quickly discarded. The initial method 

 was to heel-in prepared plants in sandy 

 intertidal areas. However, the heeled-in 

 plants, after one tide, were so firmly 

 settled that it became a major job to 

 redig them; and major damage occurred in 

 the second removal operation. The second 

 method was storage in plastic containers 

 placed in the intertidal marsh areas 

 that provided shade. Even more important 

 was the twice-a-day covering of the 

 plants by the tide, which prevented ex- 

 cessive drying. 



All plants were planted either the 

 same day or within 24 hr after digging, 

 weather permitting. During storage 

 trials, some plants were stored up to 

 5 days without any problems. The Corps 

 of Engineers predetermined that plants 

 were to be placed at an elevation rang- 

 ing from +0.50 MLIW to +6.0 MLLW. Length 

 of plots varied as did the number of 

 plantings per plot. Because of even, 

 flat terrain at the site and uniform 

 sand material, no site preparation, such 

 as plowing, disking, harrowing, or rak- 

 ing, was necessary. On an intertidal 

 sandy site of this type, I believe any 

 advanced agitation of the material would 

 cause negative results when trying to 

 firm the plant at time of planting. 

 Also, tidal erosion could be increased 

 and the sediment transport rate accel- 

 erated. 



Fertilized and unfertilized plots 

 followed the same layout design, plant- 

 ing depth, and plant height. Table 1 

 gives the spacing, planting depth, and 

 culms per planting stock for species 

 planted in this test. 



The initial fertilizer selection 

 for the pilot test was made with maximum 



root growth and minimum culm and leaf 

 growth in mind. The fertilized plots all 

 received a single hand broadcast appli- 

 cation of Elephant brand 11-55-0 pellet- 

 ed fertilizer at the rate of 100 kg/ha 

 (90 lb/acre). Second year application 

 should promote culm and leaf growth and 

 reproduction. Ammonia-based fertilizers 

 may cause severe problems with the la- 

 goon fisheries. According to Ted Blahm, 

 National Marine Fisheries Service, the 

 entire lagoon, now highly productive, 

 could suffer if this problem is not 

 solved. 



The possibilities of creating new 

 or better marsh habitats are only a 

 short time away. We are about 2 yr away 

 from developing accurate cost figures 

 for large scale plantings. This will 

 depend on further results from research 

 now underway on plant selection, ferti- 

 lizer rates, density, and spacing. 

 Equipment is now available that, with 

 some modification, can be used for 

 planting on upper elevations of the 

 intertidal areas with conditions simi- 

 lar to Miller Sands. This equipment is 

 capable of planting 180,000 plants per 

 day during good weather. Cost per hec- 

 tare will drop sharply with machine 

 planting. 



The future will see marsh estab- 

 lishment not only on existing spoils, 

 but also on carefully selected mainte- 

 nance dredging disposal sites. Island 

 sites could be created as new feeding 

 and nesting areas for wildlife to help 

 replace those lost to shoreline develop- 

 ment. Marsh creation could also be used 

 as an environmental trade-off to help 

 enhance waterfowl and fishery habitat of 

 any wetland area. 



26 



