DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Regional Wetland Monitoring Pilot Project: Bird Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Regional Wetland Monitoring Pilot Project: Bird Team Integrated Regional Wetland Monitoring Pilot Project Bird Team Data Report Authors Nadav Nur1, Ph.D., PRBO Conservation Science, Principal Investigator ([email protected]) Mark Herzog1, Ph.D., PRBO Conservation Science, Co-Principal Investigator Leonard Liu1, PRBO Conservation Science John Kelly2, Ph.D., Audubon Canyon Ranch Jules Evens, Avocet Research Associates Diana Stralberg1, PRBO Conservation Science Nils Warnock1, Ph.D., PRBO Conservation Science 1PRBO Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 2Cypress Grove Research Center, Audubon Canyon Ranch, P. O. Box 808, Marshall, CA 94940 3Avocet Research Associates, P.O. Box 839, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 December 31, 2006 IRWM Bird Team Data Report 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................1 1.1 Simple Conceptual model for Birds...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Specific Questions Addressed by IRWM Bird Team........................................................... 2 2.0 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................2 2.1 Collaborative Integration, Reporting, and Planning ............................................................ 3 2.2 Assess Patterns of Species Richness, Distribution, and Abundance of Migrating and Wintering Waterbirds, resident Passerines, and Other Bird Species of Interest......................... 3 2.3 Assessment of Predation of and by Birds during Winter and the Breeding Season............. 4 2.4 Distribution, and Abundance of Breeding Clapper Rails .................................................... 4 2.5 Distribution and Abundance of Breeding Black Rails.......................................................... 5 2.6 Assessment of Reproductive Success of Marsh Nesting Birds ............................................ 5 2.7 Abundance and nesting success of Herons and Egrets ......................................................... 6 2.8. Integration and Data Transfer between the Bird Team and Other Teams .......................... 6 3.0 Data Collection and Quality Assurance...........................................................7 3.1 Point Count Surveys ............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Point count station placement...................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Timing .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.3 Data collection............................................................................................................. 7 3.1.4 Weather conditions ..................................................................................................... 8 3.1.5 Quality assurance ........................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Point Count Vegetation Surveys........................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Sampling frequency...................................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Data collection............................................................................................................. 8 3.2.4 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Territory Mapping............................................................................................................... 11 3.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2 Data collection...........................................................................................................11 3.3.3 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Nest Searching and Monitoring .......................................................................................... 14 3.4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Precautions ................................................................................................................ 14 3.4.3 Data collection...........................................................................................................14 3.4.4 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Area Survey ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.2 Data collection...........................................................................................................16 3.5.3 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 17 3.6 Line Transect ...................................................................................................................... 17 3.6.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 17 3.6.2 Data collection...........................................................................................................17 3.6.3 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 18 3.7 Heron and Egret breeding studies....................................................................................... 18 3.7.1 Data collection...........................................................................................................18 3.7.2 Quality assurance ...................................................................................................... 20 - BIRD i - IRWM Bird Team Data Report 4.0 Results and Observations................................................................................20 4.1 Abundance and diversity of landbirds and waterbirds in tidal marsh throughout the year 20 4.2 Breeding season abundance of Black Rails and Clapper Rails........................................... 22 4.3 Territorial density and nesting success of tidal marsh birds............................................... 22 4.4 Heron and egrets breeding in and near historic tidal marsh in San Francisco Estuary....... 23 5.0 References .........................................................................................................24 6.0 Tables ................................................................................................................26 7.0 Figures...............................................................................................................41 8.0 Appendix...........................................................................................................84 - BIRD ii - IRWM Bird Team Data Report 1.0 Introduction The Integrated Regional Wetland Monitoring Pilot Project (IRWM) seeks to address the fundamental resource management question, how does tidal marsh restoration affect ecological processes at different scales? IRWM is a collaborative project amongst more than 20 Principal Investigators representing many disciplines and many institutions. The project has focused on identifying patterns of spatial variation and temporal variation, and their interaction, with the ultimate goal of elucidating ecological processes operating in tidal marsh ecosystems. The Bird Team has applied these objectives to the study of birds and their ecosystems, in the context of tidal marsh ecosystems of the San Francisco Estuary, by working collaboratively with other IRWM teams. The bird team has studied heterogeneity at different geographic scales: (1) the largest scale is an entire landscape, composed of numerous marshes interspersed among non-marsh habitat; this could be an entire region (e.g., San Pablo Bay) (2) the next scale is at the level of the marsh; and includes comparisons among IRWM marsh sites (3) the next smaller scale is within a marsh, i.e., sub-areas within a marsh (“sub-sites”), including areas corresponding to channels, adjacent mud flat, marsh plain, levees, ponds and pannes. (4) the finest scale is that of the individual bird territory or home-range, which may be as small as 50 m across. Heterogeneity at one scale may not lead to similar patterns of heterogeneity at a second scale. The complementary principle to heterogeneity is that of integration. Thus, we can ask, Over what spatial scales do birds integrate diversity in resources and over what temporal scales? 1.1 Simple Conceptual model for Birds Physical processes (hydrology and geomorphology) principally determine vegetation. Plant establishment and productivity lead to the development of a resource base for other organisms (including food for herbivorous, omnivorous and carnivorous birds). Furthermore, plant growth creates habitat structure for birds. Thus the main causal pathway is: (Hydrology + Geomorphology) -> Vegetation ->
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Joint Venture
    The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Management Board Bay Area Audubon Council Bay Area Open Space Council Bay Conservation and Development Commission The Bay Institute The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Bay Planning Coalition California State Coastal Conservancy Celebrating years of partnerships protecting wetlands and wildlife California Department of Fish and Game California Resources Agency 15 Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Ducks Unlimited National Audubon Society National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Pacific Gas and Electric Company PRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Estuary Partnership Save the Bay Sierra Club U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Wildlife Conservation Board 735B Center Boulevard, Fairfax, CA 94930 415-259-0334 www.sfbayjv.org www.yourwetlands.org The San Francisco Bay Area is breathtaking! As Chair of the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, I would like to personally thank our partners It’s no wonder so many of us live here – 7.15 million of us, according to the 2010 census. Each one of us has our for their ongoing support of our critical mission and goals in honor of our 15 year anniversary. own mental image of “the Bay Area.” For some it may be the place where the Pacific Ocean flows beneath the This retrospective is a testament to the significant achievements we’ve made together. I look Golden Gate Bridge, for others it might be somewhere along the East Bay Regional Parks shoreline, or from one forward to the next 15 years of even bigger wins for wetland habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) 5-Year Review
    California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Allen Edwards U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California April 2013 5-YEAR REVIEW California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. The California clapper rail was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1970, so was not subject to the current listing processes and, therefore, did not include an analysis of threats to the California clapper rail. In this 5-year review, we will consider listing of this species as endangered or threatened based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of this species. We will consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 43 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 76 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 67 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190 State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | [email protected] | www.bcdc.ca.gov May 5, 2020 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: I am pleased to transmit this updated San Francisco Bay Plan, which was revised by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the fall of 2019. The Commission approved two groundbreaking Bay Plan amendments – the Bay Fill Amendment to allow substantially more fill to be placed in the Bay as part of an approved multi-benefit habitat restoration and shoreline adaptation project to help address Rising Sea Levels, and the Environmental Justice and Social Equity Amendment to implement BCDC’s first- ever formal environmental justice and social equity requirements for local project sponsors.
    [Show full text]
  • California Clapper Rail (Rallus Longirostris Obsoletus) Population Monitoring: 2005-2008
    California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Population monitoring: 2005-2008 Leonard Liu, Julian Wood, Nadav Nur, Diana Stralberg, and Mark Herzog PRBO Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Drive #11, Petaluma, CA 94954 FINAL September 29, 2009 Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game 4001 N. Wilson Way Stockton, CA 95205 PRBO California Clapper Rail Monitoring Report, 2005-2008 FINAL Abstract PRBO Conservation Science conducted call-count surveys for California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostrus obsoletus ) at 53 sites throughout the San Francisco Bay Estuary from 2005 through 2008. To maximize the spatial coverage of sites, surveys were coordinated with partners conducting call-count surveys (Avocet Research Associates, California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina Project, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) resulting in a total of 180 sites surveyed, covering all high-quality habitat and the majority of lower-quality habitat . We estimated annual site-specific density estimates using distance sampling and program DISTANCE and detected a negative short-term trend of -20.6% (±3.8%) from 2005 through 2008. There were no significant changes in densities from 2005 to 2006 or from 2006 to 2007. From 2007 to 2008, an Estuary-wide negative change was detected (-46.0%, ±6.75%) which was driven by a dramatic decrease in South San Francisco Bay (-57.4% ±5.0%). We tested the power to detect a 10-year trend for five different monitoring scenarios and found that detecting an Estuary-wide negative trend of 13.9% or greater over a 10-year period with 80% power is possible under the current monitoring design (90 sites/year with effort allocated equally among sites).
    [Show full text]
  • San Pablo Bay NOAA Chart 18654
    BookletChart™ San Pablo Bay NOAA Chart 18654 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the considerable traffic through the bay. Lighter draft vessels pass through bound for points on Suisun Bay, and the Sacramento River to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sacramento, and on the San Joaquin River to Stockton. National Ocean Service A regulated navigation area has been established in San Pablo Bay N of Office of Coast Survey the Pinole Shoal Channel. (See 33 CFR 165.1184, chapter 2, for limits and regulations.) www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov Shoals and flats, which uncover, extend from Point San Pablo to Pinole 888-990-NOAA Point, thence NE to Lone Tree Point. Pinole Point is a moderately high, rocky bluff, projecting about 1 mile What are Nautical Charts? from the SE shore of San Pablo Bay. A T-head fishing pier extends NW from the E side of the point. Piles and a light are off the face of the pier. Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show The ruins of a former wharf extend from the E side of the point. A water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much pleasure fishing pier and a small-craft harbor are at Lone Tree Point, 4.6 more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and miles E from Pinole Point. (See the small-craft facilities tabulation on efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial chart 18652 for services and supplies available.) ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Ridgway's Rail Survey Report
    California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2020 Report to: The State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 1515 Clay St., 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by: Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1001 42nd Street, Suite 230 Oakland, California 94608 Contact: [email protected] February 1, 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was designed and prepared under the direction of Jen McBroom, the Invasive Spartina Project Ridgway’s Rail Monitoring Manager, with considerable hard work by other OEI biologists and staff, including Brian Ort, Jeanne Hammond, Kevin Eng, Nate Deakers, Pim Laulikitnont, Simon Gunner, Stephanie Chen, Tobias Rohmer, Melanie Anderson, and Lindsay Faye. This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Data Management ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cuttings Wharf
    1 San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Site Description for Cuttings Wharf Location, Ownership, and Management: Cuttings Wharf is a public boat launch on the Napa River, located at 1230 Cuttings Wharf Road in unincorporated Napa County. The site is owned and managed by the County of Napa. Contact Name: Campbell, Jason Contact Phone: (707) 259-8321 Contact E-mail: [email protected] Northern dock (2015) Boat ramp (2012) Kayaker on Napa River (2012) Facility Description: Cuttings Wharf is located in a semi-rural area of Napa County, along the Napa River. There is a wide boat ramp with two docks located on opposite sides of the ramp. The docks extend into the river and then turn at right angles to parallel the shore. The northern dock is heavily used as a fishing dock. Parking is available in the large lot associated with Cuttings Wharf. Parking is free from 4AM - 10PM, with no overnight parking allowed. The parking area has four ADA parking spots, with three located near the docks and picnic area, and one located adjacent to the ADA-accessible restrooms. The two ADA-accessible restrooms are located in the southwestern corner of the site, across the parking lot from the docks and picnic area. The picnic area is located in the southern portion of the site, along the Napa River. The area contains three picnic tables, one of which is covered with a gazebo. Trash cans and recycling bins are provided at the picnic area and outside of the restrooms. The site is used by many different boat types.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science
    UC Davis San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Title Macroinvertebrate Prey Availability and Fish Diet Selectivity in Relation to Environmental Variables in Natural and Restoring North San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh Channels Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0p01q99s Journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 12(1) ISSN 1546-2366 Authors Howe, Emily R. Simenstad, Charles A. Toft, Jason D. et al. Publication Date 2014 DOI https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2014v12iss1art5 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California MARCH 2014 Macroinvertebrate Prey Availability and Fish Diet Selectivity in Relation to Environmental Variables in Natural and Restoring North San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh Channels Emily R. Howe*1, Charles A. Simenstad1, Jason D. Toft1, Jeffrey R. Cordell1, and Stephen M. Bollens2 ABSTRACT tion in abundance occurred seasonally for neuston and spatially for benthic/epibenthic organisms, sug- Tidal marsh wetlands provide important foraging gesting that each community responds to different habitat for a variety of estuarine fishes. Prey organ- environmental drivers. Benthic/epibenthic inverte- isms include benthic/epibenthic macroinvertebrates, brate abundance and diversity was lowest in the west neustonic arthropods, and zooplankton. Little is Delta, and increased with increasing salinity. Insect known about the abundance and distribution of inte- abundance increased during the spring and summer, rior marsh macroinvertebrate communities in the San while Collembolan (springtail) abundance increased Francisco Estuary (estuary). We describe seasonal, during the winter. Benthic/epibenthic macroinverte- regional, and site variation in the composition and brates dominated fish diets, supplemented by insects, abundance of neuston and benthic/epibenthic macro- with zooplankton playing a minor role.
    [Show full text]
  • Dogs on GGNRA Lands
    May—June 2011 May—June 2011 Editorial Dogs on GGNRA Lands People, their pets, Muir Beach (right) and the environment has traditionally been a popular spot hy have we devoted several pages for dogs to play Wof this Newsletter to a proposed in the sand and Dog Management Plan for Golden Gate surf. Effective dog National Recreation Area? We all care management will deeply about the environment—and require clear signage most of us also own pets. We are roughly and consistent divided between dog owners and cat enforcement. owners, with some outliers who own neither, and many who keep both in their households. Pets bring all kinds of enjoyment, keep us fit, and studies show they improve mental health, but even the photos by Dru Parker most ardent environmentalists among us are not always willing to restrict their The Plan focuses on 21 most heavily- pets’ “natural” behaviors. visited sites within GGNRA. In brief, the Plan Marin County is fortunate in having recommends a “default rule” that dogs are more than half of the county under allowed in GGNRA only as expressly permitted federal, state, water district, and local at the 21 sites, and only under the limitations county ownership and management. established for each site. Seven of the sites These lands are our backyard, our are in Marin County. destination on a weekend of escape, Among national parks, GGNRA is unique our scenic backdrop. They are also the in its diversity of natural and cultural places where we love to walk with our resources and varieties of user facilities and in canine companions, and therein lies the Contributed by Delos Putz, Nona Dennis, and the proximity to a dense urban area and diverse problem: dogs are not always welcome, MCL Parks and Open Space Committee local communities and neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • California Places & Subjects
    San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection San Francisco History Center California Places Guide Places A ALAMEDA Aerial Views Bay Farm Island Business. Bethlehem Steel Pacific Bridge Co. Estuary and Waterfront Floods. 1940, 1941 Schools Ship Launching Strikes Tube/Tunnels ALAMEDA COUNTY Fruitvale Avenue. Bridge Prison Farm Schools ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION Aerial Views Air Traffic Control Assembly and Repair Chapel Salvage Depot Training ALBANY American Opinion Library Buildings Churches Naval Landing Force Equipment Depot Alhambra Almaden Alpine County Alpine Lake Alpine Meadows (See: Sports. Skiing) Altadena Alturas Alviso Amador County 1 San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection San Francisco History Center California Places Guide American River Anacapa Island Anaheim Angeles National Forest Angels Camp Angels Camp. Jumping Frog Contest Angels Creek Angora Lake Antelope Lake Antioch Antioch. Bridge Arcata Arrowhead Springs Artesia Arvin Asilomar Asti Atascadero Atherton Auburn Aurora Avalon (See: Catalina Island) Avon Azusa B Badger Pass (See: Yosemite) Bakersfield Bakersfield. Migratory Farm Labor Balboa Beach Banning Barstow Bay Farm Island (See: Alameda) Bear Valley Bel-Air Bel-Air. Fires Bell BELMONT Businesses College of Notre Dame St. Joseph’s Military Academy 2 San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection San Francisco History Center California Places Guide Schools Shantytown Belvedere Belvedere. Residences Ben Lomond BENICIA Arsenal Bridge. /Celebrations Martinez Bridge Beresford BERKELEY. Buildings Businesses Churches
    [Show full text]
  • Suisun Marsh Tidal Marsh and Aquatic Habitats Conceptual Model
    Suisun Marsh Tidal Marsh and Aquatic Habitats Conceptual Model Chapter 1: Physical Processes FINAL REVIEW DRAFT 15 September 2010 Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Restoration and Preservation Plan Primary Author: Stuart Siegel, WWR Major Contributing Authors: Chris Enright, DWR Christina Toms, WWR Additional Contributing Authors: Cassandra Enos, DWR, Jesse Sutherland, DWR FINAL REVIEW DRAFT Chapter 1: Physical Processes / Suisun Marsh Plan Tidal Marsh and Aquatic Habitats Conceptual Model Table of Contents 1 PHYSICAL PROCESSES ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 General Description of Suisun Marsh and Bay ............................................................................................ 2 1.1.1 Setting within the San Francisco Bay‐Delta Estuary ................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Land Uses Within and Around Suisun Marsh and Bay ................................................................................ 3 1.1.3 Bathymetry of Aquatic Environment .......................................................................................................... 9 1.1.4 Topography of Tidal and Diked Managed Marsh ..................................................................................... 10 1.2 Hydrologic Drivers .................................................................................................................................... 13 1.2.1 Tides ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]