3 9999 06317 762 8 Wading Birds as Biological Indicators: 1975 Colony Survey UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 206 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Custer, Thomas W. Wading birds as biological indicators. (Special scientific report — wildlife; no. 206) Supt. of Docs, no.: 149.15/3:206 1. Ciconiiformes. 2. Birds — Atlantic coast (United States) 3. In- dicators (Biology) 4. Estuarine ecology — Atlantic coast (United States) I. Osborn, Ronald G., joint author. II. United States. Fish and Wildlife Service. III. Title. IV. Series. SK361.A256 no. 206 [QL696.C5] 639'.9'08s [598.3' 4] 77-6873 NOTE: Use of trade names does not imply Government endorsement of commercial products. Wading Birds as Biological Indicators: 1975 Colony Survey by Thomas W. Custer Ronald G. Osborn UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 206 Washington, D.C. • 1977 Wading Birds as Biological Indicators: 1975 Colony Survey1 by Thomas W. Custer and Ronald G. Osborn U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, Maryland 20811 Abstract In 1975 we studied the suitability of wading birds (herons and their allies) as biological indicators in the coastal environment. Eight teams of investigators located and censused 198 colonies along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. Fourteen species including over one- quarter million breeding birds were censused. The number of species in colonies ranged from 1 to 1 1 . The number of one- and two-species colonies increased from Florida to Maine. Colony size decreased from Florida to Maine. Wading bird colony sites are generally active each year and the number of colonies may have recently increased in some areas of the coast. Both species composition and total population of colonies fluctuate from year to year. The breeding population of wading birds was correlated with the area of coastal wetlands by State. Five teams of investigators studied the reproductive biology of nine species in 13 colonies. Mean clutch size, the percentage of nests in which one or more eggs hatched, and the overall percentage of eggs that hatched differed among colonies for some species, but no latitudinal gradient was found in any of these characteristics for any species. The use of wading birds to their full potential as biological indicators requires further exploration: survey and reproductive success methods need to be tested, the survey of colonies repeated, available historical information assembled, and habitat requirements measured. In the next few years our nation's coastline will undergo additional rapid industrialization and development as new energy sources are found. These human activities will bring about increased waterway usage, habitat alteration or destruction, and pollution by chemicals, sediments, and wastes. Therefore, methods that allow early detection of detrimental changes in this zone must be developed. Estuarine marshes have inherent aesthetic value as natural areas. In addition, they are among the most naturally fertile areas in the world (Odum 1961) providing nursery grounds for economically impor- tant fish and invertebrates (Ingle 1954). One approach toward preservation of the highly productive estuary ecosystem involves the use of biological indicators. As defined here, a biological indicator is a population or assemblage of pop- ulations that reflects the ecological health of the environment. The concept is not new. Primitive man must have realized it was unsafe to drink from a water supply that did not support certain forms of life (Thomas et al. 1973). Numerous examples of plants as natural biological indicators were compiled by Clements (1928), but perhaps the first experimentally chosen biological indicator was the canary (Burrell and Seibert 1914). The canary was an excellent indicator in mines because it was more sensitive than man to carbon monoxide. More recently, examples of indicators have been discovered coincidentally after the fact. For instance, Borg et al. (1969) discovered that wild birds found dead or unhealthy in Sweden contained high levels of mercury. Restrictions were subsequently placed on uses of mercury that would pollute the environment. Wading birds (herons and their allies) have been proposed as indicators of the state of our nation's estuarine ecosystems. They meet several useful requirements for this purpose. They are a terminal link in many aquatic food chains and may, as a result, reflect changes originating in several different ecosystem components. They are distributed over a wide geographic area and may indicate local changes in many areas. They nest in colonies that are easily 1 This research was funded by the Biological Indicators Program, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. monitored and can be sampled repeatedly. In addi- tion, wading birds appear sensitive to certain kinds of environmental change. For example, Allen (1938) reported that urbanization was the major factor responsible for the loss of a number of colonies of black -crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) on Long Island, New York. Ohlendorf et al. (1974) found that pesticide residues in eggs of wading birds reflected pollution patterns along the Atlantic coast. In 1975 we further explored the feasibility of using wading birds as biological indicators. The major premise of our study was that information on certain aspects of the population dynamics of wading birds could serve as indicators of environmental pertur- bations. Studies on other carnivores such as the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (Anderson et al. 1975) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) (Hickey 1969) also support this contention. In these species, declines observed in either reproductive success or adult numbers were traced to particular environmental problems. Our first objective was to obtain baseline informa- tion on the location, composition, and abundance of wading birds nesting in colonies along the Atlantic coast. Our second objective was to identify and measure other biological characteristics likely to respond to environmental change. Those character- istics included reproductive success and habitat requirements for nesting and feeding. The first objective was achieved in the first season and results are reported here. Most elements of the second objective require studies of more than 1 year. However, data obtained on reproductive success in selected colonies are included, and data on feeding and nesting site selection in the 1st year will be presented elsewhere. Methods Survey Eight teams of investigators (Table 1) located and censused wading bird colonies along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, including the Chesapeake, Delaware, and Florida Bays. River drainages and other inland sites also were searched as time and manpower allowed. The teams located colonies by contacting persons familiar with the areas, by conducting aerial searches, making ground surveys, and obtaining information from the Cornell North American Nest Record Card Program. Investigators surveyed their study areas two or more times between April and September 1975. For each colony, census information was recorded on a standard form (Appendix I) and the location was indicated on a map. Some colonies were difficult to census because of topography, vegetation, or large numbers of birds and nests. As a result, some estimates are actual counts of nests or adults, whereas others are the product of a sample ex- trapolated to the entire colony. This report presents the maximum breeding population estimate for each species surveyed in a colony. This estimate is either twice the number of nests or, if no nest estimate was taken, it is the number of adults. Only locations with four or more pairs of nesting wading birds were included in the analysis. There were differences among investigators in their definition of a colony. Some investigators censused several adjacent groups of nesting birds as one colony whereas others censused such groups as distinct colonies. Because adjacent groups of nesting birds less than 1 km apart were considered a colony by some investigators, we tabulated all groups within 1 km of one another as a single colony. Reproductive Success Five teams of investigators (Table 2) studied the reproductive biology of wading birds along the' Atlantic coast. They marked and observed nests in 13 colonies. In three instances (Table 2 — colonies 72 and 92, and colony 93 of Appendix II) two adjacent groups of nesting birds, which were combined into one colony in the survey, were considered individual colonies for these analyses. Nests were usually checked every 5 to 7 days (range 2 to 12) depending on weather, time limitations of cooperators, and concern of cooperators that frequent visits might be detrimental to nest or colony success. The number of "apparently viable," infertile, or broken eggs, the number of live or dead young in the nest, and the number of live or dead young near the nest were recorded on a standard form. In tall vegetation, observations were often made with the aid of a mirror attached to a pole. Clutch size (the percentage of nests in which at least one egg hatched) and overall percentage of eggs that hatched were calculated for species in colonies where 10 or more nests were marked and revisited. The number of eggs hatched per nest was calculated as the maximum number of young (alive or dead) in or near the nest within 8 days after the first egg hatched. Where the number of marked nests of any species exceeded 25, a random sample of 25 was chosen. It was not possible to obtain information on the success of nestlings to fledging because nestling wading birds tend to leave their nests soon after hatching, and most studies were not sufficiently intensive to obtain reliable data during this period. Table 1. Personnel and procedures of heron survey along the Atlantic coast. Region Investigator Procedures Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Delaware Maryland Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida (Merritt Island north) Florida (south of Merritt Island to and including Florida Bay) William H. Drury Director Scientific Staff Massachusetts Audubon Society Lincoln, Massachusetts Phillip D. Creighton Department of Biological Science Towson State College Baltimore, Maryland Mitchell A. Byrd Department of Biology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia James F. Parnell Department of Biology University of North Carolina Wilmington, North Carolina Robert F. Soots, Jr. Department of Biology Campbell College Buies Creek, North Carolina Lawrence J. Blus U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Laurel, Maryland Ron R. Odom Department of Natural Resources Georgia Game and Fish Division Social Circle, Georgia Stephen A. Nesbitt Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Gainesville, Florida James A. Kushlan U.S. National Park Service Everglades National Park Homestead, Florida letter survey telephone survey ground survey letter survey telephone survey aerial survey (airplane) ground survey aerial survey (airplane) ground survey aerial survey (airplane, helicopter) ground survey aerial survey (airplane) ground survey aerial survey (airplane, helicopter) ground survey aerial survey (airplane) ground survey aerial survey (airplane) ground survey Results Suruey To be useful on a broad scale, a biological indicator should have a wide geographic distribution. One hundred ninety-eight wading bird colonies were recorded along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida (Fig. 1, Appendix II). Of the 14 species of wading birds that nest in Atlantic coast colonies, 10 breed along most of the coast (Table 3). All 14 species breed in Florida and the number of species of breeding birds decreases northward. The great blue heron, snowy egret, black-crowned night heron, and glossy ibis breed as far north as Maine (see Table 3 for scientific names). The breeding ranges of green heron, little blue heron, cattle egret, great egret, Louisiana heron, and yellow-crowned night heron extend into the New Jersey and Massachusetts area. The white ibis breeds from Florida to South Carolina. The remaining three species (reddish egret, wood stork, and roseate spoonbill) breed only in Florida. Table 2. Personnel and colony locations of heron reproductive studies along the Atlantic coast. Colony name3 Investigator Spectacle Island, MA (173) Clark's Island, MA (183) Swash Bay, VA (96) Upper Middle Marsh, NC (93) Lower Middle Marsh, NC (93) Annex, NC (92) Phillips Island, NC (92) Emerald Island, NC (80) Santee Gun Club, SC (70) Marsh Island, SC (62) White Banks, SC (63) Drum Island North, SC (72) Drum Island South, SC (72) Harbor Campus Jeremy J. Hatch Department of Biology University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts Brian A. Harrington Manomet Bird Observatory Manomet, Massachusetts Mitchell A. Byrd, Thomas F. Wieboldt, and J. W. Bill Akers Department of Biology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia John O. Fussell, III Box 520 Morehead City, North Carolina Gerald A. Grau and Fred M. Bagley Ohio Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Colony number of Appendix II is given in parentheses. The three species most frequently encountered in the colonies were, in decreasing order, the great egret, snowy egret, and Louisiana heron (Table 4). Our feeding site studies in North Carolina demonstrated that these three species used the coastal estuaries for feeding more heavily than the other wading birds. Over one-quarter million breeding birds were censused. The most abundant species, the white ibis, exceeded 79,000 individuals, and nearly 80% of these nested in two South Carolina colonies. The cattle egret, snowy egret, and Louisiana heron each exceeded 30,000 birds whereas the great egret, black- crowned night heron, and glossy ibis were estimated above 13,000. Each of the remaining species had less than 10,000 breeding adults. The species composition of colonies showed two main latitudinal trends (Fig. 2). First, the proportion of colonies with only one or two species increased from south to north. The increase was significant (X2 = 27.0, df =3, i><0.001) from Florida (17.9%) to the Georgia-North Carolina region (32.0%) to the Virginia-New Jersey region (45.1%) to the New York- Maine region (75.8%). The great blue heron, great egret, and the black- crowned night heron were the most frequent members of one- and two-species colonies. Of 44 one-species colonies, 33 contained great blue heron and 8 contained black-crowned night herons. Of the 38 two- species colonies, 27 included the great blue heron, 23 the great egret, and 9 the black -crowned night heron. Sixty of the 85 colonies containing great blue herons were one- or two-species colonies. Second, when data from one- and two-species colonies were excluded, the median number of species per colony increased from Florida to the Virginia- New Jersey region. A median test indicated a significantly increasing trend (X2 = 9.1, df = 2, P< 0.025) from Florida (median = 5.25) to the Georgia-North Carolina region (median = 5.85) to the Virginia-New Jersey region (median = 7.0). This trend, however, is overshadowed by the number of one- and two-species colonies in the North, which results in a general pattern of decreasing numbers of species from south to north. Recher (1971) also noted the large number of species of wading birds feeding in waters of Mid-Atlantic States. He suggested that an increase in the size, kind, and number of prey allowed wading birds to be more selective. It follows that a finer partitioning of food resources would allow greater species diversity and account for the observed Fig. 1. Distribution of wading bird colonies along the Atlantic coast, 1975. Table 3. Breeding distribution of wading birds in coastal colonies of Atlantic states. Species State3 FL GA SC NC VA MD DE NJ NY CT RI MA ME Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Green heron (Butorides virescens) Little blue heron (Florida caerulea) Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) Reddish egret (Dichromanassa rufescens) Great egret (Casmerodius albus) Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Louisiana heron (Hydranassa tricolor) Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea) Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) White ibis (Eudocimus albus) Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NH is not included since no colonies were located there. trend. Another possibility is that diversity of the physical environment is greater in coastal regions of Mid-Atlantic States and so allows increased wading- bird diversity within colonies. The relationship between species diversity and diversity of the physical environment has been suggested by many authors (reviewed by Pianka 1966). The number of breeding birds per colony, all species combined, decreased from south to north (Fig. 3), but the numbers overlapped sufficiently that differences between regions were not statistically significant (1- way ANOVA log colony size; F = 2.6; df = 3,194; 0.05 < P < 0. 1 ). Means (geometric) from south to north were: Florida, 514.4; Georgia-North Carolina, 319.3; Virginia-New Jersey, 247.4; and New York-Maine, 194.2. Many colonies remain in the same site year after year. In our 1975 survey, we located 6 of 7 colonies that had been found along the North Carolina coast in 1958 by Quay and Funderburg (1958); 6 of 8 colonies found along the Georgia coast in 1970 by Johnson et al. (1974); and 9 of 10 colonies found in Chesapeake Bay in 1973 by Armistead (1974a). We also located 16 additional colonies along the coast of Georgia, 12 along the coast of North Carolina, and 6 in Chesapeake Bay. We do not know whether these ara new colonies, old colonies in new locations, or colonies overlooked in the original surveys. Historical information on species composition and population size suitable for comparison with the 1975 data were available for 18 colonies (Armistead 1974a, 19746; Erichsen 1921;Grant 1971;Johnsonetal.l974; Table 4. Number of colonies and population sizes of wading bird species along the Atlantic coast, 1975. Species No. colonies with species present Estimated no. of breeding adults Great blue heron Green heron Little blue heron Cattle egret Reddish egret Great egret Snowy egret Louisiana heron Black-crowned night heron Yellow-crowned night heron Wood stork Glossy ibis White ibis Roseate spoonbill 85 33 84 64 3 119 116 93 91 28 6 57 24 7 9,876 526 8,220 32,476 50 17,578 39,920 31,352 13,804 684 3,610 13,538 79,216 914 NY- ME (n = 33) 8 9 10 II Number Species in Colony Fig. 2. The number of breeding wading bird species per colony in regions of the Atlantic coast, 1975. The number of colonies in each region is in parentheses. NY-ME (n = 33) GA-NC (n;55) 10 100 1000 10000 Number Individuals in Colony FL (n=39) 100000 Fig. 3. The number of breeding wading birds per colony in regions of the Atlantic coast, 1975. The number of colonies in each region is in parentheses. Kale 1965; Pearson 1922; Quay and Adams 1956; Quay and Funderburg 1958; Teal 1965). The number of species decreased in nine, increased in eight, and remained the same in one (Table 5). The total breeding population decreased in seven, increased in nine, and was similar to previous estimates in two. A detailed examination of reasons for these changes, which was not feasible during the 1975 season, should be revealing. Atlantic coast wading bird abundance is grossly correlated to coastal wetland abundance. A signifi- cant rank correlation (Spearman rank correlation; rs = 0.92, df = 12, i><0.001) was found between number of breeding wading birds per State (Table 6) and area of coastal wetlands by State (Spinner 1969). This correlation also proved true for the great egret (rs = 0.87, df = 11, P<0.002), snowy egret(rs = 0.88, df = 12, P<0.001), and Louisiana heron (rs = 0.75, df = 8, P<0.05), which heavily utilize coastal wetlands for feeding. The correlation did not hold for the cattle egret, which generally feeds in pastures, nor for the great blue heron, little blue heron, or glossy ibis, which forage in inland freshwater sites as well as coastal wetlands. No significant correlation was found between coastal wetlands and the number of black -crowned night herons. Thirty-five groups of nesting wading birds were pooled into 14 colonies by our definition. Of these 14 colonies, 10 (Appendix II; 59, 60, 61, 72, 91, 93, 124, 148, 150, 152) included two groups of nesting birds, one (151) included three groups, and three(92, 94, 149) included four groups. Our records for colony locations are incomplete; we know of at least three small colonies from which no data were obtained. Reproductive Success Reproductive patterns of nine species of wading birds were studied in 13 colonies: 2 in Massachusetts, 1 in Virginia, and 5 each in North and South Carolina. Data were obtained on clutch size, percent- age of eggs that hatched, and percentage of nests in which at least one egg hatched. Mean clutch size of five of eight species differed significantly among colonies (Table 7). Clutch size of snowy egrets even differed significantly between adjacent colonies in Massachusetts. There were no evident latitudinal gradients in clutch size. The percentage of nests in which one or more eggs hatched differed among colonies for great egret, snowy egret, glossy ibis, and white ibis; latitudinal gradients were not apparent (Table 8). No differences were detected for little blue heron, cattle egret, Louisiana heron, or black-crowned night heron. The overall percentage of eggs that hatched also differed among colonies for the cattle egret, great egret, snowy egret, Louisiana heron, and white ibis (Table 9). No significant differences were found for little blue heron, black-crowned night heron, and glossy ibis. 00 B O o C B 0v -c | e 2 •S B t, B iC c x. S Ed & -O £ >1 00 o J2 c T) 5 C o o H X o w S -C 0 sx -o 2 S I s o be PQ cs J8 o c X 03 oj cu ■- o *> *J u eg Si) O CO 0) - X> c o O) o ■° § 03 cu CU X o <£ s E 03 C >i c o "3 U o o o O o o o o m O o o qo in CN 03 O lO o 00 CO in o c h m ^h CO CN CD CO 0 OlOrt in oo in m m CD t> CM i-H -tf C- H O CM eg m r-j O CO .-I m o r~ o 00 m o o o in lO lO t — i o -tf m IOHO CD i— * i— i CM O CD m co -tf -tf Oi CO CO CO ■* i-l i-H —i CT> 1— t i-t 1— 1 00 o oo m CM m m co eg o m m eg O O CO o o ^H i— 1 o oo (33 in t> o o O — i o o o o — i o co in i-h eg 00 CO o o CO moo OOOh o in o in CO o o CO o -tf eg '""' CD m co CO o o o w in tji -tf r- o co o oo o in o 03 CO T)l Ttf ^tf o in oo co co oo co -< o o in eg in o —i eg 03 O fl i* 00 f- i* CD i— i i* CO in o o in Tf co o o in CO 00 i-H -tf 1-1 CM o eg lO (DOlrt m o CO o in -tf ^ -tf c- ^t OOJOOl eg co -h o in in i-i m in o in co co 03 co co in JC c in in ~i in rH C in X in 00 CM in in co C33 CO co o o X co in ~ 03 00 eg t^ t— CC c- eg c "X t- t> eg CO C73 -— t LO O o in ~t 1—1 i-"i og_ 00 CM CM 00 —i cr CO ■^1 co i-H eg in co CM O^ 00 CO eg o co" o o CM -o eg" cu U bo X co" J£ , , - in s in - in 00 oo m ~^ — in eg in 00 in co in 00 03 o in CO Tf lO c- o t> t~ t> r- i> t- r~ m in r~ I - t~ CM t- CD r~ in t- CD CO t- r - - * - C33 35 03 03 - 3! 03 0! 03 — 03 CTl 33 ~ 03 a a> 3! 33 CO -T ^ **tf "^ ai It CD in i-H co 3 ^^ ^ CN < < in 00 0! 5" o O < < < - — ' O) Q CU i- 03 CU o O -a is O O CO z o "^ M B -X X c o c X c OJ cu > T3" b"13 c E c CO : cu o -sc J2 -a rt JZ -2 cu c M 03 c 03 >, z ■E a o K u X 1 — 1 CU ■ — i 03 M cfl 09 BO -1J C cd 03 S3 _2 X 61 S3 3 « In Q s DO o X Ph X 1 ' < X 10 £'* co .S O X> C a; C gj it J3 i X, O M C o v - u cm = '8 32 a c c 0 m 0 X hJ >> % 03 0 c GO So 93 CO 03 a> J-i sf ■z 03 33 03 c3 u O 03 a; - rC C 0 l-i -~ X - c c 0) o Ox: 03 3 C u :; +J i- 00 03 03 -C o •< 03 CO 03 £ CO c >> c o "o o o o m U3IOO m t> CD CM lO CD CO 0 0 02 CM CM CO o o in UIOH °° y—i CD CO CO o o CO "5f m o co o co H CO rH ^H r-t o m oo CO CM o CO CO mm cocm mooo in <— ' co "*r m t> r- t> en as G5 o o r- o co m t> r- 0~> 0s _*: -a: 4< CO m CO m CO m Is- Is- t> t- r- Is- a> Ol CJ> 05 ai 05 O O CM o o cc CM CO .-I co ^ m Is- Is- c- tJ3 as OOO) 00 CM O ^H r-t CM oo co t> COf- H CM .-I CM co -^ m r- t> r- 0103 0"} T3 E -2 CC CO < CM CO x\ » C 13 -2 a "~ T3 CD •— ~ £ 03 Q o m CO G T3 CO 3 •a CO 03 CO J3 03 X C 03 1h CO o. -o c 03 a a < CO p. be a E 3 -a 03 13 o D, 03 CO 3 -a '> -a c T3 C co 1 m cn 3 C "o O H C o co C o CD CD CO r-t CTi w D-, 11 Table 6. Number of colonies and population sizes of wading birds in 1975 and coastal wetland abundance in 1968 (Spinner 1969) in Atlantic states. State No. colonies Estimated no of Coastal wetlands breeding adults (km2) 52,494 1,106 17,898 1,579 95,168 2,082 22,174 776 22,446 798 12,204 744 4,734 443 14,148 873 808 131 78 47 816 8 4,956 181 0 15 3,840 117 Florida Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Virginia Maryland Delaware New Jersey New York Connecticut Rhode Island Massachusetts New Hampshire Maine Total 39 22 11 22 30 28 2 11 3 1 3 14 0 12 198 251,764 8,900 Discussion The 1975 survey was the first attempt to cover all coastal wading bird colonies from Florida to Maine. Other surveys have included specific portions of the coast for various periods of time: New York coast (Bull 1964; Allen 1938); Maryland and Washington, D.C. (Stewart and Robbins 1958); portions of the Chesapeake Bay (Armistead 1974a, 19746); North Carolina coast (Quay and Funderburg 1958); and the Georgia coast (Johnson et al. 1974). Our study confirms that wading birds tend to reuse colony sites year after year. Of 25 historic colonies in Georgia, North Carolina, and Chesapeake Bay, 21 were active during this study. Comparisons of abandoned and reused colony sites from this survey and future surveys may reveal environmental changes. The gross relationship between wetlands and certain wading bird species suggests that more precise data on habitat (now being obtained by National Wetland Inventory) and a better under- standing of habitat use by different species (projected in present study) may pinpoint critical elements and enable detection of habitat changes before they become obvious. For example, the great egret, snowy egret, and Louisiana heron use estuaries for feeding to a greater extent than the other species. A decline in the populations of these three species in relation to others might, therefore, indicate declines of prey abundance in estuaries. Although many investigators have used changes in bird numbers and reproductive success to indicate environmental problems (Ames and Mersereau 1964; Ratcliffe 1963; Borg et al. 1969; Hickey 1969; Blus et al. 1974), few studies have been made consistently enough in time, area, or method to take full advan- tage of the biological indicators. In our study, data on reproductive success were gathered on 10 species and 13 locations. Reproductive information on eight species of colony nesting wading birds at nine locations in North America was found in the literature (Meanley 1955; Teal 1965 Wolford 1966; Dusi and Dusi 1968, 1970; Jenni 1969 Henny and Bethers 1971; Vermeer 1969; Pratt 1974 Weber 1975). Evaluation of the full usefulness of reproductive characteristics as biological indicators requires a greater uniformity of procedure and consistency of recording data than was feasible in the 1975 survey. The difficulty of determining the number of young wading birds that fledge precludes use of this parameter on a broad scale. Some alternatives that were suggested by Ricklefs (1969) were employed in the 1975 studies. Ricklefs (1969) suggested that when the ratio of the percentage of eggs that hatch to the percentage of nests in which at least one egg hatches is high, losses most likely are due to nest site competition, desertion, adult death, predation, or weather. When the ratio is low, losses most likely are due to hatching failure or 12 Table 7. Clutch size of wading birds in selected colonies along the Atlantic coast. Listed are the mean standard error and, in parentheses, the number of nests sampled. Species i Location Little blue Cattle Great Snowy heron egret a egret egret3 Spectacle Island, MA 4.32 ± 0.14(25) Ab Clark's Island, MA — — — 3.64 ± 0.11(25) B Swash Bay, VA — — — 3.20 ± 0.10(25) BC Upper Middle Marsh, NC — — 2.76 + 0.10(25) 2.92 ± 0.15(12) C Lower Middle Marsh, NC 3.69 + 0.19(15) — 2.85 ± 0.08(20) 3.24 ± 0.19(25) BC Annex, NC 3.92 ± 0.26(13) 2.48 ± 0.15(25) 2.64 ± 0.15(11) — Phillips Island, NC — — 2.72 + 0.16(25) — Emerald Island, NC 3.92 + 0.18(13) 2.96 ± 0.13(23) 2.86 ± 0.13(21) — Santee Gun Club, SC — — 2.68 ± 0.11(25) Marsh Island, SC — — — 3.60 ± 0.15(25) BC White Banks, SC — — — 3.32 + 0.15(25) BC Drum Island North, SC — — — 3.00 ± 0.09(16) C Drum Island South, SC — — — — One-way ANOVA or Student's "t" Test detected significant differences ( a = 0.05) among colonies. Results of Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range test. A significant difference ( a = 0.05) is indicated by those means not showing a common letter. brood parasitism resulting from excessive partial losses of clutches. The glossy ibis on Clark's Island, Massachusetts, was the only population in which a low ratio occurred, suggesting hatching failure. Because hatching failure can result from high residue levels of pesticides in eggs (Heath et al. 1969; Longcore et al. 1971), this colony should be checked for such residues. Use of wading birds to their full potential as biological indicators requires evaluations beyond those possible in a single year. First, survey methods should be tested for accuracy and efficiency. Alter- nate techniques must be tested, especially for large colonies and colonies located in difficult terrain or vegetation. Second, disruptive effects of investigators on colonies should be quantified. Studies have suggested that decreased reproductive success could be cor- related with increased frequency of visits (Burger, personal communication). Third, additional historical information on colony location and composition should be assembled. There are several historical sources including Audubon warden reports, State and Federal game reports, and journal accounts. Fourth, the coastal survey of colonies should be repeated to document normal fluctuations in colony location and species abundance. In addition, these comparisons may lead to the detection of en- vironmental disturbance. Fifth, habitat selection should be measured. Our preliminary studies demonstrated that species of wading birds select feeding and nesting sites that are different from other wading birds that are found in the same general area. Further data on habitat requirements are necessary before we can determine whether changes in the population dynamics of wading birds are indicative of certain perturbations in the environment surrounding colonies. Sixth, methods of gathering data on reproductive success should be evaluated and made comparable within the limits of habitat differences. Variability of reproductive parameters should be measured to determine adequate sample sizes. Several biases that exist in most nest studies, including the wading bird studies described here, should be evaluated. These include yearly variation in nest success, criteria for determining nesting failure, influence of the stage at which nests are found, and frequency of visits to nests on reproductive success (reviewed by Ricklefs 1969). 13 Table 7-Cont. Species Louisiana heron Black -crowned night heron Yellow-crowned night heron Glossy ibis3 White ibisa 3.12 ± 0.12(25) 3.68 + 0.11(25) A 3.72 + 0.15(25) A — 3.38 ±0.14(25) 3.12 ± 0.11(25) 3.00 + 0.21(10) 3.08 ± 0.21(13) 3.12 + 0.09(25) B — 2.36 ±0.15(22) 2.76 ±0.14(25) 3.28 + 0.18(25) — — — 2.08 ±0.12(25) — — 4.08 + 0.11(25) — — a, b See footnotes on page 12. Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the following cooperators: J. W. B. Akers, F. M. Bagley, L. J. Blus, M. A. Byrd, P. D. Creighton, W. H. Drury, J. O. Fussell III, G. A. Grau, B. A. Harrington, J. J. Hatch, J. A. Kushlan, S. N. Nesbitt, R. R. Odom, J. F. Parnell, R. F. Soots, Jr., and T. F. Wieboldt. Their contributions were the basis for our study. We benefited from discussions with D. L. Beaver, D. A. McCrimmon, J. C. Ogden, T. L. Quay, A. Sprunt IV, and members of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center staff. We thank L. F. Stickel, L. J. Blus, and D. R. Clark, Jr., for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. J. H. Snyder prepared the cover drawing of the black-crowned night heron. References Allen, R. P. 1938. Black -crowned night heron colonies on Long Island. Proc. Linn. Soc, N.Y. 49:43-51. Ames, P. L., and G. S. Mersereau. 1964. Some factors in the decline of the osprey in Connecticut. Auk 81(2):173-185. Anderson, D. W., J. R. Jehl, Jr., R. W. Risebrough, L. A. Woods, Jr., L. A. Deweese, and W. G. Edgecomb. 1975. Brown pelicans: improved reproduction off the southern California coast. Science 190(4216):806-808. Armistead, H. T. 1974a. Lower Chesapeake heronries of Maryland, Smith Island to Barren Island. Md. Birdlife 30(l):9-27. Armistead, H. T. 19746. Iceland Gulls, Forester's Tern nests, and breeding herons in Dorchester County, Summer 1974. Md. Birdlife 30(4):128-132. Blus, L. J., B. S. Neely, Jr., A. A. Belisle, and R. M. Prouty. 1974. Organochlorine residues in brown pelican eggs: relation to reproductive success. Environ. Pollut. 7:81-91. Borg, K., H. Wanntorp, K. Ernie, and E. Hanko. 1969. Alkyl mercury poisoning in terrestrial Swedish wildlife. Viltrevy 4:201-379. Bull, J. 1964. Birds of the New York Area. Harper and Row, N.Y. 540 pp. Burrell, G. A., and F. M. Seibert. 1914. Gases found in coal mines. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Mines, Miners' Circular 14. 23 pp. Clements, F. E. 1928. Plant succession and indicators. Wilson Co., N.Y. 453 pp. Dusi, J. L., and R. T. Dusi. 1968. Ecological factors contributing to nesting failure in a heron colony. Wilson Bull. 80(4):458-466. Dusi, J. L., and R. T. Dusi. 1970. Nesting success and mortality of nestlings in a cattle egret colony. Wilson Bull. 82(4):458-460. Erichsen, W. J. 1921. Notes on the habits of the breeding water birds of Chatham County, Georgia. Wilson Bull. 33(l):16-28; 33(2):69-82. Grant, G. S. 1971. Three-year study of the heronry at Alligator Bay, North Carolina. Chat 35(l):5-9. Heath, R. G., J. W. Spann, and J. F. Kreitzer. 1969. Marked DDE impairment of mallard reproduction in controlled studies. Nature (Lond.) 224(5214):47-48. Henny, C. J., and M. R. Bethers. 1971. Population ecology of the great blue heron with special reference to western Oregon. Can. Field-Nat. 85(3):205-209. Hickey, J. J. 1969. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Milwaukee, and London. 14 Oj CO ° a; C e a 3 K ■ — SP o 2 c 4) o v. 00 ■S« ■r* to X -fi ^a to » CO CO £■£ o- T3 a 2 ti J3 CJ ££ O _bc Q) C >< T3 5i G G o 1 8 2-g V +» .* .e u be ca -3 —< G CQ CO cu a 01 ca 0, c CO a c 1 2 3 s J >iCB g cu G Si CO » -m ca ca «-> CD CD h ^ C5 tie >— I cu 0) ^ q3 cu -u — ca tie cu 3 2 g CU i- o I I 1 P.1 I I I I I SI £1 I Igl I I I I I oo ■* I I I I o o M I I I w I Tf CN CN CO O^ OS I I I I I s i iS CO mow in oo I £J | rid i i £J I I S I O I O O I I CD I I CD O O O Oi Ol in m in cn in oo»Po 0000100 in in co I G=3ri | © © &> I I LO O H lO H lO CM ^ ca cs ca "g > _o; a> CO CO :tacle Is k's Isla: sh Bay, er Midd er Midd o cu CJ CJ 3 CQ V ^2^5EE ti as gat qdo co a j G I 3 1 §3S2S 03 G O ■■E o a. o c o o cu a ca 3 T3 G co 3 15 co i) CO CD c cu k. B O. K ^2 3 s° 5° cu © cu s 3 e cu 01 O O CO S° §? "2 .c a cu k. cu n, cu o CU (S Eh a CO s« 92 c c *•* a S 0 >- JZ u ■*-J Jt X! >C0 5 *» o £ c & ■+* - rt o to »-t >- a it cu 2 § ai iu a* o CO CO IMS I I I I I I 1? I I I I I I I I I I I I c o) co t- t> O- CO 00 CC o o CM t^ r» CO ^ 1 1 S CO a> a> CO i i i i i i i co CO I I 23 P o 5? co if o co r- to ,„ ai oo id co o co co I CTl CO "*f 1 H CO CO a> r~ co I I I i i i i is is ID CD rH | lO CO | ID CO t> CO CM CO oo zz OO < J3 xf s Island, NC Id Island, NC Gun Club, SC Island, SC Banks, SC Island North, S Island South, S £< 2 2 acle Island, 's Island, M h Bay, VA r Middle Ma r Middle Ma z x' a co » js ., ' " *f. -X 05 CD 0) ^ CI) •H Ta- (J in C o M -H 01 . -u 01 -H p> at M (2 9 ° ■a M 3 a) 4-i rH -H •H 4J o. ra e j o id o 1) 00 3 O C/I CJ O z c o 01 4J CO O 4-1 CJ e/3 + 1 U + 1 c o rH o CJ 0£ CJ u • oo en cu en a. coen M CJ 42 O C ■rl r-s -■' M 00 C CO 3 cu en O Tl T3 r*i i — i 3 rH CJ c tt) O U 4-1 •H 01 in ^w' CU CD B 11 4J CO H en 11 rH 4-1 c N CO U-J •H to 42 0 •* 4-J tn •H 4J 4J s 3 0 to o to 43 4-1 01) u v_^ 01 C (11 ai 3 42 4-1 c 0 4J o •H 01 ft* •H ll 0) > -i c >> o rl 3 •» 4-1 cl) o- O >. en 4-1 -~n ^ <-i ffl U 01 01 c CI) cu & a) oo (1 H 42 rH 12 4-1 tl) iH -rH 01 4J o 4= e v 01) 01 4-> "~- 3 an en T3 , en a a 3 43 0) 4-1 3 C 6* a) o O >. 0 !-J 4J C ft* || 43 01 O ll O i^^-l w >H 0) 42 (2 O o o r""N 4J iH N M O CD a) 0 O 42 44 o 4-> D. u CU 0 M-4 42 O ft* 0 4J 4-1 o ■H LO H 01 CU V ai •H O II 43 1-1 a px. •H 01 u to to 43 •t CU >-l s-s a) C 3 lO < o- i* en 01 :>> (2 ^^ 01 ™ c^- C Cl en o | T1 O .-1 l-i D. u-i (2 H o >. r^ eel 0 o — ' l-i & rH CJ O en 0) o- •H ai 42 >% 0) M 42 4J C o ft* c 4-J O C o 0) 01 iH to a 42 3 O 43 ■ — i r. o en O U i 0 0) (2 3 o CI) 01 0) 4-1 a\ p> M CJ 42 01 II c 4J iH w o 3 3 T3 H () O 01 ^-^ 0 >, >% -h cu --I CJ 1-1 Tl 13 is a) <1) ■H •H H 42 42 T3 •a O 4J 4J & S S 01 01 o n o to H 32 32 32 Li /*■ ^ CJ 4-J 01 £ *~; •H CJ 4J 12 CU O r> en cu i-4 TJ o iH D. 44 12 42 O 00 •H •H 4-1 42 to 4J 44 cu tfl 00 CU >> t> rH 3 <4-l O o w 4-1 CO 42 cu 00 IH •H CO CU 42 00 3 >. •H 4-1 42 •H U rH c •H 3 43 (0 to rH u 4-1 «> a) 01 c 44 CU O (3. CO « 4-1 >> a 42 o (3, CJ to r4 rH 00 CO o CJ (3. O o rH 4J **^ s~*' >> 4-1 c to o 4-1 rH •H O 43 o CO 42 00 c r^ iH 3 42 o O rH tO O a) o IH c C O o en 01 4J 44 C 13 cu 0) cS o ej 19 Appendix II. Descriptions, locations, and census data of Atlantic coast wading bird colonies in 1975. Latitude and longitude are given to the nearest 30 s. The number of adults is the sum of the maximum breeding estimate of each species from multiple surveys on each colony. Species abbreviations are GBHE (great blue heron and, for colony 22, great white heron, Ardea herodias occidentalis) , GRHE (green heron), LBHE (little blue heron), CAEG (cattle egret), REEG (reddish egret), GREG (great egret), SNEG (snowy egret), LOHE (Louisiana heron), BNHE (black-crowned night heron), YNHE (yellow-crowned night heron), WOIB (wood stork), GLIB (glossy ibis), WHIB (white ibis), and ROSP (roseate spoonbill). Appendix II. 21 ;olony state NO. 1 £ 10 11 1£ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 £0 £1 £4 -. cr C J £6 c'7 c'y 34 35 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 4:3 49 50 FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL ^"L CL FL FL FL PL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL ^L FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR GR ■'EGETRTION MANGROVES MANGROVES & SHRUBS MANGROVES MANGROVES MANGROVES MANGROVES MRMGRDVES MANGROVES MRMGRDVES & SHRUBS MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES g, SHRUBS MANGROVES MRMGRDVES UNKNOWN MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES TREES & SHRUBS UNKNOWN MANGROVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNKNOWN MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES & SHRUBS MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MRMGRDVES MANGROVES TREES- SHRUBS & MRRSH Ml DD BED MRRSH MRMGRDVES MANGROVES TREES TREES- TREES MRRSH MRRSH & TREES TREES S, TREES TREES & TREES & TREES SHRUBS SHRUBS SHRUBS SHRUBS SHRUBS MRRSH LATITUDE LDN 5ITUDE HO. MO. SPECIES: ADULTS £5 15 0 8 0 4 0 3 0 -. 750 £5 16 3 0 8 0 cr ~i JC 3 0 4 6 6 6 £5 13 0 3 0 54 3 0 l_ 4 !> 3 0 1 j £5 IS 3 0 8 0 46 3 0 Z\ 334 £5 6 3 0 3 0 56 3 0 f, ££8 £7 33 0 3 0 CC 0 3 4? 96 0 £7 41 3 0 8 0 £4 o IZ" 1 » 3 1 3 £7 47 o 8 0 d r o J 96£ a i" j J 3 0 3 0 31 0 cr 4 K 9 1 0 £7 £9 0 8 0 19 3 0 'H 5 j 54 0 £6 41 o 8 0 C 3 0 4 •-t cr cr a C J DO 4 £7 11 3 0 8 0 1 1 ij s 57 0 ■-■ Cr £ i-_ _' \Z> 3 0 8 0 54 3 0 10 £ j 36 0 0 8 1 1 0 5 6 8 8 £5 £4 3 0 8 0 13 3 0 r £ j 1 1 1 j £5 0 3 0 8 0 34 0 i^, £6£ CL~J 'z* 3 0 8 0 OCT 0 8 1 p 936 £6 1 1 0 8 0 11 0 3 3 3 *z> £6 4 3 0 8 0 1£ 3 0 cr 1 3 1 J £5 56 3 0 y u 8 3 0 8 1 » 3 1 8 - Cr -i 0 8 0 3 0 0 c 16 £4 55 0 '-' II 46 3 0 K 1 9 0 -. cr -. C J d 30 3 0 C'Z' 3 0 f. £4£ £4 55 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 C 146 £7 47 3 0 3 0 £6 3 0 4 1 j 4 0 33 £6 0 8 0 1 0 0 C 11£ 33 £6 o 3 0 10 0 c C 'Z> 33 £6 o 3 0 10 0 C 3 0 £9 8 3 0 3 0 cr.-. _i o 3 0 f. 7£0 £3 £1 0 8 0 40 3 0 _l 1-750 £8 17 3 0 O |"| 39 3 0 4 464 C'Z' cc 3 0 O i~j ■Z> i 0 C 10 £3 49 0 8 0 46 3 0 cr £4£ £8 44 0 3 0 46 3 0 f, 6 0£ £8 4£ 3 0 3 0 43 0 4 Ij 144 3 0 6 0 81 £0 o 4 150 3 0 1 4 0 31 c'5 3 0 cr 35 0 £8 34 3 0 3 0 4£ 3 0 11 8 ? £3 0 £3 43 0 8 0 4£ ij 4 £46 30 51 3 0 81 31 0 1 3 0 30 53 Ij 81 £7 3 0 1 ■-■C 30 53 30 81 -•cr C-.1 ij £. 354 30 58 0 31 £9 3 0 t- 7? 1£6 31 £0 0 81 CC 3 0 O 110 31 £4 3 0 81 £1 3 0 c 116 31 31 3 0 31 14 0 1 Z'iZL 31 31 0 81 1 C 0 f 4 ? 38 0 31 34 3 0 81 1 c 3 0 c 10 31 36 30 81 1 '"-' 3 1 J 1 3 1 J O 1 •-' ■' 3 0 81 13 0 1 1£ 22 Appendix II. Continued. COLONY STATE VEGETATION NO. 51 GR TREES 52 GR TREES S, SHRUB •_' -Z* Gfl UNKNOWN 54 GR TREES & SHRUB 55 GR TREES il. SHRUB 56 GR TREES & SHRUB GR TREES cr i-i JO GR TREES :i: SHRUB 59 GR TREES 60 GR SHRUBS 61 GR TREES & SHRUB 62 SC MARSH *Z' Z' SC MRRSH & SHRUB 64 ■SC MARSH 65 SC MRRSH S, SHRUB 66 SC TREES 67 SC MRRSH 3, SHRUB 68 SC UNKNOWN 69 SC UNKNOWN 7 0 SC WOODED MRRSH 71 SC TREES 1 C SC UNKNOWN i' •-' NC TREES 74 NC TREES "7C 1 J NC TREES 76 NC TREES r' r" NC TREES ■ 7l~I NC TREES 79 NC SHRUBS 8 0 NC SHRUBS 31 NC SHRUBS ■Z'iZ. NC TREES & SHRUB p •"' NC SHRUBS 84 NC SHRUBS 85 NC SHRUBS 86 NC TREES O I- NC MRRSH 5, SHRUB j5Q NC SHRUBS 39 NC SHRUBS 90 NC WOODED MRRSH 91 NC SHRUBS 92 NC TREES & SHRUB 93 NC SHRUBS 94 NC FREES ;i, SHRUB 95 'v'fl TREES 36 VR SHRUBS 97 VR SHRUBS 93 VR TREES ?, SHRUB: 99 VR SHRUBS 1 0 0 VR SHRUBS LRTITUDE LONI EilTUDE NO. HO. SPECIES RDULTS 31 37 30 31 17 0 8 628 31 •~j ;I; 0 81 10 30 5 42 0 31 53 0 3 0 cr -7 ■_' f 3 0 6 1 < 3 0 0 31 54 0 31 1 0 £ £70 3 1 54 30 81 8 30 C 100 31 54 3 0 31 c. 3 0 4 £6 0 31 56 0 81 1 3 0 O 1£4 31 58 3 0 8 0 55 0 c 44 31 £9 3 0 81 15 0 t 144 31 4 0 3 0 31 9 0 d 136 31 48 0 81 8 3 0 7 1 j 74 0 59 0 79 31 3 0 3 38 0 ■Z' Z' 1 0 79 3 0 0 5 928 32 •Z'C 30 8 0 10 0 .j! C j 5 04 •Z' O 17 0 79 1£ 3 0 3 44 j 130 JJC. 14 0 8 0 44 3 0 5 1 08 ■ZrC 15 0 8 0 44 0 4 £1£ ■_•!_ 11 3 0 8 0 43 3 0 ;~; 54 0 ■Z'CL z> r" 0 8 0 C 3 0 s £8 0 O •"' 3 3 0 79 C--Z' 0 7 616 34 6 3 0 79 16 0 cr 538 33 £6 0 3 0 10 0 9 44 5 4 32 -■cr Z' _' 53 0 76 59 3 0 1 7 0 34 37 0 70 c r 3 0 C Cu 33 55 3 0 I'* ■_' 1£ 0 1 10 34 •"■ 0 f r' C-7 0 1 54 34 £, 3 0 i'* r" ■_> i 3 0 1 58 34 39 3 0 76 31 3 0 4 342 34 53 3 0 76 17 0 f 534 34 4 0 3 0 r' i"' c 0 6 4 ? 494 34 59 3 0 76 13 0 r' 1 , 1 04 36 £4 3 0 75 5£ 0 5 938 35 CO 3 0 31 3 0 5 r O 35 43 3 0 -?cr 34 3 0 6 1 ' £06 35 44 0 3 0 3 0 7 936 36 £9 0 (■' f C~7 3 0 c 32 0 < 9 7 0 34 41 3 0 76 36 3 0 !-I 346 34 3 0 3 0 i-' r' 0 o 596 •j i £6 3 0 75 41 0 8 4 ' 554 37 Ol 0 75 41 0 6 686 ■2< f 41 3 0 , ■' _i 0 »■' 1 < £34 37 35 0 -?cr J r ■3 0 8 1 . 6£4 37 46 3 0 75 oc 0 6 £6£ 37 55 0 75 £6 0 r 496 Appendix II. Continued. 23 CDLDNY STATE VEGETATION LATITUDE LONi 5ITUDE NO. ND. NO. SPECIES ADULTS 101 VR SHRUBS 37 59 3 0 75 19 ; J0 g 978 1 02 Vfi TREES & SHRUBS 37 48 3 0 -7cr t -' 54 o 10 1 , 252 1 03 Vfi TREES &: SHRUBS J f " 49 0 r ■_' 44 :: 30 *H 464 104 VR SHRUBS 37 13 0 1 _l 49 o r 326 1 05 VR FREES %. SHRUBS 37 16 3 0 75 47 ; i0 8 544 1 06 VR TREES & SHRUBS O f f 3 0 75 54 3 0 1 2 0 107 Vfi TREES ■Z> Y 5 0 3 0 76 iz!7 ■. 10 1 3 0 1 OS Vfi TREES ■z> r 3 0 76 29 ; 10 1 78 0 109 VR TREES? SHRUBS & MRRSH 37 3 3 0 t ( i : 10 ■Z1 60 110 VR TREES ~l~? 29 39 f f li o 1 150 111 Vfi TREES ■Z> i 2 0 0 76 13 o 1 7 0 0 11£ Vfi TREES •_' (' 0 3 0 76 20 : 10 1 14 113 Vfi TREES ■Z1 i 11 3 0 76 31 0 1 110 114 VR TREES Z' (' 24 3 0 76 38 0 c 3 0 115 VR TREES i< SHRUBS ■Z> f 51 0 76 0 0 .^1 12 116 VR TREES & SHRUBS 37 6 0 -7cr t -J :0 8 3 p 8 1 4 117 Vfi TREES ■Z> f' 29 0 76 29 M 1 98 118 VR SHRUBS o r' 16 0 76 31 o 1 1 02 119 VR UNKNOWN 36 45 3 0 76 9 '. i0 2 _1 1~. ISO Vfi TREES 36 4 0 0 7 b 56 o i 3 0 121 VR UNKNOWN 36 54 3 0 76 17 : :0 c! 44 ise VR TREES 36 cr --■ _l "t 3 0 76 r :0 c 148 123 VR TREES 36 •~.cr 0 75 55 :: i0 i ■jC. 1£4 VR SHRUBS Z< (' 54 0 26 ". :0 8 3 ? 7 0 0 125 MD SHRUBS oo 11 3 0 7c 18 0 r £.590 126 m n MRRSH 8, SHRUBS ■Z' C" 9 3 0 75 15 0 4 1 06 127 MD SHRUBS " -' )-' 5 3 0 75 18 : 10 5 194 128 nn SHRUBS ■Z' c* 0 75 12 : :0 C 34 129 MD SHRUBS 38 19 3 0 76 15 : !0 lL 6 0 0 130 MD SHRUBS 33 13 3 0 76 is : :0 "7 6 0 0 131 MD TREES 4: SHRUBS 38 9 U 76 cr 0 C 42 132 MD TREES & SHRUBS ■Z< 'Z1 1 3 0 76 C 0 10 3 0 0 133 MD TREES ■~' '1' 9 0 r J 54 ; 10 c 19£ 134 MD TREES ■Z' o ~iC 3 0 i r' 13 0 1 416 135 MD TREES 38 46 0 76 CC -1 :0 iZ. 566 1 36 MD TREES 39 1 3 0 76 13 0 1 45 0 137 MD TREES 39 17 0 76 16 0 1 £5 0 138 MD TREES? SHRUBS S, MRRSH 38 14 0 76 47 ■: '0 4 4 1 £ 1 39 MD TREES & SHRUBS Z* Q 14 3 0 76 'Zl ■! 0 1 c!c 140 MD TREES ■Z' 3 15 3 0 76 43 .: 0 2 59 0 141 MD TREES 39 c f 0 75 57 :] o 1 1 8 0 143 MD WOODED MRRSH 3 y 9 3 0 76 c! -z o c 54 143 MD TREES ~"P 6 0 76 i o ._r 10 144 MD SHRUBS 1 3 0 76 c z o 4 32 145 MD TREES ."• r 57 3 0 7G c c o C 34 146 MD TREES *■: SHRUBS Zt i' 59 0 76 2 i o 9 49 0 147 MD SHRUBS Z» f' 59 3 0 76 i : o i 114 143 MD SHRUBS 33 15 3 0 i Ij cr 122 149 MD TREES & SHRUBS ~' Q l' 3 0 76 ,_i 0 10 2-364 150 MD TREES & SHRUBS ~;~? C.~i 3 0 76 l o i" 4 02 24 Appendix II. Continued. CDLDNV STATE VEGETATION LRT1T! JDE LDMi 51 TUBE MO. MO. NO. SPECIES ADULTS 151 ND TREES ""ir-i Z' O 11 3 0 76 c 3 0 c 434 1 58 MD TREES 37 59 3 0 r _• 59 3 0 1 54 1 cr ~* D£ SHRUBS 3 9 --. cr 3 0 f _' 34 0 8 4 j 484 154 DE UNKNOWN 39 3 0 0 36 3 0 1 85 0 155 MJ TREES & SHRUBS 39 ~i 0 74 46 0 8 8 - 54 156 NJ TREES & SHRUBS z'% 'Z< 59 0 74 •_'C 0 8 1 , 158 1 cr~? 1 ■_' t' NJ TREES & SHRUBS 3 y 59 0 T4 51 0 3 376 1 JO NJ TREES *, SHRUBS 3 9 r" 3 0 74 44 0 f 986 1 59 MJ SHRUBS 39 17 0 74 35 0 s 1 j 864 1 6 0 NJ i J q an ed MRRSH 39 34 0 74 16 3 0 43 161 MJ WOODED MRRSH 39 1« "■ : -: fi 74 16 3 0 cr _i 37 0 162 MJ MRRSH Z< SHRUBS 39 ~'S 0 74 15 0 C CC. i 6 3 MJ TREES S, SHRUBS 39 84 ~ ' '"l 74 86 0 i*' 1 , 154 164 MJ TREES 8, SHRUBS 39 85 0 74 36 0 "? 55 0 165 MJ WOODED MARSH 39 3 8 3 0 74 18 o 6 178 1 66 NY TREES 4 0 36 0 f -Z' 31 0 4 134 167'* MY UNKNOWN 4 0 39 0 7'"-! 17 3 0 6 888 1 6 8 MY TREES 4 0 ■Z' r 0 i" Z1 86 3 0 4 336 169 CT SHRUBS 41 4 o (' Z' iZ.C 3 0 a r" o 17 0 RI SHRUBS 41 36 o 71 81 0 c 5 06 171 RI TREES & SHRUBS 41 Z' f 0 71 13 3 0 £ 168 1 78 RI SHRUBS 41 18 3 0 71 34 0 i 148 1. 1 Z' MR UNKNOWN 48 80 0 7 0 59 3 0 3 4 04 174 MR UNKNOWN 48 17 0 7 0 5 7 0 C 1 5 0 175 MR SHRUBS 41 31 0 71 3 3 0 1 66 176 MR TREES 41 ~'y~. 3 0 7 0 84 3 0 1 148 1 i i' MR SHRUBS 41 8 0 3 0 7 0 46 0 c" 394 1 f o MR SHRUBS 41 84 3 0 i' 'J CO 0 1 85 0 179 MR SHRUBS 48 1 3 0 7 0 13 3 0 1 64 1 3 0 MR SHRUBS 41 13 0 7 0 8 0 8 c' 3 c! 181 MR WOODED 1RRSH 41 17 0 7 0 18 IJ 1 376 1 U c' MR TREES Sc SHRUBS 43 •Z' -Z> 0 7 0 47 0 •Z> 1 -614 1 O 1< MR TREES 43 n 30 7 0 51 0 e 1 < 1 06 184 MR UNKNOWN 41 3 0 3 0 7 0 44 3 0 c 44 1 '-' ^ MR SHRUBS 41 T'O 3 0 7 0 51 0 1 8 1 3 6 MR SHRUBS 48 8 0 3 0 7 0 c -~. 0 1 1 06 1 o r ME TREES s< SHRUBS 48 59 0 7 0 36 0 ~« 390 1 ■-' ■-: ME UNKNOWN 43 3 0 0 7 0 19 3 0 •~l 918 1 8 9 ME TREES 43 43 3 0 7 0 1 3 0 1 7 0 0 1 9 0 ME TREES 43 46 3 0 69 34 3 0 1 c! 3 cl 191 ME TREES 44 15 0 69 56 3 0 1 1 33 192 ME TREES 44 r' 3 0 63 47 0 1 74 193 ME TREES 44 18 3 0 6Q •~'C 3U 1 156 194 ME UNKNOWN 44 c J 0 63 54 0 1 3 0 195 ME TREES 8, SHRUBS 43 54 3 0 69 £5 0 c 6 0 0 196 ME TREES 44 ""■l"^ 0 63 16 o 1 858 197 ME TREES 44 c r' 0 6 7 58 3 0 1 198 1 9 3 ME TREES 43 59 0 69 cr 0 1 96 25 Appendix II. Continued. CDLOriY 6BHE 6PHE LBHE CfiEG REEG GREG SNEG LDHE BNHE YNHE WD IB GLIB WHIB RDSP 1 0 0 0 0 i i £ 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 £5 0 0 0 0 £ 0 o 0 0 i i 1 3 0 Z' c £34 0 0 ££ 0 ij 0 0 ■■■ o 0 o 0 i i £ 1 0 0 0 o 0 0 £ £ 0 0 0 0 0 4 o 0 0 0 f i 1 3 0 19£ IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 o 0 c : 6 o 44 0 c 0 0 0 0 114 s 0 0 1 38 1596 r i 152 1738 44£ 10 c 0 0 3 3£ 0 ? £ 0 13 r' 32 ' I 0 0 1 7 0 0 o 0 0 346 Ij 3 0 0 IS 698 1 > 0 4 136 0 0 0 0 6£ 0 9 0 0 '-; ;-; 3378 C i 0 48 0 34 S 0 0 0 0 6££ 0 10 CO o r o £888 ( i 113 114 0 r' y o It £ 0 0 48S 0 11 0 0 0 176£ C i 114 45£ ££6 0 o 0 0 0 0 IE' 8 0 8 3£4 C 1 o c O O 5 c 4 0 o 0 54 Ij 13 ' -■ !-' 0 64 £4 ie ? 0 0 34 SOS c l"t 0 0 168£ 43 14 LL 0 C 0 c i 1 06 4 0 513 Ij 0 0 0 0 0 15 IS 0 38 1758 C i 3 €.• 4 5 0 0 o o 0 SIS 0 1 6 13 0 0 0 c t 6 0 iT.1 y 36 0 0 o 0 £ 0 5 0 17 4 0 £ 0 3i= i^i 1£ 1SS0 0 0 0 0 3 0 63 0 IS 0 0 c £94 C 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 44 10 c 5 0 o o 0 16 Ij 0 0 0 SO 0 0 £6 116S C i3 c £6 c IS o 0 8S 0 £1 o 0 0 0 c 3 8 0 0 0 Ij 0 0 0 c c o 0 0 c 4 0 68 36 0 0 Ij 0 8 16 C _• o o 6 0 c C. 76 98 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 S4 £6 0 0 0 c 1 £ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ij 0 E"5 5 0 0 0 0 c 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 o 1= c l"l _• _' I.I 0 0 0 £6 16 0 0 0 c 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £7 C'Z. 0 0 0 c f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ij £8 4 0 o 0 c 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 £6 £9 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 C 7 0 5 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 C £0 3 0 5 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 4 0 0 C £0 £0 £4 0 0 Ij 0 0 0 3S 8 o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 33 £4 0 0 1 5 0 C 44 0 1£ 1£ o 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 5 0 £5 0 c 0 6 0 £ 0 0 0 o 0 £ 4 0 0 35 0 0 £4 8 0 0 C 0 £0 3 0 0 0 0 0 ij 0 0 36 0 o 3 0 0 L 8 0 3 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 £0 1 0 0 c 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 38 3 0 10 3 0 0 1 £5 0 C 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 o 300 £. 0 34 0 0 Ij 39 0 0 0 1 0 0 L £, 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 ij 0 0 0 41 ■Z'C 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 o 0 ij 0 0 0 4£ 0 o 3 0 3 0 C 9 0 3 0 0 £4 0 0 0 6 0 0 o 43 0 0 0 0 C £ 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 6 0 0 10 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 c 5 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 36 0 0 0 c 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ij Ij 46 •Z'C 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o Ij 0 0 0 47 0 0 1 0 0 35 0 0 6 0 0 £5 0 1 £ 0 0 8 0 0 Ij 0 1 8 0 0 0 48 c o 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 Ij ij 0 Ij 49 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ij 5 0 IS 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Appendix II. Continued. ;DLDNY GBHE GRHE LBHE CREG REEG GREG SNEG LDHE BNHE YHHE WD IB GLIB WHIE RDSP 51 o 0 10 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 3 £0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 o 5 0 1 0 0 0 18 0 8 0 7 0 0 0 Ij Ij 0 0 53 0 o 6 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 43 0 6 0 o 0 0 0 0 54 7 0 o 0 0 0 £ 0 0 0 0 0 o Ij Ij lj 0 55 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1} 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ij 56 0 0 f, 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 Li 0 4 lj 0 0 Ij Ij 57 o 0 ij o 0 8 0 14 0 3 0 lj 0 0 lj Ij 58 84 o 0 0 o 8 0 0 0 0 lj 0 0 Ij 0 59 C 4 6 0 0 0 8 0 & 10 4£ lj 0 0 Ij 0 60 0 o 0 0 0 118 -84 0 U l"l 0 0 Ij 0 61 o 0 ■Z'lZ £ 0 0 0 7 0 0 35 0 8 08 30 l"j 0 0 1 6 0 Ij 68 o 0 o o o 6 0 4 30 39 0 0 0 ij 0 ij Ij 63 0 0 o 4 0 0 483 410 0 lj 0 8 1 J 0 0 64 o 0 0 0 o 0 1854 1836 0 lj 0 14 Ij 0 65 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 £5 0 39000 Ij 66 3 o 0 0 o 68 14 10 3 lj 0 0 0 0 67 o o 3 c' c 0 0 1££ 56 0 lj 0 0 ij o 63 0 o Z' C •"• 0 0 0 13£ ■3 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 69 0 10 s 180 0 86 7 0 48 o lj 0 0 ij Ij 7 0 3 0 0 £0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 £0 16 3 0 lj 0 0 ij 0 71 o 0 54 ■1' C C 0 44 116 0 0 lj 0 0 c Ij ~? --i r i_ 0 0 8 046 1 0 0 0 u 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4616 368 144 0 1 1 04 p "' <= c: p 0 73 7 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ij 0 74 C 0 0 o o 8 0 0 0 0 ij 0 0 Ij Ij 75 10 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 54 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 Ij 0 0 Ij 0 77 crp o 0 0 0 0 o o lj o 0 0 Ij Ij 78 o o 6 0 0 o Z}iZ. 66 134 0 Ij 0 0 0 Ij 79 0 0 jC ££8 0 84 36 178 14 Ij 0 73 0 0 80 0 3 0 6 0 0 13 78 0 334 6 0 0 1558 o Ij 0 0 Ij Ij 81 o 0 143 48 0 36 148 458 16 Ij 0 £68 Ij Ij 88 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 1 36 76 76 0 Ij 0 0 Ij 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 14 — c 36 3 Ij 0 8 Ij Ij 84 o 0 54 0 0 r c 394 4 08 7 0 0 J 8 08 Ij Ij 35 0 0 868 168 0 46 7 0 184 96 0 J 1 1 0 Ij 0 36 118 o 0 0 o £ 03 0 0 0 Ij J 0 Ij 0 37 0 o 4 0 o 0 { o 1 88 0 Ij J 18 Ij Ij 88 o 5 0 o o £4 5 0 184 84 0 J 9 0 0 0 89 0 86 0 o Ci o 10 0 J 4 0 0 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 1£0 0 o 0 Ij J 0 Ij Ij 91 0 c 3 04 35 0 o 166 348 1933 104 0 J 7 8 3 046 Ij 98 0 c 494 18 74 o 198 4 08 1 1 3 0 164 c J 1 5 U 154 0 93 o 4 3 0 C 0 118 68 110 13 Ij J 3 0 0 94 o 18 Scl 144 0 CO 98 c c y 0 0 J 0 ij Ij 95 0 0 1 8 0 6 0 0 1 5 0 8 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 84 J £4 0 0 ij Ij 96 0 4 C 0 0 C 3 0 0 36 0 0 ij J 18 0 0 97 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 0 5 i J 0 4 0 0 4 ij J 8 0 0 Ij Ij 98 o f. 7 0 0 IJ 0 75 0 65 0 8 ij J 1 4 0 Ij 0 99 0 0 o 8 0 £ 3 0 1 0 0 CO ij J 4 1 J Ij Ij 1 0 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 5 0 4 0 4 0 1 6 0 ij J 1 6 0 Ij Ij 27 Appendix II. Continued. CDLDHY GBHE GRHE LEHE GREG REEG GREG SNEG LDHE BNHE VMHE WD IE GLIB WHIB RDSP 101 |"| c 48 1 0 0 3 S 0 •2' (' U 140 4 0 0 i 3 8 04 0 102 co U 8 44 94 3 36 3 6 0 140 85 0 16 I 3 34 0 1 03 IS 4 3 0 3 8 0 C i U 3 0 86 3 1 4 0 104 16 0 0 1 J CC 1 8 0 150 18 J U '.' 105 8 0 34 4 0 i 3 8 0 1 0 0 8 08 oc 3 4 0 0 1 06 0 |'i 0 3 0 0 0 c U l J u u 107 3 0 o 0 3 0 0 0 J u u 1 08 f o U o 0 3 0 0 0 J LI u 1 09 ■_• C 0 0 3 6 0 0 J 0 0 110 15 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 ) u u 111 7 0 0 0 0 i 3 0 0 0 J Li u 118 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 14 i 1 l_l l_l 113 110 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 y 0 u 114 18 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 13 r J u u 115 0 0 1 S 3 0 0 ) 0 0 116 0 1 6 0 8 0 0 1 i 830 6 1 0 84 1 3 1 0 c U i i 100 0 117 98 o 0 i 1 0 0 0 i 0 0 118 1 08 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 l_l l_l 119 _l l_l 0 0 1 i 8 0 o 1 l_l l_l 18 0 3 0 0 0 1 i 0 o o 1 l_l l_l 181 84 0 0 i I 0 o o c' U 1 1 I_l IJ 188 8 0 0 ( i 140 0 0 1 IJ l_l 183 33 o 0 1 i 0 o o 1 IJ IJ 184 0 c 170 85 0 C I 6 0 188 0 1 08 0 90 i 828 0 185 0 0 84 0 6 0 0 C i 1 0 0 55 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 i 6 0 0 0 186 0 0 8 ( i 0 5 0 0 ) 4 0 187 0 4 0 I 1 0 144 c. CO ) 1 6 0 183 0 0 0 ( 1 0 86 0 8 1 M IJ 189 38 0 o 0 t i 83 0 0 o 1 u u 1 3 0 0 10 c: j-i 36 0 t 1 0 1 8 0 10 3 0 i c 0 0 131 4 0 0 0 C 0 o 0 c I. i 0 0 138 6 0 14 8 0 8 0 C 8 0 186 8 0 8 0 0 c U l i 180 0 133 1 9 0 0 0 C i 8 0 0 1 IJ IJ 134 416 o 0 f. i 0 0 0 i ij 0 135 55 0 o 0 c i 16 0 0 1 IJ IJ 136 45 0 0 0 c i 0 0 0 IJ IJ 137 35 0 0 0 c i 0 0 0 0 0 133 C o 0 c 1 98 8 04 o 8 0 0 139 ill 0 0 c l 0 0 0 0 U 14 0 58 0 0 0 c i 7 0 o 0 0 0 141 1 8 0 0 0 t I 0 0 0 IJ IJ 148 34 0 0 c i 8 0 0 o IJ IJ 14 3 C 2 0 t c C 0 0 c I. IJ IJ 144 o 10 0 c z. d 0 1 8 C 0 0 145 44 0 0 t 1 4 0 0 0 U 0 146 8 0 10 t u 0 c 10 1 3 0 7 0 5 0 1 0 C 1 8 0 0 147 0 4 10 0 c I 0 10 10 5 0 8 0 C i 1 0 0 148 0 6 0 c 0 c t^. 46 8 0 U £ 1 M I.I 149 1 38 16 146 i o o c 336 754 188 68 0 7 '-' f 1 8 0 0 15 0 3 CC 8 0 c 36 0 8 0 88 0 94 t 1 0 0 28 Appendix II. Continued. CDLDNY GEHE GRHE LEHE CfiEG REE£ J GREG SNEG LDHE BNHE r'NHE WD IE GLIE WHIE 151 418 0 o 0 1 3 16 0 0 ij 0 1 3 0 0 152 54 o 0 0 3 0 0 0 ij 0 1 3 0 0 153 14 o 7 0 285 0 1 J 1 2 0 25 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 1 3 84 0 0 154 o 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 ij 0 1 3 0 0 155 0 44 6 3 720 244 0 14 2 1 8 0 10 I 3 264 0 0 156 0 16 4 1 3 10 25 0 6 6 0 6 i 3 8 0 0 0 157 0 10 8 1 3 84 170 2 0 34 10 1 3 4 0 0 158 4 76 0 I 3 50 472 234 10 0 1 3 5 0 0 159 0 24 2 0 1 3 60 95 0 16 7 0 4 I 3 1 2 0 0 160 2 0 4 0 i 3 0 & 12 0 1 X *Z' LI 161 46 i" u 0 ' 3 0 2 02 6 0 1 3 46 0 162. 12 0 i 3 0 0 10 0 1 3 0 0 163 0 14 0 4 I 3 1 0 55 0 C -_' IJ 9 0 0 i 3 1 1 0 0 164 3 0 94 0 i 3 16 24 0 106 34 0 3 3 0 0 165 4 0 ( 3 4 92 CO 0 1 3 36 0 166 0 0 i 3 46 ■Z'C 10 0 3 46 0 167 0 Q i 3 4 0 130 8 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 163 0 0 i 3 84 168 10 0 1 3 124 0 169 0 0 i 3 0 24 54 0 i 3 0 0 170 0 0 i 6 5 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 171 0 0 i 3 36 0 126 0 i 3 0 0 173 o 0 i 0 143 0 I 3 0 0 173 0 0 I 1 08 c! o c! 0 ( 3 14 0 174 0 0 I £ 144 0 i J 0 0 175 0 0 I fl 66 0 1 3 0 0 176 0 0 f o 142 0 1 3 0 0 177 o 0 f y 3 8 6 0 1 3 0 0 178 0 ( o 25 0 0 i J 0 0 179 0 i 0 64 0 1 i ij ij 130 0 i 4 CCC' 0 1 3 0 0 181 0 i 0 376 0 y 3 0 0 132 0 1 5 06 1 0 1 6 0 i i 92 0 183 10 0 i. 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 3 9 0 0 184 0 ( 24 2 0 0 i I ij 0 135 0 t 0 8 0 £ I ij 0 136 0 c 0 1 06 0 £ i ij ij 187 0 c 2 0 0 112 0 £ i r o U 183 0 £ C.C.C 2 02 0 1 i 494 0 139 7 0 0 0 c Ij 0 0 1 I 0 0 190 232 0 ( 0 ij 0 1 i ij ij 191 133 0 £ o ij 0 f 1 0 0 192 74 0 f 0 0 0 f ) 0 0 193 156 0 C o ij ij i i 0 0 194 3 0 0 £ 0 ij 0 c 1 Ij Ij 195 5 02 0 £ 0 98 0 c 1 Ij Ij 196 C J O 0 £ 0 0 0 £ 1 ij 0 197 1 98 0 £ 0 0 0 £ 1 0 0 193 96 0 ij £ 1 'J Ij u 0 0 £ i ij 0 RDSP As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. GPO 639 - 872 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE EDITORIAL OFFICE AYLESWORTH HALL. CSU FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80523 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INT 423 NOTK: Mailing lists are computerized. Please return address label with change of address.