A Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for … Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for the...

A Wetland RestorationMonitoring Protocol for the

Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project

Sheila E. Sleggs and Larry W. VanDruff

State University of New YorkCollege of Environmental Science and Forestry

Syracuse, New York

1997

A Report to the Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Seneca Falls, New York

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

LIST OF TABLES Page 1

LIST OF FIGURES Page 1

LIST OF APPENDICES Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Page 1

INTRODUCTION

ROUTINE ASSESSMENT Page 2

Procedure Page 3

Site Descriptions and Maps Page 4

Site Photos Page 4

Birds Page 5

Supplemental Bird Survey Methods Page 6

Amphibians Page 7

Habitat Page 8

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT Page 9

Procedure Page 9

Site Descriptions and Maps Page 10

Site Photos Page 10

Birds Page 10

Supplemental Bird Survey Methods Page 12

Amphibians Page 13

Audio Surveys Page 13

Pitfall Trapping Page 14

Habitat 1 Page 15

Habitat 2 Page 16

MONITORING REPORTS Page 17

NOTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 17

LITERATURE CITED/REFEREN CE LIST Page 18

APPENDICES

of 21

LIST OF TABLES

1. Time Table for the Routine Assessment illustrating the time periods in which sampling procedures should be

completed.

2. Beaufort Wind Scale. Shading indicates wind strengths unacceptable for bird and amphibian surveys.

3. Time Table for the Comprehensive Assessment illustrating the time periods in which sampling procedures should

be completed.

4. Braun-Blanquet Cover Scale for sampling herbaceous vegetation.

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Semi-circular sample plot for surveying calling amphibians, which are represented by the round dots.

2. Diagram for a pitfall with drift fence array for trapping amphibians.

LIST OF APPENDICES

A. Equipment Box content list for monitoring NMW P restoration areas

B. Sample Map and Description Form

C. Sample Data Forms

D. Formulas and Statistical Testing Procedures

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS

Recognition and thanks are extended to the people and organizations that contributed to the completion of this pro ject.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation provided the funding and administrative support

through the Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project and the Research Foundation at the State University of New York -

College of Environmental Science and Forestry. The Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge provided logistical support.

Kevin Holcomb, Paul Hess, David Odell and Amy Deller provided valuable advice as well as assistance with field work

and document review.

of 21

INTRODUCTION

As a component of the Northern M ontezuma Wetlands Project (NMWP), wetland restoration is intended to play a

significant role in increasing and enhancing wildlife habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. It is well documented that

natural emergent and forested wetland ecosystems are essential for a multitude of wildlife populations (Mitsch and

Gosselink 1993, Weller 1994) and the goal of most wetland restoration is to regain one or more functions of a natural

wetland (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Presently, our knowlege of wetland components and processes is incomplete, and

we lack proven methods for early diagnosis of failing functions (Hairston 1992 , Hammer 1992). Consequently a long-

term monitoring plan is essential to develop a data base for continuous comparisons of the functional status and

biological integrity of a system (Hairston 1992, Brown 1995, VanRees-Siewert and Dinsmore 1996). To monitor and

evaluate the ecological development of restored areas, vegetation and wildlife communities can be sampled along with

environmental variables such as hydrology (Brooks 1995).

The following protocol for long-term monitoring of vegetation and wildlife communities has been developed for

agricultural muckland restored to wetland habitat in the Montezuma M arsh complex of central New York. Information

used to develop the following methods has been taken from numerous studies involved with wetlands and wetland

restoration (Confer and Niering 1992 , Hairston 1992 , Delphey and Dinsmore 1993 , Brown 1995, Chabot and Helferty

1995) and from our field test of selected methods on NMWP sites in 1995 and 1996 . This protocol is presented to the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY SDEC). The agency's intention is to employ these

methods during subsequent years on NMW P restoration areas. Refer to the NMWP Final Environmental Impact

Statement (W ich and Lambertson 1991) for more information regarding the NMWP project activities and goals.

The monitoring protocol is separated into two levels of intensity: (1) Routine Assessment and (2) Comprehensive

Assessment (Hairston 1992). The Routine Assessment is less intensive and demands fewer hours in the field than the

Comprehensive Assessment. This level should be used in the event that few resources are available to the NMW P for

monitoring during a particular year. The Routine Assessment typically requires approximately 10 person-hours per site

per year. This assessment is conducted annually during April, May and June. Statistical testing on data collected using

the Routine Assessment is possible, however most of the data are qualitative and sufficient only for examining trends

over time and making simple comparisons to reference site data and other restoration sites.

The Comprehensive Assessment requires more time in the field over a longer duration during spring and summer months.

Approximately 5 person-hours per week per site during April through August are necessary. The Comprehensive

Assessment can be thought of as an extended version of the Routine Assessment with additional sampling techniques

and increased sample sizes to permit more reliable statistical analyses on quantitative data. All procedures explained

in the Routine Assessment are also completed in the Comprehensive Assessment to facilitate yearly comparisons even

if different assessment procedures were used.

At present, both levels of assessment were completed on 4 NM WP restoration sites and 4 reference sites in the

Montezuma Marsh Complex in 1996. Data collected on these sites are located in various files in the NMW P Monitoring

file box as specified throughout the protocol. Refer to the 1996 M onitoring Report located in Folder 7 for further details.

ROUTINE ASSESSMENT

The Routine Assessment should be done annually during the months of April, May, and June (if annual assessments are

not possible, alternate years will suffice after the first year following restoration). This is the minimum amount of data

collection necessary to comply with monitoring needs as specified by NMWP restoration projects. It is preferable that

this assessment be completed by a wildlife technician or biologist, but a volunteer having prior experience and under

minimal supervision may suffice. This assessment level is based primarily on the Marsh Monitoring Program designed

by the Long Point Bird Observatory in Ontario, Canada (Chabot and Helferty 1995). Some changes were necessary to

comply with the goals of the N MWP. The data collected will enable trend analyses in water cover, vegetation cover and

type, and the species composition of b irds and amphibians. The information gained will provide insight on the habitat

condition and wildlife community of each restoration site and possibly alert managers of both desirable and undesirable

of 21

ecological changes. The Routine Assessment requires approximately 40 hours per year to complete for 4 restoration

sites.

Goal. The goal of the Routine Assessment is to survey birds, amphibians, and habita t on restored wetlands in the NMWP

area as a method for monitoring and evaluating restored wetland development.

The assessment procedure is designed to provide the following information:

1. Species richness and relative abundance of avian and amphibian species utilizing NM WP wetlands.

2. Habitat characteristics including water cover, vegetation structure and composition.

3. Changes in habitat characteristics.

4. Changes in avian and amphibian species composition and abundance.

5. Indicators of the success of NMWP restoration efforts to restore habitat quality and biodiversity.

Routine Assessment Procedure

The following section gives detailed descriptions of the methods by which data are collected, stored, and analyzed using

the Routine Assessment. Most field and sampling equipment for assessment procedures are stored in the NMWP

Equipment Box located in the back of the NMWP office (see Appendix A for the NMWP Equipment Box content list).

Locations for other necessary materials including data forms, reference materials, maps and computer disks are either

in the Equipment Box as well, or in a specified folder in the NMW P Filing Box which should be kept with the Equipment

Box. In add ition to a complete list of references at the end of this document, references that specifica lly apply to each

step of the assessment procedures are listed immediately following procedure explanations. After reviewing each section

of the Routine Assessment procedure, the following steps should be taken:

Step 1. Obtain maps and visit each site to locate sampling points or to determine where to place new sampling points

as discussed below. This step should be done in time to conduct call surveys for amphibians between April 15-30. See

Appendix B and the folder labeled “Study Areas” in the NMWP File Box.

Step 2. Create a time table to ensure all sampling is done during the correct times. As an example, Table 1 is the time

table for sampling with the Routine Assessment.

Step 3. Review the list of materials necessary for each procedure. Verify the location and availab ility of all materials

before sampling begins. Any questions about missing materials should be directed to the NMW P coordinator.

Step 4. Make certain that the methods for each technique are well understood before going into the field. A practice

survey of each type is encouraged before actual sampling begins.

Step 5. Begin sampling.

Step 6. Take time to organize, check, enter, and file sampling data and data forms into the appropriate database files and

NM WP folders.

Step 7. Analyze and interpret data and compile a monitoring report as directed.

of 21

Table 1. Time Table for Routine Assessment illustrating the time periods in which

sampling procedures should be completed.

APRIL MAY JUNE

Maps

Frog Survey

Site Photos

Frog Survey Bird Surveys

Frog Survey

Site Photos

Habitat

Data Analysis

Monitoring Report

Site Descriptions and Maps

Obtain and/or create maps and site descriptions to record the location of sampling points and additional information

pertinent to field work, presentations and reports. Site descriptions and maps used in 1995 and 1996 are in the “Study

Areas” folder. See Appendix B for a sample site description form and map.

When: Descriptions and maps should be located or created (for new restoration areas) prior to field work and before

determining sampling points for new sites.

Materials : Maps can be made in a variety of ways, but the inclusion of concise, understandable information is more

important than the method used. Existent maps were made using topographic maps for the NMW P project area, which

are hanging on the back of the door to the rear of the NMW P office.

How: For each site clearly illustrate and/or record topography, location, size, open water and vegetation types, site

boundaries, water control structures, transect lines, and photo points (see Appendix B ). Simply knowing the scale of the

map being used (i.e., topographic maps have a scale 1"=200') along with a ruler and a compass is enough to locate or

place points on the map. Information for open water, vegetation types, site boundaries, and size can be obtained by

visiting the site, from aerial photos, and by consulting with NMWP coordinators. Site description cover forms are in

the folder labeled “Data Forms”.

Site Photos

Photo points should be established to record annual changes in visual characteristics at each restoration site (Hairston

1992). The number of photo points depend on site size and vantage points. Photo points have been established at four

NMWP sites to date. These points are labelled for each site on the maps in the "Study Areas" folder and in the field by

green metal posts with orange painted tops and aluminum tags.

When: Photos are to be taken at least once during June and additional photos taken in April and August would be useful.

Photos taken on a bright, sunny day provide the best results.

Materials: A camera and slide film should be made available by NMW P coordinators. Information and slide photos

from 1995 and 1996 photo points on restoration sites are located in the "Site photos" folder along with additional slide

sleeves.

How: Locate existing photo points or determine the placement of new ones for each restoration site of interest. Record

the compass direction for each photo and always face the same direction at the same point each time. Carefully record

when and where photos were taken to avoid replication or exclusion of po ints. Data forms are located in the "Data

Forms" folder.

Interpretation: The presence of open water, vegetation characteristics, and surrounding land uses can be noted and kept

on permanent record with site photos. Site photos can also be used as benchmarks for temporal assessments and

presentations on restoration development.

of 21

Birds

Birds are examined using a 50-m radius point-count method to sample species composition and relative abundance for

each restoration site (Ralph et al. 1993). The po int-count method facilitates the examination of yearly changes in bird

populations at fixed points and abundance patterns of species. Although the point-count method is likely the most

efficient and data-rich method of counting birds, it does not provide reliable data on some bird groups including

waterfowl, waders, and less conspicuous marsh birds such as rails and bitterns. Therefore, supplemental methods are

described following the point count section.

When: Bird points should be sampled at least once, preferably twice, during the month of June. The more times

sampling can be replicated the more reliable the data. Sampling is to be done between 0530 and 1000 hours with wind

speeds no greater than a Code 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale (Table 2), and not during precipitation or foggy conditions

that impair the observer's ability to detect species by sight or sound (Ralph et al. 1993).

Materials: Be sure to bring enough Bird data forms (“Data Forms” folder) to have one for each point. Other necessary

materials include a clipboard, pens or pencils, copies of site maps, watch/timer, binoculars, insect repellant, bird field

guide, and well developed bird identification skills by both sight and sound.

Table 2. Beaufort Wind Scale. Shading indicates wind strengths

unacceptable for bird and amphibian surveys.

BEAUFO RT WIND SCALE

Number Wind Speed

in MPH

Indicators

0 0 - 1 Calm, smoke rises vertically

1 2 - 3 Light Air Movement, smoke drifts

2 4 - 7 Slight Breeze, wind felt on face, leaves rustle

3 8 - 12 Gentle Breeze, leaves and small twigs in constant motion

4 13 - 18 Moderate Breeze, small branches moved, raises dust and loose paper

5 19 - 24 Fresh Breeze, small trees in leaf begin to sway, crested wavelets form

6 25 - 31 Strong Breeze, large branches in motion

How: Points for censusing birds should be placed using a stratified random technique to exclude any other habitat type.

One point should be established for every 10 acres of contiguous wetland. For example, for sites 1-10 acres there will

be one bird point. For sites 11-20 acres there will be two bird points. Points should be at least 150m apart and at least

50m from the wetland boundary.

Each point should be approached with as little disturbance to the birds as possible. Counts begin immediately when the

observer reaches the census point. At each bird po int the observer will record any birds seen or heard within a 50m

radius from the point for 10 minutes. Observations are recorded separately for the first 3 minutes, the following 2

minutes and the remaining 5 minutes (see sample data form in Appendix C). Details of each point such as the site, po int,

date, time, and observer are recorded on the top portion of the data form. A four letter code for each bird is used on the

data sheets to save time and space. These codes are called alpha species codes for birds as used in the 1988 N orth

American Bird Banding Manual. Alpha codes usually correspond to the first four letters of the common name of the

species or, in the case of a two-word name, the first two letters of the first word and the first two letters of the second

of 21

word. For example, a killdeer is recorded as KILL and a common yellowthroat would be recorded as COYE. A list of

standard codes is located in the "References" folder.

For each species, the number of individuals is recorded separately for those within a 50 m radius and for all those outside

the circle, out to an unlimited distance. If a bird is flushed from within the plot when the observer arrives at the point,

it should be recorded as in the plot. Birds detected flying over the point, rather than detected from within the vegetation,

should be recorded separately by circling the record. Do not record female song birds in the surveys. Refer to the sample

Bird Data Form (Appendix C) for illustration.

Once established, bird points should be permanently marked using metal stakes with bright paint on top. These stakes

will be provided by NMWP coordinators. Bird points for four restoration sites have been permanently marked in the

field using metal stakes with fluorescent pink spray painted tops and can be located using the maps in the “Study Areas”

folder. Data sheets to record observations are in Folder 3 "D ata Forms". Always make copies of additional sheets

before using last form. If it is necessary to print or edit the data sheets, the bird form can be found on the computer disk

labeled "Forms" under filename "birdform.wk1" (a Lotus file). All computer disks are in the NMWP equipment box

located in the rear of the NMW P office.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Bird data are summarized per plot for each restoration site to facilitate statistical

comparisons on means. The total number of unique bird species and total number of individuals for all bird species

should be determined for each plot sampled within a site during a sampling year (see Monitoring report for 1995 and

1996 data). All species present should be ranked according to their wetland dependancy based on Brooks and Croonquist

(1990) located in reference folder. The relative abundance per plot for each species at a site in a sampling year and bird

diversity can be calculated to examine trends in bird community composition. Percent similarities can be calculated

qualitatively and quantitatively each year to determine if restored areas are increasing in similarity to reference wetlands.

Refer to Appendix D, “Formulas and Statistical Testing Procedures” for detailed instructions on calculations and

statistical analyses.

Supplemental Bird Survey Methods

Waterfowl Surveys: For waterfowl utilizing each area, counts can be done by walking around the perimeter of the

restoration site along the dike and recording the species and number of ducks and geese observed. This survey follows

the guidelines set by the Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey conducted by the NYSD EC each year.

See Appendix C for explicit details on how the surveys should be conducted and a sample data form.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Species presence/absence data and numbers of individuals can be summarized for

each site and compared among sites and between years.

Marsh Bird Surveys: For secretive marsh birds that are inconspicuous and therefore hard to detect, a call back method

is recommended as described in Chabot and Helferty (1995). This involves visiting each bird point 1 to 2 times during

the end of May or early June and playing a tape of bird calls including those of the Virginia rail, American bittern, and

American coot. This will elicit calling of secretive birds that usually do not make a lot of no ise. The count is conducted

the same as described in the point count method above, with the exception that the first five minute period is

surveyed while the tape is playing. Use the same bird points and bird data forms as for the point count method. The

bird survey tape is located in the NMW P Equipment Box. This method may be combined with the point count method,

however rails and bitterns tend to be more vocal during late May and early June while the recommended initiation of

breeding songbird surveys is not until the first week of June.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Data may be summarized and included with the point count survey data and analyzed

as described above.

Amphibians

Amphibian audio surveys are conducted to assess species richness and relative abundance for anuran species (frogs and

of 21

toads) that call nocturnally during their breeding seasons. An audio point is established at each site and censused 3 times

during the spring and early summer. Audio points have been established at four restoration sites as shown on the maps

and marked in the field using metal stakes with green painted tops and aluminum tags.

When: Audio surveys are to be conducted after 2030 and before 2400 hours. Depending on travel time, multiple sites

can be censused in one night. Appropriate air temperature and wind speeds are the most important factors to consider

when deciding when to conduct surveys as amphibian body temperatures fluctuate with air and water temperatures

(Chabot and H elferty 1995). Frogs and toads usually require an air temperature greater than 46 degrees F to elicit calling

activity and some species such as bullfrogs and green frogs do not begin calling until temperatures are at least 70 degrees

F. Therefore, night-time temperatures should be between 46-54 degrees F for the first survey, 55-68 degrees F for the

second survey, and 70+ degrees F for the third survey to ensure all species can call if present. Although air temperature

is more important than date, recommended guidelines for surveys are once between April 15-30, once between May 15-

30, and once between June 15-30 (Chabot and Helferty 1995).

Strong wind also deters amphibian activity as well as the observer's ability to hear. Do not conduct surveys when wind

speeds are greater than a Code 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale (Table 2). Nights that are damp, foggy, or have light rain

falling are ideal for surveys, but avoid persistent or heavy rainfall.

Materials: Be sure to bring enough Amphibian Data Forms to have one for each point. In addition, a small flashlight

or headlamp, pens or pencils, watch/timer, clipboard, insect repellant, compass and copies of maps to relocate the points.

How: At each point an observer records all frog and toad calls heard within the study site in an unlimited d istance, semi-

circular sample area (180 degree arc) for three minutes facing a set d irection (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Semi-circular sample plot for surveying calling amphibians.

Amphibians are represented by the round dots.

Before going into the field it is important that the calls of different species can be identified and the call level code and

abundance count methods are understood. A training tape for learning amphibian calls is located in Folder 5 "Training

Tapes". Call level codes are used to categorize the intensity of calling activity for each species. Use the following call

of 21

level codes for each species detected during a survey:

1. Assign this number when individuals can be counted easily and calls are not simultaneous. For the abundance

count, record the number of individual frogs calling for each species beside the code number (see sample

Amphibian Data Form, Appendix C).

2. Assign code 2 when calls are distinguishable and some calls of the same species are simultaneous. In this case

an exact abundance count cannot be determined, but a reliab le estimate of the number of individuals present based

on location and voice can be made.

3. Assign this number when calls of a species are continuous and overlapping, a full chorus. No abundance count

can be recorded in this level as there are too many overlapping calls to allow for any reasonable estimate.

Before beginning the survey, fill in the information in the top section of the data form (see sample form, Appendix C).

Date and time are written military style. Weather information is recorded using the Beaufort Wind Scale (Table 2), and

an air thermometer or reliable local weather report for air temperature. Also record the direction you are facing when

conducting surveys at each point for future reference.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Total species richness for amphibians should be calculated as the number of unique

species observed during audio surveys at each site. An index of abundance can be determined using the call level codes

given for each species during surveys. This information can be used to compare species composition among sites and

years.

Habitat

A simple description of habitat is performed usually at a site photo location for each restoration site. The information

recorded facilitates interpretation of bird and amphibian data and marks changes from year to year in vegetation and

hydrology. Simple distinctions are made between 4 groups of plants: (1) emergents, (2) floating plants, (3) forbes, and

(4) shrubs/trees

When: Habitat surveys should be conducted in mid to late June. It is possible to complete the habitat surveys after a

bird survey or at the same time as site photos are taken.

Materials: Binoculars, data forms, pens or pencils, compass, vegetation field guide.

How: Habitat features for each site are recorded on habitat data forms located in the “D ata Forms” folder (see Appendix

C for a sample habitat data form). Only the dominant features of each site need to be recorded, so access to the entire

area is not necessary. The survey is begun by standing at a predetermined focal point (photo points work well) and

record what can be seen by answering the series of questions on the data form (Appendix C). Questions prompt summary

information about the major kinds of habitat cover. Estimate the percentages of the total area that are covered by

emergent vegetation (including shrubs and trees), open water (including floating plants), and exposed mud/sand/rock.

These three values should add up to 100%. For comparing data between years, surveys must be conducted from

permanent points.

Of particular interest is how water contributes to the structure of the habitat. Open water is defined as any patch of water

that is at least the size of a standard sheet of plywood (4 x 8 feet). Open water supports little if any emergent vegetation

but can have floating plants.

Separately categorize the number of trees and shrubs (living and dead) that are within the sample area. Look again at

open water zones and categorize the amount of submergent plants present and floating plant cover. Record habitat types

adjacent to the restored wetland.

Dominant emergent vegetation information is recorded by estimating the percent cover of groups of emergent vegetation

of 21

types. Scan the site and determine which kinds of emergent plants dominate the area. Sturdy emergents such as cattail

are those that can support elevated bird nests; weak emergents cannot. Record the percentages of each emergent plant

group and check off or add individual species that are known to be present (see sample form in Appendix C).

Data Summarization and Analysis: Percentages for open water, emergent vegetation cover and exposed mud can be

summarized and graphed to show trends over years and make comparisons among sites. The composition of major

groups of vegetation can be compared as well.

Monitoring Reports

See page 17

COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT

The Comprehensive Assessment involves more quantitative measures using transects, quadrats, and sampling replications

to increase sample sizes and facilitate reliable statistical analyses. In addition to the Routine assessment sampling

techniques described above, the Comprehensive Assessment requires techniques such as amphibian and reptile trapping,

quantitative hydrology and vegetation measurements, and increased replication of bird and amphibian call surveys.

Goal. The goal of the Comprehensive Assessment is to survey birds, reptiles, amphibians, vegetation and hydrology on

restored wetlands in the NMWP area as a method for monitoring and evaluating wetland development. This assessment

procedure is designed to provide the following information:

1. Species richness and relative abundance of avian, reptile, amphibian and plant species utilizing NMW P restored

wetlands.

2. Habitat characteristics including water cover, vegetation structure and composition.

3. Changes in habitat characteristics.

4. Changes in bird, reptile and amphibian species composition and abundance.

5. Indicators of the success of NMWP restoration efforts to restore habitat quality and biodiversity.

6. Statistical results to support inferences regarding wildlife and habitat conditions on NMW P restoration sites and

to determine significant differences in variables between years and among restoration sites.

Comprehensive Assessment Procedure

The following section gives detailed descriptions of the methods by which data are collected, stored, and analyzed using

the Comprehensive Assessment. Most field and sampling equipment for assessment procedures are stored in the NMWP

Equipment Box located in the back of the NMWP office (see Appendix A for the NM WP Equipment Box content list).

Materials including data forms, reference materials and maps are located in specified folders in the NMW P Filing Box

which should be next to the Equipment Box. After reviewing each section of the Comprehensive Assessment procedure,

the following steps should be taken:

Step 1. The first step is to obtain maps and visit each site to locate sampling points or to determine where to place new

sampling points as discussed below. This step should be done in time to begin pitfall trapping and call surveys for

amphibians. See Appendix B and the “Study Areas” folder for examples.

Step 2. The second step is to create a time table to ensure all sampling is done during the correct times. As an example,

Table 3 is a time tab le for sampling with the Comprehensive Assessment.

Step 3. Review the list of materials necessary for each procedure. Verify the location and availability of all materials

before sampling begins. Any questions about missing materials should be directed to the NMW P coordinator.

Step 4. Make certain that the methods for each technique are well understood before going into the field. A practice

survey of each type is encouraged before actual sampling begins. Identification abilities for birds, reptiles, amphibians

of 21

and vegetation should be well developed.

Step 5. Begin sampling.

Step 6. Take time to organize, check, enter, and file sampling data and data forms into the appropriate database files and

NM WP folders.

Step 7. Analyze and interpret data as suggested. Compile a monitoring report.

Table 3. Time Table for the Comprehensive Assessment illustrating the time periods

in which sampling procedures should be completed.

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGU ST

Maps

Pitfall Traps

Frog Survey

Site Photos

Pitfall Traps

Frog Survey

Bird Surveys

Frog Survey

Pitfall Traps

Site Photos

Data Analysis Habitat 2

Data Analysis

Monitoring Report

Site Descriptions and Maps

Obtain and/or create maps and site descriptions to record the location of sampling points and additional information

pertinent to field work, presentations and reports. Site descriptions and maps used in 1995 and 1996 are in the “Study

Areas” folder. See Appendix B for a sample site description form and map.

When: Descriptions and maps should be located or created prior to field work and before determining sampling points

for new sites.

Materials: Maps can be made in a variety of ways, but the inclusion of concise, understandable information is more

important than the method used. Existent maps were made using topographic maps for the NMW P project area, which

are hanging on the back of the door to the rear of the NMW P office.

How: For each site clearly illustrate and/or record topography, location, size, open water and vegetation types, site

boundaries, water control structures, transect lines, and photo points (see Appendix B). Simply knowing the scale of the

map being used (i.e., topographic maps have a scale 1"=200') along with a ruler and a compass is enough to locate or

place points on the map. Information for open water, vegetation types, site boundaries, and size can be obtained by

visiting the site, from aerial photos, and by consulting with NMWP coordinators. Site description cover forms are in

the folder labeled “D ata Forms”.

Site Photos

Photo points should be established to record annual changes in visual characteristics at each restoration site (Hairston

1992). The number of photo points depend on site size and vantage points. Photo points have been established at four

NMWP sites to date. These points are labeled for each site on the maps in the “Study Areas” folder and in the field by

green metal posts with orange painted tops and aluminum tags.

When: Photos are to be taken at least once during June and additional photos taken in April and August would be useful.

Photos taken on a bright, sunny day provide the best results.

of 21

Materials: A camera and slide film should be made available by NMWP coordinators. Information and slide photos

from 1995 and 1996 photo points on restoration sites are located in the “Site Photos” folder along with additional slide

sleeves.

How: Locate existing photo points or determine the placement of new ones for each restoration site of interest. Record

the compass d irection for each photo and always face the same direction at the same point each time. Carefully record

when and where photos were taken to avoid replication or exclusion of points. Data forms are located in the “Data

Forms” folder.

Interpretation: The presence of open water, vegetation characteristics, and surrounding land uses can be noted and kept

on permanent record with site photos. Site photos can also be used as benchmarks for temporal assessments and

presentations on restoration development.

Birds

Birds are examined using a 50-m radius point-count method to sample species composition and relative abundance for

each restoration site (Ralph et al. 1993). The point-count method facilitates the examination of yearly changes in bird

populations at fixed points and abundance patterns of species. Although the point-count method is likely the most

efficient and data-rich method of counting birds, it does not provide reliable data on some bird groups including

waterfowl, waders, and less conspicuous marsh birds such as rails and bitterns. Therefore, supplemental methods are

described following the point count section.

When: Bird points should be sampled at least once, preferably twice, during the month of June. The more times

sampling can be replicated the more reliable the data. Sampling is to be done between 0530 and 1000 hours with wind

speeds no greater than a Code 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale (Table 2), and not during precipitation or foggy conditions

that impair the observer's ability to detect species by sight or sound (Ralph et al. 1993).

Materials: Be sure to bring enough Bird Data Forms(“Data Forms” folder) to have one for each point. Other necessary

materials include a clipboard, pens or pencils, copies of site maps, watch/timer, binoculars, insect repellant, bird field

guide, and well developed bird identification skills by both sight and sound.

How: Points for censusing birds should be placed using a stratified random technique to exclude any other habitat type.

One point should be established for every 10 acres of contiguous wetland. For example, for sites 1-10 acres there will

be one bird point. For sites 11-20 acres there will be two bird points. Points should be at least 150m apart and at least

50m from the wetland boundary.

Each point should be approached with as little disturbance to the birds as possible. Counts begin immediately when the

observer reaches the census point. At each bird point the observer will record any birds seen or heard within a 50m

radius from the point for 10 minutes. Observations are recorded separately for the first 3 minutes, the following 2

minutes and the remaining 5 minutes (see sample data form in Appendix C). Details of each point such as the site, po int,

date, time, and observer are recorded on the top portion of the data form. A four letter code for each bird is used on the

data sheets to save time and space. These codes are called alpha species codes for birds as used in the 1988 N orth

American Bird Banding Manual. Alpha codes usually correspond to the first four letters of the common name of the

species or, in the case of a two-word name, the first two letters of the first word and the first two letters of the second

word. For example, a killdeer is recorded as KILL and a common yellowthroat would be recorded as COYE. A list of

standard codes is located in the “References” folder.

For each species, the number of individuals is recorded separately for those within a 50 m radius and for all those outside

the circle, out to an unlimited distance. If a bird is flushed from within the plot when the observer arrives at the point,

it should be recorded as in the plot. Birds detected flying over the point, rather than detected from within the vegetation,

should be recorded separately by circling the record. Do not record female song b irds in the surveys. Refer to the sample

Bird Data Form (Appendix C) for illustration.

Once established, bird points should be permanently marked using metal stakes with bright paint on top. These stakes

of 21

will be provided by NMWP coordinators. Bird points for four restoration sites have been permanently marked in the

field using metal stakes with fluorescent pink spray painted tops and can be located using the maps in the “Study Areas”

folder. Data sheets to record observations are in the “Data Forms” folder . If it is necessary to print or edit the data

sheets, the bird form can be found on the computer disk labeled “Forms” under filename “birdform.wk1" (a Lotus file).

All computer disks are in the NMW P equipment box located in the rear of the NMW P office.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Bird data are summarized per plot for each restoration site to facilitate statistical

comparisons on means. The total number of unique bird species and total number of individuals for all bird species


1996 data). All species present should be ranked according to their wetland dependancy based on Brooks and Croonquist

(1990) located in reference folder. The relative abundance per plot for each species at a site in a sampling year and bird

diversity can be calculated to examine trends in bird community composition. Percent similarities can be calculated


Refer to Appendix D, “Formulas and Statistical Testing Procedures” for detailed instructions on calculations and

statistical analyses.

Supplemental Bird Survey Methods

Waterfowl Surveys: For waterfowl utilizing each area, counts can be done by walking around the perimeter of the

restoration site along the dike and recording the species and number of ducks and geese observed. This survey follows

the guidelines set by the Atlantic Flyway Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey conducted by the NYSD EC each year.

See Appendix C for explicit details on how the surveys should be conducted and a sample data form.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Species presence/absence data and numbers of individuals can be summarized for

each site and compared among sites and between years.

Marsh Bird Surveys: For secretive marsh birds that are inconspicuous and therefore hard to detect, a call back method

is recommended as described in Chabot and Helferty (1995). This involves visiting each bird point 1 to 2 times during

the end of May or early June and playing a tape of bird calls including those of the Virginia rail, American bittern, and

American coot. This will elicit calling of secretive birds that usually do not make a lot of noise. The count is conducted

the same as described in the point count method above, w ith the exception that the first five minute period is

surveyed while the tape is playing. Use the same bird points and bird data forms as for the point count method. The

bird survey tape is located in the NMW P Equipment Box. This method may be combined with the point count method,

however rails and bitterns tend to be more vocal during late May and early June while the recommended initiation of

breeding songbird surveys is not until the first week of June.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Data may be summarized and included with the point count survey data and analyzed

as described above.

Amphibians

Audio Surveys

Amphibian audio surveys are conducted to assess species richness and relative abundance for anuran species (frogs and

toads) that call nocturnally during their breeding seasons. An audio point is estab lished at each site and censused equally

for all sites during the spring and early summer. The greater the sample size (number of repeated samples), the more

reliable the data. Audio points have been established at four restoration sites as shown on the maps and marked in the

field using metal stakes with green painted tops and aluminum tags.

When: Audio surveys are to be conducted after 2030 and before 2400 hours. Depending on travel time, multiple sites

can be censused in one night. Appropriate air temperature and wind speeds are the most important factors to consider

of 21

when deciding when to conduct surveys as amphibian body temperatures fluctuate with air and water temperatures

(Chabot and Helferty 1995). Frogs and toads usually require an air temperature greater than 46 degrees F to elicit calling

activity and some species such as bullfrogs and green frogs do not begin calling until temperatures are at least 70 degrees

F. Therefore, night-time temperatures should be between 46-54 degrees F for the first survey, 55-68 degrees F for the

second survey, and 70+ degrees F for the third survey to ensure all species can call if present. Although air temperature

is more important than date, recommended guidelines for surveys are once between April 15-30, once between May 15-

30, and once between June 15-30 (Chabot and Helferty 1995).

Strong wind also deters amphibian activity as well as the observer's ability to hear. Do not conduct surveys when wind

speeds are greater than a Code 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale (T able 2). Nights that are damp, foggy, or have light rain

falling are ideal for surveys, but avoid persistent or heavy rainfall.

Materials: Be sure to bring enough Amphibian Data Forms to have one for each point. In addition, a small flashlight

or headlamp, pens or pencils, watch/timer, clipboard, insect repellant, compass and copies of maps to relocate the points.

How: At each point an observer records all frog and toad calls heard within the study site in an unlimited distance, semi-

circular sample area (180 degree arc) for three minutes facing a set direction (Figure 1).

Before going into the field it is important that the calls of different species can be identified and the call level code and

abundance count methods are understood. A training tape for learning amphibian calls is located in Folder 5 "Training

Tapes". Call level codes are used to categorize the intensity of calling activity for each species. Use the following call

level codes for each species detected during a survey:

1. Assign this number when individuals can be counted easily and calls are not simultaneous. For the abundance

count, record the number of individual frogs calling for each species beside the code number (see sample

Amphibian Data Form, Appendix C).

2. Assign code 2 when calls are distinguishable and some calls of the same species are simultaneous. In this case

an exact abundance count cannot be determined, but a reliable estimate of the number of individuals present based

on location and voice can be made.

3. Assign this number when calls of a species are continuous and overlapping, a full chorus. No abundance count

can be recorded in this level as there are too many overlapping calls to allow for any reasonable estimate.

Before beginning the survey, fill in the information in the top section of the data form (see sample form, Appendix C).

Date and time are written military style. Weather information is recorded using the Beaufort Wind Scale (Table 3), and

an air thermometer or reliable local weather report for air temperature. Also record the direction you are facing when

conducting surveys at each point for future reference.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Total species richness for amphibians should be calculated as the number of unique

species observed during audio surveys at each site. An index of abundance can be determined using the call level codes

given for each species during surveys. This information can be used to compare species composition among sites and

years.

Pitfall Trapping

Pitfalls with drift fence arrays can be used to determine the species d iversity of amphibians. P itfall traps have the ability

to detect the presence of many amphibians for a variety of habitat types (Heyer et al. 1994). Reptiles and small mammals

are also trapped when this method is employed, however we found that data collected in 1995 and 1996 on reptiles

showed little in the way of spatial or temporal trends. Although most anuran species are detected using this trapping

method, some species such as the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) and spring peeper (Psuedacaris cristata) are ab le to

escape by climbing up the sides of the pitfall buckets. These species will be detected using the audio surveys.

of 21

When: Arrays are to be installed in early April and maintained to trap amphibian species throughout April, May and

June. Traps should be run for a minimum of 15 array nights each year to facilitate comparison with data from previous

years. Trapping during warm, wet conditions usually provides the best results.

Materials: A drift-fence array consists of 4 five-gallon plastic buckets, 15 m of aluminum flashing, 4 plywood trap covers

or plastic bucket covers, wooden or aluminum 0.5m stakes and duct tape. Materials necessary for installation,

maintenance and checking of traps include aquatic nets, field guide, water scoop, shovel, pick, gloves, rivets, rivet gun,

flashing cutters (wire cutters), data forms, and a meter tape.

How: Installation of drift fences and pitfall traps is simple but labor-intensive. Figure 2 is a diagram illustrating a typical

pitfall/drift fence array used previously on NMW P sites. The array is set up in a "T" formation with both arms of

aluminum flashing measuring 7.5 m (25 ft). Three 5 gallon buckets (pitfall traps) are placed one at each end of a flashing

arm and one at the junction buried in the ground with the opening flush with the ground surface (see Figure 2). Two

small holes are placed opposite another 1/3 up the sides of each bucket for water drainage. The edges of each bucket

are sliced approximately 3 inches to fit flashing a short distance into the mouth, the middle bucket should be sliced on

both sides as flashing passes through the middle bucket, and overlaps the three end buckets to enhance trapping success.

Thin plywood boards cut to fit the size of the pitfall openings can be used to cover traps when not in use (Figure 2). Slits

should also be cut in the plywood covers to enable flashing to remain in place when traps are closed. Each pitfall with

drift fence array should be labeled so that data is collected for each array individually. This should not be an issue if

there is only one array per site.

Figure 2. Diagram for a pitfall with drift fence array for trapping amphibians.

25 Feet

of 21

25 Feet

KEY

5 Gallon Bucket

Plywood C over

Aluminum Flashing

Arrays should be placed within the study site on areas with no surface water. It may be necessary to either delay

installation until spring high water recedes or move arrays from previously designated locations to more appropriate

areas. Traps should be removed at the end of each field season unless trapping is planned for the following spring and

summer in which case pitfalls should be securely covered and only flashing removed to prevent damages. The location

of traps for 1995 and 1996 sampling are illustrated on site maps in the “Study Areas” folder.

Traps should be checked each day ideally before noon because heat may become a mortality factor. An aquatic net

should be used to retrieve animals from the four buckets while recording and then releasing each individual for every

species (see Appendix C for sample data form).

Data Summarization and Analysis: Spec ies richness is calculated for amphibians as the number of unique species

observed at each study area. Richness and the number of individuals for each species can be determined per trap night

and averaged to facilitate statistical comparisons of means. Refer to Appendix D for information on statistical analyses.

Habitat 1

A simple description of habitat is performed usually at a site photo location for each restoration site. The information

recorded facilitates interpretation of b ird and amphibian data and marks changes from year to year in vegetation and

hydrology. Simple distinctions are made between 4 groups of plants: (1) emergents, (2) floating plants, (3) forbes, and

(4) shrubs/trees.

When: Habitat surveys should be conducted in mid to late June. It is possible to complete the habitat surveys after a

bird survey or at the same time as site photos are taken.

Materials: Binoculars, data forms, pens or pencils, compass, vegetation field guide.

How: Habitat features for each site are recorded on habitat data forms located in the “Data Forms” folder (see Appendix

C for a sample habitat data form). Only the dominant features of each site need to be recorded, so access to the entire

area is not necessary. The survey is begun by standing at a predetermined focal point (photo points work well) and

record what can be seen by answering the series of questions on the data form (Appendix C). Questions prompt summary

information about the major kinds of habitat cover. Estimate the percentages of the total area that are covered by

emergent vegetation (including shrubs and trees), open water (including floating plants), and exposed mud/sand/rock.

These three values should add up to 100%. For comparing data be tween years, surveys must be conducted from

permanent points.

Of particular interest is how water contributes to the structure of the habitat. Open water is defined as any patch of water

of 21

that is at least the size of a standard sheet of plywood (4 x 8 feet). Open water supports little if any emergent vegetation

but can have floating plants.

Separately categorize the number of trees and shrubs (living and dead) that are within the sample area. Look again at

open water zones and categorize the amount of submergent plants present and floating plant cover. Record habitat types

adjacent to the restored wetland.

Dominant emergent vegetation information is recorded by estimating the percent cover of groups of emergent vegetation

types. Scan the site and determine which kinds of emergent plants dominate the area. Sturdy emergents such as cattail

are those that can support elevated bird nests; weak emergents cannot. Record the percentages of each emergent plant

group and check off or add individual species that are known to be present (see sample form in Appendix C).

Data Summarization and Analysis: Percentages for open water, emergent vegetation cover and exposed mud can be

summarized and graphed to show trends over years and make comparisons among sites. The composition of major

groups of vegetation can be compared as well.

Habitat 2

Measurements of vegetation and water cover and depth are made to assess vegetation community dynamics and

hydrological fluctuations over time and among sites.

When: Sampling should be done during August when many plants are flowering and therefore easily identifiable. Water

cover and depth may also be measured at bird points and pitfall trap arrays biweekly throughout the monitoring period.

Materials: field guides, field ruler (cm), 50 m tape, data forms, clipboard, pens and pencils, compass, m2 plotter , plastic

bags, permanent marker, labels, and site maps.

How: Five 200-m transects should be placed within the wetland parallel to any significant gradient such as moisture or

elevation (Hairston 1992). Hydrology and vegetation are sampled on each transect by starting at a predetermined end

of the transect and sampling in 1m2 plots at 20m intervals. In each plot the percent cover based on the Braun-Blanquet

scale (Table 4) is used to estimate the 3 most abundant herbaceous species for each plot (Hays et al. 1981). All other

species in the plo t should be noted as p resent. The percent water coverage (Braun-Blanquet scale) is determined for the

entire plot, and water depth is measured in the center of each plot in centimeters (See Appendix C for sample Habitat

2 Data Form). The point-centered quarter method as described by Cottam and Curtis (1956) should be used to measure

trees and shrubs within 10 m of the center of each herbaceous vegetation plot.

Table 4. Braun-B lanquet Cover Scale

r = rare, solitary

+ = few

1 = <5%

2 = 5 - 25%

3 = 25 - 49%

4 = 50 - 74%

5 = >75%

Plant species are recorded using a four letter code consisting of the first two letters in the Genus name and the first two

of 21

letters in the species name. For example, Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) is noted as LYSA. It may require some

practice to remember the codes, therefore, either bringing along a field guide or the Vegetation Reference sheet located

in the “References” folder is recommended.

Data Summarization and Analysis: Vegetation data are summarized per plot for each restoration site to facilitate

statistical comparisons on means. The total number of unique herbaceous species and woody species, and percent cover


1996 data). All species present should be ranked according to their wetland dependency based on Reed (1988). The

relative importance based on cover per p lot for each species along with wetland and diversity indices (Appendix D) can

be calculated to examine trends in vegetative community development. Percent similarities can be calculated


Refer to Appendix D for detailed instructions for calculations and statistical testing. Hairston (1992), pages 87-108

discusses additional methods for examining vegetation data on restored wetlands.

Percent water cover and water depth should be averaged over plots for each site for statistical comparisons of mean water

cover and depth. Monthly water depths can be used to examine water level fluctuations by graphing the mean monthly

water depths per plot taken at each site type (see the 1996 Monitoring Report).

MONITORING REPO RTS

Monitoring reports are to be completed each year restoration sites are monitored. These reports are intended to

summarize data analyses and conclusions as well as provide information for future reference. Refer to the 1996

Monitoring Report for NMW P Restoration Sites in the “Reports” folder.

NOTES AND RECOMM ENDATIONS

Many research efforts have been and are currently being made toward refining wetland restoration and monitoring. In

light of these efforts, future possibilities exist for improving and adding to the monitoring protocol for NMW P restored

wetlands. Based on data analysis of two field seasons, literature reviews and professional correspondences, we suggest

the following possibilities to be considered for future incorporation and/or thought.

Forested wetland restoration is more complex than emergent restoration and requires a much longer development period.

Resources for monitoring restored forested wetlands may be best applied to ensuring the establishment of woody plant

species rather than measuring wildlife community development for the first 5 years. Wildlife assessments cannot be

realistically compared with natural forested areas until tree and shrub layers have had time to develop. During this time,

wildlife community characteristics can be expected to change repeatedly.

Factors critical to forest development include appropriate hydrological conditions, substrate stability, adequate so il

rooting volume and fertility, and control of herbivores and competitive herbaceous plants (Clewell and Lea 1990, Barry

et al. 1996). Emphasis must be placed on the attainment of an adequate stand of trees; most restored forested wetland

functions cannot be compared with reference wetlands until trees are estab lished (C lewell and Lea 1990). Plantings of

woody species from natural stock have been met with limited success, but artificially created mounds provide some

assurance that high quality plantings will survive flooding (Barry et al. 1996). See Barry et al. (1996) for a detailed

descriptions of methods and costs associated with restoration of forested wetlands.

Monitoring trends in amphibian use of restored areas can be challenging. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to

environmental conditions, including precipitation levels. Although this sensitivity may seem desirable for monitoring

restored areas, it can cause confusion among the effects of restoration, local weather patterns and other environmental

variables. Audio surveys appear to be the most efficient and effective means of collecting trend data each year. W hile

trapping methods provide information on a greater number of species, its effectiveness can be unpredictable as seen in

1996, when flooding throughout the spring and summer resulted in sporadic or no trapping at most sites.

Incorporation of productivity measures of wildlife and vegetation communities would provide additional information

on restoration success, particularly when restoration goals concern wildlife habitat.

of 21

Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses could benefit the NMW P by providing a broader, landscape perspective

on changes in the Montezuma M arsh Complex in response to restorations. A GIS would enable overlays of biological

and environmental data on topographic maps to facilitate decision making regarding monitoring, restoration techniques

and future land acquisition and restorations.

LITERATURE CITED/REFERENCE LIST

Adamus, P.R. 1983. A Method for W etland Functional Assessment. Volume II. U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Admin.

Office of Research, Environmental Division, Washington, D.C. (FHW A-IP-82-24).

Barry, W. J., A. S. Garlo and C. A. Wood. Duplicating the Mound-and-pool M icrotopography of Forested W etlands.

Restoration and Management Notes. 14(1):15-21.

Brown, S. C. 1993. Ecological Evaluation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Restoration Program in New

York State. Progress Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY.

Brown, S. C. 1995. Comparative Avifaunal Use of Restored and Natural Wetlands. Ecological Evaluation of the U.S.

Fish and W ildlife Service W etland Restoration P rogram in New York State. Technical Report No. 5. Cortland, NY.

43pp.

Brooks, R. P. And M. J. Croonquist. 1990. W etland, Habitat and T rophic Response Guilds for Wildlife Species in

Pennsylvania. Journal Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 64(2):93-102.

Bury, R. B., and P. S. Corn. 1987. Evaluation of Pitfall Trapping in Northwestern Forests: Trap Arrays with D rift

Fences. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(1):112-119.

Chabot, A., and C. Helferty. 1995. Marsh M onitoring Program: Training Kit and Instructions for Surveying M arsh

Birds, Amphibians, and Their Habitats. Long Point Bird Observatory and Environment Canada. Ontario, Canada.

Clairain, E. J. Jr. 1985 . WET: a Wetland Evaluation Technique for M icrocomputers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Clairain, E. J. Jr. 1985. Wetlands Functions and Values Study Plan. Technical Report Y-83-2, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS, 36 p.

Clewell, A. F. and R. Lea. 1990. Creation and Restoration of Forested W etland Vegetation in the Southeastern United

States. p. 195-231. In J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.) Wetland Creation and Restoration: the Status of the Science.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Confer, S. R. and W. A. Niering. 1992. Comparison of Created and Natural Freshwater Emergent W etlands in

Connecticut (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2(3):143-156.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. G. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of W etlands and Deepwater Habitats

of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Delphey, P. J. 1991. A Comparison of the Bird and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities Between Restored and

"Natural" Iowa Prairie Wetlands. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University. 85pp.

Delphey, P. J. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1993 . Breeding Bird Communities of Recently Restored and Natural Prairie Potholes.

13(3):200-206.

Dornfield, R. 1988. W etland Restoration. A Mid-Continent Waterfowl Management Project Final Activity Report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 36 pp.

of 21

Edwards, D. K., G. L. Dorsey, and J. A. Crawford. 1981. A Comparison of Three Avian Census Methods. Pages 170-

176 in C. J . Ralph and J. M. Scott eds. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6 - Estimating Numbers of Terrestrial Birds. Allen

Press, Inc., Lawrence, KA.

Erwin, K. L. and G. R. Best. 1985. Marsh Community Development in a Central Florida Phosphate Surface-Mined

Reclaimed Wetland. 5:155-166.

Fischel, M. 1987. Wetland Restoration/Creation and the Controversy over its Use in Mitigation: An Introduction. Pages

127-129 in J. Zelazny and J. S. Feierabend eds. Increasing Our Wetland Resources. National Wildlife Federation,

Washington, D.C.

Gibbs, J.P. and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Call Response Surveys for Monitoring Breeding W aterbirds. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 57(1):27-34.

Glooschenko, V. 1983. Development of an Evaluation System Wetlands in Southern Ontario. 3:192-200.

Golet, F.C. 1986. Critical Issues in Wetland Mitigation: a Scientific Perspective. National Wetlands Newsletter 8(5):3-

6.

Golet, F. C. 1973. Classification and Evaluation of Freshwater Wetlands as W ildlife Habitat in the Glaciated Northeast.

Pages 257-279 in Transactions of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol. 30.

Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. Wiley-Interscience, New

York.

Hairston, A. J. 1992. Wetlands: An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation.

Island Press, Washington, DC. 151pp.

Hammer, D. A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.

Hays, R. L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

FWS/OBS-81/47. 111pp.

Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid , L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster. 1994. M easuring and Monitoring

Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. 364pp.

Kusler, J . A., and M. E. Kentula (eds). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: the Status of the Science. Island Press,

Washington, DC.

LaGrange, T. G ., and J . J. Dinsmore. 1989. P lant and Animal Community Responses to Restored Iowa W etlands. Prairie

Nat. 21:39-48.

Larson, J. S. and C. Neill (eds.). 1987. Mitigating Freshwater Wetland Alterations in the Glaciated Northeastern U.S.

Proceedings of a Workshop held at University of Massachusetts. Environmental Institute Publication No. 87-1.

Larson, J. S. 1976. Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands. Water Resources Research Center, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst. Publication No. 32.

Ludwig, J. A. and J. F. Reynolds. 1988 . Statistical Ecology: a Primer on Methods and Computing. John W iley and Sons.

NY.

Mitsch, W. J. and J. K. Cronk. 1992. Creation and Restoration of Wetlands: Some Design Consideration for Ecological

of 21

Engineering. Pages 217-269 in R. Lal and B. A. Stewart, eds. Advances in Soil Science: Soil Restoration Volume 17.

Springer-Verlag, New York.

Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. pp 577-615.

Morrison, M.L. 1994. Resource Inventory and Monitoring. Restoration and Management Notes. 12(2):179-183.

Morrison, M.L., T. Tennant and T . Scott. 1994. Environmental Auditing: Laying the Foundation for a Comprehensive

Program of Restoration for Wildlife Habitat in a Riparian Floodplain. Environmental Management. 18(6):939-955.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 552

pp.

Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring

Landbirds. General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Res. Stn. Forest Service.

USDOA.

Rieger, John P. 1994. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Mitigation Monitoring and a Need for a New

Approach. Wetland Journal. 6(1):9-11.

SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.

Schneider, K.J. and D. M. Pence, eds. 1992. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the Northeast. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400pp.

Sewell, R. W . 1989. Floral and Faunal Colonization of Restored Wetlands in West-Central Minnesota and Northeastern

South Dakota. M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Borrkings. 46pp.

Sleggs, S. E. 1997. Wildlife and Vegetation Response to Wetland Restoration in the Montezuma Marsh Complex of

Central New York. M. S. Thesis, SUNY-CESF, Syracuse, NY.

Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1980. P rinciples and Procedures of Statistics: a Biometrical Approach. M cGraw-Hill.

New York, NY.

Weller, M. W. 1978. Management of Freshwater Marshes for Wildlife. Pages 267-284 in R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham,

and R. L. Simpson, eds. Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Academic Press, New

York, NY.

Wich, K. F., and R. E. Lambertson. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Northern Montezuma Wetlands

Project. NYSDEC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FES 91-12. NY. 223pp.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1983. Wetland Evaluation Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Rock Island District. IL. 63 pp.

Wolf, R. B., L. C. Lee, and R. R. Sharitz. 1986. Wetland Creation in the United States from 1970-1985: An Annotated

Bibliography. Wetlands 6:1-78.

Zedler, J. B., R. Langis, J. Cantilli, M. Zalejko, K. Swift, and S. Rutherford. 1988. Assessing the Functions of Mitigation

Marshes in Southern California. Pages 323-330 in J. A. Kusler, S. Daly, and G. Brooks, eds. Proceedings of the

National Wetlands Symposium, Oakland California and Association of State Wetland Managers, Berne, New York.

A Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for … Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for the...

Documents

Transcript of A Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for … Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for the...