National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Restoration of the Turning Basin and Tidal Wetlands 

at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site

2015 Data Report 

Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SAIR/NRDS—2016/1006
ON THIS PAGE

Sampling nekton and vegetation at Saugus Iron Works, 2015.

Photo courtesy of M. J. James

ON THE COVER

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site (SAIR), 2015.

Photo courtesy of M. J. James
Restoration of the Turning Basin and Tidal 

Wetlands at Saugus Iron Works National Historic 

Site

2015 Data Report

Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SAIR/NRDS—2016/1006

Mary-Jane James 

Graduate School of Oceanography

University of Rhode Island

215 South Ferry Road

Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882

January 2016

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of 

interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural 

resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the 

public.

The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data 

summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and 

interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this 

report are provisional and subject to change.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved 

in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily 

reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of 

trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government.

This report is available in digital format from the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). To receive this report in a format optimized 

for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

James, M. 2016. Restoration of the turning basin and tidal wetlands at Saugus Iron Works National 

Historic Site: 2015 data report. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SAIR/NRDS—2016/1006. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 444/131326, January 2016
iii

Contents 

Page

Figures....................................................................................................................................................v

Tables.....................................................................................................................................................v

Abstract................................................................................................................................................vii

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................ix

Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

Methods..................................................................................................................................................3

Vegetation sampling.......................................................................................................................3

Nekton sampling.............................................................................................................................3

Results....................................................................................................................................................5

Vegetation.......................................................................................................................................5

Aquatic Vegetation....................................................................................................................5

Nekton ............................................................................................................................................5

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................15

v

Figures 

Page

Figure 1. Sampling stations for nekton and vegetation in 2015............................................................7

Figure 2. Relative percent cover non-vegetative and vegetation species comprising 

approximately 90% of the total cover on the restored marsh (top graph) and natural marsh 

(bottom graph) in 2015. .........................................................................................................................9

Figure 3. View of the restored marsh in September 2015...................................................................10

Figure 4. Eleocharis parvula as it appeared in early July 2015 (left photo) and in a 

typical vegetation plot in September 2015 (right photo) on the restored marsh..................................11

Figure 5. Percent catch of nekton from throw trap sampling in the turning basin and river 

during 2015 sampling (species representing less than 1% of total catch are not shown). ...................12

Figure 6. Mean lengths (mm ± SD) of common fish sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS 

using throw traps and seines in 2015 ...................................................................................................13

Tables 

Page

Table 1. Sampling dates and number of stations sampled in 2015. ......................................................6

Table 2. Vegetation and non-vegetative cover types observed on the restored and natural 

during 2015 sampling ............................................................................................................................8

Table 3. Aquatic vegetation species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and percent of 

sampling stations where observed in 2015 ..........................................................................................11

Table 4. Nekton species collected in the turning basin and river during 2015 sampling....................12

Table 5. Environmental data (average ± SD) associated with the 2015 nekton sampling 

(sampling occurred during ebb tides)...................................................................................................13

vii

Abstract

In 2015, vegetation and nekton were sampled at Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site. This 

monitoring is part of an on-going post restoration monitoring associated with the restoration of the 

historic turning basin and freshwater tidal wetland adjacent to the Saugus River. Vegetation in both 

the natural and restoring marsh were sampled using 1-m2 vegetation plots. Species composition and 

percent cover were estimated along with other cover types such as bare ground, and wrack. Nekton 

were sampled twice, once in early July and again in early September in both the turning basin and the 

Saugus River. Two types of gear were used; a quantitative 1-m2 throw trap and a seine.

The natural marsh was characterized by high species diversity (26 species) although narrow leaf 

cattail (Typha angustifolia) was the most abundant cover type observed. In the restored marsh, bare 

ground and algal mat comprised the majority of the relative percent cover. Dwarf spike rush 

(Eleocharis parvula) was the most common vegetative cover. Two invasive species were observed in 

the natural marsh: purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and reed canary grass (Phalaris 

arundinacea). Aquatic vegetation was primarily horned pondweed (Zannichella palustris) in both the 

turning basin and river. The invasive curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) was observed in the 

turning basin.

Common nekton in both the turning basin and river were the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). 

Other common species that were collected were four spine sticklebacks (Apeltes quadracus), 

Sevenspine bay shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white 

suckers (Catostomus commersoni).

Physical parameters (water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen) were all generally within the 

water quality standard for Massachusetts warm water fisheries, except during the September nekton 

sampling when one temperature reading was above the threshold for warm water fisheries. 

ix

Acknowledgments 

Many thanks to National Park Service (NPS) staff who assisted with logistics and field sampling in 

2015: Marc Albert, Charley Roman, Robin Baranowski, Dana Filippini, Alex Etkind, Patrick 

Maloney, Rachel Shepard, and Lowell Watkins.

1

Introduction 

In 2007, the National Park Service initiated a restoration program at Saugus Iron Works National 

Historic Site (SAIR) to restore the historic turning basin and wetland area adjacent to the Saugus 

River. To fulfill regulatory requirements and enhance understanding of tidal freshwater wetland 

restoration practices, an intensive pre- and post-restoration monitoring program from 2012 to 2016

was implemented. The purpose of this Data Report is to summarize vegetation and nekton data 

monitoring collected in 2015.

3

Methods 

Vegetation sampling

Quantitative vegetation monitoring of the restoration area (turning basin and southern salt marsh 

area) was conducted following protocols of the NPS Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network (Roman 

et al. 2001, James-Pirri et al. In Review). Vegetation, including intertidal freshwater marsh and 

submerged aquatic vegetation, was sampled once per year at the end of the growing season in late 

summer/early fall. Vegetation was sampled in a minimum of 30, 1-m2 plots that were randomly 

located along transects that traversed throughout the restoration area and in the small natural marsh 

just south of the restored turning basin (James-Pirri et al. 2007). Transects were located 

perpendicular to the river and traversed the elevation gradient from low marsh (or tidal flat) to the 

upland edge and varied in length from approximately 15 m to 60 m depending on location and width 

of the marsh. Species composition and species cover/abundance were recorded for each 1-m2 plot. In 

additional to live vegetation, non-vegetative covers were also recoded (e.g., bare ground, open water, 

rock, wrack and litter). Estimates of percent cover were determined using a modified Braun-Blanquet 

(1965) visual cover scale method. For this method the observer stands over the plot and visually 

estimates the cover of each species present in the plot. Cover was estimated using standard cover 

classes as follows: 0: absent; 1: <1%; 2: 1-5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-100%. In 

statistical analyses, the Braun-Blanquet data were analyzed as ordinal data (statistical analyses are 

not presented in this data report, but will be presented in the final report). The relative percent cover 

of each species (for graphical purposes) was calculated by converting Braun-Blanquet values to the 

midpoint of the percent range (<1%= 0.5%, 1-5%=2.5%, 6-25%=15.5%, 26-50%=38%, 57-

75%=63%, 76-100%=88%), then averaging the mid-point values for all replicate plots by marsh 

(natural n=19, restored n=49), and standardizing to 100% to achieve relative percent cover for all 

cover types per marsh. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation cover in the river was estimated during nekton throw trap 

sampling. Percent cover of aquatic vegetation was estimated using a modified Braun-Blanquet 

(1965) visual cover scale method in 1-m

2 plots randomly located throughout the river and in the 

restored turning basin.

Nekton sampling

The nekton community of the turning basin and the Saugus River was monitored following protocols 

of the NPS Northeast Coastal and Barrier Network (Raposa and Roman 2001, James-Pirri et al. 

2012). Nekton were sampled twice per year, once in mid-summer and once in late summer/early fall, 

on low or ebbing tides. Quantitative data on nekton composition and abundance (density) were 

collected using a 1-m2 throw trap at a minimum of 15 stations randomly located throughout the 

turning basin and 15 river stations (Raposa et al. 2003). The sampling area was limited to locations 

with standing water present at ebbing tide conditions, but not higher than the top of the side walls of 

the trap (0.5-m high) (i.e., the deeper portions of the river channel and the deeper areas in the turning 

basin were excluded). The throw trap was an enclosure sampler that has excellent efficiency and 

provides quantitative, repeatable results (Kushlan 1981, Sogard and Able 1991, Rozas and Minello 

1997). The trap had an open top and bottom (0.5-m in height and 1-m square) with the sides covered 
4

by 3-mm wire mesh. The trap was thrown into water and captured any nekton in the 1-m2 area of the 

trap. All nekton were collected from the trap with a 1-mm mesh dip net that fitted snuggly within the 

trap. The trap was considered empty when three successive attempts with the dip net produced no 

organisms (refer to James-Pirri et al. 2102 for complete details on gear and sampling protocol).

Average density of nekton from throw trap samples was estimated as the number of individuals per 

m2

. Relative abundance was calculated as the percent catch of each species standardized to 100% for 

throw trap samples.

Qualitative samples of nekton were also collected using a seine (6-m seine with bag, 3-mm mesh) at 

a minimum of five random locations throughout the turning basin and 5 in the river system as 

ancillary information on the nekton community. Seine hauls were taken in order to achieve a more 

complete species list by attempting to catch faster swimming fishes that may have avoided the throw 

trap. Seine data are presented as average number of individuals per seine haul.

At each station (both throw trap and seine stations), all nekton were identified, enumerated, and up to 

15 individuals of each species were measured for length (total length for fish and shrimp, carapace 

width for crabs). Once identified and measured all organisms were returned to the water. Physical 

variables (water temperature [o

C], salinity [ppt], and dissolved oxygen [mg/L]) were recorded at each 

nekton sampling station with a YSI unit (model 85) at the time of sampling (during ebb tide).
5

Results 

Vegetation

In 2015, 49-1m2 vegetation plots were sampled in the restored wetland and 19 plots were sampled in 

the natural wetland (Table 1, Figure 1). In the restored wetland eight plant species and four nonvegetative covers (e.g., bare ground, wrack) were observed (Table 2). The most abundant cover types 

on the restored marsh were bare ground and algal mat. Dwarf spike rush (Eleocharis parvula) was

the most common vegetative cover (Figure 2, Figure 3). An interesting anecdotal observation was 

that dwarf spike rush appeared to be more vigorous in growth early in the summer (e.g., early July) 

than later in the year during vegetation sampling. This in addition to the present of dead dwarf spike 

rush on the restored marsh in September may indicate that although this native species is able to 

colonize the restored marsh, growth conditions throughout the growing season may not be ideal for 

this species to thrive (MJ James, personal observation) (Figure 4). 2015 was a dry year in terms of 

precipitation, and that may also have played a role in the presence of dead dwarf spike rush; 

however, dead dwarf spike rush has been observed in previous years (e.g., 2014, James 2015).

In the natural marsh 26 plant species as well as some non-vegetative covers (Table 2) were observed. 

The most abundant cover type in the natural marsh was narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia)

(Figure 2).

Two invasive species: purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and reed canary grass (Phalaris 

arundinacea) were observed in the natural marsh, no invasive species were observed in the restored 

marsh (Table 2).

Aquatic Vegetation

Three species of aquatic vegetation were observed in the throw traps. The most abundant species, 

found in both the turning basin and the river was horned pondweed (Zannichella palustris) (Table 3). 

The invasive curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) was observed in the turning basin.

Nekton

In 2015, 51 throw traps and 12 seine hauls were conducted to determine the composition of the 

nekton community throughout the turning basin and the river (Table 1, Figure 1). Seven fish species, 

three crustaceans (shrimp and crab), two insect (Odonata and Trichoptera) and a tadpole larvae were 

observed (Table 4). The mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) was the most abundant nekton in both 

the turning basin and in the river (Figure 5). Other common species that were collected were four 

spine sticklebacks (Apeltes quadracus), Sevenspine bay shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), American 

eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white suckers (Catostomus commersoni). The majority of the fish 

collected were juveniles (Figure 6).

Physical parameters (water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen) were all generally within the 

water quality standard for Massachusetts warm water fisheries, except during the September nekton 

sampling when one temperature reading was above the threshold for warm water fisheries 

(Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.0) (Table 5).
6

Table 1. Sampling dates and number of stations sampled in 2015.

Sample Type Date Sampled # of Plots Sampled

Vegetation, natural marsh 15-16 September 2015 19 plots

Vegetation, restored wetland 15-17 September 2015 49 plots

Aquatic vegetation, river 7 July & 3 September 2015 33 (16-17 during each period)

Aquatic vegetation, turning basin 7 July & 3 September 2015 18 (8-10 during each period)

Nekton, river throw traps 7 July & 3 September 2015 33 (16-17 during each period)

Nekton, river seine hauls 7 July & 3 September 2015 8 (3-5 during each period)

Nekton, turning basin throw traps 7 July & 3 September 2015 18 (8-10 during each period)

Nekton, turning basin seine hauls 7 July & 3 September 2015 4 (1-3 during each period)
7

Figure 1. Sampling stations for nekton and vegetation in 2015.
8

Table 2. Vegetation and non-vegetative cover types observed on the restored and natural during 2015 

sampling. Average Braun Blanquet value1 and relative percent of total cover in parentheses, are given. 

Bold type indicates invasive species.

Scientific Name Common Name Restored2 Natural2

Acalypha virginica Three-seeded mercury - 0.2 (0.7)

Acorus americanus Sweet flag - 0.1 (0.1)

Apios americana Groundnut - 0.4 (2.2)

Bidens frondosa Devil's beggartick - 0.2 (1.6)

Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed - 0.8 (2.8)

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed - 0.1 (0.1)

Cyperus species Flatsedge species - 0.1 (0.1)

Digitaria species Crabgrass species 0.02 (0.01) -

Dysphania ambrosioides Mexican tea - 0.1 (0.1)

Eleocharis parvula Dwarf spikerush 2.7 (13.2) 1.1 (5.4)

Eutrochium dubium Coastal plain joepyeweed - 0.2 (0.7)

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife - 0.4 (3.8)

Oenothera biennis Common evening primrose - 0.1 (0.1)

Oxalis stricta Common yellow oxalis - 0.1 (0.1)

Peltandra virginica Green arrow arum - 0.6 (4.9)

Persicaria amphibia Water smartweed - 0.5 (1.9)

Persicaria hydropiper Marshpepper knotweed - 0.1 (0.1)

Persicaria hydropiperoides Swamp smartweed - 0.2 (0.3)

Persicaria maculosa Spotted ladysthumb - 0.2 (0.7)

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass - 0.6 (5.3)

Pluchea odorata marsh fleabane 0.2 (0.8) 0.3 (1.6)

Samolus valerandi Water-pimpernel 0.6 (0.8) 0.2 (4.5)

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Hardstem bulrush 0.04 (0.05) -

Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle - 0.1 (0.1)

Symphyotrichum puniceum Purplestem aster - 0.3 (0.7)

Symphyotrichum subulatum Eastern annual saltmarsh aster 0.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.8)

Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail 0.3 (1.8) 3.3 (28.4)

Zannichella palustris Horned pondweed 0.5 (0.9) 0.4 (2.2)

-

Non-vegetative and Dead Covers

Algal mat only Algal mat only 3.6 (28.0) 0.7 (5.9)

Bare ground/algal mat3 Bare ground/algal mat 5.6 (73.3) 0.8 (9.8)

Bare ground only Bare ground only 4.8 (47.4) 2.2 (12.0)

Dead, Eleocharis parvula Dwarf spikerush (Dead) 1.6 (3.7) -

Dead, Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf cattail (Dead) - 0.2 (0.6)

Rock Rock 0.6 (0.3) -

Wrack & Litter Wrack & Litter 2.7 (2.8) 1.6 (1.7)

1 Braun Blanquet cover class scale (0; 1: <1; 2: 1%- 5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-

100%). “-“ indicates species was not present.

2 Percent cover estimated without the cover of “bare and algal mat” combined.

3 Percent cover and “bare and algal mat combined” estimated within the separate covers of “bare” 

and “algal mat”.
9

Figure 2. Relative percent cover non-vegetative and vegetation species comprising approximately 90% of 

the total cover on the restored marsh (top graph) and natural marsh (bottom graph) in 2015.
10

Figure 3. View of the restored marsh in September 2015.
11

Figure 4. Eleocharis parvula as it appeared in early July 2015 (left photo) and in a typical vegetation plot 

in September 2015 (right photo) on the restored marsh.

Table 3. Aquatic vegetation species list, average Braun-Blanquet score, and percent of sampling stations 

where observed in 2015. Invasive species are indicated in bold type.

Scientific Name Common Name Basin River

Potamogeton crispus Curly pondweed 0.4 (11%) -

Unknown filamentous green algae Unknown filamentous green algae 0.4 (11%) 0.7 (30%)

Zannichella palustris Horned pondweed 4.1 (100%) 3.4 (81%)

Braun Blanquet cover class scale (0; 1: <1; 2: 1%- 5%; 3: 6-25%; 4: 26-50%; 5: 51-75%; 6: 76-100%). 

“-“ indicates species was not present.
12

Table 4. Nekton species collected in the turning basin and river during 2015 sampling.

Scientific Name Common Name Basin River

Anguilla rostrata American eel X X

Apeltes quadracus Four-spine stickleback X X

Caddis fly larvae Caddis fly larvae X

Catostomus commersoni White sucker X X

Crangon septemspinosa Sevenspine bay shrimp X

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog X X

Gasterosteus aculeatus Three-spine stickleback X X

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass X

Odonata spp. Dragonfly/Damselfly larvae X

Palaemonetes vulgaris Grass shrimp X X

Pungitius pungitius Nine-spine stickleback X X

Rhithropanopeus harrisii Harris mud crab X

Tadpole (species unknown) Tadpole species X

Unknown larval fish Unknown larval fish X

Figure 5. Percent catch of nekton from throw trap sampling in the turning basin and river during 2015 

sampling (species representing less than 1% of total catch are not shown).
13

Figure 6. Mean lengths (mm ± SD) of common fish sampled at Saugus Iron Works NHS using throw 

traps and seines in 2015. Mean adult length (mm) is given under each species name for reference.

Table 5. Environmental data (average ± SD) associated with the 2015 nekton sampling (sampling 

occurred during ebb tides). Sample size is given after location. Bold, underlined values indicate samples 

outside of Class SB water quality criteria (Massachusetts Water Quality Criteria CMR 314 4.0).

Sampling date

Water Temperature1

°C

(maximum) 

Salinity

ppt

Dissolved Oxygen

mg l-1

(minimum)

7 July 2015 (n=11) (basin) 23.3 ± 2.3 (28.0) 0.7 ± 0.1 8.1 ± 3.8 (5.0)

7 July 2015 (n=22) (river) 22.2 ± 0.8 (24.0) 0.4 ± 0.2 8.5 ± 1.1 (5.3)

3 Sept 2015 (n=11, basin) 23.0 ± 3.1 (30.0) 2.9 ± 5.9 10.52

3 Sept 2015 (n=19, river) 24.9 ± 1.7 (28.0) 1.5 ± 1.4 9.9 ± 0.9 (7.5)

1 Acceptable value for temperature (Class SB waters) is <29.4°C (MA CMR 314 4.0).

2 Only one reading taken for dissolved oxygen.

15

Literature Cited

Braun-Blanquet, J. 1965. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. London: Hafner.

James, M-J. 2015. Restoration of the turning basin and tidal wetlands at Saugus Iron Works National 

Historic Site: Summary data report for 2004 to 2014 monitoring. Natural Resource Report. 

NPS/SAIR/NRR—2015/1012. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

James-Pirri, M.-J., C. T. Roman, and J. Heltshe. 2007. Power analysis to determine sample size for 

monitoring vegetation change in salt marsh habitats. Wetlands Ecology and Management 15:335-

345. DOI:10.1007/s11273-007-9034-x.

James-Pirri, M. J., C. T. Roman, E. L. Nicosia. 2012. Monitoring nekton in salt marshes: A protocol 

for the National Park Service’s long-term monitoring program, Northeast Coastal and Barrier 

Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/NCBN/NRR—2012/579. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, CO.

James-Pirri, M. J., C. T. Roman, E. L. Nicosia. In Review. Monitoring vegetation in salt marshes: A 

protocol for National Park Service’s Long-Term Monitoring Program, Northeast Coastal Barrier 

Network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCBN/NRTR—2010/XXX. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Kushlan, J. A. 1981. Sampling characteristics of enclosure fish traps. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 110:557-562.

Massachusetts Water Quality Standards 314 CMR 4.0. Available at 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf (Accessed 11 May 2015).

Raposa, K. B. and C. T. Roman. 2001. Monitoring nekton in shallow estuarine habitats. Part of a 

series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program at Cape 

Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Research Field 

Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. 

Raposa, K. B., C. T. Roman and J. F. Heltshe. 2003. Monitoring nekton as a bioindicator in shallow 

estuarine habitats. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:239-255.

Roman, C. T., M. J. James-Pirri, and J. F. Heltshe. 2001. Monitoring Salt Marsh Vegetation: Part of a 

series of monitoring protocols for the Long-term Coastal Ecosystem Monitoring Program at Cape 

Cod National Seashore. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Research Field 

Station, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882. 

Rozas, L. P. and T. J. Minello. 1997. Estimating densities of small fishes and decapod crustaceans in 

shallow estuarine habitats: a review of sampling design with focus on gear selection. Estuaries 

20:199-213.
16

Sogard, S. M. and K. W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh 

creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

33:501-519.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific 

and other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 444/131326, January 2016
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM