U PDATEEndangeredIncluding a Reprint Species of theTechnical latest USFWS Bulletin September/October 1993 School of Natural Resources and Environment Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

I

In this Issue The Wildlife Corridor Navy is Enlisted in Plan Controversy: A Review to Protect Manatees

Reauthorization of From the State Series: the Marine Mammal Georgia's Nongame and Protection Act Endangered Wildlife Program The Wildlife Corridor Controversy: A Review by Amy McEuen

lfwhat we have said is correct, it is The Definition Quandary two or more large tracts of essentially not possible to preserve in a State or similar habitat and functions as either a National Park, a complete replica on a Various disciplines have defined movement route for individuals or an snlall scale of the fauna and flora of a corridors differently. Biogeographers avenue for gene-flow among native flora much larger area ...the preserved area tend to define corridors as "a route that and fauna" (Harris and Scheck beconles an isolate, and the number of permits the spread of many or most taxa 1991:202). Similarly, Soule and Gilpin species that can be accommodated must from one region to another," such as a (1991.3) define a "wildlife corridor" as apparently fall .... The only remedy is to land bridge connecting two continents "a linear two-dimensional landscape el- prevent the area from becoming an "iso- (Brown and Gibson 1983:215). How- ement that connects two or more patches late" by keeping open a continuous cor- ever, the large scale of biogeographic of wildlife (animal) habitat that have ridor with other preserved areas. corridors makes this definition unsuit- been connected in historical time; it is -Preston 1962 able for conservation biology, since some meant to function as a conduit for ani- wildlife corridors may beonly ten meters mals." Habitat fragmentation is one of the wide. In landscape ecology, any linear Current definitions emphasize that principle causes of the present landscapeelement, such as a road, ditch, a wildlife corridor (1) is a linear land- biodiversity crisis (Wilcox and Murphy trail, powerline right-of-way, riparian scape element (Hobbs 1992, Simberloff 1985), and wildlife corridors are the strip, habitat linkage, fencerow, and et al. 1992, and above), which (2) serves most widely advocated method forcoun- hedgerow, constitutes acorridor (Forman as a linkage between historically con- tering fragmentation effects (e.g., Noss and Baudry 1984). This definition is not nected habitatlnatural areas (Hobbs 1992 and Harris 1986). Corridors have been adequate for conservation biology ei- and above), and (3) is meant to facilitate recommended on all scales and for a ther, since some of these landscape ele- movement between these natural areas variety of habitats and species-from ments may aid while others hinder con- (Newmark in press, Soule 1991. road verge (roadside vegetation) con- servation objectives. The conservation Simberloffet al. 1992, and above). These nections in the highly developed function of these elements is also con- last two aspects distinguish wildlife cor- Wheatbelt of Australia for theCarnabyls text dependent-a right-of-way cutting ridors from other landscape corridors. cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus funereus through continuous forest can create latirostris) (Saunders 1990), to large- detrimental edge effects and be a barrier History of Wildlife Corridor Theory scale networks across North America to movement, but a right-of-way in an for large, wide-ranging carnivores (Noss urban setting may contain the last rem- Preston (1 962) was the first to sug- 1992). Corridors also have been recom- nants of native vegetation and serve as a gest possible conservation benefits of mended for endangered species such as conduit between habitat patches. linking reserves with corridors. He ex- the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides Many early conservation papers amined species-area curves for what he borealis) (Anonymous 1988 as cited in discussing corridors did not explicitly termed "isolates" and "samples." Iso- Simberloff et al. 1992) and Florida pan- define the term (e.g., Simberloff and lates, such as islands, contain complete ther (Felis concolor coni) (Noss and Cox 1987, Noss 1987, Harris and assemblages of species. Samples. in Harris 1986). The conservation func- Gallagher 1989), while others used the contrast, are a sample of a larger asseni- tion of corridors, however, remains a landscape ecology definition (Noss and blage (e.g., a park within a continent). widely debated issue (e.g., Simberloff Harris 1986). This resulted in confusion Preston found that for any given area. and Cox 1987, Noss 1987, Simberloff et over what was being advocated and isolates contained fewer species than al. 1992). Widespread recommendation muddled the debate (Simberloff et al. samples. He reasoned that this was and debate makes it imperative that ev- 1992). Perhaps because of this, more because samples were "at equilibrium" eryone working in the conservation field recent papers have given very precise with areas outside their boundaries (it.. understand the theoretical and empirical definitions resulting in a growing con- immigration and emigration allowed history of the corridor concept. The sensus regarding what is meant by a samples to support species at very low following is an overview of this history, wildlife corridor. A "faunal dispersal numbers, numbers which would lead to along with some recommendations for corridor" has recently been defined as a their extinction in isolates). Drawing future directions of corridor theory and "naturally occurring or restored native the parallel between "isolates" and re- research. linear landscape feature that connects serve systems. Preston advocated that

1 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. II & 12 1993 corridors be established between reserves primary reasons for corridors. Endangered Species to prevent faunal and floral collapse (see In the early to mid-1980s, the first UPDATE introductory quote). criticisms of corridors were made, in- Using Preston's work as a jumping- cluding the following: (1) habitat un- A forum for information exchange on off point, MacArthur and Wilson (1967) suitability of corridors-noting that ri- endangered species issues developed the theory of island biogeog- parian corridors will not serve as a con- SeptemberIOctober 1993 raphy, which predicted that any island duit for non-riparian species; (2) high Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 would maintain an equilibrium number rates of poaching or trapping in corri- R. Lynn Gooch...... Editor of species due to the counteracting forces dors; (3) the importanceofcorridor width Terry Root ...... Faculty Advisor of immigration (related to distance from and habitat variety for use by non-gener- Kimberly Hall ...... Editorial Assistant a source population) and extinction (re- alist species; (4)fearthat corridors would Ruth E. Polk ...... Editorial Assistant lated to island size). By the 1970s, this lead to the establishment of smaller re- Instructions for Authors: theory was being widely applied to habi- serves; (5) negation of the quarantine The Endangered Species UPDATE tat fragmentation and reserve design is- effect of isolation (e.g., allowing disease welcomes articles related to species sues, with habitat remnants and reserves to spread between populations); and, (6) protection in a wide range of areas being treated as "islands" in a sea of increased exposure to domestic animals including but not limited to: research and management activities and policy analyses development (see Shafer 1990). Several harboring disease (Frankel and Soul6 for endangered species, theoretical of those applying the theory advocated 198 1, Soul6 and Simberloff 1986). approaches to species conservation, and corridorsbetween reserves (Willis 1974, Frankel and Soul6 (198l)did note, how- habitat protection. Book reviews, editorial Diamond 1975,Wilsonand Willis 1975). ever, that small, closely spaced reserves comments, and announcements of current Although not explicitly stated, the rea- would need corridors to maintain larger events and publications are also welcome. soning seemed to be that corridors in- animals. Readers include a broad range of crease immigration rates and decrease Frankel and Soul6 (198 1) were also professionals in both scientific and policy extinction rates (due to greater available the first to advocate wider corridors. fields. Articles should be written in an easily understandable style for a knowl- area), thereby increasing the equilib- This followed Wilson and Willis' edgeable audience. For further informa- rium number of species in a given re- (1975529) contention that even thin tion, contact the editor. serve (Newmark in press). corridors would serve a conservation A slight modification of island bio- function: "extinction will be lower when Subscription Information: The Endangered Species UPDATE is geographic theory occurred in 1977when the fragments are connected by corri- published approximately ten times per year Brown and Kodric-Brown introduced dors of natural habitat, no matter how by the School of Natural Resources and the concept of the "rescue effect." They thin the corridors." Though Frankel and Environment at The University of pointed out that immigration could de- Soul6 (1981:109) advocated wider cor- Michigan. Annual rates are $23 for regular subscriptions, and $18 for students and crease the extinction risk of an isolated ridors, they followed this advice with, senior citizens (add $5 for postage outside population by boosting local numbers "Granted, corridors should be established the US). Students please enclose advisor's and increasing genetic diversity (lead- wherever possible," seeming to echo signature on university letterhead. Send ing to increased fitness). This concept Wilson and willis' statement that any check or money order (payable to The only slightly modified island biogeo- corridor is better than none, regardless University of Michigan) to: graphic theory by altering predictions of width. Endangered Species UPDATE regarding turnover rate. It was an im- In the late 1980s, corridor theory School of Natural Resources portant addition for corridor theory, how- shifted away from an emphasison island and Environment ever, since many would cite the "rescue The University of Michigan biogeographic theory and its predictions Ann Arbor, MI 48 109-1 1 15 effect" as a possible corridor benefit of higher species numbers in connected (3 13) 763-3243 (e.g., Soul6 and Simberloff 1986). reserves, toward a species-level argu- Reserve design suggestions based ment based on metapopulation theory Cover: A corridor connecting a IOOha on island biogeographic theory (includ- reserve (center) to continuous forest in the (see below). Perhaps this switch re- Brazilian Amazon. Photo by R. ing corridors) were reprinted in a variety flected growing criticisms of island bio- Bierregaard. of conservation publications in the late geographic theory (see Shafer 1990), as 1970s to early 1980s (Simberloff et al. well as a growing disillusionment with The views expressed in the Endangered 1992). Some believe this led to aprema- Species UPDATE are those of the author species number (diversity) as a conser- and may not necessarily reflect those of the ture acceptance of the corridor concept vation objective, since one can increase US Fish and Wildlife Service or The (Simberloff et al. 1992). In 1984,Harris local diversity while decreasing regional University of Michigan. published "The Fragmented Forest" in diversity (e.g., Noss 1983). Regarding which he argued for riparian corridors, the first point, Miller and Harris (1977) Production of this issue was made possible in part by support from the Chevron wide enough to prevent blowdown, link- argued that reserve designs arising from Corporation and the International ing proposed "old growth islands." He island biogeographic theory can be jus- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. cited need for genetic flow and immi- tified by evoking only species-area rela- Chevron gration, as well as increaseddiversity, as tionships, indicating that criticisms of M B c3printed on recycled paper

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Specles UPDATE 2 island biogeography theory do not di- Table 1. Species distinctions and related questions relevant to corridor work. rectly criticize the validity of these de- Species Categories Relevant Questions signs. I I 1. Edge vs. Interior species Unlike island biogeography, Do residency rates and movement rates metapopulation theory (Levins 1970) 2. Exotic vs. Native species through the corridor differ between applies to individual species and does groupings? How does this change with changing corridor parameters? not have to assume a "source" popula- 3. Regionally abundant vs. tion. This theory addresses the popula- I Regionally rare species tion dynamics of species with spatially I I patchy population structures linked by 4. Generalist vs. Specialist dispersal (Gilpin 1987). Metapopulation How do habitat requirements and a structure may occur in a naturally het- 5. Coarse-grain vs. Fine-grain species' perception of the environment (see Pianka 1988) affect the utility of corridors (i.e., a erogeneous landscape, or may be a re- species' ability to distinguish and sult of habitat fragmentation (Merriam utilize corridors)? 1991). Population survival within such 6. Naturally fragmented vs. Naturally continuous habitat a structure is thought to depend on the rate of local extinctions within patches, and the rate of immigration between potential for corridors to serve as an sis has been placed on the need to design patches. If a species is prone to local entry route for weedy or exotic species; corridors specifically for native, conser- extinctions and the local extinction rate (5) economic factors, including higher vation-priority target species (e.g., Soul6 is greater than the patch recolonization management cost due to high edge-inte- 1991). In addition, increasing aware- rate, local extinctions will accumulate in rior ratio and the cost of building bridges ness of the negative impacts of edge the landscape and will eventually lead to over corridors;(6) the conflict with other effects (Harris 1988, Yahner 1988) and metapopulation extinction (in somecases conservation acquisitions; and, (7) out- the impact of roads on wildlife, both as this may be equivalent to species or breeding depression. They also sug- barriers and sources of mortality (Bennett subspecies extinction). If corridors be- gested that translocations of animals 1991), has led most theorists to recom- tween patches enhance immigration,then might be as effective as corridors and mend wide, continuous corridors (e.g., they can (1) allow recolonization of ex- less costly. Noss (1987), replying to this Hobbs and Hopkins 1991, Noss 1987, tinct patches, (2) boost local population critique, emphasized the urgent need for 1991). Optimum corridor width is a growth, (3) provide gene-flow (if some strategies to counter fragmentation. The much-raised question, with most claim- immigrantsbreed), and (4) enhance over- fact that the natural landscape had been ing it will be situation specific. Harrison all metapopulation survival (Merriam connected in the past seemed to him to (1992) suggested that width be based on 1991). be the best argument for corridors. He home range requirements. Others (e.g., also emphasized that natural connectiv- Newmark in press) have used edge ef- Current Wildlife Corridor Theory ity should notresult in outbreedingprob- fect data to determine minimum accept- lems, that corridors may enable some able width. Recently, corridor theory has be- species to avoid predation, and that trans- The first theoretical model on corri- come a very popular issue resulting in locations would not be sufficient for dor capability was developed by Soul6 multiple publications and the develop- suites of species. Other recent argu- and Gilpin (1991). Scoring "success" as ment of the first theoretical models. In ments for corridors have included ac- an animal reaching the connected patch, 1987, Simberloff and Cox presented the commodation of range shifts due to cli- they found that success increased as- first full-scale critique of corridors. Al- mate change (e.g., Graham 1988), fire ymptotically with increased width, sug- though they acknowledged that com- escape function (Noss 199 I), and main- gesting that corridors have an optimum dors could have all the advantages out- tenance of process connectivity (Noss width determined by edge effect-nar- lined above, could beimportant for wide- 1991). Recent arguments against corri- row corridors had high mortality rates, ranging species, and could constitute dors include (1) the possibility that they but animals tended to "wander" in wider important habitat "in its own right," they will be a demographic sink (Soult and corridors. They also found a linear cor- felt that many of the possible negative Gilpin 1991) and (2) the paucity of data ridor shape to be superior to all other impacts had been ignored. Building on on both inbreeding depression and small shapes modelled. the earlier arguments against corridors population risk (Simberloff et al. 1992). (Frankel and Soul6 1981, Soul6 and Most recent theorists have sided in Wildlife Corridor Research Simberloff 1986), they noted the fol- favor of corridors despite critiques-the lowing: (1) the paucity of data on corri- feeling seems to be that they are the best, Since one of the principle argu- dor use; (2) the lack of sufficient con- although by no means perfect, solution ments against corridors is that there is no trols in corridor field studies; (3) the risk to a complex problem (e.g., Harris and evidence of their utility, a review of the of spread of catastrophes through coni- Atkins 1991). As hesitation has grown research that has been conducted is of dors (predators, fire, disease); (4) the among advocates, an increased empha- primary importance. Studies have ex-

3 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 amined species richness effects, popula- cristata) leaving and entering a woodlot preferentially used fencerows for move- tion dynamics, and corridor utilization, used fencerows. Jays were also ob- ment (77-92% of distance moved). with as well as gap, width, and composition served to fly into fencerows when hawks higher use of fencerows by translocated effects. appeared. animals. Bennett (1990) found that all Speciesrichness. Few studies have Demonstrating that corridors are of the eight small mammals known to examined whether corridors increase used preferentially for movement across occur regionally in Narinpal. Australia species number in the manner predicted the landscape (e.g., between patches) is were present in corridors. In addition, by theory. MacClintock (1977) found very difficult (seeNicholls and Margules movements between corridor trap sites high avifauna species richness in a 35 1991, Inglis and Underwood 1992). and sites withinpatches,as well as move- acre fragment connected by acorridor to Studies which have attempted to ad- ments between patches viacorridor sites. a larger forest patch (fragment species dress this have compared corridor with were recorded for certain species. This composition similar to extensive areas). non-corridor sites, examined movement study, however, has been criticized be- However, this study failed to control for patterns of individuals (radio-collared cause of its failure to trap outside of close proximity of the fragment to ex- or trapped), or used presencelabsence corridors (Simberloffet al. 1992). In an tensive forest (Margules et al. 1982). In data to infer utilization of corridors. experimental study involvingenclosures contrast, Dmowski and Kozakiewicz Haas (unpubl.) found significantly (Lorenz and Barrett 1990). house mice (1 990) found no difference between con- more interpatch movement by Ameri- (Mus musculus) were found to move nected and unconnected areas of a lit- can robins (Turdusmigratorius) between along vegetated strips connecting patches toral zone. patches connected by wooded riparian of plantedoats (Avenasati~la),with pref- Population dynamics. Many stud- corridors compared to unconnected erence for strips containing split-rail ies have looked at the effect of corridors patches. Similarly, Dmowski and fencing. In a bird banding study in the on population dynamics. Models and Kozakiewicz (1990) found more bird Wheatbelt of Australia, Saunders and de field data indicate higher population movement between forest and littoral Rebeira (1991) found that movements grohth rates for white-footed mice zones connected by a shrub corridor of 15 out of 17 species that were recap- (Peromyscus leucopus) in woodlots con- (66% of movements) than between tured appeared confined to the network nected by fencerows versus isolated unconnected zones (29%). In an experi- of verges and reserves. woodlots (Fahrig and Merriam 1985). mental study with meadow voles (La Clearly, the majority of corridor Similarly, La Polla and Barrett (1993) Polla and Barrett 1993), higher male work to date has focused on ubiquitous found higher meadow vole (Microtus dispersal occurred between patches with and small-sized species that are not "tar- pennsylvanicus) densities when corri- corridors than those without (no differ- get species" for conservation efforts. dors were present in their treatments, ence found for female voles). Tracking An exception to this is the radio-track- and Dmowski and Kozakiewicz (1990) verified that this dispersal had occurred ing work Beir (1993, Beir and Barrett found higher abundances of non-littoral via the corridors. Szacki (1987) re- 1993, Beirunpubl.) hasdone with moun- birds in littoral areas connected via a corded 50 movements of 3 1 individual tain lions (Felis concolor) in the subur- corridor. Construction of a rock corri- bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) ban matrix of southern California. Part dor beneath a road bisecting breeding between a coniferous forest patch con- of the aim of this work was to examine areas of the rare mountain pygmy-pos- nected to a larger forest by a shrub the use of two intra-range corridors and sum (Burramys parvus) allowed male corridor, compared to no movement from one inter-range corridor. Beir found dispersal and resulted in higher adult an isolatedpatch. However, the isolated that of nine dispersing cougars, tive female survival (Mansergh and Scotts patch was smaller and farther away than found and used one or more of these 1989). Pygmy-possum use of the corri- the linked area. In the same study, corridors. One individual used an intra- dor was verified by self-triggered cam- Szacki observed no isolation effect for range corridor successfully at least 22 eras. In a laboratory study involving the yellow-backed mouse (Apodemus times. In a similar study, radio-collared two species of Drosophila (D,hydei and flavicollis). Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi) D. pseudoobscura), connections be- A number of studies haveexamined have been observed to use narrow forest tween experimental systems lowered the movement patterns in connected sys- strips connecting larger areas (Maehr extinction rate for one species (D. tems to see if movement would occur 1990). pseudoobscura) (Forney and Gilpin along corridors. Henderson et al. (1 985) For some species, corridors may 1989). simulated a local extinction by exhaus- not be necessary for movement across Corridor utilization. Corridors tively trapping Eastern chipmunks the landscape. Arnold et al. (1991) abutting larger habitat areas are used by (Tamias striatus) from woodlots. "Ex- concluded that although verges were certain species. Wegner and Merriam tinct" patches were readily recolonized. used by kangaroos (Macropus (1979) found high rates of movement In addition, 90% of all recorded move- fuliginosus and M. robustus) for both between woodlots and adjoining ments were known to have occurred residency and movement, they were not fencerows for birds and small mam- along fencerows. required for movement between rein- mals. Johnson and Adkisson (1985) In a radio-tracking study (Merriam nants. In aradio-tracking study of trans- noted that 91 % of blue jays (Cyanocitta and Lanoue 1990), white-footed mice located and resident koalas

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 4 (Phascolarctoscinereus),Prevett (199 1) observed an increase in the number of Where Do We Go from Here? found that all translocated individuals, species and functional groupings present as well as two out of four residents. for ants as the verges sampled increased The first step for corridor theorists crossed open areas. Seasonal shifts in in width and changed to native vegeta- and researchers to take is to agree upon the presencelabsence of frugivorous pi- tion. For birds in the Australian a definition for the term "wildlife corri- geons in rainforest fragments led Date et Wheatbelt, a significant positive trend dor." If there is agreement that wildlife al. (1991) to conclude that "stepping was found between number of re~nnant- corridors refer to natural landscape ele- stone" remnants along an elevation gra- dependent species and road verge width ments linking historically connected dient were sufficient for the movement (Saunders and de Rebeira 1991). Lynch habitat patches, then, for example, the of these birds. It is important to note that and Saunders (1991) also observed that fact that roads or trails serve as conduits all of these studies were set in an agricul- Australian birds dependent on native for exotic species is no longer directly tural matrix; in a less hospitable matrix vegetation tended to be found in wider, relevant to the corridor debate. Given (urbanization), results may havediffered. more densely vegetated corridors. agreement on a definition, the question Effect of gaps, width, and compo- A model developed by Henein and will then become: "Under whatcircum- sition on corridor function. Corridor Merriam (1990) also provides insight stances will wildlife corridors serve a function is thought to be hindered by the into this issue of width/composition by conservation function?" presence of gaps. Some observational pointing out the importance of main- The major dispute in corridortheory data from Lovejoy et al. (1 986) supports taining high-quality connections be- is not whether corridors will serve a this theory. They found that ant birds tween patches. They examined connectivity function, but rather what declined and finally disappeared from a metapopulation dynamics with varying kind of connectivity they will supply. IOOha plot of forest when a 300m gap corridor "quality," where corridors of Will they serve as corridors for exotics was created in a 2km corridor connect- lower "quality" had higher simulated and disease, for native target species, or ing the plot to extensive forest. mortality rates. They found that for two both? Future research should empha- Width and vegetational composi- isolated patches, adding aconnection of size such distinctions in species type, tion often vary together; Arnold (1987 any quality increased metapopulation examining which types of specles uti- as cited in Panetta and Hopkins 1991) size. However, beyond such an addi- lizecorridors and how this changes with found that weed invasion in road verges tion, increasing the number of highqual- changing corridor conditions (width. was inversely related to corridor width. ity corridors increased metapopulation length, composition). The beginnings Some experimental studies and models, size, but additional low-quality corri- of such an approach are already evident however, have allowed for the separa- dors decreased metapopulation size in certain papers (Lynch and Saunders tion of these variables. La Polla and (even if this meant adding anew patch to 1991, Saunders and de Rebeira 199 1 ). Barrett (1993) found no difference in a high-quality network). Species categories that might be impor- meadow vole densities between tant to study and associated ques- treatments with one meter ver- tions that research and theory sus five meter wide corridors. could address are outlined in However, interpatch dispersal Table I (page 3). In addition, it of male voles was higher for the will be useful for researchers narrower corridor. They postu- and designers of corridors to lated that this was due to the distinguish the type of move- wider corridors being perceived ment and habitat they are at- as patch extensions and not as tempting to conserve within a corridors per se. Baur and Baur corridor. Stenseth and L~dicker (1992) simulated width effects (1992) refer to three types of based on empirical data for the movement: ( I ) dispersal-one land snail (Ariantaarbustorum), way movement away from a and found that dispersal distance home site; (2)migration-round increased with width. trip movements: and, 13) move- Studies that have looked at ments-individual movements the combined effects of width (e.g., around a home range). In and composition tend to find addition, they distinguish be- tween three habitat types: (I) preference for wider and more Figure 1. Two models for corridor movement. Model A.illus- complex corridors. Merriam and trates movement patterns expected when the corridor is com- transitional habitat-habitat Lanloue (1990) found that posed of transitional habitat: the corridor facilitates dispersal suitable only for movement of a white-footed micepreferentially (long arrows) and migration only. Model B illustrates move- disperser; (2) marginal habitat- ment patterns expected when the corridor contains survival habitat allowing survival and chose widercorridors with more habitat throughout: animals establish residency throughout complex vegetation for move- the corridor with home range movements (short arrows) sometimes reproduction; and, (3) ment. Keals and Majer (1991) occuring within the corridor. survival habitat-"good habi-

5 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 tat," in which both survival and repro- lia. 332. Harris. L.D, and K. A~kins.109 1. Fau11;ll IIIOYC- duction can occur. Amold,G.W., J.R. Weeldenberg, and D.E. Steven. 1991. Distribution and abundance of two spe- Inent co~~idorsin Florida. W.E. Hutluon (ctl.). Why are these distinctions impor- cies of kangaroo in remnants of native vegeta- 117-134. tant for corridor theory? If a corridor tion in the central wheatbelt of Western Austm- Harris. L.D, and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New inili;l- provides survival habitat, movement may lia and the role of native vegetation along road tives for wildlife co~~servation:thc nectl for be as shown in Figure 1, Model B, (page verges and fencelines as linkages. Saunders movement corridors. 111:Preservi~igCo~~l~~i~~t~i- and Hobbs (eds.). 273-280. ties and Corridors, pp. 11-34. G. Mnckinlosli 5), with residents established through- Baur, A. and B. Baur. 1992. Effect of corridor (ed.). DefenderswfWildlife. Woshinglon. I1.C. out the corridor and moving within their width on animal dispersal: a simulation study. Harris, L.D. and J. Scheck. 1991. Fro111i111plic;l- tions toapplications: thedispersal corridorprin- home ranges. In this situation, thelength Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 252- . . of the corridor is no longer an issue. 56. ciple applied to the conservafio;i of biologic;ll Beir, P. Unpublished manuscript. Dispersing cou- diversity. Saunders and Hohhs (ctls.). 189-220. There is no need for an individual to gars use corridors in fragmented habitat. Hamson, R.L. 1992. T~w;~rda theory 01' 1111er- reach the other patch, since survival and Beir, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas refugecorridordesign Conscrv. Hiol. 6(2):293- reproduction can occur in the corridor. and habitat corridors for cougars. Conserv. 295. If, however, the corridor provides only Biol. 7(1):94- 108. Henderson. M.T.. G. Merrin~n,and J. Wcgncr. Beir, P. and Barrett, R.H. 1993. The cougar in the 1985. Patchy environments :uid species sur- transitional habitat, only dispersers Santa Ana mountain range, California. Final vival: chip~iiunksin an ;lgricullural ~iios;~ic. would be expected to move through the Report. Orange County Cooperative Mountain Biol. Conserv. 31 :95- 105. corridor (Figure 1, Model A). In this Lion Study. Henein. K. andG. Merria~n.1990. Tlicclc~~~c~it~of case length is a critical issue, since dis- Bennett, A.F. 1990. Habitat corridors and the connectivity where co~~idorqualityis variahlc. conservation of small mammals in a fragmented Landscape Ecol. 4: 157-170. persers must reach the other patch to forest landscape. Landscape Ecol. 4: 109- 122. Hobbs, R.J. 1992. The role ofcorritlors ill coriscr- reproduce. Bennett, A.F. 1991. Roads, roadsides, and wildlife vation: solution or b;intlwagon'? TREE The issue of corridor width also is conservation. Saunders and Hobbs (eds.). 99- 7(11):389-392. affected by these distinctions. SoulC 117. Hobbs,R.J.andA.J.M. Hopkins. 1991.Tlicrolcof Brown, J.H.and A.C.Gibson. 1983.Biogeography. conservation corridors in a changing climalc. and Gilpin (1991) postulated that there C.V. Mosby, St. Louis, MO. Saunders and Hobbs (eds.). 281-290 may be an optimum corridor width since Brown, J.H. and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turn- Hudson. W.E. (ed.) 1991. Landscnpc Linkngcr, animals would wander in wider corri- over rates in insular biogeography: effect of and Biodiversity. Island Press. Washinglon. dors and not reach the connected patch. immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445- D.C. 449. Inglis, G.and A.J. Underwood. 1992. Co~~il~ic~its However, animals only need to reach Date, E.M., H.A. Ford, and H.F. Recher. 1991. on some designs proposed for cxperi~iic~~tson the connected patch if the corridor is Frugivorous pigeons, stepping stones and weeds the biological irnpo~tanceof corridors Co~l- transitional habitat. If the corridor pro- in northern New South Wales. Saunders and serv. Biol. 6(4):581-586. vides survival habitat, then gettingcaught Hobbs (eds.). 49-61. Johnson, W.C. and C.S. Adkisson. Dispersal of Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons beech nuts by blue jays in fragmented land- in a corridor is really no worse then of modem biogeographic studies for the design scapes. Am. Midl. Nat. 1 13(2):319-324. getting caught in a reserve. of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv. 7: 129- 146. Keals, N. and J.D. Majer. 199 1. Thc conscrvarion Dmowski, K. and M. Kozakiewicz. 1990. Influ- status of ant comniunities along the Wuhin- Conclusion ence of a shrub corridor on movements of Perenjori corridor. Saunders a~idHobbs (etlr,.). passerine birds to a lake littoral zone. Land- 387-393. scape Ecol. 4:99-108. La Polla. V.N. and G.W. Barrett. 1993. Et'fccls of Many researchers haveemphasized Fahrig, L. and G. Memam. 1985. Habitat patch corridor width and presence on the populnrio~i that the use of corridors will be species connectivity and population survival. Ecology dynamics of the meadow vole (Mic,roi~r.v and situation specific. One goal of sci- 66(6): 1762- 1768. pennsy1vunicu.c). Landscape Ecol. 8(1):25-37. Forman, R.T.T. and J. Baudry. 1984. Hedgerows Levins, R. 1970. Extinction. In: SonieMatIicmati- ence, however, is to search for generali- and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology. cal Questions in Biology. Lccrurcs 011 Mntli- ties. Finding such ecological generali- Environ. Manage. 8(6):495-5 10. ematics in the Life Sciences, Vol. 2.. pp. 77- ties or principles for corridor utilization Forney, K.A. and M.E.Gilpin. 1989. Spatial struc- 107. M. Gerstenhaber (etl.). A~ilcricnnMnlli- will be the task of corridor workers in ture and population extinction: a study with ematical Society, Providence. RI. Drosophilu flies. Conserv. Biol. 3(1):45-5 1. Lorenz.G.C, andG.W. Barrett. 1990. I~illucnccof the years to come. Preservation of our Frankel, O.H. and M.E. Soul6. 1981. Conserva- simulated landscape corridors on house ~ilousc native biota, particularly the large carni- tion and Evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, (Mus n~usc,ulus)dispersal. Am. Mitll. N;it vores, may well depend on our ability to Cambridge, MA. 123:348-356 successfully address this issue. Gilpin, M.E, 1987. Spatial structure and popula- Lovejoy. T.E., K.O. Bierregaard Jr., A.H. Rylantls. tion vulnerability. In. Viable Populations for J.R Malcolm.C.E.Quintela. L.H. Harper, K S Conservation, pp. 125-139. M.E. SoulC (ed.). BrownJr.,A.H. Powell.G.V.N. Powell.H.O.It. Literature Cited Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. Schubart, and M.B. Hays. 1986. Edgcandolhcr Graham, R.W. 1988.Theroleofclimatechangein effects of isolation on Amazon forest I'r;~g- Anonymous 1988. Blackwater-Eglin Connector the design of biological reserves: the paleoeco- ments. In: Conservation Biology: the Science File No. 8801 3 1-57-1, CARL Program. Florida logical perspective for conservation biology. of Scarcity and Diversity. pp 257-285 M E. Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Conserv. Biol. 2(4):391-394. Soul6 (ed.). Sinauer Associates. Suntlcrlantl. FL. Haas, C.A. Unpublished manuscript. Dispersal MA. Arnold,G.W., D. Algar, R.J. Hobbs,and L. Atkins. and useof corridors by birds in wooded patches Lynch, J.F and D A. Saunders. 199 1. Kesponsc 1987. A survey of vegetation and its relation- on an agricultural landscape. of bird species to habitat fiagmenration ill ~hc ship to vertebrate fauna present in winter on Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. Univ. wheatbelt ofwestern Australia: intcriors,edgcs. road verges in the Kellerberrin District. In: WA of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. and corridors. Saunders and Hohbs (cds.). 143- Technical Report 18. Department of Conserva- Harris, L.D. 1988. Edge effects and conservation 158. tion and Land Management, Western Austra- of biotic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 2(4):330- MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. Tlic

(Cor~tinuedon UPDATE r,ure 121

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 6 Georgia's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Progam by Robin Russel and Jim Ozier

Since the birth of the Endangered supporting the Program, were moved to designate these species for protection Species Act (ESA) twenty years ago. directly to the office of the DNR Com- under the Acts. The Board of Natural nongame and endangered wildlife man- missioner. [The Protected Plant Pro- Resources, consisting of 15 appointees agement in Georgia has undergone many gram was reorganized to form the Geor- named by the governor, was directed to changes. Much of this change has taken gia Natural Heritage Inventory. AI- issue rules and regulations allowing for place within the government agency re- though funding for this program came the protection of these species and en- sponsible for Georgia's endangered spe- from sources other than the checkoff, forcement of the Acts. The rules created cies. Originally, natural resource pro- the program was moved at this time to by the Board categorize protected spe- tection and management was the re- the Commissioner's Office.] cies as endangered, threatened, rare, or sponsibility of four divisions-Coastal Within a couple of years, the unusual, and all categories receive equal Resources; Environmental Protection; Nongame Program outgrew its fledg- protection under Georgia's Acts. State Parks, Recreation, and Historic ling confines and was moved, as was the The original list of protected spe- Sites; and Wildlife Resources (recently GeorgiaNatural Heritage Program, back cies was approved in 1975 and under- changed from Game and Fish Division to the WildlifeResourcesDivision. More went only minorchanges until 1991. At to better reflect a more holistic ap- recently, management of coastal that time, acomprehensive revision pro- proach)-all of which were scattered nongame and endangered wildlife was cess was initiated to bring the list up to throughout the state government. Under moved from the Coastal Resources Di- date. The list then included 58 plants. 2 a reorganization initiative in the early vision back to the Nongame and Endan- fish, 1 amphibian. 4 reptiles. 7 birds. and 1970s by then-Governor Jimmy Carter. gered Wildlife Program. 7 mammals; no invertebrates were in- the Department of Natural Resources Georgia's Nongame and Endan- cluded. Input was solicited from aca- (DNR) was established to bring together gered Wildlife Program is unique among demic and professional communities, as and house these four separate entities. efforts within the DNR in that it crosses well as private citizens, and a list of In the mid- 1970s an Endangered division lines. Nongame funds are used species to be considered for addition or Species Program and a Protected Plant for projects within the Wildlife Re- deletion was developed. The list which Program were established for the pur- sources, State Parks, Recreation and His- finally passed the Board of Natural Re- pose of managing all the state's endan- toric Sites, and Coastal Resources Divi- sources in 1993 included 103 plants, I0 gered animal and plant species, respec- sions. The directors of these Divisions invertebrates, 55 fish, 7 amphibians, 13 tively. These programs originally were foster and encourage strong, intra-divi- reptiles, 16 birds, and 10 mammals. administered by the Game Management sional working relationships between Duringdevelopment of the list, sev- Section within the Game and Fish Divi- DNR associates. Wildlife biologists eral concerns arose that are worth men- sion. However, in the early 1980s, re- often find themselvesassisting state park tioning. Some people were apprehen- sponsibility for management of all managers with wildlife habitat manage- sive that the list would be "too big." and coastal endangered animals moved to ment on park lands, and park interpre- that amoreconservativeapproach should the Coastal Resources Division. tive naturalists assist managers of wild- be taken to make the list more politically As nonconsumptive recreation re- life management areas in constructing palatable. Others argued from a purely lating to wildlife gainedpopularity, state wildlife and nature trails on these lands. biological viewpoint that many eligible officials recognized the need to initiate species deserving protection were ornit- management of nongame wildlife in Georgia's EndangeredWildlife Act ted. These differing opinions became general. The Endangered Species Pro- especially apparent as the DNR debated gram became the Nongame and Endan- In 1973, closely following the en- how to treat species that were rare or of gered Wildlife Program in 1985 when actment of the ESA, Georgia passed the restricted range in Georgia, but were the Nongame WildlifeConservation and Endangered Wildlife Act (EWA) common or widespread elsewhere. In Habitat Acquisitions Fund legislation (O.C.G.A. 27-3- 130)and the Wildflower order to help maintain genetic and geo- was passed by the state. This law also Preservation Act (WPA) (O.C.G.A. 12- graphic diversity, a decision was made provided for a state income tax checkoff 6-170). These pieces of legislation di- to protect species in this category. to fund the Program. Once this legisla- rected the DNR to identify any plant and Another major issue that arose dur- tion passed, administration of the animal species determined to be rare, ing the development of the list had to do Nongame Program, along with funds unusual, or in danger of extinction, and with the definition of public lands. The

7 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 EWA of 1973 stipulates that "such rules ernments. During development of the found in the WPA was determined to be and regulations shall not affect rights in protected species list in 1993, the DNR applicable to the EWA, rather than the private property or in public or private encountered resistance from a develop- rule's more liberal definition. streams, nor ...impede construction of ment company, a timber company, a any nature" and "shall be limited to the reptile dealer, and a private landowners' Funding Sources regulation of the capture, killing, or sell- association. Although the finalized list ing of protected species and the protec- did pass the Board, these interest groups The state income tax checkoff, the tion of habitat of the species on public insisted on a number of changes in the first in Georgia's history, went into ef- lands." The 1973 WPA defines "public rules. One of these changes was to fect with the 1989 tax year. Not wanting lands" as those "owned by the state or exclude federal and local government to delay nongame and endangered wild- which are subject to the dominion and lands from the definition ofpublic lands. life project work, Georgia's governor control of this state and which are not While proponents of the new list op- issued $325,000 in challenge grants in owned and controlled by any private posed these changes, it was determined 1987. An executive cotnlnittee made up person." Soon after its formation, the from a legal standpoint that the change of prominent business leaders and con- Board of Natural Resources issued a was indeed necessary, because a Board cerned individuals initiated a fundraising rule that expanded the definition ofpub- ruling cannot supersede the authority campaign that met the Governor's chnl- lic lands to include those under the con- delegated the Board by law. Thus, the lenge, raising more than $425,000. trol of the United States and local gov- conservative definition of"public lands" Innovative funding strategies were

Sea Turtle Conservation in Georgia

Coastal Georgia, with its offshore waters, largely unde- veloped beaches in particular has been the implementation of veloped barrier islands, and expanses of highly-productive local ordinances restricting beach lighting during the turtle saltmarshes and estuaries (28 percent of all the marshes and nesting period (May-October). estuaries in the world exist in Georgia), presents an especially Researchers have been tagging and monitoring nesting diverse array of management needs for listed species. Sea sea turtles in Georgia for several years. These studies provide turtles are among these species with special needs. information on movement and migratory patterns, nesting Five species of sea turtle- the green (Chelonia mydas), frequency, number of clutches per year, nesting beach fidel- hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback ity, growth rates, and population parameters such as (Dermochelyscoriacea),Kemp'sridley(kpidochelyskempii), survivorship, mortality rates, and population size. Georgia and loggerhead (Caretta caretta)-are found in Georgia's also participates in the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage coastal waters, withtheloggerhead by farthemost numerous. Network. Dead, beach-stranded turtles, including logger- The loggerhead is also the only sea turtle to nest on Georgia's heads, leatherbacks, and Kemp's ridleys, are recorded and barrier island beaches. related to mortality fac- An average of approxi- tors. Principal causes mately 1,000 logger- of death have included head nests are laid each entanglement in shrimp year; the recovery goal nets and offshore gill is 2,000 nests. A num- nets. Since the enforce- berof activities haveen- ment ofTul-tleExcluder hanced the loggerhead's Device (TED) regula- hatching success, such tions, beach-strandings as nest protection have been below aver- through relocation and age. Total annual screening,and feral hog stranding numbers have control through' trap- ranged from 1 17 to 805 ping and shooting. On in recent years. Leath- one island plagued in erbacks, however, are past years by heavy hog often too large to be predation, an intensive protected by TEDs on control program on the shrimp nets. Aerial sur- beach resulted in no veys out to eight miles detected hog predation Loggerhead sea turtles (Carefta caretta) and their recovery in Georgia are the at sea this spring de- in 1993, A factor con- focus of several Nongame Program projects and studies being conducted in tected 42 leatherbacks the state. One cause of death for this threatened species is entanglement in tributing increased shrimp nets. Enforcement of TED regulations has helped reduce loggerhead a of 1,5601in- hatching success on de- mortality in Georgia. (Photo by Georgia DNR.) ear survey miles.

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 8 initiated with the establishment of pro- interest in stateagency involvement with This large fish had been vaguely de- grams such as Adopt-an-Eagle, which endangered species research and man- scribed last century in South Carolina, provided the public with an opportunity agement, but general appropriations have but had not been reborted again until to support specific projects. Donations not been made available. Because we 1980 when one specimen was discov- are solicited also, with the public en- depend heavily on donations, a large ered in Georgia's Savannah River, and couraged to "earmark" donations for a proportion of our effort is linked to again in 1985 when another specimen particular wildlife species or project. projects that, while not necessarily bio- was discovered in the Pee Dee River in These funding campaigns work hand- logical priorities, are perceived to be North Carolina. More recently, how- in-hand with the DNR's public educa- popular with the public. Raptor hack- ever, biologists in the Wildlife Resources tion efforts, a strategy that began paying ing, for example, requires a lot of time Division's Fisheries Management Sec- off in the first checkoff year. With and money, but also attracts a great deal tion discovered eight specimens in the minimal resources for promotion, the of public attention and support. We Oconee River. The U.S. Fish and Wild- Nongame Program managed to raise hope that secure state funding becomes life Service(USFWS) is being petitioned $350,000, and checkoff proceeds dur- available soon, so our efforts can be for emergency listing of this species. ing the first four years have averaged directed into additional, biologically es- $437,250. sential areas of research and manage- Information and Education Unfortunately, this money is hardly ment [e.g., freshwater fishes and inver- sufficient to fund the type of nongame tebrates, gopher tortoise (Gopherus The Program's constant need for and endangered wildlife program Geor- polyphemus) burrow commensals, public awareness and fundraising makes giadesires. While checkoffs would be a biodiversity management in general], an information and education staff es- steady funding source in an ideal world, and into more comprehensive educa- sential. The Information and Education recessions and competing checkoffs re- tional programs. unit has grown from one individual in duce their appeal to taxpayers and make Lack of funding also limits staff 1989, to four in 1992. These staff mem- long-term planning difficult. Georgia's size and capabilities. Until 1993, the bers are responsible for all aspects of the DNR began supplementing the check- Program operated with only one or two Program's communications, including off immediately with "Weekend for field biologists. This year we brought the following: public relations; media Wildlife," an annual event that has di- the total at the main office to three, one relations; producing brochures, news- rectly raised more than $320,000. Indi- of whom will be responsible for the letters, posters, and promotional mate- rectly, "Weekend for Wildlife" has Breeding Bird Atlas that is just getting rial; writing television and radio public helped build a constituency among pri- underway. Also, the recently incorpo- service announcements; fundraising; vate corporations who regularly spon- rated coastal nongame and endangered and, coordinating special events. This sor nongame projects, business leaders wildlife programs added two biologists unit also works one-on-one with biolo- and legislators who willingly assist in and a technician to the overall staff. gists to coordinate most of the surveys fundraising or proposing legislation, and and projects that enlist public participa- prominent environmental and civic or- Nongame Small Grant Program tion. Although this unit has focused ganizations that help promote nongame primarily on the need to raisemoney and and endangered wildlife. We depend heavily on outside as- public awareness regarding nonganie More recently, a private group of sistance and have nurtured a highly quali- and endangered wildlife, it is creeping citizens has formed an organization fied networkof volunteers and scientific toward the goal of making education its called "The Environmental Resources advisors. This greatly enhances and main priority. Network" (T.E.R.N., Inc.). The sole diversifies the expertise and capabilities The Hummingbird Helper Sur- purpose of this group is to raise money of the Program. In 1989, a small grant vey has been a public relations and bio- for the Nongame and Endangered Wild- program was established to further draw logical research success inGeorgia. Each life Program. Some 120 people joined upon outside expertise. Project propos- year, more than 5,000 requests are made T.E.R.N. during its first six months of als are solicited and reviewed by a panel for the -Hummingbird Helper Survey accepting memberships, and the group before final approval. Awards average and the free Hummingbird Garden Seed has already begun funding several approximately $2,000, with those Packet distributed by the Nongame Pro- nongame projects. projects that deal with species of con- gram. When participants return their cern receiving the highest priority. Re- completed survey forms, the Nongame Program Obstacles cently funded studies have dealt with the Program sends them a Hummingbird gopher tortoise, bog turtle (Clemmys Helper decal for their participation The The largest obstacle facing muhlenbergii),alligator snapping turtle first survey year was 1989: at that time, Georgia's Nongame Program. as with (Macroclemys remminckii), and only the ruby-throated hummingbird rnany nongamelendangered wildlifepro- salamander and fish communities. We (Archilochus colubris) had ever been grams, is a lack of sufficient, depend- also are supporting research on the sta- seen in Georgia. Now theblack-chinned able funding. Surveys indicate that more tus and protection needs of the robust (Archilochus alexandri), rufous than 80 percent of Georgians have an redhorse (Moxostoma sp. c$ carinatum). (Selasphorus rufus), Anna's (Calypre

9 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Protected Plants Wood Storks

Botanists with the Natural Heritage Program are cur- Georgia's wetland habitat for wood stork (Mycterio rently conducting status surveys for the fringed campion americana) nesting and foraging becomes increasingly im- (Silene polypetala) and Alabama milkvine (Matelea portant to the bird's survival, as habitat in south Florida alabamensis). In addition, surveys are being conducted to becomes less suitable due to altered hydrology and develop- find new populations of Canby dropwort (Oxypoliscanbyi), ment. Biologists with the state's Nongame and Endangered for which management plans are being developed and the Wildlife Program have been conducting surveys of wood effects of habitat disturbance as- stork rookeries since the early sessed, and dwarf sumac (Rhus 1980s. In 1993. Georgia had coccinea),for which attempts are nine rookeries with a total of being made to establish extir- almost 1,600 nests. Production pated populations. Also, the Pro- was very good, with just u~~der gram is working in conjunction three young on average produced with the Atlanta Botanical Gar- per nest. In addition to rookery dens to reestablish populations surveys,biologists maintain ada- of green pitcherplants (Sarrace- tabase on reported wood stork nia oreophila) and Florida foraging sites. This information torreya (Torreya taxifolia). An- helps predict potential iri~pacts other function of the Natural of development projects affect- Heritage Program is to work with ingparticular wetlands. Since the landowners interested in manag- late 1980s, Georgia's Program ing protected plantson theirprop- has worked with theUSFWS and erty. Technical assistance is pro- the Army CEO in overseeing the vided to help ensure perpetua- restoration of a drained rookery. tion of protected plant popula- The project, completed in 199 1, Wetland habitat in Georgia for n.esting and foraging be- was a successfulleffort, with a and a data- comes more importantto wood stork(Mycteriaamericana) base of occurence records helps populations as habitat in south ~l~~id~becomes less high number of storks returning mitigate development damages. suitable. (Photo by Georgia DNR.) to the site to nest in 1993. anna), and broad-tailed (Selasphorus The Nongame Program provides the artwork published on a poster distrib- platycercus) hummingbirds have been feeder and the first 50 Ib. bag of bird uted throughout all Georgia public and discovered and banded in Georgia. A seed, along with field guides and video private schools. More than 12,000 stu- network of hummingbird helpers have tapes to help teach nursing home resi- dents participated in 1992. made these discoveries possible. dents about the birds they see at their To augment the "Give Wildlife A To encourage Georgians to feed feeders. Studies have shown that bird Chance Poster Contest," the Nongame birds during the winter and learn more watching is mentally and physically Program is working with primary school about bird feeding practices, the therapeutic for nursing home residents, teachers to produce educational units Nongame Program has initiated a Wild and with the hope that all nursing and in accordance with the Department of Bird Feeding Survey. Pennington Bird retirement homes here are adopted, the Education'scurriculum guides. The units Seed Manufacturers has been recruited Nongame Program is continuing to pro- consist of information and learning ac- as a co-sponsor of this project, and has mote this project. tivities for teachers to use in their class- helped secure commitments from large On the other end of our constitu- rooms, and will be designed for kinder- bird seed distributors-Kroger grocery ency spectrum, the Nongame Program garten through the fifth grade. The stores, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart has a number of educational projects for Nongame Program is producing a series stores-throughout Georgia to put the school-aged children, the most popular of 15-minute films on endangered spe- survey forms on display in their stores. being the Give Wildlife A Chance cies for children, the first of which was Millions of Georgians will have access Poster Contest. Co-sponsored with the an award-winning film entitled "Talk- to these survey forms. State Botanical Garden of Georgia, this ing About Sea Turtles." The units and Several years ago, the Nongame state-wide contest was designed to en- films will be packaged together and made Program initiated aNursing Home Bird courage school teachers to incorporate available to any school teacher wishing Feeder Project, in which civic clubs nongame and endangered wildlife into to use them. and organizations were encouraged to their curriculum. The contest provides a Toenhance urban wildlife habitats, participate. These groups adopt a nurs- fun, educational activity for students. the Nongame Program has developed a ing home in their area and make a com- State winners are selected in four cat- new program called the Community mitment to maintain a bird feeder there. egories, and are honored by having their Wildlife Project, in which a commu-

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 10 nity-a city or town of any size, a sub- are not necessarily committed by hunt- 2000 land acquisition program. Thegoal division, or neighborhood-can be cer- ers; and, (2) to teach young hunters of Preservation 2000 is to purchase for tified as a wildlife community. The about the seriousness of shooting rap- state ownership "the best of the rest." Nongame Program is developing a set of tors, to teach them how to identify rap- One of the governor's priorities is to criteria by which communities will be tors in the wild, and to foster in them acquire 100,000acres of land to be man- judged, and the Garden Club of Georgia ethical hunting practices. aged as state parks, natural areas, and has been enlisted to promote and lead wildlife management areas. To date, this project within these communities Habitat Loss $42 million has been raised through an throughout the state. increase in the cost of hunting and fish- Bald eagle shootings have become Habitat loss, degradation, and frag- ing licenses, general obligation bonds, a terrible problem for Georgia-more mentation is an increasingly overwhelm- federal funds, and cash donations. than five eagles were shot during 1992. ing obstacle in Georgia. This state has The northern spotted owl (Stri.~ The Nongame Program worked with the several rapidly growing urban areas that occidetltalls caurina) vs. old growth tor- Division's Law Enforcement Section to are spreading into the surroundingcoun- est logging controversy in the Pacific develop a new poster with the message tryside. These, along with particular Northwest might havea negative impact "Hunters Don't Shoot Eagles, Crimi- areas of heavy industrial activity, exerta on endangered species habitat in Geor- nals Do." These posters have been growing burden on terrestrial and aquatic gia. As wood production demands are distributed to hunting license dealers ecosystems. Extensive areas of inten- shifted from that area to the Southeast, and DNR offices throughout the state. A sive agriculture and forest management, additional habitat for red-cockaded technical bulletin on eagles and other especially in the southern half of the woodpeckers (RCW) (Picoides Ooreu- raptors also was produced for instruc- state, are also significant factors con- lis) may be jeopardized. Though by far tors of Hunter Safety courses. The poster tributing to the loss of habitat. most RCW clusters in Georgia are on and technical bulletin serve two pur- The Nongame and Endangered public land, working with the few pri- poses: (1) to inform non-hunters that Wildlife Program and the Natural Heri- vate landowners who have woodpeck- eagle shootings are not condoned by tage Program are involved in the site ers on their property is a top Program ethical hunters, and that these shootings evaluation process for the Preservation priority. Efficient resolution of RCW-

Protecting the Northern Right Whale

The waters off Georgia's southern coast, extending into Navy, and the Army Corps of Engineers. the coastal waters of northern Florida, provide the only known The Early Warning System provides whale location calving grounds for the remaining 300-350 northern (also information to dredge operators, harbor pilots, tug operators, known as North Atlantic) right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). and others who regularly use the calving grounds. The Surveys are used to gather population data and identify system requires daily aerial surveys of the most heavily used' individual whales. Dur- calving grounds to lo- ing the 1992 season, 13 cate whales. This in- cowlcalf pairs were formation is then pro- positively identified. vided to pilots and oth- However, during the ers through an estab- 1993 season, only 5 lished network of com- calves were confirmed munications. Vessel in Georgia and Florida operators use the infor- waters. Of the five, mation on whale distri- only three survived, bution to take increased One fatality was most precautions to avoid likely the result of natu- collisions. These pre- ral causes, whilethe set- Georgia's southern and Florida's northern coastal waters are the only known calving ground of the endangered northern right whale (Eubalaenaglacialis). cautions include pro- Occuredin a Only 300-350 of these giant mammals are left in the world. (Illustration by ceeding at the collision with a Coast David LanierIGeorgia DNR.) possible safe speeds at Guard craft. night or in fog if whales Georgia recently implemented an Early Warning System are sighted within ten nautical miles of the channel by the to reduce the risk of collisions between whales and vessels previous aerial survey. This system also requires vessels (collisions with ships is a major source of mortality for the traversing calving grounds to post shipboard watches to look northern right whale). Georgia helped develop the system for northern right whales. Through training sessions, Geor- with other agencies, including the New England Aquarium, gia has worked to educate and increase the awareness of Woods Hole, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. mariners who use the calving area.

11 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 priority. Efficient resolution of RCW- (Continued from UPDATE page 6) 22 1-240. timber harvest conflicts on private land Saunders, D.A. and C.B. Hobbs (eds). Nature Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey is important in stemming the tide of anti- Press, Princeton, N.J. Beatty, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, endangered species sentiment that seems MacClintock, L., R.F. Whitcomb, and B.L. Australia, 1991. to prevail in some circles. Whitcomb. 1977. Evidence for the value of Shafer, C.L. 1990. Nature reserves: Island Theory corridors and minimization of isolation in pres- and Conservation Practice. Smithsonian Insti- ervation of biotic diversity. Am. Birds 31(1):6- tution Press, Washington, D.C. Conclusion 16. Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences Maehr, D.S. 1990.The Florida panther on private and costs of conservation corridors. Conserv. During the next few decades, the lands. Conserv. Biol. 4(2):167-170. Biol. l(l):63-71. circle in which Georgia's Nongame and Mansergh, I.M. and D.J. Scotts. 1989. Habitat Simberloff, D., J.A. Farr, J. Cox, and D.W. continuity and social organization ofthe moun- Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conser- Endangered Wildlife Program exists is tainpygmy-possumrestoredby tunnel. J. Wild- vation bargains or poor investments. Conserv. expected to continue to grow and ex- 1. Manage. 53(3):701-707. Biol. 6(4):493-504. pand. A constant promotional and pub- Margules, C., A.J. Higgs, and R.W. Rafe. 1982. SoulC, M.E. 1991. Theory and strategy. W.E. lic awareness campaign will help ensure Modem biogeographic theory: are there any Hudson (ed.). 91 -104. lessons for nature reserve design? Biol. Con- Soulc?, M.E. and M.E. Gilpin. 1991. The theory of more public support, which in turn should sew. 24:115-128. wildlifeconidorcapability. Saundersand Hobbs yield the financial foundation this Pro- Meniam, G. 1991. Corridors and connectivity: (eds.). 3-8. gram so critically needs. As public animal populations in heterogeneous environ- SoulC, M.E. and Simberloff, D. 1986. What do support grows, so will the autonomy to ments. Saunders and Hobbs (4s.). 133-142. genetics and ecology tell us about the design of Meniam, G. and A. Lanoue. 1990. Conidor use by nature reserves? Biol. Conserv. 35: 19-40. do more of the endangered species work small mammals: field measurement for three Stenseth, N.C. and W.Z. Lidicker Jr. 1992. The Georgia's wildlife requires. experimental types of Peromyscus. Landscape study of dispersal: a conceptual guide. In: Ani- Demographically, the constituency Ecol. 4:123-131. mal dispersal: Small Mammals as a Model, pp of traditional state wildlife agencies is Miller, R.I. and L.D. Harris. 1977. Isolation and 5-20. N.C. StensethandW.Z. LidickerJr.(eds.). extirpationsin wildlifereserves.Biol. Conserv. Chapman and Hall, New York, N.Y. changing. People are demanding all 12:311-315. Szacki, J. 1987. Ecological corridor as a factor types of outdoor recreational opportuni- Newmark, W.D. In press. The role and design of determiningthe structure and organization of a ties in addition to traditional hunting and wildlife corridors with examples from Tanza- bank vole population. Acta Theologica fishing. Nongamelendangered wildlife nia. Ambio. 32(3):31-44. Nicholls, A.O. and C.R. Margules. 1991. The Wegner, J.F. and G. Merriam. 1979. Movements programs, with new, innovative pro- design of studies to demonstrate the biological by birds andsmall mammals between wood and jects for all types, are bridging the gap importance of corridors. Saunders and Hobbs adjoining farmland habitats. J. Appl. Ecol. between sports enthusiasts and the non- (eds.). 49-61. 16:349-357. huntinglfishing public. For instance, Noss, R.F. 1983. Aregional landscape approach to Wilcox, B.A. and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conserva- maintain diversity. BioScience 33(11):700- tion strategy: the effects of fragmentation on more people are beginning to watch 706, extinction. Am. Nat. 125879-887. birds, and those who always have en- Noss, R.F. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: A Willis, E.O. 1974. Populations and local extinc- joyed birding are beginning to be more reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conserv. Biol. tions ofbirds on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. outspoken. People are becoming more 1(2):159-164. Ecol. Monographs 44: 153- 169. Noss, R.F. 1991. Landscape connectivity: differ- Wilson, E.O. and E.O. Willis. 1975. Applied bio- aware of the dangers of unchecked de- ent functions at different scales. W.E. Hudson geography. In: Ecology and Evolution of Com- velopment, and are now more interested (ed.). 27-39. munities, pp. 522-534. Cody, M.L. and J.M. in seeing dollars spent on preserving Noss, R.F. 1992. The wildlands project: land con- Diamond (eds.). Harvard Univ. Press, Cam- wildlife habitats, wildlife management servation strategy.Wild Earth Special Issue, pp bridge, MA. 10-25. Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife commu- areas, and parks. And with more than 80 Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, net- nities near edges. Conserv. Biol. 2(4):333-339. percent of Georgians interested in works and MUMS: Preserving diversity on all nongame wildlife, more than 82 percent scales. Environ. Manage. 10(3):299-309. willing to support the use of tax rev- Panetta, F.D. and A.J.M. Hopkins. 1991. Weeds in conidors: invasion and management. Saunders enues for endangered species conserva- and Hobbs (eds.). 341-351. tion, more than 5,OOOindividuals volun- Pianka, E.R. 1988.Evolutionary Ecology. Harper tarily participating in a single survey, and Row, New York, N.Y. and more than 12,000 school children Preston, F. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43:185-215, learning about endangered wildlife 410-432. through a poster contest, Georgia's Prevett, P.T. 1991. Movement paths of koalas in Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Pro- the urban-rural fringes of Ballarat, Victoria: gram is optimistic and ready to soar into implications for management. Saunders and Hobbs (eds.). 259-272. Saunders, D.A. 1990. Problems of survival in an Robin Russell, Information and Education man- extensively cultivated landscape: the case of ager, and Jim Ozier, wildlife biologist, can be the Carnaby's cockatoo Calyptorhynchus Amy McEuen is a Master's student in Wildlife contacted at Georgia's Department of Natural Re- funereuslafirosfris.Biol. Conserv. 54277-290. Ecology at the University of Michigan. Herthesis sources, Nongarne-EndangeredWildlife Program, Saunders, D.A. andC.B. de Rebeira. 1991.Values workexamines movement patterns of two species Wildlife Resources Division, Route 5, Box 180, of corridors to avian populations in a frag- of Peromyscus in relation to habitat corridors and Forsyth, GA 31029. mented landscape. Saunders and Hobbs (eds.). nature trails in chaparral communities.

Vol. 10 Nos. I1 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 12 Report From the Field

Reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act: by Sharon Young The Impact on Fisheries and Endangered Marine Mammals

This year, Congress is undertaking eries groups and conservation interests. (Eumeropias jubatus) and southern sea a reauthorization of the 1972 Marine Fishing groups argued that the proposal otter (Enhydra lurris ilereis). One addi- Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). could unfairly penalize fisheries with tional species, the Gulf of Maine harbor MMPA was among the first important low levels of interactions with abundant porpoise (Phocena plzocettu), has been environmental laws enacted in the 1970s, stocks. Conservation and animal pro- proposed by the NMFS for listing as and predates the Endangered Species tection groups were concerned that the threatened. MMPA also lists four addi- Act (ESA). One of the concerns that led proposal did not include any incentive to tional stocks of marine mammals as to MMPA was the considerable mortal- reduce mortality rates. The involved "depletedH-the northern fur seal ity of marine mammals in commercial parties participated in mediation. but (Callorhinus ursinus), the coastal mid- fisheries. The 1993 reauthorization is consensus could not be reached on all Atlantic stock of bottlenose dolphins expected to provide a plan for meeting issues. A subset of this group presented (Tursiops rruwcatus), the eastern Pacific the zero mortality rate mandated in the recommendations to Congress, while dis- stock of spinner dolphins (Srenellu original legislation. The history of the senting conservation and animal protec- longirosrris), and the northeastern Pa- National Marine Fisheries Service's tion groups seeking better monitoring cific offshore stock of spotted dolphins (NMFS) efforts at meeting this goal has and tighter controls presented alterna- (Stenella attenuara). However. the been checkered, especially in regard to tive recommendations. depletion status of most stocks of ma- marinemammals whosepopulations are On August 4,1993, the House Sub- rine mammals has not been determined. depleted. committee on Environmental and Natu- This is because census information is In 1988, KokechikFishermants As- ral Resources heard testimony on H.R. difficult to collect, historic andlor cur- sociation v. Secretary of Commerce (839 2760 (Marine Mammal Protection Act rent carrying capacities are difficult to F.2d. 795) reaffirmed that the govern- Amendments of 1993), filed by Repre- calculate, and research monies are lim- ment could not issue permits for inci- sentatives Studds (D-MA), Young (R- ited. This presents a management chal- dental fishery takes of non-depleted AK), Fields (R-TX), Manton (D-NY), lenge if takes of depleted stocks are to be stocks of marine mammals if the permit- and Saxton (R-NJ). This bill addresses avoided, and if permitted takes are to ted fishing activity was likely to result in the reduction of fisheries related mortal- avoid harming any marine mammal the killing of marine mammals from ity in marine mammals. The Senate stocks. depleted populations. This led to the Commerce Committee has just passed a Each of the proposals Congress is inclusion of an interim exemption pro- bill (also called the Marine Mammal currently considering differs slightly in gram for fisheries in the 1988 Protection Act Amendments of 1993) its approach to this problen~.However. reauthorization of MMPA. Under the sponsored by Senators Kerry (D-MA) all the proposals rely on the Potential interim exemption, fisheries were al- and Stevens (R-AK). Biological Removal (PBR) formula. lowed to kill marine mammals inciden- which determines the maximum num- tal to their operations, as long as these Options for Reducing Mortality berof animals fromeach stockof marine kills were reported. In addition, data mammals that can be killed withoutjeop- were to be gathered for five years under The primary challenge to enacting a ardizing recovery of depleted or poten- the ~nterimexemption program in order management plan to reduce fishery re- tially depleted populations. PBR is ob- to develop an effective plan to manage lated mortality in marine mammals is to tained by multiplying the best minimum lethal takes of marine mammals. Al- determine whichmarinemammal stocks population estimate by a known, or a though this five-year period of data gath- are depleted. Six species of marine default, reproductive rate. This product ering was due to end in September 1993. mammals that interact with fisheries are is then multiplied by a "recovery factor" it has been extended until April I, 1994, currently listed as endangered under the to arrive at the PBR. The purpose of the and Congress is currently considering ESA: the humpback whale (Megaptera recovery factor is to ensure a conserva- options for a management plan. novaeangliae), finback whale tive removal of animals in order to aid (Balaenoptera phjsalus), North Atlan- species recovery. The difference in each Current Proposals t~cright whale (Eubalaena glaclalis), of the proposals has to do with (1 ) their sperm whale (Physeter catodorl), mana- determination of the recovery factor. A number of management plans tee (Trichechus manatus), and Hawai- and (2) how the PBR formula applies to have been submitted to Congress. In ian monk seal (Monachus ESA listed stocks. November 1992, the NMFS submitted a schcruinslandi). Two species are listed The NMFS proposal uses a recov- proposal that was criticized by both fish- as threatened: Steller's sea lion ery factor of 0.1 for endangered stocks.

13 Endangered Species UPDATE Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 0.5 for threatened stocks or stocks of and the compromise proposal from fish- threat to endangered manatees. unknown status, and 1.0 for stocks al- eries and some conservation groups has ready at optimal sustainable populations. reversed the burden of proof in MMPA. Conclusion The compromise proposal written Currently, there is a moratorium on ma- by 33 fishing organizations and seven rine mammal takes unless evidence Due to the large number of contlict- conservation groups differs from the shows that stocks are not likely to be ing proposals and the fact that many of NMFS proposal in that specific recov- harmed. Under these two proposals, the differences are difficult to settle, the ery factors are not set. Rather, this takes are permitted unless evidence is House has passed a bill which will ex- proposal allows recovery factors to be produced showing that marine mammal tend the expiration date of the current recommended to the NMFS by species- stocks are likely to be harmed. interim exemption progralii to April I, specific advisory groups comprised of 1994. In addition to differences in the fishing interests, conservation interests, The Final Plan-Who Will Be Af- approach to management of endangered managers, and scientists. Takes of ESA fected? species. a number of issues are still be- listed stocks would not be controlled by ing discussed. These include the fol- the NMFS, but would be referred to The impact of Congress' final deci- lowing: the scope of a registration pro- ESA recovery teams for management. sion may reach beyond fisheries interac- gram for vessels, the nature of a moni- The Senate bill reiterates this proposal. tions. As fisheries are mandated to re- toring and reporting system to verify The House proposal (H.R. 2760) duce their kills to the zero mortality rate incidental takes, and whether advisory provides specific recovery factors. For goal, questions are raised about how groups to oversee reductions in ~nortal- stocks below maximum net productiv- other user groups will be affected. Na- ity should be species-specific orregion:~I. ity level (MNPL), the PBR is that part of tive peoples, oil and gas explorers, the Further, issues of resource competition the net increment that can be taken with- captive display industry, foreign coun- remain unresolved. Fisheries take large out significantly delaying the time nec- tries, and other segments of society his- numbers of fish that are irnpoltant di- essary for the population to rebuild to torically have killed ESA listed marine etary components of ESA listed marine MNPL. For stocks of uncertain status, mammals. Will the management re- mammals. Over-fishing and the result- the product of the best minimum popu- gime applied to fisheries' kills extend to ing depletion of prey has been impli- lation estimate and one-half the best these other groups? The answer to this cated in the lack of recovery of Steller's available estimate of growth rate at question is critical. For example, if the sea lion populations. However, voices MNPL is multiplied by a recovery factor captive display industry is allowed to have been raised calling for manage- of 0.1 for populations below 10,000, or remove marine mammals from the wild, ment, even culls, of abundant stocks of 0.5 for populations greater than 10,000. will theirtakes bededucted off the topof seals and sea lions that eat commercially Kill levels of all marinemammals would the PBR as they have requested, thereby valuable or declining stocks of fish. have to be within this PBR. This bill reducing the number that can be killed These issues will be addressed in a would allow issuance of small take per- by fisheries? variety of forums ranging from court mits for incidental kills of endangered Another issue that has been raised is rooms, tocongress, to international bod- marine mammals, but also proposes that that of inequities in permitting. Scien- ies. Because the issue of fisheries inter- application for such permits would trig- tists must fill out extensive applications actions is somewhat arcane, relatively ger a consultation under Section 7 of the for permits to "harass" marine mammals few conservation groups have partici- ESA in order to determine jeopardy. during non-lethal research, while fisher- pated in the discussions and lobbying. While the differences in these pro- ies are allowed general authorization to Fishing interests, on the other hand, are posals may seem small, they are sub- fish and take marine mammals (within well represented. Throughout the stantial in terms of numbers of marine the PBR). The issue of PBR has impor- reauthorization process, the voices of mammals that can be killed and, conse- tant international implications as well. non-governmental scientists have re- quently, how seriously animal popula- Altering our protection of ESA listed mained conspicuously silent, and the tions and specific fisheries are affected. and depleted populations of marine mam- American public remains largely un- At the August 4, 1993 hearing for mals influences other nations to seek aware of the magnitude of these issues H.R. 2760, fisheries groups criticized and find reason to omit or reduce their and their potential impact on all marine the rigid recovery factors in the House protection. mammals. It is vital that those interested bill. Conversely, some conservation Managing kills of marine mammals in the recovery of endangered species and animal protection groups criticized by fisheries may be only the first step in become vocal, or risk the loss of critical the bill for permitting any incidental reducing their mortality. Non-commer- protection at both the national and inter- takes of endangered species, and further cia1 users and habitat degradation have national level. criticized its reliance on the Section 7 yet to be considered, even though both process, which they argue does not ad- are likely to have significant impacts on Sharon Young is a wildlife specialist wilh ~hc equately protect marine mammals. Fur- the recovery of marine mammal stocks. International Wildlife Coalition. Ms. Young can be contacted at the International Wildlife Coali- thermore, the NMFS and others have Recreational boaters for example, not tion, 70 East Falrnouth Highway. East F~IIIIOUI~. expressed concern that the House bill commercial fisheries, pose the greatest MA 02536-5954.

Vol. 10 Nos. 11 & 12 1993 Endangered Species UPDATE 14 Bulletin Board

Sophie Danforth ConservationBi- I, 1994. Applications will be reviewed needs, and make recommendations to ology Fund by a committee of zoo, zoo society, and streamline and unify future efforts relat- outside advisors. Grants will be awarded ing to this fascinating topic. To obtain a The Sophie Danforth Conservation in July 1994. For application guidelines registration form and receive further in- Biology Fund was established by the and further information, please contact: formation, please contact: The Eastern Roger Williams ParkZoo and theRhode Dr. Anne Savage, Director of Research, Cougar Conference, 1994, Attn. Jay Island Zoological Society to help pro- Roger Williams Park Zoo, Elmwood Tischendorf, American Ecological Re- tect the world's threatened wildlife. Each Ave., Providence, RI 02905, (401) 785- search Institute-AERIE, P.O. Box 380, year, grants up to $1,000 are awarded to 3510 telephone, (401) 941-398 fax, or Fort Collins, CO 80522, (303) 224-5307. individuals working in conservation bi- BI599 [email protected] For individuals interested in presenting ology. electronic mail. a paper, an outline or abstract must be Projects and programs that enhance included with the registration form. Fi- biodiversity and maintain ecosystems Eastern Cougar Conference nal decisions on program content will be receive the highest funding priority. madeMarch 1,1994. Proceedingsof the Field studies, environmental education The Eastern Cougar Conference, conference will not be published. How- programs, development of techniques 1994 will be held at Gannon University ever, abstracts of papers are required. that can be used in a natural environ- in Erie, Pennsylvania from June 3-5, and will be collated and issued to regis- ment, and captive propagation programs 1994. The conference is sponsored by trants in an exclusive, limited edition that stress an integrative and/or multi- the American Ecological Research In- volume. disciplinary approach to conservation stitute (AERIE), Gannon University's are also appropriate. Proposals for single Department of Biology, Friends of the Erratum species preservation, initial surveys, or Eastern Panther, Eastern Puma Research seed money for technique development Network, and the International Society The cover of the June 1993 issue of are not appropriate. of Cryptozoology. This conference will the Endangered Species UPDATE (fea- Recipients are required to acknowl- bring together leading experts, state, turing a red wolf, Curlis rufils) should edge the Roger Williams Park Zoo and provincial, and federal resource manag- read Vol. I0 No. 8, not Vol. I0 No. 7. the Rhode Island Zoological Society in ers. and private citizens interested in the any publications that result from the subject of cougars in the East. Three project. Recipients must also submit a years in the making, this is the first progress report that includes an update conference of its kind, and space is lim- on the status of the project. This report ited to the first 300 registrants. Attend- is dueone year after funding is awarded. ees will exchange ideas, discuss recent All proposals must besubmitted by May research, developments, and current

Non-Frofit Organization Endangered Species U.S. POSTAGE PAID Ann Arbor. MI UPDATE Permit No. 144 School of Natural Resources and Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115