404 
tive rather than absolute terms. By this, it is meant that no new equipment or tech- 
nology is needed. But rather dredgers are sometimes required to perform unfamiliar 
operations according to unusual time and accuracy specifications. The operations 
can be done, but they will require close coordination and cooperation. 
As indicated earlier, marsh development is not a satisfactory alternative for all 
locations, but there is no major geographic region where it is not desirable and pos- 
sible somewhere. Marshes can be developed in the Great Lakes area and along 
inland river systems as well as in all coastal areas. The only known environmental 
conditions in which it is probably not practical are ones with high tidal ranges and 
strong waves and/or currents. Otherwise, depending on local conditions, marshes 
can be developed in a variety of shapes and sizes, with different plant species and 
planting techniques, and with or without retaining dikes. Specific guidance was pre- 
pared for each of these considerations and is supplemented by decision methodolo- 
gies useful in selecting sites and particular habitat development goals. 
In some respects, the development of upland habitats, either on new disposal sites 
or by reclaiming old sites, is a technology more advanced and more tested than 
marsh habitat development. Upland habitat includes such situations as food and 
cover for mammals and nesting, resting, or feeding areas for waterfowl. Most of 
these require only the application of existing agronomic and wildlife management 
practices. But availability is useless without awareness, so this information was 
compiled and synthesized for widespread distribution. Upland habitat development 
can be relatively inexpensive and is not difficult, and there are hundreds of disposal 
sites that could be improved environmentally and meet with greater public accept- 
ance if improved in this way. 
Small islands created by dredged material disposal in inland waterways and coast- 
al bays and estuaries are a special type of upland habitat development. Several re- 
gional surveys showed that many of the more 2000 of these islands have become 
extremely valuable wildlife habitat. In fact, maintenance of the U.S. population of 
several colonial nesting birds such as sea gulls, terns, and herons is dependent upon 
islands of this type. 
Thus, island development obviously can be an environmentally beneficial disposal 
alternative and one that has large public acceptance. The DMRP provided guidance 
on how islands can be designed and managed to be of greatest value to certain 
target species and how the natural evolution of the islands can be controlled for 
maximum wildlife benefit. However, there are problems, both real and imagined. In 
the former category are the conflicting concerns and needs of the wildlife interests 
and the fisheries interests who often have opposing views on the need for islands 
versus open water. This type of problem can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis. 
In the latter category is the widespread belief that once an island is created and 
inhabited by desirable wildlife, it can never again be used as a disposal site. This is 
not true! In fact, studies showed that unlesss natural vegetational successional pat- 
terns are occasionally interrupted, the islands will lose their wildlife value. The 
most practical way of providing the needed interruption is by depositing a new layer 
of material. Specific guidance includes management techniques on how continued 
disposal can be phased with optimum wildlife use. Once again, the key is a sound 
management plan. 
While research focused primarily on wetland and upland habitats, aquatic or sub- 
merged habitats were also included. A literature review and a small field test were 
accomplished, but these concluded only that it is a promising but unproven disposal 
alternative. It was demonstrated that seagrasses can be transplanted to a disposal 
site; however, much additional information will be needed before the basic require- 
ments for establishing a successful seagrass meadow are recognized and understood. 
The fourth major part of the DMRP was the development and testing of concepts 
for nonwildlife-oriented beneficial or productive uses of either dredged material 
itself or disposal sites. Perhaps more than in any other alternative, successful use of 
the material or the sites as a natural resource requires favorable and often fortu- 
itous circumstances, but these do occur. Nontechnical factors outweigh technical 
ones more as a rule than as an exception and requirements for coordination in land- 
use planning are extraordinary. Since many of the concepts are new and unusual, 
there is also the requirement for the Corps or some other group to take the initia- 
tive in promoting the ideas and getting people to think about them. Indeed the 
DMRP was a positive factor itself in advertising concepts and moderating apprehen- 
sion by pointing out where others have applied and concepts successfully. 
Many products such as aggregate and bricks have been made using dredged mate- 
rial, sometimes successfully, and the potential for new concepts is limited only by 
the breadth of one’s imagination. However, success will be difficult in view of the 
quality and undependability of the supply of the raw material, the requirements for 
