water disposal, there are still areas 

 where marsh can be established. Further, 

 if willful destruction of marshland oc- 

 curs, we now have the techniques and 

 procedures whereby regulatory agencies 

 or the courts can require restoration. 



One of our first attempts to create 

 salt marsh was at a small dredge spoil 

 island in the Pamlico Sound, where the 

 tidal amplitude was only 15 to 30 cm (6 

 to 12 inches). We had two objectives in 

 mind: to stablize the spoil material in 

 the intertidal zone by transplanting 

 smooth cordgrass and, in so doing, to 

 develop marsh. Our first attempts were 

 not mechanized. We marked off rows and 

 working in teams of two, hand-planted 

 with a dibble bar like foresters use to 

 plant trees. Most plants were set on 

 about a 91-cm (36-inch) center, 91 cm 

 between plants within rows and 91 cm be- 

 tween rows. We used whatever size 

 transplants were available at the time 

 and location but preferably took them 

 from a sandy substrate. Plants from 

 such an area were easy to dig and to 

 separate, and had wel 1 -developed root 

 systems. The small young shoots at the 

 base of the stem (culm) were left 

 attached. These young shoots are often 

 responsible for growth and establishment 

 of the transplant. We discovered that 

 we could establish smooth cordgrass 

 marsh with transplants in this manner. 

 A single culm transplant has the poten- 

 tial to grow into a plant with several 

 hundred grams of dry matter accumulation 

 in a 5-mo period. Although a substan- 

 tial root system had developed under the 

 substrate in this time, stabilization 

 was not fully achieved until the end of 

 the second aboveground growing season, 

 or about 17 mo after planting. 



To plant larger areas, we scaled up 

 the operation by using a farm tractor 

 with a modified tobacco planter. Later, 

 we put dual wheels on the back of the 

 tractor and wider tires on the front for 

 extra flotation, so that we could plant 

 more unstable areas. Our planting sites 

 from north to south indicate that we 

 covered the North Carolina coast in our 

 trials. Not all experiments were suc- 

 cessful, but we covered a wide range of 

 conditions. From north to south, the 

 coastline varies not only in terms of 

 latitude, but also in tidal amplitude 

 from less than 0.3 m (1 ft) to more than 



1.5 m (5 ft). The primary influence on 

 tides along the northern part of the 

 North Carolina coast is wind. However, 

 the southern coast is almost exclusively 

 under the influence of lunar tides. 

 Strong southwest winds blowing across 

 the northern sounds may hold water on 

 planting for several days, or when a 

 northeast wind blows, water may be held 

 off of the plantings for several days. 

 In contrast, on the southern coast there 

 is a regular flooding regime e^ery day. 



Let us consider one experimental 

 site and follow it through 3 or 4 yr. 

 Snow's Cut, North Carolina, in the 

 middle of the Cape Fear River, south of 

 Wilmington, had spoil deposited on it 

 about 60 days prior to planting. The 

 substrate was about 96% sand, had a 

 slope of about 2%, and was influenced by 

 a tidal amplitude of about 1.5 m (5 ft). 

 We obtained transplants from an area 

 that was relatively sandy and within 1 

 km (0.6 mi) of the planting site. Again 

 we used single-stem transplants. We 

 hand-planted on 91-cm (36-inch) centers 

 in April. By June, survival was deter- 

 mined to be over 90%. By September, the 

 rows were still discernable but con- 

 siderable spread was evident. By spring 

 of the following year, a lateral spread 

 of about 1.5 m (5 ft) was recorded. By 

 the spring of the second year, an ob- 

 server could no longer clearly identify 

 plant rows, and by the end of the second 

 growing season, for all practical pur- 

 poses, we had established a marsh. In 

 terms of fauna and flora, the area was 

 not entirely comparable to a natural 

 marsh, but in terms of primary produc- 

 tion, it exceeded that of many natural 

 marshes in the vicinity. By the end of 

 the second or third year, it would be 

 difficult for anyone to determine that 

 the area was an artifically created 

 marsh. 



We sampled the grass to determine 

 how much was produced at the end of each 

 growing season by measuring biomass and 

 counting the number of culms. We cut 

 the vegetation at ground level and dug 

 out the belowground material to a depth 

 of 30 cm (12 inches). Five months after 

 transplanting there were about 200 g (7 

 oz) of aboveground biomass per trans- 

 plant. We found that each transplant had 

 produced somewhat less than 100 g/m2 be- 

 low ground. Productivity declined after 



