Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final

Prepared by Ian Kissoon | For the Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project | February 2012 |

MANGROVE RESTORATION MONITORING PLAN

GMRP Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan

Page | 1

Contents

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Purpose and Strategy of Monitoring Plan .............................................................................. 4

2.1 Monitoring Needs and Data Required ................................................................................ 4

2.2 Data Collection Strategy ........................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Managing Monitoring Data ....................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Data Storage ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Reporting Structure ................................................................................................................ 14

3.4 Reporting format ..................................................................................................................... 15

4.0 Capacity Needs .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Human Resource ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Equipment and Materials ..................................................................................................... 18

5.0 Integration with MRV and SRDD ............................................................................................ 19

5.1 Monitoring, Reporting Verification (MRV) REDD+ Programme ........................... 19

5.2 Sea and River Defence Division (SRDD)/Work Services Group (WSG) .............. 21

6.0 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 22

6.1 Patrol Log and Monitoring Forms Template ................................................................. 22

6.2 Monitoring Report Format ................................................................................................... 27

7.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 33


Page | 2

1.0 Introduction

Monitoring is the systematic collection and analysis of data that provides information

useful for measuring project performance at a variety of scales and determining when

modification of efforts are necessary (Thayer et al., 2005). Monitoring is therefore an

essential component of any project, including restoration projects. In addition, monitoring

can generate sound scientific information that could help restoration practitioners

augment their knowledge on mangrove ecology and better inform the design of future

restoration projects (Ellison, 2000). For instance, monitoring mangrove productivity and

the associated physical, biological and chemical characteristics provides insight into

which combination of factors may be influencing mangrove development (Thayer et al.,

2005).

The Financing Agreement between the European Commission (EC) and the Government

of Guyana for the Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project (GMRP) stipulates the

establishment of a monitoring system as one of the project’s performance criteria (refer to

Annex 1 of the Agreement). It is anticipated that the monitoring system will include a

functional database for recording monitoring data, imagery of mangrove cover with plans

to update same at appropriate intervals, number of community rangers recruited, trained

and mobilized for collecting mangrove data, and plans integrating the mangrove

monitoring activities with that of the Sea and River Defence Rangers and the Monitoring

Reporting Verification (MRV) programme of the Guyana Forestry Commission. The

second performance criterion for the GMRP is protection of 11km of coastline by

September 30, 2012. As such, this monitoring plan is intended primarily to form the basis

of the monitoring system (first performance criterion) and to track the progress towards

protecting 11km of coastline by the end of September, 2012 (second performance

criterion).

Further, the plan identifies parameters that should also be monitored to determine and

manage the factors influencing the restoration efforts since the replanting efforts are

experimental to an extent. This aspect is particularly important to Science as the

mangrove pattern in Guyana is unique and atypical of mangrove arrangement described

in scientific literature (refer to the National Mangrove Management Action Plan for more

details on the Guyana anomaly).


Page | 3

Since Guyana has limited experience in monitoring rehabilitated mangrove sites, the

development of this monitoring plan was guided by internationally accepted mangrove

monitoring methods and the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (2007). The

Open Standards was developed and supported by the major conservation NGOs including

the National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society,

World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Commission on Protected Areas, WWF, and

Conservation International. It is recommended that this plan be adapted over time to

incorporate new knowledge gained locally from the implementation of the GMRP.


Page | 4

2.0 Purpose and Strategy of Monitoring Plan

2.1 Monitoring Needs and Data Required

The success of a project can be quantitatively determined by taking measurements before,

during and after the project intervention. Specifically, baseline data of the parameters of

interest is collected, desired targets of change in these parameters are established, and

following the intervention activities to achieve the desired changes, the parameters are

measured again and compared to the baseline data. The result of this important process

will quantitatively conclude the outcome of the project in achieving its target.

The mangrove stands along Guyana’s coastal zone are under threat from natural erosion

cycles and anthropogenic activities (Bovell, 2010). This is of great concern to Guyana

since the coastal zone is below sea level at high tide and the mangroves help keep the sea

out by serving as a natural sea defence mechanism. Inundation of the coastal zone by the

sea will have catastrophic impacts as it is home to 90% of the country’s population and

also the main economic hub of the country. The concern for the coastal zone is further

amplified by predicted sea level rise due to the effects of global climate change. As such,

the GMRP seeks to abate climate change and to mitigate its effects by supporting

Guyana’s policies on sea defence, climate change and mangrove management.

Specifically, the desired outcome of the project is the protection of 11km of coastline by

September 30, 2012. The main purpose of this monitoring plan therefore is to measure

the outcome of the project activities in achieving the specified target or Objectively

Verifiable Indicator (OVI). In doing so, the plan primarily targets the information needs

of the donor and the project team, though it may also serve the needs of other interested

stakeholders.

The OVI for this project is the length of mangrove replanted/rehabilitated along the

coastal zone. While baseline data was not established at the beginning of the project, the

extent of mangrove cover was estimated at 80,432ha in 1992 (National Mangrove

Management Action Plan 2010-2012, 2010). However, the project is more concerned

with improving cover in terms of length (not necessarily continuous and with depth of at

least 50m) versus area though this will increase automatically. At the end of 2011, 4.5km

(refer to Table 1) of coastline was replanted according to the 2011 Monitoring and

Evaluation Report. However, the depth of the mangrove in the replanted sites would need

to be verified as having met the 50m criterion in order to be included in the total length

protected, especially since mortality rates in the replanted sites are high (see Table 2).


Page | 5

Table 1. Length of coastline replanted by end of 2011. (Source: Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2011)

Table 2. Estimated mortality rates at five replanted sites. (Source: Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2011)

Sites Replanted Length of Coastline (km)

Mon Repos 0.318

Triumph/BV/LBI 0.717

Chateau Margot/Success 0.816

Hope 0.513

Section C Enterprise 0.531

Lima/La Belle Alliance 0.020

Village #6-8 Phase 1 0.208

Village #6-8 Phase II 0.510

Wellington Park 0.352

Victoria/Belfield 0.363

Greenfield 0.150

TOTAL 4.498

Site Number of Seedlings Planted

Mortality Number

Survival Number

Mortality Rate (%)

Survival Rate (%)

Hope Beach 10,335 7,835 2,500 76 24

Triumph/BV/LBI 30,993 27,584 3,409 89 11

Villages # 6-8 (Phase 1)

38,554 23,132 15,422 60 40

Wellington Park 24,310 7,310 17,000 30 70

Greenfield 18,165 6,358 11,807 35 65

Total 122,357 72,219 50,138 59 41


Page | 6

The incidence of high mortality rates (59% on average) at replanted sites highlights

another purpose of this monitoring plan. The project team tasked with managing the

project on a daily basis requires substantiated information as to which factors contribute

to the success or failure of the rehabilitated sites, and therefore what changes need to be

made to improve the rehabilitation efforts.

Literature on mangrove restoration cites a number of factors that influence success/failure

of replanted sites. These include but are not limited to the following:

Biological

• Predatory species

• Disease/infestation

• Community structure

Physical

• Turbidity/Light availability

• Sediment type/grain size

• Topography/Bathymetry

Hydrological

• Tides/Hydroperiods

• Water sources

• Current velocity

• Wave energy

Chemical

• Salinity

• pH

• Dissolved oxygen

Anthropogenic

• Pollution

• Grazing

(Adapted from Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume Two:

Tools for monitoring coastal habitats, Chapter 2: Pages 8, 27-29).


Page | 7

While monitoring all the above parameters would be ideal, it may not be practical due to

cost, time, labour and feasibility associated with collecting and interpreting the data

(Lewis, 2004 in Thayer et al., 2005). As such, parameters need to be prioritized in terms

of relevancy, importance and resources available. Based on literature review and

recommendations of the 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, the parameters that

should be monitored initially to determine the factors influencing success/failure at

replanted sites include occurrence and extent of anthropogenic activities, mud bank

height and slope (topography), sediment grain size (soil type), salinity, pH, wave energy,

plant height and stem diameter, leaves on seedling, and seedling survival. These

parameters should also be monitored at sites where regeneration is occurring naturally

and at existing mangrove stands (to serve as control sites from which comparisons could

be made with the replanted sites).

The monitoring needs and data required can be summarized as follows:

Monitoring Needs

Data Required

Verification that 11km of coastline

replanted/protected by September 30,

2012 (key indicator)

Coarse scale: before and after aerial

photographs or satellite imagery

Fine scale: before and after ground

photographs, extent of mangrove cover

by length and depth

Factors influencing success/failure of

replanting efforts

Time series data of anthropogenic

disturbances, mud bank topography, soil

type, salinity, pH, wave energy, plant

height and stem diameter, leaves on

seedling, and seedling survival.

Parameters have been prioritized and limited to a manageable amount. As the project

evolves, monitoring needs may change and additional parameters such as species

diversity and community structure should be included.


Page | 8

2.2 Data Collection Strategy Data collection is often the most tedious part of monitoring as it is a resource intensive

activity and there is little room for errors. The choice of method was therefore guided by

following factors:

Accuracy – the data collection method has little or no margin of error;

Reliability − the results are consistently repeatable i.e. each time that the method is

used it produces the same result;

Cost-Effectiveness – the method does not cost too much in relation to the data it

produces and the resources the project has;

Feasibility – method can be implemented by people on the project team; and

Appropriateness – acceptable to and fitting within site-specific cultural, social, and

biological norms.

(Source: CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 2.0, 2007)

The matrix below outlines the data collection strategy:

Parameter (what)

Method (how)

Schedule (when)

Responsibility (who)

Sites (where)

Comments

1. Length of coastline protected / replanted (Key Indicator)

Remote sensing - satellite / aerial survey (see Box 1)

Ground level photography from fixed photo stations (see Box 1)

September 2012 (should have been done annually from start of project)

MAC All coastal sites where interventions were made

Acquiring aerial / GIS images are costly and may prove unsustainable in the long-term. If possible, collaborate with the MRV programme to acquire images.

2. Seedling survival

Quadrat sampling (see Box 1)

Two weeks after planting; 4 weeks after planting; and monthly thereafter until survival rates have

MAC via community rangers and monitoring officer

All sites replanted in 2012

Literature review and recommendations of the 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report calls for intensive monitoring of transplanted seedlings to


Page | 9

stabilized. improve survival rates by removing entangled grass, replacing washed-away seedlings, etc.

3. Leaves on seedling

Leaf counts via quadrat sampling

At the time of planting; two weeks after planting; 4 weeks after planting; and monthly thereafter until plants have more than 25 leaves.


Replanted sites

The number of leaves serve as an indicator for seedling progress in the early stages of establishment. Thereafter, growth rate can be monitored via the parameters of plant height and stem diameter.

4. Plant height and stem diameter

Phenology transects

Every six months


All intervention sites, including control sites

Refer to the Mangrove Monitoring Protocols for Guyana for measuring plant height and stem diameter

5. Occurrence and extent of anthropogenic activities in intervention sites

Visual encounter surveys

One week before planting and at time of conducting surveys for parameters 2, 3 & 4.



Rangers are based at each site and should conduct daily/weekly patrols of their sites. Observations / actions taken should be recorded in a log book.

6. Soil type Soil test One week before planting and at time of conducting



Replanting should take place where the soil type is sand/mud and clay (Bovell, 2010).


Page | 10

surveys for parameters 2, 3 & 4.

7. Mud bank topography

Topographic survey / Point sampling (see Box 1)




Each mangrove species thrives at a different substrate Level (Lewis, et al., 2006)

8. Wave energy

Point sampling or surface buoys




9. Salinity Salinity test One week before planting and at time of conducting surveys for parameters 2, 3 & 4.



Salinity levels significantly affect mangrove productivity (Harrison et al. 1994; McIvor et al. 1994; Kulkarni 2002).

10. pH pH test One week before planting and at time of conducting surveys for parameters 2, 3 & 4.



Notes:

The intensity of monitoring activities was based on the assumption that each

intervention site will be staffed with at least two rangers on a full-time basis.

Where it may not be practical to conduct monitoring two weeks after planting, visual

surveys/samplings should be done to assess seedling survival and growth.


Page | 11

Box 1. Sampling and Monitoring Methods

During restoration, plant growth, species composition, and abundance are measured and monitored over time. Monitoring methods used to measure these community characteristics include point-sampling, quadrats, and remote sensing techniques, involving aerial or satellite photography.

Point sampling - Point sampling methods evaluate mangrove presence or absence at specific points. In

this method, a point frame, about a meter long is marked at regular intervals to represent sampling points. Mangrove density, growth rate, presence/absence, and other characteristics are evaluated by performing point sampling to estimate stand basal area without direct measurement of plot or tree diameter; measuring tree diameter and density and; conducting quadrat sampling in selected areas randomly along a transect line (Cintron-Molero & Novelli, 1984). Equation: Cover = number of points covered by a species / total number of points x 100

Quadrats - Quadrats can be used to obtain a representative sample of the mangrove study site. They are

square or circular sampling areas of various sizes (e.g., 1 ft2 to 100 ft2). Quadrats are commonly used to estimate cover, density, and biomass placed randomly in an area. The quadrat delimits an area in which vegetation cover can be estimated, plants counted, or species listed. Quadrats can be established randomly, regularly, or subjectively within a study site. They can also be permanently fixed for repeated sampling. Data obtained using quadrats can determine species density, total stand density, and species dominance (Cintron-Molero & Novelli, 1984; Zhenji, Wenjiao, Zhiwei, Yiming, & Peng, 2003). The appropriate size for a quadrat depends on the items to be measured. If cover is the only factor being measured, size is relatively unimportant. If plant numbers per unit area are to be measure, then quadrat size is critical. A plot size should be large enough to include significant numbers of individuals, but small enough so that plants can be separated, counted and measured without duplication or omission of individuals (Barbour, Burk, & Pitts, 1987; Cox, 1990). Large quadrats with many plants may require two or more people to obtain an accurate census, while one person may be sufficient for smaller plots or those with sparse vegetation. Equations: Density = # of individuals / area sampled Relative Density = species density / total density for all species x 100 Frequency = # of quadrats in which species occur / total # of quadrats sampled Relative Frequency = species frequency / total of frequency values for all species x 100

Remote sensing - Remote sensing techniques such as color-infrared (CIR) aerial photography and

Landsat TM imagery can also be used to assess mangroves before, during, and after the restoration effort (Everitt & Judd, 1989; Lin, Lin, Teng, & Zhangi, 1994). Color-infrared (CIR) aerial photography and Landsat TM image-CCT digital image magnetic tape can also be used to measure the distribution of mangroves over time (Everitt & Judd, 1989; Lin, Lin, Teng, & Zhangi, 1994), then map and record distribution, and determine whether their communities have increased or decreased since the restoration effort. Time-series data from aerial photography is an effective way to monitor and assess mangroves response to environmental change, including hydrological variations and sea level rise (Lucas, Ellison, Mitchell, Donnelly, Finlayson, & Milne, 2002). Aerial photographs can be used to evaluate mangrove coverage.

Ground-level Photography - Photographic records of permanent experimental sites, or photo points,

can be a simple, rapid, and cost effective alternative to aerial photos. Photo points are obtained with a hand held camera from an elevated position, such as the roof of a vehicle (Hacker, Beurle, & Gardiner, 1990). (Adapted from: Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume Two: Tools for monitoring coastal habitats, Chapter 2: Page 11; and Methods for Plant Sampling, Colorado Desert Re-vegetation Project)


Page | 12

3.0 Managing Monitoring Data

3.1 Data Storage Every monitoring activity should be properly documented using the appropriate

forms/datasheets and log book (refer to Appendix 1 for templates). These should be

properly kept, labeled, filed and securely stored as they are the original hard copy of data

collected.

The recorded field data sheets should be transferred immediately to a computerized

system for storage, data management and analyses. It is recommended that the database

consist of a standalone SQL database system linked to a GIS platform. A centralized

server will house the system, preferably at WSG, and connected to distributed

workstations at the MAC Secretariat via a LAN/MAN network.

The main components of the system user interface (desktop) should include modules for

data entry, data queries, reporting and a map viewer. The Tools component of the system

should provide the link between the SQL database and the ARC GIS package allowing

for the display of geospatial data accessed from the database. The GIS should be a

standalone system.

The data entry module of the system should be developed to capture the following data

types with electronic data entry forms to input data (salinity, pH and etcetera) condition

directly into the system. In addition to the SQL database system, a Windows Explorer

based file storage system should be developed to store a wide array of data relevant to

mangrove management. These include GIS maps, satellite images, aerial photographs,

scanned maps, vector datasets, documents and manuals.

The database should be routinely backed up on tape drives or other appropriate devices

and stored off-site. File names and paths should be clearly defined and documented to

allow for easy reference and retrieval. For instance, file names should follow a consistent

pattern which indicates the nature of the file, date and location as demonstrated below:

File name: Salinitydata_120325GNF

Information indicated: Salinity data collected on 2012-March-25 at Green Field.

Note date format and locations; date should be given as YYMMDD and location as XXX

(3-letter code unique to each location).


Page | 13

The adherence to quality, labeling and storage guidelines for all data should be managed

by a single person such as the monitoring officer to ensure consistency.

3.2 Data Analysis The data captured will be analyzed and evaluated by frequency histograms, linear

regressions, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) all at 0.05 confidence interval. Some of

these analyses are outlined in Table 3. The monitoring officer should use the results to

identify trends and/or perform further statistical analyses.

Monitoring Indicators / Factors of Interest

Analyses/Equations Parameters Required

Length of coastline with depth of at least 50m

GIS analysis Length of coastline protected

Number of seedlings survived # of individuals / area sampled x size of replanted area

Seedling survival

Seedling survival rate Number of seedlings planted / number of seedlings survived x 100

Number of seedlings planted, number of seedlings survived

Mortality rate 100 - Seedling survival rate Number of seedlings planted, number of seedlings survived

Number of leaves on seedling over time

Frequency histogram Leaves on seedling

Growth rate

Increase in Plant height / initial Plant height and/or Increase in stem diameter / initial stem diameter

Plant height, stem diameter

Disturbances Frequency histogram Occurrence and extent of anthropogenic activities in intervention sites

Influence of grain size on survival rate

Linear regression Grain size, survival rate

Influence of mud bank depth on survival rate

Linear regression Mud bank depth, survival rate

Influence of pH on survival rate Linear regression pH, survival rate

Influence of salinity on survival rate

Linear regression Salinity, survival rate

Influence of wave energy on survival rate

Linear regression Wave energy, survival rate

Influence of grain size on growth rate

Linear regression Grain size, growth rate

Influence of mud bank depth on Linear regression Mud bank depth, growth rate


Page | 14

growth rate

Influence of pH on growth rate Linear regression pH, growth rate

Influence of salinity on growth rate

Linear regression Salinity, growth rate

Influence of wave energy on growth rate

Linear regression Wave energy, growth rate

Table 3. Analyses to be performed with the collected field data.

3.3 Reporting Structure All the analyses rely on time series data and as such, it is vital that monitoring activities

are done and reported as scheduled. It is also important that data and instructions move

efficiently along the system so that the prescribed actions are taken immediately to

remedy undesirable conditions. A reporting structure is provided below along with the

expected roles of each tier. The organizational structure is flat thereby efficient

communication is anticipated in the monitoring system.

Organizational chart

Expected Roles

MAC Secretariat

Review and approve recommendations and plan of actions arising from monitoring

reports

Provide resources on a timely basis to achieve approved plan of actions

MAC Secretariat

Monitoring Officer

Rangers (Site 1)

Rangers (Site 2)

Rangers (Site 3)

Rangers (Site 4)


Page | 15

Monitoring Officer

Ensure rangers complete monitoring activities as per schedule and protocols,

providing guidance and interventions as may become necessary

Compile and analyze field data reported by rangers

Make recommendations and plan of actions to address emerging threats at sites

Rangers

Collect and report field data

Conduct frequent patrols of sites for disturbances and take appropriate actions as

necessary such as removing grazing animals or notifying their owners, and reporting

disturbances immediately.

3.4 Reporting format The results of monitoring activities should be communicated with the donor and other

stakeholders. This gives the interested parties an opportunity be updated with the

progress and challenges of the project and to offer guidance or make interventions as may

be necessary to improve performance. The report should contain the following elements

(A standardized reporting format is presented in Appendix 6.2):

Summary/Abstract of main findings for reporting period including an update on the

number of km of coastline under protection (as defined by the Financing Agreement)

Description of monitoring activities undertaken during the reporting period

Findings with supporting tables, graphs, photographs etc. highlighting the main

observations and analyses performed such as growth rate, mortality rate, correlations

of abiotic factors with growth and mortality rates, type and extent of any disturbance)

Challenges encountered during the reporting period and actions taken to remedy

same

Discussion of findings and recommendations

Plan of action for next monitoring period

The report should be completed on a monthly basis by the monitoring officer and then a

comprehensive report at the end of 12 months. Considering that the donor and

stakeholders may have limited time to read the report and that some stakeholders may be

not be technically inclined, the report should be succinct and present information in a

reader-friendly format. The use of graphs and photographs can be effective in

communicating large amounts of technical information but they should be clear and self-

explanatory.


Page | 16

4.0 Capacity Needs

Monitoring activities are resource intensive requiring trained data collectors and analysts,

specialized equipment and materials, time, and funding to make it all happen. In addition,

the efficiency and quality of these resources influence the effectiveness of the monitoring

system.

4.1 Human Resource

Data collection should be done by the rangers while the analyses should be performed by

the monitoring officer. In the interest of safety for rangers working in the mangrove

swamps it is recommended that rangers work in pairs. Therefore each site should have at

least two rangers conducting the monitoring activities together. This may also improve

the quality of the data collected. Further, the rangers need to be appropriately trained in

data collection techniques and equipped with the relevant tools to conduct the monitoring

activities. From the methods of data collection outlined above, the rangers should have

the knowledge and basic skills to do the following:

Design, establish and monitor transects and quadrats;

Use a GPS device to locate and record points of interest;

Conduct salinity, soil and pH tests;

Take measurements relating to mud bank topography, wave energy, stem diameter,

plant height, etc.;

Prepare simple reports;

Identify floral and faunal species in mangrove habitat; and

Understand the basic concept of restoration ecology

Computer literacy would be encourage as rangers can become involved in the data entry

process and eventually data analysis.

The monitoring officer in addition to having the above skills should be able to:

Collate and manage large amounts of data;

Organize and plan monitoring activities;

Address challenges in a timely and effective manner;

Maintain high and consistent quality of data collected;

Perform data entry, manage and maintain the computerized database;

Conduct statistical analyses and identify trends/patterns; and

Provide technical guidance to rangers.


Page | 17

The work of the monitoring team will need to be supported by technical experts on a

needs basis. The immediate needs are a GIS expert to conduct the remote sensing

analysis and an IT expert to build the database. The specific tasks of these two experts are

outlined below:

GIS Expert

Interpret satellite imagery/aerial photos of Guyana’s coast to determine mangrove

cover/density and species distribution historically (if data exists) and at present;

Propose a plan to update the imagery at appropriate intervals;

Map monitoring data such as rehabilitated sites and reserves, sampling plots/transects,

anthropogenic areas adjacent to the rehabilitated sites and reserves, and observable

disturbances. Ground truthing may be required for sites;

Design and develop an appropriate GIS database to capture, store, analyze, manage

and generate GIS data and reports;

Train rangers and monitoring officer to collect, map, store, record and manage GIS

data;

Link GIS database and make GIS data available in format that can be integrated with

the Monitoring Verification Programme (REDD+), Work Services Group (WSG),

and the mangrove monitoring database;

Provide recommendation for long term system support and maintenance;

Provide system documentation (technical documentation); and

Provide user manual.

IT Expert

Design and build a functional database to record, store and perform analysis of the

data collected from monitoring activities including digital images and remote sensing

imagery, and generate reports;

Integrate database with that of WSG and the Monitoring Verification (MRV) REDD+

Programme;

Provide basic training to rangers and the monitoring officer in the use of the database

to record, store, manage and retrieve data, perform analyses, and generate reports;

Provide recommendation for long term system support and maintenance;

Provide system documentation (technical documentation); and

Provide user manual.


Page | 18

4.2 Equipment and Materials The following lists the basic equipment and material required for the execution of the

monitoring protocols:

Equipment

GPS

pH meter

Hand-held refractometer

Digital camera with tripod

DBH tape

Clinometer

Soil corer/soil auger

Surface buoy equipped with heave-pitch-roll sensors to measure wave energy

Materials

Nylon twine

Flagging tape

Aluminum tags

Tape measure

Poles for quadrats and topography surveys

Permanent markers

Clip board, datasheets/forms with waterproof case, and pencils


Page | 19

5.0 Integration with MRV and SRDD

5.1 Monitoring, Reporting Verification (MRV) REDD+ Programme The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) is an UN

initiative to combat global climate change by offering incentives for developing countries

to maintain carbon stored in forests. The Government of Guyana has embarked on a

REDD+ programme with Norway in which Guyana will maintain its forests in exchange for

resources to foster national growth and development along a low carbon emissions path

(Guyana Forestry Commission and Pöyry Forest Industry, 2011). In so doing, a MRV

programme has been developed by the Guyana Forestry Commission to establish a

comprehensive, national system to monitor, report and verify forest carbon emissions

resulting from deforestation and forest degradation in Guyana. For every hectare of

avoided deforestation (provided that national deforestation rate is below an established

benchmark), Guyana will receive financial support from Norway of no more than

US$1,835 (US$5/ton CO2 x 367 ton CO2/ha) according to the Joint Concept Note on

REDD+ Cooperation between Guyana and Norway.

Coastal mangrove forests are eligible for inclusion in the REDD+ programme (see Figure

1) and the GMRP contributes to REDD+ programme through avoided deforestation.

Efforts are being made to protect existing mature mangrove stands through the

development and enforcement of regulations, and active monitoring of these stands by

GMRP rangers to prevent destruction by grazing animals, wood cutters and tannin

harvesters. If 11km of mangrove forest is protected (as per GMRP performance criterion

2) via avoided deforestation, then the GMRP would be contributing US$100,925

(US$1,835/ha x 55 ha; 11km x 50m = 55 ha) to the REDD+ programme.

In addition, selected sites are being replanted with mangroves and this also contributes to

reduced emissions via carbon sequestration. Mangroves are capable of fixing an

estimated 17 metric tonnes of carbon/hectare/year (National Mangrove Management

Action Plan 2010-2012, 2010). However, the REDD+ programme does not yet recognize

forest conservation but this is under consideration as reflected in the Bali Action Plan

(Guyana Forestry Commission and Pöyry Forest Industry, 2011). Nevertheless, when these

replanted sites cover an area of at least one hectare and plants have attained a minimum

height of 5m with cover of no less than 30%, they can be classified as forest in accordance

with the Marrakech Accords adopted by GFC. These areas can then be included in the

national forest cover to compensate for areas deforested.


Page | 20

Figure 1. Map of Guyana showing areas eligible for inclusion in the REDD+ programme i.e. State Forest Area and State Lands; note coastal mangroves fall in these areas. (Source: Guyana Forestry Commission and Pöyry Forest Industry, 2011)


Page | 21

Mangrove restoration therefore plays an important role in Guyana’s REDD+ programme

and for this reason, the GMRP monitoring system should be integrated with the MRV

programme so that both projects can benefit from each other through collaborations

involving data collection and interpretation, and information sharing. The MRV

programme can make available remote sensing imagery and analysis (which they would

have completed as part of the MRV process) to the GMRP for the purpose of measuring

the length of coastline protected under the GMRP intervention. The REDD+ programme

would in turn benefit as increase in forest cover compensates for area loss by

deforestation thereby reducing the deforestation rate (an important Performance Indicator

of the REDD+ programme). Further, the MRV programme would have demonstrated

progress in cooperation among key agencies in building local MRV capacities. This is an

area that must be reported in future MRV progress reports according to Det Norske

Veritas’s Verification Report, 2011.

5.2 Sea and River Defence Division (SRDD)/Work Services Group (WSG) The SRDD is tasked with the maintenance of sea defence structures and the conservation

of foreshore. In the execution of these duties, the WSG conducts monitoring activities of

sea defence structures and is in the process of establishing a monitoring database that will

include GIS technology.

The GIS consultant for the WSG database has been engaged by the GMRP to integrate

both databases. A proposal from the consultant was approved by the Mangrove Action

Committee and is pending approval by National Tender Board. It is anticipated that

GMRP rangers will be able to capture GIS data during routine monitoring activities and

remotely report these directly to the WSG database. Such as system should alert WSG of

events or disturbances that would require their immediate and urgent response.

The integration of GMRP monitoring database with that of the MRV programme and

WSG is important for the sustainability of the mangrove restoration efforts beyond the

GMRP project life.


Page | 22

6.0 Appendices

6.1 Patrol Log and Monitoring Forms Template

Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project

Patrol Log

Date Time Observations/Comments Actions taken Observer


Page | 23


Monitoring Form 1: Pre-Planting Data Sheet

Date (YYYY/MM/DD):

Site Name:

Time start (00:00hrs):

Site Code:

Time end (00:00hrs):

GPS:

Weather condition:

Mud bank depth:

Team members:

Parameters Measurement Comments/Observations

Salinity (PPM)

pH

wave energy

Tide

Disturbances Extent of Disturbance (None; Low, Moderate, High, Very High)

Natural:

Details/Actions taken

Erosion

Storm/tide damage

Plants infested

Other (please specify)

Anthropogenic:


Grazing

Mangrove cutting

Bark stripping

Mangrove burning

Sand mining/removal

Garbage dumping

Infrastructure development

Fishing activities



Page | 24


Monitoring Form 2: Post-Planting Data Sheet

Date (YYYY/MM/DD):

Site Name:


Site Code:


GPS:

Weather condition:

Mud bank depth:

Team members:

Parameters Measurement Comments/Observations

Salinity (PPM)

pH

wave energy

Tide

Disturbances Extent of Disturbance (None; Low, Moderate, High, Very High)

Natural:


Erosion

Storm/tide damage

Plants infested


Anthropogenic:


Grazing

Mangrove cutting

Bark stripping

Mangrove burning

Sand mining/removal

Garbage dumping

Infrastructure development

Fishing activities



Page | 25


Monitoring Form 3: Established Mangrove Stands Data Sheet

Date (YYYY/MM/DD):

Site Name:


Site Code:


GPS:

Weather condition:

Page No.: of

Team members:

Parameters Measurement Parameters

Measurement

Salinity (ppm):

Wave energy:

pH:

Mud bank depth (cm):

Transect ID:

Start & End GPS:

Tree ID Height (mm)

Width (mm) Comments* Tree ID

Height (mm)

Width (mm) Comments*


Page | 26

Tree ID & Species

Height (mm)


Tree ID & Species

Height (mm)


*Natural Disturbances: 10 = Erosion; 11 = Storm/tide damage; 12 = Plants infested; 13 = Other (please specify)

*Anthropogenic Disturbances: 20 = Grazing; 21 = Cutting; 22 = Bark stripping; 23 = Burning; 24 = Sand mining

25 = Garbage dumping; 26 = Infrastructure development; 27 = Fishing activities; 28 = Other (please specify)

*Extent of Disturbance: 0 = None; 1 = Low; 2 = Moderate; 3 = High; 4 = Very High


Page | 27

6.2 Monitoring Report Format

Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project (GMRP)

Restoration Monitoring Report for February, 2012

Performance Indicator: 11km (with depth of 50m) mangrove forest

protected by September 30, 2012

XX% Target Achieved

Achievement this period: __km of mangrove forest protected

Achievement to date: __km of mangrove forest protected

Summary of Accomplishments, Main Findings and Challenges for the Reporting

Period:

Prepared by: Date:

Approved by: Date:


Page | 28

Monitoring Activities for Reporting Period

Replanted Sites 1.

2.

3.

4.

Natural Growth Sites 1.

2.

3.

4.

Other 1.

2.

3.

4.

Monitoring Results Last report This report Notes

Mortality Rate

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Growth Rate

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Mud Bank Topography

Site:

Site:

Site:


Page | 29

Site:

Site:

Site:

Soil Type

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Salinity

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

pH

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Wave Energy

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:


Page | 30

Site:

Site:

Anthropogenic Activities

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Site:

Findings and Other Observations (correlation analyses, graphs, photographs, etc.)


Page | 31

Discussion of Findings and Recommendations

Challenges encountered during the reporting period and Actions taken to remedy

same


Page | 32

Plan of Action for next monitoring period

1.

2.

3.

4.

End of Report


Page | 33

7.0 References

Anon. (2010). National Mangrove Management Action Plan 2010-2012. Georgetown.

Barbour, M. G., Burk, J. H., & Pitts, W. D. (1987). Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Menlo

Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.

Bovell, O. (2010). A Situational Analysis of Coastal Mangrove Sites in Guyana (Shell

Beach to Mahaica). Georgetown: Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project.

Cintron-Molero, G., & Novelli, Y. S. (1984). Methods for studying mangrove structure In

The Mangrove Ecosystem: Research Methods. (S. Snedaker, & J. G. Snedaker,

Eds.) UK: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organizations

(UNESCO). The Chaucer Press Ltd.

Conservation Measures Partnership. (2007). Open Standards for the Practice of

Conservation, Version 2.0.

Cox, G. (1990). Laboratory manual of general ecology (6th ed.). Dubuque, IO: WIlliam

C. Brown.

Da Silva, P., & Kalamandeen, M. (2011). Mangrove Monitoring Protocols for Guyana.

Eberhardt, L. L., & Thomas, J. M. (1991). Designing Environmental Field Studies.

Ecological Monographs, 61(1), 53-73.

Ellison, A. M. (2000). Mangrove restoration: Do we know enough? Restoration

Ecology(8), 219-229.

Everitt, J. H., & Judd, F. W. (1989). Using remote sensing techniques to distinguish and

monitor black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). Journal of Coastal Research(5),

737-745.

Fidelibus, M. W., & Mac Aller, R. T. (1993). Methods for Plant Sampling. San Diego,

CA: California Department of Transportation.

Greig-Smith, P. (1964). Quantitative Plant Ecology. London: Butterworths.


Page | 34

Guyana Forestry Commission and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - EPA.

(2001). National Mangrove Management Action Plan.

Guyana Forestry Commission and Pöyry Forest Industry. (2011). Guyana REDD+

Monitoring Reporting and Verification System (MRVS) Interim Measures Report.

Hacker, R., Beurle, D., & Gardiner, G. (1990). Monitoring Western Australia's

rangelands. Journal of Agriculture.

Knapp, R. (Ed.). (1984). Sampling methods and taxon analysis in vegetation science,

Handbook of Vegetation Science 1. Hague: Junk.

Lewis, R. R., & Streever, B. (2000). Restoration of mangrove habitat. WRP Technical

Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRP-VN-RS-3.2). Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army

Research and Development Center.

Lewis, R. R., Quarto, A., Enright, J., Corets, E., Primavera, J., Ravishankar, T., et al.

(Eds.). (2006). Five Steps to Successful Ecological Restoration of Mangroves.

Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Mangrove Action Project / Yayasan Akar Rumput Laut.

Lin, R., Lin, M., Teng, J., & Zhangi, W. (1994). Remote sensing survey and mapping of

mangroves in western Xiamen Harbour. Journal of Oceanography in Taiwan

Strait/Taiwan Haixia(13), 297-302.

Lucas, R. M., Ellison, J. C., Mitchell, A., Donnelly, B., Finlayson, M., & Milne, A. K.

(2002). Use of stereo aerial photography for quantifying changes in the extent and

height of mangroves in tropical Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management.

(10), 161-175.

Thayer, G. W., McTigue, T. A., Salz, R. J., Merkey, D. H., Burrows, F. M., & Gayaldo,

P. F. (2005). Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume

Two: Tools for monitoring coastal habitats. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/National

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science/Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research.

Toledo, G., Rojas, A., & Bashan, Y. (2001). Monitoring of black mangrove restoration

with nursery-reared seedlings on an arid coastal lagoon. Hydrobiologia(444), 101-

109.


Page | 35

WorleyParsons Infrastructure and Environment Limited. (2009). Environmental Impact

Assessment - Mangrove Restoration Plan Framework Point Lisas Port, Trinidad.

Zhenji, L., Wenjiao, Z., Zhiwei, Y., Yiming, L., & Peng, L. (2003). Vegetation of

mangroves: spatial and temporal pattern of its dominant populations in Futian

National Nature Reserve. Marine Science Bulletin(5), 40-53.

Documents

Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final