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)
Responsibil
ity (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
intervention
s 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
recommendation
s 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.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
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
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
Refer to the
Mangrove
Monitoring
Protocols for
Guyana for
measuring plant
height and stem
diameter
5. Occurren
ce and
extent of
anthropo
genic
activities
in
interventi
on sites
Visual
encounter
surveys
One week
before
planting
and at time
of
conducting
surveys for
parameters
2, 3 & 4.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
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
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
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
topograp
hy
Topographic
survey / Point
sampling (see
Box 1)
One week
before
planting
and at time
of
conducting
surveys for
parameters
2, 3 & 4.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
Each mangrove
species thrives at
a different
substrate
Level (Lewis, et
al., 2006)
8. Wave
energy
Point sampling
or surface
buoys
One week
before
planting
and at time
of
conducting
surveys for
parameters
2, 3 & 4.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
9. Salinity Salinity test One week
before
planting
and at time
of
conducting
surveys for
parameters
2, 3 & 4.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
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.
MAC via
community
rangers and
monitoring
officer
All
intervention
sites,
including
control sites
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: Details/Actions taken
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
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
Anthropogenic: Details/Actions taken
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
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)
Width
(mm) Comments*
Tree ID &
Species
Height
(mm)
Width
(mm) Comments*
*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.

Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final

Similar to Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final (20)

Mangrove Restoration Monitoring Plan Final