KIMBERLY RUN PRESERVE
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
May 2005
prepared for:
Board of Directors
Somerset County Conservancy
Box 241, Somerset, PA 15501
prepared by:
Ken Hotopp
Appalachian Conservation Biology
83 Frost Ave., Frostburg, MD 21532
1
KIMBERLY RUN PRESERVE
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................4
Natural and Cultural History....................................................................................6
Physiography, Climate and Soils .................................................................6
Pleistocene ...................................................................................................8
10,500 BP .....................................................................................................9
300BP .........................................................................................................11
150 BP ........................................................................................................13
Early Logging ............................................................................................14
Recent ........................................................................................................16
Inventory ................................................................................................................18
Kimberly Run Watershed ..........................................................................18
Land Use ........................................................................................18
Wetlands and Water .......................................................................19
Preserve Habitats and Wildlife ..................................................................20
Field ............................................................................................20
Forest ............................................................................................21
Open Wetland ................................................................................23
Streams ...........................................................................................26
Infrastructure ............................................................................................27
Roads and Buildings ......................................................................27
Trails ..............................................................................................27
Management Direction...........................................................................................28
Members survey .........................................................................................28
Teachers Survey .........................................................................................29
Management Goals & Objectives ..........................................................................32
Watershed .................................................................................................32
Land Use/Ownership .....................................................................32
Water Quality .................................................................................33
Preserve Uses .............................................................................................34
Commercial ....................................................................................34
Conservation ..................................................................................34
Educational ....................................................................................35
Recreational ...................................................................................35
Safety and Security ........................................................................35
Preserve Infrastructure ...............................................................................36
Roads and Buildings ......................................................................36
Trails ..............................................................................................37
Citations .................................................................................................................39
2
INTRODUCTION
Kimberly Run Preserve is a 260-acre undeveloped property of the
Somerset County Conservancy in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. This
resource management plan is intended to serve as the primary guiding
document for land, water and wildlife conservation and use at the
preserve.
Kimberly Run Preserve lies just southeast of Somerset Borough on
Kimberly Run, and is bounded on the west by four-lane Rt. 219, on the
north by the Pennsylvania Turnpike, to the north by Pennsylvania Dept. of
Transportation land, and to the east by other private lands along Menser
Road. Featuring forests, fields, wetlands and streams, this landholding is
intended to conserve wildlife and provide recreation and outdoor
education.
The Somerset County Conservancy is a nonprofit 501c(3) land
trust providing for the permanent protection of land and its resources since
1994. SCC offers stewardship, education and advice for the preservation
and enhancement of natural, scenic, agricultural, historic and open space
lands.
“Conserving the future of Somerset County”
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This plan represents the efforts of many contributors over several
years, including the Somerset County Conservancy Board of Directors and
membership, various partners, volunteers and interns, and Pennsylvania
state officials. It is funded by the Pennsylvania Dept. of Conservation &
Natural Resources’ Community Conservation Partnerships Program with
matching funds and volunteer time from the Somerset County
Conservancy and partners.
SCC Board of Directors
Officers
Jim Moses, President
Jeff Payne, Vice President
Lester Brunell, Secretary
Brooke Cook, Treasurer
Directors
Scott Bittner
Lester McNutt
Dave Steele
Richard Kaufman
Jeff Kimmel
Dave Mankameyer
Roger Latuch
Len Lichvar
Dan Seibert
Tom Roberts
Partners and Volunteers
Scott Alexander
Becky Costea (Watershed summer intern)
Malcolm Crittenden (Wells Creek Watershed Association);
Tom Dick DVM.
Rita Hawrot (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy)
David Mankameyer
Dennis McNair PhD.
Road Runners Birding Team
4
Partner Agencies and Organizations
Allegheny Plateau Audubon Society
Casselman River Watershed Association
Ducks Unlimited
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Pheasants Forever
Somerset Conservation District
Somerset County Commissioners
Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Wells Creek Watershed Association
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Partner Businesses
Old Tyme Builders
Reliant Energy
Somerset Trust Company
Benefactor
Elizabeth Piersol
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
John C. Oliver, Secretary
Cynthia Dunlap
5
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY
Physiography, Climate and Soils
Somerset County is located upon the central Allegheny Plateau, the
highland stretching from southwestern New York into West Virginia.
Resistant Pottsville Sandstone characterizes the ridges of the plateau. A
deep valley is carved into the plateau in the southern half of Somerset
County by the Casselman River. Originating in western Maryland, the
Casselman arcs north, then west into the Youghiogheny at Confluence.
The village of Somerset lies on relatively high ground north of the
Casselman, and is drained by the Casselman tributary Cox’s Creek. Areas
to the northeast drain into Stonycreek, running northwest into the
Allegheny River watershed. Kimberly Run is a tributary of Cox’s Creek
coming from southeast of Somerset village.
Table 1. Climate characteristics of Somerset, PA (PA State Climatologist, 2005).
month
average
daily
max
temp*
average
daily
min
temp*
average
precip**
Jan
37.3
18.8
3.23
Feb
39.0
18.7
2.87
March
46.9
25.2
3.92
April
59.0
33.8
3.98
May
70.0
43.0
4.18
June
77.2
51.5
4.14
July
80.8
55.5
3.93
Aug
79.3
53.7
3.78
Sept
73.4
46.8
3.43
Oct
62.9
36.8
2.71
Nov
49.0
28.5
3.15
Dec
38.8
20.5
3.07
year
59.5
36.1
43.07
* = 1926-1958; ** = 1926-1994
Weather is monitored at a National Climate Data Center station in
Somerset, and climate information is compiled for varied periods. Average
daily maximum temperatures are highest in July (80.8º F; 1926-1958) and
lowest in January (37.3º F; Pennsylvania State Climatologist, 2005).
Annual precipitation averages 43” (1926-1994), with the greatest amount
6
falling in Spring (May average 4.18”). Snowfall averages 86.6” (19261994).
Soils along Kimberly Run are Philo (Ph) and Atkins (At) soils,
with Purdy (Pu) occupying large areas of adjacent low-lying land (Figure
1; Yaworski, 1983). Both Atkins and Philo are typically found along
Somerset County floodplains and are formed of acid shale and sandstone
debris. Atkins is poorly drained soil while Philo is moderately drained.
Purdy is more clayey and found on stream terraces.
Brinkerton (Br) is found at the foot of slopes with springs on the
preserve, which is a typical location for this poorly-drained, acid, brown
soil derived from shale and siltstone. Nolo (N) is a major soil type on
lower slopes, and is a deep poorly-drained soil derived from gray
sandstone. Cookport (Cp), found higher up on the south side of the
preserve is a moderately drained soil also derived from gray sandstone.
Berks (Bk) is found on the top of the field north of Kimberly Run and
tends to be well-drained soil derived from brown shale and siltstone.
Figure 1. Soils of the Kimberly Run Preserve vicinity.
7
Pleistocene
Pollen records for sites dating to the time of full North American
glaciation during the last Ice Age (19,000-14,000 before present) are rare.
Fortunately, one such site, studied by Maxwell and Davis (1972) is
relatively nearby on the Allegheny Plateau. This is at The Glades, located
in the Bittinger area of Garrett County, Maryland, approximately 33 miles
to the south. Because Kimberly Run is also situated on the Plateau at a
similar elevation, it may share some vegetation history.
Pollen from the Glades (which Maxwell and Davis call Buckel’s
Bog) and elsewhere in the Northeast indicates tundra-like vegetation at the
time of the last glacial maximum (during the Pleistocene), extending 300
kilometers or more south of the southern edge of the ice sheet in central
Pennsylvania. The character of such habitats throughout the area south of
the ice sheet in eastern North America is under some debate. Although
there were areas of tundra-like vegetation between the ice sheet and
evergreen forest to the south, in places it appears that there was little gap,
so the pattern may have been a mosaic of tundra and forest.
The mid-Pleistocene pollen series from The Glades is dominated
by sedges (Cyperaceae), and spruce and pine pollen is also present, which
may support the concept of a tundra-forest mosaic. Maxwell and Davis
(1972) suppose the conifer pollen was blown in from pockets of forest at
lower elevations in the region.
Vegetation of these tundra areas was probably unlike that of
today’s Arctic. For one thing, because of the lower latitude, summers were
warmer. Vegetation of the open habitats may have been more similar to
that of a grassy steppe.
Figure 2. Pleistocene bear skull from Cumberland Cave.
In the late Pleistocene (14,000-10,500 BP), the ice sheet that had
reached to mid-Pennsylvania began to retreat. At about 12,700 BP tree
pollen sharply increased at The Glades, indicating a replacement of tundra
vegetation with an open boreal woodland, including widely-spaced spruce
8
and jack or red pine. At this time, pollen of oaks, ash and hornbeam
appeared. This deciduous tree pollen is interpreted as having blown in
from lower elevations, perhaps aided by a change in prevailing winds.
Evidence of the Pleistocene fauna of the region comes from
Cumberland Cave, in northern Allegany County, Maryland (Gidley and
Gazin, 1933, Holman, 1977). A former 100 foot-deep limestone sinkhole
that was intercepted by a railroad cut, this cave accumulated remains of a
wide variety of vertebrates. Among the bones are those of many animals
still in the region today, such as slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus),
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), rattlesnake (Croatalus horridus), ruffed
grouse (Bonasa umbellus) , short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), big
brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). However, the mammalian
fauna is interesting, among many reasons, for having several animals now
extinct, such as mastodont (Mammut cf. americanus) or no longer living in
eastern North America, such as tapir (Tapirus sp.) and horse (Equus sp.).
This is in contrast with the mostly modern herpetofauna from the same
site. The mammalian fauna of Cumberland Cave is also characteristic of
colder (e.g. wolverine, Gulo gidleyi) and mixed forest-grassland habitat
(e.g. badger, Taxidea marylandica), as might be expected from the
Pleistocene pollen evidence from the region. It may be important to note
that the Pleistocene age of the fauna at Cumberland Cave is interpreted
from the mammalian fossil assemblage and not from direct evidence such
as radiocarbon dating.
10,500 BP
Holocene (10,500 BP to present) vegetation at The Glades moved
toward a mixed conifer-hardwood forest, beginning with a sharp increase
in white pine and birch that indicates a warming climate. Hemlock pollen
was for the first time consistently represented. At about 5,000 BP
deciduous trees became most abundant in the pollen record, dominated by
oak. Beech, chestnut and hickory attain successive maxima, while
hemlock pollen percentage declines and spruce and pine are present at low
levels.
It is important to remember that these pollen numbers are a
percentage of total pollen, not absolute pollen amounts, so they do not
necessarily represent abundance of certain species. Nor do they
necessarily represent relative abundance of plant species, because pollen
production and fertilization strategies (for example, wind-borne vs. insectpollinated) vary between species.
Human presence in North America may have begun as early as
40,000 BP, and humans were in eastern North America by at least 12,000
years BP. These first Paleo-Indians were nomadic big game hunters of the
Clovis culture, named for their slender fluted knife and spear points first
9
discovered at Clovis, New Mexico. The extinction of many of North
America’s large mammals, such as woolly mammoth, at the time of
human expansion across the continent approximately 10,000-15,000 BP
was perhaps due to a combination of hunting and climate change as ice
sheets retreated. Near Meyersdale is the site of the earliest known
occupation in Somerset County, at about 12,000 years BP.
In the subsequent Archaic culture, from approximately 8,000 to
3,000 BP, Native American food sources broadened to include small
game, fish, and gathering of wild plants. Many specialized tools and skills
were developed - dogs were domesticated, boats were constructed, cloths
and baskets were woven, and ceramics were made. The earliest artifacts
from a second archeological site near Myersdale date to this period.
With the beginning of the Middle Archaic (8,500-5,000 BP) a
regional Native American population increase is evident, with artifact sites
now at major and minor floodplains, swamp margins, open valleys, major
and minor ridges, and stream headwater zones (Wall, 1981). During this
time, Native American projectile points changed, and this is believed to
indicate a shift toward exploitation of a greater variety of habitats, at
approximately the same time that deciduous forest and associated fauna
were increasing. The newer, “Kirk,” points tend to be made of local rather
than imported materials, and are increasingly found on upland as well as
floodplain and swamp sites (Wall, 1981).
By the Late Archaic (5,000-3,000 BP), land use patterns
intensified, with increased emphasis on the floodplains of these three
rivers. With the beginning of the Woodland Period, around 3,000 BP, the
variety and number of sites used by Native Americans drastically
decreased, with activity confined to larger wetlands and floodplains. This
may be the result of a shift to a more agricultural existence and deemphasis on hunting (Wall, 1981).
The Monongahela Woodland Culture flourished in western
Pennsylvania from 1,100 to 400 BP. Three Somerset County archeological
sites near Myersdale represent this culture (Boyd, 2000; Stahl, 2002).
Villages had several houses with attached storage pits, and an open plaza.
Villages were surrounded by log palisades. Foods included domesticated
squash beans, corn and sunflower, as well as acorn, black walnut,
butternut and hickory hulls. Animal remains included rattlesnake, turtle,
salamander, fish, beaver, deer, elk, squirrel, rabbit, geese, turkey and bear.
The most recent Monongahela occupation of Somerset County
ended approximately 400 years BP. By the time of European contact in
western Maryland and southwestern Pennsylvania, these people had been
replaced by Iroquois, Shawnee and other Native Americans. Though the
underlying causes of this replacement remain uncertain, disease, declining
food production related to climate, and warfare are implicated.
10
King Charles II of England granted William Penn a charter to
establish a colony in the New World in 1681. In 1683 the first bounty was
offered on wolves in the new colony. The first game law protecting deer
was enacted by provincial governor Sir William Keith in 1721, allowing
deer to be hunted only from July 1 to January 1.
300 BP
In 1747 a group of English Colonial investors, including Thomas
Cresap and Lawrence and Augustine Washington, formed the Ohio
Trading Company (Lowdermilk, 1878). The Ohio Trading Company was
granted 500,000 acres between the Monongahela and Kanawha Rivers,
and Christopher Gist was employed to explore the region (Lowdermilk,
1878). The Ohio Company established a fur trading post on Will’s Creek
in Maryland, and conducted business with the Native Americans, but was
too wary of them to establish posts further west.
Meanwhile the French began to establish military posts in the
upper Ohio drainage to the north and west. In 1749 the governor of
Canada sent Captain Celeron de Bienville to descend the Allegheny and
Ohio Rivers, claiming for France the same lands that England claimed
through John Cabot’s landing on the continent in 1497 and subsequent
treaties with Iroquois Native Americans. Neither European side
recognized the rights of the inhabitants, but vied for Native American
friendship and assistance against their enemy.
The British sent George Washington to explore the region,
encourage the friendship of the Native Americans, and to assert their claim
with the French. Washington picked a site at the Forks of the Ohio, and
Captain William Trent was sent to build a British fort there, at what is now
Pittsburgh (Lowdermilk, 1878). But while the Fort was under construction
in 1754, a large French force evicted the English and renamed the post
Fort Duquesne.
This same year a British military post was established at
Cumberland, to serve as the primary point from which to defend British
land claims against the French. Washington, on his way west with troops
to reinforce the English at the Forks of the Ohio, learned that the post had
been usurped by the French. Although outnumbered, Washington pressed
on and engaged a small French unit, killing its leader. While retreating,
Washington’s troops were caught by French forces in western
Pennsylvania at a hastily-constructed “Fort Necessity,” in nearby Fayette
County and were forced to surrender. This incident is considered the
beginning of the French and Indian War.
In 1755, forces under General Edward Braddock left from Fort
Cumberland, building a road to haul supplies and cannon as they went.
They followed a route blazed years earlier by Thomas Cresap and the
Native American Nemacolin, “Nemacolin’s Trail,” which passed through
southern Somerset County. This road eventually became the “National
11
Road,” now US Rt. 40. Although Braddock met with a disastrous defeat
near Fort Duquesne at the hands of French and Indian forces, the British of
course eventually prevailed in their claim over the central portion of the
continent. The Forbes Road, now the Lincoln Highway (US Rt. 30), was
begun in 1758 during another English march that re-took Ft. Duquesne.
After Braddock’s defeat and until the fall of Ft. Duquesne in 1758
there were raids by Native Americans against European settlers across the
Appalachian Plateau, including massacres and kidnappings. During this
time there were no settlers in what is now Somerset County (Cassady,
1932). After hostilities subsided, the first permanent European settlers
came to the central Appalachian Plateau. According to early travelers in
Somerset County, John Miller’s family was present on Allegheny
Mountain prior to 1762 (Cassady, 1932). Fort Stony Creek was also and
established settlement in 1762.
In 1767 English surveyors Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon
established Pennsylvania’s southern boundary, now called the MasonDixon Line. In 1768 western Pennsylvania was ceded to Thomas and
Richard Penn by the Iroquois at Fort Stanwix, New York, for 10,000
English pounds.
Harmon Husband, one of the settlers who established the village of
Somerset, made his first journey to the region in 1771, passing through
Cumberland on his way west. During the period of the American
Revolution there were scattered Native American raids again across the
area, though no major hostilities between British and Colonial forces in
the region.
Buffalo were extirpated from the Somerset County area sometime
in the early 1800’s. The last ones killed at a lake south of Berlin
Somerset County was established in 1779, from western Bedford
County. By the 1790’s there were sawmills in Somerset County. In 1795
there were 868 farms (Cassady, 1932).
In 1779 there was a “Great Snow,” during which it snowed almost
continuously for 40 days (Cassady, 1932). Average snow depth was
between four and five feet. In 1782 the Bald Eagle was adopted as our
national emblem (Pennsylvania Game Commission).
By 1800 there were 10,188 people in Somerset County (Cassady,
1932). When Somerset County was established in 1795 there were 868
farms, and by 1832 there were 3,341. They grew primarily corn, wheat,
oats, rye, buckwheat, potatoes, alfalfa and hay. The Somerset Agricultural
Society was formed in 1858.
The property that is now the Kimberly Run Preserve appears in an
1813 survey as land owned by Richard Brown (Somerset County Tax
Records, Vol 2 p 84,No. 969). Kimberly Run is illustrated but unnamed,
and Rt. 219 appears as the “Road from Somerset to Cumberland”. A deed
12
of a portion of this land transferred from Brown to Peter Kimmel in 1813
gives some hints as to the vegetation of the area, referring to a “pine,”
“plum,” chestnut,” and two “white oak” trees serving as boundary
markers.
Somerset County’s first schools were in Addison Township in
1834. Wolves were apparently gone from Somerset County by 1840
(Cassady, 1932). The first coal was mined in Somerset County in 1810,
with commercial coal mining beginning in 1872 near Myersdale.
In 1846 the Somerset County House of Employment or “Poor
House” opened on what is now Rt. 31 north of the Kimberly Run Preserve
(Koontz, 1906; Figure 3). Benjamin Kimmell, Absalom Casebeer and
Joseph Imhoff were the first directors, and they purchased a 265-acre farm
known as “Fairview” to support the residents.
Figure 3. Postcard of House of Employment (Poor House),
Somerset County, PA, from Obaker.
150 BP
Pollen records from The Glades from 150 years ago to the present
show evidence of logging and farming associated with European
settlement of the region. Ragweed (Ambrosia) pollen increased and
plantain pollen appeared, an indication of increased openings and soil
disturbance, while beech, hickory and oak showed decreasing percentages.
Grasses and sedges continued to show consistent presence.
By 1850 there were 24,416 people in Somerset County. In 1855
the county’s first iron furnace was built at Wellersburg (Cassady, 1932).
An unusually late hard frost occurred on June 4th, 1859.
13
In 1871 the Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad (now the
Baltimore and Ohio) was completed through the county. Another railroad
bed was built in the 1880’s by WilliamVanderbuilt, which became the
foundation for the Pennsylvania Turnpike.1873 saw the first restrictions
on hunting roosting passenger pigeons or discharging a firearm within a
quarter-mile of a passenger pigeon colony.
early logging
With regard to timber resources, initial logging on the Appalachian
Plateau had proceeded slowly, in part due to the slow pace of water-driven
sawmills, and lumber was cut mostly for local use. But logging
accelerated with the arrival of the steam-powered, mobile mill in the early
1800’s. By 1848 in Somerset County there were two large-scale
commercial sawmills at Ashtola and Kennels Mills.
The land now in the Kimberly Run Preserve appears on an 1876
map of Somerset County as part of D. Casebeer's Tract of 1,600 acres in
the Plank Road District No. 5 (Figure 4; Koontz, 1906). A steam sawmill
and nearby house are located on “Kimberlins Run” just before it crosses
the road that is now Rt. 219, suggesting that there may have been
significant logging in the vicinity. On what is now Menser Road is a
“limestone quarry” and a “maple camp,” and further up in the watershed
are a couple of “coal banks” indicating surface mines.
Figure 4. Part of Somerset County in 1876 (Koontz 1906)
14
A statewide “scalp act” was passed in 1885 to increase bounties on
weasels, hawks and owls, but was repealed two years later because of
bounty fraud and complaints about bird slaughter. 180,000 hawks and
owls had been killed. In 1896 the state’s first Game Commissioners were
appointed.
At the turn of the Century the commercial logging boom was in
full swing with the beginning of the E.V. Babcock Lumber Company mill.
The Somerset County population in 1900 was 49,416.
In 1898 The Somerset County House of Employment was reopened as the Somerset County Hospital for patients who were mentally
ill (Lepley, 1996).
The county’s first firetower, at Bald Knob, was erected by the
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters in 1913. The following
year, the last passenger pigeon died in captivity at the Cincinnati Zoo.
In 1920 the first State Game Lands, 6,288 acres, were purchased in
Elk County. Pennsylvania’s first antlerless deer season took place in two
Franklin County townships in 1923. The Bakersville Trout Nursery was
established in 1925.
A severe drought occurred in Somerset County from May 1930
until March 1931. That same year, the ruffed grouse became the official
state game bird. Gypsy moths first appeared in the state in 1932,
defoliating trees in parts of Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties.
In 1934 the first beaver trapping season in 31 years took place.
Laurel Hill State Park was established in 1935, as well as the federal Soil
Conservation Service.
By 1946 the Somerset State Hospital had 365 acres under
cultivation to help feed its approximately 500 patients. This institution was
closed in 1979 and eventually became the site for a new state prison.
The PA turnpike, which passes through the northern portion of the
Kimberly Run watershed, was opened for traffic in 1935.
A Pennsylvania rabies outbreak caused 241 reported cases of the
disease in 1951. The US Fish & Wildlife Service was established in 1956.
In 1961 Pennsylvania’s state’s first deer check station was operated.
“Project 70” to provide state funds for community conservation
programs was approved by Pennsylvania voters in 1962. The federal
Clean Air Act became law in 1970, the US Endangered Species Act in
1973, and the Clean Water Act in 1977.
15
recent
Forest now covers approximately 65% of Somerset County land, at
446,200 acres (Alerich, 1993). The most common forest type is
oak/hickory (57%), followed by northern hardwoods (34%), and with
small percentages of pine, spruce and oak/pine. The timber industry owns
just over 1% of this forest land, farmers 13%, and state and local
governments 17%, but most of this land, 69%, is owned by undetermined
types of private landowners.
In 2001 the Somerset County Conservancy purchased a 260-acre
parcel of surplus state land at Kimberly Run (Figure 5). This culminated
an effort of several years, and was achieved with the assistance and
support of the Somerset County Commissioners and state legislators State Representative’s William Lloyd, Bob Bastian, State Senator Richard
A. Kasunic, and County Commissioners James C. Marker, Brad Cober and
Pamela Tokar-Ickes.
Figure 5. Kimberly Run Preserve. Map by Emily White.
Following the land acquisition, SCC applied for a matching grant
for preserve planning, called a Community Conservation Partnership
Grant, through the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural
Resources. Grant funding was approved in 2002.
16
In 2003 SCC purchased a small, undeveloped property along twolane Rt. 219, in order to keep open options for future preserve access from
the west. The tract (map # 012-144-002) is 0.723 acres. Also in 2003,
Kimberly Run Preserve was designated as one of Pennsylvania’s
Important Mammal Areas (IMA) by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey.
17
INVENTORY
Kimberly Run Watershed
land use
The Kimberly Run Watershed encompasses very roughly 2,500
acres ranging from 2300 feet to 2340 feet elevation in central Somerset
County, Pennsylvania (Figure 6). This watershed includes lands with
active agricultural fields; less-intensively-used land such as forest, old
pasture and reclaimed strip mine; state and federal highways segments and
associated infrastructure; and limited commercial, industrial land and
residential housing. Other land uses include wind power generation towers
and a landfill. More than half of the watershed is non-forested mines and
fields.
Figure 6. Kimberly Run watershed upstream of Rt. 219. Map by Emily White.
18
Land uses of the Kimberly Run watershed affects the plants,
animals and water of the Kimberly Run Preserve. Of course, many
populations of plants and animals are found throughout the area or occupy
habitats that cross property boundaries. Runoff into Kimberly Run has an
important effect upon the downstream Preserve’s aquatic and riparian
habitats.
Conservation of Kimberly Run lands complements wildlife
conservation in the area on adjacent forestland, and nearby State Game
Lands #50 (a 3,180-acre tract). The presence at Kimberly Run of fisher,
black bear and other wildlife with relatively large habitat requirements
demonstrate that these animals are able to circulate throughout the forest
neighborhood. However, the fragmentation of wildlife habitat due to roads
and development is certainly having an effect upon these animals and
others, and is a future conservation concern. In addition to terrestrial
connections, Kimberly Run connects the aquatic system of private parcels
east of Rt. 219 to the nearby state game lands on the other side of Rt. 219.
This aquatic connection will become more valuable as stream pollution
impacts are addressed and water quality improves.
wetlands and water
Within the Kimberly Watershed above Rt. 219, small streams arise
from hillside springs on farm, forest and mined lands, flowing from
steeper slopes (though generally with pitches less than 20º), into the
flatter, central bottomland. The smallest streams often take a direct route
downslope, sometimes along field margins or property lines where they
have been redirected, until they reach bottom ground. The main stem of
Kimberly Run in this area meanders across this flatter land, starting
Northwest then gradually curving to the Southwest and crossing into the
Preserve. It accelerates with increasing slope on the West side of the
preserve. After leaving SCC lands, Kimberly Run flows onto State Game
Lands #50, which is a part of the Casselman River watershed, identified
for acid mine drainage (AMD) cleanup.
The low central ground associated with the main stem of the
stream contains most of the wetland acreage in this drainage. The largest
wetland appears to be approximately 100 acres, and is shared between the
Kimberly Run Preserve and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation parcel to the east. It is split by only an old roadway/berm
along the property line. This wetland was expanded on the DOT side of
the boundary in 2000 by the Louie-Beach Advance Wetland Mitigation
Project, built to compensate for wetland losses due to highway
development. The Louie-Beach portion is 40 wetland acres, with the
remainder on the Kimberly Run Preserve.
19
Preserve Habitats and Wildlife
field
Field habitats at Kimberly Run cover some 50 acres at the western
side of the preserve, although extensive fields abut the eastern side as well.
These fields, unlike some others in the watershed, are not the result of
strip-mining, but do have an apparently long history of agricultural use.
Lower edges of the fields have springs that supply adjacent wetlands.
Several small ponds were dug by USFWS in these fields in the early
summer of 2002.
View northwest to Rt. 219 from field on Kimberly Run parcel
Plants dominating the field are cool-season European species such
as Timothy, as well as native warm-season grasses such as switchgrass
and big bluestem, with wetland associates such as kill cow at seep edges at
the foot of slopes. The native grasses owe their presence to the State Game
Commission, which is actively managing the fields at Kimberly Run
Preserve with warm-season grass plantings for upland game birds.
Butterflies and dragonflies are frequent in summer fields,
including Aphrodite fritillary, European skipper and common wood
nymph. Breeding birds of the field habitats include some open grassland
species such as Eastern meadowlark, field sparrow, grasshopper sparrow
and savannah sparrow. However, some of the less-common grassland
species are not found, notably Henslow’s sparrow (though it was present
for few years in the mid-1990’s) and bobolinks.
20
forest
Oak-pine and mixed hemlock-hardwood forest covers the majority
of uplands at Kimberly Run Preserve. While this forest is generally
characterized as mature second growth, there is evidence of relatively
recent scattered cutting of individual trees (<50 years), evidenced by
stumps and skid trails. Fortunately, this cutting does not appear to have
caused major soil disturbance on the eastern side of Kimberly Run.
Anguispira alternata, flamed disc
a forest snail at Kimberly Run Preserve
Larry Watrous photo ©
White pine and oaks are more prevalent on the upper slopes on the
east side of the preserve, perhaps indicating a past history of fire and
clearing, while hemlock is prevalent on lower slopes, grading into patches
of hemlock swamp around streams and wetlands. There are some notable
patches of hemlock regeneration in small gaps on both sides of Kimberly
Run approaching the preserve’s Southwestern boundary. Chickadees,
woodpeckers, and fisher tracks are seen in this forest in winter.
Wetland hemlock stands occupy the areas around hillside springs,
bog wetlands and flatter habitats adjacent to Kimberly Run, especially on
the east side. Most of these mature stands have open understories, though
the wettest of these stands along Kimberly Run have thick populations of
skunk cabbage in summer. Salamanders, such as the two-lined, and
speckled Philomycid slugs inhabit these shaded conifer stands. A few
magnolia warblers occur in some areas of complex hemlock structure.
21
Vernal pool beneath the forest canopy
Complexes of standing water pools are widespread within the
wetland hemlock and mixed hardwoods-hemlock habitat types. Some of
these ephemeral pools support a variety of sedges and shrubs as well as
the ubiquitous skunk cabbage, while others are relatively open. While
various frogs and salamanders are found in these areas, populations are not
large and noticeable as they are in some parts of the Appalachian Plateau.
For example, during the spring season of frog calling these pools are
rather quiet, which may be an issue of concern and potential research.
Blue-headed vireos and brown creepers are among the birds that might be
heard in this conifer habitat.
The north side of Kimberly Run on the preserve includes extensive
areas of floodplain forest that are mixed hemlock-hardwood species. Most
areas have some mature trees in the overstory while patches appear to be
less than 50 years old. Here red maple and white oak are common, with
hawthorn and hazel in the semi-open understory. Patches of non-native
barberry shrubs are found closest to Kimberly Run. The presence of hard
mast in the floodplain forest appears to attract deer and turkey
Like the upland forest, this habitat appears to have a complicated
history of logging, but also appears to have been grazed as well, evidenced
by apparently compacted soils along the entrenched streambed of
Kimberly Run. In addition, while there are some old oxbow channels and
the flatness of the area suggests it may have been seasonally flooded,
stream downcutting appears to have now isolated much of this habitat
from the effects the stream. Old oxbows and low floodplain are rich with
herbaceous plants, especially skunk cabbage, ferns and wildflowers such
as mayapple, swamp violet and northern swamp buttercup. Succinid and
other snails live in the humid undergrowth.
22
From the middle of the preserve downstream, some more active
flood channels are noted. Approaching the southern boundary of the
preserve, downcutting is not as pronounced, probably due to the less
erodible substrate including an increasing proportion of rock in the
streambed.
Oxypolis rigidior: a shrub swamp plant
At Kimberly Run, from Strausbaugh and Core
open wetland
Wetlands with low vegetation structure include regions of shrub
swamp and bog on both sides of Kimberly Run, but are most abundant
along an unnamed tributary to the west side. Shrub swamp constituents are
often alder, arrowwood and wild raisin, plants that provide an abundance
of soft mast. In early spring, patches of marsh marigold thrive in the
saturated understory. This shrubby habitat is a haven for various migrant
birds such as swamp sparrows and yellowthroat. Shrub swamp is by far
the most densely-vegetated habitat on the preserve, and as such provides
important cover for white-tailed deer and ruffed grouse.
23
Shrub swamp provides dense cover
Bogs occur in two discrete patches, one on each side of Kimberly
Run. These habitats are dominated by a low plant community surviving on
perpetually soaked peat deposits (from the remains of sphagnum moss), an
acidic and nutrient poor environment. The southern bog is neatly
embedded within forest buffer, while the northern bog has a less distinct
edge and is traversed by two old drainage ditches. The portion of the
drainage ditches through the north bog has been reclaimed by sphagnum
and other bog plants. Material from three depressions excavated by
USFWS provided additional ditch plugging material.
The bogs include, of course, several plants specializing in acid
habitats, such as cinnamon grass, cottongrass, bog goldenrod, crested
shield fern, and the carnivorous plant round-leaved sundew. Stunted
hemlock and white pine are unable to grow well in these openings.
Patches of skunk cabbage and dewberry suggests that the sphagnum bog
habitat may be changing or losing ground. The bog also provides an
interesting comparison with the tract’s vernal pools, rich floodplain and
shrub swamp wetlands, for educational purposes.
24
The southern of Kimberly Run Preserve’s two bogs
A series of old drainage ditches up to 1.5 meters deep indicate past
efforts to drain wetlands north of Kimberly Run. Portions of ditches
crossing the bog and shrub swamp have deteriorated and do not appear to
have running water. However, ditches in more forested areas have
standing water pools in summer and running water in spring. The ditch
that runs most heavily, with a half-meter of fast water for several weeks
each spring, is the easternmost ditch on the boundary between the preserve
and DOT. This ditch receives water from the Louie-Beach wetland
mitigation project and delivers this water to Kimberly Run, bypassing
preserve wetlands.
Old drainage ditch in forest
25
streams
Kimberly Run itself travels from northeast to southwest across the
Kimberly Run preserve, drawing in two major wetland tributaries from the
north side. The first is an old drainage ditch that accepts the flow from the
Louie-Beach wetland mitigation project along the SCC boundary. This
straight, unregulated ditch enters Kimberly Run perhaps a meter below the
grade of the wetland outlet. A second, meandering tributary downstream
drains an extensive shrub swamp wetland in upper west portion of the
preserve. A third tributary flows intermittently from the bog on the east
side of the preserve, which is itself fed by hillside springs. Other smaller
springs and seeps contribute to Kimberly Run on its way through the
preserve.
Water quality in Kimberly Run is of some concern, as it has a
frequently pale and cloudy color, though usually transparent. Few fish are
observed from the banks, and monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates
indicates a less than healthy stream environment. Water chemistry
monitoring does not indicate chronically high levels of pollutants, but
more detailed monitoring is underway to determine whether short-term
pollution episodes or particular tributaries are limiting water quality.
The results of benthic macroinvertebrate study (Table 2) show
three of five sample sites have a “poor” Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)
in 2003, with the other two reported “fair.” IBI was generally higher in
2002 than 2003, though more years are needed to determine a trend. Site B
is a tributary and probably too small for comparative purposes. Site E is
actually upstream of SCC lands. The IBI is calculated from a number of
indicator taxa, including mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies. Not a single
mayfly larvae has been sampled in two years, although a few flying
individuals have been seen.
Table 2. Index of Biological Integrity for 5 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
sites. Sites run from east to west, downstream (A) to upstream (E), with site B on
a tributary where insufficient macroinvertebrates did not allow for a 2002 IBI.
site
A
B
C
D
E
IBI 2002
2.33
-
2.78
2.33
1.89
IBI 2003
2.78
1.44
3.0
2.56
3.22
As noted in the section on riparian forests, some upper portions of
Kimberly Run show pronounced downcutting below the surrounding
grade. Another important feature of streams, large woody debris, however,
is present in good quantity. Streambank trees have fallen into the water at
frequent intervals, providing potential food and cover for fish and aquatic
invertebrates, as well as slowing streambed erosion. However, a factor in
26
creating this woody debris is no doubt the steep streambanks that allow the
water to undermine tree roots.
On the main stem of Kimberly Run in summer, waterfowl,
especially wood ducks, find cover in the bends along the stream, and
ebony jewelwing damselflies adorn overhanging shrubs. There is an
occasional kingfisher or flock of cedar waxwings hawking insects. Of
some interest is the lack of evidence for turtles of any kind thus far,
though common species such as snapping turtles would be expected.
Infrastructure
roads and buildings
Road access to the SCC pavilion is gained by entering the Dept. of
Transportation yard on Menser Road. The gravel and dirt track parallels
the Pennsylvania Turnpike along the edge of fields above the Louie-Beach
Wetland Mitigation project before crossing onto SCC lands. It then
follows farm lanes to the edge of the woods and pavilion.
Other gravel road access is possible to the west end of the preserve
on a private lane, via a spur from Rt. 219 (single lane). SCC has recently
purchased a parcel on this end of the preserve, though the possibility of
obtaining future highway access from this side is uncertain.
trails
An informal trail from the field edge just east of the pavilion enters
the woods on an old cinder roadbed, crossing Kimberly Run on an old
bridge. Informal trails continue from this point, though an expanded trail
system is being developed. A proposed trail, flagged in orange and pink,
continues from the bridge east along Kimberly Run briefly, then gently
uphill to encircle tributaries of the southern bog. Upon meeting a larger
tributary to Kimberly Run itself, it descends again to the stream. An
alternative or additional trail proposal would follow closer along the south
side of Kimberly Run.
SCC volunteers recently obtained used surplus timber donated by
the Allegheny Highlands Trail to rebuild the existing bridge.
27
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
General direction for Kimberly Run Preserve management was
solicited from SCC members and local secondary school teachers.
Members Survey
To determine Somerset County Conservancy membership opinions
on management and use of the Kimberly Run Preserve, a survey was
developed with SCC board input (Appendix 1). The opinion survey was
distributed to attendees of the 2002 annual meeting and then in the
summer of 2003 sent by Wells Creek Watershed Association intern Becky
Costea to the entire SCC membership.
A total of 23 survey responses were obtained, representing
households with a total of 57 people. For two respondents who completed
the survey twice, their second response was reported.
Survey results for question 1 indicate strong support for a wide
variety of land uses, including nature observation (23), hiking (22),
environmental education (20), deer hunting (19), upland and small game
hunting (19), academic research (19), cross-country skiing (18),
picnicking (18), fly fishing (18), bait fishing (16), and demonstrating
wildlife management practices (16).
Less support was seen for camping (9), trapping (9), mountain
biking (5) and horseback riding (4). Write-in responses supported duck
hunting (1), wild plant seed collecting (1), wildflower identification (1)
and photography (1). Riding of all-terrain vehicles was not supported, and
four respondents requested that the activity be specifically prohibited.
Activities in which respondents and their families would
participate included hiking (10), nature observation (9), picnicking (8),
upland game hunting (6), deer hunting (5), camping (5), cross-country
skiing (5), and other activities. An interesting comparison is noted
between activities endorsed and those in which respondents would
participate, with regard to camping. Although camping did not receive
wide support, it would be practiced by those who supported it. By
comparison, trapping was supported at the same level but not practiced by
any respondents.
Question 3 asked whether activities should be open to the public or
restricted to certain groups. Few respondents supported any restrictions,
and several wrote comments that activities should be open to everyone.
There were a few comments in support of restricting picnicking to SCC
members (1); restricting picnicking (2), camping (2), skiing (1) and
horseback riding (1) to SCC members and guests; and restricting research
to local schools (1).
28
Most intensive land management activities received support wetland restoration being the most popular (20) - except for forest road
system development (5). Two respondents also requested that while they
supported reforestation of some areas, the current mix of field to forest
should be maintained.
For facility and road improvements, question 5, the most supported
improvement would be the upgrading of restrooms to composting
commodes (19), with three more respondents requesting flush commodes
if possible. Access road improvements to allow cars and buses were also
heavily supported (18). Other improvements supported by more than half
of respondents included trail marking and register installation (14), bridge
replacement (14; already underway), and kiosk installation (12). Also
supported by about half of respondents were handicapped accessible
restrooms (11), and parking area improvements (10).
Write-in comments included requests to keep the preserve as
natural as possible, to minimize development, and to advertise the
preserve to potential visitors.
Teachers survey
One important purpose of the acquisition of the Kimberly Run
Preserve was to make the land available for educational use by local
school students. In order to assess the interest and need for educational
opportunities at the Kimberly Run Preserve, an educator’s survey was
developed and sent to Somerset County Schools in November 2002. Keith
Largent with the Somerset County Soil Conservation District provided a
list of school contacts. Dan Siebert and Jeff Payne provided comments on
a survey draft.
Eight of 35 surveys were returned, mostly by junior and senior
high school science teachers. Interpretation of responses indicates the
possible need for infrastructure to be upgraded to handle large vehicles
and groups, and for resource expert assistance with lesson plans and field
trips.
Eight teachers from 4 schools responded – Rockwood Area JuniorSenior High School, Turkeyfoot Valley School, Shanksville-Stonycreek
School, and Salisbury-Elk Lick High School – a 23% response rate.
Students taught were elementary (2), junior/senior high school (5),
and senior high school (2). Respondent teachers of older students were
general science, biology, chemistry, life science and earth science
teachers. Student levels were general (7), special needs (4), and gifted and
talented (3). Two teachers coach Envirothon teams. Field trip sizes ranged
from 25 to 50 students.
Six teachers have field trip funding sources available, one did not.
Vehicles available were school buses (6) and large vans (2). Estimated
29
travel times to Kimberly Run Preserve ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Two
teachers did not know where the preserve was located. One teacher
suggested that the SCC brochure provide a map.
Teachers said they would visit the preserve in spring and fall - in
April and May, and September and October. They would visit in the
morning (1) or all day (4). One teacher had a student who would require
wheelchair access.
No teachers said that their visit would be limited by the current
sanitary facilities. However, some noted that a chemical port-a-pot (2),
water pump (1), electric outlet (2), or additional pit toilets (1) would be
helpful. No teachers were interested in an overnight camping experience.
Half of the teachers had lesson plans or units that would be
enhanced by a preserve visit (4). All teachers were interested in prepackaged lesson plans geared toward Kimberly Run. However, two noted
that these plans would need to meet state standards. Teachers were
interested in plans for science (8), art (1), and literature (1) lessons.
Most teachers were interested in having professionals or experts
meet classes to lead a lesson (7). Topics of interest were wide-ranging,
with birds and wetlands the most frequently selected topics (5).
Additional comments were limited, but included two general
positive comments, one request for travel grants, and one note that no field
trips are made except travel to Envirothon competitions.
In interpreting the results of this survey, the emphasis on science
classes was not surprising. Field trip sizes were large - groups of 25 to 50
students would require either a high degree of supervision and assistance,
or would need to be broken into smaller groups. Both of these approaches
would need to be considered in terms of site infrastructure. Staging areas,
smaller group sites, and capacity of toilet facilities would need to be
considered.
Although teachers had travel resources available, there may be
some funding limitations that were not brought out by this survey.
Respondents made comments such as “some funding available,” or “must
be approved by school board.” Teachers may have to take personal
initiative to obtain funding approval for field trips. One teacher said that
grant assistance would be helpful.
Because buses are the main vehicle to be used for field trips,
preserve roads will need to be adequate for bus access. Adding a SCC
brochure map or developing a Kimberly Run brochure may be a good
suggestion.
The window of opportunity for field trips appears to be limited only four months of the year. Wheelchair access will be necessary, but the
real question is how extensive it should be. As noted in “class
30
characteristics” above the current sanitary facilities may not meet the
needs of groups of 25 or more if regular visits occur.
Teachers were very interested in lesson plans and help from
resource experts. This may be something that SCC can help provide or
support, and it may also point to a larger need within the school district.
Incorporating Kimberly Run Preserve into Envirothon activities
may be something that SCC and other natural resource agencies and
partners could consider.
31
MANAGEMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES
These goals and objectives for management of Kimberly Run
Preserve are derived from meetings with the Somerset County
Conservancy Board of Directors and the questionnaire provided to SCC
members.
A. Watershed
1. Land Use/Ownership
LAND USE/OWNERSHIP GOAL #1: To negotiate for targeted lands
and rights-of-way to improve vehicle access in order to allow for
regular and safe public access to the preserve perimeter.
Narrative: A number of initiatives have been taken to develop
better preserve access. Existing property access is problematic as it is a
lengthy, mostly unmaintained informal dirt roadway across DOT property
to the current pavilion.
Current access negotiation activity is focused upon possible access
from the west. A small parcel with frontage onto a side street paralleling
Rt. 219, near the Rt. 219 4-lane overpass, has been recently purchased by
SCC. This acquisition opens the possibility of an entrance onto the
preserve if an arrangement can be negotiated with either of two abutters.
Other preserve abutters include the Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation,
to the northeast and east, the Menser family to the southeast, and a variety
of smaller landowners.
Objective: Determine priority rights-of-way and associated costs
for acquisition negotiation.
Objective: Initiate a systematic approach to landowner contact and
negotiation.
LAND USE/OWNERSHIP GOAL #2: To increase the size of the
preserve to better conserve the watershed’s natural features and to
improve visitors’ experience.
Narrative: In addition to access, future expansion of the preserve to
include abutting rural lands would help to buffer Kimberly Run, provide
more habitat for wide-ranging and area-sensitive species, and better
maintain natural habitats and processes over time. Additional benefits
would include more land for recreational and educational activities,
improved perimeter access, and a more secluded visitor experience.
Objective: Determine priority rights-of-way and associated costs
for acquisition negotiation.
32
Objective: Initiate a systematic approach to landowner contact and
negotiation.
2. Water Quality
WATER QUALITY GOAL #1: To maintain and restore water
quality and natural flows to conserve native stream life and provide
fishing, wading and wildlife observation on preserve property.
Narrative: Maintaining and improving water quality is possible by
working with other watershed owners, addressed above, and by taking
actions on the Kimberly Run Preserve itself. Restoring Kimberly Run to a
wade-able and fishable stream is a universal goal that may require a
significant effort and persistence. There are many stream improvement
activities that will mesh with educational objectives as well.
Objective: Monitor abiotic and biotic indicators of stream health.
Objective: Assess and determine those improvements necessary to
restore stream health for wildlife and people.
Objective: Install those necessary water quality improvements and
practices where possible on SCC property.
Objective: Participate in outreach to watershed landowners in
cooperation with the PA DEP and US NRCS.
Objective: Work with upstream landowners and cooperators to
install other needed improvements.
WATER QUALITY GOAL #2: To cooperate and encourage
watershed landowners in projects to improve and restore the water
quality of Kimberly Run and its associated wetlands.
Narrative: A wide variety of land uses ranging from intensive to
benign now occur within the Kimberly Run Preserve watershed.
Encouraging land and water management that is compatible with preserve
conservation is expected to benefit the entire watershed. Monitoring,
control and mitigation of pollution and sedimentation sources will be
pursued.
Objective: Monitor land use activities and when possible be
involved in public participation processes for proposed projects within the
Kimberly Run watershed.
Objective: Provide inventory and water quality information to
cooperating landowners and agencies.
33
B. Preserve Uses
1. Commercial
COMMERCIAL GOAL #1: No commercial use of the preserve is
currently planned or supported by the SCC board.
2. Conservation
CONSERVATION GOAL #1: To maintain the preserve’s natural
character, enhance native biodiversity, and improve the quality of
preserve habitats, including field, forest, wetland and stream habitats.
Narrative: The variety of preserve habitats now present at
Kimberly Run represent a variety of seral stages, from early (fields) to late
(forest), which will require different management practices for their
maintenance. In addition, improving the quality of preserve habitats and
enhancing biodiversity will also mean new practices and policies. These
different management practices will need to be carried out while keeping
an eye toward managing the preserve as a whole. Management can be
guided in part by the recreational interests of preserve users, but should
remain within the parameters of the area’s natural systems.
Objective: Encourage and facilitate the installation of a water
control structure at the outflow of the Louie-Beach Advance Wetland
Mitigation Project.
Objective: Mow and seed Kimberly Run fields with native grasses
to provide food and cover for native wildlife including grassland birds and
insects.
Objective: Pursue a cooperative agreement with the State Game
Commission AND Pheasants Forever of Somerset County to continue
grassland management activities at the preserve.
Objective: Allow riparian and upland forests to mature and
develop old-growth characteristics, including gaps, snag and log habitats
for forest interior wildlife.
Objective: Assist the recovery of wetland hydrology through a
variety of means that may include blocking drainage ditches, removing
drainage tile, and reforestation of wetland and bog edges.
Objective: Reduce the white-tailed deer population to sustainable
levels through the use of hunting, including optimal take of antlerless deer.
Objective: Allow the re-establishment of beaver, a keystone
riparian species, to restore and enhance streamside habitats for native
wildlife.
Objective: Pursue conservation and protection designations that
will enhance protection without compromising other objectives (e.g.
34
Important Mammal Area, Important Bird Area, Natural Heritage
recognition).
Objective: monitor preserve use and control those activities with
the potential to compromise preserve conservation.
3. Educational
EDUCATIONAL GOAL #1: To provide an outdoor laboratory for
local researchers and students of all ages to observe and study a
variety of ecological features and systems.
Narrative: The SCC, local teachers and the Pennsylvania Dept. of
Education recognize that environmental education is important for
Somerset County students. Kimberly Run is centrally located and has a
variety of habitats and conservation purposes amenable to environmental
education. Teacher input into preserve planning has been solicited, though
current access limitations do not yet allow for significant environmental
education use.
Objective: Maintain free educational use compatible with resource
conservation.
Objective: Develop a land use policy statement to guide preserve
activities and visitation, to include group size limits.
Objective: Provide SCC review of proposed research projects that
would involve environmental manipulation or destructive sampling.
Objective: Disseminate information about preserve educational
opportunities to local schools and to facilitate some specific environmental
education activities.
4. Recreational
RECREATIONAL GOAL #1: To allow a variety of traditional
recreational uses for public participation while ensuring the
conservation of preserve resources.
Narrative: Nature observation, hiking, hunting and fishing are popular
activities that will be open to the public. While these uses are expected to
be generally compatible with the preserve’s conservation purposes, some
monitoring and controls may be necessary to prevent safety hazards,
overuse of certain sensitive areas, or other problems.
Objective: Maintain free public access for recreational activities
compatible with resource conservation.
Objective: Develop a land use policy statement to guide preserve
recreational activities and visitation, to include group size limits.
35
Objective: Designate an SCC representative as a point of contact
for group recreational activities.
5. Safety and Security
SAFETY AND SECURITY GOAL #1: To help visitors enjoy a
modicum of safety and security within the context of an outdoor
experience.
Narrative: Anticipating significant safety or security issues will help
ensure public use and enjoyment of Kimberly Run Preserve.
Communicating with preserve visitors and cooperating with local
municipal and state officials will be important in achieving this goal.
Objective: Pursue a cooperative agreement with the State Game
Commission to police hunting activities as part of their management
activities at the preserve.
Objective: Review insurance and liability issues as preserve use
and infrastructure grows.
Objective: Make maps and basic hazard information available to
school groups, require advance notice by hunters and school groups, and
maintain a visitor log at trailheads.
Objective: Maintain infrastructure such as pavilions and bridges to
a safe standard.
Objective: Cooperate with local emergency and law enforcement
officials to provide access and encourage monitoring.
Objective: Provide parking at periphery for easier observation to
facilitate policing.
C. Infrastructure
1. Roads and Buildings
ROADS AND BUILDINGS GOAL #1: To provide vehicular access,
parking, restrooms and limited shelter at perimeter access points for
educational and recreational uses, while protecting the quality of
natural area experience on the preserve.
Narrative: Roads and parking areas will be built or upgraded to
allow preserve access for cars, buses and emergency vehicles. Member
surveys also indicated strong support for upgraded restrooms to new
composting toilets. These improvements will require a significant
investment in infrastructure.
Visitors to the Kimberly Run preserve are intended to enjoy a nonmotorized experience to optimize their observation and appreciation of
natural features and processes. The footprint” of the road system will be
36
kept to an adequate minimum to reduce distractions to visitors and reduce
maintenance costs.
Objective: Appoint a committee to determine and prioritize
infrastructure costs and needs, including an evaluation of handicapped
access needs
Objective: Replace dated restroom facilities with facilities
appropriate for school groups.
2. Trails
TRAIL GOAL #1: To provide foot access and where possible
handicapped access to a variety of preserve habitats while protecting
sensitive habitats from overuse.
Narrative: An efficient and effective trail system will serve as the
backbone of Kimberly Run’s recreational and environmental education
uses. Kimberly Run presents abundant opportunities for a trail system. Old
roads, a variety of habitats, and rolling terrain are trail assets. Wetland,
spring and stream crossings will present some trail-construction
challenges.
A loop trail that circumnavigates the SCC and abutting (DOT??)
properties has been suggested as a primary access route. One possible trail
route through the upland forest east of Kimberly Run has been mapped
and is flagged on-the-ground <SEE MAP>. Flagged in orange and pink,
this trail continues from the bridge east along Kimberly Run briefly, then
gently uphill to encircle tributaries of the southern bog. Upon meeting a
larger tributary to Kimberly Run itself, it descends again to the stream.
Under this proposed trail system, a second bridge could be built to allow
passage across the east side of the preserve along Kimberly Run, then
north onto DOT lands and around the Louie-Beach wetland system,
eventually returning to the SCC fields. One SCC board member has
proposed an alternative or addition along the east side of Kimberly Run.
Spur trails can be constructed from this main loop to reach natural
features not suitable for heavy visitation on the main trail. Spurs would
also extend to visitor access points and parking areas on both properties.
Another possible trail concept is a fan-like system originating from
one or two vehicle access points. Or a hybrid system that uses both the
loop and smaller trails from parking access. Whatever concept is
employed, consideration should be given to minimizing trail maintenance
obligations while optimizing resource conservation and user experiences.
Among features that are relatively sensitive and therefore not
recommended for main trail access are the two bogs and portions of
riparian wetlands at Kimberly Run and unnamed tributary. These wet
37
areas can be compacted or eroded and their unique plants damaged by
heavy visitation. Edge-skirting access or boardwalks could be employed to
mitigate the impacts of regular use. A raised trail bed might be used in
some riparian areas but is not recommended at the bogs in order to protect
their hydrology.
Objective: Review and approve preserve trail plan map to help
coordinate construction activities by SCC and volunteers.
Objective: Reconstruct existing bridge across Kimberly Run.
Objective: Construct a second footbridge upstream from the
existing footbridge to facilitate safe access stream at the eastern end of the
preserve.
Objective: Monitor trail and off-trail preserve use in order to
determine and limit visitation impacts, to include visitor log book and
designated group visit coordinator.
Objective: Construct a comprehensive trail system including a
handicapped-accessible portion.
38
CITATIONS
Alerich, C.L. 1993. Forest Statistics for Pennsylvania – 1978 and 1989. Resource
Bulletin NE-126. Radnor, PA: US Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeast
Forest Experiment Station. 244pp.
Boyd, V. 2000. The US 219 Myersdale bypass project: contributions to the study of
Monongahela Culture. Byways 2000 Internet resource. www.pennbyways.org.
Accessed Nov. 24, 2003.
Cassady, J.C. 1932. Somerset County Outline. Mennonite Publishing House, Scottsdale,
PA. 263 pp.
Gidley, J.W. and C.L. Gazin. 1938. The Pleistocene Vertebrate Fauna from Cumberland
Cave, Maryland. Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Bull. 171.
99 pp.
Historical and Genealogical Society of Somerset County. 1980. ‘Mongst the Hills of
Somerset. Taylor, Paoli, PA. 476 pp.
Holman, J.A. 1977. The Pleistocene (Kansan) herpetofauna of Cumberland Cave,
Maryland. Annals of Carnegie Museum 46:157-172.
Koontz, W.H., Ed. 1906. History of Bedford and Somerset Counties Pennsylvania.
Lewis, New York.
Lacoste, K.C. and R.D. Wall. 1989. An Archeological Study of the Western Maryland
Coal Region: the Historic Resources. Maryland Geological Survey, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. 159 pp.
Lepley, S. 1996. State Hospital Served as Poor House in 1845. Daily American
6/25/1996.
Maxwell, J.A. and M.B. Davis. 1972. Pollen evidence of Pleistocene and Holocene
vegetation on the Allegheny Plateau, Maryland. Quarternary Research 2:506-530.
Obaker, B. undated. Pennsylvania Poorhouse History: Somerset. Internet resource.
www.poorhousestory.com/pa_somerset_co.htm. Accessed Nov. 24, 2003.
Pennsylvania State Climatologist. 2005. Climatic data for Somerset, PA. College of Earth
and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University. Internet resource.
http://pasc.net.psu.edu/cgi-bin/lcdclim.cgi. Accessed May 3, 2005.
Stahl, D. 2002. The Monongahela People. Somerset County Archeological Society
Internet resource. www.shol.com/spa20/index.htm. Accessed Nov. 24, 2003.
39
Wall, R.D. 1981. An Archeological Study of the Western Maryland Coal Region: the
Prehistoric Resources. Maryland Geological Survey, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. 183 pp.
Yaworski, M. 1983. Soil Survey of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Soil Conservation
Service, US Dept. of Agriculture, Somerset. 148pp, maps.
40
APPENDICES
Members Questionnaire
Teachers Questionnaire
Preliminary List of Plants
Preliminary List of Animals
Odonates
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
41
Somerset County Conservancy
Kimberly Run Preserve
Member’s Survey
Contact Information
Name
Address
Phone
Best Time to Call
E-mail
Number in Household
Introduction
The Kimberly Run Preserve is 260 acres of forest, field, wetlands
and uplands owned by you, the Somerset County Conservancy. The SCC
board requests your input in planning for our preserve’s future.
Please feel free to share your thoughts, whether you currently use
the preserve or not. Future activities are certainly not restricted by current
maintenance and management at the preserve.
This survey is an early first step in our planning process, so you will
have more opportunities to participate in the coming year.
Thank you for your input!
Jim Moses, President
42
Land Use
1. Please check the following recreational and educational activities that
should be allowed at Kimberly Run Preserve.
2. Circle those activities in which YOU OR YOUR FAMILY will
participate.
 [
] Academic Research
 [
] All-terrain Vehicle Riding
 [
] Camping (tent)
 [
] Camping (Recreational Vehicle)
 [
] Cross-country Skiing
 [
] Demonstration Area for Alternative Forest Products (example –
mushroom raising)
 [
] Demonstration Area for Game Wildlife Practices
 [
] Environmental Education
 [
] Fishing (bait)
 [
] Fishing (fly)
 [
] Hiking
 [
] Horseback Riding
 [
] Hunting (deer)
 [
] Hunting (turkey/grouse/rabbit)
 [
] Mountain Biking
 [
] Nature Observation (including bird watching)
 [
] Picnicking
 [
] Trapping
 [
] Other
 [
] Other
43
Access
3. Please write any land uses from the above list that should not be open to the
general public, in the category you feel appropriate (however, please note that it
may not be allowable to restrict some activities under public grant guidelines).
 SCC Members
 SCC Members and guests
 Non-members with permit
 Local Schools
 Other
Land Management
4. Please check the following more intensive land management activities that should
take place at Kimberly Run Preserve.
 [
] AMD Treatment System Construction (ponds/channels)
 [
] Field Management (planting/mowing)
 [
] Forest Road System Development
 [
] Game Wildlife Clearings (clearing/grass planting)
 [ ] Pond construction
 [
] Reforestation
 [ ] Streambed reconstruction (berms/water control devices)
 [
] Wetland Restoration (ditch plugging/grading)
44
Facility & Road
5. Please check those infrastructure improvements needed at Kimberly
Run Preserve.
 [
] Access road improved for buses and cars
 [
] Camping pads installed
 [
] Parking area enlarged and surface upgraded
 [
] Kiosk with interpretive information installed
 [
] Electricity installed at Picnic Pavilion
 [
] Water provided at Picnic Pavilion
 [
] Picnic Pavilion relocation
 [
] Relocation of access road and picnic pavilion
 [
] Restroom improvement [composting commodes]
 [
] Restroom improvement [flush commodes]
 [
] Restroom made wheelchair accessible
 [
] Handicapped trail [wheelchair accessible] constructed
 [
] Trails marked, register installed
 [
] Trail bridge replaced
 [ ] Other
6. Please share any other comments that you have regarding Kimberly Run
Preserve.
Thank you for your input, and Happy Holidays!
45
Somerset County Conservancy
Kimberly Run Preserve
Educator’s Survey
Contact Information
Name
School or Organization
Address
Phone
E-mail
Best Time to Call
Your Students
Grade(s)
Subjects(s)
Level [Circle All That Apply] General / Merit / Special Needs / Gifted & Talented
Special Club [Circle All That Apply] Envirothon Team / Scouts / Other [
Approximate number of students expected on field trip
Field Trip Logistics
Are funding sources [substitute, bus, etc.] available?
Mode of transportation [Circle All That Apply]
School bus / Large Van / Car
Approximate travel time to Kimberly Run area
Most likely month(s) for a field trip
Time of day [Circle All That Apply]
AM / PM / All day / After school / Weekend /
Do your students require wheelchair or other special access?
Continued on back 
46
]
Kimberly Run has limited facilities [pavilion & pit toilet]. Would this prevent your use
of the site?
yes / no
If yes, what additional facilities would you require [Circle All That Apply]
Chemical port–a-pot / Water pump / Electric outlet / Other [
Would you be interested in an overnight camping experience?
]
yes / no
Curriculum Needs
Do you have existing lesson plans or units that would be enhanced by a visit to the
Kimberly Run Preserve?
yes / no
Would you be interested in pre-packaged lesson plans specifically geared to the habitat
types and natural resources found at Kimberly Run?
yes / no
If so, please indicate subject area. [Circle All That Apply]
Science / Math / Art / Literature / Other
Would you be interested in having natural resource professionals, wildlife artists, outdoor
writers, etc., meet with you and your students at Kimberly Run to share their expertise in
a lesson?
yes / no
Please indicate possible topics of interest. [Circle All That Apply]
Alien Species / Bats / Biodiversity / Birds / Camouflage / Classification of Living Things /
Drawing Nature / Field Identification Skills / Forest Ecology / Insects / Nature Poetry /
Nocturnal Animals / Pollution / Reptiles & Amphibians / Stream Invertebrates /
Weather / Wetlands / Wildflowers / Other
Please share any other comments that you have regarding the use of Kimberly Run
Preserve.
Thank you for your input.
47
KIMBERLY RUN PRESERVE
PRELIMINARY LIST of PLANTS
Lycopodiaceae
Lycopodium cf obscurum
L. flabelliforme
groundpine
princess pine
Ophioglossaceae
Botrychium sp
grape fern
Osmundacea
Osmunda cinnamomea
cinnamon fern
Polypodiaceae
Dennstaedtia punctilobula
Dryopteris cristata
D. spinulosa
Onoclea sensibilis
hay-scented fern
crested shield fern
spinulose wood fern
sensitive fern
Pinaceae
Pinus strobus
Tsuga canadensis
white pine
Eastern hemlock
Gramineae
Andropogon virginicum
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Calamagrostis cinnoides
Echinochloa crusgalli
Panicum cf clandestinum
Phleum pratense
Glyceria striata
Cyperaceae
Carex brunnescens
C. folliculata
C. gynandra
C. intumescens
C. scabrata
C. stricta
C. trisperma
C. poss. pedunculata?
Eleocharis tenuis
Eriophorum virginica
Juncus brevicaudatus
J. canadensis
J. effusus
Liliaceae
Convallaria montana
Erythronium americanum
Medeola virginiana
Smilax sp
broomsedge
sweet vernal grass
B
Barnyard grass
deertongue
Timothy
fowl mannagrass
inflated sedge
B
kill cow
tawny cottongrass
short-tailed rush
B
B
B
B
soft rush
Canada mayflower
trout lily
Indian cucumber-root
greenbrier
48
Veratrum viride
Uvularia sp
false hellebore
bellwort
Corylaceae
Betula allegheniensis
Betula lenta
Carpinus caroliniana
Corylus americana
yellow birch
sweet birch
blue beech
hazelnut
Araceae
Arisaema stewardsonii
Symplocarpus foetidus
jack-in-the-pulpit
skunk cabbage
Fagaceae
Castanea dentata
Fagus grandifolia
Quercus alba
Q. rubra
American chestnut
American beech
white oak
northern red oak
Polygonaceae
Polygonum sp
tearthumb
Ranunculaceae
Caltha palustris
Coptis groenlandica
Ranunculus cf septentrionalis
marsh marigold
goldthread
northern swamp buttercup
Berbericidae
Berberis sp
Podophyllum peltatum
barberry
mayapple
Droseraceae
Drosera rotundifolia
round-leaved sundew
Rosaceae
Amelanchier cf arborea
Crataegus sp
Dalibarda repens
Prunus serotina
Rubus cf hispidus
common serviceberry
hawthorn
star violet
black cherry
dewberry
Leguminosae
Lotus corniculatus
birdsfoot-trefoil
Oxalidaceae
Oxalis montana
white wood sorrel
Polygalaceae
Polygala paucifolia
gay wings
Aquifoliaceae
Ilex verticillata
winterberry
Aceraceae
Acer rubrum
A. saccharinum
red maple
silver maple
49
B
A. saccharum
sugar maple
Guttiferae
Hypericum cf ??
Violaceae
Viola cucullata
marsh blue violet
Araliaceae
Aralia nudicaulis
Panax trifolius
wild sarsaparilla
dwarf ginseng
Umbelliferae (carrot)
Daucus carota
Queen Anne’s lace
Ericaceae
Kalmia?
Rhododendron?
Gaultheria procumbens
Vaccinium angustifolium
wintergreen
lowbush blueberry
Primulaceae
Trientalis borealis
starflower
SF
B
Oleaceae
Fraxinus?
Apocynaceae
Apocynum?
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias?
Labiatae (mint)
?
Rubiaceae
Galium sp
Houstonia sp
bedstraw
Quaker ladies?
Caprifoliaceae
Viburnum cassinoides
V. cf dentatum
wild raisin
roughish arrowwood
Compositae
Aster?
Solidago cf graminifolia
S. cf patula
S. uliginosa
Erigeron cf strigosus
Rudbeckia hirta
Senecio aureus
grass-leaved goldenrod
rough goldenrod
bog goldenrod
daisy fleabane
Black-eyed Susan
golden ragwort
<<Partridgeberry>>
50
B
F
WM
Habitats
Shrub Swamp
Hemlock Swamp
Upland Hemlock
Upland Mixed Woods
Upland Oak-Pine Hardwoods
Stream Floodplain
Wet Meadow
Bog
Vernal pool
Old Field
Field
(SS)
(HS)
(UH)
(UMW)
(UOH)
(SF)
(WM)
(B)
(VP)
(OF)
(F)
51
KIMBERLY RUN PRESERVE
PRELIMINARY LIST of ANIMALS
12/3/03
(not including benthic macroinvertebrates or Odonates)
AVES
Anatidae
Aix sponsa
Anas discors
A. platyrhynchos
Accipitridae
Buteo jamaicencis
Scolopacidae
Scolopax minor
Columbidae
Zenaida macroura
Phasianidae
Bonasa umbellus
Meleagris gallopavo
Phasianus colchicus
Rallidae
Rallus limicola
Alcedinidae
Ceryle alcyon
Cuculidae
Coccyzus americanus
Picidae
Dryocopus pileatus
Picoides pubescens
P. villosus
Tyrannidae
Contopus sordidulus
Empidonax alnorum
Myiarchus crinitus
Hirundinidae
Tachycineta bicolor
Picidae
Colaptes auratus
Corvidae
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cyanocitta cristata
Paridae
Parus atricapillus
Parus bicolor
Sittidae
Sitta carolinensis
Certhiidae
Certhia americana
Troglodytidae
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Muscicapidae
Regulus satrapa
wood duck
blue-winged teal
mallard
9/23/01
11/7/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
red-tailed hawk
6/5/02 JRP
American woodcock
8/20/02 JRP, 3/15/03 JRP
mourning dove
6/5/02 JRP
ruffed grouse
wild turkey
ring-necked pheasant
4/13/01
9/23/01, 7/5/02 JRP
7/6/02 JRP
Virginia rail
11/7/02 JRP
belted kingfisher
9/23/01
yellow-billed cuckoo
6/5/02 JRP
pileated woodpecker
downy woodpecker
hairy woodpecker
6/5/02 JRP
3/15/03 JRP
6/13/01
Eastern wood-pewee
alder flycatcher
great crested flycatcher
6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
tree swallow
6/5/02 JRP
northern flicker
6/5/02 JRP
American crow
blue jay
6/5/02 JRP
9/23/01, 6/5/02 JRP
black-capped chickadee
tufted titmouse
9/23/01, 6/5/02 JRP
9/23/01
white-breasted nuthatch
6/5/02 JRP
brown creeper
6/5/02 JRP
Carolina wren
7/5/02 JRP
golden-crowned kinglet
6/5/02 JRP
52
Sialis sialis
Turdidae
Catharus fuscescens
Hylocichla mustelina
Turdus migratorius
Mimidae
Dumetella carolinensis
Bombycilldae
Bombycilla garrulous
Sturnidae
Sternus vulgaris
Vireonidae
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo solitarius
Parulidae
Dendroica cerulea
D. magnolia
D. pensylvanica
D. petechia
D. virens
Geothlypis trichas
Piranga olivacea
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus noveboracensis
Fringillidae
Ammodramus savannarum
Cardinalis cardinalis
Melospiza georgiana
M. melodia
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Spizella pusila
Icteridae
Agelaius phoeniceus
Icterus galbula galbula
Molothrus ater
Quiscalus quiscula
Sturnella magna
Fringillidae
Carduelis tristis
Eastern bluebird
6/5/02 JRP
veery
wood thrush
American robin
6/5/02 JRP
5/18/01, 6/5/02 JRP
5/18/01, 6/5/02 JRP
gray catbird
6/5/02 JRP
cedar waxwing
6/5/02 JRP
European starling
6/5/02 JRP
red-eyed vireo
blue-headed vireo
5/18, 6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
4/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
cerulean warbler
magnolia warbler
chestnut-sided warbler
yellow warbler
black-throated green
common yellowthroat
scarlet tanager
ovenbird
Northern waterthrush
6/13/01
6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
7/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
5/18, 6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
5/18/01, 6/5/02 JRP
5/18/01, 6/5/02 JRP
6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
6/13/01, 6/5/02 JRP
grasshopper sparrow
cardinal
swamp sparrow
song sparrow
rose-breasted grosbeak
field sparrow
6/5/02 JRP
5/18/01
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
6/19/01, 6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
red-winged blackbird
Baltimore oriole
brown-headed cowbird
common grackle
Eastern meadowlark
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
6/5/02 JRP
American goldfinch
6/5/02 JRP
JRP = Jeff and Retta Payne
MAMMALIA
Canidae
Canis latrans
coyote
Ursidae
Ursus americanus
Procyonidae
Procyon lotor
Mustelidae
Martes pennanti
Sciuridae
Tamias striatus
Tamiscurus hudsonicus
black bear
raccoon
fisher
Eastern chipmunk
red squirrel
53
Cervidae
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
AMPHIBIA
Bufonidae
Bufo americanus
Ranidae
Rana palustris
Hylidae
Hyla crucifer
Plethodontidae
Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Eurycea bislineata
Plethodon cinereus
P. glutinosus
Ambystomidae
Ambystoma maculatum
Salamandridae
Notophthalmus viridescens
American toad
6/13,8/27/01
pickerel frog
8/27/01
spring peeper
6/19/01
mountain dusky
two-lined salamander
red-backed salamander
slimy salamander
8/27/01
8/27/01
8/27/01
5/16/01
spotted salamander
JP
eastern newt
JP
common wood nymph
monarch
Northern pearly eye
Eastern tailed blue
Indian skipper
mourning cloak
Northern pearl crescent?
pearl crescent
Aphrodite fritillary
European skipper
red admiral
7/17/02
8/27/01
7/17/02
8/27/01
7/17/02
9/23/01
8/27/01
8/27/01
8/27/01
7/17/02
5/18/01
INSECTA
Lepidoptera
Cercyonis pegala
Danaus plexippus
Enodia anthedon
Everes comyntas
Hesperia sassacus
Nymphalis antiopus
Phyciodes selenis ?
P. tharos
Speyeria aphrodite
Thymelicus lineola
Vanessa atlanta
MOLLUSCA: Stylommatophora
Endodontidae
Anguispira alternata (Say, 1816)
flamed disk
Philomycidae
cf Megapallifera mutabilis (Hubricht, 1951) changeable mantleslug
Philomycus togatus (Gould, 1841)
toga mantleslug
Polygyridae
Mesodon thyroidus (Say, 1816)
white-lip globe
Neohelix dentifera (A. Binney, 1837)
big-tooth whitelip
Triodopsis tridentata (Say, 1816)
northern threetooth
Succineidae
cf Novisuccinea ovalis (Say, 1817)
oval ambersnail
54
Odonates of Kimberly Run Nature Preserve
Prepared for the Somerset County Conservancy
Jim Moses, President
Box 241, Somerset, PA 15501
By Daniel J. Feller and Ken Hotopp
Appalachian Conservation Biology
83 Frost Ave., Frostburg, MD 21532
Abstract
Odonates were surveyed in mid-to-late summer 2002 at Kimberly Run Nature
Preserve, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Twenty-two species of dragonflies and
damselflies were identified at vernal pools, small ponds, trails, field edges and shrub
swamp wetlands throughout the preserve. Most species were skimmers, and no rare
species were identified. Collection locations are provided for several species.
Introduction
This survey is part of a larger faunal survey of the Kimberly Run Preserve, to aid the
Somerset County Conservancy in conservation planning. Located Near the Pennsylvania
State Turnpike and Rt. 219 just south of Somerset, PA, the preserve is a 260-acre tract
composed of a variety of habitats. Northern hardwood forest, oak-pine forest, old field,
stream, vernal pool, bog, shrub swamp and pond habitats are found at Kimberly Run
Preserve. More than 80 acres of the preserve are wetlands. The largest wetland on the
parcel is shared with a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation parcel to the
northeast. The adjacent DOT land is the site of several wetland mitigation ponds
constructed in 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling of the main stem of Kimberly
Run and the tributary draining wetlands to the west suggests stream water quality is
compromised.
Methods
Odonate surveys were conducted on June 1, July 17, and August 17, 2002. Weather
conditions on the collection days in June and August were hot, calm and sunny, while on
the July date temperatures were in the high 60o’s, breezy and overcast. Surveys were
executed by two collectors each on the first two dates and three on the last date. Survey
work on June 1 and July 17 covered the North Bog, South Bog, a ½ km stretch of
Kimberly Run, the northern field edge, woodland hiking trail, spring seeps, and alder
dominated wetlands. The July date also visited newly-dug pools or ponds along the
northern field edge and in the north bog and the adjacent DOT wetland mitigation site.
Work in August covered most of these bog and shrub swamp habitats but with additional
effort spent on adjacent DOT land and at a southwestern part of the field.
Field observations were by binoculars or capture by net. Sampling was limited to
adult odonates, with most species determinations confirmed by microscopic observation
55
of collected voucher specimens, or otherwise noted in species summaries listed below.
For the first two collection dates, global position system readings (NAD 83) were taken
at collection or observation sites unless the species was commonly observed and
widespread.
Results
A total of 6 damselfly and 16 dragonfly species were documented. No rare,
threatened or endangered species were recorded. The majority of species were skimmers
(Libellulidae). Odonates were most common in the bogs in June, though by July the north
field edge near the newly created ponds was also densely populated.
Discussion
Subjectively, overall species richness was as expected, given the size and condition
of wetland habitats and the surrounding landscape. Additional species will undoubtedly
be added to the list with survey work in early 2003.
The nearby DOT wetland mitigation project appeared to have an abundance of
Odonates, and was a likely source of emigration to the new pools on the Kimberly Run
Preserve. As the newly-dug pools age, odonate use is expected to increase at these sites.
For future management, however, careful consideration should be given to the unique
features of bogs and other sensitive habitats before the use of heavy equipment for pond
construction is allowed.
Continued conservation and restoration of wetland and stream habitats at Kimberly
Run and adjacent lands is expected to maintain and increase species richness and
numbers of Odonates. However, water quality impacts - due to local mine drainage or
highway runoff, or the transboundary effects of air pollution - may pose a threat to some
species and habitats.
Beaver activity along Kimberly Run should be tolerated as this would help diversify
aquatic habitat structure and therefore odonate species.
Acknowledgements
Volunteer experts Tom Dick DVM and Dennis McNair PhD. led the field survey on
August 17, and kindly shared their knowledge and findings.
Literature
Dunkle, S. W. 2000. Dragonflies Through Binoculars, a Field Guide to Dragonflies of
North America. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press. 266 pp, 47 pl.
Needham, J. G., M. J. Westfall, and M. L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America.
Scientific Publishers, Gainesville.
Nikula, B., J. Sones, D. Stokes, and L. Stokes. 2002. Stokes Beginners Guide to
Dragonflies. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.
Westfall, M. J. and M. L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Scientific
Publishers, Gainesville.
56
Annotated Odonate List for June 1, July 17, 2002, by Daniel J. Feller.
Damselfly (Zygoptera)
1) Ebony Jewelwing (Calopteryx maculata)
A few individuals observed near pools in small fern dominated light gaps of an old
hemlock forest stand in June. Moderately abundant along Kimberly Run by mid-July
where small groups of males and females were often gathered at light gaps along the
stream bank.
GPS: 395911N 790201W - June 1 - Hemlock Woods
2) Familiar Bluet (Enallagma civile)
Scattered individuals in open sphagnum/sundew bog in June and July. A few
observed at nearby newly constructed USFWS ponds in July. Females were observed
only during the July sampling effort, though they are known to be scarce in wetlands
except when ready to breed.
GPS: 395921N 790154W - June 1, July 17 - North Bog
395931N 790201W - July17 - USFWS Ponds
3) Eastern Forktail (Ischmura verticalis)
Commonly observed both sexes in several habitats, including a skunk cabbage seep
opening in riparian forest of Kimberly Run, flying along a rivulet in the open sphagnum
bog, perched on skunk cabbage in the south bog, and the mitigation project ponds
surrounded by dense stands of reed canary grass.
GPS: 395921N 790154W - June 1 - North Bog
395914N 790204W - June 1 - Skunk Cabbage Seep
395912N 790152W - June 1 - South Bog
395910N 790154W - June 1 - South Bog
395924N 790149W - July 17 - Turnpike Wetlands Mitigation Project (TWMP)
Ponds
4) Slender Spreadwing (Lestes rectangularis)
One individual observed at newly constructed vernal pond in old field near mixed
deciduous-hemlock woods edge and one in reed canary grass/sedge area adjacent to
TWMP ponds.
GPS: 395923N 790214W - July 17 - USFWS Ponds
395924N 790149W - July 17 - TWMP Pond
Dragonfly (Anisoptera)
1) Common Green Darner (Anax junius)
Commonly observed cruising the bogs and field edges on both field days.
GPS: 395922N 790153W - June 1 - North Bog
2) Twin Spotted Spiketail (Cordulegaster maculata)
One individual observed cruising through the sphagnum openings of South Bog. Also
probably same species briefly observed earlier that day at the trail bridge over Kimberly
Run. This species is known to fly miles from its clear stream habitat.
57
GPS: 395912N 790152W - June 1 - South Bog
3) Common Baskettail (Tetragoneuria cynosura)
A few individuals observed patrolling near blueberry patches in the open
sphagnum/sundew bog, occasionally perching obliquely on dead branch tips of the shrub.
Not observed during mid-July survey, as it may have been past the flight period.
GPS: 395920N 790154W - June 1- North Bog
4) Ashy Clubtail (Gomphus lividus)
Commonly observed in both open bogs this dragonfly frequently perched horizontally
on low blueberry between short undulating flights. Both sexes present in June, though
none observed in mid-July.
GPS: 395920N 790152W - June 1 - North Bog
395912N 790152W - June 1 - South Bog
395910N 790154W - June 1 - South Bog
5) Widow Skimmer (Libellula luctuosa)
Female observed at largest of newly constructed USFWS pools in field near edge of
alder thicket. Common around ponds at nearby TWMP ponds.
GPS: 395924N 790211W - July 17 - USFWS Ponds
395924N 790149W - July 17 -TWMP Ponds
6) Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia)
Only one juvenile observed in June, at a skunk cabbage seep in the riparian forest
along Kimberly Run. Both sexes abundant at newly created USFWS ponds, North Bog
and at South Bog by mid-July.
GPS: 395914N 790204W - June 1 - Skunk Cabbage Seep
7) Twelve Spotted Skimmer (Libellula pulchella)
Both sexes abundant along field edge in vicinity of USFWS ponds, in South and
North bogs, and around TWMP ponds in July. None observed on June1.
GPS: 395924N 790211W - July 17 - USFWS Ponds
395923N 790214W - July 17 - USFWS Ponds
395924N 790149W - July 17 - TWMP Ponds
8) Wandering Glider (Pantala flavescens)
Commonly observed flying in both bogs, often perching low on blueberry branch tips
over temporary shallow puddles on the sphagnum mat, some patrolling a small territory.
This species was not confirmed by capture, though all physical and behavioral
characteristics are congruent with descriptions in field guides and Needham et al. The
early date, dense number of individuals observed, and the lack of subsequent sightings in
the mid-July survey suggests that many individuals were part of a migrating swarm.
GPS: 395922N 790153W - June 1 - North Bog
395912N 790152W - June 1 - South Bog
58
9) Eastern Amberwing (Perithemis tenera)
One observed cruising along southern edge of TWMP ponds in mid-July.
GPS: 395924N 790149W - July 17 -TWMP Ponds
10) White-faced Meadowhawk (Sympetrum obtrususm)
While meadowhawks were abundant in all open habitats (fields, bogs, etc.) during
the mid-July visit, though only a few mature individuals were captured or collected for
positive species determination. Most meadowhawks observed appeared to be this
species. Notably absent in the June sampling effort, most meadowhawks have a late
summer-fall flight period.
GPS: 395912N 790152W - July 17 - South Bog
395924N 790149W - July 17 -TWMP Ponds
11) Ruby Meadowhawk (Sympetrum rubicondulum)
One mature male collected at newly constructed USFWS pond and keyed to this
species.
GPS: 395924N 790211W - July 17 - USFWS Pond
59
Data Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Collected at Kimberly Run Preserve on 23 April 2003










Taxa Richness = total # of taxa recognized
Total EPT Taxa = total # of recognized taxa of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
Ephemeroptera Taxa = # of mayfly taxa
Diptera taxa = # of “true” fly taxa (including midges)
% Ephemeroptera = % mayfly nymphs
% Tanytarsini = % Tanytarsini midges to total fauna
Intolerant Taxa = # of taxa considered to be sensitive to perturbation (Values 0 – 3)
% Tolerant = % of sample considered tolerant of perturbation (Values 7 – 10)
% Collectors = % of sample that feeds on detrital deposits or loose surface films
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Scoring criteria for IBI [As recommended by Maryland Biological Stream Survey]

Taxa Richness: >22 = 5, 16-22 = 3, <16 = 1

EPT Taxa: >12 = 5, 5-12 = 3, <5 = 1

Ephemeroptera Taxa: >4 = 5, 2-4 = 3, < 2 = 1

Diptera Taxa: >9 = 5, 6-9 = 3, <6 = 1

% Ephemeroptera: >20.3 = 5, 5.7-20.3 =3, <5.7 = 1

% Tanytarsini: >4.8 = 5, >0.0-4.8 = 3, 0.0=1

Intolerant Taxa: >8 = 5, 3-8 = 3, <3 = 1

% Tolerant: <11.8 = 5, 11.8-48.0 = 3, >48.0 =1

% Collectors: >31.0 = 5, 13.5-31.0 = 3, <13.5 = 1

Above scores are averaged to calculate IBI
Metric
Taxa Richness
Total EPT Taxa
Ephemeroptera Taxa
Diptera Taxa
%Ephemeroptera
% Tanytarsini
Intolerant Taxa
% Tolerant
% Collector
IBI
Site A
(2002, 2003)
18, 17
5, 5
0, 0
9, 8
0, 0
4.7, 5.4
4, 3
14,7 13.5
7.6, 21.9
2.33, 2.78
Stream Sections Sampled 5 May 2002, 23 April 2003
Site B a
Site C
Site D
(2002, 2003)
(2002,2003)
(2002, 2003)
13, 13
20, 22
22, 16
4, 3
6, 5
7, 4
0, 0
0, 0
0, 0
5, 7
8, 9
9, 9
0, 0
0, 0
0, 0
0, 0
12.9, 25.0
0.8, 8.7
3, 2
4, 5
6, 2
27.1, 28.8
20.9, 23.7
39.2, 9.2
3.9, 5.1
18.7, 43.4
13.1, 27.6
-a, 1.44
2.78, 3.0
2.33, 2.56
aSample
Site E
(2002, 2003)
16, 18
5, 5
0, 0
7, 10
0, 0
0, 8.9
1, 3
52.3, 31.3
30.2, 46.4
1.89, 3.22
was collected in unnamed tributary to Kimberly Run; since this stream is much smaller in depth &
width compared with Kimberly Run, the IBI may less reliable.
Index of Biological Integrity
IBI Score Range
Narrative Rating
4.0 – 5.0
Good
3.0 – 3.9
Fair
2.0 – 2.9
Poor
60