Identifying, Planning, and
Financing Beneficial Use Projects
Using Dredged Material
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
I®
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
-------
Cover Photos
Background: Aransas National Wildlife Refuge,Texas. Maintenance dredged material was used
for stabilization of eroded marsh shoreline.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Top: Aerial view of Sonoma Baylands Wetlands Restoration Project, Sonoma County, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Middle: A Great Blue Heron in a small creek in South Georgia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Bottom: Beach nourishment on Tybee Island, Georgia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-------
Identifying, Planning, and
Financing Beneficial Use Projects
Using Dredged Material
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
October 2007
EPA842-B-07-001
mnu
TU
n no
LTU
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
-------
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Contents
Acronyms iii
Preface v
1 Introduction 1
2 Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities 5
2.1 Federal Dredged Material Management Program 6
2.2 Types of Beneficial Uses 8
2.3 Suitability of Dredged Material for Various Uses 10
2.4 Potential Challenges to Beneficial Use Projects 13
3 Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers 17
3.1 Dredging Organizations 18
3.2 Users of Dredged Material for Beneficial Purposes 28
3.3 Beneficial Use Project Facilitators 30
4 Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning and
Regional Sediment Management 37
4.1 From Pollution Control to Industrial Ecology 38
4.2 Watershed and Sediment System Approaches to Planning
and Management 40
4.3 Decision-making Process 45
4.4 Evaluation Criteria 47
4.5 Qualitative Evaluation 51
4.6 Summary 52
5 Funding Beneficial Use Projects 53
5.1 USAGE Funding Options Under Existing Authorities 54
5.2 Other Provisions of Law Potentially Applicable to
Beneficial Use Projects 59
5.3 Other Financing Opportunities 61
6 Outreach and Public Involvement Strategies for Beneficial Use
Projects 73
6.1 Informing and Involving the Public 74
6.2 Public Involvement Strategies 77
6.3 Summary 80
7 References and Additional Resources 81
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Categories A.I
Appendix B: Cost-Sharing Examples B.I
Appendix C: Implementing Environmentally Beneficial Use
Projects in Connection with Maintenance Dredging C.I
11
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Acronyms
CDF confined disposal facility
CWA . . . . Clean Water Act
CW-SRF . . . Clean Water State Revolving Fund
CZMA .... Coastal Zone Management Act
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FONSI .... Finding of No Significant Impact
FY fiscal year
LERR .... lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations
MPRSA . . .Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(commonly called the Ocean Dumping Act)
NED National Economic Development plan
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA .... National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA .... National Historic Preservation Act
NOAA . . . .National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OMRR&R . . operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation
O&M .... operations and maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIANC .... International Navigation Association (formerly called Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses)
RHA Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
ROD Record of Decision
SHPO .... State Historic Preservation Officer
SMART . . . Simple Multiattribute Rating Technique
SOF Statement of Findings
SRF State Revolving Fund
USACE . . . .United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS . . .United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WRDA . . . .Water Resources Development Act
ill
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
IV
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Preface
Every year in this country, the dredging of shipping channels, harbors,
waterways, canals, lakes, and reservoirs produces large quantities of
valuable sediment material. Most of this dredged material is clean and
suitable for beneficial uses such as beach restoration, shore protection,
agricultural uses, habitat enhancement, and many other applications.
However, dredged material has not been exploited for its full economic,
social, and environmental potential because of costs and the prevailing
view that dredged material is waste.
In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the vast poten-
tial for dredged material as a manageable, beneficial resource. This
increased awareness has coincided with the growing difficulty in locat-
ing new dredged material disposal areas and escalating disposal costs.
The increase in beneficial use projects is due also to forward-looking
federal, state, and local governmental policies and private initiatives to
take full advantage of the natural resources produced by dredging activ-
ities regionally and around the country.
This "Beneficial Use Planning Manual" presents a framework for identi-
fying, planning, and financing beneficial use projects. This manual:
>• describes the range of beneficial use opportunities;
>• identifies potential beneficial use project partners or others who can
contribute to project success;
^ outlines how advanced planning augments options for using dredged
material for beneficial purposes;
>• explains alternative means of financing beneficial use projects; and
>• presents strategies to solicit public input in project planning.
This manual is written for a wide audience, including dredging organi-
zations, permitting authorities, environmental resource agencies, com-
mercial concerns including port authorities, and other organizations
or groups that can use or encourage the use of dredged material for
beneficial purposes.
v
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
While prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), this manual is a key element
of the National Dredging Team's (NOT)1 Dredged Material Management:
Action Agenda for the Next Decade (NOT 2003), which recommended
the development of a national guidance document that presents a frame-
work for identifying, planning, and financing beneficial use projects.
Important Note:
The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The
statutory provisions and regulations described in this document contain
legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation itself,
nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations.
Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on USAGE, EPA,
or any other entity, including the regulated community. This guidance
does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any mem-
ber of the public.
Although USAGE and EPA have made every effort to ensure the accuracy
of the discussion in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated com-
munity are determined by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding
requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this
document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be
controlling.
The general description provided here might not apply to a particular
situation based upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to
raise questions and objections with regard to the substance of this guid-
ance and the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a
particular situation. USAGE, EPA, and other decision makers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from
those described in this guidance where appropriate.
This is a living document and may be revised periodically. USAGE and
EPA welcome public input on this document at any time.
This guidance manual includes descriptions of potential sources of
funds to help finance beneficial use projects. Inclusion of the potential
sources of funds does not constitute endorsement by EPA or USAGE;
the sources are provided solely to aid users of this guidance manual in
exploring options for financing.
1 The National Dredging Team is a federal, interagency group established to facilitate communication, coordination, and resolu-
tion of dredging issues among participating federal agencies. It also serves as a forum to promote implementation of the National
Dredging Policy. The National Dredging Policy recognizes dredged material as a resource and promotes environmentally sound
beneficial use of dredged material.
VI
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Introduction
Several hundred million cubic yards of sediment must be dredged
from U.S. ports, harbors, and waterways each year to maintain
and improve the nation's navigation system for commercial, national
defense, and recreational purposes. The disposal of this dredged mate-
rial is managed and conducted by federal, state, and local governments;
private entities; and semi-private entities, such as port authorities. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), which is responsible for con-
structing and, in most U.S. ports, maintaining federal navigation chan-
nels, issues permits for dredged material disposal, after review or con-
currence by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In some
cases, disposal is subject to additional regulation by state governments
through state water quality certification and coastal zone consistency
under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. EPA and USAGE strive
for coordination and consistency in selecting dredged material manage-
ment alternatives on the basis of cost and environmental impacts.
USAGE and EPA have long had general policies offering broad support
for the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes. Throughout the
years, these policies allowed USAGE to incorporate to some extent ben-
eficial use projects into its Civil Works dredging programs. In the past
20 years, Congress has provided new legislative authorities and funding
that enable and encourage USAGE to pursue beneficial use opportuni-
ties, particularly habitat restoration projects, on a much wider scale. Sec-
tion 306 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1990, for
example, requires USAGE to include environmental protection as one of
its principal missions. Section 1135 of WRDA 1986 authorizes USAGE to
modify the structures and operations of its existing water resources proj-
ects to redress environmental damage caused by those projects. Section
204 of WRDA 1992 and Section 207 of WRDA 1996 encourage USAGE to
incorporate beneficial uses of dredged material into constructing, oper-
ating, and maintaining its Civil Works navigation projects. (These and
other authorities that promote beneficial uses of dredged material are
discussed in detail in Chapter 5.)
E
This document is
intended to provide
practical guidance
for project sponsors
and their potential
partners for identifying,
planning, financing,
and implementing
projects that use dredged
material for beneficial
purposes.
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Forster's terns inhabiting a
marsh created by dredged
material on Poplar Island,
Maryland (Photo by USACE).
In 2004, EPA and USACE published a guidance document titled Evalu-
ating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alterna-
tives—A Technical Framework (the "Technical Framework," EPA/USACE
2004). The Technical Framework provides EPA and USACE personnel
with a consistent technical framework for evaluating potential environ-
mental impacts of dredged material management alternatives, including
beneficial use options, and for meeting the substantive and procedural
requirements of the governing regulations.
This document, the "Beneficial Use Planning Manual," is a companion
guide to both the Technical Framework (EPA/USACE 2004) and the joint
EPA/USACE "Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material" website
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/budm.cfm}. The Beneficial
Uses website demonstrates potential beneficial uses of dredged material
by presenting existing case studies as examples. Category descriptions,
procedural outlines, and reference resources are also provided at the
site. The "Beneficial Use Planning Manual" builds upon the website's
foundation by providing practical guidance for project sponsors (e.g.,
government agencies, port authorities, marinas, industries, and private
persons) and their potential partners for identifying, planning, financ-
ing, and implementing projects that use dredged material for beneficial
purposes. In particular, this manual:
>• describes the various categories of beneficial uses;
>• discusses actions and partnerships to improve the feasibility of ben-
eficial use projects;
^ describes federal policy on beneficial uses of dredged material;
-------
Introduction
>• presents methods to determine goals and evaluate alternative ben-
eficial uses against goals for a particular site;
>• provides information on available financing opportunities and mech-
anisms for beneficial use projects; and
^ describes avenues for public involvement in beneficial use decision
making.
The guidance in this manual assumes that beneficial use project spon-
sors are active decision makers in the activities discussed in the Tech-
nical Framework. In particular, it assumes that beneficial use project
sponsors are or might soon be:
^ developing management alternatives for dredged material;
^ evaluating management alternatives;
^ identifying a preferred alternative; and
^ performing increasingly detailed planning for the preferred
alternative.2
The remaining chapters in this Beneficial Use Manual cover the follow-
ing information:
>• Chapter 2: Overview of beneficial use opportunities and the federal
dredged material management program, with emphasis on types of
beneficial use projects and suitability of various types of dredged
material.
^ Chapter 3: Descriptions of potential project sponsors and other deci-
sion makers who can influence the success of beneficial use projects.
>• Chapter 4: Framework to identify and plan beneficial use projects in a
broad planning context at the watershed (including coastal) and sedi-
ment system levels in a process that is led by local planning groups
and involves all stakeholders.
^ Chapter 5: Funding sources available through USAGE funding mecha-
nisms and other federal authorities, and through state agencies, envi-
ronmental groups, and private sector sources.
^ Chapter 6: Strategies for maximizing public participation at important
decision-making points in planning beneficial use projects.
^ Chapter 7: References and additional resources.
' In many cases, beneficial use proponents will in fact be conducting a National Environmental Policy Act assessment of alternatives.
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Overview of Beneficial Use
Opportunities
Increasing the number of beneficial use projects in the United States
requires greater understanding of the federal dredged material manage-
ment program and the wide range of potential beneficial use projects
by all involved parties. Likewise, potential project sponsors will ben-
efit from learning about types of dredged material that are suitable for
the specific beneficial uses under consideration. This chapter briefly
summarizes these topics and describes some potential challenges
for beneficial use projects.
2.7 Federal Dredged Material Management Program 6
2.2 Types of Beneficial Uses 8
2.3 Suitability of Dredged Material for Various Uses 10
2.4 Potential Challenges to Beneficial Use Projects 13
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
An important goal of managing dredged material is to ensure
that the material is used or disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner. Each year, 200 to 300 million cubic yards of material
are dredged from U.S. ports, harbors, and waterways. Of this volume,
approximately 20 percent is disposed of in ocean waters. Eighty percent
of the material is disposed of or placed through other means in estua-
rine, fresh waters, upland or other areas. Approximately 30 percent of
material placed is used for beneficial purposes.
2.1 Federal Dredged Material Management Program
USAGE is the nation's largest dredger through its Civil Works dredg-
ing projects. USAGE is also responsible for issuing permits for dredged
material disposal, after review or concurrence by the EPA. Other federal,
state, and local agency reviews are required depending on the jurisdic-
tions in which the dredging occurs and the location of dredged material
disposal or placement sites.
The central role of USAGE and EPA in dredging provides them the oppor-
tunity to broadly and strongly support beneficial use projects. Although
USAGE has incorporated beneficial uses into its Civil Works projects
for many years, Congress has provided new legislative authorities and
funding that encourage USAGE to pursue beneficial use opportunities,
particularly habitat restoration projects, on a much wider scale. Some of
these USAGE legislative authorities, including Sections 204, 306, and 1135
of WRDA, are described in Chapter 5. Wetland protection at Barataria
Bay Waterway in Louisiana, oyster bed restoration at Lower James River
in Virginia, and beach nourishment at Jones Inlet in New York are just a
few examples of the many successful beneficial use projects among hun-
dreds that USAGE, EPA, and other partners have implemented to date.
To make limited federal budgets go further, USAGE, EPA, and other
federal agencies should take advantage of still other opportunities to
collaborate on beneficial use projects. USAGE, EPA, and other federal
agencies have responsibilities and programs involving protection, pres-
ervation, and restoration of coastal and freshwater resources in areas
where dredging and disposal are also required to meet navigation and
economic needs. These responsibilities and programs provide opportuni-
ties for creative partnerships to meet both environmental and economic
objectives, including the beneficial use of dredged material.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA),
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) are the five major federal statutes affecting
dredged material disposal. The MPRSA, CWA, and RHA cover different
geographic areas associated3 with dredged material management. The
MPRSA (Section 103) governs the transportation of dredged material for
1 Other authorities may play a role in dredging and dredged material placement. Chapters 3 and 5 discuss some of these authorities,
including the numerous Water Resources Development Acts, The National Historic Preservation Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
-------
Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities
the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, while the RHA (Sections 9
and 10) requires a USAGE permit for structures or work in or affecting
navigable waters of the U.S. By contrast, the CWA (Section 404) covers
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. USAGE
and EPA each have specific responsibility under the MPRSA and the
CWA for dredged material disposal projects. USAGE conducts Civil Works
dredging projects, as well as issues permits for all activities in navigable
waters (RHA), for discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the
U.S. (CWA),4 and for transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it into ocean waters (MPRSA). EPA develops environmental
criteria in conjunction with USAGE, reviews and provides concurrence on
dredging permits, and, in the case of the MPRSA, designates and man-
ages ocean disposal sites (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 Elements of the Federal Dredged Material Management Programs. USAGE and EPA work with
other government agencies to implement the MPRSA, CWA, and NEPA.
Marine Protection,
Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972
covers ocean waters
Clean Water Act
covers coastal
and inland waters
National
Environmental Policy
Act
requires consideration of
environmental impacts
I
Headquartered in
Washington, DC
Division offices with
numerous District offices
Engineer Research and
Development Center
inVicksburg,MS
Institute for Water
Resources in Alexandria, VA
US Army Corps of
Engineers
conducts Civil Works
dredging projects
and issues
dredging permits
US Environmental
Protection Agency
provides environmental
criteria, review/concurrence
of permits, and ocean
disposal site designation
and management
Federal, State, and
Local Agencies
provide reviews and
authorizations as
appropriate
Headquartered in
Washington, DC
Regional offices
Environmental Research
Laboratories in
Narragansett,RI
Duluth,MN
Corvallis,OR
Gulf Breeze, FL
4 Note that Michigan and New Jersey are authorized to administer a CWA Section 404 permit program under Section 404(g).
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
A common
misperception among
the public is that
dredged material is
usually contaminated;
in fact, a significant
portion of material
dredged from U.S.
waters is not
contaminated.
NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regula-
tions provide that federal agencies assure that environmental impacts
and public input are considered in their decision making by preparing
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement
(EIS), as appropriate, for all federal actions that may significantly affect
the environment. NEPA requires USAGE to evaluate alternatives for dis-
charging dredged material from its Civil Works projects and from those
projects for which it issues permits.
USAGE and EPA offices dealing with dredged or fill material placement
are organized as follows:
^ EPA and USAGE headquarters offices in Washington, DC, have the
general responsibility for promulgating guidelines and criteria for the
evaluation of dredged or fill material to be disposed or discharged
under CWA and MPRSA, and for developing national policy and tech-
nical guidance.
^ EPA Regional offices and USAGE Division offices are responsible for
implementing policy and guidance in each region of the country.
>• USAGE has 38 District offices within its eight Divisions that are the
action offices for USAGE activities. USAGE Districts manage the plan-
ning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Congres-
sionally authorized Civil Works projects for navigational dredging,
flood control, and ecosystem restoration; the District offices also issue
the permits previously discussed for dredging projects proposed by
all entities other than USAGE (including private and U.S. Navy).
>• The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center consists
of seven laboratories, three of which—the Coastal Hydraulics, Geo-
technical and Structures, and Environmental Laboratories located in
Vicksburg, Mississippi—conduct research on dredging and placement.
>• EPA's environmental research laboratories in Narragansett (RI), Duluth
(MN), Corvallis (OR), and Gulf Breeze (FL), study the impacts of
dredging and placement activities conducted around the United States,
and are divisions of the National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory (NHEERL). EPA's other Office of Research and
Development Laboratories (National Risk Management Research Labo-
ratory (NRML), National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), and
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)) also have
efforts underway studying impacts of dredging and placement activities.
>• USAGE'S Institute for Water Resources in Alexandria, Virginia,
develops planning procedures, manuals, and policy studies on a
variety of issues, including the placement of dredged material.
2.2 Types of Beneficial Uses
The beneficial use of dredged material embraces the idea that this mate-
rial can be used in a manner that will benefit society and the natural
environment. A common misperception among the public is that dredged
material is usually contaminated; in fact, a significant portion of material
8
-------
Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities
dredged from U.S. waters is not contaminated. However, even material
that is contaminated may be suitable for certain types of beneficial use.
The quality of the dredged material varies, however, depending on the
particular location dredged and the nature of the material itself (sands,
silts, and/or clays). Material dredged in some of our major harbors is
more likely to be contaminated because this material is generally silt and
clay particles to which contaminants can easily bind. In any case, the
promotion of beneficial uses continues to require a shift from the com-
mon perspective of dredged material as a waste product to one in which
this material is viewed as a valuable resource that can provide multiple
benefits to society.
To maximize the public benefits from dredging and placement, it is
important to fully and equally consider all practicable placement alter-
natives. Dredging projects can provide the greatest public benefit by
addressing multiple economic and environmental objectives simultane-
ously (e.g., harbor widening, wetlands creation, brownfields redevelop-
ment, and recreational opportunities).
Dredged material can be used beneficially for engineered, agricultural
and product, and environmental enhancement purposes, as described
on the beneficial uses website (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/
budm.cfm) and in the seven categories described below (USAGE 2006):
1. Habitat Restoration and Development: using dredged material to
build and restore wildlife habitat, especially wetlands or other water-
based habitat (e.g., nesting islands and offshore reefs).
2. Beach Nourishment: using dredged material (primarily sandy
material) to restore beaches subject to erosion.5
3. Parks and Recreation: using dredged material as the foundation for
parks and recreational facilities; for example, waterside parks provid-
ing such amenities as swimming, picnicking, camping, or boating.
4. Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture: using dredged
material to replace eroded topsoil, elevate the soil surface, or improve
the physical and chemical characteristics of soils.
5. Strip-Mine Reclamation and Solid Waste Management: using
dredged material to reclaim strip mines, to cap solid waste landfills,
or to protect landfills.
6. Construction/Industrial Development: using dredged material to sup-
port commercial or industrial activities (including brownfields rede-
velopment), primarily near waterways; for example, expanding or
raising the height of the land base, or providing bank stabilization. In
addition, dredged material may be used in construction material.
7. Multiple-Purpose Activities: using dredged material to meet a series
of needs simultaneously, such as habitat development, recreation,
' Funding under Section 1135 of WRDA 1986, Section 204 of WRDA 1992, and Section 207 of WRDA 1996 may not be available for all
types of beach nourishment projects, particularly those that are principally for recreational beaches.
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
and beach nourishment, which might all be supported by a single
beneficial use project.
During evaluation and selection of beneficial use options, issues such as
potential bioaccumulation of contaminants and introduction of invasive
species should be considered. Each of these seven beneficial use catego-
ries is described in more detail in Appendix A.
2.3 Suitability of Dredged Material for Various Uses
When identifying potential beneficial use opportunities for dredged
material, it is important to evaluate the suitability of the dredged mate-
rial in question for a given use (see box below and Table 2.1 following).
Prior to consideration of any dredged material placement option subject
to CWA Section 404, the material should be tested and evaluated under
the procedures described in the CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines for
compliance. Basic data on physical and chemical characteristics of the
sediments to be dredged, such as grain size and levels of contamina-
tion, can provide an initial screen of possible beneficial use options. In
Industrial Development (Brownfields): The Jersey Gardens Mall
Located on Newark Bay, south of the Port Newark/Port Elizabeth complex, this 185-acre project site served as
a municipal waste landfill from 1960 to 1972. The OENJ Cherokee Corporation purchased the property in 1992,
with a plan to close the landfill, remediate the site, and construct a large retail mall on the site. The approved
landfill closure plan allowed the import of recycled material, including processed dredged material, for use as a
cap and structural fill on the site.
Several dredging projects in the New York/New Jersey Harbor removed 2.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of
sediment, of which 850,000 cubic yards was used beneficially at the project site. The dredged material was
tested for grain size, percent moisture, total organic carbon, and bulk sediment chemistry, then blended with
a stabilizing agent (cement kiln dust and/or Portland cement) and tested for bulk sediment chemistry again,
followed by a modified multiple extraction leachate test. In addition, the processed dredged material was tested
for permeability (it was required to have a low permeability). The testing results were then checked by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection against the placement criteria established for the site. Once the
dredged material and other recycled materials were placed, the fill was covered with 2 feet of clean soil, asphalt,
and buildings, effectively eliminating exposure to air, precipitation, and human contact.
The Jersey Gardens Mall, a 1.5-million-square-foot discount
shopping center, had its Grand Opening in October 1999. The
Jersey Gardens Mall currently provides jobs and generates
$6 million in tax revenues for the State of New Jersey.
Project Title Jersey Gardens Mall
Sponsor OENJ Corporation
Volume Placed 0.85 mcy
Placement Cost $40-56/cubic yard
Project Completion ....1998
(Photo by USACE)
10
-------
Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities
Table 2.1 Beneficial Uses Most Compatible With Dredged Material of a Given
Composition
Material Type
Rock
Potential Beneficial Use*
Habitat Restoration and Development
Beach Nourishment (offshore berms only)
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture
Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
Construction/Industrial Development
Sand and Gravel Habitat Restoration and Development
Beach Nourishment
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture
Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
Construction/Industrial Development
Consolidated Clay
Habitat Restoration and Development
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture
Construction/Industrial Development
Silt/Soft Clay
Habitat Restoration and Development
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture
Construction/Industrial Development
Mixture (rock/sand/
gravel/silt/soft clay)
Habitat Restoration and Development
Beach Nourishment (offshore berms only)
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture, and Aquaculture
Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
Construction/Industrial Development
* Uses in bold italics text are the most suitable uses for the corresponding material type.
general, clean, coarse-grained sediments (sands) are suitable for a wide
range of beneficial uses. Fine-grained sediments can be suitable for
more limited uses such as wetlands habitat development. In addition to
grain size and levels of contamination, other characteristics to consider
are salinity of the sediments, water content, organic content, acidity,
levels of nutrients, and engineering properties such as shear strength
and compressibility.
The following subsections review the major types of sediment (PIANC
1992). In addition, the special case of contaminated material is
reviewed.
Rock. Dredged rock can vary in both size and composition (e.g., soft
rocks such as sandstone or coral, or hard rocks such as granite). Rock
is a potentially valuable construction material if appropriately sited that
can be used, for example, in building offshore berms (to protect and
improve beach stability), for foundation material in road construction
11
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
or other building activities, or as aggregate in concrete. Sorting may be
required if the dredged rock varies widely in size. In general, dredged
rock is not contaminated.
Sand and Gravel. Sand and gravel are usually considered the most valu-
able dredged material. They can be used in a number of applications,
including beach nourishment, recreational land development, habitat
development, and concrete, and as fill in shoreline construction. Like
rock, dredged sand and gravel may require washing and sorting and
usually are not contaminated. If they are contaminated, however, dewa-
tering and washing treatments may clean the material sufficiently (Aver-
ett etal. 1990).
Consolidated Clay. Consolidated clay can range from hard to soft.
Depending on the process, consolidated clay may be dredged as lumps
of clay or in a homogeneous mixture of water and clay, which might
require dewatering before use. Possible uses for consolidated clay include
wetlands or uplands habitat restoration and development, shoreline con-
struction, offshore berm construction, or manufacture of construction
material such as bricks and ceramics. Consolidated clay often is not con-
taminated because it usually is found in undisturbed sediments.
Silt/Soft Clay. Silt and soft clay, the most common material excavated
in maintenance dredging of rivers and ports, are valuable as material
for agricultural purposes (e.g., topsoil) and for all forms of habitat res-
toration and development. Other applications include construction and
recreational land development. Depending on the application, the mate-
rial may require dewatering and desalination. Silt and soft clay are more
likely to be contaminated if they come from river or port areas subject to
heavy industrial activity or agricultural runoff.
Mixture. Often an area to be dredged contains a mixture of material.
If the dredging area contains previously undisturbed sediments, these
sediments may lie in discrete layers that can be dredged and managed
separately. By contrast, areas along rivers or ports that are dredged
often may contain mixed sediments that cannot be excavated separately.
Depending on its composition, mixed material can still be used for a
range of beneficial uses, including habitat restoration and development,
recreational land development, shoreline construction, agriculture and
forestry, or construction. Material mixtures may or may not be contami-
nated, depending on the source of the material and its location in rela-
tion to contaminated sources.
Contaminated Material. Assessing the level of contamination in
dredged material is a key step in determining its suitability for beneficial
uses (see Table 2.2). In general, the more contaminated the material, the
greater the constraints on reuse. Highly contaminated material is not
usually suitable for reuse unless its potential risk for biomagnification
is low (e.g., The Jersey Gardens Mall project discussed on p. 10). The
important issue is not so much whether the material is contaminated
12
-------
Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities
Table 2.2 Potential Beneficial Uses Based on Sediment Contamination Status
Contamination
Status
Uncontaminated
(Broad Use)
Potential Beneficial Use
Habitat Restoration and Development
Beach Nourishment
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture and Aquaculture
Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
Construction/Industrial Development
Multipurpose Uses (Involving more than one of the
above)
Contaminated
(Limited Use -
Sediment to be
capped and/or
contained)
Parks and Recreation
Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture and Aquaculture
Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
Construction/Industrial Development
Multipurpose Uses (Involving more than one of the
above)
but whether the level and type of contamination are consistent with the
intended use. For example, material being considered for aquaculture
needs to be free from pathogens and contaminants that might bioaccu-
mulate to harmful levels in products cultivated for human consumption
(e.g., shrimp). By contrast, material being used for shoreline construc-
tion in an otherwise heavily industrialized area may not need to be
entirely clean, although the material likely would need to be contained
and not allowed to leach or otherwise move through the environment.
In some cases, projects might be able to mitigate the use of contami-
nated material with cleaner material. As an example, an island creation
project might use somewhat contaminated material for the bottom lay-
ers of construction, followed by upper layers of clean material to cap the
contaminated sediment.
Assessing whether levels and types of contamination are consistent with
intended use requires consideration of not only technical issues (e.g.,
potential for human contact and potential for bioaccumulation), but also
regulatory and policy issues (e.g., CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines).
Regulations vary by state, so it is important to assess state requirements
as well as federal policy regarding standards for contamination and reuse.
2.4 Potential Challenges to Beneficial Use Projects
Although beneficial use projects provide opportunities for broad pub-
lic benefit as well as more efficient resource use, there are neverthe-
less potential challenges to their application. Project cost and logistical
issues are often the biggest challenges. Perceptions and biases create
other challenges. In particular, because the concept of beneficial use
projects may not be familiar to all parties in a decision-making process
(e.g., regulators, dredging sponsors, and the public), these projects can
13
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
suffer from being seen as "novel" with unclear standards and practices.
This latter drawback has diminished, however, as beneficial uses have
become more prevalent and a common business practice.
Some key potential challenges are the following:
>• Numbers of Participants: Planning and decision-making processes
for beneficial use projects can become complicated and unwieldy
given that federal and state natural resource and wildlife agencies,
local agencies, private parties, and public interest groups are often
involved. Also, because some of these participants may be responsi-
ble for protecting different resources, the parties may have conflicting
goals for the resources under consideration. For example, one par-
ticipant interested in water quality may be charged with minimizing
filling to maintain water course flushing, while another party may
favor filling to improve a particular wildlife habitat. These potentially
conflicting interests require project partners to exercise considerable
organizational skills—as well as patience—to work out the details of
a beneficial use activity.
Project sponsors can meet this challenge by determining as early as
possible in project planning which government and private organiza-
tions and individuals will have an interest and want to be involved
in the project. Chapter 3 describes the types of organizations and the
variety of interests project sponsors will encounter. It also indicates
the positive project planning and implementation roles that many of
these organizations can take. As Chapter 6 indicates, using technical
advisory groups can be one effective means of reducing the complica-
tions inherent in addressing differing interests. As that chapter rec-
ommends, project sponsors should try to involve all interested parties
in project planning as early as possible. By approaching these organi-
zations' involvement with an open attitude of cooperation and collabo-
ration, project managers can alleviate multi-organization complexities
to a great extent.
>• Lack of Familiarity with Beneficial Uses: Although some types of
beneficial use projects have been implemented for several decades,
many federal and state agency staff, as well as private and public
participants, still may be unfamiliar with such a concept or specific
proposal. As with any innovative or emerging public policy issue,
time and effort must therefore be spent in clarifying appropriate
policy and procedures to be followed. This problem can be significant
in that participants are likely to emphasize approaches they are
familiar with and resist approaches new to them—particularly in
public decision making.
The information provided about beneficial use opportunities in this
chapter and in Appendix A is meant to provide at least an overview of
information about the great variety of ways in which dredged mate-
rial has successfully been used for beneficial purposes. Likewise, the
information about federal agencies' responsibilities, federal policies
14
-------
Overview of Beneficial Use Opportunities
encouraging beneficial uses, and sources of federal funding presented
throughout this manual should help clarify current relevant poli-
cies and procedures. The beneficial use planning groups described
in Chapter 3 are another source of useful information about what
approaches to using dredged material have proven most effective.
^ Confusion About Compatibility of Beneficial Use with Various Com-
positions of Dredged Material: Participants who are generally not
involved in dredging activities might be confused about the various
grain size characteristics and qualities of dredged material and the
associated potential of these characteristics and qualities for benefi-
cial uses. As discussed previously, some participants may be inclined
to assume that either all dredged material is contaminated and that
disposal is the only appropriate option, or all dredged material is
suitable for beneficial use. This chapter's descriptions of the major
dredged material types and the beneficial uses most compatible with
each material should help to reduce this confusion.
>• Logistics: Independent of issues of acceptability, beneficial use proj-
ects also may suffer logistical problems. Because beneficial use proj-
ects entail connecting a dredging project to a use project, it will be
important to coordinate the timing and physical location of activities.
For example, if the dredging project proceeds throughout a 3-year
timeline, but the intended beneficial use (e.g., island creation) cannot
be initiated for several years, it may be difficult for the projects to be
successfully coupled. The proximity of the dredged material source to
its ultimate use also has logistical and cost implications. In addition,
it is important to address issues of scale. Is the amount and type of
dredged material compatible with the use project? For example, if a
dredger has millions of cubic yards of material, a small wetlands res-
toration project may not be an adequate alternative for use (although
it might be possible to link various smaller use projects to match the
scale of the dredging project). Alternatively, projects such as beach
nourishment may require continuing sources of material.
As discussed in Chapter 6, participation in a local beneficial uses
planning group or its equivalent enhances coordination of the timing,
location, and scale of dredging and material use. Private parties who
are interested in funding or promoting a beneficial use project should
contact their nearest USAGE District office to learn if a beneficial use
planning group is operating in their region.
Tracking a project's regulatory requirements to the agencies
responsible for them is a good way to identify and begin to coordinate
with all the project's participants. Contacts for three case studies
of successful beneficial use projects from around the country are
listed in fact sheets accompanying this guidance document (EPA/
USAGE 2007a, EPA/USACE 2007b, and EPA/USACE 2007c). These
contacts are good sources of information about meeting the logistical
challenges presented by beneficial use projects.
Because beneficial
use projects entail
connecting a dredging
project to a use project,
it will be important to
coordinate the timing
and physical location of
activities.
15
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
*• Coordination of Financial Components: Lining up the necessary
financial components of the project can present challenges. Indepen-
dent of whether timing and location will work, and whether there is
general support for the project, project sponsors will have to arrange
specific financing and cost-sharing, work out issues of land owner-
ship or other legal questions, obtain necessary permits, and seek
support.
Chapter 5 of this document discusses the funding of beneficial use
projects. Chapter 6 outlines ways to work with the public to foster
understanding and support for beneficial use projects. Project propo-
nents may very well discover that public sentiment strongly favors
the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes.
Project proponents enhance the likelihood that a beneficial use proj-
ect will go forward if they clearly communicate to each regulatory
agency involved how the project itself will benefit the resource for
which that agency is responsible. For example, in the case of the Jetty
Island, Washington, beneficial use project sponsored by the Port of
Everett, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries), and the Washington Department of Fisher-
ies supported the project because of its potential to enhance salmon
spawning habitat.
^ Other Potential Barriers: Other potential barriers to beneficial use
projects can be identified during the early stages of project planning.
For example, a state Coastal Zone Management agency may request
beneficial use of dredged material for a dredging project conducted
or sponsored by a federal agency to be consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the state's coastal management policies. This
could hinder the federal agency's project if the state agency's request
is made after initial project appropriation, especially if this appropria-
tion is based on a disposal option that is less costly than the possible
beneficial use alternatives. These types of potential barriers can be
overcome by early coordination among all stakeholders and careful
planning of the project.
More than anything, beneficial use projects depend on foresight, good
planning, and steady effort. Given that, there is every reason to believe
that, in most cases, the various challenges can be overcome.
16
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Identifying Project Partners
and Other Decision Makers
Many types of organizations typically contribute to the success of ben-
eficial use projects. EPA, USAGE, and state resource agency staff, for
example, can play a very important initial role by identifying interested
parties, regulatory agencies, beneficial use alternatives, limitations
on the use of the material, and logistical requirements. Several other
entities can help increase project feasibility and success by providing
essential design, implementation, and monitoring services. This chapter
describes the many organizations that can be involved in beneficial use
projects.
3.7 Dredging Organizations 18
3.2 Users of Dredged Material for Beneficial Purposes 28
3.3 Beneficial Use Project Facilitators 30
17
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Although beneficial use projects have many purposes and take
many forms, all such projects are likely to have at least one spon-
sor that needs to create or, more likely, maintain a navigable waterway
or harbor. Section 3.1 describes the types of organizations that conduct
dredging projects in the United States. These include government agen-
cies, port authorities, marinas, industries, and private persons. USAGE'S
dredging and permitting responsibilities are described in detail because
of this agency's prominent role in U.S. dredging activities.
Involving other public and private entities as partners to design, build,
maintain, or fund a beneficial use project can contribute to a successful
project. Such organizations seek to be partners because of their inter-
est in using dredged material to accomplish a beneficial purpose such
as performing environmental restoration or providing recreational or
commercial opportunities. Sometimes such partners may be willing to
help fund the project. Most are able to contribute by advising on tech-
nical issues and helping to design and implement the placement of the
dredged material. Still others help dredgers by assisting with permitting
and by providing an economical means of using the dredged material.
Section 3.2 briefly describes the types of organizations that typically
support using dredged material for beneficial purposes. Although they
do not necessarily play a direct sponsorship or partnering role, many
federal, state, and local government agencies can facilitate beneficial use
projects by participating in project planning, implementation, and moni-
toring. Some of these agencies also enforce environmental, land-use,
and other regulations applicable to beneficial use projects. Other agen-
cies and organizations that can influence project success are discussed
in Section 3.3. Furthermore, it is important to note that the public can
also influence a project's decision-making process and success. Chapter
6 provides information on outreach and public involvement.
US ACE will be a principal
federal sponsor of
almost any large
dredging project in the
United States. In that
role, US ACE is the largest
supplier of dredged
material for beneficial
uses.
3.1 Dredging Organizations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAGE has long been the most active dredging organization in the
United States, as well as the primary regulator of dredging and dredged
material disposal. In fulfilling its mission of developing and maintain-
ing the nation's navigational channels and harbors, USAGE dredges and
disposes of about 200 million cubic yards of sediment annually in con-
structing, operating, or maintaining Civil Works projects. USAGE will be
a principal federal sponsor of almost any large dredging project in the
United States. In that role, this agency is the largest supplier of dredged
material for beneficial uses.
USAGE'S principal organizational levels are its Headquarters in
Washington, D.C., regional Divisions, and local District offices.
There are eight regional USAGE Divisions that are divided into 38
local Districts. Divisions and Districts have jurisdiction over specific
18
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
geographic areas usually defined by state or river basin boundaries.
Districts are the foundation of the USAGE Civil Works program. While
USAGE'S higher echelons provide program and policy oversight,
direction, and management, the Districts manage all day-to-day
operations and work with other project sponsors, federal and state
agencies, and all interested members of the public. USAGE Districts
have the authority to, among other things, construct, operate, and
maintain major Civil Works water resource projects, including dredging
projects. Under authority granted to USAGE by the MPRSA, RHA, and
the CWA, the Districts also issue, modify, or deny permits for dredging
and disposal projects proposed by other entities. Local USAGE District
office staff are an important source of information and guidance for any
organization intending to participate in a beneficial use project, either
as dredger or as user of dredged material. USAGE'S responsibilities
and processes in its Civil Works program and for permitting dredging
projects planned by other entities are briefly described here.
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Civil Works Projects.
USAGE'S Civil Works program includes projects to further the interests
of commercial navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration. The
key federal objective of these water resource projects is to contribute to
national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's
environment pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable
executive orders, and other applicable federal and state regulatory
requirements. USAGE projects may be individually authorized by Con-
gress or, in the case of some smaller projects, conducted under a Con-
tinuing Authorities Program. Most opportunities for beneficially using
dredged material are provided by USAGE'S navigation projects.
USAGE'S Civil Works activities are divided into two broad categories: (1)
construction of new projects and (2) operation, maintenance, or modi-
fication of existing projects. USAGE'S process for developing new Civil
Works projects consists of a multiyear, five-phase
series of analyses that become progressively more
detailed as the process moves forward. The five
phases are the Reconnaissance Phase, the Fea-
sibility Phase, the Preconstruction Engineering
and Design Phase, the Real Estate Acquisition
Phase, and the Construction Phase. USAGE must
receive Congressional funding and authoriza-
tion to continue at various points in this process.
Applicable law also requires cost-sharing agree-
ments with non-federal partners. According to
these agreements, non-federal partners pay part
of projects' Feasibility, Preconstruction Engineer-
ing and Design, and Construction Phase costs.
Once planning is completed for major Civil Works
projects, USAGE assigns a life-cycle project man-
ager responsible for the project's implementation
Placement of dredged material for habitat restoration
(Photo by USACE).
19
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
USACE policy places an
important emphasis
on the environment,
providing increasing
opportunities for
beneficial use projects.
and ultimate construction. An increasingly important aspect of the life-
cycle manager's responsibilities is to seek prospective dredged material
beneficial use opportunities and develop information on the availabil-
ity, scheduling, and volumes of dredged material from particular Civil
Works projects, and to coordinate beneficial use disposal alternatives.
Many new Civil Works navigation projects are multipurpose projects
designed to accomplish both a navigational and an ecological restoration
purpose because environmental restoration is a primary mission of the
USACE Civil Works program. During the Feasibility Phase of these proj-
ects, USACE formulates alternative plans that would contribute to the
federal National Economic Development (NED) objective, while address-
ing the water resource problem in question. The NED plan reasonably
maximizes net economic benefits consistent with protecting the nation's
environment. Each plan shows that particular alternative's effects on
the national and regional economy, the environment, and other social
indicators. USACE is required to select the NED plan (or the plan that
reasonably maximizes net economic benefit consistent with protecting
the nation's environment) for addressing the particular water resource
problem unless there is some important overriding reason for choosing
an alternative plan that would not maximize net economic benefit.
Since the passage of the landmark Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1986, environmental restoration is a primary mission of
USACE, along with some of the more traditional mission areas of flood
damage reduction and inland and coastal navigation. New laws have
established specific authority for USACE to use dredged material for
environmentally beneficial purposes, and programs are in place to
implement these laws to the extent that funds are available.
USACE policy places an important emphasis on the environment, which
provides increasing opportunities for beneficial use projects. Now that
ecosystem restoration is recognized as one of the primary missions of
USACE under its planning guidance (USACE 2000), the placement option
that is selected for a project should maximize the sum of net economic
development and national environmental restoration benefits.
Selecting the recommended plan for new Civil Works projects allows for
offsetting project costs with the project's navigational and ecosystem
restoration benefits. USACE can now incorporate one or more options
for beneficial use of dredged material into new Civil Works projects as a
cost-effective means of accomplishing projects' dual purposes. By doing
so, the beneficial use's potential economic, environmental, or social ben-
efits and attendant costs are included in the overall mix of project costs
and benefits that are analyzed in the project plan submitted to Congress
for construction authorization.
Section 204 of WRDA 1992, as amended by Section 207 of WRDA 1996,
seeks to maximize beneficial uses of dredged material with Civil Works
navigation projects. Section 204 provides authority for projects that
20
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
create, restore, and protect ecologically important habitats, including
wetlands, in connection with dredging associated with new and existing
projects. USAGE can use this permanent authority to sponsor beneficial
uses of dredged material without having to seek specific authority for
individual projects. Section 5.1 discusses in more detail Section 204
funding opportunities and required arrangements with local project
co-sponsors.
Dredged material produced by project construction can be used in ben-
eficial use projects not associated with USAGE'S navigation or ecologi-
cal restoration missions; for example, airport construction. In this case,
the local sponsor of the airport project has to pay the increment of cost
above USAGE'S least-cost disposal alternative associated with disposal at
the airport site.
After Civil Works projects are constructed, USAGE'S operations and
maintenance (O&M) program may conduct the day-to-day manage-
ment, repair, and rehabilitation of these Congressionally authorized
projects. Completed USAGE projects are operated and maintained by
either USAGE or local sponsors, depending on the projects' authorization
and purposes, and the terms of the cooperative agreements between the
local sponsors and USAGE.
Just as for construction of new Civil Works projects, it is USAGE policy
to dispose of dredged material associated with the O&M of existing proj-
ects in the least costly manner that is consistent with sound engineering
practice and that meets applicable federal environmental standards. In
the context of O&M activities, this manner of dredged material disposal
is referred to as the "base plan" (also known as the "Federal Standard")
for accomplishing the project's navigation purpose. If a beneficial use
project contributes to a project's navigation or ecosystem restoration
purpose and is part of a base plan, it is funded as a navigation O&M
cost from USAGE Operations and Maintenance General Funds.
Where the beneficial use project is not part of the base plan, but still
contributes to a project's navigation or ecosystem restoration purpose,
the base plan serves as a reference point for measuring the incremental
costs of that beneficial use. For costs exceeding the base plan, one or
more non-federal entities must enter into a cooperative agreement with
USAGE to participate in the project (Section 204, WRDA 1992). The non-
federal partner must agree to pay 25 percent of the incremental costs
above the base plan (or 35 percent in the case of placement on beaches)
associated with the construction of the project, including provision of all
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations. The non-fed-
eral partner is also responsible for the entire cost of operation, mainte-
nance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation associated with the project.
In cases in which the beneficial use of the dredged material does not
contribute to USAGE'S navigation or ecosystem restoration missions, the
project partner using the material pays the full costs of that beneficial
use project.
21
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Three statutes provide USAGE with flexibility to alter existing projects
and to use dredged material for beneficial purposes. As noted previ-
ously, USAGE can use its permanent authority under Section 204 of
WRDA 1992 to incorporate beneficial use projects into O&M activities
of navigation projects. Section 216 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Flood Control Act of 1970 authorizes USAGE to review the operation of
any completed Civil Works project when changed physical or economic
conditions warrant it, or for improving the quality of the environment in
the overall public interest. This section requires USAGE to report to Con-
gress in such cases with recommendations on modifying the project's
structures or operation. To make such modifications for either purpose,
USAGE first has to obtain Congressional authorization after submitting
a Feasibility Study for such action. The third statutory authority, Sec-
tion 1135 of WRDA 1986, provides USAGE with rather limited authority
regarding beneficial use projects. This section enables USAGE to modify
the structures and operations of Civil Works projects to redress envi-
ronmental damage being caused by those projects. This authority has
been used to implement ecosystem restoration projects. Section 5.1 of
this report discusses in more detail the funding opportunities created
by these authorities and describes beneficial use projects that have used
these authorities.
One of the most important considerations for dredged material manag-
ers is knowing sufficiently far in advance when suitable material will
be available. It normally takes project proponents 2 or 3 years to plan
and design a beneficial use project, arrange project financing, and meet
all applicable regulatory requirements. The fact that much of USAGE'S
dredging is conducted under its waterway maintenance program means
that much of USAGE dredging is done as part of a routine, predictable
process on an annual basis. USAGE staff can provide information on
characteristics, volumes, and availability of material from these pro-
grams. Local permittees also may dredge on schedules consistent with
federal projects to be able to contract with area USAGE dredgers, thereby
reducing project costs. USAGE District staff handling these permits
should be able to help characterize this non-USACE dredged material
and help coordinate with the permittees. (See the next section, "USAGE
Permitting of Dredging and Placement for Beneficial Uses," for details.)
Beneficial use project sponsors can take advantage of this predictability
by working with the local USAGE District early in project planning. It
is particularly important that interested parties expecting to use USAGE
dredged material be ready to take and use this material at a time con-
sistent with the USAGE dredging schedule. Because of the complexity of
setting up beneficial use projects and USAGE'S need to spend funds allo-
cated for particular dredging projects in the particular year for which
they were allocated, project sponsors should start planning and regula-
tory compliance activities as early as possible to be ready for the mate-
rial when dredging begins.
22
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
USAGE Permitting of Dredging and Placement for Beneficial Uses.
Activities involving dredging, disposing of dredged material, or other-
wise modifying navigable waters, produce approximately 300 million
cubic yards of dredged material annually. USAGE dredges and disposes
of about 200 million cubic yards annually, and authorizes approximately
another 100 million cubic yards for disposal each year. Port authorities,
state or local governments, and private entities engaging in such activi-
ties are subject to permitting requirements under a number of federal
statutes, as briefly described below. In addition, other federal agen-
cies (e.g., the U.S. Navy) are required to apply for such permits, even if
USAGE is the organization that would do the dredging. Although USAGE
does not issue permits to itself for Civil Works projects, it applies the
same regulatory criteria and guidelines, as appropriate, to its own Civil
Works projects.
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, USAGE issues
permits for, among other things, dredging operations and/or disposal of
dredged material, in "navigable waters of the United States." The "navi-
gable waters of the United States" subject to Section 10 are all waters
historically used, currently used, or susceptible to use to transport
interstate or foreign commerce, including the three-mile territorial sea
as well as all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (33 C.F.R.
329.4).6 Responsibility for implementation of Section 10 is vested in
USAGE, and permit decisions are based upon a public interest review in
accordance with USAGE criteria (33 C.F.R. 320.4).
The discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States" is subject to permitting under Section 404 of the CWA. "Waters
of the United States" include the traditional navigable waters identified
in the previous paragraph, and also extend to additional non-navigable
tributaries and many types of wetlands.7 Section 404 of the CWA is
jointly implemented by EPA and USAGE, with USAGE being respon-
sible for issuing permits, using its public interest review criteria and
also the environmental criteria contained in EPA regulations (40 C.F.R.
230), commonly referred to as the "404(b)(l) Guidelines." Issuance of
Section 404 permits is also subject to an EPA review role. A fundamen-
tal requirement of the 404(b)(l) Guidelines is that "...no discharge of
dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alter-
native to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact
on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other
significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)).
Transportation of dredged material from the United States for the pur-
pose of dumping into "ocean waters" is subject to permitting under
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(commonly referred to as "the Ocean Dumping Act" or "MPRSA"). The
Project sponsors should
start planning and
regulatory compliance
activities as early as
possible to be ready
for the material when
dredging begins.
6 In some instances Section 10 permitting applies even beyond the seaward edge of the three mile territorial sea. Under Section 4(f)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, a Section 10 permit is required for the construction of artificial islands, installations, and
other devices located on the seabed to the seaward limit of the outer continental shelf. See 33 C.F.R. 320.2 (b).
7 Readers should contact USAGE or EPA for the most recent information related to the extent of CWA jurisdiction.
23
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
"ocean waters" subject to Section 103 are the three-mile territorial sea
and all ocean waters seaward of the territorial sea.8 Section 103 of the
MPRSA is jointly implemented by EPA and USAGE, with USAGE being
responsible for issuing permits, using its public interest review criteria
and also the ocean dumping criteria contained in EPA regulations (40
C.F.R. Part 227). Under the MPRSA, issuance of Section 103 permits is
subject to an EPA concurrence role, and USAGE also is directed to use,
to the maximum extent feasible, ocean dumping sites that have been
designated by EPA. Under the applicable regulations, in addition to the
potential impacts of the dumping, consideration must also be given to
the need for ocean dumping and the availability of practicable alterna-
tives to the dumping (40 C.F.R. (230) (c)).
Although the scope of waters covered by CWA Section 404 and MPRSA
Section 103 overlap within the three-mile territorial sea, the regula-
tions provide that where the placement of the dredged material is for
the primary purpose of fill (e.g., beach nourishment, island creation,
construction of underwater berms), the activity will be regulated under
CWA Section 404 (40 C.F.R. 230.2(b); 33 C.F.R. 336.0(b)). As a result,
the discharge of dredged material into the territorial sea for the types of
beneficial uses addressed in this document (see activities discussed in
Section 2.2) will be subject to permitting under CWA Section 404 rather
than MPRSA Section 103.
Compliance with other laws, including NEPA, CZMA, the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and
Section 401 of the CWA, are considered as part of USAGE'S processing of
permit applications. A list of some of these other relevant authorities and
a summary of their content may be found at 33 C.F.R. 320.3.
When a party applies to conduct any new or maintenance activity or
project that may require a permit, the USAGE District office assigns a
project manager. This person coordinates all the necessary paperwork,
meetings, hearings, and other actions to comply with USAGE and EPA
regulatory requirements, and with NEPA. The potential applicant can
request a Pre-application Meeting to determine what information and
studies may be required in the permit process. Appropriate federal agen-
cies, including EPA and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fish-
eries), and state and local agencies are strongly encouraged to join this
Pre-application Meeting so the applicant gains the greatest insight into
the potential data needs, problems, and alternatives as early as possible.
At this time, the parties can discuss dredged material evaluation and
disposal alternatives, including potential beneficial uses. The applicant
is also informed of the information USAGE will need to prepare either
an EA or an EIS in compliance with USAGE'S responsibilities under
NEPA. During this stage of the process, permit applicants also prepare
! One exception to this is Long Island Sound. Even though Long Island Sound is considered inland waters and is subject to CWA Sec-
tion 404, Section 106 (f) of the MPRSA requires that any dumping of dredged material into Long Island Sound from a federal project,
or from a non-federal project exceeding 25,000 cubic yards of dredged material, shall comply with the requirements of the MPRSA.
24
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
An osprey perches atop
its nest in a coastal habitat
created with dredged material
(Photo by USACE).
sediment sampling and evaluation/testing plans for USACE District and
EPA Regional staff review. Specifically, testing and evaluation proce-
dures described in relevant dredged material testing guidance (EPA/
USACE 1991, EPA/USACE 1998) should be consulted at this stage.
A permit application, which must be filed with USACE where the dredg-
ing is proposed, describes the proposed activity's location, purpose,
need, and schedule, as well as the proposed means of disposing of the
dredged material. Because most beneficial uses of dredged material
occur in inland waters or the territorial sea, the permitting authorities
most likely to be relevant will be Section 10 of the RHA and Section 404
of the CWA. Permits under those authorities are issued using various
forms of authorization. General permits authorize a category or catego-
ries of activities in specific geographic regions or nationwide when they
cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts. In
some instances, maintenance dredging or restoration of damaged struc-
tures/fill may qualify for a general permit. Standard permits are issued
following an evaluation process including NEPA analysis, compliance
with the CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines and ESA, and several other
analyses. If USACE deems the application complete, it publishes a Public
Notice to inform other agencies and the public of the proposed activity,
and to solicit comments and information necessary to evaluate its proba-
ble impact. This comment period generally lasts 30 days, but may, under
certain circumstances, be reduced to 15 days. After the comment period
has closed, USACE determines whether to prepare an EA or EIS and
whether to hold a public hearing, if one has been requested by an inter-
ested party. If USACE determines that an EIS is required, it publishes a
Notice of Intent to write an EIS and a Scoping Notice to begin the formal
NEPA process; more commonly, however, a less detailed EA is prepared
for beneficial use projects.
25
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
During and after the public comment period, EPA reviews the applica-
tion and supplementary information to determine whether the placement
activity complies with applicable regulatory criteria, including the Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines. Regional EPA staff may also participate in the NEPA
process as a cooperating agency or comment on the proposed placement
during the NEPA process. If there is concern that the proposed activity
does not meet regulatory criteria, EPA can work with USAGE to construct
"special conditions" that will bring the proposal into compliance.
After obtaining all relevant data, USAGE conducts a public interest
review to weigh potential beneficial and detrimental impacts of the pro-
posed activity. USAGE considers all public and agency comments and
applicant responses when determining whether to permit the activi-
ties. USAGE bases this analysis on various environmental, economic,
and social benefit criteria. Depending on the impacts of this project,
this can include the impacts to threatened or endangered species (e.g.,
sea turtles) and require a formal or informal consultation with USFWS
and/or NOAA Fisheries. For projects subject to Section 404 of the CWA,
USAGE also applies the 404(b)(l) Guidelines developed by EPA in con-
junction with USAGE. After reviewing the permit application, permit
evaluations, and supporting documentation, and making a decision on
permit issuance, USAGE issues a Statement of Findings (SOF) and either
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), if a NEPA EA was prepared
supporting such a finding, or a Record of Decision (ROD), if an EIS was
prepared. These documents, which are sometimes consolidated into
a single document, explain the permit decision and any conditions.
Requests for modifications and/or extensions of the permit can be sub-
mitted to USAGE.
Local and State Port Authorities
Local or state port authorities or port associations may sponsor projects
both as dredgers and as managers of dredged material. Port authorities
have a direct interest in maintaining the navigability of harbors and ship
channels. While USAGE maintains federal channels in U.S. ports and
harbors, port authorities generally are responsible for dredging side chan-
nels and berthing areas. Some port authorities also have responsibility
for airports, bridges, and tunnels. In this capacity, port authorities have
used dredged material for building or expanding airports at several loca-
tions around the country, including Kennedy International Airport in
New York City, Boston's Logan International Airport, and the Washington
Reagan National Airport. The following box provides an example of other
ways a port authority may be involved in a beneficial use project.
U.S. Navy
The U.S. Navy dredging operations are also potential sources of dredged
material for beneficial uses. The U.S. Navy maintains areas immediately
adjacent to its piers and wharves worldwide. The U.S. Navy's dredging
program is conducted similarly to, and often in coordination with, local
26
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
t Authorities Working with USAGE
The Poplar Island project in Chesapeake Bay is a notable example of a beneficial use project undertaken by a
port authority in partnership with USAGE. The Maryland Port Administration has ongoing placement needs
for materials dredged at the Port of Baltimore. The Port, along with USAGE under its WRDA 1992 Section 204
authority to jointly fund beneficial use projects, is sponsoring a multiyear project that is rebuilding an island in
the middle of Chesapeake Bay
using material taken from bay
channels serving the Port of
Baltimore. This island provides
the Port with a location
to place its materials, and
restores critically degraded
marsh wetlands, upland bird
habitat, and shellfish habitat.
The initial phase of rebuilding
Poplar Island took place in
March 1998. Completion of
dredged material placement
is scheduled for 2015. Upon
completion, 40 million cubic
yards of material will have
been used to create 1,140
acres of wildlife habitat.
Aerial view of Poplar Island (Photo by USACE).
USAGE Districts' planning and implementation of Civil Works projects.
U.S. Navy projects for larger new construction dredging must be Con-
gressionally authorized. Both new construction and maintenance dredg-
ing projects must receive permits issued by USACE.
Marinas and Other Private Dredgers
Local marinas, or consortia of marinas, may be considered as potential
project partners. Marinas require periodic dredging to keep their chan-
nels and pier areas navigable, thereby providing a potential source of
dredged material for beneficial uses. They also can use dredged material
for projects such as protective dikes. Likewise, many private companies
around the country face the continuing need to dredge privately owned
waterways adjacent to their commercial and industrial facilities. As pro-
viders of dredged material, such companies also should be considered
potential beneficial use project partners. Compared to other potential
project sponsors, marinas and industrial companies dredge and use
relatively small volumes of material. These dredging activities require
dredging permits issued by USACE. They should, nonetheless, be consid-
ered as project partners, depending on the needs of particular beneficial
use projects. While each project is small, the cumulative effect of part-
27
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
nering with marinas and private dredgers may be large when projects
are integrated into a regional plan or project. Because of the relatively
small size of their operations, marinas and industrial organizations
often can more easily, flexibly, and quickly make decisions and commit-
ments with regard to supporting beneficial use projects than some larger
prospective project sponsors.
3.2 Users of Dredged Material for Beneficial Purposes
Although USAGE is currently the largest sponsor for beneficial uses,
other organizations are also able to take advantage of available dredged
material regionally and around the country. These organizations are
discussed below.
Private Commercial and Environmental Organizations
Private commercial and environmental organizations have for many
years used or supported the use of dredged material for a vast number
of beneficial purposes. For example, some island habitats created from
dredged material are owned by private conservation organizations or
private citizens. Homes and businesses in many cities such as Galveston,
Texas, and Portland, Oregon, have been constructed on dredged mate-
rial foundations. These and many other commercial and ecological uses
indicate that private organizations are viable project partners, at least in
dredging projects of small to medium size.
The agriculture and horticulture industries also are using dredged mate-
rial beneficially. Dredged material at some placement sites, especially in
river systems, has been used for truck farming and livestock pasturage.
Farmers have successfully incorporated dredged material into marginal
soils to increase productivity. Dredged material also has been applied to
soils at orchards and nurseries to enhance production of fruit, nuts, and
ornamental plants. Project sponsors should contact the local field office
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) or their state depart-
ment of agriculture to explore these potential uses.
Private Entities Working with Port Authorities and USAGE
The Montezuma Wetlands Project (Montezuma) is occuring through a collaboration of private and government
organizations. The private entity that owns the site, Montezuma Wetlands LLC, is financing the design,
permitting, construction, and operations. Beginning in 2003, Montezuma started receiving sediment dredged
from channel deepening in the Port of Oakland. In collaboration with the Port and USAGE (under its WRDA 1992
Section 204 authority to fund beneficial use projects), Montezuma has successfully recovered 2.5 million cubic
yards of material. Depending on the rate of dredging needs in the San Francisco Bay-Delta area over the next
10 to 20 years, Montezuma expects to restore over 1,800 acres of historical tidal wetlands on a 3,500-acre site
in San Francisco Bay-Delta with about 17 million cubic yards of sediment dredged from Bay-Delta harbors and
channels.
28
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
Environmental organizations around the country can facilitate benefi-
cial use projects in various ways. They can, for example, help identify
organizations located near upcoming dredging projects that may be
willing to cosponsor beneficial use projects. They also may help iden-
tify potential sources of project funding and, in some cases, provide
volunteers to perform such tasks as planting grasses at marsh restora-
tion sites. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the National Audubon
Society are examples of such environmental organizations. Audubon,
for example, has used the fact that more than 70 percent of the colonial
nesting birds on the Atlantic Seaboard use dredged material islands for
nesting in developing its sponsored refuges. Project sponsors may want
to consider enlisting the support of such organizations in project plan-
ning and construction.
The creation or
maintenance of
recreational sites is one
of the most prevalent
beneficial uses of
dredged material.
Local and State Parks Departments
The creation or maintenance of recreational sites is one of the most prev-
alent beneficial uses of dredged material. In beach nourishment projects,
for example, dredged material is used to supply sediment to beaches
subject to erosion. Many other recreational sites, such as riverside picnic
areas, water parks, and marinas, have been built, both by USAGE and
private sponsors, using dredged material, particularly along the upper
Mississippi River and its tributaries. In the Great Lakes region, parks,
marinas, fishing piers, and other recreation facilities have been built
using dredged material. Dredging projects in coastal and riverine areas
have high potential for use in shoreline recreation development such
as swimming beaches, boat-launching ramps, and fishing piers. When
areas are large enough, campgrounds, marinas, outdoor sport facilities,
and hiking and nature trail systems may be constructed.
Many factors influence the use of dredged material placement sites for
recreation. Potential project sponsors must consider the local or regional
demand and need for recreational facilities, the interest and capability
of local sponsors to participate in development and operation, and avail-
able access. Recreational uses of dredged material tend to be heavily
dependent on acquiring local funding. The innovative funding opportu-
nities discussed in Section 5.3 may be particularly useful for recreational
projects.
In pursuing recreation-related uses of dredged material, project spon-
sors should contact local and regional planning agencies for informa-
tion about public needs for recreational facilities. The local office of the
National Park Service also may be a good source of information.
State Highway Departments
Dredgers seeking project partners for beneficial use of their material
should consider state highway departments as potential participants.
Dredged material has been used for sanding roads in some areas of the
country. For example, USAGE dredging operations in the upper Missis-
29
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
sippi River region have supplied material for this purpose. Many types
of dredged material are also suitable for use in road construction and
maintenance.
Solid Waste Management Departments
State and local government solid waste management departments are
experiencing increasing difficulty in siting and operating environmen-
tally sound solid waste disposal operations. Most of this country's solid
waste is ultimately placed on land in sanitary landfills. The location of a
sanitary landfill is often constrained by cover material requirements and
availability, and the site characteristics related to potential adverse envi-
ronmental impact. In many instances, dredged material can be used as
a daily, interim, or permanent cover material, allowing location of sani-
tary landfills at sites previously considered unsuitable due to the lack
or high cost of native cover soil (USAGE 1987). USAGE operations in the
St. Paul (Minnesota) and Mobile (Alabama) Districts have both supplied
suitable dredged material as capping for urban landfills, as has the Port
of Oakland (California).
State Nonregulatory Agencies
Some state governments include nonregulatory agencies whose mis-
sion is natural resource conservation and enhancement. The California
Coastal Conservancy is one example of such an agency. As the primary
local sponsor, along with USAGE, the Coastal Conservancy has played
a key role in tying together USAGE'S dredging activities at the Port of
Oakland with the Sonoma Baylands tidal land restoration project in the
northern part of San Francisco Bay. Through the Coastal Conservancy's
organizational efforts and 25 percent share of project financing, the
Sonoma Baylands project put dredged material to beneficial use.
3.3 Beneficial Use Project Facilitators
Several other federal, state, and local government agencies and private
organizations play a role in designing, reviewing, implementing, and
regulating beneficial use project activities. Experience gained from
many beneficial use projects indicates the prudence of assembling all
project participants—be they other sponsors, regulatory agencies, fund-
ing sources, or public representatives—into a cohesive, participatory
team as early as possible. These projects invariably require solving
technical issues, accommodating environmental interests, and revising
public perceptions. These tasks can be accomplished only by involving
all interested parties in project design from the earliest stages. This sec-
tion identifies specific agencies and organizations that can significantly
contribute to project success.
30
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
Local Beneficial Use Planning Groups
Dredging project sponsors seeking potential partners, or parties needing
dredged material, should first determine whether there is a "local ben-
eficial use planning group" in the area. In some areas where large-scale
dredging projects are underway or proposed, various federal, state, and
local agencies have developed these formal or informal groups, which
can act as planning groups and clearinghouses of information about
applicable dredging policies, upcoming dredging projects, and timing
and volumes of dredged material expected to become available. USAGE
and EPA, as well as federal and state resource management agencies and
port authorities, are typically represented in these groups. The National
Dredging Team, a federal interagency team, prepared a planning guid-
ance document on formation of local planning groups to assist in the
development of dredged material management plans. The guidance is
called "Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material
Management Plans" (NOT 1998), and can be found at http://www.epa.
gov/owow/oceans/ndt.
Although beneficial use planning groups do not sponsor beneficial use
projects, they can provide a central source of much useful information.
USAGE District offices, EPA Regional offices, state agencies (such as
departments of environmental protection, environmental conservation,
or natural resources), coastal zone management offices, local dredged
material planning groups, Regional Dredging Teams, and the NOT can
provide information about the existence of such groups in any particular
area of the country.
There are several examples of local planning groups. For example, a
Beneficial Uses Workgroup in the Puget Sound region of Washington
has researched the area's applicable federal and state dredging policies
(including information on potentially available dredged material) and
has provided a forum for encouraging and coordinating beneficial use
projects. In the Galveston Bay region of Texas, a beneficial use planning
group consisting of five federal, two state, and one local agency assisted
in obtaining USAGE approval for using material dredged from the Hous-
ton-Galveston navigation channels for a variety of beneficial purposes
during the project's 50-year life span.
Similar groups in the San Francisco Bay and Chesapeake Bay regions
provide useful information about beneficial use activities and opportu-
nities in those areas. In the San Francisco Bay area, federal and state
agencies have developed a long-term management strategy (LTMS) for
dredged material. The LTMS plan established a beneficial use goal of
40 percent of the average 4-6 million cubic yards of material dredged
in the area annually. Several regional-scale use projects to restore or
enhance tidal wetlands and other aquatic habitats have already begun,
including projects to use over 40 million cubic yards of dredged material
to restore over 4,000 acres of tidal wetlands during the next 10 years.
In the Chesapeake Bay region, a number of agencies and organizations,
E
Local beneficial use
planning groups act
as clearinghouses of
information about
applicable dredging
policies, upcoming
projects, and timing
and volumes of dredged
material expected to
become available.
31
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Dredging operations in Port of
Oakland, California
(Photo by Port of Oakland).
including the Maryland Port Administration, USFWS, and the Chesa-
peake Bay Foundation, have formed a consortium to restore Poplar
Island, a rapidly eroding island in Chesapeake Bay, using material
dredged from Bay channels serving the Port of Baltimore (see the box
on page 27 for a project description). Although this consortium is not
designated as a beneficial uses group per se, it is seeking to use dredged
material for other beneficial use projects.
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA has a number of roles in beneficial use projects. Federal statutes
give EPA an oversight responsibility to ensure that dredged material
excavated from the nation's waters is disposed of in compliance with
the CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines (where applicable) or with ocean
dumping criteria (where applicable). To achieve that goal, EPA provides
technical advice, as well as environmental review. CWA Section 404(c)
authorizes EPA to "veto" or prevent USAGE permits under certain cir-
cumstances. Proposed permits and USAGE dredging projects for ocean
dumping of dredged material are subject to EPA review and concurrence
under the MPRSA. On a case-by-case basis, EPA can exercise its formal
authority to review and comment on NEPA analyses and other docu-
mentation prepared by USAGE.
EPA staff normally participate in beneficial use projects by collaborating
with USAGE, project sponsors, and other interested parties as part of the
planning team that designs and implements the projects. Regional office
staff contribute valuable guidance on the technical aspects of dredging
32
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
alternatives analysis and monitoring. EPA participates in the process
by identifying, for example, project design modifications, permit condi-
tions, or management restrictions to meet the compliance obligations of
the CWA. EPA also has contributed funding to some beneficial use proj-
ects through programs such as the National Estuary Program (NEP). For
example, EPA Region 9 provided a grant to California to pay for monitor-
ing of the Sonoma Baylands project in San Francisco Bay. Along with
USAGE District personnel, EPA staff in the closest regional office can
provide information regarding other regulatory or advisory agencies that
should be involved in beneficial use projects. Project sponsors should
always contact and involve EPA regional office staff as early as possible
in project planning.
EPA regional office staff also have increasingly important opportunities
to pursue new beneficial use options. For example, EPA staff working
on water sediment and dredged material disposal issues can help bring
prospective beneficial use project partners together with USAGE and
other dredgers that have available material. By interacting with other
local EPA staff, they also may be able to identify other beneficial use
opportunities, for example, the use of dredged material for capping in
Superfund projects. In collaboration with USAGE District office staff and
other regional participants, EPA staff can help facilitate beneficial use
projects by maintaining a current inventory of mitigation projects that
periodically require dredged material. This inventory will enable pro-
spective project sponsors to determine the volume, quality, and timing
of dredged material that will become available. EPA staff also can advise
project partners on the most expeditious way to comply with applicable
regulatory requirements.
Federal Natural Resource Agencies
USFWS and NOAA Fisheries are often involved in beneficial use proj-
ects. USFWS's mission is to work with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continu-
ing benefit of the American people. NOAA Fisheries' charge is similar,
but with an emphasis on marine resources. These agencies ensure that
dredging projects do not unduly harm the resources under their jurisdic-
tion and comply with laws under their jurisdiction, such as the Endan-
gered Species Act, Magnuson Stevens Act, and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. In doing so, these agencies often play an important
role in choosing a beneficial use site and identifying appropriate uses on
a programmatic and case-by-case basis. They may also participate in a
sponsorship role when the dredging project creates new environmental
resources. For instance, USFWS might seek to protect fish and shellfish
habitat or to participate in the design of new habitat. Likewise, NOAA
Fisheries may pursue protecting wetlands as part of project planning
while striving to create new wetlands and marsh areas by using dredged
material.
33
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Federal natural resource
agency personnel
normally have extensive
knowledge of and
contacts with dredgers
and those who may use
the dredged material
beneficially around their
regions.
Like USAGE and EPA regional office staff, these federal resource agency
personnel normally have extensive knowledge of and contacts with
dredgers and those who may be able to use dredged material benefi-
cially in their regions. By using these contacts to bring dredgers together
with those who could use the material beneficially, USFWS and NOAA
Fisheries staff can foster beneficial use projects in their regions that
could result in projects that provide added benefits to threatened, endan-
gered, and harvested species such as improved or additional nesting,
roosting, resting or feeding habitat for birds, fish, and marine mammals.
State Environmental and Natural Resource Agencies
Many states have a central agency charged with environmental pro-
tection. Although these organizations' responsibilities differ by state,
they generally involve an expansive, multimedia environmental protec-
tion mission analogous to that of EPA on the federal level. Most, if not
all, states also have separate agencies to protect and manage natural
resources, including state-owned land, wildlife, and habitat. These state
agencies, like their federal counterparts, normally exercise considerable
influence on the shape and ultimate success of beneficial use projects.
Moreover, under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act federal agencies
are required to consult and consider the views of state fish and wild-
life agencies in federal agency decisions. The state agencies may also
participate both as regulators and as indirect sponsors of beneficial use
projects. They have an important role in project planning, often contrib-
uting technical guidance, to ensure that the environmental requirements
under their jurisdictions are fully met. In some instances, parties inter-
ested in using dredged material beneficially must gain these agencies'
concurrence on project design. Depending on the nature of the project
and available funds, state agencies in some cases have paid for certain
phases of projects, such as monitoring of project performance.
In general, states, by constitutional or other legal authority, own the
land underlying the lakes, rivers, and other navigable waterways within
the state. Together with their natural resource responsibilities, the states
exercise an important responsibility to ensure that beneficial use proj-
ects are in the overall public interest of the state.
State environmental and natural resource agencies also can play the
valuable role of beneficial use project conveners. Like the similar federal
agency staff, certain state agency staff have wide knowledge of dredg-
ing activities and potential beneficial uses in their states. State agency
staff can use this knowledge to encourage and facilitate beneficial use
projects.
Coastal Zone Review Agencies
The Coastal Zone Management Act authorizes states to establish coastal
zone management plans. The CZMA requires that each federal agency
34
-------
Identifying Project Partners and Other Decision Makers
activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a
manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of approved state management programs. Further-
more, private parties seeking a federal permit for activities affecting
land or water uses in a state's coastal zone are required to obtain certifi-
cation that the proposed activity will be consistent with the state's plan.
Sponsors of beneficial use projects in the coastal zone will, therefore,
need to coordinate with the pertinent state-level coastal zone review
agencies. The regulatory authority of the CZMA is much like the authori-
ty provided to states under Section 401 of the CWA in that the state exer-
cises an approval authority for activities undertaken in jurisdictional
coastal zones based on specified statutory considerations. State coastal
zone plans often include special management areas where certain types
of activities are either encouraged or discouraged. Advantage can be
gained by engaging the coastal zone management agency early in the
beneficial use project planning process to ensure that the project will be
consistent with the state's coastal zone management plan.
Native American Tribes
Native American tribes are frequent participants in beneficial use proj-
ect planning and implementation. Native American interests can vary
from economic development/commercial interests associated with ports
to the preservation or development of fish or bird habitat and the pres-
ervation of historic properties and cultural resources. Like the agen-
cies mentioned previously, tribal representatives can contribute useful
technical guidance to project planning. Within reservation boundaries,
tribes also own dredged material from river-bed lands and can become
involved with CWA Section 404 permitting and natural resource dam-
age assessments on their usual and accustomed fishing grounds. Natural
resource damage assessments may be a source of some beneficial use
projects for tribes.
The Federal Government has a unique trust responsibility to feder-
ally recognized tribes. This responsibility is legally based on treaties,
statutes, executive orders, Supreme Court decisions, and the historical
relations between the United States and the tribes. Existing U.S. Indian
law obligates the Federal Government to recognize the tribes' special
status as sovereign, dependent nations. Government-to-government con-
sultation with tribes is expected to occur during the earliest phases of
federal projects that may impact tribe economies, cultures, health, or
environment.
Pre-decisional consultation is an important aspect of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 36 C.F.R. Part 800 clearly
specifies tribal roles in the Section 106 decision-making process. The
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) may also play a role in Sec-
tion 106 consultation, as may the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva-
35
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
tion. Although the SHPO may be involved in the Section 106 process, the
NHPA regulations specifically identify circumstances in which federal
consultation with tribes must occur to meet the unique responsibilities
of the trust relationship. Note that the trust relationship exists solely
between federally recognized tribes and the Federal Government. It does
not apply to state or local governments, nor does it apply to applicants.
Trust responsibility cannot be delegated.
36
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Beneficial Uses in the Context
of Watershed Planning
and Regional Sediment
Management
Linking dredged material placement needs with beneficial uses can be
most practical, cost-effective, and environmentally advantageous when
beneficial use planning is integrated with watershed planning processes
and regional strategies for managing sediment resources. In such efforts,
beneficial use of dredged material is a management tool that supports
watershed and other regional goals. This chapter provides an overview
of identifying and selecting beneficial use projects within this broader
context.
4.7 From Pollution Contralto Industrial Ecology 38
4.2 Watershed and Sediment System Approaches to Planning and Management 40
4.3 Decision-making Process 45
4.4 Evaluation Criteria 47
4.5 Qualitative Evaluation 51
4.6 Summary. 52
37
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Dredged material management and beneficial use can be integrated
into watershed planning by applying the principles of pollution
prevention, strategic resource management, and industrial ecology.
Understanding the links between these principles and beneficial use
within the context of watershed-wide processes can lead to more effec-
tive sediment management. Applying a watershed or regional sediment
management approach places dredged material (and beneficial use plan-
ning) within larger system goals, such as looking upstream to reduce
the amount of sediment to be dredged downstream or understanding
the implications of removing sediment from a system, and can make use
of watershed planning tools such as mitigation banking.
4.1 From Pollution Control to Industrial Ecology
Over the past few decades, environmental policy at federal and state
levels has begun to replace the historic focus on end-of-pipe pollution
control with an emphasis on pollution prevention, strategic resource
management, and industrial ecology. These evolving concepts of pollu-
tion control can have implications for resource management and can be
applicable to dredged material management.
Pollution Prevention
Historically, regulators sought to control industrial pollution at the
point of discharge by imposing "end-of-pipe" effluent limits or requir-
ing particular treatment or disposal technologies. Today, environmental
leaders in both government and industry recognize the importance of
pollution prevention to avoid depending solely on an after-the-fact pollu-
tion control approach. They are increasingly focused on avoiding initial
pollution generation from both point and nonpoint sources. Pollution
prevention is often a more efficient, more effective, and safer means of
protecting the environment than relying solely on pollution control.
Pollution prevention has developed primarily in an industrial context,
where it involves several related activities, including:
>• substituting or conserving material (changing the inputs used);
>• redesigning or substituting equipment (changing the process used);
and
^ improving operation, maintenance, training, and controls (changing
operational practices).
These activities enable industry to produce a given level of output with
less pollution, often at lower cost. For dredged material management,
reduction of sediment volumes entering the navigational channels can
decrease the need to dredge. Efforts could focus on reducing losses of
sediment from the landscape, stream banks, and other sources that
38
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
result in sediment transport and accumulation in harbors and water-
ways. Beneficial use of dredged material also results in less dredged
material being disposed in the marine environment and can play an
integral role in pollution prevention.
Strategic Resource Management
Though initially conceived with reference to chemicals, energy, water,
and process inputs used by industry, pollution prevention is becoming
more widely applied in other contexts as well. Sometimes referred to
as strategic resource management, this approach emphasizes greater
efficiency in resource use to reduce needs for raw materials. Examples
include recycling paper, glass, metal, plastics, and other material;
searching for improved energy efficiency in both production and con-
sumption; and applying low-pesticide farming techniques. By recog-
nizing dredged material as a resource, beneficial use results in a more
efficient use of sediment. Integrating dredged material management and
beneficial use into watershed and sediment system planning can help
keep sediment in the system when needed, or reduce the loss or accessi-
bility of the material when it is placed in remote disposal facilities.
Industrial Ecology
The concept of industrial ecology is a particularly promising offshoot
of the strategic resource management perspective. Industrial ecology
suggests that industry can be usefully viewed as analogous to an eco-
system—as an interwoven web of production and consumption in which
the by-product of every organism (and industrial process) is a poten-
tial source of material and energy for other organisms (and industrial
processes). By including plants and firms within a geographic region,
industry, or other system, industrial ecology broadens the search for
pollution prevention and strategic resource management opportunities
beyond the individual industrial plant or firm. Industrial ecology seeks
to find markets for the productive use of by-products, such as dredged
material, rather than viewing them as waste requiring treatment or dis-
posal. Matching available dredged material with sediment needs can
foster productive use of the dredged sediments. Discussion of dredged
material availability and suitability across a range of regional projects
supports a strategic, lifecycle approach to dredged material manage-
ment. This strategic approach can include economic development and
environmental management factors. Such strategies may help develop
markets for dredged material use, and promote efficient use of sediment
resources that may be scarce in some regions.
Industrial ecology
seeks to find markets
for the productive use
of by-products, such
as dredged material,
rather than viewing
them as waste requiring
treatment or disposal.
Implications for Dredged Material Management
The principles of pollution prevention, strategic resource management,
and industrial ecology are relevant to managing dredged material.
Pollution prevention emphasizes reducing the volume of material that
must be dredged. USAGE and EPA are coordinating with other federal
39
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
agencies, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Admin-
istration, and the private sector, to reduce the need for dredging. Mea-
sures include using shallower lanes for inbound traffic at export-oriented
ports, improving vessel traffic control to more efficiently allocate use of
deep channels, using ship simulators to assist in the design of more effi-
cient channels, real-time reporting of water level depths to optimize the
use of existing channel depths, and controlling nonpoint source sedi-
ment loadings that contribute to siltation.
Strategic resource management and industrial ecology also support
beneficial uses. From the viewpoint of the generator (dredging entity),
dredged material is not necessarily waste to be disposed of at increas-
ingly high cost. Instead, it is a product that can be sold or potentially
given away. From the standpoint of someone who needs sediment,
dredged material is a potentially attractive alternative to mining new,
more costly material. From a watershed perspective, keeping soils
where they benefit ecosystems and economic development results in
more efficient resource use, lower costs, and reduced environmental
impacts.
The application of these principles to dredged material management
primarily seeks to reduce the volume of material to be dredged, but also
emphasizes beneficially using the products of dredging as resources.
Managers and regulators should also keep in mind the implications of
removing sediment from a system. Removing sediment from a system
can cause a shift in the sediment system balance and exacerbate stream-
bed erosion, coastal shore erosion, and other processes dependent upon
sediment resource availability in a system.
Federal and state
regulatory and natural
resource management
agencies recently
have recognized
the advantages of
more integrated,
comprehensive
approaches to
protecting and restoring
en vironmental resources.
4.2 Watershed and Sediment System Approaches to
Planning and Management
Historically, the regulated community has faced multiple federal, state,
and local regulations that separately, and sometimes inconsistently,
impose environmental requirements on a given activity, such as siting
a facility, developing property, or managing industrial emissions. This
piecemeal system is a product of laws that were crafted to protect a par-
ticular environmental medium (e.g., water, air, soil) or resource (e.g.,
fish, wildlife, wetlands), address a particular environmental concern, or
apply to a particular geographic area, often without reference to possible
effects on other interrelated media, resources, concerns, or regions. The
differing orientations of these laws often have led the associated federal
and state environmental protection and natural resource management
agencies to develop distinctive cultures, priorities, constituencies, and
ways of operating. The result is fragmentation—overlaps, gaps, and
inconsistencies in regulatory coverage and approach that may greatly
complicate public and private decision making as the various govern-
ment agencies and members of the regulated community struggle to
resolve cross-cutting issues.
40
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
Federal and state regulatory and natural resource management agencies
recently have recognized the advantages of more integrated, comprehen-
sive approaches to protecting, restoring, and managing environmental
resources. These integrated approaches involve greater emphasis on
agency coordination across all levels and more attention to interrelation-
ships of watershed or other system-wide processes and issues. For exam-
ple, EPA and state water resource management agencies are emphasiz-
ing broader-based and coordinated management of all sources of water
pollution, including diffuse nonpoint sources, rather than focusing only
on specific industrial or municipal sources in isolation. They are placing
priority on better sharing of information and on developing strategies
that cut across agencies. Examples of the trend toward more watershed-
wide planning that are relevant to beneficial use proponents include the
watershed approach, the regional sediment management approach, and
mitigation banking.
The Watershed Approach
Since passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water
Act) in 1972, our nation has made great strides in protecting and restor-
ing the water quality in our aquatic ecosystems. Since the mid-1990s,
EPA has joined with other stakeholders to nationally promote the use
of a watershed approach. A watershed approach is a broad coordinat-
ing process focusing on priority water resource problems to achieve
watershed-specific environmental goals. Developing appropriate water-
shed approaches that focus on environmental priorities is a process that
allows stakeholders to accomplish more through collaboration than each
can do with its own limited resources.
A watershed is a geographic area of land in which water, sediments,
and other suspended and dissolved material drain to a common body
of water, such as a lake, river, wetland, bay, estuary, or ultimately an
ocean. A watershed approach is hydrologically focused, involves all
stakeholders, and strategically addresses priority environmental goals.
These goals should ultimately protect and restore the health of the
nation's aquatic resources, which includes but goes beyond meeting
water quality standards.
A watershed approach may include the following key elements:
>• Focus on hydrologically-defined areas.
>• Use of an integrated set of tools and programs to address problems.
>• Involvement of all stakeholders.
>• Use of an iterative planning or adaptive management process to
address priority water goals.
^ Breaking down barriers between plan development and
implementation.
A watershed approach is
hydrologically focused,
involves all stakeholders,
and strategically
addresses priority
environmental goals.
41
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
A watershed approach is a process that can be applied to any envi-
ronmental goal in any watershed, including beneficial use of dredged
material.
Integrating the beneficial use of dredged material into watershed
approaches can support priority environmental goals such as habitat res-
toration and pollutant management. Applying a watershed approach may
improve the health of wetlands, coastal ecosystems, and marine waters,
and may also address pollutants such as clean sediments. A watershed
approach can consider discharges and receiving waters, but it can also
integrate land-based activities that affect water quality and quantity. It
may also address issues such as navigation, flood control, and recreation.
Because of the variety of possible issues, stakeholder participation may
include both land management and water resource agencies, as well as
other diverse groups such as industry and business, community groups,
and academia. The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a good example of
successful application of a watershed approach because it involves a wide
range of stakeholders. Established under Clean Water Act Section 320, it
is an EPA flagship community-based watershed program. One NEP, the
Puget Sound Action Team, has built partnerships with stakeholders such
as the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for the purpose
of characterizing clean sediment dredged from navigational channels for
use in potential beneficial use projects such as wetland restoration.
Regional Sediment Management
Similar to applying a watershed approach, sediment system-based
planning and management provides a regional strategy for managing
sediment resources. Often called regional sediment management, this
approach addresses sediment-related issues within a regional context.
Regional sediment management uses the sediment system as a context
for recommending projects and activities involving sediments; it also
links sediment sources with regional sediment needs. This can help
balance needs for keeping sediment in the system with concerns about
excess sediment, while also promoting the beneficial use of dredged
material (Martin 2002).
Regional sediment management attempts to "design with nature" by
using knowledge of both sediment movement in a region, and the
interrelationships of projects and management actions. The concept of
regional sediment management originated in the notion of coordinating
USAGE dredging activities in coastal systems (e.g., navigation mainte-
nance, beach nourishment, and habitat restoration) to foster balanced,
natural system processes, and to reduce project costs. The concept is
applicable to any sediment system; regional sediment management
approaches are being applied in riverine, estuarine and coastal systems.
The regions are defined by sediment systems, which are used for plan-
ning purposes. Consideration is given to sources, sinks, timing, direc-
tion, quantity, and quality of sediment, as well as identification of fac-
tors influencing each of these characteristics.
42
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
Application of this approach encourages consideration of the range of
activities affecting transport, erosion, removal, and deposition of sedi-
ment in a region, such as:
>• Dredging and placement to maintain navigation depth or reservoir
capacity.
^ Building structures that divert, trap, or interrupt sediment flows.
^ Erosion protection structures for riverbanks, shorelines, seabeds, and
channel bottoms.
^ Habitat restoration and protection.
>• Sand and gravel mining for construction or other purposes.
Development of regional sediment management strategies uses knowl-
edge about the sediment system and the range of activities affecting it
to inform local project decisions and future planning. Partnerships and
collaborations across agencies, levels of government, and the private
sector are key to implementing projects that balance the many sediment
objectives resulting from the wide range of sediment interests and com-
peting demands for sediment resources. Regional sediment management
strategies match the variety of needs for sediment with anticipated sedi-
ment resources available from dredging waterways and harbors.
Regional sediment management strategies often seek to keep sediment
in the system. Strategies consider lifecycle and system implications of
beneficial uses that remove sediment from the system (e.g., construction
materials, capping, top soil, or upland habitat restoration). In some cases
beneficial uses that result in sediment being removed from the system
may produce short term benefits, but may also produce undesirable con-
sequences or lost opportunities in the long term. In other cases system
dynamics are such that there are no anticipated adverse affects. In each
instance the balance of the sediment system is considered relative to
multiple sediment management objectives.
Mitigation Banking
Another application of the watershed approach is the identification,
development, and "banking" of environmental resources within the
watershed or ecosystem for subsequent use in offsetting impacts of
development at another site within the same watershed or ecosystem.
The practice of "mitigation banking" has been increasingly applied in
the area of wetlands protection. Chapter 7 and the footnotes in this sec-
tion provide additional references on mitigation banking for wetlands.
Under the CWA Section 404 permit program, USAGE and EPA have
established a three-step overarching sequence for mitigating the envi-
ronmental effects of discharging dredged or fill material to wetlands and
other surface waters:
1. Avoidance. Applicants must first demonstrate that there are no prac-
ticable alternatives to the proposed discharge that would have less
E
Regional sediment
management uses
the sediment system
as a context for
recommending projects
and activities involving
sediments; it also links
sediment sources with
regional sediment needs.
43
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem (when the alternative does
not have other significant environmental consequences).
2. Minimization. All appropriate and practicable steps to minimize
adverse impacts must be taken, for example, through project
reconfiguration.
3. Compensatory Mitigation. For unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after minimization, appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation (e.g., wetlands restoration or creation) is required.
As a result of applying this sequence, compensatory mitigation has
become a common requirement of nearshore development that affects
wetlands. EPA, USAGE, and other federal agencies have provided spe-
cific guidance for how mitigation banking can be used to satisfy CWA
Section 404 and other mitigation requirements.9
In cases where on-site mitigation (at the same site as the development)
is not feasible (perhaps because the development project is small or the
project site is in a location not amenable to mitigation), mitigation bank-
ing has become a vehicle for facilitating off-site mitigation. It involves
restoring, creating, or enhancing wetlands within a watershed, generally
in advance of a specific development proposal, and using the resulting
bank as a source when compensatory mitigation is required for approval
of a Section 404 permit elsewhere in the watershed.
Mitigation banks are established when a public or private entity restores
or creates wetlands for the purpose of providing mitigation to offset
unavoidable wetland losses in advance of development actions. Miti-
gation banks typically involve the consolidation of small, fragmented
wetland mitigation projects into larger contiguous sites that can be
designed to be more beneficial to the environment. Units of restored or
created wetlands are expressed as "credits" that may subsequently be
withdrawn to offset wetland losses incurred at the project development
site. Mitigation banking incorporates a watershed-wide perspective by
recognizing that mitigation can often be more effectively provided at the
watershed level than on a site-by-site basis.
In addition to mitigation banking, regulatory and natural resource
management agencies are also experimenting with other less formal
trading of environmental resources. For example, there is increased
emphasis on trading public and private lands to create larger contigu-
ous parcels where resource protection has greater overall value than
on more numerous small and isolated parcels. In one case, federal land
management agencies are seeking to exchange other federal lands
for private holdings in ecologically sensitive locations. There is also
increased emphasis on encouraging development projects to engage in
' The "Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks" (60 FR 58605, November 28, 1995) is available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/mitbankn.html. This interagency guidance clarifies the use of mitigation banks to offset
impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act. Additional references on compensatory mitigation banking are available at http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/.
44
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
compensatory environmental projects, such as including wildlife or rec-
reational amenities, even where not explicitly required by regulation.
Implications for Beneficial Use Projects
Increasing the use of the watershed approach, regional sediment man-
agement, mitigation banking, and other similar integrated planning
approaches creates a climate conducive to beneficial use projects. Such
efforts will make dredged material generators more aware of beneficial
use opportunities, those needing sediment for restoration or other pur-
poses more aware of dredged material as a resource, and regulators and
resource managers more likely to support and foster the necessary link-
age. Individual dredging or development projects or activities that could
beneficially use dredged material may be best evaluated and implement-
ed in a watershed and regional sediment context, rather than in isolation.
Another positive effect of the trend towards watershed and sediment
system-wide planning and management is that, once identified in these
broader plans, beneficial use projects are more easily implemented.
As federal, state, and local resource agencies develop more experience
working together, it should be easier for beneficial use project sponsors
to work with these agencies on issues that cut across jurisdictions.
Additionally, certain types of mitigation banking and other resource
trading practices may create increased opportunities for beneficial uses
of dredged material in wetlands creation, restoration, and enhancement,
and in the creation of other environmental amenities.
4.3 Decision-making Process
As discussed in Chapter 3, beneficial use project participants include
organizations and persons performing at least four roles:
>• The Dredged Material Generator: often USAGE, in connection with
construction or maintenance of Civil Works projects, or a federal,
state, local, or private organization.
>• The Regulators of Dredged Material Placement: primarily USAGE, as
well as EPA and state regulatory agencies. Local authorities may also
have a role.
>• The Beneficial Use Project Sponsor: often USAGE; another federal,
state, local, or private organization; or a combination.
^ Interested Parties: federal, state, and local environmental protection
and natural resource management agencies, public interest groups,
local residents, and others.
This section is intended to assist all participants in identifying and
evaluating beneficial use options for managing dredged material result-
ing from a given dredging project. Keep in mind that processes already
in place (e.g., National Estuary Programs, Local Planning Groups) may
As federal, state, and
local resource agencies
develop more experience
working together, it
should be easier for
beneficial use project
sponsors to work with
these agencies on
issues that cut across
jurisdictions.
45
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
assist, and be used, in decision making and involving interested par-
ties. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, choosing dredged material management
options involves several fundamental decisions:
^ whether to manage the dredged material by open-water disposal, con-
fined disposal, or a beneficial use (Decision Node A);
>• which type of beneficial use to choose if this management option is
chosen (Decision Node B); and
^ which specific project to choose if the material is to be managed by a
particular type of beneficial use (Decision Nodes C).
Figure 4.1 Decisions to Make in Choosing Dredged Material Management Options1'
Open-Water
Disposal Sites
Confined
Disposal
Facility
Open-Water Dispersive
Open-Water
Nondispersive
Open-Water Other
Sub-benthic CDF (pits)
Upland/Island CDF
CDF Other
Habitat Development
Beach Nourishment
Aquaculture
Parks and Recreation
I
I
I
Multipurpose
Projects
0 This process can be iterative. For example, project participants may decide to manage dredged material through placement for
a beneficial use (Decision Node A). However, after determining the type of beneficial use and the specific project for this type
of beneficial use (Decision Nodes B and C) project participants may decide to investigate other options, including other projects
(Decision Node C), other types of beneficial uses (Decision Node B), or even other placement alternatives (Decision Node A).
46
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
The remainder of this chapter is intended to help participants determine
which categories of beneficial uses may be applicable, to identify or
devise specific projects within the applicable categories, and to compare
alternatives across beneficial use types (Decision Node B) and projects
(Decision Nodes C). This guidance is not intended to directly assist in
comparing beneficial use options with open-water or confined-disposal
options (Decision Node A). Applying the guidance in this manual should
provide information that is necessary to make comparisons among ben-
eficial use types (Decision Node B) and potential beneficial use projects
(Decision Nodes C).
Beneficial use opportunities are identified in a process that involves all
relevant stakeholders. Within the authorities established by the statu-
tory framework, active stakeholder participation in the decision-making
process is strongly encouraged. All stakeholders should be involved in
developing a preferred alternative.
4.4 Evaluation Criteria
Chapter 2 and the previous sections of this chapter present pertinent
information and general guidance to help project partners narrow the
field of potential beneficial uses to relatively few site-specific project
alternatives. Once project partners have identified feasible beneficial
use alternatives to disposal, the first step in choosing a beneficial use
option is to specify criteria for evaluating each alternative. Criteria are
sometimes referred to as goals, objectives, or attributes. Whatever the
label, they are simply the considerations that will be taken into account
in evaluating the alternatives. This chapter provides two approaches to
identifying evaluation criteria. Under the first approach, participants
use generic criteria, which are discussed here. The second approach is
a five-step process that involves all the project partners and other stake-
holders in collectively developing customized criteria.
Approach No. 1: Generic Criteria
A wide range of criteria could be applied to evaluate beneficial use alter-
natives. Table 4.1 provides a starting point for evaluating beneficial use
alternatives using generic criteria. Following are brief descriptions of
each of these criteria.
^ Human and ecological benefits could include creation, restoration,
or enhancement of habitat (either directly for fisheries or wildlife,
or indirectly for food web support), creation or enhancement of rec-
reational opportunities (either active recreation or passive aesthetic
enjoyment), enhancement of water quality (via sediment trapping or
nutrient retention and removal), or improvement of hydrologic func-
tions (groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge, flood storage
and desynchronization flow control, and shoreline anchoring).
E
Once project partners
have identified
feasible beneficial use
alternatives to disposal,
the first step in choosing
a beneficial use option
is to specify criteria
for evaluating each
alternative.
47
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Table 4.1 Criteria to Apply in Evaluating Beneficial Use Alternatives
Criterion
Human Benefits
Ecological Benefits
Compatibility with Estuary- or
Watershed-Wide Plans/Goals
Feasibility
Cost
Availability of Funding
Mechanisms (see Chapter 5)
Environmental Impacts
Legal Authority
Public Support
Risk
Examples
Recreation
Flood protection
Economic development
Improved hydrologic functions
Habitat enhancement
Improved water quality
Habitat restoration
Enhanced public access to water resources
Technical
Logistical
Institutional (decision process/infrastructure)
Dredging
Transportation and placement
Maintenance
Monitoring
USACE
EPA
Other federal agencies
State agencies
Local governments
Public/private partnerships
Private lenders/partners
Of construction
Of project, after construction
Authority to take action
Regulatory requirements/compliance
Decision leaders (e.g., elected officials)
Regulators
Neighbors
Advocacy groups
Other interested parties
General public
Ecological
Human health
Financial
Schedule of project
48
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
>• Compatibility with estuary- or watershed-wide plans and goals
refers to the connections between the public or environmental bene-
fits of the use and any specific goals established by planning authori-
ties for the estuary or watershed where the project is sited. This crite-
rion helps ensure integration between a specific beneficial use project
and broader watershed-wide planning goals.
>• Feasibility refers to whether the project will function as intended,
whether its construction and operation are practical and imple-
mentable, and whether a decision process/infrastructure is in place to
make decisions and take actions to implement the project.
^ Cost is the money required to construct, operate, maintain, and moni-
tor the project, net of any income from the project.
>• Availability of funding mechanisms is the ability of participants
to finance the beneficial use project. Funding mechanisms, and the
need to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of beneficial uses, are dis-
cussed separately in Chapter 5.
^ Environmental impacts are adverse effects on the environment
caused by constructing and operating the beneficial use project.
These potential impacts would also be identified through the NEPA
process for the project and the evaluations required under other rel-
evant statutes (e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).
^ Legal authority is the participants' authority to take the actions nec-
essary to successfully complete the project, including authorities to
permit or otherwise authorize the project, and to fund, construct, and
operate the project.
^ Public acceptance refers to support for the project by affected stake-
holders, including decision leaders, regulators, neighbors in the vicin-
ity of the project, interested parties (such as environmental or busi-
ness groups), and the general public.
^ Risk is the uncertainty surrounding other criteria, especially public/
ecological benefits, feasibility, and cost.
It may be useful to distinguish between threshold criteria, which any
project must meet to be acceptable, and balancing criteria, which can be
traded off against each other in evaluating alternatives if there is more
than one potential project. Suggested threshold criteria are identifiable
human or ecological benefits, compatibility with estuary- or watershed-
wide plans and goals, legal authority, and public acceptance.
Approach No. 2: Customized Criteria
In lieu of simply using generic criteria, project participants could devel-
op customized threshold and balancing criteria. Although more time-
consuming, this approach helps integrate the identification and evalua-
tion of beneficial use projects with whatever watershed-wide planning
process has been established for the watershed. In addition, involving
stakeholders (including regulatory authorities) in developing criteria is
49
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Involving stakeholders
in developing criteria
is likely to improve
the prospects that the
alternative ultimately
chosen will be
implementable.
likely to improve the prospects that the alternative ultimately chosen
will be implementable. The following suggested five-step process was
developed by Keeney(1988).
Step 1: Seek the early involvement of pertinent stakeholders in identify-
ing and structuring criteria. A good way to accomplish this task is
to meet with all stakeholders in a common orientation session. In the
session, outline the decision problem, explain the purpose of involv-
ing stakeholders and the processes by which these participants were
selected, describe how the results will be used, and discuss the prin-
ciples to be used for eliciting criteria and combining the results.
Step 2: Elicit criteria from stakeholder representatives. This process
requires from 1 to 8 hours per stakeholder representative. First ask
the representative to write down the criteria he or she believes to be
important to the decision problem. Then discuss the suggestions to
develop and refine the criteria.
Step 3: Combine each individual stakeholder's criteria into stake-
holder's own objectives hierarchy. The objectives hierarchy, which
is akin to an organization chart, groups criteria into categories and
subcategories at several levels of generality to facilitate understanding
and refinement of criteria. Objectives hierarchies can be constructed
from the top down (general to specific) or the bottom up (specific to
general). In practice, one often iterates several times from bottom to
top and back.
An example of part of a hypothetical objectives hierarchy for an indi-
vidual stakeholder about wetlands functions is provided in Figure 4.2.
In this example, at the highest level is the most general criterion: wet-
lands creation. This category is divided into somewhat less general
objectives, in this case related to wetland functions: hydrologic, water
quality, and habitat. On the right are more specific subdivisions of
objectives; for example, water quality functions may include sediment
trapping, and nutrient retention and removal. Similar hierarchies should
be created for the other criteria of the stakeholder, which in turn should
be combined into an overall hierarchy for the particular stakeholder.
Step 4. Combine the various stakeholder hierarchies into a single com-
prehensive hierarchy. Depending on the situation, this combination
may be developed after the session using professional judgment, or
negotiated through further discussion with the stakeholders. The
overall goal is to capture the diversity of objectives from the individ-
ual hierarchies without allowing the integrated hierarchy to become
too unwieldy. The selection of a preferred alternative as a single com-
prehensive hierarchy based on the consensus of all stakeholders is
strongly encouraged.
Step 5. Hold a review meeting with the stakeholders. At this meeting,
project partners and stakeholders should review the combined hier-
archy to minimize potential misinterpretations and to refine the final
product.
50
-------
Beneficial Uses in the Context of Watershed Planning
Figure 4.2 Hypothetical Objectives Hierarchy for Ecological Benefits of
Wetlands Creation
Wetlands
Creation
Hydrologic
Functions
Water Quality
Functions
Habitat
Functions
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater Discharge
Flood Storage
and Desynchronization
Shoreline Anchoring
Sediment Trapping
Nutrient Retention and
Removal
Food Chain Support
Habitat for Fisheries
Habitat for Wildlife
4.5 Qualitative Evaluation
Having identified the applicable criteria by either a generic or cus-
tomized approach, interested parties can evaluate and compare the
beneficial use options available. If the number of alternatives under
consideration is relatively small, this evaluation can probably be done
qualitatively. (In more complex cases, a quantitative evaluation may
be necessary.11) The following steps are recommended for a qualitative
evaluation:
>• Construct a matrix that arrays the criteria as row headings and the
alternatives as column headings.
^ In each cell, enter the objective data available regarding the perfor-
mance of the alternative with respect to the criterion (for example,
acres of wetland habitat to be created).
^ If objective data are not available, attempt to assign a subjective eval-
uation (for example, the expected feasibility of Alternatives A and B
is high, while the expected feasibility of Alternative C is medium).
^ After the matrix is completed, eliminate any alternatives that do not
meet threshold criteria.
11 For additional information on quantitative evaluation, see Social Utilities (Edwards 1971); How to Use Multiattribute Utility
Measurement for Social Decision Making (Edwards 1977); Multiattribute Evaluation (Edwards and Newman 1982); and Decision
Analysis and Behavioral Research (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986).
51
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Of the remaining alternatives, look for any that are dominated by
another alternative. For example, Alternative B will dominate Alter-
native A if Alternative B rates as good as or better than Alternative A
on each criterion. Eliminate weaker alternatives.
Retain the remaining alternatives for comparison with each other
(and non-beneficial use alternatives) on a qualitative/judgmental
basis.
4.6 Summary
Matching a dredged material disposal need with a beneficial use solu-
tion is likely to be more practical, cost-effective, and environmentally
advantageous when made as part of a broad, watershed-level planning
effort. This approach requires innovative collaboration at the local level
to achieve implementable solutions.
Choosing a dredged material management option involves several
fundamental decisions: whether to manage the dredged material by
open-water disposal, confined disposal, or a beneficial use; which type
of beneficial use to choose if the material is to be so managed; and
which specific project to choose if the material is to be managed by a
particular type of beneficial use. All these decisions can benefit from an
approach that specifies evaluation criteria and systematically evaluates
alternatives against the criteria. Such a process should help enrich the
range of beneficial use alternatives considered, improve compatibility
with watershed-wide planning goals, and enhance stakeholder
acceptance of the results.
, .
-
. *4itidlH
Beneficial use projects enhance economic, recreational, and ecological resources
(Photo by USACE).
52
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Funding Beneficial Use
Projects
Financing beneficial use projects demands efficient—and creative—use
of financial resources. This chapter describes ways beneficial use proj-
ect partners can raise funds necessary for project planning, design,
implementation, and monitoring. Both governmental and private fund-
ing sources and mechanisms are described in detail. Each funding
mechanism is discussed in light of advantages, limitations, and poten-
tial barriers. Real-life examples of how the funding mechanisms have
been applied also are included. This chapter does not discuss the basic
components of public finance or provide a comprehensive inventory of
financing mechanisms (e.g., taxes, fees, debt financing).12
5.7 USACE Funding Options Under Existing Authorities 54
5.2 Other Provisions of Law Potentially Applicable to Beneficial Use Projects 59
5.3 Other Financing Opportunities 61
2 For reviews of standard financing mechanisms, see Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Resources (EPA 1988);
Protecting Coastal and Wetlands Resources: A Guide for Local Governments (Chapter 5) (EPA 1992) available at http://nepis.epa.gov/;
and A Guidebook of Financial Tools: Paying for Sustainable Environmental Systems (EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board
and Environmental Finance Center Network 1999) available at http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/guidebook/guidebooktp.htm.
53
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Probably the most significant impediments to beneficial use proj-
ects are lack of sufficient funding and constraints imposed on the
use of those funds that are available. Limited financing forces decision
makers to make trade-offs among alternative environmental project
investments. To avoid shortchanging a proposed beneficial use project,
participants should try to maximize use of the funding authorities and
alternative financial resources described in this chapter. For further
detail on existing funding authorities and their application, readers can
contact their local USAGE District office.
Important Note:
This guidance manual includes descriptions of potential sources of
funds to help finance beneficial use projects. Inclusion of the potential
sources of funds does not constitute endorsement by EPA or USAGE; the
sources are identified here solely to aid users of this guidance manual in
exploring options for financing. There may be restrictions on the use of
some of the options discussed in this chapter; some options may not be
available in some places or for some purposes.
5.1 USAGE Funding Options Under Existing Authorities
There has been a major evolution of law and policy concerning the ben-
eficial use of dredged material since the passage of WRDA 1986. Envi-
ronmental restoration joins flood damage reduction and inland/coastal
navigation as primary missions of USAGE. Laws have established the
authority of USAGE to use dredged material for environmentally ben-
eficial purposes, and programs have been initiated to implement these
laws.
As described in Chapter 3, many new Civil Works navigation projects
are designed to be multipurpose projects addressing navigation and
other purposes such as ecological restoration. USAGE is required to
select the National Economic Development (NED) plan (or plan that
reasonably maximizes net economic benefit consistent with protecting
the nation's environment) for addressing the particular water resource
problem unless there is some important overriding reason for choosing
an alternative plan that would not maximize net economic benefit. Part
of the overall NED plan addressing a particular water resource problem
is the Federal Standard, or base plan, for disposal or placement. The
Federal Standard is defined as the least costly dredged material disposal
or placement alternative (or alternatives) consistent with sound engineer-
ing practices and meeting applicable federal environmental requirements,
including those established by Section 404 of the CWA and Section 103
of the MPRSA. The Federal Standard defines the disposal or placement
costs that are assigned to the "navigational purpose" of the project.
Establishing the Federal Standard for a particular dredging project is not
the same as selecting a disposal or placement option for that project, nor
54
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
does it limit potential federal participation in the project. As ecosystem
restoration is recognized as one of the primary missions of USAGE under
its planning guidance (USAGE 2000), factors beyond cost contribute to
decisions on placement or disposal options for dredging projects. The
selected placement or disposal option should maximize the sum of eco-
nomic development and national environmental restoration benefits.
Therefore, a beneficial use option may be selected for a project even if it
is not the Federal Standard for that project. Additionally, a project may
have more than one purpose, such as navigation and flood control. The
placement or disposal option preferred when two project purposes are
considered jointly may be different from those resulting from separate
considerations of navigation and flood control options.
If the beneficial use (e.g., environmental restoration) project is (or is
part of) the Federal Standard, its costs are considered to be navigation
(harbor or inland system) construction or maintenance costs and will
be funded accordingly. Where the beneficial use project is not (or is not
part of) the Federal Standard to accomplish the project's navigation pur-
pose, the plan serves as a reference point for measuring the incremental
costs of the beneficial use project that are attributable to the "environ-
mental purpose."
Cost-Sharing Arrangements
If a beneficial use is selected for a project and that beneficial use hap-
pens to be (or be part of) the Federal Standard, or base plan option, for
the project (because it is the least costly alternative that is consistent
with sound engineering practices and meets all relevant federal envi-
ronmental requirements), the costs of that beneficial use are assigned to
the navigational purpose of the project and shared with the non-federal
sponsor in the same manner as are other navigation construction, opera-
tions, and maintenance costs. If a beneficial use is selected for a proj-
ect, and that beneficial use is not the Federal Standard option, the plan
serves as a reference point for measuring the incremental costs of the
beneficial use project that are attributable to the "environmental purpos-
es." The costs for the beneficial use option are divided into two catego-
ries for the purpose of determining the federal and non-federal sharing
ratios. First, the costs assigned to the navigational purpose of the project
(i.e., the amount it would have cost to implement the Federal Standard
option) are shared with the non-federal sponsor. Second, the costs
beyond the navigational purpose costs (termed "incremental costs")
are shared on a different basis, depending on the type of beneficial use.
The non-federal sponsor is responsible for the entire cost of operation,
maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation associated with the
completed beneficial use project. For further information on who bears
the costs assigned to the "navigational purpose" of a dredging project,
as well as the incremental costs of a beneficial use project, refer to both
Appendix B of this manual and the manual's companion document on
the role of the Federal Standard (EPA/USAGE 2007f).
55
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Justifying Excessive Costs
Although the cost-sharing policy for beneficial use projects (e.g., envi-
ronmental restoration) allows for reimbursement in cases where the val-
ue of land, easements, and rights-of-way exceed the 25 percent non-fed-
eral share, land values for most restoration projects should be less than
25 percent of total project costs. Environmental restoration projects that
have land costs exceeding 50 percent of total cost are not recommended
for implementation under USAGE policy (USAGE 1995b). Project spon-
sors should remember that the objective of USAGE'S program is to use
dredged material to produce high-value environmental results in a cost-
effective manner. High costs for project land, easements, and rights-of-
way are indicators that the location of the habitat project is not efficient.
Specifics on Using Funding Authorities
The following information provides guidance on using the special
authorities discussed in this chapter (USAGE 1995b). These authorities
are the primary authorities for financing incremental costs for beneficial
use projects but other authorities that are not discussed in this chapter
could be used for specific projects. Interested parties should contact
their local USAGE District office for more information about opportuni-
ties to use these authorities.
Section 1135, WRDA 1986 (PL 99-662), as amended by Section 202 of
WRDA 1992 and Section 204 of WRDA 1996: Project Modifications for
Improvement of Environment. Under this provision, USAGE is authorized
to modify the structures and operations of existing USAGE Civil Works
projects to improve the quality of the environment in the public inter-
est. These modifications must be feasible and consistent with authorized
project purposes. A non-federal cost share of 25 percent for incremental
costs is required for project implementation, and the non-federal sponsor
must operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace the completed
project. If the estimated federal cost of such a modification exceeds $5
million, specific Congressional authorization is required.
USAGE annually requests programmatic funding for implementing Sec-
tion 1135 projects. The authority has been used for ecosystem restoration
projects that use material dredged from federal navigation projects. With
the passage of Section 204 of WRDA 1992 (discussed in the next para-
graphs) and appropriation of programmatic funds, however, USAGE cur-
rently encourages use of Section 204 over Section 1135 as the primary
authority for implementing projects that employ dredged material for
ecosystem restoration. The federal share per project under Section 1135
is usually $5 million or less, with an annual appropriation limit of $25
million. (See the box following for an example of implementing a project
under Section 1135.)
56
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
..RDA Section 1135: Calcasieu River and Pass—Marsh Creation at Sabine National
Wildlife Refuge
A project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, provides an example of the use of Section 1135 for a beneficial use
project. The total cost of the project was $259,852, which included a feasibility study, plans, specifications, and
construction. In this case, incremental costs were shared 75:25 between USAGE and the Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources. The project modification, initiated and completed in 1993, provided for pumping about
1,840,000 cubic yards of dredged material into a 240-acre site in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge west of mile
10 of the Calcasieu River and Pass navigation project to an elevation conducive to marsh creation. Without this
modification, the material would have been placed in a confined disposal area located along either side of the
Calcasieu River and Pass navigation project.
Section 204, WRDA 1992 (PL 102-580) as amended by Section 207 of
WRDA 1996 and Section 209 of WRDA 1999: Beneficial Uses of Dredged
Material. In connection with dredging for constructing, operating, or
maintaining USAGE navigation projects, Section 204 authorizes USAGE
to carry out projects for creating, protecting, and restoring aquatic and
ecologically related habitats, including wetlands. USAGE may conduct
projects to accomplish these types of beneficial uses if it finds that the
environmental, economic, and social benefits—both monetary and non-
monetary—justify the cost and that the projects would not result in
environmental degradation. Section 207 of WRDA 1996, which modified
Section 204 of WRDA 1992, allows selection of a disposal or placement
method other than the least-cost Federal Standard option in order to
achieve environmental benefits. It is primarily used for new navigation
projects or for maintenance projects with large incremental costs. This
section requires a specific Congressional appropriation for each project
and is more applicable for larger projects.
Section 204 requires that local, non-federal entities participate in these
projects along with USAGE. Project implementation is contingent upon
various conditions. The non-federal sponsor must enter into a coopera-
tive agreement according to the requirements of Section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 and must provide 25 percent of the construction
costs of the project (in excess of dredging and dredged material place-
ment costs), including provision of all land, easements, rights-of-way,
and necessary relocations. The non-federal sponsor also must agree to
pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, replacement, and reha-
bilitation costs associated with the project. For purposes of determining
the 25 percent non-federal share of construction costs, those costs are
limited to incremental construction costs exceeding the least-cost alter-
native means of placement consistent with economic, engineering, and
federal environmental criteria (i.e., the Federal Standard). Section 204
establishes an annual appropriation limit of $15 million. (See the follow-
ing box for examples of Section 204 projects.)
57
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
WRDA Section 204 Projects
Barataria Bay Waterway, Grand Terre, Louisiana. This project was completed in 1996 and provided for the
placement of approximately 850,000 cubic yards of dredged material on the gulf side of West Grand Terre Island
to protect approximately 125 acres of existing wetlands and to restore approximately 90 acres of wetlands and
dune habitat. The total project costs charged to Section 204 were $1,133,000. The non-federal sponsor was the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
Lower James River Oyster Reef Restoration, Virginia. Ten to fifteen oyster bars ranging in size from 5 to
10 acres have been created using Geotextile tubes filled with dredged material from the James River Navigation
Channel and topped with disease-free shell material. The project was completed in 2002. The total Section 204
project costs were $915,000. The non-federal sponsor was the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana - Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This project was completed in
1996 and consisted of pumping 1.3 million cubic yards of dredged material into the refuge to create/restore
244.3 acres of marsh. The total project costs charged to Section 204 were $537,312. The non-federal sponsor was
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.
Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. This project consisted of placing about 800,000 cubic yards of
dredged material into the refuge to aid in the restoration of approximately 200 acres of saltmarsh. This work was
performed in November, 2000. The total project costs charged to Section 204 were $260,000. The non-federal
sponsor was the Texas General Land Office.
Section 216, Rivers and Harbors Act and Flood Control Act of 1970 (PL 91-
611): Authority to Study Project Modifications. This provision authorizes
review of the operation of completed projects in two situations: (1) when
significantly changed physical or economic conditions make a review of
such projects advisable, and (2) for improving the environmental ben-
efits that such projects provide to society. This study authority can be
used to seek specific Congressional authorization of a navigation project
modification to use dredged material from the project for environmen-
tal restoration. A feasibility study under Section 216 authority would be
appropriate for large-scale restoration projects whose costs are too large
for the Section 204 program in light of its annual appropriation limits.
The decision to seek specific authorization versus using the perma-
nent Section 204 authority is made case by case based on coordination
between USAGE Major Subordinate Commands and Headquarters.
Section 145 of WRDA 1976 (PL 94-587), as amended by Section 933 of
WRDA 1986, Section 207 of WRDA 1992, and Section 217 of WRDA 1999:
Beach Nourishment. At the request of a state or local government, USAGE
is authorized to place suitable dredged material from construction and
maintenance of navigation channels and inlets onto local beaches. The
non-federal partner, such as the state or local government, must pay
35 percent of the incremental costs of beach nourishment. Section 217
of WRDA 1999 amended the cost share from 50:50 between non-federal
and federal partners to 35 percent non-federal/65 percent federal. (See
the box following for an example of a Section 145 project.)
58
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
The Jones Inlet maintenance dredging and beach nourishment project in Nassau County, NY, is an example of
a project done under Section 145 of WRDA 1976 as amended by Section 933 of WRDA 1986 and Section 217 of
WRDA 1999. In 1996, approximately 458,920 cubic yards of material was dredged from Jones Inlet and placed
onto the Town of Hempstead beach at Point Lookout, New York. This work was part of a periodic USAGE
maintenance dredging operation to alleviate buildup of shoals that create shallow depths and hazardous
navigation conditions for local mariners. The placement of sand on the beach was an attempt to help counter
long-term beach erosion and storm damage. The added cost of placing sand on the Town of Hempstead beach
(over the least-costly suitable alternative-offshore placement) was estimated at $700,000. The costs were
apportioned 50:50 between the federal and non-federal (State of New York) sponsors, as per Section 933 of
WRDA 1986. A berm approximately 3,000 feet long and 100 feet wide was created on the beach.
Maintenance dredging of approximately 500,000 cubic yards from the federal channel and deposition basin
with placement of the material on the beach at Point Lookout has been proposed for 2007. The maintenance
dredging is estimated to cost $6 million. The beach placement is expected to cover approximately 5,100 linear
feet, at a width of approximately 150 feet. Section 217 of WRDA 1999 amended from Section 207 of WRDA 1992,
Section 933 of WRDA 1986, and Section 145 of WRDA 1976, contains a change in the beach nourishment cost-
share percentages from 50/50 to 35 percent non-federal/65 percent federal. The incremental cost of placing
sand on the beach in lieu of placing it offshore is estimated to be $650,000 for 2007. This amount would be cost-
shared 35/65.
5.2 Other Provisions of Law Potentially Applicable to
Beneficial Use Projects
This section identifies non-USACE government funding sources available
for financing beneficial use projects. In most cases, government grants
and loans represent a transfer of funds generated through fees or taxes
to some other entity. Typically, these funds are provided as grants for
specific types of projects; they are not to be used as general support as
the recipient sees fit. Several examples of federally maintained databases
containing information on federal financial assistance sources are avail-
able online. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, published by the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB 2005) provides informa-
tion on all federal assistance programs (not just financial aid) available
to various entities. The website Grants.gov provides organizations with
the ability to search for competitive grants from all grant-making fed-
eral agencies, register to receive grant notices via e-mail, and download
grant applications. The Catalog of Federal Funding for Watershed Pro-
tection is a searchable database of federal financial assistance sources
(grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of watershed
protection projects. These funding databases and other databases are
available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/funding/databases.html.
Most states also have grant and loan programs that apply to benefi-
cial use projects. For other potential funding sources, project sponsors
should contact their local university and request information about pro-
grams such as Sea Grant or Extension Programs. The state government,
or its department of natural resources or department of environmental
59
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
quality, can provide information about coastal zone management pro-
grams. Examples of non-USACE funding authorities are described below.
Section 307(a) of Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA or "Breaux-Johnson Act"; [PL 101-646]). This provision
authorizes a federal/state task force to carry out projects for protect-
ing, restoring, or enhancing aquatic and associated ecosystems, includ-
ing projects for creating, protecting, or restoring wetlands and coastal
ecosystems. Under this provision, the federal/state task force must give
wetlands protection, restoration, and creation projects equal consider-
ation with navigation, irrigation, and flood-control projects. This act
establishes a program for Louisiana coastal wetlands projects, as well as
a matching grant program for coastal wetlands-conservation projects by
coastal states.
PRA Section 307(a): Bayou La Branche Wetlands Creation Project
This project, just west of New Orleans, created approximately 254 acres of intermediate marsh and nourished an
additional 87 acres with material dredged from Lake Pontchartrain. The project was completed in 1994. Over the
last 12 years, the project has continued to provide an ecologically productive habitat. The CWPPRA program in
Louisiana, which is overseen by an interagency task force, is extremely successful. Dedicated, stable funding is
provided through an excise tax on fishing equipment and fuel taxes on motorboats and small engines. Up to 20
years of monitoring data are available for each project.
These programs and projects are funded through the Aquatic Resources
Trust Fund by a U.S. Department of the Interior small-engine gasoline
tax. Annually, 70 percent of the appropriations from the fund are made
available to Louisiana projects, and the balance to other states. The non-
Louisiana share is disbursed through National Coastal Wetlands Conser-
vation Grants (15 percent) and the North America Wetlands Conserva-
tion Act (15 percent). USAGE oversees project funding with 85 percent
federal/15 percent state cost sharing for states with approved Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Plans. For states without approved plans, the
cost-share ratio is 75:25. Whatever the cost share, state contributions
must consist of no less than 5 percent in cash. The remainder may con-
sist of land, easements, rights-of-way, or other in-kind contributions.
Federal funding for FYs 1992 through 2006 was an average of $48 mil-
lion per year, for a total of $718 million over the 15-year period, plus the
states' cost-share amount. USAGE FY 2006 allocation was $63.1 million.
(See the box above for an example of a Section 307(a) project.)
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appro-
priations Act, 2006 (PL 109-54). Subject to the availability of annual
appropriations, EPA funds, through the Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program, viable watershed restoration, protection, and preservation proj-
ects. This competitive grant program supports collaborative efforts and
environmental results-oriented strategies to address the country's water
60
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
resource needs. The goal of the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is to
support successful partnerships and coalitions that have completed the
necessary watershed assessments and have a technically sound water-
shed plan ready to implement. The major focus of the program is to fund
those projects that have the potential of producing quick, measurable
environmental results. This program is open to any nonprofit, public or
private organization. Federal funding is approved on an annual basis.
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (PL 95-87, as amend-
ed by PL 101-508). The Secretary of the Interior administers the Aban-
doned Mine Reclamation Fund for (1) reclaiming and restoring land and
water resources adversely affected by past coal mining, and (2) acquir-
ing land for reclamation. This fund is financed by payments from coal
mine operators. Land and water eligible for reclamation expenditures
from the fund are those that were mined for coal or affected by coal
mining activities, and abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation
status before 1977. Reclamation priorities include restoration of land and
water resources and the environment previously degraded by mining,
including measures for conserving and developing soil, water, wood-
land, fish and wildlife, recreation resources, and agricultural productiv-
ity. Past research has demonstrated that surface mine reclamation using
dredged material is feasible. However, the distance to the reclamation
site and the need for soil amendments may make most dredged material
reclamation projects cost prohibitive.
5.3 Other Financing Opportunities
Need for Alternative Financing Strategies
Financing beneficial use projects solely through the means just
described—federal and state taxes, grants, low-interest loans, and cost-
sharing programs—is becoming increasingly difficult. Increasing pres-
sures on all government budgets and reduction or elimination of many
funding sources make it imperative that alternative sources of financing
be developed if beneficial use projects are to continue.
One of finance's basic premises is, "If you identify a steady, reliable
source of revenues to repay the costs of building a project, then the capi-
tal to build a project will follow." Identifying the means of repayment
before figuring out how to pay for construction may seem like a back-
wards approach, but identifying a steady stream of revenues is by far the
more difficult task and should be given greatest attention.
Revenues are streams of funds collected periodically, but reliably, for
services or benefits rendered. Revenues can be generated in many ways;
for example, user fees, impact fees, special surcharges, and utility rates.
They are ideally suited to support ongoing O&M requirements of a ben-
eficial use project. When a revenue stream can be dedicated to pay for
61
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
O&M and debt repayment of a beneficial use project, then sources of
capital can be identified and committed to the project.
Capital is usually a lump sum of funds used to build a facility or other
"capital asset." Most capital (or a commitment to provide capital) arrives
at the beginning of the beneficial use project and is used to construct
the project. Sources of capital for a beneficial use project include the
bond market or any other capital market; banks and other financial
institutions such as insurance, finance, and leasing companies; and pri-
vate investors such as corporations, foundations, and persons. Again,
however, investors generally will not commit capital to a beneficial use
project until a steady, reliable source of revenues can be dedicated to the
project for debt repayment and maintenance.
Just as a diverse group of people will enjoy the opportunities provided
by beneficial use projects, so too should diverse sources of funding be
used to complete such projects. No single source of funds should be
relied upon. The following alternative financing "menu" presents an
assortment of ideas for funding beneficial use projects. The ideas are
meant to be mixed, matched, and expanded, because alternative financ-
ing is an ongoing, creative process. For each financing idea, the benefi-
cial uses that could most appropriately use such financing are listed.
Alternative Financing Ideas for Beneficial Use Applications
Idea 1: Use State Revolving Funds for financing public or private sector
projects that enhance or protect water quality.
Description: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF) was cre-
ated by Congress in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act. Con-
gress intended the program to replace the long-running Construction
Grants program which had provided significant funding for municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. The new CW-SRF was, however, intended
to do much more; Congress significantly expanded eligibilities to include
a full range of nonpoint source projects, including those intended to
address urban, agricultural, and other types of contaminated runoff, as
well as projects included in the NEP management plans to improve these
critical resources. Each state and Puerto Rico has an established and
successful SRF program. SRF loans may be issued to public entities for
wastewater treatment projects. Loans may be issued to public, nonprofit,
or private entities for nonpoint source and estuary projects (subject to
state restrictions).
All 51 SRF programs have the potential to fund a wide variety of water
quality infrastructure projects. As of 2005, 37 states have funded over two
billion dollars in nonpoint source and estuary projects with SRF loans.
Each year, additional states begin funding nonpoint source projects.
62
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
SRF loans may be used for dredged material beneficial use projects that
are specifically designed to improve water quality, as long as that activi-
ty is included in a state's approved nonpoint source management plan or
an NEP's Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan. The following
are examples of possible projects: using dredged material to create wet-
lands, including wetland mitigation banks, that are needed to improve
water quality (to treat or create a barrier to nonpoint source runoff or to
help treat stormwater or wastewater effluents); using dredged material to
improve stream banks to prevent or reduce sedimentation and improve
vegetative cover; and using dredged material to help restore natural
flows to a channelized stream.
To qualify for an SRF loan, a project (other than a wastewater treatment
project) must be consistent with a state's approved nonpoint source
management plan or an NEP's Comprehensive Conservation Manage-
ment Plan. The project must also be included on a state's CW-SRF
Intended Use Plan and is subject to the state's procedures for prioritiz-
ing and choosing projects, including an evaluation of the source of
repayment. Each state has its own set of procedures for evaluating the
credit worthiness of a loan applicant. The source of repayment need
not come directly from the project itself and there are many innova-
tive ways to secure a source of repayment (see, e.g., Funding Nonpoint
Source Activities with Clean Water State Revolving Fund, EPA 832-F-03-
009, Nov. 2003, found at http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/
finalpdf and other project and financing factsheets at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/factsheets.htm).
SRF loans are issued below market rate (0 percent to less than market
rate) with repayment terms up to 20 years. The SRF requires no cash up
front and does not require matching funds. In addition, significant loan
repayments and interest earnings have been generated and can be used
as loans to match Clean Water Act Section 319 (the Nonpoint Source
Program) funded projects.
Section 319 provides funds to states to implement their nonpoint source
pollution programs. These programs address a broad range of nonpoint
sources, including agriculture, forestry, urban runoff, habitat modifica-
tion, and physical impacts that require restoration. In recent years, the
annual 319 appropriation has been about $200 million annually, and the
funds have been allocated to the states in accordance with a fixed formu-
la. States spend half of this money to implement "watershed-based plans"
that they have developed to address impaired waters, and the remaining
funds are used for a wide variety of activities including demonstration
projects, technical assistance, and public education. States are autho-
rized to use 319 grant money for beneficial use projects; however, these
types of projects commonly have not been funded by states in the past.
More information on the program is available at http://www.epa.gov/nps,
and State Nonpoint Source Coordinators' contact information may be
obtained by clicking on "contact us" at the top of the site's home page.
63
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
For more information on SRFs, contact your state program or contact the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Mail Code 4204M, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 564-0752,
or see website at http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwftnance/cwsrf/index.htm.
Idea 2: Establish a special assessment district (e.g., a small river water-
shed district, a natural resource management district, or a beach
district).
Description: A special assessment district is an independent govern-
ment entity formed to finance government services for a specific geo-
graphic area. These districts can range in size from a city block to a
multijurisdictional arrangement. Special districts focus the costs of
enhanced services on the beneficiaries of those services by separating
benefited taxpayers from general taxpayers. Residents of special districts
pay a surcharge (usually in the form of increased tax rates) to finance
improvements. For example, if citizens in a certain geographic area are
interested in reclaiming a wetland in their neighborhood using dredged
material, or enhancing recreational opportunities by improving a water-
way with dredged material, a special district can provide needed struc-
ture, management, and financing.
Special districts have the power to levy taxes and collect fees and spe-
cial assessments in order to pay for developing and operating benefi-
cial use projects. Special districts may issue revenue bonds to finance
revenue-generating beneficial use projects, such as fee-based wetland
hunting preserves, watercraft rental facilities on constructed waterways,
fee-based improved parkland or beaches, or solid waste management
facilities capped by dredged material. Special districts can issue debt
independent of state or county government, thus reducing the burden on
general debt capacity.
Capital/Revenue Source: A special district can be both a capital-financ-
ing and revenue-generating vehicle. The special district can be autho-
rized to issue bonds and collect revenues to finance a beneficial use
project.
Action to Establish: State laws define the powers and characteristics of
special districts and how they may be established. Some states, such as
California, Illinois, Texas, and Washington, have strongly supported spe-
cial districts for a wide variety of purposes. Other states have restricted
the establishment of special districts to only a few specific purposes.
Although enabling legislation varies widely not only among states but
also among different types of allowable special districts within a state,
the general protocol for forming a special district and the district's
responsibilities can be outlined as follows.
64
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
In most cases, landowners petition a governmental body—such as the
governor, the state legislature, or a county executive—to establish a dis-
trict encompassing the landowners' properties. After review and approv-
al of the district by the appropriate governmental body, the landowners
elect the district's governing board, which often comprises landown-
ers and business representatives from the district. Sometimes, district
boards may be appointed by government officials. Board members often
have staggered terms and may have restrictions on reelection.
The district's board is responsible for administering the beneficial use
project. The board will require technical expertise for construction and
operation, management skills to administer ongoing operations, and
political skills to effectively work with local and state public officials.
The board has the power and responsibility to hire staff, contract with
businesses, and manage and maintain the beneficial use project. In
some states, this activity includes exercising the power of eminent
domain and using management tools such as public easements and
rights-of-way. The board also levies and collects taxes, fees, and assess-
ments, and can accept grants and enter into loan agreements. The board
also can issue bonds on behalf of the district.
There are many special districts in the United States. A good way to
learn more is to contact a special district in your area. Citizens seeking
new or enhanced services might find special districts easier to estab-
lish than convincing a local government to increase its budget for those
services.
Idea 3: Implement tax-increment financing (similar to a special assess-
ment district).
Description: This technique requires creating a special district when
a government-financed enhancement benefits the residents of the spe-
cial district. From that time on, two sets of tax records are maintained
for the district: one that reflects the value of assets up to the time of the
enhancement, and a second that reflects any growth in assessed property
value in the district after the enhancement. Tax revenues collected on the
increased values of the properties after the improvement can be diverted
to pay for the cost of the government-financed beneficial use project
in the special district. In some cases, governments issue tax-increment
bonds for revitalization projects, with the bond being backed, in part, by
the anticipated increase in property values resulting from the investment.
Tax-increment financing differs from a special assessment district in
that property tax rates are increased in a special assessment district
to cover improvements made in the district. In special districts using
tax-increment financing, tax rates may not be increased, but additional
65
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
revenues are collected based on increased assessed property values
enjoyed after the improvements are made.
Capital/Revenue Source: Tax-increment financing is both a capital-
financing and revenue-generating vehicle. The special district using
tax-increment financing can be authorized to issue bonds and collect
revenues for financing the desired beneficial use project.
Action to Establish: While the actions required to implement tax-
increment financing vary by jurisdiction, enabling legislation is often
required in order to designate special districts. Timely and accurate
property value assessments must be made and a local authority must be
established to maintain the two sets of tax records.
Idea 4: Create habitat or parks and recreation stamps patterned after
duck stamp programs.
Description: Currently, many states sell duck stamps issued as hunt-
ing licenses, with hunting licenses, or as collectors' items. In addition
to starting a duck stamp collection, many people buy additional stamps
to use as artwork. Habitat restoration projects or parks and recreation
efforts that use dredged material can be the basis for developing a stamp
program as an annual art competition—thereby increasing the visibility
of the beneficial use project.
Capital/Revenue Source: Revenues generated from the stamp program
can be placed in a fund dedicated to supplementing debt service require-
ments incurred in establishing a beneficial use project. Or, as the fund
grows, grants or loans can be made to help establish future beneficial
use projects. Finally, the fund can be leveraged, perhaps by providing
the match funding necessary for a federal, state, or private grant or loan
program.
Action to Establish: In many jurisdictions, legislation is necessary to
establish a revenue-generating program such as a stamp program.
Idea 5: Pool communities' debt for credit enhancement/creation of a small
community bond bank.
Description: Small-denomination bonds backed by local taxes, park
entrance fees, license fees, and other dedicated revenues can be
"pooled" in a bond bank and offered as a single bond issue to finance
a beneficial use project. The single issue can be backed by the state or
county, or by bond insurance, if necessary, and can take advantage of
lower interest rates enjoyed by larger issues. In addition, issuance costs
are spread out over more issuers resulting in costs lower than any single
community's issue could command. The proceeds of the issue would be
dedicated to specific projects that beneficially use dredged material.
66
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
Capital/Revenue Source: A bond bank provides the capital to construct
a project that will generate revenues dedicated to the repayment of the
bonds. Revenues might come from taxes, park entrance fees, and license
fees.
Action to Establish: A bond bank must be authorized and established
by the state, although not all bond banks require a state guarantee for
credit-enhancement.
Idea 6: Issue mini-bonds for wetlands creation, park development, beach
replenishment, tree planting, stream restoration, etc.
Description: Mini-bonds are issued in small denominations (e.g., $500)
for purchase by the general public. Bonds can be dedicated to a specific
beneficial use project such as creation of a park or recreational facility,
or a project more general in nature such as beach replenishment or wet-
lands creation. These bonds, which heighten awareness about the ben-
eficial use project, are designed to be collectable or used as gifts, as well
as provide small investment opportunities.
Capital/Revenue Source: Proceeds (a capital source) from mini-bonds
are dedicated to establishing a specific beneficial use project. Spent
proceeds are repaid from revenues generated by the project. Revenues
might come from taxes, park entrance fees, and license fees.
Action to Establish: State legislation is necessary either to increase the
state's debt limit or ceiling to accommodate the mini-bonds, or to desig-
nate a portion of the state's existing debt capacity to the mini-bonds.
Idea 7: Issue a credit card benefiting an environmental fund dedicated to a
particular beneficial use project.
Description: A private company or environmental organization can
issue a major credit card on a state or regional basis to benefit a new
or existing fund dedicated to beneficial use projects. For each "affinity
card," a fixed amount per card and a small percentage (e.g., 0.5 percent)
of the spending on the card is donated to the fund. The fund can then
be drawn upon for specified beneficial use projects.
Capital/Revenue Source: Revenues generated from the affinity credit
card can be placed in a fund to supplement debt service requirements
incurred in establishing a beneficial use project. Or, as the fund grows,
grants or loans can be made to help establish future beneficial use
projects. Finally, the fund can be leveraged, perhaps by providing the
match funding necessary for a federal, state, or private grant or loan
program.
Action to Establish: A private company or environmental organization
works with a bank to issue the credit card.
67
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Idea 8: Create/expand a commemorative license plate program targeted
at projects that use dredged material.
Description: A certain portion of collected license plate fees (e.g., half of
a $20 fee) is placed in a trust dedicated to specified beneficial use proj-
ects. Limited-edition plates also can be sold for $100 to $500 and may
include a unique design featuring a specific project.
Capital/Revenue Source: Revenues generated from the license plate fees
can be placed in a fund dedicated to supplementing debt service require-
ments incurred in establishing a beneficial use project. Or, as the fund
grows, grants or loans can be made to help establish future beneficial
use projects. Finally, the fund could be leveraged, perhaps by providing
the match funding necessary for a federal, state, or private grant or loan
program.
Action to Establish: Each state has its own process for developing spe-
cialty license plate programs. Generally, it requires legislative approval
and an upfront administrative fee to defray the cost of the license plate
design, development, promotion, and distribution. The state administers
the program for the nonprofit organization.
Idea 9: Establish an Adopt-an-Animal program (a wetland, forest, marine,
or riverine animal).
Description: This idea is based on the "adopt-a-whale" program created
by the National Wildlife Federation and similar programs. People are
solicited to "adopt" a species that lives in an area to be improved with
dredged material, such as cranes and herons in wetlands, fish and shell-
fish in oceans and rivers, or birds and mammals in forests. For a fee,
participants receive educational materials about their "adopted" animal
and about the beneficial use project. Fees are dedicated to support a
beneficial use project in the animal's habitat.
Capital/Revenue Source: Revenues generated from the adoption pro-
gram can be placed in a fund dedicated to supplementing debt service
requirements incurred in establishing a beneficial use project. Or, as the
fund grows, grants or loans could be made to help establish future ben-
eficial use projects. Finally, the fund can be leveraged, perhaps by pro-
viding the match funding necessary for a federal, state, or private grant
or loan program.
Action to Establish: A marketing campaign developed by the organiza-
tion administering the program will be necessary to alert the population
about the program.
68
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
Idea 10: Create an endowment fund.
Description: A privately run endowment fund can be established
through contributions from the private sector (possibly organized
through Chambers of Commerce). The marketing campaign for this
endowment might be based on "successful public/private partnering."
The fund is coordinated with state agencies or a mitigation bank to
target high-priority areas where habitat restoration using dredged mate-
rial would be particularly beneficial. An example of such a fund is the
Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership facilitated by the Coastal
America Partnership. Visit their website for more information:
http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/cwrp.html.
Capital/Revenue Source: Interest from the endowment fund can be
used to supplement debt service requirements incurred in establishing
a beneficial use project. Or, as the fund grows, grants or loans could be
made to help establish future beneficial use projects. Finally, the fund
can be leveraged, perhaps by providing the match funding necessary for
a federal, state, or private grant or loan program.
Action to Establish: There must be a private initiative to establish and
run the endowment fund, and to coordinate with state and local agen-
cies or a mitigation bank to identify desired and needed beneficial use
projects.
Idea 11: Price at full cost the public sector service fees associated with
dredging operations and beneficial use projects.
Description: Existing fee systems associated with public sector over-
sight programs can be modified to cover more or all of the costs of a
beneficial use project. The fee system should ensure that staff, equip-
ment, and overhead costs associated with plan reviews and inspections
are fully covered by fees paid by those regulated (i.e., the modified fee
system would provide a dedicated source of funding for beneficial use
project planning). The fee system can be based on project complexity or
on an hourly rate. Time not spent directly on a project must be covered
by another funding source.
Capital/Revenue Source: This approach represents a cost savings
because it reduces the use of general funds that might otherwise be
used to cover beneficial use project costs. This cost savings can be
translated into increased general funds available for debt service for
other beneficial use projects, so it ultimately is a revenue source.
Action to Establish: State and local regulations must be changed in
order to allow fee-based programs to become self-supporting. Fee-based
programs require staff to become familiar with accounting practices in
order to ensure proper management of the flow of fees and costs.
69
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Idea 12: Require a beneficial use "checkoff" for certain products.
Description: A checkoff would require that every retailer who markets
a certain product used at a site created or enhanced by dredged material
(e.g., beach accessories, snacks, and beverages sold at a park or recre-
ational site, and recreational equipment) pay a fee for each unit that he
or she sells. The fee is usually passed on to the consumer who benefits
from the beneficial use project. These retailers vote on establishing a
checkoff and also vote on the checkoff's renewal. If a majority of the
retailers vote favorably, a small surcharge is added to each product when
it is sold. The funds generated are collected and managed by those over-
seeing the beneficial use project.
Capital/Revenue Source: Revenues generated by the checkoff can be
placed in a fund dedicated to supplementing debt service requirements
incurred in establishing or maintaining a beneficial use project. In addi-
tion, the fund could be leveraged, perhaps by providing the match fund-
ing necessary for a federal, state, or private grant or loan program.
Action to Establish: Enabling legislation is required to authorize the
levying of a special surcharge. A board must be created to oversee the
fund and develop specific rules to govern its activities. The checkoff is
well-suited to a special assessment district.
Idea 13: Dedicate a sales tax surcharge on certain products, such as pre-
pared foods and beverages, to a beneficial use project.
Description: A surcharge can be added to the existing prepared food
and beverage sales tax. Revenues generated would be dedicated to spe-
cific beneficial use projects. The surcharge may be time-limited (e.g., 10
years), with optional renewal by the legislature.
Capital/Revenue Source: Sales tax revenues can be placed in a fund
dedicated to supplementing debt service requirements incurred in estab-
lishing or maintaining a beneficial use project. In addition, the fund can
be leveraged, perhaps by providing the match funding necessary for a
federal, state, or private grant or loan program. Grants and loans could
be made available through the fund for beneficial use projects.
Action to Establish: Legislation authorizing a new sales tax is
necessary.
Idea 14: Establish a public-private partnership to finance the construction
of dredged material containment areas, or water parks and other
recreational facilities that use dredged material.
Description: Under a tax-exempt lease arrangement, a public partner
can finance a beneficial use project by borrowing funds from an inves-
tor or financial institution. The private partner generally acquires title
70
-------
Funding Beneficial Use Projects
to the beneficial use project assets, but transfers it to the public partner
at either the beginning or end of the lease term. The portion of the lease
payment used to pay interest on the project assets is tax-exempt under
state and federal laws.
Capital/Revenue Source: Tax-exempt leases are a method of capital
financing that could be applied to any beneficial use project requiring
the building of capital assets, such as parks created with dredged mate-
rial. Because the lease arrangements do not count against local debt lim-
its, they may be a particularly useful tool for communities whose debt
capacity is nearly exhausted.
Action to Establish: Regulations need to be in place to allow a public
partner to enter into a tax-exempt lease arrangement with private parties.
Machinery used in the privately funded Montezuma Wetlands restoration project in
California (Photo byLevine-Fricke).
71
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Breakwaters such as this one
in the Port of Oakland help
protect wetlands created by
beneficial use of dredged
material (Photo by Port of
Oakland).
72
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Outreach and Public
Involvement Strategies for
Beneficial Use Projects
In most beneficial use projects, the public will significantly influence
decision making at various points in the often multiyear process of
project planning, implementation, and regulatory compliance. Effective
public involvement will improve the quality of the decisions made about
the use of dredged material. This chapter presents practical guidance for
informing and involving the public in planning and carrying out benefi-
cial use projects.
6.7 Informing and Involving the Public 74
6.2 Public Involvement Strategies 77
6.3 Summary 80
73
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
The success of a beneficial use project often depends on the public's
perception of the project's purpose and its impacts on human
health, property values, and the environment. Unfortunately, as noted
previously in this manual, many people still regard dredged material as
waste rather than as a valuable resource. Such misperceptions under-
score the need for informing the public about proposed beneficial use
projects and involving the community in pertinent discussions. Effective
public involvement identifies and addresses issues of public concern that
must be dealt with if projects are to be implemented.
6.1 Informing and Involving the Public
Different segments of the public will have different levels of interest and
concern about beneficial use projects. Therefore, it is important to use
a range of methods to inform and involve them. Public notice and com-
ment periods are part of applicable permitting processes, as discussed in
Chapter 3, but the use of additional outreach methods may increase pub-
lic involvement. People participate when they believe that a project may
significantly affect them. They may be motivated by the proximity of the
project; by economic, social, or environmental concerns; or by personal
values. The concerned public will be different for each beneficial use
project, and may grow and change as a final decision approaches.
An informed public can
provide elected and
agency decision makers
with information and
perspectives that enable
them to make better
decisions.
Levels of Public Interest
In planning public involvement, it may be helpful to think of the public
as a circle with concentric rings (Figure 6.1). In the outer ring are people
whose involvement will be limited to informing themselves about the
project primarily through the media. As long as they are informed and
know how they can make their views known, they will seek no further
involvement.
The next circle comprises people who are willing to commit to limited
involvement in the project. They may be members of civic, religious, or
service groups, and can be reached through one-on-one discussion and
presentations to their organizations. Informing these people is important
because they, in turn, will inform other members of the community. In
general, individual, personal discussion is very important to successful
public involvement. An informed public can provide elected and agency
decision makers with information and perspectives that enable them to
make better decisions. Effective public involvement can aid in the early
identification of potentially significant project problems. It can help
resolve issues that, if not addressed, could end up in court. Not involv-
ing affected constituencies significantly increases the possibility of orga-
nized opposition.
It is important to inform and work closely with elected officials, the next
ring of the circle. Project proponents should determine early in project
planning which federal, state, tribal, and local public officials will want
74
-------
Outreach and Public Involvement Strategies for Beneficial Use Projects
Figure 6.1 Levels of Public Involvement in a Beneficial Use Project
to be kept informed about project planning and implementation and
may want to take a more active part in these activities. Project manag-
ers should then offer to brief these officials or otherwise provide infor-
mation. It is important for project managers to communicate well with
public officials to gain their useful insights in project planning, and also
to preclude the possibility that public officials could be put in a difficult
position due to lack of sufficient information about the project.
Closer yet to the center of the circle are those directly affected by a proj-
ect. These people need extensive information and may seek to partici-
pate in decision making. People at this level of interest can be involved
through participation on coordinating committees.
Project decision makers are at the center of the circle. Members of the
public, particularly representatives of groups with a stake in the out-
come of the project, can help government staff make decisions and
guide project implementation. A local beneficial use planning group, as
mentioned in Chapter 3, could be the core group in which other decision
makers are included.
Developing a Public Involvement Plan
The best way to effectively involve the public is to develop a public
involvement plan. Applying the techniques of "issue mapping" and
75
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
The public's
participation may result
in a project design
somewhat different
than the original plan,
but without public
involvement, the project
may never materialize.
reconnaissance—conducting research and interviews that identify a
community's concerns about a particular issue—is the first step in plan-
ning. These techniques are designed to identify key stakeholders, opin-
ion leaders, representatives of important constituencies, elected officials,
or others who need to be involved in decision making. Concerns related
to a beneficial use project can be mapped by researching newspapers
and pertinent public documents, and by interviewing agency staff, elect-
ed officials, and potential stakeholders.
Project managers should be centrally involved both in developing the
public involvement plan and in the resulting public involvement pro-
gram. The public's participation may result in a project design some-
what different than the original plan, but without public involvement,
the project may never materialize. Project managers' philosophical and
financial commitment to public involvement is essential from the outset.
It is important for project managers to make clear to the public how pub-
lic comment and participation will be used, and how public involvement
can make a difference in project planning and design. Public participa-
tion can add value on several levels, but it can only be successful if proj-
ect managers are willing to consider the resulting input in their deci-
sion-making process. Making decisions and then attempting to "sell"
them to the public is not public involvement; this approach often fails,
makes the public increasingly cynical, and makes future public decision
making more difficult.
Identifying the "access points"—decision points where public input can
make a difference—is a key component of a public involvement plan.
The NEPA EIS process provides useful examples of access points in the
decision-making process. NEPA requires that the public has an oppor-
tunity to be involved in "scoping" for projects with significant environ-
mental impact. The purpose of scoping is to identify the issues that the
NEPA EIS will address. In addition, NEPA requires that the public has
the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS and that federal agencies
respond to those comments. An EIS is required only for those projects
that may significantly impact the quality of the human environment,
including the natural environment. Typically beneficial use projects are
completed with an EA, which is less detailed than an EIS. The public
is involved, to the extent practicable, in the preparation of an EA, and
any finding of no significant impact (FONSI) may be available for public
review 30 days prior to a final determination whether to prepare an EIS
and before action may begin.
In developing a public involvement plan, project sponsors should under-
stand the decision-making process and the scheduling needs of the
other organizations involved in the project. Project managers should
determine as early as possible what organizations and individuals will
make key project decisions and when those decisions will be made. The
public should be informed and provided an opportunity to be involved
76
-------
Outreach and Public Involvement Strategies for Beneficial Use Projects
sufficiently in advance of these decision points so that any public input
is available to, and can be considered by, the decision makers.
The following sections describe techniques for informing and involving
segments of the public having varying degrees of interest in beneficial
use projects. For a more extensive discussion of public involvement
planning, see Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement
Policy (EPA 2003a); Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed
Outreach Campaigns (EPA 2003b); Community Culture and the Environ-
ment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place (EPA 2002); and Public
Involvement: Planning and Implementing Public Involvement Programs
(Praxis 1988).
It is helpful in
communicating with
the public to know to
whom others in the
community listen.
6.2 Public Involvement Strategies
Informing the Public: "I Heard It Through the Grapevine"
As elected officials know, every community has a network—a grape-
vine—through which information travels. It is helpful in communicat-
ing with the public to know to whom others in the community listen.
Calling those people individually is an important way to get the word
out about a proposed beneficial use project, to learn who else needs to
be called, and to get a sense of public opinion about the project. Do not
be surprised by unexpected opposition when no one has called commu-
nity opinion leaders to find out about community issues and concerns.
Personal interviews are an effective and important method of public
involvement.
In addition, the project team can get its message on the community
information network by making presentations to community organiza-
tions, such as service and church groups, and neighborhood associa-
tions. It is particularly important to get in touch with environmental
interest groups. Identifying these community groups is part of the issue
mapping and reconnaissance described in Section 6.1.
Direct Mail
One way to inform and involve citizens living in the vicinity of or other-
wise directly affected by a beneficial use project is by mailing informa-
tion about the proposal to them. Cities and counties maintain records of
property ownership that project staff can use to determine the addresses
of all the residents in the project area. Consider including short surveys
and response forms for citizens' use, as well as a way to include those
who may live in an area but who do not own property. This approach
also can help identify key stakeholders with whom project staff may
work in the future.
Mailings can identify the points in the project schedule—such as com-
ment periods—during which citizens can access the decision-making
process. Identify the agencies and organizations proposing the project as
77
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
well as the project's point of contact. Mailings should list the representa-
tives in the decision-making process through whom the public can make
its views known. Emphasize that the public's comments can make a
difference in decisions about the project.
Neighborhood Forums
If your research reveals sufficient local interest, the next step may be to
conduct neighborhood forums. Neighborhood forums are most effective
if they are small and informal. Go to the community; do not wait for the
community to come to you. Meet with citizens in residents' homes or in
local schools and churches. Generally, neighborhood forums are set up
and managed as information exchanges or to obtain the individual input
of the citizens.13
Public Meetings
Opportunities to provide information and interact personally with inter-
ested community members occur frequently at organizational meetings,
special workshops, and conferences. These opportunities can be excel-
lent for public involvement. An open-house or other informal, interactive
format is often preferable to a formal public meeting, which tends to be
impersonal and can be acrimonious.
In the open-house or other interactive format, one good approach is
to provide displays depicting aspects of the proposed project. Make a
knowledgeable person available at each display to provide information
and record comments. Within a several-hour period, community mem-
bers should be free to circulate among the displays and register their
comments. Entice participation with free admission, but request a toll to
leave, such as completion of a questionnaire about the proposed project.
Working with a Local Dredged Material Planning Group
As mentioned in Chapter 3, agencies responsible for regulating dredg-
ing and dredged material disposal have convened dredged material
planning groups in some regions of the country. These groups may be
able to provide the basis for the shared decision making at the center
of the public involvement circle. Beneficial use project sponsors should
strongly consider monitoring the activities of these local dredged mate-
rial planning groups. A nationwide guidance prepared by the National
Dredging Team on dredged material management plan development for
local planning groups is available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/oceans/ndt (NOT 1998).
13 It is important to note that such meetings are generally not, but under some circumstances may be, subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). FACA applies to groups established or managed and controlled by the Federal Government in order to obtain
collective group advice.
78
-------
Outreach and Public Involvement Strategies for Beneficial Use Projects
These local groups present distinct advantages in promoting the benefi-
cial use of dredged material:
> Gathering all parties concerned about and responsible for beneficial
uses "at one table" can facilitate meaningful public involvement.
Representatives of the public will be able to participate in all phases
of project planning and design. Through participation in these local
groups, they can gain a thorough understanding of the project's
opportunities, challenges, and trade-offs. Their input can be an inte-
gral part of project development, and they in turn are able to provide
accurate, current information to their constituencies. Their constitu-
encies will in turn know that their concerns are bearing directly on
project decisions.
>• Convening all interested parties in a local beneficial use planning
group promotes early identification and evaluation of alternatives.
The group can develop criteria for evaluating alternatives. These cri-
teria/attributes of a successful project can be used to direct data gath-
ering and allocation of limited financial resources.14
^ Timing is very important in determining the success of beneficial use
projects. It is important for agencies required to spend current-year
project funds for dredging to identify available material use or place-
ment locations that can be ready to receive the material in the rela-
tively short term. Thus, coordination and planning of schedules by
li
_
*j.
Volunteers plant marsh
grasses in a habitat
restoration project on
Poplar Island, Maryland
(Photo by USACE).
14 It is important to note that such meetings may be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
79
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
beneficial use groups can improve the chances that a provider and a
user of dredged material connect in a timely way.
^ A local beneficial use group provides knowledge and experience that
is a resource for the public. Representatives of the public can inform
and be informed by this gathering of people.
6.3 Summary
In conclusion, beneficial use project staff should:
>• Involve the public from the outset. Go to the public; do not wait for
the public to come to you.
^ Identify and respond to issues of local concern.
>• Understand the decision-making process and schedule to identify
points of public access.
^ Make clear how the public's input will be used.
^ Use a variety of methods to inform and involve segments of the public
with different levels of interest.
^ Involve representatives of the public in project decision making.
80
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
References and
Additional Resources
Apogee Research, Inc. 1994. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: An
Examination of Wetland Programs: Opportunities for Compensatory Mitigation. Institute
for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. IWR Report 94-WMB-5. 104 pp.
Averett, D.E., B.D. Perry, E.J. Torrey, and J.A. Miller. 1990. Review of Removal,
Containment and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment
in the Great Lakes. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, December 1990.
Brumbaugh, R., and R. Reppert. 1994. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: First
Phase Report. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. IWR Report 94-WMB-4.
96 pp.
Committee of Marine Area Governance and Management. 1997. Striking a Balance:
Improving Stewardship of Marine Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
177 pp.
Edwards, W. 1971. Social Utilities. Engineering Economist, Summer Symposium Series,
6:119-129.
Edwards, W. 1977. How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision
Making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics SMC-7(5):326-40.
Edwards, W., and J.R. Newman. 1982. Multiattribute Evaluation. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
11-13 pp.
Environmental Law Institute. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Banking. Environmental Law
Institute, Washington, DC. 207 pp.
Environmental Law Institute. 1994. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: Wetland
Mitigation Banking. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. IWR Report 94-WMB-
6. 186 pp.
Environmental Law Institute and the Institute for Water Resources. 1994. National
Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: Wetland Mitigation Banking: Resource Document.
Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. IWR Report 94-WMB-2. 139 pp.
81
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
EPA. 1988. Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Resources. EPA 503-8-
88-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1992. Protecting Coastal and Wetlands Resources: A Guide for Local Governments. EPA
842-R-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1994. A Framework for Identifying Approaches for Implementing Comprehensive and
Management Plans Developed Under the National Estuary Program. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by A.T. Kearney Inc., Alexandria, VA.
EPA. 2002 Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of
Place. EPA 842-B-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Wash-
ington, DC.
EPA. 2003a. Framework for Implementing EPA's Public Involvement Policy. EPA 233-F-03-
001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
Washington, DC.
EPA. 2003b. Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns. EPA
841-B-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 2006. Compensatory Mitigation website, http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
(accessed on 7/10/06)
EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing
Manual (Green Book). EPA 503-8-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 1995. Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of
Mitigation Banks. 60 Fed. Reg. 228, 58605-58614. Tuesday, November 28, 1995.
EPA/USACE. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the
U.S. - Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). EPA-823-B-98-004. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2004. Evaluating Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management
Alternatives—A Technical Framework. EPA 842-B-92-008. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2007a. Case Study: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material San Francisco Bay
Region. EPA842-F-07-001A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2007b. Case Study: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Jetty Island, Puget
Sound. EPA842-F-07-001B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2007c. Case Study: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Poplar Island, Chesa-
peake Bay. EPA842-F-07-001C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
82
-------
References and Additional Resources
EPA/USACE. 2007d. Fact Sheet: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Project Partners and
Decision Makers. EPA842-F-07-001D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2007e. Fact Sheet: Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Public Involvement
and Outreach. EPA842-F-07-001E. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
EPA/USACE. 2007f. The Role of the Federal Standard in the Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material From Corps of Engineers New and Maintenance Navigation Projects.
EPA842-B-07-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Great Lakes Commission/Great Lakes Regional Dredging Team. 2004. Testing and
Evaluating Dredged Material for Upland Beneficial Uses: A Regional Framework for the
Great Lakes. Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Keeney, R.L. 1988. Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest. Operations
Research 36(3).
Martin, L.R. 2002. Regional Sediment Management: Background and Overview of Initial
Implementation. IWR Report 02-PS-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources, Alexandria, VA.
National Dredging Team. 1998. Local Planning Groups & Development of Dredged
Material Management Plans - Guidance by the National Dredging Team. National
Dredging Team, Washington, DC.
National Dredging Team. 2003. Dredged Material Management: Action Agenda for the Next
Decade. EPA 842-B-04-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
OMB. 2005. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC.
PIANC. 1992. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material: A Practical Guide. Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium.
Praxis. 1988. Public Involvement: Planning and Implementing Public Involvement
Programs. Praxis. Calgary, Alberta.
Reppert, R. 1992. National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study: Wetland Mitigation
Banking Concepts. IWR Report 92-WMB-l. Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.
31 pp.
Shabman, L., P. Scodari, and D. King. 1994. Expanding Opportunities for Successful
Wetland Mitigation: The Private Credit Market Alternative. IWR Report 94-WMB-3.
Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. 75 pp.
Short, C. 1988. Mitigation Banking. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
88(41). 103 pp.
83
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
USAGE. 1987. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material. Engineer Manual 1110-2-5026. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USAGE. 1994. Policy National Harbors Program: Dredged Material Management Plans.
EC 1165-2-200. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USAGE. 1995a. Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program. EC 1105-2-210. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USAGE. 1995b. Implementing Ecosystem Restoration Projects in Connection with Dredging.
EC 1105-2-209. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USAGE 2000. Planning Guidance Notebook. ER 1105-2-100. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
USAGE. 2006. DRAFT Dredging and Dredged Material Management. DRAFT Engineer
Manual 1110-2-5025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC (final publication
expected 2007).
von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 259-313 pp.
84
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Appendix A:
Beneficial Use Categories
Each beneficial use category represents different types of environ-
mental benefits and poses different potential impacts. These poten-
tial impacts can be described in terms of which specific project activities
create the impacts (the "stress agents" of the beneficial use project) and
what components of the environment are most affected by the impacts
(the "receptors" of impact). Dredged material can be used beneficially
for engineered, agricultural and product, and environmental enhance-
ment purposes. In the following sections, seven beneficial use categories
are described by general application, types of stress agents that are rel-
evant, and types of receptors most likely to be affected.
1. Habitat Development
In habitat development, dredged material is used to build and main-
tain productive plant and animal habitat, especially wetlands. Use of
dredged material as a substrate for habitat development is one of the
most common and important beneficial uses. In considering habitat
development, it is necessary to determine what type of habitat is needed
(e.g., habitat to enhance fish or bird communities), whether the con-
structed habitat will be stable at the proposed location, and whether the
new habitat will displace existing unique or valuable habitats.
Four general categories of habitats are suitable for establishment on
dredged material: wetland, upland, island, and aquatic. These habitats
may occur simultaneously within the same project area.
Wetland. Wetland habitat is a broad category of periodically inundated
or saturated soils and plant communities, characterized by vegetation
that survives in wet soils. Wetlands are most commonly freshwater
and saltwater marshes, bottomland hardwoods, freshwater swamps,
and freshwater riverine and lake habitats. To develop wetland habitat,
dredged material is used to fill areas to precise elevations to promote
colonization by wetland vegetation. Projects to restore wetlands are gen-
erally more likely to be successful than projects to create new wetlands.
On the other hand, restoration/enhancement of wetlands can provide
A.I
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
both environmental and practical benefits (e.g., new habitat for commer-
cially important fish species).
Upland. Upland habitat includes a broad category of terrestrial commu-
nities characterized by vegetation not normally subject to inundation,
including grasses, shrubs, and trees. Upland habitat projects can be
designed to support birds, waterfowl, mammals, and rare or endangered
species.
Island. Dredged material can be used, where appropriate, to create new
islands. Colonial-nesting seabirds are the primary wildlife species using
new island habitats, but other wildlife, such as seals, also may benefit.
Aquatic. Aquatic habitats are permanently submerged habitats extend-
ing from near sea, river, or lake level down several feet. Dredged mate-
rial is used to affect either the bottom elevation or the condition of the
submerged area. Potential aquatic habitats that could be developed
using dredged material include seagrass meadows, oyster beds, fishing
reefs, and stands of freshwater aquatic plants.
Stress Agents and Receptors
The primary stress agent in any habitat-development project is the
potential for net habitat loss in the trade-off of one habitat type for
another. For example, will the project result in filling a subtidal area
that has a soft-bottom community used by fish in order to develop an
intertidal area for shorebirds? Because of the trade-off, detailed pre-proj-
ect evaluation may be necessary to determine the need for a particular
habitat type within the general region of the dredging project.
Other stress agents of habitat development are associated with construc-
tion. Increased turbidity from depositing and grading dredged material
can affect the proximate water column. Initial deposition can also affect
benthic organisms, with upland and island development that totally
replaces benthic habitat being the most destructive. Consideration of
tides and high flows is also necessary to achieve the specific goals of
a habitat development project. If an upland project site is subject to
unforeseen erosion, increased suspended sediment loads and benthic
deposition in adjacent water bodies may become chronic problems.
The major receptors that may be adversely affected by habitat develop-
ment are soft-bottom communities and aquatic communities. In addi-
tion, beaches and other shoreline features may be eliminated. If the
dredged material contains contaminants that will be released when
moved into the constructed habitat, the quality of the adjacent surface
waters may also be degraded, and fish and shellfish may be contaminat-
ed. For example, sediment oxidation at upland project sites may release
metal contaminants that previously were strongly bound to the sedi-
ment and biologically unavailable.
A.2
-------
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Categories
2. Beach Nourishment
In beach nourishment, dredged material is used to supply sediment to
beaches that are subject to erosion. Shore erosion is a major problem
along many ocean and estuary beaches, as well as the shoreline of the
Great Lakes. Beach nourishment has been carried out successfully for
many years with little discernible environmental impact (McGee 1988).
In the past, beach nourishment has been accomplished by dredging sand
from inshore or offshore locations and transporting it by truck, split-
hull hopper dredge, or hydraulic pipeline to the beach needing supply.
The construction of underwater berms both to decrease erosion by wave
action and to supply sand to eroding beaches is a technique for beach
nourishment (Richardson 1990). Underwater berms are mounds built on
the ocean bottom, usually parallel to the shoreline and constructed to
a specific height, length, and orientation. This approach is significantly
less costly and less energy intensive (consequently, more often feasible)
than direct beach nourishment. Caution, however, should be used in
determining placement depth for underwater berms. Wave energy may
not be able to reshape the berm material if material is placed in water
that is too deep; this could result in sediment loss from the littoral
system.
Stress Agents and Receptors
In beach nourishment, the main stress agents are evident during con-
struction. Placing and operating pipeline and other equipment can dam-
age sensitive aquatic and shoreline habitats. Construction can cause
turbidity, sedimentation, and beach sediment compaction (Nelson and
Pullen 1990). Post-construction turbidity and sedimentation can become
a problem to sensitive habitats adjacent to the nourished beach if erosion
continues to be high.
The receptors of most concern in beach nourishment include nesting
birds, sea turtles, and oysters, and nearby sensitive habitats such as sea-
grass beds, mangrove stands, coral reefs, and dunes (McGee 1988; Nel-
son and Pullen 1990). Habitat loss and surf zone modification are major
considerations in constructing underwater berms. Stress receptors for
underwater berms include crustaceans, bivalves, and fishing operations.
In general, potential beach nourishment sites need to be screened for
the presence of sensitive habitat such as coral reefs, mangrove stands,
eelgrass beds, oyster beds, clam beds, and commercial fishing grounds.
Because several species of sea turtles are threatened or endangered,
the relationship of any beach nourishment to turtle nesting areas also
should be evaluated.
3. Parks and Recreation
Of all types of beneficial uses, recreation on dredged material contain-
ment sites is one of the most prevalent land uses in terms of acreage.
A.3
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
It is not surprising to find many examples of such use since there is a
demand for waterfront recreational sites in urban areas, where many
dredging projects occur. In addition, legislation relating to wetlands,
coastal zone management, and flood control promotes this use.
Using dredged material for developing park and recreational facilities
is often associated with other beneficial uses, such as habitat develop-
ment for fish and wildlife, or creation of beach and boating amenities
(Murden 1987). For example, in the construction of the Tennessee-Tom-
bigbee Waterway, a number of the dredged material disposal areas were
designed for recreational uses (McClure 1988). Disposal areas were
filled, contoured, and planted with vegetation to control erosion and to
provide wildlife food and habitat. Activities supported in these areas
include swimming and boating, walking and bicycle trails, wildlife
viewing, and hunting.
Stress Agents and Receptors
Assuming that the dredged material used in the development of park
and recreational facilities is clean or contains only low-level contami-
nants, there is little opportunity for human exposure to biological or
chemical agents. However, during the initial phases of a project (i.e.,
immediately following dredged material placement), release of metals
by oxidation and erosion into adjacent areas resulting in increases in the
suspended sediment load may be of concern. Some contaminants may
also be released into the atmosphere if volatile compounds are present
in the material.
The receptors for any stressors such as low-level biological or chemical
agents would be the surface waters and groundwaters. Plants and ani-
mals that colonize the disposal site could potentially take up and bioac-
cumulate chemical agents.
4. Agriculture, Forestry, Horticulture and Aquaculture
Over the past 100 years, innovative uses of dredged material placement
have been made by the agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and aqua-
culture industries. Each year, considerable amounts of topsoil are lost
by erosion to rivers, estuaries, and the oceans. By applying dredged
material to farmland, topsoil can be conserved and reclaimed. Uncon-
taminated dredged material from freshwater sources has actively been
incorporated into marginal soils for agriculture, forestry, and horticul-
ture purposes (the salt content of marine and estuarine sediments usu-
ally precludes their use for these purposes but these sediments may be
placed in containment areas that can be used for aquaculture). Dewa-
tered dredged sediment can be applied to farmland to elevate the soil
surface, thus improving drainage and reducing flooding; when incor-
porated into marginal soils, it can enhance the physical and chemical
characteristics of the soils, and make water and nutrients available for
A.4
-------
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Categories
crop growth. Dredged material placement at sites in river systems has
provided livestock pastures. Dredged material placed in containment
areas to create dikes could serve as potential aquaculture areas. There
are thousands of acres of land located on dredged material disposal sites
that have been filled to capacity and are now used for agriculture.
Stress Agents and Receptors
Dredged material used for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and aqua-
culture needs to be of acceptable sediment quality. The dredged material
must not contain high concentrations of metals and organics that can be
accumulated by fish, fodder, or crop plants to levels harmful to human
beings or wildlife. The receptors for any stressors, such as low-level bio-
logical or chemical agents, would be surface waters and groundwater, as
well as aquatic life, crop plants or grazing animals.
5. Strip-Mine Reclamation/Solid Waste Management
The productive use of dredged material in reclamation of strip mines,
capping of solid waste landfills, and the use of material to protect land-
fills are placement options. Abandoned strip mines are unsightly, barren
areas, and sources of acid leachate runoff and erosion. At a demonstra-
tion site in Ottawa, Illinois, for example, a former coal strip mine was
recontoured and covered with a layer of dewatered dredged material.
The dredged material used in this project contained low levels of heavy
metals and organic compounds. Placement of the material buffered the
acid runoff and limited the infiltration of water as it allowed the estab-
lishment of a dense growth of perennial grasses (Wilhelm et al. 1988). While
past research has demonstrated that reclamation using dredged mate-
rial is feasible, the distance to the reclamation site and the need for soil
amendments may make most dredged material reclamation projects cost
prohibitive.
Fine-grained dredged material can be used in solid waste management
as daily and interim sanitary landfill cover. To implement this disposal
alternative, the dredged material must meet chemical and physical cri-
teria, and must meet landfill cover regulations. Thus, one of the con-
straints of using this disposal option is that open land must be available
for a dewatering and drying area. Conceptually, dewatering sites used
for dredged material are similar to confined, upland disposal sites. Sec-
tion 316 of WRDA 1992 contains a provision to establish such a dredged
material dewatering facility at a wetland restoration site at Port Sonoma
in Marin County, California. Dewatering and construction operations at
this site were completed in 1998 and the wetland could be fully devel-
oped by 2018. Beneficial reuse of dredged material at the site is expected
to shorten the time needed to fully develop the wetland habitat.
A.5
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Stress Agents and Receptors
Surface runoff and leachate of low-level biological or chemical agents
during dewatering or following placement of the dredged material are
potential concerns associated with the use of dredged material in mine
reclamation or in solid waste management. These concerns can be alle-
viated at least at the dewatering sites by treating and monitoring effluent
and runoff. Potential receptors would be the surface waters and ground-
waters surrounding the sites, as well as plants and animals colonizing
the area. Notwithstanding this issue, it is possible that moderately con-
taminated dredged material might be acceptable for this use, given the
possibility of limited human access and the potential for remediating
problems such as acidic runoff and erosion.
6. Construction/Industrial Development
Construction and industrial development offer a number of opportuni-
ties for the beneficial use of dredged material. Many of these applica-
tions are likely to occur near shorelines or rivers, thereby minimizing
transportation distances between dredged material sources and uses.
One such beneficial use is bank stabilization. In many lakes and rivers,
particularly in the southern United States, placement of dredged mate-
rial coupled with riprap is used to stabilize banks. Dredged material
also can be used in levee and dike construction. In urban coastal areas,
dredged material can be used to expand or enhance port-related facili-
ties. For example, placing dredged material among abandoned piers can
increase port-related lands. This option requires placing dredged mate-
rial behind barriers such as sheet piling erected around and between
abandoned piers. The procedure would be similar to construction of
confined disposal facilities.
As a more general construction application, dewatered dredged mate-
rial may also be used as loose material in construction; formed into
construction aggregate and used for building material; or used in the
ceramic industry for producing bricks, roof tiles, or ceramic tiles.
Project managers are now exploring the potential for dredged material
beneficial use applications at brownfields sites. Brownfields are aban-
doned, idle, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environ-
mental contamination. The Jersey Gardens Mall project is an example
of a brownfields redevelopment success: an environmental remediation
company acquired and developed a former municipal waste landfill,
incorporating beneficial use applications of dredged material. (See case
study in Section 2.3.)
Stress Agents and Receptors
Depending on the application, the dredged material used for construc-
tion or industrial applications may need to be clean or contain contami-
A.6
-------
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Categories
nants at very low levels to limit human or wildlife exposure to biological
or chemical agents. As in other beneficial use applications, nuisance
species, pathogens, and terrestrial chemical agents may be of concern
during construction of the project. Some chemical agents may also be
released into the atmosphere if volatile compounds are present in the
material. The most likely receptors for any stressors such as low-level
biological or chemical agents would be surface water and groundwater.
7. Multipurpose Activity
Often a series of applications can be devised for the beneficial use of
dredged material in a given area. For example, a park and recreational
area could be built over a closed solid waste landfill that used dredged
material as cover. Alternatively, an island development project might
provide both wildlife and recreation amenities. Recreational use and
wildlife and fish habitat can often be developed simultaneously on a
site. Of course, any multipurpose activity area for dredged material must
be planned to accommodate the various uses and to minimize conflicts
between different users.
A.7
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
References
Coleman, R., J. Homziak, and D. Dugger. 1990. Development and Opera-
tions of the Containment Area Aqu.acnltu.re Program Demonstration
Shrimp Farm, pp. 230-246. In: R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (eds.). Benefi-
cial Uses of Dredged Material. Technical Report D-90-3. U.S. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicks-
burg, MS.
McClure, N.D., 1988. Innovative Recreational and Commercial Uses of
Dredged Material on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, pp. 201-208. In:
M.C. Landin (ed.) Inland Waterways: Proceedings of a National Work-
shop on the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, 27-30 October 1987,
St. Paul, MN. Technical Report D-88-8. U.S. Department of the Army,
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
McGee, S.E. 1988. The Use of Dredged Material from the Hampton Roads
Deepening Project, pp. 97-109. In: M.C. Landin (ed). Beneficial Uses of
Dredged Materials, Proceedings of the North Atlantic Regional Confer-
ence, 12-14 May 1987, Baltimore, MD. Technical Report. U.S. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicks-
burg, MS.
Murden, W.R. 1987. An Overview of the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Mate-
rial, pp. 121-128. In: M.C. Landin and H.K. Smith (eds.). Beneficial Uses
of Dredged Material. Proceedings of the First Interagency Workshop, 7-9
October 1986, Pensacola, FL. Technical Report D-87-1. U.S. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicks-
burg, MS.
Nelson, D.A., and E.J. Pullen. 1990. Environmental Considerations in
Using Beach Nourishment for Dredged Material Placement, pp. 113-128.
In: R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (eds.). Beneficial Uses of Dredged Mate-
rial. Technical Report D-90-3. U.S. Department of the Army, Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Richardson, T.W. 1990. Overview of Beneficial Uses ofBerms, pp. 88-92.
In: R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (eds.). Beneficial Uses of Dredged Mate-
rial. Technical Report D-90-3. U.S. Department of the Army, Waterways
Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Roberts, K.J., D.G. Marschall, and J. Homziak. 1992. Economic Potential
of Aquaculture in Dredged Material Containment Areas. Mississippi-Ala-
bama Sea Grant Consortium Publication No. MASGP-90-032. Mississippi
State University, Biloxi, MS, 19 pp.
Tatem, H.E. 1990. Determination of Chemical Suitability of a Dredged
Material Containment Area for Aquaculture. Technical Report EL-90-12.
U.S. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
A.8
-------
Appendix A: Beneficial Use Categories
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), New York District.
1989. Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives in the New York-New Jersey Met-
ropolitan Region, Managing Dredged Material. U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, New York District, New York, NY.
Wilhelm, G., J.W. Simmers, R.G. Rhett, and J.M. Marquenie. 1988.
Reclamation of Pyritic Mine Spoil Using Contaminated Dredged Material,
pp. 160-176. In: M.C. Landin (ed.) Inland Waterways: Proceedings of
a National Workshop on the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, 27-30
October 1987, St. Paul, MN. Technical Report D-88-8. U.S. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS.
A.9
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
A.10
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Appendix B:
Cost-Sharing Examples
This appendix provides five examples on cost-sharing for beneficial use
projects. Information on who bears the costs assigned to the navigation-
al purposes, as well as who bears the incremental costs, is provided as
background and context for these examples.
Who bears the costs assigned to the navigational
purposes of a dredging project?
The costs assigned to the navigational purpose of a dredging project are
shared with the non-federal sponsor of the project. The ratio of federal to
non-federal costs depends on the nature and depth of the dredging proj-
ect, as described in the box below.
New Navigation Projects
(deepening or widening of an existing federal navigation channel or creation of a new federal navigation channel)
For the portion of the project with a depth: The non-federal share is:
Up to 20 ft 20% (10% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
Over 20 ft and up to 45 ft 35% (25% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
Over 45 ft 60% (50% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
Operation and Maintenance of Existing Navigation Projects
1. Operation and Maintenance Dredging: Federal share is 100% (except for harbors greater than 45 feet, where the
non-federal share is 50% of the costs beyond those which would be incurred for a project with a depth of 45 ft or
less).
2. Constructing land-based and aquatic disposal facilities:
For the portion of the project with a depth: The non-federal share is:
Up to 20 ft 20% (10% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
Over 20 ft and up to 45 ft 35% (25% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
Over 45 ft 60% (50% during construction + 10% over 30 years)*
3. Operating and maintaining land-based and aquatic disposal facilities: Federal share is 100%.t
* The non-federal share includes 10%, 25%, or 50% to be paid during construction. It may include an additional 10% share of the total project costs to be paid over 30 years.
The value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations reguired for the project is credited to this 10%, which is to be paid over30years.
tin some cases, the federal cost may be determined by legislation authorizing construction and maintenance of the confined disposal facility.
B.I
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Who bears the incremental costs of a beneficial use
project?
First, the costs assigned to the navigational purpose of the project (i.e.,
the amount it would have cost to implement the Federal Standard (base
plan), or least costly dredged material disposal or placement alterna-
tive or alternatives identified by USAGE that is consistent with sound
engineering practices and meets all federal environmental requirements,
including those established under CWA and MPRSA) are shared with
the non-federal sponsor as described above. Second, the costs beyond
the navigational purpose costs (the incremental costs) are shared on
a different basis, depending on the type of beneficial use. The funding
authorities used in the examples of this appendix are described below.
^ Protection, Restoration, or Creation of Aquatic and Related
Habitats. Section 204 of WRDA 1992, as amended by Section 207
of WRDA 1996 and Section 209 of WRDA 1999, authorizes USAGE
to carry out projects for creating, protecting, and restoring aquatic
and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, in connec-
tion with dredging for constructing, operating, or maintaining
USAGE navigation projects. The incremental costs of such projects
are shared on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal
basis. This is the most commonly used authority for funding ben-
eficial uses of maintenance dredging both because of this specific
focus and because it is appropriated programmatically. It has an
annual appropriation limit of $15 million.
>• Placement of Dredged Materials on Beaches. Section 145 of
WRDA 1976, as amended by Section 933 of WRDA 1986, Section
207 of WRDA 1992, and Section 217 of WRDA 1999, authorizes
USAGE to place suitable dredged material on local beaches if a
state or local government requests it. Although placement for res-
toration purposes may be authorized under it, this provision is
primarily used for storm damage control purposes. The incremen-
tal costs of beach nourishment are shared on a 65 percent federal
and 35 percent non-federal basis. Use of this section requires a
specific Congressional appropriation for each project.
The information in this appendix was taken from USAGE 1995, Imple-
menting Ecosystem Restoration Projects in Connection with Dredging,
Appendix C: Cost-Sharing Examples. Memo EC1105-2-209, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. Example 1 uses Section 145 of
WRDA 1976, as amended by Section 217 WRDA 1999. The other four
examples use Section 204 of WRDA 1992, as amended by Section 207 of
WRDA 1996 and Section 209 of WRDA 1999, as the funding authority.
B.2
-------
Appendix B: Cost-Sharing Examples
Example 1: Section 145 - WRDA 1976
The base disposal plan (or Federal Standard) for maintaining a federal
navigation project is ocean disposal at a cost of $100,000 for dredging
and placement in an open water disposal site. The dredged material is
clean sand. An opportunity is identified to place the dredged material
on an adjacent beach to nourish the beach, reduce storm damages, and
enhance recreational use. There is no lands, easements, rights-of-way,
and relocations (LERR) requirement for this beach placement. The place-
ment of the dredged material on the beach costs $100,000 more than
ocean disposal. Therefore, the beneficial use placement is a total of
$200,000. The first $100,000 of the beach nourishment would be shared
as a navigation maintenance cost. Because it is Operation and Mainte-
nance Dredging, the federal share is 100 percent. The incremental cost
of $100,000 for material placement would be shared as beach nourish-
ment on a 65 percent federal and 35 percent non-federal basis under
the authority of Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1976, as amended. All operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and
rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs for the completed beach nourishment
would be non-federal. This example is illustrated below.
Example 1
Shared as Navigation Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)*
Shared as Beach Nourishment
(Material Placement)
(LERR)*
Total Beach Nourishment Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)*
Federal
$100,000
(100,000)
(0)
$65,000
(65,000)
(0)
$165,000
(165,000)
(0)
Non-Federal
$0
(0)
(0)
$35,000
(35,000)
(0)
$35,000
(35,000)
(0)
* Lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (LERR)
Example 2: Section 204 - WRDA 1992
The base disposal plan for maintaining a federal navigation project
is ocean disposal at a cost of $100,000 for dredging and placement in
an open-water disposal site. A wetland creation project is identified
using the maintenance dredged material at a cost of $200,000, includ-
ing $25,000 for LERR. The first $100,000 of the wetland creation project
would be shared as a navigation maintenance cost on a 100 percent
federal cost basis. The incremental cost of $100,000 would be shared as
an ecosystem restoration project on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent
non-federal basis. All OMRR&R costs for the completed wetland project
would be non-federal.
B.3
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Example 2
Shared as Navigation Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Shared as Ecosystem Restoration
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Total Wetland Creation Project
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Federal
$100,000
(100,000)
(0)
$75,000
(75,000)
(0)
$175,000
(175,000)
(0)
Non-Federal
$0
(0)
(0)
$25,000
(0)
(25,000)
$25,000
(0)
(25,000)
Example 3: Section 204 - WRDA 1992
The base disposal plan for maintaining a federal navigation project is
disposal in an upland site at a cost of $100,000, which includes $80,000
for dredging and placement and $20,000 for LERR. A wetland creation
project is identified using the maintenance dredged material at a cost of
$200,000, including $25,000 for lands. The first $100,000 of this wetland
creation project would be shared as a navigation maintenance cost, with
the $80,000 dredging and placement costs being federal, and $20,000
LERR cost being non-federal. The incremental cost of $100,000 would be
shared as an ecosystem restoration project on a 75 percent federal and
25 percent non-federal basis. The total LERR costs ($25,000 for lands)
are shared between the non-federal navigation and ecosystem restora-
tion costs. All OMRR&R costs for the completed wetland project would
be non-federal. This example is illustrated below.
Examples
Shared as Navigation Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Shared as Ecosystem Restoration
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Total Wetland Creation Project
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Federal
$80,000
(80,000)
(0)
$75,000
(75,000)
(0)
$155,000
(155,000)
(0)
Non-Federal
$20,000
(0)
(20,000)
$25,000
(20,000)
(5,000)
$45,000
(20,000)
(25,000)
B.4
-------
Appendix B: Cost-Sharing Examples
Example 4: Section 204 - WRDA 1992
The base disposal plan for a new-work harbor project is disposal in an
upland site at a cost of $100,000, which includes $80,000 for dredging
and placement, and $20,000 for LERR. The project deepens the harbor
from 30 to 40 feet, so the $80,000 would have been cost-shared on a 75
percent federal and 25 percent non-federal basis as a general naviga-
tion feature, with an additional 10 percent cost share over 30 years that
could be offset by credit for the value of LERR. The $20,000 LERR cost
would have been non-federal and would offset the additional 10 percent
requirement. The cost share for dredging and placement as a general
navigation feature would have been $60,000 federal and $20,000 non-
federal with an additional $20,000 for LERR. A wetland creation project
is identified using the new-work dredged material at a cost of $200,000,
including $25,000 for lands. The first $100,000 of this wetland creation
project would be shared as a navigation cost on a $60,000 federal and
$40,000 non-federal basis, $20,000 of which would cover lands. The
incremental cost of $100,000 would be shared as an ecosystem restora-
tion project, also on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal
basis, $5,000 of which would cover the incremental cost of lands. The
non-federal partners, however, may be different for the navigation and
wetland creation projects. All OMRR&R costs for the completed wetland
project would be non-federal. This example is illustrated below.
Example 4
Shared as Navigation Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Shared as Ecosystem Restoration
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Total Wetland Creation Project
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Federal
$60,000
(60,000)
(0)
$75,000
(75,000)
(0)
$135,000
(135,000)
(0)
Non-Federal
$40,000
(20,000)
(20,000)15
$25,000
(20,000)
(5,000)
$65,000
(40,000)
(25,000)
Example 5: Section 204 - WRDA 1992
The base disposal plan for a new-work harbor project is ocean disposal
at a cost of $100,000 for dredging and placement in an open-water dis-
posal site. The project deepens the harbor from 30 to 40 feet, so this cost
would have been shared on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-fed-
eral basis to be paid during construction, with an additional 10 percent
5 In cases where the non-federal sponsor of the navigation project is different from the non-federal sponsor of the ecosystem restora-
tion project, the former must pay an amount equal to the credited LERR costs that would have been incurred for the base plan, the
latter will be responsible for actually acquiring all LERR required for the ecosystem restoration project (including those that also
would have been required for the base disposal plan).
B.5
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
non-federal share (directed to the 75 percent federal share) to be paid
over 30 years. This 10 percent non-federal share could be offset by credit
for the value of LERR. In this example, assume that there are sufficient
LERR costs for the new-work navigation project to offset the require-
ment to contribute an additional 10 percent of general navigation facil-
ity costs. The cost share for dredged material disposal would have been
$75,000 federal and $25,000 non-federal. A wetland creation project is
identified using the new-work dredged material at a cost of $200,000,
including $25,000 for land in addition to land required for the base proj-
ect. The first $100,000 of the wetland creation project would be shared
as a navigation cost on a $75,000 federal and $25,000 non-federal basis.
The incremental cost of $100,000 would be shared as an ecosystem res-
toration project also on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal
basis. All OMRR&R costs for the completed wetland project would be
non-federal. This example is illustrated below.
Examples
Shared as Navigation Cost
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Shared as Ecosystem Restoration
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Total Wetland Creation Project
(Material Placement)
(LERR)
Federal
$75,000
(75,000)
(0)
$75,000
(75,000)
(0)
$150,000
(150,000)
(0)
Non-Federal
$25,000
(25,000)
(0)
$25,000
(0)
(25,000)
$50,000
(25,000)
(25,000)
B.6
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
Appendix C:
Implementing Environmentally
Beneficial Use Projects in
Connection with Maintenance
Dredging
Projects Under Section 204 of The Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986)
General. The authority of Section 204 of WRDA 1986 is most applicable
for using dredged material from maintenance activities from a federally
maintained channel to protect, restore or create aquatic and ecological
related habitat (wetland, shallow water habitat, reefs, etc.). The author-
ity provides that such projects will be shared on a 75 percent federal
and 25 percent non-federal basis for the costs above the base plan
costs (least cost disposal consistent with sound engineering practice
and meeting all federal environmental standards). This is a permanent
authority so the projects do not require specific Congressional authoriza-
tion. Also, USAGE seeks a programmatic appropriation for this authority
every year so that Section 204 projects do not require a new construc-
tion start decision or specific project appropriations. Because the annual
appropriation limit for Section 204 is $15 million, it is most appropriate
for smaller beneficial use projects (e.g., federal share of $5 million or
less), although there is nothing in the Section 204 authorization that
limits the size of the project. Detailed guidance on the policy and pro-
cess for implementing Section 204 projects is contained in Appendix F,
Amendment 1 of ER 1105-2-100, dated 31 January 2006.
Process for Section 204 Project in Conjunction with
Maintenance Dredging
I. Opportunities for beneficial use projects are identified through
dredged material management planning efforts, interagency plan-
ning and management efforts (National Estuary Program, Coastal
C.I
-------
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
America, etc.) state or local planning efforts, or general coordination
activities with federal and state resource agencies.
2. A feasibility study prepared by the USAGE District office is required
to demonstrate that federal participation in the project is warranted
and justified. It is initiated based upon receipt of a letter from a
potential non-federal sponsor to the District Engineer stating its
desire to participate in a solution and acknowledging its financial
responsibilities, and upon the availability of funds. The feasibility
study is initially federally funded up to $100,000. The remainder of
the feasibility cost is shared 50 percent federal and 50 percent non-
federal and a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is required. The
non-federal sponsor must be a legally constituted public body with
full authority and capability to perform the terms of the agreement.
Once a determination is made to initiate a feasibility study, funds are
requested from the Headquarters Program Integration Office through
the appropriate Major Subordinate Command (Division Office).
3. The feasibility report includes all the planning activities required to
demonstrate that federal participation in a specific project is warrant-
ed. All plan formulation, including all technical analysis, policy com-
pliance determinations, real estate, and federal and non-federal envi-
ronmental and regulatory compliance activities required for approval
of the decision document must be completed during the feasibility
study. All policy-compliant feasibility reports can be approved by the
Division Commander. Any non-policy compliant reports need to be
approved at USAGE Headquarters in coordination with the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
4. Upon completion of the feasibility phase and approval by the Major
Subordinate Command Commander, requests for funds, not to exceed
$50,000, may be submitted to the Headquarters Programs Integra-
tion Office through the appropriate Major Subordinate Command
Programs Office to initiate the design and implementation phase. The
first action of the design and implementation phase is negotiation and
execution of a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The design and
implementation phase includes negotiation and execution of the PCA,
final design, preparation of contract plans and specifications, con-
struction, and any other activities required to construct or implement
the approved project. The design and implementation phase is cost
shared 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal. This phase does
not include operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation or replace-
ment activities which are a non-federal sponsor's responsibility in
accordance with the terms of the PCA.
C.2
-------
-------
Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material:
Beneficial Use Planning Manual
October 2007
EPA842-B-07-001
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue [4504T]
Washington, DC 20460
------- |