covered in the other areas. Figure 14b illustrates the lack of plant
recruitment into the two engineered areas. During the same time, the central clear-cut
area has fully revegetated, probably due to stump sprouts and germination from the
undisturbed seed bank (Figure 14a). Soil quality is dramatically drawn into attention at
this site. In the same amount of time, with the same external forces impacting the area,
there is a remarkable lack of vegetation on the engineered sites.
Additional perspectives on trees and shrubs:
Once again, comparing these data between reclaimed lands and forests is difficult,
in that we do not have a controlled environment or experiment. However, we must
analyze the data to the best of our abilities and within the limits of statistical powers.
The Shannon-Weiner Index (H) is a measurement of community diversity, a
function of both species number and relative abundance commonly used in vegetation
analysis (Barbour, et al., 1999). For small, medium and large plant size classes, the
diversity index is significantly higher (paired t test, df = 8, psmaii = 0.0191, pmedium =
0.0082, piargg = 0.0033) on the forested parts of the transects (Figure 15), indicating
greater species diversity than on the reclaimed mine lands.
Finally, figures 16a, 16b, and 16c compare mine age (since revegetation) and
average total plant density on each transect site. Data from all remnant forest transects
are shown as a mean of values, with standard deviation. These are displayed across the
x-axis to allow a visual comparison with all of the values from the mine lands. However,
this does not represent in any way the actual age of the forested sites; this acts as an
approximate asymptote to which developing forests in this region might attain. The data
for the forest were added to give a visual cue of where the average forest density is for
each size class. Figures 16a, 16b, and 16c illustrate that mine age since revegetation does
not positively correlate with increasing stem density. If the densities were increasing
over time, one would see a positive regression line for the mines. However, for all three
size classes there is no linear relationship, indicating no increase in number of individuals
over time.
The last three data points along the x-axis (reclamation ages 23, 25, 26) of figures
16a-c are important to note. The two older mines were revegetated prior to the 1977
SMCRA laws, while the third was reclaimed just two years later, in 1979. The two older
sites have revegetated much more quickly than the third site and all other sites visited.
The medium and large size-class individuals were just within the remnant forest density
mean (or very near the lower end of the range) at these two sites. What happened in two
years to create such a change in reinvasion potential? Possible answers are scale of
mining and reclamation practice (see Conclusions and Executive Summary).
General Conclusions for Trees and Shrubs:
There is a low number of species and an extremely low number of stems of
woody plants on all mine types in this study compared to forests. The few native plants
that do invade the mining areas are very close to the edge of the forest and are heavily
concentrated in the smallest size class (less than 2.54cm diameter at base). The absence
of significant numbers of stems larger than 2.54cm suggests that these are stressful sites,
where very slow growth or high death rates for small plants are typical conditions. These
are very low invasion rates compared to many sites adjacent to mature forests that do not
11
-------
have mining as a land use. As has been noted in many recent studies (e.g. Vories and
Throgmorton, 1999), the combination of poor substrate quality and interference by
inappropriate grass cover restricts the ability of native communities to return to these
extensive land areas. Stands that have regenerated on pre-SMCRA sites often have
diverse, productive forests (Rodrique and Burger, 2000), but newer protocols challenge
this level of stand development, as is illustrated by these data.
A 1999 Greenlands article by Skousen et al. evaluated tree growth on surface
mine lands in southern West Virginia. This study examined only three sites, two of
which were pre-SMRCA law, and the third was reclaimed in 1980. Our team included all
three of these sites in this study of 54 sites. Skousen's results clearly support our findings
in that post-law sites are not regenerating as quickly as they could due to "[herb species
suppressing woody seedling establishment], soil compaction and shallow soil depth."
Similarly, in the pre-law sites that were not seeded with an herbaceous cover plant
succession is rapid (Skousen 1999).
An in-press article by Holl (2002) shows the potential for reinvasion and recovery
on reclaimed surface mined lands. It is extremely important to note that, like the Skousen
article, her study was comprised of pre-law sites dating back to 1962 reclamations. She
does not report how many of the 15 sites were post-law (post 1977), but her three age
classes for the mines are 1962-1967, 1972-1977, and 1980-1987. Also, the mines in that
report are small 1A hectare parcels, not comparable to the large mountaintop removal
areas subject to this study. The Holl study sites, only 62.5 x 40m in size, examined areas
very close to seed sources, within "5-50 m from unmined forests." It becomes obvious
that invasion is possible for many species if the landscape setting is different from current
large-scale practice. We have yet to see evidence that the original community has or will
return to these seriously degraded landscapes.
Recently, a new series of West Virginia State regulations was passed to detail
better procedures for re-establishing forest lands on AOC mine sites. These regulations
include detailed requirements in soil, cover, and landscape requirements to begin getting
productive habitats returning to the land. These new active regulations could be the
starting point to address the poor stand development seen on the sites recorded in this
study. However, full return of the rich biodiversity of the historical forests of the region
would require more intervention than the addition of several dominant species, as is
required in the new West Virginia regulations.
Attempts to encourage woody establishment are being made by some industry
participants. One of the current practices is to plant rows or blocks of a tree species
(Autumn olive, Black locust, Black alder, pine) in an effort to create corridors - areas that
seed dispersers (birds, mammals) might find inviting for perching, foraging, and
protection, which then introduces seed into the area. Our study found that blocks of olives
and pines had little to no plants establishing underneath them. These trees were usually
planted very close together and both species tend to grow dense and bush-like. Seed was
either excluded from the area or could not establish due to poorer soil quality or not
enough light and rain penetration. The alder and locust blocks had more success. These
trees grow much straighter and do not shade out seed-rain, light, or other resources as
much as the other two species. Other attempts have been made as well, like
experimenting with different crop trees.
12
-------
HERB STUDIES:
Presence of herbs on the study sites:
The herb communities on the forested sites were generally dense and species-rich,
as is typical of this region (Hinkle et al., 1993). Eighty-five herbaceous species have
been identified (Table 7a), and more were found on site, which required flowering
structures for complete species identification. The presence and composition of the forest
herb stratum is critical for forest health, as these herbs maintain soil structure and add
nutrients, and offer habitat and nutrients to many animal species.
Three of the nineteen transects were on valley fills, the rest in forests. Presence-
absence of the woodland herbs was recorded at these three valley fill sites, so these data
are analyzed separately from the remaining data, which follow. Woodland herbs were
not expected to be observed in open, sunny fields, as most of the herbs on Table 7a
require the shade and moisture of the forest floor. The species that were recorded on the
mine sites are on Table 7b.
Of the remaining sixteen sites, eleven were in mature intact forests and five were
on lands directly adjacent to mining activities, such as the mine itself, a railroad, or a
busy vehicular haul road. These are the "engineered" forests. Table 8 lists herbaceous
species found on study sites, ranked from most to least present. The engineered forest
sites are contrasted with the intact forest sites to determine the effects of mining activity
on adjacent forest herbs. There might not be direct physical destruction of these adjacent
forest remnants, but the disturbance caused by high activity levels (i.e. mining equipment,
blasting, fumes and exhaust from train engines and hauling vehicles), as well as sun
shafts cutting through to the forest floor from adjacent human-dominated areas, may
disrupt the forest community starting with the herbaceous stratum. Seventeen fewer
species are found in engineered forests than on intact forested sites.
In analyzing species distribution on the slopes, intact sites have more species at
any point than engineered sites (Figure 17a). This can be seen with a two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (Proc GLM in SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990) to test for the
effects of treatment type, distance from toe of slope, and the interaction of treatment and
distance on mean number of species. Significant results were found for treatment type
and distance from toe of slope on the species mean (both had a p value = 0.0001),
indicating that both the distance up the hill and the type of site affected the number of
species. There was no significant interaction between environment and distance.
The herb stratum in the intact sites also contained more stems in study areas than
in the engineered sites along the entire slope (Figure 17b). A two-way ANOVA was
performed, testing treatment and distance on mean number of herb stems (treatment p =
0.0016 and distance p = 0.125). Treatment type was found to be significant for number of
plants found. There was no significant interaction found for distance from toe of slope on
number of stems. There was no significant effect of treatment and distance collectively
on number of herb stems counted.
The diversity of the herb stratum follows a similar pattern as described above.
Figure 17c shows that the engineered sites had less diversity than the intact sites at all but
one point along the slope. ANOVAs show a significant value (p = 0.003) for treatment
type, and a marginally significant result (p = .0989), at a lower level, for distance on
diversity. Once again, there was no significant relation between treatment and distance.
13
-------
Tables 9a and 9b record the herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked from
most to least abundant (number of stems counted) in engineered and intact sites and by
percent abundance, respectively. (The two tables record absolute number and percent of
stems on these sites.) Several of the species, which are found most abundantly on the
intact forest sites, were not present, or were present in very low numbers, on the disturbed
engineered sites. This indicates that human activity is affecting the forest ecosystem and
changing the community composition. Four of the top ten intact forest herbs are in the
top ten of the engineered sites, however, three of the top ten were not present at all on the
engineered sites. This might indicate that although some of the heartier species are
persisting, some of the more sensitive species are disappearing.
Table 10 records herbaceous species found, ranked by abundance (number of
stems counted) in engineered and intact sites. In this table, values have been standardized
by multiplying engineered numbers by 11/5 to even out differences in the number of sites
sampled. By equalizing the numbers, one can see the abundance of the species from a
level starting point. (The total number of stems for the engineered and intact forests is
3978 and 8817 respectively.) The totals indicate, even when the differing number of sites
is compensated for, that the density of herbaceous stems at the engineered sites was less
than half that of the intact forest sites.
General Conclusions for Herbs:
When mine disturbance is adjacent to a forest (engineered forest), we found the
herb community, important for nutrient status and wildlife values, to be much less dense
and species-rich. Part of the reason for the difference in spring herb abundance and
diversity can be attributed to mining activity. Mining activity (i.e. filling and contour
mining) often results in covering up the toe of the slope, eliminating the most diverse and
rich community habitats. In our study, the engineered sites we visited may have been the
higher slope regions depicted in Figure 18. Therefore, the habitat may have been drier
and less diverse than the intact forest sites due to the fact that it was the naturally drier,
higher slope community. Also, because the engineered sites suffer more intense and
frequent disturbance, the quantity of light penetrating the canopy may be increased. This
increase in light energy reaching the ground can dry out the soil and make conditions less
favorable for the spring herb population. These herbs rarely invade mining lands on the
areas studied, so data sets used for woody plants did not include forest herbs because they
were seldom, if ever, observed. (Dispersal limits and the need for shady, moist
microhabitat are obvious limits to regeneration.) A return to full forest biodiversity of
plants is apparently even more challenged on mining areas when herb species are added
to a concern.
CLOSING STATEMENT:
OSM reviewers pointed out that the unstated goal in mine reclamation in the
Appalachians is to render the land green and stable. Traditionally, attempts are not made
to reclaim the ecology or even the land use capability required by law. This report
addresses what was accomplished, not what could be. What we see is only what is
politically feasible, not technologically possible.
14
-------
Literature Cited:
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, andM.W. Schwartz. 1999.
Terrestrial plant ecology. Third edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Menlo Park.
Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest
herbs: a review. NewPhytol. 90:757-776.
Burger, J.A., and J.L. Torbert. 1999. Status of reforestation technology: the Appalachian
region. Pages 95-123 in Vories and Throgmorton, op. cit.
Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North
America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Core, Earl L. 1966. Vegetation of West Virginia. McClain Printing Co, Parsons, WV.
Gleason, Henry A., and Arthur Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of
Northeasterr
Bronx, NY.
Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden,
Harris, J., andD. Steer. 1997. DHA soil microbial activity analysis. Dept. of
Environmental Science, University of East London, U.K.
Hinkle, C.R., W.C. McComb, J.M. Safley, Jr., and P.A. Schmalzer. 1993. Mixed
mesophytic forests. Pages 203-254 in Martin, W.H., S. G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht,
editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
Wiley and Sons, NY.
Holl, Karen D. 2000. The effect of coal surface mine revegetation practices on long-term
vegetation recovery - progress report. 2000 Powell River Project Symposium and
Progress Reports.
Newcomb, Lawrence, and Gordon Morrison. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide.
Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Rodrique, J. A., and J.A. Burger. 2000. Forest productivity and woody species diversity
on pre-SMCRA mined land. Proc. Amer. Soc. Surface Mining Reclam., pages 205-223.
Schemske, D.W., M.F. Willson, M.N. Melampy, et al. 1978. Flowering ecology of some
spring woodland herbs. Ecology 59:351-366.
Skousen, J., P. Ziemkiewicz, and C. Venable. 1999. Evaluation of Tree Growth on
Surface Mined Lands in Southern West Virginia. Greenlands, vol. 29(1): 43-55.
15
-------
Strausbaugh, P. D., and Earl L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia, 2nd ed. Seneca Books.
Morgantown, WV.
Torbert, J.L., and J.A. Burger. 1996. Influence of grading intensity on herbaceous ground
cover, erosion, and tree establishment in the southern Appalachians. Pages 639-646 in
Successes and failures: applying research results to insure reclamation success. ASSMR,
and Powell River Project of Virginia Tech Univ.
Venning, Frank D., and Manabu C. Saito. 1984. A Guide to Field Identification:
Wildflowers of North America. Golden Press, New York, NY.
Vories, K.C., and D. Throgmorton, editors. 1999. Proceedings of: Enhancement of
reforestation at surface coal mines: technical interactive forum. USDI OSM, Alton, IL,
and Coal Research Center, SIU, Carbondale IL. 274 p.
16
-------
Table 1: West Virginia woody plant study sites (2000).
Gives transect number, name, county, site type, age (if mined), number of species found,
planted or not, date visited, and brief description of site.
Diagram 1: Diagram of valley fill sampling technique.
Table 2: West Virginia spring herbaceous study sites (2000).
Gives site number, name, county, site type (engineered or not), number of species found,
number of stems counted, date visited, and brief description of site.
Table 3: List of West Virginia woody species found on study transects.
The species listed were found on the 25 forest transects and 30 mined transects that were
studied. Scientific and common names given.
Table 4: Woody species found on study sites ranked from most to least present.
The transects studied can be lumped into two categories- forest sites and mined sites.
This table shows the differences in species composition across these two types. The
species did not have to be abundant at a particular site to be counted, merely present.
These numbers do not include data that were collected from contour mine sites or their
associated remnant forests. Most of the species that were found on the most forest
transects were found on only a few mine transects, with the exception of Acer rubrum,
Liriodendron tulipifem, and Rubus sp., which are often found in disturbed areas.
Figure 1: Woody species richness on all study sites. Sites are ranked not in pairs,
but in decreasing species richness.
Overall, there were more species present on the forested transects than on the mined
transects. The woody species are just not growing in as much variety on the mined sites
as in the forests. (There were a total of 25 mined transects and 23 forest transects).
Figure 2a: Frequency of occurrence (by number of transects) of woody species on
23 forest and 25 mined sites.
Forest species occurred on more transects when they were present than mine species. A
few species were found on many mine transects, but most of the species were only found
on a few mine sites.
Figure 2b: Frequency of occurrence (by percent of transects) of woody species on
23 forest and 25 mined sites.
This shows the same information as the previous graph, but in proportion to the total
number of transects.
Figure 3a: The presence of six major forest tree species on forest and mined areas
(of total 1332 forest data points and 2808 mine data points, all size classes included).
Counting individual data points, the listed species were the most abundant on the forested
transects. This graph compares the abundance of these six major species on forest
transects to their abundance on mine transects.
-------
Figure 3b: Percent occurrence of six dominant forest tree species (of total 1332
forest data points and 2808 mine data points).
This illustrates the same comparison as the previous graph, but adjusts the values so they
are in proportion to the total data points collected. The major species of the forests were
not present in such numbers on the mines.
Table 5: Woody species found at study sites by category.
The data can also be broken down into more specific categories, to see more clearly
where the species are growing. Again, these numbers are based on presence, not
abundance. Remnant forests have the most different species, and mountain top removal
sites seemed to have the fewest, when grouped as such. Also, this chart illustrates that
some species (for example Acer rubrum and Liriodendron tulipifera) are more generalist,
and are found on all the site types. Others were found only on mined areas (Lespedeza
bicolor) or only in forests (Acer pensylvanicum, Lindera benzoin)
Table 6: Woody species found, ranked by abundance in forested and mined sites.
(There were 33 forest transect points and 1601 mined points where no individual
was found in range.)
The distribution of species can also be considered in terms of how often the species was
found as the data point in the survey. Some species that are found in great number in the
forests, are not found in the same abundance on the mined sites. At the same time,
common woody species on the mine sites are not found as abundantly in the forests.
Figure 4a: Species abundance distribution (total data points: 1332 forest, 2808
mined).
The raw numbers of the graph 4b(see below for description).
Figure 4b. Percent species abundance based on 1332 forest points and 2808 mined
points.
The forest has more species that comprise of its community- the mines have a few
species that are abundant, and many that are found only a few times. (The difference in
the mine plot in this second graph is due to the large number of study points on the mine
on which there were no individuals to be counted.)
Figure 5a: Stem density vs. distance from forest edge. Small woody plant [1"
(2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at base] densities of mined lands compared to
paired forest remnants.
Figure 5b: Stem density vs. distance from forest edge. Medium woody plant [1-3"
(2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base] densities of mined lands compared to paired forest
remnants.
Figure 5c: Stem density vs. distance from forest edge. Large woody plant [3"
(7.62cm) and larger diameter at base] densities of mined lands compared to paired
forest remnants.
-------
Figure 6a. Small size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Mountain-top Removal sites (ages 6,15,15) compared to their three remnant
forests. Small woody plants are defined as 1" (2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at
base.
Figure 6b. Medium size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for
three Mountain-top Removal sites (ages 6,15,15) compared to their three remnant
forests. Medium woody plants are defined as 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base.
Figure 6c. Large size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Mountain-top Removal sites (ages 6,15,15) compared to their three remnant
forests. Large woody plants are defined as 3" (7.62cm) and larger diameter at base.
Figure 7a. Small size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Valley Fill sites (ages 14,17,19) compared to their three remnant forests. Small
woody plants are defined as 1" (2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at base.
Figure 7b. Medium size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for
three Valley Fill sites (ages 14,17,19) compared to their three remnant forests.
Medium woody plants are defined as 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base.
Figure 7c. Large size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Valley Fill sites (ages 14,17,19) compared to their three remnant forests. Large
woody plants are defined as 3" (7.62cm) and larger diameter at base.
Figure 8a. Small size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Backfills (ages 12,14,14) compared to their three remnant forests. Small woody
plants are defined as 1" (2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at base.
Figure 8b. Medium size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for
three Backfills (ages 12,14,14) compared to their three remnant forests. Medium
woody plants are defined as 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base.
Figure 8c. Large size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Backfills (ages 12,14,14) compared to their three remnant forests. Large woody
plants are defined as 3" (7.62cm) and larger diameter at base.
Figure 9a. Small size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Contour Mines (all age 10) compared to their three remnant forests. Small woody
plants are defined as 1" (2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at base.
Figure 9b. Medium size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for
three Contour Mines (all age 10) compared to their three remnant forests. Medium
woody plants are defined as 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base.
-------
Figure 9c. Large size-class mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for three
Contour Mines (all age 10) compared to their three remnant forests. Large woody
plants are defined as 3" (7.62cm) and larger diameter at base.
Figure 10: Mean stem density, by size-class, by mine type.
We tested if mine type differed in density with an analysis of variance for each size class,
and compared mean density within size-class with Bonferroni adjusted multiple
comparisons. (Proc GLM in SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990). Contour mines were
significantly different than all other mine types in small and medium classes.
Figure lla: Peerless Eagle transect site. A photo of the site illustrating the three areas of
the continuous, downhill transect. Taken by Amy E.K. Long, 2000.
Figure lib: Peerless Eagle Transect: Stem density vs. distance.
This transect represents a unique case where one can compare three types of land
engineering, all at the same age, and see what woody plants might naturally recruit into
the site. This site was at Peerless Eagle Mine. The site age is estimated between 12 and
15 years. It is a downhill site, where the top third is mountain-top removal, middle third
is a clear-cut forest remnant (apparently cut in preparation for the fill, but never filled to
that height, which has since revegetated), and the bottom third is valley fill. The soil of
the clear-cut was not disturbed, except for minor components during logging. Figure lla
illustrates the lack of plant recruitment into the two engineered area, whereas the natural
area, of the same age, has revegetated to a high density of stems.
Figure 12: Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H). Comparison of mined lands to
forest remnants. A paired t test was performed with df = 8, t (small) = 2.92, t (medium)
= 3.49, t (large) = 4.13.
Figure 13a. Site age vs. mean small stem density of 30 mined sites compared to the
average of 25 forest remnants. Forested sites are displayed along x-axis, age is not
implied for forests by position along x axis.
Figure 13b. Site age vs. mean medium stem density of 30 mined sites compared to
the average of 25 forest remnants. Forested sites are displayed along x-axis, age is
not implied for forests by position along x axis.
Figure 13c. Site age vs. mean large stem density of 30 mined sites compared to the
average of 25 forest remnants. Forested sites are displayed along x-axis, age is not
implied for forests by position along x axis.
Figures 13a, b, and c compare mine age and mean total density per transect site.
The forest transects' means are randomly distributed across the x-axis, however, this does
not indicate or represent in any way the age of those forested sites.
All three figures (a,b,c) indicate that age does not matter. Densities are not
increasing over time, which is what we would expect to see in the medium and large size
-------
classes. The lines for the forest were added to give the viewer a visual cue of where the
average forest density is for each size class.
Table 7a: List of West Virginia herbaceous species found on transects sampled for
the EIS terrestrial analysis.
It is important to consider the presence and composition of the forest herb stratum when
assessing the health of the forests. Species listed were found on sites sampled from late
April to early May. Nine of the fourteen sites were considered intact forests. The
remaining sites were lands that were directly adjacent to a mine, railroad, or a busy
vehicular road.
Table 7b: List of West Virginia spring herbaceous species observed on three Valley
fills.
During the spring herb census, three mined sites were examined. This is a list of observed
herbs noted by the investigating team.
Table 8: Herbaceous species found on study sites ranked from most to least present.
Herbs are excellent indicators of forest and soil health. The engineered sites are
contrasted with the intact forest sites in order to determine the effects of mining activity
on adjacent forests. There might not be direct physical destruction of these adjacent
forest remnants, but the disturbance of high activity levels surrounding a forest remnant
may disrupt the forest, starting with the herbaceous stratum.
Table 9a: Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked from most to least
abundant (number of stems counted) in engineered and intact forests.
Several of the species which are found most abundantly on the intact forest sites were not
present, or present in low numbers, on the disturbed (engineered) sites. This would
indicate that the disturbance is indeed affecting the forest ecosystem, and changing the
community composition. Four of the top ten intact forest herbs are also in the top ten of
the engineered sites. Three of the top ten, however, were not present at all on the
engineered sites. This might indicate that although some of the heartier species are
persisting, some more sensitive species are disappearing.
Table 9b: Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by percent abundance
(number of stems counted) in engineered and intact forests.
This illustrates the same as the above table, but in proportion to the total number of stems
counted.
Table 10: Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by abundance (number
of stems counted) in engineered and intact sites. (Values have been standardized by
multiplying engineered numbers by 11/5 to even out difference in number of sites
sampled.)
By equalizing the numbers, we can see the abundance of the species from a more level
starting point. (The total number of stems for the engineered and intact forests
respectively are 3254 and 6669.) The totals indicate that, even when compensated for the
-------
different number of sites studied, the density of herbaceous stems at the engineered sites
was approximately half that of the intact forest sites.
Figure 14a: Mean number of spring herb species vs. distance from toe of slope, in
engineered forested site and intact forested site understories. Two-way ANOVA
results: treatment effect p = 0.0001(*), distance effect p = 0.0001(*), treatment and
distance effect p = 0.26. The treatment (engineered or control/intact) gave significantly
different results, as did distance.
Figure 14b: Number of spring herb stems counted vs. distance from toe of slope, in
engineered forested site and intact forested site understories. ANOVA results:
treatment effect p = 0.0016(*), distance effect p = 0.125, treatment and distance effect p =
0.9. The treatment (engineered or control/intact) gave significantly different results.
Figure 14c: Estimate of biodiversity (H) for spring understory herbs, in engineered
forested sites and intact forested sites. Two-way ANOVA results: treatment effect p =
0.003(*), distance effect p = 0.099, treatment and distance effect p = 0.368. The treatment
(engineered or control/intact) gave significantly different results.
Table 11: Soil depth and moisture recordings from ten mines and their paired
remnant forest.
Holes were dug until large rock was hit, impeding further digging, or 60cm was reached.
The forest soil was consistently deeper, moister, and darker in color. The mine soil
consisted mostly of small rocks and solid, impenetrable rock was hit at shorter depths.
Figure 15: Microbial activity (indicated by Formazan production) in soil samples at
different land types. A comparison of land treatments at individual sites. Average
bars are drawn in for each land type.
Backfills did as well as the remnant forests we looked at. And MTR's were not that far
behind. VF's had less than half the production as all other site types.
Table 12: Rutgers' Soil Testing Laboratory results. Macronutrients (P, K, Mg, Ca)
are in pounds per acre, and micronutrients (Cu, Mn, Zn, B) are in ppm. Nutrient levels
vary greatly and are more favorable for forest plant species in the native soil samples. No
trends are found with age suggesting improvement in soil pH.
-------
Table 10. Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by abundance (number of stems) in engineered and intact sites. (Values have been
standardized by multiplying engineered numbers by 11 /5 to even out difference in number of sites sampled.)
* indicates alien/non-native species
Ranked by abundance on intact sites. Ranked by abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Sedum ternatum
Tiarella cordifolia
Di centra cu cull aria
Aster sp.
Urtica dioica
Fragaria virginiana
Osmorhiza claytonii
Erythronium americanum
Dentaria maxima
Viola sp.
Meehania cordata
Stellaria pubera*
Botrychium sp.
Asarum canadense
Polygonum sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Anemonella thalictroides
Glechoma hederaea*
Claytonia caroliniana
Geranium maculatum
Trillium grandiflorum
Lactuca sp.
Smilacina racemosa
Delphinium tricorne
Impatiens capensis
Viola blanda
Galium aparine
Dentaria multifida
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Medeola virginiana
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Polygonatum biflorum
Viola rostrata
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leaves
Galium sp.
Mitchella repens
3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Sanguinaria canadensis
Galium triflorum
Actaea pachypoda
Phlox stolonifera
Dioscoria quaternata
Galium circaezans
Viola papilionacea
Disporum languinosum
Allium tricoccum
Polemonium reptans
Carex plantaginea
Carex, narrow
Potentilla canadensis
Viola canadensis
Pedicularis canadensis
Unk composite
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
intact
1043
872
702
377
305
292
292
279
270
256
245
241
236
215
192
182
179
172
171
149
143
139
136
107
99
94
92
89
85
77
76
75
73
65
57
52
50
50
47
38
38
36
35
27
26
26
24
23
23
23
21
18
17
17
16
16
12
12
12
11
engineered
396
180
0
202
2
37
20
15
0
154
0
207
15
156
249
132
90
55
77
42
2
112
40
141
2
156
22
0
77
2
22
29
0
0
13
132
0
0
64
13
0
0
13
11
2
0
20
121
62
31
0
200
0
0
79
26
57
2
0
0
intact
1043
872
702
377
305
292
292
279
270
256
245
241
236
215
192
182
179
172
171
149
143
139
136
107
99
94
92
89
85
77
76
75
73
65
57
52
50
50
47
38
38
36
35
27
26
26
24
23
23
23
21
18
17
17
16
16
12
12
12
11
engineered
396
249
207
202
200
180
161
156
156
154
141
132
132
121
112
90
84
79
77
77
64
62
57
55
42
40
37
33
31
29
29
29
26
24
24
22
22
22
22
20
20
15
15
13
13
13
13
11
11
11
11
7
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Species
Sedum ternatum
Polygonum sp.
Stellaria pubera*
Aster sp.
Polemonium reptans
Tiarella cordifolia
Senecio aureus
Asarum canadense
Delphinium tricorne
Viola sp.
Lactuca sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Viola rostrata
Galium circaezans
Geranium maculatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Phlox sp.
Potentilla canadensis
Anemonella thalictroides
Galium aparine
Galium sp.
Viola papilionacea
Pedicularis canadensis
Polystichum acrostichoides
Glechoma hederaea*
Trillium grandiflorum
Fragaria virginiana
Carex sp.
Disporum languinosum
Medeola virginiana
Smilax sp.
Viola pedata
Viola canadensis
Viola rotundifolia
Agrimonia striata
Impatiens capensis
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Goodyera repens
Unk ground cover, purple
Osmorhiza claytonii
Dioscoria quaternata
Erythronium americanum
Botrychium sp.
Polygonatum biflorum
Mitchella repens
Sanguinaria canadensis
heart leaf herb
Galium triflorum
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Urtica dioica
Claytonia caroliniana
Smilacina racemosa
Dentaria multifida
Actaea pachypoda
Unk composite
Z/z/a aurea
-------
Table 10(con't)
Ranked by abundance on intact sites.
Ranked by abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Viola pennsylvanica
Viola rotundifolia
Sedge 2 (pale, broad)
Carex sp.
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -qeranium like
Phlox sp.
Smilax sp.
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk - purple flower "rue"
Goodyera repens
Zizia aurea
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fraqarioides
Solidago sp.
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk - very hirsute
Unk - round leaf
Unk ground cover
Senecio aureus
Viola pedata
Aqrimonia striata
Unk ground cover, purple
heart leaf herb
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
intact
11
8
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
0
24
0
33
0
0
84
29
0
0
0
0
22
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
161
29
24
22
13
11
11
11
7
4
2
2
2
intact
11
8
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Solidago sp.
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
Dicentra cucullaria
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordata
Viola blanda
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leave
3-3 leaf
Pan ax tri folium
Phlox stolonifera
Allium tricoccum
Carex plantaginea
Carex, narrow
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsylvanica
Sedge 2 (pale, broad)
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk- purple flower "rue"
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fraqarioides
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk - very hirsute
Unk - round leaf
Unk ground cover
-------
Diagram 1. Diagram of valley fill sampling technique. Arrows indicate
relative location and direction of transect lines on the valley fill and into
the adjacent forest remnant.
Forest Remnant
Forest Remnant
-------
Figure 14a. Peerless Eagle site. MTRontop,
then clear-cut, then VF. Taken summer 2000.
-------
Figure 1. The blackened area illustrates the Mixed Mesophytic Forest Region
of the southeastern United States. Taken from Hinkle et. al in Biodiversity of the
southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
-------
Figure 2. The naturally occurring grasslands of the southeastern
United States. Taken from Hinkle et. al in Biodiversity of the
southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
-------
Figure 11 a. Peerless Eagle site. MTRontop,
then clear-cut, then VF. Taken summer 2000.
-------
Figure 3a. Diagram of valley fill geometry. Arrows indicate relative location and
direction of transect lines on the valley fill and into the adjacent forest remnant. Darker
line indicates how the 12 continuous transects were run from mined land to remnant
forest.
Forest Remnant
Figure 3b. Diagram of valley fill geometry when continuous line could not be run.
Arrows indicate relative location and direction of transect lines on the valley fill and into
the adjacent forest remnant. Darker lines indicates how the mined transect and forest
transect were run. Only one forest transect was run, either on the left or the right, not
both.
Forest Remnant
Forest Remnant
-------
Figure 18. Diagram of mining activity eliminating toe of slope, compared to an intact
forest's position of toe. This situation is hypothetical. All values are arbitrary. Dashed
line indicates valley fill. Brackets indicate area sampled.
Z0..m.et.er.s..fiom..b.as.e
INTACT FOREST
ENGINEERED FOREST
-------
Table 7b. List of West Virginia spring herbaceous species observed on three valley fills.
* indicates alien/non-native species.
Alliaria petiolata*
Asarum canadense
Aster sp.
Brassicaceae
Coronilla varia*
Galium aparine
Galium tinctorum
Grass sp.
Lamium purpureum*
Lespedeza bicolor*
Phlox sp.
Polygonum sp.
Polystichum acrostichoides
Potentilla canadensis
Ranunculus sp.
Silene virginica
Stellaria pubera
Trifolium sp. *
Tussilago farfara*
Unk.
Vicia caroliniana
Viola sp.
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Zizia aurea
Garlic mustard
Wild ginger
Aster species
Mustard species
Crown vetch
Cleavers
Clayton's bedstraw
Grass species
Purple dead nettle
Bush clover
Phlox species
Polygonum species
Christmas fern
Dwarf cinquefoil
Buttercup species
Fire pink
Star chickweed
Clover species
Coltsfoot
Dandelion-like milky weed
Wood vetch
Violet species
Barren strawberry
Golden Alexanders
-------
Table 7b. List of West Virginia spring herbaceous species observed on three valley fills.
Alliaria petiolata
Asarum canadense
Aster sp.
Brassicaceae
Coronilla varia
Galium aparine
Galium tinctorum
Grass sp.
Lamium purpureum
Lespedeza bicolor
Phlox sp.
Polygonum sp.
Polystichum acrostichoides
Potentilla canadensis
Ranunculus sp.
Silene virginica
Stellaria pubera
Trifolium sp.
Tussilago farfara
Unk.
Vicia caroliniana
Viola sp.
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Zizia aurea
Garlic mustard
Wild ginger
Aster species
Mustard species
Crown vetch
Cleavers
Clayton's bedstraw
Grass species
Purple dead nettle
Bush clover
Phlox species
Polygonum species
Christmas fern
Dwarf cinquefoil
Buttercup species
Fire pink
Star chickweed
Clover species
Coltsfoot
Dandelion-like milky weed
Wood vetch
Violet species
Barren strawberry
Golden Alexanders
-------
DRAFT
[Do not cite or distribute]
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING/VALLEY FILL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL STUDY
DRAFT PROJECT REPORT FOR TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
DECEMBER 2000
Terrestrial Plant (spring herbs, woody plants) Populations of
Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Principal Investigator:
Steven N. Handel, PhD, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural
Resources, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Primary Project Personnel:
Kate Burke, Graduate Program in Plant Ecology, Rutgers University
Jessica DiCicco, Field Technician, Ecology, Evolution, Nat'l Resources,
Rutgers University
Amy E. K. Long, Field Researcher, Ecology, Evolution, NatT Resources,
Rutgers University
Zachary T. Long, Graduate Program in Ecology, Evolution, NatT Resources,
Rutgers University
-------
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to determine the patterns of terrestrial vegetation
on areas affected by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills in the southern
Appalachian region, and watersheds closely adjacent to areas that have used this mining
technique. Specifically, we wish to know the plant species present, the relative numbers
and size of species present, and the pattern of vegetation along transects from toe of slope
towards the top of slope or from forest to mined areas. These data will enable us to
understand the potential for re-establishment of native vegetation, and the actual change
of vegetation since closure of the sites. Together, this will assist in developing potential
improvements in the habitat condition of post-mining land.
Importance of the objectives:
It is urgent to know the fate of the mined lands after closure, to determine the
potential for re-establishment of surrounding native vegetation, and to see if a different
flora becomes established. The soils, seed pool, and local conditions on mined sites may
be quite different from the original conditions, and we must understand if mined areas
will develop differently from the forested terrestrial communities surrounding the mined
sites. These data are also needed to assess the quality of the habitat for animals of the
region. If current closure methods are creating different habitat types, this must be
known precisely, to be the foundation for regulatory action.
Methods:
Tree and shrub studies - site selection:
In order to assess the progress of invasion of woody species onto disturbed mine
lands, sites were selected which had a remnant forest adjacent to the mined area. These
areas were considered most relevant because they included a seed source for the mined
area, and therefore offered an opportunity for woody species to invade the more open
disturbed land. Study of mined lands adjacent to mature forests, of course, maximizes
the potential for invasion of species, and potentially weighs the data sets towards higher
invasion rates. However, it is necessary to see invasion, and the over-sampling of edge
areas gives the investigator a higher potential for determining invasion rates.
Sites across the mining region of southern West Virginia were selected, to
represent a wide variety of ages, conditions, and treatments. We visited sites
recommended by EPA, WVDEP, FWS, and mining officials and engineers from the
mines studied. Knowing that we wished to record re-establishment of woody vegetation
on mined lands, mining officials derected us towards the richest sites they knew were
available, and our policy was to visit every site recommended. At each specific locale,
we picked transect locations typical in density and degree of vegetative cover for this
summary. The total number of forested site transects surveyed and reported is 25 and
the total number of mined land transects is 30. Ten different mine properties were
surveyed, with ages ranging from six to twenty-four years since beginning of
reclamation. Emphasis was on surveys of sites that were older, but closed after the 1977
surface mining law (SMCRA) was put in effect. Changes in protocols necessitated bythat
-------
law caused important differences in reclamation practise (Vories and Throgmorton,
1999). A complete list of study sites is in the Appendix (Table 1).
Tree and shrub studies - data collection:
First, twelve transects were run, each on a continuous line from types of mined
land (i.e. valley fill, mountain-top removal area, backfill, or contour mine) into an
adjacent mature remnant forest, apparently unaffected by mining activity. (Many of these
forested sites once were logged, and showed vestiges of former rough logging roads.
Consequently, these forests, themselves, have been modfied by human activity, and may
be expectd to be lower in biodiversity than historic stands [Martin, etal. 1993, chaps. 5,
8]. However, all forested areas contained large, diverse canopy trees with well-
developed stands, and unexcavated soil.) The transect line was continuous from mined
area to the adjacent remnant forest.
There were an additional 43 transects studied where it was not possible to run
continuous transects, as above. In these cases, the forest remnant transect was run
perpendicular or adjacent to the mined area transect, as shown in Diagram 1. On valley
fill areas, transects were arrayed from top of slope to toe of slope, for the length of the
fill. Because of the typically triangular geometry of these fills, fill areas at the toe of
slope were usually much closer to surrounding forests. Also, some valley fills have
plantings on flat terraces, usually black locust.
Data were collected during the year 2000 growing season only. The presence of
woody plants, even small ones, on these sites can represent the reproductive performance
of many years. The location of the boundary or edge between forested and mining
activity land was recorded for each transect, and is the "0" point on data sets. The point-
quarter sampling method was used to survey the woody plant community (Barbour, Burk,
et al. 1999). This technique was used as it allowed the investigating team to cover the
most ground, the most sites, and collect the most data points in the time frame given.
There is a potential to underestimate rare species with this technique, as a census of all
plants in an area is not done. However, a species effort curve performed in this lab on the
data indicates that minimal, if any, rare species were missed given our large data set that
covers thousands of individual plant records. Consequently, the field sampling technique
is representative of the woody species on site.
At each sampling point, located at 20 meter intervals along the transect line, the
area was divided into four quadrats. In each quadrat the distance from the sample point
on the transect line to the nearest woody species was measured and recorded for three
different size classes, for a potential of twelve individuals per transect point. The size
classes were defined as 0-1 inch ("small"), 1-3 inch ("medium"), and more than 3-inch
("large") diameter, as measured at the base of each stem. For each of these stems the
nearest neighbor's distance and species identification were recorded, as well as the
distance to the nearest conspecific (individual of the same species). Trees that were
obviously part of an implemented planting program were not included in the counts, as
these did not naturally arrive on these sites, and are not part of an invasion process. Any
offspring produced by planted individuals were included in the data, however. Data were
entered on computer databases for further study. Leaves and stems of questionable plants
were collected and keyed out using herbarium specimens. Occasionally, specimens could
not be keyed to species, because they were barren of flowers or fruits; it was impossible,
-------
given the rapid time frame of the study, to return to each site at other times of the year
2000 season to search for reproductive specimens.
Tree and shrub studies -data analysis:
The main objective of this study was to determine the success of woody species in
invading the disturbed mining areas. The data were examined in several ways. Transects
were categorized as one of six types: continuous forest; forest remnant; valley fill;
mountain-top removal area; backfill; or contour mine. Data were displayed within each
of these categories, by the three size groupings of plants: small; medium; and large. The
density of woody plants of the different size classes was also determined. These densities
can be compared in order to evaluate the progress of the woody invasion. Species lists of
continuous and mined areas were developed, and comparisons between native forests and
mined lands performed. Plant diversity was also estimated using the Shannon-Weiner
statistic, which includes measures of number of species and their relative abundances.
For example, stands with the same number of plants and the same number of species can
be distinguished if one stand has these species is more or less equal proportions; a more
diverse stand with this statistic would have these species in more equal numbers.
Herb studies - site selection:
Nineteen forested sites, considered to be either intact forest (11) or engineered
forest (8), were chosen to evaluate the herb community, adjacent to the locations where
the EPA aquatic biology team was collecting data for this EIS. Sections of watersheds
that had been mined (the engineered forest) as well as areas that were distant from mining
activity (the intact forest) were selected. Sites are listed in the Appendix (Table 2). This
protocol allows comparison and correlation of herb data with the aquatic study, for a
more complete understanding of these sites. No sites on the continuous transects used
for the tree survey were used for these forest herb data, because these are plants of shady
habitats, that were by-and-large missing from these mined sites.
Herb studies - data collection:
The study team visited all sites during April - May, 2000, to map the study sites
and sample the herbaceous vegetation. Early season sampling of the herb flora was
necessary, as many spring herbs often complete their life history before the summer
months, then persist underground until the following year (Schemske, et al., 1978;
Bierzychudek, 1982). Transects were sampled every 10 meters, starting at the base of the
slope, up hill for an additional 50 meters. It was determined by the investigating team
that the herb cover significantly diminished around 40 or 50 meters from base of slope,
and data from a broader geographical range could be collected if this was a decided end
point. At each sample location, a 5xlm plot across the face of the slope was censused for
all herbs. Species identity and stem count for each species were recorded for each 5x1
plot. Samples of species were collected for herbarium records and identification
verification.
Herb studies - data analysis:
Data were summarized to determine relative distribution and number of species
along the slope, on undisturbed forest slopes compared to forest slopes adjacent to
-------
disturbed areas (i.e. mines and wide road cuts). These data were entered in a database for
statistical analyses to determine vegetation distribution patterns. Shannon-Weiner Index
of Diversity was performed as well as calculations to determine the mean number of
stems counted and the mean number of species present in both forest types.
Soil studies:
Nineteen soil samples were collected, nine remnant forest samples and ten mined
soil samples. Two points along the point-quarter transect line were randomly selected,
one in the mined area and one in the paired remnant forest. The contour mine transects (7
of 30 mine sites, as well as 4 remnant forests that were paired with the contour mines)
were omitted because soil treatment was quite different and these data are atypical of the
remaining sites of prime interest. At each of these points the area was divided into a grid
ten by ten meters, numbered 0 through 9 with each number one meter apart from the next
along both axes. Random numbers were used to determine grid location at which a
sample of approximately 8 inches3 at the soil surface was taken. Five samples were
collected at each site, placed into plastic bags, and brought back to the Rutgers' lab for
dehydrogenase activity analysis and for further mechanical analysis by the Rutgers' Soil
Testing Laboratory.
DHA analysis is an assessment of the microbial activity in the soil. When
triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC) is added to soil, it reacts with dehydrogenases
(enzymes) that have been produced by soil microbes. This reaction creates formazan,
which is red in color. The concentration of formazan can then be measured using a
spectrophotometer. The amount of formazan produced indicates the amount of
dehydrogenase enzymes present in the soil. Two ml of 1% TTC and 0.35ml CaCOs
buffer were added to 2.00g soil samples. The samples were mixed, capped, and
incubated at 37° for 24 hours. Three replicates of each soil sample were run. After
incubation, the contents of each test tube were extracted with 50ml methanol and
centrifuged. The supernatant was collected and absorbance was measured in a
spectrophotometer (set to 485nm). Results were compared to TPF (triphenyl formazan)
standards. By weighing out a sample, drying it at 65°C for 24 hours, and reweighing it,
the moisture content of the samples was also determined. Dehydrogenase activity was
calculated using the following equation (Harris and Steer, 1997):
Formazan formation (|ig/g/24h) = 29.54 x absorbance x volume
Dry weight of sample
Soil samples brought back to Rutgers' Soil Testing Laboratory were tested for
pH, salt content, macro- and micronutrient content, gravel content, inorganic nitrogen,
soil organic matter, and mechanical analysis. The elements chosen for analysis are those
considered critical for plant health, and are also amendable aspects of soil specifications
in the reclamation of mined lands.
To assess soil depth, a hole was dug at the center point of the designated grid.
Using a standard shovel, soil was removed until digging was no longer exposing soil (i.e.
hitting rock too large or solid to dig through) or a depth of 60 centimeters was reached.
All depths were recorded and reported.
-------
Results:
Tree and shrub studies:
Presence of trees and shrubs on the study sites:
The 99 species listed in Table 3 were found on the 25 forest transects and 30
mined transects. Table 4 shows the differences in species composition across these two
types, ranked from most to least commonly present. The species did not have to be
abundant at a particular site to be included, merely present on the site (i.e. whether the
species has one or one thousand individuals, it is recorded as "present"). These numbers
do not include data that were collected from contour mine sites or their associated
remnant forests, which have been treated and reported separately, so the sample size here
is 23 forest transects and 25 mined transects. Most of the species found in the majority of
forest transects were found on only a few mine transects, with the exception of Acer
mbrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Rubus spp., which are regularly found as small
plants in disturbed areas. There are twenty species occurring on the mined lands that are
not found in the forested lands and thirty forest species not found on the mined lands. Of
the twenty unique mine species, many of these are typical early success!onal species
(Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Rubus sp.) and many others (pines and black
locust) are offspring of the trees planted as part of reclamation efforts. Overall, there are
ten more species found in the forest than on the reclaimed mined lands.
These data from Table 4 can also be summarized across sites by richness, defined
as the number of species found, regardless of abundance. Figure 1 shows that the
forested category always contains more species than the sites in the mined category,
when listed from most to least rich site. (I.e., the woody species are not growing in as
much variety on the mined sites as in the forests.) In other words, the forests have a
higher species richness and more biodiversity than the mine sites (Figure 1 and Figure
11).
Species-presence data can also be arrayed by individual species, in addition to the
site values shown in Table 4 and Figure 1. Tables 2a and 2b illustrate the number and
percent of transects studied where each species in the data set was found. Forested sites
have a higher percent of transects represented for the large majority of species. These
data show that woody species are more generally occurring across the sample universe,
not just sequestered in a few unusually rich transects that happened to be included within
individual site surveys.
There is special interest in the major tree species of the forest, as these are of
possible commercial interest. Figures 3a and 3b display six of the most common
hardwood tree species found, by absolute number and percent of all woody stems found
(total of 4,140 stems in the data sets, including all size classes). These trees are always
more abundant as a proportion of stems on the forested sites. Five of the six are more
common by absolute number on the forested sites; only red maple has more individuals
on the mined sites, as many seedlings of this species were present.
Woody species found at study sites can also be displayed by type of mining site
(Table 5), to see more clearly if there are special determinants associated with species
presence. Again, these numbers are based simply on being present at all, not abundance.
-------
Remnant forests have the most species, and mountain top removal sites have the fewest,
when grouped in this way. However, only four MTR sites were examined and twenty
remnant forests were. If one examines the average number of species by site (see site
table in appendix to see number of species per site), MTR's have 6.25 and remnant
forests have 17.7 species on average. Table 5 also illustrates that some species (for
example Acer rubrum and Liriodendron tulipiferd) are more generalist (i.e. are found on
all the site types). Others were found only on mined areas (Lespedeza bicolor) or only in
forests (Acer pensylvanicum, Lindera benzoin).
The distribution of species can also be considered in terms of how abundant, or
how frequently the species appeared on the site (Table 6). Most species found in great
number in the forests are not found in similar abundance on the mined sites. At the same
time, common woody species on the mined sites, typical of early successional stages, are
not found as abundantly in the forests.
The forest community is comprised of a greater number of species. It is also a
more diverse community than the mine land communities. More uncommon species
occur in the forest and there is less dominance by a few common species. That is, the
mine sites have a few dominant species making up more of their communities and fewer
rare species present (Figures 4a and 4b). These data are the number of woody plants
found during the point quarter sampling. The mine plot in Figure 4b is based on
percentages, which allows a simpler comparison, as sampling effort was unequal between
mine and forest lands. The mine species distribution starts quite low on the y-axis
because there were many points, about 1600, where woody stems were not present at all
(this very high point is not plotted on this graphic). An absence of any woody plants was
rarely found on any of the forest sample points. Having more species that occur more
evenly or frequently (i.e. not having a population dominated by only a few species)
creates a more diverse environment. For many of the species found, the percent
occurrence is high on forest land. Having all the species occur only once or twice, such
as on the mine lands, and being dominated by only a few species, creates a less diverse
community.
Distribution of trees and shrubs across the study transects:
To spatially study the process of invasion, data are displayed across the transects,
where, on figures 5-9, "0" represents the "edge", the sharp boundary between forest and
mining area. In these graphics, all alien species were removed from the data sets, as the
interest in this study is the reappearance of the native West Virginia plant community.
These data (in Figures 5-9) are from the twelve continuous transects described earlier
(page 1). There are three MTR, three VF, three BF, and three CM, all with paired forest
remnants. The following figures graph the mean stem densities per 25m2.
Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c illustrate the stem densities calculated for the small size
class, medium size-class, and large size-class, for woody individuals on nine continuous
mine and forest transects. A "continuous transect" is a location where only one line was
run, going from mine land directly into the remnant forest. Figure 5 a shows that the
small individuals (1" and smaller diameter at base) are not regenerating on the mined
lands as abundantly as they do in the forest. Figure 5b shows that survival of the medium
size class individuals (1-3" diameter at base) is decreasing on the mined lands, compared
-------
to the small class' performance. (Figure 5c) Large individuals (3" diameter at base) are
not present on the mining areas. There is little to no growth into this size class. This is
not an unreasonable size class to reach given the age of these mines (range of 6 to 23
years old since reclamation).
The six most common forest tree species have the following age and size
projections (under favorable soil conditions): Acer rubrum can reproduce as early as 4
years with size at first reproduction of 5-20cm (2-8") diameter at breast height (DBH).
Quercus rubra is 25 years at first reproduction with size of 60-90cm (23.6-35.4") DBH.
Liriodendron tulipifera is 15-20 years at first reproduction, DBH of 17-25cm (6.7-9.8").
Acer saccharum as early as 22 years, DBH equal to 20 (8")cm. Fagus grandifolia
reaches substantial seed production at age 40 or with a DBH of 6cm (2.4"). Magnolia
acuminata starts reproducing at age 30, optimum at age 50, with DBH unreported (Burns
and Honkala, 1990, for these data). These age and size estimates are given at breast
height, roughly 4' high, for the average adult. The size classes used in this report were
determined at the base of the plants, as most of the individuals were not taller than two
feet, so tend to overestimate plant performance when compared to the USDA
correlations. The reclamation age of many of the mine sites is nearing, or has reached,
the reproductive age for several of these trees, but this study's data indicates that the trees
have not approached the correlated sizes.
The woody data from mined transects can also be divided into the four mining
area categories of interest: Mountain-top Removal, Valley Fill, Backfills, and Contour
Mine. Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes, on three Mountain-top Removal (MTR) sites and the
paired remnant forest transects. Figure 6a shows that the small individuals (1" and
smaller diameter at base) are not regenerating on the mine lands as they do in the forest.
Of the three MTR's surveyed, one was six years old since reclamation and the other two
were both 15 years since reclamation. It is expected to see small size-class individuals
well before 15 years is reached. The medium individuals (1-3" diameter at base, Figure
6b) are not present on these mined lands, and there are only a few large individuals (3"
diameter at base) present on the surveyed, reclaimed mine land (Figure 6c).
Figures 7a, 7b, and 7c illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Valley Fill (VF) sites, that accompany MTR
sites, and the paired remnant forest transects. The remnant forests of two of these
transects were located above the fill (Colony Bay: Cazy fill; Hobet Mine: Bragg Fork fill)
and the other was located at the bottom of the fill (Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob). Due
to the triangular geometry of Valley Fills (Diagram 1), which (a) allows closer proximity
to forest edge, and (b) provides a moisture gradient created by the drainage ravines at the
toe of the slope, there was in increase in stem densities with decreasing elevation in the
Valley Fill sites. This apparently has increased the presence in this mining area of the
small size-class plants. However, the data for the medium and large size classes shows
that this trend is decreasing over time. Valley fills remain stressful sites for these
seedlings, and slow growth or lack of survival could underlie these low data points. As
these sites are ages 14, 17, and 19 years, a higher representation in all three sizes would
be expected during successional change.
-------
Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c illustrate the mean stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Backfill (BF) sites and the paired remnant
forest transects. One Backfill is 12 and the other two are 14 years old since reclamation.
Figure 8a shows that the small size-class individuals are regenerating along the forest
edge as would be expected, but taper off rapidly beyond 60 meters and are not found
further from the edge. An edge effect can also be observed in the medium size-class
(Figure 8b) in the first 20 meters that quickly fades until there are no medium individuals
found beyond that point in great number. Few large size-class individuals were found on
the mined site (Figure 8c).
Figures 9a, 9b, and 9c illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes, on three Contour Mine (CM) sites and their three
paired remnant forest transects. All three of these sites are 10 years since reclamation.
The contour mines we visited are much shorter than the other types of mine lands and
typically are less compacted upon completion than flat areas, because of less grading
activity (Vories and Throgmorton, 1999). Bonferroni T tests ("proc glm" statistical test
of SAS version 6.0) were run on the mean densities of the four mine types, by size class.
The Contour Mines' plant densities in the small and medium size classes were
significantly greater than all three other mine types (Figure 10). Because all four mine
types included in this study had so few large individuals, there was no significant
difference among any of the mine treatments.
Regeneration of the small size-class individuals on the CM illustrates the edge
effect of a forest (Figure 9a). The CM trend of regeneration falls abruptly after 10
meters, and suggests that few woody stems would be present beyond 50 meters (the local
limit of this site type). Figure 9b shows a pattern similar to Figure 9a, the smaller
individuals are surviving into the next size class. No large individuals occurred within
our sampling efforts on these CMs (Figure 9c). However, these sites are only 10 years
since reclamation and not many tree species are expected in this size class from seed this
quickly (see maturation information in text above).
Finally, one transect studied represents a unique site where it is possible to
compare three types of land engineering, all at the same age, to determine what woody
plants have naturally recruited into the site. This site was at Peerless Eagle Mine, and its
age is estimated between 10 and 15 years. The top third is mountain-top removal, the
middle third is a clear-cut forest remnant (apparently cut in preparation for the fill, but
never filled to that height, and has since revegetated), and the bottom third is valley fill
Figure 1 la). Consequently, the soil in the clear-cut area was only minimally disturbed;
soil was removed or covered in the other areas. Figure 1 Ib illustrates the lack of plant
recruitment into the two engineered areas. During the same time, the central clear-cut
area has fully revegetated, probably due to stump sprouts and germination from the
undisturbed seed bank (Figure 1 la).
Additional perspectives on trees and shrubs:
The Shannon-Weiner Index (H) is a measurement of community diversity, a
function of both species number and relative abundance commonly used in vegetation
-------
analysis (Barbour, et al., 1999). For small, medium and large plant size classes, the
diversity index is significantly higher (paired t test, df = 8, psmaii = 0.0191, pmedium =
.0082, piarge = .0033) on the forested parts of the transects (Figure 12), indicating greater
species diversity than on the mine lands.
Finally, figures 13a, 13b, and 13c compare mine age and average total plant
density on each transect site. Data from all remnant forest transects are shown as a mean
of values, with standard deviation. These are displayed across the x-axis to allow a visual
comparison with the values from the mine lands. However, this does not represent in any
way the actual age of the forested sites; this acts as an approximate asymptote to which
developing forests in this region might attain. These figures illustrate that mine area age
does not positively correlate with increasing stem density (linear regression, r2 = 1, 95%
conf. interval). If the densities were increasing over time, we would see an increase in
the slope of the regression line for the mines. However, for all three size classes there is
no linear relationship, indicating no increase in number of individuals over time. The data
for the forest were added to give a visual cue of where the average forest density is for
each size class.
General Conclusions for Trees and Shrubs:
There is a lowering of tree and shrub species and an extremely low number of
stems of woody plants on all but contour mine sites in this study compared to forests.
The few native plants that do invade the mining areas are very close to the edge of the
forest and are heavily concentrated in the smallest size class, less than 1 inch diameter at
base. The absence of significant numbers of stems larger than even 1 inch suggests that
these are very stressful sites and very slow growth or high death rates for small plants are
typical conditions. These are very low invasion rates compared to many sites adjacent to
mature forests that do not have mining as a land use. As has been noted in many recent
studies (e.g. Vories and Throgmorton, 1999), the combination of poor substrate quality
and interference by inappropriate grass cover restricts the ability of native communities to
return to these extensive land areas. Stands that have regenerated on pre-SMCRA sites
often have diverse, productive forests (Rodrique and Burger, 2000), but newer protocols
challenge this level of stand development, as is illustrated by these data. Recently, a
series of new State of West Virginia regulations have been passed to detail better
procedures for re-establishing forest lands on AOC mine sites. These regulations include
detailed requirements in soil, cover, and landscape requirements to begin getting
productive habitats returning to the land. These new active regulations could be the
starting point to address the poor stand development seen on the sites recorded in this
study. However, full return of the rich biodiversity of the historical forests of the region
would require more intervention than the addition of several dominant species, as is
required in the new West Virginia regulations.
Herb studies:
Presence of herbs on the study sites:
10
-------
The herb communities on the forested sites were generally dense and species-rich,
as is typical of this region (Hinkle et al., 1993). Eighty-five herbaceous species have
been identified (Table 7a), and more were found on site, which required flowering
structures for complete species identification. The presence and composition of the forest
herb stratum is critical for forest health, as these herbs maintain soil structure and
nutrients, and offer habitat to many animal species.
Three of the nineteen transects were on valley fills, the rest in forests. Presence-
absence only of the woodland herbs was recorded at these three sites, so these data are
analyzed separately from the remaining data, which follow. Woodland herbs were not
expected to be observed in open, sunny fields, as most of the herbs on Table 7a require
the shade and moisture of the forest floor. The species that were recorded on the mine
sites are on Table 7b.
Of the remaining the sixteen sites, eleven were in mature, intact forests. The
remaining five sites were lands that were directly adjacent to mining activities, such as
the mine itself, a railroad, or a busy vehicular (haul) road. Table 8 lists herbaceous
species found on study sites, ranked by presence from most to least number of sites. The
engineered forest sites are contrasted with the intact forest sites to determine the effects
of mining activity on adjacent forest herbs. There might not be direct physical
destruction of these adjacent forest remnants, but the disturbance of high activity levels
(i.e. mining equipment, blasting, fumes and exhaust from train engines and hauling
vehicles) as well as sun shafts cutting through to the forest floor from adjacent human-
dominated areas surrounding a forest remnant may disrupt the forest community, starting
with the herbaceous stratum. Seventeen fewer species are found on sites adjacent to
engineered areas than on intact forest sites.
In analyzing species distribution on the slopes, intact sites have more species at
any point than engineered sites (Figure 14a). this can be seen with a two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (proc GLM, SAS version 6.0) to test for the effects of treatment type,
distance from toe of slope, and the interaction of treatment and distance on mean number
of species. Significant results were found for treatment type and distance from toe of
slope on the species mean (both had a p value = 0.0001), indicating that the number of
species were effected by both the distance up the hill and the type of site. There was no
significant interaction between environment and distance.
The herb stratum in intact sites also contained more stems in study areas than in
engineered sites, along the entire slope (Figure 14b). A two-way ANOVA was
performed, testing treatment and distance on mean number of herb stems (treatment p =
0.0016 and distance p = 0.125). Treatment type was found to be significant for number of
plants found. There was no significant interaction found for distance from toe of slope on
number of stems. There was no significant effect of treatment and distance collectively
on number of herb stems counted.
The diversity of the herb stratum follows a similar pattern as described above.
Figure 14c shows that the engineered sites had less diversity than the intact sites at all
but one point along the slope. ANOVAs show a significant value (p = 0.003) for
treatment type, and a marginally significant result (p = .0989) for distance on diversity.
Once again, there was no significant relation between treatment and distance.
11
-------
Tables 9a and 9b record the herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked from
most to least abundant (number of stems counted) in engineered and intact sites and by
percent abundance, respectively. (The two tables record absolute number and percent of
stems on these sites.) Several of the species, which are found most abundantly on the
intact forest sites, were not present, or are present in very low numbers, on the disturbed
engineered sites. This would indicate that the human activity is effecting the forest
ecosystem and changing the community composition. Four of the top ten intact forest
herbs are in the top ten of the engineered sites, however, three of the top ten were not
present at all on the engineered sites. This might indicate that although some of the
heartier species are persisting, some of the more sensitive species are disappearing.
Table 10 records herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by abundance
(number of stems counted) in engineered and intact sites. In this table, values have been
standardized by multiplying engineered numbers by 11/5 to even out difference in the
number of sites sampled. By equalizing the numbers, we can see the abundance of the
species from a more level starting point. (The total number of stems for the engineered
and intact forests respectively are 3978 and 8817.) The totals indicate, even when the
different number of sites studied is compensated for, that the density of herbaceous stems
at the engineered sites was less than half that of the intact forest sites.
General Conclusions for Herbs:
The herb community, important for nutrient status and wildlife values, is much
less dense and species-rich when disturbance is adjacent to an intact forest. Part of the
reason for the difference in spring herb abundance and diversity could be attributed to
mining activity. When mining activity results in covering up the toe of the slope, the
most diverse and rich communities are eliminated. The engineered sites studied could
have been higher up the original slope than at the intact sites. Also, since the engineered
sites have been more disturbed, the quantity of light penetrating the canopy may be
increased. This increase in light energy reaching the ground can dry out the soil and
make conditions less favorable for the spring herb population. These herbs rarely invade
mining lands on the areas studied, so data sets used for woody plants did not include
forest herbs because they were seldom, if ever, observed. (Dispersal limits and the need
for shady, moist microhabitat are obvious limits to regeneration.) A return to full forest
biodiversity of plants is apparently even more challenged on mining areas when herb
species are added to a concern.
Soil Sampling:
Table 11 lists the soil depth and percent moisture content recordings from ten
mines and their paired remnant forest. Depths were determined by digging holes until
12
-------
either large rock was hit, impeding further digging, or 60cm was reached. The forest is
often described as having a very thin layer of soil (e.g. Torbert and Burger, 1996),
difficult to be collected before mining operations begin. However, this study's sampling
encountered, three times in the forest, 60 cm loose soil depth, with additional soil below
that was not sampled. Overall, the forest soils were consistently found to be deeper,
moister, and darker in color than the mine soils (Table 11). The mine soil consisted
mostly of small rocks, and solid impenetrable rock was hit at generally shallower depths.
Moisture content (Table 11) can account for some of the observed color variation.
The darker soils, such as those found in the forest, were much higher in moisture content
than the valley fills and backfills. Only two MTR soil samples were collected and they
came from the same MTR site (Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob). This site was very
unusual compared to other MTRs visited during this study. The forests to either side of
the mined area were flat, like the MTR, and level to the "prairie" site. It appeared that
the mining activity was carried out very close to the surface of the ground, therefore
disturbing very little of the natural processes. However, the representative showing us the
property was not sure of those particulars of the mine's history and the mining company
was no longer in business. These two MTR sites had higher moisture content and
microbial activity (Figure 15) than expected by the investigators.
The microbial activity is displayed in Figure 15 by land type, with bars marking
average values drawn across each group of columns. Overall there was not much
difference between remnant forests and back fills. This is consistent with earlier
vegetation findings that Back Fills are more promising habitats than the other two mine
types. But when comparing the microbial data to the stem density data (Figures 6-8),
there seems to be no correlation between the two. Once again, further and more in-depth
soil analyses must be performed before any conclusions can be drawn. It is important to
analyze the soil column by horizon and time did not permit that type of collection for our
team this year.
Table 12 summarizes the Rutgers University Soil Testing Laboratory's findings
on the same soil samples used for the DHA analysis. Sample size was small, and it is
difficult to observe any trends in the data. The pH values range from 3.6 (a BF and RF)
to 7.7 (a VF). There is no observed trend of pH decreasing with age. This should be
monitored over time, to see how quickly the rock is breaking down and creating the
needed soil layers. Gravel content was not unusual apart from one remnant forest with
53.45% gravel. This was a very thin section of woods, 37m wide, located above the VF
and subsequent BF of Briery Knob. Much of the West Virginia woods contained rock
outcrops, so this should not be too uncommon. There are large ranges discovered in the
soil analysis within the macro- and micronutrients, but it is notable that the N content in
the remnant forests (RF) are significantly higher than in the mine lands. This is a critical
nutrient whose pool must be enhanced for long-term forest productivity.
Conclusions:
The soil collections from the vegetation analysis sites are too few at present (due
to small sampling size) to firmly state an overview of the current conditions of the mine-
land soil. Further sampling would be required to complete a detailed analysis. More
13
-------
mine types, greater range of soil age since reclamation, more reclamation schemes, and
more in-depth sampling techniques such as soil cores to identify the soil horizons and
assess the horizon development need to be examined. Some of this information is in the
soil study section of the EIS. Our small scale soil study shows that there is a moisture
differs between land types, which must contribute to seedling development and survival,
but we cannot say if this is an overriding.
The surface microbial activity does not appear to be unevenly distributed.
Backfills did almost as well as the remnant forests. Further testing would be conducted
to test the activity level throughout the first few soil horizons. Studies expect to find the
most microbial activity at the surface horizons (Harris and Steer, 1997), so it is
not surprising to see all four land types sampled here producing similar levels.
14
-------
Literature Cited:
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, andM.W. Schwartz. 1999.
Terrestrial plant ecology. Third edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Menlo Park.
Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest
herbs: a review. NewPhytol. 90:757-776.
Burger, J.A., and J.L. Torbert. 1999. Status of reforestation technology: the Appalachian
region. Pages 95-123 in Vories and Throgmorton, op. cit.
Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North
America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Core, Earl L. 1966. Vegetation of West Virginia. McClain Printing Co, Parsons, WV.
Gleason, Henry A., and Arthur Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of
Northeasterr
Bronx, NY.
Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden,
Harris, J., andD. Steer. 1997. DHA soil microbial activity analysis. Dept. of
Environmental Science, University of East London, U.K.
Hinkle, C.R., W.C. McComb, J.M. Safley, Jr., and P.A. Schmalzer. 1993. Mixed
mesophytic forests. Pages 203-254 in Martin, W.H., S. G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht,
editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
Wiley and Sons, NY.
Newcomb, Lawrence, and Gordon Morrison. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide.
Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Rodrique, J. A., and J.A. Burger. 2000. Forest productivity and woody species diversity
on pre-SMCRA mined land. Proc. Amer. Soc. Surface Mining Reclam., pages 205-223.
Schemske, D.W., M.F. Willson, M.N. Melampy, et al. 1978. Flowering ecology of some
spring woodland herbs. Ecology 59:351-366.
Strausbaugh, P. D., and Earl L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia, 2nd ed. Seneca Books.
Morgantown, WV.
Torbert, J.L., and J.A. Burger. 1996. Influence of grading intensity on herbaceous ground
cover, erosion, and tree establishment in the southern Appalachians. Pages 639-646 in
Successes and failures: applying research results to insure reclamation success. ASSMR,
and Powell River Project of Virginia Tech Univ.
15
-------
Yenning, Frank D., and Manabu C. Saito. 1984. A Guide to Field Identification:
Wildflowers of North America. Golden Press, New York, NY.
Vories, K.C., and D. Throgmorton, editors. 1999. Proceddings of: Enhancement of
reforestation at surface coal mines: technical interactive forum. USDI OSM, Alton, IL,
and Coal Research Center, SIU, Carbondale IL. 274 p.
16
-------
Soil Health of Mountaintop Removal Mines in Southern West Virginia
Revised Project Report
By
John Sencindiver, Kyle Stephens, Jeff Skousen, and Alan Sexstone
Division of Plant and Soil Sciences
West Virginia University
January 24, 2001
Abstract
Minesoils are young soils developing in drastically disturbed earth materials. The health
and quality of these soils will deviate from native soils. Although minesoil quality in some
places may be worse than the native soil quality, research has shown that overburden materials
may be manipulated to improve minesoil quality, especially soil physical and chemical
properties. However, very little information about microbiological activity in minesoils is
available. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate physical, chemical and microbiological
properties of minesoils developing on reclaimed mountaintop removal coal mines in southern
West Virginia. Minesoils of different ages and the contiguous native soils were described and
sampled on three mines. Routine physical and chemical properties were determined as well as
microbial biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and microbial respiration. All minesoils
were weakly developed compared to the native soils, but most had a transition horizon (AC) or a
weak B horizon (Bw) developing between the A horizon at the surface and the C horizons. The
minesoils would be classified as Entisols, while most of the native soils were Inceptisols. Both
native and minesoil biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and microbial respiration
were generally within ranges of other reported data. In general, there were more similarities
between the properties of the oldest minesoils and the native soils than between the younger
minesoils and the native soils. There is a trend of C accumulation as the minesoils become older,
and it appears that the stable organic pool is increasing with age. This study indicates that the
minesoils are approaching stable, developed soils and should become more like the native soils
as they continue to develop.
Introduction
Soil quality or health can be broadly defined as the capacity of a living soil to function,
within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity,
maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health (Doran et al.,
1999). Minesoil health is important, not only for initial revegetation, but also for continued long-
term productivity and environmental quality. Since minesoils are drastically disturbed soils,
-------
their initial properties will be different than the surrounding native soils. However, minesoils are
subject to the same soil forming factors and processes that have developed the contiguous native
soils. These processes will eventually develop minesoils with properties similar to the native
soils. Therefore, studies of minesoil health should include some documentation of minesoil
property changes or differences with time. The objective of this study was to document
differences in selected minesoil properties, especially those related to microbial activity, on
mountaintop removal coal mines of different ages, and to compare the minesoils to the major
contiguous native soils.
Methods and Materials
Site Descriptions And Field Sampling
Minesoils and native soils were sampled at the Dal-Tex mine in the Spruce Fork
watershed in Logan County, the Hobet-21 mine in the Mud River watershed of Boone County,
and the Cannelton mine in the Twentymile Creek watershed in Fayette County. Two different
ages of minesoils, with three sampling points each, were selected for sampling at the Hobet-21 (8
and 17 years old) and Cannelton sites (16 and 30 years old). All sampling points at these two
mines were 250 m apart, and they were placed 50 m away from the nearest wildlife sampling
point. Specific location of each sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 1.
At Hobet-21, the 8-year-old site had slopes ranging from 3 to 5% with a south-southwest
aspect. The Hobet-21 17-year-old site had slopes ranging from 3 to 28% with a northwest aspect.
Slope inclination at each sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 2. All Hobet-21
sampling points were located at mid slope. At Cannelton, all minesoil sampling points also were
located at mid slope and had a south-southwest aspect. Slopes ranged from 5 to 10% on the 16-
year-old site, and all slopes were 2% on the 30-year-old site. All minesoils on both of these sites
had similar geology and topography, and they had been mined and reclaimed by similar methods.
Three sampling points also were located on the contiguous steeply sloping native soils at
both mine sites. These sampling points were located at mid slope and had south-southwest
aspects at both sites. Hobet-21 soils had 45 to 72% slopes, and Cannelton soils had 45 to 70%
slopes.
Sampling sites at the Dal-Tex mine had been selected for another study (Thomas et al.,
2000), but also were used for this study. Four different ages (23, 11, 7, and 2 years old) of
minesoils were sampled. Three gently sloping and three steeply sloping sampling points were
located on each of the different aged sites. Two steeply sloping native soils were sampled. All
minesoil and native soil sampling points had south-southwest aspects. Slope inclination at each
sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 2. The distance between sampling points on this
mine differed for each age. Each of the sampling points at the 2-year-old site was within a
distance of 20 m from the next point. Sampling points on the native soils and on each of the
other minesoil ages were more than 20 m apart. The longest distance between points was
approximately 100 meters on the 23-year-old site.
-------
Native soils mapped at the three locations are presented below. In general, they are very
similar. They are moderately deep and acid with loamy textures.
a. Cannelton - Muskingum; fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic
Dystrochrepts (Gorman and Espy, 1975)
b. Hobet-21 - Berks; loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts
Gilpin; fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, mesic Typic Hapludults
(Wolf, 1994)
c. Dal-Tex - Berks; loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts
Matewan; loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Typic
Dystrochrepts (Rob Pate, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
personal communication)
All native soils at each of the sites were forested. Both minesoil sampling sites at
Cannelton were predominantly vegetated with grasses and legumes. The 16-year-old site had
scattered black locust (Robiniapseudoacacia L.) trees, but the 30-year-old site had more trees of
a variety of species including black locust, maples (/Icersp.), pines (Pinus sp.), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua L.) and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum L.). The 8-year-old site at
Hobet-21 was covered with grasses and legumes. The major cover on the Hobet-21 17-year-old
site was black locust with ground cover of grasses and legumes. At Dal-Tex, the 23-year-old site
was predominantly forested with some grasses and legumes on the gently sloping sites. The 7-
year-old site had predominantly grasses and legumes with some shrubs. The 11-year-old and the
2- year-old sites were covered with grasses and legumes with scattered trees at the 11-year-old
site.
At each sampling point, a soil pit was dug to a depth of 40 cm or more to expose enough
of the soil to determine the thickness of the surface mineral horizon and to observe one or more
subsurface horizons. The soil was described to the exposed depth, and bulk samples were
collected from the surface horizon for laboratory analyses. The average thickness of surface
horizons for all soils is presented in Table 1. These samples were collected in early to mid June
2000. All samples were refrigerated at 4° C until they were analyzed. Bulk density of the
surface horizon was determined in the field by a frame excavation technique developed by soil
scientists at the National Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE (Grossman, R.B., unpublished
procedure).
Laboratory Analyses
Texture, pH and electrical conductivity were determined by standard methods of
the National Soil Survey Laboratory (Soil Survey Staff, 1996). ALECO CNS-2000 analyzer
was used to determine total carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen. Microbial biomass C and N were
determined by a chloroform-fumigation-extraction procedure (Rice et al., 1996). Twenty grams
of sample at field moisture content were used for this extraction procedure. Nitrogen in extracts
was determined by a Kjeldahl method, and C was determined by a Tekmar-Dohrman DC-190
-------
automated carbon analyzer. Potentially mineralizable N was determined by an anaerobic
incubation procedure (Drinkwater et al., 1996). Microbial respiration was determined by static
soil incubation in closed bottles (Zibilske et al., 1994). Triplicate soil samples (25 g field moist)
were placed in funnels lined with Whatman #1 filter paper. Soils were then completely saturated
with 100 ml of distilled water and allowed to drain for 24 hr to normalize soil moisture. Wetted
soil (20 g) was weighed into serum bottles (160 ml) and incubated uncovered in the dark for 24
hr. Each bottle was capped with a butyl rubber stopper, and initial headspace CCh levels were
established by injecting 1 ml via a syringe into an infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) equipped with a
gas recirculation loop. This process was repeated for each bottle at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hr.
Microbial respiration rates were determined using linear regression analysis of CC>2
concentrations at each sampling time.
Results and Discussion
The GPS latitude and longitude for each of the minesoil and native soil sampling points
are presented in Appendix Table 1. Detailed profile descriptions are presented in Appendix
Table 2. All of the minesoils had developed A horizons and most of the profiles had some weak
development in the subsoil, so AC or Bw horizons were described. Minesoils at the Dal-Tex
1976-01 and the Hobet-21 1992-01 sites have cambic horizons and would be classified as
Inceptisols (Soil Survey Staff, 1998), while all other minesoils are Entisols. All native soils,
except Hobet-21 native-01, are classified as Inceptisols. Hobet-21 native 01 has an argillic
horizon and is classified as an Ultisol.
In general, A horizons of the strongly sloping minesoils at Dal-Tex were thicker than the
A horizons of the gently sloping minesoils (Table 1). Thickness of A horizons directly relates to
the depth of incorporation and accumulation of organic matter primarily from root growth, but
also from aboveground biomass. Since bulk densities of the gently sloping minesoils were
generally greater than the bulk densities of the strongly sloping minesoils (Thomas et al., 2000),
roots should have penetrated more deeply on the strongly sloping minesoils developing thicker A
horizons. A review of Appendix Table 2 shows that A horizons had more roots than subsurface
horizons.
Rock fragment content of minesoil subsoil horizons averaged greater than 35% by
volume and was greater than the rock fragment content of A horizons (Appendix Table 2).
Therefore, all minesoils were classified as skeletal (Soil Survey Staff, 1998). Some of the native
soils had more than 35% and others had less than 35% rock fragments in the subsoil horizons
(Appendix Table 2). The average A-horizon rock fragment content for all soils was less than
35% by volume (Table 1, Appendix Table 2).
Minesoil physical and chemical properties are presented in Table 2. Most of the
minesoils and native soils had loamy textures, i.e. sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam.
Electrical conductivity values were very low for all soils. Minesoil pH ranged from 4.1 on the
23-year-old Dal-Tex site to 7.0 on the 8-year-old Hobet-21 site. Native soil pH values generally
ranged from 4.5 to 5.6, but one site at Dal-Tex had a pH of 3.7. Low total S values for all
-------
minesoils and native soils in this study were similar to values reported by Smith et al. (1976) for
soils and overburdens in nearby Mingo County.
Our minesoil and native soil C and N values are similar to other minesoils with
comparable vegetation (Li, 1991; Prince and Raney, 1961; unpublished soil survey data,
National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, NE). However, except for Dal-Tex native-02, the
native soil C and N values are on the low end of the range of the other native soils used for
comparison. The Dal-Tex native-02 C value of 12.45% is higher than most soils in the region.
Total N and C values tended to be lower for minesoils than for native soils on the Dal-Tex site.
However, the older minesoils on the Cannelton and Hobet-21 sites, had higher C and N values
than the native soils.
Both native soil and minesoil biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N and
microbial respiration (MR ) (Table 3) are generally within ranges given for other soils (Myrold,
1987; Insam and Domsch, 1988; Rice et al., 1996). The minesoil biomass C values are generally
higher than values reported for soils from long-term cropping experiments, but minesoil biomass
N and potentially mineralizable N are similar to values from these experiments (Bonde et al.,
1988). The native soils at Dal-Tex and at Cannelton are similar to each other in all three
parameters, but the Hobet native soil is lower for all three. The reasons for this difference are
not understood at this time since soils and vegetation are similar for the three sites.
Rice et al. (1996) suggest that the ratio of microbial biomass to total soil organic carbon
and nitrogen may provide a measure of soil organic matter dynamics and soil quality. These
authors quote other studies for agricultural soils (Anderson and Domsch, 1989; Jenkinson, 1988;
Sparling, 1992) indicating that microbial biomass C (MBC) normally comprises 1 to 4% of total
organic C and microbial biomass N (MEN) comprises 2 to 6% of the total organic N. The
biomass C to total C (TC) ratios for all of our minesoils and native soils are within this quoted
range (Table 4). The biomass N to total N (TN) ratios of the native soils at Dal-Tex are within
this range, but the ratios present in the native soils at the other two mines are generally higher
than the reported range. The fact that these soils are forest soils may explain why the MBN:TN
range is different than that reported for agricultural soils. Extremely high MBN:TN values for
Dal-Tex 7-year-old and 11-year-old sites indicate that these soils have not developed a stable
organic matter base.
As the organic carbon pool becomes more stable with time, ratios of MBC:TC, MBN:TN
and potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN):TC should decrease. This relationship is apparent
at the Dal-Tex site. No total N was detectable in the Dal-Tex 2-year-old site, so the ratios could
not be calculated. This site is apparently so young that the C and N pools are very unstable.
However, the MBN:TN and PMN:TN ratios generally decrease in the following order: 7 years >
11 years > 23 years > native soil. For the MBC:TC ratios, there is a decrease in the following
order: 11 years > 7 years = 23 years > native soil. We do not understand at this time why the
MBC:TC ratio for the 7-year-old minesoil is not higher than the 11 or 23-year-old minesoil.
These same relationships of decreasing ratios with age are not readily apparent at the Cannelton
and Hobet-21 sites. The total C values may not be an accurate estimate of organic C in some
minesoils because of the presence of coal or high C rock fragments in the samples. Therefore,
the N values and ratios are probably more reliable comparisons.
-------
Soil respiration previously has been used to assess decomposition dynamics in West
Virginia minesoils (Stroo and Jencks, 1985). Kennedy and Papendick (1995) suggested that a
respiratory quotient such as the MR/MBC ratio relates both the size and activity of microbial
biomass. A lowering of the ratio indicates a trend to a more stable and mature system (Insam
and Domsch, 1988). The respiratory quotient for the Dal-Tex soils decreased in the following
order: 7 years > 11 years > 23 years > native soil (Table 4). Again excluding the 2-year-old soil,
this trend indicated a maturation of soils at the Dal-Tex site. A decreasing respiratory quotient
with site age was not observed at the Cannelton and Hobet sites.
Based upon these data, we conclude that there is a trend toward the accumulation of C as
these minesoils age. Also, it appears that the stable organic pool is increasing. The older
minesoils, especially the 23-year-old minesoils at Dal-Tex and the 30-year-old minesoils at
Cannelton, have properties similar to the native soils. These data and other data (Thomas et al.,
2000) indicate that the minesoils sampled in this study are approaching stable, developed soils.
References
Anderson, J.P.E., and K.H. Domsch. 1989. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total carbon in
arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21: 471-479.
Bonde, T.A., J. Schnurer, and T. Rosswall. 1988. Microbial biomass as a fraction of potentially
mineralizable nitrogen in soils from long-term field experiments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20:447-
452.
Doran, J.W., AJ. Jones, M.A. Arshad, and I.E. Gilley. 1999. Determinants of soil quality and
health. Chapter 2. p. 17-36. InR. Lai (ed.), Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press. Boca
Raton, Florida.
Drinkwater, L.E., C.A. Cambardella, J.D. Reeder, and C.W. Rice. 1996. Potentially
mineralizable nitrogen as an indicator of biologically active soil nitrogen. Chapter 13, p. 217-
229. In J.W Doran and AJ. Jones (eds.). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA Spec. Publ.
No. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
Gorman, J.L., and L.E. Espy. 1975. Soil Survey of Fayette and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.
Insam, H. and K.H. Domsch. 1988. Relationship between soil organic carbon and
microbial biomass on chronosequences of reclaimed sites. Microbiol. Ecol. 15:177-188.
-------
Jenkinson, D.S. 1988. Determination of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in soil. p. 368-
386. In J.R. Wilson (ed.) Advances in nitrogen cycling in agricultural ecosystems. CAB Int.,
Wallingford, England.
Kennedy, A.C. and R.I. Papendick. 1995. Microbial characteristics of soil quality. J. Soil and
Water Conservation 50:243-248.
Li, R. 1991. Nitrogen cycling in young mine soils in southern Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. 150 p.
Myrold, D.D. 1987. Relationship between microbial nitrogen and a nitrogen availability index.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1047-1049.
Prince, A.B. and W.A. Raney (eds.). 1961. Some morphological, physical, and chemical
properties of selected Northeastern United States Soils. Northeast Regional Research
Publication. Regional Research Project NE-22. Agric. Exper. Station Misc. Publ. 1. University of
New Hampshire. Durham, NH.
Rice, C.W., T.B. Moorman, and M.Beare. 1996. Role of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen
in soil quality. Chapter 12, p. 203-215. In J.W Doran and AJ. Jones (eds.). Methods for
Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA Spec. Publ. No. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Inc.
Madison, WI.
Smith, R.M., A.A. Sobek, T. Arkle, Jr., J.C. Sencindiver, and J.R. Freeman. 1976. Extensive
overburden potentials for soil and water quality. EPA-600/2-76-184. National Technical
Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Soil Survey Staff. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations
Report No. 42. Version 3.0. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Lincoln, NE.
Soil Survey Staff. 1998. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Eighth Edition. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
Sparling, C.P. 1992. Ratio of microbial biomass to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of
changes in soil organic matter. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30:195-207.
Stroo and Jencks. 1985. Effect of sewage sludge on microbial activity in an old
abandoned minesoil. J. Environ. Qual. 14:301-304.
Thomas, K.A., J.C. Sencindiver, J.G. Skousen, and J.M. Gorman. 2000. Soil development on a
mountaintop removal mine in southern West Virginia, p. 546-556. In W.L. Daniels and S.G.
Richardson (eds.). Proc. Seventeenth Annual Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and
Reclamation. 11-15 June 2000. Tampa, FL. Amer. Soc. Surf. Mining Rec., 3134 Montavesta
Rd., Lexington, KY.
-------
Wolf, B.L. 1994. Soil Survey of Boone County, West Virginia. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Washington, DC.
Zibilske, L.M. 1994. Carbon mineralization. Chapter 38. P. 835-863. In Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil
Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
-------
Appendix Table 1. GPS Coordinates of Minesoils and Native Soils at Three Sites.
Site
Latitude
Longitude
Dal-Tex
Gently Sloping
23 yr old
1976-01
1976-03
1976-05
llyr old
1988-01
1988-03
1988-05
7 yr old
1992-01
1992-03
1992-05
2 yr old
1997-01
1997-03
1997-05
Strongly Sloping
23 yr old
1976-02
1976-04
1976-06
llyr old
1988-02
1988-04
1988-06
7 yr old
1992-02
1992-04
1992-06
2 yr old
1997-02
1997-04
1997-06
Natives
Native-01
N 37 deg 53 min 48 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 40 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 40 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 56 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 58 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 52 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 22 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 21 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 20 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 11 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 11 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 42 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 41 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 41 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 56 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 57 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 53 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 23 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 22 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 21 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 20 sec
W81 deg 51 min 32 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 33 sec
W81 deg 51 min 21 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 11 sec
W81 deg 50 min 58 sec
W81 deg 50 mm 17 sec
W81 deg 50 min 20 sec
W81 deg 50 mm 25 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 16 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 14 sec
W81 deg 51 min 12 sec
W81 deg 51 min 27 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 33 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 34 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 21 sec
W81 deg 51 min 11 sec
W81 deg 50 mm 58 sec
W81 deg 50 min 19 sec
W81 deg 50 mm 22 sec
W81 deg 50 min 25 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 16 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 14 sec
W81 deg 51 mm 13 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 24 sec W 81 deg 51 min 17 sec
-------
Native-02
Cannelton
Minesoil
30 yr old
1970-01
1970-02
1970-03
16 yr old
1984-01
1984-02
1984-03
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
Native-03
Hobet 21
Minesoil
17 yr old
1983-01
1983-02
1983-03
8 yr old
1992-01
1992-02
1992-03
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
Native-03
N 37 deg 56 min 25 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 14 sec
N38degl2mm39.5sec
N 38 deg 12 min 34.7 sec
N 38 deg 12 mm 35.0 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 12.9 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 40.7 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 42.4 sec
N 38 deg 14 mm 58.2 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 59.1 sec
N 38 deg 15 mm 02.5 sec
N 38 deg 07 min 12.2 sec
N 38 deg 06 mm 58.7 sec
N 38 deg 06 min 50.3 sec
N 38 deg 04 min 46.3 sec
N 38 deg 04 min 41.0 sec
N 38 deg 04 mm 48.9 sec
N 38 deg 07 min 03.4 sec
N 38 deg 07 mm 01.9 sec
N 38 deg 06 min 59.9 sec
W81 deg 16 mm 45.9 sec
W81 deg 17 min 01.4 sec
W81 deg 16 mm 56.0 sec
W 81 deg 16 min 46.6 sec
W81 deg 16 mm 32.3 sec
W 81 deg 16 min 09.4 sec
W81 deg 15 mm 25.2 sec
W81 deg 15 min 18.3 sec
W81 deg 15 mm 10.6 sec
W 81 deg 53 min 01.5 sec
W81 deg 52 mm 56.6 sec
W81 deg 52 min 46.2 sec
W81 deg 55 mm 42.3 sec
W 81 deg 55 min 58.8 sec
W81 deg 56 mm 03.8 sec
W 81 deg 52 min 35.3 sec
W81 deg 52 mm 36.2 sec
W81 deg 52 mm 38.9 sec
-------
Appendix Table 2. Profile Descriptions for the Dal-Tex, Cannelton, and Hobet -21 Mine Sites
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1 Moist Colorz Texture5 Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Soil Age (cm) Consistence Fragments
Dal-Tex
1976-01
23 -years-old
(2% slope)
1976-02
23 -years-old
(30% slope)
Oi
Oe
A
AC
C
2Cr
2R
Oi
Oe
A
AC
C/B
C
2R
0-2
2-3
3-7
7-22
22-65
65-79
79+
0--3
3-6
6--13
13-31
31-75
75-105+
79+
aw
2.5Y5/3 SIL 2, f, sbk fr cw many, vf-c 20%
breaking to SS
2, f-m, gr
2.5Y 5/3, 10YR 5/6, SICL 1, m-c, sbk fr cw com, vf-c 30%
10YR6/2, N2.5/0 SS, MS,
7.5YR 5/8, 10YR 5/6, SICL 0, ma fr aw few, vf-f 35%
2.5Y 7/4, 10YR 6/2 SS, MS,
N 2.5/0
Gray shale and mudstone aw
Sandstone
aw
10YR 4/2, 10YR 5/3 L 1, m, sbk fr cw many, vf-m 4%
breaking to SS, MS,
1, f-m, gr
10YR4/2 L 1, m-c, sbk fr cw few, vf-m 50%
SS, MS,
2.5Y 5/3 LS 80% 0, ma vfr gw com, vf-m 65%
20% 1, f, sbk SS, MS,
2.5Y5/2 LS 0, ma vfr aw few vf-m 75%
SS
Sandstone
C
C
C
C
C
-------
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1976-03
23 -years-old
(6% slope)
1976-04
23 -years-old
(42% slope)
01
Oe
A
AC
Cl
C2
01
Oe
A
AC
C
C/B
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0--1
1--5
5-12
12-30
30-87 com, f 10YR 5/8
87-115+ many, f, 7.5YR 4/6
10YR 5/8, N 2.5/0
10YR7/4
0-1
1-4
4-12
12—38 Discontinuous layers
10YR2/1
38-69
69—150+ Discontinuous layers
10YR4/1
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
Leaf and stem litter
Partially decomposed leaf and stem litter
10YR4/2 SL 2,f, sbk fr 6.5 cw
breaking to
2, f-m, gr
10YR3/2 SL l,c, sbk fr 6.0 cw
breaking to
1, m, sbk
N3/0 SL 0,ma fr 4.0 cw
10YR4/3 L 0,ma fr
Leaf and stem litter
Partially decomposed leaf and stem litter aw
10YR 5/4 SL 2, f-m, gr vfr aw
10YR 5/4, 10YR 5/6 SL l,m-c, sbk fr gw
10YR 5/4, 10YR 5/6 LS 0, ma fr 5.0 gw
10YR 5/4, 10YR 5/6, L 75% 0, ma fr 6.0
10YR4/4 SL/L 25% f-m, sbk
Roots7 Rock8
Fragments
many, vf-m 35%
SS, MS, C
com, vf-m 50%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 80%
SS, MS, C
40%
SS, MS, C
many, vf-vc 30%
SS, MS
com, vf-vc 60%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-c 45%
SS, MS, C
com, vf-c 50%
SS, MS, C
-------
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1976-05
23 -years-old
(4% slope)
1976-06
23 -years-old
(23% slope)
1988-01
1 1 -years-old
(1% slope)
Oe
A
AC
Cl
C2
01
Oe
A
Bw
C
Oe
A
AC
Cl
C2
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0--3
3-8
8-26
26-61 few, f-m 10YR 5/8
61+
0-2
2-5
5-11
11-26 com, f-m, 10YR 5/8,
10YR3/1
26-120+ com, f-m, 10YR 5/6,
10YR 3/1, 7.5YR 5/6
0-3
3-11
11-37
37-89
89-160+
Moist Colorz TextureJ Structure4
Partially decomposed litter
10YR3/3 LS 2, f, gr
10YR 4/1, 10YR 4/2 SL 1, m, sbk
breaking to
1, m, gr
10YR 4/2 SL 0, ma
Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
aw
vfr 6.2 cw
fr 6.0 cw
fr 8.0 gw
Roots7 Rock8
Fragments
many, vf-m 30%
SS, C
many, vf-m 50%
SS, C
few, vf-f 80%
SS, C
Fragmental— large sandstone boulders with large voids
Leaf and stem litter
Partially decomposed litter
2.5Y 5/3 L 1, f-m, sbk
breaking to
1, m, gr
10YR 5/4 L 1, m-c, sbk
10YR4/3 L 0, ma
10YR4/2 Root Mat
2.5Y 5/3 SL 1, m, sbk
breaking to
2, m, gr
2.5Y 5/1 L 1, m, sbk
10YR 5/3 SL/LS 0, ma
2.5Y 5/3 SL 0, ma
aw
fr cw
fr cw
fr
fr as
fr aw
fr cw
fr gw
fr
many, vf-m 30%
SS, CO, MS
com, vf-c 40%
SS, CO, MS, C
few, f-m 60%
SS, MS, C
many, vf-f
many, vf-f 26%
SS, C
com, vf-f 40%
SS, C, MS
few, vf-f 70%
SS, C
vfew, vf-f 70%
SS, MS, C
(Sandstone in all horizons with low and high chroma)
-------
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1988-02
1 1 -years-old
(44% slope)
1988-03
1 1 -years-old
(7% slope)
01
A
AC
Cl
C2
A
AC
Cl
C2
C3
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-3 Root mat
3-12
12-41
41-75
75-125+
0-3
3-16
16-49
49-91
91-125+ com, f, 10YR 5/6
Moist Colorz
10YR3/3
10YR4/6
10YR4/6
10YR4/2
10YR4/2
10YR4/2
10YR4/1
2.5Y4/1
10YR4/3
10YR4/4
TextureJ Structure4
L 1, m, sbk
breaking to
2, m, gr
SL 1, f-m, sbk
SL 90% 0, ma
10% 2, f, sbk
SL 0, ma
SL 1-2, m, sbk
SL 1, m, sbk
SL 0, ma
SL 0, ma
CL
Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
as
fr cw
fr aw
vfr gw
vfr
vfr aw
fr cw
fr aw
fr cw
fr
Roots7
many, vf-f
com, vf-m
few, vf-m
com, vf-m
few, vf-f
many, vf-f
com, vf-f
few, vf
few, vf
vfew, vf
Rock"
Fragments
30%
SS
35%
SS, C
70%
SS, MS, C
70%
SS, MS, C
20%
SS
50%
SS, C
60%
SS, C
50%
SS, C
50%
SS, C
-------
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
1988-04
1 1 -years-old
(34% slope)
1988-05
1 1 -years-old
(8% slope)
Oe 0-2
A 2-10
Cl 10-24
C2 24-59
C3 59-114
C4 114-125+ com, f, 10YR 5/6
A 0-9
Cl 9-22
C2 22-45
C3 45-79
C4 79-135+
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
Root mat-partially decomposed leaves and roots aw many, vf-m 30%
SS
10YR4/3 SL 2, f-m, gr vfr cw many, vf-m 50%
SS
10YR5/4 SL/LS 95% 0, ma fr cw com, vf-m 60%
5% 1, m, sbk SS, C
breaking to
1, m, gr
10YR 5/4, 10YR 5/8 SL/SCL 95% 0, ma fr cw few, vf-m SS, C
5% 1, m, sbk
10YR 4/6, 10YR 5/6 L 0, ma fi in place aw vfew, vf-m SS, C
fr in hand SS, C
10YR4/1 L/CL 0, ma fr 60%
SS, C
10YR3/3 SL 1, m, sbk vfr cw many, vf-f 30%
breaking to SS
1, f, gr
10YR4/1 SL 0, ma fr cw com, vf-f 55%
SS, MS, C
2.5Y4/2 SL 0, ma fr gw few, f-vf 70%
2.5Y4/1 LS 0, ma fr gw few, vf-f 55%
SS, MS, C
2.5Y4/1 SL 0, ma fr vfew, vf 50%
SS, MS, C
Appendix Table 2. Continued
-------
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
Moist Color2 Texture3
Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary6 Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
1988-06
1 1 -years-old
(48% slope)
1992-01
7-years-old
(0.5% slope)
1992-02
7-years-old
(27% slope)
A
AC
CB
C
A
Cl/B
C2/B
C
Oi
A
AC
Cl/B
C2/B
C
0-7
7-36
36-72 few, m-c, 7.5YR 5/6
72-150+
0-8
8-30
30-77
77-125+ com, f, 10YR 6/8
0-2
2-8
8-24
24-60
60-107
107-207+
10YR 3/3, 10YR 4/3 L
10YR4/3 L
10YR4/3 SL
2.5Y 5/3 SL
10YR3/3 SL
2.5Y 4/3 LS
10YR4/2 LS
10YR 5/4 LS
Leaf and stem
10YR4/1 SL
10YR4/1 SL
10YR 4/2, 10YR 4/3 SL
10YR4/2 SL/LS
10YR4/2 SL/LS
2, f-m, gr
1-2, m-c, sbk
1, c, sbk
0, ma
1, m, sbk
breaking to
2, vf-f, gr
75%, 0, ma
25% , l,f-m, sbk
90%, 0, ma
10%, 1, f, sbk
0, ma
litter
2, f-m, gr
1, m, sbk
90% 0, ma
10% 1, m, sbk
90% 0, ma
10% 1, m, sbk
95% 0, ma
5% 1, m, sbk
vfr cw
fr gw
fr cw
fi in place gw
fr in hand
vfr 7.5 cw
fr 8.0 gw
fr 8.0 cw
vfr 8
vfr cw
fr ci
fi in place gw
fr in hand
fi in place gw
fr in hand
vfr
many, vf-f 30%
SS
com, vf-f 60%
SS, C
few, vf-f 75%
SS, C
vfew, vf-f 50%
SS, C
many, vf-f 25%
SS
com, vf-f 60%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 70%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 75%
SS, MS, C
many, vf-f 25%
SS
com, vf-f 40%
SS, MS, C
com, vf-f 50%
SS, C
few, vf-f 50%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 50%
SS, MS, C
(roots continue past 207 cm)
Appendix Table
2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Moist Colorz Texture^Structure4
Moist
pH Boundary Roots Rock
-------
Soil Age
(cm)
Consistence
Fragments
1992-03
7-years-old
(1% slope)
1992-04
7-years-old
(33% slope)
Oe 0-2
A 2-6
AC 6-24 few, c, 7.5 YR 5/6
C/B 24-48
Cl 48-66
C2 66-97
C3 97-160+
A 0-7
Bw 7-21 com, f, 10YR 5/6
Cl 21-42
C2 42-101
C3 101-160+
Partially decomposed organic matter
10YR4/1 L 2, f, sbk
breaking to
1, f-m, sbk
10YR3/1 L 1, c, sbk
2, m, sbk-
around roots
2.5Y 5/3 SL 60% 0, ma
40%, 2, f-m, sbk
10YR 5/3 SL 95%, 0, ma
5%, 1, m, sbk
10YR 5/3 SL 0, ma
10YR 5/3 SL 0, ma
10YR3/1 SL/L 2, m, gr
10YR 4/2, 10YR 5/3 SL 1, m, sbk
2.5Y 5/3 SL/LS 0, ma
2.5Y 5/3 SL/LS 0, ma
2.5Y 5/3 SL/LS 0, ma
aw
vfr cw
fr aw
fr gw
fi in place gw
fr in hand
fr gw
fr gw
vfr 4.2 cw
fr 4.2
fi in place 4.2 gw
fr in hand
fi in place 4.2 cw
fr in hand
fr
many, vf-f 30%
SS, MS
com, vf-f 25%
MS, SS
com, vf-f 71%
SS, C
few, vf-f 75%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-m 75%
SS, MS, C
vfew, f-m 90%
SS, MS
many, vf-m 1 5%
SS
com, vf-m 30%
SS
few, vf-m 45%
SS, MS, C
none 45%
SS, MS, C
none 56%
SS, MS, C
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4
Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
Roots7 Rock8
Fragments
-------
1992-05
7-years-old
(1% slope)
1992-06
7-years-old
(39% slope)
Appendh
Oe 0—2 Partially decomposed leaf and stem litter aw
A 2-6 2.5Y3/2 SL 1, f-m, gr vfr 6.0 cw
AC 6-24 2.5Y4/1, 2.5Y3/1 SL 1-2, f-m, sbk fr 6.5 cw
Cl/B 24-48 2.5Y3/1 L 60%, 0, ma fr 7.0 gw
40%, 1, f, sbk
breaking to
1, f, gr
C2/B 48-66 2.5Y3/1 L 85%, 0, ma vfr/1 6.5
15%, 1, f, sbk
breaking to
1, f, gr
(Roots continue past lowest horizon described)
Al 0-10 10YR 3/2, 10YR 4/2 SL 2, f-m, gr vfr 4.2 cw
A2 10-19 10YR5/3 SL 1, m, gr vfr cw
AC 19-32 10YR6/4 SL 1, m, sbk fr 4.2 cw
breaking to
1, m, gr
Cl 32-73 10YR 5/4 LS/SL 75%, 0, ma vfr 4.2 gw
25%, 1, m, sbk
C2 73-110+ 10YR5/4 SL 0, ma vfr 4.5
: Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling Moist Color Texture Structure Moist pH Boundary
Soil Age (cm) Consistence
35%
SS
many, vf-m 35%
SS
com, vf-m 50%
SS, MS, C
com, vf-m 60%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-m 70%
SS, MS, C
many, vf-m 30%
SS, C
many, vf-m 35%
SS
com, vf-m 40%
SS
few, vf-m 50%
SS
vfew, vf-f 50%
Roots Rock
Fragments
1997-01
Oi
0-1
Grass stems
-------
2-years-old
(15% slope)
1997-02
2-years-old
(43% slope)
Appendh
A 1--4
AC 4-10
Cl 10-41 com, f-m, 2.5Y6/6,
N 2.5/0
C2 10-92 com, m, N 2.5/0,
10YR 5/6, 7.5YR 5/8
2.5YR5/8, 2.5Y6/6
10YR6/6
C3 92-150+ few, f, 2.5Y 7/1
Oi 0-2
A 2-6
Cl 6-51 com, f-m, 10YR 5/6,
N 2.5/0, 10YR4/4
C2 51-104 com, f, N 2.5/0,
10YR 5/6
C3 104-140+ few, m, N 2.5/0
i Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
1997-03
2-years-old
01 0-1
A 1-7
10YR4/3 SL l,f, gr vfr cw many, vf-f 40%
SS, MS, C
10YR4/3 SL 1, m, sbk fr cw com, vr-f 40%
SS, MS, C
2.5Y4/2 L/SL 0, ma vfr gw few, vf-f 50%
SS, C, MS
2.5Y4/3 SL 0, ma fr aw few, vf-f 60%
SS, C, MS
7. SYR 5/8 LS 0, ma fi in place 90%
fr in hand SS
Grass and legume stems
2.5Y 3/2 SL 1, f-m, gr vfr cw com, vf-m 30%
SS, MS, C
2.5Y3/2 SL 90%, 0, ma fr gi few, vf-m 50%
10%, 1, f, sbk SS, MS, C
10YR5/2 L/SL 0, ma fi in place ci few, vf-f 75%
SS, MS, C
10YR 3/2, 10YR 4/2 SL 0, ma fr vfew, vf-f 40%
SS, MS, C
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
Grass and legume stem litter
2.5Y 3/2 L 1, m, sbk fr cw many, vf-m 20%
-------
(10% slope)
1997-04
2-years-old
(44% slope)
breaking to
2, m, gr
AC 7-13 2.5Y3/2 L 1, m, sbk fr
Cl 13-56 few, m-c, 10YR 5/6 2.5Y 3/1 L 0, ma fi
C2 56-82 many, f-m, 2.5Y6/6, 10YR6/6 L 0, ma fr
N 2.5/0, 7.5YR 5/6,
10YR6/3
2Cr 82-92+ Soft grey mudstone
Oi 0--1 Grass and legume stems
A 1-7 2.5Y3/2 SL 1-2, f, gr vfr
Cl 7-37 com, f, 10YR6/1, 2. 5 Y 3/2, 2.5 Y 4/2 CL 90% 0, ma, with fi
10YR6/6 pockectsof 1, pi
10% 1, f, sbk
C2 37-120 few, m, N 2.5/0 2. 5 Y 3/2, 2.5 Y 5/3 CL 0, ma fi
C3 120-152+ com, f, 10YR4/1, 10YR 5/6, 2.5Y 5/4 SL 0, ma fr
10YR3/1
SS, MS, C
gw com, vf-m 20%
SS, MS, C
aw few, vf-f 35%
MS, SS, C
aw few, vf-f 30%
SS, MS, C
cw many, vf-f 25%
SS, MS, C
gw many, vf-m 45%
SS, MS, C
cw few, vf-m 75%
at rock SS, MS, C
faces
vfew, vf 50%
SS, MS, C
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
1997-05
2-years-old
(1% slope)
Oi
A
0-1
1-5
Grass and legume stem litter
10YR3/2 SL 1, m, sbk fr
and
cw many, vf-f
25%
SS, MS, C
-------
1997-06
2-years-old
(53% slope)
Native-01
(31% slope)
AC
C
2Cr
01
A
AC
C/B
C
01
A
BA
Bwl
Bw2
R
Appendix Table
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
Native-02
(58% slope)
01
OA
A/E
5-22 few, f-m, N 2.5/0,
2.5 6/4
22-64 many, f-m, 2.5Y 6/4,
7. SYR 5/6, N 2. 5/0
64-91+
0-2
2-8
8-14
14-29 com, c, 10YR 5/6
29-120+ few, m, N 2.5/0
4-0
0-9
9-18
18-43
43-67
67-104+
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
5-0
0-2
2-5
1, m, gr
2.5Y 4/2 SL 1, f-m, sbk
2.5Y4/3, 2.5Y4/1 CL 0, ma
Soft grey mudstone
Grass and legume stem litter
10YR3/3 SL l,f, gr
10YR4/2, 10YR 5/6 SL/L 1, f-m, sbk
2.5Y 4/3 SL 75% 0, ma
25% 1, f, sbk
2.5Y5/3, 10YR6/1 SL 0, ma
Leaf and twig litter
10YR2/2 SIL 2, f, gr
10YR4/2 SIL 1, m, sbk
breaking to
1, m, gr
10YR6/4 SIL 2, m-c, sbk
10YR 5/6 SIL 2, f-m, sbk
Shale
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4
Leaf and twig litter
Decomposed oraganic matter
10YR 3/1, 10YR 4/2 SL 1, f, gr
fi cw com, vf-f 35%
MS, SS, C
fi aw few, vf-m 40%
SS, MS, C
fr cw many, vf-f 30%
SS, MS, C
fr aw many, vf-f 30%
SS, MS, C
fr gw many, vf-m 70%
SS, MS, C
fi few, vf-m 70%
SS, MS, C
vfr cw many, vf-c 5%
SS
vfr cw many, f-c 10%
SS
fr gw com, f-m 25%
SH
fr ab few, f-m 40%
SS
Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
vfr aw many, vf-m 20%
SS
-------
BA
Bw
BC
R
^H
Cannelton
1970-01
30-years-old
(2% slope)
1970-02
30-years-old
(2% slope)
01
A
AC
C
01
A
AC
C
Appendix Table
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1970-03
30-years-old
(2% slope)
01
A
AC
5-23
23-59
59-88
88-107+
0-1
1-4
4-13
13-43+
0-1
1-4
4-46
16-40+
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-1
1-3
3-15
10YR 5/6
10YR6/6
10YR6/6
10YR3/3
10YR6/3, 7.5YR5/6
10YR 6/1, N 2/0
7.5 YR6/6, 7.5YR7/1
10YR 6/1, N 2/0
10YR6/3
10YR4/3
2Y 5/3, 10YR 5/6,
N 2/0, 7. SYR 4/6
2Y 5/3, 10YR 5/6,
N 2/0, 7. SYR 4/6
Moist Colorz
10YR3/2
N 2/0, 7.5YR 4/6,
10YR5/2, 10YR6/1,
7.5YR 6/8
SL/LS 1, f, sbk vfr/1 cw
and
1, f, gr
SL/LS 1, m, sbk fr gw
SL/LS 1, m-c, sbk fr aw
Fractured sandstone, with few roots in fractures
^m
SIL 2, f, gr vfr 5.3 aw
SICL 1, m, sbk fr 4.7 cw
SICL 0, ma fi 5.0
and
1, t, pi
L 2, f-c, gr vfr 6.5 aw
L 1, f-m, sbk fr 7.0 cw
SL 0, ma 8.0
Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
L 2, f-m, gr vfr 6.5 cw
SICL 2, m, sbk fr 7.0 gw
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
many, vf-c 40%
SS
com, f-vc 45%
SS
com, f-vc 55
SS
many, vf-m 1%
com, f-m 10%
MS, SS, C
few, vf-f 25%
MS, SS, C
many, vf-m 1%
com, vf-m 20%
vfew, m 85%
Roots7 Rock8
Fragments
many, vf-m 5%
com, vf-m 25%
-------
1984-01
16-y ears-old
(10% slope)
1984-02
16-y ears-old
(5% slope)
1984-03
16-y ears-old
(5% slope)
c
01
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Appendix Table
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
Native-01
(70% slope)
Oi
A
Bwl
Bw2
15-45+
0-3
3-7
7-14
14-50+
0-2
2-8
8-18
18-45+
0-2
2-7
7-17
17-40+
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-5
5-17
17-33
33-50+
N 2/0, 7.5YR 4/6, 0, ma
10YR 5/6, 10YR 5/8,
10YR 5/2
10YR4/2 SL l,f, gr
2.5Y 5/2 LS 1, f, sbk
2.5Y5.2 LS 0,ma
2.5Y 4/2 SICL 2, m-c, gr
breaking to
2, m, sbk
2.5YR5/2,10YR5/6 SICL l-2,c,gr
breaking to
2, f, sbk
2Y 5/2, 10YR 5/6 CL 0, ma
2.5Y 4/2 SIL 2, f-m, gr
2.5Y 4/1, 7.5YR 5/8, L 1, f-m, sbk
N2/0
10YR 4/1, N 2/0 SL 1
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4
10YR4/3 SIL 2, f-m, gr
10YR4/4 SIL 1, m, sbk
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
10YR 5/6 SIL 1, m, sbk
fi 8.0 few, f-m 50%
vfr 7.5 cw com, vf-f 0
vfr 8.0 cw few, vf-f 60%
SS, C, MS
1 8.0 vfew, vf 70%
SS, C, MS
fr 7.0 cw many, vf-m 35%
fi 8.0 cw com, f-m 50%
SS, SH
8.0 vfew, f 75%
SS, SH
fr 7.0 cw many, f-m 35%
fi 8.0 aw few, f-m 65%
8.0 vfew, f-m 85%
Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
vfr 5.5 many, f-m 5%
fr 5.0 many, m-c 15%
fr 5.0 few, m-c 30%
-------
Native-02
(45% slope)
Native-03
(67% slope)
Appendix
Oe 0--4
A 4-12
AB 12-18
Bwl 18-31
Bw2 31-45+
01 0-3
A 3-16
Bwl 16-29
Bw2 29-45+
: Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
Hobet-21
1983-01
17-years-old
(12% slope)
Oi 0-2
A 2-4
AC 4-16
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
10YR3/3 SIL 2, f-m, gr fr 5.5 aw many, vf-f 5%
10YR3/4 SIL l,f, sbk fr 5.5 cw com, vf-f 5%
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
10YR3/4 SIL 2, m, sbk fr 5.5 cw com, vf-c 10%
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
10YR4/4 SIL 2, m-c, sbk fr 5.5 few, m-c 10%
breaking to
2, f-c, gr
(Very few discontinuous clay films in Bwl and few discontinuous clay films in Bwl)
10YR4/2 SIL 1, f-m, sbk fr 5.5 aw many, vf-c 25%
breaking to
2, f-m, gr
10YR 5/4 SIL 2, f-m, sbk fr 5.5 cw few, f-c 40%
10YR 5/6 SIL 2, m, sbk fr 5.5 vfew, f-m 60%
(few discontinuous clay films in lower horizons)
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary" Roots7 Rock8
Consistence Fragments
Leaf and twig litter
2.5Y3/2 SIL/L 1, f, sbk fr cw many, vf-c 20%
breaking to SS
2, m, gr
2.5Y5/2 L l,f, sbk fr cw many, vf-m 50%
SS,C
-------
1983-02
17-years-old
(28% slope)
1983-03
17-years-old
(3% slope)
1992-01
8-years-old
(3% slope)
c
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
Bw
C
Appendix Table
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1992-02
8-years-old
(5% slope)
Oi
A
AC
C
16-45+
0-2
2-5
5-19
19-45+
0-1
1-5
5-18
18-45+
0-2
2-5
5-26
26-50+
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-2
2-6
6-28
28-45+
5Y 3/1 SL 0, ma
7.5YR 3/1 SL 2, c, gr
2.5Y 3/2 CL 1, f, sbk
2.5Y 3/2 0, ma
10YR3/3 SIL/L 2, f-m, gr
10YR 5/8, 10YR 5/1 CL 1, f, sbk
2.5Y 3/2 L 0, ma
Ground moss
10YR 3/2, 10YR 4/2 SL 2, vf-f, gr
10YR 4/3, 10YR 6/4, CL 2, f-m, sbk
N2/0
2.5Y 3/2 SCL 0, ma
Moist Colorz Texture^ Structure4
Mat of moss and roots
2.5Y 3/3 L 1, f-m, gr
2.5Y5/3, 10YR6/6 SL 1, f-m, sbk
N2/0
2.5Y 5/3, 7.5YR 5/6, SL 0, ma
N2/0
fi
vfr cw
fr cw
fi
vfr aw
fr cw
fi, in place,
fr in hand
vfr aw
fr cw
fi
Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
vfr aw
fr cw
fi
few, vf-f 80%
SS, C
many, vf-m 20%
SS, SH
com, vf-c 45%
SS, SH, C
few, vf-f 75%
SS, C
many, vf-m 1 5%
SS, SH
many, vf-m 50%
SS, SH, C
few, vf-f 80%
SS, C
many, vf-m
many, vf-m 45%
SS, C
com, vf-f 55%
SS, C
Roots7 Rock8
Fragments
many, vf-m 20%
SS
many, vf-m 65%
SS
few, vf-f 65%
SS
-------
1992-03 Oi
8-years-old A
(5% slope)
AC
C
Native-01 Oi
(45% slope) Oe
A
E
Btl
Bt2
0-1
1-5
5-11
11-45+
0-3
3-4
4-13
13-27
27-44
44-57+
Leaf litter from forages
2.5Y 4/2 L
2.5Y 4/2 SL
2.5Y 4/2 SL
Leaf and twig litter
10YR4/2 SL
10YR6/4 SL
10YR 5/6 SCL
10YR 5/6 CL
1, f-m, gr vfr cw many, vf-m
1, f, sbk vfr cw many, vf-m
breaking to
2, m, gr
0, ma fr few, vf-f
2, f-m, gr vfr 5.5 aw com, vf-m
1, m, sbk fr 5.5 cw com, vf-c
2, m, sbk fr 5.5 gw few, vf-c
2, m, sbk fr 4.8 few, vf-c
25%
SS
25%
SS
80%
SS
5%
SS
5%
SS
5%
10%
SS
(few patchy clay films on ped faces and in pores in the Btl and common patchy clay films on ped faces and in pores on Bt2)
Appendix Table
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
Native-02 Oi
(70% slope) A
BA
Bwl
Bw2
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-5
5-11
11-26
26-38
38-60+
Moist Colorz TextureJ
Leaf and twig litter
10YR3/3 SL
10YR4/4 SL
10YR 5/4 SL
10YR 5/4 SL
Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary*" Roots7
Consistence
2, f, gr vfr 5.5 cw many, vf-c
1, f, sbk vfr 5.2 cw many, vf-vc
breaking to
1, f-m, gr
1, m, sbk fr 5.2 gw com, f-vc
1, m, sbk fr 4.7 com, f-vc
Rock"
Fragments
15 SS%
SS
20%
SS
20%
SS
25%
-------
Native-03
(72% slope)
01
Oe/Oa
A
AB
Bwl
Bw2
0--5
5-9
9-17
17-35
35-51
51-81+
SS
Leaf litter
10YR3/2 SL 2, f-m, gr vfr 4.7 cw many, vf-m 20%
SS
10YR 3/4, 10YR 5/6 SL 2, f-m, gr vfr 5.0 cw many, vf-vc 35%
SS
10YR 5/6 SL 1, m, sbk fr 5.0 gw many, vf-c 35%
SS
7.5YR 4/6 SL 1, m, sbk fr 4.5 com, vf-c 45%
SS
-f=flne, m=medium, c= coarse, com=common
-Colors derived with Munsel color book
3-CL=clay loam, L=loam, LS= loamy sand, SCL=sandy clay loam, SICL=silty clay loam, SIL=silt loam, SL=sandy loam
-0=stuctureless, l=weak, 2=moderate
vf=very fine, f=flne, m=medium, c=coarse, t=thick
gr=granualr, ma=massive, pl=platy, sbk=subangular blocky
-fr=friable, fl=flrm, L=loose, vfr=very friable
-aw=abrupt wavy, cw=clear wavy, gw=gradual wavy, ab=abrupt broken, ci=clear irregular, gi=gradual irregular, as=abrupt smooth
-com=common, vfew=very few, vf=very fine, f=fine, m=medium, c=coarse, vc=very coarse
Q
-C=carbolithic material, CO=conglomerate, MS=mudstone, SH=shale, SS=sandstone
-------
Table 3. Minesoil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, potentially mineralizable nitrogen,
and microbial respiration
Soil ID Microbial Biomass
Carbon
Dal-Tex
Gently Sloping
23 yrs old
1976-01
1976-03
1976-05
mean
11 yrs old
1988-01
1988-03
1988-05
mean
7 yrs old
1992-01
1992-03
1992-05
mean
2 yrs old
1997-01
1997-03
1997-05
mean
Strongly Sloping
23 yrs old
1976-02
1976-04
1976-06
mean
mg/kg
1080
659
1111
950
989
786
1061
945
907
1506
1014
1142
219
362
216
266
618
387
567
524
Microbial Respiration
ug-(JU2-(J/kg/hr
1452
780
1163
1132
2025
1791
1098
1638
2288
2055
3971
2772
104
260
133
166
1347
261
784
798
Microbial Biomass
Nitrogen
mg/kg
55
76
100
77
84
27
102
71
62
148
78
96
13
17
20
17
19
22
36
26
Potentially Mineralizable
Nitrogen
mg/kg
83
79
119
94
156
180
95
144
172
180
248
200
27
42
34
68
94
55
55
68
Table 3. Continued
-------
Soil ID
11 yrs old
1988-02
1988-04
1988-06
mean
7 yrs old
1992-02
1992-04
1992-06
mean
2 yrs old
1997-02
1997-04
1997-06
mean
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
mean
Cannelton
Gently Sloping
30 yrs old
1970-01
1970-02
1970-03
mean
Microbial Biomass
Carbon
mg/kg
698
481
669
616
789
573
106
489
1236
799
1031
1022
1171
1885
1528
4893
2261
2898
3351
Table 3. Continued
Microbial Respiration
ug-(JU2-(J/kg/hr
1632
728
1237
1199
1986
592
255
944
2792
467
676
1312
988
1839
1414
6119
2810
3481
4137
Microbial Biomass
Nitrogen
mg/kg
50
27
48
42
65
62
15
47
93
49
68
70
90.0
138.0
114
505
203
278
329
Potentially Mineralizable
Nitrogen
mg/kg
103
75
94
90
135
30
13
59
238
156
115
170
70.8
43.3
68
400
269
256
308
Microbial Biomass Microbial Respiration Microbial Biomass Potentially Mineralizable
-------
16 yrs old
1984-01
1984-02
1984-03
mean
Strongly Sloping
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
Native-03
mean
^^m
Holbet 21
17 yrs old
Gently Sloping
1983-01
1983-02
1983-03
8 yrs old
1992-01
1992-02
1992-03
Strongly Sloping
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
Native-03
Carbon
307
220
314
280
883
1120
1085
1029
1822
1078
2885
1928
1455
675
1264
1166
1011
834
804
883
ug-(JU2-(J/kg/hr
193
271
277
247
526
1008
853
796
1477
1050
2931
1819
1014
798
686
833
639
658
479
592
Nitrogen
mg/kg
35
12
31
26
91
145
123
119
170
98
302
190
154
58
112
108
65
73
69
69
Nitrogen
mg/kg
26
39
45
37
57
77
70
68
134
102
221
152
119
103
111
111
48
60
51
53
-------
Soil Health of Mountaintop Removal Mines in Sonthern
Revised Project Report
By
John Sencindiver, Kyle Stephens, Jeff Skousen, and Alan Sexstone
Division of Plant and Soil Sciences
West Virginia University
January 24,2001
Abstract
Minesoils are young soils developing in drastically disturbed earth materials. The health
and quality of these soils will deviate from native soils. Although minesoil quality in some
places may be worse than the native soil quality, research has shown that over burden materials
may be manipulated to improve minesoil quality, especially soil physical and chemical
properties. However, very little information about microbiological activity in minesoils is
available. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate physical, chemical and microbiological
properties of minesoils developing on reclaimed mountaintop removal coal mines in southern
West Virginia. Minesoils of different ages and the contiguous native soils were described and
sampled on three mines. Routine physical and chemical properties were determined as well as
microbial biomass C andN, potentially mineralizableN, and microbial respiration. All minesoils
were weakly developed compared to the native soils, but most had a transition horizon (AC) or a
weak B horizon (Bw) developing between the A horizon at the surface and the C horizons. The
minesoils would be classified as Entisols, while most of the native soils were Inceptisols. Both
native and minesoil biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and microbial respiration
were generally within ranges of other reported data. In general, there were more similarities
between the properties of the oldest minesoils and the native soils than between the younger
minesoils and the native soils. There is a trend of C accumulation as the minesoils become older,
and it appears that the stable organic pool is increasing with age. This study indicates that the
minesoils are approaching stable, developed soils and should become more like the native soils
as they continue to develop.
Introduction
Soil quality or health can be broadly defined as the capacity of a living soil to function,
within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity,
maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health (Doran et al.,
1999). Minesoil health is important, not only for initial revegetation, but also for continued long-
term productivity and environmental quality. Since minesoils are drastically disturbed soils,
-------
their initial properties will be different than the surrounding native soils. However, minesoils are
subject to the same soil forming factors and processes that have developed the contiguous native
soils. These processes will eventually develop minesoils with properties similar to the native
soils. Therefore, studies of minesoil health should include some documentation of minesoil
property changes or differences with time. The objective of this study was to document
differences in selected minesoil properties, especially those related to microbial activity, on
mountaintop removal coal mines of different ages, and to compare the minesoils to the major
contiguous native soils.
Methods and Materials
Site Descriptions And Field Sampling
Minesoils and native soils were sampled at the Dal-Texmine in the Spruce Fork
watershed in Logan County, the Hobet-21 mine in the Mud River watershed of Boone County,
and the Cannelton mine in the Twentymile Creek watershed in Fayette County. Two different
ages of minesoils, with three sampling points each, were selected for sampling at the Hobet-21 (8
and 17yearsold) and Cannelton sites (16 and 30years old). All sampling points at these two
mines were 250 m apart, and they were placed 50m away from the nearest wildlife sampling
point. Specific location of each sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 1.
At Hobet-21, the 8-year-old site had slopes ranging from 3 to 5% with a south-southwest
aspect. The Hobet-21 17-year-old site had slopes ranging from 3 to 28% with a northwest aspect.
Slope inclination at each sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 2. All Hobet-21
sampling points were located at mid slope. At Cannelton, all minesoil sampling points also were
located at mid slope and had a south-southwestaspect. Slopes ranged from 5 to 10% on the 16-
year-old site, and all slopes were 2% on the 30-year-old site. All minesoils on both of these sites
had similar geology and topography, and they had been mined and reclaimed by similar methods.
Three samplingpoints also were located on the contiguous steeply sloping native soils at
both mine sites. These samplingpoints were located at mid slope and had south-southwest
aspects at both sites. Hobet-21 soils had 45 to 72% slopes, and Cannelton soils had 45 to 70%
slopes.
Sampling sites at the Dal-Tex mine had been selected€br another study (Thomas et al.,
2000), but also were used for this study. Four different ages (23, 11,7, and 2 years old) of
minesoils were sampled. Three gently sloping and three steeply sloping samplingpoints were
located on each of the different aged sites. Two steeply slopingnative soils were sampled. All
minesoil and native soil sampling points had south-southwest aspects. Slope inclination at each
sampling point is presented in Appendix Table 2. The distance between sampling points on this
mine differed for each age. Each of the sampling points at the 2-year-old site was within a
distance of 20 m from the next point. Samplingpoints on the native soils and on each of the
other minesoil ages were more than 20 in apart. The longest distance between points was
approximately 100 meters on the 23-year-old site.
-------
Native soils mapped at the three locations are presented below. In general, they are very
similar. They are moderately deep and acid with loamy textures.
a. Cannelton — Muskingum; fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic
Dystrochrepts (Gorman and Espy, 1975)
b. Hobet-2l - Berks; loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts
Gilpin; fine-loamy, mixed, sciniactive, mesic Typic Hapludults
(Wolf, 1994)
c. Dal-Tex - Berks; loamy-skeletal,mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrochrepts
Matewan; loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Typic
Dystrochrepts (Rob Pate, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
personal communication)
All native soils at each of the sites were forested. Both minesoil sampling sites at
Cannelton were predominantly vegetated with grasses and legumes.'The 16-year-old site had
scattered black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) trees, but the 30-year-old site had more trees of
a variety of species including black locust, maples (Acer sp.), pines (Pinus sp.), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua L.) and sourwood (Oxydendrum urboreum L.). The 8-year-old site at
Hobet-21 was covered with grasses and legumes. Themajor cover on the Hobet-21 17-year-old
site was black locust with ground cover of grasses and legumes. At Dal-Tex, the 23-year-old site
was predominantly forested with some grasses and legumes on the gently sloping sites. The 7-
year-old site had predominantly grasses and legumes with some shrubs. The 11-year-old and the
2- year-old sites were covered with grasses and legumes with scattered trees at the 11 -year-old
site.
At each sampling point, a soil pit was dug to a depth of 40 cm or more to expose enough
of the soil to determine the thickness of the surface mineral horizon and to observe one or more
subsurface horizons. The soil, was described to the exposed depth, and bulk samples were
collected from the surface horizon for laboratory analyses. The average thickness of surface
horizons for all soils is presented in Table 1. These samples were collected in early to mid June
2000. All samples were refrigerated at 4" C until they were analyzed. Bulk density of the
surface horizon was determined in the field by a frame excavation technique developed by soil
scientists at the National Soil Survey Laboratory in Lincoln, NE (Grossman, R.B., unpublished
procedure).
Laboratory Analyses
Texture, pH and electrical conductivity were determined by standard methods of
the National Soil Survey Laboratory (Soil Survey Staff, 1996). A LECO CNS-2000 analyzer
was used to determine total carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen. Microbial biomass C and N were
determined by a chloroform-fumigation-extraction procedure (Rice et al, 1996). Twenty grams
of sample at field moisture content were used for this extraction procedure. Nitrogen in extracts
was determined by aKjeldahl method, and C was determined by aTekmar-DohrmanDC-190
-------
automated carbon analyzer. Potentially mineralizable N was determined by an anaerobic
incubation procedure (Drinkwater et al., 1996). Microbial respiration was determined by static
soil incubation in closed bottles (Zibilske et al., 1994). Triplicate soil samples (25 g fieldmoist)
were placed in funnels lined with Whatman #1 filter paper. Soils were then completely saturated
with 100ml of distilled water and allowed to drain for 24hrto normalize soil moisture. Wetted
soil (20 g) was weighed into serum bottles (160 ml) and incubated uncovered in the dark for 24
hr. Each bottle was capped with a butyl rubber stopper, and initial headspace COi levels were
established by injecting 1 ml via a syringe into an infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) equipped with a
gas recirculation loop. This process was repeated for each bottle at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hr.
Microbial respiration rates were determined using linear regression analysis of CC>2
concentrations at each sampling time.
Results aud Discussion
The GPS latitude and longitude for each of the minesoil and native soil sampling points
are presented in Appendix Table 1. Detailed profile descriptions are presented in Appendix
TaHe 2. All of tlie minesoils had developed A horizons and most of the profiles had some weak
development in the subsoil, so AC or Bw horizons were described. Minesoils at the Dal-Tex
1976-01 and the Hobet-21 1992-01 sites have cambic horizons and would be classified as
Inceptisols (Soil Survey Staff, 1998), while all other minesoils are Entisols. All native soils,
except Hobet-21 native-01, are classified as Inceptisols. Hobet-21 native 01 has anargillic
horizon and is classified as an Ultisol.
In general, A horizons of the strongly sloping minesoils at Dal-Tex were thicker than the
A horizons of the gently sloping minesoils (Table 1). Thickness of A horizons directly relates to
the depth of incorporation and accumulation of organic matter primarily from root gowth, but
also from aboveground biomass. Since bulk densities of the gently sloping minesoils were
generally greater than tlie bulk densities of the strongly sloping minesoils (Thomas et al., 2000),
roots should have penetrated more deeply on the strongly sloping minesoils developing thicker A
horizons. A review of Appendix Table 2 shows that A horizons had more roots than subsurface
horizons.
Rock fragment content of minesoil subsoil horizons averaged greater than 35% by
volume and was greater than the rock fragment content of A horizons (Appendix Table 2).
Therefore, all iiiinesoils were classified as skeletal (Soil Survey Staff, 1998). Some of the native
soils had more than 35% and others had less than 35% rock fragments in the subsoil horizons
(Appendix Table 2). The average A-horizon rock fragment content €or all soils was less than
35% by volume (Table 1, Appendix Table 2).
Minesoil physical and chemical properties are presented in Table 2. Most of the
minesoils and native soils had loamy textures, i.e. sandy loam, loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam.
Electrical conductivity values were very low for all soils. Minesoil pH ranged from 4.1 on the
23-year-old Dal-Tex site to 7.0 on the S-yew-oldHobet-2 1 site. Native soil pl-I values generally
ranged from 4.5 to 5.6, but one site at Dal-Tex had a pH of 3.7. Low total S values for all
-------
minesoils and native soils in this study were similar to values reported by Smith et al. (1976) for
soils and overburdens in nearby Mingo County.
Our minesoil aiid native soil C and N values are similar to other minesoils with
comparable vegetation (Li, 1991; Prince aiidRaney, 1961; unpublished soil survey data,
National Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln, NE). However, except for Dal-Tex native-02, the
native soil C andN values are on the low end of the range of the other native soils used for
comparison. The Dal-Tex native-02 C value of 12.45%is higher than most soils in the region.
Total N and C values tended to be lower for minesoils than for native soils on the Dal-Tex site.
However, the older minesoils on the Cannelton and Hobet-21 sites, had higher C andN values
than the native soils.
Both native soil aiid minesoil bioinass C and N, potentially mineralizable N and
microbial respiration (MR ) (Table 3) are generally within ranges given for other soils (Myrold,
19S7; Insam and Dornsch, 1988; Rice et al., 1996). The minesoil biomass C values are generally
higher than values reported for soils from long-term cropping experiments, but minesoil biomass
N and potentially mineralizable N are similar to values from these experiments (Bonde et al.,
19S8). The native soils at Dal-Tex and at Cannelton are similar to each other in all three
parameters, but the Hobet native soil is lower for all three. The reasons for this difference are
no: understood at this time since soils and vegetation are similar for the three sites.
Rice et al. (1996) suggest that the ratio of microbial biomass to total soil organic carbon
and nitrogen may provide a measure of soil organic matter dynamics and soil quality. These
au'diors quote other studies for agricultural soils (Anderson andDomsch, 1989; Jenkinson, 1988;
Sparling, 1992) indicating that microbial biomass C (MBC) normally comprises 1 to 4% of total
organic C and microbial biomass N (MEN) comprises 2 to 6% of the total organic N. The
biomass C to total C (TC) ratios for all of our minesoils and native soils are within this quoted
rur.ge (Table 4). The biomass N to total N (TN) ratios of the native soils at Dal-Tex are within
tliis range, but the ratios present in the native soils at the other two mines are generally higher
than the reported range. The fact that these soils are forest soils may explain why the MBN:TN
range is different than that reported for agricultural soils. Extremely high MBN:TN values for
Dal-Tex 7-year-old aiid 11-year-old sites indicate that these soils have not developed a stable
organic matter base.
As the organic carbon pool becomes more stable with time, ratios of MBCrTC, MBN:TN
and potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN):TC should decrease. This relationship is apparent
at ihe Dal-Tex site. No total N was detectable in the Dal-Tex 2-> oar-old site, so the ratios could
not be calculated. This site is apparently so young that the C and N pools are very unstable.
However, the MBN:TN and PMN:TN ratios generally decrease in the following order: 7 years >
11 years > 23 years > native soil. For the MBC:TC ratios, there io a decrease in the following
order: 11 years > 7 years = 23 years > native soil. \Ve do not understand at this time why the
1M3C:TC ratio for the 7-year-old minesoil is not higher than the 11 or 23-year-old minesoil.
These same relationships of decreasing ratios with age are not readily apparent at the Cannelton
and Hobet-21 sites. The total C values may not be an accurate estimate of organic C in some
n~u;jsoils because of the presence of coal or high C rock fragments in the samples. Therefore,
the .\" values and ratios are probably more reliable comparisons.
-------
Soil respiration previously has been used to assess decomposition dynamics in West
Virginia minesoils (Stroo and Jencks, 1985). Kennedy and Papendick (1995) suggested that a
respiratory quotient such as the MR/MBC ratio relates both the size and activity of microbial
biomass. A lowering of the ratio indicates a trend to a more stable and mature system (Insam
and Domsch, 1988). The respiratory quotient for the Dal-Tex soils decreased in the following
order: 7 years > 11 years > 23 years > native soil (Table 4). Again excluding the 2-year-old soil,
this trend indicated a maturation of soils at the Dal-Tex site. A decreasing respiratory quotient
with site age was not observed at the Cannelton and Hobet sites.
Based upon these data, we conclude that there is a trend t'ward the accumulation of C as
these minesoils age. Also, it appears that the stable organic pool io increasing. The older
miuesoils, especially the 23-year-old minesoils at Dal-Tes and the 30-year-old minesoils at
Q.onelton, have properties similar to the native soils. These data and other data (Thomas et al.,
2000) indicate that the minesoils sampled in this study are approaching stable, developed soils.
References
AnJcrson, J.P.E., and K.H. Domsch. 19S9. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total carbon in
arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochcm. 21: 47 1-479.
Bonde, T.A., J. Schnurer, and T. Rosswall. 1988. Microbial biomass as a fi-action of potentially
mineralizable nitrogen in soils from long-term field experiments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20:447-
452.
Doran, J.W., AJ. Jones, M.A. Arshad, and J.E. Gilley. 1999. Determinants of soil quality and
health. Chapter 2. p. 17'-36. In R. Lai (ed.), Soil Quality and Soil Erosion. CRC Press. Boca
Rat .MI, Florida.
Drinkwater, L.E., C.A. Cambardella, J.D. Reeder, and C.W. Rice. 1996. Potentially
mineralizable nitrogen as an indicator of biologically active soil nitrogen. Chapter 13, p. 217-
229. In J.W Doran and AJ. Jones (eds.). Methods €or Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA Spec. Publ.
No. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.
Gorman, J.L., and L.E. Espy. 1975. Soil Survey of Fayette and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.
Insam, H. and K.H. Domsch. 1988. Relationship between soil organic carbon and
microbial biomass on chronosequences of reclaimed sites. Microbiol. Ecol. 15:177-188.
-------
Jenkinson, D.S. 1988. Determination of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in soil. p. 368-
386. In J.R. Wilson (ed.) Advances in nitrogen cycling in agricultural ecosystems. CAB Int.,
Wallingford, England.
Kennedy, A.C. and R.I. Papendick. 1995. Microbial characteristics of soil quality. J. Soil and
Water Consewation 50:243-248.
Li, R. 1991. Nitrogen cycling in young mine soils in southern Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. 150 p.
Myrold, D.D. 1987. Relationship between microbial nitrogen and a nitrogen availability index.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1047-1049.
Prince, A.B. and W.A. Raney (eds.). 1961. Some morphological, physical, and chemical
properties of selected Northeastern United States Soils. Northeast Regional Research
Publication. Regional Research Project NE-22. Agric. Exper. Station Misc. Publ. 1. University of
New Hampshire. Durham, NH.
Rice, C.W., T.B. Moorman, andM.Beare. 1996. Role of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen
in soil quality. Chapter 12, p. 203-215. /// J.W Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.). Methods for
Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA Spec. Publ. No. 49. Soil Science Society of America, Inc.
Madison, WL
Smiih, R.M., A. A. Sobek, T. Arkle, Jr., J.C. Sencindiver, and J.R. Freeman. 1976. Extensive
overburden potentials for soil and water quality. EPA-600/2-76-1S4. National Technical
Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Soil Survey Staff. 1996. Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual. Soil Survey Investigations
Rcpcrt No. 42. Version 3.0. USD A Natural Resources Conservation Service. Lincoln, NE.
Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Eighth Edition. USDANatural Resources
Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
Sparling, C.P. 1992. Ratio of microbial biomass to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of
changes in soil organic matter. Aust. J. Soil Res. 30:195-207.
Strco and Jencks. 1985. Effect of sewage sludge on microbial activity in an old
abandoned minesoil. J. Environ. Qual. 14:301-304.
Thomas, K. A., J.C. Sencindiver, J.G. Skousen, and J.M. Gorman. 2000. Soil development on a
mountaintop removal mine in southern West Virginia, p. 546-556. In WL. Daniels andS.G.
Richardson (eds.). Proc. Seventeenth Annual Meeting, American Society for Surface Mining and
Reclamation. 11-15 June 2000. Tampa, FL. Amcr. Soc. Surf. Mining Rec., 3134Montavesta
Rd., Lexington, KY.
-------
Wolf, B.L. 1994. Soil Survey of Boone County, West Virginia. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Washington, DC.
Zibilske, L.M. 1994. Carbon mineralization. Chapter 38. P. 835-863. In Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. SSSABook Series No. 5. Soil
Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
-------
Appendix Table 1. GPS Coordinates of Minesoils and Native Soils at Three Sites.
Site Latitude
Dal-Tex
Gently Sloping
23 yr old
1976-01
1976-03
1 976-0 5
llvr old
1988-01
1988-03
1988-05
7 yr old
1992-01
1992-03
1992-05
2 yr old
1997-01
1997-03
1997-05
Strongly Sloping
23 yr old
1976-02
1976-04
1976-06
llvr old
" 1988-02
1988-04
1988-06
7 vr old
1992-02
1992-04
1992-06
2 vr old
1997-02
1997-04
1997-06
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
N 37 deg 53 niin 48 sec
N37 deg 55 rnin 30 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 30 sec
N 37 deg 54 rnin 56 sec
N 37 deg 54 niin 58 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 52 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 22 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 2 1 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 20 sec
N 37 deg 56 rnin 1 1 sec
N 37 deg 56 niin 11 sec
N 37 deg 56 rnin 10 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 42 sec
N 3 7 deg 53 min 41 sec
N 37 deg 53 min 41 sec
N 37 deg 54 min 56 sec
N 37 deg 54 rnin 57 sec
N 37 deg 54 rnin 53 sec
N 37 deg 55 min 23 sec
N 37 deg 55 niin 22 sec
N37 deg 55 min 2 1 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
N 37 deg 56 niin lOsec
N 37 deg 56 min 10 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 24 sec
N 37 deg 56 min 25 sec
Longitude
W 81 deg 51 min 20 sec
W SI deg 51 min 32 sec
WS1 deg 51 min 33 sec
WS1 deg 51 niin 21 sec
WS1 deg 51 min 11 sec
W 81 deg 50 min 58 sec
W81 deg 50 min 17sec
W 81 deg 50 min 20 sec
W81 deg 50 min 25 sec
W SI dog 51 min 16 sec
W81 deg 51 min 14 sec
W 8 1 deg 5 1 min 12 sec
W 8 1 deg 5 1 niin 27 sec
W 81 deg 51 min 33 sec
WS1 deg 5 1 nun 34 sec
WS1 deg 51 min 21 sec
W81 deg 51 min 11 sec
W81 deg 50 min 58 sec
WS1 deg 50 niin 19 sec
W S 1 deg 50 niin 22 sec
WS1 deg 50 min 25 sec
\V SI deg 51 min 16sec
W S 1 deg 5 1 min 1 4 sec
W S 1 deg 5 1 min 13 sec
\V SI deg 51 min 17 sec
\V SI deg 51 min 14 sec
-------
Cannelton
Minesoil
30 yr old
1970-01
1970-02
1970-03
16yrold
1984-01
1984-02
1984-03
Natives
Native-01
Native-02
Native-03
Hobet 21
Minesoi!
17 yr old
" 1983-01
1983-02
1983-03
8 yr old
" 1992r01
1992-02
1992-03
Natives
Nativc-O:
Xative-O:
Nativc-03
N3Sdeg 12 min 39.5 sec
N 38 deg 12 niin 34.7 sec
N3Sdeg 12 min 35.0 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 17.9 sec
N 38 deg 14 rnin 40.7 sec
N3Sde» 14 niin 42.4 sec
N38drg 14 niin 58.2 sec
N 38 deg 14 min 59.1 sec
N 38 deg 15 min 02.5 sec
N 38 deg 07 min 13.2sec
N 38 deg 06 min 58.7 sec
N3S deg 06 min 50.3 sec
N 38 deg 04 min 46.3 sec
N 38 deg 04 min 41.0 sec
N 38 dec 04 min 4S.9 sec
N 38 dog 07 min 03.4 sec
N?S deg 07 min 01.9 sec
N 3S deu 06 min 59.9 sec
\VS1deg 16 rnin 45.9 sec
WS1 deg 17 niin 01.4 sec
\VS1 de» 16 min 56.0 sec
\V81 deg 16min46.6 sec
WS1 deg 16 min 32.3 sec
WS1 deg 16 min 09.4 sec
W 81 deg 15 mm 25.2 sec
W 81 deg 15 rnin 18.3 sec
\V Sides; 15 min 10.6 sec
\V81deg 53 min 01.5 sec
W 81 deg 52 niin 56.6 sec
\V81 deg 52 niin 46.2 sec
W 81 deg 55 niin 42.3 sec
W 81 deg 55 min 58.8 sec
\V81deg56niin03.8sec
W81 deg 52 mm 35.3 sec
WS1 deg 52 min 36.2 sec
WS1dcn52min3S.9sec
-------
'x Tnhle 2. Profile TVseriptions for the Pil-Tex, Cannelton,aml Hobet -21 Mine Sites
5ile Ju i.V llori/.iHi
Soil Age
Dal-Tcx
1976-01
23-years-olc
(2% slope)
1976-02
23-years-olc
(30% slope
a
Oc
A
AC
C
2Cr
2R
QL
Oc
A
AC
C/B
C
2R
Oejuli .Mottling1
(cm)
0-2
2-3
3-7
1-22
22-65
65-79
79+
0--3
3-6
6-13
13--31
31 --75
75--105+
79+
Moi.sl Color" Tex line"' Structure' Moisl""1 pH IJouudary" Roots' Rock8
Consistence Fragments
aw
2.5Y 513 SIL 2, f, sbk fr cw many, vf-c 20%
breaking to SS
2, f-in, gr
2.5Y5/3, 10YR 516, SICl. l,m-c,sbk fr cw com, vf-c 30%
10YR6/2,N2.510 SS,MS,C
7. SYR 5/8, I OYR 5/6, SICL 0, ma fr aw fcw,vf-f 35%
2.5Y 7/4, 10YR 612 SS, MS,C
N 2.510
Gray shale and mudslone aw
Sandstone
aw
10YR4/2, 10YK.5/3 L l,m,sbk fr cw many.vl-m 4%
breaking to SS, MS, C
l,f-m, gr
1 OYR 4/2 L l,m-c,sbk fr cw fcw.vf-m 50%
SS, MS,C
2.5Y5B LS 80%0,ma vfr 8W com,vf-m 65%
20%l,f,sbk SS, MS,C
2.5V 512 LS 0,ma vfr aw fewvf-m 75%
SS
Sandstone
Appendix Table 2. Continued
-------
Site in & Horizon Depth Mottling1
Soil A"0 (i'Mi)
Moist Color2 Texture3 Structure4 Moist5 pH Boundary' Roots7 Rock'
Consist mcL' !"r:i union Is
1976-03
23-years-olc
(6% slope)
1976-04
23-years-olc
(42% slope)
Appends
Oi
Oe
A
AC
Cl
C2
Oi
Oe
A
AC
C
C/B
0--1
1--5
5-12
12^30
30--87 com, f IOYR5/8
87-115+ many, f,7.5YR 4/6
10YR 5/8, N 2.570
10YR7/4
0--1
1--4
4-12
12-38 Discontinuous layers
1 OYR2/1
38~6<>
69-150+ Discontinuous layers
10YR4/1
Leaf and stem litter
Partially decomposed leaf and stem litter
10YR4/2 SL 2, f, sbk fr 6.5 cw many, vf-m
breaking to
2, f-m,g-
IOYR3/2 SL l,c, sbk fr 6.0 cw com, vf-m
breaking to
1 , m, sbk
N 310 SL 0, ma fr 4.0 cw few, vf-f
IOYR413 L 0, ma fr
Leaf and stem litter
Partially decomposed leaf and slcm litter aw
10YR5/4 SL 2, f-m, gr vfi aw many,vf-vc
10YR5/4, 10YR51B SL l,m-c,sbk fv g\v coin,vf-vc
1OTR5/4, 10YR5/6 LS 0,ma fr 5.0 gw few,vf-c
IOYR5/4.10YR5/6, L 75%0,ma fr 6.0 com, vf-c
IOYR4/4 SL/L 25% f-m,sbk
35%
SS,MS,C
50%
SS, MS,C
80%
SS, MS, C
40%
SS, MS, C
30%
SS, MS
60%
SS, MS, C
45%
SS,MS, C
50%
SS,MS,C
viable 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
Depth Mottling'
(cm)
Moist Color' Texture' Structure4 Moist' pH Boundary6 Roots'
Consistence
Rock"
Fragments
-------
1076-05
23-ycars-okl
(4% slope)
1976-06
23 -years-old
(23% slope)
1988-01
11 -years-old
(1% slope)
Oc
A
AC
Cl
C2
Oi
Oe
A
Bw
C
Oe
A
AC
Cl
C2
n-T
3-8
8-26
26-61 few, f-m IOYR 518
61 +
0-2
2-5
5-11
11-26 com, f-m, IOYR 518,
.IOYR 3/1
26-120+ coni, f-m, IOYR 516,
IOYR 3/1, 7.5 YR 5/6
0-3
3-11
1 1-37
37-49
89-160+
Partially decomposed litter
10VR3/3 I.S 2, f, gr
IOYR 4/1, IOYR 4/2 SL l,m, sbk
breaking to
1 , m, gr
IOYR 4/2 SL 0,ma
Pragmenlal-large sandstone boulders with
Leaf and stem litter
Partially dcconiposed litter
2.5 Y 5/3 L 1, f-m, sbk
breaking to
1 , m, gr
1OYR5« L l.m-c, sbk
IOYR 4/3 L 0,ma
IOYR 4/2 Root Mat
2.5Y513 SL l,m, sbk
breaking to
2, m, gr
2.5Y5/1 L l,rn,sbk
IOYR 513 SL/LS 0,ma
2.5Y513 SL 0,ma
aw
\ IV 6.2 cw
fr 6.0 cw
fr 8.0 gw
large voids
aw
fr cw
fr cw
fr
fr as
fr aw
fr cw
fr gw
fr
many, vf-m .30%
SS, C
many, vf-m 50%
ss,c
few, vf-f 80%
SS, C
many, vf-m 30%
SS, CO, MS
corn, vf-c 40%
SS, CO, MS, C
few, f-m C0%
SS, MS, C
many, vf-f
many, vf-f 26%
SS, C
com, vf-f 40%
SS,C,MS
few, vf-f 70%
ss,c
vfew, vf-f 70%
SS, MS,C
1988-02
11 -years-old
Oi
A
0-3 Root mat
3-12
IOYR 313
IOYR 416 L l,m, sbk
as
fr cw
many, vf-f
com, vf-m 30%
-------
(44% slope)
1988-03
11 -years-old
(7% slope)
AC 12-41 10YR4/6 SL
Cl 41-75 10YR4/2 SL
C2 75-125+ 10YR4/2 SL
A 0-3 1CYR4/2 SL
AC 3-16 10YR4/1 SL
Cl 16-49 2.5Y4/1 SL
c2 49-91 10YR4/3 SL
c3 91-125+ com.f, 10YR5/6 10YR4/4 CL
breaking to
2,m, gr
1, f-m, sbk fr
90% 0, ma vfr
10% 2, f,sbk
0, ma vfr
l-2,m, sbk vfr
1, m, sbk fr
0, ma fr
Q ma fr
fr
SS
aw few, vf-m 35%
ss,c
gw com, vf-m 70%
SS,MS,C
few, vf-f 70%
SS, MS, C
aw many, vf-f 20%
SS
cw com, vf-f 50%
SS,C
aw few, vf 60%
ss,c
cw few, vf 50%
ss.c
vfcw, vf S0%
SS, C
1988-04
11 -years-old
(34%slope)
Oe 0-2 Root mat-partially
A 2-10 10YR4/3 SL
decomposed leaves and roots
2, f-m, gr vfr
aw many, vf-m 30%
SS
cw many, vf-m 50%
SS
-------
Cl
c2
c3
c4
1988-05 A
11-years-olc
(8% slope)
Cl
c2
c3
c4
10-24
24-59
59-1 14
114-125+ com,f, 10YR5/6
0-9
9-22
22-45
45-79
79--135+
10YR5/4 SL/LS 95%0,ma
5%l,m, sbk
breaking to
l,m,gr
10YR5/4, 10YR5/8 SL/SCL 95%0,ma
5% l,m,sbk
10YR4/6, 10YR5/6 L 0,ma
1OYR4/1 L/CL 0,ma
10YR3f3 SL I, m, sbk
breaking to
l.f.gr
10YR4/1 SL 0,ma
2.5Y412 SL 0,ma
2.5Y 4/1 LS 0, ma
2.5Y 4/1 SL 0, ma
fr cw
fr cw
fi in place aw
fr in hand
fr
vfr cw
fr cw
fr Sw
fr 8W
fr
corn, vf-m 60%
SS,C
few, vf-m SS,C
vfcw, vf-m SS,C
ss,c
60%
SS,C
many, vf-f 30%
SS
com, vf-f 55%
SS,MS, C
few, f-vf 70%
few, vf-f 55%
SS,MS,C
vfew, vf 50%
SS, MS, C
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site II) & Horizon
Soil Age
1988-06 A
11 -years-old
(48% slope) AC
CB
C
Depth Mottling'
0-7
7-36
36-72 few, m-c, 7.5YR 5/6
72-150+
Moist Color2 Texture' Structure"
10YR3/3, 10YR4/3 L 2, f-m, gr
10YR413 L 1-2, m-c, sbk
10YR4/3 SL l,c, sbk
2.5Y 5/3 SL 0, ma
Moist' pH Boundary0
Consistence
vfr cw
fr gw
fr cw
fi in place gw
Roots' Rock'
Fragments
many, vf-f 30%
SS
corn, vf-f 60%
SS,C
few, vf-f 75%
SS,C
vfew, vf-f 50%
-------
1992-01
7-years-old
(0.5% slope:
1992-02
7-ycars-old
(27% slope]
A
Cl/B
C2/B
C
QL
A
AC
Cl/B
C'2/B
C
0-8
8-30
30--77
77-- 125+ com, f, 10YR618
0-2
2--8
8-24
24-60
60--107
107-207+
10YR3/3 SL
2.5Y413 LS
10YR412 LS
10YR514 LS
1, m, sbk
breaking to
2, vf-f, gr
75%, 0, ma
25% ,l,f-m, sbk
90%, 0, ma
10%, l,f,sbk
0,ma
fr in hand
vfr 7.5 cw
& 8.0 gw
fr 8.0 cw
vfr 8
ss, c
many, vf-f 25%
SS
com, vf-f GO*
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 70%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-f 75%
SS,MS,C
Leaf and stem li tier
10YR4/1 SL
10YR4/1 SL
10YR4/2, 10YR4/3 SL
10YR4/2 SLYLS
10YR4/2 SL/LS
2, f-ni, gr
1, m, sbk
90% 0, ma
10%l,m, sbk
90% 0, ma
10% l,m, sbk
95% 0, ma
5% l,m,sbk
vfr cw
fr Ci
fi in place gw
fr in hand
fi in place gw
fr in hand
vfr
many, vf-f 25%
SS
com, vf-f 40%
SS, MS, C
com, vf-f 50%
SS, C
few, vf-f S0%
SS,MS,C
few, vf-f 50%
SS, MS, C
(roots continue past 207 cm)
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID & Horizon
Soil Age
1992-03
7-ycars-old
(1% slope)
Oe
A
AC
C/B
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0-2
2--6
6-24 few, c, 7.5 YR 5/6
24-48
Moist Color2 Texture^
Structure'
Partially decomposed organic matter
10YR4/1 L
10YR3A L
2.5Y 5/3 SL
2, f, sbk
breaking to
l,f-m, sbk
I,c,sbk
2, m, sbk-
around roots
60% 0, ma
40%, 2, frm,sbk
Moist' pH Boundary6
Consistence
aw
vfr cw
fr aw
fr gw
Roots' Rock"
Fragments
many, vf-f 30%
SS,MS
com, vf-f 25%
MS, SS
com, vf-f 71%
SS, C
-------
1992-04
7-years-old
(33% slope)
Cl 48-66
c2 66-97
c3 97--160+
A 0--7
B>v 7--2I coni, f, 1OYR5/6
Cl 21-42
C2 42-101
c? I01-1GOI
1CYR5/3 SL 95%, Q ma
5%, l,m,sbk
1OYR513 SL 0,ma
1OYR5/3 SL Q ma
1OYR3/1 SL/L 2, m, gr
10YR4/2, 10YR5/3 SL l,m,sbk
2.5Y 513 SL/LS 0, ma
2.5Y5/3 SI./1.S 0,ma
2.5Y5/3 SULS 0,ma
fi in place gw
fr in hand
fr gw
fr gw
vfr 4.2 cw
fr 4.2
fi in place 4.2 gw
fr in hand
fi in place 4.2 cw
fr in hand
fr
few, vf-f 75%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-m 75%
SS, MS, C
vfew, f-m 90%
SS, MS
many, vf-m 1 5%
SS
com, vf-m 30%
SS
few, vf-m 4.5%
SS, MS, C
none 45%
SS, MS, C
none 56%
SS. MS C.
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site \r ,".
Soil Age
1992-05
7-years-old
Hnruuii Ocplli .Voiding
(cm)
Oe 0-2
A 2--6
AC 6-24
Cl/B 24-48
C2/B 48-66
Moiit Ct !<••!•"' Tex due'' Slruc;.,ri-J
Partially decomposed leaf and stem
2.5Y.V2 SL l,f-m, gr
2.5Y4/1.2.5Y3/1 SL 1-2, f-m, sbk
2.5Y 3/1 L 60%, 0, ma
40%, 1, f, sbk
breaking to
l,f,gr
2.5Y 311 L 85%, 0, ma
MobT pH Boundary*
Consistence
litter aw
vfr 6.0 cw
fr 6.5 cw
fr 7.0 gw
vfr/1 6.5
Roots' Rock"
Fragments
35%
SS
many, vf-m 35%
SS
com, vf-m 50%
SS, MS ,C
com, vf-m G0%
SS, MS, C
few, vf-m 70%
-------
1992-06
7-years-old
(39% slope)
15%, l,f,sbk
breaking to
(Roots continue past lowest horizon described)
Al 0-10 10YR372, 10YR412 SL 2, f-m,gr vfr 4.2 cw many, vf-m
A2 10-19 10YR513 SL l.m.gr vfr c\v many, vf-m
AC 19-32 1OYR6/4 SL 1, m, sbk rV 4.2 cw com, vf-m
breaking to
l,m,gr
Cl 32-73 10YR514 LS/SL 75%, 0, ma vfr 4.2 gw few, vf-m
25%, l,m, sbk
C2 73-HO-i- 10YR5/4 SL 0, ma vfr 4.5 vfew, vf-f
SS,MS, C
30%
SS,C
35%
SS
40%
SS
50%
SS
50%
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site IDA Horizon Depth Mottling' Moist Color'' Texture"3 Structure'1 Moist' pH Boundary" Roots'
Soil A«e (Yin) Consistence
1 W7-0 1
2-ycars-old
(15% slope)
Oi 0-1 Uiu.ssMcins
A 1-4 1OYR4/3 SL l.f.gr vfr cw many, vf-f
AC 4-10 10YR4/3 SL l,m, sbk fr cw corn,vr-f
Cl 10-41 coin, fin,2.5Y 6/6, 2.5Y412 USL 0,ma vfr gw few, vf-f
N2.510
c2 10-92 com, m,N 2.510, 2.5 Y 413 SL 0,ma fr aw few, vf-f
1OYR5/6,7.5YR518
2.5YR5/8,2.5Y676
1OYR 676
<3 92-150+ few, f,2.5Y7/l 7.5YR 518 LS 0,ma fi in place
fr in hand
Rock"
Fragments
40%
SS, MS, C
40%
SS, MS,C
50%
SS,C, MS
60%
SS,C, MS
90%
SS
-------
1997-02
2-years-old
(43% slope)
Append!?
Oi 0-2
A 2-6
Cl 6-51 com, f-m, 1OYR5/6,
N2.5/0, 10YR4/4
C2 51-104 com, f, N 2,5/0,
10YR5/6
C3 104--140+ few, m,N 2.570
i Table 2. Continued
Site in ix lluri/.uii Depth iMoltling'
Soil A'je (cm)
1997-03
2-ycnrs-old
(10% slope)
1997-04
2-years-old
Oi 0--1"
A 1-7
AC 7-13
Cl 13-56 fcw,m-c, 10YR516
c2 56-82 many, f-m, 2.5Y 6/6,
N 2.5/0, 7.5YR 516,
10YR6/3
2Cr 82-92+
Oi 0-1
A 1-7
Grass and legume stems
2.5 Y 312 SL l,f-m,gr vfr cw com,vf-m 30%
SS, MS, C
2.5 Y 312 SL 90%,0,ma fr gi few,vf-m 50%
10%,l,f, sbk SS,MS,C
1OYR 512 L/SL 0, ma fi in place ci few, vf-f 75%
SS, MS, C
10YR3/2, 10YR4/2 SL 0, ma fr vfew,vf-f 40%
SS,MS,C
Mimt Cclor" Texture'1 Structure4 Moist5 pH Jiouiidary6 Roots' Rock8
Consistence Fragments
Grass and legume s(cm lillcr
2.5 Y 3/2 1. l,m, shk (V cw nn-iv. vf-in 20%
brcaLinj; lo SS.MS.C
2,m, gr
2.5Y312 L I, m, sbk fr BW com, vf-m 20%
SS, MS, C
2.5Y3/1 L 0,ma fi aw few, vf-f 35%
MS,SS,C
1WR6/6 L 0, ma fr aw few, vf-f 30%
SS, MS , C
Soft grey mudstone
Grass and legume stems
2,5 Y 312 SL 1-2, f, gr vfr cw many, vf-f 25%
-------
(44% slope)
Cl 7-37 com, f, IOYR 6/1,
IOYR 6/6
C2 37-120 few, m, N 2,5/0
C3 120-152+ com, f, IOYR 4/1,
IOYR 3/1
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Silo ID & Hori/oii Depth Mottling1
Soil Age (cm)
1 997-05
2-years-old
(1% slope)
1997-06
2-years-old
(53% slope)
Oi 0--1
A 1-5
AC 5-22 IVu, f-m, N 2.5/0,
2.5 614
C 22-44 many, f-m, 2.5Y 6/4,
7.5YR 5/6, N 2.5/0
2Cr 64--91 +
Oi 0-2
A 2-8
8-14
14-29 com, o, IOYR 576
SS,HS,C
2.5Y 3/2, 2.5Y 4/2 CL 90% 0, ma, with fi gw many, vf-m 45%
pockects ofl, pi SS.MS, C
10% 1, f,sbk
2.5Y 3/2, 2.5Y 5/3 CL 0,ma fi cw few, vf-m 75%
at rock SS,MS, C
faces
IOYR 5/6, 2.5Y 5/4 SL 0,ma fr vfew, vf 50%
SS, MS, C
Moist Color' Tex(ureJ Structure"4 Moist' pH Boundary" Roots' Rock8
Consistence Fragments
Grass and legume slum litter
IOYR 3/2 SL l,m, sbk IV cw many, U-f 25%
and SS, MS, C
1 , m, gr
2.5Y -I/2 SL I, f-m, sbk fi cw com, u-f 35%
MS, SS, C
2.5Y4/3.2.5Y4/1 CL 0,ma fi aw few, vf-m 40%
SS, MS ,C
Soft grey mudstone
Grass and legume stem litter
IOYR 3/3 SL l,f,gr fr cw many, vf-f 30%
SS, MS,C
10YR4/2, IOYR 5/6 S17L 1, f-m, sbk fr aw many, vf-f 30%
2.5Y4/3 SL 75% 0, ma fr gw many, vf-m 70%
-------
Native-0 1
(31% slope)
c
Oi
A
BA
B\vl
Bw2
U
25%l,f,sbk SS, MS,C
29-120+ few, m,N 2.510 2.5Y 513, 10YR6/1 SI, 0,ma fi few, vf-m 70%
SS, MS, C
4-0 Leaf and twig litter
0-9 10YR2/2 SIL 2, f, gr vfr cw many, vf-c 5%
SS
9-18 10YR4/2 SIL l,m,sbk vfr cw niany, f-c 10%
breaking to SS
1, m, gr
18-43 IOYR614 SIL 2,m-c, sbk fr gw com, f-m 25%
SII
43-67 1OYR516 SIL 2, f-m, sbk fr ab few, f-m 40%
SS
67-104+ Shale
Soil Age (£'n) Consistence Frnj>menfs
Naiivc-U2
(58% slope)
Canne
1970-01
3 0-y ears-old
(2% slope)
Oi
OA
A/E
BA
Bw
BC
[ton
a
A
AC
C
5--0 Leaf and twig litter
0-2 Decomposed oraganic matter
2-5 10YR3/1, 10YK-T2 SI, l,f, gr \ 1 V :iw many, \i-in 20';;,
SS
5-23 10YR5.0 SL'I.S I, f, sbk vfi.'l cw many, vf-c 40%
and SS
l.f.gr
23-59 1OYR6/6 SL/LS 1, in, sbk fr gw corn, f-vc 45%
SS
59-48 1OYR6/6 SL/LS l,m-c, sbk fr aw com, f-vc 55
SS
88-107+ Fractured sandstone, with fewroots in fractures
'! "I"!- :•>• fjyipi Tf!'l'!:y|!;!ir||fB|n'''" 'f!f]iRr*T;H'"T';:||p||'l:!Tj;i'1 " "i :1!! 'f!|',(;! 'I1!'-
0-1
1-4 1OYR373 SIL 2, f, gr vfr 5.3 aw many, vf-m 1%
4-13 1OYR6/3.7.5YR5K SICL l,m, sbk fr 4.7 cw com, f-m 10%
10YR6/1.N210 US,SS,C
13-43+ 7.5YR6/6,7.5YR7/1 SICL 0,ma fi 5.0 few,vf-f 25%
-------
1970-02
3 0-y ears-old
(2% slope)
Oi
A
AC
C
Appendix Table
Site 11) & Horizon
Soil Age
1970-03
30-ycars-old
(2% slope)
1984-01
16-years-old
(10% slope)
1984-02
16-years-old
(5% slope)
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
0-1
1-4
4— 16
16-40+
2. Continued
Depth Mottling'
(cm)
0-1
1-3
3-15
15— (5+
0-3
3-7
7-14
14-50+
0-2
2-8
8-18
10YR6/1.N210
10YR6/3
10YR4/3 L
2Y5/3, 10YR5/6, L
N2/0.7.5YR4/6
2Y 513, 10YR5/6, SL
N2/0, 7.5YR4/6
MoibtColoi"2 Texture'1
10YR3/2 L
N 2/0, 7.5 YK -I/ft, Sit 'I.
10YR512, 10YRG/1,
7.51'116/8
N2/0.7.5YR4/6,
10YR5/6, 10YR5/8,
10YR5/2
\C6TR412 SL
2.5Y5/2 LS
2.5Y5.2 LS
2.5Y4/2 SICL
2.5YR5/2,10YR516 SICL
and MS, SS, C
l,t,pl
2, f-c, gr vfr 6.5 aw many, vf-in l%
1, f-m, sbk fr 7.0 cw corn,vl-m 20%
0,ma 8.0 vfew, m 85%
Structure"1 Moist' pll Boundary" Roots' Rock"
Consistence Fragments
2, f-m.gr vfr 6.5 cw many, vl-m 5%
2, m, sl'k IV 7.0 gw com, \f-rn 25%
breaking lo
2,f-c,«r
0, ma fi 8.0 few, f-m 50%
l,f, gr vfr 7.5 cw corn,vf-f 0
l,f, sbk vfr 8.0 cw few,vf-f G0%
SS,C,MS
0, ma 1 8.0 vfew, vf 70%
SS,C,MS
2, m-c, gr fr 7.0 cw many, vf-m 35%
breaking to
2, m, sbk
l--2,o,gr fi 8.0 cw corn, f-m 50%
V
-------
1984-03
16-ycars-old
(5% slope)
c
Oi
A
AC
C
18-45+
0-2
2-1
7-17
17-401-
breaking to
2, f, sbk
2Y 512, 1 OYR 516 CL 0, ma 8.0
2.5Y412 SIL 2, f-m, gr fr 7.0 cw
2.5Y4/1.7.5YR5M, L 1, f-m, sbk fi 8.0 aw
N210
1 OYR 4/1, N 2/0 SI, 1 8.0
SS, SH
vfew, f 75%
SS,SH
many, f-m 35%
few, f-m 65%
vfew, f-m 85%
Appendix Tabled. Continued
SitcllK'v Horizon
Soil A«c
Nalivc-01
(70% slope)
Native-02
(-15? (.slope)
Native-03
Oi
A
Bwl
B\v2
Oc
A
AB
Bwl
Bw2
Oi
Dcplh Mottling'
(cm)
0-5
5-17
17-33
33-501
0-4
4-12
12-18
18-31
31-45+
0-3
Moist Color' Texture"1 Structure'4 Moist""' pH Boundary"
Consistence
1 OYR 4/3 SIL 2, f-m, gr vfr 5.5
1 0YR 4/4 SIL I, m, sbk fr 5.0
breaking lo
2, f-c, gr
10YR5/
-------
(67% slope)
Appendh
A
Bwl
Bw2
3--16
16-29
29-45+
1OYR472 SIL l,f-m,sbk
breaking to
2, f-m, gr
1OYR5/4 SIL 2, f-m,sbk
10YR5/6 SIL 2,m, sbk
fr 5.5 aw
fr 5.5 cw
fr 5.5
many, vf-c 25%
few,f-c 40%
vfew, f-m 60%
(few discontinuous clay dims in lower horizons)
i Table
Site! I) & Horizon
Soil Age
Hobet-21
1983-01
17-years-old
(12% slope)
1983-02
17-\viirs-old
(28% slope)
1983-03
17-y ears-old
(3% slope)
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
2. Continued
Depth Mottling1
(cm)
0--2
2-4
4-16
16--45-I-
0-2
2-5
5--19
19-45+
0--1
1-5
5-18
18-45+
Moist Color' Texture"3 Structure'1
Lcafand twig lillcr
2.5Y3f2 Slb'L l.f.sbk
breaking to
2, m, gr
2.5 Y 5/2 L l,f, sbk
5Y3/1 SL 0,ma
7.5YR3/1 SI. 2,c, gr
2.5 Y 572 CL l,f,sbk
2.5Y3/2 0,ma
10YR3/3 SIL/L 2, f-m, gr
IOYR 5/8, 10XR5/1 CL 1, f, sbk
2.SY312 L 0,ma
Moist5 pH Boundary"
Consistence
fr cw
fr cw
n
vfr cw
fr cw
fi
vfr aw
fr cw
fi, in place,
fr in hand
Roots' Rock'
FYsitrmnnf":
1 1
-------
1992-01
8-years-old
(3% slope)
o:
A
Bw
C
0-2
2-5
5-26
26-50+
10YR3/2, 10YR4/2
10YR4/3, 10YR6/4,
N210
2.5Y 3/2
Ground moss
SL
CL
SCL
2,vf-fgr
2, f-m, sbk
0, ma
vfr aw many, vf-m
fr cw many, vf-m
fi com, vf-f
45%
SS,C
55%
Soil Age
1992-02
8-ycars-old
(5% slope)
1992-03
8-ycars-old
(5% slope)
Native-0 1
(45% slope)
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
A
AC
C
Oi
Oc
A
E
Btl
Bt2
(cm)
0-2
2-6
6--2S
28-45+
0-1
1-5
5-11
11-451-
0-3
3-4
4-13
13-27
27-44
44-57+
Consistence
Fragments
Mat of moss and mots
2.5Y 3/3
2. 5 Y 5/3, 10YRf'/6
N210
2.5Y5/3.7.5YR5/6,
N210
2.5 Y 4 '2
2.5Y 4/2
2.5Y : '2
,
I.
SL
SI,
Leaf litter from
I.
SL
SL
1 , f-ni, gr
I, f-ni, sbk
0, ma
forages
1 , f-ni, gr
l.fsbk
breaking to
2, m, gr
0. PM
vfr 3\v many, vf-m
fr c\v many, vf-m
fi few, vf-f
\Tr cw many, vf-m
vfr cw many, vf-rn
fr few. \ff
20%
SS
65%
SS
65%
SS
25%
SS
25%
SS
i:0%
SS
Leaf and twig litter
10YR412
10YR6/4
1OYR5/6
10YR5/6
(few patchy clay fUnson ped faces and
SL
SL
SCL
CL
in pores in the Btl
2, f-m, gr
l,m,sbk
2, m, sbk
2, m, sbk
vfr 5.5 aw corn, vf-m
fr 5.5 cw corn, vf-c
fr 5.5 gw few, vf-c
fr 4.8 few, vf-c
5%
SS
5%
SS
5%
10%
SS
;and common patchy clay films on ped faces an in pores on Bt2)
-------
Appendix Table 2. Continued
Site ID cV Horizon
Soil Age
Native-02
(70% slope)
Native-03
(72% slope)
Oi
A
BA
Bwl
Bw2
Oi
Oc/Oa
A
AB
Bwl
Bw2
Depth iMottling'
(ern)
0-5
5-11
11-26
26-38
38--60+
0-5
5-9
9-17
17-O5
35-51
51-8M
Moist Color'1
10YE3/3
10YR4/4
10YR5/4
10YE5/4
10YR3/2
10YR3/4, 10YK5/6
10YR5/0
7.5 YR 4/0
TcxluroJ
Leaf and twig
SI-
SI
SL
SL
I.cafiiUcr
SL
SL
SL
SL
Structure.
lillcr
2, f, gr
l,f,sbk
breaking to
I, f-ni, gr
1 , m, sbk
l,m,sbk
2, f-m, gr
2, f-ni, g!1
l,m,sbk
l,m,sbk
Moisf
Consistence
vfr
vfr
fr
fr
vfr
vfi
fr
fr
pli Boundary"
5.5 cw
5.2 cw
5.2 gvv
4.7
4.7 cw
5.0 cw
5.0 8W
4.5
Roots' Rock8
Fragments
many, vf-c ?5SS%
SS
many, vf-ve 20%
SS
coni, f-vc 20%
SS
coni, T-VC 25%
SS
many, vf-m 20%
SS
many, vf-vc 35%
SS
many, vf-c 35%
SS
com, vf-c 45%
QQ
-f=finc, ni=nicdium, c= coarse, com=common
2-Colors derived with Munsel color book
' -CL=clay loam, L=loiim, LS^ loamy sand, SCL=sandy clay loam, SlCL=silty clay loam, SIL=silt loam, SL=sandy loam
'(-0=stuctureIess, l=weak, 2=moderate
vf=very fine, f=fine, m=mcdium, c=coarse, t=thick
gr=granualr, ma=massive, pl=platy, sbk=subangular blocky
s-fr=friable, fi=firm, L=loose, vfr=very friable
-------
".nw-jilinijif vnvy, CM—dear wavy, g\v-gracliinl wavy, nb—abrupt broken, ci=clcar irregular, gi=gradual irregular, as=abrupt smooth
'-coiir common, ylny-very I'evv, vf=vcry fine, f=finc, ni=incdium, c=coarse, vc=very coarse
"-('•-•carbolilliic iiuilcrial, CO=congloincrale, iMS=niudstone, SIT=shaIe, SS=sandstone
-------
TiMe 3. Minosoil rnierobial biomass carbon and nitrogen, potentially mineralizable nitrogen,
'f! T microbial respiration
. • ;l / i'.ifi -'•- 111! i-M ... J
Carbon
Dal-Tex
Gently Sloping
23 yrs old
1976-01
1976-03
1976-05
mean
11 yrs old
1988-01
1988-03
1988-05
mean
7 yrs old
1992-01
1 902-03
1992-05
mean
2 yrs old
1997-01
1997-03
1997-05
mean
Strongly Sloping
23 yrs old
1976-02
1976-04
1976-06
mean
Table 3. C
to t>
1080
659
1111
950
989
78G
1061
945
907
15 or;
1014
1142
219
362
216
266
618
387
567
524
ontiimed
iMki^h-iiiu, :..,,:,a
ug-CU2-C/Kg/lir
1452
780
1163
1132
2025
1791
1098
1638
2288
2055
3971
2772
104
260
133
166
1347
261
784
798
xiliv.'1'obiiil l>i,,'iij.u.
Nitrogen
nig/Kg
55
76
100
77
84
27
102
71
62
148
78
96
13
17
20
17
19
22
36
26
5 1'utcntially Miueralizable
Nitrogen
mg/kg
83
79
119
94
156
180
95
144
172
180
248
200
27
42
34
68
94
55
55
68
-------
11 vrs old
' 1988-02
1988-04
1988-06
mean
7 yrs old
1992-02
1992-04
1992-06
mean
2 yrs old
1997-02
1997-04
1997-06
mean
Natives
Native-01
Nativc-02
mean
Cannclton
Gently Sloping
30 yrs old
1970-01
1970-02
1970-03
mean
OfV>oTi
»'»' \-,
698
451
669
616
739
573
106
489
1236
799
1031
1022
1171
1885
152S
4893
2261
2898
3351
lig-CO
D_ r",' .,.!ir
1632
728
1237
1199
1986
592
255
944
2792
467
676
1312
988
1S39
141 I
6119
2810
3481
4137
Nitrogen
"•:. ':
-------
16 yrs old
1984-01
1984-02
1984-03
mean
Strongly Sloping
Natives
Native-0 1
Nalive-02
Native-03
mean
Hoi bet 21
17 yrs old
Gently Sloping
1983-01
1983-02
1983-03
8 vrs old
I "92-01
1992-02
1992-03
Strongly Sloping
Natives
Native- 01
Native-02
Native-03
307
210
314
280
883
1120
1085
1029
1822
1078
2885
192S
1-J.o
675
12C1
1166
1011
834
804
883
193
271
377
247
526
100s
853
796
1477
1050
2931
1819
1014
79s
686
833
G39
658
479
592
35
12
31
26
91
145
123
119
170
98
302
190
154
5s
112
108
G5
73
69
69
26
39
45
37
57
77
70
68
134
102
221
152
110
103
111
111
48
GO
51
53
-------
Table 4. Ratios of microbial biomass C (MBC) to total C (TC), microbial
biomsss N (MEN) to total N (TN), potentially mineralizable N (PMN)
to TN, and microbial respiration (MR) to MBC on native soils and
minesoils at the Dal-Tex site, Smithers site, and the Holbet21 site.
Soil ID Slope
Class*
Dal-Tex
Native
23 -year-old
11 -year-old
7-year-old
2-y ear-old
ijigSa /jStsS*»Si;^>Yi-wste
%lwiii^l*sliiigi&tixxzZA^SS&?&32..
Cannelton
Native
30-year-old
16-year-old
Hobet21
Native
17-year-old
8-year-old
SS
GS
SS
GS
SS
GS
SS
GS
SS
SS
GS
GS
SS
GS
GS
MBC
TC
%
1.7
2.4
2.2
3.6
3.8
2.5
1.3
0.9
2.2
2.5
3.3
1.2
2.7
2.0
2.2
MR
MBC
CO2-C/hr xlO'4
9.2
12.0
15.6
17.5
19.6
23.9
19.3
6.1
12.1
7.7
12.3
8.8
6.7
9.4
7.1
MEN
TN
%
4.1
4.9
7.7
19.6
41.7
24.1
59.0
—
13.4
7.4
6.1
13.1
11.4
4.2
7.7
PMN
TN
%
2.4
5.8
16.8
35.9
90.4
50.0
84.7
—
33.9
4.2
5.7
18.3
8.8
3.4
7.9
- GS=Gently Sloping; SS=Strongly Sloping
-------
Responses to questions on the report, "Soil Health of Mountaintop Removal Mines in
Southern West Virginia."
General Comments
1. Why were no native soils collected from gently sloping sites, such as cove
areas or at the base of the mountains?
Our approach was to sample the predominant landscapes of both the minesoils
and the native soils. The predominant landscape of the native soils had steep to very
steep slopes, whereas, the minesoils were nearly level to gently sloping at the Hobet and
Cannelton sites. Also, we wanted to sample native soils as close as possible to the
minesoil areas so that geology of both minesoils and native soils would be similar, and to
sample native soils that were similar to the native soils covering the mined areas before
mining.
2. Since A horizons are naturally thin in forest soils and thick in grassland soils,
and there are probably other differences between forested and grassland soils, isn't
comparing these two data sets somewhat of an "apples and oranges" exercise?
Would it be more appropriate to evaluate data for the reclaimed mine soils to peer-
reviewed literature values for grassland soils in the eastern U.S.? There should be
more of an effort in the report to compare the results to those of other peer-
reviewed studies to provide some context for the mine soil results.
In this study, we were simply comparing two contiguous soils in the area:
minesoils and native soils. If we start comparing our soils to well-developed grassland
soils, we definitely will have an "apples and oranges" exercise. Geology, climate and
elevation would differ for our study and grassland soils in the literature. When the
morphology of the total profile is considered, our minesoils are very similar to the
contiguous native soils. Most of the native soils had Bw horizons (classified as cambic),
and thin, light-colored A horizons (classified as ochric). Therefore, they would fit the
Inceptisols order in Soil Taxonomy. Most of the minesoils had AC or Bw horizons. If the
Bw was present, it was either classified as cambic or approaching cambic. AC horizons
are transitional horizons that are also approaching cambic. In other words, given a few
more years of weathering and soil development, these minesoils will have cambic
horizons. All minesoils had ochric epipedons (surface horizons) just like the native soils.
Most grassland soils in midwestern and eastern U.S. are classified as Alfisols or
Mollisols. Our minesoils will most likely become Inceptisols (the classification of the
native soils) as they mature. Data from numerous studies support this conclusion. After
the minesoils become Inceptisols, they may become Alfisols, Ultisols, or Mollisols at
some later date. Data would indicate that many of the minesoils that are now classified
as Entisols will become Inceptisols within a few to 10s of years. Most of the native soils
in this area are classified as Inceptisols. The minesoils will not become Alfisols, Ultisols,
or Mollisols for probably hundreds to thousands of years. Therefore, the minesoils are
similar to the surrounding native soils.
-------
Since funding and time were limited for this study, we did not include detailed
comparisons with depth for the the major morphological, chemical or physical properties
of the minesoils or native soils. The morphological properties were given primarily for
background soil property information. The main emphasis of the study was microbial
biomass which we evaluated by determining microbial biomass C and N, potentially
mineralizable N, and microbial respiration of surface horizons. We used literature
references to compare our biomass data to other studies. On page 5 of the report we
comare our data to data from Anderson and Domsch (1989), Bonde et al. (1988), Insam
and Domsch (1988), Jenkinson (1988), Li (1991), Myrold (1987), Prince and Raney
(1961), Rice et al. (1996), and Sparling (1992). We showed where our data were similar
to and where they differed from these studies.
3. It would be helpful if the report would elaborate more on why these
particular parameters (microbial biomass, etc.) were chosen for study (e.g., their
significance in understanding soil development), as well as what parameters were
not studied due to time/funding constraints and how the omitted parameters might
also be important to evlauating soil development.
Various references recommend a data set of soil physical, chemical, and
biological indicators for screening the condition, quality and health of soil (See Doran et
al., 1999). These indicators are grouped into three categories: physical, chemical and
biological. The major indicators listed under the biological category are microbial
biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and soil respiration, which are the same
properties that we measured. Many minesoil studies have concentrated on the chemical
and physical properties, but we could find only very limited data on minesoil microbial
biomass data. Since our funding and time for this study were limited, we chose to
concentrate on the microbial properties. This was discussed at one of the early meetings
of the research group, and my understanding from that meeting was that although other
data were desirable, it was clear to everyone that limitations of funding and time would
preclude additional information. In order to assist with the time constraints, we used sites
at Dal-Tex that were already selected for another study. Therefore, we used the same soil
pits exposed for that study, and we used laboratory chemical and physical data collected
for that study. I felt that the Dal-Tex data were important for our study although we did
not have enough funds to select new sample sites and collect new chemical, physical and
morphological data. We simply sampled existing soil pits for the microbial analyses.
Plus we used additional areas at two other sites where terrestrial habitat studies were
taking place, and located our sampling stations near Dr. Wood's transects.
Also, the study would have been more solid if we could have compared the key
properties with depth in the minesoil profiles. Again, the limitations of funding and time
placed upon us precluded those comparisons.
-------
Specific Comments
1. The reviewer stated that page 2, first paragraph needed clarification;
specifically the following sentences: "However, minesoils are subject to the same soil
forming factors and processes that have developed the contiguous native soils.
These processes will eventually develop minesoils with properties similar to the
native soils."
These were general, introductory statements. The five soil forming factors are
climate, organisms, reliefer topography, parent material, and time. Some of the major
internal soil forming processes are leaching from the soil profile, accumulation of organic
matter, movement of materials from one horizon or depth to some lower depth,
production and accumulation of clay. We were simply saying that these soil forming
factors work within minesoils just as they work within native soils. If the factors of soil
formation are similar, then the internal processes will also be similar. Therefore,
minesoils should eventually (over some period of time) have properties that are very
similar to the contiguous native soils because climate and parent material are the same
and organisms and topography will be more similar.
2. The reviewer asked us to elaborate on which properties were documented,
why they're important, and what they tell us about the soil development and soil
"health."
Microbial biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and soil respiration were
documented for minesoils of different ages. These are considered by numerous authors
(see Doran et al., 1999) as key biological properties that indicate the health of the soil.
Healthy soils have stable levels of each of these properties.
Methods and Materials: Side Descriptions and Field Sampling
1. Explain how each sampling location was chosen out of all those acres of
possiblilites.
As explained above, we used sampling sites on the Dal-Tex sites that had been
selected for another study and had some physical, chemical, and morphological data
available. This site consisted of four different aged minesoils. The sampling points were
selected to represent the general vegetation and landscape position of the site. Both
southern-facing, steep slopes and nearly level to gently sloping sites were selected.
Native soils were sampled on southern-facing steep slopes contiguous to the minesoils.
At the Hobet and Cannelton sites we started the site selection process by
contacting personnel working on Dr. Wood's wildlife study. We were shown the
-------
locations of the wildlife sampling areas in the field. We wanted to sample in the same
general vicinity of the wildlife plots, so we chose to sample our soils 50 m outside the
wildlife plot boundary. These initial points were selected to represent the general
vegetation on the site. Two additional soil sampling points were selected on a straight-
line transect so that the distance between each sampling point was 250 m. Each of the
three sampling points represented similar landscape positions, slope, and vegetation. If
these sampling points did not represent the dominant vegetation of the area, we moved a
few meters to locate in the more representative vegetative cover. By sampling in this
manner, all of our soil pits should have been close to wildlife plots.
2. Some sample locations were placed on steeply sloping, some on gently sloping
sites. Is that because an intent of the sampling was to evaluate the effect of slope on
soil development?
It was not the intent of this study to compare steeply sloping and gently sloping
minesoils. Therefore, the dominant landscape positions at Hobet and Cannelton, i.e.
gently sloping, were sampled. Likewise, the dominant landscape (steeply sloping) of the
native soils was sampled. As explained above, both steeply sloping and gently sloping
sites were used at Dal-Tex simply because they were available from another study.
3. A table showing the characteristics of each sampling location (vegetation,
slope, aspect, age, reclamation methods used, etc.) would be very helpful.
Slope and age of all the sampling sites are provided in Appendix Table 2. Aspect
of all sites is given in the text of the report on page 2. General vegetation at each site is
described on page 3 of the report. I do not understand why these data would need to be
repeated in another table. We do not know the reclamation methods.
4. The vegetation at the 30-year-old site at Cannelton is atypical when
compared to most reclaimed mountaintop removal mines. If data from this site are
to be used, the vegetation differences should be more clearly described, and an
attempt made to understand what reclamation practice resulted in this
soil/vegetation association.
It is evident from the data presented that the total C and N values of the A horizon
of the 30-yr-old Cannelton site are much greater than the other minesoils. Therefore,
microbial biomass C and N, potentially mineralizable N, and soil respiration also are
greater. However, thickness of the A horizon was similar to other sites, and pH was
similar to or a little lower than the other minesoils. I do not know what caused these
differences. Additional information on reclamation procedures and/or vegetation
establishment might be beneficial, but that information was not provided to us.
The data should not be omitted. They show that minesoils with high levels of
carbon will promote microbial activity and vegetation establishment and growth.
-------
r,"
5. On page 3, the 1st full paragraph, the 23-year-old site is described as
"predominantly forested." The reader can't tell how tall or what dbh the trees are,
and what tree species are present. Similarly, elsewhere in the paragraph "trees'
and "shrubs" and "legumes" should be replaced by a list of species present.
A more detailed list will be provided.
6. Soil sampling methods are not fully described. How were samples
"collected" (second full paragraph) and handled? From what horizon or depth were
the samples collected?
At each sampling point, a soil pit was dug to a depth of 40 cm or more to expose
enough of the soil to determine the thickness of the surface mineral horizon and to
observe one or more subsurface horizons. The soil was described to the exposed depth,
and bulk samples were collected with a shovel from the entire thickness of only the
described A horizon for laboratory analyses. All samples were placed on ice in coolers
and returned to the labortory where they were stored at 4° C until they were analyzed.
Results and Discussion
1. Page 5, last paragraph - The statement "The total C values may not be an
accurate estimate of organic C in some minesoils because of the presence of coal or
high C rock fragments in the sample" needs further elaboration. Is the bias
introduced by coal fragments sufficient that it would be better to throw out this
data?
As stated in the referenced paragraph, there are inconsistencies in the MBC:TC
ratios. However, the MBN:TN ratios appear to fit expected results. Therefore, we were
simply trying to present some reason for the inconsistent C ratios. This led to the
statement at the end of the paragraph, "Therefore, the N values and ratios are probably
more reliable comparisons."
I would not advocate omitting or "throwing out" the carbon data. The coal
fragments or high-carbon shales are a natural property of minesoils. It is important to
represent the natural variability if these soils.
2. In Appendix, Table 2, a number of soil color readings show very low
chromas (e.g. N 2.5/0, N3/0, N2/0). Were these in fact coal fragments?
These colors were not of actual fragments, but of the fine-earth material left
behind by the weathering of coal fragments and high-carbon shales. The fragments may
have had the same color, but we did not give colors of rock fragments in these
descriptions.
-------
3. The report concludes with the statement that "the minesoils in this study are
approaching stable, developed soils." It is not clear why this is true, given the weak
development of soil horizons evident in the minesoils.
Part of this answer was given for item 2 under General Comments. The statement
generally relates to the microbial data, especially of the Dal-Tex site, presented in the
report. Also, although minesoil horizons show only weak development, they do show
improvements over time, and the older minesoils already have some properties that are
similar to the native soil.
-------
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING/VALLEY FILL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL STUDY
PROJECT REPORT FOR TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
Terrestrial Vertebrate (Breeding Songbird, Raptor, Small Mammal,
Herpetofaunal) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
September 2001
Principal Investigators:
Petra Bohall Wood, PhD, Division of Forestry, West Virginia University and Biological
Resources Division, USGS
John W. Edwards, PhD, Division of Forestry, WVU
Primary Project Personnel:
Cathy A. Weakland, PhD, post-doctoral associate, Division of Forestry, WVU
Melissa J. Balcerzak, MS student, Division of Forestry, WVU
H. Douglas Chamblin, MS student, Division of Forestry, WVU
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary iii
Acknowledgements vii
Background and Justification 1
Review of Current Literature 3
Songbirds 3
Raptors 7
Mammals 9
Herpetofauna 14
Methods 16
Study Areas 16
Selection of Sampling Points 18
Songbird Abundance 19
Nest Searching 20
Bird and Mammal Use of Ponds 21
Vegetation Measurement 22
Raptor Abundance 24
Small Mammal Abundance 26
Herpetofaunal Abundance 27
Quality Control Procedures 28
Results and Discussion 29
Habitat at Sampling Points 29
Songbirds 31
Raptors 43
Mammals 46
Herpetofauna 52
Literature Cited 54
Tables 67
Figures 119
Appendices 137
-------
Executive Summary
In this study, we quantified diversity and relative abundance of songbird, raptor, small mammal,
and herpetofaunal populations on 4 treatments: 2 ages of reclaimed mountain top mining/valley
fill (MTMVF) areas (younger grassland; older shrub/pole-size), fragmented forests
predominantly surrounded by reclaimed land, and large tracts of intact forest. Our first
objective was to quantify the richness and abundance of the wildlife community in relatively
intact forest sites of the pre-mining landscape and in the grassland, shrub/pole, and fragmented
forest sites of the post-mining landscape to provide objective data on gains and losses in
terrestrial wildlife communities. Specifically for species that require forested habitats, we
compared abundance of species in intact and fragmented forests. Our second objective was to
quantify nesting success of grassland birds on the reclaimed grassland sites because
grassland birds are declining in the U.S. partially due to loss of habitat, and some have
suggested that these newly created grasslands are providing important habitat for grassland
species.
Songbirds
For songbirds, overall richness and abundance were highest in the shrub/pole treatment, which
was not surprising since the mix of habitat conditions provides more niches for greater bird
diversity. These shrub/pole habitats were dominated by edge species. The grassland
treatment had lowest richness and abundance, again not too surprising since grassland bird
communities tend to be the least diverse. The bird community in the grassland habitat was
dominated by birds in the grassland guild; though edge species were fairly common because of
shrub plantings in some areas. We found no statistical difference in overall bird richness and
abundance between intact and fragmented forests because increased abundance of edge and
interior-edge species in fragmented forests balanced the loss of forest-interior species. Forest-
interior species were significantly more abundant in the intact forest. Forest-interior species are
affected 2 ways by mountaintop mining; first by a reduction in the total amount of forested
habitat available and second by decreased abundance in the remaining fragmented forest.
Generally, the bird community shifted from predominantly forest interior species in the intact
forests to edge and grassland species in the reclaimed areas.
Because some songbird species are known to respond negatively to forest fragmentation, we
examined abundances of individual species in intact and fragmented forests. The Acadian
Flycatcher, American Redstart, Hooded Warbler, Ovenbird, and Scarlet Tanager had
significantly higher abundances in intact forests during at least one year of the study,
suggesting that fragmentation of the landscape is having on effect on abundance of these
species. Distance from mine/forest edge was a significant predictor for presence of Acadian
Flycatchers, Black-and-white Warblers, Yellow-throated Vireos and Scarlet Tanagers.
However, Red-eyed Vireos, Indigo Buntings, American Goldfinch, Downy Woodpeckers,
Northern Parulas, Pileated Woodpeckers, and Yellow-billed Cuckoos had greater abundances
in fragmented forests in at least 1 year of the study. However, because of the large size of most
MTMVF areas, it is possible that they may have severe negative effects on populations of forest
interior species that require large blocks of unfragmented forest for breeding. The severity of
the habitat loss/fragmentation also will depend on whether or not MTMVF areas are re-forested
or if they remain in early stages of succession. Non-timber post-mining land uses such as
grazing or development will result in permanent fragmentation of forest habitats
in
-------
Eight grassland bird species were detected in the grassland treatment. Grasshopper Sparrows
were the most abundant species, and Eastern Meadowlarks were second most abundant.
Henslow's Sparrows and Vesper Sparrows were rare on our sites. Vegetation characteristics
were not particularly suitable for them. Bobolinks were rare and did not appear to be breeding
on the study sites. We found evidence of breeding for both Dickcissels and Horned Larks. The
Savannah Sparrow is fairly common on other grassland sites in West Virginia, but it was absent
from our study sites.
We conducted nest searching and monitoring in grassland habitats and focused our efforts on
Grasshopper Sparrows, the most common species. Our study sites had low nest densities for
this species (0.06 nests/ha), and 36% of nests monitored successfully fledged young. A study
in northern West Virginia on reclaimed contour mines found 0.11 nests/ha with 7% nest
success. Other grasslands in 4 studies throughout the eastern and midwestern U.S. had 0.06-
0.25 nests/ha with 11-41% nest success. Nest densities seemed low on our study sites based
on the high number of singing males that were detected during point counts and compared to
other studies. Nesting success, however, was at the upper end of the range found in other
studies. Because nest densities were so low, we could not determine if grassland habitats on
reclaimed mountaintop mine sites are able to sustain viable populations of grassland bird
species.
In summary, MTMVF areas provided breeding habitat for both grassland and early successional
species. Grassland, edge, and interior-edge songbirds were more abundant on the post-mining
landscape. The highest bird species richness was found in the shrub/pole treatment and the
lowest was found in the grassland treatment. Richness in fragmented forest and intact forest
fell between these 2 treatments. Ponds on MTMVF areas also provided habitat for waterfowl,
wading birds, swallows, and shorebirds, primarily during migration. No federally-listed
endangered or threatened species were detected, but 3 grassland species (Grasshopper
Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, and Bobolink) considered rare in West Virginia were observed. .
However, abundance of the forest interior guild, some forest interior species (e. g. Ovenbird
and Acadian Flycatcher) were significantly lower in fragmented forest than in intact forest.
Some forest species also were detected more frequently at points further from mine/forest
edges. Populations of forest birds will be detrimentally impacted by the loss and fragmentation
of mature forest habitat in the mixed mesophytic forest region, which has the highest bird
diversity in forested habitats in the eastern United States. Fragmentation-sensitive species
such as the Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white
Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo will likely be negatively impacted as forested habitat is lost
and fragmented from MTMVF. Grassland birds nesting on MTMVF areas had nest survival
rates similar to those found in the literature, but some species, particularly the Grasshopper
Sparrow and Dickcissel, appeared to have high proportions of unmated males in their
populations. Further research is necessary to adequately determine the impacts of MTMVF on
the nest survival and population dynamics of grassland-nesting bird species.
Raptors
Thirteen species of raptors were observed during the study in 1 or more of the treatments. Of
the 6 species typically associated with forested habitats, the Red-shouldered Hawk was the
most common. Their abundance was greater in intact than in fragmented forests. Of the 7
species typically associated with more open habitats, the American Kestrel, Northern Harrier,
Red-tailed Hawk, and Turkey Vulture were commonly observed as expected. Rough-legged
Hawks and Short-eared Owls were observed in low numbers in the grassland treatment. They
IV
-------
are more northern species that use large areas of open habitat and are rarely seen in West
Virginia. A pair of adult Peregrine Falcons was observed throughout the summer on the Daltex
mine in grasslands surrounding a highwall. The falcons often used the highwall for perching,
but we found no evidence of breeding. Generally, these results suggest that MTMVF has
resulted in a shift from a woodland raptor community to a grassland raptor community.
Small mammals
Species richness of small mammals did not differ between the 4 treatments in either 1999 or
2000. For overall abundance, there was no significant difference between the 3 treatments
sampled in summer 1999. In summer 2000, however, we had increased abundance in
grassland and shrub/pole treatments and decreased abundance in the 2 forest treatments with
a significant difference between these 2 groups. Peromyscus spp. (white-footed and deer
mice) were by far the most common species and they mirrored this pattern. These yearly
differences were quite possibly due to weather patterns. A severe drought and high
temperatures in 1999 could have affected small mammal populations in the grassland
community more severely. In 2000, the extremely wet and cool conditions probably benefitted
animals in the grassland habitat but adversely affected those in forested habitats.
Two other commonly captured species were chipmunks and short-tailed shrews. Both species
were significantly more abundant in intact forests. The relationship for shrews holds only for
1999 when this species was common; it was rarely captured in 2000. House mice were
captured only in grasslands. A species that we did not expect to find was the Allegheny
woodrat. This species has been declining throughout the Northeast and is typically found using
rock outcrops in forested habitats. We captured woodrats at 10 of 20 sites trapped. Capture
sites were rip-rap drainage channels that had large boulders with a network of openings and
some canopy cover. We captured 26 individuals, including males, females and juveniles, which
suggests that some of these sites have a breeding population. However, we did not trap
extensively at rock outcrops in forested habitats, so we cannot compare abundance of this
species between intact forest and reclaimed sites.
Although bats and large mammals are an important part of the mammalian fauna, we did not
examine impacts of MTMVF on these species because of logistical and time constraints.
Our study is in agreement with most literature surveyed in that we found small mammals to be
more abundant at early stages of succession than in forest. This trend in our study was driven
by the white-footed mouse, a species that is often most abundant in early successional stages
(e.g. Hansen and Warnock 1978, Buckner and Shure 1985). Two species, short-tailed shrew
and eastern chipmunk, were more abundant in intact forest than fragmented forest. Allegheny
woodrats were captured at several shrub/pole sites where rock drains with large boulders and
some canopy cover provided useable habitat.
-------
Herpetofauna
Although the overall abundance and richness of the herpetofaunal community sampled from
March through September 2000 did not differ statistically between our 4 treatments, we
observed a shift from a majority of amphibian species in the 2 forested treatments to a majority
of reptile species in the grassland and shrub/pole treatments. In particular, salamander species
decreased while snake species increased. Summer 2000 had much more rainfall than normal
which provided ample breeding habitat for toads and frogs, a group that accounted for a high
proportion of species and individuals in all treatments. Thus, we may have found a more
pronounced shift during a drier summer. Herpetofaunal species that require loose soil, moist
conditions, and woody or leaf litter ground cover generally were absent from reclaimed sites.
Minimizing soil compaction, establishing a diverse vegetative cover, and adding coarse woody
debris to reclaimed sites would provide habitat for some herpetofaunal species more quickly
after mining. In areas disturbed by clearcutting, researchers have found that salamander
populations appear to require many years to recover to pre-disturbance levels. MTMVF results
in greater soil disturbance than clearcutting so a longer time may be required for recovery of
salamander populations in reclaimed mine sites.
VI
-------
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided through the Coal and Energy Research Bureau for work
during 1999 and by the West Virginia State Legislature for the work during 2000. We thank
staff of Arch Coal (particularly John McDaniel and Mike Duvall) and Cannelton (particularly Ron
McAhron) mining companies for their cooperation, assistance, and logistical support throughout
the study. Arch Coal, Cannelton, and Amherst Corporation allowed us access to their
properties. Ark Land Company provided field housing during the 2000 field season, and we
particularly thank Ron Vermillion for his assistance with the field house. John McDaniel (Arch
Coal), Mike Duvall (Arch Coal), Larry Emerson (Arch Coal), Pat Lewis (WVDEP), Jim Green
(EPA), and Maggie Pashmore (EPA) spent time showing us around the area which greatly
assisted us with finding and selecting study sites.
Several individuals provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. They included
Cindy Tibbott (USFWS), Russ McClain (WVDNR), Chuck Hunter (SE Partners in Flight
coordinator), Ken Rosenberg (NE Partners in Flight coordinator), Jim Anderson (West Virginia
University), and Ron Canterbury (Concord College), ornithologists; Mark Ford (USFS) and Mary
Etta Might (Marshall University), mammalogists; and Tom Pauley (Marshall University),
herpetologist. William Thayne and Stanley Wearden (statisticians at WVU) provided statistical
advice. We also acknowledge the many field technicians who assisted with data collection:
John Anderson, Andrew Brown, Rob Dempsey, Elizabeth Goldsmith, Joshua Homyack, Jessica
Kapp, Lisa Kendall, Todd McCoy, Robin Pumphrey, Andrew Roberts, and Dorothy Tinkler. We
thank the WVU Natural Resources Analysis Center, especially Jackie Straiger, Mike Straiger, J.
B. Churchhill, and Jerry Steketee, for sharing Gap information and GIS coverages. M. E. Might
and T. Pauley assisted in identifying small mammals and herpetofauna. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service provided copies of aerial photographs for field use, and
Dorothy Tinkler created the GIS coverages and maps. WV Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit (BRD/USGS) provided a field vehicle, access to computers, logistical and
administrative support. WVU also provided logistical and administrative support.
Many people assisted in this study in various ways; if we inadvertently missed thanking anyone
it was unintentional.
VII
-------
-------
Terrestrial Vertebrate (Breeding Songbird, Raptor, Small Mammal,
Herpetofaunal) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Background and Justification
Fragmentation and loss of forest habitat from a variety of human-induced disturbances are
major issues in wildlife conservation due to negative effects on a number of wildlife species.
Because West Virginia is predominantly forested, it provides important habitat for a variety of
terrestrial wildlife species that require large tracts of unbroken forest. Mountaintop
mining/valley fill (MTMVF), one type of human-induced disturbance to habitat, sets back
successional stages, essentially converting large areas of mature hardwood forest to early
successional habitat. Forested valleys located below the target coal seams and beyond the
reach of the valley fills often appear vegetatively similar to nearby contiguous tracts of forest,
but are partially surrounded by actively mined or reclaimed areas resulting in large amounts of
edge habitat. Forest edges exhibit numerous changes in biotic and abiotic factors that can
negatively affect plant and animal communities (reviews by Yahner 1988, Paton 1994, Murcia
1995). Thus, species composition and diversity in a reclaimed landscape (one composed
primarily of early successional habitats with forest remnants) is expected to change from that of
a primarily forested landscape.
Many species of songbirds have shown significant population declines over the last several
decades (Askins et al. 1990, Smith et al. 1992), including forest-interior species that depend on
large, unbroken tracts of hardwood forest and others that are dependent on early successional
habitats. Smith et al. (1992) and Rosenberg and Wells (1995) have documented that some
avian populations in West Virginia are stable or increasing whereas these same species are
declining in other parts of the eastern United States. Therefore, West Virginia has been
identified as an important area in the eastern United States for maintenance of bird populations,
particularly those of forest-interior species (Rosenberg and Wells 1995). Both conversion and
fragmentation of forested habitats associated with MTMVF can have negative effects on the
abundance, diversity, and reproductive success of forest-interior songbird populations (Finch
1991, Robinson et al. 1995). Simultaneously, this mining technique creates early successional
habitats that are important to other groups of songbird species. Consequently, there is a
tradeoff between bird populations in mature forests with those in early successional habitats,
but the extent of change in species composition and diversity is not well quantified.
Large-scale MTMVF also raises questions concerning impacts on raptor populations. Several
raptor species, particularly the Red-shouldered Hawk (scientific names of all bird species
mentioned in the text are found in Appendix 1), are considered primarily forest species and
breed in large tracts of contiguous, mature forest (Hall 1983, Crocoll 1994). Conversion of
forest tracts to earlier successional habitats will change the raptor community in an area from
predominantly forest-dependent species to open country species. Creation of fragmented
forest patches also may decrease the suitability of forests remaining on or near MTMVF areas
and lead to lower abundance of forest raptor populations. Previous studies have examined
habitat and perch use by raptors on surface mines other than MTMVF areas (Mindell 1978,
Forren 1981). We found no published studies comparing forested sites with reclaimed sites.
The fragmentation of forest and creation of edge by MTMVF areas may have variable effects
on raptor species. Greater amounts of edge can decrease suitability of an area for Red-
shouldered Hawks but increase suitability for Red-tailed Hawks (Moorman and Chapman 1996)
and increase competition between these species (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1981, Moorman and
Chapman 1996). Species often observed hunting in open areas, such as American Kestrels
-------
and Northern Harriers (Bent 1937, Forren 1981), may benefit from open areas created by
MTMVF, but low availability of suitable perches in open areas may limit use of reclaimed mine
lands (Mindell 1978, Bloom et al. 1993). Thus, it is important to quantify what effect relatively
large-scale MTMVF areas are having on raptor abundance, diversity, and habitat use.
Small mammals are an important component of biological diversity, and their populations are
affected by forest fragmentation (e.g. Gottfried 1977). Further, small mammals are the primary
prey base for a variety of mammalian and avian predators; thus changes in their abundance
can affect other species. They make up a significant percentage of the diet of many animals,
including hawks (Acciptrinae), owls (Strigidae and Tytonidae), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyote (Cam's latrans), and weasels (Mustela spp.) (Mindell 1978,
Yearsley and Samuel 1980, McGowan and Bookout 1986). Additionally, small mammals are an
important part of the food web as predators, herbivores, and detritivores, and they act as seed
dispersers for many plant species (Mumford and Bramble 1973, Bayne and Hobson 1998).
Although we found no previous studies of small mammal populations on MTMVF areas, there
have been several studies of small mammals on strip-mined lands throughout the coal mining
regions of the mid-western and eastern United States (Verts 1957, De Capita and Bookout
1975, Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978, Urbanek and Klimstra 1980, McGowan and
Bookout 1986). Several of these studies found that small mammal communities on mines differ
as a function of time since mining activity ceased (Verts 1957, Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock
1978, McGowan and Bookout 1986). Three studies compared small mammal populations on
reclaimed lands with those on unmined areas (De Capita and Bookout 1975, Kirkland 1976,
Urbanek and Klimstra 1980). However, results from these studies differed, with diversity and
abundance greater on unmined lands in 1 study (Kirkland 1976) and on reclaimed land in
another (Urbanek and Klimstra 1980). Further, unmined lands in the third study (De Capita and
Bookout 1975) included habitats other than intact forests which can confound results.
Consequently, additional research is needed to clarify the effects of MTMVF on small mammal
populations.
Amphibians are the most abundant vertebrates in many temperate forest ecosystems (Burton
and Likens 1975), but declines in their populations have been documented worldwide due to
various causes including loss and degradation of habitats (Wyman 1990). Amphibian life-
history traits make them especially sensitive to disturbances that alter microhabitat and
microclimate characteristics (Feder 1983, Sinsch 1990, Stebbins and Cohen 1995). Thus,
herpetofauna, particularly amphibians, can be ideal indicators of how well reclamation efforts
have succeeded because they are susceptible to small environmental changes (Jones 1986)
and make up a large part of the vertebrate biomass on certain sites (Pais et al. 1988, Heyer et
al. 1994). However, a thorough literature search revealed little previous research concerning
the effects of surface mining on herpetofauna. Myers and Klimstra (1963) and Fowler et al.
(1985) studied the colonization of surface mine sediment ponds by herpetofauna, but we found
no published literature regarding the effect of surface mining on stream, riparian, or terrestrial
herpetofauna. A study of herpetofauna using ponds on MTMVF areas was recently completed
(T. Pauley, personal communication), but these data are not currently available. Because the
conditions resulting from MTMVF and subsequent reclamation are dramatically different from
those provided by the original intact forest, more information is needed on how hepetofaunal
populations are responding to these changes.
In our study, we quantified diversity and relative abundance of songbird, raptor, small mammal,
and herpetofaunal populations on 4 treatments: 2 ages of reclaimed MTMVF areas (younger
-------
grassland; older shrub/pole-size), fragmented forests predominantly surrounded by reclaimed
land, and large tracts of intact forest. Our first objective was to quantify the richness and
abundance of the wildlife community in relatively intact forest sites of the pre-mining landscape
and in the grassland, shrub/pole, and fragmented forest sites of the post-mining landscape to
provide objective data on gains and losses in terrestrial wildlife communities. Specifically for
species that require forested habitats, we compared abundance of species in intact and
fragmented forests. Our second objective was to quantify nesting success of grassland birds
on the reclaimed grassland sites because grassland birds are declining in the U.S. partially due
to loss of habitat, and some have suggested that these newly created grasslands are providing
important habitat for grassland species.
Review of Current Literature
Songbirds
The effects of surface mining activities on bird populations have been examined more than any
other taxonomic group. Many studies were conducted in the late 1970's and early 1980's after
areas mined in the late 1960's and early 1970's were either reclaimed or revegetated through
natural succession (Yahner 1973, Yahner and Howell 1975, Chapman 1977, Crawford et al.
1978, Whitmore 1978, Whitmore and Hall 1978, Wray et al. 1978, Allaire 1979, Whitmore 1979,
Wray 1979, Wackenhut 1980, Whitmore 1980, Strait 1981, LeClerc 1982, Wray 1982, Wray et
al 1982). Allaire (1980) conducted a thorough review of ornithological literature pertaining to
avian use of surface mines during all seasons.
The effects of surface mines on songbirds can be categorized several ways. First, studies can
be examined based on the type of mining activity: area-wide, contour, surface, or mountaintop
removal, and Allaire (1980) provides a thorough review of studies by the type of mining activity.
Studies also can be separated by the hypotheses being examined. In most cases, studies fall
into 1 of 3 types: 1) bird use of mines ; 2) bird-habitat relationships; and 3) reproductive
success of songbirds on mines. In this review, we examine studies based on the hypotheses
being tested and summarize major findings pertaining to bird use of surface mines during the
breeding season, incorporating information from Allaire (1980) on MTMVF.
Avian Use of Reclaimed Mines
Most studies of avian use of small surface mines indicate that birds follow a pattern of use
typical of that seen in natural succession. The bird community of recently revegetated areas is
composed of grassland bird species, typically dominated by Grasshopper Sparrows, Eastern
Meadowlarks, Savannah Sparrows, Vesper Sparrows, Horned Larks, and Red-winged
Blackbirds. In addition, several authors have noted that the presence of reclaimed mines in
eastern states have allowed the range expansion of several grassland species, including
Savannah Sparrows, Dickcissels and Bobolinks (Chapman 1977, Whitmore 1978, Whitmore
and Hall 1978, Allaire 1979, LeClerc 1982, Wray 1982).
As succession proceeds on mines, the songbird community also changes. Brewer (1958) was
the first to study the use of strip mines by songbird species. He examined bird populations on a
naturally revegetated mine in Illinois and found 44 species using the area. Most species were
forest-edge species, but species composition changed as succession proceeded towards
hardwood forest. Karr (1968) found that bird species diversity increased as succession
-------
proceeded on strip mines in Illinois. Typical species noted in the shrub/pole phase of
succession included Field Sparrows, Gray Catbirds, Brown Thrashers, Indigo Buntings, Yellow
Warblers, Prairie Warblers, White-eyed Vireos, Yellow-breasted Chats, American Goldfinch,
Northern Cardinals, Eastern Towhees, Golden-winged and Blue-winged Warblers, and
Common Yellowthroats (Brewer 1958, Chapman 1977, Crawford, et al. 1978, Whitmore 1978,
LeClerc 1982, Wray 1982). Older stages of succession support bird species typically found in
forested habitat, such as Red-eyed Vireo, American Redstart, Wood Thrush, Ovenbird,
Carolina Wren, Downy and Hairy Woodpeckers, Kentucky Warbler, Scarlet Tanager, Carolina
Chickadee, Hooded Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler, Eastern Wood-pewee, and Tufted
Titmouse (Brewer 1958, Chapman 1977, Crawford et al. 1978, Allaire 1979).
Bird species also use wetlands associated with mine areas. Perkins and Lawrence (1985)
found several species of waterfowl using wetlands created by surface mining in west-central
Illinois, including Canada Goose, Mallard, Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Green-winged Teal,
Wood Duck, Hooded Merganser, Lesser Scaup, Northern Pintail, Mute Swan, American Coot,
Common Moorhen, and Pied-billed Grebe. Shorebird and wading species found using wetlands
include Killdeer, Spotted Sandpiper, American Bittern, Green Heron, Great Blue Heron, Great
Egrets, Cattle Egrets, Soras, and King Rails (Perkins and Lawrence 1985). Allaire (1979) also
examined wetlands associated with mines in eastern Kentucky and observed the same
waterfowl species as Perkins and Lawrence (1985), as well as Gadwalls, American Wigeons,
Northern Shovelers, Redheads, Ring-necked Ducks, Common Goldeneyes, Buffleheads, and
Common Mergansers. He also observed American Golden-plovers, American Woodcock,
Common Snipe, Solitary Sandpipers, Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, Pectoral Sandpipers,
White-rumped Sandpipers, Baird's Sandpipers, Least Sandpipers, Semipalmated Sandpipers,
and Western Sandpipers, in addition to the shorebirds and waders observed by Perkins and
Lawrence (1985).
Lawrence et al. (1985) examined avian use of wetlands on reclaimed mines in Illinois and
found 2 loon species (Gavia spp.), 2 grebe species, and many species of waterfowl, wading
birds, and shorebirds on their sites. Researchers in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia,
and Pennsylvania also observed similar species using wetlands on reclaimed mines (Brooks et
al. 1985, Krause et al. 1985, McConnell and Samuel 1985).
Bird-habitat Relationships on Reclaimed Mines
Several researchers have examined the relationship between bird abundance and habitat
variables on reclaimed mines (Chapman 1977, Chapman et al. 1978, Whitmore 1979, Wray
1979, Wackenhut 1980, Strait 1981, LeClerc 1982). With the exception of Chapman (1977),
all of these studies were conducted on small surface mines in northern West Virginia.
Chapman (1977) and Chapman et al. (1978) used linear regression to examine the relationship
between bird abundance and 17 vegetation parameters on abandoned contour mines in
southwest Virginia. They found a strong positive correlation between the percent ground cover
and number of species found on mines. They also found that the number of species increased
with canopy height heterogeneity, suggesting that vertical structure is an important predictor of
species richness. Chapman et al. (1978) advise reclaimers to quickly establish a high degree of
vegetative cover on reclaimed mines and also to provide for the development of higher
vegetative strata by planting tree seedlings interspersed with herbs and shrubs.
-------
Most of the West Virginia studies were conducted on 4 reclaimed surface mines in Preston
County ranging in size from 9.1-ha to 41.5-ha. These studies examined both habitat selection
and the effect of vegetative structure on reproductive success of grassland birds. Whitmore
(1979) studied the effects of vegetation changes on Grasshopper Sparrows. He found that
changes in bird density were due to changes in the amount of bare ground cover. As the
amount of bare ground decreased below the optimum and the amount of litter cover increased
above the optimum required by Grasshopper Sparrows, densities decreased. He found similar
relationships for Savannah Sparrows and Vesper Sparrows, whereas Eastern Meadowlarks
showed opposite trends: as bare ground decreased and litter increased their densities
increased. Whitmore (1979) suggests that the density of ground cover is the key variable
affecting a grassland bird's choice of a habitat patch. The birds need enough cover for nesting
sites, but also need open areas for foraging, courtship, etc.
Habitat selection by Horned Larks on reclaimed mines was studied by Wackenhut (1980).
Horned Larks appeared to avoid shrub cover and to prefer areas with little (12%) forb and grass
cover. There were no differences in vegetative structure between successful and unsuccessful
nests (Wackenhut 1980). Both Wray (1979) and Strait (1981) worked on the same mines as
Wackenhut (1980) and examined habitat selection and niche separation of 3 sparrow species
(Vesper, Grasshopper, and Savannah). Wray (1979) found that the vegetation around nests
sites differed among the 3 species and that successful nests had more or taller vegetation than
unsuccessful nests. Strait (1981) determined that Vesper Sparrow nests were associated with
a greater amount of bare ground than Grasshopper and Savannah Sparrow nests.
Grasshopper Sparrow nests also had a higher amount of forb cover than Savannah Sparrow
nests. Vesper Sparrows preferred more open areas than the other 2 species, and vegetation
surrounding Vesper Sparrow nests did not appear to affect the probability of nest predation.
Successful Grasshopper Sparrow nests had less grass cover and greater forb height than
unsuccessful nests. Successful Savannah Sparrow nests were associated with higher
vegetative density (Strait 1981). These results indicate that sparrow species are selecting nest
sites based on vegetative characteristics, that each species needs different parameters for
nesting, and that nest survival depends on characteristics of the surrounding vegetation.
LeClerc (1982) examined the relationship between vegetative structure and bird species on 23
surface mines in northern West Virginia. Using discriminant function analysis she found 4
habitat variables that satisfactorily discriminated among mine sites: percent grass cover,
percent bare ground, litter depth, and effective height of vegetation. She also examined bird
communities by mine type and found that contour mines were distinctly different from surface
mines in bird species composition. Five species were unique to contour mines: Northern
Cardinals, Black-capped Chickadees, Prairie Warblers, Eastern Towhees, and White-eyed
Vireos, all species typical of forest edge or early successional stages. She did not find any
grassland bird species on contour mines. However, her results were confounded by time since
reclamation. Her contour mines were 15+ years old, and her surface mines were <10 years
old. Thus, it was not surprising that bird communities differed between these 2 mine types due
to differences in vegetative structure.
LeClerc (1982) also used discriminant function analysis to examine habitat relationships among
mine sites for 6 species of grassland birds. Both Savannah and Grasshopper sparrows were
more likely to be present on mines with greater forb cover and minimal shrub cover and bare
ground cover. Eastern Meadowlarks preferred mines with less shrub cover and vertical density
and greater grass cover. Vesper Sparrows preferred mines with less grass cover, a deep litter
depth, and higher forb cover and shrub cover. Horned Larks were associated with mines with
-------
low grass cover and low shrub cover, whereas Red-winged Blackbirds preferred mines with
high grass cover and forb cover.
Reproductive Success of Songbirds on Reclaimed Mines
Several studies have documented the nesting success of songbirds on reclaimed surface mines
in Preston County in northern West Virginia (Wray et al. 1978a, Wray 1979, Wackenhut 1980,
Strait 1981, Wray 1982, Wray et al. 1982). We found no published studies of songbird
reproductive success on any type of mine outside of West Virginia. A study was recently
completed on large reclaimed mines in southern Indiana (Galligan and Lima, pers. comm.), but
these data are currently unavailable.
All the West Virginia studies were conducted on the same mines and used the same data set.
One study focused primarily on Horned Larks (Wackenhut 1980), while the others concentrated
on sparrows. Wray (1978) concentrated on the reproductive biology of sparrows; Strait (1981)
examined the habitat selection of sparrows, and Wray (1982) examined community structure
and function on reclaimed surface mines. These researchers suggested that passerines
breeding on surface mines may be double-brooded or triple-brooded, and that predation
accounted for 48% of nest losses. The mean clutch size of the 4 most common nesting
species in these studies (Vesper Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, and
Horned Lark) ranged from 3.20-5.25, and the probability of an egg producing a fledgling ranged
from 0.05-0.32. Number of fledglings produced per hectare ranged from 0.05 to 1.45.
They found that Grasshopper, Savannah, Vesper, and Field Sparrows had clutch sizes that
were similar to those published in the literature for these species, but the number of fledglings
produced per hectare was lower than normally expected in natural grasslands (Wray et al.
1982). These studies examined nest losses over a 3-year period, and found that Vesper
Sparrow losses remained relatively constant over the 3 years, while Grasshopper Sparrow
losses increased and Savannah Sparrow losses fluctuated. They suggested that the primary
predators on nests in reclaimed mine habitat were black racers (Coluber constrictor constrictor)
and American Crows. They also found that adult sparrows did not appear to be replacing
themselves sufficiently in reclaimed mine habitat and suggested that immigration is necessary
to sustain a stable population. Fledging success ranged from 4.3-6.9% for Grasshopper
Sparrows, from 3.6-4.8% for Vesper Sparrows, from 5.4-6.4%, for Savannah Sparrows, and
was 6.6% for Field Sparrows (Strait 1981). They suggested that mines may not be a benefit to
nesting sparrow species because of this poor breeding success (Wray et al. 1982).
Wackenhut (1980) examined 47 active Horned Lark nests on surface mines and found that the
probability of nest survival was only 4.8%. Seventy percent of nest losses were due to
depredation.
Effects of Mining on Forest-dwelling Songbirds
The major effect of MTMVF on forest-dwelling songbirds is the loss and fragmentation of
forested habitat. Habitat loss and forest fragmentation have become major areas of focus in
conservation biology (Harris 1984, Petit et al. 1995). It has been suggested that forest
fragmentation has negative effects on the abundance, diversity, and reproductive success of
forest-interior songbird populations (Finch 1991, Faaborg etel. 1995, Robinson etal. 1995).
Fragmentation may negatively affect forest-dwelling songbirds because of isolation effects,
area effects, edge effects, and competitive species interactions (Finch 1991, Faaborg et al.
1995).
-------
In a forested landscape, fragmentation results from timber harvests, roads, powerlines, stand
diversity, and natural canopy gaps. This is a much finer scale than occurs in agricultural areas,
where forests appear as "islands" in a sea of crops and/or pastureland. Fragmentation on
industrial forest might be viewed as "internal" or soft fragmentation, whereas fragmentation in
an agricultural landscape might be viewed as "external" or hard fragmentation (Hunter 1990).
Fragmentation in an agricultural landscape is often permanent, but fragmentation in forested
landscapes is usually temporary (Faaborg et al. 1995). Faaborg et al. (1995) suggest that the
latter type of fragmentation is less severe to forest birds than permanent fragmentation, but
nonetheless, "detrimental effects still exist." There are no published studies documenting the
effect of MTMVF on forest-dwelling songbirds as forests are lost and fragmented due to mining
activities. Thus, it is unclear whether or not MTMVF acts as an internal or external
fragmentation event to songbird species. However, because of the large size of most MTMVF
areas, it is possible that they may have severe negative effects on populations of forest interior
species that require large blocks of unfragmented forest for breeding. The severity of the
habitat loss/fragmentation also will depend on whether or not MTMVF areas are re-forested or if
they remain in early stages of succession. Non-timber post-mining land uses such as grazing
or development will result in permanent fragmentation of forest habitats
Previous research suggests that a high amount of edge habitat might be detrimental to forest-
dwelling songbird species (see Paton 1991 for a review). These studies suggest that songbirds
are attracted to edges for nesting, but incur higher nest predation rates and higher parasitism
rates from the Brown-headed Cowbird, a nest parasite that is known to reduce the productivity
of forest songbirds. These edge effects likely only occur <25m into forest (Paton 1991).
Moreover, it has been determined that higher rates of predation near edges occurred more
frequently in fragmented landscapes than in forested landscapes (Hartley and Hunter 1998).
Brown-headed cowbird parasitism also appears to be more detrimental to songbirds in
fragmented landscapes than in contiguous forest (Donovan et al. 1995, Hagan et al. 1997).
Because MTMVF creates a large amount of edge habitat, the effect on forest-dwelling
songbirds must be quantified.
Raptors
We found little published literature about raptors and mining. All research found concerning the
effects of mining on raptor populations involved various types of surface mining other than
MTMVF. These past studies, focusing on Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and Northern
Harriers, attempted to describe habitat, perch use, and nesting by raptors in and around
reclaimed surface mines.
Mindell (1978) described habitat use of Red-tailed Hawks on 12 reclaimed surface mines
ranging from 0.7-40 ha in northern West Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. He found that
red-tails selected natural or strip-mined edge as well as intact deciduous woods, over natural or
strip-mined open areas. Higher use of forest edge in proportion to its availability suggested that
edge is important to Red-tailed Hawks. Mindell (1978) suggested that this was due to high prey
density along both strip-mined and natural edge, greater number of perches for hunting and
resting, and a greater amount of concealment cover along edges. Deciduous forest also was
used more than open areas, although small mammal trapping revealed lower prey densities
within the forest. He attributed the selection for deciduous forest over open areas to greater
availability of resting, concealment, and nesting areas. Mindell (1978) suggested that open
areas were used the least, because a majority of the area was out of visual range of the edge
-------
and had little value to Red-tailed Hawks due to lack of hunting perches. Although strip-mined
habitat was used the least, immature Red-tailed Hawks were seen using these areas, possibly
because of the presence of high insect populations.
Forren (1981) conducted a later study on 4 reclaimed surface mines in northern West Virginia,
the largest mine being 27 ha in size. Artificial perches for raptors were constructed in reclaimed
surface mines to determine if this would increase use by raptors. Use of areas with perches did
increase compared to those without, but perch use was restricted to a small number of raptor
species. Artificial perches were mainly used by American Kestrels (99%), and minimally by
Red-tailed Hawks (0.05%) and Great Horned Owls (0.03%). Perch use peaked in the morning
and evening, was highest in July and August, and 6-m perches were used more than 3-m
perches. According to Forren (1981), Red-tailed Hawk and Great Horned Owl use was thought
to be minor due to low detectability of small mammals in the thick vegetation found on the
surface mine. American Kestrels were able to avoid this problem by preying mostly on insects,
which occurred at higher densities than small mammals (Forren 1981). Insects and small
mammal abundance was measured through sweep netting and trap and removal methods,
respectively. Finally, examination of raptor pellets (primarily American Kestrels) showed mostly
mammalian remains during May and June, but mostly insect remains during July to October,
the period of highest perch use.
Yahner and Rohrbaugh (1998) compared abundance of diurnal raptors on reclaimed surface
mines and agricultural habitats in both northwestern and northcentral Pennsylvania. The
majority of sightings included 3 species: Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and Northern
Harriers. Other species observed were Cooper's Hawk, Osprey, Broad-winged Hawk, Red-
shouldered Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, and Northern Goshawk. Red-tailed Hawks were
commonly observed in both habitats in northwestern Pennsylvania and on agricultural habitats
in north-central Pennsylvania, but less than expected on reclaimed mines in north-central
Pennsylvania (Yahner and Rohrbaugh 1998). American Kestrels and Northern Harriers both
occurred more than expected on reclaimed surface mines in the northwest, but American
Kestrels occurred less than expected in agricultural habitats in the north-central region,
whereas Northern Harriers occurred less than expected in agricultural habitats in the
northwestern region. Yahner and Rohrbaugh (1998) concluded that reclaimed surface mines in
the northwestern region of Pennsylvania provided suitable habitat for these 3 species, possibly
by providing more breeding habitat. Another study by Rohrbaugh and Yahner (1996) used
probable and confirmed breeding attempts of Northern Harriers, which were based on
Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas data, to correlate the number of breeding attempts in 6
regions of Pennsylvania with the number of reclaimed surface mines in the same 6 regions.
They found that the number of breeding attempts by Northern Harriers in the Pittsburgh Plateau
Section of the Appalachian Plateau Province were significantly greater than expected,
containing 49% of all breeding attempts. This region also had a greater number of surface
mines than expected, with 75% of the surface mines in the 6 regions. They concluded that
Northern Harriers were associated more than expected with the open grassland habitat created
after surface mine reclamation, and suggested that harriers may prefer these areas for nesting
over agricultural habitats due to less disturbance associated with reclaimed mine sites
(Rohrbaugh and Yahner 1996). However they did not actually locate and monitor northern
harrier nests on reclaimed mines, so their conclusion is speculative.
Summary
Large-scale mountaintop removal/valley fill mining has raised questions concerning impacts on
raptor populations. Several raptor species, particularly the Red-shouldered Hawk, are
-------
considered primarily forest species and breed in large tracts of contiguous, mature forest (Hall
1983, Crocoll 1994). Conversion of forest tracts to earlier successional habitats will change the
raptor community in an area from predominantly forest-dependent species to open country
species. Creation of fragmented forest patches may also decrease the suitability of forests
remaining on or near MTMVF areas and lead to lower abundance of forest raptor populations,
which tend to breed in large blocks of intact forest. Although some raptor species such as Red-
tailed Hawks have shown a positive response to forest edge created by a small amount of
surface mining, it is unknown whether larger areas affected by mining may dissuade use by
raptors, mainly because there is proportionally less edge available, there are more open areas
lacking perches, and they are more likely to be reclaimed with dense vegetation with low prey
detectability (Mindell 1978, Forren 1981). Previous studies examined habitat and perch use by
raptors on surface mines other than MTMVF areas (Mindell 1978, Forren 1981). We found no
published studies comparing forested habitats with reclaimed areas. The fragmentation of
forest and creation of edge by mountaintop removal mines may have variable effects on raptor
species. Greater amounts of edge can decrease suitability of an area for Red-shouldered
Hawks but increase suitability for Red-tailed Hawks (Moorman and Chapman 1996) and
increase competition between these species (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1981, Moorman and
Chapman 1996). Other species such as American Kestrels and Northern Harriers may benefit
from open areas created by mountaintop mining, since they are often observed hunting in open
areas (Bent 1937, Forren 1981), but low availability of suitable perches in open areas may limit
use of reclaimed mine lands (Mindell 1978, Bloom et al. 1993). Thus, it is important to quantify
what effect relatively large-scale mountaintop removal mines are having on raptor abundance,
diversity, and habitat use.
Mammals
Small Mammals and Mining
Although no previous study has examined small mammal populations on MTMVF areas, there
have been several studies of small mammals on strip-mined lands throughout the coal mining
regions of the mid-western and eastern United States (Verts 1957, De Capita and Bookout
1975, Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978, Urbanek and Klimstra 1980, McGowan and
Bookout 1986). Another study assessed small mammal populations in the Adirondack
Mountains of New York on reclaimed open-pit mines for ilmenite (titanium) and magnetite (iron)
ores (Kirkland 1976). The mining techniques used in these studies were considerably different
from mountaintop removal mining, and the studies did not take place in West Virginia.
However, they provide information on small mammal populations following a severe disturbance
and subsequent reclamation.
Several studies found that small mammal communities on mines differ as a function of time
after the mining activity ceased (Verts 1957, Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978, McGowan
and Bookout 1986). Verts (1957) studied small mammals on 18 strip-mined sites in Illinois 4-22
years after reclamation. The mining process in the relatively flat state of Illinois is somewhat
different from that used in the more topographically complex landscape of West Virginia. Verts
(1957) describes the process of stripping the soil and rock overburden and then piling it behind
the active mine. As the mining operation progresses, a series of parallel ridges are left behind,
each about 6.1 to 9.1-m high and about 15.2-m apart. Verts (1957) focused on white-footed
mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and prairie deer mice (P. maniculatus bairdii) and did not report
other species captured. He found that the more recently mined areas, where the prairie deer
mouse was the dominant species, had the highest overall abundance. The earliest-mined sites,
-------
where only the white-footed mouse was captured, had the next highest abundance. Lowest
abundance was found on intermediate-aged sites where both species occurred in
approximately equal numbers. His analysis of vegetative characteristics did not show
differences in species composition, relative abundance, height of vegetation, or percentage of
bare ground among the different-aged strip mines. More recently mined sites did have smaller
tree diameters and tree height than the earlier mined sites. Still, the data did not support the
idea that differences in Peromyscus species occupation of these sites was due to plant
succession. Instead, Verts speculated that it was caused by differences in light, water, food,
accumulated litter, temperature, and relative humidity among the various-aged strip mines.
Sly (1976) conducted a similar study in Indiana, using 3 study sites of different ages. In
contrast to Verts (1957), he did not focus on any particular small mammal species, but instead
tried to examine the full range of small mammal fauna. However, the only additional species he
captured in significant numbers were prairie voles (Microtus ochrogastef). His results were
similar to those of Verts (1957) in that more recently mined areas had higher overall small
mammal abundances than areas that had been less recently mined. The white-footed mouse
appeared to select for wooded areas, and the prairie deer mouse and prairie vole selected for
areas with little or no woody cover. Hansen and Warnock (1978) and Urbanek and Klimstra
(1980) also worked on Illinois strip mines. Both studies had results that were in concurrence
with the studies mentioned above: small mammal abundance was higher on recently mined
areas than on older areas, white-footed mouse abundance was higher in forests than mined
areas, and prairie deer mouse abundance was higher in reclaimed grasslands than forests.
McGowan and Bookout (1986) took a slightly different approach; they compared small mammal
populations between mined areas that had been reclaimed under different regulations in Ohio.
Their goal was to assess whether the passage of more stringent legislation in 1972 for the
reclamation of surface mines had affected small mammals. They examined 3 previously mined
areas, 2 reclaimed after and 1 reclaimed before the law change. Their results suggested that
small mammals were present in greater abundance on areas that had been reclaimed after
1972 than on areas reclaimed before 1972. However, their study results were confounded by
the fact that the sites on which the more stringent rules were followed had been reclaimed
approximately 10 years after the site that followed the old reclamation laws, so the small
mammal density difference may have been related, in part, to vegetative structure.
Each of the studies mentioned above differs from our study in a significant way. Investigators
in these studies focused on comparisons among several different age classes of reclaimed
mines, whereas we conducted a comparison between reclaimed areas, remnant fragmented
forests, and intact forests. In other words, these studies evaluated the changes in small
mammal abundance and species composition as a function of time-since-reclamation, while we
compared the habitats left after mining (i.e. reclaimed grasslands/shrublands and forest
patches) with relatively undisturbed areas (i.e. intact forest). Kirkland (1976) performed a study
on open-pit ilmenite and magnetite ore mines in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. His
approach was comparable to ours since he sampled small mammals on reclaimed mines (from
1-20 years old) and compared these results to small mammal populations in nearby intact
forests. He found a significant difference in species richness between the 2 areas. Overall, 13
species were captured, but only 7 of these were found on previously mined sites, while all 13
were found in intact forests. The intact forests also had higher small mammal abundance, with
the deer mouse the only species represented in significant numbers on the mined areas. De
Capita and Bookout (1975) compared mined to unmined areas in Ohio. They found higher
abundance of Peromyscus species, meadow vole, and raccoon on previously mined lands than
on unmined lands. Other species, such as short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), opossum
10
-------
(Didelphis virginiana), groundhog (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) ,
and eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) were present in higher numbers on unmined lands.
Unmined lands, in this study, included 3 different habitats: old field, old field-pine, and
deciduous woods. Mined land was also of three types: brush hardwoods, hardwoods, and non-
vegetated. This fact may confound the results of their study as old fields and reclaimed lands
may be in similar stages of succession, having similar vegetative species composition and
structure.
Urbanek and Klimstra's (1980) study also yielded results that we can compare to those of our
study. Although they did not trap a control (relatively large and intact) forest as we did, they
evaluated the small mammal abundance and species richness indices that they found on
reclaimed mines in Illinois to those of a previous study conducted on unmined areas near their
sites (Terpening et al. 1975). This comparison indicated that small mammal abundance was
higher on the mined sites than the intact forests and that species richness was not different
between the 2 areas. However, small mammal abundance can vary temporally (both yearly
and seasonally), so this difference in abundance could be due to temporal rather than habitat
differences.
Of the studies examining small mammals and coal mining, the most relevant to our project was
a study conducted by Mindell (1978) who trapped small mammals to assess coal mines as
raptor habitat in Monongalia County, West Virginia and Green County, Pennsylvania. Using
snap traps on reclaimed mines ranging in size from 0.7 to 40 hectares and forests adjacent to
mines, he captured 5 species, with meadow voles (M. pennsylvanicus) the most common,
representing about 70% of the total. Other species captured were short-tailed shrew, white-
footed mice, deer mice, and meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius). He combined the 2
Peromyscus species for analyses because they are difficult to differentiate in this part of their
range. Though these 5 species were all found on reclaimed sites, chi-square tests showed that
some were more common in either reclaimed areas or forest. For example, Peromyscus
species selected for forest whereas meadow voles selected for reclaimed areas. Mindell also
found that combined small mammal abundance was higher on reclaimed mines than in forests,
and that there was a significant positive correlation between litter depth and small mammal
abundance among all treatments. His study, however, aimed to assess abundance of small
mammals as a potential prey base for raptors, so richness was not calculated nor compared
between treatments. Forren (1981) also looked at small mammals in Monongalia County, West
Virginia as prey for raptors on several strip-mined areas that had been reclaimed between 1971
and 1976 and ranged in size from 16 to 27 ha; however, he did not trap in forested areas. He
found the same 5 species as Mindell with meadow voles representing 56.8% of the total. Like
Mindell, Forren determined that there was a significant positive correlation between litter depth
and small mammal numbers.
Amrani (1987) compared small mammal populations on surface mine cattail (Typha spp.)
marshes with populations on nearby reclaimed grasslands in West Virginia. She found that
Peromyscus (P. leucopus and P. maniculatus combined) were more abundant in marshes than
in grasslands, as was overall small mammal abundance. The marsh may provide a more
favorable microclimate during weather extremes such as the heat of summer (McConnell and
Samuel 1985). There was, however, no difference in abundance of meadow voles between the
2 treatments. Short-tailed shrews, meadow jumping mice, and house mice (Mus musculus)
also were captured, but too infrequently for statistical comparisons.
11
-------
Small Mammals and Forest Fragmentation
Numerous studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation on small mammals
(Gottfried 1977, Yahner 1986, Yahner 1992, Nupp and Swihart 1996, Rosenblatt et al. 1999).
Gottfried (1977) compared small mammal abundance and diversity between woodlot islands
and large forest tracts in eastern Iowa, and found a positive relationship between forest area
and small mammal diversity and abundance. Larger forest islands may have higher diversity
because there is more habitat that can support a larger population and lower the chance of a
species becoming locally extinct. A second possibility is that larger forest patches are more
likely to contain greater diversities of microhabitats, allowing more species to coexist
(MacArthur and Wilson 1967). A positive mammalian diversity to forest area relationship also
was found by Rosenblatt et al. (1999) in a study of Illinois forest patches ranging from 1.8 to
600 ha. They did not limit their study to just small mammals; instead, they looked at all
mammals except bats. Sciurid species such as gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), southern
flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans), and eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) only were found
in larger islands of forest; they did not specify, however, whether small mammal abundance
differed between large and small patches. Nupp and Swihart (1996) studied white-footed mice
in Indiana, comparing populations in 15 woodlots of various sizes to 3 continuous forests. They
found higher densities in small woodlots as well as an inverse relationship between mass of
adult male mice and forest patch size. They speculated that small woodlots may have higher
food availability since trees and shrubs may be more productive at forest edges, leading to a
greater supply of seeds. Also, they note that sciurid species are generally absent from small
woodlots, releasing the white-footed mouse from competition for mast during autumn and
winter. These results are opposite of Yahner's (1986) results in a study of the spatial
distribution of white-footed mice on a forested landscape fragmented by clearcuts in
Pennsylvania. Yahner suggested that white-footed mice strongly select for the interior zones of
forests, possibly due to differences in predation pressures or food abundance between the
forest interior and the edge zones. In a later study, Yahner (1992) examined the effects of
habitat fragmentation due to forestry on small mammals in Pennsylvania, trapping on sites
classified as 25-, 50-, and 75% fragmented. He found that the white-footed mouse became
significantly more abundant as percent fragmentation increased.
Other Mammals
Hemler (1988) researched white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) use of abandoned contour
surface mines in Monongalia County, West Virginia. In winter months, deer crossed mines
incidentally but did not spend significant amounts of time foraging. She speculated that little
use occurred because abandoned, unreclaimed mines, like a natural opening, provide little
cover or food for deer. Hemler also propagated bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata) and
trembling aspen (P. tremuloides) on these mines to evaluate this technique as a reclamation
alternative. She found that deer browsed heavily on the aspen suckers in the summer months
where there had been no browsing prior to the study, suggesting that aspen propagation could
be a management tool to improve mines as summer deer habitat.
Knotts and Samuel (1977) also studied deer use of surface mines. They found that deer trails
were common on reclaimed contour mines, following along highwalls. Heavy browsing was
noted in localized areas, specifically on spoil banks that had been heavily seeded with forage
species. Browsing was not found to be significant in areas 90 m or more from the highwall in
the winter, which they speculated was due to the lack of cover.
12
-------
Red and gray fox also used reclaimed mines. Yearsley and Samuel (1980) conducted a study
in Preston County, West Virginia in which they fitted 4 gray foxes and 2 red foxes with radio
collars in an area where there were patches of forest and reclaimed mines. To assess fox use
of reclaimed mines in relation to other available habitats, they obtained locations on the collared
animals diurnally and nocturnally. Differences in habitat use between the two fox species were
not discussed. They found that fox use of mines varied seasonally, with higher use in the fall,
winter, and spring than summer. The authors speculated that seasonal differences occurred
because foxes feed primarily on small mammals when fruits and berries are not available, and
small mammal populations were higher on the mines than in the surrounding forest. They felt
that this hypothesis was supported by several observations of foxes hunting for mice on mines
during these periods of high use. However, they did not sample small mammal populations.
Summary
Small mammals are an important component of biological diversity, and their populations are
affected by forest fragmentation (e.g. Gottfried 1977). Further, small mammals are the primary
prey base for a variety of mammalian and avian predators; thus changes in their abundance
can affect other species. Although we found no previous studies of small mammal populations
on MTMVF areas, there have been several studies of small mammals on strip-mined lands
throughout the coal mining regions of the mid-western and eastern US (Verts 1957, De Capita
and Bookout 1975, Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978, Urbanek and Klimstra 1980,
McGowan and Bookout 1986). Several authors found that small mammal communities on
mines differ as a function of time since mining activity ceased (Verts 1957, Sly 1976, Hansen
and Warnock 1978, McGowan and Bookout 1986). Three studies compared small mammal
populations on reclaimed lands with those on unmined areas (De Capita and Bookout 1975,
Kirkland 1976, Urbanek and Klimstra 1980). However, results from these studies were variable
with richness and abundance greater on unmined lands in 1 study (Kirkland 1976) and on
reclaimed land in another (Urbanek and Klimstra 1980). Further, unmined lands in the 3rd
study (De Capita and Bookhout 1975) included habitats other than intact forests which can
confound results. Consequently, additional research is needed to clarify the effects of MTMVF
on small mammal populations.
Herpetofauna
Amphibians are the most abundant vertebrates in many temperate forest ecosystems (Burton
and Likens 1975) and make up a large part of the vertebrate biomass on certain sites (Pais et
al. 1988, Heyer et al. 1994). Declines of amphibian populations have been documented
throughout the world due to various causes including loss and degradation of habitats (Wyman
1990). Amphibian life-history traits make them especially sensitive to disturbances that alter
microhabitat and microclimate characteristics, including physiological constraints (Feder 1983),
relatively poor dispersal capabilities (Sinsch 1990), and small home ranges (Stebbins and
Cohen 1995). Populations of several forest amphibian species were positively correlated with
the quantity and quality of coarse woody debris, litter depth and moisture, understory vegetation
density, and over-story canopy closure (deMaynadier and Hunter 1995). Gibbs (1998)
suggests that amphibians may be especially prone to local extinction as a result of human-
caused transformation and fragmentation of habitat due to the spatially and temporally dynamic
nature of their populations. Because MTMVF alters and fragments forested landscapes, it is
important to document the effects on herpetofauna, particularly amphibians.
13
-------
We are aware of no published studies concerning the effect of MTMVF on the herpetofaunal
community inhabiting natural hardwood/stream riparian areas. An extensive search through the
West Virginia University library system, and personal communication with regional experts like
Dr. T. Pauley (Marshall University) and graduate students at several Appalachian universities
(California University of Pennsylvania, Marshall University, and West Virginia University) turned
up little published work involving reptiles and amphibians and any form of mining. Four
published studies examined the herpetofauna inhabiting ponds on surface mines (Riley 1952,
Myers and Klimstra 1963, Turner and Fowler 1981, Fowler et al. 1985), and a graduate student
at Marshall University (Huntington, West Virginia) is currently in the process of completing an
MS research project concerning MTMVF and herpetofauna (Dr. T. Pauley, pers. comm.).
Riley (1952), examined the effect of surface mining on the regional ecology of the Midwest. His
work involved very little, if any, experimentation and mainly used observational data to
generalize how mining impacts vegetation and wildlife. He did, however, make reference to a
few reptile and amphibian species found in midwestern surface mine ponds. Five amphibian
species (America toad Bufo americanus, green frog Rana clamitans, leopard frog R. pipiens,
pickerel frog R. palustris, and cricket frog Acris crepitans), and 3 reptile species (snapping turtle
Chelydra serpentina, painted turtle Chrysemys picta, and northern water snake Natrix sipedon)
were collected in Ohio strip mine ponds. Additionally, bullfrogs (R. catesbeiana) were being
raised commercially in at least 1 Illinois strip mine pond. No mention is made of how these
findings compare to the herpetofaunal community in undisturbed areas in that region.
Meyers and Klimstra (1963) conducted their work in Perry County, Illinois on sites that had been
contour mined. The mining activities in this area left alternating ridges and valleys (spoil banks)
with fairly steep slopes (45%). This topography encouraged the formation of many temporary
and permanent ponds that had been colonized by a variety of plant and animal life since mining
activities ceased approximately 20 years before the study was conducted. A general search
(hand capturing and visual observation) found 32 species of herpetofauna inhabiting the site,
but only 10 were commonly encountered. The searches were not time- or area-constrained,
thus no relative abundance or population estimates were calculated. Myers and Klimstra (1963)
compared the 32 species they found with the 39 (Meyers 1957) and 54 (Rossman 1960)
species reported by 2 separate inventories of unmined sites located within 75 miles of their
Perry County, Illinois site. They concluded that strip-mined lands in general would be inhabited
by plants and animals adapted to environmental conditions produced by mining, and that
additional population and/or successional studies would provide useful information.
Turner and Fowler (1981) conducted a fairly thorough search of 24 ponds on a surface mine in
Campbell County, Tennessee. Because mining had ceased in 1972, the ponds were at least 6
years old when sampling was conducted in the spring of 1978. Dip nets were used to sample
amphibian eggs, larvae, and adults. A students t-test was used to compare the average
number of species found in ponds with different pH values. Water quality and aquatic
vegetation also were sampled. Twelve of the 17 species expected to be found in the area were
captured. Significantly more species (P < 0.05) were found in ponds with higher pH. In
addition to pH, Turner and Fowler (1981) mention that water hardness and presence of
emergent vegetation seemed to influence whether or not some species inhabited a particular
pond. The spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifef) was the most commonly captured amphibian
and inhabited 16 of the 24 ponds. They believe that their findings provide justification for
leaving mine ponds in place after cessation of active mining, because permanent water usually
provides wildlife habitat and it costs less to leave a pond than to remove it.
14
-------
Fowler et al. (1985) sampled the herpetofaunal community on 11 newly constructed surface
mine sediment ponds on 2 separate mines in Campbell county, Tennessee. In addition to
reptiles and amphibians, water quality, invertebrates, vegetation, and fish also were sampled.
Amphibians were sampled with auditory surveys on 11 surface mine ponds from 1 March 1979
to 29 February 1980. Observers also identified egg masses and used a hand-held D-net to
capture larval amphibians. Twelve of the 17 species of amphibians, known to breed locally in
ponds, were detected. All ponds had at least 1 species. They also found that the water quality,
in most cases, was of sufficient quality to support aquatic life. Apparently, searches were not
time- or area-constrained so density and/or abundance were not calculated. Fowler et al.
(1985) recommended the retention of these sediment ponds after mining stopped because they
seemed to have a large potential for fish and wildlife.
None of these studies were conducted on MTMVF areas, they generally did not include
terrestrial species, nor did they use methods that accurately quantified time and effort.
Although 3 of the studies compared the number of species found to the number of species
thought to inhabit the region, no direct comparisons were provided because intact habitats were
not sampled. Based upon these limited data, it seems that some herpetofauna, particularly
those associated with bodies of standing water, colonize surface mine sites when mining
ceases or suitable habitat is provided, however it is not known if abundance or species
composition is similar to unmined habitats. These studies may indicate a general trend, but
their results cannot be extrapolated to how MTMVF may affect West Virginia reptiles and
amphibians due to limitations studies imposed by the methods used, lack of experimentation,
and geographic and temporal differences.
Summary
Herpetofauna, particularly amphibians, can be ideal indicators of how well reclamation efforts
have succeeded because they are susceptible to small environmental changes (Jones 1986)
and make up a large part of the vertebrate biomass on certain sites (Pais et al. 1988, Heyer et
al. 1994). However, a thorough literature search revealed little previous research concerning
the effects of surface mining on herpetofauna. Myers and Klimstra (1963) and Fowler et al.
(1985) studied the colonization of surface mine sediment ponds by herpetofauna, but we found
no published literature regarding the effect of surface mining on stream, riparian, or terrestrial
herpetofauna. Because the conditions resulting from mountaintop mining and subsequent
reclamation are dramatically different from those provided by the original intact forest, more
information is needed on how hepetofaunal populations are responding to these changes.
Methods
Study Areas
Study sites for the terrestrial study were selected to overlap as much as possible with study
sites used for the aquatic studies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aquatic team
initiated aquatic studies on 5 watersheds (Mud River, Spruce Fork, Island Creek, Clear Fork,
and Twentymile Creek). Two of these watersheds (Island Creek and Clear Fork) were
inappropriate for use in the terrestrial wildlife studies. Human activities on Island Creek such as
grazing, orchards, and homes would have confounded study results. Clear Fork was not
15
-------
suitable because much of the area was reclaimed recently and little vegetation had become
established. Therefore the remaining 3 watersheds were used for the terrestrial study areas
(Fig. 1) in summer 2000. Initial work on the study in 1999 focused primarily on the Mud River
and secondarily on the Spruce Fork watersheds.
Study areas included 4 treatments: intact forest, fragmented forest, young reclaimed mine
(grassland), and older reclaimed mine (shrub/pole) (Table 1). The latter 3 treatments resulted
from mining and reclamation activities. Intact forest sites are relatively large intact forested
areas undisturbed by mining activities and located near the reclaimed sites, either within the
same watershed as a mining site or in an adjacent watershed. Although these sites are
relatively contiguous forest, they do have some breaks in canopy cover from streams, roads,
and natural canopy gaps. Some intact forest sites are located in close proximity to MTMVF
areas, but no intact forest site shares more than 1 edge with an MTMVF area. On the other
hand, we defined fragmented forest as a tract of forest primarily surrounded by reclaimed mine
land on at least 3 sides. Young reclaimed mine areas (grassland) consist mostly of grasses
and are about 5-19 years of age. Older reclaimed mine areas (shrub/pole) contain shrub and
pole-sized vegetation and are about 13-27 years of age. Because these 2 treatments are
defined by vegetation characteristics of early and later successional stages, lack of succession
on some older grassland sites resulted in an overlap in age for these 2 treatments. Mine ages
were determined from the estimated year sites were reclaimed and were provided by Arch Coal
and Cannelton Mining companies.
The intact and fragmented forest areas were comprised mostly of mature hardwood species
including red oak, white oak, black oak, pignut hickory, bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory,
tuliptree, American beech, red maple, sugar maple, American sycamore, white ash, and black
birch (scientific names of tree and shrub species are found in Appendix 2). Understory trees
(seedlings, saplings, and poles) in these areas included American beech, black birch, black
gum, flowering dogwood, ironwood, red and sugar maple, sourwood, spicebush, and white ash
as well as other common hardwood species. These stands were second growth forests that
appeared to be approximately 60-80 years old. Although forested, these stands may have
been periodically disturbed over the last several decades from firewood cutting, single tree
harvesting, thinning, and forest fires.
The primary vegetation on the young reclaimed mine areas included tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea), sericea (Lespedesa cuneata), autumn olive, black locust, European black alder,
and scotch pine. Vegetation on older reclaimed mine areas included goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
tall fescue, sericea, autumn olive, black locust, scotch pine, red maple, American sycamore,
tuliptree, multiifora rose, and blackberry/raspberry. Tree and shrub species on these older sites
were larger and more predominant than on younger sites.
Study areas included 3 MTMVF sites and nearby forest lands in southwestern West Virginia
(Table 1 and 2, Fig. 1). Sample points were placed along and surrounding 15 stream drainages
on the 3 watersheds (Table 1, Fig. 2-11). All figures also show locations of EPA water quality
sampling points.
The Hobet 21 mine is located in the Mud River and Little Coal River watersheds in Boone
County (Fig. 1 and 2). Fragmented forests on this site are forested areas surrounded on 3
sides by grassland habitat (Fig. 3). First-order streams had valley fills, whereas second-order
streams were left intact. The intact forest treatment sites were located in 3 drainages; 2 were
just south of the mine (Fig. 2 and 3) and 1 was located approximately 5 km northeast of the
16
-------
mine along the Big Buck Fork of Hewitt Creek (Fig. 4 and 5). Two areas were used for the
shrub/pole treatment: 1 in the northeastern section of the mine (Fig. 2 and 3), and 1 along a
valley fill at the head of the Hill Fork of Hewitt Creek (Fig. 4 and 5). All grassland sampling
points were located on the mine.
The Daltex mine is located in the Spruce Fork watershed in Logan County (Fig. 1 and 6).
Fragmented sites were located along a second order stream that is surrounded by reclaimed
mountaintop mines and contour mines (Fig. 7). The intact forest treatment sites were located
approximately 1.6 km northeast of the mine along Bend Branch of Spruce Fork, and
approximately 1.6 km east of the mine along Pigeonroost Branch (Fig. 6 and 7). No shrub/pole
treatment was established at Daltex because the small amount of this habitat that was available
was not created by MTMVF but contour mining. All grassland sampling points were located on
the mine.
The Cannelton mine is located in the Twentymile Creek watershed along the border of
Kanawha and Fayette Counties (Fig. 1 and 8). The forest fragment treatment on this site was a
forested areas surrounded on 3 sides by grassland habitat (Fig. 9). Intact forest sampling
points were located northeast of the mine along the Ash Fork of Twentymile Creek on the
border of Clay and Nicholas counties (Fig. 10-11). The EPA had selected Neil Branch, located
just east of Ash Fork, as their intact site; however, recent logging activity precluded our use of
this drainage. Both the grassland and shrub/pole treatments were located on the mine.
Selection of Sampling Points
Sampling points were established within each treatment at least 75 m from the edge of any
other treatment and at least 250 m apart. Within the 2 forest treatments, sampling points were
located 35 m from streams (to coincide with mammal transects and herpetofaunal arrays),
upslope at least 75 m from streams (Fig. 12), and on or near a ridge top. Within reclaimed
areas, points were positioned similarly but relative to the rip-rap channel. Sampling points were
distributed over the 3 watersheds and 4 treatments (Table 2). Elevations of sampling points
ranged from 241-566 m (Table 3).
Intact Forest
Points in intact forest sites were established along first- and second-order streams, with points
placed 35-m from streams, 75-m upslope from streams and on or near the ridge top at the head
of hollows. Sampling points were located systematically with the first point placed 75 m from an
edge and 35 m from streams. Subsequent points were placed 250 m apart, alternating banks if
possible. In some cases, consecutive points were on the same bank if minor edges from
canopy openings or trails were present on the opposite bank. An attempt also was made to
alternate consecutive points so that 1 was 35 m from the stream and the next was upslope at
least 75 m. Again, this was not always possible due to the presence of edges or human
disturbance. Generally we attempted to place points in the least disturbed areas, to minimize
effects of edges, and to sample sites with a gradient of elevations that could be compared to
head-of-hollow fills on reclaimed sites and fragmented forests along lower reaches of streams.
Fragmented Forest
The majority of fragmented forest sites occurred at the base of head-of-hollow fills (e.g. Fig. 3);
therefore, the first sample point was placed 75 m from the forest/reclaimed edge and 35 m from
17
-------
the stream with successive points placed as described for intact forest. Fragmented forest was
limited in the Spruce Fork watershed, thus points were established in what was available.
Three points were placed on the south bank of Beech Creek, 2 at 35 m from the stream and 1
upslope (Figs. 6 and 7). This fragment is very narrow and the north bank was close to the road
edge. The other 3 points were placed in fragments of upland forest at least 75 m from roads
and other edges. At the Twentymile Creek fragment site (Hughes and Jim Forks), 6 points
were established as described above along the main creek and 4 points were established along
streams below head-of-hollow fills that drain into Hughes Fork (Fig. 9). Fragments with
sampling points ranged in size from 30-214 ha (Table 3).
Reclaimed Grasslands
At the Mud River and Twentymile Creek sites, we placed 1 point 35 m from rip-rap channels in
head-of-hollow fills on reclaimed grassland sites, and remaining points were placed upslope in
areas above valley fills to sample areas of higher elevation. These latter points were not
positioned relative to the channel, but were kept 250 m apart. At the Spruce Fork site
(Rockhouse Creek), 6 sampling points were established along the main rip-rap channel of
Rockhouse Creek, alternating banks and distances from channels. Another 6 plots were
located above the valley fill on the top of the mountain. The estimated age of grassland points
ranged from 5-19 years (Table 3).
Reclaimed Shrub/pole
Shrub/pole points were established at Twentymile Creek and Mud River sites. This treatment
was limited, and thus our points were established without regard to streams or elevation. They
were placed wherever this habitat occurred, and where points could be placed at least 75 m
from the edge and at least 250 m apart. Six sample points, at the Cannelton mine, were placed
in an area that we were told was the oldest MTMVF site in West Virginia. The age of
shrub/pole points ranged from 13-27 years (Table 3).
Songbird Abundance
Songbird abundance was measured from 0630 to 1030 hrs on fixed-radius 50-m point count
plots using standardized methods (Ralph et al. 1993). All birds seen or heard in a 10-min
period were recorded. We recorded if the bird was observed visually or aurally, identified the
sex if possible, whether it was flying over, and whether it was within or outside the 50 m plot.
Surveys were not conducted during windy or rainy weather. Percent cloud cover and wind
speed were recorded using standardized scales (Martin et al. 1997, Table 4). All point counts
were surveyed twice during the breeding season (late May-June), each time by a different
observer. Points were surveyed twice in order to increase the number of species detected.
Petit et al. (1995) determined that 20% more bird species are detected with 2 counts than with 1
in eastern deciduous forests, and that 20 min of total counting time (two 10-min counts) is
required to develop a relatively complete species list. Two observers conducted all counts in
1999; these 2 individuals plus a third person conducted all counts in 2000. All observers had
previous experience identifying songbird species by sight and sound. Prior to initiating surveys,
observers conducted simultaneous point counts to verify bird identification skills and distance
estimation. At least 3 practice sessions in each habitat type (grass, shrub/pole, and forest)
were conducted. After conducting the point counts, observers compared species and distances
estimated. Observers then paced 50 m in order to improve their distance estimation skills.
They also paced to approximate locations of different bird species to practice placement of
18
-------
birds within or outside the 50-m radius circle. The maximum number of birds at each count was
used in data summaries and analyses. Each sampling point station was geographically
referenced using a global positioning system (GPS).
Songbirds were placed into 1 of 4 habitat guilds based on their habitat preferences and into 1 of
5 nesting guilds based on where they place their nests. Habitat guilds were: grassland, edge,
interior-edge, and forest interior. Nesting guilds were: ground, shrub, subcanopy, canopy, and
cavity. Birds were placed into these guilds and groups based on Whitcomb et al. (1981),
Ehrlich et al. (1988) and from personal observation of species in the study area.
Abundances of each guild were compared among treatments using a two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with treatment and year as factors (Zar 1999). If a treatment by year
interaction occurred, we conducted one-way ANOVA tests comparing treatments in each year
separately. Total abundance and species richness also were compared using ANOVA. The
Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test was used to examine differences between individual treatment
means. Additionally, individual species that were observed at >5% of point counts in
fragmented and intact forest were tested for differences using ANOVA between fragmented
and intact forest. We also used the Jaccard and Renkonen indices to examine community
similarity between pairs of treatments (Nur et al. 1999). Bird species that are typically difficult to
survey with point counts, such as flocking species, species with large territories, and non-vocal
species, were excluded from the analyses of total abundance, species richness, and similarity.
Bird abundances and guild abundances were transformed prior to analyses using the
transformation X'=log10(X+1), where X' is the transformed value and X is the original value (Zar
1999). Although most abundances were not normally distributed after transformation, we chose
to proceed with ANOVA because ANOVA is "robust with respect to the assumption of the
underlying populations' normality" (Zar 1999). Avian nomenclature follows the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds, seventh addition (AOU 1998,
Appendix 1).
Partners in Flight (PIF) identified 15 songbird species as priority species for conservation in the
upland forest community of the Ohio Hills and Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic
areas, the 2 areas within which our study sites fall (Table 5; Rosenberg 2000, R. McClain,
personal communication). The Cerulean Warbler in particular is listed as being at Action level II
(in need of immediate management or policy rangewide) by PIF. The Louisiana Waterthrush
and Eastern Wood-pewee are other species of concern, listed at Action level III (management
needed to reverse or stabilize populations). The other 12 species are at Action level IV (long-
term planning to ensure stable populations needed). We developed logistic regression models
for the 11 listed species (Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler,
Kentucky Warbler.Acadian Flycatcher, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo, Hooded Warbler,
Scarlet Tanager, Black-and-white Warbler, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo) that were found at >5%
of point counts (Table 5).
We used forward logistic regression (Neter et al. 1996) to examine the relationship between
habitat characteristics and the presence/absence of these 10 forest songbirds using habitat
data from fragmented and intact forest point counts. The significance level chosen for entry
and retention in the model was 0.10. We used presence/absence as the dependent variable
because at most point counts only 1 individual of a species was detected within 50 m (Hagan
et al. 1997). This technique was chosen because it has been used by other researchers
examining the effects of landscapes on songbird species (Hagan et al. 1997, Villard et al.
1999), and because predictor variables do not need to follow a joint multivariate normal
distribution (Neter et al. 1996). The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to
19
-------
determine if the data fit the specified model. Models were rejected if the p-value for the
goodness-of-fit test was <0.10, indicating that we should not reject the null hypothesis that our
data fit the specified model (Cody and Smith 1997).
Nest Searching
Nest searching was conducted in 2 grassland areas on each of the 3 mines for a total of 6 sites.
To obtain a good estimate of species-specific nest survival, a minimum of 20 nests per species
must be monitored (Martin et al. 1997). Therefore, we set a target of 20 nests for each of the
most common species in the grassland habitat (i.e. Grasshopper Sparrow and Eastern
Meadowlark). However, breeding birds in grassland habitat often have low densities, and we
were not able to locate this many nests by searching a defined area (plot). Thus, a plotless
nest searching method was used (Martin et al. 1997) so that a larger area could be searched
for breeding birds. The amount of area actually searched for nests was estimated using GIS
maps of each mine site.
Each nest searching area was searched every 3 days by 2-3 field technicians trained in proper
searching and monitoring techniques (Martin and Geupel 1993). Nest searching began one-
half hour after sunrise and concluded 8 hr later (approximately 0600-1400 EST). Nest
searching methods followed national BBIRD (Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring
Database) protocols (Martin et al. 1997). Nests were located by flushing females, by following
adult birds, and by observing parental behavior (i.e. carrying nest material or food, copulation).
When time allowed, other project personnel also searched for songbird nests.
All nests found were monitored every 3-4 days (Martin et al.1997). Because nests in
grasslands are typically well-concealed, they were marked for relocation using 2 flag stakes.
The stakes were placed on either side of the nest at a distance of 15 m. Care was taken when
monitoring the nest to avoid disturbing the female. When possible, nest searchers observed
the nest from a distance of no less than 15 m for up to 30 min to confirm that it was still active.
The nest was approached and checked for contents a maximum of 4 times: once when it was
initially found, once to confirm clutch size, once to confirm brood size, and once to confirm
fledging success or failure. Nests were not approached when avian predators (e.g., American
Crows and/or Blue Jays) were observed nearby because these birds will follow humans to nests
(Martin et al. 1997). Observers also continued to walk in a straight line after checking nest
contents to avoid leaving a dead-end scent trail directly to the nest that might be followed by
mammalian predators (Martin et al. 1997). The vegetation concealing nests was moved to the
side using a wooden stick to avoid putting human scent on nests if the vegetation blocked the
observer's view of contents.
A nest was considered successful if it fledged at least 1 young. Fledging success was
confirmed by searching the area around the nest for fledglings or for parent-fledgling
interactions. However, if no fledglings were observed, the nest was considered to have fledged
young if the median date between the last nest check when the nest was active and the final
nest check when the nest was empty was within 2 days of the predicted fledging date (Martin et
al. 1997). Nest survival was calculated using the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1961, Mayfield
1975). Daily nest survival estimates were calculated for the incubation and brooding periods
separately because nest survival may differ between these 2 periods. The overall daily survival
rate was calculated as the product of incubation and brood daily survival. Survival during the
egg-laying stage was not included in the calculation of overall nest survival because we found
few nests during this stage of the nesting cycle.
20
-------
Surveys to determine fledgling density were conducted in late July and early August on each
mine. Three 500-m transects on each mine were walked at a pace of 1.5 km/hr and all
fledglings seen within 25 m of either side of the transect center line were recorded. Transects
were established to coincide with areas that had been searched for nests. Fledgling densities
were determined by calculating the number of fledglings divided by 2.5 ha (i.e 500 m x 2(25) m)
on each transect. The average of the 3 transects was used as the measure of fledgling density
for each mine.
Bird and Mammal Use of Ponds
In summer 2000, we documented presence/absence of small mammals and birds that used
ponds located on reclaimed mine sites during early May, late June, and late August (mammals),
and early May, late June, and late September (birds). Sample dates for mammals were
selected to coincide with the new moon because small mammals are more active when the
moon is dark. Ponds on each mine were identified using aerial photographs and ground
truthed for accuracy. Ponds were placed subjectively into 2 size classes, either small or large.
Ten ponds in each size class, for a total of 20 ponds, were selected randomly and distributed
over the 3 mines. Small ponds averaged 0.16 ha (range:0.03-0.28 ha), and large ponds
averaged 0.53 ha (range: 0.30-1.38 ha ). We placed a small mammal trapping transect 100 m
in length within 10 m of each pond margin. Two Sherman live-traps placed at each of 10
trapping stations spaced 10m apart along the transect were baited with a mixture of peanut
butter and rolled oats. Traps were open for 2 nights during each sample period. All animals
captured were marked and released. All birds observed using the pond were recorded as field
technicians were approaching the pond and during a 10-min point count. At each pond, we
established a bird point count station on the side of the pond opposite the small mammal
transect. All birds seen or heard within 50 m of the pond were recorded using standard point
count methods described above. Mammal and bird data from pond surveys were used only to
document presence/absence.
Vegetation Measurement
All Treatments
We measured vegetation and habitat characteristics on all sampling points within each
treatment using methods modified from James and Shugart (1970) and the Breeding Bird
Research Database program (BBIRD; Martin et al. 1997). Within each point count circle, 4
0.04 ha vegetation subplots were established (Fig. 12). Subplots were placed at the center of
the circle, and 35 m away at 0°, 120°, and 240°. At points associated with small mammal
transects, 2 subplots were located on the transect line, 1 centered on the point count, and 1
upslope from the point count center. Subplots along the mammal transect were located 45 m
from the center and spaced approximately 60 m from each other (Fig. 13). The upslope plot
remained 35 m from the center.
Within each 0.04 ha subplot, all tree species were identified and placed into 1 of 5 diameter-at-
breast height (dbh) classes: >8-23 cm, >23-38 cm, >38-53 cm, >53-68 cm, and >68 cm. Within
a 5.0-m radius circle centered on the subplot, we counted number of sapling stems (woody
species >0.5 m high) in 2 size classes: <2.5 cm at 10 cm above ground and >2.5-8 cm at 10 cm
above the ground.
21
-------
An ocular sighting tube was used to measure percent ground cover and canopy cover (James
and Shugart 1970). The sighting tube was a 5.0-cm pvc pipe with cross-hairs at 1 end. If the
cross hairs sighted on vegetation, then canopy cover was recorded as present (a 'hit'). Five
sight-tube readings were taken on each subplot every 2.26 m along 4, 11.3-m transects that
intersected at the center of the subplot (Fig. 12). The number of hits divided by 20 provided a
quantitative measure of percent cover. Ground cover was recorded as the cover type in the
cross hairs, either green (grass, shrubs, fern, herbaceous vegetation combined),
bareground/rock, moss, woody debris, water, or leaf litter. On grassland vegetation points,
green vegetation was separated into more detailed categories including: grass/sedges, forbs
(herbaceous plants), and shrubs (woody species <0.5 m tall). We defined woody debris as any
dead woody material >4 cm in diameter on the ground. All other woody material on the ground
counted as litter. Water was recorded as ground cover if the sampling point fell across a
stream or pool. Canopy cover was recorded for 6 layer classes representing shrub, sapling,
understory, subcanopy, codominant, and dominant trees: 0.5-3 m, >3-6 m, >6-12 m, >12-18 m,
>18-24 m, and >24 m. A structural diversity index, which takes into account the amount of
canopy cover in each layer class and the number of layers present, was calculated using these
variables (Nichols 1996). Canopy cover and structural diversity was only measured in the
shrub/pole, fragment, and intact forest treatments.
Average canopy height and percent slope were measured with a clinometer, whereas a
compass was used to determine the aspect. Elevation was determined using digital elevation
models in a GIS.
Edge types represented abrupt changes in habitat and may or may not have been linear (roads,
streams, etc.). We identified several potential edge types on the study areas, some of which
we considered "internal" edges and some that were "external" edges. Internal edges
represented relatively minor breaks in continous habitat and were usually linear. External edges
were usually much larger in extent than internal edges and represented a considerable break in
the habitat. In intact and fragmented forest, internal edges included streams, roads, and
natural gaps, and external edges included valley fills and grasslands in mined areas. In
grassland and shrub/pole habitat, internal edges included roads, valley fills, ponds, and blocks
of autumn olive, and external edges were primarily forest.
We recorded 3 edge classes and determined the distance of each edge from the point count
center. First, the closest internal or "minor" edge type (Table 4) and distance was recorded for
each subplot. The distance to this edge was determined by pacing. The average distance of the
4 subplots from any minor edge was used in analyses as the distance from minor edge. We
also calculated the percentage of subplots in each treatment that were closest to the 13 minor
edge types. Second, we determined the distance from the center of each point count to the
closest "habitat" edge using aerial photographs in Arcview GIS. The edge types for this edge
class were: grassland-shrub/pole; forest-grassland; forest-shrub/pole, and forest-active mine.
Third, we calculated the distance to the closest "mine" edge (either grassland, shrub/pole, or
active mine) for forest points and the distance to the closest forest for grassland and shrub/pole
points. In most cases the habitat edge and the mine/forest edge were identical, but in some
cases an alternative habitat was closer than the mine/forest edge.
Slope aspects were transformed before analyses the Beers et al. (1966) procedure, using the
equation:
A' = (COS(45-A)+1)
22
-------
where A' is the transformation index and A is the direction the slope faces in degrees (Frazer
1992). With this transformation, northeastern facing slopes receive a value OF 2 and reflect
mesic conditions, while southwestern exposures receive a value of 0 and reflect xeric
conditions. Other exposures are distributed between these values. We assigned an aspect
index of 0 to points on dry ridge tops, and an index of 2 to points in flat bottomlands because
ridge tops and bottom lands have no slope and thus no aspect, but ridge tops tend to be xeric
while bottomlands are mesic (Frazer 1992).
All percentage variables (i.e. slope, ground cover, and canopy cover) were transformed using
the arcsine-square root transformation (Zar 1999) prior to analyses. Stem densities were
transformed using the transformation X'=log10(X+1), where X' is the transformed value and X is
the original value (Zar 1999).
Habitat variables were tested for differences among treatments using two-way ANOVA (Zar
1999). Treatment and mine were the main factors in the models, and treatment by mine was
included as an interaction term. The average values for all variables from the 4 subplots were
used in analyses. ANOVA was used to compare treatments after variables had been
transformed. Similar to analyses of songbird abundances, most habitat variables were not
normally distributed after transformation, but we chose to proceed with ANOVA because it is
robust to deviations from normality (Zar 1999). If there was a significant interaction (P<0.05)
between mine and treatment, we conducted one-way ANOVA's to determine the exact nature of
the interaction.
Grassland and Shrub/pole Treatments
Additional vegetative measurements were collected at grassland points. A Robel pole,
described below, was used to record most of these data and was used to determine the amount
of vegetative cover and grass height.
The Robel pole (Robel et al. 1970) was a stick demarcated at half-decimeter intervals (Fig. 14).
The pole was placed vertically on a point. An observer moved 4 m away from the pole, and
with their eyes 1 m above the level of the ground, noted the lowest interval on the pole that was
not completely obscured by vegetation. This interval was recorded as the distance in
decimeters from the ground to the bottom of the interval. Measurements with Robel poles have
been widely used to characterize vegetation around nests of birds (Kirsch et al 1978). They are
used to measure height of vegetation and provide an index of biomass (Robel et al. 1970). To
quantify vegetative cover, measurements with the Robel pole were taken at the subplot center,
and at 1, 3, and 5 m along each transect (Fig. 15) for a total of 16 measurements. We took 4
measurements at the center, with the observer facing towards the center of the subplot from
each of the 4 transect directions. A single measurement was taken at every location away from
the center with the observer facing towards the center of the subplot. Vegetative cover at a
point was the average of these 16 measurements.
Maximum height of herbaceous vegetation was measured to the nearest 0.5 dm (Fig. 14) using
the Robel pole placed at the following locations: the center, 1, 3, 5, and 10m along each
transect (Fig. 15). At each of these locations, the height of the tallest herbaceous vegetation
within a 3.0-dm radius circle of the pole was recorded. Vegetation height for the plot was the
average of the 17 measurements.
The depth (in centimeters) of organic litter was measured at 13 locations along the 4 transects:
23
-------
at the center and at distances of 1 m, 3 m, and 5 m along each transect (Fig. 15). If the point
landed on a rock or log, we moved our measurement location to the nearest point that had
mineral soil on which litter could potentially rest. If a point fell on bare ground, litter depth was
recorded as 0.0 cm. We measured litter depth using the metric ruler on a compass.
Vegetation variables measured at grassland points also were measured at Grasshopper
Sparrow nests in 2000. However, results were not analyzed statistically because of small
sample sizes.
Raptor Abundance
Raptor abundance and habitat use were quantified at 48 of the songbird point count stations on
the study areas. Stations were located approximately 0.8 km apart according to the protocol
suggested by Fuller and Mosher (1987). Twelve survey stations were sampled monthly
(February - September 2000) in each of the 4 treatments with roughly equal numbers of sample
points over the 3 mines (Table 2). All 48 points were sampled over a 4-6-day period. Points
from at least 3 treatments were sampled on a given day to minimize temporal variability
between treatments. The order that points were sampled on a given day was randomly
established during the first survey. On subsequent surveys, the order in which points were
sampled was systematically varied through 3 daily time periods: early, mid-, and late-day.
We used broadcast surveys to sample raptor populations because broadcasting conspecific
vocalizations is an effective way to survey targeted raptor species (Rosenfield et al. 1988,
Mosher et al. 1990, Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993). During winter months, broadcast surveys
were conducted from one-half hour after sunrise until 1600 hrs because raptors can be active
throughout the day during cooler weather. During summer months, broadcast surveys were
conducted from one-half hour after sunrise until 1300 hrs, because shifts in raptor activity in the
afternoon may reduce the detectability of certain raptor species such as Red-tailed Hawks and
Accipiters (Bunn et al. 1995).
Broadcast surveys lasted 10 min, and consisted of 5 min of broadcasting vocalizations and 5
min of observation/listening time. Six calls were broadcast for a 20-sec duration at 1-min
intervals (20 sec of vocalization, followed by a 40-sec listening period), leaving a final listening
period of 4 min and 40 sec and thus making a total of 10 min. The broadcast speaker was held
1.5 m above the ground and rotated 120° between each broadcast. Calls were broadcast at a
volume of about 110 db at 1 m from the megaphone speaker. Both Great Horned Owl and
Red-shouldered Hawk vocalizations were used during the survey period. The 6 vocalizations
alternated between Great Horned Owl and Red-shouldered Hawk calls. Previous studies
(Mosher and Fuller 1996, McLeod and Anderson 1998) have shown that many raptor species
respond to either Great Horned Owl or conspecific calls. Red-shouldered Hawk vocalizations
were used to specifically elicit responses from Red-shouldered Hawks (a migratory nongame
bird of management concern in the Northeast; Peterson and Crocoll 1992), while the Great
Horned Owl vocalizations were used to elicit responses from other raptor species. We
randomly determined which type of call (Great Horned Owl or Red-shouldered Hawk) would
start the first survey each month, with the second survey starting with the call not previously
used, and thus alternating throughout the entire survey session each month.
Two observers trained in identification of raptors by sight and sound were present at every
survey. One individual was the primary observer and was present at each survey. The second
observer alternated between a number of individuals. During the 10-min survey period, both
24
-------
observers actively watched and listened for raptors. Surveys were not conducted in inclement
weather (moderate to heavy rain, fog, or wind).
Data recorded on surveys included weather conditions (cloud cover/precipitation, wind, and
temperature), nearest edge type, distance to edge, latency (time from start of survey until first
raptor detection), general vegetative cover characteristics (size class of trees, amount of cover,
dominant plant species), raptor species detected, age and sex (if possible), behavior during
detection (perch and call, flyby and call, silent perch, silent flyby, vocal only), time each
individual bird is seen, estimated distance bird is from observer, and habitat type in which a bird
is first detected. Survey data were summarized as mean number individuals detected within a
season. The winter season was defined as December-March, the summer season April-July,
and the migration season August-November.
Roadside surveys also were conducted once in late July on each of the 3 mines. These
surveys consisted of driving a specified route at 16 km/h through grassland, shrub/pole, and
fragmented forest treatments, while looking and listening for raptors. The intact forest
treatment was not included in roadside surveys because this treatment had no drivable roads.
Each roadside survey period was similar in time and length (about 2 hrs for 16-24 km) and
covered approximately equal areas of the 3 habitat treatments for each mine. The only
exception was the Daltex mine, which lacked areas representative of the shrub/pole treatment.
All raptor species observed were recorded along with the time, distance away from the road
(m), habitat, and behavior. Other data recorded were the length of survey (km), start and end
of survey, and weather conditions (cloud cover, precipitation and wind).
Small Mammal Abundance
In May-August 2000, small mammal abundance and richness were quantified on 38 150-m long
transects adjacent to riparian zones with each of the 4 treatments replicated 8-10 times (Tables
1 and 2). In May-August 1999, 24 transects in 3 treatments (grassland, fragmented forest,
intact forest) were sampled. The number of transects sampled for the Mud River watershed
was greater than that for the other 2 watersheds because these transects had already been
established and sampled in 1999 before the study was expanded to include the Twentymile
Creek watershed. Small mammal transects coincided with a randomly selected subset of the
songbird point count stations located 35 m from the stream or rip-rap channel. Transects
crossed the 50-m radius circle of the point count plot, about 10m from the channel (Fig. 13)
and were oriented so that their centers aligned with the center of the point count station.
Transects followed a constant bearing for as long as the channel allowed, changing direction
only when necessary to maintain a fairly uniform channel distance. Trapping stations were
placed at 10-m intervals along each transect line, with 2 Sherman live traps (7.7 x 7.7 x 23 cm)
placed within 2 m of each trapping station. Thus, each transect had 30 traps. Bait consisted of
a peanut butter and oat mixture. Trapping methods followed those of Jones et al. (1996).
The 38 transect lines were divided into 5 trapping blocks. Two of these blocks included 6
transects with 2 each from 3 of the treatments. In these blocks, the older reclaimed treatment
was not represented because reclaimed land of this age was not present in close proximity to
the other 3 treatments. Another 2 blocks included 8 transects with 2 from each of the 4
treatments. The fifth block included 10 transects: 2 from each of the 4 treatments plus an
additional 2 transects in an older reclaimed area that is now dominated by pine woodlands.
Transects within each block were trapped concurrently, thus minimizing temporal effects on
comparisons between treatments. Blocks contained transects located as close to one another
25
-------
as the landscape allowed to minimize spatial differences. The traps were rotated weekly to a
new block until each block was trapped 2 times over the summer. Traps were pre-baited for 1
night and then opened and checked for 3 consecutive nights. The period between trapping
sessions at a given block was about 25 days.
Captured animals were identified, weighed, sexed, and examined for reproductive status. All
individuals except members of the shrew family (Soricidae) were marked with numbered metal
ear tags before release. Because shrews have small external ears, these species (short-tailed
shrew and masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) were marked by toe-clipping (ACUC# 9904-10).
Any individuals that died in traps were saved as voucher specimens.
Statistical methods included calculations of relative abundance of small mammals, expressed
as the number of individuals trapped per 100 trap nights, with recaptures excluded. A
correction was made for sprung traps in calculations of trap effort; one-half a trap night was
subtracted for each trap sprung for any reason, including the capture of an animal (Nelson and
Clark 1972, Beauvais and Buskirk 1999). Species richness was calculated as the number of
species captured per transect. A randomized block analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Zar 1999)
was used to compare total relative abundance, species-specific relative abundance, and
species richness among treatments. Concurrently trapped transects were considered blocks
for this model since temporal and spatial factors were minimized by the design. When
differences between treatments were detected by the ANOVA, Duncan's multiple comparison
test was used to find where the differences occurred. Statistical tests were considered
significant at P < 0.05.
Surveys were not conducted for larger mammals such as carnivores and ungulates (Order
Carnivora, Order Artiodactyla); however, any incidental sighting was recorded to document their
presence on the study area. Surveys also were not conducted for bats (Order Chiroptera),
though an important part of the mammalian fauna, due to time and logistical limitations.
Because small mammal trapping initially began in 1999, we chose to continue sampling this
group in 2000.
Herpetofaunal Abundance
Pitfall and funnel traps, when associated with drift fence arrays, are extremely effective in
collecting large numbers of herpetofauna and in capturing the majority of species from a given
area with minimal effort (Campbell and Christman 1982, Vogt and Mine 1982, Jones 1986, Bury
and Corn 1987, Mengak and Guynn 1987, Pais et al. 1988, Corn 1994). Campbell and
Christman (1982) also found that drift fence arrays can be used to "...provide a clear indication
of relative abundances between habitat types." Drift fence arrays have been used effectively in
both forested areas (Bury and Corn 1987) and grassland/wetland areas (Vogt and Mine 1982,
Homyack 1999). Accordingly, we chose this method to gain relative abundance and species
richness data for comparison among the 4 treatments.
Because of their ability to intercept animals traveling in any direction, we used plus (+) shaped
arrays with 15 m of central separation (Fig. 16; Campbell and Christman 1982, Corn 1994).
Fifteen meter sections of 30-cm tall plastic silt fencing, supported by wooden stakes, were used
to construct the drift fence (Enge 1997). Silt fencing is lighter and cheaper than the traditionally
used aluminum flashing, but is durable and appears to work just as well (Enge 1997, Homyack
1999). An 18.9-L plastic bucket (pitfall trap), was buried flush with the surface at the end of
each individual drift fence (Campbell and Christman 1982, Vogt and Mine 1982, Pais et al.
26
-------
1988, Corn 1994). Plastic bucket lids, elevated by sections of untreated 2x4, served as shade
covers when the traps were open and were inverted to close traps when necessary (Homyack
1999). To prevent desiccation of captured herpetofauna, 2-3 cm of water was placed in the
bottom of each trap (Vogt and Mine 1982). In addition, the water kills any inadvertently
captured small mammals or arthropods that may otherwise injure trapped herpetofauna (Vogt
and Mine 1982). All drift fence segments had funnel traps (minnow trap #1275, Frabill,
Jackson, Wise.) located at the midpoint on either side of the fence (Campbell and Christman
1982, Vogt and Mine 1982, Bury and Corn 1987, Pais et al. 1988, Corn 1994). Soil or leaves
were brushed into the entrance of funnel traps to create a more natural entrance for
herpetofauna (Campbell and Christman 1982). Sections of silt fencing were attached to funnel
traps to provide shade for captured organisms (Homyack 1999). The 4 arms of the 'plus' and
associated traps made up the drift fence array.
Arrays overlapped 12 randomly selected songbird point count stations that were positioned 35
m from a stream or rip-rap channel (Fig. 12). Arrays were distributed over the 3 watersheds
with 3 arrays per treatment (Table 2). All arrays were opened simultaneously for 5 days in
March and 8-12 consecutive days during each month of the field season (March - September
2000). While traps were open, they were visited at least every other day (Campbell and
Christian 1982, Vogt and Mine 1982, Corn 1994). Captured organisms were identified to
species using field guides, marked so that individuals recaptured during a trapping session
could be identified, and released 3 m from the drift fence array (Campbell and Christian 1982,
Vogt and Mine 1982, Fellers et al. 1994). Frogs, toads, salamanders, and lizards were marked
using toe clipping where each individual was given a unique number based on its toe clips.
When possible, missing or deformed toes were used to identify an individual rather than
clipping a toe. Snakes initially were marked with a v-shaped notch at the edge of a ventral
scale. We later marked snakes by painting a number on the back with white-out. We also
recorded the trap number and trap type (Fig. 16) for each individual captured. Voucher
specimens of all unusual or hard-to-identify herpetofauna were killed and preserved according
to the techniques described by McDiarmid (1994b). Small mammals were identified to species
and, if they were alive, released.
Because length of the trapping periods varied somewhat, the number of animals captured in all
pitfall and funnel traps on each array during a trapping period were summed and divided by the
number of nights the traps were open in a trapping period (Corn 1994). These values (mean
captures per array-night in each trapping period) were used in statistical analyses. Although
few individuals were recaptured, recaptures were excluded from data summaries. Treatments
were compared with ANOVA with mean abundance and richness as the dependent variables
and treatment, trapping period, and the interaction between treatment and trapping period as
independent variables.
Quality Control Procedures
Sampling was conducted on 3 (Mud River, Spruce Fork, and Twentymile Creek) of the 5
watersheds chosen by the EPA. The Island Creek and Clear Fork sites were not selected
because past and existing land use would confound study results. Four treatments (intact
forest; fragmented forest; young reclaimed mine: grassland; and older reclaimed mine:
shrub/pole stage) were replicated at each site (Tables 1 and 2). An unbalanced sampling
design among treatments and taxa was necessary because of logistics (e.g. point counts
required less time to sample per point than do small mammal transects) and a lack of some
treatments at some sites. Multiple replicates allowed us to incorporate variation across sites,
27
-------
and enabled us to make statistical inferences regarding species abundances and diversity
among treatments. Sampling points (i.e., point counts, transect lines, and trap arrays) were
distributed to be representative and to minimize spatial differences, while at the same time
maintaining sampling efficiency. Concurrent sampling among taxa and sites was used to
minimize temporal effects.
Quality control was insured through a hierarchical oversight procedure. Data on each taxon
was collected by a 2-3 person team. Each team included a supervisor (MS students for
mammal and raptor studies, trained technician for herpetofaunal study, and PhD research
biologist for songbird studies) and field technicians. Overall data collection was supervised by
the PhD research biologist in coordination with project Pis. This team approach allowed for
consistent data collection during the 1999 and 2000 field seasons. Individual team supervisors
remained the same in both years, while field technicians changed the second year. This
approach insured precision and consistency in methodologies and reduced sampling error.
Data collection adhered to established protocols (e.g. point counts, trapping, drift fences, raptor
surveys) for each taxon and are detailed in the methods. Technicians received ample training
in methodologies and species identification (e.g. simultaneous point counts) prior to any
unsupervised data collection. Voucher specimens of unusual or hard-to-identify mammalian or
herpetofaunal species were collected and preserved to insure data accuracy.
Results and Discussion
Habitat at Sampling Points
Habitat variables were measured at all sampling points in 1999 and 2000 (Table 6). Nineteen
variables were measured in all treatments. Means for all habitat variables by treatment and
mine are found in Appendix 4
Stem densities of saplings, poles, and trees in 5 size classes all differed significantly among
treatments (Table 7). Pole density, and densities of trees >8-23 cm and >23-38 cm were higher
in fragmented and intact forest than in the grassland and shrub/pole treatments and also higher
in the shrub/pole treatment than in the grassland treatment. Density of trees >53-68 cm was
greater in fragmented forest than in the intact forest, grassland, and shrub/pole treatments, and
greater in the intact forest treatment than in the grassland and shrub/pole treatments. Trees
>68 cm were more abundant in the intact forest and fragmented forest treatments than in the
grassland and shrub/pole treatments (Table 7).
Statistical analysis revealed treatment by mine interactions for saplings and trees >38-53 cm
(Table 7); therefore treatments were compared on individual mines, and mines were compared
in individual treatments. Sapling density was higher at the Hobet and Daltex mines than at the
Cannelton mine in the grassland treatment, and trees >38-53 cm had higher density in the
shrub/pole treatment on the Cannelton mine than the Hobet mine and higher density in the
intact treatment at the Daltex and Hobet mines than the Cannelton mine (Table 8). At all 3
mines, sapling density was higher in the shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest
treatments than in the grassland treatment. At the Cannelton mine density of trees >38-53 cm
differed among all 4 treatments, with the highest density in the fragmented forest treatment and
lowest density in the grassland treatment (Table 9). At the Hobet mine, density of trees >38-53
cm was higher in both fragmented and intact forest treatments than in grassland and shrub/pole
treatments (Table 9).
28
-------
Ground cover variables differed significantly among treatments. Although water cover was
highest in the fragmented forest treatment than in the other 3 treatments and higher in the
intact forest treatment than in the grassland or shrub/pole treatment (Table 7), cover of
standing water averaged <1.2%. Woody debris and moss cover were higher in fragmented and
intact forest than in the grassland and shrub/pole treatments. Green cover was higher in the
shrub/pole treatment than in the other 3 treatments, and higher in the grassland treatment than
in the fragmented forest or intact forest treatments (Table 7).
Bareground cover and litter cover had significant treatment by mine interactions. Bareground
cover was higher at the Cannelton mine in the fragmented forest treatment than at the other 2
mines and higher at the Daltex mine than the Hobet mine in the grassland treatment (Table 8).
Litter cover was higher at the Hobet mine than the other 2 mines and higher at the Daltex mine
than the Cannelton mine in the grassland treatment (Table 8). Bareground and litter cover also
differed among treatments at the Cannelton and Hobet mines. At the Cannelton mine litter
cover was higher in the fragmented and intact forest treatments than the shrub/pole and
grassland treatments, and higher in the shrub/pole treatment than in the grassland treatment
(Table 9). At the Hobet mine, litter cover differed among all treatments; it was highest in the
fragmented forest treatment, followed by intact forest, grassland, and shrub/pole treatments
(Table 9). Bareground cover at the Cannelton mine was higher in the fragmented forest, intact
forest, and grassland treatment than in the shrub/pole treatment. At the Hobet mine,
bareground cover was higher in the fragmented forest treatment than in the shrub/pole
treatment, and higher in the intact forest treatment than in the shrub/pole and grassland
treatments (Table 9).
Slope, aspect code, elevation, and distances to nearest minor, habitat, and mine/forest edges
also were compared among all 4 treatments (Table 7). Distance to nearest minor edge was
greater in the grassland treatment than in the other 3 treatments (Tables 6-7). There were
significant mine x treatment interactions for slope, aspect code, elevation, distance to closest
habitat edge, and distance to nearest mine/forest edge. The differences among treatments and
mines for these variables are found in Tables 8-9.
Six variables were compared between grassland and shrub/pole treatments and mines. Litter
depth was higher on the Hobet mine than the Cannelton and Daltex mines and higher in the
Daltex mine than the Cannelton mine (Table 7). The Robel pole index was higher on the
Cannelton mine than the other two mines and higher on the Daltex mine than the Hobet mine
(Table 7). Forb cover was higher on the Cannelton and Daltex mines than on the Hobet mine
(Table 7). The other variables all showed significant treatment by mine interactions. Grass
height was higher at the Hobet mine than at the Daltex and Cannelton mines in the grassland
treatment and higher at the Hobet mine than the Cannelton mine in the shrub/pole treatment
(Table 9). Ground cover of grass and shrubs differed among mines, but not between
grassland and shrub/pole treatments (Table 8-9).
Canopy height, percent canopy cover in 6 layer classes, and the structural diversity index were
compared among the fragmented forest, intact forest, and shrub/pole treatments (Table 7).
Percent canopy cover in 5 layer classes differed among treatments but not among mines (Table
7). There were treatment by mine interactions for canopy height and cover from >3-6 m.
Canopy height was higher at the Cannelton mine than the Daltex and Hobet mines in the
fragmented forest treatment, and was higher at the Daltex mine than the Hobet mine in the
intact treatment (Table 8). Canopy cover from >3-6 m was higher at the Cannelton and Daltex
29
-------
mines than the Hobet mine in the intact forest treatment (Table 8). This cover layer also
differed among treatments at the Cannelton and Hobet mines (Table 9). It was higher in the
fragmented and intact forest treatments than the shrub/pole treatment at the Cannelton mine.
At the Hobet mine it was highest in the intact forest, followed by fragmented forest and
shrub/pole treatments (Table 9).
The majority of minor edge types in the grassland treatment were open-canopy roads and
valleyfills (Table 10). In the shrub/pole treatment the majority of minor edges also were open-
canopy roads and valleyfills. The majority of minor edge types were stream and open-canopy
road in fragmented forest, and partially-open canopy road and stream in intact forest (Table
10). These percentages are based on subplots and not point count centers, because subplots
in a point count circle could occur closer to different edge types. The average distances to any
edge type were 110 m in grasslands, 67 m in shrub/pole, 38 m in fragmented forest, and 66 m
in intact forest. Again, these averages are based on subplots and not the point count center.
Fifteen tree/shrub species were observed on grassland sampling points, with predominant
species including autumn olive, European black alder, blackberry/raspberry, multiflora rose, red
maple, sourwood, and white pine (Appendix 2). In the shrub/pole treatment, 38 species were
observed, with black locust being the most predominant. Twenty-seven species were observed
on the Cannelton mine in shrub/pole habitat, and twenty-one species were observed on the
Hobet mine site. An additional 7 species were observed in shrub/pole treatment at the Hill Fork
site, which was a valley fill associated with a contour mine. Sixty-three species were observed
in fragmented forest, and 60 species were observed in intact forest (Appendix 2).
Songbirds
Comparison of Expected to Observed Bird Species
Buckelew and Hall (1994) in The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (WV BBA) identified 92 bird
species as being either "probable" or "confirmed" breeders in the counties of Boone, Fayette,
Kanawha, and Logan in southern West Virginia (Table 11). Only 8 of these species were not
observed during the course of this study based on pond surveys, point count surveys and
incidental observations: House Wren, Warbling Vireo, Pine Warbler, Winter Wren, House
Sparrow, Purple Martin, House Finch, and Rock Dove. These 8 species are found in habitats
that were not surveyed during this study. The House Wren and Warbling Vireo are found in
bottomland hardwood thickets and around human habitations, and the Pine Warbler, as its
name suggests, is restricted to stands of pines. The House Sparrow, House Finch, Rock Dove,
and Purple Martin also are found around human dwellings and generally are not often observed
in the types of habitat that we surveyed. The Winter Wren is most often observed in higher
elevations in West Virginia, and it is likely that this species occurs in the higher elevations of
eastern Fayette County. Our study site (Cannelton mine) was located in southwestern Fayette
County.
Several grassland and shrub species that we observed on mine sites were not listed by the WV
BBA as being probable or confirmed breeders in southern West Virginia (Table 11). These
included: Bobolink, Dickcissel, Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Horned Lark, Ring-
necked Pheasant, Vesper Sparrow, Willow Flycatcher, Blue Grosbeak, and Purple Finch.
Dickcissels and Horned Larks historically were midwestern species that have moved east from
the prairies (Askins 1999). We observed several male Dickcissels defending territories and 1
30
-------
female carrying food in Logan County at the Daltex mine; it is probable that this species is
breeding there. They were only observed incidentally in Boone, Fayette, and Kanawha counties
at the Hobet and Cannelton mines. Two Horned Lark nests were found, 1 in Boone County at
the Hobet 21 mine and 1 in Logan County on the Daltex mine. Grasshopper Sparrows, a
species listed as "rare" by the West Virginia Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program (2000), were
abundant on our grassland sites. We found several nests of Grasshopper Sparrows at all 3
mine sites, and thus, this species is a confirmed breeder in these areas. One nest of a Willow
Flycatcher was found by observers working on the Cannelton mine (D. Stover, personal
communication). Willow Flycatchers and Blue Grosbeaks were most often observed defending
territories in blocks of autumn olive. Several female Blue Grosbeaks were observed during the
study, but no nests were found. Only 1 male Purple Finch was observed, at the Cannelton
Mine, and it was likely just an incidental occurrence. Ring-necked Pheasants were observed at
the Hobet mine, but it is suspected that these are released birds and not wild birds. No females
or nests were located for this species.
Typical grassland species that were rare or absent on our sites included Henslow's Sparrow,
Savannah Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, and Bobolink. Henslow's Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow
were only recorded at the Logan County mine in very low densities, and no females were
observed, so it is likely that neither species are breeding at our mine sites. Henslow's Sparrow
populations are rare, scattered, and local in distribution (Herkert and Glass 1990) and are listed
as a "rare" species in West Virginia (West Virginia Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program
2000). They prefer grasslands with tall, dense vegetation with a well-developed litter layer
(Herkert and Glass 1990). Due to the young age of our sites, the habitat may not be suitable
for this species. Vesper Sparrows prefer grasslands with high amounts of bareground for
nesting (Strait 1981), courtship, and foraging (Wray 1982). Strait (1981) found that Vesper
Sparrows prefer to nest in areas with a mean bareground cover of 29%, and Wray (1982) found
that bareground cover on Vesper Sparrow territories averaged 35.5%. Our grassland study
sites only had a mean bareground cover of 7.7%, which may have limited this species on our
sites. Bobolinks, also listed as a "rare" species in the state (West Virginia Wildlife and Natural
Heritage Program 2000), were only observed early in the spring and were assumed to be
migrating. Savannah Sparrows were not observed on any of our sites, although they are a
common grassland species in other areas of West Virginia (Wray et al. 1982, Warren and
Anderson, unpub. data).
Historically, grassland bird species in the eastern United States were restricted to limited
patches of habitat interspersed among forest stands (DeSelm and Murdock 1993). Virtually no
natural grasslands are believed to be have been present historically in the Allegheny and
Cumberland Plateaus of West Virginia (DeSelm and Murdock 1993), where most MTMVF
occurs in this state. Native grasslands in these physiographic provinces are primarily found in
the moderately deep to shallow soil of uplands (DeSelm and Murdock 1993). Grassy balds
composed of moonshine grass (Danthonia compressa) with scattered hawthorn trees
(Crataegus spp.) occur on high elevation mountain tops in the Allegheny Mountain and Ridge
and Valley provinces of West Virginia. Heath barrens of heath shrubs and low-growing plants,
as well as glades similar to bog communities, also occur in these provinces (Strausbaugh and
Core 1977). Although natural grasslands were limited, grasslands created by Native Americans
for agriculture and hunting did exist (Askins 1999). Presently, human-made grasslands in these
provinces include pastures, old fields, lawns, golf courses, and surface mines. Grassland birds
typically observed in these habitats include Horned Lark and Dickcissel, that have moved east
from the midwestern prairies, and species such as the Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink,
Savannah Sparrow, and Grasshopper Sparrow, that are assumed to have expanded into these
31
-------
areas from coastal and marsh grasslands (DeSelm and Murdock 1993, Askins 1999). All of
these species were reported by early ornithologists in the East (Askins 1999).
Several wetland species not listed by the WV BBA were observed at pond sites on reclaimed
mines (Table 11). Fifty-seven species were observed during pond surveys within 50 m of
ponds on MTMVF areas (Table 11). The majority of these species were grassland and edge
species that were detected in habitats adjacent to ponds. Ducks, geese, wading birds, and
shorebirds all used the ponds. Mallards and Canada Geese were observed frequently, as well
as Green and Great Blue Herons. During migration several shorebirds were observed using
the ponds, including Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, and Spotted and Solitary Sandpipers.
Three species of swallows (Barn, Northern Rough-winged, and Tree) as well as Chimney Swifts
were observed foraging over ponds, whereas Cliff Swallows were observed foraging in adjacent
grassland habitat. Sandpiper species and yellowlegs were likely migrating during the May pond
surveys. None of these species were observed during the July pond surveys. Many of the
species we observed also have been documented by other researchers examining wetlands on
surface mines (Allaire 1979, Perkins and Lawrence 1985, Brooks et al. 1985, Krause et al.
1985, Lawrence et al. 1985, McConnell and Samuel 1985).
The West Virginia Gap Analysis Lab (J. Straiger, pers. comm.) also provided us with a list of
species expected to occur in southern West Virginia based on remote sensing data of the
available habitat (Table 11). Most of the species predicted to occur in our areas were observed
during this study. A few exceptions included Chestnut-sided Warbler, Rose-breasted
Grosbeak, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Canada Warbler, and Winter Wren. All of these
species are associated with the northern hardwood forest type (Hinkle et al. 1993) and typically
occur at high elevations (>900 m) in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia (Wood et al.
1998, Demeo 1999, Weakland 2000). This habitat and elevation were absent in our study
area, and thus it is not surprising that we did not observe these species. Wetland species that
Gap predicted to occur that we did not observe included the American Black Duck, Hooded
Merganser, and Swamp Sparrow. We observed all of the grassland species that they predicted
as well as all of the edge species, except for the Chestnut-sided Warbler, mentioned above,
and the Warbling Vireo, which is found in bottomland hardwood thickets and near human
dwellings.
Songbird Abundances in Grassland and Shrub/pole Habitats
We observed 63 species of birds in reclaimed sites with 30 species in the grassland treatment
and 41 species in the shrub/pole treatment on MTMVF areas in southern West Virginia during
point count surveys (Table 12). The most abundant songbird species in grassland areas of
reclaimed mines were Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark, Red-winged Blackbird,
Horned Lark, and Dickcissel. Species associated with shrub/pole habitat also were observed
using small shrubs as perches and nesting in blocks of autumn olive at our grassland points.
These species included Indigo Bunting, Common Yellowthroat, Willow Flycatcher, Song
Sparrow, American Goldfinch, Blue Grosbeak, Brown Thrasher, Orchard Oriole, Field Sparrow,
and Yellow-breasted Chat. The average abundances of bird species by mine and treatment are
found in Appendix 3.
The most abundant species in the older reclaimed areas (shrub/pole habitats) included
American Goldfinch, Blue-winged Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Eastern Towhee, Field
Sparrow, Indigo Bunting, Northern Cardinal, Prairie Warbler, White-eyed Vireo, Yellow Warbler,
and Yellow-Breasted Chat (Table 12). This bird community included all 4 habitat guilds
32
-------
because these areas had a mixture of vegetation characteristics (grass/forb, shrubs, and trees
of small and moderate size).
Point counts measure relative abundance, so to compare our results with other studies we
converted our abundance estimates to density estimates by dividing the mean number of birds
observed by the number of hectares (0.79) in a 50-m radius point count circle. However, it was
difficult to compare grassland bird densities with other studies because of differences in
methods. For example, spot mapping and territory flush methods primarily count singing males
or male territories in a defined area, whereas point counts and strip transects record all birds
either seen or heard, including females and juveniles. Thus, our estimates may be higher than
those observed in studies that used territory count methods.
Densities of Grasshopper Sparrows, our most abundant species in the grassland treatment,
were much higher than those reported in other studies (Table 13). Allaire (1979) found a much
lower density on 1-4-yr old reclaimed MTMVF areas in eastern Kentucky. Our sites have been
reclaimed for at least 5 years, and the average age was 11 years. Thus, Grasshopper
Sparrows may have had more time to settle on our sites than Allaire's (1979). Additionally,
vegetative structure on our mines may have been more suitable for Grasshopper Sparrows
than the vegetation on his sites. LeClerc (1982) found Grasshopper Sparrows preferred mines
with a high amount of forb cover and a low amount of bare ground cover. Our sites were more
developed vegetatively than Allaire's (1979). The amount of bareground cover on his sites
averaged 17%, whereas ours averaged only 8%, and the height of foliage on his sites averaged
6.4 dm, wheareas ours averaged 7.3 dm. Other studies on reclaimed surface mines and in
other types of grassland habitat report lower densities of Grasshopper Sparrows (Table 13), but
these differences may be due to the method used to calculate density. Territory mapping and
flushes estimate the number of territory-holding males in an area while point counts include all
singing males. Our study sites may have contained high numbers of unmated males (also see
nest success section below). The higher numbers detected in our study were not due to overall
population increases since Allaire's study. Breeding Bird Survey data indicate a declining trend
in grasshopper sparrow populations in the 2 physiographic provinces (Cumberland Plateau and
Ohio Hills) that overlap our study sites (Sauer et al. 2000).
With the exception of Bobolinks and Savannah and Vesper Sparrows, densities of other
species on our sites fell within the ranges reported by other researchers on reclaimed mines
and other grassland habitat (Table 13). Neither Savannah nor Vesper Sparrows were observed
in 2000 on our sites, and only 2 Vesper Sparrows were heard in 1999 at the Logan County
mine. Bobolinks were only observed on 2 point counts in 2000, and they may have been
migrants. Our sites lie at the southern extreme of the breeding range for these 3 species
(Buckelewand Hall 1994).
Songbird abundances in our shrub/pole community are similar to those found by others who
have examined surface mines (Brewer 1958, Chapman 1977, Crawford, et al. 1978, LeClerc
1982, Wray 1982). Because our shrub/pole treatment included a few sites on the oldest
MTMVF area in West Virginia (-26 years) compared to an average of 18 years (range 13-25)
for the remaining sites, we examined these different-aged sites separately (Table 14). Overall
species richness and total abundance were similar between younger and older shrub/pole
areas with a 65% similarity in the bird community (Table 14). Our results were similar to
abundances reported by Denmon (1998) on early successional sites (33% reclaimed mines, the
remainder on unmined lands) throughout West Virginia (Table 14). In addition, all of the
species listed by Hinkle et al. (1993) as being present in shrub habitat or shrub-small tree
33
-------
habitat in the mixed mesophytic forest region were present on our shrub point counts. One
shrub/pole species of conservation interest is the Golden-winged Warbler, which is listed by
Partners in Flight as a species of concern in the entire Northeast region. We only observed this
species at the Cannelton mine site at 3 point count stations, and it is possible that the Hobet
and Daltex mine sites were out of this species' elevational or geographic ranges. If this species
is limited by range, it is unlikely that MTMVF will increase habitat for this species in the Mud
River and Spruce Fork watersheds.
Songbird Abundances in Fragmented and Intact Forest
Mixed mesophytic forests support the richest and most abundant avifaunal community in the
eastern United States outside of bottomland and swamp habitats (Hinkle et al. 1993). All of the
bird species listed by Hinkle et al. (1993) as being present in mature, mixed mesophytic forest
were observed on our sites. We observed 50 species of birds in forested sites with 47 species
in the fragmented forest treatment and 43 species in the intact forest treatment during point
count surveys (Table 12). The most abundant forest interior species on our sites included
Acadian Flycatcher, Blue-headed Vireo, Cerulean Warbler, Kentucky Warbler, Ovenbird, and
Wood Thrush (Table 12).
Songbird abundances in our intact forest sites generally were similar to those reported by other
researchers in undisturbed forests of the mixed mesophytic forest region (Anderson and
Shugart 1974, Allaire 1979, Wood et al. 1998, Demeo 1999; Table 15). Two species of note,
however, are Ovenbird and Cerulean Warbler. Ovenbirds occurred at higher densities on our
intact treatment than in any other study (Table 15). The Cerulean Warbler, a species of high
concern in the eastern United States, occurred at higher densities on our sites than in other
areas of West Virginia, though at lower densities than in Kentucky. They were observed at 40%
of all intact forest point counts and at 28% of fragmented forest point counts. Cerulean
Warblers have been declining in many parts of their range, and southwestern West Virginia
may represent a significant source population for this species in the eastern United States
(Rosenberg and Wells 1999). It is estimated that 47% of the Cerulean Warbler population in
North America occurs in the Ohio Hills physiographic area (Rosenberg 2000), which includes
part of our study area.
Abundances of several species of songbirds on our study sites differed between fragmented
forest and intact forest (Table 12). Six species were significantly more abundant in intact
forests: Acadian Flycatcher, Ovenbird, American Redstart, Hooded Warbler, and Brown-headed
Cowbird in both 1999 and 2000, and the Scarlet Tanager in 1999 (Table 12). Red-eyed Vireos
and Indigo Buntings were significantly more abundant in fragmented forest than intact forest in
both years, while 6 species (American Goldfinch, Downy Woodpecker, Louisiana Waterthrush,
Northern Parula, Pileated Woodpecker, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo) were more abundant during
1 year. The Louisiana Waterthrush occurs near streams, where it nests in stream banks and
forages in the stream. Proportionally more of the fragmented forest sampling points were
located along streams than in the intact forest treatment. Therefore, we ran a subsequent
analysis for this species using only points located within 50-m of a stream. With this restriction
we found no significant differences in abundance of this species between fragmented and
intact treatments (F=0.36, P=0.55). The American Goldfinch and Indigo Bunting are edge
species, while the Downy Woodpecker, Northern Parula, Red-eyed Vireo and Yellow-billed
Cuckoo are considered interior-edge species. These birds may be responding to the higher
amount of edge in fragmented forest than in intact forest (Temple 1986).
34
-------
The Brown-headed Cowbird had very low abundance in our study (0.07 birds/count). This
species was observed only at 1 intact forest point count in 1999, and only at 1 fragmented
forest and 7 intact forest point counts in 2000. The species was not observed in the Twentymile
Creek watershed. Thus, we suspect that Brown-headed Cowbird parastism is likely to be low in
this region and not a significant cause of nest losses. The abundance of cowbirds is relatively
low in other parts of West Virginia as well (Demeo 1999, Weakland 2000).
High moisture availability in mature mixed mesophytic forests may contribute to the high
densities of many species of songbirds in these habitats as compared to forests with lower
ambient moisture, such as xeric oak-hickory forests (Hinkle et al. 1993). Species that are
abundant and common in mixed mesophytic forests, such as Cerulean Warblers, Kentucky
Warblers, Acadian Flycatchers, and Ovenbirds, are frequently less abundant and rare in drier
forests (Hinkle et al. 1993). Several species in our study had higher abundance in intact forest
than fragmented forest. It is possible that fragmented stands are drier because the
microclimate has been altered (Faaborg et al. 1995) and that songbirds are responding
negatively to this change. In addition, fragmentation also may negatively affect songbird
species by leading to higher rates of predation, cowbird parasitism, interspecific competition,
and to lower pairing success and nesting success (Faaborg et al. 1995). Additionally, some
species have "minimum area requirements" and are not found in fragments below a certain size
threshold. As forest size is reduced, specific microhabitats upon which some species depend
also may be reduced or even disappear. Consequently, species associated with those
microhabitats may disappear or decline in fragmented forest (Faaborg et al. 1995). The
Ovenbird, Acadian Flycatcher, Hooded Warbler, and American Redstart, species that were
more abundant in intact forests than fragments in our study, prefer large blocks of mature forest
in eastern deciduous forests (Robbins 1980, Blake and Karr 1987). The Ovenbird is known to
have lower pairing success and lower nest survival in forest fragments than in intact forests
(Gibbs and Faaborg 1990, Robinson et al. 1995, Hagan et al. 1996), and the Hooded Warbler
also has lower nest survival in fragmented landscapes (Robinson et al. 1995).
Species-specific Logistic Regression Models
The presence/absence of 10 forest-dwelling songbird species of conservation priority for the
region were related to specific habitat variables. Logistic regression models were fit for each
species and none were rejected due to lack-of-fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests,
P>0.10),
The presence/absence of 10 forest-dwelling songbird species of conservation priority for the
region were related to specific habitat variables. Logistic regression models were fit for each
species and none were rejected due to lack-of-fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests,
P>0.10),
Cerulean Warbler
The Cerulean Warbler, with the highest conservation priority rating (Table 5), was found to be
positively related to percent slope and percent canopy cover from >6-12 m (Table 16). The
Ohio Hills and Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic provinces where MTMVF mining is
prominent are within the core area for the Cerulean Warbler. It is estimated that 46.8% of this
species' population is found within the Ohio Hills province alone (Rosenburg 2000). This
species prefers large tracts of mature forests with large, tall trees (P. Hamel, unpub. rept.). We
found Ceruleans more often on steeper slopes, as did Dettmers and Bart (1999) in
southeastern Ohio. Based on habitat preferences, it is reasonable to conclude that continued
35
-------
MTMVF mining will negatively impact Cerulean Warbler abundance in southwestern West
Virginia.
Lousiana Waterthrush
The Lousiana Waterthrush, with the second highest conservation rating, was negatively related
to percent bareground cover and pole density, and was positively related to percent moss cover
(Table 16). This species is found in large tracts of mature forest and nests on the ground along
stream banks (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Bushman and Therres (1988)
suggested that wooded streambanks and ravines be protected in order to maintain this species.
Given valleys and streams are covered by MTMVF operations and reduces mature forest cover,
it is logical to conclude that this species also will be negatively affected by loss of streamside
forest habitat from this type of mining.
Worm-eating Warbler
This species was positively related to percent woody debris cover and negatively related to
percent canopy cover from >12-18 m, aspect, percent litter cover, and elevation (Table 17).
Worm-eating Warblers typically are found in ravines and on hillsides in deciduous woods where
they nest on the ground in leaf litter (Ehrlich et al. 1988, Dettmers and Bart 1999). They are
most abundant in mature forests, although they may be found in young- and medium-aged
forest stands as well (Bushman and Therres 1988). Robbins (1980) and Whitcomb et al.
(1981) suggested that this species requires large tracts of mature forest and may have a low
tolerance for fragmentation. The greatest threat to this species from MTMVF is the loss and
fragmentation of forested habitat.
Kentucky Warbler
Kentucky Warblers were present at points with a high percent of canopy cover from >6-12 m,
and low sapling and pole density and also were present more often at lower elevations (Table
17). Kentucky Warblers prefer rich, moist forests and bottomlands with well-developed ground
cover (Bushman and Therres 1984). This species appears to be moderately affected by
fragmentation and may be found in small woodlots, but in Maryland the highest frequency of
occurrence for this species was in forests from 130-700 ha in size (Bushman and Therres
1988). Loss of wooded ravines and bottomlands could negatively affect this species.
Acadian Flycatcher
This species was one of our most abundant birds and abundance was correlated to many
habitat variables (Table 18). It was positively related to trees >68 cm, and negatively related to
saplings and trees 8-23 cm dbh, indicating an association with mature forests. It also was
positively related to distance from mine/forest edge, structural diversity, and percent
bareground, and negatively associated with elevation. Acadian Flycatchers prefer moist ravines
and stream bottoms. Dettmers and Bart (1999) considered this species to be a habitat
"specialist" at the microhabitat (i.e. territory or home range) level. Bushman and Therres (1988)
found that Acadian flycatchers prefer forests with high canopy cover, large trees, and an open
understory. This species prefers large blocks of mature contiguous forest for breeding, and
appears to avoid edges. We found this species to be more abundant as distance from mine
edge increased and more abundant in intact forest, which could indicate that MTMVF mining is
detrimental to this species.
Wood Thrush
36
-------
Wood Thrush were positively related to density of trees >23-38 cm dbh and negatively
associated with elevation (Table 18). Wood Thrush are found in deciduous and mixed
coniferous-deciduous forest, with highest densities occurring in the Appalachian Mountain
region (James et al. 1984). They prefer mature forests with some small trees in the understory
for nesting and a moist, leafy litter layer for foraging (James et al. 1984).
Yellow-throated Vireo
Presence of this species was related to several variables. It was positively related to percent
canopy cover from 6-12 m, aspect, slope, elevation, and density of trees from 38-53 cm (Table
19). It was negatively associated with distance to mine/forest edge and percent bareground. It
is most abundant in mature forests and appears to prefer stream borders and bottomland
forests (Bushman and Therres 1988). Yellow-throated Vireos appear to have a low tolerance
for forest fragmentation (Whitcomb et al. 1981). MTMVF mining could potentially reduce
abundance of in this species because of its preference for mature forest along streams, which
may be lost due to mining.
Hooded Warbler
Hooded Warblers were positively related to percent cover of woody debris and pole density
(Table 19). Hooded Warblers typically are found in moist deciduous forests and ravines with a
well-developed understory (Ehrlich et al. 1988), but also may be found along ridges with a high
density of shrub stems (Dettmers and Bart 1999). It is suspected that this species is
fragmentation-sensitive (Bushman and Therres 1988), and we found it to occur at higher
abundances in intact than fragmented forest sites.
Scarlet Tanager
This species was negatively associated with percent bareground cover. They were positively
associated with elevation, percent slope, density of trees from >38-53 cm, and canopy cover
from >12-18 m (Table 20). This species may be found in a wide range of successional stages
of forests, but is most abundant in mature woods with a dense canopy (Bushman and Therres
1988). This species does not appear to be as fragmentation-sensitive as other forest interior
species, and may tolerate smaller forests and edges (Bushman and Therres 1988); however, it
was more abundant in our intact than fragmented forest sites during 1 year of the study., and
was more common at points further away from mine/forest edge.
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-and-white Warblers were positively associated with pole density, percent ground cover of
moss, aspect, and distance from mine/forest edge (Table 20). It was negatively associated with
percent canopy cover from 3-6m and sapling density. This species nests on the ground in
deciduous and mixed forests (Ehrlich et al. 1988). It appears to prefer pole-stage stands
(Bushman and Therres 1988), but it is fragmentation-sensitive and was not found breeding in
forests <70 ha in size in Maryland (Whitcomb et al. 1981).
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
The Yellow-billed Cuckoo was positively related to percent cover of woody debris (X2=3.99,
P=0.05) and negatively associated with elevation (X2=7.00, P=0.01) and aspect ((X2=2.99,
P=0.08). This species is a PIF priority species for the region (Rosenberg 2000), but we
observed it at only 9 sampling points in the 2 years of the study. Less than 1% of the
population occurs in this region (Rosenberg and Wells 1999), and MTMVF is not likely to
severely impact the population as a whole.
37
-------
Other Species
The Swainson's Warbler, a species of concern in the region and a rare species in West Virginia
(West Virginia Wildlife and Natural Heritage Program 2000), is typically, in West Virginia, found
only in areas of dense rhododendron (Buckelew and Hall 1994). We observed this species in
the Twentymile Creek watershed along Hughes Fork. Further MTMVF in this watershed could
impact this species, but the effect on the population as a whole will be minimal, since <2% of
the population is found in the Ohio Hills province and West Virginia is on the periphery of its
range (Table 5) . The Eastern Wood-pewee is a species of conservation priority (Action level
III) in the region, but we only observed it at 1.2% of our forested point counts. The Black-billed
Cuckoo is a PI F priority species for this region (Rosenberg 2000), but it appears to be relatively
rare; it was only observed incidentally in early successional habitat during this study and was
not detected during point count surveys.
Comparison of Guild Abundances Among Treatments
All of the habitat guilds differed significantly among treatments (Table 21). As expected, the
grassland guild was more abundant in the grassland treatment than in shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, or intact treatments. Edge species also followed a typical pattern: they were most
abundant in shrub habitat, followed by grasslands, then by fragmented and intact forest (Table
21). Interior-edge species were most abundant in the fragmented and intact forest treatments,
followed by the shrub/pole and grassland treatments. Forest interior species were more
abundant in intact forest, followed by fragmented forest, shrub/pole, and grassland treatments.
Significantly higher abundance of forest interior species in intact than fragmented forests
suggests that this group is negatively affected by habitat fragmentation.
Nesting guilds also differed among treatments. Ground nesters were more common in
grassland habitat than the other 3 treatments and were more abundant in the shrub/pole
treatment than in fragmented and intact forest. This result was expected because all of our
grassland bird species were ground nesters with the exception of the Red-winged Blackbird and
the Willow Flycatcher. Shrub nesters were more abundant in the shrub/pole treatment than the
other 3 treatments, and were more abundant in grassland than fragmented or intact forest
(Table 21). Subcanopy- and cavity-nesting species were more abundant in the fragmented and
intact forest treatments than in the shrub/pole or grassland treatments and were more abundant
in shrub/pole than grasslands. Canopy-nesting species showed a treatment-by-year
interaction. In 1999 they did not differ in abundance between fragmented and intact forest, but
in 2000 they were more abundant in intact forest than in fragmented forest (Table 21).
Total abundance and richness also differed among treatments. Abundance and richness were
higher in the shrub/pole treatment than any of the other 3 treatments (Table 21). This was
expected due to the heterogeneity of the habitat in this treatment which included grass/forbs,
shrubs, and small trees. Abundance in fragmented forests did not differ between either intact
forest or grassland treatments, but intact forest had higher abundance than grassland habitat
(Table 21). Richness did not differ between fragmented and intact forest, but richness in
grassland habitat was lower than both of these habitats (Table 21). Similarly, Allaire (1979)
found songbird density and richness higher in forested habitat than in grassland habitat in
eastern Kentucky, and Willson (1974) found forests and old fields to have higher bird species
diversity than grasslands.
Generally, our results comparing habitat guilds among treatments are not unexpected and
follow patterns reported in the literature. It is well documented that as vegetative structure and
38
-------
composition change through succession that the corresponding bird community also changes
(e.g. Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, James and Warner 1982).
Comparison of Guild Abundances Among Treatments
All of the habitat guilds differed significantly among treatments (Table 21). As expected, the
grassland guild was more abundant in the grassland treatment than in shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, or intact treatments. Edge species also followed a typical pattern: they were most
abundant in shrub habitat, followed by grasslands, then by fragmented and intact forest (Table
21). Interior-edge species were most abundant in the fragmented and intact forest treatments,
followed by the shrub/pole and grassland treatments. Forest interior species were more
abundant in intact forest, followed by fragmented forest, shrub/pole, and grassland treatments.
Significantly higher abundance of forest interior species in intact than fragmented forests
suggests that this group is negatively affected by habitat fragmentation.
Nesting guilds also differed among treatments. Ground nesters were more common in
grassland habitat than the other 3 treatments and were more abundant in the shrub/pole
treatment than in fragmented and intact forest. This result was expected because all of our
grassland bird species were ground nesters with the exception of the Red-winged Blackbird and
the Willow Flycatcher. Shrub nesters were more abundant in the shrub/pole treatment than the
other 3 treatments, and were more abundant in grassland than fragmented or intact forest
(Table 21). Subcanopy- and cavity-nesting species were more abundant in the fragmented and
intact forest treatments than in the shrub/pole or grassland treatments and were more abundant
in shrub/pole than grasslands. Canopy-nesting species showed a treatment-by-year
interaction. In 1999 they did not differ in abundance between fragmented and intact forest, but
in 2000 they were more abundant in intact forest than in fragmented forest (Table 21).
Total abundance and richness also differed among treatments. Abundance and richness were
higher in the shrub/pole treatment than any of the other 3 treatments (Table 21). This was
expected due to the heterogeneity of the habitat in this treatment which included grass/forbs,
shrubs, and small trees. Abundance in fragmented forests did not differ between either intact
forest or grassland treatments, but intact forest had higher abundance than grassland habitat
(Table 21). Richness did not differ between fragmented and intact forest, but richness in
grassland habitat was lower than both of these habitats (Table 21). Similarly, Allaire (1979)
found songbird density and richness higher in forested habitat than in grassland habitat in
eastern Kentucky, and Willson (1974) found forests and old fields to have higher bird species
diversity than grasslands.
Generally, our results comparing habitat guilds among treatments are not unexpected and
follow patterns reported in the literature. It is well documented that as vegetative structure and
composition change through succession that the corresponding bird community also changes
(e.g. Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, James and Warner 1982).
39
-------
Similarity Among Songbird Communities
Fragmented and intact forests shared the highest number of species, and both the Jaccard and
Renkonen indices were highest for this pair of treatments (Table 22). Similarity was lowest
between grassland and intact forest, and intermediate for the other treatment pairs (Table 22).
The grassland/shrub pair also was relatively similar, sharing 12-23 species and having a
Jaccard similarity index between 0.40 and 0.48. The grassland areas that we surveyed were
not pure stands of grass but also had scattered shrubs and blocks of autumn olive that
attracted shrub species. Similarly, the shrub/pole areas we surveyed were adjacent to
grassland habitat and often had open patches of grass that were used by grassland birds
interspersed among trees. Both fragmented and intact forests shared species with the shrub
community. These species were often interior-edge species that use both forest interior as well
as edge habitat. Some edge species also were encountered in forested habitats along logging
roads, trails, and other gaps in the canopy.
Nesting Success of Grassland Birds
We monitored a total of 36 nests on reclaimed MTMVF areas in 1999-2000 (Table 23), for a
total of 308.5 observation days (days that nests were active). Approximately 300 ha of
grassland habitat were searched for nests. In 1999 only the Hobet mine was searched for
nests, whereas in 2000 all 3 mines were searched.
Overall nest survival of all species combined was 31.1% for the 2 years of the study. Nesting
survival in 1999 was only 4.1%, but was higher in 2000 at 52.7%. This difference may be due
to the extreme drought conditions in 1999 (Fig. 17). Nest survival in 2000 varied among mine
sites, ranging from a low of 1.8% at the Cannelton mine to 68.1% at the Hobet mine (Table 23).
Grassland birds had lower nest survival (20.3%) than shrub-nesting birds (48.8%). Shrub nests
were found incidentally by nest searchers while searching for grassland bird nests or by other
researchers on the project.
More Grasshopper Sparrow nests (19) were found than for any other species (Table 23). Nest
survival for this species (36.4%), was similar to that reported in Missouri and Illinois (Table 24),
but was higher than other studies. Although density of Grasshopper Sparrow nests was low
(-0.06 nests/ha), it was similar to densities on airport grasslands in Illinois and reclaimed mines
in northern West Virginia (Table 24). Tallgrass pairie in Oklahoma had much higher nest
densities, possibly because this area has the highest abundance of Grasshopper Sparrows and
is the center of the species' breeding range (Wells and Rosenberg 1999).
In general, nest densities were low on our study sites. Approximately 537 person-hours were
spent nest searching in 2000 by 2 full-time individuals and 3 part-time individuals, and only 25
active nests were located. We do not believe that low nest numbers were a result of nest
searchers missing nests. Nest searchers were trained in proper nest searching techniques
prior to the start of the study. They searched for nests using standard techniques, including
rope dragging, systematically traversing the area and flushing females, and observing parental
behavior. Further, the number of nests of Grasshopper Sparrows, our most abundant species
in 2000, was similar to the number found by other researchers in other regions of the country in
1 year (Table 24; Wray 1982, Kershner and Bellinger 1996, Koford 1999, McCoy et al. 1999,
Rohrbaugh et al. 1999). It is unlikey that nest searchers would miss finding nests of other
40
-------
species if they were able to locate nests of Grasshopper Sparrows, a species known for its
ability to conceal its nest (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Habitat measurements surrounding Grasshopper
Sparrow nests indicated a high amount of concealment cover around nest sites (Table 25).
Fledgling surveys conducted in late July and early August also indicated that nest densities
were low on the mines. Approximately 1.9, 1.7, and 0.4, fledglings/ha were observed in
grassland habitat on the Daltex, Hobet, and Cannelton mines, respectively.
There are several possible explanations for low nest densities. First, the habitat may be
supporting a biased sex ratio favoring males. Although densities of male Grasshopper
Sparrows were high on the mines, few females were observed, suggesting that populations
present on these mines included a high proportion of unmated males. Dickcissels are known to
have a biased sex ratio favoring males (Buckelew and Hall 1994). Male grasshopper sparrows
may have only recently colonized the Daltex mine while females may not have arrived yet.
Second, densities of other grassland species, especially Eastern Meadowlarks and Horned
Larks, appeared to be relatively low. Our point count abundances included all birds seen or
heard, and Eastern Meadowlarks, Horned Larks, and Red-winged Blackbirds were often
observed in groups, thus our densities may not represent the number of potential breeding
pairs. Also, Red-winged Blackbirds were primarily observed breeding in cattails around ponds
and not in the grassland habitat. Since we were primarily concerned with grassland birds, these
wetland areas were not as thoroughly searched as the grassland habitat. Lastly, large sections
of the mines have been planted with sericea lespedeza which grows in thick, dense stands. A
sub-sample of grassland sampling points (n=28) had an average of 21.6% lespedeza cover
within the 50-m radius circle, and some sampling points, especially those at the Cannelton
mine, had 90-100% lespedeza cover. No grassland bird nests were found in areas with such
high lespedeza cover. Grassland birds need areas of open ground with sparse vegetation for
foraging and courtship (Whitmore 1979), and areas with thick lespedeza do not appear to
provide this requirement. Further, lespedeza cover surrounding Grasshopper Sparrow nests
averaged only 4.3% (Table 25), indicating that this species prefers to nest in areas with little
lespedeza cover.
Habitat characteristics surrounding Grasshopper Sparrow nests were similar to those reported
by Strait (1981). He found grass, shrub, and forb covers surrounding his nests of 32.5, 1.3, and
31.7%, respectively, which are similar to our values of 44.3, 1.7, and 36.3%. Also, the mean
vegetation height surrounding his nests was 5.6 dm, which fell within our range of 4.4-5.9 dm.
However, he found a deeper litter depth surrounding his nests, at 6.67 cm, whereas ours only
ranged from 1.5-2.1 cm (Table 25).
Summary
In summary, MTMVF areas provided breeding habitat for both grassland and early successional
species. Grassland, edge, and interior-edge songbirds were more abundant on the post-mining
landscape. The highest bird species richness was found in the shrub/pole treatment and the
lowest was found in the grassland treatment. Richness in fragmented forest and intact forest
fell between these 2 treatments. Ponds on MTMVF areas also provided habitat for waterfowl,
wading birds, swallows, and shorebirds, primarily during migration. No federally-listed
endangered or threatened species were detected during the study. West Virginia does not
have a state threatened and endangered species listing process, but 3 observed grassland
species (Grasshopper Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, and Bobolink) are considered rare in West
Virginia. However, abundances of the forest interior guild and some forest interior species (e.
41
-------
g. Ovenbird and Acadian Flycatcher) were significantly lower in fragmented forest than in intact
forest. Some forest species also were detected more frequently at points further from mine
edges. Populations of forest birds will be detrimentally impacted by the loss and fragmentation
of mature forest habitat in the mixed mesophytic forest region, which has the highest bird
diversity in forested habitats in the eastern United States. Fragmentation-sensitive species
such as the Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Black-and-white
Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo will likely be negatively impacted as forested habitat is lost
and fragmented from MTMVF. Grassland birds nesting on MTMVF areas had nest survival
rates similar to those found in the literature, but some species, particularly the Grasshopper
Sparrow and Dickcissel, appeared to have high proportions of unmated males in their
populations. Further research is necessary to adequately determine the impacts of MTMVF on
the nest survival and population dynamics of grassland-nesting bird species.
Raptors
During broadcast surveys, seasonal overall mean abundance for raptors across the 4 treatment
types was highest for summer in the grassland treatment (Table 26). Mean abundances
separated by mine and treatments are found in Appendix 5. Overall mean abundances for
migration in both the grassland and shrub/pole treatments also were greater compared to all
other seasons/treatments. Large numbers of Turkey Vultures were observed over grassland
and shrub/pole areas during these time periods. Turkey Vultures primarily forage over large
open areas, including transitional habitat (Bent 1937, Buckelew and Hall 1994). Overall mean
richness was highest in the winter season for the shrub/pole treatment. Five species, including
the Northern Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Turkey Vulture, and an
unidentified Accipiter, were detected on surveys in the shrub/pole treatment during winter.
Red-shouldered Hawk abundance was highest in the intact forest treatment during migration
and summer. Many studies have shown Red-shouldered Hawks nest primarily in contiguous
mature forest habitat (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1981, Morris and Lemon 1983, Belleman 1998).
Although most common in intact forest, Red-shouldered Hawks also were recorded in the
shrub/pole treatment during all seasons, particularly during migration and winter periods. Some
studies have reported greater use of more open areas and woodland edges by Red-shouldered
Hawks during the winter months as compared to the summer months (Bohall and Collopy 1984,
Crocoll 1994). Accipiter species such as Sharp-shinned Hawks also use transitional habitat
near open areas during the winter months (Bildstein and Meyer 2000). Northern Harrier and
American Kestrel abundances were highest in grasslands, although Northern Harriers also
were recorded in the shrub/pole treatment. These 2 species are generally found in more open
habitat and rarely are seen over forested habitat except possibly during migration (Johnsgard
1990). Red-tailed Hawks were recorded in every treatment type and were most common in
grasslands during the summer months. Several studies have described the Red-tailed Hawk as
an open country raptor using agricultural fields, pastures, and forest edges more than other
woodland raptor species with little fluctuation in habitat use across seasons (Bent 1937,
Bednarz and Dinsmore 1982, Preston and Beane 1993, Moorman and Chapman 1996).
During roadside surveys, overall abundance and richness was highest in the grasslands at the
Daltex mine Table 27). Red-tailed Hawks and Turkey Vultures were observed in all 3 treatments
during roadside surveys. This is consistent with these species' tendency to forage over
expansive open areas and transitional habitats (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1982, Hall 1983).
American Kestrels, Northern Harriers, and Broad-winged Hawks were observed in habitats
42
-------
typically frequented by these species. A notable species observed during roadside surveys was
a Peregrine Falcon in the grassland at Daltex.
In an overall comparison of raptor species observed on the 3 mines to what would be expected
in West Virginia from breeding records and habitat requirements (Table 28), 2 species
(Peregrine Falcon and Northern Harrier) unexpectedly occurred on the mines. Two other
species, the Rough-legged Hawk and the Short-eared Owl, unexpectedly occurred on the
mines during winter.
Even prior to 1950 and the widespread use of DDT, Peregrine Falcons were rare in West
Virginia, although there are some nesting records from documented eyries in Mineral,
Greenbrier, and Morgan Counties. More recent breeding attempts in the state were recorded in
1991 and 1992 in Grant County after a release of birds in the New River Gorge in 1987-1989
(Buckelew and Hall 1994), and in 2000 with a pair nesting near North Fork Mountain (C. Stihler,
personal communication). There are no confirmed breeding records of Peregrine Falcons in
Kanawha, Boone, or Logan counties (Buckelew and Hall 1994) and most sightings of Peregrine
Falcons in the state have been during migration along mountain ridges (Hall 1983). At least 2
adult Peregrine Falcons were observed throughout the summer months and during the
migration season in the grasslands on the Daltex mine. These 2 birds were commonly
observed near a rocky "highwall" left after mining activities, but we found no evidence of
breeding. An unconfirmed sighting of a Peregrine Falcon occurred during the summer months
in the grasslands at the Cannelton mine, but a confirmed sighting of an immature peregrine
falcon occurred later during broadcast surveys in November 2000.
Northern Harriers are rare summer/winter residents, but can occasionally be seen in open
areas during migration (Hall 1983). There are no breeding records for the species in
southwestern West Virginia (Buckelew and Hall 1994). Northern harriers have also been
observed in sections of northeastern West Virginia (Canaan Valley) during late summer,
migration, and winter (J. Anderson, pers comm.). We observed Northern Harriers in the
grasslands during the winter and migration seasons on all 3 mines, and also during the summer
months on both the Hobet and Cannelton mines. Northern Harriers also were observed in the
shrub treatment at Cannelton during summer and migration. A recent study speculated that
reclaimed surface mines may be providing breeding habitat for Northern Harriers, because
breeding attempts for Northern Harriers (based on Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas data) were
correlated with regions in Pennsylvania containing large numbers of surface mines (Rohrbaugh
and Yahner 1996). In other studies, Northern Harriers were commonly observed on surface
mines during the breeding season (Yahner and Rohrbaugh 1996, Yahner and Rohrbaugh
1998). Historically, Northern Harriers have occurred in low numbers in West Virginia because
of few open areas (wetlands, agricultural lands) for breeding, but recent observations on
grassland and shrub/pole areas indicate that Northern Harriers are using reclaimed MTMVF
areas in West Virginia, although breeding is not confirmed.
Two winter visitors, the Rough-legged Hawk and the Short-eared Owl also were observed on
the mines in open habitats (Table 28). Rough-legged Hawks have been observed in West
Virginia during migration along mountain ridges and during winter around Charleston in
Kanawha County (Hall 1983). Short-eared Owls are considered rare or uncommon migrants
and winter residents in West Virginia due to lack of open habitat such as fields, marshes, and
thickets, which this species uses during the nonbreeding season (Hall 1983, Holt and Leasure
1993). Most past sightings of Short-eared Owls occurred in the northern and western counties
of West Virginia. Our observation of Short-eared Owls in the grasslands during winter suggests
that reclaimed MTMVF areas may be providing wintering habitat for this species.
43
-------
Broad-winged and Red-shouldered Hawks were observed not only in intact forest as expected
in West Virginia, but in forest fragments, shrub/pole areas, and grasslands (Table 28). Broad-
winged Hawks and Red-shouldered Hawks are mainly forest species that nest in contiguous
mature forest (Crocoll and Parker 1989) although Broad-winged Hawks appear to nest in
forests with more openings than Red-shouldered Hawks (Titus and Mosher 1981, Crocoll and
Parker 1989). Other studies have shown that Red-shouldered Hawks inhabit more open areas
during the winter months (Bohall and Collopy 1984, Peterson and Crocoll 1992). The
observations of these 2 species in grassland areas may have been instances where the birds
were soaring from 1 forest area to another. In addition, the Red-shouldered Hawk observations
could have been territorial displays, because the majority of summer grassland observations
occurred during 1999 where the birds were observed soaring extremely high and vocalizing.
Cooper's Hawks and Sharp-shinned Hawks were observed in areas where they were not
expected in West Virginia. Cooper's Hawks were sighted in grassland areas during migration.
Sharp-shinned Hawks were observed both in grassland during summer and shrub/pole during
winter, and an unidentified Accipiter species (either Cooper's or Sharp-shinned Hawk) was
observed in a forest fragment during winter. There is little habitat information on Cooper's
Hawks during migration, but it has been noted that this species uses forest edge as primary
hunting habitat in its home range during breeding and uses agricultural fields when
overwintering in Texas (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt 1993). Similar to Cooper's Hawks, Sharp-
shinned Hawks have been observed in open areas and transitional habitat more during the
winter months than summer (Bildstein and Meyer 2000). The observation of a Sharp-shinned
Hawk in grasslands during summer may have been a bird passing between forest habitats. It
should be noted that most of these unexpected occurrences of a species in a particular habitat
were single sightings and thus probably should not be construed as ecologically significant.
Finally, the American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, Barred Owl, Eastern Screech Owl, and Turkey
Vulture were observed in areas mostly consistent with what was expected in West Virginia.
The Jaccard community similarity index was highest when comparing shrub/pole with
fragmented forest (Table 29) and lowest when comparing grassland with either intact forest or
fragmented forest treatments. These results are not unexpected based on known habitat
requirements of species found in these treatments. With the Renkonen index, the similarity
between shrub/pole and fragmented forest dropped considerably and this may be due to the
low abundances of the 4 species shared between the 2 treatments. The Renkonen index
comparing the shrub/pole and grassland treatments indicated the greatest similarity in species
composition of the raptor community.
Summary
MTMVF has had an effect on overall raptor abundance and diversity through a change in the
raptor community. Woodland species such as the Red-shouldered Hawk and Broad-winged
Hawk were rarely observed in the open grassland and shrub/pole treatments, but more
commonly observed in intact forest. Open-country species such as Northern Harriers and
American Kestrels were most often observed in grasslands, with no observations occurring in
wooded areas. These results suggest that MTMVF is providing a means for an overall shift
from a woodland raptor community to a grassland raptor community.
Mammals
44
-------
Mammal Species Detected
In 1999 and 2000 we captured (through Sherman live trapping or pitfall trapping intended for
herpetofaunal species) or observed through incidental sightings 24 of 40 mammal species
(excluding bats) thought to occur in our study areas in southern West Virginia (WV GAP
analysis, M. Might pers. comm.) (Table 30). Representatives from 6 orders occurring in
southern West Virginia were included in the 24 species recorded.
Six of 10 carnivore species expected to occur on our study area were detected, either by
sighting of the animal or by observation of some sign of the animal's presence, such as
footprints, scat, or scent (Table 30). Within the grassland treatment, 50% of the carnivore
species expected to occur were detected, whereas 44%, 50%, and 20% were detected in the
shrub, fragmented forest and intact forest treatments, respectively. Coyote, known to prefer
open areas or areas with a diversity of habitats (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998), were detected in
every treatment except intact forest. We also had a single sighting of a bobcat on the road
beside a fragmented forest. Bobcats use a wide variety of habitats (Lovallo and Anderson
1996), but are secretive and rarely seen, so our sighting should not be viewed as indicative of
their habitat use on the mines. Black bears, detected in all 4 treatments, generally have large
home ranges spanning multiple habitat types (Landers et al. 1979), which explains our
observations of this species. Yearsley and Samuel (1980) found that red fox and gray fox often
foraged on reclaimed strip mines in northern West Virginia but were least likely to do so in the
summer. The fact that our studies were conducted in the summer and these animals are very
secretive may explain why we had only 2 observations of red fox and none of gray fox. Of the
other carnivores detected, the raccoon is a habitat generalist that adapts well to human-
disturbed landscapes (Burks 1983, Holman 1983), so our encounters with this species in 3
treatments were not surprising. Lastly, we had a single olfactory detection of what was most
likely a striped skunk (spotted skunk was not predicted to occur in this area by the WV Gap
data) in the shrub/pole treatment. This treatment resembles their preferred habitat of semi-open
areas, mixed woods or brush lands (Wade-Smith and Verts 1982).
Four species of carnivores were not observed: the gray fox and 3 members of the weasel family
(least weasel, long-tailed weasel, and mink). Each of these species is secretive and primarily
nocturnal (King 1989), so one would not necessarily come across them without using methods
specifically designed to detect their presence.
Five species of the order Insectivora were expected to occur on our study areas, and all were
detected (Table 30). Four shrew species were detected in all 4 treatments: northern short-tailed
shrew, masked shrew, smoky shrew, and pygmy shrew. Short-tailed shrew, masked shrew,
and pygmy shrew were expected to occur in all treatments as they have broad habitat
requirements (George et al. 1986, Kirkland et al. 1987). The smoky shrew, which is reported to
select for damp woods (Caldwell and Bryan 1982) was not predicted to occur in grasslands.
The fact that summer 2000 was unusually wet (Fig. 17) may have allowed it to use grassland
treatments. The only species of mole expected to be present on our study areas, the hairy-
tailed mole, was observed on one occasion in fragmented forest. Moles rarely are found above
ground, so they are not likely to be captured in traps or observed incidentally.
Ten species of rodent were observed out of 17 expected on our study areas (Table 30). By
treatment, we detected 7 species in grassland, 5 in shrub/pole, 7 in fragmented forest, and 5 in
intact forest. One of these, the southern bog lemming, was captured in all 4 treatments and is
listed as a rare species by the West Virginia Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program (2000). It can
45
-------
exist in a variety of habitats and may be widespread on our study areas due to the virtual
absence of the meadow vole, a direct competitor that is believed to displace the bog lemming
where they overlap (Krupa and Haskins 1996). Meadow voles did occur in 3 treatments, but at
very low numbers.
The Allegheny woodrat was an unexpected capture in shrub/pole areas. The sites were
characterized by the presence of a reclaimed drainage ditch filled with large rip-rap boulders
shaded by a few trees that lined the channel. This combination of features apparently simulates
the natural rock outcrops where woodrats are often found (Balcom and Yahner 1996). It is listed
as threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern in Indiana, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia due to
population declines. Prior to the moratorium placed on the endangered species listing process
under federal guidelines, this species was designated as a candidate Category II animal in
response to apparent population declines in states along the periphery of its range (Balcom and
Yahner 1996). When we realized woodrats occurred at some sites, we conducted additional
trapping with Tomahawk live traps in another 40 areas of potential habitat, of which 18 were in
shrub/pole, 6 were in fragmented forest, 5 were in intact forest, and 11 were around reclaimed-
mine ponds. Woodrats were documented at 8 shrub/pole sites, 1 fragmented forest site, and 1
pond, though trapping effort was not equal at each site. In all, 26 woodrats were captured,
including 6 adult males, 7 juvenile males, 10 adult females, and 3 juvenile females. Our limited
trapping suggests that woodrats have colonized some older reclaimed areas and are breeding
there. However, we did not trap extensively for woodrats at rock outcrops in forested habitat so
we cannot compare abundances on reclaimed and intact sites.
Several species that were expected to occur in the counties that contained our study areas
were not detected by any methods. Four squirrel species, southern flying squirrel, red squirrel,
Eastern gray squirrel, and Eastern fox squirrel, were not observed or otherwise detected. The
flying squirrel is strictly nocturnal, spending its days in tree cavities or leaf nests (Weigl 1978),
habits that make it difficult to observe incidentally. It is possible, however to capture this species
in Sherman traps, and it is surprising that none were captured. The red squirrel, gray squirrel,
and fox squirrel are diurnal, so they should have been seen or heard if they were common on
the mines. Red squirrels are documented in Fayette and Nicholas counties, so they may occur
on the Cannelton mine; however, they may not be present on the Hobet and Daltex mines as no
records exist of them in Boone and Logan Counties (M. Might, personal communication). We
also did not find southern red-backed voles or golden mice, small rodents that should have
been caught in either the Sherman traps or the pitfall traps if they were present on our study
sites. Of these, the golden mouse is a more southern species that is not certain to range into
the areas where we trapped (M. Might, personal communication). Southern red-backed voles
are associated with mesic high-elevation forests in the Appalachians (Wharton and White
1967). We probably did not trap in their preferred habitat because trapping transects on our
study sites were placed near stream channels.
Three additional orders were detected, represented by 4 species. The eastern cottontail, a
member of the order Lagomorpha was expected and observed in all 4 treatments, though it was
rarely detected in the forest. This is consistent with Chapman et al. (1980), who describe the
cottontail as occupying diverse habitats, but not occurring abundantly in deep forests. In the
order Artiodactyla, white-tailed deer and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were present. Deer were
frequently observed in all treatments while wild boar were known to be present based on
hunting records as well as a single observation of an animal near a pond. Wild boar are
present only in a small portion of southern West Virginia where they were released as a game
46
-------
species by the WV DNR (Igo 1973, Mayer and Brisbin 1991). Lastly, Virginia opossum of the
order Didelphimorphia was observed in the 2 forest treatments, though their use of many
habitat types (McManus 1974) implies that they probably used the grassland and shrub/pole
treatments as well.
Pond Surveys
Ponds, created as part of the reclamation process, were not considered a treatment as they
were found within grassland and shrub/pole treatments. Pond surveys were conducted in 2000
to determine if they represented an important landscape feature for wildlife. In 2000, rainfall
was plentiful compared to 1999, an extreme drought year (Fig. 17), and so water may not have
been limiting to wildlife. The only species detected near ponds that was not detected elsewhere
was the wild boar (Table 30), which is associated with watering holes for wallowing (Whitaker
and Hamilton 1998). Another animal that was detected during pond surveys was raccoon, a
species often found near streams and ponds where they forage for frogs, fish and waterfowl
eggs (Llewellyn and Webster 1960). White-tailed deer and their tracks frequently were seen at
pond edges; the deer apparently relied on these upland ponds for water while browsing in
grasslands, which are located high above streams.
Two species that were expected to occur around ponds that were not detected are muskrat
(Ondatra zibethica) and beaver (Castor canadensis). Many of the mine ponds seem to be ideal
muskrat habitat, as they are overgrown with cattails. Muskrat's conical lodges, built of cattails
and other wetland vegetation, should have been obvious if they were present, though we did
not survey specifically for them. Muskrats also will tunnel into pond banks to den, with tunnel
openings discretely located below water level (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). However, rocky
soil around mine ponds makes this an unlikely alternative here. Ponds also seem to provide
summer habitat for beaver whose diet during this season consists of aquatic plants, algae, and
herbaceous plants (Jenkins 1975). From fall to spring, their diet consists mostly of tree bark
(Jenkins 1975). The lack of woody growth around mine ponds and the physical separation of
mine ponds from forests by several hundred meters may restrict beaver to wooded areas on the
MTMVF landscape.
Small Mammal Trapping
Numerous small mammal species—shrews, voles, and mice—were captured in Sherman live
traps or pitfall traps (Table 30). The most common of these were the 2 Peromyscus species of
mice, the white-footed mouse and the deer mouse. Although the majority (-95%) of
Peromyscus were thought to be white-footed mice based on field markings, we did not
differentiate between the 2 in our analyses because of the difficulty in distinguishing one from
the other (Rich et al. 1996). Other small rodents captured included house mouse, woodland
jumping mouse, meadow vole, woodland vole, and southern bog lemming. Unexpected
captures in Sherman traps were juvenile eastern cottontail rabbits in grassland treatments,
juvenile Virginia opossums in fragmented forest and intact forest, and Allegheny woodrats in
shrub/pole treatment. Cottontail rabbits and opossums were not expected because of their size
relative to trap size while the woodrat was not expected because we did not trap rock outcrops
in forests, the habitat with which they are most often associated (Balcom and Yahner 1996). Of
the insectivores, only 2 species were caught in Sherman traps: masked shrew and short-tailed
shrew. Pitfall trapping accounted for 2 additional species: pygmy shrew and smoky shrew. The
47
-------
majority of shrew captures were by pitfall traps (240 individuals) compared to 40 individuals
captured in Sherman traps.
Species Comparisons Among Treatments
Statistical analysis was performed on Sherman trapping results in 3 treatments in 1999 and 4
treatments in 2000. Indices of relative abundance and species richness (Table 31) were
compared among the treatments, with each year's data analyzed separately due to the
presence of significant (F = 9.60, df = 2, P = 0.0001) year by treatment interactions. Mean
abundances separated by mine and treatment are found in Appendix 6. Reclaimed pond
indices (Table 31) were not compared statistically to the other treatments for 2 reasons. First, it
was not truly a treatment because the ponds were distributed throughout the reclaimed mines,
overlapping both shrub/pole and grassland treatments. Second, sampling methods were
different from the other treatments.
In 1999, species richness ranged from 1.7 species per transect in the grassland to 2.3 species
per transect in the intact forest with no significant difference (F = 2.61, df = 2, P = 0.09) among
treatments (Table 31). There were, however, differences in species composition among
treatments as indicated by the Jaccard and Renkonen indices of species similarity (Table 32).
In 2000, when shrub/pole areas were added as a fourth treatment, species richness ranged
from 1.4 species per transect in the grassland, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments
to 1.5 species in the shrub/pole treatment. Again, there were no significant differences (F =
0.17, df = 3, P = 0.92) among treatments. Richness averaged over all treatments was
compared between years as well. Richness in 1999 was 1.9 species per transect compared to
1.4 species per transect in 2000, a significant difference (F = 19.86, df = 1, P O.0001). This
difference may be explained by changes in weather patterns between years (Gentry et al.
1966). From May through August in 1999, an extreme drought year, there was a total of 29.2
cm of rain in Charleston (Fig. 17), which is the nearest NOAA weather station to the mines we
sampled. In 2000, however, 47.0 cm of rain were recorded in Charleston during the same
months. Average daily high temperatures also were different between years, with 1999 having
an average daily high of 29.1 C° from May to August and 2000 averaging 26.9 C° during those
same months (Fig. 18). The thirty-year normal for the 4-month period is 40.8 cm of rain and an
average daily high of 27.9 C° (Figs. 17 and 18).
The fact that richness indices were not significantly different among treatments in either year
does not mean that the small mammal communities were the same. To compare the species
composition between treatments, we calculated Jaccard and Renkonen indices of community
similarity (Nur et al. 1999) (Table 32). In 1999, the Jaccard indices, which are based on the
number of species shared between treatments but do not take into account species
abundances, showed that the 2 forest treatments, fragments and intact, were more similar to
each other than either was to the grassland treatment. Similar results were found in 2000,
although the differences were not as pronounced. Also, the 2000 Jaccard indices showed that
shrub/pole was more similar to grassland than it was to either of the 2 forest treatments. The
Renkonen indices were in agreement with each of the trends shown by the Jaccard indices.
However, this index, which incorporates similarities in species abundance as well as species
composition between treatments, showed a high degree of similarity between treatments being
compared. This is probably because Peromyscus species accounted for the vast majority of
captures in all treatments.
48
-------
Total relative abundance (F = 1.42, df = 2, P= 0.25) and Peromyscus species abundance (F =
1.79, df = 2, P= 0.18) did not differ among the 3 treatments sampled in 1999 (Table 31). In
2000, significant differences were found among treatments for both total abundance (F = 23.34,
df = 3, P<0.001) and Peromyscus species abundance (F = 21.57, df = 3, P<0.001). In each
case the grassland and shrub/pole treatments were similar, but had significantly greater
abundances than fragmented forest and intact forest, which were similar to each other (Table
32). Because Peromyscus represent the majority of the captures, trends in its abundance are
the driving factor in the difference found in overall abundance. Other studies on strip mines
have shown that Peromyscus abundance is highest in early stages of succession (Verts 1957,
Sly 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978). Similarly, Peromyscus abundance has been shown to
be higher in forest openings created by clearcutting than in adjacent forested areas in the
southern Appalachians (Kirkland 1977, Bucknerand Shure 1985).
In each year of the study, differences were found among treatments for several individual
species captured. House mouse, for example, was captured only in the grassland treatment in
both years, a finding consistent with other studies. In addition to human dwellings and other
buildings, the house mouse has been found in grassy fields and croplands but almost never in
forests (Kaufman and Kaufman 1990, Whitakerand Hamilton 1998). The woodland jumping
mouse was captured only in fragmented forest and intact forest. As its name suggests, this
species is generally a forest dweller, and is often found near streams (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). It was found more frequently in fragmented forest than in intact forest. It has been
reported to use habitat at the interface between forest and clearing, even venturing into open
glades (Whitaker and Wrigley 1972), but no data could be found confirming that it selects for
forest edge over interior forest. Except for a single grassland capture, eastern chipmunk also
was found primarily in the 2 forest treatments, with intact having a greater abundance than
fragmented (F = 11.20, df = 2, P < 0.0001). This result was not necessarily expected, as
chipmunks are known to frequent forest edge habitats (Pyare et al. 1993). In 1999, short-tailed
shrews differed in abundance between treatments (F = 4.59, df = 2, P = 0.016) with higher
abundance in intact forest than in grasslands. Throughout its range, this species uses a variety
of habitats, but is known to be restricted to moist woods in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee
(Whitakerand Hamilton 1998).
We also found several between-year differences in small mammal abundance. Total
abundance in grassland habitats increased from 1999 to 2000 (F = 4.98, df = 1, P = 0.03). The
difference may be related to weather patterns, as the combination of drought and high
temperatures in summer 1999 may have made it a difficult season to exist in the open
grasslands. Lewellen and Vessey (1998) reported that population growth in white-footed mice
was negatively correlated with extreme weather conditions in both summer and winter.
Fragmented forest (F = 14.71, df = 1, P< 0.0001) and intact forest (F = 34.40, df = 1, P
<0.0001) had decreases in total abundance from 1999 to 2000. This may have been due to the
dry, hot weather of 1999 that forced small mammals into the woods in search of water and relief
from the high temperatures (Fig. 18), or alternatively, the cool, wet conditions in 2000 made the
forest a more extreme environment than the reclaimed areas.
Other species differed in abundance between the 2 years. The number of short-tailed shrew
captures dropped from 35 in 1999 to 2 in 2000. Decreased reproduction during the summer
1999 drought may be the cause of this trend. Short-tailed shrews, having a high rate of
evaporation from the skin (George et al. 1986), are known to be unable to tolerate hot and dry
conditions. Other studies also have noted wide yearly fluctuations in the abundance of this
species, but the reason for this is not well understood (Lindeborg 1941, Fowle and Edwards
49
-------
1955). Woodland jumping mice were caught at the rate of 0.5 individuals per 100 trap nights in
intact forests in 2000 after not being caught at all in that treatment in 1999. However, this may
not represent an actual difference because each of the individuals caught in intact forest in
2000 was trapped at a single site, one that was not trapped in 1999. Captures of woodland
jumping mice also increased slightly in fragmented forest from 1999 to 2000. Southern bog
lemmings were trapped in 2000 but not 1999. There is no clear reason for this, though only 2
were trapped in 2000 so the difference most likely does not represent an actual abundance
difference between the years.
We also compared the results of our study with those of other small mammal studies conducted
in grassland and shrub/pole habitat types (Table 33). However, interpretations of these
comparisons should be made with caution for several reasons. First, capture methods differ
among the studies, with the majority using snap traps rather than live traps. Capture methods
have been shown to affect trapping success (Goodnight and Koestner 1942, Cockrum 1947,
and Sealander and James 1958). Second, none of these studies was performed on a reclaimed
MTMVF area. Most were on reclaimed strip mines, which may undergo a similar pattern of
succession starting with reclamation, but differ from MTMVF areas in that the disturbance
occurs on a much smaller spatial scale. A third reason that comparisons with other studies can
be misleading is that abundance estimates may be calculated differently. Nelson and Clark
(1973) recommended the use of a correction for sprung traps when calculating abundances.
We employed this correction, but other studies, especially those prior to 1973, did not correct.
In order to make comparisons with these studies, we also have listed our abundances
calculated without the correction (Table 33).
Some additional differences between our results and those of other studies can be attributed to
geographic differences, as the composition of small mammal communities varies by region. For
example, in two of the studies to which we compared our results, those by Clark et al. (1998) in
Oklahoma and Sietman et al. (1994) in Kansas, the cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) was the
most abundant small mammal. The fact that they found Peromyscus at a much lower
abundance than we did may simply be the result of competition with the cotton rat, a species
that does not occur on our study areas. Also, the abundance of meadow voles in our
grasslands was considerably lower than many of the other studies. For example, it was the
most abundant small mammal captured by Mindell (1978) and Forren (1981) in northern West
Virginia. It may not be as common in the southern part of the state due to the predominance of
forest.
Summary
Our study is in agreement with most literature surveyed in that we found small mammals to be
more abundant at early stages of succession than in forest. This trend in our study was driven
by the white-footed mouse, a species that is often most abundant in early successional stages
(e.g. Hansen and Warnock 1978, Buckner and Shure 1985). Two species, short-tailed shrew
and eastern chipmunk, were more abundant in intact forest than fragmented forest. Allegheny
woodrats were captured at several shrub/pole sites where rock drains with large boulders and
some canopy cover provided useable habitat.
Herpetofauna
Based on habitat requirements and known records of herpetofaunal species reported in Green
and Pauley (1987) and personnel communication with T. Pauley, we estimated that 59 species
50
-------
could be expected to occur on our study areas (Table 34), including 39 species that are
predominantly terrestrial and 20 species that are predominantly aquatic. Through captures in
drift fence arrays, occasional stream searches near arrays, and incidental observations, 35
(59%) species were found on our study areas, most in traps associated with drift fence arrays.
No species federally-listed as endangered or threatened or state-listed as species of concern
were found. Terrestrial and aquatic species of salamanders were least represented. Of the 39
terrestrial species expected to occur, we found 24 species (62%). We found 33% of species
expected to occur within the grassland treatment, 81% within the shrub/pole treatment, 47%
within forest fragments, and 53% within intact forests. Less developed vegetative cover and
thick homogenous plantings of lespedeza likely resulted in the low value for the grassland
treatment.
Only data from drift fence arrays were subjected to statistical analyses. Mean richness
(F=1.40, df=3, P=0.25) and abundance (F=1.14, df=3, P=0.34) of all herpetofaunal captures
combined did not differ between the 4 treatments (Table 35). We found no interactions
between treatment and sampling period (richness: F=0.69, df=15, P=0.78; abundance: F=0.61,
df=15, P=0.85). The number of different species captured ranged from 13 in young reclaimed
grassland treatment to 16 in the fragmented forest treatment. In a study comparing
herpetofaunal populations in recent clearcuts and mature forests, Pais et al. (1988) found that
overall abundance did not differ between their treatments. Their study was conducted in
eastern Kentucky where the herpetofaunal community is similar to our study sites and they
used similar sampling methods (drift fence arrays). Thus, response of herpetofauna in overall
abundance was similar in disturbed and undisturbed sites, whether the disturbance resulted
from timber harvesting or from mining. However, Pais et al. (1988) found lowest species
richness in their mature forest treatment, while we found no differences between treatments.
As expected on our study sites, the herpetofaunal community was most similar between the
grassland and shrub/pole treatments and most dissimilar between the grassland and intact
forest treatments (Table 36).
Salamanders comprised about a quarter of individuals and species captured in fragmented and
intact forest (Table 37). They were less common in the grassland and shrub/pole treatments,
both in number of species and individuals. Red-spotted newts, both the adult and juvenile (red
eft) forms were the most common species and the most widely distributed (Table 38). Both
adults and juveniles were captured in all 4 treatments and at every sampling point. The only
salamander species captured outside of the 2 forested treatments was a spotted salamander in
a grassland array. Green and Pauley (1987) indicate that this species is typically found in
deciduous forests but has been documented in newly plowed fields. In a review of 18 studies of
amphibian responses to clearcutting, a disturbance that results in early successional habitats,
de Maynadier and Hunter (1995) found that amphibian abundance was 3.5 times higher in
unharvested stands than in recent clearcuts. So it was not surprising to find few salamanders
in our early successional habitats. In 2-yr-old clearcuts in eastern Kentucky (an area with a
herpetofaunal community similar to southern West Virginia), Pais et al. (1988), captured 5
species of salamanders with drift fence arrays. Their clearcuts (12-15 ha) were much smaller
than our reclaimed sites and had forested habitat in closer proximity, which probably contributed
to differences in salamander richness. Additionally, greater amounts of woody debris ground
cover, higher soil moisure, and looser soil likely contributed to higher salamander richness in
their early successional habitats (clearcuts) compared to ours (reclaimed mines). DeMaynadier
and Hunter (1998) found that lack of canopy cover, litter cover, and cover from snags, stumps,
and associated root channels potentially limited amphibians near forest edges created by
clearcutting.
51
-------
Toads and frogs were captured in high numbers in all 4 treatments, ranging from 53% to 72%
of all individuals captured within a treatment (Table 37). High numbers of these species were
captured during the August and September trapping periods and included many individuals that
had recently metamorphosed, particularly green and pickerel frogs (Table 38). Summer of
2000 was an abnormally wet year (Fig. 17) and standing water occurred throughout the
treatments providing ample habitat for breeding. The eastern American toad, green frog, and
pickerel frog occurred at almost every sample point and within each treatment (Table 38). The
wood frog, which typically occurs in moist, deciduous forests (Green and Pauley 1987), was
captured only in the intact forest treatment.
Three species of lizards were captured in arrays; all were captured in low numbers and at few
sample points (Table 38). Although only 5 species of lizards occur in southern West Virginia
(Green and Pauley 1987), we had expected to capture them in greater numbers. The fence
lizard in particular is known to occur in xeric habitats and was captured only in grassland and
shrub/pole treatments. Because this species typically does not occur in moist forest conditions,
it probably was not abundant on the study sites before mining occurred. It is not known how
long it would take this species to colonize reclaimed mine sites since surrounding lands are
generally forested. The ground skink, categorized by West Virginia Natural Heritage Program
(2000) as a rare ("S3") species, was found only in the intact forest treatment. This species
generally inhabits the floor of dry, open woodlands and uses leaf litter and decaying wood for
concealment and foraging (Conant 1975, Green and Pauley 1987)
Only 1 species of turtle, the box turtle, was captured in the arrays and it occurred in all
treatments except shrub/pole (Table 38). This was the only species of terrestrial turtle expected
to occur within our study areas. Turtle species generally are not sampled well by drift fence
arrays, so captures of box turtles probably are not representative of the actual population.
Snakes were the most common group captured in grassland and shrub/pole habitats, ranging
from 46-50% of species captured within these 2 treatments (Table 37). Within fragmented
forest and intact forest, snakes accounted for 26-31% of species captured. Snakes are very
mobile and may be able to colonize reclaimed sites more quickly than other herpetofaunal
species and generally tolerate drier habitats resulting in the higher proportion of snake species.
The total number of species and individuals was higher in the shrub/pole sites than in the
forested sites. Similarly, Ross et al. (2000) found fewer species of snakes in forested areas
with high tree densities. Two species were captured exclusively in the forest treatments, worm
snake, and redbelly snake (Table 38). The worm snake is considered a rare ("S3") species by
the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000). Green and Pauley (1987) state that
redbelly snakes frequent open forests and forest edges and the species appears to prefer
mountainous terrain. Similarly, eastern worm snakes prefer forest lands. This species
frequently burrows in decayed logs or underground, so it is not surprising that this species was
not captured in the reclaimed grassland or shrub/pole treatments. Three species, hognose
(also classed as a rare "S3" species), black racer, and northern water snake, were captured
only in the 2 reclaimed treatments. The hognose and black racer are known to frequent dry,
open sites. The northern water snake will occur in almost any habitat if there is a reasonable
amount of water (Green and Pauley 1987), and the wet summer during 2000 provided such
areas in the reclaimed grassland and shrub/pole treatments.
Summary
52
-------
The herpetofaunal community sampled from March through September 2000, shifted from a
majority of amphibian species in the 2 forested treatments to a majority of reptile species in the
grassland and shrub/pole treatments. In particular, salamander species decreased while snake
species increased. Summer 2000 had much more rainfall than normal (see mammal results
section) which provided ample breeding habitat for toads and frogs, a group that accounted for
a high proportion of species and individuals in all treatments. Thus, we may have found a more
pronounced shift during a drier summer. Herpetofaunal species that require loose soil, moist
conditions, and woody or leaf litter ground cover generally were absent from reclaimed sites.
Minimizing soil compaction, establishing a diverse vegetative cover, and adding coarse woody
debris to reclaimed sites would provide habitat for some herpetofaunal species more quickly
after mining. Salamander populations, however, appear to require several years to recover in
areas disturbed by clearcutting (50-70 years: Petranka et al. 1993; 20-24 years: Ash 1997).
MTMVF results in greater soil disturbance than clearcutting so a longer time may be required
for recovery of salamander populations in reclaimed mine sites.
Literature Cited
Allaire, P. 1979. The avifauna of reclaimed surface mined lands: its composition and role in
land use planning. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.
Allaire, P. N. 1980. Bird species on mined lands: assessment and utilization in Eastern
Kentucky. Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, Kentucky Center for Energy
Research Laboratory, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.
American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. The A. O. U. Check-list of North American Birds,
seventh addition, http://pica.wru.umt.edu/AOL^irdlistHTML.
Amrani, C.R. 1987. Habitat use and metal accumulation by selected small mammals occurring
in surface mine cattail marshes. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.
Va.
Anderson, S. H., and H H. Shugart, Jr. 1974. Habitat selection of breeding birds in an east
Tennessee deciduous forest. Ecology 55: 828-837.
Ash, A.M. 1997. Disapearance and return of salamanders to clearcut plots in the southern
Blue Ridge mountains. Conservation Biology 11:983-989.
Askins, R. A. 1999. History of grassland birds in eastern North America. Studies in Avian
Biology 19: 60-71.
Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in
eastern North America. Current Ornithology 7:1-57.
Balcom, B.J., and R.H. Yahner. 1996. Microhabitat and landscape characteristics associated
with the threatened Allegheny woodrat. Conservation Biology 10:515-525.
Bayne, E.M., and K.A. Hobson. 1998. The effects of fragmentation by forestry and agriculture
on the abundance of small mammals in the southern boreal mixedwood forest.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:62-69.
Bednarz, J. C., and J. A. Dinsmore. 1981. Status, habitat use, and management of Red-
shouldered Hawks in Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 45: 236-241.
Beers, T. W., P. E. Dress, and L. C. Wensel. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity
research. Journal of Forestry 64:691-692.
Belleman, B. A. 1998. Red-shouldered hawk breeding ecology and habitat use in central
Minnesota. M. S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.
Bent, A. C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part I. U. S. National Museum
Bulletin 167.
53
-------
Bildstein, K. L, and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiterstriatus). No. 482 in Poole,
A. and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Blake, J. G., and J. R. Karr. 1987. Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat
relationships. Ecology 68:1724-1734.
Bloom, P. H., M. D. McCrary, and M. J. Gibson. 1993. Red-shouldered Hawk home-range and
habitat use in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:258-265.
Bohall, P. G., and M. W. Collopy. 1984. Seasonal abundance, habitat use, and perch sites of 4
raptor species in north-central Florida. Journal of Field Ornithology 55:181-189.
Brewer, R. 1958. Breeding-bird populations of strip-mined land in Perry County, Illinois.
Ecology 39:543-545.
Brooks, R. P., J. B. Hill, F. J. Brenner, and S. Capets. 1985. Wildlife use of wetlands on coal
surface mines in western Pennsylvania. Pages 337-352 in Brooks, R. P. , D. E.
Samuel, and J. B. Hill, Eds. Wetlands and water management on mine lands.
Conference Proceedings, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa.
Bryan, G. G., and L. B. Best. 1994. Avian nest density and success in grassed waterways in
Iowa rowcrop fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:583-592.
Buckelew, A. R., Jr., and G. A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas. University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.
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.
Bunn, A. G., W. Klein, and K. L. Bildstein. 1995. Time-of-day effects on the numbers and
behavior of non-breeding raptors seen on roadside surveys in eastern Pennsylvania.
Journal of Field Ornithology 66:544-552.
Burks, D.L. 1984. Home range, denning habits, and habitat use of raccoons in Morgantown,
WV. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider.1980. A field guide to the mammals (Peterson field guide).
Houghton Mifflin Co. New York, N. Y.
Burton, T.M., and G.E. Likens. 1975. Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard
Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975:541-546.
Bury, R. B. and P. S. Corn. 1987. Evaluation of pitfall trapping in northwestern forests: trap
arrays with drift fences. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:112-119.
Bushman, E. S. and G. D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest interior
breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife
Technical Report 88-1.
Campbell, H. W. and S. P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community
analysis. Pages 193-200 in Scott, N. J. , Ed. Herpetological communities. U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Resource Report Number 13.
Caldwell, R.S. and H. Bryan. 1982. Notes on distribution and habitats of Sorex and Microsorex
(Insectivora: Soricidae) in Kentucky. Brimleyana 8:91-100.
Chapman, D. L. 1977. Breeding bird populations in relation to the vegetation structure of
abandoned contour mines in southwest Virginia. M. S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic and
State University, Blacksburg, Va.
Chapman, D. L., B. S. McGinnes, and R. L Downing. 1978. Breeding bird populations in
response to the natural revegetation of abandoned contour mines. Pages 328-332 in
Samuel, D. E., J. R. Stauffer, C. H. Hocutt, and W. T. Mason, Jr., Eds. Surface mining
and fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Report FWS/OBS-78-81.
Chapman, J.A., J.G. Hockman, and W.R. Edwards. 1980. Sylvilagus floridanus. Mammalian
Species No. 136. American Society of Mammalogy.
54
-------
Clark, B.K., B.S. Clark, T.R. Homerding, and W.E. Munsterman. 1998. Communities of small
mammals in six grass-dominated habitats of southeastern Oklahoma.
Cockrum. E.L. 1947. Effectiveness of live traps versus snap traps. Journal of Mammalogy
28:186.
Cody, R.P. and J.K. Smith. 1997. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass.
Corn, S. P. 1994. Straight line drift fences and pitfall traps. Pages 109-117 in Heyer, W. K.,
M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and
monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington D. C.
Crawford, H.S..W. A. Abler, and D. M. Hardy. 1978. Nesting of birds on strip-mined highwalls
in southern West Virginia. Transactions of the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society
35:87-91.
Crawford, H.S., D. M. Hardy, and W. A. Abler. 1978. A survey of bird use of strip mined areas
in southern West Virginia. Pages 241-246 in Samuel, D. E., J. R. Stauffer, C. H. Hocutt,
and W. T. Mason, Jr., Eds. Surface mining and fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-78-81.
Crocoll, S. T. 1994. Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). No. 107 in Poole, A. and F. Gill,
Eds. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Penn., and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.
Crocoll, S. T., and J. W. Parker. 1989. The breeding biology of Broad-winged and Red-
shouldered Hawks in western New York. Journal of Raptor Research 23:125-139.
DeCapita, M.E. and T.A. Bookout. 1975. Small mammal populations, vegetational cover and
hunting use of an Ohio strip-mine area. Ohio Journal of Science 75:305-313.
De Maynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship between forest management
and amphibian ecology: A review of the North American literature. Environmental
Review 3:230-261.
De Maynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution
and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology 12:340-352.
Demeo, T. 1999. Forest songbird abundance and viability at multiple scales on the
Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Ph. D. Dissertation. West Virginia
University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Denmon, P. 1998. Early successional habitat use by nongame wildlife species in American
woodcock breeding habitat in West Virginia. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va.
DeSelm, H. R. and N. Murdock. 1993. Grass-dominated communities. Pages 87-142 in Martin,
W. H., S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, Eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern
United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y.
Dettmers, R. and J. Bart. 1999. A GIS modeling method applied to predicting forest songbird
habitat. Ecological Applications 9:152-163.
DeVault, T. L., P. E. Scott, R. A. Bajema, and S. L. Lima. In review. Large reclaimed coal
mines as a refuge for grassland birds in the American Midwest. Submitted to Condor.
Donovan, T. M., F. R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, AND J. R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive
success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9:1380-
1395.
Dunning, J.B., Jr., D.J. Stewart, B.J. Danielson, B.R. Noon, T.L. Root, R.H. Lamberson, and
E.E. Stevens. 1995. Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses.
Ecological Applications 5.
55
-------
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. Simon and Schuster
Inc. New York, N. Y.
Enge, K. M. 1997. Use of silt fencing and funnel traps for drift fences. Herpetological Review
28:30-31.
Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1995. Habitat fragmentation in the
temperate zone. Pages 357-380 in Martin, T. E. and D. M. Finch, Eds. Ecology and
Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New
York.
Feder, M.E. 1983. Integrating the ecology and physiology of plethodontid salamanders.
Herpetologica 39:291-310.
Fellers G. M., C. A. Drost, and W. R. Heyer. 1994. Handling live amphibians. Pages 275-276
in Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, Eds.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C.
Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical
migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-205.
Forren, J. D. 1981. Artificial perch use by raptors on reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia.
M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Fowle, C.D. and R.Y. Edwards. 1955. An unusual abundance of short-tailed shrews, Blarina
brevicauda. Journal of Mammology 36:36-41.
Fowler D. F., D. M. Hill, and L. J. Fowler. 1985. Colonization of coal surface mine sediment
ponds in southern Appalachia by aquatic organisms and breeding amphibians. Pages
261-280 in Brooks R. P., J. B. Hill, F. J. Brenner, and S. Carpets, Eds. Wetlands and
water management on mined lands: proceedings of a conference. The Pennsylvania
State University, State College, Pa.
Frawley, B. J., and L. B. Best. 1999. Effects of mowing on breeding bird abundance and
species composition in alfalfa fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:135-142.
Frazer, C. F. 1992. Factors influencing the habitat selection of breeding birds in Hoosier
National Forest, Indiana: clearcutting and edges. Ph. D. Dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Ind.
Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pages 45-46 in B. A. Giron, B.
A. Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird, Eds. Raptor management
techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C.
Gentry, J.B., F.B. Golley, and J.T. McGinnis. 1966. Effect of weather on captures of small
mammals. American Midland Naturalist 75:526-530.
George, S.B., J.R. Choate, and H.H. Genoways. 1986. Blarina brevicauda. Mammalian Species
No. 261. American Society of Mammology.
Gibbs. J.P. 1998. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient.
Landscape Ecology 13:263-268.
Gibbs, J. P., and J. Faaborg. 1990. Estimating the viability of Ovenbird and Kentucky Warbler
populations in forest fragments. Conservation Biology 4:193-196.
Goodnight, C.J. , and E.J. Koestner. 1942. Comparison of trapping methods in an Illinois
prairie. Journal of Mammalogy 23:435-438.
Gottfried, B.M. 1977. Small mammal populations in woodlot islands. American Midland
Naturalist 102: 105-112.
Green, N.B. and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. Univ. of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Hagan, J. M., W. M. Vander Haegen, and P. S. McKinley. 1996. The early development of
forest fragmentation effects on birds. Conservation Biology 10:188-202.
56
-------
Hagan, J.M., III, P.S. McKinley, A.L. Meehan, and A.L. Grove. 1997. Diversity and abundance
of landbirds in a northeastern industrial forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:
718-735.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hall, G. A. 1983. West Virginia Birds: distribution and ecology. Special Publication Carnegie
Museum of Natural History No. 7, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Hamel, P. 1988. Landscape ecology of Cerulean Warblers (Dendroica cerulea, Parulidae) in
Tennessee. Unpub. Rept.
Hamilton, W.J., Jr. 1964. American mammals. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N. Y.
Hansen, L.P. and Warnock, J.E. 1978. Response of 2 species of Peromyscus to vegetational
succession on land strip-mined for coal. American Midland Naturalist 100:416-423.
Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, III.
Hartley, M., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and
artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology 12:465-469.
Hemler, D.A. 1988. Propagation of aspen on abandoned surface mines and use by white-tailed
deer. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster. 1994.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C.
Hinkle, C. R., W. C. McComb, J. M. Safley, Jr., and P. A. Schmalzer. 1993. Mixed mesophytic
forests. Pages 203-253 in Martin, W. H., S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, Eds.
Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y.
Holt, D. W. and S. M. Leasure. 1993. Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). No. 162 In Poole, A.
and F. Gill, Eds The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Philadelphia, Pa.
Holman, M.E. 1983. Sociological and ecological relationships of raccoon (Procyon lotor) on the
Fork Creek Public Hunting Area, West Virginia. M.S. Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va.
Homyack, J. D. 1999. Effects of pasture streambank fencing on reptile and amphibian
communities in southwestern Pennsylvania. M. S. Thesis, California University of
Pennsylvania, California, Pa.
Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for
biological diversity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Igo, W. K. 1973. Case history of European wild boars in southern West Virginia. M. S. Thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
James, F. C., R. F. Johnston, N. O. Warner, G. J. Niemi, and W. J. Boecklen. 1984. The
Grinnellian niche of the Wood Thrush. American Naturalist 124:17-47
James, F. C. and H. H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audubon.
Field Notes 24:727-736.
James, F. C., and N. O. Warner. 1982. Relationships between temperate forest bird
communities and vegetation structure. Ecology 63: 159-171.
Jenkins, S.H. 1975. Food selection by beavers: A multidimensional contingency table analysis.
Oecologia 21:157-173.
Johnsgard. P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D. C.
Jones, C., W. J. McShea, M.J. Conroy, T.H. Kunz. 1996. Chapters: Capturing Mammals. Page
120 in Wilson, D.E. et al. (Eds.), Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity:
Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
57
-------
Jones, K. B. 1986. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 267-290 in Cooperrider, A. Y., J. B.
Raymond, and H. R. Stardt, Eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver,
Colorado.
Jung, R. E., S. W. Droege, and J. R. Sauer. 2000. Primenet amphibian project at Shenandoah
and Big Bend National Park. In www.pwrc.usgs.gov. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, Md.
Herkert, J. R., and W. D. Glass. 1999. Henslow's Sparrow response to prescribed fire in an
Illinois landscape. Studies in Avian Biology 19:160-164.
Karr, J.R. 1968. Habitat and avian diversity on strip-mined land in east-central Illinois. Condor
70:348-358.
Kaufman, D.W. and G.A. Kaufman. 1990. House mice (Mus musculus) in natural and disturbed
habitats in Kansas. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 428-432.
Kennedy, P. L. and D. W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting Northern Goshawks to
taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:249-257.
Kershner, E. L. , and E. K. Bellinger. 1996. Reproductive success of grassland birds at east-
central Illinois airports. American Midland Naturalist 136:358-366.
King, C.M. 1989. The natural history of weasels and stoats. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
N.Y.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1976. Small mammals of a mine waste situation in the central Adirondacks,
New York: A case of opportunism by Peromyscus maniculatus. American Midland
Naturalist 95:103-110.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1977. Responses of small mammals to the clearcutting of northern
Appalachian forests. Journal of Mammalogy 58:600-609.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr., A.M. Wilkinson, J.V. Plenz, and J.E. Maldonando. 1987. Sorex (microsorex)
hoyi in Pennsylvania. Journal of Mammalogy 68:384-387.
Kirsch, L. M., H. F. Deubbert, and A. D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and laying effects on habitats of
upland nesting birds. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 43:486-497.
Knotts, R. and D.E. Samuel. 1977. White-tailed deer movement and distribution about surface
coal mines in West Virginia USA. Minerals and the Environment. 4:17-25.
Koford, R. R. 1999. Density and fledging success of grassland birds in Conservation Reserve
Program fields: precipitation and patterns of population change. Studies in Avian
Biology, 19:178-186.
Krause, J., B. Mahan, and M. Harding. 1985. Waterfowl management and wetland
development on Peabody Coal Company surface mines in Illinois, Indiana, and
Kentucky. Pages 327-328 in Brooks, R. P., D. E. Samuel, and J. B. Hill, Eds. Wetlands
and water management on mine lands. Conference Proceedings, The Pennsylvania
State University, State College, Pa.
Krupa, J.J. and K.E. Haskins. 1996. Invasion of the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) in
southeastern Kentucky and its possible impact on the southern bog lemming
(Synaptomys cooper/}. American Midland Naturalist 135:14-22.
Landers, J.L., R.J. Hamilton, A.S. Johnson, and R.L. Marchinton. 1979. Food habits of black
bears in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:143-153.
Lannoo, M. 2000. Protocols and Strategies for Monitoring North American Amphibians. In
Monti, L., Ed. www.mp1-pwrc.usgs.gov/amphib/tools/proto-aqua.html. North American
Amphibian Monitoring Program.
Lawrence, J. S., W. D. Klimstra, W. G. O'Leary, and G. A. Perkins. 1985. Contribution of
surface-mined wetlands to selected avifauna in Illinois. Pages 317-326 in Brooks, R. P.,
58
-------
D. E. Samuel, and J. B. Hill, Eds. Wetlands and water management on mine lands.
Conference Proceedings, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa.
LeClerc, M. 1982. Bird communities and vegetation structure of reclaimed surface mines in
West Virginia. M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Va.
Leedy, D. L. and T. M. Franklin. 1981. Coal surface mining reclamation and fish and wildlife
relationships in the eastern United States. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Report
FWS/OBS-80/25.
Lewellen R.H. and S.H. Vessey. 1998. Modeling biotic and abiotic influences on population size
in small mammals. Oecologia. 113:210-218.
Lindeborg, R.G. 1941. Fluctuations in the abundance of small mammals in east-central Illinois,
1936-1939. Ecology 22: 96-99.
Llewellyn, L.M. and C.G. Webster. 1960. Raccoon predation on waterfowl. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 25:180-185.
Lovallo, M.J. and E.M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat (Lynx rufus) home range size and habitat use in
northwest Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 135:241-252.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.
Martin, T. E., and G. R. Geupel. 1993. Nest monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and
monitoring success. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:507-519.
Martin, T.E., C. Paine, C.J. Conway, W. M. Hockachka, P. Allen, and W. Jenkins. 1997.
BBIRD Field Protocol. USGS, Biological Resources Division, Montana Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Research Unit, Missoula, Mont.
Mayer, J.J. and L.L. Brisbin, Jr. 1991. Wild pigs in the US: their history, morphology, and
current status. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens, Ga.
Mayfield, H.F. 1961. Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bulletin 73:255-261.
Mayfield, H.F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456-466.
McComb, W. C., McGarigal, K., J. D. Fraser, and W. H. Davis. 1991. Planning for basin-level
cumulative effects in the Appalachian Coal Field. Pages 137-152 in Rodiek, J. E. and E.
G. Bolen, Eds. Wildlife and Habitat in Managed Landscapes. Island Press,
Washington, D. C.
McConnell, D. L. and D. E. Samuel. 1985. Small mammal and avian populations utilizing
cattail marshes on reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia. Pages 329-336 in Brooks,
R. P. , D. E. Samuel, and J. B. Hill, Eds. Wetlands and water management on mine
lands. Conference Proceedings, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa.
McCoy, T. D., M. R. Ryan, E. W. Kurzejeski, and L. W. Burger, Jr. 1999. Conservation
Reserve Program: source or sink for grassland birds in Missouri? Journal of Wildlife
Management 63:530-538.
McDiarmid, R. W. 1994a. Amphibian diversity and natural history: an overview. Pages 5-15 in
Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, Eds.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C.
McDiarmid, R. W. 1994b. Preparing amphibians as scientific specimens. Pages 289-296 in
Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, Eds.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C.
McGowan, K.J. and T.A. Bookout. 1986. Small mammal populations on Ohio strip-mined lands
reclaimed with herbaceous vegetation under old and new reclamation laws. Ohio
Journal of Science 86:29-32.
59
-------
McLeod, M.A. and D. E. Anderson. 1998. Red-shouldered broadcast surveys: Factors affecting
detection of responses and population trends. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1385-
1397.
McManus, J.J. 1974. Didelphis virginiana. Mammalian species No. 40. American Society of
Mammalogy.
Mengak, M. T. and D. C. Guynn, JR. 1987. Pitfalls and snap traps for sampling small
mammals and herpetofauna. American Midland Naturalist 118:284-288.
Merrit, J. F. 1981. Clethrionomys gapperi. Mammalian species No. 146. American Society of
Mammalogy.
Meyers, C. W. 1957. Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State Park, Washington County,
Missouri. Transcript of the Kansas Academic Society 60:288-293.
Mindell, D. P. 1978. Habitat use by Red-tailed hawks in surface mined areas. M. S. Thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Moorman, C. E. and B. R. Chapman. 1996. Nest-site selection of Red-shouldered and Red-
tailed hawks in a managed forest. Wilson Bulletin 108:357-368.
Morris, M. M. J., and R. E. Lemon. 1983. Characteristics of vegetation and topography near
Red-shouldered Hawk nests in southwestern Quebec. Journal of Wildlife Management
47: 138-145.
Mosher, J. A., M. R. Fuller, and M. Kopeny. 1990. Surveying woodland raptors by broadcast of
conspecific vocalizations. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:453-461.
Mosher, J. A. and M. R. Fuller. 1996. Surveying woodland hawks with broadcasts of great
horned owl vocalizations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:531-536.
Mumford, R.E. and W.C. Bramble. 1973. Small mammals on surface-mined land in
southwestern Indiana. In Hutnik, R.J. and G. Davis, Eds. Ecology and reclamation of
devastated land, Volume 1. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers Inc.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 10:58-62.
Myers, C. W. and W. D. Klimstra. 1963. Amphibians and reptiles of an ecologically disturbed
(strip-mined) area in southern Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 70:127-132.
Nawrot, J. R., A. Woolf, and W. D. Klimstra. 1982. A guide for the enhancement of fish and
wildlife on abandoned mine lands in the eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Report FWS/OBS-80/67.
Nelson, L. and F.W. Clark. 1972. Correction for sprung traps in catch/effort calculations of
trapping results. Journal of Mammaology 54:295-298.
Nichols, J. V. 1996. Effects of two-age timber management and clearcuttig on songbird
density an dreproductive success. Master's Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va.
Norment, C. J., C. D. Ardizzone, and K. Hartman. 1999. Habitat relations and breeding biology
of grassland birds in New York. Studies in Avian Biology, 19:112-121.
Nupp, T.E. and R.K. Swihart. 1996. Effect of forest patch area on population attributes of white-
footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in fragmented landscapes. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 74:467-472.
Nur, N., S. L. Jones, and G. R. Geupel. 1999. Statistical guide to data analysis of avian
monitoring progams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication, BTP-R6001-1999.
Washington, D. C.
Ohlsson, K. E., A. E. Robb, Jr., C. E. Guindon, Jr., m. Baker, Jr., D. E. Samuel, and R. L.
Smith. 1982. Best current practices for fish and wildlife on surface-mined land in the
northern Appalachian coal region. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-
81/45. .
60
-------
Pais, R. C., S. A. Bonney, and W. C. McComb. 1988. Herpetofaunal species richness and
habitat associations in an eastern Kentucky forest. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 42:448-455.
Paton, W. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence?
Conservation Biology 8:17-26.
Perkins, G. A. and J. S. Lawrence. 1985. Bird use of wetlands created by surface mining.
Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science. 78:87-95.
Peterson, J. M. C., and S. T. Crocoll. 1992. Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus. Pages 333-
351 in Schneider, K. J. and D. M. Pence, Eds. Migratory nongame birds of
management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner,
Mass.
Petit, D. R., L.J. Petit, V. A. Saab, and T. E. Martin. 1995. Fixed-radius point counts in forests:
factors influencing effectiveness and efficiency. Pages 49-56 in Ralph, C. J., J. R.
Sauer, and S. Droege, Eds. Monitoring bird populations by point count. U.S. D. A.
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149.
Petranka, J.W., M.P. Brannon, M.E. Hopey, and C.K. Smith. 1994. Effects of timber
harvesting on low elevation populations of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest
Ecology and Management 67:135-147.
Preston, C. R. and R. D. Beane. 1993. Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). No. 52 In Poole,
A. and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Penn. and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
Pyare, S., J.A. Kent, D.I. Noxon, and M.T. Murphy. 1993. Acorn preference and habitat use in
eastern chipmunks. American Midland Naturalist 130:173-183.
Ralph, C.J., G.R. Guepel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field
methods for monitoring landbirds. U.S. D. A. Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-144.
Rich, S.M., C.W. Kilpatrick, J.L. Shippee, and K.L. Crowell. 1996. Morphological differences
and identification of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus in northeastern
North America. Journal of Mammalogy 77: 985-991.
Riley, C. V. 1952. An evaluation of reclaimed coal strip mined lands as wildlife habitat. Ph. D.
Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Oh.
Robbins, C. S. 1980. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird populations in the
piedmont of the Mid-Atlantic region. Atlantic Naturalist. 35:31-36.
Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, and L. C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual
obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range
Management 23:295-297.
Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995.
Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science
267:1987- 1990.
Rohrbaugh, R. W., Jr., D. L. Reinking, D. H. Wolfe, S. K. Sherrod, and M. A. Jenkins. 1999.
Effects of presribed burning and grazing on nesting and reproductive success of 3
grassland passerine species in tallgrass prairie. Studies in Avian Biology, 19:160-264.
Rohrbaugh, R. W., Jr. and R. H. Yahner. 1996. Reclaimed surface mines: an important nesting
habitat for Northern Harriers in Pennsylvania. Pp. 307-314 in Bird, D. M., D. E. Varland,
and J. J. Negro, Eds. Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London, U. K.
Rosenberg, K. V. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 22:
Ohio Hills, unpublished draft.
Rosenberg, K.V., and J.V. Wells. 1995. Importance of geographic areas to neotropical migrant
birds in the northeast. Unpublished report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Region 5, Hadley, Mass.
61
-------
Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells. 1999. Global perspectives on neotropical migratory bird
conservation in the Northeast: long-term responsibility vs. immediate concern. In
Bonney, R., D. N. Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Miles, Eds. Strategies for bird
conservation: the Partners in Flight planning process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay.
Rosenblatt, D. L., E. J. Heske, and S. L. Nelson. 1999. Forest fragments in east-central
Illinois: islands or habitat patches for mammals? American Midland Naturalist 141:115-
123.
Rosenfield, R. N., J. Bielefeldt, and R. K. Anderson. 1988. Effectiveness of broadcast calls for
detecting breeding Cooper's hawks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:210-212.
Rosenfield, R. N., and J. Bielefeldt. 1993. Cooper's hawk (Accipitercooperii). No. 75 In Poole,
A. and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Ross, B., T. Fredericksen, E. Ross, W. Hoffman, M.L. Morrison, J. Beyea, M.B. Lester, B.N.
Johnson, and N.J. Fredericksen. 2000. Relative abundance and species richness or
herpetofauna in forest stands in Pennsylvania. Forest Science 46:139-146.
Rossman, D. A. 1960. Herpetofaunal survey of the Pine Hills area of southern Illinois. Q. J.
Florida Academy of Science 22:207-225.
Rotenberry, J. T., and J. A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities
in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228-1250.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallen, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American
Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. [http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html]
Sealander, J.A. and D. James. 1958. Relative efficiency of different small mammal traps.
Journal of Mammalogy 39:215-223.
Sietman, B.E., W.B. Fothergill, and E.J. Finck. 1994. Effects of haying and old-field succession
on small mammals in tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist 131:1-8.
Sinsch, U. 1990. Migration and orientation in anuran amphibians. Ethology, Ecology and
Evolution 2:65-79.
Sly, G.R. 1976. Small mammal succession on strip-mined land in Vigo County, Indiana.
American Midland Naturalist 95:257-267.
Smith, C.R., D.M. Pence, and R.J. O'Connor. 1992. Status of neotropical migratory birds in the
Northeast: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 172-188 in Status and management of
neotropical migratory birds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-229.
Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Ca.
Stebbins, R.C., and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A natural history of amphibians. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N. J.
Strait, K. 1981. Vegetation changes and breeding biology of 4 sparrow species on reclaimed
surface mines in West Virginia. M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.
Va.
Strausbaugh, P.O., and E. L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia, Second Edition. Seneca
Books, Morgantown, W. Va.
Temple, S. 1986. Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of
2 models. Pages 301-304 in Verner, J., M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, Eds. Wildlife
2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, Wis.
Terpenning, V.A., B.N. Jacobsen, J.R. Nawrot, M.J. Sweet, M.T. Dooley, A.L. Dooley, D.L.
Damrau, and W.D. Klimstra. 1975. Environmental inventory and assessment of the
proposed New Delta Mine Expansion in southeastern Illinois. Cooperative Wildlife
Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, III.
62
-------
Titus, K., and J. A. Mosher. 1981. Nest-site habitat selected by woodland hawks in the central
Appalachians. Auk 98:270-281.
Turner, L. J., and D. K. Fowler. 1981. Utilization of surface mine ponds in east Tennessee by
breeding amphibians. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-81/08.
Urbanek, R.P. and Klimstra, W.D. 1980. Vertebrates and vegetation on a surface-mined area in
southern Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science.
Verts, B.J. 1957. The population and distribution of 2 species of Peromyscus on some Illinois
strip-mined land. Journal of Mammalogy 38:53-59.
Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, Jr., and J. V. Wells. 1999. Effects of fire and herbicide treatment
on habitat selection in grassland birds in southern Maine. Studies in Avian Biology
19:149-159.
Vogt, R. C. and R. L. Mine. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and
reptile populations in Wisconson. Pages 201-217 in Scott, N. J., Ed. Herpetological
communities. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Report No. 13.
Wackenhut, P. B. 1980. The breeding biology of the horned lark on coal surface mines in
northern West Virginia. M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va..
Wade-Smith, J. and B.J. Verts. 1982. Mephitis mephitis. Mammalian Species No. 173.
American Society of Mammalogy.
Warner, R. 1994. Agricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: future shock for
midwestern birds? Conservation Biology 8:147-156.
Weakland, C. 2000. Effects of diameter-limit and two-age timber harvesting on songbird
populations on an industrial forest in central West Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Weigl, P.O. 1978. Resource overlap, interspecific interactions, and distribution of the flying
squirrels, Glaucomys volans and G. sabrinus. American Midland Naturalist 100: 83-96.
Wells, J. V. and K. V. .Rosenberg. 1999. Grassland bird conservation in northeastern North
America. Studies in Avian Biology 19:72-80.
West Virginia Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Rare, threatened &
endangered vertebrate species in West Virginia: A listing of vertebrates believed rare in
West Virginia Wildlife Resources Section, West Virg. Division of Natural Resources
Wharton, C.H. and J.J. White. 1967. The red-backed vole, Clethrionomys gapperi, in north
Georgia. Journal of Mammalogy 48:670-672.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States 3rd Ed.
Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, N. Y.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.E. Wrigley. 1972. Mammalian species No. 14. American Society of
Mammaology.
Wiley, R.W. 1980. Neotoma floridana. Mammalian Species. No. 139. American Society of
Mammalogy.
Whitcomb, B.L., C. F. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak.
1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest.
Pages 125-205 in Burgess, R. L. and D. M. Sharpe, Eds. Forest island dynamics in
man-dominated landscapes. Springer Verlag, New York, N. Y.
Whitmore, R. C. 1978. Managing reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia to promote
nongame birds. Pages 381-386 in Samuel, D. E., J. R. Stauffer, C. H. Hocutt, and W.
T. Mason, Jr., Eds. Surface mining and fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United States.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-78-81.
Whitmore, R. C. 1979. Short-term change in vegetation structure and its effect on
Grasshopper Sparrows in West Virginia. Auk 96:621-625.
Whitmore, R. C. 1980. Reclaimed surface mines as avian habitat islands in the Eastern forest.
American Birds 34:13-14.
63
-------
Whitmore, R. C. and G. A. Hall. 1978. The response of passerine species to a new resource:
reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia. American Birds 32:6-9.
Wiens, J. A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological
Monographs 42:237-270.
Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of
birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41.
Willson, M. F. 1974. Avian community organization and habitat structure. Ecology 55:1017-
1029.
Wood, P. B., J. P. Duguay, and J. V. Nichols. 1998. Songbird abundance, net success, and
invertebrate biomass on two-age, clearcut, and unharvested forest stands in the
Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Final Project Report to the U. S. D. A.
Forest Service.
Wray, T. II, 1979. Breeding biology and reproductive success of 3 sparrow species on
reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia. M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va.
Wray, T. II, 1982. Breeding bird community structure and function on a reclaimed surface
mine. Ph. D. Dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Wray, T,. II, K. A. Strait, and R.C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of grassland
sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. Auk 99:157-163.
Wray, T. II, P. B. Wackenhut, R. C. Whitmore. 1978. The reproductive biology of passerine
birds breeding on reclaimed surface mines in northern West Virginia. Pages 333-344 in
Samuel, D. E., J. R. Stauffer, C. H. Hocutt, and W. T. Mason, Jr., Eds. Surface mining
and fish/wildlife needs in the eastern United States. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Report FWS/OBS-78-81.
Wyman, R. 1990. What's happening to the amphibians? Conservation Biology 4:350-352.
Yahner, R. H. 1973. Breeding-bird populations of a strip-mined area in a deciduous forest in
Cambell County, Tennessee. M. S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.
Yahner, R.H. 1986. Spatial distribution of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in
fragmented forest stands. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 60:
165-166.
Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-
339.
Yahner, R.H.. 1992. Dynamics of a small mammal community in a fragmented forest.
American Midland Naturalist 127:381-391.
Yahner, R. H. and J. C. Howell. 1975. Habitat use and species composition of breeding
avifauna in a deciduous forest altered by strip mining. Journal of the Tennessee
Academy of Science 50:142-14
Yahner, R. H. and R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr. 1996. Grassland birds associated with harrier habitat
on reclaimed surface mines. Northeast Wildlife 53 11-18.
Yahner, R. H. and R. W. Rohrbaugh, Jr. 1998. A comparison of raptor use of reclaimed surface
mines and agricultural habitats in Pennsylvania. Journal of Raptor Research 32:178-
180.
Yahner, R. H., and A. L. Wright. 1985. Depredation on artificial ground nests: effects of edge
and plot age. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:508-513.
Yearsley, E. F. and D.E. Samuel. 1980. Use of reclaimed surface mines by foxes in West
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 729-734.
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, fourth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J.
64
-------
Table 1. Watersheds and stream drainages with songbird (S), raptor (R), mammal (M), and
herpetofaunal (H) sampling points by treatment in 3 watersheds in southwest West Virginia.
Treatment
Watershed
Mud River
Streams
Big Horse
Lavender Fork
Stanley Fork
Spring Branch
Big Buck Fork
Hill Fork
Long Branch
Grassland
SRM
SRMH
SRM
Shrub/pole
SRM
SRMH
Fragmented
Forest
SRMH
SMH
SRM
Intact
Forest
SRMH
SR
Spruce Fork Rockhouse Creek SRMH
Bend Branch SRM
Beech Creek SRM
Pigeonroost SRH
Branch
Twentymile Creek Bullpush Fork SRMH SRMH
Ash Fork SRMH
Hughes Fork SRMH
65
-------
Table 2. Number of replicates in each treatment and watershed for each taxa in 2000.
Treatment
Taxa
Songbirds
Mammals
Raptors
Herps
Watershed
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Twentymile Creek
Grassland
18
12
10
6
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Shrub/pole
17
0
16
4
0
4
6
0
6
1
0
2
Fragmented
Forest
20
6
10
6
2
2
4
4
4
2
0
1
Intact
Forest
20
17
10
6
2
2
5
4
3
1
1
1
Table 3. Mean and range of estimated age and elevation of grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments and total area of each treatment at each mine site.
Treatment
Grassland
Mine
Age (yrs)
Hobet 21
Daltex
Cannelton
Elevation (m)
Hobet 21
Daltex
Cannelton
Area (ha)
Hobet 21
Daltex
Cannelton
Mean
12
8
13
367
424
444
Total
2003
1819
1672
Range
8-14
5-11
9-19
304-423
341-516
388-476
Range
~
~
Shrub/pole
Mean
16
—
23
322
—
439
Total
428
106b
508
Range
16
—
13-27
241-375
—
382-467
Range
~
~
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
a
—
~
308
343
374
Total
339
155
214
Range
—
~
253-358
299-452
332-428
Range
83-157
30-86
~
Intact Forest
Mean
—
~
328
440
477
Total
~
~
Range
—
~
276-406
358-533
360-566
Range
~
~
' Data not applicable to this treatment or mine site.
' This shrub/pole habitat was not used for the study because it did not result from MTMVF.
66
-------
Table 4. Codes for wind speed, sky cover, and edge types used in point count surveys.
Wind Speed
Sky Cover
Edge Types
0 = Smoke rises vertically
1 = Wind direction shown by smoke
2 = Wind felt on face, leaves rustle
3 = Leaves, small twigs in constant
motion
4 = Raises dust and loose paper, small
branches move
5 = Small trees in leaf sway
0 = Clear or few clouds
1 = Partly cloudy
2 = Cloudy or overcast
3 = Fog
4 = Drizzle
5 = Showers
1 = Paved road
2 = Open-canopy road
3 = Partially open-canopy road
4 = Agricultural opening
5 = Development (houses, etc.)
6 = River or stream
7 = Clearcut
8 = Wildlife opening
9 = Natural gap
10 = Valley Fill
11 = Grassland
12 = Forest
13 = Pond
14 = Autumn Olive Block
67
-------
Table 5. Partner-in Flight (PIF) conservation ratings and action levels for upland forest birds in
the Ohio Hills physiographic area, the percent of each species' population estimated to be
within that area, the percent of forested point counts where these species were detected during
this study, and species for which logistic regression models were developed.
Species PIF rating3 Action levelab
Cerulean Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Worm-eating Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Acadian Flycatcher
Eastern Wood-pewee
Wood Thrush
Yellow-throated Vireo
Hooded Warbler
Black-billed Cuckoo
Scarlet Tanager
Great Crested Flycatcher
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Black-and-white Warbler
30
25
25
24
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
19
19
19
19
II
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Logistic
Percent of Percent of Regression
population30 point countsd Model?
46.8
1.9
11.6
12.5
11.2
15.6
3.4
9.1
8.5
8.0
1.9
11.1
1.0
<1.0
1.3
36.1
1.2
15.7
21.7
26.5
81.9
1.2
56.6
20.5
38.5
0.00
47.0
1.2
9.6
41.0
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
a Draft PIF Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 22: Ohio Hills (Rosenburg 2000).
bAction levels: l=crisis; recovery needed; INmmediate management or policy needed
rangewide; lll=managementto reverse or stabilize populations; IV= long-term planning to
ensure stable populations; V=research needed to better define threats; Vl=monitor population
changes only (Rosenburg 2000).
c Percent of population thought to occur in the Ohio Hills area 22 calculated from percent of
range area, weighted by BBS relative abundance (Rosenberg 2000).
d Percent of forested point counts (n=83) where species occurred in 1999-2000.
68
-------
Table 6. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at grassland (n=44),
shrub/pole (n=33), fragmented forest (n=36), and intact forest (n=49) sampling points.
Treatment
Grassland
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Elevation (m)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Distance to Forest/Mine Edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Bareg round
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb Cover
Grass Cover
Shrub Cover
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-6 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Canopy Cover (%)
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
16.96
1.05
7.29
2.26
400.93
113.02
335.46
347.35
2.93
~
0.14
7.73
8.14
0.06
1.04
82.77
23.63
45.05
14.13
777.70
73.15
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
SE
2.10
0.10
0.27
0.19
7.19
16.75
45.26
44.30
0.17
~
0.10
1.18
1.54
0.04
0.38
2.00
2.39
2.71
2.72
207.52
18.79
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
Shrub/Pole
Mean
10.16
0.78
6.20
1.64
378.85
68.14
79.16
253.98
4.30
4.67
0.15
2.22
6.06
0.30
1.83
85.86
21.89
43.70
22.99
2590.91
993.37
113.26
27.65
3.98
1.70
0.00
29.70
22.88
14.37
2.84
0.11
0.00
3.85
SE
1.93
0.13
0.48
0.17
11.53
8.23
11.06
34.46
0.27
0.45
0.12
0.92
1.78
0.12
0.86
3.47
2.86
5.26
3.23
351.50
151.95
20.71
6.29
1.65
0.87
0.00
2.94
2.86
2.59
0.86
0.08
0.00
0.29
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
33
1
332
38
128
128
21
1
7
54
4
2
30
2034
6439
374
93
32
11
4
54
66
63
56
41
16
11
.78
.05
a
-
.08
.71
.61
.61
~
.70
.15
.71
.24
.20
.01
.35
~
~
~
.72
.24
.65
.23
.29
.28
.34
.90
.63
.06
.01
.39
.15
.58
2
0
7
3
SE
.28
.12
-
-
.11
.88
12.52
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
119
537
37
5
3
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
.52
~
.72
.32
.95
.88
.42
.32
.74
~
~
~
.64
.40
.20
.60
.32
.69
.93
.33
.42
.38
.68
.97
.48
.23
Intact
Forest
Mean
33
1
389
64
.75
.02
-
-
.58
.61
1430.66
1430
22
0
7
48
4
2
.66
~
.90
.48
.45
.32
.95
.04
36.61
1670
7122
304
94
31
7
3
47
54
65
63
51
18
11
~
~
~
.92
.45
.08
.13
.89
.91
.57
.63
.67
.46
.34
.28
.06
.37
SE
2.07
0.08
-
-
10.87
11.57
145.32
145.32
~
0.67
0.17
0.59
1.75
0.41
0.34
1.99
~
~
~
100.40
741.86
14.32
5.11
2.60
1.22
0.73
2.33
2.06
1.24
2.07
3.06
2.14
0.22
Variables were not measured in this treatment.
69
-------
Table 7. Two-way ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among treatments and mines.
Factor Levels
Treatment
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Elevation (m)
Grass Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Distance to mine/forest edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb
Grass
Shrub
Stem Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
F
39.79
2.07
24.94
3.82
3.56
4.69
647.34
537.85
20.66
222.33
5.87
14.55
208.5
121.45
4.61
119.75
0.07
0.15
3.54
51.56
196.94
514.48
276.56
189.33
31.73
13.35
df
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
P
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.06
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.79
0.70
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Waller-Duncan3
GR
B
A
A
B
B
~
C
A
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
SH
C
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
B
FR
A
C
B
C
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
IN
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
Mine
F
26.55
0.05
106.18
20.78
25.07
0.35
184.31
142.67
11.09
1.02
1.26
3.91
4.14
2.41
0.24
2.18
4.99
22.22
14.68
4.39
2.90
3.28
0.00
0.71
0.87
2.25
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P
<0.01
0.95
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.70
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
0.28
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.79
0.12
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.99
0.49
0.42
0.11
Waller-Duncan0
Can.
B
A
C
C
B
B
A
AB
C
A
B
A
Dal.
A
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
B
Hob.
A
C
A
A
C
C
C
B
B
B
A
B
Treatment x Mine
F
5.26
1.90
4.63
4.26
2.31
2.08
185.51
172.57
0.00
7.66
0.40
2.30
9.24
0.95
0.95
1.63
3.56
4.93
4.52
5.80
2.07
1.09
0.31
3.26
1.88
1.56
df
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
P
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
0.04
0.13
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.94
<0.01
0.85
0.05
<0.01
0.45
0.45
0.15
0.06
0.03
0.04
<0.01
0.07
0.37
0.91
<0.01
0.10
0.17
70
-------
Table 7. Continued.
Factor Levels
Treatment Waller-Duncan3
Variables
Canopy Cover (%):
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
F
24.15
69.44
144.61
259.89
154.75
30.83
262.81
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P GR
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
SH
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
FR
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
IN
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Mine
F
0.98
0.10
0.02
0.82
1.95
1.41
0.09
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Waller-Duncan0
P Can. Dal. Hob.
0.38
0.91
0.98
0.44
0.15
0.25
0.91
Treatment x
F
1.69
3.68
1.85
0.65
1.82
2.58
2.38
df
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mine
P
0.17
0.01
0.14
0.58
0.15
0.06
0.07
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Treatments with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). GR=grassland;
SH=shrub/pole; FR=fragmented forest; I N=intact forest.
b Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Mines with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). Can.=Cannelton;
Dal.=Daltex; Hob.=Hobet.
71
-------
Table 8. ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among mines within individual treatments for variables with treatment x mine
interactions.
Treatment/Mine
Grassland
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Elevation (m)
Distance to habitat edge
(m)
Distance to forest/mine
edge (m)
Grass Height (dm)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%Y
Bareground
Litter
Grass
Shrub
Stem Density (no./ha):
<2.5cm
>38-53cm
Canopy Cover (%):
>3-6m
Structural Diversity
Index
F
2.30
1.84
19.53
15.69
13.72
5.42
-
3.75
12.35
9.73
13.11
5.81
-
-
-
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
P
0.11
0.17
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-
-
-
Waller-Duncan3
Can.
B
A
B
B
B
AB
C
B
AB
B
Dal.
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
A
Hob.
AB
B
B
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
Shrub/pole
F df
120.21 1
2.93 1
127.50 1
3.40 1
11.33 1
31.76 1
1.21 1
0.77 1
6.24 1
25.30 1
5.95 1
0.00 1
3.47 1
2.63 1
1.38 1
P
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.28
0.39
0.02
<0.01
0.02
0.98
0.07
0.11
0.25
Waller-
Duncan
Can.
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
Hob.
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
Fragmented
Forest Waller-Duncan
F
6.40
0.47
14.40
3.60
3.60
7.29
4.00
1.92
-
-
2.07
1.36
0.28
0.33
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
2
2
1
1
P Can. Dal. Hob.
<0.01 BAA
0.63
<0.01 ABC
0.04 AB B A
0.04 AB B A
<0.01 ABB
0.03 ABB
0.16
-
-
0.14
0.27
0.76
0.72
Intact Forest
F
4.72
1.03
37.36
445.1
2
445.1
2
3.17
0.59
5.72
0.07
5.16
6.00
3.30
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P
0.01
0.36
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.56
<0.01
0.93
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
Waller-Duncan
Can.
B
A
A
A
AB
B
B
A
AB
Dal.
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Hob.
A
C
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Mines with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). Can.=Cannelton; Dal.=
Daltex; Hob.=Hobet.
72
-------
Table 9. ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among treatments at individual mines for variables with treatment x mine
interactions.
Mine/treatment
Cannelton
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Elevation (m)
Distance to habitat
edge (m)
Distance to
forest/mine edge (m)
Grass Height (dm)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Bareg round
Litter
Grass
Shrub
F
39.47
4.06
11.28
759.76
660.78
4.25
97.45
7.33
50.67
3.70
0.03
df
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
P
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.86
Waller-Duncan3
GR
B
A
AB
B
B
~
A
C
SH
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
FR
A
A
C
B
B
A
A
A
IN
A
AB
A
A
A
A
A
A
Waller-
Daltex Duncan
F
1.77
1.00
9.18
209.89
209.89
-
~
1.58
173.58
—
-
df
2
2
2
2
2
-
~
2
2
—
-
P GR FR IN
0.19
0.38
<0.01 ABA
<0.01 B C A
<0.01 B C A
-
~
0.22
<0.01 BAA
—
-
Hobet
F
22.80
0.10
11.93
18.43
8.04
0.01
123.98
8.94
101.76
1.64
12.34
df
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
P
<0.01
0.96
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.91
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
<0.01
Waller-Duncan
GR SH
B B
A BC
B C
BC BA
- B
B C
C D
FR IN
A A
C B
B A
C A
A A
AB A
A B
Stem Densities (no./ha):
<2.5cm
>38-53cm
Canopy Cover (%):
>3-6m
Structural Diversity
Index
50.28
39.03
29.42
117.12
3
3
2
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
B
D
-
—
A
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
13.42
91.33
2
2
<0.01 BAA
<0.01 BAA
8.48
134.64
35.47
194.46
3
3
2
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
B A
B B
- C
- C
A A
A A
B A
A B
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Treatments with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). GR=grassland;
SH=shrub/pole; FR=fragmented forest; I N=intact forest.
73
-------
Table 10. Mean distance from subplot centers to minor edge types within treatments, and the percentage of subplots within each
treatment that were closest to that edge type.
Grassland
Distance (m)
Minor Edge Type
Paved road
Open-canopy road
Partially-open canopy road
Stream
Natural gap/wildlife opening
Valley fill
Grassland
Forest
Pond
Combination
Mean
40.00
105.97
~
~
~
118.80
~
44.00
—
~
SE
0.00
14.71
~
~
~
16.97
~
16.99
—
~
Percent
0.63
40.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.70
0.00
3.16
0.00
0.00
Shrub/pole
Distance (m)
Mean
—
76.10
~
~
~
36.36
~
75.71
10.00
~
SE
—
6.02
~
~
~
6.46
~
13.38
5.00
~
Percent
0.00
73.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.69
0.00
5.51
1.57
0.00
Fragmented
Forest
Distance (m)
Mean
—
54.03
12.72
35.99
34.00
38.40
77.50
—
—
35.00
SE
—
4.56
3.78
3.80
7.97
13.38
2.50
—
—
7.45
Percent
0.00
24.65
12.68
47.89
3.52
3.52
1.41
0.00
0.00
6.34
Intact Forest
Distance (m)
Mean
—
57.10
58.96
34.77
11.50
~
~
—
—
239.71
SE
—
7.37
7.12
4.01
8.50
~
~
—
—
28.91
Percent
0.00
10.26
48.21
31.79
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.72
74
-------
Table 11. Comparison of species found to be "probable" or "confirmed" breeders in
southwestern West Virginia by the West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (WV BBA) or expected to
be there by the West Virginia Gap Analysis Lab (Gap), and those observed during this study
during surveys and/or incidentally (x=observed during breeding season, m=assumed to be
migrating).
Species
Forest Interior Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Canada Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Wood-pewee
Great Crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Warbler
Veery
Winter Wren
Wood Thrush
Worm-eating Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-edge Species
American Redstart
American Robin
Black-and-white-Warbler
Black-billed Cuckoo
Black-capped Chickadee
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Common Raven
Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Least Flycatcher
Northern Flicker
Northern Parula
Palm Warbler
WV
BBA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
This Study
Shrub/ Fragmented Intact
Gap Grassland pole Forest Forest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pond
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
m
75
-------
Table 11. Continued.
Species
Pine Warbler
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Red-headed Woodpecker
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Ruffed Grouse
Tufted Titmouse
Whip-poor-will
White-breasted Nuthatch
Wild Turkey
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Edge Species
American Crow
American Goldfinch
American Woodcock
Baltimore Oriole
Blue Grosbeak
Blue Jay
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cedar Waxwing
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Common Crackle
Common Yellowthroat
Eastern Bluebird
Eastern Kingbird
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
House Wren
Indigo Bunting
Mourning Dove
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Cardinal
Northern Mockingbird
Orchard Oriole
Prairie Warbler
Purple Finch
Song Sparrow
Warbling Vireo
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
WV
BBA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gap
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Grassland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shrub/
pole
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
This Study
Fragmented
Forest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intact
Forest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pond
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
76
-------
Table 11. Continued.
Species
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Bobolink
Dickcissel
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
Ring-necked Pheasant
Vesper Sparrow
Willow Flycatcher
Wetland Species
American Black Duck
American Bittern
Blue-winged Teal
Canada Goose
Common Merganser
Double-crested Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Hooded Merganser
Mallard
Spotted Sandpiper
Swamp Sparrow
Wood Duck
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Least Sandpiper
Pied-billed Grebe
Solitary Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Green-winged Teal
Yellow-crowned Night-
heron
Other Species
Bank Swallow
Barn Swallow
Belted Kingfisher
Chimney Swift
Cliff Swallow
Common Nighthawk
European Starling
House Finch
WV
BBA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
This Study
Shrub/ Fragmented Intact
Gap Grassland pole Forest Forest
XXX X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
XXX X
X
X
X X
X
X
XX X
m
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
m
X
XX X
X XX
XX X
X X
x m
X
X
Pond
X
m
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
m
X
m
X
X
X
m
X
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
X
X
77
-------
Table 11. Continued.
This Study
WV Shrub/ Fragmented Intact
Species BBA Gap Grassland pole Forest Forest Pond
House Sparrow x
Killdeer x x x x
Northern Rough-winged x x x x
Swallow
Purple Martin x x
Tree Swallow x x x x x
Rock Dove x
78
-------
Table 12. Bird species observed (means with standard errors in parentheses) during 50-m radius point count surveys on reclaimed
MTMVF areas in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forests, and intact forest treatments in Boone, Fayette, Kanawha, and Logan
Counties, West Virginia, 1999-2000.
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Forest Interior Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Black-throated Green
Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Wood-pewee
Great Crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Warbler
Wood Thrush
Worm-eating Warbler
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.17
(0.17)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.09
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Fragmented Forest
1999
0.96
(0.15)
0.00
(0.00)
0.25
(0.09)
0.21
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.29
(0.11)
0.08
(0.06)
0.54
(0.10)
0.17
(0.08)
0.21
(0.08)
0.13
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.79
(0.18)
0.08
(0.06)
2000
0.86
(0.11)
0.17
(0.06)
0.19
(0.08)
0.31
(0.10)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.25
(0.08)
0.19
(0.07)
0.61
(0.10)
0.08
(0.05)
0.31
(0.10)
0.08
(0.05)
0.03
(0.03)
0.36
(0.09)
0.19
(0.07)
Intact Forest
1999
1.11
(0.12)
0.06
(0.04)
0.44
(0.12)
0.36
(0.11)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.28
(0.09)
0.17
(0.07)
1.00
(0.13)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.07)
0.11
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.44
(0.11)
0.19
(0.08)
2000
1.32
(0.12)
0.17
(0.06)
0.36
(0.08)
0.36
(0.09)
0.02
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.26
(0.08)
0.06
(0.04)
1.34
(0.17)
0.06
(0.04)
0.68
(0.12)
0.13
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.64
(0.12)
0.17
(0.06)
ANOVA
F
4.87
0.21
2.86
1.22
0.00
1999:0.58
2000:3.33
18.03
1999:6.96
2000:0.11
1999:1.22
2000:6.03
0.08
0.08
0.25
. Results3
P
0.03
0.65
0.09
0.27
0.97
1999:0.45
2000: 0.07
<0.01
1999:0.01
2000: 0.74
1999:0.27
2000: 0.02
0.78
0.77
0.62
79
-------
Table 12. Continued.
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-edge Species
American Redstart
American Robin
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-capped Chickadee
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Northern Flicker
Northern Parula
Red-bellied Woodpecker
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.50
(0.22)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.50
(0.34)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.21)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
0.03
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.27
(0.10)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.18
(0.08)
0.15
(0.06)
0.76
(0.11)
0.09
(0.05)
0.03
(0.03)
0.06
(0.04)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
Fragmented Forest
1999
0.04
(0.04)
0.25
(0.11)
0.04
(0.04)
0.29
(0.09)
0.04
(0.04)
0.04
(0.04)
0.42
(0.12)
0.38
(0.12)
0.04
(0.04)
0.08
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.08)
0.08
(0.06)
0.17
(0.10)
0.04
(0.04)
2000
0.17
(0.07)
0.25
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.28
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.42
(0.12)
0.19
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.28
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
0.14
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.36
(0.09)
0.08
(0.05)
Intact Forest
1999
0.08
(0.06)
0.53
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
0.22
(0.07)
0.03
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.42
(0.12)
0.44
(0.11)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.05)
0.42
(0.10)
0.06
(0.06)
0.14
(0.06)
0.08
(0.05)
2000
0.09
(0.04)
0.77
(0.13)
0.02
(0.02)
0.34
(0.07)
0.02
(0.02)
0.11
(0.09)
0.28
(0.08)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.04
(0.03)
0.02
(0.02)
0.09
(0.05)
0.57
(0.10)
0.02
(0.02)
0.11
(0.05)
0.09
(0.04)
ANOVA Results3
F
0.14
13.21
0.00
0.57
0.23
1999:0.17
2000:12.33
2.11
13.07
1999:0.01
2000:7.19
1999:0.39
2000:0.00
P
0.71
<0.01
0.98
0.45
0.63
1999:0.68
2000:<0.01
0.15
<0.01
1999:0.92
2000: <0.01
1999:0.53
2000: 0.98
Table 12. Continued.
80
-------
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Red-eyed Vireo
Ruby-throated
Hummingbird13
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Edge Species
American Crowb
American Goldfinch
Baltimore Oriole
Blue Grosbeak
Blue Jayb
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cedar Waxwingb
Chipping Sparrow
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.37
(0.14)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.10
(0.06)
0.10
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.03
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.25
(0.07)
0.03
(0.03)
0.15
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.13
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.50
(0.22)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.21)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2.67
(1.73)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
1.17
(0.17)
0.17
(0.17)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
2000
0.42
(0.10)
0.06
(0.04)
0.09
(0.05)
0.03
(0.03)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.09
(0.05)
0.55
(0.14)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.48
(0.11)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.13)
0.27
(0.08)
Fragmented Forest
1999
1.00
(0.12)
0.08
(0.06)
0.13
(0.07)
0.08
(0.08)
0.04
(0.04)
0.13
(0.07)
0.13
(0.09)
0.08
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.06)
0.04
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
1.72
(0.14)
0.11
(0.07)
0.28
(0.08)
0.19
(0.07)
0.14
(0.06)
0.22
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.14
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Intact Forest
1999
0.92
(0.13)
0.11
(0.05)
0.17
(0.06)
0.22
(0.08)
0.08
(0.05)
0.08
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
1.38
(0.11)
0.04
(0.03)
0.23
(0.06)
0.15
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.02
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.15
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
ANOVA Results3
F P
3.30 0.07
0.00 0.99
0.39 0.53
1999:0.39 1999:0.53
2000:7.40 2000: <0.01
1.81 0.71
1999:3.16 1999:0.08
2000:2.04 2000:0.16
3.42 0.07
Table 12. Continued.
81
-------
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Common Yellowthroat
Eastern Bluebird
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Indigo Bunting
Mourning Dove
Northern Bobwhiteb
Northern Cardinal
Orchard Oriole
Prairie Warbler
Song Sparrow
White-eyed vireo
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Bobolink
1999
0.37
(0.10)
0.00
(0.00)
0.37
(0.12)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.80
(0.16)
0.07
(0.07)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.10
(0.06)
0.20
(0.10)
0.07
(0.05)
0.30
(0.09)
0.23
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.15
(0.07)
0.03
(0.03)
0.68
(0.16)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.98
(0.13)
0.08
(0.04)
0.08
(0.04)
0.03
(0.03)
0.05
(0.03)
0.23
(0.08)
0.23
(0.09)
0.08
(0.04)
0.08
(0.04)
0.15
(0.06)
0.03
(0.03)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.50
(0.34)
0.00
(0.00)
1.00
(0.26)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
0.83
(0.31)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.50
(0.22)
0.00
(0.00)
0.67
(0.21)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.21)
0.33
(0.21)
0.67
(0.21)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.79
(0.12)
0.06
(0.04)
1.27
(0.21)
0.09
(0.05)
0.15
(0.06)
1.70
(0.19)
0.09
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.24
(0.08)
0.18
(0.09)
1.15
(0.15)
0.09
(0.05)
0.45
(0.10)
0.27
(0.11)
1.33
(0.16)
0.00
(0.00)
Fragmented Forest
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.04
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.19
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.03
(0.03)
0.06
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
Intact Forest ANOVA Results3
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000 F P
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06 6.68 0.01
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.04
(0.04)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Table 12. Continued.
82
-------
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Dickcissel
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
Vesper Sparrow
Willow Flycatcher
Other Species
American Kestrelb
Barn Swallowb
Belted Kingfisher13
Chimney Swiftb
Cliff Swallowb
Cooper's Hawkb
European Starlingb
Killdeerb
1999
0.20
(0.12)
0.63
(0.17)
2.23
(0.19)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.09)
1.37
(0.28)
0.07
(0.05)
0.13
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.07
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.13
(0.06)
2000
0.18
(0.08)
0.58
(0.13)
2.95
(0.22)
0.03
(0.03)
0.23
(0.08)
0.73
(0.21)
0.00
(0.00)
0.15
(0.06)
0.03
(0.03)
0.05
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.18
(0.15)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.40
(0.40)
0.08
(0.04)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.33)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
0.27
(0.09)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.36
(0.16)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.30
(0.12)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Fragmented Forest
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Intact Forest ANOVA Results3
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
2000 F P
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Table 12. Continued.
83
-------
Treatment
Grassland
Species
Mallard0
Northern Rough-winged
Swallow0
Tree Swallow0
Turkey Vulture0
Unknown Bird0
Unknown Sparrow0
Unknown Swallow0
Unknown Woodpecker0
1999
0.10
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.07
(0.05)
0.07
(0.05)
0.50
(0.26)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.48
(0.15)
0.10
(0.05)
0.05
(0.03)
0.10
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Shrub/pole
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.17
(0.17)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(0.33)
0.00
(0.00)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.24
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
Fragmented Forest
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.21
(0.08)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.08
(0.06)
2000
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.11
(0.05)
Intact Forest ANOVA Results3
1999
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.11
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.06
(0.04)
2000 F P
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.15
(0.05)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.02
(0.02)
ANOVA results testing for differences in species abundances between fragmented and intact forest. Only species observed at
>5% of point counts were analyzed.
Not used in subsequent analyses of songbird richness, similarity, or total abundance.
84
-------
Table 13. Comparison of bird densities (birds/ha) in grassland habitats of the United States.
Study
Location
Survey
Method3
Habitatb
Species
Bobolink
Dickcissel
Eastern
Meadowlark
Grasshopper
Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged
Blackbird
Savannah
Sparrow
Vesper
Sparrow
Total
Abundance
Richness
This
study
SW West
Virg.
PC
MTM
Allaire
(1979)
E. Kent.
ST/SM
MTM
Wray
(1982)
N.West
Virg.
TF
SM
DeVault
et al. (in
review)
SW Ind.
RPC
SM
Warren &
Anderson
(unpub. data)
NE West Virg.
(high elev.)
ST
PA/WM
Vickery
etal.
(1999)
Maine
SM
GR
Wiens
(1973)
Western
U.S.
TF
GR-
g razed
Wiens
(1973)
Western
U.S.
TF
GR-
ung razed
Norment
etal.
(1999)
W. New
York
PC
GR/PA
Frawley
and Best
(1991)
Iowa
SM
AF-
un mowed
Density0
0.00-0.03
0.12-0.25
0.50-0.70
2.49-2.80
0.21-0.33
0.83-1.17
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.00
10.27-
10.54
1-12
a PC=point count; ST=strip
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.00
0.07-0.38
0.17-0.40
0.02-0.19
0.12-0.33
0.00-0.00
0.00-0.00
0.35-1.06
2-5
transect;
nr
nr
nr
1.23-1.53
0.23-0.55
nr
0.65-1.10
0.87-0.97
nr
nr
0.00-0.01
0.09-0.34
0.39-0.79
0.25-0.51
0.04-0.05
0.67-1.29
0.00-0.01
0.00-0.00
nr
nr
0.42
0.00
0.13
0.02
0.00
0.19
0.22
0.00
nr
nr
SM=spot mapping; RPC=roadside point
mapping are meaures of territory density,
b MTM=mountaintop mining/valley fil
0.00-0.15
0.00-0.70
0.00-0.15
0.00-0.35
0.00-0.25
nr
0.00-0.35
0.20-0.45
nr
nr
nr
0.81
0.88
0.38-0.74
0.18-1.97
nr
nr
0.54
nr
4-6
count; TF=territory
nr
nr
nr
0.19-1.54
0.49-1.20
nr
nr
nr
nr
3-10
flush. Note:
0.
0.
0.
00-6.37
00-0.00
00-0.64
0.00-0.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
00-0.01
00-0.02
00-3.82
00-0.00
00-10.19
0-4
territory flush
nr
0.01
nr
0.01
nr
0.40
nr
0.10
nr
8
and spot
not bird density.
I, SM=surface mine, GR=natural grassland, PA=pasture, WM=wet meadow;
c Range represents minimum and maximum values reported;
single values indicate an
AF=alfalfa field.
average value; nr=not reported.
85
-------
Table 14. Species abundance, total abundance, richness, and similarity in the shrub/pole
treatment in areas that were relatively young (13-25 years old; n=27) and in areas that were
older (>26 year old; n=6) in 2000 compared to Denmon's (1998) study in early successional
habitats of West Virginia.
Treatment
Young Shrub/pole
Species
Acadian Flycatcher
American Goldfinch
American Redstart
American Robin
Black-and-white Warbler
Blue Grosbeak
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Chipping Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Bluebird
Eastern Meadowlark
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Grasshopper Sparrow
Gray Catbird
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Indigo Bunting
Mourning Dove
Northern Cardinal
Northern Flicker
Northern Parula
Orchard Oriole
Ovenbird
Prairie Warbler
Red-eyed Vireo
Red-winged Blackbird
Mean
0.04
0.41
0.07
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.44
0.07
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.30
0.89
0.22
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.63
1.37
0.11
0.30
0.19
0.11
0.04
1.78
0.07
0.19
0.07
0.04
0.22
0.04
1.15
0.41
0.44
SE
0.04
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.13
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.24
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.19
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.04
0.16
0.11
0.19
Old Shrub/pole
Mean
0.00
1.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
1.33
0.83
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.33
0.17
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.50
0.00
SE
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.21
0.31
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.17
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.22
0.00
Denmon(1998)
0.09
0.29
0.24
0.34
0.10
0.00
0.24
0.03
0.11
0.06
0.00
0.24
0.50
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.66
0.09
0.03
0.33
0.01
0.06
1.07
0.00
0.31
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.23
0.33
1.39
0.06
86
-------
Table 14. Continued.
Treatment
Young Shrub/pole
Species
Scarlet Tanager
Song Sparrow
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-breasted Chat
Richness
Total Abundance
Species Shared3
Jaccard Index3
Renkonen Index3
Mean
0.07
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.52
0.33
0.04
1.37
9.52
12.78
18
0.45
0.65
SE
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.11
0.13
0.04
0.19
0.39
0.68
Old Shrub/pole
Mean
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
1.17
8.67
11.33
SE
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.31
0.49
1.17
Denmon(1998)
0.06
0.26
0.14
0.01
0.46
0.37
0.01
0.54
9.80
13.40
Comparing young and old shrub areas only.
87
-------
Table 15. Comparison of abundances of common songbird species in different areas of intact
forest in the mixed mesophytic forest region.
Location
This Study
SW West
Virg.
Allaire
(1979)
E. Kent.
Demeo
(1999)
N. Cen..
West Virg.
Wood et al.
(1998)
N. Cen.
West Virg.
Anderson &
Shugart (1974)
E. Tenn.
Survey Method3
Habitaf
Species
Acadian Flycatcher
American Redstart
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-throated Green
Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Cerulean Warbler
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Indigo Bunting
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Northern Parula
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Wood Thrush
Worm-eating Warbler
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Total Abundance
Richness
PC
MF
1.11-1.32
0.53-0.77
0.22-0.34
0.06-0.17
0.36-0.44
0.28-0.42
0.06-0.44
0.36
0.00-0.06
0.09-0.11
0.42-0.57
0.03-0.06
0.26-0.28
0.06-0.17
0.11-0.14
1.00-1.34
0.00-0.06
0.08-0.09
0.92-1.38
0.11-0.68
0.11-0.13
0.17-0.23
0.15-0.22
0.44-0.64
0.17-0.19
0.00-0.08
0.08-0.11
0.08-0.09
8.53-10.47
30-39
ST
MF
0.80-0.94
0.40-0.74
0.20-0.33
0.60-0.74
nr
0.20-0.53
0.07-0.20
0.60-0.74
0.13-0.33
0.00-0.07
0.40-0.80
nr
0.27-0.67
0.00-0.13
0.07-0.13
0.60-0.67
0.00-0.07
0.07-0.33
0.87-1.34
0.13-0.27
0.13-0.20
0.33-0.60
0.00-0.20
0.13-0.53
0.53-0.87
0.07-0.13
0.00-0.27
0.13-0.20
9.69-12.25
31-32
PC
MF
Abundance01
0.50
0.54
0.39
0.58
0.30
nr
nr
0.13
nr
nr
0.28
nr
nr
0.07
nr
nr
nr
nr
1.41
0.49
nr
nr
nr
0.38
0.07
nr
nr
nr
8.00-8.99
nr
PC
MF
0.77
0.61
0.09
0.91
0.29
nr
nr
0.07
0.13
0.05
0.61
0.18
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.29
0.05
nr
1.70
0.54
nr
0.00
0.14
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
8.28
43
SMb
PF/MF
Rare
nr
nr
nr
nr
Very common
Rare
Rare
Common
Rare
Common
Rare
Rare
nr
nr
Rare
nr
Common
Very common
Commmon
Rare
Very common
Common
Rare
nr
Common
nr
nr
nr
nr
a PC=point count; ST=strip transect; SM=spot mapping. Actual abundance values are reported,
not densities.
b A variation of the spot-mapping method; only relative abundance was reported.
cMF=mature forest; PF=pole forest.
d Range represents minimum and maximum values reported; single values indicate an average
value; nr=abundances not reported although species do occur in that area.
88
-------
Table 16. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of
the Cerulean Warbler and Louisiana Waterthrush at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+'
indicate either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Cerulean Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18 m
> 18-24 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
0.98
31.75
376.11
979.76
61.98
21.70
0.90
51.04
7.41
4.44
33.70
2.18
1826.97
6742.48
345.02
96.76
33.45
9.61
3.59
52.31
60.28
62.73
59.10
45.25
16.27
11.46
SE
0.08
2.02
9.44
146.84
10.52
0.62
0.24
1.65
0.67
0.33
1.73
0.29
99.45
619.66
22.42
4.46
2.75
1.31
0.65
2.14
2.01
1.56
2.22
2.88
2.08
0.19
Present
Mean
1.17
37.28
361.90
916.64
39.11
22.62
0.52
50.44
7.82
4.96
34.40
1.77
1821.57
6990.93
314.72
88.51
29.64
8.87
4.44
47.90
58.79
67.42
62.22
50.28
18.95
11.45
SE
0.13
2.15
14.52
194.49
4.73
0.79
0.22
2.22
0.84
0.57
2.39
0.40
131.93
781.41
30.62
6.79
2.90
1.61
1.09
2.81
3.05
1.93
2.53
3.41
2.56
0.28
Louisiana Waterthrush
Absent
X2 P Mean
1.03
4.08 0.04+ 33.08
376.76
994.39
54.74
22.04
0.81
49.96
7.94
4.49
34.77
1.80
1877.20
7272.45
325.00
94.01
31.95
9.60
3.79
49.63
59.96
4.19 0.04+ 64.12
59.49
47.10
17.46
11.37
SE
0.08
1.71
8.94
128.28
8.27
0.53
0.20
1.47
0.58
0.31
1.56
0.25
85.95
547.62
16.71
4.28
2.28
1.10
0.66
1.82
1.83
1.38
1.80
2.43
1.76
0.17
Present
Mean
1.15
37.21
341.36
765.79
48.07
22.04
0.54
55.18
5.63
5.36
29.82
3.21
1560.27
4604.91
379.46
92.41
32.59
8.04
4.46
56.16
58.57
66.07
64.02
47.05
16.16
11.93
SE X2 P
0.16
3.74
15.48
282.99
6.52
1.88
0.29
4.25
1.10 4.99 0.02-
0.83
3.31
0.59 6.45 0.01 +
198.10
725.28 5.28 0.02-
68.11
8.81
4.73
2.49
0.99
5.59
5.49
4.87
5.78
5.99
4.48
0.85
89
-------
Table 17. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Worm-eating Warbler and Kentucky Warbler at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Worm-eating
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18 m
> 18-24 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.14
34.58
374.57
996.20
54.66
21.91
0.69
51.92
7.88
4.27
33.04
1.98
1801.44
6791.83
324.04
95.29
33.75
9.52
4.23
51.60
59.88
64.81
61.69
48.92
16.85
11.54
SE
0.08
1.69
8.97
137.73
8.02
0.56
0.19
1.53
0.61
0.33
1.58
0.28
93.74
595.59
19.47
4.61
2.49
1.20
0.66
1.97
1.97
1.36
1.89
2.41
1.81
0.19
Warbler
Present
Mean
0.
31.
359.
828.
50.
22.
1.
47.
6.
5.
36.
2.
1901.
6967.
366.
88.
,73
,10
,10
48
31
46
,00
25
,50
,81
94
,19
,56
,19
25
,75
26.56
8.
2.
47.
59.
63.
55.
41.
18.
11.
,75
,81
,81
25
25
,50
,13
,56
20
SE
0.10
3.46
17.53
215.34
14.49
1.01
0.37
2.49
0.99
0.62
2.95
0.43
143.12
710.55
43.67
5.60
2.90
1.89
1.15
3.40
3.31
2.84
3.52
5.15
3.58
0.26
Absent
X2 P Mean
10.78 <0.01- 1.
33.
2.77 0.10- 383.
1028.
53.
21.
0.
3.92 0.05- 7.
50.
8.11 <0.01+ 4.
34.
2.
1908.
7268.
355.
94.
30.
9.
3.
51.
59.
63.
2.43 0.10- 60.
47.
02
,05
23
68
11
83
,87
,74
69
,54
,01
,00
,27
,65
34
46
,75
,07
,13
63
86
23
52
30
17.22
11.
48
SE
0.08
1.87
9.51
139.65
8.25
0.58
0.22
0.60
1.45
0.33
1.55
0.28
95.03
608.55
22.40
4.26
2.51
1.23
0.59
2.04
1.92
1.45
1.90
2.55
1.95
0.18
Kentucky Warbler
Present
Mean
1.12
35.68
337.78
762.82
55.07
22.60
0.49
7.07
51.20
4.89
33.80
2.12
1600.54
5658.97
276.36
91.85
35.60
10.05
5.98
48.21
59.40
67.72
59.46
46.52
17.34
11.39
SE
0.11
2.53
12.44
208.64
13.37
0.89
0.25
1.09
2.94
0.65
3.08
0.44
131.49
665.27
25.39
8.00
3.30
1.75
1.33
3.10
3.55
2.27
3.62
4.55
2.86
0.35
X2 P
8.48 <0.01-
2.72 0.10-
3.61 0.06-
4.39 <0.04+
90
-------
Table 18. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of
the Wood Thrush and Acadian Flycatcher at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either
a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Wood Thrush
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.
31.
387.
1049.
58.
22.
0.
49.
8.
4.
33.
2.
1937.
7456.
337.
86.
32.
11.
4.
52.
62.
66.
60.
44.
15.
11.
04
86
24
47
52
10
71
80
28
80
99
23
50
93
33
15
94
15
05
80
64
28
24
49
07
30
SE
0.10
2.53
9.89
180.64
11.58
0.70
0.29
2.21
0.86
0.46
2.48
0.43
120.18
760.06
30.48
5.93
3.20
1.68
0.91
2.75
2.50
1.45
2.58
3.29
2.56
0.26
Present
Mean
1.05
35.23
358.35
885.26
49.88
21.99
0.81
51.61
7.01
4.51
33.93
1.88
1738.28
6352.21
331.38
99.61
31.38
7.94
3.78
49.09
57.50
63.02
60.23
49.09
18.93
11.58
SE
0.09
1.87
11.67
153.19
8.63
0.68
0.21
1.61
0.65
0.39
1.60
0.26
104.05
622.08
21.99
4.72
2.67
1.22
0.74
2.15
2.25
1.86
2.25
2.99
2.06
0.20
Acadian Flycatcher
Absent
X2 P Mean
0,
33
3.62 0.06- 385
711.
80.
20
0,
51
5,
5,
34
2.
2287.
9048.
442.
2.98 0.08+ 100.
34.
8.
1.
47.
55.
60.
60.
39
14,
10,
.85
.94
.06
22
,72
.93
.94
.48
.16
.47
.77
11
11
83
,97
,78
38
20
,95
19
86
,70
39
.45
.22
.69
SE
0.18
3.58
17.80
239.19
23.55
1.07
0.61
3.04
0.96
0.85
3.00
0.73
134.30
1039.30
56.79
9.91
5.65
1.95
0.94
3.91
4.00
2.16
4.28
5.96
3.81
0.38
Present
Mean
1.09
33.72
367.65
1013.67
47.36
22.30
0.72
50.67
8.12
4.44
33.77
2.01
1717.84
6319.29
308.70
92.12
31.52
9.60
4.35
51.52
60.63
65.31
60.20
48.86
17.95
11.64
SE
0.07
1.70
8.94
132.67
6.53
0.54
0.16
1.47
0.59
0.31
1.58
0.24
87.54
528.80
16.78
4.04
2.16
1.17
0.66
1.90
1.85
1.42
1.84
2.33
1.78
0.17
X2 P
6.70 0.01-
4.20 0.04+
7.17 <0.01 +
3.41 0.06-
2.91 0.09-
1.21 0.21 +
3.08 0.08+
91
-------
Table 19. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of
the Hooded Warbler and Yellow-throated Vireo at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Hooded Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.00
33.04
358.47
780.70
55.17
21.25
0.77
8.03
52.16
4.30
32.38
2.02
1914.66
6185.70
348.68
92.67
31.25
9.98
3.97
53.25
62.98
63.53
58.39
45.19
15.91
11.50
SE
0.09
2.09
9.26
136.97
8.25
0.67
0.24
0.70
1.74
0.33
1.78
0.32
108.99
570.01
26.89
4.39
2.84
1.28
0.71
1.89
2.10
1.58
2.13
2.97
2.15
0.19
Present
Mean
1.13
34.91
391.56
1248.30
51.09
23.28
0.76
6.82
48.71
5.15
36.44
2.05
1683.71
7853.22
310.80
95.45
33.33
8.33
3.79
46.70
54.62
65.87
63.14
50.08
19.36
11.39
SE
0.11
2.17
14.09
203.05
12.70
0.63
0.23
0.77
1.97
0.55
2.21
0.34
106.21
842.86
19.03
6.86
2.80
1.67
0.98
3.14
2.60
1.97
2.71
3.27
2.41
0.28
Yellow-throated Vireo
Absent
X2 P Mean
1.03
32.98
370.03
1040.72
55.09
22.40
0.75
7.61
49.83
2.61 0.10+ 4.60
34.89
2.06
1779.41
5.19 0.02+ 6784.01
333.64
93.29
30.61
9.28
3.86
50.59
58.71
63.29
59.01
46.97
18.53
11.38
SE
0.07
1.77
9.44
134.30
8.64
0.56
0.17
0.56
1.38
0.34
1.58
0.28
83.39
563.97
20.65
4.33
2.23
1.18
0.64
1.88
1.95
1.37
1.91
2.51
1.77
0.18
Present
Mean
1.11
36.91
374.53
620.81
47.84
20.59
0.81
7.35
54.78
4.78
30.22
1.91
2007.35
7029.41
335.29
95.59
37.87
9.56
4.04
51.18
63.82
69.04
65.15
47.57
12.13
11.76
SE X2
0.19 13.21
2.80 5.20
13.42 9.20
213.49 9.05
5.13
0.88
0.54
1.37
3.53 6.46
0.59
2.90
0.44
210.97
895.41
37.69
7.56
4.81 2.62
1.87
1.31
4.11
3.07
2.57 7.55
3.33
4.83
3.73
0.32
P
<0.01 +
0.02+
<0.01 +
<0.01-
0.01-
0.10+
0.01 +
92
-------
Table 20. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of
the Black-and-white Warbler and Scarlet Tanager at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+'
indicate either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Black-and-white Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18 m
> 18-24 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.04
32.56
370.14
1022.10
58.47
21.89
0.96
7.65
51.40
4.29
33.38
2.01
1736.52
5866.42
326.96
93.87
32.97
9.44
3.06
51.25
59.71
62.87
59.80
46.47
16.23
11.43
SE
0.08
2.16
10.18
158.37
9.79
0.63
0.26
0.62
1.65
0.41
1.67
0.26
101.48
474.94
19.73
4.80
2.61
1.36
0.59
2.17
2.36
1.65
2.09
3.15
2.09
0.20
Present
Mean
1.
35.
372.
858.
46.
22.
0.
7.
49.
5.
34.
2.
1957.
8283.
344.
93.
30.
9.
5.
49.
59.
66.
60.
48.
18.
11.
,05
,57
,12
70
39
26
48
43
96
,15
82
06
,72
,09
49
,57
,70
,19
,15
89
,78
80
88
,01
,79
,50
SE
0.12
2.01
13.03
170.12
9.48
0.78
0.18
0.93
2.19
0.41
2.45
0.45
123.94
931.56
34.44
6.13
3.31
1.52
1.10
2.79
2.32
1.79
2.85
2.96
2.55
0.26
Absent
X2 P Mean
3.64 0.06+ 1.
30.
356.
2.95 0.09+ 696.
59.
21.
0.
50.
8.
4.
33.
6.35 0.06+ 1.
10.04 <0.01- 1938.
5.19 <0.01+ 6770.
344.
91.
29.
10.
3.
48.
3.74 0.05- 59.
63.
55.
42.
,10
,77
,13
48
46
62
,76
,73
23
,57
64
88
,18
38
43
,71
,35
33
94
,78
,54
,70
60
80
17.74
11.
24
SE
0.09
1.99
10.31
140.22
12.10
0.70
0.25
2.00
0.67
0.42
2.02
0.27
103.07
482.07
25.99
4.85
2.80
1.38
0.81
2.38
2.44
1.73
2.35
2.98
2.32
0.21
Scarlet Tanager
Present
Mean
0.98
37.30
388.38
1263.70
46.77
22.53
0.77
50.93
6.76
4.71
34.33
2.21
1691.51
6907.05
321.63
96.15
35.26
8.17
3.85
52.98
59.97
65.32
65.71
52.15
16.67
11.72
SE
0.11
2.25
11.99
182.72
5.30
0.67
0.23
1.67
0.82
0.42
1.92
0.41
119.66
894.79
24.91
5.91
2.94
1.49
0.82
2.42
2.32
1.76
2.12
3.17
2.24
0.24
X2 P
8.62 <0.01 +
9.16 <0.01 +
3.10 0.08+
4.89 0.03-
6.48 0.01 +
6.95 <0.01 +
93
-------
Table 21. Means and standard errors (SE) of songbird abundance (birds/point count) by habitat guild and nesting guild on reclaimed
MTMVF areas in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments in Boone, Fayette, Kanawha, and Logan Counties,
West Virginia, 1999-2000. Treatments with the same letter within rows are not significantly different (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test,
PS0.05).
Treatment
Grassland
Guild
Habitat
Interior
Interior-
edge
Edge
Grass
Nest
Ground
Shrub
Subcanopy
Canopy
Cavity
Total
Abundance
Richness
1999
0.20
(0.10)
0.03
(0.03)
2.43
(0.39)
4.33
(0.35)
3.60
(0.31)
3.27
(0.40)
0.00
(0.00)
0.03
(0.03)
0.00
(0.00)
8.07
(0.59)
5.08
(0.35)
D
D
B
A
A
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
2000
0.03
(0.03)
0.33
(0.10)
2.78
(0.31)
4.10
(0.26)
3.75
(0.23)
3.30
(0.33)
0.13
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
0.10
(0.05)
8.28
(0.41)
5.17
(0.42)
Shrub/pole
1999
1.00
(0.45)
1.50
(0.43)
6.67
(1.48)
0.33
(0.33)
2.50
(0.22)
5.50
(1.52)
1.67
(0.33)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
12.17
(1.40)
9.36
(0.34)
C
C
A
B
B
A
B
B
C
B
A
A
2000
0.36
(0.10)
2.45
(0.21)
6.45
(0.46)
0.67
(0.17)
2.27
(0.15)
6.27
(0.47)
0.94
(0.14)
0.15
(0.06)
0.76
(0.15)
12.52
(0.59)
9.17
(0.60)
Fragmented
1999
2.67
(0.32)
3.08
(0.29)
0.33
(0.12)
0.00
(0.00)
1.46
(0.20)
0.42
(0.12)
3.00
(0.28)
0.79
(0.16)
0.88
(0.16)
7.58
(0.63)
7.56
(0.43)
B
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
B
A
BC
B
Forest
2000
3.33
(0.28)
3.33
(0.20)
0.50
(0.14)
0.03
(0.03)
1.44
(0.18)
0.61
(0.14)
2.42
(0.16)
2.17
(0.21)
1.19
(0.17)
9.19
(0.51)
6.71
(0.51)
Intact Forest
1999
4.17
(0.26)
2.58
(0.24)
0.14
(0.07)
0.00
(0.00)
1.97
(0.19)
0.44
(0.11)
3.06
(0.24)
0.92
(0.15)
0.94
(0.16)
8.53
(0.54)
7.91
(0.30)
A
B
D
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
2000
5.70
(0.33)
2.77
(0.16)
0.23
(0.06)
0.00
(0.00)
2.11
(0.18)
0.64
(0.11)
2.96
(0.21)
2.64
(0.19)
0.87
(0.12)
10.47
(0.47)
7.03
(0.45)
ANOVA Results
F
318.66
182.32
148.24
472.39
31.88
1 1 1 .27
204.39
1999: 15.09
2000: 158.67
29.70
8.72
22.70
P
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1999: <0.01
2000: <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
94
-------
Table 22. Jaccard and Renkonen similarity indices comparing songbird community composition
among grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments in 1999 and 2000.
Species shared
Comparisons
Grassland/Intact
Grassland/Fragment
Shrub/Intact
Shrub/Fragment
Grassland/Shrub
Fragment/Intact
1999
2
4
9
11
12
29
2000
8
12
21
24
23
29
Jaccard
1999
0.04
0.08
0.20
0.24
0.40
0.74
2000
0.14
0.22
0.37
0.44
0.48
0.64
Renkonen
1999
0.01
0.04
0.17
0.19
0.33
0.78
2000
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.19
0.42
0.70
Jaccard indices only examine the number of species shared while the Renkonen indices also
take into account the proportion of each species present in each sample (in both cases
the scale ranges from 0 = no similarity and 1 = complete similarity).
95
-------
Table 23. Nesting success of birds on MTMVF areas by mine, nesting guild, and species.
Mine
HflltPY
L/CIIICA
Hobet
Daltex
Hobet
Cannelton
Combined
Combined
Nesting Guilds
Shrub
Ground
Shrub
Ground
Miscellaneous3
Years Combined
Shrub
Ground
Miscellaneous
Species
Rfl rn ^\A/fl 1 Inw
tjcii 1 1 ovvciiiuvv
Eastern Bluebird
Eastern
Meadowlark
Field Sparrow
Grasshopper
Sparrow
Horned Lark
Indigo Bunting
Killdeer
Mourning Dove
Red-winged
Blackbird
Year
1QQQ
i *y*y*y
1999
2000
2000
2000
1999
2000
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
99/00
99/00
99/00
qq/nn
*y*yi \j\j
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
99/00
N
•|
10
13
8
4
11
25
2
8
3
18
2
5
26
2
1
i
1
1
2
19
2
2
3
2
3
Observation
Days
4 5
t.o
66.5
135.5
88.5
13.5
71.0
237.5
11.5
52.5
54.0
158.0
20.0
65.5
210.5
20.0
4 5
t.o
15.5
16.0
12.0
172.0
4.5
11.5
35.0
6.0
54.0
Incubation
Survival
n n^n
\J.\JO\J
0.135
0.546
0.681
0.018
0.160
0.527
0.101
0.166
1.000
0.329
1.000
0.488
0.262
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.180
0.397
0.008
0.083
0.230
0.003
1.000
Brooding
Survival
0.191
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.258
1.000
0.222
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.774
1.000
1 nnn
i .\j\j\j
1.000
1.000
0.134
0.917
0.000
1.000
Total
Survival
n n^n
\J.\JO\J
0.026
0.546
0.681
0.018
0.041
0.527
0.101
0.037
1.000
0.329
1.000
0.488
0.203
1.000
1 nnn
i .\j\j\j
1.000
1.000
0.024
0.364
0.000
0.083
0.003
1.000
' Eastern Bluebird and Barn Swallow.
96
-------
Table 24. Comparison of grassland bird nest survival on reclaimed MTMVF areas with previous studies.
Species
Grasshopper Sparrow
Eastern Meadowlark
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
No.
Nests
(years)
19(2)
51(3)
38(3)
12(1)
14(3)
38(3)
13(3)
12(3)
1(2)
12(3)
32(3)
105(1)
42(3)
7(1)
2(2)
47(2)
3(1)
3(2)
145(6)
70(3)
9(3)
25(3)
63(2)
238 (3)
11(1)
15(1)
Nest
Density"
~0.06/ha
0.11/ha
nr
0.06/ha
nr
nr
nr
0.25/ha
<0.01/ha
nr
nr
0.56/ha
0.86/ha
nr
~0.01/ha
0.23/ha
0.02/ha
~0.01/ha
1.41/ha
nr
nr
nr
5.66/ha
nr
0.06/ha
nr
Nest
Survival
0.36
0.07
0.41
0.41
0.11
0.28
0.12
~0.25C
1.00
0.67
0.30
0.14
~0.25b
0.62
0.00
0.05
1.00
1.00
0.48
0.11
0.17
0.01
0.08
0.28
0.06
0.42
Location
West Virginia
West Virginia
Missouri
Illinois
North Dakota
North Dakota
Minnesota
Oklahoma
West Virginia
New York
Missouri
Illinois
Oklahoma
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
Illinois
West Virginia
Illinois
North Dakota
North Dakota
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Illinois
West Virginia
Grassland Type3
MTMVF
Surface mines
CRP field- warm/cool season
grasses
Airport grasslands
WPA
CRP fields
CRP fields
Tallgrass prairie
MTMVF
Pasture/cool season grass
CRP fields- warm/cool
season grasses
Airport grasslands
Undisturbed tallgrass prairie
Pastures/wet meadows
MTMVF
Surface mines
Airport grasslands
MTMVF
Cool season grasslands
CRP fields
WPA
CRP fields
Grassed waterways
CRP fields - warm/cool
season grasses
Airport grasslands
Pastures/wet meadows
Study
This study
Wray(1982)
McCoy etal. (1999)
Kershner & Bellinger (1 996)
Koford(1999)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Rohrbaugh etal. (1999)
This study
Normentetal. (1999)
McCoy etal. (1999)
Kershner & Bellinger (1 996)
Rohrbaugh etal. (1999)
Warren & Anderson, (unpub.
data)
This study
Wackenhut(1980)
Kershner & Bellinger (1 996)
This study
Warner (1994)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Bryan & Best (1 994)
McCoy etal. (1999)
Kershner & Bellinger (1 996)
Warren & Anderson, (unpub.
data)
97
-------
Table 24. Continued.
Species
Savannah Sparrow
Dickcissel
No.
Nests
(years)
0(2)
41(3)
58(3)
12(1)
4(3)
4(3)
12(3)
30(3)
17(1)
0(2)
14(6)
27(2)
87(3)
Nest
Density
0.24/ha
nr
0.02/ha
nr
nr
nr
nr
nr
0.14/ha
2.76/ha
nr
Nest
Survival
0.22
0.76
0.23
0.15
0.22
0.02
0.25
0.36
0.14
0.22
0.30
Location
West Virginia
West Virginia
New York
Illinois
North Dakota
North Dakota
Minnesota
Minnesota
West Virginia
West Virginia
Illinois
Iowa
Missouri
Grassland Type3
MTMVF
Surface mines
Pasture/cool season grass
Airport grasslands
CRP fields
WPA
CRP fields
WPA
Pastures/wet meadows
MTMVF
Cool season grassland
Grassed waterways
CRP field- warm/cool season
Study
This study
Wray(1982)
Normentetal. (1999)
Kershner & Bellinger (1 996)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Koford (1999)
Warren & Anderson, (unpub.
data)
This study
Warner (1994)
Bryan & Best (1 994)
McCoy etal. (1999)
87(3)
0.60/ha
~0.25b
Oklahoma
grasses
Tallgrass prairie
Rohrbaugh etal. (1999)
1 MTMVF = mountaintop mining/valley fill; CRP = conservation reserve program; WPA = waterfowl production area.
' nr=not reported.
'Survival rates were presented in a figure and estimates are approximate.
98
-------
Table 25. Means and standard errors of habitat variables surrounding successful (n=11) and
unsuccessful (n=4) nests of Grasshopper Sparrows on MTMVF areas in 2000.
Successful
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Overhead Cover (%)
Side Cover (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Lespedeza Cover (%)
Ground Cover (%)
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Litter
Wood
Bareground
Moss
Water
Robel Pole Index
nest
1m
3m
5m
Grass Height (dm)
nest
1m
3m
5m
10m
Litter depth (cm)
nest
1m
3m
5m
Mean
1.5
4.8
47.5
85.1
22.8
5.8
81.4
43.2
35.9
2.3
0.0
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.3
4.6
5.3
5.5
4.8
5.3
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.2
SE
0.4
2.2
10.3
4.7
7.4
3.7
4.1
6.0
5.6
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
Unsuccessful
Mean
3.2
16.0
28.8
74.3
36.3
0.3
88.8
47.5
37.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
5.0
0.0
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.6
3.8
5.3
6.2
7.2
7.6
0.5
1.3
0.8
1.8
SE
0.8
10.0
10.5
23.3
3.8
0.3
9.7
8.3
14.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
5.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
Combined
Mean
2.0
7.8
42.5
82.2
26.4
4.3
83.3
44.3
36.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
15.3
1.3
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.4
4.4
5.3
5.7
5.5
5.9
1.6
1.8
1.5
2.1
SE
0.4
3.2
8.2
6.6
5.7
2.7
3.9
4.8
5.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
3.5
1.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
99
-------
Table 26. Seasonal mean abundance (no./survey), species richness, and standard errors (SE) of raptors during broadcast surveys
across in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF areas in 2000.
Grassland
Winter
Species
Overall Abundance
Overall Richness
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Cooper's Hawk
X\cc/p/terspp.a
Northern Harrier
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Eastern Screech Owl
Barred Owl
Turkey Vulture
Unknown
Mean
0.33
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
SE
0.25
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
Summer
Mean
1.10
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
SE
0.30
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
Migration
Mean
0.67
0.10
0.13
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00
SE
0.16
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
Winter
Mean
0.21
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
SE
0.12
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
Shrub/pole
Summer
Mean
0.23
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
SE
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
Migration
Mean
0.46
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.44
0.00
SE
0.27
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.27
0.00
' Either Sharp-shinned Hawk or Cooper's Hawk.
100
-------
Table 26. Continued.
Fragmented Forest
Winter
Species
Overall Abundance
Overall Richness
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Cooper's Hawk
X\cc/p/terspp.a
Northern Harrier
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Eastern Screech Owl
Barred Owl
Turkey Vulture
Unknown
Mean
0.21
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
SE
0.10
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
Summer
Mean
0.21
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.02
SE
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.02
Migration
Mean
0.13
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
SE
0.06
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
Winter
Mean
0.25
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
SE
0.12
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
Intact
Forest
Summer
Mean
0.17
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
SE
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
Migration
Mean
0.16
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SE
0.07
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' Either Sharp-shinned Hawk or Cooper's Hawk.
101
-------
Table 27. Abundance and richness of raptor species observed on roadside surveys in
grassland, shrub/pole, and fragmented forest treatments on each of the 3 MTMVF areas in
2000.
Hobet
Cannelton
Daltex
Shrub/ Fragmented Shrub/ Fragmented Fragmented
Species Grass pole Forest Grass pole Forest Grass Forest
Overall Abundance
Overall Richness
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Northern Harrier
Broad-winged Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Turkey Vulture
Unknown3
11
3
3
0
0
0
2
6
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
3
0
0
0
1
4
2
0
14
4
5
1
0
0
1
6
1
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
' Unknown is either a Red-tailed Hawk or Turkey Vulture.
102
-------
Table 28. Seasonal observations of raptor species (w=winter, s=summer, m=migration) on the 3 mines in each of the 4 treatments
(GR=grassland, SH=shrub/pole, FR=fragmented forest, IN=intact forest), compared to species expected based on habitat
requirements and West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas (WV BBA) records.
Species
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Northern Harrier
Broad-winged Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
/4cc;p;ferspp.d
Barred Owl
Eastern Screech Owl
Short-eared Owl
Turkey Vulture
WV
BBA
Record
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Expected in WV from
habitat requirements3
GR SH
wsm wsm
m
s s
s s
s
s s
s
s
wm
wsm wsm
FR
wm
m
wsm
wm
sm
sm
sm
wsm
wsm
wsm
IN
wm
m
sm
wsm
wsm
wm
sm
sm
sm
wsm
wsm
s
Observations on the 3 mines'3
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
GR SH FR IN GR FR IN GR SH FR IN
wsm m sm s sm
sm scm
wsm wm wsm sm
s s sm
s wsm s sm s m s ws sm wsm
sm wsm wsm wsm sm ws sm sm wsm sm
w w
m m s m
s w
s w
s s s w
m s sm
w
sm wsm s wsm sm ws wsm sm wsm
aBuckelew and Hall (1994), Hall (1983), and West Virginia GAP analysis data.
blncludes observations from broadcast surveys and roadside surveys in 2000, and incidental sightings for 1999 and 2000
""Unconfirmed sighting.
dEither Sharp-shinned Hawk or Cooper's Hawk.
103
-------
Table 29. Similarity indices comparing raptor community composition among treatments for all
seasons in 2000.
Comparison Species shared
Grassland/Intact
Grassland/Fragment
Fragment/Intact
Shrub/Intact
Shrub/Fragment
Shrub/Grassland
2
2
3
3
4
3
Jaccard3
0.25
0.25
0.60
0.43
0.67
0.33
Renkonen
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.29
aThe Jaccard index only examines the number of species shared while the Renkonen index
takes into account the proportion of each species present in each sample (in all cases
the scale ranges from 0=no similarity and 1=complete similarity).
104
-------
Table 30. Mammal species expected (Exp) to occur in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest and intact forest treatments and
reclaimed-mine ponds based on WV GAP analysis data, personal communication by M. E. Might (2000), and Whitaker and Hamilton
(1998) compared to species observed (Obs) via several methods including Sherman live trapping (s), pitfall trapping (p), and
incidental sighting (i).
Species
Order Insectivora
Hairy-tailed mole
Parascalops breweri
Masked Shrew
Sorex cinereus
Pygmy shrew
Sorex hoyi
Short-tailed shrew
Blarina brevicauda
Smoky shrew
Sorex fumeus
Order Rodentia
Allegheny wood rat
Neotoma magister
Beaver
Castor canadensis
Eastern chipmunk
Tamias striatus
Eastern fox squirrel
Sciurus niger
Eastern gray squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis
Golden mouse
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Groundhog
Marmota monax
House mouse
Mus musculus
Meadow vole
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethinus
Treatment
Fragmented
Grassland Shrub/pole Forest
Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs
x x i
x p, s x p x p, s
x p x p x p
x p, s x p x p, s
p x p x p
s
x x i
s x x s
x x
x x
x x
x i x x
x p, s
x p, s x p, s x p
X X
Intact
Forest Pond3
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x
x p
x p
x p, s x
x p
X
X X
X S
X
X
X
X
s
X
X X
105
-------
Table 30. Continued.
Treatment
Grassland
Species Exp Obs
Peromyscus species x p, s
P. leucopus/maniculatus
Red squirrel
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Southern bog lemming x p, s
Synaptomys cooper;
Southern flying squirrel
Glaucomys volans
Southern red-backed vole
Clethrionomys gapperi
Woodland jumping mouse p
Napaeozapus insignis
Woodland vole
Microtus pinetorum
Order Carnivora
Black bear x i
Ursus americanus
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
Coyote x i
Canis latrans
Gray fox x
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Least weasel
Mustela nivalis
Long-tailed weasel
Mustela frenata
Mink
Mustela vison
Raccoon x
Procyon lotor
Red fox x i
Vulpes vulpes
Striped skunk x
Mephitis mephitis
Shrub/pole
Exp Obs
x p, s
x
x p, s
x
x
x
x p
x i
x
x i
x
x
x
x i
x
x i
Fragmented
Forest
Exp Obs
x p, s
x
x p
x
X
x p, s
x p
x i
x i
x i
x
x
x
x
x i
x i
x
Intact
Forest Pond3
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x p, s s
x
x p x s
x
x
x s
x s
x i x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x i x i
x x
x
106
-------
Table 30. Continued.
Species
Other
Eastern cottontail
Sylvilagus floridanus
Virginia opossum
Didelphis virginiana
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus
Wild boar
Sus scrofa
Treatment
Fragment ed Intact
Grassland Shrub/pole Forest Forest Pond3
Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs
x s, i x i x i x i x i
x x i x i x
x i x i x i x i x i
xxx i
Ponds were not considered a treatment because they were distributed throughout the reclaimed areas, overlapping both grassland
and shrub/pole treatments.
107
-------
Table 31. Average mammalian species richness (# species/transect), relative abundance
(mammals/100 trap nights), and standard errors (SE) in grassland,shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and
intact forest treatments and reclaimed-mine ponds in 1999 and 2000. Means were compared among
treatments within years; means followed by different letters are significantly different (P=0.05) from
each other. An absence of letters beside the means indicates that they were not subjected to
statistical analysis due to small sample size.
Treatment
Grassland
Species Richness
1999
2000
Relative Abundance
Total
1999
2000
Peromyscus species
1999
2000
House mouse
1999
2000
Woodland jumping mouse
1999
2000
Meadow vole
1999
2000
Short-tailed shrew
1999
2000
Eastern chipmunk
1999
2000
Eastern woodrat
1999
2000
Southern bog lemming
1999
2000
Mean
SE
1.7A 0.18
(n=16)b
1.4A 0.13
(n=20)
16.1 A
21 .8 A
13.9A
20.4 A
1.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3 A
0.0
0.0 A
0.1 A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.66
.38
.30
.58
.83
.59
.00
.00
.08
.00
.27
.00
.00
.07
.00
.00
.00
.09
Shrub/Dole
Mean SE
c
1.5A0.15
(n=12)
-
20.2 A 2.74
-
18.9 A 2.52
-
0.0 0.00
-
0.0 0.00
-
0.3 0.17
-
0.0 0.00
-
0.0 A 0.00
-
1.2 0.67
-
0.1 0.10
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
SE
1.8 A 0.25
(n=16)
1.4A 0.15
(n=20)
12.6 A
7.5 B
10.8 A
6.0 B
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.9 AB
0.2
0.1 A
0.1 A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.94
.07
.69
.78
.00
.00
.39
.58
.00
.00
.38
.12
.08
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
Intact
Forest
Mean
SE
2.3 A0.19
(n=16)
1.4 A0.13
(n=20)
14.5
7.9
11.3
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A 1.87
B1.83
A 1.59
B1.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
B0.62
0.00
B0.31
B0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pond3
Mean
SE
1.1 0.09
(n=56)
-
8.9
-
7.8
-
0.5
-
0.0
-
0.1
-
0.0
-
0.0
-
0.1
-
0.3
-
1.05
-
1.02
-
0.22
-
0.00
-
0.06
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.09
-
0.13
108
-------
Table 31. Continued.
Treatment
Grassland
Relative Abundance
Masked shrew
1999
2000
Virginia Opossum
1999
2000
Eastern cottontail
1999
2000
Mean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
SE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.06
0.20
Fragmented
Shrub/Dole Forest
Mean SE Mean
0.1
0.0 0.00 0.1
0.3
0.0 0.00 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00 0.0
SE
0.08
0.06
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
Intact
Forest
Mean
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
SE
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pond3
Mean SE
-
0.0 0.00
-
0.0 0.00
-
0.0 0.00
a Data were not included in the statistical analysis because the trapping methods were different from
those used in the other three treatments.
b n= the number of "surveys" where a "survey" is a single transect trapped for 3 nights (or 2 nights for
ponds).
c The shrub/pole treatment and ponds were not sampled in 1999.
109
-------
Table 32. Similarity indices comparing small mammal community composition among treatments in
1999 and 2000.
Species Shared
Comparison
Grassland/Intact
Grassland/Fragment
Fragment/Intact
Shrub/Intact
Shrub/Fragment
Shrub/Grassland
1999
2
2
4
b
-
-
2000
2
2
2
1
1
2
Jaccard3
1999
0.25
0.22
0.57
-
-
-
2000
0.29
0.22
0.33
0.17
0.13
0.25
Renkonen
1999
0.79
0.86
0.87
-
-
-
2000
0.83
0.81
0.86
0.83
0.80
0.93
a The Jaccard index only examines the number of species shared while the Renkonen index
takes into account the proportion of each species present in each sample (in all cases
the scale ranges from 0 = no similarity to 1 = complete similarity).
b A dash indicates that comparisons were not possible since "Shrub" treatment was not
sampled in 1999.
110
-------
Table 33. A comparison of the small mammal abundances found on our study with those of other studies. These
comparisons should be interepreted with caution, however, because none occurred on MTMVF areas and sampling
methods differed.
Abundance
(per 100 trap nights)
Study Location Duration
Study Trap Years Since Correction3
Area Type Reclamation Employed?
Total
Peromyscus^ House Meadow Short-tailed
species mouse vole shrew
Grassland Studies
Our study Southern W. Va. 1999-2000
Our study Southern W. Va. 1999-2000
Verts (1957) Southern III. 1954
Voight and Glenn-Lewin
(1979) Southern Iowa 1975-1976
Mindell (1 978) Northern W. Va. 1 977-1 978
Forren(1981) Northern WVa. 1980
Sly (1976) Ind. 1969
Kirkland(1976) Central New York 1973
Clark et al. (1998) Southeastern Okl. 1991
Sietman et al. (1994) East-central Kan. 1991
Denmon(1998) W. Va. 1996-1997
MTM
MTM
SMC
SMC
SMC
SMC
SMC
SMC
GRC
GRC
ESC
c Live
c Live
Snap
Snap
Snap
Snap
Snap
Live
Snap
Live
Snap
5-15
5-15
4-15
14-24
2-6
4-9
5-12
1-20
nae
nae
5-20
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
18.9
13.4
nrd
12.6
5.1
4.1
6.0
3.2
16.9
4.8
2.7
17.1
12.0
14.7
10.9
0.7
0.2
5.3
2.7
3.7
1.9
1.0
1
1
.4
.2
nrd
0
0
.0
.1
nrd
0.
0
1
0
0
05
.0
.6
.0
.0
0.1
0.0
nrd
0.5
4.1
2.3
0.05
0.02
nrd
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
nrd
0.2
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.02
0.1
0.0
0.7
Shrub/pole Studies
a
Our study Southern W. Va. 2000
Our study Southern W. Va. 2000
Verts (1957) Southern III. 1954
Denmon (1998) W. Va. 1996-1997
MTM
MTM
SMC
ESC
Refers to correction for sprung traps used in abundance
c Live
c Live
Snap
Snap
16-32
16-32
16-22
21-30
calculations. One-half a
Yes
No
No
Yes
trap night
20.2
14.1
nrd
3.4
18.9
13.2
7.6
2.7
0
0
.0
.0
nrd
0
is subtracted for each
order to more accurately reflect trapping effort (Nelson and Clark 1973). We calculated our
b
c
d
e
correction since some of the studies to which
assumed that other studies did not employ a
we compared our results employed the
correction if they did not state
Includes white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and
MTM = Reclaimed mountaintop mine/valleyfill
SM = Reclaimed strip mine
GR = Natural grassland
deer mice
ES = Land in early successional stage following mining or logging
nr = Value not reported
na = Not applicable
(Peromyscus
operations.
.0
sprung
0.3
0.2
nrd
0.3
trap in
0.0
0.0
nrd
0.2
abundances with and without the
correction while
in their methods
that they
some
did so
did not.
We
maniculatus)
111
-------
Table 34. Species expected (Exp) to occur on in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and
intact forest treatments in our study area in southwestern West Virginia based on Green and
Pauley (1987) and personal communication with T. Pauley, compared to those actually
observed (Obs) in drift fence surveys (a), stream searches (s), and from incidental sightings (i).
Shrub/ Fragmented
Grassland pole Forest
Species
Terrestrial species
Salamanders
Cumberland Plateau Salamander (Plethodon kentucki)
Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum)
Green Salamander (Aneides aeneus)
Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
Longtail Salamander (Eurycea longicauda)
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum)
Ravine Salamander (Plethodon richmondi)
Redback Salamander (Plethodon cinereus)
Red Eft (Notophthalmus viridescens) a
Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)
Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum)
Wehrle's Salamander (Plethodon wehrlei)
Toads and frogs
Eastern American Toad (Bufo americanus)
Eastern Spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii)
Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhouseii)
Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)
Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)
Northern Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer)
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
Lizards
Broadhead Skink (Eumeces laticeps)
Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
Ground Skink (Scincella lateralis)
Northern Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus)
Northern Fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)
Snakes
Black King Snake (Lampropeltis getulus)
Black Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta)
Eastern Earth Snake (Virginia valeriae)
Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Eastern Hognose (Heterodon platirhinos)
Eastern Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum)
Eastern Smooth Green Snake (Opheodrys vernalis)
Eastern Worm Snake (Carphophis amoenus)
Northern Black Racer (Coluber constrictor)
Northern Brown Snake (Storeria dekayi)
Northern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix)
Northern Red belly Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata)
Northern Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus)
Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus)
Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
a ax
X
X
X
x a x a
X
x
i x
x
x
x
x
x x a x
x
XXX
x a a
XXX
x a x a x
XXX
x a x a x
x a a
x x a x
x i
XXX
x a x a
XXX
a x
XXX
x
XXX
Obs
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
i
a
a
a
i
a
a
Intact
Forest
Exp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Obs
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
i
a
a
i
a
i
a
a
i
112
-------
Table 34. Continued.
Species
Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene Carolina)
Aquatic species
Salamanders
Appalachian Seal Salamander (Desmognathus monticola)
Dusky Salamander spp. (D.fuscus or D.ochrophaeus)
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)
Midland Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus)
Mud puppy (Necturus maculosus)
Northern Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)
Northern Red Salamander (Pseudotriton ruber)
Red-spotted Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens)
Southern Two-lined Salamander (Eurycea cirrigera)
Spring Salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus)
Toads and frogs
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
Green Frog (Rana clamitans)
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)
Pickerel frog (Rana palustris)
Snakes
Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon)
Queen Snake (Regina septemvittata)
Turtles
Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)
Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle (Trionyx spiniferus)
Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)
Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus)
Grassland
Exp Obs
X
X
X
x a
X
x a
X
x a
x a
x i
x
x
x
Shrub/
pole
Exp Obs
i
x a
x
x
x a
x a
x a
x
x a
x a
x i
x i
x
x
Fragmented
Forest
Exp Obs
x 1
x a
x s
x
x
x
x
x s
x
x a
x
x
x a
x a
x
x a
x i
x
x i
x
x
x
Intact
Forest
Exp
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Obs
a
a
s
a
i
i
a
a
Juvenile form of red-spotted newt; not included as a separate species in calculations of
species richness.
113
-------
Table 35. Herpetofaunal species richness and relative abundance in grassland, shrub/pole,
fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF areas in southwestern
West Virginia, March - September, 2000.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/pole
Fragmented
Forest
Intact Forest
Species Richness
No. species
Mean
SE
13
0.21
0.04
14
0.28
0.03
16
0.29
0.04
15
0.22
0.03
Overall Abundance
No. individuals
Mean
SE
91
0.52
0.19
109
0.61
0.15
110
0.63
0.13
59
0.34
0.06
Table 36. Herpetofaunal community similarity between pairs of treatments on reclaimed
MTMVF areas in southwestern West Virginia, March - September, 2000.
Comparisons
Grassland/Shrub
Grassland/Fragment
Grassland/Intact
Shrub/Fragment
Shrub/Intact
Fragment/Intact
No. species
shared
11
9
6
10
7
10
Jaccard3
index
0.69
0.45
0.27
0.50
0.32
0.48
Renkonen
index
0.65
0.58
0.43
0.55
0.56
0.61
aThe Jaccard index only examines the number of species shared while the Renkonen index
takes into account the proportion of each species present in each sample (in all cases
the scale ranges from 0=no similarity and 1=complete similarity).
114
-------
Table 37. Number of individuals and species of herpetofauna groups captured in drift fence arrays in grassland, shrub/pole,
fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF areas in southwestern West Virginia, March - September,
2000.
Grassland
Individuals
Taxonomic Group
Salamanders
Toads and frogs
Lizards
Snakes
Turtles
n
5
63
2
17
1
%
5.7
71.6
2.3
19.3
1.1
Species
n
2
3
1
6
1
%
15.4
23.1
7.7
46.2
7.7
Shrub/pole
Individuals
n
5
68
2
33
0
%
4.6
63.0
1.9
30.6
0.0
Species
n
1
4
2
7
0
%
7.1
28.6
14.3
50.0
0.0
Fragmented Forest
Individuals
n
25
65
3
13
2
%
23.1
60.2
2.8
12.0
1.9
Species
n
4
5
1
5
1
%
25.0
31.3
6.3
31.3
6.3
Intact Forest
Individuals
n
17
31
2
6
2
%
29.3
53.4
3.4
10.3
3.4
Species
n
4
4
2
4
1
%
26.7
26.7
13.3
26.7
6.7
115
-------
Table 38. Number of individuals (# indivs) of herpetofauna species captured in drift fence
arrays and percent of points at which a species was captured in grassland, shrub/pole,
fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF areas in southwestern
West Virginia, March - September, 2000.
Grassland
#
Species indivs
Salamanders
Appalachian Seal Salamander
Cumberland Plateau Salamander
Longtail Salamander
Redback Salamander
Red-spotted Newt
Slimy Salamander
Spotted Salamander
Toads and froqs
Bullfrog
Eastern American Toad
Green Frog
Northern Spring Peeper
Pickerel Frog
Unidentified Frog
Wood Frog
Lizards
Five-lined Skink
Ground Skink
Northern Fence Lizard
Snakes
Black Rat Snake
Eastern Garter Snake
Eastern Hognose
Eastern Milk Snake
Eastern Worm Snake
Northern Black Racer
Northern Copperhead
Northern Redbelly Snake
Northern Water Snake
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle
Unknown
4
1
7
39
17
2
2
6
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
%of
points
100
33
66
100
100
33
66
66
33
33
33
66
33
33
33
Shrub/pole
#
indivs
5
2
27
25
14
1
1
1
4
5
1
2
14
6
1
%of
points
100
66
100
100
66
33
33
33
66
66
33
33
100
66
33
Fragmented
Forest
#
indivs
2
19
3
1
1
3
26
3
32
3
1
7
1
3
1
2
2
%of
points
33
100
33
33
33
66
66
66
100
33
33
66
33
66
33
66
33
Intact Forest
#
indivs
1
4
2
10
14
4
12
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
%of
points
33
66
33
100
100
100
66
33
33
33
33
33
33
66
33
33
116
-------
Surveyed Stream Drainages
Cannelton Mine
Dal-Tex Mine
Hobet 21 Mine
Watersheds
Counties
Figure 1. Location of mountaintop removal mine sites within watersheds in southern West Virginia.
117
-------
Hobet21 Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
Intact Forest
Shrub/Pole
Vegetation Data
# Water Quality Points
|—| Hobet21 Mine
~| Watershed Boundaries
S
1000 0 1000 2000 Meters
Figure 2. Topographic map of Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Boone County, West Virginia.
118
-------
Hobet21 Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
Intact Forest
Shrub/Pole
Vegetation Data
# Water Quality Points
Grassland
Scrub/Pole
1000
w
N
0 1000 2000 Meters
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of Hobet 21 mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Boone County, West Virginia.
119
-------
Big Buck Sampling Points
Intact Forest
Shrub/Pole
I I Watershed Boundaries
500
500
1000 Meters
Figure 4. Topographic map of sampling points located along Big Buck Fork (intact forest)
and Hill Fork drainages (shrub/pole) in Boone County, West Virginia.
120
-------
Big Buck Sampling Points
Intact Forest
# Shrub/Pole
400
w
400
800 Meters
Figure 5. Aerial photograph of sampling points located along Big Buck Fork (intact forest)
and Hill Fork drainages (shrub/pole) in Boone County, West Virginia.
121
-------
T-'•'-•-• ' --:'-;'"- '--31^.:
-i: -•• - -r . ; ... :-,-i- * ii:
"•>-> ' mm
Daltex Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
Intact Forest
Vegetation Data
# Water Quality Points
R Daltex Mine
Watershed Boundary
1000 0 1000 2000 Meters
Figure 6. Topographic map of Daltex mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Logan County, West Virginia.
122
-------
Daltex Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
Intact Forest
Vegetation Data
# Wat erQualityPoints
I Forest Fragment
Bare Ground
Shrub/Pole
Grassland
800 0 800 1600 Meters
Figure 7. Aerial photograph of Daltex mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Logan County, West Virginia.
123
-------
Cannelton Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
# Shrub/Pole
# Water Quality Points
I I Cannelton Mine
Watershed Boundary
1000
0 1000 2000 Meters
Figure 8. Topographic map of Cannelton mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Kanawha and Fayette Counties, West Virginia.
124
-------
Cannelton Sampling Points
# Forest Fragment
Grassland
Shrub/Pole
# Water Quality Points
] Shrub/Pole
I | Forest Fragment
Grassland
Figure 9. Aerial photograph of Cannelton mountaintop removal mine with locations of
sampling points in Kanawha and Fayette Counties, West Virginia.
125
-------
•
.- ..'
f ' f
Cannelton Sampling Points
# Intact Forest
I | Watershed Boundary
600
600 1200 Meters
Figure 10. Topographic map of sampling points located along Ash Fork (intact forest)
in Nicholas County, West Virginia.
126
-------
N
Cannelton Sampling Points w
# Intact Forest
600 0 600 1200 Meters
Figure 11. Aerial photograph of sampling points along Ash Fork (intact forest)
in Nicholas County, West Virginia.
127
-------
35m from
stream
75m from
stream
...»• Stream
Transect
250m
Point Count
Habitat Sampling
Subplot
X = canopy and ground
cover points
Figure 12. Placement of point count plots along streams and layout of vegetation sampling
subplots within the 50-m radius point count plot.
128
-------
Point Count Plot
Mammal Transect
150m
Figure 13. Layout of small mammal transects in relation to the bird point count plot and stream.
129
-------
Fence IV
7
CD
8
o
Fence
O
o
o
Fence I
O
STREAM OR ROAD
4 Fence II
CD
O
X Point Count Center
Pitfall Trap
[ ) Funnel Trap
15-m Drift Fence
Figure 14. Placement of herpetofaunal drift fence array relative to songbird point count station.
130
-------
5.0dm
Maximum grass height
measured in 3.0dm
radius of pole
0.5dm
4.0m
Cover
estimated from
1.0m above
ground looking
towards the
center of the
plot from 4.0m
away by
recording last
0.5dm interval
not completely
obscured by
vegetation
Figure 15. Example of how a Robel pole is used to measure vegetative cover and grass height.
131
-------
o
O Robel pole and litter
depth measurements
Grass height
• measurements
Figure 16. Sampling points on grassland vegetation subplot for vegetative cover and grass
height measurements (Robel pole) and litter depth measurements.
132
-------
c
_o
!5
3
Q.
'5
0)
-1999
-2000
- Normal
12
0.00
7-May
21-May
4-Jun
18-Jun
2-Jul
Date
16-Jul
30-Jul
13-Aug
27-Aug
Fig. 17. Weekly precipitation reported in Charleston, West Virginia from May to August in 1999 and 2000. Total precipitation from
May to August was 29.2 cm in 1999 and 47.0 cm in 2000.
133
-------
35.0
30.0
O
-Avg. Weekly High 1999
-Avg. Weekly Low 1999
-Avg. Weekly High 2000
-Avg. Weekly Low 2000
-Normal Avg. Weekly High
-Normal Avg. Weekly Low
7-May 21-May 4-Jun 18-Jun
2-Jul 16-Jul 30-Jul 13-Aug 27-Aug
Date
Fig. 18. Average weekly high and low temperatures recorded in Charleston, West Virginia from May to August 1999 and 2000. In 1999
the average high was 29.1 degrees C while the low was 15.4. In 2000, the average high was 26.9 degrees C and the low was 15.9.
134
-------
Appendix 1. Orders, common names, and scientific names of all bird species mentioned in the text.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order Podicepediformes
Pied-billed Grebe
Order Pelecaniformes
Double-crested Cormorant
Order Ciconiiformes
American Bittern
Great Blue Heron
Great Egret
Cattle Egret
Green-backed Heron
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron
Order Anseriformes
Mute Swan
Canada Goose
Green-winged Teal
American Black Duck
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Order Falconiformes
Black Vulture
Turkey Vulture
Podilymbus podiceps
Phalacrocorax auritus
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ardea herodias
Casmerodius albus
Bubulcus ibis
Butorides striatus
Nycticorax violaceus
Cygnus olor
Branta canadensis
Anas crecca
Anas rubripes
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas acuta
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Anas strepera
Anas americana
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala albeola
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Coragyps stratus
Cathartes aura
Northern Harrier
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper's Hawk
Northern Goshawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Order Galliformes
Ring-necked Pheasant*
Ruffed Grouse
Wild Turkey
Northern Bobwhite
Order Gruiformes
King Rail
Sora
Common Moorhen
American Coot
Order Charadriiformes
American Golden-plover
Killdeer
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Solitary Sandpiper
Spotted Sanpiper
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Baird's Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Circus cyaneus
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter cooper/7
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo lineatus
Buteo platypterus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo lagopus
Falco sparverius
Falco peregrinus
Phasianus colchicus
Bonasa umbellus
Meleagris gallopavo
Colinus virginianus
Rallus elegans
Porzana Carolina
Gallinula chloropus
Fulica americana
Pluvialis dominica
Charadrius vociferous
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Tringa solitaria
Actitis macularia
Calidris pusilla
Calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris fuscicollis
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotos
Appendix! Continued.
135
-------
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Common Snipe
American Woodcock
Order Columbiformes
Rock Dove
Mourning Dove
Order Cuculiformes
Black-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Order Strigiformes
Eastern Screech-Owl
Great Horned Owl
Barred Owl
Short-eared Owl
Order Caprimulciiformes
Common Nighthawk
Whip-poor-will
Order Apodiformes
Chimney Swift
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Order Coraciiformes
Belted Kingfisher
Order Piciformes
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Gallinago gallinago
Scolopax minor
Columba livia
Zenaida macroura
Coccyzus erthropthalmus
Coccyzus americanus
Otus as/o
Bulbo virginianus
Strix varia
Asio flammeus
Chordeiles minor
Caprimulgus vociferus
Chaetura pelagica
Archilocus colubris
Ceryle torquata
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Melanerpes carolinus
Picoides pubescens
Picoides villosus
Colaptes auratus
Dryocopus pileatus
Order Passeriformes
Acadian Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Least Flycatcher
Eastern Phoebe
Great Crested Flycatcher
Eastern Kingbird
Horned Lark
Purple Martin
Tree Swallow
Northern Rough-winged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Barn Swallow
Blue Jay
American Crow
Common Raven
Black-capped Chickadee
Carolina Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Carolina Wren
House Wren
Winter Wren
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Eastern Bluebird
Veery
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Gray Catbird
Northern Mockingbird
Brown Thrasher
European Starling
White-eyed Vireo
Blue-headed Vireo
Empidonax virescens
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax minimus
Sayornis phoebe
Myiarchus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Eremophila alpestris
Progne subis
Tachycineta bicolor
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Riparia riparia
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus corax
Poecile atricapilla
Poecile carolinensis
Baeolophus bicolor
Sitta carolinensis
Certhia americana
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Troglodytes aedon
Troglodytes troglodytes
Polioptila caerulea
Sialia sialis
Catharus fuscescens
Hylocichla mustelina
Turdus migratorius
Dumatella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma rufum
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo griseus
Vireo solitarius
136
-------
Appendix! Continued.
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Order/Species
Scientific Name
Warbling Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue-winged Warbler
Golden-winged Warbler
Northern Parula
Yellow Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Palm Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
American Redstart
Worm-eating Warbler
Swainson's Warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana Waterthrush
Kentucky Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
Canada Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Summer Tanager
Scarlet Tanager
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Blue Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting
Dickcissel
Eastern Towhee
Chipping Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Vireo gilvus
Vireo flavifrons
Contopus virens
Vireo olivaceus
Vermivora pinus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Parula americana
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica virens
Dendroica dominica
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica discolor
Dendroica palmarum
Dendroica cerulea
Mniotilta varia
Setophaga ruticilla
Helmitheros vermivorus
Limnothlypis swainsonii
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus motacilla
Oporornis formosus
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia citrina
Wilsonia canadensis
Icteria virens
Piranga rubra
Piranga olivacea
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Guiraca caerulea
Passerina cyanea
Spiza americana
Pipilo erythropthalmus
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
Dark-eyed Junco
Bobolink
Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
Common Crackle
Cedar Waxwing
Brown-headed Cowbird
Orchard Oriole
Baltimore Oriole
Purple Finely
House Finch*
American Goldfinch
House Sparrow*
Junco hyemalis
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Agelaius phoeniceus
Sturnella magna
Quiscalus quiscula
Bombycilla cedrorum
Molothrus ater
Icterus spurius
Icterus galbula
Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus mexicanus
Carduelis tristis
Passer domesticus
137
-------
Appendix 2. Common and scientific names of woody plants found on sampling points in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and
intact forest treatments.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/pole
Common Name
American basswood
American beech
American chestnut
Common elderberry
American elm
American hazelnut
American sycamore
Autumn olive
Bicolor lespedeza
Bitternut hickory
Blackberry/raspberry
Black birch
Black cherry
Black gum
Black locust
Black oak
Blueberry
Black walnut
Box elder
Buffalo nut
Chestnut oak
Cucumber magnolia
Eastern hemlock
Eastern redbud
Eastern red cedar
European black alder
Flame Azalea
Flowering dogwood
Green ash
Greenbrier
Scientific Name3 Can.
Tilia americana
Fagus grandifolia
Castanea dentata
Sambucus canadensis
Ulmus americana
Corlyus americana
Platanus occidentalis
Elaegnus umbellata x
Lespedeza bicolor x
Carya cordiformis
Rubus spp. x
Betula lenta
Prunus serotina
Nyssa sylvatica
Robinia pseudoacacia
Quercus velutina
Vaccinium spp.
Juglans nigra
Acer negundo
Pyrularia pubera
Quercus prinus
Magnolia acuminata
Tsuga canadensis
Cercis canadensis
Juniperus virginiana
Alnus glutinosa
Rhododendro calendulaceum
Cornus florida
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Smilax spp.
Dal. Hob. Can. Hob.
xb
x
X X
XXX
XX X
X X X X
X X
x xb
X
X X X X
X
X
X
xb
xb
X
XXX
X
X X
X
Fragmented
Forest
Can.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dal.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hob.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intact Forest
Can.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dal.
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hob.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
138
-------
Appendix 2. Continued.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/pole Fragmented Forest
Common Name
Gray dogwood
Hawthorn species
Hercule's club
Honeysuckle
Ironwood
Loblolly pine
Multiflora rose
Maple leaf viburnum
Mockernut hickory
Mountain laurel
Musclewood
Northern red oak
Ohio buckeye
Persimmon
Pawpaw
Pignut hickory
Pitch pine
Poison ivy
Princess tree
Red maple
Red mulberry
Red pine
River birch
Rhododendron
Sassafras
Scarlet Oak
Scotch pine
Serviceberry
Shagbark hickory
Slippery elm
Smooth Sumac
Spicebush
Scientific Name3
Cornus racemosa
Crataegus spp.
Aralia spinosa
Lonicera spp.
Carpinus caroliniana
Pinus taeda
Rosa multiflora
Viburnum acerifolium
Carya tomentosa
Kalmia latifolia
Ostyra virginiana
Quercus rubra
Aesculus glabra
Diospyros virginiana
Asimina triloba
Carya glabra
Pinus rigida
Toxicodendron radicans
Paulownia tomentosa
Acer rubrum
Morus rubra
Pinus resinosa
Betula nigra
Rhododendron maximum
Sassafras albidum
Quercus coccinea
Pinus sylvestris
Amelanchier spp.
Carya ovata
Ulmus rubra
Rhus glabra
Lindera benzoin
Can. Dal. Hob. Can. Hob. Can.
X
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
Dal.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hob.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intact Forest
Can.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dal.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hob.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
139
-------
Appendix 2. Continued.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/pole Fragmented
Common Name
Sourwood
Staghorn sumac
Sugar maple
Sweetgum
Tree of heaven
Tuliptree
Umbrella magnolia
Virginia Creeper
Virginia pine
White ash
White oak
White pine
Wild grape
Willow species
Witch hazel
Wild hydrangea
Wild rose
Winged sumac
Yellow birch
Scientific Name3
Oxydendrum arboreum
Rhus typhina
Acer saccharum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Ailanthus altissima
Liriodendron tulipifera
Magnolia tripetala
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Pinus virginiana
Fraxinus americana
Quercus alba
Pinus strobus
Vitis spp.
Salix spp.
Hamamelis virginiana
Hydrangea arborescens
Rosa spp.
Rhus copallina
Betula allegheniensis
Can. Dal. Hob. Can. Hob. Can.
X X X X
xb
XXX
X
XXX
x xb x
X
X
X
x xb x
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X X
Dal.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forest
Hob.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intact Forest
Can.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Dal.
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hob.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nomenclature follows Strausbaugh and Core (1977).
Species only found in the Mud River/Coal River watersheds at the Hill Fork site (a valleyfill associated with a contour mine).
140
-------
Appendix 3. Mean abundance of songbird species and guilds in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on
the Hobet and Daltex mine sites in 1999.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species/Guild
Forest Interior Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Wood-pewee
Great Crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Warbler
Wood Thrush
Worm-eating Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-edge Species
American Redstart
American Robin
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-capped Chickadee
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Hairy Woodpecker
Hobet
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
Daltex
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shrub/pole
Hobet
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
Fragmented Forest
Hobet
1.05
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.10
0.65
0.20
0.25
0.10
0.00
0.85
0.10
0.05
0.25
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.35
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
Daltex
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
Intact Forest
Hobet
1.00
0.07
0.39
0.39
0.04
0.00
0.18
0.18
0.93
0.00
0.04
0.11
0.00
0.43
0.18
0.11
0.46
0.00
0.29
0.04
0.04
0.43
0.36
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.14
Daltex
1.50
0.00
0.63
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.13
1.25
0.00
0.38
0.13
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.75
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
141
-------
Appendix 3. Continued.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species/Guild
Hooded Warbler
Northern Flicker
Northern Parula
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Edge Species
American Crow
American Goldfinch
Baltimore Oriole
Blue Grosbeak
Blue Jay
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
Commom Yellowthroat
Eastern Bluebird
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Indigo Bunting
Mourning Dove
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Cardinal
Orchard Oriole
Prairie Warbler
Hobet
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.14
Daltex
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shrub/pole
Hobet
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
2.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.50
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.17
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.67
Fragmented Forest
Hobet
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.00
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
Daltex
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Intact Forest
Hobet
0.29
0.07
0.14
0.11
0.93
0.14
0.07
0.21
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Daltex
0.88
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
142
-------
Appendix 3. Continued.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species/Guild
Song Sparrow
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Bobolink
Dickcissel
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
Vesper Sparrow
Willow Flycatcher
Habitat Guilds
Grassland
Edge
Interior-edge
Forest Interior
Nesting Guilds
Ground
Shrub
Subcanopy
Canopy
Cavity
Total
Richness
Hobet
0.09
0.09
0.36
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.59
2.27
0.00
0.41
1.23
0.05
0.18
4.09
2.86
0.05
0.09
3.45
3.50
0.00
0.05
0.00
8.32
5.50
Daltex
0.50
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
2.13
0.00
0.13
1.75
0.13
0.00
5.00
1.25
0.00
0.50
4.00
2.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.38
4.25
Shrub/pole
Hobet
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
6.67
1.50
1.00
2.50
5.50
1.67
0.00
0.00
12.17
9.17
Fragmented Forest
Hobet
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
2.95
2.80
1.55
0.45
3.10
0.80
0.75
7.75
6.70
Daltex
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
3.75
2.00
1.00
0.25
2.50
0.75
1.50
6.75
6.75
Intact Forest
Hobet
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
2.39
3.93
1.82
0.29
2.86
0.96
0.93
8.00
6.57
Daltex
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
3.25
5.00
2.50
1.00
3.75
0.75
1.00
10.38
8.63
143
-------
Appendix 4. Mean abundance of songbird species and guilds in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on
the Hobet, Daltex, and Cannelton mines in 2000.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species
Forest Interior Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Black-throated Green Warbler
Blue-headed Vireo
Cerulean Warbler
Eastern Wood-pewee
Great Crested Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
Swainson's Warbler
Wood Thrush
Worm-eating Warbler
Yellow-throated Warbler
Interior-edge Species
American Redstart
American Robin
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-capped Chickadee
Blue-gray Gnat catcher
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Wren
Dark-eyed Junco
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Eastern Towhee
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shrub/pole
Hobet Cannelton
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.00
0.18
0.12
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.19
1.00
Fragmented Forest
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.90
0.05
0.05
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.25
0.75
0.05
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.25
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.17
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.20
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
Intact Forest
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
1.40
0.10
0.30
0.35
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.05
1.25
0.10
0.70
0.15
0.00
0.70
0.15
0.10
0.85
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.20
0.25
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
1.12
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.12
1.35
0.06
0.53
0.06
0.00
0.41
0.12
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.06
0.18
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
1.50
0.20
0.70
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.90
0.20
0.00
0.90
0.30
0.20
0.80
0.10
0.40
0.10
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
144
-------
Appendix 4. Continued.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Northern Flicker
Northern Parula
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Edge Species
American Crow
American Goldfinch
Baltimore Oriole
Blue Grosbeak
Blue Jay
Blue-winged Warbler
Brown Thrasher
Brown-headed Cowbird
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Eastern Bluebird
Field Sparrow
Golden-winged Warbler
Gray Catbird
Indigo Bunting
Mourning Dove
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Cardinal
Orchard Oriole
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.22
0.00
1.06
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.11
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.08
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
Shrub/pole
Hobet Cannelton
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.53
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.24
0.88
0.06
1.35
0.00
0.18
1.47
0.12
0.00
0.12
0.35
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.13
0.00
0.12
0.56
0.55
0.06
0.00
0.44
0.13
0.00
0.50
0.31
0.69
0.06
1.19
0.19
0.13
1.94
0.06
0.00
0.38
0.00
Fragmented Foresr
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.05
0.10
0.00
0.35
0.15
1.70
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.67
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.60
0.00
1.80
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
Intact Forest
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.15
0.60
0.00
0.05
0.10
1.40
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.53
0.00
0.06
0.12
1.24
0.00
0.35
0.18
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.10
0.30
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
145
-------
Appendix 4. Continued.
Treatment
Grasslands
Species
Prairie Warbler
Song Sparrow
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Grassland Species
Bobolink
Dickcissel
Eastern Meadowlark
Grasshopper Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
Horned Lark
Red-winged Blackbird
Willow Flycatcher
Habitat Guilds
Grassland
Edge
Interior-edge
Forest Interior
Nesting Guilds
Ground
Shrub
Subcanopy
Canopy
Cavity
Total
Richness
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.39
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.28
0.06
0.00
0.39
3.11
0.06
0.17
0.56
0.33
3.78
3.67
0.56
0.00
3.61
4.06
0.22
0.00
0.06
0.00
9.17
6.00
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.33
0.75
2.67
0.00
0.50
1.33
0.00
4.50
2.17
0.17
0.00
3.83
3.17
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
8.33
5.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.70
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
4.20
1.90
0.10
0.10
3.90
2.10
0.10
0.00
0.20
0.00
6.60
3.50
Shrub/pole
Hobet Cannelton
1.06
0.00
0.41
0.53
1.24
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
1.00
6.24
1.88
0.53
2.29
6.24
0.76
0.18
0.65
0.00
12.18
9.00
1.25
0.19
0.50
0.00
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.31
6.69
3.06
0.19
2.25
6.31
1.13
0.13
0.88
0.00
12.88
9.75
Fragmented Foresr
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.45
3.45
3.60
1.85
0.55
2.25
2.15
1.20
0.00
9.60
8.05
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.33
3.50
2.17
0.83
1.33
2.83
1.67
1.67
0.00
9.17
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
3.00
3.50
1.00
0.30
2.50
2.50
0.90
0.00
8.40
6.90
Intact Forest
Hobet Daltex Cannelton
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
3.00
5.80
2.20
0.60
3.05
2.80
0.95
0.00
10.85
8.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
2.29
4.82
1.94
0.71
2.35
1.94
0.88
0.00
9.18
7.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
3.10
7.00
2.20
0.60
3.80
3.50
0.70
0.00
11.90
8.60
146
-------
Appendix 5. Mean abundance of raptor species for each treatment (GR=grassland;
SH=shrub/pole; FR=fragmented forest; I N=intact forest) on each of the 3 mines.
Cannelton
Species
Overall Abundance
American Kestrel
Peregrine Falcon
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter spp.a
Northern Harrier
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
Eastern Screech Owl
Barred Owl
Turkey Vulture
Unknown
GR
0.75
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
SH
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.00
FR
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IN
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Daltex
GR
0.75
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
FR
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.03
IN
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
GR
0.83
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
Hobet
SH
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.00
FR
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
IN
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.00
aEither Sharp-shinned Hawk or Cooper's Hawk.
147
-------
Appendix 6. Small mammal richness and abundance on each mine in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest and intact forest
treatments.
Mine
Cannelton
Daltex
Hobet
GRa SH FR IN
GR FR IN GR SH FR
IN
1.0 2.0 1.8 2.0
Species Richness
1999
2000
Relative Abundance
Total
1999 -
2000 33.0 25.1 12.1 22.7
Peromyscus species
1999 -
2000 33.0 21.5 8.0 20.0
House mouse
1999 -
2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Woodland jumping mouse
1999 -
2000 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.3
Meadow vole
1999 -
2000 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Short-tailed shrew
1999 -
2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eastern chipmunk
1999 -
2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
2.0 1.8 2.5 1.6 - 1.8 2.2
1.8 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3
18.0 11.3 22.0 15.6 - 13.3 12.0
8.9 6.2 4.1 22.3 18.2 6.0 2.9
13.1 10.0 19.4 14.1 - 11.1 8.7
4.1 5.6 4.1 21.5 17.6 5.5 2.9
4.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.9 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 1.9 0.4 - 0.9 2.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 - 0.9 1.2
0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3
148
-------
Appendix 6. Cont.
Mine
Cannelton
Daltex
GRa SH FR IN GR
Eastern woodrat
1999
2000
Southern bog lemming
1999
2000
Masked shrew
1999
2000
Virginia opossum
1999
2000
Eastern cottontail
1999
2000
0.0
0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
IN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
Hobet
SH
-
0.4
-
0.2
-
0.0
-
0.0
-
0.0
FR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
IN
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
'GR=grassland; SH=shrub/pole; FR=fragmerited forest; IN=intact forest.
149
-------
UPDATE to the Wood et al. 2001 TERRESTRIAL
STUDIES REPORT
January 2002
Introduction
The following document summarizes data collected in 2001 and additional analyses of the data
collected in 1999-2000 that was not included in the original report. Note that additional analyses
for the raptor data are not included here because a master's thesis (Balcerzak 2001) has
already been submitted with these data. The sections included in this update are as follows:
A. Species-Specific Logistic Regression Models
Regression models were developed for grassland and edge species as requested in the
review of the original report. Reclaimed mines are providing habitat for these species,
although we do not know if populations are breeding successfully. Models for grassland
species indicate that dense vegetation is not suitable habitat, therefore, reclaimed
grasslands will not remain suitable for these species without active management.
Models were developed for additional interior-edge and forest-interior species.
B. Grasshopper Sparrow Habitat and Nesting Success
Additional data collected in 2001 confirm that reclaimed grassland habitats provide
suitable breeding habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows as long as vegetation does not
become too dense.
C. Small Mammal Sherman Trapping Data
Additional analyses of the 1999 and 2000 small mammal data suggest higher
productivity for Peromyscus species within the reclaimed grassland habitats.
Abundance was negatively related to bareground.
D. Small Mammal Data from Herp Arrays
Additional species were captured in pitfall traps associated with arrays (particularly
shrews) resulting in greater species richness within the reclaimed habitats. For
woodland jumping mice and short-tailed shrews, abundance was greater in fragmented
forests, similar to findings from the Sherman trap data.
E. Herpetofaunal Surveys
The two years of data showed similar trends to those reported in the original report for
the 1-year data set.
F. Appendix A-1. Changes to the Wood et al. 2001 MTMVF terrestrial report
Logistic regression models were updated and none of the species tested showed
negative relationships with distance to edges.
-------
A. Species-Specific Logistic Regression Models
In the final report we included species-specific logistic regression models for several forest-
interior species listed as species of concern by Partners in Flight (PIF). Here we provide habitat
models for 32 additional species: 6 grassland, 13 edge species, and 13 forest species.
In response to review comments from the W. Va. Coal Association, we are adding more
information on grassland and early successional species that were detected on MTMVF mines.
Many of these species are known to be declining in all or part of their breeding range (Sauer et
al. 2001), and MTMVF mines may provide habitat for these species in a region that is
dominated by mature forest habitat. We present findings on 6 grassland species: Dickcissel,
Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark, Red-winged Blackbird, Horned Lark, and Willow
Flycatcher, and 13 edge species: White-eyed Vireo, Yellow-breasted Chat, Prairie Warbler,
Blue-winged Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow Warbler, Indigo Bunting, Northern
Cardinal, American Goldfinch, Song Sparrow, Chipping Sparrow, Field Sparrow, and Eastern
Towhee.
Of the grassland species, the Dickcissel was found to be declining significantly range-wide from
1966-2000 by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), but the species was not detected on any routes
in West Virginia (Sauer et al. 2001). All of the other species, except the Wllow Flycatcher, were
found to be declining in West Virginia and range-wide. Willow Flycatcher populations appear to
be stable both in West Virginia and range-wide. Of the edge species, the BBS found the Prairie
Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Indigo Bunting, American Goldfinch, and Eastern Towhee to be
declining significantly in West Virginia and range-wide. White-eyed Vireo, Yellow Warbler, Blue-
winged Warbler, and Northern Cardinal populations appear to be stable both in West Virginia
and range-wide. The Yellow-breasted Chat and Chipping Sparrow appear to be declining in
West Virginia, whereas populations are stable range-wide (Sauer et al. 2001). The Song
Sparrow is declining range-wide, but populations appear stable in West Virginia.
Additional models for 13 forest species also are included in this report. Of the 13 species
analyzed, 8 are interior-edge species and 5 are forest-interior species. The interior-edge
species analyzed were: American Redstart, Carolina Chickadee, Northern Parula, Carolina
Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Red-bellied Woodpecker, and White-breasted
Nuthatch. The forest-interior species were: Black-throated Green Warbler, Ovenbird, Pileated
Woodpecker, Yellow-throated Warbler, and Summer Tanager. Of these species, 6 are
considered "residents" (i.e. they do not migrate for the winter): Carolina Chickadee, Carolina
Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse,
and White-breasted Nuthatch.
Methods
We modeled habitat preferences of these additional species using stepwise logistic regression
(Stokes et al. 1995). The significance level for entry and staying in the model was P=0.15. The
Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to determine the validity of the models.
Models that failed the goodness-of-fit test (P<0.10) were considered invalid (Stokes et al. 1995).
These are the same methods used for examining forest-interior and interior-edge species in the
final report. For grassland and edge species, analyses included only points in the grassland
and shrub/pole treatments. We developed models for species detected at >10% of these
sampling points. Both treatments were included in the development of the models because
some grassland birds were detected in shrub/pole habitat and some edge birds were detected
-------
in grassland habitat. Habitat variables included in models for grassland species were: aspect
code, slope, distance to minor edge, distance to habitat edge, height of grass/forbs, litter depth,
Robel pole index, elevation, density of trees >0-2.5 cm, >2.5-8 cm, and >8-23 cm, and all
ground cover variables. These variables also were used in models for edge species, along with
density of trees >23-38 cm, and density of snags. Density of larger trees were excluded from
models because no trees >38 cm were found in these habitats, and no snags were found in the
grassland habitat.
For the 13 additional forest species (interior-edge and forest-interior species), we used the
same methods and variables as we used for the species in the final report and as described
above for the grassland and edge species.
Results and Discussion
Grassland Species and Edge Species
Grassland Species
Dickcissel
We found Dickcissel presence to be positively correlated to distance from habitat edge, Robel
pole index, and bareground/rock cover (Table 1). This indicates that Dickcissels prefer areas
far from edge, that have a high biomass of green vegetation, with some areas of bareground.
Zimmerman (1971) determined that Dickcissels prefer old fields over prairies for nesting,
presumably because of the taller vegetation, greater forb cover, and higher amounts of
vegetation in old fields. We found similar results, because Dickcissels were related positively to
Robel pole index, which is an indicator of biomass. As stated in the Final Report, Dickcissels
may be expanding their range eastward and MTMVF mines may provide habitat for them.
However, it is unknown if these birds are breeding on MTMVF mines.
Grasshopper Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow presence was negatively correlated to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table
1). This species prefers moderately open grassland and generally avoids areas with extensive
shrub cover (Vickery 1996). They also appear to prefer areas with sparse vegetation and
greater bareground cover (Vickery 1996). This was the most common species we encountered
on the grassland treatment, occurring at 99% of point counts. Further information on
Grasshopper Sparrow populations is reported elsewhere in this report.
Eastern Meadowlark
Presence of this species was negatively correlated to both density of trees >2.5-8 cm and shrub
cover (Table 2). This species uses a variety of grassland situations, including pastures,
savannas, hay fields, roadsides, airports, and golf courses (Lanyon 1995). It appears to prefer
areas with high grass and litter cover (Wens and Rotenberry 1981). Our results indicate that
the species prefers grassland areas that are more open with few trees or shrubs present.
MTMVF mines provide habitat for this species for several years after reclamation, but as
succession proceeds on the mines these areas will become unfavorable for them.
Red-winged Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird occurrence was negatively correlated to shrub cover on our study areas
(Table 2). Red-winged Blackbirds are found in a variety of habitats, such as field edges,
marshes, roadsides, old fields, ditches, and pastures (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We
commonly observed Red-winged Blackbirds in grasslands near created wetlands, stands of
-------
cattail (Typha spp.), and valleyfills on the mines. MTMVF mines appear to provide a
considerable amount of habitat for this species, especially along the periphery of created
wetlands.
Horned Lark
No habitat variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression to predict the presence of
Horned Larks (Table 3). Horned Larks prefer open, barren areas with few trees and a minimum
of vegetation (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We observed them most frequently in and along
the roads on the mines. All detections of this species were at the Hobet and Daltex mines.
Although presence was not related to any habitat variables, the species generally was present
in areas with low tree densities (Table 3). Because Horned Larks prefer barren areas with little
vegetation, MTMVF mines likely provide significant habitat for them during a short time span
after reclamation, before grasses and forbs begin to develop a dense ground cover. After
ground cover is established, Horned Larks will likely continue to use roads and barren areas on
the mines.
Willow Flycatcher
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the occurrence of
Willow Flycatchers (Table 3). All of our detections of Wllow Flycatchers were at the Hobet mine
in blocks of autumn olive. Because none of our point counts were placed in blocks of autumn
olive, we may not have been able to accurately determine the habitat factors important for
predicting Wllow Flycatcher presence. The edges of some autumn olive blocks were sampled
during vegetation surveys, but entire blocks were never completely within a 50-m radius of the
point count center. DeGraaf and Rappole (1995) report that the species occurs in a variety of
habitats, including brushy fields, willow thickets, streamsides, shelterbelts, and woodland edges.
However, they appear to prefer thickets or groves surrounded by grasslands, which is what we
observed on the MTMVF sites. Based on our observations, it appears MTMVF mining will only
provide habitat for this species if areas are planted with high densities of autumn olive.
However, autumn olive is not a native plant and can become invasive and a nuisance; it is no
longer recommended for planting in several counties.
Edge Species
White-eyed Vireo
We found the White-eyed Vireo to be positively related to density of trees >0-2.5 cm (Table 4),
which is an expected result since this species prefers areas with low shrubby vegetation or
brushy woodlands (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) also found this species to be
more abundant in areas with high shrub/sapling/pole density.
Yellow-breasted Chat
This species was found to be negatively associated to distance to habitat edge, and positively
related to density of trees >0-2.5 cm and forb cover (Table 4). However, the logistic regression
model failed the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Chats prefer dense, shrubby areas
with few tall trees (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) found the species occurred
more frequently in areas with a high density of stems >0-7.6 cm, which confirms our results.
Prairie Warbler
Presence of Prairie Warblers was negatively related to slope and distance from habitat edge,
and positively related to litter depth, density of trees >23-38 cm, and percent green ground
cover (Table 5). This species prefers areas with dense low trees, especially areas with some
conifers (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Denmon 1998). We detected this species mostly in
-------
shrub/pole habitat, but it also was observed at grassland points where there were scattered
shrubs and blocks of autumn olive nearby. MTMVF may provide more habitat for this species in
the future if tree species return to areas reclaimed to grasses. However, the bird appears to
prefer areas close to edge, and we often detected it along edges of forests. Thus, large, open
expanses of grassland as occurs in MTMVF may be detrimental to the species.
Blue-winged Warbler
Blue-winged Warbler presence was positively associated with the density of trees >2.5-8 cm
dbh (Table 5). Denmon (1998) observed this species more frequently in areas with a high
density of trees from >0-7.6 cm and a low density of trees from 7.6-15 cm dbh. Thus, it appears
from these results that Blue-winged Warblers are more likely to occur in areas where tree
diameter growth has not yet reached 8 cm.
Common Yellowthroat
We found Common Yellowthroats to be positively related to density of trees >0- 2.5 cm and
negatively related to density of trees >23-38 cm (Table 6). This species prefers areas with a
mixture of small trees, and dense, herbaceous vegetation, typically in damp or wet situations
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Denmon 1998), and our results confirm this prediction. We
commonly found them in shrubby areas around ponds on MTMVF mines (primarily Cannelton),
along forest/mine edges, and in blocks of autumn olive.
Yellow Warbler
This species was detected more frequently at lower elevations and was positively related to litter
cover (Table 6). It is a common and widespread species that prefers moist habitats
(streamsides, bogs, swamps) with dense understories, typically of willow (Sa//x spp.) and alder
(Alnus spp.) (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) found a higher abundance of Yellow
Warblers in grass/shrub-dominated habitat than in wooded, shrub-dominated, or thicket/shrub
early successional habitats in West Virginia. Surprisingly, we did not detect this species on the
Cannelton mine. It was observed most frequently at the Hobet mine in blocks of autumn olive,
and it was detected in small wooded thickets at the Daltex mine. The Cannelton mine was at
higher elevations than the other 2 mines, and this likely influenced the result showing this
species to be negatively associated with elevation.
Indigo Bunting
This species was widely distributed, being observed at 86% of grassland and shrub/pole points
combined, and at 94% of shrub/pole points alone. Stepwise logistic regression identified two
variables, density of trees >2.5-8 cm and bareground/rock cover, as predictors of Indigo Bunting
presence. They were positively correlated to tree density and negatively correlated to
bareground/rock cover (Table 7). Indigo Buntings are found in a variety of edge situations:
along roadsides, in brushy old fields, old burns, wooded clearings, and brushy ravines (DeGraaf
and Rappole 1995). They typically build their nests in a shrub or small tree.
Northern Cardinal
The Northern Cardinal was positively associated with the density of trees >2.5-8 cm (Table 7).
Similar results were found by Denmon (1998), who found Northern Cardinals more frequently in
areas with high shrub/sapling/pole density. She also found them in higher abundances in
thickets with dense shrubs and small trees than in grass/shrub, shrub, or wooded early
successional habitats. These results indicate that Northern Cardinals prefer advanced
successional stages when young trees begin to dominate, but before the trees become too big
and shade out lower-growing vegetation.
-------
American Goldfinch
No variables were chosen by stepwise logistic regression for predicting presence of the
American Goldfinch (Table 8). The only variable found by Denmon (1998) to be related to
American Goldfinch presence was density of trees >15.c cm, which was negatively related.
Goldfinches typically use a variety of edge situations, including old fields and roadsides
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995).
Song Sparrow
This species was positively related to distance from habitat edge (Table 8). Of the points where
this species was detected, 75% were at the Hobet and Daltex mines in grassland habitat, with a
few low scattered trees and shrubs used for perching. Conversely, at the Cannelton mine, this
species was only detected in shrub/pole habitat. Denmon (1998) only found herbaceous plant
height to be positively related to Song Sparrow presence.
Chipping Sparrow
Chipping Sparrows were positively related to the density of trees >8-23 cm (Table 9), but the
model failed the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and may not be valid.
This species prefers open, wooded areas, forest edges, and clearings (DeGraaf and Rappole
1995), and our results confirm that they prefer areas with some large trees present.
Field Sparrow
This species was positively associated with density of trees >2.5-8 cm and negatively
associated with bareground/rock (Table 9). Approximately 42% of the detections for this
species were in grassland habitat, and the other 57% in shrub/pole habitat. This species uses
small trees for song perches and will nest in them after leaf-out (Best 1978). They typically nest
in grasses and forbs earlier in the season (Best 1978), which may be one reason they prefer
areas with less bareground/rock. Denmon (1998) found them in higher abundances in
grass/shrub, and shrub-dominated habitat than in thickets and wooded areas.
Eastern Towhee
Eastern Towhees were positively correlated to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table 10). Our results
agree with Greenlaw (1996) who reported that this species occupies areas characterized by
dense shrubs and small trees and appears to favor mid- to late- stages of succession with
greatest densities in thickets and open-canopy woodland situations.
In summary, our results indicate that MTMVF mines are providing habitat for grassland and
early successional songbird species in West Virginia. Many of these species would be rare or
absent from this region if MTMVF mines were not present (see final report). However, it is not
known if these populations are breeding successfully on MTMVF mines. If reproductive
success is low, then these mines could be acting as habitat sinks for these species.
Interior-edge and Forest-interior Species
Interior-edge species
American Redstart
Presence of this species was positively related to aspect code and negatively related to density
of trees >2.5- 8 cm (Table 11). This is an adaptable species that breeds in a variety of forested
situations including coniferous-deciduous woods, regenerating hardwoods, aspen groves, and
shrubbery around farms and streams (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). It is unlikely the MTMVF
will have much affect on this species given the wide variety of habitats in which it will nest
-------
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Chickadee presence was positively related to trees >8-23 cm (Table 11). It is found in
a variety of habitats, including deciduous woods, thickets, and suburban parks (Ehrlich et al.
1988). It is often seen near edges, and MTMVF mining could increase habitat for this species
by increasing edge habitats.
Northern Parula
Northern Parula occurrence was positively associated with water cover and canopy cover >3-6
m and negatively associated with canopy cover >6-12 m (Table 12). This species is often
associated with bottomlands, so it is not surprising that we found it to be related to water cover
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We commonly found this species near drainages in forested
fragments and intact forest, and it does not appear to avoid edges.
Carolina Wren
Presence of this species was negatively related to aspect code and to density of trees 2.5 -8
cm (Table 12). This species is found in a variety of wooded situations, including brushy
bottomlands, open deciduous woods, and parks (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Downy Woodpecker
The occurrence of Downy Woodpeckers was positively associated to aspect code (Table 13).
This bird is often found near edges and inhabits deciduous and mixed-deciduous stands,
riparian stands, and parks (Ehrlich et al. 1988). MTMVF mining could potentially increase
habitat for this species by increasing edge habitats, but the reduction in forest cover by MTMVF
mining could also have a negative impact on the species.
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse occurrence was positively associated with green ground cover (Table 13). Like
the Carolina Chickadee and Downy Woodpecker, this species inhabits a variety of wooded
situations, often being seen in parks, open deciduous woods, and edges (Ehrlich et al. 1995).
Red-bellied Woodpecker
The presence of this species was negatively associated to canopy cover >24m.
(Table 14). Red-bellied Woodpeckers primarily inhabit deciduous woods, but are also found on
edges, in parks, and suburban situations (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Impacts of MTMVF mining on
this species would likely be minimal because of its generalist nature.
White-breasted Nuthatch
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the presence of this
species (Table 14). Although this species is often found on edges and in suburban and park
situations, it appears to prefer forests with large, old, decaying snags (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
MTMVF mining could increase edge habitat for this species, but ultimately it could have
negative effects on the species if large, dead snags are not present.
Forest-interior species
Ovenbird
Ovenbird presence was positively associated with bareground/rock cover and negatively
associated with canopy cover from >3-6 m. (Table 15). This species prefers extensive, open,
mature forests without thickets and tangles, with "an abundance of fallen leaves, logs and rocks"
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995), and our results agree with this assessment. This species was
-------
found to be less abundant in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining, and could be detrimentally
impacted if MTMVF mining continues.
Black-throated Green Warbler
The Black-throated Green Warbler was negatively related to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table
15). DeGraaf and Rappole (1995) state that this species inhabits "large stands of mature open
mixed woodlands (especially northern hardwood-hemlock stands)." Our observations agree
with this assessment. We most frequently encountered Black-throated Green Warblers in
stands of hardwoods intermixed with eastern hemlock, along streams in mature woods.
Pileated Woodpecker
The presence of the Pileated Woodpecker was negatively associated to canopy cover >24 m
(Table 16). This large woodpecker prefers deciduous woods with large trees, but it also is found
on edges and in parks and suburban situations (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Yellow-throated Warbler
Presence of this species was negatively associated with aspect code, indicating a preference
for drier slopes and ridges, and negatively associated with canopy cover from >12- 18m (Table
16.) This species is often found along streams and rivers, typically in large, tall trees of
bottomland hardwood forests, however, it also is often found in stands of pine, oaks, or mixed
forests (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Most of our detections of this species were on ridge tops
dominated by oak species.
Summer Tanager
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the occurrence of
Summer Tanagers (Table 17). This species is typically found in dry, open woodlands of oak,
pine, and hickory in the southeast, but may also be found in bottomlands in the north (DeGraaf
and Rappole 1995).
In summary, for most interior-edge species, MTMVF mining may have mixed impacts on their
populations. MTMVF mining would create more edge for these species, but it would also
decrease the amount of mature forest, which these species also require. The least-impacted
species would likely be resident species such as the woodpeckers, chickadees, and titmice that
use a variety of habitats. Forest-interior species would most likely be negatively impacted if the
amount of forest cover continues to be reduced without any subsequent reforestation.
B. Grasshopper Sparrow Habitat and Nesting Success
Songbird species that require grassland and other early successional habitats were observed
and documented on reclaimed MTRVF mines, some at relatively high densities Wood et al.
(2001). Grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), in particular, were very abundant
and were successfully breeding on the sites. However, nesting success data from 1999-2000
was limited and we felt that no conclusions could be drawn from the data. The objectives of this
study are to continue examining habitat and nesting requirements and nesting success of
Grasshopper Sparrow populations colonizing reclaimed MTRVF mine sites in southern West
Virginia.
-------
Methods
Study areas are the same three MTRVF mine sites in southwestern West Virginia that were
investigated by Wood et al. (2001). The Hobet 21 mine is located in the Mud River watershed in
Boone County, the Daltex mine is located in the Spruce Fork watershed in Logan County, and
the Cannelton mine is located on the border of Kanawha and Fayette counties in the
Twentymile Creek watershed. Two 40 ha sample plots were established on each mine
complex, (Hobet Adkins (HA1), Hobet Sugar Tree (HN2), Daltex Rock house (DR1), Daltex
Spruce Fork (DN2), Cannelton Lynch Fork (CL1), and Cannelton (CV2)) for a total of six search
areas. Additional nest plots were established for nests found on mine complexes but not within
sample plots, (Daltex off plot (DO1) and Hobet off plot (HO1)).
Adult male and female Grasshopper Sparrows were captured on each study site with mist nets
and conspecific song playback from April 2001 to July 2001. All captured individuals were
banded with Fish and Wildlife Service bands. Basic physical information (sex, weight, wing cord
measurements, and overall condition) was recorded, and then each individual was marked with
a unique combination of two colored plastic bands for future identification. Juveniles were
similarly processed and marked with a single colored band prior to fledging from the nest.
Nest searching and habitat sampling methodologies are similar to those previously presented in
Wood et al. (2001). Briefly, nest searching was conducted on two 40-ha nest search plots in
reclaimed grassland areas of Hobet 21 (HA1 & HN2), Daltex (DR1 & DN2), and Cannelton (CL1
& CV2) mine sites for a total of six search areas. Eight fixed vegetation-sampling sub-plots
were systematically selected and surveyed on each search plot (N=48) to examine differential
nest site selection preferences in this species.
To obtain a good estimate of species-specific nest survival, a minimum of 20 nests must be
monitored (Martin et al. 1997). Therefore, I set a target of 25-30 nests for Grasshopper
Sparrows nesting in the grassland habitat of the study sites. Field personnel trained in proper
searching and monitoring techniques (Martin and Geupel 1993) searched each nesting area
every 3-4 days. Nest searching began one-half hour after sunrise and concluded 8-10 hr later
(approximately 0600-1600 EST). Nest searching methods followed national BBIRD (Breeding
Biology Research and Monitoring Database) protocols (Martin et al. 1997). To control for
search effort, nests were located by systematically searching study plots.
All Grasshopper Sparrow nests found were monitored every 3-4 days (Martin et al. 1997) to
confirm activity. Because Grasshopper Sparrow nests are typically well concealed within
vegetation, they were marked for relocation using a staked flag placed at a minimum distance of
15m from the nest. Care was taken when monitoring the nest to avoid disturbing the female.
When possible, nest searchers observed the nest from a distance of no less than 15 m for up to
30 min to confirm that it was still active. Each nest was approached and visually checked for
contents a maximum of four times: once when it is initially found, once to confirm clutch size,
once to confirm brood size, and once to confirm fledging success or failure. Nests were not
approached when avian predators (e.g., American Crows and/or Blue Jays) were observed
nearby because these birds are known to follow humans to nests (Martin et al. 1997).
Observers also continued to walk in a straight line after visually observing nest contents to avoid
leaving a dead-end scent trail directly to the nest that might be followed by mammalian
predators (Martin et al. 1997). The vegetation concealing the nest was moved to the side using
a wooden stick to avoid putting human scent on the nest if the vegetation blocks the observer's
view of the contents.
-------
A nest was considered successful if it fledged at least one young. Fledging success was
confirmed by searching the area around the nest for fledglings or for parent-fledgling
interactions. However, if no fledglings were observed, the nest was considered to have fledged
young if the median date between the last active nest check and the final nest check when the
nest was empty and was within two days of the predicted fledging date (Martin et al. 1997).
Nest survival was calculated using the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1961, Mayfield 1975). Daily
nest survival estimates were calculated for the incubation and brooding periods separately
because there might be differential nest survival between these two periods. The overall daily
survival rate was calculated as the product of incubation and brood daily survival. Survival
during the egg-laying stage will not be included in the calculation of overall nest survival
because few nests were located during this stage of the nesting cycle.
After each nest fledged or failed, vegetation within an 11.3 m radius circle surrounding the nest
was sampled to determine habitat characteristics important to nest survival. We measured
vegetation for each nest monitored using methods modified from James and Shugart (1970)
and the Breeding Bird Research Database program (BBIRD; Martin et al. 1997). These
included estimates of percent ground cover in nine cover types (grass/sedge, shrub/seedling,
fern, moss, bare ground, forb/herbaceous, woody debris, litter, and water). Percent ground
cover was estimated using an ocular sighting tube (James and Shugart 1970). The sight-tube
was a 5.0-cm pvc pipe with cross-hairs at one end. Five sight-tube readings were taken on
each subplot every 2.26 m along four, 11.3-m transects that intersected at the center of the
subplot. The percentage of each cover type present in the sight-tube was estimated and
recorded. Grass height and organic litter layer depth was measured at 13 locations along the 4
transects: at the center and at distances of 1 m, 3 m, and 5 m along each transect. A Robel
pole (Robel et al. 1970) was used to calculate an index of vegetative cover and an index of
biomass (Kirsch et al. 1978). Additional nest measurements including percent slope, slope
orientation, nest height (cm), width and depth of nest rim and cup (cm), nest substrate height
(vegetative and reproductive), and distance to foliage edge were surveyed to examine
differences among individual nests. Habitat and nest variables were tested for differences
among nests and habitat plots using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (a=0.05) (Zar
1999).
Results and Discussion
A total of 202 Grasshopper Sparrows were captured, banded, and processed on the MTRVF
study sites during the 2001 breeding season. Mist netting effort resulted in an overall capture
rate of 0.25 captures per net hour with 193 captures in 785.63 hours (Table 18). Juveniles that
were banded in and around nests (N=9) were not included in the mist net capture effort
calculations. An additional 45 non-target individuals were captured on the study plots with the
most common species including Eastern Meadowlark, Field Sparrow, Indigo Bunting, and
Savannah Sparrow. Systematic searches of study plots produced 37 active Grasshopper
Sparrow nests on the three mines surveyed. Overall nest search effort was one nest per 10.06
hours of effort for all sites combined (Table 19). Nests located off of the study plots (N=4) are
not included in nest search effort because they were not located by systematically searching
study areas. Mean clutch size (Table 19) for the surveyed nests was 3.73 ± 0.16 and is similar
to those reported in the literature (Wray et al. 1982, Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Grasshopper sparrow nest survival for 2001 breeding season (30%) is comparable to survival
rates previously reported on these study sites (36.4%) (Wood et al. 2001). Nest survival for this
10
-------
species reported from other areas has ranged from 7-41% as summarized in Wood et al.
(2001).
Comparisons of habitat variables surrounding successful (n=17) and unsuccessful (n=20) nests
(Table 20) indicate no significant differences among slope, aspect, distances to nearest minor
edge, ground cover variables, grass height, and litter depth. Significant differences were
detected in the Robel pole index at the nest (F=6.56, P=0.01) and at 1 meter from the nest
(F=6.68 P=0.01). These analyses suggest that less dense vegetation near the nest may be an
important factor in nest success.
Comparisons of habitat variables measured at nests (N=37) and at the fixed habitat plots
(N=48) suggest differences in several of the ground cover estimates (Table 21). Percent green
(F=574.53, P<0.0001) and percent grass (F=26.25, P=<0.0001) estimates were significantly
lower at the nest plots while percent bare ground (F=24.73, P<0.0001), percent litter (F=7.65,
P=0.01) and percent moss (F=3.05, P<0.0001) was significantly higher at nest plots. These
findings support previous studies that suggest Grasshopper Sparrows require a high degree of
bare ground associated with nesting sites for foraging (Whitmore 1979, Wray et al. 1982).
Significant differences were also detected in the Robel pole index for all comparisons (all
<0.0001), with nests placed where vegetation density was greater than generally available on
the plot. No differences were detected in grass height comparisons except at the five-meter
distance from sample plot centers (F=7.78, P=0.0056). Litter depth differed significantly
between the fixed habitat plots and nest plots at all measured distances.
In summary, data suggest that the large reclaimed grassland habitats available on the
mountaintop removal/valley fill mine complexes surveyed in this study are sufficient to support
breeding populations of Grasshopper Sparrows with nest success rates similar to populations
found in other grassland habitats. Important nesting habitat characteristics included patches of
dense grassland vegetation interspersed with patches of bare ground. These habitat conditions
support high densities of breeding Grasshopper Sparrows, even on newly reclaimed sites. As
ground cover develops, however, sites will become unsuitable for Grasshopper Sparrows
unless habitats are managed to maintain the required conditions.
C. Small Mammal Sherman Trapping Data
Additional analyses were completed on small mammal data collected through Sherman trapping
to assess differences in habitat quality among treatments, as abundance alone is not
necessarily a reliable indicator of habitat quality for a given species. Some studies have
suggested that reclaimed lands may act as a population sink for Peromyscus and that adjacent
unmined lands may provide superior breeding and foraging habitat (DeCapita and Bookout
1975). As a measure of habitat quality, we compared the proportion of adult Peromyscus spp.
individuals that were in breeding condition among treatments (within a year) and between years
(within a treatment) (Table 22), where mice weighing 16 g or more were considered adults
(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). In 1999, a significantly greater proportion of males and females
were in reproductive condition in the grasslands than in either of the forest treatments. In 2000,
only females had significant differences among the 4 treatments sampled; a lower percentage of
individuals were in reproductive condition in the intact forest than in the other 3 treatments.
These results generally followed the abundance trends, suggesting that reclaimed areas were
not acting as population sinks on our study sites, but were actually more productive breeding
sites than adjacent forests. Reclaimed areas appear to be better breeding habitat for
Peromyscus probably due to their greater biomass of grasses, forbs, and invertebrates.
11
-------
Reproductive condition differed between the 2 years of the study in the two forest treatments,
but not in the grasslands. A higher proportion of both males and females in fragmented forest
were in reproductive condition in 2000 than in 1999. In the intact forest, differences between the
years were found in males but not in females. In all cases of between year differences, the
proportion of reproductive individuals was greater in 2000 than in 1999, suggesting that the
1999 summer drought may have reduced the reproductive rates of Peromyscus, or that the
moist and mild summer weather in 2000 may have improved conditions for breeding. These
differences may have been a function of the greater plant biomass in 2000 than 1999.
Peromyscus spp. abundance was compared among treatments by age and sex groups (adult
male, adult female, juvenile male, and juvenile female). In 1999, adult males were more
abundant in grassland than in fragmented or intact forest and adult females were more
abundant in grasslands than in intact forest (Table 23). In 2000, for adult males, adult females,
and juvenile females, the grassland and shrub/pole treatments were similar, but had significantly
greater abundances than fragmented forest and intact forest, which were also similar to each
other. These differences, which followed overall Peromyscus abundance trends, suggested that
early-successional areas (i.e. grassland and shrub/pole treatment) provided habitat that was
superior to the forested areas. We also compared juvenile abundance, as it is an indicator of
reproductive success of adults in a treatment. We found no differences among treatments in
1999, but in 2000, differences were found among treatments for both males and females.
Juvenile males were more abundant in grasslands than in either forest treatment and greater in
shrub/pole than in the fragmented forest treatment. Juvenile females were greater in the
grassland and shrub/pole treatments than in the 2 forested treatments. As with adults, results
generally followed overall Peromyscus abundance trends.
Habitat and environmental variables were used in regression analyses to identify factors that
were predictive of small mammal richness and abundance. The grassland treatment was
analyzed separately from the other three treatments in the regression procedures because it
had several habitat variables not recorded in the other treatments due to considerably different
vegetation structure. Stepwise multiple linear regression was used for Peromyscus spp.
abundance, total small mammal abundance, and species richness, while logistic regression was
performed on presence/absence data of less commonly captured species (house mice in
grasslands and short-tailed shrews, woodland jumping mice, and eastern chipmunks in the
other three treatments). In both types of regression, an entry level of 0.30 and a stay level of
0.10 was used. Environmental variables incorporated into the regression models included
precipitation (cm) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service,
Charleston, W. Va.) averaged over the 3-night trapping session, low temperature (°C)
(NOAA/NWS, Charleston, W. Va.), moon phase expressed as a percentage of moon's surface
illuminated (Astronomical Applications Department, US Naval Observatory), and an index of
nighttime ambient light. The ambient light index was calculated as a product of the percentage
of the moon's surface illuminated and cloud cover (NOAA/NWS, Charleston, W. Va.) on a scale
of 1 (clear skies) to 0.1 (overcast). Habitat variables included those described in the original
project report (Wood et al. 2001).
In multiple linear regression analysis for shrub/pole, fragmented forest and intact forest
treatments, daily low temperature and precipitation were negatively related, and the percentage
of bareground was positively related to species richness (Table 24). Relationships were weak
as no single variable contributed a partial R2 of more than 0.10. Several variables were
significant predictors of total small mammal abundance. Of these, canopy cover from 0.5-3m
was negatively related and contributed the most to the model (partial R2 of 0.21). Canopy cover
from 0.5-3m also was the most important predictor of Peromyscus spp. abundance, with a
12
-------
partial R2 of 0.31. Generally, Peromyscus spp. had greater abundance at sites with less low
canopy cover, lower canopy height, more bare ground, and when precipitation during the
trapping period was not heavy.
Average grass height was the only variable related to richness in grasslands, based on multiple
linear regression analysis; it was a positive relationship with a partial R2 of 0.24 (Table 25).
Areas with taller grass may have held more species because they provided better cover and
more forage for small mammals. Three variables were positively related to total abundance, with
the amount of green groundcover being the strongest (partial R2 of 0.37). Precipitation was a
positive predictor and the percentage of bareground was a negative predictor, though both
relationships were weak. For Peromyscus spp. abundance, bareground had a strong negative
relationship, with a partial R2 of 0.45. It is likely that Peromyscus spp. avoid areas of bareground
to avoid exposure to predators. In addition, precipitation and the number of shrub stems were
weakly positive predictors of Peromyscus spp. presence.
Presence of short-tailed shrews in shrub/pole, forest fragment, and intact forest treatments, was
positively related to the percentage of bare ground in the logistic regression model (Table 26).
This was contrary to expectations as shrews generally seek cover (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). Moon illumination had a negative relationship with the presence of woodland jumping
mice, while water as a groundcover and canopy cover from 0.5-3m had a positive relationship.
Many small mammals species are less active when the moon is bright, presumably to avoid
predation (Kaufman and Kaufman 1982). For chipmunk presence, there were 4 variables that
contributed significantly to the regression model. Water as a groundcover had a negative
relationship, and bareground, canopy cover above 12m, and stem density of trees from 8-38 cm
DBH had positive relationships with abundance. The preference for larger, taller trees may be
due to their reliance on mast as a food source. In the grassland treatment, average grass height
was the only significant variable; it was a positive predictor for the presence of house mice.
D. Small Mammal Data from Herp Arrays
Small mammals were trapped in pitfall and funnel traps associated with drift-fence arrays
targeting herpetofauna. Estimates of species richness and abundance of 9 species were
calculated based on 13 trapping sessions conducted between March 2000 -October 2001. An
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used to detect differences among treatments. The
model included treatment and trapping session as its main factors and a treatment by session
interaction term. If the ANOVA found that means were different, a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test
was used to compare means among treatments.
Species richness and total small mammal abundance were significantly lower in the intact forest
treatment than in the other 3 treatments. Richness estimates conflicted with those from
Sherman trapping which did not differ among treatments in either 1999 or 2000 and were
generally much lower than array estimates. The difference between the 2 estimates is most
likely due to the fact that Sherman trapping is not effective at capturing Sorex spp. because
shrews generally are not heavy enough to spring Sherman traps; also, as insectivores, they are
less likely to be attracted to the peanut butter and oat bait. For this reason, the estimates of
richness from the drift-fence arrays are likely to be a more accurate reflection of the species
present in each treatment (Kirkland 1994). Differences in total small mammal abundance among
treatments also was not in agreement with results from Sherman trapping, in which the 2
reclaimed treatments were similar to each other and greater than the 2 forest treatments, which
13
-------
were also similar to each other. The reason for the difference in total abundance trends between
methods was that Peromyscus spp. dominated Sherman trapping results (87% of captures),
driving trends in total abundance. Differences between the methods are expected, as trapping
methods have been shown to affect capture rates of species (Kirkland 1994). Sherman trapping
is more effective for catching mice than drift fence arrays because Sherman traps are baited.
For this reason, Sherman trapping resulted in many more Peromyscus per 100 trap nights than
drift fence arrays. The lower species richness and abundance in intact forest than fragmented
forest was unexpected and is contrary to the theories of island biogeography (MacCarthur and
Wilson 1967), which predict that larger patches of habitat will hold more species and more
individuals than smaller patches. Studies of small mammals have found a positive relationship
between richness and habitat island size (Gottfried 1977, Rosenblatt et al. 1999) and between
abundance and habitat island size (Gottfried 1977). The greater richness and abundance in
reclaimed areas than in intact forests was similar to the findings of Kirkland (1977) in a study
comparing richness and abundance of small mammals among different aged clearcuts on the
Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. He found that there was an initial increase in the
diversity and abundance of small mammals in response to clearcutting that persisted until the
area succeeded back into forest. He speculated that the increased herbaceous vegetation layer
created by openings improved foraging habitat for small mammals.
The only significant difference in Peromyscus spp. abundance among treatments was between
grasslands and intact forest, with grasslands having the higher abundance. Most previous
studies have also found that Peromyscus spp. benefit from disturbances that create early-
successional habitats such as mining (Verts 1957, Mumford and Bramble 1969, DeCapita and
Bookout 1975, Kirkland 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978) and forest clearcutting (Kirkland
1977, Buckner and Shure 1985). Sherman trapping results from 2001 were slightly different,
with the 2 reclaimed treatments having higher abundances than the 2 forest treatments. Again
the results differ between the 2 methods because Sherman trapping is more effective at
capturing Peromyscus spp.
Three species of microtine rodents, southern bog lemmings woodland voles, and meadow
voles, were captured by drift fence arrays. Southern bog lemmings were the most common of
these (86 individuals). Their abundance was higher in the two reclaimed treatments than in the
forest treatments, while they were not captured at all in the intact forest. This was consistent
with other accounts of the bog lemming. Kirkland (1977) described capturing bog lemmings in
clearcuts but not in either deciduous or coniferous forests and Connor (1959) found them to be
reliant on sedges and grasses for a food source. Woodland voles (47 individuals) were less
abundant in grasslands than in intact forests. Despite their name, woodland voles can be found
in a variety of habitats, including forests, orchards, and dry fields (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).
However, in a laboratory study, woodland voles chose sites with cooler, more organic soils over
warmer, rocky soils (Rhodes and Richmond 1985). This may explain their lower numbers in the
grassland treatment, where soils were likely to be too warm and rocky for them. Meadow voles,
the least frequently captured of the microtines (22 individuals), did not differ in abundance
among treatments. This may have been a function of having a small sample size and the fact
that this species is a habitat generalist (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).
Woodland jumping mice and short-tailed shrews were significantly more abundant in
fragmented forest than in the other 3 treatments. We did not find any other research suggesting
that these species prefer fragmented forests to intact forests. For woodland jumping mice,
however, Sherman trapping data concurred with this abundance trend. Woodland jumping mice
are reported to prefer dense understory (Whitaker and Wrigley 1972) and to often be found near
forest streams (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Fragmented forest treatments always followed
14
-------
along streams, and may have provided more understory vegetation than intact forests due to
the effect of sunlight entering the forest at edges. Short-tailed shrews are known to prefer moist,
cool sites (Getz 1961) because they have a high rate of evaporative water loss through their
skin. Spring and summer 2000 were wetter and cooler than average, so even open grasslands
were relatively wet and cool; therefore, it is unclear as to why this species was more abundant
in the fragmented forest treatment.
Three shrew species of the genus Sorex were captured in all 4 treatments: masked shrews,
smoky shrews, and pygmy shrews. Masked shrews, the most common of the 3, were more
abundant in the shrub/pole treatment than in either forest treatment and were more abundant in
the grassland treatment than the intact forest treatment. This species is a habitat generalist that
exists in just about any habitat so long as it is moist (Moore 1949). Smoky shrew abundance
did not differ among treatments. Reported to select for damp woods (Caldwell and Bryan 1982),
smoky shrews were not expected to occur in grasslands. The rainfall during spring - summer
2000 may have allowed smoky shrews to exist in grasslands that would otherwise be too hot
and dry. Pygmy shrew abundance was greater in the fragmented forest than in the shrub/pole
treatment. The smallest of the shrews, this species is usually found in upland woods (Whitaker
and Hamilton 1998), but a small sample size (16 individuals) made trends in abundance difficult
to detect.
E. Herpetofaunal Surveys
Drift fence arrays established and sampled in 2000 were sampled again in 2001 using methods
described in Wood et al. (2001). Arrays were opened for approximately eight days each month
from March through October. In 2001, an additional intact sampling array was added near the
Daltex mine in Pigeonroost Hollow; it was sampled September and October.
In 2001, we also initiated a pilot project to assess aquatic herpetofaunal diversity and
abundance in intact forest streams not impacted by mining and in fragmented forest streams
located below valley fills.
Methods
Stream Searches - Sampling Techniques
To quantify aquatic and semi-aquatic herpetofaunal diversity and abundance, three fragmented
forest streams and three intact forest streams were sampled once per month in May, June, and
August -October of 2001. In addition, another forest fragment stream was added and sampled
in September and October 2001. Streams were selected based on proximity to the drift fence
arrays. Fragmented forest streams were located below valley fills.
A different 35-m segment was sampled in each stream each month. By moving down and
sampling new, adjacent stream segments, the intention was to sample as much of the entire
length of each stream as possible. Searching more than 35 m per visit is not practical, as some
segments require several hours of search time due to their complex substrate. Each segment
sampled was classified by stream order (ephemeral, first order, or second order) and by
predominant structures (Table 28).
Sampling methods were similar to those of Crump and Scott (1994). All rocks and coarse
woody debris located within the width of the stream are lifted and checked under for
15
-------
herpetofauna. In addition, all rocks and coarse woody debris found up to 1-m from the edge of
the stream were also sampled. A count was kept of all rocks and coarse woody debris checked
under during the sample (Table 28). Time in person minutes was recorded, as were species,
length of salamanders from snout to anterior portion of vent (cm) (done by placing salamander
in a Ziploc bag); and length (cm), width (cm), and type of substrate (e.g., rock) under which the
animal was found (Table 28). In addition, soil temperature in the stream (°C) was measured
using a REOTEMP Heavy Duty Soil Thermometer (Ben Meadows Company) and air
temperature (°C) was determined using a -30 to 50 °C /1° Pocket Thermometer (Ben Meadows
Company). Individuals were toe-clipped for identification of recaptures. Cover objects that
would cloud the water with bottom substrate upon lifting are not included in the sample, as any
salamanders would escape capture before their presence could be detected.
Data Analyses
Only data from drift fence arrays were subjected to statistical analyses. To account for
differences in the lengths of trapping periods and trap effort (an unequal trapping effort resulted
from theft of traps, weather conditions rendering traps nonfunctional, etc.), the sum of the
number of animals captured in all pitfall and funnel traps at each array during a trapping period
was divided by the number of operable traps per trapping session multiplied by the number of
nights per trapping session. This value multiplied by 100 equaled mean captures per treatment
in 100 array-nights (Corn 1994).
ANOVA was used to compare mean captures among treatments. Dependent variables were
mean abundance of: 1) all herpetofauna, 2) major groups (e.g., salamanders, toads and frogs,
etc.), 3) all amphibians, 4) all reptiles, and 5) individual species with high enough captures (>
30). Independent variables were treatment, year, sampling period, the interaction between
treatment and year, and the interaction between treatment and sampling period (Wood et al.
2001).
Results and Discussion
Over the 2 years of sampling (2000 and 2001), 1750 individual herptiles were captured or
observed using drift fence arrays, stream searches, and incidental sightings. Of a possible 58
species expected to occur in the study area, we encountered 41 (Table 29), an increase of 6
species from 2000. The 41 species included 12 salamander species, 10 toad / frog species, 3
lizard species, 13 snake species, and 3 turtle species.
A total of 625 individuals and 32 species were captured using drift fence arrays over the 2 years
(Table 30) including 10 salamander species, 9 toad and frog species, 3 lizard species, 9 snake
species, and 1 turtle species. Fifteen of these species are classified as terrestrial, 10 are semi-
aquatic, and 7 are aquatic.
Overall mean abundance of herpetofauna did not differ among the four treatments (F=1.56,
df=3, P=0.2015; Table 31) with no interactions between treatment and year (F=0.25, df=3,
P=0.8641) or between treatment and sampling period (F=0.82, df=36, P=0.7471). Mean
richness, however, was significantly greater in fragmented forest and shrub/pole treatments
than in grasslands (F=4.04, df=3, P=0.0086; Table 31). With richness, there were no
interactions between treatment and year (F=0.11, df=3, P=0.9533) or between treatment and
sampling period (F=0.99, df=36, P=0.4955).
16
-------
In a study in Pennsylvania, Yahner et al. (2001) inventoried herpetofauna in forest, riparian, and
grassland habitats using 8 different survey methods, including drift fence arrays. Forest habitat
produced the highest number of individuals, whereas grasslands yielded no captures. Pais et
al. (1988) conducted a study in eastern Kentucky, where the herpetofaunal community is similar
to that on our sites. Using techniques similar to ours (drift fences in conjunction with pitfalls and
funnel traps), they found no difference in total captures of herpetofauna among clearcuts,
mature forest, and wildlife clearings, although herpetofaunal richness was lower in mature forest
than in clearcuts and wildlife clearings. Although clearcuts can resemble reclaimed mine sites
in vegetation structure, the magnitude of soil disturbance is greater on reclaimed sites.
Abundance was not different among the four treatments when species were categorized into
terrestrial (F=0.73, df=3, P=0.5354), aquatic (F=2.02, df=3, P=0.1142), and semiaquatic
herpetofauna (F=0.41, df=3, P=0.7426; Table 31). Amphibian abundance also did not differ
among the four treatments (F=0.82, df=3, P=0.4874), whereas reptiles were significantly more
abundant in shrub/pole habitat than in intact forests, forest fragments, and grasslands (F=6.09,
df=3, P=0.0006). Adams et al. (1996) found a higher abundance and species richness of
reptiles in disturbed habitat (clearcuts) than in unharvested stands.
Salamander abundance was similar between the 2 forested treatments but was higher than in
grassland and shrub/pole treatments (F=5.97, df=3, P=0.0007; Table 31). This taxonomic
group comprised 22% to 38% of captures in forested treatments and approximately 7% in
grassland and shrub/pole treatments (Table 32). Number of species also was higher in forested
treatments. The red-spotted newt was the most abundant salamander and was the only
salamander species found at every sampling point (Table 30). Both the red-spotted newt and
the spotted salamander were found in every treatment. The only other salamander species
found in reclaimed habitat was the four-toed salamander, which was captured in grassland and
shrub/pole treatments. Both the spotted salamander and the four-toed salamander require
moist forests, so the individuals found at a grassland point may have been migrating to a nearby
wet area or forested habitat. The shrub/pole point at which a spotted salamander was captured
is particularly wet compared to all other treatment points; pitfalls are often rendered
nonfunctional due to the ground water pushing them up and out of the ground.
Forests tend to have cooler, moister, and more homogeneous climatic conditions than
grasslands and should therefore better meet the habitat requirements of salamanders.
Increased insolation and reduction in soil moisture retention associated with grassland habitat
may limit the ability of a salamander to forage. Native vegetation removal alters rainfall
interception rates and evapotranspiration, thereby additionally affecting soil moisture levels
(Kapos 1989). In a review of 18 studies of amphibian responses to clearcutting, deMaynadier
and Hunter (1995) found that amphibian abundance was 3.5 times higher in unharvested stands
than in recent clearcuts. Other studies not covered in this review have found decreased
abundance (Buhlmann etal. 1988, Sattlerand Reichenbach 1998, Harpole and Haas 1999) or
that responses are species-specific (Cole et al. 1997, Grialou 2000). Ross et al. (2000) found
salamander richness and abundance to decrease as a function of increasing removal of live tree
basal area. Ash (1997) observed an initial decrease in salamander abundance following
clearcutting, but found that within 4-6 years, it returned to preharvesting levels and then
proliferated. Because mining results in greater soil disturbance, however, salamander
populations may take longer to recover on reclaimed sites than reported by Ash. Generally for
salamanders, high site fidelity, small home ranges, physiological limitations, low fecundity, and
the inability to traverse large distances quickly make them especially susceptible to effects of
forest alterations (Pough et al. 1987, Petranka et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1994, Blaustein et al.
1994, Droege et al. 1997, Gibbs 1998b, Ross et al. 2000).
17
-------
Toads and frogs showed no difference in abundance among the treatments (F=1.79, df=3,
P=0.1515; Table 31). This taxonomic group was consistently present in the highest numbers in
each treatment, comprising from 44% to 73% of all individual herptiles captured within
treatments (Table 32). The green frog was the only anuran species captured at every sampling
point (Table 30). Both eastern American toads and pickerel frogs were captured in every
treatment (Table 29). The green frog and the pickerel frog were the most abundant species in
this study (Table 30), totaling 45% of all captures. Toads and frogs are more tolerant of
temperature extremes than salamanders (Stebbins and Cohen 1995), and thus can occur in
non-forested habitats. Ross et al. (2000) found toad and frog richness to have a positive
relationship with increases in tree basal area.
Snakes varied from 12% to 28% of captures in each treatment and five species were found in all
four treatments, the black rat snake eastern gartersnake, eastern milk snake, northern black
racer, and northern copperhead (Table 30). Snakes were more abundant in shrub / pole
treatments (F=7.18, df=3, P=0.0002; Table 31). Ross et al. (2000) found snake abundance and
species richness to be inversely related to tree basal area. The Florida king snake
(Lampropeltis getula floridana) benefited from conversion of its native habitat (cypress ponds,
savannah pine lands, and prairies) to sugarcane fields; this conversion increased prey density
and provided additional shelter for the snakes with the creation of limestone dredge material
along the banks of the irrigation canals (Rough et al. 2001). Perhaps the creation of riprap
channels and rock chimneys in reclaimed habitat has served the snake population on
mountaintop mines in a similar way. Forested habitat is preferred or required by four snake
species captured in this study; one prefers grasslands, and four can be found in a variety of
habitats (Behler and King 1995, Green and Pauley 1987, Conant and Collins 1998). The four
ubiquitous species comprised the majority of snake captures (82%).
Lizards were not captured in high enough abundances to conduct statistical analyses; they
made up only 2% to 3% of total herpetofauna captured in each treatment (Table 32). Three of
the five lizard species expected to occur in our study area were captured in drift fence arrays
(Table 29); they included three northern-fence lizards, eight common five-lined skinks, and two
little brown skinks. While only three fence lizards were captured, this species was commonly
sighted in all treatments except intact forest). Because this species is not typically found in
moist forests, it may not have been abundant on the study sites prior to mining. The little brown
skink is classified as an S3 species by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000)
meaning that there are only 21 to 100 documented occurrences in the state and that it may be
under threat of extirpation. It prefers dry, open woodlands and uses leaf litter and decaying
wood for concealment and foraging (Green and Pauley 1987, Conant and Collins 1998).
Captures occurred in pitfalls, one in grassland habitat and the other in intact forest (Table 29).
Leaf litter is present in negligible amounts and CWD is absent from our grassland sampling
points (Table 33), so grassland habitats generally would not be suitable for little brown skinks.
Turtles were also not captured in high enough abundance to conduct statistical analyses. Only
one species of turtle, the eastern box turtle, was captured in the arrays (Table 29). Eastern box
turtles are seldom captured in pitfall traps and may have a natural wariness of pitfalls (Pais et al.
1988). Furthermore, they are too large to fit through the entrance of funnel traps used in this
study. As this species was commonly sighted as an incidental and was found in every
treatment, it probably has fairly high population numbers on the study sites.
18
-------
Six species had > 30 individuals captured, so abundance was compared among treatments
(Table 31). The northern black racer had highest abundance in the shrub/pole treatment and
did not occur in the forest fragment and intact forest treatments (F=15.3, df=3, P=<0.0001). The
eastern American toad was significantly more abundant in the shrub/pole than in the forest
fragment treatment (F=2.68, df=3, P=0.0507). Abundance of the red-spotted newt (F=1.89,
df=3, P=0.1345), northern green frog (F=1.94, df=3, P=0.1265), pickerel frog (F=1.78, df=3,
P=0.1539), and eastern gartersnake (F=0.73, df=3, P=0.5354) did not differ among the four
treatments. Other studies have found the red-spotted newt to be sensitive to forest
fragmentation (Gibbs 1998a) and forest edge (Gibbs 1998b). However, deMaynadier and
Hunter (1998) looked at even-aged silvicultural treatments (clearcuts and conifer plantations)
and did not find a difference in newt abundance between these treatments and the bordering
mature forest. Ross et al. (2000) observed a positive association of eastern garter snakes with
forest stands containing negligible amounts of residual tree basal area.
Several species captured or detected during the 2 years of the study are listed as S2 or S3
status by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000). A species with S2 status is
described as "very rare and imperiled," with as few as 6-20 documented cases in West Virginia.
The northern leopard frog is listed as an S2 species. Drift fence arrays captured two individuals
in forest fragments and two in shrub/pole habitat (Table 30). In addition, a few individuals were
heard singing in a forest fragment (Table 29). S3 species documented in our study included the
northern red salamander, little brown skink (discussed earlier), eastern wormsnake, timber
rattlesnake, eastern hog-nosed snake, and northern rough greensnake. One of the seven
timber rattlesnakes sighted was in an intact site, the other six were in or on the border of
shrub/pole habitat; all were incidental sightings. One northern rough greensnake was found in
shrub/pole habitat and the other in an intact forest, both as incidental sightings. Two eastern
hog-nosed snakes were captured in shrub/pole habitat in funnel traps of the drift fence array.
Another was captured in grassland habitat, also in a funnel trap, and there was one incidental
sighting in grassland habitat. Three northern red salamanders were found at 2 intact forest
sites, while a fourth was found in a forest fragment; this species was captured in both drift fence
arrays and stream surveys.
Data from the 2001 stream surveys were not analyzed statistically because the sample sites
were not paired by stream order and structure. Therefore, these data are preliminary and will
be used to more effectively design the surveys for 2002. Generally, a range of habitat
conditions was sampled in the segments (Table 28).
A total of 678 stream herpetofauna of 15 species were captured in stream surveys. Total
captures were higher in intact forest streams (IFS) (n = 389) than in fragmented forest streams
(FFS) (n = 289; Tables 34 and 36), although 2 extra stream segments were sampled in FFS.
More species (n = 13) were captured in the FFS (n = 13) than in the IFS (n = 10). Salamanders
comprised 97% of total captures, so toads, frogs, and snakes were excluded from abundance
calculations per stream segment. Second order FFS had the highest (68.5 ± 7.5) and lowest
(1.8 ± 0.97) means of stream salamanders per stream segment (Table 35). Means of
herpetofauna and habitat characteristics per segment of stream sampled are summarized and
presented in Tables 35 and 36.
In summary, 6 additional species of herpetofauna were captured in 2001. Three of these (the
northern rough greensnake, northern leopard frog, and northern red salamander) are listed as
special status by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000) which brings the total to
19
-------
seven for the 2 years of the study. Species richness based only on the year 2000 array data did
not differ among treatments; based on data from both years, richness was higher in fragmented
forest and shrub/pole treatments than in grasslands. The only salamander species captured
outside of a forested treatment in 2000 was a spotted salamander; it was found in a grassland.
This year, another spotted salamander was found in shrub/pole habitat and a four-toed
salamander was found in a grassland. Salamander abundance was similar between the
fragmented and intact forest treatment but was greater than the reclaimed grassland and
shrub/pole treatments.
Literature Cited
Adams, J.P., M.J. Lacki, and M.D. Baker. 1996. Response of herpetofauna to
silvicultural prescriptions in the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Proc. Annu.
Conf. SEAFWA. 312-320.
Ash, A.M. 1997. Disappearance and return of Plethodontid salamanders to clearcut
plots in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Conservation Biology. 11:983-989.
Balcerzak , M. J. 2001. Raptor Abundance and Diversity and Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo
lineatus) Habitat Characteristics on Reclaimed Mountaintop Mines in Southern West
Virginia. M. S. thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Behler, J.L. and F.W. King. 1995. National Audobon Society field guide to North
American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Best, L. B. 1978. Field Sparrow reproductive success and nesting ecology. Auk 95:9-22.
Blaustein, A.R., D.B. Wake, and W.P. Sousa. 1994. Amphibian declines: judging
stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions.
Conservation Biology. 8:60-71.
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.
Buhlmann, K.A., C.A. Pague, J.C. Mitchell, and R.B. Glasgow. 1988. Forestry operations and
terrestrial salamanders: techniques in a study of the cow knob salamander, Plethodon
punctatus. Pages 38-44 In R.C. Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton. Eds.
Management of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals in North America. Technical Report
RM-166. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Co.
Caldwell, R.S. and H. Bryan. 1982. Notes on distribution and habitats of Sorex and Microsorex
(Insectivora: Soricidae) in Kentucky. Brimleyana 8:91-100.
Cole, E.G., W.C. McComb, M. Newton, C.L. Chambers, and J.P. Leeming. 1997. Response of
amphibians to clearcutting, burning, and glyphosate application in the Oregon coast
range. 61:656-664.
20
-------
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians: eastern / central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Mass.
Connor, P.P. 1959. The bog lemming Synaptomys cooper/ in southern New Jersey. Publ. Mus.
Mich. State Univ. Biol. Ser. 1:161-248.
Corn, S. P. 1994. Straight line drift fences and pitfall traps. Pages 109-117 In Heyer, W. K., M.
A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and
monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington D. C.
Crump, M.L. and N.J. Scott, Jr. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84-92 In Heyer, W. K.,
M. A. Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and
monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington D. C.
DeCapita, M.E. and T.A. Bookout. 1975. Small mammal populations, vegetational cover and
hunting use of an Ohio strip-mine area. Ohio Journal of Science 75:305-313.
DeGraaf, R. M., and J. H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds: Natural History,
Distribution, and Population Change. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and
London.
deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship between forest management
and amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental
Review. 3:230-261.
deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution
and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology. 12:340-352.
Denmon, P. 1998. Early successional habitat use by nongame wildlife species in American
Woodcock breeding habitat in West Virginia. M. S. thesis, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, W. Va.
Dodd, Jr. C.K. 1991. The status of the red hills salamander Phaeognathus hubrichti,
Alabama, USA, 1976-1988. Biological Conservation. 55:57-75.
Droege, S., L. Monti, and D. Lantz. 1997. The terrestrial monitoring program: rationale,
protocol, call for participation, and methodological experiments, http://www.mp1-
pwrc.usgs.gov/sally
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the
Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, N. Y.
Getz, L.L. 1961. Factors influencing the local distribution of shrews. American Midland Naturalist
.65: 67-88.
Gibbs, J.P. 1998a. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient.
Landscape Ecology. 13:263-268.
21
-------
Gibbs, J.P. 1998b. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds
in southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:584-589.
Gottfried, B.M. 1977. Small mammal populations in woodlot islands. American Midland
Naturalist 102: 105-112.
Green, N.B. and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. Univ. of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Greenlaw, J. S. 1996. Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus. In The Birds of North America,
No. 262. (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pa., and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
Grialou, J.A., S.D. West, and R.N. Wilkins. 2000. The effects of forest clearcut
harvesting and thinning on terrestrial salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management.
64(1):105-113.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler Status Assessment. U. S. Forest Service Southern
Research Station, Stoneville, Miss.
Hansen, L.P. and Warnock, J.E. 1978. Response of 2 species of Peromyscus to vegetational
succession on land strip-mined for coal. American Midland Naturalist 100:416-423.
Harpole, D.N. and C.A. Haas. 1999. Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on
terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management. 114:349-356.
James, F., and H. H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description.
Audubon Field Notes. 24:727-736.
Jung, R. E., R. D. Holmes, S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer. 1999.
http://www. mp 1-pwrc. usgs.gov/amphib/primenet/
Kapos, V. 1989. Effects of isolation on the water status of forest patches in the Brazilian
Amazon. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 5:173-185.
Kaufman, D.W. and G.A. Kaufman. 1990. House mice (Mus musculus) in natural and disturbed
habitats in Kansas. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 428-432.
Kershner, E. L, and E. K. Bellinger. 1996. Reproductive success of grassland birds at east-
central Illinois airports. American Midland Naturalist. 136:358-366.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1976. Small mammals of a mine waste situation in the central Adirondacks,
New York: A case of opportunism by Peromyscus maniculatus. American Midland
Naturalist 95:103-110.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1994. Proposed standard protocol for sampling small mammal communities.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publicatin 1994: 0(18): 277-283.
Kirsch, L. M., H. F. Deubbert, and A. D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and laying effects
on habitats of upland nesting birds. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 43:486-497.
22
-------
Lanyon, W. E. 1995. Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna. In The Birds of North America,
No. 160. (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pa., and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.
Martin, T. E., and Geupel. 1993. Nest monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and
monitoring success. Journal of Field Ornithology. 64:507-519.
Martin, T. E., C. Paine, C. J. Conway, V. M. Hockachka, P. Allen, and W. Jenkins. 1997. BBIRD
Field Protocol. USGS, Biological Resources Division, Montana Cooperative Fish and
Wldlife Research Unit, Missoula, Mt.
Mayfield, H. F. 1961. Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wlson Bulletin. 73:255-261.
Mayfield, H. F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin. 87:456-466.
McCoy, T. D., M. R. Ryan, E. W. Kurzejeski, and L. W. Burger, Jr. 1999. Conservation
Reserve Program: source or sink for grassland birds in Missouri? Journal of Wldlife
Management. 63:530-538.
Moore, J.C. 1949. Notes on the shrew, Sorex cinereus, in the southern Applachians. Ecology
30: 234-237.
Mumford, R.E. and W.C. Bramble. 1973. Small mammals on surface-mined land in
southwestern Indiana. In Hutnik, R.J. and G. Davis, Eds. Ecology and reclamation of
devastated land, Volume 1. Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers Inc.
Nieman, T.J. and Z.R. Merkin. 1995. Wldlife management, surface mining, and
regional planning. Growth and Change. 26:405-424.
Pais, R. C., S. A. Bonney, and W. C. McComb. 1988. Herpetofaunal species richness and
habitat associations in an eastern Kentucky forest. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wldlife Agencies. 42:448-455.
Petranka, J.W., M.E. Eldridge, and K.E. Haley. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on southern
Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology. 7:363-370.
Petranka, J.W., M.P. Brannon, M.E. Hopey, and C.K. Smith. 1994. Effects of timber harvesting
on low elevation populations of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and
Management. 67:135-147.
Pough, F.H., E.M. Smith, D.H. Rhodes, and A. Collazo. 1987. The abundance of salamanders
in forest stands with different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management.
20:1-9.
Rhodes, D.H. and M.E. Richmond. 1985. Influence of soil texture and temperature on nest-site
selection and burrowing by the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum. American Midland
Naturalist 113: 102-108.
23
-------
Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, and L. C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual
obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range
Management 23:295-297.
Rosenblatt, D. L., E. J. Heske, and S. L. Nelson. 1999. Forest fragments in east-central
Illinois: islands or habitat patches for mammals? American Midland Naturalist 141:115-
123.
Ross, B., T. Fredericksen, E. Ross, W. Hoffman, M.L. Morrison, J. Beyea, M.B. Lester, B.N.
Johnson, and N.J. Fredericksen. 2000. Relative abundance and species richness or
herpetofauna in forest stands in Pennsylvania. Forest Science 46:139-146.
Sattler, P., and N. Reichenbach. 1998. The effects of timbering on Plethodon hubrichti: short-
term effects Journal of Herpetology 32:399-404.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Mines, and J. Fallen. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results
and analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel, Md.
Smith, C. R., D. M. Pence, and R. J. O'Connor. 1992. Status of neotropical birds
in the Northeast: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 172-188 In Status and
management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rept. RM-229.
Stebbins, R.C., and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A natural history of amphibians. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J.
Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 1995. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS
System. SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, N. Ca.
Verts, B.J. 1957. The population and distribution of 2 species of Peromyscus on some Illinois
strip-mined land. Journal of Mammalogy 38:53-59.
Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum. In The Birds of North
America, No. 239. (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pa., and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States 3rd Ed.
Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, N. Y.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.E. Wrigley. 1972. Mammalian species No. 14. American Society of
Mammaology.
Whitmore, R. C. 1979. Temporal variation in the selected habitats of a guild of grassland
sparrows. Wilson Bulletin 91:592-598.
Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of
birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs. 51:21-41.
24
-------
Wood, P.B., C.A. Weakland, and J.W. Edwards. 2001. Mountaintop removal mining/valley fill
environmental impact statement technical study: terrestrial vertebrate (breeding
songbird, raptor, small mammal, herpetofaunal) populations of forested and reclaimed
sites. Draft project report.
Wray, T. II, K. A. Strait, and R. C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of
grassland sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. Auk 99:157 163.
Yahner, R. H. , W. C. Bramble, W. R Byrnes. 2001. Effect of vegetation maintenance of an
electric transmission right-of-way on reptile and amphibian populations Journal of
Arboriculture 1: 24-9.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1971. The territory and its density dependent effect in Spiza americana. Auk
88: 591-612.
25
-------
Table 1. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Dickcissels and
Grasshopper Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Dickcissel
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
13.1
101.4
188.2
6.9
2.0
3.5
386.1
4050.7
509.5
60.7
0.1
7.8
4.4
0.2
1.3
84.5
45.6
22.7
17.6
SE
0.1
1.5
11.3
25.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.5
885.6
149.5
13.2
0.1
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.4
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.2
Present
Mean
1.3
21.8
28.5
585.1
5.9
1.9
3.8
441.6
175.8
46.9
0.1
0.3
2.8
13.8
0.0
1.9
80.6
34.8
24.8
20.9
SE x2 P
0.2
6.6
5.0
149.0 6.571 0.010+
1.1
0.4
0.5 4.043 0.044+
19.5
137.5
25.7
0.1
0.3
1.2
4.1 9.611 0.002+
0.0
1.4
3.5
6.1
5.9
8.0
3.368 0.909
Grasshopper Sparrow
Absent
Mean
0.7
8.5
68.1
87.0
6.0
1.5
4.2
381.6
8173.2
1135.4
143.2
0.1
7.5
2.6
0.3
2.4
82.3
43.6
19.6
22.8
SE
0.2
2.1
10.4
14.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
14.6
2143.6
398.2
29.9
0.1
2.4
1.2
0.2
1.2
4.6
6.1
3.0
3.4
Present
Mean
1.0
16.5
105.4
290.1
7.2
2.2
3.2
396.1
1599.1
156.3
14.2
0.2
7.1
6.6
0.1
0.9
84.9
44.9
24.4
15.7
SE %2 P
0.1
1.9
14.2
40.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
6.7
441.9
33.8
5.3 19.810 <0.001-
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.0
0.3
1.8
2.9
2.3
2.6
0.796 0.851
26
-------
Table 2. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Eastern Meadowlarks
and Red-winged Blackbirds at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicate a
negative relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Eastern Meadowlark
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
Ground Cover(%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
13.0
88.4
161.4
6.5
1.9
3.8
392.3
5021.8
615.6
75.6
0.1
6.6
4.5
0.2
1.7
84.6
42.4
22.2
21.7
SE
0.1
1.8
11.2
30.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.4
1119.1
191.8
16.5
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.6
2.3
3.4
2.1
2.6
Present
Mean
1.1
16.4
105.6
373.2
7.6
2.2
2.9
390.4
614.6
121.1
7.6
0.3
8.7
7.3
0.1
0.7
82.9
49.0
24.4
9.5
SE %2 P
0.1
2.6
23.0
61.9
0.4
0.2
0.3
9.4
172.9
44.0 7.480 0.006-
5.3
0.2
2.3
1.6
0.1
0.4
3.2
4.4
3.7
3.2 4.813 0.028-
10.231 0.249
Red-winged
Absent
Mean
0.8
10.9
98.0
176.8
6.4
1.6
3.8
403.8
3883.6
465.4
72.7
0.1
6.1
4.4
0.2
1.3
86.7
40.7
23.0
23.6
SE
0.1
1.8
14.3
28.6
0.4
0.1
0.2
8.1
1097.7
105.3
18.3
0.1
1.5
1.0
0.1
0.6
2.2
3.6
2.3
2.9
Blackbird
Present
Mean
1.1
19.0
87.2
308.3
7.4
2.6
3.0
373.0
3279.2
455.2
25.7
0.2
9.0
6.9
0.2
1.5
80.0
50.4
22.7
9.0
SE %2 P
0.1
2.4
15.1
61.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
9.9
1163.2
308.0
9.7
0.1
1.8
1.5
0.1
0.6
3.2
3.8
3.1
2.4 9.937 0.002-
4.779 0.573
27
-------
Table 3. Means, standard errors (SE) for the presence/absence of Horned Larks and Willow Flycatchers at point counts in grassland
and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. No variables were chosen by stepwise logistic regression as predictors for
either of these species.
Horned
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Mean
0.9
11.8
90.2
167.9
6.6
1.8
3.8
392.9
4373.4
562.5
69.8
0.2
6.1
4.5
0.2
1.3
85.7
43.6
22.8
20.8
SE
0.1
1.5
11.3
24.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.8
1007.6
170.9
14.9
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.2
3.3
2.1
2.5
Lark
Willow Flycatcher
Present
Mean
1.0
22.0
106.5
433.3
7.6
2.8
2.6
387.8
1088.2
104.8
0.0
0.0
11.3
8.3
0.1
1.7
78.6
47.5
23.3
7.8
SE
0.2
4.0
26.2
90.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
10.3
435.0
33.5
0.0
0.0
2.4
1.7
0.1
0.8
3.2
4.4
3.6
3.2
Absent
Mean
0.9
14.1
88.1
219.7
6.7
1.9
3.6
393.1
3903.1
494.1
60.7
0.2
7.1
5.4
0.2
1.4
84.0
43.2
23.1
19.0
SE
0.1
1.7
10.4
32.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.0
893.1
150.0
13.2
0.1
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.3
Present
Mean
1.2
13.9
142.4
305.3
8.1
2.4
2.6
379.5
1449.2
179.7
0.0
0.0
8.3
5.2
0.2
1.1
85.3
55.2
21.3
8.9
SE
0.2
2.0
45.1
76.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
13.4
242.1
63.5
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.8
0.2
0.9
6.4
3.6
4.5
3.0
28
-------
Table 4. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of White-eyed Vireos and
Yellow-breasted Chats at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
White-eyed Vireo
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.0
14.4
99.3
270.4
6.8
2.0
3.3
396.2
2060.9
434.3
45.2
1.6
5.4
0.1
7.1
6.3
0.1
1.3
83.1
46.4
21.6
16.6
SE
0.1
1.7
12.8
37.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.1
646.4
171.5
14.1
0.9
2.7
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.3
3.1
2.1
2.5
Present
Mean
0.8
12.9
75.7
86.0
6.8
2.1
4.2
376.6
8850.7
550.3
84.7
5.2
7.3
0.3
7.8
2.5
0.2
1.7
87.4
38.3
27.2
22.1
SE ^ P
0.2
3.1
15.5
12.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
14.5
2373.0 8.739 0.003+
136.6
21.6
2.6
2.9
0.2
2.1
0.7
0.1
0.7
2.3
5.4
3.5
4.2
5.037 0.656
Yellow-breasted Chat
Absent
Mean
1.0
17.7
104.8
338.4
7.2
2.2
3.1
403.0
566.4
152.3
29.6
1.1
0.9
0.2
6.6
7.4
0.1
1.6
84.1
47.5
19.5
17.1
SE
0.1
2.3
17.0
50.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.5
171.9
40.9
15.5
1.1
0.9
0.1
1.7
1.3
0.1
0.7
2.5
3.8
2.4
3.3
Present
Mean
0.9
10.1
81.9
103.6
6.4
1.8
4.0
378.9
6979.7
795.6
81.3
3.9
11.5
0.1
8.0
3.2
0.2
1.2
84.1
41.2
26.6
18.8
SE %2 P
0.1
1.7
11.6
13.1 4.663 0.031-
0.4
0.2
0.3
9.6
1488.7 11.423 0.001 +
268.4
17.8
1.5
4.4
0.1
1.6
0.9
0.1
0.4
2.8
3.8
2.6 4.526 0.033+
2.6
50.074 <0.001
29
-------
Table 5. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Prairie Warblers and
Blue-winged Warblers at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Prairie Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.1
15.9
98.4
351.7
6.6
1.9
3.2
405.2
2542.2
351.6
38.8
1.7
4.6
0.2
8.3
8.2
0.1
1.8
79.0
41.2
22.1
17.3
SE
0.1
2.3
16.1
48.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
8.2
959.5
232.1
19.5
1.2
3.0
0.1
1.8
1.4
0.1
0.8
3.0
3.3
2.5
3.0
Present
Mean
0.8
12.0
88.8
88.4
7.0
2.1
3.9
376.4
4843.8
580.2
71.3
3.2
7.3
0.1
6.1
2.3
0.2
0.9
89.6
48.0
23.7
18.6
SE x2 P
0.1
1.8 4.872 0.027-
13.3
11.2 6.040 0.014-
0.4
0.2 8.658 0.003+
0.3
9.6
1299.9
126.8
13.3
1.4 8.520 0.004+
3.2
0.1
1.5
0.6
0.1
0.3
1.9 6.378 0.012+
4.3
2.7
3.1
8.395 0.396
Blue-winged Warbler
Absent
Mean
1.0
14.7
94.8
267.0
6.9
2.0
3.4
399.0
2583.2
180.1
44.2
1.4
5.9
0.1
7.0
6.1
0.1
1.3
84.9
45.4
22.5
17.1
SE
0.1
1.7
12.0
37.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.8
756.8
32.8
14.0
0.8
2.7
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.0
3.2
2.1
2.5
Present
Mean
0.8
12.0
90.5
97.4
6.7
2.0
3.9
366.8
7138.9
1383.7
87.9
5.9
5.6
0.2
8.2
3.0
0.2
1.7
81.6
41.6
24.2
20.8
SE %2 P
0.2
2.9
22.1
16.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
15.3
2245.4
520.3 8.766 0.003+
21.8
2.8
2.5
0.2
2.2
0.8
0.1
0.7
4.4
4.9
3.9
4.1
7.755 0.170
30
-------
Table 6. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Common Yellowthroats
and Yellow Warblers at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Common Yellow/throat
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
14.0
107.0
270.1
6.7
1.9
3.1
409.1
1303.9
186.7
48.9
3.4
4.1
0.2
8.0
6.8
0.2
1.2
83.6
45.1
21.0
17.6
SE
0.1
2.2
16.3
40.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
7.9
525.6
48.2
20.2
1.7
3.0
0.1
1.9
1.3
0.1
0.7
2.6
3.8
2.7
3.0
Present
Mean
1.0
14.1
79.5
183.4
7.0
2.1
3.9
373.0
6182.4
758.4
60.3
1.4
7.7
0.1
6.5
3.8
0.2
1.5
84.6
43.8
24.9
18.3
SE 'i P
0.1
2.0
12.6
44.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
9.6
1475.6 13.797 <0.001 +
269.3
12.5
0.6 4.157 0.041-
3.1
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.8
3.9
2.5
3.1
3.636 0.726
Yellow
Absent
Mean
0.9
12.8
91.9
224.2
6.5
1.8
3.7
404.0
3413.7
365.5
55.3
3.2
5.4
0.1
6.0
5.8
0.1
1.3
85.7
41.6
25.2
19.4
SE
0.1
1.8
11.9
35.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.4
949.3
86.0
14.3
1.2
2.5
0.1
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.5
1.9
3.2
2.2
2.4
Warbler
Present
Mean
1.1
18.1
100.0
241.7
7.9
2.6
2.9
353.0
4416.7
776.0
51.4
0.0
7.2
0.2
11.3
4.0
0.3
1.6
79.0
54.0
15.4
13.1
SE %2 P
0.2
2.5
22.5
61.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
8.8 8.119 0.004-
1502.7
507.7
21.6
0.0
4.5
0.2
2.7 3.953 0.047+
1.3
0.1
0.7
4.8
4.7
2.6
4.8
3.605 0.891
31
-------
Table 7. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Indigo Buntings and
Northern Cardinals at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either
a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Indigo Bunting
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no. /ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.2
20.4
107.8
364.8
6.8
2.0
3.6
397.7
1291.7
119.8
17.7
0.0
1.3
0.2
6.0
11.0
0.0
1.5
81.3
42.8
19.9
18.5
SE
0.2
4.0
35.1
81.8
0.8
0.3
0.4
15.0
1181.8
77.6
13.1
0.0
1.3
0.2
2.2
3.2
0.0
1.0
3.5
5.4
4.3
6.1
Present
Mean
0.9
12.9
91.2
199.0
6.8
2.0
3.5
390.4
4083.2
524.5
61.2
2.9
6.8
0.1
7.5
4.3
0.2
1.4
84.6
44.8
23.4
17.8
SE
0.1
1.6
10.7
31.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.2
920.6
158.2
13.9
1.1
2.6
0.1
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.5
2.1
3.1
2.0
2.3
Northern
Absent
y? P Mean
1.0
15.0
97.2
255.7
7.1
2.1
3.3
393.4
2932.7
4.372 0.037+ 377.9
50.4
2.4
6.2
0.2
7.5
5.055 0.025- 5.6
0.2
1.6
84.0
46.0
22.3
16.7
9.006 0.252
SE
0.1
1.6
11.8
34.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.4
699.0
144.9
13.8
1.1
2.5
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.0
2.7
2.0
2.3
Cardinal
Present
Mean
0.8
8.9
75.4
75.9
5.6
1.7
4.7
382.3
7523.4
914.1
76.0
2.6
4.2
0.0
6.0
4.4
0.2
0.2
84.8
36.3
26.1
24.7
SE %2 P
0.3
3.3
20.6
13.0
0.9
0.3
0.5
23.6
3418.8
350.3 5.1340.0235+
18.6
1.2
2.9
0.0
2.3
2.5
0.2
0.2
4.9
9.0
4.7
5.9
5.801 0.326
32
-------
Table 8. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of American Goldfinches
and Song Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '+' indicates a positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
American Goldfinch
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.0
14.0
102.4
238.2
6.7
1.9
3.5
395.5
4289.7
519.5
60.3
2.5
5.6
0.2
7.0
5.5
0.2
1.7
83.4
41.4
24.8
19.0
SE
0.1
2.1
13.6
40.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.8
1167.6
206.1
17.4
1.1
2.7
0.1
1.5
1.1
0.1
0.6
2.4
3.3
2.4
2.6
Present
Mean
0.9
14.1
79.5
211.5
7.1
2.2
3.5
385.2
2586.2
365.3
44.6
2.4
6.3
0.0
7.7
5.2
0.2
0.9
85.2
49.5
19.7
16.1
SE i2 P
0.1
2.1
16.3
45.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
11.3
902.2
112.1
14.1
1.7
3.8
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.1
0.4
3.1
4.6
2.7
3.6
-
Song Sparrow
Absent
Mean
0.9
13.4
98.4
177.8
6.9
2.0
3.4
386.6
3730.1
495.7
57.2
2.7
5.6
0.2
7.2
5.1
0.2
1.2
84.3
44.9
22.4
18.3
SE
0.1
1.6
11.7
21.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.0
872.2
156.5
13.5
1.1
2.3
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.4
2.1
3.0
2.0
2.3
Present
Mean
1.3
17.6
66.1
510.9
6.6
2.0
4.0
420.3
3156.3
255.7
37.5
1.1
7.3
0.0
7.6
7.0
0.0
2.6
82.9
41.6
25.7
15.5
SE i2 P
0.2
4.7
20.3
134.7 7.9530.0048+
0.8
0.2
0.6
14.7
2179.2
87.4
24.2
1.1
6.2
0.0
2.3
2.8
0.0
1.3
3.9
5.5
5.1
5.7
12.390 0.135
33
-------
Table 9. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Chipping and Field
Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Chipping
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
14.7
100.3
245.8
6.8
2.0
3.4
392.2
2918.2
413.6
48.5
1.8
3.5
0.2
7.5
5.4
0.1
1.4
83.6
44.3
22.7
18.0
SE
0.1
1.6
11.6
33.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.0
765.9
148.9
13.4
0.9
1.9
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.1
2.8
1.9
2.3
Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Present
Mean
0.9
9.2
44.6
92.8
7.2
1.8
4.1
387.6
9163.2
822.9
99.3
6.9
24.3
0.0
5.7
5.1
0.3
1.3
87.7
46.1
24.6
17.1
SE 'i P
0.3
3.6
9.7
21.0
0.8
0.2
0.3
15.3
3346.8
241.1
11.8 7.9520.0048+
3.2
11.1
0.0
2.2
3.2
0.2
0.8
4.0
10.8
5.9
4.7
7.101 0.069
Absent
Mean
1.0
17.5
85.8
313.2
6.6
1.9
3.2
406.3
2414.1
410.2
46.5
3.5
7.0
0.2
7.4
8.5
0.2
1.3
80.2
43.0
20.6
18.6
SE
0.1
2.8
12.6
56.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
9.0
1127.1
289.9
23.9
1.9
4.3
0.1
2.0
1.6
0.1
0.8
3.4
4.1
2.7
3.5
Present
Mean
0.9
11.6
99.5
164.3
7.0
2.1
3.7
380.7
4525.7
497.9
60.0
1.7
5.0
0.1
7.2
3.1
0.1
1.4
86.8
45.5
24.5
17.4
SE %2 P
0.1
1.6
15.6
28.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.8
1111.3
107.8 5.7360.0166+
11.8
0.8
2.1
0.1
1.4
0.7 3.960 0.0466-
0.1
0.4
2.1
3.6
2.4
2.7
4.323 0.742
34
-------
Table 10. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Eastern Towhees at
point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a negative or positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables.
Eastern Towhee
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Absent
Mean
1.1
16.4
104.3
298.7
7.3
2.1
3.1
393.5
1984.1
393.4
25.6
0.6
5.3
0.2
6.6
6.6
0.2
1.1
83.4
47.1
22.8
15.2
SE
0.1
1.9
14.8
41.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.2
597.8
190.6
11.6
0.4
2.8
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.1
0.4
2.2
3.0
2.3
2.4
Present
Mean
0.7
9.5
73.1
85.0
5.9
1.8
4.3
388.2
6912.3
595.0
110.8
6.0
7.0
0.0
8.5
2.9
0.1
1.9
85.6
39.3
23.0
23.3
SE i2 P
0.2
2.2
10.3
13.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
13.3
1945.1
142.1
24.1 19.783 <0.001 +
2.5
3.4
0.0
2.3
1.2
0.1
1.0
3.6
5.5
2.9
4.0
1.072 0.784
35
-------
Table 11. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
American Redstarts and Carolina Chickadees in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant
variables only.
American
Absent
(n=45)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
0.8
33.8
359.0
48.1
630.9
22.4
0.8
8.8
53.2
4.9
2.1
30.0
6628.5
841.7
305.3
90.7
32.8
9.3
3.6
46.1
SE
0.1
2.1
10.3
9.3
122.6
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.5
732.7
53.4
23.2
4.9
3.0
1.5
0.7
5.3
Redstart
Carolina Chickadee
Present
(n=40)
Mean
1.3
33.8
376.4
59.9
1262.7
22.5
0.8
6.2
48.2
4.3
1.9
38.4
4501.6
583.6
283.4
89.7
28.6
8.3
3.4
45.1
SE %2 P
0.1 12.391 <0.001 +
2.2
11.6
10.6
181.4
0.8
0.2
0.7
2.1
0.5
0.4
2.2
429.7
70.5 6.919 0.008-
22.9
5.1
2.6
1.3
0.8
6.2
Absent
(n=49)
Mean
1.0
34.1
378.5
54.1
1052.9
22.9
0.7
7.7
49.8
4.9
2.2
34.6
6150.5
688.8
263.0
92.1
31.0
9.8
3.2
45.2
SE
0.1
2.1
10.3
8.5
148.9
0.6
0.2
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
1.6
696.5
57.6
18.8
5.1
2.6
1.4
0.6
5.2
Present
(n=36)
Mean
1.1
33.3
350.6
53.1
724.0
21.9
0.8
7.4
52.3
4.3
1.8
33.1
4915.8
763.0
338.5
87.7
30.6
7.5
4.0
46.3
SE %2 P
0.1
2.2
11.2
11.8
160.6
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.3
0.4
0.4
2.5
466.5
73.9
27.5 5.6350.018+
4.6
3.1
1.4
1.0
6.3
36
-------
Table 11 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
53.2
63.2
63.9
56.8
44.3
17.8
2.1
2.3
1.8
2.3
3.1
2.4
47.9
55.9
65.0
64.1
50.3
16.7
2.7
2.4
1.6
2.3
3.2
2.2
50.3
58.1
62.2
60.3
49.5
15.8
2.2
2.1
1.6
2.5
2.9
1.9
51.3
61.9
67.5
60.1
43.8
19.2
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.2
3.4
2.8
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
59.8
1.4
60.0
1.4
59.3
1.3
60.8
1.5
9.127
0.332
7.076 0.529
37
-------
Table 12. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Northern Parulas and Carolina Wrens in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a negative or
positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Northern Parula
Absent
(n=62)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.1
33.6
373.8
55.9
1017.3
22.3
0.6
7.4
50.5
4.6
1.9
34.8
5594.8
677.4
297.8
91.1
31.9
9.7
3.5
47.7
SE
0.1
1.8
8.7
9.2
131.8
0.6
0.2
0.7
1.6
0.3
0.3
1.7
554.7
51.4
18.5
4.0
2.4
1.2
0.7
5.1
Present
(n=23)
Mean
1.0
34.3
347.5
47.6
631.7
22.9
1.3
7.9
51.7
4.7
2.3
31.7
5716.0
835.6
287.5
87.8
28.0
6.5
3.5
40.1
SE %2 P
0.1
2.8
15.8
7.6
192.0
0.8
0.3 6.8150.009+
0.8
2.1
0.7
0.3
2.1
747.5
93.1
34.6
7.3
3.5
1.7
1.0
5.5
Carolina
Absent
(n=57)
Mean
1.0
33.1
378.7
58.2
990.1
22.3
0.5
7.5
53.4
4.6
2.0
31.8
6008.2
766.4
278.8
90.1
30.3
8.3
3.5
42.3
SE
0.1
2.0
10.0
10.1
138.3
0.6
0.1
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
1.6
547.9
54.5
17.5
4.3
2.4
1.1
0.7
4.2
Wren
Present
(n=28)
Mean
1.2
35.0
340.2
44.4
747.8
22.8
1.3
7.6
45.6
4.6
2.0
38.3
4852.7
626.1
327.9
90.4
31.9
9.8
3.6
52.3
SE %2 P
0.1
2.4
9.2 5.9660.015-
4.8
178.0
0.9
0.4
0.9
2.4 5.8890.015-
0.5
0.4
2.5
783.0
81.0
34.0
6.3
3.6
2.0
0.9
8.5
38
-------
Table 12cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
49.0
56.9
64.8
61.5
48.0
17.3
2.0
1.9
1.3
2.0
2.6
1.9
55.4
67.4
63.4
56.8
44.6
17.1
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.2
4.3
3.2
8.859 0.003+
4.491 0.034-
59.5 1.1
61.0
2.0
51.9
59.8
63.7
59.7
51.0
18.9
2.0
2.1
1.5
1.9
2.5
2.0
48.2
59.6
65.9
61.4
39.1
13.9
3.2
2.7
2.1
3.3
4.0
2.7
61.0
1.2
57.6
1.6
9.761
0.282
5.656 0.686
39
-------
Table 13. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence
of Downy Woodpeckers and Tufted Titmice in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '+' indicates a positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Downy Woodpecker
Absent
(n=60)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
33.8
371.3
56.6
1008.6
22.5
0.8
7.6
50.1
4.7
2.1
34.6
5777.9
700.6
286.7
89.6
30.2
8.4
3.4
45.8
SE
0.1
1.6
8.6
7.9
120.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
510.7
50.1
16.4
3.9
2.2
1.1
0.6
4.5
Present
(n=25)
Mean
1.5
33.3
337.7
33.8
302.8
22.4
0.7
7.5
56.0
4.3
1.5
29.9
4616.5
852.3
351.1
94.3
35.2
11.9
4.5
44.9
SE %2 P
0.2 4.907 0.027+
5.3
12.4
5.7
200.1
1.6
0.4
1.9
3.8
0.9
0.5
3.0
477.9
96.8
61.0
7.3
5.1
3.0
1.7
6.2
Tufted Titmouse
Absent
(n=60)
Mean
1.0
33.5
366.5
58.2
830.9
21.9
0.8
7.8
53.4
4.5
2.2
31.0
5764.6
729.2
300.5
87.6
30.8
8.1
3.0
45.3
SE
0.1
1.9
9.7
9.6
124.1
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.3
1.4
547.7
49.8
21.0
4.3
2.5
1.2
0.6
5.0
Present
(n=25)
Mean
1.1
34.3
367.7
42.7
1116.1
23.9
0.6
7.0
44.6
5.1
1.6
41.0
5298.8
698.8
281.8
96.5
30.8
10.5
4.8
46.5
SE %2 P
0.1
2.5
12.1
5.1
227.1
0.9
0.3
1.0
2.8
0.5
0.3
2.9 8.392 0.004+
796.7
100.2
23.5
6.0
3.0
1.8
1.2
6.7
40
-------
Table 13 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
51.5
59.2
64.1
60.3
47.0
17.1
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
2.5
1.8
45.5
63.4
66.9
60.1
47.7
18.0
4.1
3.5
3.7
5.7
3.6
3.2
52.0
59.9
64.3
59.9
48.4
18.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.0
2.8
2.0
47.7
59.3
64.7
61.0
43.9
15.1
3.6
3.7
1.8
3.3
3.3
2.6
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
59.8
1.1
60.3
1.9
60.5
1.2
58.3
1.5
4.854
0.773
3.748
0.879
41
-------
Table 14. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Downy Woodpeckers and White-breasted Nuthatches in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicateseither a
negative relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Absent
(n=74)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
32.9
371.1
49.1
950.3
22.7
0.8
7.5
51.6
4.7
2.1
33.0
5648.2
735.6
285.4
89.4
31.2
8.4
3.8
43.4
SE
0.1
1.6
8.3
6.1
120.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.4
459.1
48.4
15.6
3.4
2.1
1.0
0.6
4.1
Present
(n=11)
Mean
1.0
39.6
336.0
84.3
663.0
21.2
0.7
7.8
45.6
4.0
1.4
40.2
5488.6
616.5
359.7
96.0
28.4
11.4
1.7
60.3
SE %2 P
0.2
5.3
18.3
35.1
253.9
1.3
0.5
1.3
5.3
0.8
0.5
4.8
1672.4
135.2
69.9
15.0
5.7
3.5
0.9
13.6
White-breasted Nuthatch
Absent
(n=65)
Mean
1.0
32.8
370.6
51.9
985.7
22.7
0.8
7.6
51.3
4.6
2.2
33.3
5193.8
739.4
297.9
89.6
29.2
8.3
3.2
44.9
SE
0.1
1.7
9.6
8.1
131.1
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.6
365.5
52.8
19.4
3.9
2.3
1.1
0.6
4.4
Present
(n=20)
Mean
1.0
36.9
354.1
59.4
681.9
21.6
0.6
7.4
49.3
4.7
1.5
36.1
7037.5
657.8
285.6
92.2
35.9
10.6
4.7
48.2
SE %2 P
0.1
3.4
9.7
13.9
191.0
1.0
0.3
1.2
2.4
0.5
0.4
3.0
1485.8
90.4
29.6
8.2
4.1
2.5
1.2
9.4
42
-------
Table 14 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
50.3
59.8
64.0
59.6
47.7
18.6
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.8
2.3
1.7
53.2
59.5
67.3
64.2
42.8
8.4
4.1
4.2
3.6
4.4
8.2
3.6
5.5960.018-
50.8
60.4
65.3
61.8
47.7
17.8
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.9
2.4
1.9
50.3
57.5
61.8
55.1
45.2
15.4
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.2
5.4
3.2
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
60.0
1.0
59.1
3.4
60.8
1.1
57.0
2.1
4.235
0.835
43
-------
Table 15. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Ovenbirds and Black-throated Green Warblers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant
variables only.
Ovenbird
Absent
(n=14)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
29.0
360.8
34.6
549.3
22.0
0.4
4.5
58.8
5.6
2.6
28.1
5783.5
988.8
348.2
90.6
26.8
10.7
3.1
48.6
SE
0.2
2.9
16.8
6.7
230.6
1.4
0.3
0.8
1.8
0.5
0.6
2.1
1069.4
101.1
58.0
7.0
5.6
3.4
1.6
12.9
Present
(n=71)
Mean
1.0
34.7
368.2
57.4
999.7
22.6
0.8
8.2
49.2
4.4
1.9
35.1
5596.8
667.3
284.5
90.1
31.6
8.5
3.6
45.1
SE x2 P
0.1
1.7
8.7
8.2
123.6
0.5
0.2
0.6 6.3520.012+
1.5
0.3
0.3
1.6
499.1
48.6
15.8
4.0
2.1
1.0
0.6
4.1
Black-throated Green Warbler
Absent
(n=70)
Mean
1.0
33.0
358.9
57.9
907.1
22.8
0.9
8.1
50.2
4.7
2.0
33.9
5671.9
718.3
319.0
92.8
29.3
8.7
3.5
50.4
SE
0.1
1.6
7.7
8.3
120.9
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.3
0.3
1.6
524.7
48.8
18.2
4.0
2.1
1.2
0.6
4.6
Present
(n=15)
Mean
1.3
37.4
406.8
33.8
958.3
21.0
0.3
5.3
53.7
4.2
2.2
34.1
5420.8
729.2
182.9
78.3
37.9
9.6
3.8
24.2
SE %2 P
0.1
4.7
23.5
6.5
280.1
1.1
0.3
0.8
2.1
0.8
0.6
2.6
743.4
125.7
19.1 11.8200.001-
6.8
5.1
1.2
1.0
4.1
44
-------
Table 15 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
56.7
69.6
70.2
55.2
39.6
18.2
3.6
3.7
3.4
4.6
5.9
3.8
49.5
57.8
63.3
61.2
48.6
17.1
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.8
2.4
1.8
7.400 0.006-
50.2
60.2
65.4
59.4
45.3
17.4
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
2.5
1.9
53.1
57.7
59.8
64.1
55.7
16.8
4.0
3.4
3.0
4.5
4.7
3.1
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
61.9
3.1
59.5
1.0
59.6
13.590
0.093
1.1
61.4
2.0
6.680 0.572
45
-------
Table 16. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Pileated Woodpeckers and Yellow-throated Warblers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicates a negative
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Pileated Woodpecker
Absent
(n=75)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
32.9
368.8
55.0
975.1
22.6
0.7
7.7
51.0
4.8
2.1
33.5
5909.2
736.3
291.1
88.5
32.0
9.1
3.4
46.3
SE
0.1
1.6
8.3
7.8
119.3
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.2
1.5
497.3
47.3
17.4
3.8
2.2
1.1
0.6
4.5
Present
(n=10)
Mean
1.3
40.1
350.8
43.2
433.1
21.6
1.0
6.5
49.5
3.3
1.9
37.5
3515.6
600.0
324.4
103.1
21.9
6.9
4.4
41.3
SE %2 P
0.2
3.8
20.2
7.9
235.4
1.3
0.6
2.2
3.2
0.8
0.9
4.8
510.7
156.4
48.7
7.9
3.3
2.2
1.6
6.5
Yellow-throated Warblers
Absent
(n=74)
Mean
1.1
32.3
367.1
56.6
947.3
22.5
0.9
7.4
51.1
4.6
1.9
34.0
5196.4
709.5
288.7
89.9
31.4
8.0
3.5
44.0
SE
0.1
1.6
8.0
7.9
118.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
451.1
50.4
14.4
3.8
2.2
1.0
0.6
4.2
Present
(n=11)
Mean
0.5
43.6
364.9
33.9
684.9
22.4
0.0
8.9
49.1
5.1
2.8
33.9
8528.4
792.6
337.5
92.0
26.7
14.2
3.4
56.3
SE %2 P
0.2 4.6300.031-
3.5
27.9
6.9
307.0
1.4
0.0
1.8
3.7
0.9
0.7
3.8
1480.3
96.9
82.5
9.4
5.3
2.9
1.3
12.4
46
-------
Table 16 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
49.4
59.0
64.2
60.5
48.2
18.7
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.8
2.4
1.7
60.9
65.6
66.0
58.6
39.0
6.4
3.8
3.6
2.6
4.3
6.2
2.5
5.4990.019-
49.9
59.9
65.3
62.8
49.0
17.3
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.3
1.8
56.1
58.4
58.8
43.2
34.2
17.2
3.9
5.1
4.8
3.5
6.3
4.0
9.061 0.003-
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
60.0
1.1
59.3
1.5
60.8
1.0
53.6
2.6
6.326
0.611
4.361
0.823
47
-------
Table 17. Means and standard errors (SE) of habitat variables in relation to presence/absence
of Summer Tanagers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. No variables were
chosen by stepwise logistic regression for predicting Summer Tanager presence.
Summer
Absent
(n=70)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.1
33.5
363.6
52.6
906.5
22.6
0.9
7.8
50.4
4.5
1.9
34.1
5240.2
722.8
287.1
90.9
30.6
8.4
3.3
43.8
50.3
60.0
64.8
60.6
47.3
16.6
59.9
SE
0.1
1.8
8.3
7.4
122.0
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.3
0.2
1.5
428.8
49.4
16.5
4.1
2.0
1.1
0.6
4.0
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.7
1.0
Tanager
Present
(n=15)
Mean
1.0
35.2
383.5
58.4
961.4
21.6
0.2
6.3
52.6
5.1
2.5
33.3
7435.4
708.3
332.1
87.1
31.7
10.8
4.6
54.2
52.4
58.3
62.9
58.4
46.2
20.3
59.7
SE
0.2
2.4
20.9
20.1
266 .1
1.0
0.2
1.1
3.1
0.6
0.8
3.6
1541.8
119.8
51.2
6.7
6.4
2.7
1.6
12.8
3.6
4.5
2.9
4.1
5.2
4.2
2.7
48
-------
Table 18. Mist net effort and the distribution of Grasshopper Sparrows captured and banded on
study sites.
Site
CL1
CV2
DN2
DR1
HA1
HN2
Overall
Males
21
11
29
27
30
22
140
Females Juveniles
7
7
7
3
3
6
33
2
3
2
14
6
2
29
Total
Captures
29
21
22
56
40
25
193
M * LJ Captures/Net
Net Hours K,,
Hour
124.00
72.25
85.00
217.63
210.25
76.50
785.63
0.23
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.19
0.33
0.25
Table 19. Systematic nest search effort and mean and SE of clutch size for Grasshopper
Sparrow nests in the 2001 breeding season by site.
Site
CL1
CV2
DN2
D01
DR1
HA1
HN2
H01
Overall
Search effort
(hrs)
72.57
44.33
48.91
0.33
26.00
108.50
69.24
2.00
372.14
No. Nests
Found
4
3
10
2
5
7
4
2
37
Nests/hr
0.06
0.07
0.20
6.06
0.19
0.65
0.06
0.50
0.10
Clutch
Mean
3.25
4.00
3.80
3.50
3.40
3.88
3.67
4.50
3.73
size
SE
0.75
0.00
0.33
0.50
0.60
0.23
0.67
0.50
0.16
49
-------
Table 20. Mean and standard error (SE) of nest variables and habitat variables surrounding
successful (n=17) and unsuccessful (n=20) nests of Grasshopper Sparrows on MTRVF areas in
2001. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare habitat variables between
successful and unsuccessful nests (a=0.05).
Successful
Variable
Slope Aspect (degrees)
Slope (%)
Overhead Cover (%)
Side Cover (%)
North
South
East
West
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Litter
Wood
Bare ground
Moss
Water
Robel Pole Index (dm)
Nest
1m
3m
5m
Grass Height (dm)
1m
3m
5m
10m
Litter depth (cm)
1m
3m
5m
10m
Nest substrate height (veg)
Nest substrate height (repro)
Nest Clump Area (cm2)
Distance to foliage edge (cm)
Nest depth (cm)
Nest width (cm)
Nest rim width (cm)
Nest rim height (cm)
Mean
161.70
12.30
73.70
82.40
91.20
80.90
92.60
24.60
73.20
40.40
27.90
0
8.30
0
20.90
2.20
0
3.13
3.17
3.65
3.71
2.91
3.22
3.27
3.50
0.21
0.30
0.23
0.24
3.75
7.65
1,216.53
19.20
5.80
6.60
1.97
1.80
SE
22.20
2.90
6.40
4.20
4.30
5.50
4.70
7.60
3.70
2.90
2.80
0
1.20
0
3.80
0.70
0
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.30
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.47
142.70
3.50
0.31
0.15
0.10
0.27
Unsuccessful
Mean
167.70
8.30
75.00
82.50
93.80
77.50
87.70
34.10
79.10
38.50
28.90
0.01
8.30
0
18.40
2.90
0
4.01
4.28
4.12
3.88
3.26
7.69
3.24
3.90
0.20
0.25
0.27
0.30
4.27
7.00
1,387.98
20.10
5.90
6.50
1.98
1.50
SE
21.40
3.00
4.80
4.80
3.10
4.80
5.80
8.80
3.80
3.60
2.50
0.01
0.90
0
3.04
1.01
0
0.03
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.19
4.60
0.23
0.24
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.28
0.41
146.71
2.20
0.22
0.12
0.07
0.23
ANOVA
F
0.04
0.90
0.03
0.00
0.25
0.22
0.43
1.45
1.22
0.16
0.06
0.85
0.00
-
0.27
0.41
-
6.56
6.69
1.12
0.14
2.01
0.83
0.002
1.33
0.03
0.66
0.46
1.03
0.44
1.06
0.69
0.05
0.15
0.19
0.01
1.05
P
0.41
0.35
0.87
0.98
0.62
0.64
0.52
0.23
0.28
0.69
0.80
0.36
0.97
-
0.61
0.53
-
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.71
0.16
0.37
0.96
0.25
0.86
0.42
0.50
0.31
0.51
0.31
0.41
0.83
0.70
0.66
0.94
0.31
50
-------
Table 21. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at nests (N=37) and fixed habitat plots (N=48) sampling
points. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare habitat variables between successful and unsuccessful nests
(
-------
Table 22. Percentage of adult Peromyscus spp. individuals in reproductive condition among grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments in 1999 and 2000 in southwestern West Virginia.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/Pole
Comparison
Amonq Treatments
1999
Males
Females
Total
2000
Males
Females
Total
%
65.5Ab
41 .9A
48.3A
79. 8A
55. 8A
66.2A
Na % N
14 -c - -
15 ...
16 ...
19 85.3A 11
19 68.3A 12
20 74.7A 12
Fragmented
%
39. 9B
13.4B
25 B
83. 3A
54. 5A
63.2A
Forest
N
15
16
16
16
19
19
Intact Forest
%
25.4B
4B
12C
82.5A
22. 6 B
52.5A
N
16
16
16
19
16
16
ANOVA Results
F
7.18
9.11
11.33
0.45
4.57
1.05
df
2
2
2
3
3
3
P
0.0026
0.0002
0.0002
0.7179
0.0068
0.3802
Between Years
ANOVA Results
df
F df P
F df
F df
Males
Females
Total
0.
1.
3.
.88
.51
.32
1
1
1
0
0
0
.3586
.2302
.0795
-c - - 19.19
- - - 14.5
- - - 17.33
1
1
1
0.0002
0.0008
0.0003
33.73
0.39
15.42
1 <0
1 0.
1 0.
.0001 - -
.5360 - -
.0007 - -
a N= number of trapping sessions multiplied by the number of transects in a given treatment.
b Means followed by different letters within a row are significantly different from one another (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test, P<0.05).
cThe shrub/pole treatment was not sampled in 1999.
52
-------
Table 23. Relative abundance (mammals/100 trap nights), and standard error (SE) of Peromyscus spp. age and sex groups in
grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments in southwestern West Virginia for 1999 and 2000.
Grassland
1999
Adult Males
Adult Females
Juvenile Males
Juvenile Females
Mean
4.0Ab
2.1A
4.5A
2.2A
SE
2.8
1.4
3.3
2.0
Treatment
Shrub/Pole Fragmented Forest
Na Mean
16
16
16
16
SE N Mean
- - 1.8B
1.9AB
- - 3.9A
3.1A
SE
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.1
N
16
16
16
16
Intact Forest
Mean
1.4B
1.0B
5.3A
3.6A
SE
1.6
1.2
4.0
2.7
N
16
16
16
16
ANOVA Results
F
8.20
3.51
1.03
2.11
P
0.0012
0.0404
0.3656
0.1356
2000
Adult Males
Adult Females
Juvenile Males
Juvenile Females
6.2A
5.7A
4.6A
3.8A
4.9
4.0
4.0
3.7
20
20
20
20
5.9A
6.2A
3.9AB
2.9A
3.8 12
4.2 12
2.1 12
2.5 12
2.3B
1.8B
1.3C
0.7B
1.9 20
1.4 20
1.2 20
1.1 20
1.1B
1.9B
2.5BC
1.2B
1.8 20
2.1 20
3.0 20
3.0 20
13.13
14.54
5.99
7.50
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0013
0.0003
a N=number of trapping sessions multiplied by the number of transects in a given treatment.
b Means followed by different letters within a row are significantly different from one another (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test, P<0.05).
cThe shrub/pole treatment was not sampled in 1999.
53
-------
Table 24. Results of multiple linear regression of mammal species richness, total abundance,
and Peromyscus spp. abundance on habitat and environmental variables for shrub/pole,
fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments. Significant variables in the model are listed
below the dependent variable.
Parameter
Variable Estimate
Richness
Low Temp.
Precip.
Bare ground (%)
Total Abundance
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Canopy Height
Precipitation
Bare ground (%)
Low Temp.
Peromyscus spp. abundance
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Canopy Height
Bare ground (%)
Precip.
-0.0912
-0.2039
1.0570
-16.4071
-0.5107
-2.0173
16.6469
-0.6224
-17.0509
-0.4884
12.2341
-1.3118
F
8.61
9.43
4.60
21.03
8.82
9.88
11.43
9.16
34.86
12.35
7.32
8.11
P
0.0044
0.0030
0.0351
<0.0001
0.0040
0.0024
0.0011
0.0034
<0.0001
0.0007
0.0084
0.0057
Partial R2
0.0995
0.0982
0.0458
0.2123
0.0809
0.0813
0.0827
0.0598
0.3088
0.0955
0.0523
0.0530
Model R2
0.0995
0.1977
0.2435
0.2123
0.2932
0.3745
0.4572
0.5170
0.3088
0.4044
0.4567
0.5098
54
-------
Table 25. Results of multiple linear regression of mammal species richness, total abundance,
and Peromyscus spp. abundance on habitat and environmental variables for grassland
treatment. Significant variables in the model are shown below the dependent variable.
Parameter
Variable Estimate F P Partial R2 Model R2
Richness
Average grass height 0.2297 10.60 0.0026 0.2376 0.2376
Total Abundance
Green groundcover 99.9693 5.19 0.0295 0.3699 0.3699
Precipitation 2.1868 5.79 0.0221 0.0673 0.4372
Bareground -44.4321 4.08 0.0518 0.0637 0.5009
Peromyscus spp. abundance
Bare ground (%) -73.4487 15.88 0.0004 0.4454 0.4454
Precipitation 2.1953 7.11 0.0119 0.0942 0.5396
Shrub 3.0591 5.77 0.0223 0.0703 0.6099
55
-------
Table 26. Results of logistic regression of short-tailed shrew, woodland jumping mouse, and
chipmunk abundance on habitat and environmental variables within the shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments.
Variable
Parameter
Estimate
Short-tailed shrew
Bareg round
Model
4.36
4.2922
1.2314
0.0383
0.8729
Woodland jumping mouse
Moon illumination
Water
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Model
-2.81 5.2752 0.0216
7.84 4.0787 0.0434
8.33 3.625 0.0569
8.5362 0.3829
Eastern Chipmunk
Water
Bareg round
Canopy cover>12 m
Tree density >8-38 cm
Model
-22.14 9.0245 0.0027
8.92 5.8598 0.0155
6.25 5.6034 0.0179
0.01 8.378 0.0038
32.8363 <0.0001
56
-------
o
CN
•jo *•
"55 0
T3 O
C CN
j2 .55
en'en
o <
o =*
^ i_
W 0
"CD w
I1
8
o
w
^g
I'-I
§E
-Q £
CD CD
0 2
> -^
2 CD
t -^
>
CD Q_
0
CD w"
C CD
II
CD
0 O 0
— > ^
T3 T3 w
£!"£
e
~~ Vl/
•D .*:
O W
O CD
Means follow
Combines wo
Combines ma
-------
Table 28. Habitat characteristics at forest fragment streams (n=4) and intact forest streams
(n=3) by stream order3.
Site
No.
Segment Substrate Type
Channel
Type
No. of Coarse
Woody Debris
Sampled
No. of Rocks
Sampled
Forest Fragment Streams - Second Order
5
44
131
173
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
SR, RG
SR, RG
SR, RG
SR, RG, BA
SR, RG, BA
SR, RG, WD
SR, RG, WD
SR, RG, WD
SR, RG, BA, WD
SR, RG, BA, WD
SR, RG, LR
SR, RG, LR
SR, RG, LR, BL
SR, RG, BA, LR
SR, RG, BA
SR, RG, BA, WD
SR, RG, BA
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
PO, RU
RU
RU
Rl, PO, RU
Rl, PO, RU
RA
RA
RA, PO
Rl
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
Rl
NRD
7
12
6
19
NR
74
N4
95
104
NR
5
0
6
25
19
0
NR
480
137
1554
821
NR
71
NR
75
127
NR
457
343
1266
1935
3012
1495
Intact Forest Streams - Ephemeral
112
1
2
5
SR, LR
SR, LR
SR, LR, BA
Rl, PO, CA
DR
DR
NR
37
28
NR
527
1144
Intact Forest Streams - First Order
112
165
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
SR, R/G
SR, R/G, BA
SR, LR
SR, WD
SR, WD
SR, BA, WD
SR, BA, WD, LR
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
PO
DR
DR, PO
DR, PO
9
3
NR
46
NR
NR
111
342
2928
NR
140
NR
NR
698
Intact Forest Streams - Second Order
21
1
2
3
4
5
SR
SR
SR, RG, WD
SR, WD
SR, WD
Rl
Rl
Rl
RI,PO
RI,PO
NR
38
NR
61
3
NR
579
NR
1473
1219
3 Habitat characteristics based on protocol used by USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Jung et al.
1999).
BA = bank (river edge, soil, lacks rocks)
BL = boulder (> 1.5 m in diameter)
LR = large rocks (0.5-1.5 m in diameter)
SR = small rocks (0.1-0.5 m in diameter)
RG = rubble / gravel (< 0.1 m in diameter)
WD = woody debris
bNR = Not recorded
RU = run (smooth current)
RA = rapid (fast current broken by obstructions)
PO = pool (standing water)
CA = cascade (water flowing over slanting rocks)
Rl = riffle (ripples and waves)
DR = dry (no visible moisture or water)
58
-------
Table 29. Species expected (Exp) to occur in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and
intact forest treatments in our study area in southwestern West Virginia based on Green and
Pauley (1987) and personal communication with T. Pauley, compared to those actually
observed (Obs) in drift fence surveys (a), stream searches (s), and from incidental sightings (i),
March - October 2000 and 2001.
Grassland
Species Exp Obs
Terrestrial species
Salamanders
Cumberland Plateau Salamander (Plethodon kentucki)
Southern Ravine Salamander (Plethodon richmondi)
Eastern Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) i
Northern Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)
Wehrle's Salamander (Plethodon wehrlei)
Lizards
Broad-headed Skink (Eumeces laticeps)
Common Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) x
Little Brown Skink (Scincella lateralis) a
Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus) x
Northern Fence-lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus) x a,i
Snakes
Eastern Black Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus niger) x
Black Rat Snake (Elaphe o. obsoleta) x a,i
Eastern Smooth Earthsnake (Virginia v. valeriae) x
Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) x a
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) x a,i
Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis t. triangulum) x a
Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) x
Eastern Wormsnake (Carphophis a. amoenus) x
Northern Black Racer (Coluber c. constrictor) x a,i
Northern Brownsnake (Storeria d. dekayi) x
Northern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen) a
Northern Red-bellied Snake (Storeria o. occipitomaculata) x
Northern Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii)
Northern Rough Greensnake (Opheodrys a. aestivus) x
Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)3
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene c. Carolina) x i
Semiaquatic species
Salamanders
Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum)
Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) a,i
Green Salamander (Aneides aeneus)
Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) a
Red-spotted Newt (Notophthalmus v. viridescens) a,i
Toads and Frogs
Eastern American Toad (Bufo a. americanus) x a,i
Fowler's Toad (B. fowleri) b a
Shrub/ Fragmented
pole Forest
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x
x
x i
x a
x
x
x a x a
x
x x
a,i i
x x
x a,i x a
x x
x a x a,i
a
x a x a
i
x x
x a i
x x
a x a
x x a
x s
x i x
i x
x i x a,i
x
x
a x a
x
x a
a,i x a,s,i
x a,i a,i
x s,i
Intact
Forest
Exp Obs
x a,s,i
x
x a,s,i
x a
x
x
x a
x a
x
x
x i
x
x a,i
x a,i
i
x a
i
x
x a,i
x a,i
x i
x i
x i
x a,i
x
x
x a
x
x
x a,s,i
a,i
59
-------
Table 29. Continued.
Grassland
Species Exp Obs
Toads and Frogs (cont'd)
Eastern Spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii)
Cope's Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)
Northern Spring Peeper (Pseudacris c. crucifer) i
Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) x
Pickerel frog (Rana palustris) x a
Aquatic species
Salamanders
Seal Salamander (Desmognathus monticola)
Northern Dusky Salamander (D.fuscus)
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis)
Midland Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus diastictus)
Common Mudpuppy (Necturus m. maculosus) x
Northern Red Salamander (Pseudotriton r. ruber) x
Southern Two-lined Salamander (Eurycea cirrigera)
Long-tailed Salamander (Eurycea 1. longicauda) x
Northern Spring Salamander (Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus)
Toads and Frogs
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) x a,i
Northern Green Frog (Rana clamitans melanota) x a,i
Snakes
Common Watersnake (Nerodia s. sipedon) x a
Queen Snake (Regina septemvittata)
Turtles
Eastern Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina) x i
Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone s. spinifera)0 x
Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) x
Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) x
Shrub/ Fragmented
pole Forest
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x
a,i x i
a,i x i
i x
x a
x a x a,i
x a,i x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x
x
x x
x x s
x a,s,i
x x s,i
x s
x a,i x a,s
x a,i x a,s,i
x a x s,i
x
x i x i
x x
x x
x x
Intact
Forest
Exp Obs
x
x i
x i
x i
x a,i
x
x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x s,i
x
x
x
x a,s
x s,i
x
x s,i
x s
x a,i
x
x
x
x
x
x
a One incidental sighting of a timber rattlesnake was also found on the edge between shrub/pole
and fragmented forest habitats.
b One incidental sighting of a Fowler's toad was also found on the edge between shrub/pole and
fragmented forest habitats.
cOne incidental sighting of an eastern spiny softshell turtle was also found on the edge between
grassland and fragmented forest habitats.
60
-------
Table 30. Number of individuals of herpetofauna species captured in drift fence arrays and
percent of points at which a species was captured in grassland (n = 3), shrub/pole (n = 3),
fragmented forest (n = 3), and intact forest treatments (n = 4)a on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, March - October, 2000 and 2001.
Grassland
No.
Species indivs
Salamanders
Seal Salamander
Cumberland Plateau Salamander
Four-toed Salamander
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Northern Dusky Salamander
Northern Red Salamander
Eastern Red-backed Salamander
Red-spotted Newt
Northern Slimy Salamander
Spotted Salamander
Toads and frogs
American Bullfrog
Eastern American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Cope's Gray Treefrog
Northern Green Frog
Northern Leopard Frog
Northern Spring Peeper
Pickerel Frog
Unidentified Frog
Unidentified Toad
Wood Frog
Lizards
Common Five-lined Skink
Little Brown Skink
Northern Fence-Lizard
Snakes
Black Ratsnake
Eastern Gartersnake
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake
Eastern Milksnake
Eastern Wormsnake
Northern Black Racer
Northern Copperhead
Northern Red-bellied Snake
Common Watersnake
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle
1
9
1
2
9
2
52
43
5
1
2
5
6
1
4
9
1
1
%of
points
33
100
33
33
66
33
100
100
66
33
66
66
66
33
33
100
33
33
Shrub/pole
No.
indivs
13
1
4
35
2
46
2
1
25
2
2
2
6
6
2
3
27
8
1
%of
points
100
33
100
100
33
100
33
33
66
33
66
33
100
66
33
66
100
100
33
Fragmented
Forest
No.
indivs
1
1
2
1
26
5
1
2
3
44
2
48
1
2
4
1
10
4
4
1
2
%of
points
33
33
33
33
100
33
33
66
66
100
33
100
33
66
33
33
100
66
66
33
66
Intact
No.
indivs
1
12
2
5
22
2
1
20
6
19
1
5
2
1
8
1
2
5
1
1
Forest
%of
points
25
75
50
25
100
25
25
75
75
50
25
75
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
a A 4th drift fence array was installed in one of the intact forest points and opened for trapping in
September and October, 2001.
61
-------
Table 31. Herpetofaunal species richness and relative abundance from drift fence arrays in
grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF
areas in southwestern West Virginia, March - October 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for trap effort
per 100 array nights).
Grassland
Mean SE
Species richness 1.89 0.28 Ba
Shrub/pole
Mean SE
2.70 0.26 A
Fragmented
Forest
Mean SE
2.88 0.32 A
Intact Forest
Mean SE
2.24 0.25 AB
Abundance
Total
Amphibians
Reptiles
Terrestrial Species
Aquatic Species
Semi-aquatic Species
Salamanders
Toads and frogs
Snakes
Red-spotted Newt
Eastern American Toad
Northern Green Frog
Pickerel Frog
Eastern Gartersnake
Northern Black Racer
4.46
3.38
0.99
0.19
1.51
1.91
0.33
3.05
0.90
0.26
0.26
1.40
1.22
0.19
0.32
1.20
1.19
0.23
0.10
0.74
0.86
0.12
1.17
0.22
0.10
0.12
0.74
0.67
0.10
0.11
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
AB
A
A
A
B
5.41
3.62
1.77
0.17
1.41
2.24
0.44
3.18
1.64
0.41
0.98
1.25
0.67
0.17
0.84
0.96 A
0.95 A
0.29 A
0.09 A
0.37 A
0.74 A
0.13B
0.93 A
0.27 A
0.13A
0.49 A
0.35 A
0.27 A
0.09 A
0.17A
5.29
4.42
0.85
0.36
1.59
2.64
1.20
3.20
0.67
0.83
0.10
1.40
1.52
0.36
0.00
0.83
0.77
0.19
0.12
0.51
0.43
0.25
0.67
0.14
0.20
0.06
0.47
0.30
0.12
0.00
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
C
3.41
2.80
0.58
0.22
0.25
1.87
1.50
1.31
0.46
0.69
0.52
0.15
0.48
0.22
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.43 A
.43 A
.166
.09 A
.09 A
.36 A
.34 A
.28 A
.15 B
.27 A
.13AB
0.06 A
0.20 A
0.09 A
0
.00 C
a Within a row, means with the same letter are not different at a = 0.05 (Waller Duncan K-ratio t
Test).
62
-------
T3
0
0
E
en
co
-C O
w o
"O CN
"i 2
W -JS
co 2
?9
— i
w o
II
CO -
0 .55
o c
S'E^
fl)
•^ w
Q. 0
CO >
0 J
w t±
§-0
2"
en--
ro co
O CO
0 o
Q- 0
CO i—
T3 £=
C O
CO „,
"co 0
'> ro
? -^
-I—'
"o 0
o
CO
. T3
CN £=
CO CO
0 +-T
"to
CD
O
LJ_
"8
CO
"c
"to
CD
O
LJ_
•a
CD
O)
LJ_
CD
O
.a.
•§
.c
to
•a
CO
CO
CO
CO
0
CO
CD
"o
CD
a.
to
JO
CO
^
p
"1
CO
CD
"o
CD
a.
to
CO
CO
p
"1
CO
CD
"o
CD
a.
to
JO
CO
p
^
CO
CD
"o
CD
a.
to
JO
CO
;g
=5
^
c
•xO
°
^
0
0
c
0?
£?-
c
^
c
vO
C
Q.
O
0
o
E
o
1
CO
oq -r- iq co co
CD T- CD CD if)
CO CN t- CN
r- - ^
^5 co co co t
CO O N C 3
to i- _i to i-
CO
CD
ro
-------
Table 33. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at grassland (n=3),
shrub/pole (n=3), fragmented forest (n=3), and intact forest (n=3) sampling points3.
Treatment
Grassland
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Elevation (m)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Distance to Forest/Mine Edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Bareg round
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb Cover
Grass Cover
Shrub Cover
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-6 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
20.67
1.62
6.80
2.60
413.67
94.00
408.73
535.12
3.07
~
0.00
1.33
2.42
0.00
0.00
16.25
5.75
6.75
3.75
42.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
SE
8.97
0.06
1.69
1.04
37.95
48.19
324.42
267.58
0.71
~
0.00
0.79
1.53
0.00
0.00
1.26
2.75
2.38
3.63
41.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
Shrub/Pole
Mean
4.42
0.60
4.09
1.06
412.00
61.00
68.8
271.11
4.98
3.40
0.33
0.5
1.67
0.00
0.75
15.08
6.17
4.42
4.50
5156.25
406.25
85.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.58
4.00
1.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.17
4
0
1
0
39
8
15
187
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
2044
SE
.42
.57
.91
.33
.53
.79
.66
.46
.40
.75
.22
.14
.67
.00
.63
.93
.60
.19
.13
.75
62.5
33
0
0
0
0
1
.53
.00
.00
.00
.00
.34
2.08
1.46
0
0
0
4
.00
.00
.00
.69
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
28.42
0.73
-b
-
335.00
54.92
175.87
175.87
~
22.9
0.42
0.83
11.50
0.75
0.17
6.33
—
—
-
2854.17
562.50
225.00
68.75
33.33
2.08
0.00
9.92
13.00
12.67
10.17
6.33
3.83
55.92
SE
7.53
0.14
-
-
20.95
19.44
77.46
77.46
~
1.59
0.30
0.08
0.63
0.14
0.08
0.30
—
—
-
1464.90
118.31
71.90
25.26
11.60
2.08
0.00
2.05
1.44
2.35
0.79
3.17
2.00
2.42
Intact
Forest
Mean
22
0
444
118
1744
1744
.58
.68
-
-
.67
.75
.97
.97
~
22.4
0
1
10
0
1
5
6843
343
275
81
10
2
0
10
10
13
14
10
2
62
.08
.83
.58
.58
.17
.75
—
—
-
.75
.75
.00
.25
.42
.08
.00
.75
.42
.33
.67
.17
.75
.08
9
0
66
91
562
562
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1043
160
74
19
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
2
5
SE
.38
.13
-
-
.23
.04
.73
.73
~
.85
.08
.71
.23
.17
.58
.90
—
—
-
.18
.36
.56
.09
.08
.08
.00
.22
.52
.36
.45
.34
.38
.60
aThis table does not include habitat variables for the most recently added intact sampling point
(herp data collection started September 2001 for this point).
b Variables were not measured in this treatment.
64
-------
Table 34. Number of individuals and species of herpetofauna groups captured in stream
surveys in fragmented forest streams and intact forest streams on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, May-October, 2001.
Fragmented Forest
Streams
Intact Forest Streams
Individuals
Taxonomic Group
Salamanders
Toads and frogs
Lizards
Snakes
Turtles
n
270
16
0
3
0
%
93.4
5.5
0.0
1.1
0.0
Species
n
7
4
0
2
0
%
53.8
30.8
0.0
15.4
0.0
Individuals
n
386
3
0
0
0
%
99.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Species
n
8
2
0
0
0
%
80.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 35. Mean and standard error (SE) of stream salamanders per segment of fragmented
forest streams and intact forest streams on reclaimed MTMVF areas in southwestern West
Virginia, May-October 2001.
Treatments
Fragmented Forest Streams
Intact Forest Streams
Site
No.
No.
Segments
Sampled
Mean
SE
Second Order
5
44
131
173
5
5
5
2
5.4 0.93
1.8 0.97
19.4 7.53
68.5 7.50
No.
Site Segments
No. Sampled Mean
SE
Ephemeral
112
First Order
112
165
2
5
Second Order
~~21 5
21.0
45.0
30.6
16.0
6.11
25.00
9.08
2.74
65
-------
Table 36. Number of individuals and species of herpetofaunal groups captured in stream
surveys in second order fragmented forest streams (n=4 streams, 17 35-m stream segments
sampled), ephemeral intact forest streams (n=1 stream, 3 35-m stream segments sampled), first
order intact forest streams (n=2, 7 35-m stream segments sampled), and second order intact
forest treatments (n=1, 5 35-m stream segments sampled) on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, May-October, 2001.
Treatment
Species
Salamanders
Cumberland Plateau Salamander
Eastern Red-backed Salamander
Seal Salamander
Northern Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus spp. (Seal or N. Dusky)
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Long-tailed Salamander
Northern Spring Salamander
Red-Spotted Newt
Northern Red Salamander
Unidentified Salamander
Total
Toads and Frogs
Eastern American Toad
American Bullfrog
Northern Green Frog
Pickerel Frog
Rana spp.
Unidentified Frog
Total
Snakes
Northern Ring-necked Snake
Common Watersnake
Total
Grand Total
Fragmented
Forest
Second
Order
15
118
15
72
2
2
8
1
37
270
1
1
5
3
3
3
16
1
2
3
289
Intact Forest
Ephemeral
1
8
34
8
8
1
1
2
63
0
0
63
First
Order
58
113
25
18
3
5
21
243
1
1
0
244
Second
Order
16
36
5
10
13
80
1
1
2
0
82
66
-------
UPDATE to the Wood et al. 2001 TERRESTRIAL
STUDIES REPORT
18 February 2002
Introduction
The following document summarizes data collected in 2001 and additional analyses of the data
collected in 1999-2000 that were not included in the original report. Note that additional
analyses for the raptor data are not included here because a master's thesis (Balcerzak 2001)
has already been submitted with these data. The sections included in this update are as
follows:
A. Species-Specific Logistic Regression Models
Regression models were developed for grassland and edge species as requested in the review of
the original report. Reclaimed mines are providing habitat for these species, although we do not
know if populations are breeding successfully. Regression models for grassland species
generally indicate that dense vegetation is not suitable habitat, therefore, reclaimed grasslands
will not remain suitable for these species without active management. Models were developed
for additional interior-edge and forest-interior species. For all analyses, we used stepwise logistic
regression.
B. Grasshopper Sparrow Habitat and Nesting Success
Additional data collected in 2001 confirm that reclaimed grassland habitats provide suitable
breeding habitat for Grasshopper Sparrows as long as vegetation does not become too dense.
C. Small Mammal Sherman Trapping Data
Additional analyses of the 1999 and 2000 small mammal data suggest higher productivity for
Peromyscus species within the reclaimed grassland habitats. Abundance was negatively related
to bareground.
D. Small Mammal Data from Herp Arrays
Additional species were captured in pitfall traps associated with arrays (particularly shrews)
resulting in greater species richness within the reclaimed habitats. For woodland jumping mice
and short-tailed shrews, abundance was greater in fragmented forests, similar to findings from
the Sherman trap data.
E. Herpetofaunal Surveys
The two years of data had trends similar to those reported in the original report for the 1 -year data
set. Overall species richness and abundance based on the array data for 2000 and 2001 did not
differ among treatments. Although salamander abundance did not differ statistically among the
treatments, it was generally higher within the 2 forested treatments.
F. Appendix A-1. Changes to the Wood et al. 2001 MTMVF terrestrial report
Logistic regression models were updated and none of the species tested showed negative
relationships with distance to edges. In logistic regression analyses, we used stepwise selection
rather than the forward selection used in the original report. See methods of section A in this
report for a description of why we switched analyses to stepwise selection.
-------
A. Species-Specific Logistic Regression Models
In the final report we included species-specific logistic regression models for several forest-
interior species listed as species of concern by Partners in Flight (PIF). Here we provide habitat
models for 32 additional species: 6 grassland, 13 edge species, and 13 forest species.
In response to review comments from the W. Va. Coal Association, we are adding more
information on grassland and early successional species that were detected on MTMVF mines.
Many of these species are declining in all or part of their breeding range (Sauer et al. 2001), and
MTMVF mines may provide habitat for these species in a region that is dominated by mature
forest habitat. Generally, the breeding range for grassland and early successional species is
extensive throughout the United States. Historically, little of the breeding range for grassland
species occurred in West Virginia; consequently, these species generally were uncommon. We
present findings on 6 grassland species: Dickcissel, Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern
Meadowlark, Red-winged Blackbird, Horned Lark, and Willow Flycatcher, and 13 edge species:
White-eyed Vireo, Yellow-breasted Chat, Prairie Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, Common
Yellowthroat, Yellow Warbler, Indigo Bunting, Northern Cardinal, American Goldfinch, Song
Sparrow, Chipping Sparrow, Field Sparrow, and Eastern Towhee.
Of the grassland species, the Dickcissel was found to be declining significantly range-wide from
1966-2000 by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), but the species was not detected on any routes
in West Virginia (Sauer et al. 2001). All of the other species, except the Wllow Flycatcher, were
found to be declining in West Virginia and range-wide. Willow Flycatcher populations appear to
be stable both in West Virginia and range-wide. Of the edge species, the BBS found the Prairie
Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Indigo Bunting, American Goldfinch, and Eastern Towhee to be
declining significantly in West Virginia and range-wide. White-eyed Vireo, Yellow Warbler, Blue-
winged Warbler, and Northern Cardinal populations appear to be stable both in West Virginia
and range-wide. The Yellow-breasted Chat and Chipping Sparrow appear to be declining in
West Virginia, whereas populations are stable range-wide (Sauer et al. 2001). The Song
Sparrow is declining range-wide, but populations appear stable in West Virginia.
Additional models for 13 forest species also are included in this report. Of the 13 species
analyzed, 8 are interior-edge species and 5 are forest-interior species. The interior-edge
species analyzed were: American Redstart, Carolina Chickadee, Northern Parula, Carolina
Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Red-bellied Woodpecker, and White-breasted
Nuthatch. The forest-interior species were: Black-throated Green Warbler, Ovenbird, Pileated
Woodpecker, Yellow-throated Warbler, and Summer Tanager. Of these species, 6 are
considered "residents" (i.e. they do not migrate for the winter): Carolina Chickadee, Carolina
Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse,
and White-breasted Nuthatch.
Methods
We modeled habitat preferences of these additional species using stepwise logistic regression
(Stokes et al. 1995). We chose to use stepwise logistic regression over forward logistic
regression for two reasons. First, forward selection is a simplified version of stepwise
regression; it does not test whether a variable once entered into the model should be dropped
as other variables are added (Neter et al. 1996). Thus, the final model in forward regression
may include variables that would have been dropped as new ones were added in stepwise
regression. We found with our data that forward regression typically chose more variables for
-------
inclusion in the model than stepwise regression. Because stepwise both adds and deletes
variables as it proceeds, we believe it produces the "best" regression model. Second, stepwise
regression is the most widely used procedure (Neter et al. 1996) and is typically the method
used by other ornithologists and wildlife biologists. The significance level for entry and staying
in the model was P=0.10. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to determine
the validity of the models. Models that failed the goodness-of-fit test (P<0.10) were considered
invalid (Stokes et al. 1995).
For grassland and edge species, analyses included only points in the grassland and shrub/pole
treatments. We developed models for species detected at >10% of these sampling points. Both
treatments were included in the development of the models because some grassland birds were
detected in shrub/pole habitat and some edge birds were detected in grassland habitat. Habitat
variables included in models for grassland species were: aspect code, slope, distance to minor
edge, distance to habitat edge, height of grass/forbs, litter depth, Robel pole index, elevation,
density of trees >0-2.5 cm, >2.5-8 cm, and >8-23 cm, and all ground cover variables. These
variables also were used in models for edge species, along with density of trees >23-38 cm,
and density of snags. Density of larger trees were excluded from models because no trees >38
cm were found in these habitats, and no snags were found in the grassland habitat.
For the 13 additional forest species (interior-edge and forest-interior species), we used the
same methods and variables as we used for the species in the final report and as described
above for the grassland and edge species.
Results and Discussion
Grassland Species and Edge Species
Grassland Species
Dickcissel
We found Dickcissel presence to be positively correlated to distance from habitat edge, Robel
pole index, and bareground/rock cover (Table 1). This indicates that Dickcissels prefer areas
far from edge, that have a high biomass of green vegetation, with some areas of bareground.
Zimmerman (1971) determined that Dickcissels prefer old fields over prairies for nesting,
presumably because of the taller vegetation, greater forb cover, and higher amounts of
vegetation in old fields. We found similar results, because Dickcissels were related positively to
Robel pole index, which is an indicator of biomass. As stated in the Final Report, Dickcissels
may be expanding their range eastward and MTMVF mines may provide habitat for them.
However, it is unknown if these birds are breeding on MTMVF mines.
Grasshopper Sparrow
Grasshopper Sparrow presence was negatively correlated to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table
1). This species prefers moderately open grassland and generally avoids areas with extensive
shrub cover (Vickery 1996). They also appear to prefer areas with sparse vegetation and
greater bareground cover (Vickery 1996). This was the most common species we encountered
on the grassland treatment, occurring at 99% of point counts. Further information on
Grasshopper Sparrow populations is reported elsewhere in this report.
Eastern Meadowlark
Presence of this species was negatively correlated to both density of trees >2.5-8 cm and shrub
cover (Table 2). This species uses a variety of grassland situations, including pastures,
-------
savannas, hay fields, roadsides, airports, and golf courses (Lanyon 1995). It appears to prefer
areas with high grass and litter cover (Wiens and Rotenberry 1981). Our results indicate that
the species prefers grassland areas that are more open with few trees or shrubs present.
MTMVF mines provide habitat for this species for several years after reclamation, but as
succession proceeds on the mines these areas will become unfavorable for them.
Red-winged Blackbird
Red-winged Blackbird occurrence was negatively correlated to shrub cover on our study areas
(Table 2). Red-winged Blackbirds are found in a variety of habitats, such as field edges,
marshes, roadsides, old fields, ditches, and pastures (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We
commonly observed Red-winged Blackbirds in grasslands near created wetlands, stands of
cattail (Typha spp.), and valleyfills on the mines. MTMVF mines appear to provide a
considerable amount of habitat for this species, especially along the periphery of created
wetlands.
Horned Lark
No habitat variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression to predict the presence of
Horned Larks (Table 3). Horned Larks prefer open, barren areas with few trees and a minimum
of vegetation (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We observed them most frequently in and along
the roads on the mines. All detections of this species were at the Hobet and Daltex mines.
Although presence was not related to any habitat variables, the species generally was present
in areas with low tree densities (Table 3). Because Horned Larks prefer barren areas with little
vegetation, MTMVF mines likely provide significant habitat for them during a short time span
after reclamation, before grasses and forbs begin to develop a dense ground cover. After
ground cover is established, Horned Larks will likely continue to use roads and barren areas on
the mines.
Wllow Flycatcher
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the occurrence of
Wllow Flycatchers (Table 3). All of our detections of Willow Flycatchers were at the Hobet mine
in blocks of autumn olive. Because none of our point counts were placed in blocks of autumn
olive, we may not have been able to accurately determine the habitat factors important for
predicting Wllow Flycatcher presence. The edges of some autumn olive blocks were sampled
during vegetation surveys, but entire blocks were never completely within a 50-m radius of the
point count center. DeGraaf and Rappole (1995) report that the species occurs in a variety of
habitats, including brushy fields, willow thickets, streamsides, shelterbelts, and woodland edges.
However, they appear to prefer thickets or groves surrounded by grasslands, which is what we
observed on the MTMVF sites. Based on our observations, it appears MTMVF mining will only
provide habitat for this species if areas are planted with high densities of autumn olive.
However, autumn olive is not a native plant and can become invasive and a nuisance; it is no
longer recommended for planting in several counties.
Edge Species
White-eyed Vireo
We found the White-eyed Vireo to be positively related to density of trees >0-2.5 cm (Table 4),
which is an expected result since this species prefers areas with low shrubby vegetation or
brushy woodlands (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) also found this species to be
more abundant in areas with high shrub/sapling/pole density.
-------
Yellow-breasted Chat
This species was found to be negatively associated to distance to habitat edge, and positively
related to density of trees >0-2.5 cm and forb cover (Table 4). However, the logistic regression
model failed the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Chats prefer dense, shrubby areas
with few tall trees (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) found the species occurred
more frequently in areas with a high density of stems >0-7.6 cm, which confirms our results.
Prairie Warbler
Presence of Prairie Warblers was negatively related to slope and distance from habitat edge,
and positively related to litter depth, density of trees >23-38 cm, and percent green ground
cover (Table 5). This species prefers areas with dense low trees, especially areas with some
conifers (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Denmon 1998). We detected this species mostly in
shrub/pole habitat, but it also was observed at grassland points where there were scattered
shrubs and blocks of autumn olive nearby. MTMVF may provide more habitat for this species in
the future if tree species return to areas reclaimed to grasses. However, the bird appears to
prefer areas close to edge, and we often detected it along edges of forests. Thus, large, open
expanses of grassland as occurs in MTMVF may be detrimental to the species.
Blue-winged Warbler
Blue-winged Warbler presence was positively associated with the density of trees >2.5-8 cm
dbh (Table 5). Denmon (1998) observed this species more frequently in areas with a high
density of trees from >0-7.6 cm and a low density of trees from 7.6-15 cm dbh. Thus, it appears
from these results that Blue-winged Warblers are more likely to occur in areas where tree
diameter growth has not yet reached 8 cm.
Common Yellowthroat
We found Common Yellowthroats to be positively related to density of trees >0- 2.5 cm and
negatively related to density of trees >23-38 cm (Table 6). This species prefers areas with a
mixture of small trees, and dense, herbaceous vegetation, typically in damp or wet situations
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995, Denmon 1998), and our results confirm this prediction. We
commonly found them in shrubby areas around ponds on MTMVF mines (primarily Cannelton),
along forest/mine edges, and in blocks of autumn olive.
Yellow Warbler
This species was detected more frequently at lower elevations and was positively related to litter
cover (Table 6). It is a common and widespread species that prefers moist habitats
(streamsides, bogs, swamps) with dense understories, typically of willow (Sa//x spp.) and alder
(Alnus spp.) (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Denmon (1998) found a higher abundance of Yellow
Warblers in grass/shrub-dominated habitat than in wooded, shrub-dominated, or thicket/shrub
early successional habitats in West Virginia. Surprisingly, we did not detect this species on the
Cannelton mine. It was observed most frequently at the Hobet mine in blocks of autumn olive,
and it was detected in small wooded thickets at the Daltex mine. The Cannelton mine was at
higher elevations than the other 2 mines, and this likely influenced the result showing this
species to be negatively associated with elevation.
Indigo Bunting
This species was widely distributed, being observed at 86% of grassland and shrub/pole points
combined, and at 94% of shrub/pole points alone. Stepwise logistic regression identified two
variables, density of trees >2.5-8 cm and bareground/rock cover, as predictors of Indigo Bunting
presence. They were positively correlated to tree density and negatively correlated to
bareground/rock cover (Table 7). Indigo Buntings are found in a variety of edge situations:
-------
along roadsides, in brushy old fields, old burns, wooded clearings, and brushy ravines (DeGraaf
and Rappole 1995). They typically build their nests in a shrub or small tree.
Northern Cardinal
The Northern Cardinal was positively associated with the density of trees >2.5-8 cm (Table 7).
Similar results were found by Denmon (1998), who found Northern Cardinals more frequently in
areas with high shrub/sapling/pole density. She also found them in higher abundances in
thickets with dense shrubs and small trees than in grass/shrub, shrub, or wooded early
successional habitats. These results indicate that Northern Cardinals prefer advanced
successional stages when young trees begin to dominate, but before the trees become too big
and shade out lower-growing vegetation.
American Goldfinch
No variables were chosen by stepwise logistic regression for predicting presence of the
American Goldfinch (Table 8). The only variable found by Denmon (1998) to be related to
American Goldfinch presence was density of trees >15.c cm, which was negatively related.
Goldfinches typically use a variety of edge situations, including old fields and roadsides
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995).
Song Sparrow
This species was positively related to distance from habitat edge (Table 8). Of the points where
this species was detected, 75% were at the Hobet and Daltex mines in grassland habitat, with a
few low scattered trees and shrubs used for perching. Conversely, at the Cannelton mine, this
species was only detected in shrub/pole habitat. Denmon (1998) only found herbaceous plant
height to be positively related to Song Sparrow presence.
Chipping Sparrow
Chipping Sparrows were positively related to the density of trees >8-23 cm (Table 9), but the
model failed the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and may not be valid.
This species prefers open, wooded areas, forest edges, and clearings (DeGraaf and Rappole
1995), and our results confirm that they prefer areas with some large trees present.
Field Sparrow
This species was positively associated with density of trees >2.5-8 cm and negatively
associated with bareground/rock (Table 9). Approximately 42% of the detections for this
species were in grassland habitat, and the other 57% in shrub/pole habitat. This species uses
small trees for song perches and will nest in them after leaf-out (Best 1978). They typically nest
in grasses and forbs earlier in the season (Best 1978), which may be one reason they prefer
areas with less bareground/rock. Denmon (1998) found them in higher abundances in
grass/shrub, and shrub-dominated habitat than in thickets and wooded areas.
Eastern Towhee
Eastern Towhees were positively correlated to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table 10). Our results
agree with Greenlaw (1996) who reported that this species occupies areas characterized by
dense shrubs and small trees and appears to favor mid- to late- stages of succession with
greatest densities in thickets and open-canopy woodland situations.
In summary, our results indicate that MTMVF mines are providing habitat for grassland and
early successional songbird species in West Virginia in a region historically dominated by
mature forest habitats. Many of these species would be rare or absent from this region if
MTMVF mines were not present (see final report). However, it is not known if these populations
-------
are breeding successfully on MTMVF mines. If reproductive success is low, then these mines
could be acting as habitat sinks for these species.
Interior-edge and Forest-interior Species
Interior-edge species
American Redstart
Presence of this species was positively related to aspect code and negatively related to density
of trees >2.5- 8 cm (Table 11). This is an adaptable species that breeds in a variety of forested
situations including coniferous-deciduous woods, regenerating hardwoods, aspen groves, and
shrubbery around farms and streams (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). It is unlikely the MTMVF
will have much affect on this species given the wide variety of habitats in which it will nest
Carolina Chickadee
Carolina Chickadee presence was positively related to trees >8-23 cm (Table 11). It is found in
a variety of habitats, including deciduous woods, thickets, and suburban parks (Ehrlich et al.
1988). It is often seen near edges, and MTMVF mining could increase habitat for this species
by increasing edge habitats.
Northern Parula
Northern Parula occurrence was positively associated with water cover and canopy cover >3-6
m and negatively associated with canopy cover >6-12 m (Table 12). This species is often
associated with bottomlands, so it is not surprising that we found it to be related to water cover
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). We commonly found this species near drainages in forested
fragments and intact forest, and it does not appear to avoid edges.
Carolina Wren
Presence of this species was negatively related to aspect code and to density of trees 2.5 -8
cm (Table 12). This species is found in a variety of wooded situations, including brushy
bottomlands, open deciduous woods, and parks (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Downy Woodpecker
The occurrence of Downy Woodpeckers was positively associated to aspect code (Table 13).
This bird is often found near edges and inhabits deciduous and mixed-deciduous stands,
riparian stands, and parks (Ehrlich et al. 1988). MTMVF mining could potentially increase
habitat for this species by increasing edge habitats, but the reduction in forest cover by MTMVF
mining could also have a negative impact on the species.
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse occurrence was positively associated with green ground cover (Table 13). Like
the Carolina Chickadee and Downy Woodpecker, this species inhabits a variety of wooded
situations, often being seen in parks, open deciduous woods, and edges (Ehrlich et al. 1995).
Red-bellied Woodpecker
The presence of this species was negatively associated to canopy cover >24m.
(Table 14). Red-bellied Woodpeckers primarily inhabit deciduous woods, but are also found on
edges, in parks, and suburban situations (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Impacts of MTMVF mining on
this species would likely be minimal because of its generalist nature.
-------
White-breasted Nuthatch
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the presence of this
species (Table 14). Although this species is often found on edges and in suburban and park
situations, it appears to prefer forests with large, old, decaying snags (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
MTMVF mining could increase edge habitat for this species, but ultimately it could have
negative effects on the species if large, dead snags are not present.
Forest-interior species
Ovenbird
Ovenbird presence was positively associated with bareground/rock cover and negatively
associated with canopy cover from >3-6 m. (Table 15). This species prefers extensive, open,
mature forests without thickets and tangles, with "an abundance of fallen leaves, logs and rocks"
(DeGraaf and Rappole 1995), and our results agree with this assessment. This species was
found to be less abundant in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining, and could be detrimentally
impacted if MTMVF mining continues.
Black-throated Green Warbler
The Black-throated Green Warbler was negatively related to density of trees >8-23 cm (Table
15). DeGraaf and Rappole (1995) state that this species inhabits "large stands of mature open
mixed woodlands (especially northern hardwood-hemlock stands)." Our observations agree
with this assessment. We most frequently encountered Black-throated Green Warblers in
stands of hardwoods intermixed with eastern hemlock, along streams in mature woods.
Pileated Woodpecker
The presence of the Pileated Woodpecker was negatively associated to canopy cover >24 m
(Table 16). This large woodpecker prefers deciduous woods with large trees, but it also is found
on edges and in parks and suburban situations (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Yellow-throated Warbler
Presence of this species was negatively associated with aspect code, indicating a preference
for drier slopes and ridges, and negatively associated with canopy cover from >12- 18m (Table
16.) This species is often found along streams and rivers, typically in large, tall trees of
bottomland hardwood forests, however, it also is often found in stands of pine, oaks, or mixed
forests (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Most of our detections of this species were on ridge tops
dominated by oak species.
Summer Tanager
No variables were selected by stepwise logistic regression for predicting the occurrence of
Summer Tanagers (Table 17). This species is typically found in dry, open woodlands of oak,
pine, and hickory in the southeast, but may also be found in bottomlands in the north (DeGraaf
and Rappole 1995).
In summary, for most interior-edge species, MTMVF mining may have mixed impacts on their
populations. MTMVF mining would create more edge for these species, but it would also
decrease the amount of mature forest, which these species also require. The least-impacted
species would likely be resident species such as the woodpeckers, chickadees, and titmice that
use a variety of habitats. Forest-interior species would most likely be negatively impacted if the
amount of forest cover continues to be reduced without any subsequent reforestation.
-------
B. Grasshopper Sparrow Habitat and Nesting Success
Songbird species that require grassland and other early successional habitats were observed
and documented on reclaimed MTRVF mines, some at relatively high densities Wood et al.
(2001). Grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), in particular, were very abundant
and were successfully breeding on the sites. However, nesting success data from 1999-2000
was limited and we felt that no conclusions could be drawn from the data. The objectives of this
study are to continue examining habitat and nesting requirements and nesting success of
Grasshopper Sparrow populations colonizing reclaimed MTRVF mine sites in southern West
Virginia.
Methods
Study areas are the same three MTRVF mine sites in southwestern West Virginia that were
investigated by Wood et al. (2001). The Hobet 21 mine is located in the Mud River watershed in
Boone County, the Daltex mine is located in the Spruce Fork watershed in Logan County, and
the Cannelton mine is located on the border of Kanawha and Fayette counties in the
Twentymile Creek watershed. Two 40 ha sample plots were established on each mine
complex, (Hobet Adkins (HA1), Hobet Sugar Tree (HN2), Daltex Rock house (DR1), Daltex
Spruce Fork (DN2), Cannelton Lynch Fork (CL1), and Cannelton (CV2)) for a total of six search
areas. Additional nest plots were established for nests found on mine complexes but not within
sample plots, (Daltex off plot (DO1) and Hobet off plot (HO1)).
Adult male and female Grasshopper Sparrows were captured on each study site with mist nets
and conspecific song playback from April 2001 to July 2001. All captured individuals were
banded with Fish and Wildlife Service bands. Basic physical information (sex, weight, wing cord
measurements, and overall condition) was recorded, and then each individual was marked with
a unique combination of two colored plastic bands for future identification. Juveniles were
similarly processed and marked with a single colored band prior to fledging from the nest.
Nest searching and habitat sampling methodologies are similar to those previously presented in
Wood et al. (2001). Briefly, nest searching was conducted on two 40-ha nest search plots in
reclaimed grassland areas of Hobet 21 (HA1 & HN2), Daltex (DR1 & DN2), and Cannelton (CL1
& CV2) mine sites for a total of six search areas. Eight fixed vegetation-sampling sub-plots
were systematically selected and surveyed on each search plot (N=48) to examine differential
nest site selection preferences in this species.
To obtain a good estimate of species-specific nest survival, a minimum of 20 nests must be
monitored (Martin et al. 1997). Therefore, I set a target of 25-30 nests for Grasshopper
Sparrows nesting in the grassland habitat of the study sites. Field personnel trained in proper
searching and monitoring techniques (Martin and Geupel 1993) searched each nesting area
every 3-4 days. Nest searching began one-half hour after sunrise and concluded 8-10 hr later
(approximately 0600-1600 EST). Nest searching methods followed national BBIRD (Breeding
Biology Research and Monitoring Database) protocols (Martin et al. 1997). To control for
search effort, nests were located by systematically searching study plots.
All Grasshopper Sparrow nests found were monitored every 3-4 days (Martin et al. 1997) to
confirm activity. Because Grasshopper Sparrow nests are typically well concealed within
vegetation, they were marked for relocation using a staked flag placed at a minimum distance of
15m from the nest. Care was taken when monitoring the nest to avoid disturbing the female.
-------
When possible, nest searchers observed the nest from a distance of no less than 15 m for up to
30 min to confirm that it was still active. Each nest was approached and visually checked for
contents a maximum of four times: once when it is initially found, once to confirm clutch size,
once to confirm brood size, and once to confirm fledging success or failure. Nests were not
approached when avian predators (e.g., American Crows and/or Blue Jays) were observed
nearby because these birds are known to follow humans to nests (Martin et al. 1997).
Observers also continued to walk in a straight line after visually observing nest contents to avoid
leaving a dead-end scent trail directly to the nest that might be followed by mammalian
predators (Martin et al. 1997). The vegetation concealing the nest was moved to the side using
a wooden stick to avoid putting human scent on the nest if the vegetation blocks the observer's
view of the contents.
A nest was considered successful if it fledged at least one young. Fledging success was
confirmed by searching the area around the nest for fledglings or for parent-fledgling
interactions. However, if no fledglings were observed, the nest was considered to have fledged
young if the median date between the last active nest check and the final nest check when the
nest was empty and was within two days of the predicted fledging date (Martin et al. 1997).
Nest survival was calculated using the Mayfield method (Mayfield 1961, Mayfield 1975). Daily
nest survival estimates were calculated for the incubation and brooding periods separately
because there might be differential nest survival between these two periods. The overall daily
survival rate was calculated as the product of incubation and brood daily survival. Survival
during the egg-laying stage will not be included in the calculation of overall nest survival
because few nests were located during this stage of the nesting cycle.
After each nest fledged or failed, vegetation within an 11.3 m radius circle surrounding the nest
was sampled to determine habitat characteristics important to nest survival. We measured
vegetation for each nest monitored using methods modified from James and Shugart (1970)
and the Breeding Bird Research Database program (BBIRD; Martin et al. 1997). These
included estimates of percent ground cover in nine cover types (grass/sedge, shrub/seedling,
fern, moss, bare ground, forb/herbaceous, woody debris, litter, and water). Percent ground
cover was estimated using an ocular sighting tube (James and Shugart 1970). The sight-tube
was a 5.0-cm pvc pipe with cross-hairs at one end. Five sight-tube readings were taken on
each subplot every 2.26 m along four, 11.3-m transects that intersected at the center of the
subplot. The percentage of each cover type present in the sight-tube was estimated and
recorded. Grass height and organic litter layer depth were measured at 13 locations along the 4
transects: at the center and at distances of 1 m, 3 m, and 5 m along each transect. A Robel
pole (Robel et al. 1970) was used to calculate an index of vegetative cover and an index of
biomass (Kirsch et al. 1978). Additional nest measurements including percent slope, slope
orientation, nest height (cm), width and depth of nest rim and cup (cm), nest substrate height
(vegetative and reproductive), and distance to foliage edge were surveyed to examine
differences among individual nests. Habitat and nest variables were tested for differences
among nests and habitat plots using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (a=0.05) (Zar
1999).
Results and Discussion
A total of 202 Grasshopper Sparrows were captured, banded, and processed on the MTRVF
study sites during the 2001 breeding season. Mist netting effort resulted in an overall capture
rate of 0.25 captures per net hour with 193 captures in 785.63 hours (Table 18). Juveniles that
were banded in and around nests (N=9) were not included in the mist net capture effort
calculations. An additional 45 non-target individuals were captured on the study plots with the
10
-------
most common species including Eastern Meadowlark, Field Sparrow, Indigo Bunting, and
Savannah Sparrow.
Systematic searches of study plots produced 37 active Grasshopper Sparrow nests on the three
mines surveyed. Overall nest search effort was one nest per 10.06 hours of effort for all sites
combined (Table 19). Nests found opportunistically off of the study plots (N=4) are not included
in search effort calculations because they were not located by systematically searching study
areas. Mean clutch size (Table 19) for the surveyed nests was 3.73 ±0.16 and is similar to
those reported in the literature (Wray et al. 1982, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Grasshopper sparrow
nest survival for 2001 breeding season (30%) is comparable to survival rates previously
reported on these study sites (36.4%) (Wood et al. 2001). Nest survival for this species
reported from other areas has ranged from 7-41% as summarized in Wood et al. (2001).
Comparisons of habitat variables surrounding successful (n=17) and unsuccessful (n=20) nests
(Table 20) indicate no significant differences among slope, aspect, distances to nearest minor
edge, ground cover variables, grass height, and litter depth. Significant differences were
detected in the Robel pole index at the nest (F=6.56, P=0.01) and at 1 meter from the nest
(F=6.68 P=0.01). These analyses suggest that less dense vegetation near the nest may be an
important factor in nest success.
Comparisons of habitat variables measured at nests (N=37) and at the fixed habitat plots
(N=48) suggest differences in several of the ground cover estimates (Table 21). Percent green
(F=574.53, P<0.0001) and percent grass (F=26.25, P=<0.0001) estimates were significantly
lower at the nest plots while percent bare ground (F=24.73, P<0.0001), percent litter (F=7.65,
P=0.01) and percent moss (F=3.05, P<0.0001) was significantly higher at nest plots. These
findings support previous studies that suggest Grasshopper Sparrows require a high degree of
bare ground associated with nesting sites for foraging (Whitmore 1979, Wray et al. 1982).
Significant differences were also detected in the Robel pole index for all comparisons (all
<0.0001), with nests placed where vegetation density was greater than generally available on
the plot. No differences were detected in grass height comparisons except at the five-meter
distance from sample plot centers (F=7.78, P=0.0056). Litter depth differed significantly
between the fixed habitat plots and nest plots at all measured distances.
In summary, data suggest that the large reclaimed grassland habitats available on the
mountaintop removal/valley fill mine complexes surveyed in this study are sufficient to support
breeding populations of Grasshopper Sparrows with nest success rates similar to populations
found in other grassland habitats. Important nesting habitat characteristics included patches of
dense grassland vegetation interspersed with patches of bare ground. These habitat conditions
support high densities of breeding Grasshopper Sparrows, even on newly reclaimed sites. As
ground cover develops, however, sites will become unsuitable for Grasshopper Sparrows
unless habitats are managed to maintain the required conditions.
C. Small Mammal Sherman Trapping Data
Additional analyses were completed on small mammal data collected through Sherman trapping
to assess differences in habitat quality among treatments, as abundance alone is not
necessarily a reliable indicator of habitat quality for a given species. Some studies have
suggested that reclaimed lands may act as a population sink for Peromyscus and that adjacent
unmined lands may provide superior breeding and foraging habitat (DeCapita and Bookout
1975). As a measure of habitat quality, we compared the proportion of adult Peromyscus spp.
11
-------
individuals that were in breeding condition among treatments (within a year) and between years
(within a treatment) (Table 22), where mice weighing 16 g or more were considered adults
(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). In 1999, a significantly greater proportion of males and females
were in reproductive condition in the grasslands than in either of the forest treatments. In 2000,
only females had significant differences among the 4 treatments sampled; a lower percentage of
individuals were in reproductive condition in the intact forest than in the other 3 treatments.
These results generally followed the abundance trends, suggesting that reclaimed areas were
not acting as population sinks on our study sites, but were actually more productive breeding
sites than adjacent forests. Reclaimed areas appear to be better breeding habitat for
Peromyscus probably due to their greater biomass of grasses, forbs, and invertebrates.
Reproductive condition differed between the 2 years of the study in the two forest treatments,
but not in the grasslands. A higher proportion of both males and females in fragmented forest
were in reproductive condition in 2000 than in 1999. In the intact forest, differences between the
years were found in males but not in females. In all cases of between year differences, the
proportion of reproductive individuals was greater in 2000 than in 1999, suggesting that the
1999 summer drought may have reduced the reproductive rates of Peromyscus, or that the
moist and mild summer weather in 2000 may have improved conditions for breeding. These
differences may have been a function of the greater plant biomass in 2000 than 1999.
Peromyscus spp. abundance was compared among treatments by age and sex groups (adult
male, adult female, juvenile male, and juvenile female). In 1999, adult males were more
abundant in grassland than in fragmented or intact forest and adult females were more
abundant in grasslands than in intact forest (Table 23). In 2000, for adult males, adult females,
and juvenile females, the grassland and shrub/pole treatments were similar, but had significantly
greater abundances than fragmented forest and intact forest, which were also similar to each
other. These differences, which followed overall Peromyscus abundance trends, suggested that
early-successional areas (i.e. grassland and shrub/pole treatment) provided habitat that was
superior to the forested areas. We also compared juvenile abundance, as it is an indicator of
reproductive success of adults in a treatment. We found no differences among treatments in
1999, but in 2000, differences were found among treatments for both males and females.
Juvenile males were more abundant in grasslands than in either forest treatment and greater in
shrub/pole than in the fragmented forest treatment. Juvenile females were greater in the
grassland and shrub/pole treatments than in the 2 forested treatments. As with adults, results
generally followed overall Peromyscus abundance trends.
Habitat and environmental variables were used in regression analyses to identify factors that
were predictive of small mammal richness and abundance. The grassland treatment was
analyzed separately from the other three treatments in the regression procedures because it
had several habitat variables not recorded in the other treatments due to considerably different
vegetation structure. Stepwise multiple linear regression was used for Peromyscus spp.
abundance, total small mammal abundance, and species richness, while logistic regression was
performed on presence/absence data of less commonly captured species (house mice in
grasslands and short-tailed shrews, woodland jumping mice, and eastern chipmunks in the
other three treatments). In both types of regression, an entry level of 0.30 and a stay level of
0.10 was used. Environmental variables incorporated into the regression models included
precipitation (cm) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service,
Charleston, W. Va.) averaged over the 3-night trapping session, low temperature (°C)
(NOAA/NWS, Charleston, W. Va.), moon phase expressed as a percentage of moon's surface
illuminated (Astronomical Applications Department, US Naval Observatory), and an index of
nighttime ambient light. The ambient light index was calculated as a product of the percentage
of the moon's surface illuminated and cloud cover (NOAA/NWS, Charleston, W. Va.) on a scale
12
-------
of 1 (clear skies) to 0.1 (overcast). Habitat variables included those described in the original
project report (Wood et al. 2001).
In multiple linear regression analysis for shrub/pole, fragmented forest and intact forest
treatments, daily low temperature and precipitation were negatively related to species richness,
and the percentage of bareground was positively related (Table 24). Relationships were weak
as no single variable contributed a partial R2 of more than 0.10. Several variables were
significant predictors of total small mammal abundance. Of these, canopy cover from 0.5-3m
was negatively related and contributed the most to the model (partial R2 of 0.21). Canopy cover
from 0.5-3m also was the most important predictor of Peromyscus spp. abundance, with a
partial R2 of 0.31. Generally, Peromyscus spp. had greater abundance at sites with less low
canopy cover, lower canopy height, more bare ground, and when precipitation during the
trapping period was not heavy.
Average grass height was the only variable related to richness in grasslands, based on multiple
linear regression analysis; it was a positive relationship with a partial R2 of 0.24 (Table 25).
Areas with taller grass may have held more species because they provided better cover and
more forage for small mammals. Three variables were positively related to total abundance, with
the amount of green groundcover being the strongest (partial R2=0.37). Precipitation was a
positive predictor and the percentage of bareground was a negative predictor, though both
relationships were weak. For Peromyscus spp. abundance, bareground had a strong negative
relationship, with a partial R2 of 0.45. It is likely that Peromyscus spp. avoid areas of bareground
to avoid exposure to predators. In addition, precipitation and the number of shrub stems were
weak positive predictors of Peromyscus spp. presence.
Presence of short-tailed shrews in shrub/pole, forest fragment, and intact forest treatments, was
positively related to the percentage of bare ground in the logistic regression model (Table 26).
This was contrary to expectations as shrews generally seek cover (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). Moon illumination had a negative relationship with the presence of woodland jumping
mice, while water as a groundcover and canopy cover from 0.5-3m had a positive relationship.
Many small mammals species are less active when the moon is bright, presumably to avoid
predation (Kaufman and Kaufman 1982). For chipmunk presence, 4 variables contributed
significantly to the regression model. Water as a groundcover had a negative relationship, and
bareground, canopy cover above 12m, and stem density of trees from 8-38 cm DBH had
positive relationships with abundance. The preference for larger, taller trees may be due to their
reliance on mast as a food source. In the grassland treatment, average grass height was the
only significant variable; it was a positive predictor for the presence of house mice.
D. Small Mammal Data from Herp Arrays
Small mammals were trapped in pitfall and funnel traps associated with drift-fence arrays
targeting herpetofauna. Estimates of species richness and abundance of 9 species were
calculated based on 13 trapping sessions conducted between March 2000 -October 2001.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences among treatments. The model
included treatment and trapping session as the main factors and a treatment by session
interaction term. If the ANOVA found that means were different, a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test
was used to compare means among treatments.
13
-------
Species richness of small mammals was significantly lower in the intact forest treatment than in
the other 3 treatments (Table 27). Richness estimates were different from those of Sherman
trapping which found that richness did not differ among treatments in either 1999 or 2000 and
were generally much lower than array estimates. The difference between the 2 estimates is
most likely due to the fact that Sherman trapping is not effective at capturing Sorex spp.
because shrews generally are not heavy enough to spring Sherman traps and, as insectivores,
they are less likely to be attracted to the peanut butter and oat bait. For this reason, the
estimates of richness from the drift-fence arrays are likely to be a more accurate reflection of the
species present in each treatment (Kirkland 1994).
Similarly, total abundance of small mammals captured in herp arrays (Table 27) was
significantly lower in the intact forest treatment than in the other 3 treatments. Sherman
trapping data found that the 2 reclaimed treatments were similar in abundance to each other
and greater than the 2 forest treatments, which also were similar to each other. The difference
in total abundance trends between the 2 methods likely was that Peromyscus spp. dominated
Sherman trapping results (87% of captures), driving trends in total abundance. Sherman
trapping is more effective for catching mice than drift fence arrays because Sherman traps are
baited. For this reason, Sherman trapping resulted in many more Peromyscus per 100 trap
nights than drift fence arrays.
The greater richness and abundance in reclaimed areas than in intact forests was similar to the
findings of Kirkland (1977) in a study comparing richness and abundance of small mammals
among different aged clearcuts on the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia. He found
that there was an initial increase in the diversity and abundance of small mammals in response
to clearcutting that persisted until the area succeeded back into forest. He speculated that the
increased herbaceous vegetation layer created by openings improved foraging habitat for small
mammals.
The only significant difference in Peromyscus spp. abundance among treatments was between
grasslands and intact forest, with grasslands having the higher abundance (Table 27). Most
previous studies have also found that Peromyscus spp. benefit from disturbances that create
early-successional habitats such as mining (Verts 1957, Mumford and Bramble 1969, DeCapita
and Bookout 1975, Kirkland 1976, Hansen and Warnock 1978) and forest clearcutting (Kirkland
1977, Buckner and Shure 1985). Sherman trapping results from 2001 were slightly different,
with the 2 reclaimed treatments having higher abundances than the 2 forest treatments. Again
the results differ between the 2 methods because Sherman trapping is more effective at
capturing Peromyscus spp.
Three species of microtine rodents, southern bog lemmings, woodland voles, and meadow
voles, were captured by drift fence arrays (Table 27). Southern bog lemmings were the most
common of these (86 individuals). Their abundance was higher in the two reclaimed treatments
than in the forest treatments, while they were not captured at all in the intact forest. This was
consistent with other accounts of the bog lemming. Kirkland (1977) described capturing bog
lemmings in clearcuts but not in either deciduous or coniferous forests and Connor (1959) found
them to be reliant on sedges and grasses for a food source. Woodland voles (47 individuals)
were less abundant in grasslands than in intact forests. Despite their name, woodland voles
can be found in a variety of habitats, including forests, orchards, and dry fields (Whitaker and
Hamilton 1998). However, in a laboratory study, woodland voles chose sites with cooler, more
organic soils over warmer, rocky soils (Rhodes and Richmond 1985). This may explain their
lower numbers in the grassland treatment, where soils were likely too warm and rocky for them.
Meadow voles, the least frequently captured of the microtines (22 individuals), did not differ in
14
-------
abundance among treatments. This may have been a function of having a small sample size
and the fact that this species is a habitat generalist (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998).
Woodland jumping mice and short-tailed shrews were significantly more abundant in
fragmented forest than in the other 3 treatments (Table 27). We did not find any other research
suggesting that these species prefer fragmented forests to intact forests. For woodland jumping
mice, however, Sherman trapping data concurred with this abundance trend. Woodland
jumping mice are reported to prefer dense understory (Whitaker and Wrigley 1972) and are
often found near forest streams (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Similarly, short-tailed shrews are
known to prefer moist, cool sites (Getz 1961) because they have a high rate of evaporative
water loss through their skin. Fragmented forest transects tended to follow slightly larger
streams than did intact forest transects; consequently presence of water may have been driving
greater abundance of these species (as described in section C above).
Three shrew species of the genus Sorex were captured in all 4 treatments: masked shrews,
smoky shrews, and pygmy shrews (Table 27). Masked shrews, the most common of the 3,
were more abundant in the shrub/pole treatment than in either forest treatment and were more
abundant in the grassland treatment than the intact forest treatment. This species is a habitat
generalist that exists in just about any habitat so long as it is moist (Moore 1949). Smoky shrew
abundance did not differ among treatments. This species typically is found in damp woods
(Caldwell and Bryan 1982) and was not expected to occur in grasslands. The high rainfall
during spring - summer 2000 may have allowed smoky shrews to exist in grasslands that would
otherwise have been too hot and dry. Pygmy shrew abundance was greater in the fragmented
forest than in the shrub/pole treatment. The smallest of the shrews, this species usually is found
in upland woods (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Small sample size (16 individuals) limits
interpretation of trends in abundance for this species.
E. Herpetofaunal Surveys
Drift fence arrays established and sampled in 2000 were sampled again in 2001 using methods
described in Wood et al. (2001). Arrays were opened for approximately eight days each month
from March through October (excluding April). In 2001, an additional intact sampling array was
added near the Daltex mine in Pigeonroost Hollow; it was sampled September and October.
In 2001, we also initiated a pilot project to assess aquatic herpetofaunal diversity and
abundance in intact forest streams not impacted by mining and in fragmented forest streams
located below valley fills.
Methods
Stream Searches - Sampling Techniques
To quantify aquatic and semi-aquatic herpetofaunal diversity and abundance, three fragmented
forest streams and three intact forest streams were sampled once per month in May, June, and
August -October of 2001. In addition, another forest fragment stream was added and sampled
in September and October 2001. Streams were selected based on proximity to the drift fence
arrays. Fragmented forest streams were located below valley fills.
15
-------
A different 35-m segment was sampled in each stream each month. By moving down and
sampling new, adjacent stream segments, the intention was to sample as much of the entire
length of each stream as possible. Searching more than 35 m per visit is not practical, as some
segments require several hours of search time due to their complex substrate. Each segment
sampled was classified by stream order (intermittent, first order, second order, or third order)
and by predominant structures (Table 28). Stream order was determined from topographic
maps using the following definitions from the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group (1998; pages 25-26). "The uppermost channels in a drainage network (i.e., headwater
channels with no upstream tributaries) are designated as first-order streams down to their first
confluence. A second-order stream is formed below the confluence of two first-order channels.
Third-order streams are created when two second-order channels join, and so on." Fragmented
forest streams located below valley fills were assigned the stream order that they would have
had before mining occurred.
Herpetofaunal sampling methods in streams were similar to those of Crump and Scott (1994).
All rocks and coarse woody debris located within the width of the stream were lifted and
checked under for herpetofauna. In addition, all rocks and coarse woody debris found up to 1-m
from the edge of the stream were also sampled. A count was kept of all rocks and coarse
woody debris checked under during the sample (Table 28). Time in person minutes was
recorded, as were species, length of salamanders from snout to anterior portion of vent (cm)
(done by placing salamander in a Ziploc bag); and length (cm), width (cm), and type of substrate
(e.g., rock) under which the animal was found (Table 28). In addition, soil temperature in the
stream (°C) was measured using a REOTEMP Heavy Duty Soil Thermometer (Ben Meadows
Company) and air temperature (°C) was determined using a -30 to 50 °C /1° Pocket
Thermometer (Ben Meadows Company). Individuals were toe-clipped for identification of
recaptures. Cover objects that would cloud the water with bottom substrate upon lifting are not
included in the sample, as any salamanders would escape capture before their presence could
be detected.
Data Analyses
Only data from drift fence arrays were subjected to statistical analyses. To account for
differences in the lengths of trapping periods and in trap effort (an unequal trapping effort
resulted from theft of traps, weather conditions rendering traps nonfunctional, etc.), the sum of
the number of animals captured in all pitfall and funnel traps at each array during a trapping
period was divided by the number of operable traps over the trapping session. This value
multiplied by 100 equaled mean captures per treatment in 100 array-nights (Corn 1994).
ANOVA was used to compare mean captures among treatments. Dependent variables were
mean abundance of: 1) all herpetofauna, 2) major groups (e.g., salamanders, toads and frogs,
etc.), 3) all amphibians, 4) all reptiles, and 5) individual species with high enough captures (>
30). Main effect independent variables were treatment, year, sampling period, and mine. All
anova tests excluded data from the new intact forest point because it was sampled for only 2
months in 2001; all other summary tables include this information.
16
-------
Results and Discussion
Over the 2 years of sampling (2000 and 2001), 1750 individuals were captured or observed
using drift fence arrays, stream searches, and incidental sightings. Of a possible 58 species
expected to occur in the study area, we encountered 41 (Table 29), an increase of 6 species
from 2000. The 41 species included 12 salamander species, 10 toad and frog species, 3 lizard
species, 13 snake species, and 3 turtle species.
A total of 625 individuals and 32 species were captured using drift fence arrays over the 2 years
(Table 30) including 10 salamander species, 9 toad and frog species, 3 lizard species, 9 snake
species, and 1 turtle species. Fifteen of these species are classified as terrestrial, 10 are semi-
aquatic, and 7 are aquatic.
Overall mean abundance of herpetofauna did not differ among the four treatments (F=1.62,
df=3, P=0.28; Table 31). Mean richness also was not different among treatments (F=0.86, df=3,
P=0.51; Table 31). In a study in Pennsylvania, Yahner et al. (2001) inventoried herpetofauna in
forest, riparian, and grassland habitats using 8 different survey methods, including drift fence
arrays. Forest habitat produced the highest number of individuals, whereas grasslands yielded
no captures. Pais et al. (1988) conducted a study in eastern Kentucky, where the herpetofaunal
community is similar to that on our sites. Using techniques similar to ours (drift fences in
conjunction with pitfalls and funnel traps), they found no difference in total captures of
herpetofauna among clearcuts, mature forest, and wildlife clearings, although herpetofaunal
richness was lower in mature forest than in clearcuts and wildlife clearings. Although clearcuts
can resemble reclaimed mine sites in vegetation structure, the magnitude of soil disturbance is
greater on reclaimed sites.
Abundance was not different among the four treatments when species were categorized into
terrestrial (F=0.81, df=3, P=0.53), aquatic (F=1.87, df=3, P=0.24), and semiaquatic
herpetofauna (F=0.30, df=3, P=0.82; Table 31). Amphibian abundance also did not differ
among the four treatments (F=1.09, df=3, P=0.42), nor did reptile abundance (F=2.09, df=3,
P=0.20). Adams et al. (1996) found a higher abundance and species richness of reptiles in
disturbed habitat (clearcuts) than in unharvested stands.
Salamander abundance was not significantly different across treatments (F=4.26, df=3,
P=0.06), although it was generally higher in the 2 forested treatments (Table 31). This
taxonomic group comprised 22-38% of captures in forested treatments and approximately 7% in
grassland and shrub/pole treatments (Table 32). Number of species was higher in forested
treatments. The red-spotted newt was the most abundant salamander and was the only
salamander species found at every sampling point (Table 30). Both the red-spotted newt and
the spotted salamander were found in every treatment. The only other salamander species
found in reclaimed habitat was the four-toed salamander, which was captured in grassland and
shrub/pole treatments. Both the spotted salamander and the four-toed salamander require
moist forests, so the individuals found at a grassland point may have been migrating to a nearby
wet area or forested habitat. The shrub/pole point at which a spotted salamander was captured
is particularly wet compared to all other treatment points; pitfalls are often rendered
nonfunctional due to the ground water pushing them up and out of the ground.
Forests tend to have cooler, moister, and more homogeneous climatic conditions than
grasslands and should therefore better meet the habitat requirements of salamanders.
Increased insolation and reduction in soil moisture retention associated with grassland habitat
may limit the ability of a salamander to forage. Native vegetation removal alters rainfall
17
-------
interception rates and evapotranspiration, thereby additionally affecting soil moisture levels
(Kapos 1989). In a review of 18 studies of amphibian responses to clearcutting, deMaynadier
and Hunter (1995) found that amphibian abundance was 3.5 times higher in unharvested stands
than in recent clearcuts. Other studies not covered in this review have found decreased
abundance (Buhlmann etal. 1988, Sattlerand Reichenbach 1998, Harpole and Haas 1999) or
that responses are species-specific (Cole et al. 1997, Grialou 2000). Ross et al. (2000) found
salamander richness and abundance to decrease as a function of increasing removal of live tree
basal area. Ash (1997) observed an initial decrease in salamander abundance following
clearcutting, but found that within 4-6 years, it returned to preharvesting levels and then
proliferated. Because mining results in greater soil disturbance, however, salamander
populations may take longer to recover on reclaimed sites than reported by Ash. Generally for
salamanders, high site fidelity, small home ranges, physiological limitations, low fecundity, and
the inability to traverse large distances quickly make them especially susceptible to effects of
forest alterations (Rough et al. 1987, Petranka et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1994, Blaustein et al.
1994, Droege et al. 1997, Gibbs 1998b, Ross et al. 2000).
Toads and frogs showed no difference in abundance among the treatments (F=0.89, df=3,
P=0.50; Table 31). This taxonomic group was consistently present in the highest numbers in
each treatment, comprising from 44-73% of all individuals captured within treatments (Table 32).
The green frog was the only anuran species captured at every sampling point (Table 30). Both
eastern American toads and pickerel frogs were captured in every treatment (Table 29). The
green frog and the pickerel frog were the most abundant species in this study (Table 30),
totaling 45% of all captures. Toads and frogs are more tolerant of temperature extremes than
salamanders (Stebbins and Cohen 1995), and thus can occur in non-forested habitats. Ross et
al. (2000) found toad and frog richness to have a positive relationship with increases in tree
basal area.
Snakes varied from 12-28% of captures in each treatment (Table 30). Five species were found
in all four treatments: black rat snake, eastern gartersnake, eastern milk snake, northern black
racer, and northern copperhead. Snakes also showed no difference in abundance across
treatments (F=2.08, df=3, P=0.2039; Table 31). Ross et al. (2000) found snake abundance and
species richness to be inversely related to tree basal area. Forested habitat is preferred or
required by four snake species captured in this study; one prefers grasslands, and four can be
found in a variety of habitats (Behler and King 1995, Green and Pauley 1987, Conant and
Collins 1998). The four ubiquitous species comprised the majority of snake captures (82%),
which could explain why abundance was not different among treatments.
Lizards were not captured in high enough abundance to conduct statistical analyses; they made
up only 2-3% of total herpetofauna captured in each treatment (Table 32). Three of the five
lizard species expected to occur in our study area were captured in drift fence arrays (Table 29);
they included three northern-fence lizards, eight common five-lined skinks, and two little brown
skinks. While only three fence lizards were captured, this species was commonly sighted in all
treatments except intact forest). Because this species is not typically found in moist forests, it
may not have been abundant on the study sites prior to mining. The little brown skink is
classified as an S3 species by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000) meaning that
there are only 21 to 100 documented occurrences in the state and that it may be under threat of
extirpation. It prefers dry, open woodlands and uses leaf litter and decaying wood for
concealment and foraging (Green and Pauley 1987, Conant and Collins 1998). Captures
occurred in pitfalls, one in grassland habitat and the other in intact forest (Table 29). Leaf litter
is present in negligible amounts and CWD is absent from our grassland sampling points (Table
33), so grassland habitats generally would not be suitable for little brown skinks.
18
-------
Turtles also were not captured in high enough abundance to conduct statistical analyses. Only
one species of turtle, the eastern box turtle, was captured in the arrays (Table 29). Eastern box
turtles seldom are captured in pitfall traps and may have a natural wariness of pitfalls (Pais et al.
1988). Furthermore, they are too large to fit through the entrance of funnel traps used in this
study. As this species was commonly sighted as an incidental and was found in every
treatment, it probably has fairly high population numbers on the study sites.
Six species had > 30 individuals captured, so abundance was compared among treatments
(Table 31). The northern black racer had highest abundance in the shrub/pole treatment and
did not occur in the forest fragment and intact forest treatments (F=4.79, df=3, P=0.05). The
Florida king snake (Lampropeltis getula floridana) benefited from conversion of its native habitat
(cypress ponds, savannah pine lands, and prairies) to sugarcane fields. This conversion
increased prey density and provided additional shelter for the snakes with the creation of
limestone dredge material along the banks of the irrigation canals (Rough et al. 2001). Perhaps
the creation of riprap channels and rock chimneys in reclaimed habitat has served the northern
black racer population on mountaintop mines in a similar way. Abundance of the eastern
American toad (F=1.09, df=3, P=0.42), red-spotted newt (F=1.62, df=3, P=0.28), northern green
frog (F=1.78, df=3, P=0.25), pickerel frog (F=1.30, df=3, P=0.36), and eastern gartersnake
(F=0.34, df=3, P=0.80) did not differ among the four treatments. Other studies have found the
red-spotted newt to be sensitive to forest fragmentation (Gibbs 1998a) and forest edge (Gibbs
1998b). However, similar to our study, deMaynadier and Hunter (1998) looked at even-aged
silvicultural treatments (clearcuts and conifer plantations) and did not find a difference in newt
abundance between these treatments and the bordering mature forest. Ross et al. (2000)
observed a positive association of eastern garter snakes with forest stands containing negligible
amounts of residual tree basal area.
Several species captured or detected during the 2 years of the study are listed as S2 or S3
status by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000). A species with S2 status is
described as "very rare and imperiled," with as few as 6-20 documented cases in West Virginia.
The northern leopard frog is listed as an S2 species. Drift fence arrays captured two individuals
in forest fragments and two in shrub/pole habitat (Table 30). In addition, a few individuals were
heard singing in a forest fragment (Table 29). S3 species documented in our study included the
northern red salamander, little brown skink (discussed earlier), eastern wormsnake, timber
rattlesnake, eastern hog-nosed snake, and northern rough greensnake. One of the seven
timber rattlesnakes sighted was in an intact site, the other six were in or on the border of
shrub/pole habitat; all were incidental sightings. One northern rough greensnake was found in
shrub/pole habitat and the other in an intact forest, both as incidental sightings. Two eastern
hog-nosed snakes were captured in shrub/pole habitat in funnel traps of the drift fence array.
Another was captured in grassland habitat, also in a funnel trap, and there was one incidental
sighting in grassland habitat. Three northern red salamanders were found at 2 intact forest
sites, while a fourth was found in a forest fragment; this species was captured in both drift fence
arrays and stream surveys.
Data from the 2001 stream surveys were not analyzed statistically because sample sites were
not paired by stream order and structure. Therefore, these data are preliminary and will be
used to more effectively design the surveys for 2002. Generally, a range of habitat conditions
was sampled in the segments (Table 28).
A total of 678 stream herpetofauna of 15 species were captured in stream surveys. Total
captures were higher in intact forest streams (IFS) (n = 389) than in fragmented forest streams
19
-------
(FFS) (n = 289; Tables 34 and 36), although 2 extra stream segments were sampled in FFS.
More species were captured in the FFS (n = 13) than in the IFS (n = 10). Salamanders
comprised 97% of total captures, so toads, frogs, and snakes were excluded from abundance
calculations per stream segment. Second order FFS had the highest (68.5 ± 7.5) and lowest
(1.8 ± 0.97) means of stream salamanders per stream segment (Table 35). Mean abundance of
herpetofauna and habitat characteristics per segment of stream sampled are summarized in
Tables 35 and 36.
In summary, 6 additional species of herpetofauna were captured in 2001. Three of these (the
northern rough greensnake, northern leopard frog, and northern red salamander) are listed as
special status by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program (2000) which brings the total to
seven for the 2 years of the study. Overall species richness and abundance based on the array
data for 2000 and 2001 did not differ among treatments. Although salamander abundance did
not differ statistically among the treatments, it was generally higher within the 2 forested
treatments. The only salamander species captured outside of a forested treatment in 2000 was
a spotted salamander; it was found in a grassland site. This year, another spotted salamander
was found in shrub/pole habitat and a four-toed salamander was found in a grassland.
Literature Cited
Adams, J.P., M.J. Lacki, and M.D. Baker. 1996. Response of herpetofauna to silvicultural prescriptions
in the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA. 312-320.
Ash, A.N. 1997. Disappearance and return of Plethodontid salamanders to clearcut
plots in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. Conservation Biology. 11:983-989.
Balcerzak , M. J. 2001. Raptor Abundance and Diversity and Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Habitat Characteristics on Reclaimed Mountaintop Mines in Southern West Virginia. M. S. thesis,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Behler, J.L. and F.W. King. 1995. National Audobon Society field guide to North
American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York, N.Y.
Best, L. B. 1978. Field Sparrow reproductive success and nesting ecology. Auk 95:9-22.
Blaustein, A.R., D.B. Wake, and W.P. Sousa. 1994. Amphibian declines: judging
stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions.
Conservation Biology. 8:60-71.
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.
Buhlmann, K.A., C.A. Pague, J.C. Mitchell, and R.B. Glasgow. 1988. Forestry operations and terrestrial
salamanders: techniques in a study of the cow knob salamander, Plethodon punctatus. Pages
38-44 In R.C. Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton. Eds. Management of amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals in North America. Technical Report RM-166. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
CO.
Caldwell, R.S. and H. Bryan. 1982. Notes on distribution and habitats of Sorexand Microsorex
(Insectivora: Soricidae) in Kentucky. Brimleyana 8:91-100.
20
-------
Cole, E.G., W.C. McComb, M. Newton, C.L. Chambers, and J.P. Leeming. 1997. Response of
amphibians to clearcutting, burning, and glyphosate application in the Oregon coast range.
61:656-664.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians: eastern /central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, Mass.
Connor, P.P. 1959. The bog lemming Synaptomys cooper; in southern New Jersey. Publ. Mus. Mich.
State Univ. Biol. Ser. 1:161-248.
Corn, S. P. 1994. Straight line drift fences and pitfall traps. Pages 109-117 In Heyer, W. K., M. A.
Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring
biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington
D. C.
Crump, M.L. and N.J. Scott, Jr. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84-92 In Heyer, W. K., M. A.
Donnely, R. W. McDarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster, editors. Measuring and monitoring
biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington
D. C.
DeCapita, M.E. and T.A. Bookout. 1975. Small mammal populations, vegetational cover and hunting use
of an Ohio strip-mine area. Ohio Journal of Science 75:305-313.
DeGraaf, R. M., and J. H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migratory Birds: Natural History, Distribution, and
Population Change. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca and London.
deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship between forest management and
amphibian ecology: a review of the North American literature. Environmental Review. 3:230-261.
deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution and
abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology. 12:340-352.
Denmon, P. 1998. Early successional habitat use by nongame wildlife species in American Woodcock
breeding habitat in West Virginia. M. S. thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W. Va.
Droege, S., L. Monti, and D. Lantz. 1997. The terrestrial monitoring program: rationale,
protocol, call for participation, and methodological experiments, http://www.mp1-
pwrc.usgs.gov/sally
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural
History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc. New York, N. Y.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN3/PT.653.
http://www.usda.gov/stream restoration
Getz, L.L. 1961. Factors influencing the local distribution of shrews. American Midland Naturalist .65: 67-
88.
Gibbs, J.P. 1998a. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient.
Landscape Ecology. 13:263-268.
Gibbs, J.P. 1998b. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in
southern New England. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:584-589.
21
-------
Green, N.B. and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. Univ. of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Greenlaw, J. S. 1996. Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus. In The Birds of North America, No. 262.
(A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., and The
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
Grialou, J.A., S.D. West, and R.N. Wilkins. 2000. The effects of forest clearcut harvesting and thinning
on terrestrial salamanders. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(1):105-113.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler Status Assessment. U. S. Forest Service Southern Research
Station, Stoneville, Miss.
Hansen, L.P. and Warnock, J.E. 1978. Response of 2 species of Peromyscus to vegetational succession
on land strip-mined for coal. American Midland Naturalist 100:416-423.
Harpole, D.N. and C.A. Haas. 1999. Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on
terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management. 114:349-356.
James, F., and H. H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description.
Audubon Field Notes. 24:727-736.
Jung, R. E., R. D. Holmes, S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer. 1999.
http://www.mo1-Dwrc.usgs.gov/amDhib/Drimenet/
Kapos, V. 1989. Effects of isolation on the water status of forest patches in the Brazilian Amazon.
Journal of Tropical Ecology. 5:173-185.
Kaufman, D.W. and G.A. Kaufman. 1990. House mice (Mus musculus) in natural and disturbed habitats
in Kansas. Journal of Mammalogy 71: 428-432.
Kershner, E. L, and E. K. Bellinger. 1996. Reproductive success of grassland birds at east-central
Illinois airports. American Midland Naturalist. 136:358-366.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1976. Small mammals of a mine waste situation in the central Adirondacks, New York:
A case of opportunism by Peromyscus maniculatus. American Midland Naturalist 95:103-110.
Kirkland, G.L., Jr. 1994. Proposed standard protocol for sampling small mammal communities. Carnegie
Museum of Natural History Special Publicatin 1994: 0(18): 277-283.
Kirsch, L. M., H. F. Deubbert, and A. D. Kruse. 1978. Grazing and laying effects
on habitats of upland nesting birds. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 43:486-497.
Lanyon, W. E. 1995. Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna. In The Birds of North America, No. 160. (A.
Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., and The
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
Martin, T. E., and Geupel. 1993. Nest monitoring plots: methods for locating nests and monitoring
success. Journal of Field Ornithology. 64:507-519.
Martin, T. E., C. Paine, C. J. Conway, V. M. Hockachka, P. Allen, and W. Jenkins. 1997. BBIRD Field
Protocol. USGS, Biological Resources Division, Montana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Missoula, Mt.
22
-------
Mayfield, H. F. 1961. Nesting success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bulletin. 73:255-261.
Mayfield, H. F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bulletin. 87:456-466.
McCoy, T. D., M. R. Ryan, E. W. Kurzejeski, and L. W. Burger, Jr. 1999. Conservation Reserve
Program: source or sink for grassland birds in Missouri? Journal of Wildlife Management.
63:530-538.
Moore, J.C. 1949. Notes on the shrew, Sorex cinereus, in the southern Applachians. Ecology 30: 234-
237.
Mumford, R.E. and W.C. Bramble. 1973. Small mammals on surface-mined land in southwestern Indiana.
In Hutnik, R.J. and G. Davis, Eds. Ecology and reclamation of devastated land, Volume 1.
Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers Inc.
Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models.
McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.
Pais, R. C., S. A. Bonney, and W. C. McComb. 1988. Herpetofaunal species richness and habitat
associations in an eastern Kentucky forest. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 42:448-455.
Petranka, J.W., M.E. Eldridge, and K.E. Haley. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on southern
Appalachian salamanders. Conservation Biology. 7:363-370.
Petranka, J.W., M.P. Brannon, M.E. Hopey, and C.K. Smith. 1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low
elevation populations of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management.
67:135-147.
Pough, F.H., R.M. Andrews, J.E. Cadle, M.L. Crump, A.H. Savitzky, and K.D. Wells. 2001. Herpetology.
2nd Edition. Prentice Hall. Upple Saddle River, New Jersey. 612 pp.
Pough, F.H., E.M. Smith, D.H. Rhodes, and A. Collazo. 1987. The abundance of salamanders in forest
stands with different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management. 20:1-9.
Rhodes, D.H. and M.E. Richmond. 1985. Influence of soil texture and temperature on nest-site selection
and burrowing by the pine vole, Microtus pinetorum. American Midland Naturalist 113: 102-108.
Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, and L. C. Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual obstruction
measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management 23:295-297.
Ross, B., T. Fredericksen, E. Ross, W. Hoffman, M.L. Morrison, J. Beyea, M.B. Lester, B.N. Johnson, and
N.J. Fredericksen. 2000. Relative abundance and species richness or herpetofauna in forest
stands in Pennsylvania. Forest Science 46:139-146.
Sattler, P., and N. Reichenbach. 1998. The effects of timbering on Plethodon hubrichti: short-term
effects Journal of Herpetology 32:399-404.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallen. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and
analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Md.
Smith, C. R., D. M. Pence, and R. J. O'Connor. 1992. Status of neotropical birds
in the Northeast: a preliminary assessment. Pp. 172-188 In Status and
management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rept. RM-229.
23
-------
Stebbins, R.C., and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A natural history of amphibians. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N. J.
Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 1995. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System.
SAS Institute, Inc., Gary, N. Ca.
Verts, B.J. 1957. The population and distribution of 2 species of Peromyscus on some Illinois strip-mined
land. Journal of Mammalogy 38:53-59.
Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum. In The Birds of North America,
No. 239. (A. Poole and F. Gills, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., and
The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D. C.
West Virginia Nongame Wildlife & Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Rare, threatened & endangered
vertebrate species in West Virginia: a listing of vertebrates believed rare in West Virginia. Wildlife
Resources Section, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Elkins.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States 3rd Ed. Comstock
Publishing Associates, Ithaca, N. Y.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.E. Wrigley. 1972. Mammalian species No. 14. American Society of Mammaology.
Whitmore, R. C. 1979. Temporal variation in the selected habitats of a guild of grassland sparrows.
Wilson Bulletin 91:592-598.
Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in
shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs. 51:21-41.
Wood, P.B., C.A. Weakland, and J.W. Edwards. 2001. Mountaintop removal mining/valley fill
environmental impact statement technical study: terrestrial vertebrate (breeding songbird, raptor,
small mammal, herpetofaunal) populations of forested and reclaimed sites. Draft project report.
Wray, T. II, K. A. Strait, and R. C. Whitmore. 1982. Reproductive success of
grassland sparrows on a reclaimed surface mine in West Virginia. Auk 99:157 163.
Yahner, R. H. , W. C. Bramble, W. R Byrnes. 2001. Effect of vegetation maintenance of an electric
transmission right-of-way on reptile and amphibian populations Journal of Arboriculture 1: 24-9.
Zimmerman, J. L. 1971. The territory and its density dependent effect in Sp/za americana. Auk 88:591-
612.
24
-------
Table 1. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Dickcissels and
Grasshopper Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Dickcissel
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
13.1
101.4
188.2
6.9
2.0
3.5
386.1
4050.7
509.5
60.7
0.1
7.8
4.4
0.2
1.3
84.5
45.6
22.7
17.6
SE
0.1
1.5
11.3
25.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.5
885.6
149.5
13.2
0.1
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.4
2.0
2.9
1.9
2.2
Present
Mean
1.3
21.8
28.5
585.1
5.9
1.9
3.8
441.6
175.8
46.9
0.1
0.3
2.8
13.8
0.0
1.9
80.6
34.8
24.8
20.9
SE x2 P
0.2
6.6
5.0
149.0 6.571 0.010+
1.1
0.4
0.5 4.043 0.044+
19.5
137.5
25.7
0.1
0.3
1.2
4.1 9.611 0.002+
0.0
1.4
3.5
6.1
5.9
8.0
3.368 0.909
Grasshopper Sparrow
Absent
Mean
0.7
8.5
68.1
87.0
6.0
1.5
4.2
381.6
8173.2
1135.4
143.2
0.1
7.5
2.6
0.3
2.4
82.3
43.6
19.6
22.8
SE
0.2
2.1
10.4
14.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
14.6
2143.6
398.2
29.9
0.1
2.4
1.2
0.2
1.2
4.6
6.1
3.0
3.4
Present
Mean
1.0
16.5
105.4
290.1
7.2
2.2
3.2
396.1
1599.1
156.3
14.2
0.2
7.1
6.6
0.1
0.9
84.9
44.9
24.4
15.7
SE %2 P
0.1
1.9
14.2
40.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
6.7
441.9
33.8
5.3 19.810 <0.001-
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.0
0.3
1.8
2.9
2.3
2.6
0.796 0.851
25
-------
Table 2. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Eastern Meadowlarks
and Red-winged Blackbirds at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicate a
negative relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Eastern Meadowlark
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
Ground Cover(%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
13.0
88.4
161.4
6.5
1.9
3.8
392.3
5021.8
615.6
75.6
0.1
6.6
4.5
0.2
1.7
84.6
42.4
22.2
21.7
SE
0.1
1.8
11.2
30.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.4
1119.1
191.8
16.5
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.6
2.3
3.4
2.1
2.6
Present
Mean
1.1
16.4
105.6
373.2
7.6
2.2
2.9
390.4
614.6
121.1
7.6
0.3
8.7
7.3
0.1
0.7
82.9
49.0
24.4
9.5
SE %2 P
0.1
2.6
23.0
61.9
0.4
0.2
0.3
9.4
172.9
44.0 7.480 0.006-
5.3
0.2
2.3
1.6
0.1
0.4
3.2
4.4
3.7
3.2 4.813 0.028-
10.231 0.249
Red-winged
Absent
Mean
0.8
10.9
98.0
176.8
6.4
1.6
3.8
403.8
3883.6
465.4
72.7
0.1
6.1
4.4
0.2
1.3
86.7
40.7
23.0
23.6
SE
0.1
1.8
14.3
28.6
0.4
0.1
0.2
8.1
1097.7
105.3
18.3
0.1
1.5
1.0
0.1
0.6
2.2
3.6
2.3
2.9
Blackbird
Present
Mean
1.1
19.0
87.2
308.3
7.4
2.6
3.0
373.0
3279.2
455.2
25.7
0.2
9.0
6.9
0.2
1.5
80.0
50.4
22.7
9.0
SE %2 P
0.1
2.4
15.1
61.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
9.9
1163.2
308.0
9.7
0.1
1.8
1.5
0.1
0.6
3.2
3.8
3.1
2.4 9.937 0.002-
4.779 0.573
26
-------
Table 3. Means, standard errors (SE) for the presence/absence of Horned Larks and Willow Flycatchers at point counts in grassland
and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. No variables were chosen by stepwise logistic regression as predictors for
either of these species.
Horned
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Mean
0.9
11.8
90.2
167.9
6.6
1.8
3.8
392.9
4373.4
562.5
69.8
0.2
6.1
4.5
0.2
1.3
85.7
43.6
22.8
20.8
SE
0.1
1.5
11.3
24.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.8
1007.6
170.9
14.9
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.2
3.3
2.1
2.5
Lark
Willow Flycatcher
Present
Mean
1.0
22.0
106.5
433.3
7.6
2.8
2.6
387.8
1088.2
104.8
0.0
0.0
11.3
8.3
0.1
1.7
78.6
47.5
23.3
7.8
SE
0.2
4.0
26.2
90.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
10.3
435.0
33.5
0.0
0.0
2.4
1.7
0.1
0.8
3.2
4.4
3.6
3.2
Absent
Mean
0.9
14.1
88.1
219.7
6.7
1.9
3.6
393.1
3903.1
494.1
60.7
0.2
7.1
5.4
0.2
1.4
84.0
43.2
23.1
19.0
SE
0.1
1.7
10.4
32.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.0
893.1
150.0
13.2
0.1
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.3
Present
Mean
1.2
13.9
142.4
305.3
8.1
2.4
2.6
379.5
1449.2
179.7
0.0
0.0
8.3
5.2
0.2
1.1
85.3
55.2
21.3
8.9
SE
0.2
2.0
45.1
76.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
13.4
242.1
63.5
0.0
0.0
3.6
2.8
0.2
0.9
6.4
3.6
4.5
3.0
27
-------
Table 4. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of White-eyed Vireos and
Yellow-breasted Chats at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
White-eyed Vireo
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.0
14.4
99.3
270.4
6.8
2.0
3.3
396.2
2060.9
434.3
45.2
1.6
5.4
0.1
7.1
6.3
0.1
1.3
83.1
46.4
21.6
16.6
SE
0.1
1.7
12.8
37.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.1
646.4
171.5
14.1
0.9
2.7
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.3
3.1
2.1
2.5
Present
Mean
0.8
12.9
75.7
86.0
6.8
2.1
4.2
376.6
8850.7
550.3
84.7
5.2
7.3
0.3
7.8
2.5
0.2
1.7
87.4
38.3
27.2
22.1
SE ^ P
0.2
3.1
15.5
12.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
14.5
2373.0 8.739 0.003+
136.6
21.6
2.6
2.9
0.2
2.1
0.7
0.1
0.7
2.3
5.4
3.5
4.2
5.037 0.656
Yellow-breasted Chat
Absent
Mean
1.0
17.7
104.8
338.4
7.2
2.2
3.1
403.0
566.4
152.3
29.6
1.1
0.9
0.2
6.6
7.4
0.1
1.6
84.1
47.5
19.5
17.1
SE
0.1
2.3
17.0
50.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.5
171.9
40.9
15.5
1.1
0.9
0.1
1.7
1.3
0.1
0.7
2.5
3.8
2.4
3.3
Present
Mean
0.9
10.1
81.9
103.6
6.4
1.8
4.0
378.9
6979.7
795.6
81.3
3.9
11.5
0.1
8.0
3.2
0.2
1.2
84.1
41.2
26.6
18.8
SE %2 P
0.1
1.7
11.6
13.1 4.663 0.031-
0.4
0.2
0.3
9.6
1488.7 11.423 0.001 +
268.4
17.8
1.5
4.4
0.1
1.6
0.9
0.1
0.4
2.8
3.8
2.6 4.526 0.033+
2.6
50.074 <0.001
28
-------
Table 5. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Prairie Warblers and
Blue-winged Warblers at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Prairie Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.1
15.9
98.4
351.7
6.6
1.9
3.2
405.2
2542.2
351.6
38.8
1.7
4.6
0.2
8.3
8.2
0.1
1.8
79.0
41.2
22.1
17.3
SE
0.1
2.3
16.1
48.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
8.2
959.5
232.1
19.5
1.2
3.0
0.1
1.8
1.4
0.1
0.8
3.0
3.3
2.5
3.0
Present
Mean
0.8
12.0
88.8
88.4
7.0
2.1
3.9
376.4
4843.8
580.2
71.3
3.2
7.3
0.1
6.1
2.3
0.2
0.9
89.6
48.0
23.7
18.6
SE x2 P
0.1
1.8 4.872 0.027-
13.3
11.2 6.040 0.014-
0.4
0.2 8.658 0.003+
0.3
9.6
1299.9
126.8
13.3
1.4 8.520 0.004+
3.2
0.1
1.5
0.6
0.1
0.3
1.9 6.378 0.012+
4.3
2.7
3.1
8.395 0.396
Blue-winged Warbler
Absent
Mean
1.0
14.7
94.8
267.0
6.9
2.0
3.4
399.0
2583.2
180.1
44.2
1.4
5.9
0.1
7.0
6.1
0.1
1.3
84.9
45.4
22.5
17.1
SE
0.1
1.7
12.0
37.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.8
756.8
32.8
14.0
0.8
2.7
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.0
3.2
2.1
2.5
Present
Mean
0.8
12.0
90.5
97.4
6.7
2.0
3.9
366.8
7138.9
1383.7
87.9
5.9
5.6
0.2
8.2
3.0
0.2
1.7
81.6
41.6
24.2
20.8
SE %2 P
0.2
2.9
22.1
16.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
15.3
2245.4
520.3 8.766 0.003+
21.8
2.8
2.5
0.2
2.2
0.8
0.1
0.7
4.4
4.9
3.9
4.1
7.755 0.170
29
-------
Table 6. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Common Yellowthroats
and Yellow Warblers at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Common Yellow/throat
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
14.0
107.0
270.1
6.7
1.9
3.1
409.1
1303.9
186.7
48.9
3.4
4.1
0.2
8.0
6.8
0.2
1.2
83.6
45.1
21.0
17.6
SE
0.1
2.2
16.3
40.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
7.9
525.6
48.2
20.2
1.7
3.0
0.1
1.9
1.3
0.1
0.7
2.6
3.8
2.7
3.0
Present
Mean
1.0
14.1
79.5
183.4
7.0
2.1
3.9
373.0
6182.4
758.4
60.3
1.4
7.7
0.1
6.5
3.8
0.2
1.5
84.6
43.8
24.9
18.3
SE 'i P
0.1
2.0
12.6
44.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
9.6
1475.6 13.797 <0.001 +
269.3
12.5
0.6 4.157 0.041-
3.1
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
2.8
3.9
2.5
3.1
3.636 0.726
Yellow
Absent
Mean
0.9
12.8
91.9
224.2
6.5
1.8
3.7
404.0
3413.7
365.5
55.3
3.2
5.4
0.1
6.0
5.8
0.1
1.3
85.7
41.6
25.2
19.4
SE
0.1
1.8
11.9
35.0
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.4
949.3
86.0
14.3
1.2
2.5
0.1
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.5
1.9
3.2
2.2
2.4
Warbler
Present
Mean
1.1
18.1
100.0
241.7
7.9
2.6
2.9
353.0
4416.7
776.0
51.4
0.0
7.2
0.2
11.3
4.0
0.3
1.6
79.0
54.0
15.4
13.1
SE %2 P
0.2
2.5
22.5
61.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
8.8 8.119 0.004-
1502.7
507.7
21.6
0.0
4.5
0.2
2.7 3.953 0.047+
1.3
0.1
0.7
4.8
4.7
2.6
4.8
3.605 0.891
30
-------
Table 7. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Indigo Buntings and
Northern Cardinals at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either
a negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Indigo Bunting
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no. /ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.2
20.4
107.8
364.8
6.8
2.0
3.6
397.7
1291.7
119.8
17.7
0.0
1.3
0.2
6.0
11.0
0.0
1.5
81.3
42.8
19.9
18.5
SE
0.2
4.0
35.1
81.8
0.8
0.3
0.4
15.0
1181.8
77.6
13.1
0.0
1.3
0.2
2.2
3.2
0.0
1.0
3.5
5.4
4.3
6.1
Present
Mean
0.9
12.9
91.2
199.0
6.8
2.0
3.5
390.4
4083.2
524.5
61.2
2.9
6.8
0.1
7.5
4.3
0.2
1.4
84.6
44.8
23.4
17.8
SE
0.1
1.6
10.7
31.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.2
920.6
158.2
13.9
1.1
2.6
0.1
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.5
2.1
3.1
2.0
2.3
Northern
Absent
y? P Mean
1.0
15.0
97.2
255.7
7.1
2.1
3.3
393.4
2932.7
4.372 0.037+ 377.9
50.4
2.4
6.2
0.2
7.5
5.055 0.025- 5.6
0.2
1.6
84.0
46.0
22.3
16.7
9.006 0.252
SE
0.1
1.6
11.8
34.6
0.3
0.1
0.2
6.4
699.0
144.9
13.8
1.1
2.5
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.0
2.7
2.0
2.3
Cardinal
Present
Mean
0.8
8.9
75.4
75.9
5.6
1.7
4.7
382.3
7523.4
914.1
76.0
2.6
4.2
0.0
6.0
4.4
0.2
0.2
84.8
36.3
26.1
24.7
SE %2 P
0.3
3.3
20.6
13.0
0.9
0.3
0.5
23.6
3418.8
350.3 5.1340.0235+
18.6
1.2
2.9
0.0
2.3
2.5
0.2
0.2
4.9
9.0
4.7
5.9
5.801 0.326
31
-------
Table 8. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of American Goldfinches
and Song Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '+' indicates a positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
American Goldfinch
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
1.0
14.0
102.4
238.2
6.7
1.9
3.5
395.5
4289.7
519.5
60.3
2.5
5.6
0.2
7.0
5.5
0.2
1.7
83.4
41.4
24.8
19.0
SE
0.1
2.1
13.6
40.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.8
1167.6
206.1
17.4
1.1
2.7
0.1
1.5
1.1
0.1
0.6
2.4
3.3
2.4
2.6
Present
Mean
0.9
14.1
79.5
211.5
7.1
2.2
3.5
385.2
2586.2
365.3
44.6
2.4
6.3
0.0
7.7
5.2
0.2
0.9
85.2
49.5
19.7
16.1
SE i2 P
0.1
2.1
16.3
45.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
11.3
902.2
112.1
14.1
1.7
3.8
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.1
0.4
3.1
4.6
2.7
3.6
-
Song Sparrow
Absent
Mean
0.9
13.4
98.4
177.8
6.9
2.0
3.4
386.6
3730.1
495.7
57.2
2.7
5.6
0.2
7.2
5.1
0.2
1.2
84.3
44.9
22.4
18.3
SE
0.1
1.6
11.7
21.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.0
872.2
156.5
13.5
1.1
2.3
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.4
2.1
3.0
2.0
2.3
Present
Mean
1.3
17.6
66.1
510.9
6.6
2.0
4.0
420.3
3156.3
255.7
37.5
1.1
7.3
0.0
7.6
7.0
0.0
2.6
82.9
41.6
25.7
15.5
SE i2 P
0.2
4.7
20.3
134.7 7.9530.0048+
0.8
0.2
0.6
14.7
2179.2
87.4
24.2
1.1
6.2
0.0
2.3
2.8
0.0
1.3
3.9
5.5
5.1
5.7
12.390 0.135
32
-------
Table 9. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Chipping and Field
Sparrows at point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Only significant results are reported.
Chipping
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareground/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Mean
0.9
14.7
100.3
245.8
6.8
2.0
3.4
392.2
2918.2
413.6
48.5
1.8
3.5
0.2
7.5
5.4
0.1
1.4
83.6
44.3
22.7
18.0
SE
0.1
1.6
11.6
33.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
7.0
765.9
148.9
13.4
0.9
1.9
0.1
1.3
0.9
0.1
0.5
2.1
2.8
1.9
2.3
Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Present
Mean
0.9
9.2
44.6
92.8
7.2
1.8
4.1
387.6
9163.2
822.9
99.3
6.9
24.3
0.0
5.7
5.1
0.3
1.3
87.7
46.1
24.6
17.1
SE 'i P
0.3
3.6
9.7
21.0
0.8
0.2
0.3
15.3
3346.8
241.1
11.8 7.9520.0048+
3.2
11.1
0.0
2.2
3.2
0.2
0.8
4.0
10.8
5.9
4.7
7.101 0.069
Absent
Mean
1.0
17.5
85.8
313.2
6.6
1.9
3.2
406.3
2414.1
410.2
46.5
3.5
7.0
0.2
7.4
8.5
0.2
1.3
80.2
43.0
20.6
18.6
SE
0.1
2.8
12.6
56.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
9.0
1127.1
289.9
23.9
1.9
4.3
0.1
2.0
1.6
0.1
0.8
3.4
4.1
2.7
3.5
Present
Mean
0.9
11.6
99.5
164.3
7.0
2.1
3.7
380.7
4525.7
497.9
60.0
1.7
5.0
0.1
7.2
3.1
0.1
1.4
86.8
45.5
24.5
17.4
SE %2 P
0.1
1.6
15.6
28.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
8.8
1111.3
107.8 5.7360.0166+
11.8
0.8
2.1
0.1
1.4
0.7 3.960 0.0466-
0.1
0.4
2.1
3.6
2.4
2.7
4.323 0.742
33
-------
Table 10. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results for the presence/absence of Eastern Towhees at
point counts in grassland and shrub/pole habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a negative or positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables.
Eastern Towhee
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Robel Pole Index
Elevation (m)
Tree Density (no./ha):
>0-2.5cm
>2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38 cm
Snags
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Litter
Bareg round/rock
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Test
Absent
Mean
1.1
16.4
104.3
298.7
7.3
2.1
3.1
393.5
1984.1
393.4
25.6
0.6
5.3
0.2
6.6
6.6
0.2
1.1
83.4
47.1
22.8
15.2
SE
0.1
1.9
14.8
41.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.2
597.8
190.6
11.6
0.4
2.8
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.1
0.4
2.2
3.0
2.3
2.4
Present
Mean
0.7
9.5
73.1
85.0
5.9
1.8
4.3
388.2
6912.3
595.0
110.8
6.0
7.0
0.0
8.5
2.9
0.1
1.9
85.6
39.3
23.0
23.3
SE i2 P
0.2
2.2
10.3
13.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
13.3
1945.1
142.1
24.1 19.783 <0.001 +
2.5
3.4
0.0
2.3
1.2
0.1
1.0
3.6
5.5
2.9
4.0
1.072 0.784
34
-------
Table 11. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
American Redstarts and Carolina Chickadees in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant
variables only.
American
Absent
(n=45)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
0.8
33.8
359.0
48.1
630.9
22.4
0.8
8.8
53.2
4.9
2.1
30.0
6628.5
841.7
305.3
90.7
32.8
9.3
3.6
46.1
SE
0.1
2.1
10.3
9.3
122.6
0.7
0.3
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.5
732.7
53.4
23.2
4.9
3.0
1.5
0.7
5.3
Redstart
Carolina Chickadee
Present
(n=40)
Mean
1.3
33.8
376.4
59.9
1262.7
22.5
0.8
6.2
48.2
4.3
1.9
38.4
4501.6
583.6
283.4
89.7
28.6
8.3
3.4
45.1
SE %2 P
0.1 12.391 <0.001 +
2.2
11.6
10.6
181.4
0.8
0.2
0.7
2.1
0.5
0.4
2.2
429.7
70.5 6.919 0.008-
22.9
5.1
2.6
1.3
0.8
6.2
Absent
(n=49)
Mean
1.0
34.1
378.5
54.1
1052.9
22.9
0.7
7.7
49.8
4.9
2.2
34.6
6150.5
688.8
263.0
92.1
31.0
9.8
3.2
45.2
SE
0.1
2.1
10.3
8.5
148.9
0.6
0.2
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
1.6
696.5
57.6
18.8
5.1
2.6
1.4
0.6
5.2
Present
(n=36)
Mean
1.1
33.3
350.6
53.1
724.0
21.9
0.8
7.4
52.3
4.3
1.8
33.1
4915.8
763.0
338.5
87.7
30.6
7.5
4.0
46.3
SE %2 P
0.1
2.2
11.2
11.8
160.6
0.8
0.3
0.8
2.3
0.4
0.4
2.5
466.5
73.9
27.5 5.6350.018+
4.6
3.1
1.4
1.0
6.3
35
-------
Table 11 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
53.2
63.2
63.9
56.8
44.3
17.8
2.1
2.3
1.8
2.3
3.1
2.4
47.9
55.9
65.0
64.1
50.3
16.7
2.7
2.4
1.6
2.3
3.2
2.2
50.3
58.1
62.2
60.3
49.5
15.8
2.2
2.1
1.6
2.5
2.9
1.9
51.3
61.9
67.5
60.1
43.8
19.2
2.7
2.8
1.9
2.2
3.4
2.8
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
59.8
1.4
60.0
1.4
59.3
1.3
60.8
1.5
9.127
0.332
7.076 0.529
36
-------
Table 12. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Northern Parulas and Carolina Wrens in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a negative or
positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Northern Parula
Absent
(n=62)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.1
33.6
373.8
55.9
1017.3
22.3
0.6
7.4
50.5
4.6
1.9
34.8
5594.8
677.4
297.8
91.1
31.9
9.7
3.5
47.7
SE
0.1
1.8
8.7
9.2
131.8
0.6
0.2
0.7
1.6
0.3
0.3
1.7
554.7
51.4
18.5
4.0
2.4
1.2
0.7
5.1
Present
(n=23)
Mean
1.0
34.3
347.5
47.6
631.7
22.9
1.3
7.9
51.7
4.7
2.3
31.7
5716.0
835.6
287.5
87.8
28.0
6.5
3.5
40.1
SE %2 P
0.1
2.8
15.8
7.6
192.0
0.8
0.3 6.8150.009+
0.8
2.1
0.7
0.3
2.1
747.5
93.1
34.6
7.3
3.5
1.7
1.0
5.5
Carolina
Absent
(n=57)
Mean
1.0
33.1
378.7
58.2
990.1
22.3
0.5
7.5
53.4
4.6
2.0
31.8
6008.2
766.4
278.8
90.1
30.3
8.3
3.5
42.3
SE
0.1
2.0
10.0
10.1
138.3
0.6
0.1
0.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
1.6
547.9
54.5
17.5
4.3
2.4
1.1
0.7
4.2
Wren
Present
(n=28)
Mean
1.2
35.0
340.2
44.4
747.8
22.8
1.3
7.6
45.6
4.6
2.0
38.3
4852.7
626.1
327.9
90.4
31.9
9.8
3.6
52.3
SE %2 P
0.1
2.4
9.2 5.9660.015-
4.8
178.0
0.9
0.4
0.9
2.4 5.8890.015-
0.5
0.4
2.5
783.0
81.0
34.0
6.3
3.6
2.0
0.9
8.5
37
-------
Table 12cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
49.0
56.9
64.8
61.5
48.0
17.3
2.0
1.9
1.3
2.0
2.6
1.9
55.4
67.4
63.4
56.8
44.6
17.1
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.2
4.3
3.2
8.859 0.003+
4.491 0.034-
51.9
59.8
63.7
59.7
51.0
18.9
2.0
2.1
1.5
1.9
2.5
2.0
48.2
59.6
65.9
61.4
39.1
13.9
3.2
2.7
2.1
3.3
4.0
2.7
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
59.5
1.1
61.0
2.0
61.0
1.2
57.6
1.6
9.761
0.282
5.656 0.686
38
-------
Table 13. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence
of Downy Woodpeckers and Tufted Titmice in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '+' indicates a positive
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Downy Woodpecker
Absent
(n=60)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
33.8
371.3
56.6
1008.6
22.5
0.8
7.6
50.1
4.7
2.1
34.6
5777.9
700.6
286.7
89.6
30.2
8.4
3.4
45.8
SE
0.1
1.6
8.6
7.9
120.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
510.7
50.1
16.4
3.9
2.2
1.1
0.6
4.5
Present
(n=25)
Mean
1.5
33.3
337.7
33.8
302.8
22.4
0.7
7.5
56.0
4.3
1.5
29.9
4616.5
852.3
351.1
94.3
35.2
11.9
4.5
44.9
SE %2 P
0.2 4.907 0.027+
5.3
12.4
5.7
200.1
1.6
0.4
1.9
3.8
0.9
0.5
3.0
477.9
96.8
61.0
7.3
5.1
3.0
1.7
6.2
Tufted Titmouse
Absent
(n=60)
Mean
1.0
33.5
366.5
58.2
830.9
21.9
0.8
7.8
53.4
4.5
2.2
31.0
5764.6
729.2
300.5
87.6
30.8
8.1
3.0
45.3
SE
0.1
1.9
9.7
9.6
124.1
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.3
1.4
547.7
49.8
21.0
4.3
2.5
1.2
0.6
5.0
Present
(n=25)
Mean
1.1
34.3
367.7
42.7
1116.1
23.9
0.6
7.0
44.6
5.1
1.6
41.0
5298.8
698.8
281.8
96.5
30.8
10.5
4.8
46.5
SE %2 P
0.1
2.5
12.1
5.1
227.1
0.9
0.3
1.0
2.8
0.5
0.3
2.9 8.392 0.004+
796.7
100.2
23.5
6.0
3.0
1.8
1.2
6.7
39
-------
Table 13 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
51.5
59.2
64.1
60.3
47.0
17.1
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
2.5
1.8
45.5
63.4
66.9
60.1
47.7
18.0
4.1
3.5
3.7
5.7
3.6
3.2
52.0
59.9
64.3
59.9
48.4
18.1
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.0
2.8
2.0
47.7
59.3
64.7
61.0
43.9
15.1
3.6
3.7
1.8
3.3
3.3
2.6
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
59.8
1.1
60.3
1.9
60.5
1.2
58.3
1.5
4.854
0.773
3.748
0.879
40
-------
Table 14. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Downy Woodpeckers and White-breasted Nuthatches in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicateseither a
negative relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Absent
(n=74)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
32.9
371.1
49.1
950.3
22.7
0.8
7.5
51.6
4.7
2.1
33.0
5648.2
735.6
285.4
89.4
31.2
8.4
3.8
43.4
SE
0.1
1.6
8.3
6.1
120.6
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.3
0.3
1.4
459.1
48.4
15.6
3.4
2.1
1.0
0.6
4.1
Present
(n=11)
Mean
1.0
39.6
336.0
84.3
663.0
21.2
0.7
7.8
45.6
4.0
1.4
40.2
5488.6
616.5
359.7
96.0
28.4
11.4
1.7
60.3
SE %2 P
0.2
5.3
18.3
35.1
253.9
1.3
0.5
1.3
5.3
0.8
0.5
4.8
1672.4
135.2
69.9
15.0
5.7
3.5
0.9
13.6
White-breasted Nuthatch
Absent
(n=65)
Mean
1.0
32.8
370.6
51.9
985.7
22.7
0.8
7.6
51.3
4.6
2.2
33.3
5193.8
739.4
297.9
89.6
29.2
8.3
3.2
44.9
SE
0.1
1.7
9.6
8.1
131.1
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.6
365.5
52.8
19.4
3.9
2.3
1.1
0.6
4.4
Present
(n=20)
Mean
1.0
36.9
354.1
59.4
681.9
21.6
0.6
7.4
49.3
4.7
1.5
36.1
7037.5
657.8
285.6
92.2
35.9
10.6
4.7
48.2
SE %2 P
0.1
3.4
9.7
13.9
191.0
1.0
0.3
1.2
2.4
0.5
0.4
3.0
1485.8
90.4
29.6
8.2
4.1
2.5
1.2
9.4
41
-------
Table 14 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
50.3
59.8
64.0
59.6
47.7
18.6
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.8
2.3
1.7
53.2
59.5
67.3
64.2
42.8
8.4
4.1
4.2
3.6
4.4
8.2
3.6
5.5960.018-
50.8
60.4
65.3
61.8
47.7
17.8
2.0
1.9
1.4
1.9
2.4
1.9
50.3
57.5
61.8
55.1
45.2
15.4
3.5
3.5
2.7
3.2
5.4
3.2
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
60.0
1.0
59.1
3.4
60.8
1.1
57.0
2.1
4.235
0.835
42
-------
Table 15. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Ovenbirds and Black-throated Green Warblers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or positive relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant
variables only.
Ovenbird
Absent
(n=14)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
29.0
360.8
34.6
549.3
22.0
0.4
4.5
58.8
5.6
2.6
28.1
5783.5
988.8
348.2
90.6
26.8
10.7
3.1
48.6
SE
0.2
2.9
16.8
6.7
230.6
1.4
0.3
0.8
1.8
0.5
0.6
2.1
1069.4
101.1
58.0
7.0
5.6
3.4
1.6
12.9
Present
(n=71)
Mean
1.0
34.7
368.2
57.4
999.7
22.6
0.8
8.2
49.2
4.4
1.9
35.1
5596.8
667.3
284.5
90.1
31.6
8.5
3.6
45.1
SE x2 P
0.1
1.7
8.7
8.2
123.6
0.5
0.2
0.6 6.3520.012+
1.5
0.3
0.3
1.6
499.1
48.6
15.8
4.0
2.1
1.0
0.6
4.1
Black-throated Green Warbler
Absent
(n=70)
Mean
1.0
33.0
358.9
57.9
907.1
22.8
0.9
8.1
50.2
4.7
2.0
33.9
5671.9
718.3
319.0
92.8
29.3
8.7
3.5
50.4
SE
0.1
1.6
7.7
8.3
120.9
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.3
0.3
1.6
524.7
48.8
18.2
4.0
2.1
1.2
0.6
4.6
Present
(n=15)
Mean
1.3
37.4
406.8
33.8
958.3
21.0
0.3
5.3
53.7
4.2
2.2
34.1
5420.8
729.2
182.9
78.3
37.9
9.6
3.8
24.2
SE %2 P
0.1
4.7
23.5
6.5
280.1
1.1
0.3
0.8
2.1
0.8
0.6
2.6
743.4
125.7
19.1 11.8200.001-
6.8
5.1
1.2
1.0
4.1
43
-------
Table 15 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
56.7
69.6
70.2
55.2
39.6
18.2
3.6
3.7
3.4
4.6
5.9
3.8
49.5
57.8
63.3
61.2
48.6
17.1
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.8
2.4
1.8
7.400 0.006-
50.2
60.2
65.4
59.4
45.3
17.4
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.8
2.5
1.9
53.1
57.7
59.8
64.1
55.7
16.8
4.0
3.4
3.0
4.5
4.7
3.1
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
61.9
3.1
59.5
1.0
59.6
13.590
0.093
1.1
61.4
2.0
6.680 0.572
44
-------
Table 16. Means, standard errors (SE), and stepwise logistic regression results (Wald Chi-square statistics) for presence/absence of
Pileated Woodpeckers and Yellow-throated Warblers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' indicates a negative
relationship between presence and the habitat variables. Logistic regression results are given for significant variables only.
Pileated Woodpecker
Absent
(n=75)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Mean
1.0
32.9
368.8
55.0
975.1
22.6
0.7
7.7
51.0
4.8
2.1
33.5
5909.2
736.3
291.1
88.5
32.0
9.1
3.4
46.3
SE
0.1
1.6
8.3
7.8
119.3
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.2
1.5
497.3
47.3
17.4
3.8
2.2
1.1
0.6
4.5
Present
(n=10)
Mean
1.3
40.1
350.8
43.2
433.1
21.6
1.0
6.5
49.5
3.3
1.9
37.5
3515.6
600.0
324.4
103.1
21.9
6.9
4.4
41.3
SE %2 P
0.2
3.8
20.2
7.9
235.4
1.3
0.6
2.2
3.2
0.8
0.9
4.8
510.7
156.4
48.7
7.9
3.3
2.2
1.6
6.5
Yellow-throated Warblers
Absent
(n=74)
Mean
1.1
32.3
367.1
56.6
947.3
22.5
0.9
7.4
51.1
4.6
1.9
34.0
5196.4
709.5
288.7
89.9
31.4
8.0
3.5
44.0
SE
0.1
1.6
8.0
7.9
118.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
451.1
50.4
14.4
3.8
2.2
1.0
0.6
4.2
Present
(n=11)
Mean
0.5
43.6
364.9
33.9
684.9
22.4
0.0
8.9
49.1
5.1
2.8
33.9
8528.4
792.6
337.5
92.0
26.7
14.2
3.4
56.3
SE %2 P
0.2 4.6300.031-
3.5
27.9
6.9
307.0
1.4
0.0
1.8
3.7
0.9
0.7
3.8
1480.3
96.9
82.5
9.4
5.3
2.9
1.3
12.4
45
-------
Table 16 cont.
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
49.4
59.0
64.2
60.5
48.2
18.7
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.8
2.4
1.7
60.9
65.6
66.0
58.6
39.0
6.4
3.8
3.6
2.6
4.3
6.2
2.5
5.4990.019-
49.9
59.9
65.3
62.8
49.0
17.3
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.3
1.8
56.1
58.4
58.8
43.2
34.2
17.2
3.9
5.1
4.8
3.5
6.3
4.0
9.061 0.003-
Structural Diversity Index
Hosmer-Lemeshow
Goodness-of-fit Test
60.0
1.1
59.3
1.5
60.8
1.0
53.6
2.6
6.326
0.611
4.361
0.823
46
-------
Table 17. Means and standard errors (SE) of habitat variables in relation to presence/absence
of Summer Tanagers in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. No variables were
chosen by stepwise logistic regression for predicting Summer Tanager presence.
Summer
Absent
(n=70)
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Canopy height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round/rock
Leaf litter
Woody debris
Moss
Green
Tree Density (no./ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags (>8 cm)
Canopy Cover (%):
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.1
33.5
363.6
52.6
906.5
22.6
0.9
7.8
50.4
4.5
1.9
34.1
5240.2
722.8
287.1
90.9
30.6
8.4
3.3
43.8
50.3
60.0
64.8
60.6
47.3
16.6
59.9
SE
0.1
1.8
8.3
7.4
122.0
0.6
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.3
0.2
1.5
428.8
49.4
16.5
4.1
2.0
1.1
0.6
4.0
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.7
1.0
Tanager
Present
(n=15)
Mean
1.0
35.2
383.5
58.4
961.4
21.6
0.2
6.3
52.6
5.1
2.5
33.3
7435.4
708.3
332.1
87.1
31.7
10.8
4.6
54.2
52.4
58.3
62.9
58.4
46.2
20.3
59.7
SE
0.2
2.4
20.9
20.1
266 .1
1.0
0.2
1.1
3.1
0.6
0.8
3.6
1541.8
119.8
51.2
6.7
6.4
2.7
1.6
12.8
3.6
4.5
2.9
4.1
5.2
4.2
2.7
47
-------
Table 18. Mist net effort and the distribution of Grasshopper Sparrows captured and banded on
study sites.
Site
CL1
CV2
DN2
DR1
HA1
HN2
Overall
Males
21
11
29
27
30
22
140
Females Juveniles
7
7
7
3
3
6
33
2
3
2
14
6
2
29
Total
Captures
29
21
22
56
40
25
193
M * LJ Captures/Net
Net Hours K,,
Hour
124.00
72.25
85.00
217.63
210.25
76.50
785.63
0.23
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.19
0.33
0.25
Table 19. Systematic nest search effort and mean and SE of clutch size for Grasshopper
Sparrow nests in the 2001 breeding season by site.
Site
CL1
CV2
DN2
D01
DR1
HA1
HN2
H01
Overall
Search effort
(hrs)
72.57
44.33
48.91
0.33
26.00
108.50
69.24
2.00
372.14
No. Nests
Found
4
3
10
2
5
7
4
2
37
Nests/hr
0.06
0.07
0.20
6.06
0.19
0.65
0.06
0.50
0.10
Clutch
Mean
3.25
4.00
3.80
3.50
3.40
3.88
3.67
4.50
3.73
size
SE
0.75
0.00
0.33
0.50
0.60
0.23
0.67
0.50
0.16
48
-------
Table 20. Mean and standard error (SE) of nest variables and habitat variables surrounding
successful (n=17) and unsuccessful (n=20) nests of Grasshopper Sparrows on MTRVF areas in
2001. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare habitat variables between
successful and unsuccessful nests (a=0.05).
Successful
Variable
Slope Aspect (degrees)
Slope (%)
Overhead Cover (%)
Side Cover (%)
North
South
East
West
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Green
Grass
Forb
Shrub
Litter
Wood
Bare ground
Moss
Water
Robel Pole Index (dm)
Nest
1m
3m
5m
Grass Height (dm)
1m
3m
5m
10m
Litter depth (cm)
1m
3m
5m
10m
Nest substrate height (veg)
Nest substrate height (repro)
Nest Clump Area (cm2)
Distance to foliage edge (cm)
Nest depth (cm)
Nest width (cm)
Nest rim width (cm)
Nest rim height (cm)
Mean
161.70
12.30
73.70
82.40
91.20
80.90
92.60
24.60
73.20
40.40
27.90
0
8.30
0
20.90
2.20
0
3.13
3.17
3.65
3.71
2.91
3.22
3.27
3.50
0.21
0.30
0.23
0.24
3.75
7.65
1,216.53
19.20
5.80
6.60
1.97
1.80
SE
22.20
2.90
6.40
4.20
4.30
5.50
4.70
7.60
3.70
2.90
2.80
0
1.20
0
3.80
0.70
0
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.30
0.19
0.24
0.23
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.47
142.70
3.50
0.31
0.15
0.10
0.27
Unsuccessful
Mean
167.70
8.30
75.00
82.50
93.80
77.50
87.70
34.10
79.10
38.50
28.90
0.01
8.30
0
18.40
2.90
0
4.01
4.28
4.12
3.88
3.26
7.69
3.24
3.90
0.20
0.25
0.27
0.30
4.27
7.00
1,387.98
20.10
5.90
6.50
1.98
1.50
SE
21.40
3.00
4.80
4.80
3.10
4.80
5.80
8.80
3.80
3.60
2.50
0.01
0.90
0
3.04
1.01
0
0.03
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.19
4.60
0.23
0.24
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.28
0.41
146.71
2.20
0.22
0.12
0.07
0.23
ANOVA
F
0.04
0.90
0.03
0.00
0.25
0.22
0.43
1.45
1.22
0.16
0.06
0.85
0.00
-
0.27
0.41
-
6.56
6.69
1.12
0.14
2.01
0.83
0.002
1.33
0.03
0.66
0.46
1.03
0.44
1.06
0.69
0.05
0.15
0.19
0.01
1.05
P
0.41
0.35
0.87
0.98
0.62
0.64
0.52
0.23
0.28
0.69
0.80
0.36
0.97
-
0.61
0.53
-
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.71
0.16
0.37
0.96
0.25
0.86
0.42
0.50
0.31
0.51
0.31
0.41
0.83
0.70
0.66
0.94
0.31
49
-------
Table 21. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at nests (N=37) and fixed habitat plots (N=48) sampling
points. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare habitat variables between successful and unsuccessful nests
(
-------
Table 22. Percentage of adult Peromyscus spp. individuals in reproductive condition among grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments in 1999 and 2000 in southwestern West Virginia.
Treatment
Grassland Shrub/Pole
Comparison
Amonq Treatments
1999
Males
Females
Total
2000
Males
Females
Total
%
65.5Ab
41 .9A
48.3A
79. 8A
55. 8A
66.2A
Na % N
14 -c - -
15 ...
16 ...
19 85.3A 11
19 68.3A 12
20 74.7A 12
Fragmented
%
39. 9B
13.4B
25 B
83. 3A
54. 5A
63.2A
Forest
N
15
16
16
16
19
19
Intact Forest
%
25.4B
4B
12C
82.5A
22. 6 B
52.5A
N
16
16
16
19
16
16
ANOVA Results
F
7.18
9.11
11.33
0.45
4.57
1.05
df
2
2
2
3
3
3
P
0.0026
0.0002
0.0002
0.7179
0.0068
0.3802
Between Years
ANOVA Results
df
F df P
F df
F df
Males
Females
Total
0.
1.
3.
.88
.51
.32
1
1
1
0
0
0
.3586
.2302
.0795
-c - - 19.19
- - - 14.5
- - - 17.33
1
1
1
0.0002
0.0008
0.0003
33.73
0.39
15.42
1 <0
1 0.
1 0.
.0001 - -
.5360 - -
.0007 - -
a N= number of trapping sessions multiplied by the number of transects in a given treatment.
b Means followed by different letters within a row are significantly different from one another (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test, P<0.05).
cThe shrub/pole treatment was not sampled in 1999.
51
-------
Table 23. Relative abundance (mammals/100 trap nights), and standard error (SE) of Peromyscus spp. age and sex groups in
grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments in southwestern West Virginia for 1999 and 2000.
Grassland
1999
Adult Males
Adult Females
Juvenile Males
Juvenile Females
Mean
4.0Ab
2.1A
4.5A
2.2A
SE
2.8
1.4
3.3
2.0
Treatment
Shrub/Pole Fragmented Forest
Na Mean
16
16
16
16
SE N Mean
- - 1.8B
1.9AB
- - 3.9A
3.1A
SE
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.1
N
16
16
16
16
Intact Forest
Mean
1.4B
1.0B
5.3A
3.6A
SE
1.6
1.2
4.0
2.7
N
16
16
16
16
ANOVA Results
F
8.20
3.51
1.03
2.11
P
0.0012
0.0404
0.3656
0.1356
2000
Adult Males
Adult Females
Juvenile Males
Juvenile Females
6.2A
5.7A
4.6A
3.8A
4.9
4.0
4.0
3.7
20
20
20
20
5.9A
6.2A
3.9AB
2.9A
3.8 12
4.2 12
2.1 12
2.5 12
2.3B
1.8B
1.3C
0.7B
1.9 20
1.4 20
1.2 20
1.1 20
1.1B
1.9B
2.5BC
1.2B
1.8 20
2.1 20
3.0 20
3.0 20
13.13
14.54
5.99
7.50
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0013
0.0003
a N=number of trapping sessions multiplied by the number of transects in a given treatment.
b Means followed by different letters within a row are significantly different from one another (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test, P<0.05).
cThe shrub/pole treatment was not sampled in 1999.
52
-------
Table 24. Results of multiple linear regression of mammal species richness, total abundance,
and Peromyscus spp. abundance on habitat and environmental variables for shrub/pole,
fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments. Significant variables in the model are listed
below the dependent variable.
Parameter
Variable Estimate
Richness
Low Temp.
Precip.
Bare ground (%)
Total Abundance
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Canopy Height
Precipitation
Bare ground (%)
Low Temp.
Peromyscus spp. abundance
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Canopy Height
Bare ground (%)
Precip.
-0.0912
-0.2039
1.0570
-16.4071
-0.5107
-2.0173
16.6469
-0.6224
-17.0509
-0.4884
12.2341
-1.3118
F
8.61
9.43
4.60
21.03
8.82
9.88
11.43
9.16
34.86
12.35
7.32
8.11
P
0.0044
0.0030
0.0351
<0.0001
0.0040
0.0024
0.0011
0.0034
<0.0001
0.0007
0.0084
0.0057
Partial R2
0.0995
0.0982
0.0458
0.2123
0.0809
0.0813
0.0827
0.0598
0.3088
0.0955
0.0523
0.0530
Model R2
0.0995
0.1977
0.2435
0.2123
0.2932
0.3745
0.4572
0.5170
0.3088
0.4044
0.4567
0.5098
Table 25. Results of multiple linear regression of mammal species richness, total abundance,
and Peromyscus spp. abundance on habitat and environmental variables for grassland
treatment. Significant variables in the model are shown below the dependent variable.
Variable
Richness
Average grass height
Total Abundance
Green groundcover
Precipitation
Bareg round
Peromyscus spp. abundance
Bare ground (%)
Precipitation
Shrub
Parameter
Estimate
0.2297
99.9693
2.1868
-44.4321
-73.4487
2.1953
3.0591
F
10.60
5.19
5.79
4.08
15.88
7.11
5.77
P
0.0026
0.0295
0.0221
0.0518
0.0004
0.0119
0.0223
Partial R2 Model R2
0.2376
0.3699
0.0673
0.0637
0.4454
0.0942
0.0703
0.2376
0.3699
0.4372
0.5009
0.4454
0.5396
0.6099
53
-------
Table 26. Results of logistic regression of short-tailed shrew, woodland jumping mouse, and
chipmunk abundance on habitat and environmental variables within the shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments.
Variable
Parameter
Estimate
Short-tailed shrew
Bareg round
Model
4.36
4.2922
1.2314
0.0383
0.8729
Woodland jumping mouse
Moon illumination
Water
Canopy Cover >0.5-3 m
Model
-2.81 5.2752 0.0216
7.84 4.0787 0.0434
8.33 3.625 0.0569
8.5362 0.3829
Eastern Chipmunk
Water
Bareg round
Canopy cover>12 m
Tree density >8-38 cm
Model
-22.14 9.0245 0.0027
8.92 5.8598 0.0155
6.25 5.6034 0.0179
0.01 8.378 0.0038
32.8363 <0.0001
54
-------
Table 27. Average mammalian species richness (# species/array), relative abundance (mammals/100 trap nights), and standard
errors (SE) in grassland,shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments in southwestern West Virginia in 2000 and 2001.
Treatment
Species Richness
Relative Abundance
Total
Peromyscus spp.
Woodland jumping mouse
Southern bog lemming
Woodland vole
Meadow vole
Microtus spp. b
Short-tailed shrew
Masked shrew
Smoky shrew
Pygmy shrew
Sorex spp.c
N
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Grassland
Mean
2.85A3
10.37A
4.52A
0.03B
1.45A
0.09B
0.21 A
0.58A
0.45B
2.20AB
0.27A
0.06AB
3.28A
Shrub/Pole
SE
0.25
1.19
0.73
0.03
0.34
0.05
0.08
0.17
0.20
0.44
0.10
0.04
0.56
N
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Mean
2.74A
9.39A
3.61 AB
0.05B
0.98A
0.36AB
0.17A
0.62A
0.51 B
2.94A
0.12A
0.03B
3.62A
SE
0.21
1.11
0.74
0.04
0.25
0.12
0.09
0.17
0.15
0.71
0.06
0.03
0.76
Fragmented Forest
N
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Mean
2.82A
9.48A
3.20 AB
0.53A
0.20B
0.44 AB
0.30A
1.18A
2.66A
1.14BC
0.14A
0.26A
1.69B
SE
0.28
1.64
0.73
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.32
0.81
0.37
0.07
0.09
0.41
N
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
Intact Forest
Mean
1.88B
4.82B
1.77B
0.08B
O.OOB
0.57A
0.05A
0.85A
0.52B
0.97C
0.23A
0.17AB
1.55B
SE
0.24
0.85
0.48
0.08
0.00
0.20
0.04
0.30
0.16
0.24
0.10
0.07
0.32
ANOVA Results
F
5.58
5.70
3.31
7.53
9.51
2.34
1.72
1.45
10.58
4.74
0.79
2.51
4.73
P
0.0014
0.0012
0.0229
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0778
0.1674
0.2317
<0.0001
0.0038
0.5008
0.0630
0.0039
a Means followed by different letters within a row are significantly different (Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test, P<0.05).
b Combines woodland voles, meadow voles, and unidentified Microtus spp.
c Combines masked shrews, smoky shrews, pygmy shrews, and unidentified Sorex spp.
55
-------
Table 28. Habitat characteristics at forest fragment streams (n=4) and intact forest streams
(n=3) by stream order.
Site
No. Segment Substrate Type a
Channel
Type3
No. of Coarse
Woody Debris
Sampled
No. of Rocks
Sampled
Forest Fragment Streams - Second Order
5 1 SR, RG
2 SR, RG
3 SR, RG
4 SR, RG, BA
5 SR, RG, BA
44 1 SR, RG, WD
2 SR, RG, WD
3 SR, RG, WD
4 SR, RG, BA, WD
5 SR, RG, BA, WD
173 1 SR, RG, BA, WD
2 SR, RG, BA
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl
PO, RU
RU
RU
Rl, PO, RU
Rl, PO, RU
Rl, PO
Rl
21
7
12
6
19
24
74
39
95
104
19
0
689
480
137
1554
821
67
71
98
75
127
3012
1495
Forest Fragment Streams - Third Order
131 1 SR, RG, LR
2 SR, RG, LR
3 SR, RG, LR, BL
4 SR, RG, BA, LR
5 SR, RG, BA
Intact Forest Streams - Intermittent
112 1 SR, LR
2 SR, LR
5 SR, LR, BA
Intact Forest Streams - First Order
21 1 SR
2 SR
3 SR, RG, WD
4 SR, WD
5 SR, WD
165 1 SR, LR
2 SR, WD
3 SR, WD
4 SR, BA, WD
5 SR, BA, WD, LR
Intact Forest Streams - Second Order
112 3 SR, R/G
4 SR, R/G, BA
RA
RA
RA, PO
Rl
Rl, PO
Rl, PO, CA
DR
DR
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
PO
DR
DR, PO
DR, PO
Rl, PO
Rl, PO
5
5
0
6
25
25
37
28
67
38
18
61
3
13
46
70
16
111
9
3
758
457
343
1266
1935
638
527
1144
392
579
345
1473
1219
157
140
34
223
698
342
2928
3 Habitat characteristics assessed qualitatively using a protocol modified from USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center (Jung et al. 1999).
BA = bank (river edge, soil, lacks rocks)
BL = boulder (> 1.5 m in diameter)
LR = large rocks (0.5-1.5 m in diameter)
SR = small rocks (0.1-0.5 m in diameter)
RG = rubble / gravel (< 0.1 m in diameter)
WD = woody debris
RU = run (smooth current)
RA = rapid (fast current broken by obstructions)
PO = pool (standing water)
CA = cascade (water flowing over slanting rocks)
Rl = riffle (ripples and waves)
DR = dry (no visible moisture or water)
56
-------
Table 29. Species expected (Exp) to occur in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and
intact forest treatments in our study area in southwestern West Virginia based on Green and
Pauley (1987) and personal communication with T. Pauley, compared to those actually
observed (Obs) in drift fence surveys (a), stream searches (s), and from incidental sightings (i),
March - October 2000 and 2001.
Grassland
Species Exp Obs
Terrestrial species
Salamanders
Cumberland Plateau Salamander (Plethodon kentucki)
Southern Ravine Salamander (Plethodon richmondi)
Eastern Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) i
Northern Slimy Salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)
Wehrle's Salamander (Plethodon wehrlei)
Lizards
Broad-headed Skink (Eumeces laticeps)
Common Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) x
Little Brown Skink (Scincella lateralis) a
Coal Skink (Eumeces anthracinus) x
Northern Fence-lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus) x a,i
Snakes
Eastern Black Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus niger) x
Black Rat Snake (Elaphe o. obsoleta) x a,i
Eastern Smooth Earthsnake (Virginia v. valeriae) x
Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) x a
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) x a,i
Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis t. triangulum) x a
Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) x
Eastern Wormsnake (Carphophis a. amoenus) x
Northern Black Racer (Coluber c. constrictor) x a,i
Northern Brownsnake (Storeria d. dekayi) x
Northern Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen) a
Northern Red-bellied Snake (Storeria o. occipitomaculata) x
Northern Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii)
Northern Rough Greensnake (Opheodrys a. aestivus) x
Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)3
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene c. Carolina) x i
Semiaquatic species
Salamanders
Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
Marbled Salamander (Ambystoma opacum)
Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) a,i
Green Salamander (Aneides aeneus)
Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) a
Red-spotted Newt (Notophthalmus v. viridescens) a,i
Toads and Frogs
Eastern American Toad (Bufo a. americanus) x a,i
Fowler's Toad (B. fowleri) b a
Shrub/ Fragmented
pole Forest
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x
x
x i
x a
x
x
x a x a
x
x x
a,i i
x x
x a,i x a
x x
x a x a,i
a
x a x a
i
x x
x a i
x x
a x a
x x a
x s
x i x
i x
x i x a,i
x
x
a x a
x
x a
a,i x a,s,i
x a,i a,i
x s,i
Intact
Forest
Exp Obs
x a,s,i
x
x a,s,i
x a
x
x
x a
x a
x
x
x i
x
x a,i
x a,i
i
x a
i
x
x a,i
x a,i
x i
x i
x i
x a,i
x
x
x a
x
x
x a,s,i
a,i
57
-------
Table 29. Continued.
Grassland
Species Exp Obs
Toads and Frogs (cont'd)
Eastern Spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii)
Cope's Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)
Northern Spring Peeper (Pseudacris c. crucifer) i
Mountain Chorus Frog (Pseudacris brachyphona)
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) x
Pickerel frog (Rana palustris) x a
Aquatic species
Salamanders
Seal Salamander (Desmognathus monticola)
Northern Dusky Salamander (D.fuscus)
Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis)
Midland Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus diastictus)
Common Mudpuppy (Necturus m. maculosus) x
Northern Red Salamander (Pseudotriton r. ruber) x
Southern Two-lined Salamander (Eurycea cirrigera)
Long-tailed Salamander (Eurycea 1. longicauda) x
Northern Spring Salamander (Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus)
Toads and Frogs
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) x a,i
Northern Green Frog (Rana clamitans melanota) x a,i
Snakes
Common Watersnake (Nerodia s. sipedon) x a
Queen Snake (Regina septemvittata)
Turtles
Eastern Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina) x i
Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone s. spinifera)0 x
Midland Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) x
Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) x
Shrub/ Fragmented
pole Forest
Exp Obs Exp Obs
x
a,i x i
a,i x i
i x
x a
x a x a,i
x a,i x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x
x
x x
x x s
x a,s,i
x x s,i
x s
x a,i x a,s
x a,i x a,s,i
x a x s,i
x
x i x i
x x
x x
x x
Intact
Forest
Exp Obs
x
x i
x i
x i
x a,i
x
x a,s,i
x a,s,i
x s,i
x
x
x
x a,s
x s,i
x
x s,i
x s
x a,i
x
x
x
x
x
x
a One incidental sighting of a timber rattlesnake was also found on the edge between shrub/pole
and fragmented forest habitats.
b One incidental sighting of a Fowler's toad was also found on the edge between shrub/pole and
fragmented forest habitats.
cOne incidental sighting of an eastern spiny softshell turtle was also found on the edge between
grassland and fragmented forest habitats.
58
-------
Table 30. Number of individuals of herpetofauna species captured in drift fence arrays and
percent of points at which a species was captured in grassland (n = 3), shrub/pole (n = 3),
fragmented forest (n = 3), and intact forest treatments (n = 4)a on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, March - October, 2000 and 2001.
Grassland
No.
Species indivs
Salamanders
Seal Salamander
Cumberland Plateau Salamander
Four-toed Salamander
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Northern Dusky Salamander
Northern Red Salamander
Eastern Red-backed Salamander
Red-spotted Newt
Northern Slimy Salamander
Spotted Salamander
Toads and frogs
American Bullfrog
Eastern American Toad
Fowler's Toad
Cope's Gray Treefrog
Northern Green Frog
Northern Leopard Frog
Northern Spring Peeper
Pickerel Frog
Unidentified Frog
Unidentified Toad
Wood Frog
Lizards
Common Five-lined Skink
Little Brown Skink
Northern Fence-Lizard
Snakes
Black Ratsnake
Eastern Gartersnake
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake
Eastern Milksnake
Eastern Wormsnake
Northern Black Racer
Northern Copperhead
Northern Red-bellied Snake
Common Watersnake
Turtles
Eastern Box Turtle
1
9
1
2
9
2
52
43
5
1
2
5
6
1
4
9
1
1
%of
points
33
100
33
33
66
33
100
100
66
33
66
66
66
33
33
100
33
33
Shrub/pole
No.
indivs
13
1
4
35
2
46
2
1
25
2
2
2
6
6
2
3
27
8
1
%of
points
100
33
100
100
33
100
33
33
66
33
66
33
100
66
33
66
100
100
33
Fragmented
Forest
No.
indivs
1
1
2
1
26
5
1
2
3
44
2
48
1
2
4
1
10
4
4
1
2
%of
points
33
33
33
33
100
33
33
66
66
100
33
100
33
66
33
33
100
66
66
33
66
Intact
No.
indivs
1
12
2
5
22
2
1
20
6
19
1
5
2
1
8
1
2
5
1
1
Forest
%of
points
25
75
50
25
100
25
25
75
75
50
25
75
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
a A 4th drift fence array was installed in one of the intact forest points and opened for trapping in
September and October, 2001.
59
-------
Table 31. Herpetofaunal species richness and relative abundance from drift fence arrays in
grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF
areas in southwestern West Virginia, March - October 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for trap effort
per 100 array nights).
Grassland
Mean SE
Shrub/pole
Mean SE
Fragmented
Forest
Mean SE
Intact Forest
Mean SE
Species richness
Abundance
Total
1.04 0.28
4.46 1.20
1.13 0.26
5.41 0.96
1.20 0.32
5.29 0.83
1.07 0.25
3.41 0.43
Amphibians 3.33 1.17 3.59 0.93 4.41 0.77 2.80 0.43
Reptiles 0.99 0.23 1.77 0.29 0.85 0.19 0.58 0.16
Terrestrial Species 0.95 0.21 1.73 0.09 1.03 0.22 1.26 0.28
Aquatic Species 1.51 0.74 1.41 0.37 1.59 0.51 0.25 0.09
Semi-aquatic Species 1.86 0.83 2.22 0.73 2.64 0.43 1.87 0.36
Salamanders 0.33 0.12 0.44 0.13 1.20 0.25 1.09 0.20
Toads and frogs 3.00 1.15 3.15 0.92 3.20 0.67 1.31 0.28
Snakes 0.90 0.22 1.64 0.27 0.67 0.14 0.46 0.15
Red-spotted Newt 0.26 0.10 0.41 0.13 0.83 0.20 0.69 0.27
Eastern American Toad 0.26 0.12 0.98 0.49 0.10 0.06 0.52 0.13
Northern Green Frog 1.40 0.74 1.25 0.35 1.40 0.47 0.15 0.06
Pickerel Frog 1.22 0.67 0.67 0.27 1.52 0.30 0.48 0.20
Eastern Gartersnake 0.19 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.36 0.12 0.22 0.09
Northern Black Racer 0.32 0.11AB 0.84 0.17 A 0.00 0.00 B 0.00 0.00 B
a Within a row, means with the same letter are not different at a = 0.05 (Waller Duncan K-ratio t
Test).
60
-------
Table 32. Number of individuals and species of herpetofaunal groups captured in drift fence arrays in grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented
forest, and intact forest treatments on reclaimed MTMVF areas in southwestern West Virginia, March-October, 2000 and 2001.
Grassland
Individuals
Taxonomic Group
Salamanders
Toads and frogs
Lizards
Snakes
Turtles
n
11
113
3
27
0
%
7.1
73.4
2.0
17.5
0.0
Species
n
3
5
2
7
0
%
17.6
29.4
11.8
41.2
0.0
Shrub/pole
Individuals
n
14
118
4
53
0
%
7.4
62.4
2.1
28.1
0.0
Species
n
2
7
2
7
0
%
11.1
38.9
11.1
38.9
0
Fragmented Forest
Individuals
n
37
102
4
20
2
%
22.4
61.8
2.4
12.1
1.2
Species
n
7
6
1
5
1
%
35.0
30.0
5.0
25.0
5.0
Intact Forest
Individuals
n
45
51
3
17
1
%
38.4
43.6
2.6
14.5
0.9
Species
n
7
4
2
5
1
%
36.8
21.1
10.5
26.3
5.3
61
-------
Table 33. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at grassland (n=3),
shrub/pole (n=3), fragmented forest (n=3), and intact forest (n=3) sampling points3.
Treatment
Grassland
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Elevation (m)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Distance to Forest/Mine Edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Bareg round
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb Cover
Grass Cover
Shrub Cover
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-6 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
20.67
1.62
6.80
2.60
413.67
94.00
408.73
535.12
3.07
~
0.00
1.33
2.42
0.00
0.00
16.25
5.75
6.75
3.75
42.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
SE
8.97
0.06
1.69
1.04
37.95
48.19
324.42
267.58
0.71
~
0.00
0.79
1.53
0.00
0.00
1.26
2.75
2.38
3.63
41.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
-
~
Shrub/Pole
Mean
4.42
0.60
4.09
1.06
412.00
61.00
68.8
271.11
4.98
3.40
0.33
0.5
1.67
0.00
0.75
15.08
6.17
4.42
4.50
5156.25
406.25
85.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.58
4.00
1.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.17
4
0
1
0
39
8
15
187
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
2044
SE
.42
.57
.91
.33
.53
.79
.66
.46
.40
.75
.22
.14
.67
.00
.63
.93
.60
.19
.13
.75
62.5
33
0
0
0
0
1
.53
.00
.00
.00
.00
.34
2.08
1.46
0
0
0
4
.00
.00
.00
.69
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
28.42
0.73
-b
-
335.00
54.92
175.87
175.87
~
22.9
0.42
0.83
11.50
0.75
0.17
6.33
—
—
-
2854.17
562.50
225.00
68.75
33.33
2.08
0.00
9.92
13.00
12.67
10.17
6.33
3.83
55.92
SE
7.53
0.14
-
-
20.95
19.44
77.46
77.46
~
1.59
0.30
0.08
0.63
0.14
0.08
0.30
—
—
-
1464.90
118.31
71.90
25.26
11.60
2.08
0.00
2.05
1.44
2.35
0.79
3.17
2.00
2.42
Intact
Forest
Mean
22
0
444
118
1744
1744
.58
.68
-
-
.67
.75
.97
.97
~
22.4
0
1
10
0
1
5
6843
343
275
81
10
2
0
10
10
13
14
10
2
62
.08
.83
.58
.58
.17
.75
—
—
-
.75
.75
.00
.25
.42
.08
.00
.75
.42
.33
.67
.17
.75
.08
9
0
66
91
562
562
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1043
160
74
19
2
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
2
5
SE
.38
.13
-
-
.23
.04
.73
.73
~
.85
.08
.71
.23
.17
.58
.90
—
—
-
.18
.36
.56
.09
.08
.08
.00
.22
.52
.36
.45
.34
.38
.60
aThis table does not include habitat variables for the most recently added intact sampling point
(herp data collection started September 2001 for this point).
b Variables were not measured in this treatment.
62
-------
Table 34. Number of individuals and species of herpetofauna groups captured in stream
surveys in fragmented forest streams and intact forest streams on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, May-October, 2001.
Fragmented Forest
Streams
Intact Forest Streams
Individuals
Taxonomic Group
Salamanders
Toads and frogs
Lizards
Snakes
Turtles
n
270
16
0
3
0
%
93.4
5.5
0.0
1.1
0.0
Species
n
7
4
0
2
0
%
53.8
30.8
0.0
15.4
0.0
Individuals
n
386
3
0
0
0
%
99.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Species
n
8
2
0
0
0
%
80.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 35. Mean number of individuals and standard error (SE) of stream salamanders per
segment of fragmented forest streams and intact forest streams on reclaimed MTMVF areas in
southwestern West Virginia, May-October 2001.
Treatments
Fragmented Forest Streams
No.
Site Segments
No. Sampled
Second Order
5 5
44 5
173 2
Third Order
131 5
Mean
5.4
1.8
68.5
19.4
SE
0.93
0.97
7.50
7.53
Intact Forest
No.
Site Segments
No. Sampled
Intermittent
112 3
First Order
21 5
165 5
Second Order
112 2
Streams
Mean
21.0
16.0
30.6
45.0
SE
6.11
2.74
9.08
25.00
63
-------
Table 36. Number of individuals for species of herpetofauna captured during stream surveys in
southwestern West Virginia, May-October, 2001.
Species
Salamanders
Cumberland Plateau Salamander
Eastern Red-backed Salamander
Seal Salamander
Northern Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus spp. (Seal or N.
Dusky)
Southern Two-lined Salamander
Long-tailed Salamander
Northern Spring Salamander
Red -Spotted Newt
Northern Red Salamander
Unidentified Salamander
Total
Toads and Frogs
Fowler's Toad
American Bullfrog
Northern Green Frog
Pickerel Frog
Rana spp.
Unidentified Frog
Total
Snakes
Northern Ring-necked Snake
Common Watersnake
Total
Grand Total
Fragmented
Second
Order
7
76
7
57
1
2
6
20
176
1
1
5
3
3
13
1
1
2
191
Forest
Third
Order
8
42
8
15
1
2
1
20
97
0
1
1
98
Intermittent
1
8
34
8
8
1
1
2
63
0
0
63
Intact Forest
First
Order
57
102
22
21
2
1
28
233
1
1
1
3
0
236
Second
Order
17
47
8
7
1
4
6
90
0
0
90
64
-------
Appendix A-1
Changes to the Wood and Edwards 2001 MTMVF terrestrial report
January 2002
Habitat and songbird data were reanalyzed and sections of the original report (Wood and Edwards
2001) were modified as follows:
habitat data - stem densities were recalculated and density of snags was added to the tables and
analyses
Table 6. Means and standard errors for stem densities were corrected and snag
densities added.
Tables 7-9. The new ANOVA statistics for stem densities and snags are reported.
Changes were also made to the text under the Results and Discussion section for
the habitat measurements.
songbirds - after we modified the stem density values and added snag data, we re-analyzed
songbird habitat preferences using stepwise logistic regression rather than forward logistic regression.
Changes were made to the text in the Methods, Results and Discussion sections and to Tables 16-
20. These sections are attached below and should replace the sections and tables in the original
report. Changes in the logistic regression results for individual species are briefly summarized here:
Cerulean Warbler
Previously they were related to elevation and canopy cover >6-12m (both positive relationships), but
stepwise logistic regression chose no variables for predicting Cerulean Warbler presence.
Louisiana Waterthrush
The only variable chosen by stepwise logistic regression for predicting Louisiana Waterthrush was
density of trees <2.5 cm (negative) (forward logistic regression chose bareground cover, moss cover,
and density of trees >2.5-8cm).
Worm-eating Warbler
Forward logistic regression chose 5 variables to predict this species' presence. Stepwise logistic
regression chose 1 variable: aspect code (negative relationship).
Kentucky Warbler
In the new model Kentucky Warblers are related to elevation and density of stems >8-23 cm (both
negative), and green ground cover (positive).
Wood Thrush
In the forward model Wood Thrush were related to elevation (negative) and density of stems >23-38
cm (positive). The stepwise model chose both of these variables with the addition of canopy cover
>24 m (positive).
Acadian Flycatcher
The forward model chose 7 variables for inclusion in the model. In the stepwise model, Acadian
Flycatchers were negatively related to litter cover, and density of stems <2.5 cm and >8-23cm. They
were positively related to bareground/rock cover.
Hooded Warbler
A-1
-------
In the forward model they were positively related to woody debris and density of stems >2.5-8 cm.
Stepwise logistic regression found green cover and density of stems <2.5 cm to be positively related
to Hooded Warbler presence.
Yellow-throated Vireo
Seven variables were included in the forward model for this species, whereas the stepwise model did
not choose any.
Black-and-white Warbler
The forward model included 6 variables, whereas the stepwise model included only water cover
(negative).
Scarlet Tanager.
Six variables were included in the forward model, whereas only 3 were in the stepwise model
(elevation, distance to mine, and density of stems >8-23 cm - all positive).
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Forward logistic regression included woody debris cover (positive), and elevation and aspect (both
negative) in the model. The stepwise model only included elevation.
Modified Text:
Methods
Songbird Abundance
Partners in Flight (PIF) identified 15 songbird species as priority species for conservation in the
upland forest community of the Ohio Hills and Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic areas, the
2 areas within which our study sites fall (Table 5; Rosenberg 2000, R. McClain, personal
communication). The Cerulean Warbler in particular is listed as being at Action level II (in need of
immediate management or policy rangewide) by PIF. The Louisiana Waterthrush and Eastern Wood-
pewee are other species of concern, listed at Action level III (management needed to reverse or
stabilize populations). The other 12 species are at Action level IV (long-term planning to ensure
stable populations needed). We developed logistic regression models for the 11 listed species
(Cerulean Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler.Acadian
Flycatcher, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo, Hooded Warbler, Scarlet Tanager, Black-and-white
Warbler, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo) that were found at >5% of point counts (Table 5).
We used stepwise logistic regression (Neter et al. 1996) to examine the relationship between habitat
characteristics and the presence/absence of these 11 forest songbirds using habitat data from
fragmented and intact forest point counts. The significance level chosen for entry and retention in the
model was 0.10. We used presence/absence as the dependent variable because at most point
counts only 1 individual of a species was detected within 50 m (Hagan et al. 1997). This technique
was chosen because it has been used by other researchers examining the effects of landscapes on
songbird species (Hagan et al. 1997, Villard et al. 1999), and because predictor variables do not need
to follow a joint multivariate normal distribution (Neter et al. 1996). The Hosmer and Lemeshow
goodness-of-fit test was used to determine if the data fit the specified model. Models were rejected if
the p-value for the goodness-of-fit test was <0.10, indicating that we should not reject the null
hypothesis that our data fit the specified model (Cody and Smith 1997).
A-2
-------
Results and Discussion
Habitat at Sampling Points
Habitat variables were measured at all sampling points in 1999 and 2000 (Table 6). Nineteen
variables were measured in all treatments. Means for all habitat variables by treatment and mine are
found in Appendix 4
Stem densities of saplings, poles, and trees in 5 size classes all differed significantly among
treatments (Table 7). Densities of trees >8-23 cm were higher in fragmented and intact forest than in
the grassland and shrub/pole treatments and also higher in the shrub/pole treatment than in the
grassland treatment. Density of trees >53-68 cm and >68cm were greater in fragmented forest and
intact forest than in grassland and shrub/pole treatments. Statistical analysis revealed treatment by
mine interactions for saplings, poles, snags, and trees >23-38cm and trees >38-53 cm (Table 7);
therefore treatments were compared on individual mines, and mines were compared in individual
treatments. Specific ANOVA results for all variables exhibiting interactions are found in Tables 8 and
9.
Ground cover variables differed significantly among treatments. Although water cover was highest in
the fragmented forest treatment than in the other 3 treatments and higher in the intact forest treatment
than in the grassland or shrub/pole treatment (Table 7), cover of standing water averaged <1.2%.
Moss cover was higher in fragmented and intact forest than in the grassland and shrub/pole
treatments. Green cover was higher in the shrub/pole treatment than in the other 3 treatments, and
higher in the grassland treatment than in the fragmented forest or intact forest treatments (Table 7).
Bareground cover, litter cover, and woody debris cover had significant treatment by mine interactions
(Tables 8 and 9).
Slope, aspect code, elevation, and distances to nearest minor, habitat, and mine/forest edges also
were compared among all 4 treatments (Table 7). Distance to nearest minor edge was greater in the
grassland treatment than in the other 3 treatments (Tables 6-7). There were significant mine x
treatment interactions for slope, aspect code, elevation, distance to closest habitat edge, and distance
to nearest mine/forest edge. The differences among treatments and mines for these variables are
found in Tables 8-9.
Six variables were compared between grassland and shrub/pole treatments and mines. Litter depth
was higher on the Hobet mine than the Cannelton and Daltex mines and higher in the Daltex mine
than the Cannelton mine (Table 7). The Robel pole index was higher on the Cannelton mine than the
other two mines and higher on the Daltex mine than the Hobet mine (Table 7). Forb cover was higher
on the Cannelton and Daltex mines than on the Hobet mine (Table 7). The other variables all showed
significant treatment by mine interactions. Grass height was higher at the Hobet mine than at the
Daltex and Cannelton mines in the grassland treatment and higher at the Hobet mine than the
Cannelton mine in the shrub/pole treatment (Table 9). Ground cover of grass and shrubs differed
among mines, but not between grassland and shrub/pole treatments (Table 8-9).
Canopy height, percent canopy cover in 6 layer classes, and the structural diversity index were
compared among the fragmented forest, intact forest, and shrub/pole treatments (Table 7). Percent
canopy cover in 5 layer classes differed among treatments but not among mines (Table 7). There
were treatment by mine interactions for canopy height and cover from >3-6 m. Canopy height was
higher at the Cannelton mine than the Daltex and Hobet mines in the fragmented forest treatment,
and was higher at the Daltex mine than the Hobet mine in the intact treatment (Table 8). Canopy
cover from >3-6 m was higher at the Cannelton and Daltex mines than the Hobet mine in the intact
forest treatment (Table 8). This cover layer also differed among treatments at the Cannelton and
Hobet mines (Table 9). It was higher in the fragmented and intact forest treatments than the
A-3
-------
shrub/pole treatment at the Cannelton mine. At the Hobet mine it was highest in the intact forest,
followed by fragmented forest and shrub/pole treatments (Table 9).
Species-specific Logistic Regression Models
The presence/absence of 11 forest-dwelling songbird species of conservation priority for the region
were related to specific habitat variables. Logistic regression models were fit for each species and
none were rejected due to lack-of-fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests, P>0.10),
The presence/absence of 11 forest-dwelling songbird species of conservation priority for the region
were related to specific habitat variables. Logistic regression models were fit for each species and
none were rejected due to lack-of-fit (Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests, P>0.10),
Cerulean Warbler
The Cerulean Warbler, with the highest conservation priority rating (Table 5), was not found to be
related to any of the microhabitat variables we measured (Table 16). The Ohio Hills and Northern
Cumberland Plateau physiographic provinces where MTMVF mining is prominent are within the core
area for the Cerulean Warbler. It is estimated that 46.8% of this species' population is found within
the Ohio Hills province alone (Rosenburg 2000). This species prefers large tracts of mature forests
with large, tall trees (P. Hamel, unpub. rept.). Based on previous knowledge of habitat preferences, it
is reasonable to conclude that continued MTMVF mining will negatively impact Cerulean Warbler
abundance in southwestern West Virginia.
Lousiana Waterthrush
The Lousiana Waterthrush, with the second highest conservation rating, was negatively related to
sapling density (Table 16). This species is found in large tracts of mature forest and nests on the
ground along stream banks (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Bushman and Therres (1988)
suggested that wooded streambanks and ravines be protected in order to maintain this species.
Given valleys and streams are covered by MTMVF operations and reduces mature forest cover, it is
logical to conclude that this species also will be negatively affected by loss of streamside forest
habitat from this type of mining.
Worm-eating Warbler
This species was negatively related to aspect code (Table 17). Worm-eating Warblers typically are
found on dry ravines and hillsides in deciduous woods where they nest on the ground in leaf litter
(Ehrlich et al. 1988, Dettmers and Bart 1999). They are most abundant in mature forests, although
they may be found in young- and medium-aged forest stands as well (Bushman and Therres 1988).
Robbins (1980) and Whitcomb et al. (1981) suggested that this species requires large tracts of mature
forest and may have a low tolerance for fragmentation. The greatest threat to this species from
MTMVF is the loss and fragmentation of forested habitat.
Kentucky Warbler
Kentucky Warblers were present at points with a high percent of green ground cover and a low
density of trees from >8-23cm and also were present more often at lower elevations (Table 17).
Kentucky Warblers prefer rich, moist forests and bottomlands with well-developed ground cover
(Bushman and Therres 1984). This species appears to be moderately affected by fragmentation and
may be found in small woodlots, but in Maryland the highest frequency of occurrence for this species
was in forests from 130-700 ha in size (Bushman and Therres 1988). Loss of wooded ravines and
bottomlands could negatively affect this species.
Acadian Flycatcher
This species was one of our most abundant birds and abundance was correlated to several habitat
variables (Table 18). It was negatively related to density of saplings and trees >8-23 cm dbh,
A-4
-------
indicating an association with mature forests. It also was negatively associated with leaf litter cover.
Acadian Flycatchers prefer moist ravines and stream bottoms. Dettmers and Bart (1999) considered
this species to be a habitat "specialist" at the microhabitat (i.e. territory or home range) level.
Bushman and Therres (1988) found that Acadian flycatchers prefer forests with high canopy cover,
large trees, and an open understory. This species prefers large blocks of mature contiguous forest for
breeding, and appears to avoid edges. We found this species to be more abundant in intact forest,
which could indicate that MTMVF mining is detrimental to this species.
Wood Thrush
Wood Thrush were positively related to density of trees >23-38 cm dbh and canopy cover >24m and
negatively associated with elevation (Table 18). Wood Thrush are found in deciduous and mixed
coniferous-deciduous forest, with highest densities occurring in the Appalachian Mountain region
(James et al. 1984). They prefer mature forests with some small trees in the understory for nesting
and a moist, leafy litter layer for foraging (James et al. 1984).
Yellow-throated Vireo
Presence of this species was not related to any microhabitat variables. It is most abundant in mature
forests and appears to prefer stream borders and bottomland forests (Bushman and Therres 1988).
Yellow-throated Vireos appear to have a low tolerance for forest fragmentation (Whitcomb et al.
1981). MTMVF mining could potentially reduce abundance of in this species because of its
preference for mature forest along streams, which may be lost due to mining.
Hooded Warbler
Hooded Warblers were positively related to percent green ground cover and sapling density (Table
19). Hooded Warblers typically are found in moist deciduous forests and ravines with a well-
developed understory (Ehrlich et al. 1988), but also may be found along ridges with a high density of
shrub stems (Dettmers and Bart 1999). It is suspected that this species is fragmentation-sensitive
(Bushman and Therres 1988), and we found it to occur at higher abundances in intact than
fragmented forest sites.
Scarlet Tanager
This species was positively associated with percent slope, density of trees from >38-53 cm, and
distance to mine edge (Table 20). This species may be found in a wide range of successional stages
of forests, but is most abundant in mature woods with a dense canopy (Bushman and Therres 1988).
This species does not appear to be as fragmentation-sensitive as other forest interior species, and
may tolerate smaller forests and edges (Bushman and Therres 1988); however, it was more abundant
in our intact than fragmented forest sites during 1 year of the study, and was more common at points
further away from mine/forest edge.
Black-and-white Warbler
Black-and-white Warblers were negatively associated with percent water cover. This species nests on
the ground in deciduous and mixed forests (Ehrlich et al. 1988). It appears to prefer pole-stage
stands (Bushman and Therres 1988), but it is fragmentation-sensitive and was not found breeding in
forests <70 ha in size in Maryland (Whitcomb et al. 1981).
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
The Yellow-billed Cuckoo was negatively associated with elevation (X2=6.46, P=0.01). This species
is a PIF priority species for the region (Rosenberg 2000), but we observed it at only 9 sampling points
in the 2 years of the study. Less than 1% of the population occurs in this region (Rosenberg and
Wells 1999), and MTMVF is not likely to severely impact the population as a whole.
Other Species
A-5
-------
The Swainson's Warbler, a species of concern in the region and a rare species in West Virginia (West
Virginia Wldlife and Natural Heritage Program 2000), is typically, in West Virginia, found only in areas
of dense rhododendron (Buckelew and Hall 1994). We observed this species in the Twentymile
Creek watershed along Hughes Fork. Further MTMVF in this watershed could impact this species,
but the effect on the population as a whole will be minimal, since <2% of the population is found in the
Ohio Hills province and West Virginia is on the periphery of its range (Table 5). The Eastern Wood-
pewee is a species of conservation priority (Action level III) in the region, but we only observed it at
1.2% of our forested point counts. The Black-billed Cuckoo is a PI F priority species for this region
(Rosenberg 2000), but it appears to be relatively rare; it was only observed incidentally in early
successional habitat during this study and was not detected during point count surveys.
A-6
-------
Table 6. Mean and standard error (SE) for habitat variables measured at grassland (n=44),
shrub/pole (n=33), fragmented forest (n=36), and intact forest (n=49) sampling points.
Treatment
Grassland
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Grass/Forb Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Elevation (m)
Distance to Minor Edge (m)
Distance to Habitat Edge (m)
Distance to Forest/Mine Edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Bareground
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb Cover
Grass Cover
Shrub Cover
Stem Densities (no. /ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-6 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
>0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
16.
1
7.
2.
400.
113.
335.
347.
2
0.
7.
8.
0,
1.
82.
23
45,
14,
777.
73.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
96
.05
29
26
93
02
46
35
.93
--
14
,73
14
.06
,04
,78
.63
.05
.13
,70
15
03
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
—
—
-
-
-
--
-
SE
2.10
0.10
0.27
0.19
7.19
16.75
45.26
44.30
0.17
--
0.10
1.18
1.54
0.04
0.38
2.00
2.39
2.71
2.72
207.52
18.79
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
—
—
—
—
--
-
Shrub/Pole
Mean
10,
0,
6,
1
378
68
79,
253
4,
4,
0,
2
6,
0,
1
85
21
43
22
7475,
979,
126
5,
0,
0,
0,
14,
29
22
14,
2
0,
0,
13.
.16
.78
.20
.64
.85
.14
.16
.98
.30
.67
.15
.22
.06
.30
.83
.86
.89
.70
.99
.38
.17
.89
.68
.00
.00
.00
.03
.70
.88
.37
.84
.11
.00
98
SE
1.93
0.13
0.48
0.17
11.53
8.23
11.06
34.46
0.27
0.45
0.12
0.92
1.78
0.12
0.86
3.47
2.86
5.26
3.23
1646.08
292.52
22.66
2.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.88
2.94
2.86
2.59
0.86
0.08
0.00
1.47
Fragmented
Forest
Mean
33.78
1.05
a
--
332.08
38.71
128.61
128.61
-
21.70
1.15
7.71
54.24
4.20
2.01
30.35
-
-
--
4935.76
901.04
339.76
89.41
30.38
9.90
3.99
41.87
54.90
66.63
63.06
56.01
41.39
16.15
59.63
SE
2.28
0.12
--
--
7.11
3.88
12.52
12.52
-
0.72
0.32
0.95
1.88
0.42
0.32
1.74
-
-
--
450.55
65.86
34.12
5.20
3.22
1.71
0.87
3.99
2.33
2.42
2.38
2.68
2.97
2.48
1.29
Intact
Forest
Mean
33.
1.
389.
64.
1430.
1430.
22.
0.
7.
48.
4.
2.
36.
6135.
587.
262.
90.
31.
8.
3.
48.
47.
54.
65.
63.
51.
18.
60.
,75
02
--
--
58
,61
66
66
-
,90
48
,45
32
,95
,04
,61
—
-
--
84
,37
,12
82
,12
04
19
,55
63
67
46
34
28
06
09
SE
2.07
0.08
--
--
10.87
11.57
145.32
145.32
-
0.67
0.17
0.59
1.75
0.41
0.34
1.99
-
-
--
702.59
55.71
11.43
4.82
2.55
1.18
0.71
6.37
2.33
2.06
1.24
2.07
3.06
2.14
1.39
Variables were not measured in this treatment.
A-7
-------
Table 7. Two-way ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among treatments and mines.
Factor Levels
Treatment
Variables
Slope (%)
Aspect Code
Elevation (m)
Grass Height (dm)
Litter Depth (cm)
Distance to minor edge (m)
Distance to habitat edge (m)
Distance to mine/forest edge (m)
Robel Pole Index
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Water
Bareg round
Litter
Woody Debris
Moss
Green
Forb
Grass
Shrub
Stem Density (no. /ha):
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags
F
39.79
2.27
24.94
3.82
3.56
4.69
708.60
577.33
20.66
222.33
4.19
13.19
230.03
144.45
5.48
130.34
0.11
1.47
3.95
67.03
79.55
484.80
495.00
420.46
38.74
11.95
43.86
df
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
P
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
0.06
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.74
0.23
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Waller-Duncan3
GR
B
A
A
B
B
~
B
A
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
C
SH
C
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
A
A
AB
B
B
B
B
B
B
FR
A
C
B
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
IN
A
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Mine
F
26.55
0.04
106.18
20.78
25.07
0.35
188.61
142.21
11.09
1.02
0.25
0.11
0.31
0.88
0.02
0.92
5.02
24.22
15.65
2.86
1.28
2.99
1.24
0.03
0.66
2.80
0.60
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P
<0.01
0.96
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.70
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
0.78
0.89
0.73
0.42
0.98
0.40
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.28
0.06
0.29
0.97
0.52
0.06
0.55
Waller-Duncan0
Can.
B
A
C
C
B
B
B
A
C
A
B
Dal.
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
Hob.
A
C
A
A
C
C
C
B
A
B
B
Treatment x Mine
F
5.26
1.81
4.63
4.26
2.31
2.08
189.17
172.35.
0.00
7.66
1.48
4.71
10.06
2.77
1.04
1.79
3.96
5.25
4.68
5.71
2.43
0.95
3.70
3.83
1.43
1.83
3.69
df
5
5
5
1
1
5
5
5
1
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
P
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
0.04
0.13
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.94
<0.01
0.20
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.40
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.03
<0.01
0.04
0.45
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
0.11
0.01
A-8
-------
Table 7. Continued.
Factor Levels
Treatment Waller-Duncan3
Variables
Canopy Cover (%):
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
F
25.16
75.63
148.67
280.81
180.95
36.62
339.75
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P GR
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
<0.01 -
SH
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
FR
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
IN
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Mine
F
0.70
0.18
1.57
1.60
4.83
0.28
1.75
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Waller-Duncan0
P Can. Dal. Hob.
0.50
0.84
0.21
0.21
<0.01 BAB
0.76
0.18 BAB
Treatment x Mine
F
0.98
3.40
3.74
2.59
2.92
2.67
6.09
df
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
P
0.40
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.05
<0.01
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Treatments with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). GR=grassland; SH=shrub/pole;
FR=fragmented forest; I N=intact forest.
b Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Mines with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). Can.=Cannelton; Dal.=Daltex;
Hob.=Hobet.
A-9
-------
Table 8. ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among mines within individual treatments for variables with treatment x mine
interactions.
Treatment/Mine
Grassland Waller-Duncan3
Variables F df P Can. Dal. Hob.
Slope (%) 2.30 2 0.11 B A AB
Elevation (m) 19.53 2 O.01 A A B
Distance to minor edge 1.09 2 0.35
(m)
Distance to habitat edge 1 1 .77 2 <0.01 BAB
(m)
Distance to forest/mine 10.00 2 <0.01 BAB
edge (m)
Grass Height (dm) 5.42 2 <0.01 B AB A
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Bareground 3.75 2 0.03 AB A B
Litter 12.35 2 <0.01 C B A
Woody debris
Grass 10.77 2 O.01 B B A
Forb 1.22 2 0.31
Shrub 12.95 2 O.01 ABC
Stem Density (no./ha):
<2.5cm 5.81 2 O.01 BAA
>2.5-8 cm
>23-38cm
>38-53cm
Snags
Canopy Cover (%):
>3-6m
>6-12m - -
> 12-1 8m
>18-24m
>24m
Structural Diversity
Index
Waller-
Shrub/pole Duncan
F df
120.21 1
127.50 1
0.80 1
3.40 1
11.33 1
31.76 1
1.22 1
0.77 1
22.97 1
27.34 1
10.87 1
7.15 1
0.00 1
3.47 1
2.63 1
1.95 1
2.07 1
0.04 1
- -
1.18 1
P Can. Hob.
O.01 B A
<0.01
0.38
0.07 A B
<0.01 B A
O.01 B A
0.28
0.39
O.01 A B
O.01 B A
O.01 A B
0.01 A B
0.98
0.07 A B
0.12
0.17
0.16
0.84
-
0.28
Fragmented
Forest Waller-Duncan
F
6.40
14.40
1.39
3.60
3.60
7.34
6. .94
4.28
0.76
-
—
-
0.74
3.26
1.25
8.75
1.76
4.26
2.57
0.73
0.66
1.98
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P Can. Dal. Hob.
O.01 BAA
O.01 ABC
0.26
0.04 AB B A
0.04 AB B A
<0.01 ABA
O.01 B B A
002 A AB B
0.47
-
-
-
0.49
0.05 AB A B
0.30
O.01 BAA
0.19
0.02 BAB
0.09
0.49
0.52
0.15
Intact Forest
F
4.72
37.36
2.88
426.79
426.79
3.17
0.80
4.07
4.11
-
-
-
0.55
0.78
0.37
5.37
1.41
3.27
3.42
1.64
5.30
2.53
7.85
df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
P
0.01
O.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0..46
0.02
0.02
-
-
-
0.58
0.46
0.69
O.01
0.25
0.05
0.04
0.21
0.01
0.10
O.01
Waller-Duncan
Can. Dal. Hob.
B B A
ABC
BAB
A A B
A A B
AB A B
ABB
A B AB
BAA
A B AB
ABB
ABB
ABB
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Mines with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). Can.=Cannelton; Dal.= Daltex;
Hob.=Hobet.
A-10
-------
Table 9. ANOVA results comparing habitat variables among treatments at individual mines for variables with treatment x mine interactions.
Mine/treatment
Cannelton
Variables
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to minor edge
(m)
Distance to habitat
edge (m)
Distance to forest/mine
edge (m)
Grass Height (dm)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%):
Bareg round
Litter
Woody debris
Forb
Grass
Shrub
Stem Densities (no./ha):
<2.5cm
>2.5-8
>23-38cm
>38-53cm
Snags
Canopy Cover (%):
>3-6m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24m
F
39.47
11.28
1.73
759.76
660.78
4.25
97.45
7.33
97.60
51.28
1.42
4.45
0.02
47.81
105.52
61.04
312.17
4.92
23.10
54.35
147.00
197.41
82.98
df
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
P
<0.01
<0.01
0.18
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
0.05
0.89
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Waller-Duncan3
GR
B
AB
B
B
—
A
C
C
A
B
C
C
C
C
—
-
—
—
SH
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
A
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
FR
A
C
B
B
A
A
A
B
~
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
IN
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
~
A
AB
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Waller-
Daltex Duncan
F
1.77
9.18
1.05
213.54
213.54
-
25.97
1.58
106.39
42.68
~
~
-
21.94
22.93
711.84
89.21
5.28
22.26
12.94
1.39
4.08
0.49
df
2
2
2
2
2
-
1
2
2
2
~
~
-
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
P GR FR IN
0.19
<0.01 ABA
0.36
<0.01 B C A
<0.01 B C A
-
<0.01
0.22
<0.01 CAB
<0.01 BAA
~
~
-
<0.01 BAA
<0.01 BAA
<0.01 BAA
<0.01 BAA
0.03 BAA
<0.01
<0.01
0.25
0.06
0.49
Hobet
F
22.80
11.93
8.61
24.67
10.19
0.01
124.13
8.94
86.51
67.25
3.07
0.73
13.16
15.18
23.25
422.26
238.71
57.20
42.37
69.97
113.82
59.06
12.56
df
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
P
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.91
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.40
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Waller-Duncan
GR
B
A
A
B
B
~
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
—
~
—
—
SH
B
BC
B
C
D
B
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
FR
A
C
B
B
C
A
AB
A
B
~
~
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
IN
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
~
~
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Table 9 continued
A-11
-------
Structural Diversity 157.86 2 <0.01 - C B A 10.64 1 <0.01 143.36 2 <0.01 -BAA
Index
a Waller-Duncan k-ratio t-test. Treatments with different letters differ at P<0.05 ('A' indicates highest value). GR=grassland;
SH=shrub/pole; FR=fragmented forest; I N=intact forest.
A-12
-------
Table 16. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Cerulean Warbler and Louisiana Waterthrush at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Cerulean Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
0.98
31.75
376.11
979.76
61.98
21.70
0.79
49.88
7.89
4.63
34.24
2.06
5827.55
697.92
291.20
93.17
28.94
9.38
3.36
44.24
49.42
60.63
64.86
59.05
46.04
16.13
59.23
SE
0.08
2.02
9.44
146.84
10.52
0.62
0.23
1.73
0.68
0.39
1.83
0.29
663.50
54.73
20.02
4.73
2.40
1.30
0.63
5.19
2.07
2.05
1.27
2.13
2.92
2.05
1.31
Present
Mean
1.17
37.28
361.90
916.64
39.11
22.62
0.73
52.46
6.98
4.64
33.47
1.98
5279.23
759.07
301.61
85.08
34.07
7.86
3.83
48.15
52.94
58.19
63.71
62.30
48.91
19.19
61.05
SE X2
0.13
2.15
14.52
194.49
4.73
0.79
0.24
2.00
0.81
0.46
2.15
0.42
440.98
81.40
28.41
5.04
3.50
1.53
1.03
6.27
2.99
2.96
2.58
2.75
3.37
2.62
1.35
Louisiana Waterthrush
Absent
P Mean
1.03
33.08
376.76
994.39
54.74
22.04
0.85
49.98
7.66
4.58
34.45
2.04
5619.72
706.87
292.43
90.14
30.19
8.98
3.43
43.04
50.35
59.00
64.35
60.23
47.92
18.06
59.98
SE
0.08
1.71
8.94
128.28
8.27
0.53
0.20
1.50
0.62
0.33
1.59
0.26
505.43
47.67
18.40
3.87
2.19
1.10
0.61
3.88
1.85
1.74
1.43
1.91
2.35
1.83
1.02
Present
Mean
1.15
37.21
341.36
765.79
48.07
22.04
0.36
55.09
7.05
4.91
31.43
1.96
5667.41
787.95
308.04
90.63
33.93
8.04
4.02
58.51
52.50
63.48
64.91
60.27
42.86
13.13
59.43
SE X2 P
0.16
3.74
15.48
282.99
6.52
1.88
0.28
2.29
0.65
0.70
2.57
0.55
986.35 4.92 0.03-
137.40
34.26
8.86
4.93
2.40
1.24
13.93
4.49
5.19
1.84
3.43
6.39
3.11
2.90
A-13
-------
Table 17. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Worm-eating Warbler and Kentucky Warbler at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Worm-eating Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.14
34.58
374.57
996.20
54.66
21.91
0.73
50.35
8.06
4.98
34.00
2.10
5859.62
712.50
279.81
88.27
31.35
9.71
3.75
42.88
48.83
58.08
64.12
61.06
49.21
18.58
59.97
SE
0.08
1.69
8.97
137.73
8.02
0.56
0.20
1.59
0.62
0.35
1.70
0.26
559.47
53.81
17.82
3.98
2.36
1.21
0.65
4.79
1.96
1.90
1.30
1.93
2.54
1.93
1.14
Present
Mean
0.73
31.10
359.10
828.48
50.31
22.46
0.88
52.38
5.94
3.50
33.81
1.81
4873.44
745.31
344.38
96.56
29.06
5.94
2.81
54.39
56.81
65.13
65.50
57.56
40.19
12.94
59.63
SE X2
0.10 5.76
3.46
17.53
215.34
14.49
1.01
0.35
2.18
0.86
0.51
2.23
0.58
584.25
84.99
36.79
7.61
3.66
1.40
0.96
6.73
3.13
3.43
3.15
3.47
4.28
2.62
1.85
Absent
P Mean
0.02- 1.02
33.05
383.23
1028.68
53.11
21.83
0.71
49.25
8.10
4.64
35.22
1.90
5605.34
671.88
270.26
90.12
29.74
8.17
3.43
40.23
49.92
57.96
64.03
61.73
50.99
17.70
60.47
SE
0.08
1.87
9.51
139.65
8.25
0.58
0.19
1.63
0.64
0.36
1.79
0.25
566.10
51.77
15.48
4.38
2.22
1.03
0.59
4.20
2.01
1.85
1.39
2.01
2.46
1.86
1.12
Kentucky Warbler
Present
Mean
1.12
35.68
337.78
762.82
55.07
22.60
0.92
55.05
6.09
4.62
30.54
2.39
5687.50
850.54
361.68
90.49
33.70
10.60
3.80
59.81
52.83
64.51
65.54
56.20
36.58
16.03
58.34
SE X2 P
0.11
2.53
12.44 8.30 <0.01-
208.64
13.37
0.89
0.36
1.90
0.83
0.51
1.67 7.36 <0.01 +
0.57
680.87
90.42
41.04 5.28 0.02-
5.67
4.34
2.40
1.29
8.89
3.25
3.63
2.63
2.97
4.15
3.27
1.92
A-14
-------
Table 18. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Wood Thrush and Acadian Flycatcher at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either a
negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Wood Thrush
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
> 18-24 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.
31.
387.
1049.
58.
22.
0.
47.
7.
4.
38.
1.
5139.
04
86
24
47
52
10
54
09
33
39
07
96
36
602.20
268.
87.
34.
6.
3.
46.
47.
54.
64.
63.
50.
16.
59.
24
84
63
93
72
20
40
22
59
04
10
05
08
SE
0.10
2.53
9.89
180.64
11.58
0.70
0.27
2.23
0.89
0.41
2.44
0.37
557.89
65.65
22.68
5.76
2.90
1.30
0.82
7.19
2.61
2.22
1.94
2.56
3.35
2.51
1.52
Present
Mean
1.05
35.23
358.35
885.26
49.88
21.99
0.94
53.70
7.73
4.82
30.78
2.08
6003.91
811.20
315.63
92.06
27.86
10.29
3.39
45.24
53.26
63.98
64.32
58.07
44.77
18.18
60.52
SE
0.09
1.87
11.67
153.19
8.63
0.68
0.22
1.47
0.63
0.42
1.47
0.31
671.25
60.12
22.75
4.43
2.68
1.42
0.74
4.49
2.21
2.28
1.61
2.21
2.95
2.12
1.26
Acadian Flycatcher
Absent
X2 P Mean
0,
33
4.92 0.03- 385
711
80
20
0,
46
7,
4,
39
2
6421
671
278
5.81 0.02+ 86
38
8
5,
39
46
56,
64
62
51
5.45 0.02+ 20
60
.85
.94
.06
.22
.72
.93
.23
.48
.89
.22
.77
.11
.88
.88
.52
.33
.28
.59
.08
.46
.48
.09
.61
.73
.80
.47
.44
SE
0.18
3.58
17.80
239.19
23.55
1.07
0.17
3.54
1.42
0.57
3.85
0.67
1442.45
101.66
32.69
7.95
4.70
2.41
1.30
6.96
4.03
3.58
2.62
3.50
4.23
3.89
1.79
Present
Mean
1.09
33.72
367.65
1013.67
47.36
22.30
0.89
51.83
7.48
4.73
32.61
2.01
5443.39
731.43
298.82
91.12
29.08
8.88
3.17
47.13
51.68
60.58
64.40
59.66
46.00
16.50
59.76
SE
0.07
1.70
8.94
132.67
6.53
0.54
0.21
1.39
0.56
0.34
1.44
0.25
446.38
51.16
18.68
3.95
2.17
1.10
0.60
4.67
1.88
1.90
1.40
1.91
2.54
1.77
1.12
X2 P
4.62 0.03-
5.80 0.02+
7.52 <0.01-
4.51 <0.03-
A-15
-------
Table 19. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Hooded Warbler and Yellow-throated Vireo at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate either
a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Hooded Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12m
>12-18m
> 18-24 m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.00
33.04
358.47
780.70
55.17
21.25
0.85
49.67
7.78
4.79
34.83
2.19
4939.86
658.02
299.53
93.63
29.01
9.79
2.95
41.84
52.62
60.99
65.97
62.52
48.23
15.26
61.12
SE
0.09
2.09
9.26
136.97
8.25
0.67
0.24
1.70
0.69
0.35
1.85
0.33
573.57
53.40
21.18
4.69
2.48
1.40
0.57
4.48
2.09
2.01
1.25
2.22
2.96
2.09
1.16
Present
Mean
1.13
34.91
391.56
1248.30
51.09
23.28
0.63
52.73
7.19
4.38
32.50
1.76
6766.60
823.24
287.50
84.57
33.79
7.23
4.49
52.04
47.54
57.66
61.91
56.45
45.20
20.55
57.86
SE
0.11
2.17
14.09
203.05
12.70
0.63
0.22
2.07
0.81
0.53
2.11
0.33
690.85
80.34
25.79
5.17
3.34
1.23
1.10
7.57
2.89
2.99
2.51
2.43
3.29
2.46
1.67
Yellow-throated Vireo
Absent
X2 P Mean
1.03
32.98
370.03
1040.72
55.09
22.40
0.77
49.87
7.63
4.83
12.49 <0.01+ 34.74
1.97
5.49 0.02+ 5478.86
672.79
287.41
91.36
29.23
9.10
3.31
46.10
50.40
59.41
64.41
59.39
46.95
16.82
59.48
SE
0.07
1.77
9.44
134.30
8.64
0.56
0.19
1.53
0.56
0.34
1.63
0.27
453.27
46.25
17.38
3.74
2.12
1.08
0.56
4.61
1.89
1.91
1.31
1.95
2.52
1.73
1.12
Present
Mean
1.11
36.91
374.53
620.81
47.84
20.59
0.74
54.63
7.28
3.82
30.81
2.28
6222.43
909.93
325.37
85.66
37.13
7.72
4.41
43.78
51.91
61.03
64.56
63.60
47.65
18.97
61.54
SE X2 P
0.19
2.80
13.42
213.49
5.13
0.88
0.40
2.27
1.44
0.59
2.42
0.52
1360.03
125.68
43.03
9.52
5.13
2.49
1.59
7.78
4.01
3.64
3.35
3.13
4.75
4.23
1.84
A-16
-------
Table 20. Means, standard errors (SE), and forward logistic regression results (Wald chi-square statistics) for the presence/absence of the
Black-and-white Warbler and Scarlet Tanager at point counts in forested habitats in southwestern West Virginia. The '-' and '+' indicate
either a negative or a positive relationship between abundance and the habitat variables.
Black-and-white Warbler
Absent
Variable
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Elevation (m)
Distance to mine (m)
Distance to closest minor edge (m)
Canopy Height (m)
Ground Cover (%)
Water
Litter
Bareground
Woody Debris
Green
Moss
Stem Densities (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38-53 cm
>53-68 cm
>68 cm
Snags >2.5 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
0.5-3 m
>3-6 m
>6-12 m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24 m
Structural Diversity Index
Mean
1.04
32.56
370.14
1022.10
58.47
21.89
0.78
50.47
8.41
4.90
34.44
1.86
5855.39
673.41
270.22
88.97
28.80
10.05
2.57
47.85
50.44
58.01
62.23
59.53
46.91
16.25
58.68
SE
0.08
2.16
10.18
158.37
9.79
0.63
0.24
1.69
0.69
0.41
1.66
0.31
656.44
59.55
15.70
4.29
2.28
1.35
0.59
5.77
2.32
2.08
1.39
2.22
2.83
2.07
1.18
Present
Mean
1.05
35.57
372.12
858.70
46.39
22.26
0.74
51.36
6.29
4.23
33.24
2.28
5285.85
790.44
332.17
92.10
33.82
6.99
4.96
42.49
51.10
62.32
67.76
61.29
47.35
18.75
61.71
SE
0.12
2.01
13.03
170.12
9.48
0.78
0.24
2.13
0.76
0.41
2.47
0.38
551.49
69.93
32.60
6.10
3.61
1.42
1.01
5.14
2.50
2.80
2.18
2.60
3.62
2.59
1.63
Absent
X2 P Mean
1.
30.
356.
696.
59.
21.
6.98 <0.01- 0.
50.
7.
4.
35.
2.
5618.
658.
289.
92.
31.
9.
3.
41.
48.
57.
64.
63.
48.
16.
59.
,10
,77
,13
48
46
62
,65
,00
42
43
,11
,04
89
29
,81
39
93
,78
,94
,21
,07
28
89
32
,61
96
83
SE
0.09
1.99
10.31
140.22
12.10
0.70
0.24
1.76
0.63
0.39
1.62
0.34
663.50
55.66
23.09
5.25
2.66
1.57
0.79
4.79
2.18
2.07
1.59
2.22
2.91
2.23
1.23
Scarlet Tanager
Present
Mean
0.98
37.30
388.38
1263.70
46.77
22.53
0.90
51.79
7.72
4.87
32.60
2.02
5637.82
793.27
301.12
87.66
29.49
7.69
3.04
50.66
53.81
62.63
63.91
56.60
45.29
17.60
59.97
SE
0.
2.
11.
182.
5.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
2.
0.
601.
73.
23.
4.
3.
1.
0.
6.
2.
2.
1.
2.
3.
2.
1.
X2
11
25 8.45
99
,72 11.06
30
67
25
00
87
45
37
34
06
52
13 3.92
60
04
11
76
,54
63
70
94
48
42
36
54
P
<0.01 +
<0.01 +
0.05+
A-17
-------
APPENDIX F
FEDERALLY LISTED T&E, CANDIDATE AND
SPECIES OF CONCERN
-------
APPENDIX F: T & E SPECIES TABLE
Threatened, endangered, candidate and species of concern known to inhabit the proposed project
area were identified through correspondence with the appropriate regional United States Fish and
Wildlife Field Office. Responses to these letters included lists broken down by county. These
responses and habitat information are summarized in Table F-l.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS r -1
-------
Appendix F
Table F-l
Federally Listed and Species of Concern
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Fishes
Ashy darter
Blackside dace
Blotchside darter
Bluestone sculpin
Candy darter
Clinch sculpin
Crystal darter
Etheostoma cinereum
Phoxinus cumberlandensis
Percina burtoni
Cottus sp. 1
Etheostoma osburni
Cottus sp. 4
Crystallaria asprella
SOC
T
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
VA - Scott
Habitat: Found in larger rivers and streams of Cumberland and Tennessee River
drainages. Prefers such cover as boulders and undercut banks in little or moderate
current.
VA -Lee
TN - Campbell, Claiborne, and Scott
KY - Bell, Harlan, Knox, Laurel, Letcher, McCreary, Pulaski, Whitley
HabitatFound in approximately 30 separate streams in the Upper Cumberland River
system. Inhabits riffles in cool, small (7-15') streams upland streams with moderate
flows. Generally associated with undercut banks and large rocks within relatively
stable, well-vegetated watersheds with good riparian vegetation. Habitat has been
greatly degraded by siltation from surface mining.
VA - Russell, Scott, Tazwell
Habitat: Found in the mountains and uplands of the Cumberland and Tennessee
drainages in medium-sized, warm, usually clear streams of moderate gradient. It
occupies riffles, runs, and pools with gravel to boulder strewn bottoms lacking major
siltation.
VA - Tazwell
WV - Mercer County
WV - Nicholas, Webster (Gauley River Basin)
Mercer (Bluestone River)
VA - Tazwell
WV-Kanawha. (Elk River)
Habitat: Found in the Mississippi River system in moderate to swift rivers over sand,
gravel, or rocks. Can occasionally be found in pools. Has been eliminated from much
of its range due to canalization and dams.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-2
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Cumberland johnny darter
Duskytail darter
(Dusky darter)
Eastern sand darter
Kanawha minnow
Longhead darter
Paddlefish
Palezone shiner
Etheostoma nigrum susanae
Etheostoma percnurum
Ethoeostoma pellucidum
Phenacobius teretulus
Percina macrocephala
Polyodon spathuia
Notropis sp
C
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
KY - Harlan, Letcher, McCreary, Whitley
TN - Campbell, Scott
TN - Scott
VA - Scott
KY - McCreary
Habitat: Historically known in the middle reaches of the Cumberland River and upper
reaches of the Tennessee River. Insectivore found near the edges of gently flowing,
shallow pools, eddy areas, and slow runs; usually in clear water of large creeks and
moderately large rivers (33 to 264'). They prefer a heterogeneous mixture of rock
sizes from pea gravel, rubble/cobble, slabrock, and bolder substrates. Also often found
associated with detritus and sometimes slightly silted substrates.
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha (Elk River)
Boone. (Big and Little Coal Rivers)
Habitat: Found in streams and rivers ranging in size from small creeks to large rivers
with a bottom of sand, silt, mud, or gravel. The sandy raceways of large rivers are
preferred.
WV - Greenbrier, Nicholas, Webster (Gauley River headwater tributaries)
Habitat: Occurs in swift, rocky streams of the New River drainage.
VA - Scott
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha, Webster
(Elk River)
Habitat: Prefers clean, fast, rocky riffles or clear pools in medium-sized, unpolluted
streams with moderate current.
WV - Kanawha. (Elk and Kanawha Rivers)
Habitat: Mississippi River system in large free-flowing rivers rich in zooplankton, but
frequents impoundments with access to spawning sites.
KY - McCreary, Wayne
TN - Campbell
Habitat: Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages. Found in flowing pools and
runs of upland streams that have permanent flow, clean clear water, and substrates of
bedrock, cobble, and gravel mixed with clean sand. Food habits are unknown.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-3
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Popeye shiner
Slender chub
Snail darter
Spotfin chub
Spotted darter
Tennessee Dace
Tippecanoe Darter
Western sand darter
Notropis ariommus
Erimystax cahni
(=Hybopsis)
Percina tanasi
Cyprinella monacha
(=Hybopsis)
Etheostoma maculatum
Phoxinus tennesseensis
Etheostoma tippecanoe
Ammocrypta clara
SOC
T
T
T
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott: Critical habitat in Lee and Scott
TN - Claiborne, Cumberland, Fentress, Morgan
Habitat: Benthic feeder that eats insects and mollusks. Found in moderate to large size
(30-125 meter-wide) warm water streams with fine gravel substrates swept clean by
moderate to swift currents. Critical habitat includes the Clinch and Powell Rivers.
TN - Marion
Habitat: Adults prefer the swifter portions of shoals with clean gravel substrate in cool,
low-turbidity water. Historically known near gravel shoals in the main channel of the
Little Tennessee River. Juveniles utilized downstream nursery sites located in the
Tennessee River (Watts Bar Reservoir headwater). Populations have also been found
in S. Chickamauga Creek and Sewee Creek.
VA - Scott: Critical habitat in Scott
TN - Claiborne, Cumberland, Fentress, Morgan
Habitat: Insectivore (mainly Dipterans) found in the Tennessee River Drainage.
Prefers moderate to large streams (15-70 meters wide) with good current, clear water,
and cool to warm temperatures. These streams have pools frequently alternating with
riffles. This species has been found in a variety of substrates but rarely, if ever, from
significantly silted substrates.
WV - Braxton, Webster. (Elk River above Sutton Lake)
Habitat: This species requires large unpolluted streams, spending most of its time in
deep riffles, or pools downstream where a gravel-rubble bottom predominates and the
bottom velocity is low.
VA - Lee
VA - Russell, Scott
VA - Lee, Scott
Habitat: Found in medium to large rivers in the Ohio River drainage with moderate to
slow current over sand. This darter spawns from July through August. It has been
found an inch or more below the surface of the sand.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-4
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Yellowfin madtom
Noturus flavipinnis
T
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott (Species has not been documented): Critical habitat in Lee
and Scott
TN - Claibome
Habitat: Nocturnal benthic fish that feeds on aquatic insect larvae. Found in warm
streams of small to moderate size (8-40 meters wide) streams with moderate gradient
and clear water with little siltation. Prefers quiet sections of pools and backwaters.
Amphibian
Hellbender
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
SOC
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Nocturnal & completely aquatic. Hides under rocks or submerged logs,
boulders, snags, and other large loose debris. Found in fast-moving, mid-sized streams
and the channels of rivers with clear water. Eats crayfish & snails.
Mammals
Eastern small-footed bat
Eastern woodrat
Gray bat
Myotis leibii
Neotoma floridana
Myotis grisecens
SOC
SOC
E
VA - Dickenson, Lee, Tazwell, Wise
WV - Greenbrier
Habitat: Found in caves and abandoned mine shafts in the Allegheny Mountains with a
possible preference for caves located in hemlock-covered foothills near water. This
bat is a solitary hibernator that hibernates closer to cave openings than other bats.
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming
Habitat: Nocturnal rodent that prefers secluded rock strewn sites in the Appalachian
Mountains; usually on mountain tops and valley sides. Under tree canopy, the large
rocks and boulders provide caves and a network of subsurface crevices that shelter the
rat.
KY - Carter, Lee, Pulaski, Wayne
TN - Anderson, Bledsoe, Campbell, Claiborne, Fentress, Marion, Overton, Sequatchie
VA - Lee, Scott
Habitat: Food is mainly aquatic insects. In the summer it uses caves located within a
km of a river or reservoir. In winter gray bat colonies are found in deep, vertical caves
or cave-like habitat.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-5
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
C = Candidate
Indiana bat
Myotis sodalis
KY - Bell, Carter, Elliott, Estill, Greenup, Harlan, Jackson, Lee, Letcher, McCreary,
Morgan, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Whitley, Wolfe
TN - Campbell, .Claiborne, Fentress, Marion.
VA - Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, Kanawha,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo,Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Eats insects. Females and juveniles forage in the airspace near the foliage of
riparian and floodplain trees. Males forage the densely wooded area at tree top height.
Creeks are apparently not used if riparian trees have been removed. In summer,
maternity colonies are mainly found under loose bark or in hollows of trees. A few
individuals under bridges & old buildings. Limestone caves are used in winter
months. Greenbrier and Mercer counties in WV have caves which serve as
hibernacula for the Indiana Bat.
Southeastern big-eared bat
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
SOC
WV - Boone, Fayette, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh,
Wyoming.
Habitat: Hibernates in caves in the northern part of its range, but it is often a species of
the hollow of trees or buildings in wooded areas. Some populations live in caves or
mines all year round. This species emerges late and it feeds mostly on adult months.
Breeding occurs in fall or winter and one young per year is produced.
Southern rock vole
Microtus chrotorrhinus
carolinensis
SOC
WV - Greenbrier, Nicholas, Webster Habitat: Rock voles in WV represent a relict
population and they currently exist in small isolated areas of habitat. Therefore, this
species is vulnerable to localized extirpation. In the central Appalachians, this vole is
primarily a high elevation species, occurring in cool, rocky, boulder-strewn,
coniferous, deciduous, and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests. In WV, it has been
found in moss-covered rock areas in beech-maple-oak forests, among rock outcrops
associated with nearby water in both northern hardwoods and mixed red spruce-
northern hardwood forests; in recent red spruce and mixed red spruce clearcuts; and in
100+ year old northern hardwood stands greater than 3,020 feet in elevation.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-6
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
C = Candidate
Southern water shrew
Sorex palustris punctulatus
SOC
WV - Greenbrier, Nicholas, Webster
Habitat: Usually associated with high elevation northern hardwood forests with yellow
birch, beech, red spruce, red maple, and hemlock trees in the overstory. Dense
rhododendron, mountain laurel, and other shrubs are in the understory. This animal is
typically found along mountain streams characterized by cut banks, rocks, fallen logs,
and abundant moss and leaf litter. Clear, relatively pure water that harbors an
abundance of aquatic insects seems to be an essential part of its habitat.
Virginia big-eared bat
Corynorhinus towmendii
virginianus
KY - Estill, Jackson, Lee, Morgan, Rockcastle, Wolfe.
VA - Lee, Tazwell
Habitat: Eats butterflies, flies, beetles, and mayflies. Utilize caves year-round.
Virginia northern flying
squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus
WV - Greenbrier,Webster (with proclamation boundaries of Monongahela National
Forest.
Habitat: Populations are restricted to isolated areas at higher elevations. Use the
transition zone between coniferous and N. hardwood forest. During cooler months,
they nest in tree cavities and woodpecker holes. In summer, they construct leaf nests.
There is evidence that they sometimes enter burrows in the ground. They are not as
aggressive as the southern flying squirrel.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-7
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Avian
Cerulean warbler
Cendroica cerulea
SOC
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Insectivore and Neo-tropical migrant. Concentrated in oak and hickory
forests at elevations below 600 meters along the Ohio and Monongahela rivers in WV.
Prefers tall, mature trees near river bottoms, along lakes, and river shores, or on river
islands. Highly sensitive to forest fragmentation. Studies suggest that a minimum of
700 hectares is needed for viable population.
Invertebrates
Alabama lamp pearly
mussel
Anthony's river snail
Aquatic cavesnail
Appalachian monkeyface
pearlymussel
Beartown perlodid
stonefly
Big Cedar Creek
millipede
Birdwing pearly mussel
Brown supercoil
Burkes Garden cave
beetle
Lampsilis virescens
Athearnia anthonyi
Holsingeria unthanksensis
Quadrula sparsa
Isoperla major
Brachoria fold/era
Conradilla caelata
Paravitrea septadens
Pse udanophthalm us
hortulanus
E
E
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
TN - Anderson, Morgan. Habitat: Sand and gravel substrates of shoals; small to
medium-sized rivers.
TN - Anderson, Marion. Habitat: Gravel to large boulder and log substrates; moderate
to fast-flowing current; small to large rivers (mostly large).
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee, Scott
Habitat: Clean fast-flowing water in areas that contain relatively firm rubble, gravel,
and sand substrate, swept free of silt.
VA - Tazwell
VA - Russell.
TN - Anderson, Claiborne. Habitat: Sand and gravel substrate; moderate to fast
current; riffles of small to medium rivers.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Wise.
VA - Dickenson.
VA - Tazwell.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-8
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Cave beetle
Cave beetle
Cave beetle
Cave beetle
Cave beetle
Cave dipluran
Cave dipluran
Cave lumbriculid worm
Cave mite
Cave pselaphid beetle
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave pseudo-scorpion
Cave spider
Cave spider
Cave springtail
Pseudanophthalmus seclusus
Pseudanophthalmus sp. 4
Pseudanophthalmus sp. 9
Pseudanophthalmus sp. 10
Pseudanophthalmus vicarius
Litocampa sp. 4
Litocampa sp. 5
Stylodrilus beattiei
Rhagidia varia
Arianops jeanneli
Kleptochthonius binoculatus
Kleptochthonius gertschi
Kleptochthonius lutzi
Kleptochthonius
proximosetus
Kleptochthonius regulus
Kleptochthonius similis
Microcreagris valentinei
Nesticus paynei
Nesticus tennesseensis
Oncopodura hubbardi
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
VA - Scott.
VA - Scott.
VA - Russell.
VA - Russell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Scott.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Scott.
VA - Lee.
VA - Scott.
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee.
VA - Scott.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Lee
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-9
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Cave springtail
Cave springtail
Cave springtail
Cedar millipede
Chandler's planarian
Cherokee clubtail
Clubshell
Cracking pearly mussel
Crayfish
Cumberland bean pearly
mussel
(Cumberland bean)
Cumberland Cave
amphipod
Cumberlandian combshell
Cumberland elktoe
Arrhopalites commorus
Arrhopalites carolynae
Pseudosinella hirsuta
Brachoria cedra
Sphalloplana chandleri
Stenogomphus consanguis
Pleurobema clava
Hemistena lata
Cambarus veteranus
Villosa trabalis
Stygobromus cumberlandus
Epioblasma brevidens
Alasmidonta atropurpurea
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
E
SOC
E
SOC
E
E
VA - Tazwell
VA - Lee
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Scott
KY - McCreary.
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha. (Elk River)
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in gravel or mixed gravel and sand.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott
KY - McCreary, Wayne.
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in mud, sand, or gravel.
WV - McDowell, Mingo, Raleigh, Wayne, Wyoming.
KY - Jackson, Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Wayne, Whitley.
TN - Scott.
VA -Russell, Scott, Taz well
VA - Lee, Scott, Wise
KY - Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Wayne.
TN - Claiborne, Scott.
VA - Lee, Scott.
KY - Jackson, laurel, McCreary, Rockcastle, Whitley.
TN - Fentress, Morgan, Scott.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-10
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Cumberland monkeyface
pearlymussel
Deceptive cave beetle
Delicate cave beetle
Diana fritillary butterfly
Dromedary pearlymussel
Elktoe mussel
Fanshell mussel
Fine -rayed pigtoe
Fluted kidneyshell
Funnel supercoil
Quadrula intermedia
Pse udanophthalm us
deceptivus
Pse udanophthalm us
delicatus
Speyeria diana
Dromus dramas
Alasmidonta marginata
Cyprogenia stegaria
Fusconaia cuneolus
Ptychobranchus subtentum
Paravitrea mira
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
E
E
C
SOC
TN - Claiborne, Lincoln, Maury.
VA - Lee, Scott
Habitat: Clean fast -flowing water in areas that contain relatively firm rubble, gravel,
and sand substrate, swept free of silt.
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee.
VA - Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Scott, Tazwell, Wise o.
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Mainly found in the Appalachian Mountains in moist, well-shaded forests
with rich soils. Can be found nectaring along woodland edges and small openings.
Larval host plant is woodland violets.
VA - Lee, Scott.
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha. (Elk River)
KY - Boyd, Carter, Greenup, Lawrence, Wayne
VA - Scott.
WV - Fayette. (Kanawha River)
Habitat: Found in medium to large rivers primarily in relatively deep water with
moderate current over gravelly substrate.
TN - Anderson, Claiborne, Sequatchie.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
KY - Jackson, laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Whitley.
TN - Claiborne.
VA - Lee, Russell,Scott, Tazewell, Wise.
VA - Buchanan, Dickenson.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-ll
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Greenbrier cavesnail
Greenbrier Valley cave
beetle
Greenbrier Valley cave
pseudo-scorpion
Ground beetle
Green-blossom pearly
mussel
Green-faced clubtail
Hoffman's xystodesmid
millipede
Holsinger's cave spider
Holsinger's cave beetle
Hubricht's cave beetle
Lee County cave
amphipod
Lee County cave beetle
Lee County cave isopod
Little Kennedy cave
beetle
Fontigens turritella
Pseudanophthalmusfuscus
Kleptochthonius henroti
Cyclotrachelus incisus
Epioblasma torulosa
gubernaculum
Gomphus viridifrons
Brachoria hoffmani
Nesticus holsingeri
Pse udanophthalm us
holsingeri
Pseudanophthalmus
hubrichti
Stygobromus leensis
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus
Lirceus usdagalun
Pse udanophthalm us
cordicollis
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
C
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
WV - Greenbrier.
WV - Greenbrier.
WV - Greenbrier.
VA - Dickenson.
VA - Scott.
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in gravel riffles.
VA - Dickenson, Scott, Wise.
VA - Dickenson.
VA - Lee, Scott, Wise. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and
humidity
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Russell. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Wise. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-12
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Little -wing pearlymussel
Long-headed cave beetle
Maiden Spring cave
beetle
Millipede - No common
name
Millipede - No common
name
Millipede - No common
name
Millipede - No common
name
Millipede - No common
name
Millipede - No common
name
No common name
No common name
No common name
No common name
No common name
Pegiasfabula
Pse udanophthalm us
longiceps
Pse udanophthalm us
virginicus
Brachoria dentata
Buotus carolinus
Dixioria fowleri
Pseudotremia alecto
Pseudotremia armesi
Pseudotremia tuberculata
Arrhopalites carolynae
Arrhopalites commorus
Arrhopalites marshall
Arrhopalites pavo
Oncopodura hubbardi
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
KY - Jackson, Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Wayne.
TN - Scott.
VA - Lee Russell, Scott, Tazewell
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Tazwell. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Lee.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Tazwell.
VA - Lee, Wise.
VA - Lee.
VA - Scott.
VA - Scott.
VA - Dickenson.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-13
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
No common name
No common name
No common name
Northern riffleshell
Ohio river pigtoe
Overlooked cave beetle
Oyster mussel
Pale lilliput pearly mussle
Pink mucket pearly
mussel
Powell Valley planarian
Powell Valley terrestrial
cave isopod
Purple bean
Pseudosinella erehwon
Pseudosinella extra
Typhlogastruta valentini
Epioblasma torulosa
rangiana
Pleurobema cardatum
Pse udanophthalm us
praetermissus
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Toxolasma cylindrella
Lampsilis abrupta
(=orbiculata)
Sphalloplana consimilis
Amerigoniscus henroti
Villosa perpurpurea
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
E
E
E-EX
SOC
SOC
E
VA - Scott.
VA - Scott.
VA - Scott.
WV-Kanawha. (Elk River)
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in gravel riffles.
VA - Scott.
VA - Scott.
KY - Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Wayne, Whitley.
TN - Claiborne, Scott.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell.
TN - Marion.
VA - Scott
KY - Green, Greenup, McCraken, Marshall.
TN - Hardin, Hawkins, Meigs, Roane, Trousdale.
WV - Fayette (Kanawha River), Kanawha (Elk River).
Habitat: Lower Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and their larger tributaries in gravel or
sand. Medium to large rivers in habitats ranging from silt to boulders, rubble, gravel,
and sand substrates.
VA - Lee.
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
TN - Cumberland, Morgan, Scott.
VA - Lee,Russell, Scott, Tazewell
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-14
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Purple lilliput
Pyramid pigtoe
Rayed bean mussel
Regal fritillary
Ring pink
Rotund cave beetle
Rough pigtoe
Rough rabbitsfoot
Rove beetle
Royal marstonia snail
Royal syarinid pseudo-
scorpion
Rye cove isopod
Saint Paul cave beetle
Toxolasma lividus
Pleurobema rubrum
Villosa fabilis
Speyeria idalia
Obovaria retusa
Pse udanophthalm us
rotundatus
Pleurobema plenum
Quadrula cylindrica
strigillata
Atheta troglophila
Marstonia ogmoraphe
Chitrella regina
Lirceus culveri
Pseudanophthalmus
sanctipauli
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
E
E
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
VA - Russell, Scott.
Habitat: Lakes and small streams in gravel.
VA - Scott.
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha. (Elk River)
VA - Buchanan, Lee, Russell, Tazwell.
Habitat: Found in tall prairie and other large grasslands adjacent to marshes, bogs, or
wet meadows. May prefer grasslands in higher elevations. Larval host plant is violet.
KY - Greenup.
Habitat: Large rivers in gravel or sand.
VA - Lee. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
KY - Warren
VA - Scott.
TN - Hardin, Trousdale
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in sand and gravel substrates.
TN - Claiborne, Hancock.
VA - Lee, Russell,Scott, Tazewell.
VA - Lee.
TN - Marion.
WV - Greenbrier. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity.
Associated with limestone geology.
VA - Scott.
VA - Rusell, Scott.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-15
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Sequatchie caddisfly
Sheepnose
Shiney pigtoe
Sidelong supercoil
Silken cave beetle
Slabside pearlymussel
Skillet clubtail
Snuffbox mussel
Spectacle case
Spiny riversnail
Tan riffleshell
Tennessee clubshell
Tennessee heelsplitter
Tennessee pigtoe
Thomas' cave beetle
White wartyback
Glyphopsyche sequatchie
Plethobasus cyphyus
Fusconaia cor
Paravitrea ceres
Pseudanophthalmus serious
Lexingtonia dolabelloides
Gomphus ventricosus
Epioblasma triquetra
Cumberlandia monodonta
lo fluvialis
Epioblasma florentina
walkeri
Pleurobema oviforme
Lasmigona holstonia
Fusconaia barnesiana
Pseudanophthalmus thomasi
Plethobasus cicatricosus
C
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
C
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
E
TN - Marion
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott.
TN - Anderson, Campbell, Claiborne.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Wise.
WV - Nicholas. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Scott. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell
VA - Scott.
VA - Lee, Scott.
WV - Braxton, Clay, Kanawha. (Elk River)
Habitat: Medium to large rivers in clear, gravel riffles.
VA - Russell, Scott, Tazwell.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell.
KY - Pulaski, Wayne.
TN - Scott
VA - Russell, Tazwell.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
VA - Scott. Habitat: Constant natural air temperature, air flow and humidity
TN - Anderson
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-16
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Yellow-blossom
Epioblasma florentina
florentina
E
TN - Claiborne.
Plants
Vascular Plants
A bittercress
American hart's tongue
fern
Appalachian bugbane
Barbara's buttons
Bog bluegrass
Box huckleberry
Cardamine flagellifera
Asplenium americana
Cimicifuga rubifolia
Marshallia grandiflora
Poa paludigena
Gaylusscaia brachycera
SOC
T
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
VA - Dickenson.
TN - Marion.
Habitat: Requires deep shade, a continuously high humidity, moist soil, and the
presence of dolomitic limestone outcrops with a high magnesium concentration.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
Habitat: Moist woods.
WV - Nicholas, Webster.
Habitat: Perennial plant that blooms from June- July. Grows in crevices of flood-
scoured rock shelves and cobble/sand banks of rivers (e. g. , Youghiogheny). The
regular flood cycles of the river may be necessary to prevent competing grasses and
shrubs from taking over and outcompeting the Marshallia.
VA - Russell, Scott, Tazwell.
Habitat: Small grass found in sphagnum bogs, tamarack swamps, and cold spring
heads.
VA - Dickenson.
Habitat: Long-lived perennial thought to spread through asexual reproduction by
rhizomes. The rhizomes spread very slowly at the rate of about 6" per year. Found on
north-facing slopes over acidic shale bedrock.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-17
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
C = Candidate
Butternut
Juglans cinera
SOC
WV - Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Shade-intolerant, fast-growing tree characteristic of deep, moist, fertile soils
of lower slopes, coves, river banks, and floodplains. Also grows on dry, rocky
limestone soils in fewer numbers. Populations are declining because of infection with
a fungus that causes trunk and branch cankers and subsequent crown dieback.
Canby's mountain-lover
Paxistima canbyi
SOC
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
WV - Greenbrier, Mercer.
Habitat: Grows on rocky, well-drained upland soils. The branches spread along the
ground and sprout where favorable. Flowers in April and May.
Carey saxifrage
Saxifraga careyana
SOC
VA - Buchanan, Russell.
Habitat: Found in the mountains of WV. Grows on moist rocks and wet spots on rock
outcrops and cliffs. Flowers in May and June.
Gray's saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana
SOC
VA - Russell.
WV- Boone, Braxton, Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Kanawha, Lincoln, Logan,
McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Raleigh, Webster, Wyoming.
Habitat: Found in the mountains of WV, VA, NC, and TN. Grows on wet spots in
moist rocky woods. Flowers in May and June.
Chaff seed
Schwalbea americana
KY - McCreary
Habitat: Moist to dry pinelands, oak woods or clearings.
Cumberland rosemary
Conradina verticillata
KY - McCreary.
TN - Cumberland, Fentress, Morgan, Scott.
Habitat: Grows along rivers in close proximity to the Cumberland Plateau. Always
found in close association with the floodplain of watercourses. Prefers open to slightly
shaded, moderately deep, well-drained soils, and topographic features that protect the
plants from the full force of flooding. Specific areas supporting this species include
boulder, sand, and gravel bars, terraces of sand on gradually sloping river banks, and
islands.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-18
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Cumberland sandwort
Eggert's sunflower
Glade spurge
Green pitcher plant
Long stalked holly
Large -flowered skullcap
Ovate catchfly
Piratebush
Price's potato bean
Running buffalo clover
Arenaria cumberlandensis
Helanthus eggertii
Euphorbia purpurea
Sarracenia oreophila
Ilex collina
Scutellaria montana
Silene ovata
Buckleya distichophylla
Apios priceana
Trifolium stoloniferum
E
T
SOC
E
SOC
E
SOC
SOC
T
E
KY - McCreary.
TN - Fentress, Morgan, Scott.
Habitat: Known in a limited portion of the Cumberland Plateau. Restricted to shady,
moist rockhouse floors, overhanging ledges, and solution pockets in sandstone rock
faces. Needs the correct combination of shade, high moisture, cool temperatures, and
high humidity. Flowers in late June to early July.
KY - Jackson.
TN - Marion.
VA - Russell, Tazwell.
Habitat: Flowers from July to September. Found in rich seepage wetlands and
thickets. Sprouts from a short, thick underground stem. Threatened by habitat
destruction and water quality degradation.
TN - Cumberland
VA - Tazwell
TN - Marion, Sequatchie.
Habitat: Mint found only at the southern end of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic
Province in Georgia and Tennessee. It occurs on dry to slightly moist rock slopes
under a canopy of mature (70-200 years old) hardwoods (primarily oaks and
hickories). All known sites show little or no disturbance due to logging activities or
grazing by livestock.
VA - Lee.
Habitat: Perennial plant found in rich woods. Flowers in August.
VA - Tazwell.
Habitat: Found in moist woods with hemlocks. May be parasitic on hemlocks.
TN - Marion.
Habitat: Found in woods and thickets. Flowers from July through September.
KY - Jackson
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-19
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
Running glade clover
Schweinitz's sedge
Small whorled pogonia
Smoke hole bergomot
Sweet pine sap
Virginia spiraea
White fringeless orchid
Trifolium calcaricum
Carex schweinitzii
Isotria medeoloides
Monarda fistulosa ssp. brevis
Monotropsis odorata
Spirea virginiana
Platanthera integrilabia
SOC
SOC
T
SOC
SOC
T
C-Ex
C
VA - Lee, Scott.
Habitat: Limestone glades.
VA - Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise.
Habitat: Open, calcareous wetlands.
VA - Lee, Wise.
WV - Greenbrier.
Habitat: Open, dry deciduous woods with acid soil. Flowers from mid-May to mid-
June. Does not necessarily flower annually.
WV - Mercer (Along Bluestone Ridge, Pipestem Gorge)
VA - Dickenson.
Habitat: Forested habitats.
KY - Laurel, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Whitley
TN - Cumberland, Morgan, Scott, Fentress, Sequatchie,
VA - Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazwell, Wise
WV - Fayette, Nicholas, Mercer, Raleigh, and Greenbrier (Known along the Gauley,
Meadow, Bluestone Rivers and Beaver Creek)
Habitat: Typically found on rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks in gorges or canyons.
Flood scouring is essential to the survival of this plant. Grows best in full sun, but can
tolerate some shade. The bedrock surrounding this species is primarily sandstone and
the soils are acidic.
C-KY - Laurel, McCreary, Pulaski, Rockcastle
C-Ex, VA - Lee.
C-TN - Cumberland, Fentress, Marion, Sequatchie
Habitat: Flowers from July to September. It grows in the wet peaty soils of swamps,
bogs, and in pine barrens.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-20
-------
Appendix F
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
SOC = Species of Concern T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate
White-haired goldenrod
Yarrow-leaved ragwort
Solidago albopilosa
Senecio millefolium
T
SOC
KY - Wolfe.
Habitat: Grows in rock shelters on the upper slopes of the Red River Gorge between
800-1,300 feet mean sea level in elevation. Can occur on any slope aspect, but plants
growing in north to northwest exposures are smaller than average. Found almost
exclusively in partial shade behind the dripline of rockshelters. Rarely found on rock
ledges or in sandy soil along the side of a hiking trail.
VA - Lee, Scott.
Habitat: Grows on wet or dry rock in the southwest mountains of VA. Flowers from
May to early June.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS
F-21
------- |