Quackenbush, A.

Salt Marsh Restoration Monitoring Protocols in California:

Knowledge Barriers, Resource Needs, and Information Dissemination
Ashley Quackenbush

Executive Summary
The following project proposal is a request for funding to research monitoring protocol and the
dissemination of information of California salt marsh restoration projects. This is a year-long project
starting in June 2015, and will be completed in a series of two phases. The requested amount totals
$100,000, with a $25,000 match from California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB).
In the first phase of the study, the objective will be to classify variables measured in monitoring
protocols of salt marsh restoration projects in California. The second objective is to understand if
different protocols reflect trade-offs between monitoring needs, resource available, and knowledge gaps.
One output will be surveys sent to 150 salt marsh restoration managers who have filed for a restoration
permit within the last 10 years in California. Survey answers will be categorized based on a set of predetermined ecosystem variables. The objective of phase two is to evaluate the dissemination of
monitoring data by identifying where the monitoring data can be accessed, quantify its accessibility, and
identify barriers to access. One output will be extensive research to obtain monitoring data restoration
project files. Research of restoration databases, the SWRCB permit tracking database and EcoAtlas
database, as well as archives at the State Board, the Army Corps of Engineers district offices, and
various Regional Boards, will be conducted.
The completion of this project will further our understanding of restoration science by
identifying resource needs, knowledge gaps, and barriers to access of monitoring data. Outcomes will
consist of short, medium, and long term goals. Short term goals include increased knowledge of
different approaches to salt marsh restoration monitoring protocol within California, increased
awareness of potential resource needs and knowledge gaps, and identification of barriers to data access.
Medium term goals include a project report that will be submitted to restoration scholarly journals,
presentations at conferences, and meetings with restoration mangers and Regional Water Board
representatives. The long-term outputs include increased efficiency of monitoring protocol through the
realization of knowledge gaps and the potential creation of more suitable disseminations of information
and resource sharing avenues.

Quackenbush, A. 2

Project Summary
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to identify knowledge gaps and resource needs to improve
monitoring protocols for salt marsh restoration projects. In addition, the study will evaluate the
dissemination of monitoring data and whether monitoring results are readily available to inform other
California restoration managers.

Needs Statement and Objectives

Though monitoring is a crucial and often required step in restoration projects, generally there is
little regulatory follow-up to evaluate the completeness of the monitoring protocol (Callaway 2004,
Ambrose et al. 2007). Many restoration managers do not receive adequate resources, or lack sufficient
knowledge to monitor projects effectively. This lack of resources and knowledge often results in tradeoffs between available resources, such as time and money, and monitoring needs, such as long-term
monitoring and monitoring of multiple variables (Neckles et al. 2002). For example, for many
restoration projects monitoring protocol does not extend past 5 years, even though the full success of the
project cannot be assessed for at least 10-20 years (Neckles et al. 2002, Ruiz-Jean and Aide 2005,
Callaway 2014). A study by Tuxen et al. (2011) emphasized the need for long term monitoring to
understand possible inter-annual changes in restoration projects. Unfortunately, many sites cannot
monitor for extended periods of time either due to a lack of money or a lack of resources (Ruiz-Jean and
Aide 2005).
Many restoration scientists recommend yearly monitoring of ecosystem variables, such as
vegetation structure, at recently restored sites (Williams 2001, Williams and Orr 2002, Neckles et al.
2002, SER 2004, Ruiz-Jean and Aide 2005, Tuxen et al. 2011). However, the number of ecosystem
variables that can be measured usually exceed those that can be monitored due to resource limitations
(SER 2004). Additionally, there is much controversy over which variables should be measured (RuizJean and Aide 2005). For example, many restoration scientists place a strong emphasis on monitoring of
geomorphic processes. Yet, these variables are rarely incorporated into monitoring due to their longterm nature, since geomorphic understanding requires consideration of processes that act over thousands
of years (Williams 2001). Furthermore, geomorphic process is rarely incorporated into monitoring
protocol because of a lack of understanding in how to assess function directly (Ruiz-Jean and Aide
2005, Ambrose et al. 2007). Function is a physical, chemical, or biological process that takes place in

Quackenbush, A. 3

salt marshes (Williams 2001). One objective of this study is to classify variables measured in monitoring
protocols of salt marsh restoration projects in California. The second objective is to understand if
different protocols reflect trade-offs between monitoring needs, resource available, or knowledge gaps
(Simenstad et al. 2006, Choi 2007).
Monitoring data is often required to be submitted to the permitting authority, but it is not well
defined how often this reporting is done, who reviews these reports, and where these reports can be
accessed (Ambrose et al. 2007). Record keeping is often cited as being incomplete, with inadequate
database management and tracking (Borde et al. 2004, Ambrose et al. 2007). This hinders other
restoration projects from utilizing monitoring data, therefore this information is rarely shared between
projects (Williams and Orr 2002, Borde et al. 2004). A third objective of this study will be to evaluate
the dissemination of monitoring data to understand whether monitoring results are readily available to
inform other restoration managers.

Project Plan
I will conduct the study in a series of two-phases. In the first phase, I will classify ecosystem
variables being used in monitoring protocols at 150 salt marsh restoration sites within California. In
phase two of the study, I will identify where the monitoring data is available and evaluate the
accessibility of the data. There is no research categorizing the monitoring protocol of multiple
restoration projects throughout California. Also, though many restoration papers mention that access to
monitoring data is difficult, this problem has not been exclusively studied (Borde et al. 2004, Ambrose
et al. 2007).
In the first phase of the study, I will test the postulate that there are predominant variables
measured in monitoring protocols of restoration projects within California. I also postulate that these
predominant variables reflect trade-offs in monitoring needs, available resources, and knowledge gaps.
Monitoring needs include any information that is pertinent to evaluating the success of a project, such as
percent vegetation structure, presence of sensitive species. Resources include any source or supply that
is needed to achieve the monitoring protocol such as time, money, staff, and equipment.
The study area is defined as all salt marsh restoration projects across the twelve regions and subregions of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that were undertaken from 2003 to 2014.
There are many definitions of salt marsh restoration, but for the purpose of this study I define salt marsh
restoration as any attempt to restore a salt marsh from a disturbed or altered state to a previously existing

Quackenbush, A. 4

condition (Simenstad et al. 2006). In order to determine an appropriate sample size, an a priori power
analysis was conducted. The SWRCB permit tracking database identifies approximately 10,000 permit
files in California from 2003 to 2014. From these parameters, I concluded that a sample size of 100
projects will be needed to attain a confidence interval of 90%. I increased the sample size by 50% to
account for any errors that may occur and will sample 150 salt marsh restoration projects.
Since projects are distributed across twelve regions, restoration projects will be chosen in
proportion to the total number of Clean Water Act Section 401 permit actions issued within each region.
For example, if Region 1 issued 20% of the total statewide permits issued from 2003 to 2014, then 20%
of the evaluation will occur in Region 1 (Ambrose et al. 2007). Permit files within the SWRCB database
contain both regulatory and non-regulatory projects; this is an important distinction, as regulatory
projects may be required to meet more conditions. Thus, I will divide projects into two groups:
regulatory and non-regulatory. Regulatory projects are defined as being required through explicit
mitigation requirements either as delineated in the Clean Water Act Section 401 or obligatory by another
regulatory agency (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Nonregulatory projects are those in which restoration was done for the inherent function or value of the salt
marsh, not as a compensatory mitigation requirement (Ambrose et al. 2007).
I will randomly select 150 Section 401 permit files issued in California from 2003 to 2014, using
the SWRCB permit tracking database. To account for the difference between project types, 50% of the
projects will be regulatory and the other half will be non-regulatory. To reduce bias, projects will be
randomly chosen from the database by assigning a number to each permit file, between 1 and 10,000. A
list of 150 permit files will be randomly generated.
Once a set of restoration projects are chosen, I will send a survey in the form of a questionnaire
to restoration managers at each project site. Two types of questions will be included: environmental
characteristics and ecosystem variables. The first set of questions will focus on environmental
characteristics of the site including geographic range, habitat types, and previous land use (agriculture,
deforestation, mining, etc.). Another set of questions will focus on ecosystem variables that are
measured in the monitoring protocol. These questions will reflect approaches to monitoring protocols
and will be categorized based on a predetermined classification. Classification categories include
diversity, vegetation structure, ecological processes, biological integrity, hydrology, soils and sediment,
time, and process level measurements (Ruiz-Jean and Aide 2005, Neckles et al. 2002). Diversity is
defined as measurements of richness or composition between different trophic levels. Biological

Quackenbush, A. 5

integrity will be defined as measurements concentrating on focal species, such as endangered or invasive
species. Ecological processes include biological interactions (e.g., herbivory) and nutrient cycling (RuizJean and Aide 2005). Measurements of diversity, biological integrity, and ecological processes can be
useful because these measurements can provide an indirect measure of ecosystem resilience (Peterson et
al. 1998). Vegetation structure is useful to predict plant succession and is usually measured as
vegetation cover, height, biomass, stem density, and proportion flowering. I will also include structural
complexity in our definition (Ruiz-Jean and Aide 2005). Hydrology includes the water table depth,
surface water chemical and physical characteristics, current profiles, hydroperiod (frequency and
duration of flooding), suspended sediment concentrations, and seasonality of fresh water inflows.
Measuring hydrologic variables are important because the fundamental control on the structure and
function of a salt marsh ecosystem is flooding with salt water (Neckles et al. 2002). Soils and sediment
include variables such as organic matter content, redox potential, sulfide, sediment accretion rate,
sediment elevation, soil salinity. Soil and sediment variables provide insights into vertical marsh growth
(Neckeles et al. 2002). Measurements of time include total time spent monitoring before and after
restoration, as well as the amount of times per year measurements are taken and recorded. Process level
measurements include long-term variables such as geomorphology or subsidence. In salt marsh
ecosystems there are important interactions between biota and physical processes; process level
measurements are important because they provide a measure of the physical integrity of the ecosystem,
as well as an indicator of the equilibrium state as a result of these interactions (Williams 2001, Neckles
et al. 2002). Additionally, questionnaires will ask if the monitoring protocol is following some type of
restoration technique (e.g., Society for Ecological Restoration monitoring attributes) and if so the
restoration technique will be cited (SER 2004). Restoration managers will have two months to respond
to the surveys. The goal is to receive surveys from at least 100 projects; follow-ups will be made when
necessary.
All measures necessary will be taken to eliminate bias. One possible sources of bias is nonresponse bias which assumes that accurate responses will be obtained from all sampling units (Brick
2001). Another external factor that may influence survey responses is organizational constraints which
may hinder cooperation. Multiple steps will be taken to limit these two constraints. First, I will collect
auxiliary data for all restoration projects sampled and survey responses will be double-checked against
the auxiliary data. To increase response rate, I will send a letter beforehand to inform respondents of the
upcoming survey and request participation. Lastly, I will conduct a pilot test, or pre-test, to ensure the

Quackenbush, A. 6

questionnaire is clear, concise, and professional. From the SWRCB permit tracking database, I will
randomly choose an additional 10 projects to enroll in the pilot. I will contact managers at selected
projects and confirm they are willing to fill out the survey within 2 weeks, this will ensure a timely pilot
study. A response sheet will accompany the survey and will encourage the respondents to comment on
the instructions or if there are any misleading, redundant, or inappropriate questions. In addition, I will
examine survey responses for questions that are not answered, questions with multiple answers, or
comments written in the margins (Lancaster et al. 2004). I will report any improvements or changes (or
no changes) to the original survey. Results of the pilot study will not be included into data from the main
study.
I will code survey questions to reflect the above classifications. I will use principal component
analysis (PCA) to analyze the coded results of survey questions. PCA is an ordination technique that
will allow me to illustrate patterns in monitoring variables across restoration projects. Once meaningful
components have been calculated and selected I will examine their loadings (or coefficients) to
determine if there are any trade-offs between monitoring variables at a particular restoration project.
Also, I will plot the principal component scores against their spatial coordinates to determine if there are
any regional differences or spatial relationships in monitoring attributes between projects. Lastly, I will
treat the principal component scores as a univariate response which enables me to run an ANOVA
(analysis of variance) to test for differences in monitoring attributes among restoration sites. This will
help me determine if monitoring attributes vary or if there are dominant attributes across sites. The
results of this analysis will enable me to examine monitoring attributes in three distinct ways: trade-offs
in monitoring attributes at a particular site, spatial relationships among sites, and dominant monitoring
attributes among sites.
In phase two of the study, I will evaluate the dissemination of monitoring data by identifying
where the monitoring data can be accessed, quantify its accessibility, and identify barriers to access.
Specifically, I postulate that data collected from monitoring of restoration projects is difficult to access.
Evidence for the postulate is provided by Ambrose et al. (2007), who in evaluating the compliance of
401 permits issued California between 1991 and 2001, was only able to retrieve 257 files of the 429 files
sought despite extensive efforts to locate files. Ambrose et al. (2007) discovered a variety of causes
leading to the difficulty of locating files, ranging from shortcomings in the SWRCB database to
inefficient management of hard copies. Monitoring data is valuable for managers designing other
restoration projects. Due to the amount of uncertainty associated with natural conditions many

Quackenbush, A. 7

restoration projects do not reach their goals (Simenstad et al. 2006). Previously collected monitoring
data can lessen some of the uncertainty associated with natural conditions. But, if monitoring data is
difficult to access it will not be used by restoration managers in planning or monitoring of other projects
and this valuable information is lost. Dissemination of information will play a pivotal role future
development and success of restoration science (Borde et al. 2004, Choi 2007).
To test the accessibility of monitoring data I will obtain restoration project files from two
databases, the SWRCB permit tracking database as well as the EcoAtlas database. The EcoAtlas
database provides project information, including monitoring data, for restoration projects in California.
As of 2011, submissions to EcoAtlas are required as part of all new Section 401 permit condition of the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Where data is missing, I will conduct research in the archives of the State Board, the Army
Corps of Engineers district offices, and the various Regional Boards, as well as interviews with records
managers. I will organize archival research systematically to maximize efficiency. First, I will review
hard copies at the SWRCB office in Sacramento. Each of the 9 Regional Boards has its own permit
tracker database. But, for every action made to a permit, a copy is sent to both the Regional Board and
the SWRCB. Unfortunately, files at SWRCB generally only includes supporting documents, such as
planning information or permits from other agencies, therefore there may be data located at the Regional
Offices that cannot be found at the SWRCB (Ambrose et al. 2007).
Since the Army Corps of Engineers district offices houses the archives for 404 permits and
supporting information, it may be more efficient to search these archives rather than Section 401
archives at the individual Regional Board offices. Thus, I will apply for Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests to each of the three Corps District offices, located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
Sacramento, for all necessary projects. Furthermore, the Los Angeles Corps District is split into 4 field
offices which may need to be visited, San Diego, Tucson, Ventura, and downtown Los Angeles. The
Corps uses a different database, Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS), which also has
a different filing system, therefore some time and effort is expected to cross reference files. Ambrose et
al. (2007) experienced approximately a 50% success rate in obtaining files from the Corps District
offices and some follow up to Regional Offices was necessary.
Some Regional Offices will probably need to be visited but it is hard to quantify which offices
specifically. According to Ambrose et al. (2007) useful information was found at the Tahoe (Region 6T)
and Fresno (Region 5F) Regional Offices. I will time the full process of obtaining monitoring data for

Quackenbush, A. 8

each 150 restoration projects to assess the feasibility and accessibility of information. Data will be
considered not accessible if physical records are not found within three days of visiting the various field
offices. Furthermore, I will record and report any barriers to access throughout this process.

Outreach and Transferability

After the analysis is complete, I will write a project report and submit the report to relevant
restoration science journals. Additionally, I will present results at a number of scientific conferences and
outreach events to engage stakeholders and the local scientific community. I will request meetings with
Regional Water Board representatives to discuss key results of the report such as specific resource
needs, identification of knowledge gaps, innovative monitoring techniques being implemented, and
barriers to monitoring data access. The results of the project can help guide various Regional Water
Boards in the possible creation of more suitable information and resource sharing avenues. Additionally,
I will follow-up with participating restoration managers to report results and make possible connections
between projects that may be facing similar issues or who have already dealt with issues other
restoration projects are encountering. By making these connections this project may foster information
and resource sharing between projects with overlapping needs and resources.

Expected Outcomes and Outputs

The expected outputs and outcomes are illustrated in the logic model (Figure 1) below. The
outputs for the first phase of the study involve a survey of monitoring protocol of 150 salt marsh
restoration within California from 2003 to 2014. Other outputs include auxiliary data categorizing
monitoring projects and a statistical analysis evaluating trade-offs between restoration monitoring needs,
available resources, and knowledge. The outputs for the second phase of the study include substantial
research quantifying monitoring data accessibility in the 150 projects sampled as well as identification
of barriers to access.
The short-term outcomes include increased knowledge of different approaches to salt marsh
restoration monitoring protocol within California, increased awareness of potential resource needs and
knowledge gaps, and identification of barriers to data access. I will compile these short-term outcomes
to produce the medium term outputs of a project report, presentations at conferences, and meetings with
restoration mangers and Regional Water Board representatives. In the project report I will classify
different approaches to monitoring protocol. These classifications will reflect resource needs and

Quackenbush, A. 9

knowledge gaps which will lead to the identification of common trade-offs restoration managers
encounter. Furthermore, in the report I will evaluate the dissemination of monitoring data and identify
barriers to the access of this data. The long-term outcomes include increased efficiency of monitoring
protocol through the realization of knowledge gaps and the creation of more suitable disseminations of
information and resource sharing avenues.

Figure 1. Logic model illustrating the quantitative and qualitative outputs and outcomes of the project.

Project Feasibility
The knowledge, communication skills, and project management expertise of the PI and graduate
student will ensure the timely and successful completion of this project. As participants in the Applied
Marine and Watershed Science graduate program at California State University, Monterey Bay
(CSUMB) both the graduate student and PI have substantial knowledge in the field of restoration
science. Appendix E contains a literature review written by the graduate student, providing a glimpse
into the comprehensive understanding the graduate student has in the topic of restoration monitoring.

Quackenbush, A. 10

Communication skills are essential to the success of this project. Not only do survey questions need to
be clear and concise to ensure questions are answered correctly, but also the outcome of presenting at
conferences require efficient communication. The graduate student has taken numerous communication
workshops to learn effective communication techniques, listening skills, and compelling storytelling
capabilities. Project management skills will also be necessary for the successful completion of this
project. The Curriculum Vitae provided in Appendix D illustrates the extensive project management
experience of the graduate student who previously worked as a project lead.
Hurdles to project completion include a potential lack of cooperation by restoration managers
either because of institutional regulations or a lack of time to participate. I will send letters to potential
projects before the surveys to ensure participation. Additionally, the sample size was increased by 50%
to account for any issues that may arise. Other hurdles include non-response bias which is the potential
for a respondent to answer a question incorrectly. Two steps will be taken to eliminate non-response
bias including the collection of auxiliary data, which will be compared to survey responses, as well as a
pilot study to ensure all questions are clear and concise. One last issue may be the collection of
information; Ambrose et al. (2007) described multiple hurdles when trying to collect permit information
and could only obtain a fraction of the information sought. There is a potential for data to be never
found. However, I see this shortcoming as adding to the results since reporting data as not accessible is
also informative when identifying the feasibility of recovering information.

Appendix A: Budget and Budget Narrative

Figure 2 illustrates the grant budget for the project. Overall, the project should take one year and
$125,000.00. Of that $100,000.00 will be paid by the funding agency and $25,000.00 will be matched.
The budget will be matched by 25% of the total cost using CSUMB resources and a CSUMB
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Center (UROC) undergraduate scholarship student to assistance
with the research, data entry, and statistics.
This statewide study will be conducted by a CSUMB research group consisting of Dr. Marc Los
Huertos (principal investigator), one full-time graduate student/project coordinator, Ashley
Quackenbush, and one part-time UROC undergraduate student that is yet to be determined. I estimate
the project will take approximately one year and 400 hours by the principal investigator, 2000 hours by
the graduate student, and 500 hours by a UROC undergraduate student. Annual wages paid out will be
$16,000 to the principal investigator, $36,000 to the graduate student, and $5,000 to the undergraduate

Quackenbush, A. 11

student. UROC will fund $5,000 of the undergraduate student expense and $9,000 of the graduate
student wages for being a mentor to the UROC undergraduate student. Appendix C provides an
overview of hours that will be spent by the principal investigator, graduate student, and undergraduate
student. The graduate and undergraduate student will receive benefits equal to 13% of their annual
salary; UROC will fund fringe benefits for the undergraduate student.
Each survey package that will be mailed to restoration projects will contain approximately 10
pages, this includes the survey, a cover letter, and a return mail envelop with postage. On average a
piece of 8 x 11 letter size paper weighs 0.16 oz., a standard stamp is worth 1 oz., therefore one
stamp covers approximately six sheets of paper. Meaning I will need two stamps to mail each package,
as well as two more stamps for the return postage. Therefore postage should cost $1.40 per package, a
package of 100 9 x 12 envelops costs $30.00, a standard 20 lb. ream of paper costs $50.00, and
printing is approximately $12.00 for 150 pages. Therefore, 50 survey packages should cost
approximately $232.00; since I am sampling 150 projects this number needs to be tripled making the
total cost for survey packages to be approximately $700.00. I am including an additional $200.00 for
miscellaneous mistakes in printing, mailing, etc. In all our total materials cost is $800.00.
Travel to SWRCB (located in Sacramento), each of the three Army Corps of Engineers district
and field offices (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and San Diego), and various Regional
Boards (Tahoe and Fresno) will most likely be necessary. The study is based out of CSUMB in central
California, making travel to Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tahoe and Fresno accessible by
car. Table 1 shows a breakdown of roundtrip miles and cost from Monterey Bay to respective offices.
Cost was estimated using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2014 optional standard mileage rate of
operating a vehicle for business ($0.56) (IRS 2013). Overall, travel by car will total approximately
$650.00. Travel by Los Angeles and San Diego is more cost efficient by air. Tickets from the Monterey
Bay Regional airport to Los Angeles cost approximately $350.00. There are no direct flights out of the
Monterey Bay Regional Airport to San Diego International Airport therefore the flight will be out of the
San Jose International Airport and cost approximately $800.00. Making travel by air approximately
$1150.00.
A maximum of three days will be spent at each location. Travel per diem rates were estimated
using the US General Service Administration (GSA) 2014 Per Diem rates for travel in California (GSA
2014). Table 2 shows detailed information for lodging at each location. Total lodging cost for 3 days at
each location will cost $2205. The meals allowance will be $10.00 for breakfast, $20.00 for lunch, and

Quackenbush, A. 12

$25.00 for dinner, totaling $55.00 per day. Therefore total meal cost will be $990.00 to travel to all 6
destinations for 3 days. Making the total travel, including lodging and food, cost approximately
$5000.00
Table 1. Miles (roundtrip) and cost ($0.56 per mile) of travel to respective destination from Monterey
Bay.
Destination
San Francisco
Sacramento
Tahoe
Fresno
Total

Miles
226 miles
362 miles
280 miles
298 miles
1166 miles

Cost
$126.56
$202.72
$313.60
$166.88
$652.96

Table 2. One day and 3 day lodging expenses for each destination.
Destination
San Francisco
Sacramento
Tahoe
Fresno
Los Angeles
San Diego
Total

Lodging
$189.00
$102.00
$84.00
$85.00
$133.00
$139.00

For 3 days
$576.00
$306.00
$252.00
$255.00
$399.00
$417.00
$2,205.00

Written into the budget is also an allowance for the graduate student to attend the Conference on
Ecological and Ecosystem Restoration. This has been identified as an important conference that is
crucial to the development of the project including sharing information, learning the latest methods and
tools for restoration science, and professional development.

Quackenbush, A. 13

Figure 2. Grant budget illustrating total costs and match amounts.

PI: Marc Los Huertos
Sponsor: TBD
Title: Trends to salt marsh restoration monitoring protocol along the California Coast
University Corporation at Monterey Bay

Rates
I. SALARIES & WAGES - STAFF & FACULTY 601000
Principal Investigator

Year 1
June 1 2015June 1 2016

Time

40 per hour for

per mo for
per mo for
per mo for
per mo for
per mo for
per mo for

400

hours
months
months
months
months
time
months

Subtotal Salaries & Wages - Staff & Faculty

SALARIES & WAGES - STUDENTS 601303
0 Undergraduate Student
1 Graduate Student

12 per hour
19 per hour

Subtotal Salaries & Wages - Students

500
2000

hours
hours

Subtotal Fringe Benefits

varies
32%
13%

16,000

16,000

1,000
38,000

1,000
38,000
0
0
0
39,000

5,000
9,000

4,680

4,680

III. TRAVEL
Travel-In-State 606001
Travel-Out-State 606002
Foreign Travel 606802
Non-Employee Travel 606804
Registration Fees 660832
Training/Professional Development 660009
Subtotal Travel

5,000

VI. STIPENDS/SCHOLARSHIPS
Stipends: Non-CSUMB students (Miscellaneous Exp.) 660090
Scholarships 660823
Subtotal Stipends/Scholarships

2,996

2,996

800

800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800

500
1,000
1,500
3,000

0
0
500
1,000
1,500
3,000

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

68,480
31,501
99,981

68,480
31,501
99,981

16,996
7,818
24,813

800

V. CONFERENCE/WORKSHOPS
Honorariums 660819
Speaker Fees 660821
Food/Meeting Expense 660828
Participant Costs 660822
Registration Fees 660832
Subtotal Conference/Workshops

0
0
4,680
0
0
0
0
0
4,680

14,000

5,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000

5,000

IV. OTHER
Supplies & Services 660003
Participant Support with F&A 622001
Participant Support without F&A 622002
Non-Capitalized Equipment ($500 - $4,999.99) 619800
Rental Expense 660831
Vehicle Expense 660833
Chemicals & Gases 660840
Miscellaneous Expense 660090
Specialized Service Center 660855
Off Campus Space Rental 621001 (no F&A)
Repair/Maintenance 660021
Subtotal Other

Match

16,000
0
0
0
0
0
0

39,000

II. FRINGE BENEFITS 603001-603090

Fringe benefits (University faculty buy out) @
Fringe benefits (UCorp full-time employees) @
Fringe benefits (Ucorp faculty addi'l empl., student assistants) @ 2

Total

16,000

VII. EQUIPMENT (607009)

Subtotal Equipment
VIII. CONTRACTUAL
Consultant Services 613001
Subcontract (with F&A = 620801; no F&A = 620802)
Subawards (1st $25K = 620001; over $25K = 620002)
Subtotal Contractual
TOTAL DIRECT COST
F&A/INDIRECT COST- MTDC (660117) X
TOTAL COSTS:

46.00%

Quackenbush, A. 14

Appendix B: Timetable
The project is expected to be completed within one year.
Start date: June 1, 2015
June-August 2015: Develop sampling frame, identify regulatory or non-regulatory projects, select
projects, identify key managers and contact information, contact restoration managers with request for
participation letter, develop questionnaire, compile survey packages to be sent, conduct pilot study, and
send.

September-November 2015: Wait for respondents, send reminders in October. As responses are being
sent back they will be evaluated for completeness and follow-ups will be made for missing data.
Research monitoring protocol and dissemination of information of selected projects while waiting for
responses; including researching auxiliary information and characterize monitoring data accessibility.
December-February 2015: Data entry and analysis. Potential travel to field offices for physical location
of monitoring data files.
March-June 2016: Write report
End date: June 1 2016
Appendix C: Evaluation Plan
This project will be accomplished in a series of 6 tasks (Table 3). Submissions of quarterly
project reports will be required to ensure efficient and comprehensive completion of tasks. All tasks will
be completed within a laboratory space at the CSUMB Campus, except for field visits which are
outlined in task 3.
Tasks 1 through 3 will be start in June and be completed by August. The first task will take 190
hours, 25 PI hours and 165 graduate student hours. This task will be accomplished as a series of 5
subtasks including developing a list of salt marsh restoration projects in California from 2003 to 2014
(the sample frame), determining which projects are regulatory or not, randomly selecting 150 projects,
identifying the contact information for selected project and managers, and an initial commitment letter.
The second task will require 150 hours total, 40 PI hours and 110 graduate student hours. Task two
includes the creation of a questionnaire and execution of a pilot study to ensure the survey is clear and

Quackenbush, A. 15

concise. In Task 3 survey packages will be assembled and sent out, the goal is to have all surveys mailed
by August and follow-ups with restoration managers will be made in October, all surveys should be
received by November. Task 3 will require 510 hours total including100 PI hours, 400 graduate student
hours, and 100 undergraduate student hours. Task 3 will start in September and be completed by
November. In task 3, auxiliary information will be collected on monitoring protocol of all restoration
projects from which surveys were attained. Additionally, research on the dissemination of information
will begin; this is also when a majority of travel to field offices for physical location of permit files will
be conducted.
Task 4 and 5 will be completed over 3 months from December to February, there is also some
extra time from December to February to complete travel for the dissemination of information analysis.
Task 4 involves data entry and will require 240 hours total, no PI hours are allotted for this task, only
140 graduate student hours and 100 undergraduate student hours. Task 5 involves statistical analysis of
survey questions, including PCA and ANOVA testing, as well as quality control of statistical analysis to
ensure correct results. Task 5 will require a total of 340 hours, 60 PI and 180 graduate student hours.
The final task includes delivering outcomes including a final report, presentations at conferences, and
follow-ups with restoration managers and Regional Water board representatives. Task 6 will be
completed from March to June and will require 600 hours total, 100 PI hours and 500 graduate student
hours.

Quackenbush, A. 16

Table 3. Hours for each task, Total hours: Principal Investigator (PI) hour, graduate student (GS) hours,
undergraduate student (URS) hours.
Task
Task 1: Choose projects to evaluate
1a. Develop sampling frame
1b. Determine if regulatory or not
1c. Randomly select 150 projects
1d. Identify contact info
1e. Initial letter and commitment
Task 2: Survey
2a. Determine survey questions
2b. Execute pilot study
Task 3: Send out survey questions
2b. Compile survey packages
2c. Follow ups
Task 3: Research
3a. Auxiliary research of
monitoring protocol
3b. Follow up research on
dissemination of information
Task 4: Data entry
Task 5: Data analysis
5a. PCA analysis, ANOVA
5b. QC
Task 6: Outcomes
6a. write report
6b. presentation at conference
6c. Follow-up with restoration
managers and Regional Water
board

LABOR
190 hours: 25 PI, 165 GS
hours
60 hours: 10 PI, 50 GS hours
25 hours: 20 GS, 5 PI hours
25 hours: 20 GS, 5 PI hours
40 hours: 40 GS hours
40 hours: 5 PI, 35 GS hours
150 hours: 40 PI, 110 GS
hours
100 hours: 30 PI, 70 GS hours
80 hours: 20 PI, 60 GS hours
80 hours: only GSR hours
40 hours: 40 GS hours
40 hours: 40 GS hours
510 hours: 100 PI, 400 GS
hours, 100 URS hours
350 hours: 10 PI, 40 GS
hours, 300 URS, 45 URS
500 hours: 50 PI, 360 GS
hours, 45 URS
240 hours: 140 GS hours, 100
URS
340 hours: 60 PI, 180 GS
hours
300 hours: 20 PI, 280 GS
hours
40 hours: 40 PI hours
600 hours: 100 PI, 500 GS
hours
440 hours: 80 PI, 360 GS
hours
80 hours: 10 PI, 70 GS hours
80 hours: 10 PI, 70 GS hours

Quackenbush, A. 17

Appendix D: Curriculum Vitae

Ashley Quackenbush
3116 Lake Drive Unit #12 Marina, CA. 93933
(206) 251-5691
aquackenbush@csumb.org
EDUCATION
2013-2015
(Expected)

M.S., Applied Marine and Watershed Science

California State University Monterey Bay

2010

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Certificate

University of Washington

2003-2007

B.A., Environmental Studies; Hydrology Specialization; Geography Minor

University of Colorado; Boulder, CO

2005

Marine Biology and Ecology Study Abroad

Roskilde University; Copenhagen, Denmark

RELEVANT RESEARCH

Legislative history and policy analysis of the 1976 California Coastal Act
Literature review of concepts and obstacles to salt marsh restoration in California
Study of anthropogenic disturbance and abundance of an invasive mudsnail in the Elkhorn Slough
A 2014 assessment of geomorphic change in the Monterey Canyon using high-resolution multibeam
echosounder

FURTHER TRAINING
Relevant Coursework:
Seafloor mapping
Statistical Research Methods
Oceanography
Climate Change Issues
Marine Ecological Systems
Ecology and Human Impact of North and
Baltic Seas
Advanced Hydrology

Fish Ecology
Marine Biology of Coastal Waters
Environmental Problems and Policy
Seminar: Marine Policy
Seminar: Scientific and Grant Writing
Natural Resources Economics
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) basics workshop

Software Experience: ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 10.1, Caris, Fledermaus, R Project, LaTeX
Certifications: US Coast Guard Boating license, PADI advanced SCUBA certified

Quackenbush, A. 18

AFFILIATIONS

Association of Environmental Professionals, Monterey Bay Chapter

Monterey Area Research Institutions Network for Education
Applied Marine and Watershed Science Student Advisory Committee

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2012- 2013

Google Maps
Visual Data Team Lead; Bothell, WA

2010-2011

National Wildlife Federation

Climate Change Intern; Seattle, WA

2010

Provided GIS analysis of altered floodplain habitat impacts on salmon populations

Produced GIS maps for North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative Marine,
Coastal, and Freshwater Ecosystems scientific summary reports
Developed statewide adaptation response strategies to address climate change
Modeled movement and upcoming change in Washington forest ecosystems
Contributed to web content, social media accounts, and Wildlife Promise Blog

City of Bellevue, Natural Resources Department

Assistant Park Ranger, Seasonal

2008

Managed 30+ operators improving map data in 31 countries

Promoted 3 times in 1 year
Utilized remote sensing tools including use of satellite imagery, Street View, Google
Earth, geo-location samples, heat maps, etc.
Created geocodes, address ranges, roads, points of interest, bike trails, campus maps,
ski resort maps etc. as per quality control standards

Created GIS assessments of the City of Bellevues Comprehensive Plan

Evaluated park property habitat and inventoried invasive species

Pacific States Marine Fisher Commission

Fisheries Technician; Centralia, WA

Evaluated effects of hydroelectric dams on ecosystem function

Experienced in remote sensing tools including passive integrated transponder (PIT)
marking and acoustic telemetry technology
Measured water quality sampling and stream flow assessments
Demonstrated leadership ability in the field
Reported end of the year statistical evaluations and technical assessment

Quackenbush, A. 19

Appendix E: Literature Review

Identifying Obstacles of Salt Marsh Restoration Monitoring Protocol in California
1. INTRODUCTION
Salt marshes are coastal wetlands that receive frequent tidal inundation (Wolters et al. 2005,
Barbier et al. 2011). The structure of salt marsh communities are primarily characterized by a zonation
of vegetative species regulated by competition and facilitation. Once vegetation has established, salt
marshes can provide a number of ecosystem services including sediment entrapment, nutrient cycling,
and dissipation of wave energy (Kennish 2001, Wolters et al. 2005). Salt marshes also provide feeding,
breeding, and nesting areas for an abundance of aquatic and terrestrial species (Kennish 2001, Byers
2009). By providing nurseries for fish and invertebrate species salt marshes maintain economically and
ecologically important fisheries species (Beck et al. 2001). Additionally, salt marshes are important
areas for tourism, recreation, and research. The commercial value for wildlife viewing in salt marsh
ecosystems is estimated at $4,300 per acre (Barbier et al. 2011). They also act as a natural defense
during extreme events such as hurricanes, flooding, tsunamis, and coastal erosion (Kennish 2001).
Unfortunately, salt marshes are among the most threatened and anthropogenic impacted marine
environments in the world (Byers 2009). In the United States approximately 50% of tidal salt marsh
habitat has been destroyed by humans (Kennish 2001). These losses are primarily due to poorly planned
residential, commercial, and agricultural development activities, such as diking, draining, and dredging
(Kennish 2001). Approximately, 125 million people live within a coastal county in the United States,
placing considerable pressure on these ecosystems (Kennish 2001). Physical alterations due to human
influence include habitat conversion and altered hydrology. Anthropogenic chemical inputs increase
pollutant concentrations and can affect water quality (Byers 2009). One of the leading factors
contributing to habitat loss in San Francisco Bay is subsidence from groundwater extraction. The threat
of submergence has become more pronounced due to sea level rise, an expected result of climate change
(Callaway et al. 2007, Erwin 2009).
The aim of this literature review is to examine monitoring strategies for salt marsh ecosystem
restoration. I will begin by examining the historical evolution of salt marsh restoration theory. Next, I
will review obstacles to monitoring protocol of salt marsh restoration projects. I will conclude by
identifying critical intellectual gaps of these concepts and incorporate innovative future management
applications. Restoration in California will be emphasized by citing major examples from the area.
I focused on primary sources within the last 15 years, allowing for a synthesis of the most current
advances in salt marsh restoration. Though, a few older references were included to provide a sufficient
background to the topic. Internet searches using relevant scientific databases, including Biological
Abstracts, Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts, GeoRef, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, were used to
collect information. A combination of key words and phrases, such as salt marsh restoration in
California, monitoring of salt marsh restoration, restoration reference sites, were searched and over
200 references were considered. Restoration projects outside of California were excluded as they went
beyond the scope of this study. Unfortunately, time did not allow to interview key experts in the field of
salt marsh restoration. But, when reviewing sources, special consideration was given to authors such as
JB Zedler, JC Callaway, and C Simensted, since they are considered prominent restoration scientists on
the west coast. Due to the extensive search, I believe this review is a representative collection of the
influential research in the field of salt marsh restoration.

Quackenbush, A. 20

2. THE PROGRESSION OF RESTORATION SCIENCE

Before the concept of restoration, the prevailing argument used in defense of marsh protection
was that once the ecosystem was gone, it was gone indefinitely (William and Faber 2001). By the 1960s
the concept of restoration started to develop, but was primarily considered as a function of replanting
(Borde et al. 2004). Restoration in California did not start until 1972 when 32 hectares of wetlands were
restored in San Francisco Bay with the Faber Tract project. Restoration of Faber Tract included
replanting of native Spartina foliosa, which was collected from Humboldt Bay and transported to San
Francisco Bay (William and Faber 2001).
Early restoration efforts were dominated by mitigation projects that government agencies
required of developers to compensate for loss of habitat. In 1983 an influential restoration scientist,
Margret Race, explored the effectiveness of early restoration projects by measuring the success of
Spartina replanting. She concluded that more than 90% Spartina replanting died because the partial
removal of dikes did not effectively restore tidal action (Race 1983). Races research highlighted the
need for systematic restoration design that focuses on both structure and natural processes. By the late
1980s the prevalent type of restoration shifted from replanting to attempting to replicate the structure of
natural marshes. This typically included grading or filing degraded salt marshes to the elevation of a
nearby mature, undisturbed marsh (William and Faber 2001; Williams and Orr 2002). This is also when
scientists began to experiment with the use of reference sites to monitor and aid in restoration efforts
(Haltiner et al. 1997).
By the 1990s, government agencies began recognizing that large-scale mitigation efforts were
not as successful because physical process was not being taken into account (Williams and Orr 2002).
These projects presumed that if a wetland was restored to the structure of reference sites it would
become a fully functioning system within a few years. After an evaluation of early restoration projects, a
second generation of restoration design began in San Francisco Bay with the Sonoma Baylands
project. One key focus in this project was the interaction of the channel design parameters (thawleg
elevation, cross sectional area) and the diurnal tidal prism (Haltiner et al. 2007). Using monitoring data
from previous restoration projects, restoration managers deposited 2.0 million cubic meters of dredged
materials in North San Francisco Bay to recreate a tidal wetland (Marcus 2000). Additionally, the
project incorporated a long-term monitoring program. This project is still among one of the most
groundbreaking and important wetland restoration projects along the West Coast (Haltiner et al. 1997,
Williams and Orr 2002).
3. SETTING MONITORING PROTOCOL
Monitoring is closely linked to restoration success because it enables vegetation inventory and
change detection, which informs overall habitat quality (Tuxen et al. 2011). Using vegetation field
surveys and aerial photography Tuxen et al. (2011) mapped salt marsh vegetation structure along a
salinity gradient and were able to document changes in vegetation over two years. Vegetation structure
is useful for determining habitat quality and therefore restoration success. It is usually measured as
vegetation cover, stem density, above-ground biomass or vegetation profiles (Ruiz-Jaen and Aide 2005).
The results of the study indicated that recently restored sites had a higher abundance of vegetated areas
and more diverse vegetation cover than older restored sites. Tuxen et al. (2011) suggests that restoration
sites may show early characteristics of complex vegetation structure, an indicator of restoration success,
but over longer periods of time vegetation structure may simplify. Furthermore, the older restoration
sites exhibited highly variable diversity between years as opposed to recently restored sites which were
less variable. These results highlight the need for long-term monitoring of restoration sites to understand
possible inter-annual changes that may be occurring.

Quackenbush, A. 21

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) (2004) defined 9 ecosystem attributes that
restoration projects should incorporate into their monitoring protocol. They suggest that a successfully
restored ecosystem will have 1) a diverse community of species that are similar to reference sites, 2) a
greater amount of indigenous species over exotic species, 3) representative functional groups that assure
the long-term stability of the ecosystem, 4) adequate physical structure to ensure the continued
reproductive success of species, 5) restored function of the ecosystem, 6) assessment of landscape
characteristics, 7) elimination of potent threats, 8) the ecosystem is resilient to stressors, and 9) the
ecosystem can function properly without human intervention.
Ruiz-Jaen and Aide (2005) reviewed all restoration studies published in Restoration Ecology
from 1993 to 2003 to determine which attributes are most commonly being used to monitor and assess
restoration success. They found that none of the studies had the time or money to monitor all SER
(2004) attributes. Most studies incorporated 3 general categories: diversity, vegetation structure, and
ecological process. Attributes such as sustainable reproductive populations, integration of landscape
characteristics, and ability to self-sustain were rarely measured due to the long-term nature of these
attributes. Ruiz-Jean and Aide (2005) concluded it would be ideal for restoration projects to measure all
9 SER (2004) conditions. However, since most restoration projects do not have the resources (time or
money) to measure all 9 SER (2004) attributes a more realistic goal may be to simply measure diversity,
vegetation structure, and ecological process.
If all restoration projects are making their own individual assessments the cumulative
effectiveness of restoration over a regional setting cannot be assessed. To address this problem Neckles
et al. (2002) developed a regional protocol that meets the needs of local managers and enhances
regional assessments of restoration success. The regional protocol is based on a set of core variables
which are indicators of restoration success. These core variables are compared to reference sites and
provide a site-specific response of the ecosystem to the restoration project. Core variables include a
baseline habitat map and measurements of hydrology, soils, sediments, vegetation, nekton, and birds.
Once core variables have been measured across multiple sites within a region, a range of conditions can
be established allowing performance curves of an individual site to be compared against those of the
whole region. By setting a consistent set of core variables the developers of the regional protocol have
created a systematic monitoring approach that can be used by local managers and applied to regional
assessments.
The regional protocol is a good first step to being able to look at restoration projects not just
locally but regionally. But, in this approach Neckles et al. (2002) places an emphasis on a controversial
tool of measurement, reference sites. The choice of a reference site can strongly affect the baseline by
which a system is monitored. If the reference site is not functionally equivalent to the restoration site,
such as it may be on a different substrate or elevation, baselines set due to reference site characteristics
can lead restoration efforts astray. Furthermore, taking into account the far reach of human influence,
picking a non-disturbed site can be very difficult and often times practically impossible (Brinson and
Rheinhardt 1996, Wolters et al. 2005). Therefore, it is important for restoration planners to carefully
choose a reference site, and when possible supplement historical data from the actual restoration site to
create an accurate baseline.
A study by Zedler and Langas (1991) emphasize the importance of picking representative
reference sites. Zedler and Langas (1991) assessed the progress of a mitigation project at Connector
Marsh, in San Diego Bay, by comparing it to a neighboring reference site, Paradise Creek. The
researchers combined 11 datasets to create an index of functional equivalency. The results showed
that after 5 years of habitat restoration, Connector Marsh is still functionally deficient as compared to
Paradise Creek. The researchers discovered difference in edaphic properties between Connect Marsh,

Quackenbush, A. 22

which had sandier substrate with little organic matter, and Paradise Creek. The study reinforces the
importance of reference sites that are chosen correctly and assessed comprehensively.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESTORATION MANAGEMENT
Due to the amount of uncertainty associated with natural conditions many restoration projects do
not reach their goals (Simenstad et al. 2006). Uncertainties can include variability in natural conditions
such as hydrology and weather, natural variation in growth and reproduction of plants and animals,
errors in site preparation and in care and handling of transplant material, and unpredicted changes in the
surrounding landscape due to human actions (Thom 2000). Adaptive management techniques provide an
opportunity to plan for future uncertainties. Another term for adaptive management is learning by
doing (Thom 2000). Essentially, in adaptive management pre-determined benchmarks are set and
monitored; if benchmarks are not met corrective actions are taken (Williams 2001). Monitoring is
essential to adaptive management because managers can incorporate the knowledge they gain while
monitoring to assure that project goals are being met (Thom 2000). Furthermore, adaptive management
techniques provide the opportunity to develop experiments to test potential uncertainties, and applying
successful results of experiments to the restoration project if necessary (Simenstad et al. 2006).
Zedler (1996) has been using adaptive management techniques in the restoration of Formosa
Slough, in San Diego County. The project employed a flow chart that incorporates experimental results
into the decision process. In the flowchart there is a feedback loop between the monitoring step and the
decision making step, this allows for small shifts in function or structure of the project (Thom 2000).
Also adaptive management is being used in the Tijuana estuary and Sonoma Baylands restoration
projects (Borde et al. 2004, Williams 2001).
It is also important that in learning by doing restoration managers share their finding with the
greater scientific community. There is a large gap in the dissemination of information between
restoration projects. Information sharing of monitoring data is vital to the growth of restoration science
by learning from past experiences (Borde et al. 2004). Restoration of salt marsh ecosystems is a growing
science and there are a number of knowledge gaps that restoration scientists should work towards
understanding. These include:

Assess the value of salt marsh restoration in the context of the services they may provide and
resources that may have been lost (Barbier et al. 2011)
Information archival and dissemination of restoration projects so restoration managers may learn
from prior projects (Willaims and Orr 2002)
Improve understanding of ecosystem development and how restored habitats fit into the larger
ecosystem landscape and process (Simenstad et al. 2006, Wolters et al. 2005, Zedler and
Callaway 1999, Callaway 2004)
Set clear targets for restoration success that can be applied to regional monitoring (Elliott et al.
2007, Simenstad et al. 2006, Boumans 2002, Neckles 2002, Wolters et al. 2005)

The field of restoration science has progressed greatly through the last 40 years. However, there are
still many unanswered questions when it comes to monitoring protocol, such as the duration of
monitoring, which ecosystem variables to measure, and the use of reference sites. By incorporating
lessons learned, such as the need for long-term monitoring, California is becoming leader in salt marsh
restoration. Adaptive management and the dissemination of information provide two innovative
approaches to solving unanswered questions and increasing restoration success.

Quackenbush, A. 23

Appendix F: References Cited

Ambrose RF, Callaway JC, Lee SF. 2007. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects
Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board,
1991-2002. Prepared for California State Water Resources Control Board, Los Angeles, CA.
Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine
and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81(2): 169193.
Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG,
Hoshion K, Minello TJ, Orth RJ, Sheridan PF, Weinstein MP. 2001. The identification, conservation,
and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience 51(8): 633641.
Borde AB, ORourke LK, Thom RM, Williams GW, Diefenderfer HL. 2004. National Review of
innovative and successful coastal habitat restoration. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Battelle Memorial Institute, Washington.
Boumans RMJ, Burdick DM, Dionne M. 2002. Modeling Habitat Change in Salt Marshes After Tidal
Restoration. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 543555.
Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling; 2007 Nov 5 - 7; Newport, Rhode Island. American
Society of Civil Engineers; p. 942-955.
Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R. 1996. The Role of Reference Wetlands in Functional Assessment and
Mitigation. Ecological Applications 6(1): 69-76.
Brick JM. 2001. The future of survey sampling. Public Opinion Quarterly 1: 872-888.
Byers JE. 2009. Invasive animals in marshes: biological agents of change. In: Human impacts on salt
marshes: a global perspective. California: University of California Press.
California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). [date unknown]. EcoAtlas. [Internet]. [cited
2014 April 29]. Available from: http://www.ecoatlas.org.
Callaway JC, Parker VT, Vasey MC, Chile LM. 2007. Emerging issues for the restoration of tidal marsh
ecosystems in the context of predicted climate change. Madrono 54(3): 234-248.
Callaway JC, Zedler JB. 2004. Restoration of urban salt marshes: Lessons from southern California.
Urban Ecosystems 7: 107124.
Choi YD. 2007. Restoration ecology to the future: A call for new paradigm. Restoration Ecology 15 (2):
351353.
Elliott M, Burdon D, Hemingway KL, Apitz SE. 2007. Estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystem
restoration: Confusing management and science - A revision of concepts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science 74: 349-366.

Quackenbush, A. 24

Erwin KL. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing
world. Wetlands Ecological Management 17: 7184.
[GSA] US General Service Administration. 2014. 2014 standard mileage rates. [Internet]. [cited 2014
May 9]. Available from: http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standard-Mileage-Rates-for-Business,-Medical-andMoving-Announced.
Haltiner J, Zedler JB, Boyer KE, Williams GD, Callaway JC. 1997. Influence of physical processes on
the design, functioning and evolution of restored tidal wetlands in California (USA). Wetlands Ecology
and Management 4(2): 73-91.
[IRS] Internal Revenue Service. 2013. FY 2014 per diem rates for California. [Internet]. [cited 2014
May 9]. Available from: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100120.
Kennish MJ. 2001. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environmental
conservation 29(1): 78-107.
Lancaster GD, Dodd S, Williamson P. 2004. Design and analysis for pilot studies: Recommendations for
good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 10(2): 30731.
Marcus L. 2000. Restoring tidal wetlands at Sonoma Baylands, San Francisco Bay, California.
Ecological Engineering 15(3-4): 373-383.
Neckles HA, Dionne M, Burdick DM, Roman CT, Buchsbaum R, Hutchins E. 2002. A monitoring
protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local and regional scales. Restoration Ecology
10(3): 556563.
Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6
18.
Race MS. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies in the United States based on an
analysis of past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Management 9 (1): 71-81.
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM. 2005. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restoration Ecology 13
(3): 569577.
Simenstad C, Reed D, Ford M. 2006. When is restoration not? Incorporating landscape-scale processes
to restore self-sustaining ecosystems in coastal wetland restoration. Ecological Engineering 26: 2739.
[SER] Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The
SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration [Internet]. [cited 2014 March 13]. Available from:
http//www.ser.org.
Thom RM. 2000. Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects. Ecological
Engineering 15: 365372.
Tuxen K, Schile L, Stralberg D, Siegel S, Parker T, Vasey M, Callaway J, Kelly M. 2011. Mapping
changes in tidal wetland vegetation composition and pattern across a salinity gradient using high spatial
resolution imagery. Wetlands Ecology Management 19: 141157.

Quackenbush, A. 25

Van Dyke E, Wasson K. 2005. Historical ecology of a central California estuary: 150 years of habitat
change. Estuaries 28(2): 173-189.
Williams P. 2001. Restoring physical processes in tidal wetlands. Journal of Coastal Research 27: 149161.
William P, Faber P. 2001. Salt marsh restoration experience in San Francisco Bay. Journal of Coastal
Research 27: 203-211.
Williams PB, Orr MK. 2002. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes in the San
Francisco Bay Estuary. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 527542.
Wolters M, Garbutt A, Bakker JP. 2005. Salt-marsh restoration: evaluating the success of deembankments in north-west Europe. Biological Conservation 123: 249268.
Zedler, JB. 1996. Tidal wetland restoration: A scientific perspective and southern california focus.
California Sea Grant College System, University of California, La Jolla, CA.
Zedler JB, Callaway JC. 1999. Tracking Wetland Restoration: Do Mitigation Sites Follow Desired
Trajectories. Restoration Ecology 7:69-73.
Zedler JB, Langas R. 1991. Comparisons of Constructed and Natural Salt Marshes of San Diego Bay.
Restoration and Management Notes 9:21-25.
Zedler JB, West JM. 2008. Declining diversity in natural and restored salt marshes: A 30-year study of
Tijuana Estuary. Restoration Ecology 16 (2):24926