VWR — 1

The VirginiaWetlands ReportThe VirginiaWetlands Report

Spring 2005Vol. 20, No. 1

Annual Summary ofPermitted Tidal Wetland Impacts - 2004

By Karen Duhring

T he Wetlands Program has main-tained a database since 1988 to

track cumulative impacts to Virginia’scoastal resources authorized throughthe permitting process. Program scien-tists have produced over 1000 advisoryreports each year for the past sevenyears. In 2004, 1077 reviews were per-formed. Each project assessment in-cludes estimated impact areas based ona site visit and information provided inthe permit documents. The WetlandsProgram database is continuously up-dated as new project information isreceived from Local Wetlands Boardsand the Virginia Marine ResourcesCommission.

Permit decisions made at the federallevel by the US Army Corps of Engi-neers are not included. This particulardatabase tracks approved tidal wetlandimpact areas as depicted in permit

documents, not the actual impacts thatoccur as a result of project constructionor completion. Shoreline inventories,which document structures, land use,geomorphology, etc., are available forsome Virginia localities through theCCRM Comprehensive Coastal Inven-tory program.

2004 Tidal Wetland PermitActivity

Final permit decisions were made for765 permit applications that includedtidal wetlands in 2004. This annualsummary documents the cumulativeimpacts of these projects within thecalendar year and also compares 2004to records from the last 12 years (1993-2004).

For the purposes of this database,the activity footprint, or “impact” area,is distinguished from “fill” areas that

result in the permanent conversion oftidal wetlands into upland habitat. Im-pacts are assigned to temporary andbeneficial activities, such as dredgingand public beach nourishment, as wellas adverse actions such as general fill.

“Fill” is defined as the permanentloss of tidal wetlands through conver-sion into upland habitat. The cumula-tive “fill” area is of greatest concern fortidal wetlands management. Thesedefinitions are intended only for thisdatabase and may not be consistentwith other regulatory agencies.

Permitted Tidal WetlandImpacts

The permitted impact area in 2004was 37.2 acres of tidal wetlands. Thisis less than the previously reportedaverage of 42 acres each year since1993 and much less than 2003 whenover 136 acres of impact was autho-rized (Figure 1). The permitted impactsinclude 3.6 acres of vegetated tidalwetlands and 33.6 acres of non-veg-etated tidal wetlands, particularly inter-tidal beaches (14.2 acres) and mud flats(11.4 acres).

Large beach nourishment and chan-nel maintenance projects have in-creased the total impact area in recentyears. This was the case again in2004. Most of the permitted impact tointertidal beaches in 2004 was associ-ated with one public beach nourish-ment project. Compared to 2003, theoverall impacts resulting from theselarge projects were substantially re-duced. Nine large beach nourishmentprojects were approved in that year.

Figure 1. Permitted impact areas to vegetated and non-vegetated tidal wetlands,1993 – 2004. Annual variation in non-vegetated wetland impact area typically

depends on the number of large beach nourishment projects.

2 — VWR

The Virginia Wetlands Report is aquarterly publication of the WetlandsProgram at the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science of the College ofWilliam and Mary. Subscriptions areavailable without charge upon writtenrequest to: Wetlands Program, VirginiaInstitute of Marine Science, P.O. Box1346, Gloucester Pt, VA 23062 USA.Address corrections requested.

Program Director: Dr. Carl HershnerHead, Wetlands Advisory Program: Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.Produced by: VIMS Publication Center

In this Issue:Annual Summary of PermittedTidal Wetland Impacts - 2004 ............ 1Clapper Rail ....................................... 4Tidal Wetlands SeminarDraws Crowd .................................... 5A Level 1 Protocol for AssessingWetland Condition by HydrologicUnit with the Coastal Plain ................ 6Take a Wetland to Lunch....Or Take Your Lunch to a Wetland ..... 7Calendar of Upcoming Events .......... 8

This report was funded, in part, bythe Virginia Institute of MarineScience and by the VirginiaCoastal Resources ManagementProgram of the Department ofEnvironmental Qualitythrough Grant#NA03NOS4190104 -Task #11 of the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Office of Ocean and Coastal ResourcesManagement, under the Coastal ZoneManagement Act, as amended.

The views expressed herein are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of NOAA or any of its subagencies orDEQ.

Printed on recycled paper

Permitted Tidal Wetland FillArea

The permitted “fill” area indicatesthe acreage of permanent tidal wetlandloss. The estimated fill area permitted in2004 was 6.4 acres, which is actually thelowest amount recorded since 1993.The average area of permitted fill hasbeen 11.4 acres each year since 1993and a cumulative total of 132 acres oftidal wetland fill was approved from1993-2004.

Erosion control structures displacetidal wetlands by design if they cannotbe located entirely in upland areas. Thelargest cumulative loss of wetlands in2004 was the result of these structuresand associated backfill. The largestpermitted fill areas were assigned torock revetments (3.1 acres), bulkheads(1.4 acres), and bulkhead toe revet-ments (0.8 acres). Almost 80 acres oftidal wetland fill has been approvedover the past 12 years for new and re-placement erosion control structures.

2004 CompensatoryMitigation Wetlands

The Commonwealth’s WetlandsMitigation-Compensation policy fortidal wetlands defines “mitigation” asall actions, both taken and not taken,which eliminate or materially reduce theadverse effects of a proposed activityon the living and nonliving compo-nents of a wetland system or their abil-ity to interact. “Sequencing” refers tothe practice of first considering avoid-ance of the wetland if possible followedby minimization of the loss with com-

pensation considered only after allpossible measures to avoid and mini-mize wetland impacts have been ex-hausted.

The term “compensation” meansactions taken which have the effect ofsubstituting some form of wetland re-source for those lost or significantlydisturbed due to a permitted develop-ment activity; generally habitat creationor restoration. Compensation is there-fore a subset of mitigation.

“Mitigation wetlands” are narrowlydefined for this database and includeany restored or constructed tidal wet-land intended to gain wetland fromnon-wetland area that is permitted byand reported through the state andlocal permitting process. This defini-tion does not include preservation oftidal wetlands unless it is required bypermit and it is legally binding. Conver-sions from one type of wetland to an-other, such as planting marshvegetation in a non-vegetated sand flatarea, are not included. There may beother bona fide tidal wetland creationand restoration projects not accountedfor in this assessment, particularly ifthey are associated with state transpor-tation projects and federal permit re-quirements.

In 2004, only 4 permits out of the765 cases analyzed for this summaryincluded mitigated tidal wetlands thatmeet the above criteria. The total areaof mitigated tidal wetlands in 2004 was0.37 acres (Figure 2). This is the lowestamount recorded in the past five yearsand the second lowest annual amounton record since 1993.

Federal channel maintenanceprojects on Virginia’s Eastern Shoreinclude aquatic disposal of the materialinto adjacent tidal wetland and sub-aqueous areas because sufficient up-land area is not available in closeproximity to the waterway. The 11.4acres of mud flat impacts permitted in2004 were entirely from one dredgingproject. Neither type of project con-verts tidal wetlands into upland habitatand there is no associated “fill” area.

Figure 2. The cumulative fill area permitted over the past twelve years is 132.0acres compared to 20.3 acres of compensatory mitigation wetland area for the

time period 1993-2004.

VWR — 3

Comparing the total amount of per-mitted fill with the area of required com-pensation wetlands indicates if thepolicy goal of “no net loss” of permit-ted wetlands is being achieved. Duringthe period 1993-2004, the cumulative fillor permanent loss of tidal wetlands wasapproximately 132 acres. Only 20.3acres of compensatory mitigation wasrequired during the same time period.

This places a greater managementburden on “sequencing” at the begin-ning of the process. According to thestate’s mitigation/compensation policy,each activity permitted to occur in tidalwetlands should be clearly water-de-pendent in nature and its need to be in

the wetlands clearly demonstrated nomatter how small the proposed wetlandlosses appear to be.

Erosion Control StructuresThere is a growing concern for the

ecological impacts of extensive shore-line modification to protect propertyfrom erosion (Figure 3). These con-cerns are not limited to tidal wetlandsbut also to other resources such asriparian areas and fisheries habitat im-pacted because of these structures.

In 2004, approximately 19.8 miles ofnew erosion control structures wereauthorized, which is higher than thepreviously reported average of 18.5miles each year (Figure 4). Another 6.4

miles of shoreline modification was alsopermitted during 2004 for replacementstructures. The replacement of existingstructures may not add to the totallength of hardened shoreline, but thereis additional fill and loss of wetlandresource as well as secondary impactsfrom shoreline construction, such assuspended sediment and removal ofriparian vegetation for water access.

Since 1993, the cumulative total ofapproved shoreline structures is 229.2miles. In addition to linear shorelinemodification, the combined effect ofmany structures includes the approvedloss of wetland area. Ten acres of per-mitted impact in 2004 were associatedwith erosion control structures, includ-ing both new structures (8.3 acres) andreplacement structures (1.7 acres).Rock revetments continue to be permit-ted more than bulkheads, but even rockstructures include fill areas. Althoughthe total fill area permitted in 2004 wasthe lowest amount recorded in recentyears, about 80 acres of permitted fillhas been approved for new and re-placement erosion control structuressince 1993.

Many of these projects are certainlyjustified to protect private propertyfrom erosion. However, dramaticchanges in ecological conditions areinevitable if these trends continue.New approaches and guidance are nowbeing explored to balance the privateand public benefits of erosion controlwith private and public detriments dueto lost ecological services provided by

the shallow water habitat andtidal wetlands displaced orotherwise affected by erosioncontrol structures.

Maintenance of the Wet-lands Program database wouldnot be possible without fund-ing from the Virginia CoastalResources Management Pro-gram (NOAA) and the effortsof VIMS personnel from boththe Wetlands Program and theComprehensive Coastal In-ventory at the Center forCoastal Resources Manage-ment.

Figure 3. Piecemeal installation of erosion control structures by individual prop-erty owners results in cumulative impacts on living resources, such as tidal wet-

lands, important fisheries and riparian buffers.

Figure 4. The cumulative length of shoreline modification approved for new bulkheads andrevetments is 229.2 miles during the time period, 1993 - 2004.

4 — VWR

Beaks & BillsClapper Rail

(Rallus longirostris)by Julie G. Bradshaw

Pho

to:

Wal

ter

I. P

ries

t, II

I

ek-kek-kek-kek-kek” Unlessyou’re very patient or lucky,

this call is all you’re likely to experienceof the clapper rail, a secretive bird ofVirginia’s salt marshes. The clapper railis one of several species of rails foundin Virginia. All have compactchicken-like bodies of vari-ous sizes and coloration,with large feet that allowthem to walk without sinkinginto the often-mucky sub-strate of the marshes thatthey inhabit. The expression“thin as a rail”, while notoriginating in ornithology,certainly is descriptive ofthis group of birds. Railshave narrow bodies thatallow them to move easilythrough the dense marshgrass.

The clapper rail is 14-16inches from the tip of its longbill to the tip of its tail, and has a gray-brown back and dull reddish brownchest and belly, gray cheeks, and dullblack and white barring on the flanks.King and Virginia rails have similarmarkings, but are both found primarilyin freshwater marshes. Virginia rails aremuch smaller, about 9-10 inches long.King rails are slightly larger, up to 19inches long. King and clapper railssometimes hybridize where their rangesoverlap in brackish areas.

The clapper rail, also known as themarsh hen or mud hen, breeds primarilyin saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartinaalterniflora) marshes, but also in blackneedlerush marshes (Juncusroemerianus). Fiddler crabs are themain prey of clapper rails, but they areopportunistic feeders, and will also eatsnails, mud worms, grasshoppers andother available invertebrates. Mice and

birds have also been found in the stom-achs of clappers.

Clapper rails nest in late May toearly June. Nests are built primarily bythe male and are a platform of deadvegetation, approximately 8-10 inches

in diameter, often with a canopy ordome over the nest cup, which con-ceals the nest from overhead predatorssuch as harriers and gulls. The nestoften includes a ramp leading up to theplatform.

The greatest density of nestingclappers found by Meanley (1985) inhis many years of studying this specieswas 4 pairs per acre in a 10-acre marsh,resulting in a nesting territory size ofapproximately ¼ acre (or 0.1 hectare).However, this breeding territory mustbe found within the context of a largermarsh. Bryan Watts, of the Center forConservation Biology at William &Mary, did not find any clapper rails inthe 0.1-hectare marshes that he studied,but they were found in half of the 1-hectare (2.5 acre) and all of the 5-hect-are (12.4 acre) marshes he surveyedfrom Grandview Beach, Hampton to

New Point Comfort, Mathews County(Watts, 1992 and 1993).

Clappers lay 8-10 eggs, which areincubated for about 3 weeks by bothparents. The chicks are covered withblack down for the first month. They

are usually independent byabout 6 weeks of age. Theparents then sometimes re-nest. Re-nesting also oc-curs after storms or hightides destroy nests.

Within the marsh, clap-pers are most often foundnear tidal guts or pools,where the cordgrass istallest and most of the fid-dler crabs are found. Clap-pers rarely fly during thesummer, preferring to walkslowly and deliberatelythrough the marsh. Whenflushed, they are veryclumsy-looking flyers. But

once they get going, they can fly asfast as ducks, which serves them wellduring their annual migration.

The eastern subspecies of clapperrails are found on the Atlantic Coast ofthe U.S. from New England to Florida.Rails from the Chesapeake Bay havebeen shown to migrate, beginning inAugust, to as far south as northeastFlorida. Birds from New England andNew Jersey may be found spending thewinter in Chesapeake Bay marshes.Clappers are not as closely tied to saltmarshes during winter, and were re-ported by Meanley upriver as far asHog Island, Surry County, on the JamesRiver, and to Tappahannock, EssexCounty, on the Rappahannock River.They arrive back on breeding groundsand begin courtship in April.

“K

Continued on page 8

VWR — 5

Over 130 people from all over Tidewater Virginia were in attendance at the Virginia Institute of Marine Sci-

ence (VIMS) on March the 9th for a seminar dealing withtidal wetlands ecology, management issues such as “nonet loss,” new legislation and the advent of online permitapplications, as well as an introduction to the manage-ment implications for preserving and restoring “livingshorelines.” The diverse group of individuals present wererepresenting wetlands boards, local and state planningand engineering staff, environmental consulting firms, realestate agencies, non-governmental organizations andshoreline property owners, to name a few. Speakers wereprimarily scientists from the Wetlands Program of the Cen-ter for Coastal Re-sources Management atVIMS and they werejoined on the agendaby David Burke repre-senting the KeithCampbell Foundationand Tony Watkinson,Deputy Chief of theHabitat ManagementDivision of the VirginiaMarine Resources Com-mission.

The morning ses-sion contained descrip-tions of the seventeenvegetated andnonvegetated tidalwetland communities inVirginia with notesabout their ecology, adiscussion of the vari-ous jurisdictions in-volved with shorelinepermitting, and presen-tation of the criteria forevaluating proposedwetland alterations.

After a break forlunch speakers turnedthe group’s attention to

the total amount of wetland impacts permitted in 2004 andhow this compared with the previous twelve years VIMShas been maintaining a data base (See lead article this is-sue). This led into a discussion of compensatory mitigationand how well the Commonwealth is meeting its goal of “nonet loss” of permitted wetlands. David Burke, then spoke ofthe Living Shorelines Stewardship Initiative (LSSI) and howthis concept is being implemented in Maryland and is beingintroduced in Virginia. (See Vol. 19, #2 of this newsletter foradditional information regarding the LSSI in Virginia). Mr.Burke was followed by Tony Watkinson who spoke onGeneral Assembly actions and wetland board administrativematters.

Reaction to themeeting was generallyfavorable with evalua-tion forms stating thatthe attendees found thetopics interesting,timely and informative.Coming out as both thebest part of the programand the most importantwas the topic of “Liv-ing Shorelines.” Finish-ing a close second inboth categories wasjurisdictions/permittingprocess. Topics re-quested for future semi-nars were, in decreasingorder of popularity,shoreline issues, mitiga-tion/restoration, casestudies, plant identifica-tion and ChesapeakeBay Preservation Actissues.

The next workshop/seminar is scheduled forthe 16th of June atVIMS.

Networking was highlighted as a very importantactivity by seminar attendees.

David O’Brien talks to seminar participants about wetlandsassessment criteria and the rationales supporting them.

Tidal Wetlands Seminar Draws Crowd

6 — VWR

Wetlands play a crucial role in themaintenance of the aquatic

health of our streams, rivers and theChesapeake Bay. There is general con-sensus that wetlands can be very valu-able elements in a landscape. Theirnatural capacity to improve water qual-ity, trap sediments, moderate floods,recharge groundwater, provide habitat,and create aesthetic and recreationalamenities have led policy makers toseek to assess their condition. Thecapacity of a wetland to perform vari-ous functions in a landscape is deter-mined, in part, by both its classifiedtype (i.e. whether it is forested, shrub,or emergent) and its location in a land-scape. The consequences of any landmanagement activities are naturallyintegrated in watersheds, making water-sheds the logical study units. The re-search project described here assesses

the condition of nontidal wetlands byhydrologic unit for the coastal plain ofVirginia, USA utilizing geographic infor-mation system (GIS) technology inwhat is termed a Level I assessment.Level I assessments are generally con-ducted remotely and, in this case, allmapped National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) nontidal wetlands are assessedusing satellite-derived data. The GISprotocol analyzes wetland type,hydroperiod, size, proximity to otherwetlands, percent landcover typeswithin the wetland drainage area (suchas agriculture, developed, and for-ested), proximity to roads, road type,and road alignment. These landscapemetrics are analyzed in regard to habitatand water quality function for eachindividual wetland. To determine thesurrounding landuse proportion re-garding the habitat function, three ar-

eas are analyzed: landuseimmediately adjacent the wet-land, landuse within 200m of thewetland, and landuse between200m and 1000m of the wetland.For the water quality function,

the same distances are used but areonly analyzed within the contributingdrainage area of the wetland (Figure 1).

It takes considerable computingtime for the analysis since everymapped nontidal wetland in the Com-monwealth is being analyzed. On aver-age, it takes about 2 minutes perwetland for the GIS computation. Thereare over 223,000 mapped nontidal wet-land units in the Commonwealth result-ing in about 310 days of 24 hrcomputing time to complete the project.Presently about 50% of the Common-wealth has been completed (Figure 2).

The information from this projectcan be used in state and local planningprocesses for consideration of wetlandsand aquatic health based upon locallyidentified priorities. Individuals or de-velopers will be able to use the informa-tion as part of their planning process aswell. The Commonwealth of Virginia hasadopted the method as part of a long-term strategy for wetland monitoringand assessment. A similar assessmentmethod is being conducted for tidalwetlands.

A Level I Protocol for Assessing WetlandCondition by Hydrologic Unit within the

Coastal PlainBy Kirk J. Havens

Figure 1. GIS analysis of surroundinglanduse metrics including contributing

wetland drainage area.Figure 2. GIS analysis schedule for Virginia’s nontidal wetlands.

VWR — 7

May is American Wetlands Month.The first American Wetlands

Month was celebrated in 1991 by sev-eral federal agencies and nonprofitpartners. This year’s theme is “It paysto save wetlands.” The take homemessage is that wetlands naturally pro-vide services that have economic value.

For America Wetlands Month, con-sider visiting a local wetland, and whynot bring a picnic and stay awhile. Re-gardless of where you live, there arevaried opportunities to explore diversewetlands communities throughout Vir-ginia. Look for wetlands in your local,regional and state parks, as well asstate and national wildlife refugees andnatural areas. Many highlight the wet-lands communities with trails and edu-cational materials.

1. Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge inFairfax County offers two different trailsto and over the tidal marsh; theWoodmarsh Trail and the Great MarshTrail. Interpretive literature is availableat the trailheads. 14416 Jefferson DavisHighway, Suite 20, Woodbridge, VA22191 (703) 690-1297.

2. Westmoreland State Park inWestmoreland County is located alongthe Potomac River. The park offerstrails that access the River and wetlandcommunities. Take the Big MeadowInterpretive Trail to view Yellow Swampwhere from late May through Augustthe Yellow Flag is blooming. 1650 StatePark Road, Montross, VA 22520 (804)493-8821.

3. Belle Isle State Park is located inLancaster County. The park is situatedalong the Rappahannock River andMulberry and Deep Creeks. Severaltrails, an observation blind and picnicfacilities on the River offer great oppor-tunities to observe wetland habits andwetland denizens. 1632 Belle Isle Road,

Lancaster, VA 22503(804) 462-5030.

4. The NatureConservancy’sCumberland MarshPreserve provides ac-cess to freshwater tidalmarsh along thePamunkey River in NewKent County. A board-walk and observationdeck with interpretivesigns allow the visitor toget up close and per-sonal with the marsh.(434) 295-6106 or Dept.Conservation and Recre-ation (804) 445-9117.

5. York River StatePark is located in YorkCounty. Notable are thediverse wetlands foundin Taskinas Creek andthe education materialsavailable. 5526 RiverviewRoad, Williamsburg, Va.23188-6732 (757) 566-3036.

6. New Point Comfort Natural AreaPreserve is on the Chesapeake Bay inMathews County. The preserve is agreat place to launch a canoe or kayak.The tidal marsh, nonvegetated flats andshallow waters provide opportunity toview coastal fauna; waterbirds, heronsand fiddler and blue crabs. (434) 295-6106 or Dept. Conservation and Recre-ation (804) 445-9117.

7. Sandy Bottom Nature Park in theCity of Hampton has platforms andtrails to access the nontidal lake, woodsand wetlands. Interpretive materials areavailable. www.hampton.gov/parks.

8. Ragged Island Wildlife Manage-ment Area is on the James River at thesouthern terminus of the James RiverBridge. The management area has a

marsh boardwalk and a short trail to asandy beach along the River.www.dgif.state.va.us

9. First Landing State Park is lo-cated near the mouth of the Chesa-peake Bay in Virginia Beach. The parkhas a diverse coastal ecosystem withtidal marsh, dunes, and cypressswamp. There are miles of trails includ-ing a boardwalk through the cypressswamp. 2500 Shore Drive, VirginiaBeach, VA 23451-1415 (757) 412- 2300.

Information on State Parks may befound on the Dept. Conservation andRecreation Website: www.dcr.state.va.us. Information on WetlandsMonth may be found on EPAs websitehttp://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/awm/

Take a Wetland to Lunch….Or Take your Lunch to a Wetland

By Pam Mason

aried & ersatile Wetlands

8 — VWR

Calendar of Upcoming Events

June 5-10, 2005 International Wetlands Meeting of the South Atlantic Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists(SWS). Charleston, SC. http://www.sws.org

May 21, 2005 Marine Science Day at the Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceA family-oriented open house at VIMS. Tours, boat rides, beach seining, GPS treasure hunt, equipmentdisplays, research presentations and more. http://www.vims.edu

June 16, 2005 VIMS Tidal Wetlands WorkshopAgenda in preparation. Watch the Center for Coastal Resources Management homepage.Announcement and details coming via email.

July 17-21 COASTAL ZONE 05. Balancing on the Edge. New Orleans, Louisiana.Gale.Peek@noaa.gov

Oct. 16-21, 2005 Estuarine Research Federation Meeting. Norfolk, Virginia.ESTUARINE INTERACTIONS: Biological-Physical Feedbacks and Adaptations.http://www.sgmeet.com/erf2005/contact.htm

Oct. 25-28, 2005 Eighth Annual Wetlands and Watersheds Workshop; Aquatic Systems and Water Quality.Atlantic City, NJ. The workshop will focus on aquatic systems and how they fit into watersheds.Abstracts due by May 31, 2005. Information contact: Frank@wetlandsworkgroup.org

Dec. 5-7, 2005 Environmental Results Using Market-Based Approaches. Atlantic City, NJ.Sponsored by EPA, this conference seeks to examine market-based environmental tools currently in use invarious media. Participants will gain an understanding of the methods and the science behind them, andthe legal considerations, limitations and drivers for each. Abstracts due by May 31, 2005.seligman.andrew@epa.gov

Although some western subspeciesof the clapper rail are endangered, theeastern subspecies populations seemto be fairly stable, as long as marshesare preserved and not further degraded.It was encouraging to learn that a clap-per rail with chicks was observed in1989 using the Hampton Salt Pondsmitigation marsh which had been re-stored only 2 years previously (per-sonal communication, Tom Barnard andPam Mason). This 1.5-acre marsh isadjacent to a similar-sized natural marshand is in the vicinity of other extensivemarshes, enhancing its value to therails.

Clapper rails are legally hunted inVirginia during fall migration. Onehunting method involves waiting for a“marsh hen tide”, an extreme high tide,during which hunters pole their boatsthrough the marsh. The rails are con-centrated in the highest parts of the

Clapper Railcontinued from page 4 marsh and are more easily accessed and

flushed than during lower water levels.Aside from humans, predators of

the clapper rail or its eggs include rac-coons, fish crows, harriers, short-earedowls, great blue herons, and gulls. Inpopulated areas, dogs and cats maytake rails and their young. Althoughprobably an unusual occurrence,Carlson et al. (2002) found that tigersharks they caught had fed on clapperrails.

If you’re not able to spot this elu-sive species on your next summertimevisit to a coastal saltmarsh, you may beable to see the pair currently at the Vir-ginia Living Museum in Newport News.Even these will require some patience toview, as the “habitarium” in which theylive is quite similar to their dense natu-ral habitat. If your computer is properlyconfigured, you can hear the clapperrail’s call at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/Song/h2110so.wav.

References:Carlson, J.K., M.A. Grace, P.K. Lago. 2002.

An observation of juvenile tiger sharksfeeding on clapper rails off the southeasterncoast of the United States. SoutheasternNaturalist, Vol.1(3):307-310.

Eddleman, W.R., and C.J. Conway. 1998.Clapper rail (Rallus longirostris). In TheBirds of North America, No. 340 (A. Pooleand F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of NorthAmerica, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Meanley, B. 1985. The marsh hen: A naturalhistory of the Clapper Rail of the Atlanticcoast salt marsh. Tidewater Publ.,Centreville, MD.

Watts, B.D. 1992. The influence of marshsize on marsh value for bird communities ofthe lower Chesapeake Bay. Center forConservation Biology Technical ReportCCBTR-93-03, College of William andMary, 53pp.

Watts, B.D. 1993. Effects of marsh size onincidence rates and avian community orga-nization within the lower Chesapeake Bay.Center for Conservation Biology TechnicalReport CCBTR-92-01, College of Williamand Mary, 115pp.