&EPA
EPA/600/R-20/409 ] December 2020 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material Decision Tool
RESES PROJECT REPORT
Office of Research and Development
Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure
Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division
-------
EPA/600/R-20/409
December 2020
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material
Decision Tool
RESES Project Final Report
by
Kathleen Williams, Keahna Margeson, Sebastian Paczuski, Rosita
Clarke, and Karla Auker, and Joel Hoffman
Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Regional Environmental Science and Sustainability Research Program
(RESES)
Rosita Clarke, USEPA Region 5 Land, Chemicals & Redevelopment Division
Project Lead
Joel Hoffman, USEPA Office of Research and Development
ORD Lead Project Officer
Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division
Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
-------
Notice/Disclaimer Statement
The research described in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through the Office of Research and Development. The research described herein was conducted at the
Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division of the Center for Computational Toxicology and
Exposure in Duluth, Minnesota.
This document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Opinions are those of the authors and do not represent
Agency policy. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
The citation for this report is:
Williams, K., Margeson, K., Paczuski, S., Clarke, R., Auker, K., and Hoffman, J. (2020). Beneficial Use
of Dredged Material Decision Tool. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN EPA/600/R-
20/409. 79 pages.
-------
Abstract
Domestic and international transportation of good and commodities on the Great Lakes provides
227,000 U.S. and Canadian jobs and saves about $3.6 billion annually compared to overland transport.
Navigation channels in rivers and harbors must be routinely dredged to mandated depths to allow this
industry to operate cost-effectively Historically dredged material has been disposed in deep water
offshore or placed in confined disposal facilities on land. These disposal options are no longer available
in some places (e.g., Ohio where open lake disposal was banned in July 2020), requiring new solutions
for the disposition of dredged material. Sustainable beneficial uses of dredged material include use as fill
or construction material, for habitat restoration, or for brownfields remediation projects. To support and
promote these beneficial uses, USEPA Region 5 developed a Dredged Materials Management Tool
(DMDT) to help communities characterize and quantify the environmental and social considerations of
beneficially using dredged material. The purpose of the DMDT is to is to allow social and
environmental considerations to be quantified so they can be considered along with economic
considerations when making dredged material management decisions. USEPA Region 5 has
collaborated with USEPA Office of Research Development scientists to help refine the DMDT to
enhance its usability using insights from a series of workshops attended by stakeholder groups involved
in dredging decisions. Based on these workshops and related research, a user-friendly interface was
created for the tool along with an instruction manual that describes how to use it. The revised DMDT
can be used to quantify and weigh the environmental, social and economic aspects of dredged material
management options the user is considering. Once the options are evaluated, the tool can then be used to
communicate the evaluation process and results to decision makers and the community via spreadsheets
and bar graphs.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of a Regional Environmental Science and Sustainability
(RESES) Program grant by USEPA Region 5 Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division,
Redevelopment and Program Services Branch and the Center for Computational Toxicology and
Ecology's Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Divison. This report covers a period from September
2018 to December 2020.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, USEPA
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. Moreover, USEPA is
building the scientific basis necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand
how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. To meet
legislative and science-based mandates, USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD)
contributes research, data and technical support to assist the Agency and its partners in solving
environmental problems.
The following report is a culmination of collaborations among USEPA's Region 5, ORD-Great
Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division within the Center for Computational Toxicology and
Exposure and several state and local municipalities. It is an overview and instruction manual for
the application of the Dredged Material Decision Tool (DMDT). The DMDT is has been
developed to facilitate the evaluation and communication of decisions surrounding the beneficial
use of dredged material.
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer Statement ii
Acknowledgments xi
1.0 Introduction 6
1.1 Background and introduction 6
1.2 DMDT description and overview 7
2.0 DMDT profile creation process 9
2.1 Preliminary steps - preparing to use the tool 9
2.1.1. Identify lead stakeholder group 9
2.1.2. Identify and gather relevant stakeholders 10
2.1.3. Determine material source(s) 12
2.1.4 Determine available material type(s) 13
2.1.5. Determine potential management alternatives 14
2.2. Using the criteria worksheets, scorecards and DMDT 15
2.2.1. Assessing and adjusting existing criteria 15
2.2.2. Stakeholder assessment of beneficial use management alternatives
using the criteria worksheets 18
2.2.3. Create site or alternative descriptions to confirm details with all
stakeholders 19
2.2.4. Use beneficial use management alternative descriptions and answers
V
-------
from criteria worksheets to inform the scoring process 20
3.0 DMDT scoring instructions 21
3.1 Step 1: Entering project information in the DMDT. 22
(Scoresheet A or B) 22
3.2. Step 2: Ranking criteria (Scoresheet A orB) 23
3.3. Step 3: Weighting factors (Scoresheets A or B) 24
3.4. Step 4: Entering user scores in the DMDT 25
3.4.1. Scoresheet A 25
3.4.2 Scoresheet B 26
4.0 Discuss decision process 27
4.1 Scoresheet result graphs 28
4.2 Summary 28
4.3 Limitations and future research 29
5.0 References 30
5.0 Appendices 32
Appendix A: Dredged material decision tool (DMDT) criteria worksheet 32
Objectives 32
Instructions 32
vi
-------
Definitions 32
DMDT Beneficial Use Worksheet 34
Appendix B: Sample beneficial use management alternative profiles for Interstate
Island and Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve 42
B.1. Beneficial use management alternative profile for Interstate Island,
Duluth-Superior Harbor 42
B.2. Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve Fact Sheet 47
Appendix C: Scorecards 43
Scorecard A 43
Scorecard B 47
Scorecard C 48
Appendix D: Criteria List Adjustment Directions 51
Appendix E: Background research and workshops 54
Appendix F: Beneficial use case database instructions 57
Introduction to the Database 57
Instructions for navigating the database 57
vii
-------
Table of Figures
Figure 1. DMDT use flow. First, users profile the management alternative by gathering
information and stakeholders and completing the worksheets and scorecards. Secondly,
users apply the findings in the profiling steps to enter the data into the DMDT and review
the results. Finally, users make decisions based on the DMDT output 8
Figure 2. The steps to use DMDT 9
Figure 3. This diagram illustrates the flow of the DMDT process, where the box indicates the
current step. Identify lead stakeholder group step is highlighted as the current step in the
process 10
Figure 4. Identify and gather stakeholders and other participants step 11
Figure 5. Determine the source for the material (i.e., maintenance dredging, private dredging,
etc.) 13
Figure 6. Determine available material type(s) 14
Figure 1. Identify potential management alternatives 15
Figure 8. Assess existing criteria and adjust if needed 16
Figure 9. Stakeholders can complete the worksheets to clarify their own priorities and rankings.
19
Figure 10. Create beneficial use management alternative profile based on worksheet outputs
to share with other stakeholders 20
Figure 11. Use beneficial use management alternative descriptions and answers from
worksheet to use scorecards 21
Figure 12. Using the rankings from scorecards, enter data into the DMDT. 22
Figure 13. Project information data cells located in the upper left of Scoresheets A and B 23
Figure 14. Project information data cells located above spreadsheet in rows 23 and 24 of
Scoresheets A and B 23
Figure 15. Percentile ranking column on Scoresheet A and B. Ranks come from user priorities.
24
Figure 16. Weighting factor adjustment column 25
Figure 17. User entry score columns, Scoresheet A 26
Figure 18. Total score display rows 26
Figure 19. User entry score columns, Scoresheet B 27
Figure 20. Total score display rows 27
Figure 21. Discuss project scoring and rankings 28
Figure 22. Graphical display of scoring results 28
Figure 23. Comparison graph controls 53
Figure 24. Notes from March 2020 workshop 55
Figure 25. Refresh all button to apply new search parameters 60
viii
-------
Tables
Table 1. Description of categories contained in the DMDT 8
Table 2. List of potential stakeholders and collaborators 11
Table 3. Categories and criteria in DMDT 16
ix
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CDF Confined Disposal Facility
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychorinated Biphenol
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
DMDT Dredged material decision tool
X
-------
Acknowledgments
Keahna Margeson, Sebastian Paczuski, and Katie Williams drafted the report with assistance from
Rosita Clarke, Karla Auker, and Joel Hoffman. We also acknowledge Ted Angradi and Brook Furio
who provided reviews that greatly enhanced the quality of this report.
We acknowledge previous efforts by USEPA Region 5 (Karla Auker, Brooke Furio, and Brad Stimple)
and Region 5's technical assistance contractor TetraTech, Inc. for developing the initial DMDT in 2017-
2018. USEPA and TetraTech worked with the City of Cleveland, the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port
Authority, Ohio EPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers, numerous other local stakeholders to develop
the inputs for, and vet ,the initial tool. The development of the initial DMDT would not have been
possible without the dedication and effort provided by these stakeholders.
Finally, we acknowledge our collaborators in the Duluth-Superior Harbor Dredged Materials
Management Team, Coordinated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Other team members include the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Port of Duluth and Superior, Metropolitan Interstate Council, Natural
Resources and Research Institute, and the City of Duluth who shared much of their time, knowledge,
and experiences with the team through their participation to refine the materials.
Cover photo credits:
Left: Stakeholder workshop on March 13, 2020 (USEPA)
Right: St. Louis River habitat restoration at Interstate Island (USEPA)
xi
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background and introduction
Domestic and international transportation of goods and commodities on the Great Lakes provides
227,000 U.S. and Canadian jobs and saves about $3.6 billion annually compared to overland transport.
To support this economic activity the US Congress has authorized the dredging of 136 federal harbors
and 745 miles of navigation channels to a depth of 30 feet to facilitate domestic and international
maritime commerce. Annually, about 4 million cubic yards of sediment are dredged from these harbors
and channels to keep them safely operational. A problem facing both the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) who is responsible for the maintenance of navigation channels, and the port authorities that
manage the harbors is how to dispose of the materials that are dredged from channels and harbors.
Where dredged material has exceeded water quality criteria for contaminants, including heavy metals,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and furans, it has
generally been placed in a confined disposal facility (CDF; USACE and USEPA 2003). However, these
CDFs , which are owned by states or port authorities and operated by the USACE, have a finite capacity.
In many ports, these facilities have reached capacity. Replacing CDFs is expensive and complicated,
requiring contributions from non-federal partners and requiring the use of scarce port property for the
purpose (USACE 1998). Another disposal option for sediments has been open water disposal or
placement. At a minimum, open water disposal of sediment is subject to state environmental water
quality permitting and approval and is generally prohibited in Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Owing to the Clean Water Act and the environmental stewardship of the public and private sectors, the
Great Lakes have seen improvements in both water and sediment quality. Consequently, sediments
dredged from Great Lakes rivers and harbors now frequently meet toxicity criteria and can be
considered for beneficial use. Beneficial use of sediments is the use or placement of dredged materials
for a productive use (Great Lakes Dredging Team 2020). Examples of beneficial use include placement
for beach nourishment, use as fill or cap material on brownfields and construction sites, and use as feed
stock for manufactured soil or compost. Considering dredged sediment as a resource as opposed to a
waste can lead to both economic as well as environmental benefits.
Representatives from USEPA Region 5 worked with Ohio stakeholders engaged in finding alternatives
to traditional placement and disposal practices for dredged materials in the Cleveland Harbor. As a part
of that effort USEPA Region 5 hosted a "Dredged Sediment Stakeholder Engagement Charrette" on
April 12, 2018. Hosted by Brooke Furio of USEPA Region 5, the charrette included an engaging
discussion of beneficial use alternatives and associated short- and long-term goals. Stakeholders in this
effort included the City of Cleveland, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Cleveland Port
Authority, and local representatives from private businesses and nonprofit groups with a vested interest
in how the dredged materials from the Cuyahoga River are managed. Building from the outcomes of this
charrette, USEPA tasked Tetra Tech, Inc. to develop a spreadsheet-based, decision support tool that can
compare several alternatives based on economic, environmental, and social criteria. The goal was to
provide a simple tool that local and state stakeholders can use to evaluate various alternatives for
handling dredged sediment from federal navigation channels in not just Cleveland Harbor, but the entire
Great Lakes basin.
One solution for beneficially using sediment that arose in the Cleveland context was using materials on
brownfields sites. Brownfields sites provide opportunities to beneficially use dredged sediment because
they are often located in urban areas near Great Lakes rivers and harbors. A brownfield is a property
where the expansion, redevelopment, or use of which may be complicated by the presence or potential
6
-------
presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (https://www.epa.gov/brownfields).
Common remedies for brownfields sites include a cap to cover contaminated soil or fill for voids left
when contaminated soil has been removed. Although there are challenges to using dredged materials on
brownfields (i.e., composition, quantity, and transportation costs) dredged materials can be amended to
meet environmental or geotechnical standards and provide vital social and environmental benefits. For
example, beneficially using dredged materials can conserve CDF space, reduce demand on borrow sites,
provide growing medium, and protect aquatic environments. Because using dredged materials can be
costly, it is important to be able to identify and quantify the benefits of using the materials. For example,
amending dredged materials to meet environmental and geotechnical requirements can increase the
overall cost to use the material compared to native soil. Moreover, transportation of materials can also
be costly. The spreadsheet tool was designed to help cities and states quantify and explain the social and
environmental benefits of beneficially using dredged sediment.
Using the initial decision tool created by USEPA Region 5 and Tetra Tech in 2018, USEPA Region 5
and the Office of Research and Development worked together under this RESES grant to further
develop the tool by refining the decision criteria, creating user-friendly interface worksheets, writing
step-by-step instructions, and creating a supplemental database of beneficial use case studies. We now
refer to the refined tool and supplemental database as the Dredged Material Decision Tool (DMDT). The
research that supported the refinement and enhancement of the original tool utilized several
methodologies. We utilized case study research to characterize beneficial use of dredged material
decision criteria to ground the tool in the experiences of dredgers, resource managers, and community
development staff. We then refined the criteria and instructions using insights gained from collaborative
stakeholder workshops. Finally, an inventory of beneficial use of dredge projects was organized into a
database to supplement the tool as a resource. Based on our research, the original version of the tool was
revised to characterize types of habitat restoration, decision criteria, and social benefits. The revised tool
helps facilitate transparent decision-making through collaborative problem-solving. The "right" answer
will be revealed through discussion which has fully considered all the priorities and mandates of
participating agencies.
This report is an instruction manual for the DMDT. The first of four sections of the report provides
background for the problem and an overview of the DMDT. Section 2 of the report provides an
overview of the steps necessary and information needed to characterize and compare the ecological and
social impacts of dredging projects. This process includes collecting background information,
identifying interested stakeholders, and characterizing both the dredged material composition and
beneficial use alternatives for the material. Section 3.0 provides the instructions for efficiently using the
tool. Section 4.0 describes how to interpret the results of the tool and potential next steps. Appendices to
the report include copies of the worksheets and scorecards described in Section 2, a sample beneficial
use management alternative profile, a description of how to adjust criteria, a description of the research
that informed the revision of the tool, and instructions for database.
1.2 DMDT description and overview
The DMDT is designed to compare among potential beneficial use projects based on multiple criteria
(i.e., biophysical, social, and economic). USACE requires that dredged materials are disposed of in the
least-costly manner. However, with traditional disposal methods such as open water disposal and
placement in CDFs becoming less feasible or prohibited, there is a need to for alternative disposal
options or sustainable uses of the material. The DMDT calculates the benefits and costs of beneficially
using dredge materials to assist communities in making decisions.
7
-------
Because the beneficial use of dredge materials includes ecological, economic, and social factors,
decision making can be complex. A tool to facilitate these decisions should consider regulatory and
organizational structures, attributes of dredged materials, and potential beneficial end-uses. The first step
in using the DMDT is to compile background information, including potential stakeholders, beneficial
uses, pertinent rules and regulations, and funding sources. After assembling the background information
and completing the assessment worksheets to create a project profile (Fig.l), potential beneficial use
projects can be scored based on material suitability and the benefits of its use. In the scoring step, the
results from the worksheets and beneficial use management alternative profile are entered into a
spreadsheet with the materials types to characterize and quantify the benefits of using the dredged
materials. In the decision step, adjustments can be made based on the discussion with stakeholders. It is
important to note that the DMDT process is iterative. As new information and insights arise, they can be
added to the profile and the process repeated.
• Gather information
and stakeholders
• Complete
worksheets and
scorecards
Profile
Score
• Enter data from
worksheets and
scorecards into
DMDT
• Review results
f >
•Adjust weights and
criteria as necessary
• Discuss and evaluate
results
Decide
Figure 1. DMDT use flow. First, users profile the management alternative by gathering information and
stakeholders and completing the worksheets and scorecards. Secondly, users apply the findings in the profiling
steps to enter the data into the DMDT and review the results. Finally, users make decisions based on the DMDT
output.
The DMDT is designed to collect and organize information into categories of decision criteria that
normally inform dredged material management decisions. The categories, which were derived from
research and confirmed through participatory workshops, represent the environmental, regulatory, and
economic reasons for making decisions about beneficially using dredged materials (Table 1). The broad
categories in the DMDT are governance, built environment, biophysical environment, economic costs
and benefits, and social benefits (Table 1). These categories represent the original decision criteria
included from the first version of the tool and are intended to capture the constraints decision makers
face in making decisions to beneficially use dredged materials. A complete list of the decision criteria
can be found in the worksheets in Appendix A.
Table 1. Description of the categories of criteria contained in the DMDT.
Category
Description
Biophysical environment
The habitat restoration applications of dredged materials.
Economic
Funding details, placement costs and options, and transportation.
8
-------
Governance
The rules, regulations, and organizational decision factors.
Social
Benefits to the community including improving ecosystems services.
Built environment
How dredge is utilized for construction.
The DMDT works through a series of steps that organize the complex details of the beneficial use of
dredged materials. The decision criteria are the details that are reviewed throughout the process. The
materials developed to support the tool are designed to break the project planning and prioritization
process down into manageable steps (Fig. 2). The process starts with gathering information and people.
The information is used by people to individually and collectively create a list of viable beneficial use
alternatives through the use of worksheets and scorecards. The data from the worksheets and scorecards
are then entered into the DMDT. Finally, the DMDT scores or results can be reviewed to make a
decision. The process is further detailed through this report.
Profile step:
u
Profile step:
¦
Profile step:
¦
r i
Score step:
u
r ^
Decide step:
u
r ^
Decide step:
gather
complete
complete
enter data
review
make
derision or
information
u
worksheets
u
scorecards
M
into DMDT
>. j
u
scores
u
V--I »- ^1 J 1 1 1 W 1
start again
Figure 2. The steps to use DMDT.
2.0 DMDT profile creation process
2.1 Preliminary steps - preparing to use the tool
The following preliminary steps do not necessarily occur sequentially. The order will vary depending on
the specific circumstances of each project. For more information about these preliminary steps, see the
Army Corps of Engineers Beneficial Use Planning Manual.
First, obtain a copy of the DMDT - a fillable copy of the worksheets, tool spreadsheet, and database
from Katie Williams at williams.kathleen@epa.gov.
2.1.1. Identify lead stakeholder group
In many cases, one stakeholder group (Fig. 3) will take responsibility for organizing and maintaining
communication among the other stakeholder groups and should be known as the lead stakeholder group.
Identifying the lead stakeholder group early in the process will help to centralize and provide timely,
purposeful communication. This organization should function as facilitator for the group meaning that
they take on the role of planning meetings, sending out meeting invitations and reminders, take and
disseminate notes, and conduct meeting follow-up. Other stakeholders may take on additional support
roles, such as inviting other stakeholders, retrieving necessary documents, and identifying potential
management alternatives for the use of dredged materials.
9
-------
Identify lead stakeholder group
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 3. This diagram illustrates the flow of the DMDT process, where the box indicates the current step. Identify
lead stakeholder group step is highlighted as the current step in the process.
Guiding questions for this step
Who is responsible for dredging or beneficial use management alternative? This group may be
the obvious choice for lead stakeholder group
Is there contention about who should be the lead organization? It may help to clarify that the
"lead" for the process is a facilitator. Lead does not imply there is an organization that dominates
and steers the decision towards a predetermined end. The organization leading this process can
delegate responsibilities and even share the "lead" position. Moreover, the process is designed to
be transparent such that participants will have access to all of the materials that inform the
decision. Participants should be reassured that all viewpoints will be heard and considered.
What kind and level of communication is likely to be needed? Stakeholders with the capacity to
manage communication among groups may be successful in the role of lead stakeholder group or
an active supporter. Possible materials to share with collaborators include:
o Fact sheets about the project,
o List of pertinent regulations,
o List of potential management alternatives, and
o Meeting invitations, notes, and supplementary materials.
2.1.2. Identify and gather relevant stakeholders
The US Great Lakes region is made up of eight states, each with different policies, programs, and
procedures for management of dredged material (Great Lakes Dredging Team 2016). To ensure the
10
-------
greatest understanding of how to apply these policies, programs, and procedures within a local context,
it is important to involve stakeholders and experts who represent diverse interests related to dredged
materials management (Fig. 4). It is important to have a wide range of stakeholders because dredged
materials can be another stock resource for construction that may be used in a range of applications
including backfill, road base, sand, and structural fill. Relevant stakeholders are those who make
decisions about or who have an interest or "stake" in decisions about dredging, materials management,
and disposal, placement or use of dredged materials, although the group may wish to include others who
have knowledge or background that can inform materials management decisions. Working groups or
project teams that include stakeholders or other experts from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds
(Table 2) can stimulate innovative dialogue and collaboration when working through the complex
process of beneficially using dredged material.
Identify lead stakeholder group
¦
I
1 1
i
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
-
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
1
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
I
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
j
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 4. Identify and gather stakeholders and other participants step.
Table 2. List of potential stakeholders and collaborators.
Potential stakeholders and collaborators
Advocacy organizations
Port authorities
City government agencies
Private businesses
Construction firms
Private residents
Conservation organizations
Recreation (outdoor) organizations and businesses
County government agencies
Regional or municipal development authority
County water or soil conservation districts
State natural resource and regulatory agencies
Developers
State health, parks, transportation, and tourism
departments
11
-------
Dredging contractors
Technical advisory groups
Engineering firms
US Army Corps of Engineers
National Estuarine Research Reserves
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Guiding questions for this step
Who has an interest in the project?
o If it a strong or direct interest, they could be involved in decision making. If it is a
tangential or indirect interest, they may only need to be informed about the project.
o Who will be impacted by the project? Stakeholders who may be impacted in the short
or long term by the by the project could be provided opportunities to participate in the
discussion.
Are there different perspectives on the impacts or benefits of using dredged material for projects
in the community? By giving participants an opportunity to share their perspectives, it may be
possible to resolve conflicts that arise.
2.1.3. Determine material source(s)
As part of the federal dredged material management program, US ACE and USEPA receive funding to
encourage partnerships for beneficial use (Fig. 5; USACE 2007). Previous beneficial use projects have
used Operations and Maintenance Dredging by the USACE, Strategic Navigational Dredging by the
USACE, and private dredging by contracted operators as the source of material for beneficial uses such
as a cover for contaminated soil or restoration of aquatic habitat. Some beneficial use projects are partly
motivated by a need to place excess dredged material when open lake disposal or confinement are not
options. In other cases, there may be non-use disposal options, but a project might commence because
affordable material is needed for a project that is beneficial to the community.
12
-------
Identify lead stakeholder group
1 i i 1
i i
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
l
1 I
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
I
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
j
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
T
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
T
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
T
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 5. Determine the source for the material (i.e., maintenance dredging, private dredging, etc.).
Guiding questions for this step.
What is the source of the material? How feasible is it to move the material from the source to the
site of the beneficial use management alternative?
What is the available volume and physical, chemical, and geotechnical composition of the
material?
Is there a CDF nearby? Is there capacity in that CDF?
• Are there alternatives to placement in the CDF? Use the DMDT to determine the benefits of
different management alternatives.
2.1.4 Determine available material type(s)
Depending on its source location, dredged material varies in its physical and chemical characteristics.
The available material must be characterized according to federal and state guidelines so that its
suitability for beneficial use can be assessed (Fig. 6). For testing the DMDT we considered four broad
classifications of material using Wentworth classifications (pp. 2-41 of the US ACE Engineering
Manual): clay (.00049-.0038mm), organic fines (.0039-.0624mm), sand (.0625-2.00 mm), and gravel or
pebble (2.01-64.00mm). For more information on material evaluation refer to state guidance and the
Army Corps of Engineers Dredging and Dredged Material Management Manual.
13
-------
Identify lead stakeholder group
i
1
i i
-i i
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
1
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
i
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
T
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
T
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
T
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
T
Figure 6. Determine available material type(s).
Discuss project scorings and rankings
2.1.5. Determine potential management alternatives
To input information into the DMDT, potential beneficial use management alternatives must be
proposed by the stakeholders and other collaborators (Fig. 7). Moreover, transportation to the beneficial
use management alternative site must be feasible because transport cost is a significant barrier to
beneficial use. This can be a difficult and time-consuming step in the process, especially if stakeholder
groups vary in their experience with the beneficial use of dredged material._There are many potential
applications for the use of dredged material, and when considering management alternative options, the
following list may be helpful:
Agricultural amendment,
Brownfield site remediation,
Cement constituent,
Construction material, including for roads,
Greenspace creation and enhancement,
Habitat restoration,
Beach nourishment, and
Superfund site remediation.
Appendix B includes examples of two beneficial use management alternative profiles for two cases, one
in the Duluth-Superior Harbor and one in the Port of Cleveland. The profiles and supplemental database
can help facilitate discussion by providing illustrative examples to stimulate ideas about potential
beneficial use management alternatives.
14
-------
Identify lead stakeholder group
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
\
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 7. Identify potential management alternatives.
Additional considerations for this step
It is important to communicate with a wide network of potential stakeholders and collaborators to
generate a list of potential beneficial use management alternative options for inclusion in the analysis.
As the list of alternatives evolves and priorities are solidified, the key collaborators may change. One
approach is to identify possible needs for dredged material in your area and invite the property owners
or managers. For example, in the Duluth-Superior Harbor, there was a need for material for habitat
restoration, so the evaluation for this study was conducted with the Duluth-Superior Harbor Dredge
Material Management Team. Many of the team members are natural resource managers. On the other
hand, in Cleveland, there was a need for clean fill where buildings had been demolished, requiring the
participation of the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga Land Bank.
2.2. Using the criteria worksheets, scorecards and DMDT
2.2.1. Assessing and adjusting existing criteria
Review the list of criteria (Table 3; Appendix A), as these are the baseline criteria that will be captured
in the worksheets, scorecards, and DMDT (Fig. 8). The lead stakeholder group may need to adjust
criteria to ensure the criteria being considered are relevant to each of the potential beneficial use
management alternatives (Fig. 8). If the existing criteria do not fit the scope of the alternative under
15
-------
consideration, it is possible to adjust the criteria to make them relevant to the context. This may include
renaming, replacing, or removing the criteria to fit the alternative. Prior to adjusting the criteria, consider
consulting with stakeholders to determine which criteria are relevant and what should be added or
changed. Replace the criteria to update and add extra lines for additional criteria as needed in the
worksheets, scorecards, and DMDT. Instructions for replacing criteria are detailed later in this report.
Identify lead stakeholder group
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
"T
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 8. Assess existing criteria and adjust if needed.
Table 3. Categories and criteria in DMDT.
Category
Criteria
Biophysical
Environment
Rivers and streams habitat quantity
gain/loss
Lakes and ponds habitat quantity gain/loss
Near coastal marine/estuarine habitat
quantity gain/loss
Open water habitat quantity gain/loss
Wetlands habitat quantity gain/loss
Urban/Suburban habitat quantity gain/loss
Barren/rock and sand habitat quantity
gain/loss
Rivers and streams habitat quality
improved/diminished
16
-------
Lakes and ponds quality
improved/diminished
Near coastal marine/estuarine quality
improved/diminished
Open water quality improved/diminished
Wetlands quality improved/diminished
Urban/Suburban quality
improved/diminished
Barren/rock and sand quality
improved/diminished
Impact on priority habitat
Benefit to species of management concern
Restoration of native vegetation
Reduction of invasive species
Increase stormwater control/protection
Influence biophysical environment by
reducing contamination
Economy
Funding pathway identified
Funding application prepared
Partnerships established
Potential partnerships identified
Feasible transportation of dredged
materials to the use site
Accept materials (5 years)
Accept materials long-term (20 years)
Lead to creation/growth of viable business
Secondary benefits created
Long-term maintenance required
Social
Improve access to parks or natural spaces
Potential for indirect job creation
Improve aesthetics
Community engagement
Reduced human exposure to contaminants
Improved access to ecosystem services
Improved infrastructure condition
New/improved infrastructure services for
community
Governance
Maintain navigation channels
17
-------
Enrollment in voluntary program
Able to complete within Environmental
Windows
Included in existing guidance documents
Permitting timeline conducive with project
timeline
Meets zoning requirements
Flexible timeframe
Replicable
Site ownership
Built Environment
Reduce contamination
Diversion to construction
Cap or fill for development site
Cap or fill for construction
Cap or fill for roads
Cap or fill for park or greenspace
2.2.2. Stakeholder assessment of beneficial use management alternatives
using the criteria worksheets
Each stakeholder or stakeholder group can assess the beneficial use management alternatives by
completing a worksheet addressing all the relevant criteria for each alternative (Fig. 9). The criteria
worksheets, named DMDT Beneficial Use Worksheets in Appendix A, are used to tabulate necessary
information about beneficial use management alternatives as input to the DMDT. The worksheets are
available as fillable PDFs and contain spaces to capture the management alternative information,
dredging information, as well as governance, biophysical, built environment, economic, and social
criteria.
18
-------
Identify lead stakeholder group
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 9. Stakeholders can complete the worksheets to clarify their own priorities and rankings.
Each stakeholder or stakeholder group can fill out a copy of the worksheet for each beneficial use
management alternative based on their knowledge and perceptions of the specific case. Worksheets
should be filled out to the best of the participants' knowledge. We encourage the stakeholders to discuss
whether the information does or does not represent their agency's positions. The purpose of the
worksheets is to help create a common understanding of and set of goals for evaluating criteria. This is
important because each stakeholder or group fills out their own worksheet, so all of the perspectives of
participants becomes part of the process. Specific instructions for filling out the worksheet are available
on the "Instructions" section of the worksheet file. Criteria worksheets and instructions can be found in
Appendix A.
2.2.3. Create site or alternative descriptions to confirm details with all
stakeholders
After stakeholders have applied the criteria to the proposed beneficial use management alternatives
using the criteria worksheets, the lead organization should compile stakeholder responses and share
them with the group (Fig. 10). One method for compiling this information is to create a "beneficial use
management alternative profile" for each management alternative or beneficial use project. A beneficial
use management alternative profile should include stakeholders' feedback about governance,
biophysical, economic, built environment, and social criteria for each alternative, taking care to include
any diverging opinions or minority perspectives. If questions were raised pertaining to specific criteria
or beneficial use management alternatives, they should also be included in the profile, so stakeholders
can address and discuss them.
19
-------
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine material
source(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
Identify lead stakeholder group
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
T
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
T
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 10. Create beneficial use management alternative profile based on worksheet outputs to share with other
stakeholders.
Compiling responses and then providing the beneficial use management alternative profiles for review
will enable stakeholders to discuss the details of each beneficial use management alternative according
to each of the categories of criteria. Creating beneficial use management alternative profiles also
increases familiarity with beneficial use management alternatives prior to use of the DMDT. The profile
also provides a comprehensive overview of the alternative in one concise description. Screenshots
located in Appendix B. 1 depict a simple beneficial use management alternative profile based on
information that was shared by stakeholder groups through their worksheets. After creating the
beneficial use management alternative profile in Appendix B, stakeholders gathered at a workshop to
review the profiles and discuss the criteria for the alternative before implementing the DMDT.
2.2.4. Use beneficial use management alternative descriptions and answers
from criteria worksheets to inform the scoring process
After completing the steps listed above, stakeholders should be able to reach a common understanding
about the ways they, and other stakeholders, perceive the details for each beneficial use management
alternative (Fig. 11). At this point, each stakeholder or stakeholder group completes one of two criteria
scorecards. Stakeholders are encouraged to use the scorecards prior to using the DMDT because the
scoring system and criteria are the same, the tool allows for only one set of scores to be entered for each
criterion and the scorecards allow all stakeholders to score based on their respective priorities. The
scoresheets provide an opportunity for stakeholders to assign numeric value to criteria, come back
together and discuss their scores, and then agree upon a single set of criteria scores to include in the
DMDT. The process of using the worksheets to establish mutual understanding of projects, then using
the scorecards to ensure agreement on scoring of criteria will mitigate potential disagreement and
misunderstanding when entering scores into the DMDT. Ideally, the in-depth and transparent nature of
20
-------
this process will allow for a smoother transition from determining a beneficial use management
alternative to implementing a project.
Two options for scoring criteria are available: five-point Likert scaling or yes/no scoring (Appendix C).
It is acceptable to use either approach, but all stakeholders must use the same one. Scorecards may be
completed by each stakeholder or collectively by the group. Following scorecard completion, the lead
organization compiles the scores for each category of criteria, then shares the results with the rest of the
stakeholders.
Identify lead stakeholder group
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 11. Use beneficial use management alternative descriptions and answers from worksheet to use
scorecards.
One method to compile score card results is to estimate a measure of central tendency, such as the
arithmetic mean or mode for each category of criteria. Alternatively, measures of spread such as
quartiles or confidence intervals can be used to identify where there are substantial scoring differences
among stakeholders. The binary option of scoring can be used to identify points of agreement and
disagreement. Regardless of the method used to summarize the scores, make note of any outliers for
group discussion. Following compilation, present results to participants for feedback and discussion.
3.0 DMDT scoring instructions
This section demonstrates the next step in the process, entering the data from the worksheets (Appendix
A) and scorecards (Appendix C) into the DMDT (Fig. 12).
21
-------
r
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
x
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Discuss project scorings and rankings
Figure 12. Using the rankings from scorecards, enter data into the DMDT.
3.1 Step 1: Entering project information in the DMDT
(Scoresheet A or B)
After completing either or both Scorecard A (scoring criteria on a Likert 1-5 scale) and Scorecard B (yes
or no), the responses can be added to scoresheets A and B the DMDT (need link to tool here). The
management alternative scoring process begins with entering project information in red-shaded cells
from B5 to B15 (Figs.13 and 14). The blue-shadet cells (cells B8, Bll, and B13) will fill with updated
information automatically as the user enters data. The DMDT is configured to compare among up to 3
alternatives. In green shaded cells K23, N23, and Q23, the user enters the expected dredged material
available for each alternative. In the pink-shaded cell 124, the user enters the amount of dredged material
that can be used (disposed) for the alternative. NOTE: The user must enter project information on
whichever scoresheet they use. If both Scoresheet A and B are used, the project information must be
entered separately on both.
22
-------
A
B
C D
1
Duluth-Superior Harbor Working Draft
2
12/11/2020
3
MAINTEP
4
5
Port
Duluth-Superior Harbor
6
Project No.
ABC-123
7
Dredge Location (lat'long)
8
Volume (cy)
Alternative 1: 5 OK: Alternative 2: 5 OK; Alternative 3: 5 OK
9
Soil classification
10
Elevated contaminants
I
11
Weighting factor adjusted
Trial
~M"r\
12
looi
1
13
Scorecard No.
Du-2020-2-19-001
14
Prepared by
£hnter Is ame>
15
Prepared on
16
Checked by
17
Checked on
18
Last Modified
2/19/2020
19
20
Figure 13.Project information data cells located in the upper left of Scoresheets A and B.
Sediment
Disposal capacity available
Is sediment dredged < available disposal capacity
Scoring
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Descnption
Description
Description
50,000 cy
50,000 cy
50,000 cy
dMJMJ cy
lMJMJcy
aUMI cy
OK
OK
OK
Figure 14.Project information data cells located above spreadsheet in rows 23 and 24 of Scoresheets A and B.
3.2. Step 2: Ranking criteria (Scoresheet A orB)
Criteria rank is a way to identify which criteria are most important to the stakeholder completing the
scoresheet. Rank affects the score generated by each criterion; scores associated with criteria ranked
higher (closer to 1) will generate more points than those scores associated with criteria ranked lower
(closer to 0). That is, if "Aquatic habitat gain/loss" is ranked higher than "Reduce invasion vegetation"
and both criteria score a 4 on scorecard A, then "Aquatic habitat gain/loss" adds more points to the total
score than "Reduce invasion vegetation" even though they scored the same (Fig. 15). The corresponding
criteria from project Scoresheets A and B are listed in Column B, grouped by category displayed in
Column A. The ranking for each criterion is displayed in Column C, with the corresponding ranking
percentage displayed in Column D. Initially, the criteria will be in a default ranking set by the DMDT
based on numbering the criterion in order. The user is encouraged to adjust this according to their goals
and preferences. The spreadsheet is designed to allow for rank ties, so it is not necessary that each
criterion has a unique rank. Enter criteria rankings in Column C (Fig. 15). The corresponding ranking
percentages in Column D update automatically upon criteria ranking entry. The process for ranking
criteria is outlined and facilitated by Scorecard C in the worksheet package.
NOTE: Criteria rankings must be adjusted separately for whichever scoresheet is being used.
23
-------
A
A
B
c
D
28
29
Category
Criterion
c '
Rank
.Per-
centile
30
Biophysical Environment (16)
Aquatic habitat gain loss
31
Shoreline habitat gain loss
32
River habitat gain, loss
24.4
33
34
Wetland habitat gain loss
25
Terrestrial habitat gain loss
35
Aquatic habitat improved harmed
36
Shoreline habitat improved harmed
x-i
37
River habitat improved harmed
13
26.60° o
33
Wetland habitat improved harmed
jLV
55 50%
39
Terrestrial habitat improved harmed
43
88.80%
40
Priority habitat
J:*1
2 npA
41
Species of management concern
66 60: -
42
Restore or manage native vegetation
9 7.7C
43
Reduce invasive vegetation
1 jC
44
Stoimwater control or protection
.
45
Reduce contamination
46
Funding pathway
47
Application information prepared
Xfl
- - - :¦
-1 1
...... ,
Figure 15. Percentile ranking column on Scoresheet A and B. Ranks come from user priorities.
3.3. Step 3: Weighting factors (Scoresheets A or B)
A user may wish to emphasize the relative importance of certain criteria by adjusting the weighting
factors (WF) of those criteria. For example, an agency may wish to signify the importance of a policy
priority by giving it a higher weight. Users can complete Scorecard C (Appendix C) to prioritize their
organizational or agency priorities by ranking all of the criteria in the DMDT. Some users in our pilot
scored each factor on 1-5 Likert scale. The weighting factor control for each criterion is in Column E
(Column F on Scoresheet B) under the "Adjust WF" column header (Fig. 16). The default setting for
the Scoresheet is for each criterion to be weighted equally at a weighting of "1" (displayed in column
"Adjust WF" as "IX"). An increase to "2" for a criterion doubles its point value relative to any criterion
with a "1" weighting factor, for example.
NOTE: Weighting factors must be adjusted for whichever scoresheet is being used.
24
-------
B | C | D E F
Criterion
r 1
Rank
centile
Adjust 1
WF
Weighting
Factor (WF)
Scale: 0.1 to 1.
-------
alternatives for comparison in the "U" columns for Alternative 2 (Column N) and Alternative 3 (Column
Q). After scores have been entered for all criteria for a beneficial use management alternative, the
alternative total score and associated rank (among the management alternatives considered) will be
displayed in the Total Score row (Row 77, Fig. 18). The higher the score, the greater the positive
benefits of the alternative based on the input. The alternative with the highest score is assigned the
lowest rank (#1).
Categon
Criterion
Aquatic habitat gain loss
Biophysical Environment (16)
Shoreline habitat eainloss
River habitat eainloss
Wetland habitat eainloss
Terrestrial habitat gain loss
Aquatic habitat improved liarmed
Shoreline habitat improved liarmed
River habitat improved liarmed
Wetland habitat improved liarmed
Terrestrial habitat improvedliarmed
Priority habitat
Species of management concern
Restore or manage native vegetation
Reduce invasive vegetation
Stormwater control or protection
Reduce contamination
1.0
2.4
0.8
0.5
0.9
1.0
2.3
0.8
0.5
0.S
1.5
1.9
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.9
3.9
3.0
2.3
0.5
0.5
2.9
2.9
2.3
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.9
0.4
2.0
0.1
0.9
62°/
2.9
3.0
3.1
0.5
0.9
2.9
2.9
2.3
0.5
o.s
1.5
1.9
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.9
59%
Funding pathway
Application information prepared
Established partnerships
4.1
2.7
2.1
1.6
2.1
Figure 17. User entry score columns, Scoresheet A?
4.1
2.1
19.79
of 24.15^
829-0
Rank: 1
6.94
of 24.15
29%
Rank: 3
Rank: 2
Figure 18. Total score display rows.
3.4.2 Scoresheet B
Scoresheet B uses a binary scoring system; criteria are scored either as "yes" or "no" corresponding to
the Scorecard B worksheet. Metric queries are included on Scoresheet B in Column C to guide the
user's responses. Enter an "x" in the "U" (user score entry) column in Column K for criteria that were
scored with a "yes." Criteria scored with an "x" generate points based on each criterion's individual
ranking and weighting factor. Criteria receiving a "no" score are left BLANK in the "U" columns and
generate zero points toward the considered alternative's cumulative score (Fig. 19). This process is
repeated for Beneficial Use Management Alternative 2 (scores entered in Column N) and Alternative 3
(scores entered in Column Q). After scores have been entered for all criteria for each alternative, the
alternative total scores will be displayed in the Total Score row (Row 77, Fig. 20). The higher the score,
the greater the positive impacts of the management alternative based on the input. The beneficial use
management alternative with the highest score is assigned the lowest rank (#1).
26
-------
EES Category
Sub-criterion or Metric
O
w
Aquatic habitat gain, loss
Will the reuse alternative create
aquatic habitat type"?'
Shoreline habitat gain loss
Will the reuse alternative create
shoreline habitat type?
River habitat eainloss
Will the reuse alternative create river
habitat type?
Wetland habitat gain loss
Will the reuse alternative create
wetland habitat type?
Terrestrial habitat eainloss
Will the reuse alternative create
terrestrial habitat type?
Aquatic habitat
improved harmed
Will the reuse alternative improve
aquatic habitat quality?
Shoreline habitat
improved harmed
Will the reuse alternative improve
shoreline habitat quality?
Biophysical Environment
3ZJ(16)
River habitat improved harmed
WiH the reuse alternative imrpove riv
habitat quality?
Wetland habitat
improved harmed
Will the reuse alternative improve
wetland habitat quality ?
Graphs 1
Figure 19. User entry score columns, Scoresheet B.
M N
19.79
82°/o
Rank: 1
6.94
of 24.15
29%
Rank: 3
6.97
of 24.15
29%
Rank: 2
Figure 20. Total score display rows.
4.0 Discuss decision process
Identify lead stakeholder group
Determine material
source(s)
Determine
available material
type(s)
Determine beneficial use
management alternative
Assess existing criteria and adjust for needs
T
Stakeholders assess each management
alternative using the criteria worksheets
Create management alternative profiles to
confirm site details with all stakeholders
Use management alternative profiles and
answers from criteria worksheet to inform
scoring process using scorecards
\
Use rankings from scorecards to inform scoring
and input scores into tool
Identify and (if
appropriate) gather
relevant stakeholders
Discuss project scorings and rankings
27
-------
Figure 21. Discuss project scoring and rankings.
4.1 Scoresheet result graphs
Graphs visually displaying the scoring results from Scoresheet A or B Scoresheet B can be found on the
workbook pages "Graphs A" and "Graphs B," respectively. The graphs are bar graphs that display how
each alternative scored in each category section, compared to the maximum potential score for a
category section, which is represented by the transparent green bar graph in the background (Fig. 22).
These graphs show how alternatives compare to each other in the different category sections, as well as
how alternatives compare to a potential maximum score according to the user's criteria priorities.
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
1100
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Biophysical Score EconomyScore Social Score Governance Saxe Built Environment Score
CATEGORY TYPE
[ Maximum Potential Score ¦ Alternative 1 ¦ Alternative2 ¦ Alternatives
Figure 22. Graphical display of scoring results.
USEPA and TetraTech's purpose for the DMDT was to present information to the user in an easy to
understand way. Because beneficial use of dredged material projects are complex with many different
factors, they can be challenging to compare. After following the steps to use the DMDT, the final output
graphs organize all that information in an easy to understand graph.
4.2 Summary
The DMDT provides a structured method for evaluating different beneficial use alternatives. The value
the DMDT provides is increased transparency and a structured method to consider a comprehensive set
of criteria that includes environmental, economic, and social costs and benefits of beneficially using
dredged materials. Moreover, the DMDT organizes complex details into an easy to visualize output. The
highest scoring alternative will be the alternative that best meets a combination of stakeholder and
agency priorities, that conforms to regulatory and budget parameters, and which produces biophysical
environment gains and social benefits for the community.
After scoring the alternatives, one alternative may score higher than the others. In some cases, however,
projects may have similar or tied scores. Should this happen, collaborating stakeholders can return to an
earlier point in the process, make adjustments to the input information, as appropriate given new
information and insights, and rerun the DMDT. Comparison of results among runs of the tool will show
which alternatives are most robust to variation in assumptions and inputs. The details collected to inform
the DMDT can be used for further discussion, inform future project plans, or outline budgets. The
Category Scores Comparison - Scoresheet A
28
-------
relationships formed through this process will facilitate continued progress on implementing the chosen
dredged material beneficial use management alternative.
4.3 Limitations and future research
We did accomplish the main goal of this research, which was to create a user-friendly method to
facilitate the use of the DMDT by a wide audience. However, we also recognize a few limitations in this
applied research study. The intent of USEPA Region 5 was to consider the environmental, economic,
and social elements of beneficial use management alternatives to inform decisions. The DMDT does
indeed include environmental, economic, and social criteria, and it will help organize, rank, and score
the priorities of stakeholders. But the associations between criteria and community benefits need to be
determined by site-specific studies. For example, building fish habitat may improve community
wellbeing through increased fishing. However, the benefit is not assumed. Moreover, the benefit may
also not be apparent to stakeholders. A logical continuation of this research area is to identify additional
community benefits associated with common beneficial uses to accompany the DMDT (e.g., preserving
CDF space reduces the cost to taxpayers, thus creating a social good). Another area of potential need is
to study whether it improves the DMDT application to tailor scorecards to meet the needs of decision
makers (i.e., have one scorecard for community officials responsible for site remediation and a different
scorecard for natural resource managers).
Another limitation we encountered was that not all stakeholders recognized dredged materials as a
potential resource. For example, a barrier in the Duluth-Superior Harbor is the lack of infrastructure to
process dredged materials into a geotechnically useful commodity. Whereas coarse-grain materials are
desirable for beach nourishment and habitat restoration, it is very difficult to identify applications for
fine-grain materials. A purpose of the DMDT is to expand the conservation around both applications and
community impacts of dredged material beneficial use, and in doing so grow awareness of its potential
as a resource.
29
-------
5.0 References
Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological economics, 63(2-3), pp.616-626.
Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. 3rd Ed.
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 448 pages.
Dilling, L. and Lemos, M.C., 2011. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate
knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global environmental change, 21(2), pp.680-
689.
Great Lakes Dredging Team. 2016. Guide to Policies and Projects Related to Beneficial Use of
Dredged Material in the Great Lakes. Report. Accessed online at https://cdn2.cloud 1.cemah.net/wp-
content/uploads/sites/38/2016/12/GLDT-Guide-Policies-Proiects-Beneficial-Use-of-Dredged-
Material.pdf.
Great Lakes Dredging Team. 2020. Dredged Material Management. Accessed online
https://greatlakesdredging.net/priorities/dredged-material-management/.
Hsieh, H. F., and Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
health research, 15(9), pp. 1277-1288.
Lemos, M.C. and Morehouse, B.J., 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate
assessments. Global environmental change, 15(1), pp.57-68.
Mollinga, P.P., 2010. Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop
Science, 50 (Supplement_l), pp.S-1.
NVivo. (2017). QSR International: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/home.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Policy Guidance Letter (PGL) No. 47, Cost Sharing for Dredged
Material Disposal Facilities and Dredged Material Disposal Facility Partnerships. Washington, DC.
24pp. Accessed online https://planning.erdc.dren.mil/toolbox/librarv/PGL/pgl47.pdf.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. Dredging and Dredged Material Management. Washington, DC.
EM 1110-2-5025. July 31, 2015. 920pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Great lakes Confined
Disposal Facilities. USACE Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office and Region 5. 70pp. April 2003.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Identifying, Planning, and
Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material: Beneficial Use Planning Manual.
Washington, DC. EPA842-B-07-001. 114pp. October 2007.
USEPA. 2020. Brownfields. https://www.epa.gov/brownfields.
Wall, T.U., McNie, E. and Garfin, G.M., 2017. Use-inspired science: making science usable by and
useful to decision makers. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(10), pp.551-559.
30
-------
Williams, K.C., Bolgrien, D.W., Hoffman, J.C., Angradi, T.R., Carlson, J., Clarke, R., Fulton, A.,
MacGregor, M., Timm-Bijold, H., Trebitz, A., and Witherspoon, S. (2018). How the community value
of ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation,
restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN.
EPA/600/R-17/292. 61 pages.
Yozzo, D.J., P. Wilber, and Will, R.J. 2004. Beneficial use of dredged material for habitat creation,
enhancement, and restoration in New York - New Jersey Harbor. Journal of Environmental
Management 73 pp.39-52.
31
-------
5.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Dredged material decision too! (DMDT) criteria worksheet
Objectives
The following worksheet is designed to collect the information necessary to populate the Dredged Material
Decision Tool (DMDT). Depending on the details of the proposed beneficial use management alternative,
some of the information may be unknown or unavailable. Fill in what you can based on what you know and
can infer; leave fields blank if details are unknown.
Instructions
The worksheet is structured so that some categories will require you to fill in the blanks, while others provide
a range of options in a drop-down list for you to choose from. For each criterion, there will be an option to
select "yes," indicating that criterion will be met, "no" indicating it will not be met, or "Unsure," indicating
uncertainty regarding that criterion. After choosing "yes," "no," or "unsure," read through the content under
each criterion and fill in what you can before moving on.
While you are working through the worksheet, click on each blank/drop-down box and a small, long box will
pop-up above the blank box with direction for exactly what information is required. If the criterion has
defined answers such as the one in the example below, you will click on the arrow on the right side of the
drop-down box to select your answer:
Maintain Navigation Channels: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood:
Direction: (
r II I !
Likelihood navigation channels will be maintained
Magnitude: Choose an item.
Choose an item. .
Highly likely
Possible
Wnt lik-olw
Definitions
There are three different measures of impact characterization under each criterion: likelihood, magnitude,
and direction. There is a place at the end of the section for each category of criteria to comment on the
strength of evidence for the responses for that category. Each of the impact characterization terms are
defined below.
1. Likelihood refers to the probability that an effect will happen with respect to the criterion. The
values are "highly likely," "possible," or "not likely."
-------
2. Magnitude indicates the expected size of the effect associated with the specific criterion. This can
be described using the values "high," "moderate," or "low." For criterion with a quantitative effect,
a high magnitude would refer to a larger quantitative impact than moderate or low magnitude. For
example, the creation of 100 acres of a certain type of habitat could be characterized as "high"
while the creation of 10 acres could be "low." A qualitative example would be determining the
magnitude of impact that being enrolled in a voluntary program has on a beneficial use
management alternative. If the alternative can only be completed through enrollment, the
expected effect of enrollment is "high." If enrollment is optional and will not provide many
resources for the alternative, the effect is "low." The drop-down boxes provide guidance as to how
the magnitude should be ranked.
3. Direction indicates how criteria will affect different aspects of the beneficial use alternatives. For
each category of criteria, the direction refers to the different goals listed below:
a. Biophysical environment: The goal of biophysical environment criteria is to assess the
harmful and beneficial effects of the beneficial- use alternative on habitat and the
organisms that utilize the habitat. Responses explain how each beneficial use management
alternative will change the biophysical environment (habitat and organisms).
b. Economic: The goal of economic criteria is to assess the feasibility of the alternative given
potential economic incentives and constraints. Responses explain how project funding
elements and costs impact the economic feasibility of the alternative.
c. Social: The goal of social criteria is to assess how the proposed alternative will impact
human health and well-being. Responses explain how each alternative has the potential to
change human health and well-being outcomes in the community.
d. Governance: The goal of governance criteria is to assess the feasibility of beneficial use
management alternatives and ensure they are compliant with place and project-relevant
governance structures, including funding and regulations. Responses explain how different
funding and regulatory requirements might impact the feasibility of the alternative.
e. Built environment: The goal of built environment criteria is to assess the feasibility of
beneficial use managment alternatives based on an alternative's end uses and the ways
that dredged materials will be utilized in construction. Responses explain how the
beneficial use management alternative will be utilized in as a construction material.
4. Strength of Evidence refers to the quality and reliability of the evidence used to determine your
evaluation of each criterion. Evidence can include personal experience, knowledge from
colleagues, information from research conducted elsewhere, scientific literature. A blank space for
comments on the strength of evidence has been included at the end of each section. When using
this box, indicate which criterion you are referring to in your comments and what evidence was
used. Please include any other thoughts or insights at the end of the worksheet in the provided
"Comments" box.
-------
DMDT Beneficial Use Worksheet
Type of Site: Select Site (source: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/contaminated-land#types)
If "other," identify type of site: Click or tap here to enter text.
Owner: Select Owner Name of Owner (if known): Click or tap here to enter text.
State: Select State
Name of Site: Click or tap here to enter text.
Purpose: Choose an item. If "other," identify purpose: Click or tap here to enter text.
Dredging information
Name of dredge site (if applicable): Click or tap here to enter text.
Program (Operations & Maintenance, Strategic Navigation, Private, Other): Click or tap here to enter text.
Dredging location (lat/long): Click or tap here to enter text.
Volume (cubic yards): Click or tap here to enter text.
Soil Classification:
Primary soil type: Choose an item. Secondary soil type: Choose an item.
Cost: Click or tap here to enter text.
Funded by: Click or tap here to enter text.
Type/mode of transportation: Click or tap here to enter text.
Elevated contaminants: Click or tap here to enter text.
Contracting:
~ Reasonable expectations
~ Available
~ Affordable
Biophysical Environment
Habitat Gain or Loss (QUANTITY)
-------
Lakes and ponds: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Near coastal marine/estuarine: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Open water: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Wetlands: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Urban/suburban: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Barren rock/sand: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Impact on priority habitat: Gain ~ Loss ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Type of priority habitat gained or lost: Click or tap here to enter text.
QUALITY of Habitat
Lakes and ponds: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
-------
Near coastal marine/estuarine: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Open water: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Wetlands: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Urban/suburban: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Barren rock/sand: Improved ~ Diminished ~ No impact ~ Unsure ~ N/A ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Benefit or protect species of management concern: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Restore or manage native vegetation: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Reduce invasive vegetation: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Increase stormwater control or protection: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
-------
Influence biophysical environment by reducing contamination: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Strength of Evidence: Click or tap here to enter text.
Economic
Funding pathway identified: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Funding application prepared: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Partnerships are established: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Potential partnerships have been identified: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Transportation to the site is feasible: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Project site can accept materials for 5 years: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Project site can accept materials for 20 years (long term): Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
-------
Direction: Choose an item.
Lead to the creation or growth of a viable business: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Secondary benefits created: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Require long-term maintenance or management: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Strength of Evidence: Click or tap here to enter text.
Governance
Maintain Navigation Channels: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Consideration of liability (past, present and future for site):
Yes Click or tap here to enter text. No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Enrolled in a voluntary program (often assessment/clean-up support): Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Able to be completed inside of relevant environmental windows: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
-------
Referred to or included in existing guidance documents: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Which documents reference this project: Click or tap here to enter text.
Permitting timeline conducive to project timeline: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Meets zoning requirements: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Flexible timeframe: Yes ~ No ~
Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item.
Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Replicable in other harbors, ports, jurisdictions, or projects: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Strength of evidence: Click or tap hereto enter text.
Social
Improve access to parks or natural spaces: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Potential for indirect job creation: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
-------
Improvement of aesthetics: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Involvement of local community (providing feedback, planning): Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Reduction of human exposure to contaminants: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Improved access to ecosystem services: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Improved infrastructure condition: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
New or improved infrastructure services for community: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Strength of Evidence: Click or tap here to enter text.
Built Environment
Contamination reduced to levels necessary for end use: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Demand on terrestrial borrow sources reduced: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
-------
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Provision of fill or a cap:
Development Site: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Construction: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Road: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Park or greenspace: Yes ~ No ~ Unsure ~
Likelihood: Choose an item. Magnitude: Choose an item.
Direction: Choose an item.
Strength of evidence: Click or tap hereto enter text.
Additional Comments: Click or tap here to enter text.
-------
Appendix B: Sample beneficial use management alternative profiles for
Interstate Island and Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve
B.1. Beneficial use management alternative profile for Interstate Island, Duluth-
Superior Harbor
This sample site profile can be used as a template to display information gathered from criteria worksheets.
Using this format allows stakeholders and others to review known data about the beneficial use management
alternatives and make corrections and additions to the details as needed. It can also be used as a guide to
identify missing information about the alternatives.
£EPA
Interstate Island - Overview
-------
Dredging Information
Dredging location (latitude/longitude)
46,749175.-92,110075
Name of dredge site and program
Dredge program; Operation and Maintenance
Site: Anchorage and East Gate Basin
Volume (yd3)
&Q,000-70,000
Soil classifications
Organic fines
Cost and funding source
Cost $1,000,000
Sources; Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, US Army Corps,
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Mode of transportation
Mechanical dredging to slurry box and hydraulic discharge to
Interstate Island
Elevated contaminants or species of
concern (in dredging area)
No, meets state standards,
Contracting
• Reasonable
• Available
• Affordable
SEPPi ~
s^iT°,K,wf' wov©rnance
Maintenance of navigation channels
• Wil be maintained
• High impact for amount of channel maintained
• Makes the project much more feasible
Enrolment in a voluntary program
* Not ikely to be enroled, little impact
Completion within environ, windows
• Unsure, may be highly likefy
• Environmental Windows largely impact the project
• Completion w/in EW makes project much more feasible
Reference in existing guidance docs
• Referenced « AOC project plans, Habitat Plan
* This effect is high and project is much more feasible
Permitting conducive to timeline
« Highly ikely, very impactful
* The project is more feasible
Zoning requirements met
• Highly fikely, very impactful
* The project is much more feasible
Contingency plan est
• US Army Corps- contingency plan7
• Minimal impact
¦ Replica We in other places
* May be replicable in other places
* The impact of replicability is moderate to high
* This makes the project slightly more feasible
-------
Governance
Comments:
1. This is a St. Louis River Area of Concern managemenl action.
2. The goal is improving Common Tern nesting habitat. Restricted dales apply for in-water
placement to avoid work during nesting season.
3. Interstate Island is moving into the design and contract phases with US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE). The States of Wisconsin and Minnesota and USAGE have been
working together for the past year to utilize beneficial use of dredged material at the
island.
4 This will potentially be a huge success story for the St. Louis River Estuary.
5. Difficult issues to overcome were real estate, liming of permits, design and contracting
challenges and the US Army Corps dredging timeline.
6. This beneficial use project will hopefully provide a good model of similar projects in the
future.
SEFV\ c
iS""'""""""1 economic
Funding pathway
Application info prepared
Established partnerships
Working partnerships
Transport cost
Accept matenals (5 yrs )
Accept matenals long-term (20 yrs,)
Lead to viable business
Secondary economic benefits
h Long-term maintenance
Funding possibly)likely secured
Identified pathway is impactful, project more feasible
Possibly prepared
Ha wig application prepared benefits the project and
make it more feasible
Partnerships are established
Moderate to highly impactful for the project
Potential partnerships have also been identified
Moderate to high impact on the project, making it more
feasible
Uncertainty about cost for transportation
Agreement that transportation is 'easibte
Uncertainty about ability to accept for 5 years
Impact of being able to do so is low to moderate
Being able would increase feasibility slightly
Uncertainty about ability to accept for 20 years
impact of being able to do so is low to moderate
Being able would increase feasibility sightly
Not likely
Not impactful to project
Possible-very likely
Moderate to high impact
Beneficial
Possibly requires long term maintenance
Moderately impactful
impacts feasibility
-------
Biophysical
Type of Habitat
Quality
Quantity
Aquatic
* Improved or diminished? Unsure of
impact
• Uncertainty about galn.'loss
• Unsure of Impact of gam/loss
• Some confident about loss, some
unsure about gain
Shoreline
• Very likely improved
» Moderate to high improvement
• Beneficial
• Highly likely to be gamed
• Moderate to high change
• Beneficial
River
• Uncertainty about gain,'loss
• bkely few changes
• Unsure how project impacts river
• Uncertainty about gain/loss
• Few fckely changes
• Prefect will still be beneficial
Wetland
* improved or not impacted? Unsure
of impact and benefit
• Uncertainty about galn.'loss and
Impact
Terrestrial
• Improved or no Impact? Unsure of
Impact, effect and benefit
• Uncertainty about galn.'loss and
Impact
gss_ Biophysical (cont.)
Priority Habitat
* Very likely
* High impact
* Beneficial
Species of Management Concern
• Very likely
• Hsgh Impact
• Beneficial
Restoration of native species
• Very likely
• High impact
• Beneficial
Reduction of invasive species
• Likely to highly likely
* Moderate Impact
> Unsure if harmful or beneficial
Stormwater control/protection
* Not Skely
» Stormwater control has little impact on the project
Contamination reduction
• Unsure but possible
• Moderate impact
• Would be beneficial
Strength of evidence: materials with elevated concentrations of contaminants of
concern can be managed appropriately
-------
v>EPA
?
-------
B.2. Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve Fact Sheet
The Cleveland Lakefrorit Nature Preserve (CLNP), formerly known as Dike 14, is an 88-acre manmade
peninsula and is the only nature preserve in Cuyahoga County. It is a designated National Audubon
Society important bird area because it is a haven for a remarkable variety of migratory birds and
butterflies. CLNP is located at the intersection of four migratory bird routes. It also provides one-of-a-
kind recreational and educational opportunities for children and adults to connect with nature on the
waterfront. The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority manages this community asset. CLNP
officially opened to the public in February 2012 with great assistance from partners such as the City of
Cleveland, State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Cleveland Metroparks and the Environmental
Educational Collaborative.
Background
Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve was previously called Dike 14, a confined disposal facility (CDF) for
sediments dredged from the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor. Dredging is the removal of sediments
that build up on the bottom of the river. In order to maintain a safe shipping channel, the sediments are
removed to allow ships to pass. Prior to the Clean Water Act of 1972, river sediments were put in the
open lake or along the shoreline as fiil to create more land. A CDF is a protected place to put the soils
and sediments from the river's shipping channels and harbor to limit contaminated sediments from
harming the health of the lake. Dike 14 was built in compliance with federal law to permanently hold
and confine these sediments.
From 1979 to 1999, dredged sediments were placed in Dike 14 until filling operations ceased in 1999.
Since 1999, this approximately 88-acre CDF began its natural transformation to a diverse natural area
along Lake Erie. Over the years, this area has become naturalized with diverse habitats including forest,
grasslands, meadows, and wetlands, it is now home to a diverse array of birds, including 23 of Ohio's 29
Endangered Species, and butterflies and mammals. This significant site provides a unique opportunity
for public access to Lake Erie and is a natural oasis right in the heart of Cleveland. Cleveland's Dike 14
has earned the title Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve.
Environmental Investigations
Once sediment placement ended at Dike 14, the community began to imagine what the future would be
for this area. Concerns lingered over possible contamination in the dredged sediments at the Dike. Over
the years, the dredged sediment fill has dried out to now be considered soil. Grass, shrubs and trees
began to grow across the once barren CDF. Wildlife came to this lakeside land for rest and shelter. Then
the people began to visit the former CDF to see the results of this transformation.
-------
In 2006 the Cuyahoga County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) received a grant from U.S.
EPA to assess the sediment within Dike 14. The environmental assessment was completed in 2007. Soil
and water samples were collected to determine if elevated levels of contaminants were present.
Exposures to contaminants were evaluated for recreational users, both adults and children, as well as
for wildlife. Data was collected at Dike 14 to allow the community to determine if the Dike could be
safely used as a nature preserve.
Overall, the data collected showed Dike 14 can be used safely as a nature preserve. Most of the 88- acre
site does not need any environmental cleanup. An approximate 5-acre area which is located in the area
of the former landfill has higher levels of some contaminants which include polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and some metals including chromium, lead, and
mercury. These pollutants are present at levels above the cleanup criteria that were calculated for safe
long-term use of the Dike. In 2008, further testing was conducted to determine how the soils at Dike 14
compared to the naturally occurring background levels of some metals in the Cleveland Eastern
Lakefront area. Results showed that some metals present at Dike 14 in the area of the original landfill
are higher than background levels. This testing further defined the area where remedial action is
recommended.
Proposed Environmental Cleanup Objectives
The purpose of the cleanup of the property is to reduce the potential risks from direct contact with the
soils containing higher levels of contaminants that are located within the approximately 5-acre former
landfill area. It is the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's goal to improve and maintain the
entire site as a nature preserve for the long-term protection of both human health and the environment.
Consequently, the contaminant exposures have been assessed in consideration of these current and
potential future uses. The proposed remedial actions in this 5-acre area will result in this 88-acre natural
area meeting the cleanup goal and support the community's vision of having a low impact nature
preserve with walking paths and viewing areas to observe wildlife. The Cleveland- Cuyahoga County Port
Authority is committed to continuing to work with the community to enhance the Cleveland Lakefront
Nature Preserve provide community access to the lakefront and create educational opportunities for
generations to come.
-------
Proposed Remedial Action Plan and Cleanup Alternatives
A "Proposed Remedial Action Plan and Analysis of Cleanup Alternatives" (RAP) has been prepared by
Hull and Associates, Inc. for the Cleveland- Cuyahoga County Port Authority.
The remedial actions outlined in the RAP are based on findings and conclusions of the previous
environmental assessment activities conducted between March 2007 and October 2008.
The following potential cleanup alternatives have been evaluated for their technical and economic
feasibility, protectiveness of human health and the environment, ability to achieve the cleanup criteria,
cost effectiveness, community acceptance, implementation time frame, and overall advantages and
disadvantages, to determine which remedial option should be selected to remediate the approximately
5-acre former landfill area at the site:
No Further Action would involve no further remedial activities at the site, which means there is no
cost and a short implementation time frame. The environmental concerns remain on site. Access to
the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve would be limited. The alternative would not provide for
mitigation of the actual and potential risks posed by the contaminated soil and would not ensure
long term protection of human health and the environment.
Permanent Fencing would require maintaining a permanent fence to limit public access. It requires
low cost and short implementation time frame. The alternative would not provide for mitigation of
the actual and potential risks posed by the contaminated soil and would not ensure long term
protection of human health and the environment.
Excavation, Removal and Off-site Disposal would involve removing the contaminated soil from this
area and disposing of it at an authorized off-site disposal facility. This approach presents risks to
workers, risk to the public during transport, and moves the contaminated material to a new location.
This alternative ensures long term protection of human health and the environment but has a high
cost and takes a moderate amount of time to complete the work.
Soil Capping would involve limited disturbance of soils at the site in the approximately 5-acre area
identified by the earlier environmental studies. The exposure pathway associated with direct contact
would be mitigated by capping or covering the contaminated soil with a minimum of four feet of
imported soils meeting the site-specific cleanup criteria. This alternative has a moderate cost and a
moderate implementation time frame. Soil capping is generally cost-effective, implementable, and
ensures long term protection of human health and the environment.
Next Steps
The Cleveland Cuyahoga County Port Authority has applied for funding from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund (administered by the Cuyahoga County Department
-------
of Development) for the environmental remediation of a 5-acre area of Cleveland Lakefront
Nature Preserve.
The documents regarding the project are available for public review until July 12, 2012, at the
Cuyahoga County Department of Development at 1701 East 12th Street, 1st Floor, Cleveland,
Ohio.
The public is asked to comment on the "Proposed Remedial Action Plan and Analysis of Cleanup
Alternatives." All public input will be inclusive, engaged and part of the responsiveness summary.
This responsiveness summary will be available in early fall 2012. To maintain community
engagement activities, the Cleveland -Cuyahoga Port Authority will continue to communicate
with the public as this process moves forward. Educational opportunities for the general public
will be in partnership with the Environmental Educational Collaborative for the overall goal for
the community to enjoy the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve.
-------
Appendix C: Scorecards
Scorecard A
Objectives
These scorecards are designed to utilize the knowledge developed by filling out and discussing the
criteria worksheets. Scoring is based on either a Likert scale (score 1 through 5) or a yes/no (binary
scale) denoting effect/no effect. The scorecards can be used to compare the criteria, and the scores
can be transferred directly to the DMDT. Scorecards are best completed after stakeholders have
worked through the Criteria Worksheet and feel comfortable with their understanding about the
environmental, economic, social, governance, and build environment changes for each
management alternative.
Instructions
Each tab of this MS Excel workbook is a scorecard containing the criteria from the DMDT. Reference
the Criteria Worksheet for each management alternative to determine the likelihood, feasibility,
and impact of each criterion for the alternative being considered. Definitions of each term are in
the Criteria Worksheet Instructions and can be referenced throughout the scoring process.
Scorecard A
Scorecard A uses a 1-5 Likert scale to score each category of criteria. For most criteria, 1 represents low
impact and 5 represents high impact. Criterion where the directional effect of scoring is negative will require
reverse scoring. These criteria are identified on the scorecard, and the reverse scoring scale is written next to
the criterion. To score each criterion, determine which number represents the impact of the criterion on the
alternative being considered. Mark only one number per criterion. Mark N/A if a criterion is not applicable to
the site being scored.
Scorecard B
Scorecard B uses a binary scoring system. Each criterion is assessed based on its presence or absence, with
"yes" = present and "no"= absent. When transferred to the tool, "yes" responses score full points and "No"
responses do not accumulate any points. To score the criteria, determine whether each criterion is present
or absent and mark it accordingly. For Habitat Quantity and Quality, mark each habitat type "yes" if quality
will be improved or quantity will be increased, and mark "no" if quality will be diminished or quantity will be
decreased. Mark only one answer per criterion. Mark N/A if a criterion is not applicable to the management
alternative being scored.
Scorecard C
Scorecard C can be used rank criteria for the scoresheets. The default rank is the list of criteria numbered
from 1-50. Users are encouraged to also rank the criteria based on their priorities.
Scorecard A: Scoring 1-5
Impact Characterization (likelihood, impact,
feasibility)
5 4 3 2 1 N/A
43
-------
Definite High Moderate
Somewhat Low
Biophysical Environment
Rivers and streams habitat
quantity gain/loss
Lakes and ponds habitat quantity
gain/loss
Near coastal marine/estuarine
habitat quantity gain/loss
Open water habitat quantity
gain/loss
Wetlands habitat quantity
gain/loss
Urban/Suburban habitat quantity
gain/loss
Barren/rock and sand habitat
quantity gain/loss
Rivers and streams habitat quality
improved/diminished
Lakes and ponds quality
improved/diminished
Near coastal marine/estuarine
quality improved/diminished
Open water quality
improved/diminished
Wetlands quality
improved/diminished
Urban/Suburban quality
improved/diminished
Barren/rock and sand quality
improved/diminished
Impact on priority habitat
Benefit to species of management
concern
Restoration of native vegetation
Reduction of invasive species
Increase stormwater
control/protection
Influence biophysical environment
by reducing contamination
Impact Characterization (likelihood, impact,
feasibility)
44
-------
5
Definite
4
High
3
Moderate
2
Somewhat
1
Low
N/A
Economy
Funding pathway identified
Funding application prepared
Partnerships established
Potential partnerships identified
Feasible transportation of dredged
materials to the use site
Accept materials (5 years)
Accept materials long-term (20
years)
Lead to creation/growth of viable
business
Secondary benefits created
Long-term maintenance required
Impact Characterization (likelihood, impact,
feasibility)
5
Definite
4
High
3
Moderate
2
Somewhat
1
Low
N/A
Social
Improve access to parks or natural
spaces
Potential for indirect job creation
Improve aesthetics
Community engagement
Reduced human exposure to
contaminants
Improved access to ecosystem
services
Improved infrastructure condition
New/improved infrastructure services
for community
Impact Characterization (likelihood, impact,
feasibility)
5 4 3 2 1 N/A
45
-------
Definite
High
Moderate
Somewhat
Low
Maintain navigation channels
Enrollment in voluntary program
Able to complete within
Environmental Windows
OJ
u
c
to
Included in existing guidance
documents
0)
>
o
UJ
Permitting timeline conducive with
project timeline
Meets zoning requirements
Flexible timeframe
Replicable
Site ownership
Impact Characterization
feasibi
(likelihood, impact,
ity)
5
Definit
e
4
Hig
h
3
Moderat
e
2
Somewha
t
1
Lo
w
N/
A
Built
Environment
Reduce contamination
Diversion to construction
Cap or fill (development sites, roads,
greenspace)
46
-------
Scorecard B
Scorecard B: Yes/No
Criteria
Yes
No
N/A
Rivers and streams habitat quantity gain/loss
Lakes and ponds habitat quantity gain/loss
Near coastal marine/estuarine habitat quantity gain/loss
Open water habitat quantity gain/loss
Wetlands habitat quantity gain/loss
Urban/Suburban habitat quantity gain/loss
Barren/rock and sand habitat quantity gain/loss
Rivers and streams habitat quality improved/diminished
Lakes and ponds quality improved/diminished
"i/5
>
Near coastal marine/estuarine quality improved/diminished
Q.
O
Open water quality improved/diminished
CO
Wetlands quality improved/diminished
Urban/Suburban quality improved/diminished
Barren/rock and sand quality improved/diminished
Impact on priority habitat
Benefit to species of management concern
Restoration of native vegetation
Reduction of invasive species
Increase stormwater control/protection
Influence biophysical environment by reducing contamination
Funding pathway identified
Funding application prepared
Partnerships established
Potential partnerships identified
>
E
Feasible transportation of dredged materials to the use site
o
c
Accept materials (5 years)
u
LU
Accept materials long-term (20 years)
Lead to creation/growth of viable business
Secondary benefits created
Long-term maintenance required
Improve access to parks or natural spaces
Potential for indirect job creation
(C
u
o
Improve aesthetics
to
Community engagement
Reduced human exposure to contaminants
47
-------
Improved access to ecosystem services
Improved infrastructure condition
New/improved infrastructure services for community
Governance
Maintain navigation channels
Enrollment in voluntary program
Able to complete within Environmental Windows
Included in existing guidance documents
Permitting timeline conducive with project timeline
Meets zoning requirements
Flexible timeframe
Replicable
Site ownership
Built
Environment
Reduce contamination
Diversion to construction
Cap or fill (development sites, roads, greenspace)
Scorecard C
Scorecard C: Ranking
Criteria
Rank
Rivers and streams habitat quantity gain/loss
Lakes and ponds habitat quantity gain/loss
Near coastal marine/estuarine habitat quantity gain/loss
Open water habitat quantity gain/loss
Wetlands habitat quantity gain/loss
re
u
Urban/Suburban habitat quantity gain/loss
"1/5
>
-E
Q.
Barren/rock and sand habitat quantity gain/loss
O
Rivers and streams habitat quality improved/diminished
Lakes and ponds quality improved/diminished
Near coastal marine/estuarine quality improved/diminished
Open water quality improved/diminished
Wetlands quality improved/diminished
Urban/Suburban quality improved/diminished
48
-------
Barren/rock and sand quality improved/diminished
Impact on priority habitat
Benefit to species of management concern
Restoration of native vegetation
Reduction of invasive species
Increase stormwater control/protection
Influence biophysical environment by reducing contamination
Funding pathway identified
Funding application prepared
Partnerships established
Potential partnerships identified
>
E
o
Feasible transportation of dredged materials to the use site
E
O
u
LU
Accept materials (5 years)
Accept materials long-term (20 years)
Lead to creation/growth of viable business
Secondary benefits created
Long-term maintenance required
Improve access to parks or natural spaces
Potential for indirect job creation
Improve aesthetics
is
Community engagement
o
to
Reduced human exposure to contaminants
Improved access to ecosystem services
Improved infrastructure condition
New/improved infrastructure services for community
Maintain navigation channels
01
u
E
Enrollment in voluntary program
(0
E
01
Able to complete within Environmental Windows
o
u
Included in existing guidance documents
Permitting timeline conducive with project timeline
49
-------
Meets zoning requirements
Flexible timeframe
Replicable
Site ownership
Built
Environment
Reduce contamination
Diversion to construction
Cap or fill (development sites, roads, greenspace)
50
-------
Appendix D: Criteria List Adjustment Directions
Criteria List Adjustment
On the Scoresheets, default criteria are listed in Column B with their categorical grouping
displayed in Column A. If users seek to add/remove/replace criteria:
1. Determine categorization of new criteria
2. Determine holdover criteria from default list
3. Swap new criteria with undesired default criteria as able
4. Add new rows for new criteria in categories that ran out of rows and enter new criteria
5. Delete remaining undesired criteria
6. Adjust formula datasets for each section required (see below)
Adjust formula datasets for each section required:
Note: Variables requiring adjustment color coded in instructions to assist user
• Percentile calculation
o Column D: =PERCENTRANK.INC(C$30:C$79,Cx,3)
o 79 -> adjust to row number Column C is increased or reduced to
o x corresponding cell row
• Weighting Factor
o Column F: =ROUND((1-((1-F$29)/(MAX($D$30:$D$79)-
MIN($D$30:$D$79))*Dx))*Ex,2)
o F$29 -> weighting factor scale cell - user can input lower limit; default is set to
.05 in cell F29
o 79 -> adjust to row number Column D is increased or reduced to
o x corresponding cell row
• Weighting Factor Sum (per criteria category)
o Column G: =SUM(Fx:Fy)
o x beginning cell row for corresponding criteria category section
o y -> ending cell row for corresponding criteria category section
• Weighting Factor Share (per criteria category)
o Column H: =Gx/SUM(G$30:G$79)
o 79 -> adjust to row number criteria columns are increased or reduced to
o x cell row in Column G that each criteria category section begins
• Calculated score columns ("W' - weighting factor applied calculated score)
o Column L: =$Fx*Kx*(K$25="OK")
o *NOTE: There are 3 scoring sections; Column L's formula is for the 1st scoring
section
¦ For Column O (2nd scoring section), replace Column K with Column N
51
-------
¦ For Column R (3rd scoring section), replace Column K with Column Q
o x corresponding cell row
Category score display ("C" - category score percentage)
o Column M: =SUBTOTAL(9,Lx:Ly)/$Wx
o *NOTE: There are 3 category score displays; Column M's formula is for the 1st
scoring section
¦ For Column P (2nd scoring display), replace Column L with Column O
¦ For Column S (3rd scoring display), replace Column L with Column R
o x beginning cell row for corresponding criteria category section
o y -> ending cell row for corresponding criteria category section
Total points score (Point total scores for each of the 3 alternatives)
o K81 =SUM(Lx:Ly)
o *NOTE: There are 3 point total scores; cell K81's formula is for the 1st alternative
total score
¦ For N81 (2nd total point score), replace L with O
¦ For Q81 (3rd total point score), replace L with R
o x beginning criteria row in Column L, Column O, and Column R
o y -> ending criteria row in Column L, Column O, and Column R
Percentage of maximum total score (for each of the 3 alternatives)
o K83 =K81/$W81
o *NOTE: There are 3 percentage of maximum total score displays; cell K83's
formula is for the 1st percentage of maximum total score display
¦ For N83 (2nd percentage of maximum total display), replace K with N
¦ For Q83 (3rd percentage of maximum total display), replace K with Q
Percentage check
o H77 =SUM(H30,H46,H56,H64,H73)
o (H30,H46,H56,H64,H73) represents all of the category score percentages - any
categories added/removed need to be included/removed from this formula
Criteria denominator calculations (Maximum score calculation for each individual
criterion)
o Column V =Fx*J$29
o x corresponding criteria cell row
Criteria category section calculations (Maximum score calculation for each criteria
category)
o Wx =SUBTOTAL(9, Vx:Vy)
o x beginning criteria row for category section
52
-------
o y -> ending criteria row for category section
• Graph controls
o Columns AA to AE (see Figure 9)
o Each criteria category section score for each alternative is calculated by the
formula: =SUM(Lx:Ly); where L is used for Alternative 1 and is substituted by O
(Alternative 2) or R (Alternative 3)
o x beginning cell row for corresponding criteria category section
o y -> ending cell row for corresponding criteria category section
o Maximum Potential Score transfers the criteria category section calculations that
have been performed previously in Column W
¦ =Wx ; x -> beginning cell row for corresponding criteria category section
| AA
| AB
| AC
| AD 1 AE [
27
20
Graph Controls
29
Category
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Maximum Potential Score
30
Biophysical Score
16.0
26.0
24. S 41.9
31
Economy Score
IS.5
21.1
1S.0 26.3
32
Social Score
10.2
9.1
9.5 219
33
Governance Score
17 J
15.6
14.6 1S.0
34
Built Environment Score
6.4
5.5
4.7 10.7
35
Figure 23. Comparison graph controls.
53
-------
Appendix E: Background research and workshops
We utilized translational science principles to better connect the interests of stakeholders who varied in
their technical, policy, social, and ecological knowledge about the beneficial use of dredged material.
Translational ecology seeks to "link ecological knowledge to decision making by integrating science
with the social dimensions that underlie today's complex environmental issues" (Wall et al. 2017, p551).
This translational approach is part of the larger set of approaches such as the co-production of science
and policy, boundary work, and usable science, that is meant to close the gap between the researchers
who produce science, the practitioners who apply scientific knowledge, and the public (Dilling and
Lemos 2011; Lemos and Morehouse 2005).
Translational approaches maintain the integrity of different perspectives (e.g., USEPA Region 5,
USEPA ORD, USACE, Great Lakes Dredging Team) and facilitate communication among them.
Ecosystem services related to the beneficial use of dredged materials have biophysical and social
dimensions, thus can be used as a boundary concept or concept that has meaning to different audiences
even if the meaning is not the same (Mollinga 2010). Recognizing the ecosystem services dimension to
dredged materials facilitates the consideration of social values in the beneficial use of dredged material,
which has not previously been addressed in the Great Lakes.
We had two main objectives of this applied research project:
1) Comprehensively characterize the barriers, opportunities, programs, and human benefits
associated with dredge material beneficial use, and
2) Translate this research into actionable information for stakeholders and decision-makers
(including USEPA Regional Offices) using collaborative methodologies in collaboration
with stakeholders.
To better understand beneficial use of dredged materials and begin scoping the required decision input
knowledge and data, we qualitatively analyzed successful brownfields revitalization projects that used
dredged materials. We employed the Neighborhood Model (Williams et al. 2018) to identify and
characterize the decision elements. The documents were analyzed with both deductive and inductive
approaches to content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Creswell, 2013). All analyses were conducted
using NVivo (QSR International, 2017) computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. NVivo was
used to aid in researcher coding of documents, and compilation of materials for the analysis.
Additionally, we identified case studies of the beneficial use of dredged materials both within and
outside the United States. Cases were compiled and organized into a database that both informed this
research and can be used as a supplementary resource to this manual. The instructions for the database
can be found in Appendix F.
Through the case study analysis, we identified regulatory and administrative requirements, including
biophysical characteristics of the sediment and the desired outcomes for each decision. The initial sites
we studied were in Duluth, Minnesota. The first site studied was the Duluth-Winnipeg-Pacific
brownfields remediation and habitat restoration, where dredge material was used as a cap to cover
contaminated soils. We chose this site because the City of Duluth identified it as a community
revitalization success. The study of this site was supplemented with a similar analysis of two other sites
in the Duluth-Superior Harbor: the 40th Avenue West aquatic habitat restoration and the Atlas Cement
brownfields remediation. We were able to extract the most relevant decision criteria for three different
scenarios: aquatic habitat restoration, brownfields remediation to industrial use, and brownfields
remediation to terrestrial habitat restoration, by mapping the governance structure using a who-what-
54
-------
how-outcomes frame (Williams et al. 2018).
Presentations and workshops were conducted with stakeholders from the Duluth Dredge Materials
Management Team led by the USACE. This team agreed to participate in this research because of their
interest in collaboratively managing dredge materials and promoting beneficial use when feasible. An
initial meeting was held with the stakeholders to introduce the DMDT in October 2019. Based on
discussions at this meeting, we became concerned the tool was too complex or abstract for some users.
To remedy this challenge, a set of worksheets and scorecards (Appendix A and B) were created to
ensure that users would have the background knowledge and technical details needed to use the DMDT.
A second meeting was held in February 2020 to share the decision criteria that had emerged from
research (Table 3). Stakeholders provided valuable insight that was used to revise the criteria,
worksheets, and scorecards. This research was utilized to create two exercises for stakeholders to apply
to a beneficial use decision at an in-person workshop in March 2020 (Fig. 22; beneficial use
management alternative profiles in Appendix C). To enhance the learning potential, a case that was
already familiar to the participants was chosen as an example. This approach provided an opportunity to
use the DMDT in a familiar context. The group made suggestions for how to enhance definitions, alerted
the team to important details and distinctions, and explained to the team why the DMDT would have
utility for them.
OTi fc^F <* (vw-pS
j5onn^-'V
£jOYT6t*3<' I
| \DCK- | . _
tfrMrxfT&i
cxdd
1M <(exA"fi
-------
beneficial use management alternatives to inform decisions. In our case studies, however, it was not
always easy to consider all three elements in any project. Only two elements were actively considered in
most the case studies we used to inform this research project. Environmental and economic
considerations were the most important decision drivers for the 40th Avenue West case and the Atlas
Cement case. The 40th Avenue West case was an aquatic habitat restoration with little public access. The
Atlas Cement case was a brownfield that the City of Duluth intends to be industrial development with
little public access. Only the Duluth-Winnipeg-Pacific had a social element to the project because it was
a terrestrial habitat restoration for recreational use. Future research should try to strengthen the social
indicators or criteria.
Another limitation was a change in staff with one of our collaborating agencies left us without a strong
collaborator in that agency. We were able to engage closely with the natural resource managers working
on the habitat restoration work in the St. Louis River Area of Concern and Duluth-Superior Harbor. The
result is that the environmental criteria is strong and represents much of the habitat restoration that may
beneficially use dredged materials. We were not, however, able to deepen our social criteria, nor those
indicators important to economic developers. This is a gap that should be filled with further research
because it will have utility for USEPA Region 5 and other regions who support communities.
When we were able to connect with economic development staff, they indicated that it was difficult to
see how dredged materials could be beneficially used in their projects. They cited typical barriers to
using the materials - that the materials may not be geotechnically appropriate for construction and it
may be difficult to transport. We realized that one of the main challenges to using dredged materials in
communities is not just the complexity of the decisions, but also the perceptions that the materials may
not be useful. The DMDT was created to address the supply of dredged materials, but not necessarily
how to create demand for the materials. The experience is different in Cleveland, Ohio where there is a
company in the port that sorts and amends dredged materials to create a geotechnically sound resource.
To demonstrate how to use the tool in the community context, we envision conducting a comparative
study in a Great Lakes port with more demand for dredged material by a community. We would suggest
this case would need a strong municipal partner to demonstrate how to fill the gap on decision making in
and with communities. But most importantly, we look forward to continuing this study.
56
-------
Appendix F: Beneficial use case database instructions
Introduction to the Database
This database is designed to accompany the beneficial use of dredged material decision tool (DMDT). It
is a relational database with tables that represent elements of dredged material management decisions,
such as stakeholder type, material type and beneficial use management alternative type. The tables that
represent decision elements are interrelated and organized primarily through common data columns in
one-to-many relationships between the primary row of one table and one or more rows of related tables.
The research demonstrated that users may be most interested in finding similar types of beneficial use
management alternatives or projects in a particular type of habitat or site. This structure allows
individual projects or beneficial use management alternatives to be associated with several sites, and
individual sites to be associated with several projects.
Project information includes the costs, plans and designs for beneficial use projects. Site information
includes data pertaining to the geographic locations where materials are beneficially used. Project-site
information includes all data specific to the project and site together.
The database currently contains data for 6 projects, which contain 11 sites that have or will receive
dredged materials. Some projects are in progress and data collection is ongoing. As that data becomes
available it will be added to the database, along with data from other beneficial reuse projects.
Instructions for navigating the database
Naming Conventions
Naming conventions are used to label each type of data. They are used so database users can easily
identify the type and purpose of all database objects. These conventions can be confusing at first, so the
reference tables below have been created to define the type of information each data label represents.
Overlap will occur when tables are connected using the same data fields.
Site Information Table (site_info)
sitejd
Automatically generated site identification number
site_code
Alphabetical site ID using letters from the site name
site_name
Name of site where dredged material is placed
sitejat
Site latitude
sitejong
Site longitude
site_owner
Site owner, if applicable
site_municipality
Municipality where site is located
site_state
State where site is located
site_country
Country where site is located
site_classification
Site classification based on reason for placing material at site
site_size
Size of site (acres)
57
-------
Project Information Table (project_info)
projectjd
Automatically generated project identification number
project_code
Alphabetical project ID using letters from the project name
project_name
Name of project
project_start
Year project began
project_end
Year project ended/will end
projectjead
Lead organization/agency for project
project_cost
Project cost
p ro j e ct_d re d g i n g_co st
Total cost of dredging, transportation and placement of dredged materials
project_reuse_purpose
The purpose or reason for using dredged materials as part of the project
Project Site Information Table (project_site_info)
project_site_id
Automatically generated project site identification number
projectjnfojd
Foreign key to projectjnfo table. Connects project info to site info.
project_name
Foreign key to projectjnfo table. Used to help identify project in project
site table.
sitejnfojd
Foreign key to sitejnfo table. Connects site info to project info.
site_name
Foreign key to sitejnfo table. Used to help identify site in project site table.
biophys_species_yn
Yes/No, indicates species of concern impacted at project site
biophys_species_list
List of impacted species of concern
biophys_vegetation_yn
Yes/No, indicates increase of native vegetation at project site
biophys_vegetation_list
List of impacted native vegetation
biophys_invasives_yn
Yes/No, indicates invasive species reduced at project site
biophys_invasives_list
List of impacted invasive species
biophys_strmwtr_control_yn
Yes/No, indicates creation of or increased stormwater controls
biophys_contam_reduced_yn
Yes/No, indicates contamination that could harm biophysical environment
is reduced
biophys_contam_type
List of contaminants that are reduced
social_access_yn
Yes/No, indicates increased accessibility at project site
socialJobs_yn
Yes/No, indicates jobs created at or near project site
social_aesthetics_yn
Yes/No, indicates aesthetics are positively impacted at project site
social_es_access_yn
Yes/No, indicates increased access to ecosystem services
social_infrastructure_yn
Yes/No, indicates infrastructure is built or improved at project site
socialjnfrastructurejmprovements
List of infrastructure improvements
dredging_material_amount
Amount of dredged materials (c/y) project site accepted/will accept
dredging_contractor_id
Dredging contractor, usually an organization
dredging_entity_id
Entity mandating the dredging work, not necessarily the same as entity
doing the dredging work
dredging_site_id
Name of site dredged materials are taken from, pick from list
dredging_sites_other
Write out name of dredging site if not an option on list
barge_transport_type
Yes/No, indicates if barge was used for transport
pipeline_transport_type
Yes/No, indicates if pipeline was used for transport
truck_transport_type
Yes/No, indicates if truck was used for transport
58
-------
Project Site Stakeholder Table (project_site_stakeholder)
project_site_stakeholder_id
Automatically generated project site stakeholder identification number
project_site_id
Foreign key to project_site_info table. Connects project site info to list of stakeholder
types.
stakeholderjd
Foreign key to stakeholder_types table. Connects list of types of stakeholders to
project sites.
Biophysical Habitat Criteria Table (biophysical_habitat_criteria)
biophysical_habitat_criteria_id
Automatically generated biophysical habitat criteria identification number.
project_site_id
Foreign key to project_site_info table. Connects project site info with habitat
info.
habitat_quantity_quality_id
Foreign key to biophysical_habitat_quantity_quality table. Connects changes in
habitat quality and quantity to habitat and project site info.
biophysical_habitat_type_id
Foreign key to biophysical_habitat_type table. Connects types of habitat to
changes in habitat quality/quantity and project site info.
Project Site & Dredging Category Table (project_site_dredging_category)
project_site_dredging_category_id
Automatically generated project site dredging category identification
number.
project_site_id
Foreign key to project_site_info table. Connects project sites with list of
dredging category (type of dredging) info.
dredging_category_id
Foreign key to dredging_category table. Connects type of dredging with
project site info.
Project Site & Dredged Material Table (project_site_dredged_material)
project_site_dredged_material_id
Automatically generated project site dredged material identification number.
project_site_id
Foreign key to project_site_info table. Connects project sites with list of types
of dredged material.
dredging_material_type_id
Foreign key to dredged_material_type table. Connects list of type(s) of
dredged materials with project info.
Tables
On the left side of the database is a navigation bar entitled "All Access Objects." In this navigation bar is
the subtitle "Tables." As a user of the database, you can access the data from the tables using pre-
constructed reports and queries (instructions are below). If you are familiar with Access databases, you
can use the tables to obtain information, but these instructions will focus specifically on reading reports
and queries.
Reports and Queries
Reports summarize all available data pertaining to a specific topic, while queries pull information from
multiple tables and allow you to retrieve specific data using parameters. No report or query contains all
project and site information, but by viewing each of the reports or queries associated with a specific
project-site you can view all data pertaining to that project-site. Listed below are all reports and search
queries with instructions. To apply new parameters to a query you already have open, select the Refresh
All button at the top of the page (Fig. 25).
59
-------
P Tell rr
!L^U g <-
Refresh
All- X[
Figure 25. Refresh all button to apply new search parameters.
Project Type
Project, also known as beneficial use management alternative, data consists of data specific to and
dependent upon the project plans and designs. This data is located in the project info table. There are
two ways to access project specific data:
1. To view Project Info data for all projects in the database, double click
"project info query report" under the Reports tab (the Reports tab is located under All Access
Objects in the navigation bar on the left part of the screen). The table in the report contains all
existing data from the Project Info table.
2. To search for projects by project type, double click "Search by project type (reuse purpose)"
under the Queries tab. This query pulls in the project site information for each project. For each
project, the reuse purpose has been assigned a numerical identification number. To sort projects
by reuse purpose, type the associated identification number in the search box. The reuse purposes
and identification numbers are listed below.
1
Aquatic habitat
2
Beach nourishment
3
Brownfield capping
4
Construction fill
5
Enhancing degraded farmland
6
Incorporation into lightweight aggregate material
7
Landfill capping
8
Manufacturing coal and bricks
9
Mine reclamation
10
Producing manufactured topsoil
11
Recreational greenspace
12
Structural and shoreline protection
13
Terrestrial habitat restoration, creation and development
Stakeholder Type
Stakeholders are the groups and organizations interested in and/or involved with the project.
Stakeholders are associated with specific project sites. To search by stakeholder type use one of the
following processes:
1. To view Stakeholder data and all associated projects and sites in the database, double click
"stakeholder query report" under the Reports tab. The table contains a list of each project,
site and stakeholder group.
2. To search by stakeholder type, double click "Search by stakeholder type" under the Queries
tab. This query pulls in project site data. Each stakeholder type has been assigned a
60
-------
numerical identification number. To sort projects by stakeholder type, type the associated
identification number in the search box. The identification numbers are listed below.
1
Advocacy Organizations, any scale
2
AECOM (American multi-engineering firm)
3
City Council
4
City Department of Tourism
5
City Department of Transportation
6
City Parks and Recreation
7
City Planning Department
8
Conservation Organizations, any scale
9
County Administration
10
County Water/Conservation District
11
Local Citizen or Community Group (organized)
12
National Estuarine Research Reserve
13
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
14
Port Authority
15
Private Business
16
Private Residents
17
Recreation (outdoor) Organizations, any scale
18
Regional or Municipal Development Authority
19
State Department of Health
20
State Department of Natural Resources
21
State Department of Tourism
22
State Department of Transportation
23
State Historical Preservation Society
24
State Parks Service
25
State Pollution Control Agency
26
Technical Advisory Group
27
University
28
US Army Corps of Engineers
29
US Department of Energy
30
US Environmental Protection Agency
31
US Fish and Wildlife Service
32
US Forest Service
33
US Geological Survey
Dredged Material Type
Dredged materials are sediment or excavated material with different organic properties. For
classification within this database, dredged materials have been identified as clay (.00049-.0038mm),
organic fines (.0039-.0624mm), sand (.0625-2.00 mm), and gravel or pebble (2.01-64.00mm). To search
for project sites based on the type of material they required, use one of the following processes:
1. To view dredged material type data and all associated project sites in the database, double
click "project site dredged material type query report" under the Reports tab. The report
contains tables with the dredged material types and each associated project site. Some project
sites utilized several types of dredged materials, so the records repeat for each different
61
-------
material type. To look at each record, press the arrow at the bottom left of the record (see
image below).
I ^ i-i
HJ Record: H < |1 of 12 | ~ J I
|Hybirii
No Filtci
2. To search for project sites by dredged material type, double click "Search by dredged
material type" under the Queries tab. Each dredged material type has been assigned a
numerical identification number. To sort project sites by dredged material type, type the
associated identification number in the search box. The identification numbers are listed
below.
1 Sand
2 Gravel or pebble
3 Organic fines
4 Clay
Dredged Material Source (dredging category)
Dredged material most often comes from Operations and Maintenance dredging, Capital dredging,
project dredging, or confined disposal facilities. To search for project sites based on where the dredged
material was sourced, use one of the following processes:
1. To view project sites based on dredged material source, double click
"project site dredged material source query report" under the Reports tab. The report
contains a table with the dredged material source and each associated project site.
2. To search for project sites by dredged material source, double click "Search by dredged
material source" under the Queries tab. Each dredged material source has been assigned a
numerical identification number. To sort project sites by dredged material source, type the
associated identification number in the search box. The identification numbers are listed
below.
1 Capital
2 Operation & Maintenance
3 Project
4 Confined Disposal Facility
Habitat Type
Beneficial use projects can increase or decrease the quantity and improve or diminish the quality of
different spatial environments. For this database, these spatial environments are referred to as habitats
and include aquatic and terrestrial environmental classes. To search for project sites based on impacted
habitat types, follow one of the following processes:
1. To view project sites and the habitats they impact, double click
"project site habitat type query report" under the Reports tab. The report contains a table
with each project site and associated impacted habitat types.
62
-------
2. To search for project sites by impacted habitat type, double click "Search by impacted habitat
type" under the Queries tab. Each habitat type has been assigned a numerical identification
number. To sort project sites by habitat type, type the associated identification number in the
search box. The identification numbers are listed below.
1
Rivers and streams
2
Lakes and ponds
3
Near coastal marine/estuarine
4
Open ocean and sea
5
Wetlands
6
Forests
7
Agroecosystems
8
Grasslands
9
Scrubland/shrubland
10
Tundra
11
Ice and snow
12
Urban/suburban
13
Barren rock/sand
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem service are things from nature that benefit human well-being (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007).
Search for potentially impacted Ecosystem Services using one of the following processes:
1. Using the habitat identification numbers listed above, you can search for project sites and their
potentially impacted ecosystem services. After using the steps above to determine which habitats
are impacted by a specific project, double click "Search for ES by habitat ID" under the Queries
tab. Type in the identification number for the impacted habitat type and hit enter. All potentially
impacted ecosystem services will appear.
2. Using the project identification number, you can search for all potentially impacted ecosystem
services associated with a specific project. Double click "Search for ES by project ID" under the
Queries tab. To view the ecosystem services associated with a given project, type in the
associated ID. Project ID's can be found in the "project info report" or "project info query"
mentioned earlier.
63
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |