Windstar mangrove mitigation site final progress report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

WINDSTAR MANGROVE MITIGATION SITE

FINAL PROGRESS REPORT

Principal Authors

Dr. Edward Proffitt
Director. Florida Regional Office
Center for Marine Conservation

and

Ms. Donna J. Devlin
Marine Ecologist, Collier County Government and
Adjunct staff, Center for Marine Conservation

Date: January 1990

Funds for this project were provided by the Department of
Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Manaaement usino
funds made available throuQh the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration under the Coastal Zone Mananement- Act of 1-772, as
amended.

E C UT V F S L I M MA RY

FINAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (DER), OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT, ON
THE INVESTIGATION OF MANGROVE FOREST HABITATS THAT HAVE BEEN
CREATED THROUGH MITIGATION.

OBJECTIVE: To provide DER with a final progress report on the
investigation of mangrove forest communities that have been
created through mitigation at Windstar Resort, an Naples Bay, in
Collier County, Florida.

CONSIDERATIONS:

On 01 January, 19e9, research was initiated on a comparative
study of mangrove forest communities at Windstar Resort, on
Naples Bay; this study was designed as part of an ongoing Coastal
Zone Management (C2M) coastal management plan for Collier County.
The study is designed to compare naturally occurring mangrove
habitat with artificially created (planted) mangrove systems; the
artificially produced forests were planted by the Windstar
Development as mitigation for destruction of habitat during
development. The purpose of the research is to obtain data that
will contribute to the understanding of the productivity,
viability, and practicality of prescribed mitigation efforts in
two fundamental areas: 1) the rate of survival and growth of the
mangroves that were originally planted seven years before the
start of the study; 2) colonization by other plant species in the
mitigation sites, and the implications that this may have on
succession in mitigated areas. The attached report is a synapsis
of work, compiled from the previous 12 months, on the Coastal
Zone Management mangrove mitigation research study that has been
contracted by Collier County to the Center for Environmental
Education, Edison Community College, and Friends of Rookery Bay.

The study compares mitigated forest sites to existing natural
areas by collecting and measuring mangrove leaf litter, stem tip
growth rates, Soil salinity, and macro-invertebrate species
composition through the duration of the study. Three pr.incipal
components that are measured are: 1) extension growth of mangrove
stems and production of leaf litter; 2) numbers of.replanted and
naturally colonizing new mangroves; 3) species composition and
numbers of individuals of macro-invertebrates associated with
each site. Permanent study stations have been established in the
interior of the replanted areas and in the naturally occurring
mangrove forest, so that data may be collected at the same
locations in the future. Additional data have been gathered on
the amounts of herbivory Orl leaves, abundances of marine macro-
fauna, abundances of seagrasses, soil salinities, mangrove
species composition within and outside of the MitigatiOT-1 SiteS7

and Mary other related observations in and around the study

The project has been designed and study areas have been set up,
so that the study may be continued over a long period of time.
Sample areas and individual trees have been identified so that
investigators will be able to return to the same Sample sites,
and measurements may be repeated on the same individual tree
branches in the future. Comparisons and continuous measurement of
individual trees, and their Surroundings, will be possible during
future studies of the mitigation sites, and their surrounding
natural forest systems.

Funds for this project were provided by the Department of
Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management using
funds made available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people contributed to making this study possible. Mr.
James N. Burch acted as liaison between Collier County and the
principal investigators, provided field support (personally and
other County staff), arranged for use of the County helicopter an
two occasions, designed and constructed litter collecting boxes
used in this study, provided expertisein plant identification
and spent many hours collecting and measuring length, width, and
area of leaves. Dr. Robert Twilley and Ms. Heather Warner of
Southwestern Louisiana State University spent a considerable
amount of time an the phone and on site (Ms. Warner) teaching us
the techniques that they used to mark and measure mangrove stems,
and generally discussing with us the sites, project, and data.
Field assistance was provided by Mr. Keith Edwards, Ms. Kathryn
Muldoon, Ms. Heidi B. Lovett, Ms. Maura Kraus, and Mr. Steven
Grabe. Mr. Grabe and Ms. Muldoon also helped identify certian
invertebrate taxa collected. Mr. David Crewz of the Florida
Marine Research Institute and Mr. James Beever of the Department
of Natural Resources Pine Island Aquatic Preserve engaged in
numerous useful and informative discussions with us regarding
this project and the general topics of mangrove biology and
mitigation. Drs. Samuel Snedaker and Eric Heald also provided
insights regarding mangrove ecology during valuable discussions.
Collier County Forester, Mr. Chris Anderson, provided insight on
tree biology and forestry techniques, and allowed us to use
equipment as needed. Dr. Kris Thoemke of the'Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, permitted us to use the drying oven
and mettler balances in his facility. Mr. Geo+fery Churchill of
Mangrove Systems, Inc. (now Proctor and Redfern) and various
members of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided needed
information regarding' site preparation and the planting. Most
importantly, in a spirit of true cooperation between developers
and the conservation community, Mr. Bernard Johnson and Mr. Jack
Mac'Kie of Windstar an Naples Bay graciously allowed use of
mitigation sites in this development for the studies. The project
was funded by a grant from the Department of Environmental
Regulation to Collier County.

INTRODUCTION

As coastal wetlands continue to.decline due to encroaching
civilization, pollution, and possibly rising sea level, concern
for their protection concomitantly increases. In addition, as the
human population of Florida swells, and with most wanting to live
near the coast, the pressure mounts for. increased development
in,, and various other consumptive uses of, coastal wetlands.

Florida has 6,884,900 acres of coastal wetlands of which
1,405,600 are salt marsh, 254,200 are fresh water marsh, and
5,032,100 are "forested scrub-shrub" type dominated primarily by
mangroves in estuarine areas and cypress and willow in freshwater
sites (Reyer et al. 1988). Other states in the Gulf of Mexico
have considerably fewer coastal wetland (acreages are: Louisiana
- 3,345,900; Texas - 1,662,500; Alabama - 1,071,600; and
Mississippi - 719,700) (Reyer et al. 1988). Of the forested
coastal wetland systems, mangroves occupy an estimated 430,000 to
500,000 acres in south Florida (Odum et al. 1982). These, and
other. coastal and estuarine habitats ranging from salinas (salt
barrens) to sea grasses, provide myriad 'ecological benefits
including habitat for thousands of animal species, biological
productivity for numerous fishery populations, coastal
stabilization, and protection of upland ecosystems from storm
surge (Heald 1969, Lugo and Snedaker 1974, Odum 1979, Odum and
Heald 1972, Thayer et al. 1987, Tomlinson 1986).

In response to the pressure to allow more and more use of
wetlands, federal, state, and local governmental agencies charged
with protection of wetlands have had to address two complex and
provocative questions. First, can the functions of naturally
occurring wetlands be replaced once destroyed by creating new
wetlands? Second, should other procedures, for example, removal
of noxious exotic plant species, providing conservation easements
or deeds to wetlands not targeted for destruction,. or re-
establishing "historic" hydrological regimes to drained wetlands,
be allowed as alternative forms of mitigating the negative
effects of wetland loss? This became even more of a focal point
for environmental regulators when the President of the United
States promised that there would be a "no net wetland loss"
policy.

In recent- years concern has increased as to whether
restoration mitigation typically re-establishes all-lost wetland
ecological functions, or if projects often simply providle a
"garden" of wetland plant species of limited overall* ecological
value. Although opinions abound on both sides of the question,
few detailed studies exist to provide the data necessary to
properly formulate an objective answer. Recent publications have
documented the status of knowledge (Kusler and Kentula 1989 a,b)
and there is some substantive work currently being conducted. For
example, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Marine Research Institute'. in conjunction with Lewis
Environmental 'Services, Inc., have conducted a survey of many

mitigation sites of varying age and Species Composition. The
results of this study are currently being reviewed and analyzed
by the DNR. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of
Mexico Habitat Evaluation Task Force is surveying wetlands Gulf-
wide. The results of this study will be available around April
1990. The National Marine Fisheries Service has on-going projects
addressing fish utilization of restored and natural marshes and
sea grass restoration.

We have taken a different approach than many of the agency
studies. Instead of surveying a broad spectrum of mitigation
projects, we chose to focus more in-depth work in one mangrove
mitigation project. Our studies are designed to quantitatively
assess the following primary questions: (1) How well did the
Driginally-planted mangroves survive and grow over the seven
years since they were planted; (2) What other plant species have
colonized the sites, and what implications might this have an
successional patterns?

We have also gathered quantitative data on the amount of
herbivory on leaves, the abundance of marine macrofaunal
invertebrates living in the sites, litterfall, the occurrence of
cocoons and caterpillars Pn mangrove leaves, and the species
composition of the natural mangrove forest that surrounds the
mitigation sites, and sail salinities. Also, we have made
qualitative field observations on use of the areas by wading
birds, raptors, raccoons, spiders, and fish. The results of these
studies and observations will be included in a series of reports
on this project.

Our project plats have been set up and marked in such a
manner as.to allow us, or any other scientist, to conduct similar
studies in exactly the same area, and even on many of the same
individual plants, in the future. Although funding -for this
project was provided for only one year, we envision this as a
long-term study to evaluate the growth and successional patterns
occurring in the site over the course of the development of this
plant assemblage. The lead organization in this studylthe Center
for Marine Conservation, is committed to the study in order to
provide data for the development of a model-for use by agencies
in mangrove wetland policy decisions.

Considerable data on various features of both the mitigation
sites and their surrounding natural forest have been gathered.
These data will be presented in a series of reports. Here,,- the
project history is documented, the study sites and surrounding
,natural forest described, and the studies outlined.

PROJECT HISTORY

The development, Windstar on Naples Bay, is a golf course
community encompassing some 400 acres on the eastern shores of
Naples Bay, in Collier County, Florida. The developer proposed to

C- T t c=M 1 NTRr"'. Fr--"'-

"recontour" existing tidal wetlands during the cr-eat-i-on----of the- -
golf course. This resulted in the filling of 5.5 acres of
wetlands allowed in Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation permit number 11-45104 (issued March 23, 1?82, under
the project name "Whispering Pines" expired February 30, 1987).

In mitigation for this loss, the developer proposed to
recreate 15.4 acres of submerged wetlands, from three old,
existing spoil mounds (from north to south about 3.30, 7.68, and
4.40 acres) in the mangrove forest of their development. The
spP11 had apparently been deposited in the mangroves when the
channel in Naples Bay was dredged. The mounds were infested with
Australian pine (Casurina litorea L., Brazilian pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius Raddi).

The initial mitigation work occurred in August and September
of 19132. A small access path was created to each site, the sites
were scraped to 0.8 to 1.9 feet NGVD (re-exposing the covered
mangrove soils), and planted with pairs of Rhizophona manale L.
propagules an one meter centers (Bradow 19B6). About 70,000
propagules were planted.,Survival of the plants after 8 months
was reportedly 97 % and some "volunteer" colonization by
Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn had occurred in portions o4 the
sites (Stephen 1984).

According to Bradow (1986) none of the propagules planted
below 1.0 foot NGVD survived the first year. He cites that, this
lead to the establishment of about 2 acres of "open mud flats".

After 3.5 years, Brad6w (1986) reports the survival of red
mangroves to be 85 %, with man y of the red mangroves reaching
heights of 3 to 5 feet. Bradow (1986) concludes from observations
of survival and relative size that elevations between 1.2 and 1.5
feet NGVD are best for R. mangle in these mitigation areas.
Also, much of the area (except in the center of each site and
around the perimeter -- the lowest and highest elevations
respectively) has been colonized by Laguncularia racemosa (L.)
Gaertn.f. and to a lesser extent A. germinans. Many of the white
mangroves are reported to be "eight feet tall or more" (Bradow
1986). The access roads created to allow heavy construction
equipment into the mitigation sites were reported to have been
colonized as well, especially by L. racemqsa.

Also, within this 3.5 year period, the lagoon area
comprising the middle of one site, and perhaps channel portions
of other sites, have been colonized by the sea grass RUDDia
maritima, and clumps of oysters (Crasspstrea virginica) in the
flushing channels (Bradow 19B6). In addition, other animals were
abundant in the sites including snails (Littorina angulifera),
fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), isopods ( Ligia sp.), sheepshead
minnows (Cyprinodon varj gatus), mullet (Mugil cephalua), and
killifish (Fundulus arandis and F. similis).

Bradow (1986) opined that the "young system is providing a
valuable benefit to the Naples Bay ecosystem, particularly in

C7 T I Z@ N1 T tl T;7, M . F,1 r:-

regard to biomass production and transport_!@-He@_further concluded
that: "If the primary goal of this project was to create an
integrated wetlands/open water system capable of supporting
wildlife, then the project was successful".

DESIGN OF THE STUDIES

Def initions:

Sites: The two mitigation areas in which the studies were
conducted. Site I is the northernmost (about 3.3 acres) and Site
II is the middle (about 7.68 acres in area) of the three
original mitigation areas. Site I is roughly circular and site ri
is somewhat more elliptical in shape.

Plots: The basic unit of area for study in the mangrove
growth, colonization, reproduction, and succession studies in the
sites. Twelve plots were established in each of the two study
sites. Each plot was 5 x 5 meters in size and was established in
a stratified random fashion. Plots were marked using 10 foot long
pvc poles driven a couple of feet into the soil at each of the
corners.

I. PROJECT DESIGN: Mangrove Growth Study

Our studies focused primarily an the two northern sites
because of manpower and funding constraints and case of access.
In both study sites, we established 12, 5 x 5 meter study plots.
These were arranged as described below and illustrated in Fig. 1:

"Eastern" Plots E-1, E-2, and E-3: Located in a stratified
random manner along the eastern margin of each study site
(relatively near the Windstar Development). These plots were also
situated closer to the edge of the study sites than the center by
placing them at points more than 1/2 the distance from the center
of the sites to the edge. Plots were established in areas where
the mangrove canopy was five feet or more in height.

"Western" Plots W-1, W-2, and W-3: Located in a stratified
random manner along the -western margin of each study site
(relatively nearer Naples Bay). These plots were also situated
closer' to the edge of the study sites than the center by pl-acing
them at points more than 1/2 the distance from the center of the
sites to the edge. Plots were established in areas where the
mangrove canopy was five feet or More in height.

"Inner" Plots It-1, It-2, and It-3: Located in a stratified
random manner closer the center of each site than the edge by
placing them at points less than 1/2 the distance from the center
to the margin of the study sites. Plots were established in areas
where the mangrove canopy was five feet or more in height.

7 1 L E:1T RC F-,F

"Scrub" Plots S-1, S-2, and S-3: Located along the outer
margin of the study sites in areas where there was not ' a
generally "closed" canopy and all mangroves were typically less
than four feet tall and appeared to possibly be stunted.

In these plots, we selected five (if available) individual
trees of each of three species (Rhizophora manale, Avicennia
germinans, and Laguncularia racemosa). For each treeV three
branches were tagged with metal numbered tags and, marked for
evaluation of stem growth, leaf turnover, and plant reproductive
activity (fruits and flowers) using latex-based paint sticks. In
addition, marked stems were used to assess the frequency of
finding cocoons, caterpillars, and snails on the-trees. At study
initiation, the stems were typically marked at either the most
distal leaf scar with both leaves already fallen or at the most
distal branch point of the stem (whichever was encountered 'first
moving from apical tip toward the trunk -- usually in R. mangle
this was a leaf scar and in A, germinans and L... racemosa was
often a branch point).

For the selected trees we measured at, so far, two points in
time in the study (Spring-early summer 1989 and Fall 1989):
(1) Tree height (tallest point).
(2) Tree "Diameter at BreastHeight (DBH)" - which for these
specimens was taken as the point midway between the lowest branch
and the highest prop root (R mangle) or at the very base of the
plant next to the sediment (A. germinans and L. racemosa). For
red mangroves% the spot where DBH was measured was marked with
the paint stick.
(3) Noted whether or not the tree was reproducing.
(4) Survival of the plant.
(4) For each tagged branch we measured:
a. Distance from paint mark to base of apical growing
tip.
b. Diameter at a point 1/2 the way along the length in
a.
C. The number of leaves.
d. The number of'leaf scars.
e. The number of Cocoons on leaves.
f. The number of caterpillars an leaves.
g. The number of snails on leaves.'
h. The number of flowers (or flower clusters).
i. The number of propagles.
j. -The number of reproductive axes (R. mangle)
k. Survival of the branch.
1. Growing apical tip mortality and/or breakage.
M. Number of new branches produced. (All measurements
from a I above were al.so recorded for new branches)

1L 7-@ =W7 NTF:Z3.,FF:,F-'r

Preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the degree
of "field measuring error" to allow us to assess the
repeatability of these measurements and the precision , and
accuracy of the data.

II. PROJECT DESIGN: Mangrove population densities, colonization
and succession study

Definitions:

Mature trees: In all except scrub plots, these were trees over
i@wo -Feet tall (as per typical forestry techniques). In scrub
plots this was arbitrarily defined as individuals that had
branched more than once.

5eedlings: Were defined as unbranched, germinated and rooted
plants. It was not possible to separate true seedlings resulting
from de novo colonization events from coppicing in A. germinans
and L. racemosa. However, root-derived shoots are simply another
form of colonization of a site.

Saplings: Were defined as plants that had branched once only.

Subplots: Subplots were one meter square sampling areas within
the larger 5 x 5 meter study plots described in part I.

We assessed population densities,, colonization, and
succession in the same study plots described above in part I of
this section.

The following mangrove population variables were assessed
for all three species of mangroves (unless otherwise indicated)
existing in the study sites along the time schedule indicated.

----1989 Evaluation- -
June Sept./Oct. Nov./Dec.
PLANT AGE CATEGORY

Mature Trees x x

Saplings x x

Seedlings x x

R. mangle propagules x x x

The assessments--wer-e-conduct-ed in five haphazardly-selected,
one meter square subplots within each study plot. In each
subplot, all individuals of each age class for each species of
mangrove occurring was counted. In addition, during the June 1989
data collection, heights of each mature tree was also measured.

In conjunction with this study, we also assessed the
population densities of these same species in the natural forest
surrounding the two mitigation study sites. To accomplish this
we used either 25 or 5.72 square meter quadrats (depending on the
apparent density of seedlings to count). The following mangrove
species occurred as members of the canopy in various portions 6f
this forest and were included in our measurements: B. mangle, A.
germinans, L. racemosa and Conocaryus erectus L. Three replicate
quadrats were established at each of the areas listed below:

Site I Site' II
Adjacent to the
eastern edge of the x x
-mitigation site

Adjacent to the
western edge of the x x
mitigation site

Adjacent to the
northern edge of the X
mitigation site

Within each quadrat, we counted the number of trunks of each
species and measured the DBH (at a point approximately 1.4 meters
above ground level). We also recorded the numbers of seedlings
and saplings of each mangrove species, as well as,, mangle
prDpagules. In addition, we noted any other plant species in the
quadrat.

III. PROJECT DESIGN: Spatial coverage of various habitat types

The data on mature plant densities in the study plots (see
11 above) were combined with low-altitude aerial photography to
allow us to estimate the overall aerial coverage and spatial
dispersion patterns of different types of habitats ("tall"
mangroves, "scrub" mang .roves, open water, open dry land, etc.) in
the mitigation sites.

IV. PROJECT DESIGN: Percent leaf area lost to herbivory

We evaluated the percent leaf area of R. mangle, A.
germinans and L. racemosa entering the food web by grazing.
We first determined linear regression relationships for each
species between the area of a leaf and the variables leaf length
and leaf width for entire, ungrazed leaves. The following
allometric relationships were thus determined for ungrazed leaves
of each species: (1) Leaf area as a simple linear regression
function of leaf length; (2) Leaf area as a simple linear
regression function of leaf width (widest point); and (3) leaf
area as a multiple linear regression function of both width and
length.

From these regression equations, we could calculate the
expected area for any leaf for which enough remained ungrazed to
permit us to measure either the entire length or width.

We then collected leaves from representative stems of each
species from the study sites (not from within our marked plots).
For each stem selected, all leaves were collected and the
relative distance from the apical tip of the branch to the leaf
was recorded (thereby providing the relative ages of the leaves).

For these leaves, the length, width and area were measured.
The area measured was then compared to that predicted from
regression equations to exist if the leaf had not been grazed
upon. The mean difference between the measured and expected areas
provided a minimum estimate of the area lost to herbivory. The
estimate is minimum because some leaves wereso heavily grazed
that length and width could not be accurately determined.
However, for most leaves, at least one of the two variables could
be determined.

Separate assessments were made for "tall" and "stunted"
plants (see earlier size descriptions in the definitions included
in part I).

V. PROJECT DESIGN: Penthic infaunal invertebrate density
monitoring in the lagoon in-Site II

Benthic infaunal invertebrate population densities'-were
determined bimonthly in two separate stations in the lagoon, one
north of Site II center, and one south of center.

At each station, six replicate 8 cm diameter cores were
collected (to a depth of 30 cm) bimonthly. Samples passed through
a 0.5 mm mesh screen in the field, relaxed using clove oil, and
preserved in formalin (with rose bengal added as a vital stain).
Samples were scope sorted and animals identified to the lowest
practicable taxon, usually species.

C.' T@7 - M I't'i-- 1=@ 'r

The field portion of this project was begun in July 1989 and
will continue until at least a year's dataset is obtained.

Vi. PROJECT DESIGN: Sea grass biomass and coverage in the
lagoon in Site II

Sea grass samples (Ruppia maritima L.) were collected in 8
cm diameter cores. Above sediment and below sediment portions of
samples were separated, dried in an oven, and weighed to
determine biomass.

Location and size (lengths of major and minor. axes) of
patches of sea grass were determined to allow calculation of
cover and overall biomass.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

We kept'notes on our observations of other wildlife (birds,
fish, horseshoe crabs, blue crabs, etc.) seen in the mitigation
sites or in the surrounding natural forest. The salient points of
these observations will be presented as an appendix to one of the
ensuing reports.

.In addition, we recorded water depth, water salinity, and
salinity of soil water in study sites at various times during the
project. These will be presented in subsequent reports as
appropriate.

COMMENTS

The studies generated extensive data which will take
considerable time to reduce and properly analyze. In addition, we
are still gathering data in the field 4or several of the
projects. Thus, the results of our work, and recommendations
stemming from the studies, will be provided in a series of

1 7-, C.; .F,.,'F' 7

repartsi5s@-Analyses are completed.

This report is provided to provide background regarding the
studies and as a "end of the year" grant status report for the
Department of Environmental Regulation.

LITERATURE CITED

Bradow, S.N. 1986. Department of Environmental Regulation
Mitigation Appraisal. Permit 11-45104. 17 pp.

Heald, E.J. 1969. The production of organic.detritus in a south
Florida estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Miami.

Lugo, A.E. and S.C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology of mangroves.
Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 39-64.

Odum, W.E. 1979. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida
estuary. Sea Grant Tech. Bull. No. 7.

Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1972. Trophic analyses of an estuarine
mangrove community. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22(3): 671- .

Reyer, A.J., D.W. Field, J.E. Cassells, C.E. Alexander, and C.L.
Holland. 19BS. The distribution and areal extent of coastal
wetlands in estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. National
Wetlands Inventory, NOAA Publication, IS pgs.

Stephen, M.F. 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples, Florida. In,
F.J. Webb , Jr. (Ed.), PrOC. Tenth Ann. Con+. Wetl. Restor.
and Creation. Hillsbarough Community College, Tampa, Fl.,
pp. 201-216.

Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby, and W.F. Hettler. 1987. Utilization of
the red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in south
Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 35: 25 38.

Tomlinson, P.B. 19S6. The botany of mangroves. Cambridge Univ.
Press, 41-75 pp.

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111412 6