“jeg SS: 1aB U.S.Arm Coast. Eng. Kes . Ctr MR 79-2 (xp -A0712. 924) Bank Erosion Control With Vegetation, San Francisco Bay, California by Curtis L. Newcombe, James H. Morris, Paul L. Knutson, and Carol S. Gorbics MISCELLANEOUS REPORT NO. 79-2 MAY 1979 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER “FC. Kingman Building | Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060 Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are available from: National Technical Information Service ATTN: Operations Division 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. IAI MBL/WHOI O 0301 0089843 j, DATA UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER MR 79-2 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED BANK EROSION CONTROL WITH VEGETATION, SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA Miscellaneous Report 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s) 7. AUTHOR(s) Curtis Newcombe, James H. Morris, Paul L. Knutson, and Carol S. Gorbics DACW72-75-C-0015 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS iv San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center \—~ Emeryville, California 94608 — ? G31530 12. REPORT DATE May 1979 13. NUMBER OF PAGES LEG BN) (0), 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) 11. CONTROLLING OF nar SNe AND ADDRESS Department of the Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-CE) Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) UNCLASSIFIED DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 15a, 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Bioconstructs Coastal erosion Spartina foltosa Biomass Marsh Stabilization San Francisco Bay ABSTRACT (Continue am reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) During 1975 to 1978, an intertidal shoreline stabilization study was con- ducted to determine biological means of controlling erosion. California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa Trin.) and mussels (Ischadium demissum Dillwyn) were used in San Pablo Bay and South San Francisco Bay, California. The study indicated that establishing cordgrass with seeds is not a practical method for controlling erosion. Cordgrass plugs are more useful Continued DD anys 1473 Evrtion oF 1 wov 651s OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) than sprigs while the cordgrass-mussel plugs, termed bioconstructs, are the most tolerant to erosion by waves. The cordgrass-mussel community biocon- structs survived exceptionally well during the 13-month observations at Alameda Creek, a high-energy site. Once established, they are highly resistant to waves, will survive transplanting, and can be established in an area with up to a 7-kilometer fetch without wave-stilling devices. The biomass of the aerial parts of 23 natural California cordgrass marshes averaged 1,062 grams per square meter. This value is similar to those pre- viously reported for smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterntflora) on the Atlantic coast. UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered) PREFACE This report is published to provide coastal engineers information on the use of intertidal salt marsh vegetation for erosion control on the open shores of the San Francisco Bay System. The work was carried out under the coastal ecology research program of the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). The report was prepared by Curtis L. Newcombe and James H. Morris of the San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center, and Paul L. Knutson and Carol S. Gorbics of the Coastal Ecology Branch, CERC, under CERC Contract No. DACW72-75-C-0015 and the general supervision of E.J. Pullen, Chief, Coastal Ecology Branch, Research Division. Thanks are expressed to all individuals who contributed to this study, particularly to J.W. Walmsley, C. Purser, and R. Mueller. J.W. Walmsley had a major responsibility in all field monitoring operations, C. Purser contributed greatly to the report preparation, and R. Mueller performed the biomass studies. Special thanks are expressed to Professor H.T. Harvey and A.H. Koch, special consultants in Ecology and Engineering, respectively, for val- uable counsel. Comments on this publication are invited. Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress, approved 31 July 1945 as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th Congress, approved 7 November 1963. yy TED E. BISHOP Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commander and Director VI VII CONTENTS CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) INTRODUCTION. OBJECTIVE . PREVIOUS WORK . METHODS AND PROCEDURES. NBWNeH Plant Selection. : c Survey of Existing Nemenes 0 Field Planting Sites . Planting Procedures. 2 Experimental Design for aicsicl. lanes. RESULTS . Ik 2 Se 4, 5 Survey of Natural ‘Conds libnsiies. Laboratory Studies on Seed Germination . Comparison of Seeds, Sprigs, and Plugs . Plugs with Wave Breakers R Cordgrass-Mussel Bioconstructs SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS . LITERATURE CITED. TABLES Salinity levels in San Francisco Bay . Characteristics of shoreline test sites. Measurements of California cordgrass stands in San Francisco Bay . Comparison of survival and growth of plugs with and without wave breakers Comparison of cordgrass~mussel bioconstruct survival and growth, Alameda Creek . Comparison of cordgrass-mussel bioconstruct-rhizome development in months after planting. Summary of cordgrass planting results. Comparison of biomass of smooth and California cordgrasses in laboratory experiments . Page o Bi 5 ol o Ol . 34 5 oe) 10 11 FIGURES Location of the three shoreline areas in the San Francisco Bay selected for planting Locations of the 23 natural marsh sites A to V . Wind rose for Alameda Island, Central San Francisco Bay. A cordgrass-ribbed mussel bioconstruct showing top dowling used to stabilize the transplant. 5 dio 6) < Experimental plot arrangement for Alameda Creek, San Mateo shoreline, and Point Pinole . Natural cordgrass-mussel community . Experimental plot arrangement for Alameda Creek showing cordgrass-mussel bioconstruct plantings Germination of California cordgrass seed in varying salt concentrations . Germination of stored California cordgrass seed. Survival of plugs with wave breakers and without wavebreakers. Transplants of smooth cordgrass-ribbed mussel bioconstructs at Wachapreague Marsh, Virginia - 12 Ld 19 18 21 23 24 26 30 CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to metric (SI) units as follows: Multiply by To obtain inches 25.4 millimeters 2.54 centimeters Square inches 6.452 square centimeters cubic inches 16.39 cubic centimeters feet 30.48 centimeters 0.3048 meters square feet 0.0929 square meters cubic feet 0.0283 cubic meters yards 0.9144 meters square yards 0.836 square meters cubic yards 0.7646 cubic meters miles 1.6093 kilometers square miles 259.0 hectares knots 1.852 kilometers per hour acres 0.4047 hectares foot-pounds 15 SONS} newton meters millibars LOIS 2 lor? kilograms per square centimeter ounces 28.35 grams pounds 453.6 grams 0.4536 kilograms ton, long 1.0160 metric tons ton, short 0.9072 metric tons degrees (angle) 0.01745 radians Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degrees or Kelvins! 1To obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings, use formula: C = (5/9) (F -32). To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: K = (5/9) (F -52) + 273.15. BANK EROSION CONTROL WITH VEGETATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CALIFORNIA by Curtis L. Newcombe, James H. Morris, Paul L. Knutson, and Carol S. Gorbices I. INTRODUCTION The San Francisco Bay system is comprised of four large bays inter- connected by constricted straits (Fig. 1). Prior to 1850 the bay system consisted of approximately 2,038 square kilometers of open water, tidal flats, and intertidal marshlands. A total of 810 square kilometers of marsh formed the Suisun, San Pablo, Central, and South San Francisco Bays. Since the mid-19th century, approximately 30 percent of the bay system has been either filled or diked-off and drained in land reclama- tion activities (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1977). Intertidal marshes have been the primary target of these reclamation projects. Seventy-five percent of the San Pablo Bay marshes and 85 per- cent of South San Francisco Bay marshes have been appropriated for urban, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. The marshy fringe which once protected the shore from erosion has been greatly reduced or elim- inated. Today, much of the shoreline is characterized by near-vertical eroding banks, a small band of intertidal marsh, and a nearly continuous system of levees and landfills. Considering the historical distribution of marsh vegetation on the margins of the bay, planting intertidal plants may be an effective ero- sion control measure in San Francisco Bay and other bays and estuaries on the Pacific coast. Il. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using intertidal salt marsh vegetation to control erosion on the open shores of the San Francisco Bay system. Specific objectives were: (a) The development of techniques for propagation, trans- plantation, and maintenance of plants for shoreline erosion abatement; and (b) the field testing of plants and planting techniques for shoreline erosion abatement. III. PREVIOUS WORK In 1946, a property owner of the Rappahannock River in Virginia graded an eroding bank and planted several varieties of salt-tolerant grasses. This work represents one of the earliest known attempts to san 0 < r | QAFAEL RICHWOND-SAM RAFAEL BRIDGE \o | ® aicHMOND sz ig Scr 4 ‘SARKLANO- SAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIOGE 2? JAKLANO \ SAN MATEO ° - 4, abil hes. | a a | SNS 3 x | =H i CALE MILES \ = Ness Q 10 20 3eN NSO | _——}—_—_} \ y. | yO SCALE IN KILOMETERS regal | { SAN JOSE >A | XS | =a) Nee ZA SG =~ I } aaa ee ee ee ele ee Oe eee eae bee . Figure 1. Location of the three shoreline areas in the San Francisco Bay selected for planting: (1) Point Pinole, (2) San Mateo, and (3) Alameda Creek. abate erosion with intertidal plants in the United States. The plant- ing has prevented erosion for more than 20 years (Phillips and Eastland, 1959; Sharp and Vaden, 1970). In 1969, the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) initiated, by contract, regional studies on the use of marsh vegetation to control erosion in coastal areas. The following studies have been completed to date: (a) Woodhouse, Seneca, and Broome (1974, 1976) found smooth or salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterntflora) to be an effec- tive stabilizer of eroding banks and dredged material areas in North Carolina. Between 1969 and 1976 detailed techniques were developed for the efficient propagation of cordgrass with sprigs and seeds, and the factors which affect growth and survival were well documented. (b) Garbisch, Woller, and McCallum (1975) found smooth cord- grass and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) to be effective in controlling erosion in the Chesapeake Bay area. Efficient nursery production techniques for these species were developed. (c) Hall and Ludwig (1975) evaluated the potential use of vegetation for erosion abatement in the Great Lakes. They found that marsh vegetation had limited potential because of fluctu- ating lake water levels, high bluffs, winter icing conditions, and severe waves. (d) Dodd and Webb (1975) and Webb and Dodd (1978) appraised the potential of vegetative stabilization on the gulf coast. They found that smooth cordgrass and gulf coast cordgrass (Spartina spartinae) could be established on eroding banks if temporary protection was afforded by a wave-stilling device. Little prior research has been conducted on the use of marsh vegeta- tion for bank stabilization on the Pacific coast. However, developing techniques for propagating select species of salt marsh plants has received considerable attention in recent years. Most work has focused on California cordgrass (Spartina foltosa) which occurs intermittently along the California coast and the coast of Baja California, Mexico (Munz, 1968; Mason, 1969). This grass is most abundant in San Francisco Bay, San Diego County, and in several estuaries in Baja; is sparse or absent in bays and estuaries north of San Francisco; and is closely re- lated to smooth cordgrass which has been used extensively for marsh development and bank stabilization on the gulf and Atlantic coasts. California cordgrass grows lower in the intertidal zone than any other emergent plant on the Pacific coast. Where found, it is the domi- nant plant between mean tide level (MTL) and mean high water (MHW) (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1976). Although uniquely adapted to withstand both elevated salinity and submergence, this plant invades barren substrates in a slow manner. Purer (1942) noted that California cordgrass seedlings were uncommon and speculated that reproduction of the species was principally vegetative rooting from extensive creeping rhizomes of the parent plant. Phleger (1971) questioned whether the species actually produced viable seed as he failed to achieve germination in the laboratory using several standard techniques. However, Mason (1973) located seed-produced stands of cordgrass and achieved germination in laboratory experiments. Techniques were later developed for estab- lishing cordgrass from seed, plugs, and nursery stock under field condi- tions (Newcombe and Pride, 1975; Knutson, 1975). Sprigs have also been used successfully to produce new stands of cordgrass (Morris, et al., 1978). The above field plantings were made in areas totally sheltered from wave activity. Before this study, little had been known about the toler- ance of California cordgrass to wave activity in exposed areas. Based on observations of smooth cordgrass on the Atlantic coast, Knutson (1977) concluded that seeds are likely to establish only in sheltered areas. Sprigs are more tolerant to wave activity and can be used reliably in fetches (the distance the wind blows over open water in generating waves) up to about 8 kilometers. Plugs or nursery stock work consistently well in fetches up to 16 kilometers. Knutson also reported that plants can be established in areas exceeding these fetch limits if the slope onshore is gradual, shallow depths occur offshore, or if the site faces away from the direction of predominant winds. IV. METHODS AND PRCGCEDURES 1. Plant Selection. Three plant species are predominant in the intertidal zone in San Francisco Bay. California cordgrass is the principal colonizer in the intertidal zone up to the MHW elevation, and pickleweed (Saltcornta spp.) and saltgrass (Distichlis sptcata) are the dominant plants in the higher marsh, MHW to the estimated highest tide. California cordgrass has considerably more potential for erosion control than the other two plants. Cordgrass is found in the intertidal region which is subject to the greatest wave attack and subsequent ero- sion. It grows in dense, monotypic stands with semirigid, erect stems. This growth forms a mass that dissipates wave energy. Natural stands with 800 or more stems, 0.3 to 1.2 meters in height, may be crowded into each square meter of marsh. The plant is supported by numerous shallow, underground rhizomes and an extensive root system that stabilizes the sediments in which it grows. During the growing season, roots and rhi- zomes constitute 50 to 60 percent of the plant's total weight (Floyd and Newcombe, 1976; Knutson, 1976). Pickleweed and saltgrass grow in the high intertidal zone which is not the region of critical erosion. Neither plant has the erosion con- trol attributes of California cordgrass. Pickleweed is poorly anchored 10 in the soil. Its root system represents only about 20 percent of the total weight of the plant (Floyd and Newcombe, 1976). Saltgrass is often prostrate (lying on the ground) and spreads from above-ground runners (stolons), providing little resistance to waves and only limited benefit to soil. Based on the above considerations, California cordgrass was selected for planting experiments. 2. Survey of Existing Marshes. A field survey of over 23 natural cordgrass marshes was made around the bay in November 1976 (Fig. 2). The total number of culms (stems) per meter and the mean height of stems and biomass were measured (four replicates) for each survey site. These data were used to compare the natural marshes and the marshes planted during the course of the study. Each site was assigned an alphabetic and geographic designation. The following is a listing of the natural marsh areas sampled and the alpha- betic designation used to locate the sites in Figure 2: A. Alameda Creek Flood L. Marin Day School Control Channel M. Novato Creek B. Bay Bridge Toll Plaza N. Gro Loma C. Bolinas Lagoon O. Palo Alto D. Burlingame P. Petaluma Creek E. China Camp Q. Pinole Creek (mouth) ; F. Corte Madera Creek two sites G. Coyote Point R. Richardson Bay H. Creekside Park S. Seal Slough I. Drakes Estero T. San Francisco Airport J. Golden Gate Fields U. Shoreline Drive K. Limatour V. Southhampton Bay 3. Field Planting Sites. a. General Physical Features of San Francisco Bay. (1) Tides. San Francisco Bay is subject to the Pacific coast semidiurnal tidal pattern of two high and two low tides per day (24.8 hours). Unlike the Atlantic coast, the two high tides and two low tides differ in magnitude. Tidal range within the bay generally increases in- land from the Golden Gate Bridge. The mean tidal range at the bridge is approximately 1.3 meters; the southern tip of the South San Francisco Bay (approximately 80 kilometers) has a tidal range of 2.7 meters. (2) Wind. The wind rose shown in Figure 3 represents the gen- eral wind environment of the San Francisco Bay area. The strongest av- erage winds blow from the west; south-southeast winds are also strong but occur less frequently. Strongest winds occur during the winter when storms increase wave heights from 0.3 meter to more than 1.0 meter (Pestrong, 1972). YX SAN FRANCISCO BAY SYSTEM as 9 PETALUMA ‘QAKLANO-SAM FRANCISCO BAY SRIOGE 2 QAKLANO moe se tace | Ns | 1 (/ H | | i 1 i ) | | \ ' { | 3 s 3 | : z | SCALE (MS WILED : ° 10 2 { SS SS i j | SCALE IN KILOMETERS fi } et i A LS ed Figure 2. Locations of the 23 natural marsh sites Ato V. (Sites I and K 35 kilometers northwest of Golden Gate Bridge.) Seen UINDESPESSEMEH DIRECTION 3Y PERCEN PERCENT EQUALED OR EXCEEDED fo} : REBRcae 0) Be BMD SIG Fi) Bl OR. eg is ANG) hi ca WIND SPEED (mn) USwS_ ALAMEDA LAT ayaa suey 20 Las1-45; EVERY 4 HOURS 5,109 OpservATIONS ca NE IS Figure 3. Wind rose for Alameda Island, Central San Francisco Bay (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1978). (3) Sediments. Sediments on eroding bay shores typically con- tain 5 percent sand, 15 percent coarse shell fragments and organic debris, 15 percent silt, and 65 percent clay (Pestrong, 1972). Wave action removes the fine-grained material from surface sediments in the swash zone, leaving a surface layer of coarse material at the toe of eroding banks. (4) Rainfall, Riverflow, and Salinity. Almost 85 percent of the total annual rainfall in the San Francisco Bay occurs between November and April. Major freshwater inflow, which coincides with the high rain- fall periods, is in the northern reaches of the bay. During the winter rains, salinity levels are greatly reduced in San Pablo Bay. Maximum salinity levels reach the seawater concentration (33 parts per thousand) during the dry summer months in Central Bay and South San Francisco Bay. Table 1 summarizes mean and extreme salinity levels in the three major bays. Table 1. Salinity levels in San Francisco Bay. Salinity level (pct) Location Maximum South San Francisco Bay Central Bay joan Pablo Ba b. Location of Shoreline Planting Sites. Three shoreline sites were selected for planting--San Mateo, Point Pinole, and Alameda Creek (Fig. 1). The Point Pinole site is located on the east side of Point Pinole on the southeastern shore of San Pablo Bay. The San Mateo site is on the west side of South San Francisco Bay about 3 kilometers north of the San Mateo Bridge. This site extends a distance of about 1 kilometer. Six planting areas were established along the shoreline near the Alameda Creek flood channel, hereafter referred to as Alameda Creek. This site is located 5 kilometers south of the San Mateo Bridge on the eastern shore of South San Francisco Bay. The 1-kilometer test site, located north of the Alameda Creek flood control channel, provided a wide variety of test conditions. Physical characteristics of each of the planting sites are summarized in Table 2. 4. Planting Procedures. a. seeding: (1) Laboratory Tests. Seeds were collected in November 1975 to prepare for field planting. The seeds were harvested by hand at low tide. Inflorescences (seed heads) were clipped from parent plants with the use of electric garden shears. Collected material was threshed and stored in 40 parts per thousand saltwater at room temperature (about 20° Celsius). Table 2. Characteristics of shoreline test sites (see Fig. 1). Percent of | Average Ares Exposure time wind windspeed Fetch blows from (km/hr) (km) direction San Mateo, 21 South of 15 Coyote Point 16 14.5 14 Average Point Pinole 14 LS 11 8.5 4 Average Alameda Creek 22 (Area 1) 9 7 7 Average Alameda Creek 22 (Area 2) 9 Average Alameda Creek BY (Areas 3 and 4) 22 9 7 7 7 6 Average Alameda Creek 7 (Area 5) Alameda Creek 0.5 (Area 6) Germination tests were made to determine an optium planting period. At 2-week intervals, seed samples were removed from storage and placed in freshwater. The precentage of seeds that germinated was recorded. Seed samples were also placed in solutions of 0, 10, 20, and 30 parts per thousand salinity to determine the best solution for germination. (2) Field Planting. Both hand and mechanical seeding was done. The application rate for seeding was approximately 100 seeds per square meter. Hand-sown seeds were raked into the substrate and covered with a thin layer of mud to prevent them from floating. Mechanical planting was performed with a hydromulch machine with a nozzle pressure of about 10 kilograms per square centimeter. b. Sprigs. A sprig is a single stem (culm) with associated root and rhizomal material. Clumps of cordgrass were collected in existing natural marshes and separated into individual sprigs. Only culms with- out inflorescenses, ranging in size from 7 centimeters tall in the spring to 25 centimeters tall in the fall, were used. The sprigs were hand- planted to a depth of 7 to 10 centimeters, depending on the sprig size. A hole was pressed into the substrate, the sprig was placed in the hole, and then the mud was compressed around the sprig. c. Plugs. A plug is a group of stems with attached root and rhi- zome material which is collected and planted with the sediment mass intact. Tests were conducted-on two types of plugs: (a) plugs protected by construction shingles inserted in the mud to act as wave breakers; and (b) bioconstructs with ribbed mussels (Ischadtum demtssum, formerly Volsella demissus) imbedded in the rhizome mass. (1) Plugs With and Without Wave Breakers. Plugs, 15 centimeters square and up to 10 centimeters tall, were collected from dense cordgrass stands. The plugs were selectively dug to obtain a maximum number of culms per unit of surface area. Holes were dug into the mud with a square- tipped spade, deep enough for the planted plugs to be flush with the mud surface. The plugs were then pressed into the holes by hand. To pro- tect each plant, construction shingles, measuring 15 to 25 centimeters wide and 30 centimeters long, were pressed 20 centimeters into the sub- strate. For very small plugs, two shingles were placed in a "V'"' for- mation in front of the plant with the apex facing the wave fronts. Larger plugs were protected by arranging three or four shingles in a staggered pattern across the exposed side of the plant. (2) Cordgrass Mussel Bioconstructs. Cordgrass plugs with ribbed mussels were obtained from a stand fully exposed to bay wave activity, located approximately 1.5 kilometers north of Alameda Creek. The bio- constructs measured approximately 25 centimeters square and up to 15 centimeters tall. Although the cordgrass was stunted in height, as was typical in stands exposed to strong wave action, it was healthy in terms of density of shoot growth and the lack of noticeable necrosis. The planting procedure was the same as for the plugs without ribbed mussels with three additional steps. The substrate surface was manually 16 compacted (sealed) around the perimeters of the bioconstructs to pro- tect against wave surges. Then, a wooden dowel 1 meter in length was pressed vertically through the center of each bioconstruct after it was planted (Fig. 4). Each dowel had a '"'T'' top made by forcing it through a slightly undersized hole in the center of a piece of wood. Wooden planking was used to construct walkways in the plots during the planting operation to minimize substrate disturbance. Figure 4, A cordgrass-ribbed mussel bioconstruct showing top of dowling used to stabilize the transplant. 5. Experimental Design for Field Plantings. The evaluation of field-planting techniques was conducted in two phases. Phase one focused on determining the relative tolerance of seeds, sprigs, and plugs to wave activity. Phase two focused on develop- ing improved plug-planting techniques for erosion control. a. Phase One--Comparison of Seeds, Sprigs, and Plugs. San Mateo and Alameda Creek (area 1) were selected for the phase one plantings. The San Mateo site was planted between 14 and 25 July 1976 and plant survival was determined in August and December 1976. Alameda Creek (area 1) was planted in May 1976 and monitored in August and October 1976 and January 1977. The following is a summary of plant materials used at each site. San Mateo Alameda Creek (area 1) Seeds (hand), 23 liters Seeds (hand), 20 liters Seeds (hydroseeding), 150 liters Sprigs, 628 Sprigs, 360 Plugs, 54 Plugs, 108 Plantings in this phase were not organized into replicate plots and data analysis was strictly subjective. ; b. Phase Two--Development of Plug Planting Techniques. (1) Plugs With and Without Wave Breakers. San Mateo, Point Pinole, and Alameda Creek (area 2) were chosen to test plugs with and without wave breakers. Plot size at each location was 4 by 4 meters; plugs were planted on l-meter centers, 16 plugs per plot. Schematic drawings of the randomly designated, replicate plots are in Figure 5. All plots were planted in September 1976, and monitored in October 1976, January, April, July and October 1977, and January 1978. Percent sur- vival, stem height, and stem density were determined during each period. (2) Cordgrass Mussel Bioconstructs. During field monitoring of the wave breaker plots at Alameda Creek, it was noted that several areas of the shoreline were stabilized with ribbed mussels growing in conjunc- tion with California cordgrass (Fig. 6). Five experimental plots (areas 2 to 6) at Alameda Creek were established to test the feasibility of using cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs for erosion control. The five plots which were not true replicates, represent a range of shore conditions. All plots were 5 by 5 meters with 25 cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs planted on l-meter centers in June 1977. Alameda Creek (area 2) provided a comparison between cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs and plugs with and without wave breakers planted at this site in 1976. No plants from the 1976 plantings remained at Alameda Creek (area 2) at the time of the 1977 planting. Alameda Creek (area 3) was established as a con- trol for the planting method. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs were trans- planted into a natural cordgrass-mussel community. Alameda Creek (areas 4, 5, and 6) represented three alternative exposures to wave action. A Figure 6. Natural cordgrass-mussel community. 18 *OTOUTq JULOg pue ‘SUTTSLOYS O93"W UeS ‘(YydeeIq ‘7 edie) yoor1) epowe[y 1oyF Juswesuer11e yoTd Tejuowtszedxg “°s oan3ty aoa0dsS =Ss IP = Rega = josjuoQN = $494D941g AADOM ON=GMN TW9IsS OL LON sais u0lyDA4aSqQ=qO $194D91q aADM=GM (yBiy tweGg)) 6 Soc eee ~ yuoqpnu G G GO |SEM | GMN] bo | £9 IO 1bGM |CAM | GEMNITEMN| CaM = kug (Hovde) (2 vay) yovesg ¢ puog sean JLIS 435ND vaaNVIV 9 N Se “WG"O ulG"Q yuogpnw | ¢@ GMN| co S GMN| 19 iS yuogpnu JIONId LNIOd ‘@ hog o9s}oub14 uns N w L'0 fees eA yooqpnw It EL yuogpnus 4NI13AYOHS Avg 09s519ub 14 UDG ——— N OJIVW NVS *V 19 schematic of the plot arrangement is shown in Figure 7. Percent sur- vival, stem height, and stem density were determined in each plot during monitoring periods in December 1977, and February and June 1978. VY. RESULTS 1. Survey of Natural Cordgrass Marshes. . a. General Observations. California cordgrass naturally establishes in the middle to upper intertidal zone by either seed dispersal or the fortuitous introduction of a dislodged plant with root or rhizomal tissue. Individual plants spread laterally by rhizomal growth with new shoots emerging up to 50 centimeters from the parent plant. New shoots grow rapidly and often sprout one to five or more basal shoots which generally emerge within 1.5 centimeters of the parent shoot. Inflorescent (seed head) development begins in August and seed dispersal occurs in November. Most of the inflorescent-bearing culms dieback by January or February. Most of the seed crop undergoes germination in February and March. Ver- nal growth in established plants also begins during this period. Aerial stems are present during all seasons. Plants exposed to strong wave action are generally stunted in appear- ance. This may result from high stem mortality and continuous replacement of lost stems with new shoots. b. Survey Results. Table 3 summarizes the data obtained from survey of 23 natural marshes in November 1976. The average number of stems per square meter area ranged from 224 to 1,460. Aerial biomass ranged from 367 to 2,030 grams per square meter area for the 23 sites. Mean stem height ranged from 55 to 100 centimeters with a mean height of 79 centi- meters. 2. Laboratory Studies on Seed Germination. Laboratory germination studies indicate that California cordgrass seeds have twice the germination rate and also germinate faster in fresh- water than in solutions of 10, 20, 30 parts per thousand saltwater (Fig. 8). Similarly, Mooring, Cooper, and Seneca (1971) noted that freshwater stimulates the germination of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterntflora) . It may be assumed that under natural conditions seeds produced in the fall either float in bay water or are deposited with debris in the strand line. Winter rains cause a temporary reduction of salinity near the bay and tributaries and probably stimulate seed germination. Laboratory studies also show that seed collected in November and stored in 40 parts per thousand saltwater reached peak germination in May (Fig. 9). This "after ripening'' has also been observed in studies of smooth cordgrass. A delay in peak germination in natural stands of cordgrass until late winter or early spring, when climatological condi- tions and salinities are more favorable, is an advantage to plant survival. 20 + ZO 44) YUDqpnw CM=Cordgrass—mussel LEVEE BREACH Dioconstructs AC.=Alameda Creek sites Space between plots not to scale mudbenk (ht.0.5 to 1.0m.) noe bank (oon PACE AaEe9 CM SAN FRANCISEC BAY ALAMEDA CREEK FLOCD CONTROL CHANNEL Figure 7. Experimental plot arrangement for Alameda Creek (areas 2 to 6) showing cordgrass- mussel bioconstruct plantings. 2 | Table 3. Measurements of Gam enonenete. cordgrass stands in San Francisco Bay. Aerial biomass Salite Mean height Mean number? (g/m?) of stems (cm) of stems/m EE Creek 549 55 420 Bay Bridge Toll Plaza 771 65 400 Bolinas Lagoon 1,040 86 285 Burlingame 2,030 82 1,460 China Camp 1,060 92 862 Corte Madera Creek 802 80 958 Coyote Point 1,300 86 526 Creekside Park 1,120 81 403 Drakes Estero 1,040 96 224 Golden Gate Fields 518 al 495 Limatour 367 58 SY/M Marin Day School 1,100 91 657 Novato Creek 1,050 81 442 Oro Loma 1,160 95 iL, L7O Palo Alto Audubon Preserve 554 7A 495 Petaluma Creek 1,050 74 BY 7/ Pinole Creek 1,470 97 737 Pinole Creek (Mouth) 663 69 443 Richardson Bay 632 70 566 San Francisco Airport 1,670 62 765 Seal Slough 1,590 78 614 Shoreline Drive Alameda 1,170 73 960 South Hampton Bay 1,730 100 1,310 Average lFour replicates at each site. Aerial biomass -- dry weight of all living and dead plant material more than 2.5 centimeters above the ground surface. 3Stems - includes (a) dry, dead stems, (b) living green stems, and (c) emerging, new shoots. 22 “SUOT}EIZUBDUOD YITeS BUTAICA UT pdeS SSBIBPIOD eTUIOFT[e) JO UOT}eUTWUIED *g 9INSTY (shop) awit 08 OZ 09 OS OV O€ 0c ol (¢) Ol LO 4 ee SOTO ee / / Wis ee s / ad iD / if aes / i a Ce) OF =e ————— ae qdd 02 = —-—. wer jdd QT = cevcecece sae r OF Wd Q = em So ee ae a oe ee Es os NOILVNIWYSDS 19d Oe) PCT GERMINATION Figure 9, Jan. Mar. May July Sept. MONTH Germination of stored California cordgrass seed. 24 3. Comparison of Seeds, Sprigs, and Plugs. A comparison of the success of using seeds, sprigs, and plugs to establish a marsh was made at San Mateo and Alameda Creek (area 1). The San Mateo site is located on the western shore of San Francisco Bay and is not exposed to prevailing winds. The site faces fetches from 14 to 21 kilometers, but winds blow onshore only about 14 percent of the time at an average speed of 8.5 kilometers per hour. The Alameda Creek (area 1) site is exposed to the prevailing westerly winds. Winds blow onshore at this site about 47 percent of the time at an average speed of 17.5 kilometers per hour. Area 1 is also exposed to broader fetch ranges from 11 to 35 kilometers. A 150- by 15-meter area of the San Mateo site was hydroseeded (seed in water applied by hose from a tank truck) with 150 liters of seed. Inspection of the site immediately after seeding indicated that the process had torn the seed embryos from their hulls. Two days later, the only evidence of seeding was the presence of a drift line of seed debris. Parts of the hydroseeded area were hand-raked and additional areas were hand-seeded and raked. No seed germination was observed using either of these techniques. Hand-seeding attempts at the Alameda Creek (area 1) were also unsuccessful, due probably to exposure to wave action (Table 2). Sprigs and plugs were planted in front of, and extending up, a 0.2- meter bank at San Mateo in July 1976. One month after planting, only 54 percent of the plugs and 6 percent of the sprigs survived. Greatest mortality occurred on, or immediately beneath, the bank. Five months after planting, no plants were alive. Sprigs and plugs were planted at the Alameda Creek (area 1) site in May 1976. At some locations of this site there were banks 0.3 meter high. In August, 3 months after planting, only 30 percent of the plugs and 5 percent of the sprigs were alive. Five months after planting, plug and sprig survivals were 13 and 2 percent, respectively Eight months after planting, there were no live plants, reflecting high ex- posure to waves. Seed, sprigs, and plugs were not successful in establishing vegeta- tion on the two exposed sites tested. Seeding offers little promise whereas, plugs appear to be more tolerant to wave action than sprigs. Having determined that plugs are more tolerant to wave action than seeds or sprigs, the 1977 planting focused on improving establishment techniques for plugs. 4. Plugs with Wave Breakers. As discussed previously, plugs with and without individual shingle- type wave breakers were planted in replicate plots at the Alameda Creek (area 2), San Mateo, and Point Pinole sites. Figure 10 and Table 4 summarize survival and growth of the plugs with and without shingles. 25 100 90 80 = $I <) AysToYy wos eseLreay (zu/swezs) 8ntd/ sues jo Ioqunu o3e13Ay Butjuetd 193Fe syquoW £2 vL 62 (a6 . 394 “SToyestq 9ABM = GMz “9461 tequeqydes poquetd, : , SLOYLeTG OAeM YNoYyITM pue YITM sB8ntd Jo yIMoIZ pue [eATAINS Jo uosTreduo) aM 3noyits aM UTM od }eW ues aM 3noyyTM aM U2TM (Z very) YaIoID epowely gM 2noyzTM 20M UIT a[outg 3UTOoOY $93TS “py eTqeL 27 a. Alameda Creek (Area 2) Plantings. Area 2 is a particularly high-energy site which is subject to both strong tidal currents and wind waves. The site borders on a manmade breach in the South Bay levee system. The breach connects the bay with a 100-acre pond. During high and low tides, the pond is filled and emptied through the breached sec- tion. During peak periods, velocities through the breach reach 0.5 to 1.0 meter per second (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1976). In addition, this site is exposed to strong westerly winds which generate waves over a broad fetch, 9 to 22 kilometers. Winds blow onshore at Alameda Creek about 30 percent of the time at an average speed of 19 kilometers per hour. Observations using reference stakes indicate that the 1.7-meter bank at this site erodes. several meters per year. The wave breakers had no effect on plant survival at Alameda Creek (Table 4). The unstable substrate eroded rapidly and the wave breakers were frequently washed into the higher elevated pickleweed and saltgrass zone. In addition, most plants at the Point Pinole and San Mateo sites were planted on relatively level ground, beneath or on a mudbank; plants at the Alameda Creek site were planted on an unstable, steep slope of the mudbank where the plants were easily dislodged by waves. b. San Mateo Plantings. The San Mateo site is exposed to a fetch similar to Alameda Creek, 14 to 21 kilometers. However, this site faces northeast and is totally sheltered from the prevailing westerly winds. Winds blow onshore only 14 percent of the time at an average speed of 8.3 kilometers per hour. At the San Mateo site, the beneficial effect of the wave breakers was Statistically significant by January 1977. During a 3-month period (November 1976 to January 1977), plant survival in all plots was about 50 percent. During the following 3 months (to April 1977) the apparent difference in survival shown in Table 4 was, however, not statistically Significant due to high variability in one plot of each group in which the plants died (student's t-test). c. Point Pinole Plantings. The Point Pinole site is the most shel- tered of the three sites. It faces northeast as does the San Mateo site, but winds generate waves over a fetch of only 4 to 14 kilometers at this Site. At the Point Pinole site, the survival was significantly greater in the wave breaker plots after the first month (October 1976; Table 4). The t-test showed the probability of the null hypothesis (PH,) to be smaller than 0.01. By January 1977, the effect of the wave breakers on plant survival at Point Pinole was not statistically significant (0.30 < PH, < 0.50). Wave activity had reduced plant survival in all plots and the variability of the survival was too great for the t-test to show a significant difference. Though individual wave breakers improved plug survival, it is evident from these plantings that more formidable wave protection is required to establish plants in these test areas. Earlier estimates (Knutson, 1977) that California cordgrass can be established in areas with fetches up to 28 16 kilometers seem to be overly optimistic. Plugs failed at the Point Pinole site despite the fact that it was totally sheltered from pre- vailing winds; it faced a fetch of up to 14 kilometers. 5. Cordgrass-Mussel Bioconstructs. Plugs harvested from mats of cordgrass in association with ribbed mussels have not been previously tested as a bank stabilization technique. However, studies by Newcombe (1941-1946) at Wachapreague, Virginia, found that smooth cordgrass marshes could be established on bare mud areas by heeling in plugs dug from a climax, mat formation cordgrass mussel community (Fig. 11). Pestrong (1972), in his geological studies of San Francisco Bay, observed that these cordgrass-mussel communities had effectively riprapped many channel banks in the South Bay. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs were planted in June 1977 at Alameda Creek (areas 2-6). Data on the growth and survival of cordgrass-mussel transplants are summarized in Table 5 (Newcombe, 1978). a. Alameda Creek (Area 2) Plantings. Alameda Creek is the high erosion site, as discussed previously. The area 2 plantings were de- stroyed by bank erosion by June 1978. Instead of "washing out," as the plugs did in the wave breaker plots, they were undermined by erosion of the surrounding substrate until they were sufficiently exposed for waves to dislodge them. Before the plantings were destroyed, their growth was relatively vigorous. The plugs exhibited extensive rhizomal growth by December 1977 (Table 6). Many rhizomes, some of considerable length, grew from the transplants but they were exposed and destroyed by sub- strate erosion before developing more than a few shoots. By February 1978 all surviving plugs in this plot were damaged too severely for further rhizomal shoot development. b. Alameda Creek (Areas 3 and 4) Plantings. Alameda Creek (areas 3 and 4) had the greatest exposure to wind waves of the study areas. Winds blow onshore at these areas about 65 percent of the time with an average speed of 16.4 kilometers per hour over a fetch ranging from 6 to 27 kilometers. At area 3, a well-developed cordgrass-mussel community already existed. Plugs planted in area 3 exhibited 100 percent survival after 1 year. The number of stems decreased, as expected, from December 1977 to February 1978, and then increased again by June 1978. This fluc- tuation was due to waves associated with winter storms. The changes of shoot height and numbers for the cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs matched those of the surrounding cordgrass so closely that it was difficult to discern the bioconstruct transplants at the site after December 1977. The surrounding cordgrass also made it impossible to determine rhizomal shoot characteristics. The success of transplanting in this plot demon- strated that any initial biological stress incurred by the transplanted cordgrass had no lasting detrimental effect on plant survival and growth. At area 4, no vegetation existed before planting. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs planted in this area had good survival after 1 year, but 29 *(9L00W *W 931095 Aq ood) ZHET ‘eTUTSITA “YSTeW ondeardeyoey ye (unssimep wunippYyostT - nio7fiude.z7D Durqapdg) sj INIZsSUuOdOTG [ESSN peqqta-sseisp1od yOouSs Fo sque{dsues] “TT ean8T4 ta 30 Table 5. Comparison of cordgrass-mussel bioconstruct survival and growth, Alameda Creek (planting date, June 1977). Alameda Months after planting Creek ||7 oe ee curvval | fverage unter ot Steno? [Average sea 13 (June Site oites ees number of stems/ Average stem height bioconstructs s Soe 0 3 Pee fe | = : Sere NS 6 100 100 100 120 148 170 9.9 | 7.5 O55 Table 6. Comparison of cordgrass-mussel bioconstruct-rhizome development in months after planting, Alameda Creek (areas 2 to 6). Months after planting 7(Dec.) | 9(Feb.) | 13 (June) 7(Dec.) 9(Feb.) 13(June) Length of longest rhizome in \Rhizomal growth not measured due to dense cordgrass-mussel communities surrounding plantings. 3| the overall condition of the plants began to deteriorate immediately and continued to deteriorate through June 1978. The number of stems was about 50 percent of those at area 3 in December 1977 and about 12 per- cent in June 1978. Rhizomal shoot development was poor as compared to areas 2, 5, and 6 during all monitoring periods (Table 6). The average shoot height decreased to about 50 percent of that in area 3 by December 1977 and remained at that percentage through June 1978. Considering the progressive deterioration of the plants in this area, it is doubtful that this planting will result in long-term stability of the bank. It is evident that new plantings are less tolerant to the destructive forces of waves than are natural cordgrass-mussel communities. Once a stable community has formed and the sediment surface is firmly anchored, indi- vidual plants are not subjected*to abrasion by sand and shell fragments propelled by waves. c. Alameda Creek (Area 5) Plantings. Area 5 is partially sheltered from waves generated by the normal westerly to northwesterly winds. The longest fetch in this area is about 7 kilometers. Sediment in this area contained sand and pulverized shell fragments. Cordgrass-mussel bio- constructs planted in this area had 100 percent survival and good plant growth through June 1978. By December 1977 the plants were significantly taller than those in area 3, and the number of stems per bioconstruct was about equal to that in area 3 (Table 5). A mean of 78 stems per bioconstruct was recorded for area 5 in June 1978. ‘This density is com- parable to that of the fully developed cordgrass-mussel community at area 3. Although no natural cordgrass-mussel communities.were monitored in the 23 marsh sites, it is evident that stem densities are lower when cordgrass grows in association with mussels. Rhizome production and growth of bioconstructs were high in area 5 (Table 6). Based on 13 months of observation, it appears that the cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs will eventually stabilize area 5. d. Alameda Creek (Area 6) Plantings. Area 6 is located along Ala- meda Creek and is sheltered from waves with a fetch of less than 0.5 kilometer in any direction. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs planted in area 6 exhibited good plant growth within a few weeks. The number of shoots, including rhizomal shoots, continued to increase during the | winter period. Shoot height was significantly greater than that in the other areas at all times, although there was some dieback by Februray. The dieback was not a result of the death of inflorescence-bearing culms, as was the case in natural stands, because of inflorescences developed in any of the areas. This area demonstrated cordgrass-mussel growth under optimal conditions. Because of the absence of wave stress, this area was superior in all growth characteristics measured. Stem density in area 6 reached 170 stems per square meter (stems per bioconstruct) and mean height was 9.5 centimeters. As noted earlier, the 23 natural marshes averaged 650 stems per square meter with a mean height of 79 centimeters. The lower density and height in the bioconstruct plots is in part due to their stage of development. However, it appears that even in mature cordgrass-mussel communities stem density remains low in comparison with areas where mussels are not present. 32 The plantings at the Alameda Creek areas 2 to 6 demonstrated that (a) once established, cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs are highly resis- tant to wave attack, (b) cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs will survive transplanting, and (c) bioconstructs can be established in an area with a fetch up to 7 kilometers without wave-stilling devices. VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Twenty-three natural intertidal cordgrass marshes in the San Francisco Bay System had an average stem density of 650 per square meter and an average stem height of 79 centimeters. These figures are compared to those reported for natural smooth cordgrass marshes on the east coast. Woodhouse, Seneca, and Broome (1974) reported an average density of 632 stems per square meter and an average height of 72 centimeters for 7 North Carolina marshes. Laboratory tests show that germination response in California cord- grass is similar to that of smooth cordgrass (Seneca, 1974). California cordgrass seed should be harvested in late October and November and stored in brackish water. Peak germination is reached in March, April, and May, and freshwater is a stimulus to germination. It is difficult to describe wave environments where vegetative sta- bilization is effective. There is no single theoretical way to determine the formation of waves generated by winds in relatively shallow water (U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977). Fetch, windspeed, wind duration, and water depth are all major determinants of wave climate. In addition, there are many physical and biological variables that must be known to relate wave climate to plant survival. The tidal elevation associated with a particular set of waves and shore topography greatly influence the stress placed upon plantings. Also, the ability of the plant to withstand waves depends on its growth stage, density, and vigor, and the overall width of the planted area. For this study, fetch was used to qualitatively describe wave climate. The frequency and speed of onshore winds are also important to wave cli- mate analysis (Table 2). In general, the planting sites in this study consisted of a shallow, gradually sloping offshore zone in front of abruptly sloping banks. The success and failure of the California cord- grass plantings exposed to various fetches are summarized in Table 7. Seeds were the least tolerant to wave attack and had no apparent value in establishing cordgrass for erosion control. Plugs are more wave- resistant than sprigs but were not successfully established on the exposed sites. Sprigs and plugs may possibly be established on eroding banks if adequate wave protection is provided. Plug transplants harvested from cordgrass-mussel communities are extremely tolerant to wave activity. The ribbed mussels provide a mass of fine byssal threads that attach to the root system of the cordgrass. The compaction of cordgrass roots and dense mussel emplacements held 33 Table 7. Summary of cordgrass planting results. Site Fetch Plant materials Effectiveness (km) Alameda Creek Areas 1 EO e22 Seeds Failure Sprigs Failure Plugs Failure 2 Oto 22 Plugs! Failure Cordgrass- Failure mussels 3 () 2O) Z7/ Cordgrass- Success? mussels 4 OO 27/ Cordgrass- Failure mussels 5 ii Cordgrass- Success mussels 6 0.5 Seeds? Success Plugs Success Cordgrass- Success mussels Pond 3 0.5 Sprigs* Success San Mateo 14 to 21 Seeds Failure Sprigs Failure Plugs! Failure Point Pinole 4 to ll Sprigs Failure Plugs! Failure Plugs with and without individual wave breakers. “Planted in an established cordgrass-mussel mat. 3U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1976. “Morris and Newcombe, 1978. 34 together by the byssus threads provides an extremely firm, tightly bound biotic community. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs survived (96 percent) during the 13-month observation period at the Alameda Creek (area 4). This was a high-energy area, exposed to prevailing wind over a fetch of 6 to 27 kilometers. However, it is unlikely that this planting will provide long-term stability to the bank. The density of shoots within the bioconstructs declined throughout the observation period. The plants at Alameda Creek (area 5) (7-kilometer fetch) have spread and will prob- ably stabilize the shoreline. The estimate that California cordgrass can be established by plugs in areas exposed to fetches of about 16 kilometers (Knutson, 1977) seems to be overly optimistic. Plugs failed at Point Pinole despite the fact that it was sheltered from prevailing winds and was exposed to a fetch of only 14 kilometers. The poor survival of all propagules except the cordgrass-mussel transplants suggests that California cordgrass is more difficult to establish on eroding shores than its Atlantic coast counter- part, smooth cordgrass. There is evidence that California cordgrass does not grow and spread with the vigor of smooth cordgrass even when planted in relatively sheltered areas. Plantings by the U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco (1974) demonstrated that California cordgrass requires 2 to 3 years to achieve densities comparable to natural marshes in sheltered areas (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, 1976; Morris and Newcombe, 1977). Researchers have reported total cover in newly planted smooth cordgrass marshes within 1 to 2 years (Woodhouse, Seneca, and Broome, 1974; personal communication, Dr. E.W. Garbisch, Environmental Concern, Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland, 1978). Additional evidence concerning the relative growth of California and smooth cordgrass resulted from laboratory studies conducted in Vicksburg, Mississippi, by Barko and Smart (1976). California cordgrass plants collected from the San Francisco Bay were compared with smooth cordgrass propagules from Louisiana. Plants were grown at a salinity of 24 parts per thousand in sand, silty clay, and clay with an artificially main- tained tidal regime. Table 8 shows a comparison of the biomass of the two species after 5 months. Smooth cordgrass growth was nearly twice that of California cordgrass in sand, although growth was more than nine times greater than California cordgrass in silty clay sediments and six times greater in clay sediments. Despite apparent limitations, California cordgrass is suitable for stabilizing relatively sheltered areas. Planting of sprigs and plugs is likely to be effective only in sheltered coves, lagoons, and the mouths of tributaries unless the plants are protected from waves. However, cord- grass-mussel bioconstructs can be successfully established in areas exposed to.fetches of up to about 7 kilometers. 35 Table 8. Comparison of biomass of smooth and California cordgrasses in laboratory experiments (Barko and Smart, 1976). Ground levels Above ground Below ground Species Smooth Cordgrass Totals California Cordgrass Above ground Below ground Totals IMeans of two replicates. VII. CONCLUSIONS 1. At the end of the 1976 growing season (November), biomass of the aerial parts of 23 natural cordgrass marshes averaged 1,062 grams per square meter. The average density of stems was 650 per square meter and average stem height was 0.79 meter. This is comparable with measurements made in smooth cordgrass marshes in North Carolina. 2. Seeding was not effective in stabilizing an eroding shoreline in San Francisco Bay. 3. Plugs were more tolerant to wave activity than sprigs; however, neither technique will stabilize eroding banks in San Francisco Bay unless the plants are protected from waves. 4, Plugs from cordgrass-mussel communities are the most useful for bank stabilization in the absence of wave protection. Cordgrass-mussel bioconstructs survived and spread during the l-year study in an area exposed to a 7-kilometer fetch. Further observation is needed to deter- mine if this planting method will lead to long-term bank stability. 36 LITERATURE CITED BARKO, J.M., and SMART, R.M., “Establishment and Growing of Selected Freshwater and Coastal Marsh Plants in Relation to Characteristics of Dredged Sediment,'' TR D 77-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi- ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Mar. 1977. DODD, J.D., and WEBB, J.W., “Establishment of Vegetation for Shoreline Stabilization in Galveston Bay," MP 6-75, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Apr. 1975. FLOYD, K.W., and NEWCOMBE, C.L., "Growth of Intertidal Marsh Plants on Dredge Material Substrate," App. K, Incl. 3, San Franetsco Bay and Estuary Dredge Dtsposal Study, San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center, Emeryville, Calif., Feb. 1976. GARBISCH, E.W., Jr., WOLLER, P.B., and McCALLUM, R.M., "Salt Marsh Establishment and Development,'' TM-52, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., June 1975. HALL, V.L. and LUDWIG, J.D., "Evaluation of Potential Use of Vegetation for Erosion Abatement Along the Great Lakes Shoreline," MP 7-75, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., June 1975. KNUTSON, P.L., "The Use of Dredged Material for the Development of Intertidal Marshlands,"" Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Ocean 75 Conference, San Diego, Calif. 1975, pp. 208-212. KNUTSON, P.L., "Development of Intertidal Marshlands Upon Dredge Material in San Francisco Bay," Proceedings of the Seventh World Dredging Conference, San Francisco, Calif., 1976, pp. 103-118. KNUTSON, P.L., "Designing for Bank Erosion Control With Vegetation," Coastal Sediments 77, Nov. 1977, pp. 716-733. MASON, H.L., A Flora of the Marshes of Caltfornta, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1969. MASON, H.L., "Use of Dredged Material for Marshland Development," App. K, Incl. 1, San Francisco Bay and Estuary Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center, Emeryville, Calif. Apr. 1976. MOORING, M.T., COOPER, A.W., and SENECA, E.D., "Seed Germination Response and Evidence for Height Ecophenes in Spartina alterniflora from North Carolina," American Journal of Botany, Vol. 58, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pp. 48-55. Sif MORRIS, J.H., and NEWCOMBE, C.L., 'Investigation of Marsh Ecosystem Establishment on Fine-Grained Dredge Material at Salt Pond No. 3 South San Francisco Bay, Alameda County, California," Technical Report, San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center, Emeryville, Calif., DecealOiiie 3 MORRIS, J.H., et al., “Habitat Development Field Investigations, Salt Pond No. 3 Marsh Development Site, South San Francisco Bay, California," Technical Report D-78-57, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., Dec. 1978. MUNZ, P.A., A Caltfornta Flora, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1968. NEWCOMBE, C.L., "Annual Reports of Ribbed Mussel Investigations of the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory,' Yorktown, Va., 1941-46. NEWCOMBE, C.L., "The Role of Plants in Shoreline Stabilization," Proceedings of the Internattonal Eroston Control Assoctatton Conference IX, Irvine, Calif., Feb. 1978. NEWCOMBE, C.L., and PRIDE, C.R., "The Establishment of Intertidal Marsh Plants on Dredge Material Substrate," App. K, Incl. 2, San Franetsco Bay and Estuary Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay Marine Research Center, Emeryville, Calif., Apr. 1976. PESTRONG, R.J., "San Francisco Bay Tidelands,"' Caltfornia Geology, Voll e254 NOs QpRebe NGL, wos QAO: PHILLIPS, W.A., and EASTLAND, F.D., "Riverbank Stabilization in Virginia," Journal of Sotl and Water Conservation, Vol. 14, No. 6, Nov. 1959. PHLEGER, C.F., “Effect of Salinity on Growth of a Salt Marsh Grass," Ecology, Vol. 52, 1971, pp. 908-911. PURER, E.A., "Plant Ecology of the Coastal Salt Marshlands of San Diego County, California," Ecologteal Monographs, Vol. 12, 1942, Bo QlSAMMIYy SENECA, E.D., "A Preliminary Germination Study of Spartina foltosa, California Cordgrass," The Wasmann Journal of Btology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1974. SHARP, W.C., and VADEN, J., "'Ten-Year Report on Sloping Techniques Used to Stabilize Eroding Tidal River Banks," Shore and Beach, WOlls S82 NOs" 2, 1970, jo94 SNSS8¢ U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER, Shore Protection Manual, 3d ed., Vols. I. IJ, and III, Stock No. 008-022-00113-1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D,C,, 1977, 1,262 pp. 38 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, ''Marsh Development," San Francisco Bay and Estuary Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco, Caulsise |, Ajores ULS7/O¢ U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco Bay and Estuary Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco, Calif., Feb. 1977. U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, ''Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Program, Alameda Beach, Preconstruction Report," San Francisco, Calif., Mar. 1978. WEBB, J.W., and DODD, J.D., "Shoreline Plant Establishment and Use of a Wave-Stilling Device," MR 78-1, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Jan. 1978. WOODHOUSE, W.W., Jr., SENECA, E.D., and BROOME, S.W., "Propagation of Spartina alterniflora for Substrate Stabilization and Salt Marsh Development ,"" TM-46, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Aug. 1974. WOODHOUSE, W.W., Jr., SENECA, E.D., and BROOME, S.W., ''Propagation and Use of Spartina alterniflora for Shoreline Erosion Abatement," TR 76-2, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Aug. 1976. 39 MORRIS) eolabeninci ca pine A hetoes Salaiinianied Soha naa . South: Sad, PCE SeS | Pawo ihe Laan Re argh ‘ ied bry tire eras got ed. BA end goth. ae ee ic): ed a O10) DOB Lane HOR ry 5 et als ine bit; ; iy ie ines dheeesm te i ty YUCK SPR g, Ra Hs ; B HUNG: Bee. bad sierigharntleclal ne ht eee pint Cah nireane H 1 irae pi Lot eqabny with: pale aM "os Mae piel SG. ta: eth tiie ll re os, Hot RAC OME | Aa (HS es oar ‘ ches nit eeasqotetiense deta 1 8e) bos not ris * D indgeorgonetn a8 turiaan | jones “a | gs bsauabroedaaey~o ssl ree EE hee ine, Carat oe tage es ; noisensgous” .W.2. SMOOsa Bas 008. iapauae ‘ EWEN Gand ands. not eBii sa Kietrodit ‘hist ee ene : - Mabe uiitadess igus Ta aisle Sig we oats “ fy ad Ep Dive col eh aie Wie be He : ap AS, : ADE ae PEATAUN Oily Oke Pyare BA weg! ah ei a od | Pht ie pire a4 BAG 5 Fe y ‘ a na wire +i Br Wats he L709 G-6£ ~ou au gcn* £0701 £79 GAHE Ors TUL 8cn* €072OL "C1L00-0-SL-ZLNOVE 29PAIUOD *toqUSD YoOTPesSoYy “$100-0-SZ2-CZNOV 39P1}U0D *Ae}UeD YO1PESaY SuTilaeuTsuyq TeIseoD “*S*N :SeTzag “AI ‘*Z-6/ “Ou £ Jaods1 snoaueTTeostwW SuplesuTsug TeIseoD “SN :SeTIeg "AI ‘*Z-6/ ‘ou £ jaodex snosueTTedsTW *laqueg yDIeaseYy BuTiseuTsuq Teq,seoD *S'n :SeTJesg “JIT ‘soyqne qAutol ‘ZajUSeD YOIPessy SuTLeeuTZuq TeIseoD *S'N :Setzes “TIT ‘*zoyjne yutol ‘*H souer *STIAOW “IT ‘“eTITL ‘I “eAOTS SuTAeW *G ‘UOTIeIeZaAQ *y ‘*H souer *STIIOW “II ‘“STITL *I “eAOTF ouTseyy *G ‘uotzeWaSaQ *h *AZ0TO08 YysAeW *€ ‘“UOTIOa}Z0I1d |BAOYS *Z *TOAUOD UOTSOIe YoRog ‘| *AZOTOOS YsAey] *¢€ ‘*uoTIOeROAd DAIOYSg “7. *TOTJUOCD uoTSOIS Yyoeeg “| ‘eTurOjTTe9 ‘Aeg oostTourzg ues ‘eTulojtTyTeg ‘Aegq oostoueig ues yanos pue Aeg oTqeg ues UT pesn aieM STessnu pue ssei8pi0d eTUAOFTTeD) yqnog pue Aeg OTqeg ues UT pesn d1eM STessnu pue sseiZpiod eTUAOFTITeD *‘uOTSOI9 BUTTTOI}JUOD JO sueaW TeEOTZOTOTC aUTWIajJep O02 Peqonpuod sen ‘uoTSOIa BUTTTOI}UOD Jo SuReeW TeOTSOTOTG auTWIeqJep 07 peJoNpuod sem Apnjs uoTJeZzTTTqGejs sUuTTeAOYS TepTjjeqVUT ue *g/G, OF G6] BuTang Apnjs uotIezTTTqejIs SsuTTEAOYS [TepTjjequT ue ‘g/6| 039 C/G) Butang "6e-Le *d : Aydeasottqtg “6€-Le *d : AyderSotTqtg (SL00-9-S/-ZZMOVd * 193Uep YyoIResay ($100-9-S/-Z/MOVd § 1eqUeD YyoITRESSY SutteeutTsuq TejseoD *S'n — 39e1QU0D) (7-6/ ‘OU £ JeqUeD YoIeEeSay SuTLeeuTzuq TeqIseog *S*n — 4ORIWUOD) (7Z-6/ ‘ou $ AeqUeD YoIeeSoy SuTIeeuTsUug TeISeOD *S'N — JAodeI snosueTTeEDSTW]) ‘TTT : ‘d 6¢€ SuTioeeutTsug Te seoD “Sm — jaodex snosueTTedsTyY) “TIT : ‘d 6€ ‘616, S@0TAIAaS UOTIJeWAOJUT TeOTUYde], TeuCTIeN WorzZ atTqerTTeae "6L6| S80TAIIS UOTJeWAOFUT TeOTUYOeT, TeuoTIeN wWolF oTqeTTeAe : ‘eA Sppetysutadg § Jequep) yoieesoy BuTIseuTSug TeqseoD ‘s'n : “eA : ‘ea ‘pretzysutaids § requeDg yOIeesoey ZuTAseuTSug [eqseon *S'N : “eA ‘ITOATag “34 — *[*Te 2e)°°**stzazoW *H sewer Soquoomey “J st3zang Aq / “AToATog ‘34 — ‘[°Te Joe] *° "Stazzo “YH Sewer faquoomayy “TJ st3anQ Aq / eTuLIoOsT Te) ‘Aeg oOsToUeTA ues SUOTIe}JAeZeA YITM TOI}UOD UOTSOIe yUeg eTurostTpTeg ‘Aeg odstTouezq ueg ‘uoT,e}e3eA YATM TOAWUOD UOTSOIS yUeg "7 stqang ‘oquoomay "7 stqanp ‘aquoome;: Le9 GAXL WOE eATTT EIS IO £072OL L709 GHHZ VOe AW Bon £020L "C100-0-S/-ZZMOVd }9F1T}UOD §=*19R7U8D YO1RESSYy "G1L00-0-GZ-ZZMOVG JOPAJUOD § *197UeD YIIPESSY SuTlseuTzuq TeIsSeOD *S'N :SeTIeS ‘AI ‘Z-6/ ‘ou £ 4aode1 snosaueTToosTW SuTiseuTsuq TeIseoD *S'M :SeTIeS “AI ‘Z-6/ ‘ou £ A4aodear snosuePTTeosTyy *laqUueD YDAeesay BUTseuTSUY TeIseoD *S'N :SeTIeS “JIT ‘soy Ane qutol *Jaque) yoreesey BuTIvauTSuyq [TeISeOD *S'N :SeTAeg *[[J ‘zouqne Autol “*H sowep *STIIOW “LI “STILL “I “PACT SuTaey] “Gg “uoTAeIeZea,Q *y S-y sower ‘STATON “IT “OTITL ‘1 ‘“PAOTJ ouTAeW *G cuOTIeIEZepA *h *AB0TODe ysieW *€ ‘*UoTIJDeR0Id aZ0YS *Z ‘*TOAJUOD UOTSOIa YoRag *| *ASoTODe ysieW *€ ‘UOTIIeQJOAd |BTOYS *Z “*TOI}UOD UOTSOAS YyDeeg *| *‘eTuzojtTyTeg ‘Aeg oostToueirg ues *eTurojtyTeg ‘Aeg oostouerg ues yanosg pue Aeg o,Tqeg ues UT pesn oem sTessnu pue sseaspiod eturojxtTe) yanog pue Aeg OTqeg ues UT pasn 919M STossnw pue sseIZpj0d eTUAOFTTeD *uOTSO1a B3UTTTOI}UOD Jo sueaW [eOTSZOTOTG sUTWASZJep OJ peqoONpuodD sem *‘uOTSO19 BUTT[OAJUOD JO SuUeaW TeEOTSOTOTG sUTWAeJap 07 paqzONpuod sem Apnjs uotzezT{[Tqejs auTTeroys TeptjzequT ue ‘g/6| 02 ¢/6| ButTang Apnjs uotjIezTTTqejs aUuTTeIOYS TeptTjjeqjuUT ue ‘g/6| 02 G/6| BuTang “6e-2eE “d : Aydeassottqtg “oe-Le ‘d : AydeaSorlqtg ($100-0-S/-ZLMOVG $ JeqUSD YoIeESeY (S100-0-S/-ZLMOVd * 2aqUeD YoIeEeSEY SuTiseuTsug Te3seoD *S'M — 30eIQUOD) (7-6 “OU § JeqJUEeD YoAeaSOY SuTiseutsug Teqyseoyg “Sn — 39e12U0D) (7Z-6/ ‘ou £ TaqUeD YyOIPEeSeYy SuTIseuTsu_ TeISeOD *S*M — JAoda1 snosuUeTTedDSTW) ‘TIT : ‘d 6E Sutiseutsug [Te seoD *S*m — JAodeA snosaueTTedSTW) ‘TIT : *d 6€ "626, ‘80TAISS UOTIeUAOJUT TeITUYDeT TeuoTIeN woIjZ aTqeTtTeae : ea ‘pTetysutids { tequeg yoreesoy ZuTAseuTZuq Teqseog *s*gn : “eA ‘azoaTeg ‘3a — ‘[‘*Te Je] ***sTzz0W *H Sewer Saquoomeyy “7 SstzIND Aq / etusoxtpTeg ‘Aeg oostoueilg ues Suot}e}e3eA YITM [TOA}UOD UOTSOIS YyUeg "Ty stqing ‘oquoonapy "6/61 ‘29DTAIIS UOTIeWAOJUT TeOTUYDeT TeuoTJeN worIF eTqeTTeae : ‘eA SpleTysutads § zaqueDg YyoAeesoy BSuTAseuTsuyq Teqseopg *S'N : “eA *IToATog ‘Ja — ‘["*Te Je]°* "Stato *H Sower SequoomeN “7 st3zanQ Aq / eTurofsTTeg *Aeg oosTOUeTY ues ‘uOoTIEIeSeA YITM Toiquod uotsois yueg "7 stqang ‘aquooMeNn f-6L “ou aulpgon* £07ZOL "GL00-0-SZ-ZZNOVE 29P1}U0D 6" 194UaD Yo1Pessy SuTleeuTsuq TeIseoD “*S*M :SeTzes “AI ‘*7Z-6/ *ou £ 4a10de1 snoaueTTeostpW *Jo}Ue) YOAPeSsy BuTAseuTSuY TeqAseoD *S*p :SeTAeg “JII ‘azoyqne jutol “*H souer “STIIOW “II “eTIFL “I “eAOTF oUTAeW *G ‘“UOTIEIEBaA *y *ASoTOoe YysieW *E€ ‘uoTOeR0Id eA0YS *Z “*ToOT}UOD UOTSOAS YoReg *| ‘eTurojTTe9 ‘Aeg oostoueig ues yanog pue Aeg o[Tqeg ues UT pesn dem STessnu pue ssei3pi0o eTUAOJTITeD *uoTSO1e BUTTTOARUOD FO sueaW TeOTSoOTOTG sUTWIOJep 07 paqyoOnpuoD sen Apnjs uotzeztTTTqeqys suTTeAOYS TeptjAeqUT ue ‘g/6| OF G/6, Butang ‘ee-Le *d : Aydeasottqrg (SL00-0-S/L-ZLMOVd * XaqUeD YDIeESOYy SuTIseuTsU_ TeISeOD *S*n — 39e1RU0D) (7-67 ‘OU { JaquUaD YyoIeeSay BuTiseuTsUg TeIseoD *S*N — JAodez SnosUeTTOOSTW) ‘TTT : ‘d 6¢ "616, ‘@0TAZaS UOTIeUAOFUT TeoTUYyDaT, TeuoTIeN wWorZ aTqeTTeae : *eA SpTetTysutids § aequeg yoAeesoy BuTAvaUTSUY TeISPOD *S*p : ‘eA ‘atoaTeg ‘34 — *[*Te Je]***stazoW *H Sower Sequoomay *7T st3zanQ Aq / eTulojtzTeg ‘keg oostourig ueg ‘uot,e,aseA YITM TOAWUOD UOTSOIS yUeg “Ty stqang ‘Saquoonayy £09 £09 G=6L (OU aw}g¢gn* €07ZOL “C100-9-S/-ZZMOVd }9F1}U0D §6*19R7UaD YD1PeSSYy SuTiseuTsuq TeqIseoD *S'n :SeTies ‘AI ‘*7Z-6/ ‘ou { 3a0dez snosueTToOISTW ‘Zeque) Yyoteasay SutreeutTsuyq Teqseog *S'n :SeTIeg “TIT ‘Aoyyne jutol **H souer *‘STAIOW “II *STITL “1 “SLOTS SUuTAe] *G “UuOoTIeIaZeA “YH *ASoTOoe ysieW *€ ‘“‘UuoTIDeRI0Id |BrOoYS *Z ‘*TOAQUOD UOTSOAa YoRag *| *eTurojtyTeg ‘Aeg oostToueig ues yanog pue Aeg oT qeg ues UT pesn ai0M SsTessmu pue sserSpiooD eTusOFTTeD) *uoTSOla BUTTTOI}UOD FO Suva [TPOTSOTOTG sUTWIZJep 0} paqonpuod sen Apnjs uoTzezZT{TTqQeqjs suTTeIOYS TeptjzaquT ue ‘g/6, 02 G/6| Butang "6e-Le *“d : Aydeassortqrg (S$ 100-0-S/ -ZZMOVva Jaque) yoreesoy SuTiseuTsuq TeIseOD *S'M — JOeIRWUOD) (7-61 “OU { AaqUEeD YoIRPaSay SuTiseuTsuq TeISeOD *S*n — JaodeA snosueTTeDSTW) ‘TTT : ‘d 6¢E "616, ‘A0TAIeS UOTIeWAOFUT TeOTUYOST, TeuOTIeN WOIF aTqeTTeae : "ea Sppetysutaidg { tequa9 yorReasay BuTrsvouTSuq Teqseog *s'n : “eA ‘itoaTeg ‘Iq — *[*Te Je] ***stazoW "Hy sewer ‘equoomay “TJ st3zanQ Aq / eqTuroxtTzTeg ‘Aeg oostoueig ueg ‘Suotjeq,es3eA YIM TOAJUOD UOoTSOJSe yueEg "7 stqang ‘oquoomayy L729 C6) OU amp gcn* €0ZOL *G100-0-S/=2ZMOVE 39P1RU0D §=*Aa}UeD YOTP8SeY SuTtoouTsug TPISeoD "SN :SeTIeS “AI “*Z-6/ “ou § 3a0de1 snosueTTeoSTH *Iajua) YOrResay BuTiseuTsug TeIseoD *S'N :SseTtos “*[T]J ‘*zroyAne Autol ‘eH sower *‘STIIOW “IT “OTITL “I “BACT ouTsey *G ‘uoTAeeZayQ “hy *ASoTOIe YysIrey] *E€ ‘*uoTIOeR0Id DA0YS *Z,. ‘*‘TOAJUOD UOTSOTe YoReEg ‘| ‘eTurOsTTe9 ‘Aeg oostTourzg ues yqnog pue Aeg oTqeg ues UT pesn d19M STEssnuU pue sseAIBpiod eTUIOFTTeD *‘uOTSOI9 BUTTTOI}UOD Jo SueOU TeOTZOTOTG auTWASqep 07 pejzONpuod sem Apnjs uotzezTTTqejxs suTTeAOYS TepTjlejuT ue 6g/6, 07 G/6, BuTAnG "6e-Le *d : AydearSottqtg (S100-0-S/-ZZMOVd $ 1eqUeD YoITeeSseYy SuTlseuTsug Teyseop *S*n — 39e819U0D) (7-6/ “ou { Aa}zUeD YOIPEeSSYy BuTtseuTsuq Te}seog *S*n — jz0dea snosueTTseosTyY) “TIT : ‘d 6€ "6/6. S90TATeS UOT}EUAOFUT TeOTUYyDeT TeuoTjJeN worsy eTqeTTeAe : ‘ea *prTetzysutads £ zoeqUeD YyOIeeSdy ButTrseuT3ugq Tejseop *S*N : “eA ‘aToATog "34 — *[*Te We] ***STAIO[] “Hy Sewer ‘Sequoomay “7 st3anQ Aq / eTuarojtpTeg ‘Aeg oostouezy ueg ‘uoTjej,aZeA YITM ToI,UOD UOTSOIa yUeg "7 stqanp Saquoome;: t-62 “Ou aw} gcn* €072OL "G100-0-SZ2-ZZMOVd 39P1}UOD = *197U9D) YITRESSY SUTI99UTSUq TeISeOD *S°f :SeTIeS “AI “*Z-6/ “Ou £ 4aodaz snosaueTTeosSTy] *loqueg Yyorvesoy BSuTrssuTSuyg TeIseoD “S'N :SeTJes *I[]T ‘z0yjne Jurol ‘-y sower “‘STAAOW “II “OTAITL ‘I “PAOTF ouTAeW *G ‘uoTAeWIesaA “yh *ASoTODe ysieW *€ ‘UOTJIeR0Ad BI0YS *Z ‘*TOAJUOD UOTSOATS YyoRag “| ‘eTulojgtpeg ‘Aegqg oostoureig ues yanosg pue Aeg o[qeg ues UT pesn atem SsTessnu pue sseiZpi0d ETUAOFTTED ‘uoTsoi1a BUTT[OA}UOD Jo SuUeAW TEOTSOTOTG euTWAeJep 07 pezONpuod sem Apnjs uotjzezt[tqeqs outTe1oys [eptjiequT ue ‘g/6| 07 G/6| ButTang “6€-LE *d : AydezsotTqtg (SLO0-0-SZ-Z/MOVG : 19]2uU9D YoIPessY Sup~TiseuTsuq TeqIseog “SN — 39P1QUOD) (Z-6/ ‘ou Jojue9g yoreasey SuTiseuTsug TeqIseoD *s*n — JaodeA snosueTTeDSTW) “TTT : *d 6€ "616, S90TALOS UOTJeWIOFUT TeOTUYSeT, TeUOTIEN WOT OTQeTTeAe : "ea Splety8utads § Jajueg Yyoreaesey BuTAseuTsuq TejseoD *S*N : “PA ‘iToATeg ‘qq -— ‘*[‘*Te Je] ***STAAOW] *H Sewer SaquoomeN “TJ St;z4ND Aq / eTurostpTeg ‘Aeg oastoueazg ues ‘uotqeqesen YyITM ToI}JUOD UOTSOIa YyUeg "Ty stqang ‘aquoomMoNn L£é9 © ‘