132 John F. Pagels, Leonard A. Smock and Stephen H. Sklarew 



Linzey 1973) are most abundant in streams with fast current and cobble sub- 

 strate. Those conditions were prevalent at the five sites at which S. palustris was 

 found and these aquatic insect orders were common. 



All streams where shrews were found had habitat characteristics indica- 

 tive of relatively pristine conditions. The Envrionmental Protection Agency 

 habitat assessment metric scores (Table 4) show the high quality of in-stream, 

 bank, and riparian habitat at all sites. All metrics were scored at 15 or higher, 

 and many scores were at or near the maximum score of 20. Total metric scores 

 of 220-229 points where shrews were found reflect high habitat quality at the 

 streams. The taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrates also is indicative of 

 relatively undisturbed streams. Most taxa we collected are generally intolerant 

 of low habitat or water quality. 



We cannot state assuredly that S. palustris does not occur along streams 

 that we sampled unsuccessfully, or on streams that possess the habitat conditions 

 reported herein. Laerm et al. (1995:49) observed that despite the great increase 

 in knowledge of shrew species that were formerly thought to be very rare, includ- 

 ing both Sorex hoyi and S. dispar that are now known to be more common than 

 was earlier thought, "...the water shrew appears to be the rarest and most local- 

 ized shrew in the southeastern United States." New records such as those report- 

 ed herein, and a low altitude site (808 m) in northern Georgia (Laerm et al. 1995), 

 provide hope that S. palustris will be found at additional locations. Baseline data 

 on suitable habitat will make searching for new sites more efficient, and will aid 

 in the development of management programs for protection of known and poten- 

 tial sites. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. - Individuals who assisted in field work included J. 

 Baker, J. Blevins, T. Blevins, B. Glasgow, D. Kirk, S. Klinger, J. McGovern, J. 

 E. Pagels, J. Pound, R. Reynolds, S. Rinehart, C. Thomas, and S. Whitcomb. K. 

 Terwilliger (formerly of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries), 

 M. Fies and R. Reynolds of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fish- 

 eries, R. Glasgow (formerly of the U.S. Forest Service, George Washington and 

 Jefferson National Forests) and J. Bellemore, S. Croy, and S. Klinger of the U. 

 S. Forest Service were supportive in numerous aspects of the study. E. Thomson 

 and D. Feller, Maryland Natural Heritage Program, and C. Stihler, West Virginia 

 Department of Natural Resources, graciously led visits to sites in their states, and 

 D. Webster provided unpublished observations on habitat in North Carolina. C. 

 Handley, Jr. and the late J. Guilday were inspirational leaders. Throughout most 

 of the study funding to JFP was received from the Nongame and Endangered 

 Species Program of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and 

 more recently also from matching funds from the U. S. Forest Service, George 

 Washington and Jefferson National Forests. 



