Water Shrew 1 2 1 



turbed area just above the reservoir (Pagels 1987). Pagels and Handley 

 (1991:564) subsequently observed, "The water shrew, extremely rare in Virginia, 

 is known to occur in only one small watershed in the state." The Appalachian 

 water shrew was declared a state endangered species in 1990, and a recovery 

 plan was prepared (Pagels et al. 1991). The primary objective of that plan is to 

 prevent extirpation of the water shrew in Virginia, with critical aspects being 

 determination of its distribution, description of its habitat, and investigation of 

 factors that might adversely impact the species. 



Herein we report on records of the water shrew and examine biotic and 

 abiotic features at all sites where it has been collected in Virginia. Our objective 

 is to provide basic information on the water shrew that will be of interest to biol- 

 ogists and resource managers who might be concerned with the distribution, 

 ecology, and protection of this species. 



MATERIALS AND METHODS 

 SMALL MAMMAL SAMPLING 



Efforts to locate the water shrew in Virginia were intensified in the late 

 1980s in conjunction with development of the recovery plan. Based on pub- 

 lished information and knowledge obtained on S. palustris habitat during visits 

 to sites where it had been collected in Maryland and West Virginia, a profile of 

 apparently suitable habitat was developed for use in this study. Subsequently, 

 numerous sites were sampled in northern hardwood or northern hardwood- 

 conifer forests along mountain streams at or above about 900-m elevation in Vir- 

 ginia. Emphasis was placed on sampling in Bath, Highland, and Rockingham 

 counties in western Virginia, and Grayson, Smyth, and Washington counties in 

 southwestern Virginia. In addition to efforts by several individuals over many 

 years, portions of approximately 45 first and second order streams were sampled 

 for S. palustris by Pagels in the period 1989-1996. 



Traps used included Museum Special snap-back traps and Sherman live 

 traps, but most sampling in 1991 to present was completed with use of 2-L plas- 

 tic pitfall traps. Traps were set as near the water as possible in "most likely" 

 spots, for example, under overhanging banks or root masses of trees, but often a 

 trap was placed in a given spot only because the substrate allowed placement of 

 a pitfall. Number of traps, space between traps, and length of sampling period 

 varied greatly among sites, but whenever trapping was completed in anticipation 

 of perturbative activities, i.e. timbering, pitfalls were usually kept in place for a 

 minimum of 30 days. Most sampling was between April to November as dictat- 

 ed by winter weather and road conditions. All specimens are deposited in the 

 Virginia Commonwealth University Mammal Collection. 



