S F E I S P Revegetation Program - Spartina · 1/26/2016 · Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation...

Create Report templates

SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT

Revegetation ProgramInstallation Report

and201 -201 Revegetation Plan

San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

Revegetation Program DRAFT

Year 4 (2014‐2015) Installation Report and

Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation Plan

Prepared by

Jeanne Hammond Olofson Environmental, Inc.

1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94606

For the

California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612

January 26, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared by Jeanne Hammond, the Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program

Manager and incorporates the hard work done by other OEI biologists including Whitney Thornton,

Jeffrey Lewis, Stephanie Chen, Nathan Deakers, Kevin Eng, Anastasia Ennis, Simon Gunner, Nina Hill,

Penluck Laulikitnont, Jennifer McBroom, Monica Oey, Tobias Rohmer, Ilana Stein, Tripp McCandlish,

as well as contributions from Ingrid Hogle and Drew Kerr. We would also like to thank our partners

and contractors for all their hard work contracting, growing and planting including the California

Wildlife Foundation, The Watershed Nursery, Shelterbelt, Inc., Hanford ARC, and Aquatic Environ‐

ments. This program would not be possible without the participation of our partner/landowners in‐

cluding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of

Fish and Wildlife, East Bay Regional Park District, City of San Leandro, Hayward Area Recreation and

Park District, City of Alameda, City of Palo Alto, County of San Mateo Watershed Protection Services,

Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed, and the Alameda Flood Control and Water Conservation

District.

This report was prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive

Spartina Project with support and funding from the following contributors:

California Coastal Conservancy

California Wildlife Conservation Board (MOU #99‐054‐01 and subsequent)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ‐ National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant (# F14AP00110) and/or

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant (#F14AP00411)

Invasive Spartina Project Year 4 Installation Report and Year 5 Plan

Revegetation Program i.

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2 Overview of Planting Designs and Planting Completed in Year 4 (Winter

2014‐2015) ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Grindelia stricta ........................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Distichlis spicata .......................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Spartina foliosa ............................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Jaumea carnosa ........................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................ 9

2.6 Sites and Locations for Planting ................................................................................. 10

2.7 Plant Propagation ...................................................................................................... 10

3 Findings from 2014 Monitoring, Field Observations from Plant Installation,

and Recommendations for Year 5 ....................................................................................... 11

3.1 Pot Size ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Combo Pots ................................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Spartina foliosa Direct Transplants ........................................................................... 13

3.4 Spartina foliosa Donor Source ................................................................................... 13

3.5 Salt Hardening............................................................................................................ 14

3.6 Caging ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.7 Habitat Type ............................................................................................................... 15

3.8 Spartina foliosa Trimming .......................................................................................... 15

3.9 Effects of Invasive Spartina Pressure at Revegetation Sites ..................................... 15

3.10 Erosion Control .......................................................................................................... 16

3.11 Planting Elevation ...................................................................................................... 16

3.12 Christmas Trees and Bamboo Structures as Cover ................................................... 17

4 Overview of Plans for Year 5 (Winter 2015‐2016) .............................................................. 18

5 Site‐specific Year 4 Installation Reports and Year 5 Plans .................................................. 21

5.1 Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC) and Pond 3 ................................................. 21

Alameda Flood Control Channel Mouth, Lower & Upper ......................................... 21

AFCC Pond 3 ............................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Greco Island ............................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Bair Island .................................................................................................................. 24

Bair Island ‐ B2 North West ....................................................................................... 25

Bair Island ‐ B2 North ‐ South of Boardwalk .............................................................. 26

Bair Island ‐ B2 South ................................................................................................. 26


Revegetation Program ii.

Deepwater Slough ..................................................................................................... 27

Corkscrew Slough ...................................................................................................... 27

5.4 Bird Island .................................................................................................................. 28

5.5 Hayward Regional Shoreline: Cogswell, Triangle, H.A.R.D., and

Johnson’s Landing ...................................................................................................... 28

Cogswell A .................................................................................................................. 29

Cogswell B .................................................................................................................. 30

Cogswell C .................................................................................................................. 31

Triangle Marsh ........................................................................................................... 32

H.A.R.D. Marsh and Johnson’s Landing ..................................................................... 32

5.6 Hayward Regional Shoreline: Oro Loma .................................................................... 34

Oro Loma East ............................................................................................................ 35

Oro Loma West .......................................................................................................... 36

5.7 Eden Landing Ecological Reserve ............................................................................... 36

Whales Tail North ...................................................................................................... 36

Whales Tail South ...................................................................................................... 38

Cargill Mitigation Marsh ............................................................................................ 39

North Creek Marsh .................................................................................................... 40

Mt. Eden Creek .......................................................................................................... 41

Mt. Eden Creek Marsh ............................................................................................... 42

Ponds E8A, E9, E8X and North Creek ......................................................................... 43

5.8 Robert’s Landing ........................................................................................................ 44

Citation Marsh ........................................................................................................... 44

Bunker Marsh ............................................................................................................ 45

5.9 San Leandro Bay ........................................................................................................ 46

Arrowhead Marsh ...................................................................................................... 47

Elsie Roemer .............................................................................................................. 48

5.10 San Bruno Marsh – new site in Year 5 ....................................................................... 49

5.11 High Tide Refuge Island Sites ..................................................................................... 50

6 References ........................................................................................................................... 53

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Program Planting Designs Appendix 2. Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data Appendix 3. Map of Spartina foliosa Source Populations


Revegetation Program iii.

FIGURES

Figure 1. Year 4 (2014‐2015) ISP Revegetation Program Sites ....................................................... 3

Figure 2. Year 4 (2014‐2015) General Patch Design for Marsh Gumplant (Grindelia stricta) ........ 6

Figure 3. Schematic of basic planting design for S. foliosa plots in Year 4. All five plugs are from

the same source population. ....................................................................................... 8

Figure 4. Top: Several years of G. stricta plantings at Cogswell A, Hayward Regional Shoreline.

Bottom: ISP staff Whitney Thornton and Brian Ort, monitoring Year 4 (2014‐2015)

S. foliosa plantings after one growing season at Mt. Eden Creek, Eden Landing

Ecological Reserve. .................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Program Sites ..................................................... 19

Figure 6. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting Map at Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC)

and Pond 3 ................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 7. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Greco Island North and South ................... 24

Figure 8. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting and Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at

Bair Island and Bird Island. ........................................................................................ 25

Figure 9. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Triangle, Cogswell, and HARD Marshes,

Hayward Regional Shoreline ...................................................................................... 29

Figure 10. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at HARD Marsh and Johnson’s Landing,

Hayward Regional Shoreline ...................................................................................... 33

Figure 11. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Oro Loma Marsh, Hayward Regional

Shoreline .................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 12. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Eden Landing Ecological Reserve ............ 37

Figure 13. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Robert's Landing ..................................... 45

Figure 14. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary and other

sites in San Leandro Bay ............................................................................................ 47

Figure 15. Year 5 (2015‐2016) New Revegetation Site ‐ San Bruno Marsh, City of South San

Francisco .................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 16. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at Palo Alto Baylands. ..... 51

Figure 17. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at the Corte Madera

Ecological Reserve ..................................................................................................... 52

TABLES

Table 1. Year 1 to Year 4 ISP and Partners Revegetation Sites ....................................................... 4

Table 2. Planned Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Sites ....................................................... 18


Revegetation Program iv.

ISP Revegetation Program 1. Year 4 Installation Report and Year 5 Plan

1 INTRODUCTION

The California Coastal Conservancy initiated the ISP Revegetation Program in 2011 to imple‐

ment components of the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project California Clapper Rail

Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan (Olofson Environmental, January

2012). This five‐year plan was prepared to comply with specific requirements of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2011, Zaremba et al. August 2011; Hull, Raabe, Solvesky, pers.

comm. September 15, 2011; Raabe memo November 28, 2011), with the broad objective of

rapidly establishing habitat features to benefit California Ridgway’s rail (formerly California

clapper rail1). The plan focused improvements at strategic locations near where recent removal

of non‐native cordgrass (hybrid Spartina alterniflora x foliosa or S. densiflora) had caused de‐

creases in local California Ridgway’s rail populations, and included reintroduction of S. foliosa

into regions where it had been extirpated or radically reduced by the spread and eradication of

hybrid S. alterniflora × foliosa.

The Revegetation Program completed a first season of planting in the winter of 2011‐2012

(“Year 1”), with additional plantings completed in the winters of 2012‐2013, 2013‐2014, and

2014‐2015 (“Year 2”, “Year 3”, and “Year 4”, respectively). The program is now preparing for

the fifth planting season in the winter of 2015‐2016, which will be “Year 5”. Program objectives,

the plans for years 1, 2, and 3, and the reports of planting completed in years 1 to 3, have been

reported previously (Olofson Environmental, January 2012, May 2012, October 2013, October

2014; Lewis and Thornton, September 2013, October 2014). This document reports planting as

it was completed in Year 4 (2014‐2015), and presents the plans for Year 5 (2015‐2016).

1 The Fifty‐fifth Supplement to the Ornithologists’ Union Check‐list of North American Birds changed the name of the rail subspecies “California

Clapper Rail” (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) to “California Ridgway’s Rail” (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (Chesser et al., 2014).


2 OVERVIEWOFPLANTINGDESIGNSANDPLANTINGCOMPLETEDINYEAR4(WINTER2014‐2015)

The main objective of the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Revegetation Program is to install na‐

tive tidal marsh plants that enhance foraging, roosting and nesting cover as well as high tide

refuge cover for the California Ridgway’s rail (Olofson Environmental, Inc., 2012). During Year 4

(2014‐2015), over 84,400 native tidal marsh plants were planted at 31 sites (Figure 1 and Table

1). The primary species planted in Year 4 included marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta), Pacific

cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and, at select sites, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). As in previous

years, these plant species continued to be the focus of the effort because they grow taller than

other native salt marsh plants, providing more vertical structure for cover, and are important

components of native marshes that have populations of California Ridgway’s rail. Spartina fo‐

liosa planting occurred in low elevation areas including mudflats, the transition between mud‐

flats and the marsh plain, salt pans, and along marsh channels. Grindelia stricta (and D. spicata)

was planted at mid‐ to high‐marsh elevations along marsh plain channels as well as in higher

elevation areas that exist in the marsh interior (e.g., berms and/or higher elevation islands).

All of the sites initially proposed for outplanting in the Year 4 (2014‐15) plan were planted, with

the exception of Oro Loma West and Mt. Eden Creek Muted Marsh. As discussed in that plan,

the marsh plain at Oro Loma West is still generally too low in elevation to support G. stricta and

the existing higher elevation “islands” at the site that are appropriate for G. stricta have been

planted extensively. With limited opportunity for further planting, and to consolidate contrac‐

tor planting efforts, plants were re‐allocated to Oro Loma East. Mt. Eden Creek Muted Marsh

was under consideration for planting if staff groundtruthing at the adjacent Mt. Eden Creek

Marsh did not identify areas appropriate for planting due to cultural resource constraints. The

southern area of Mt. Eden Creek Marsh was identified as appropriate with ample opportunity,

and Muted Marsh was not planted as a result. Two other variances from the Year 4 (2014‐2015)

plan were the expansion of the planting areas at Greco Island to include an area in the southern

part of Greco, and the testing of erosion control methods for planting S. foliosa at Johnson’s

Landing, a site at the Hayward Regional Shoreline.


Figure 1. Year 4 (2014‐2015) ISP Revegetation Program Sites


Table 1. Year 1 to Year 4 ISP and Partners Revegetation Sites

Revegetation Sites (ISP Sub‐area Code)

Marsh Complex

Type of Plant Installation: G. stricta ‐ marsh plain (M) or existing higher elevation feature (e.g., berm) (B); S. foliosa (F); Upland Transi‐tion Zone (UTZ); constructed high tide refuge island (I)

Year 1 (2011 – 2012)

Year 2 (2012 – 2013)

Year 3 (2013 – 2014)

Year 4 (2014 – 2015)

Creekside Park (4g) North Bay M3, UTZ3 M5, UTZ5

Muzzi Marsh (23e) North Bay I

Elsie Roemer (17a) San Leandro Bay F4 F4 F4 F

Arrowhead Marsh (17c) San Leandro Bay M1 M1 M, I

Damon Marsh (17d) San Leandro Bay UTZ1 M, UTZ1 UTZ1

East Creek Slough (17d.3)1 San Leandro Bay UTZ1 UTZ1 UTZ1 UTZ1

MLK Restoration Marsh (17h) San Leandro Bay UTZ1 B, I, UTZ1 I

Citation Marsh (20d) Robert’s Landing M M M

North Marsh (20f) Robert’s Landing B

Bunker Marsh (20g) Robert’s Landing M M, I M

San Lorenzo Creek Mouth (20 h.1) Robert’s Landing M

Oro Loma East (7b) Hayward Shoreline M, B M, B M, B M

Oro Loma West (7a) Hayward Shoreline B B B

Triangle Marsh (20w) Hayward Shoreline M, F M, F

Cogswell ‐ Quad A (20m) Hayward Shoreline M, UTZ M, UTZ, F M, F M

Cogswell – Quad B (20n) Hayward Shoreline M, B M, B, I M

Cogswell ‐ Quad C (20o) Hayward Shoreline M M, B M, B, I M

H.A.R.D. Marsh (20s) Hayward Shoreline M, F M, B, F

Cargill Marsh (13f) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, F M, F M, F

Mt. Eden Creek (13j) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, F M, B, F M, B, F M, B, F

North Creek Marsh (13k) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, UTZ2, F M4, UTZ2, F M4, UTZ2, F M, F

Old Alameda Creek (13b) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, F

Whale’s Tail North (13d) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, F M, F M, F M, F

Whale’s Tail South (13e) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve M, UTZ, F M4, UTZ, F M4, F M, F

Eden E8A/E8X/E9 (13m) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve UTZ1 UTZ1, F

Mt. Eden Creek Marsh/Muted Marsh (13l)

Eden Landing Ecolog‐ical Reserve UTZ1, F UTZ1, F

North Creek (13h) Eden Landing Ecolog‐

ical Reserve F


Revegetation Sites (ISP Sub‐area Code)

Marsh Complex

Type of Plant Installation: G. stricta ‐ marsh plain (M) or existing higher elevation feature (e.g., berm) (B); S. foliosa (F); Upland Transi‐tion Zone (UTZ); constructed high tide refuge island (I)

Year 1 (2011 – 2012)

Year 2 (2012 – 2013)

Year 3 (2013 – 2014)

Year 4 (2014 – 2015)

Alameda Flood Control Chan‐nel (01a, 01b, & 01c)

Alameda Flood Con‐trol Channel M, F4 M, F M, F M, F

Alameda Flood Control Chan‐nel‐Pond 3 (01f)

Alameda Flood Con‐trol Channel M, F M, F M

Bair Island – B2 Northwest (02c.1a) Bair Island M, UTZ M, UTZ, I M, I M

Bair Island – B2 Northeast (02c.1b) Bair Island I

Bair Island – B2 North – South of Boardwalk (02c.2) Bair Island M M

Bair Island – B2 South (02d.3) Bair Island M, B M, B

Deepwater Slough (02k) Bair Island M, I

Corkscrew Slough (02h) Bair Island M, I

Belmont Slough Mouth (02a.3) Bair Island I

Bird Island (02a.3) Bird Island I M M

Greco Island (2f, 2h) Greco Island M, B M, B M M

Cooley Landing (16) West Bay I I

Faber/Laumeister (15b) West Bay UTZ1 UTZ1 UTZ1

Palo Alto Baylands (08) West Bay UTZ1 UTZ1 UTZ1 I

Ravenswood Open Space Pre‐serve – SF2 (02j) West Bay UTZ1 UTZ1

San Bruno Marsh (18g) West Bay F4 F4

Dumbarton (05b) Don Edwards NWR

Notes: 1Revegetation conducted by Save The Bay 2Revegetation conducted by ISP and Save The Bay 3Revegetation conducted by Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed 4Revegetation conducted by Romberg Tiburon Center, UC Davis and ISP 5Revegetation conducted by ISP and Friends of Corte Madera Creek Watershed


2.1 Grindeliastricta

The G. stricta planting design has remained basically the same since the initiation of the project,

and addresses two different planting zones: along marsh plain channel edges, and on higher el‐

evation berms and islands (Figure 2). In Years 1 and 2 (2011‐2012 and 2012‐2013), each patch

was planted with 10 plants. Beginning in Year 3 (2013‐2014), each patch was planted with 20

plants. At select sites with less plant diversity, Distichlis spicata was included in the patch de‐

sign.

For all planting years, appropriate elevations and suitable substrate have been key considera‐

tions when selecting planting locations. Appropriate elevation was typically determined visually

using several indicators, including presence of other G. stricta plants at similar elevation at the

site, or presence of other indicator plant species that co‐exist with G. stricta at other sites. At a

few sites, elevation data was also collected (using real time kinematic global positioning system,

“RTK GPS”) to help inform selection of planting locations. Prior to Year 4 (2014‐2015), marsh

plain channel plantings were focused on smaller, narrow channels that were selected to pro‐

vide nesting habitat. The channel plantings in Year 4 (2014‐2015) were typically located along

larger channels, both because almost all of the smaller appropriate channels at some sites had

been planted, and because survivorship was found to be lower along some of these smaller,

usually more shallow channels, likely due to poor drainage. Smaller channels may continue to

be planted if they are both at appropriate elevation and appear to be well‐drained. The basic

Figure 2. Year 4 (2014‐2015) General Patch Design for Marsh Gumplant (Grindelia stricta)


patch size in Year 4 (2014‐2015) was 1.0 meter wide by 4.5 meters in length, and included two

rows of plants that followed the natural curvature of marsh channels or berms. One row of

plants was located approximately 0.5–1.0 meters from the channel edge (inner row) and a sec‐

ond (outer row) was located 0.5 meters further from the channel edge. In earlier years, the in‐

ner row had been placed as near as 0.25 meter from the edge of the channel, but this was re‐

vised to a minimum of 0.5 meters due to observed erosion of channel edges at many sites.

These planting patches were distributed throughout the marsh plain along appropriate chan‐

nels to enhance habitat for as many Ridgway’s rail as possible. Typically, both sides of a channel

were planted with patches to provide roosting and nesting cover on both sides.

Grindelia stricta patches were planted in four different configurations that contained different

pot‐sizes and treatments. The four patch types were: salt‐hardened D40s (40 cubic inches of

soil), not‐salt‐hardened D40s, gallon pot patches (180 cubic inches of soil), and “combo” gallon

pot patches. In addition, as described below, some patches included D. spicata. Salt‐hardened

D40 patches contained 20 D40 pots that underwent an eight‐week regime that increased salin‐

ity weekly during watering of the plants, to a final level of 20 parts per thousand (ppt), at the

nursery prior to outplanting. For comparison, salt‐hardened patches were paired with not salt‐

hardened patches. Gallon pot patches included 10 not‐salt hardened D40 pots and 10 gallon‐

size pots. “Combo” gallon pot patches included 10 not‐salt hardened D40 pots and 10 combo

pots. Combo pots included one G. stricta plant and two ramets of D. spicata in one gallon‐size

pot.

2.2 Distichlisspicata

Distichlis spicata was planted as part of G. stricta patches at sites and planting areas where

there was limited existing D. spicata, with the idea that D. spicata would grow up into the G.

stricta and further increase the amount of vertical cover. D. spicata was planted in two ways:

as gallon pots, and as gallon “combo” pots, which, as described above, contained both a G.

stricta plant and two D. spicata ramets. Gallon pots were typically divided in two and planted to

either side of G. stricta plants in the outer planting row of patches that were planted with gal‐

lon‐size pots (as seen in Figure 2). For patches that contained combo pots, one row was planted

with 10 D40 pots and the other row was planted with 10 combo pots. At two sites, HARD Marsh

and Mt. Eden Creek, gallon pots of D. spicata were planted as part of small‐scale experiments

to create taller cover on the marsh plain. At HARD Marsh, two gallon pots of D. spicata were

planted one meter apart and one of the gallons had a structure constructed from three bamboo

and twine, in a shape similar to a teepee, placed over the top with the idea that the plant would

grow up and over the structure. At Mt. Eden Creek, two gallon pots were planted next to Christ‐

mas trees (10 trees total) that were placed flat and anchored to the marsh plain with wooden

stakes.


2.3 Spartinafoliosa

Spartina foliosa was planted in lower elevation areas that included mudflats, the transition be‐

tween mudflats and the marsh plain, along marsh channels, in salt pans, and on the outer bay‐

front edge of marshes at the transition to lower elevation bay mudflats. Smaller channels, typi‐

cally those less than six meters across, were not planted in Year 4 (2014‐2015) due to low survi‐

vorship. Spartina foliosa planting designs continued to test the survivorship and growth rate of

different donor source populations.

Monitoring results from previous years indicated that both survivorship and growth rate varied

by source and by site. For Year 4 (2014‐2015), eight source populations were propagated in

beds: Port Sonoma Marina, Napa River, Tennessee Valley, Seminary Cove, Starkweather Cove,

Golden Gate Fields, Permanente Creek, and Coyote Creek (see Appendix 3 for a map showing

source population locations). Because source populations varied in survivorship within sites and

each population had variable survivorship at different sites, as in Year 3 (2013‐2014), each site

in Year 4 (2014‐2015) was planted with four different sources to increase the overall chance of

survivorship. One exception to this occurred at Pond E9 at Eden Landing, one of the last sites of

the season, where all of the remaining S. foliosa to be harvested from various nursery beds

from different sources was outplanted.

As in previous years, the basic S. foliosa plot design of five plugs from the same source popula‐

tion planted together (Figure 3) was used for all plantings and repeated in different configura‐

tions depending on site‐specific conditions. Multiples of four or eight of the basic plot design in

different configurations were installed to allow evaluation of source population performance

and the efficacy of caging. For blocks of four plots, each plot was from a different source popu‐

lation. For blocks of eight plots, two plots from four different source populations were planted.

At each site, the four source populations were selected for planting based on several considera‐

tions, including prior performance at either that site, or at sites with similar conditions.

Figure 3. Schematic of basic planting design for S. foliosa plots in Year 4. All five plugs are from the same source population.


One type of caging design, a PVC‐rope cage, was used at all sites to prevent herbivores (e.g.,

Canada goose, Branta canadensis) from accessing the plantings from either under or over the

cage. The PVC‐rope cage design was square or rectangular in shape and used 4‐6 PVC poles to

surround multiples of the basic S. foliosa plot. The PVC poles were linked and tied with 2‐3 rope

lines around the perimeter of the planting area. At all sites at least half of the blocks (each con‐

taining four or eight S. foliosa plots) were caged, and at several sites all plantings were caged.

At the Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary, a biodegradable caging design was tested as a way to install

caging that could be left in place and not require maintenance and removal. This caging design

was also explored due to the request by a member of the public for an alternative to the highly

visible white PVC and yellow nylon rope cages at heavily used public areas like Elsie Roemer.

The cage design was similar to the PVC‐rope cage but the materials used were wooden stakes

and jute twine instead of PVC and nylon rope.

2.4 Jaumeacarnosa

A small amount of J. carnosa was planted at one site, HARD Marsh, to explore whether J. car‐

nosa would colonize mudflat areas being planted with S. foliosa at this site. Jaumea carnosa col‐

onizes mudflats once they reach an appropriate elevation and may facilitate other species colo‐

nizing the marsh plain. During Year 1 of the program, gallons of J. carnosa were planted with S.

foliosa at North Creek Marsh, with high survivorship. Anecdotally, J. carnosa plantings appeared

to facilitate S. foliosa colonization and patches that have both S. foliosa and J. carnosa appear

to be more structurally complex.

2.5 ErosionControl

Two methods of erosion control, coir fabric and found wood, were tested on S. foliosa plantings

installed on rapidly eroding shoreline at Whale’s Tail North, Whale’s Tail South, and Johnson’s

Landing. For the coir fabric method, pieces of coir erosion control fabric were cut to fit over the

planting area, and staked down using pvc caging poles and wooden stakes. The plant plugs

were then installed through the fabric. For the found wood method, large driftwood found at

the sites (approximately 1‐1.5 meters in length and ¼ meter in diameter) was installed in a v‐

shaped barrier bayward of the plantings. The wood was held in place with wooden stakes. This

v‐shaped barrier was intended to deflect wave action around the plantings. For both erosion

control methods, the planting design used was the standard block of 4 plots, with each plot

from a different source population. The size of the basic planting plot (i.e., five plugs) was

slightly different (0.25 meters instead of 0.5 meters) to accommodate the erosion control mate‐

rials.


2.6 SitesandLocationsforPlanting

As in previous years, a major consideration when selecting sites for revegetation is the proxim‐

ity to uncontrolled hybrid Spartina. There are currently 10 sub‐areas, all in the East Bay be‐

tween the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges, where permit restrictions prohibit hybrid

Spartina treatment. There is also one location on Bair Island where hybrid Spartina treatment is

limited to seed suppression.

In Year 4 (2014‐2015), Grindelia stricta was planted at four sub‐areas with uncontrolled hybrid

Spartina. The planting locations were selected to avoid existing hybrid Spartina, to minimize the

risk that the plantings would be encroached upon.

With the presence of uncontrolled hybrid Spartina in the Bay, sites for S. foliosa reintroduction

must be selected with caution. If S. foliosa is planted near uncontrolled hybrid Spartina, cross‐

pollination could occur, causing the S. foliosa to produce fertile hybrid seed. Also, seedlings of

hybrid Spartina could establish within the planted S. foliosa areas, where they would be nearly

impossible to discern from S. foliosa seedlings for at least one growing season, by which time

the hybrid may be impossible to control without also killing the S. foliosa. To guide the reintro‐

duction effort, ISP staff developed a rigorous protocol governing the collection, genetic testing,

propagation, outplanting and monitoring of S. foliosa that occurs as part of the program (Ap‐

pendix 1, Olofson Environmental, May 2012). Under this protocol, S. foliosa planting sites are

selected based on two main criteria: 1) there is little or no S. foliosa already present in the area

that could naturally provide propagules for recolonization, and 2) hybrid Spartina plants are not

present within a specified distance of the planting area, and the hybrid Spartina is close to local

eradication. Monitoring at sites where S. foliosa has been planted occurs several times per year

per the protocol to ensure that hybrid Spartina does not invade planted areas.

2.7 PlantPropagation

As in Year 3, Year 4 plants were propagated in a commercial native plant nursery. Two pot sizes

were used for G. stricta: D40 (Deepot 40, 40 cubic inches of soil), and one‐gallon (180 cubic

inches of soil). One‐third of the D40 size G. stricta plants were salt hardened in the nursery fol‐

lowing established protocols developed in previous years, and these were installed at 14 sites

to continue to assess the value of salt hardening. “Combo” pots containing both a G. stricta

seedling and two ramets of D. spicata were also propagated by the nursery.

All S. foliosa planted in Year 4 was propagated in nursery beds according to program protocols

(Thornton 2012), and then outplanted at revegetation sites as plugs. All nursery S. foliosa beds

were salt hardened, following established protocols developed in previous years, prior to out‐

planting.


3 FINDINGSFROM2014MONITORING,FIELDOBSERVATIONSFROMPLANTINSTALLATION,ANDRECOMMENDATIONSFORYEAR5

Monitoring of Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 plantings was conducted during the fall of 2014. De‐

tailed information on 2014 monitoring results and analyses are included in Appendix 2, and se‐

lect summary results are included here and inform the recommendations that follow.

Overall initial survivorship of Year 3 plantings (2013‐14) after one growing season did not reach

the target goal of 40% for either S. foliosa plugs or G. stricta (31.4% and 33.6% respectively).

However, as S. foliosa is a clonal plant that will spread via rhizome once established, a better

measure of survivorship may be whether any of the plugs within a plot survived. Overall plot‐

level survivorship for Year 3 plantings was 63%. Plot‐level survivorship by site varied from 3% at

Pond 3 (small planting effort) to 93% at two sites, Mt. Eden Creek Marsh and Triangle Marsh.

Grindelia stricta survivorship varied from 1.9% at Arrowhead Marsh to 80% at Bunker Marsh.

Plantings of both species are now well established at sites. Most G. stricta patches flower and

likely produce seed each season. Spartina foliosa plots are growing together and laterally ex‐

panding beyond the original planting area.

Continued drought conditions likely had an effect on the survivorship of plantings. Seasonal

rainfall was significantly lower than normal with up to a month between events during the early

months of winter. Lack of rainfall results in higher than normal salinity levels in soils and surface

water and may increase the level of transplant shock that new plantings experience and pre‐

vent establishment.

Figure 4 shows two examples of plantings in fall 2015. The first round of monitoring for Year 4

will occur in fall 2015 and, while it may inform final plans for Year 5 planting, the results will be

reported in a subsequent document.

3.1 PotSize

For all three years of monitoring to date, the gallon pot size survived significantly better than

D40s. Across sites for Year 3 plantings, overall survivorship of G. stricta grown in one‐gallon

pots was significantly higher than in D40 pots. At the site level, however, only three out of five

sites had higher survivorship for gallon pots. The advantage of D40 pots is less weight and eas‐

ier transport during planting (D40s are carried in plant trays, gallons are carried individually) re‐

sulting in a more efficient planting effort. As gallons were found to result in higher survivorship

for all three years of monitoring to date, they will continue to be used in Year 5 despite requir‐

ing more planting effort.


Figure 4. Top: Several years of G. stricta plantings at Cogswell A, Hayward Regional Shoreline. Bottom: ISP staff Whitney Thornton and Brian Ort, monitoring Year 4 (2014‐2015) S. foliosa plantings after one growing season at Mt. Eden Creek, Eden Landing Ecological Reserve.


3.2 ComboPots

Combo pots contain both a gumplant seedling and two ramets of saltgrass and were developed

as an efficient way to transport fewer pots across marshes to outplanting areas. There was con‐

cern initially that combo pots might have lower survivorship as well due to direct competition

for resources between the species. In Year 3 (2013‐2014), two sites were planted with a small

number of both combo pots and gallon pots that could be compared for survivorship. Combin‐

ing the two sites, mean survivorship of the G. stricta plants was 37% for gallon pots and 40% for

combo pots. Survivorship of D. spicata growing in combo pots was also compared with the D.

spicata gallon pots (i.e., divided into two and planted near G. stricta plants) with slightly lower

survivorship in the combo pots. As the data is very limited from the Year 3 comparison of

combo pots and gallon pots and there was no significant difference in survivorship, combo pots

will continue to be used. The use of combo pots will be re‐evaluated after monitoring results

from Year 4 are available.

3.3 SpartinafoliosaDirectTransplants

Direct transplanting of plants from a genetically‐tested source population to a revegetation site

was used at some sites in Year 1 (2011‐2012), and again at one location in Year 3 (2013‐2014).

This approach should be used with caution due to the increased potential for transplanting a

hybrid Spartina plant or introducing invertebrates or other pests to revegetation sites. Field

crews collecting, transporting, and installing the direct transplants in Year 1 reported increased

difficulty with managing the loose and muddy plugs from one site, and the survivorship of

plants installed this way was significantly lower that year. In Year 3, survivorship of direct trans‐

plants was significantly higher than nursery grown plugs likely because plug handling tech‐

niques had improved since the first effort. In Year 5, small amounts of S. foliosa will be collected

from established planted areas for planting in adjacent, new areas at the same site, North

Creek Marsh. Plants that are transferred between recently‐established S. foliosa patches and

adjacent unvegetated areas will be genetically tested.

3.4 SpartinafoliosaDonorSource

The effect of S. foliosa donor source population on survivorship and growth rate at different

sites was found to be variable for the first three years of plantings with available monitoring re‐

sults. Which sources will be most successful at a specific site in Year 5 (2015‐2016) is not pre‐

dictable given our current level of understanding, therefore, we will continue to install a mini‐

mum of four source populations at each revegetation site to increase the likelihood of survivor‐

ship and establishment of plots. In Year 5, in addition to the source populations used in Year 4

(2014‐2015), two new source populations will be used: Gallinas Creek in Marin County, and

American Canyon along the Napa River.


3.5 SaltHardening

Salt hardening of G. stricta plants prior to outplanting had a positive effect on initial survivor‐

ship at most sites, where tested, for both Year 2 (2012‐2013) and 3 (2013‐2014) plantings. All S.

foliosa plugs have been salt hardened prior to outplanting in all four years of the program. Salt

hardening of both G. stricta and S. foliosa will continue in Year 5.

3.6 Caging

In Year 4 (2014‐2015), G. stricta plants were not caged at any sites. Due to the significant cost

of materials and added labor associated with installation and removal, caging in future years

will only be considered for sites where the risk of herbivory is expected to be high.

Rope caging to protect S. foliosa plugs was found to have a significant positive effect on initial

survivorship at some sites during all monitoring years. In addition, pooling several Year 2 (2012‐

2013) planting sites where the caging was left in place for two growing seasons, a continued

positive effect of caging was found. Initial survivorship results from Year 3 (2013‐2014) plant‐

ings indicated that the habitat type that S. foliosa was planted into made a difference in how

much caging improved survivorship. Planting blocks installed on open, unvegetated mudflat

had significantly higher survivorship when caged, and conversely, caging in vegetated areas had

less of an effect on survivorship. Presumably, plantings on open mudflats are more visible to

foraging herbivores like Canada geese. The two sites that were completely caged in Year 3

(2013‐2014) had the highest survivorship. Caging of S. foliosa plugs occurred at all sites in Year

4 (2014‐2015), with all plugs caged at some sites, and half of the plugs caged at other sites to

continue to test whether caging had an effect on survivorship. Caging of at least half of all S. fo‐

liosa plantings at each site is planned for Year 5 (2015‐2016).

In Year 4 (2014‐2015), biodegradable caging materials were tested at one site, Elsie Roemer,

using the same rope cage design used at all other sites. Wooden stakes were used instead of

pvc poles, and jute twine instead of nylon rope. This caging design was tested partly to help

lower the visibility of the caging at this highly public location where ISP had received requests

to remove the white pvc poles and yellow nylon rope caging. Initial monitoring of this design

found it was not performing well. Within several months, the jute twine needed to be replaced

or reinforced at almost all of the planting blocks where it was installed. Further exploration of

other materials to use instead of nylon rope will be needed or this method will require addi‐

tional monitoring for cage maintenance. The site where biodegradable caging was tested in

Year 4 (2014‐2015) will not be planted in Year 5 (2015‐2016) due to other considerations. There

is not an identified need to test alternative, less visible caging at other sites, and because of

this, biodegradable caging will not be tested in Year 5 (2015‐2016).

Removal of caging has typically occurred two or more growing seasons after plant installation

to give plants time to become established. Limited results from 2014 monitoring indicated that,

if initial survivorship was high and there was robust lateral growth, then caging for an additional


season didn’t make a significant difference in lateral spread of established plantings. However,

continued caution is warranted based on W. Thornton’s research from one site where cage re‐

moval after two growing seasons resulted in plot mortality due to heavy grazing (Thornton,

pers. comm.). Based on this, caging may not be removed for at least two growing seasons, es‐

pecially at sites where there is evidence of herbivory.

3.7 HabitatType

Grindelia stricta was planted within two general habitat types in Years 1 to 4: marsh plain chan‐

nel edges and existing higher elevation features (e.g., berms). Appropriate higher elevation fea‐

tures are limited at most sites and the majority of plantings have been installed along marsh

plain channel edges. In Year 5, both planting zones will continue to be planted.

In all years, S. foliosa was planted in multiple habitat types to maximize the potential for finding

areas where plants will survive and become established. Habitat types that were planted in‐

cluded mudflats, developing marsh plain with either or both annual and perennial pickleweed,

channel edge, salt pans, and the outer bayfront/shoreline edge of marshes at the transition to

lower elevation bay mudflats. Planting multiple habitat types at each site has increased our un‐

derstanding of where S. foliosa can survive and will continue in Year 5.

3.8 SpartinafoliosaTrimming

Trimming of plant leaves at the time of plug installation was tested in Year 3 in certain habitat

types as an additional method to minimize herbivory and reduce transplant shock. Trimming

was not found to have a positive effect on initial survivorship for Year 3 plantings, and was not

implemented for plantings in Year 4. Trimming is also not planned for Year 5.

3.9 EffectsofInvasiveSpartinaPressureatRevegetationSites

The continued presence of uncontrolled hybrid Spartina at multiple sites around the Bay has

increased the invasion pressure at revegetation sites. As the uncontrolled hybrid Spartina

plants expand and produce increasing numbers of seed, this pressure will continue to increase.

Monitoring efforts to locate and treat new seedlings will continue to be extremely important,

especially at S. foliosa reintroduction sites, in order to minimize re‐infestation. Sites where S.

foliosa is being re‐introduced must be re‐evaluated annually to assess the risk caused by hybrid

Spartina at or near the site.

Grindelia stricta has been planted in un‐infested areas at some sites with uncontrolled hybrid

Spartina, with the idea that established G. stricta would provide native habitat support for rail

when treatment of hybrid Spartina at the site resumes. Hybrid Spartina has encroached on

these G. stricta plantings in some places, and treatment of a 3‐meter buffer around plantings

(authorized by permit) has been necessary. Hybrid Spartina is also spreading into areas where

G. stricta exist naturally and appears to be overwhelming and likely outcompeting these plants.


While hybrid Spartina is still present within a region, the ISP expects to continue planting both

species, especially S. foliosa, only with careful planning and due caution, which includes contin‐

ued rigorous monitoring and treatment of hybrid Spartina.

3.10 ErosionControl

Two erosion control measures, found wood and coir erosion control fabric, were tested in Year

4 (2014‐2015) on S. foliosa plantings installed on rapidly eroding shoreline. Initial monitoring of

the found wood installation indicated that the technique failed. While some of the stakes and

found wood used to anchor the larger driftwood were still in place, the larger driftwood had

floated away from the planting blocks where it was installed. Improvements to the anchoring

technique could make this method worth testing in the future. The coir fabric method anecdo‐

tally fared better, with some of the blocks containing intact fabric and surviving plant plugs.

However, in several blocks, the coir fabric had moved around and smothered at least some of

the planted plugs. Improving the anchoring technique for this method may also make this

method worth testing in the future

No erosion control methods are planned for Year 5 (2015‐2016). Analysis of survivorship data

from fall of 2015 will be used to consider whether erosion control methods will be used in fu‐

ture years.

3.11 PlantingElevation

In Year 2 (2012‐2013), a limited amount of elevation data was collected for G. stricta plantings

at two sites. Results indicated that elevation had a significant effect on survivorship. Elevation

data may again be collected in Year 5 (2015‐2016) at a subset of sites to improve understanding

of the influence of elevation on survivorship. Data would be collected at sites where survivor‐

ship is otherwise unexplainably low. Marsh elevation could also be combined with site‐specific

tidal elevations to determine local inundation period, which may have more influence on plant

performance.

Elevation data has also been collected for a subset of S. foliosa plantings at several sites as part

of collaborative research with UC Davis and San Francisco State University’s Romberg Tiburon

Center. Preliminary results from this research have informed the selection of planting locations.

Three ISP sites, North Creek Marsh and Whale’s Tail South, both in the Eden Landing Ecological

Reserve, and the Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary, in the City of Alameda, were included in this re‐

search. While all these sites are along the East Bay shoreline, they differ in site history, hydrol‐

ogy, age since restoration, and herbivore pressure. North Creek Marsh was the most recently

restored site (2006), with the most muted hydrology, and had low herbivore pressure. Plot‐

level S. foliosa survivorship at North Creek Marsh was highest at mid‐high elevations, 1.5 to

1.65 absolute elevation (NGVD 29). Spartina foliosa plantings were installed at this site both on

channel banks and mudflats. Of these two habitat types, the most expansion of plantings,


measured as number of tillers produced, occurred on the mudflats. The other two sites, Elsie

Roemer and Whale’s Tail South, were both bayfront sites that experience stronger tidal cur‐

rents and high wave action during storm events. Whale’s Tail South experienced measurable

erosion during the study period, while Elsie Roemer appeared to be accreting sediment. At

these high energy sites, plot‐level survivorship was highest at the highest tidal elevations

planted, 1.7 to 1.9 absolute elevation (NGVD 29) (W. Thornton, pers. comm.).

Elevation data may be collected at sites, if time allows, during Year 5 of the program.

3.12 ChristmasTreesandBambooStructuresasCover

A small‐scale experiment was conducted at one site, Mt. Eden Creek, to see whether “natural”

objects installed in the marsh could provide additional cover above the height of perennial pick‐

leweed. Past anecdotal observations by ISP staff documented cut Christmas trees with marsh

plants, primarily perennial pickleweed, growing over the tree structures. To test this idea, ten

donated Christmas trees were installed on the marsh plain in areas with existing perennial pick‐

leweed. The trees were anchored to the marsh plain with wooden stakes and twine. Two gallon

pots of D. spicata were planted adjacent to each tree with the idea that the plants would grow

up into the branches of the tree and provide additional cover. Initial monitoring in fall 2015 in‐

dicated that the trees were still anchored in place. In addition, all the trees had abundant small

bird droppings, likely Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), indicating that they were used as

perches. Future monitoring will determine how long the trees could provide cover before de‐

composing.

At another site, HARD Marsh, another potential method of providing additional vertical cover

was tested. Two gallon pots of D. spicata were planted one meter apart and one of the gallons

had a structure constructed from three bamboo and twine, in a shape similar to a teepee,

placed over the top with the idea that the plant would grow up and over the structure. Anecdo‐

tal information from initial monitoring in fall 2015 indicated that the bamboo structures were

still in place and more than one‐third of the D. spicata plants were present.

An additional year of monitoring of both the Christmas trees and the bamboo structures will

occur during Year 5 to determine whether these structures are remaining in place, and if vege‐

tation is growing over them. No structures will be installed during Year 5 of the program and

results from 2016 monitoring will inform whether these techniques might be used in the future.


4 OVERVIEWOFPLANSFORYEAR5(WINTER2015‐2016)

The ISP expects to install more than 84,000 plants at 25 sites in Year 5 (Winter 2015‐2016) (Ta‐

ble 2 and Figure 5). Most of the proposed revegetation sites have been planted 1‐4 times in dif‐

ferent areas as part of this program. One new revegetation site, San Bruno Marsh in the City of

South San Francisco, is also proposed for planting.

Native tidal marsh species to be planted will again include Grindelia stricta, Spartina foliosa,

and at select sites, Distichlis spicata and Jaumea carnosa. Grindelia stricta will be planted at

mid‐ to high‐marsh elevations along marsh plain channels as well as in higher elevation areas in

the marsh interior, such as berms and higher elevation islands. Spartina foliosa planting will oc‐

cur in low elevation areas including mudflats, the transition between mudflats and the marsh

plain, salt pans, along marsh channels, and on the outer bayfront edge of marshes at the transi‐

tion to lower elevation bay mudflats.

Table 2. Planned Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Sites

Revegetation Sites (ISP Sub‐area Code) Marsh Complex Type of Plant Installation*

Muzzi Marsh (23e) North Bay I

Citation Marsh (20d) Robert’s Landing M

Bunker Marsh (20g) Robert’s Landing M

Oro Loma East (7b) Hayward Shoreline M, F

Triangle Marsh (20w) Hayward Shoreline M

Cogswell ‐ Quad A (20m) Hayward Shoreline M

Cogswell – Quad B (20n) Hayward Shoreline M

Cogswell ‐ Quad C (20o) Hayward Shoreline M

H.A.R.D. Marsh (20s) Hayward Shoreline M, B, F

Cargill Marsh (13f) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve M, F

Mt. Eden Creek (13j) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve M, B, F

North Creek Marsh (13k) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve M, B, F

Whale’s Tail North (13d) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve M, F

Whale’s Tail South (13e) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve M, F

Eden E8A/E8X/E9 (13m) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve B, F

Mt. Eden Creek Marsh (13l) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve B, F

North Creek (13h) Eden Landing Ecological Reserve B, F

Bair Island – B2 South (02d.3) Bair Island B

Deepwater Slough (02k) Bair Island M

Corkscrew Slough (02h) Bair Island M

Greco Island (2f) Greco Island M, I

San Bruno Marsh (18g) West Bay M, F

Dumbarton (05b) Don Edwards NWR I

*G. stricta ‐ marsh plain (M) or existing higher elevation feature (e.g., berm) (B); S. foliosa (F); Upland Transition Zone (UTZ); constructed high tide refuge island (I)


Figure 5. Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Program Sites


As in previous years, plants will be propagated in a commercial native plant nursery and be de‐

livered by contractors to the revegetation sites. Pot sizes for G. stricta and D. spicata will be

similar to those used in previous years. Grindelia stricta will be propagated in D40 and one‐gal‐

lon pots. The TB4 size pot tested in Year 3 will not be planted in Year 5. The “combo” one‐gallon

pot that contains both a G. stricta plant and two ramets of D. spicata will be used again as a

way to decrease the number of pots transported and planted at a site. Distichlis spicata will also

continue to be transported in gallon pots and planted in selected G. stricta patches. One‐third

of the D40 size G. stricta plants will be salt hardened in the nursery prior to outplanting.

To prepare for Year 5 (2015‐2016) planting, S. foliosa plants held over from Year 4 (2014‐2015),

as well as new plants collected from several source populations, were grown out and amplified

in nursery beds prior to planting, following protocols (Thornton, 2012). Forty‐five beds were re‐

planted from seven previously used source populations and two new locations (Gallinas Creek,

Marin County and American Canyon, Napa). For a map of source population locations for all

years of the program, refer to Appendix 3. Spartina foliosa will again be planted as plugs with an

estimated average of five stems per plug, and all propagation beds will undergo salt hardening.

Planting designs for Year 5 (2015‐2016) are similar to the previous years’ designs. For schemat‐

ics of the planting designs, refer to Appendix 1. One slight variation to the patch planting design

for G. stricta along marsh plain channels was to increase to 1.5 meters, the maximum distance

from the channel edge that plants can be planted. This increased distance was determined

based on continued observation of erosion along channel edges at some sites. Anecdotal obser‐

vations also indicated that, at some sites where the elevation is appropriate, existing G. stricta

grows up to several meters away from channel edges. The program may make additional slight

modifications to planting designs based on site‐specific conditions. Site assessment to select

planting locations is anticipated to occur during the months of October to March.

Drought conditions may continue through at least the beginning of the Year 5 planting season.

Selection of planting areas will take continued drought conditions into consideration when

thinking about planting higher elevation existing features that may not receive adequate rain‐

fall or tidal inundation for plant survivorship. In addition, predicted El Niño winter weather con‐

ditions will also be taken into consideration during planning.


5 SITE‐SPECIFICYEAR4INSTALLATIONREPORTSANDYEAR5PLANS

The following sections include brief site descriptions, Year 4 (Winter 2014‐2015) plant installa‐

tion information, and the proposed site plans for Year 5 (Winter 2015‐2016).

5.1 AlamedaFloodControlChannel(AFCC)andPond3

AlamedaFloodControlChannelMouth,Lower&Upper

The Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC) is a large earthen channel located in Newark that is

managed by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Figure 6). The

channel is lined with broad benches of accreted sediment that function as a tidal marsh plain.

Much of this channel was previously lined with dense stands of hybrid Spartina, which are now

nearly eradicated from the site. The levees on both sides of the channel are also multi‐use trails

that are part of the San Francisco Bay Trail, Alameda Creek Regional Trail and Coyote Hills Re‐

gional Park (East Bay Regional Park District).

Figure 6. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting Map at Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC) and Pond 3


In areas where extensive treatment of non‐native Spartina occurred, perennial pickleweed (Sal‐

icornia pacifica) rebounded quickly and is now abundant. Prior to planting efforts, however,

two important native marsh components were either very limited (G. stricta) or missing com‐

pletely (S. foliosa). Overall initial survivorship of G. Stricta and S. foliosa plantings in Years 1 and

2 was high at this site, with 58‐68% survivorship for G. stricta and 66‐67% survivorship for S. fo‐

liosa plugs. Year 3 initial survivorship was lower with 13.9% for G. stricta and 30.1% for S. fo‐

liosa plugs. Lower survivorship of S. foliosa in Year 3 was the result of poor survivorship in one

planting area. Elevation data was collected, and showed that the planting area that had the

poorest survivorship was 0.2 feet lower in elevation than the more successful areas, suggesting

that elevation may have been an important factor. Plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa in Year 3

(2013‐2014) was higher at 67.4%.

Year4(2014‐2015)Installation

As in previous years, S. foliosa was planted on the wide bench located along the main channel

edge, and G. stricta patches were planted along smaller channels that run roughly perpendicu‐

lar to the main channel. Twenty patches of G. stricta (300 D40s and 100 gallons) were installed.

Approximately 3,000 stems of S. foliosa were planted from four source populations, including

Port Sonoma Marina, Golden Gate Fields, Napa River, and Tennessee Valley. The planting de‐

sign included paired blocks of four plots, with one of each pair of blocks caged and the other

uncaged. Each block contained four of the basic planting plots shown in Figure 3 and all four

plots were from the different source populations.

Year5(2015‐2016)Plan

Planting will not occur at AFCC in 2015‐2016.

AFCCPond3

AFCC Pond 3, or Ecology Marsh, is located on the northern side of the flood control channel de‐

scribed above in the City of Newark, and is part of the Newark Unit of the Don Edwards

SFBNWR (Figure 6). Pond 3 was the location of the first intentional planting (ca. 1976) of S. al‐

terniflora by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of a dredge sediment reuse and tidal

marsh restoration effort. Pond 3 is a former salt pond that lacks significant channelization and is

primarily vegetated with perennial pickleweed. This marsh is bordered on the north, south, and

east by levees, and by the bay to the west.

A considerable amount of non‐native Spartina treatment has occurred at this site since 2005. In

areas where treatment occurred, non‐native Spartina has been successfully removed and per‐

ennial pickleweed is now abundant, however, Grindelia stricta is still limited. Prior to ISP plant‐

ing efforts, there was no S. foliosa present at this site.


In Year 4 of the program, 10 patches (200 D40s) of G. stricta were planted at this site, expand‐

ing planting in the same areas as Year 3 (Figure 6).



Pond 3 is part of Phase 2 planning efforts for the South Bay Salt Pond Project, and is under con‐

sideration for construction to widen a channel as a tidal outlet for upstream ponds to be

breached (J. Bourgeois pers. comm.). Because of the uncertainty with future plans for the site,

no planting will occur in Year 5.

5.2 GrecoIsland

Greco Island is the largest area of relatively undisturbed, historic tidal marsh in the South Bay.

Portions of the island were developed into salt works in the early 1900s, which reverted back to

tidal marsh by the 1950s. Greco Island is part of the West Bay Unit of the Don Edwards SFBNWR

and is located just southeast of Bair Island and Redwood Creek in Redwood City. The island is

bordered to the south by Bedwell Bayfront Park in the City of Menlo Park. As a relatively undis‐

turbed tidal marsh, Greco Island has extensive channel networks that are lined with S. foliosa

and, in the southern part of the island, wide bands of G. stricta as well. Treatment has removed

most of the non‐native Spartina from the site and the native marsh is relatively intact. The

northern portion of the island is less populated with G. stricta, and plantings have been focused

in this area.


In Year 4 of the program, 130 patches (2,600 plants) of G. stricta were planted, with planting ex‐

panded into areas south of those planted in Years 1 to 3 (Figure 7). In addition, a new area in the

southern portion of Greco Island was planted in Year 4.


Approximately 2,200 G. stricta plants in 110 patches are planned for installation at Greco Island

in Year 5. An additional 600 ramets of D. spicata will be planted with the G. stricta described

above in combo pots. Planting in Year 5 will focus on areas where previous planting has oc‐

curred in the northern part of the island, filling in along larger channels and avoiding lower ele‐

vation areas.

California Ridgway’s rails are present at this site, with one of the highest density populations

located in the southern portion of the site (McBroom 2014). Every effort shall be made to com‐

plete plantings prior to the breeding season, which begins on February 1.

Access to Greco Island requires a boat. Typically, an airboat is used to ensure accessibility dur‐

ing all tide heights.


Figure 7. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Greco Island North and South

5.3 BairIsland

The ISP revegetation sites on Bair Island are part of a 3,000 acre phased, large‐scale restoration

project managed as part of the West Bay Unit of the Don Edwards SFBNWR. The tidal marshes

of Bair Island were diked in the late 1800s and early 1900s for agriculture. Bair Island is essen‐

tially three islands that are separated by large sloughs (Corkscrew and Smith sloughs). All three

islands were used for salt production from the 1940s until 1965. Tidal marsh restoration began

in the late 1970s. ISP revegetation sites at Bair Island (Figure 8) are primarily part of Outer Bair

Island which was restored through a series of planned and unplanned breaches during the late

1970s and early 1980s. These sites have extensive channelization with mature tidal marsh vege‐

tation, including abundant S. foliosa. Hybrid Spartina is also present, but effective treatment

has significantly reduced its presence throughout most of the island, with the exception of B2

North East, which is not currently approved for treatment. Planting efforts at Bair Island sites

have focused on areas that are appropriate for G. stricta, but where currently there is little or

none present.


BairIsland‐B2NorthWest

B2 North West is a section of Bair Island located adjacent to the bay front and to Steinberger

Slough, but separated by remnant levees (Figure 8). B2 North (both West and East) has abun‐

dant S. foliosa lining marsh channels. B2 North East is directly to the east of this site and, in ad‐

dition to abundant S. foliosa, has a significant amount of hybrid Spartina. B2 North East was not

treated in 2011‐2012. In 2013‐2015, seed suppression treatment (aerial spraying of herbicide at

reduced concentration to stop seed production) was conducted in B2 North East.


In Year 4 of the program, 65 patches (1,300 G. stricta plants and 400 ramets of D. spicata) of G.

stricta were planted at this site, and planting occurred throughout the areas planted in Years 1

to 3 (Figure 8). Year 1 planting survivorship was low, at 5%; Year 2 planting survivorship was

high, at 61%, and Year 3 was 15.6%. The drop in survivorship from Year 2 to 3 may be the result

of continued drought conditions.

Figure 8. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting and Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at Bair Island and Bird Island.



B2 North West is a fairly young restoration marsh that has limited opportunity at appropriate

elevations for G. stricta planting along channel edges. The extensive planting conducted during

Years 1 to 4 occurred along the most appropriate channels, and there is very little additional

opportunity in accessible areas to continue planting. As a result, planting will not occur at B2

North West in 2015‐2016.

BairIsland‐B2North‐SouthofBoardwalk

B2 North ‐ South of Boardwalk is located to the south of B2 North West and East and is sepa‐

rated from these sites by a large slough channel and PG&E transmission line and boardwalk that

cross the marsh from the northwest to the southeast. This site was planted for the first time in

Year 3 and initial Year 3 survivorship was 42.5%.


In Year 4 of the program, 85 patches (1,700 plants) of G. stricta were planted at this site in the

areas shown on Figure 8.


B2 North – South of Boardwalk is a fairly young restoration marsh that is generally too low in

elevation to support G. stricta, especially in the interior. Planting has occurred along channel

edges that are at an appropriate elevation, however, there is very little opportunity to continue

planting at this site in accessible areas. As a result, planting will not occur at B2 North – South of

Boardwalk in 2015‐2016.

BairIsland‐B2South

B2 South is a 62‐acre diked area located to the east of B2 North East. This site experiences

muted tidal action via several breaches in the remnant levees that completely surround it.

Channelization is limited to several larger channels that are primarily the result of borrow ditch

construction (i.e., straight channels that run adjacent to the levees). Perennial pickleweed is

abundant, however, G. stricta and S. foliosa are uncommon. This site was planted for the first

time in Year 3 and initial Year 3 survivorship was 29.6%.


In Year 4 of the program, 45 G. stricta patches (900 plants of G. stricta and 440 ramets of D. spi‐

cata) were planted at this site in the areas shown on Figure 8. G. stricta patches were planted

in the marsh plain and at an appropriate elevation along the remnant levee along the west side

of the marsh.



Approximately 900 G. stricta plants and an additional 200 ramets of D. spicata in 45 G. stricta

patches are planned for installation at B2 South in Year 5. Planting will continue at an appropri‐

ate elevation along the western levee.

California Ridgway’s rails are present at this site, and every effort shall be made to complete

plantings prior to the breeding season, which begins on February 1.

Access to Bair Island requires a boat. Typically, an airboat is used to ensure accessibility during

all tide heights.

DeepwaterSlough

The Deepwater Slough revegetation site is bounded on the north and west sides by Deepwater

Slough and to the east by the deep water channel of Redwood Creek. A PG&E transmission line

and boardwalk runs northeast to southwest and roughly bisects the site (Figure 8). Perennial

pickleweed is abundant, and S. foliosa is common on most channel complexes at this site. Plant‐

ing at this site will focus on areas with appropriate elevation that are lacking G. stricta. This site

was planted for the first time in Year 4.


In Year 4 of the program, 43 patches (860 plants) of G. stricta were planted on the marsh plain

at this site in the areas shown on Figure 8.

Four high tide refuge islands were also constructed and planted with both G. stricta and D. spi‐

cata at Deepwater Slough (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2015) as shown on Figure 8.


Approximately 2,400 G. stricta plants in 120 patches are planned for installation at Deepwater

Slough in Year 5.




all tide heights.

CorkscrewSlough

The Corkscrew Slough revegetation site consists of two marsh areas adjacent to Corkscrew

Slough – one area northwest of the slough, and one smaller “peninsula” area on the south side

(Figure 8). Perennial pickleweed is abundant, and S. foliosa is common on most channel com‐

plexes at this site. Planting at this site will focus on areas with appropriate elevation that are

lacking G. stricta. This site was planted for the first time in Year 4.



In Year 4 of the program, 42 patches (840 plants) of G. stricta were planted on the marsh plain

at this site in the areas shown on Figure 8.

Four high tide refuge islands were also constructed and planted with both G. stricta and D. spi‐

cata at Corkscrew Slough (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2015) as shown on Figure 8.


Approximately 1,400 plants of G. stricta in 70 patches are planned for installation at Corkscrew

Slough in Year 5.




all tide heights.

5.4 BirdIsland

Bird Island is located adjacent to the mouth of Belmont Slough in Redwood City (Figure 8). The

island is located on the bayfront and separated from adjacent urban development by a shallow,

wide channel on the south side. Perennial pickleweed is abundant and S. foliosa lines the exten‐

sive channels that typically run north to south on the island. A high tide refuge island was con‐

structed here in Year 2 of the program, and plantings on the marsh plain began in Year 3. Survi‐

vorship for both Year 3 and 4 plantings was very low at Bird Island, possibly due to apparent

lower elevations on the marsh plain in combination with the exposed location of the island,

which experiences frequent high winds and high wave action.


In Year 4 of the program, 30 G. stricta patches (600 plants of G. stricta and 200 ramets of D. spi‐

cata) were planted at this site at the eastern end of the island (Figure 8).


Due to the low survivorship and scarcity of suitable planting locations, no planting is proposed

at this site for Year 5.

5.5 HaywardRegionalShoreline:Cogswell,Triangle,H.A.R.D.,andJohn‐son’sLanding

ISP revegetation sites located at the East Bay Regional Park District’s Hayward Regional Shore‐

line include the Cogswell and Oro Loma marshes as well as Triangle, H.A.R.D. and Johnson’s

Landing (Figure 9). These sites are all fairly young restoration marshes that were restored to

tidal action during the peak of the hybrid Spartina invasion, and consequently were heavily in‐

vaded. Hybrid Spartina colonized these low elevation sites very early, and outcompeted other


native marsh vegetation. Treatment has now successfully controlled hybrid Spartina, and per‐

ennial pickleweed is abundant in areas that have reached the appropriate elevation. Other na‐

tive marsh species are limited at these sites, and ISP planting has primarily focused on G. stricta

at all sites, and S. foliosa at several sites.

CogswellA

Cogswell A is the northernmost quadrant of the Cogswell Marsh (Figure 9). Cogswell Marsh was

opened to tidal action in 1980 and was one of the first restoration sites to become highly in‐

vaded by invasive hybrid Spartina. Cogswell A is the only quadrant of the Cogswell Marsh that is

currently approved for treatment.

Cogswell A has undergone consistent yearly hybrid Spartina control since 2005, and while per‐

ennial pickleweed is now abundant, native marsh plant diversity is low. Prior to planting as part

of this program, several components of a native marsh were either very limited (G. stricta), or

missing completely (S. foliosa). In 2006‐2007, before the start of the Revegetation Program, the

Figure 9. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Triangle, Cogswell, and HARD Marshes, Hayward Re‐gional Shoreline


ISP planted G. stricta in the northeast corner of Cogswell A, and around an elevated island fea‐

ture on the western side of the marsh. While these early plantings were not formally moni‐

tored, the presence of mature G. stricta only in the northeast corner of the site in 2011 indi‐

cated that those plantings had high survivorship. Year 1 and Year 2 plantings at this site in‐

cluded both G. stricta patches and upland transition zone plantings located around the perime‐

ter of two islands within this site. Year 3 and 4 plantings focused on marsh plain channel edges.

Plant survivorship for Year 1 and Year 2 G. stricta plantings ranged from 44% to 64%. Survivor‐

ship for upland transition zone plantings was 43% after two seasons. Years 2 and 3 also in‐

cluded experimental planting of S. foliosa. Due to continued uncontrolled hybrid Spartina adja‐

cent to this site, no future S. foliosa plantings are planned for this site. Year 3 initial survivorship

of G. stricta plantings was much lower than the previous two years at 11.5%, likely due to con‐

tinued drought conditions. Year 3 initial survivorship of S. foliosa plugs was 32.8% and plot‐level

survivorship was 70%.


In Year 4 of the program, 1,760 plants were planted in 65 G. stricta patches (1,300 G. stricta

plants with 460 ramets of D. spicata) (Figure 9). Grindelia stricta patches were distributed

throughout the marsh in areas not previously planted.


Approximately 1,960 plants (1,400 G. stricta and 560 ramets of D. spicata) in 70 G. stricta

patches are planned for installation at Cogswell A in Year 5. Planting will be distributed through‐

out the marsh in areas that were not planted previously, and will primarily include the edges of

larger channels. Due to concerns over the spread of hybrid Spartina from Cogswell B and C

(sites not approved for treatment), S. foliosa will not be planted at Cogswell A in Year 5.

California Ridgway’s rails are present at this site and every effort shall be made to complete


The perimeter of this site is drivable levee, and access to the site for planting is by truck and

foot.

CogswellB

Cogswell B is the easternmost quadrant of Cogswell Marsh (Figure 9). Cogswell Marsh was


vaded by invasive hybrid Spartina. Like Cogswell A, this site initially underwent substantial hy‐

brid Spartina treatment, however, no treatment has occurred since 2011. Areas where hybrid

Spartina was removed now have abundant perennial pickleweed, however, G. stricta is very

limited. Due to the continuing significant presence of hybrid Spartina, which is once again

spreading rapidly at the site, G. stricta planting has focused on areas where hybrid Spartina is


not present, and is implemented with caution with the knowledge that plantings could be outcom‐

peted. Planting was initiated at Cogswell B in Year 2 and survivorship was high, at 56%. Year 3 initial

survivorship was lower at 34.1%, likely due to continued drought conditions.


In Year 4 of the program, 85 G. stricta patches (1,000 plants of G. stricta and 400 ramets of D.

spicata) were planted at this site (Figure 9).


Approximately 1,200 plants (800 G. stricta and 400 ramets of D. spicata) in 40 G. stricta patches

are planned for installation at Cogswell B in Year 5. Planting will continue in previously planted

areas with higher survivorship, and will be expanded into other areas with suitable elevation,

while avoiding hybrid Spartina.

California Ridgway’s rails are present at this site and every effort shall be made to complete


The perimeter of this site is drivable levee and access to the site for planting will be primarily by

truck and foot. A Jon boat may be used at high tide to travel up larger interior channels to de‐

liver plants and crew to planting areas.

CogswellC

Cogswell C is the southwestern quadrant of Cogswell Marsh (Figure 9). Cogswell Marsh was


vaded by invasive hybrid Spartina. Like Cogswell A and B, this site initially received substantial

hybrid Spartina treatment, however, like Cogswell B, no treatment has occurred since 2011. Ar‐

eas where hybrid Spartina was removed now have abundant perennial pickleweed, however,

prior to planting associated with this program, G. stricta was very limited at this site. Due to the

continuing significant presence of hybrid Spartina, G. stricta planting has focused on areas

where hybrid Spartina is not present and is implemented with caution with the knowledge that

plantings could be outcompeted. Year 1 and 2 plant survivorship for G. stricta as monitored in

2013 ranged from 42% to 55%, respectively. Year 3 initial survivorship was 18.3%, which is

much lower than previous years likely due to continued drought conditions.


In Year 4 of the program, 40 G. stricta patches (800 G. stricta and 200 ramets of D. spicata)

were planted at this site (Figure 9).


Approximately 800 G. stricta plants in 50 patches are planned for installation at Cogswell C in

Year 5. Planting will continue in previously planted areas with higher survivorship, and will be

expanded into other areas with suitable elevation, while avoiding hybrid Spartina.




The perimeter of this site is drivable levee and access to the site for planting will be primarily by

truck and foot.

TriangleMarsh

Triangle Marsh is a small restored marsh located just north of Cogswell A, with the two sites

separated by two levees and a channel (Figure 9). This triangular‐shaped marsh is bounded by a

capped landfill to the east and separated from the bay to the west by a levee which includes

the San Francisco Bay Trail. This site is the property of the Hayward Area Recreation & Park Dis‐

trict and is managed as part of the Hayward Regional Shoreline. The site has muted hydrology

and receives only tidal water via culverts that enter the marsh at the northern end. While proxi‐

mate to Cogswell Marsh, Triangle Marsh was never heavily infested with hybrid Spartina and

the site has received successful hybrid Spartina treatment since 2005. Prior to planting as part

of this program, G. stricta was very limited at this site and no S. foliosa was present in the area.

This site was planted for the first time in Year 3. Initial Year 3 survivorship for G. stricta was

27.7% and for S. foliosa plugs was 56.6%. Year 3 plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa was 92.8%.


In Year 4 of the program, 15 patches of G. stricta (500 G. stricta and 200 ramets of D. spicata)

were planted at this site. Approximately 1,900 stems of S. foliosa were planted in plots along

interior channels and within salt pans and plantings were both caged and uncaged (Figure 9).

Source populations planted at this site include Starkweather, Seminary Cove, Napa River, and

Coyote Creek.


Twenty patches of G. stricta (400 G. stricta plants and 80 ramets of D. spicata) are planned for

installation at Triangle Marsh in Year 5. Due to the small size of this site and limited opportunity

for additional planting locations, planting in Year 5 will be restricted to a berm at the northern

end of the site.

California Ridgway’s rails have been detected sporadically at this marsh, with the last detection

during surveys in 2011. Given the four years since detection and the low number of rails de‐

tected (one individual) this site may be planted during a later planting date (after February 1).

The perimeter of this site is drivable levee and access to the site for planting will be by truck

and foot.

H.A.R.D.MarshandJohnson’sLanding

The Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Marsh (HARD Marsh) is located just south of

Cogswell Marsh, just to the north of the San Mateo Bridge, and is adjacent to the Hayward

Shoreline Interpretive Center (Figure 10). The Bay Trail runs along the southern edge of the


marsh. This site is the property of the Hayward Area Recreation & Park District and is managed

as part of the Hayward Regional Shoreline. HARD Marsh was restored to tidal action in 2002 via

one wide channel at the western end. Much of the marsh is wide, open mudflats at low tide,

and the vegetation that has colonized appropriate areas is primarily perennial pickleweed. Sev‐

eral remnant higher elevation berms function as islands that extend north‐south into the marsh

interior.

While proximate to Cogswell Marsh, HARD Marsh was only moderately infested with hybrid

Spartina and the site has received successful hybrid Spartina treatment since 2005. G. stricta is

very limited at this site and no S. foliosa is present in the area. This site was planted for the first

time in Year 3. Initial Year 3 survivorship of G. stricta was 57% and for S. foliosa plugs was

44.4%. Plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa was 78.7%.

Johnson’s Landing is a shoreline area to the northwest of HARD Marsh which is also managed as

part of the Hayward Regional Shoreline. The shoreline in this area is exposed to high wave ac‐

tion and is rapidly eroding. The area has received successful hybrid Spartina treatment since

2005. This site was planted for the first time in Year 4.

Figure 10. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at HARD Marsh and Johnson’s Landing, Hayward Re‐gional Shoreline


Year4(2014‐2015)InstallationIn Year 4 of the program, 64 patches of G. stricta (1,280 G. stricta), over 1,000 ramets of D. spi‐

cata, and 7,775 stems of S. foliosa were planted at HARD and 700 stems of S. foliosa were

planted at Johnson’s Landing (Figure 10). Patches of G. stricta were planted on higher elevation

berms that are located in the interior of the marsh. Plots of S. foliosa within HARD were planted

primarily on mudflat areas and on the developing marsh plain vegetated with either or both an‐

nual and perennial pickleweed. Sources of S. foliosa populations planted at this site included

Napa River, Seminary Cove, Starkweather Cove, Golden Gate Fields, and Port Sonoma Marina.

The planting design at this site was paired blocks of eight plots with two plots each of five

source populations. For each pair of blocks, one block was caged and one block was uncaged.

At Johnson’s Landing, all blocks were caged. Source S. foliosa populations planted at this site

included Permanente Creek, Napa River, Port Sonoma Marina, and Tennessee Valley. The plant‐

ing design at this site (and for one pair of blocks at HARD Marsh) was to test an erosion control

technique using coir fabric that was described above in Section 2.1. Initial monitoring of this

method indicated that the coir fabric did not remain in place at some blocks and survivorship

was low due to the fabric moving around and likely dislodging or covering the planted plugs.


Sixty patches of G. stricta (1,200 G. stricta and 480 ramets of D. spicata) and 9,000 stems of S.

foliosa are planned for installation at HARD Marsh in Year 5. Due to the low elevation of the

marsh plain, planting of G. stricta patches will likely be limited to higher elevation areas along

remnant berms. Plots of S. foliosa will continue to be planted throughout the site in areas with

appropriate elevation. Due to low survivorship along the Johnson’s Landing shoreline, no plant‐

ing is planned for Year 5.

As expected for a recently restored marsh, California Ridgway’s rails have only been detected

sporadically at this marsh (one detection in 2012, no detections in 2013, one in 2014, no detec‐

tions in 2015). Given the low number of rails detected (one individual detected each time) this

site may be planted during a later planting date (after February 1).

The perimeter of this site is drivable levee and access to the site for planting will be by truck

and foot.

5.6 HaywardRegionalShoreline:OroLoma

Oro Loma Marsh is a restoration marsh located at the northern end of Hayward Regional Shore‐

line (Figure 11). The site is bordered to the north by a sewage treatment plant (Oro Loma Sani‐

tary District), and to the south by Sulphur Creek. The San Francisco Bay Trail runs along the

levee that separates this marsh from the bay. A levee that separated Oro Loma East and West

was partly removed to restore tidal flow between the two sites in 1997. During construction,

the site was graded to include channels and higher elevation mounds or “refugial islands”, pri‐

marily on the west side of the marsh. The eastern side of the marsh is generally higher in eleva‐

tion, has more stable substrate, and more developed marsh vegetation, including extensive


stands of G. stricta in the northeast corner. The recently restored mudflats in the western por‐

tion of this site were heavily invaded by hybrid Spartina and treatment has been ongoing at this

site since 2005. Plant survivorship in Oro Loma East for Year 1 and 2 plantings ranged from 34%

(after two seasons) to 78%, respectively. Survivorship in Oro Loma West was lower than Oro

Loma East for Year 1 and 2 plantings and ranged from 28% (after two seasons) to 50%, respec‐

tively.

OroLomaEast


In Year 4 of the program, 70 patches of G. stricta (1,400 G. stricta and 200 ramets of D. spicata)

were planted at this site (Figure 11). Planting in Year 4 occurred throughout areas that were

previously planted in Years 1 to 3.


Fifty patches of G. stricta (1,000 G. stricta and 200 ramets of D. spicata) are planned for installa‐

tion at Oro Loma East in Year 5. Planting will continue in previously planted areas with higher

Figure 11. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Oro Loma Marsh, Hayward Regional Shoreline


survivorship, and may be expanded into other areas with suitable elevation. Pilot test plots of S.

foliosa (approximately 2,000 stems) will be installed in one area at Oro Loma East in Year 5.

California Ridgway’s rails are present at this site in low numbers, and every effort shall be made

to complete plantings prior to the breeding season, which begins on February 1.

The site is bordered by drivable levees in dry weather and access to the site for planting can be

by truck and foot. However, during wet weather, access is planned via a graveled levee on the

south side where a Jon boat can be launched and used to access the interior of the site by trav‐

eling up channels. Both an airboat and a Jon boat have been used to facilitate delivery of plants

and installation crew.

OroLomaWest


In Year 4 of the program, no planting occurred at this site (Figure 11). The general elevation of the

marsh plain is still too low to support G. stricta in most areas and the existing higher elevation ref‐

uge islands have been extensively planted (or had existing G. stricta) as part of this program.


No planting will occur at Oro Loma West in Year 5 for the reasons described above.

5.7 EdenLandingEcologicalReserve

All the revegetation sites included in this section are part of the 5,000 acre Eden Landing Eco‐

logical Reserve, which is managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and

located just south of the San Mateo Bridge in Hayward, California (Figure 12). The core of the

Reserve includes the former Baumberg Tract salt ponds that are now part of the South Bay Salt

Pond Restoration Project. Hybrid Spartina invaded the Reserve as in other locations, however,

treatment was very effective here. As most of the sites were young restoration marshes (except

for the two Whale’s Tail sites), most sites had abundant perennial pickleweed in areas that have

restored to the appropriate marsh plain elevation but, prior to this program, were lacking in

other native marsh species. Planting at these sites has included G. stricta where there was op‐

portunity, and at one site, upland transition zone plantings. The main focus of planting, how‐

ever, was to introduce S. foliosa to provide propagules that will help establish the species

throughout this complex of future marshes.

WhalesTailNorth

Whales Tail North is an older, restored marsh bounded between the recently re‐engineered

mouth of Mt. Eden Creek to the north and the mouth of Old Alameda Creek to the south (Fig‐

ure 12). On the east side is a recently graded levee that separates the site from two newly

breached former salt ponds (Ponds E8A and E9). Across Old Alameda Creek to the south is

Whale’s Tail South. These two older mature restoration sites are named for their shapes, which


resemble the two flukes of a whale’s tail. Both sites were formerly diked areas that were re‐

stored to tidal action in the 1940s by unintentional breaches that were not repaired.

As a mature restoration marsh, Whale’s Tail North has a well‐developed marsh plain primarily

vegetated with perennial pickleweed and an extensive network of marsh plain channels with

abundant G. stricta in some areas. This site had no S. foliosa prior to ISP planting efforts due to

invasion by hybrid Spartina, which outcompeted any native S. foliosa. Survivorship of Year 1

and 2 plantings of G. stricta ranged from 43% (after two seasons) to 83%, respectively. For Year

1 and 2 plantings of S. foliosa, survivorship was very low (0 and 18%, respectively). Year 3 initial

survivorship of G. stricta plantings was 46.7% and for S. foliosa plugs was 5.1%. Year 3 initial

plot‐level survivorship of S. foliosa was 14.1%.



and 4,410 stems of S. foliosa were planted at this site (Figure 12). Patches of G. stricta were

planted along channel edges. Plots of S. foliosa were planted in different habitat types in order

Figure 12. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Eden Landing Ecological Reserve


to increase the overall chance of survivorship including bayfront shoreline, and salt pans/de‐

pressions on the marsh plain. All blocks were paired and each block contained four plots with

each plot planted with one of the four source populations. Paired blocks on the marsh plain in‐

cluded one caged block of plantings and one uncaged block. Paired blocks on the shoreline

were all caged. The shoreline planting design tested the use of two erosion control methods:

coir fabric and found wood. Both of these designs were described above in Section 2.1. Initial

monitoring of both methods found that neither method stayed in place at this high wave action

site. More testing will be needed to determine appropriate erosion control measures that can

be used for planting. Source S. foliosa populations planted at this site include Seminary Cove,

Golden Gate Fields, Port Sonoma Marina, and Napa River.


Twenty patches of G. stricta (400 G. stricta) and 5,000 stems of S. foliosa are planned for instal‐

lation at Whale’s Tail North in Year 5. Due to previous low survivorship, plots of S. foliosa will

continue to be targeted in different habitat types throughout the site in areas with appropriate

elevation to increase the chance of survivorship.



A boat is required to access this site due to a breach at the northeast corner of the marsh. As in

previous years, the East Bay Regional Park District will assist with the planting effort by trans‐

porting plants and crew out to the site via airboat. A number of boats have also been used for

access including an airboat, Jon boat, kayaks and an Achilles Inflatable two‐chamber pontoon

boat. Plants will be staged along the shoreline and the remnant levee on the east side of the

marsh plain. The site also has numerous channels that must be crossed throughout the marsh

plain.

WhalesTailSouth

Whales Tail South is an older restored marsh bounded by the mouth of Old Alameda Creek to

the north and by former salt ponds to the south (Figure 12). To the east is a former salt pond

restored to tidal action in 1998, known as Cargill Mitigation Marsh. Across Old Alameda Creek

to the north is Whale’s Tail North. As a mature restoration marsh, Whales Tail South has a well‐

developed marsh plain primarily vegetated with perennial pickleweed and an extensive net‐

work of interior channels with abundant G. stricta in some areas. This site had no S. foliosa prior

to ISP planting efforts due to invasion by hybrid Spartina, which outcompeted native S. foliosa.

Survivorship of Year 1 and 2 plantings of G. stricta ranged from 21% (after two seasons) to 75%,

respectively. Survivorship for upland transition zone plantings was 65% after two seasons. For

Year 1 and 2 plantings, survivorship of S. foliosa plantings was very low (0 and 9%, respectively).

Year 3 initial survivorship was 46.4% for G. stricta and 11.2% for S. foliosa plugs. Year 3 initial

plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa was 32%.





planted along channel edges. Plots of S. foliosa were planted in different habitat types, includ‐

ing bayfront shoreline and salt pans/depressions on the marsh plain, in order to increase the

chances of survivorship. All blocks were paired and each block contained four plots with each

plot planted with one of the four source populations. Paired blocks on the marsh plain included

one caged block of plantings and one uncaged block. Paired blocks on the shoreline were all

caged. The shoreline planting design tested the use of two erosion control methods: coir fabric

and found wood. Both of these designs were described above in Section 2.1. Initial monitoring

of both methods found that neither method stayed in place at this high wave action site. More

testing will be needed to determine appropriate erosion control measures that can be used for

planting. Source S. foliosa populations planted at this site include Coyote Creek, Napa River,

Port Sonoma Marina, and Tennessee Valley.


Forty patches of G. stricta (800 G. stricta and 560 ramets of D. spicata) and 2,000 stems of S.

foliosa are planned for installation at Whale’s Tail South in Year 5. Due to previous low survivor‐

ship, plots of S. foliosa will continue to be planted in different habitat types throughout the site,

in areas with appropriate elevation, to increase the chance of survivorship.



Access to the northwestern part of the site is via a drivable levee during dry weather. This site is

also partly accessed via a walkable levee on the east side of the marsh. However, numerous

channels must be crossed to completely access the marsh plain. In Year 2 of the program, a new

temporary wooden foot bridge was constructed by the plant installation crew to facilitate ac‐

cess across a breach in the levee and provide easier access to the marsh interior.

CargillMitigationMarsh

Cargill Mitigation Marsh is a 49‐acre former solar salt production evaporator pond that was re‐

stored to be completely tidal in 1998. The site is bounded by a levee along the Old Alameda

Creek channel to the north, by Whale’s Tail South on the west, and by former salt production

ponds to the east and south (Figure 12). The site is surrounded by levees, with two breach

points on the western levee that drain the site into Whale’s Tail South. Once opened to tidal ac‐

tion, the site became heavily invaded by hybrid Spartina. Treatment of hybrid Spartina has

been very successful at this site, allowing for the reintroduction of S. foliosa here. Cargill was

planted for the first time in Year 2 of the program. As a young restoration marsh, some of the

site is still too low in elevation to support marsh plain vegetation, however, perennial pickle‐

weed is rapidly becoming abundant in some areas, and portions of the marsh appear to be at


an elevation appropriate for G. stricta. Much of the site appears to be at an appropriate eleva‐

tion for S. foliosa. Year 2 plant survivorship for G. stricta plantings was 77%. Year 2 survivorship

of S. foliosa plantings was very low (8%). Initial survivorship for Year 3 plantings of G. stricta was

16% and for S. foliosa was 10%. Year 3 plot‐level survivorship was 29.5%.




planted along channel edges. The planting design was paired blocks of eight plots with two

plots each of four source populations. Blocks of plantings were primarily planted in mudflat ar‐

eas and all plantings were protected by rope caging. Source S. foliosa populations planted at

this site include Coyote Creek, Golden Gate Fields, Starkweather Cove, and Napa River.



lation at Cargill in Year 5. Plots of S. foliosa will continue to be planted primarily on mudflats,

and areas that are transitioning from mudflat to marsh plain elevations.

California Ridgway’s rails have not been detected during surveys at this site in recent years,

thus planting can take place after February 1, if necessary.

The site is bordered by levees that can be accessed by truck and foot. The marsh interior and

mudflats are quite soft in areas, and thus require experience in marsh walking as well as gear

such as hip or chest waders, especially for planting S. foliosa.

NorthCreekMarsh

North Creek Marsh is a former salt pond located in the northeastern portion of Eden Landing

that was restored in 2006 (Figure 12). This timing coincided with high hybrid Spartina infesta‐

tion levels in the Eden Landing area, and the site was immediately invaded. Effective hybrid

Spartina control has occurred there since 2008, and the area was deemed suitable and im‐

portant for the reintroduction of S. foliosa to provide a local propagule source for restoration

sites throughout the Reserve. Elevation data collected at this site indicated that the majority of

the site is at an appropriate elevation for S. foliosa plantings. Because this marsh was restored

fairly recently, the site is still primarily channel and mudflat, with rapidly expanding areas of

perennial pickleweed at higher elevations on the mudflats.

Year 1 and 2 plant survivorship for G. stricta was 22% and 34%, respectively. In Year 1 and 2,

survivorship of S. foliosa plantings was 57% (after two seasons) and 46%, respectively. Initial

Year 3 survivorship of G. stricta plantings was 18.7% and S. foliosa plantings was 51.7%. Year 3

plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa was 92.4%.



In Year 4 of the program, 7,000 stems of S. foliosa were planted at North Creek Marsh (Figure

12). Plots of S. foliosa were planted in both mudflat areas and transitional areas between mud‐

flat and marsh plain elevations. The planting design at this site was paired blocks of eight plots

with two plots each of four source populations. Each pair included one caged and one uncaged

block of plantings so that half of the plantings were caged. Source S. foliosa populations planted

at this site included Golden Gate Fields, Port Sonoma Marina, Tennessee Valley, and Napa

River.


Fifty‐three G. Stricta patches (1,060 G. stricta and 280 ramets of D. spicata), approximately

10,000 stems of S. foliosa, and 400 ramets of J. carnosa are planned for installation at North

Creek Marsh in Year 5. Patches of G. stricta are planned for installation at suitable planting ele‐

vations along berms and levees bordering the western edge of the marsh. Spartina foliosa

plantings will continue throughout the marsh, targeting areas adjacent to successful plantings.

Jaumea carnosa will be planted in conjunction with the S. foliosa plantings. In addition, a small

number of plugs will be harvested from established plantings at this site that will be planted in

new areas adjacent to the existing planting areas as discussed in Section 2.3.

As a young restoration site with little vegetation, California Ridgway’s rail are not expected to

be present, and they have not been detected during surveys. Thus planting can take place dur‐

ing the breeding season, after January 31, if necessary.

The site is bordered by levees that can be accessed by truck and foot. The levee on the west

side of the marsh is all‐weather and accessible during rain. Use of the access road on the east

side requires dry weather and, because it is restricted in width and functions as a public trail,

cannot have any vehicles parked along it. The marsh interior and mudflats are quite soft in ar‐

eas, and thus require experience in marsh walking as well as gear such as hip or chest waders,

especially for planting S. foliosa.

Mt.EdenCreek

As part of Phase 1 of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, the mouth of Mt. Eden Creek

was re‐engineered, and an adjacent salt pond (E9) was breached so that it flows into Mt. Eden

Creek near the mouth. The creek runs more or less east‐west between multiple former salt

ponds in the northern part of the Reserve (Figure 12). The creek is bounded by levees on both

sides, with an expanse of marsh plain, vegetated primarily with perennial pickleweed, on the

south side near the mouth. A former creek channel separates this marsh plain from a large

open mudflat area. Treatment of hybrid Spartina along Mt. Eden Creek has been effective, and

this site was determined to be appropriate for S. foliosa reintroduction.


Year 1 and 2 plant survivorship for G. stricta was 29% (after two seasons) and 69%, respectively.

For Year 1 and 2 plantings, survivorship of S. foliosa was 30% (after two seasons) and 35%, re‐

spectively. Initial survivorship for Year 3 plantings of G. stricta was 60% and for S. foliosa was

31.2%. Year 3 plot‐level survivorship for S. foliosa was 79.5%.


In Year 4 of the program, fifteen patches of G. stricta (300 G. stricta and 220 ramets of D. spi‐

cata) and close to 6,000 stems of S. foliosa were planted (Figure 12). Patches of G. stricta were

planted along channel edges and a higher elevation berm. Plots of S. foliosa were planted in

both mudflat areas and transitional areas between mudflat and marsh plain elevation. Half of

the plantings were protected by rope caging. Source S. foliosa populations planted at this site

include Coyote Creek, Golden Gate Fields, Napa River, and Starkweather Cove.


Sixty patches of G. stricta (1,200 G. stricta), 200 ramets of J. carnosa and 6,000 stems of S. fo‐

liosa, are planned for installation at Mt. Eden Creek in Year 5. Grindelia stricta patches will be

planted along a berm. Spartina foliosa plantings will likely continue throughout the marsh, tar‐

geting areas adjacent to successful plantings. Jaumea carnosa will be planted in conjunction

with the S. foliosa plantings.

California Ridgway’s rails have not been detected at this site during the last three years of sur‐

veys (2012 through 2014); however, there have been detections of low numbers of birds in

some years prior to that. Given the three years since detection and the previous low density of

rails, this site is proposed for planting during the early breeding season (after February 1).

The site is bordered to the south by a levee that can be accessed by truck and foot. The mud‐

flats are quite soft in areas, and thus require experience in marsh walking as well as gear such

as hip waders, especially for planting S. foliosa.

Mt.EdenCreekMarsh

Mt. Eden Creek Marsh is located in the northern part of the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve at

the upstream end of Mt. Eden Creek (Figure 12). The upland transition zone area that borders

this site to the west has been extensively planted by Save The Bay. While this very young resto‐

ration site will not likely support California Ridgway’s rail in the short‐term, establishing S. fo‐

liosa here will provide propagules for restoration sites throughout the Reserve. Additionally,

given the location immediately inside the Reserve’s main public access point, the site could

function as a demonstration site for public outreach about the ISP Revegetation Program and

specifically for S. foliosa plantings. This site was planted for the first time in Year 3 of the pro‐

gram.


In Year 4 of the program, over 6,000 stems of S. foliosa were planted at this site (Figure 12).

Plots of S. foliosa were planted in the southern part of this site, primarily along the perimeter.


Half of the plantings were protected with rope caging, with half left uncaged. Source S. foliosa

populations planted at this site include Coyote Creek, Starkweather, Golden Gate Fields, and

Napa River.


Approximately 8,000 stems of S. foliosa and 200 ramets of J. carnosa are planned for installa‐

tion at Mt. Eden Creek Marsh in Year 5. Due to the generally low elevation of this site, plots of

S. foliosa will continue to be planted around the perimeter. Jaumea carnosa will be planted in

conjunction with the S. foliosa plantings at this site.

As expected for a recently restored marsh, California Ridgway’s rails have not been detected at

this site. Rails are not expected to be present until the marsh plain reaches an elevation that

can support native marsh vegetation at a density and with sufficient vertical structure to be suitable

for cover. This site is thus designated as a “late” planting site that may be planted after February 1.

The site is bordered on several sides by drivable levee and access to the site for planting will be

by truck and foot.

PondsE8A,E9,E8XandNorthCreek

Ponds E8A, E9, and E8X are former salt ponds that were restored to tidal action in 2012 ‐13.

North Creek was restored to tidal action in 2006, and is the entry point for tidal waters entering

North Creek Marsh and the eastern breaches of E8A and E8X (Figure 12). One of these ponds,

Pond E8A, still has a gypsum layer in some areas that could inhibit plant growth. These sites

were planted for the first time in Year 4 of the program.


In Year 4 of the program, over 8,000 stems of S. foliosa were planted at these sites (Figure 12).

The planting design at E8X, E8A, and North Creek was paired blocks of eight plots with two plots

each of four source populations. Each pair included one caged and one uncaged block of plant‐

ings, so that half of the plantings were caged, except for a small number of blocks at E8X that

were all caged. The planting design at E9 was paired blocks of four plots. This group of sites was

planted last in the season, and as the propagation beds were nearly completely harvested,

these sites were planted with what source population material remained. Source S. foliosa pop‐

ulations planted at E8A included Port Sonoma Marina, Napa River, and Seminary Cove. Source

S. foliosa populations planted at North Creek and E8X included Napa River, Port Sonoma Ma‐

rina, Starkweather Cove, and Tennessee Valley. A mix of source S. foliosa populations was

planted at E9.


Thirty‐three patches of G. stricta (660 G. stricta and 220 ramets of D. spicata) and 11,000 stems

of S. foliosa are proposed for installation at these sites in Year 5. These sites are again sched‐

uled to be among the final planting sites for this season, so plant material will be allocated here

depending on remaining availability.


As newly breached restoration sites with primarily open mudflat habitat, California Ridgway’s

rails are not expected to be present, and planting can take place during rail breeding season

(i.e., after February 1).

Access to these sites may be primarily by boat – likely Jon boat or airboat. A drivable levee is

located along the northern edge of ponds E9 and E8X which will also be used for access to these

sites during planting and potentially for boat launching.

5.8 Robert’sLanding

The Robert’s Landing Complex (also known as the San Leandro Shoreline Marshlands) in the

City of San Leandro, includes four ISP revegetation sites: Citation Marsh, North Marsh, Bunker

Marsh, and San Lorenzo Creek Mouth (Figure 13). Citation, North, and Bunker Marshes are res‐

toration marshes that were restored in the mid‐1990s. None of the revegetation areas within

the Robert’s Landing marshes are currently approved for hybrid Spartina treatment. San Lo‐

renzo Creek Mouth and North Marsh were not planted in Years 3 and 4 of the program, and will

not be planted in Year 5 for several reasons, including the lack of planting opportunities, and

low G. stricta survivorship.

CitationMarsh

Citation Marsh is the easternmost marsh at Robert’s Landing and is bordered by residential de‐

velopment and railroad tracks to the east, North Marsh to the west, and a paved portion of the

San Francisco Bay Trail to the south (Figure 13). The marsh plain is vegetated primarily with per‐

ennial pickleweed, and there is one main north‐south channel that bisects the site. On the west

side of the channel is a large mudflat area, and on the east of the channel, in the southeastern

portion of the marsh, are several large salt pans. Upland areas on the marsh plain include sev‐

eral islands with primarily ruderal vegetation. Tidal flow is regulated with tide gates along the

main channel in two locations, and as a result, portions of the marsh plain are infrequently in‐

undated. Hybrid Spartina was treated at this site until 2011, however, no treatment has oc‐

curred since 2011 in the northern half of the site. In areas where treatment has continued, hy‐

brid Spartina has been successfully removed and perennial pickleweed is abundant, but G.

stricta is still limited. Planting of G. stricta was initiated at Citation Marsh in Year 2 of the pro‐

gram, and initial survivorship was 86%. Year 3 initial survivorship of plantings was 56.5%.


In Year 4 of the program, 67patches of G. stricta (1,340 plants) were planted at this site (Figure

13). Planting in Year 4 expanded on areas that were previously planted in Years 2 and 3.


Fifty patches of G. stricta (1,000 G. stricta and 280 ramets of D. spicata) are planned for installa‐

tion at Citation Marsh in Year 5. Plantings will continue in areas that were previously planted

and expand to adjacent areas found to be at appropriate elevation during groundtruthing.




The western side of this site is levee, and to the south is a paved section of the San Francisco

Bay Trail and thus access to the site for planting can be by truck and foot. In addition, a Jon boat

was used in Years 3 and 4 of the program to transport plants and installation crew to the plant‐

ing areas using the main channel. This method of transport will be used again in Year 5.

BunkerMarsh

Bunker Marsh is the southwest portion of the Robert’s Landing restoration area and is sur‐

rounded by levees with an outlet to the south that drains to San Lorenzo Creek (Figure 13). This

marsh is bordered by North Marsh to the north, East Marsh to the east, the bay front to the

west, and San Lorenzo Creek to the south.

Figure 13. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Robert's Landing


Hybrid Spartina was treated at this site until 2011, however, since then no Spartina treatment

has been conducted. In areas where treatment occurred and hybrid Spartina was successfully

removed, perennial pickleweed is abundant. G. stricta is also present along the main channel. A

fairly wide and continuous upland transition zone, vegetated primarily with native plants, exists

along the eastern side of the marsh.

Planting was initiated at Bunker Marsh in Year 2 of the program and survivorship of G. stricta

for Year 2 was 56%. Initial survivorship of Year 3 plantings was 80.7%.


In Year 4 of the program, 31 patches of G. stricta (620 plants) were planted at this site (Figure

13). Planting areas in Year 4 expanded on areas that were previously planted in Years 2 and 3.


An estimated 500 plants (325 patches of G. stricta) are planned for installation at Bunker Marsh

in Year 5. Planting will continue in previously planted areas and will include larger channel

edges.



This site is bordered to the north by a paved section of the San Francisco Bay Trail and by levees

on the west and east sides, and thus access to the site for planting will be by truck and foot.

5.9 SanLeandroBay

ISP revegetation sites in San Leandro Bay are small, lower elevation marsh fragments located in

a highly urbanized area. The small marsh fragments present around San Leandro Bay today are

all that remains of an extensive marsh complex that existed in this area historically. Arrowhead

Marsh, MLK Restoration Marsh, and Damon Marsh are all part of the Martin Luther King Jr. Re‐

gional Shoreline managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Oakland, California (Figure

14). These sites are located between I‐880 and Oakland Airport in a commercial and light indus‐

trial area that borders San Leandro Bay. Paved sections of the San Francisco Bay Trail border all

of these sites. The Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary is located on the southwest edge of the City of

Alameda and is managed as part of the Crown Memorial State Beach by the East Bay Regional

Park District.

Several of the revegetation sites in San Leandro Bay are not currently approved for hybrid

Spartina treatment (Damon Marsh, the eastern side of Arrowhead Marsh, and MLK Restoration

Marsh). Damon Marsh and MLK Restoration Marsh were only planted in Year 2 of the program

for several reasons, including the continuing presence of extensive hybrid Spartina, lack of

planting opportunities, and low G. stricta survivorship from previous plantings. In Year 5 of the

program, these sites as well as Arrowhead Marsh will not be planted for the same reasons.


ArrowheadMarsh

Arrowhead Marsh is a 47‐acre marsh that supports a dense population of California Ridgway’s

rails. Arrowhead Marsh was heavily invaded by non‐native Spartina and, because of the high

density population of Ridgway’s rails there, Spartina treatment was phased to reduce immedi‐

ate habitat loss. The eastern half of the marsh was treated only for seed suppression (to stop

seed production with reduced loss of vegetative cover), while the western half underwent full

herbicide treatment to kill the hybrid Spartina. After several years of successful control, hybrid

Spartina had been mostly removed from the western side of the marsh and several native plant

species had colonized. In 2012, all treatment on the eastern half of Arrowhead Marsh was dis‐

continued. With hybrid Spartina now uncontrolled on the eastern half of the marsh, invasion

pressure on the west side has become severe and is inhibiting the passive native revegetation.

From 2010 to 2012, Save The Bay (STB), with logistical assistance from the ISP, installed native

plants including G. stricta and Triglochin maritima, in the western portion of Arrowhead Marsh.

Figure 14. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Completed Planting at Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary and other sites in San Leandro Bay



No planting occurred at Arrowhead Marsh in Year 4 due to low survivorship of plantings in pre‐

vious years as described above.


No planting is planned for Arrowhead Marsh in Year 5. Grindelia stricta is only successfully es‐

tablishing in a few locations, and additional planting opportunities are extremely limited due to

the generally low elevations at the site. As the focus of this program is to plant G. stricta and S.

foliosa, with G. stricta plantings proving unsuccessful and S. foliosa planting being precluded

due to the presence of uncontrolled hybrid Spartina, this site will not be planted in Year 5.

ElsieRoemer

Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary is located on the southwestern side of Alameda Island at the

mouth of San Leandro Bay (Figure 14). This narrow, linear strip marsh extends along the island’s

southern shoreline, with the very narrow eastern portion managed by the City of Alameda and

the slightly wider western portion managed primarily by the East Bay Regional Park District. The

narrow fringe of vegetation is primarily perennial pickleweed with other native marsh species

at the upper edge including G. stricta. The upper marsh edge is bordered by public trail and pri‐

marily ruderal vegetation. At the bayward edge of the marsh, sandy mudflats extend south to‐

ward the San Leandro Channel. At the peak of infestation, a dense hybrid Spartina meadow ad‐

vanced out onto the mudflats, increasing the width of the marsh temporarily. The marsh itself

is relatively new, accreting and expanding over the last several decades. Treatment of hybrid

Spartina has occurred since 2005, and has been very successful, allowing the site to be selected

for experimental reintroduction of S. foliosa in 2010.

In 2006, G. stricta was planted at this site by the ISP as part of a project that involved the con‐

struction of three marsh plain channels with the goal to temporarily enhance habitat for Ridg‐

way’s rail during hybrid Spartina control. From 2010‐2013, the site was planted with modest

amounts of S. foliosa by researcher W. Thornton. In 2013, W. Thornton and collaborators from

UC Davis evaluated a number of metrics potentially influencing S. foliosa survivorship and es‐

tablishment (Thornton in prep.). ISP continued with S. foliosa plantings in Year 4. Survivorship

of S. foliosa plantings at this site has been generally low (Year 2 survivorship was 14%), likely

due to several factors including high wave action and herbivory. Initial survivorship of Year 3

plantings was 44.9%. Year 3 plot‐level survivorship was 85.6%.


ISP planted close to 3,000 stems of S. foliosa at Elsie Roemer in Year 4 (Figure 14). Plots of S. fo‐

liosa were protected using biodegradable, less visible, rope caging as described above in Sec‐

tion 2.3. The planting design was three blocks in a cluster: one block with biodegradable caging,

one block with biodegradable caging and coir fabric as an erosion control method, and one con‐

trol block with no caging or erosion control measure. This design was then replicated across the


site. Source S. foliosa populations planted included Coyote Creek, Napa River, Starkweather

Cove, and Tennessee Valley.


Due to the continued presence of uncontrolled hybrid Spartina in San Leandro Bay, and the in‐

creasing number of seedlings recruiting nearby, this site will not be planted in Year 5.

5.10 SanBrunoMarsh–newsiteinYear5

San Bruno Marsh is located along the north side of Colma Creek in the City of South San Fran‐

cisco just to the north of San Francisco International Airport (Figure 15). A narrow, linear strip

marsh primarily vegetated with perennial pickleweed extends along the shoreline. Outboard

from the marsh is a large mudflat area that was formerly heavily infested with hybrid Spartina.

At the peak of the infestation, a dense hybrid Spartina meadow advanced out onto the mud‐

flats, increasing the width of the marsh temporarily. Treatment of hybrid Spartina began in

2005 and was very successful. Researcher W. Thornton planted S. foliosa at this site previously

Figure 15. Year 5 (2015‐2016) New Revegetation Site ‐ San Bruno Marsh, City of South San Francisco


as part of a Master’s project at San Francisco State University, and this site will be planted in

Year 5 as part of the program pending landowner approval.



lation at San Bruno Marsh in Year 5. As this area has been treated extensively and has reverted

to primarily mudflat, plantings will occur along the edges at appropriate elevations to help re‐

store the fringing marsh that was present historically.

Due to lack of suitable habitat at this site, California Ridgway’s rails are not expected to be pre‐

sent, and planting can take place during rail breeding season (i.e., after February 1).

This site is bounded to the north by a paved section of the Bay Trail and adjacent parking lots

associated with commercial building complexes. Access to the site will be by truck and foot us‐

ing the paved trail.

5.11 HighTideRefugeIslandSites

In Year 4, 21 high tide refuge islands were constructed to enhance high tide refuge habitat for

California Ridgway’s rail at ISP revegetation sites (Table 1; H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2015).

These islands were planted with G. stricta and D. spicata as well as locally collected “sod” that

included native marsh species such as Salicornia pacifica and D. spicata. Islands were con‐

structed at five sub‐areas: two sub‐areas at Bair Island (Deepwater Slough and Corkscrew

Slough), two sub‐areas at Palo Alto Baylands (Palo Alto Yacht Harbor and Hooks Island), and at

Muzzi Marsh in the Corte Madera Ecological Reserve. The islands that were constructed at Bair

Island are shown on Figure 8. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show island locations at Palo Alto Bay‐

lands and the Corte Madera Ecological Reserve. Detailed design and construction information

for high tide refuge islands is included in the 2012‐2013 Installation Report and 2013‐2014 Re‐

vegetation Plan (2013) as well as H.T. Harvey & Associates reports (2013a and b, and 2015).

In Year 5, 19 islands are planned for construction at three sub‐areas: Greco Island and Dumbar‐

ton Marsh at the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR and Muzzi Marsh at the Corte Madera

Ecological Reserve.


Figure 16. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at Palo Alto Baylands.


Figure 17. Year 4 (2014‐2015) Constructed High Tide Refuge Islands at the Corte Madera Ecological Re‐serve


6 REFERENCES

Chesser, R.T., R.C. Banks, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A.W. Kratter, I.J. Lovette, A.G. Navarro‐Siguenza, P.C. Ras‐mussen, J.V. Rensen, Jr., J.D. Rising, D.G. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2014. Fifty‐Fifth Supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check‐list of North American Birds. The Auk Vol. 131, No. 4 pp. CSi‐CSxv. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/AUK‐14‐124.1

Hammond, J. and P. Olofson. 2014. Summary of and Response to Confirmed Hybrid Spartina in S. foliosa Propagation Bed #43. ISP Memorandum #14‐11 to M. Latta, State Coastal Conservancy, October 22, 2014.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2015. High Tide Refuge Islands for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Year‐2 Monitoring Report: Project # 3415‐04. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. April 16, 2015.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2013a. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Pilot Earthen Islands Interim Year‐1 Monitoring Report: Project #3415‐02. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. June 14 , 2013.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2013b. Invasive Spartina Project Earthen Island Construction Notes to Contrac‐tors: Project #3415‐03. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy,1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. October 4 , 2013.

Lewis, J. and W. Thornton. September 2013. Analysis of 2012 Revegetation Monitoring Data for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project. September 26, 2013. A report prepared by Olofson Environmental, Inc. for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. http://www.spartina.org/docu‐ments/Appendix1_2011‐12RevegSurvivorshipAnalysis_000.pdf

Lewis, J. and W. Thornton. October 2014. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Analysis of 2013 Revegetation Monitoring Data. A report prepared by Olofson Environmental, Inc. for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

McBroom, J. 2014. California Ridgway’s Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Pro‐ject. A report prepared by Olofson Environmental, Inc. for the California State Coastal Conserv‐ancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. January 2012. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. January 2, 2012. http://www.spartina.org/project_docu‐ments/revegetation_pro‐gram/ISP%20CLRA%20Habitat%20Enhancement%20Plan_Fin_01072012%28all%29.pdf

Olofson Environmental, Inc. May 2012. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2012 California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement Program Progress Report. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. May 16, 2012.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. December 2012. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2012‐2013 California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement Plan. Report prepared for the California State


Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oak‐land, CA 94612. December 11, 2012. http://www.spartina.org/project_documents/revegeta‐tion_program/2012‐2013_RevegPlan_121112.pdf

Olofson Environmental, Inc. October 2013. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program: 2012‐2013 Installation Report and 2013‐2014 Revegetation Plan. Report prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Invasive Spartina Project, 1330 Broad‐way, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. October 15, 2013. http://www.spartina.org/documents/IS‐PRevegetation_2012‐2013‐2014_Final_111913_sm.pdf

Thornton, W., 2012. Protocol for Selection, Propagation, and Monitoring of Spartina foliosa Donor Popu‐lations for Revegetation Projects in the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared by Olofson Environmen‐tal, Inc. for the State Coastal Conservancy, May 18, 2012. 14 pages + Apps.

Thornton, W. In Preparation. How do transplant source, restoration site, and herbivory influence Pacific cordgrass restoration? M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 2011. Formal Consultation for the Proposed San Francisco Es‐tuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program and Restoration for 2011 on 95 sites; Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, California. #8 1420‐201 1‐F‐0686‐3. September 23, 2011.

Zaremba, K., J. Hammond, J.T. McBroom, W. Thornton, S. Chen, D. Kerr, and E. Grijalva. August 2011. Draft San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation and Monitoring Plan. Pre‐pared by Olofson Environmental, Inc. for California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA 94612. August 26, 2011.

Personal Communications

Joy Albertson, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fremont, CA.

John Bourgeois, South Bay Salt Pond Project, California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

H.T. Harvey & Associates, July 22, 2014. ISP Refuge Island Planning Meeting held at Coastal Conservancy office, Oakland, CA.

Josh Hull, Andy Raabe, Ben Solvesky, September 15, 2011. Telephone conference call with Peggy Ol‐ofson, Katy Zaremba, Jeanne Hammond (Olofson Environmental, Inc., Invasive Spartina Project); and Amy Hutzel, Coastal Conservancy. Providing FWS comments on the Draft Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation and Monitoring Plan dated August 26, 2011.

Whitney Thornton, RTC/SFSU M.S. Research, San Francisco, CA.

APPENDIX 1:

ISP Revegetation Program

Year 5 (2015-16) Planting Designs

APPENDIX 1

Page 1

Year 5 (2015‐2016) ISP Revegetation Program Planting Designs

Figure 1. Year 5 (2015‐16) Spartina foliosa planting design with blocks of eight plots, caged and uncaged. Each block has eight plots, from four different source populations. Each plot has five plugs from the same source population. For selected sites, Jaumea carnosa was planted within the S. foliosa blocks, represented on the schematic as blue stars.

APPENDIX 1

Page 2

Figure 2. Year 5 (2015‐2016) planting design for S. foliosa, modified from the eight plot planting design depicted in Figure 1, that would be installed in areas that are more appropriate for smaller planting blocks.

APPENDIX 1

Page 3

Figure 3. Year 5 (2015‐16) general patch design for Grindelia stricta with each patch containing 20 plants in two rows. Diagram shows an example patch that contains two pot sizes; the smaller circle represents a D40‐size pot and the larger circle represents a gallon pot or a “combo” gallon pot. “Combo” gallon pots contained a G. stricta seedling and two ramets of D. spicata. At selected sites, D. spicata is planted in the locations represented by brown triangles in the diagram. The inset box in the upper right corner of the diagram shows the four possible types of patches that will be planted in Year 5 and the color of pin flag used in the field to represent that patch: pink for 20 salt hardened D40‐ sized pots, orange for 20 not salt hardened D40‐size pots, yellow for 10 not salt‐hardened D40s and 10 gallon pots, and blue for 10 not salt‐hardened D40s and 10 “combo” pots.

APPENDIX 1

Page 4

Figure 4. Year 5 (2015‐2016) patch design for planting G. stricta on higher elevation marsh features such as berms.

APPENDIX 2:

Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

SanFranciscoEstuaryInvasiveSpartinaProject

Analysisof2014RevegetationMonitoringData

Prepared by:

Jeff Lewis & Whitney Thornton

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 1830 Embarcadero Cove, Suite 100

Oakland, CA 94606

Prepared for:

California State Coastal Conservancy San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project

1330 Broadway, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612

September 2, 2015

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project E-1 Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the analysis of the third year of vegetation monitoring data collected in the fall of 2014 for plantings installed by the California State Coastal Conservancy’s San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Revegetation Program during the winters of 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. This report summarizes general survivorship information, with each planting year analyzed separately. In addition, this report assesses the influence of environmental factors, planting method, and source plant populations on the survivorship and growth of plantings. The report is divided into four sections. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to the Revegetation Program. Sections 2 and 3 provide detailed information on native Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) planting designs and monitoring results. Section 4 provides recommendations for adaptive management actions in future years based on the results of this year’s monitoring.

ISP’s Revegetation Program is an innovative and experimental program that includes novel propagation and plant installation techniques for tidal marsh revegetation in San Francisco Bay. As such, these novel methods have been tested and refined, and have changed and been adapted over the four years of program implementation to date. Analysis and interpretation of results from 2014 monitoring resulted in the following summary findings for Pacific cordgrass, marsh gumplant, and saltgrass plantings. Additional findings can be found in Sections 2.5 and 3.5 and management recommendations based on these findings are included in Section 4.

Site and planting location or habitat type within a site were the most important predictors of Pacific cordgrass planting success. Cordgrass planted on uniform, wide mudflats or wide channel banks had the highest survivorship in all years.

The donor source population for Pacific cordgrass plantings was found to be a strong driver of both survivorship and growth rate (based on stem counts).

Caging to protect Pacific cordgrass plantings from herbivory (e.g., grazing by geese) continued to improve survivorship at most marshes.

Monitoring results showed that a substantial amount of Pacific cordgrass has been established at sites and that those plots continued to expand laterally each year. For Year 1 plantings, after three growing seasons, the total area of surviving planted S. foliosa was over 1,300 meters squared. Net cover of S. foliosa (calculated as area of cordgrass multiplied by ocular cover) was roughly 350 meters squared.

Newly colonizing Pacific cordgrass was observed in areas not planted by ISP at two sites, Alameda Flood Control Channel and North Creek Marsh in 2014. These sites do not have local sources for native cordgrass indicating that, as planned, ISP plantings are producing viable propagules that will help to populate other areas of these marshes.

After one growing season, overall survivorship for Year 3 marsh gumplant plantings was slightly higher than for Year 1 plantings but was considerably lower than for Year 2 plantings. This was at least partially due to continued severe drought conditions in California.

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project E-2 Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

For Year 3 marsh gumplant plantings, salt hardened plants survived better. Drought conditions likely resulted in higher salinity levels in marshes due to the lack of seasonal flushing by rain and that may have resulted in increased transplant shock for new plants.

Marsh gumplant plantings at several sites in Year 3 had extremely low survivorship (Arrowhead Marsh, Bird Island) likely due to unsuitable site conditions (e.g., planting location elevation too low).

For Year 1 plantings, after three growing seasons, the mean number of G. stricta plants per plot was 2.4 (out of 10 total planted), the mean total plant volume of plots was 0.45 m3, and the mean volume per plant was 0.09 m3. All three of these measurements varied significantly by site (e.g., mean number of plants per plot varied from 0.4 to 5.1 (out of 10 total planted).

All years of monitoring of marsh gumplant plantings have showed that, in general, larger pot sizes survive better. Larger pot sizes allow for more developed roots as well as more soil material, both of which may help decrease initial transplant shock and improve survivorship. While pot size has a significant initial effect on survivorship, looking at the patches that have survived three growing seasons, pot size does not appear to have a continued effect as measured by several metrics. These metrics included the number of plants per plot, per plant volume per plot, and total plant volume per plot.

A comparison of saltgrass planting methods (i.e., gallon pot for saltgrass planted around gumplant vs. combo pots with gumplant and salt grass propagated in the same gallon pot) in Year 3 at two sites found that combo pots had lower survivorship, however, this result was not significant.

This report does not include monitoring information for plantings conducted by partners Save The Bay, the Friends of Corte Madera Creek, and San Francisco State University’s Romberg Tiburon Center in 2011-12 and 2012-13.

For more detailed information on the Revegetation Program, please refer to the California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2012a) and annual Revegetation Program reports including the most recent report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Revegetation Program 2013-2014 Installation Report and 2014-2015 Revegetation Plan (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2014). Monitoring results from the first two years of the program are detailed in previous reports (Lewis and Thornton 2013, and Appendix 2 of Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2014).

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project i Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Spartina foliosa .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Species Profile and Project Status ....................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Planting Design ................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 4 2.1.4 Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................. 5

2.2 Monitoring Results for Year 1 (2011-2012) Plantings .................................................... 5 2.2.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Monitoring Method ............................................................................................. 6 2.2.3 Monitoring Results .............................................................................................. 7 2.3.4 Results Specific to Year 1 Plantings at North Creek Marsh ............................... 7

2.3 Monitoring Results for Year 2 (2012-2013) Plantings .................................................... 8 2.3.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Monitoring Method ............................................................................................. 9 2.3.3 Statistical Approach ............................................................................................. 9 2.3.4 Overall Survivorship ........................................................................................... 9 2.3.5 Donor Source Population .................................................................................. 13 2.3.6 Caging ................................................................................................................ 14 2.3.7 Other Treatments ............................................................................................... 15

2.4 Monitoring Results for Year 3 (2013-2014) Plantings .................................................. 15 2.4.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................. 16 2.4.2 Monitoring Method ........................................................................................... 16 2.4.3 Statistical Approach ........................................................................................... 16 2.4.4 Overall Survivorship and Growth Rate ............................................................. 16 2.4.5 Habitat Type ...................................................................................................... 18 2.4.6 Donor Source Population .................................................................................. 21 2.4.7 Caging ................................................................................................................ 21 2.4.9 Direct Transplants ............................................................................................. 23

2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 24

3.0 Grindelia stricta ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 27

3.1.1 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................ 27 3.2 Monitoring Results For Year 1 (2011-2012) Plantings.................................................. 27

3.2.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................. 27 3.2.2 Monitoring Method ........................................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Monitoring Results: Number of Plants, Total Volume Per Plot, and

Volume Per Plant ............................................................................................ 28 3.2.4 Effect of Pot Size ............................................................................................... 30

3.3 Monitoring Results for Year 2 (2012-2013) Plantings .................................................. 30 3.3.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................. 30 3.3.2 Monitoring Method ........................................................................................... 32 3.3.3 Monitoring Results ............................................................................................ 32

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project ii Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

3.4 Monitoring Results For Year 3 (2013-2014) Plantings.................................................. 33 3.4.1 Planting Design ................................................................................................. 33 3.4.2 Pot Size Effect ................................................................................................... 34 3.4.3 Monitoring Method ........................................................................................... 35 3.4.4 Overall Survivorship ......................................................................................... 35 3.4.5 Salt Hardening Effect ........................................................................................ 36 3.4.6 Distichlis spicata survivorship .......................................................................... 37

3.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 39

4. Program Management Recommendations ................................................................................. 39 4.1 General Recommendations ............................................................................................ 39 4.2 Spartina foliosa .......................................................................................................... 40 4.3 Grindelia stricta ............................................................................................................. 40

5. References .................................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 1: ................................................................................................................................... 43

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic of plot design for Pacific cordgrass planting and vocabulary specific to planting designs ........................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2. Schematic of an example block design for S. foliosa that includes eight plots in each block, with two plots per block planted with the same source population .......... 4

Figure 3. Photo point series of S. foliosa planting block taken at North Creek Marsh ................... 6

Figure 4. Change in net Spartina area of Year 1 plantings at North Creek Marsh from 2012 to 2014 by caging type ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 6. Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa plug survivorship by site in 2014. ................................. 11

Figure 6. Year 2 S. foliosa plot monitoring totals and plot survivorship by site. .......................... 11

Figure 7. Change in Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa survivorship at all sites from 2012 to 2014 ............................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 8. Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa stem heights comparison at two sites: Alameda Flood Control Channel and North Creek Marsh in 2014 ........................................... 13

Figure 9. Average stem numbers for Year 2 S. foliosa plantings by source population ............... 14

Figure 10. Differences in Year 2(2012-2013) S. foliosa stem number for planting blocks protected by rope caging and uncaged planting blocks in 2014 ................................. 15

Figure 11. Plug survivorship of Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa by site in 2014 ............................ 18

Figure 12. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa growth of stems by site in 2014 ................................... 19

Figure 13. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by habitat type in 2014 ........................... 20

Figure 14. Effect of cover classes of vegetation on stem number of Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa in 2014 ............................................................................................................ 20

Figure 15. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by donor source at high performing sites in 2014 ................................................................................................................ 21

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project iii Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

Figure 16. Effect of caging on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by percent cover of vegetation within the planting plot in 2014 .................................................. 22

Figure 17. Effect of caging on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by site ...................... 23

Figure 18. Effect of trimming on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by site in 2014 ............................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 19. Difference in survivorship by source type (nursery or direct transplant) at Mt Eden Creek Marsh. ..................................................................................................... 25

Figure 20. Year 1 mean number of G. stricta plants per plot by site ............................................. 28

Figure 21. Year 1 G. stricta mean volume per plot by site. ........................................................... 29

Figure 22. Year 1 mean volume per G. stricta plant per plot by site. ............................................ 30

Figure 23. Year 1 mean number of G. stricta plants per plot by pot size and by site. ................... 31

Figure 24. Year 1 mean volume per G. stricta plant per plot by pot size and by site .................... 31

Figure 25. Year 2 G. stricta mean survivorship in 2013 and 2014 by site .................................... 32

Figure 26. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site and by pot size ........................................ 34

Figure 27. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site ................................................................. 36

Figure 28. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site and by salt hardening treatment .............. 37

Figure 29. Year 3 D. spicata mean survivorship by site ................................................................ 38

Figure 30. Year 3 D. spicata mean survivorship by site and by planting type . ............................ 38

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number of Planting Sites and Planting Numbers by Year ................................................. 2

Table 2: Overview of Year 1 to Year 3 installation methods, planting numbers, and planting designs for S. foliosa ...................................................................................... 3

Table 3. Summary results table for Year 1 (2011-12) S. foliosa plantings monitored in 2014 .............................................................................................................................. 7

Table 4 Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa plot survivorship by site in 2014Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5 Summarized results of monitoring Year 3 S. foliosa by site ............................................ 17

Table 6 Mean number of plants per plot, mean volume per plot, and mean volume per plant of Year 1 G. stricta monitored .......................................................................... 29

Table 7 Year 2 G. stricta mean Year 2 survivorship, mean Year 3 survivorship, and change in survivorship from Year 2 to 3 by site ........................................................ 33

Table 8 Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship and sample size by site. .......................................... 35

APPENDIX 2

Invasive Spartina Project 1 Final September 2, 2015 Analysis of 2014 Revegetation Monitoring Data

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The California State Coastal Conservancy initiated the ISP Revegetation Program in 2011 to implement components of the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan (Olofson Environmental, January 2012). This five-year program was undertaken with the goal of rapidly enhancing tidal marsh habitat features to benefit the endangered California Ridgway’s rail (formerly California clapper rail1). One of the key objectives of the program is to implement revegetation of native tidal marsh plant species that are important for California Ridgway’s rail, at sites where the spread and subsequent removal of non-native cordgrass (hybrid Spartina alterniflora x foliosa) has resulted in decreases in local rail populations. A second objective is to reintroduce native Pacific cordgrass at sites where the spread of non-native cordgrass has locally extirpated or radically reduced the population of this important marsh species. Planting designs and the plant palette are developed with the objective of rapidly enhancing habitat for California Ridgway’s rail. The program’s tidal marsh habitat enhancements also benefit other protected native tidal marsh-dependent wildlife species, including the threatened salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), as well as other mammals, fish and migratory birds. The focus of the revegetation program is to rapidly plant areas where two key native tidal marsh plant species, marsh gumplant and Pacific cordgrass, should occur but are currently not present in order to enhance existing marsh habitat. Established plantings will also spread needed propagules throughout marshes, further enhancing the tidal marsh vegetation at these and other adjacent sites. Rapidly enhancing and increasing the existing marsh vegetation will provide propagules for future marsh expansion, and mature vegetation can stabilize and accrete sediment. These enhancements to tidal marshes promote tidal marsh resiliency in the face of climate change.

During the winter of 2014-2015, the Revegetation Program completed the fourth year of installation of native plants. Within this report, we refer to plantings installed in the winter of 2011-2012 as “Year 1” plantings, those installed in the winter of 2012-2013 as “Year 2” plantings, and those installed in the winter of 2013-2014 as “Year 3”. Since the monitoring data analyzed in this report was completed in the fall of 2014, plantings installed in the winter of 2014-2015 (“Year 4”) are not included.

During Year 1 of the program, ISP and partners planted close to 61,000 plants (counting S. foliosa as stems) at sites around San Francisco Bay (Table 1). In Year 2 of the program, ISP and partners planted over 107,000 plants. In Year 3 of the program, ISP planted over 53,000 plants. This monitoring report summarizes only data collected for plantings installed by the ISP.

With the goal of enhancing Ridgway’s rail habitat, three marsh elevation zones (low marsh, mid- and high-marsh, and upland transition zone) were planted during Years 1 to 3. Native Pacific cordgrass was planted in the low to mid-marsh to provide Ridgway’s rail nesting substrate and foraging habitat. Native cordgrass was planted at sites where both sufficient control of invasive hybrid S. alterniflora foliosa had occurred and in areas where native cordgrass is not present. Marsh gumplant was planted in the mid- to high-marsh plain to provide nesting and roosting cover and on higher elevation existing berms or “islands” that can provide high tide refuge for Ridgway’s rail. Saltgrass was planted with marsh gumplant at sites where that species was not present or present in very low numbers. Upland transition zone vegetation was planted at three sites in Years 1 and 2 of the program to provide high tide refuge for Ridgway’s rail. No monitoring data was collected for upland transition zone plantings in 2014. 1 The Fifty-fifth Supplement to the Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds changed the name of the rail subspecies “California

Clapper Rail” (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) to “California Ridgway’s Rail” (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (Chesser et al. 2014).

APPENDIX 2


Table 1 Number of Planting Sites and Planting Numbers by Year

Year ISP Planting Season

Total Number of Plants Installed

(includes ISP and

partners*) Number of Sites Planted

by ISP**

Year 1 (2011-12) Jan 3, 2011 – Mar 16, 2012 60,925 16

Year 2 (2012-13) Dec 4, 2012 – Mar 6, 2013 107,662 26

Year 3 (2013-14) Dec 9, 2013 – Mar 13, 2014 53,505 28

Year 4 (2014-15) Dec 1, 2014 – Mar 23, 2015 84,430 31

* Partners include researchers from San Francisco State’s Romberg Tiburon Center (RTC), Save The Bay, and Friends of Corte Madera Creek.

**Includes sites planted in collaboration with RTC and Friends of Corte Madera Creek.

2.0 SPARTINA FOLIOSA

2.1 OVERVIEW

2.1.1 Species Profile and Project Status

A key goal of the ISP Restoration Program is the reintroduction of Pacific cordgrass to sites where the species was locally extirpated by the spread and subsequent removal of non-native cordgrass (hybrid Spartina alterniflora x foliosa). Native cordgrass populations were most affected by hybrid Spartina in the marshes of central and south San Francisco Bay. ISP’s planting efforts target marshes in this area where native cordgrass that could provide propagules for recruitment is locally rare or has been completely extirpated. Pacific cordgrass is an important component of Ridgway’s rail habitat in native marshes and provides critical cover for foraging and nesting birds.

Key challenges to restoring native cordgrass include documented grazing pressure by herbivores, limited sources of suitable local donor source population material, restoration sites with very different site conditions, and limited restoration literature available that documents past native cordgrass restoration in San Francisco Bay. In addition to these challenges, native cordgrass restoration must proceed cautiously due to the continued presence of non-native hybrid Spartina in the estuary (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2012). To address these challenges, ISP uses an adaptive management approach to native cordgrass restoration. Planting plans and designs are implemented that allow for robust analysis of multiple planting and restoration techniques to inform future planting decisions.

Year 1 planting efforts involved small-scale replicated test plots of native cordgrass at various elevations and habitat types at eight sites including Mt. Eden Creek, North Creek Marsh, Old Alameda Creek, Whale’s Tail North and South, Elsie Roemer, Alameda Flood Control Channel, and Colma Creek. The Year 1 planting efforts resulted in the development of the scalable restoration design that has provided the framework for planting techniques in subsequent years. In addition, Year 1 survivorship results helped inform what habitat types were suitable for plant establishment and that protection (i.e., caging) was important for S. foliosa plantings. During Year 2 and Year 3 planting designs continued to be tailored to site-specific conditions, with multiple different transplant and planting techniques tested. The factors tested varied with planting year and restoration site, and included plant source population, planting elevation, and protective caging. All of these factors

APPENDIX 2


influenced restoration success. During Years 1 and 2, partnerships with San Francisco State University’s Romberg Tiburon Center and the University of California at Davis allowed for complex experimental designs and intensive monitoring efforts. However, by Year 3 the information gained from previous year’s experiences led to decreased monitoring intensity and simplification of planting designs. Table 2 summarizes key differences between planting years.

Table 2: Overview of Year 1 to Year 3 installation methods, planting numbers, and planting designs for S. foliosa.

Factor Planting Year 1 Planting Year 2 Planting Year 3

(Winter 2011-2012) (Winter 2012-2013) (Winter 2013-20134)

Plugs Planted* ~1,700 plugs ~ 8,700 plugs ~10,700 plugs

Site Number 6 restoration sites 9 restoration sites 12 restoration sites

Basic Planting Unit

5 plugs per plot or 9 plugs per plot

5 plugs per plot 5 plugs per plot

Cage Type 2-tiered rope caging only

3-tiered rope caging and plastic mesh caging

3-tiered rope caging and plastic mesh caging

Donor Source Plant Population

2 sources: Port Sonoma Marina and Golden Gate Fields

8 sources: Port Sonoma Marina, Golden Gate Fields, Alviso Slough, Coyote Creek, Permanente Creek, Starkweather Marsh, Seminary Marsh, and Napa River

8 sources: Port Sonoma Marina, Golden Gate Fields, Alviso Slough, Coyote Creek, Permanente Creek, Starkweather Marsh, Seminary Marsh, and Napa River

Planting Method or Treatment

Bamboo, Rock, Burlap Burlap, Bamboo Trimming

Monitoring Intensity

Quarterly Quarterly or Annually Annually, subset

Transplant Type Direct transplants and nursery propagated donor material

Nursery propagated only Nursery propagated and direct transplants (1 site)

Notes

* Totals only include ISP planting numbers. Research partners at RTC planted an additional 550 plugs during Year 1. All RTC research plants were collected from source population marshes and outplanted immediately.

2.1.2 Planting Design

The basic planting unit for S. foliosa planting designs was a grouping of five plugs, termed a plot, as shown in Figure 1. Each plot was then planted with other plots to form a block (typically 2, 4, 8 or 16 plots). Plots were planted uniformly (i.e., all five plugs from the same donor source population) and experimental treatments were applied at the plot level. Plots were arranged in blocks using the multiples described above, and different planting treatments or donor sources were used. Planting designs differed between year and site at the block level. A randomized block design strategy allowed for more robust analysis of the influence of planting methods, donor sources, and habitat type on plant survivorship. Figure 2 shows an example of a block design. All 16 plots were considered part of the same planting block for this design. Each planting design was typically replicated at least five times at two or more sites.

APPENDIX 2


Figure 1: Schematic of plot design for Pacific cordgrass planting and vocabulary specific to planting designs.

Figure 2. Schematic of an example block design for S. foliosa that includes eight plots in each block, with two plots per block planted with the same source population. Two blocks are shown, one caged and one uncaged.

2.1.3 Monitoring

Monitoring of S. foliosa plantings occurred from July 21 to November 21 in 2014. ISP staff monitored a subset of S. foliosa plantings from each of the three planting years. For each planting year, plantings were monitored for survivorship, persistence, lateral spread and/or vigor. Monitoring methods differed based on number of growing seasons after installation. After one growing season, individual plugs were monitored and survivorship was recorded as the percentage of plugs that survived out of the five in a plot. After a second growing season, it became difficult to determine survivorship at the plug level as individual plugs grew and expanded laterally, in many cases growing together. During the second year of monitoring plantings, monitoring was conducted at the plot-level to determine the persistence

Vocabulary Specific to Spartina foliosa Planting Design

Plug: A single planting unit of vegetatively propagated material that consists of a rhizome and typically 3-5 stems (culms).

Plot: A grouping of five individual plants (plugs) that are from the same source population and always have the same treatment.

Block: The larger unit in which a plot is planted. Different planting designs may have different block sizes.

Planting Design: A grouping of replicated blocks.

APPENDIX 2


of plantings. For this metric, if any plugs survived, the plot was counted as having survived. Following the third growing season, due to lateral growth, it is difficult to distinguish between plots. Plantings were then monitored at the block-level. Block-level monitoring is rapid, but did not evaluate plantings for vigor and habitat value. In addition, monitoring in 2014 tested a method that used several metrics to describe the potential habitat value for Ridgway’s rail provided by the amount of native Spartina cover available from plantings. North Creek Marsh and Alameda Flood Control Channel were the two sites that were monitored using this method.

2.1.4 Data Collection and Analysis

ISP staff members mapped and monitored plantings using handheld mapping grade GPS units (Trimble Yuma 2). The majority of data were collected in customized forms in ArcPad. Quality control was performed in ArcGIS 9.3 and analyses were carried out using ArcMAP, Excel, and JMP statistical software (JMP, Version 12. SAS Institute Inc.). For Year 1 plantings, with three growing seasons, block-level monitoring was conducted, and quadrat data were collected on paper data forms and manually entered into Excel.

Fall 2014 monitoring data differed from previous years in data collection effort and oversight. Monitoring at some sites was conducted in July, which is earlier in the growing season than in previous years and likely resulted in data collection prior to peak biomass and stem density. In addition, the majority of all data collection in previous years was conducted under the direction of a single staff biologist. Due to either the earlier start to monitoring or the increased number of surveys conducted by staff less familiar with planting methods, suboptimal data collection may have occurred at several sites. This was confirmed at one site (AFCC) where a second round of monitoring, that occurred three months after the first round, showed a 10% increase in survivorship. As a result, a limited amount of data from four sites (Mt. Eden Creek, Alameda Flood Control Channel, Elsie Roemer, and North Creek Marsh) were excluded from analysis and additional training and calibration was provided for staff following our first round of data quality control.

2.2 MONITORING RESULTS FOR YEAR 1 (2011-2012) PLANTINGS

The primary objective for monitoring the Year 1 plantings was to determine whether trends observed during the first two rounds of monitoring continued during the third year. A second objective was to evaluate if, after three growing seasons, plantings were reaching a volume that could provide sufficient cover to enhance habitat for Ridgway’s rail at sites.


Year 1 plantings were designed to answer key questions with regards to planting methods, caging, restoration site, and donor source population. As such, planting designs in Year 1 were more complicated than in subsequent years with plantings installed at different densities and at different scales. These planting designs have been thoroughly analyzed in previous monitoring reports and the majority of Year 1 planting designs were not evaluated for this report. Detailed information on Year 1 planting designs was included in Appendix 1 of the 2012-2013 Installation Report and 2013-2014 Revegetation Plan (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2013).

A B

APPENDIX 2


Figure 3. Photo point series of S. foliosa planting block taken at North Creek Marsh. Photo A, taken in March of 2012, shows the separation of plots in a block after planting. Photo B, taken in June of 2014, shows robust growth and lateral expansion at the block level such that it is no longer possible to differentiate between plots.

2.2.2 Monitoring Method

Monitoring of Year 1 plantings occurred on November 10, 2014 and January 7, 2015. During the previous rounds of monitoring, S. foliosa was monitored at either the plug or the plot level to determine survivorship. However, after three growing seasons most successful plots had expanded laterally to the point where it was not possible to distinguish between plots and treatments and a new monitoring method was needed. Figure 3 provides an example from photo point monitoring showing the growth and lateral expansion of plantings from the time of installation until 2014 monitoring. In 2014, Year 1 planting blocks were monitored if there was survivorship recorded during the previous monitoring effort. For these blocks, the first level of monitoring involved mapping all surviving plantings as polygons. Polygons were mapped by walking the perimeter of each planted area to include all new growth beyond the original block. For each mapped polygon, percent cover and canopy cover were assessed visually and height measurements were collected at each meter along a diagonal transect through the polygon. The areas of each polygon were auto-calculated in ArcGIS in order to determine the footprint of Year 1 plantings after three growing seasons. In order to calculate the approximate net area of Year 1 established plantings, ocular percent cover was multiplied by polygon area.

An estimate of the initial area planted with cordgrass at a given site was calculated for each design type and compared with the net area of cordgrass after three growing seasons. Net planting area after installation was calculated using the assumption that each planted plug initially took up three centimeters of space. These calculations were conducted to estimate the growth rate of plantings, however, this method may overestimate the initial planted cover compared to an actual ocular estimate.

On a subset of blocks at North Creek Marsh and Alameda Flood Control Channel that were mapped as polygons, additional data was collected on metrics that describe the potential habitat value for Ridgway’s rail provided by the native Spartina cover available from plantings. For this method, data was collected from three quadrats located within each polygon that were representative of the high and low elevation extent of that polygon. For each quadrat, the percentage of vegetation within the quadrat, the relative percent cover of Pacific cordgrass, total number of stems (as broken out by height class), heights of the five tallest stems (in centimeters), the percent of stems flowering, and co-occurring plant species were recorded.

APPENDIX 2


As a special note, both Alameda Flood Control Channel and North Creek Marsh were observed to have newly colonizing native Spartina in 2014. As there was little to no local propagule source for these new plants aside from ISP plantings, they were likely present as a result of ISP planting efforts. These plants, however, were not included in site acreage totals presented below.

2.2.3 Monitoring Results

Year 1 (2011-2012) monitoring results after three growing seasons are reported here for three ISP sites: North Creek Marsh, Alameda Flood Control Channel, and Mt Eden Creek. All planting blocks at these sites that had survivorship in 2013 were also alive in 2014. In addition, at all three sites expansion of plantings, both laterally and in elevation, was observed during the three years of monitoring. No survivorship was detected for Year 1 plantings at Whale’s Tail North, Whale’s Tail South or Old Alameda Creek. Monitoring results for two collaborative sites with RTC were not included here.

Aggregating the three sites, the total area of all planted S. foliosa during 2014 monitoring was over 1,300 meters squared. Net cover (calculated as area of cordgrass multiplied by ocular cover) was roughly 350 meters squared (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary results table for Year 1 (2011-12) S. foliosa plantings monitored in 2014

Site Name

ISP Subarea

Code

Number of Cordgrass

Plugs Planted in Year 1

(2011-12)*

Footprint Planting Area in

2011 (m2)

Net Planting Area in

2011 (m2)

Absolute Area in 2014

(m2)

Net Area in 2014

(m2)

Magnitude of Increase

(Net)

Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC)

01a, b & c 423 96 12.69 567 187 15

Mt Eden Creek (MEC)

13j 94 31.5 2.82 28 6 2

North Creek Marsh (NCMA)

13k 701 146 21.03 797 159 8

Totals 1,218 273.5 36.54 1,392 352

2.3.4 Results Specific to Year 1 Plantings at North Creek Marsh

The Year 1 planting design at North Creek Marsh evaluated the effect on survivorship of rope caging, planting method (i.e., burlap wrapped around the plug prior to planting), and compared the survivorship of direct transplants (plants collected from another location and then immediately planted at the site) with nursery-propagated plant material. As most plots have grown together, it was not possible to analyze the effect of planting method or direct transplants on survivorship during 2014 monitoring. However, the continued effect of caging on North Creek plantings was evaluated. To review the planting design used during Year 1, caged and uncaged blocks were paired (n=10) and a two-tiered rope design was used for the cages. Previous monitoring data from 2012 indicated there was a significant difference in survivorship between caged and uncaged blocks. In 2014, caging was found

APPENDIX 2


to have a continued significant positive effect with caged blocks containing more S. foliosa (measured as net area). Figure 4 shows changes in mean net cover for planting blocks from 2012 to 2014.


The primary objective for monitoring of Year 2 plantings in 2014 was to determine if plantings persisted and were expanding during their second growing season. A second objective was to determine if trends observed during the first year of monitoring would continue such as the importance of caging, the differences in survivorship and stem growth by donor source, and the positive effect that wrapping plugs in burlap before planting had on survivorship.


Year 2 planting designs continued using the plot-based approach outlined in Section 2.1. Five planting designs were developed in Year 2 (Appendix 1, Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2014). Key objectives were: 1) determine the influence of donor source on plant growth and survivorship, 2) determine the extent that plant protection (caging) is necessary, 3) determine the appropriate delivery method for cordgrass plugs (i.e., does plug size/packaging matter), and 4) develop planting methods tailored to restoration site constraints. During this planting effort, the first year of monitoring helped to inform the development of planting designs. At sites where plantings had high survivorship across the site the previous year, the planting design included multiple donor source populations to evaluate if different sources had different growth rates under similar growing conditions. At sites with low survivorship,

Figure 4. Change in net Spartina area of Year 1 plantings at North Creek Marsh from 2012 to 2014 by caging type. Caging was found to be a significant predictor of net area (p=.03).

APPENDIX 2


planting designs were used that evaluated whether this was due to environmental factors or herbivory. Each planting design was planted at a minimum of two sites, with one site always being North Creek Marsh (included as a control for design type). As Year 1 results indicated that the greatest cause of variability in survivorship was planting location, all target treatments were randomized and planted in close proximity to each other. This approach, known as a randomized block design, improved the ability to detect differences in target treatments by including all treatments in a given block.


Due to time constraints, a subset of Year 2 plantings (approximately 75 percent of plots) were monitored in the summer of 2014 for plot-level survivorship (Table 4). For most monitored plots the following data were collected: plot status (alive or dead), number of surviving plugs (out of 5), total number of live stems (culms), height (in centimeters) of the tallest stem for each plug, and the number of inflorescences produced. If any stems were present in a plot, this plot was recorded as alive. When stem number per plot exceeded 50 stems, field staff counted a portion of the plot (usually ¼) and then calculated the total stem number using extrapolation. Where plots had grown together and it was no longer possible to distinguish between plots, the number of plugs recorded as surviving during the previous monitoring effort was used for analysis. Previous monitoring plug numbers were used, assuming that if a plug was recorded as alive during previous monitoring then that same plug was still alive if plants were present in that plot. In future years, plug-level survivorship will not be reported for Year 2 plantings. As expected, plot level survivorship was consistently higher than individual plug survivorship. Due to the level of effort required to conduct stem counts, a subsample of plots was monitored at North Creek Marsh and Alameda Flood Control Channel. As these sites experienced the most robust growth, it is possible that the stem count increases and plot survivorship may be artificially low due to the subsample approach.

2.3.3 Statistical Approach

Unless otherwise noted, data on the number of plugs surviving, flowers produced, and tillers counted were modeled with a zero-inflated Poisson distribution. Data on maximum and average culm heights as well as culm width were modeled assuming normal distribution of data. A generalized linear modeling approach was used for stem and plug survivorship and the model with the lowest AIC value was accepted. A binary logit regression modeling approach was used for plot survivorship and the model with the lowest AIC value was accepted. When significant differences were found in models, post-hoc comparisons were used to identify differences. All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP analytical software. An alpha level of 0.05 was considered significant. All graphs, unless otherwise noted, were constructed using 95% confidence intervals.

2.3.4 Overall Survivorship

Aggregating all sites, the mean survivorship of plugs from Year 2 plantings monitored in 2014 was an estimated 30.4%, which is a slight decline from the previous year’s survivorship of 35.7%. This decline was most notable at Cargill Marsh, Elsie Roemer, Alameda Flood Control Channel, and the Whale’s Tail Complex. As noted above in Section 2.3.2, monitoring occurred at a subset of Year 2 plantings in 2014 due to time constraints and therefore the numbers presented in Table 4 (e.g., number of stems installed) differ from the data presented in the previous monitoring report where all plots were monitored. To account for this, the percentage of plots monitored for each given site was reported (Table 4). Survival patterns at North Creek Marsh and Alameda Flood Control Channel had a strong effect on overall survivorship. More than half of the cordgrass plugs planted in Year 2 were planted at these two sites, and their relatively high survivorship rates raised the mean survivorship for all sites.

APPENDIX 2


Declines in survivorship may have been caused by erosion, low elevation, and caging failures. These three factors were the most commonly listed field notes at plots with no survivorship (Table 4 and Figure 5). Results for the Cogswell A shoreline plantings were not included in this table. Although survivorship at this site was fairly high (~35%), these plantings were heavily treated due to encroachment in the plots by hybrid Spartina from adjacent sites where treatment was not conducted (i.e., sites not permitted for treatment).

As individual plugs grow and expand laterally they grow together and become indistinguishable. Tracking survivorship at the plug level becomes impossible and survivorship is then assessed at the plot-level (Table 4 and Figure 6). Aggregating all sites, mean survivorship of Year 2 plantings at the

Table 4 Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa plot survivorship by site in 2014

Site Name

ISP Subarea

Code

Date Monitored (All 2014) P

erce

nt o

f P

lots

M

onit

ored

201

4

Per

cent

Ali

ve P

lugs

(2

013)

Per

cent

Ali

ve P

lugs

(2

014)

Per

cent

Cha

nge

Plu

gs (

2013

-201

4)

Per

cent

Ali

ve P

lots

(2

013)

Per

cent

Ali

ve P

lots

(2

014)

Per

cent

Cha

nge

Plo

ts

Tot

al S

tem

Num

ber

(ins

tall

)

Tot

al S

tem

Num

ber

(201

3)

Tot

al S

tem

Num

ber

(201

4)

Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC)*

01a, b & c

7/21 66.7% 66.1% 58.2% -7.9% 94.0% 86.8% -7.2% 5297 14429 25421

Cargill Mitigation (CARG)

13f 10/27 99% 8.6% 2.6% -6.0% 29.2% 11.0% -18.2% 3158 204 161

Elsie Roemer (ELRO)**

17a 11/4 80% 13.9% NA NA 38.5% 38.5% 0.0% NA NA NA

Mt Eden Creek (MTEC)*

13j 7/22 72.1% 34.7% 28.7% -6.0% 81.5% 66.5% -15.0% 3489 2910 4012


13k 7/15 78.5% 45.7% 44.8% -0.9% 83.6% 80.9% -2.7% 10248 15828 44520

AFCC Pond 3 (PND3)

01f 7/21 70% 8.5% 2.8% -5.7% 42.9% 14.3% -28.6% 115 9 1

Whale's Tail North (WTNO)

13d 10/30 100% 18.5% 4.7% -13.8% 28.8% 8.5% -20.2% 2191 430 106

Whale's Tail South (WTSO)

13e 10/27 95.4% 8.7% 2.5% -6.2% 25.5% 6.7% -18.8% 2970 262 95

Totals 75% 35.7% 30.4% -5.3% 66.0% 57.1% -8.9% 27468 34072 74316

Notes: *Only half of the plots at Alameda Flood Control and Mt. Eden Creek were monitored for stem number. **Elsie Roemer was planted as part of a collaboration with RTC and UC Davis.

APPENDIX 2


Figure 5. Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa plug survivorship by site in 2014. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

Figure 6. Year 2 S. foliosa plot monitoring totals and plot survivorship by site. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


plot level in 2014 was 57.1%, a decline from 66% persistence in 2013. As plots that have survived through two growing seasons are more likely to continue to persist, plot-level data is more likely to be representative of overall site survivorship.

Staff also observed rapid lateral expansion of S. foliosa plots during fall 2014 monitoring. For the subset of plots monitored, the total stem number was roughly 27,000 stems at installation. In 2014, there was a nearly threefold increase in total stem number with 74,000 stems counted. Note that this stem total underestimates the total number of stems present as only a subset of plots were monitored at these sites due to time constraints, Table 4 shows site results and Figure 7 shows changes in stem number by site. The Year 2 results showed that a substantial amount of native cordgrass has been established at sites and that those plots continue to expand laterally each year.

To help inform future planting decisions, regression analysis was conducted to determine what factors that were manipulated or recorded had a significant effect on S. foliosa plot survival (binary logit regression). The resulting best fit model included site, habitat type, caging, and donor source population (Alviso Slough, Starkweather). Factors that were not found to be informative for S. foliosa survivorship included substrate, initial stem number, and initial stem height. As some treatments were applied at only a few sites, these were not included in the analysis (i.e., caging type, wave action treatment, and absolute elevation).

Figure 7. Change in Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa survivorship at all sites from 2012 to 2014. North Creek Marsh (NCMA) showed the steepest growth curve for plants, more than doubling every year. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


2.3.5 Donor Source Population

In Year 2, S. foliosa plugs from eight donor source populations were outplanted at sites. These donor source populations were from geographically distinct areas of the estuary with three of the donor sources from the far South Bay (Alviso Slough, Coyote Creek, and Permanente Creek), three from isolated pocket marshes in the Central Bay (Seminary Marsh, Starkweather Marsh, and Golden Gate Fields), and two from the far North Bay (Port Sonoma Marina and Napa River). All eight source populations were outplanted at two marshes (Alameda Flood Control Channel or AFCC and North Creek Marsh). All eight sources were planted into blocks, with planting position within the block randomized. Blocks were then protected using rope cages. During monitoring after one growing season, marked differences were noted in source population growth rate, flowering time, and survivorship. Monitoring in 2014 indicated these differences persisted less than in previous monitoring years as height and growth rates appeared to stabilize. Site was still the biggest predictor of planting success. Figure 8 shows that source population plant heights were greater at AFCC than at North Creek Marsh. Figure 9 shows how source population influenced stem number.

Figure 8. Year 2 (2012-2013) S. foliosa stem heights comparison at two sites: Alameda Flood Control Channel and North Creek Marsh in 2014.

APPENDIX 2


2.3.6 Caging

In Year 2, the effectiveness of both rope caging and plastic mesh caging on planting success was tested at several sites. Monitoring after the first growing season indicated that plastic caging had an effect on survivorship across sites. However, monitoring after the second growing season indicated that the effect of plastic mesh caging had declined. Plants protected by plastic mesh had the highest Year 2 mortality with an over 10% decline. While plastic mesh caging still had a positive effect on continued plant survivorship (as compared to uncaged control blocks), caging may have less positive effect into the second growing season as it may act as a shade block or may promote algal growth.

During Year 2, the effect of rope caging on plant survivorship was tested at three sites. For each site, blocks of caged S. foliosa were paired with blocks of uncaged S. foliosa. Figure 10 shows stem number differences at these three sites after two growing seasons: North Creek, Cargill, and Whales Tail South. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated there was a continued positive effect of caging on survivorship after two growing seasons with all sites combined (p value = .034). No site by itself showed a statistically significant effect of caging on continued survivorship.

Figure 9. Average stem numbers for Year 2 S. foliosa plantings by source population. There were fewer statistically significant differences between source populations from 2014 monitoring. This could be a result of monitoring a subset of blocks.

APPENDIX 2


Figure 10. Differences in Year 2(2012-2013) S. foliosa stem number for planting blocks protected by rope caging and uncaged planting blocks in 2014. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

2.3.7 Other Treatments

Several weak trends were observed previously for Year 2 plantings after the first growing season including: 1) a trend that initial stem number influenced growth rate, and 2) an observed slight increase in plug number due to burlap protection. For more details on these planting designs, refer to Appendix 1 of the 2012-2013 Installation Report and 2013-2014 Revegetation Plan (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2013). After two growing seasons, there was no discernible differences in growth rates based on initial stem number, nor was there a difference in survivorship for burlap protected versus non-burlap protected plots.


The primary objectives of the initial monitoring in 2014 of Year 3 plantings were to assess survivorship of plantings, and assess the performance of new planting designs.

APPENDIX 2



All Year 3 planting designs continued to use the plot-based approach outlined in Section 2.1.2. Key objectives of Year 3 plantings were: 1) continue to observe the influence of donor source population on plant growth and survivorship, 2) determine the extent that plant protection (caging) was necessary, 3) determine if trimming plantings promoted growth and survivorship of plugs, and 4) simplify planting designs in order to reduce planning and planting effort. In 2014, a minimum of four sources were planted at every site. Sites were planted using three different planting strategies. At sites with high survivorship, planting designs were simplified to reduce overall planning and implementation effort. At these sites, only half of all plantings were caged. To increase efficiency in planting and monitoring effort, single source population planting blocks were also tested. As stated above, after two growing seasons, plots grew together and it was impossible to track donor source populations in planting designs that contained multiple source populations. The single source population planting design will allow for the continued monitoring of source population differences over longer time periods. A second strategy was used at four new planting sites. At these sites, plantings were distributed in all observed suitable habitat types to increase the chance of survivorship. A higher proportion of plantings at these sites were caged due to unknown risk of herbivory. A third planting strategy was used at sites planted previously with low survivorship. At these sites, all suitable habitat types were also planted and included low marsh plain partly vegetated with perennial pickleweed, shorelines, and salt pannes. In addition, more labor intensive caging techniques (i.e., plastic mesh) were used at these sites. As in previous years, each planting design was planted at a minimum of two sites with all plots in all blocks randomized and planted in close proximity to each other (i.e., randomized block design).


A subset of Year 3 plantings at sites were monitored in the summer of 2014 with roughly 85 percent of plots monitored. Table 5 shows the percentage of plots monitored at each site. For each monitored plot the following data was collected: the plot status (alive or dead), number of surviving plugs (out of 5), total number of live stems (culms), height (in centimeters) of the tallest stem in each plug, and the number of inflorescences produced.

2.4.3 Statistical Approach

Unless otherwise noted, data on the number of plugs surviving, flowers produced, and tillers counted were modeled with a zero-inflated Poisson distribution. Data on maximum and average culm heights as well as culm width were modeled assuming normal distribution of data. A generalized linear modeling approach was used for stem and plug survivorship and the model with the lowest AIC value was accepted. A binary logit regression modeling approach was used for plot survivorship and the model with the lowest AIC value was accepted. When significant differences were found in models, post-hoc comparisons were used to identify differences. All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP analytical software. An alpha level of 0.05 was considered significant. All graphs, unless otherwise noted, were constructed using 95% confidence intervals.

2.4.4 Overall Survivorship and Growth Rate

Aggregating all sites, the mean survivorship of plugs was 31.4%, which was lower than the first year survivorship for either Year 1 or Year 2 plantings. Two of our new sites, Triangle Marsh and Mt Eden Creek Marsh had the highest rates of survivorship with 56.7% and 59% respectively. North Creek Marsh was once again a strong performer with 51.7% of planted plugs surviving. Aggregating all sites, plot-level survivorship was 63.2%.

APPENDIX 2


Table 5 Summarized results of monitoring Year 3 S. foliosa by site

Site Name ISP Subarea

Code Date

Monitored Percent

Monitored Alive Plots (%) Alive Plugs (%)

Mean Number of Stems per

Plug

Alameda Flood Control Channel (AFCC)

01a, b & c 9/23/2014

and 12/8/2014

91 67.4 30.1 8.6

Cargill Mitigation (CARG)

13f 10/27/2014

and 11/5/2014

100 29.5 10.0 2.8

Cogswell A (COGA) 20m 11/5/2014 74 70 32.8 6.0

Mt Eden Creek “Demonstration” Marsh (DEMO)

13l & m 8/26/2014 99 93.2 59.0 21.6

Elsie Roemer (ELRO) 17a 11/4/2014 83 85.6 44.9 18.9

HARD Marsh (HARD)

20s 9/8/2014

and 9/19/2014

95 78.7 44.4 17.6

Mt Eden Creek (MTEC)

13j 7/22/2014 67 79.5 31.2 3.4


13k 9/10/2014

and 9/24/2014

90 92.4 51.7 32.6

AFCC Pond 3 (PND3)

01f 9/23/2014 70 3.0 1.2 0.2

Triangle Marsh (TRMA)

20w 8/14/2014 91 92.8 56.6 24.1

Whale's Tail North (WTNO)

13d 10/30/2014 95 14.1 5.1 1.1

Whale's Tail South (WTSO)

13e 8/1/2014 94 32 11.2 1.3

Totals

63.2%

(weighted) 31.4

(weighted) 11.9

Due to the fact that plots were monitored less optimally at several sites as described above in Section 2.1.4, plot-level survivorship may be a better predictor of overall survivorship. Table 5 and Figure 11 show overall plug survivorship for Year 3 plantings. Previous monitoring has showed that comparing the number of stems at installation with the number present after a growing season has been a good predictor of plot persistence. Figure 12 shows that HARD Marsh, Elsie Roemer, North Creek Marsh, and Triangle Marsh all increased in number of stems (Figure 12).

Two sites had unexpected survivorship results for 2014, Alameda Flood Control Channel and Elsie Roemer. Alameda Flood Channel, previously the highest performing site, had the lower survivorship this year. This may be because only half of the blocks at the site were caged or because the blocks were installed at slightly lower elevations than in previous years. In addition, this site was the first site

APPENDIX 2


where data was collected during monitoring and may not have yet reached peak growth. Data from a revisit to part of the site later during monitoring, indicated an increase in plug number and stem number. These data indicate that July may be too early to monitor for survivorship. Elsie Roemer, a previously poor performer had higher survivorship this year. However, during monitoring in November 2014, a large algal bloom was observed at this site and field observation noted plant mortality. A decline in Elsie Roemer survivorship may be observed due to algal blooms at this site during future monitoring.

To help inform future planting decisions, regression analysis was conducted to determine which factors that were manipulated or recorded had a significant effect on S. foliosa stem number (generalized linear regression). The resulting best fit model included site, habitat type, caging, presence of vegetation, and donor source population (Alviso Slough, Starkweather Marsh, and Coyote Creek). Factors that were not found to be informative for S. foliosa survivorship included substrate and initial stem height. As some treatments were only applied at a few sites, these were not included in the analysis (i.e., caging type, trimming, and the effect of absolute elevation).

2.4.5 Habitat Type

Planting blocks were installed in six different habitat types at twelve different sites in Year 3. Habitat type was highly correlated with site, with each site only having two to four of the habitat types. Habitat type was found to be a significant predictor of survivorship (Kruskal-Wallis p<0.001). Two habitat types (channels over six meters and shoreline habitats) had significantly lower survivorship than the other three defined habitat types. Figure 13 shows plug survivorship by habitat type. Percent cover of other vegetation present in planting blocks and species type was also monitored. Figure 14 shows the effect on plug stem number of other vegetation present in plots of different vegetation cover classes. As the amount of other vegetation increased in plots, the number of stems decreased. The type of vegetation did not have an influence, however, this may be due to the low sample size for plots that were planted with species other than perennial pickleweed.

Figure 11. Plug survivorship of Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa by site in 2014. Site was a predictor of plug survivorship (Kruskal Wallace p<.001). See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Site Name

APPENDIX 2


Figure 12. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa growth of stems by site in 2014. This growth rate was measured at plots with living plant material. North Creek Marsh, HARD, Triangle, and Mt Eden Creek Marsh all showed statistically significant increases in stem number. (Mann-Whitney U, p<.001). See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

AFCC

CARG

COGA

DEMO

ELRO

HARD

MTEC

NCMA

PND3

TRMA

WTNO

WTSO

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Total Stem Number

Install Stem Count (Mean)Monitoring Stem Count (Mean)

APPENDIX 2


Figure 13. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by habitat type in 2014. Lower survivorship on large channels occurred primarily at AFCC. This site previously had the highest survivorship. Marsh plain plantings had the highest variability in survivorship of all habitat types.

Figure 14. Effect of cover classes of vegetation on stem number of Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa in 2014. Plots with over 20% vegetation are significantly different from plots with 0% vegetation.

APPENDIX 2


2.4.6 Donor Source Population

For Year 3 plantings, S. foliosa source population material from eight donor populations was outplanted, and a maximum number of four sources were outplanted at a given site. Source population material was collected from geographically distinct areas within the estuary with three of the donor source populations from the far South Bay (Alviso Slough, Coyote Creek, and Permanente Creek), three from isolated pocket marshes in the Central Bay (Seminary Marsh, Starkweather Marsh, and Golden Gate Fields), and two from the far North Bay (Port Sonoma Marina and Napa River). Differences in survivorship for source populations were compared separately for high performing sites (those with survivorship greater than 40%) and lower performing sites (less than 40% separately). Figure 15 shows plug survivorship by source population at high performing sites.

2.4.7 Caging

Rope caging to protect S. foliosa plugs was found previously to have a significant positive effect on survivorship. For Year 2 plantings, as caging had been found to have a positive effect on survivorship, several sites where herbivory was expected to occur were completely caged. As a result, the effect of caging could only be tested at a subset of sites during Year 2 (i.e., where both caged and uncaged plots could be compared). For Year 3 plantings, almost all sites had caged and uncaged plots and the effect

Figure 15. Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by donor source at high performing sites in 2014. Sonoma had the highest survivorship in Year 3 plantings. However, this may have been driven by performance at Mt Eden Creek Marsh. Each error bar was constructed using a 95% confidence interval of the mean.

APPENDIX 2


of rope caging or plastic mesh caging on planting success was compared. Site-specific effects of caging as well as an interaction between caging and the relative ground cover that plots were installed into were detected. Blocks installed on open, non-vegetated mudflats had significantly higher survivorship when caged. Conversely, plots that were caged in vegetated areas had less of an effect on survivorship, and planting in highly vegetated areas resulted in lower overall survivorship. Figure 16 shows the effect of caging on survivorship by percent cover of vegetation present in plots and Figure 17 shows the effect of caging on survivorship by site. The two sites (Mt Eden Creek Marsh and Triangle Marsh) where all blocks were caged had the highest survivorship and were not included in this analysis. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests found caging had a strong influence on survivorship at Elsie Roemer and HARD Marsh (p <.001). The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallace test was run to look at the interaction between caging and habitat type. A post-hoc Mann-Whitney U test detected a significant relationship between caging and presence of other vegetation in planting blocks (no vegetation present) (p<.001).

0

10

20

30

40

50

0% <5% 5-20% >20%

Cover Class (% veg)

Caged

CagedUncaged

Figure 16. Effect of caging on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by percent cover of vegetation within the planting plot in 2014. The interaction between caging and the amount of existing vegetation was found to be a significant predictor of plug survivorship.

APPENDIX 2


2.4.8 Trimming

In Year 3, plant leaves were trimmed at the time of plug installation in several habitat types at four sites as an additional method to minimize herbivory and reduce transplant shock (i.e., half of the plots were trimmed). Trimming was tested based on two ideas: 1) herbivory could be minimized by reducing the amount of visible green on newly planted plugs, and 2) transplant shock could be reduced by redirecting resources to the roots from the leaves. Trimming was not found to have an effect on survivorship, even when interactions of site, source, and caging were modeled. Figure 18 shows this result demonstrated by site.

2.4.9 Direct Transplants

Previously for Year 1 plantings, cordgrass plugs were collected from two donor source populations (Golden Gate Fields and Port Sonoma Marina) and directly planted at revegetation sites and caged. Survivorship for these direct transplants was compared with plugs from the same source populations that were planted into nursery beds and cultivated for five to seven months before outplanting. After one growing season, monitoring results showed that the nursery-propagated plants had higher overall survivorship than the directly transplanted plugs from either source population. In Year 3, a small number of direct transplants along with nursery-propagated plugs were installed at one site and during 2014 monitoring, after one growing season, the opposite trend was found with the direct transplants

Figure 17. Effect of caging on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by site. Caging was found to be a significant predictor of survivorship at HARD, Whale’s Tail North, and Elsie Roemer. Each error bar was constructed using a 95% confidence interval of the mean. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


surviving better than the nursery-propagated plugs (n=5 replicates, Figure 19). As there were different results for different planting years for direct transplant as compared to nursery-propagated plug survivorship, this will continue to be tested if possible.

2.5 SUMMARY

A summary of results from 2014 monitoring is listed below by planting year:

1) All Years:

a) Site and planting location or habitat type within a site continue to be the most important predictors of cordgrass planting success. Cordgrass planted on uniform, wide mudflats continues to have the highest survivorship for all years. For Year 3 plantings, salt pan habitat, a new habitat type, also had better survivorship than other habitat types, and marsh plain habitat had the highest variability in survivorship. Bayfront or shoreline habitat had higher survivorship than other habitat types at two low performing sites: Whales Tail North and Whale’s Tail South.

b) Growth and expansion of plantings, both laterally and in elevation, has been observed during all three years of monitoring. For Year 1 plantings, after three growing seasons, not only have individual plugs grown together but the plots in planting blocks have grown together making the basic planting unit of the plot (i.e., five plugs from the same source population) no longer distinguishable. To account for the expansion of plantings, a new method of monitoring at the planting block level was developed for 2014. For Year 2 plantings, after two growing seasons, individual plugs have grown together and monitoring of survivorship was conducted at both the

Figure 18. Effect of trimming on Year 3 (2013-2014) S. foliosa survivorship by site in 2014. See Appendix 1 for a list of sites names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


individual plug level and at the plot-level. Monitoring results show that a substantial amount of native cordgrass has been established at sites and that those plots continue to expand laterally each year.

c) Caging continues to improve survivorship at most marshes. Year 1 planting blocks that were protected using rope cages at North Creek Marsh contained more S. foliosa (measured as net area) during 2014 monitoring, after three growing seasons, than uncaged blocks. In addition, Year 2 caged plots (rope caging) also survived better than uncaged plots after two growing seasons. For Year 3 plantings, caging was found to be less important when plantings were installed in blocks that contained other marsh vegetation. Plastic mesh caging was beneficial at sites with high potential for erosion or wave action, but appears to have decreased benefit after one growing season possibly due to shading of the plants.

d) Donor source population was found to be a strong driver of both survivorship and growth rate (based on stem counts). As donor sources were found to perform differently, multiple donor sources will continue to be used at each site and a minimum of three donor sources will be used when evaluating treatments. Source population makes a difference in survivorship.

Figure 19. Difference in survivorship by source type (nursery or direct transplant) at Mt Eden Creek Marsh. Each error bar is constructed using a 95% confidence interval of the mean. Direct transplants from Port Sonoma Marina were found to be significantly different from Golden Gate.

APPENDIX 2


e) Newly colonizing native Spartina was observed in areas not planted by ISP at two sites, Alameda Flood Control Channel and North Creek Marsh in 2014. These sites do not have local sources for S. foliosa indicating that, as planned, ISP plantings are producing viable propagules that will help to populate other areas of these marshes.

2) Year 1 (2011-2012) Plantings: After three growing seasons, the total area of surviving planted S. foliosa was over 1,300 meters squared. Net cover of S. foliosa (calculated as area of cordgrass multiplied by ocular cover) was roughly 350 meters squared.

3) Year 2 (2012-2013) Plantings:

a) Mean survivorship of plugs from Year 2 plantings monitored in 2014 was 30.4% which was a slight decline from the previous year’s survivorship of 35.7%. Aggregating all sites, mean survivorship of Year 2 plantings at the plot level in 2014 was 57.1%, a decline from 66% persistence in 2013.

b) Rapid lateral expansion of Year 2 plantings was observed during fall 2014 monitoring. For the subset of plots monitored in 2014, the total stem number increased from approximately 27,000 stems counted during installation to 74,000 stems, a nearly threefold increase. Note that this stem total underestimates the total number of stems present as only a subset of plots were monitored in 2014 due to time constraints.

4) Year 3 (2013-14) Plantings:

a) Mean survivorship of plugs from Year 3 plantings monitored in 2014 was 31.4%, which was lower than the first year survivorship for either Year 1 or Year 2 plantings. Aggregating all sites, plot-level survivorship was 63.2%.

b) Survivorship of donor source populations continued to be variable. At high performing sites (sites with greater than 40% overall survivorship), all source populations had at least 20% survivorship with Port Sonoma surviving the best.

c) The planting method of trimming did not have an effect on outplanting success and this method is not recommended for use in the future.

APPENDIX 2


3.0 GRINDELIA STRICTA

3.1 OVERVIEW

In the fall of 2014, monitoring was conducted on Grindelia stricta plantings from Year 1 (those installed in the winter of 2011-2012), Year 2 (installed 2012-2013) and Year 3 (installed 2013-2014). For each installation year, overall G. stricta survivorship or number of plants per plot was monitored. Overall survivorship is presented both by year and by site. Additionally, we had several treatments designed to improve G. stricta survivorship and maximize the growth of plantings to rapidly enhance habitat that can be used by Ridgway’s rail. The results of monitoring these treatments will be used to inform adaptive management strategies going forward.

3.1.1 Data Collection and Analysis

ISP staff members mapped and monitored planting patches using handheld mapping grade GPS units (Trimble Yuma 2). Data were collected in customized forms in ArcPad. Quality control was performed in ArcGIS 9.3. All analyses were conducted using R and graphs were made using R with the ggplot2 package (R Core Team 2013). All error bars in graphs represent 95% confidence intervals.



The Year 1 planting design for G. stricta patches included ten plants in two rows, each row containing five plants. Along each row plants were planted 1.0 meter apart from one another and the two rows were 0.25 meters apart from one another. Plants were planted into two zones: the marsh plain, where plantings were along the edges of channels to provide roosting, nesting and high tide refuge habitat for Ridgway’s rail, and on mounds or berms that are areas of higher ground that are less frequently inundated that could provide refuge for Ridgway’s rail during both normal high tide and extreme high tide events. For marsh plain planting patches, the row of plants that was closer to the channel was referred to as the inner row and for patches installed on higher elevation mounds and berms the row of plants that was lower in elevation was referred to as the inner row. During Year 1, the inner row of all marsh plain patches was 0.25 – 0.5 meters from the channel edge and the outer row was planted 0.25 meters further from the inner row. For patches installed on mounds and berms, the inner row was at a lower elevation and the outer row was the row at a higher elevation. ISP staff selected the patch location by choosing an appropriate elevation for the lower, inner row that was planted with G. stricta, based on their knowledge of G. stricta planting requirements. The outer, higher row was placed 0.5 meters from the inner row. Three pot sizes were planted in Year 1: “stubby” pots that contain 7 cubic inches of soil, Deepot 16 (D16) pots that contain 16 cubic inches, and gallon pots that contain 180 cubic inches.


In the fall of 2014 during monitoring, ISP staff observed that Year 1 patches, with three growing seasons and associated seed production, were now difficult to assess for survivorship. Staff found it difficult to determine whether an individual G. stricta plant was installed during Year 1 or if it was a new recruit that had established from seed. As a result, the monitoring method for 2014 changed from counting survivorship of the installed plants to counting the total number of G. stricta plants within each plot. This also allowed the program to take credit for some of the plants that have recruited from

APPENDIX 2


seed produced by previously installed plants. In addition, at each plot, the height and width of every G. stricta plant was measured at the highest or widest point of each plant using a meter stick. Height and width were both recorded in binned increments. Bins were in increments of 5 centimeters when height or width was under 10 cm and in increments of 10 centimeters when heights were over 10 cm (e.g., <5 cm, 5-10 cm, 11-20 cm, 21-30 cm). From these measurements, volume of each plant was calculated based on each plant having a roughly cylindrical shape. Volumes were examined as both total volume per plot and volume per plant per plot. For the volume comparisons, all plots that had zero survivorship were eliminated from analysis. When making pot size comparisons, data was simplified by classifying plots into either plots that contained gallons or plots that did not contain gallons. Data from four sites where substantial numbers of gallons were planted during the first year were examined for pot size comparisons.

3.2.3 Monitoring Results: Number of Plants, Total Volume Per Plot, and Volume Per Plant

Overall, the mean number of G. stricta plants per plot was 2.4, the mean total volume of plots was 0.45 m3, and the mean volume per plant was 0.09 m3. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine differences among treatments. The mean number of plants per plot varied significantly by site (p<0.0001) (Figure 20 and Table 6), between a high of 5.1 at Oro Loma East and Oro Loma West to a low of 0.4 at Bair B2 North West. Per plant volume varied significantly among sites (p<0.0001) (Figure 21 and Table 6) and total volume varied significantly among sites (p<0.0001) (Figure 22 and Table 6).

Figure 20. Year 1 mean number of G. stricta plants per plot by site. See Appendix 1 for a list of sites names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


Table 6 Mean number of plants per plot, mean volume per plot, and mean volume per plant of Year 1 G. stricta monitored

Site ISP Subarea

Code Number of Plants

Per Plot Volume Per Plot

(m3) Volume Per Plant (m3) N

AFCC 01a, b & c 3.5 0.37 0.08 34

Bair B2 North West (B2NO) 02c.1 0.4 0.14 0.05 46

Cogswell A (COGA) 20m 4.3 0.72 0.12 119

Cogswell C (COGC) 20o 4.7 0.75 0.12 45

Greco Island (GRIS) 02f 1.0 0.18 0.04 155

Mt. Eden Creek (MTEC) 13j 3.0 0.42 0.06 28

North Creek Marsh (NCMA) 13k 2.7 0.69 0.08 32

Old Alameda Creek (OACR) 13b 0.6 0.12 0.03 30

Oro Loma East (ORLE) 07a 5.1 1.35 0.26 14

Oro Loma West (ORLW) 07b 5.1 0.89 0.12 19

Whale’s Tail North (WTNO) 13d 2.5 0.19 0.05 85

Whale’s Tail South (WTSO) 13e 1.6 0.19 0.06 149

Overall 2.4 0.45 0.09 427

Figure 21. Year 1 G. stricta mean volume per plot by site.

APPENDIX 2


Figure 22. Year 1 mean volume per G. stricta plant per plot by site.

3.2.4 Effect of Pot Size

Pot size had a significant effect on survivorship of Year 1 G. stricta during the first year of monitoring. However, looking at the patches that have survived three growing seasons, pot size does not appear to have an effect. When conducting a two way ANOVA with site and pot size as factors, there was no statistically significant effect of pot size on number of plants per plot (p=0.297) (Figure 23), per plant volume per plot (p=0.66) (Figure 24), or total plant volume per plot (p=0.956). When comparing the effect of pot size for each site individually, there was no significant effect of pot size on number of plants or volume found in any site.



The planting design for Year 2 was very similar to the Year 1 design described above with G. stricta planted in patches of ten plants. The main difference for marsh plain patches was to allow the distance from the channel edge where the inner row plants were installed to increase from 0.25 meters to 0.5 meters or more based on local site conditions. Observations from monitoring had noted that the inner row of plants installed in the previous year were eroding at some sites. The majority of G. stricta planted during Year 2 were salt hardened. However, to test the efficacy of salt hardening in improving survivorship, at sections of Bunker Marsh, North Marsh, Greco Marsh, and Cogswell B, non-salt hardened plants were planted in the marsh plain. In these sections, pairs of salt-hardened and non-salt hardened plots were planted in an alternating pattern to make certain that they were evenly distributed spatially. Caging was tested as a means of deterring herbivory for some of the berm plantings which were installed during Year 2. Caging was found to have little effect on survivorship during the 2013 monitoring season and cages were all removed during 2013.Two pot sizes were planted in Year 2: Deepot 40 (D40) pots that contain 40 cubic inches of soil and gallon pots that contain 180 cubic inches. Most patches included 10 D40 pots. Patches that included gallon pots had five D40 pots in one

APPENDIX 2


Figure 24. Year 1 mean volume per G. stricta plant per plot by pot size and by site. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

Figure 23. Year 1 mean number of G. stricta plants per plot by pot size and by site. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


row and five gallon pots in the other row. In order to control for any effect of row placement on survivorship, the gallon row and the D40 row switched from inner to outer in adjacent patches.


Year 2 patches were initially monitored by simply counting the number of plants surviving within each plot. During the second year of monitoring in 2014, it was no longer possible to tell which row any individual plant had been planted in, so plants from both the inner and outer rows were lumped together. The 2014 survivorship monitoring data was compared to the 2013 survivorship monitoring data (Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2013).

3.3.3 Monitoring Results

Overall mean survivorship of Year 2 plantings during the 2014 monitoring season was 45.1%. Although this represented a decline of 9.5% from the previous year’s 54.6% survivorship, survivorship was still higher than the target survivorship of 40%. Based on the result of a Kruskal-Wallis test, site had a significant effect on change in survivorship (p<0.0001). Survivorship by site is presented in Table 7 and Figure 25. At Damon Marsh, an apparent increase in survivorship from 2013 monitoring to 2014 monitoring was observed. This was likely due to the recruitment of seedlings between 2013 and 2014 that were counted during the 2014 monitoring. These seedlings may have recruited from seeds produced by the previous year’s plantings or from existing G. stricta that was present in other areas of this site.

Figure 25. Year 2 G. stricta mean survivorship in 2013 and 2014 by site. Bars overlap one another, with the bar representing 2013 survivorship behind the bar representing 2014 survivorship. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


Table 7 Year 2 G. stricta mean Year 2 survivorship, mean Year 3 survivorship, and change in survivorship from Year 2 to 3 by site

Site

ISP Subarea Code

Year 2 Mean Survivorship

(%)

Year 3 Mean Survivorship

(%)

Change in Survivorship (%)

2013-2014

AFCC 01a, b & c 76.3 59.8 -16.5

AFCC Pond 3 (PND3) 01f 75.0 65.6 -9.4

Bair B2 North West (B2NO) 02c.1 61.0 54.7 -6.3

Bunker (BUNK) 20g 55.9 54.0 -1.9

Cargill (CAMM) 13f 77.7 44.0 -33.7

Citation (CITA) 20d 85.8 69.6 -16.2

Cogswell A (COGA) 20m 64.5 58.9 -5.6

Cogswell B (COGB) 20n 56.4 43.2 -13.2

Cogswell C (COGC) 20o 55.1 40.7 -14.4

Damon Marsh (DAMO) 17d.4 10.2 21.9 +11.7

Greco Island (GRIS) 02f 30.0 26.7 -3.3

MLK Restoration (MLKR) 17h 6.8 0 -6.8

Mt. Eden Creek (MTEC) 13j 69.3 41.4 -27.9

North Creek Marsh (NCMA) 13k 33.8 23.0 -10.8

North Marsh (NOMA) 20f 10.2 5.0 -5.2

Oro Loma East (ORLE) 07a 78.1 61.2 -16.9

Oro Loma West (ORLW) 07b 49.8 45.8 -4.0

San Lorenzo Creek Mouth (SLCR) 20h.1 85.0 64.5 -20.5

Whale's Tail North (WTNO) 13d 82.7 60.4 -22.3

Whale's Tail South (WTSO) 13e 75.6 44.5 -31.1

Overall 54.6 45.1 -9.5



The Year 3 G. stricta planting design increased the density of plantings from 10 to 20 plants per patch. In each patch, twenty G. stricta plants were installed in two rows of ten. The distance between rows remained at 0.5 meters but the distance between plants within each row decreased from 1.0 to 0.5 meters. Similar to previous year’s designs, the position of the inner row of each patch was selected by ISP biologists based on co-occurring vegetation, channel morphology, and approximate elevation. Three pot sizes were planted during Year 3: D40s, gallons, and TB4s (Treeband 4 pot with 160 cubic inches of soil). TB4s were tested as an alternative to gallon pots in Year 3 and replaced gallons in patches at selected sites. As in Year 2, most patches included only D40 pots. In patches that included gallons (or TB4s), 10 gallons/TB4s were planted in one row and 10 D40s in the other row. A portion of D40s were salt hardened and these salt hardened plants were distributed to ten different marshes. In

APPENDIX 2


these marshes, salt hardened D40s and non-salt hardened D40s were planted in as spatially mixed a plan as possible in order to test the effect of salt hardening on survivorship. Distichlis spicata, delivered in gallon pots, was installed along with the G. stricta in patches at some sites. During installation, two D. spicata gallon pots were installed per patch. Each of these pots was divided in half, with each half installed on opposite sides of one of the outer row G. stricta plants. Additionally, a small number of gallon-sized G. stricta pots were cultivated as “combo” pots, with two ramets of D. spicata grown in the same pot as the G. stricta.

3.4.2 Pot Size Effect

Pot sizes used for Year 3 plantings included D40s, gallons, and TB4s. Gallon-sized “combo” pots contained both a G. stricta seedling and two ramets of D. spicata, however, due to the small sample size combo pots were excluded from this analysis. Pot size was tested at nine sites where G. stricta was planted. In patches where gallons or TB4s were planted, one row (either inner or outer) was planted with gallons or TB4s and the other row was planted with D40s. Therefore, patches were separated into rows for comparison. Pooling rows from all sites, we found that, as in earlier years, larger pot sizes were correlated with increased survivorship. Based on a two way ANOVA using site and pot size as factors, there was a significant difference in survivorship among pot sizes (p=0.00012). The difference was not as great as we have seen in earlier years. In the sites where pot size was tested, mean survivorship in gallon rows was 33.2%, mean survivorship in TB4 rows was 32.4% and mean survivorship in D40 rows was 28.7%. Within individual sites, statistically significant differences by pot size were observed at many sites (Figure 26). At most sites, the larger TB4 and gallon pot sizes had higher survivorship. However, at HARD Marsh and North Creek Marsh, gallons were correlated with lower survivorship than D40s. This may be due to the relatively small number of gallons which were installed at these sites, resulting in very low sample size. In addition, gallon-size pots were only

Figure 26. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site and by pot size. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


installed on the marsh plain in Year 3 at these two sites, while D40s were planted on berms as well, and it is possible that survivorship varied by planting location at these two sites.


Patches were monitored by counting the total number of surviving G. stricta plants in each row. The total number of surviving D. spicata were also counted. During 2014 monitoring, ISP staff monitored all Year 3 G. stricta patches.

3.4.4 Overall Survivorship

Aggregating all sites, overall survivorship was 33.6%. While this is slightly higher than first year survivorship of the Year One plantings (31.6%), it is considerably lower than first year survivorship of the Year 2 plantings (54.6%). While overall survivorship was under 40%, survivorship at 12 of the 22 sites where G. stricta was planted in 2013-14 exceeded the target of 40%. Survivorship by site is shown in Table 8 and Figure 27.

Table 8 Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship and sample size by site.

Site ISP Subarea Code Mean Survivorship (%) N (plots monitored)

AFCC 01a, b & c 13.9 20

AFCC Pond 3 (POND3) 01f 68.8 12

Arrowhead Marsh (ARMA) 17c 1.9 29

Bair B2 North West (B2NO) 02c.1 15.6 49

Bair B2 North - South of Boardwalk (BAIR) 02c.2 42.5 83

Bair B2 South (B2SO) 02d.3 29.6 38

Bird Island (BIRD) 02a.3 6.9 26

Bunker (BUNK) 20g 80.7 14

Cargill (CAMM) 13f 16.0 25

Citation (CITA) 20d 56.5 31

Cogswell A (COGA) 20m 11.5 48

Cogswell B (COGB) 20n 34.1 61

Cogswell C (COGC) 20o 18.3 93

Greco Island (GRIS) 02f 46.7 99

HARD Marsh (HARD) 20s 57.0 42

Mt. Eden Creek (MTEC) 13j 60.0 7

North Creek Marsh (NCMA) 13k 18.7 33

Oro Loma East (ORLE) 07a 51.7 26

Oro Loma West (ORLW) 07b 72.7 11

Triangle Marsh (TRMA) 20w 27.7 15

Whale's Tail North (WTNO) 13d 46.7 9

Whale's Tail South (WTSO) 13e 46.4 42

Overall 33.6 815

APPENDIX 2


Continued drought conditions likely lowered survivorship of Year 3 plantings. Low survivorship seen at sites with previously high survivorship like Cogswell A, B and C was likely due to planting date as this marsh complex was planted in early December prior to any rainfall. Extremely low survivorship at Arrowhead Marsh was not unexpected as previous planting efforts at that site by partner Save The Bay also documented very low survivorship. Lower marsh elevations likely contributed to lower survivorship at this site and at Bird Island.

3.4.5 Salt Hardening Effect

The effect of salt hardening on plant survivorship was tested at ten sites during Year 3. At each of these sites, salt hardened and non-salt hardened patches were installed in a manner that maximized spatial mixing of these two treatments. Pooling patches from all sites where salt hardening was tested, survivorship was found to be significantly higher in salt hardened patches than in non-salt hardened patches (p=0.02387). Overall, mean survivorship among salt hardened patches at these sites was 41.8%, as compared to 35.6% for non-salt hardened patches. Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare survivorship between salt hardened and non-salt hardened patches at individual sites. When comparing survivorship for individual sites, only three of the ten sites had significantly higher survivorship in salt hardened versus non-salt hardened patches. These sites were Bair B2 South

Figure 27. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


(p=0.02217), Cargill Mitigation Marsh (p=0.0006), and Cogswell C (p=0.0275) (Figure 28). Additionally, Bair B2 North - South of Boardwalk had non-significant but slightly higher survivorship for salt hardened plots (p=0.0601). All other sites showed no statistically significant difference in survivorship between salt hardened and not salt hardened patches. However, most of these sites had a non-significant trend toward higher survivorship in the salt hardened plots. Only one site, Bunker Marsh, had higher mean survivorship for non-salt hardened plots and this was not statistically significant.

3.4.6 Distichlis spicata survivorship

Overall mean survivorship for saltgrass (D. spicata) that was planted with G. stricta plantings was 26.0%. Survivorship varied across sites from zero survivorship at Citation Marsh and HARD Marsh to 51.5% at Cogswell A (Figure 29). For most patches, D. spicata plants were installed in the manner described above. However, at Cogswell A and Whale’s Tail South, some patches were planted with “combo” pots. At these sites, both the regular patches and “combo” patches were monitored for D. spicata survivorship. Survivorship was expressed as a percentage of ramets surviving. Differences between planting methods were evaluated using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests. While there was a trend toward higher survivorship for D. spicata planted adjacent to G. stricta at both sites, this was not statistically significant at either Cogswell A (p=0.0902) or Whale’s Tail South (p=0.5625) (Figure 30).

Figure 28. Year 3 G. stricta mean survivorship by site and by salt hardening treatment. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. See Appendix 1 for a list of site names and corresponding abbreviations.

APPENDIX 2


Figure 29. Year 3 D. spicata mean survivorship by site. Note that Citation Marsh and HARD Marsh had zero mean survivorship.

Figure 30. Year 3 D. spicata mean survivorship by site and by planting type. .

APPENDIX 2


3.5 SUMMARY

A summary of results from 2014 monitoring is listed below:

1) Overall survivorship for Year 3 marsh gumplant was slightly higher than first year survivorship of the Year 1 plantings but was considerably lower than the Year 2 plantings. This is at least partially due to continued drought conditions in California. While overall first year survivorship for Year 3 was lower than the target of 40% success, survivorship at 12 of the 22 sites exceeded the target of 40%. Sites within the Cogswell complex had significantly lower survivorship for Year 3 plantings likely due to plant installation occurring in early December before any rainfall occurred.

2) In Year 3, the effect of salt hardening on plant survivorship was more apparent with salt hardened plants surviving better. Higher salinity levels likely occurred in marshes due to the lack of seasonal flushing by rain and that may have resulted in increased transplant shock for new plants. Year 3 results indicate that salt hardening is an important tool to increase survivorship during continued drought.

3) Several sites were planted in Year 3 that had extremely low survivorship (Arrowhead Marsh, Bird Island) likely due to unsuitable site conditions (e.g., elevation too low) and these sites should be carefully considered before planting is proposed in the future.

4) For Year 1 plantings, after three growing seasons, the mean number of G. stricta plants per plot was 2.4 (out of 10 total planted), the mean total plant volume of plots was 0.45 m3, and the mean volume per plant was 0.09 m3. All three of these measurements varied significantly by site (e.g., mean number of plants per plot varied from 0.4 to 5.1 (out of 10 total planted).

5) All years of monitoring have showed that, in general, larger pot sizes survive better likely due to larger pot sizes allowing for more developed roots as well as more soil material, both of which may help decrease initial transplant shock. While pot size has a significant initial effect on survivorship, looking at the patches that have survived three growing seasons, pot size does not appear to have a continued effect as measured by several metrics. These metrics include the number of plants per plot, per plant volume per plot, and total plant volume per plot.

6) A comparison of saltgrass planting methods (i.e., gallon pot for saltgrass planted around gumplant vs. combo pots with gumplant and salt grass propagated in the same gallon pot) at two sites found that combo pots had lower survivorship, however, this result was not significant.

4. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For all revegetation plantings to date, survivorship varied significantly by site. For cordgrass plantings, planting location within the site was also an important predictor of planting success. As survivorship does vary by site and planting location within site, planting designs should continue to consider site-specific conditions when choosing planting locations. Habitat type within the site, planting elevation, substrate, potential salinity levels, local inundation, and other factors that might affect plant survivorship should be considered as much as possible.

Observation of areas where there are existing established plants at sites can aid in selecting suitable planting locations. During ground-truthing to select plant locations, it is recommended that existing vegetation continue to be used as a guide. Monitoring data collected previously indicated that elevation plays a strong role in survivorship of both S. foliosa and G. stricta, and an understanding of proper

APPENDIX 2


planting elevation at each site has the potential to greatly improve survivorship. A continuing recommendation is to collect RTK elevation data whenever possible to achieve a better understanding of the influence of elevation on survivorship across many sites. It is recommended that the collection of elevation data be prioritized at sites where target survivorship goals have not been met.

Use of caging, primarily for cordgrass plantings, should be considered for any site where herbivory might have a strong negative effect on survivorship.

4.2 SPARTINA FOLIOSA

1. Plant establishment was highest at sites with uniform mudflats and wide channel banks. Plants established at much lower rates on second order channel banks and on bayfront edges. At revegetation sites that do not have mudflats or wide channel banks, more experimentation may be needed in order to increase survivorship.

2. The donor source population for cordgrass plugs is a strong predictor of survivorship and growth rate for the first year after planting, but may become less important in following years. Long-term monitoring of blocks that have one source population (still able to monitor even as the individual plots coalesce because they are the same source) will provide data on whether this effect persists.

3. At least three source populations will be planted in all experimental treatments and multiple source populations planted at each site. It is also recommended that donor source populations continue to be tracked in order to ensure that different sources, when outplanted, achieve heights that are suitable for providing habitat that supports California Ridgway’s rail.

4. Caging remains important, but leaving plastic mesh caging in place for more than one growing season may be detrimental for plants. It is recommended that caging continue to be used at sites with high grazing pressure (typically by Canada goose).

5. Planting visibility may be important when considering caging. Caging may be most important on highly visible open mudflats and less important when planting into areas vegetated with pickleweed. Open mudflats should be prioritized for caging over other habitat types.

6. Trimming plugs during plant installation did not have an effect on outplanting success. It is recommended that this method not be employed in the future.

7. Block-level monitoring is recommended for plantings after two or more growing seasons as plots have grown together and are difficult to distinguish. For comparison, it is recommended that data should be collected at reference sites with Ridgway’s rail populations to determine if the block-level metrics are useful for measuring habitat value.

8. Monitoring for cordgrass should occur as late in the growing season as possible to capture peak biomass and stem density.

4.3 GRINDELIA STRICTA

1. Salt hardening resulted in significant increases in first year survivorship for Year 3 plantings. It is recommended that salt hardening of G. stricta plants be implemented to as great an extent as budget allows. Allocation of salt hardened plants should be prioritized for sites such as Cargill Mitigation Marsh and Cogswell C where salt hardening has been demonstrated to have a particularly strong beneficial effect on survivorship.

APPENDIX 2


2. Sites that exhibited extremely low first year survivorship for Year 3 plantings are likely not suitable for planting in future years. It is suggested that G. stricta planting at low-survivorship sites such as Arrowhead Marsh and Bird Island be discontinued.

3. Larger pot size (gallon) continues to have a significant positive effect on first year survivorship. However, data from monitoring of Year 1 plantings (after three growing seasons) suggests that this effect may not persist. It is therefore suggested that the decision to plant larger pot sizes be examined in a cost/benefit framework.

4. A limited comparison of saltgrass planting methods (i.e., gallon pot for saltgrass planted around gumplant vs. combo pots with gumplant and salt grass propagated in the same gallon pot) in Year 3 at two sites found that combo pots had lower survivorship, however, this result was not significant. As only a limited comparison was possible between the two methods, both methods of saltgrass propagation and plant delivery will be continued.

APPENDIX 2


5. REFERENCES

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2012. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA, 94612.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2013. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2012-2013 Installation Report and 2013-2014 Revegetation Plan. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA, 94612.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2014. San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2013-2014 Installation Report and 2014-2015 Revegetation Plan. Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor, Oakland, CA, 94612.

R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.

Thornton, W.T. and K.E. Boyer. 2013. How do Site, Restoration Material, and Herbivory Affect Native Pacific Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) Establishment? Poster. Prepared for 11th Biennial State of the San Francisco Estuary Conference, 29-30 October 2013.

APPENDIX 2


APPENDIX 1:

List of Site Abbreviations Used in Report

Site Abbreviation

Site Name ISP Sub-Area Marsh Complex

AFCC Alameda Flood Control Channel 01a, b & c San Francisco Bay Don Edwards NWR

ARMA Arrowhead Marsh17c

San Leandro Bay – Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline

B2NO Bair B2 North - West 02c.1 Bair Island NWR

B2SO Bair B2 South 02d.3 Bair Island NWR

BAIR Bair B2 North - South of Boardwalk 02c.2 Bair Island NWR

BIRD Bird Island 02a.3 Bair Island NWR

BUNK Bunker Marsh 20g Robert’s Landing

CAMM Cargill Mitigation Marsh 13f Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

CITA Citation Marsh 20d Robert’s Landing

COGA Cogswell A 20m Hayward Regional Shoreline

COGB Cogswell B 20n Hayward Regional Shoreline

COGC Cogswell C 20o Hayward Regional Shoreline

DAMO Damon Marsh17d.4

San Leandro Bay – Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline

DEMO Mt Eden Creek Marsh 13l & m Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

ELRO Elsie Roemer 17a San Leandro Bay – Elsie Roemer Bird Sanctuary

GRIS Greco Island North 02f Bair Island NWR

HARD HARD Marsh 20s Hayward Regional Shoreline

MLKR MLK Restoration Marsh 17h

San Leandro Bay - Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline

MTEC Mt. Eden Creek 13j Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

NCMA North Creek Marsh 13k Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

NOMA North Marsh 20f Robert’s Landing

OACR Old Alameda Creek 13b Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

ORLE Oro Loma East 07a Hayward Regional Shoreline

ORLW Oro Loma West 07b Hayward Regional Shoreline

PND3 AFCC Pond 3 01f San Francisco Bay Don Edwards NWR

SLCR San Lorenzo Creek Mouth 20h.1 Robert’s Landing

TRMA Triangle Marsh 20w Hayward Regional Shoreline

WTNO Whale's Tail North 13d Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

WTSO Whale's Tail South 13e Eden Landing Ecological Reserve

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3:

ISP Revegetation Program

Map of Spartina foliosa Source Populations

APPENDIX 3

Page 1

Map of Spartina foliosa Source Populations

S F E I S P Revegetation Program - Spartina · 1/26/2016 · Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation...

Documents

Transcript of S F E I S P Revegetation Program - Spartina · 1/26/2016 · Year 5 (2015‐2016) Revegetation...