EM 1110-2-5025

31 July 2015

US Army Corps
of Engineers

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN

Dredging and Dredged Material

Management

ENGINEER MANUAL

AVAILABILITY
Electronic copies of this and other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publications
are available on the Internet at http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/. This site
is the only repository for all official USACE engineer regulations, circulars, manuals, and
other documents originating from HQUSACE. Publications are provided in portable
document format (PDF).

This document is intended solely as guidance. The statutory provisions and

promulgated regulations described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. The document is not a legally enforceable regulation itself, nor does
it alter or substitute for those legal provisions and regulations it describes. Thus, it
does not impose any legally binding requirements. This guidance does not confer
legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public.
While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this
document, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statues,
regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict
between the discussion in this document and any applicable statute or regulation,
this document would not be controlling.
This document may not apply to a particular situation based upon site-specific
circumstances. USACE retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-bycase basis that differ from those described in this guidance where appropriate and
legally consistent.
This document may be revised periodically without public notice.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000

CECW-EW

EM 1110-2-5025

Manual
No. 1110-2-5025

31 July 2015

Engineering and Design

DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
1. Purpose. This Engineer Manual (EM) presents a comprehensive summary of the dredging
equipment and dredged material placement techniques used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and it describes management and design processes associated with newwork and maintenance dredging related to navigation projects. Guidance is provided on the
following dredging topics:
a. Evaluation and selection of dredging equipment for various materials to be dredged.
b. Planning, designing, constructing, operating, and managing environmentally acceptable
open-water and confined dredged material placement areas for both short- and long-term
placement (disposal) needs.
c. Planning, designing, developing, and managing dredged material for beneficial uses while
incorporating ecological concepts and engineering designs with environmental, economical, and
social feasibility.
In this document, the terms placement and disposal are used synonymously to describe
dredged material deposition after its removal from the dredging prism.
2. Applicability. This manual applies to all USACE Commands having responsibilities for
administering USACE dredging programs.
3. Distribution Statement. This publication is approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
4. Scope of the Manual. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the USACE dredging program.
Chapter 2 describes USACE navigation project dredging management processes and provides a
comprehensive summary of the dredging equipment used by USACE for activities associated
with new work and maintenance projects. It also provides guidance on the evaluation and
selection of dredging equipment, presents an overview of environmental impacts from dredging,
and discusses the evaluation, selection, and management of placement alternatives. Chapter 3
describes open-water placement and the major hydrodynamic environments associated with it.

This manual supersedes EM 1110-2-5025, 25 March 1983; EM-1110-2-5026, 30 June 1987; and
EM 1110-2-5027, 30 September 1987.

EM 1110-2-5025
31July15

Considerations in the selection and use of various types of dredging equipment and techniques
for placement are presented. The short- and long-term fates of dredged material in the open
water environment are described, and methods for quantifying each type are presented. Chapter 3
also discusses the evaluation of contaminant pathways from open-water placement and manage
ment and control methods for open-water placement, and it addresses considerations for open
water site operation, monitoring, and management. Chapter 4 provides detailed guidance for
confined (diked) placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs). Guidance
for evaluating site conditions, dike design, retention of dredged material, initial storage require
ments during placement, long-term storage capacity, dredged material dewatering, dike design,
contaminant pathways and controls, operation and management, and monitoring is also presented
Chapter 5 outlines various opportunities for the beneficial use of dredged material and provides
many case studies. One of the most common beneficial uses for dredged material is as substrate
for habitat development. The chapter outlines the imp01iant design elements for several habitats,
ranging from aquatic to upland. Other uses for dredged material include agriculture, horticulture,
aquaculture, forestry, strip mine reclamation, solid waste landfill, harbors and pmi development,
and fill for many other types of projects Dredged material has a wide variety of uses. Wherever
sediment is needed, dredged material could be the source. Economics generally dictate whether a
given beneficial use is feasible. Some guidance for estimating costs is provided as well as
engineering properties of dredged material pe1iinent to the variety of beneficial uses.
FOR THE COMMANDER:

16 Appendixes

MICHAEL D. PELOQUIN

(See Table of Contents)

COL, EN
Chief of Staff

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000

CECW-EW

EM 1110-2-5025

Manual
No. 1110-2-5025

31 July 2015

Engineering and Design

DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph

Page

CHAPTER 1. Introduction
Purpose
Applicability
Distribution
References
Background
Considerations Associated with Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement
Scope
Training
Related Publications
Explanation of Abbreviations
Metrics
Appendices

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1

1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12

1-4
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-7
1-7

2.1

2-1

2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

2-1
2-1
2-2
2-6

2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

2-8
2-10
2-11
2-12

CHAPTER 2. Dredging and Navigation Project Management

Purpose
Section I. Overview of Dredging and Navigation Project
Management
Introduction
Federal Navigation Project Formulation
Federal Legislation
National Dredging Policy
Long-Term Management Strategy and Dredged Material
Management Plans
USACE Dredging Policy
Regional Sediment Management
Engineering With Nature

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Dredge Operation Safety

Paragraph

Page

2.10

2-12

2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17

2-14
2-15
2-16
2-36
2-37
2-49
2-59

2.18

2-60

2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32

2-62
2-62
2-62
2-64
2-71
2-78
2-81
2-83
2-88
2-90
2-92
2-95
2-103
2-118

2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36

2-121
2-121
2-130
2-131

2.37
2.38
2.39

2-137
2-139
2-148

Section II. Project Site Characterization

Background
Dredging Locations and Quantities
Dredging Site Geotechnical Investigations
Placement Site Geotechnical Investigations
Sediment Physical and Engineering Properties Testing
Laboratory Tests for Containment Facilities
Site Contamination Characterization
Cultural Resources and Munitions and Explosives of
Concern
Section III. Dredging Equipment and Techniques
Purpose
Factors Determining Equipment Selection
Dredge Types
Hydraulic Pipeline Cutterhead Dredges
Trailing Suction (Hydraulic) Hopper Dredges
Hydraulic Pipeline Dustpan Dredges
Sidecasting Dredges
Mechanical Bucket Dredges
Mechanical Backhoe Dredges
Special-Purpose Dredge
Dredge Operating Characteristics and Production Rates
Agitation Dredging Techniques
Dredging Instrumentation
Environmental Dredging
Section IV. Dredging Environmental Considerations
Introduction
Sediment Resuspension Due to Dredging
Biological Considerations
Environmental Windows
Section V. Evaluation of Placement Alternatives
Background
Technical Framework
Risk Analysis

ii

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Dredging and Dredged Material Management Software

Tools

Paragraph

Page

2.40

2-150

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

3-1
3-4
3-9
3-26
3-35

3.6

3-37

3.7
3.8

3-44
3-53

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11

4-1
4-14
4-19
4-21
4-35
4-60
4-88
4-98
4-104
4-113
4-128

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6

5-1
5-2
5-6
5-7
5-9
5-9

5.7

5-11

CHAPTER 3. Open-Water Placement

Overview of Open-Water Placement
Open-Water Environments for Dredging and Placement
Physical Fate of Dredged Material Placed in Open Water
Open-Water Disposal Site Designation/Selection
Evaluation of Direct Physical Effects and Site Capacity
Evaluation of Contaminant Pathways from Open-Water
Disposal
Water Column and Benthic Control Measures for OpenWater Disposal
Open-Water Site Management and Monitoring
CHAPTER 4. Confined (Diked) Placement
Overview of Confined Placement
Site Selection and Investigations
Laboratory Testing Requirements
Retention of Solids and Initial Storage
Design and Management for Long-Term Storage Capacity
Design and Construction of Retaining Dikes and Structures
Contaminant Pathway Analysis
Control and Treatment of Effluent and Other Discharges
Contaminant Controls and Treatment
Operation and Management
Monitoring
CHAPTER 5. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Section I. Dredged Material as a Resource
Introduction
Physical and Engineering Characteristics
Chemical Characteristics
Water Quality Considerations
Contaminated Dredged Material
Biological Limitations
Section II. Logistical Considerations
General

iii

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Dewatering
Transport, Handling, and Storage
Cost Analysis for Dewatering and Transport

Paragraph

Page

5.8
5.9
5.10

5-12
5-12
5-18

5.11
5.12
5.13

5-21
5-22
5-28

5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19

5-32
5-33
5-34
5-47
5-54
5-56

5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26

5-63
5-63
5-64
5-67
5-71
5-74
5-75

5.27
5.28
5.29

5-76
5-78
5-88

5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33

5-88
5-89
5-90
5-91

5.34
5.35

5-95
5-95

Section III. Habitat Development

Definition and Application
Case Studies of Selected Habitat Development Sites
Habitat Development Selection Process
Section IV. Wetland Habitats
Marshes
Marsh Development Considerations
Guidelines for Marsh Development
Engineering Aspects of Wetland Habitat Development
Wooded Wetland Habitats
Guidelines for Wooded Wetland Development
Section V. Upland Habitats
General
Upland Habitat Development Considerations
Guidelines for Upland Development
Upland Site Development
Engineering Design of Upland Sites
Ecological Design of the Upland Sites
Dredging and Placement Operations
Section VI. Island Habitats
General
Island Development and Management
Development and Management Problems
Section VII. Aquatic Habitats
General
Aquatic Habitat Development
Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Development
Design of Sea Grass Habitat
Clam Flats, Oyster Beds, Mussel Beds, and Other Shellfish
Habitats
Artificial Reefs and Underwater Berms

iv

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Paragraph

Page

5.36
5.37
5.38

5-96
5-97
5-98

5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42

5-103
5-104
5-107
5-110

5.43
5.44
5.45
5.46
5.47

5-111
5-111
5-120
5-122
5-123

5.48
5.49
5.50

5-129
5-129
5-135

5.51
5.52
5.53

5-137
5-138
5-142

5.54
5.55
5.56
5.57
5.58
5.59

5-150
5-151
5-154
5-155
5-156
5-156

Section VIII. Beaches and Beach Nourishment

General
Types of Beach Nourishment
Environmental Considerations
Section IX. Parks and Recreation
General
Case Studies
Recreation Activities and Facilities
Recreation Carrying Capacity
Section X. Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry, and
Aquaculture
General
Agriculture
Horticulture
Forestry
Aquaculture
Section XI. Strip Mine Reclamation, Solid Waste Landfill,
and Alternative Uses
General
Strip Mine Reclamation
Solid Waste Landfills
Section XII. Multipurpose Uses and Other Land Use
Concepts
General
Case Studies
Other Land Use Concepts
Section XIII. Construction and Industrial/Commercial Uses
Harbor and Port Facilities
Residential and Urban Use
Airports
Dikes, Levees, and Containment Facilities
Fill Material and Roads
Islands and Historic Preservation

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Considerations

Paragraph

Page

5.60

5-157

5.61
5.62

5-158
5-158

5.63
5.64
5.65
5.66

5-164
5-165
5-167
5-167

A.1
A.2

A-1
A-8

B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4

B-1
B-1
B-2
B-16

B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8

B-19
B-21
B-22
B-32

B.9

B-38

B.10

B-43

C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4

C-1
C-2
C-5
C-5

Section XIV. Baseline and Monitoring Studies

General
Monitoring
Section XV. Site Valuation
Evaluation
Methodology
Case Studies
Use of the Methodology
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. References
Required Publications
Related Publications
APPENDIX B. Dredging Environmental Considerations
Introduction
Sediment Resuspension Caused by Different Dredges
Generation of Turbidity by Type of Dredge
Measures to Reduce Sediment Resuspension
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Reduction and Contaminant
Mobilization
Biological Considerations
Effects of Environmental Alterations on Fishes
Effects of Environmental Alterations on Shellfishes
Effects of Environmental Alterations on Benthic
Assemblages
Effects of Environmental Alterations on Endangered
Species, Sea Turtles, Marine Mammals, and ColonialNesting Birds
APPENDIX C. Confined Aquatic Disposal
Background
Site Selection and Evaluation
Design, Construction, and Operations
Cap Design and Material

vi

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Monitoring
Conclusions

Paragraph

Page

C.5
C.6

C-7
C-8

D.1
D.2

D-1
D-36

E.1
E.2

E-1
E-18

F.1
F.2
F.3
F.4
F.5
F.6
F.7

F-1
F-1
F-1
F-3
F-5
F-5
F-6

G.1
G.2
G.3

G-1
G-1
G-2

H.1
H.2
H.3
H.4
H.5
H.6

H-1
H-1
H-2
H-4
H-6
H-7

I.1

I-1

APPENDIX D. Plant Materials for Beneficial Use Sites

Plants for Habitat Development
Recommended Propagules
APPENDIX E. Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals
Mentioned in This Manual
Plants
Animals
APPENDIX F. Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling
System (ADDAMS)
Purpose
Background
Description of ADDAMS
General Instructions
Availability of ADDAMS
Revisions, Updates, and Workshops
Description of ADDAMS Applications
APPENDIX G. Plans and Specifications for Settling Columns
Purpose
Side-View Sedimentation Column Plan and Specifications
Top and Bottom Sedimentation Column Plans
APPENDIX H. Column Settling Test Procedures
General
Settling Processes
Testing Equipment and Procedures
Flocculant Settling Test
Zone Settling Test
Compression Settling Test
APPENDIX I. Design Calculations for Retention of Solids and Initial
Storage
General

vii

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Volume for Initial Storage

Minimum Surface Area for Effective Zone Settling
Required Retention Time of Suspended Solids
Estimation of Hydraulic Efficiency Correction Factor
Example Design Calculations for Retention of Solids and
Initial Storage

Paragraph

Page

I.2
I.3
I.4
I.5

I-1
I-6
I-9
I-13

I.6

I-14

J.1
J.2
J.3
J.4

J-1
J-1
J-2
J-5

K.1
K.2

K-1
K-2

L.1

L-1

L.2
L.3
L.4

L-1
L-6
L-11

M.1
M.2
M.3
M.4
M.5

M-1
M-15
M-17
M-19
M-21

N.1
N.2

N-1
N-1

APPENDIX J. Dredged Material Consolidation Test Procedures

General
Consolidation Testing
Recommended Oedometer Test Procedure
Calculation of Permeability
APPENDIX K. Jar Test Procedures for Chemical Clarification
General
Selection of Test Conditions
APPENDIX L. Estimation of Dredged Material Consolidation by Finite
Strain Technique
General
Estimation of Consolidation Using the Finite Strain
Technique
Empirical Estimate of Settlement due to Desiccation
Example Consolidation Calculations
APPENDIX M. Procedures and Example Calculations for Design of a
Chemical Clarification System
Design Procedures
Polymer Feed System Design Example
Example Culvert Design
Design Example
Mud Pumping
APPENDIX N. Monthly Standard Class A Pan Evaporation for the
Continental United States
Purpose
Evaporation Charts

viii

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Paragraph

Page

O.1
O.2

O-1
O-1

P.1
P.2
P.3

P-1
P-2
P-4

APPENDIX O. Procedures for Selecting Equipment for Dewatering

Operations
General Procedures
Effects of Trenching
APPENDIX P. Dye Tracer Technique to Estimate Mean Residence Time
and Hydraulic Efficiency
Fluorescent Dyes
Measurement Techniques
Sampling
GLOSSARY
Abbreviations

Glossary-1

ix

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. HRDP-Measured Densities Compared with Pycnometer-Measured Densities
Table 2-2. Standard Geotechnical Test Procedures
Table 2-3. Grain-Size Identification
Table 2-4. Sediment Particle Sizes
Table 2-5. Typical Weight-Volume Properties of Soils
Table 2-6. Soil Density or Consistency from Standard Penetration Test Data
Table 2-7. Relationship of Concentration in Percent Solids by Weight, Percent Solids
by Volume, Concentration in Grams Per Liter, and Water Content
Table 2-8. Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge Discharge Rates
Table 2-9. Dredge Excavation, Removal, Transport, and Placement Processes
Table 2-10. Summary of Dredge Operating Characteristics
Table 2-11. Hopper Dredge Instrumentation
Table 2-12. Dredging Parameters Monitored by USACE Districts
Table 2-13. Hopper Dredge Implementation and Calculated Data Parameter Values
Table 2-14. USACE District Offices Receiving an Environmental Windows Survey
Table 2-15. Distribution of Environmental Windows Categories by USACE Divisions
Table 2-16. Distribution of Supporting Rationales for Environmental Windows by
USACE Divisions

2-22
2-38
2-40
2-41
2-45
2-48
2-53
2-66
2-93
2-94
2-108
2-110
2-116
2-133
2-134
2-135

Table 3-1. USACE Short-Term Fate Models

Table 3-2. Effect of Pipeline Configuration on Dredged Material Dispersion

3-25
3-45

Table 4-1. Site Characteristics Affecting Groundwater Impacts

Table 4-2. Comparison of Small Strain and Finite Strain Consolidation Techniques
Table 4-3. Factors Affecting the Extent of Field Investigations and Design Studies
Table 4-4. Stages of Field Investigation
Table 4-5. Preliminary Appraisal of Foundation Strengths
Table 4-6. Laboratory Testing of Fine-Grained Cohesive Soils
Table 4-7. Laboratory Testing of Coarse-Grained Noncohesive Soils
Table 4-8. Applicable Shear Strengths and Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety
Table 4-9. Equipment Commonly Used in Dike Construction
Table 4-10. Commonly Used Methods of Transporting Soils in Dike Construction
Table 4-11. Commonly Used Methods of Compacting Soils in Dike Construction
Table 4-12. Operations or Items to be Inspected During Dike Construction
Table 4-13. Descriptions of Geotextile Functions
Table 4-14. Treatment Alternatives for Remediation of Contaminated Sediments

4-17
4-43
4-65
4-66
4-67
4-68
4-69
4-73
4-80
4-83
4-84
4-84
4-87
4-110

Table 5-1. Available Water Capacity of Soils of Different Grain Size Range
Table 5-2. Available Water Capacity Suitable for Agricultural Crops
Table 5-3. Recommended Maximum Limits for Metal Content in Digested Sewage
Sludges

5-4
5-4

5-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Table 5-4. Sequence of Steps in Selecting a Transport Route
Table 5-5. Operational Characteristics of Trenching Equipment
Table 5-6. Estimated Interval Between Trenching Cycles for Various Equipment
Items in Fine-Grained Dredged Material
Table 5-7. Comparison of Costs of Various Transport Systems, Quantities, and
Distances
Table 5-8. Types of Recreational Activities and Facilities Found on Dredged
Material Placement Sites
Table 5-9. Average Range of Heavy Metal Uptake by Plants for Selected Food
Crops and Suggested Plant Tolerance Levels
Table 5-10. Case Study Site Physical and Dredged Material Characteristics
Table 5-11. Case Study Site Settings
Table 5-12. Case Study Site Valuation Study
Table 5-13. Case Study SitesAssociated Benefits/Adverse Impacts
Table B-1. Turbidity and Suspended Solids Concentrations at Different Cutter
Speeds Using a 69 cm (27 in.) Dredge
Table B-2. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields During
Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredging Operations
Table B-3. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields
During Hopper Dredging Operations
Table B-4. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields
During Bucket Dredging Operations
Table B-5. Summary of (Near-Field) Background Turbidity Statistics, FTU
Table B-6. General Characteristics of Suspended Sediment (SS) Fields Around
Three Commonly Used Dredge Types
Table B-7. Average Concentrations (mg/L, Absolute Values) of Selected
Contaminants Released During Dredging of Contaminated Sediments
Table B-8. Results of Experimental Determinations of Effects of Suspended
Sediments on Various Life History Stages of Fishes
Table B-9. Entrainment Rates (Organisms/yd3 Dredged) of Fishes Reported for
Dredges in Grays Harbor, WA, and the Columbia River, OR and WA
Table B-10. Results of Experimental Determinations of Effects of Suspended
Sediments on Various Life History Stages of Shellfishes
Table B-11. Entrainment Rates Reported for Three Dredge Types in Grays Harbor, WA

5-13
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-109
5-113
5-168
5-169
5-170
5-171

B-3
B-6
B-9
B-10
B-12
B-15
B-21
B-25
B-30
B-33
B-37

Table D-1. Selected Upland Plant Species for Habitat Development on Dredged
Material Sites
Table D-2. Recommended Propagules and Techniques for Selected Marsh Species

D-1
D-36

Table E-1. Common and Scientific Names of the Plants Mentioned in this Manual
Table E-2. Common and Scientific Names of the Animals Mentioned in this Manual

E-1
E-18

xi

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Table I-1. Recommended Resuspension Factors for the Zone Settling Case for
Various Ponded Areas and Depths
Table I-2. Observed Flocculant Settling Concentrations with Depth, in Grams per Liter
Table I-3. Percent of Initial Concentration with Time
Table I-4. Concentration of Settled Solids as a Function of Time
Table I-5. Removal Percentages as a Function of Settling Time
Table I-6. Depth to Solids Interface as a Function of Settling Time at Ci = 150 g/L
Table I-7. Concentration of Settled Solids as a Function of Time
Table I-8. Observed Flocculant Settling Data
Table I-9. Percentage of Initial Concentration and Suspended Solids Concentration
Versus Time, Ponding Depth of 2 Ft

I-11
I-16
I-17
I-17
I-22
I-27
I-27
I-29
I-35

Table K-1. Design Mixing Values Gt

K-4

Table L-1. Void Ratio Distribution and Ultimate Settlement Calculations

L-13

Table L-2. Percent Consolidation and Settlement Calculations

L-18

xii

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. USACE Dredging ProgramAverage Annual Dredging FY 2008-2012,
Including both USACE and Contractor Dredging, Broken Down by Location and
Class of Work
Figure 1-2. USACE Dredging ProgramPercentage of Average Annual yardage of
Dredged Material FY 2008-2012, Including both USACE and Contractor Dredging,
Broken Down by Class of Work
Figure 2-1. NEPA Process for Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Projects
Figure 2-2. Geographical Jurisdictions of the MPRSA and CWA
Figure 2-3. Engineering With Nature (EWN)A Sustainable Approach
Figure 2-4. Procedure for a Geotechnical Site Investigation
Figure 2-5. High-Resolution Density Profiler (HRDP) and its Immersion in a Static
(Fluid Mud) Bucket Test
Figure 2-6. STEMA RheoTune Tuning Fork Shear Strength, Viscosity, and Density
Probe
Figure 2-7. STEMA RheoTune Probe Being Deployed off the New Orleans Districts
S/V Teche via a Semi-Automated Winch
Figure 2-8. STEMA DensiTune Measurements Taken in 42 ft (12.8 m) at the Right
Quarterline of the Calcasieu Bar Channel on 5 October 2011, One Week after a
Wheeler Dredging Exercise
Figure 2-9. SILAS-Generated Cross Section of the Gulfport Ship Channel, Illustrating
the Concept of Measuring the Top of Fluid Mud, 1.2 g/cm3 Density Horizon, and the
Top of Consolidated Material
Figure 2-10. SILAS-Analyzed Density Horizons (1.20 g/cm3, 1.16 g/cm3, and
1.03 g/cm3) of STA 180+00 Gulfport Ship Channel, 9 April 2012, Relative to the
Channel Template
Figure 2-11. Grab Sediment Samplers
Figure 2-12. Phleger Gravity Corer
Figure 2-13. Alpine Vibracorer
Figure 2-14. Box Corer
Figure 2-15. Split-Spoon Sampler
Figure 2-16. Typical Diamond Coring Bit
Figure 2-17. Typical Grain-Size Distribution Curves
Figure 2-18. Casagrande Plasticity Chart for Cohesive Soils
Figure 2-19. Weight-Volume Relationships
Figure 2-20. Flowchart Depicting Laboratory Testing for Containment Area Design
Figure 2-21. Relationship of Concentration in Percent Solids by Weight, Percent
Solids by Volume, Concentration in Grams Per Liter, and Water Content
Figure 2-22. Percentage of Work Completed by Dredge Type with Respective
Yardages for USACE Districts (Includes both Contractor and USACE Plant,
Dredging an Average Annual Volume [FY 2008-2012] of 175 Million yd3/yr)

xiii

1-3

1-3
2-4
2-6
2-12
2-19
2-22
2-23
2-24

2-25

2-26

2-26
2-31
2-32
2-32
2-34
2-35
2-35
2-39
2-42
2-44
2-50
2-54

2-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 2-23 Percentage of Work Conducted by Dredge Type of an Average Annual
Yardage (FY 2008-2012) of 175 Million yd3/yr (Includes both USACE and
Contractor Plant)
Figure 2-24. Hydraulic Pipeline Cutterhead Dredge
Figure 2-25. Relationships Among Solids Output, Dredge Size, and Pipeline Lengths
for Various Dredging Depths
Figure 2-26. Operation of a Cutterhead Dredge
Figure 2-27. Spider Barge Connected to Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge
Figure 2-28. Hopper Dredge
Figure 2-29. Split-Hull Hopper Dredge Unloading Dredged Material
Figure 2-30. Dustpan Dredge
Figure 2-31. Dustpan Dredge Operating Configuration
Figure 2-32. Sidecasting Dredge
Figure 2-33. Clamshell Bucket Bridge
Figure 2-34. Hydraulic Unloader
Figure 2-35. Enclosed Bucket
Figure 2-36. Backhoe Dredge New York
Figure 2-37. Dredge Currituck
Figure 2-38. Water Injection Dredge
Figure 2-39 Bed-Leveler Suspended by an A-Frame on a Work Barge
Figure 2-40. Bed-Leveler Suspended from a Work Barge
Figure 2-41. Bed-Leveler Suspended by an A-Frame on a Work Barge
Figure 2-42. Production Smoke Chart
Figure 2-43. Nuclear Density Gage
Figure 2-44. Draft and Hopper Level Sensors
Figure 2-45. Acoustic Hopper Level Sensor
Figure 2-46. Example of Louisville District-Required Dredging Parameters
Figure 2-47. USACE Districts Currently Using DQM
Figure 2-48. Hopper Dredge Sensors
Figure 2-49. National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program Data Collection
Figure 2-50. Hopper Dredge DQMOBS Interface
Figure 2-51. Example of Bathymetry Within the SMS 11.0 Modeling Environment
Figure 2-52. Map of Bridges Harbor in the Todd-istan Region with SAV (Red),
Tropical Salmoid Passage (Yellow), Coral Reef (Blue), and Dredging Region (Green)
Figure 2-53. Particle Positions Shown for the First, Second, Third, and Seventh Days
after Dredging Begins Using a Hopper Dredge with no Overflow
Figure 2-54. Computational Grid for the Data Analysis Tools
Figure 2-55. Suspended Sediment Concentration Contours Plotted on the Data Analysis
Grid During Day 3
Figure 2-56. Time Series of Concentration at a Point
Figure 2-57. Cross Section of Suspended Sediment Concentration Contours
Figure 2-58. Estimated Annual Distribution of Environmental Windows by Dredging
Method (FY 1987-1996; Federal Dredging Contracts Only)

xiv

2-65
2-66
2-68
2-69
2-70
2-72
2-76
2-79
2-80
2-82
2-84
2-85
2-87
2-89
2-91
2-97
2-101
2-102
2-102
2-105
2-106
2-109
2-109
2-111
2-112
2-113
2-114
2-117
2-123
2-125
2-126
2-127
2-128
2-128
2-129
2-136

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 2-59. Mean Annual Number of Federal Dredging Contracts by Dredging
Category (FY 1987-1996
Figure 2-60. Framework for Determining Environmental Acceptability of Dredged
Material Disposal Alternatives
Figure 2-61. CE-Dredge Dredging Manager Navigation Channels and Disposal Areas
Visualization
Figure 2-62. CE-Dredge Disposal Area and Beneficial User Management
Figure 2-63. CE-Dredge Dredging Contracts Management
Figure 2-64. DQM Data Viewer Screenshot of a Coastal Hopper Dredge Project
Figure 2-65. DQM Data Viewer Screenshot of a Riverine Hopper Dredge Project
Figure 2-66. Screenshot of a DQM Cumulative Disposal Plot (1)
Figure 2-67. Screenshot of a DQM Cumulative Disposal Plot (2)
Figure 2-68. Screenshot of a DQM EPA Report
Figure 2-69. ADDAMS Applications Categorized into Dredge Material Management
and Environmental Effects Evaluation

2-137
2-142
2-152
2-152
2-153
2-154
2-155
2-156
2-157
2-158
2-160

Figure 3-1. Major Steps and Components of Open-Water Placement

Figure 3-2. Schematic of the Behavior of Dredged Material Released in Open Water
Figure 3-3. Schematic of the Sediment Plume from a Pipeline Discharge in Open Water
Figure 3-4. Adjusted Thickness (Height) of the Ashtabula, Rochester, and New York
Bight Base Surge Data
Figure 3-5. Concentrations of Suspended Material After the Base Surge in the Great
Lakes
Figure 3-6. Effect of Pipeline Dredge Discharge Angle and Predominant Current
Direction on the Shape of a Fluid Mud Mound
Figure 3-7. Example Plot of Important Marine Resources
Figure 3-8. General Representation of the Screening Concept for Siting
Figure 3-9. Overlay Process for Screening Out Sensitive and Incompatible Use Areas
Figure 3-10. Phases of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation Protocol
Figure 3-11. Potential Contaminant Pathways for Open-Water Disposal
Figure 3-12. Overview of the ITM Tiered Testing Approach
Figure 3-13. Overview of the OTM Tiered Testing Approach
Figure 3-14. Submerged Diffuser
Figure 3-15. Submerged Diffuser Profile View
Figure 3-16. Discharge Barge Used to Provide both Support and the Capability for
Lowering the Diffuser
Figure 3-17. Gravity-Fed Downpipe (Tremie)
Figure 3-18. Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) and Level Bottom Capping (LBC)
Figure 3-19. The Systematic Approach Toward Designing a Monitoring Plan

3-3
3-12
3-12

Figure 4-1. Illustration of Upland, Near Shore, and Island CDFs

Figure 4-2. Shelfter CDF in Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Figure 4-3. Typical Upland CDF
Figure 4-4. Chicago Nearshore CDF

4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4

xv

3-15
3-16
3-19
3-31
3-32
3-32
3-33
3-38
3-40
3-43
3-47
3-48
3-49
3-50
3-53
3-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 4-5. Island CDF in Tampa Bay
Figure 4-6. Typical CDF Hydraulic Inflow from a Cutterhead Pipeline Dredge
Figure 4-7. Hopper Dredge Pumpout Operation with Pipeline Leading to CDF
Figure 4-8. Specialized Hydraulic Offloaders
Figure 4-9. Chute Used for Direct Mechanical Placement into a CDF
Figure 4-10. Chute Fabricated from Railcar Tanks Used for Direct Mechanical
Placement into a CDF
Figure 4-11. Placement Using a Chute Fabricated from Railcar Tanks Used for Direct
Mechanical Placement into a CDF
Figure 4-12. Technical Framework Flowchart for Evaluation of Confined Dredged
Material Disposal
Figure 4-13. Conceptual Diagram of a Dredged Material Containment Area
Figure 4-14. Flowchart of the Design Procedure for Settling and Initial Storage
Figure 4-15. Settling Column Test
Figure 4-16. Schematic of an Apparatus for conducting Settling Tests
Figure 4-17. Weir Design Nomograph
Figure 4-18. Conceptual Illustration of Withdraw Depth and Velocity Profile
Figure 4-19. Rectangular Weir (1)
Figure 4-20. Rectangular Weir (2)
Figure 4-21. Effective Lengths of Various Weir Types
Figure 4-22. Telescoping Weir at Craney Island
Figure 4-23. Conceptual Diagram of Dredged Material Consolidation and Dewatering
Processes
Figure 4-24. Dredged Material Evaporative Efficiency as a Function of Time
Figure 4-25. Illustrative Time-Consolidation Relationships
Figure 4-26. Projected Surface Height for Determination of Containment Area
Service Life
Figure 4-27. Projected Storage Capacity for Determination of Containment Area
Service Life
Figure 4-28. Measured and Predicted Material Heights at Drum Island
Figure 4-29. Measured and Predicted Material Heights at Craney Island
Figure 4-30. Surface of Fine-Grained Dredged Material at the Earliest Time when
Surface Trenching Should be Attempted
Figure 4-31. Shallow Initial Perimeter Trench Constructed by Dragline Operating
from the Perimeter Dike
Figure 4-32. A Small Dragline on Mats, Working on a Berm, Deepens a Shallow
Perimeter Trench
Figure 4-33. Construction of a Ditch 30-45 cm (12-18 in.) Deep with Excavated
Material Cast on the Interior Slope of a Perimeter Dike
Figure 4-34. Desiccation Crust Adjacent to the Perimeter of a 1-1.5 m (3-5 ft) Deep
Drainage Trench
Figure 4-35. A Well-Developed Perimeter Trenching System, Morris Island Disposal
Site, Charleston District

xvi

4-4
4-6
4-6
4-7
4-7
4-8
4-8
4-12
4-22
4-24
4-26
4-27
4-29
4-30
4-32
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-37
4-39
4-41
4-41
4-42
4-45
4-45
4-48
4-50
4-51
4-51
4-52
4-52

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 4-36. Desiccation Crust Achieved in Highly Plastic Clay Dredged Material
180 m (200 yd) into a Disposal Area by Perimeter Trenching over a 12-Month Period
Figure 4-37. Rubber-Tired Rotary Trencher
Figure 4-38. Track-Mounted Rotary Trencher Used in Mosquito-Control Activities
Figure 4-39. Hemispherical Rotary Trenching Implement
Figure 4-40. Trapezoidal Rotary Trenching Implement
Figure 4-41. Rotary Trenching Device in Operation
Figure 4-42. General View of Trenches Formed by a Rotary Trencher
Figure 4-43. Close-Up View of Trenches Formed by a Rotary Trencher
Figure 4-44. General View of a Confined Disposal Area Showing Parallel Trenches
in Place
Figure 4-45. Combination Radial-Parallel Trenching Scheme
Figure 4-46. Aerial View of Sequential Radial Trenching Procedure Used when Interior
Cross Dikes are Encountered, South Blakely Island Disposal Site, Mobile District
Figure 4-47. Examples of Cross and Spur Dikes
Figure 4-48. Rotational Failure in a Dike
Figure 4-49. Translatory Failure in a Dike
Figure 4-50. Rotational Failure in both a Dike and its Foundation
Figure 4-51. Translatory Failure in both a Dike and its Foundation
Figure 4-52. Basic Methods of Forming Dike Sections for Stability
Figure 4-53. Seepage Lines Through a Dike
Figure 4-54. Seepage Entrance Through an Area Excavated Within a Disposal Area
Figure 4-55. Example of Excessive Uniform Settlement
Figure 4-56. Differential Settlement from a Foundation Containing Materials of
Different Compressibility
Figure 4-57. Potential Fabric-Reinforced Embankment Failure Modes
Figure 4-58. Dike Raising Methods
Figure 4-59. Swagging of a Pipe due to Settlement of the Dike Foundation
Figure 4-60. Cracking at the Dike-Structure Junction Caused by Differential
Settlement Because the Dike Load is much Greater than the Weir Load
Figure 4-61. Cambered Pipe Beneath a Dike
Figure 4-62. Cambered and Raised Pipe Beneath a Dike
Figure 4-63. Annular Drainage Material Around the Outlet One-Third of a Pipe
Figure 4-64. Contaminant Pathways from Upland CDFs
Figure 4-65. Contaminant Pathways from Nearshore CDFs
Figure 4-66. Modified Elutriate Test in Progress
Figure 4-67. Soil Lysimeter
Figure 4-68. Batch Leaching Test
Figure 4-69. Plant Uptake
Figure 4-70. Animal Uptake
Figure 4-71. Schematic of Volatile Test Chamber
Figure 4-72. Granular Media Filtration
Figure 4-73. Cross Sections of Dike Sections
Figure 4-74. Process of Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material

xvii

4-53
4-55
4-55
4-56
4-56
4-57
4-57
4-58
4-58
4-59
4-61
4-64
4-72
4-72
4-72
4-73
4-74
4-75
4-75
4-75
4-77
4-79
4-80
4-85
4-85
4-86
4-86
4-87
4-88
4-89
4-93
4-94
4-96
4-96
4-97
4-98
4-99
4-100
4-109

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 4-75. Conceptual Illustration of a Disposal Site Layout to Permit Parallel
Compartment Use and Produce Surface Topography Facilitating Future Dredged
Material Dewatering
Figure 4-76. Conceptual Illustration of Sequential Dewatering Operations
Figure 4-77. Illustrations of the Method for Estimating Calendar Periods when
Evaporation Rates are Maximized
Figure 4-78. Surface Water Management
Figure 4-79. Inlet-Weir Management to Provide a Smooth Slope for the Inlet to the
Weir
Figure 4-80. Recommended Boarding Configuration
Figure 4-81. Relationship of Flow Rate, Weir Length and Head
Figure 5-1. Range in Permeability and Sorptive Properties of Different Soil Classes
Figure 5-2. Schematic of a Rehandling System for Hydraulic Pipeline Transport
Figure 5-3. A Tugboat and Barge Transporting Dredged Material
Figure 5-4. Truck Haul Used by the Chicago District to Place Dredge Material
Figure 5-5. A 1 m (3.3 ft) Belt Conveyer Dredged Material Loading Operation
Figure 5-6. Barge-Loading Operation
Figure 5-7. Unit Train Rail Loading Facility
Figure 5-8. Hypothetical Site Illustrating the Potential Diversity of Habitat Types that
may be Developed at a Dredged Material Placement Site
Figure 5-9. A Clapper Rail Running Through the Planted Dredged Material Salt
Marsh at Buttermilk Sound, Altamaha River, GA, in 1985
Figure 5-10. Salt Pond 3 Habitat Development Field Site, South San Francisco Bay,
CA, in 1980
Figure 5-11. Gaillard Island Habitat Development Field Site, Lower Mobile Bay, AL,
in 1984
Figure 5-12. Bolivar Peninsula Habitat Development Field Site, Galveston Bay, TX
Figure 5-13. Procedural Guidelines for the Selection of Various Habitat Development
Alternatives Using Dredged Material
Figure 5-14. Procedural Guidelines for the Selection of Various Marsh and Wetland
Habitat Development Alternatives
Figure 5-15. Protective Structures for New Substrate
Figure 5-16. Transplants at Miller Sands Habitat Development Site, Planted on 1 m
(3.3 ft) Centers, at the End of the First Growing Season
Figure 5-17. Sketches of Typical East Coast and Florida Tidal Marshes, Showing
Plant Association and Usual Occurrence in the Marshes
Figure 5-18. Sketches of Typical Pacific Northwest and California Coast Tidal
Marshes, Showing Plant Associations and Usual Occurrence in the Marshes
Figure 5-19. Sketches of Typical Brackish Marshes, Showing Plant Associations and
Usual Occurrence in the Marshes
Figure 5-20. Sketches of Typical Lake or Pond and River Freshwater Marshes,
Showing Plant Associations and Usual Occurrence in the Marshes

xviii

4-116
4-117
4-119
4-120
4-122
4-123
4-125
5-5
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-18
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-26
5-27
5-31
5-35
5-40
5-41
5-42
5-42
5-43
5-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 5-21. Heavy Equipment was Required to Shave Down Sandy Dredged Material
Deposits to Intertidal Levels at Bolivar Peninsula, TX, and at Other Man-Made
Wetland Sites
Figure 5-22. Dredged Material Substrate Surface Elevations Versus Time
Figure 5-23. Erosion-Deposition Criteria for Different Grain Sizes
Figure 5-24. Retention and Protective Structures
Figure 5-25. Examples of Typical Slope Failures
Figure 5-26. Guidelines for Selecting an Upland Habitat Development Alternative
Figure 5-27. Liming and Mixing Layers of Silty and Sandy Dredged Material at Nott
Island Upland Site, Connecticut River, Connecticut, in the 1970s; This Site has been a
Nesting Meadow and Songbird Habitat for more than 25 Years
Figure 5-28. Nott Island Habitat Development Site, Showing the Planted Nesting and
Grazing Meadow as it has Appeared Since 1981
Figure 5-29. A Dredged Material Island in Florida Typical of Those Built in the U.S.
Intracoastal Waterway
Figure 5-30. Endangered Brown Pelicans Nesting on Gaillard Island, Their First
Nesting in Alabama in Over 100 Years
Figure 5-31. Guidelines for Selecting Island Habitat Development
Figure 5-32. Royal and Sandwich Terns Nesting on Dredged Material Islands in
North Carolina, Where Successional Vegetation Stages are Deliberately Set Back
with Placement Operations to Maintain Tern Nesting Habitat
Figure 5-33. Wading BirdsIbis, Herons, and EgretsNesting in a Maritime Forest
in North Carolina
Figure 5-34. Jimmy Wells Island, One of Two Dredged Material Islands Built for
Seabird Nesting Habitat by the Wilmington District in Core Sound, NC, in 1977, is a
Highly Successful Nesting Site, but it is Eroding and Needs a New Application of
Dredged Material
Figure 5-35. An Addition Built by the Jacksonville District, in Cooperation with the
National Audubon Society, to Sunken Island in Hillsborough Bay, FL, During
Maintenance Dredging Operations in the 1970s
Figure 5-36. Removing Plugs of Shoal Grass from an Existing Bed Near Port St. Joe,
FL, for Transplanting on a Nearby Dredged Material Site
Figure 5-37. Temporary Storage for the Shoal Grass Plugs was Provided by Containers
of Seawater, which were Transported to the Dredged Material Site by Skiff
Figure 5-38. A Bareroot Propagule of Eelgrass Ready for Transplantation
Figure 5-39. A Bareroot Propagule of Turtle Grass is Held in Place with a Long
Staple after Being Transplanted on a Sandy Site to Prevent Waves and Currents from
Washing it Out
Figure 5-40. A Beach Nourishment Operation Underway at Mayport, FL
Figure 5-41. Dredged Material Nesting Beach for Least Terns at Gulfport, MS
Figure 5-42. A Sea Turtle Hatchling Moving Toward Open Water on a Florida
Dredged-Material Beach
Figure 5-43. Master Plan of Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum, Charleston,
SC; This Site Continued to Follow its Master Plan in 2000

xix

5-48
5-48
5-50
5-51
5-53
5-65

5-66
5-68
5-77
5-78
5-79

5-81
5-82

5-84

5-86
5-92
5-92
5-93

5-93
5-97
5-99
5-102
5-106

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 5-44. This Riverside Recreational Area at Kalawa, WA, was Built on Material
Dredged from the Columbia River more than 25 Years ago and is still in Active Use
Figure 5-45. Decisional Factors to be Considered at the Dredged Material
Containment Area Before Applying Dredged Material for Agricultural Purposes
Figure 5-46. Hay Bales of Common Reed, Used for Cattle Feed, in an Older Dredged
Material Placement Site in New Jersey, 1996
Figure 5-47. Schematic of a Long-Term Agricultural Dredged Material Placement Site
Figure 5-48. Sweet Corn Growing on Dredged Material Inside a Containment Area
Figure 5-49. Galveston District Dredged Material Containment Area No. 85, Showing
the Shrimp Pond, Internal Levee, and Associated Structures; This Site was
Successfully Used for Shrimp Culture for 3 Years in an Experimental Field Test
Figure 5-50. Two Concepts for Combining Dredged Material Containment and
Aquaculture Operations
Figure 5-51. Schematic Diagram Showing Operational Techniques Used to Reclaim a
Surface Mine Tailing with Dredge Material
Figure 5-52. Cross-Sectional View of the Contour Backfill Technique
Figure 5-53. Cross-Sectional View of the Georgia V-Ditch Backfill Technique
Figure 5-54. Schematic of the Slope Reduction Technique
Figure 5-55. Dredged Material Placement at Aquatic Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
in the 1970s; This Site Continues to be Developed as a Recreational and Commercial
Area, and it is Heavily Utilized by Citizens and Visitors
Figure 5-56. Pointe Mouillee, a 1,900 ha CPF for Contaminated Dredged Material in
Western Lake Erie, also Serves as a Multipurpose Beneficial Use Site
Figure 5-57. Batiquitos Lagoon at Carlsbad, CA, in 1977, a Restored Lagoon Using
Dredged Material that was the Mitigation Site for Expansion of the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach
Figure 5-58. Coos Bay, OR, Placement Areas that are Being Used for Industrial,
Residential, and Agricultural Purposes
Figure 5-59. Riverlands Wet Prairie and Bottomland Hardwood Restoration Site
Using Dredged Material and Innovative Restoration Technology, St. Louis Area on
the Illinois/Missouri/Upper Mississippi River Junctures, in 1993
Figure 5-60. Weaver Bottoms Dredged Material Wetland Restoration Project, Upper
Mississippi River, MN
Figure 5-61. Kenilworth Marsh, Washington, DC
Figure 5-62. Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Chesapeake Bay, MD
Figure 5-63. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Freeport, TX
Figure 5-64. Hart-Miller Island, Chesapeake Bay, MD
Figure 5-65. Presidents Island-Memphis Harbor Project; This Project has Developed
According to the Port of Memphis Master Plan over the past 25 Years
Figure 5-66. Two Port FacilitiesA Container Port Located on the Columbia and a
Grain Terminal Located on the WillametteWere Built on Dredged Material at the
Confluence of the Two Rivers in Portland, OR, in the 1970s
Figure 5-67. The Port of Vicksburg, MS, Constructed on Dredged Material Over 50
Years Ago, is a Thriving International Port of Entry on the Lower Mississippi River

xx

5-108
5-112
5-116
5-117
5-121

5-124
5-126
5-131
5-133
5-133
5-134

5-139
5-140

5-141
5-143

5-144
5-144
5-145
5-147
5-148
5-149
5-152

5-153
5-153

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure 5-68. The Master Plan Used for Construction on Sandy Dredged Material of
an Industrial/Residential/Commercial Complex, Including a Marine and Amusement
Park and Sea Grass Restoration Projects, at Mission Bay, San Diego, CA
Figure 5-69. A Large Shopping Mall, Port Center, was Built on Dredged Material at
Swan Island on the Columbia River at Portland, OR, Includes Shopping and
Commercial Areas, as Well as Low-Rise Office Buildings
Figure B-1. Relationship Between the Levels of Turbidity Around a Cutterhead and
the Dredge Production Rate
Figure B-2. Near-Surface Measurements for Suspended Solids Concentrations of
Various Hopper Dredges
Figure B-3. Turbidity Measurement of a Cable Arm Bucket
Figure B-4. Turbidity Measurement of an Enclosed Bucket
Figure B-5. Turbidity Measurement of a Conventional Bucket
Figure B-6. Worst-Case Suspended Sediment Fields for each Dredge Type

5-155

5-156

B-5
B-8
B-13
B-13
B-13
B-16

Figure C-1. Conceptual Illustration of a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Pit

C-1

Figure F-1. Current Applications in ADDAMS

F-2

Figure G-1. Plan for Sedimentation Column and Specifications for Settling Column
Figure G-2. Plans for Top and Bottom Columns

G-1
G-2

Figure H-1. Schematic of the Apparatus Used for Settling Tests

Figure H-2. Conceptual Plot of Interface Height versus Time
Figure H-3. Conceptual Concentration Profile Diagram
Figure H-4. Conceptual Time Versus Concentration Plot

H-3
H-4
H-6
H-8

Figure I-1. Flowchart of the Design Procedure for Settling and Initial Storage
Figure I-2. Relationships Among Solids Output, Dredge Size, and Pipeline Length for
Various Dredging Depths
Figure I-3. Conceptual Time versus Concentration Plot
Figure I-4. Conceptual Concentration Profile Diagram
Figure I-5. Conceptual Plot of Solids Removal Versus Time for Slurries Exhibiting
Flocculant Settling
Figure I-6. Conceptual Plot of Supernatant Suspended Solids Concentration versus
Time from Column Settling Tests
Figure I-7. Percent of Initial Concentration versus Depth Profile
Figure I-8. Time versus Concentration
Figure I-9. Solids Removal versus Time
Figure I-10. Weir Design Nomograph
Figure I-11. Concentration of Settled Solids versus Time
Figure I-12. Suspended Solids Concentration Profile Diagram

I-2

xxi

I-3
I-4
I-8
I-9
I-12
I-18
I-18
I-23
I-25
I-28
I-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure I-13. Plot of Supernatant Suspended Solids Concentration versus Time from
Column Settling Tests

I-35

Figure J-1. Self-Weight Consolidation Device

Figure J-2. Large-Strain, Controlled-Rate-of-Strain Test Chamber
Figure J-3. Oedometer Testing Apparatus

J-1
J-2
J-3

Figure K-1. Example of a Weir Mixing System

Figure K-2. Velocity Gradient G Calibration Curves for Jar Test Apparatus
Figure K-3. Jar Test Report Form

K-4
K-5
K-9

Figure L-1. Exponential Void Ratio-Effective Stress Relationship Compared to

Oedometer Data, 0-12.0 tons/ft2
Figure L-2. Typical Permeability and Coefficients of Consolidation as a Function of
Void Ratio
Figure L-3. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Normally
Consolidated, Singly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory
Figure L-4. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Normally
Consolidated, Doubly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory
Figure L-5. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Dredged
Fill, Singly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory
Figure L-6. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Dredged
Fill, Doubly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory
Figure L-7. Maximum Depth of Material Desiccated by First-Stage Drying
Figure L-8. Maximum Depth of Material Desiccated by Second-Stage Drying
Figure L-9. Relationship Between Void Ratio and Effective Stress, e-log- Curve,
for Compressible Foundation for Oedometer Testing
Figure L-10. Permeability and Coefficients of Consolidation as a Function of Void
Ratio for a Compressible Foundation
Figure L-11. Exponential Void Ratio-Effective Stress Relationship Fitted to
Oedometer Data
Figure L-12. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Various
Initial Conditions by Small Strain Theory
Figure L-13. Comparison of Consolidation Percentages in the Dredged Fill Layer as a
Function of Time
Figure L-14. Comparison of Settlement Predictions by Small Screen and Linear Finite
Strain Theories
Figure M-1. Schematic of a Simple Liquid Polymer Feed System
Figure M-2. Schematic of a Single-Tank Liquid Polymer Feed System
Figure M-3. Schematic of a Two-Tank Liquid Polymer Feed System
Figure M-4. Frontal View of a Weir
Figure M-5. Example Weir Mixing System

xxii

L-2
L-4
L-4
L-5
L-5
L-6
L-8
L-9
L-12
L-12
L-16
L-17
L-19
L-20
M-1
M-2
M-2
M-5
M-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Page
Figure M-6. Example Elevations in Containment Areas During the Dewatering
Sequence
Figure N-1. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of January, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-2. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of February, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-3. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of March, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-4. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of April, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-5. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of May, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-6. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of June, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-7. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of July, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-8. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of August, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-9 Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of September, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-10. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of October, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-11. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of November, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure N-12. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United
States for the month of December, Based on Data Taken from 1931-1960
Figure O-1. Relationship Between the RCI Necessary to Ensure Adequate Mobility
and the Vehicle Ground Pressure for Single- and Multiple-Pass Operations in
Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas
Figure O-2. Relationship Between the RCI of the Confined Disposal Area Surface
Crust and the Linear Trenching Rate Obtainable by Dragline Equipment
Figure P-1. A Typical Plot of the Residence Time Distribution for Dredged Material
Containment Areas

xxiii

M-12

N-1
N-2
N-2
N-3
N-3
N-4
N-4
N-5
N-5
N-6
N-6
N-7

O-2
O-3

P-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

xxiv

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose. This Engineer Manual (EM) presents a comprehensive summary of the dredging
equipment and dredged material placement techniques used by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and it describes the management and design processes associated with newwork and maintenance dredging related to navigation projects. Guidance is provided on the
following dredging topics:
a. Evaluation and selection of dredging equipment for various materials to be dredged.
b. Planning, designing, constructing, operating, and managing environmentally acceptable
open-water and confined dredged material placement areas for both short- and long-term
placement (disposal) needs.
c. Planning, designing, developing, and managing dredged material for beneficial uses while
incorporating ecological concepts and engineering designs with environmental, economical, and
social feasibility.
Note: In this document, the terms placement and disposal are used synonymously to describe
dredged material deposition after its removal from the dredging prism.
1.2 Applicability. This manual applies to all USACE Commands having responsibility for
administering USACE dredging programs.
1.3 Distribution. This publication is approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
1.4 References. Required and related publications are listed in Appendix A, References.
1.5 Background.
1.5.1 The USACE has been responsible for the development and maintenance of navigable
waterways in the United States since 1824 when Congressional authorization was received to
remove sandbars and snags from major navigable rivers. Today, the role of the USACE with
respect to navigation is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient waterborne transportation systems
(channels, harbors, and waterways) for the movement of commerce, national security needs, and
recreation (Verna and Pointon 2000). Navigable inland and coastal waterways, ports, and harbors
are critical to the United States as a major means of commercial transportation and as an integral
part of national defense.
1.5.2 The USACE accomplishes its navigation mission through a combination of capital
improvements and the operation and maintenance of existing projects. Capital improvement activities include the planning, design, and construction of new or replacement navigation improvements. These activities are performed for the navigation of shallow-draft and deep-draft vessels on
inland waterways and harbors as well as on coastal and lake ports, harbors, and channels. The
USACE maintains the navigability of the inland waterways system and of harbors and ports to

1-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
support vessel access and to provide non-navigation benefits, including flood control, recreation,
commercial development, power generation, and water supplies.
1.5.3 The USACE accomplishes this maintenance of navigable waterways and Federal
channels through dredging. Since only a few of the Nations ports, harbors, and waterways are
naturally deep, without dredging, many navigable channels and waterways would be impassable
to waterborne cargo and passenger ships. As global economic forces and advanced technologies
have increased the demand for larger, faster, and more efficient vessels in the world fleet, periodic maintenance dredging and future deepening and widening of navigation channels are
essential to maintain U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
1.5.4 The USACE navigation program includes dredging for new channel construction and
authorized improvements to previously maintained channel dimensions (new work), maintenance
of existing channel dimensions, and urgent requirements that arise annually. Construction of new
navigation channels involves removal of materials previously undisturbed. Navigation
improvements are directed and authorized by congressional legislation or other action. These
improvements have included the construction and dredging of waterway channels, anchorages,
turning basins, locks and dams, harbor areas, protective jetties, and breakwaters to ensure
adequate dimensions for the safe and efficient movement of vessels. Not included within the
Federal purview are facilities such as docks, terminal and transfer facilities, berthing areas, and
local access channels, which have traditionally been the responsibility of local interests and
project beneficiaries. Maintenance dredging involves the periodic removal of naturally recurring
deposited bottom sediments such as sand, silt, and clays in existing navigation channels.
1.5.5 The majority of the workload in the USACE annual dredging program is accomplished
by the private dredging industry. The remaining work is performed by the USACE federal
minimum dredge fleet (Government-owned and operated dredges). Estimates of the average
cubic yardage dredged by USACE District using Government and contractor equipment,
categorized by class of work (maintenance and new work), during Fiscal Years (FY) 2008-2012
are presented in Figure 1-1. The average annual quantity of material removed during this period
is approximately 212 million yd3/152 million m3. The average percentage of dredged material per
class of work categorymaintenance, new work, both maintenance and new work, and beach
renourishmentusing USACE and contractor dredges is illustrated in Figure 1-2.
1.5.6 Alternatives for the management of dredged material from these navigation projects
must be carefully evaluated from the standpoint of environmental acceptability, technical feasibility, and economics. Over 95% of the materials dredged are a clean and viable resource that, if
placed in the proper locations, can be put to productive uses. About 60 million yd3/46 million m3
of dredged materials from USACE navigation projects are placed in ocean waters at about 108
sites approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (Verna and Pointon
2000). The remaining materials are placed in a variety of locations, including uplands and nearshore confined placement facilities, beach sites, and nearshore waters, to create wetlands and
riverine sandbars.

1-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 1-1. USACE Dredging ProgramAverage Annual Dredging FY 20082012, Including both USACE and Contractor Dredging, Broken Down by
Location and Class of Work

Figure 1-2. USACE Dredging ProgramPercentage of

Average Annual Yardage of Dredged Material FY 2008-2012,
Including both USACE and Contractor Dredging, Broken
Down by Class of Work

1-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
1.6 Considerations Associated with Dredging and Dredged Material Placement. Engineer
Regulation (ER) 1130-2-520 establishes the policy for the operation and maintenance of USACE
navigation and dredging projects as well as their related structures and equipment. This regulation directs that dredging shall be accomplished in an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable manner to improve and maintain the Nations waterways to make them
suitable for navigation and other purposes consistent with Federal laws and regulations. (See
Appendix A, References for other navigation/dredging-related publications.) Some
considerations associated with dredging and dredged material placement are as follows:
a. Long-term planning for maintenance dredging projects.
b. Selection of the proper dredge plant or contractor for a given project.
c. Control of dredging and placement operation to ensure environmental protection.
d. Determination of whether contaminated material will be dredged. Contaminated dredged
material (or contaminated sediments) are defined as those that have been demonstrated to cause
an unacceptable adverse effect on human health or the environment (USEPA/USACE 2004).
e. Characterization of sediments to be dredged and site-specific conditions to support an
engineering design of confined and unconfined placement areas, open-water placement sites,
and/or beneficial uses.
f. Monitoring to determine the levels of suspended solids from dredging operations and
placement areas.
g. Management of containment areas to maximize storage capacity.
1.7 Scope.
1.7.1 Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management, describes USACE
navigation project dredging management processes and provides a comprehensive summary of
the dredging equipment used by the USACE for activities associated with new-work and
maintenance projects. This chapter also provides guidance on the evaluation and selection of
dredging equipment and presents an overview of environmental impacts from dredging and the
evaluation, selection, and management of placement alternatives.
1.7.2 Chapter 3, Open-Water Placement, describes open-water placement and the major
hydrodynamic environments associated with it. Considerations in the selection and use of various
types of dredging equipment and techniques for placement are presented, the short- and longterm fates of dredged material in the open-water environment are described, and the methods for
quantifying each type are explained. Chapter 3 also discusses the evaluation of contaminant
pathways from open-water placement, identifies management and control methods for openwater placement, and addresses considerations for open-water site operation, monitoring, and
management.

1-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
1.7.3 Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement, provides detailed guidance for confined
(diked) placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs). In addition,
guidance for evaluating site conditions, dike design, retention of dredged material, initial storage
requirements during placement, long-term storage capacity, dredged material dewatering, dike
design, contaminant pathways and controls, operation and management, and monitoring is presented.
1.7.4 Chapter 5, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, outlines the wide variety of
opportunities for the beneficial use of dredged material and provides a number of case studies.
One of the most common beneficial uses for dredged material is as substrate for habitat
development. The chapter outlines the important design elements for several habitats, ranging
from aquatic to upland. Other beneficial uses of dredged material include agriculture,
horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, strip mine reclamation, solid waste landfill, harbor and port
development, and fill for many other types of projects. Wherever sediment is needed, dredged
material could be the source. Economics generally dictate whether a given beneficial use is
feasible. Some guidance for estimating costs is provided as are the engineering properties of
dredged material pertinent to the variety of beneficial uses.
1.8 Training.
1.8.1 The U.S. Army Engineer Division, Huntsville (USAEDH) offers several dredgingrelated Proponent-Sponsored Engineer Corps Training (PROSPECT) courses. These courses
include Dredging Fundamentals, Dredge Cost Estimating, Hydrographic Survey Techniques, and
OMBILApplications and Reports.
a. The Dredging Fundamentals course covers fundamental dredging theories and accepted
dredging practices through lectures and group discussions. A brief overview of dredge safety,
dredge estimating, hydrographic surveying, and dredging contract administration is also
provided.
b. The objective of the Dredge Cost Estimating course is to enable the student to develop a
detailed, fair, and reasonable cost estimate for maintenance and new-work projects and also to
discuss the overall policies and guidance affecting dredge estimates.
c. The Hydrographic Survey Techniques course provides participants with the knowledge and
technology required to perform hydrographic surveys in support of USACE navigation, dredging,
surveying, coastal engineering, inland waterway, and related marine construction activities. The
course is designed to familiarize engineers, engineer technicians, field survey technicians, survey
vessel operators, and A-E contract administration personnel with the technical criteria, standards,
and specifications in EM 1110-2-1003, Hydrographic Surveying, and show them how to apply
these criteria, standards, and specifications to both in-house and contracted hydrographic surveys.
d. The Operations and Management Business Information Link (OMBIL) is a web-based,
business information gateway (on the USACE intranet at https://ombil.usace.army.mil) which
links six major USACE business functional systems (navigation, hydropower, recreation, water
supply, environmental stewardship, including natural resources and environmental compliance,

1-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
and flood damage reduction) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Financial Management
System (CEFMS) for the purpose of data collecting, data management, reporting, and
performance measurement. OMBILApplications and Reports teaches Operations, Program,
and Project Managers in these major business functional areas what information is available in
OMBIL and how to access this web-based interface quickly for tracking, monitoring, and
viewing information and for use in making management decisions.
Courses and schedules are available at http://pdsc.usace.army.mil. Interested USACE employees
should check with their Training Officer for details.
1.8.2 The Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program, located at the
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), offers online training at
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/training.html. Dredging-related courses are added to this
website and updated regularly (for example, Dredged Material Assessment and Management and
the EPA/Corps Environmental Dredging Short Course).
1.9 Related Publications.
1.9.1 In addition to the references cited in Appendix A, References, searches for other
publications related to environmental effects of dredging and dredged material placement
projects may be conducted on the DOTS Environmental Effects and Dredging and Disposal
(E2-D2) literature database (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/e2d2/index.html). In addition, DOTS
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots) provides direct environmental and engineering technical
support to the USACE Operations and Maintenance (O&M) dredging mission. Technology
transfer activities have supported diverse field needs for years and have directly benefited O&M
dredging operations throughout the United States. E2-D2 is a searchable publications reference
database containing reports, journal articles, conference proceedings, and publications available
from worldwide sources. These technical references cover a diverse range of topics related to the
environmental effects of dredging and dredged material placement projects. The database focuses
on broad subject areas, such as the beneficial uses of dredged material, contaminated sediments,
and the effects of sediment resuspension and sedimentation on aquatic organisms and their
habitats. Much of the technical literature pertaining to dredging and dredged material placement
is found in the gray literature, non-peer-reviewed Federal or State agency publications or
proceedings of symposia and specialty conferences. Many other studies of dredging operations
are documented in the form of unpublished contract reports, which are frequently held in project
files rather than libraries or archives. The database is updated continually and contains nearly
4,000 references, including many abstracts.
1.9.2 Access to publications from various past and current USACE research programs
Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP), Dredging Research Program (DRP), Field
Verification Program (FVP), Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER), and
Long-Term Effects of Dredging Operations (LEDO)are available from the DOTS site.
1.9.3 The Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Program
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/doer.html) is an ongoing program that supports the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance Navigation Program. Research is
1-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
designed to balance operational and environmental initiatives and to meet complex economic,
engineering, and environmental challenges of dredging and placement in support of the
navigation mission. Research results will provide dredging project managers with technology for
cost-effective operation, evaluation of risks associated with management alternatives, and
environmental compliance.
1.9.4 The Dredging Innovations Group (DIG) addresses high-priority dredging-related needs
of both the USACE Navigation Business Line and other Civil Works mission areas that involve
dredging. The DIG strategically complements the DOER and DOTS programs. It engages
USACE District interests in concert with DOTS and leverages ERDC R&D Program products to
provide technical support capabilities and to develop/deploy innovative solutions with a focus on
improving channel availability, optimizing dredge fleet utilization, reducing dredging unit costs,
and strengthening workforce capabilities.
1.9.5 The Navigation Gateway (http://operations.usace.army.mil/navigation.cfm) is the
USACE Navigation Community of Practice (CoP) place to share navigation-related information
among navigation stakeholders (such as the USACE, industry, and academia). This site includes
a wide range of types of information including, but not limited to, navigation community
headlines, important news items, navigation management tools, and quick links to navigationrelevant aspects (for example, dredging databases, dredging policy and procedures on raising the
flag, and USACE navigation R&D programs).
1.10 Explanation of Abbreviations. Abbreviations used in this Engineer Manual (EM) are listed
in the Glossary.
1.11 Metrics. The use of both International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units of
measurement in this manual is predicated on the common use of both systems in engineering
practice and the exclusive use of non-SI units by the navigation industry. In the USACE, water
depths are typically expressed in feet; accuracy standards are also expressed in feet. Distances are
measured in either meters or feet; however, accuracy standards are expressed in meters.
Engineering project coordinates are normally in non-SI units (feet). Construction measurement
quantities are normally measured in linear feet, square feet, or cubic yards; however, some recent
construction plans and specifications use metric units of measure. Due to the variety of mixed
measurements, equivalent conversions have been provided in some instances to promote USACE
translation from non-SI units to SI units, but the most common measurement unit is usually used
for example computations.
1.12 Appendices. The following appendices are included in this Engineer Manual.
1.12.1 Glossary lists the abbreviations used in the EM.
1.12.2 Appendix A lists references cited in this EM.
1.12.3 Appendix B presents environmental considerations associated with the excavation
and placement processes of different types of dredges. Biological considerations of dredging
include suspended sediments, sedimentation, chemical release, dissolved oxygen reduction,

1-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
channel blockage, and entrainment. Equipment to control, or mitigate, impacts at the excavation
(as opposed to placement) site are also described.
1.12.4 Appendix C presents guidance on Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) of dredged
material with regard to site selection and evaluation, design, construction, operations, cap
material and design, and monitoring.
1.12.5 Appendix D lists plant materials for beneficial use sites.
1.12.6 Appendix E identifies the common and scientific names of plants and animals
mentioned in this EM.
1.12.7 Appendix F describes the current capabilities and availability of the Automated
Dredging and Disposal Alternative Modeling System (ADDAMS).
1.12.8 Appendix G contains figures showing plans and specifications for settling columns.
1.12.9 Appendix H presents test procedures for settling column use.
1.12.10 Appendix I presents the procedures for designing a Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF) for suspended solids retention and initial storage volume.
1.12.11 Appendix J describes methods of consolidation testing, recommended oedometer
test procedures for dredged material, and test data interpretation.
1.12.12 Appendix K describes jar test procedures for chemical clarification. In
1.12.13 Appendix L describes the technique for estimating consolidation by finite strain
techniques. Also in this appendix, the practical problem of a single dredged fill layer deposited
on a compressible foundation is solved for settlement as a function of time by both small strain
and linear finite strain theories.
1.12.14 Appendix M presents procedure and example calculations for the design of a
chemical clarification system.
1.12.15 Appendix N provides the monthly standard class A pan evaporation (averages) for
the continental United States.
1.12.16 Appendix O describes procedures for selecting equipment for dewatering
operations.
1.12.17 Appendix P provides a dye tracer technique to estimate mean residence time and
hydraulic efficiency for containment area design for the retention of solids.

1-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
CHAPTER 2
Dredging and Navigation Project Management
2.1 Purpose. This chapter presents an overview of USACE dredging relevant to navigation
project management processes, describes project site characterization methods, and provides a
comprehensive summary of the dredging equipment used for activities associated with new work
and maintenance projects. Guidance on the evaluation and selection of dredging equipment is
provided, and environmental considerations associated with dredging are discussed. An overview
of the evaluation, selection, and management of dredged material placement alternatives is also
presented.
Section I
Overview of Dredging and Navigation Project Management
2.2 Introduction. The USACE is the Federal governments largest water resources development
and management agency. Its water resources program began in 1824 when Congress first
appropriated money for improving river navigation. The extensive water resource responsibilities
of the USACE require the project planning, authorization process, and operations and
maintenance activities to be thorough and well documented. There are established processes,
subject to change and modification through legislative and executive action, to safeguard these
responsibilities. This paragraph presents overviews of the project formulation (planning,
authorization, and implementation) process; regulatory and national policy aspects for Federal
navigation projects; Long-Term Management Strategy Concept of dredged material placement
and Dredged Material Management Plans; USACE dredging policy; and dredge operation safety.
2.3 Federal Navigation Project Formulation.
2.3.1 The primary Federal objective of water resources planning for navigation improvements is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nations
environment and pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable Executive orders, and
other Federal planning requirements. Development of USACE navigation projects consists of
three primary elements, which are common to all USACE water resources projects:
a. Investigations and studies.
b. Authorization.
c. Project implementation.
2.3.2 These elements are implemented by the six steps to a civil works project, as outlined in
ER 1105-2-100 (Planning Guidance Notebook):
a. Problem Perception.
b. Request for Federal Assistance.

2-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Study Problem and Report Preparation.
d. Report Review and Approval.
e. Congressional Authorization.
f. Project Implementation.
2.3.3 Public Law 99-662, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986),
signed into law on November 17, 1986, comprehensively reestablished and redefined the Federal
interest in water resources development. The major steps in developing water resources are
described in detail at http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-regs/ER_1105-2100/toc.htm.
2.4 Federal Legislation.
2.4.1 A number of Federal environmental Executive Orders, regulations, and Federal statutes
control dredging and placement operations. The General Survey Act of 1824 directed the
USACE to develop and improve harbors and navigation, and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 required the USACE to issue permits for any work in navigable waters.
Dredging and placement operations were considered more fully by Congress in the major
environmental statutes passed after 1969.
2.4.2 USACE activities in the areas of dredging and dredged material placement, including
regulatory actions, come under the jurisdiction of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Regulation of dredged material placement within both the waters of the United States
and ocean waters is a complex issue and is a shared responsibility of the USEPA
(http://www.epa.gov/) and the USACE (http://www.usace.army.mil/). The primary Federal
environmental statute governing transportation and ocean placement of dredged material is the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), also called the Ocean Dumping
Act, Public Law 92-532. The primary Federal environmental statute governing the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (inland and including the territorial sea)
is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also called the Clean Water
Act (CWA), 33 U.S. Code 1251. Additional guidance is provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 and the subsequent eight amendments (Public Law 92-583, 16 USC
1451-1456). All proposed dredged material placement activities regulated by the MPRSA and
CWA must also comply with the applicable requirements of the NEPA and its implementing
regulations. In addition to the MPRSA, CWA, and NEPA, a number of other Federal laws,
Executive Orders, etc., must be considered in the evaluation of dredging projects, as previously
mentioned. A brief discussion of the major environmental statutes is presented in Evaluating
Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management AlternativesA Technical
Framework (the Technical Framework) (USEPA/USACE 1992) (revised 2004) at
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/guidance.html. Overviews of the NEPA, MPRSA, and CWA
(from the Technical Framework) are presented below.

2-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.4.2.1 Overview of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
a. The NEPA ([Public Law No. 91-190] [42 USC 4321 et seq.]) applies to major Federal
actions (for example, proposals, permits, and legislation) that may significantly affect the environment. USACE activities in the areas of dredging and dredged material placement, including
regulatory actions, come under NEPA jurisdiction. It is through the NEPA process that the
dredged material placement alternativesincluding no action, open-water placement, and
confined placement of dredged materialare evaluated, documented, and publicly disclosed. A
flowchart illustrating the NEPA process as it is applied to dredging projects is shown in Figure
2-1.
b. The NEPA requires that Government use all practicable means, consistent with the act and
other essential considerations of national policy, to fulfill the requirements of the act. This
requirement specifically applies to Federal agencies: their plans, regulations, programs, and
facilities. The process that has been established under the guidelines of the NEPA helps public
officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences and take
actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. The public disclosure document in
this process is a report that provides information about the environmental impact of the proposed
action. This document is either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental
Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
c. Existing Federal navigation projects and existing permits have an environmental
evaluation accomplished at some time in their history. Evaluation of environmental acceptability
of an alternative is done in the NEPA compliance documents, in the Section 404 or Section 103
evaluations and the Public Notice and, to some extent, in the engineering or project reports.
Existing project and permit reevaluations normally require a comparison between what is to be
done and the existing NEPA document. If the alternative is to remain the same or if it was
discussed in detail in the NEPA document and there is no reason to believe any new significant
issues or information have been raised since the issuance of the NEPA document, then no
additional NEPA coverage is warranted.
d. If, however, there are any new significant issues (such as new placement options not
addressed in the EIS/EA), public interest concerns, or reasons to believe significant new
contaminants are present, then NEPA requirements should be updated with either an EA/FONSI
or a supplement to the existing EIS. In all cases, whether or not additional NEPA documentation
is required, all other environmental laws and regulations must be followed. (See Appendix A in
the Technical Framework for a discussion of necessary compliance.) This is done either in the
compliance and coordination section of the EA/EIS (in which case the Section 404 or Section
103 evaluation should be appended to and discussed in the NEPA document) or in the Section
404 or Section 103 evaluations themselves. In either case, there is full public disclosure of the
information in the public review process for the NEPA or in the Public Notice for the Section
404/103 evaluation process as well as an opportunity for public comment prior to selection of the
preferred alternative.

2-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-1. NEPA Process for Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Projects
(USEPA/USACE 2004)

2-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Federal navigation projects involving new work (that is, new channels or improvements to
existing channels) and new Section 404/103 permit applications normally have not complied
with the NEPA and, therefore, require compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementing the NEPA. This must be initiated as early in the evaluation process
as possible. For a more detailed discussion of the USACE regulations implementing the NEPA,
refer to 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 230 and 325.
2.4.2.2 Overview of the MPRSA. Section 102 of the MPRSA requires the USEPA, in consultation with the USACE, to develop environmental Criteria (in the Technical Framework these
Criteria refer to criteria developed by the USEPA under Section 102 of the MPRSA relating to
the effects of the proposed disposal) that must be complied with before any proposed oceandisposal activity is allowed to proceed. Section 103 of the MPRSA assigns to the USACE the
specific responsibility for authorizing the ocean disposal of dredged material. In evaluating
proposed ocean-disposal activities, the USACE is required to apply the Criteria developed by the
USEPA relating to the effects of the proposed disposal activity. In addition, in reviewing permit
applications, the USACE is required to consider navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce, as well as the availability of alternatives to ocean
disposal. The USEPA has a major environmental oversight role in reviewing the USACE
determination of compliance with the ocean-disposal Criteria relating to the effects of the
proposed placement. If the USEPA determines ocean-disposal Criteria are not met, placement
may not occur without a waiver of the Criteria by the USEPA (40 CFR 225.2[e]). In addition, the
USEPA has authority under Section 102 to designate ocean-placement sites. The USACE is
required to use such sites for ocean placement to the extent feasible. Section 103 does, however,
authorize the USACE, where use of a USEPA-designated site is not feasible or a site has not
been designated by the USEPA, to select ocean-placement sites for project(s)-specific use. In
exercising this authority, the USACE utilizes USEPA site-selection criteria (40 CFR 228), and
the site selection is subject to USEPA review as part of its permit review responsibilities.
2.4.2.3 Overview of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA requires the USEPA, in conjunction
with the USACE, to promulgate Guidelines (in the Technical Framework, Guidelines refer to
the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines) for the discharge of dredged or fill material to ensure
that such proposed discharge will not result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts to
waters of the United States. Section 404 assigns to the USACE the responsibility for authorizing
all such proposed discharges, and requires application of the Guidelines in assessing the
environmental acceptability of the proposed action. Under the Guidelines, the USACE is also
required to examine practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge, including alternatives to
placement in waters of the United States and alternatives with potentially less damaging
consequences. The USACE and the USEPA also have authority under Section 230.80 to identify,
in advance, sites that are either suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material
in waters of the United States. The USEPA is responsible for general environmental oversight
under Section 404 and, pursuant to Section 404(c), retains permit veto authority. In addition,
Section 401 provides the States a certification role as to project compliance with applicable State
water quality standards.

2-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.4.2.4 Jurisdiction of the MPRSA and CWA. The geographical jurisdictions of the MPRSA
and CWA are indicated in Figure 2-2. As shown in the figure, an overlap of jurisdiction exists
within the territorial sea. The precedence of the MPRSA or CWA in the area of the territorial sea
is defined in 40 CFR 230.2(b) and 33 CFR 336.0(b). Material dredged from waters of the United
States and placed in the territorial sea is evaluated under the MPRSA. In general, dredged
material discharged as fill (for example, beach nourishment, island creation, or underwater
berms) and placed within the territorial sea is evaluated under the CWA.

Figure 2-2. Geographical Jurisdictions of the MPRSA and CWA

2.5 National Dredging Policy.
2.5.1 Recognizing the important role ports play in the United States economy, defense, and
environment, the U.S. President, on August 13, 1993, acknowledged that the existing process for
dredging and maintaining the Nations ports sometimes did not work as well as it could. As a
result, the Secretary of Transportation convened the Interagency Working Group on the
Dredging Process in October 1993 to investigate and recommend actions to improve the
dredging project review process.
2.5.1.1 The Working Group (consisting of personnel from the U.S. Department of
Transportation [USDOT], USACE, USEPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]) had two major objectives:
a. Promote greater certainty and predictability in the dredging project review process and

dredged material management.

2-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Facilitate effective long-term management strategies for addressing dredging and
placement needs at both the National and local levels.

2.5.1.2 In December 1994 the Working Group delivered to the Secretary of Transportation, a
report entitled The Dredging Process in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement,
(U.S. Department of Transportation 1994) (the Report), which contained recommendations
and a proposed National Dredging Policy. The President endorsed the National Dredging Policy
on June 22, 1995, and directed the Federal agencies to implement the Reports recommendations.
The following findings and principles from the U.S. Department of Transportation (1994) were
adopted by the President as the National Dredging Policy.
The findings are as follows:
a. A network of ports and harbors is essential to the United States economy, affecting its
competitiveness in world trade and national security. Port facilities serve as a key link in the
intermodal transportation chain and can realize their full potential as magnets for shipping and
commerce only if dredging occurs in a timely and cost-effective manner.
b. The nations coastal, ocean, and freshwater resources are critical assets, which must be

protected, conserved, and restored. These resources are equally important to the United States by
providing numerous economic and environmental benefits.
c. Consistent and integrated application of existing environmental statutes can protect the
environment and can allow for sustainable economic growth.
d. Close coordination and planning at all governmental levels, and with all aspects of the
private sector, are essential to developing and maintaining the Nations ports and harbors in a
manner that will increase economic growth and protect, conserve, and restore coastal resources.
e. Planning for the development and maintenance of the Nations ports and harbors should
occur in the context of broad transportation and environmental planning efforts, such as the
National Transportation System and the ecosystem/watershed management approach.

The principles are as follows:

a. The regulatory process must be timely, efficient, and predictable, to the maximum extent
practicable.
b. Advance dredged material management planning must be conducted on a port or regional
scale by a partnership that includes the Federal government, the port authorities, state and local
governments, natural resource agencies, public interest groups, the maritime industry, and
private citizens. To be effective, this planning must be done before individual Federal or nonFederal dredging project proponents seek individual project approval.
c. Dredged material managers must become more involved in watershed planning to
emphasize the importance of point and non-point source pollution controls in reducing harbor
sediment contamination.

2-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Dredged material is a resource, and environmentally sound beneficial use of dredged
material for such projects as wetland creation, beach nourishment, and development projects
must be encouraged.
2.5.2 One of the major areas that the Report identified as needing improvement was in
planning mechanisms for dredging and dredged material management. The Report concluded the
following:
a. The dredging project review process often uses an ad hoc planning process, resulting in a
piecemeal rather than an integrated planning approach.
b. A planning process needs to be put in place that addresses individual port development,
regional and national economic development, and appropriate management of the environmental
effects of dredging and dredged material placement.
2.5.3 Two Report recommendations that pertain directly to planning are addressed by
guidance provided by the National Dredging Team (1998). More information on the National
Dredging Policy is available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/
index.cfm.
a. Create and/or augment regional/local dredged material planning groups to aid in the
development of regional dredged material management plans.
b. Identify the characteristics of successful Federal/State/local partnerships for use in
developing dredged material management planning efforts
2.6 Long-Term Management Strategy and Dredged Material Management Plans.
2.6.1 Over the past two decades, several factors have developed to create an increasing
challenge for the USACE and its partners in operating and maintaining the Nations harbors,
particularly in the area of the management of dredged material. These factors include substantial
and continuous increases in the demands of commerce, rapid evolution of shipping practices
(containerization and intermodalism), increasing environmental awareness and mounting environmental problems affecting coastal and ocean waters, tight budgetary constraints, heavy population shifts to coastal areas, and generally increased non-Federal responsibilities in the development and management of navigation projects. As a result, management of the Nations harbor
system in general, and of dredged material specifically, has become a controversial problem
encompassing all phases of harbor project development and operation, from planning new or
larger projects to maintaining existing projects. In response to the problem, there evolved a concept for development of Long-Term Management Strategies (LTMSs) for projects facing serious
issues. Dredged Material Management Plans (DMMPs) translate LTMS concepts into explicit
dredged material policies and procedures within the broader context of a national harbor
program.
2.6.2 Harbor maintenance and development are primary missions of the USACE. These
missions contribute directly to national economic development and international trade. Effective
accomplishment of these missions usually requires dredging to achieve the navigable dimensions

2-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
sufficient to meet the needs of water transportation. By extension, sound management of dredged
material is a priority mission of the USACE. The interests of economic development and
environmental sustainability are best served when dredged material placement proceeds
according to a management plan. Therefore, each harbor maintenance and development project
has a plan that ensures warranted and environmentally acceptable maintenance of the project. For
many harbors, existing plans are now and will continue to be efficient and environmentally
acceptable. For other harbors, historic trends and emerging challenges provide clear indicators
that existing plans must be modified to meet future material management needs. Beneficial uses
of dredged material are powerful tools for harmonizing environmental values and navigation
projects. The USACE will include in all dredged material management studies an assessment of
potential beneficial uses for environmental purposes, including fish and wildlife habitat creation
and restoration and/or hurricane and storm damage reduction. Exceptions to this principle arise
when emerging material management problems and solutions represent changes of such significance that a policy-level commitment is required. Examples are changes in dredged material
management practices requiring substantial capital investment or large increases in annual maintenance expenditures.
2.6.3 Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS).
2.6.3.1 As early as 1978, the USACE Dredge Material Research Program (DMRP) concluded
that not only would long-term dredged material management plans offer greater opportunities for
environmental protection at reduced project costs, but also dredged material placement activities
would meet with greater public acceptance once they were adopted and implemented. The
Director of Civil Works endorsed the concept in 1996. In 1997, a workshop attended by USACE
personnel was held to discuss the LTMS concept. At this workshop, it was concluded that
applying this concept to dredged material placement resulting from channel maintenance was
viable and should be implemented. The LTMS concept has since been endorsed by the Chief of
Engineers Environmental Advisory Board as an effective method of managing dredged material
placement associated with the USACE navigation program.
2.6.3.2 The LTMS concept is a systematic approach to developing short- and long-term solutions and strategies for the placement of dredged material and to investigating measures to
reduce dredging quantities. Developing and implementing an LTMS for dredged material placement is an orderly, sequential process. It establishes the projected dredging needs and identifies
potential alternative dredged material placement sites. This results in the development of a LongTerm Management Plan that sets out procedural and administrative objectives for implementation. The process provides for the periodic review and updating of the Long-Term Management
Plan to maintain a viable, long-term dredged material placement plan.
2.6.3.3 A sequential process of developing and implementing an LTMS for dredged material
placement for maintenance dredging has been developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory (Francingues and Mathis 1989). It
is briefly summarized as follows:
a. Evaluate Existing Management Options. Estimate the quantity of dredged material to be
placed for the site plan. This estimate leads to the needed capacity per dredging event and the
total capacity needed for the requirements of the site plan.
2-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Formulate Alternatives. Identify dredged material placement site alternatives, and establish
the conditions and requirements of each alternative site.
c. Analyze Alternatives in Detail. Make a comparative assessment that weighs and balances
impacts and benefits of the alternatives. The purposes are to identify the most practical
alternative, or alternatives, and to provide the documentation needed to support selection of the
alternatives.
d. Implement Long-Term Management. Obtain the necessary NEPA documentation, permits,
easements, and other materials, and prepare the site if necessary.
e. Review and Update: Review the site plan, as required, to assure it remains viable.
2.6.3.4 Revised USACE Dredging Regulations are published in 33 CFR Parts 335-338.
Language is included that encourages the USACE Districts to pursue LTMS for dredged material
placement. Specifically, Section 337.9(a) states: District Engineers should identify and develop
dredged material placement management strategies that satisfy the long-term (greater than
10 years) needs for Corps of Engineers projects.
2.6.4 DMMPs. DMMPs translate the LTMS concept into explicit dredged material policies
and procedures within the broader context of a national harbor program. Dredged material
management planning for all Federal harbor projects is conducted by the USACE to ensure that
maintenance dredging activities are performed in an environmentally acceptable manner, use
sound engineering techniques, and are economically warranted, and that sufficient placement
areas are available for at least the next 20 years. These plans address dredging needs, placement
capabilities, capacities of placement areas, environmental compliance requirements, potential for
beneficial usage of dredged material, and indicators of continued economic justification.
DMMPs must be updated periodically to identify any potentially changed conditions (ER 11052-100). Additional guidance on DMMPs is provided by the National Dredging Team (1998).
2.7 USACE Dredging Policy.
2.7.1 The entire process of dredging navigation project implementation and maintenance
requires that the regulatory, planning, engineering, and O&M activities be thorough and welldocumented. There are established processes, subject to change and modification through
legislative and executive action, that provide guidance to accomplish these requirements
(Appendix A, References, lists many guidance documents).
2.7.2 The policy governing accomplishment of USACE dredging is established in ER 11302-520. This ER states that dredging must be accomplished in an efficient, cost-effective, and
environmentally acceptable manner to improve and maintain the Nations waterways, making
them suitable for navigation and other purposes consistent with Federal laws and regulations. In
addition, the maximum practicable benefits are to be obtained from materials dredged from
authorized Federal navigation projects, after taking into consideration economics, engineering,
and environmental requirements in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations
(33 CFR Parts 335-338) (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/33cfrv3_00.html).
Aspects covered in this ER include the following:

2-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Establishment of channel dimensions and depth.
b. Allowable overdepth.
c. Advance maintenance dredging.
d. Types of dredging contracts.
e. Contract documents.
f. Estimates of dredging costs.
g. Navigation channel conditions.
h. Placement of dredged material.

2.8 Regional Sediment Management.

2.8.1 Regional Sediment Management (RSM) is the approach by the USACE to managing
sediment as a resource in the context of the Nations river and coastal systems. This approach
involves the cooperation of USACE engineers, policy makers, and managers along with state
representatives, conservationists, harbor, coastal, and port stakeholders as well as the general
public.
2.8.2 USACE professionals have met, discussed, implemented, and demonstrated RSM and
its benefits throughout the United States. Regional and national stakeholders, other interested
individuals from outside USACE, and international audiences at professional meetings have all
listened to USACE RSM presentations and accepted the concept. Themes at recent international
conferences and workshops, as well as other resources, suggest a worldwide movement to
watershed and regional management of sediment. In some ways, RSM may seem to be a concept
long practiced within USACE communities; however, new business processes have expanded its
scope. RSM also supports USACEs Environmental Operating Principles (http://www.usace.
army.mil/Missions/Environmental/EnvironmentalOperatingPrinciples.aspx), which bring a
holistic perspective to all projects. Managing sediment to benefit a region potentially saves
money, allows the use of natural processes to solve engineering problems, and improves the
environment.
2.8.3 As a management method, RSM does the following:
a. Includes the entire environment, from the watershed to the sea
b. Accounts for the effect of human activities on sediment erosion as well as its transport in
streams, lakes, bays, and oceans
c. Protects and enhances the nation's natural resources while balancing national security and
economic needs

2-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.8.4 USACE holds in trust and manages lands and waterways across the United States.
Using regional sediment management concepts significantly improves its mission
accomplishment. USACEs engineers and scientists develop new technologies through research
to make management decisions more accurate and efficient. Simultaneously, they evaluate RSM
concepts through projects that highlight and improve sediment management activities. More
information on RSM is available at http://rsm.usace.army.mil/
2.9 Engineering With Nature.
2.9.1 Engineering With Nature (EWN) is the intentional alignment of natural and engineering
processes to efficiently and sustainably deliver economic, environmental, and social benefits.
2.9.2 EWN calls for an ecosystem approach whereby USACE (in collaboration with its
partners and stakeholders) seeks to understand and use natural processes in order to achieve a
broad range of project objectives within aquatic systems. USACEs EWN strategy enables
navigation infrastructure development efforts to provide economic, environmental, and social
benefits in a sustainable way, producing a triple win. By systematically considering the three
elements of sustainable development in all USACE projects, from the initiation phase through
implementation, USACE will better integrate these into decision making and actions at every
phase of a project. The result: more socially acceptable solutions that are more viable and
equitable and, ultimately, more sustainable. Figure 2-3 illustrates the win-win-win objective for
projects based on the principles of EWN. More detailed information on EWN is available at
www.EngineeringWithNature.org.

Figure 2-3. Engineering With Nature (EWN)A Sustainable Approach

2.10 Dredge Operation Safety.
2.10.1 The USACE requirements for floating plant and dredge safety are outlined in the
Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM 385-1-1). The roles and responsibilities for both

2-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the USACE and contractor personnel in the administration of the safety program are presented in
this EM. It also presents guidance for developing the tools used to administer the program:
a. Accident prevention plan, which is the principal administrative plan, covering the
following:
(1) Safety and health policy.
(2) Administration and accountability.
(3) Coordination.
(4) Training plans.
(5) Safety inspections.
(6) Accident investigation and reporting.
(7) Emergency response procedures.
(8) Contingency plans for severe weather.
(9) Job cleanup and safe access.
(10) Public safety.
(11) Local requirements.
(12) Alcohol and drug abuse prevention.
(13) Hazard communication.
b. Activity hazard analysis, which defines the sequence of work, the specific hazards anticipated, and the control measures to be implemented to eliminate or reduce hazards to an
acceptable level.
c. Safety training program details, including supervisor and worker safety meetings.
d. Accident investigations and reporting, including both USACE and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, as necessary.
2.10.2 USACE floating plant safety programs involve coordination with other agencies,
such as the OSHA and both local and state safety and workers compensation departments, but
primarily with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which has several responsibilities, including the
following:
a. Initial and periodic inspection of specific vital systemssuch as firefighting equipment
and system installations, life rafts and boats, and emergency power generatorson seagoing
vessels.

2-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Licensing and documentation of seagoing and other personnel, including personnel
involved in handling petroleum barges. Licensed and documented personnel are periodically
retested to assure they maintain their proficiency.
c. Safety aspects of vessel operations, such as fire, lifeboat, and other drills, or determination of minimum staffing requirements and vessel navigation equipment.
d. Floating plant operators that do not require licensing by the U.S. Coast Guard are
licensed and certified by the USACE. In addition, the USACE inspects its own unlicensed
vessels and enforces the U.S. Coast Guard regulations for small craft, including life jackets, fire
extinguishers, and passenger capacity.
Section II
Project Site Characterization
2.11 Background.
2.11.1 An understanding of the physical environments in which the dredging and dredged
material placement occur is critical to achieving the USACE policy of accomplishing dredging in
an efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable manner. Planning any dredging
operation (which constitutes a specialized problem in earthmoving or excavation) requires field
measurements and computations to determine the geotechnical characteristics and quantities of
material to be removed as well as an understanding of the site-specific conditions relevant to the
planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the dredging and placement sites. Dredged
material characteristics (physical, chemical, and engineering) and site-specific conditions of the
dredging and placement sites (hydrodynamic regime and foundation conditions, for example)
determine both dredge plant and dredged material placement requirements for open-water,
confined, and/or beneficial uses alternatives. Regulatory compliance requires that the suitability
for the proposed placement of the material to be dredged be characterized and evaluated. This
characterization and evaluation may or may not require testing, depending on applicable
requirements. Guidance is provided (Tavolaro et al. 2007) to ensure that environmental
compliance activities and environmental documentation associated with new Federal navigation
project dredging and maintenance dredging adequately consider overdepth dredging.
2.11.2 The Technical Framework (USEPA/USACE 2004) presents management
alternatives to be used in evaluating the environmental impacts of dredged material placement.
This framework provides a technical guide to assess the commonly important factors to be
considered in managing dredged material in an environmentally acceptable manner. In the
detailed assessment of placement alternatives in The Technical Framework, the evaluation of
the physical characteristics of the sediment (for example, particle-size distribution, water content
or percent solids, specific gravity of solids) is required to determine environmental acceptability.
Field investigations provide data for the design of containment areas (for example, volume
calculations, evaluation of potential foundation settlement) and open-water placement (for
example, dispersive versus nondispersive). Characteristics of dredged material proposed for
beneficial use must also be identified to evaluate the suitability of the material for numerous
alternative uses.

2-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.11.3 Both new-work projects and maintenance dredging activities must be consistent with
national environmental policies (Section I). In general, these policies require creation and maintenance of conditions under which human activities and natural environments can exist in productive harmony, including preservation of historic and archeological (cultural) resources.
Biological, chemical, and/or physical characterization of the dredging and placement sites may
be required to ensure national policy compliance.
2.11.4 This section provides guidance on dredging site characterization pertaining to the
determination of the following:
a. Dredged material quantities.
b. Dredged material geotechnical and chemical characteristics.
c. Geotechnical characteristics related to the placement site.
d. The presence of cultural resources and unexploded ordnance.

Information on the determination of site characterization pertaining to placement site

parametershydrodynamic regime, biological sampling, contaminant pathways, and dredged
material engineering propertiesis presented in the following chapters of this Engineer Manual:
Chapter 3, Open-Water Placement; Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement;.and Chapter 5,
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.
2.12 Dredging Locations and Quantities.
2.12.1 Dredging locations and the quantities of material to be dredged are two important
considerations in planning navigation dredging projects. Since placement of dredged material is
a major consideration, it is essential that long-term projections be made for placement requirements of each project. Records should be kept of quantities dredged and maintenance interval(s)
to forecast future dredging and placement requirements (see paragraph 2.6).
2.12.2 Hydrographic surveys are one of the principal dredging contract management tools
used by the USACE. Hydrographic surveys should be made before dredging to determine
existing depths within the project area and then again after dredging to determine the depths
attained as a result of the dredging operation. Each District should have the capability, either inhouse or by contract, to make accurate, timely, and repeatable hydrographic surveys. To ensure
accuracy, quantity calculations must be made from survey data gathered in a timely manner
using proper equipment and based upon precisely established horizontal and vertical controls.
Quantity measurement methods must be fully consistent between work performed by contract
and work performed by hired labor. EM 1110-2-1003 provides technical guidance for
performing hydrographic surveys that support the planning, engineering design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and regulation of navigation, flood control, river engineering, charting,
and coastal engineering projects. Accuracy standards and quality control criteria are defined to
establish USACE-wide uniformity in performing surveys involving dredging measurement,
payment, and acceptance. EM 1110-2-1003 should be used as a technical guide in performing
hydrographic surveys with USACE hired-labor forces or contracted survey forces. It should be

2-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
directly referenced in contract specifications for dredging and Architect-Engineer survey
services. The accuracy standards and quality control criteria in the manual should be specified
for all surveys supporting dredging measurement, payment, and acceptance functions. Types of
dredging templates and surveys are defined, and EM 1110-2-1003 also provides background
information concerning dredging contract clauses that deal with measurement and payment
surveys. EM 1110-2-1003 may be referenced should hydrographic surveying functions be
required as part of a USACE military construction or environmental restoration activity. It is also
applicable to surveys performed or procured by local interest groups under various cooperative
or cost-sharing agreements. For detailed guidance on dredging procurement policies and
practices, refer to ER 1130-2-520, and ER 1110-2-1302.
2.13 Dredging Site Geotechnical Investigations.
2.13.1 General.
2.13.1.1 The objective of a geotechnical dredging site investigation is to obtain the most
complete and accurate estimate of the location and character of the materials to be dredged
within the limits of practicality and available time and money. This information must then be
communicated in a readily understood manner to all persons involved in the design, planning,
cost estimation, and construction of the project. A site investigation for dredging consists of
studies of all available existing information that, when necessary, is augmented by geophysical
and geotechnical subbottom investigations (including the sampling and testing of sediments and
rock). The term dredged material refers to material dredged from a water body, while the term
sediment refers to material in a water body prior to the dredging process. The terms
sediment and soil are used interchangeably in this manual as implied by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D 653) definition of soil as sediments or other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles produced by the physical and chemical disintegration
of rocks, which may or may not contain organic matter. These data are summarized in an
estimated geotechnical subbottom profile. The validity of the estimated profile is dependent on
the type and amount of site investigation made and on the knowledge and skill of the interpreters
of the data.
2.13.1.2 The persons and groups involved in site investigations for dredging operations
include geotechnical engineers, geologists, environmental engineers, biologists, estimators,
coastal engineers, project engineers, and commercial testing laboratories. These groups have
diverse technical backgrounds, and each group has its own internal sediment and rock
investigation, description, and classification methodology. Site investigation objectives and
strategies within and among these groups differ and often do not convey specific dredgingrelated information. Testing methods among the various groups also vary. Because of the large
sums that will continue to be spent on dredging, there is a need for understanding by all of the
participants in a dredging project of the rationale for a site investigation strategy, the objectives
of the strategy, and the conventional geotechnical methods for site investigation, sampling,
testing, and analysis of data.
2.13.2 Implementing a site investigation strategy. The practical development and implementation of a site investigation strategy for a dredging site involve making decisions to answer
the following specific questions (Spigolon 1993):
2-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. What should be the scope of the investigation?
(1) Is existing information about the subsurface condition at the site sufficient?
(2) Will a geophysical exploration be useful?
(3) Are sampling and/or testing at field exploration sites needed?
(4) If a field investigation is needed, how many individual exploration sites should be used?
(5) Where should the exploration sites be located?
b. What should be done at each individual exploration site?
(1) How many samples and/or field tests should be made in the vertical reach?
(2) What kind of samples and/or field tests should be made?
(3) Would a boring or a test pit be used? If a boring, what kind of boring?
(4) What kind of work platform should be used?
(5) Which laboratory tests should be made on the samples?
(6) Will all samples be laboratory tested? If not, which criteria will be used to
describe/classify them?
2.13.3 Factors affecting a site investigation strategy. The following factors must be
considered in the establishment of the type and magnitude of a geotechnical site investigation:
a. Significant sediment properties. The geotechnical soil properties that must be established
for each sediment deposit in the dredging prism to determine dredgeability and placement
characteristics. The term dredgeability is taken to mean the ability to excavate underwater,
remove to the surface, transport, and deposit sediments with respect to known or assumed equipment, methods, and in situ material characteristics. Determination of the sediment placement
characteristics is sometimes necessary for predicting the behavior of the dredged material after
placement (that is, establishing effective stress/void ratio relationships for calculating
consolidation behavior for long-term CDF capacity calculations).
b. Test methods and equipment. The known or assumed capabilities and usefulness of the
various appropriate types of geophysical and geotechnical sampling and testing methods and
equipment that are available.
c. Site variability. The known or assumed variation in the stratification of the sediments
and in their significant dredgeability properties, including both nonrandom trends and random
fluctuations about the trends.

2-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Magnitude of the sampling and testing program. The effect of the size and type of the
sampling and testing program on the estimates of the locations of sediment deposits and their
geotechnical characteristics.
e. Value of information. The risks involved in having incomplete information and the
savings in total project cost to be expected for each added expenditure of site investigation
money (that is, the cost versus the value of additional information).
f. Investigation costs. The costs, both relative and actual, in time and money for the
performance of the various available geophysical and geotechnical samples and tests.
g. Investigation flexibility. Whether the plan of the subsurface investigation program is
fixed in advance or can be modified as information develops.
h. Principal beneficial use of dredged material anticipated.
2.13.4 Procedure for a geotechnical site investigation.
2.13.4.1 EM 1110-1-1804 establishes criteria and presents guidance for geotechnical
investigations during the various stages of development for civil and military projects. The
manual is intended to be a guide for planning and conducting geotechnical investigations and not
a textbook on engineering geology and soils exploration. Actual investigationsin all
instancesmust be tailored to the individual projects. Subsurface investigations for dredging
projects have requirements that are significantly different from those for the typical foundation
engineering project. Geotechnical engineering foundation investigations for structures, either
offshore or onshore, generally cover small areas, sometimes to great depths. Existing land-based
techniques and equipment are best suited to serve the primary purpose of performing exacting
geotechnical field soil tests and obtaining high-quality samples for laboratory shear strength
tests. Dredging projects, on the other hand, do not normally require soil strength and texture
information with the precision needed for foundation engineering. They do, however, require
inferences about the subbottom geotechnical profile over long distances; average values and
ranges of values are generally sufficient. Dredging site investigations are similar in scope to
those made for highways, canals, and pipelines in the sense that they involve either long, narrow
lengths or large areas as well as shallow depths in the soil to be excavated and removed.
Maintenance work usually consists of 1 m or less of shoaled material to be removed, and newwork channel deepening projects typically involve 1.5 to 3 m of excavation. New channel
projects, however, may involve greater depths of excavation (Spigolon 1993). A geotechnical
site investigation for a dredging site must answer several questions:
a. How many sediment and rock deposits are within the proposed dredging prism? Where
are they located, and what is their configuration?
b. What kind of material does each deposit consist of? Which geotechnical properties will
characterize each deposit? What are the average values and the range in values of each
characteristic property?

2-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Are the deposits homogeneous or heterogeneous, or do the properties trend in a known,
or predictable, manner?
2.13.4.2 The procedure for a typical geotechnical site investigation for a dredging project
contains the following steps, as shown in Figure 2-4. The geotechnical factors and site

investigation procedure are discussed in detail in Spigolon (1993).

Figure 2-4. Procedure for a Geotechnical Site Investigation (Spigolon 1993)

2-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. A review is made of all available prior (existing) informationthe geologic literature,
both published and unpublished, records of previous geotechnical studies in the project area, and
personal experiences with soils in the project area. This is sometimes called a desk study.
b. Based on the prior information, an initial hypothesis of the geotechnical subbottom
profile is developed, including the types, configuration, and geotechnical character of the
subbottom soils present.
c. If the available information is sufficient for the project, the site investigation is terminated at this point. If it is not sufficient, then an estimate is made of site variability. If the site is
known, from extensive prior information, to be fairly uniform or to vary in a known manner, a
site exploration plan is developed. If the site variability is not well known, then a geophysical
survey may be appropriate.
d. Where appropriate, continuous subbottom information is obtained by geophysical studies
using acoustic subbottom profiling or another suitable method. The requirements for ground
truth sampling and testing for correlation with the data are established.
e. The geophysical data are used to amend the initial hypothesis of the sediment profile. If
the updated geotechnical information is now sufficient for the project, the site investigation is
terminated.
f. If the amended subsurface profile estimate is still not sufficient, then a geotechnical
physical site exploration plan is formulated. The number and location of the test sites will be
dictated by site variability.
2.13.5 Geophysical surveys and ground truthing.
2.13.5.1 Geophysical methods are generally characterized by large-scale measurements that
produce an averaging of the sediment properties over the zone of test influence, but without the
capability of obtaining or testing a specific sample. EM 1110-1-1802 describes geophysical
methodologies, and EM 1110-2-1003 describes specific geophysical methods that can be considered for continuous documentation of bottom and subbottom materials.
2.13.5.2 The distinguishing character of all geophysical methods is the ability to provide a
continuous sediment profile, with only a few general sediment characteristics indicated, and the
requirement for extensive calibration, usually with ground truth (direct sediment sampling and
testing) studies of the in situ project sediments. Ground truth tests indicate the characteristics of
the sediments only in the immediate location of the boring or pit. Extrapolation of these data
between borings or pits requires considerable interpretation of all other available data.
Stratification that may be inferred from one boring or a group of borings may not be valid
because of discontinuities or inclusions that have been missed. As stated by Jones (1984): The
two techniques, drilling and profiling, are therefore, in many ways, complementary. The strength
of one being the weakness of the other and vice versa. Most of the available geophysical
systems can be operated from a vessel underway. Several types of geophysical methods used for
characterizing sediments are described below.

2-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.13.5.3 Nuclear density probes.
a. Nuclear density probes can be used to measure the density of bottom sediments. Most
nuclear density probes work on the principle that a more dense material will absorb a higher
percentage of the radiation passing from the source to the detector than will a less dense material.
A typical probe is configured so that the sediment material passes between the source and
detector as the probe is lowered. Nuclear density probes can give an accurate graph of sediment
density as a function of depth if properly calibrated and used.
b. Nuclear density probes are used as a depth-measuring technique in The Netherlands,
where fluid mud is a widespread condition and neither acoustic reflection nor lead line depthsounding techniques give acceptable results. A limitation to the use of nuclear density probes,
however, is the severe regulations governing their use, including the extensive paperwork
involved. Nuclear density probes can be used only by licensed personnel, and the license is
difficult to obtain. In addition, nuclear density probes must be stored under special conditions
that are expensive to implement and maintain (EM 1110-2-1003).
2.13.5.4 Non-nuclear density probes. Non-nuclear density probes operate on various
principles, including acoustic and mechanical. One type of acoustic probe, the High Resolution
Density Profiler (HRDP), uses ultrasound. An example of a mechanical density probe is the
DensiTune Silt Density Probe.
2.13.5.4.1 High Resolution Density Profiler (HRDP). An Interagency Agreement (IAG)
was signed between the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and
USEPAs Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) of the Office of Research and Developments
National Exposure Research Laboratory, the objective of which is to have the ERDC modify the
Advanced Modular Ultrasound System (ADMODUS) probe (an acoustic impedance-based
navigation fluid mud survey prototype system successfully demonstrated in the Gulfport, MS,
navigation channel and in the laboratory) for use in characterizing dredge residuals for
environmental dredge projects. Dredging residuals refer to contaminated sediment found at the
post-dredging surface of the sediment profile, either within or adjacent to the dredging footprint.
After the initial consolidation period (that is, within a period of several days to a few weeks,
depending on sediment characteristics and site conditions), generated residuals (excluding
sloughed materials) typically occur as a thin veneer (0.4-3.9 in/1-10 cm thick) of fine-grained
suspended material.
a. One of the goals in developing this new sensor system (this is a current [2013] R&D
project under the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research [DOER] Program) is to
produce an instrument that uses easy-to-obtain, and well supported, acoustic-signal processing
hardware and non-proprietary signal-processing techniques. The new sensor system is named the
High Resolution Density Profiler (HRDP). The systems operational methodology to calculate
density is based on the measurement of three ultrasound parameters:
(1) Acoustic impedance of the medium (Z med )
(2) Sound speed within the medium (c med )

2-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(3) Ultrasound transmission characteristics (attenuation) of the medium
b. The prototype probe (Figure 2-5) was tested in static buckets of various (bulk) density
suspensions of fluid mud collected from the Gulfport (MS) Ship Channel and compared to
laboratory pycnometer-measured densities. The results from these comparisons are shown in
Table 2-1. Based on these promising results, the HRDP is currently (2013) being modified for
subsequent laboratory and field testing.

Figure 2-5. High-Resolution Density Profiler (HRDP) and its

Immersion in a Static (Fluid Mud) Bucket Test
Table 2-1. HRDP-Measured Densities Compared with Pycnometer-Measured Densities
Pycnometer Density
0.997*
1.082
1.127
1.141
1.170
1.193
Note: Values are in g/cm3

Average HRDP Density

HRDP Standard Deviation

0.995
1.092
1.125
1.133
1.166
1.228

0.002
0.029
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.005

Difference HRDPPycnometer
-0.002
0.010
-0.002
-0.008
-0.004
-0.035

More detailed information on surveying in channels with unconsolidated bottom material (for
example, fluid mud) is available in EM 1110-2-1003.
2.13.5.4.2 The STEMA System. The STEMA system consists of two primary components,
a DensiTune (or RheoTune, Figure 2-6) probe and the SILAS software. The system is designed
to estimate both the nautical depth in navigation channels and the density of silt layers in dredge
2-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
and placement areas, and to monitor siltation in ports and
marine traffic areas. The DensiTune and RheoTune are
fluid mud-profiling probes that operate on the tuning fork
principle, with one of the legs of the tuning fork vibrating
at a specific frequency and the other leg vibrating at a
frequency that depends on the density and rheological
properties of the medium into which the probe is inserted.
The DensiTune probe measures in situ density vs. depth,
and the RheoTune system measures in situ density, shear
strength, and viscosity vs. depth. The SILAS software was
developed for the acquisition and processing of acoustic
subbottom reflection signals in the low-frequency range of
3.5 to 33 kHz. The low-frequency acoustic returns are
processed to determine signal attenuation and are calibrated
for density with the density profiles collected with the
DensiTune or RheoTune.
a. Under the USACE Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research (DOER) program, the DensiTune
and RheoTune density probes and SILAS software have
been tested and evaluated on some USACE coastal
Figure 2-6. STEMA RheoTune
navigation projects by the ERDC Coastal Hydraulics
Tuning Fork Shear Strength,
Laboratory (CHL) in conjunction with surveying conducted
Viscosity, and Density Probe
by the USACE New Orleans District (CEMVN) and
Mobile District (CESAM). The tests indicate that these systems have potential for reliably
measuring nautical bottom, as previously described.
b. The New Orleans District deploys RheoTunes down into the channel from the S/V Teche
by a semi-automated winch (Figure 2-7) to measure and record water densities, fluid mud
densities, and yield stresses as a function of depth. Figure 2-8 presents an example of a
DensiTunes density vs. depth profile from the Calcasieu Bar Channel (New Orleans District).
Measurements were taken in 42 ft (12.8 m) at the right quarterline on 5 October 2011, one week
after a Wheeler Dredging Exercise. A density of 1100 g/l (green) was recorded at -37.0 ft
(-11.3 m) depth and 1200 g/l (blue) at -39.0 ft (-11.9 m). Figure 2-9 shows a SILAS-generated
cross-section from the Gulfport Ship Channel (Mobile District), illustrating the concept of select
density horizons generated from total acoustic reflection signals. Figure 2-10 illustrates three
different density horizons (1.20 g/cm3, 1.16 g/cm3, and 1.03 g/cm3) relative to the channel
template.

2-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-7. STEMA RheoTune Probe Being Deployed off the New
Orleans Districts S/V Teche via a Semi-Automated Winch
2.13.6 Underwater sediment sampling.
2.13.6.1 Samples of the channel sediments to be dredged are often required for adequate
characterization of the material and for use in laboratory testing. Sediment sampling and testing
are used to determine dredgeability and provide the data necessary for designing placement and
beneficial uses alternatives. The level of effort required for channel sediment sampling is highly
project dependent. If the geophysical survey is required, samples may be required for ground
truth interpretations. In the case of routine maintenance work, data from prior samplings and
experience with similar material may be available, and the scope of field investigations may be
reduced. For unusual maintenance projects or new-work projects, more extensive field
investigations are required.
2.13.6.2 For maintenance work, channel investigations may be based on grab samples of
sediment. Since bottom sediments are in an essentially unconsolidated state, grab samples are
satisfactory for sediment characterization purposes and are easy and inexpensive to obtain.
Grab sampling may indicate relatively homogeneous sediment composition, segregated pockets
of coarse- and fine-grained sediment, and/or mixtures. If segregated pockets are present, samples
may be taken at a sufficient number of locations in the channel to define spatial variations in the
sediment character adequately. In any case, results of grab sampling must allow estimation of the
relative proportions of coarse- and fine-grained sediments present. Caution should be exercised
in interpreting conditions indicated by grab samples since sediment surface samples do not
indicate variation in sediment character with depth.

2-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-8. STEMA DensiTune Measurements Taken in 42 ft (12.8 m) at the

Right Quarterline of the Calcasieu Bar Channel on 5 October 2011, One Week
after a Wheeler Dredging Exercise (New Orleans District)

2-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-9. SILAS-Generated Cross Section of the Gulfport

Ship Channel, Illustrating the Concept of Measuring the Top of
Fluid Mud, 1.2 g/cm3 Density Horizon, and the Top of
Consolidated Material (Mobile District)

Figure 2-10. SILAS-Analyzed Density Horizons (1.20 g/cm3,

1.16 g/cm3, and 1.03 g/cm3) of STA 180+00 Gulfport Ship Channel,
9 April 2012, Relative to the Channel Template (Mobile District)
2-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.13.6.3 For more detailed information, additional samples may be taken using conventional boring techniques. Samples of sediment taken by conventional boring techniques are
normally required only in the case of new-work dredging. Locations for borings should be
selected based on information gained from the geophysical survey and/or initial grab sampling.
Samples should be taken from within the major zones of spatial variation in sediment type or
along the proposed channel center line at constant spacing to define stratification within the
material to be dredged and to obtain representative samples. Proper selection of boring depths
should include characterization depths that consider the dredges excavating accuracy and
respective project-specific conditions because it is critical to ensure future compatibility of the
dredging description and quantities in environmental compliance documentation with the
dredging as actually implemented. Tavolaro et al. (2007) describe in a technical note the
excavation accuracy of various dredges under different project conditions and provide guidance
to USACE personnel in determining depths to adequately characterize and evaluate material to
be dredged in the entire dredging prism, including paid allowable overdepth and non-pay
dredging. This technical note also improves communication on these subjects with other
agencies and the public. Boring is normally done on a routine basis for new-work projects to
indicate the type of material to be dredged and its dredgeability since this information is required
for the dredging contractor to use as a basis for bidding on the project. Test pits using a clamshell
dredge can also prove useful for assessing dredgeability and can be used to obtain larger sample
quantities.
2.13.6.4 Three terms regarding sediment sampling deserve strict definition: in situ,
undisturbed sample, and representative sample. In situ is derived from at the site and is
generally used to indicate the condition of a sediment as it exists at its naturally placed location
before intervention by man or machine. A truly undisturbed sample is one that maintains all of
the in situ sediment mass characteristics including shape, volume, pore structure and size, grain
orientation and structure, and the in situ horizontal and vertical pressures. In reality, a so-called
undisturbed sample cannot completely retain all of these attributes; however, except for the
in situ pressures, an attempt is made to maintain as much as possible of the other characteristics.
A representative sample, on the other hand, may be remolded slightly or completely; that is, it
contains all of the sediment material (both solids and fluids) of its in situ state but does not
maintain the original structure, grain orientation, or in situ density. Such samples are appropriate
for sediment material properties tests, but not for all sediment mass properties tests. The sediment material properties are those of the sediment components without reference to their
arrangement in a sediment mass, (the individual grains, the pore water, or the other materials
present). Sediment material identification tests are performed on a sample of sediment whose
in situ mass structure has been completely disturbed by remolding. The sediment mass properties
are those relating to the arrangement of the material components. They include the relative positions of the sediment grains, their structure, and their strength properties. The sediment material
and sediment mass properties are independent of each other. The same sediment material can
exist in a number of different arrangement states, and different sediment material can have the
same water content, density, and other sediment mass characteristics (Spigolon 1993). Guidance
to select sampling apparatus to obtain undisturbed samples is provided in EM 1110-1-1906.
2.13.6.5 Sampling and/or field testing of sediment involves penetration or excavation of the
sediment to the sample or test depth. Such excavations are typically made by probing, pits,

2-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
trenches, or borings. A number of methods are available for each of the processes involved in
securing samples. Each method has its own specific purpose, advantages, limitations, cost, and
value. Mudroch and Azcue (1995) present background information on techniques for sampling
aquatic sediments. USEPA (2001) provides a compilation of current information and recommendations for collecting, handling, and manipulating sediment samples for physicochemical
characterization and biological testing. EM 1110-1-1906 presents the principles, equipment,
procedures, and limitations for obtaining, handling, and preserving sediment samples in support
of civil and military projects. This EM also provides guidance for obtaining sediment samples in
the nearshore environment, such as harbors, rivers, coastal plains, back swamps, and wetlands,
where the depth of water varies from 0 to 45 m and is generally less than 20 m. Generally, sampling sediment underwater in the nearshore environment is not significantly different from
sampling soils on land. The concerns for obtaining minimally disturbed samples for geotechnical
testing are the same; the samples are just more difficult to obtain. In addition to the need to find
the right equipment for obtaining samples, a work platform or vessel and a positioning system
are needed. The wind, waves, tides, currents, and water depths must also be considered when
planning a site investigation.
2.13.6.6 The selection of appropriate sampling equipment for retrieving underwater
samples depends upon several factors: sediment data required; sizes of test specimens needed;
sediment type; geology; the depth of water or elevation of the sea, river, or lake bottom; environmental conditions; vessel availability; and funding limits. These factors do not always favor
selections that are compatible. For example, the equipment required to obtain the size and/or
quality of sample(s) may not be deployable from the vessel available within the project budget,
or the available vessel may not be able to operate in the required shallow-water depths. Each of
these factors is discussed in EM 1110-1-1906.
2.13.6.7 Test pits and trenches are usually made with mechanical cutting and removal
equipment, such as clamshell (grab), dragline, or backhoe machines. The process of excavating a
pit or trench may, in itself, be a form of test dredging. The pit is dug to the sampling or testing
depth. Sampling or testing is then done at the surface of the pit using a surface-operated system,
by a bottom-supported, remotely operated device or by a driver. The excavated material is
usually a representative sample if care is taken in the excavation/sampling process.
2.13.6.8 Some sediments, such as coarse gravel, cobbles, boulders, shells, and debris,
cannot be sampled effectively using the usual boring and sampling methods of geotechnical
engineering. A test pit or trench is then the only way of obtaining a representative sample of the
sediment. In these instances, in situ strength is usually not a factor, and a disturbed, but representative, sample is very useful for describing the character of the sediment.
2.13.7 Underwater sediment samplers. The most common types of underwater samplers
can be divided into three categories based upon the method of deployment: free samplers,
tethered samplers, and drill string samplers.
a. Free samplers. Free samplers include hand-held, diver-operated samplers and remotely
operated vehicles samplers that can be deployed with minimal attachments to the work platform.

2-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Tethered samplers. Tethered samplers are attached to the work platform by some type of
umbilical support cable or a lowering wireline. Tethered samplers can be subdivided into dredges
and grab samplers, box cores, gravity cores, and bottom-resting samplers.
c. Drill string samplers. Drill string samplers, as the name implies, operate through a drill
string and drill rig. Diamond core barrels are used to retrieve samples of extremely hard
sedimentshale and cemented soil that are too hard for sampling by the direct insertion of a
tube. Drill string samplers also include the split-barrel sampler used in the Standard Penetration
Tests (SPT).
The following subparagraphs present an overview of several grab samplers, gravity cores,
bottom-resting samplers, and drill string samplers used in dredging-related geotechnical
investigations. For more detailed information concerning these underwater samplers (including
the free samplers mentioned above), refer to EM 1110-1-1906.
2.13.7.1 Grab samplers. A grab sampler consists of a scoop or bucket container that bites
into the soft sediment deposit and encloses the sample (Figure 2-11). Grab samplers are used
primarily to sample disturbed surface materials, with depth of penetration being 0.3 m or less.
Grab samplers are easy and inexpensive to obtain and may be sufficient to characterize sediment
for routine maintenance dredging. Although the samples are invariably disturbed so that little
semblance of the original structure remains, some grab samplers can retrieve samples suitable for
water content and density laboratory analyses. All are designed to bite, or be pushed, into the
sediment and enclose a representative sample; therefore, the design must ensure that once the
sample is in the device, there can be no loss or dilution of sediment during the recovery from the
bottom. This type of sampling device can be positioned accurately on the bottom. Sampling is
limited to those surface sediments that can easily be cut by the grab or scoop or that are easily
penetrated by a push tube. Grab sampling may indicate relatively homogeneous sediment composition, segregated pockets of coarse- and fine-grained sediment, and/or mixtures. If segregated
pockets are present, samples should be taken at a sufficient number of locations in the channel to
adequately define the spatial variations in the sediment character and quantities of each material.
a. Petersen samplers. The Peterson sampler (Figure 2-11) has a system of levers to keep the
scoop open while the sampler is lowered to the bottom. As the sampler comes to rest on the
bottom, the tension in the retrieval line is relaxed, the trip lever drops, and the sampler is ready to
obtain the sample. After the trip lever has been released, tension is again applied to the retrieval
line. During this time, the jaws slowly shut, enclosing the sample within the scoop. The Petersen
sampler is a versatile sampler that can sample a wide range of sediments, from fluffy harbor
sediments to dense sand deposits in rivers. It weighs 85 kg (39 lb) empty, with additional weights
available to provide a total weight of 205 kg (93 lb), and it samples approximately 1,000 cm2 to a
depth of about approximately 0.3 m, depending on the consistency (the relative ease with which
a soil can be deformed [ASTM D 653]) of the bottom.
b. Birge-Ekman samplers. The Birge-Ekman sampler (Figure 2-11) is a widely used piece of
equipment. To obtain a sample, it is lowered to the bottom, with its scoop held open by springs.
When it is resting on the bottom, the operator releases a weight attached to the retrieval line. The
weight slides down the line, striking the tripping mechanism, and the scoop shuts, enclosing the
sample. The sampler is then raised to the surface, and the sample is transferred to a container.
2-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
While weights may be added to increase its penetration, the Birge-Ekman sampler is well suited
for only very soft sediments. For example, it is excellent for obtaining samples of slurries in hopper
dredge bins. Petite and standard sizes are available, weighing approximately 8 kg (18 lb) and 13 kg
(29 lb), with sample chambers ranging from 3,500 to 28,320 cm3 (Mudroch and Azcue 1995).
c. Ponar samplers. The Ponar sampler (Figure 2-11) is similar in construction to the
Petersen sampler. A system of levers keeps the scoop open during descent. Once the sampler is
on the bottom, the retrieval line tension is relieved, and the levers are disengaged. After the
levers have disengaged and the scoop is free to close, tension is again applied to the retrieval
line, closing the scoop. The sampler is then raised to the surface, where the sample is transferred
to the sample container. The Ponar sampler is ineffective in hard clay. It comes in petite and
standard sizes, with sampling volumes of 1,000 cm3 and 7,250 cm3 and weights of 10 kg (22 lb)
and 23 kg (50 lb), respectively (Mudroch and Azcue 1995).
d. Shipek samplers. The Shipek dredge (Figure 2-11) uses two concentric half-cylinders to
form the sample scoop. It is lowered to the bottom, where a weight releases the triggering
mechanism. Then the scoop gathers a sample as it rotates through a half-circular arc under the
force of springs. Finally, the sampler is hoisted to the water surface, where the scoop is released;
the sample is then transferred to a container. This sampler weighs 50 kg (110 lb) empty and
obtains a 3,000-cm3 sample (Mudroch and Azcue 1995).
e. Drag buckets. The drag bucket (Figure 2-11) differs from other grab samplers since it
does not bite vertically into the sediment. Rather, it skims an irregular slice off the top of the
deposit. Therefore, the size and shape of the slice are difficult to ascertain. This irregularity
disturbs sample material and mass properties. Drag buckets are available in assorted sizes with
round or square biting lips and are suitable only for very soft deposits in quiescent waters.
2.13.7.2 Gravity corers. Although several types of gravity corers are available, all are
operated similarly. In general, gravity corers consist of a large weight on top of a steel core
barrel, which contains a plastic liner. The corer is raised and lowered to the sediment surface by
a wireline although during the actual sampling process, the corer is allowed to free fall and
penetrate the sediment. Gravity corers have been classified by size or by the operational method.
Historically, they were divided into three groups based on size: Phleger corers, Ewing corers,
and deep-ocean corers. Today, several sizes of gravity corers are available; consequently, the
operational method, which is based upon the requirement that a valve or internal piston is used to
enhance sample recovery, provides a better classification system. Typically, the shorter, smaller
corers use a valve and are commonly referred to as gravity corers whereas the larger, longer
corers use a piston and are referred to as piston corers. EM 1110-1-1906 provides a discussion of
gravity and piston corers. A Phleger corer as an example of a gravity corer (Figure 2-12). The
Phleger corer is widely used for obtaining samples from the upper portion of underwater
deposits. It is available with adjustable weights in the range of 37 to 170 kg (17 to 77 lb) and in
fixed weights in excess of 200 kg (90 lb). The amount of weight depends on the texture of the
deposit and the required depth of penetration. Phleger corers, like most gravity corers, sample a
small area, usually between 13 and 23 cm2 (2 and 4 in2). Disturbance of the sediment is a
function of the area ratio (thick versus thin wall), the type of sediment, its strength, side friction
in the sample tube, and the ease with which water in the tube can be ejected in front of the
entering sample.
2-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-11. Grab Sediment Samplers

2.13.7.3 Vibracorer (or vibratory corer) samplers. High-frequency vibration of the sampler
during pushing is another means of inserting a sample tube into a sediment deposit. There are
several manufacturers of vibracorer samplers worldwide. These devices impart a sample
disturbance to the sediment, the magnitude of which depends on the effect of the vibration, the side
friction in the tube, and the vertical stability of the tube during penetration. The vibracorer consists
of a vibratory head attached to the top of the core barrel (Figure 2-13). The corer is supported in a
bottom-resting frame that helps to ensure that the core barrel enters the sediment vertically as well
as doubling as a reaction for advancing the sampling tube. The combination of weight and
vibration is generally used to drive the core barrel into the sediment although vibrations can be
combined with impact driving for some types of devices to increase the penetration. The vibrator
can be electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic. The vibracorer can be equipped with a penetration
recording device that will provide a record of the penetration depth and time. After the core barrel
has been extended to its full length, the sampler is retracted from the sediment and returned to the
floating plant deck. The movable plastic core barrel containing the sample is then removed from
the sampling device, and the ends are capped for sample preservation. Core sizes range from 76 to

2-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
152 mm in diameter and from 3 to 12 m in length. While this device is generally used to sample
sands, it has also been used to sample some fine-grained materials.

Figure 2-12. Phleger Gravity Corer (U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering

Service Center)

Figure 2-13. Alpine Vibracorer

2-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.13.7.4 Box corers. A box corer is a device that contains a box that takes a large, relatively
undisturbed sample when lowered by a wireline from the work platform to the sea floor
(Figure 2-14). The box corer is pushed into the sediment by its own weight. When the deployment line is retracted, a rotating spade closes off the bottom of the box before the box corer is
lifted. Most box corers can be operated in any water depth. Box corers are available from several
manufacturers, and therefore the design, size, and operation of each may vary slightly. The boxes
are usually constructed of stainless steel or aluminum, sizes range from 10 by 30 by 30 cm to
30 by 30 by 90 cm to as large as 50 by 50 by 60 cm. Most boxes have a bottom plate for supporting the sample in transport and a removable side for access to the sample after it has been
retrieved. The principal advantage of a box corer is that a large, relatively undisturbed sample of
cohesive material can be retrieved. The disadvantages of the box corer include the short length of
sample retrieved and the difficulty of sampling cohesionless sediments, which usually wash out
of the box corer during retrieval. A cohesive soil is a soil that, when unconfined, has
considerable strength when air-dried and that has significant cohesion when submerged (strength
being defined as the maximum stress which a material can resist without failing for any given
type of loading). In contrast, a cohesionless soil is a soil that when unconfined has little or no
strength when air dried and that has little or no cohesion when submerged (ASTM D 653).
2.13.7.5 Drill string samplers. A number of drill rigs and sampling equipment are available
for performing conventional drilling and sampling operations and for conducting in situ tests.
These various types of rigs and sampling equipment and the respective operating procedures for
disturbed and undisturbed sampling are all described in detail in EM 1110-1-1906. Two drill
string samplers commonly used in dredging are the split barrel sample spoon and corers.
a. Split-barrel sample spoon. The split-barrel sample spoon (also known as split-spoon
sampler) (Figure 2-15) is capable of penetrating hard sediments, provided sufficient force is
applied to the driving rods. The sampler is thrust into the deposit by the hammering force exerted
on rods connected to the head. During retrieval, the sample is retained within the barrel by a flap.
The nose and head are then separated from the barrel to transfer the sample to a container.
b. Corers. Extremely hard soils (shale and cemented soils) and rock are too hard for
sampling by the direct insertion of a metal tube. Therefore, an undisturbed core is obtained by
fitting the circular end of a rotating sampling tube with a hardened steel cutting surface or bit.
Rotary drill rigs are the workhorses of most geotechnical engineering drilling and sampling
operations (EM 1110-1-1906). For cutting rock, industrial diamonds are embedded in the
cutting edge of the bit (Figure 2-16). Soft rock, cemented soils, and hard clays can be drilled
with a hardened steel serrated bit instead of diamonds in the tip of the core barrel. Samples of
sediment taken by conventional boring techniques are normally required only in the case of newwork dredging. Based on information gained from the geophysical survey and/or initial grab
sampling, locations for borings should be selected. Samples should be taken from within the
major zones of spatial variation in sediment type or along the proposed channel center line at
constant spacing to define stratification within the material to be dredged and to obtain representative samples. Borings should be advanced to the full depth of anticipated dredging and then
1.5-3 m beyond if possible. This is normally done on a routine basis for new-work projects to
indicate the type of material to be dredged and its dredgeability since this information is required

2-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-14. Box Corer (from U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center)

2-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-15. Split-Spoon Sampler (from EM 1110-1-1906)

Figure 2-16. Typical Diamond Coring Bit (from EM 1110-1-1906)

2-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
for the dredging contractor to use as a basis for bidding on the project. Coring is relatively
expensive, and particular attention should be given to the vertical control to position the
elevations used to reference the cores accurately. However, jet probing is an inexpensive method
to collect additional information on the top elevation of the rock structure between borings. A jet
probe consists of inserting a pipe with water running through the center into unconsolidated
material and applying a downward force until refusal (that is, no observed advance of jet probe).
2.14 Placement Site Geotechnical Investigations.
2.14.1 Field investigations must also be performed at proposed placement sites to define
foundation conditions and to obtain samples for laboratory testing. This is especially important
for proposed Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs). The extent of required field investigations
depends on the project size and the foundation conditions at the site. It is particularly important
to define foundation conditions (including depth, thickness, extent, and composition of
foundation strata), groundwater conditions, and other factors that may influence construction and
operation of the site. For new CDFs, the field investigations required for estimating long-term
storage capacity should be planned and accomplished along with those required for the
engineering design of the retaining dikes, as described in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked)
Placement.
2.14.2 For existing containment areas, the foundation conditions may have been defined by
previous subsurface investigations made in connection with dike construction. However, previous investigations may not have included sampling of compressible soils for consolidation tests;
in most cases, suitable samples of any previously placed dredged material are not available. Field
investigations must therefore be tailored to provide those items of information not already
available.
2.14.3 Undisturbed samples of compressible foundation soils can be obtained using
conventional soil sampling techniques and equipment described in EM 1110-1-1906. If dredged
material has previously been placed within the containment area, undisturbed samples must be
obtained from borings taken within the containment area, but not through existing dikes. The
major problem in sampling existing containment areas is that the surface crust does not normally
support conventional drilling equipment, and personnel sampling in these areas must use caution.
Below the surface crust, fine-grained dredged material is usually soft, and equipment sinks
rapidly if it breaks through the firmer surface. Lightweight drilling equipment supported by mats
are normally required if crust thickness is not well developed. In some cases, sampling may be
accomplished manually if sufficient dried surface crust has formed to support crew and
equipment. More detailed information regarding equipment use in containment areas may be
found in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
2.14.4 Water table conditions within the containment area may be determined to estimate
loadings caused by the placement of dredged material. This information may be obtained by
piezometers, which may also be used for measurement of groundwater conditions during the
service life of the area. Other desired instrumentation, such as settlement plates, may also be
installed within the containment area for monitoring various parameters.

2-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.14.5 Additional information regarding conventional sampling techniques and equipment
and development of field exploration programs is given in EM 1110-1-1906. Procedures for
installation of piezometers and other related instrumentation are given in EM 1110-2-1908.
2.15 Sediment Physical and Engineering Properties Testing.
2.15.1 General.
2.15.1.1 Tests on sediment samples to determine physical and engineering properties may
be required to provide data for determining the proper dredge plant, evaluating and designing
placement alternatives, designing channel slopes and retention dikes, and estimating long-term
storage capacity for confined and unconfined placement areas. Evaluation of the physical characteristics of material proposed for discharge is necessary to determine potential environmental
impacts of placement, the need for additional chemical or biological testing, and feasibility of
potential beneficial uses of the dredged material. The tests presented below may be used to
characterize the material to be dredged so that proper dredge plant and placement and/or beneficial uses methods can be selected.
2.15.1.2 Tests to determine geotechnical properties of soil and rock have been standardized
by organizations such as the ASTM and American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), but no standards address test methods specific to dredged
material soil and rock characterization. The variability in properties and performance behavior of
dredged material soil and rock often leaves the selection of characterization test methods open to
interpretation. The desired end purpose guides the interpretation process. For example, soil
classification requirements for determining dredgeability may differ from those needed for input
into containment area design or sediment fate models. Sediment characteristics and requirements
for settling data and for long-term storage capacity dictate which laboratory tests are required for
containment area design. Tests conducted to determine dredgeability depend on the sufficiency
of existing data and which of the four stages of the dredging process(s) (excavation, removal,
transportation, or placement) the geotechnical information is required for.
2.15.1.3 Physical tests and evaluations on sediment can include visual classification, in situ
water content/solids concentration/bulk density, plasticity indices (Atterburg limits), organic
content, grain-size distributions, specific gravity, consolidation, and Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) classification. These laboratory tests are essentially standard tests and generally
follow procedures found in EM 1110-2-1906 or those specified by ASTM. Table 2-2 gives the
standard ASTM and USACE designations for several of these tests and also cross-references
these procedures to those of several other organizations that have standardized test methods. Lee
(2001a) describes several in situ expedient test methods to determine geotechnical properties of
dredged materials, and Lee (2001b) provides an overview of geotechnical engineering properties
of dredged materials and input requirements for selected fate of dredged material models. More
specific tests used for the evaluation and design of confined placement alternatives are discussed
in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement, and those for beneficial uses are described in
Chapter 5, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.

2-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 2-2. Standard Geotechnical Test Procedures

AASHTO1

USACE2

Designation
DOD3,4
Method 105, 2-VII
2-III, 2-V, 2-VI
Method 103, 2-VIII

Test
ASTM
Comments
Water content
D 2216
T265
I
Grain size
D 422
T88
V
Atterburg limits
D 4318
T89 T90
III
Classification
D 2487
III
Specific gravity
D 854
T100
IV
2-IV
Organic content
D 2974
Use Method C
Consolidation5
D 2435
T216
VIII
Permeability6
D 2434
T215
VII
Shear tests
D 2573
Field test
1 The Materials Book, AASHTO.
2 EM 1110-2-1906.
3 Department of Defense (1964) (Method 100, etc.).
4 Department of Army (1987) (2-III, etc.)
5 Do not use the standard laboratory test for determining consolidation of highly compressible, high-water-content
sediment samples. Instead, use the modified standard consolidation test and self-weight consolidation test as
described in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
6 One value of permeability must be calculated from the self-weight consolidation test.

2.15.1.4 As previously discussed, the extent of the testing program is project-dependent.

Fewer tests are required when dealing with a relatively homogeneous material and/or when data
are available from previous tests and experience as is frequently the case in maintenance dredging. For new-work projects and unusual maintenance dredging projects where considerable
variation in sediment properties is apparent from samples, more extensive laboratory testing
programs are required. The following tests are made in the field or in the laboratory to determine
the geotechnical sediment properties:
a. Material properties. The material properties of the individual grains or particles are
mineralogical composition, grain specific gravity, surface chemistry, size, shape, angularity, and
water chemistry.
b. Mass (intact) properties. The position and arrangement of the soil particles in a sediment
mass determine the mass properties: in situ density, water content, gas content, and structure.
c. Behavior properties. Behavior properties are a combined function of the material properties, the mass properties, and the applied external force system.
2.15.2 Material properties tests. The following tests determine material properties of the
sediment and water components without reference to their arrangement in a sediment mass.
2.15.2.1 Grain-size distribution.
a. The distribution of particle sizes is determined by screening the sediment through a set of
sieves. The results are expressed in the form of an accumulative semi-log plot of percentage finer
2-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
versus grain diameter, as shown in Figure 2-17. Grain-size analysis consists of separating size
classes by sieving for coarse-grained particles and by using the hydrometer for fine-grained
particles. The standard particle analysis tests are performed using a weight basis instead of a
volume basis. The use of screens to fractionate silt- and clay-sized particles smaller than about
0.075 mm (No. 200) is impractical because of the fineness of screens and their tendency to
become clogged with particles. For that fraction of the soil, the sedimentation rate in water is
used to establish quantities of various sizes. Detailed procedures for grain-size analysis can be
found in EM 1110-2-1906 and ASTM D 422. The following useful values are determined from
the grain-size distribution curve. For a detailed description of the classification uses of these size
parameters, refer to ASTM D 2487.

Figure 2-17. Typical Grain-Size Distribution Curves

(1) Maximum grain size. Smallest screen size through which all particles can pass.
(2) Median grain size. Grain diameter d 50 , corresponding to the 50% finer ordinate on the
grain-size distribution curve.
(3) Effective size. Grain diameter d 10 , corresponding to the 10% finer ordinate on the grainsize distribution curve.
(4) Coefficient of uniformity. Ratio of the d 60 size (the grain size at which 60% of the grain

size is finer) to the d 10 size (the grain size at which 10% of the grain size is finer).
(5) Coefficient of curvature. Ratio of the square of the size to the product of the d 30 (the

grain size at which 30% of the grain size is finer) and d 10 sizes.
b. The USCS classification ranks (from largest to smallest) include boulders, cobbles,
gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The grain sizes used in the USCS and familiar comparisons from
2-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Sowers (1979) are presented in Table 2-3. As an alternative, grain size is often expressed in phi
() units, where = -log2 D and where D equals the particle diameter in millimeters (Hobson
1979). This procedure normalizes the grain-size distribution and allows other size statistics based
on normal distribution. This conversion is presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-3. Grain-Size Identification (Modified from Spigolon 1993)
Classification
Boulder
Cobble
Coarse gravel
Fine gravel
Coarse sand
Medium sand
Fine sand
Fine-grained soil

ASTM Grain-Size Limits

>300 mm
> 12 in.
30075 mm
123 in.
7519 mm
30.75 in
194.75 mm
0.75No. 4
4.752 mm
No. 4No. 10
2-0.425 mm
No. 10No. 40
0.425-0.075 mm
No. 40No. 200
All material passing No. 200 screen (0.075 mm) is
classified as fines (silt and clay).

2.15.2.2 Plasticity.
a. The plasticity of the soil fraction that passes the No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) reflects the
combined influence of the mineralogy of the clay and the physicochemical interactions of the
fine fraction of soils (Terzaghi and Peck 1967). A detailed explanation of the tests required to
evaluate the plasticity of sediments is presented in EM 1110-2-1906 and ASTM D 4318. The
Atterburg limits indicate the range of water content (the ratio of the weight of the water to the
weight of the solids) over which the portion of a soil finer than 0.425 mm behaves in a plastic
manner; the range is affected by the type and amount of clay mineral present. The upper limit of
the range is defined as the liquid limit (LL), and the lower limit is defined as the plastic limit
(PL). The LL is the water content at which the soil will just begin to flow when jarred in the
prescribed manner. The PL is the water content at which the soil just begins to crumble when
rolled into threads 3 mm (0.125 in.) in diameter. The plasticity index (PI) is calculated as the
difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit water contents (PI = LL PL).
b. The Atterburg limits tests are expedient and inexpensive, making them a useful tool in
fine-grained soil identification. Balling of clays in a dredging pipeline appears to be a direct
function of the plasticity. Based on a chart developed by Casagrande (1948), the identification of
the fine-grained fraction of soils in the Unified Soil Classification System (U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station 1960) is based solely on the Atterburg limits, as shown in
Figure 2-18.

2-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 2-4. Sediment Particle Sizes

2-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-18. Casagrande Plasticity Chart for Cohesive Soils

c. The USCS is an outgrowth of the Airfield Classification System developed by Dr. Arthur
Casagrande of Harvard University for the USACE during World War II. The Airfield
Classification System was expanded and revised to apply to foundations and embankments as
well as to airfields and roads. The USCS uses both textural qualities (particle-size characteristics)
and plasticity characteristics as the basis of classification. Detailed information about the USCS,
including the procedure for classification and the characteristics of each soil group, is found in
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (1960) and ASTM D 2487.
2.15.2.3 Specific gravity of solids. The specific gravity of the solid constituents of a soil is
the ratio of the unit weight of the solids to the unit weight of water. While it does not indicate
dredging behavior, specific gravity is essential for the calculation of void ratio and porosity. The
other properties needed are in situ density and water content. These calculations involve
determination of the density and volume of the soil solids as part of the total in situ volume.
Procedures for conducting the specific gravity test are presented in EM 1110-2-1906 and
ASTM D 854.
2.15.2.4 Color and odor. Soil color, while not of great consequence to the dredgeability of
soils, is of considerable help in correlating soil samples from location to location during
geotechnical analysis of the site investigation. In addition, the soil color can be of consequence
in situations such as when dredged material is used for beach nourishment. Soil colors are often
useful in detecting different strata, defining soil type based on experience in a local area, and
possible identification of materials. Dark or drab shades of brown or grey and almost-black soils
2-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
are typically organic. However, some soils are black from other minerals. Brighter colors are
associated with inorganic soils (Terzaghi and Peck 1967). Red, yellow, and yellowish brown
colors suggest iron oxide whereas white and pink indicates silica, calcium carbonate, or
aluminum compounds. Odor is an immediate and evident indicator of organics or chemical
contents.
2.15.2.5 Organic content. Sediments may contain organic matter that affect the excavation
and pumping processes. The organic content of a soil may be established in the laboratory by dry
combustion using the ASTM D 2974 test method. The following dry combustion test procedure
is recommended to determine the organic content expressed as the percentage of weight lost on
ignition:
a. Dry a 40 gram sample at 105 C until there is no further weight loss (usually 4 to
6 hours).
b. Place the sample in a desiccator to cool for 15 minutes.
c. Weigh the sample and place it in the oven at 440 C for 4 hours.
d. Place the sample in the desiccator again to cool for 15 minutes.
e. Weigh the sample and determine its organic content by dividing the weight lost by the
sample while in the oven at 440 C by the total weight of the sample at the time it was placed in
the oven.
2.15.3 Mass properties tests.
2.15.3.1 The mass properties are those relating to the arrangement of the material components. They include the relative positions of the soil grains, their structure, and their mass
density. The soil material and soil mass properties are independent of each other. The same soil
material can exist in a number of different arrangement states, and different soils can have the
same water content, density, and other soil mass characteristics. The several mass properties
defined below are interrelated. Calculations for weight-volume relationships are illustrated in
Figure 2-19, and typical values for void ratio, saturated water content, and unit weight for natural
soils in situ are given in Table 2-5. The tabulated values were taken from various published
sources and are shown here for illustration only; actual measured values may differ slightly from
those shown.

2-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-19. Weight-Volume Relationships (as Summarized by Spigolon 1993)

2-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table 2-5. Typical Weight-Volume Properties of Soils (as Summarized by Spigolon 1993)

2-45

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.15.3.2 Water content. The water content is expressed on a dry weight basis as follows:

w
=

Ww
100 percent
Ws

(2-1)

where
w = water content, percent
W w = weight of water in the sample, grams
Ws = weight of solids in the sample, grams
The term water content, as used in this manual, refers to the engineering water content
commonly used in geotechnical engineering and may exceed 100%. It is used to determine the in
situ void ratio and in situ density of fine-grained sediments. Water content determinations should
be made on representative samples from borings and grab samples of fine-grained sediment
obtained during field investigation. Fine-grained sediments do not drain rapidly; thus, representative samples taken from borings and grab samples are considered to represent in situ
water contents. Detailed test procedures for determining the water content are found in
EM 1110-2-1906 and ASTM D 2216. Water content is an important factor used in sizing
dredged material containment areas, and its application for sizing containment areas is presented
in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
2.15.3.3 Void ratio. Void ratio is calculated as the ratio of the volume of the void space,
including water and gas, in a soil mass to the volume of the solid constituents. Porosity is calculated as the ratio of the volume of voids in a soil mass to the total volume of soil, which includes
gas, water, and solids. Void ratio is used in geotechnical engineering because of its value in further calculations involving weight-volume relations. Detailed test procedures for determining
porosity are found in EM 1110-2-1906.
2.15.3.4 In situ (mass) density. In situ density is used to evaluate dredgeability of sediments
and aid in equipment selection, to estimate production rates, and to estimate volume required for
storage in confined disposal areas. The mass density (unit weight) is the total weight per unit of
volume. Wet density (wet unit weight) is defined as the total weight of gas, water, and soil solids
per unit of volume of the soil. Dry density (dry unit weight) is the dry weight of solids per unit
volume of the soil. Saturated density (saturated unit weight) is the total weight of water and soil
solids per unit of soil volume when the void space contains only water (no gas). With the water
content and unit weight of a sample known, the solids (dry) density can be calculated. With the
addition of specific gravity of solids (grains), the solids volume and gas content can be determined. There are several methods for determining or estimating the in situ density of a soil. It
can be estimated from laboratory test data using geotechnical engineering formulas or from field
investigations of sediments (see paragraphs 2.13.5.3, 2.13.5.4, and 2.13.5.5). Relatively
undisturbed samples may be taken from soft to stiff cohesive sediments by using a thin-walled
sampling tube inserted into the soil slowly and without impact as described in ASTM D 1587.
Obtaining high-quality undisturbed samples of sand has been rather elusive (EM 1110-1-1906).

2-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Refer to Appendix II of EM 1110-2-1906 for guidance in estimating in situ density from
laboratory tests.
2.15.4 Behavior properties tests. Behavior properties are a combined function of the
material properties, the mass properties, and an applied external force system. The soil behavior
properties influence dredgeability, placement and containment design, and feasibility of dredged
material beneficial uses.
2.15.4.1 Relative density and consistency. The relative density of noncohesive soils and
relative firmness, or consistency, of cohesive soils can be estimated by in situ testing from the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and the Cone Penetration Test (CPT). Relative density is
defined in ASTM D 653 as the ratio of the difference between the void ratio of a cohesionless
soil in the loosest state and any given void ratio, to the difference between the void ratios in the
loosest and in the densest states.
a. Standard Penetration Test. The SPT consists of driving a split-barrel sampler
(Figure 2-15) to obtain a representative disturbed sample while simultaneously obtaining a
measure of the resistance of the subsoil to penetration of a standard sampler. The resistance to
penetration is obtained by counting the number of blows required to drive a steel tube of
specified dimensions into the subsoil a specified distance using a hammer of a specified weight
(mass). The soil sample obtained as a part of the test can be used for water content
determination, soil type identification purposes, and laboratory tests in which the degree of
disturbance of the sample does not adversely affect the results. The results of the SPT have been
used extensively in many geotechnical exploration projects. The SPT blow count N is a measure
or index of the in-place firmness or denseness of the foundation material. Many local and widely
published correlations that relate SPT blow count to the engineering behavior of earthworks and
foundations are available. Because the SPT is considered to be an index test, blow count data
should be interpreted by experienced engineers only. In general, the SPT blow count data are
applicable to fairly clean medium-to-coarse sands and fine gravels at various water contents and
to saturated or nearly saturated cohesive soils. When cohesive soils are not saturated, the penetration resistance may be misleading as to the behavior of the material as a foundation soil.
Likewise, the engineering behavior of saturated or nearly saturated silty sands may be underestimated by the penetration resistance test. The relative firmness or consistency of cohesive
soils or density of cohesionless soils can be estimated from the blow count data, which is
presented in Table 2-6 (EM 1110-1-1906). Where no field tests are performed on coarse-grained
materials (for example, sand or gravel) the material in its densest state, based on laboratory tests,
will be considered comparable to its in situ condition. Correct standardization of procedures and
equipment (the hammer size and drop) for the SPT are described in EM 1110-1-1906 and ASTM
D 1586.

2-47

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 2-6. Soil Density or Consistency from Standard Penetration Test Data
(from EM 1110-1-1906 after Terzaghi and Peck 1948)

b. Cone Penetration Test. The CPT can provide detailed information on soil stratigraphy
and preliminary estimations of geotechnical properties (EM 1110-1-1804). The CPT may also be
used to estimate both relative density of cohesionless soil and undrained strength of cohesive soil
through empirical correlations. The CPT is especially suitable for sands and preferable to the
SPT (EM 1110-1-1905). This measurement method is performed by slowly pushing a rod with
an enlarged cone tip into the soil and measuring the force required for penetration.
ASTM D 3441 covers the standard test method for mechanical CPTs of soil. On land, a typical
force reaction is a 20 ton truck while various devices have been developed for performing CPTs
over water by using a reaction frame resting on the sea bottom or by modifying land CPT rigs for
use on jack-up barges.
2.15.4.2 Bulking factor. A bulking factor is the ratio of the volume occupied by a given
amount of dredged material in a containment area in either a hopper or a placement area immediately after deposition by a dredging process to the volume occupied by the same amount of soil
in situ. The bulking factor is affected by soil material, mass, and behavior characteristics as well
as different types of dredges and dredging techniques. Granular materials may increase or
decrease volume, depending on the initial density state (loose or dense) and the final deposition
manner. The volume of cohesive soils tends to increase upon removal from their in situ position.
Hydraulic dredges usually bulk up sediment more than mechanical dredges due to water entrainment. New-work material tends to have higher initial bulking in the placement area than

2-48

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
maintenance material because it is usually in a more consolidated in situ state. A general rule of
thumb is the larger the grain size, the lower the bulking factor (sand 1.0 to 1.2, silt 1.2 to 1.8, and
clay 1.5 to 3.0).
2.15.4.3 Shear strength of soil. Shear strength of dredged material is an important
parameter for estimating dredgeability and modeling sediment behavior under applied stress
loading, especially when predicting mounding stability and confined aquatic disposal site
stability. Laboratory testing includes laboratory vane shear testing (ASTM D 4648) or field vane
shear testing (ASTM D 2573), and Undrained Unconsolidated (UU) triaxial testing
(ASTM D 6528) for cohesive material.
2.15.4.4 Unconfined compressive strength of rock. The rock property commonly accepted
for indicating strength, rippability, and dredgeability is the Unconfined Compressive Strength
(UCS). An intact rock core is required for preparation and testing in a high-capacity compression
testing machine and tested to failure. Cored rock samples are retrieved by rotary drilling with
hollow-core barrels equipped with diamond- or carbide-embedded bits. The core is commonly
retrieved in 1.5-3 m (5-10 ft) lengths. The N size hole (approximately 75 mm [3 in.]), probably
the core size most widely used by the USACE for geotechnical investigations, produces a
satisfactory sample for preliminary exploration work and, in many instances, for more advanced
design studies. Boring methods, techniques, and applications are described in EM 1110-1-1804
and EM 1110-1-1906. A standard practice for rock core drilling and sampling of rock for site
investigation is provided in ASTM D 2113, and a standard test method for conducting an
unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens is provided in ASTM D 2938.
2.15.4.5 Rock Quality Designation. Another indicator of dredgeability of rock can be the
Rock Quality Designation, which indicates the percentage of intact and sound rock in the core
run. It was first used to provide a simple and inexpensive indicator of rock mass quality to
predict tunneling conditions (ASTM D 6032) and has been used to indicate rock quality for
predicting dredgeability (Johnson and Sraders 2003). The Rock Quality Designation is calculated
where all pieces of intact and sound rock core equal to or greater than 100 mm (4 in.) long are
summed and divided by the total length of the core run (ASTM D 6032).
2.16 Laboratory Tests for Containment Facilities.
2.16.1 In addition to the sediment material, mass, and behavior properties presented above,
additional laboratory tests (consolidation testing, water salinity, and/or solids concentration)
may be required to provide data for containment area design and long-term storage capacity
estimates. A flowchart illustrating the complete laboratory testing program for a containment
facility design is shown in Figure 2-20.

2-49

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-20. Flowchart Depicting Laboratory Testing for Containment Area Design
2.16.2 Consolidation testing. Sediment consolidation testing may be required for containment area design and long-term storage capacity estimates. Consolidation analysis of soft
dredged material requires that laboratory compressibility data be obtained across the entire wide
range of void ratios that are commonly encountered in these soft materials as they consolidate.
Void ratios in dredged materials can vary much more than those of normal soils. In typical
(nonsediment) soils in the natural state, void ratios normally vary between 0.25 and 2.0, with
some soft organic clays reaching 3.0. Recently deposited in situ sediments often have void ratios

2-50

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
as high as 5 or 6, double or triple the values of most soils. When dredged by hopper or hydraulic
dredges, the initial void ratios after placement may reach as high as 10 to 12; in a few clayey
sediments, the maximum values may reach even higher. Mechanical dredging does not
dramatically alter the void ratio of the mass of dredged material; however, there will be clumps
of material at about the in situ void ratio with much softer (slurry consistency) material between
the clumps. Laboratory consolidation testing of soft materials often requires use of at least two
types of consolidation tests. Both a modified version of the standard oedometer consolidation test
and a self-weight consolidation test must normally be conducted; these tests provide data for the
low and high ends of the anticipated range of void ratios, respectively. However, on relatively
firm dredged materials that are mechanically dredged, use of oedometer testing alone may
suffice. Detailed guidance concerning consolidation testing for containment area design and
long-term storage capacity is provided in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
2.16.3 Salinity. Near-bottom water samples from the area where water will be mixed with
sediment during the dredging or pump-out operation (usually water at the dredging site) may be
tested for salinity. In estuarine environments, the salinity may vary with depth, flow, wind, tidal
cycle, and season. Therefore, it is important to know the expected range of salinity during the
dredging project. If the water at the dredging site is saline (>1 part per thousand), water gathered
during the field investigation or reconstituted salt water should be used when additional water is
required in all subsequent characterization tests and in the settling tests. Salinity may be
measured in two ways:
a. Conductivity. Salinity may be measured directly by a salinity conductivity meter that
electronically converts temperature-adjusted electrical conductivity into salinity.
b Dissolved solids or nonfilterable residue. A detailed procedure is presented in American
Public Health Association (1985). Briefly, it consists of the following steps:
(1) Filter water through a filter with a pore size of 1 micron or less.
(2) Pipette a known volume (about 25 milliliters) into a weighed dish and evaporate the
sample for 4 to 6 hours in a drying oven at 103o to 105 C.
(3) Cool the dish in a desiccator and then weigh it immediately.
(4) Salinity (in parts per thousand [ppt]) is equal to the residue (in milligrams) divided by

the sample (in milliliters).

2.16.4 Solids concentration.
2.16.4.1 General. The suspended solids concentration is the most frequently measured
parameter in the laboratory procedures. This measurement is made during preparation of slurries
and suspensions and during evaluation of settling characteristics, treatment effectiveness, and
other items. Three methods may be used to measure suspended solids: evaporation, filtration, and
centrifugation. Each is applicable under different circumstances. Evaporation (direct drying)
measures total solids (that is, the sum of both suspended and dissolved solids). The dissolved
solids concentration, if significant, must be measured separately and subtracted from the total

2-51

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
solids concentration. Filtration directly measures suspended solids. Centrifugation is a blend of
the other two methods. It attempts to measure suspended solids by measuring the total solids
after washing the dissolved solids out of a known volume of sample. The procedures outlined
below are adapted from the methods given in Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978). In
practice, there has been confusion concerning the method of reporting suspended solids. The
terms concentration in grams per liter, percent solids by weight, percent solids by volume,
and percent solids by apparent volume have been used. These methods of reporting suspended
solids concentration are discussed and compared in Table 2-7. The relationship of percent
suspended solids by weight and volume, concentration in grams per liter, and water content is
illustrated in Figure 2-21. This figure does not, however, account for salinity in the sample.
Suspended solids concentration in grams per liter or milligrams per liter is used throughout this
manual. If suspended solids determinations are to be made on samples with a solids
concentration of 1 gram or less per liter, either the centrifugation method or the filtration method
should be used. For slurries with solids concentrations of 1 gram or more per liter, either the total
solids method or the centrifugation method should be used.
2.16.4.2 Definitions and conversions.
a. The percent of total solids by weight is the weight of solids both nonfilterable and
filterable (both dissolved and suspended) in a sample divided by the weight of the sample:

%S =

Ws
(100 percent)
Wt

(2-2)

where
%S = percent total solids by weight, percent
Wt = total weight of sample, grams

2-52

Table 2-7. Relationship of Concentration in Percent Solids by Weight, Percent Solids by Volume, Concentration in Grams per
Liter, and Water Content

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2-53

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-21. Relationship of Concentration in Percent Solids by Weight, Percent Solids by

Volume, Concentration in Grams per Liter, and Water Content
b. The percent of suspended solids by weight is the weight of solids less the weight of
dissolved solids in a sample divided by the weight of the sample:
Ws% SS =

(W w Sal )
1,000
(100 percent)
Wt

(2-3)

where
%SS = percent suspended solids by weight, percent
Ww = weight of wet sample and dish, grams - weight of dry sample and dish, grams
Sal = salinity, parts per thousand

2-54

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Solids concentration is the weight of solids (dissolved and suspended) in a sample
divided by the volume of sample:
Cs=

Ws
Vt

(2-4)

where
C s = solids concentration, grams per liter
V t = sample volume, liters
d. Suspended solids concentration is the weight of suspended solids in a sample divided by
the volume of sample:
C = W ss
Vt

(2-5)

where
C = suspended solids concentration, grams per liter
W ss = weight of suspended solids in sample, grams, calculated as

Sal

1,000 ppt

W=
Ws Ww
ss

e. The percent of suspended solids by weight may be converted to concentrations in units

of grams per liter by the following formula:

Sal

1,000 ppt

(1,000 g/ L) G s 1 +
C=

100%

Sal
- 1 + 1 +
G s

% SS
1,000 ppt

where G s is the specific gravity of suspended solids particles.

2-55

(2-6)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
f. Suspended solids concentrations presented in units of grams per liter may be converted to
percent of suspended solids by the following formula:

1,000 g/ L

100% G s
% SS =

C
C
Sal
Gs
+ G s -
1 +

1,000 g/ L
1,000 g/ L 1,000 ppt

(2-7)

g. Suspended solids concentrations C ss can be calculated from total solids concentrations

by the following equations if the salinity is known and the total solids concentration is presented
in percent of solids by weight:

Sal

1,000 ppt

% SS = % S - (100% - % S )

(2-8)

Sal

1,000 ppt

Sal
1+

1,000 ppt

% SS + 100%
%S =

(2-9)

Sal

1,000 ppt

(1,000 g/ L) G s 1 +
C ss =

-1 + 1
Sal
1+

+ G s
Sal Sal

1,000 ppt
% S 1 +
100% 1,000 ppt - 1,000 ppt

(2-10)

2.16.4.3 Total solids method (evaporation method). This test is used when the suspended
solids concentration is large compared to the dissolved solids. It also may be used in other cases
where the dissolved solids or salinity is known or measured separately. To ensure accuracy, the
test should generally be used only for a suspension with a suspended solids concentration greater
than 1 gram per liter. These steps should be followed:
a. Obtain the tared weight of a sample dish.
b. Thoroughly mix the sample and pour it into the sample dish.
c. Weigh the dish and the sample and place them in a drying oven at 105 C until the
sample has dried to a constant weight (about 4 to 6 hours).
d. Cool the sample in a desiccator and then it weigh immediately.
2-56

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Calculate the suspended solids concentration C in grams per liter, as follows:

(1,000 g/ L)
C = W ss
W ss

+W w
G
s

(2-11)

from before
W ss = W s [Ww (Sal/1,000 ppt)]
Ws = weight of the dry sample and dish - the weight of the dish
Sal = salinity, ppt, or dissolved solids, grams per liter; if unknown in freshwater environments,
use zero
G s = specific gravity of the solids; use 2.67 if unknown
W w = weight of the wet sample and dish, grams - weight of the dry sample and dish, grams
2.16.4.4 Filtration method. This method should be used for suspensions having suspended
solids concentrations of less than 1.0 gram per liter. Any quantitative filtering apparatus using a
filter paper that has a pore size of 1 micron or less can be used for the test. The two most
common setups use either a Gooch crucible with a glass fiber filter paper or a membrane filter
apparatus. These steps should be followed:
a. Weigh the filter.
b. Filter a measured volume of the sample. The volume should be sufficient to contain
5 milligrams of suspended solids.
c. Filter 10 milliliters of distilled water twice to wash out the dissolved solids.
d. Place the filter in a drying oven at 105 C until the sample has dried to constant weight
(usually 1 to 2 hours).
e. Cool the sample in a desiccator and then weigh it.
f. Calculate the suspended solids concentration C in grams per liter, as follows:
( weight of filter and dry solids, grams ) ( weight of filter, grams )

C=

(1,000 ml / L )

( volume of sample, ml )

(2-12)

2.16.4.5 Centrifugation method. This method is recommended for samples from saltwater
environments that have a suspended solids concentration greater than 1 gram per liter. It is

2-57

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
particularly useful when the dissolved solids concentration or salinity is unknown but is expected
to be significant (greater than 10% of the suspended solids concentration). This method is
preferable to the total solids method when the dissolved solids concentration is several times
greater than the suspended solids concentration. These steps should be followed:
a. Centrifuge a measured volume of sample until the liquid and solids have separated,
yielding a clear supernatant (several minutes should be sufficient).
b. Pour off the supernatant, being careful not to lose any of the solids.
c. Resuspend the settled solids in distilled water by diluting the sample to its initial volume.
d. Repeat steps a-d twice to wash out all dissolved solids.
e. Pour the sample into a preweighed dish, and then wash all remaining solids from the
centrifuge tube into the dish, using distilled water.
f. Place the dish in a drying oven at 105 C until the sample has dried to a constant weight
(usually 4 to 6 hours).
g. Cool the sample in a desiccator and then weigh it.
h. Calculate the suspended solids concentration C in grams per liter, as follows:
( weight of dish and dry solids, grams ) ( weight of dish, grams )

C=

(1,000 ml / L )

( volume of sample, ml )

(2-13)

2.16.4.6 Correlation of suspended solids with turbidity. In some cases, effluent quality standards are specified in terms of turbidity, an optical property. Relationships between suspended
solids concentration and turbidity are sediment-specific and can be determined only by preparing
a correlation curve. The correlation curve is developed by determining turbidity and suspended
solids concentration of samples prepared over a sufficiently wide range of concentrations.
2.16.5 Sample compositing and separation.
2.16.5.1 Following determination of in situ water content, the sediment sample(s) must be
homogenized, split, and possibly separated into coarse- and fine-grained fractions prior to further
testing. Sediment characterization testssuch as plasticity, grain-size determination, specific
gravity, and organic contentmay be performed on grab samples from each of several sampling
locations. Other tests, such as consolidation and settling tests, should be performed on an appropriately composited and homogenized sample. The need for and methods of compositing are
highly project dependent, but they should be aimed toward producing a sample for testing that is
representative of the material to be dredged. If composite samples are to be used for further
testing, they must be thoroughly mixed. Samples for settling tests (approximately 3.8 L
[15 gallons]) may require addition of some water to aid in mixing.

2-58

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.16.5.2 Sediment character, as determined from in situ samples, is not indicative of
dredged material behavior after dredging since the fine-grained (<No. 200 sieve) fraction
undergoes natural segregation within the containment area and behaves independently of the
coarse-grained (>No. 200 sieve) fraction. Therefore, the relative percentage (dry weight basis) of
coarse- and fine-grained material should be determined by separation of a small portion of the
sample, using a No. 200 sieve and following procedures generally described in EM 1110-2-1906.
2.16.5.3 If the coarse-grained fraction is less than 10% by dry weight, the sediment sample
is considered to be fine grained and is treated as though all the material passed the No. 200 sieve;
separation for further characterization tests is not required. If the coarse-grained fraction is
greater than 10% by dry weight, the entire sample should be separated into coarse- and finegrained fractions prior to further testing. Separation can be accomplished for small sample
volumes (for example, those intended for classification or consolidation testing) by using the No.
200 sieve as described above. However, the larger sample volume required for sedimentation
tests makes the use of a sieve impractical. For such volumes, slurry (sediment plus water) can be
thoroughly mixed in a large barrel and then allowed to separate by differential settling. After the
initial mixing is stopped, the coarse material quickly accumulates on the bottom. The slurry
remaining above the coarse material can then be pumped into a second barrel, where it can be
remixed and loaded into the testing column.
2.16.5.4 The various tests as well as sample separation and preparation require slurries of
various solids concentrations. It is advisable to begin the testing sequence with a slurry of higher
concentration and add the required volume of water to obtain the desired lower concentration.
The following simple relationship is useful in calculating the volume of additional water
required:

C1V1 = C2V2

(2-14)

where
C 1 and C 2 = solids concentrations
V 1 and V 2 = slurry volumes (water plus solids).
2.16.6 Settling tests. Dredged material placed in placement areas by hydraulic dredges or
pumped into placement areas by pump-out facilities enters the placement area as a slurry (mixture
of dredged solids and dredging site water). Settling refers to those processes in which the dredged
material slurry is separated into supernatant water of low solids concentration and a more
concentrated slurry. Laboratory sedimentation tests provide data for designing the containment
area to meet effluent suspended solids criteria and to provide adequate storage capacity for the
dredged solids. These tests are described in detail in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
2.17 Site Contamination Characterization.
2.17.1 In the technical framework, the initial screening for sediment contamination is
designed to determine, based on available information, if the sediments to be dredged contain

2-59

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
any contaminants in forms and concentrations that are likely to cause unacceptable impacts to the
environment. During this screening procedure, specific contaminants of concern are identified in
a site-specific sediment, so that any subsequent evaluation is focused on the most pertinent contaminants. Initial considerations should include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Potential routes by which contaminants could reasonably have been introduced to the
sediments.
b. Data from previous sediment chemical characterization and other tests of the material or
other similar material in the vicinity, provided the comparisons are still appropriate.
c. Probability of contamination from agricultural and urban surface runoff.
d. Spills of contaminants in the area to be dredged.
e. Industrial and municipal waste discharges (past and present).
f. Source and prior use of dredged materials (for example, beach nourishment).
2.17.2 When testing is necessary, samples of dredged material, reference sediment, control
sediment, organisms, and water are needed for physical evaluations, chemical analysis, and
bioassay tests. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of U.S.
Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1998) and Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean DisposalTesting Manual (USEPA/USACE 1991) (described in Chapter 3, Open-Water
Placement, and Chapter 4, Confined [Diked] Placement) provide general guidance for the
development of a sampling plan, including collection, handling, and storage. Sampling is the
foundation upon which all testing rests, but there are so many case-specific factors that influence
sampling needs that detailed guidance of national scope is impractical. Some regions of the
country have developed specific technical requirements and agency review/approvals of
sampling and analysis plans. Regional guidance from local USEPA and USACE offices should
be sought for developing project-specific sampling plans.
2.18 Cultural Resources and Munitions and Explosives of Concern. Two aspects of site
characterization not covered in the preceding paragraphs can also significantly impact a dredging
projectcultural resources and munitions and explosives of concern (MEC).
2.18.1 Cultural resources. A survey may be required for Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs) to determine if any cultural resources may be impacted by the dredging operation.
Cultural resources may include a wide range of items (prehistoric, historic, and maritime
resources), but maritime resources (shipwrecks) are usually the most common type that may be
impacted by dredging.
2.18.1.1 Waterborne magnetics (magnetometers). Magnetometers have a reasonable history
of use in locating underwater shipwrecks. Waterborne magnetics is a passive system in which the
measured disturbance of the ferrous metal target is a result of its interaction with the magnetic
field of the earth. The magnetometer is a sensitive instrument used to map spatial variations in
the magnetic field of the earth. In the proton magnetometer, a magnetic field not parallel to the

2-60

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
field of the earth is applied to a fluid rich in protons causing them to partly align with this
artificial field. When the controlled field is removed, the protons precess toward realignment
with the field of the earth at a frequency that depends on the intensity of that of the earth. By
measuring this precession frequency, the total intensity of the field can be determined.
2.18.1.2 To conduct a magnetic survey, a hydrodynamically shaped body that houses the
magnetometer, which senses anomalies in the magnetic field of the earth as it passes in the proximity of relatively large ferrous objects (for example, cannons and metal hulls), is usually towed
behind a survey vessel. The incorporation of computers and nonvolatile memory in
magnetometers has greatly increased their ease of use and data handling capability. The
instruments typically keep track of position, prompt for inputs, and internally store the data for
an entire day of work. Downloading the information to a personal computer is straightforward,
and plots of the days work can be prepared each night. EM 1110-1-1802 presents guidance
concerning conventional magnetometer use.
2.18.1.3 Side-scan sonar. Side-scan sonars may also be used to conduct underwater surveys
of cultural resources. They use acoustic energy projected laterally from a pair of transducers
housed in a towed fish. The received signal is transmitted through the tow cable to the
shipboard recorder, which processes the signal and prints the record. The resulting image of the
bottom is roughly similar to a continuous, oblique aerial photograph. However, the physics of
underwater acoustics are sufficiently different from optics in the atmosphere that interpretation
of side-scan sonar records requires training and experience. Side-scan sonars usually operate at
one of two frequencies, around 100 or 500 kHz. The lower frequency has greater range but provides less detail than the higher frequency. These systems are used in commercial applications
such as wreckage/lost-object searches (for example, ships, aircraft, mines, and torpedoes), seabed
geological surveys, pipeline tracking, and biological surveying. EM 1110-2-1003 provides
detailed information concerning side-scan sonar use for object detection.
2.18.2 Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC)
2.18.2.1 Various navigation and beach nourishment dredging projects have been impacted
by the presence of MEC in the dredging and dredged material placement area (Welp et al. 1994;
Welp, Pilon, and Bocamazo 1998; Welp, Clausner, and Pilon 1998).
2.18.2.2 Under the Environmental Security Technology and Certification Program
(ESTCP), the Dredging Operations and Environment Research (DOER) program and the U.S.
Navy prepared a document to provide guidance to personnel (such as planners, cost estimators,
specification writers, engineers, managers, and dredging contractors) involved in dredging
projects with sediment contaminated by the presence of Munitions and Explosives of Concern
(MEC) (Welp et al. 2008). Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is a military munitions definition under
the more general classification of MEC. This guidance document is available on the Dredging
Operations and Technical Support (DOTS) Program website (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/
dots.html).

2-61

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Section III
Dredging Equipment and Techniques
2.19 Purpose. This section describes the dredging equipment and techniques used in dredging
activities in the United States and presents advantages and limitations for each type of dredge.
Guidance is provided for selection of the best dredging equipment and techniques for a proposed
dredging project to aid in planning and design.
2.20 Factors Determining Equipment Selection. The following factors influence the selection of
dredging equipment and method(s) used to perform the dredging:
a. Physical characteristics of the material to be dredged.
b. Quantities and physical layout of the material to be dredged.
c. Dredging depth.
d. Location of both the dredging and placement sites and the distance between them.
e. Physical environment of and between the dredging and placement placement areas.
f. Contamination level of the sediments.
g. Method of placement.
h. Production required.
i. Type of dredges available.
2.21 Dredge Types.
2.21.1 The mechanisms used in the various stages of a navigation dredging operation are a
function of the type of equipment used and the characteristics of the sediment being dredged.
Each of these stages is accomplished using one or a combination of hydraulic and mechanical
devices. Depending on the project, these stages may be modified by additional actions (for
example, blasting rock before excavation). Final placement may include manipulation of the
sediment by shaping or even drying and compacting it.
2.21.2 Dredges used in USACE navigation projects are usually classified by either the
hydraulic or mechanical manner in which they achieve excavation and removal. Hydraulic and
mechanical dredges have enabled the transformation of rivers and harbors throughout the world
into navigable waterways, allowing the transport of commerce and people where water passage
was historically unavailable. The hydraulic dredge has been a major contributor to this transformation by providing for the movement of large quantities of dredged material in relatively
short time periods.

2-62

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.21.2.1 Hydraulic dredges.
a. Hydraulic dredges are characterized by the use of a centrifugal pump to dredge sediment
and transport it, in a liquid slurry form, to a discharge area. The centrifugal pump was first
developed in France in the early 1800s and then adapted to dredging in the 1850s by the USACE.
In their present form, hopper and cutterhead pipeline dredges have been in existence since the
1870s and are now common throughout the world. Herbich (2000) and Turner (1996) provide
detailed information on the principals of hydraulic dredging.
b. The major types of hydraulic dredges are hopper dredges and cutterhead pipeline
dredges. Less common hydraulic types include dustpan and sidecaster dredges. In addition,
special-purpose dredging systems have been developed during the last few years in the United
States and overseas to pump dredged material slurry with high solids content and/or to minimize
the resuspension of sediments. Most of these systems are not intended for use on typical
navigation dredging projects; however, they provide alternative methods for unusual dredging
projects, such as treatment of contaminated sediments. The term environmental dredging
generally refers to remediation or cleanup projects where removal of contaminated sediment
from the waterway to enhance environmental quality is the primary objective of the project. For
more information on environmental dredging equipment, refer to paragraph 2.32.
c. Hopper, pipeline, and sidecaster dredges are named for the method they use to transport
dredged material from the dredging site to the placement area. Dustpan dredges are named for
their unique suction head configuration.
(1) Trailing suction (hydraulic) hopper dredges. Hopper dredges are seagoing vessels that
excavate material hydraulically and transport it to a placement site in a hopper built into the hull
of the vessel.
(2) Hydraulic pipeline dredges. Pipeline dredges are normally non-self-propelled dredges
that may employ a mechanical cutter to break up the material, which is then excavated
hydraulically and transported to the placement site through a pipeline.
(3) Hydraulic pipeline dustpan dredges. Dustpan dredges excavate material hydraulically

with a unique, water jet-assisted suction head and transport it to an in-water placement site
through a relatively short floating pipeline.
(4) Sidecaster or boom dredges. Sidecaster dredges are essentially hopper dredges without
the hoppers. They excavate the material hydraulically and transport it to an in-water placement
site adjacent to the dredged channel through a short pipe.

2.21.2.2 Mechanical dredges. Mechanical dredges are characterized by the use of some
form of bucket to excavate and raise the bottom material. They are not normally assigned to
transport the material to the ultimate placement area. In some cases the dredged material can be
deposited directly in the water or on the bank immediately adjacent to the dredging area. Normally, however, the mechanical dredge deposits material into a barge that transports it to the
placement site. Mechanical dredges may be classified into two subgroups by how their buckets

2-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
are connected to the dredge: wire rope-connected (clamshell or dragline) and structurally
connected (a backhoe).
2.21.3 Estimated average cubic yardage dredged annually for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 by
USACE Districts with contracted (non-Government) dredge plants and Government plants is
broken down by dredge type and presented in Figure 2-22. The Combinations or Other
category in this figure includes projects that used a combination of all, or any, of the dredges
previously described. The percentage of the total average annual yardage (212 million cubic
yards) dredged by type of dredge is illustrated in Figure 2-23.
2.21.4 The statistics in Figures 2-22 and 2-23 are based on data from the USACE
Navigation Data Center (NDC), whose goal is to provide reliable information to support
dredging and navigation project management decisions. Individual databases are maintained and
operated that contain information on dredging, waterborne commerce, vessel statistics, lock
operations, and port and lock facilities. The dredging database tracks all contracted and USACEperformed dredging from pre-bid through completion. Information in the database includes
location of the dredging and placement sites, dredged quantity, type of dredge, type of
placement, dates of bid advertisement, bid opening and contract award, units of contract
measurement, small-business set-aside restrictions, Government cost estimate, all bids, winning
bidder, business status of bidders, and actual cost and quantity dredged. The NDC website is
located at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/dredge/dredge.htm.
2.22 Hydraulic Pipeline Cutterhead Dredges.
2.22.1 General. The hydraulic pipeline cutterhead dredge, or cutterhead dredge
(Figure 2-24), is the most commonly used dredging vessel and is generally the most efficient and
versatile. It performs the major portion of the dredging workload in the USACE dredging
program. Because it is equipped with a rotating cutter apparatus surrounding the intake end of
the suction pipe, it can efficiently dig and pump all types of alluvial materials and compacted
deposits. This dredge has the capability of pumping dredged material long distances to upland
placement areas. Slurries of 10-20% solids (by dry weight) are typical, depending upon the
material being dredged, dredging depth, horsepower of dredge pumps, and pumping distance to
the placement area. If no other data are available, a pipeline discharge concentration of 13% by
dry weight should be used for preliminary design purposes. Pipeline discharge velocity, under
routine working conditions, ranges from 15 to 20 ft/sec (4.5 to 6 m/s). Table 2-8 presents
theoretical pipeline discharge rates as functions of pipeline discharge velocities for dredges
ranging in sizes from 8 to 30 in (203 to 762 mm). Herbich (2000), Turner (1996), Huston (1986),
and Bray, Bates, and Land (1997) provide more detailed information on hydraulic dredging
principles, equipment, and operating methods.

2-64

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-22. Percentage of Work Completed by Dredge Type with Respective Yardages
for USACE Districts (Includes both Contractor and USACE Plant, Dredging an Average
Annual Volume [FY 2008-2012] of 212 Million yd3/yr)

Figure 2-23. Percentage of Work Conducted by Dredge Type of an

Average Annual Yardage (FY 2008-2012) of 212 Million yd3/yr (Includes
both USACE and Contractor Plant)

2-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-24. Hydraulic Pipeline Cutterhead Dredge

Table 2-8. Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge Discharge Rates
Discharge
Velocity
m/sec (ft/sec)
3 (10)
4.5 (15)
6 (20)
7.6 (25)

8 in. (203 mm)

0.13 (0.1) (1,575)
0.19 (0.15) (2,303)
0.26 (0.2) (3,150)
0.32 (0.24) (3,878)

Discharge Pipe Diameter

yd3/sec (m3/sec) (gal/min)
18 in. (457 mm)
24 in. (610 mm)
0.65 (0.5) (7,877)
1.16 (0.9) (14,100)
0.98 (0.75) (11,876)
1.75 (1.33) (21,207)
1.31 (1.0) (15,875)
2.33 (1.78) (28,236)
1.64 (1.25) (19,874)
2.91 (2.23) (35,265)

Note: Discharge rate = pipeline area discharge velocity.

2-66

30 in. (762 mm)

1.82 (01.4) (22,056)
2.73 (2.09) (33,083)
3.64 (2.78) (44,111)
4.54 (3.47) (55,018)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.22.2 Production rate. Production rate is usually defined as the number of cubic yards of in
situ sediments dredged during a given period (commonly expressed in yd3/hr). Cutterhead dredge
productivity is dependant primarily on the dredge pumping capacity, depth of cut, advance rate,
height of bank to be cut, cutter size, geometry, horsepower, speed, ladder swing rate and direction, width of cut, operator efficiency, dredge efficiency, and sediment characteristics. Parameters that influence pumping capacity include pump horsepower, diameter, and condition and
pipeline configuration (line length and geometry, type of pipeline, vertical lift, and the presence
of ladder and/or booster pumps). Booster pumps are used when the pipeline length exceeds the
power capability of the dredge pump or a higher production rate is desired. Other site conditions
that can have a very significant effect on production include weather, waves, currents, tides,
vessel traffic, and presence of debris and contaminants (including UXO). Figure 2-25 (from
Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter 1978) shows the relationship among solids output, dredge
size, and pipeline length for various dredging depths. Information concerning the estimation of
dredge production is presented in paragraph 2.29.2.
2.22.3 Description of operation.
2.22.3.1 The cutterhead dredge is generally equipped with two stern spuds used to hold the
dredge in working position and to advance the dredge into the cut or excavating area. During
operation, the cutterhead dredge swings from side to side alternately using the port and starboard
spuds as a pivot, as shown in Figure 2-26. Cables attached to swing anchors on each side of the
dredge control lateral movement. Swing anchors are set out and repositioned by anchor-handling
derrick barges or, in areas where water depth precludes derrick barge passage, anchor booms
(fastened to the dredge hull) have been used to set the anchors. The dredge forward movement,
or advance, is achieved by lowering the starboard spud (now called the working spud) after the
port swing is made and then raising the port spud (now called the walking spud). The dredge is
then swung back to the starboard side of the cut center line. The port spud is lowered and the
starboard spud lifted to advance the dredge. This double-spud configuration is the most commonly used way to advance a cutterhead, but a limited number of dredges use a spud carriage,
which basically consists of a working spud mounted in a hydraulic ram-driven carriage that
translates in a longitudinal (parallel to the dredge center line) slot. A spud carriage can advance
the dredge more quickly than a double-spud configuration, achieving higher production.
2.22.3.2 The excavated material may be placed in areas such as open water sites, on a
beach, or in confined placement areas located either in the water or upland. In the case of openwater placement, a floating discharge pipeline may be used. The floating discharge pipeline can
consist of sections of pipe mounted on pontoons and held in place by anchors, or it may consist
of flexible floating hose (for example, rubber hose encased in buoyant material). Submerged
discharge pipeline (either steel or high-density polyethylene [HDPE]) can, under appropriate
site-specific conditions, be used to reduce wave- and current-induced forces to enhance pipeline
joint connectivity. Additional sections of shore pipeline are required when upland placement is
used. In addition, the excavated materials may be placed in hopper barges for subsequent
placement in open water or in confined areas that are remote from the dredging area. Slurry is
transferred into barges using spider barges. A spider barge (shown in Figure 2-27 without
transportation barges alongside) is named for its spiderlike shape upon the water. It is attached to

2-67

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-25. Relationships Among Solids Output, Dredge Size, and Pipeline Lengths for Various
Dredging Depths (from Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter 1978)

2-68

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-26. Operation of a Cutterhead Dredge

2-69

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-27. Spider Barge Connected to a Hydraulic Pipeline Dredge

the dredge discharge pipeline and is usually designed to reduce slurry flow turbulence by
diffusing, thus enhancing solids settlement in the transportation barge. The use of multiple discharge points allows the cutterhead dredge to be operated in a more continuous manner due to
the capability of the spider barge to have more than one transportation barge tied up alongside.
2.22.3.3 In cutterhead dredging, the pipeline transport distances usually range up to about
3 miles (5 m). For commercial land reclamation or fill operations, transport distances are generally longer, with pipeline lengths reaching as far as 22 miles (35 km), for which the use of
multiple booster pumps is necessary.
2.22.4 Application. Although the cutterhead dredge was developed to loosen up densely
packed deposits and eventually cut through soft rock, it can excavate a wide range of materials,
including clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The cutterhead dredge is suitable for maintaining harbors,
canals, and outlet channels where wave heights are not excessive. A cutterhead dredge designed
to operate in calm water does not effectively operate offshore in waves over 2-3 ft (0.6-1 m) in
height; the cutterhead is forced into the sediment by wave action creating excessive shock loads
on the ladder.
2.22.5 Advantages. The cutterhead dredge is the most widely used dredge in the United
States because of the following advantages:
a. Cutterhead dredges are used on both new work and maintenance projects and are capable
of excavating most types of material and pumping it through pipelines for long distances to
upland placement sites.
2-70

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. The cutterhead operates on an almost continuous dredging cycle, resulting in maximum
economy and efficiency.
c. The larger and more powerful machines are able to dredge rocklike formations, such as
coral and the softer types of basalt and limestone, without blasting.
2.22.6 Limitations. The limitations on cutterhead dredges are as follows:
a. The cutterhead dredges available in the United States have limited capability for working
in open-water areas without endangering personnel and equipment. The dredging ladder on
which the cutterhead and suction pipe are mounted is rigidly attached to the dredge; this causes
operational problems in areas with high waves.
b. High sea states can break discharge pipelines, causing either possible damage to nearby
structures resulting from runaway pontoons/pipe or navigation hazards resulting from sunken
pontoons/pipe. High seas can also make the act of adding or removing discharge pipelines during
high seas more dangerous to dredge personnel.
c. Depth outside the channel can limit the distance that the dredge can move out of the
channel, depending on its draft. The dredge may have to break the discharge pipeline well in
advance to afford the time for it to be satisfactorily out of the way.
d. The conventional cutterhead dredges are not self-propelled. They require the
mobilization of large towboats in order to move between dredging locations.
e. Cutterhead dredges have problems removing medium and coarse sand when maintaining
open channels in rivers with rapid currents. It is difficult to hold the dredge in position when
working upstream against the river currents since the working spud often slips due to scouring
effects. When the dredge works downstream, the material that is loosened by the cutterhead is
not pulled into the suction intake of the cutterhead. This causes a sandroll, or berm, of sandy
material to form ahead of the dredge.
f. The pipeline from the cutterhead dredge can cause navigation problems in small, busy
waterways and harbors. The dredge itself can also be a hazard to navigation due to its immobility
operating on spuds.
g. Additional information on excavation characteristics of this type of dredge is presented
in Tavolaro et al. (2007).
2.23 Trailing Suction (Hydraulic) Hopper Dredges.
2.23.1 General. Trailing suction (hydraulic) hopper dredges, or hopper dredges, are selfpropelled seagoing ships that, in the United States, vary in length from 180 to 510 ft (55 to
155 m), with the molded hulls and lines of ocean vessels (Figure 2-28). They were developed for

2-71

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-28. Hopper Dredge

maintenance work, the first being the General Moultrie, built in 1855 for work on the
Charleston, SC, bar. Hopper dredges are equipped with propulsion machinery, sediment containers (hoppers), dredge pumps, and other special equipment required to perform their essential
function of removing material from a channel bottom or ocean bed and placing that material in
open water or upland sites. Hopper dredges have propulsion power adequate for required

2-72

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
free-running speed and dredging against strong currents as well as excellent maneuverability for
safe and effective work in rough, open seas. The vessel hull is compartmented into one or more
hoppers. The normal configuration has two drag arms, one on each side of the ship. A drag arm
is a pipe suspended over the side of the vessel with a suction opening called a drag head. Single
drag arms are common on smaller hopper dredges while a government hopper dredge, the
Wheeler, has three drag arms (one on each side and one in the middle). The drag arm is
connected to a dredge pump, usually located inside the hull through a flexible through-hull
connection called a trunnion. In some cases the dredge pump is located on the drag arm to
increase its hydraulic efficiency.
2.23.2 Capacity. The rated capacity of a hopper dredge is based on the volumetric capacity
of its hoppers and not necessarily on the amount of material it can safely load. A hopper dredge
is classified by the American Bureau of Shipping with a maximum load line that is based on the
maximum weight of the material in its hoppers. A dredge rated capacity of 4,000 yd3 (1,220 m3)
could safely load 4,000 yd3 (1,220 m3) of relatively light silt but not necessarily that volume of
sand, which is much heavier.
2.23.3 Description of operation.
2.23.3.1 During dredging operations, hopper dredges travel at a ground speed of 2-3 miles
per hour (3-5 kilometers per hour) and can dredge in depths from approximately 10-140 ft
(3-43 m). Some hopper dredges can work in maximum wave (swell) heights of about 12 ft
(3.5 m), but at reduced production rates. They are usually equipped with twin propellers as well
as twin rudders and bow thrusters to provide the required maneuverability.
2.23.3.2 Hopper dredges are equipped with high-volume, low-head dredge pumps, and
dredging is accomplished by progressive traverses over the area to be dredged. In addition, they
are able to maintain the velocities required to carry a high percentage of solids in the suction and
discharge lines. The American practice is to use either diesel-engine- or electric-motor-driven
pumps while European dredges use electric-motor-driven pumps almost exclusively. Most
dredge pumps are located in the forward part of the dredge, positioned as low as possible in the
vessel and adjacent to the inboard end of the trunnion elbow. This position allows the pump to
operate under flooded suction conditions, which is critical to efficient high-volume, low-head
pumping operations.
2.23.3.3 The drag head is moved along the channel bottom as the vessel moves forward at
speeds up to 3 miles per hour (5 kilometers per hour). The dredged material is entrained into the
drag head, moves up the drag pipe, and deposited and stored in the hoppers of the vessel. The
drag head is a steel structure designed to fit on the end of the drag pipe and present a flat or
shaped surface to the bottom material. There are suction openings in the bottom as well as steel
members for bracing or cutting. The drag head controls the material entrance conditions, which
are extremely important to the hydraulic efficiency of the dredge. Four types of drag heads are
common.
a. The erosional drag head. This type is designed with slots around the perimeter of the
surface in contact with the bottom. In operation, high fluid velocities are created in these slots,
which erode the bottom material and suspend it in the slurry, which in turn is driven up the
2-73

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
suction tube. High perimeter-to-area ratios are characteristic of this type, and it is most effective
in sand and gravel type materials. The California, Eastern, and articulated visor style drag heads
work on the erosional principle.
b. Straight suction drag head. This type is designed to seal the perimeter of the contact
surface to the bottom. In operation, water is excluded from the drag head, and the bottom
material is driven up the suction tube at its in situ specific gravity. Low perimeter-to-area ratios
are characteristic of these types, and they are most effective in silt and other low shear-strength
materials. Fixed visor and box type drag heads work on the straight suction principle.
Mechanical shear type drag heads are sometimes used for dredging silt also. They, too, are
designed to exclude as much water as possible from the drag head in order to maximize the
material density in the dragpipe. The Dutch roller type is an example of a mechanical shear type
silt drag head.
c. Water jet drag head. This type is designed with high-velocity jets that fluidize the
bottom material. They can also incorporate teeth that mechanically scrape up material into the
drag head. Water jet drag heads are most efficient in hard-packed fine sand materials. Their
advantages in coarse-grained materials are debatable in view of their added complexity and the
cost of pumping the high-pressure water required to drive the jets. On the other end of the
spectrum, they add too much water to be effective in dredging silt materials.
During the past few years, the USACE, along with private industry, has developed procedures
and equipment to reduce dredging impacts to sea turtles. The use of these procedures and
equipment has reduced the number of incidental intakes during a period of increasing dredging
activity. Deflectors are designed to ensure efficient excavation of material and movement of sea
turtles out of the path of the operating draghead.
2.23.3.4 Drag heads are designed to handle the limited rotational motions induced by
bottom irregularities. They are not, however, able to handle the much larger rotational and translational motions induced by the dredge operating in the seaway. The latter must be handled by
the drag arm. To do this, modern hopper dredges use a trunnion elbow to connect the drag arm to
the hull. This fitting is designed to handle vertical rotational motion. In addition, a gimbal joint is
installed near the center of the arm to handle the vertical and transverse translational motions.
Finally, a turning gland is located at the drag head end of the arm to handle longitudinal rotation.
Some dredges use ball joints instead of gimbals. However, ball joints are subject to leaking,
which is undesirable, especially with their location on the suction side of the dredge pump.
2.23.3.5 It is important to note that drag arms are not designed for compression loads.
Therefore, the dredge must never be backed down on the drag heads during the dredging operations. The drag arms are hung by wire ropes from davits located on the deck. The outboard ends
of the drag and gimbal wires are connected to the drag arm at the drag head and gimbal joint, and
the inboard ends are connected to winches that control the vertical position of the drag arm
assembly. Most modern hopper dredges also have sliding trunnion elbows, which allow the
entire drag arm assembly to be hoisted aboard the dredge. This feature greatly improves the
docking of the dredge and the safety and efficiency of maintaining the drag arm components.

2-74

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.23.3.6 Hopper dredges use swell compensators on the drag wires to maintain, essentially,
a constant pressure contact between the drag head and the bottom. The principle is relatively
simple. By setting the hydraulic cylinder pressure so that it supports the desired amount of drag
head weight, the system demands that the remainder of the drag head weight be supported by the
bottom. This system enables the drag head to remain on the bottom when dredging in a seaway
while at the same time controlling digging depth. Both are essential to effective hopper dredge
operation.
2.23.3.7 Several American hopper dredges are equipped with submerged dredge pumps
located on their drag arms. This arrangement allows the pump to operate at higher efficiencies
due to the improved barometric head conditions. However, the improved efficiency is partially
offset by the higher cost and the added weight and complexity to the drag arm structure.
2.23.3.8 Herbich (2000) and Bray, Bates, and Land (1997) provide more detailed information on hopper dredge equipment and operating methods. Another reference document, The
Hopper Dredge, Its Development and Operation (USACE 1954) is dated, but it is still a good
source for the fundamentals of hopper dredging.
2.23.3.9 Once loaded, hopper dredges move to the placement site to unload before
resuming dredging. Split-hull hopper dredges are unloaded by splitting the hull open to allow the
dredged material to fall to the open-water placement site (Figure 2-29). Some hopper dredges use
water jets inside the hopper to shorten the unloading time. Several hopper dredges have doors in
the hopper bottoms that open to gravity-dump material. Most dredges, either split-hull or bottom
dump, are also equipped with pump-out systems to pump the dredged material to upland
placement sites (for example, beach nourishment projects).
2.23.3.10 Hopper dredge loading is accomplished by one of three methods: pumping past
overflow, agitation dredging, and pumping to overflow. The use of these methods is controlled to
varying degrees by environmental legislation and the water quality certification permits required
by the various states in which the dredging is being accomplished. The environmental effects of
these methods must be assessed on a project-by-project basis. If the material being dredged is
clean sand, the percentage of solids in the overflow will be small, and economic loading may be
achieved by pumping past overflow. An economic load is defined as that hopper load, measured
in cubic yards of dredged material equivalent in density to that in situ, dredged and hauled during
a single dredging cycle, that will yield, for a particular dredge, the maximum rate of removal of
material from the project area and that will result in a minimum unit cost per cubic yard hauled.
The field procedure involved in conducting an economic load simply consists of periodically
measuring the hopper load during the loading process and at the same time observing and recording the pumping and turning time attributable to these load measurements.

2-75

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-29. Split-Hull Hopper Dredge Unloading Dredged Material (Dredge

Sugar Island, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company)
2.23.3.11 When contaminated sediments are to be dredged and/or adverse environmental
effects have been identified, pumping past overflow is not recommended. In such cases, other
types of dredges may be more suitable for removing the sediments from the dredging prism. If
hopper dredges are not allowed to pump past overflow in sediments that have good settling properties, the cost of dredging increases. The settling properties of silt and clay sediments may be
such that only a minimal load increase would be achieved by pumping past overflow. These
determinations, along with environmental considerations, should be used to establish the operation procedures for the hopper dredge.
2.23.3.12 Hopper dredge production is best evaluated in terms of its cycle components:
excavation time, transport time, and placement time.
a. Evacuation time. Excavation time per load may be limited to pumping to the point of
overflow due to environmental concerns, or it may be continued beyond overflow to obtain an
economic load. Factors that affect hopper dredge excavation rates are similar to those previously
described for cutterhead dredges, but they differ with respect to the operating characteristics
inherent with use of the drag head versus cutterhead suction opening.
b. Transport time. Transport time is affected by the vessel propulsion capacity, and it may
also be affected by such factors as ship traffic, weather, sailing distance, currents, and tides.
c. Placement time. Placement consists of either gravity dumping or pumping out the
material. The time required to gravity-dump the material in open water depends on the type of
material dumped and the dredge. If the material is pumped out, the time becomes a function of

2-76

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
pump horsepower, pump size, discharge diameter, and pipeline length, similar to a pipeline
dredge. The volume of dredged material per load depends on hopper size, dredge load carrying
capacity, type and characteristics of material, and environmental concerns.
2.23.3.13 Agitation dredging is a process that intentionally discharges overboard large
quantities of fine-grained dredged material by pumping past overflow, under the assumption that
a major portion of the sediments passing through the weir overflow will be transported and permanently deposited outside the channel prism by tidal, river, or littoral currents. Agitation dredging should be used only when the sediments dredged have poor settling properties, when there
are currents in the surrounding water to carry the sediments from the channel, and when the risk
to environmental resources is low. Favorable conditions may exist at a particular project only at
certain times of the day, such as at ebb tides, or only at such periods when the stream-flow is
high. To use agitation dredging effectively requires extensive studies of the project conditions
and definitive environmental assessments of the effects (Palermo and Randall 1990). Agitation
dredging should not be performed in slack water or when prevailing currents permit redeposit of
substantial quantities of the dredged material in the project area or in any other area where future
excavation may be required. Refer to paragraph 2.30 for more information on this topic.
2.23.4 Application. Hopper dredges are used mainly for maintenance dredging in exposed
harbors and shipping channels where traffic and operating conditions rule out the use of
stationary dredges. The materials excavated by hopper dredges cover a wide range of types, but
hopper dredges are most effective in the removal of material that forms shoals after the initial
dredging is completed. While specifically designed drags are available for use in raking and
breaking up hard or consolidated materials, hopper dredges are most efficient in excavating
loose, unconsolidated materials. At times, hopper dredges must operate under hazardous conditions caused by fog, rough seas, and heavy traffic encountered in congested harbors. Hopper
dredges and bucket dredges can be equally economical at a given distance and environmental
conditions; however, the greater the distance, the more economical the bucket dredge becomes
and vice versa for shorter distances where cutterheads cannot work for whatever reasons.
2.23.5 Advantages. Because of the hopper dredge design and method of operation, the selfpropelled seagoing hopper dredge has the following advantages over other types of dredges for
many types of projects:
a. It is the only type of dredge that can work effectively, safely, and economically in rough,
open water.
b. It can move quickly and economically to the dredging project under its own power.
c. Its operation causes minimal interference with and obstructions to passing traffic.
d. Its method of operation produces usable channel improvement almost as soon as work
begins. A hopper dredge usually traverses the entire length of the problem shoal, excavating a
shallow cut during each passage and increasing channel depth as work progresses.
e. The hopper dredge may be the most economical type of dredge to use where placement
areas are not available within economic pumping distances of the hydraulic pipeline dredge.

2-77

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2.23.6 Limitations. The hopper dredge is a seagoing self-propelled vessel designed for
specific dredging projects. The following limitations are associated with this dredge:
a. Its deep draft precludes use in shallow waters, including barge channels.
b. It cannot dredge continuously. The normal operation involves loading, transporting
material to the dump site, unloading, and returning to the dredging site.
c. The hopper dredge excavates with less precision than other types of dredges.
d. Its economy of operation is reduced when pumping past overflow is prohibited and lowdensity material must be transported to the placement site.
e. It has difficulty dredging side banks of hard-packed sand.
f. The hopper dredge cannot dredge effectively around piers and other structures.
g. Consolidated and cohesive clay material cannot be economically dredged with the
hopper dredge.
h. Additional information on excavation characteristics of this type of dredge is presented
in Tavolaro et al. (2007).
2.24 Hydraulic Pipeline Dustpan Dredges.
2.24.1 General. The dustpan dredge is a self-propelled hydraulic pipeline dredge that uses a
widely flared dredging head along which are mounted pressure water jets (Figure 2-30). The jets
loosen and agitate the sediments, which are then captured in the dustpan head as the dredge itself
is winched forward into the excavation. This type of dredge was developed by USACE to
maintain navigation channels in uncontrolled rivers with bed loads consisting primarily of sand
and gravel. The first dustpan dredge, the Alpha, was developed in the 1890s by the USACE
Mississippi River Commission to maintain navigation on the Mississippi River during low river
stages. A dredge was needed that could operate in shallow water but was still large enough to
excavate the navigation channel in a reasonably short time. The dustpan dredge operates with a
low-head, high-capacity centrifugal pump since the material has to be raised only a few feet
above the water surface and pumped a short distance. The dredged material is normally
discharged into open water adjacent to the navigation channel through a pipeline usually only
800-1,200 ft (250 -365 m) long. Factors that affect dustpan dredge production rates are similar to
those previously described for cutterhead dredges, but they differ with respect to the operating
characteristics inherent with use of a dustpan versus a cutterhead.
2.24.2 Description of operation. The dustpan dredge maintains navigation channels by
making a series of parallel cuts through the shoal areas until the authorized widths and depths are
achieved. Typical operation procedures for the dustpan dredge are as follows:
a. The dredge moves to a point about 500 ft (150 m) upstream of the upper limit of the
dredging area, and the hauling anchors are set. Two anchors are used, as shown in Figure 2-31.

2-78

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-30. Dustpan Dredge

The hauling winch cables attached to the anchors are crossed to provide better maneuverability
and control of the vessel during operation.
b. The dredge is then moved downstream to the desired location. The dustpan is lowered to
the required depth, the dredge pump and water jet pumps are turned on, and the dredging
commences. The dredge is moved forward by the hauling cables. The rate of movement depends

2-79

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
on the materials and the height of the cut face being dredged, the depth of dredging, currents, and
the wind. In shallow cuts, the advance may be as rapid as 800 ft/hr (245 m/hr).

Figure 2-31. Dustpan Dredge Operating Configuration

c. When the upstream end of the cut is reached, the suction head is raised, and the dredge is
moved back downstream to make a parallel cut. This operation is repeated until the desired
dredging widths and depths are achieved.
d. The suction head may have to be lowered or raised if obstacles such as boulders, logs, or
tree stumps are encountered. Experience with dustpan dredges indicates that the best results are
obtained when the height of the cut face does not exceed 3 m (10 ft) in depth.
e. The dredge is moved outside the channel to let waterborne traffic pass through the area
simply by raising the suction head and slacking off on one of the hauling winch cables. The propelling engines can be used to assist in maneuvering the dredge clear of the channel. The vessel
is held in position by lowering either the suction head or a spud.
2.24.3 Application. The pipeline system and the rigid ladder used with the dustpan dredge
make it effective only in rivers or sheltered waters; it cannot be used in estuaries or bays where
significant wave action occurs. Because it has no cutterhead to loosen hard, compact materials,
the dustpan dredge is suited mostly for high-volume, loose-material dredging. Dustpan dredges
are used primarily to maintain the navigation channel of the uncontrolled open reaches of the
Mississippi River, but they have been used occasionally on the Missouri and Ohio Rivers.

2-80

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.24.4 Advantages. The dustpan dredge is self-propelled, which enables it to move rapidly
over long distances to work at locations where emergencies occur. The attendant plant and
pipeline are designed for quick assembly so that work can be started a few hours after arrival at
the work site. The dustpan dredge can move rapidly out of the channel to allow traffic to pass
and can resume work immediately. The high production rate and design of the dustpan dredge
make it possible to remove sandbar formations and deposits from river crossings rapidly so that
navigation channels can be maintained with a minimum of interruption to waterborne traffic.
2.24.5 Limitations. The dustpan dredge was designed for a specific purpose, and for this
reason there are certain limitations to its use in other dredging environments. It can dredge only
loose materials such as sands and gravels and only in rivers or sheltered waters where little wave
action may be expected, unless it is specially designed and built for more open water operation
(for example, the dredge Beachbuilder). Conventional dustpan dredges are configured to
transport material only a relatively short distance compared to a cutterhead dredge.
2.25 Sidecasting Dredges.
2.25.1 General. The sidecasting type of dredge (Figure 2-32) is a shallow-draft seagoing
vessel, specially designed to remove material from the bar channels of small coastal inlets. The
hull design is similar to that of a hopper dredge; however, sidecasting dredges do not usually
have hopper bins. Instead of collecting the material in hoppers onboard the vessel, the sidecasting dredge pumps the dredged material directly overboard through an elevated discharge
boom; thus, its shallow draft is unchanged as it constructs or maintains a channel. The discharge
pipeline is suspended over the side of the hull by structural means and may be supported by
either a crane or a truss and counterweight design. The dredging operations are controlled by
steering the vessel on predetermined ranges through the project alignment. The vessel is
self-sustaining and can perform work in remote locations with a minimum of delay and service
requirements. The projects to which the sidecasters are assigned are, for the most part, at
unstabilized, small inlets that serve the fishing and small-boat industries. Dangerous and unpredictable conditions prevail in these shallow inlets, making it difficult for conventional plant to
operate except under rare ideal circumstances.
2.25.2 Description of operation. The sidecasting dredge picks up the bottom material
through two drag arms and pumps it through a discharge pipe supported by a discharge boom.
During the dredging process, the vessel travels along the entire length of the shoaled area,
casting material away from and beyond the channel prism. Dredged material may be carried
away from the channel section by littoral and tidal currents. The construction of a deepened
section through the inlet usually results in some natural scouring and deepening of the channel
section since currents moving through the prism tend to concentrate the scouring action in a
smaller active zone. A typical sequence of events in a sidecasting operation is as follows:
a. The dredge moves to the work site.
b. The drag arms are lowered to the desired depth.

2-81

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-32. Sidecasting Dredge

c. The pumps are started to take the material from the channel bottom and pump it through
the discharge boom as the dredge moves along a designated line in the channel prism.
d. If adequate depths are not available across the bar during low tide levels, dredging must
be started during higher tide levels. Under these conditions, the cuts are confined to a narrow
channel width to quickly attain the flotation depth necessary for dredging to be continued during
the low tidal periods.
e. The dredge continues to move back and forth across the bar until the channel dimensions
are restored.
f. The discharge can be placed on either side of the dredge by rotating the discharge boom
from one side of the hull to the other.
2.24.3 Application. USACE developed the shallow-draft sidecasting dredge for use in
places too shallow for hopper dredges and too rough for pipeline dredges. The types of materials
that can be excavated with the sidecasting dredge are the same as for the hopper dredges.
2.25.4 Advantages. The sidecasting dredge, being self-propelled, can rapidly move from
one project location to another on short notice and can immediately go to work once at the site.
Therefore, a sidecasting dredge can maintain a number of projects located great distances from
one another along the coastline.
2.25.5 Limitations. The sidecasting dredge needs flotation depths before it can begin to
work because it dredges while moving over the shoaled area. Occasionally, a sidecaster will need
to alter its schedule to work during higher tide levels periods only because of insufficient depths
in the shoaled area. Most areas on the seacoast experience a tidal fluctuation sufficient to allow
even the shallowest shoaled inlets to be reconstructed by a sidecasting type of dredge. A shallow-

2-82

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

draft sidecasting dredge cannot move the large volumes of material that a hopper dredge can, and
some of the material removed can return to the channel prism because of the effects of tidal and
littoral currents. The sidecasting dredge has only open-water placement capability.
2.26 Mechanical Bucket Dredges.
2.26.1 General.
2.26.1.1 There are primarily two types of mechanical bucket dredges used to dredge
USACE navigation projectsthe clamshell (or grab) bucket dredge, commonly called a bucket
dredge, and the backhoe dredge. The bucket dredge is so named because it uses a bucket to
excavate the material to be dredged (Figure 2-33). Different types of buckets can fulfill various
types of dredging requirements. The buckets used include the clamshell, orange-peel, and
dragline types and can usually be quickly changed to suit the operational requirements. The
vessel can be positioned and moved within a limited area using anchors and/or spuds. When the
spuds are up, the bucket itself can be used to reposition the dredge by grabbing the bottom in
the direction of desired translation and pulling the dredge that way by taking in wire rope. The
barge is normally equipped with two spuds forward (in the front of the barge) and one spud at the
aft end of the barge. The latter is a kicking spud for advancing the dredge. Alternatively, the
barge can be held in place by anchors, which are attached to winches on the dredge hull and can
be placed by an attendant tugboat or by a crane boom. The material excavated is either placed in
scows or hopper barges that are towed to the placement areas or it is sidecasted. Buckets used on
this type of dredge usually range in capacity from 1 to 30 yd3 (0.8 to 23 m3). The crane is
mounted on a flat-bottomed barge, on fixed-shore installations, or on a crawler mount.
2.26.1.2 Bucket dredge production is a function of both the loading (excavation) and
hauling components of its operation. Production rates while loading depend on several factors:
the size and weight of the bucket, the operating characteristics of the bucket, the type of material
to be excavated, the face thickness or bank height of the material, operator efficiency, and the
bucket cycle time. Operating characteristics affect the buckets fill factor (the decimal equivalent
of the percent volume of bucket actually filled) and include the bucket weight, bucket shape,
closing edge configuration (toothed or smooth), and closing action. A complete bucket cycle
time is defined as the time required to lower the open bucket to the bottom, mechanically grab
the material, close the bucket, and then raise, position, and release the bucket either over a
waiting scow or to the side (sidecasting). Twenty to thirty cycles per hour are typical, but large
variations exist in production rates because of the variability in depths and materials being
excavated. The effective working depth is limited to about 100 ft (30 m). Smaller bucket dredges
typically do not dredge denser materials while a larger bucket may require structural
enhancement (for example, thicker plates to withstand rock excavation).
2.26.1.3 The bucket dredging process usually requires that excavated material be hauled to
a placement site by barge (often called a scow). Barges may be purposely built as dump scows of
the hopper type with bottom doors or of the split-hull type, or they may be simply flat-deck
barges modified to carry the dredged material. The material may be unloaded using gravity dump
methods (bottom dump doors or split-hull) by any mechanical means that moves it directly into
the placement area, or by a hydraulic unloader. The hydraulic unloader (Figure 2-34) usually
consists of a barge-mounted submersible pump or jet pump that unloads the dredged material
2-83

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-33. Clamshell Bucket Dredge

and pumps it to the placement site. This operation usually involves adding additional water to the
dredged material in the barge to allow it to be entrained and pumped through the pipeline. The
hauling cycle time of a single scow depends on the time required to load the scow, prepare it for
tow, tow it to the placement area, discharge the load, return to dredge site, and tie up back
alongside the dredge. Major lost-production time factors include weather and sea conditions,

2-84

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-34. Hydraulic Unloader (Courtesy of Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Oak
Brook, IL)
marine traffic and bridge operations, the time waiting for a barge to return from dumping, and
mechanical repairs and maintenance.
2.26.1.4 Optimizing the size of the barges and the configuration of the barge and tug fleet
are normally an important aspect of mechanical dredge project planning. As a general rule, the
goal is to keep the dredging unit operational by providing a sufficient fleet of barges so the
dredge does not spend any time just waiting. Tug sizes vary, depending on the size of the barges,
the distance to the placement area, and whether offshore service is required. Tugs are generally
rated in the range of 1,000-6,000 horsepower (hp).
2.26.1.5 The ability to maintain production while increasing distances to the placement site
by adding barges is a very attractive feature of mechanical dredging. In contrast, for hopper
dredges the entire dredging unit must be shut down during the trip to the placement site, which
limits production and increases costs. As a result, mechanical dredges with scows show
economic advantage over hopper dredges at some point as the haul distance becomes longer.
2.26.2 Description of operation. The bucket dredge is not self-propelled, but it can move
itself over a limited area during the dredging process by the manipulation of spuds, anchors,
and/or bucket. A typical sequence of operation is as follows:

2-85

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. The bucket dredge, scows or hopper barges, and attendant plant are moved to the work
site by a tug.
b. The dredge is positioned at the location where work is to start, and the anchors and spuds
are lowered into place.
c. A scow or hopper barge is brought alongside and secured to the hull of the bucket
dredge.
d. The dredge begins the digging operation by dropping the bucket in an open position
from a point above the sediment. The bucket falls through the water and penetrates the bottom
material. The sides or jaws of the bucket are then closed using wire ropes operated from the
crane. As the sides of the bucket close, material is sheared from the bottom and contained in the
bucket compartment. The bucket is raised above the water surface and swung to a point over the
hopper barge. The material is then released into the hopper barge by opening the sides of the
bucket.
e. As material is removed from the bottom of the waterway to the desired depth at a given
location, the dredge is moved to the next nearby location by using anchors, spuds, or bucket. If
the next dredging area is a significant distance away, the bucket dredge must be moved by a tug.
f. The loaded barges are towed to the placement area by a tug and emptied by bottom
dumping if an open-water placement area is used. If a diked placement area is used, the material
must be unloaded using mechanical or hydraulic equipment.
g. These procedures are repeated until the dredging operation is completed.
2.26.3 Application. Bucket dredges may be used to excavate most types of materials except
the most cohesive consolidated sediments and solid rock. Bucket dredges usually excavate a
heaped bucket of material, but during hoisting, turbulence washes away part of the load. Once
the bucket clears the water surface, additional losses may occur through rapid drainage of
entrapped water and slumping of the material heaped above the rim. Loss of material is also
influenced by the fit and condition of the bucket, the hoisting speed, and the properties of the
sediment. Even under ideal conditions, substantial losses of loose and fine sediments usually
occur. Because of this, the bucket dredge may employ special buckets if it is being considered
for use in dredging applications requiring reduced sedimentation resuspension rates.
To minimize the turbidity generated by a clamshell operation, enclosed buckets (Figure 2-35)
have been developed for navigation and environmental dredging projects. The edges of these
buckets seal more tightly than those of a conventional bucket when the bucket is closed, and the
top is covered to minimize the loss of dredged material. Available sizes range from 2.5 to 55 yd3
(2 to 42 m3).

2-86

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-35. Enclosed Bucket

2.26.4 Advantages.
2.26.4.1 The bucket dredge is a rugged machine that can remove bottom materials consisting of clay, hard-packed sand, glacial till, stone, or blasted rock material, but its capacities are
somewhat less than the backhoe dredge. It can also be used to pick up large objects, such as
boulders, cables, and miscellaneous pieces of trash, that are difficult for hydraulic dredges to
handle. Another significant advantage derives from its wire rope connection to the dredge, which
gives it the ability to work in sea states not possible for dredges with rigidly attached buckets or
excavators. In addition, the digging depth of the bucket, or grab, can be extended by simply
adding the amount of wire rope it can carry on its drums. In contrast, increasing the digging
depth of most other dredges is a major undertaking. Bucket dredges also require less room to
maneuver in the work area than most other types of dredges, and the excavation is precisely
controlled so there is less danger of removing material from the foundation of docks and piers
when dredging is required near these structures.
2.26.4.2 Bucket dredges are frequently used when placement areas are beyond the pumping
distance of pipeline dredges because barges can transport material over long distances to the
placement area. This type of dredge operation limits the volume of excess water in the barges as
they are loaded. The density of material excavated can be about the same as the in situ density of
the bottom material. Therefore, the volume of excess water is minimal, which increases the
efficiency of operation in the transportation of material from the dredging area to the placement
area and there is less water to handle. The basic crane unit is widely available and can also be
used for other marine construction work

2-87

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.26.5 Limitations. It is difficult to retain soft, semisuspended fine-grained materials in

conventional buckets, barges are required to move the material to a placement area, and
production is relatively low compared with the production of cutterhead and dustpan dredges.
Mechanical dredges (bucket and clamshell) are also associated with higher suspended sediment
concentrations than hydraulic (hopper and cutterhead) methods. Mechanical dredges generate
suspended sediments through both the impact of the bucket on the bottom and the withdrawal
from the bottom, washing of material out of the bucket as it moves through the water column and
above the water surface as well as additional dredged material loss when the barge is loaded
(LaSalle 1990). A suspended sediment plume associated with clamshell dredging at its maximum
concentration (1,100 mg/L) may extend up to 1,000 m on the bottom (Havis 1988b; LaSalle
1990; Collins 1995). Additional information on excavation characteristics of this type of dredge
is presented in Tavolaro et al. (2007).
2.27 Mechanical Backhoe Dredges.
2.27.1 General. The backhoe dredge uses a bucket that is structurally connected to the
dredge by the rigid member configuration as shown in Figure 2-36. To increase digging power,
the dredge barge is moored on powered spuds that transfer the weight of the forward section of
the dredge to the bottom to provide reaction forces to the digging-induced forces. The maximum
bucket size that can be used for a specific project depends on the rated capacity of the excavator,
sediment characteristics, and water depth. Bucket sizes generally range from 6 to 25 yd3
(0.6-19 m3). Larger backhoes can excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 80 ft (24 m).
Because the bucket of a backhoe is connected by rigid structural members, more force can be
applied to it, allowing these types of dredges to work in harder materials (relatively cohesive
consolidated materials, weak rock, and debris) than can cable-connected buckets. Backhoe
operational characteristics provide relatively high excavation accuracy, and they can work
closely around structures. The density of sediment excavated can almost equal its in situ density
but, like other conventional mechanical dredges, it may generate a relatively large amount of
sediment resuspension at the dredge site.
2.27.2 Description of operation. The backhoe type of dredge is not self-propelled, but it can
move itself during the dredging process by manipulation of the spuds and the backhoe arm. A
typical sequence of operation is as follows:
a. The backhoe dredge, barges, and attendant plant are moved to the work site.
b. The dredge is moved to the point where work is to start; part of the weight is placed on
the forward spuds to provide stability.
c. A barge is brought alongside and moored into place by winches and cables on the
backhoe dredge.
d. The dredge begins digging and placing the material into the moored barge.
e. When all the material within reach of the bucket is removed, the dredge is moved
forward by lifting the forward spuds and maneuvering with the bucket and/or stern spud.

2-88

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-36 Backhoe Dredge New York (Courtesy of Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company,
Oak Brook, IL)
f. The loaded barges are towed to the placement area and emptied by bottom dumping if an
open-water placement area is used, or they are unloaded by mechanical or hydraulic equipment,
if required.
g. These procedures are repeated until the dredging operation is completed.
2.27.3 Application. The best use of the backhoe dredge is for excavating hard, compacted
materials, rock, or other solid materials after blasting. Although it can be used to remove most
bottom sediments, the violent action of this type of equipment may cause considerable sediment
disturbance and resuspension during maintenance digging of fine-grained material. In addition, a
significant loss of fine-grained material occurs from the bucket during the hoisting process. The
backhoe dredge is most effective around bridges, docks, wharves, pipelines, piers, or breakwater
structures because it does not require much area to maneuver; there is little danger of damaging
the structures since the dredging process can be controlled accurately. No provision is made for
dredged material containment or transport, so the backhoe dredge must work alongside the
placement area or be accompanied by barges during the dredging operation.
2.27.4 Advantages. The backhoe dredge is a rugged machine that can remove bottom
materials consisting of clay, hard-packed sand, glacial till, stone, or blasted rock material. The
power that can be applied directly to the cutting edge of the bucket makes this type of dredge
ideal for the removal of hard and compact materials. It can also be used for removing old piers,
breakwaters, foundations, pilings, roots, stumps, and other obstructions. The backhoe dredge
2-89

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

requires less room to maneuver in the work area than most other types of dredges, and the
excavation is precisely controlled, so there is less danger of removing material from the
foundation of docks and piers when dredging is required near these structures. This excavation
control can make the backhoe dredge a suitable alternative for dredging channel slopes (for
example, in new work where material is hard and compacted). Backhoe dredges are frequently
used when placement areas are beyond the pumping distance of pipeline dredges because barges
can transport material over long distances to the placement areas. The backhoe dredge can also
be used effectively in refloating a grounded vessel. Because it can operate with little area for
maneuvering, it can dig a shoal out from under and around a grounded vessel. This dredge type
of operation limits the volume of excess water in the barges as they are loaded.
2.27.5 Limitations. It is difficult to retain soft, semisuspended fine-grained materials in the
bucket of a backhoe dredge. In addition, barges are required to move the dredged material to a
placement area, and the production is relatively low compared with the production of cutterhead
and dustpan dredges. As with the clamshell dredge, this mechanical dredge is associated with
higher suspended sediment concentrations than hydraulic (hopper and cutterhead) methods. This
type of dredge is sometimes limited when working in high-swell conditions. Additional
information on excavation characteristics of this type of dredge is presented in Tavolaro et al.
(2007).
2.28 Special-Purpose Dredge.
2.28.1 General.
2.28.1.1 The USACE dredge Currituck (Figure 2-37), assigned to the Wilmington District,
is an example of a special-purpose type of dredge. Designed to work the same shallow,
obstructed inlets as sidecasting dredges, the Currituck has the additional ability to remove material from the inlet complex completely and transport it to downdrift eroded beaches. It is a selfpropelled split-hull hopper dredge. The vessel is hinged above the main deck so that the hull can
open from bow to stern by means of hydraulic cylinders located in compartments forward and aft
of the hopper section. The Currituck has one hopper with a capacity of 315 yd3 (240 m3).
2.28.1.2 A major difference between the operation of the Currituck and that of a conventional hopper dredge is in the placement method; the Currituck is designed to transport and
deposit the dredged material close to the surf zone area (loaded draft of 8 ft [2.5 m]). This
shallow draft allows the Currituck to provide a sand-bypassing capability in addition to improving the condition of navigation channels. The Currituck excavates material from navigation
channels, transports it to downdrift eroded beaches, and releases it where it is needed to provide
beach nourishment. After the material has been deposited in the nearshore coastal areas, the
dredge backs away and returns to the navigation channel.

2-90

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-37. Dredge Currituck

2.28.1.3 The Currituck is an effective dredging tool for use in shallow-draft inlets. All of
the dredged material is placed in the littoral zone. The Currituck can also be used to supplement
sidecasting dredges and to transport dredged materials from inlet channels to the nearshore areas
of eroded beaches. But the production rate of the Currituck is limited by its small hopper capacity. Therefore, it is not effective on major navigation channels. In addition, when the flotation
depths are minimal, it is necessary to use a sidecasting dredge to provide access into the project.
2.28.2 Description of operation. The Currituck operates in much the same way as does a
hopper dredge. The mate steers the vessel through the shoal areas of the channel; the dredge
pumps, located in the compartments on each side of the hull, pump material through trailing drag
arms into the hopper section; and then, when an economic load is obtained, the drag arms are
lifted from the bottom of the waterway, and the dredge proceeds to the placement area.
2.28.3 Application. The Currituck provides a sand-bypassing capability in addition to
improving the condition of navigation channels. The Currituck excavates material from navigation channels, transports it to downdrift eroded beaches, and releases it where it is needed to
provide beach nourishment. After the material has been deposited in the near-shore coastal areas,
the dredge backs away and returns to the navigation channel.
2.28.4 Advantages. The Currituck is an effective dredging tool for use in shallow-draft
inlets. All of the dredged material is placed in the littoral zone. The Currituck can also be used to

2-91

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

supplement sidecasting dredges and to transport dredged materials from inlet channels to the
near-shore areas of eroded beaches.
2.28.5 Limitations. The production rate of the Currituck is limited by its small hopper
capacity. Therefore, it is not effective on major navigation channels. In addition, when the
flotation depths are minimal it is necessary to use a sidecasting dredge to provide access into the
project.
2.29 Dredge Operating Characteristics and Production Rates.
2.29.1 Operating characteristics. Mechanisms of the major dredge types regarding the
dredging process (excavation, removal, transport, and placement) are summarized in Table 2-9,
and Table 2-10 summarizes the general operating characteristics of each dredge presented in the
preceding sections. Table 2-10 is based on navigation projects; environmental dredging considerations are not included (see paragraph 2.32 for more information regarding environmental
dredging). It provides these operating characteristics as general rules of thumb regarding each
dredge types performance in a given area. A wide range of values is given to account for the
various sizes of plant within each class and different site-specific conditions. The interaction
between these two primary drivers ultimately determines the respective operating characteristic
value that may or may not fall within the ranges provided in Table 2-10.
2.29.2 Dredge production rates.
2.29.2.1 Dredge production rate is usually defined as the number of cubic yards of dredged
material (referenced to in situ density) dredged during a given period. Depending on the analysis
intent, the given period may be an hour, day, or week, or other interval, but a usual production
rate is expressed in yd3/hr. Many factors that determine dredge production rates. According to
Bray (1975), these factors can be broken down into the following:
a. Factors that affect the time available for the actual dredging operation of moving
material from the dredging prism to the placement site.
b. Factors that affect the efficiency of dredging operations while they are being performed.
2.29.2.2 Factors that affect longer-term production rates include the length and number of
shifts worked, programmed stops (that is, required maintenance stops), and non-programmed
stops (for example, breakdowns, bad weather, and refueling).
2.29.2.3 Factors that affect average hourly production rates can be subdivided into the
following:
a. Fixed, or dredge, factors (for example, pump size, cutter power, hopper capacity, and
speed of vessel).
b. Natural factors (for example, sediment characteristics, depth, wind, waves, currents, and
debris).

2-92

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

c. Operational factors (for example, operator and crew efficiency, transport method, and
distance to the placement site).
Table 2-9. Dredge Excavation, Removal, Transport, and Placement Processes
Removal
Transport Method Placement Method
Method
Hydraulic Dredges
From bottom to Sediment settles in Bottom discharge or
dredge vessel hopper; vessel
pumpout
in hydraulic
moves to
pipeline as a
placement site
sediment-water
slurry

Dredge Type

Excavation Method

Hopper dredge

Hydraulic suction
Hydraulic erosion
Mechanical
dislodgement using
knives or blades

Sidecasting
dredge

Hydraulic suction
Hydraulic erosion
Mechanical
dislodgement using
knives or blades

From bottom to From dredge vessel through discharge boom

dredge vessel from one side of the hull
in hydraulic
pipeline as a
sediment-water
slurry

Cutterhead
dredge

Mechanical
dislodgement using
rotary cutter
Hydraulic suction
Hydraulic erosion

From bottom to
dredge vessel
in hydraulic
pipeline as a
sediment-water
slurry

From dredge
vessel to
placement site in
pipeline as a
sediment-water
slurry1

Same as
cutterhead
dredge

Same as
Same as cutterhead
cutterhead dredge dredge

Dustpan dredge Direction suction

Impingement scour
using water

Mechanical Dredges
Bucket dredge Mechanical
Wire rope with Barge, land-based
dislodgement,
clamshell or
conveyor belt,
scooping with bucket dragline
trucks, material
may be sidecasted
Backhoe dredge Mechanical
Rigid structural
dislodgement,
members with
scooping with backhoe backhoe bucket
bucket
1 May be pumped into barges and moved to the placement site.

2-93

Direct discharge on
land, water, or beneficial
use site

Bottom discharge,
pumpout, or
mechanically to unload;
Direct discharge from
belt, truck, or bucket

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Lateral Dredging
Accuracy2
ft

Limiting Current

Limiting Wave Height

ft

Maximum

Dredging Depths,
ft

Minimum

Approximate Range of
Production Rates
yd3/hr

Vessel Draft
ft

Open-water Operation

Turbidity Caused

Percent Solids in Slurry

by Weight1

Dredge Type

Table 2-10. Summary of Dredge Operating Characteristics

6
Cutterhead
10-20%
Avg.
Yes3 3-14
100-5,0004
3-14
12-655 < 3
2-3
6
Hopper
10-20%
Avg.
Yes 12-31 500-5,000 7
10-28 140 8 < 10
10
9
3
10
11
12
13,
14
6
Bucket
in situ
High
Yes
30-2,000
0
100
<3
1
3
10
11
13
6
Backhoe
in situ
High
Yes
30-1,000
0
85
<3
1
6
Dustpan
10-20%
Avg.
No15 5-14
1,200-5,70016 5-14
75
<3
2-3
6
Sidecasting 10-20%
High
Yes 5-9
325-650
6
25
<7
10
6
Special10-20%
Avg.
Yes 5-8
250 avg
8
20
<7
10
purpose
1 Percent solids could theoretically be 0, but these are normal working ranges. Percent solids = weight of dry solids
weight of wet slurry
2 Vertical accuracies depend on dredge type and site-specific conditions (geotechnical characteristics, pen or
sheltered waters, etc.). Refer to Tavolaro et al. (2007) for more detailed information on various excavation accuracies
of different dredge types in varying site-specific conditions.
3 Limited operation in open water possible, depending on hull size and type, anchoring system used, and wave
height.
4 Production for a cutterhead dredge is dependent on suction and discharge line diameter, pump horsepower, cut
face height, sediment characteristics, ladder swing width and speed, digging depth, and discharge line length and
vertical lift. The ranges presented in this table represent only an approximate upper and lower range.
5 With submerged dredge pumps, digging depths have been increased to greater than 100 ft (30 m).
6 Literature implies that water current hinders dredging operations, but references avoid establishing maximum
current limitations. For most dredges, the limiting current is probably in the 3- to 5-knots range, with hopper and
dustpan dredges able to work in currents of around 7 knots.
7 Production for a hopper dredge is dependent on suction and discharge line diameter, pump horsepower, hopper
capacity, cut face height, sediment characteristics, transport distance to placement site, vessel dredging and sailing
speeds, digging depth, and drag head configuration. The ranges presented in this table represent only an
approximate upper and lower range.
8 With submerged dredge pumps, digging depths have been increased to greater than 140 ft (43 m).
9 Can be lower if an enclosed bucket is used.
10 Depends on the floating platform; if it is barge-mounted, the draft is approximately 5-6 ft (1.5-1.8 m).
11 Zero if used alongside waterway; otherwise, the draft of the vessel will determine this number.
12 Demonstrated depth; theoretically, it could be used much deeper.
13 Depends on the supporting vessel dimensions and anchoring system used and the scow dimensions.
14 Theoretically, unaffected by wave height; digging equipment is not rigid.
15 Most dustpan dredges are not designed for open-water operation, but the dustpan Beachbuilder has a modified
hull and anchoring system that increases its operational capability in open water.
16 Production for a dustpan dredge is dependent on suction and discharge line diameter, pump horsepower, cut face
height, sediment characteristics, advance rate, digging depth, and discharge line length and vertical lift. The ranges
presented in this table represent only an approximate upper and lower range.

2-94

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.29.2.4 Specific factors that affect production of the various dredge types used in USACE
navigation projects are discussed in the preceding dredge descriptions. Determination of detailed
dredge production rates is required for dredging contract cost estimates. The USACE Cost
Estimating Dredge Estimating Program was developed to ensure that cost estimates for dredging
projects can be prepared accurately and efficiently, and to produce a fair and reasonable cost for
hopper, pipeline, and mechanical dredges. This USACE program calculates a production rate for
each of these types of dredges for preparation of the government cost estimate for dredging
contracts. The dredge production rate is required to determine an estimated unit price per cubic
yard. The U.S. Army Engineer Division, Huntsville, offers a week-long (40 hours) Dredge
Estimating course, whose objective is for the student to be able to develop a detailed, fair, and
reasonable cost estimate for maintenance and new-work projects, and also to be able to discuss
the overall policies and guidance affecting dredge estimates. If interested in taking this course,
USACE employees should check with their Training Officer for details.
2.30 Agitation Dredging Techniques.
2.30.1 Introduction.
2.30.1.1 Agitation dredging is the process of removing bottom material from a selected
area by using equipment to raise it in the water column and allowing currents to carry it from the
project area. In the most detailed study available on agitation dredging techniques, Richardson
(1984) evaluated past agitation dredging projects and presented guidelines and recommendations
for using agitation dredging. Two distinct phases are involved in agitation dredging: suspension
of bottom sediments by some type of equipment and transport of the suspended material by
currents. The main purpose of the equipment is to entrain bottom material into the water column.
Natural currents are usually involved in transporting the material from the dredging site although
the natural currents may be augmented with currents generated by the agitation equipment.
Agitation dredging is accomplished by methods such as hopper dredge agitation, prop wash,
vertical mixers or air bubblers, rakes or drag beams, and water jets. Based on the work done by
Clausner (1993) and Richardson (1984), the following agitation dredging techniques are
presented in this sectionhopper dredge, prop wash, and rake or beam dragging agitation. While
Water Injection Dredging (WID) is included in this section, it is (as described below) not
considered to be strictly agitation dredging due to the sediment transport being driven primarily
by generated density current, not ambient currents.
2.30.1.2 The main objective of agitation dredging is the removal of bottom material from a
selected area. If the material is suspended but redeposits shortly in the same area, only agitation
(not agitation dredging) has been accomplished. The decision to use agitation dredging should be
based primarily on the following factors:
a. Technical feasibility. The equipment to generate the required level of agitation must be
available, and the agitated material must be carried away from the project area by currents (either
ambient or generated by the dredging equipment).

2-95

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

b. Environmental feasibility. Agitation dredging should not cause unacceptable environmental impacts.
c. Economic feasibility. Agitation dredging must be determined the most cost-effective
method for achieving the desired results; it should not affect the costs of other dredging projects
downstream by increasing dredging volumes.
2.30.1.3 The environmental considerations discussed in Appendix B, Dredging
Environmental Conditions, also apply to all agitation dredging techniques. The short-and longterm physical and chemical conditions of the sediments influence the environmental
consequences. These factors should be considered in evaluating the environmental risk of a
proposed agitation dredging technique.
2.30.2 Hopper dredge agitation.
2.30.2.1 Description of operation. Refer to paragraph 2.22 for a general description of
hopper dredges. In agitation dredging, hopper capacity is of secondary importance compared
with pumping rates, mobility, and overflow provisions. In hopper dredge agitation, the conventional dredge-haul-dump operating mode is modified by increasing the dredging mode and
reducing the haul-dump mode. It has been reported that hopper dredge agitation can allow a
project to be maintained with a dredge that is relatively small compared to the size dredge
required for a conventional dredge-haul-dump operation. There are two types of hopper dredge
agitation: intentional agitation produced by hopper overflow and auxiliary agitation caused by
drag heads and propeller wash. Since the latter is present in all hopper dredge operations and
since it is difficult to quantify separately from hopper overflow, both types are measured together
when reporting hopper dredge agitation effectiveness.
2.30.2.2 Application. Agitation hopper dredging can perform the same maintenance
functions as conventional hopper dredging if the following conditions are satisfied: sediments are
fine-grained and loosely consolidated, currents are adequate to remove the agitated sediments
from the project area, and no unacceptable environmental impact results from the agitation
dredging.
2.30.2.3 Advantages. Because currents, not equipment, transport most of the sediment from
the project area during agitation hopper dredging, the following advantages are realized: hopper
dredge agitation costs can be several times less per cubic yard than hopper dredge hauling costs,
and smaller hopper dredges can be used to maintain certain projects.
2.30.2.4 Limitations. Hopper dredge agitation should be applied only to specific dredging
sites and not be used as a general method to maintain large areas. The following limitations must
be noted when considering this dredging technique for use at a site: hopper dredge agitation
cannot be used in environmentally sensitive areas where unacceptable environmental impacts
may occur, and sediments and current conditions must be suitable for agitation dredging.

2-96

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.30.3 Water injection dredging (WID).

2.30.3.1 Description of operation.
a. A vessel-mounted pump/fluidizing assembly is used in WID methodology to inject large
volumes of water directly into sediment voids at relatively low pressures. The pump/
injection head assembly is mounted on a barge designed to be propelled by a pushboat
(Figure 2-38). Given sufficient penetration, this injection process can increase the pore volume
and pore water pressure such that a loss of grain-to-grain contact is achieved. This state of
fluidization creates a low-viscosity water-sediment mixture. The depth of injection-water
penetration, and thus the degree of fluidization, depends on physical properties of the sediment
and water jet characteristics of the injection head. When noncohesive sand is being dredged, the
primary sediment characteristics that influence fluidization rates are grain size and permeability.
For dredging silt, the in situ density, viscosity, and permeability are the primary factors, and in
clays the cohesive strength exerts the major influence. The pressure gradient formed by differences in density between the heavier water-sediment mixture and ambient water creates a
gravity-driven density current that induces mixture flow. The spatial and temporal characteristics
of this density current (flow pattern and relative densities) are influenced by the composition and
initial degree of fluidization of the sediment, site bathymetry, and ambient currents.

Figure 2-38. Water Injection Dredge

b. The WID-generated density current transports shoal material to deeper water, where it
can settle without impeding navigation or where it can be carried even farther away by stronger
ambient currents. Thickness of the density current, or the height above the bottom that the
fluidized sediment is lifted in the water column, is dependent upon grain size. The WID density
current does not absolutely require a sloping bottom to flow, but a slope can assist the density
current in a manner that can be likened to an underwater avalanche. The amount of slope is
especially important when using WID in fine sand (0.2 mm) and coarser materials due to their
higher fall velocities relative to that of silt-sized particles. Performance in fine-grained sediments

2-97

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

is reduced as cohesion and consolidation increase. Highly plastic (fat) clays cannot be effectively
dredged using WID. As sand grain sizes increase, the distance these grains can be transported is
reduced. Each dredge site has to be evaluated individually for its suitability regarding WID
application. Site conditions govern this applicability by influencing production rates that depend
on sediment characteristics, bathymetry, and the local hydraulic regime. For example, a dredge
cut consisting of coarse-grained sand might be cost effectively dredged by WID in one location
if favorable factors (such as steep bottom slopes, close deposition area, and beneficial ambient
currents) exist. But at another site with different bottom conditions, the large-grained sand might
require the dredge to rehandle the same sediment several times, thus increasing cost per
volume unit.
c. WID does not absolutely require ambient currents to transport the sediment out of the
dredge cut because of the gravity-induced (density difference) component of flow of the density
current. This component of flow is just another type of exchange current similar to a salt wedge
intrusion into fresh water. In normal operation, WID lifts the fluidized sediment from the bottom
a height of 1-3 m. Per Bruun (1990) divides agitation dredging into controlled and noncontrolled
methods. An example of a noncontrolled method includes the overflow method from hopper
dredges; but WID, because of the amount of control inherent in its operation, is classed as a
controlled agitation dredging method.
2.30.3.2 Applications. Dredging typically starts at the lower end of a dredge cut adjacent to
the placement area and then proceeds with the goal of producing a smooth downslope gradient to
the placement area, thus requiring working from the lower edge of the dredge cut back to the
upper edge. In a harbor, a central channel is dredged, followed by dredging out from the center
channel. Removal of high spots associated with sand waves or irregular bathymetry can reduce
production rate initially. Production rates in sand can range from 100 to 400 m3/hr and in silt up
to 1,500 m3/hr or more.
2.30.3.3 Advantages. For appropriate locations where favorable bottom material and
bathymetry exist, WID can offer several advantages:
a. In optimum conditions WID is capable of very high production rates.
b. WID can rapidly move from one project location to another on short notice and can
immediately go to work once at a site.
c. Because WID does not require pipelines, anchors, or attendant vessels to operate, the
reduction in numbers and types of required operating equipment directly translates into a
reduction of required workforce levels and attendant operating costs.
d. WID provides fewer impediments to navigation due to the absence of discharge
pipelines, spuds, swing wires, etc. For certain types of dredging projects (for example, locks
where traffic can cause substantial delays), the ability of WID to quickly avoid vessels and
resume dredging can result in substantially more operating hours compared with other more
conventional equipment.

2-98

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

e. Because the injection head merely rides on the surface of the sediment as opposed to
actively digging into it, WID allows safer operations with a reduced chance of damage to
submerged structures, pipelines, utility cables, and other items.
2.30.3.4 Limitations. WID has the following limitations:
a. It can be used only where in-water placement of dredged material is allowed.
b. WID can effectively operate only where favorable conditions exist; sediments,
bathymetry, and current conditions must all be suitable.
c. WID cannot be used in contaminated sediment where unacceptable environmental
impacts occur.
2.30.4 Prop wash agitation.
2.30.4.1 General. Prop wash agitation dredging is performed by vessels especially designed
or modified to direct propeller-generated currents into the bottom shoal material. The agitated
material is suspended in the water column and carried away by a combination of natural currents
and prop wash currents. Unintentional prop wash agitation dredging often occurs while vessels
move through waterways. This type of sediment resuspension is uncontrolled and, therefore, is
often considered undesirable.
2.30.4.2 Description of operation. The prop wash vessel performs best when work begins at
the upstream side of a shoal and proceeds downstream with the prop wash-generated current
directed downstream. The vessel is anchored in position, and prop wash-generated currents are
directed into the shoal material for several minutes. The vessel is then repositioned and the
process is repeated.
2.30.4.3 Application. Prop wash agitation dredging has been successfully used in coastal
harbors, river mouths, river channels, and estuaries. It is a method intended for use in loose sands
and in maintenance-dredged material consisting of uncompacted clay and silt. Cementing, cohesion, or compaction of the bottom sediment can make prop wash agitation dredging difficult to
perform, and waves may cause anchoring problems with the agitation vessel. Optimum water
depths for prop wash agitation dredging in sand are between two and three times the draft of the
agitation vessel. Based on studies by Richardson (1984), the average performance of vessels
specially designed for prop wash agitation range from 200 to 300 yd3/hr in sand and a little
higher for fine-grained material.
2.30.4.4 Advantages. The major advantages of prop wash agitation dredging are related to
economics. In some areas, prop wash agitation dredging has been found to cost 40-90% less per
cubic yard dredged than conventional dredging methods.
2.30.4.5 Limitations. The limitations on prop wash agitation dredging are as follows:
a. Prop wash agitation seems best suited for areas with little or no wave action.

2-99

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

b. Prop wash agitation should be applied in water depths less than four times the draft of
the agitation vessel.
c. The sediments must be loose sands, silt, or clay.
d. It cannot be used where unacceptable environmental impacts could occur.
2.30.5 Bed-levelers, Rakes, and Drag Beams.
2.30.5.1 Bed-levelers, drag beams, and similar devices work by being pulled over the
bottom (usually by a vessel), mechanically loosening and dragging the bottom material and
raising some portion of it into the water column to be carried away by natural currents. Bedlevelers, while attaining some agitation dredging, are used primarily to reduce the height of
bottom material by knocking down, or redistributing, this material into deeper locations.
2.30.5.2 A vessel towing one of these devices may provide some resuspension and
transport by its prop wash. A wide range of dredging rates has been reported for bed-levelers.
Although these rates vary because they are highly dependent upon site conditions, it has been
reported that the cost of dredging by bed-levers can be less than 10% of the cost for conventional
dredging. Data show a definite correlation between dragging speed and dredging rate. The
advantages and limitations for bed-levelers are similar to those reported for other dredging
techniques reported by Richardson (1984).
2.30.5.3 The primary uses of bed-levelers by U.S. contractors have been to smooth the
bottom following dredging or to reduce the height of dredged material placement mounds that
have reached an excessively high elevation. USACE dredging contracts may contain general
statements such as the following: Should any shoals, lumps, or other lack of contract depth be
disclosed by this examination, the Contractor will be required to remove same by dragging the
bottom or by dredging. Since dragging the bottom (bed-leveling) is not a pay item per se, tugs
and drag beams for bed-leveling have previously not been included in the plant and equipment
lists of contractors bids. Bed-leveling is a far less expensive method of achieving desired grade
than redredging. Hence, this is a common method for achieving final grade by hopper dredge,
bucket dredge, and clamshell dredge contractors. Bed-leveling has also been used by cutterhead
dredge contractors for reducing the heights of placement mounds.
2.30.5.4 One reason for the use of bed-levelers on both new-work and maintenance
dredging projects is that modern multibeam survey systems have significantly improved in recent
years over previously used single-beam survey systems, and they have the capability to show
high places above desired grade. A hopper dredge drag head, especially one equipped with a
turtle excluder device, tends to fall off ridges, dig deep, and follow the same path with successive
passes. This tends to dredge trenches and leave ridges that may need to be removed. If the
bottom is hard material, as in new-work dredging, the requirement to get absolutely every spot to
grade is typically deemed critical, so the contractor is required to bring the high spots down to
desired grade. Bed-leveling, given the appropriate bathymetric and hydrodynamic conditions,
can be an efficient method for lowering these high spots, typically being less costly than
returning with a hopper dredge for multiple passes. The use of bed-levelers in lieu of hopper
dredges to clean up may also reduce the possibility of turtle takes.

2-100

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.30.5.5 Historically, the drag bars first used as bed-levelers were probably sections of
spuds or I-beams. The bed-levelers shown in Figures 2-39 through 2-41 for Bean Dredging
Company, Weeks Marine, Inc., and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, respectively, are
engineered, company-fabricated devices resembling a bulldozer blade or a box beam reinforced
with massive amounts of weight to penetrate into either soft or hard materials, even small pieces
of rock on occasion. They are suspended from work barges by A-frames, and have winches to
maintain control of the amount of penetration into the bottom and to determine how much of a
ridge is removed per pass. A typical bed-leveler may vary from 30 to 50 ft in length and weigh
anywhere from 25 to 50 tons. The power of the tug used to push or pull the work barge from
which the bed-leveler is suspended usually varies from 1,000 to 3,000 hp.
2.30.5.6 In calmer waters, the work barge can be pushed or pulled by the tug in a straighter
line. The stronger the currents, the more difficult it is to position the barge. Bed-leveling can be
performed behind hopper dredges under relatively calm wave conditions, but bed-leveler
operations can be constrained in marginal or severe wave conditions that routinely occur in
entrance channel situations where the bottom material is sandy. Bed-leveling is less effective in
cohesive sediments where the drag beam tends to ride over the seafloor instead of knocking
down the high spots. In addition, loose granular material is sometimes redistributed by the wave
climate; thus, bed-leveling may not be necessary in these locations.

Figure 2-39. Bed-Leveler Suspended by an A-Frame on a Work Barge

(Photo Courtesy of Bean Dredging Company, New Orleans, LA)

2-101

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-40. Bed-Leveler Suspended from a Work Barge (Photo Courtesy

of Weeks Marine, Inc., Cranford, NJ)

Figure 2-41. Bed-Leveler Suspended by an A-Frame on a Work Barge

(Photo Courtesy of Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company)

2-102

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.30.5.7 Typical bed-leveler towing speeds range from 1 to 2 knots. Bed-levelers are used
more often in soft sediment maintenance materials and new-work clay, and even with small
pieces of rock, but they are used much less often in sand. In very soft mud, it may be possible to
take a foot or even more in a pass while in stiffer clay it is more likely that a half-foot or even
less may be moved per pass (2-4 in. per pass is a typically representative number). The number
of passes required depends entirely on the type of material being moved, the height of the ridge
to be leveled, and the weight of the bed-leveler.
2.30.5.8 Bed-levelers have been used for many years around coastlines of the United States
at any place where the contract bid element is a unit price item. Bed-levelers are not usually used
where hopper dredging is performed on a rental basis and payment is by the hour instead of on a
unit price per cubic yard basis. Bed-levelers of one design or another (ploughs, I-beams, anchor
chains, and so on) have been used following dredging by different types of dredges (hoppers,
clamshells, and buckets) in several USACE Districts. While not all Districts have used bedlevelers following dredging by hopper dredges, all have used bed-levelers following dredging by
other type dredges (clamshell or bucket).
2.31 Dredging Instrumentation. Dredging instrumentation has undergone significant changes
over the last several decades due to the availability of improved instrumentation and low-cost
computing and data storage as well as increased environmental awareness and regulations.
Improved instrumentation has contributed to optimization of the dredging process because it
improves the crews ability to determine where they are dredging, where they are placing the
dredged material, and how they are dredging (production instrumentation). The significant types
of instrumentation that have contributed to these dredging improvements are described in the
following paragraphs.
2.31.1 Positioning.
2.31.1.1 Global Positioning System. The use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) has
dramatically impacted dredging by providing an accurate, accessible, horizontal (x,y) positioning
capability. The NAVSTAR GPS is a passive, satellite-based navigation system operated and
maintained by the Department of Defense. Its primary mission is to provide passive global
positioning/navigation for land-, air-, and sea-based strategic and tactical forces. A GPS receiver
is simply a range measurement device; distances are measured between the receiver antenna and
the satellites, and the position is determined from the intersections of the range vectors. These
distances are determined by a GPS receiver that precisely measures the time it takes a signal to
travel from the satellite to the station. This measurement process is similar to that used in conventional pulsing marine navigation systems and in phase comparison electronic distance
measurement land surveying equipment. There are basically two general operating modes from
which GPS-derived positions can be obtained: absolute positioning and relative or differential
positioning (DGPS). This variety of operational options results in a wide range of accuracy
levels that may be obtained from the NAVSTAR GPS. Accuracies can range from 100 m down
to the subcentimeter level. Increased accuracies to the subcentimeter level require additional
observing time and, until recently, could not be achieved in real time. Selection of a particular
GPS operating and tracking mode depends on the user application. EM 1110-1-1003 provides
technical specifications and procedural guidance for surveying with GPS. EM 1110-2-1003
presents recommendations for GPS dredge positioning and control.
2-103

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.31.1.2 Three-dimensional (digging point) positioning. Integration of a cutterhead, bucket,

or drag head depth measurement (z) system with DGPS (x,y) horizontal positioning allows threedimensional determination of the excavation point. Methods of determining digging depth for
the various types of dredges include bubbler (pneumatic) systems, pressure transducers,
inclinometers/geometry relationship, and payout holding line sensors. The attitude of the
dredge can be input by system components, such as gyro-compasses, electric compasses, or
multiple GPS stations. Electronic tide or river stage gages may be required to provide water level
(datum) corrections for the excavation point. Dredges also use tide boards (staff gages) or realtime kinematic GPS to make water level corrections. The two most common types of water level
gages are pressure and acoustic transducers, which can be mounted on the river or seabed or in
stilling tubes in the near vicinity of the dredging project. Water level data can be linked to the
three-dimensional positioning system by cellular telephone, radio, or satellite.
2.31.2 Hydraulic dredge production instrumentation.
2.30312.1 The need for accurate evaluation of production in dredging operations has been
evident for a long time. In the 1960s, the hydraulic dredge operator had at his disposal only the
measurements of pump revolutions per minute, power used, and suction and discharge pressures
to estimate production. The suction (vacuum) and discharge pressures were recorded on circular
chart paper (smoke charts) like the one shown in Figure 2-42.
2.31.2.2 The total rate of flow or the density (or specific gravity) of the solid-water
mixtures was not known. The first improvement was the application of magnetic flowmeters to
the dredging industrythis provided the total rate of flow (water plus solids). The next
improvement was the development of a nuclear density gage that provided an instantaneous
reading of the density of solid-water mixtures being pumped. Since the magnetic flowmeter is
relatively expensive, a Doppler flowmeter was developed later (Herbich et al. 1992).
2.31.2.3 The most desired information in an efficient hydraulic dredging operation is the
accurate determination of the amount of solids passing through the dredge pump. A magnetic or
Doppler flowmeter and a nuclear density gage have been utilized individually by the dredging
industry to determine the flow velocity of the slurry and dredged material density, respectively.
2.31.2.4 Since dredging operations are now much larger, in both volume and cost, a higher
degree of accuracy and efficiency is required. As there are no simple relations between pump
speed, slurry density, discharge pressure, and solids flow rate, production metering systems have
been developed. The development of a single integrated production metering system represents a
higher degree of automation. With this type of instrumentation, the leverman or drag tender can
determine instantaneous values of flow velocity and slurry density and see the manner in which
density and flow velocity interact with each other to affect solids production rate. It usually
includes a totalizer, which gives a continuous indication of total production (project total or
shift total), eliminating the need for computations to determine the total production.

2-104

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-42. Production Smoke Chart

2.31.2.5 The data from the flowmeter, which measures the total rate of flow of solids,
water, and gas dV/dt, and the density meter, which measures the specific gravity of the pumped
mixture dM/dV, are fed into the production metering system, which indicates the total rate of
solids flow in the pipe dM/dt + dV/dt dM/dV either graphically on analog/digital displays or on
cross-point displays (Herbich et al. 1992).
2.31.2.6 Though the magnetic flowmeter and the nuclear density gage are still the most
widely used forms of instrumentation on dredges, complete production metering and display
systems have also been installed on many modern dredges and are contributing measurably to
increased solids production.
2.31.2.7 Output signals from the velocity and density meters are often used to control other
instruments to provide dredge automation capabilities (for example, the automatic light mixture
overboard device for hopper dredges, described in subparagraph 2.31.3.3). The production meter
components consist of the following:

2-105

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Nuclear density gage. The nuclear density gage measures density using the energy
absorption method. An example of one of the nuclear density gages onboard the dredge
McFarland is shown in Figure 2-43. A radioactive source, usually cesium 137 or cobalt 60, emits
gamma-ray energy through the discharge pipe. The rays are absorbed in proportion to the density
of the slurry, and a detector either of the ion chamber or scintillation type handles the gamma-ray
energy. The ion chamber detector is a gas-filled device with a polarizing voltage applied to it.
When gamma rays strike the device, the energy ionizes the gas creating a small current that is
amplified and sent to the transmitter. Scintillation type detectors are made of certain plastic
materials that give off a pulse of light when struck by gamma rays. A photo-multiplier tube
converts the light pulses to voltage pulses that are then sent to the transmitter. The transmitted
energy is finally converted into a linearized output that indicates density changes (Herbich et al.
1992). A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license is required to supervise the use of the
nuclear density gage. The licensee receives radiation safety training, maintains the required NRC
records, and performs periodic wipe tests. The wipe test is a procedure in which the radiation
source is wiped with a small cotton cloth, which is then analyzed to detect radiation and assure
compliance with the NRC safety standard.

Figure 2-43. Nuclear Density Gage

b. Flowmeters. There is a variety of different ways to measure flow velocity in dredging
applications.
(1) Magnetic flowmeter. The magnetic flowmeter, based on the principle of electromagnetic induction, is designed to measure the flow of conductive liquids in a pipe. Two electromagnetic coils surround a pipe made of antimagnetic materials and produce a magnetic field at
right angles to the flow direction. As a conductive liquid passes the metering section, the lines of
force from the magnetic field are cut, producing a low-level voltage at the stainless steel pick-up
electrodes. The electrodes measure the potential difference, which is proportional to the flow rate

2-106

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

and independent of the solids concentration. Both AC systems and pulsed DC systems are
available; however, for dredging applications the AC system provides the broadest possibilities.
(2) Doppler sonic flowmeter. The Doppler flowmeter uses the theory of the Doppler
effectthere is an apparent change in the frequency of sound, light, or radio waves as a function
of motion. These meters consist of a piezoelectric crystal transducer, a Doppler frequency
receiver, and a transmitter. The transmitter sends a continuous ultrasonic signal through the pipe
wall and into the liquid stream at an angle to the direction of flow. The sound waves are reflected
by particles, bubbles, or other discontinuities in the liquid back to the receiver. The difference
between the transmitted and the reflected frequencies, called the Doppler shift, is analyzed, and
the flow rate of the slurry is displayed in velocity units (Herbich et al. 1992).
(3) Elbow meter. An elbow meter indicates slurry velocity by measuring the pressure
differential between a pressure tap on the inside and a pressure tap on the outside of the discharge elbow. The differential pressure is measured by means of diaphragms and is converted
into an electrical signal by a differential pressure transducer. The signal corrects for the slurry
density and shows the velocity on a display, which may be analog or digital.
2.31.2.8 The production metering system has a number of different output indicators, but it
usually features a display combining both slurry velocity and slurry density. The data from the
flowmeter, which measures the total rate of flow of the solids, and the density meter, which measures the specific gravity of the pumped mixture, are fed into the production metering system. It
indicates the instantaneous total rate of solids flow per unit time in a variety of output parameters
(such as cubic meters [yards] per hour and tons per hour). It can also include a totalizer, which
gives a continuous indication of total production (project total or shift total), eliminating the need
for postoperation computations to determine the total production.
2.31.2.9 The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) has
conducted laboratory studies (Pankow 1989) on production meter components. Several density
gages and flowmeters manufactured by different companies were evaluated for accuracy and
reliability in a closed test loop. Different grain-size materials, slurry concentrations, and velocity
regimes were used for the study. The results indicated that the various calibrated nuclear density
gages were very consistent in their measurements of density and showed values within 1-5% of
each other. Although the preferred pipe orientation for density gages is vertical, they perform
better when the pipe is rotated 45 from the horizontal. The magnetic flowmeters were also fairly
consistent in their measurements and showed values within 6% of each other. Slurry velocity and
slurry concentration had little to no effect on the accuracy of the magnetic flowmeters. However,
the data for the Doppler flowmeters showed distinct differences. Though the data for each meter
were fairly self-consistent, the Doppler flowmeters showed significant differences from the
control meter while the magnetic flowmeters produced measurements fairly close to those of the
control meter. Slurry velocity had some effect on the accuracy of the Doppler flowmeter.
2.31.3 Hopper dredge instrumentation. In recent years the application of instrumentation to
hopper dredges has accelerated rapidly. Instrumentation has become an integral part of hopper
dredge operations. First, the operator needs to know what is going on: information regarding the
position, drag depth, and production of the dredge. Second, the dredge owner needs information
on the performance of the dredge to track project progress, determine maintenance requirements,

2-107

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

and estimate costs of future projects. Finally, the project manager needs information to ensure
that the project is being carried out in compliance with specifications and that payments are
justified. The list of instrumentation currently available on American hopper dredges includes
those shown in Table 2-11.
Table 2-11. Hopper Dredge Instrumentation
Instrument
Electronic positioning (DGPS)
Drag depth vertical position
Electronic tide gage
Load (yardage) meter
Hopper level sensors
Density/velocity meter
Fathometer

Application
Horizontal position
Depth in cut
Correct vertical position to tidal datum
Load versus time record
Measure level of material in hopper
Slurry density and velocity
Depth below hull

2.31.3.1 Load (yardage) meter.

a. The yardage meter or load meter system has been in use by the USACE since before
1954. The first experimental yardage meter system capable of reading tons of solids was
installed on the hopper dredge Essayons to measure loads by the displacement method, replacing
the procedure of sampling the hopper bins to determine the volume of settled solids and the
solids in suspension in the bin water. This method is based on the principle developed by the
Greek mathematician Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), that the weight of the water displaced by a
floating object is equal to the weight of the object. In the case of the hopper dredge, the weight of
the load placed in the hoppers results in an increase in the draft of the dredge as it displaces an
equal weight of water. Displacement versus draft curves provided with the curves of form for the
hopper dredge, as with any ship, provide the means to measure this weight increase.
b. The hopper load weight is determined by measuring the hopper loaded and unloaded
weights of the entire vessel, then subtracting the unloaded value from the loaded value. To
accomplish this, the change in draft of the vessel is measured, and this measurement is converted
into displacement from the curves of form (displacement curves) of the vessel. Draft measurements are usually taken with at least two pressure sensors, as shown in Figure 2-44, one mounted
forward and one mounted aft on the underside of the vessel as close to the keel as possible. The
pressures measured by this technology are proportional to the hull depth.
2.31.3.2 Hopper level sensors. By measuring the hopper load volume and weight, the
average density can be calculated. The hopper weight is determined by the displacement method
described previously. The level of dredged material in the hopper is measured in order to derive
the hopper load volume from the hopper ullage chart. The hopper level can be measured by level
sensors mounted over the hopper, as shown in Figure 2-44. These sensors are usually ultrasonic
transducers (Figure 2-45) that emit acoustic waves and detect the energy reflected from the
dredged material surface. Similar to a hydrographic survey, the distance between the transducer
and acoustic reflector is based on the time interval required for the acoustic energy to travel from
and back to the transducer. The sensors are usually mounted on the forward and aft ends over the

2-108

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-44. Draft and Hopper Level Sensors

Figure 2-45. Acoustic Hopper Level Sensor

2-109

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

hopper as close to the center line as possible (to offset error caused by the vessel list). One disadvantage of this technology is that if the hopper load has foam on its surface, the sensors reflect
off it instead of the slurry surface. Another disadvantage is that the sensor transducer must
remain relatively clean to function correctly.
2.31.3.3 Hopper Dredge Automatic Light Mixture Overboard (ALMO). The ALMO uses
the flow and density meter to optimize the hopper-filling process by allowing only mixture with
a predetermined specific gravity to be loaded. Two valves activated by data received from the
density gage and flowmeter are incorporated into the pump delivery system. One of the valves
causes light mixture to be discharged overboard while the other directs mixture of adequate
density to the hopper. The density values can be preset in accordance with the nature of the
dredging process.
2.31.4 Hydraulic pipeline dredge monitoring. Various USACE Districts have recorded
pipeline dredge operating parameters for contract quality assurance purposes (Rosati and Welp
1999). Table 2-12 illustrates the variety of different parameters monitored by these districts. For
example, Louisville District has monitored suction and discharge pressures, recordings of pump
rpms, slurry density and velocity in the pipeline, the suction pipe inlet depth, swing cable and
cutterhead pressures, and the three-dimensional location of the suction inlet. This data forms the
basis of monitoring the performance and effectiveness of the dredge under the conditions
encountered at the dredge site (Chapman 1994). A Windows-based microprocessor is required
to display parameters continuously on an integrated video information console and record timeaveraged data (converted from analog to digital). The device or system is to be equipped with an
electronically scalable crossed-pointer display, indicating slurry velocity, slurry density, and
instantaneous production (Figure 2-46), for use by the leverman and the Governments representative or inspector.
Table 2-12. Dredging Parameters Monitored by USACE Districts (from Rosati and Welp 1999)
Cutterhead 2D Position

Cutterhead Depth

Slurry Velocity

Slurry Density

Swing Cable Pressure

Cutterhead Pressure

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

2-110

Vessel Heading

Pump RPM

X
X

Dredge-Mounted
Fathometer

Discharge Pressure

District
New Orleans
Louisville
Mobile
Tuscaloosa
Columbus
Panama City
San Francisco

Suction Vacuum

Parameters

X
X
X
X

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-46. Example of Louisville District-Required Dredging

Parameters (Courtesy of Louisville District)
2.31.5 National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program.
2.31.5.1 Overview. The National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program
(http://dqm.usace.army.mil/) is a partnership between the USACE and the dredging industry. Its
mission is to provide USACE dredging managers nationwide with a standardized, automated,
and low-cost remote monitoring, analysis, and documentation system for USACE dredging
projects employing both Government-owned and contract dredges. As the replacement for the
original Silent Inspector (SI) desktop tools, this next-generation dredging monitoring system
provides timely web-based data access, multiple reporting formats, and full technical support,
including dredge certifications, data quality control, and database management for dredging
projects. DQM currently monitors all hopper dredges within the US as well as the larger scows,
which are used with mechanical dredges. Figure 2-47 shows all USACE Districts currently using
DQM. Continued program and tool enhancement is planned, including support for mechanical
and pipeline dredges.
2.31.5.2 Benefits to Government. DQM provides a number of benefits to Government:
a. 24x7 coverage of operations.
b. Valuable data for environmental monitoring compliance.
c. Fast response to public and environmental concerns.
d. Reduced paperwork.

2-111

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-47. USACE Districts Currently Using DQM

e. Improved project management.
f. Flexible scheduling of inspectors.
2.31.5.3 Benefits to Industry. DQM also provides a number of benefits to industry:
a. Standardized data collection and reporting.
b. Fast start to data collection.
c. Standard base for dispute resolution/avoidance.
d. Reliable digital record of operations/performance.
2.31.5.4 Data Collection. Onboard the dredge, multiple sensors and instruments
continuously monitor dredge activities, operations, and efficiency. (Figure 2-48 identifies the
sensors onboard a hopper dredge.) The information collected by these sensors is routed in near
real time via the Internet to the National DQM Support Center for data processing, storage, and
publishing (Figure 2-49). When an Internet connection is not available, data is stored locally and
then transmitted as soon as a connection is available. A complementary suite of web-based DQM
tools gives USACE dredging managers the ability to view project operations, produce disposal
plots, and then export and analyze dredge operation data.

2-112

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-48. Hopper Dredge Sensors

2-113

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-49. National Dredging Quality Management (DQM) Program Data Collection

2-114

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.31.5.5 Specifications. In order to interpret the data and base decisions on those
interpretations, it is necessary to maintain a certain level of confidence in the accuracy of the
data collected, compiled, and transmitted to the DQM database by a dredges electronic
instrumentation. Therefore, to ensure that the DQM Program is collecting quality data,
performance-based specifications clearly define the minimum standards for accuracy and
resolution of the instrumentation as well as the expectations for frequency of data receipt.
2.31.5.6 Data collection. All shipboard sensors are the property of the contractor, who is
required to maintain them. The contractor also purchases the required computer hardware for the
DQM software, and USACE installs software. Both hoppers and scows collect data and compute
measurements specific to that dredging type. Table 2-13 identifies the instrumentation onboard a
hopper dredge and some of the data parameters transmitted to the National DQM Support
Center. The instruments in the left column measure and transmit various values; the parameters
in the right column are calculated from those values. For example, the values collected by the
draft sensors are used to calculate the vessel weight (displacement). Additional parameters are
added as a need is identified.
2.31.5.7 Dredging Quality Management On-Board Software (DQMOBS). The DQMOBS
is used on hopper dredges to capture the dredging contractors serial data string and transmit it in
near real time to the National DQM Support Center. Figures 2-50a and 2-50b show daytime and
nighttime views of the DQMOBS, respectively.
2.31.5.8 Certification. To guarantee that dredge instrumentation is capable of meeting the
standards identified in the specifications, the National DQM Support Center oversees annual
instrumentation checks of the data collection systems on dredge plants nationwide. These checks
are based on the DQM specifications and not on the terms of any specific contract. National
DQM Center Certification indicates the following:
a. The dredge plant is equipped with instrumentation that meets the minimum data
collection standards for the DQM Program.
b. The contractor has the equipment to calibrate the required sensors and transmit data.
c. The contractor has documented pertinent information regarding the instrumentation
system.
d. The contractor has demonstrated that personnel with the expertise to maintain the
instrumentation are available.
Certification is valid for one year from the date of the instrumentation check and is contingent
upon the systems ability to continuously meet the performance requirements outlined in the
DQM specifications. The instrumentation must be rechecked if any yard work produces a
modification to displacement (change in dredge lines or repositioning/repainting of hull marks),
to bin volume (change in bin dimensions or addition/subtraction of a structure), or in sensor type
or location.

2-115

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.31.5.9 Data Monitoring. Timeliness of data receipt is essential to managing dredging

contracts; therefore, incoming data is monitored to ensure that all active contracts are
transmitting data appropriately. While the National DQM Support Center is not responsible for
quality control of the incoming data (that is, telling the contractor how to fix issues), it does,
however, provide the first line of quality assurance on that data by using computerized checks on
received data to detect outliers or anomalous values. In addition, visual examination of the data
is performed by individuals with expertise in interpreting instrumentation and dredging
operations.DQM web-based tools can be used to view project operations, produce disposal plots,
and export data.
Table 2-13. Hopper Dredge Instrumentation and Calculated Data Parameter Values
Instrumentation

Calculated Data Parameter Values

Positioning System

Date and Time

Open/Close Sensor

Vessel Longitude and Latitude

Draft Sensors

Draghead Longitude and Latitude

Ullage Sensors

Dredge Course

Drag Head Depth Sensor

Dredge Speed

Density Meter

Dredge Heading

Velocity Meter

Hull Status

Pump RPMs

Load Number

Computer (DQM receives the data string)

Tide (Vertical Correction)

Telemetry System

Fore and Aft Draft

Fore and Aft Ullage
Hopper Volume
Displacement
Empty Displacement
Draghead Depths
Slurry Density in Dragarms
Slurry Velocity in Dragarms
Pump RPM
Minimum Pump Effort
Pumping Water
Material Recovery
Pumpout

2-116

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Daytime View

b. Nighttime View
Figure 2-50. Hopper Dredge DQMOBS Interface

2-117

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.31.5.10 One of the computed hopper dredge data values is Tons Dry Solids (TDS), a
measure of the hopper load volume and weight in order to determine the quantity of dry solids
that it contains. By applying the values for the dry solid (dredged material) specific density and
in situ water density in a formula with the hopper load weight and volume (which indirectly
measures the hopper load average density), the total quantity of the dry solids can be calculated.
Because TDS measures the amount of dry solids material that is actually being transported, the
dredge performance can be determined for contract management purposes; TDS measurement
provides feedback to the dredge crew and management for optimizing production. TDS also
allows sediment removal to be described in terms of mass balance, improving the understanding
of dredged material fate. Welp and Rosati (2000) present more information about TDS
measurement and its use in Europe and USACE.
2.31.5.11 Other applications of DQM include monitoring to ensure environmental compliance (for example, for threatened and endangered species and open water dredged material
placement). Section 2.39 describes several applications that illustrate how DQM, in conjunction
with an Enterprise Geographic Information System (eGIS), can be used as a dredging contract
compliance quality assurance (QA) tool.
2.30.5.12 Training. DQM Viewer training is currently available on the National DQM
Program website (http://dqm.usace.army.mil); the National DQM Support Center is planning to
provide additional training modules in the future. The National DQM Support Center also
provides training for local USACE districts on DQM tools and technology, DQM requirements,
and health and safety issues related to working in the field. Large-group training is delivered on
site while webinars are available for smaller groups.
2.32 Environmental Dredging.
2.32.1 Introduction. While there are certainly environmental issues associated with navigation dredging, particularly where sediments are highly contaminated, navigation dredging usually
does not involve sediment remediation. The term environmental dredging generally refers to
remediation or cleanup projects where removal of contaminated sediment from the waterway to
enhance environmental quality is the primary objective of the project. For navigation dredging,
the main concern is restoration of navigable water depths through cost-effective removal of sediment without unacceptable adverse environmental effects. In the case of environmental dredging,
the overriding concern is often controlling contaminant releases to the waterway during dredging
and/or efficient removal of the contaminated material. Palermo and Averett (2003) review technical considerations for environmental dredging and summarize the state of the art with respect
to equipment selection and operational practice. The major considerations for environmental
dredging include the following:
a. Objectives, goals, and performance standards for the project.

b. Equipment availability and selection.

c. Removal rate and precision of removal.

2-118

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

d. Resuspension of sediment during the dredging process.

e. Release of dissolved contaminants to water or volatilization of contaminants to air due to
resuspension.
f. Residual contaminated sediment left in place following the dredging operation.
g. Transport of the dredged material for subsequent treatment or placement.
2.32.2 Considerations for selecting environmental dredging equipment.
2.32.2.1 The goal of any environmental dredging project is to remove the contaminated
sediment as efficiently and economically as possible without unacceptable adverse impacts to the
environment. The dredging industry offers a wide variety of equipment suitable for various
situations, including a number of innovations targeted to environmental dredging. Site-specific
conditions often limit the type of equipment that can be used. General factors that should be
considered in selecting equipment for environmental dredging include the following (Averett,
Perry, and Miller 1990):
a. Size of the project. The volume of material and the project time schedule for removal
dictate the production rate required for the dredge. Small projects on the order of a few thousand
cubic meters can be efficiently dredged with small, portable equipment. Low production rates
may not be appropriate for projects involving much larger volumes of material. However, the
sizing of handling and treatment facilities for contaminated sediments may limit the dredging
rate.
b. Dredging depth. The depth of the sediment and the thickness of the contaminated layer
both affect the type and size of dredging equipment selected. Where a relatively thin layer
(<0.5 m) is to be removed, equipment capable of precisely removing this slice of material is
favored. Because of the cost of handling and disposition of the dredged material, the volume of
contaminated sediment removed should often be minimized at the expense of lower production
rates incurred by specifying precise and accurate cutting depths. Contracting for environmental
dredging projects is generally bid on a dredging time, performance criteria, or job basis rather
than a cost per unit volume.
c. Physical characteristics of the sediment. Particle size, degree of compaction, cohesiveness, and bulk density affect dredge selection. Most contaminated sediments are fine-grained.
Dredging techniques designed primarily for sands may not be appropriate for fine-grained
material.
d. Contaminants. The types and concentrations of contaminants in the sediment should be
considered. Hot spots for a site require more careful operation and control. Contaminants that are
more soluble or more volatile or that have large oil pockets have greater potential for release
during dredging.
e. Debris. The presence of large rocks, timbers, trees, trash, and other discarded materials
often limits the type of dredge that can be used. Large quantities of debris may preclude the use
of hydraulic dredges and favor mechanical bucket dredges.
2-119

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

f. Physical site restrictions. Water depths, currents, tides, wave height, channel widths,
obstructions, overhead restrictions, and access to the site may limit the size (width, length, and
draft) of the equipment that can be used for a site.
g. Distance to the placement or treatment site. If the placement or treatment site is distant
from the dredging area, hydraulic pipeline transport may not be feasible. Longer haul distances
require barge transport. The economics of barge or scow transport require that the solids content
of the dredged material be as high as possible with little free water.
h. Compatibility with placement or treatment. Some treatment technologies require slurry
feed and are compatible with hydraulic pipeline dredges whereas other treatment technologies
cost more for material with a higher water content. Wastewater treatment requirements, a significant cost component, increase for hydraulic dredging. Hydraulically removed material may have
less potential for volatile losses at a placement site. A systems approach involving the entire
process train dredging with subsequent transport, pretreatment, treatment and placementis
recommended for environmental dredging.
i. Availability. Many environmental dredging technologies have been developed in North
America, Europe, and Japan. However, not all of these are available in the United States, limiting
the evaluation of innovations that appear to be promising.
2.32.2.2 Palermo, Francingues, and Averett (2003) evaluate the capabilities and advantages
and disadvantages of various equipment types commonly considered for environmental dredging, considering published field experience. A list of specific factors related to removal
efficiency, resuspension and release, residual sediment, and compatibility with placement is provided along with discussion of the relative effectiveness of the various equipment types in
addressing each of the factors. This information is incorporated in newly developed USEPA
guidance for sediment remediation and environmental dredging (USEPA 2005) available at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/guidance.htm.
2.32.2.3 USEPA (1994) and Palmero et. al. (2008) present additional information and
technical guidelines on environmental dredging and guidance on the planning, design, and
implementation of actions to remediate contaminated bottom sediments. Francingues and
Palermo (2005) review the basic types of silt and turbidity curtains used in navigation and
environmental dredging projects. The emphasis is on the state of the practice and circumstances
under which silt curtains function best. A checklist has been prepared and is provided to aid the
designer or reviewer of silt curtains to select, design, specify, deploy, and maintain silt curtains
at dredging projects. This note also serves to update and supplement earlier guidance (Johanson
1977; JBF Scientific Corporation 1978) published on the application and performance of silt
curtains.

2-120

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Section IV
Dredging Environmental Considerations
2.33 Introduction.
2.33.1 This section presents environmental considerations associated with different types of
dredge excavation and placement processes. Equipment and controls to manage, or mitigate,
impacts at the excavation (digging) point, as opposed to the point of placement, are also
described. Equipment and controls to manage, or mitigate, impacts at open-water sites are
described in Chapter 3, Open-Water Placement, and those used at confined placement sites are
described in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement. The impacts of dredging on plants and
animals consist of short- and long-term effects. These effects may result from suspended
sediments, turbidity, direct physical impact, changes in habitat, and, in certain situations, by
contaminant levels.
2.34 Sediment Resuspension Due to Dredging. The nature, degree, and extent of sediment
resuspension around a dredging operation are controlled by many factors:
a. The characteristics of the dredged material such as its size distribution, solids
concentration, and composition.
b. The nature of the dredging operation, such as the dredge type and size, discharge cutter
configuration, discharge rate, and operational procedures being used.
c. The characteristics of the hydrologic regime in the vicinity of the operation, including
salinity and hydrodynamic forces (for example, waves and currents).
In addition to sediment resuspension, contaminant mobilization and dissolved oxygen reduction
may also be concerns for certain dredging projects. The relative importance of these factors
varies from site to site. Appendix B, Dredging Environmental Considerations, describes
sediment resuspension characteristics of different types of dredges, discusses dissolved oxygen
reduction and contaminant mobilization induced by dredging, and presents operational measures
that can be used to reduce resuspension potential. Software has been developed to simulate
sediment resuspension characteristics generated from dredging operations.
2.34.1 Particle Tracking Model (PTM).
2.34.1.1 The Particle Tracking Model (PTM) is a Lagrangian particle tracker that allows
the user to simulate sediment movement in a flow field, including the erosion, transport, settling,
and deposition of sediment particles. It was developed jointly by the Dredging Operations and
Environmental Research (DOER) Program and the Coastal Inlets Research Program (CIRP) and
operates in the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) interface. Each transported particle is
representative of an amount of mass of sediment, and particle movement is based on a complex
series of transport mechanisms. In addition to predicting sediment transport pathways and
sediment fate, the model produces maps of sediment transport processes, such as sediment
mobility, which can be useful in understanding sediment behavior. Demirbilek et al. (2005a)
describe the PTM interface; Davies et al. (2005) describe the features and capabilities of the

2-121

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

PTM for analysis of sediment transport and sediment pathways in coastal waters, estuaries,
rivers, and waterways; and Demirbilek et al. (2005b) present a tutorial with examples of the
PTM. Model theory, implementation, and example applications are provided in MacDonald et al.
(2006) and Lackey and McDonald (2007). Additional information about the PTM is available on
the DOER website (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/ptm.html).
2.34.1.2 The PTM is designed to address the following processes and project needs:
a. Sediment mobility.
b. The fate of mobilized sediment.
c. The source or origin location of material in areas experiencing sedimentation.
d. The effects of anthropogenic activity on sediment pathways.
e. The fate of material released during a dredging and placement operation.
f. The stability and fate of in-place sediment, including dredged material mounds, sediment
caps, and contaminated sediment deposits.
2.34.1.3 PTM uses waves and currents as forcing functions, which are developed through
other models and input directly to PTM. Hydrodynamic and wave conditions are generated for
PTM using wave and circulation models. PTM input files include an unstructured grid and timeseries for the wave and hydrodynamic conditions. These input files are from the CIRPs Coastal
Modeling System (CMS) or ADCIRC 3D and depth-averaged hydrodynamic models and CMSWave and STWAVE (Steady State spectral WAVE) wave models. Other models can also be
used as input by first converting their output to CMS, ADCIRC, or to CMS-Wave and STWAVE
formats. The input hydrodynamic files can be in either ASCII or XMDF (http://www.
xmswiki.com/xms/XMDF) hydrodynamic binary data formats. The XMDF (.h5) format is
random access and can significantly reduce run time. The SMS interface automatically converts
ASCII files to this format.
2.34.1.4 As illustrated in Figure 2-51, PTM operates in SMS Version 11
(http://www.xmswiki.com/xms/SMS:SMS_User_Manual_11.1), which allows considerable
flexibility in converting hydrodynamic model results from one format to another. This figure
shows the model grid with bathymetry input in a harbor. PTM can read and write the XMDF
binary file format supported by SMS, greatly reducing file sizes and access times, and it uses a
calendar and clock-based time system to synchronize hydrodynamic, wave, sediment source, and
simulation times. The basic structure of PTM is simplea region (geometry) with bathymetric
and sediment data is defined. Flow and, if applicable, wave data are supplied to the model, and
particles are released into the flow. The computations then proceed through time, modeling
behavior (such as entrainment, advection, diffusion, settling, deposition, and burial) of the
released particles. Two types of calculations are performed at each time-step of PTM: Eulerian
(mesh- or grid-based) calculations are required to determine the local characteristics of the
environment, and Lagrangian (particle-based) calculations are required to determine the behavior
of each particle. The material to be modeled in PTM is released from sources. Refer to

2-122

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Demirbilek et al. (2005a, 2005b, 2012a, 2012b), Davies et al. (2005), and MacDonald et al.
(2006) for details about PTM source specifications, types of Eulerian and Lagrangian
calculations performed, and modes of operation of the model.

Figure 2-51. Example of Bathymetry Within the SMS 11.0 Modeling Environment
2.34.1.5 The particle paths output by PTM can be used to display qualitative results of the
analysis. The SMS interface is used to map the PTM sediment locations and characteristics (such
as grain size), so that the origin and path traveled by any (or all) particles can be determined and
viewed. These techniques are useful if there are concerns about the sources of sedimentation in
sensitive areas (for example, the type and amount of sources arriving at a site, the pathways
particles take to reach a site, and the travel times of different parcels arriving at a site).
Quantitative results can be determined using the supporting data analysis tools imbedded in the
SMS/PTM interface. The methods supported include computation of spatial data sets on a grid,
extension of the spatial data sets to three dimension using z-bins, vertical distributions using
fence diagrams, and virtual point and polygon gages. For details, see Demirbilek et al (2012a,
2012b). Using these methods, subsequent analysis can be performed:
a. Particle Count: The number of particles in a computational cell within the modeling
domain.
b. Accumulation: The depth of particle deposited on the bed in a computational cell within
the modeling domain. The volume of particles is calculated using the particle mass and density
data set for particles which are inactive (based on the state data set) and in the cell. The volume
in each cell is divided by its area to calculate an average depth in the cell. No voids ratio is

2-123

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

included at this time; however, the general Data Calculator in the SMS can be used to modify the
resulting data set.
c. Rate of accumulation: The change in accumulation over time.
d. Deposition: The change in depth of particles in a computational cell within the modeling
domain during a user-specified focus time.
e. Concentration: The concentration of particles in a computational cell within the
modeling domain. The volume of particles is calculated using the particle mass and density data
set for particles which are active (based on the state data set) and in the cell. This volume is then
divided by the volume of the cell using the specified bathymetry and water surface elevation data
sets. The bathymetry and water surface elevation must come from the same geometric object.
f. Exposure: The cumulative exposure in a computational cell within the modeling domain.
g. Dosage: The exposure in a computational cell within the modeling domain during the
focus time.
2.34.1.6 The following example, presented by Demirbilek et al. (2012a, 2012b), is a case
study used to show both PTM simulations and the supporting data analysis available to users.
This case study features the hypothetical region of Todd-istan, which is planning to deepen the
entrance channel to the coastal port to increase commerce and trade capacity of Bridges Harbor
(Figure 2-52). Deepening will be accomplished by dredging the channel from -45 ft (-13.7 m) to
-55 ft (-16.8 m). The channel is 9.3 mi (15,000) long, and the dredging reach (shown in green) is
2953 ft (900 m) long and 492 ft (150 m) wide. A major concern is that dredging will be
performed near several environmentally critical areas, including a coral reef (blue), a submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) region (red), and a fish passage (yellow). There are also competing
concerns of maintaining navigation and protecting resources from sediment resuspension. The
objective of this case study is to predict exposure due to dredging. A hopper dredge is used for
dredging in these simulations. Although dredging occurs only during the first three days,
fourteen-day PTM simulations are performed to allow for post dredging transport and deposition.
The dredged material removed from the entrance channel is composed of approximately 80%
sand and 20% silt and clay. For the simulation, the sediment was separated into two major
classes: sands, which represent the coarser material, and fines, which combine the silt and class
size materials. Extensive details regarding the data analysis tools in PTM as well as this
simulation can be found in Demirbilek et al (2012a, 2012b). This section shows general abilities
of the model as opposed to a detailed analysis of the case study.

2-124

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-52. Map of Bridges Harbor in the Todd-istan Region

with SAV (Red), Tropical Salmoid Passage (Yellow), Coral
Reef (Blue), and Dredging Region (Green).
2.34.1.7 Figure 2-53 (ad) shows a sequence of particles generated by a moving dredge
source operating in the channel. Each particle shown in the figure is representative of a mass of
sediment. Detailed quantitative information for concentration and deposition is difficult to
extract from the visuals and must be determined using the data analysis tools. However, from the
particle positions, pathways for sediment transport can be determined. A screening-level
assessment of the data shows that sediment is not transported in the direction of the Coral reef
area (shown in blue) either during or after dredging. Without further analysis, it is possible to say
that for the dredging operation simulated, the coral has little or no exposure to dredging activity
and, therefore, it is not at the risk. Figure 2-53 also shows, however, that some sediment is
transported within the areas of the salmonid crossing and the submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV).
2.34.1.8 Quantitative information about estimate of concentration is determined using the
SMS data analysis tools. The maps and time series of concentration shown here were developed
utilizing the Compute Grid Datasets option in the analysis tools. The computational grid region
(Figure 2-54) is 3.4 mi (5,500 m) x 8.8 mi (14,100 m). There are 20 grid cells along the shoreline
and 50 grid cells in the cross-shore directions, respectively.

2-125

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a)

b)

SAV

SAV

salmonid

salmonid

Coral

Coral

c)

d)

SAV

SAV

salmonid

salmonid

Coral

Coral

Figure 2-53. Particle Positions Shown for the First, Second, Third, and Seventh Days after
Dredging Begins Using a Hopper Dredge with no Overflow

2-126

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-54. Computational Grid for Data Analysis Tools

2.34.1.9 For the tropical salmonid passing, suspended sediment concentration is extremely
important. Therefore, within this area (shown in yellow), a data analysis grid was developed (see
Figure 2-55. The data analysis region was extended beyond the yellow box to determine the
extent of the nonzero values of sediment concentration. The area in question was resolved based
on the results shown in the particle position. For these simulations concentration is highly
variable both spatially and temporally. Figure 2-55 shows the contours of suspended sediment
concentration (kg/m3) at Day 3. This snapshot in time was taken during a period when some of
the largest concentrations of suspended sediment were visible.
2.34.1.10 In Figure 2-56, a time series of concentration was extracted at one of the points
where the largest values of suspended sediment concentration were calculated (or estimated). A
number of observations can be made based on these calculations. The time series shows the
maximum value of concentration is approximately 35 mg/l. This value occurs at a single instance
over the time series, and overall the values of concentration remain less than 25 mg/l. In
addition, the largest values are clustered during the first few days of dredging, after which
sediment concentrations decrease quickly, suggesting sediments in this area are either rapidly
deposited or transported out of the area. After the fifth day of dredging, the values of
concentrations remain below 2 mg/l. At the tenth day of dredging, a spike has appeared that
represents an amount of sediment that had deposited but was resuspended and passed quickly
through the area. The results of suspended sediment concentration can be converted to NTU
(nephelometric turbidity units), as well as to the units of light attenuation values, if needed.

2-127

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-55. Suspended Sediment Concentration Contours Plotted on the

Data Analysis Grid During Day 3

Figure 2-56 Time Series of Concentration at a Point (Marked by the Star in the Upper Schematic).

2-128

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.34.1.11 In addition to calculating the total concentration in an area of concern, which is

determined by calculating the mass of sediment per volume of water in a grid cell, sometimes an
assessment of the vertical distribution of concentrations is important and required. For example,
in the case of a fish passage, it is possible that the fish may swim in the upper or lower portion of
the water column and, consequently, the risk to the fish depends on the vertical distribution of
the sediment concentration. Figure 2-57 shows a vertical cross section at the fish passage (shown
in yellow). A black line is drawn in the accompanying schematic to show where the cross section
is extracted. In the vertical cross section, the largest concentrations are within the middle of the
water column and to the side of the channel.

Figure 2-57. Cross Section of Suspended Sediment Concentration Contours (Marked

by a Line Shown in the Upper Schematic) During Day 3
2.34.1.12 Additional data analysis of the other engineering parameters of interest as
described in 2.34.1.5 (for example, accumulation and dose) can also be performed following the
methodology illustrated for the concentration.
2.34.2 DREDGE
2.34.2.1 Developed to assist users in making a priori assessments of environmental impacts
from proposed dredging operations, DREDGE estimates the sediment mass loss rate, which is
the rate that bottom sediments become suspended into the water column as the result of hydraulic
and mechanical dredging operations. Assuming the formation of a Gaussian plume, DREDGE
then estimates the resulting suspended sediment concentrations for a continuous, uniform
operation using site and sediment characteristics to simulate the size and extent of the resulting
2-129

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

suspended sediment plume. DREDGE also estimates total, particulate, and dissolved
contaminant concentrations in the water column based upon bulk sediment contaminant
concentrations and equilibrium partitioning theory. DREDGE includes the following basic
features:
a. Easy and rapid calculation of dredge plume concentrations resulting from mechanical
and hydraulic dredging operations.
b. Graphical user interface (GUI) for user data input, spreadsheet output, and graphical
output.
c. Relational database system with point-and-click interface for contaminant modeling.
d. Extensive toxic organic chemical and heavy metal database system plus default Kow
values for over 200 chemicals.
e. Online help system to guide users through the application.
f. Spreadsheet and graphical output capabilities.
g. Ability to save all output information in Excel (*.xls) and text (*.txt) file formats.
h. Source strength models for mechanical and hydraulic dredging operations.
i. 2D analytical transport model to predict the fate of resuspended sediments for a single
size class of particles or flocs in the water column.
2.34.2.3 DREDGE is a module of the Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives
Modeling System (ADDAMS) and is distributed by USACE through the ERDC for use on
personal computers. ADDAMS is a design, analysis, and evaluation system for dredged material
placement and management consisting of approximately 20 modules to assist in the design and
evaluation of various aspects of dredging and dredged material placement operations. More
information about other ADDAMS modules is presented in paragraph 2.40.3.3 and Appendix F,
Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS) of this EM.
Self-extracting executable models and documents can be downloaded at http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&Type=drgmat.
2.35 Biological Considerations.
2.35.1 Biological considerations of dredging include suspended sediments, sedimentation,
chemical release, dissolved oxygen reduction, channel blockage, and entrainment. Major
categories of biological resources include fishes, shrimps and crabs, shellfishes (for example,
oysters and clams), benthic assemblages, a miscellaneous group that includes threatened or
endangered species for example, marine mammals and sea turtles), and colonial nesting birds.
Appendix B, Dredging Environmental Considerations, provides summaries of the available
technical literature concerning impacts to biological resources from physical and chemical
environmental alterations associated with dredging activities.

2-130

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.36 Environmental Windows.

2.36.1 Environmental windows are temporal constraints placed upon the conduct of dredging or dredged material placement operations to protect biological resources or their habitats
from potentially detrimental effects. Environmental windows are based on the simple logic that
potential conflicts or detrimental effects can be avoided by preventing dredging or placement
during times when biological resources are present or most sensitive to disturbance. The environmental effects of turbidity, suspended sediments, sedimentation, and hydraulic entrainment on
aquatic resources are some of the primary concerns leading to environmental windows for
dredging projects in coastal, estuarine, and freshwater waterways.
2.36.2 For several decades, State and Federal resource agencies have routinely requested
environmental windows. Agencies began requesting environmental windows soon after passage
of the NEPA in 1969. Since that time, this practice has become relatively commonplace, affecting a majority of all Federal dredging projects on an annual basis. Under the Environmental
Windows Focus Area of the DOER Program, research is being conducted to address gaps in the
state of knowledge pertaining to windows-related issues.
2.36.3 USACE Districts and Divisions (Table 2-14) were surveyed about various aspects
regarding environmental windows. USACE District responses (Table 2-15) confirmed that
dredging projects are often delayed and, in rare cases, canceled because of restrictions. A wide
variety of issues arises in connection with windows. The following are examples of persistent
issues:
a. Disruption of avian nesting activities and destruction of bird habitat.
b. Sedimentation and turbidity issues involving fish and shellfish spawning.
c. Disruption of anadromous fish migrations
d. Entrainment of juvenile and larval fishes.
e. Entrainment of threatened and endangered sea turtles as well as disruption of their
nesting activities during beach nourishment projects.
f. Burial and physical removal of protected plants.
g. Disruption of recreational activities.
The potential detrimental impact to either individual or groups of sport or anadromous
fishes was the most commonly cited reason for environmental windows (Table 2-16). Another
major topic of concern that was frequently cited involved the protection of threatened and/or
endangered species (sea turtles, marine mammals) (Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998).
2.36.4 Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke (1998) report that environmental windows are
imposed on many USACE dredging projects in both coastal and inland waterways. Over 83
protected or sensitive species were identified that fall into at least 20 general categories of
concern for potentially negative impacts from dredging and placement operations previously

2-131

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

stated. The most widely occurring concern was physical disturbance of habitat and nesting, cited
as a technical justification for windows in over three-quarters of all USACE Districts, followed
closely by turbidity, suspended sediments, and sedimentation issues. Resources of particular
concern that were frequently cited in requests for windows included anadromous fishes (salmon,
striped bass, American shad), colonial nesting waterbirds (terns, plovers, pelicans), and
endangered species (sturgeon, sea turtles, right whales).
2.36.4.1 Approximately 600 threatened or endangered (Federal and State) and sensitive
resource issues have been identified on over 1,000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging projects to date. The Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protection and Management
System (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/tessp/intro.cfm) contains information on those species of
concern, which may be viewed collectively at the division, district, project, or state level. At the
taxonomic group level, individual species profiles can be explored for such information as
Federal and State statutes and State resources, rationales for protection, distribution, habitat, references, and assorted links of interest; USACE information may include dredging concerns,
impacts, and documented incidents, environmental windows data, and USACE project locations
where the species are known to be of potential concern. Supporting USACE documents, such as
District Biological and Environmental Assessments and Biological Opinions, will soon be
available for viewing as information is received and uploaded.
2.36.4.2 More detailed information on sea turtles is available at the USACE Sea Turtle
Warehouse (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/intro.cfm) that was created to centralize and
archive historical and future data regarding sea turtle impacts from hopper dredging activities for
long-term continuity and evaluation of these data. Although the overall impacts to sea turtles
from dredging activities is relatively small, the USACE and dredging industry is committed to
the continued pursuit of efforts to further reduce dredging impacts on sea turtles.
2.36.5 An evaluation of the economic effects of compliance with restrictions was conducted by
Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke (1998). On an annual basis, about 80% of all civil works dredging projects
are subject to environmental windows. Estimated annual distribution of environmental windows by
dredging method (Federal dredging contracts only) during 1987-1996 is shown in Figure 2-58, and the
mean number of Federal dredging contracts by dredging category is presented in Figure 2-59. The results
of these analyses, although based on numerous assumptions, indicate that substantial cost increments arise
in connection with environmental windows and that substantial cost savings could be derived from
resolution of over-restrictive windows. These findings justify new investigations or re-examination of
technical issues underlying requests for windows and deserve serious consideration. For all dredging
operations, concerted efforts must be maintained to protect valuable natural resources adequately. Many
areas of potential research, however, afford an opportunity to remove subjectivity from requests for
environmental windows. Rigorous, technically valid studies on environmental windows are needed to
evaluate fundamental issues such that windows can be confidently adjusted, through either contraction or
expansion, to strike the necessary balance between adequate resource protection and cost-effective
dredging practices.

2-132

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table 2-14. USACE District Offices Receiving an Environmental Windows Survey (from Reine,
Dickerson, and Clarke 1998)
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD)

Mississippi Valley Division (MVD)

Buffalo District (LRD)

Memphis District (MVM)

Chicago District (LRC)

New Orleans District (MVN)

Detroit District (LRE)

Rock Island District (MVR)

Huntington District (LRH)

St. Louis District (MVS)

Louisville District (LRL)

St. Paul District (MVP)

Nashville District (LRN)

Vicksburg District (MVK)

Pittsburgh District (LRP)

North Atlantic Division (NAD)

South Atlantic Division (SAD)

Baltimore District (NAB)

Charleston District (SAC)

New England District (NAE)

Jacksonville District (SAJ)

New York District (NAN)

Mobile District (SAM)

Norfolk District (NAO)

Savannah District (SAS)

Philadelphia District (NAP)

Wilmington District (SAW)

Northwestern Division (NWD)

Southwestern Division (SWD)

Kansas City District (NWK)

Fort Worth District (SWF)

Omaha District (NWO)

Galveston District (SWG)

Seattle District (NWS)

Little Rock District (SWL)

Portland District (NWP)

Tulsa District (SWT)

Walla Walla District (NWW)

South Pacific Division (SPD)

Pacific Ocean Division (POD)

Albuquerque District (SPA)

Alaska District (POA)

Los Angeles District (SPL)

Honolulu District (POH)

Sacramento District (SPK)

San Francisco District (SPK)

2-133

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table 2-15 Distribution of Environmental Window Categories by USACE Divisions (from

Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998)
Category
Fish (Entrainment)
Fish (Turbidity)
Fish (Sedimentation)
Fish (Phy. Disturbance)
Fish (Dissolved
Oxygen)
Fish (Migration)
Bird (Nesting)
Bird (Important Habitat)
Sea Turtles (Pelagic)
Sea Turtles (Nesting)
Oysters/Shellfish
Crab/Lobster
Shrimp
Marine Mammals
Sub. Aqua. Vegetation
Seabeach Amaranth
Freshwater Mussels
Hunting/
Recreational
Indiana Bat
Tiger Beetles
Total

NAD
X
X
X
X

SAD
X
X
X
X

POD
X
X

SPD

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
15

X
X

X
X

NWD
X
X
X
X

SWD

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

LRD
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

12

Total
6
6
5
7
5

X
13

MVD
X
X
X
X

6
7
5
5
1
3
2
3
4
2
1
1

2
1
77

10

2.36.6 The USACE funded the National Research Councils Transportation Research
Board-Marine Board (NRCTRB-MB) to conduct an examination of the application of environmental dredging windows in Federal navigation projects. A workshop was conducted to explore
the decision-making process for establishing environmental windows and to solicit suggestions
for improving the process (NRCTRB-MB 2001).
2.36.7 The statement of task for the project was that the workshop would be used to
identify issues and discuss options that could lead to greater consistency in the procedures used
by USACE in setting environmental windows. It was anticipated that the workshop would have
several panels covering such topics as the wide range of laws and regulations establishing bases
for various protection measures; knowns and unknowns about the biological consequences of
alternate dredging methodologies; new developments in dredging techniques; better (and worse)
examples of decision making for windows in different regions; models of collaborative decision
making in other environmental and transportation areas; and tools (such as processes and
analytical models) for improving decision making.

2-134

Table 2-16. Distribution of Supporting Rationales for Environmental Windows by USACE Divisions
(from Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2-135

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-58. Estimated Annual Distribution of Environmental Windows by

Dredging Method (FY 1987-1996; Federal Dredging Contracts Only) (from
Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998)
2.36.8 Workshop participants were invited to represent a cross section of groups involved
in setting windows, including Federal and State resource agency staff, experts in dredging, port
officials, environmental groups, and academic experts from a variety of relevant fields. The
workshop was designed to ensure opportunities for dialogue and information exchange. The
summary provided an identification of the issues raised and opinions expressed both pro and con
on these issues. The project committee also provided ideas and suggestions for appropriate
follow-up activities, such as additional research, workshops, or a pilot process for setting,
managing, and monitoring environmental windows. The results of the examination placed
particular emphasis on the development of a pilot process for setting, managing, and monitoring
environmental windows that is presented in this report (NRCTRB-MB 2001).

2-136

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-59. Mean Annual Number of Federal Dredging Contracts by Dredging

Category (1987-1996) (from Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998)
Section V
Evaluation of Placement Alternatives
2.37 Background.
2.37.1 Approximately 194 million cubic yards of sediment must be dredged from
waterways and ports each year to improve and maintain the Nations navigation system and to
maintain coastal national defense readiness. Alternatives for the management of dredged material
placement from these projects must be carefully evaluated from the standpoint of environmental
acceptability, technical feasibility, and economics. ER 1130-2-520 establishes the policy for the
operation and maintenance of USACE navigation and dredging projects as well as their related
structures and equipment. Dredging must be accomplished in an efficient, cost-effective, and
environmentally acceptable manner to improve and maintain the Nations waterways, making
them suitable for navigation and other purposes consistent with Federal laws and regulations.

2-137

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Section I of this chapter presents an overview of the USACE project management processes that
are used to achieve its navigation and dredging missions.)
2.37.2 Over the past two decades, several factors have developed to create an increasing
challenge for the USACE and its partners in operating and maintaining the Nations harbors,
particularly in the area of the management of dredged material:
a. Substantial and continuous increases in the demands of commerce.
b. Rapid evolution of shipping practices (containerization and intermodalism).
c. Increasing environmental awareness and mounting environmental problems affecting
coastal and ocean waters.
d. Tight budgetary constraints.
e. Heavy population shifts to coastal areas.
f. Generally increased non-Federal responsibilities in the development and management of
navigation projects.
As a result, management of the Nations harbor system in general, and management of dredged
material specifically, has become a controversial problem encompassing all phases of harbor
project development and operation, from planning new or larger projects to maintaining existing
projects.
2.37.3 Three management alternatives may be considered for dredged material management: open-water placement, confined (diked) placement, and beneficial uses. Open-water
disposal, described in detail in Chapter 3, is the placement of dredged material in rivers, lakes,
estuaries, or oceans via pipeline or release from hopper dredges or barges. Confined (diked)
placement, described in detail in Chapter 4, is placement of dredged material within diked
nearshore or upland confined placement facilities via pipeline or other means. Beneficial uses,
described in detail in Chapter 5, involve the placement or use of dredged material for some
productive purpose.
2.37.4 Beneficial use options should be given full and equal consideration with other
alternatives. It is USACE policy to consider fully all aspects of the dredging and placement
operations to maximize public benefits. The maximum practicable benefits will be obtained from
materials dredged from authorized Federal navigation projects, after taking into consideration
economics, engineering, and environmental requirements in accordance with applicable Federal
laws and regulations (33 CFR Parts 335-338) (ER 1130-2-520). Generally, beneficial use is an
adjunct to or involves either open-water or confined placement in some form, although some
beneficial uses involve unconfined placement (for example, wetland creation, island creation,
and beach nourishment).
2.37.5 Potential environmental impacts resulting from dredged material placement may be
physical, chemical, or biological in nature. Because many of the waterways are located in
industrial and urban areas, sediments often contain contaminants from these sources. Unless
2-138

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

properly managed, dredging and disposal of contaminated sediment can adversely affect water
quality and aquatic or terrestrial organisms. Sound planning, design, and management of projects
are essential if dredged material placement is to be accomplished efficiently with appropriate
environmental protection. The selection of a preferred alternative for dredged material management must be based on weighing and balancing a number of considerations, including
environmental acceptability, technical feasibility, and economics (USEPA/USACE 2004).
2.37.6 This section presents an overview of the strategy (or Technical Framework) to
follow in identifying environmentally acceptable alternatives for the management of dredged
material. The Technical Framework is designed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements of the NEPA, CWA, and MPRSA (all described in paragraph 2.4) in a technically
consistent manner. Risk management and computer software developed to assist in achieving the
objectives of the Technical Framework are also described.
2.38 Technical Framework.
2.38.1 USACE and USEPA have developed a consistent Technical Framework for their
agencies personnel to follow in identifying environmentally acceptable alternatives for the
management of dredged material (USEPA/USACE 2004). USACE had previously developed a
Management Strategy (Francingues et al. 1985), which focused on contaminant testing and
controls, for the evaluation of dredged material alternatives, USEPA later initiated development
of a similar management strategy, focusing on environmental considerations of placement
alternatives. A USACE/USEPA work group was subsequently formed for the purpose of
developing the joint Technical Framework, which has been endorsed by both agencies.
2.38.2 The Technical Framework is intended to serve as a consistent roadmap for USACE
and USEPA personnel in evaluating the environmental acceptability of dredged material management alternatives. Specifically, its major objective is to provide the following:
a. A general technical framework for evaluating the environmental acceptability of the full
continuum of dredged material management alternativesopen-water placement, confined
(diked) placement, and beneficial uses applications.
b. Additional technical guidance to supplement present implementation and testing manuals
for addressing the environmental acceptability of available management options for the
discharge of dredged material in both open-water and confined sites.
c. Enhanced consistency and coordination in USACE and USEPA decision-making in
accordance with Federal environmental statutes regulating dredged material.
2.38.3 The Technical Framework is intended to be applicable to all proposed actions
involving the management of dredged material. This includes both the new-work construction
and navigation project maintenance programs of USACE as well as proposed dredged material
discharge actions regulated by USACE. Further, the document addresses the broad range of
dredged materials, both clean and contaminated, and the broad array of management alternatives:
confined (diked intertidal and upland) placement, open-water (aquatic) placement, and beneficial
use applications.

2-139

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.38.4 Application of the Technical Framework allows for consistency in decision-making

across statutory boundaries and consideration of the full continuum of dredged material
discharge options. For example, application of the Technical Framework helps ensure that openwater discharge does not hinder the development and use of other options, such as confined
upland sites. The guidance established by the Technical Framework should reduce confusion by
both regulators and the regulated community in all future evaluations.
2.38.5 Because the Technical Framework provides national guidance, flexibility is necessary. It should not be followed rigidly; rather, it should be used as a technical guide to evaluate
the commonly important factors to be considered in managing dredged material in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Technical Framework is consistent with and incorporates the
evaluations conducted under the NEPA, CWA, and MPRSA, and consists of the following broad
steps:
a. Evaluation of dredging project requirements.
b. Identification of alternatives.
c. Initial screening of alternatives.
d. Detailed assessment of alternatives.
e. Alternative selection.
2.38.6 The following paragraphs describing the overall logic of the Technical Framework
are summarized from USEPA/USACE (2004). The overall Technical Framework for developing
environmentally acceptable alternatives for the discharge of dredged material is illustrated in
Figure 2-60. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this EM present more detailed descriptions of the Technical
Framework as it applies to each placement alternative.
2.38.6.1 Dredging needs. The need for dredging and the requirements for placement must
be established. Dredging location(s) and required volumes to be dredged are among the details
gathered at this stage. Within the context of the NEPA, the initial impact assessment for dredging
projects relates to the purpose and need for the proposed action in the case of new work or
continued viability (purpose, need, and effect of new information on environmental acceptability
of the proposal) in the case of existing projects. In contrast, the needs and determinations under
the CWA and MPRSA are specifically concerned with a justification of the need for dredged
material placement in waters of the United States or ocean waters, respectively. Both types of
determinations are addressed in the detailed evaluation of alternatives in the NEPA document
and may also be addressed in the project purpose and need statement, compliance with environmental statutes, and other sections of the NEPA document where appropriate. In identifying
reasonable alternatives to pursue, environmental impact, cost, and agency policy/regulation,
among other factors, may be considered.
2.38.6.2 Determination of availability of alternatives and coverage in existing NEPA
document. A review of the project requirements in terms of all reasonable alternatives and the
adequate coverage of these alternatives in the existing NEPA document should be made.

2-140

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Supplemental NEPA documentation is required when significant changes are made in the proposed alternative or when significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts exist (40 CFR 1502.9[c]). In
particular, analyses of CWA/MPRSA alternatives should be reviewed for adequacy. Evaluations
conducted for purposes of MPRSA or CWA compliance that indicate potential environmental
impacts not previously considered in the selection of an alternative may trigger the need for a
supplemental EA or EIS to ensure NEPA compliance.
2.38.6.3 Identification of alternatives.
a. Under the NEPA process, the potential environmental impacts of the discharge of
dredged materialincluding confined (diked), open-water (CWA and/or MPRSA sites), and
beneficial usesmust be considered, taking into consideration the nature and needs of the
dredging projects and the material to be dredged. The NEPA scoping process encourages the
identification of all potential alternatives for dredged material management. Proposed
alternatives may consist of any combination of options as warranted by local conditions.
Beneficial use of dredged material should be fully considered to ensure that benefits are
maximized.
b. When a large number of potential alternatives exist, a reasonable number of examples
covering the full spectrum of alternatives must be analyzed and compared in the NEPA document (40 CFR 1502.9[c]). The NEPA document must rigorously address reasonable alternatives
that are beyond the capability of the applicant or project proponent or beyond the jurisdiction of
the lead agency. Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the No-Action (no
dredging or continuation of an existing practice) alternative must also be included and retained
throughout the NEPA process as a basis for impact comparison. Subsequent evaluations in the
framework determine the reasonableness of alternatives identified at this level.
2.38.6.4 Initial screening of alternatives.
a. An initial screening is undertaken to eliminate from further consideration those management alternatives that clearly are not reasonable for the specific project. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the environmental, technical, and economic
standpoint (40 CFR 1502.9[c]) and that use common sense rather than being simply desirable
from the standpoint of the project proponent or applicant. The screening should use all available
information and should consider factors such as environmental concerns (such as endangered
species), cost, technical feasibility (such as site availability and site characteristics that may be
incompatible with either the dredged sediment volume or characteristics or the available
dredging plant), and legal considerations.

2-141

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-60. Framework for Determining Environmental Acceptability of Dredged

Material Disposal Alternatives (from USEPA/USACE 2004)

2-142

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

b. All potential alternatives are evaluated with respect to the availability of the required
site(s) and the likelihood that the site can be used. If no existing sites are available, then a
determination is made as to whether one or more sites can be designated and/or selected after
taking into consideration the reasonableness of doing so for the project in question. For example,
the time frame for designating an ocean site under the MPRSA or selecting a CWA open-water
site has to be factored into this determination. In those cases where site designation by the
USEPA under Section 102 of the MPRSA is required, the NEPA process for both the site
designation and the dredging project may be performed jointly or concurrently.
c. Consideration must also be given to design limitations of the project, climatic conditions,
dredging equipment availability, physical and chemical aspects of the material to be dredged,
local interests, public concerns, and known environmental and economic constraints. The
maintenance history of either the project in question or projects in the general area, as well as the
experience and knowledge of both the public and resource agencies, provides a basis for the
screening process.
2.38.6.5 Eliminate unreasonable alternatives. Although the identification of innovative
solutions is encouraged, the nature and needs of the dredging project must be considered in
determining the reasonableness of alternatives. Alternatives that require sites that are not available, conflict with other site uses, violate applicable environmental regulations, or are found to
be clearly technically or economically infeasible during the screening process are eliminated
from further detailed consideration. An alternative may be considered unreasonable, and
therefore eliminated from further consideration, if the scoping process has determined it to be
unreasonable. The rationale for eliminating alternatives should be clearly documented in the
NEPA document. After application of these considerations by the lead agency, 1 those
alternatives remaining are scrutinized further for environmental, technical, and economic
feasibility.
2.38.6.6 Retain reasonable alternative(s). The evaluation results in an identification of
alternatives that are reasonable from an environmental, technical, and economic standpoint. Each
remaining option is then carried forward for detailed evaluation via the NEPA/CWA/MPRSA
process. The outcome of the detailed evaluation could be that the No-Action alternative is
selected or the project not continued.
2.38.6.7 Detailed assessment of alternatives.
a. For purposes of determining environmental acceptability, the detailed assessment of
alternatives should include the following:
(1) Evaluation of the adequacy and timeliness of existing data.
(2) Evaluation of the physical characteristics of the sediment.
(3) Initial evaluation of sediment contamination.

See guidance in 33 CFR 335-338 and ER 1105-2-100 and NEPA regulations to define lead agency roles and
responsibilities.

2-143

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(4) Appropriate testing and assessments (including required CWA or MPRSA testing).
(5) Evaluation of management options or control measures.
b. Prior to conducting a detailed analysis of alternatives, conducting appropriate
coordination among the USACE, the USEPA, and other agencies as appropriate is critical to
ensure that any required sampling, testing, and evaluations are satisfactorily conducted.
c. Procedures for conducting the detailed evaluation of alternatives are described in the
following paragraphs. Since the procedures for conducting detailed evaluations for open-water
disposal, confined disposal, and beneficial use alternatives differ, additional details are presented
in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of USEPA/USACE (2004) and Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this EM. A wide
variety of technical guidance documents is available and is referenced as appropriate in the same
publications. Computer-assisted management tools (described in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of this EM)
are also available for conducting many of the detailed assessments that may be required
(Schroeder and Palermo 1990).
d. In addition to those considerations for environmental acceptability, a detailed assessment
of alternatives includes a comparative review of cost, technical feasibility, and other factors, as
appropriate. Even though these additional considerations would normally be assessed as a part of
the NEPA process for the project, they are beyond the scope of this EM.
2.38.6.8 Adequacy and timeliness of data.
a. Projects for which all reasonable alternatives have been identified and adequately
evaluated still must be assessed in light of CWA or MPRSA evaluation requirements. For those
projects in the operations and maintenance or permit renewal categories for which conditions
have not changed, a preliminary assessment is made to determine the adequacy and relevance of
previous information for the continuance of the dredging/placement activities. If the existing data
are sufficient to determine compliance with the CWA or the MPRSA, no additional data are
required prior to preparation of the CWA or MPRSA evaluation and coordination of the Public
Notice.
b. For new-work Federal navigation projects, new permit applications, or projects for
which information is insufficient, additional assessment following the framework as described
here and in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of USEPA/USACE (1992) are required to determine the
environmentally acceptable alternative(s).
2.38.6.9 Evaluation of the physical characteristics of sediment. Evaluation of the physical
characteristics of sediments proposed for discharge is necessary to determine the potential
environmental impacts of placement, the need for additional chemical or biological testing, and
the potential beneficial use of the dredged material. If this information has not been gathered
during the project evaluation phase, it must be obtained at this point in the framework. The
physical characteristics of the dredged material include particle-size distribution, water content
or percent solids, specific gravity of solids, and plasticity. The sediment physical characteristics
should also be evaluated from the standpoint of compatibility with different kinds of biological
communities likely to develop for the placement environments under consideration.

2-144

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.38.6.10 Conduct initial evaluation of sediment contamination.

a. The initial screening for contamination is designed to determine, based on available
information, if the sediments to be dredged contain any contaminants in forms and
concentrations that are likely to cause unacceptable impacts to the environment. During this
screening procedure, specific contaminants of concern are identified in a site-specific sediment,
so that any subsequent evaluation is focused on the most pertinent contaminants.
b. Initial considerations should include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Potential routes by which contaminants could reasonably have been introduced to the
sediments.
(2) Data from previous sediment chemical characterization and other tests of the material or
other similar material in the vicinity, provided the comparisons are still appropriate.
(3) Probability of contamination from agricultural and urban surface runoff.
(4) Spills of contaminants in the area to be dredged.
(5) Industrial and municipal waste discharges (past and present).
(6) Source and prior use of dredged materials (for example, beach nourishment).
(7) Substantial natural deposits of minerals and other natural substances.
Under the CWA, some materials may be excluded from testing as specified in 40 CFR
230.60. Under the MPRSA, testing must be conducted unless the exclusions in 40 CFR
227.13(b) are met.
c. If the material does not meet the exclusions, contaminants must be addressed with
respect to their potential for biological effects and/or release through applicable pathways. If
such potential exists, the specific tests and assessments for contaminant pathways described in
the following paragraph are required. If ocean disposal alternatives are being considered,
particular attention must be given to the presence of certain prohibited materials (40 CFR 227.6)
other than as trace contaminants.
2.38.6.11 Perform appropriate testing and assessments
a. Appropriate testing and assessments may be required to determine the physical behavior
of the material at the placement site. In addition, testing and assessments for one or more potential contaminant pathways of concern may be required.
b. Physical testing and assessment should focus on both the short-term and long-term
physical behavior of the material. For open-water alternatives, these assessments might include
an analysis of water column dispersion, mound development, and long-term mound stability or
dispersion. For confined alternatives, these assessments might include an analysis of solids
retention and storage requirements during placement and long-term consolidation behavior in the

2-145

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

CDF. Guidance for conducting physical testing and assessments is described in Chapters 4, 5,
and 6 of USEPA/USACE (2004) and Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this EM.
c. Any contaminant testing should focus on those contaminant pathways where contaminants may be of environmental concern, and the testing should be tailored to the available
placement site. The considerations for identifying contaminant pathways of concern for openwater disposal and confined placement alternatives are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of
USACE/USEPA (2004) and Chapters 3 and 4 of this EM.
d. For open-water alternatives, contaminant problems may be related to either the water
column or benthic environment, and the appropriate testing and assessments include required
CWA or MPRSA testing. For confined sites, potential contaminant problems may be either water
quality-related (return water effluent, surface runoff, and groundwater leachate), contaminant
uptake-related (plant or animal), or air-related (gaseous release).
e. The identification of pathways of concern should be based on the initial evaluation of
sediment contamination and on the known characteristics of the placement sites under consideration. One of the following determinations will result for each pathway:
(1) If the initial evaluation of sediment contamination and site characteristics reveals that
the material can be excluded from further testing or that adequate data already exist for a given
contaminant pathway, then no additional contaminant testing for that pathway is required.
(2) In some cases, past evaluations of sediment contamination and site characteristics may
indicate that contaminants would clearly result in unacceptable impacts through a given pathway.
In this case, a determination can be made without further testing that management actions or
control measures are required for that pathway.
(3) Finally, there may not be sufficient technical information to allow for a factual determination for one or more pathways of concern. The potential impact of specific contaminant
pathways must then be evaluated using appropriate testing and evaluations for those pathways.
f. Design of a testing program for the sediment to be dredged depends on the pathways of
concern for the alternative being evaluated. Protocols developed to evaluate contaminant
pathways of concern consider the unique nature of dredged material and the physicochemical
conditions of each placement site under consideration.
g. The testing guidelines that have been developed jointly by USEPA and USACE
incorporate a tiered approach and a scientifically based decision process that uses only the level
of testing necessary to provide the technical information needed to assess the potential chemical
and biological effects of the proposed ocean disposal of dredged material (USEPA/USACE
1991). A companion document addresses discharges of dredged material under the CWA
(USEPA/USACE 1998). Other relevant guidance is available (Francingues et al. 1985; Lee et al.
1991). Testing and evaluations for specific contaminant pathways for open-water and confinedplacement alternatives are discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5 of USEPA/USACE
(1991) and Chapters 3 and 4 of this EM.

2-146

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.38.6.12 Evaluation of management actions or control measures to minimize impacts.

a. In cases where the results of tests or assessments indicate that the MPRSA impact
criteria or CWA guidelines for a given pathway will not be met, management actions should be
considered to reduce potential environmental impacts (33 CFR 335-338; Francingues et al. 1985;
Lee et al. 1991; Cullinane et al. 1986). Management actions or control measures may be
considered for physical and/or contaminant impacts.
b. Possible controls for open-water alternatives include operational modifications, use of
submerged discharge, treatment, lateral containment, and capping or contained aquatic disposal.
Possible controls for confined (diked) placement include operational modifications, treatment,
and various site controls (for example, covers and liners). Descriptions of management and
control measures for open-water and confined alternatives and procedures for assessing sitespecific effectiveness are given in Chapters 4 and 5 of USEPA/USACE (2004) and Chapters 3
and 4 of this EM.
c. The effectiveness of management controls for contaminated sediments must be carefully
considered since no placement option and/or management action or control measure is without
risk. When considering the use of management actions or controls, the following factors must be
considered:
(1) Probability of success of a given control.
(2) Monitoring required to confirm the effectiveness of the control.
(3) Duration and significance of adverse effects should a given control prove to be
ineffective.
(4) Availability, feasibility, timeliness, and cost of additional management actions should
they be required.
2.38.6.13 Retention of environmentally acceptable alternatives. With the completion of
detailed testing and assessments and the consideration of management and control measures for
the respective alternatives, a determination of environmental acceptability is made. This determination must ensure that all applicable standards or criteria are met. If control measures were
considered, a determination of the effectiveness of the control measure in meeting the standards
or criteria must be made. If all standards or criteria are met, the alternative can be considered
environmentally acceptable. At this point in the framework, socioeconomic, technical, and other
applicable environmental considerations must be evaluated prior to the selection of a management alternative.
2.38.6.14 Alternative selection.
a. The detailed assessment of alternatives may result in one or more alternatives that are
environmentally acceptable. Weighing and balancing of all environmental, technical, and
economic factors must be conducted before the selection of the preferred/proposed alternative by
the lead agency. The process for conducting this weighing and balancing is described in the
implementing regulations of the NEPA/CWA/MPRSA. The coordination and documentation
2-147

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

process includes draft and final NEPA/CWA/MPRSA documents, Public Notices, and a finaldecision document, which addresses comments on the draft NEPA/CWA/MPRSA documents.
b. The selection of a preferred/proposed alternative is based on environmental acceptability, technical feasibility, costs, and other factors, as appropriate. A detailed discussion of
factors in decision making other than environmental acceptability is beyond the scope of this
EM. However, considerations in alternative selection, including a description of the procedures
to be followed with respect to the NEPA, CWA, and MPRSA, are discussed in Chapter 7 of
USEPA/USACE (2004). Once an alternative has been selected, proper coordination and
documentation have been completed, and a final-decision document has been issued, the project
should be in compliance with the NEPA and all applicable environmental laws and regulations.
2.39 Risk Analysis.
2.39.1 Scientific advancements have made possible the collection of large amounts of
complex information regarding the environmental aspects of dredging and dredged material
placement. Environmental risk assessment provides a stepwise framework for the integration of
complex information to yield quantifiable estimates of risk including uncertainty. The use of risk
assessment can supplement the analytical options currently available to dredged material managers by building on the existing technical framework (USEPA/USACE 2004) and the existing
tiered approaches (USEPA/USACE 1991, 1998), especially in those cases where more
commonly applied analytical approaches do not provide sufficient information upon which to
base decisions about dredged material management.
2.39.2 There are numerous program-specific documents that describe the formal components of a risk assessment and detail how to conduct one within the constraints of the program.
The dredged material manager should recognize that risk assessments include several general
components, based on a USEPA framework (USEPA/USACE 2004) and published guidelines
(EM 200-1-4, USEPA 1998). The risk assessment process has four general components.
2.39.2.1 Hazard Identification/Problem Formulation. Hazard Identification is the process of
determining whether exposure to a contaminant can cause an increase in the incidence of a
particular human health (for example, cancer or birth defect) or ecological (for example,
reproductive or lethal) effect. In ecological risk assessment, the selection of receptors begins in
this section, but it is a process that continues into the Exposure Assessment.
2.39.2.2 Exposure Assessment. An Exposure Assessment estimates the magnitude of actual
and/or potential human or ecological exposure to a contaminant of concern, the frequency and
duration of exposure, and the pathways of exposure for human and ecological receptors. This is
the major step in the development of scenarios, and the decisions made during the Exposure
Assessment are critical to the ultimate estimate of risk. To address the concerns of the
stakeholders, it is important that this aspect of scenario development be a cooperative effort early
in the risk assessment process. An important component of Exposure Assessment is the selection
of human and ecological receptors. To a large extent, these drive the development of exposure
pathways.

2-148

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

2.39.2.3 Toxicity Assessment/Effects Assessment. The Toxicity Assessment summarizes

and weighs available evidence regarding the potential for contaminants to cause adverse effects
in exposed individuals and to provide, where possible, an estimate of the relationship between
the extent of exposure to a contaminant and the increased likelihood and/or severity of adverse
effects. Current guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment often refers to a Toxicity Assessment
as an Effects Assessment.
2.39.2.4 Risk Characterization. The Risk Characterization summarizes and integrates the
Exposure Assessment and Toxicity Assessment into a quantitative and qualitative expression of
risk. In a human health risk assessment, the Risk Characterization does the following:
a. Characterizes carcinogenic effects by estimating probabilities that an individual will
develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure based on projected intakes from a given scenario and
the information summarized in the Toxicity Assessment.
b. Characterizes noncarcinogenic effects by comparing calculated intakes of substances,
based on specific exposure scenarios, to acceptable doses.
2.39.3 Generally in an Ecological Risk Assessment, Risk Characterization evaluates risk by
comparing a concentration, dose, or body burden known to produce an effect with a corresponding measurement or projection of exposure made in the Exposure Assessment (toxicity
quotient method). The risk assessor may consider the toxicity quotient with other sources of
information (biological conditions at the site, information from reference areas) to form a professional opinion regarding potential risk in a weight of evidence approach.
2.39.4 The Risk Characterization should also address uncertainty in the analysis of human
health and ecological risk. Risk assessments do not generally provide fully probabilistic estimations of risk. Therefore, highly quantitative statistical uncertainty analyses are not common. The
USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) (1989) emphasizes the
importance of identifying the key site-related variables and assumptions that contribute most to
the uncertainty.
2.39.5 At most sites, risk assessment addresses two general types of riskecological risk
and human health risk. Ecological risk assessment focuses on potential risk to nonhuman biota
likely to occur at a placement site. Human-health risk assessment focuses on carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risk to humans from potential exposure. A major difference between the two is
that a human health risk assessment addresses potential effects to one type of receptor, human
beings, while ecological risk assessment can address risk to several receptors, chosen to
represent the ecosystem associated with the dredged material placement site.
2.39.6 These two types of risk assessment address the fate and transport of contaminants in
similar, if not identical, manners. Those physical and chemical processes that drive the distribution of contaminants do not change between the two types of risk assessment. The two are
linked in that the estimates of contaminant uptake by biota (evaluated in the ecological risk
assessment) may result in exposure to humans if people eat that organism. Clearly, the feeding
habits of a commercial species, an ecological characteristic, to a large extent determine whether
that species can pass a contaminant on to a human. This is the point where ecological risk and

2-149

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

human health risk are most closely linked. They diverge in the discussion of toxicological
processes and how these processes relate to potential effects.
2.39.7 Cura et al. (1999) provides detailed guidance for developing site-specific risk
assessments for dredged material management sites in aquatic environments. It demonstrates the
development of conceptual models that show the likely sources of risk, transport pathways, types
of receptors, assessment end points, and physical or chemical relationships among them for ecological and human health exposures. Cura et al. (1999) illustrates the use of risk assessment with
a continuous case study and reviews available Federal, State, and regional guidance, and
methods used by human health and ecological risk assessors. The appendices include a review of
the content and availability of various text and online information important in conducting risk
assessments; a description of food chain models useful in risk assessment; summaries of the
toxicology of likely contaminants of concern at dredged material management sites; and an
approach to weight of evidence.
2.39.8 The objective of the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER)
Risk focus area (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/rm.html) is to develop quantitative
methods and tools to support risk analysis of the environmental and economic benefits/costs
associated with the full range of available dredged material management options. The use of
these risk analysis approaches facilitates quantitative, comparison-based decision making when
selecting management options for navigation dredging projects. The products of this focus area
provide defensible, quantitative support for risk-based decision making to manage contaminated
sediments while minimizing operational and environmental costs. Additional benefits of
implementing these products are reduced controversy, conflict, and project delays while
simultaneously increasing the credibility of the USACE with other agencies that embrace the risk
management process.
2.40 Dredging and Dredged Material Management Software Tools.
2.40.1 Federal regulations require that dredging and dredged material placement be done at
minimum cost while being consistent with sound engineering principles and proper concern for
the environment. Over the past two-and-a-half decades, knowledge of the environmental impacts
associated with dredging and dredged material placement has increased. The emphasis has
shifted from one that was most concerned with low cost to a much more balanced view with
environmental concerns playing an increasingly larger role in dredging project management. In
addition, the awareness that dredged material should be considered a resource that can be used
beneficially in an increasing number of ways has greatly influenced dredging project
management.
2.40.2 For these reasons, managing dredging projects is now more complex than in the
past. In addition to the ever-increasing number of regulations and statutes that govern dredging
and dredged material placement, many State resource agencies and environmental groups now
subject dredging projects to greater scrutiny. To improve or maintain its credibility, the USACE
must be able to conclusively demonstrate that dredging projects are being effectively managed.
Management of dredging and dredged material placement has a number of facets. Dredging
project management provides answers to the following questions:

2-150

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. What is being dredged?

b. How much is being dredged?
c. When will dredging take place?
d. Where did the dredged material come from?
e. Where will the dredged material be placed?
f. How will the material be dredged and placed?
g. What will happen to the environment at the dredging site? At the placement site?
h. Was the material dredged correctly? Placed correctly?
2.40.3 Three examples of software packages designed to assist in dredged material
planning, design, and management aspects are the National Dredging Quality Management
(DQM) Program, the Enterprise Geographic Information System (eGIS) and Corps of Engineers
Dredge (CE-Dredge), and the Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System
(ADDAMS). DQM is introduced in paragraph 2.31.5.
2.40.3.1 Enterprise Geographic Information System (eGIS) and Corps of Engineers Dredge
(CE-Dredge)
a. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a collection of computer hardware, software,
and geographic data for capturing, managing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying all forms
of geographically referenced information. Enterprise GIS (eGIS) is defined as the integration of
geospatial technology infrastructure to deliver spatial information products, services, and
standard data sets to all business elements and processes of the organization. The concept of
eGIS is taking a complete organizational approach to sharing, using, and managing spatial
information. Implementation of the eGIS concept is quickly expanding across the USACE.
b. CE-Dredge (http://ce-dredge.usace.army.mil/), an architecture developed by the USACE
that utilizes spatial data standards (SDS), geodatabase development, and desktop and web-based
applications, serves as a subset of the USACE eGIS system. It provides a framework to assist in
the development and management of the Navigation and Coastal Data Bank (NCDB) that serves
navigation, dredging, and coastal data. CE-Dredge was designed as a data management solution
to provide baseline information for effective planning and management of regional and local
dredging operations, and it is a repository for all types of navigation-, dredging-, and coastalrelated information including, but not limited to, channel definitions or framework, dredging and
placement areas, dredge histories, geotechnical and sediment information, surveys, sediment
budgets, imagery, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) charts.
CE-Dredge includes web-based management tools used to support operational dredging. Figures
2-61 through 2-63 show the CE-Dredge Dredging Manager application, which is used to
visualize navigation channels and placement areas, and provides tools for managing placement
areas, beneficial use sites, and dredging contracts. Promoting a standard for this type of data

2-151

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

allows USACE to effectively collaborate with other federal partners. Though data is physically
distributed throughout all of the districts, USACE can deliver data that is in a uniform format.

Figure 2-61. CE-Dredge Dredging Manager Navigation Channels and Cisposal Areas Visualization

Figure 2-62. CE-Dredge Placement Area and Beneficial User Management

2.40.3.2 Dredging Quality Management (DQM) to Monitor Ocean Disposal Compliance
a. The DQM suite of tools allows authorized USACE users to monitor the ocean disposal
activities of dredging operations, run initial quality control queries, and produce reports to keep
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) informed of dredge disposal activities.
These tools use a web-based interface to interact with the DQM and geospatial data sets. For
Ocean Disposal Monitoring (ODM), a subset of DQM toolsthe DQM Data Viewer and the
DQM Cumulative Disposal Plotis used.

2-152

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-63. CE-Dredge Dredging Contracts Management

b. The DQM Data Viewer provides the initial daily quality control. The USACE Ocean
Disposal Site Manager uses the Data Viewer to verify the dredging and disposal activities online. This tool allows the user to interact with the data anywhere via his/her USACE laptop and a
viable Internet connection. The visual map tracks the position of the vessel as it operates. The
map also includes the option to add geospatial layers such as basemaps, the Channel Framework,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Inland Electronic Navigation
Charts (IENCs), and disposal boundary areas. The zoom in/out, pan, and rotate features allow the
user to customize the map view. Selecting individual points on the map displays their associated
parameters, collected by the DQM system, within the view. The graphing tool allows the user to
graph select data parameters versus time. Using the map in conjunction with the graphing tool
gives the site manager the ability to trace the vessel position on the map and simultaneously have
a visual of the data value of every parameter collected at that point in time, as demonstrated in
Figure 2-64 (coastal hopper dredge project) and Figure 2-65 (riverine hopper dredge project).
c. The Cumulative Disposal Plot (Figures 2-66 and 2-67) is another web-based DQM tool
available to the site manager. It gives the user the ability to view and quickly create a report of
the disposal activity for a specific period of time. This report includes the start and end locations
of the disposal event for the specific vessel. The application automatically zooms to the
boundaries of the disposal site and shows all dumps occurring within the requested time period.
It also displays any dumps occurring outside the designated disposal area.

2-153

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-64. DQM Data Viewer Screenshot of a Coastal Hopper Dredge Project

2-154

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-65. DQM Data Viewer Screenshot of a Riverine Hopper Dredge Project

2-155

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-66. Screenshot of a DQM Cumulative Disposal Plot (1)

2-156

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-67. Screenshot of a DQM Cumulative Disposal Plot (2)

d. Additionally, DQM provides the site manager with a DQM EPA report (Figure 2-68),
which was developed through a collaborative effort between DQM, EPA Region 4, CESAD
districts. DQM and EPA Region 4 jointly developed a data format that standardizes the EPA
dredging data reporting requirements for the CESAD districts. The DQM data is compiled into
an Extensible Markup Language (XML) data format that is easily imported into the EPA
Region 4 dredging monitoring system. The data set includes items such as vessel information,
position and sensor data, and disposal information. This new format has greatly reduced the
burden on the districts and contractors and has helped standardize a template that can be reused
by other EPA regions.

2-157

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 2-68. Screenshot of a DQM EPA Report

2.40.3.3 Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternative Modeling System (ADDAMS)

a. Planning, design, and management of dredging and dredged material placement projects
often require complex or tedious calculations or involve complex decision-making criteria. In
addition, the evaluations must often be done for several placement alternatives or placement
sites. The Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternative Modeling System (ADDAMS) is set of
continually evolving, state-of-the-art, PC-based tools that increase the accuracy, reliability, and
cost-effectiveness of dredged material management activities in a timely manner. More
specifically, ADDAMS provides the necessary tools to perform the engineering and planning
evaluation for development of a long-term management strategy for dredged material placement
and to evaluate the environmental acceptability of dredged material management alternatives. It
was developed in response to requests by USACE field offices for tools to evaluate dredged
2-158

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

material management alternatives more quickly. More information about ADDAMS modules is
presented in paragraph 2.34.2.3 and Appendix F, Automated Dredging and Disposal
Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS), of this EM. Self-extracting executable models and
documents can be downloaded from http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&
Type=drgmat. ADDAMS includes the following applications for managing dredged material
placement and evaluating environmental acceptability of dredged material placement
alternatives:
(1) CDFIntegrated Confined Disposal Facility design module (SETTLE and DYECON).
(2) CDFATEComputation of mixing zone size or dilution for continuous discharges.
(3) D2M2Optimization of long-term operation, expansion, and acquisition of multiple
placement sites for multiple dredging reaches, including beneficial use.
(4) DREDGEResuspension of sediments and contaminants by dredging.
(5) DYECONDetermination of hydraulic retention time and efficiency of CDFs.
(6) EFFLUENTCombined effluent pathway evaluation module (EFQUAL and LAT-E).
(7) EFQUALAnalysis of modified elutriate test results for prediction of effluent water
quality and dilution requirements for confined placement facilities.
(8) HELPQEvaluation of runoff and leachate production and leachate quality.
(9) LAT-EAnalysis of water column bioassay test to compute toxicity (LC50) of CDF
effluents.
(10) LAT-RAnalysis of water column bioassay test to compute toxicity (LC50) of CDF
Runoff.
(11) MDFATEFate of dredged material from multiple disposals in open water (currently
being replaced by the MPFATE model; see the Dredging Tool Box).
(12) PSDDFEvaluation of consolidation, compression, and desiccation of dredged fill for
determining long-term storage requirements.
(13) PUPPrediction of contaminant uptake by freshwater plants.
(14) RECOVERYEvaluation of contaminant release from bottom sediments and
subaqueous caps (being replaced by the CAP model).
(15) RUNOFFCombined runoff pathway evaluation module (RUNQUAL and LAT-R).
(16) RUNQUALComparison of predicted runoff water quality with standards.

2-159

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(17) SETTLEDesign of Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) for suspended solids

retention and initial storage requirements.
(18) STFATEShort-term fate of dredged material disposed in open water for predicting
deposition and water quality effects (also available through the Dredging Tool Box).
b. Figure 2-69 shows the currently available ADDAMS applications categorized into
dredged material management and environmental effects evaluation. The applications involving
management of dredged material placement or evaluation of environmental acceptability of
dredged material placement alternatives are described in detail in their respective placement
application in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EM. The ADDAMS family of applications and supporting
documentation is available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&
Type=drgmat.

Figure 2-69. ADDAMS Applications Categorized into Dredged Material

Management and Environmental Effects Evaluation

2-160

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
CHAPTER 3
Open-Water Placement
3.1 Overview of Open-Water Placement.
3.1.1 Purpose. This chapter provides guidance for placing dredged material in open-water
sites. It describes open-water placement environments, associated dredging and placement
processes, and placement site management practices; discusses techniques to predict the shortand long-term movement of dredged material at the placement site for purposes of evaluating site
capacity; provides guidance for required environmental evaluations of open-water discharge
(including contaminant pathways), for evaluating and designing placement alternatives for
uncontaminated and contaminated material in addition to descriptions of contaminant control
measures for open-water placement; and presents operational procedures and equipment
configurations to control dispersion at the site.
3.1.2 Description of open-water placement. Open-water placement is a major alternative for
managing dredged material. Open-water sites are located in riverine, lacustrine, estuarine, and
marine environments and are basically bottom-surface areas with overlying volumes of water,
where specific dredged material placement activities are permitted. Dredged material is typically
placed in open-water sites by hydraulic pipeline, hopper, and mechanical dredges. Uncontained
open-water placement sites are either predominantly dispersive or nondispersive. At predominantly dispersive sites, material may be dispersed either during placement or eroded from the
bottom over time, and it is transported away from the placement site by currents and/or wave
action. At predominantly nondispersive sites, most of the material is intended to remain on the
bottom following placement and may be placed to form mounds. Open-water sites used for
dredged material placement are formally designated, selected, and managed to facilitate the
necessary dredging and subsequent placement of dredged sediments.
3.1.3 Considerations for open-water placement. The basic design objectives of an open-water
placement site are to provide storage capacity required to meet the dredging requirement and to
provide this capacity while minimizing potential adverse impacts to the aquatic environment and
human health. Selection of open-water placement as a management alternative should be based
on environmental, technical, economic, and regulatory considerations.
3.1.3.1 Environmental. A wide range of placement site factors, including physical, biological,
and chemical site characteristics as well as dredged sediment characteristics that may provide
potential environmental impacts to the water column and bottom environment, must be considered when selecting open-water sites, equipment, and placement techniques for dredged material. The physical impact of the dredged sediment characteristics, together with dredging and
placement operations at an open-water site, must also be considered.
3.1.3.2 Technical. Technical considerations for open-water placement include selection of
appropriate equipment and placement techniques. This selection process must consider
environmental and dredged material characteristics to minimize potential adverse impacts to the
aquatic environment and human health.

3-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.1.3.3 Economic. Both environmental and technical factors must be considered to determine
the most economically feasible method for placing dredged material in open water.
3.1.3.4 Regulatory. The acceptability of open-water placement from an environmental
standpoint must be determined by appropriate ecological evaluations. The USACE has a major
regulatory role for open-water placement under both Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public
Law 92-500) and Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act (Public Law 92-532). The primary
Federal environmental statute governing transportation of dredged material to the ocean for
purpose of placement is the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), also
called the Ocean Dumping Act. The primary Federal environmental statute governing the
discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (inland of the baseline
to the territorial sea) is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also
called the Clean Water Act (CWA). All proposed dredged material placement activities regulated
by the MPRSA and CWA must also comply with the applicable requirements of the NEPA and
its implementing regulations. In addition to the MPRSA, CWA, and NEPA, there are a number
of other Federal laws, Executive Orders, and other legislative items that must be considered in
the evaluation of dredging projects. For more detailed information, see paragraph 2.4.
3.1.4 Technical framework for open-water site evaluations. A Technical Framework for
evaluation of dredged material placement alternatives, developed by the USACE and the USEPA
(USEPA/USACE 2004), offers steps for detailed assessment of the open-water placement
dredged material management alternative:
a. Determine the placement site characteristics.
b. Evaluate the direct physical impacts and site capacity.
c. Evaluate the contaminant pathways of concern.
d. Evaluate the water column and benthic control measures.
The flowchart in Figure 3-1 illustrates the major steps and components of open-water placement
as an option. In this figure, FLOWCHART 3-1 refers to the flowchart in Figure 2-57 of this
EM. The paragraphs in this chapter generally address the steps provided in Figure 3-1.
Additionally, open-water site management of placement operations and monitoring the site for
changes are also important to consider for protection of the environment. These issues are
discussed in the final paragraph of this chapter.

3-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-1. Major Steps and Components of Open-Water Placement (from USEPA/USACE 2004)

3-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.1.5 Technical guidance.
3.1.5.1 The design, operation, and management of open-water placement sites can become
quite complex, depending on the operational constraints, site conditions, and characteristics of
the dredged material. A wide range of guidance documents regarding open-water placement
design, operation, and management have been generated under various USACE research programs at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and through various sitespecific studies by USACE Districts and Divisions. These efforts provide the foundation for the
technical guidance on open-water sites found in this EM.
3.1.5.2 The Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) was the first major USACE
research effort addressing dredged material placement, and contained placement was addressed
within several research areas of the program. DMRP research results provided the basis for initial
USACE technical guidance on dredged material placement, including design, operation,
management, and basic consideration of contaminant behavior.
3.1.5.3 Following the DMRP, research under the Field Verification Program (FVP), LongTerm Effects of Dredging Operations (LEDO) Program, Dredging Research Program (DRP), and
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Program and technology transfer
efforts under the Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) program have led to the
development of a variety of technical reports, technical notes, engineer manuals, and other guidance documents related to open-water placement. Information about these USACE research
programs and publications can be found online at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/.
3.2 Open-Water Environments for Dredging and Placement. This paragraph describes the four
major hydrodynamic environments associated with open-water placement in oceans, estuaries,
rivers, and lakes along with considerations in the selection and use of various types of dredging
equipment and techniques for each environment.
3.2.1 Ocean environment. Within the ocean environment, dredging activities are conducted
primarily in three distinct zones: the continental shelf, the continental slope, and the inlet zone.
The inlet zone differs in that it is generally the only open-ocean zone in which both dredging and
placement occur.
3.2.1.1 Continental shelf. The continental shelf is the submerged margin of continents and, by
extension, it is also considered to include the shallow margins of oceanic islands. United States
laws define the continental shelf as the seaward extension of the coast to a depth of 183 m
(600 ft). It gradually slopes seaward from shore with an average drop of about 4 m (12 ft) per
mile. Its outer limit, the shelf break, is marked by an increase in gradient to about 80 m per
nautical mile (NM). The shelf break generally occurs at a depth between 110 and 146 m (360 and
479 ft). The continental shelf varies considerably in width, ranging from a few miles off the west
coast of the United States to as far as 250 km (135 NM) off parts of the Gulf coast, and it is a
high-energy environment that is affected by wave, swell, and strong onshore, offshore, or
longshore currents. The continental shelf is subdivided into the inner, middle, and outer zones on
the basis of their hydrography and biology. The inner zone extends from shore out to a depth of
about 20 m (65 ft), the middle shelf zone extends to depths of 70-80 m (230-262 ft), and the

3-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
outer shelf zone runs from the 80 m (262 ft) depth out to near the shelf break. About 70% of the
ocean dredged material placement sites are located in the inner zone of the continental shelf.
Other placement sites, such as those located offshore of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and
American Samoa, are located in the middle and outer zones of the shelf.
3.2.1.2 Continental slope. The continental slope may be thought of as a transition area
between the shallow, highly productive waters of the shelf and the less productive waters of the
deep oceans. The area of the slope is about twice that of the continental shelf, occupying 15.3%
of the total area of the oceans, compared with 7.6% for the shelf. The slope has grades over 3
and sometimes as high as 25. Most profiles across the continental slope show a steep, irregular
upper slope and a smooth lower slope. Only a few of the ocean dredged material placement sites
are situated on the continental slope.
3.2.1.3 Inlet zone. This complex zone is adjacent to the mouths of estuaries, rivers, inlets, and
bays directly flowing into the ocean. Large volumes of sediment are constantly being reworked,
and large volumes of material are dredged in the inlet zone because it experiences energy
extremes similar to those of the continental shelf. However, it is also subjected to strong tidal
currents, multidirectional wave effects, and the effects attributed to control structures such as
jetties, and it is significantly impacted during storms and passages of major frontal systems.
Areas outside of this zone, namely downdrift beaches, can accept large volumes of material from
bypassing operations.
3.2.1.4 Environmental influence on dredge selection. The open ocean environment is subject
to significant wave swell action. Dredges designed for inland channel operations (for example,
cutterhead dredges) cannot operate in this environment. In order to dredge in an open-ocean
environment (generally in or just outside the inlet zone), a dredge capable of withstanding the
severe ocean wave climate must be used. Hopper dredges and a few hydraulic pipeline dredges
are designed for placement in such conditions. Oceangoing tugs and certified barges are also
available to transport material to ocean sites.
3.2.2 Estuarine environment. An estuary is broadly defined as a semienclosed coastal body of
water that has a free connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. Estuarine systems can be divided into four
distinct zones where placement sites may be located: the tidal mouth, central bay, tributary
mouth, and upper bay.
3.2.2.1 Tidal mouth. This area is generally dominated by ebb- or flood-tidal-influenced sand
shoals that may change with each tidal cycle, seasonally, or only during storms. Besides the
strong tidal flows, heavy wave action is usually experienced on the seaward side of the entrance
zone. Generally, this is a zone with much dredging but very little placement.
3.2.2.2 Central bay. Having a fine-grained bottom sediment, this estuarine zone is generally
an area of potential sedimentation. Water depth and proximity to navigation channels dictate the
fate of dredged material deposits. This zone is usually dominated by tidal currents with a net
nontidal component. Wave action usually depends on wind direction and fetch length. Areas of

3-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
measured accumulation of fine sediment within this zone are potential nondispersive placement
sites for dredged material if the water depth is sufficient.
3.2.2.3 The tributary entrance. This zone may represent an area of shoaling, highly cyclic
currents, and possibly significant wave activity. Dredging and placement operations often occur
within this zone, and the sediment may vary from fine clay to sand. Material disposed in this
environment is subjected to periodic erosion from natural physical processes, fisheries activities,
and shipping operations.
3.2.2.4 The upper bay. The upper reach of the system, this zone is characterized by a lowenergy tidal zone. Fine silt and clay make up the predominant bottom sediment. This region
usually supports a substantial fishery and, in most major estuarine systems, is highly populated
and industrialized. Material from maintenance dredging in this zone is often placed in confined
placement or ocean site areas to minimize impact on the fishery.
3.2.2.5 Estuarine current characteristics. In estuarine systems where the tidal prism (the
volume of water entering from the sea during flood phase of the tide) is large in relation to the
daily freshwater runoff, currents are oscillatory with pronounced ebb and flood phases. Examples
include the Hudson River and the Chesapeake Bay. In a few estuaries, such as the Mississippi
River, riverflow dominates tidal currents with the result that the flow is usually uniformly
downstream, showing the tidal effect only in its speed and stage variation. Broad, shallow
estuaries with small river inflow and small tides, such as Mobile Bay, are subject to dominant
wind-induced unidirectional currents. Depending on the estuarine geometry, reversing tidal
currents maybe strictly bidirectional, with a predominant ebb direction and flood direction and a
slack period of near-zero current speed, or they may be rotary, swinging through a range of
compass headings during the ebb and flood phases with or without a slack period. Density gradients caused by differences in dissolved solids content and water temperature impose both vertical
and horizontal circulation patterns on the tidal currents. The pattern of stronger upstream currents
near the bottom and stronger downstream currents near the surface can lead to net upstream flow
in the lower layers of the water column. The pattern can be expressed as a flow predominance
that indicates the percentage of flow in either direction at a given point in the water column.
Between the downstream predominance of the river and the upstream predominance of the
bottom currents in the lower estuary, null areas occur in which there is no net flow predominance
in either direction. This, of course, has serious implications for transport of sediments through
the estuary.
3.2.2.6 Environmental influence on dredge selection. All dredge types are commonly used in
estuarine environments. The location of channels within the system often determines whether
sediments are placed in open-water or confined placement sites by pipeline dredges or hauled out
of the system to a nearby ocean placement site by hopper dredges or barges. Factors such as the
wave climate and type of sediments to be dredged also dictate specific dredge types. Channels
that pass through marshes can be difficult to dredge because dredged material cannot be readily
placed in marshes without impairing wetland functions. Hence, effort is spent finding scarce
upland sites, or additional costs are incurred transporting dredged material to other areas. To help
alleviate this situation, several groups have proposed that thin-layer placement (hydraulically
placing dredged material in single layers of 5-15 cm [2-6 in]) will reduce environmental impacts

3-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
sufficiently that placement in some marshes may become acceptable. If this is true, maintaining
channels that pass through wetlands, especially those in remote areas, may be facilitated. Wilber
(1993) and Ray (2008) present additional information on thin-layer placement history and project
planning and monitoring.
3.2.3 Riverine environment. Like estuaries, rivers have quite variable physical flow characteristics and configurations. The characteristics of a river are determined by the geological system
through which it flows and range from unidirectional freshwater tributaries to transitional
estuarine systems. Unidirectional-flowing rivers have a relatively constant environment of
deposition throughout their length while more complex river systems may have a full spectrum of
depositional environments to consider.
3.2.3.1 Unidirectional. Rivers and those sections of rivers with this type of flow characteristic
generally have sandy bottom sediments and are dredged primarily by hydraulic dredges with
pipeline placement in areas adjacent to the channels or in upland placement areas. The fate of
dredged material placed in areas adjacent to the channel is dependent on the current speeds and
stage of the river.
3.2.3.2 Upper tidal. This zone experiences tidal fluctuations, but it is fresh water with
seasonal low-flow periods when a salt wedge may develop. Material dredged from this zone and
placed adjacent to the channel may be significantly affected by ship wakes and propeller wash.
3.2.3.3 Salt wedge zone. Where river water mixes with ocean water, there is a complex zone
that is generally described as a salt wedge. At this section of a river (or estuary), a mixing process
causes enhanced deposition and a turbidity maximum in the water column. This zone usually
represents an area of constant shoaling and thus constantly requires dredging and placement. If
material is placed in this part of the river, it will also experience tidal currents that may be
sufficient to erode and rework the sediment.
3.2.3.4 River mouth. The mouth of a river can be a complex deltaic system, such as the
mouth of the Mississippi River, or a relatively simple tidal opening into an estuary or ocean. The
variability is as great as the number of rivers. This depositional environment is be site-specific
and depends on the energy regime and tidal range of each river. Many characteristics for this
zone of a river are the same as previously described for estuary mouths and tributary entrances.
3.2.3.5 Environmental influence on dredge selection. In comparison with ocean, estuarine,
and lake environments, rivers are subject to less significant wind-wave swell. Short distances
between dredging and placement sites are also more common to riverine environments. Therefore, the USACE was able to develop more specialized equipment and procedures specifically for
dredging river channels. Cutterhead and dustpan dredges are commonly used in riverine environments. A major factor in river dredge selection is the type of suction head, which in turn is based
on the type of sediment to be dredged. Some rivers are dredged by mechanical dredges where
transportation distances exceed pumping capabilities of pipeline dredges. Hopper dredges are
commonly used at river mouths for transporting dredged material offshore and because of their
mobility.

3-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.2.3.6 Riverine placement methods.
a. Open-water placement techniques for riverine sediments are similar from one type of
hydraulic dredge to another. Continuous pipeline placement with some type of baffle plate to
diffuse discharge is standard practice. Dredged material may be disposed within the banks of the
river, with the intent of providing guidance to the channel flow or erosion protection, or simply
placed where it is hoped to have no unfavorable influence upon the stability of the dredged
channel. In smaller rivers where the channel width is essentially the same as the river width,
dredged material is commonly disposed at diked upland placement sites.
b. Open-water placement with the intent of providing guidance to channel flow is the most
ideal method, but it is also the most difficult approach. The danger exists that when placement of
material is not exact, a large part will return into the newly made channel. However, using river
mechanics, flow patterns, and changes with time, this method can provide a stable channel that
may be partially maintained by the more concentrated flow. Dredged sediment grain size also
influences the effectiveness of this approach. Coarse particles settle rapidly to the river bottom;
fine particles may take a long time to reach the bottom, and their area of deposition is more
difficult to predict.
c. Placement of material within the river where it is hoped to have no adverse effects on
navigation is the simplest of riverine placement methods. This technique differs from the
previous method in that it does not have the benefit of increased velocity within the channel to
reduce material deposition. A variation of this method is agitation dredging. As with estuaries,
thin-layer placement, as described above, may have application in channels through marshes.
3.2.3.7 Thalweg placement of dredged riverine sediments.
a. The thalweg can be described as the deepest flow channel within the banks of a river.
Cross sections in bends are triangular in shape with the deepest points located near the concave
bank and shallow point bars located on the convex bend. In the transition zone between bends,
flow lines straighten, and the cross section takes the form of a wide, shallow trough forming a
saddle or bar. A sequence of mounds and scours is common to both meandering reaches and
straight reaches with a thalweg that meanders through alternate bars. Consequently, the thalweg
profile exhibits a series of pools separated by shoals, or crossings, which tend to aggrade during
high-discharge periods, and pools are scoured. At low discharges the cross-sectional areas of the
crossings and pools change: the crossings scour, and the pools become depositional areas for the
scoured material. Thalweg placement involves removing material from these shoals and depositing it in the nearest pool, resulting in a channel bottom with a more uniform depth.
b. Early dredging efforts used thalweg placement. The first devices employed for dredging on
the Mississippi River used a stirring or scraping technique. In operation, a dredge equipped with
a scraper frame on the bow moved to the upstream end of shoals, lowered the scraper frame, and
then backed slowly downstream, scraping sediment with it into pools below these shoals.
c. The U.S. Army Portland Engineer District tested the thalweg placement technique in 1971
with favorable results. The potential environmental benefits are numerous, particularly in regard

3-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
to avoiding shallow water or wetland placement with the consequent impacts on chute channels,
sloughs, and backwater areas. Other experiments by the U.S. Army Rock Island Engineer District
revealed that dredged sand disposed in the thalweg remained there and was not widely dispersed
into potentially sensitive aquatic habitats. For environmental effects evaluation and
implementation approach on thalweg placement of dredged material, refer to Olin, Miller, and
Palermo (1993a and 1993b), respectively.
3.2.4 Lake environment. This environment involves primarily the Great Lakes region. The
physical processes are very similar to those of an estuary or the open ocean, but the source of
energy is not the same. Generally, lake bottom currents are affected by the wind direction, the
thermal stratification of the water column, and the proximity to rivers (Hough 1958). Water
elevation can also be affected by wind velocity. Dredged material within the Great Lakes is
placed in open lake depths ranging from 2 to 30 m (6 to 100 ft). Studies near Ashtabula, OH
(Danek et al. 1977) have shown that dredged material deposits in 15 m (50 ft) or less of water are
susceptible to removal by winter storms. The dredging practice and lake placement operations are
similar to those described previously for the ocean and estuarine environments.
3.3 Physical Fate of Dredged Material Placed in Open Water.
3.3.1 Introduction.
3.3.1.1 Efficient management of open-water placement sites requires the ability to predict and
track the movement, or fate, of dredged material upon release. This ability is essential to meet the
environmental requirements for site selection and use (that is, water quality standards and site
size and capacity) and determination of operational constraints related to placement methods.
The short-term fate of dredged material includes its effects as it descends through the water
column and settles on the bottom in the near field (the vicinity of the placement area) within the
minutes and hours following its release. Its long-term fate involves dredged material mound
erosion and resuspension over longer time frames, such as years, and the redeposition of this
material. Long-term management of aquatic disposal sites also requires an understanding of how
much area the dredged material mound encompasses, when the mound encroaches on the site
boundaries, how much material leaves the site, and where the material ultimately goes.
3.3.1.2 Factors influencing dredged material behavior at open-water placement sites include
the following:
a. The physical characteristics of the dredged material, such as its particle size distribution
and mineralogical composition.
b. The nature of the placement operation, such as the type of discharge vessel, discharge rate,
and solids concentration of the slurry.
c. The physical environment in the vicinity of the placement site, including currents, waves,
tide, and storms.

3-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
d. Bottom sediment characteristics and topography (Johanson, Bowen, and Henry 1976;
Barnard 1978).
e. Water depth.
The great variability of these factors from site to site, as well as potential seasonal fluctuations,
increases the difficulty of predicting open-water dredged material behavior.
3.3.1.3 Hopper dredge or barge and pipeline are the typical placement methods of dredged
material in open water. Release to the receiving water is the only aspect of dredged material
placement over which direct control can be exercised by conventional dredge operations. Once
the material is released from the dredge, the mechanics of the transport phases is beyond
manipulation by operators.
3.3.1.4 Hopper dredging results in a dredged material mixture of water and solids stored in
the hopper or bin for transport to the placement site. At the placement site, hopper doors in the
bottom of the hull of the ship are opened, the entire hopper contents are emptied in the open
water in a matter of minutes, and then the dredge returns to the dredging site to reload. This
procedure produces a series of discrete discharges at intervals of perhaps one to several hours.
3.3.1.5 Bucket or clamshell dredges remove the sediment being dredged at nearly its in situ
density and place it on a barge or scow for transportation to the placement area. Although several
barges may be used so that the dredging is essentially continuous, placement occurs as a series of
discrete discharges. The mechanically dredged material may be a slurry similar to that in a
hopper dredge, but often sediments dredged by clamshell remain in fairly large consolidated
clumps and reach the bottom in this form. Similar to hopper dredge placement operations, barges
are designed with bottom doors or with a split hull, and the contents may be emptied within
seconds, essentially as an instantaneous discharge.
3.3.1.6 Pipeline dredges produce a slurry mixture of water and solids (sediments), with solids
concentration ranging from a few grams to several hundred grams per liter. This slurry is
transported by pipeline and discharged at the placement site in a relatively continuous stream.
Placement from a cutterhead or other hydraulic pipeline dredge is continuous in that the
placement site receives a constant flow of material until the pipeline discharge port is repositioned to another site, operations are interrupted (for example, the swing anchors are repositioned
or there is passing traffic), or dredging ceases. Surface and near-surface turbidity around the area
of pipeline discharge, in addition to water column effects and the spread of material along the
bottom, are the main management considerations for open-water pipeline placement projects.
The behavior of pipeline-discharged material can vary because of its initial trajectory (horizontal
versus vertical) or whether it exits in the air or water. In addition, pipeline discharge ports may
include a variety of baffle or deflector plates and cylindrical or conical diffusers, which can also
affect the plume behavior (Teeter 2000).
3.3.1.7 The physical forces affecting both the short- and long-term fate of dredged material
placed in open water include gravity and forcing due to waves and currents. Water column
currents are the dominating environmental force acting on dredged material placed in open water.

3-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
Currents generally result from the combined actions of several components: large-scale
ocean/coastal current regimes due to tidal circulation and/or storm-surge propagation, locally
generated wind-stress-generated currents, inertial currents, and estuarine/riverine plume effects.
3.3.1.8 Mathematical models have been developed for predicting the short- and long-term
fate of dredged material placed in open water for both bottom-release and pipeline placement.
The short- and long-term fate of dredged material placed in open water for both conventional
bottom-release placement (from a hopper dredge or barge) and pipeline discharge are described
in 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, respectively. Numerical models used to predict the short- and long-term fates
of dredged material placed in open water are also presented.
3.3.2 Short-term fate.
3.3.2.1 The short-term behavior of dredged material, once it has been released into open
water from a hopper dredge and barge and from pipeline discharges, has been studied. The
following section focuses on dredged material behavior during discrete placement events, such as
placement from a hopper dredge.
3.3.2.2 Field evaluations from data obtained at five sites by Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) and
physical model tests by Johnson and Schroeder (1993) have shown that open-water placement of
dredged material from a hopper dredge or barge generally follows a three-step process:
a. Convective descent, during which the material falls under the influence of gravity.
b. Dynamic collapse, occurring when the descending cloud or jet either impacts the bottom or
arrives at a level of neutral buoyancy, in which case the descent is retarded and horizontal
spreading dominates (this spreading material is also referred to as an underflow).
c. Passive transport-dispersion, commencing when the material transport and spreading are
determined more by ambient currents and turbulence than by the dynamics of the placement
operation (Moritz, Johnson, and Scheffner 2000).
Teeter (1992) analyzed the dispersion processes of dredged material discharged from a pipeline
and described a three-step dispersion process for pipeline-placed material that is similar to that of
hopper-placed material. In addition, fine sediments may be stripped from the descending jet.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the three phases of dredged material released in open water from a hopper
bin, and Figure 3-3 illustrates a similar sediment plume behavior from a pipeline discharge.
3.3.2.3 Convective descent.
a. During the convective descent phase, in almost every case for both bottom release and
pipeline placement, the bulk of the dredged materials falls in a dense jet directly to the bottom
with minor losses to the water column. Released dredged material possesses an initial downward
momentum and a density greater than that of the surrounding water. These conditions result in
forces that cause the material to settle in the form of a cloud, or density current, rather than as
individual particles. As the cloud settles, shear stresses develop at the interface between the
moving cloud and the ambient water, resulting in dissipation of the initial momentum and the
3-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
creation of turbulent eddies that entrain ambient fluid. In the case of clouds possessing an initial
momentum, vortex rings form at the time of release and tend to cause deeper penetration of the
ambient water. The material that falls as clods acquires terminal speed after falling through a
small fraction of the water depth and then descends to the bottom at a nearly constant speed. Any
distribution of material between jet and clod descent is possible; the proportion of material in the
two forms has a major effect on the structure of the resultant deposit at the placement site.

Figure 3-2. Schematic of the Behavior of Dredged Material Released in Open Water

Figure 3-3. Schematic of the Sediment Plume from a Pipeline Discharge in Open Water

3-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
b. Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) observed that the jet falls at an early constant speed and to
entrain a large volume of ambient water during transit from the surface to the bottom. For example, the volume of fluid reaching the bottom in the jet may be 70 times the volume released at the
surface. Because of the large entrainment and the corresponding reduction in jet density, the jet
quickly attains the lateral speed of any current flowing in the receiving water. Its impact point
can be predicted with good accuracy if the current is known. The descent of the jet sets up
circulation patterns in the ambient water inward toward the discharge point on the surface and
outward on the bottom. The resultant inflow around the hull of the dredge or scow helps contain
the dredged material in a narrowly defined zone of descent. The speed of this convective descent
was measured by Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) and was consistently found to be about 1 m/sec
(3.3 ft/sec).
c. Instantaneous placement of dredged material in relatively shallow water produces a rapid
convective descent of the material with a vertical velocity on the order of 1 m/sec (3.3 ft/sec).
Settling velocities calculated for individual particles do not apply during this form of transport.
Since the time during which the cloud is in contact with the upper portions of the water column
is a minute or less, ambient water currents (except near the bottom) are of little consequence
except as they affect the transport of any turbidity cloud that may be generated during the
descent. If near-bottom currents are low, precision placement may proceed under almost any
current condition occurring in the upper portions of the water column, except for turbidity cloud
considerations (Johanson, Bowen, and Henry 1976).
3.3.2.4 Dynamic collapse.
a. Dynamic collapse occurs when the cloud encounters a boundary, either a density layer
(pycnocline) or the bottom, and is characterized by horizontal spreading. Collapse is driven
primarily by a pressure force and is resisted by inertial and frictional forces. In the case of
precision placement of dredged material into a specific site, it is important that the cloud
penetrate through any density layer and reach the bottom. In general, sudden releases of fairly
large quantities of dredged material in shallow water penetrate a density layer and impact on the
bottom. The cloud flattens out and appears somewhat like a disk as it assumes a horizontal
circular shape (assuming a flat bottom and no obstructions) with a small vertical dimension.
Under these conditions, flow continues in the form of a density or turbidity current.
b. If a clod of dredged material impacts the bottom at high speed, it disintegrates, and the
contained material is dispersed. If the impact speed is low, the clod remains intact upon
deposition. Clod disintegration can be avoided if the kinetic energy of the clod is dissipated by
plastic deformation before material failure occurs or the clod arrives at the bottom. Since the
kinetic energy per unit mass of a falling clod increases as the clod size increases, it is expected
that there is an upper bound to the size of clods that can be deposited on the bottom intact.
c. At Ashtabula and Rochester, NY (Bokuniewicz et al. 1978), the base surge spread radially
outward in the shape of a thin expanding toroid of turbid water. Both its thickness and speed
decreased as its radius increased. As the surge proceeded outward, it shed behind a thin, slowly
moving cloud of suspended dredged material that settled to the lake floor. The entrainment of
ambient water and friction eventually caused the velocity of the surge to decrease to the point

3-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
where all its contained sediment was deposited. The initial energy of the surge and the rate of
energy dissipation determine the range of the base surge, the area of the bottom that is covered by
dredged material, and the form and thickness of this deposit. Ideally, the deposition of dredged
material is expected to occur in a ring around the impact point.
d. To describe a bottom surge adequately, it is necessary to know its velocity as a function of
distance from the impact point, its thickness, and the concentration of solids contained therein. If
sufficient data are available, it is possible to determine whether erosion or deposition occurs at a
given radial distance, whether additional ambient water is entrained, and how rapidly kinetic
energy is lost. These data may then be used to estimate the size of the deposit that will be formed
on any given aquatic disposal site.
e. The thickness of the base surge was found to depend on water depth: the greater the depth,
the thicker the surge. Bokuniewicz et al. (1978) obtained base surge data at sites in the Great
Lakes. As the water depth at the placement site increased from 20 to 50 m (65 to 164 ft), the
greatest thickness of the surge increased from 4 to 7 m (13 to 23 ft). This result was expected
since, at the greater depth, the volume of water entrained during descent was greater, but the
speed of the surge over the bottom was not changed appreciably. The surge thickness was also
observed to be relatively large at the New York Bight site (Bokuniewicz et al. 1978). While the
water depth was greater there, the quantity of dredged material released was also much greater,
and the surge spreading speed was higher. Data were insufficient to separate the effects of all of
these variables in determining surge thickness. Figure 3-4 is a contour diagram defining the
thickness of the base surge for the Ashtabula, Rochester, and New York Bight data after adjusting to the Ashtabula travel-time curve. The concentration of solids suspended in the base surge
was determined from pumped water samples and from transmissometers. At the Great Lakes
sites, concentrations were as high as 11 g/L within about 50 m (164 ft) of the impact point. Three
minutes after the head of the surge had passed, the concentrations were down to about 1 g/L, and
returned to background values in less than 15 minutes. These data are displayed in Figure 3-5.
f. May (1973) reported turbidity or density flows of sediments released from pipeline
dredging and aquatic disposal operations. According to May, almost all the sediment settled very
rapidly and flowed along the bottom as a separate, flocculated density layer or underflow. The
sediment that was not deposited immediately under the dredge was transported in the density
flow or base surge. Concentrations of 10,000 mg/L were found within 122 m (400 ft) of the
discharge point, and concentrations over 1,000 mg/L extended out at least 550 m (1,800 ft).
3.3.2.5 Transport-diffusion. At most placement sites, the convective descent and dynamic
collapse phases last on the order of only a few minutes. When the rate of spreading of the
collapsing cloud becomes less than an estimated rate of spreading due to turbulent diffusion, the
collapse phase is terminated and the longer term transport-diffusion phase is initiated. In this
phase, material in suspension is transported and diffused by the ambient current while undergoing settling. Any non-sediment constituents are also transported and diffused. During the
passive transport-diffusion phase, material transport and spreading are determined by ambient
currents and turbulence rather than by the dynamics of placement operation. The clouds are transported by the velocity at the centroid of the cloud while experiencing both vertical and horizontal

3-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
turbulent diffusion. Suspended sediment concentrations in the clouds are assumed to have a
Gaussian distribution. Solids settle by discrete settling or flocculant settling.

Figure 3-4. Adjusted Thickness (Height) of the Ashtabula, Rochester, and

New York Bight Base Surge Data (Bokuniewicz et al. 1978)

3-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-5. Concentrations of Suspended Material after the Base Surge in

the Great Lakes (after Bokuniewicz et al. 1978)

3-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.3.2.6 Stripping of fine sediments.
a. The fate of fine-grained dredged sediments stripped from the descending jet during openwater placement can be an issue in some situations, such as concern over the impact of the water
column plume and, especially, during the placement of contaminated sediments.
b. As noted earlier, during open-water placement of dredged sediments from a barge or
hopper dredge, the vast majority of released dredged sediments descend rapidly to the bottom as
a coherent, well-defined jet of material. However, some small fraction of fine-grained material
can remain in upper and middle levels of the water column and, depending on ambient currents,
may be transported from the site. This fine-grained material may be released to the water column
in different ways. As the descending cloud or jet moves downward, a circulation is set up such
that ambient fluid is entrained into the backside of the cloud or jet. This entrained fluid decreases
the overall density of the cloud and the turbulent mixing created in the cloud or jet separates
some of the fine-grained material from the denser core of sediments. These fine-grained particles
are then left behind at different levels in the water column as the cloud or jet continues its
descent to the bottom. They then settle at their particle-settling rate, but they can become trapped
in the water column if stratification exists (typically seen only in deep water). This is one form of
what is commonly called stripping.
c. Truitt (1986) provides a good summary of approximately nine major field studies where
measurements were made to estimate the volume of sediments that are stripped from the main jet
and remain suspended in the water column a considerable length of time. For the five studies that
dealt with mechanically dredged sediment placed in barges, three studies had suspended
sediment masses of 1%, and two studies had suspended sediment masses of 2%-4%. A study of
dredged material placement in Hong Kong showed that loss of sediments due to stripping during
barge placement of fine sediments into pits ranged from 1% to 3% (Land and Bray 1998).
d. Some portion of this 1%-4% mass of suspended sediments stripped from the main jet of
material likely deposits in the immediate vicinity of the placement and thus remains inside most
placement sites although the size of this portion will vary considerably with site and sediment
characteristics. In cases where the remaining portion of the stripped material is an issue of
concern, either it can be tracked as it moves in the water column or the area of concern adjacent
to the placement area can be monitored to determine if measurable amounts deposit there.
Tracking fine material in the water column is a very expensive undertaking with considerable
uncertainly involved in measuring small amounts of suspended sediment over a wide area.
Similarly, monitoring an adjacent sensitive resource for minute amounts of fines and/or their
associated contaminants is also very expensive, time-consuming, and subject to some
uncertainty. Therefore, such monitoring requirements are usually imposed in extraordinary
situations, and only then to confirm numerical movement predictions through a limited number
of monitoring events. To date, there has been no evidence that the amounts of untracked
sediments stripped during the placement of contaminated have caused unacceptable
environmental impacts. Thus, for the vast majority of dredging projects, no attempt is made to
collect quantitative data on the fate of the stripped fraction because it is not considered to be
cost-effective.

3-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.3.2.7 Mound formation.
a. For both bottom-release and pipeline-placed material, the bulk of the released dredged
material rapidly descends to the bottom of the placement area where it accumulates under the
discharge point in the form of a low-gradient (for example, 1:500), circular or elliptical fluid mud
mound overlying the existing bottom sediment. If bottom slopes are not steep enough to maintain
the low-density fluid mud flows, then the sediment suspended in the fluid mud layer tends to
settle, and flow velocity decreases. The shape of the mound is affected by several factors:
dredged sediment properties, placement method, and site characteristics, such as currents and
bottom topography.
b. Muddy sediment dredged by a clamshell remains in large clumps and descends to the
bottom in this form. The clumps may break apart somewhat on impact, but such material tends to
accumulate in irregular mounds under the placement vessel rather than move outward from the
release point. Whatever the dredging method, sandy sediment tends to mound directly beneath
the pipeline port or release vessel.
c. Barnard (1978) studied the dispersal characteristics of pipeline-discharged material and
discussed the characteristics of the fluid mud mound. If the discharge point of a hydraulic
pipeline dredge is moved as the dredge advances, a series of mounds develops. The majority of
the mounded material is usually high-density (nonflowing) fluid mud that is covered by a surface
layer of low-density (flowing or nonflowing) fluid mud. Close to the discharge point, the mound
may be pocked with conical hills and scour pits, formed from the continuous placement of
material. Fluid mud tends to flow downhill as long as the bottom slope is approximately 1% or
greater. Figure 3-6 shows the effect of discharge angle and predominant current angle from a
pipeline dredge discharge on the shape of a fluid mud mound and is an example of the effect of
varied placement configurations and site conditions on the overall shape of the mound, height,
and slopes. However, for pipeline placement, the amount of slurry dispersion can be controlled
by using various pipelines configurations at the discharge port (Barnard 1978).
3.3.3 Long-term fate.
3.3.3.1 Background.
a. After dredged material has come to rest on the seabed, it can be eroded and transported by
waves and/or currents. Furthermore, if the dredged material is cohesive, it can experience selfconsolidation due to gravity. In addition, if many loads of dredged material are placed one on top
of another such that a steep aggregate mound develops on the ambient bathymetry, the mound
will avalanche and material will be transported downslope as a function of gravity and material
characteristics. These combined processes define the long-term fate of dredged material placed in
open water. Water depth, wave activity, and current regime are the primary factors that contribute
to the long-term fate of dredged material placed at a given ocean dredged material disposal site
(ODMDS).

3-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-6. Effect of Pipeline Dredge Discharge Angle and Predominant

Current Direction on the Shape of a Fluid Mud Mound
b. Depending upon the type of dredged material to be placed at an ODMDS and surrounding
resources, long-term dispersiveness may or may not be a desirable aspect. If the placed dredged
material is expected to remain within an ODMDS (due to incompatibility issues with ambient or
adjacent resources), a site should be selected that minimizes long-term dispersiveness. If the goal
of the ODMDS is to facilitate reintroduction of dredged material into the littoral system, then an
ODMDS should be selected that maximizes long-term dispersiveness. The degree of long-term
stability for dredged material placed at an ODMDS is an important factor that dictates the
amount of dynamic site capacity for a given location.
c. An ODMDS can exhibit little dispersiveness during dredged material placement while
having a high degree of long-term dispersion during moderate to severe wave or current activity.
To predict the fate of dredged material placed in open water, the dispersiveness of an existing or
new candidate ODMDS must be fully considered for both short-term and long-term aspects.
Numerical models are required for these predictions. The following information was excerpted
from Moritz, Johnson, and Scheffner (2000).

3-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.3.3.2 Resuspension of mound material. When water begins to flow over a bed of loose
particles, hydrodynamic forces are exerted upon the particles; as the flow intensity increases, the
magnitude of the hydrodynamic forces on the particles increases. A condition is eventually
reached where the particles are unable to resist the forces and movement is initiated. Disposal
mound dynamics depend on various forces, mound characteristics, armoring, and other
processes, such as biological activity.
a. Forces causing resuspension. Dominant forces contributing to erosion and transport are
stresses by currents caused by tides, density gradients, waves, winds, and episodic events such as
storms. Sediment erosion and transport are also influenced by the nature of the sediments
themselvestheir size, physicochemical, and consolidation propertiesand characteristics of
the mound. Other factors, such as armoring and biological activity, also play roles in
resuspension of mound material.
b. Tides. The astronomical forces of the moon and sun cause tides in the ocean that have both
vertical and horizontal motions. These tidal motions, combined with topographic features, give
rise to a rotary type of tidal current in the open ocean and along the seacoast. This current varies
with locality, depending upon the character of the tide, the water depth, and the configuration of
the coast. In any locality, however, these tidal currents repeat themselves as regularly as the tides
to which they are related. In the open ocean and wide estuaries, the tidal currents usually rotate
due to the effect of the Coriolis force; from hour to hour, the currents change in both direction
and magnitude. In narrow estuaries, tidal currents tend to be bidirectionalebb and flood. In
estuarine systems where the tidal prism (volume of water entering from the sea during flood
phase of the tide) is large in relation to the daily freshwater runoff, as in the Hudson River
estuary and the Chesapeake Bay, currents are oscillatory with pronounced ebb and flood phases.
In a few estuaries, notably that of the Mississippi River, riverflow dominates tidal currents with
the result that the flow is usually uniformly downstream, showing the tidal effect only in speed
and stage variation. Broad, shallow estuaries with small river inflow and small tides, such as the
Mobile Bay, are subject to dominant wind-induced unidirectional currents. Depending on
estuarine geometry, reversing tidal currents may be strictly bidirectional, with a predominant ebb
direction and flood direction and a slack period of near-zero current speed, or they may be rotary,
swinging through a range of compass headings during the ebb and flood phases with or without a
slack period. Tidal information, including predictions of water levels, tidal ranges, and local
datum planes for the coasts of North and South America, is published by the U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Survey at
http://tidesonline.nos.noaa.gov/.
c. Waves. The ability of water waves to transport bottom sediment is related to the magnitude
of the shear stress exerted by the wave motion on the bed and dynamic pressure changes under
the waves. Oscillatory fluid motion associated with surface gravity waves exerts shear stresses on
the bottom that are often several times larger than shear stresses caused by unidirectional currents
of the same magnitude because of the pressure fluctuations. Thus, the importance of wave
motion in initiating and transporting sediments in a coastal environment is apparent, as the
stresses produced by wave motion may put sediments into suspension where they can be
transported by currents of a magnitude insufficient to initiate sediment motion.

3-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
d. Density gradients. Density gradients caused by differences in dissolved solids content and
water temperature impose both vertical and horizontal circulation patterns on the tidal currents.
The pattern of stronger upstream currents near the bottom and stronger downstream currents near
the surface can lead to net upstream flow in the lower layers of the water column. The pattern can
be expressed as a flow predominance (Simmons 1966) that indicates the percentage of flow in
either direction at a given point in the water column. Between the downstream predominance of
the river and the upstream predominance of the bottom currents in the lower estuary, null areas
occur in which there is no net flow predominance in either direction. This, of course, has serious
implications for transport of sediments and contaminants through the estuary.
e. Wind. Other significant aspects of estuarine hydrodynamics include wind-induced currents
and seiching produced by wind stress. Wind-induced currents have a complex structure that
includes generally downwind surface currents and upwind bottom currents in deep channels.
These currents may alter sediment transport patterns or, in some cases, may be the primary
transport mechanism.
f. Episodic events. The passage of a meteorological event such as a storm or hurricane results
in the generation of extreme waves on the ocean surface and, for a semienclosed region such as
an estuary or lake, a change in water level and sometimes in currents. These events may result in
disturbance of the sediment on the bottom. When dredged material placed at an aquatic disposal
site decreases the local depth substantially, its susceptibility to material resuspension and
dispersion by storms is increased. Consequently, an upper bound on the amount of material that
can be accommodated at any given site (the site capacity) can be set in terms of the degree of
dispersion that is acceptable. In order to be able to describe the importance of storms as a source
of disturbance of the bottom, it is necessary to have a measure of the frequency of occurrence of
storms of different magnitudes affecting the site.
3.3.3.3 Dredged material mound characteristics. Data on the physical properties of existing
dredged material mounds are extremely meager (Basco, Bouma, and Dunlap 1974). A considerable amount of information has been collected regarding the chemistry of the material, presumably due to environmental concerns, but these data have very little bearing on the long-term
fate of the mound. The physical properties that have been reported are those that were obtained
from highly disturbed samples. Undisturbed samples ultimately yield the most information of use
in evaluating the long-term fate of an aquatic dredged material mound.
a. Composition. The fate of a dredged material disposal mound is almost entirely a function
of the material being deposited because of the minor influx of materials from outside sources.
The material in the mound differs from the material at the dredging site, primarily by the amount
of fines that has been carried away during deposition. The composition of a disposal mound is
also strongly influenced by whether the dredged material comes from a new project or from
dredging of existing channels. Commonly, material from new channel dredging is clay that
becomes armored with fine silt or shell. During deposition, these artificially formed mud balls,
along with the coarser particles, settle first, bringing about an easily observable interface between
the natural bottom at the disposal site and the disposal mound. Mounds from maintenance
dredging, conversely, are often observed to have a more homogeneous consistency.

3-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
b. Location of sites. When consideration is being given to site capacity of nondispersive
dredged material disposed in aquatic sites, one condition that should be met is that the site should
be located where there is natural deposition or nondisturbance of sediment of a grain size equal
to or less than the grain size of the dredged material. With reference to the Long Island Sound,
deposition of silt occurs in the central and western basins. The New Haven placement site is
located in a region where silt is accumulating at a rate of about 8 g/sq m/year. Eleven other
designated placement sites in Long Island Sound are also located in depositional environments,
although none are located where the most rapid sedimentation occurs.
c. Original topography of the disposal sites. The topography of an aquatic dredged material
mound depends to a great extent on the original topography of the area prior to any placement. If
the dredged material is deposited on a sloping bottom, gravitational forces cause material to
move downslope and tend to spread the material over larger areas, much as a turbidity current or
density flow is known to exist in the continental slope region of the ocean. However, if the
material is placed between ridges or in a depression zone, the spreading is inhibited and the
overall effect is to smooth the troughs and peaks of the existing undulating bed.
d. Type of placement. The ultimate long-term topography of the mound depends to a great
extent on the type of placement. Whether the final bathymetry forms a ridge, cone, or some other
formation depends on the precision with which the placement operation is performed. Some
placement may occur prior to reaching the placement site or at locations not precisely designated
for placement because of imprecise navigation techniques or the desire to minimize dump haul
distance. For whatever reason, unless the material is placed as prescribed, the resulting
bathymetry of the dredged material mound will be significantly affected.
e. Characteristics of dredged material and existing currents. The characteristics of the dredged
material and the existing currents of the area affect the mound topography. Briggs (1970) found
that placement in the Upper Chesapeake Bay resulted in material covering an area approximately
five times that of the placement area originally selected. The characteristics of the material were
such that the maximum slope measured about 1:100 (average slopes were 1:500). Bathymetric
surveys at different stages of placement operations in the Rhode Island Sound by Saila, Pratt, and
Polgar (1972) showed the maximum slopes of mounds to be about 9:100. If free placement
occurs, the slopes of the mounds should be indicative of the shear strength of the materials
involved. However, the effect of currents is probably just as important in arriving at the ultimate
slope of the aquatic mound.
f. Consolidation. Consolidation is a decrease in thickness of a saturated layer due to the
decrease in the void ratio under the action of an effective overburden pressure. The degree of
consolidation is important because it can be related to shear strength characteristics of the
dredged material disposal mound. Salem and Krizek (1973) determined that dredged material
was slightly more compressible than typical inorganic soils, and they noted that at low intensities
of loading, the void ratio of some samples actually increased with time rather than decreased.
This was attributed to the generation of gases in the material, which tended to counteract the
applied load and allowed expansion of the sample. In general, freshly deposited dredged material
at an aquatic disposal site is in a highly underconsolidated state. With the passage of time, excess
water escapes from the voids, and upon completion of this process, the material is normally

3-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
consolidated. If some of the overlying material is subsequently eroded after the mound has
become normally consolidated, the remaining material will be in an overconsolidated state as
some of the overburden pressure has been removed. Under normal conditions, different portions
of a disposal mound may exist in underconsolidation, normal consolidation, and
overconsolidation.
g. Biological activity. According to Basco, Bouma, and Dunlap (1974), activity of some
burrowing organisms may increase erosion of mounds of dredged material. In contrast, the
activity of tube-building animals within the mounds may slow down the rate of erosion. Such
animals can cover mounds with dense mats of soft tubes that may protect the dredged material
from erosion and even act as traps for fine particles. Thus, the effects of biological activity
remain uncertain and uncontrollable.
3.3.3.4 Transport and redeposition of mound material. It is known that resuspension and
redeposition of movable material (cohesive or noncohesive) are functionally related to the magnitudes of physical stresses (forces) that induce such movement. If the natural environmental
forces existing in the region are less than those forces required for particle motion, the particles
will remain at rest. If, however, the available stresses are greater than those required to place
material in motion, particle motion will be initiated. Transport will continue until the moving
particles enter a water mass where the hydrodynamic forces decrease below those necessary for
maintaining transport, at which time the particles will settle from the water column. To analyze
the long-term site capacity of an open-water disposal site, it is necessary to know the magnitudes
of the physical forces that exist in the region. If this information is unavailable, a suitable,
comprehensive field data collection program should be initiated to obtain the necessary data.
a. Transport. Sediment transport consists of three physical processes: sediment particles are
entrained into the water column, sediment particles are transported by the motions of the water
column, and sediment particles deposit or redeposit on the bed. While the particles are entrained
by the water column, motion may exist as either bed load or suspended load. Bed load is defined
as the sediment that moves on or in frequent contact with the bottom. Suspended load is that
material transported within the water column, maintained above the bottom by the turbulence in
the water column. Usually particles entering the suspended load stage are quickly dispersed
whereas particles in the bed-load stage travel in spurts for short distances. Complex entrainmenttransport-deposition cycles lead to large spatial and temporal variations in sediment distribution
within any given estuarine, coastal, or lake environment. The ultimate destination (fate) of
suspended sediment particles depends on the particle size and character and the magnitude of the
currents and associated turbulence that keeps the particles in suspension. The smaller silt and
clay particles have extremely slow settling velocities (less than 0.001 mm/sec) and remain
suspended (because of their size and shape) until aggregation into composite particles permits
settling. The mode of transport depends on the size, shape, and submerged weight of the
sediment particles and the character of flow. Coarse-grained, noncohesive sands (greater than 62
microns) are transported as individual grains, tending to be frequently in contact with the bed.
Fine-grained sediment (less than 62 microns) travels mostly in suspension, approaching the bed
only when flow intensity is very low or when, in the case of cohesive sediment, individual grains
collect into composite particles that settle through the water column. The transport processes of
coarse and fine sediments are substantially different.
3-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
b. Redeposition. If mound dynamics calculations determine that sediment will be eroded
from an open-water disposal site, the destination of that sediment must be determined. A numerical or physical modeling approach to the problem will provide an indication of the amount
eroded and the ultimate fate of the resuspended sediment. The use of field observations to
determine the fate of resuspended sediment is rather difficult. The depths of deposits are seldom
large enough for accurate measurement by standard hydrographic surveying methods. Analytical
techniques for predicting the long-term fate of resuspended sediments are extensions of the work
used to determine how much sediment leaves the site. Knowledge of hydrodynamic conditions at
the site is required to calculate directions and rates of transport out of the site. Hydrodynamic
conditions along the projected path may then be predicted so that zones of deposition can be
identified. In tidal flows, sediment may deposit temporarily and be resuspended again during
strength of flow. Because of the oscillatory nature of the flow, the resuspended sediment may
move in and out of the disposal site or may simply oscillate. Describing this process analytically
requires a more detailed knowledge of the hydrodynamic conditions at the disposal site than is
usually available for an analytic study. Such an effort is often reduced to computing a path,
assuming a distribution, and concluding that the redeposited sediment thickness is either
negligible or significant.
3.3.4 Numerical models for open-water disposal. Several predictive models listed in
Table 3-1 were developed through the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) and the
Dredging Research Program (DRP) to address short-term fate factors of dredged material
disposed in open water. These models are modules in the Automated Dredging and Disposal
Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS) (Schroeder and Palermo 1990). Developed at the
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), ADDAMS is an interactive personal
computer-based design and analysis system containing models to assist engineers, planners, and
dredging operations managers in predicting the fate and behavior of dredged material. The
general goal of ADDAMS is to provide state-of-the-art computer-based tools that will increase
the accuracy, reliability, and cost effectiveness of dredged material management activities in a
timely manner. To download programs in ADDAMS and for further information, go to
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elmodels/addainfo.html and look under the title Dredged Material
Disposal Management Models.
3.3.4.1 STFATE. This model simulates the areal distribution of dredged material within the
water column and the resulting bathymetric distribution of dredged material from individual
placement events from a hopper dredge. It is appropriate for instantaneous discharges from
barges or scows and sequential discharges from hopper dredges. The STFATE model was
developed from the DIFID (DIsposal From an Instantaneous Dump) model, originally prepared
by Koh and Chang (1973). STFATE is a module of ADDAMS and can be run on DOS-based
IBM-compatible personal computers having 80386 or higher processors with math coprocessors.
An executable version of the STFATE model and supporting documentation can be downloaded
at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elmodels/addainfo.html.

3-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
Table 3-1. USACE Short-Term Fate Models
Model
STFATE (Short-Term Fate of dredged material
disposed in open water)

Description
Predicts the behavior of dredged material within the minutes and hours
following its release from a hopper dredge or barge

MDFATE (Multiple Dump Fate of Dredged

Material)1

Expands the capabilities of STFATE to predict the dredged material footprint

and morphology for multiple disposal events

CDFATE (formerly DROPMIX)

Incorporates the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) to predict

geometry and dilution characteristics in the near-field mixing zone from surface
or near-surface dredged material discharges

MDFATE will be replaced by the Multiple Placement FATE Model (MPFATE).

3.3.4.2 MDFATE Model.

a. MDFATE is a site management tool that expands the capabilities of STFATE. The model
simulates the change in bathymetry from multiple disposal events at one site. It is used to predict
the creation of navigation hazards, examine site capacity, and conduct long-term site planning.
MDFATE uses modified versions of STFATE for simulations. The disposal site bathymetry can
be automatically generated (flat or sloping), or actual bathymetric data from an ASCII file can be
imported. The suspended solids and conservative tracer portions of STFATE are removed, so the
modified STFATE version models the convective descent, dynamic collapse, and passive
diffusion process only. A recent addition to MDFATE is a capping module, which simulates the
slow release of material from a barge/hopper, so it may spread evenly on the bottom with a
minimum amount of momentum imparted to the primary mound. An executable version of the
MDFATE model and supporting documentation can be downloaded at
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elmodels/addainfo.html.
b. A multiple placement model, MPFATE, for representing sedimentation and adjustment of
dredged material during placement operations is being developed to improve the numerical
representation of short- and long-term processes of dredged material placement in open water for
multiple placements and will replace the legacy model, MDFATE. The objective of MPFATE,
which will replace the legacy model, MDFATE, is to incorporate improved understanding of
sediment processes and dredged material placement practices into a numerical framework that
permits dredged material managers to predict interim and final mound configurations at openwater placement sites. Initial development has been focused on improving and extending model
capabilities related to assisting the dredged material manager in determining optimum spatial
distributions of placement and short-term physical processes. Future development will focus on
long-term processes of transport by waves and currents, consolidation, and slope adjustments
(avalanching) during placement. Upon completion of MPFATE development, dredged material
managers will have a tool capable of providing improved and more reliable information to assist
in balancing and optimizing site objectives, such as maximizing site capacity, meeting navigation
requirements, and complying with natural resource agency regulations and requirements.
3.3.4.3 CDFATE (formerly DROPMIX). The impact of discharges on the receiving water
environment is of central concern in dredging operations. As such, the creation, migration, and

3-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
dilution of a discharge plume are of considerable interest as is the size of a required mixing zone
for adequate dilution. A mixing zone is a limited volume of water that serves as a zone of initial
dilution in the immediate vicinity of the point where material is discharged into the receiving
waters. Within this zone, the quality of the receiving waters, once mixed with the discharged
effluent, may not meet water quality criteria or standards otherwise applicable to the receiving
water. Most states limit the size of the mixing zone and, therefore, the area where water quality
standards may be isolated, to as small a size as practical.
3.3.4.4 Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX). Several mathematical models are
available for estimating the growth and movement of discharge plumes caused by subaqueous
emissions. One of these models, the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX), was
specifically developed to provide a predictive tool for conventional or toxic pollutant discharges
into waterways. The CORMIX modeling system was originally developed to address bottom
discharges with low suspended solids concentrations or buoyant bottom discharges. Such
discharges are typically associated with municipal wastewater, industrial waste outfalls, cooling
water, and freshwater releases in saline environments. The CORMIX model focuses on the
geometry and dilution characteristics of the initial or near-field mixing zone. The CORMIX
modeling system consists of three separate modules: CORMIX1, CORMIX2, and CORMIX3.
CORMIX1 is used to examine submerged single-port discharges; CORMIX2 is used to address
submerged multiport diffuser discharges; and CORMIX3 is used to analyze surface discharges
from channels. Dredged disposal operations, on the other hand, typically involve surface or nearsurface discharges with high suspended solids concentrations. Consequently, the existing
CORMIX package is not directly applicable to dredged material disposal operations (Chase
1994). However, CORMIX may be used if surface discharges from dredge disposal operations
are made equivalent to the mirror image of bottom discharges. This fundamental assumption is
the foundation for the Dredging Operations Mixing Zone Model (DROPMIX), now known as
CDFATE.
3.3.4.5 CDFATE was developed to adequately address the need for modeling surface or nearsurface dredge discharges (Havis 1994). The CDFATE program takes data describing typical
dredge discharge activities and uses the CORMIX modeling system (with slightly modified
output routines) to predict water column concentrations and dispersion of the plume into the
water column resulting from pipeline discharges and other discharges of a continuous nature into
waterways. The CDFATE routines transform the dredge discharge information (negatively or
neutrally buoyant surface discharge) into an equivalent, mirror-image, positively or neutrally
buoyant, bottom discharge scenario with sedimentation. CORMIX analyzes the bottom discharge
case to generate information on the mixing zone and turbidity/dissolved contaminant plume. This
information includes the location and concentrations of effluent within the receiving waters.
3.4 Open-Water Disposal Site Designation/Selection.
3.4.1 Introduction. This paragraph provides an overview of considerations for the identification,
evaluation, and selection for final designation of open-water disposal sites. The primary references
for this section are the Technical Framework (USEPA/USACE 2004) and the General Approach
to Designation for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (USEPA/USACE 1984). Detailed
technical guidance on conducting field surveys and analyzing and evaluating site-specific

3-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
conditions is presented in Pequegnat, Gallaway, and Wright (1990). Information concerning
existing ocean disposal sites can be obtained on the Ocean Disposal Database (ODD)
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/database.html). The Ocean Disposal Database represents a
compilation of ocean dredged material disposal activities that have occurred since 1976 at USEPAdesignated sites or sites selected by the USACE. The general approach for ocean site designation
presented in this chapter is broadly applicable for open-water disposal under Section 404.
3.4.2 Site selection considerations. Knowledge of site characteristics is necessary for
assessments of potential physical impacts and contaminant impacts at open-water sites. The
following site characteristics may be needed for assessments:
a. Currents and wave climate.
b. Water depth and bathymetry.
c. Potential changes in circulation patterns or erosion patterns related to refraction of waves
around the disposal mound.
d. Bottom sediment physical characteristics including sediment grain-size differences.
e. Sediment deposition versus erosion.
f. Salinity and temperature distributions.
g. Normal levels and fluctuations of background turbidity.
h. Chemical and biological characterization of the site and environs (for example, a relative
abundance of various habitat types in the vicinity, relative adaptability of the benthos to sediment
deposition, presence of submerged aquatic vegetation, and presence of unique, rare, endangered,
or isolated populations).
i. Potential for recolonization of the site.
j. Previous placement operations.
k. Availability of suitable equipment for placement at the site.
l. Ability to monitor the disposal site adequately for management decisions.
m. Technical capability to implement management options should they appear desirable.
n. Ability to control placement of the material.
o. Volumetric capacity of the site.
p. Other site uses and potential conflicts with other activities (for example, sport or
commercial fisheries, shipping lanes, and military use).

3-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
q. Established site management or monitoring requirements.
r. Public and regulatory acceptability to use of the site.
3.4.3 Site designation under the MPRSA.
3.4.3.1 The intent of the criteria for site selection is to avoid unacceptable, adverse impacts
on biota and other amenities. This requires that sufficient information be assembled to provide
reasonable assurance that the criteria will be met. As a rule, the majority of amenities, such as
fishing, shipping, mineral extraction, spawning, breeding, nursery grounds, and cultural or
historical features, may be addressed with existing information. If so, primary concern is then
directed to biological resources in and adjacent to the proposed disposal site. These concerns are
addressed by ensuring that no geographically limited or especially significant living resources are
present within or outside the site in such a location as to be adversely impacted by movement of
material off the site if it is a dispersive site (USEPA/USACE 1984). Resources within the site
may suffer physical impacts from the deposition of the dredged material, and sites should be
designated/selected to ensure such that impacts are acceptable.
3.4.3.2 The criteria provide that ocean dumping sites will be designated beyond the edge of
the continental shelf, wherever feasible, and at other sites that have been historically used unless
monitoring data or other information indicate the potential for significant adverse impacts.
3.4.3.3 If little is known concerning the resources or the characteristics of the site and its
environs, appropriate investigations and studies must be performed. The USACE has prepared an
ocean-site designation manual (Pequegnat, Gallaway, and Wright 1990), which provides useful
guidance and procedures for conducting the appropriate investigations and studies. In addition,
overview manuals for site designation have been developed (USACE/USEPA 1984; USEPA
1986).
3.4.4 Site specification under CWA.
3.4.4.1 The specification of placement sites under the CWA is addressed specifically in the
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Guidelines establish a sequential review of a proposed project,
the first step of which is avoidance of adverse impacts to the aquatic environment through an
evaluation of practicable alternatives that would have less impact on that environment (40 CFR
230.10[a]). In general, the same concerns as given above for ocean-site designation are applied to
site specification under the CWA: potential impacts on physical and chemical characteristics of
the aquatic ecosystem, potential impacts on biological characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem,
potential effects on special aquatic sites, and potential effects on human use characteristics
(40 CFR 230 Subpart C-F).
3.4.4.2 The specification of an appropriate site under the CWA takes into account that CWA
placement sites may be located in estuaries, rivers, and lakes that may have limited assimilative
capacity. Geographic and operational constraints as well as site capacity may severely constrain
potentially available sites.

3-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.4.4.3 There are also special concerns if the site is a special aquatic site (for example, a
wetland) as defined in Section 404 (40 CFR 230 Subpart E). For example, if the proposed
placement site is a special aquatic site and the activity for which placement is required is not
water-dependent, the Guidelines presume that nonaquatic alternatives are available (40 CFR
230.10[a][3]).
3.4.4.4 Physical compatibility between the characteristics of the dredged material and proposed placement site is not the sole factor to be used in determining compliance with the Guidelines. Other requirements of the Guidelines, specifically Section 230.10, must also be considered
in the evaluation of dredged materials. In addition, under Section 230.11(g), the Guidelines
require that the cumulative impact of the individual discharges of dredged material on the aquatic
ecosystem be included in the evaluation of individual permits. Therefore, dredged material
placement, like all other discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,
cannot be permitted unless it has been demonstrated to comply with all requirements of the CWA
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
3.4.4.5 The USACE and the USEPA may jointly identify, in advance, sites generally suitable
or unsuitable for discharge of dredged material (40 CFR 230.80). The advanced identification of
sites does not permit or prohibit the discharge of dredged or fill material, but does facilitate
individual or general permit application and processing. Under the authority of Section 404(c),
however, the USEPA may prohibit, withdraw, or restrict the discharge of dredged or fill material
if it determines that the discharge would have unacceptable adverse effects.
3.4.5 General approach to site designation.
3.4.5.1 Background.
a. A proposed ocean dredged material disposal site must fulfill certain basic requirements if it
is to be feasible for use by a USACE district or a permit applicant. The site must be located
within an economically feasible distance from the point of dredging. In addition, the site must be
established so as to minimize potential harm to critical resources as well as to minimize
interference with other beneficial yet incompatible uses of the ocean environment.
b. The designation approach jointly developed by the USEPA and the USACE presented
herein (from USEPA/USACE 1984) uses a hierarchical framework that initially establishes the
broadest economically and operationally feasible area of consideration for site location. A stepby-step sequence of activities is then conducted to eliminate critical and/or unsuitable subareas.
c. Further evaluation of alternative sites within this area entails various levels of assessment
as suggested by the sensitivity and value of critical resources or uses at risk and potential for
unreasonable adverse impact presented by the dredged material to be disposed.
d. Site designation criteria are applied to the information assembled through this process, and
a final site or sites are selected for designation. This concept is illustrated in Figures 3-7 through
3-9. This site designation study procedure builds upon the basic screening concept discussed by

3-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
Pequegnat (1984) and was specifically developed to make maximum use of existing information
and data in the site designation process.
3.4.5.2 General process. The site designation study process is structured into three major
phases in USEPA/USACE (1984). Phase I includes the delineation of the general area being
considered for locating a site and the identification and collection of the necessary information on
critical resources and uses and on the physical and environmental processes for the area. Phase II
involves the identification of candidate sites within the area based on the information collected
and processed in Phase I. Phase III is the evaluation of candidate sites, selection of a
recommended site or sites for designation, and the development of a site management plan.
a. Phase I. In this phase (Figure 3-10), the geographic area of consideration must first be
defined. Reasonable distance of haul is the determining factor and will be affected by considerations such as available dredging equipment, energy use constraints, costs, and safety considerations. Then, within this zone of siting feasibility (ZSF) (additional details for determining ZSF
are provided in USEPA/USACE 1984), a preliminary analysis, based on available data, is applied
to identify and map reach boundaries for critical resources as well as zones of incompatibility.
Such critical areas and resources may include clustered areas of geographically limited fisheries
and shellfisheries, navigation lanes, beaches, and marine sanctuaries. Upon completion of this
preliminary analysis, preliminary screening should be conducted, based on the general type of
expected dredged material and a general knowledge of physical processes. This screening should
delineate bottom areas that may be incompatible with the anticipated sediment to be disposed,
such as silt on a sand bottom. In addition, the screening should ensure the establishment of an
appropriate buffer zone around each such identified critical area or resource.
b. Phase II. Except in rare cases, the preliminary analysis and screening eliminate critical
resources and incompatible areas from further consideration. The remaining areas may be
considered as candidate areas for location of an ocean dredged material disposal site or sites. At
this point, the selection of alternative sites for further evaluation becomes a matter of informed
judgment. During Phase II, issues on site location, critical areas and resources, or other relevant
issues should be identified and resolved and a determination made on additional data requirements (Figure 3-10). Candidate sites are identified for further evaluation considering environmental and other factors such as disposal management requirements. Phase II is complete when
adequate data and information are available to address the following 11 specific factors
(40 CFR 228.6) for each site under consideration. If additional data are required, steps should be
initiated immediately to obtain the information.
(1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from coast.
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living
resources in adult or juvenile phases.
(3) Location in relation to beaches or other amenity areas.

3-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-7. Example Plot of Important Marine Resources (after USEPA/USACE 1984)

3-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-8. General Representation of the

Screening Concept for Siting (after USEPA/
USACE 1984)

Figure 3-9. Overlay Process for Screening

Out Sensitive and Incompatible Use Areas
(after USEPA/USACE 1984)

(4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of and proposed methods of
release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any.
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including
prevailing current velocity, if any.
(7) Existence and effects of present or previous discharges and dumping in the area
(including cumulative effects).
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish and
shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
(9) Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data or by trend
assessment or baseline surveys.
(10) Potential for the development or recruitment of nuisance species within the disposal site.

3-32

Figure 3-10. Phases of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Dite Designation Protocol (after USEPA/USACE 1984)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

3-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural features
of historical importance.
c. Phase III. Phase III consists of the evaluation of the candidate sites and the selection of a
site(s) for designation (Figure 3-10). The environmental suitability of each candidate site for
designation as an ocean dredged material disposal site will need to be determined. The necessary
evaluations are to be based on Section 228.6, Specific Criteria for Site Selection, of
USEPA/USACE (1984). Using the evaluations under Section 228.6, final determination of the
environmental suitability of each candidate site is made in accordance with Section 228.5 of
USEPA/USACE (1984).
3.4.5.3 New sites versus existing sites.
a. The process outlined in the preceding paragraphs is specifically structured for the identification and selection for final designation of required new sites for the ocean disposal of dredged
material. However, with certain exceptions, this process also applies to designation studies for
historically used dredged material disposal sites that the USEPA has designated on an interim
basis.
b. The primary objective of designation studies for historically used interim-designated sites
is to evaluate the suitability of each such site for continued use. Establishment of the initial
geographic zone of consideration (Phase I) for the study should be based on the existing site
location and on the estimated zone of potential impact, which considers both existing as well as
anticipated future placement requirements for each such site.
c. If this evaluation indicates that the existing site is environmentally acceptable for
continued disposal of dredged material, it should be the prime candidate for final designation.
However, any possible environmental or operational advantages that might be gained by a
relocation of the site should be investigated. If there is no substantive environmental or
operational advantage in relocating the site, the final designation of the existing interimdesignated site is recommended.
d. In the event that the evaluationusing the 11 specific factors and the following 5 general
criteriashows that the existing site is environmentally unacceptable for continued use, a search
for an alternate site or sites should be immediately initiated:
(1) The dumping of materials into the ocean is permitted only at sites or in areas selected to
minimize the interference of disposal activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shell fisheries and regions of heavy
commercial or recreational navigation.
(2) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites are chosen so that temporary perturbations in
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal
operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater
levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach,
shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shell fishery.

3-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
(3) If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing
disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria
for site selection set forth in Section 228.5-228.6, the use of such sites is terminated as soon as
suitable alternative disposal sites can be designated.
(4) The sizes of ocean disposal sites are limited in order to localize for identification and
control any immediate adverse impacts and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring
and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and
location of any disposal site are determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation
study.
(5) Wherever feasible, the USACE designates ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the
continental shelf and other such sites that have been historically used.
This search follows the screening and evaluation sequence delineated for new sites.
3.4.5.4 Summary.
a. The foregoing process should lead to a determination of the most environmentally
acceptable site. It also may indicate that more than one site is environmentally acceptable. In
such cases other factors, like disposal costs and site management requirements, should be
analyzed in the final selection of the site(s) to be designated.
b. It is possible the evaluation will determine that none of the candidate sites can be
designated without unreasonable adverse environmental impact. If so, the site selection process
must be repeated, broadening the initial area of consideration; a decision must be made that
ocean disposal is not a feasible disposal alternative; or a decision made to seek a waiver of
environmental concerns based on overriding economic considerations (Section 103[d] of the
MPRSA).
3.5 Evaluation of Direct Physical Effects and Site Capacity.
3.5.1 Direct physical impacts.
3.5.1.1 Direct physical impacts almost always result from the disposal of dredged material.
Benthic organisms at the disposal site may be buried and may not be able to migrate through the
material. If the substrate is changed from what was previously present, the organisms that
recolonize the site may be different from those present prior to disposal. Suspended solids may
also affect water column organisms although these effects are uncommon because of the large
dilution factor. Both the USACE and the USEPA have generated a large database on potential
physical effects through the large number of site designation surveys performed nationwide.
3.5.1.2 Appendix C, Confined Aquatic Disposal, of this EM provides summaries of the
available technical literature concerning impacts to biological resources from physical
environmental alterations associated with dredging and dredged material disposal activities.
Major classes of disposal-related alterations include suspended sediments, sedimentation, and
chemical release. Major categories of biological resources include fishes, shrimps and crabs,
3-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
shellfishes (for example, oysters and clams), and benthic assemblages. Potential physical effects
are addressed during the site designation/specification process. If at all possible, a site should not
be located where significant undesirable effects will occur on or off the site.
3.5.2 Site capacity.
3.5.2.1 Background.
a. To manage an open-water dredged material disposal site, it is essential to know the
physical capacity of the site (that is, how much material should be dumped at the site and what
the capability is of the material to remain onsite under various environmental conditions of
waves and currents). Long-term management of aquatic disposal sites also requires an
understanding of how much area the dredged material mound encompasses, when the mound
encroaches on the site boundaries, how much material leaves the site and, perhaps, where the
material ultimately goes.
b. There is no all-encompassing definition of site capacity for open-water sites. However,
capacity can be described in terms of physical, chemical, and biological factors. For
nondispersive sites, the capacity can be constrained by volumetric limits (filling to a limiting
water depth) or by limits on the area of the bottom covered by the material. For dispersive or
nondispersive sites, the capacity can be constrained by the ability of the site to dilute solids or
contaminants in the water column to acceptable limits, usually within the mixing zone.
c. Evaluations of the physical capacity of predominantly nondispersive sites to hold the
dredged material without resuspension and transport of disposed material by surface waves or
interference with navigation traffic or other operational conflicts must also be conducted. This
evaluation may involve setting a maximum height for mounds of placed dredged material or
estimating mounding rates over the long term, taking into account erosion and consolidation of
the mound (Dortch et al. 1990; Scheffner 1991; Poindexter-Rollings 1990). Site capacity of
predominantly dispersive sites is not normally a concern.
3.5.2.2 Physical aspects. The site conditions (depths, currents, and surface area), physical
nature of the dredged material and site (native) material (such as grain size and plasticity), type of
dredging operation (mechanical, hopper, or pipeline), and type of discharge determine the
dispersive and nondispersive nature of the site and/or govern capping and contained aquatic
disposal (CAD) construction requirements. Volumetric limitations (depending on which type of
placement alternative is used) depend on aspects such as the portions of material reaching the
bottom and remaining in the water column, extent of spread, mixing/dispersion behavior,
limiting depth, mounding characteristics, lateral constraint geometry, and long-term material
transport from mound by erosive forces. Prior to placement, the physical characteristics of the
material should be evaluated to determine if it is compatible with the use of a particular site.
Numerical models are frequently used to predict the behavior of the material during and after
disposal (see paragraph 3.3.4) and, in some instances, monitoring may be needed to verify the
model predictions. The physical capacity of predominantly nondispersive sites to hold dredged
material without resuspension and transport of disposed material by surface waves or interference
with navigation traffic or other operational conflicts must also be evaluated. This may involve

3-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
setting a maximum height for mounds of disposed dredged material or estimating mounding rates
over the long term, taking into account erosion and mound consolidation (Dortch et al. 1990;
Scheffner 1991; Poindexter-Rollings 1990).
3.5.2.3 Contaminant (chemical) aspects. Chemical considerations (if required) for site
capacity center on the question of dredged material contaminant release and toxicity, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification in organisms. The possible migration pathways of contaminants
from open-water sites are water column and benthic. Water column contaminant impacts are
considered from the standpoint of water quality (chemical) and toxicity (biological) while benthic
impacts are considered from the standpoint of toxicity and bioaccumulation. Open-water
contaminant testing and assessments are described in more detail in paragraph 3.6. Contaminant
control measures may be required to reduce contaminant impact to acceptable levels. These
control measures to minimize contaminant impacts may include operational modifications,
submerged discharge, lateral confinement, treatment, and capping. They are described in
paragraph 3.7.
3.5.2.4 Biological aspects. Biological considerations for site capacity center on changes in
abundance, diversity, and organism community structure. These factors can be considered within
both the site and the adjacent areas (Section 404) or only within adjacent areas (Section 103).
Biological responses due only to the placement of clean material are also considered. Approach
for evaluation requires knowledge of biological resources and data from monitoring programs.
Guidance on biological considerations in open-water sites is found in Appendix D, Plant
Materials for Beneficial Use Sites.
3.6 Evaluation of Contaminant Pathways from Open-Water Disposal.
3.6.1 Purpose. The main emphasis of contaminant pathway testing for open-water disposal is
aimed at determining if a given dredged material is acceptable for open-water disposal from the
standpoint of contamination. This section of the EM describes the pathways associated with
open-water placement and briefly describes the procedures for contaminant pathway testing and
evaluation. USEPA/USACE (1991) (Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean
Disposal Testing Manual, referred to as the Ocean Testing Manual [OTM]) and USEPA/USACE
(1998) (Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing
Manual, referred to as the Inland Testing Manual [ITM]) contain detailed testing procedures and
protocols for open-water placement, so these detailed testing procedures are not repeated in this
EM. Both documents are available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/guidance.html.
3.6.2 Description of open-water contaminant pathways.
3.6.2.1 As shown in Figure 3-11, the potential contaminant pathways for open-water disposal
are water column and benthic. Water-column contaminant impacts must be considered from the
standpoint of water quality (chemical) and toxicity (biological). Benthic impacts must be
considered from the standpoint of toxicity and bioaccumulation, which is the accumulation of
contaminants in the tissues of organisms through any route, including respiration, ingestion, or
direct contact with contaminated water, sediment, or dredged material.

3-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-11. Potential Contaminant Pathways for Open-Water Disposal

3.6.2.2 Potential water column contaminant effects are evaluated by comparing contaminant
release in an elutriate of the material to be disposed with applicable water quality criteria or
standards as appropriate. In addition, acute water column toxicity bioassays considering initial
mixing may be needed. For disposal operations under the MPRSA, specific criteria for water
quality and water column toxicity must be met, and specific allowances are specified for initial
mixing. For disposal operations under the CWA, water quality and water column toxicity
standards and allowances for initial mixing are specified by the States as a part of the Section 401
water-quality certification requirements.
3.6.2.3 A number of control measures are available to minimize impacts of losses by these
pathways (see paragraph 3.7). A technical framework (USACE/USEPA 2004; Francingues et al.
1985) has been developed that identifies standardized testing procedures for dredged materials to
determine appropriate disposal controls.

3-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.6.3 Tiered testing and evaluation.
3.6.3.1 A tiered approach to open-water contaminant testing and assessments is described in
detail in the OTM and ITM. This approach is designed to aid in generating necessary toxicity and
bioaccumulation information, but not more information than is necessary. This allows optimal
use of resources by focusing the least effort on dredging operations where the potential (or lack
thereof) for unacceptable adverse impact is clear, and expending the most effort on operations
requiring more extensive investigation to determine the potential (or lack thereof) for impact.
3.6.3.2 To achieve this objective, the procedures in these manuals are arranged in a series of
tiers, or levels of intensity of investigation. The initial tier uses readily available information that
may be sufficient for evaluation in some cases. Dredging operations that obviously have low
environmental impact generally should not require intensive investigation to reach a decision and
may be excluded from any further testing or evaluation for contaminant-related impacts. Evaluation at successive tiers is based on more extensive and specific information that may be more
time-consuming and expensive to generate, but that allows more and more comprehensive evaluations of the potential for environmental effects. A tiered, or hierarchical, approach to testing
and evaluation allows the use of a necessary and sufficient level of testing for each specific
dredging operation. Overviews of the tiered testing and evaluation procedures used in the OTM
and ITM are presented in the two following sections.
3.6.4 Inland Testing Manual (ITM) tiered testing and evaluation overview. The ITM uses a
tiered testing approach as shown in Figure 3-12 and described below.
3.6.4.1 Tier I.
a. Tier I involves an examination of existing information to determine whether or not there is
reason to believe that the dredged material needs to be tested for potential adverse effects, and to
identify any contaminants of concern relative to testing in later tiers. Material may be excluded
from further testing if there is reasonable assurance that it is not a carrier of contaminants, or it is
adjacent and similar to the disposal site material, and dispersal of the discharge can be controlled.
Some limited testing may be necessary to confirm such exclusions.
b. If an evaluation of the dredging site indicates that the dredged material is not a carrier of
contaminants, testing may not be necessary. Such situations are most likely to arise if the
dredged material is composed primarily of sand, gravel, and/or inert materials; the sediments are
from locations far removed from sources of contaminants; or the sediments are from depths
deposited in preindustrial times and not exposed to modern sources of pollution. However,
potential impacts from natural mineral deposits must also be considered.
c. Testing may also not be necessary where the discharge site is adjacent to the excavation
site and subject to the same sources of contaminants, and materials at the two sites are
substantially similar (Section 230.60[c]). However, some physical and chemical testing may be
necessary to confirm that the two sites are substantially similar. The rationale behind this
exclusion from testing is that when the discharge and excavation sites are adjacent, the concentration of contaminants in the two sites is not substantially different, and the geochemical

3-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
environments are similar, then the bioavailability of contaminants at the two sites is likely to be
similar. This exclusion can apply even if the dredged material is a carrier of contaminants,
providing that dissolved materials and suspended particulates can be controlled to prevent
carrying pollutants to less contaminated areas.
3.6.4.2 Tier II. Tier II is concerned solely with sediment and water chemistry. Tier II provides
useful information through screening tools, but not all possible determinations can be reached at
this tier. It presently consists of measuring dissolved contaminants, evaluating State Water
Quality Standard (WQS) compliance using a numerical mixing model, and evaluating theoretical
bioaccumulation potential for nonpolar organic chemicals.
a. Water column impact. There are two approaches for the Tier II water column evaluation
for WQS compliance. One approach is to use the numerical models as a screen, assuming that all
of the contaminants in the dredged material are released into the water column during the
disposal process. The other approach applies the same model with results from chemical analysis
of the elutriate test.

Figure 3-12. Overview of the ITM Tiered Testing Approach

3-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
(1) Numerical and model screening. Whenever contaminant concentrations in a dredged
material discharge are above WQS, there is some limited initial mixing zone (or zone of dilution)
in the vicinity of the discharge point where receiving water quality standards may be exceeded.
The Guidelines recognize that it is not possible to set universal standards for the acceptable size
of mixing zones since receiving water conditions vary so much from one location to another. The
Guidelines therefore instruct that, as part of the dredging permit process, the size of any proposed
mixing zone should be estimated and submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting
authority must then consider receiving water conditions at the proposed site and decide if the
proposed mixing zone size is acceptable. Many State regulatory agencies may specify a limit to
mixing zone dimensions as a condition in granting the State water quality certification. In this
case the mixing zone necessary to meet applicable standards must be smaller than the specified
limits. The size of a mixing zone depends on a number of factors including the contaminant or
dredged material concentrations in the discharge; concentrations in the receiving water; the
applicable water quality standards; discharge density and flow rate; receiving water flow rate and
turbulence; geometry of the discharge vessel, pipeline, or outlet structure; and the receiving water
boundaries. Since the maximum allowable mixing zone specified by regulatory agencies is
usually on the order of hundreds of meters, the evaluation of mixing zone sizes must necessarily
be based on calculation of near-field dilution and dispersion processes. There are a variety of
possible estimation techniques for most real mixing zone problems, but any choice of a suitable
technique involves some tradeoffs. The available techniques may be thought of as ranging from
sophisticated computer models, which are sometimes capable of very accurate predictions, to
simple approximations that yield order-of-magnitude estimates. The ITM lists a summary of
discharge types, hydrodynamic conditions, and applicable models and methods for evaluation of
initial mixing. The STFATE program for barge and hopper discharge and information on the
CORMIX program are described in paragraph 3.3.4.4.
(2) Elutriate testing. For an elutriate analysis, a numerical mixing model is run with chemical
data obtained from an elutriate test conducted on the dredged material. Elutriate tests involve
mixing dredged material with dredging site water and allowing the mixture to settle. The portion
of the dredged material that is considered to have the potential to impact the water column is the
supernatant remaining after undisturbed settling and centrifugation. Chemical analysis of the
elutriate allows a direct comparison, after allowance for mixing, to the applicable WQS. The
standard elutriate analysis and the analytical procedures for measuring constituents in the water
are provided in the ITM.
b. Benthic impact. The currently available Tier II procedure for evaluating potential benthic
impact consists of evaluating the Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential (TBP) of Nonpolar
Organic Chemicals calculated according to the guidance provided in the ITM. The TBP is an
approximation of the equilibrium concentration in tissues if the dredged material in question
were the only source of contaminant to the organisms. The TBP calculation in Tier II is applied
as a coarse screen to predict the magnitude of bioaccumulation likely to be associated with
nonpolar organic contaminants in the dredged material.
3.6.4.3 Tier III. Tier III employs well-defined, nationally accepted bioassays including water
column laboratory toxicity tests, whole sediment laboratory toxicity tests, and whole sediment
bioaccumulation tests. Appropriately sensitive organisms are recommended, including
3-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
benchmark species for evaluating the sensitivity of regional species. Summaries of test conditions and test acceptability criteria for all recommended bioassay species are also provided.
Toxicity testing emphasizes acute responses, generally survival. Water column toxicity evaluations consider mixing of the dredged material at the discharge site. Benthic bioaccumulation
testing provides for the determination of bioavailability through 28-day exposure tests. Tier III
testing usually provides sufficient information for use in the overall decision-making process for
compliance with the Guidelines.
a. Water column toxicity tests. Tier III considers the effects on water column organisms, after
allowance for mixing, of dissolved contaminants plus those associated with suspended
particulates. The toxicity and mixing data results are generated as described in the ITM.
b. Benthic toxicity tests. Evaluation of benthic (sediment) toxicity tests in Tier III is based on
data generated according to the guidance in the ITM. Dredged material is predicted to be acutely
toxic to benthic organisms when mean test organism mortality is statistically greater than in the
reference sediment and exceeds mortality (or other appropriate end point) in the reference
sediment by at least 10%. Reference sediment is defined as a sediment, substantially free of
contaminants, that is as similar as practicable to the grain size of the dredged material and the
sediment at the disposal site, and that reflects the conditions that would exist in the vicinity of the
disposal site had no dredged material disposal ever taken place, but had all other influences on
sediment condition taken place.
c. Benthic bioaccumulation. Body burdens of chemicals are of concern for both ecological
and human health reasons. The Tier III benthic bioaccumulation tests are conducted for a subset
of the contaminant of concern list based on the contaminant bioaccumulation properties
discussed in the ITM. These tests provide for the determination of bioavailability through 28-day
exposure tests. For purposes of comparison with an action or tolerance level such as from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the duration of a bioaccumulation test should be sufficient
for organisms to reach steady-state tissue residues for all compounds.
3.6.4.4 Tier IV. Tier IV is used only in certain cases, where results from tests in earlier tiers
are insufficient to determine the potential adverse effects of the material to be discharged. Tier
IV, like Tier III, uses toxicity and bioaccumulation tests. However, toxicity tests may involve
field (rather than laboratory) exposures, different end points (for example, chronic rather than
acute), different species, or longer laboratory exposures. Bioaccumulation tests may involve field
(rather than laboratory) exposures using transplanted or resident organisms, or longer laboratory
exposures. Tier IV can also include benthos studies.
3.6.5 Ocean Disposal Testing Manual tiered testing and evaluation overview. The OTM uses
a tiered testing approach, shown in Figure 3-13, similar to that of the ITM. This procedure also
comprises four tiers (levels) of increasing investigative intensity that generate information to
assist in making ocean disposal decisions. Tiers I and II use existing or easily acquired information and apply relatively inexpensive and rapid tests to predict environmental effects. Tiers III
and IV contain biological evaluations that are more intensive and require field sampling,
laboratory testing, and rigorous data analysis.

3-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-13. Overview of the OTM Tiered Testing Approach

3.6.5.1 The tiered approach and testing evaluations of the OTM and ITM are similar, but
integral to the OTMs tiered testing procedure for evaluating compliance is the Limiting
Permissible Concentration (LPC) as defined by the ocean dumping regulations. The LPC for the
liquid-phase concentration of dredged material in the water column is the concentration that,
after allowance for initial mixing, does not exceed applicable marine water quality criteria or a
toxicity threshold of 0.01 of the acutely toxic concentration. The LPC of the suspended particulate and solid phases is the concentration that will not cause unreasonable toxicity or
bioaccumulation.
3.6.5.2 Potential ocean water column contaminant effects are evaluated by comparing
contaminant release of the material to be disposed in an elutriate with applicable water quality
criteria or standards as appropriate. In addition, acute water column toxicity bioassays considering initial mixing may be needed. For disposal operations under the MPRSA (compared to the
CWA and ITM), applicable marine water quality criteria for water quality and water column
toxicity must be met, and specific allowances are specified for initial mixing. For disposal
operations under the CWA, water quality and water column toxicity standards and allowances for
initial mixing are specified by the States as a part of the Section 401 water quality certification
requirements.

3-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.6.5.3 In assessing potential benthic effects of contaminants under the MPRSA, if the
exclusion criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b) are met, biological testing of the dredged material is not
necessary. If the exclusion criteria are not met, toxicity and bioaccumulation information is
required to evaluate the suitability of the material for disposal. As described above, if disposal is
under the authority of the CWA, a chemical comparison of the material to be disposed and a
reference sediment may be conducted.
3.7 Water Column and Benthic Control Measures for Open-Water Disposal.
3.7.1 Introduction.
3.7.1.1 In cases where evaluations of direct physical impacts, site capacity, or contaminant
pathways indicate that the Criteria or Guidelines will not be met when conventional open-water
disposal techniques are used, a variety of management actions and contaminant control measures
may be considered. Such control measures include operational modifications and water column
and benthic controls. Descriptions of the commonly used management actions and contaminant
controls are given in this paragraph.
3.7.1.2 The primary consideration in selecting management or control options is to identify
the impacts to be addressed by the management or control options and choose an option that best
addresses the issue(s) of concern. The management and contaminant controls discussed in this
section are to be considered and implemented on both a site-specific and case-specific basis.
General considerations for each option are presented within this section. It is important to note
that not all options work under all situations or in all cases. Before any option is selected for
implementation, a thorough review of the material-specific and site-specific conditions and
circumstances should be completed.
3.7.2 Modification of dredging and disposal operations. Modifications of dredging and
disposal operations can be an effective control for both physical effects and water column or
benthic contaminant pathways. For purposes of this paragraph, the term contaminated refers to
material for which isolation from the water column and benthic environment is appropriate
because of potential contaminant effects, while the term clean refers to material found to be
acceptable for open-water placement. The purpose of operational modification as a control is to
reduce water column dispersion and/or spread of material along the bottom. The most obvious
control measure for open-water disposal is a modification in the technique or equipment used for
placement. For example, if water column concentrations of dredged material exceed water
quality criteria or toxicity criteria for a proposed hopper dredge discharge, an operational
modification to clamshell dredging with discharge from barges would reduce the water column
release. Discharge of mechanically dredged material from barges also results in less spread of
material than with hopper discharge. Other operational modifications include constraints on
location of disposal, rate of disposal, and timing of disposal.
3.7.3 Water column controls. This paragraph describes methods (controls) for reducing
dispersion of dredged material in the water column for pipeline discharges, including pipeline
configuration, subaqueous discharge with the addition of diffusers, and tremie technology.

3-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.7.3.1 Pipeline configuration at discharge.
a. Probably the most promising method for controlling the dispersion of dredged material
slurry at open-water pipeline disposal operations involves modifying the pipeline configuration at
the discharge point. Of all the environmental and operational factors affecting the dispersion of
dredged material slurry during open-water pipeline disposal operations, the configuration of the
pipeline at the discharge point appears to be the only parameter that, from a practical point of
view, can be varied to control the characteristics of dispersion effectively. The pattern of dredged
material dispersal is apparently controlled by the configuration of the pipeline at the discharge
point as well as the angle and height of the discharge relative to the water surface (for abovewater discharge) or bottom (for submerged discharge) (see Figure 3-6).
b. Generally speaking, pipeline configurations that minimize water column turbidity tend to
produce fluid mud mounds with steep side slopes, maximum thickness, and minimal areal
coverage. Conversely, those configurations that generate maximum levels of water column
turbidity produce relatively thin fluid mud mounds of maximum areal extent. As the mound
height decreases, the amount of wave-induced resuspension of the surface material also
decreases. This relationship between mound height and areal extent/resuspension potential
should be considered when evaluating the potential short- and long-term impact of a particular
disposal operation. Unfortunately, there is no best pipeline configuration; the design chosen
should be based on the desired dispersal of dredged material in the water column and on the
bottom. Several typical discharge configurations are listed in Table 3-2, and their dispersal
characteristics are described below.
Table 3-2. Effect of Pipeline Configuration on Dredged Material Dispersion
(from Barnard 1978)

Typical Pipeline
Configurations1
Diffuser submerged
90 Elbow with Conical
Expansion Section
(submerged)
90 Elbow (submerged)
90 Elbow with Splashplate
0 with Splashplate
(submerged)
0 with Splashplate (above)
20 Open End (submerged)
0 Open End (submerged)
0 Open End (above)

Water Column
Turbidity
MidSurface Depth
Low
Low
Low
Low/
Medium
Low
Low
Medium

Medium
High
High

Medium
Medium
High
High

High
High
High
High

Height
High

Low
1

The pipeline angle relative to the water surface.

3-45

Fluid Mud Mound

Area
Consolidation
Slope Covered
Rate
High
Low
Low

Low

High

High

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
(1) The high-momentum levels of a simple open-ended pipeline discharging slurry at
4-6 m/sec (13-20 ft/sec) parallel to the water surface cause a great deal of sediment entrainment
into the disposal site water as the slurry jet descends through the water column and impacts on
the bottom. Turbidity levels are generally high and the fluid mud layer is relatively thin and
widely dispersed.
(2) Submerging the discharge just below the water surface may reduce the degree of slurry
dispersion; however, based on the field data, it is difficult to determine how significant this
reduction may be. If the discharge pipe is submerged to a sufficient depth below the surface, a
visible plume may not be apparent.
(3) Mounting a deflector or splashplate at the end of the pipe perpendicular to the slurry flow
creates low discharge angles that can significantly reduce the slurry momentum. Although this
modification tends to disperse the slurry as it is discharged, the momentum loss is apparently
significant enough to cause the dispersed slurry to settle to the bottom relatively quickly, thereby
generating less water column turbidity.
(4) Increasing the angle of the pipeline from 0 to 90 decreases the amount of water column
turbidity generated by a simple submerged discharge. With a simple 90 elbow on the end of the
pipeline, the slurry is discharged vertically toward the bottom with less entrainment of disposal
site water. Upon impact of the slurry at the bottom, its vertical motion is translated into a
horizontal flow, which spreads radially from the impact point. In areas where current velocities
are less than 10 cm/sec (4 in/sec), this configuration produces near-surface turbidity plumes that
are very diffuse, with occasional puddles of higher solids concentrations at varying distances
from the discharge point.
(5) Adding a splashplate to the simple 90 elbow can increase the amount of slurry. With the
end of a 69 cm (27 in) pipeline discharging at a depth of 1 m (3.3 ft) against a splashplate
positioned at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft), the slurry is dispersed at the depth of the splashplate with
traces of surface turbidity visible only within 100 m (328 ft) of the discharge point.
(6) Adding a 15 conical section at the end of the simple 90 elbow can reduce the effective
velocity of the discharge slurry by a factor of 2 or 3 without affecting the production rate of the
dredge. This reduction in slurry velocity tends to decrease the levels of water column turbidity
and increase the mounding tendency of the fluid mud.
3.7.3.2 Submerged discharge.
a. If the placement of the contaminated sediment with surface discharge results in unacceptable water column impacts, or if the anticipated degree of spreading and water column dispersion
for either the contaminated or capping material is unacceptable, submerged discharge is a
potential control measure. It is noted that discharge above water (into air) significantly increases
near-surface turbidity generation (Neal, Henry, and Greene 1978). In the case of contaminated
dredged material, submerged discharge serves to isolate the material from the water column
during at least part of its descent. This isolation can minimize potential chemical releases due to
water column dispersion and significantly reduce entrainment of site water, thereby reducing
bottom spread and the area and volume to be capped. In the case of capping material, the use of

3-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
submerged discharge provides additional
control and accuracy during placement,
thereby potentially reducing the volume of
capping material required.
b. The use of a submerged discharge or
closed conduit of some type to place dredged
material is a second level of control available.
In general, a conduit is used primarily to
ensure more accurate placement of the
material and to reduce the exit velocity during
formation of the surge phase. A conduit
extending from the surface to the bottom
isolates the material from the water column
during descent, reduces entrainment, and
negates the effects of currents and
stratifications. A conduit is a conservative
measure that should be used to overcome
placement problems or in situations where the
moisture content of the material is such that it
would tend to flow on impact rather than
mound.
c. Limited data suggest that both abovewater or submerged discharges perpendicular
to the water surface have lower near-surface
turbidity than horizontal discharges or
discharges at some angle (Schubel and Carter
1978; Neal, Henry, and Greene 1978).
Figure 3-14. Submerged Diffuser
Discharge detector plates help reduce nearsurface turbidity for a horizontal discharge (Schubel and Carter 1978; Neal, Henry, and Greene
1978).
3.7.3.3 Submerged diffuser.
a. A submerged diffuser (Figures 3-14 and 3-15) can be used to provide additional control for
submerged pipeline discharge to reduce discharge velocity, entrainment, and turbulence. It
consists of conical and radial sections joined to form the diffuser assembly, which is mounted to
the end of the discharge pipeline. A small discharge barge is required to position the diffuser and
pipeline vertically in the water column. Positioning the diffuser several feet above the bottom
isolates the discharge from the upper water column. The diffuser design allows material to be
radially discharged parallel to the bottom and with a reduced velocity. The diffuser can also be
used with any hydraulic pipeline operation, including hydraulic pipeline dredges, pump-out from
hopper dredges, and reslurried pump-out from barges.

3-47

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
b. A design for a submerged diffuser system was developed by JBF Corporation as a part of
the Dredged material Research Program (DMRP) (Barnard 1978; Neal, Henry, and Greene
1978). This design consists of a funnel-shaped diffuser, oriented vertically at the end of a
submerged pipeline section, which radially discharges the slurry. The diffuser and pipe section is
attached to a pivot boom system on a discharge barge. Design specifications for this submerged
diffuser system are available in Neal, Henry, and Greene (1978). The design consists of routing
the flow through a vertically oriented 15 axial diffuser with a cross-sectional area ratio of 4:1
followed by a combined turning and radial diffuser section that increases the overall area ratio to
16:1. Therefore, the flow velocity of the slurry prior to discharge is reduced by a factor of 16, yet
the dredge discharge rate (slurry flow velocity the pipeline cross-sectional area) is not affected
in any way by the diffuser. The conical and turning/radial diffuser sections are oriented to form
the diffuser assembly, which is flange mounted to the discharge pipeline. An abrasion-resistant
impingement plate is supported from the diffuser assembly by four to six struts. The parallel
conical surfaces of the radial diffuser and impingement plate slope downward at an angle of 10
from the horizontal so that stones and debris can roll down the sloped surface and automatically
clear the diffuser (Figure 3-15).

Figure 3-15. Submerged Diffuser Profile View

c. The radial discharge area of the diffuser can be adjusted by changing the length of the
struts supporting the impingement plant. In this manner both the thickness and velocity of the
discharged slurry can be controlled. The strut length, which determines not only the slurry
discharge velocity, but also the maximum diameter of an object that will pass through the

3-48

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
diffuser, should be approximately five-sixths of the pipe diameter. Since the gas content of
bottom sediment is often high (5-30% of the in situ volume), the diffuser is also equipped with a
gas collection shroud around the circumference of the radial diffuser section to trap any
sediment-covered gas bubbles before the slurry is discharged. The gas is vented to the
atmosphere through a hose extending from the shroud to the top of the derrick. The diffuser for a
45 cm (18 in) pipeline is approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) tall from impingement plate to mounting
flange and 2.4 m (8 ft) in diameter at its base.
d. A discharge barge must be used in conjunction with the diffuser to provide both support
and the capability for lowering the diffuser (Figure 3-16). The barge also provides a platform for
the diffuser while it is being adjusted, service, or moved to a new site.

Figure 3-16. Discharge Barge Used to Provide both Support and the Capability for
Lowering the Diffuser
e. The diffuser has a great deal of potential for eliminating turbidity in the water column and
maximizing the mounding tendency of the discharged dredged material. The slurry remains in the
pipeline/diffuser until it is discharged at low velocity near the bottom, or below a zone of high
current velocity, thus eliminating all interaction of the slurry with the water column above the
diffuser. This effectively eliminates water column turbidity. Unfortunately, using the diffuser
does not eliminate the impact of the fluid mud on the benthic organisms, nor does it eliminate the
possible resuspension of low-density material at the surface of the fluid mud mound by waves
and ambient currents.
f. A variation of the DMRP diffuser design was used in an equipment demonstration at
Calumet Harbor, IL. Although not constructed to the DMRP specifications, this diffuser
significantly reduced pipeline exit velocity, confined the discharged material to the lower portion

3-49

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
of the water column, and reduced suspended solids in the upper portion of the water column
(Hayes, McLellan, and Truitt 1988). Diffusers have been constructed using the DMRP design
and used at a habitat creation project in the Chesapeake Bay (Earhart, Clarke, and Shipley 1988),
and at a Superfund pilot dredging project at New Bedford Harbor, MA, involving subaqueous
capping (U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, 1990). At the Chesapeake Bay site, the
diffuser was used to effectively achieve dredged material mounding prior to placement of a layer
of oyster shell to provide substrate for attachment of oyster spat. At the New Bedford site, the
diffuser was used to place contaminated sediment in an excavated subaqueous cell and was
effective in reducing sediment resuspension and in controlling placement of contaminated
sediment. Diffusers have also been successfully used to place and cap contaminated sediments at
projects in Rotterdam Harbor in The Netherlands (dAngremond, de Jong, and de Waard 1984),
and Antwerp Harbor in Belgium (Van Wijck and Smits 1991).
3.7.3.4 Gravity-fed downpipe (tremie).
a. Tremie equipment can be used for submerged discharge of either mechanically or
hydraulically dredged material. The equipment consists of a large-diameter conduit extending
vertically from the surface through the water column to some point near or above the bottom.
The conduit provides the desired isolation of the discharge from the upper water column and
improves placement accuracy. However, because the conduit is a large-diameter straight vertical
section, there is little reduction in momentum or impact energy over conventional surface
discharge. The weight and rigid nature of the conduit require a sound structural design and
consideration of the forces due to currents and waves.
b. The Japanese have used tremie technology in the design of specialized conveyor barges for
capping operations (Togashi 1983; Sanderson and McKnight 1986). This equipment consists of a
tremie conduit attached to a barge equipped with a conveyor (Figure 3-17). The material is
initially placed in the barge mechanically. The conveyor then mechanically feeds the material to
the tremie conduit. A telescoping feature of the tremie allows placement at depths of up to
approximately 12 m (40 ft). Anchor and winch systems are used to reposition the barge by
swinging it side to side and forward.

Figure 3-17. Gravity-Fed Downpipe (Tremie)

3-50

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.7.3.5 Hopper dredge pump-down. Some hopper dredges have pump-out capability by which
material from the hoppers is discharged like a conventional hydraulic pipeline dredge. In
addition, some have further modifications that allow pumps to be reversed so that material is
pumped down through the dredge extended drag arms. Because of the expansion at the drag
head, the result is similar to using a diffuser section. Pump-out depth is limited, however, to the
maximum dredging depth, typically about 18-21 m (60-70 ft).
3.7.3.6 Geosynthetic fabric containers.
a. Geosynthetic fabric containers (GFCs) are containers made from geosynthetic fabric that
line barges. Contaminated dredged material is placed in the GFCs (either mechanically or
hydraulically), which are then sewn closed prior to placing the GFC at the disposal site. The GFC
acts as a filter cloth, allowing the water to escape but retaining almost all the fine (silt and clay)
particles. Containing contaminated sediments in GFCs for subsequent placement from split-hull
barges offers the potential to eliminate the wide, thin apron normally associated with
conventional bottom dumping of fine-grained sediments, thus substantially reducing the volume
of cap material required and reducing the potential for contaminated sediments to extend beyond
the site boundary. GFCs also have the potential to eliminate water quality problems at the
disposal site by essentially eliminating loss of fine sediment particulates and associated
contaminants to the water column. As of 1996, GFCs have been used on only two USACE
projects. The first was construction of training dikes in the lower Mississippi River (Duarte,
Joseph, and Satterlee 1995), and the second was placement of sandy sediment with heavy metal
contaminants in a CAD site in Los Angeles Harbor (Mesa 1995). At present, costs of using GFCs
are much higher than for conventional bottom placement due to costs of materials, increased
dredge cycle times, increased labor requirements associated with installation of the GFCs in the
barge, and possible reductions in dredge production rate. There are also considerable engineering
problems associated with successfully deploying the GFCs without having them rupture.
b. The decision to use GFCs for a capping project should be made based on the benefits
versus costs rather than solely on the desire to reduce losses to the water column. Data collected
from a 1996 demonstration of GFCs conducted jointly by New York District and the Port of New
York and New Jersey should provide additional data on GFC viability. However, additional
research is needed to better define GFC abilities to reduce water column losses of contaminants
and to refine engineering aspects associated with deployment. Clausner et al. (1996) summarizes
the present state of the art on using GFCs with contaminated sediments.
3.7.3.7 Treatment. Treatment of discharges into open water may be considered to reduce certain
water column or benthic impacts. For example, the Japanese have used an effective in-line dredged
material treatment scheme for highly contaminated harbor sediments (Barnard and Hand 1978).
However, this strategy has not been widely applied, and its effectiveness has not been demonstrated
for solution of the problem of contaminant release during open-water disposal.
3.7.4 Benthic controls. Management options aimed at reducing the physical impact and/or
release of contaminants from benthic organisms include thin layer placement, level bottom
capping (LBC) of contaminated material with suitable material, and subaqueous lateral
confinement of material (CAD).

3-51

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.7.4.1 Thin-layer placement. Placement of dredged material in a thin layer (30 cm [12 in] or less)
over wide areas is a management action that may be considered to offset physical effects because of
burial (Nester and Rees 1988). Thin-layer placement allows benthic organisms to burrow up from
newly placed material more easily and also increases the rate of recolonization of the disposal site.
3.7.4.2 Capping and contained aquatic disposal (CAD). Capping is the controlled accurate
placement of contaminated material at an open-water placement site followed by a covering or cap
of clean isolating material. For most navigation dredging projects, capping alternatives involving
armor stone layers or other non-sediment materials would not normally be considered. Capping of
contaminated dredged material in open-water sites began in the late 1970s, and a number of
capping operations under a variety of placement conditions have been accomplished. The USACE
has conducted over 20 capping projects, with the majority conducted by the New England Division.
An overview of the field experiences related to capping of contaminated dredged material is
presented in Palermo et al. (1998). Projects have included sites in Central Long Island Sound, the
New York Bight area at the mouth of the Hudson River, Puget Sound, and Rotterdam Harbor in
The Netherlands. The projects listed by Palermo et al. (1998) are not intended to be all-inclusive;
rather, they are representative of a range of site and operational conditions. Conventional placement
equipment and techniques are frequently used for a capping project, but these practices must be
controlled more precisely than are conventional placement. Palermo et al. (1998)
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/trdoer1.pdf) present detailed capping guidance on
design requirements, a design sequence, site selection, equipment and placement techniques,
geotechnical considerations, mixing and dispersion during placement, required capping sediment
thickness, material spread and mounding during placement, cap stability, and monitoring.
3.7.4.3 Level bottom capping (LBC). LBC is defined as the placement of a contaminated
material in a mounded configuration and the subsequent covering of the mound with clean
sediment (Figure 3-18). The objective of LBC is to place a discrete mound of contaminated
material on an existing flat or very gently sloping natural bottom. A cap is then applied over the
mound by one of several techniques, but usually in a series of placement sequences to ensure
adequate coverage.
3.7.4.4 Contained aquatic disposal (CAD).
a. CAD is similar to LBC but with the additional provision of some form of lateral
confinement (for example, placement in natural bottom depressions constructed subaqueous pits,
or behind subaqueous berms) to minimize spread of the materials on the bottom (Figure 3-18).
CAD is generally used where the mechanical properties of the contaminated material and/or
bottom conditions (for example, slopes) require positive lateral control measures during
placement. Use of CAD can also reduce the required quantity of cap material and, thus, the costs.
Options include the use of an existing natural or excavated depression; pre-excavation of a
placement pit; or construction of one or more submerged dikes for confinement (Truitt 1987).

3-52

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015

Figure 3-18. Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) and Level Bottom Capping (LBC)
b. Subaqueous borrow pits provide an ideal configuration for CAD. Such pits could have
been previously excavated and left following sand or gravel mining operations or other purposes,
or they could be excavated as constructed CAD pits solely for the purpose of providing site
capacity for dredged material disposal. CAD in large borrow pits has been implemented in Hong
Kong. Borrow pit CAD has also been implemented in Los Angeles, Portland, and Rotterdam
Harbor (Palermo 1997). CAD pits (or cells) were specifically constructed for dredged material
deposition in the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project (Fredette et al. 2000) and
Newark Bay (Matthews et al. 1999). Appendix D, Plant Material for Beneficial Use Sites,
describes several CAD projects and CAD siting, design, and operational considerations.
3.8 Open-Water Site Management and Monitoring.
3.8.1 Introduction. The goal of site management (Mathis and Payne 1984) is to prevent
unreasonable degradation of the environment from dredged material. This goal must be considered in the context of the broader national goal to provide maximum protection to the overall
environment and pursued as part of a comprehensive placement management strategy for
dredged material. In general, the technical considerations for ocean site management and monitoring presented in this chapter are applicable for inland open-water sites under Section 404.
3.8.2 Ocean open-water site management.
3.8.2.1 Section 103(b) of the MPRSA requires that the USACE use dredged material placement sites designated by the USEPA to the maximum extent feasible. Where use of a site
designated by the USEPA is not feasible (for example, if the USEPA-designated site does not
have a management plan after January 1, 1997, and is unavailable for use), the USACE may,
with the concurrence of the USEPA, select an alternative site (MPRSA 103[b]). The Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA 92, Public Law 102-580) made a number of

3-53

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
changes to the MPRSA. As amended by Section 506 of WRDA 92, Section 102(c) of the
MPRSA provides, in the case of dredged material ocean placement sites, the following:
a. As of January 1, 1995, no site may receive a final designation unless a management plan
has been developed.
b. For sites that received a final designation prior to January 1, 1995, management plans were
to be developed as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1, 1997, with priority
given to sites with the greatest potential impact on the environment.
c. As of January 1, 1997, no permit or authorization for dumping may be issued for a site
unless it has received a final designation or it is an alternate site selected by the USACE under
MPRSA Section 103(b).
3.8.2.2 MPRSA Section 102(c)(3), as amended by WRDA 92, sets forth a number of
requirements regarding the content and development of site management plans. In the case of
dredged material placement sites, the (USEPA) Administrator, in conjunction with the USACE
Secretary, will develop a site management plan for each site designated pursuant to this section.
In developing such plans, the Administrator and the Secretary will provide opportunity for public
comment. Such plans will include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. A baseline assessment of conditions at the site.
b. A program for monitoring the site.
c. Special management conditions or practices to be implemented at each site that are
necessary for protection of the environment.
d. Consideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed of at the site, and the presence,
nature, and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material.
e. Consideration of the anticipated use of the site over the long term, including the anticipated
closure date for the site, if applicable, and any need for management of the site after the closure
of the site.
f. A schedule for review and revision of the plan (it must be reviewed and revised less within
10 years after adoption of the plan and every 10 years thereafter).
3.8.2.3 Guidance on fulfilling these requirements is provided in USEPA/USACE (1996).
This document provides guidance to the USEPA Regions and the USACE Districts for preparation of ocean dredged material placement site management plans and lays out a recommended
framework for site management plan development and content. This section of the EM
summarizes various site management aspects from this guidance. For details concerning site
management plan timing, review, availability, and funding, refer to USEPA/USACE (1996)
(available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/index.cfm).

3-54

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.2.4 Management of an ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) involves
regulating the times, quantity, and physical/chemical characteristics of the dredged material that
is dumped at the site; establishing placement controls, conditions, and requirements to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to the marine environment; and monitoring the site environs to verify
that unanticipated or significant adverse effects are not occurring from either the past or
continued use of the placement site and that permit terms are met.
3.8.2.5 Appropriate management of ODMDS is aimed at assuring that placement activities
will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment, or
economic potentialities (see the MPRSA 103(a)). ODMDS management is a continuum that
begins with site designation. At this stage, the emphasis is on selecting a site where placement
will not have a significant adverse impact on various amenities such as fisheries, coral reefs,
historic sites (such as shipwrecks), or endangered species, or on other uses of the marine
environment. The site designation criteria are set forth at 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6. The ODMDS
designation documents should identify any topics of special concern and, as appropriate, constraints and conditions on the use of the site for inclusion in the site management plan or permits
authorizing site usage. The USEPA Region and USACE District also must establish appropriate
monitoring plans, as required by the MPRSA 102(c)(3)(B).
3.8.2.6 Ocean dredged material placement sites are selected to minimize the risk of potentially adverse effects to human health and the marine environment. A decision to authorize
placement at a designated ocean dredged material placement site (approve a project or permit,
with or without conditions), is based primarily on the following:
a. The placement site characteristics, as defined during the site designation process.
b. Compliance with the ocean dumping criteria, including the results of effects-based testing
of the proposed dredged material.
c. The ability to manage the placement operation and monitor the site for changes.
3.8.2.7 These three elements also are building blocks for developing site management plans.
The effective management of an ocean dredged material placement site is necessary to ensure
that the dredged material placement will not result in unreasonable degradation to the marine
environment. Site management plans facilitate management action by the USEPA Region and the
USACE District over the full use period of the placement site and in appropriate cases, following
site closure. Management plans should focus on the broad, overall management issues associated
with ocean placement of dredged material at a given site. They also should identify critical
amenities and site conditions warranting further consideration or continuing evaluation, such as
unusual currents that could affect dispersal.

3-55

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.3 Components of site management plans.
3.8.3.1 Introduction.
a. Whenever the site management plan is developed, it should be prepared jointly by the
USEPA Region and the USACE District responsible for managing the ocean dredged material
placement site. Close coordination between the personnel of the Region and the District is essential to the preparation of a workable and effective management plan. Plan development must also
include an opportunity for public comment. Components of a typical site management plan as
required by Sec 102(c)(3) of the MPRSA, as amended by WRDA 92, are discussed below.
b. Site-specific management plans should be prepared in conjunction with the site designation and may be summarized in or appended to the site designation Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). However, time, funding, and administrative constraints, as well as incomplete
characterization of the proposed dredged material, may have precluded the development of a
management plan when the site was designated. After January 1, 1997, a permit or authorization
for use of a designated site cannot be issued unless a management plan is in place or a site has
been selected by the USACE pursuant to 103 of the MPRSA.
3.8.3.2 Objectives of site management plan. The site management plan should provide a
clear, concise statement of management objectives and an overview of its purpose and function.
Where applicable, specific management activities designed to address concerns identified during
the site designation process should be clearly stated. The more specific the objective, the easier it
is to identify appropriate management activities.
3.8.3.3 Site management roles and responsibilities.
a. The management plan developed jointly by the USEPA Region and the USACE District
should clearly identify roles and responsibilities for all participants and provide for coordination
of management activities. The focus and intensity of site management activities are likely to vary
on a case-by-case basis and site management roles and responsibilities may change.
b. Under the MPRSA, the USEPA Regions have responsibility for designation of ODMDSs,
although under the MPRSA Section 103(b), the USACE may select a placement site if use of a
USEPA-designated site is not feasible. While the USACE Districts evaluate placement projects,
and their issuance of permits or authorizations is subject to USEPA concurrence, development of
management plans is a joint responsibility of the Regions and Districts (MPRSA Section
10[(c][3]). Enforcement is also a shared responsibility and depends on the nature of the violation.
c. The USEPA and the USACE are responsible for determining baseline conditions during
designation of an ODMDS. If supplemental baseline information is needed related to a specific
authorized activity, it should be obtained in conjunction with the authorization of that activity.
This would generally be the responsibility of the permittee or the USACE for Federal Projects.
Identifying and evaluating any impacts outside the designated site typically is the responsibility
of the USEPA Region and USACE District; permitted site users may be required to provide
information to support such determinations.

3-56

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.3.4 Baseline assessment. The MPRSA 102(c)(3)(A) requires that the management plan
include a baseline assessment of conditions at the site. The establishment of baseline conditions
at an ODMDS is a part of the site designation process for new sites and part of the historical
record for previously used sites. The intent is to determine if the site is suitable for designation,
obtain data for future use in evaluating material for placement, and serve as a basis of comparison against which to measure potentially significant adverse impacts to the marine environment at or in the vicinity of the site. An original baseline is usually established during site
designation where the sea floor has not been disturbed. This assessment may or may not accurately reflect the conditions inside and outside the site several years after sediment has been
disposed of at the site. Since conditions in the site change after placement (for example, depth),
new baseline information may need to be gathered prior to new placement operations.
3.8.3.5 Placement site characterization. Either the baseline established during site designation
or additional site characterization data collected since designation should be used to provide a
description of the placement site, the marine environment near the site, and the critical amenities
that may be potentially affected by placement of dredged material. The site characterization
described in the management plan should include a summary of the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the sediments and water column (see 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6).
3.8.3.6 Placement site history. The placement activities at the site should be documented.
This information is important for evaluating monitoring data and making adjustments to the
management plan that will maximize site use and avoid any unacceptable impacts. Placement
history information for management plan implementation typically includes the following:
a. Known historical uses of the proposed placement site.
b. Transportation and placement methods used.
c. Monitoring findings.
d. Enforcement activities.
3.8.3.7 Special management conditions or practices.
a. MPRSA 102(c)(3)(C) requires that management plans include special management
conditions or practices to be implemented at the site for the protection of the environment, so
they should be carefully considered during designation of the ODMDS or development of the
management plan. The need for special management conditions or practices may also become
evident during the evaluation of the material proposed for ocean placement and the nature of a
particular placement operation(s). In this case, special conditions should be included, as
necessary, in the permit or authorization for placement at the site.
b. Special management conditions or practices are likely to be unique to each ODMDS,
material, or placement operation (for example, consider grain size to limit current transport or to
match the existing substrate). Therefore, they need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For
some ODMDSs, there may be no need for special constraints on the placement of any material
that meets the environmental impact criteria of the MPRSA regulations. For others, however,
3-57

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
placement may need to be limited to certain types of material at certain times at a specific
location within the site, or the quantity disposed within a given time period may need to be
limited. Special management conditions (see paragraph 3.7 for more details concerning control
measures) may include the following:
(1) Placement methods.
(2) Capping provisions.
(3) Quantity restrictions.
(4) Weather restrictions.
(5) Sediment grain size restrictions.
(6) Seasonal restrictions.
(7) Equipment requirements (such as equipment for dredging, transportation and placement,
and navigation and positioning).
(8) Discharge point and allowable tolerances in position.
(9) Debris removal provisions.
(10) Provisions to address spillage, and leakage of dredged material.
(11) Record-keeping and reporting requirements.
(12) Inspection and surveillance provisions.
(13) Other appropriate conditions necessary for protection of the environment.
3.8.3.8 Quantity of material and presence of contamination.
a. MPRSA 102(c)(3)(D) requires that management plans include consideration of the quantity of the material to be disposed at the site, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the
contaminants in the material. The quantity of material allowable for placement at a particular
ODMDS is a function of the capacity of the site and the type of material. Nondispersive sites will
eventually become full. The concern, in such a case, usually is that the material not impact
amenities outside the ODMDS boundaries or cause a navigation hazard. There may also be
vertical limitations to avoid navigation hazards.
b. For dispersive sites, the material may not remain within the boundaries of the ODMDS
after placement. The rate and direction of movement across the ODMDS boundaries is
determined by physical transport mechanisms. Depending on these transport mechanisms and the
nature of the material, transport may be rapid and continuous, or it may occur only during
episodic events, such as storms or seasonal changes in transport mechanisms. The management
of dispersive sites is usually focused on the vertical axis with the goal being to avoid formation
3-58

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
of navigational hazards from shoaling. The management plan should summarize the information
used in determining the overall size of the site and its life span and to protect against storminduced erosion.
c. The presence, nature, and bioavailability of contaminants in the dredged material are
determined during the evaluation of the material proposed for dredging and placement. National
guidance (the Ocean Testing Manual [OTM]) on dredged material evaluation has been jointly
developed by USEPA and USACE (USEPA/USACE 1991) (for Section 404 placement the
Inland Testing Manual [ITM] [USEPA/USACE 1998] applies). For more information on the
OTM and ITM, see paragraph 3.6.
d. The guidance developed is national in scope and cannot address every local or site-specific
concern. Therefore, regional implementation manuals have been developed to adapt, as
necessary, the generic elements of the guidance to the specific conditions found at regional
placement sites. Local District/Region manuals typically provide the following information for
specific placement sites:
(1) Contaminants of concern.
(2) Test organisms for bioassays.
(3) Reference sediment location(s).
(4) Ambient water quality for elutriate evaluations.
(5) Mixing zone parameters for model analyses.
(6) Factors to evaluate bioaccumulation data.
e. The evaluation procedures are intended to ensure that all dredged material placement is
consistent with the MPRSA. The information is used by the USACE District and USEPA Region
to evaluate the suitability of the dredged material for placement at a given site. Any conditions
resulting from those evaluations would be included in the documents authorizing placement at
the site. Monitoring is used to assess whether the predictions regarding impacts to the
environment from specific dredged material at the particular placement site were correct. The site
management plan should summarize the appropriate requirements used to determine the
suitability of the dredged material.
3.8.3.9 Anticipated site use. MPRSA 102(c)(3)(E) requires that the management plan include
consideration of the anticipated use of the site. The management plan must describe the
anticipated use of the site over the long term, including the anticipated closure date for the site, if
applicable, and any need for management of the site after the closure of the site. As indicated
above, the anticipated use should be considered in developing site conditions and monitoring
plan.

3-59

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.3.10 Site management plan review and revision. MPRSA 102(c)(3)(F) requires that the
management plan include a schedule for review and revision of the planit must be reviewed
and revised within 10 years after adoption of the plan and then every 10 years thereafter. The
management plan should describe how modifications or updates may be made based on specific
needs identified for specific authorized projects. If the site is not used for over 10 years, the
management plan should be updated in conjunction with activities authorizing use of the site.
3.8.3.11 Monitoring program.
a. MPRSA 102(c)(3)(B) requires that management plans include a program for monitoring
the site. Site monitoring is conducted to ensure the environmental integrity of a placement site
and the areas surrounding a site and to verify compliance with the site designation criteria, any
special management conditions, and permit or Federal authorization requirements. Monitoring
programs should be flexible, cost-effective, and based on scientifically sound procedures and
methods to meet site-specific monitoring needs. A monitoring program should have the ability to
detect environmental change and assist in determining regulatory and permit compliance. The
program should be designed to provide the following:
(1) Information indicating whether the placement activities are occurring in compliance with
the permit and site restrictions.
(2) Information indicating the short-term and long-term fate of materials disposed in the
marine environment.
(3) Information concerning the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of the
placement.
b. It is important to understand that placement site monitoring is not a stand-alone activity; it
is based on the site designation process, the characteristics of the dredged material, and
compliance with permit or MPRSA 103(e) authorization terms. Placement site monitoring is a
key component of site management. The main purpose of a placement site monitoring program is
to determine whether dredged material site management practices, including placement
operations, at the site need to be changed to avoid unreasonable degradation or endangerment of
human health or welfare or the marine environment.
c. Continuous monitoring of all physical, chemical, and biological parameters and resources
in and around a typical placement site is not necessary. Monitoring programs should be
structured to address specific questions (null hypotheses) and measure the conditions of key
indicators and end points, particularly those identified during site designation, or any major
project-specific issues that arise.
d. Because of their site-specific nature, no two placement site monitoring programs are likely
to be exactly the same. Monitoring activities should be tiered (see Zeller and Wastler [1986] for a
discussion of tiered monitoring). The number of monitoring tiers, categories of hypotheses, and
other program elements can and do vary among regions and placement sites. The ultimate

3-60

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
responsibility for the design of site-specific monitoring programs resides jointly with the USACE
Districts and USEPA Regions.
e. The USACE Districts and USEPA Regions should design an effective monitoring program
as a tiered series of investigations. The most effective monitoring programs for ocean placement
sites should do the following:
(1) Integrate as components of site management.
(2) Evaluate the fate and effect of dredged material placement.
(3) Use a tiered monitoring approach.
f. Link specific measured effects (action levels) with predetermined management actions.
g. Support decision-making.
In addition to serving as a basis for management actions, the site monitoring program provides an
historical record of site conditions that can be used in the future to understand the impacts of past
site management. The data form the basis of technical discussions regarding the site that lead to
better and more informed management decisions. Site monitoring results also provide a data
record that can be used to determine the need for current and future management actions or
permit conditions.
h. Site management plans must describe the overall monitoring program designed to monitor
the environment of the placement site. The monitoring program should be based on an overall
assessment of what is known about the site environs, the past use of the site, and amenities in or
near the site that need to be protected. The development of the monitoring program should
include an assessment of the following:
(1) Baseline or environmental information collected at or near the site describing its
condition in the past and/or present.
(2) Characteristics of materials already dumped at the site and characteristics of materials that
may potentially be dumped at the site in the future.
(3) Special management conditions used at the site that could affect the environmental effects
or fate of dumped material.
Management plans should use this type of information to develop realistic questions (null
hypotheses) regarding potential impacts that need to be answered to protect the environment of
the site. These questions should address all realistic environmental concerns and should be
specific. They should cover such issues as long- and short-term fate of the dumped material and
its long- and short-term effects. The management plan should then describe if/how the existing
knowledge about the site answers any of the questions. The remaining questions should be
specifically identified in the management plan monitoring program, and the types of monitoring
proposed to collect sufficient information to answer them should be described. This should be

3-61

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
done at a sufficient level of detail to provide an overall structure and focus for subsequent
monitoring activities. However, details such as precise sampling stations and frequencies are
better left to subsequent development of survey plans rather than being included in the MPRSA
site management plan as the specifics will vary over time and frequency of placement as well as
being affected by budgetary considerations.
3.8.4 Monitoring program. Fredette et al. (1990a) recommend an approach to a monitoring
program design that emphasizes useful results for dredged material placement site managers.
Fredette et al. (1990a) focuses on dredged material determined suitable for open-water
placement; therefore, the report does not consider lethal or sublethal effects of toxic substances.
However, in cases where contaminants are of concern, the monitoring strategy outlined herein
can be used, but with the appropriate sampling techniques for such materials incorporated in the
study design. Pequegnat, Gallaway, and Wright (1990) address contaminated dredged material
monitoring.
3.8.4.1 Monitoring program design.
a. The design of a prospective program requires two general steps: the evaluation of
managerial needs and objectives for site use and the design and implementation of a prospective
monitoring program. Evaluation for each component of a monitoring program should be
multitiered, with each level having its own environmental threshold, hypothesis, sampling
design, and management option(s) should the environmental threshold be exceeded.
b. In a tiered approach, each objective is monitored by testing a series of hypotheses, each at a
different predetermined level (tier) of intensity. Results that indicate acceptance of the null
hypothesis (the threshold is not exceeded) at any level prevent further, more costly monitoring at
the next more complex level. Results indicating rejection of the null hypothesis trigger
monitoring at higher levels, thereby providing an early warning system for detection of
predetermined adverse effects. This early warning system allows site managers to make modifications in operations before an unacceptable impact occurs.
3.8.4.2 Stepwise procedure for outlining a program. The systematic approach toward designing a monitoring plan is presented in Figure 3-19 to illustrate plan development. Consideration of
each of the five steps helps to ensure that all pertinent aspects of a plan are incorporated.
a. Designation of site-specific objectives and needs. Site-specific objectives and needs might
include such factors as multiple/periodic versus one-time use of the site, seasonal timing and
frequency of use, and use of the site for habitat creation or enhancement. In the case of seasonal
timing and frequency of usage, questions about impacts reflect concerns over detrimental
alterations of biological resources. Conversely, considerations of habitat creation or enhancement
include levels of measurable improvement of the site for beneficial resource utilization.
b. Identify plan components. A useful early step toward the design of a monitoring program
should include the identification of physical, chemical, and biological parameters of concern.
This task reflects predictions of the types of direct and indirect alterations that result from
placement activities. Physical and chemical effects are generally readily measured and include

3-62

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
those associated with sediment characteristics as well as spatial distribution of the material after
placement. These alterations represent both short- and long-term direct effects to the biota (for
example, those resulting from changes in grain size and bottom topography). Alterations in water
quality are generally short-lived, and while concerns over them may be justified during
placement, they are generally not considered as part of a long-term monitoring program.

Figure 3-19. The Systematic Approach Toward Designing a Monitoring Plan

c. Predict responses and develop hypotheses. This aspect of program development requires
quantitative estimates of alteration of each physical/chemical parameter of concern and best
available information on the levels of response of target resources to these alterations. By
comparing these estimates, critical threshold levels can be used in management decisions on
project continuation or cessation. Specific information is needed on the range of a parameter
within which a particular organism is capable of normal behavior. The upper limit of the range
may be used as a threshold level at which a decision to alter operations must be made.
d. Select sampling design and methods.
(1) The design of a sampling program and choice of appropriate methods is as important as
any of the steps so far discussed. The ways in which data are gathered (sampling methods) and
analyzed (statistical methods) determine their usefulness in drawing conclusions about the
3-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
given study. Most importantly, the sampling design must be developed with a priori
considerations of the type(s) of data that will be collected and the specific statistical analyses
that will be applied. Again, it must be emphasized that the data that are collected must be
applicable to addressing a specific question. Collecting data for no specific reason serves no
purpose. The choice of sampling method or gear is also an important consideration in that the
type of data obtained must be useful in addressing the specific question. A number of
references (for example, Cochran 1963 and Green 1979) discuss the problems associated with
sampling design and methodology.
(2) Spatial and temporal sampling intensity is generally low for tier 1 monitoring. As the tier
level increases, frequency of sampling also increases. This applies to biological monitoring as
well. Most sampling plans establish a regular or modified grid over the placement study site for
sample collection to ensure complete site coverage. Grid spacing, size, and shape depend on tier
level, site conditions, and available resources. Tier I grids are typically widely spaced, with a few
sampling points covering the minimal area of anticipated impact. With increasing tiers, grid
spacing is reduced, sampling frequency is increased spatially and temporally, and the grid area
may be increased. Temporal sampling frequency is highly dependent on the anticipated level of
impact and on temporal variability of the physical and biological site characteristics.
e. Designate management options. This step in the planning process involves decisions to be
made in the event that threshold levels are exceeded. In a tiered program, these decisions are
made at various tiers within the monitoring process but are, in each case, the result of exceeding
a predetermined threshold. In the scheme of the hypothesis testing protocol, this process is the
response to rejecting the null hypothesis (for example, there is a significant difference between
observed and predicted conditions). In addition, management decisions are also needed on
available options once conditions of a given parameter return below a critical threshold level.
The options may include delaying or stopping operations, or modifying operations to alleviate the
problem.
3.8.5 Monitoring tools.
3.8.5.1 Introduction.
a. Information on the physical processes and biological environment at the open-water
placement site before, during, and after dredged material placement is necessary to understand
placement site conditions and the short- and long-term effects of placement at the designated site
for dredging project planning and open-water site management. Monitoring tools are needed to
achieve the objectives of monitoring programs. Tools for physical data collection at open-water
placement sites include sensors, equipment systems, direct sampling devices (sediment grab
sampler), and accurate positioning systems. Biological data collection also requires direct
sampling devices such as nets and traps. Additionally, in-house data analysis tools are necessary.
Selecting tools to use for each monitoring program is dictated by the site-specific questions to be
answered.

3-64

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
b. Site monitoring may occur during baseline assessments for site designation or selection,
during placement operations, or following placement operations. The following site
characteristics should be considered for open-water site monitoring programs:
(1) Currents.
(2) Wave climate.
(3) Water level.
(4) Water depth.
(5) Bathymetry.
(6) Water quality parameters (for example, total suspended solids [TSS], turbidity,
conductivity, temperature, pressure, density, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and fluorescence).
(7) Physical characteristics of bottom sediment, including sediment grain-size differences.
(8) Chemical and biological site characteristics (for example, relative abundance of various
habitat types in the vicinity, relative adaptability of the benthos to sediment deposition, presence
of submerged aquatic vegetation, and presence of unique, rare or endangered, or isolated
populations).
(9) Sediment plume movement.
c. Fredette et al. (1990b) describe selected tools and techniques used for biological and
physical monitoring of aquatic dredged material placement sites. A wide variety of tools is
discussed, ranging from those that are routinely used in monitoring to those that are occasionally
used for special cases or research purposes. Fredette et al. briefly describe each tool and its
intended use, and then evaluate its usefulness for routine or extraordinary monitoring. Past
examples of use, approximate instrument costs, ease of data interpretation, and instrument
attributes and limitations are discussed. Examples of tool selection for different monitoring levels
are presented in Fredette et al. (1990a; 1990b). Specific tools for monitoring open-water
placement site characteristics are described below, together with a description of monitoring
equipment and techniques for identifying and tracking dredged material sediment plumes
summarized from Puckette (1998).
3.8.5.2 Currents. Instruments capable of measuring current speed and direction include
mechanical, electromagnetic, and acoustic Doppler sensors. Historically, mechanical and electromagnetic sensors have been used for current measurements. However, these sensors are limited
to measuring water velocity in waters surrounding the sensor at a fixed point in the water column
and are more susceptible to fouling. Acoustic Doppler current sensors are now widely used to
measure current velocity profiles under a variety of conditions. They can continuously measure
velocities at discrete intervals over the entire depth of the water column. The sensor can be
mounted either on a fixed platform providing long-term current data at one location or on a
roving vessel to provide regional current data.

3-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.5.3 Waves and water levels. Pressure sensors are standard equipment for measuring wave
parameters, such as wave height, period, and direction; water levels; and tides in shallow coastal
waters. Pressure sensors are connected to data concentrators for data storage and can be
directional or nondirectional. Single pressure sensors cannot provide wave direction. An array of
three pressure sensors is typically used to collect directional wave spectra and water level data
from which wave direction can be calculated. Wave gage systems can be deployed in a bottommounted tripod for either self-contained or real-time data collection. For real-time data collection, the equipment is cabled to a shore station, a data manager calls up the gage through the
shore station, and the data are transmitted and downloaded to the base station. Wave and water
level sensors can also be mounted to piers or other permanent structures. Chapter 7, Positioning
Techniques for Offshore Engineering Surveys, in EM 1110-2-1003, Engineering and Design
Hydrographic Surveying, describes techniques for measuring tide and water levels, and Morang,
Larson, and Gorman (1997a) discuss planning considerations for measuring waves and water
levels, including gage types, and data collection and analysis.
3.8.5.4 Water depth and bathymetry.
a. Dredging applications requiring bathymetric measurements include pre- and post-dredging
surveys and general project condition surveys. Single-beam fathometers (acoustic depth or echo
sounders) are standard equipment for measuring open-water site bathymetry. Multibeam sonars
are also widely used within the USACE to collect water depth and bathymetry data. The
multibeam sonar is a compact, portable, single-transducer swath technology that utilizes 60 to
240 beams to provide high-resolution bathymetric images. Fathometers are still an industry
standard because they are less expensive than multibeam sonars. However, multibeam sonar
systems have the advantages of more rapid data collection and a higher resolution data set.
Additional information about bathymetric surveys and related equipment are provided in
Engineer Manual 1110-2-1003. Morang, Larson, and Gorman (1997b) also discuss surveying
equipment, including multibeam sonar, for monitoring water depth and bathymetry in coastal
areas.
b. The Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise (JALBTCX) is
responsible for operations, research, and development in airborne lidar bathymetry and
complementary technologies to support the coastal mapping and charting requirements of the
USACE, the US Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). JALBTCX executes survey operations using the Compact
Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey (CHARTS) system and industry-based coastal
mapping and charting systems. CHARTS collects either 20 kHz topographic lidar data or 3 kHz
bathymetric lidar data, each concurrent with digital RGB and hyperspectral imagery. Survey
operations support the USACE National Coastal Mapping Program and U.S. Naval
Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) nautical charting missions. JALBTCX replaces the
USACEs Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey (SHOALS) system. For
further information, see the JALBTCX website (http://shoals.sam.usace.army.mil/).

3-66

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
3.8.5.5 Physical characteristics of bottom sediment.
a. Acoustic equipment systems are widely used to characterize bottom sediments at openwater sites. The side-scan sonar uses high-frequency acoustic signals to image sediment
distribution on the seafloor and bottom features such as ripples and outcrops. Additionally, sidescan sonars are valuable tools for evaluating the underwater condition of breakwaters, bridge
piers, and other underwater structures (Kucharski and Clausner 1990). Morang, Larson, and
Gorman (1997b) describe practical and planning considerations for conducting side-scan surveys
and provide examples of side-scan sonographs (data products) and interpretations.
b. Subbottom seismic profiling systems are typically used in open-water site condition surveys and disposal mound investigations to examine seafloor features and as part of an acoustic
impedance method to characterize sediment density and type rapidly and accurately. These
impulse-type devices transmit acoustic energy over a wide range of frequencies. High-resolution
subbottom profiling systems specifically designed for shallow water use and operating at
frequencies below 12 kHz are typically used for data collection. Pinger systems have higher
operating frequencies (3.5-7.5 kHz) and provide higher vertical resolution while boomer
systems have lower operating frequencies (300-400 Hz) and provide the greatest penetration into
the subbottom (EM 1110-2-1003). The acoustic impedance method is briefly described in
Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management, and discussed in detail in EM 11102-1003 and McGee, Ballard, and Caulfield (1995).
c. The sediment profile camera takes photographic images of bottom sediments and provides
a vertical view of the sediment/water interface. The camera is mounted in a frame and lowered to
the seafloor. On the bottom, a viewing prism penetrates the upper sediment layer (up to 18 cm)
and records an image on film (Fredette et al. 1990b; Rhoads, Muramoto, and Ward 1996). In
addition to measuring depth of surface sediment layers, the image can be analyzed for a wide
range of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Fredette et al. (1990b) list the various
types of data that can be obtained from sediment profile imaging, including grain size, sediment
surface relief, redox area and contrast, epifauna, and infauna. The sediment profile camera is
used for various applications at open-water dredged material placement sites, including baseline
surveys, predisposal site assessment, postdisposal compliance monitoring, mapping of dredged
material footprints and caps placed on contaminated dredged material, long-term monitoring of
dredged material, and documenting faunal colonization (Rhoads, Muramoto, and Ward 1996).
d. The sediment profile camera reduces the number of grab or dredge samples needed to
characterize certain benthic habitats. However, it cannot provide quantitative characterization of
the benthic community structure. The use of the sediment profile camera combined with
traditional benthic sampling devices is recommended.
e. The Gamma Isotope Mapping System/Continuous Sediment Sampling System (GIMS/CS3)
is a towed sled surveillance system that rapidly measures and maps surface sediment parameters
for geotechnical and environmental characterization in aquatic environments. It was developed
by the Center for Applied Isotope Studies (CAIS) at the University of Georgia, Athens, and has
been applied to Federal government point (USEPA) and nonpoint (USGS) contaminant source
investigations (Noakes, Noakes, and Dvoracek 2000). The system is composed of a towed sled

3-67

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
with multiple sensors capable of operating simultaneously for continuous data and sample collection. The GIMS measures natural radiation emanating from seafloor, lake-bottom, or riverbottom sediments to approximately 25 m (82 ft) below the seafloor surface with a submersible
gamma radiation detector to interpret sediment lithology and identify natural or anthropogenic
radioisotopes in bottom sediments. The CS3 collects sediment samples with a submersible pump
that delivers the samples as a sediment slurry to the survey vessel for shipboard analysis (Noakes,
Noakes, and Dvoracek 2000; Rhoads, Muramoto, and Ward 1996). The sled sensor array is
connected with a coaxial cable to surface shipboard electronics, which include a portable
computer and printer, differential GPS navigational unit and plotter, spectrometer to transmit the
data signal from the detector, and sediment sample processor. The sled can be deployed from a
variety of vessels and operated in depths up to 100 m (328 ft). It is towed at speeds of 2.5-3 knots
along specified survey transects and can cover up to a 128 km transect in 24 hours. Data from the
sled systems can be used to generate two- and three-dimensional maps of bathymetry, gamma
activity levels, and elemental concentrations in the area. Further information about the GIMS/CS3
sled can be found at the CAIS website (http://cais.uga.edu/programs_applications/
aquatic_surveys/index.php) and in Noakes, Noakes, and Dvoracek (2000).
f. Direct methods of obtaining sediment samples for sediment characterization through
laboratory analyses include a variety of instruments, ranging from grab samplers, which one
person can operate to retrieve a small surface sample, to large vibracorers, which return up to a
12.2 m (40 ft) long core through a placement site (see paragraph 2.13.7).
3.8.5.6 Water quality parameters. Typical monitoring programs for open-water placement
sites measure the following water quality parameters: TSS, turbidity, density, temperature, conductivity or salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH, and fluorescence. Typically, TSS is determined
from offsite laboratory analyses of water samples collected at the placement site. More recent
laser-beam instrumentation, the Laser In Situ Scattering and Transmissometry (LSST), which
measures the scattering of a laser beam by particles in a volume of water with real-time data
return capabilities, is emerging as an alternative method for measuring TSS in situ more accurately (Puckette 1998). Turbidity can be measured in situ using optical instruments that include
transmissometers and nephelometers (also called optical backscatter [OBS] sensors). OBS is
capable of measuring much higher particle concentrations than a transmissometer though it lacks
the accuracy of the transmissometer at low-particle concentrations (D&A Instruments 1989).
Particle concentrations can be estimated from both types of instruments using empirically
determined calibration curves. An instrument referred to as a CTD measures water conductivity,
temperature, and depth/pressure (CTD). Salinity is calculated from measurements of conductivity
and temperature, and density is calculated from measurements of temperature, salinity, and
pressure. Sensors for measuring dissolved oxygen and pH have evolved to be compact, reliable,
and highly accurate. Fluorescence was measured, until recently, by taking a water sample and
running it through a field instrument. However, fluorometers can now measure fluorescence in
situ.
3.8.5.7 Biological site characteristics.
a. Benthic infauna (particularly macrobenthos) and submergent vegetation are regarded as
good indicators of environmental quality because of their sedentary nature and, thus, their

3-68

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
susceptibility to physical and chemical alterations. Because their sedentary existence requires a
tolerance of short-term variation in environmental conditions, they reflect long-term integral
conditions. In addition, they can be sampled more quantitatively and efficiently. Benthic
sampling devices come in a wide variety of designs and sizes. Many were developed and used on
a regional basis and, as a consequence, are little known outside their respective areas. However,
certain commonly used samplers have had widespread application.
b. Nektonic organisms (fishes, shrimps, and crabs) are most commonly sampled with nets or
traps of various types. Nets generally collect a greater diversity of organisms than do traps. Traps
are usually designed to attract and capture a particular species (for example, crab pots). The
choice of sampling device(s) for monitoring depends on the type(s) of organisms of interest. Nets
are either passive or active collectors of organisms. Passive nets are set in stationary positions,
collecting organisms that become entangled (for example, anchored gill nets, hoop nets, and fyke
nets) or entrapped within the confines of the netted area (for example, fish traps) and may require
extended deployment, in-place, and recovery periods. Active nets (for example, otter trawls and
purse seines) are towed through the water and produce more immediate results.
c. Grab samplers and box corers are the tools of choice for quantitative sampling of sessile
epifauna and infauna (to the depth excavated by the sampler). Some of the more commonly used
grabs include the Petersen, van Veen, Ponar, Ekman, and Smith-McIntyre. Basically, these
samplers all operate as mechanical scoops that, when triggered, remove a semicircular parcel of
the bottom substrate. Typically, these samplers collect material representing 0.02-0.5 m2
(0.2-5 ft2) of surface area and penetrate to sediment depths ranging from 5 to 20 cm (2-8 in.).
(See Table 2 of Fredette et al. [1990a] for more information on grab samplers.) Vertical
sectioning, which is generally more quantitative than basic grab sampling, is also possible with
certain instruments, such as the Reineek and Gray-OHara box corers.
d. A number of trawls and dredges have been designed and used as qualitative samplers of
epifaunal and infaunal organisms in a variety of habitats, particularly in water deeper than 10 m
(33 ft) (for example, epibenthic sleds). These devices are best used for the purpose of general
description of the assemblages present (species presence/absence). They are highly selective and
are limited to collecting epifauna and shallow infauna, thereby providing little information on
infauna at sediment depths greater than a few centimeters.
e. The sediment profile camera, discussed previously, reduces the number of grab or dredge
samples needed to characterize certain benthic habitats. However, it cannot provide quantitative
characterization of the benthic community structure. The use of the sediment profile camera
combined with traditional benthic sampling devices is recommended.
f. Most fish and shellfish sampling devices are selective in terms of size and, often, species,
causing a bias in the resulting estimates of density, species diversity, or biomass. Considerable
difficulty is often faced in obtaining replicate data, due to the variability in dispersion of
individuals and their mobility, which results in great variability of both time and space. The
combination of variability in abundance of fish and shellfish species and the variation in
sampling equipment and methods makes comparisons of data from various sources imprecise
over large areas.

3-69

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
g. The Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Early Warning System (SAVEWS) is a bathymetric
survey system designed to measure and characterize shallow-water aquatic environments (Sabol
and Burczinski 1998). SAVEWS detects submerged aquatic vegetation coverage, canopy density,
and height using commercial hydroacoustic equipment, and provides accurate bottom tracking in
dense aquatic vegetation (eelgrass). The system hardware consists of a Biosonics DT4000
hydroacoustic echo sounder (Biosonics, Inc., Seattle, WA) with a 420 kHz, 6, single-beam
transducer, GPS, and personal computer components for data collection and analysis. The echo
sounder is deployed from the survey vessel with the transducer in the water aimed downward in a
vertical position. The survey vessel collects data with SAVEWS by traversing preselected linear
transects. Vessel operating speed is approximately 2.5 m/s (8 ft/s) to avoid cavitation around the
transducer (Sabol and Burczinski 1998). The echo sounder data are recorded with latitude and
longitude reports from a real-time differentially corrected GPS. A signal-processing algorithm
examines echo return data and GPS reports to output a position-referenced set of vegetation
attributes to determine depth, percent plant coverage, and plant height. Since 1996, SAVEWS
performance has been continuously tested in the Caloosahatchee Estuary in southwest Florida
(Sabol et al. 2002). Alternate signal-processing techniques were investigated to improve
SAVEWS bottom tracking accuracy. Sabol and Johnston (2001) found that the SAVEWS
provided excellent bottom tracking performance under a wide range of seagrass densities, very
good in situ plant height, and reasonably good vegetation coverage estimates relative to visual
methods.
3.8.5.8 Navigation and positioning equipment. Accurate navigation and positioning
equipment is an important tool for monitoring open-water sites. The effectiveness of all physical,
chemical, and biological sampling depends upon knowing the location of a sample relative to the
placement site. A variety of equipment types, with accuracies ranging from 1,500 to 0.1 ft, is
available, but DGPS is used the most.
3.8.5.9 Physical monitoring tools and techniques for evaluating dredged material plumes.
a. A variety of parameters associated with dredged material plumes, including water quality
and movement and dimensions of suspended sediment plumes, can be monitored. Selection of
parameters to monitor depends on the purpose of the monitoring effort and site conditions.
b. The various sampling techniques fall into four general categories:
(1) In situ sampling of water quality parameters.
(2) Acoustic monitoring.
(3) Remote sensing.
(4) Dye studies.
c. Puckette (1998) discusses the physical monitoring equipment and techniques in greater
detail. Typical monitoring programs for dredge-related sediment plumes measure one or more of
the following in situ water quality parameters associated with the plume: TSS, turbidity, density,
temperature, conductivity or salinity, pH, and fluorescence. In situ sampling of water quality
3-70

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
parameters may be conducted using equipment and techniques previously described in this
section.
d. Acoustic sensors used for identifying and tracking suspended sediment plumes include
fathometers and related instruments, acoustic Doppler current instruments, side-scan sonar, and
scanning sonar. Acoustic Doppler sensors, used to measure water velocity and direction, also
measure backscatter intensity through the water column. Backscatter intensity data can be used to
calculate sediment concentration using empirically derived equations. Water samples must be
collected concurrently with the acoustic data, analyzed for TSS, and then compared to the
acoustic backscatter measurements. Based on this comparison, an equation is derived that relates
the TSS to the acoustic backscatter. This method of determining dredged material plume
sediment concentrations is reasonable in situations where sediment grain-size distributions and
sediment concentrations remain relatively constant in both time and space, such that it is possible
to collect concurrent acoustic and water-sample data. However, errors in TSS concentration
determined from the backscatter data can be high.
e. Dredged material plume tracking technologies were investigated during the DRP
(1989-1994), which resulted in development of the PLUmes Measurement System (PLUMES).
The PLUMES consists of equipment systems, including a broadband acoustic Doppler current
profiler (BBADCP), and plume tracking techniques. Kraus and Thevenot (1992); Tubman (1994a
and 1994b), Kraus (1991); Thevenot, Prickett, and Kraus (1992); Lohrmann and Huhta (1994);
and Tubman (1995) describe PLUMES development and testing. The system was tested in
shallow-water placement sites in Mobile, AL (Kraus 1991), and Tylers Beach, VA (Thevenot,
Prickett, and Kraus 1992). The PLUMES was also used to monitor dredged material disposed
from a hopper dredge at a deepwater offshore disposal site near San Francisco, CA (Tubman,
Brumley, and Puckette 1994). In all of the test cases, the PLUMES successfully identified and
tracked the suspended sediment plumes.
f. The Sediview MethodTM developed by Dredging Research Limited is also used to monitor
suspended sediments. Like PLUMES, this method uses a BBADCP, but is different in that the
Sediview Method data processing software can reduce the errors associated with estimating
suspended sediment (Land and Bray 1998) by using an iterative approach to calculate the
suspended particle concentration. In addition, this method requires an extensive calibration of the
ADCP using water samples taken throughout the acoustic data collection as frequently as every
10 min.
g. Aerial photography is a remote sensing technique for monitoring suspended sediment
plumes. Aerial photography can provide very good information on the spatial extent of plumes in
the uppermost part of the water column under the right conditions. However, aerial photography
is limited to daylight hours and by weather.
h. Dye studies have been used often to monitor plumes associated with sewerage and
stormwater outfalls. However, this procedure, in which a fluorescing dye or particle tracer is
injected into the water as sediment slurry, has also been used to track sediment dispersion from
dredging. Dispersion tracking is accomplished by collecting water and sediment samples through
the water column and at selected locations to determine redeposition locations and concentra-

3-71

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 2015
tions. Marsh (1994) tracked sediment dispersion related to a water injection dredging project
using a fluorescing particle tracer and was able to reasonably estimate areas where the dredged
material was deposited, in addition to deposition rates that corresponded well to measured rates.
The tracer study also proved useful one year after the study in understanding the long-term
movement of the dredged material in the system.

3-72

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
CHAPTER 4
Confined (Diked) Placement
4.1 Overview of Confined Placement.
4.1.1 Purpose. This chapter presents guidance for confined (diked) placement of dredged
material. The terms confined disposal facility (CDF), confined placement facility (CPF),
confined disposal area, confined disposal site, diked disposal site, and containment area
all appear in the literature, and all refer to an engineered structure for containment of dredged
material. The term CDF is used in this manual to describe a facility for confined (diked)
placement of dredged material.
4.1.1 Description.
4.1.1.1 Confined placement is placement of dredged material within diked nearshore or
upland CDFs via hydraulic or mechanical means. A CDF is an engineered structure for containment of dredged material. They may be constructed as upland sites, nearshore sites with one or
more sides in water (sometimes called intertidal sites), or island containment areas. CDFs vary
considerably in size, dike type, and method of filling. Figure 4-1 illustrates the various categories
of CDFs. Although the volumes vary from year to year, on the order of 35% of the total volume
of material dredged to maintain Federal projects in the United States is placed in CDFs. The
confinement or retention dikes or structures in a CDF enclose the placement area above any
adjacent water surface, isolating the dredged material from adjacent waters during placement.
This feature is what distinguishes a CDF from other forms of placement, such as unconfined
upland or wetland placement, or CAD, which is a form of subaqueous capping. Confined placement, as described in this chapter, does not refer to subaqueous capping or contained aquatic
disposal (guidance on subaqueous capping is presented in Chapter 3, Open Water Placement,
of this EM).

Figure 4-1. Illustration of Upland, Nearshore, and Island CDFs

4-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.1.1.2 Upland CDFs. Upland CDFs are one of the most common placement alternatives, and
such sites exist in most regions of the United States. The use of upland CDFs is extensive in the
Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions. Many of these sites were constructed in areas adjacent to estuaries or tributary rivers near the navigation channels they were intended to serve. Some of them
were constructed in wetland areas (prior to wetlands protection regulations) and have been filled
to become upland areas. Large upland sites, some larger than 405 ha (1,000 acres), are now in
active use in the Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Mobile, New Orleans, and
Galveston Districts. CDFs initially constructed in water, which became upland sites, are located
in the Great Lakes area, California, and Puget Sound. CDFs are being considered as placement
options worldwide, and several large CDFs are now in active use. Figure 4-2 shows the Shelfter
CDF located in Rotterdam Harbor in The Netherlands. This site was designed to meet the longterm disposal needs for the harbor and incorporates many design features for containment of the
dredged material and associated contaminants.

Figure 4-2. Shelfter CDF in Rotterdam, The Netherlands

4.1.1.3 A true upland CDF allows for all dredged material fill to be placed above the water
table. CDFs constructed in water may become upland sites once the fill reaches elevations above
the mean high water elevation. Upland CDFs are not solid waste landfills. They are designed and
constructed specifically for placement of dredged material and normally have a return flow as
effluent to United States waters. A typical upland CDF is shown in Figure 4-3.

4-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-3. Typical Upland CDF

4.1.1.4 Nearshore CDFs. Nearshore CDFs are most numerous in the Great Lakes region of
the United States. Many of these sites were constructed adjacent to entrance or harbor channels.
Large nearshore sites (CDFs initially constructed in water, which became upland sites) are
located in Puget Sound, the Great Lakes area, the Atlantic Coast, and California. Figure 4-4
shows a nearshore CDF with stone fill dikes. A true nearshore site takes advantage of the
shoreline as a part of the containment structure for the site, with in-water dikes or other containment structures required only for the remaining walls of the total enclosure. Nearshore CDFs
discussed in this chapter have dikes with crest elevations above the mean high high water
elevation (MHHW). However, highly contaminated dredged material is usually placed below the
MHHW elevation, and cleaner dredged material or other capping material is placed above the
MHHW mark.
4.1.1.5 Island CDFs. Island CDFs are similar to nearshore CDFs except that they are constructed totally in water with no direct physical connection to the shore. Figure 4-5 shows a
typical island CDF.
4.1.1.6 Technical considerations. A CDF is neither a conventional wastewater treatment
facility nor a conventional solid waste disposal facility. What makes it different are the physical
and chemical properties of the dredged material. Wastewater treatment facilities are designed to
receive water with low levels of solids while solid waste facilities are designed to receive solids
with very little water. Dredged sediments placed in CDFs typically contain 10-50% solids (dry
weight basis). An effective CDF must therefore borrow features from both the wastewater
treatment facility and the solid waste disposal facility in a combination that is unlike either.

4-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-4. Chicago Nearshore CDF

Figure 4-5. Island CDF in Tampa Bay

4-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.1.1.7 Design objectives.
a. The objectives inherent in design and operation of CDFs are to provide for adequate
storage capacity for meeting dredging requirements and to maximize efficiency in retaining the
solids. CDFs are often considered as a disposal alternative for materials found to be unsuitable
for open-water placement. Control of contaminant releases is a design and operation objective for
these projects.
b. A principal design criterion of CDFs is to retain as high a percentage of the fine-grained
sediment particles as is practicable. This principle is based on the findings of the USACE
Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP), which demonstrated that most chemical
contaminants associated with sediments could be contained effectively through efficient solids
containment. Since most contaminants in sediment remain attached to solid particles during
dredging and placement in the CDF, this process is reasonably efficient for containment of
contaminants.
4.1.1.8 Existing sites versus new sites. Design and evaluation of CDF options are conducted
differently, depending on whether there is an existing CDF under consideration or if a new site is
required. Evaluation of an existing CDF is usually approached from the standpoint of
determining if a proposed placement operation or series of operations can be accomplished at the
site, considering factors such as the area available, volume to be dredged, sediment characteristics, and anticipated dredging operational parameters (such as the dredge size and flowrate,).
Design of a new CDF involves determining the necessary site geometry (such as the area and
dike height) and design features needed for the project.
4.1.1.9 Transport and placement of dredged material.
a. A variety of hydraulic and mechanical methods can be used to place dredged material in
CDFs. Direct hydraulic placement from pipeline dredges is perhaps the most common method
(Figure 4-6), but material can also be placed by hydraulic pumpout directly from hopper dredges
(Figure 4-7). In addition, barges filled by clamshell dredges can be hydraulically offloaded and
the material pumped to CDFs. Specialized hydraulic offloaders have been designed for this
purpose (Figure 4-8). Hydraulic dredging (or hydraulic reslurry) generally adds several volumes
of water for each volume of sediment removed, and this excess water is normally discharged as
effluent from the CDF during the filling operation. The amount of water added depends on the
design of the dredge, the physical characteristics of the sediment, and operational factors, such as
pumping distance.
b. Direct mechanical rehandling from barges filled by a clamshell dredge has been accomplished at CDFs in the Great Lakes region. For large dike cross sections, some sort of chute for
conveyance of the material from the waterside to the interior is needed. Figure 4-9 shows an
offloading sluice or chute constructed for this purpose. Figures 4-10 and 4-11 show the use of old
railcar tanks grouped to form a wide chute for mechanical placement.

4-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-6. Typical CDF Hydraulic Inflow from a Cutterhead Pipeline Dredge

Figure 4-7. Hopper Dredge Pumpout Operation with a Pipeline Leading to the CDF

4-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-8. Specialized Hydraulic Offloaders

Figure 4-9. Chute Used for Direct Mechanical Placement into a CDF

4-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-10. Chute Fabricated from Railcar Tanks Used for Direct Mechanical Placement
into a CDF

Figure 4-11. Placement Using a Chute Fabricated from Railcar Tanks for Direct
Mechanical Placement into a CDF

4-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Since upland sites may be located at some distance from the dredging areas and from
waterfront access, placement by direct pipeline from hydraulic dredges requires routing a
pipeline to the site. Material can also be transported to an upland site using roll-off containers or
by truck, but a shore-based rehandling and dewatering facility may be required.
d. Nearshore sites have waterfront access by definition. Placement by direct pipeline from
hydraulic dredges is feasible if the site is located near dredging areas. Material can be transported
from dredging areas to a nearshore site by barge and directly off-loaded to the site by mechanical
rehandling or by hydraulic reslurry operations.
e. For some nearshore sites, barges may be used to place the material directly into the CDF by
bottom dumping. A notch is left in the retaining dike for barge access. This filling procedure can
be used until the fill reaches a height limiting the access of the barge. The notch is then closed
and the CDF filled using other methods. Bottom placement by barge dump is a hybrid between
diked placement and open-water placement.
f. The method of placement influences the properties of the material in the CDF. Hydraulic
filling operations may tend to segregate the various size fractions. In the case of new work
dredging, sand, clay balls, and/or gravel may be present. This coarse material (>No. 200 sieve)
rapidly falls out of suspension near the dredge inlet pipe, forming a mound. The fine-grained
material (<No. 200 sieve) continues to flow through the containment area with most of the solids
settling out of suspension, thereby occupying a given storage volume. The fine-grained dredged
material is usually rather homogeneous and is easily characterized.
4.1.1.10 Sizing for solids retention and initial storage.
a. A CDF must be designed and operated to provide adequate initial storage volume and
surface area to hold the dredged material solids during an active filling operation and, if
hydraulically filled, to retain suspended solids such that clarified water is discharged.
b. For mechanical placement operations, material placed in the CDF is at or near its in situ
water content. If such sites are constructed in water, the effluent volume may be limited to the
water displaced by the dredged material, and the settling behavior of the material is not as
important as with hydraulic filling.
c. For hydraulic filling, the required initial storage capacity, ponded water depth, and surface
area are governed by settling processes that occur in a CDF during placement of fine-grained
dredged material. Settling tests of the sediments to be dredged may be required to define their
settling behavior in a dredged material containment area. The tests provide numerical values for
design criteria that can be projected to the size and design of the containment area. Procedures
for computer-assisted plotting and reduction of settling column data are available.
d. The site must be volumetrically large enough to meet both short-term storage capacity
requirements during filling operations and long-term requirements for the anticipated life of the
site. Sufficient surface area and dike height with freeboard must be available for retention of finegrained material to maintain effluent water quality. When the dredged material is initially

4-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
deposited in the CDF, it may occupy several times its original volume. The settling process is a
function of time, but the sediment eventually consolidates to its in situ volumeor less if
desiccation occurs. Adequate volume must be provided during the dredging operation to contain
the total volume of sediment to be dredged, accounting for any volume changes during
placement. Procedures to evaluate the required surface area and volume during active filling
operations, to estimate effluent suspended solids concentrations, and to design other features for
CDFs are described in paragraph 4.4.
4.1.1.11 Long-term management. In most cases, CDFs must be used over a period of many
years, storing material dredged periodically over the design life. Long-term storage capacity of
these areas is therefore a major factor in design and management. Consolidation of the layers
continues for long periods following placement, causing a decrease in the volume occupied by
the layers and a corresponding increase in storage capacity for future placement. Once water is
decanted from the area following active placement, natural drying forces begin to dewater the
dredged material, adding additional storage capacity. The gains in storage capacity are therefore
influenced by consolidation and drying processes as well as the techniques used to manage the
site both during and following active placement operations. All of the dredged material placed in
an upland site can be dewatered by drying processes if the site is appropriately managed from the
onset of operations. A nearshore or island site can be managed for dewatering by drying only for
material placed above the mean high water elevation. Dewatering of material in the saturated
zone is limited by consolidation processes. Procedures to evaluate long-term storage capacity and
dredged material dewatering operations are described in paragraph 4.5.
4.1.1.12 Dike design. The site conditions must allow for construction of structurally and
geotechnically sound retaining dikes for effective containment of ponded water and dredged
material. For nearshore sites, the dike face is exposed to erosional forces due to currents and
wave action, and some form of armor protection must normally be considered. Since the dikes
must be constructed in water, marine construction techniques must be used, and these normally
result in increased costs as compared with upland sites. Considerations for CDF dike design are
presented in paragraph 4.6.
4.1.1.13 Contaminant pathways. CDFs are often an alternative for disposal of sediments
found to be unsuitable for open water disposal. The sediments placed in CDFs, therefore, often
contain contaminants. The possible migration pathways of contaminants from CDFs include
effluent discharges to surface water during filling operations and subsequent settling and
dewatering, rainfall surface runoff, leachate into groundwater, volatilization to the atmosphere,
and direct uptake of contaminants by plants or animals colonizing the site (direct uptake includes
plant uptake and subsequent cycling through food webs and direct uptake by animal populations
living in close association with the dredged material). Effects on surface water quality, groundwater quality, air quality, plants, and animals depend on the characteristics of the dredged
material, management and operation of the site during and after filling, and the proximity of the
CDF to potential receptors of the contaminants. Guidance on evaluation of contaminant pathways
is presented in paragraph 4.7, and guidance on control measures for contaminant releases is presented in paragraph 4.9.

4-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.1.2 Technical Framework for CDF evaluations.
4.1.2.1 The technical framework for evaluation of dredged material placement options is
described in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management. USEPA/USACE
(2004) includes a framework for detailed evaluation of confined placement as an option. Figure
4-12 presents a flowchart illustrating the major steps and components of the framework.
4.1.2.2 Design aspects related to physical site capacity, such as sizing and retention of
dredged material, are evaluated first because such evaluations can be conducted quickly and
inexpensively. If a given site or design option is not workable from the physical standpoint, it can
be eliminated without wasting effort on more involved and expensive environmental evaluations.
4.1.2.3 The evaluation of a CDF option can be approached in two basic ways. First, if there is
an existing CDF or an available site for a CDF, the suitability of that site can be evaluated for the
project of interest. Second, if no specific site has been identified, the requirements for the CDF
can be evaluated and used to screen or select an appropriate site.
4.1.2.4 In cases where evaluations of direct physical impacts, site capacity, or contaminant
pathways indicate impacts will be unacceptable when conventional CDF disposal techniques are
used, management actions and contaminant control measures may be considered. Such management actions or controls may include modification to the dredging operation or site, treatment
of effluent, runoff, or leachate, treatment of dredged material solids, or site controls such as
surface covers or liners. Guidance on contaminant controls is presented in paragraph 4.9.
4.1.3 Regulatory considerations.
4.1.3.1 The CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 implement environmental
protection provisions of the CWA, including those related to dredged material placement in
CDFs. It should be noted that the placement of dredged material in a CDF is not regulated per se
under Section 404; only the discharge of dredged material to waters of the United States is regulated. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates the dredging activity but also
gives the USACE regulatory authority regarding placement. Therefore, the USACE has broad
regulatory authority over CDFs through both Section 10 and Section 404.
4.1.3.2 The return flow of water (effluent) from a CDF is specifically defined as a discharge
to waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA [33 CFR 323.2]. Certain CDF
effluent discharges may also be regulated under the USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) program
provided they meet the conditions for the program [33 CFR 330]. The nationwide permit would
satisfy the technical requirement for a Section 404 permit for the return water where the quality
of the return water is controlled by the state through the Section 401 certification procedures
[33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (16)]. Permit applicants may contact the appropriate USACE
regulatory branch to determine if a proposed activity meets the requirements for the nationwide
permit. In any case, applicable State water quality standards apply to the return water, and the
State 401 water quality certification requirements must be met.

4-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-12. Technical Framework Flowchart for Evaluation of Confined Dredged Material
Placement (after USEPA/USACE 2004)

4-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.1.3.3 Groundwater impacts are included among the factors in the 404(b)(1) guidelines that
should be considered when evaluating the environmental protectiveness of CDFs. However, there
has been much confusion regarding the applicability of solid waste regulations, specifically under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), to dredged material placement in CDFs.
The USEPA has specifically exempted dredged material from the Subtitle C provisions of the
RCRA pertaining to disposal of hazardous wastes [FR Volume 63, Number 229, pages 6587365947]. The exclusion in part 261.4(g) of the final rule provides that dredged material is
excluded as a hazardous waste when that material is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act or Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA). However, no specific exemption was given under Subtitle D provisions pertaining to
solid waste. It is the policy of the USACE that any placement activity in a CDF regulated under
the CWA is not subject to regulation as a solid waste. If dredged material is removed from a CDF
for placement off-site or for beneficial use, solid waste regulations may be applicable.
4.1.3.4 NEPA provides the USACE with a broad regulatory authority regarding selecting
alternatives and the associated design, operation, and management requirements. Other CDF
contaminant pathways and environmental aspects are normally considered as a part of the NEPA
process.
4.1.3.5 The design, operation, and management procedures for CDFs, as described in this
EM, are assumed to be applicable to CDFs regulated under Section 404.
4.1.4 Technical basis for guidance.
4.1.4.1 From the brief description of CDF processes given here, it is apparent that the design,
operation, and management of a CDF may become quite complex depending on the operational
constraints, site conditions, and characteristics of the dredged material. A wide range of guidance
documents regarding CDF design, operation, and management have been generated under the
USACE Environmental Effects of Dredging Programs (EEDP) at the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC) and through various site-specific studies by USACE
Districts and Divisions. These efforts provide the foundation for the technical guidance on CDFs
found in this EM.
4.1.4.2 The Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) was the first major research effort
of the USACE addressing dredged material placement, and confined placement was addressed
within several research areas of the program. DMRP research results provided the basis for initial
USACE technical guidance on confined dredged material placement, including design, operation,
management, basic consideration of contaminant behavior, approaches for dewatering, and reuse
and productive use of CDFs (Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter 1978; Haliburton 1978).
4.1.4.3 Following the DMRP, research under the Field Verification Program (FVP) and
Long-Term Effects of Dredging Operations (LEDO) Program and technology transfer efforts
under the Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program have led to the development
of a variety of technical reports, technical notes, EMs, and other guidance documents related to
confined placement. In 1987, EM 1110-2-5027 was published as a comprehensive guidance
document on the engineering aspects of confined placement design and management. This EM
4-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
was based on the technical guidance developed during and subsequent to the DMRP. However,
the EM was purposely focused on the engineering design of CDFs and did not include guidance
on the environmental aspects of confined placement, particularly those aspects related to
contaminant pathway testing and assessment and design of control measures for contaminants.
4.1.4.4 The technical framework for the evaluation of dredged material placement options
developed by the USACE and USEPA (USEPA/USACE 2004) includes a framework for
detailed evaluation of confined placement as an option. The guidance for CDF options provided
in this EM includes contaminant pathway testing and assessment and design of control measures
for contaminants as called for in the Technical Framework (Figure 4-12). Many of the technical
reports are available through the USACE DOTS website (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/).
4.2 Site Selection and Investigations.
4.2.1 Site selection considerations.
4.2.1.1 Site specification for CDFs can be more complex in many ways than for open-water
sites. Real estate considerations are a major factor in determining the availability of potential
sites. Most navigation project authorizations require local project sponsors to provide the lands,
easements, and rights-of-way for CDFs; some authorizations require the sponsor to provide dikes
and site management. CDFs, therefore, represent a substantial economic investment on the part
of the sponsor. In many instances, the sponsors provide only sites that meet short-term requirements, and additional sites may be required in the future. Another consideration for CDF site
specification is the fact that such sites are normally visible to the public and are viewed as a
competing interest for land use, especially in coastal areas where there is intense pressure for
both development and preservation of lands.
4.2.1.2 A knowledge of CDF site characteristics is necessary for assessments of potential
physical impacts and contaminant impacts. Information on site characteristics needed for assessments includes the following:
a. Available area and volumetric storage capacity to contain the material for the required life
of the site.
b. Real estate considerations.
c. Site configuration and access.
d. Proximity to sensitive ecological environments.
e. Topography to include potential changes in elevation and runoff patterns and adjacent
drainage.
f. Ability of the dredged material to eventually dry and oxidize.
g. Groundwater levels, flow and direction, and potential impact on groundwater discharge
and recharge.
4-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
h. Meteorology and climate.
i. Foundation soil properties and stratigraphy.
j. Potential groundwater receptors.
k. Potential alteration of the existing habitat type.
l. Potential for effluent, leachate, and surface runoff impacting adjacent ground and surface
water resources.
m. Potential for direct uptake and movement of contaminants into food webs.
n. Potential for volatilization of contaminants.
o. Potential for dust, noise, or odor problems.
p. Potential to implement management activities when deemed necessary.
q. Potential accessibility of the site by the public.
r. Contamination history of proposed site.
4.2.2 Site surveys and investigations. Field exploration programs are necessary to assess
many of the above considerations in determining the suitability of a site for use as a CDF. The
sediments to be dredged must be characterized, and the CDF site should be investigated to
include foundation explorations for dike design and groundwater assessments.
4.2.2.1 Channel sediments. As with any placement option, investigations of channel sediments are needed to determine volumes to be dredged and the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediments. The channel must be surveyed to determine the volume of material to
be dredged, and channel sediments must be sampled to obtain material for laboratory tests. The
potential for the presence of contaminants should be evaluated when planning field investigations, and appropriate safety measures should be considered. Determination of the in situ
density (water content) of the sediment is especially critical for sizing a CDF to accommodate the
volume to be dredged. Samples from multiple stations in the area to be dredged are normally
collected for purposes of characterization, while composite samples are developed for some
engineering and environmental testing. Details on channel surveys and sediment sampling and
characterization are provided in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management, of
this EM.
4.2.2.2 CDF site investigations.
a. Some site investigations are required to obtain data for site screening and selection.
However, detailed and expensive investigations are normally limited to a feasible site or sites or
to an existing site if sufficient data is not available.

4-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Site investigations must be conducted to provide information for dike design and evaluation of potential foundation settlement, an important parameter in long-term storage capacity
estimates.
c. Field investigations must be performed at the containment area to define foundation conditions and to obtain samples for laboratory testing if estimates of long-term storage capacity are
required. The extent of required field investigations is dependent upon both the project size and
the foundation conditions at the site. It is particularly important to define foundation conditions
(including depth, thickness, extent, and composition of foundation strata), groundwater
conditions, and other factors that may influence construction and operation of the site. For new
containment areas, the field investigations required for estimating long-term storage capacity
should be planned and accomplished along with those required for the engineering design of the
retaining dikes, as described in paragraph 4.6.
d. For existing containment areas, the foundation conditions may have been defined by
previous subsurface investigations made in connection with dike construction. However,
previous investigations may not have included sampling of compressible soils for consolidation
tests; in most cases, suitable samples of any previously placed dredged material would not be
available. Field investigations must therefore be tailored to provide those items of information
not already available.
e. Undisturbed samples of the compressible foundation soils can be obtained using conventional soil sampling techniques and equipment. If dredged material has previously been placed
within the containment area, undisturbed samples must be obtained from borings taken within
the containment area but not through existing dikes. The major problem in sampling existing
containment areas is that the surface crust does not normally support conventional drilling
equipment, and personnel sampling in these areas must use caution. Below the surface crust,
fine-grained dredged material is usually soft, and equipment sinks rapidly if it breaks through the
firmer surface. Lightweight drilling equipment, supported by mats, is normally required if crust
thickness is not well developed. In some cases, sampling may be accomplished manually if sufficient dried surface crust has formed to support crew and equipment. More detailed information
regarding equipment use in containment areas is presented in Appendix O, Procedures for
Selecting Equipment for Dewatering Operations.
f. Water table conditions within the containment area must be determined in order to estimate
loadings caused by placement of dredged material. This information must be obtained by means
of piezometers, which may also be used to measure groundwater conditions during the service
life of the area. Other desired instrumentation, such as settlement plates, may also be installed
within the containment area for monitoring various parameters.
g. Additional information regarding conventional sampling techniques and equipment and
development of field exploration programs is given in EM 1110-2-1907 and in Chapter 2,
Dredging and Navigation Project Management, of this manual. Procedures for installation of
piezometers and other related instrumentation are given in EM 1110-2-1908.

4-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.2.3 Site selection for avoidance of contaminant impacts.
4.2.3.1 As water percolates through in situ dredged material, leachate may be produced. This
leachate water may be the result of precipitation or entrained water caused by the dredging
operation. Available data for the characterization of leachate produced from dredged material are
very limited. Potential adverse water quality impacts are most likely caused by the increase of
chloride, potassium, sodium, calcium, total organic carbon, alkalinity, iron, and manganese.
These factors should be considered even for dredged material that is thought to be
uncontaminated. This is especially true if a saltwater dredged material may be placed over a
freshwater aquifer.
4.2.3.2 Site location is an important, if not the most important, consideration in minimizing
any adverse impact to underlying groundwater. Selection of a technically sound site may reduce
or eliminate the need for any restrictions or controls. Site characteristics affecting groundwater
impacts are presented in Table 4-1. Those that are particularly important in the evaluation of
groundwater impacts at potential upland placement sites are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Table 4-1. Site Characteristics Affecting Groundwater Impacts
Characteristic

Impact

Site volume
Site area
Site configuration
Dredging method
Climate (precipitation, temperature, wind, evaporation)
Soil texture and permeability
Soil moisture
Topography
Drainage
Vegetation

Depth to bedrock
Depth to aquicludes
Direction and rate of groundwater flow
Existing land use
Depth of groundwater
Ecological areas
Drinking water wells
Receiving streams (lakes, rivers, etc.)
Level of existing contamination
Nearest receptors

a. Location. While the significant characteristics of a given site are usually unique, useful
hypotheses about pathways of migration and estimates of parameters needed to calculate
migration rate can often be developed from available regional data and keyed to location,
topography, surface drainage patterns, flood potential, subsurface stratigraphy, groundwater flow
patterns, and climate.
b. Topography. Topographic variables are important in evaluating surface drainage and runon and runoff potential of the site. This information is helpful in determining the amount of water
that may be available to percolate through the in situ dredged material.

4-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Stratigraphy. The nature of subsurface soils, determined by examination of soil core
borings to bedrock, is an important input to evaluation of pathways of migration in both the
unsaturated and saturated zones.
d. Groundwater levels (equipotential surfaces). Seasonal maps of water table contours and
piezometric surfaces, developed by analysis of groundwater monitoring well data, are important
in predicting groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients, as these can vary greatly at
upland or nearshore sites.
e. Groundwater flow. Information on permeability and porosity of subsurface strata, combined with data on hydraulic gradients, is important in predicting groundwater flow velocities
and direction.
f. Meteorology and climate. Precipitation, including annual, seasonal, or monthly rain and
snowfall, is an important parameter in determining a water balance for the site and in evaluating
leachate potential. Evapotranspiration is also important in developing a water balance for the site.
It is often estimated from temperature and the nature of vegetative growth at the site.
g. Soil properties. An important variable in evaluating mobility of many metal contaminants
is pH. Cation exchange capacity (CEC), a measure of the reversibly bound cations in a sample, is
an important determinant of the mobility of metallic species in soils; if the CEC is sufficiently
high to adequately immobilize the heavy metals present in the soil, no adverse groundwater
impacts may result. Redox potential (Eh) is important in determining the stability of various
metallic and organic species in the subsurface environment of the site. Organic carbon content is
a major variable affecting adsorption, and therefore mobility, of organic species in the subsurface
environment. Soil type (for example, clay, till, sand, and fractured bedrock) is a major variable
affecting rates and routes of groundwater migration.
h. Potential groundwater receptors and sensitive ecological environments. Groundwater and
surface water usage, especially downgradient of the site, is important in evaluating adverse
impacts. Size of population and nature of ecological resources downgradient of the site are also
important variables in determining adverse impacts.
4.2.3.3 Examples of where site location alone can be used to reduce or eliminate adverse
impacts to groundwater include the following:
a. Selection of sites that have natural clay underlying formations that can minimize potential
groundwater contamination concerns.
b. Selection of sites to avoid aquifer recharge areas that can minimize potential groundwater
contamination concerns. Another consideration associated with site location is that some finetextured dredged material tends to form its own liner as particles settle with percolation drainage
water; however, it may require considerable time for self-sealing to develop. For this reason, if an
artificial liner is considered useful, a temporary liner subject to gradual deterioration with time
may be adequate in many cases.

4-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.2.4 Considerations for dike alignment and location of weirs and inflows. Once a site has
been identified for a new CDF, the available area for construction of that CDF can be evaluated
with respect to the potential location (alignment) of the dikes, inflow points, and outlet weirs. In
general, the geometry of the diked area should be laid out such that the distance between the
inflow points and outlet weirs is maximized. The geometry should also consider the potential
hydraulic efficiency of the site. The anticipated weir and inflow locations should also be considered early in the design/evaluation process for existing sites. In some cases, the weirs may
require relocation or upgrading, or additional weirs may need to be added.
4.3 Laboratory Testing Requirements.
4.3.1 General.
4.3.1.1 A number of laboratory tests may be required to provide data for CDF design and
evaluation. In some cases specific tests, designed for dredged material application, are needed. If
CDF options are being considered along with other placement and management options, the laboratory testing program should be planned to meet the testing requirements pertaining to all
options under consideration (see Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management).
4.3.1.2 The types of tests that should be considered for CDF evaluations include those for
sediment characterization, settling tests for containment area design, consolidation tests for longterm storage capacity estimates, and contaminant pathway tests. The laboratory tests and procedures include standard tests that generally follow procedures found in Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater (American Public Health Association [APHA] 1998),
EM 1110-2-1906, and the Upland Testing Manual (UTM) (USACE 2003), used primarily for
contaminant pathway testing. The anticipated requirements for the total testing program should
be considered in planning any required sampling and in scheduling the testing efforts. Sampling
and testing should be conducted in a coordinated program to avoid multiple sampling and testing
efforts to the degree possible.
4.3.1.3 The required magnitude of the laboratory testing program is highly project dependent.
Fewer tests are usually required when dealing with a relatively homogeneous material and/or
when data are available from previous tests and experience. This is frequently the case in maintenance work. For unusual maintenance projects where considerable variation in sediment
properties is apparent from samples or for new work projects, more extensive laboratory testing
programs are required. Laboratory tests should always be performed on representative samples
selected using sound engineering judgment. The potential presence of contaminants should be
evaluated when planning a laboratory testing program, and appropriate safety measures should be
considered.
4.3.1.4 In some cases, recurring maintenance dredging is performed on given channel
reaches. Laboratory test data from previous sampling efforts may be available. Under such conditions, sediment characterization tests may be the only laboratory testing required. For example,
additional settling tests or consolidation tests are not required if it has been satisfactorily determined by prior testing that the settling and consolidation properties of the sediment to be dredged
have not changed.
4-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.3.2 Physical/Engineering tests.
4.3.2.1 General. Several physical and engineering tests may be required for design of the
CDF for initial and long-term capacity. Sediment characteristics and requirements for settling
data and for long-term storage capacity estimates dictate which laboratory tests are required.
4.3.2.2 In situ density/water content. Data defining the water content or density of the sediment in situ in the channel prior to dredging are critical for CDF design. Tests to define the water
content should be conducted on multiple samples taken throughout the area to be dredged and
vertically within the full thickness of the shoal to be removed.
4.3.2.3 Column settling tests. Dredged material placed in placement areas by hydraulic
dredges or pumped into placement areas by pump-out facilities enters the placement area as a
slurry (mixture of dredged solids and dredging site water). Settling refers to those processes in
which the dredged material slurry is separated into supernatant water of low solids concentration
and a more concentrated slurry. Laboratory sedimentation tests provide data for designing the
containment area to meet effluent suspended solids criteria and to provide adequate storage
capacity for the dredged solids. Detailed descriptions of the settling processes involved in CDF
design and column settling test procedures are provided in paragraph 4.4 and Appendix H,
Column Settling Test Procedures.
4.3.2.4 Consolidation testing. Determination of containment area long-term storage capacity
requires estimates of settlement due to self-weight consolidation of newly placed dredged
material and due to consolidation of compressible foundation soils. Consolidation test results
must be obtained, including time-consolidation data, to estimate the average void ratios at
completion of 100% primary consolidation.
a. Consolidation tests for foundation soils should be performed as described in
EM 1110-2-1906.
b. Controlled-rate-of-strain tests or fixed-ring consolidometers should be used for consolidation testing of sediment samples because of their fluidlike consistency. The only major
modifications for the conventional fixed-ring testing procedure concern the sample preparation
and the method of loading. Detailed procedures are found in Appendix J, Dredged Material
Consolidation Test Procedures.
4.3.2.5 Contaminant pathway tests. The potential contaminant pathways for CDFs include
effluent during filling, surface runoff, leachate to groundwater or surface water, plant and animal
uptake, and volatilization to the air. Tests to evaluate each of these pathways have been developed specifically for dredged material. However, contaminant pathway testing need not be conducted for all projects. As shown in the flowchart in Figure 4-12, illustrating the testing framework, screening evaluations should be initially conducted to determine if a specific pathway is of
concern. Pathway tests would then be conducted for only those pathways of concern. More
details on pathway analysis is provided in paragraph 4.7. Detailed procedures on the various
pathway tests are provided in the Upland Testing Manual (USACE 2003).

4-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.4 Retention of Solids and Initial Storage.
4.4.1 General.
4.4.1.1 One of the primary design objectives for a CDF is the retention of the dredged
material solids and the storage of the total volume of dredged material to be removed from the
active dredging operation. The design of a CDF for retention and initial storage is critical for the
case of hydraulic filling because the volumes of material undergo significant change during the
hydraulic dredging and placement process, and the solids must settle out from the carrier water to
maintain effluent quality. Guidelines presented here provide the necessary procedures for
sizing a containment area for adequate space and volume for retaining the solids within the
containment area through settling and providing storage capacity of dredged solids for a single
dredged material placement operation. Sizing to meet the initial capacity requirement does not
meet the needs for long-term storage capacity considering multiple filling operations, consolidation, and dewatering (this aspect of CDF design is discussed in paragraph 4.5).
4.4.1.2 If a CDF is filled by rehandling from mechanically filled barges or by trucking operations from rehandling facilities at another location, suspended solids retention is not normally a
design consideration and initial storage requirements can be determined in a straightforward
manner since any volume changes would be minor. The procedures in this chapter, therefore,
focus on the design requirements for hydraulic filling.
4.4.1.3 Hydraulic filling involves pumping a dredged material slurry, which is a mixture of
suspended solids and carrier water, into the CDF. Direct placement of dredged material using
pipeline dredges, pumpout of hopper dredges, and hydraulic reslurry of material from mechanically filled barges are all forms of hydraulic filling. If sufficient surface area or volume of
ponded water is not maintained in the site during hydraulic filling, the suspended solids will not
be retained and effluent quality will be degraded. If sufficient volume for storage of settled solids
is not provided, the dredging operation must be interrupted until additional settling occurs or it
may be impossible to place the full volume in the site without raising the dikes.
4.4.1.4 The major components of a hydraulically filled CDF are shown schematically in
Figure 4-13. Constructed dikes form a confined surface area, and the dredged channel sediments
are pumped into this area hydraulically. Both the influent dredged material slurry and effluent
water can be characterized by suspended solids concentration, suspended particle size gradation,
type of carrier water (fresh or saline), and rate of flow. The clarified water is usually discharged
from the containment area over a weir. Effluent flow rate is approximately equal to influent flow
rate for continuously operating placement areas. Flow over the weir is controlled by the static
head and the weir length provided. To promote effective sedimentation, ponded water is
maintained in the area with the depth of water controlled by the elevation of the weir crest. The
thickness of the dredged layer increases with time until the dredging operation is completed.
Minimum freeboard requirements and mounding of coarse-grained material result in a ponded
surface area smaller than the total surface area enclosed by the dikes. Dead spots in corners and
other hydraulically inactive zones reduce the surface area effectively involved with the flow to
considerably less than the total ponded surface area.

4-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-13. Conceptual Diagram of a Dredged Material Containment Area

4.4.1.5 The focus in this chapter is on fine-grained dredged material, the silt and clay fraction.
The major objective is to provide solids removal by the process of gravity settling to a level that
permits discharge of the transporting water from the area. The coarse fraction, the sand and larger
particles, do not undergo significant volume change and easily settle out near the inflow point.
4.4.1.6 Effluent standards may be imposed as a requirement for water quality certification.
Standards in terms of suspended solids or turbidity may be used. Procedures in this manual allow
containment areas to be designed to meet such effluent standards.
4.4.1.7 The process of gravity sedimentation does not completely remove the suspended
solids from the containment area effluent since wind and other factors resuspend solids and
increase effluent solids concentration. The settling process, with proper design and operation,
normally provide removal of fine-grained dredged material down to a level of 1-2 grams per liter
4-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
in the effluent for freshwater conditions. The settling process usually provides removal of finegrained dredged material down to a level of several hundred milligrams per liter or lower for
saltwater conditions. If the required effluent standard is not met by gravity settling, the designer
must provide for additional treatment of the effluent (for example, flocculation or filtration)
(paragraph 4.8).
4.4.1.8 The overall design approach is illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 4-14. Pertinent
data on dredging volumes, CDF site conditions, dredged material characteristics, and basic
design assumptions are initially evaluated. An initial screening evaluation is then conducted to
determine the need for settling column tests and detailed design calculations. If the actual or
anticipated size of the CDF is much larger than necessary for the dredging project under consideration and contaminants are not an issue for effluent quality, no column tests are needed. An
option is also available for small projects to determine the sizing requirements using conservative approaches, but the time and expense of testing and design calculations can be avoided.
Otherwise, column settling test data should be used in performing detailed evaluations of the
sizing requirements.
4.4.2 Data requirements and initial evaluation.
4.4.2.1 General. The data required to size a CDF for solids retention and initial storage are
obtained from field investigations (Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management),
laboratory testing (Chapters 2 and 4), project-specific operational constraints, and experience in
dredging and placement activities. The types of data required are described in the following
paragraphs.
4.4.2.2 In situ sediment volume. The initial step in any dredging activity is to estimate the
total in situ channel volume of sediment to be dredged, V c . Sediment quantities are usually
determined from routine channel surveys (Chapter 2).
4.4.2.3 Physical characteristics of sediments. Field sampling and sediment characterization
should be accomplished according to the laboratory tests described in Chapter 2 of this manual.
Adequate sample coverage is required to provide representative samples of the sediment. Also
required are in situ water contents of the fine-grained maintenance sediments. Care must be taken
in sampling to ensure that the water contents are representative of the in situ conditions. A
representative value for in situ void ratios is needed to estimate volume for the containment area.
Grain size analyses are used to estimate the quantities of coarse- and fine-grained material in the
sediment to be dredged. The volume of sand V sd can be estimated as a percentage of the total
volume V c to be dredged by using the percent coarser than No. 200 sieve. The in situ volume of
fine-grained sediment V i is equal to V c -V sd .
4.4.2.4 Salinity of sarrier water. In addition to physical characteristics of the sediment, the
salinity of the water at the dredging site should be determined. The near bottom salinity is
reflected in the dredged material pumped directly to the CDF by pipeline or by hopper dredge
pumpout. For reslurry of mechanically dredged material from barges, the salinity of the reslurry
water at the point of offloading should be considered.

4-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-14. Flowchart of the Design Procedure for Settling and Initial Storage

4-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.4.2.5 Available placement site area and volume. The sizing effort determines if the area and
volume of an existing site are adequate for the project under consideration or if a new site is
needed. In the latter case, it determines the required dimensions of a new site, considering both the
surface area and the dike height needed to provide the required volume. The diked surface area and
available volume within the diked area for existing sites must be estimated. The evaluations
determine the needed surface area and volume, and these requirements can be compared to
available area and volume for either new or existing sites. If the project requires construction of
new dikes or raising existing dike elevations, the limitations on dike heights should be determined
considering the foundation conditions or other factors.
4.4.2.6 Dredging flowrate and time required for filling. The largest anticipated hydraulic
inflow rate during filling and the estimated time required to complete the entire filling operation
must also be determined. Inflow rate is a function of the dredge size, and the time required for
dredging the project is a function of the production rate of the dredge and other associated
factors. In many cases, the pipeline dredge size or equivalent flowrate for hopper or barge offloading can be estimated from past experience with the project. If the size of the dredge to be
used is not known, the largest dredge size that might be expected to perform the dredging should
be assumed. For hopper dredge or barge pump-out operations, an equivalent placement rate must
be estimated based on hopper or barge pump-out rate and travel time involved. Flowrates for
various dredge sizes and methods for estimating the production rates and times required to
complete an active dredging project are provided in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project
Management.
4.4.2.7 Selection of minimum average ponding depth. Before a placement site can be
designed for effective settling or before the required placement area geometry can be finalized, a
ponding depth H pd during placement must be assumed. The design procedures in the following
paragraphs call for an average ponding depth in estimating the residence time necessary for
effective settling. A minimum average ponding depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) should be used for the
design. If the design objective is to minimize the surface area required, selection of a deeper
ponding depth may be desirable. If conditions allow for the greater ponding depth throughout the
operation, the greater value can be used. For most cases, constant ponding depth can be
maintained by raising the pond surface as settled material accumulates in the containment area by
raising the elevation of the weir crest. Although ponding is not feasible over the entire surface
area of many sites, an adequate ponding depth must be maintained over the design surface area as
determined by the design to ensure adequate retention of solids.
4.4.2.8 Effluent standards. The standards for effluent turbidity (TSS) must be considered in
sizing the CDF for retention time and any need for additional control measures to reduce
suspended solids concentrations in the effluent.
4.4.2.9 Initial screening evaluation. Once the basic project data and design requirements are
collected, an initial screening evaluation can be conducted to determine the need for laboratory
column settling tests and detailed design evaluations.
4.4.2.10 Small CDFs can be sized for solids retention and initial storage using nomograph
solutions. The available nomographs are based on conservative assumptions, and the resulting
4-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
designs are conservative, but the time and expense of testing and design calculations can be
avoided. The CDF can be sized using these nomographs if certain conditions are met.
4.4.3 Column settling tests.
4.4.3.1 If the initial evaluation indicates a detailed design evaluation for solids retention and
initial storage is required, column settling test data are needed for the evaluation. The required
initial storage capacity and surface area are governed by zone, flocculant, and compression
settling processes that occur in a CDF during placement of fine-grained dredged material.
Depending on the salinity of the carrier water and the concentration of the inflow to the CDF, the
dredged material slurry settles either by zone processes (common for saltwater sediments) or by
flocculant processes (common for freshwater sediments). Regardless of the salinity, flocculant
processes govern the concentration of solids in the effluent.
4.4.3.2 If data exist from previous column settling tests that are representative of the dredged
material under consideration, the previous data can be used. For new projects or changed project
conditions or material characteristics, new column tests are necessary. The settling column used
for the test is shown in Figures 4-15 and 4-16.
The column is 20 cm (8 in.) in diameter and
1.8 m (6 ft) high, and the test is commonly
called a long tube settling test. Even though
zone, flocculant, and compression settling data
are needed, all the data can be developed from a
single test. A composite sediment sample is
commonly used for the test (see Chapter 2,
Dredging and Navigation Project
Management). A detailed description of the
settling processes and the procedures for
conducting the settling test are given in Appendix G, Plans and Specifications for Settling
Column, and Appendix H, Column Settling
Test Procedures.
4.4.3.3 The column settling test results are
normally used to develop relationships for
effluent TSS versus retention time, average
concentration (or density) of the dredged material placed in the CDF as a function of total
dredging time, and minimum required surface
area for effective zone settling as a function of
inflow rate. These relationships can then be
used in determining the sizing requirements for
a new CDF or the adequacy of an existing CDF
to meet the project requirements.

4-26

Figure 4-15. Settling Column Test

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-16. Schematic of an Apparatus for Conducting Settling Tests

4.4.4 Sizing calculations.
4.4.4.1 General. Design calculations for solids retention and initial storage can be done
manually or by computer. The calculations determine the following:
a. Volume for initial storage.
b. Minimum surface area for effective zone settling.
c. Required retention time to meet effluent TSS standards.
4.4.4.2 Evaluation of sizing. Once the basic design requirements are known and column
settling test data is available, the detailed evaluation of sizing for solids retention and initial
storage can be approached in several ways:

4-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. New site. The minimum required surface area for zone settling, surface area for initial
storage, and effluent TSS can be calculated for an assumed inflow rate.
b. Existing site. Required dike heights, allowable inflow rates, and effluent TSS concentrations can be estimated for an existing site with defined surface area and assumed average
ponding depth.
4.4.4.3 Computer solution. An application of the ADDAMS system, Design of Confined
Disposal Facilities for Suspended Solids Retention and Initial Storage Requirements (SETTLE),
provides a computer program to assist in the design of a CDF for solids retention and initial
storage. Laboratory column settling tests are an integral part of these design procedures, and the
data from these tests are required in order to use this application. The SETTLE application
analyzes laboratory data from the settling tests and calculates design parameters for CDFs.
Descriptions of ADDAMS and SETTLE are presented in Appendix F, Automated Dredging and
Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS).
4.4.4.4 Manual calculations. The necessary calculations can also be done manually, following
the procedures given in Appendix I, Design Calculations for Retention of Solids and Initial
Storage. Example calculations are also presented in this appendix.
4.4.5 Weir design for solids retention.
4.4.5.1 Weir design and operation. The purpose of the weir structure is to regulate the release
of ponded water from the containment area. Proper weir design and operation can control
resuspension and withdrawal of settled solids.
4.4.5.2 Weir design and containment sizing. Weir design is based on providing the capability
for selective withdrawal of the clarified upper layer of ponded water. The weir design guidelines,
as developed in the following paragraphs, are based on the assumptions that the design of the
containment area has provided sufficient area and volume for sedimentation and that
shortcircuiting is not excessive.
4.4.5.3 Ponding depth and effective weir length. Ponding depth and effective weir length are
the two most important parameters in weir design. The weir design guidelines presented in this
section allow evaluation of the trade-off involved between these parameters. The relationship
between effective weir length and ponding depth necessary to discharge a given flow without
significantly entraining settled material is illustrated by the nomograph in Figure 4-17.
a. Ponding depth. In order to maintain acceptable effluent quality, the upper layers containing
low levels of suspended solids should be ponded at depths greater than or equal to the minimum
depth of the withdrawal zone in order to prevent scouring settled material. The withdrawal zone
is the area through which fluid is removed for discharge over the weir, as shown in Figure 4-18.
The size of the withdrawal zone affects the approach velocity of flow toward the weir and is
generally equal to the depth of ponding.

4-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-17. Weir Design Nomograph

4-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-18. Conceptual Illustration of Withdrawal Depth and Velocity Profile

b. Effective weir length. The weir shape or configuration affects the dimensions of the
withdrawal zone and, consequently, the approach velocity. Since weirs do not extend across an
entire side of the containment area, flow concentrations of varying degrees occur near the weir,
resulting in higher local velocities and possible resuspension of solids. Longer effective weir
lengths result in less concentration of flow. The minimum width through which the flow must
pass may be termed the effective weir length Le.
4.4.5.4 Design procedure. To design a new weir to meet a given effluent suspended solids
level, the following procedure should be used:
a. Select the appropriate operating line in the lower portion of the nomograph based on the
governing settling behavior of the dredged material slurry (zone or flocculant).
b. Construct horizontal lines at the design inflow rate Qi and the ponding depth expected at
the weir as shown in the key in Figure 4-18. This ponding depth may be larger than the average
ponding depth for large containment areas as the result of a slope taken by the settling material.
The ponding depth at the weir may be estimated by using the following equation:
H pd ( =
H pd + 1/ 2 Lps (0.001)
weir )

(4-1)

where
H pd(weir) = estimated ponding depth at the weir, ft
H pd

= average ponding depth, ft

Lps = length of ponded surface between inflow point and weir, ft

c. Construct a vertical line from the point of intersection of the horizontal ponding depth line
and the selected operating line of the nomograph. The required effective weir length is found at
the intersection of the vertical line and the horizontal design flow line. An example is shown in
the key in Figure 4-17.
4-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Determine the number of weir structures, the physical dimensions of each, and the
locations, based on the weir type to be used and the configuration of the containment area. If a
satisfactory balance between effective weir length and ponding depth cannot be achieved,
intermittent operation or use of a smaller dredge may be required to prevent resuspension at the
weir as the containment area is filled. An illustrative problem is given in Appendix I, Design
Calculations for Retention of Solids and Initial Storage.
4.4.5.5 Effect of weir type.
a. Rectangular weirs. Rectangular weirs, the most commonly used weir type, may consist of
rectangular wood- or metal-framed inlets or half-cylindrical corrugated metal pipe risers.
Examples are shown in Figures 4-19 and 4-20. The effective weir length is equal to the actual
weir crest length for rectangular weirs, as illustrated in Figure 4-21a.
b. Jutting weirs. A modified form of the rectangular weir is the jutting weir (Figure 4-21b). It
is possible to achieve a greater effective weir length using a jutting weir since the effective length
Le equals L + 2J, as shown in Figure 4-21b.
c. Polygonal (labyrinth) weirs. Polygonal (labyrinth) weirs have been used to reduce the depth
of flow over the weir. However, use of such weirs has little impact on effluent suspended solids
concentrations since the controlling factor for the depth of withdrawal is usually not the flow
over the weir but the approach velocity. Therefore, the approach velocity and the withdrawal
depth for the rectangular weir in Figure 4-21a would be the same as that for the polygonal weir in
Figure 4-21c since both weirs have the same effective length Le, even though the total weir crest
length for the polygonal weir is considerably greater. Use of polygonal weirs is not recommended
because of the greater cost and the marginal improvement of effluent quality realized when using
such a weir.
d. Shaft-type weirs. In some cases, the outflow structure is a four-sided drop inlet or shaft
located within the containment area as shown in Figure 4-21d. In evaluating the effective weir
length for shaft-type weirs, the approach velocity is a key consideration. To minimize the
approach velocity and, therefore, the withdrawal depth, the shaft weir should not be placed too
near the dike. In Figure 4-21d, location A is the most desirable since flow can approach from all
sides (four effective sides). Location B is less desirable since flow can approach from only three
directions (three effective sides), and Location C is the least desirable since it has only two
effective sides. Because effluent pipes must run from the shaft weir under the dike to the
receiving stream, a location such as A in Figure 4-21d may not be optimal since it is far from the
dike and requires a longer pipe than location B.
e. Telescoping weir. The Norfolk District has developed a new circular telescoping weir
designed to allow for precise control of the weir crest elevation. The weir can be adjusted
remotely by electric motor. A photo of the telescoping weir now in use at Craney Island in the
Norfolk District is shown in Figure 4-22.

4-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-19. Rectangular Weir (1)

Figure 4-20. Rectangular Weir (2)

4-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-21. Effective Lengths of Various Weir Types

4-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Telescoping Weir

b. Closeup of Adjustable Weir

Figure 4-22. Telescoping Weir at Craney Island

4-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
f. Converting weir length. To convert the weir length determined from the design nomographs to length Ls of a side of the square shaft weir, use the following formula:
Ls =

Le
n

(4-2)

where n is the number of effective sides of a shaft-type weir. A side is considered effective if it is
at least 1.5 L s ft away from the nearest dike, mounded area, or other dead zone. This distance is
generally accepted as being sufficient to prevent the flow restriction caused by the flow
contraction and bending due to the walls.
g. Structural design. Weirs should be structurally designed to withstand anticipated loadings
at maximum ponding elevations. Considerations should be given to uplift forces, potential
settlement, access, corrosion protection, and potential piping beneath or around the weir.
Additional information regarding structural design of weirs is found in Hammer and Blackburn
(1977). Outlet pipes for the weir structure must be designed to carry flows in excess of the flow
rate for the largest dredge size expected. Larger flow capacity of the outlet pipes may be needed
if an emergency release of ponded water is required.
4.5 Design and Management for Long-Term Storage Capacity.
4.5.1 General.
4.5.1.1 Many dredging projects are located where there are excessive and often conflicting
land use demands. Therefore, CDFs for dredged material must be efficiently utilized. Furthermore, the demand for long-term management strategies to meet dredging requirements over the
life of navigation projects continues to grow. Such strategies require the estimation of long-term
storage capacities of CDFs for known or estimated volumes of sediment to be dredged at varying
locations and times over a period of many years. Complete strategies also include plans for
managing CDFs to dewater the dredged material and increase storage capacity.
4.5.1.2 Guidance for management of CDFs for long-term storage capacity was initially
developed in the 1970s (Haliburton 1978) and later refined based on District field experience
(Palermo 1992). This chapter describes procedures for estimating long-term storage capacity of
CDFs, conducting appropriate testing programs for these evaluations, and managing CDFs to
increase storage capacity.
4.5.1.3 The storage capacity is defined as the total volume available to hold additional
dredged material and is equal to the total unoccupied volume minus the volume associated with
ponding requirements and freeboard requirements. The total volume available is limited by the
surface area of the site and the ultimate height to which dikes can be constructed. If the CDF is
intended for one-time use, initial storage capacity and retention of solids during filling are the
only design considerations (paragraph 4.4). However, if the CDF is intended for long-term use,
the long-term storage capacity must also be considered. The estimation of long-term storage
capacity is an important consideration for long-term planning and design of new containment
areas or evaluation of the remaining service life of existing sites.
4-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.5.2 Factors affecting long-term storage capacity.
4.5.2.1 As dredged material is placed in the CDF, the fill height increases. Following the
completion of a filling cycle, the fill height decreases due to three processes: sedimentation,
consolidation, and desiccation. Sedimentation is a relatively short-term process, and the settling
properties of the material determine the requirements for ponding and initial storage during
filling (paragraph 4.4). Consolidation and desiccation are long-term processes that determine the
long-term storage capacity requirements.
4.5.2.2 The coarse-grained fraction of dredged material (sands and coarser material) undergoes sedimentation quickly and will occupy essentially the same volume as occupied prior to
dredging. However, the fine-grained fraction of the material (silts and clays) requires longer
settling times, initially occupy considerably more volume than prior to dredging, and will
undergo a considerable degree of long-term volume change due to consolidation if hydraulically
placed. Such materials are essentially under-consolidated soils, and the consolidation takes place
due to self-weight loading.
4.5.2.3 Dredged material placement also imposes a loading on the containment area foundation, and additional settlement may result from consolidation of compressible foundation soils.
Settlement due to consolidation is, therefore, a major factor in the estimation of long-term
storage capacity. Since the consolidation process for fine-grained materials is slow, total
settlement may not have taken place before the containment area is required for additional
placement of dredged material. Settlement of the containing dikes may also significantly affect
the available storage capacity and should be carefully considered.
4.5.2.4 Once a given active dredging operation ends, the ponded surface water required for
settling is decanted, exposing the dredged material surface to desiccation (evaporative drying).
This process, which is both time-dependent and climate-dependent, can further add to long-term
storage capacity. Active dewatering operations, such as surface trenching, can speed the natural
dewatering process. A conceptual diagram illustrating these processes is shown in Figure 4-23.
4.5.2.5 Methods are readily available to predict the capacity gains possible through consolidation and desiccation. The following data are required to estimate long-term storage capacity:
a. Physical properties of the sediments and foundation soils, such as specific gravity, grain
size distributions, Atterberg liquid and plastic limits, and water contents.
b. Consolidation properties of the fine-grained dredged material and foundation soils (relationships of void ratio and permeability versus effective stress).
c. CDF site characteristics, such as surface area, ultimate dike height, groundwater table
elevations, average pan evaporation rates, and average rainfall.
d. Dredging data, such as volumes to be dredged, rate of filling, and frequency of dredging
(Poindexter-Rollings 1989).

4-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-23. Conceptual Diagram of Dredged Material Consolidation and Dewatering Processes
4.5.2.6 Guidelines for estimation of gains in long-term capacity due to settlement within the
containment area are based on the fundamental principles of consolidation theory modified to
consider the self-weight consolidation behavior of newly placed dredged material. The guidelines
are presented in the following paragraphs; illustrative examples are found in Appendix L,
Estimation of Dredged Material Consolidation by Finite Strain Technique.
a. Dredged material consolidation. Three types of consolidation may occur in dredged
material containment areas: primary consolidation, secondary consolidation, and consolidation
resulting from desiccation. An additional process influencing settlement is consolidation in
underlying material.
(1) Primary consolidation. The Terzaghi standard theory of one-dimensional consolidation, or
small strain theory, has received widespread use among geotechnical engineers and continues
to be the first choice for estimation of settlements. It has been used for consolidation problems in
which the magnitude of settlement is small in comparison to the thickness of the consolidating
layer. In contrast to the small strain theory, a finite strain theory for one-dimensional
consolidation is better suited for describing the large settlements common to the primary
consolidation of soft fine-grained dredged material. Calculation techniques are discussed in
paragraph 5-2.

4-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(2) Secondary consolidation. The process of secondary consolidation or creep refers to the
rearrangement of soil grains under load following completion of primary consolidation. Usually,
this process is not considered in settlement analyses and is not considered in this manual.
(3) Desiccation consolidation. There are basically two phenomena that control the amount of
consolidation caused by desiccation of fine-grained dredged material. The first is the evaporation
of water from the upper sections of the dredged material. The resulting reduction in its moisture
content causes a reduction in void ratio or volume occupied due to the negative pore water
pressure induced by the drying. This can be referred to as the dewatering process and is discussed
in paragraph 4.5.6.2.
(4) Consolidation in underlying material. An additional process influencing settlement
involves the primary consolidation in underlying material when the free water surface is lowered.
As the water surface moves downward, the unit weight acting on lower material changes from
buoyant unit weight to effective unit weight. The material below the new water level is,
therefore, subjected to an additional surcharge.
b. Dredged material dewatering processes.
(1) If the CDF is well managed following active filling, the excess water will be drained from

the surface, and natural evaporation will act to dewater the material. However, active dewatering
operations should be considered to speed up the dewatering process and achieve the maximum
possible volume reduction, considering the site-specific conditions and operational constraints.
(2) Once a given active filling operation ends, any ponded surface water required for settling

should be decanted, exposing the dredged material surface to desiccation (evaporative drying).
This process can further add to long-term storage capacity and is a time- and climate-dependent
process. However, active dewatering operations, such as surface trenching, enhances the natural
dewatering process.
c. General process description.
(1) Desiccation of dredged material is basically removal of water by evaporation and
transpiration. In this report, plant transpiration is considered insignificant due to the recurrent
deposition of dredged fill and is, therefore, disregarded. Evaporation is mainly controlled by such
variables as radiation heating from the sun, convective heating from the earth, air temperature,
ground temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed.
(2) However, other factors must also be taken into account. For instance, the evaporation
efficiency is normally not a constant, but some function of depth to which the layer has been
desiccated. It also depends on the amount of water available for evaporation.
(3) It is practical to make desiccation calculations on a monthly basis because of the availability of long-term monthly average rainfall and pan evaporation data, which have been
tabulated and published in climatic summaries by the U.S. Weather Bureau for many areas of the
United States. Tables and maps of average monthly rainfall and pan evaporation rates for select

4-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
stations are available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In
the absence of more site-specific data, these sources can be used for specification of climatic
data.
d. Evaporative stages. Evaporative drying of dredged material leading to the formation of a
desiccated crust is a two-stage process. The removal of water occurs at differing rates during the
two stages, as shown in Figure 4-24.

Figure 4-24. Dredged Material Evaporative Efficiency as a Function of Time

(1) The first stage begins when all free water has been decanted or drained from the dredged

material surface. The void ratio at this point e oo corresponds to zero-effective stress as
determined by laboratory sedimentation and consolidation testing. This initial void ratio has been
empirically determined to be at a water content of approximately 2.5 times the Atterberg liquid
limit (LL) of the material. First-stage drying ends and second stage begins at a void ratio that may
be called the decant point or saturation limit e SL . The e SL of typical dredged material has been
empirically determined to be at a water content of approximately 1.8 LL.
(2) Second-stage drying is an effective process until the material reaches a void ratio that may

be called the desiccation limit or e DL . When the e DL reaches a limiting depth, evaporation of
additional water from the dredged material effectively ceases. Any additional evaporation is
limited to excess moisture from undrained rainfall and the water forced out of the material as a
result of consolidation of material below the crust. The e DL of typical dredged material may
roughly correspond to a water content of 1.2 plastic limit (PL). Also associated with the e DL of a
material is a particular percentage of saturation that probably varies from 100% to something
slightly less, depending on the material.

4-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.5.3 Estimation of long-term storage capacity.
4.5.3.1 Data requirements. The data required to estimate long-term storage capacity include
physical properties of the sediments and foundation soils such as specific gravity, grain size distributions, Atterberg liquid and plastic limits, and water contents; the consolidation properties of
the fine-grained dredged material and foundation soils (relationships of void ratio and permeability versus effective stress); CDF site characteristics, such as surface area, ultimate dike height,
groundwater table elevations, average pan evaporation rates, and average rainfall; and dredging
data, such as volumes to be dredged, rate of filling, and frequency of dredging (PoindexterRollings 1989).
4.5.3.2 Consolidation testing. Consolidation tests for foundation soils should be performed
using conventional procedures (EM 1110-2-1906). However, specialized procedures are
necessary for consolidation testing of sediment samples because of their fluidlike consistency.
Specially developed self-weight consolidation tests (Cargill 1986) can be used to determine
consolidation characteristics at low effective stresses. Controlled-rate-of-strain tests (Cargill
1986) or fixed-ring consolidometers should be used to determine characteristics at higher effective stresses. Modifications in sample preparation and the method of loading are necessary for the
conventional fixed-ring procedure when testing sediments. Detailed procedures for conducting
consolidation tests are presented in Appendix J, Dredged Material Consolidation Test
Procedures.
4.5.3.3 Storage capacity/time relationship.
a. The estimated time-settlements due to dredged material consolidation and dewatering as
well as foundation consolidation may be combined to yield a total settlement relationship for a
single lift, as shown in Figure 4-25. These data are sufficient for estimation of the remaining
capacity in the short term. However, if the containment area is to be used for long-term
placement of subsequent lifts, a projected plot of dredged material surface height versus time
should be developed. This plot can be developed using time-settlement relationships for
sequential lifts combined, as shown in Figure 4-26. Such data may be used for preliminary
estimates of the long-term service life of the containment area.
b. The maximum dike height, as determined by foundation conditions or other constraints,
and the containment surface area dictate the maximum available storage volume. The increases
in dredged material surface height during the dredging phases and the decreases during
settlement phases correspond to respective decreases and increases in remaining containment
storage capacity, as shown in Figure 4-27. Projecting the relationships for surface height or for
remaining capacity to the point of maximum allowable height or exhaustion of remaining
capacity, respectively, will yield an estimate of the containment area service life. Gains in
capacity due to anticipated dewatering or material removal should also be considered in making
the projections.

4-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-25. Illustrative Time-Consolidation Relationships

Figure 4-26. Projected Surface Height for Determination of Containment Area Service Life

4-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-27. Projected Storage Capacity for Determination of Containment Area Service Life
c. The complex nature of the consolidation and desiccation relationships for multiple lifts of
compressible dredged material and the changing nature of the resulting loads imposed on
compressible foundation soils may result in errors in projections of remaining storage capacity
over long time periods. Accuracy can be greatly improved by updating the estimates every few
years using data from newly collected samples and laboratory tests. Observed field behavior
should also be routinely recorded and used to refine the projections.
4.5.3.4 Overview of estimation techniques.
a. Small strain versus finite strain consolidation.
(1) The most applicable procedure for estimating consolidation in soft dredged material is the
finite strain consolidation theory. The magnitude of consolidation, as determined by small strain
techniques, is equivalent to that determined by the finite strain technique. However, the time rate
of consolidation is overly conservative for small strain in that the rate of consolidation as
predicted is slow when compared to field behavior (Cargill 1983, 1985). Details on the
theoretical background for the finite strain theory are given in Cargill (1983, 1985).
(2) The advantages of using the finite strain technique for the estimation of dredged material

consolidation settlement are summarized in Table 4-2. The technique accounts for the
nonlinearity of the void ratio, permeability, and coefficient of consolidation relationships that
must be considered when large settlements of a layer are involved. Hand calculations using the
finite strain approach have been developed and are presented in this manual. However, the
technique is more easily applied using a computer program.

4-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 4-2. Comparison of Small Strain and Finite Strain Consolidation Techniques
Consideration
Range of void ratios
Self-weight
Void ratio/effective stress relationship
Void ratio/permeability relationship

Small Strain
Very small
Not included
Linear
Constant

Finite Strain
Very large
Included
Nonlinear
Variable

b. Empirical methods for estimating desiccation behavior. Empirical equations for estimating
the settlement of a dredged material layer due to desiccation and the thickness of dried crust were
developed for the purpose of determining feasibility and benefits of active dewatering operations
(Haliburton 1978). The empirical relationships have been refined (Cargill 1986) to consider the
two-stage process of desiccation and the overall water balance relationships that exist within a
dredged material placement area. The interaction of the desiccation process with dredged
material consolidation due to self-weight has been incorporated in computer programs for
estimating long-term storage capacity. The refined empirical relationships can be easily applied
in determining the benefits of dewatering programs and provide increased accuracy in storage
capacity evaluations.
c. Hand calculation versus computer solution.
(1) The use of computer models can greatly facilitate the estimation of storage capacity for

containment areas. Although the computations for simple cases can be easily and quickly done by
hand, the analyses often require computations for a multi-year service life with variable
placement operations and possibly material removal or dewatering operations occurring
intermittently throughout the service life. These complex computations can be done more
efficiently using a computer model.
(2) The use of computer models holds an added advantage when considering the additional
settlements that occur as the result of dredged material desiccation (dewatering). While the estimation
of desiccation behavior can be done by hand calculation, the interaction between desiccation and
consolidation cannot because it requires cumbersome iterative calculations. A computer program is
well suited to handle the calculations of both consolidation and desiccation as well as the interaction
between the two processes.
(3) Methods of hand calculation for finite strain consolidation and desiccation are presented
in Appendix L, Estimation of Dredged Material Consolidation by Finite Strain Technique.
These calculations are manageable for estimation of settlements in one dredged material layer.
However, if storage capacity estimates must be made for multiple placement operations, the use
of computer programs is recommended.

4.5.3.5 Computer solutions for consolidation and desiccation.

a. The theory of finite strain consolidation (Gibson, England, and Hussey 1967) has been
incorporated into several generations of computer models for analyzing consolidation of capped
sediment mounds (Cargill 1985; Poindexter-Rollings 1990; Stark 1995). To run any of these

4-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
models, consolidation test data from self-weight consolidation tests and/or standard oedometer
tests (EM 1110-2-1906) are required (Appendix K, Jar Test Procedures for Chemical
Clarification).
b. Initial work on consolidation of dredged material was done with the computer model
PCDDF (Primary Consolidation and Desiccation of Dredged Fill) (Cargill 1985), which was later
modified and released as PCDDF89 (Stark 1991); these programs were developed specifically for
analysis of CDFs. Most recently, PCDDF89 has been updated to include secondary compression;
this version is known as PSDDF (Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and
Desiccation of Dredged Fill). Each of these computer programs is based on the same onedimensional theory of consolidation and is capable of predicting the consolidation of multiple
compressible layers. Computational details and processing speeds vary among the programs, but
similar consolidation estimates should be obtained from each.
c. PCDDF is available as a part of the ADDAMS system (Appendix F, Automated Dredging
and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System [ADDAMS]). Theoretical documentation,
descriptions of solution techniques, and a user guide are available (Cargill 1985; PoindexterRollings and Stark 1989; Stark 1991).
d. Examples of the results obtained using the PCDDF model are shown in Figures 4-28
and 4-29. These figures show plots of dredged material surface elevation versus time for several
cases including multiple layers deposited at varying times. Field data collected at the respective
sites are also shown for comparison.
4.5.4 Dredged material dewatering operations.
4.5.4.1 General.
a. If the CDF is well managed following active filling, the excess water will be drained from
the surface, and natural evaporation will act to dewater the material. However, active dewatering
operations should be considered to speed up the dewatering process and achieve the maximum
possible volume reduction, considering the site-specific conditions and operational constraints.
b. A number of dewatering techniques for fine-grained dredged material have been studied
(Haliburton 1978; Haliburton et al. 2002). However, surface trenching and the use of underdrains
were found to be the only technically feasible and economically justifiable dewatering techniques
(Haliburton 1978). Techniques such as vacuum filtration or belt filter presses can be technically
effective, but they are not economical for dewatering large volumes of fine-grained material.
Guidance for application of underdrains is available (Hammer 1981), and the use of underdrains
has been successfully applied in CDFs. However, use of underdrains over large surface areas is
not as economical as surface drainage techniques and has not been routinely applied.
Accordingly, only techniques recommended for improvement of surface drainage through
trenching are described in detail here.

4-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-28. Measured and Predicted Material Heights at Drum Island

Figure 4-29. Measured and Predicted Material Heights at Craney Island

4-45

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.5.4.2 Dewatering by surface trenching. Four major reasons exist for dewatering finegrained dredged material placed in confined placement areas:
a. Promotion of shrinkage and consolidation, leading to the creation of more volume in the
existing placement site for additional dredged material.
b. Reclamation of the dredged material into a more stable soil form for removal and use in
dike raising, other engineered construction, or other productive uses, again creating more
available volume in the existing placement site.
c. Creation of stable fast land at a known final elevation and with predictable geotechnical
properties.
d. Benefits for control of mosquito breeding.
4.5.4.3 Conceptual basis for dewatering by progressive trenching. The following mechanisms
were found to control evaporative dewatering of fine-grained dredged material placed in confined
placement areas:
a. Establishment of good surface drainage allows evaporative forces to dry the dredged
material from the surface downward, even at placement area locations where precipitation
exceeds evaporation (negative net evaporation).
b. The most practical mechanism for precipitation removal is by runoff through crust
desiccation cracks to surface drainage trenches and off the site through outlet weirs.
c. To maintain effective drainage, the flow-line elevation of any surface drainage trench must
always be lower than the base of crust desiccation cracks; otherwise, ponding occurs in the
cracks. As drying occurs, the cracks become progressively deeper.
d. Below the desiccation crust, the fine-grained subcrust material may be expected to exist at
water contents at or above the liquid limit. Thus, it is difficult to physically construct trenches
much deeper than the bottom of the adjacent desiccation crust.
e. To promote continuing surface drainage as drying occurs, it is necessary to progressively
deepen site drainage trenches as the water table falls and the surface crust becomes thicker; thus,
the name progressive trenching was developed for the concept.
f. During conduct of a progressive trenching program, the elevation difference between the
internal water table and the flow line of any drainage trench is relatively small. When the
relatively low permeability of fine-grained dredged material is combined with the small hydraulic
gradient likely under these circumstances, it appears doubtful that appreciable water can be
drained from the dredged material by gravity seepage. Thus, criteria for trench location and
spacing should be based on site topography, so that precipitation is rapidly removed and ponding
is prevented, rather than achieving marked drawdown from seepage.

4-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.5.4.4 Effects of dewatering. The net observable effects of implementing any program of
dewatering by improved surface drainage are as follows:
a. Disappearance of ponded surface water.
b. Runoff of the majority of precipitation from the site within a few hours.
c. Gradual drying of the dredged material to a more stable soil form.
d. Vertical settlement of the surface of the placement area.
e. Ability to work within the placement area with conventional equipment.
4.5.4.5 Initial dewatering (passive phase).
a. Once the placement operation is completed, dredged material usually undergoes hindered
sedimentation and self-weight consolidation (called the decant phase), and water is brought to the
surface of the consolidating material at a faster rate than can normally be evaporated. During this
phase, it is extremely important that continued drainage of decant water and/or precipitation
through outlet weirs be facilitated. Weir flow-line elevations may have to be lowered periodically
as the surface of the newly placed dredged material subsides. Guidelines for appropriate
placement site operation during this passive dewatering phase, to maximize decant and
precipitation water release while maintaining appropriate water quality standards, are described
in paragraph 4.10.
b. Once the fine-grained dredged material approaches the decant point water content, or
saturation limit as described previously, the rate at which water is brought to the surface
gradually drops below the climatic evaporative demand. If precipitation runoff through site
outflow weirs is facilitated, a thin drying crust or skin will form on the newly deposited dredged
material. The thin skin may be only several hundredths of a foot thick, but its presence may be
observed by noting small desiccation cracks that begin to form at 3-6 ft (1- 2 m) intervals, as
shown in Figure 4-30, and the surface water content approaches 1.8 x LL. Once the dredged
material has reached this consistency, active dewatering operations may be initiated.
4.5.4.6 Progressive trenching. Three procedures have been found viable to initiate active
dredged material dewatering by improved surface drainage once the material has achieved
consistency conditions shown in Figure 4-30: periodic perimeter trenching by dragline, with
draglines working initially from perimeter dikes and subsequently from berms established inside
the perimeter dikes; periodic interior site trenching; or a combination of these two methods. Only
the last two procedures will result in total site dewatering at the maximum rates. The first
procedure will have, in many instances, an effective interior dewatering rate considerably less
than the predicted maximum rate though the exact lower rate would be highly site specific. This
section presents information necessary to properly conduct dewatering operations by these
procedures.

4-47

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-30. Surface of Fine-Grained Dredged Material at the Earliest Time when Surface
Trenching Should be Attempted
a. Perimeter dragline trenching operations.
(1) Construction of trenches around the inside perimeter of confined placement sites has been
used for many years to dewater and/or reclaim fine-grained dredged material. In many instances,
the purpose of dewatering has been to obtain convenient borrow for use in perimeter dike raising
activities. Draglines and backhoes have been found to be adaptable to certain activities because
of their relatively long boom length and/or method of operation and control. The perimeter
trenching scheme should be planned carefully so as not to interfere with operations necessary for
later dewatering or other management activities.
(2) When dragline trenching operations are initiated, the largest size, longest boom length

dragline that can be transported efficiently to the placement site and can operate efficiently on top
of placement site dikes should be obtained. Operations should begin at an outflow weir location,
where the dragline, operating from the perimeter dike, should dig a sump around the weir,
extending into the placement area to maximum boom and bucket reach. The very wet excavated
material is cast against the interior side of the adjacent perimeter dike. It may be necessary to
board up the weir to prevent the very wet dredged material from falling into the weir box during
the sump-digging operation. A localized low spot 2.5-5 cm (1 to 2 in.) below the surrounding
dredged material can be formed. Once the sump has been completed, the weir boards should be

4-48

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
removed to the level of the dredged material and, if necessary, handwork should be conducted to
ensure that any water flowing into the sump depression will exit through the outflow weir.
(3) Once the sump has been completed, the dragline should operate along the perimeter dike,

casting its bucket the maximum practicable distance into the placement area, dragging material
back in a wide shallow arc to be cast on the inside of the perimeter dike. A wide shallow
depression 2.5-5 cm (1 to 2 in.) lower than the surrounding dredged material will be formed. The
cast material will stand on only an extremely shallow (1 vertical on 10 horizontal or less) slope.
A small dragline should be able to accomplish between 200 and 400 linear feet of trenching per
working day.
(4) Dredged material near the ditch edge tends to dry slightly faster than material located
farther out in the placement site, with resulting dredged material shrinkage giving a slight
elevation gradient from the site interior toward the perimeter trenches, also facilitating drainage
(Figure 4-31). In addition, desiccation crack formation is more pronounced near the drainage
trenches, facilitating precipitation runoff through the cracks to the perimeter trenches.
(5) Once appreciable desiccation drying has occurred in the dredged material adjacent to the
perimeter trench and the material cast on the interior slope of the perimeter dike has dried, the
perimeter trenches and weir sumps should be deepened. The exact time between initial and
secondary trench deepening will vary according to the engineering properties of the dredged
material and existing climatological conditions, ranging from 2-3 weeks during hot, dry summer
months up to 8-10 weeks in colder, wetter portions of the year. Inspection of the existing trenches
is the most reliable guideline for initiating new trench work since desiccation cracks 2.5-5 cm
(1-2 in.) deep should be observed in the bottom of existing trenches before additional trenching is
begun.
(6) Depending on the size of the placement area, relative costs of mobilization and

demobilization of dragline equipment, and the relative priority and/or need for dewatering, it may
prove convenient to employ one or more draglines continuously over an interval of several
months to work the site periodically. A second trenching cycle should be started upon completion
of an initial cycle, a third cycle upon completion of the second cycle, and so on, as needed.
(7) During the second trenching, wide shallow trenches with a maximum depth of 5-15 cm

(2-6 in.) below the surface of adjacent dredged material can be constructed, and sumps can be
dug to approximately 20-30 cm (8-12 in.) below surrounding dredged material. These deeper
trenches again facilitate more rapid dewatering of dredged material adjacent to their edges, with
resulting shrinkage and deeper desiccation cracks providing a still steeper drainage flow gradient
from the site interior to the perimeter trenches.

4-49

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-31. Shallow Initial Perimeter Trench Constructed by a Dragline Operating from the
Perimeter Dike
(8) After two, or perhaps three, complete periodic perimeter dragline trenching cycles, the

next phase of the trenching operation may be initiated. In this phase, the dragline takes the now
dry material placed on the interior of the perimeter dike and spreads it to form a low berm
adjacent to the dike inside the placement area. The dragline then moves onto this bermusing
single or double mats, if required, as well as the increased digging reach now availableand
widens and extends the ditch into the placement site interior, as shown in Figure 4-32. The
interior side of the ditch is composed of material previously dried, and a ditch 12 to 18 in. deep
may be constructed, as shown in Figure 4-33. Material excavated from this trench is again cast on
the interior slope of the perimeter dike to dry and be used either for raising the perimeter dike or
for subsequent berming farther into the placement area.
(9) After two or more additional periodic trench deepening operations, working from the
berm inside the placement area, trenches up to 1-1.5 m (3-5 ft) deep may be completed. Trenches
of this depth cause accelerated drying of the dredged material adjacent to the trench and produce
desiccation cracks extending almost the entire thickness of the adjacent dredged material, as
shown in Figure 4-34. A well-developed perimeter trench network leading to outflow weirs is
now possible, as shown in Figure 4-35, and precipitation runoff is facilitated through gradual
development of a network of desiccation cracks, which extend from the perimeter trenches to the
interior of the site.

4-50

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-32. A Small Dragline on Mats, Working on a Berm, Deepens a Shallow Perimeter Trench

Figure 4-33. Construction of a Ditch 30-45 cm (12 to 18 in.) Deep with Excavated Material Cast
on the Interior Slope of a Perimeter Dike

4-51

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-34. Desiccation Crust Adjacent to the Perimeter of a 1-1.5 m (3-5 ft) Deep Drainage Trench

Figure 4-35. A Well-Developed Perimeter Trenching System, Morris Island Placement Site,
Charleston District

4-52

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(10) Once a perimeter trench system, such as that shown in Figure 4-35, is established, progressive deepening operations should be conducted at less frequent intervals, and major activity
should be changed from deepening perimeter trenches and weir sumps to that of continued
inspection to ensure the ditches and sumps remain open and facilitate free drainage. As a
desiccation crack network develops and the cracks become wider and deeper, precipitation runoff
rate will be increased, and precipitation ponding in the site interior will be reduced. As such
ponding is reduced, more and more evaporative drying will occur, and the desiccation crack
network will propagate toward the placement area interior. Figure 4-35 is a view of the 500-acre
Morris Island Placement Site of the Charleston District, where a 1 m (3 ft) lift of dredged material
was dewatered down to approximately a 0.5 m (1.7 ft) thickness at the perimeter over a 12-month
period by an aggressive program, undertaken by the District, of site drainage improvement with
dragline perimeter trenching. Figure 4-36 shows the 30 cm (12 in.) desiccation crust achieved at a
location approximately 180 m (200 yd) from the placement area perimeter. The dredged material
was a CH clay with an LL over 100. However, despite the marked success with perimeter
trenching, a close inspection of Figure 4-35 shows that ponded water still exists in the site interior.

Figure 4-36. Desiccation Crust Achieved in Highly Plastic Clay Dredged Material 180 m
(200 yd) into a Placement Area by Perimeter Trenching over a 12-month Period
(11) Interior trenching. As drying continues and perimeter trenching progresses, the construc-

tion of interior trenches spaced over the entire surface area of the CDF may be initiated. Only
specialized amphibious vehicles (such as those using twin screws for propulsion and flotation)
4-53

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
can successfully construct shallow trenches in fine-grained dredged material shortly after
formation of a thin surface crust (Palermo 1977; Haliburton 1978). However, field experience
has shown that the early stages of evaporative dewatering and crust development occur at
acceptable rates considering only the natural drying processes, perhaps aided by perimeter
trenching as described previously. Therefore, the use of such specialized trenching equipment is
not usually warranted.
b. Rotary trenchers. Once a surface crust of 10-15 cm (4-6 in.) has developed, trenching equipment with continuously operating rotary excavation devices and a low-ground-pressure chassis is
recommended for routine dewatering operations. This type of equipment has been used successfully in
dewatering operations in the Savannah District and in numerous other locations along the Atlantic
Coast for mosquito control. The Charleston, Norfolk, and Philadelphia Districts have also used this
equipment for dewatering operations. The major features of the equipment include a mechanical
excavation implement with cutting wheel or wheels used to cut a trench up to 0.9 m (3 ft) deep. The
low-ground-pressure chassis may be tracked or rubber tired. The major advantage of rotary trenchers
is their ability to excavate continuously while slowly moving within the containment area. This allows
them to construct trenches in areas where dragline or backhoe equipment would cause mobility
problems. Tracked and rubber-tired trenchers are shown in Figures 4-37 and 4-38. The excavating
wheels can be arranged in configurations that create hemispherical or trapezoidal trench cross sections
and can throw material to one or both sides of the trench. The material is spread in a thin layer by the
throwing action, which allows it to dry quickly and prevents the creation of a windrow, which might
block drainage to the trench. The excavating devices, ongoing trenching operations, and configuration
of constructed trenches are shown in Figures 4-39 through 4-44. Based on past experience, an initial
crust thickness of 10-15 cm (4-6 in.) is required for effective mobility of the equipment. This crust
thickness can be easily formed within the first year of dewatering effort if surface water is effectively
drained from the area, assisted by perimeter trenches constructed by draglines operating from the
dikes. A suggested scheme for perimeter and interior trenching using a combination of draglines and a
rotary trencher or other suitable equipment is shown in Figure 4-45. The Mobile District has
successfully used a backhoe marshbuggie for trenching and placing material to raise dikes. This
equipment consists of a backhoe excavator mounted on a low-ground-pressure chassis similar to the
one shown in Figure 4-38.
c. Trench spacing. The minimum number of trenches necessary to prevent precipitation
ponding on the placement area surface should be constructed. These trenches should extend
directly to low spots containing ponded water. However, the greater the number of trenches per
unit of placement site area, the shorter the distance that precipitation runoff will have to drain
through desiccation cracks before encountering a drainage trench. Thus, closely spaced trenches
should produce more rapid precipitation runoff and may slightly increase the rate of evaporative
dewatering. Conversely, the greater the number of trenches constructed per unit of placement site
area, the greater the cost of dewatering operations and the greater their impact on subsequent dike
raising or other borrowing operations. However, the rotary trenchers have a relatively high
operational speed, and it is, therefore, recommended that the maximum number of drainage
trenches be placed consistent with the specific trenching plan selected. Trench spacings of 3060 m (100 to 200 ft) have normally been used. If topographic data are available for the disposal
site interior, they may be used as the basis for preliminary planning of the trenching plan.

4-54

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-37. Rubber-Tired Rotary Trencher

Figure 4-38. Track-Mounted Rotary Trencher Used in Mosquito-Control Activities

4-55

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-39. Hemispherical Rotary Trenching Implement

Figure 4-40. Trapezoidal Rotary Trenching Implement

4-56

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-41. Rotary Trenching Device in Operation

Figure 4-42. General View of Trenches Formed by a Rotary Trencher

4-57

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-43. Close-Up View of Trenches Formed by a Rotary Trencher

Figure 4-44. General View of a Confined Disposal Area Showing Parallel Trenches in Place

4-58

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-45. Combination Radial-Parallel Trenching Scheme

4-59

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Parallel trenching. The most common trench pattern employs parallel trenching. A
complete circuit of the placement area with a perimeter trench is joined with parallel trenches cut
back and forth across the placement area, ending in the perimeter trench. Spacing between
parallel trenches can be varied as described earlier. A parallel pattern is illustrated in Figure 4-44.
A schematic of a parallel trenching pattern with radial combinations is shown in Figure 4-45.
e. Radial trenching pattern. Small placement areas or irregularly shaped placement areas may
be well suited for a radial trenching pattern for effective drainage of water to the weir structures.
The radial patterns should run parallel to the direction of the surface slopes existing within the
area. Radial trenching patterns can also be used to provide drainage from localized low spots to
the main drainage trench pattern. When the placement area is extremely large in areal extent or
when interior cross dikes or other obstructions exist within the placement area, sequential sets of
radial trenches may be constructed, with the sets farthest into the placement area interior acting
as collectors funneling into one of the radial trenches extending from the outflow weir. This
sequential radial trenching procedure is shown in Figure 4-46, as constructed in the South
Blakely Island Placement Site of the Mobile District.
4.6 Design and Construction of Retaining Dikes and Structures.
4.6.1 General considerations.
4.6.1.1 Purpose and description.
a. Containment dikes are retaining structures used to form confined disposal facilities. The
principal objective of a dike is to retain solid particles and pond water within the placement area
while at the same time allowing the release of clarified effluent to natural waters. The location or
alignment of a containment dike is usually established by site constraints. The heights and
geometric configurations of containment dikes are generally dictated by containment capacity
requirements, availability of construction materials, site restrictions, and prevailing foundation
conditions.
b. The predominant retaining structure in a containment facility extends around the outer
perimeter of the containment area and is referred to as the main dike. Except as otherwise noted,
all discussion in this chapter applies to the main dike. Cross and spur dikes can also be
constructed to divide the site or increase site effectiveness.
c. The engineering design of a dike includes selection of location, height, cross section,
material, and construction method. The selection of a design and construction method are
dependent on project constraints, foundation conditions, material availability, and availability of
construction equipment. The final choice will be a selection among feasible alternatives.

4-60

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-46. Aerial View of the Sequential Radial Trenching Procedure Used when
Interior Cross Dikes are Encountered, South Blakely Island Placement Site, Mobile
District

4-61

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. The development of an investigation for the dike foundation and the proposed borrow
areas, the selection of a foundation preparation method, and the design of the embankment cross
section require specialized knowledge in soil mechanics. Therefore, all designs and specifications
should be prepared under the direct supervision and guidance of a geotechnical engineer.
Proposed cross-section designs should be analyzed for stability as cross sections are affected by
foundation and/or embankment shear strength, settlement caused by compression of the foundation and/or the embankment, seismic conditions, and external erosion. Seismic conditions should
be considered an integral part of dike design. The extent to which the site investigation and
design studies are carried out is dependent, in part, on the desired margin of safety against failure.
This decision is usually made by the local design agency and is affected by a number of sitespecific factors.
e. Dikes for upland CDF normally consist of earth-fill embankments.
f. Containment dikes for nearshore sites must consider site-specific geotechnical conditions,
wave effects, maintenance requirements, and seismic effects. Most Puget Sound in-water dikes
have used sand and gravel as fill material. Soft foundation material along the center line of the
berm may require excavation prior to placement of the fill to provide a suitable base for the
berm. Rock fill dikes are more commonly found in the Great Lakes. Structures such as sheet pile
walls or cellular cofferdams have also been used for nearshore CDFs.
g. For CDFs situated in the water, the retaining dikes require protection from erosion due to
waves. This erosion protection is generally an armor layer made of rock; the size and extent (and
cost) are a function of the severity of the wave climate. Depending on the size of the waves, the
armor layer can have more than one layer of rock, progressing from small rock or gravel on an
inner layer to the largest rock on the outer layer.
h. Engineering design of the CDF armor layer requires, at a minimum, defining the water
depth where the CDF will be located, determining the wave climate and selecting a design wave,
determining water levels, and deciding if wave runup and overtopping need to be considered.
From this information, the stable rock size, number of rock layers, and extent of the armor layer
both above and below the water line can be determined. The depth of water in which the CDF is
located can also have a major impact on the CDF erosion protection design. As water depths
increase, costs often increase due to the increased potential for larger waves.
i. In designing the armor layer for an in-water CDF, the most important information required
is the wave climate. Based on the wave climate, a design wave is generally selected. The design
wave is often the most severe wave expected in a return period ranging from 50 to 100 years. A
risk-based approach, balancing expected damages against initial costs, is often used to determine
the optimum design. Other factors relating to water levels and waves also need to be considered
in the design of the CDF erosion protection. Knowledge of the potential changes in water level,
caused primarily by tides and wind setup, is required. If the CDF is adjacent to shipping lanes,
waves generated from passing vessels may be a concern. The combination of waves and water
levels determines runup, which influences how high up the dike the erosion protection should
extend. Depending on the height of the dike, waves can run up over the top of the dike.

4-62

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
j. CDF armor layer design should be conducted by an experienced coastal engineer, assisted
by geotechnical engineers. The design of the armor layer should be integrated with the CDF dike
design.
4.6.1.2 Types of containment dikes.
a. Main dike. The predominant retaining structure in a containment facility extends around
the outer perimeter of the containment area and is referred to as the main dike. Except as
otherwise noted, all discussion in this chapter applies to the main dike. The main dike and two
other types of dikes, cross and spur dikes, which serve primarily as operational support structures
for the main dike, are shown in Figure 4-47.
b. Cross dike. A cross, or lateral, dike (Figure 4-47) is placed across the interior of the
containment area, connecting two sides of the main dike. This permits the use of one area as an
active placement area while another area may be used solely for dewatering. Another use of cross
dikes is to separate the facility so that the slurry in one area is subjected to initial settling prior to
passing over or through the cross dike to the other area. In order to accomplish this, the cross
dike is placed between the dredged discharge point and the sluice discharge. A cross dike can
also be used with a Y-discharge line to divide an area into two or more areas, each receiving a
portion of the incoming dredged material.
c. Spur dike. Spur, or finger, dikes protrude into, but not completely across, the placement
area from the main dike, as shown in Figure 4-47. They are used mainly to prevent
channelization by breaking up a preferred flow path and dispersing the slurry into the placement
area. Spur dikes are also used to allow simultaneous discharge from two or more dredges by
preventing coalescence of the two dredged material inputs, and thereby discouraging an otherwise large quantity of slurry from reaching flow velocities necessary for channelization.
4.6.1.3 Factors affecting design. The engineering design of a dike includes the selection of
location, height, cross section, material, and construction method. The selection of a design and
construction method are dependent on project constraints, foundation conditions, material availability, and availability of construction equipment. The final choice will be a selection from
feasible alternatives.
a. Project constraints. Several constraints on design are placed by the overall project needs.
Available construction time and funding are always factors. The location, height, and available
space for the containment dike are usually dictated by project requirements that are discussed
elsewhere in this manual. The design factor of safety against structural failure is usually
specified. Environmental safety and aesthetics must also be considered.
b. Foundation conditions. The lateral and vertical distribution of shear strength, compressibility, permeability, and stratification of potential foundation materials are major factors in
dike design.

4-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-47. Examples of Cross and Spur Dikes

c. Availability of materials. All potential sources of construction materials for the embankment should be characterized according to location, type, index properties, and ease of recovery.
Available placement sites are often composed in the near-surface of soft clays and silts of varying
organic content. Since economical dike construction normally requires the use of material from
inside the placement area and/or immediately adjacent borrow areas, initial dike heights may be
limited, or it may be necessary to use rather wide embankment sections, expensive foundation
treatment, or expensive construction methods.

4-64

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Availability of equipment. Although common earthwork equipment is generally available,
the specialized equipment for the soft soils desirable for use at containment sites may not be
available to meet the project schedule, or the mobilization cost may be excessive. Less expensive
alternatives should then be considered.
4.6.1.4 Construction methods. Each type of construction method has characteristics that can
strongly affect dike design. The soil material to be placed in the dike section is transported by
hauling, casting, or dredging. It is then compacted, semicompacted, or left uncompacted. The
selection of a construction method, even though based on economics, must also be compatible
with available materials, available equipment, geometry of the final dike section, and
environmental considerations.
4.6.2 Foundation investigation.
4.6.2.1 The extent to which site investigations and design studies are carried out depends, in
part, on the desired margin of safety against failure. This decision is usually made by the local
design agency and is affected by a number of site-specific factors. Table 4-3 lists some general
factors, based on engineering experience, that can be used as general guidelines in the planning
stage of a project.
Table 4-3. Factors Affecting the Extent of Field Investigations and Design Studies
Factor
Construction experience

Field Investigations and Design Studies Should be More Extensive Where:

There is little or no construction experience in the area, particularly with respect
to dikes.

Consequence of failure

Consequences of failure involving life, property, or damage to the environment

are great.

Dike height

Dike heights are substantial.

Foundation conditions

Foundation deposits are weak and compressible.

Foundation deposits are highly variable along the alignment.
Underseepage and/or settlement problems are severe.

Borrow materials

Available borrow is of poor quality, water contents are high, or borrow materials
are variable along the alignment.

Structure in dikes

Sluices or other structures are incorporated into the dike embankment and/or
foundation.

Utility crossings

Diked area is traversed by utility lines.

4.6.2.2 Foundation exploration. The purpose of the foundation exploration is similar to that
for the containment area, as defined in paragraph 4.2.2to define dike foundation conditions
including depth, thickness, extent, composition, and the engineering properties of the foundation
strata. The exploration is made in stages, each assembling all available information from a given
source prior to the planning and start of the next, more expensive stage. The usual sequence of
4-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the foundation exploration is shown in Table 4-4. Additional guidance on the number, depth, and
spacing of exploratory and/or final phase borings is given in Hammer and Blackburn (1977),
EM 1110-2-2300, American Society of Civil Engineers Manual No. 56 (ASCE 1976), and
various geotechnical engineering textbooks. Geophysical exploration methods are described in
EM 1110-1-1802.
4.6.2.3 Field and laboratory tests. Field soils tests are often made during exploratory boring
operations. Commonly used field tests are given in Table 4-5. Disturbed samples from exploratory and final phase borings are used for index properties tests. Samples from undisturbed sample
borings are used in laboratory tests for engineering properties. Commonly used laboratory tests
are given for fine-grained soils in Table 4-6 and for coarse-grained soils in Table 4-7. Additional
guidance on field soil sampling methods is given in EM 1110-2-1907 and on laboratory soils
testing in EM 1110-2-1906.
Table 4-4. Stages of Field Investigation
Preliminary Geological Stage Features
Office study
Collection and study of the following:
- Topographic, soil, and geological maps
- Aerial photographs
- Boring logs and well data
- Information on existing engineering projects
Field survey
Observations and geology of area, documented by
written notes and photographs, including such features
as the following:
- Riverbank and coastal slopes, rock outcrops, earth
and rock cuts or fills
- Surface materials
- Poorly drained areas
- Evidences of instability of foundations and slopes
- Emerging seepage and/or soft spots
- Natural and man-made physiographic features

Subsurface Exploration Stage Features

Exploratory phase and field testing
- Widely but not uniformly spaced disturbed sample
borings (may include split-spoon penetration tests)
geologic study
- Test pits excavated by backhoes, farm tractors, or
dozers
- Geophysical surveys to interpolate between widely
spaced borings
- Borehole geophysical tests
- Water table observations
Final phase
- Additional disturbed sample borings including splitspoon penetration tests
- Undisturbed sample borings
- Field vane shear tests for soft materials

4-66

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 4-5. Preliminary Appraisal of Foundation Strengths
Method
Penetration resistance from standard penetration test

Remarks
- In clays, provides data helpful in a relative sense (that
is, in comparing different deposits); generally not
helpful where the number of blows per foot N* is low.
- In sand, N-values less than about 15 indicate low
relative densities.

Natural water content of disturbed or general type

samples

- Useful when considered with soil classification and

previous experience is available.

Hand examination of disturbed samples

- Useful where experienced personnel are available

who are skilled in estimating soil shear strengths.

Position of natural water contents relative to LL and PL

- If natural water content is close to PL, foundation

shear strength should be high.

Field pumping tests used to determine field permeability - Natural water contents near LL indicate sensitive soils
with low shear strengths.
Torvane or pocket penetrometer tests on intact portions
or general samples

- Easily performed and inexpensive, but results may be

excessively low; useful for preliminary strength
estimates.

Vane shear tests

- Useful where previous experience is available.

- Used to estimate shear strengths.

4-67

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 4-6. Laboratory Testing of Fine-Grained Cohesive Soils
Type Test
Visual
classification

Purpose
Scope of Testing
- Classify the soil visually in accordance with
- All samples
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Water content

- Determine the water content of the soil in

order to better define soil profiles, variation
with depth, and behavioral characteristics

Atterberg limits

- Foundation soils: For classification, compare - Representative samples of foundation and

with natural water contents or correlate with
borrow soils; sufficient samples should be
shear or consolidation parameters
tested to develop a good profile with depth
- Borrow soils: For classification, compare with
natural water contents or correlate with
optimum water content and maximum dry
densities

Compaction

- Establish maximum dry density and optimum - Representative samples of all borrow soils
water content
for compacted or semicompacted dikes:
- CompactedPerform a standard 25-blow
test
- SemicompactedPerform a 15-blow test

Consolidation

- Determine parameters necessary to estimate - Representative samples of compacted

settlement of dike and/or foundation and
borrow where consolidation of dike
time-rate of settlement; also to determine
embankment itself is expected to be
whether soils are normally consolidated or
significant
- Representative samples of foundation soils
overconsolidated and to aid in estimating
where such soils are anticipated to be
strength gain with time
compressible
- On samples of fine-grained adjacent and/or
underlying materials at structure locations

Permeability

- Estimate the perviousness of borrow and/or

foundation soils in order to calculate
seepage losses and time-rate of settlement

Shear strength

- Provide parameters necessary for input into Pocket penetrometer and miniature vane
stability analysis
(Torvane) for rough estimates
- Pocket penetrometer, miniature vane,
- Unconfined compression tests on saturated
unconfined compression, and Q-tests to
foundation clays without joints, fissures, or
determine unconsolidated-undrained
slickensides
strengths
- Appropriate Q- and R-triaxial and S-direct
- R-tests to determine consolidated-undrained shear tests on representative samples of
strengths
both foundation and compacted borrow soils
- S-tests to determine consolidated-undrained
strengths

- All samples

- Generally not required for fine-grained

cohesive soils as such soils can be assumed
to be essentially impervious in seepage
analyses. Can be computed from
consolidation tests

4-68

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 4-7. Laboratory Testing of Coarse-Grained Noncohesive Soils
Test
Visual classification

Purpose
- Visually classify the soil in
accordance with the USCS

Scope of Testing
- All samples

Gradation

- Determine grain-size distribution for

classification

- Representative samples of foundation and

borrow materials

Relative density or
compaction

- Determine minimum-maximum
density values or maximum density
and optimum water content values;
should use the test which gives
greatest values of maximum density

- Representative samples of all borrow

materials

Consolidation

- Provide parameters necessary for

settlement analysis

- Not generally required as pervious soils

consolidate rapidly under load and postconstruction magnitude is usually
insignificant

Permeability

- Provide parameters necessary for

seepage analysis

- Not usually performed as correlations with

grain size
- Are normally of sufficient accuracy
- Where underseepage problems are very
serious, best to use results from field
pumping test

Shear strength

- Provide parameters necessary for

stability analysis

- Representative samples of compacted

borrow and foundation soils.
- Consolidated-drained strengths from
S-direct shear or triaxial tests are
appropriate for free-draining pervious soils.

4.6.3 Construction materials.

4.6.3.1 Acceptable materials.
a. Almost any type of soil material is acceptable (even though not the most desirable) for
construction of a retaining dike, with the exception of very wet fine-grained soils and those
containing a high percentage of organic matter. High plasticity clays may present a problem
because of detrimental swell-shrink behavior when subjected to cycles of wetting and drying.
b. Either fine-grained soil materials of high water content must be dried to a water content
suitable for the desired type of construction or the embankment design must take into account the
fact that the soil has a high water content and is, therefore, soft and compressible. Because the
drying of soils is very expensive, time consuming, and highly weather dependent, the design
should incorporate the properties of the soil at its natural water content or should require only a
minimum of drying. When the dike fill is to be compacted, the borrow material must have a

4-69

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
sufficiently low water content so that placement and machine compaction can be done
effectively. Semicompacted fill can tolerate fine-grained soils with higher water contents while
uncompacted (cast) fine-grained fill can be placed at even higher water contents. Since dike
construction is normally done in low, wet areas, problems with materials being too dry are rarely
encountered.
4.6.3.2 Material sources. A careful analysis of all available material sourcesincluding
location, material type, and available volumeshould be made. Possible sources include any
required excavation area, the material adjacent to the dike toe, a central borrow area, and material
from maintenance dredging operations.
a. Required excavation. Soil material from required excavations should be given first
consideration since it must be excavated and disposed of anyway. Included in this category is
material from adjacent ditches, canals, and appurtenant structures as well as material from inside
the containment area. This usage also eliminates the problem of dealing with borrow areas left
exposed permanently after project completion.
b. Material adjacent to dike toe. This is the most common source of dike material because it
involves a short-haul distance. Hauling can be eliminated by the use of a dragline-equipped
crane. Dike stability can be seriously affected if the excavation is made too close to the toe. A
berm is usually left in place between the toe of the dike and the excavation to ensure dike
stability and to facilitate construction. The required width of the berm should be based on a
stability analysis.
c. Central borrow area. When sufficient material cannot be economically obtained from
required excavations or the dike toe, a central borrow area is often used. This may be within the
containment area, or it may be offsite. A central borrow pit within the containment area serves to
increase available containment volume. Central borrow areas can be used for either hauled or
hydraulic fill dikes. Dredging from a water-based central borrow pit is usually economical for
hydraulic fill dikes. Usually a deeper pit with smaller surface area is preferred since this requires
less movement of the dredge.
d. Maintenance dredging. Maintenance dredging can be a very economical source of borrow
material. The coarse-grained materials from maintenance dredging are desirable for dike
construction. Zones around the dredge discharge usually provide the highest quality of material.
However, fine-grained soils may not be suitable because of their very high water content and may
require considerable drying. Previously placed dredged material from maintenance operations has
been commonly used to raise existing dikes. It is readily available and serves to increase the
capacity of the containment area.
4.6.3.3 Materials exploration and testing. All discussion of field investigation procedures,
including an exploratory investigation of strength and the laboratory index properties tests given
in Tables 4-4 through 4-7, is applicable to the characterization of potential embankment
materials. The objective is to develop sufficient information regarding the various sources of fill
material for a comparison among feasible alternatives.

4-70

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.6.4 Embankment design considerations. The development of an investigation for the dike
foundation and for proposed borrow areas, the selection of a foundation preparation method, and
the design of the embankment cross section require specialized knowledge in soil mechanics.
Therefore, all designs and specifications should be prepared under the direct supervision and
guidance of a geotechnical engineer and should bear his/her approval.
4.6.4.1 Factors in design. In addition to the project constraints described in paragraph 4.1.3,
the site-specific factors that should be considered in the design of containment dikes are foundation conditions; dike stability with respect to shear strength, settlement, seepage, and erosion;
available dike materials; and available construction equipment.
4.6.4.2 Dike geometry. The height and crown width of a dike are primarily dependent on
project constraints generally unrelated to stability. Side slopes and materials allocation within the
cross section are functions of foundation conditions, materials availability, and time available for
construction.
4.6.4.3 Embankment and foundation stability. Proposed cross-section designs should be
analyzed for stability as cross sections are affected by foundation and/or embankment shear
strength, settlement caused by compression of the foundation and/or the embankment, and
external erosion. The analytic methods described and referenced herein contain procedures that
have proven satisfactory from past use, and most are currently employed by the USACE. Specific
details concerning methods for analyzing dike stability are reported in Hammer and Blackburn
(1977) and in EM 1110-2-1902. Several computer programs are also available to USACE
Districts to assist in stability analyses.
4.6.4.4 Seismic considerations. Special considerations for the design of dikes in seismically
active areas, such as Puget Sound, are warranted. In general, containment dikes have performed
reasonably well during past earthquakes. A commonly observed aspect is outward movement of
the dike (as observed at the Oakland Airport during the Loma Prieta earthquake). Outward
movement or sliding can occur due to reduced strength in the foundation materials (liquefaction),
reduced strength in the dike itself, and inadequate estimation of the loads imposed by the contained fill. A sequence of steps should be followed in evaluating ground motions and performing
seismic analyses for earth, concrete, and steel structures (after Krinitzsky, Hynes, and Franklin
1997).
4.6.4.5 Causes of dike instability.
a. Inadequate shear strength. Most dike failures are caused by overstressing the low shear
strength soils in the dike and/or the foundation (often coupled with seepage effects). Failures of
this type can be the most catastrophic and damaging since they usually occur quickly and can
result in the loss of an entire section of the dike along with the contained dredged material. These
failures may involve the dike alone, or they may involve both the dike and the foundation. Thus,
two forms of instability may occur.
(1) Where the foundation is much stronger than the embankment, the dike slope can fail in a
rotational slide tangent to the firm base, as shown in Figure 4-48. However, if a much weaker

4-71

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
horizontal plane or layer exists at or near the contact between the dike fill and the foundation, the
failure may be a translation type, taking the form of a sliding wedge, as shown in Figure 4-49.

Figure 4-48. Rotational Failure in a Dike

Figure 4-49. Translatory Failure in a Dike

(2) When the strength of the foundation is equal to or less than that of the fill, a rotational
sliding failure that involves both the fill and the foundation may occur, as shown in Figure 4-50.
If the foundation contains one or more weaker horizontal planes or layers, then a translation type
failure in the form of a sliding wedge may occur, as shown in Figure 4-51.

Figure 4-50. Rotational Failure in both a Dike and its Foundation

4-72

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-51. Translatory Failure in both a Dike and its Foundation

(3) Recommended minimum factors of safety and applicable shear strength tests for slope
stability analyses of containment dikes are given in Table 4-8. These values are to be used where
reliable subsurface data from a field exploration and laboratory testing program are available for
input to a stability analysis. The factors of safety given in Table 4-8 are applicable to dikes less
than 9 m (30 ft) in height where the consequences of failure are not severe. For dikes greater than
9 m (30 ft) in height and where the consequences of failure are severe, the criteria given in
Table 1 of EM 1110-2-1902 should be used.

Table 4-8. Applicable Shear Strengths and Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety1

Condition
End of Construction

Shear Strength
Draining
Impervious Soils3 Soils
Slope Analyzed
Q
S
Exterior and Interior

Minimum Factor of Safety2

Main Appurtenant
Dikes
Dikes
4
1.3
1.3

Steady seepage

Q, R5

1.3

Exterior

1.2

Sudden drawdown
Q, R5
S
Exterior
1.0
NA
1 These criteria are not applicable to dikes greater than 9 m (30 ft) in height or where the consequences of failure
are very severe. For such dikes, use the criteria given in Table 1 of EM 1110-2-1902.
2 To be applied where reliable subsurface data from exploration and testing are available; where assumed values
are used, recommended minimum factors of safety should be increased by a minimum of 0.1.
3 For low-plasticity silt where consolidation is expected to occur rather quickly, the R strength may be used in lieu
of the Q strength.
4 Use 1.5 where considerable lateral deformation of foundation is expected to occur (usually where foundations
consist of soft, high-plasticity clay).
5 Use Q strength where it is anticipated that loading condition will occur prior to any significant consolidation taking
place; otherwise, use R strength.
(4) When the foundation soils are very soft, as is often the case, various design sections are

used to provide stability, as shown in Figure 4-52. A floating section, with very flat slopes and
often a berm, may be used. The settlement of this section may become detrimental. The soft
foundation may be displaced by the firmer dike material, or the soft foundation may be removed
and replaced with compacted fill.

4-73

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-52. Basic Methods of Forming Dike Sections for Stability

b. Seepage. Potentially detrimental seepage can occur through earth dikes and foundations
consisting of pervious or semipervious materials unless prevented by positive means such as
impervious linings, blankets, or cutoffs. Seepage effects can create instability through internal
erosion (piping) of the dike or foundation materials, or they may lead to a shear failure by
causing a reduction in the shear strength of the dike and/or foundation materials through
increased pore water pressure or by the introduction of seepage forces. The following conditions
may create or contribute to seepage problems in containment dikes:
c. Dikes with steep slopes composed of coarse-grained pervious materials or fine-grained silt.
The seepage surface through the embankment may exit on the outer slope above the dike toe, as
shown in Figure 4-53, resulting in raveling of the slope. If the dike contains alternating layers of
pervious and impervious materials, the seepage surface may even approach a horizontal line near
the ponding surface elevation, as shown in Figure 4-54, creating a potentially severe seepage
problem.
d. Dikes built on pervious foundation materials or where pervious materials are near the
surface or exposed as a result of nearby excavation. As shown in Figure 4-55, this is a common
condition where material adjacent to the dike toe is used for the embankment. This condition
may lead to the development of large uplift pressures beneath and at the outer toe of the dike,

4-74

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
causing overall instability from inadequate shear strength, or it may result in piping near the
embankment base. Methods for analyzing this condition are reported in U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (1956).

Figure 4-53. Seepage Lines Through a Dike

Figure 4-54. Seepage Entrance Through an Area Excavated Within a Placement Area

Figure 4-55. Example of Excessive Uniform Settlement

4-75

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Dikes constructed by casting methods with little or no compaction. When used with finegrained soils, this method of construction may leave voids within the dike through which water
can flow freely, resulting in piping of dike material.
f. The existence of seepage paths along the contact between structures touching the dike. This
condition can be caused by inadequate compaction of the dike materials, shrinkage of material
adjacent to structures, or differential settlement. As in the previous case, piping of the dike
material often results in and normally leads to breaching of the dike.
4.6.4.6 Dike settlement.
a. Settlement of dikes can result from consolidation of foundation and/or embankment
materials, shrinkage of embankment materials, or lateral spreading of the foundation. Like
uncontrolled seepage, settlement of a dike can result in failure of the dike, but it will more likely
serve to precipitate failure by another mode, such as seepage or shear failure. Consolidation,
shrinkage, and some lateral deformation occur over a period of time, directly related to the soil
permeability and the load intensity. Some lateral deformation can occur quickly, however,
particularly during construction using the displacement method. Settlement problems are almost
always related to fine-grained soils (silts or clays). Settlement and/or shrinkage of coarse-grained
soils (sand and gravel) is generally much less than for fine-grained soils and occurs quickly,
usually during construction.
b. Specific forms of settlement that cause problems with dikes include excessive uniform
settlement, differential settlement, shrinkage of uncompacted embankment materials, and
settlement resulting from lateral deformation, or creep, of soft foundation soils. Excessive
uniform settlement can cause a loss in containment area capacity as a result of the loss of dike
height, as shown in Figure 4-55. Differential settlement can result in cracking of the dike, which
can then lead to a shear or piping failure. This is an especially acute problem at the contact
between a dike and an adjacent structure. Examples of differential settlement resulting from
materials of different compressibility are shown in Figure 4-56. Embankment shrinkage in dikes
built with fine-grained soils and placed by means of casting or hydraulic filling can result in
volume reductions of as much as 35% as a result of evaporation drying.
4.6.4.7 Erosion. Retaining dike failures can be initiated by the effects of wind, rain, waves,
and currents that can cause deterioration of exterior and interior dike slopes. The exterior slopes,
which are exposed to constant or intermittent wave and/or current action of tidal or flood waters,
are usually subject to severe erosion. Interior slopes may also suffer this form of erosion, particularly in large containment areas. The slopes of dikes adjacent to navigable rivers and harbors
may be eroded by wave action from passing vessels.
a. Weathering. Erosion of dike slopes due to the effects of wind, rain, and/or ice is a
continuing process. Although these forces are not as immediately severe as wave and current
action, they can gradually cause extensive damage to the dike, particularly those dikes formed of
fairly clean coarse-grained soils.

4-76

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Placement operations. Normal placement operations can cause erosion of interior dike
slopes near the pipeline discharge and/or exterior slopes at the outlet structures. The pipeline
discharge of dredged material is a powerful eroding agent, particularly if the flow is not
dispersed.

Figure 4-56. Differential Settlement from a Foundation Containing Materials of

Different Compressibility

4-77

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.6.4.8 Use of geotextiles.
a. Selection. Increasingly, geotextiles (permeable textile materials) are being used in dike
construction to provide tensile reinforcement where it will increase the overall strength of the
structure. The selection of geotextiles for use in a containment dike is usually based on a
substantial cost savings over feasible, practical alternate solutions or on the improvement in
performance of a design (for example, more effective installation, reduced maintenance, or
increased life).
b. Stability analyses with geotextile reinforcement. Although the use of a geotextile as reinforcement introduces a complex factor into stability analyses, no specific analytic technique has
yet been developed. Therefore, the conventional limited equilibrium-type analyses for bearing
capacity and slope stability are used for the design of geotextile reinforced dikes. The bearing
capacity analysis normally assumes the dike to be an infinitely long strip footing. Slope stability
analyses, as described in EM 1110-2-1902, involve calculations for stability of a series of
assumed sliding surfaces in which the reinforcement acts as a horizontal force to increase the
resisting moment. Potential failure modes for fabric-reinforced dike sections are shown in
Figure 4-57. Examples of stability analyses for geotextile reinforced embankments are given in
Federal Highway Administration (undated).
4.6.4.9 Raising of existing dikes. The height to which a dike can be placed in one stage is
sometimes limited by the weakness of the foundation. This limits the capacity of the containment
area. The loading of the foundation due to the dike and/or dredged material causes consolidation,
and consequent strength gain, of the foundation materials over a period of time. Thus, it is often
possible to raise the elevation of an existing dike after some time. Construction of dikes in increments is usually accomplished by incorporating the initial dike into the subsequent dike, as
shown in Figure 4-58a, or by constructing them on the dredged fill, at some distance from the
inside toe of the existing dike, as shown in Figure 4-58b.
4.6.5 Types of construction equipment.
4.6.5.1 Equipment types. Types of equipment commonly used in dike construction are listed
in Table 4-9 according to the operation they perform. Some types of equipment are capable of
performing more than one task, with varying degrees of success. Most of the equipment listed is
commonly used in earthwork construction. However, because many dikes are founded on soft to
very soft ground, low-ground-pressure versions of the equipment must usually be used in
those areas. Specific information on general construction equipment may be found in
EM 1110-2-1911. Guidance on equipment available for use on soft soils is given in Hammer and
Blackburn (1977) and Green and Rula (1977) and on dredging equipment in Huston (1970).
4.6.5.2 Selection criteria. In the selection of equipment for any particular task, consideration
should be given to the following:
a. Quantity of the soil to be excavated, moved, or compacted.
b. Type of soil to be excavated, moved, or compacted.

4-78

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-57. Potential Fabric-Reinforced Embankment Failure Modes

4-79

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-58. Dike-Raising Methods

Table 4-9. Equipment Commonly Used in Dike Construction
Operation
Excavation

Equipment
Scraper
Dragline
Dredge

Application
Firm to stiff soils; firm roadway
Soft soils that cannot support scrapers
Granular or soft soils

Transportation

Scraper
Truck
Dragline
Dredge

Hauling firm, moist soils

Hauling firm, moist soils
Casting soft, wet soils
Pumping soils from below water

Scarification

Disc

Scarifying surface of compacted soil

Spreading

Scraper
Grader
Crawler dozer

Haul and spread from same machine

Spread truck-hauled soils
Used on soft terrain

Compaction

Sheepsfoot roller
Pneumatic roller
Vibratory roller
Crawler tractor
Hauling equipment

Clays, silts, clayey or silty sands

Clays, silts, clayey or silty sands
Clean sand; less than 10%
All soils for semicompaction
All soils for semicompaction

Shaping

Grader
Crawler dozer
Dragline

Firm to stiff soils

All soils; useful on soft soils
Rough shaping in very soft soils

4-80

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Consistency of the soils to be excavated, moved, or compacted.
d. Distance the soil must be moved.
e. Trafficability of the soils in the borrow, transport, and dike placement areas.
f. Availability of equipment to fit the project time schedule.
g. Purchase and operating costs.
h. Auxiliary tasks or uses for the equipment.
i. Maintenance needs; availability of parts.
j. Standby or backup equipment needs.
k. Time available for construction of the dike.
l. Money available for construction of the dike.
4.6.6 Dike construction. The general construction sequence for a containment dike is
normally foundation preparation, borrow area operations, transportation and placement of the
dike materials in the embankment, and manipulation and possibly compaction of the materials to
the final form and shape.
4.6.6.1 Factors in the method of construction. The choice of construction method for a
containment dike is governed by available embankment materials, foundation conditions,
trafficability of haul roads and the foundation, availability of construction equipment, and project
economics.
4.6.6.2 Foundation preparation. The preparation of a dike foundation usually involves
clearing, grubbing, and stripping. Some degree of foundation preparation is desirable to help
ensure the integrity of the structure. Clearing and grubbing should be a minimum treatment for
all projects. However, in marshy areas where a surface mat of marsh grass and roots exists over a
typical soft clay layer, experience has shown that it is often more beneficial from a stability and
construction standpoint to leave the mat in place rather than remove it even though this will leave
a highly pervious layer under the dike.
a. Clearing. Clearing consists of the complete removal of all aboveground matter that may
interfere with the construction and/or integrity of the dike. This includes trees, fallen timber,
brush, vegetation, abandoned structures, and similar debris. Clearing should be accomplished
well in advance of subsequent construction operations.
b. Grubbing. Grubbing consists of the removal of belowground matter that may interfere with
the construction and/or integrity of the dike. This includes stumps, roots, buried logs, and other
objectionable matter. All holes and/or depressions caused by grubbing operations should have

4-81

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
their sides flattened and should be backfilled to foundation grade in the same manner proposed
for the embankment filling.
c. Stripping. After clearing and grubbing, the dike area is usually stripped to remove lowgrowing vegetation and the organic topsoil layer. This permits bonding of the fill soil with the
foundation, eliminate a soft, weak layer that may serve as a translation failure plane, and
eliminate a potential seepage plane. Stripping is normally limited to the dike location proper and
is not usually necessary under stability berms. All stripped material suitable for use as topsoil
should be stockpiled for later use on dike and/or borrow area slopes. Stripping is not normally
required for dikes on soft, wet foundations or for dikes built by other than full compaction.
d. Disposal of debris. Debris from clearing, grubbing, and stripping operations can be disposed of by burning in areas where permitted. Where burning is not feasible, disposal is usually
accomplished by burial in suitable areas, such as old sloughs, ditches, and depressions outside the
embankment limits (but never within the embankment proper). Debris should never be placed in
locations where it may be carried away by streamflow or where it may block drainage of an area.
Material buried within the containment area must be placed so that no debris may escape and
damage or block the outlet structure. All buried debris should be covered by a minimum of 0.9 m
(3 ft) of earth.
e. Foundation scarification. For compacted dikes on firm foundations only, the prepared
foundation should be thoroughly scarified to provide a good bond with the embankment fill.
4.6.6.3 Borrow area operations. Factors that should be considered in the planning and
operation of a borrow area are site preparation, excavation, drainage, and environmental
considerations.
a. Site preparation. The preparation of the surface of a borrow area includes clearing,
grubbing, and stripping. The purpose of this effort is to obtain fill material free from such
objectionable matter as trees, brush, vegetation, stumps, roots, and organic soil. In marshy areas,
a considerable depth of stripping may be required due to frequently occurring 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 ft)
root mats, peat, and underlying highly organic soil. Often, marshy areas will not support the construction equipment. All stripped organic material should be wasted in low areas or, where
useable as topsoil, stockpiled for later placement on outer dike slopes, berms, exposed borrow
slopes, or other areas where vegetative growth is desired.
b. Excavation. Planning for excavation operations in borrow areas should give consideration
to the proximity of the areas to the dike, topography, location of groundwater table, possible
excavation methods and equipment, and surface drainage.
c. Drainage. Drainage of borrow areas (including control of surface and groundwater) is
needed to achieve a satisfactory degree of use. Often, natural drainage is poor, and the only
choice is to start at the lowest point and work toward the higher areas, thereby creating a sump.
Ditches are often effective in shallow borrow areas. Ditching should be done in advance of the
excavation, particularly in fine-grained soils, to allow maximum drying of the soils prior to
excavation.

4-82

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Environmental considerations. Permanently exposed borrow areas are usually surface
treated to satisfy aesthetic and environmental protection considerations. Generally, projects near
heavily populated or industrial areas require more elaborate treatment than those in sparsely
populated areas. Minimum treatment should include topographic shaping to achieve adequate
drainage, smoothing and blending of the surface, treatment of the surface to promote vegetation
growth, and placement of vegetation to conform to the surrounding landscape. Mann et al. (1975)
should be consulted for more detailed information concerning landscaping methods.
4.6.6.4 Transportation and placement of materials. Three basic methods for transporting and
placing dike materials in the embankment are hauling by means of trucks or scrapers, casting by
means of a dragline, and pumping (or hydraulic filling) using a dredge. The relative advantages
and disadvantages of these methods are summarized in Table 4-10.
4.6.6.5 Manipulation, compaction, and shaping. After placement, the dike materials may be
compacted, semicompacted, or uncompacted. Many variations and combinations of these
methods can be and have been used. Classification by these methods does not necessarily refer to
the end quality of the embankment; rather, it refers to the amount of control of water content and
compactive effort used during construction. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the
methods of compaction are summarized in Table 4-11.
4.6.6.6 Construction quality control. The control of quality of construction operations is an
extremely important facet of dike operations. Some of the more pertinent items to be inspected
during construction of the dike are given in Table 4-12. For further guidance on control of
earthwork operations, see EM 1110-2-1911.
Table 4-10. Commonly Used Methods of Transporting Soils in Dike Construction
Method

Advantages
- May use central borrow area
- Permits use of high-speed, high-capacity
equipment
- Allows better selection of soil type

Disadvantages
- All traveled surfaces must be firm to support
equipment
- Cannot be used in soft, wet areas or underwater
- May require specialized low-pressure equipment

Casting

- Dragline bucket can move very soft, wet

soils
- Can operate on soft foundation

- Low speed; low capacity

- Requires frequent movement of dragline
equipment
- Short casting distance

Dredging

- Move large quantities of soils from below

water
- Permits use of dredged materials in dike
- May be used on soft foundation and
roadway

- Requires dredge and pipeline

- Soils cannot be compacted without drying;
requires large sections with very flat slopes

Hauling

4-83

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 4-11. Commonly Used Methods of Compacting Soils in Dike Construction
Method
Compacted

Semicompacted

Uncompacted

Advantages
- Placed in thin layers and well compacted,
strong dike, low compressibility
- Steep slopes, minimum space occupied
- Highest quality control
- Uses soils at natural water content, no
drying needed
- May be used on weaker foundations
- Uses thick lifts
- May be hauled or cast

Disadvantages
- Requires that soils be dried to water content
near plastic limit
- Requires competent foundation
- Highest cost
- Requires flatter slopes
- May be limited in height
- Poorer quality control
- May require specialized low-pressure
equipment

- Permits use of cast or dredged materials

- Requires very flat slopes
- May be placed on very soft, wet foundation - May be severely limited in height or require
stage construction
- Fill placed at natural water content
- Poorest quality control
- Lowest cost for dike

Table 4-12. Operations or Items to be Inspected During Dike Construction

Type Construction
Compacted

Items or Operation to Be Checked

Proper fill material
Loose lift thickness
Disking
Water content
Type of compaction equipment and number of passes
Density

Semicompacted

Proper fill material

Loose lift thickness
Water content (if required)
Number of passes (if required)
Routing of hauling and spreading equipment

Uncompacted

Proper fill material (displacement technique)

Dumping and shoving techniques
Ensuring fill is advanced in V-shape and with slopes as steep as possible
Elevation of fill surface
Prevention of rutting of fill surface by hauling equipment

4.6.7 Miscellaneous features.

4.6.7.1 Discharge facilities. Both excessive uniform and differential settlement of the dike
can cause distortion and/or rupture of weir discharge pipes located under or through dikes
(Figure 4-59) and can cause distortion of the weir box itself (Figure 4-60). The settlement effect

4-84

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
can be somewhat mitigated by cambering (Figure 4-61) or raising one end (Figure 4-62) of the
pipe during construction.

Figure 4-59. Swagging of a Pipe due to Settlement of the Dike Foundation

Figure 4-60. Cracking at the Dike-Structure Junction Caused by Differential Settlement Because
the Dike Load is much Greater than the Weir Load

4-85

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-61. Cambered Pipe Beneath a Dike

Figure 4-62. Cambered and Raised Pipe Beneath a Dike

4.6.7.2 Seepage control. Anti-seepage devices, either metal fins or concrete collars, have been
used in the past to inhibit seepage and piping along the outside wall of the outlet pipe. These
have not proven effective. To aid in the prevention of piping failures along the pipe-soil
interface, a 46 cm (18 in.)-minimum annular thickness of drain material (clean pervious sand or
sand/gravel) should be provided around the outlet one-third of the pipe, as shown in Figure 4-63.
This may be omitted where the outlet one-third of the pipe is located in sand.
4.6.7.3 Additional uses of geotextiles. The use of geotextiles to provide soil reinforcement
was presented in paragraph 4.6.4.8. In addition, geotextiles have been extensively used as filter
fabrics to replace the filter materials, drain materials, a separation medium, and an armor medium
to inhibit erosion. A brief summary of geotextile functions in dike construction is given in
Table 4-13.

4-86

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-63. Annular Drainage Material Around the Outlet One-Third of a Pipe
Table 4-13. Description of Geotextile Functions
Function
Filter

Description
- The process of allowing water to escape easily from a soil unit while retaining the soil in
place. The water is carried away by some other drain (for example, rock or rock with a
pipe).

Drain

- The situation where the fabric itself is to carry the water away from the soil to be drained.
The process of preventing two dissimilar materials from mixing.

Separation

- This is distinct from the filtration function in that it is not necessary for water to pass
through the fabric.

Reinforcement

- The process of adding mechanical strength to the soil-fabric system.

Armor

- The process of protecting the soil from surface erosion by some tractive force. Usually in
these situations, the fabric serves only for a limited time.

4-87

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.7 Contaminant Pathway Analysis.
4.7.1 General. Placement of dredged material in CDFs is the most commonly considered
alternative for materials found to be unsuitable for conventional open-water placement. For this
reason, consideration of pathways for migration of contaminants from the CDFs is often
required. Screening procedures and specific laboratory test procedures have been developed to
evaluate CDF contaminant pathways. Some of these procedures and tests have been field verified
and are now in general use while others are newly developed, and field verification is either
underway or planned. This section of the EM describes the pathways and geochemical environments associated with CDFs and briefly describes the procedures for testing and evaluation of the
pathways. The USACE has developed a separate Upland Testing Manual (UTM) intended for
regulatory application (USACE 2003). The manual contains the detailed testing procedures and
protocols for CDFs, and these detailed testing procedures are, therefore, not repeated in this EM.
4.7.2 Description of CDF contaminant pathways.
4.7.2.1 Upland. The possible migration pathways of contaminants from confined placement
facilities in the upland environment are illustrated in Figure 4-64. These pathways include effluent
discharges to surface water during filling operations and subsequent settling and during dewatering,
rainfall surface runoff, leachate into groundwater, volatilization to the atmosphere, and direct
uptake. Direct uptake includes plant uptake and subsequent cycling through food webs and direct
uptake by animal populations living in close association with the dredged material. Effects on
surface water quality, groundwater quality, air quality, plants, and animals depend on the
characteristics of the dredged material, management and operation of the site during and after
filling, and the proximity of the CDF to potential receptors of the contaminants. A number of
control measures are available to minimize impacts of losses by these pathways. A technical
framework (USEPA/USACE 2004; Francingues et al. 1985) has been developed that identifies
standardized testing procedures for dredged materials to determine appropriate placement controls.

Figure 4-64. Contaminant Pathways from Upland CDFs

4-88

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.7.2.2 Nearshore.
a. Migration pathways affected by nearshore CDFs, illustrated in Figure 4-65, include a
number of the pathways that are considered for upland CDFs. However, the relative importance
of contaminant migration pathways for a nearshore CDF differs from an upland CDF. A primary
advantage of the nearshore CDF is that the contaminated dredged material remains within the
saturated zone so that anaerobic conditions prevail and contaminant mobility is minimized. A
disadvantage is that water level fluctuation via tidal pumping or other mechanisms causes a
pumping action through the exterior berms, which are generally constructed of permeable material. Groundwater gradients through the contaminated sediment in a marine nearshore CDF are
also minimized due to the fact that fresh water, being less dense than salt water, tends to move
above the saltwater wedge; minimizing contact with the contaminated dredged material (Riley et
al. 1994). Groundwater flow is also directed upward by the reduced hydraulic conductivity of the
contaminated sediments compared to berm and capping materials. That portion of a nearshore
CDF raised to above the mean high-water elevation essentially functions as an upland CDF.
Additional considerations for nearshore sites (with one or more sides within the influence of
water-level fluctuations) are soluble convection through the dike in the partially saturated zone
and soluble diffusion from the saturated zone through the dike. Pathways for island CDFs are
similar to intertidal sites.

Figure 4-65. Contaminant Pathways from Nearshore CDFs

b. Analysis of CDF pathways for nearshore sites includes several of the same tests used for
upland sites. Procedures used to estimate the additional potential fluxes for the in-water CDF
have been used in a number of in-water CDF evaluations (Francingues, Averett, and Otis 1988;
Shields, Schroeder, and Palermo 1989). A number of these protocols have been used in Puget
Sound projects, such as Southwest Harbor, Everett, and Milwaukee Waterway. One key difference is the analysis of the leachate pathway. Procedures tailored to the anaerobic environment are

4-89

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
applicable to the dredged material layer that remains saturated in the nearshore environment.
Ponded conditions that normally exist in nearshore or in-water CDFs can limit concerns with the
volatilization pathway. The surface runoff is of concern only if the dredged material fill is raised
above the mean high water elevation. Ideally, clean material would be placed above MHHW.
One pathway of concern is the plant and animal pathway. Benthic in fauna will likely colonize in
the material placed inside the CDF. While the entrance notch is open, fish and other aquatic life
may pass in and out of the site picking up contaminants in their food chain. To minimize this
potential, a moveable barrier, such as a silt curtain or wire mesh, could remain in place except
when a barge is entering and exiting the CDF. A more elaborate system, similar to a navigation
lock, would add significantly to the cost of the site. The USEPA/USACE Technical Framework,
the Comprehensive Analysis of Migration Pathways (CAMP) (Myers 1990), and the Upland
Testing Manual (USACE 2003) describe appropriate testing and evaluation procedures.
4.7.2.3CDF geochemical environments. The CDF contaminant pathways of potential concern
and the potential for contaminant migration along those pathways are dependent on the
geochemical environment existing in the CDF at any time of interest. The geochemical environments associated with a CDF include the upland, intertidal, and aquatic environments. Materials
initially placed in CDFs built in water are in an aquatic environment. As the fill elevation rises to
the intertidal level and above, the material will be in an intertidal or upland geochemical
environment.
4.7.2.4 Upland geochemical environment.
a. When dredged material is placed in an upland environment, physical and/or chemical
changes may occur (Francingues et al. 1985). Initially, the dredged material is dark in color and
reduced, with little oxygen. If the material is hydraulically placed in the CDF, the ponded water
usually becomes oxygenated. This may affect the release of contaminants in effluent discharged
during hydraulic filling. For example, metals may become more readily released from suspended
solids to the dissolved phase by oxygenated conditions in a CDF pond.
b. Once placement operations are completed, and any ponded water has been removed from
the surface of the CDF, the exposed dredged material becomes oxidized and lighter in color. The
dredged material may begin to crack as it dries out. Accumulation of salts develops on the
surface of the dredged material, and especially on the edge of the cracks, but rainfall events tend
to dissolve and remove these salt accumulations in surface runoff. Certain metal contaminants
may also become dissolved in surface runoff.
c. During the drying process, organic complexes become oxidized and decompose. Sulfide
compounds also become oxidized to sulfate salts, and the pH may drop drastically. These
chemical transformations can release complex contaminants to surface runoff, soil pore water,
and leachate. In addition, plants and animals that colonize the upland site may take up and
bioaccumulate these released contaminants.
d. Volatilization of contaminants depends on the types of contaminants present in the dredged
material and the mass transfer rates of the contaminants from sediment to air, water to air, and
sediment to water. Release of the dredged material slurry above the water level in the CDF
4-90

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
surface enhances volatilization as the slurry impacts the CDF surface, creating turbulence and
releasing dissolved gases. The transfer rate from water to air for organics such as polychlorinated
byphenyls (PCBs) is generally slower than from sediment to air (Thibodeaux 1989). Therefore,
the inundated dredged material prior to dewatering is less likely to produce volatiles than is the
sediment as it dewaters and dries.
4.7.2.5 Nearshore geochemical environment.
a. CDFs constructed totally or partially in water usually receive dredged material until the
final elevation is above the high-water elevation. Three distinct physicochemical environments
may eventually exist at such a site: upland (dry unsaturated layer), intermediate (partially or
intermittently saturated layer), and aquatic (totally saturated layer) (USEPA/USACE 2004).
b. When material is initially placed in an in-water CDF, the CDF is completely flooded or
saturated throughout the vertical profile. The saturated condition is anaerobic and reduced, which
favors immobility of organic and heavy metal contaminants. Maintaining conditions in the
saturated zone of the CDF similar to those at the site of dredging takes advantage of the relatively
stable geochemical conditions for fine-grain sediments and contaminants. Most contaminants
remain tightly sorbed to the sediment fines and organic matter.
c. After the site is filled and dredging ceases, the dredged material above the high-water level
begins to dewater and consolidate through movement of water upward and out of the site as
surface drainage or runoff and laterally as seepage through the dike. At this point, the surface
layer has characteristics similar to those of material in an upland CDF. As the material desiccates
through evapotranspiration, it becomes aerobic and oxidized, conditions favorable for mobilization of heavy metals.
d. The bottom of an in-water CDF below the low-tide or groundwater elevation remains
saturated and anaerobic, favoring insolubility and contaminant attraction to particulate matter.
After dewatering of the dredged material above the flooded zone ceases and consolidation of the
material in the flooded zone reaches its final state, water movement through the flooded material
is minimal, and the potential for migration of contaminants is low.
e. The intermediate layer between the saturated and unsaturated layers are a transition zone
and may alternately be saturated and unsaturated as the water surface fluctuates. The depth of this
zone and the volume of dredged material affected depend on the difference in tide elevations and
on the permeability of the dike and the dredged material.
4.7.3 Pathway screening procedures.
4.7.3.1 An initial evaluation of sediment contamination should be conducted to determine if
contaminants are of concern for specific pathways; however, methods for initial evaluation or
screening are not fully developed. At present, the initial evaluation should be based on previous
experience with pathway testing and consideration of the level of contamination present in the
sediments.

4-91

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.7.3.2 An analysis of CDF pathways of concern must be conducted to determine if testing is
warranted. Brannon et al. (1990) identified key contaminant mobility processes and pathways
and, where possible, methods for estimation of contaminant mass exit rates for CDFs. Pathways
involving movement of large masses of water, such as CDF effluent discharge, have the greatest
potential for moving significant quantities of contaminants out of CDFs. Pathways such as
volatilization may also result in movement of volatile organic chemicals in highly contaminated
dredged sediments at certain stages in the filling of a CDF. The relative importance of
contaminant cycling and mobilization of contaminants to net mass balance in a CDF has not been
determined.
4.7.3.3 The USACE has developed guidelines and a framework for the Comprehensive
Analysis of Migration Pathways (CAMP) for contaminated dredged material placed in CDFs
(Myers 1990). CAMP has been developed as an internally consistent set of procedures for comparing the containment efficiency of CDF placement alternatives and, as such, for providing
supporting documentation for evaluating alternatives. The framework for analysis in CAMP is a
tiered assessment and, as such, can be used to identify those CDF pathways that warrant more
detailed assessment based on specific laboratory tests. However, CAMP is intended to interact
with, but is not a substitute for, the existing effects-based dredged material test procedures
presently used (USEPA/USACE 2004; USACE 2003).
4.7.3.4 More definitive screening procedures for CDF pathways will be developed under the
Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program (DOER) program.
4.7.3.5 If the initial evaluation of sediment contamination determines that contaminants are
not of concern for specific pathways, then no contaminant testing is required for those pathways.
However, if contaminants are of concern, an analysis of appropriate pathways must be conducted
that may include possible testing.
4.7.4 Effluent quality analysis.
4.7.4.1 The effluent from a CDF may contain both dissolved and particulate-associated
contaminants. A large portion of the total contaminant concentration is tightly bound to the
particulates. Effluent from a CDF (return flow to waters of the United States) is considered a
dredged material discharge under Section 404 of the CWA and is also subject to water quality
certification under Section 401 State standards.
4.7.4.2 Prediction of effluent quality should be made using a modified elutriate test procedure
(Palermo 1985; Palermo and Thackston 1988) that simulates the geochemical and physical
processes occurring during confined placement. A photo of a modified elutriate test in progress is
shown in Figure 4-66. This test provides information on the dissolved and particulate
contaminant concentrations. The column settling test (Appendix H, Column Settling Test
Procedures) used for CDF design provides the effluent solids concentrations. Results of both
tests can be used to predict a total concentration of contaminants in the effluent. The predicted
effluent quality, with allowance for any mixing zone, can be compared directly with water quality
standards. Computer programs are also available for data reduction and analysis (Palermo and
Schroeder 1991).
4-92

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-66. Modified Elutriate Test in Progress

4.7.4.3 The modified elutriate test can also be used to develop the water medium for bioassays if a biological approach to evaluation of effluent quality is needed. These bioassays are
conducted in a manner similar to that for open-water disposal. The quality of a reference water
(usually the receiving water) should be considered in test interpretation.
4.7.4.4 If effluent contaminant concentrations exceed standards, appropriate controls should
be considered. Control measures available for effluent discharge include improved settling
design or reduced flow to the containment area, chemical clarification or filtration to remove
particulate contaminants, and removal or destruction of dissolved contaminants by more
sophisticated treatment processes (paragraph 4.8).
4.7.5 Surface runoff quality analysis.
4.7.5.1 Immediately after material placement in a CDF and after ponding water is decanted,
the settled material may experience surface runoff. Rainfall during this initial period will likely
be erosive, and runoff will contain elevated solids concentrations. Geochemically speaking, the
contaminant release is controlled by anaerobic conditions. Once the surface is allowed to dry, the
runoff will contain a lesser concentration of solids, but the release is now controlled by aerobic
4-93

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
conditions, and release of some dissolved contaminants may be elevated. Runoff water quality
requirements may be a condition of the water quality certification or may be considered as part of
the NEPA process.
4.7.5.2 Presently, there is no simplified procedure for prediction of runoff quality, but
simplified procedures are being developed the Long-Term Effect of Dredging Operations
(LEDO) Program. A soil lysimeter testing protocol (Lee and Skogerboe 1983) has been used to
predict surface runoff quality with good results (see Figure 4-67). The lysimeter is equipped with
a rainfall simulator and can be used in the laboratory or transported to the field site. Computer
programs are also available for data reduction and analysis (Brandon, Schroeder, and Lee 1997).

Figure 4-67. Soil Lysimeter

4.7.5.3 If runoff concentrations exceed standards, appropriate controls may include placement
of a surface cover or cap on the site, maintenance of ponded water conditions (although this may
conflict with other management goals), vegetation to stabilize the surface, treatments such as
liming to raise pH, or treatment of the runoff as for effluent (Skogerboe and Lee 1987).
4.7.6 Leachate quality analysis.
4.7.6.1 Subsurface drainage from upland CDFs may reach adjacent aquifers or may enter
surface waters. Fine-grained dredged material tends to form its own placement-area liner as particles settle with percolation of water, but consolidation may require some time for this to occur.
Since most contaminants potentially present in dredged material are closely adsorbed to particles,
the dissolved fraction present in leachates is usually small relative to the total contaminant mass
present in the dredged material.

4-94

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.7.6.2 Evaluation of the leachate quality from a CDF must include a prediction of which
contaminants may be released in leachate and the relative degree of release or mass of contaminants. Procedures are available for prediction of leachate quality which have been developed
specifically for application to dredged material placement sites (Myers and Brannon 1991;
Myers, Gambrell, and Tittlebaum 1991; Brannon, Myers, and Tardy 1994; and Myers 1996).
These procedures are based on theoretical analysis and include laboratory batch and column
testing. A batch leaching test in progress is shown in Figure 4-68.
4.7.6.3 The testing procedures give data only on leachate quality. Estimates of leachate
quantity must be made by considering site-specific characteristics and groundwater hydrology.
Computerized procedures, such as the USEPA Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
model (Schroeder and Ammon 1984) have also been used to estimate water balance (budget) for
dredged material CDFs (Palermo and Randall 1989; Francingues, Averett, and Otis 1988; Aziz,
Schroeder, and Myers 1994).
4.7.6.4 If leachate concentrations exceed applicable criteria, controls for leachate must be
considered. These may include proper site specification to minimize potential movement of water
into aquifers, dewatering to reduce leachate generation, chemical modifications to retard or
immobilize contaminants, physical barriers such as clay and synthetic liners, capping/vegetating
the surface to reduce leachate production, and collection and treatment of the leachate.
4.7.7 Plant and animal uptake.
4.7.7.1 Some contaminants can be bioaccumulated in plant tissue and become further
available to the food chain. If the contaminants are identified in the dredged material at levels
that cause a concern, then prediction of uptake is based on a plant or animal bioassay (Folsom
and Lee 1985; Simmers, Rhett, and Lee 1986; Stafford, Simmers, and Rhett 1987). Plant and
animal uptake tests are shown in Figure 4-69 and Figure 4-70. Appropriate plant or animal
species are grown in either a flooded or dry soil condition using the appropriate experimental
procedure and laboratory or field test apparatus. Contaminant uptake is then measured by
chemical analysis of the biomass (tissue). Growth, phytotoxicity, and bioaccumulation of contaminants are monitored during the growth period in the case of the plant bioassay. An index
species is also grown to serve as a mechanism to extrapolate the results to allow use of other
databases, such as metals uptake by agricultural food crops. This indexing procedure provides
information upon which a decision can be made regarding potential for human health effects and
for beneficial uses of the site or dredged material. Levels of contaminants in the biomass are
compared with Federal criteria for food or forage.
4.7.7.2 From the test results, appropriate management strategies can be formulated regarding
where to place dredged material to minimize plant or animal uptake or how to control and
manage the species on the site so that desirable species that do not take up and accumulate
contaminants are allowed to colonize the site while undesirable species are removed or
eliminated.

4-95

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-68. Batch Leaching Test

Figure 4-69. Plant Uptake

4-96

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-70. Animal Uptake

4.7.8 Volatilization analysis.
4.7.8.1 Contaminant transport from in situ sediment to air is a relatively slow process because
most contaminants must first be released to the water phase prior to reaching the air. Potential for
volatilization should be evaluated in accordance with regulatory requirements of the Clean Air
Act. Thibodeaux (1989) discusses volatilization of organic chemicals during dredging and
placement and identifies four locales where volatilization may occur (volatilization is favored in
the order of conditions listed):
a. Dredged material exposed directly to air.
b. Dredging site or other water area where suspended solids are elevated.
c. Ponded CDF with a quiescent, low suspended solids concentration.
d. Dredged material covered with vegetation.
4.7.8.2 In cases where highly contaminated sediments are disposed, airborne emissions must
be considered to protect workers and others who could inhale contaminants released through this
pathway.

4-97

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.7.8.3 Rate equations based on chemical vapor equilibrium concepts and transport
phenomena fundamentals have been used to predict chemical flux (Thibodeaux 1989; Semmler
1990). First-generation laboratory tests for prediction of volatile losses have also been developed
(Price, Brannon, and Myers 1997, Price, Brannon, and Yost 1999). Emission rates are primarily
dependent on the chemical concentration at the source, the surface area of the source, and the
degree to which the dredged material is in direct contact with the air. A schematic of the volatile
test chamber is shown in Figure 4-71.

Figure 4-71. Schematic of Volatile Test Chamber

4.8 Control and Treatment of Effluent and Other Discharges.
4.8.1 General. If the CDF cannot be sized to provide sufficient clarification of effluent to
meet applicable suspended solids/turbidity standards, control and treatment measures can be
considered. Since a large portion of the total concentration of contaminants in effluents is associated with the suspended solids, reduction in the suspended solids also serves to control contaminant releases. Suspended solids removal, therefore, offers the greatest benefits in improving
effluent quality, not only by reducing turbidity, but also by removing particulate-associated
contaminants.
4.8.2 Treatment and control for TSS/turbidity. Suspended solids removal processes differ
from dewatering processes because for this application the solids concentration is much lower
than for a dredged material slurry. Settling mechanisms for these streams are characterized by
flocculant settling rather than by zone or compression settling. For CDF liquid streams, the solids
remaining will be clay- or colloidal-size material that may require flocculants to promote further
settling in clarifiers or sedimentation ponds. Chemical clarification using organic polyelectrolytes
is a proven technology for CDF effluents (Schroeder 1983). Filtration, permeable dikes, sandfilled weirs, and wetlands have also been used on occasion for CDF demonstrations or pilot
evaluations. Descriptions of suspended solids removal processes as applied to CDFs presented
here are summarized from the literature (Cullinane et al. 1986; Averett, Perry, and Miller 1990;
USEPA 1994).

4-98

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.8.2.1 Granular media filtration.
a. Filtration of CDF effluents with granular media has been applied extensively at CDFs in
the Great Lakes region. Granular media filtration is a process that uses a bed of granular material
to treat water or wastewater. Filtration is the most commonly used technology for treatment of
drinking water. Granular media for filtration include fine gravel, sand, anthracite, and coal.
Systems may function using gravity drainage through filter media, with pumps, or under
pressure. A granular media filtration unit at the Chicago CDF is shown in Figure 4-72. Typical
cross sections of dike sections are shown in Figure 4-73.
b. In many wastewater treatment applications, filtration is the final step of a treatment system
(sometimes called polishing). All filters eventually clog, and, in most cases, water should be
pretreated by settling, chemical clarification, or other methods to reduce suspended solids before
filtration. Granular media filtration may be applied to water drained from contaminated
sediments in a number of ways. These include permeable filter dikes or weirs, filter cells, and
package filter systems.
c. Most of the in-water CDFs and some of the upland CDFs around the Great Lakes have
been constructed with permeable dikes. Many in-water CDFs have a core of granular material
(gravel, sand, or combinations). Upland CDFs have been constructed with a section of the dike
formed of granular material. As water moves horizontally through the dikes, suspended solids are
removed by the filter media. The effluent suspended solids content is dependent on the particle
size and thickness of the filter media and the suspended solids levels of influent.

Figure 4-72. Granular Media Filtration

4-99

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-73. Cross Sections of Dike Sections

4-100

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Permeable treatment beds have been tested at bench and pilot scales to provide the
preliminary quantification of their effectiveness. Laboratory tests indicate that permeable
treatment beds may be practical for removing suspended solids from effluent when solids
concentrations are as high as 1 g/L for periods of approximately 1 year before clogging (Krizek,
Fitzpatrick, and Atmatzidis 1976). Filter dikes will become clogged as sediment particles are
trapped by the filter media. Proper management of a placement facility is required to ensure that
the filter dikes are not overloaded, causing them to clog prematurely.
e. Filter cells, or sand-filled weirs, provide filtration in a vertical gravity flow mode and may
be more flexible than permeable filter dikes/beds, allowing easier replacement and maintenance.
They consist of several cylindrical or rectangular cells containing the filter medium. The filter
medium depth is obtained at the deepest level possible to provide for better solids retention. The
filter medium used is typically sand with a particle size of approximately 1 mm (0.04 in).
Excessive maintenance is required if the influent contains more than 1 g/L suspended solids
(Krizek, Fitzpatrick, and Atmatzidis 1976). Sand-filled weirs can remove 60-98% of the
suspended solids and sediment-bound contaminants from wastewater. Typically, the effluent
suspended solids concentration is reduced to 5 to 10 mg/L (Cullinane et al. 1986).
f. Filter cells constructed with steel-sheet piles, using sand filter media, have been used at a
number of in-water CDFs on the Great Lakes. Concrete filter cells with sand and carbon filter
media have been used at CDFs in Chicago with suspended solids removal efficiencies of up to
90%. Depending on the design of the filter, the nature of the dredged material, and the loading
rate, a filter cell can effectively remove most of the suspended solids from the effluent from
several dredging operations before it becomes clogged (Barnard and Hand 1978).
g. Portable wastewater treatment systems, including granular media filtration, are
commercially available. These package systems may be mounted on a trailer bed or installed
onsite. Most of them are intended for small flow rates, but they can be run in parallel or in series,
if necessary. To prevent clogging of the filter media, water is backflushed through the filter at a
high velocity to remove solids that have become lodged within the filter media pores. This
backwash water requires further treatment since it contains high concentrations of solids
(De Renzo 1978).
h. Design procedures for sand filtration systems for solids removal (Krizek, Fitzpatrick, and
Atmatzidis 1976) are available. Additional efforts to evaluate the contaminant removal
efficiencies of filtration systems and design of the systems for contaminant removal are planned
under the DOER Program.
4.8.2.2 Chemical clarification.
a. Chemical clarification is defined as the use of coagulants or flocculants to promote settling
of the smaller colloidal-size particles in dredged material. These particles settle very slowly and
often have high contaminant concentrations compared to the bulk sediment. Coagulation causes
these particles to agglomerate into larger particles with sufficient size and density to settle more
rapidly (Jones, Williams, and Moore 1978).

4-101

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Coagulants include inorganic chemicals, such as the salts of iron and aluminum, which are
widely used in the water treatment industry, and organic polyelectrolytes. Wang and Chen (1977)
evaluated inorganic and organic coagulants for application to dredged material and recommended
organic polyelectrolytes for dredging operations because they are less dependent on pH and
require lower dosages than do inorganic coagulants.
c. Chemical clarification is efficient for treating effluent from a settling process. Treatment of
dredged material slurry was demonstrated in pilot studies by Jones, Williams, and Moore (1978)
and by Schroeder (1983). Simple processes of mixing concentrated polyelectrolyte and water and
using a pump to meter the solution into a port in the pipeline are readily available. Turbulence in
the pipeline provides energy and mixing for the polyelectrolyte and solids. A settling process
must follow to complete the chemical clarification process. Large polymer loadings can achieve
near 100% reduction in turbidity and suspended solids in the slurry based on small column tests
of treated pipeline slurry. Chemical clarification can be highly efficient, but full-scale field
conditions would likely result in a lower efficiency because of inefficiencies of the settling
process.
d. Evaluation of chemical clarification as an option for treatment and control of effluent
suspended solids requires jar tests for screening coagulants and determining optimum dosages
and design of the clarification system for the CDF. The procedures described here were taken
from Schroeder (1983). Additional efforts to evaluate the contaminant removal efficiencies of
filtration systems and design of the systems for contaminant removal are planned under the
DOER Program.
4.8.2.3 Chemical clarification (jar) testing. Jar tests have traditionally been used to evaluate
the effectiveness of various flocculants under a variety of operating conditions for water
treatment, and these procedures have been applied to the placement of dredged material. Jar tests
are used to provide information on the most effective flocculant, optimum dosage, optimum feed
concentration, effects of dosage on removal efficiencies, effects of concentration of influent
suspension on removal efficiencies, effects of mixing conditions, and effects of settling time.
Detailed jar test procedures are found in Appendix K, Jar Test Procedures for Chemical
Clarification.
4.8.2.4 Design of chemical clarification systems. Pipeline injections of chemicals for
clarification into the dredge inflow pipeline have shown only limited effectiveness and require
much higher dosages of chemicals. Chemical clarification of primary containment area effluents
is the recommended approach, with the system designed for injection of the chemical at the
effluent discharge weir from a primary basin. The design is composed of three subsystems: the
polymer feed system including storage, dilution, and injection; the weir and discharge culvert for
mixing; and the secondary basin for settling and storage. The treatment system should be
designed to minimize equipment needs and to simplify operation. Detailed procedures and
examples are presented in Appendix M, Procedures and Example Calculations for Design of a
Chemical Clarification System.

4-102

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.8.3 Discharge treatment for contaminant removal.
4.8.3.1 General.
a. The objective of liquid streams controls is to remove residual contaminants from the
liquids produced as discharges from a CDF operation, such as effluent discharges from active
filling operations, surface runoff, leachate, and waters from dewatering or treatment processes.
Contaminants in these streams present a wide array of concentrations, depending on their source,
and individual sources are often highly variable in concentrations and flows. Most of the
contaminants for these streams are associated with the suspended solids and are removed by
effective suspended solids removal. Another characteristic of these streams is their variety of
contaminants, both organic and inorganic, as well as potentially toxic contaminants. These
characteristics may require more than one treatment process. Commonly used wastewater treatment processes are available to achieve effluent limits for most contaminants. However, applications of treatment processes for dredged material effluents have been generally limited to
removal of suspended solids and contaminants associated with these particulates.
b. Liquid treatment technologies can be classified as metals removal processes, organic
treatment processes, and suspended solids removal processes. Many of these processes concentrate contaminants into another phase, which may require special treatment or placement. This
discussion focuses on suspended solids, toxic organics, and heavy metals. Conventional contaminants, such as nutrients, ammonia, oxygen-demanding materials, and oil and grease, may also be
a concern for dredged material effluents. Most of the processes for dissolved organics removal
are suitable for these contaminants.
4.8.3.2 Metals removal. Metals removal processes that may be considered for application at
CDFs are similar to those commonly used for industrial applications. Processes that are developmental and, therefore, are less likely choices are biological ion exchange, electrocoagulation,
and ultrafiltration. Flocculation is effective for removal of metals associated with particulate
matter. Polymers and inorganic flocculants have been demonstrated to be effective for removal of
suspended solids from dredging effluents, but removal of dissolved heavy metals has not been
evaluated in field applications. Ion exchange and precipitation are probably two of the more
efficient metals removal processes, but they must generally be designed for specific metals and
often require major investments in operational control for efficient operation. Use of man-made
wetlands is a relatively new concept for retention of heavy metals and other contaminants from
effluents, which could represent a viable option for certain sites and contaminants (Fennessy and
Mitsch 1989). More detailed guidance on metals treatment processes as applied to CDFs is
available (Cullinane et al. 1986; Averett, Perry, and Miller 1990; USEPA 1994).
4.8.3.3 Organics treatment. The applicability and effectiveness of options for the treatment of
dissolved organic contaminants are mostly dependent on the concentration and flow rate of the
liquid stream. Mechanical biological wastewater treatment processes are typically not considered
because it is doubtful that sufficient organic matter would be available to support biological
growth and because operation of biological systems under the conditions of fluctuating flows and
temperatures would be difficult. Biological processes such as nitrification, nutrient catabolism,
and photosynthesis are important degradation mechanisms for nutrients, oxygen-demanding
4-103

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
materials, and other organics in CDFs. The principal process for dissolved refractory organic
contaminants that has been applied to dredged material effluent is carbon adsorption, which was
applied to a PCB spill on the Duwamish Waterway in the 1970s (Blazevich and Nicholas 1977).
Air and steam stripping could be used for volatile contaminants, but these are generally not a
problem for contaminants originating in most dredged sediments. Ultraviolet light (UV) and
chemical oxidation processes offer destruction of organic contaminants and are being extensively
investigated in the field for a wide range of contaminants. UV and hydrogen peroxide treatment
were used for dredged material effluent from the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site (Otis
1994). Created wetlands or phytoremediation also offer potential for retention and degradation of
organics. The more effective organic treatment process options are carbon adsorption, chemical
oxidation processes, oil separation, and wetlands/phytoremediation. More detailed guidance on
organics treatment processes as applied to CDFs is available (Cullinane et al. 1986; Averett,
Perry, and Miller 1990; USEPA 1994).
4.9 Contaminant Controls and Treatment.
4.9.1 General.
4.9.1.1 In cases where evaluations of direct physical impacts, site capacity, or contaminant
pathways indicate impacts will be unacceptable when conventional CDF placement techniques
are used, management actions and contaminant control measures may be considered. Descriptions of commonly considered management actions and contaminant controls are given in the
following paragraphs.
4.9.1.2 Site controls (for example, surface covers and liners) can be effective control
measures applied at a CDF to prevent migration of contaminants from the dredged material
(Cullinane et al. 1986; Averett, Perry, and Miller 1990). The implementation ability and
effectiveness of these controls are highly specific to the CDF location and the dredged material
characteristics. Use of site controls such as liners, slurry walls, groundwater pumping, and
subsurface drainage can be considered for upland sites. Graded stone dikes with low permeability
cores or steel sheet pile cutoffs have been used or proposed at upland CDFs to control leachate
migration. The low permeability of fine-grained sediments following compaction can reduce the
need for liners in many cases, but it can also limit the effectiveness and implementation ability of
groundwater pumping and subsurface drainage controls.
4.9.1.3 This section focuses on those contaminant control technologies that have potential
application to CDFs with contamination at levels of concern normally associated with
navigational dredged material. The most commonly considered contaminant controls for CDFs
include the following:
a. Site operations for contaminant control.
b. Barrier systems.
c. Surface covers.

4-104

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Liners.
4.9.1.4 Other more complex and expensive control measures are available, including
treatment of the sediment solids. However, such measures would not normally be considered for
a navigation project. Measures for control and treatment of liquid streams, such as effluent, surface runoff, or leachate, are described in paragraph 4.8.
4.9.1.5 Additional guidance on selection of management actions and contaminant controls for
CDFs is available (Francingues et al. 1985; Cullinane et al. 1986; Averett, Perry, and Miller
1990; USEPA 2004). These references contain testing procedures and criteria needed for
evaluating and selecting appropriate contaminant control measures for CDFs and should be
consulted for additional detailed discussions of the attributes of the various technologies.
4.9.2 Site operations. Site operations can be used as a control measure for CDFs to reduce the
exposure of material through the surface water, volatilization, and groundwater pathways.
Operational controls may include management of the site pond during and after placement
operations. Mobilization of contaminants from dredged material depends on the oxidation state
of the solids. Most metals are much less mobile when maintained in an anaerobic reduced condition. On the other hand, aerobic sediments generally improve conditions for biodegradation of
organic contaminants. Aerobic sediments generally present the greatest potential for volatilization of contaminants (Thibodeaux 1989). Whether to cultivate or inhibit plant and animal propagation is also an issue. Management of the site both during filling and after placement requires a
comprehensive understanding of the migration pathways and the effects various contaminant
controls have on the overall mass balance and rate of contaminant releases. The decision to apply
certain management options requires trade-offs for the site and contaminant-specific conditions
for the project.
4.9.3 Barrier systems. Barriers are layers of low-permeability materials designed to prevent
vertical or lateral migration of water and minimize groundwater contamination. Soil barriers can
use natural geologic formations of low-permeability material if available at a site or constructed
layers. Barrier systems might utilize soils, synthetic membranes, grout mattresses, and slurry
walls. Barrier systems can employ a single layer or multiple layers. Complex barrier systems may
sandwich layers for lateral drainage, leachate collection, or detection between low-permeability
layers. Landfills licensed for hazardous and toxic wastes have strict requirements on the type,
number, thickness, and permeability of barriers.
4.9.4 Surface covers.
4.9.4.1 A surface cover is a barrier layer placed on top of a filled CDF. The term surface
cover is used here to describe both a cap and cover layer for CDFs to distinguish this option
from a subaqeous cap as used for contaminant control in the aquatic environment. A cover can be
highly effective in reducing leachate generation by preventing rainfall infiltration, isolation from
bioturbation and uptake by plants and animals, limiting direct human contact, minimizing volatilization of contaminants from the surface, and eliminating detachment and transport of contaminants by rainfall and runoff. A layer of clean material can achieve the last three benefits
mentioned. However, prevention of infiltration requires a barrier of very low permeability, such
4-105

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
as a flexible membrane or a compacted clay layer, both of which are not easily or reliably
implemented for CDFs.
4.9.4.2 No surface cover design requirements have been specifically developed for dredged
material CDFs, but such guidance is planned under the DOER program. However, design
specifications for solid waste or hazardous waste landfill covers may be adapted to CDFs,
depending on the material and site characteristics. A vegetative layer may be placed on top of the
barrier layer to protect the cap from erosion and sustain certain types of vegetation. The vegetative layer on top should be 0.6 m (2 ft) or more in thickness, depending upon frost depths, root
penetration, and the rate of soil loss. Lateral drainage layers may be incorporated into a surface
cover design. Surface covers may utilize soil or synthetic membrane liners. Landfills for some
regulated wastes have specific requirements for the thickness and permeability of caps. The
effectiveness of a cap is highly dependent on the grading and compaction of the fill. Dredged
materials may require one or more years to be dewatered/consolidated adequately for cap
installation. Uneven settling and consolidation of fill materials can cause localized ponding or
cap failure and requires periodic maintenance.
4.9.5 Liners.
4.9.5.1 Liners are commonly considered as a leachate or seepage control measure, and they
can be placed on the sides and bottom of a containment area. However, liners have not been used
extensively for contaminated dredged material sites because of the inherent low permeability of
fine-grained dredged material, the retention of contaminants on solids, and the difficulty and
expense of construction of a reliable liner system for wet dredged material.
4.9.5.2 No design requirements have been specifically developed for dredged material CDF
liners, but such guidance is planned under the DOER Program. However, design specifications
for liners used in design of solid waste or hazardous waste landfills may be adapted to CDFs,
depending on the material and site characteristics. Liners may be designed using soils, synthetic
membranes, or grout mattresses. Adequate compaction is accomplished by spreading the soil in
loose 5 m (6 in.) (or less) deep lifts, wetting and drying to 2% or more above the optimum
moisture content, and rolling to the specified relative compaction with a sheeps-foot-type roller
(Cullinane et al. 1986). Fine-grained sediments may have permeabilities comparable to clay
barriers following compaction. A synthetic membrane liner is generally constructed of polymers
of rubber, plastics (PVC), polyolefins, and thermoplastic elastomers that range in thickness from
20 to 140 mil. Effectiveness of these materials depends on quality control during installation.
Installation may be difficult in areas of tidal fluctuation and high groundwater table. The
membranes are susceptible to leakage due to improper seaming and punctures during installation.
Chemical compatibility is a concern with concentrated wastes but is generally not a problem for
dredged material. Installation of the primary liner must include protective soil layers above and
below the liner. During placement of the primary liner, random samples of seams should be
extracted and laboratory tested (Cullinane et al. 1986).
4.9.5.3 Grout mattresses are geotextile bags that are filled with a slurry of cement and sand.
They are commonly used for streambank or shoreline erosion protection but have also been used
as a lateral barrier on the dikes of a CDF at Monroe, MI. The empty geotextile mattresses were
4-106

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
placed against the dike face, then filled with the cement/sand slurry. The product was a layer of
hardened concrete, several inches in thickness.
4.9.6 Leachate collection systems. Leachate is water that has had contact with a fill or waste
material and may transport contaminants to groundwater. Leachate collection and detection
systems are components of landfill designs required for some regulated wastes. Leachate
collection/detection systems are essentially the same as the subsurface drainage systems discussed with dewatering technologies. They provide lateral drainage through a network of
perforated pipes within a layer of sand or other media. These systems may be positioned above,
below, or between barrier layers. The low permeability of fine-grained sediments following
consolidation may limit the need for and effectiveness of leachate collection/detection systems.
4.9.7 Slurry walls.
4.9.7.1 A slurry wall is a low-permeability subsurface cutoff wall constructed for the purpose
of redirecting groundwater away from a contaminated area to prevent formation of leachates
and/or controlling horizontal leachate movement away from the area. Slurry walls are the most
common subsurface barriers because they are a relatively inexpensive option for the reduction of
groundwater flow in unconsolidated earth materials (Cullinane et al. 1986). The slurry wall is
constructed by filling a vertical trench under excavation with a bentonite or bentonite-soilcement slurry.
4.9.7.2 Slurry walls can be placed circumferential, upgradient, or downgradient. Circumferential placement is most common and offers the following advantages: uncontaminated
groundwater entering the contaminated area is reduced, thus reducing the leachate volume generated; the amount of leachate leaving the area on the downgradient side will be reduced; and if
used in conjunction with an infiltration barrier and leachate-collecting system, the hydraulic
gradient can be maintained in an inward direction, thus preventing leachate escape. Upgradient
placement refers to the placement of a slurry wall on the groundwater source side of the
contaminated area. This method can be used for the diversion of clean groundwater around a site.
While it will not stop leachate generation, it could reduce it (USEPA 1987).
4.9.8 Groundwater pumping.
4.9.8.1 Groundwater pumping is an effective, widely used technology that removes, contains,
or prevents development of a plume through groundwater management. For placement facilities,
these same techniques can be used to collect leachate or seepage from contaminated dredged
material. Plume containment and removal are accomplished primarily with extraction wells that
are placed in or around the placement facility. Selection of a well depends on the depth of
contamination and hydraulic or geologic characteristics of the media (USEPA 1987). The process
directs the flow of groundwater toward a well or wells by pumping. Migration of contaminants
away from the well field or out of the placement facility is prevented. Therefore, the contaminated leachate can be recovered and treated. Groundwater pumping applies to granular soils that
transmit water. Low-permeability soils, including clay and shale, can adversely affect the
process.

4-107

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.9.8.2 Well points are effective in many hydraulic situations and are most suitable for
placement facilities where extraction is not generally necessary below 6.7 m (22 ft). Well point
systems are driven, not drilled, into the ground just below the leachate plume. Groundwater is
piped to a suction header and is then drawn by centrifugal pump to a treatment system. Contour
grading, revegetation, surface sealing, cutoff walls, and leachate treatment may be used to assist
the system (Rishel, Boston, and Schmidt 1984). Costs for well point systems range from $803 to
$8,284 per well.
4.9.9 Treatment of dredged material solids.
4.9.9.1 Various treatment processes have been investigated for dredged material treatment.
Dredged material may be treated at a temporary rehandling facility, with the treated material
subsequently being transported to an ultimate disposal facility. Treatment can also be considered
for a smaller portion of the total volume of material to create stabilized material for use in
constructing liners, covers, and other items.
4.9.9.2 Treatment of contaminated dredged material is a multi-step process, as shown in
Figure 4-74. All steps of the process (the process train) must be considered when planning and
designing treatment options for contaminated dredged material. These steps are as follows:
a. Removal or dredging of the sediment.
b. Transport of the dredged material.
c. Pretreatment of the dredged material.
d. Treatment of the dredged material.
e. Disposal of the dredged material.
f. Water (effluent and leachate) treatment.
4.9.9.3 The technology types that may be considered for each component are illustrated in
Table 4-14. A variety of process options are potentially available for each type of technology;
however, prior to recent demonstration programs and Superfund cleanups, only a limited number
of treatment technologies had actually been applied on a pilot scale or full scale. The base of
experience for treatment of contaminated sediment is still very limited.
a. Pretreatment component. Pretreatment technologies are defined as technologies that
prepare or condition dredged material for subsequent, more rigorous treatment processes. These
technologies are designed to accelerate treatment, to reduce the water content of the dredged
material, or to separate fractions of the sediment by particle size. Pretreatment technology
process options include dewatering, debris removal, particle separation or classification, and
slurry injection of polymers, nutrients, or other materials. In preparation for any contaminated
sediment project, most treatment technologies require storage for flow equalization between the
dredging step and the treatment step. A diked storage area similar to a CDF serves this purpose,
as well as allowing for dewatering and removal of debris, cobbles, and other large materials.

4-108

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-74. Processes of Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material

b. Treatment component. Many of the process options are not stand-alone processes but,
rather, components of a system that may involve multiple treatment processes to address multiple
contaminant problems. Most of these processes also require one or more of the pretreatment
processes discussed above. Technology types for the treatment component are (1) Biological,
(2) Chemical, (3) Extraction, (4) Immobilization, (5) Thermal destruction, and (6) Radiant
energy.
(1) Biological processes. Biological degradation technologies use bacteria, fungi, or enzymes
to break down PCBs, pesticides, and other organic constituents into innocuous or less toxic
compounds. The microorganisms may be indigenous microbes, conventional mutants, or
recombinant DNA products. Biodegradation processes have been widely evaluated for contaminated soils and sediments on bench and pilot scales. However, few full-scale cleanups have been
completed for those such as PCBs, dioxins, and high molecular weight PAHsthat are more
difficult to degrade compounds. Several of the conceptual processes are proprietary processes
that may be available on a pilot scale, and new vendors continue to enter this market. Bioslurry
processes are estimated to cost $80 to $200/yd3. A potentially lower cost would be incurred if
biodegradation were accomplished in a CDF. Research being conducted at the U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and elsewhere seeks to develop techniques
for CDF management that will effect biotreatment.

4-109

Table 4-14. Treatment Alternatives for Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (Tetra Tech, Inc. and Averett 1994)
EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

4-110

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(2) Chemical processes. Chemical treatment technologies use chelating agents, bond
cleavage, acid or base addition, chlorine displacement, oxidation, or reduction in the destruction
or detoxification of contaminants found in the contaminated media. The most widely applied
chemical technology is dechlorination of PCBs and other chlorinated aromatic compounds.
Process options include the potassium polyethylene glycol process, the base catalyzed dechlorination process, the alkaline metal hydroxide/polyethylene glycol process, and the KGME process
(which uses the potassium derivative of 2-methoxyethanol [glyme]). These processes have been
demonstrated on bench and pilot scales and have been used for full-scale cleanup of some small
contaminated soil sites. Implementation of chemical processes is difficult because of materials
handling and process control requirements that have not been fully demonstrated for application
to dredged material. Costs for these processes range from $100 to $300/yd3.
(3) Extraction processes. Extraction is the removal of contaminants from a medium by
dissolution in a fluid that is later recovered and recycled in the process or treated. Soil flushing
and soil washing are other terms that are used to describe extraction processes, primarily when
water is a component of the solvent. A key element of an extraction process is the ability to
separate the contaminant from the solvent so that the solvent can be recovered for reuse in the
process. Also important is the toxicity of the solvent. Most processes require multiple extraction
cycles to achieve high removal efficiencies. Follow-on treatment processes are required to treat
or dispose of the concentrated contaminant stream. Implementation of most of these processes is
difficult because of the lack of full-scale development for handling sediment and the problems of
solvent recovery and potential toxicity of residual solvents. Costs are expected to exceed $150-.
$400/yd3.
(4) Immobilization processes. Immobilization processes are defined as technologies that limit
the mobility of contaminants for sediment placed in a confined site or disposal area. The
environmental pathway most affected by these processes is transport of contaminants to the
groundwater or surface water by leaching. Most of the immobilization processes fall into the
category of solidification/stabilization (S/S) processes. Objectives of S/S are generally to
improve the handling and physical characteristics of the material, decrease the surface area of the
sediment mass across which transfer or loss of contaminants can occur, and limit the solubility of
contaminants by pH adjustment or sorption phenomena. The effectiveness of S/S processes is
usually evaluated in terms of reduction of leaching potential. Reductions are process- and
contaminant-specific with immobilization of some contaminants accompanied by increased
mobility of others. Implementation of most of these processes is better than chemical or extraction processes because they are not as sensitive to process control conditions. The opportunity for
in situ S/S within a CDF is also an advantage. Costs for these processes are generally less than
$100/yard3.
(5) Thermal processes. Thermal technologies include incineration, pyrolysis, thermal
desorption, sintering, and other processes that require heating the sediment to several hundreds or
thousands of degrees above ambient. Thermal destruction processes such as incineration are
generally the more effective options for destroying organic contaminants, but they are also the
more expensive. Thermal desorption could be considered an extraction process since the organic
contaminants are removed from the sediment by volatilization. The small volume of volatilized

4-111

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
contaminants must be collected for subsequent treatment. Costs for thermal processes range from
$100 to $400/yd3 for desorption processes to more than $1,000/yd3 for the more energy-intensive
processes such as incineration.
(6) Radiant energy processes. These processes incorporate photodegradation technologies to
destroy organic contaminants. X-ray treatment and ultraviolet light have been investigated on
laboratory and pilot scales, but they should be considered technologies not yet ready for full-scale
demonstration.
4.9.9.4 Treatment technology demonstrations.
a. Some of these treatment processes have been applied in pilot-scale demonstrations, and
some have been applied full scale. Examples of the field evaluation of various process options
for the above technology types are presented in Table 4-14. The USEPA Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program, the Canadian Great Lakes Cleanup Fund, and
the New York Harbor Sediment Decontamination Program have investigated treatment technologies on bench- and pilot-scale levels. The relatively high cost of such treatment alternatives
is a major constraint on their potential use, and they have not been used for maintenance dredging projects. A report by the National Research Council (1997) concluded that because of
extraordinarily high unit costs, thermal and chemical destruction techniques do not appear to be
near-term, cost-effective approaches for the remediation of large volumes of contaminated
dredged sediment. An international group recently completed a report on Handling and
Treatment of Contaminated Dredged from Ports and Inland Waterways (PIANC 1996). With
respect to treatment, this report concluded Landfarming, bioslurry treatment, flotation, and
gravitational separation are very promising, and the costs of treatment are still high, but are
decreasing. Treatment technologies have been used for Superfund cleanup projects at Bayou
Bonfouca, New Bedford Harbor, Marathon Battery, and Waukegan Harbor. Costs for these
projects ranged from $100 to $1,000/yd3.
b. The potential for implementation of immobilization processes is better than other treatment
processes because immobilization processes are not as sensitive to process-control conditions.
Stabilization processes have recently been used for contaminated New York Harbor sediment and
at the Marathon Battery Superfund project. The environmental pathway most affected by
immobilization processes is transport of contaminants as leachate to the groundwater or surface
water. Most of the immobilization processes fall into the category of S/S. Objectives of S/S are
generally to improve the handling and physical characteristics of the material, decrease the
surface area of the sediment mass across which transfer or loss of contaminants can occur, and/or
limit the solubility of contaminants by pH adjustment or sorption phenomena. Effectiveness of
S/S processes is usually evaluated in terms of reduction of leaching potential. Reductions are
process- and contaminant-specific with immobilization of some contaminants accompanied by
increased mobility of other contaminants.
4.9.9.5 Special considerations for nearshore CDFs. Considerations for selection of
management actions and contaminant controls for nearshore CDFs are described in Francingues
et al. (1985), Cullinane et al. (1986), Averett, Perry, and Miller (1990), and USEPA (1994).
However, the geochemical conditions for nearshore fills reduce the need for leachate and effluent
4-112

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
controls. Controls such as liners, leachate collection or groundwater pumping, and subsurface
drainage would not be feasible for in-water sites.
4.10 Operation and Management.
4.10.1 General considerations. This section presents procedures for the effective management and operation of containment areas. Management activities are required before, during,
and following the dredging operation to maximize the retention of suspended solids and the storage capacity of the areas. These activities include site preparation, removal and use of existing
dredged material for construction purposes, surface water management, suspended solids monitoring, inlet and weir management, thin-lift placement, separation of coarse material, dredged
material dewatering, and placement area reuse management. Management activities described in
this part are not applicable in all cases, but they should be considered as possibilities for
improving the efficiency of and prolonging the service life of containment areas.
4.10.2 Predredging management activities.
4.10.2.1 Site preparation. Immediately before a placement operation, the desirability of
vegetation within the containment area should be evaluated. Although vegetation may be beneficial because it helps dewater dredged material by transpiration and may improve the effluent
quality by filtering, very dense vegetation may severely reduce the available storage capacity of
the containment area and may restrict the flow of dredged slurry throughout the area, causing
short-circuiting. Irregular topography within the containment area directly affects the resulting
topography of the dredged material surface following the dredging operation. It may be beneficial
to grade existing topography from planned inlet locations toward the weir locations to facilitate
drainage of the area.
4.10.2.2 Use of existing dredged material. If dikes must be strengthened or raised to provide adequate storage capacity for the next lift of dredged material, the use of the dried dredged
material or suitable construction material from within the containment for this purpose will be
beneficial. In addition to eliminating the costs associated with the acquisition of borrow, additional storage capacity is generated by removing material from within the area. Consideration
should also be given to the use of any coarse-grained material present from previous dredging
operations for underdrainage blankets or for other planned applications requiring more select
material.
4.10.2.3 Placement of weirs and inflow points.
a. General placement for site operation and management control. Outflow weirs are usually
placed on the site perimeter adjacent to the water or at the point of lowest elevation. The dredge
pipe inlet is usually located as far away as practicable from these outflow weirs or at a location
closest to the dredging areas. However, these objectives may sometimes be conflicting. If the
placement area is large or if it has irregular foundation topography, considerable difficulty may
be encountered in properly distributing the material throughout the area and obtaining the surface
elevation gradients necessary for implementation of a surface trenching program. One alternative
is to use interior or cross dikes to subdivide the area and thus change the large area into several

4-113

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
smaller areas. Effective operation may require that the dredge pipe location be moved periodically from one part of the site to another to ensure a proper filling sequence and obtain proper
surface elevation gradients. Also, shifting inflow from one point of the site to another and
changing outflow weir location may facilitate obtaining a proper suspended solids concentration
in placement site effluent.
b. Installation and operation of multiple outflow weirs. In conjunction with provisions for
moving the inflow point over the placement site, it may also be worthwhile to contemplate
installation of more outflow weirs than would be strictly required by design methods. Availability of more outflow points allows greater flexibility in site operation and subsequent drainage
for dewatering as well as greater freedom in movement of dredge inflow points while still maintaining the flow distances required to obtain satisfactory suspended solids concentrations in
placement site effluent. Also, a higher degree of flexibility in both placement site inflow and
outflow control allows operation of the area in such a manner that desired surface topography can
be produced, facilitating future surface trenching operations.
4.10.2.4 Interior dike construction.
a. Need for interior dike construction. The basic rationale behind the construction of
interior placement area dikes is to subdivide the area into more manageable segments and/or to
control the flow of dredged material through the placement area. Control of material placement is
normally to facilitate future placement site operations, such as dewatering, or to provide proper
control of placement area effluent. An interior dike may also be used as a haul road and access
for movement of material for dike construction or other beneficial uses.
b. Economics of interior dike construction. As a general rule, the use of interior cross dikes
in any placement area increases the initial cost of construction and may result in increased
operating costs. However, facilitation of placement site operations, particularly future
dewatering, may result in a general reduction in unit placement cost over the life of the site. The
benefit derived from dikes should be evaluated against the amount of placement volume required
for their construction. If the dikes can be constructed from dredged material or material available
in the placement site foundation and subsequently raised with dewatered dredged material, the
net decrease in storage capacity will be approximately zero.
c. Placement site operation using subareas in series.
(1) Cross dikes may be used to control and direct the inflow and are normally built to allow

site subcontainment area (subarea) operation either in series or in parallel. In series, the flow is
routed first into one subarea, with sedimentation producing segregation of larger particles. The
overflow from the first subarea is then routed to a second subarea, where finer particles fall from
suspension, and then perhaps into another subarea, and so on, with the outflow point being
located at the end of the last subarea. In some instances, cross dikes are built across the entire site
width, and a long overflow weir is provided to allow outflow into the next subarea in the series.
In other instances, spur dikes are built into the containment area to cause a twisting path for the
flow.

4-114

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(2) In general, the use of series-oriented subplacement areas should be considered carefully
since their use may be the opposite of that desired by the designer. During placement, coarsegrained sand and gravel settle very quickly around the placement pipe location while other
material remains in suspension, depending on its effective particle size, water salinity, and flow
velocity. A subarea can be effective in separating coarse material in an area where later recovery
for other use will be easier. As a practical matter, a subarea or containment basin to trap or
separate specific silt and clay sizes is rather impractical. A rational design for a series of subareas
might require an initial subarea to trap sand and gravel, with the remainder of the material (the
fine-grained fraction) going to a larger subarea. Then, if desired, a final subarea can be used for
retention of fine material in conjunction with the use of chemical flocculants to maintain proper
water quality in the placement area effluent. When designing a series of subplacement areas, care
must be taken to obtain adequate size. If the first subarea in the series is filled, it will no longer
function and provide the required residence time, and its function must be assumed by the next
unit in the series.

d. Placement site operation using subareas in parallel. To facilitate site dewatering, operation of interior compartments on a parallel basis may be used. In this concept, flow is initially
routed into one compartment; then, when it is filled to the proper depth or when suspended solids
concentration standards in the effluent are exceeded, the flow is routed to another portion of the
site. This procedure allows more carefully controlled placement of material to the desired
thickness throughout the site. Parallel compartments also allow more efficient drying to occur in
those compartments not in active use since the water ponded for sedimentation is confined to the
active compartment (see Figure 4-75).
e. Sequential dewatering operations. If the placement site is large enough to contain material from several periodic dredgings, each compartment may be used sequentially for a separate
operation. In this manner, a sequence such as the following may be developed. The first
compartment is filled and, after decant, dewatering operations are initiated. As dewatering
operations proceed, the next placement is located in the second compartment and subsequent
placement in the third, and so on. While fresh material is being deposited in part of the site, the
dewatered material from the initial placement may be borrowed and used to raise perimeter
dikes, facilitating reuse of the initial subarea. This sequence of operations is shown in
Figure 4-76.
4.10.2.5 Improvement of site access.
a. Adequate provisions for site access are essential when the long-term operation and
management plan for a placement site includes provision for future dewatering activities and/or
removal of dewatered material for dike raising or other productive use. General considerations
for site access may include the following:
(1) Access roads on or adjacent to perimeter and interior dikes.
(2) Crossing points on interior ditches used for drainage or dewatering.
(3) Access for equipment and personnel to reach weir structures for repair or maintenance.

4-115

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-75. Conceptual Illustration of a Placement Site Layout to Permit Parallel Compartment
Use and Produce Surface Topography Facilitating Future Dredged Material Dewatering

4-116

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-76. Conceptual Illustration of Sequential Dewatering Operations

(4) Ramps for access onto dikes from both inside and outside dike faces.
(5) Ramps for pipelines leading to inflow points.
(6) Equipment turnarounds.
(7) Stockpiles of materials for sandbagging and emergency dike repairs.
(8) Offloading ramps for equipment transported by water.

b. If future borrow of interior dewatered dredged material is contemplated, it may be most

cost effective to construct small access roads into the area as a substructure for future haul roads
or for dragline access. Such stable platforms may be covered with some fine-grained dredged
material, but their emplacement in the placement area will allow subsequent equipment operation
without immobilization.
4.10.2.6 Scheduling dredging operations to take maximum advantage of climatic
conditions.
a. Many non-engineering considerations affect the actual time during which placement
operations are conducted:
(1) Expenditure of funds with respect to fiscal year.

4-117

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
(2) Relative priority of the operation with respect to other work.
(3) Lag time necessary to obtain proper specifications preparation and contract
advertisement.
(4) Variation in time when the contractor must move on the job.
(5) Size of the dredge.
(6) Existing weather conditions.
(7) Environmental considerations (dredging windows).
(8) Lag time required for preparation of the placement site.

b. Nevertheless, considerable advantage may be gained, in an engineering sense, from

scheduling placement operations to occur at appropriate periods of the calendar year, depending
upon prevailing climatic conditions. By conducting the placement phase during a period of
relatively low evaporative demands, the initial postplacement activity (the decanting and gradual
reduction of ponded water depth) will occur when minimum evaporative forces are available for
dewatering. If the placement operation can be scheduled so that the material reaches the approximate decant-point water content when seasonal evaporation rates begin to be maximized,
evaporative dewatering will be facilitated. Dramatic results can occur over short time periods
when conditions are prime for drying. Estimation of the calendar period for optimum evaporation, based on projected climatic conditions, is illustrated in Figure 4-77. Examples are from the
San Francisco, CA, and Mobile, AL, areas. If possible, placement operations should be
terminated, ponded water removed, and the material sedimented/consolidated to the decant point
by the time (calendar month) when the evaporation rate begins to increase.
4.10.3 Management during placement.
4.10.3.1 Surface water management.
a. The management of surface water during the placement operation can be accomplished
by controlling the elevation of the outlet weirs throughout the placement operation to regulate the
depth of water ponded within the containment area. Proper management of surface water is
required to ensure containment area efficiency and can provide a means for access by boat or
barge to the containment area interior.
b. At the beginning of the placement operation, the outlet weir is set at a predetermined
elevation to ensure that the ponded water will be deep enough for settling as the containment area
is being filled. As the placement operation begins, slurry is pumped into the area; no effluent is
released until the water level reaches the weir crest elevation. Effluent is then released from the
area at about the same rate as slurry is pumped in. Thereafter, the ponding depth decreases as the
thickness of the dredged material deposit increases. After completion of the placement operation
and the activities requiring ponded water, the water is removed as quickly as effluent water
quality standards allow. Figure 4-78 illustrates the concept.

4-118

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-77. Illustrations of the Method for Estimating Calendar Periods when
Evaporation Rates are Maximized

4-119

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-78. Surface Water Management

c. Surface water management during dredging should also consider high rainfall and wind
events and subsequent effects on maintenance of sufficient freeboard. For example, if a hurricane
is expected during a dredging project, proper operation is to stop dredging and drain water from
the CDF.
4.10.3.2 Suspended solids monitoring.
a. A well-planned monitoring program during the entire dredging and decanting operation
is desirable to ensure that effluent suspended solids remain within acceptable limits or to verify
conditions for future design or site evaluations. Since suspended solids concentrations are
determined on a grams per liter basis requiring laboratory tests, it is desirable to complete a series
of laboratory tests during the initial stages of operation. Indirect indicators of suspended solids
concentration, such as visual comparison of effluent samples with samples of known
concentration or utilization of a properly calibrated instrument, may then be used during the
remainder of the operation, supplemented with laboratory determination of effluent solids
concentrations as needed for record purposes.
b. Samples of both inflow and outflow can be taken for laboratory tests. The solids
determination should be made on the samples using the procedure described in Chapter 2,
Dredging and Navigation Project Management.
c. When the dredging operation commences, samples should be taken from the inlet pipe at
approximately 12-hour intervals to verify design assumptions. Effluent quality samples should be
taken periodically at approximately 6-hour intervals during the dredging operation for laboratory
4-120

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
solids determinations to supplement visual estimates of effluent suspended solids concentrations.
The sampling interval may be changed based on the observed efficiency of the containment area
and the variability of the effluent suspended solids concentrations. More frequent sampling will
be necessary as the containment area is filled and effluent concentrations increase.
4.10.3.3 Inlet and weir management.
a. If multiple weirs are used, discharging the weirs alternately is sometimes useful for
preventing short-circuiting. As the area between the inlet and one outlet fills or as the inlet
location is moved, the flow may channelize in a more or less direct route from inlet to weir. If
this occurs, the flow should be diverted to another weir. Simultaneous discharge of slurry from
several inlets located on the perimeter can also be advantageous because the lower velocity of the
slurry flow results in more pronounced mounding around the edge of the containment area. This
mounding, in turn, increases the slope from inlet to outlet, improving drainage.
b. The removal of water following the dredging operation can be somewhat expedited by
managing inlets and weirs during the placement operation to place a dredged material deposit
that slopes continually and as deeply as practical toward the outlets. Figure 4-79 shows a
containment area with a weir in one end and an inlet zone in the opposite end. Inlets are located
at various points in the inlet zone, discharging either simultaneously (multiple inlets) or alternately (single movable inlet or multiple inlets discharging singly). A common practice is to use a
single inlet, changing its location between placement operations. The result of this practice is the
buildup of several mounds, one near each inlet location. By careful management of the inlet
locations, a continuous line of mounds can be constructed. When the line of mounds is complete,
the dredged material will slope downward toward the weir. If the mound area is graded between
placement operations, the process can then be repeated by extending the pipe over the previous
mound area and constructing a new line of mounds.
4.10.3.4 Weir operation.
a. Weir boarding.
(1) Adequate ponding depth during the dredging operation is maintained by controlling the

weir crest elevation. Weir crest elevations are usually controlled by placing boards within the
weir structure. The board heights should range in size from 5 to 25 cm (2 to 10 in.), and their
thickness should be sufficient to avoid excessive bending as the result of the pressure of the
ponded water.
(2) Weir boarding should be determined based on the desired ponding elevation as the
dredging operation progresses. Small boards (for example, 5 cm [2 in.]) should be placed at the
top of the weir in order to provide more flexibility in controlling ponding depth. Use of larger
boards in this most critical area may result in increased effluent suspended solids concentrations
as weir boards are manipulated during the operation. Figure 4-80 shows the recommended weir
boarding used for a minimum ponding depth of 0.6 m (2 ft).

4-121

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-79. Inlet-Weir Management to Provide a Smooth Slope for the Inlet to the Weir
4-122

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-80. Recommended Boarding Configuration

b. Operational guidelines for weirs. Some basic guidelines for weir operation are given
below:
(1) If the weir and the placement site are properly designed, intermittent dredging operation
should not become necessary unless the required ponding depth cannot be maintained.
(2) While the weir is in operation, floating debris should be removed periodically from the
front of the weir to prevent larger withdrawal flows at greater depths.
(3) If multiple weirs, or a weir with several sections, is used in a basin, the crests of all
weirs or weir sections should be maintained at equal elevations in order to prevent local high
velocities and resuspension in front of the weir with the lower elevation.
(4) If the effluent suspended solids concentration increases above acceptable limits, the
ponding depth should be increased by raising the elevation of the weir crest. However, if the weir
crest is at the maximum ponding elevation and the effluent quality is still unacceptable, the flow
into the basin should be decreased by operating intermittently.
(5) The weir may be controlled in the field by using the head over the weir as an operational
parameter since the actual volumetric flow over the weir cannot easily be measured.

The static head with the related depth of flow over the weir is the best criterion now available for
controlling weir operation in the field. Weirs used in containment areas can usually be considered

4-123

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
sharp crested, where the weir crest thickness tw is less than two-thirds the depth of flow over the
weir (h), as seen in Figure 4-81. The ratio of depth of flow over the weir to the static head (h/Hs)
equals 0.85 for rectangular sharp-crested weirs. Other values for the ratio of depth of flow to
static head for various weir configurations may be found in the Handbook of Applied Hydrology
(Chow 1964). The weir crest length (L), static head (Hs), and depth of flow over the weir (h) are
related by the following equations for rectangular sharp-crested weirs:
Q

H s = 0.3
L

2/3

(4-3)

where
H s = static head above the weir crest, ft
Q = flow rate, cubic feet per second (Q = Q i = Q e for continuous operation)
Q e = clarified effluent rate, cubic feet per second
L = weir crest length, ft
and
h = 0.85 H s

(4-4)

where
h = depth of flow over the weir crest, ft
c. These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 4-82. If a given flow rate is to be
maintained, this graph can be used to determine the corresponding head and depth of flow. If the
head in the basin exceeds this value, additional weir boards can be added, or the dredge can be
operated intermittently until sufficient water is discharged to lower the head to an acceptable
level. Since the depth of flow over the weir is directly proportional to the static head, it may be
used as an operating parameter. The operator need not be concerned with head over the weir if
effluent suspended solids concentrations are acceptable.

d. Weir operation for undersized basins. If the basin is undersized and/or inefficient settling
is occurring in the basin, added residence time and reduced approach velocities are needed to
achieve efficient settling and to avoid resuspension, respectively. Added residence time can be
obtained by raising the weir crest to its highest elevation to maximize the ponding depth or by
operating the dredge intermittently. The residence time with intermittent dredging can be
controlled by maintaining a maximum allowable static head or depth of flow over the weir based
on the effluent quality achieved at various weir crest elevations.

4-124

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 4-81. Relationship of Flow Rate, Weir Length, and Head

4-125

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Weir operation for decanting. Once the dredging operation is completed, the ponded
water must be removed to promote drying and consolidation of dredged material. Weir boards
should be removed one row at a time to slowly decant the ponded water. Preferably, 2" x 4"
boards should be located as described in previous paragraphs in order to minimize the withdrawal of settled solids. A row of boards should not be removed until the water level is drawn
down close to the weir crest, and the outflow is low. This process should be continued until the
decanting is completed. It is desirable to remove the boards below the dredged material surface
eventually so that rainwater can drain from the area. These boards can be removed only after the
material has consolidated sufficiently so that it will not flow from the basin. If it begins to do so,
the boards should be replaced. In the final stages of decanting ponded water, notched boards may
be placed in the weir, allowing low flow for slow removal of surface water.
4.10.3.5 Thin-lift placement of dredged material. Gains in long-term storage capacity of
containment areas through natural drying processes can be increased by placing the dredged
material in thin lifts. Thin-lift placement also greatly enhances potential gains in capacity through
active dewatering and placement area reuse management programs.
a. One approach to placing dredged material in thin lifts is to obtain sufficient land area to
ensure adequate storage capacity without the need for thick lifts. Implementation of this approach
requires careful long-range planning to ensure that the large land area is used effectively for
dredged material dewatering, rather than simply being a containment area whose service life is
longer than that of a smaller area.
b. Large containment areas, especially those used nearly continuously, are difficult to
manage for effective natural drying of dredged material. The practice of continuous placement
does not allow sufficient time for natural drying. However, dividing a large containment area into
several compartments can facilitate operation because each compartment can be managed
separately so that some compartments are being filled while the dredged material in others is
being dewatered.
c. One possible management scheme for large compartmentalized containments is shown
conceptually in Figure 4-77. For this operation, thin lifts of dredged material are sequentially
placed into each compartment. The functional sequence for each compartment consists of filling
and settling, surface drainage and dewatering, and dike raising (using dewatered dredged
material). The operation must be designed to include enough compartments to ensure that each
thin lift is dried before the next lift is placed.
4.10.4 Postdredging management activities.
4.10.4.1 Periodic site inspections and continuous site management following the dredging
operation are desirable. Once the dredging operation has been completed and the ponded water
has been decanted, site management efforts should be concentrated on maximizing the containment storage capacity gained from continued drying and consolidation of dredged material and
foundation soils. To ensure that precipitation does not pond water, the weir crest elevation must
be kept at levels allowing efficient release of runoff water. This requires periodic lowering of the
weir crest elevation as the dredged material surface settles.
4-126

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.10.4.2 Removal of ponded water exposes the dredged material surface to evaporation and
promotes the formation of a dried surface crust. Some erosion of the newly exposed dredged
material may be inevitable during storm events; however, erosion will be minimized once the
dried crust begins to form within the containment area.
4.10.4.3 Natural processes often need assistance to dewater dredged material effectively
since dewatering is greatly influenced by climate and is relatively slow. When natural dewatering
is not acceptable for one reason or another, then additional dewatering techniques should be
considered.
4.10.4.4 Removal of coarse-grained material and dewatered fine-grained material for productive uses through Disposal Area Reuse Management (DARM) techniques further add to
capacity and may be implemented in conjunction with dike maintenance or raising. In the case of
fine-grained dredged material, DARM is a logical follow-up to successful dewatering management activities. This concept has been successfully used by USACE Districts and demonstrated
in field studies. Guidelines for determining potential benefits through DARM are found in
Montgomery et al. (1978). Additional information on productive uses of dredged material is
found in Chapter 5, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.
4.10.5 Long-term management plans for containment areas.
4.10.5.1 Adequate dredged material placement areas are becoming increasingly difficult to
secure in many areas of the country. For this reason, it is necessary that the remaining resources
of confined placement sites be properly utilized and managed. A management plan is a vehicle
that can be used to ensure the most effective use of containment in future years. The following
objectives would normally be set in the plan development:
a. Maximize the volumetric placement capacity.
b. Dewater and densify the fine-grained material to the greatest extent feasible.
c. Reclaim and remove any useable material for productive use.
d. Maintain an acceptable water quality of the effluent.
e. Abide by all legal and policy and easement constraints.
4.10.5.2 Development of a management plan should include an extensive evaluation of
management alternatives based on data accumulated through field investigations and laboratory
testing. Integration of the placement plan with overall navigation system needs is essential. The
plan should be developed using the latest available technical approaches for evaluation of the
benefits of management practices. A management plan developed for the Craney Island
placement area in the Norfolk District (Palermo, Shields, and Hayes 1981) is a well-documented
example that illustrates how the procedures described in this manual can be used in developing
management approaches.

4-127

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
4.10.5.3 A working group or management plan committee is an effective means of ensuring
that the plan benefits from the input of all District elements. The committee would logically be
composed of representatives from Planning, Engineering, and Operation elements. Once a management approach is selected, a monitoring program should be initiated for use in evaluating the
effectiveness of management techniques, especially dewatering activities. A monitoring program
serves to verify benefits attained and to form a basis for updating or modifying the management
approaches.
4.11 Monitoring.
4.11.1 General. A monitoring program may be developed to comply with regulatory
requirements and to operate the CDF effectively. Monitoring could include evaluation of physical
and engineering processes and environmental pathways (effluent, surface water, groundwater,
plant and animal uptake, and air) identified as being important.
4.11.2 Effluent monitoring. Most CDF monitoring programs are limited to sampling for
effluent suspended solids and maintaining good records for the volumes and types of materials
placed in the facility. Effluent monitoring may be specified as a requirement under the
Section 401 water quality certification. Effluent monitoring is required during filling and may be
required for rainfall runoff while contaminated material is exposed (that is, prior to capping with
clean material). Chemical analysis of effluent quality may be necessary for highly contaminated
sediment. The parameters analyzed should target contaminants of concern that are present in the
sediment. More detailed guidance on effluent quality monitoring is available (Palermo and
Thackston 1988).
4.11.3 Contaminant pathway monitoring. Monitoring requirements for contaminant releases
from pathways, other than effluent, during filling is very site- and project-specific. Leachate
monitoring may be required for highly contaminated material where groundwater contamination
is an issue. Leachate monitoring requires the installation of monitoring wells for sampling of
leachate and/or groundwater and subsequent chemical analyses. Where CDFs become a haven for
wildlife, monitoring of contaminant uptake in the food chain may be a consideration. Monitoring
of leachate effects and plant and animal uptake involve long-term commitments to monitor the
site. Air emissions have seldom been monitored for CDFs; however, air monitoring may be
considered where extremely high concentrations of organic contaminants are present in the
dredged material and where there is a high likelihood of human receptors.

4-128

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
CHAPTER 5
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Section I
Dredged Material as a Resource
5.1 Introduction.
5.1.1 The Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP), 1973-1978; the Dredging
Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program, 1978-present; the Environmental Effects of
Dredging Program (EEDP), 1982-present; the Dredging Research Program (DRP), 1991-1996;
the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Program, 1998-present; and the
Wetlands Research Program (WRP), 1990-1995, have determined the environmental impacts of
dredged material placement, alternatives to increase the beneficial use of dredged material, and
means to reduce the adverse effects of both land and water dredged material placement.
Technical Reports, Technical Notes, and other publications and products from these programs
can be accessed at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pubs.html. Interest in using dredged
material as a manageable, beneficial resource, as an alternative to conventional placement
practices, has increased. The reason for this is that while the amount of material dredged each
year continues to rise, increasing urbanization around waterways and ports has made it difficult
to locate new sites for containment areas. New environmental regulations have further restricted
both land and water placement options. In addition, the cost of dredged material placement has
increased rapidly as placement sites are located at greater distances from the dredging sites and
environmental controls are added. By considering dredged material as a resource, a dual
objective can be achieved. The dredged material from needed navigation and flood-control
projects can be placed with minimal environmental damage, and benefits can accrue from its use
(Landin 1997a). Most dredged material can be a valuable resource and should be considered for
beneficial uses. The DOTS Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material website
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/budm/budm.html presents information that demonstrates
potential beneficial uses of dredged material by presenting case studies as examples. Category
descriptions, procedural outlines, and reference resources are also provided.
5.1.2 Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material
(USEPA/USACE 2007), commonly called the Beneficial Use Planning Manual, is a
companion guide to both the Technical Framework (USEPA/USACE 2004) and the joint
USEPA/USACE Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material website. The Beneficial Use Planning
Manual builds upon the websites foundation by providing practical guidance for project
sponsors (or example, government agencies, port authorities, marinas, industries, and private
persons) and their potential partners for identifying, planning, financing, and implementing
projects that use dredged material for beneficial purposes. In particular, this manual does the
following:
a. Describes the various categories of beneficial uses.

5-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Discusses actions and partnerships to improve the feasibility of beneficial use projects.
c. Describes federal policy on beneficial uses of dredged material.
d. Presents methods to determine goals and evaluate alternative beneficial uses against the
goals for a particular site.
e. Provides information on available financing opportunities and mechanisms for beneficial
use projects.
f. Describes avenues for public involvement in beneficial use decision making.
5.1.3 The guidance in the Beneficial Use Planning Manual assumes that beneficial use project
sponsors are active decision makers in the activities discussed in the Technical Framework. In
particular, it assumes that beneficial use project sponsors are or might soon be doing one of the
following:
a. Developing management alternatives for dredged material.
b. Evaluating management alternatives.
c. Identifying a preferred alternative.
d. Performing increasingly detailed planning for the preferred alternative. 1
5.1.4 When potential beneficial use opportunities for dredged material are being identified, it
is important to evaluate the suitability of the dredged material in question for a given use
(USEPA/USACE 2007). Physical, engineering, and chemical characteristics of dredged material
proposed for beneficial use and land enhancement projects must be identified. Sand or coarsegrained materials generally are not contaminated. Such information is essential for evaluating the
suitability of the material for numerous alternative uses. These characteristics must be determined during the initial stages of planning since proposed uses may prove infeasible due to
unsuitable material. This section presents discussions of the physical, engineering, and chemical
characteristics of dredged material, contaminant and water quality considerations, and some of
the limitations that may be encountered with dredged material substrates that may preclude
alternatives.
5.2 Physical and Engineering Characteristics.
5.2.1 Physical characteristics. A number of standard soil properties are used to determine the
physical and engineering characteristics of dredged material (Bartos 1977a). Soil tests include
grain-size, plasticity, and organic content determinations. Engineering tests include consolidation
and shear strength. Bartos (1977b) indicates that dredged material is made up of various types of
soil that can be classified under the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (Office, Chief of
1

In many cases beneficial use proponents will, in fact, be conducting a National Environmental Policy Act
assessment of alternatives.

5-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Engineers, Department of the Army, 1960). These tests are briefly described below as they relate
to beneficial uses (for additional information see Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project
Management). Additional information on dredged material characterization tests for beneficial
uses is given by Winfield and Lee (1999).
5.2.1.1 Grain size. Grain size is the principal physical characteristic to be determined when
considering dredged material for beneficial uses, and it is also the basis for most soil
classification systems. Land enhancement guidelines presented in this EM for the beneficial uses
of dredged material include engineering, environmental, and agricultural projects. For this
reason, both the USCS (Office, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, 1960) and
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Buckman and Brady 1960; Lambe 1962) classifications are used. The USCS method emphasizes characteristics of a construction material whereas
the USDA method emphasizes soil agricultural properties. The USCS method is the method most
often used for classifying dredged material, but for certain beneficial uses it may be necessary to
use the USDA method.
5.2.1.2 Bulk density. Bulk density is a weight measurement that takes the entire soil volume
into consideration. The bulk density of dredged material is usually low for fine-grained material,
but a highly productive agricultural loam soil can range from 70 to 86 lb/ft3 (Lambe 1962). These
low-bulk densities in fine-grained dredged material can be attributed to the sedimentation process
and the amorphous nature of the clay. Bulk density data are needed for converting water
percentage by weight to water content by volume for estimating the weight of a large volume of
material. Examples are the weight of dredged material in a placement site or estimating the
volume of dredged material in a dump truck, barge, or railroad car.
5.2.1.3 Plasticity. For USCS classification, the Atterburg LL and PL must be determined to
evaluate the plasticity of fine-grained sediment samples. The LL is that water content above
which the material is said to be in a semiliquid state and below which the material is in a plastic
state. Water content (SCS Engineers 1977) that defines the lower limit of the plastic state and the
upper limit of the semisolid state is termed the PL. The plasticity index (PI), defined as the
numerical difference between the LL and the PL, is used to express the plasticity of the sediment.
Plasticity analyses should be performed on the separated fine-grained fraction of dredged
material samples.
5.2.1.4 Specific gravity. Values for the specific gravity of solids for fine-grained sediments
and dredged material are required for determining void ratios, conducting hydrometer analyses,
and consolidation testing.
5.2.1.5 Water retention and permeability. Water retention characteristics of soil describe the
energy relation of soil to water, can be used to determine the availability of water to plants and
describe the moisture-storing capacity of a soil (dredged material), and are strongly influenced by
the arrangement of the solid components and the quantity of fine particles and organic matter
(Table 5-1). The potential available water capacity of a field soil is defined as the amount of
water a crop can remove from the soil before its yield is seriously affected by drought
(Table 5-2). The permeability and sorptive properties of a material express the ease with which

5-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
water moves or passes through (Figure 5-1). Permeability is determined by a number of factors;
however, the size of soil pores and the magnitude of soil water retention are most important.
5.2.1.6 Volatile solids. Volatile solids are important in determining contaminant retention within a
soil or dredged material and the capacity of the material for plant growth and beneficial use.
Table 5-1. Available Water Capacity of Soils of Different Grain Size Range1
Available Water Capacity at Saturation, Inch of
Water per Inch of Soil Depth
0.015
0.074
0.121
0.171
0.257
0.191
0.234
0.256
0.209
0.204
0.185
0.180
0.156

Grain Size Range

Sand
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Very fine sandy loam
Loam
Silt loam
Silt
Sandy clay loam
Silty clay loam
Sandy clay
Silty clay
Clay
1 Source: Gupta et al. 1978

Table 5-2. Available Water Capacity Suitable for Agricultural Crops1

Available Water Capacity, Inch
of Water per Inch of Soil
0.05

Total Available Water

Capacity, Inches per Yard
of Soil Depth
Recommended Plants
1.8
Not suitable for most agricultural
crops unless irrigated

>0.05-0.075

>1.8-2.7

Best suited for grasses

>0.075

>2.7

Suitable for most agricultural crops

Source: Gupta et al. 1978

5.2.2 Physical properties of dredged material. When hydraulically pumped into a placement
area, dredged slurry can have a dry solids content ranging from near 0 to approximately 20% by
weight (Johnson et al. 1977). Generally, this value is about 13%. As the slurry flows across the
placement area, the solid particles settle from suspension: coarse particles near the inlet (dredge
pipe), fine particles farther into the area, and finest materials in the immediate vicinity of the
outlet weir. As a placement operation progresses, coarse-grained dredged material may
accumulate in a mound and displace the soft fine-grained dredged material.
5-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-1. Range in Permeability and Sorptive Properties of Different Soil Classes (from SCS
Engineers 1977)
5.2.2.1 During and after the placement operation, surface water is drained from the placement
area. A surface crust begins to form on fine-grained dredged material as it desiccates. Over time,
surface and base drainage cause some lowering of the groundwater table, the surface crust
continues to increase in thickness, secondary compression effects develop, and consolidation
occurs as the effective material weight above the groundwater level is increased from a
submerged weight to a saturated weight. The dredged material below the surface crust remains
very soft and weak.
5.2.2.2 The water content of fine-grained dredged material in placement areas is generally
less than 1.5 times the LL of the material, and it is possible that in freshwater areas the water
content is about equal to the LL. The LL of dredged material is generally less than 200, with most
values being between 50 and 100.
5.2.3 Engineering properties of dredged material.
5.2.3.1 Engineering properties are critical to determining the types of beneficial uses possible.
Soft, fine-grained dredged material has little load-bearing capacity and can generally be used only
on sites not involving heavy structures or intensive activities (urban, recreational, or other uses).
Chapter 3, Open-Water Placement, contains more detailed information concerning physical
and engineering properties.
5.2.3.2 The surface crust associated with fine-grained material usually has a very low water
content (often near the shrinkage limit) that increases slightly with the increasing depth of the

5-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
crust. The crust is usually over-consolidated due to the increase in effective stress caused by high
negative pore pressure resulting from evaporation. Below the surface crust, however, the finegrained material is extremely soft, with water content usually showing little change from the time
of deposition. Density and shear strength increase very slightly, if at all, with increasing depth.
Data show that engineering properties are generally better near the inlet than the outlet because
the coarse-grained material settles near the dredge discharge. The engineering properties of the
fine-grained material in the containment area near the outlet are poorer and improve very slowly
with time. In general, dredged material is soil with a high water content that, upon dewatering,
exhibits soil properties with a high beneficial use potential.
5.3 Chemical Characteristics.
5.3.1 Chemical constituents. Dredged material characteristics reflect the population, industry,
and land uses of an area (Walsh and Malkasian 1978). The chemical constituents of dredged
material help determine the suitability of that material for a particular land use (Chen et al. 1976).
Chemical analysis of the dredged material must be made to indicate potential detrimental effects
on the environment in the placement area. Four potential problem areas exist, depending on the
presence of available chemical constituents in the dredged material: plant toxicity, animal
toxicity, surface water contamination, and groundwater contamination (Lee, Engler, and Mahloch
1976; Mang et al. 1978). Plant uptake of chemicals may also present problems if growth or
reproduction potential of the plant is altered or if harmful chemicals are passed via the food web
into higher organisms (Lee, Sturgis, and Landin 1976; Lee et al. 1978).
5.3.2 Cation exchange capacity. The capacity of soil particulates to adsorb nutrients that
become available for plant growth is called the CEC. Adsorbed or sorbed nutrients are readily
available to higher plants and easily find their way into the soil solution. The grain size and
organic content of sediments determine to a large extent the capacity of that material to sorb and
desorb cations, anions, oil and grease, and pesticides. Silts and clays with relatively high organic
contents can sorb and fix large amounts of plant nutrients as well as many other constituents
(Figure 5-1). The CEC of dredged material governs the sorption of nitrogen and potassium,
heavy metals, and some pesticides. The nutrient content of dredged material varies widely, as
does that of different soils. Generally, fine-grained dredged material contains considerably more
nutrients than coarse-grained material and is also more likely to contain one or more
contaminants.
5.3.3 Nitrogen. The total nitrogen content of dredged material varies widely with geographic
location. The most predominant form of nitrogen in inorganic sediments is ammonium nitrogen.
In organically enriched sediments, organic nitrogen predominates even though ammonium
concentrations can be very high.
5.3.4 Sulfur. Lee, Engler, and Mahloch (1976) indicate that sediments in a South Carolina
tidal marsh developed high acidity when drained and dried. These sediments contained up to
5.5% total sulfur. When the sediments were drained, sulfides were oxidized to sulfate with a
resultant decrease in sediment pH from 6.4 to as low as 2.0. This effect may be a serious problem
in dredged material containing high levels (usually greater than 0.1%) of nonvolatile sulfide,

5-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
predominantly iron and manganese sulfide. This is especially true if the dredged material is not
limed or its acidity is not otherwise counteracted by application to an alkaline upland soil.
5.3.5 Heavy metals.
5.3.5.1 A wide range of heavy metal concentrations has been reported in a number of
sediments from rivers, harbors, and bays throughout the United States and Canada, primarily in
intensely urban and highly industrialized regions. Some of the major sources of heavy metals
include industrial and sewage discharges, urban and highway runoff waters, and snow removal.
Wastes from metal plating industries that have found their way into some sediments contain
significant amounts of copper, chromium, zinc, nickel, and cadmium. Chemical partitioning
studies of sediments have shown that these metals occupy the least stable of the sediment fractions and that the sediment chemistry dominates the mobility and availability of the contaminant
as well as the indigenous metals.
5.3.5.2 An important heavy metal consideration is the solubility of specific constituents
whose concentrations are high, since soluble forms are readily available to the biological food
web. The potential of a heavy metal to become a contaminant depends greatly on its form and
availability rather than on its total concentration within a dredged sediment (Lee, Engler, and
Mahloch 1976). Heavy metals may be fixed in a slightly soluble form in dredged material
containing excessive sulfide. The land application of dry oxidized dredged material may increase
the solubility of heavy metal sulfides. However, under oxidizing conditions, the levels of pH and
heavy metal hydroxyl and oxide formation become the important factors, and sulfur no longer
governs the solubility and availability of heavy metals (Gupta et al. 1978).
5.3.5.3 The USACE and the USEPA have developed guidelines for sediments, contaminants,
and ocean disposal and placement (USEPA/USACE 2004), and guidance for sewage sludge can
offer some guidance in examining dredged material for heavy metals (USEPA/USACE Technical
Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material 1991; USEPA 1979). The USDA has
investigated and written guidance for the application of sewage sludge to agricultural lands.
Recommended maximum limits on the metal content of sludge are shown in Table 5-3. In most
cases, the heavy metal contents of dredged material fall below the maximum allowable limits
recommended in domestic sewage applied to land. If higher concentrations of chemical
constituents are found in dredged material, it should not be used in a land improvement project
without prior treatment to remove or reduce contaminants.
5.4 Water Quality Considerations.
5.4.1 Categories of impacts. Ecological impacts of the discharge of dredged or fill material
can be divided into two main categories: physical effects and chemical-biological interactive
effects. Physical effects are often straightforward, and evaluation may often be made without
laboratory tests by examining both the character of the dredged or fill material proposed for
discharge and the sediments of the placement area. On the other hand, chemical-biological interactive effects resulting from the discharge of dredged or fill material are usually difficult to
predict.

5-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-3. Recommended Maximum Limits for Metal Content in Digested Sewage Sludges1
Element
Domestic Sludge Concentration, ppm
Zinc
2,000
Copper
1,000
Nickel
200
Cadmium
15 or 1.0% of zinc
Boron
100
Lead
1,000
Mercury
10
Chromium
1,000
Source: Chaney et al. (1974)
1 Typical sludge from communities without excessive industrial waste inputs or with adequate
abatement.
5.4.2 Concentrations. Natural processes in aquatic ecosystems tend to concentrate heavy
metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides, nutrients, and oil and grease compounds in bottom
sediments. These contaminants are not very soluble in water under the conditions that normally
occur in oxygenated uncontaminated surface waters. Therefore, introducing high concentrations
of these contaminants into aquatic ecosystems generally results in an equilibrium condition
where most of the contaminant are sorbed (adsorbed and absorbed) by suspended particulate
material and then deposited on the bottom when the suspended material settles. The time
necessary to achieve the equilibrium condition depends on the physicochemical conditions in the
aquatic system and the quantity and duration of the contaminant introduction. There has been
concern that dredging and open-water discharge operations may release these trapped
contaminants again, and thus have the potential to damage wetland, upland, and aquatic environments. Burks and Engler (1978), Gambrell, Kahlid, and Patrick (1978), Thom and Wellman
(1996), other EEDP reports, and other literature indicate that dredging operations have the
potential to temporarily mobilize or release some contaminants from the sediments. During
placement operations, the anaerobic sediments are mixed with aerated surface water, and a
complex chemical interaction occurs. Heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead,
and zinc, which had been stabilized in oxygen-free sediments, form precipitates and coagulate in
the presence of oxygen. Phosphorus and nitrogen can be temporarily released into the water
column while pesticides and oils and grease are usually not very water soluble. However, all of
these contaminants have the potential to affect a proposed beneficial use project.
5.4.3 Sources of information. The USEPA, in conjunction with the USACE, has published
two comprehensive procedure manuals (Gambrell, Kahlid, and Patrick 1978; Plumb 1981) that
contain summaries and descriptions of tests, definitions, sample collection and preservation procedures, analytical procedures, calculations, and references required for detailed water quality
evaluations. The purpose of these manuals is to provide state-of-the-art guidance on the subjects
of sampling, preservation, and analysis of water and dredged and fill material. The interim
guidance for implementing Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act was published in 1976
(Environmental Laboratory 1976), refined in an interagency document published in 1989
(Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989), and is still being modified at the
5-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
present time by new findings and research. It has also been published jointly by the USEPA and
the USACE (1991) pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA), which addresses the primary intent of Section 103 of regulating and limiting adverse
ecological effects of ocean dumping.
5.5 Contaminated Dredged Material.
5.5.1 A common misperception among the public is that dredged material is usually
contaminated; in fact, a significant portion of material dredged from U.S. waters is not
contaminated. However, even material that is contaminated may be suitable for certain types of
beneficial use although the quality of the dredged material varies, depending on the particular
location dredged and the nature of the material itself (sands, silts, and/or clays). Material dredged
in some major harbors in the United States is more likely to be contaminated because the
material is generally silt and clay particles to which contaminants can easily bind. In any case, the
promotion of beneficial uses continues to require a shift from the common perspective of
dredged material as a waste product to one in which this material is viewed as a valuable
resource that can provide multiple benefits to society (USEPA/USACE 2007).
5.5.2 Assessing the level of contamination in dredged material is a key step in determining its
suitability for beneficial uses. In general, the more contaminated the material, the greater the
constraints on reuse. Highly contaminated material is usually not suitable for reuse unless its
potential risk for biomagnifications is low. The important issue is not so much whether the
material is contaminated but whether the level and type of contamination are consistent with the
intended use (USEPA/USACE 2007).
5.5.3 Prior to consideration of any dredged material placement option subject to CWA
Section 404, the material should be tested and evaluated under the procedures described in the
CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for compliance. Basic data on physical and chemical
characteristics of the sediments to be dredged, such as grain size and levels of contamination, can
provide an initial screen of possible beneficial use options. Assessing whether levels and types of
contamination are consistent with intended use requires consideration of not only technical issues
(such as potential for human contact and potential for bioaccumulation), but also regulatory and
policy issues (such as CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines). Regulations vary by state, so it is
important to assess state requirements as well as federal policy regarding standards for
contamination and reuse (USEPA/USACE 2007).
5.6 Biological Limitations. Although dredged material has been generally found to be a soil
resource of great value and use, it has some limitations as a beneficial product.
5.6.1 Texture and physical characteristics. Dredged material is composed predominantly of
mineral particles, ranging in size from coarse sand to fine clay, and can have an extremely mixed
mineralogy (Lee, Engler, and Mahloch 1976). Dredged material deposits within one placement
site can vary from well-ordered sand to organic clay. In addition to soil, dredged material may
contain other solids, such as rock, wood, biological detritus, fossils, pieces of metal, glass, and
other debris. Contamination of these sediments in the form of organic material, elevated
concentration of heavy metals, a vast array of chlorinated hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and other
5-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
organics reflects the influences of population and industry in the area. The actual physical texture
of the material on a site may limit its use. In other words, pure sand dredged material would not
generally be suitable for agricultural land applications, but there are exceptions where heavy
clays need modifying with coarse-grained material. However, as fill material and for some dike
construction, it may be excellent. Predominantly uncontaminated silt would not generally be well
suited for waterbird island construction, but it would make an excellent soil addition for
agriculture and forestry as well as for some habitat development sites. Depending on sites and
circumstances, however, there are exceptions to every rule.
5.6.2 Contamination.
5.6.2.1 In certain areas of the United States, such as near certain industries or extensive
agriculture, contamination is an important factor to be considered. If the dredged material contains contaminants, it may have to be pumped into a confined placement facility, which will
probably limit its beneficial use. Planning for beneficial use of contaminated dredged material
should consider the following factors:
a. Amounts and type of contaminants in the material, possibly including heavy metals,
fertilizers, sewer wastes, pesticides, or petroleum products.
b. Maximum acceptable levels for pollutants to water, soils, plants, and animals as set by the
USEPA.
c. Kinds of plants and animals on the site, their abilities to regulate uptake of these pollutants,
and their tolerance levels before life efficiency is reduced, reproduction eases, or death occurs.
d. Chances of biomagnification via the food chain from plants, invertebrates, and microbes to
animals on the site or to humans.
e. Impact of contaminants on the site, groundwater, and surrounding areas.
5.6.2.2 Lee et al. (1978) and other studies, such as the series of studies conducted on Black
Rock Harbor in New England under the EEDP, listed at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/eedp.html, have shown that plants grown in dredged material wetlands absorb heavy
metals in varying degrees, depending upon the plant species. In most cases, these contaminants in
most cases are not generally translocated into the top shoots but are retained primarily in the root
systems. Most potential danger is limited to users of the root systems, such as waterfowl that feed
on plant tubers. However, research on plants grown in dredged material upland areas where
dredged sediments are exposed to oxygen indicates a tendency to accumulate heavy metals in all
plant parts, including stems and seeds.
5.6.2.3 Many pesticides, chemical by-products, and petroleum products in dredged material
have unknown biomagnification abilities. Some pesticides are known to have affected the
reproductive abilities of birds by causing eggshell thinning and behavior modification, especially
in those waterbirds and seabirds that feed on fish. Petroleum products can smother small
organisms (potential food items). Fertilizers and sewer wastes in dredged material alter the

5-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
habitats where they accumulate by changing plant growth habits and species composition,
increasing algal growth, and reducing dissolved oxygen levels in water. This affects the food
supply of fish-eating animals. Highly acidic dredged material can severely limit upland beneficial
use options unless corrected with lime. The contaminant problem can be minimized on most
beneficial use sites where contaminated sediments are placed through these management
procedures:
a. Stabilizing the areas with plant species that do not transport contaminants into their top
shoots.
b. Avoiding management for wildlife grazing, fish nursery use, or intense human use to
reduce danger of a biomagnification problem.
c. Managing for animals that will not feed on the site, such as fish-eating birds that use the
site for nesting and roosting purposes only. Good examples of this are the Toledo Harbor, OH,
and Pointe Mouillee, MI, placement sites in Lake Erie that are being filled over a 20-30-year
period with contaminated dredged material. Common terns, ring-billed gulls, and herring gulls
are nesting on the dikes but do not generally feed there since they are all fish-eating species.
5.6.2.4 Contaminated sites can be capped with about 0.6 m (2 ft) of clean soil or dredged
material. This allows use of the site for a number of beneficial uses involving shallow-rooted
plants (for example, nesting meadows, recreational sites, parks, nonstructural, and similar uses).
5.6.3 Site habitat changes. Beneficial uses can frequently mean the replacement of one
desirable habitat with another. This will likely be a source of some opposition. There are few
reliable methods for comparing the various losses and gains associated with such habitat conversion; consequently, the determination of relative impact may best be made on the basis of relative
scarcity or abundance of the new habitat, environmental regulations, or professional opinions. An
example would be changing aquatic or marine habitat to an emergent wetland or an upland site.
5.6.4 Impacts on surrounding land and animals. When dredged material is placed on a site for
a beneficial use, there may be a number of associated impacts. Examples are increased runoff of
nutrient- or contaminant-charged effluent, increased human or other animal use, interference with
surrounding land, such as from increased bird activity at placement sites near airport runways and
residential areas, increased recreational use in placement sites destined for heavy industrial and
shipping use, and changes in hydrology from additions of water-charged dredged material to new
or existing sites. An example is Renaud Island in Green Bay, WI, where the intensive utilization
and success of nesting ring-billed gulls and the resulting pesting and mobbing made nearby
residents of Green Bay request that the dredged material nesting islands not be enlarged.
Section II
Logistical Considerations
5.7 General. With the huge quantities of dredged material created during dredging operations,
site utilization, economic transport handling, and storage plans become critical to the overall life
and use of a project. This section discusses procedures for dewatering; transporting, handling and

5-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
storage; and cost analyses of these activities in determining beneficial use of dredged material. It
should be remembered that dewatering is not applicable for some types of beneficial uses, such
as wetland and aquatic habitat development and aquaculture, although removal of excess
standing water where stagnation could occur may be. However, dewatering is critical to nesting
islands, upland habitat development, most kinds of recreational use, agriculture, forestry,
horticulture, and other types of beneficial uses.
5.8 Dewatering. Dredged material is usually placed hydraulically into confined placement areas
in a slurry state. Although a significant amount of water is removed from it through the overflow
weirs of the placement area, the confined fine-grained dredged material usually consolidates to a
semifluid consistency that still contains large amounts of water. The volume occupied by the
liquid portion of the dredged material greatly reduces available future placement volume. The
extremely high water content also may make the dredged material unsuitable or undesirable for
commercial or beneficial use. Two dewatering methods, fully described and discussed in Green
and Rula (1977); Haliburton (1978); Haliburton et al. (1977); Hayden (1978); Montgomery et al.
(1978); and Willoughby (1977), are generally used. The first method is allowing evaporative
forces to dry fine-grained dredged material into a crust while gradually lowering the internal
water table through weir board removal as the site dries. This has been the least expensive and
most widely applicable dewatering method identified through dredging research. Good surface
drainage, which rapidly removes precipitation and prevents ponding of surface water, accelerates
evaporative drying. Shrinkage forces developed during drying return the material to a more stable
form, and lowering of the internal water table results in further consolidation. The second method
of promoting good surface drainage is constructing drainage trenches in the placement area using
heavy equipment while removing weir boards as the site dries. Use of a Riverine Utility Craft
(RUC) to make trenches proved successful on placement sites with fine-grained material, but the
technology has not been commonly used on USACE placement sites. For more detailed
information on trenching, refer to paragraph 4.5.4.6. A site must be dewatered sufficiently to
accept heavy equipment, which limits the second method in its application as long as 2 years
after a placement site has been filled, depending upon the soil characteristics of the dredged
material. A less frequently used method, rarely applied to placement sites, includes installation of
underground drainage tiles or sand layers prior to filling the site.
5.9 Transport, Handling, and Storage. Fundamental features of transport systems and general
guidance for analysis of technical and economic feasibility are provided in Souder et al. (1978).
They are presented to acquaint planners with the magnitude and scope of the transport system and
provide some cost-effective analysis information for five transport modes: hydraulic pipeline, rail
haul, barge movement, truck haul, and belt conveyor movement. Hydraulic pipeline, barge haul,
and truck haul have been the primary transportation methods used for most existing beneficial use
sites. Since the transport of dredged material can be a major cost item in determining the economic
feasibility of a project, the transport system should be evaluated early in the site selection stage of
the planning process. Legal, political, sociological, environmental, physical, technical, and
economic aspects should be examined in relation to availability of transport routes. A sequence of
five steps must be followed when selecting a transport route (Table 5-4).

5-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-4. Sequence of Steps in Selecting a Transport Route
Step
1. Identify available routes
2. Classify nature (wet/dry)

Information Source
- Maps, ground reconnaissance
- Beneficial use needs and sources of dredged
material
3. Determine annual volume of dredged material and - Dredged material sources
duration of project
4. Estimate cost of available transport modes
- Souder et al. (1978)
5. Identify and evaluate technical, environmental,
- Souder et al. (1978)
legal, and Federal agency regulations
- Specific sources: local, state, institutional
requirements
5.9.1 Elements of transport systems. Transport systems involve three major operations:
loading, transporting, and unloading. The loading and unloading activities are situationdependent and are the major cost items for short-distance transport. The hydraulic pipeline is the
only mode requiring a unique rehandling activity; all other transport modes may interchange
loading and unloading operations to suit the specific site needs. Loading, unloading, and transporting operations can be separated into detailed components (backhoes, service roads, rail spurs,
cranes, conveyors, and so on) and each component examined for capacity, operational schedule
and cycle, and costs of equipment and operation and maintenance.
5.9.2 Transport modes.
5.9.2.1 Hydraulic pipeline. The hydraulic pipeline is the only transport system recommended
for movement of dredged material in slurry form. Assuming government construction of the
placement site, contractor operations of the dredging work, and no easement costs, this system
can be economically competitive for distances up to several miles. The conditioning step requires
a rehandling dredge and fluidizing system. Control of density and flow to minimize operational
problems is an essential conditioning process unique to the hydraulic pipeline mode. Suggested
criteria to be used in selecting a rehandling (or secondary) dredge for operation within a
containment area include unit cost of dredging; ease of transportation; minimum downtime;
small size to allow maneuverability in a small basin; capability to dredge in shallow water to
minimize dike height; and maximum cutter width to reduce the number of passes. Numerous
dredges fitting these criteria are on the market. Some have additional features, such as cutterheads capable of following natural contours of the basin bottom without damage to natural or
man-made seals, wheel attachments for the cutterhead to allow dredging operations in plastic or
rubber-lined basins, and capability of dredging forward and backward. The fluidizing system is
needed to supply water from the closest source to maintain flotation of the dredge. Unloading
facilities are unnecessary since the dredged material slurry is usually pumped out of the pipeline
into a containment area. A schematic of rehandling operations for hydraulic pipeline transport is
presented in Figure 5-2. The pipeline to the land improvement site includes a pneumatic or
centrifugal hydraulic pump booster system and is automated to the maximum extent possible.
The following items should be taken into consideration in any planning for pipeline transport:

5-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-2. Schematic of a Rehandling System for Hydraulic Pipeline Transport

a. Slurry movement of saline dredged material to a freshwater environment is not
recommended.
b. Dewatering requirements before a beneficial use application may be a cost burden and may
require treatment of decanted water.
c. Building codes, easement acquisition, utility relocation, climatological factors, and urban
area disruption from construction may be obstacles.
d. Confining dikes must be provided and could be a significant cost item.
e. Right-of-way must be acquired.
f. Federal, state, and local regulations and requirements must be met.
Real estate and right-of-way easements are very site-specific items of political as well as economic concern. These items can greatly impact the cost of a hydraulic pipeline system and,
therefore, should be given due consideration in any cost-benefit analysis as well as in the final
cost evaluation. Cost guidelines do not take into account expenses due to the uniqueness of each
situation.
5.9.2.2 Rail haul. Rail haul using the unit train concept is technically feasible and economically competitive with other transport modes for hauling dredged material distances of 80480 km (50-300 mi). A unit train is one reserved to carry one commodity (dredged material) from
specific points on a tightly regulated schedule. Facilities are required for rapid loading and
unloading to make the unit train concept work and to enable benefits from reduced rates on large
volumes of bulk movement. Bottom-dump cars or rotary car dumpers are needed to meet the
rapid loading and unloading requirement. Economic feasibility demands the utilization of
existing railroad tracks; however, the building of short intermediate spurs may be required to

5-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
reach placement areas. The following items should be taken into consideration in any planning
for rail haul transport to a beneficial use site:
a. Dredged material must be dry enough to free-fall from cars.
b. Scheduling and length of unit trains are often strictly regulated.
c. State regulations may require open hopper cars to be covered.
d. Dual use of hopper cars may require washing of cars between use and treatment of wash
water to prevent contaminant transfer.
5.9.2.3 Barge haul. Depending upon the volume of material to be moved, barge movement
can be an economically competitive transport mode for the movement of dredged material up to
480 km (300 mi). Barge haul was used in the Sacramento District to remove 5.4 million cubic
meters (7 million cubic yards) of dredged material from Grand Isle (Figure 5-3). To ensure reasonable costs, a barge unit should consist of common and available equipment. In addition,
loading and unloading mooring docks capable of accommodating the two cargo scows simultaneously must exist, with roadways between the docks and placement areas to make barge
transport practical. The following items should also be taken into consideration:

Figure 5-3. A Tugboat and Barge Transporting Dredged Material

a. Thorough information must be obtained about the waterway, such as navigation depth,
allowable speed, lock size, and traffic density and patterns.
b. Often, regulations exist concerning cleanup responsibilities, with associated fines for spills
in inland waters.

5-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Climatic conditions may affect operational schedules.
d. A user charge for waterways may become a reality in the future.
5.9.2.4 Truck haul. Truck haul of dredged material can be economically competitive for
distances up to 80 km (50 mi). At greater distances, transport by truck is labor- and fuel-intensive
and not economically justifiable. The simplicity of loading and unloading requirements and the
relative abundance of available roadways make truck hauling technically the most attractive
transport mode, and it has wide District application (Figure 5-4). Cost analyses are based on
utilizing 25 tonne (25 ton) dump trucks with 6.5 m3 (8 yd3) capacities and assume that routes
exist that are adequately upgraded and maintained. Economic feasibility of truck hauling is based
on rates established by negotiation with trucking companies and include all associated driver and
fuel costs. The following items should also be taken into consideration:
a. State highway and safety regulations, which cover a variety of elements (such as gross
weights of trucks and weight per axle).
b. Emission and noise standards.
c. Local ordinances designating truck routes.
d. Traffic control of truck operations during winter months in northern climates.
e. Weight limits on bridges and roadways.

Figure 5-4. Truck Haul Used by the Chicago District to Place Dredge Material
5.9.2.5 Belt conveyor movement. Belt conveyor systems, employed on a limited basis to
transport relatively dry dredged material for short distances, are technically feasible and cost
competitive. Belt specifications vary in width (75-175 cm [30-69 in.]), flight length (277-800 m

5-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
[910-2,625 ft]), and speed (7-144 km/h [4-90 mph]). Systems can be designed to suit project
needs excluding certain terrain difficulties. Because of system flexibility, belt conveyors fit
neatly into many loading and unloading operations. The California Highway Department, under
an agreement with the Sacramento District, uses dozers and conveyors to load dredged material
onto barges (Figure 5-5). The following items should be taken into consideration in any planning
for belt conveyor transport:
a. Building codes, easement acquisition, utility relocation, climatologically factors, and urban
area disruption for construction.
b. Material pileup due to system failure.
c. Malfunctions of sequential belt systems resulting in entire system stoppage.

Figure 5-5. A 1 m (3.3 ft) Belt Conveyer Dredged Material Loading Operation
5.9.3 Loading and unloading elements. Loading and unloading elements may incur high costs,
which can restrict project viability. Souder et al. (1978) present several examples of loading and
unloading options and schematics of scenarios associated with various dry material transport
modes; two examples are shown in Figures 5-6 and 5-7. Two other examples include a pair of
backhoe excavators and a series of conveyor belts providing rapid loading of unit trains, and a barge
haul scheme using backhoes for excavation and loading directly into dump trucks, which make the
intermediate haul to the scows. In this EM, cost comparisons are based on the loading and
unloading component scenarios presented in Souder et al. (1978). The truck haul loading element
components are similar to the rail loading components, which include excavation backhoes and a
series of belt conveyors. The unloading system is simple back-dumping at the beneficial use site.
Placement methods are important and are discussed in paragraph 5.26.2 and other sections where
critical elevations are needed for beneficial use applications.

5-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-6. Barge-Loading Operation

Figure 5-7. Unit Train Rail Loading Facility

5.10 Cost Analysis for Dewatering and Transport.
5.10.1 Dewatering costs. Costs associated with dewatering of dredged containment areas
are directly related to the degree of trenching effort required and the type of heavy equipment
necessary to accomplish dewatering. Thus, the program costs for progressive trenching are highly
site-specific depending upon placement area size, equipment selected, type of access available,
5-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
and frequency of trenching operations. A preliminary trenching program is developed from crust
formation estimates, equipment operational characteristics (Table 5-5), and trenching cycle
intervals (Table 5-6). Total cost may be estimated from computing equipment operating hours
plus factors for nonproductive activities (30% is a good estimate), mobilization/demobilization,
and administrative costs.
Table 5-5. Operational Characteristics of Trenching Equipment

Equipment

Crust Thickness, cm,

for Effective Operation
Minimum
Maximum

Maximum
Trench
Depth, cm

Approximate
Trenching Rate
lin m/hr

Approximate
Rental Cost1
$/hr

RUC

30

45

600+

275-360

Low-groundpressure tracked
vehicle + rotary
trenchers

10

62.5

62.5

600+

125-160

Small dredge

10

25

75

180-270

Amphibious
dragline

12

452

Crust + 45

12

180-255

Small dragline
on double mats

30

45

Crust + 45

125-180

Medium dragline
on double mats

30

45

Crust + 45

12

145-180

Small dragline
on single mats

45

62.53

Crust + 45-62.5

15

125-160

Medium dragline
on single mats

45

753

Crust + 45-62.5

18

145-180

Large dragline
on single mats

62.5

90

Crust + 62.5

24

160-200

Notes:
(a) Vehicle or mat ground pressure must also satisfy critical layer Rating Cone Index mobility criteria.
(b) Low-ground-pressure tracked vehicle assumed to pull drag plow with point set only 2.5 or 5 cm (1 or
2 in.)below existing crust.
(c) More exact definitions of dragline equipment given in text.
Southeastern United States, 1977. Adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
Inflation Calculator, 2008.
2 Above this crust thickness, conventional dragline is usually more efficient.
3 62-75 cm (25-30 in.) crust thickness, use single mats. Increase rates 3 lin m/hr if dragline is working
from perimeter dike.
1

5-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table 5-6. Estimated Interval Between Trenching Cycles for Various Equipment Items in
Fine-Grained Dredged Material
Equipment Item

Equipment Location
in Placement Area

Initial Condition of
Placement Area Surface

Estimated Trenching
Interval

RUC

Interior

Decant point

Each 2 weeks for the

first month, and monthly
thereafter

RUC

Interior

Crust 5 cm (2 in.)

Monthly

Low-ground-pressuretracked vehicle +
rotary trencher

Interior

Crust 5 cm (2 in.)

Monthly

Small dredge

Interior

10 cm (4 in.) < crust

- 25 cm (10 in.)

4 months

Amphibious dragline

Interior

Crust 15 cm (6 in.)

4 months

Conventional dragline

Interior

Crust 30 cm

4 months

Conventional dragline

Perimeter

Decant point

Monthly for the first

3 months, bimonthly for
the next 3 months, and
4 months thereafter

Conventional dragline

Perimeter

5 cm (2 in.) < crust

< 15 cm (6 in.)

Bimonthly for the first

4 months and 4 months
thereafter

Conventional dragline

Perimeter

Crust 15 cm (6 in.)

4 months

5.10.2 Transport costs. Transport cost can account for 90% or more of total land
improvement and beneficial use budget costs. The cost figures presented in this section are meant
to serve as examples for planning and do not represent definitive cost estimates. Table 5-7
provides insight into the cost relationships for various modes of transport. It provides total
system costs for all five transport modes. Transport costs are reported in dollars per cubic yard of
dredged material moved. This breakdown shows that economic feasibility is limited by distance
for most transport modes. This table also shows the economies of scale for larger annual volumes
of material shipped. Real estate and right- of-way costs for the hydraulic pipeline system are not
included in the cost-estimating procedure.

5-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-7. Comparison of Costs of Various Transport Systems, Quantities, and Distances1
Cost, $/m3, for Cited Transport System
Transport
Distance, km
Pipeline
Rail
Barge
Belt
Truck
2
16
6.82
6.82
24.78
12.61
2
32
8.66
8.66
41.80
18.24
2
160
26.32
19.81
13.00
37.77
2
2
2
400
25.72
20.45
2
1,000,000
16
4.03
8.06
14.87
10.29
2
32
5.27
8.66
37.17
11.56
2
160
17.80
14.87
12.39
35.62
2
2
2
400
20.91
19.81
2
3,000,000
16
2.18
7.45
6.21
8.75
2
32
3.09
8.06
10.84
9.82
2
160
11.31
11.62
12.39
34.08
2
2
2
400
14.73
20.28
2
5,000,000
16
1.85
7.75
4.64
8.42
2
32
2.48
8.06
8.66
9.44
160
9.60
11.15
12.09
37.47
33.30
2
2
2
400
16.72
19.51
1 These costs were taken from Urban Research and Development Corporation (1980) and are adjusted to
2003 dollars.
2 Indicates not competitive economically.
Annual
Quantity, m3
500,000

Section III
Habitat Development
5.11 Definition and Application. Habitat development refers to the establishment and management of relatively stable and biologically productive plant and animal habitats (Smith 1978). The
use of dredged material for habitat development offers a placement technique that is an attractive
and feasible alternative to more conventional placement options. Various habitat development
alternatives and their applicability to placement operations and sites are discussed in this section.
Within any habitat, several distinct biological communities may occur. For example, the
development of a dredged material island may involve a wide variety of habitats (Figure 5-8).
Four general habitats are suitable for establishment on dredged material:
a. Wetland. Wetland habitat is a very broad category of periodically inundated communities, characterized by vegetation that survives in wet (hydric) soils. These are most
commonly tidal freshwater and saltwater marshes, relatively permanently inundated freshwater
marshes, bottomland hardwoods, freshwater swamps, and freshwater riverine and lake habitats.

5-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-8. Hypothetical Site Illustrating the Potential Diversity of Habitat Types that may be
Developed at a Dredged Material Placement Site
b. Upland. Upland habitat includes a very broad category of terrestrial communities, characterized
by vegetation not normally subject to inundation. Types may range from bare ground to mature forest.
c. Aquatic. Aquatic habitats are typical submerged habitats extending from near sea, river,
or lake level down several feet. Examples are tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrass meadows, fishing
reefs, clam flats, and freshwater aquatic plant beds.
d. Island. Islands are upland and/or high zone wetland habitats distinguished by their
isolation and particular uses, and completely surrounded by water or wetlands.
These concepts and their implementation are discussed in detail in Environmental Laboratory
(1978); Hunt et al. (1978); Lunz, Diaz, and Cole (1978); Soots and Landin (1978); Landin,
Webb, and Knutson (1989); Herbich (1992); NRC (1994); and Landin (1997a).
5.12 Case Studies of Selected Habitat Development Sites. Numerous examples of habitat
development using dredged material substrates exist. Four are presented here to show the
diversity of such sites.
5.12.1 Buttermilk Sound salt marsh.
5.12.1.1 Buttermilk Sound, a 2 ha intertidal island marsh located in the Altamaha River,
GA, was restored by plantings during 1975 on a sandy, infertile dredged material island that had
not revegetated since deposition of material a number of years ago. Success of the original

5-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
plantings was related to the period of tidal inundation and type of propagule. Sprigs were more
successful than seeds, and smooth cordgrass was the most successful species planted
(Environmental Laboratory 1978; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989).
5.12.1.2 From the outset, the Buttermilk Sound marsh site has been very successful (Figure
5-9). Since 1979, it has been visually indistinguishable from natural reference marshes. Although
tidal scouring initially washed out plantings and eroded the lower part of the intertidal zone, the
site quickly stabilized. The established plant community has trapped large amounts of fine
material, resulting in a thick layer of silt that now covers the original substrate. Smooth cordgrass
dominates the entire lower two-thirds of the intertidal zone. Swards of big cordgrass and
saltmeadow cordgrass remain at the middle intertidal zone elevations where they had been
planted. The Buttermilk Sound site differs from nearby natural marshes by possessing greater
plant species diversity at lower elevations. This probably is due to plant species that were
introduced in zones lower than those at which they would naturally occur. Aboveground biomass
is similar to natural marshes, but belowground biomass was lower for approximately 10 years,
when biomass reached that of the older reference marshes. Wildlife use of the marsh is greater
than in the natural marshes in all respects, including white-tailed deer, alligators, clapper rails,
tern nesting, and migratory shorebird and waterbird use (Newling and Landin 1985; Landin,
Webb, and Knutson 1989).

Figure 5-9. A Clapper Rail Running Through the Planted Dredged Material Salt Marsh at
Buttermilk Sound, Altamaha River, GA, in 1985

5-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.12.1.3 The Buttermilk Sound site continues to represent one of the most successful small
marshes built by the USACE. It appears to be very stable, and coverage and density of the marsh
area, especially in the upper marsh zone, continue to increase to the extent that only one bare
sandy spot remains on the entire island. This spot was not shaved down from the original
elevation to an intertidal zone and, therefore, has been very slow to vegetate. It provides nesting
habitat for black skimmers and terns.
5.12.2 Salt Pond 3 salt marsh.
5.12.2.1 Salt Pond 3, a marsh site in South San Francisco Bay, California, was established
on a portion of a 40 ha saltwater evaporation pond that was partially filled hydraulically with
clayey dredged material in 1972. It is the only non-island habitat development site built by the
USACE in its early research studies and programs. Plantings of Pacific cordgrass and pickleweeds were established during 1975-77. Cordgrass sprigs successfully colonized the lower two
thirds of the intertidal zone, and pickleweed rapidly and naturally colonized the upper one-third
(Newling and Landin 1985; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989, Landin 1990) (Figure 5-10).

Figure 5-10. Salt Pond 3 Habitat Development Field Site, South San Francisco Bay, CA, in 1980
5.12.2.2 The plantings maintained themselves and have spread slowly into adjacent
unvegetated areas. Production was initially somewhat less than in nearby natural marshes,
perhaps due to the relatively early stage of site succession, but it changed rapidly as the site
trapped sediment to become dominated by pickleweeds, with only narrow fringes of cordgrass
(Landin 1990). The cordgrass and pickleweed zones appear visually equivalent to natural
marshes, and the entire 40 ha has become densely vegetated (Newling and Landin 1985; Landin,
Webb, and Knutson 1989; NRC 1994).

5-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.12.2.3 Wildlife use is predominantly by birds, especially shorebirds that feed along the
channel, and terns and other waterbirds. Peregrine falcons and other raptors frequent the area and
feed on songbirds and rodents in the upper marsh zone. The site appears to be stable, and it
survived the excessive El Nino rainfalls and severe storms that have pounded the West Coast
from 1983 to the present without apparent damage. The rainfall actually seemed to improve the
appearance of the marsh by increasing growth in the upper marsh zone. This site was compared
to three natural reference salt marshes in the area, and growth and reproduction, as well as wildlife utilization, compared favorably over time.
5.12.2.4 The salt pond dike at this site was breached, and an intertidal channel formed to
allow tidal access into the marsh. Over time, this breach has widened, and the dike protecting the
site has completely eroded away, leaving the marsh fully exposed to the winds and waves of San
Francisco Bay. Since the dike failed in the mid-1990s, the marsh has begun to erode at its frontal
edges.
5.12.3 Gaillard Island confined placement facility.
5.12.3.1 Gaillard Island, a diked placement island in lower Mobile Bay, AL (Figure 5-11),
was built by the Mobile District in 1981. This large, triangular-shaped island is being filled with
material from the main shipping channel, and its gently sloped dike is primarily silty clay. Waves
come into the island dike from all three sides, and erosion is a continuing problem. Beginning in
1981, smooth cordgrass was planted on the northwest dike behind temporary breakwaters made
of floating and fixed tires. Surviving plantings from 1981 grew and spread behind the
breakwater, and more plants were set between 1982 and 1986 with more breakwater designs and
tests. Many of these were thriving into the 1990s in spite of several severe hurricanes hitting the
area (Allen, Webb, and Shirley 1983; Landin 1986b; NRC 1994). Plantings in 1983 through 1986
were coupled primarily with tests of several filter materials and tire configurations as well as
burlap rolls, different size propagules, and various placements in the intertidal zone. By 1995, the
plantings had spread as far as they could into the bay by trapping sediment, and they had begun to
recede in several areas along the dike. Brackish marsh species, such as saltmarsh bulrush and
American threesquare, colonized behind the cordgrass and is thriving.
5.12.3.2 On the upland portion of the dike, aerially seeded Bermuda grass dominates, and it
has effectively stabilized large portions of the dike. Diversity of invading plant species has
increased, and this colonization process is expected to continue. Plant succession is already
progressing, as areas that were weedy annuals in 1982 are now perennial grasses and small trees
and shrubs capable of supporting wading bird nests. Species diversity and populations of both
plants and animals has increased with each seasonal data collection period for over 12 years;
these were documented from 1981 through 1987 by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES; now the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
[ERDC]) and by the Alabama Department of Natural Resources since that time.

5-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-11. Gaillard Island Habitat Development Field Site, Lower Mobile Bay, AL, in 1984
5.12.3.3 Over 35 bird species, including 27 species of colonial waterbirds, are now nesting
on the Gaillard Island. In 1984, 1985, and 1986 the birds numbered approximately 16,000 each
year; numbers have stabilized at approximately 25,000 nesting annually. Laughing gulls dominated the nesting areas; however, large numbers of seven tern species, black-necked stilts, and
black skimmers nested with much success. Muskrats colonized the island in late 1985; land birds
nested there for the first time in 1984. Brown pelicans are nesting on the island, and 1983 marked
the first recorded nesting for the species in Alabama in this century. In 1983, two chicks fledged
from a single successful nest. In the 1984 summer survey, nests had increased to eight; 133 active
nests were observed in 1985. In 1986 there were over 200 active nests by May, and more were
being built. In the late 1990s there were five brown pelican colonies on the island. In addition,
large numbers of nonbreeding white and brown pelicans are living there year-round (Landin
1986b; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989; Landin 1997c).
5.12.4 Bolivar Peninsula upland and wetland site.
5.12.4.1 The Bolivar Peninsula field site, located on Goat Island in eastern Galveston Bay,
TX, includes both marsh and upland planted areas. The original site is 8 ha of sandy dredged
material, protected by a sand-filled geotextile bag/tube breakwater and an animal exclosure
fence. It was built by the USACE and planted in 1974-1975. Both smooth and saltmeadow
cordgrasses established well on this site (Figure 5-12). In the upland area, shrubs, trees, and

5-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
upland grasses initially established well, but invasion by other species eventually crowded them
out (Allen, Webb, and Shirley 1983; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989). Since initial establishment, smooth cordgrass has spread throughout the lower tidal zone and dominates the site
(Landin 1998b). The saltmeadow cordgrass has spread throughout the upper intertidal zone and
into the upland section of the site. Saltgrass and pickleweeds invaded the same zone (Allen,
Webb, and Shirley 1983) and continue to survive on the site.

Figure 5-12. Bolivar Peninsula Habitat Development Field Site, Galveston Bay, TX
5.12.4.2 Oysters had densely colonized the breakwater and intertidal area by 1982 and now
help serve as a breakwater for the marsh (Davis and Landin 1997). Data through the 1990s
indicated that the site would not have successfully survived the 42 km (26 mi) wind fetch if the
breakwater had not survived. The site has also been heavily colonized by fiddler and blue crabs
and has much fish use during high tide. Wildlife use is quite good; large numbers of sea and
wading birds use the site. Small mammals live inside the fence that was once built to exclude
them due to the need to collect vegetation data without grazers, and a number of ground-nesting
birds use the site. By 1983 conversion of the upland zone from prairie grasses and woody plants
to high marsh plants was complete. Cover on the site is dense and, unless it becomes heavily
grazed by ranging feral goats on the island, it should remain in that condition. Clapper rail use is
also quite heavy (Landin 1998b).

5-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.12.4.3 In addition to the three natural reference sites originally compared to the Bolivar
Peninsula site from 1974 to 1980, four adjacent dredged material sites are now being compared
on Goat Island: the old site planted in 1974-75; a deposit of sand dredged material (1982) to the
west of the old site that was planted to test two breakwater designs built of low-cost materials; a
second deposit of sand dredged material (1982) on the east side of the old site that serves as a
control; and a part of the old site that was covered with an application of sandy dredged material
in January 1986. Part of the original planting was deliberately covered with dredged material to
determine the impacts of smothering and to determine how rapidly a salt marsh could recover
from such disturbance. By 1994, the smothered site had completed recovered to its original saltmarsh vegetation. The smothered area was also compared to a site in East Matagorda Bay where
silty dredged material was placed in August 1986 over existing high marsh. That site was slower
to recover due to the depth of material and the fine-grained sediment but it, too, has recovered as
high marsh. Data have been collected on these sites for over 25 years (Landin 1997d), and
general observations will continue.
5.12.4.4 The Bolivar Peninsula site survived a direct hit by three hurricanes in 1983, 1986,
and 1993. The only noticeable change was the washing away of the protective fence in the bay in
front of the site. All of the natural marshes with which it was compared were changed by
washouts of pockets of marsh, creating open-water pockets. These types of washouts did not
occur on the field site. The data from these sites have been used to plan and design beneficial use
marshes in Galveston Bay as part of the Houston Ship Channel Deepening and Widening Project,
now underway. At the first of these, Atkinson Island, a large 60-year-old dredged material island
in the upper channel, a salt marsh was constructed in a cove on dredged material and protected by
a berm and geotextile breakwater in 1994. Initial data showed the site to be very successful
(Davis and Landin 1997; Landin 1998a). Because it was fronted by large geotextile bags to
protect it from wind fetch, the bogs colonized with oysters, and the salt marsh was thriving in
2000.
5.13 Habitat Development Selection Process. The diversity of biological communities indicates
the potential diversity of alternatives available under habitat development. This wide range of
options usually makes using quantitative measures for selecting specific alternatives impractical;
consequently, selecting a given habitat development alternative is likely to be highly judgmental.
The best determination can be made by a combination of local biological and engineering
expertise and public opinion. Guidelines for the evaluation of individual habitat development
situations are summarized below.
5.13.1 Conditions favoring habitat development.
5.13.1.1 The selection of habitat development as a placement alternative is competitive
with other placement options and types of beneficial uses when one or more of the following
conditions exists:
a. Public/agency opinion strongly opposes other alternatives.
b. Recognized habitat needs exist.

5-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Enhancement measures on existing placement sites are identified.
d. Feasibility has been demonstrated locally.
e. Stability of dredged material deposits is desired.
f. Habitat development is economically feasible.
g. Extensive quantities of dredged material are available.
Since placement alternatives are often severely limited and constrained by public opinion and/or
agency regulations, with constraints on open-water and other sites, development of placement
sites as habitat is an attractive alternative and, in many cases, has strong public appeal. The needs
for restoration or mitigation or for additional habitat may strongly influence the selection of the
habitat development alternative. This is particularly applicable in areas where similar habitat of
considerable value or of public concern has been lost through natural processes, as at Pointe
Mouillee in Lake Erie, or through construction activities, as at Chevron Marsh in Pascagoula, MS
(Landin 1998a). Habitat development may be used as an enhancement measure to improve the
acceptance of a placement technique. For example, seagrass may be planted on submerged
dredged material or wildlife food plant established on upland confined placement sites. Habitat
development has considerable potential as a low-cost mitigation procedure and may be used to
offset environmental impacts incurred in dredging and placement.
5.13.1.2 Over 30 years of project work and research data have proven that the concept of
habitat development is more apt to be viewed as a feasible alternative if it has been successfully
demonstrated locally. The existence of even a pilot-scale project in a given locale will offset the
uncertainties often present in the perception by the public and resource agencies of an experimental or unproven technique. The vegetation cover provided by most undiked habitat alternatives will generally stabilize dredged material and prevent its return to the waterway. In many
instances, this aspect will reduce the amount of future maintenance dredging necessary at a given
site and result in a positive environmental and economic impact.
5.13.1.3 The economic feasibility of habitat development should be considered in the
context of long-term benefits. Biologically productive habitats have varied but unquestionable
value (for example, sport and commercial fisheries) and are relatively stable features.
Consequently, habitat development may be considered a placement option with long-term
economic benefits that can be applied against additional costs that may be incurred in its
implementation. Habitat development may be particularly economically competitive in situations
where it is possible to take advantage of natural conditions or where minor modifications to
existing methods would produce desirable biological communities. For example, the existence of
a low-energy, shallow-water site adjacent to an area to be dredged may provide an ideal marsh
development site and require almost no expenditure beyond that associated with open-water
placement. Actual dollar values assigned to habitat development has been a controversial topic of
discussion among scientists for decades. All agree that the work is beneficial and that such sites
are highly valuable, but none agree on valuation estimates.

5-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.13.2 Guidelines. Habitat development presents several options ranging from establishment of upland communities to the development of seagrass meadows. A broad procedural
guide to the selection of the habitat development alternative is given in Figure 5-13 and in
Landin (1993) and NRC (1994). The beneficial use planner should ignore categories unrelated to
the particular problem and may want to add key site specifications.
5.13.2.1 Preliminary assessment. The initial consideration of habitat development as a
placement alternative should include a preliminary assessment of feasibility, which involves
judgment based on available data. A determination that habitat development is not initially
feasible should be based on compelling negative evidence and not merely on a lack of information or specific precedents. In the absence of such negative evidence, one should proceed to the
detailed evaluation of feasibility. Factors may arise at several stages in the evaluation that would
lead to a determination of infeasibility. Should that occur, other placement alternatives would be
reconsidered.
a. The detailed evaluation of feasibility includes six major categories, beginning with a
characterization of the dredged material and arranged generally in the order of need for
acquisition of information. In a characterization of the dredged material, the physical, chemical,
and engineering characteristics of the material to be dredged should be determined. These
properties will help define the general considerations of site selection.
b. Site selection should be based on an adequate knowledge of energy conditions, foundation characteristics, salinity, tidal influences, and bottom topography. Energy conditions will
largely influence the feasibility of establishing a stable substrate or the necessity of protection
structures. Foundation characteristics will determine the ability of a given site to support
construction activities or structures. Salinity and tidal influences will dictate the plant species
composition. A more detailed analysis of these factors will be necessary later for detailed design
purposes if the habitat development alternative is selected, but even in this early phase, some
field sampling may be necessary if general information is not available.
c. Engineering considerations at this stage are largely confined to preliminary designs and
an assessment of equipment needs and availability. Details such as scheduling to meet critical
environmental dates (for example, spring or summer planting times) and the identification of
dredged material transport distances provide useful planning data. In many projects, the pivotal
determination of engineering feasibility or infeasibility can be made at this stage. One of the most
undercollected data items is number and analysis of core samples from the site to be dredged,
thereby allowing misinterpretation of the final percentages of fines or sands at the placement site.
The danger in this is that it may allow the consolidation ratio, and therefore the final elevation, to
be miscalculated.

5-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-13. Procedural Guidelines for the Delection of Various Habitat Development
Alternatives Using Dredged Material

5-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Evaluation of the cost of alternative placement methods is the next essential step. In a
number of USACE Districts, this is the first step in assessment. Detailed economic analyses must
await the further development of design criteria; however, a general cost comparison of the
various alternative sites should be possible at the completion of the preliminary assessment of
feasibility. This is another critical step because considerable time and effort can be spared by
defining the economic limits that the project must satisfy to remain competitive with other
alternatives.
e. Of the sociopolitical considerations, public attitudes, legal and institutional constraints,
and costs are most likely to prove limiting. Negative public attitudes generally occur when the
community views the proposed habitat as a threat to established values. Legal and institutional
constraints frequently arise when there are unanswered questions of ownership and access or
when local interests have designated the site for an alternative future use. Direct economic
impacts may be identified if the habitat to be developed may alter important shellfishing or
recreational areas or block a water view. Beneficial use projects may be stopped due to lack of
USACE funds and/or lack of funds from cost-sharing sponsors, now required under Federal law.
f. The environmental impact of most habitat development projects may be expressed as a
loss of open-water habitat or wetland systems and changes in hydraulic and energy regimes. The
impacts of these factors tend to be cumulative and are directly related to the perceived need for
additional habitat. In general, the need for more habitat is considered more critical in areas that
have lost or are losing considerable habitat of that type. Pollutant mobilization by plants growing
on contaminated dredged material might be of concern, and its potential should be determined
prior to habitat development.
5.13.2.2 Selection of habitat development as an alternative. Upon completion of the
preliminary assessment of feasibility, a determination can be made whether habitat development
is applicable. If habitat development is a selected alternative, a decision regarding the type or
types of habitats to be developed must be made. This decision is largely judgmental, but in
general, site peculiarities do not present more than one or two logical options. Specific advantages and disadvantages likely to be encountered are evaluated, and items of particular concern
during early feasibility determinations are highlighted in the following sections of this manual:
Section IV, Wetland Habitats; Section V, Upland Habitats; Section VI, Island Habitats;
and Section VII, Aquatic Habitats.
Section IV
Wetland Habitats
5.14 Marshes. Marshes are considered to be any community of grasses or herbs that experience
periodic or permanent inundation. Typically, these are intertidal freshwater or saltwater marshes
and periodically inundated freshwater marshes. Marshes are recognized as extremely valuable
natural systems and are accorded importance in food and detrital production, fish and wildlife
cover, nutrient cycling, erosion control, floodwater retention, groundwater recharge, and
aesthetics. Marsh values are highly site-specific and must be examined in terms of such variables

5-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
as species composition, location, and extent, which in turn influence their impact upon a given
ecosystem.
5.15 Marsh Development Considerations. Accurate techniques have been developed to estimate
costs and to design, construct, maintain, and monitor man-made marsh systems (Allen, Webb,
and Shirley 1983; Environmental Laboratory 1978; Landin 1984, 1992a, 1993, 1998b; Newling
and Landin 1985; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989; NRC 1994; King and Constanza 1994;
Brooke et al. 2000; Landin et al. 1999). Methods are available to predict the impact of the
alternatives on the environment and to describe the value of the proposed resource prior to its
selection.
5.15.1 Advantages. Several advantages have been found in marsh development as a
placement alternative:
a. Considerable public appeal.
b. Creation of desirable biological communities.
c. Considerable potential for enhancement or mitigation.
d. Frequently a low-cost option.
e. Useful for erosion control.
Wetland and marsh development is a placement alternative that can generate strong public appeal
and has the potential of gaining wide acceptance when some other techniques cannot. The
restored or created habitat has biological values, especially restoration, that are readily identified
and accepted by many in the academic, governmental, and private sectors. A created wetland is
one in which all factors (hydrology, geomorphology, vegetation, and energy protection) must be
provided at a site where no wetland has ever existed. A restored wetland is one in which one or
more of the critical factors are still present and a wetland existed on that site before. It is much
less expensive, with a much higher degree of success, to restore a wetland than to create one.
Application of these principles and factors requires an understanding of local needs and
perceptions and the effective limits of the value of these ecosystems. The potential of this alternative to replace or improve marsh habitats lost through dredged material placement or other
activities is frequently overlooked. Marsh development techniques are sufficiently advanced to
design and construct productive systems with a high degree of confidence even in moderate wave
energy environments. For example, salt marshes have been established at Bolivar Peninsula and
Atkinson Island in Texas; Gaillard Island in Alabama; Barren Island and Kenilworth Marsh,
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, and other locations in the Chesapeake Bay; and a
number of other locations behind temporary breakwaters in moderate energy areas. These
habitats can often be developed with very little increase in cost above normal project operation, a
fact attested to by hundreds of marshes that have been inadvertently established on dredged
material and by the more than 1,000 marshes that have been purposely created using dredged
material substrates and mitigation for dredge and fill in U.S. waterways over the past century of
dredging the Nations navigation channels.

5-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.15.2 Disadvantages. Several problems are likely to be encountered in marsh development:
a. Unavailability of appropriate sites.
b. Loss of other habitats.
c. Possible release of any contaminants.
d. Loss of site for subsequent placement of dredged material.
By far the most difficult initial aspect of the application of marsh development is the location of
suitable sites. Over time, the loss of the site for subsequent placement increases significantly.
Low-energy, shallow-water sites offer the most potential; however, cost factors become
significant if long transport distances are necessary to reach low-energy sites. Temporary
protective structures may be required if low-energy sites cannot be located. These have been
successful at several Gulf coast sites where moderate wave energy occurs (Allen et al. 1978;
Allen, Webb, and Shirley 1983). Marsh development can frequently mean the replacement of one
desirable habitat with another, and this is the source of most opposition to this alternative.
However, if low-productivity sites that were previously marsh can be restored using dredged
material, opposition is greatly reduced. There are few reliable methods for comparing the various
losses and gains associated with this habitat conversion; consequently, determining the relative
impact may best be made on the basis of the professional opinion of local authorities. Although
studies have shown that contaminant uptake from soil in marsh environments is minimal, the
planner should remain alert that the potential exists with highly contaminated sediment use.
Development of a marsh at a given site can prevent the subsequent use of that area as a placement site. In many instances, additional development on that site would be prevented by state and
Federal resource agencies. Exceptions may occur in areas of severe erosion or subsidence such as
coastal Louisiana, or where previous placement created a low marsh and subsequent placement
would create a higher marsh with a different wetland plant community.
5.15.3 Maintenance. Dredged material marshes should be designed to be relatively
maintenance free (Landin 1993, 1995). The degree of maintenance depends largely on the energy
conditions at the site, a factor that should be included in the cost analysis of the project. No
maintenance may be required to protect the new marsh in low-energy situations. In most areas of
moderate to somewhat higher energy conditions, protection may be required only until the marsh
has a chance to mature. In those areas, protective structures may be designed for a relatively short
life of 3-10 years with no additional maintenance required. In high-energy situations and long
wind fetches, perpetuation of the marsh may require planned periodic maintenance of protective
structures and possibly periodic replanting. This is true whether the site is coastal, lake, or
riverine.
5.16 Guidelines for Marsh Development.
5.16.1 Selection of wetland type. If marsh development is the beneficial use alternative
selected, it is necessary to select the most appropriate wetland type (Figure 5-14). In most situations, the selection of a wetland type is largely predetermined by overriding environmental

5-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
conditions such as tidal range, salinity, or flood conditions. Most marsh development projects,
simply because of the nature of dredged material placement and the formation of drainage
patterns, contain elements of shallow and deep marsh (fresh water) or high and low marsh (salt
water).

Figure 5-14. Procedural Guidelines for the Selection of Various Marsh and Wetland
Habitat Development Alternatives

5-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.16.2 Design of marsh habitat. The detailed engineering design of the marsh habitat is
separated into four parts: location, elevation, orientation and shape, and size. The design should
maintain the goals of placement of dredged material through the development of a desirable
biological community, using the most cost-efficient methods and causing a minimum of environmental perturbation. Engineering and biological designs of marshes have been researched and longterm field tested by ERDC (Environmental Laboratory 1978; Newling and Landin 1985; Landin,
Webb, and Knutson 1989; Landin 1993 and 1997b; NRC 1994) at over 35 locations in U.S.
waterways for more than 15 years. Numerous other man-made wetlands using dredged material and
mitigation for dredge and fill have been studied and monitored for shorter periods of time.
5.16.2.1 Location. The location of the new marsh may be the most important decision in
marsh development. Low-energy areas are best suited for marsh development, and sandy dredged
material has been found to be the ideal substrate. Departure from these conditions requires a
careful evaluation of the need for structural protection and containment. High wave or current
energies may prevent the formation of a stable substrate and the establishment of vegetation,
making various forms of protective structures or mechanisms necessary (Allen, Webb, and
Shirley 1983; Davis and Landin 1997; Chasten et al. 1993). Another major consideration in
protection and containment is the grain-size distribution. Hydraulically placed clay or silt usually
requires temporary or permanent containment, regardless of wave or current conditions.
Containment is generally required to hold fine-grained material within a prescribed area. Silt
under very low energy situations may require no containment or protection; however, in moderate energies it is essential. Sand that would require no protection under low-energy situations
may require some protection under moderate wave energy. Obviously, a wide range of conditions
exists. It should be remembered that those areas best suited for marsh development (shallow, low
energy) are also likely to be biologically productive. Particular efforts should be made to avoid
unusually productive areas, such as seagrass meadows, clam flats, and oyster beds. In general, the
further dredged material must be moved, the greater the cost in marsh development. The
availability of suitable equipment may also influence the feasibility of distant placement.
Therefore, attention should be given to locating the placement site as near the dredging operation
as possible.
5.16.2.2 Elevation. Final elevation of the marsh substrate is determined largely by settlement and consolidation and is the most critical of the operational considerations as it dictates
both the amount of material placed and the biological productivity of the habitat established.
Techniques are available to predict the final stable elevation of a given volume of dredged
material placed in a confined intertidal situation (Environmental Laboratory 1978; Hayes et al.
2000). Salt marshes are generally most productive within the upper third of the tidal range while
freshwater marshes should generally be flooded to a depth of not more than 0.6 m (2 ft).
Determination of final elevation and biological benchmarks for vegetation is critical and should
be based on precise knowledge of the elevational requirements of the plant community. Variation
in topography produces habitat diversity and should be encouraged, provided that the majority of
the area is within the desired elevation range. If achieving a desired elevation appears unlikely,
incremental filling at a site may be possible, with a conservative estimate of the amount of
material necessary to attain a given elevation. Should the final elevation still be too low, the
difference can be made up in subsequent placement and add-ons. If one-time placement is
5-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
anticipated, it may be possible to overfill and rework the area to a lower elevation with earthmoving equipment, especially if the dredged material is sandy.
5.16.2.3 Orientation and shape. The orientation and shape of the new marsh largely
determines its total cost, its efficiency as a placement site, and its effectiveness as a biological
addition to the natural environment. The shape should minimize impact on drainage or current
patterns in the area surrounding the placement site and allow it to blend into the surrounding
environment. If high-energy forces are anticipated, the marsh should be shaped to minimize highenergy exposure. Such design reduces the threat of failure and the cost involved in providing
protection. If available, a fastland border, such as a cove, island, dike field, peninsula, or breakwater, can serve as low-cost protection and minimize the length of otherwise necessary and costly
containing or protective structures, Seeking such locations may greatly reduce costs. Atkinson
Island marsh, built by the Port of Houston in 1994, is an excellent example of utilization of a cove
as a man-made marsh restoration site (Swafford and Gorini 1994). An effort should be made to take
advantage of bottom topography during the design of the new marsh. Placement sites are often not
uniform in depth; if possible, protective structures should be located in shallow water or on a sand
berm and the fill area in deep water to maximize the containment efficiency. If dikes are built from
local material, it may be possible to deepen the placement area by locating borrow material within
the dike area. Shape may also be a major cost determinant when diking is required. For a given area
of protected marsh, a circle requires the minimum dike length. A rectangle increases dike length in
proportion to its length-width ratio. For example, a rectangle ten times longer than wide requires a
perimeter nearly twice that of a circle to contain the same area. In addition, angular designs often
leave exposed points where dike failures can occur.
5.16.2.4 Size. The size of the placement area is a function of the amount of the material to
be dredged and the volume of the placement area. Several filling options might affect size
including one-time, incremental, and cellular. One-time filling implies that a site is filled and
marsh established within that operation, and that the area will not be used again for placement. In
incremental filling it is recognized that the site will be used during the course of more than one
dredging operation or season, and that the placement area will be considered full when a
predetermined marsh elevation is attained. In cellular filling, a compartment of a prescribed
placement area is filled to the desired elevation during each dredging project. Both incremental
and cellular filling offer the efficiency of establishing a large placement site and using it over a
period of years, thus avoiding costs of repetitive construction, design, and testing operations. A
major difference between these two methods is that the cellular method provides a marsh
substrate at the end of each season whereas many years may be required before incremental
filling attains this goal. Cellular or incremental placement sites are generally larger than one-time
placement sites, and this increase in size may offer a more cost-effective placement site.
5.16.3 Reevaluation and construction. A final reevaluation of the marsh development
alternative should take place prior to construction. Marsh development contracting procedures
may sometimes prove to be difficult because, although these projects are becoming more common, neither the contractors nor the USACE may have had much previous experience with marsh
contracts. Pre-bid conferences to explain the intricacies of the project, as well as carefully
detailed contract specifications, are strongly advised. Scheduling the dredging can prove to be

5-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
particularly important. To obtain maximum vegetative cover within the first year, it is necessary
to have the dredged material in place and with a relatively stable surface elevation by the
beginning of the growing season. Delays will affect the initial success of the project and may
result in loss of nursery or seed stock, replanting costs, adverse public reaction, and unwanted
erosion at the site. It cannot be overemphasized that careful inspection of the placement operation
is essential, as the attainment of the prescribed elevation is critical, an aspect that may not be
appreciated by the dredging contractor and crew or even the USACE dredging inspectors.
5.16.4 Vegetation establishment. Marsh plants can be propagated by natural invasion or
artificial propagation. Natural colonization by wetland plants can be expected if the environmental requirements for a marsh community, including a source of propagules, are present at a
site. In some cases, especially in freshwater marshes, natural invasion occurs on a site within a
few months; in others, especially saltwater coastal areas, many years may be required. The
process of marsh establishment will be accelerated on most sites by seeding or sprigging, which
is generally considered essential in salt marshes of moderate- to high-wave conditions due to site
exposure and harshness of conditions. Every effort should be made to ensure that species selected
for artificial propagation represent a natural assemblage for a given area. Exotic or offsite species
are generally be able to compete with natural invaders and are not encouraged. An exception may
be an instance in which a species is selected for temporary cover or erosion control until natural
invasion has colonized the site. For example, smooth cordgrass is planted in tropical Florida,
with mangrove seed pods interspersed. The smooth cordgrass provides protection as a nurse crop
for the mangrove seedlings until they become firmly established. The advantage of propagation
by natural invasion is the low cost, and this may be a pivotal consideration in cost-borderline
projects. Another exception is in Galveston Bay, TX, where smooth cordgrass has been
victimized by a disease that renders most seeds sterile. The USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed a disease-resistant strain of smooth cordgrass in
Louisiana that is now being successfully planted in coastal Texas. The advantages of artificial
propagation are more rapid surface stabilization and an immediate vegetation cover. Seven types
of propagules are available for marsh vegetation establishment: seeds, rootstocks, rhizomes,
tubers, cuttings, seedlings, and transplants (sprigs). By far the most commonly used in marsh
establishment is transplanted sprigs.
5.16.4.1 Factors influencing design. The successful establishment of a planned marsh requires
careful project design and implementation. Each site exhibits its own peculiarities and must be
approached individually. In any marsh design, a number of site-specific factors are significant; the
most important are salinity, tidal range, flood stages, soil texture, wave and wind action,
contaminant tolerance, outside influences, and cost. It is important to note that four overall factors
are crucial for wetland restoration or creation: adequate hydrology, geomorphology, hydrophytic
vegetation, and protection from energy sources (Landin 1995; NRC 1994).
5.16.4.2 Protection. The new substrate must be protected either by location in a low-energy
area or by placement of a protective structure, such as a permanent or temporary dike or breakwater
(Figure 5-15) (Landin, Fowler, and Allen 1994). Low-energy areas are most commonly found in the
lee of beaches, islands, and shoals; in shallow water where wave energies are dissipated; on the
inside downstream side of riverbends; in embankments where marshes presently exist; within zones

5-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
of active deposition; and away from long fetch exposure, tidal channels, uncontrolled inlets, and
headlands. Plants themselves may be used as a protection barrier if more erosion-resistant large
transplants are planted on the outer fringes of the marsh, with or without the use of bioengineering
materials such as fiber matting and geotextiles, with more susceptible but less expensive propagules
such as rootstocks, tubers, and seeds in the interior and high marsh areas of the site. Young plants
are particularly vulnerable to wildlife feeding and browsing. Herbivores such as Canada geese,
muskrats, nutria, rabbits, goats, sheep, and cattle can and will rapidly destroy a newly planted
marsh. Heavy grazing may even destroy well established and mature marsh communities. Potential
animal depredation should be evaluated for each site and, in extreme cases, should be controlled by
trapping or fencing. On some new marshes, placement of wire mesh over plantings to prevent
goose grazing is essential until the marsh is well established.
5.16.4.3 Plant spacing. Plant spacing is highly site specific and is governed by the quality of
the substrate, type of propagule, length of the growing season, and desired rapidity of plant cover.
Generally, when transplants are used, parallel rows and spacings of 0.3-1 m (1-3.3 ft) are recommended to achieve relatively uniform cover by the end of the second growing season
(Figure 5-16). Planting at about 1 m (3.2 ft) intervals is usually a good compromise between high
costs and full cover. If the cost of transplants is a limiting factor, or if there is no compelling
reason to attain full cover within a short time, then spacing may be greater than 1 m (3.2 ft). If the
site is extremely unstable, subject to heavy wildlife pressures or physical stresses, or if aesthetics
are an immediate concern, more dense plantings of 30 cm (12 in.) spacing may be desirable; or
densely rooted marsh grass matting can be spread and anchored on a site. For example, if Canada
geese are known to use the area heavily, the plants should be spaced closely to encourage the
geese to limit their feeding to the edges of the new marsh. Transplants may be evenly or
randomly spaced; even spacing is more efficient in use of machinery and labor. Other vegetative
propagule types such as rootstocks, rhizomes, and smaller sprigs are handled similarly to
transplants. However, since they grow much slower initially, these propagules should be spaced
more closely. Intervals of 30 cm (12 in.) are recommended for rootstocks and rhizomes, and
30-45 cm (12-18 in.) for smaller sprigs.
5.16.4.4 Diversity. In general, a site planted in a variety of species over a topographic
range, from deepwater to upland areas, is preferred. Exceptions to this are sites where physical
stresses are particularly harsh or stabilization is critical (as on dike slopes), where only one
species can tolerate the conditions, or where quick cover by a vigorous monoplanting, such as
smooth cordgrass at low intertidal elevations, is needed. More typically, variation in site
elevation with respect to water regime necessitates planting the dredged material with at least
two species to obtain both high and low marsh. Species diversity can be used to achieve greater
appeal to a more diverse group of wildlife, to enhance habitat for a target wildlife species, to
control animal depredation by planting a high-value wildlife food species as a sacrifice, to better
ensure site success, and to provide for long-range plant succession at the site by making available
sources of several desirable species. Generally, marshes of about 20% mud flats, 30% vegetation
cover, and 50% open, shallow water are most productive from an ecological standpoint and in
overall fish and wildlife use. It may be necessary to establish the marsh first, then do any clearing
that may be required for a wildlife enhancement objective; but such habitat diversity can often be
accommodated with careful dredged material placement.

5-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. A Floating Tire Breakwater Installed at Gaillard Island, AL, to

Protect Newly Planted Marsh from Moderate Water Energies; Floating
Breakwaters must be Prevented from Breaking Loose into Open Water

b. Filling a Custom-Designed Geotextile Tube with Dredged Material

in Chesapeake Bay, MD, for Erosion Control and Sediment
Stabilization
Figure 5-15. Protective Structures for New Substrate

5-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-16. Transplants at Miller Sands Habitat Development Site, Planted on

1 m (3.3 ft) Centers, at the End of the First Growing Season
5.16.4.5 Plant species selection. The selection of plant species appropriate to the region, to
the site, and to the project objectives is the first step toward vegetation establishment. Success of
the project may hinge upon the species being planted, the propagule types used, and the use of
the plant material by wildlife. The site planner be familiar with nearby marsh plant communities
that occur on similar sites, noting the distribution and relative abundance of species within the
stands. All species should be considered, both dominants and less common species. For example,
smooth cordgrass, because of its large areal extent, has been considered the major marsh species
in the eastern and Gulf coasts of the United States, but other speciessuch as black needlerush,
saltgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, big cordgrass, saltmarsh bulrush, river bulrush, cattails, and
nutsedgesare also easily established and highly productive. Figures 5-17 through 5-20 show
generalized profiles of major marsh plant associations for East and West Coast salt marshes,
brackish marshes, and fresh lake, pond, and river marshes. Selection of a species or mixed group
of species for planting at a particular site should be based upon project goals, location, climate
and microclimate, tolerance, soil, plant growth habits, plant availability, maintenance
requirements, and costs. If a project goal is to establish habitat for target wildlife species, any
plant species known or suspected to be of use for cover, food, resting, or nesting for those species
should be considered. If soil stabilization is a goal, species selection is influenced. If fish nursery
utilization is the primary goal, shallow open water interspersed with emergent marsh is more
desirable. Marsh plant species have varied capacities for stabilization. Their underground root
structure, rate of growth, and season of growth are important; and species with a longer growth
cyclesuch as smooth cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, cattails, tule, and black needlerush
are probably more effective at erosion control than ones such as big cordgrass, saltmarsh bulrush,
and saltgrass with a seasonal cycle.

5-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-17. Sketches of Typical East Coast and Florida Tidal Marshes,
Showing Plant Association and Usual Occurrence in the Marshes

Figure 5-18. Sketches of Typical Pacific Northwest and California

Coast Tidal Marshes, Showing Plant Associations and Usual
Occurrence in the Marshes

5-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-19. Sketches of Typical Brackish Marshes, Showing Plant

Associations and Usual Occurrence in the Marshes

Figure 5-20. Sketches of Typical Lake or Pond and River Freshwater

Marshes, Showing Plant Associations and Usual Occurrence in the
Marshes

5-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.16.4.6 Propagule selection. Once species selection has been completed, more detailed
consideration must be given to the type and availability of plant propagules, the amount of plant
material needed to propagate a site, and the costs. The criteria for selection of propagule types are
similar to the considerations used for selection of plant species: availability and costs, collection
and handling ease, storage ease, planting ease, disease, urgency of need for vegetative cover, and
site elevation.
5.16.4.7 Handling plant material and planting the site. These techniques will generally be
applied by a USACE contractor. Specific handling and planting details for marsh vegetation are
discussed in Environmental Laboratory (1978) and Landin (1978) for seeds and vegetative
propagules such as transplant and rootstock. Appendix D, Plant Materials for Beneficial Use
Sites, provides information on 359 upland and 105 wetland plant species tested in U.S.
waterways that may be planted on dredged material beneficial use sites.
5.16.4.8 Pilot propagation study. In a marsh development project where there are unknown
factors such as seed or sprig collection and planting techniques, effects of animal depredation,
rate of plant spread, heavy metal uptake, or lack of experience in similar projects, it is prudent to
conduct a pilot study. A pilot project is particularly advisable if the project is a large and costly
one. The main purpose of a pilot study is to determine whether the selection plant species and
propagules will grow under conditions found on the site. The study can be conducted in less than
a year, but the test species should be allowed to grow for one full season before conclusions are
drawn. Such a project should be of sufficient size that it accurately reflects future operational
difficulties. Each selected species should be tested against all site conditions, and it may be
advisable to test more than one propagule type, propagation method, planting time, and plant
spacing for each species. The size of the pilot study is limited only by the desired tests, the time
available for such testing, and funding. A simple statistical design permits quantitative evaluation
of the study where prediction of degree of success or failure can be made. The success of these
plants can generally be evaluated by observation of survival. Test plots established should be
evaluated on a regular basis to determine survival and growth, natural plant invasion, erosion,
and animal depredation. Fixed-position photography and observations on a regular basis are also
valuable tools in obtaining a good record of plant success, growth, or dieback.
5.16.4.9 Time of planting. Time of planting is very important, regardless of the propagule
type used. For example, seeds planted before the last frost in the spring may suffer heavy damage, and planting in midsummer may result in heat and drought stress of the seedlings as they
sprout. Vegetative propagules may be planted when the ground is not frozen, and when the day
temperatures average less than 20 C (68 F). With provisions for local climatic extremes and
periods of severe storm or tide activity, propagules are best planted in early spring to midspring.
Along the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coasts, planting is recommended in all
but the summer months. Fall planting, although a horticulturally acceptable practice, is not
recommended for marshes because severe loss of propagules may result from erosion of
sediments from the young root systems before regrowth begins the following spring. To lessen
shock, propagules held in storage inside a nursery or greenhouse should not be planted until
temperatures at the field site are at least as warm as the storage area. Propagules held in shady
areas should be gradually acclimated to sunny conditions to prevent blistering and death of

5-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
leaves. Propagules should also be acclimated to the salinity at the site. For example, if
saltmeadow cordgrass propagules are dug from a donor marsh of 5 ppt salinity to be planted in a
marsh of higher salinity, they could be maintained at 5 ppt until about 4 weeks before planting
when they should be moved to a solution of the same salinity as the accepting marsh. If there is a
large difference of at least 10 ppt, gradual acclimation is necessary.
5.16.4.10 Dredged material (soil) bed preparation and treatment. Initial dredged material
assessment should have revealed certain characteristics of the substrate: texture; salinity; nutrient
level; potentially toxic levels of metals, pesticides, and petroleum products; and other sitespecific characteristics. These characteristics were considerationsused to select species and
propagulesmust also be considered in the preparation of the soil bed and any treatments needed
for planting, such as liming and fertilizing. Actual plot preparation should take place just prior to
planting of the site. Sandy dredged material placement sites often can be graded to achieve
desired slope and elevations; fine-textured material cannot be easily modified once placed.
Dewatered and potentially acidic material may be encountered at higher elevations within the
marsh development site. Modification of the pH of this dewatered material, using some form of
lime, may be necessary if the pH is less than 5.5. Fine-textured dredged material seldom needs
fertilizer as it tends to be rich in nutrients. A positive short-term plant response generally can be
obtained by fertilizing sandy material, and it is usually recommended on highly erosive sites.
However, long-term survival of the site may not be affected by fertilizer applications. In general,
under marsh conditions of periodic inundation, fertilization is not recommended.
5.16.4.11 Plants for dikes and breakwaters. Temporary or permanent dikes or breakwaters
must often be erected to contain fine-textured dredged material. It may be advantageous to
stabilize these with plants to reduce erosion. Representative plants that may be used successfully
on dikes in coastal areas are saltmeadow cordgrass, saltgrass, groundsel tree, marsh elder, common reed, seaside goldenrod, beach panic grass, and coastal Bermuda grass. These are established using agronomic upland practices discussed in Sections V (Upland Habitats) and XI
(Strip Mine Reclamation, Solid Waste Landfill, and Alternative Uses) and in Hammer and
Blackburn (1977); Hunt et al. (1978); Doerr and Landin (1983); and Environmental Laboratory
(1985). Dikes in interior and freshwater areas may be planted with species such as tall fescue,
reed canary grass, giant reed, common reed, common Bermuda grass, and switchgrass. In riverine
freshwater areas, use of willow, alder, birch, and other woody species has been successful as well
as the use of some tule, bulrushes, and cattails. All these species may be seeded, and most are
commercially available.
5.16.5 Potential problems.
5.16.5.1 Project timing. Dredging and biological calendars frequently do not match. There
are two key items regarding biological scheduling: predictable lead time is necessary to prepare
some propagule types, and planting is usually best in the spring. Transplants grown in a
greenhouse cannot be held beyond a certain point without greatly increasing costs and weakening
the propagules. Similarly, seeds must be collected when they mature in the field and often will
not remain viable for extended periods of time. Dredging schedules are often variable, particularly so when new placement techniques are being employed. In almost all situations the

5-45

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
dredging schedule will predominate; therefore, it is best not to initiate all planting preparations
until dredging times are assured. In most situations a delay of 4-6 months between completion of
dredging and propagation will be acceptable. If this is not acceptable, the dredging schedule
should be adjusted if possible. Late summer dredging usually results in a site being ready for
propagation in the spring of the following year. It is often not possible to dredge and plant in the
same calendar year as both procedures are subject to time constraints and delays.
5.16.5.2 Contaminant uptake by plants. Metals and chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds
commonly associated with industrial, agricultural, and urban areas may be transferred to marsh
plants from the air, water, or marsh substrate. When contaminated dredged material is used for
marsh development, the potential for contaminant transfer should be considered. This potential
problem is discussed in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
5.16.5.3 Invasion of nonpreferred plant species. In brackish or freshwater marshes, invasion
of unwanted plant species, such as purple loosestrife or common reed, can occur readily if
propagules of those species are already present nearby. The most frequent invader in the Atlantic
and Gulf coast areas, with the exception of south Florida and Texas, is common reed; in
freshwater areas, broadleaf cattails may create dense stands. Although these two species have
value for soil stabilization and wildlife use, they may grow in too dense a stand for maximum
wildlife diversity and, therefore, require control. If the final elevation of a salt marsh substrate is
higher than planned and relatively free of tidal inundation, common reed and more upland species may invade. In northern U.S. fresh marshes, purple loosestrife is developing into a major
pest species. At higher elevations at which tidal inundation still occurs, a high marsh may result
when a low marsh was planned. Once common reed forms dense stands and traps great quantities
of sediment, one of its primary habits, it can be controlled only by three means: herbicides, introduction of sea-strength salinity, and raising or lowering the elevation beyond ranges in which it
can survive. In California and the Pacific Northwest where smooth cordgrass, the best native
species for saltmarsh propagation in the Atlantic and Gulf regions, is not a native and has never
occurred, invasions are displacing native west coast marsh species and mud flats. Smooth cordgrass has found a niche on the Pacific, and can outcompete native species. The primary problem
with this invasion is that the cordgrass has an unknown effect on west coast fisheries and sediment modifications. It can be controlled with difficulty by use of herbicides approved for
intertidal zones, shading with dense black plastics, or excavation to a subtidal zone in which it
cannot survive.
5.16.5.4 Pests and diseases. Wildlife and feral animals of domestic breeds can destroy
newly planted vegetation or retard succession by grazing or trampling. Grazing pressure varies
among regions and situations. Potential control methods include fencing the site to exclude pests,
trapping and removing pests, locating the site at a sufficient distance from pest sources, and
planning the project to avoid a known pest problem. Infestations of harmful pests, such as chewing insects and snails, can cause occasional problems and should be dealt with, if necessary, as
they occur. Pest prevention techniques should be tailored to the site. While plant diseases do
occur among marsh species, healthy stands will generally not become heavily infected. Only in
cases of severe infections should control measures be undertaken, such as the Galveston Bay,
TX, smooth cordgrass plantings, discussed in paragraph 5.16.4.

5-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.16.6 Postpropagation maintenance and monitoring. Monitoring of beneficial use sites is
discussed in detail in Section XIV, Baseline and Monitoring Studies. There are two major
considerations in postpropagation phases of any marsh project: to maintain or not to maintain the
site. Nonmaintenance has the advantage of allowing natural succession to take place once the
initial establishment is ensured and involves no additional expenditures. Disadvantages that
could result from the lack of maintenance include plant invasion by unwanted species,
colonization by undesirable wildlife species, and major changes in site topography from climatic
forces. Monitoring can determine the need for further soil treatment, control for pests, removal of
debris accumulations smothering plants, additional plantings, and determination of site progress
and success.
5.17 Engineering Aspects of Wetland Habitat Development. Field investigations and laboratory
tests required for sediment characterization and substrate design in wetland habitat development,
whether marsh or forested wetland, are similar to those required for design of conventional dredged
material placement areas. The term substrate here refers to the dredged material upon which a
marsh is developed. The elements of substrate design include configuration, elevation, protection,
and retention. Required field investigations and laboratory tests, as they pertain to habitat
development in saltwater or freshwater sites, include channel investigations, site investigations,
bottom topography, evaluation of wave and water energy, and substrate foundation investigations,
including consolidation and sedimentation. More detailed descriptions of certain procedures are
contained in Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978) and Hayes et al. (2000). Engineering
design of substrate for marsh habitat development consists of defining elevation, slope, shape and
orientation, and size (area and volume). The design must provide for placement of the dredged
material within the desired limits and required elevations, allowing for settlement due to
consolidation of dredged material and foundation soils. Adequate surface area or detention time
must be provided for fine-grained sediments to allow settling of suspended solids in order to meet
effluent criteria during construction. Various aspects of substrate design are discussed in
Environmental Laboratory (1978), Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978), and Hayes et al.
(2000). Procedures are equally applicable to both saltwater and freshwater sites.
5.17.1 Elevation control requirements. The most critical aspect of a marsh development
project is usually attainment of a precisely defined, stable elevation. Unconfined substrates
normally developed with coarse-grained dredged material do not undergo significant settlement
due to self-weight consolidation. They may, however, require considerable shaping and shaving
down to reach an intertidal level (Figure 5-21) although settlements due to consolidation of
compressible foundation soils do occur. Confined substrates are normally developed with finegrained dredged material, and significant settlements of confined substrates may occur due to
self-weight consolidation. One-time construction of confined substrates presents the most critical
requirement of prediction of settlements since the initial placement of dredged material must be
such that a final elevation within acceptable limits is achieved (Figure 5-22). Since the substrate
surface cannot be raised by later placement of additional material, the design must include predictions of settlement to be expected. A computer program within ADDAMS (paragraph 2.6.4)
has been designed to aid with these predictions and calculations. In incremental construction, the
substrate surface elevation is raised by supplemental placement of dredged material, and an exact
prediction of settlement for initial layers is not required. Field experience gained by observation

5-47

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
of settlement behavior of the initial dredged material layer may be used to aid in prediction of
settlement of subsequent layers.

Figure 5-21. Heavy Equipment was Required to Shave Down Sandy Dredged
Material Deposits to Intertidal Levels at Bolivar Peninsula, TX, and at Other
Man-Made Wetland Sites

Figure 5-22. Dredged Material Substrate Surface Elevations Versus Time

5.17.2 Design for sedimentation. Confined substrates composed of fine-grained dredged
material must be designed for retention of the solids by gravity sedimentation during the dredging operation. Design for sedimentation is directly affected by the size of the containment (area

5-48

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
and volume), inflow rate (a function of the dredge size), operational conditions, physical properties of the sediment, and salinity of the dredging environment. Design procedures are available
that provide for determination of the surface area or detention time required to accommodate
continuous dredged material placement. Factors influencing hydraulic efficiency of the substrate
containment must also be evaluated, including effects of short-circuiting, ponding depth, weir
placement, and shape of the containment. If the substrate containment does not provide for adequate sedimentation within the project constraints, it may be possible to increase the substrate
containment size, decrease the placement rate by using a smaller dredge, or increase settling time
by using intermittent operations.
5.17.3 Weir design. Retention structures used for confined substrates must provide a means
to release carrier water from the placement site. This is best accomplished by placing a weir
structure within the substrate containment. The weir structure must be designed to provide the
capability of selective withdrawal of the clarified upper layer of ponded water within the
containment without excessive resuspension and withdrawal of the settled solids. Weir design is
based on the assumption that sufficient surface area or detention time has been provided for
sedimentation and that short-circuiting is not excessive. Weir design procedures are described in
Walski and Schroeder (1978) and Hayes et al. (2000).
5.17.4 Requirements for retention and protection. Site hydraulics and sediment properties
determine the need for retention and protective structures at marsh development sites. These sites
may require structural protection from erosion caused by currents, waves, or tidal action. A
retaining structure may also be required to retain the dredged material until it consolidates and to
control the migration of suspended fines. The first step in the selection of a retention or
protective structure is to validate the requirement for such a structure (Landin, Fowler, and Allen
1994). Particular concern should be given to the effects of any proposed structure on current or
wave patterns. Structures that may constrict water flow and increase local current velocities or
reflect wave energy may increase erosion. Much of the engineering discussion in this part is
detailed in Eckert, Giles, and Smith (1978). The relationships between erosion, transportation,
and deposition velocities and the sediment grain size are summarized in Figure 5-23. Values are
based on velocities measured 15 cm (6 in.) above the bottom of a sediment.
5.17.5 Structure selection considerations. Considerations in containment structure selection
include the dredged material to be retained or protected, maximum height of dredged material
above firm bottom, required degree of protection from waves and currents, permanence of the
structure, foundation conditions at the site, and availability of structure material (Chasten et al.
1993). These considerations determine feasibility of a structure in relation to the project goal, the
likelihood that the structure can be maintained over its useful life, and the total cost of the
structure. These factors are site-critical and require engineering site data. Several retention and
protective structure types are considered technically feasible for use in marsh habitat
development and are illustrated in Figure 5-24. On the Gaillard Island CDF, the Mobile District
has used a technique where geotextile fabric was laid from land seaward, overlain with riprap,
then the seaward fabric end was overlapped back toward the land, and subsequently covered with
riprap. This method allowed wave action to undermine the fabric-wrapped riprap and cause it to
drop down and create a vertical wall of fabric-enclosed riprap that had been successfully

5-49

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
demonstrated to provide toe protection for the riprap dikes. Two types of structures are likely to
be used in habitat development projects: sand dikes and fabric bags and tubes (Landin, Fowler,
and Allen 1994; Davis and Landin 1997).

Figure 5-23. Erosion-Deposition Criteria for Different Grain Sizes

5.17.6 Design considerations.
5.17.6.1 Final elevation of the substrate must be considered in the site design. The first step is
to establish the desired elevation of the proposed marsh. Anticipated foundation and fill
consolidation to obtain maximum fill level, maximum ponding level, and theoretical maximum
dike height of structure include any additional freeboard that may be necessary to prevent overtopping. Allowances for retention structure settlement must also be considered. In the design of
containment structures, all the water and earth pressure forces acting on the structure must be
considered as well as any surcharge that is anticipated during construction or in later use. New
substrate that requires a retaining structure is generally composed of soft clays and silts, which
remain in a slurry state for a significant period after placement. A fluid pressure loading may be

5-50

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
exerted on the retaining structure until the substrate begins to consolidate and develop shear
strength.

Figure 5-24. Retention and Protective Structures (from Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978)
5.17.6.2 Wind wave characteristicssuch as height, period, direction, and the probability
of occurrencecan be found using locally collected data and hindcasting methods. Subsurface
runup can have a very detrimental effect on frontal edges of marshes and wetlands (Davis and
5-51

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Landin 1997). At sites where wind waves appear to be a major consideration, early recognition of
that fact may permit relocation or shifting of the site to reduce the open-water fetch in the
predominant wind direction, thus limiting the maximum wind-generated wave. In shallow back
bays and estuaries, water depth frequently limits the growth of wind waves (Eckert, Giles, and
Smith 1978).
5.17.6.3 Ship-generated waves may also be a major cause of erosion along the edges of
marshes. Wave measurements properly timed to ship traffic at the dike site allow establishment
of a design value. Erosion and scour cause the removal of soil particles by water action above
and below normal water surfaces; they can cause structural failure and must be guarded against
by properly designed protective structures. The erosive ability of water waves and currents at a
potential placement site must be considered in the selection and design of a retaining structure
and its foundation. Erosion can be minimized by proper location and orientation of the
retention/protective structure. Locating the site in a low-energy environment is the ideal solution
and a must in many areas. Flattening the outer slopes of the fill or dike reduces turbulence and
scour. Streamlining the upstream face of the fill also lessens erosion. Vegetation may be used to
stabilize the dike and reduce erosion. Protection of inner and outer surfaces by the use of
geotextiles, filter cloth, revetment, or antiscour blankets of rubble may be required in higher
energy situations. Protection created by geotextile or rubble breakwaters or floating wave attenuating devices is also possible, but it may not be as enduring nor as economically feasible
(Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978; Hayes et al. 2000; Davis and Landin 1997).
5.17.6.4 In riverine environments, an important consideration in determining water velocity
must be the effect the fill placement will have on altering the flow conditions. When the fill
decreases the cross-sectional area of a channel, there are resulting increases in flow velocities
and/or water surface elevations. These should be estimated and used to evaluate the erosion and
scour potential. Foundation stability, stress, settlement, and seepage forces and piping are also
important considerations in site design (Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978; Palermo, Montgomery,
and Poindexter 1978) (Figure 5-25) as well as wave and current conditions, tidal range, water
depth, bottom conditions, and distance from the dredging site (Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978).
Construction techniques and control of these structures are discussed at length in Eckert, Giles,
and Smith (1978) and Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978).
5.17.7 Weir structures. Weir structures are required for release of water during and after the
filling operations and should be considered an integral part of the retention/protective structure.
Weirs should be well- anchored and collared. Two basic types of weirs are the drop inlet and the
box. The drop inlet weir is most commonly used in USACE confined placement operations. The
structure consists of a half-cylinder corrugated metal pipe riser equipped with a gate of several
stop logs or flashboards that serve as a variable height weir. They can be added or removed as
necessary to control flow into and out of the containment area. A discharge pipe leads from the
base of the riser through the dike to the exterior. The box weir consists of an open cut through the
entire dike section. The cut is usually lined with timber but could be lined with concrete or steel.
Box sluices also use stop logs for controlling drainage. While box sluices are not often employed,
they are capable of rapidly discharging large volumes of water. This feature could prove
advantageous in marsh establishment since natural water level fluctuations throughout the

5-52

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-25. Examples of Typical Slope Failures (from Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978)

5-53

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
containment area may be necessary during construction and are essential to the natural operation
of the new marsh. Additional information regarding weir design, construction, and operation can
be found in Hammer and Blackburn (1977); Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978);
Walski and Schroeder (1978), and Hayes et al. (2000).
5.17.8 Dredged material placement operations. Material may be placed within the
placement site using either hydraulic or mechanical methods. The hydraulic pipeline dredge is by
far the most commonly used method and provides the major source of material to be used for
marsh establishment. Pipeline length can be extended to several miles with the addition of intermediate booster pumps, but at a substantial additional cost (Environmental Laboratory 1978).
Bucket-loaded scows can be unloaded by direct pumpout with hydraulic unloaders (Figure 2-34).
The pipeline dredge can place material in shallow-water areas through the use of shore lines or
shallow-draft floating pipelines. Detailed information on obtaining selected dredged material for
dike construction, operations for placement of the material, movement of pipelines in shallowwater areas and on the shoreline, energy dissipaters, operational guidelines, and the influence of
dredged material placement on structures is presented in Environmental Laboratory (1978).
5.17.9 Management activities for confined substrate placement. Placement of dredged
material within a confined area is identical to placement in any other containment area. Certain
management activities are, therefore, necessary to ensure that suspended solids are retained
within the area and that effluent quality is maintained (Bartos 1977b; Palermo, Montgomery, and
Poindexter 1978). Surface water can be managed by controlling the elevation of the outlet weir(s)
throughout the operation to regulate the depth of water ponded within the containment area.
Proper management of surface water is required to ensure containment area efficiency and can
provide a means for access by boat or barge to the containment area interior. At the beginning of
the placement operation, the outlet weir is set at a predetermined elevation to ensure that the
ponded water will be deep enough for settling as the containment area is being filled. As the
operation begins, slurry is pumped into the area; no effluent is released until the water level
reaches the weir crest elevation. Effluent is then released from the area at about the same rate as
slurry is pumped into it. Thereafter, the ponding depth decreases as the thickness of the dredged
material deposit increases. After completion of the placement operation and of the activities
requiring ponded water, the water is allowed to fluctuate with the tides through the existing weir
structure. Use of the ponded water for floating the pipeline within the containment area can be of
benefit to general containment area management by greatly facilitating the movement of the inlet
point without disruption of the dredging operation. The floating inlet allows selective placement
of coarse-grained material behind the retention structure or at desired mounding locations within
the substrate. Once the substrate has achieved the desired degree of stability and after careful
consideration of the erosion potential of such an action, the weirs or retention structure may be
breached to allow natural water circulation throughout the substrate area.
5.18 Wooded Wetland Habitats. In contrast to the numerous marsh development examples, case
studies, and research projects, far fewer examples and studies of development of wet woodlands
on dredged material have been researched or field implemented. Landin (1982) developed guidelines and drew restoration plans for bottomland hardwood sites and floodplain islands, and Hayes
et al. (2000) discuss such projects and designs at great lengths. Guidelines are not available for

5-54

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
bald cypress/tupelo gum swamps nor for northern woody bogs, types of wooded wetlands
commonly encountered by the USACE. In general, dredging operations and placement sites are
carefully steered away from wooded wetlands, and wooded wetland habitat development has
been infrequent. Many of the factors discussed in detail for using dredged material to construct
and maintain marsh development apply to wooded wetlands and, therefore, are not repeated here.
5.18.1 Considerations. There are several considerations to development of wooded
wetlands on a placement site. First and foremost is the fact that the site will be lost for all future
placement operations as a forested site requires more than 100 years, in many cases, to mature
and provide optimum habitat. However, for one-time placement operations in areas where forest
and natural spaces are desired, wooded wetlands may be the solution for beneficial uses. Other
considerations include costs and the habitat needs within a region. For example, a moderately
contaminated placement site \unsuitable for herbaceous species that may be eaten by geese or
other waterfowl can be planted in trees, which take decades to grow to maturity. This passage of
time helps deflect any problems of uptake and consumption, and provides a safer habitat solution
to the need for wetlands in a region.
5.18.2 Advantages. Wooded wetland development as a placement alternative has several
distinct advantages:
a. Improved public acceptance.
b. Restoration/creation of biologically desirable habitats.
c. Long-term improvements to marginal soil/sediment sites.
d. Elimination of problem areas.
e. Extensive root systems hold soil.
5.18.3 Disadvantages. There are also a number of disadvantages to wooded wetland
development as a placement alternative:
a. Incompatibility with subsequent placement.
b. Loss of placement site for future use.
c. Planting costs.
d. Root penetration.
5.18.4 Maintenance. Once a placement site has been planted in woody species seeds or
seedlings (transplants), survival in a wet environment may be difficult. Many species of trees and
shrubs evolved with fluctuating water levels and, therefore, must have these conditions for longterm survival. No tree or shrub species germinates naturally in standing water; there must be a
mud flat on which seeds can germinate. For example, one of the reasons that natural even-age
stands of bald cypress and black willows can be seen on sites is because they all germinated in
5-55

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the same very dry year when water levels were low. However, extended flooding on small
seedlings may drown most or all of them, and a site may require replanting. Certain woody
speciessuch as willows, Nuttall oaks, bald cypress, and tupelo gumscan tolerate several
months of inundation by turbid water and recover in riverine conditions. Once seedlings reach a
height that extends above most floods and have a root system capable of storing enough oxygen
to withstand long inundation, maintenance is minimal. An estimated 5-10 years is needed to
observe and essentially manage the site as a young tree nursery to ensure its long-term survival
and to guide its ultimate forest community.
5.19 Guidelines for Wooded Wetland Development.
5.19.1 Selection of wooded wetland type. Most trees and shrubs grow in communities that
include numerous invader species, secondary species, climax species, understory shrubs and
small trees, vines, and forest floor species. It is impossible to replicate all of these in a man-made
situation, including on a dredged material placement site.
5.19.1.1 Natural colonization. Almost all of the forest wetland dredged material examples
in the United States are from natural colonization, where the dredged material was placed and
then left to develop on its own. Under such conditions, the elevation at which the dredged material was left as well as the quality, quantities, and fluctuations of the water are absolutely critical
in determining what plant community will ultimately grow on the site. For example, sand and
gravel dredged material deposits in the lower west Pearl River, on the northern Gulf coast
between Mississippi and Louisiana, colonized with typical, healthy bottomland hardwood forests
after material was placed there in 1955 (Landin 1993). Elevations of mounds of material were
moderated by seasonal flooding, and the flooding influenced which hardwood species and
understory colonized and ultimately survived on the numerous sites along the riverbanks. In
contrast, at Pointe Mouillee in Lake Erie, cells within the confined island constructed in 1980
colonized densely with black willows and shrubby species and still remained at that stage in the
late 1990s (Landin 1993). Young trees were then approximately 15-20 years of age, but they
already supported colonies of nesting wading birds. Still more distinct and different, at
Kenilworth Marsh in Washington, DC (Landin 1993), a wooded wetland community once
existed, and dredged material was used to bring the degraded subtidal site back to a planted
emergent marsh in 1993. The forest community has started to reclaim the site naturally since the
optimum elevation has been provided for woody seeds to germinate and survive. Attempts to
plant such woody communities would not be nearly as successful as the natural colonization
process.
5.19.1.2 Types of wooded wetlands. Throughout the United States, wooded wetlands on
dredged material deposits occur under numerous conditions. In the Columbia River system, low
islands are colonized with alders, birches, willows, and other shrubs, and such conditions, if
planting is desired on a site, should be replicated as much as possible. In the southern United
States, along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, wooded wetlands on dredged material generally are
either intertidal forests and swamps, well protected with very low daily freshwater tidal
fluctuations, or shrub communities fringing or interspersed with emergent marshes. Of these two
distinct types, the fringing shrub communities can more easily be propagated successfully

5-56

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
through the introduction of seeds or seedlings of selected species, with the emergent marsh
serving as a nurse crop for the young woody plants. There are very limited or no examples of
northern U.S. coastal or New England woody communities on dredged material, but many of the
large confined placement facilities in the Great Lakes are colonizing with typical hydrophytic and
moist forest tree and shrub species over time.
5.19.2 Design of wooded wetland type. For an engineer, the design of a placement site that
will be planted or allowed to colonize as a shrub and tree community is essentially the same as
for a marsh community. Once the material has been placed and dewatered, however, it is
essential that either the containment dikes be modified or the weir be actively maintained long
after the placement operation is completed to provide the proper hydrology for the site. In this
case, the dike and/or weir serves as a long-term water controlling structure; and if the plant
community that is desired is one that survives and grows under fluctuating water levels, it may be
necessary to maintain a weir system that can be actively managed over the course of time to
allow these fluctuations to occur. Since a placement site will be taken out of active use when
planted or allowed to colonize in shrubs and trees, active management of the site is harder to
justify under USACE mandates from a cost or navigation standpoint. Therefore, seeking natural
resource partners who will assume responsibility and management of forested wetlands on
dredged material sites is encouraged.
5.19.2.1 Location. A forested wetland on dredged material can be located anywhere in U.S.
waterways where forested wetlands occur (essentially anywhere, including Alaska). That said,
such sites should be protected from wind and wave energies, at least initially, but not from
seasonal flooding. Certain typessuch as bottomland hardwoods, riverine swamps, and buttonbush flatsshould not be exposed to long wind fetches. However, stream and lake/reservoir
bank speciessuch as willows, alders, and birchescan grow very well under exposure
conditions once established and can be used to hold dredged material deposits in fresh water
along reservoir and river banks. Forested sites generally thrive best in at least semiprotected
conditions.
5.19.2.2 Elevation and soil. Elevation determines what the plant community will be,
initially with invader and secondary species and ultimately with climax forest species. The type
of dredged material (sand, silt, clays and mixtures of these) also plays an important but subtle
role in determining the final plant community and should be considered. For example, a heavy
clay dredged material will colonize with or grow such species as buttonbush and spicebush, and a
sandy dredged material site will grow almost any woody species adapted to the elevation and the
geographical region once it begins to trap fines overlying the sand, but sandy deposits that
function like natural sandbars and do not trap fines will grow distinct communities of such
species as hackberry, sugarberry, and American elm.
5.19.2.3 Orientation, size, and shape. Forested dredged material sites can be of any
orientation and shape as long as elevation and hydrology are correct, and some protection is
provided from wind and wave energies. Examples of successful woody dredged material sites
range from less than 0.1 ha to more than 10 ha in size, and from in-stream dredged material
wetland islands to fully protected back channel intertidal swamps.

5-57

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.19.2.4 Multiple communities. Often, dredged material sites that either colonize with or
are planted in woody species are not just wetlands but contain significant portions of the site as
upland and transition zone areas. A highly successful example of these multiple-habitat dredged
material sites is in the intertidal freshwater zone of the Hudson River between Troy and West
Point, NY, where decades of dredged material deposits were sidecast onto river islands. These
deposits are now growing, depending on elevation and hydrology, in wet shrub communities
interspersed with emergent marsh, transition zone forest where species tolerate wet feet or
upland forest with trees of as much as 50-90 cm (20-35 in.) diameter breast height (dbh).
5.19.3 Reevaluation and construction. These procedures are very similar in protocol,
process, and planning steps to those for marsh development.
5.19.4 Vegetation establishment.
5.19.4.1 Woody plant communities on dredged material can occur through natural
colonization or by initial planting of selected species. This can include introduction via seeds or
seedlings of climax species early in the successional process to hasten maturity of the forest. For
example, acorns and nuts of hardwood mast species should be planted on a site as soon as possible if that is the desired climax forest. These young seeds and seedlings can be planted within a
nurse crop of herbaceous forbs and grasses for protection. The reason for early introduction of
climax species to the dredged material site is that studies have found that once a disturbed site is
left alone, the successional process of colonization by initial invaders to initial colonization of
climax forest species may be 30-50 years. Even with careful planting, it is often very difficult to
get climax species to survive under initial conditions due to many factors. Some of these include
lack of soil mycorrhizae to assist root growth and nutrient uptake, heat buildup in soil
unprotected by shade, long spring flooding periods that drown young seedlings, summer and fall
droughty conditions that stress young plants, lack of adequate nutrients, and a number of other
factors unique to new wet forest sites.
5.19.4.2 In addition, a number of exotic forest speciessuch as Australian pine, Chinese
tallow tree, Brazilian pepper, and malaleucahave been introduced into the United States. These
species, which are problems in the southern United States, colonize dredged material readily and
may require control to allow room for and encourage growth of native species. In coastal Louisiana
Chinese tallow tree is displacing black willows in some wetland areas, and they can survive as far
north as Tennessee. The other three species are more typical of Florida and south Texas, but they
can be extremely troublesome in natural and man-made wetlands. Malaleuca, especially, has
invaded the Florida Everglades National Park and surrounding areas, and it is displacing native
trees and shrubs. All of these species can and will grow by colonization on dredged material islands
and fringes. Control is drastic and not very successful. Chemical herbicide injection has limited
success, and controlled burns have no real long-term success. Changes in elevation and hydrology
also have little effect because all four species also grow in uplands as well as wetlands. Although
none can tolerate sea-strength salinity, neither can any native U.S. forest species.
5.19.4.3 The advantages of natural colonization are the low costs and the provision of a
diverse plant community. The disadvantages include invasion by exotics, as noted in the previous
paragraph, and slow growth and maturity measured in decades.
5-58

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Factors influencing design. The same four critical factors for emergent marshes apply to
forested wetlands on dredged material: hydrology, geomorphology, hydrophytic vegetation, and
protection from wind and wave energy. Site-specific factors to consider include salinity and tides,
flood seasonality and endurance, soil texture and depth, contaminant tolerance, outside
influences on the site, surrounding land uses, and costs.
b. Protection. The newly planted or colonizing forested site may require a nurse crop to
provide protection from browsers and grazers, and from wind; it may also require some shade to
tender stems, lower ground temperatures on root systems, and green manure for the growing trees
and shrubs. Fencing off dredged material sites growing in woody species may also be required to
keep out the deer, rabbits, beavers, muskrats, and other animals that eat young, tender tree bark,
leaves, and shoots. Keeping such pest species out of sites is a perennial forestry problem, and
ongoing battles of wits between managers and animals occur throughout the United States.
Solutions range from scarecrows, propane-powered cannons, netting, and electric fences to livetrapping programs. Fortunately, all of these are short-term because once the young trees are big
enough to survive on their own (3-10 years), vigilance and protective measures can be lessened.
c. Diversity. A more diverse site is definitely preferable as habitats for woody sites over
monostands of trees, such as those found in softwood plantations. Wetland softwoods, such as
sweet gum and American sycamore, can be and have been planted on dredged material deposits
in monostands, and they have been harvested for pulpwood. However, it is important to identify,
agree on, and follow through on the goals of a project. If a timber company buys or controls
dredged material deposits in riverine or lake areas, it is their prerogative to plant and manage
these sites in softwood plantations. However, in situations such as the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway, where close to 65,000 ha are being managed for wildlife habitat, many of these
forested wetland acres, planting and colonization of the 5,600 ha of dredged material sites there
are for diversity and optimum wildlife habitat.
d. Plant species selection and spacing. As with marshes, wooded wetland species selection
depends on a number of factors: soil texture, elevation, hydrology, goals of the project, costs, and
availability of species and propagules. In general, if habitat is the primary project goal, the more
diverse the plantings are, the better. Likewise, soil stabilization goals need trees and shrubs
capable of holding soil under wet conditions. Pulpwood plantations plant monostands of wetland
trees (sweetgums, eastern cottonwoods, American sycamores, green ash) as their goal because
the managers are trying to maximize production and economics of the dredged material site.
Shrub species should be planted on 3 m (10 ft) spacings. Secondary and small tree species should
be planted on 5 m (16 ft) spacings, and climax forest trees (large trees that will reach 15-40 m
[50-130 ft] in height) should be spaced on 10 m (33 ft) centers. Some will die as they crowd and
compete in the new forest, but that does not matter. In planting a typical bottomland hardwood
restoration project, 400 tree seedlings of oaks and hickories per acre (close to 1,000 per hectare)
is recommended with the full acknowledgment that as they grow and time passes, a number of
these may not survive.
e. Propagule selection and handling plant material. Seeds and seedlings are the only two
available and effective propagules for woody species. Seeds can be harvested in autumn, stored

5-59

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
through winter months, and planted on sites in early spring. Tree and shrub seedlings require
either purchase from a commercial or government tree nursery or collection of seeds in the fall,
growing plants in a nursery setting, then transplanting them onto the dredged material sites. All
of these methods have been field tested, and all work. Often, state forestry workers check on the
same large healthy trees in state forests for years to see if they are producing a good crop of
seeds, then go back and harvest them using shakers and dropcloths spread under the trees in the
autumn. These acorns, hickory nuts, pecans, walnuts, and other seeds are then turned over to state
tree nurseries for planting.
f. Planting the site. As noted in preceding paragraphs, spacings are important with woody
species. Dredged material sites can be planted using either commercial tree planters or by hand
with dibbles and mallets. If a site is very wet or the soil is soft (fine-grained), planting by hand is
more efficient. This is a fast operation; a 10-member commercial tree planting team, such as
those employed by timber companies and tree farmers, can transplant as many as 50,000
seedlings by hand per day. Machinery can work faster, but the terrain must be suitable.
g. Pilot study. A pilot study for forested wetlands on dredged material is not recommended,
not because there may not be a need or a reason but because of the time involved with planting
woody species and their slower growth rates. However, should a pilot study be desired, it is
possible to plant one or more species of trees or shrubs in test plots on a site and to allow time for
results. There is a need for more research in this area because in planting bottomland hardwood
forests for mitigation on reclaimed marginal agricultural fields, it has been found that larger
transplants with root balls survive much better than do bare root seedlings and that many seeds
can be planted more cheaply than a few transplants, with an assumption that only about one half
(or even less) will germinate and survive. On dredged material sites, especially sandy sites, it has
also been found that bare root woody species do not survive well unless their root systems are
inoculated with mycorrhizae due to the sterility and heat of the sand deposits. Mulches are also
often needed on sandy soils, even in wetland conditions, to provide organic matter and shade to
root systems.
h. Time of planting. Trees and shrubs can be planted any time of year that the ground is not
frozen. However, the best times are in autumn (October-November) or early spring (JanuaryMarch in the southern United States, March-May in the northern United States). This is
especially critical if bare root seedlings are being used because they stress and die readily in heat
and drought. Seeds can be sown any time of year, but best results occur if they are planted in
winter and early spring in the southern United States by pushing them into the soil about 2-5 cm
(0.8-2.0 in.) deep, and in the northern United States using the same technique but planted later in
the spring months.
i. Bed preparation and treatment. It is not necessary to make a thoroughly prepared bed for
transplants if they are being done by hand. In fact, debris and drift on a site help provide wind
buffers and shade, and they distract herbivores from the seedlings. If a mechanical planter is
used, however, the site must be smooth enough for it to transverse the site. Seeds can be planted
by hand or by machine, and the same rules apply. If a site is planted by hand, there is no need to
smooth it. If it is planted by machine, it must be smooth enough for transverse of the equipment.

5-60

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
j. Woody plants for dikes, berms, and levees. Although the USACE discourages planting of
woody species on dikes, berms, and levees used for public safety and flood-control purposes,
woody species are very well suited to such perimeters of dredged material sites when there is no
danger to life. Shallow-rooted tree species with fibrous root mats, such as black willows, thrive
on dikes and berms. So do sweet gums, American sycamore, and similar early colonizer species.
There are several reasons for planting these perimeters with woody species:
(1) Attracting herbivores. Herbivores such as deer, rabbits, beavers, and muskrats find the

planted trees on dikes and berms when they first approach the dredged material site, and their
attention to these buffer/perimeter species may buy valuable time for wooded wetland species
inside the dredged material site.
(2) Holding sediment and preventing dike breaching. Woody species do a much more

efficient job of holding sediment and preventing erosion than do herbaceous species. If a dredged
material dike is providing protection for the habitat being developed within, planting woody
species on that dike will help maintain integrity and protection.
(3) Providing aesthetics and diversity. Forested dikes and berms are much more attractive
from an aesthetic point of view to humans and provide more diversity for wildlife. Often, woody
species will so completely cover a protective dike that viewers are unaware of its presence except
in winter when leaves are shed.

5.19.5 Potential problems. The primary problems with wooded wetlands are not those of
marshes, where dredging and biological windows are critical.
5.19.5.1 Project timing. A dredged material site is not planted with trees and shrubs until it
has dewatered well, and the dredge will have moved on to other projects years before that time.
At that point, it can be treated very much like a typical reforestation project.
5.19.5.2 Contaminant uptake. This is also not a great problem with wooded wetlands and,
in fact, it is encouraged on sites where there are known contaminants. The use of tree and shrub
species that do not take up contaminants into their trunks and leaves makes an ideal cover for
moderately contaminated soils. A danger may lie in planting species that attract wildlife to feed
on plant parts that may take up substances such as heavy metals. However, there has never been
any research or data to indicate that this is a problem.
5.19.5.3 Invasion of pest species. In the southern United States, where invading exotic trees
and shrubs have colonized and proliferated, this is a real danger. In some locations, such as
southern Florida, active and intensive management are required to ensure that only the native
species desired for a dredged material site is what colonizes and survives.
5.19.5.4 Pests and diseases. All forest trees and shrubs have leaf-eating insects and other
species that they have evolved to tolerate. Forest diseases in healthy stands are also not often a
problem, but it should be noted that Dutch elm disease is ravaging American elms, which grow
in wetland soils in river systems and on dredged material in the United States. General

5-61

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
observations of planted and colonized stands on a regular basis should alert managers to any
invasions, at which time standard forestry pest control practices should be applied.
5.19.5.5 Postpropagation maintenance and monitoring. Maintenance of woody sites
growing on dredged material should not be an intensive requirement unless young seedlings
drown or are eaten by herbivores, and require replanting again and again (precedents are noted
for this). Monitoring should be planned and scheduled to carry through at least 10 years after
planting, so that survival of the young trees and shrubs can be ensured for at least that long. A
wooded wetland growing on dredged material does not mature for decades, but few monitoring
programs can or will be in place for the length of time it takes for species to reach maturity. One
of the rare exceptions to this is a site that was planted by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
on its disturbed land around reservoirs at Land Between The Lakes, KY. This was not on dredged
material, per se, but conditions were similar in many ways because the wet constructiondisturbed sites were planting in wetland tree seedlings. Files were kept in TVA archives and
rediscovered more than 70 years later, at which time comparisons and survival rates were
checked. This is the oldest known man-made bottomland hardwood site in the United States, and
it is thriving, but it still has not reached forest maturity. This is one of the study sites of the WRP
(1990-1997).
5.19.5.6 Loss of placement sites for future use. This is such a significant problem that it
is separated for discussion. Where dredged material containment sites are scarce, wooded
wetland habitat is not an option because the site can no longer be used for placement of material.
Where dredged material containment sites are becoming full, but retain some wet characteristics
or can be modified to provide wetland hydrology, planting such sites in woody species is an
attractive alternative.
5.19.6 Engineering aspects for wooded wetlands. Initial engineering techniques for
dredging, placement, shaping, dewatering, and other aspects discussed for marsh development
are the same for wooded wetland sites. Differences come after dewatering and a site is either
being prepared for planting or to allow natural colonization to occur. Engineering aspects here
focus on the installation or active maintenance of the weir, low-head dam, or other structure that
manages the hydrology of the site for optimum wetland tree and shrub growth. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) EM (NRCS 1992) for wetland restoration, creation, and
management is an excellent source of information regarding engineering and biology of
dewatered dredged material sites; it was coauthored by USACE scientists and engineers.
Likewise, the interagency EM, published by NRCS (NRCS 1998), on stream corridor restoration
and management is an excellent guide for riverine dredged material placement site reforestation
and stabilization; it was also coauthored by USACE scientists and engineers. Such cooperative
ventures as multiagency restoration guidance documents has enabled much more restoration to
occur on all types of sites, including dredged material deposits of all ages. Another such
document is planned on herbaceous coastal restoration engineering and biology.

5-62

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Section V
Upland Habitats
5.20 General. Upland habitats encompass a variety of terrestrial communities, ranging from bare
soil to dense forest. In the broadest interpretation, upland habitat occurs on all but the most
disturbed placement sites. For example, a gravelly and bare placement site may provide nest sites
for killdeer or tern species; weedy growth may provide cover for raccoons or a food source for
seed-eating birds; and water collected in desiccation cracks may provide breeding habitat for
mosquitoes. The essential fact is that man-made habitats develop regardless of their management;
however, the application of sound management techniques greatly improves the quality of those
habitats (Smith 1978). A widely used and highly visible upland habitat forest on dredged material
is that on the islands in the intertidal Hudson River north of West Point. Others include higher
zone bottomland hardwoods in the Lower Mississippi Valley, seasonally flooded river islands in
the James River, Mississippi River, and other rivers where a predominance of upland/moist
forest species occur, and at sites such as Riverlands at the junctures of the Missouri, Upper
Mississippi, and Illinois Rivers, where wet prairie, upland forest, and wetland forest are all part
of a large management scheme that includes dredged material placement habitats and islands.
5.21 Upland Habitat Development Considerations. Upland habitat development has potential at
hundreds of placement sites throughout the United States. Its implementation is largely a matter
of the application of well-established agricultural and wildlife management techniques.
5.21.1 Advantages. Upland habitat development as a placement alternative has several
distinct advantages:
a. Adaptability.
b. Improved public acceptance.
c. Creation of biologically desirable habitats.
d. Elimination of problem areas.
e. Low-cost enhancement or mitigation.
f. Compatibility with subsequent placement.
The principles and applications of this alternative are adaptable to virtually any upland placement
situation. Regardless of the condition or location of a placement area, considerable potential
exists to convert it into a more productive habitat. Small sites in densely populated areas may be
keyed to small animals adapted to urban life, such as seed-eating birds and squirrels. Larger tracts
may be managed for a variety of wildlife, including waterfowl, game mammals, and rare or
endangered species. The knowledge that a site will ultimately be developed into a useful area, be
it a residential area, a park, or wildlife habitat, improves public acceptance. Many idle and
undeveloped placement areas that are now sources of local irritation or neglect would directly
benefit from upland development, and such development may well result in more ready

5-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
acceptance of future dredging and placement projects. Upland habitat development usually adds
little to the cost of placement procedures and may involve liming, fertilizing, seeding, and mowing after dewatering. This can be done between scheduled dredging operations if they are on a
3-year or longer rotation. A typical level of effort would be similar to that applied for erosion
control at most construction sites and considerably less than that encountered in levee maintenance. Unless the target habitat is forest, this type of habitat is generally compatible with
subsequent placement operations. In most situations, a desirable herbaceous cover can be produced in one growing season. Subsequent placement simply requires recovery of the lost habitat.
Indeed, the maintenance of a particular vegetation stage may require periodic placement to retard
or set back succession (Soots and Landin 1978; Landin 1992b, 1997c).
5.21.2 Disadvantages. The disadvantages of upland habitat development are potential
public opposition to subsequent placement and possible necessity of long-term management. The
development of a biologically productive area at a given site may discourage subsequent placement or modification of land use at that site. This problem could be avoided by the clear identification of future plans prior to habitat development or by the establishment and maintenance of
biological communities recognized as being most productive in the earlier stages of succession.
In the latter case, subsequent placement may be a necessary management tool. Some habitat types
require management. For example, if annual plants such as corn or winter wheat are selected for
establishment for wildlife foods, then yearly planting will be necessary. If the intent is to
maintain a grassland or open-field habitat, it may be necessary to mow the area every 2 to 5 years
to retard woody vegetation. In most cases, it is possible to establish very low maintenance
habitats, but if the intent is to establish and perpetuate a given habitat type, long-term
management is essential and may be expensive.
5.22 Guidelines for Upland Development.
5.22.1 Upland habitat needs and assessments. Those upland habitats in limited supply
should be identified and the opportunity for additional habitat assessed. Public attitudes are of
particular consequence in the implementation of this alternative, and public opinion should be
actively sought. Site selection should be made with a particular target habitat in mind as the
importance of other habitats is greatly influenced by the needs and attributes of the surrounding
area. The chemical and physical properties and the relative quantities of different types of
dredged material should be evaluated to determine the characteristics of the soil to be used in the
habitat development. Several remedial treatments are possible. For example, it may be possible
to improve the agricultural characteristics of the surface layer by topdressing the site with
material selected for its agronomic characteristics. It may also be possible to bury a problem
upland soil such as USEPA-recognized brownfields by capping it with a layer of clean material.
5.22.2 Planning and design.
5.22.2.1 Assuming that upland habitat development has been selected as a placement
alternative or as an enhancement measure, habitat planning and design guidelines are indicated in
Figure 5-26. The criteria listed under site considerations are applicable regardless of whether the
site is a new or previously used placement area. Local needs, and thus target wildlife species, will
be determined primarily by the desires of state wildlife agencies and those of the public. These
5-64

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
needs are likely to reflect local perception of the value of wildlife. If the area has a strong hunting
tradition, the emphasis may be on game animals. An example is the state wildlife management
areas developed by joint effort of the USACE and the States of Mississippi and Alabama on
5,600 ha of dredged material placement sites in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. These
sites, both upland and wetland, are being managed almost exclusively for hunting and fishing
although there is also considerable interest on nongame and passive recreational uses as well
(Hartley 1988). If there is strong agency concern for an endangered species, that may be the
emphasis. In many cases, a target species per se will not be identified. Rather, a grouping such as
songbirds or small game will be designated. The list of target species must be evaluated in
light of the available habitat surrounding the site and the size of the placement site. The size of a
placement area is seldom large enough to exert a significant impact on regional animal
populations if it only duplicates existing habitat types. Therefore, the success of the site is usually
determined by its ability to enhance surrounding habitats or remedy limiting environmental
factors.

Figure 5-26. Guidelines for Selecting an Upland Habitat Development Alternative

5-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.22.2.2 Basic management decisions depend on the type of placement and future plans at
the site. If one-time placement with periodic maintenance is planned, the management plan may
be quite flexible. One-time placement without management indicates the need to establish a plant
community that is relatively self-sustaining. If periodic placement is planned, plant communities
that are rapidly functional are advised. Properly planned, periodic placement could be considered
a wildlife management option used to control succession or diversify the habitat and avoid
confrontation regarding subsequent activities. Future plans for any habitat development site
should be well documented and understood by interested agencies and the public prior to
implementation.
5.22.2.3 Soil treatment and plant selection are closely related and can proceed after
determination of the type of placement, identification of the characteristics of the dredged
material, and determination of target species have been completed. Soil treatment may include a
variety of activities, such as burying problem materials, dewatering, mixing materials to obtain
improved soil characteristics, leaching, fertilization, and liming (Figure 5-27). Plant selection is
dictated by soil conditions and habitat preferences. In many situations it is possible to identify
highly desirable natural plant communities near the placement area. Development of site
conditions (soil, elevation, diversity) on dredged material that are similar to those of desirable
plant communities encourages natural invasion and natural development of similar communities.
When this is possible, a considerable savings in planting and maintenance costs may be realized.

Figure 5-27. Liming and Mixing Layers of Silty and Sandy Dredged Material at
Nott Island Upland Site, Connecticut River, CT, in the 1970s; This Site has been a
Nesting Meadow and Songbird Habitat for More than 25 Years

5-66

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.22.3 Reevaluation and implementation. If, upon reevaluation, the upland habitat
development alternative remains feasible, the project may be implemented and subsequently
maintained. Implementation is highly site specific but should present few difficulties beyond the
problems typically encountered in contracting new or unusual work. Advice from local wildlife
biologists, soil scientists, and experts experienced in working with such projects may prove
invaluable in this stage.
5.23 Upland Site Development.
5.23.1 Site selection. Two types of upland habitat development sites have potential
beneficial use: older, existing sites where habitat development and enhancement occurred and
planned sites where upland habitat development is part of the project goal. In both cases, several
factors determine selection of the best possible site: availability, placement need capacity,
proximity to the dredging area, physical and engineering characteristics, environmental and
social acceptability, tidal and current considerations, and habitat development feasibility.
5.23.2 Site characterization. After the upland placement site has been selected for
development, field and laboratory investigations of the site and related areas should be initiated.
If the site is an older placement area to be reclaimed, it and the surrounding area should be
evaluated physically and biologically to assess its potential for habitat development and determine necessary action. If dredging and placement operations are involved, it is necessary to add
information related to the capacity of the site, need for and design of a protective or retention
structure, and construction details. This information should be collected in conjunction with
characterization of the sediments to be dredged. Physical, biological, socioeconomic, and
engineering tests should be made to determine site suitability (Hunt et al. 1978; Palermo,
Montgomery, and Poindexter 1978; Landin 1997c) and acceptance. Target wildlife species
should be identified, and other upland objectives, such as site stability and multiple habitat use,
should be considered.
5.23.3 Vegetation establishment. Since upland habitat is developed primarily for wildlife
and less often for erosion control, it is important to key in on target species that will use the
placement site. An excellent example is the Nott Island site in the Connecticut River, CT, where
a mixture of grasses and legumes was planted as a nesting and grazing meadow for waterfowl,
deer, and small mammals (Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989) (Figure 5-28). Although an
animals habitat consists of a wide variety of components, vegetation is by far the most
important. Vegetation growth form, height, density, placement, diversity or uniformity, seasonal
changes, biomass, and hardiness strongly influence species composition, abundance, and wellbeing of wildlife. Secondary objectives of recreation, aesthetics, erosion control, and soil quality
also depend in part on vegetation. These relationships make it necessary to begin consideration of
the ultimate vegetation of the site early in the planning process. Three methods of upland
vegetation establishment exist: allowing natural plant invasion and establishment, planting
selected species, and combining natural establishment with planned propagation.

5-67

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-28. Nott Island Habitat Development Site, Showing the Planted Nesting and
Grazing Meadow as it has Appeared Since 1981
5.23.3.1 Natural invasion and establishment. The ability of propagules to reach the upland
site is the most important factor in describing the potential for natural colonization on dredged
material. This ability increases as the distance from a propagule source decreases and as the size
of the site and ease with which the propagule can be transported increase. Propagules may be
transported over a distance by wind or water; by attaching themselves to an animals fur,
feathers, or feet; by being ingested and excreted by an animal; or by attaching to a human.
Secondary factors in the potential for natural colonization include physical and biological features of the site itself. Plants growing and reproducing on the site will reestablish after deposition
of dredged material if the deposit was not too thick and if new substrate conditions are not
prohibitive. Plants growing and reproducing near the area will establish only if seeds blow or are
carried onto the site, if rhizomes or other vegetative reproduction forms extend onto the site, and
if the new substrate conditions are not prohibitive.
5.23.3.2 Planting selected species. Standard practices in agronomy are usually sufficient to
handle plant propagation on upland sites. With appropriate planning and management, any site
can be vegetated within a few years and most sites within a year. Planting upland sites ensures
that desirable vegetation grows there, that substrates stabilize rapidly, and that aesthetic appearances of placement sites improve faster. The chief disadvantage over natural invasion is the cost
involved with site preparation and plant propagation and establishment.
5.23.3.3 Combining natural establishment and planting. A combination of the two methods
of vegetation establishment may be beneficial: allow invasion to stabilize the substrate and start
5-68

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
modifying the sediments, then plant a different type of vegetation when the season or timing or
soil conditions are more suitable. The reverse is also possible: to get immediate benefits of
selected plantings, plant the site, then allow the site to proceed in natural successional stages. In
addition, use of subsequent dredged material placement to set back vegetation succession to a
more desirable stage is possible.
5.23.4 Selecting plant species and propagule type.
5.23.4.1 Selecting plant species.
a. If the site is to be planted, advance consideration must be given to the plant species that
will create the desired habitat for the target wildlife species. An initial selection of species should
be made during the planning phase even though once the site is established, alternate species may
prove to be more acceptable and be substituted for those originally selected (Landin 1978).
Numerous species are suitable for planting upland dredged material sites (Landin 1978). Coastal
Zone Resources Division (1978) identifies, by state, 250 species or species groups that are of
benefit to wildlife and adapted to grow on dredged material, and it presents species growth
characteristics, habitat requirements, ranges, and tolerances of 100 of these. Lee, Sturgis, and
Landin (1976) identify 50 species generally useful for dewatering and decontaminating dredged
material; Mann et al. (1975) give growth characteristics of many tree and shrub species suitable
for confined upland placement areas; and Coastal Zone Resources Corporation (1976), Landin
(1978), and Soots and Landin (1978) summarize data on plants known to grow on dredged
material sites. Further information on both upland and wetland species that grow well on dredged
material is given in Environmental Laboratory (1985) and Thunhorst (1993). Appendix E,
Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Mentioned in this Manual, and Landin
(1978) provide tabular information on numerous upland and wetland species and how to
propagate them.
b. Other species of more local character are available, and many species with unknown
tolerances and adaptability may prove useful after field testing. The NRCS is able to provide
updated information on species and new varieties. Selection of species or species mixtures to be
planted at a particular placement site must consider project goals, climate, substrate
characteristics, plant species characteristics, plant species availability, ease of propagation,
management requirements, and costs. Certain species mixtures, such as a nitrogen-fixing legume
and a grass species, are commonly planted to take advantage of the different properties of each
although, occasionally, the mixture is not successful because of interactions among the species or
because the soil is too acidic, infertile, or compacted. Lime is generally required on dewatered
dredged material to raise pH to a level sufficient for optimum plant growth.
5.23.4.2 Selecting propagule type. Hunt et al. (1978) and Landin (1978) give the best
propagule types for selected plant species based on criteria of availability and cost, ease of
collection and handling, ease of storage, ease of planting, occurrence of disease, and need for
rapid vegetation establishment. In general, seeds are cheaper and easier to work with than vegetative propagules such as cuttings, sprigs, or seeding in upland habitats. However, some plant
species and planting situations require vegetative propagulesfor example, to rapidly stabilize

5-69

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the exterior of a sand dike. Often, on dry dredged material, nursery crops or mulches for shade
and organic material additions are essential for survival of the desired plant species.
5.23.4.3 Handling plant material. If commercial seed sources are not available, collection
and storage of wild seeds should follow the guidelines in Hunt et al. (1978). Some desirable
species are available as transplants (potted, balled and burlapped, or bare-rooted nursery stock).
However, many native upland plants that are desirable as long-term cover and food sources for
wildlife are not commercially available for purchase.
5.23.5 Preparing and planting the site.
5.23.5.1 Substrate modification. Once the dredged material has been placed and dewatered
sufficiently to allow equipment access, it can be modified as necessary. Modifications are usually
directed toward preparing the substrate for vegetation establishment, and they depend on the
condition of the substrate and the exact design of the project. In upland habitats, these activities
are largely agronomic, and typical farm equipment can be used.
a. Mechanical modification. The site may require grading to change the topography that
resulted from placementfor example, to make the slope uniform by removing depressions or
mounds, increase relief by making depressions or mounds or altering the slope, make islands, or
raise low spots. Variation in texture of the sediments results either intentionally by placement of
more than one type of material or naturally through hydraulic sorting during placement. This
variation may need to be reduced to a more uniform soil for seedbed preparation. This can be
done by repeated passes with a blade or deep plowing followed by disking. If possible, grading
should be done at the time of year when precipitation is lowest to reduce erosion of the bare soil.
Seedbed preparation includes plowing or disking one or more times to break up clumps and
aerate the soil, fill or cover desiccation cracks, even out moisture content, destroy unwanted
vegetation that may have invaded, turn under green manure, incorporate soil amendments and, in
general, improve the quality of the substrate. Preparation is best done several months prior to
planting and again just before planting, if labor and equipment are available. Success of the site
may especially depend on this process.
b. Chemical modification. Prior to final mechanical seedbed preparation (preferably several
weeks to months ahead), the substrate at the site should be sampled and the soils analyzed
chemically in the same fashion as for site characterization. Their chemical properties may have
been altered by dredging and dewatering since the initial tests. Some of the common problems
that may be found include high salinity levels, soil acidity or alkalinity, or lack of one or more of
the essential plant nutrients at levels sufficient to support good plant growth. These can be
corrected with soil amendments, leaching, or other techniques (Hunt et al. 1978; Landin, Webb,
and Knutson 1989).
c. Biological modification. Biological modification of the substrate may also aid in the
success of the project. This could include such things as removal of existing and competitive
vegetation by cutting, short-lived herbicide application, or cultivation; growth of a preliminary
green fertilizer crop; or addition of farmyard manure, sewage sludge, and other organic materials
on light-textured sands to improve their nutrient- and moisture-holding capacity. If legumes are
5-70

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
to be grown on the site, the seed should be inoculated with the proper strain of Rhizobium
bacterium to improve chances of fixing adequate amounts of atmospheric nitrogen.
5.23.5.2 Timing. Timing of all factors related to plant establishment is an important
consideration in habitat development. Adequate planning will have allowed lead time to locate,
obtain, and prepare sufficient amounts of viable seeds or vegetative propagules, including any
period of seed dormancy. Timing of planting also strongly influences plant success. For example,
seeding warm weather annuals before the last cool period in spring will result in heavy crop
damage, but seeding the same species in midsummer will result in heat and drought stress during
sprouting. Seeding of cold weather species too early in the autumn will result in sporadic germination, increased chances of insect infestations such as army worms, and heat and drought stress.
Optimum seeding times vary with climatic regions and photoperiods, and local agronomic
authorities should be consulted before planting. Refer to Hunt et al. (1978) and Landin (1978)
and Appendix E, Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Mentioned in this
Manual, for species-specific details on timing.
5.23.5.3 Planting.
a. Temperature. Vegetative propagules may be planted any time the ground is not frozen
and any time the day temperatures average less than 20 C. In general, March to May is best for
warm weather plants and September to November for cold weather plants over most of the
United States. In the Deep South, transplanting is usually done successfully from October
through May, with June through September being too hot. Dormant propagules may be more
readily transplanted in winter months. Propagules held in storage inside a nursery or greenhouse
should not be planted until temperatures at the field site are approximately as warm as the storage
area to lessen shock. Propagules held in a shady area should be gradually acclimated to sunny
conditions, if the site is in the sun, to prevent blistering and death of leaves and plant shock.
General planting methods are given Hunt et al. (1978), Landin (1978), and Hayes et al. (2000);
specific recommendations for local conditions can be obtained from the NRCS or county
extension service agents.
b. Methods. Methods of planting vary with the propagule type. Seeds should be sowed in a
well-prepared seedbed that has been plowed and/or disked to a depth of at least 15 cm (6 in.). It
is important to consider planting techniques, equipment seeding rates and depths, and seed and
soil treatments when using seed propagules. For transplants, types of propagules, planting
techniques and equipment, transplant spacings, timing of planting, plant growth habits, and longrange project goals are all important factors in determining site success (Hunt et al. 1978).
5.24 Engineering Design of Upland Sites. Guidelines for substrate design and sediment protection and retention apply to both a new placement area and one that may already have a retention structure and some material placed. Design should be based on information gathered during
the site description, on results of field and laboratory tests, and on the requirements for the
planned habitat development. The majority of the information in this section was compiled from
Eckert, Giles, and Smith (1978); Hunt et al. (1978); Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter
(1978); and Hayes et al. (2000). Dredged material may be placed by either hydraulic or mechanical methods. The hydraulic pipeline dredge is the most commonly used and will continue to be
5-71

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the major source of dredged material to be used for upland habitat development. Hydraulic
transport of material assumes additional prominence when one considers that dredged material
handling systems, involving direct pump-out of hopper dredges, temporary containment basins,
or bucket-loaded scows, usually involve final disposition by pipeline. The pipeline dredge can
dispose of material in upland areas through the use of shore lines or shallow-draft floating
pipelines.
5.24.1 Substrate design.
5.24.1.1 Elevation. Substrate design for upland habitat development includes determination
of site elevations, slope, orientation, configuration, and size (area and volume). The design must
provide for placement of dredged material to a stable elevation within the desired elevation
limits, allowing for settlement due to consolidation of both the sediments and foundation
material. For fine-grained sediments, the substrate must be designed to provide adequate surface
area and retention time for sedimentation of suspended solids. Procedures for substrate design
generally follow those established by Montgomery (1978) and Palermo, Montgomery, and
Poindexter (1978) for the design of conventional containment areas. The determination of
substrate elevation is governed by two limitations: the project requires placement of a given
channel sediment volume, and the size to handle this volume within elevation limits must be
determined; or the project requires a substrate to be constructed within given size limits, and the
volume of channel sediment to construct this substrate must be determined. In either of these
cases, a correlation between in situ sediment volumes and volumes occupied by the dredged
material must be determined. The first step is to calculate void ratios by determining water content of samples of the sediments to be dredged. The second is to compute the void ratio of the
dredged material after dredging and deposition (Montgomery 1978; Palermo, Montgomery, and
Poindexter (1978).
5.24.1.2 Sedimentation of solids. Confined placement areas with primarily fine-grained
dredged material should be designed to retain solids by gravity sedimentation during the dredging
operation. Solids retention is directly affected by the size of the confinement area (particularly
length and depth), inflow rate (dependent on dredge size and operation), physical properties of
the sediment, and salinity of the water and sediments. Montgomery (1978) and Palermo,
Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978) detailed separate design procedures for determining sediment retention time requirements for fresh and saline sediments with continuous placement. In
addition, these procedures include factors influencing efficiency of the substrate containment,
effects of short-circuiting, ponding depth, weir placement, and shapes of containment. In the
event that substrate containment does not provide an adequate gravity sedimentation basin, then
one of the following alternatives must be exercised:
a. The size of the site must be increased.
b. A smaller dredge must be used.
c. Intermittent dredging and/or placement operations must be initiated.

5-72

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.24.1.3 Weir design. Retention structures used to confine dredged material must provide a
means of releasing carrier water back into the waterway, which is best accomplished by placing a
weir within the containment area. Effluent quality can be strongly affected by the design and
operation of the discharge weir, with the weir length and ponding depth having the greatest
control on this quality. Walski and Schroeder (1978) developed a design procedure for defining
weir length and ponding depth to minimize the discharge of solid particles into the waterway.
5.24.1.4 Dredged material settlement. Settlement occurs following completion of the
dredging operation because of the self-weight consolidation of the dredged material layer and/or
the consolidation of compressible foundation soils. Estimated settlements may be determined by
procedures presented by Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978). Once loading conditions
are determined, ultimate settlements that occur after the completion of 100% primary
consolidation can be estimated from laboratory consolidation data. This settlement is not as
critical as for wetland habitats, but it is important because of the ponding effect it causes. Time
rates of consolidation for both the dredged material and foundation soils are required to determine the relationship between the desired final substrate elevation and time. If the data from the
laboratory tests reveal that settlement will not meet desired elevation requirements, an adjustment
to the substrate configuration must be made to raise or lower the initial substrate elevation as
required.
5.24.2 Substrate protection and retention.
5.24.2.1 Requirements for a structure. Data gathered for the site description should be used
to determine if a protective or retention structure will be needed for the upland site. Engineering
data collected at a specific site should determine the amount and character of the material to be
protected or retained, maximum height of dredged material retained above the firm bottom,
degree of protection from waves and currents required, duration of the structure, foundation
conditions at the site, and availability of construction material. All habitat development sites may
require a structure for protection of the perimeter from erosion caused by currents, waves, or tidal
action. However, particular concern should be given to the effects of any proposed structure on
existing current or wave patterns. For example, a structure positioned so that it constricts the
water flow will increase local current velocities or reflect wave energies, and thus may encourage
erosion. All habitat development sites may require structures for retention of the dredged material
to allow it to consolidate, to control the suspended solids content of the effluent, or to protect
surrounding habitat or adjacent structures. Site hydraulics, the properties of the sediment to be
dredged, the time over which placement occurs, and the existing site characteristics are closely
interrelated in determining the need for such structures.
5.24.2.2 Selection of a structure. The protective or retention structure should meet four
conditions:
a. Suitability to the project goals of dredged material placement and habitat development.
b. Practicality and ease of construction.

5-73

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Ease of maintenance.
d. Reasonableness of cost.
Eckert, Giles, and Smith (1978) and Chasten et al. (1993) evaluated several protective and retention structures considered technically feasible for use in terrestrial habitat development and
present information on structure selection, applicability to specific site conditions, and conceptual procedures for design and construction. The most feasible structures are often dikes
constructed from filled geotextile bags or from sand in moderate-to-low wave energies in temperate climates (Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978). The term fabric bag covers products from
several producers of sack-like containers that can be filled with sand, sand-cement, or concrete
and that are used as building blocks for breakwaters, groins, revetments, or containment dikes.
Rock and rubble from new-work dredging can also be used. Geotextile factory custom-made
tubes are being used more frequently for multiple purposes and are of value for a wide range of
dredged material beneficial uses (Davis and Landin 1997).
5.24.2.3 Design of a structure. EM 1110-2-1902 and EM 1110-2-2300 provide proven
methods for design and construction of earth- and rock-filled structures. Those procedures should
be used to supplement engineering considerations of elevation requirements and earth and water
pressure forces. Internal structures may be advisable. Cross and spur dikes are used to control
circulation within a placement area, with the cross dike commonly employed to divide large
placement areas into smaller cells, and spur dikes employed to interrupt direct slurry routes
between the inlet and outlet. The cross dike is the more significant of the two structures for habitat development purposes since use of a cross dike allows flexibility in placement including
incremental filling and separation of dredged material by grain size. (See Section XII,
Multipurpose Uses an Other Land Use Concepts, for riprapped structures and cross dikes used
at an upland habitat site.)
5.24.2.4 Construction of a structure. Site-specific factors affecting construction techniques
are equipment accessibility, wave and current conditions, tidal range, water depth, bottom
conditions, and distance from the dredging site (Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978; Chasten et al
1993; Davis and Landin 1997). The construction material used and method of construction are
significant factors. In addition to the fabric bags previously discussed, three basic types of
retention structure construction exist: hauled dikes, cast dikes, and hydraulically placed dikes
(Hammer and Blackburn 1977). Construction techniques for retaining walls, sills, breakwaters,
gabions, and other structures are highly site specific and should be determined on a case-by-case
basis (Hammer and Blackburn 1977).
5.25 Ecological Design of the Upland Sites. Planning for a habitat development site should be
based on sound ecological principles and should attempt to make efficient use of available
resources in reaching the goal. The two major resources that can be manipulated for habitat
development are substrate (in this case, dredged material) and vegetation. All previous aspects of
planning should be united in the ecological design of the site for proper placement of dredged
material and vegetation.

5-74

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.25.1 Placement of dredged material. Many aspects of the engineering design of an upland
placement site are directly related to the potential biological characteristics of the site. Physical
appearance of the site is particularly important, and structures, configuration, size, elevation,
topography, timing, and site interaction with surrounding habitats must be considered for
ecological integrity of the upland site.
5.25.2 Placement of vegetation. Presence or absence and patterns of vegetation are critical
factors in habitat development (Smith 1978; Soots and Landin 1978; Landin 1992b). Such
ecological concepts as structural diversity, community size, species patterns of abundance, and
biotic succession are pertinent. Specific concepts that should be applied to upland habitat design
are diversity, ecological succession, habitat patterning, and vegetation structure and function.
5.26 Dredging and Placement Operations.
5.26.1 Construction. The first step in construction of an upland habitat development site is
to build a protective or retention structure, if one is called for in the project design, or to modify
an existing structure or site (for example, to raise a dike or add drainage). Some site preparation
may be necessary, perhaps construction of an access route or removal of vegetation. Access for
equipment and pipes should be built to minimize damage, especially to wetlands. Unless the
project calls for shallow placement and recovery of plants present on the site, vegetation to be
covered should be mowed or cut to prevent recovery after placement or to prevent dead branches
and shrubs from protruding. Clearing and grading are required along the dike alignment to allow
construction.
5.26.2 Dredged material placement. A significant amount of material rehandling is
sometimes required in developing upland habitat because the final distribution of material at the
site is important. This handling can be reduced if the initial location and distribution of the
coarse- and fine-grained fractions of the dredged material are controlled. One means of control is
to take advantage of the differential settling characteristics of the various-sized particles in the
dredged slurry. Another means is to operate the dredging plant and peripheral equipment in a
manner that will produce the desired substrate (Bartos 1977b; Hayes et al. 2000). For the majority of placement operations, the criteria for locating the discharge pipeline in the placement area
have been to maintain an adequate flow distance relative to the weir, keep the discharge end of
the pipeline a safe distance away from the interior slope of the dike, and minimize the pumping
distance from the dredge. The criteria are directed at preventing short-circuiting or channelization
of the flow through the containment area, avoiding scouring damage to dikes, and minimizing
pumping costs. Some modifications of these pipe location criteria may be required if advantage is
to be taken of particle size differential settling characteristics for habitat development. Coarsegrained material encountered during dredging operations can be taken advantage of with end-ofpipe operations. If the character of the sediment-water slurry being transported is known
beforehand or can be determined by monitoring at the dredge or at the end of the pipe, then the
coarse material can be diverted by use of a wye connection without interrupting the dredging
operations or the dredging sequence. The diverted material can be placed directly in the desired
location hydraulically or stockpiled for later use in habitat development. Stockpiling and

5-75

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
subsequent rehandling of the material are roughly equivalent to obtaining the material from a
source outside the placement area and involve the use of additional or supplementary equipment.
5.26.3 Containment area operation. Activities during substrate material placement are
aimed at the retention of solids and production of an effluent that will meet criteria for release
into the waterway. Operational difficulties, such as channelization of the dredged slurry and
insufficient ponding depth, may result in excessive amounts of solids leaving the placement area
through the weir. This is counterproductive and usually violates laws and regulations. Therefore,
it is recommended that during and after the placement operation a well-planned monitoring program be implemented to ensure that suspended solids in the effluent remain within acceptable
environmental limits. Suspended solids retention can sometimes be increased by increasing
ponding depths through efficient operation of the weir. Concepts of containment area management instituted immediately following the completion of a placement operation are also important to successful implementation of a habitat project. The most important aspect of dredged
material placement area management is to remove all surface water as fast as possible to enhance
surface drying (Bartos 1977b). This principle can be extended to include terrestrial habitat development since extensive site activity must usually wait until the substrate is trafficable. In addition, working the area to a gentle slope toward the effluent point allows efficient drainage of
surface water and evaporative dewatering can be supplemented by transpiration by vegetation.
5.26.4 Quality control. Specifications for all phases of construction should be detailed and
clear. Thorough inspection of all operations ensures that the work is in compliance with plans
and specifications for upland habitat development and any mitigation requirements, and that
means fewer post-dredging operations and lower project cost.
Section VI
Island Habitats
5.27 General.
5.27.1 One hundred years of active dredging operations by the USACE, State agencies, and
private industry have resulted in the creation, by placement of dredged material, of over
2,000 man-made islands throughout U.S. coastal, Great Lakes, and riverine waterways (Landin
1980) (Figure 5-29), and in subsequent years, the restoration and repair of a number of these
islands (Landin 1992b, 1998a). These islands are of varying sizes and characteristics, and they
and presently range in age from the newly formed to those that are part of the U.S. Intracoastal
Waterway System and that are estimated to be 70 years old to a few that are documented to be
well over 100 years old. Although the majority of the islands were made by the USACE, many
are owned or managed by other Federal agencies, State governments, conservation organizations,
or private citizens. The USACE continues to maintain an interest in these man-made islands
because of its responsibility in using environmentally acceptable placement methods and sites,
the continuing need for placement sites, the need for wildlife habitats in waterway areas, and the
recreation potential of the islands (Landin 1980; 1997c; Lunz, Diaz, and Cole 1978). The rapid
increase in the U.S. population and the corresponding demand on natural resources have helped
to cause a gradual change in the use of the islands by wildlife and a need for reassessment of their

5-76

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
role as habitats. Natural sites have been altered and occupied by man through industrial, housing,
and recreational development to such a large extent that some areas of the United States no
longer have coastal islands that are still suitable wildlife habitat. Dredged material islands have
provided this vital habitat in many areas.

Figure 5-29. A Dredged Material Island in Florida, Typical of Those Built in the U.S.
Intracoastal Waterway
5.27.2 The primary wildlife species needing dredged material islands as part of their life
requirements are 37 species of colonial-nesting waterbirds: pelicans, cormorants, anhingas,
herons, egrets, ibises, spoonbills, gulls, terns, and skimmers. Several of these species are rare,
threatened, or endangered throughout large parts of their ranges (Figure 5-30). While some of
these species nest on dredged material beaches (for example, the largest coastal least tern colony
in the United States on man-made beaches at Gulfport, MS) and isolated wetland woods, most
often they seek the isolation from predators offered by islands. An estimated 2 million are
annually nesting on over 700 of these dredged material islands in U.S. waterways, especially
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Long Island to Mexico, in the Great Lakes and, to a
lesser extent, in lagoons and bays in California, the Columbia River, Coos Bay, and Puget Sound.
Islands can offer these birds protection from ground predators, seclusion from man, and nesting
substrates similar to those found in traditional nesting sites. The birds are especially vulnerable
during the nesting season when they concentrate for several months in colonies and remain in
them until their chicks have fledged. These water birds are protected by Federal laws since they
are migratory species.

5-77

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-30. Endangered Brown Pelicans Nesting on Gaillard Island, Their First Nesting
in Alabama in over 100 Years
5.27.3 In general, the correlation between increases in human populations and decreases in
water bird populations holds true. The only exceptions exist when alternate habitats such as
dredged material islands become available. Huge declines in water bird numbers have stabilized
somewhat, partly as a result of the creation of islands, and without which waterbird populations
would be 50% or less of present levels (Soots and Landin 1978). Detailed research and
discussion on islands built of dredged material are presented in Landin (1980, 1992b) and Soots
and Landin (1978). Guidance for selection of island development as a placement alternative is
presented in Figure 5-31, taken from Soots and Landin (1978) and Landin (1992b), and details
for the selection process are presented in Smith (1978).
5.28 Island Development and Management. Although many colonies of birds presently are
nesting on dredged material islands, numerous characteristics of these islands could be improved
by management to enhance the available habitat, and dredging operations can be altered in
several ways to benefit the numerous sea and wading birds and other wildlife on dredged
material islands. Development and management of dredged material islands for avian wildlife
also usually provide essential habitat for smaller mammals and rodents that use the islands and
cover a broad spectrum of techniques. In some cases, small mammals may act as bird predators,
so their colonization should not be encouraged.

5-78

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-31. Guidelines for Selecting Island Habitat Development

5.28.1 Habitat changes.
5.28.1.1 Basically, development/management of an island for colonial sea and wading birds
is concerned with habitat manipulation, habitat establishment, and habitat protection.
Manipulation of habitats, by far the most likely technique to be used by engineers, includes
proper placement of dredged material to maintain or reestablish habitats, increase the size of
existing islands, and/or change configuration, elevation, vegetation, and other features for more
desirable habitats. Manipulation of habitats includes, for the biologist, establishment of new

5-79

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
vegetation and management of existing vegetation on islands through various agronomic and
horticultural techniques.
5.28.1.2 Establishment of new habitats is desirable when nesting habitat is lacking and new
islands must be created, with the resulting need for vegetation establishment; when nesting
habitat is expanded by an addition to an existing island that must be established with vegetation;
or when undesirable nesting habitats (vegetation) occurring on islands must be cleared out and
desirable habitats established in their place.
5.28.1.3 Habitat protection may be accomplished by island posting or fencing for isolation.
Most bird species are already protected by law, but their habitats are not protected except during
the time they are occupied by the nesting birds. Year-round protection to prevent destruction of
habitat from year to year and seasonal protection to prevent nesting colony disruption by humans
and predators are necessary.
5.28.1.4 Management of existing islands has been demonstrated to be an effective
placement technique and wildlife management practice. Considerable potential exists for the
placement of dredged material and the creation or improvement of avian habitat. Management of
existing dredged material islands is most desirable because the potential environmental impacts
of disposing on an existing site are less than those of developing new islands.
5.28.2 Use of dredging operations on existing islands.
5.28.2.1 The USACE has provided habitat incidental to project purpose since the agency
first created dredged material islands. The oldest dredged material island on record is Jetty Island
at Everett Harbor in Puget Sound, built in 1891 and used by seabird colonies, including Arctic
terns, for nesting. Since those early days, islands have been kept in various stages of plant
succession through dredged material deposition from channel maintenance operations. These
operations can have a significant positive impact on water bird breeding populations
(Figure 5-32). Through proper planning the positive impact of regular maintenance dredging
could be increased. Since past dredging operations have been carried out with little or no regard
for nesting birds, many areas do not have adequate diversity of nesting habitats. Some areas lack
ground nesting habitats while others lack woody habitats. Soots and Landin (1978) and Landin
(1992a, 1997d) report habitat needs that could be satisfied by dredging operations in all the
regions studied. Needs for bare ground nesting areas and more tree/shrub habitats exist on almost
every part of the U.S. coast. The rate at which various habitats appear on an island after receiving
dredged material and an estimate of their longevity have been determined (Landin 1980, 1992a,
1997d; Soots and Landin 1978).

5-80

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-32. Royal and Sandwich Terns Nesting on Dredged Material Islands in North Carolina,
Where Successional Vegetation Stages are Deliberately Set Back with Placement Operations to
Maintain Tern Nesting Habitat
5.28.2.2 Once site-specific needs are known, nesting habitat management can easily
become a part of the regular maintenance dredging process. To maintain target habitat diversity
for certain bird species, islands in any given area would have to be selected to receive periodic
depositions of dredged material. Restrictions against dredged material deposition on all or parts
of some islands may be necessary in order to allow habitats for tree-nesting birds to develop or to
preserve existing tree habitats (Figure 5-33). The feasibility of these management recommendations has already been demonstrated by the Wilmington District. They have been practicing such
management on a local, annual basis for several years and have developed a long-range colonial
sea and wading bird management plan for the lower Cape Fear River estuary that includes maintenance dredging and placement and timing of dredged material depositions on existing islands
and environmental guidelines for their dredging inspectors.

5-81

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-33. Wading BirdsIbis, Herons, and EgretsNesting in a Maritime Forest in North
Carolina
5.28.3 Building new islands.
5.28.3.1 Construction of new islands would be desirable under some conditions. If it has
been demonstrated that there is a need for nesting habitat in an area lacking suitable islands, and
if the benefits for the birds will exceed any negative effects of construction of an island to
benthic organisms and current flow, then an island could be built. However, islands should not be
placed in areas where they would be used for recreational purposes during the breeding season,
thus eliminating or severely reducing their wildlife value.
5.28.3.2 In most areas there is no need for more islands for colonial nesting birds or other
forms of wildlife. Management of existing islands should be given first priority. There are areas,
however, where additional nesting habitats would be beneficial, and existing dredged material
and natural islands are not available to fulfill that need. Establishment of need should be
determined by consultation with knowledgeable wildlife biologists or by field studies. Generally,
construction of new islands for wildlife is be feasible unless it can be demonstrated that the
anticipated positive impacts on the target species outweigh any negative impacts on the
environment. However, it would be desirable to construct a limited number of new islands in
various regions of the United States for study purposes and to obtain baseline data. As more
natural sites are taken over by man, strategic placement of new sites may become more valuable
as a management tool. The present knowledge of bird utilization is based primarily on empirical
and trend observations of existing dredged material islands, and more baseline data are needed on

5-82

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
species-specific success and long-term utilization based on ongoing dredging and navigation
operations.
5.28.3.3 In addition to establishment of need, the feasibility of new island construction
depends on the concerns of Federal and State agencies and the private sector. These concerns
vary considerably among the regions of the country. However, it has been proven that
construction of new islands for birds and other forms of wildlife is feasible. The Wilmington
District constructed two islands in Core Sound, NC, one of which, Jimmy Wells Island, remains
(Figure 5-34). The USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) has also built
or modified several islands for habitat development. The two North Carolina islands were unique
in that they were the first to be constructed and were placed in such a manner as to deliberately
create habitat for colonial seabirds and aquatic life; they were retained by the use of large
geotextile sand-filled bags/tubes. The sites were designed so that during future maintenance
dredging of the nearby navigation channel, material could be added to them within the existing
sandbag retainers, and more sandbags could be added to create higher retention dikes. The kidney
shape of the islands formed a small cove, where it is expected that a marsh will develop and
benthic organisms will thrive. Marsh around the island was given a boost by the planting of
smooth cordgrass and saltmeadow cordgrass around the perimeter. The islands were placed in an
area with adequate shallow water and food resources but with a scarcity of bare-ground nesting
habitat. Gull-billed terns, common terns, least terns, and black skimmers nested on the islands
during the first breeding season after construction. Unfortunately, the bags/tubes were slashed by
vandals almost as soon as construction was completed, and one of the islands failed. A number of
islands have now been built in Florida, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, California, and the Great
Lakes with water bird habitat development as a secondary project goal.
5.28.3.4 Site location of an island should be worked out with knowledgeable wildlife
biologists and concerned agencies to establish the best location. Building an island in an area that
does not conform to the biological and engineering specifications outlined herein would fail to
produce the desired wildlife habitat. The islands must be placed where the birds will be isolated
from predators and human disturbances, unless the islands are going to be actively protected by
wardens. With active protection, colonies of sea and wading birds have been successful close to
human activities and have provided tourist attractions that could be observed from outside the
colony (Landin 1980, 1992b, 1997c).
5.28.3.5 Timing of island development is important. Ideally, an island should be built
during the fall or winter preceding the initiation of the next breeding season. The birds generally
do not use a site until after the initial sorting of fine materials by wind and water. If it is built in
the spring, this sorting will not have had time to take place, and any colony of birds trying to nest
there may not be successful. Their eggs may be covered by drifting fine material. In addition,
they cannot use a site until it has had adequate time to dewater.

5-83

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-34. Jimmy Wells Island, One of Two Dredged Material Islands Built for Seabird
Nesting Habitat by the Wilmington District in Core Sound, NC, in 1977, is a Highly
Successful Nesting Site, but it is Eroding and Needs a New Application of Dredged Material
5.28.3.6 The physical design of an island is important. In general, islands must be permanently emergent at high-water levels; birds have been found nesting on all sizes and shapes of
islands as long as they meet this crucial breeding requirement. However, observations of
hundreds of bird colonies on dredged material islands and the kinds of islands they select have
led to four categories of recommendations: size, configuration, substrate, and elevation (Landin
1980, 1992b, 1997c). Whether an island is diked or undiked can make a significant difference in
bird use (Parnell, Dumond, and McCrimmon 1985).
a. Ideally, new islands should be no smaller than 2 ha and no larger than 20 ha; however,
birds have been found nesting on both smaller and larger islands, including islands 520 ha in
size, dikes connected to the mainland on 1,840 ha sites, and other large man-made islands
(Landin 1992b, 1997c). This is a highly site- and species-specific feature. Islands larger than
20 ha are generally difficult to manage and are also more likely to support predator populations,
such as coyotes, snakes, foxes, feral cats and dogs, rats, and raccoons. Islands between the two
extremes can be more easily managed, and considerable habitat diversity could be achieved on
them. Generally, the greater the amount of habitat diversity to be maintained for wildlife
populations, the larger the island should be.
b. The configuration of an island depends on the target wildlife species. Steep slopes, such
as those found on dikes, should be avoided for all species. A slope no greater than 1 m (3 ft) rise
per 30 m (100 ft) has been recommended (Soots and Landin 1978, Landin 1997c). Substrate
configurations for the ground-nesting species are given in Soots and Landin (1978). Many bare
5-84

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
ground-nesters must have gentle slopes to prevent their eggs from rolling from nest scrapes.
There is also evidence that the formation of a bay or pond with the island makes it more
attractive to nesting birds (Landin 1980).
c. The general nesting substrate requirements of colonial bird species are given in Soots and
Landin (1978). Generally, coarser materials like sand or cobble make better nesting substrates
due to greater stability. Fine materials like silts and clays are subject to wind and rain erosion,
and they usually have desiccation cracks, settling, and ponding. A mixture of sand and shell
material makes good nesting substrate for most of the ground-nesting birds, which prefer sandy
beach areas. These bird species historically nested on sandy beaches before being forced off by
human use. Fine, unstable dredged material may be stabilized to form suitable nesting substrate
by adding coarse materials like shells over its surface or by planting a ground cover on the
material to provide vegetation for those species that prefer that kind of habitat, such as the
Forsters tern or laughing gull. Tree-nesting species obviously prefer woody vegetation, and these
trees and shrubs often colonize best on silty, more fertile substrates. Selected plant species of
shrubs and trees, which are discussed in Soots and Landin (1978), Landin (1978, 1986), and
Landin, Webb, and Knutson (1989), may be planted on the sites since there are several plant
species that seem to be preferred over others by tree-nesting birds. If plant propagation is to be a
part of a management scheme, these species should be given first consideration.
d. Elevations of constructed islands should be high enough to prevent flooding of the areas
that could be used by waterbirds for nesting. However, elevations do not need to be so high that
wind erosion will prevent the substrate from becoming stabilized. Generally, the optimal
elevation for an island is between 1 and 3 m (3 and 10 ft) above mean high water. The desirable
elevation to be achieved depends on the texture of the exposed dredged material, the wind
exposure, and the habitat objectives or target species. Coarser materials may stabilize at higher
elevations than finer materials. If islands can be constructed of coarser material for groundnesting birds, then it is acceptable in some cases to exceed the recommended elevation. In
general, the higher the elevation, the more slowly the island will be colonized by plants.
Therefore, lower elevations to achieve plant cover for some ground-nesting species and all treenesting species should be considered where those are the target wildlife species and where
substrates are of fine-textured material. It should be remembered that given the proper substrates
and vegetation for nesting, none of the species using dredged material islands for nesting choose
one elevation over another as long as they are above the tide or flood lines.
5.28.4 Dredged material island additions. Additions to islands may be a useful management
tool if valuable nesting sites are altered by erosion until they have to be eventually abandoned.
Additions to such islands prolong their usefulness as nesting habitats. Additions to islands
covered with vegetation increase habitat diversity by providing some bare-ground habitat, at least
temporarily, for those forms of wildlife requiring bare ground. For example, the Jacksonville
District, in cooperation with the National Audubon Society, built an addition to Sunken Island in
Hillsborough Bay, FL, during maintenance dredging operations in the 1970s. It was built as
seabird nesting habitat, but needs continued applications of sand dredged material to maintain
that habitat (Figure 5-35). In south Florida, additions may be done in such a manner that
encourages growth of mangroves, an excellent nesting substrate for tree-nesting birds. Colonies

5-85

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
have responded favorably to island additions, especially bare-ground nesting species along the
northern Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

Figure 5-35. An Addition Built by the Jacksonville District, in Cooperation with the
National Audubon Society, to Sunken Island in Hillsborough Bay, FL, During
Maintenance Dredging Operations in the 1970s
5.28.5 Confined Placement Facilities (CPFs). In the Great Lakes and a number of ports
along the eastern and Gulf coasts, USACE Districts have constructed 51 large, permanent, diked
islands for maintenance dredging; others are in the planning stages. These islands are sometimes
over 400 ha in size, often well-armored and, in most, cases designed for permanent containment
of contaminated sediments, especially along the mid-Atlantic to New York coast and in the Great
Lakes. These islands are located up to 5 km (3 mi) from shorelines and are relatively isolated.
From the time of their construction, they have been used increasingly by nesting and loafing
seabirds. Jacksonville, Mobile, Detroit, Norfolk, Baltimore, Wilmington, and other USACE
Districts considered seabird use in design and management on newer CPFs, and the seabird
colonization has been spectacular in several cases. Management on CPFs generally consists of
continued protective isolation, wildlife monitoring, and posting. Vegetation management has not
yet become a problem on any of these islands more than 15-20 years postconstruction.
5.28.6 Protection of bird colonies.
5.28.6.1 Since the primary users of dredged material islands are the sea and wading birds
that nest in colonies, and the lack of isolation and protection is one of the primary problems these

5-86

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
birds face, this species group would be greatly benefited by the provision of protection of
colonies and nesting areas. They are already protected by Federal law and regulation as migratory
species. Since this does not protect habitat unless the migratory animal is present, it can sometimes be detrimental for long-term protection purposes. In addition, some states have laws and
regulations designed to give protection. A number of endangered or threatened species nest in
colonies on dredged material islands. It has been shown repeatedly throughout North America
that, in general, protected colonies are successful and unprotected colonies are not due to habitat
loss and disturbance. Every Federal and State agency and every individual has the responsibility
to see that its actions are not in violation of laws that protect wildlife. To ensure compliance with
the law, maintenance operations involving placement of dredged material should be conducted in
a manner that does not disturb the bird colonies. Management should include proper care during
placement of dredged material, surveying, and dike construction.
5.28.6.2 Public education concerning the vulnerability of colonial nesting birds has the
potential of being a valuable management tool. Through various public affairs channels, the general public could be made aware of the value of dredged material islands to colonial birds. At the
same time they could be informed that the continued placement of dredged material is a viable
management option.
5.28.6.3 Other protective measures for colonies that are valuable management tools include
posting of colonies with signs, such as those used by the Mobile and Portland Districts; fencing,
designation of certain colonies as sanctuaries; responsible scientific study (and thus limiting
disturbance of the birds by constant observation and measurements); and control of wildlife
predators, such as raccoons, foxes, and feral cats, dogs, and rats.
5.28.7 Vegetation on dredged material islands.
5.28.7.1 A number of suitable plant species can be planted on islands to increase their
attractiveness to wildlife and, especially, to colonies of nesting sea and wading birds (Landin
1978, 1992b; Soots and Landin 1978). Depending upon the specific requirements of the wildlife
species, a variety of suitable plants can be used in a management plan for islands. No plantings
are necessary for ground-nesting species in most cases, although some of these species use sparse
herbs and grasses for nesting. Since tree-nesting species require tree/shrub habitat, planting of
this vegetation type on islands hastens wildlife use by more quickly providing suitable habitat.
Woody habitat requires 5-30 years to develop, depending upon the region and climatic
conditions.
5.28.7.2 Sometimes, vegetation on islands must be controlled in order to provide the proper
or desired habitat for target wildlife species. Vegetation control is necessary if habitat for groundnesting species is scarce and there is an abundance of other habitats or if the wrong species of
trees is growing on an island, precluding nesting or other wildlife use. Some of the control
methods that have been successfully tried on dredged material islands are mechanical removal
(tractors, tillers, chain saws, axes), hand removal (pulling up plants by their roots), controlled
burning, and applications of herbicides. Controlled burning is not very successful because new
growth begins immediately after the area is burned although there are situations in which
controlled burning is useful, such as when encouraging temporary movement of a colony during
5-87

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
construction activities prior to the beginning of nesting. Herbicides should be carefully applied
according to directions; they have been found to be extremely effective on islands in North
Carolina, but less so in Florida, where there is a 12-month growing season.
5.29 Development and Management Problems.
5.29.1 Numerous potential problems may be encountered in building and/or managing
dredged material islands. A key to success in the early planning stages is cooperation and coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies by regulatory authorities. Many obstacles to project
success can be removed by correct planning and public awareness efforts before the project
actually begins.
5.29.2 It requires considerable care to create specifications for developing an island from
dredged material for habitat while simultaneously satisfying the need to dispose of a given
amount of dredged material. To ensure that habitat plans are carried out, specifications should
include exact locations and time of placement, size of deposit, elevation of deposit, and
movement of dredge pipes. Onsite monitoring is highly desirable and is necessary when placement is on an island with an existing bird colony or population of vulnerable wildlife. The U.S.
Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1996) wrote a dredging inspectors environmental handbook that outlines how to accomplish beneficial uses and explains why these very tight
specifications are necessary for fish and wildlife habitat and life requirement purposes.
5.29.3 Silt curtains (effective only in certain parts of the United States under certain soil
conditions) or temporary dikes sometimes may be required in placement activities. If a dike is
built on an existing island and filled, it should usually be at least partially removed or breached to
allow ground access to water by young birds. This requires return to the site by earthmoving
equipment. For best use by wildlife, dikes do not need to be erected until just prior to placement.
Periodic monitoring to determine after-effects of placement will provide useful information for
future placement efforts.
5.29.4 The public is seldom aware of specific wildlife needs. Severe damage can be
inflicted on a colony by simply fishing or boating adjacent to an island during the nesting season
through disturbance of the young and the adults. Surveying and dike construction activities can
also disrupt nesting birds. Education of both the general public and dredging personnel is needed.
An information program should be a part of every ongoing or planned dredging operation.
Positive public opinion regarding placement operations of dredged material in North America
may improve public acceptance and understanding of dredged material placement operations and
allow more of this resource to be developed for the benefit of North American wildlife.
Section VII
Aquatic Habitats
5.30 General.
5.30.1 Aquatic habitat development is the establishment of biological communities on
dredged material at or below mean tide in coastal areas and in permanent water in lakes and

5-88

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
rivers. Potential developments include such communities as tidal flats, seagrass meadows, oyster
beds, clam flats, fishing reefs, and freshwater aquatic plant establishment. The bottom of many
water bodies could be altered using dredged material; this has the potential of simultaneously
improving the characteristics of the site for selected aquatic species and permitting the placement
of significant quantities of material.
5.30.2 A number of applications of this alternative have been made by USACE Districts in
recent years, including razorshell clam sites in the Portland District; gravel riffles for endangered
species in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway in the Mobile and Nashville Districts; razor clam
and mussel habitat in the St. Paul and Louisville Districts (Landin and Miller 1988); artificial
fishing reefs in a number of Districts; seagrass beds in California, Washington, Florida, and
Maryland; and 21 underwater berms for storm attenuation, aquatic habitat, and beach nourishment. Numerous unsuccessful and partly successful attempts to establish sea grasses on
dredged material have been made on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, but have problems due to
turbidity and shifting sediments. Only in southern California has the concept of sea grass restoration become routine, where several hundred hectares of eelgrass has been restored on dredged
material (Merkle 1990).
5.30.3 The creation of an underwater berm using coarse-grained dredged material has been
tested at Virginia Beach, VA, in the Norfolk District, and the site is providing habitat for
overwintering blue crabs and other motile marine organisms from the Chesapeake Bay. This site
not only provides aquatic habitat, but it also serves to protect the shoreline through storm wave
dissipation and sand stockpiling for beach nourishment, and it allows a reduction in maintenance
dredging in some tidal inlets. Two large underwater berms have been constructed as a national
demonstration project off the Mobile Bay, AL (Clarke 1994). Data collected on the 40 million m3
stable berm indicates that it is not moving and that it is providing protection from severe storms
as well as refuge and habitat for numerous species of finfish and shellfish. The other berm, a
feeder berm to nourish the beaches of Dauphin Island, was studied with tracers that indicated that
the sand in that berm is moving directly onto the beaches as predicted. At the present time,
21 underwater berms are constructed of dredged material (Hands 1994). Three smaller berms
have also been developed for aquatic habitat: Thimble Shoal, VA, in the Norfolk District;
Kings Bay, GA, in the Jacksonville District; and Charleston Harbor, SC, in the Charleston
District.
5.31 Aquatic Habitat Development.
5.31.1 Introduction.
5.31.1.1 Because aquatic habitats have not been developed on dredged material in many
locations, there are not sufficient data and research to allow some predictability of success and to
provide guidelines for restoration, creation, and enhancement of these habitats using dredged
material. Sea grass habitat development was first tested rigorously in Florida (Smith 1978;
Thorhaug 1985), with a few examples in the Great Lakes, and several west, east, and Gulf coast
locations. Although field tests and guidance have been ongoing since the mid-1970s, it is a stilldeveloping concept with many unknowns about what is likely to be encountered or considered on

5-89

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
site-specific questions. Each aquatic habitat site should still be approached as a learning
experience while field testing of guidelines continues.
5.31.1.2 In the late 1980s, the USACE entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to build and study sea grass
development on dredged material deposits in North Carolina, Texas, and California. This study
was concluded in 1995 although an informal agreement to continue to cooperate is still in place.
These studies indicated that sea grasses were more productive than adjacent mudflats and equal
to the productivity level of emergent tidal marshes, but predictability in techniques for planting in
Atlantic and Gulf coast areas was still a problem.
5.31.2 Advantages. Several advantages to aquatic habitat development are recognized. It
provides high biological production, has a potential for wide application in both coastal and
interior waterways, complements other habitats, and provides habitat where none previously
existed or had been eroded away or destroyed. Aquatic habitats are highly productive biological
units. Sea grass beds and artificial reefs and berms are recognized as exceptionally valuable
habitat features, providing both food and cover for many fish and shellfish. Oyster beds and clam
flats have high recreational and commercial importance. Fishing reefs built on flat, relatively
sterile lake, river, or bay bottoms provide habitat diversity, food, and cover as well as recreation
for fishermen. Dredging material placement projects impacting aquatic communities predictably
incur strong criticism and are seldom allowed. In these cases, reestablishment of similar communities where impacts occur may be feasible as a mitigation or enhancement technique. In
many instances it may be possible to establish aquatic habitats as part of a wetland habitat development project. This concept potentially has very wide application as most dredging projects are
flanked by open water. Often, selected subaquatic placement of material will both enhance the
placement site and accommodate large amounts of dredged material. In the case of fishing reefs
built of dredged material, the material is usually bedrock or rubble from new-work dredging
operations suitable for reef formation. This kind of dredged material is also well suited for oyster
and clam bed development since it gives larval oysters and clams places to attach.
5.31.3 Disadvantages. The primary and overriding disadvantage of aquatic habitat
development is an inadequate understanding of techniques for applying this alternative, resulting
in strong objections from fisheries agencies. Careful site-by-site determination, combined with
local biological and engineering expertise, is necessary. Sea grass establishment through the early
1980s was primarily on disturbed sites that did not involve dredging (Thorhaug 1981, 1985), and
its application to placement sites did not begin to increase until about 1985 (Merkle 1990).
Development of freshwater aquatic habitat on dredged material has been limited to providing
protective structures via barge-transported coarse-grained material to allow natural aquatic habitat development, and it has been compounded by the introduction of the exotic zebra mussel into
U.S. waterways.
5.32 Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Development. The ongoing development of specific engineering and environmental guidance on aquatic habitat development should not eliminate the
consideration of this alternative. Phillips (1980), Thorhaug (1981, 1985), Uetz et al. (1979),
Fonseca (1987), Fonseca et al. (1985), and Merkle (1990) provide guidance on aquatic habitat

5-90

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
development in coastal areas. Most aspects of habitat development presented in the preliminary
assessment and the detailed evaluation of feasibility (Figure 5-13) are applicable to aquatic habitat
development. Of particular significance are hydraulic energies along the bottom and water
circulation patterns. The interaction of the texture of the material with the hydraulic energies of the
site is extremely critical as the material must provide a stable surface substrate and a relatively clear
water column. The possibility that alteration of the bottom configuration of a waterway could
adversely affect current patterns should be carefully considered, especially with fishing reefs,
protective structures for freshwater aquatic plants, and aquaculture structures. In large projects or in
those projects where some question exists regarding the impact, it may be advisable to develop
physical, chemical, and biological models of the aquatic system prior to project implementation.
Sea grass projects that appeared to be successful have been lost due to turbidity, both seasonal and
increasing on sites, in the water. Turbidity shades out and smothers sea grass beds.
5.33 Design of Sea Grass Habitat. There are a number of well-documented examples of subtidal
sea grass habitat development on dredged material, primarily in the Caribbean, but also in
southern California, Chesapeake Bay, North Carolina, and Florida. Reclaimed subtidal bottom
was successfully revegetated by 1980 in Florida (Thorhaug 1981), and results from these projects
can be applied to dredged material.
5.33.1 Transplanting techniques. Transplanting techniques are described in Thorhaug
(1981) for south Florida. Merkle (1990) has successfully developed and refined his own
techniques for southern California. Phillips (1980) has developed guidance for the Pacific
Northwest, and Fonseca (1987) has developed guidance for the coastal southeastern United
States. Figures 5-36 and 5-37 show a coring method of transplanting plugs, in this case, of shoal
grass at Port St. Joe, FL, Figure 5-38 shows a bareroot propagule (the most efficiently handled
and cost-effective type of propagule) of eelgrass, and Figure 5-39 shows turtle grass being
transplanted into sand. Sea grass development can help stabilize dredged material through the
binding action of roots and rhizomes and the dissipation of wave and current energy, thereby
reducing erosion processes, although this is a fragile procedure.
5.33.2 Location. Sea grasses normally occur along shorelines and shallow coastal waters
with low wave and current energies. Development of subtidal sea grass habitat in higher energy
shallow-water areas requires permanent protection with breakwaters or planting within lagoons
created within dredged material islands. This procedure has not been successful on the East
Coast. Both subtidal and intertidal sea grasses occur in California; and from northern California
into Alaska, sea grasses are primarily intertidal, occurring in conjunction with mudflats. Intertidal
sea grasses have been successfully restored in Puget Sound, but with less success in San
Francisco District. The most impressive results in sea grass restoration in the United States by far
have been in southern California on dredged material (Merkle 1990).

5-91

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-36. Removing Plugs of Shoal Grass from an Existing Bed Near Port St. Joe,
FL, for Transplanting on a Nearby Dredged Material Site

Figure 5-37. Temporary Storage for the Shoal Grass Plugs was Provided by Containers
of Seawater, which were Transported to the Dredged Material Site by Skiff

5-92

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-38. A Bareroot Propagule of Eelgrass Ready for Transplantation

Figure 5-39. A Bareroot Propagule of Turtle Grass is Held in Place with a Long Staple after
Being Transplanted on a Sandy Site to Prevent Waves and Currents from Washing it Out
5.33.3 Depth. Bottom elevations within sea grass beds extend from mean low water
(intertidal) to -2 m (-6.5 ft) in estuaries, and -10 m (-33 ft) in coastal environments. Kelp is not

5-93

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
included in this discussion as it occurs in deeper marine waters and has never occurred on
dredged material.
5.33.4 Water quality. Surveys and measurements to predict expected annual fluctuations in
water quality at a site are required to assess suitability. Data should be collected as frequently as
possible so that the site can be adequately characterized, and it could change from year to year
and season to season. Presence of natural sea grass beds in the vicinity of a proposed site is also a
strong indicator of general water quality suitability.
5.33.4.1 Light. The foremost requirement of all sea grass species is sufficient light
penetration through the water column to support growth. High water column turbidity is an
indication that a site is not suitable for habitat development.
5.33.4.2 Salinity. Most of the common species of sea grasses require salinities greater than
20 ppt, though some local variations may exist where plants tolerate salinities as low as
10-15 ppt. Widgeon grass will occur in brackish waters.
5.33.4.3 Temperature. Though sea grasses require relatively low energy environments, the
area needs to be well flushed, and currents must circulate to prevent lethal temperature extremes.
5.33.5 Sediment type. Sediment grain size is not usually a limiting factor as most sea
grasses can tolerate a wide range in sediment from coarse sand to mud.
5.33.6 Vegetation establishment.
5.33.6.1 Plant species selection. In most geographic regions, sea grass species selection is
based on salinity although along the southeast Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where five sea grass
species (eelgrass, shoal grass, widgeon grass, turtle grass, and Syringodium filiforme) generally
occur, other considerations can be evaluated with higher priorities. In the southeast,
environmental tolerances or species growth rate may be a prime factor in species selection
(Lewis and Phillips 1981; Fonseca 1987).
5.33.6.2 Propagule selection. Sea grass habitat development is almost exclusively restricted
to transplanting mature plants from a donor bed as nursery stock is currently unavailable. Mature
plants reproduce by branching and by growth from meristematic tissues. Methods using seeds or
seedlings have never been adequately developed because vegetative propagules are considered
the least difficult propagation method.
5.33.6.3 Plant spacing. The rate at which sea grass covers a planted area depends on species
growth rate and spacing of transplants. Some species are much faster growing than others. On
most sites, seagrasses have been planted on 0.25-1 m (0.8-3.3 ft) centers. Spacing guidelines for
East Coast species are given in Thorhaug (1981, 1985) and Fonseca (1987); spacing guidelines
for West Coast species are given in Phillips (1980) and Merkle (1990).
5.33.6.4 Handling plant material. Plants need to be handled as carefully as possible to avoid
damage to roots and shoots. Turtle grass meristematic tissue protection is critical for

5-94

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
reproduction of that species because the species cannot grow and divide without it. Short-term
plant storage (not more than a few hours) can be in well-aerated containers while longer-term
storage (a few days, but not more than 1-2 weeks) should be in floating pens or flowing seawater
tables. Plants should never be directly exposed to sun and air for more than a minute or two, or
they will be damaged.
5.33.6.5 Pilot propagation study. In a sea grass development project where there are
unknown factorssuch as water quality, rate of plant species spread, or lack of hands-on experienceit is prudent to conduct a pilot study. A pilot project is particularly advisable if the project
is a large and costly one. The main purpose of a pilot study is to determine whether the
propagules will grow under conditions found on the site. The study can be conducted in less than
a year, but the test species should be allowed to grow for one full season before conclusions are
drawn. Seasonality can have great effects on sea grasses due to changes in water quality and
movement. Such a pilot project should be of sufficient size that it accurately reflects future
operational difficulties. The size of the pilot study is limited only by the desired tests, the time
available for such testing, and funding. A simple statistical design will permit quantitative evaluation of the study, where prediction of degree of success or failure can be made. The success of
these plants can generally be evaluated by observation of survival. Test plots established should
be evaluated on a regular basis to determine survival and growth and, if the planting fails, to
assess the actual cause of failure.
5.33.6.6 Time of planting. Almost without exception, spring is the best time for planting
sea grasses. Transplanting can be successful in other seasons, but with less overall survival.
5.34 Clam Flats, Oyster Beds, Mussel Beds, and Other Shellfish Habitats. Several examples of
shellfish beds (oyster beds) have been constructed in Chesapeake Bay (Garbarino et al. 1994), in
Puget Sound (clam beds), and in the Ohio and Tombigbee Rivers (freshwater mussels) (Landin,
Dardeau, and Miller 1992). All of the projects constructed under planned and well-designed circumstances have been successful. The projects involving oysters and clams were constructed by
raising bottom elevations with dredged material, then capping the material with rough material
such as oyster cultch to which oysters and clams could attach. In the Tombigbee River, gravel
riffle beds were constructed to flush beds for endangered mussels. In the Ohio River, rock and
gravel were spread over dredged material to provide a hard flushed surface for colonization.
While general guidance for constructing these projects is available from the USACE Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC), it has not yet been carried out enough to be
considered predictable or routine.
5.35 Artificial Reefs and Underwater Berms.
5.35.1 Artificial reefs. There are probably more freshwater, interior examples of artificial
reefs in the United States than coastal examples, but not constructed of dredged material. The
most suitable substances for artificial reefs are new-work dredging in which rock, rubble, and
other coarse debris are released, then carried via barge to a suitable location, where the material
is piled to allow natural colonization by fish and other aquatic organisms. Material is generally
loaded onto barges in shallow rivers and bays, dropped over the sides with a clamshell bucket
where a relatively unproductive bottom occurs, and mounded on dredged material (sands,
5-95

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
primarily) that has been placed to raise bottom elevations. Such reefs, whether freshwater or
coastal, are very successful and very prolific for aquatic organisms. More importantly, they will
endure for many decades.
5.35.2 Underwater berms. Several examples of underwater berms have already been
discussed, and it has been noted that 21 such berms have been constructed in the United States.
Guidance for construction is provided in Langan (1987) and other sources. However, generalities
can be discussed here. Stable berms, which can utilize huge quantities of dredged material, must
be built in deeper water in stable hydrologic/hydraulic locations on the bay/sea bottoms so that
they will not move or dissipate. They can be constructed of fine-grained sediments in contrast to
feeder berms, which must be constructed with beach-quality sand. Hopper dredges are the usual
construction method of all berms, in which dredged material is loaded onto split-hull barges
towed over the berm site and released. It is more difficult to use a hopper dredge/barge for feeder
berms because they are generally in shallow water. Locations for both stable and feeder berms
are critical and have a significant effect on their success. Stable berms should have as steep a
slope as can be achieved to provide structure shadow and refuge for finfish and shellfish. Both
types of berms should be monitored for both engineering and environmental results. All berms
already constructed have been examined for engineering integrity, but only the Mobile and
Virginia berms have also been evaluated for habitat purposes (Clarke 1994; Hands 1994).
Section VIII
Beaches and Beach Nourishment
5.36 General.
5.36.1 Shore erosion is a major problem along many ocean beaches and the shoreline of the
Great Lakes. One of the most desirable, cost-effective shore protection alternatives is beach
nourishment (Figure 5-40), which is usually accomplished by borrowing sand from inshore or
offshore locations and transporting it by truck, split-hull hopper dredge, or hydraulic pipeline to
an eroding beach. These operations result in massive displacement of the substrate, changes in
the topography or bathymetry of the borrow and replenishment areas, and destruction of
nonmotile benthic communities. However, a well-planned beach nourishment operation can
minimize these effects by taking advantage of the resiliency of the beach and nearshore
environment and its associated biota and by avoiding sensitive resources (Pullen and Naqui
1983).
5.36.2 Houston (1996) conducted an economic valuation study of beach nourishment in the
United States and found that for every one dollar spend on beach nourishment using Federal
money, spent or cost-shared with local or State interests, the return on the investment just to the
U.S. Treasury was a hundredfold from tourism taxes. The revenues realized by local and State
governments and the tourism industry itself were in addition to that Federal expenditure and
investment return.

5-96

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-40. A Beach Nourishment Operation Underway at Mayport, FL

5.37 Types of Beach Nourishment. Four major types of beach nourishment occur along
U.S. shorelines: new borrow material not connected with maintenance dredging, maintenance
dredging of an existing channel, dumping in the littoral zone to allow beach nourishment, and
rehandling of stockpiled material.
5.37.1 Borrow dredging. This type of dredging entails removal specifically for beach
nourishment. The major physical impact of dredging borrow material is the mechanical disturbance of the substrate and the subsequent redistribution of suspended sediments and turbidity.
Suspension of sediments and turbidities is usually a short-term impact. Once dredging ceases,
heavier sediments rapidly settle, and fine sediments are dissipated by waves and currents. Sea
bottom borrow pits remain intact for long periods of time unless currents transport sediments into
the pits and fill them. If the borrow pits are in an area of low wave energy and the surrounding
bottom sediments contain high levels of organic materials, the pits are likely to slowly fill with
the organic-laden sediments. Decomposition of the organic material in these pits may result in
anaerobic conditions and generally poor water quality.
5.37.2 Maintenance and new-work dredging. The use of maintenance and new-work
dredged material for beach restoration can serve two beneficial purposes: placement of the
material and restoration of an eroding beach. If such material is selected, it should closely match
the sediment composition of the eroding beach and be low in fine sediments, organic material,
and pollutants. Sediments containing large quantities of fine materials result in high turbidities
and may introduce trace metals and other contaminants into the water. High turbidities and
sedimentation may inhibit reestablishment of beach animals that have a specific habitat requirement or may prevent recruitment to the beach by pelagic larvae, particularly if beach restoration

5-97

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
occurs during the peak spawning season in spring and early summer. The placement may interfere with the selection of a nesting beach by sea turtles if beach sediments are significantly
changed, and the appearance of such sediments is aesthetically displeasing.
5.37.3 Dumping in the littoral zone. Placement of dredged material can be by deliberate
placement on the sea bottom, where it will be carried by currents and waves to the beach. The
dredged material will replenish the eroding beach in a natural manner as it is carried by wave
energy. Material can be placed in the littoral zone by hydraulic pipeline or by split-hull hopper
dredge.
5.37.4 Rehandling stockpiled material. Coarse-grained dredged material can be pumped
into a holding area, where it is allowed to dewater. Then it can be moved by truck or heavy
equipment onto the eroding beach. This technique is commonly applied in small restoration
projects.
5.38 Environmental Considerations.
5.38.1 Impacts on beach organisms.
5.38.1.1 Animals on high-energy beaches are subject to the effects of seasonal sediment
erosion and accretion as well as major physical changes related to storms. In the Pacific
Northwest, animals may be stressed to the 18 m (60 ft) contour. Beach animals are adapted to
survival under these stressful conditions whereas those animals offshore are generally in a more
stable environment and are less adapted to a high level of sediment movement. Burial of
nonmotile benthic animals by replenishment material placed on the beach or material being
transported offshore from the beach is usually lethal unless the animals are able to migrate
through the sediment overburden and escape. Laboratory studies have shown that some benthic
animals (especially bivalves) can migrate vertically through more than 0.3 m (1 ft) of deposited
sediment. The ability of benthic animals to survive burial by dredged material depends not only
on the depth of the sediment, but also on the length of time the animals are buried, the time of
year, the sediment grain size, the quality of the sediment, and other specific requirements of the
animals. Therefore, rate of survival varies from location to location.
5.38.1.2 Some beach animals, such as colonial seabirds and solitary-nesting plovers, are
highly adapted to the dynamics of beaches, and use them for nesting, resting, and feeding. Bareground nesting species, such as least terns and black skimmers and some plovers, are frequently
found nesting on dredged material beaches. They are much more likely to be successful nesting
on undisturbed, or relatively undisturbed, beaches. On a 32 km (20 mi) dredged material beach
between Gulfport and Biloxi, MS, several kilometers have been set aside and are protected for
nesting by least terns. This beach protection is enforced by county ordinance and by road and
beach patrol, and the beach is plowed to remove colonizing vegetation during the non-nesting
season using county equipment. The result is a spectacular least tern colony of several thousand
pairs, the largest colony in North America (Figure 5-41) (see Section VI, Island Habitats).
Other species also take advantage of this protection and nest there as well.

5-98

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-41. Dredged Material Nesting Beach for Least Terns at Gulfport, MS
5.38.1.3 Beach nourishment creates new habitat that is uninhabited by benthic animals,
except for those that may have survived being pumped to the beach with the dredged material or
those that survived by vertical migration through deposited sediments. A beach nourishment
operation is generally followed by rapid establishment of new benthic populations. Many of these
are opportunistic species that develop large population densities, then decline as other species
that are more adaptable to the new habitat are recruited. The time for the resident species to
become established is referred to as the recovery time of the nourished area (the time required to
approach a stable animal population level). Recovery time varies, depending upon type of recruitment of benthic animals. Those animals that have planktonic larvae or can migrate from nearby
areas into the nourished area establish rapidly whereas those that spend their entire life cycle
within the sediments may be slow in recovering. Once beach restoration ceases, recovery of
benthic animals is generally rapid, and complete recovery usually occurs within one or two
seasons.
5.38.1.4 The sediment type used for nourishment and the season of year the nourishment
takes place are critical to the recovery rate. If the dredged material is different from the natural
beach sediment or contains large quantities of fine material, there may be a major change in
beach biota, and it may require a long period of time before local resident populations can be
reestablished.
5.38.2 Impacts on offshore organisms. Potentially, the most serious impact of offshore
dredging is the loss or damage to major commercial species of benthic shellfish, sea grass beds,
corals, and sea turtles. Damage can be minimized by proper selection of borrow areas, by precisely positioning the dredge to avoid these sensitive resources, and by using dredging equipment
that minimizes sedimentation and turbidity, such as a suction dredge.

5-99

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.38.2.1 Benthos.
a. Repopulation of a dredged area by benthic animals depend on the magnitude of the
disturbance, the new sediment interface, and the water quality in the borrow pit. Borrow pits will
be recolonized by migration of animals from adjacent areas and by larval transport. Stability of
the environment and bottom sediment type after dredging are major factors in determining the
level and rate of species recolonization. It is extremely important to remember that if bottom
sediments are significantly changed from the natural sediments, the reestablished populations
may not be of the same magnitude or species composition as those prior to dredging.
b. Offshore borrow pits that accumulate organic material and acquire high concentrations of
hydrogen sulfide and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the water are generally very poor
quality aquatic habitats. They also usually take a long time to recolonize by benthic animals, or
may never recolonize.
5.38.2.2 Corals.
a. The ability of corals to recover from beach nourishment is related to the extent of reef
damage. If a reef is heavily damaged by equipment being dragged across the reef, by being
covered with sediments, or by all corals being killed, the reef can take a long time to recover, or
it may never recover. It has been shown that corals may recover if the damage is not too
extensive. Corals along the Florida Atlantic Coast damaged during beach nourishment apparently
recovered by 7 years after the dredging operation.
b. Corals along Florida and Hawaii coasts are susceptible to direct physical damage by
dredging and to sedimentation and reduced light unless dredging operations are carefully planned
and executed. With proper planning and control, dredging impacts on corals can be minimized.
One of the most significant impacts on corals results from dragging of anchors and cables, which
collapse the reef and destroy benthic animals. Erosion and scour at the base of the corals in the
dredged area also may damage corals. This can result in the corals slumping or tilting or in
forming overhangs that tend to break off. Reef coral recovery is very slow.
5.38.2.3 Fish and motile invertebrates.
a. The mobility of fish and some invertebrates renders them less vulnerable to the adverse
effects of beach nourishment than the nonmotile benthic communities. When disturbed by beach
nourishment, motile animals generally leave the area. Those animals that do not leave or are
susceptible to suspended sediments in the water can be killed by coating of their gills, leading to
anoxia; or if they spawn in the area, the sediments may cover or delay hatching time of their
eggs. Feeding habits also may vary according to length of exposure to suspended sediments.
Filter-feeding fish are more vulnerable to siltation than bottom feeders.
b. Destruction of habitat rather than suspended sediment seems to be a greater potential
problem to fish. Those fish either closely associated with the beach for some part of their life
cycle for spawning (for example, California grunion) and some burrowing and reef-dwelling
species with limited mobility (for example, the dusky jawfish on the Florida Atlantic Coast) are

5-100

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
more likely to be adversely affected. Beach nourishment operations at Imperial Beach, CA, did
not prevent subsequent spawning of the grunion; however, on the Florida Atlantic Coast they
may have displaced the dusky jawfish.
c. Loss of benthic animals due to sediment burial may indirectly affect motile animals that
prey on them. This was suspected to have occurred following a nourishment project on the North
Carolina coast. Nourishment occurring during the peak season of beach animal recruitment
delayed population reestablishment for several months. During this period, fish and shellfish that
usually feed in the surf zone were not observed. Nourishment may also have had short-term
benefits to some fish by suspending additional food materials, and the associated turbidities may
have provided protection from predators to some motile animals. Studies have shown that
moderate to complete recovery of motile animals usually occurs within less than a year unless a
required habitat or food source is permanently lost. Fish have been observed moving into an area
within the first day after a disturbance.
d. Mobile animals are least affected by borrowing operations because of their ability to
avoid a disturbed area. Studies have shown that fish leave an area of active dredging and return
when dredging ceases. Whether fish continue to use a borrow pit as habitat depends on water
quality in the pit. If the pit accumulates anaerobic sediment that results in poor water quality, fish
will avoid the pit. However, fish may be attracted to a dredged area as a result of suspended food
and as a haven from the cold surface water during the winter. The sediment plume from the
dredge may also provide protection to some motile animals. Total recovery at a dredged site,
therefore, is variable and ranges from immediate for some species to a year or more for others,
depending on the nature of the habitat modification.
5.38.2.4 Sea turtles.
a. The sea turtle is one of the animals most vulnerable to the effects of beach nourishment
on the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Figure 5-42). Turtle nesting on the beaches and
replenishment operations occasionally conflict in these areas. There is concern that turtle nesting
and hatching success may be adversely affected by beach nourishment. Guidelines for placing
sand on a known turtle nesting beach are not complicated. Dredged material should be pumped
onto the beach in a natural beach profile and contour at least 6 months prior to turtle haul-out so
that the material has had time to settle, sort, and begin to function like a natural beach prior to
egg laying. Winter months (December-March) are the months outside sea turtle nesting windows.
b. Sand particle size and sand compaction have been found to influence nest site selection
by some sea turtles. Aborted nesting attempts (false crawls) have occurred on rebuilt beaches in
Florida. The precise effects of beach nourishment on nesting sea turtles have not been
documented because of insufficient studies. The present limited data indicate caution should be
taken in rebuilding beaches that are known to be major turtle nesting sites. It is best to avoid
turtle nesting beaches from April through November, the period encompassing all of the sea
turtle nesting and incubation season. Such operations must be closely coordinated with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and State
agencies.

5-101

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-42. A Sea Turtle Hatchling Moving Toward Open Water on a Florida
Dredged-Material Beach
c. Hibernating or aestivating sea turtles have been captured and killed by trawls and
dredges. Turtles that are not hibernating or aestivating should be able to avoid a dredge and move
back into an area when dredging ceases. If hibernating sea turtles are located, dredging should
cease until the operation can be coordinated with the FWS. A new series of studies has found
ways to exclude hibernating turtles from being sucked into dredges, and all dredges working in
channels where sea turtle hibernation is likely must be equipped with these excluders.
5.38.2.5 Sea grass beds. Caution should be taken to avoid these highly productive areas
because sea grasses recover very slowly, if ever. Both the actual dredging operation and the
turbidity caused by adjacent dredging destroy sea grasses. To date, sea grass transplantation has
not been refined to a point where a high-percentage survival of transplants and economic
feasibility justify efforts to restore large areas of destroyed sea grasses. Dredging cautions for
corals should also apply for sea grasses. See Section VII, Aquatic Habitats, for guidelines on
restoration of sea grass beds.
5.38.3 Timing. Timing of the nourishment operation may also be a critical factor in
reestablishment of benthic animals. If nourishment occurs during spring and early summer,
recruitment of planktonic larvae may be inhibited. High turbidities and unstable substrate are
known to preclude larval settlement, thus delaying recovery time of benthic animals. The best
time ecologically for beach nourishment and borrowing is during the period of lowest biological
activity. This is usually during the winter when there would be minimal effect on the adult and
developmental stages of most nearshore and beach animals. At this time, adults have usually
migrated out of the area and are less concentrated in the shallow beach zone, and the nesting and

5-102

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
spawning season of beach animals has passed. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to ensure that no
sensitive nonmotile animals are in the area.
5.38.4 Dredged material substrates. Sediments to be used as material should match the
natural beach sediments and be low in pollutants. This recommendation is particularly important
when maintenance dredged material is used for beach nourishment. Minimum damage to beach
animals occurs when clean sand is placed on a sandy substrate whereas damage to the benthic
animals is great if fine sediments high in organic material are used. Changes in the sand particle
size on ocean beaches, should they occur, may also influence site selection and nesting of the
threatened and endangered sea turtles.
5.38.5 Equipment in sensitive areas.
5.38.5.1 If it can be avoided, the cutterhead on a suction dredge should not be used in the
vicinity of live coral reefs or other light-sensitive resources unless barriers are established to
separate the dredging site from them. The suction dredge without a cutterhead is a better choice
because siltation is minimized, and there is less potential for physical damage to the reef. The
dredge should be positioned within the designated borrow area and should not cross a live coral
reef, commercial clam bed, or other valuable resources. Cables, anchors, and discharge pipes of a
dredge should be positioned in sand or another nonsensitive habitat. Local directions in tidal flow
and current should be determined prior to dredging and the operation adjusted to prevent
sediments from crossing live coral reefs or other sensitive resources.
5.38.5.2 Consideration should be given to shallow dredging over a large area in a low wave
energy environment rather than deep dredging, which may create a stagnant borrow pit that will
require a long time to recover or may never recover. Although ecological damage from dredging
the shallow pit is initially greater, recovery should be faster in the shallow dredged area.
5.38.6 Monitoring. Biotic surveys should be made at beach restoration and borrow sites. As
an absolute minimum, a preproject baseline survey should be made to identify and locate natural
resources (for example, corals, commercial clam beds, sea turtle nesting beaches, fish spawning
areas, and sea grass beds) to aid the planner in avoiding potential damage to these resources.
Section IX
Parks and Recreation
5.39 General.
5.39.1 Potential recreational uses of dredged material placement sites are practically
unlimited. They range from projects as simple as fill for a recreation access road to projects as
large as Belle Island in the Detroit River on the United States-Canada border and the Lake
Vancouver Park, WA, to projects as complex as the 1,800 ha Mission Bay development in
San Diego, CA, supporting both public and private commercial and noncommercial recreation
facilities. There are several hundred known examples of recreational beneficial uses of dredged
material, a number of which are listed in Appendix D, Plant Materials for Beneficial Use Sites.
Many sites are multipurposewhile they include recreation facilities and activities, they also

5-103

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
include education (nature trails, visitors centers, museums), fitness (hiking biking, jogging),
natural resources, commercial, and other types of beneficial uses as well.
5.39.2 Of all types of beneficial uses, recreation on dredged material containment sites is
one of the most prevalent land uses in actual acres. It is not surprising to find many examples of
such use since there is such a demand for recreational sites in urban areas, where much dredging
occurs. However, this requires sound, careful planning to accomplish; financial investments vary
from project to project and can be quite expensive on large complex sites. The nature of
recreation sites with requirements of a lot of open space and lightweight structures is especially
suited to the weaker foundation conditions associated with fine-grained dredged material.
Recreational land also is generally for public use, and high demand for public water-oriented
recreation encourages the development of recreational land use projects on dredged material.
Finally, legislation relating to wetlands, coastal zone management, and flood control is biased in
favor of this type of use. The recreational land use of dredged material containment sites is one of
the more promising and implementable beneficial uses of dredged material, but it is heavily
dependent on financial backing at the local level.
5.39.3 Many factors influence the potential use of dredged material placement sites for
recreational purposes. Important ones that must be considered include the local or regional
demand and need for recreational facilities, the interest and capability of local cost-sharing
sponsors to participate in development and operation, and available access. Local and regional
planners, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and public participation programs are
all sources of information about public demands and needs. Local and regional planners are also
good sources of information on potential project sponsors. As Americans devote more and more
time to natural resource exploration and leisure activities, the demands on recreation and park
facilities are at an all-time high. Visitors to dredged material sites that have been developed
beneficially for recreation number in the hundreds of thousands annually (Skjei 1976).
5.39.4 The recreational facilities that the USACE develops at flood control and hydropower
dams/reservoirs are built near bodies of water and, as a result, a number of them are also located
completely or partly on dredged material.
5.40 Case Studies. Many worthy case studies throughout the United States and Canada could be
highlighted in this manual. Dredged material foundation recreational and park facilities exist
along nearly every large waterway and water-fronted city in America.
5.40.1 Lake Vancouver. A large, complex lake restoration dredging project constructed by
the Port of Vancouver, WA, from 1985-1987, used the dredged material in numerous beneficial
ways, including channel access improvements and the construction of beaches and picnic
facilities as well as islands in the lake that attract fishermen and boaters. Some of this rich
dredged material was also used to enhance sandy agricultural land in the vicinity. This project
was so state-of-the-art in the Pacific Northwest when plans were announced that it took 10 years
for the Port to obtain all of the necessary state and federal permits for restoration construction
due to the lack of precedent in the region. However, it is a stellar example of lake restoration
techniques and practices for the United States and can be used as a model for hundreds of lakes
and reservoirs in need of restoration due to trapped sediments (Landin 1997a).
5-104

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.40.2 Belle Island. A large natural island in the Detroit River, in Michigan on the United
States-Canada border, has been enlarged and enhanced during numerous dredging cycles using
material from the river. In the 1990s, recreational facilities constructed on dredged material
included beaches, a museum, fitness paths/walks, softball and other sports fields, picnic facilities,
parking lots, and other open space. There are still ample opportunities for continued expansion of
Belle Island using maintenance dredged material.
5.40.3 East Potomac Park. A noncommercial recreational development at East Potomac
Park in southwest Washington, DC, is located astride the confluence of the Anacostia and
Potomac Rivers. Placement operations completed in 1912 created 133 ha from fine-grained clays
and organic materials dredged from the Potomac main channel. By 1925 the park had reached
full recreational development, and since 1939 ownership and operation of the facility have been
in the hands of the National Park Service. The site currently offers four nine-hole golf courses, a
snack bar, a driving range, and a clubhouse. Other recreational facilities include a swimming
pool, indoor and outdoor tennis courts, eight baseball fields, and fields for field hockey, football,
and polo. Buildings on the site include the National Park Service offices, a maintenance building,
a comfort station, and several other minor structures. Use of the park open space for recreation
has increased to the extent that the conversion of a portion of golf course land to open space is
being considered. The park serves a regional need for recreation of residents of the District of
Columbia, Arlington County, and the City of Alexandria, VA, as well as for area commuters. In
1975, the North Atlantic Division placed the value of the park at $94 million. In 1999, the park
served tens of thousands of citizens and visitors to Washington, DC.
5.40.4 Patriots Point. The Patriots Point Project, a 182 ha commercially oriented recreational site immediately across the Cooper River, 1.6 km (1 mi) east of Charleston, SC, was
built on an old placement site. The site, formerly known as Hog Island, was used for placement
of maintenance and new-channel dredged material, primarily mixed sandy silt and clay, from
1956 to 1970; dikes were constructed of heavy clay. In the early 1970s, a quasi-state agency,
designated the Patriots Point Development Authority, was established to plan and develop a
recreational complex. The focal point of the development is a Naval and Maritime Museum with
the aircraft carrier Yorktown, moored at the site in early 1976, as the principal attraction. The
Authoritys master plan includes an 18-hole golf course, a 150-room motor inn with convention
facilities, a 375-slip marina, a 300-space recreational vehicle park. Long-range construction
includes an oceanarium, aquatic theater, amphitheater, restaurant, man-made lakes, and
permanent mooring for at least three more classes of decommissioned naval ships as the vessels
become available. A dike-top tour route around the site was constructed. The project attracts
some 1.5 million visitors annually. Structures at the site are supported on pilings due to the
compressible nature of the fine-grained dredged sediments and underlying organic material. An
overburden of sand will be added as needed to provide suitable drainage and foundation
conditions for light structures and parking areas. Topsoil, including some dredged material, was
placed in portions of the site to encourage vegetative growth, particularly in designated buffer
zones. Figure 5-43 depicts the master plan for Patriots Point. The Patriots Point Park is an
ongoing project that will continue to provide recreation in the Charleston area to citizens and
visitors.

5-105

Figure 5-43. Master Plan of Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum, Charleston, SC (from Conrad and Pack 1978); This
Site Continued to Follow its Master Plan in 2000

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-106

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.40.5 Kalawa Recreational Area. A large marina, fishing pier, and water sports complex
was built in the 1970s on sandy dredged material in the Columbia River at Kalawa, WA
(Figure 5-44). The area was armored with riprap to prevent current erosion. It also contains park
areas, a heliport, a recreational center, and baseball fields.
5.40.6 Central U.S. and Mississippi Valley. Numerous recreation sitessuch as riverside
picnic areas, water parks, marinas, and other river-related siteshave been built on dredged
material, both by the USACE and by private sponsors, along the Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois,
Tennessee, Tombigbee, and Ohio Rivers and their tributaries. In the U.S. and Canadian Great
Lakes, parks, marinas, fishing piers, and other recreation facilities have been built on dredged
material in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, Duluth Harbor, and a number of other urban areas.
5.40.7 Others. More than 150 selected examples of recreational use of dredged material are
listed in Appendix D, Plant Materials for Beneficial Use Sites.
5.41 Recreation Activities and Facilities.
5.41.1 Certain types of private recreation facilities, while they are on dredged material
placement sites, are normally provided by private enterprise. Although the USACE does not
participate in the provision of these types of facilities, they should be regarded as potential
beneficial uses since they occur on placement sites. These sites often provide cost-feasible and
socially acceptable placement alternatives. Placement sites in coastal and riverine areas have
highly diverse recreation potential, especially for water-oriented activities. These sites are
especially attractive for shoreline recreation development, such as swimming beaches, boat
launching ramps, and fishing piers. When areas are of sufficient size, campgrounds, marinas,
outdoor sport facilities, and hiking and nature trail systems may be constructed. Recreation
development potential of these areas is quite high when authority, funds, and land area are all of
sufficient amounts, and the public interest is best served by such development. The types of
activities and facilities that can be provided on dredged material sites are included in Table 5-8.
Recreation planning and design criteria for specific recreation facilities are provided in EM 11102-410. While high site recreational use is generally dependent on facilities development,
undeveloped placement lands also attract a segment of the public for activities appropriate for
those areas, such as nature study, primitive camping, hiking, hunting, and beachcombing.
Provision for access to these areas is one of the minimal requirements. These undeveloped sites
are also used as trails for off-road vehicular recreation.
5.41.2 Dredged material placement islands are also used extensively for recreational
purposes. They provide a base for such water-based activities as hunting, fishing, boating, waterskiing, swimming, and camping. In many river and estuarine systems, dredged-material islands
and beaches are the only available sandy beaches, and there is often site use conflict between
wildlife, especially ground-nesting colonial birds and beach-nesting sea and freshwater turtles,
and humans. The recreation experience and enjoyment of the users can be affected by the
development and design of the placement sites and by the timing of placement operations.
Variations in size, proximity, and level of development of camping sites can provide a diversity
of recreation experiences.

5-107

Figure 5-44. This Riverside Recreational Area at Kalawa, WA, was Built on Material Dredged from the Columbia River more
than 25 Years ago and is still in Active Use

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-108

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table 5-8. Types of Recreational Activities and Facilities Found on Dredged Material
Placement Sites
Activities
Beachcombing
Bicycling
Bird watching
Boat launching
Camping
Dining
Fishing
Hiking
Hunting
Motorcross and dirt biking
Nature study
Outdoor games
Picnicking
Sunbathing
Swimming
Viewing

Required Facilities
Beach
Trails or roads
Undeveloped natural areas
Ramps, parking area, marina
Campground
Restaurants and snack shops
Water access
Trails
Undeveloped natural areas
Trails
Undeveloped natural areas
Athletic fields and playgrounds
Tables, trash receptacles
Beach
Beach
Scenic overlook or observation tower

5.41.3 Development of facilities and vegetation on these islands should preserve the more
primitive conditions of naturally occurring point or island bars. A study of recreation users on the
Upper Mississippi River noted preferences for undeveloped islands composed of mostly open
sand with some trees and grass; islands with riverine vegetation were not favored. Extensive
vegetation on placement islands is therefore not required nor desired for recreational use. The use
of a given dredged material island or sandbar was influenced by the presence of sandy beach
areas, adequate water depth for boats, and uncrowded conditions that gave users relative isolation
from other campers. Similar studies and observations have been made on coastal dredged
material islands, and users consistently preferred the undeveloped islands. Since these are the
same islands used by nesting colonies of sea and wading birds, careful management is very
necessary.
5.41.4 Proper location of dredged material islands and access points can also reduce
boating congestion in locks and navigation channels. Many boaters in the Upper Mississippi
River survey noted that they used the locks only to reach their favorite placement sites. Development of more and better spaced multiple launching points and/or the location of specifically
designed placement sites near population centers could eliminate some of the recreation blockages and the traffic congestion in navigation channels.

5-109

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.41.5 The recreation potential of both shoreline and island placement areas can be
enhanced by management of fish and wildlife habitat. Fish and wildlife habitat development is an
authorized purpose goal of navigation projects involving dredging, and it is strongly encouraged
by the USACE. Wildlife enhancement and mitigation may also be required to offset habitat
losses due to project construction. In such cases, lands are generally purchased or long-term
easements obtained, and detailed habitat management plans are developed and implemented.
However, in a number of areas where dredging occurs, placement sites are limited, and even a
well-developed long-range management plan is usually lacking for enough placement sites. In
these instances, it may be more practical to manage for nongame species and nonconsumptive
recreational use rather than the more traditional game management for sport hunting. A variety of
songbirds and other small animals is appreciated by the public, and with proper habitat
management (such as nest boxes, food and cover plantings, and bird watching observation
towers), these species can be encouraged around picnic, camping, and other recreation areas.
5.41.6 When fishing is a recreational goal at a placement site, some basic management
techniques to maintain high populations and harvests of game fishes may be required by
developing and maintaining ponded areas in placement sites. Spawning beds and water level
manipulation to enhance reproduction, reefs, and piers to attract and concentrate fish, and a
sound plan for dredged material placement contribute to a healthy sports fishery in a given area.
This includes management of pest species such as an overabundance of native carp and bait fish
escaped from bait pails, exotic carp, and zebra mussels.
5.42 Recreation Carrying Capacity.
5.42.1 Proper design of recreation developments on dredged material placement sites can
ensure that recreation use does not exceed the recreation carrying capacity of the resource.
Carrying capacity is the maximum potential level of use that avoids social overcrowding and
resource overuse. A number of methods are available to estimate recreation carrying capacity of
projects (Urban Research and Development Corporation 1980). Proper project design of structures, facilities, and access points decreases the likelihood of overuse or underuse. Overuse of
recreational resources results in overcrowding of recreation users and degradation of the dredged
material resource. Since most parks and recreational facilities constructed on dredged material
are already heavily used, utilization of more dredged material and construction of more riverbank
and shoreline parks are greatly needed to provide citizen recreational opportunities.
5.42.2 Sandbars, beaches, and other placement sites can be strategically located to further
disperse recreation use to areas able to support the use. Barriers and screens such as ditches,
fences, and berms can be placed adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas and hazardous
locations at placement sites such as those where incremental dredging is still occurring and
where recreation use is not desired. On such sites still in active use, serious consideration must be
given to liability from accidental or purposeful human intrusion onto the active placement
portion of the site. The density concentrations of boating, boat fishing, and waterskiing can be
affected in part by the number, location, and distribution of boat launching, docking, and servicing facilities built throughout an area. Providing multiple launching and docking facilities at
placement sites tends to reduce density concentrations and distribute recreation use more evenly.

5-110

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.42.3 Maintaining fenced-off sensitive areassuch as ongoing dredging operations, nesting
bird colonies, and sea turtle nesting beachesis a continuing management problem on dredged
material sites because both ordinary citizens and vandals cut, break, and otherwise compromise
fences to get at what they perceive to be better recreational spots inside the fences. This is
especially a problem along beaches where law enforcement and supervision are stretched thinly. It
is impossible to supervise fenced-off areas on isolated islands and primitive rural riverbank sites,
and signs are usually the only means available to aid in education. Such potential invasions and
vandalisms should be taken seriously when planning, locating, and designing dredged material
recreational areas, and sites be placed or designed where these problems are taken into account
from the outset of the project. Once a project is in place, it is often too late to go back and design in
features that allow for sensitive area designation without causing other problems with the overall
design and with public perception and recreational use of the project site.
Section X
Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry, and Aquaculture
5.43 General. Over the past 100 years, considerable and innovative uses of dredged material
placement sites have been made by the agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and aquaculture
industries. Some placement sites, especially in river systems, have provided livestock pastures.
These pastures have not been developed in any way except by allowing natural grass colonization
or by planting pasture grasses on them. Other uses involve actively incorporating dredged material into marginal soils (Gupta et al. 1978). An attractive alternative for disposing of dredged
sediments is to use these rich materials to amend marginal soils for agriculture, forestry, and
horticulture purposes. Marginal soils historically were not intensively farmed because of inherent
limitations such as poor drainage, unsuitable grain size, and poor physical and chemical conditions, but in the past few decades they were put into intensive row-crop cultivation due to
increases in world farm prices. Now these lands are being reclaimed as the forests, wetlands, and
grasslands they once were through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) private-landowner-cooperative Wetlands Reserve Program
because the lands were not suitable for intensive cultivation. Millions of hectares of these
marginal soils are located near waterways; over 500,000 ha have already been converted back to
natural habitats through the Wetlands Reserve Program and other incentive programs.
5.44 Agriculture. Walsh and Malkasian (1978) and Landin (1997b) note extensive interest in the
agricultural use of dredged material, especially by cost-sharing sponsors looking for partners in
placement sites. For example, about 200 ha of the Old Daniel Island Placement Site in South
Carolina have been successfully truck farmed for the past 22 years, and other parts of the site are
planted in soybeans, an agronomic crop. The Tulsa District has approximately 1,200 ha of
dredged material containment sites leased for use as grazing land, and grazing is extensive on
dredged material deposits along the lower Columbia River. When dredged material is free of
nuisance weeds and has the proper balance of nutrients, it is very similar to productive agricultural soils and can be beneficial for increasing crop production when incorporated or mixed. By
the addition of dredged material, the physical and chemical characteristics of a marginal soil can
be altered to such an extent that water and nutrients become more available for crop growth. In
some cases, raising the elevation of the soil surface with a cover of dredged material may

5-111

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
improve surface drainage and reduce flooding and therefore lengthen the growing season, such as
for soils in floodplains. Adding sand dredged material to heavy clay (for example, Lake
Vancouver, WA) and adding silt to pure sand (for example, Nott Island, CT) to improve soil productivity are very feasible options. Dredged material characteristics that influence plant growth
and guidance for dredged material incorporation and cover use are discussed in this section.
5.44.1 Planning considerations. Chemical and physical analyses of the dredged material,
site locations, weed infestation potential, and possible salinity problems must be considered
before deciding upon the suitability of a specific dredged material as a medium for agricultural
purposes. Figure 5-45 demonstrates priority listing of these factors to be used when considering
the feasibility of an agricultural use for dredged material at the containment site (Spaine, Llopis,
and Perrier 1978).

Figure 5-45. Decisional Factors to be Considered at the Dredged Material Containment

area Before Applying Dredged Material for Agricultural Purposes
5.44.1.1 Chemical analyses. Since dredging operations may take place in waterways
containing industrial wastes and sediment runoff from agricultural areas, dredged material can
contain heavy metals, oil and grease, high nutrient concentrations from fertilizer runoff, and other
enrichment or contaminants.
a. Heavy metals. Heavy metal uptake by plants depends on a number of factors, primarily
the form and concentration of metals in the rooting media, and the type and variety of plant.

5-112

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Research has shown that the heavy metal uptake by plants is normally much less than the heavy
metal content of the rooting media (Gupta et al. 1978; Lee, Engler and Mahloch 1976). Table 5-9
shows the range in the concentration of heavy metal uptake by agronomic and common vegetable
food crops grown under normal conditions and the suggested plant tolerance levels (Gupta et al.
1978; Lee, Engler and Mahloch 1976). The question as to whether to produce food or nonfood
crops depends on the chemical contaminants present in the dredged material. Agricultural service
agencies and extension offices can assist with guidelines and answers to specific questions.
Research has shown that relationships exist between the extractable heavy metals in the soil and
the heavy metal uptake by certain plants (Lee et al. 1978). These data are important to dredged
material applications upon existing soils if a food crop is to be grown, but they are less important
when nonfood crops are to be produced. Examples of nonfood crops are Christmas trees, pulpwood, commercial timber, or wooded wetlands grown on dredged material containing concentrations of heavy metals too high for human, domestic livestock, or wildlife consumption
(A.D. Little, Inc., 1975; Landin 1997b). Another example is the uptake of minimal amounts of
heavy metals in the heads of grain plants, making them a good food crop selection even if larger
amounts of heavy metals are present; however, the heavy metals may concentrate in the leaves,
making these grain crops less desirable when harvested as a forage. A unique example of the
utilization of what had been perceived by regulators as being too contaminated for wetland
mitigation purposes are hundreds of hectares inside abandoned containment sites of sandy
dredged material being farmed by local landowners in New Jersey in corn, soybeans, hay crops,
and millet (Landin 1997b). Soil analyses conducted by the company proposing the forested
wetland mitigation use in 1995 of one of these sites in New Jersey indicate that the dredged
material has never been or is no longer contaminated (no speculation as to which scenario
applied).
Table 5-9. Average Range of Heavy Metal Uptake by Plants for Selected Food Crops1 and
Suggested Plant Tolerance Levels (from Gupta et al. 1978)
Element
Average Range, ppm
Suggested Tolerance Level, ppm
Cadmium
0.05-0.20
4
Copper
3-40
150
Iron
20-300
850
Manganese
15-150
325
Nickel
0.01-1.0
4
Lead
0.1-5.0
10
Zinc
15-150
350
Boron
7-75
200
Chromium
0.1-0.5
2
1 Corn, soybeans, tomatoes, beets, lettuce, peas, potatoes, melons, squash, alfalfa, clover, wheat, oat,
barley, and pasture grasses.
b. Nutrients. Nutrient analyses of dredged material should provide data to determine
nutrient availability and to establish recommended fertilizer applications for vegetative production. The nutrient constituents of dredged material that require greatest attention are nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, metallic metals, and organic compounds. Although medium- and fine-

5-113

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
grained dredged material is normally high in nutrients available for plant uptake, the levels of
these nutrients are usually not high enough to limit plant growth. However, nitrogen, which is
usually in the ammonium form, does undergo nitrification rapidly in an aerobic soil. Nitrate is the
readily available form of nitrogen for plant uptake or loss by surface runoff and leaching into
groundwater. Specific recommendations on rates of fertilizers can be obtained from the State soil
testing service or local agricultural extension agent after soil tests have been conducted. A
considerable portion of dredged material, especially in the Upper Mississippi River and some
coastal areas, is sterile, clean sand. In these cases, the dredged material sites may never be
suitable for agriculture, and will need major nutrient and soil amendment incorporation.
c. Oil and grease. Research has shown that the oil and grease content of some dredged
material is considerably higher than that of soil. Depressed agricultural yields attributable to high
oil and grease content have never been studied. Possible effects of high oil and grease content on
soil properties or plant growth are an apparent slower wetting of the soil materials, a smothering
effect on plant parts, and a tendency to restrict water uptake by the plants. Dredged material
known to contain these contaminants should be grown only in longer-maturation, nonfood crops
such as commercial timber or pulpwood.
d. Lime requirements. Lime requirements for dredged material vary, but if the pH of the
material is below 6.5, it should be amended with ground agricultural limestone immediately after
being applied to marginal soil for agricultural production and disked into the dredged material
top dressing and the underlying soils. Large amounts of sulfur in the dredged material require
heavy initial applications of lime to neutralize the acidity as well as succeeding applications to
maintain neutral conditions. A soil pH below 4.0 indicates the presence of free acids resulting
from the accumulation of sulfate and nitrate ions; a pH below 5.5 suggests the presence of toxic
quantities of exchangeable aluminum, iron, and manganese; and a pH from 7.8 to 8.2 may
indicate an accumulation of the bicarbonate ion, and the uptake of elements will be detrimental to
plant growth. Gupta et al. (1978) provide specific recommendations on rates of both fertilizer and
lime to apply at various soil (dredged material) deficiency levels. A rule of thumb for lime
requirements of high-sulfur dredged material is to double the usual lime requirement and to make
additional applications of lime every 2-3-years until the material stabilizes at a more sustainable
pH for plant growth. One upland nesting meadow DMRP site at Nott Island, CT, was limed with
generous amounts of lime and disked into the dredged material substrate, but it proved over time
to be insufficient to maintain the mixture of planted legumes and grasses at the site. The legumes
died out due to continued low pH and no additional applications of lime and fertilizers (Landin,
Webb, and Knutson 1989). One of the objectives of the 25-year, long-term dredged material
habitat development monitoring study that included Nott Island was to determine what natural
successional changes occurred on the 11 study sites over time with no additional management
and physical maintenance.
5.44.1.2 Physical analyses. The physical characteristics of dredged material can assist the
USACE in making critical judgments of the best use of dredged material to ensure against
adverse impacts on agricultural lands. The texture and water content are essential tests to aid in
characterization of dredged material deposits within a containment site.

5-114

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Texture. Textural classification helps to determine not only the nutrient-supplying ability
of soil materials, but also the supply and exchange of water and air that are so important to plant
life. Therefore, an important criterion is to adjust the texture of the final mixture of dredged
material and marginal soil to approximate a loam soil (USDA classification). Using the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS), a dredged material of loam texture contains silts and clays
whose liquid limit is less than 50. Mixing a fine-textured dredged material (silt and clay) with a
coarse-textured marginal soil (sand) to the proportions of a loam would improve its physical and
chemical characteristics for crop production. Sandy, coarse-grained dredged material is generally
low in organic matter content, available nutrients, and heavy metal concentrations. Dredged
material of this type may have potential as an amendment to heavy, poorly drained clay soils such
as those found in the Lower Mississippi Valley floodplain, improving structure and permeability.
For beneficial surface applications without incorporation with existing soils, it would be
preferable to apply dredged material of loam textures only. Sandy loams are generally preferred
for vegetable root crops such as carrots, beets, potatoes, and peanuts whereas loam to silt-loam
soils are preferred for row crops, orchards, and small grains. Dry, sandy dredged material
deposits along the Columbia River and similar conditions are being successfully used for
livestock feed lots because drainage is superb on such sites, thus cutting down on disease
incidence in the feed lots (Landin 1997b).
b. Water content. It is desirable to have the water content of dredged material being placed
on agricultural lands within the plastic limit range. This presents fewer problems in handling,
placing, and mixing. If dredged material is to be placed in slurry form, the lift thickness should
be limited to 45 ha. This thickness of dredged material will usually dry within a 6-month period,
depending upon dredged material texture, to the point where soil mixing and farming operations
can begin.
5.44.1.3 Weeds. Weed infestation is generally a serious problem in many dewatered,
inactive, fine-grained dredged material containment areas. Prior to the transport of dewatered
dredged material to an agricultural site, an extensive weed control effort may have to be initiated
to avoid serious weed problems to the agricultural producer. For example, an application of
herbicide or removal of the top 15 cm (6 in.) vegetation layer of the containment area with a
bulldozer before the transport of dredged material to the agricultural site would temporarily
control the weed problem although weedy seed banks may still be present in the dredged
material. Transport of such material, unless it was only to the advantage of the USACE to do so,
should be at the expense of the agricultural producer. If the material has been very moist and the
site is growing in common reed (Phragmites), moving the material to a drier agricultural field
should eliminate the reed, but it is such a persistent species that herbicides may also be needed.
However, some enterprising farmers in New Jersey who own old dredged material containment
areas now cut and bale the common reed as hay for their cattle (Landin 1997b) (Figure 5-46).

5-115

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-46. Hay Bales of Common Reed, Used for Cattle Feed, in an
Older Dredged Material Placement Site in New Jersey, 1996

5.44.1.4 Salinity. If the dredged material is from a coastal or tidal region, special attention
must be given to salinity because crops will not grow on highly saline soils, and few agronomic
crops will grow in brackish soils. Sand dredged material leaches salts readily and can be used in
1-2 years. The electrical conductivity of a soil-water extract gives an indication of the total
concentration of soluble salts in the soil. The term soluble salts refers to the inorganic soil
constituents that are soluble in water. Excess soluble salts not only limit the availability of water
to plants but also restrict growth. Salt-tolerant plant species are available, and research on salttolerant agriculture crops has been underway for more than 20 years. The NRCS Golden
Meadows Plant Materials Center in Louisiana has developed very promising salt-tolerant cultivars, a number of which have been commercially released and are being planted by American
farmers. Techniques for treating dredged material with high salinity problems are available and
should be completed before the material is transported to an agricultural site if the material is
fine-grained; this is not necessary for sand dredged material.
5.44.1.5 Agricultural site selection. The distance and mode of transportation used for the
movement of dredged material determines the major costs of its application to agricultural lands.
Thus, the agricultural site selected should be in reasonable proximity to the dredged material
placement site and adaptable to the long-range placement needs of the USACE.
a. Agricultural service agencies. In most areas of the country, a variety of suitable locations
of marginal soils can be found by contacting the local offices of the Soil Conservation Service
and U.S. Forest Service as well as the local Agricultural Extension Service. Soil classification
and land use maps are available from these agencies as is direct assistance in locating marginal
soils suitable for amendment with dredged material.

5-116

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Type of placement site. The type of placement site determines whether it can be used for
agriculture (that is, whether it is a short- term or long-term placement area). Short-term usage
means 1-3 months time for both the transfer of dredged material from a containment site and the
transport, spread, mix, and cultivation of the dredged material for seedbed preparation at the
agricultural site. Long-term usage implies that the agricultural site can be used as an active
placement area over a long period of time (5-10 years). This would involve only a few acres of
the agricultural site at any one time in applications of dredged material, so the rest of the field
could be planted in crops. A schematic of a long-term placement area is shown in Figure 5-47,
where various levels of dredged material are being used for different activities. Shallow-rooted
crops such as grasses, small grains, soybeans, and vegetables can be cultivated in designated
areas when dredged material is first applied (15-30 cm [6-12 in.] depth). However, as the
application of dredged material is continued in specific areas of the field (1 m [3.3 ft] or more in
depth), deep-rooted crops such as corn, sorghum, cotton, alfalfa, and trees can be successfully
cultivated. On full or abandoned placement sites, these areas are already in active use in rural
areas by farmers in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina, Illinois, and Iowa (Landin 1997b).

Figure 5-47. Schematic of a Long-Term Agricultural Dredged Material Placement Site

(from Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978)
c. Transport. The accessibility to the dredged material containment site and the agricultural
site determines project viability and mode of transport. The agricultural site may have limited

5-117

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
access due to field roads, drainage ditches, and fence locations; therefore, access routes on a farm
may require design and construction to facilitate the placement and spreading of dredged
material. If the application of dredged material is to be efficient and effective, scheduling of
dredged material application should not interfere with normal farm operations. Access roads to
the placement site should circumvent the farmstead and avoid the location of poultry and
livestock.
5.44.2 Agricultural site considerations. With an understanding of the characteristics of the
dredged material at the various placement sites, consideration should be given to any potential
problems at the agricultural site. Factors to be considered at the agricultural site are drainage of
effluent, properties of the marginal soil, application depth of dredged material, land preparation
needs, compaction, erosion potential, flood/drainage area, and seedbed preparation (Spaine,
Llopis, and Perrier 1978).
5.44.2.1 Incorporation. The beneficial effects of incorporating dredged material into
marginal soils are increased available water capacity, increased nutrient supply when fine-grained
dredged material is mixed with coarse-grained marginal soils, and improved drainage when
coarse-grained dredged material is mixed with fine-grained marginal soils (Lunz, Nelson, and
Tatem 1984).
a. Marginal soil. Marginal soils are not used for production of crops due to low economic
return. These soils can be unproductive pastures, abandoned fields, fields requiring excessive
irrigation or drainage, or areas in various stages of degradation. These marginal soils can be
brought to a loam soil classification and made productive for a variety of economic crops by
incorporating dredged material.
b. Depth. Plant growth can be limited by root development; therefore, it is important to
increase the depth of rooting media on marginal soils with applications of dredged material. To
obtain an optimal mixture under normal field conditions, the depth of dredged material to be
incorporated is limited to a 15 cm (6 in.) cover. At this depth, a 40 cm (16 in.) moldboard plow
can furrow the 15 cm (6 in.) of dredged material to a depth of 30 cm (12 in.) using a tractor-plow
combination. If incorporation of greater depths of dredged material is required, then special types
of plows not common to normal farm operations must be used.
c. Land preparation. Tillage operations prior to the application of dredged material may be
useful to speed surface drying and eradicate weeds. The application of dry dredged material to
level soil surfaces presents few problems when the soil surfaces are dry. If the agricultural site
has poor drainage, the application of dredged material should be done after the area has had an
opportunity to dry. Row drains can be constructed with a plow that cuts through low areas to
provide drainage into field laterals. The addition of dredged material to slopes ranging from 5%
to 10% may increase operational problems and the potential for erosion as well as the sediment
content in runoff water. If steep slopes (greater than 10%) are to be used, standard conservation
practices should apply, possibly including terraces, grassed waterways, diversion channels, and
supplemental practices such as contour farming, strip-cropping, and crop rotation (Spaine,
Llopis, and Perrier 1978).

5-118

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Compaction. The purpose of using dredged material is to improve the agricultural site;
therefore, the application and spreading of the dredged material should not impair agricultural
production by severely compacting the marginal soil. For example, soil compaction problems
associated with the weight per axle load of large (23 tonne [25 ton]) dump trucks may necessitate
using smaller (8 tone [9 ton]) dump trucks, which reduces soil compaction but increases
transportation costs by 25%.
e. Seedbed preparation. The use of various types of tillage equipment is, to some extent,
dependent on the type of crop to be produced. However, tillage operations such as plowing,
disking, and harrowing are common to all types of seedbed preparation. The newly incorporated
mixtures should be cultivated and planted as soon as possible because tillage increase the
infiltration of water and reduce surface runoff, therefore lowering the potential for erosion.
5.44.2.2 Soil cover. When the area to be covered is too rocky, gravelly, or otherwise
unsuitable for cultivation, additions or capping with dry dredged material to depths of 30 cm
(12 in.) or more without incorporation into the existing site may be required to improve the area
for agronomic production. When dredged material is to be used as a surface cover or cap, it is
best that the texture approximate a loam soil for crop production. In the past 3 decades, this
practice of providing soil cover for marginal sites has become common practice for strip-mined
sites, including those that are being reclaimed in floodplains adjacent to waterways for forested
wetland mitigation. Dredged material suitable for the necessary 0.6-1 m (2-3.3 ft) buffer layer
between the strip-mined soils and the surface is feasible if the transport distance and costs are not
excessive. Dewatered dredged material could also be trucked into such areas being reclaimed.
a. Depth. The depth of dry dredged material to be applied in increments as a surface cover
or cap should be at least 1 m to ensure good drainage and an adequate rooting medium. This
depth of 1 m or more can be achieved by additions of 15 cm (6 in.) layers if the agricultural site
can be used as an active dredged material placement site over a period of years.
b. Drainage and flooding. When the soil depth is increased by additions of dredged
material, the depth to the water table increases and reduces wet spots in the field, thus extending
the period available for farming operations. If the area is only briefly and intermittently flooded,
and does not meet jurisdictional wetland criteria, additions of 1 m (3.3 ft) or more of dredged
material may completely eliminate the flooding problem. If it is flooded enough to have reduced
soil conditions, it is a wetland and should not be used except in typical bottomland hardwood
forest species or put into the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program.
c. Erosion. Slopes greater than 10% are not generally used for the application of dredged
material in agricultural situations because the establishment of a vegetative ground cover is more
difficult. When the dredged material is to be placed on erodible slopes, it should be planted in
grass cover immediately until the dredged material has stabilized. If the agricultural site is a
terraced area, the terraces should be seeded in a permanent vegetation cover to prevent
accelerated erosion. Flat or nearly level agricultural fields found in floodplains are the most
satisfactory for dredged material application and farming operations.

5-119

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Seedbed preparation. When the marginal soil is to be buried with over 0.5 m (1.6 ft)
depths of dredged material, it should be leveled with a bulldozer and other tractor-plow or disk
combinations used for seedbed preparation. Any application of dredged material requires
standard seedbed equipment preparations to level and till the site (for example, tractors,
subsoilers/rip plows, disks, planters, fertilizer spreaders (Doerr and Landin 1983).
5.44.3 Crop selection. A number of agricultural or food crops have been or may be grown
on dredged material throughout the United States adjacent to navigable waterways, the majority
of them on old dredged material sites, not ongoing placement sites. These include pasture
grasses; food grains such as rice, corn, wheat, oats, rye, barley, and millet; soybeans; sunflowers;
truck crops; and cotton. Crop selection for food and forage use depends on climate, culture, and
regional markets. The varieties of agricultural crops typically selected for production in any given
area can be obtained from county and local Agricultural Extension Services and the county Farm
Service Agency offices.
5.45 Horticulture. Horticulture crops are generally considered vegetable, fruit, nut, and
ornamental varieties of commercially grown plants. Dredged material applications on soils for
vegetable production, orchards, and nurseries do not differ from the guidelines discussed under
agricultural planning and site considerations. This discussion limited to certain types of
horticultural crops.
5.45.1 Vegetation production. All commercially grown vegetable truck crops can be
produced on dredged-material-amended soils. Vegetables grow best on sandy loam soils of good
texture, drainage, and aeration. The best types of dredged material mixtures for such crops are
sandy silts or silty dredged material incorporated into an existing sandy site or sandy dredged
material incorporated into an existing silt or heavy clay site. Clays, in general, are too heavy for
good vegetable production, and they can be greatly improved by applications of sandy material.
Some current excellent examples of truck crop production on dredged material occur in
Washington State in sand containment areas on the north banks of the Columbia River, where
table vegetables such as sweet corn and cabbages are grown (Landin 1997b) (Figure 5-48).
Historically, American Dredging Company dredged material containment sites along rivers in
New Jersey were used by the Campbells Soup Company in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries for truck crop production for use in their canneries. This use would not now be
encouraged or allowed without intensive sampling for contaminants due to locale and the source
of the sediment in the containment sites, but 100 years ago such things were not known or
considered.
5.45.2 Orchards. Few fruit and nut crops are produced close to waterways and dredging
sites with the exception of pecan and black walnut orchards. In general, pear/peach/apple
orchards and other pome fruits grow best on hillsides and out of low bottomlands, and citrus
orchards generally grow best away from the influence of salt spray. Although no placement sites
have been planted as pecan or black walnut orchards, such application is feasible. Additional
applications of dredged material once trees are established would have to be limited to not more
than 15 cm/96 in.) to prevent damage to root systems due to soil aeration changes. Pecans and
black walnuts are bottomland hardwood species and, therefore, tolerant of limited flooding and

5-120

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
inundation and silt deposits. Black walnut has much greater value as a commercial furniture
species than as a nut crop, but it could be a combination crop of nut production and timber
harvest once trees reach adequate size. Pecan is also a furniture wood, but the value of nuts far
exceeds the value as furniture wood due to several highly productive pecan cultivars, such as
Stewart and Schley (Landin 1997b).

Figure 5-48. Sweet Corn Growing on Dredged Material Inside a Containment Area
5.45.3 Ornamental plant nurseries. Ornamental liner shrubs in nurseries are grown two
ways: potted or set in the ground in a high-quality soil mixture. Both types require horticultural
soil mixes of loamy soil, sand, peat, and vermiculite. Dewatered dredged material could be
applied as a part of the soil mix in areas where soil must be trucked into nursery sites at
considerable expense. Most commercial nurseries make their own soil mixes, and may be
amenable to use of good quality dredged material. The major disadvantage is the limited
quantities of material a nursery requires. The USACE Engineer Research and Development
Center (ERDC) has conducted partnered research on soil mixtures using dredged material for a
number of years (Cadet, Lee, and Sturgis 1977; Sturgis, Lee, and Taplin 1997; Sturgis, Lee, and
Langan 1997). These applications include not only agricultural and horticultural soil mixtures,
but brick and road aggregate manufacture of dredged material.
5.45.4 Sod farms. Urban and suburban areas require large quantities of readily available
grass sod for such uses as residential lawns, parks, golf courses, and rights-of-way. Unless sites

5-121

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
are available near these high-population areas for sod production, sod must be trucked into the
area for sale by retail nurseries and garden shops. Level sites with marginal soils near urban
centers could be brought into grass sod production through applications of dredged material.
Since grass sod is less exacting in its growth requirements than most food crops, the type of
dredged material used is not as critical. However, the material should be a loamy or silty sand
substrate, if possible, to ensure best grass growth, and the receiving site should be level or nearly
so after dredged material has been dewatered.
5.45.5 Christmas tree farms. Another specialized use of dredged material is the cultivation
of Christmas trees on placement sites (Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978; Landin 1997d). This has
already been carried out successfully in the Baltimore and St. Paul Districts. Since Christmas
trees require 5-8 years to reach marketable size, the placement site or compartment on larger
placement sites is generally unavailable for such beneficial use. This limits the feasibility of this
option in most waterways where dredging occurs. If dewatered material were trucked (at sponsor
expense) to a marginal soil site, then planted with trees, this beneficial use option would be more
acceptable.
5.46 Forestry.
5.46.1 For a number of years, the timber industry has been working with tree genetics to
produce faster growing, stronger trees, and with the reclamation of disturbed eroding sites using
trees, primarily yellow pine species. However, some hardwoods and black walnut have been
tested in the north-central United States, and numerous cottonwood, sycamore, sweet gum, and
eucalyptus plantations for paper production have been planted in the southern United States. The
improvement of marginal timberland with applications of dredged material would be received
with interest and enthusiasm from foresters who have the problem of trying to produce timber on
poor soil. There are several rapidly growing pulpwood species that may be grown in large
placement sites with several compartments once the compartments are nearing completion.
Dewatered dredged material trucked to marginal land or use of abandoned placement sites would
be the two options most appropriate for timber production. In the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway, several of the 5,666 ha of containment areas have been planted with pulpwood
species as commercial enterprises (Hartley 1988).
5.46.2 The same physical and chemical soil properties discussed under agricultural
considerations would apply to forestry except that trees can be grown safely on dredged material
with higher contaminant levels than could food crops. This is an encouraged ecological use of
contaminated dredged material because of the long growth cycles of trees. Passage of time gives
the site an opportunity to recover or self-clean, and the trees can still be harvested for
commercial timber after maturity. The tolerance level of each timber crop for heavy metals and
other contaminants and the physical characteristics of the material would be forestry limiting
factors.
5.46.3 Since land would be tied up in tree production after planting for 10-50 years, the
primary disadvantage of this beneficial use would be loss of placement sites. An advantage
would be use of moderately contaminated dredged material not suitable for many other beneficial
uses. Dredged material trucked into a site could be spread with heavy equipment as deeply as
5-122

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
desired by the forester since tree roots penetrate several feet into the substrate. Large quantities of
dredged material could be placed on marginal sites in this manner and made productive.
5.46.4 Short-rotation commercial tree species that would be suitable for timber production
on dredged material at periodically flooded (limited flooding) sites are eastern cottonwood,
American sycamore, eucalyptus, green ash, water oak, and sweet gum. These species would also
have a shorter rotational requirement of 5-15 years. Long-rotation commercial species include
long-leaf pine, slash pine, loblolly pine, black walnut, white ash, pecan, and several oak and
hickory species; they would grow best in bottomlands and moist upland sites amended by
dredged material applications and are recommended only for dredged material placement sites
that have been taken out of rotational placement of material.
5.47 Aquaculture.
5.47.1 The USACE interest in aquaculture stems from its basic mission in construction and
operation of navigable waterways. Due to the increasing difficulty and expense of obtaining
dredged material containment acreage for use as single-purpose areas, the development of a
multiple-use strategy such as aquaculture is desirable. It is possible that future site availability
would be improved by increased value of acreage leased to dredging project sponsors because
landowners could enter separate and profitable lease agreements with aquaculturists (C-K
Associates, Inc., 1993). Aquaculture is attractive because of the potential for producing nutritious
low-cost protein; partially satisfying increased demand for seafood in the United States;
increasing employment in fish farms, feed mills, processing plants, and other supporting
industries; and providing larval stock for commercially and recreationally important natural
populations currently stressed due to pollution and habitat loss. Aquaculture activities would also
generate a more positive public image of the USACE and its activities.
5.47.2 Aquaculture in a dredged material containment area was first explored by the
USACE during the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP). In 1976, Dow Chemical
Company, under contract to the USACE, successfully cultured a crop of white shrimp in an
active containment area near Freeport, TX (Figure 5-49). This project demonstrated that dredged
material containment site environments are compatible with aquaculture in the sense that animals
will grow, survive, reach marketable size, and be of marketable quality within a given dredging
cycle. No attempt was made in the 1970s to justify the production economics of the project: the
cost of post-larval white shrimp stock, the limited acreage, and the small size of the unfed white
shrimp at the time they were harvested all contributed to high production costs (Lunz, Nelson,
and Tatem 1984).
5.47.2.1 Advances in technology. Many of the technology problems that affected
production economics during the 1976 dredged-material demonstration at Freeport, Texas, have
been solved through continuing research on the biology and culture requirements of desirable
plant and animal species into the early 1990s. It is now possible, for example, under laboratory
conditions, to duplicate the life cycle of the white shrimp species used in that study. One advantage of this technology is a reduced cost of obtaining juvenile shrimp compared with the cost of
field excursions for capturing egg-carrying and recently mated female shrimp in the wild, and
returning them to a laboratory for spawning. Another very significant advantage is that artificial
5-123

Figure 5-49. Galveston District Dredged Material Containment Area No. 85, Showing the Shrimp Pond, Internal Levee, and
Associated Structures; this Site was Successfully Used for Shrimp Culture for 3 Years in an Experimental Field Test

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-124

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
control over the natural reproductive cycle permits production of juvenile shrimp whenever they
are needed and allows production of multiple crops in a single growing season. The result is
more efficient use of the cultivation area, higher annual production, and lower net production
costs.
5.47.2.2 Favorable economics.
a. Dredged material containment sites commonly possess structural features such as dikes
and water control devices that may enhance their suitability as aquaculture areas. In some
instances, land acquisition costs (purchase or lease) and dike and water control structure costs are
absorbed wholly or in part by the Federal government or a local cooperator on the dredging
project, such as the city government or port authority. In cases where a Federal or local subsidy
exists, the aquaculturist could be the beneficiary. The lack of available coastal sites has been one
of the principal restraints on the application of commercial aquaculture techniques. This is due
both to the cost of real estate and to the Governments regulatory permitting process, which
affects consideration of aquaculture in coastal lowlands, particularly wetlands. Freshwater and
coastal dredged material containment areas have several benefits related to desirable location:
proximity to favorable water sources, waterfront property use that may otherwise be unavailable
to the aquaculturist, and nearness to large market areas and established transportation routes.
b. Dikes that serve to contain the dredged material also serve to impound the water
necessary for aquaculture. However, dikes of an existing containment site that is under
consideration for aquaculture may have to be modified to increase their height, adjust their
slopes, or improve their water-retaining capabilities. At a new containment site, the dikes could
be designed to permit both the containment of dredged material and the retention of water for the
aquaculture operation. Water control structures that are used to regulate water quality at
containment areas could also serve to regulate water exchange rates and levels in an aquaculture
pond, and could be used to drain the pond or concentrate the crop for harvesting.
5.47.2.3 Aquaculture considerations.
a. Compatibility between aquaculture and dredged material management. There are at least
two general containment site management techniques that could be compatible with aquaculture.
Figure 5-50 depicts the placement of dredged material into a containment area surrounded by a
single primary dike system. Distribution of the dredged material would depend on the size
(surface area) of the containment, the relative volume and physical characteristics of the dredged
material, and the use of controlled placement operation conditions such as pipeline placement
and movement. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that culture operations could be sustained
within the site during active placement. A small volume of dredged material disposed into a large
placement site containing a species tolerant of suspended sediments is one workable scenario.
Figure 5-50 also depicts a containment site divided into multiple compartments or cells that
would be filled sequentially over the life of the placement site. Construction of secondary,
internal cross dikes produces a configuration with numerous operational advantages over an
undivided one. The most obvious benefit would be related to the separation of one or more cells
from dredged material placement operations. The second configuration has an additional benefit

5-125

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
in a new site because it also separates the aquaculture operation from potentially contaminated
dredged material. This is a source of perceived, if not actual, production or marketing problems.

Figure 5-50. Two Concepts for Combining Dredged Material Containment and Aquaculture
Operations (t = Time in Years; May Vary Between 1 and 15 from Site to Site)
b. The length of time following a placement event before aquaculture activities could begin
is a site-specific variableit depends on the site size and configuration, the volume and character
of the dredged material, and the possible use of dredged material dewatering and other volumereducing techniques for efficient containment site management. A site without cross dikes is not
available to aquaculture during the active dewatering period. Otherwise, aquaculture and
dewatering objectives are totally compatible.
5.47.2.4 Aquaculture products. Aquaculture products in containment sites could be
designed to produce crops for commercial harvest or could be directed toward producing fish and
shellfish stocks for release to augment depressed natural populations. Current aquaculture-forrelease programs in California, Texas, the Pacific Northwest, Japan, and the Middle East use
natural and artificial coastal ponds, lagoons, and embayments for their propagation programs.
Similar programs could easily be undertaken in containment areas.
5.47.2.5 Site characteristics. Containment sites exhibit a wide range of variability: location,
size, construction, compatibility of aquaculture with placement requirements, and a myriad of

5-126

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
other site-specific physical and chemical features that make each containment area unique. Not
all containment sites are suitable for aquaculture, but a significant number have the proper
combination of features to support aquaculture. Crucial to developing aquaculture as a secondary
use of containment sites is the fact that aquaculture is possible only if it is compatible with the
placement requirements and schedules imposed by the intended primary use of the site (that is,
dredged material placement). Only when both the aquaculturists and the placement agencys
requirements are met can the site be developed for aquaculture.
5.47.2.6 Site acquisition and permitting. Site development and pond management practices
are expected to be similar to those presently used in commercial aquaculture operations. Major
exceptions lie in the areas of site acquisition by entrepreneurs and permit-granting procedures.
Existing easement agreements have to be amended, requiring prospective aquaculturists to reach
separate agreements with both the property owner and the USACE. Representatives of commercial
aquaculture enterprises claim that the current permitting process is so involved and complex that
the growth of aquaculture in the United States is effectively thwarted. Having the USACE involved
in promoting aquaculture in addition to retaining its traditional role in the permitting process could
possibly expedite the process in the future (Robertshaw, McLaughlin, and Love 1993).
5.47.2.7 Use of contaminated sediment.
a. Waterway and harbor sediments placed into containment sites are sometimes contaminated with elevated concentrations of heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and
PCBs. Inorganic contaminants, such as metals, are generally incorporated in sediment particles
while organic contaminants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs, are generally associated
with organic material present in the sediments. Because of the way contaminants are retained
within sediments, they are relatively unavailable to aquatic animals; those that are available are
generally not concentrated by aquatic animals to levels much in excess of those found in the
sediments.
b. Laboratory experiments in which aquatic animals were exposed to sediments contaminated with various metals and organic contaminants have shown that the organics are more
likely to be transferred from sediments to animals. Animals such as certain marine worms that
live and feed below the surface of the sediment are more likely to accumulate organic compounds like PCBs than most shrimp or clams, which live or feed at or above the surface of the
sediment. Higher levels of organic material in the sediment appear to reduce the biological
availability of PCBs and other organic chemicals in sediments. There are some data to indicate
that animals can accumulate lead and petroleum hydrocarbons from contaminated sediments, but
the levels of these contaminants found in these animals are low in comparison to sediment levels,
and there is no evidence that they are harmed by these low levels of contamination.
c. Most studies generally focused on highly contaminated sediments and should be viewed
as representing the worst case. The placement of dredged material with some contaminants
need not be viewed as a major constraint to the use of the containment site for aquaculture. Test
procedures for determining whether a particular sediment will be a problem to a specific
aquacultured species are available, fast, and inexpensive. Contaminant status is something to be
considered during the planning process.
5-127

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.47.2.8 Economics. The economic and marketing requirements of commercial finfish and
shrimp culture operations and those operations conceived for containment areas are very similar.
The capital investment requirements of containment area aquaculture could be significantly less.
Simplified land acquisition, reduced real estate costs, shared costs of dike construction and
maintenance, and the possibilities of an expedited permitting process all contribute to reducing
capital requirements. Operating costs depend on site- and species-specific characteristics and are
difficult to describe in general terms, but no extraordinary additional costs have been identified.
5.47.2.9 Pond construction and management.
a. Pond construction and modification for aquaculture would be site and species specific. If
a containment site satisfied initial geotechnical and engineering requirements, constructing
additional dikes, installing water control equipment, and other necessary modifications should
follow the procedures employed in conventional operations. Cooperative efforts involving
aquaculturists, the USDA NRCS, and the USACE are recommended for developing designs and
specifying any modifications necessary for using containment areas for aquaculture (Homziak,
Veal, and Hayes 1993).
b. Health considerations, water quality, and species management techniques for
containment site culture should be identical to current practices although the effects of large
amounts of fine sediment in the containment area ponds and the lack of experience in managing
large-scale aquaculture operations pose questions that still need to be answered. Management
procedures for large ponds have not been developed for many species simply because large ponds
have not been generally available. With increased availability afforded by the widespread use of
containment site acreage, appropriate techniques should evolve. Similarly, adequate water
exchange, aeration, and harvest techniques should overcome many difficulties created by the
presence of large amounts of fine sediments.
5.47.2.10 Feasibility.
a. Aquaculture in active dredged material containment areas appears to be a feasible, costeffective, and compatible multiple use of containment sites. Existing technology can be directly
applied to the concept, making it practical with little additional research and development
investment required. The needs of the local areas, interests of the involved parties, and technical
constraints will determine which type of culture operation (commercial or stock augmentation)
and which species will be most suitable for a given site. Aquaculture is generally perceived in the
United States to be applicable only in warmer climates. However, it is practiced commercially in
Arkansas, the Pacific Northwest, California, New England, the Chesapeake Bay, and the
Carolinas as well as in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and other Gulf Coast states. Although
growth rates are generally slower in colder waters, the concept is still highly applicable.
Mississippi has over 50,000 ha of freshwater aquaculture ponds, the largest such aquaculture
production in the United States, but few of these aquaculture ponds are close enough to a
navigable waterway to make use of aquaculture in a placement site.
b. The large successful freshwater industries centered on catfish, crayfish, salmon, trout,
and bait minnows can provide both the technical expertise and the sources of stock needed for
5-128

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
developing a profitable operation. The technology involved in freshwater fish culture is both well
defined and compatible with culture plans envisioned for containment areas. Redfish, exotic and
native shrimp, hybrid striped bass, bait shrimp, and minnows are the most promising species for
marine/brackish water culture. At the present time, lower costs of marine/saltwater aquaculture in
Asia and Central and South America keep this from being a financially viable industry in the
United States.
Section XI
Strip Mine Reclamation, Solid Waste Landfill, and Alternative Uses
5.48 General. Four beneficial uses of dredged material that are still fairly new concepts have
proven to be feasible in laboratory, field, and District tests (Bartos 1977b; Spaine, Llopis, and
Perrier 1978; Landin 1997a): the reclamation of abandoned strip mine sites that are too acidic for
standard reclamation practices, the capping of solid waste landfills (Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier
1978), the use of material to protect landfills, and the use of material to manufacture bricks and
hardened materials such as road surfaces. All uses require reliable quantities of dewatered
dredged material that could be moderately contaminated and still be acceptable. These uses
would ultimately provide nonconsumptive vegetative cover to unsightly areas, and the areas
could be further reclaimed for minimal-use recreation sites and/or wildlife habitat. Spaine,
Llopis, and Perrier (1978) provide excellent discussion of the first two types of beneficial uses.
The techniques discussed in this chapter also apply to pyrite soil reclamation, gravel pits, and
rock quarries. The St. Paul District has reclaimed an abandoned gravel pit, and the Portland
District has reclaimed a rock quarry using these techniques.
5.49 Strip Mine Reclamation. Various techniques have been developed to control acid mine
drainage from surface mine tailings. The primary purpose of these techniques is to reduce air and
water contact with the acid-generating mine tailings. Methods to accomplish this are reducing
slopes, thereby lowering runoff velocities and erosion, and establishing plants on the mine
tailings. A balance must be struck between slope reduction and increased infiltration capacity.
Attempts to establish vegetative cover on highly acidic mine tailings have usually resulted in low
survival rates. The lack of a vegetative cover on mine tailings results in erosion and further
exposure of acid-generating pyrites to air and water (Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978). In order
to reduce adverse effects of mine tailings, placement of a topsoil or topsoil substitute suitable for
vegetative growth such as dredged material is recommended. Application of dredged material to
surface mine tailings provides a cover that reduces the infiltration of water and the diffusion of
air to the pyrite material; it also provides a suitable growing medium for vegetation. Planning
must be coordinated with the landowner and, if the mine is an active surface mine, the mining
operator. In addition, before reclamation activities can commence, State reclamation laws
concerning the final grade of the area, cover requirements, and vegetation requirements must be
assessed. Assistance for various aspects of surface mine reclamation can be obtained from State
reclamation departments, county agricultural extension offices, the USDA NRCS, and the U.S.
Office of Surface Mining.
5.49.1 Dredged material requirements. Dewatered dredged material can be used for surface
mine reclamation in much the same way as topsoil or agricultural soil. If construction on the site

5-129

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
is considered as the final land use for the reclaimed mining area, tests for consolidation shear
strength and permeability should be performed on the dredged material as well as on the mine
tailing. Fractions of dredged material having different grain sizes can be mixed to provide a
surface with desirable physical and engineering properties. Almost any desired soil property can
be obtained by dewatering, mixing, and compacting dredged material (Bartos 1977b). Finegrained or sandy silt dredged material can be used as a cover on mine tailings for the establishment of vegetation. Dewatered dredged material having a loam texture is the most desirable for
best vegetation growth. The dredged material should be tested for pH, organic content, and
soluble salts. It should have a nearly neutral (6.0-7.5) pH, a minimum organic content of 1.5% by
weight, and a low amount of soluble salts (500 ppm or less) to allow optimum plant growth.
5.49.2 Site preparation and dredged material placement. The amount and method of site
preparation needed at surface mines depend on the topography, the method of mining performed
(for example, area, contour, strip with mining tailing mounds, or open pit), and the final land use.
Site preparation consists chiefly of regrading the surface mine to a configuration that will accommodate a dredged material cover at a desired thickness and slope to support vegetation. The two
principal surface mining techniques are area and contour mining. The potential for groundwater
percolation and contamination should be determined for both the mine tailing and the dredged
material.
5.49.2.1 Area mining reclamation.
a. The area mining method produces the characteristic topography of a series of parallel
ridges or piles of mine tailing. Site preparation consists of leveling mine tailing ridges or piles to
a width specified by law and/or final land use. Leveling or striking off mine tailing ridges is
accomplished by bulldozing the ridges into the valleys between ridges. The mine tailing piles
should be leveled to a topography where conventional earthmoving equipment can spread
dewatered dredged material to a desired thickness (Figure 5-51). This method of leveling was
field tested by the Chicago District at Ottawa, IL. The mining site was leveled, capped with
dewatered material, mixed, soil amendments added, and planted in a grass mixture. The site
established vegetative cover rapidly and is very successful (Perrier, Llopis, and Spaine 1980). It
still maintained good vegetation cover 8 years after planting.
b. An alternate concept of reclaiming area mines is the use of slurried dredged material.
This method to date has not been field tested, but it appears promising. It consists of
hydraulically pumping dredged material through a pipeline onto a prepared area mine. This form
of reclamation is feasible only for area mines located within pumping distance of an active
dredging operation or rehandling basin. Preparation of the site consists of grading mine tailings
to a fairly uniform level and constructing dikes around the area to contain the slurried dredged
material. Because of the high water content of the slurry, it must be pumped in lifts and allowed
to dewater before adding the next lift. The depth of each lift depends on the final land use and
time constraints (Montgomery et al. 1978). If the area is to be used for foundation material to
support lightweight structures, the lifts of slurried dredged material should be limited to about
1 m (3.3 ft) so that drying will be enhanced (Lunz, Nelson, and Tatem 1984). The dredged

5-130

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
material should be allowed to dry to a moisture plastic limit before adding the next lift
(Montgomery et al.

Figure 5-51 Schematic Diagram Showing Operational Techniques Used to Reclaim a Surface
Mine Tailing with Dredge Material

5-131

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
1978). If the area being reclaimed is not planned to support structures and is being reclaimed
mainly for recreation or vegetation establishment, the depth of each lift can be increased, and the
amount of time between lifts can be shortened.
5.49.2.2 Contour mined land reclamation.
a. The reclamation of contour mines is more difficult due to the hilly terrain in areas where
this type of mining occurs. This technique of mining requires removal of the overburden by
starting at the outcrop of the coal seam and proceeding along the contour around the hillside. The
highwall is located on the uphill side while a rim and steep downslope are covered by the tailing
material cast down the hillside. Being above the grade of local drainage, water from the pits
flows directly into natural waterways. Reclamation of contour mines involves backfilling and
terracing the disturbed land to the approximate original contour or to a contour compatible with
the surrounding terrain. This requires placing dredged material into strip pits and over the mine
tailing cast downhill (Figure 5-52). a.
b. The choice of which regrading technique to use for reclamation depends on many
variables, including final land use, terrain, amount of dredged material, and state and Federal
reclamation requirements. Concepts for using dredged material on contour mine backfill are
shown in Figures 5-52 through 5-54. The use of dredged material to reclaim the mine to the
original ground surface level and contour is demonstrated in Figure 5-52. The mine tailing on the
downslope is also covered with dredged material to provide a vegetative media. Figure 5-53
shows the use of the Georgia V-ditch technique, which does not fill to the original soil surface
but leaves a highwall and fill section to be leveled to support vegetative as well as agronomic
production. The slope reduction technique, as shown in Figure 5-54 permits stockpiling of
dewatered dredged material before final grading to original slopes and contours.
5.49.3 Vegetation establishment.
5.49.3.1 Establishment of a quick vegetative cover is important at reclamation sites for it is
one of the most effective erosion control methods (Perrier, Llopis, and Spaine 1980). It must be
known whether the area is ultimately to be used for farming, grazing, construction, temporary
soil stabilization, restoration for aesthetics, or other purposes. Plant species should be chosen that
are able to adapt to dredged material conditions (such as low pH, high moisture, grain-size
distribution, and fertility level) as well as to the climatic conditions (sunlight exposure,
temperature, wind exposure, rainfall) found at the site. It is best to choose vegetation native to the
area that can be easily propagated. A species mixture should be planted to ensure successful
establishment of a vegetative cover (Perrier, Llopis, and Spaine 1980).
5.49.3.2 It is desirable to roughen or cultivate the dredged material surface before seeding
in order to reduce the velocity of rainfall runoff and increase water infiltration to seedbed depth.
The surface of the dredged material should not be compacted because this impedes seedling
emergence. Common methods for preparing the surface of the dredged material are scarification,
tracking, and contour benching or plowing using disks, harrows, and tractors. Tracking grooves
made by the cleats of a tractor should run parallel to the contour. Contour benching is performed

5-132

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-52. Cross-Sectional View of the Contour Backfill Technique

Figure 5-53. Cross-Sectional View of the Georgia V-ditch Backfill Technique

5-133

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-54. Schematic of the Slope Reduction Technique (from Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978)

5-134

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
on long slopes to build terraces to reduce the velocity of rainfall runoff (Spaine, Llopis, and
Perrier 1978). Terracing is performed with a bulldozer running parallel to the contour, allowing
the soil to dribble off the edge of the blade. Furrowing of a terrace is performed by repeated
plowing parallel to the contour. Other methods for planting such sites are available in Doerr and
Landin (1983) and Hunt et al. (1978). Dredged material should not be placed on a frozen or
muddy slope or when the subgrade is excessively wet or in a condition that may be detrimental to
proper grading and the proposed seeding. Hydromulching or mechanical mulching on new cuts,
revetments, dikes, and terraces is also usually required to prevent erosion.
5.49.4 Site selection. Mining sites that would be suitable for dredged material placement
for reclamation purposes must meet certain criteria. The mined areas should be assessed for
transportation capabilities as well as qualitative considerations, such as social and environmental
concerns. Field investigations of potential sites should include such general factors of the site as
geology, groundwater, effluent standards, ambient water quality, land costs, drainage, surrounding land use, and vegetation of adjacent lands. Permission for site use must also be obtained.
Transportation costs are a major consideration and are generally at sponsor expense. For this
reason, mines that are near placement sites and/or suitable transportation systems are probably
the only ones feasible for consideration.
5.50 Solid Waste Landfills. Governmental agencies responsible for the management of solid
waste are experiencing difficulties in obtaining suitable sites on which to operate environmentally sound solid waste placement operations. A major portion of the solid waste generated in
this country is ultimately placed on land in sanitary landfills. The location of a sanitary landfill is
often constrained by the cover material requirements and availability and the site characteristics
related to potential adverse environmental impact. Bartos (1977a) reports that dredged material
can satisfactorily perform the functions of a cover material, thereby making it possible to locate
sanitary landfills at sites previously considered unsuitable due to a lack of native cover soil.
St. Paul and Mobile Districts have both used clean dredged material as caps for urban landfills.
This paragraph is intended to aid planners in determining the suitability of dredged material for
productive use in solid waste management schemes and to provide guidance for development of
possible landfill projects (Bartos 1977a; Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978).
5.50.1 Dredged material characteristics. The potential uses for dewatered dredged material
in a sanitary landfilling operation are as a material for covers, liners, gas vents, leachate drains,
and gas barriers. Section I, Dredged material as a Resource, presented a discussion of physical
and chemical characteristics to be considered when using dredged material in a land
improvement project. Some dredged material grain-size distributions are generally more suitable
than others.
5.50.1.1 Cover. The solid waste in a sanitary landfill is covered daily with at least 15 cm
(6 in.) of material to prevent an unsightly appearance, control vectors at the site, prevent internal
fires, and control surface water infiltration. Landfills with two or more lifts must have intermediate covers 30 cm (12 in.) deep between lifts. The intermediate cover must fulfill all
functions of a daily cover for up to 12 months and must be trafficable to assist vehicle support
and movement. Dredged material characteristics of a desirable cover material are easy

5-135

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
workability, moderate cohesion, and significant strength. A mixture of sand, silt, and clay has
been shown to be a suitable cover material; if a gravel is fairly well graded with 10-15% sand and
5% or more fines, it can make an excellent cover. The only types of dredged material eliminated
for use as cover are highly organic materials and peat. Due to the difficulty in handling, dredged
material should not be used in the slurry state. On the other hand, the use of dewatered dredged
material as cover is operationally feasible because the material can be easily hauled, spread, and
compacted by conventional earthmoving equipment.
5.50.1.2 Liners and barriers. Barriers and liners serve the same purposeto prevent the
migration (both lateral and vertical) of leachate water or decomposition gases. The suitability of
the dredged material for this use is determined by the permeability of the material. Dredged
material with a classification of CL or CH is likely to be suitable for use in constructing a liner or
barrier. Attempts should be made to keep these barriers and liners saturated to prevent cracking
and to keep pore spaces filled with water to prevent gas leaks.
5.50.1.3 Gas vents and leachate drains. Gas vents are used to direct the flow of gas to the
atmosphere where it is harmlessly dissipated, and leachate drainage layers are used to intercept
leachate and drain it to an area where it can be collected for treatment or recirculation (Bartos
1977a). The controlled ventilation of gas requires that the vent be more pervious than the
surrounding soil, and a leachate drain must also be very pervious so that leachate drains quickly
away from the solid waste. To be suitable for venting gas or draining leachate, the dredged
material must consist of sand or gravel with little or no fines and must be much more pervious
than the soils at the site.
5.50.2 Site considerations.
5.50.2.1 Site selection. The selection of the solid waste placement site is the decision of the
governing sanitary district, which evaluates both site suitability and site management options. The
offer of dredged material to these districts allows them to consider sites initially screened out due
to the lack of natural soil cover. It should be remembered that in this beneficial use, the USACE is
simply providing a useful material to a sanitary district; therefore, site selection and construction
and operation of the landfill are not the responsibility of the USACE.
5.50.2.2 Preliminary dredged material data collection. The dredged material source
(dredging operation or containment area) should be defined in terms of location and quantity.
Critical dredged material characteristics should be determined by examining physical
characteristics, engineering characteristics, and settling properties and by noting any evidence of
contaminants. The available dredged material should be viewed in terms of suitability for
sanitary landfill use (for example, as covers, liners, barriers, vents, and drains). The dredging area
should be assessed for available transport modes.
5.50.2.3 Transport systems. For dredged material uses in solid waste management to be
economically attractive, the landfill site must be within a reasonable distance of the dredged
material supply. Not more than 80 km (50 mi) is recommended in order to keep the unit cost of
shipment down. Truck haul is the only mode of transport recommended because of its
convenience, feasibility of operation, and ease of fitting into landfilling schemes (Landin 1980).
5-136

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.50.2.4 Economics. The success of any attempt to use dredged material in solid waste
management depends on the economic feasibility of the project for each of the agencies
concerned. Since each operation involving the use of dredged material in solid waste
management is unique, economic feasibility is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There should be
a net benefit to all agencies involved.
5.50.3 Experimental uses.
5.50.3.1 New York Fresh Kills landfill cover. The New York District experimented with
using dewatered dredged material as landfill cover in a 3-year test. It found that while material
could be dewatered and used successfully as cover, the primary problems encountered were that
very small amounts of dredged material were utilized, and large land surface areas were needed
as dewatering cells, making the cost per cubic yard of dredged material removed from the
channel and used as landfill cover very expensive.
5.50.3.2 New Jersey realities. In 1997, the New York District and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) discussed with Hackensack Meadows landfill operators
the use of material if the USACE sent it to them already dewatered or mixed with other waste
products, such as fly ash and other hard-to-dispose-of materials. Operators at that time
considered taking the material if the USACE also paid tipping fees to the landfill operations,
which made costs and feasibility very unrealistic.
5.50.3.3 Buffers. Discussions were held in 1997 with New York authorities about the use of
barge-delivered dredged material to be placed in front of existing eroding and leaking landfill
sites as buffers and erosion barriers. These would be made of dredged material, armored, and
then backfilled with dredged material to intertidal elevations to serve as marshes to trap leakage
and prevent further erosion of the landfills. This method appears to have merit, but is still in the
earliest design and test phases; it could also be coupled with use of dewatered dredged material
for capping in the same landfill site operations.
Section XII
Multipurpose Uses and Other Land Use Concepts
5.51 General. With careful engineering design, construction, long-term coordination and planning, and proper implementation of operational and maintenance procedures, a placement site
having combinations of uses may be developed. Such multipurpose use is strongly encouraged. A
park and recreational development built over an existing solid waste landfill using dredged
material as a cap is an example of how several of the beneficial uses discussed in the preceding
sections can be lumped into a single multipurpose project. There are a number of actual and
planned examples of multipurpose sites. Often, multipurpose objectives do not involve substantial cost increases to the dredging project when plans are made in the initial phases of design and
construction. Frequently, recreational use and wildlife and fish habitat can be developed
simultaneously on a placement site. Potential problems with development of multipurpose
projects are usually related to conflicting user groups of the proposed placement/
development site. Careful selection of compatible potential users can avoid situations where the
projected uses conflict.
5-137

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.52 Case Studies.
5.52.1 Aquatic Park. Aquatic Park in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, initiated in the 1970s and still
being improved and enlarged, demonstrates what can be accomplished when poor-grade dredged
material is placed in conjunction with higher-quality material to produce a multipurpose site. Along
the shoreline, numerous commercial, transportation, and recreational sites have been created by the
combined use of landfill and dredged material. Developed by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners,
Aquatic Park is an excellent example of how the form of the land created can enhance the number
and quality of productive uses. Construction rubble was used to build an approximately 5 km (3 mi)
long headland running at an oblique angle to the natural shoreline. The headland was essentially
linear, but it has numerous indentations in its shoreline dike. Dredged material was placed in the
water behind the rubble dike where protection is afforded from wave and tidal action and associated
erosion. The dredged material was placed to form contours for the development of lagoons and
lakes along and behind the shoreline. The resultant configuration of the headland resembles natural
landforms in the area. The length of shoreline is many times the length that would have resulted
from a conventionally shaped placement area; thus, opportunity for shoreline utilization has been
increased. Figure 5-55 shows Aquatic Park during dredged material placement in early stages of
development. This site has been improved by the additions of a small airport, and as new material is
added, new parkland, recreational fields, and other amenities.
5.52.2 Pointe Mouillee.
5.52.2.1 Another very interesting and highly successful case study is Pointe Mouillee
in western Lake Erie, MI (Landin 1982, 1993; Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989) (Figure 5-56).
Pointe Mouillee has been under development by the Detroit District for over 25 years. All
engineering operations on the island portion and dikes were completed in 1983. The marsh phase
of site development, including construction of freshwater marshes, marinas, visitor center, public
walks and areas, and fishing facilities, began in the early 1980s. The existing marsh inside the
installed floodgates is progressing naturally, nourished by sediments trapped by channeling part
of the Rouge and Detroit Rivers through the marsh. Since the invasion of exotic zebra mussels
into Lake Erie, the State of Michigan is managing the marsh and shallow water cells with water
drawdowns (closing the culvert gates to do so). This also allows them to manage the high carp
levels that accumulate inside the cells. The nesting islands built of dredged material are covered
with tall vegetation, and the fringes are being used by nesting waterfowl. Portions of the
shoreline have been planted in grain fields for wildlife. Three of the barrier island dike compartments are filled to capacity with dredged material, but as the material consolidates, they
could receive additions of new material. In the meantime, they are colonizing naturally with
locally occurring plant species.
5.52.2.2 The island is scheduled to be planted with perennial grasses and forbs to create
upland and wetland nesting and grazing meadows. Capping the dredged material with clean soil
was considered in the long-range management plan, but this will probably not be necessary due
to the lack of contaminants within the root zones of plants (Landin 1982, 1993; Landin, Webb,
and Knutson 1989). The dikes of the island have been used by waterbirds, primarily gull species,
for loafing and feeding since construction began. There are now two heronries on the island, with

5-138

Figure 5-55. Dredged Material Placement at Aquatic Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in the 1970s; This Site Continues to be
Developed as a Recreational and Commercial Area, and it is Heavily Utilized by Citizens and Visitors

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-139

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-56. Pointe Mouillee, a 1,900 ha CPF for Contaminated Credged Material in Western
Lake Erie, also Serves as a Multipurpose Beneficial Use Site
room for expansion of this use. This follows the expected pattern for construction in Lake Erie,
noted in the 1970s, in which virtually every new dredged material site was colonized by nesting
seabirds if the site consisted of suitable habitat (Soots and Landin 1978). A management plan for
the site was drafted in 1980-81 and is being followed carefully. This site is one of the few dredged
material projects in which a USACE District has applied for and received permission to use Section
150 funds of the Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 94-587) for wetlands
development, and up to $400,000 per dredging project has been earmarked for habitat development
of Pointe Mouillee (Newling and Landin 1985, Landin 1993). This site is multipurpose, providing
wetlands, upland, island, and aquatic habitat development; fishing, hunting, and boating recreation;
ice fishing; nature trails; marina; visitor center; bird watching; and jogging and hiking.
5.52.3 Batiquitos Lagoon. A third example of a multipurpose site is Batiquitos Lagoon at
Carlsbad, CA (Figure 5-57). This site took almost 25 years from initial concept through planning,
permits, design, and construction, and it will be monitored for 20-30 years to determine its longrange success (Appy 1990; Sales and Appy 1994). Batiquitos Lagoon has many state-of-thescience aspects; it is the off-site, out-of-kind mitigation site for the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach for their port expansion projects. Port expansion was tied to mitigation completion,
and the mitigation project was tied up in state permit requirements and lawsuits by environmental
groups for well over 10 years. It is a well-conceived, -designed, and -constructed restoration of a
degraded, silted-in, odor-causing saltwater lagoon that struggled to have access to the Pacific
5-140

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Ocean due to development along the shorelines, vehicle roads, I-5, a rail line, and inadequate
bridge openings that blocked flushing. In addition, the beach consisted of large cobbles, which
would fill in an opening to the lagoon provided by dozer within a matter of days. The lagoon was
dredged to provide material with which to build nesting islands for endangered California least
terns. The material was also used in other ways. The entire lagoon was deepened and contoured
to provide deep water areas during low tides, shallow water areas that became sand flats at low
tide, low-zone emergent (Pacific cordgrass) and high-zone saltmarsh (glasswort species). More
importantly, an opening was designed and one bridge rebuilt to provide a stable opening to the
lagoon so that tidal flushing could occur on a daily basis. Even in its early restoration stages, the
lagoon is providing abundant habitat for finfish, shellfish, sea birds, wading birds, waterfowl, and
humans although human use is discouraged except along the beach until the project is completed
and vegetation established. Batiquitos Lagoon is viewed as a modern solution to port expansion
in California urban areas while dealing with environmental responsibilities and regulations.

Figure 5-57. Batiquitos Lagoon at Carlsbad, CA, in 1977, a Restored Lagoon Using Dredged
Material that was the Mitigation Site for Expansion of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
5.52.4 Dredged material deposits and restorations at Portland, OR. Many beneficial uses are
being made of dredged material on both shorelines of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers in
Portland, OR. Several hundred hectares of placement sites have become the ultimate in multiple
uses, including the following:

5-141

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Port and harbor expansions (Figure 5-58).
b. Multiple industrial companies and businesses (several hundred).
c. Two commercial shopping centers.
d. A complex of private homes and another of condominium townhouses.
e. A Red Lion Inn hotel on each bank of the river.
f. Apartments.
g. Open space and parks.
h. The Portland International Airport.
5.52.5 Other examples. A fifth example of a multipurpose placement site is being
developed in Coos Bay, OR, where a large containment site with eight compartments and
extensive cross dikes is being filled and dewatered incrementally. The site will ultimately be
developed for port, industrial, residential, and urban uses by the local sponsor, and parts of the
site are scheduled for agricultural crops. Some of the beneficial uses examples given in other
chapters of this EM that have actual multipurpose use include Riverlands at St. Louis, MO
(Figure 5-59); Weaver Bottoms in the Upper Mississippi River (Figure 5-60); Kenilworth Marsh
in Washington, DC (Figure 5-61); Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 5-62); Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 5-63); Mission Bay in San Diego, CA; Hart-Miller Island in the
Chesapeake Bay (Figure 5-64); Gaillard Island in Mobile Bay, AL; the aquaculture project at
Freeport, TX; most of the examples included in other sections; and a number of island and
shoreline habitat development sites where recreation and boating are also prime uses.
5.53 Other Land Use Concepts. Dredged material beneficial uses described and discussed in this
EM are all highly productive, environmentally and economically acceptable alternatives to
standard placement practices. Dredged material has been shown in numerous cases to be a valuable resource with comparable properties of any saturated (or dewatered) soil. A few uses that
may be considered beneficial did not merit separate chapters, but will be discussed here for
completeness of this manual.
5.53.1 Erosion gully fill. Large quantities of dredged material could be placed within the
numerous gullies formed from poor soil conservation practices in both rural agricultural and
urban construction areas. Such gullies are unsightly and unproductive, and generally, attempts to
cover them with vegetation such as kudzu, rather than to reclaim them, are made. Since few of
these hill sites occur within reach of hydraulically pumped material, only dewatered and transported material could be used. However, transport and handling costs would make this an
expensive alternative that probably will find little, if any, economically feasible justification.
Several hundred hectares of upland gullies were filled and restored to productive grazing and
farmland in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway system along the Divide Cut in northeast
Mississippi by the Mobile and Nashville Districts during the construction of the waterway. These
have remained stable and productive for the past 18 years.

5-142

Figure 5-58. Coos Bay, OR, Placement Areas that are Being Used for Industrial, Residential, and Agricultural Purposes

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-143

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-59. Riverlands Wet Prairie and Bottomland Hardwood Restoration Site
Using Dredged Material and Innovative Restoration Technology, St. Louis Area
on the Illinois/Missouri/Upper Mississippi River Junctures, in 1993

Figure 5-60. Weaver Bottoms Dredged Material Wetland Restoration Project,

Upper Mississippi River, MN

5-144

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Geotextile Water-Filled Tubes Being Used as a Temporary Dam to

Contain Dredged Material until it had Sufficiently Dewatered so that Marsh
Planting Could Take Place at Kenilworth Marsh on the Anacostia River,
Washington, DC, in 1993; the Tubes were Removed once the Material had
Consolidated, and the Site was Planted

b. Planting the Kenilworth Marsh Dredged Material Wetland in May 1993

Figure 5-61. Kenilworth Marsh, Washington, DC (continued)

5-145

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

c. Kenilworth Marsh in 1998

Figure 5-61. (concluded)
5.53.2 Topography relief. Another means of using large quantities of dredged material is
building hills for landscape diversity on large, level recreational sites. While this would also
usually apply only to dewatered material and would be costly, it has been considered in planning
by the Fort Worth District in the special case of new-work dredging in the Trinity River due to
the huge quantities of material to be moved, and it has been field tested in the Detroit District by
the City of Toledo, OH, in dealing with full placement sites in Lake Erie. It is also being
practiced in modification in the Red River Navigation Project in Louisiana, where new cut work
is being used to raise the elevation of island sites, for recreation purposes, in the river to a level
higher than the floodplain. These Red River sites employ hydraulically deposited material while
the other two employ dewatered material.
5.53.3 Earthen or earth-filled dams. In areas where reservoirs for flood control, recreation,
or other purposes are planned, dewatered dredged material could be transported and used for
construction of either earthen or earth-filled dams. This alternative would be feasible only in
locales where other sources of borrow material are more costly or unavailable.
5.53.4 Institutional use. Institutional use includes all public service/municipal uses of
dredged material containment areas, including electric utilities, transportation systems, water and
wastewater facilities, and other buildings.

5-146

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Construction of the Riprap and Dredged Material Detached Breakwaters

to Break Wind Fetch and Wave Energy, Approximately 125 m (400 ft)
Offshore in Shallow Water at Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge

b. Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Constructed of Dredged

Material, at 2 Years Old in 1995
Figure 5-62. Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Chesapeake Bay, MD

5-147

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. Saltmarsh Restoration Using Dredged Material and Bioengineering

Structures at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in 1994; the Site is less
than 6 Months Old in the Photograph

b. Dredged Material-Filled Geotextile Tubes Fronting the Planted

Saltmarsh at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5-63. Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Freeport, TX

5-148

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

a. An Aerial View of the North and South Cells of Hart-Miller Island,

which Consists of 445 ha of Dredged Material and which will be a
Recreation/Wildlife Habitat Site when it is Completed; Note the
Dewatering Trenching Lines in both Cells

b. Trenching the North Cell of Dredged Material on Hart-Miller Island to

Maximize Dewatering, so the Site can be Filled to Capacity prior to
Wildlife Habitat Development
Figure 5-64. Hart-Miller Island, Chesapeake Bay, MD
5-149

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
5.53.4.1 Pleasure Island, TX. One case study is Pleasure Island, bordering the Intracoastal
Waterway near Port Arthur, TX, a 1,400 ha land area formed from over 50 years of silt and sand
placement. A rock dike protects the small, developed portion of the island. Among the diverse
facilities in this area of the island are a university campus (Lamar University), an Army Reserve
Training Center, and a USACE Area Office. Two recently constructed rock dikes will encourage
further institutional facilities, including an already planned sewage treatment plant.
5.53.4.2 Pelican Island, TX. A second example in Texas is the Pelican Island complex at
Galveston, TX, where dredged material has been used for many years to both expand a natural
island and to connect it to the mainland. The site now holds, in addition to two intertidal
wetlands constructed of dredged material, Texas A&M University-Galveston, the National
Marine Fisheries Service Galveston research laboratory, a state park, a public museum, and other
public facilities. It also contains a number of industrial sites and complexes, and in the ongoing
dredged material placement areas on the island, there are an estimated 5,000 pairs of seabirds
nesting on the island each year.
5.53.4.3 Delmarva nuclear power plant. Another example is in Salem County, NJ, where a
1967 land exchange negotiated between the USACE and the local public utility company has
resulted in the construction of a nuclear power plant on an 80 ha placement site. The first of four
units commenced operation in 1976; the remaining units were online by 1979 and 1980. The site
was originally a sandbar upon which fine-grained material from Delaware River dredging over
the past 70 years had been placed to form a peninsula; it is now called Artificial Island. Adjacent
to it in midchannel is a large natural island called Pea Patch Island, on which dredged material
has been placed for many years and which has been the home of the only heronry in that reach of
the Delaware River system for over 40 years.
Section XIII
Construction and Industrial/Commercial Uses
5.54 Harbor and Port Facilities.
5.54.1 The economic potential and social productivity of industrial/commercial activities
provide a strong incentive for urban growth and development. These activities have flourished in
natural harbors and along urban waterways where raw materials can be received and finished
products shipped most economically. Industrial/commercial development near waterways has
been aided by the availability of hydraulic fill material from nearby dredging activities. The use
of dredged material to expand or enhance port-related facilities has generally received local
support because of the readily apparent potential benefits to the local economy. Approval of the
placement operation is generally predicated on the advancement of the port development project
and not on the incidental need for proper placement of the dredged sediments. Traditionally,
where placement has been to advance the industrial development goal, attempts were made to use
the dredged material beneficially; where it would not, the material was placed by the most
economical means available. The key for the beneficial use planner is to identify how, when, and
where dredged material from a navigation project can fulfill an economic need while not
overlooking biological beneficial uses and environmental considerations and limitations.

5-150

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Identification of economic or social benefits may help overcome some environmental opposition
to placement sites. Job-producing planned uses in cities with depressed employment are much
more likely to gain approval than projects that appear to conflict with basic community needs.
5.54.2 There are numerous examples of dredged material sites that were used in harbor/port
development, such as that already noted for the Port of Portland. One such facility constructed on
dredged material is the Presidents Island-Memphis Harbor Project, located approximately 8 km
(5 mi) southwest of Memphis, TN (Figure 5-65). This 384 ha site on the southeast side of the
island (now a peninsula) is filled with sandy dredged material. A slack-water area was created by
diking, a 246 m (807 ft) wide by 4 m (13 ft) deep channel was dredged, and the sediments placed
along 6 km (3.7 mi) of the channel north bank. Filling was completed in 1957, and within 20
years most industrial development was completed. By 1973 over 70 separate industrial concerns
had bought or leased acreage on the site. A feasibility study of proposed harbor expansion
alternatives prepared by the Memphis District recommended that a second harbor channel be
dredged at Presidents Island and the material placed on the island along the new channels south
bank. This proposal created an additional 400 ha above the floodplain for port and related
industrial/commercial facilities. When the first facility was completed, there was little concern
for the wetlands that were covered up. Expansion plans must take these wetlands into careful
consideration. A large bottomland hardwood area owned by the port is being used as a mitigation
bank as they develop port facilities.
5.54.3 In dozens of locations in U.S. rivers, dredged material is used for such benefits and
for creating foundation above the floodplain for grain elevators, shipping terminals of all types,
barge-fleeting areas, and storage facilities for U.S. products waiting to be moved to market (coal,
timber, agricultural products). Two examples at Portland, OR, a container facility and a grain
elevator located at convenient shipping points, were both built on dredged material (Figure 5-66).
The Port of Portland has continued to expand its facilities, primarily on dredged material
placement sites. Another example is the harbor at Vicksburg, MS, on the lower Mississippi. A
large industrial site providing facilities to over 60 industries was built on dredged material from
the Yazoo River (Figure 5-67). Other examples include port and shipping facilities at Texas City,
Galveston, and Houston, TX, in Galveston Bay; port facilities in the Duwamish River in Seattle,
WA; facilities at Blakely and Brookley Island complexes in upper Mobile Bay, AL; port
expansion at Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA; and Navy homeporting sites in Mobile and
Everett Harbor.
5.55 Residential and Urban Use. In spite of the sometimes poor foundation qualities, dredged
material containment areas have become sites of multiple-building, high- and low-rise residential
and business complexes. Success has been attained where the properties of the dredged material
have been properly accounted for in the residential design. A few examples of residences and
businesses built on dredged material include the following:
a. Almost the entire City of Galveston, TX, where dredged material has been used for fill,
erosion control, hurricane protection, foundation material, and other beneficial uses for at least
the past 85 years.

5-151

Figure 5-65. Presidents Island-Memphis Harbor Project; this Project has Developed According to the Port of Memphis
Master Plan over the Past 25 Years

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

5-152

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-66. Two Port Facilitiesa Container Port Located on the Columbia (left) and a
Grain Terminal Located on the Willamette (right)were Built on Dredged Material at the
Confluence of the Two Rivers in Portland, OR, in the 1970s

Figure 5-67. The Port of Vicksburg, MS, Constructed on Dredged Material over 50 Years
ago, is a Thriving International Port of Entry on the Lower Mississippi River

5-153

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Thousands of residences and businesses built on sandy dredged material in Tampa,
St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota, Miami, Jacksonville, and numerous other locations in
Florida. (Most of these were built in wetlands and, therefore, this type of development in Florida
has decreased significantly in the past 10 years.)
c. Residential areas in the Borough of Bronx and shorelines of the East and Hudson Rivers
in New York City, NY.
d. Residential and business areas throughout the city of New Orleans, LA, both on the
riverfront and on Lake Pontchartrain.
e. A combined use of sandy dredged material over the past 75 years on the Mississippi Gulf
Coast for residences and businesses, highway fill, seawall protection, and beach nourishment (for
both recreation and nesting habitat for the coastal least tern).
f. Businesses at Jackson, MS, including the large Herrin-Gear Complex vehicle dealership,
where borrow material was dredged from inside the Pearl River levee and pumped into place
outside the levee for foundation material.
g. A huge industrial/residential/commercial complex, including a marine park, built on
sandy dredged material at San Diego, CA (Figure 5-68).
h. A large shopping center complex built on dredged material at Swan Island on the
Columbia River in Portland, OR. It includes shopping and commercial areas and low-rise office
buildings (Figure 5-69). This busy tourist and shopping area remains in use more than 30 years
later.
i. Historically, parts of the old town sections of New York along the East and Hudson
Rivers waterfronts, Baltimore Inner Harbor, Philadelphia waterfront, Washington, DC,
Charleston waterfront, Savannah waterfront, Jacksonville waterfront, and numerous other U.S.
cities along major rivers and in major harbors. Even prior to the American Revolution, hand- and
oxen-pulled slips (crude dredges) were used to remove sediment from bottoms to deepen
waterways and raise the level of the adjacent bank. The Jefferson Memorial and other historical
landmarks are on dredged material fill in Washington, DC.
5.56 Airports. Airport runways and facilities in New York City, NY; Washington, DC; Grays
Harbor, WA; Minneapolis, MN; New Orleans, LA; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Brookley
Air Force Base in Mobile, AL; and a number of other coastal areas have been built on dredged
material foundations in areas where insufficient land was available for a commercial airport, and
use of dredged material was easily justified both economically and socially. Such uses of dredged
material will undoubtedly continue as harbors and cities increase in congestion and population,
but they will require mitigation of environmental impacts.

5-154

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-68. The Master Plan Used for Construction on Sandy Dredged Material of an Industrial/
Residential/Commercial Complex, Including a Marine and Amusement Park and Sea Grass
Restoration Projects, at Mission Bay, San Diego, CA
5.57 Dikes, Levees, and Containment Facilities. The USACE makes almost constant use of
dredged material for dikes, levees, and confined placement facilities (CPFs). Dredged material,
pumped onsite and dewatered, readily lends itself to these uses. By using dredged material to
build or increase capacity in CPFs, or for dikes and levees, overall project costs can be reduced
while not having to use fastland soil for these projects and by expanding the life of existing
containment sites. Some local and state agency and private use is made of dredged material for
dikes and levees in certain situations such as for erosion and flood protection or for private
industrial dredged material containment facilities.

5-155

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure 5-69. A Large Shopping Mall, Port Center, which was Built on Dredged Material at Swan
Island on the Columbia River at Portland, OR, Includes Shopping and Commercial Areas as well
as Low-Rise Office Buildings
5.58 Fill Material and Roads. Thousands of cubic yards of dredged material have been
dewatered in holding areas, then given or sold to public or private interests for fill material. This
material has been used for a variety of building and parking lot foundation and site capping uses,
primarily in urban areas. It has also been used for road construction as foundation material, especially in coastal counties. Often, such material is given away without charge in order to make
room in placement sites for subsequent placement. In the St. Paul District, dewatered sandy
material was used to fill in an abandoned gravel quarry that was a dangerous eyesore. These
beneficial uses, coupled with minimal handling requirements, make these placement alternatives
inexpensive and attractive. Minnesota Department of Transportation has also used sand dredged
material as highway fill and in lieu of road salt.
5.59 Islands and Historic Preservation. On the Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida
Coasts, historic sites on barrier islands and beaches have been protected from wave erosion and
subsidence by sandy dredged material being pumped around and near such sites. Excellent
examples are found in Mississippi where the beachfront, with its historic colonial and antebellum
landmarks, and Ship Island, where historic Fort Massachusetts is located, were restored with
sandy dredged material after both were almost totally demolished by Hurricane Camille in 1969.
More recent hurricanes have also had an impact, and each time the coastal counties, the State of
Mississippi, and the USACE restore the historic properties and beaches with sand dredged
5-156

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
material. These sand islands and beachfronts also help to preserve historic landmarks on the
mainland from a direct assault by storms and hurricanes. Clean dredged material can also be used
as caps for archaeological sites along U.S. rivers and lakes, preserving them from erosion, theft,
and vandalism until such time as funds and time can be found for scientific study and
evaluation/restoration.
5.60 Considerations.
5.60.1 Once material has been placed inside a containment facility and dewatered, the use
of dredged material as industrial/commercial and construction material requires almost no
additional work on the part of project engineers unless it involves a USACE work project,. Users
and sponsors of the dredged material site at that point are responsible for movement and handling
of the material, development of the site, management and maintenance, and all other aspects of
industrial/commercial site use. If the dewatered material is to be used for dike and levee construction, normal earthmoving and handling procedures by the USACE apply and, generally, do
not involve use of a dredge. Techniques outlined in Eckert, Giles, and Smith (1978); Hammer
and Blackburn (1977); Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter (1978); and Walski and Schroeder
(1978) are referenced for dike and CPF engineering design and construction. Vant Hoff and
Nooy van der Kolff (editors) (2012) present detailed information on the planning, design, and
construction of land reclamation using hydraulic fill. This references objective is to achieve
optimum design based on the available quality and quantity of fill material, site-specific
conditions, dredging equipment and related construction methods, and appropriate functional and
performance requirements. Industrial/ commercial use of dredged material is probably one of the
most inexpensive beneficial uses. Its primary advantage, other than low cost, is that it allows
greater use of placement sites when dredged material is removed. Its primary disadvantage is that
on sites that become industrial areas, port facilities, airports, and other such commercial ventures,
the sites are no longer available for placement, and other placement sites must be located and
obtained.
5.60.2 Since 1996 clay dredged material has been tested by the brick industry to determine
if it is feasible and cost-effective for manufacture of bricks for home and commercial uses. Tests
indicate that it is, and brick examples have been manufactured and field tested in Georgia and
other states.
5.60.3 While there are a number of obvious economic advantages to these types of
beneficial uses, the environmental aspects may be so disadvantageous that a project is not feasible. For example, most of these sites already built displaced wetlands and other critical habitats.
This can no longer be done without mitigation and stringent permit requirements.

5-157

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Section XIV
Baseline and Monitoring Studies
5.61 General.
5.61.1 Potential beneficial uses of dredged material should be thoroughly examined as part
of preproject planning studies. Preliminary surveys of existing and candidate sites should be
made during the reconnaissance phase of new studies, and detailed aerial and ground surveillance
should be conducted for feasibility studies. Results should be displayed in the appropriate format
in feasibility reports, including preauthorization survey reports. Project environmental assessments and environmental impact statements must include a detailed comparison of alternative
sites, including adverse and beneficial impacts (Landin 1992b).
5.61.2 Modern tools such as remote sensing, visual data management systems, and
automatic data processing should be employed to help determine the most appropriate locations
and best uses for dredged material. High-resolution aircraft-collected scanner imagery and color
infrared photography can provide detailed land-use information that can be directly analyzed by
computer. Information obtained through remote sensing not only provides a valuable database,
but it can be used to monitor changes in existing conditions with or without the project. A variety
of computer systems and software programs are available for analyzing data.
5.61.3 Coordination with other Federal and state agencies is essential for projects that
include dredging activities. Scoping meetings should be held at regular intervals throughout all
phases of project planning. Agencies and organizations that should be involved in scoping activities include the USEPA, FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (when operating in coastal
waters), state coastal zone management agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and state and
Federal cultural resource agencies. Other state and local organizations, both public and private,
should be included as appropriate. Adequate review time must be provided for agencies to
comment on proposed actions (Landin, Hayes, and Payne 1997).
5.62 Monitoring.
5.62.1 Background. This paragraph describes the needs, considerations, and some methods
for monitoring dredged material operations prior to, during, and after dredging in order to have a
clear picture of the dredging and beneficial use impacts and values as well as a source of
pertinent references on monitoring. In this paragraph, monitoring focuses on only those
beneficial uses of dredged material that are derived from vegetation and/or animals. It is important that managers of dredging projects and/or placement sites have a good understanding of what
to monitor, why it is important to monitor, where monitoring should be conducted, when
monitoring should occur, and how it should be carried out for the most efficient data collection
and cost savings (Landin 1992b).
5.62.2 Need for monitoring. Monitoring of a proposed or existing dredged material site for
the purpose of planning appropriate beneficial uses is an absolute necessity to ensure
compatibility between or among the proposed uses and the dredged material placement activities.
Monitoring is important for numerous reasons. It provides a framework or database from which

5-158

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
logical beneficial use alternatives can be proposed. For example, if waterfowl habitat is desired
for hunting use, but monitoring data indicate that marsh cannot be established because of too
much wave energy, it makes little sense to consider duck hunting as a beneficial use. Monitoring
also documents that appropriate planning of dredged material uses has been implemented and
provides a basis from which defensible arguments can be made for selected beneficial uses.
Monitoring is useful in obtaining an understanding of potential problems with alternative uses of
dredged material, constraints, or possibilities related to dredged material management. It provides
a clear picture over time whether the planned beneficial uses develop properly or at all and what
changes are taking place that influence those uses or other potential beneficial uses. For example,
Miller Sands Island, planted as an upland goose resting/grazing pasture in the Columbia River,
has reverted to use primarily by nutria because the sandy pasture has not been maintained by soil
amendments and by trapping of the nutria, which eat the good grasses and herbs planted for
goose pasture and leave only horsetail, an unpalatable plant. A monitoring program can indicate
if these kinds of situations are developing, so remedial actions can be taken to preserve the
intended beneficial use (Landin 1992a).
5.62.3 Considerations of monitoring. In planning and initiating a monitoring program of
beneficial uses on dredged material, one must consider a variety of factors that are likely to
impinge upon both dredging operations and the intended beneficial uses (Landin 1992a; Thom
and Wellman 1996). These impingements may take place prior to, during, or after dredging and
can influence decisions as to what beneficial uses should be planned and how they are likely to
change over time. The level of attention needed will be greatest in the initial stages (that is,
monitoring the placement process, overseeing propagule collection and planting, and so on) and
will, in most cases, decrease with time. Influencing factors that should be monitored include such
things as soil or substrate conditions, size and location of site, plants and animals presently on the
site or in nearby areas, natural succession typical of the area, existing and future site use, flooding
and/or wave energy conditions, tidal conditions, social and economic considerations, and the
probability of future dredged material deposition. This paragraph suggests a general monitoring
approach to follow after the decision has been made to develop selected beneficial uses on a site.
It assumes that legal restrictions, site availability, site capacity, and other legal, administrative, or
engineering aspects are favorable.
5.62.4 Methods. Beneficial use monitoring may be planned for two kinds of sites: an
established dredged material site where deposition has been completed, and a site where proposed or ongoing deposition of dredged material is taking place. In the first case, an established
dredged material site may be many years old or relatively new, and it may be vegetated or
unvegetated. In the second case, the new substrate at any one or more topographic elevations dictate whether the site will be aquatic or upland or a combination of the two. The approach should
be tailored to the kind of deposition. Monitoring of a site involves numerous factors and therefore can be most effectively accomplished by a multidisciplinary team, generally including a
wildlife biologist, botanist, soil scientist, engineer, fisheries biologist, land use planner and, in
some cases, a lawyer. The team needs to be structured according to the anticipated uses of the
site. For example, it makes little sense to include a fisheries biologist if an upland site without
any ponds or lakes is the site being considered for beneficial uses unless ponds or lakes are
anticipated. Four steps for each item to be monitored should be followed: develop a statement of

5-159

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
objectives, identify the population or unit to be sampled and data to be collected, specify the
precision of data collection, and select an efficient sampling design.
5.62.4.1 Physical factors. Physical factors considered important to monitor include such
things as climate; geographic location and size; topography and configuration; physical and
chemical characteristics of the substrate to be deposited upon and material to be deposited; tides,
currents, and other hydrological data; physical and chemical characteristics of the water in which
material is deposited; and land use.
a. Climate. Climatic data are important to monitor because they dictate what kinds of plants
and animals can ultimately grow and reproduce at the site. In a dredged material placement project
it is usually impractical to collect climatic data personally over a long enough time period for it to
be meaningful. Therefore, the planner should resort to the literature and data sources that apply to
the site area. First, the climate should be evaluated on a large scale because climate changes are
relatively slow. Changes in such things as soils and vegetation usually occur gradually. Soil and
plant communities are relatively stable and mutually compatible over extensive land areas. Classification of climates over large areas requires development of parameters such as temperature and
rainfall extremes on a macroscale. Maps available from the U.S. Department of Commerce enable
determination of approximate limits of average minimum temperatures, rainfall distribution zones,
major climatic zones, and other zones that influence types of vegetation that can be grown in an
area. Then climatic conditions should be determined on a microclimatic scale, or those climates
within the first few feet of the soil. It is important to characterize these because they determine more
accurately whether plants and animals will be able to survive drought, chilling, frosts, or excess
moisture. Those microclimates characterized by low precipitation during the growing season will
have a deficit of moisture for plant growth, especially if temperatures are high. For example,
St. Paul, MN, is in a semihumid grassland-forest transition zone because it has a mean annual
precipitation of 62.5 cm (24.6 in.). However, San Antonio, TX, with the same mean annual
precipitation, has semiarid vegetation because of higher temperatures21 C (70 F) versus 7 C
(45 F). Soil-water losses are greater in Texas than in Minnesota. To obtain these temperature and
rainfall data at a local level, the planner should refer to local meteorological data furnished by the
nearest National Weather Service station or establish an onsite weather station obtainable from
scientific instrument supply distributors. If the latter option is selected, data should be collected in
the area for as long as considered practical, preferably for at least 2-3 years.
b. Geographic location and size. Geographic location will determine any macroclimate and
microclimatic characteristics, which will in turn influence plants and animals. The potential or
existing size of a placement area should be considered in relation to its location; these interrelated
factors determine the potential value of an area for various beneficial uses. This is particularly true
for the development of wildlife habitat. Small areas may offer no appreciable habitat development
potential whereas large areas may offer numerous management possibilities. Location of the site is
extremely important, perhaps much more so than the size. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
(1976) relates an example that illustrates this. An 0.8 ha upland site surrounded by marsh and
located very close to the mainland may support a greater diversity of wildlife species than a 4 ha
island site with similar habitat but isolated from marsh and mainland populations by open water.
The smaller site may often be used by marsh inhabitants such as rails, herons, egrets, and raccoons;

5-160

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
it may be visited by white-tailed deer and many small land birds; and it may support a high marsh
rabbit population due mainly to the abundance of surrounding marsh vegetation. Natural plant
succession and dispersal of animal species occur quickly and easily due to the proximity of the area
to plant and animal sources. The island site, although larger, may be used only by waterbird species.
Natural succession and animal dispersal to the island are slower due to the isolation of the island.
Often dredged material islands are the only areas available for bird colonies, and the isolation keeps
predators and human disturbance to a minimum.
c. Topography, configuration, and land features. The topography and configuration of a site
must be examined because these factors greatly influence potential beneficial uses. The elevation of
the dredged material in relation to mean water level will determine, for example, the kinds of
vegetation and habitat that can be developed. Figure 5-8 in Section III, Habitat Development,
illustrates this point. Configuration of the site plays a large role in determining what uses should be
planned. Coves on a dredged material island, for example, can lead to successful marsh
establishment (Allen, Webb, and Shirley 1983; Swafford and Gorini 1994) because protection from
long wind fetches is provided. Topography and land configuration also relate to erodibility,
flooding potential, waterway traffic, and future deposition plans of an area. Hills, bluffs, and manmade features influence accessibility and ease of developing desired beneficial uses. Monitoring of
these factors is best achieved with an aerial photograph, topographic map, and diagram as a base.
Elevational and bathymetric data may be unavailable and will have to be established by standard
survey and geodetic procedures. A map or diagram should show access routes, both land and water,
as means of transporting equipment; these routes should be rated. The map or diagram should show
dikes, mounds, or other evidence of previous placement, and areas of debris accumulation and
indications of nearby human activity, such as a boat dock, cabin, foot trail, or livestock, should be
noted. See references in Environmental Laboratory (1978) and Hayes et al. (2000) for techniques on
reconnaissance mapping.
d. Soils or dredged material substrate. Analysis of core samples and soil sampling data
should be made on existing soils to determine undesirable physical and/or chemical properties
that may pose a hazard to potential site use. If proper procedures are not taken, it is possible that
buried undesirable materials could migrate upward through the water column. See Lee et al.
(1985) for procedures to be used in sampling and analyzing soils and for ways to handle any
potentially hazardous soils. If the dredged material sediments already in place are to be used for
beneficial uses, some physical and chemical tests must be conducted. Soil properties influence
kinds of plant species that can be grown on the site or that will invade the site. These plants, in
turn, will ultimately affect other beneficial uses to be planned. Similar physical and chemical soil
tests will also be necessary for dredged material sediments, since these materials will be the
growing medium for plants. See Lee et al. (1985) for the determination of soil or sediment
properties. After soil properties are determined, soil scientists should be consulted to determine
which soil treatments are required to ensure adequate plant development. Periodic monitoring of
the soil properties of the site should be carried out since fertilization and other soil amendments
and physical treatments may be necessary to ensure site beneficial uses are not adversely affected
by changing soil conditions. The frequency of monitoring will largely be determined by
economic and time constraints.

5-161

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Tides, waves, currents, and other hydrologic data. These factors influence water and
nutrient availability to plants and animals and cause erosion. For salt marsh development, vertical
elevation of a substrate with respect to tidal fluctuations determines the number of times per year
the substrate and plants will be flooded with salt water. The average number of hours submerged
per month and the average number of hours submerged during daylight are important in
determining plant distribution (Chapman 1976). Because of the energy they exert upon a site and
the potential erosion, waves can influence plant establishment. Fetch, or the distance wind travels
across water to reach land, and the depth of water are primary determinants of the degree of wave
energies. Knutson and Inskeep (1983) relate a method for evaluating wave climate based on
observed relationships between fetch, shore configuration, grain size, and success in controlling
erosion in 86 salt marsh plantings in 12 coastal states. Of course, direct measurements for
characterizing tides and waves can be accomplished through electronic gauges or by physically
reading tides and waves on staff rods. Currents are normally considered when dredged material is
deposited in rivers and streams. Currents have a direct effect on whether plants can become
established. Current meters should be installed on the site and monitored for several months
throughout the year to obtain a knowledge of maximum and minimum current conditions. Other
hydrologic factors, such as water table and water levels or depths, also directly influence planned
beneficial uses due to their effect on plant establishment and zonation. Water table, levels, and
depths will influence the ability of plants to carry out their physiological processes (for example,
photosynthesis and respiration). Some plants can tolerate more or less water than others, which
will in turn dictate what vegetation can be grown on a dredged material site. The vegetation will
largely dictate the kinds of animal habitat that can be developed or the kinds of animals that will
use the site. A procedural guide for monitoring such things as depths to water table and other
hydrologic factors can be found in Lee et al. (1985).
f. Water quality. Salinity, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand,
chemical oxygen demand, and mineral nutrients within the water column will largely influence
the kinds of plants and aquatic fauna that will develop on or adjacent to a dredged material site
(USEPA 1979; Thom and Wellman 1996). They should be monitored periodically prior to,
during, and after dredging to obtain an idea of how water quality conditions might change over
time, which in turn might affect plant and animal development. (See Section II, Logical
Connections, for sampling and laboratory requirements and procedures regarding water quality
factors.)
5.62.4.2 Biological factors. Biological factors considered important to monitor include
aquatic, semiaquatic, and upland plant species; all animal species, including soil macroinvertebrates, microfauna, and benthos; and shellfish and finfish.
a. Vegetation. Knowledge of existing plant species on or adjacent to the site will enable
plant species selection. Indigenous plants may be desirable for various beneficial uses, such as
wildlife habitat development, agricultural, forestry, or horticultural purposes. The vegetation
composition and distribution can be mapped from either visual estimation or sampling.
Reconnaissance mapping and map use for various purposes, including wildlife and vegetation,
and a guide to gaining natural resource information through remote sensing techniques are
discussed in Environmental Laboratory (1978) and Hayes et al. (2000). This guide includes

5-162

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
vegetation and animal habitat inventory and assessment. Gysel and Lyon (1980) provide habitat
analysis and evaluation methods suitable for vegetation description and other site attributes.
Sampling methods are not standardized for vegetation but must be tailored to the type and areal
extent of vegetation and the level of information required. Excellent general references for
monitoring vegetation include Chapman (1976), Grieg-Smith (1964), and Kershaw (1973).
Ohman and Ream (1971) provide a guide of sampling and summarizing data for plant
community surveys and classification, including methods, data sheets, and computer summarization printouts. The specific location of any plants protected by law should be noted when
sampling vegetation. A botanist familiar with the area should be consulted for species
verification; regional botanical field guides such as Britton and Brown (1985), Godfrey and
Wooten (1979), Pierce (1977), and Silberhorn (1976) will be helpful.
b. Animals. Both aquatic and upland animals on and adjacent to the dredged material site
should be monitored. Important economic species such as shrimp and other associated shellfish
may be in adjacent waters and could be cultured and developed on the dredged material site.
Furbearing animals such as beaver and otter may be in the area and could be attracted to the site
for trapping pelts or other beneficial uses. Monitoring of smaller animals is important because
they are part of the food web and can provide insight to use by larger predatory animals. Current
and future animal use of a site, in general, should be determined through observation of signs
such as tracks or browse marks, actual observations, or some form of sampling. For example, in
sampling both aquatic and upland animals on dredged material in the intertidal zone of a Texas
site near Galveston, monthly observations at exact locations were made. Aquatic invertebrates on
the water bottom that may be covered during the dredging process or during beneficial use
development should be described by species composition, abundance, and distribution.
(1) For information on sampling techniques, consult Frey, Basan, and Scott (1973), which

discusses sampling of salt marsh benthos and burrows; Little and Quick (1976), which describes
a reconnaissance technique for oysters; and Wolf, Shanholtzer, and Reimold (1970), which
describes sampling for fiddler crabs in salt marsh. Other aquatic animal sampling and monitoring
methods for plankton, periphyton, macrophyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish are amply
discussed in Weber (1973).
(2) For purposes of definition, discussion in this manual of monitoring upland animals
includes those animal species, such as waterfowl and colonial nesting birds, that use unflooded land
for any of their life requisites. Schemnitz (1980) provides numerous methods of monitoring
primarily upland animal species. Another general reference that applies primarily to upland animal
monitoring is Johnson, Franklin, and Krebill (1984). Gysel and Lyon (1980) provide an excellent
discussion on estimation of density of primarily upland animals by use of the line transect method.
(3) For dredged material that will be or has been deposited in a floodplain, Uetz et al.
(1979) provide a sampling method for floodplain arthropods although they state there is no single
sampling method applicable to studies of arthropods as these animals vary in mobility and
microhabitat preferences. Additional literature on sampling methods of upland animal
populations includes Bond (1957), Caughley (1977), Kendeigh (1944), Marion and Shamis
(1977), and Neff (1968). A wildlife biologist familiar with the proposed or existing dredged

5-163

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
material site can estimate wildlife use of the site and should be consulted about the presence of
threatened, rare, or endangered species. Critical habitat and areas of concern for these species
must be located, protected, and/or enhanced in every dredging project. Contract monitoring
information is provided by Sturgis (1990) and Landin, Hayes, and Payne (1997).
5.62.5 Conclusion. Monitoring methodology should be tailored to the nature of the project,
its goals, and the overall reason for monitoring. It is important to understand that monitoring for
the sake of monitoring is not helpful in learning where a habitat is functioning or whether a
beneficial use is working. In the case of beneficial uses, the purpose of monitoring is to ensure
that dredged material operations eventually lead to some planned beneficial uses that provide a
return in natural resources, in economics, or in other gains. Monitoring methodology can be as
simple as a yearly recording of presence or absence or as intensive as necessary to establish and
document a management program or provide statistically reproducible data to protect legal
interests. Note that the equipment and methodologies used and the measurements taken are based
on project goals and functions of what has been impacted or changed, and they are used to
determine both the success of an overall project and whether the predetermined success criteria
of the project have been met.
Section XV
Site Valuation
5.63 Evaluation.
5.63.1 Dredging in our Nations waterways and harbors is necessary to maintain navigation.
Dredging is also a part of USACE flood-control work in large rivers and streams of the United
States. Still further, Section 404 dredge and fill permits are required, and mitigation may be
necessary for other types of dredging work. The costs of dredging can sometimes be justified by
documenting the benefits that can be derived from a network of navigable waterways. Tangible
dollar benefits are generally savings in shipping costs realized by shippers using the waterways or
a measurement of property and lives protected by a flood-control or reservoir structure. In
addition to dredging costs, the costs of placement of dredged material from waterways are
substantial. In conventional placement operations, potential benefits were once ignored, and the
cost of the placement operation was simply part of the total cost of the entire dredging-placement
project. With new laws and regulations that give the USACE the opportunity to accomplish
beneficial uses over and above bottom-line project costs, potential benefits are carefully
determined and evaluated, and they incorporated into project plans and designs.
5.63.2 Dredged material can provide socioeconomic benefits if beneficial uses are
implemented. Uses of either the material itself or the containment area in which it is placed are
options. Land enhancement benefits from the placement of dredged material can be substantial,
and highly productive habitat can be developed on placement sites. The value of new or filled
land or of a wetland or other habitat created by placement of material dredged from a project is a
valid benefit that can be credited to the overall project. Both new and maintenance dredging
projects should evaluate land enhancement and beneficial use alternatives. An analysis should
also be made of the associated socioeconomic benefits and costs of the placement of dredged

5-164

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
material. This process should consider several alternatives for placement, including beneficial
uses, and it should consider all benefits and costs, tangible as well as intangible. A number of
factors need to be considered in benefits, including attitudes and opinions of local citizens,
resource agencies, and environmental groups, the general public good, and distinguishing or
limiting historical or archaeological features (Skjei 1976; King and Constanza 1994).
5.63.3 To aid in the evaluation of the land enhancement value and associated benefits that
can be derived by the beneficial use of dredged material containment areas, a land value
methodology has been developed for certain types of beneficial uses. The methodology is
basically designed to provide guidance for projects still in the early planning stages and produces
estimates of the direct market value of the created land, the related community benefits, and
adverse impacts from the land use. The use of this methodology can help highlight the many
advantages of the beneficial land use of dredged material. Project sponsors and local officials
may gain wider public support for beneficial use projects if they can effectively demonstrate to
the community the full range of benefits from project implementation.
5.64 Methodology.
5.64.1 Base of appraisal. The basis for the land value portion of the methodology is the
comparable sales approach often used in real estate appraisal. This approach was considered the
most appropriate for the value estimate of newly created land from dredged material. For the
assessment of associated benefits and adverse impacts resulting from the land use project, a
matrix has been devised to categorize and describe all relevant effects. The methodology itself
can be divided into site description, establishment of use potential, estimate of value, and associated benefits and adverse impacts. The first three collectively estimate the site value changes;
the fourth identifies the associated benefits and/or adverse impacts of the land use project.
5.64.2 Site description. Before an analysis of the value of a site can begin, the site must be
described in terms of its physical features, environmental setting (including natural and manmade areas), and relationship to the economic structure of the area. This phase of the
methodology is primarily a database for subsequent analyses. Many of the items of importance to
the value of the prepared site will emerge during the course of this data-gathering task. Taking
the required time to develop the data needed for this section of the methodology enables the final
estimate of value to be made with more confidence.
5.64.3 Establishment of use potential. This section of the methodology establishes the most
likely and the highest and best use of the containment area after the dredged material has been
placed, dewatered, and consolidated. Normally, the highest and best potential use of a piece of
land, within existing legal and institutional constraints, is employed as the basis for the value
assessment. Values of comparable land in the area determine the value of the new piece of land.
The use potential is established by identifying current land uses surrounding the site, the need for
certain land uses within the area, the zoning intensity of various levels of development, and other
institutional and legal constraints. Also, the physical characteristics previously identified must be
considered. For example, a placement site made of fine-grained dredged material is not suitable
for high-rise developments despite other positive attributes, but it may have use as a recreation
site, where low-load structures may be safely erected, or as a wildlife habitat and nature area.
5-165

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Finally, the accessibility of the site to the existing infrastructure is an important determinant of
practical use potential.
5.64.4 Estimate of value.
5.64.4.1 This is the final stage of the methodology in the actual site valuation process. For the
successful accomplishment of a value estimate, an economist or real estate appraiser familiar with
land values should be involved. Three key functions must be performed in the estimation process:
a. Land parcels similar to the site must created by the containment area, and recent sale or
assessment data must be identified.
b. An estimate of demand or need for the new site must be made based on the information
obtained in the estimate of use potential.
c. The relative applicability of the comparable sites versus the new site for beneficial uses
must be determined.
5.64.4.2 Values of comparable parcels are the basis on which the market value estimate is
made. Once the comparables have been identified and their value established, a utility estimate is
made to determine how similar, with respect to value-producing factors, the comparables and
the new site are. If the comparables and the new site are similar with respect to accessibility,
zoning restrictions, proximity to public services, foundation constraints, and so on, then the
comparables can be considered to have equal utility to the new site and be used to establish site
value. Using the relative utility measure and the demand for the new land use, an adjusted value
for the new site can be estimated. By comparing this value estimate with the original value of the
site before the dredged material was deposited, a land enhancement benefit can be estimated for
whatever beneficial use has been proposed.
5.64.4.3 Before an estimated land valuation can be determined for other than upland
human-use sites, values must be determined for such potential site uses as wetlands and other
types of habitat development, nonconsumptive recreation, fish nursery areas, commercial and
non-commercial shellfish and finfish industries, aquatic vegetation, endangered species critical
habitat, water quality, and other difficult-to-estimate variables. These types of values are
extremely controversial and hard to assess. None of the scientists working in their fields in the
development of values agree on uniform estimates. Values often need to be assigned on a sitespecific basis. The USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) has been
coming to grips with this problem through the Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS)
Program and the Wetlands Research Program (WRP). ERDC often assists Districts in reaching
estimated values of new or proposed dredged material or mitigated sites.
5.64.5 Associated benefits and adverse impacts.
5.64.5.1 The direct increase in market value of a site from the placement of dredged
material is an important land enhancement benefit; however, the induced associated benefits
and/or adverse impacts can also be substantial. These benefits and impacts may touch many

5-166

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
different economic groups in a wide geographic range away from the site. The methodology can
assist in identifying these benefits and impacts, describing their magnitude and significance, and
displaying them for decision makers and the public.
5.64.5.2 Two guides were developed by Conrad and Pack (1978) to assist in identifying the
significant benefits and impacts resulting from the beneficial use of dredged material containment areas. One guide graphically shows the relationships of various categories of effects that
could result from a productive land use. The other lists specific types of social, economic, and
environmental factors that might be affected by the beneficial use. These guides are by no means
all-encompassing; rather, they provide a framework for identification of the important benefits
and adverse impacts.
5.64.5.3 Once the benefits and adverse impacts are identified, a matrix can be used to
describe and evaluate them. The matrix should have a simple structure, and the evaluation is
based on the judgment involved in the process. No general weighting system was considered
appropriate for the evaluation of these associated benefits and adverse impacts. However, a
matrix should allow this subjective evaluation to be displayed so that other interested parties can
review them. When using this methodology, one should remember that the entire methodology is
intended as a set of guidelines, and it involves the application of sound judgment in a
multidisciplinary group. Deviation from the methodology may be warranted where sound
judgment dictates that the situation being investigated does not lend itself to application of the
methodology, such as when dealing with habitat applications of a site.
5.65 Case Studies. When developing the methodology, Conrad and Pack (1978) examined 15
case study sites and then tested the methodology on each. As developed, the methodology is to be
used on undeveloped sites for planning purposes. However, sites that were already developed
were selected in the interest of getting a diverse group for testing. The results of the case studies
indicated that the methodology is flexible and adaptable to a wide range of sites. Table 5-10 lists
the case study sites along with their physical and dredged material characteristics. Table 5-11
shows the settings of the case study sites, and Table 5-12 is a compilation of the estimated
change in land values of the sites as a result of their development for upland beneficial use. The
values indicate that, through beneficial use application, dredged material containment areas can
realize significant increases in value. The wide range of value increases shows that the value
increase is a site-specific characteristic. The methodology, however, allows an estimation of this
change before the site is developed. Finally, Table 5-13 shows the types of associated benefits
and adverse impacts that were encountered during the case studies. Details of the case studies are
available in Conrad and Pack (1978).
5.66 Use of the Methodology. The large land enhancement benefits that can accrue from the
beneficial use of dredged material make this alternative to conventional placement particularly
attractive. The methodology described in this section is designed to be used in the planning
stages to identify and evaluate the tangible increase in market value as well as other benefits to
be derived from beneficial upland use. It also helps ensure that appropriate placement alternatives
will not be overlooked. The methodology does not, however, apply to sites that are not used as
upland human-use sites, such as wetlands. Paragraph 5.64.4 discusses of valuation of such sites.

5-167

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-10. Case Study Site Physical and Dredged Material Characteristics
(from Conrad and Pack 1978)
Approximate
Size
Site
Anacortes
Artificial
Island
Bay Port

Location
Anacortes,
WA
Salem
County, NJ
Green Bay,
WI
Washington,
DC
San Diego,
CA
Hillsborough
Co., FL
Tampa, FL

E. Potomac
Park
Fifth Avenue
Marina
Florida State
Fairgrounds
Hookers
Point
Hoquiam
Hoquiam, WA
Patriots Point Charleston,
SC
Vicksburg
Vicksburg, MS
Virginia
Virginia
Beach
Beach, VA
Pelican
Galveston, TX
Island
Port Jersey Jersey City,
NJ
Blount Island Jacksonville,
FL
Rivergate
Memphis, TN

ha
11

Soil Characteristics
Grain
Bearing Vegetative
acres
Type
Size
Capacity Support
26 Sand/clay Fine
Fair
Good

81

200

233

Depth to
Foundation
Strata
m

ft
25

Fair

Good

21

70

575

Silty clay Fine

loam
Sand/clay Fine

Poor

Good

15

133

329

Silt/clay

Poor

Good

31

100

22

Fine sand Fine

Fair

Good

N/A

N/A

112

276

Silt/clay

Poor

Good

N/A

N/A

162

400

Silt/clay

Fair

Good

N/A

N/A

18
182

45
450

Fine/
medium
Sand/silt Fine
Silty loam Fine

Fair
Poor

Good
Good

10
18

34
60

142
17

350
43

Sand/silt Fine
Sand/clay Fine to
medium
Silt/clay Fine

Good
Fair

Good
Poor

12
N/A

40
N/A

Fair

Good

N/A

N/A

Fair

Poor

23

75

Good

Good

25

80

Good

Good

N/A

N/A

1,306 3,225

Fine

Fine

172

430

680

1700

Sand/clay Fine to
medium
Silt/clay Fine

172

425

Sand/clay Medium

5-168

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-11. Case Study Site Settings (from Conrad and Pack 1978)
Site Name
Anacortes
Artificial Island

Productive Use
Industrial/
manufacturing
Nuclear power
plant

Water and Sewer

To site

Urban Setting
Urban/port
Rural

Zoning
Industrial/
urban
Industrial/
urban

Access
Excellent

Good

Excellent

Bay Port

Industrial/port

Home nearby;
developed their
own services
Nearby

E. Potomac
Park
Fifth Avenue
Marina
Florida State
Fairgrounds
Hookers Point

Park

Onsite

Urban

Industrial/
urban
Open space

Marine/park

Adjacent to site

Urban

Open space

State fairgrounds

Onsite

Suburban

Urban transition Good

Urban/port

Excellent

Hoquiam

Industrial/
manufacturing
Museum/marina/
golf course, hotel

Industrial/
urban
Industrial/
urban
Commercial/
agricultural/
open space
None

Good
Excellent

Patriots Point

Vicksburg
Virginia Beach
Pelican Island

Port Jersey
Blount Island
Rivergate

Industrial/port facility Onsite

Industrial/
manufacturing
Beach front
commercial
Industrial/
residential/
institutional/
recreational
Industrial/
commercial
Industrial
Industrial

Urban

0.2 km (0.13 mi)

Urban/port
from site
Water extended
Suburban
to site; package
sewage treatment
plant installed.
Adjacent to site
Suburban

Poor

Excellent

Good
Fair

Adjacent to site

Urban

To site

Urban

Residential/
commercial
Industrial/
residential/
open space

Onsite

Urban

Industrial

Excellent

To site
Onsite

Suburban
Suburban

Industrial
Manufacturing

Excellent
Excellent

5-169

Excellent

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table 5-12. Case Study Site Valuation Study (from Conrad and Pack 1978)

Site Name
Anacortes

Used
Considered
for Valuation
Industrial/
port
Nuclear
power
generation
Heavy
industrial
Recreational

Raw Value Prior to

Dredged Material
Placement1

Adjusted Present Value

Enhancement Value

per ha
$5,400

per acre
$2,200

per ha
$43,200

per acre
$17,500

per ha
$37,800

per acre
$15,300

$12

$5

$3,200

$1,300

$3,200

$1,300

Nominal

Nominal

$16,100

$6,500

$16,100

$6,500

None

None

$645,900

$261,500

$645,900

$261,500

Recreational/
open space
Commercial/
retail
Deepwater
terminal
facilities
Hoquiam
Industrial/
port
Patriots Point Commercial/
recreational
Vicksburg
Industrial/
port
Virginia
Commercial/
Beach
retail

$10,800 $26,900
$11,100

$4,300 $10,900
$4,500

$1.94 - $784,000 $2.60 M

$1.0 M
$106,300
$43,000

Nominal

Nominal

$160,600

$65,000

$160,600

$65,000

$2,000

$800

$13,100

$5,300

$11,100

$4,500

$5

$2

$43,000

$17,400

$43,000

$17,400

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$5,600/
front m

$1,700/
front ft

$5,600/
front m

$1,700/
front ft

Pelican Island Industrial/

residential
Port Jersey Industrial
Blount Island Industrial
Rivergate
Manufacturing
1 1997 dollars; M = million

$1,725

$700

$19,266

$7,800

Maintenance
value
$17,540

Maintenance
value
$7,100

$35,000
$16,055
$11,100

$14,000
$6,500
$4,500

$198,000
$83,360
$134,500

$79,000
$33,750
$54,500

$163,200
$67,305
$123,400

$65,200
$27,250
$50,000

Artificial
Island
Bay Port
E. Potomac
Park
Fifth Avenue
Marina
Florida State
Fairgrounds
Hookers Point

5-170

$1.92 - $779,000 $2.60 M

$1.0 M
$95,100
$38,500

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Rivergate

Blount Island

Port Jersey

Pelican Island

Virginia Beach
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

Vicksburg

Patriots Point

Hoquiam

Hookers Point

Fifth Avenue
Marina
Florida State
Fairgrounds

E. Potomac Park

Bay Port

Artificial Island

Associated
Benefits/
Adverse
Impacts
Adjusted value
increase
Increased
business
activity
New jobs
Increased
taxes/
Revenues
Sales
Real estate
Community
attractiveness
General boost
to economy
Operations
revenue
Provide needed
community
facilities
Increased
recreation
opportunities
Construction
jobs
Utility taxes
Decrease in
area taxes
Public
education
(re: nuclear
power plants)

Anacortes

Table 5-13. Case Study SitesAssociated Benefits/Adverse Impacts

(from Conrad and Pack 1978)

X
X

X
X

5-171

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Increased
municipal
expenses
Limits area
development
potential
Community
concern
Detracts from
adjacent vistas
Improved
medical care
services
Provide needed
power
Educational/
Cultural
opportunities
Expands area
tourist potential
Introduce
alternative
transportation
mode
Create site for
administrative
offices

Rivergate

Blount Island

Port Jersey

Pelican Island

Virginia Beach

Vicksburg

Patriots Point

Hoquiam

Hookers Point

Fifth Avenue
Marina
Florida State
Fairgrounds

E. Potomac Park

Bay Port

Artificial Island

Associated
Benefits/
Adverse
Impacts
Increased
congestion
Higher property
taxes
Environmental
degradation

Anacortes

Table 5-13 (Concluded).

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

5-172

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX A
References
A.1 Required Publications.
Required publications listed below provide guidance to USACE personnel concerned with the
planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of navigation (dredging) projects.
Most of the Engineer Manuals (EMs), Engineer Pamphlets (EPs), Engineer Regulations (ERs),
and Engineer Technical Letters (TLs) are available at http://publications.usace.army.mil/
publications/ and Policy Guidance Letters (PGLs) at http://planning.usace.army.mil/toolbox/
library.cfm?Option=Start. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USEPA/USACE) guidance documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/.
A.1.1 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
33 CFR
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters; Chapter II Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, Department of Defense.
Part 230 Procedures for Implementing NEPA.
Part 325 Processing of Department of the Army Permits.
Part 335 Operation and Maintenance of Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects
Involving the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the U.S. or Ocean Waters
Part 336 Factors to be Considered in the Evaluation of Army Corps of Engineers Dredging
Projects Involving the Discharge of Dredged Material into Waters of the U.S. and Ocean Waters.
Part 337 Practice and Procedure.
Part 338 Other Corps Activities Involving the Discharge of Dredged Material or Fill into
Waters of the U.S.
40 CFR
Title 40 Protection of Environment; Chapter I Environmental Protection Agency.
Part 225 Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Permits.
Part 227 Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of Materials.
Part 228 Criteria for the Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping.
Part 230 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material.

A-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Part 1502 Environmental Impact Statement.

A.1.2 Engineer Manuals (EM).
EM 200-1-4
Risk Assessment Handbook Volumes I: Human Health Evaluation.
EM 385-1-1
Safety and Health Requirements Manual.
EM 1110-1-1003
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System Surveying.
EM 1110-1-1802
Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations.
EM 1110-1-1804
Geotechnical Investigations.
EM 1110-1-1905
Bearing Capacity of Soils.
EM 1110-1-2909
Geospatial Data and Systems.
EM 1110-2-410
Design of Recreation Areas and Facilities Access and Circulation.
EM 1110-2-1003
Hydrographic Surveying.
EM 1110-2-1202
Environmental Engineering for Deep-Draft Navigation Projects.
EM 1110-2-1206
Environmental Engineering for Small Boat Basins.
EM 1110-2-1416
River Hydraulics.
EM 1110-2-1611
Layout and Design of Shallow-Draft Waterways.
EM 1110-2-1613
Hydraulic Design Guidance for Deep-Draft Navigation Projects.

A-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
EM 1110-2-1615
Hydraulic Design of Small Boat Harbors.
EM 1110-2-1902
Slope Stability.
EM 1110-2-1906
Laboratory Soils Testing.
EM 1110-2-1907
Soil Sampling.
EM 1110-2-1908
Instrumentation of Embankment Dams and Levees.
EM 1110-2-1911
Construction Control for Earth and Rock-Fill Dams.
EM 1110-2-2300
Earth and Rock-Fill Dams General Design and Construction Considerations.
EM 1110-2-3301
Design of Beach Fills.
EM 1110-2-5026
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.
EM 1110-2-5027
Confined Disposal of Dredged Material.
A.1.3 Engineer Pamphlets (EP).
EP 1130-2-520
Navigation and Dredging Operations and Maintenance Guidance and Procedures.
A.1.4 Engineer Regulations (ER).
ER 200-2-2
Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA.
ER 1105-2-100
Planning Guidance Notebook.
ER 1110-1-8156
Policies, Guidance, and Requirements for Geospatial Data Systems.

A-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

ER 1110-2-1150
Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects.
ER 1110-2-1302
Civil Works Cost Engineering.
ER 1110-2-1403
Studies by Coastal, Hydraulic, and Hydrologic Facilities and Others.
ER 1110-2-1404
Hydraulic Design of Deep-Draft Navigation Projects.
ER 1110-2-1457
Hydraulic Design of Small Boat Navigation Projects.
ER 1110-2-1458
Hydraulic Design of Shallow Draft Navigation Projects.
ER 1110-2-8151
Monitoring Completed Navigation Projects.
ER 1130-2-406
Shoreline Management at Civil Works Projects.
ER 1130-2-520
Navigation and Dredging Operations and Maintenance Policies.
ER 1165-2-27
Establishment of Wetland Areas in Connection with Dredging.
ER 1165-2-120
Reimbursement for Advance Non-Federal Construction of Authorized Federal Harbor and Inland
Harbor Improvements.
ER 1165-2-122
Studies of Harbor or Inland Harbor Projects by Non-Federal Interests.
ER 1165-2-124
Construction of Harbor and Inland Harbor Projects by Non-Federal Interests.
ER 1165-2-130
Federal Participation in Shore Protection.
ER 1165-2-131
Local Cooperation Agreements for New Start Construction Projects.

A-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
A.1.5 Policy Guidance Letters (PGL).
PGL Number 8 1988
PGL Number 8. 19 May 88 - New Start Construction Projects - Responsibility for Utility
Relocations on Harbor Projects (ER 1165-2-131 - pg 30, ER 1105-2-100, para 4-7).
PGL Number 9 1988
PGL Number 9. 13 Jun 88 - New Start Construction Projects - Responsibility for Relocation and
Removal of Structures and Facilities on Navigation Projects (ER 1165-2-131, pgs 29-31).
PGL Number 10 1988
PGL Number 10. 6 Sep 88 - Section 111, Shore Damage Mitigation (ER 1105-2-100, para 3-22).
PGL Number 14 1989
PGL Number 14. 9 Jan 89 - Revisions to Guidance for Disposal of Materials on Beaches
(ER 1105-2-100, para 4-8).
PGL Number 15 1989
PGL Number 15. 7 Apr 89 - Credit for Utility Relocation Costs on Navigation Projects Modifications to Existing Local Cooperation Agreements (LCAs) (Para 5-7 still in effect.
ER 1105-2-100, para 4-7).
PGL Number 17 1989
PGL Number 17. 24 Aug 89 - Formulation and Cost Sharing for Harbor Projects that Include
Land Creation (ER 1105-2-100, para 4-7).
PGL Number 20 1989
PGL Number 20. 20 Sep 89 - Reimbursement for Advance Non-Federal Construction of
Authorized Federal Harbor and Inland Harbor Improvements (will be in ER 1165-2-120 when
revised).
PGL Number 22 1991
PGL Number 22. 22 Nov 91 - Guidance for Placement of Materials on Beaches.
PGL Number 28 1990
PGL Number 28. 19 Dec 90 - Improvements for Navigation Safety and Reduction in Damages
from Tide and Wave Sources (Rescission of PGL 23).
PGL Number 31 1991
PGL Number 31. 15 Nov 91 - Implementation of Section 208 of Water Resources Development
Act of 1986.
PGL Number 35 1992
PGL Number 35. 17 Mar 92 - Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(WRDA 90), Environmental Dredging.

A-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

PGL Number 40 1993

PGL Number 40. 25 Mar 93 - Development and Financing of Dredged Material Management
Studies.
PGL Number 42 1993
PGL Number 42. 26 Oct 93 - Additional Guidance on Financing Dredged Material Management
Studies.
PGL Number 44 1995
PGL Number 44. 20 Oct 95 - Relocations and Removals at Navigation (Harbor) Projects.
PGL Number 47 1998
PGL Number 47. 3 Apr 98 - Cost-Sharing for Dredged Material Disposal Facilities and Dredged
Material Disposal Facility Partnerships.
PGL Number 49 1998
PGL Number 49. 28 Jan 98 - Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990,
Environmental Dredging, As Amended by Section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996.
PGL Number 62 1999
PGL Number 62. 29 Jul 99 - Navigation (Harbors) Cost Sharing Policy Applications.
A.1.6 Public Laws (PL).
PL 91-190
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
PL 92-500
Clean Water Act.
PL 92-532
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (Ocean Dumping Act).
PL 92-583
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
PL 94-587
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1976.
PL 99-662
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986.
PL 102-580
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992.

A-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
A.1.7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
USACE 2003
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal at
Island, Nearshore, or Upland Confined Disposal Facilities Testing Manual [Upland Testing
Manual], Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-03-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
A.1.8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USEPA/USACE)
USEPA/USACE 1984
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. General
Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Washington, DC.
USEPA/USACE 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean DisposalTesting Manual, EPA 503/8-91/001,
Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/
gbook_index.cfm
USEPA/USACE 1996
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Guidance
Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water 45045. http://water.epa.gov/type/
oceb/oceandumping/dredgedmaterial/upload/1996_smmp_guidance.pdf
USEPA/USACE 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. Testing Manual [Inland
Testing Manual], EPA-823-F-98-005, Washington, DC.
USEPA/USACE 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Evaluating
Environmental Effects of Dredged Material Management Alternatives A Technical Framework, EPA 842-B-92-008, revised May 2004, Washington, DC.
USEPA/USACE 2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Identifying,
Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material, Washington, DC.
USEPA/USACE Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material 1991
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on
Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material. 1991. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of

A-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Dredged Material into Ocean Waters; Implementation Manual for Section 103 of PL 92-532,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
A.2 Related Publications.
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The Materials Book
Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing,
Washington, DC.
Abood, Lawler, and Disco 1969
Abood, K. A., Lawler, J. P., and Disco, M. D. 1969. Utility of Radioisotope Methodology in
Estuary Pollution Control Study; 1: Evaluation of the Use of Radioisotopes and Fluorescent
Dyes for Determining Longitudinal Dispersion, Report NYO-3961-1, U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission, New York.
A. D. Little, Inc. 1975
A. D. Little, Inc., 1975. A Feasibility Study of Lawn Sod Production and/or Related Activities
on Dredged Material Disposal Sites, Contract Report D-75-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Alexander, Murphy, and Scott 1996
Alexander, M., Murphy, M., Scott, S. 1996. Innovative Dredging Operations Monitoring for the
Oakland Deepening Project, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Seventeenth
Technical Conference and Twenty-Ninth Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, pp 253-270.
Allen and Hardy 1980
Allen, K. O., and Hardy, J. W. 1980. Impacts of Navigational Dredging on Fish and Wildlife: A
Literature Review, FWS/OBS-80/07, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Allen et al. 1978
Allen, H. H., Clairain, E. J., Jr., Diaz, R. J., Ford, A. W., Hunt, L. J., and Wells, B. R. 1978.
Habitat Development Field Investigations, Bolivar Peninsula Marsh and Upland Habitat Development Site, Galveston Bay, TX: Summary Report, Technical Report D-78-15, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Allen, Webb, and Shirley 1983
Allen, H. H., Webb, J. W., and Shirley, S. O. 1983. Erosion Control with Saltmarsh Vegetation, Proceedings 3rd Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management Conference, San Diego,
CA. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp 735-748.
American Malacological Union 1986
American Malacological Union. 1986. Entrainment of Oyster Larvae by Hydraulic Cutterhead
Dredging Operations, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition No. 3.

A-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
American Public Health Association 1985
American Public Health Association. 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 16th ed., prepared and published jointly by American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation,
Washington, DC.
American Public Health Association 1998
American Public Health Association. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 20th ed., Andrew D. Eaton, Lenore S. Clesceri, Arnold E. Greenberg,
Mary Ann H. Franson, ed., prepared and published jointly by American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington,
DC.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1976
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1976. Subsurface Investigation for Design and
Construction of Foundations for Buildings, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice,
No. 56, New York.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1992
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1992. Natural Building Stones: Soil and Rock;
Geotextiles, 1992 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1993
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1993. Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone;
Geosynthetics, Section 4, Construction, 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Appy 1990
Appy, R. 1990. The LA/LB2000 Project, Proc. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in the
Western United States: Proceedings of a Technical Workshop, May 1990, San Diego, CA. M. C.
Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman 1982
Armstrong, D. A., Stevens, B. G., and Hoeman, J. C. 1982. Distribution and Abundance of
Dungeness Crab and Crangon Shrimp and Dredging-Related Mortality of Invertebrates and Fish
in Grays Harbor, Washington, Report No. DA-80-86, Washington Department of Fisheries and
U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Arseneault 1981
Arseneault, J. S. 1981. Dredge Monitoring Program - 1980, Memorandum No. 5902-121-50-2,
Field Services Branch, Environment Canada, Vancouver.
ASTM D 422
Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, Designation D 422 (1998).

A-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
ASTM D 653
Standard Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock, and Contained Fluids, Designation D 653.
ASTM D 854
Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils Solids by Water Pycnometer,
Designation D 854.
ASTM D 1586
Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils,
Designation D 1586.
ASTM D 1587
Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes,
Designation D 1587.
ASTM D 2113
Standard Practice for Rock Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigation, Designation
D 2113.
ASTM D 2216
Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and
Rock by Mass, Designation D 2216.
ASTM D 2434
Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head),
Designation D 2434.
ASTM D 2435
Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils,
Designation D 2435.
ASTM D 2487
Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System), Designation D 2487.
ASTM D 2573
Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Cohesive Soil, Designation D 2573.
ASTM D 2938
Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens,
Designation D 2938.
ASTM D 2974
Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic
Soils, Designation D 2974.

A-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
ASTM D 3441
Standard Test Method for Mechanical Cone Penetration Tests of Soil, Designation D 3441.
ASTM D 4318
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils,
Designation D 4318.
ASTM D 4648
Standard Test Method for Saturated Fine-Grained Clayey Soil, Designation D 4648.
ASTM D 6032
Standard Test Method Determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Rock Core,
Designation D 6032.
ASTM D 6528
Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Direct Simple Shear Testing of Cohesive
Soils, Designation D 6528.
Auld and Schubel 1978
Auld, A. H., and Schubel, J. R. 1978. Effects of Suspended Sediment on Fish Eggs and Larvae:
A Laboratory Assessment, Estuarine, Coastal, and Marine Science, Vol 6, pp 153-164.
Averett, Perry, and Miller 1990
Averett, D. E., Perry, B. D., Torrey, E. J., and Miller, J. A. 1990. Review of Removal, Containment, and Treatment Technologies for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment in the Great
Lakes, Miscellaneous Paper EL-90-25, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Aziz, Schroeder, and Myers 1994
Aziz, N.M., Schroeder, P. R., and Myers, T. E. 1994. A Predictive Hydrologic Model for Contaminant Leaching and Liner Effectiveness at Dredged Material Confined Disposal Facilities.
Dredging 94: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement, Orlando, FL, 14-16 November, 1994. E. C. McNair, ed., American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, 1507-1519.
Bak 1978
Bak, R. P. 1978. Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Dredging on Reef Corals, Marine Pollution
Bulletin, Vol 9, pp 14-16.
Barnard 1978
Barnard, W. D. 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion Around Dredging
and Open-Water Pipeline Disposal Operations, Technical Report DS-78-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Barnard and Hand 1978
Barnard, W. D., and Hand, T. D. 1978. Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material, Technical Report DS-78-14, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental
Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.
Bartos 1977a
Bartos, M. J., Jr. 1977a. Classification and Engineering Properties of Dredged Material, Technical Report D-77-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bartos 1977b
Bartos, M. J., Jr. 1977b. Use of Dredged Material in Solid Waste Management, Technical
Report D-77-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Basco, Bouma, and Dunlap 1974
Basco, D. R., Bouma, A., and Dunlap, W. 1974. Assessment of the Factors Controlling the
Long-Term Fate of Dredged Material Deposited in Unconfined Subaqueous Disposal Areas,
Contract Report D-74-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Biggs 1970
Biggs, R. B. 1970. Geology and Hydrography; Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, Gross Physical and
Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, Natural Resources
Institute Special Report 3, University of Maryland, Solomons, MD, pp 7-15.
Bingham 1978
Bingham, C. R. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish Waterway Disposal
Site, Puget Sound, Washington; Appendix G: Benthic Community Structural Changes Resulting
from Dredged Material Disposal, Elliott Bay Disposal Site, Technical Report D-77-24,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Black et al. 1957
Black, A., Buswell, A., Eidsness, F., and Black, A. L. 1957. Review of the Jar Test, Journal of
American Water Works Association, Vol 49, pp 1914-24.
Blazevich and Nicholas 1977
Blazevich, J. N., and Nicholas, J. 1977. Monitoring of Trace Constituents During PCB
Recovery Dredging Operations: Duwamish Waterways, EPA Report 910/9-77-039 August
1977, USEPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
Boehlert 1984
Boehlert, G. W. 1984. Abrasive Effects of Mount Saint Helens Ash Upon Epidermis of Yolk
Sac Larvae of Pacific Herring, Marine Environmental Research, Vol 12, pp 113-126.
Bohlen and Tramontano 1977
Bohlen, W. F., and Tramontano, J. M. 1977. An Investigation of the Impact of Dredging Operations on Suspended Material Transport in the Lower Thames River Estuary, University of
Connecticut, Groton, CT.

A-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Bohlen, Cundy, and Tramontano 1979
Bohlen, W. F., Cundy, D. F., and Tramontano, J. M. 1979. Suspended Material Distributions in
the Wake of Estuarine Channel Dredging Operations, Estuarine, Coastal, and Marine Science,
Vol 9, pp 699-711.
Bokuniewicz and Gordon 1980
Bokuniewicz, H. J., and Gordon, H. B. 1980. Deposition of Dredged Sediment at Open Water
Sites, Estuarine, Coastal, and Marine Science, Vol 10, pp 289-304.
Bokuniewicz et al. 1978
Bokuniewicz, H. J., Gebert, J., Gordon, R. B., Higgins, J. L., Kaminsky, P., Pilbeam, C. C.,
Reed, M., and Tuttle, C. 1978. Field Study of the Mechanics of the Placement of Dredged
Material at Open-Water Disposal Sites, Technical Report D-78-7, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bond 1957
Bond, R. R. 1957. Ecological Distribution of Breeding Birds in the Upland Forests of Southern
Wisconsin, Ecological Monograph, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp 351-384.
Boone, Granat, and Farrell 1978
Boone, C. G., Granat, M. A., and Farrell, M. P. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations,
Columbia River Disposal Site, Oregon; Evaluative Summary, Technical Report D-77-30,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Boyd 1975
Boyd, F. C. 1975. Fraser River Dredging Guide, Technical Report Series No. PAC/T-75-2,
Southern Operations Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada, Vancouver.
Brandon, Schroeder, and Lee 1997
Brandon, D. L, Schroeder, P. R., and Lee, C. R. 1997. Computerization of the Decision-making
Framework: Runoff Toxicity Bioassay Test Results (LAT-R Program), Environmental Effects
of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-04-28, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Brannon et al. 1990
Brannon, J. M., Pennington, J. C., Gunnison, D., and Myers, T. E. 1990. Comprehensive
Analysis of Migration Pathways (CAMP): Contaminant Migration Pathways at Confined
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities, Miscellaneous Paper D-90-5, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brannon, Myers, and Tardy 1994
Brannon, J. M., Myers, T. E., and Tardy, B. A. 1994. Leachate Testing and Evaluation for
Freshwater Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-94-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Bray 1975
Bray, R. N. 1975. Practical Analysis of Dredger Capability, Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Dredging Technology, The British Hydromechanics Research Association, pp. 33-41.
Bray, Bates, and Land 1997
Bray, R. N., Bates, A. D., and Land, J. M. 1997. Dredging, A Handbook of Engineering, Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Brenchley 1981
Brenchley, O. A. 1981. Disturbance and Community Structure: An Experimental Study of
Bioturbation in Marine Soft-Bottom Environments, Journal of Marine Research, Vol 39,
pp 767-790.
Bricelj, Malouf, and de Quillfeldt 1984
Bricelj, V. M., Malouf, R. E., and de Quillfeldt, C. 1984. Growth of Juvenile Mercenaria and
the Effect of Suspended Bottom Sediments, Marine Biology, Vol 84, pp 167-173.
Briggs 1970
Briggs, R. B. 1970. Geology and Hydrography; No. 3, Gross Physical and Biological Effects of
Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, L. E. Cronin et al., ed., Natural Resources
Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Britton and Brown 1985
Britton, N., and Brown, A. 1985. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada,
Vol I, II, and III, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 2,200 pp.
Brooke et al. 2000
Brooke, J., Landin, M. C., Meakins, N., and Adnitt, C. 2000. The Restoration of Vegetation on
Saltmarshes, Technical Report W208, Environment Agency, United Kingdom.
Brown and Clark 1968
Brown, C. L., and Clark, R. 1968. Observations on Dredging and Dissolved Oxygen in a Tidal
Waterway, Water Resources Research, Vol 4, pp 1381-1384.
Buckman and Brady 1960
Buckman, H. O., and Brady, N. G. 1960. The Nature and Properties of Soils, MacMillan
Publishers, New York, NY.
Burke 1989
Burke, L. 1989. Logging System Developed to Monitor Hopper Dredges, International
Dredging Review, November/December 1989, pp 8-9.

A-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Burks and Engler 1978
Burks, S. A., and Engler, R. M. 1978. Water Quality Impacts of Aquatic Dredged Material
Disposal (Laboratory Investigations); Synthesis Report, Technical Report DS-78-4, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cadet, Lee, and Sturgis 1997
Cadet, W., Lee, C. R., and Sturgis, T. C. 1997. Manufactured Soil from Toledo Harbor Dredged
Material and Organic Waste Materials, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged
Material Beneficial Uses, July 28-August 1, 1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, p 23.
Cairns 1968
Cairns, J. 1968. Suspended Solids Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms, Purdue
University Engineering Bulletin, Vol 129, pp 16-27.
Cargill 1983
Cargill, K. W. 1983. Procedures for Prediction of Consolidation in Soft Fine-Grained Dredged
Material, Technical Report D-83-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Cargill 1985
Cargill, K. W. 1985. Mathematical Model of the Consolidation/Desiccation Process in Dredged
Material, Technical Report D-85-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Cargill 1986
Cargill, K. W. 1986. The Large Strain, Controlled Rate of Strain (LSCRS) Device for Consolidation Testing of Soft Fine-Grained Soils, Technical Report GL-86-13, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Carr, Ogren, and Moven 1980
Carr, A., Ogren, L., and Moven, C. 1980. Apparent Hibernation by the Atlantic Loggerhead
Turtle, Caretta caretta, Off Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S.A., Biological Conservation, Vol 9,
pp 7-14.
Carriker 1986
Carriker, M. R. 1986. Influence of Suspended Particles on Biology of Oyster Larvae in
Estuaries, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition No. 3, pp 41-49.
Carriker et al. 1986
Carriker, M. R., LaSalle, M. W., Mann, R., and Pritchard, D. W. 1986. Entrainment of Oyster
Larvae by Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredging Operations: Workshop Conclusions and Recommendations, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition No. 3, pp 71-74.

A-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Carter 1986
Carter, W. R. 1986. An Argument for Retaining Periods of Non-Dredging for the Protection of
Oyster Resources in Upper Chesapeake Bay, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition
No. 3, pp 5-10.
Casagrande 1948
Casagrande, A. 1948. Classification and Identification of Soils, Transactions of the Society of
Civil Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 113, pp 109-130.
Caughley 1977
Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY,
234 pp.
Chaney et al. 1974
Chaney, R. L., et al. 1974. Recommendations for Management of Potentially Toxic Elements in
Agriculture and Municipal Wastes, Tractors Involved in Land Applications of Agricultural and
Municipal Wastes, National Program Staff, Soil, Water and Air Sciences, Beltsville, MD.
Chang and Levings 1978
Chang, B. D., and Levings, C. D. 1978. Effects of Burial on the Heart Cockle Clinocardium
nuttallii and the Dungeness Crab Cancer magister, Estuarine, Coastal, and Marine Science,
Vol 7, pp 409-412.
Chapman 1976
Chapman, S. B., ed. 1976. Methods in Plant Ecology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Chapman 1994
Chapman, W. R. 1994. Monitoring Performance Indicators on Leased Hydraulic Cutterhead
Dredges, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement, pp. 1315-1324.
Chase 1994
Chase, D. 1994. CDFATE Users Manual, prepared by University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, for
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elmodels/pdf/cdfate.pdf
Chasten et al. 1993
Chasten, M. A., Rosati, J. D., McCormick, J. W., and Randall, R. E. 1993. Engineering Design
Guidance for Detached Breakwaters as Shoreline Stabilization Structures, Technical Report
CERC-93-19, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Chen et al. 1976
Chen, K. Y., Gupta, S. K., Sycip, A. Z., Lu, J. C. S., Knezevic, M., and Choi, W.-W. 1976.
Research Study on the Effect of Dispersion, Settling, and Resedimentation on Migration of
Chemical Constituents During Open-Water Disposal of Dredged Materials, Contract Report
D-76-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Chow 1964
Chow, V. T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill, New York.
C-K Associates, Inc. 1993
C-K Associates, Inc. 1993. Economics and Marketing of Aquaculture in Dredged Material
Containment Areas, Technical Report EL-93-19, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Clarke 1994
Clarke, D. G. 1994. Habitat Value of Offshore Dredged Material Berms for Fishery Resources,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material
Placement, November 1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL. E. C. McNair Jr., ed., American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp 938-946.
Clarke and Lunz 1985
Clarke, D. G., and Lunz, J. D. 1985. The Benthic Resources Assessment Technique in Theory
and Practice, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Environmental Review Conference,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA.
Clarke and Miller-Way 1992
Clarke, D. G., and Miller-Way, T. 1992. An Environmental Assessment of the Effects of OpenWater Disposal of Maintenance Dredged Material on Benthic Resources in Mobile, AL, DOTS
Miscellaneous Paper D-92-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Clarke and Wilber 2000
Clarke, D. G., and Wilber, D. H. 2000. Assessment of Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations
Due to Sediment Resuspension, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E9),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/dots/doer
Clark, Palermo, and Sturgis 2001
Clark, D. G., Palermo, M. R., and Sturgis, T. C. 2001. Subaqueous Cap Design: Selection of
Bioturbation Profiles, Depths, and Rates, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TNDOER-C21), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer
Clarke et al. 1990
Clarke, D. G., Homziak, J., Lazor, R. L., Palermo, M. R., Banks, G. E., Benson, H. A., Johnson,
B. H., Smith-Dozier, T., Revelas, G., Dardeau, M. R. 1990. Engineering Design and Environmental Assessment of Dredged Material Overflow from Hydraulically Filled Hopper Barges in
Mobile Bay, Alabama, Miscellaneous Paper D-90-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Clausner 1993
Clausner, J. E. 1993. Water Injection Dredging Demonstration on the Upper Mississippi River,
Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-3-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Clausner 2000
Clausner, J. E. 2000. DMSMART Current Status and Implementation at Mobile District,
Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twentieth Technical Conference and ThirtySecond Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 25-28, 2000, Warwick, RI, pp 403-416.
Clausner and Pope 1988
Clausner, J. E., and Pope, J. 1988. Side-scan Sonar Applications for Evaluating Coastal
Structures, Technical Report CERC-88-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Clausner et al. 1996
Clausner, J. E., Palermo, M., Banks, D., and Palmerton, J. 1996. Potential Application of
Geosynthetic Fabric Containers for Open-Water Placement of Contaminated Dredged Material,
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-01-39, March 1996, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation 1976
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1976. Identification of Relevant Criteria and Survey of
Potential Application Sites for Artificial Habitat Creation, Contract Report D-76-02, Vols I and
II, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Coastal Zone Resources Division 1978
Coastal Zone Resources Division. 1978. Handbook for Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Development on Dredged Material, Technical Report D-78-37, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cochran 1963
Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling Techniques, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York.
Collins 1995
Collins, M. A. 1995. Dredging-Induced Near-Field Resuspended Sediment Concentration and
Source Strengths, Miscellaneous Paper D-95-2, Prepared by Southern Methodist University for
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.s
Conrad and Pack 1978
Conrad, E. T., and Pack, A. J. 1978. A Methodology for Determining Land Value and Associated Benefits Created from Dredged Material Containment, Technical Report D-78-19,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Courtenay, Hartig, and Loisel 1980
Courtenay, W. R., Jr., Hartig, B. C., and Loisel, G. R. 1980. Evaluation of Fish Populations
Adjacent to Borrow Areas of Beach Nourishment Project at Hallandale (Broward County),
Florida; Vol 1, Ecological Evaluation of a Beach Nourishment Project at Hallandale (Broward
County), Florida, Miscellaneous Paper 80-1(1), U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Courtenay et al. 1972
Courtenay, W. R., Jr., Herrema, D. J., Thompson, M. J., Azzinaro, W. P., and Nontifrans, J.
1972. Ecological Monitoring of Two Beach Nourishment Projects in Broward County, Florida,
Shore and Beach, Vol 40, pp 8-13.
Courtney et al. 1994
Courtney, C.A., Soldate, A. M., Cox, J., and Blake, J. A. 1994. Dredged Material Dispersion
and Accumulation at a Deep Ocean Disposal Site: Comparison of Monitoring Study Results and
Model Predictions, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and
Dredged Material Placement, Vol 1, 96-102.
Cox, Maresca, and Rosati 1996
Cox, J. M., Maresca, P., and Rosati, J. 1996. Silent Inspector Technical Manual, Technical
Report DRP-96-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Crisp 1967
Crisp, D. L. 1967. Chemical Factors Inducing Settlement in Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin),
Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol 36, pp 329-335.
Cronin et al. 1976
Cronin, W. B., Gross, M. G., Taylor, W. R., Whaley, R. C., Boicourt, W. C., and Schubel, J. R.
1976. Investigations of Dredging Operations Brewerton Cut-Off Angle-Patapsco River Mouth
Disposal Site, Chesapeake Bay Institute, Baltimore, MD.
Cullinane et al. 1986
Cullinane, M. J., Averett, D. E., Shafer, R. A., Male, J. W., Truitt, C. L., and Bradbury, M. R.
1986. Guideline for Selecting Control and Treatment Options for Contaminated Dredged
Material, Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cura et al. 1999
Cura, J. J., Heiger-Bernays, W., Bridges, T. S., and Moore, D.W. 1999. Ecological and Human
Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Aquatic Environments, DOER-4 , U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trdoer4.pdf
D&A Instruments 1989
D&A Instruments. 1989. Optical Methods for Measuring Turbidity and Suspended Particles in
Water, Some Notes for Users of OBS Sensors, Technote (3/89).

A-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Dadswell, Melvin, and Williams 1983

Dadswell, M. J., Melvin, G. D., and Williams, P. J. 1983. Effect of Turbidity on the Temporal
and Spatial Utilization of the Inner Bay of Fundy by American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) (Pisces:
Clupeidae) and Its Relationship to Local Fisheries, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, Vol 40, pp 322-330.
Danek et al. 1977
Danek, L. J., Alther, G. R., Paily, P. O., Johnson, R. G., deLibero, F., Yohn, J. F., and Lovorn, F.
T. 1977. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Ashtabula River Disposal Site, Ohio; Appendix B: Investigation of the Hydraulic Regime and Physical Nature of Bottom Sedimentation,
Technical Report D-77-42, prepared by Yale University, under contract to U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
dAngremond et al. 1978
dAngremond, K., Brakel, J., Hoekstra, A. J., Kleinbloesem, W. C. H., Nederlof, L., and Nekker,
J. de. 1978. Assessment of Certain European Dredging Practices and Dredged Material Containment and Reclamation Methods, Technical Report D-78-58, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
dAngremond, de Jong, and de Waard 1984
dAngremond, K., de Jong, A. J., and de Waard, C. P. 1984. Dredging of Polluted Sediment in the
First Petroleum Harbor, Rotterdam, Proceedings of the Third United States-Netherlands Experts
Meeting, Savannah, GA.
Davies et al. 2005
Davies, M. H., MacDonald, N. J., Demirbilek, Z., Smith, S. J., Zundel, Z. K., and Jones, R. D.
2005. Particle Tracking Model (PTM) II: Overview of features and capabilities, DOER
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-D5), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerd5.pdf
Davis 1960
Davis, H. C. 1960. Effects of Turbidity-Producing Materials in Sea Water on Eggs and Larvae
of the Clam (Venus (Mercenaria) mercenaria), Biological Bulletin, Vol 118, pp 48-54.
Davis and Hidu 1969
Davis, H. C., and Hidu, H. 1969. Effects of Turbidity-Producing Substances in Sea Water on
Eggs and Larvae of Three Genera of Bivalve Mollusks, Veliger, Vol I 1, pp 316-323.
Davis and Landin 1997
Davis, J. E., and Landin, M. C. 1997. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Geotextile
Tube Applications, Technical Report WRP-RE-17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wrpre17.pdf

A-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Deaner 1973
Deaner, D. G. 1973. Effect of Chlorine on Fluorescent Dyes, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol 45, No. 3, pp 507-514.
deBree 1977
deBree, S. E. M. 1977. The Loading of Hopper Dredgers, Ports and Dredging and Oil Report
No. 92, pp 4-8.
Demirbilek et al. 2005a
Demirbilek, Z., Smith, J. S., Zundel, A. K., Jones, R. D., MacDonald, N. J., and Davies, M. E.
2005a. Particle Tracking Model (PTM) in the SMS: I. Graphical interface, Dredging
Operations and Engineering Research Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-D4),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerd4.pdf
Demirbilek et al. 2005b
Demirbilek, Z., Smith, S. J., Zundel, A. K., Jones, R. D., McDonald, N. J., and Davies, M. E.
2005b. Particle Tracking Model (PTM) in the SMS: III. Tutorial with examples, Dredging
Operations and Engineering Research Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-D6),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerd6.pdf
Demirbilek et al. 2012a
Demirbilek, Z., Lackey, T.C. and Zundel, A. K. 2012a. Particle Tracking Model Data
Analysis ToolsPart 1: Capabilities in SMS. Dredging Operations and Engineering Research
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-D15), U.S. Army Engineer Research &
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerd15.pdf
Demirbilek et al. 2012b
Demirbilek, Z., Lackey, T.C. and Zundel, A. K. 2012b. Particle Tracking Model Data
Analysis ToolsPart 2: Case Study. Dredging Operations and Engineering Research Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-D16), U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerd16.pdf
De Renzo 1978
De Renzo, D. J. 1978. Nitrogen Control and Phosphorous Removal in Sewage Treatment. Noyes
Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Diaz and Boesch 1977
Diaz, R. J., and Boesch, D. F. 1977. Impact of Fluid Mud Dredged Material on Benthic Communities of the Tidal James River, Virginia, Technical Report D-77-45, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd7745.pdf

A-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Dickerson et al. 2004
Dickerson, D., Wolters, M., Theriot, C., and Slay, C. 2004. Dredging Impacts on Sea Turtles in
the Southeastern USA: A Historical Review of Protection, Proceedings of the Seventeenth
World Dredging Conference, Hamburg, Germany.
DiGeorge and Herbich 1978
DiGeorge, III, F. P., and Herbich, J. B. 1978. Laboratory Determination of Bulking Factors for
Texas Coastal Fine-Grained Materials, Center for Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX.
Doerr and Landin 1983
Doerr, T. B., and Landin, M. C. 1983. Vegetative Stabilization of Training Areas of Selected
United States Military Reservations, Contract Report furnished to U.S. Army Engineer
Construction Engineering Research Center, Vols I and II, Champaign, IL, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Dortch et al. 1990
Dortch, M. S., Hales, L. Z., Letter, J. V., and McAnally, W. H., Jr. 1990. Methods of Determining the Long-Term Fate of Dredged Material for Aquatic Disposal Sites, Technical Report
D-90-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Dovel 1970
Dovel, W. L. 1970. Fish Eggs and Larvae, Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, Gross Physical and
Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, Natural Resources
Institute Special Report 3, University of Maryland, Solomons, MD, pp 42-49.
Duarte, Joseph, and Satterlee 1995
Duarte, F., Joseph, J., and Satterlee, G. 1995. Construction of Geocontainer and Geobag Contraction Dikes to Eliminate Dredging at Red Eye Crossing, Proceedings of Ports 95, ASCE,
New York, NY.
Earhart, Clarke, and Shipley 1988
Earhart, G., Clarke, D., and Shipley, J. 1988. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in Shallow
Coastal Waters; Chesapeake Bay Demonstrations, Information Exchange Bulletin D-88-6,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Eckert, Giles, and Smith 1978
Eckert, J. W., Giles, M. L., and Smith, G. M. 1978. Design Concepts for In-Water Containment
Structures for Marsh Habitat Development, Technical Report D-78-31, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd7831.pdf
Eisler 1985a
Eisler, R. 1985a. Mirex Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l. 1).

A-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Eisler 1985b
Eisler, R. 1985b. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.2).
Eisler 1985c
Eisler, R. 1985c. Carbofuran Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.3).
Eisler 1985d
Eisler, R. 1985d. Selenium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.5).
Eisler 1986a
Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(i.6).
Eisler 1986b
Eisler, R. 1986b. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A
Synoptic Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.7).
Eisler 1986c
Eisler, R. 1986c. Dioxin Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.8).
Eisler 1986d
Eisler, R. 1986d. Diazinon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.9).
Eisler 1987a
Eisler, R. 1987a. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.10).
Eisler 1987b
Eisler, R. 1987b. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.1 1).
Eisler 1988a
Eisler, R. 1988a. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.12).
Eisler 1988b
Eisler, R. 1988b. Chlorpyrifos Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic
Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.13).

A-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Eisler 1988c
Eisler, R. 1988c. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(l.14).
Eisler and Jacknow 1985
Eisler, R., and Jacknow, J. 1985. Toxaphene Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A
Synoptic Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.4).
Emery 1969
Emery, K. O. 1969. The Ocean; A Scientific American Book. W. H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco, CA, pp 39-52.
Engler et al. 1988
Engler, R. M., Wright, T., Lee, C. L, and Dillon, T. M. 1988. Corps of Engineers Procedures
and Policies on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (The Federal Standard), Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-048, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory 1976
Environmental Laboratory. 1976. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged and
Fill Material into Navigable Waters (Interim guidance for implementation of Section 404[b][1]
of PL 92-500), Technical Report D-76-17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Laboratory 1978
Environmental Laboratory. 1978. Wetland Habitat Development with Dredged Material: Engineering and Plant Propagation, Technical Report DS-78-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/ds78-16/ds7816a.pdf
Environmental Laboratory 1985
Environmental Laboratory. 1985. Field Guide for Low-Maintenance Vegetation Establishment
and Management, Instruction Report R-86-02, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (in
preparation)
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (in
preparation). Guidance for Dredging in Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC)Contaminated Sediments, Washington DC.
Ezell 1978
Ezell, W. B., Jr., ed. 1978. An Investigation of Physical, Chemical, and/or Biological Control of
Mosquitos in Dredged Material Disposal Areas, Technical Report D-78-48, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/trd78-48/cover.pdf

A-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Farr 1977
Farr, J. 1977. Impairment of Antipredator or Behavior in Palaemonet espugio by Exposure to
Sub-lethal Doses of Parathion, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 106, pp
287-290.
Farr 1978
Farr, J. 1978. The Effect of Methyl Parathion on Predation Choice of Two Estuarine Prey
Species, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 107, pp 87-91.
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration. Undated. Geotextile Engineering Manual, National Highway
Institute, Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, Cooperative Technical Publication, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, DC
Federal Register 1990
Federal Register. 24 Dec 1990, Vol 45, No. 249, Section 230.6, U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC, p. 85347.
Fennessy and Mitsch 1989
Fennessy, S. and W.J. Mitsch. 1989. Treating coal mine drainage with an artificial wetland.
Research J. Water Pollution Control Federation 61:1691-1701.
Feuerstein and Selleck 1963
Feuerstein, D. L., and Selleck, R. E. 1963. Fluorescent Tracers for Dispersion Measurements,
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 89,
No. SA4, pp 1-21.
Flemer et al. 1967
Flemer, D. A., Dovel, W. L., Pfitzenmeyer, H. T., and Ritchie, D. E. 1967. Spoil Disposal in
Upper Chesapeake Bay; 11. Preliminary Analysis of Biological Effects, Proceedings of the
National Symposium on Estuarine Pollution, Stanford University, pp 152-187.
Folsom and Lee 1985
Folsom, B. L., and Lee, C. R. 1985. Plant Bioassay of Dredged Material, Environmental
Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-02-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-1.pdf
Fonseca 1987
Fonseca, M. S. 1987. Use of Seagrass Transplanting for Habitat Development on Dredged
Material, Proceedings of the First Interagency Workshop on Beneficial Uses of Dredged
Material, October 1986, Pensacola, FL, Technical Report D-87-01, 1987, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 145-150.

A-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Fonseca et al. 1985

Fonseca, M. S., Kenworthy, W. J., Thayer, G. W., Heller, D. Y., and Cheap, K. M. 1985.
Transplanting of the seagrass Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii for Sediment Stabilization
and Habitat Development on the East Coast of the United States, Technical Report EL-85-09,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Francingues and Mathis 1989
Francingues, N. R., and Mathis, B. 1989. Long-Term Management Strategy for the Corps
Navigation Dredging Program, Proceedings from WODCON XII, May 2-5, 1989.
Francingues and Palermo 2005
Francingues, N. R., and Palermo, M. R. 2005. Silt Curtains as a Dredging Project Management
Practice, DOER Technical Notes Collection ERDC TN-DOER-E21, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
doere21.pdf
Francingues, Averett, and Otis 1988
Francingues, N. R., Averett, D. E., and Otis, M. J. 1988. New Bedford Harbor Superfund
Project, Acushnet River Estuary Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging and Dredged
Material Disposal Alternatives, Report 1, Study Overview, Technical Report EL-88-15,
Report 1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel88-15-3.pdf
Francingues et al. 1985
Francingues, N. R., Palermo, M. R., Lee, C. R., and Peddicord, R. K. 1985. Management
Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material: Contaminant Testing and Controls, Miscellaneous
Paper D-85-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.
erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/mpd85-1.pdf
Fredette et al. 1990a
Fredette, T. J., Nelson, D. A., Clausner, J. E., and Anders, F. J. 1990a. Guidelines for Physical
and Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Sites, Technical Report D-9012, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/dots/pdfs/trd90-12.pdf
Fredette et al. 1990b
Fredette, T. J., Nelson, D. A., Miller-Way, T., Adair, J. A., Sotler, V. A., Clausner, J. E., Hands,
E. B., and Anders, F. J. 1990b. Selected Tools and Techniques for Physical and Biological
Monitoring of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Sites, Technical Report D-90-11, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/
pdfs/trd90-11.pdf

A-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Fredette et al. 1999
Fredette, T. J., Jackson, P. E., Murray, P. M., Hadden, D. A., and Bell, D. L. 1999. Preliminary
Monitoring Results from the Phase I1 Boston Harbor Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells.
Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association, Nineteenth Technical Conference and
Twenty-first Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, May 15-18, 1999, Louisville, KY. pp 255-275.
Fredette et al. 2000
Fredette, T. J., Jackson, P. E., Demos, C. J., Hadden, D. A., Wolf, S. H., Nowak, Jr., T. A., and
DeAngelo, E. 2000. The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project CAD Cells: Recommendations for Future Projects Based on Field Experience and Monitoring, Proceedings of the
Western Dredging Association Twentieth Technical Conference and Thirty-Second Annual Texas
A&M Dredging Seminar, June 25-28, 2000, Warwick, RI, pp 291-302.
Frey, Basan, and Scott 1973
Frey, R. W., Basan, P. B., and Scott, R. M. 1973. Techniques for Sampling Salt Marsh Benthos
and Burrows, American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp 228-234.
Galtsoff 1964
Galtsoff, P. S. 1964. The American Oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, Fishery Bulletin,
Vol 64, pp 1-480.
Gambrell, Kahlid, and Patrick 1978
Gambrell, R. P., Kahlid, R. A., and Patrick, W. H., Jr. 1978. Disposal Alternatives for Contaminated Dredged Material as a Management Tool to Minimize Adverse Environmental
Effects, Technical Report DS-78-08, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-8/cover.pdf
Garbarino et al. 1994
Garbarino, S. D., Blama, R. N., Landin, M. C., Maynord, S. R., and Patin, T. R. 1994. Environmental Restoration and Enhancement using Dredged Material in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland,
Dredging 94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement, November 1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL, E. C. McNair, Jr., ed., ASCE, New
York, NY, pp 384-394.
Germano and Cary 2005
Germano, J. D., and Cary, D. (2005). Rates and Effects of Sedimentation in the Context of
Dredging and dredged material placement, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TNDOER-E19), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere19.pdf
Gibson, England, and Hussey 1967
Gibson, R. E., England, G. L., and Hussey, M. J. L. 1967. The Theory of One-Dimensional
Consolidation of Saturated Clays, Il. Finite Non-Linear Consolidation of Thin Homogeneous
Layers, Geotechnique, Vol 17, No. 3, pp 261-273.

A-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Glude 1954
Glude, U. B. 1954. Survival of Soft-Shell Clams, Myaarenaria, Buried at Various Depths,
Research Bulletin No. 22, Maine Department of Sea and Shore and Fisheries, Bangor, ME.
Godfrey and Wooten 1979
Godfrey, R. K., and Wooten, J. W. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United
States, Vol I and II, University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, 1,500 pp.
Gordon 1973
Gordon, R. B. 1973. Turbidity and Siltation Caused by Dredging in Coastal Waters, prepared
for the United Illuminating Company by Yale University, Department of Geology and Geophysics, New Haven, CT.
Green 1979
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists, John
Wiley, New York.
Green and Rula 1977
Green, C. E., and Rula, A. A. 1977. Low-Ground-Pressure Construction Equipment for Use in
Dredged Material Containment Area Operation and Maintenance - Equipment Inventory,
Technical Report D-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-1/cover.pdf
Grieg-Smith 1964
Grieg-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative Plant Ecology, Butterworth and Company, London.
Grimwood 1983
Grimwood, C. 1983. Effects of Dredging on Adjacent Waters, ASCE Journal of Environmental
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 109, No.1.
Gupta et al. 1978
Gupta, S. C., Larson, W. E., Gast, R. G., Combs, S. M., and Dowdy, R. H. 1978. The Agricultural Value of Dredged Material, Technical Report D-78-36, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-36/cover.pdf
Gysel and Lyon 1980
Gysel, L. W., and Lyon, L. J. 1980. Habitat Analysis and Evaluation, Wildlife Management
Techniques Manual, The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC, pp 305-328.
Hackney et al. 1996
Hackney, C. T., Posey, M. H., Ross, S. W., and Norris, A. R. 1996. A Review and Synthesis of
Data on Surf Zone Fishes and Invertebrates in the South Atlantic Bight and the Potential Impacts
from Beach Renourishment. Prepared by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and
the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington, NC.

A-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Haliburton 1978
Haliburton, T. A. 1978. Guidelines for Dewatering/Densifying Confined Dredged Material,
Technical Report DS-78-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-11/ds78-11.pdf
Haliburton et al. 1977
Haliburton, T. A., Durham, G. N., Brown, K. W., Peters, R. E., and Dulaney, T. B., Jr. 1977.
Effects of Mechanical Agitation on Drying Rate of Fine-Grained Dredged Material, Technical
Report D-77-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-10.pdf
Haliburton et al. 2002
Haliburton, T. A., Palermo, M. R., Chamlee, R. M., West, A. W., Spotts, J. W., Lytton, R. L.,
Batz, J. L., Willoughby, W. E., Hammer, D. P., Douglas, F. A., OBannon, D. E., and Stout, J. P.
2002. Dredged Material Dewatering Field Demonstrations at Upper Polecat Bay Disposal Area,
Mobile Alabama, Technical Report D-78-59, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-59.pdf
Hammer 1981
Hammer, D. P. 1981. Evaluation of Underdrainage Techniques for the Densification of FineGrained Dredged Material, Technical Report EL-81-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-59.pdf
Hammer and Blackburn 1977
Hammer, D. P., and Blackburn, E. D. 1977. Design and Construction of Retaining Dikes for
Containment of Dredged Material, Technical Report D-77-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-59.pdf
Hands 1994
Hands, E. B. 1994. Analysis of Dredged Material Placed in Open Water, Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Placement, November
1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL. E. C. McNair, Jr., ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY, pp 18-27.
Harper 1973
Harper, D. E., Jr. 1973. Effects of Siltation and Turbidity on the Benthos and Nekton,
Appendix DS, Environmental Impact Assessment of Shell Dredging in San Antonio Bay, Texas,
Vol 5, Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, TX, pp 114-123.
Harrison and Chisholm 1974
Harrison, J. E., and Chisholm, L. C. 1974. Identification of Objectionable Environmental
Conditions and Issues Associated with Confined Disposal Areas, Contract Report D-74-4, NTIS
No. AD-A000895, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/crd74-4/cover.pdf

A-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Harrison et al. 1976
Harrison, W., Dravnieks, A., Zussman, R., and Goltz, R. 1976. Abatement of Malodors at
Confined Dredged Material Disposal Sites, Contract Report D-76-9, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/crd769.pdf
Hartley 1988
Hartley, D. R. 1988. Wetland and Upland Wildlife Habitat Development on Dredged Material
Disposal Areas on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Proceedings of the Inland Waterways
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Workshop, October 1987, St. Paul, MN, Technical Report
D-88-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 129-134.
Havis 1988a
Havis, R. N. 1988a. A Preliminary Evaluation of Contaminant Release at the Point of
Dredging, Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-09-3, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/
pdfs/eedp09-3.pdf
Havis 1988b
Havis, R. N. 1988b. Sediment Resuspension by Selected Dredges, Environmental Effects of
Dredging Technical Note EEDP-09-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp09-2.pdf
Havis 1994
Havis, R. N. 1994. Mixing Zone Simulation Model for Dredge Overflow and Discharge into
Inland and Coastal Waters, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Hayden 1978
Hayden, M. L. 1978. Prediction of Volumetric Requirements for Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report D-78-41, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-41/cover.pdf
Hayes 1986
Hayes, D. F. 1986. Guide to Selecting a Dredge for Minimum Resuspension of Sediment,
Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-09-1, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp091.pdf
Hayes, Borrowman, and Welp 2000
Hayes, D., Borrowman, T., and Welp, T. 2000. Near-field Turbidity Observations during
Boston Harbor Bucket Comparison Study, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association
Twentieth Technical Conference and Thirty-Second Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar,
June 25-28, 2000, Warwick, RI.

A-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Hayes, McLellan, and Truitt 1988
Hayes, D. F., McLellan, T. N., and Truitt, C. L. 1988. Demonstrations of Innovative and Conventional Dredging Equipment at Calumet Harbor, Illinois, Miscellaneous Paper EL-88-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/mpel88-1.pdf
Hayes, Raymond, and McLellan 1984
Hayes, D. F., Raymond, G. L., and McLellan, T. N. 1984. Sediment Resuspension from
Dredging Activities, Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, Proceedings of the Conference
Dredging 84, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 72- 82.
Hayes et al. 2000
Hayes, D. F., Olin, T. J., Fischenich, J. C., and Palermo, M. R. 2000. Wetlands Engineering
Handbook, ERDC/EL TR-WRP-RE-21, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wrpre21/wrpre21.pdf
Headland et al. 2002
Headland, J., Kotulak, P., Alfageme, S., and Wisemiller, B. 2002. Dredged Material Management Alternatives: Islands, Sub-aqueous Placement Cells and Sedimentation Minimization.
Proceedings of the Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Dredging 02 - Key Technologies for Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002, Orlando, FL. Stephen
Garbaciak, Jr., ed., American Society of Civil Engineers.
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2005
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Army Corps of Engineers Report to
Congress Hopper Dredges, 3 June 2005, Washington, DC.
Herbich 1992
Herbich, J. B., ed. 1992. Handbook of Dredging Engineering, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Herbich 2000
Herbich, J. B., ed. 2000. Handbook of Dredging Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Herbich and Brahme 1991
Herbich, J. B., and Brahme, S. B. 1991. Literature Review and Technical Evaluation of Sediment Resuspension During Dredging, Contact Report HL-91-1, Center for Dredging Studies,
College Station, TX. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/e2d2/pdfs/crhl91-1.pdf
Herbich et al. 1992
Herbich, J. B., Lee, J. Y., Trivedi, D. R., Wilkinson, G., and De Hert, D. O. 1992. Survey and
Evaluation of Production Meter Instrumentation and Uses, Contract Report DACW-39-89-K0003, prepared by Texas Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, TX, for U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Hidu 1969
Hidu, H. 1969. Gregarious Settling in the American Oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin,
Chesapeake Science, Vol 10, pp 85-92.
Hobson 1979
Hobson, R. D. 1979. Definition and Uses of the Phi Grade Scale, Coastal Engineering
Technical Aid No. 79-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Holland, Chambers, and Blackman 1980
Holland, T. H., Chambers, L. R., and Blackman, R. R. 1980. Effects of Dredging and Filling for
Beach Erosion Control on Fishes in the Vicinity of Lido Key, Florida, prepared for U.S. Army
Engineer District, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL.
Holling 1973
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and Stability in Ecological Systems, Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, Vol 4, pp 1-23.
Homziak 1985
Homziak, L. 1985. Does Succession Occur in Estuarine Soft Substrates? Seasonal Patterns of
Colonization and Mechanisms of Species Replacement in Experimentally Defaunated Sediments, Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Homziak, Veal, and Hayes 1993
Homziak, J., Veal, C. D., and Hayes, D. F. 1993. Design and Construction of Aquaculture
Facilities in Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report EL-93-11, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/trel93-11.pdf
Hoover et al. 2005
Hoover, J. J., Killgore, K. J., Clarke, D. G., Smith, H., Turnage, A., and Beard, J. (2005).
Paddlefish and sturgeon entrainment by dredges: Swimming performance as an indicator of
risk, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E22), U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/doere22.pdf
Hough 1957
Hough, B. K. 1957. Basic Soils Engineering, Ronald Press, New York, NY.
Hough 1958
Hough, J. L. 1958. Geology of the Great Lakes, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1958.
Houston 1996
Houston, J. R. 1996. International Tourism and U. S. Beaches, Shore and Beach, Vol 64.

A-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Houston, LaSalle, and Lunz 1989
Houston, L. I., LaSalle, M. W., and Lunz, J. D. 1989. Impacts of Dredging on Dissolved
Oxygen and Other Water Quality Parameters in Haverstraw Bay, Proceedings of the Seventh
Symposium on Hudson River Ecology, Hudson River Environmental Society, Inc., New Paltz,
NY.
Hudson 1981
Hudson, H. E., Jr. 1981. Water Clarification Processes Practical Design and Evaluation, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Hunt et al. 1978
Hunt, L. J., Landin, M. C., Ford, A. W., and Wells, B. R. 1978. Upland Habitat Development
with Dredged Material: Engineering and Plant Propagation, Technical Report DS-78-17,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-17/ds78-17a.pdf
Huston 1970
Huston, J. 1970. Hydraulic Dredging, Cornell, Cambridge, MA.
Huston 1986
Huston, J. 1986. Hydraulic Dredging: Principles, Equipment, Procedures, Methods, John
Huston, Inc., Corpus Christi, TX.
Huston and Huston 1976
Huston, J. W., and Huston, W. C. 1976. Techniques for Reducing Turbidity Associated with
Present Dredging Procedures and Operations, Contract Report D-76-4, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd764.pdf
Ingle 1952
Ingle, R. M. 1952. Studies on the Effect of Dredging Operations Upon Fish and Shellfish,
Technical Series No. 5, State of Florida, Board of Conservation, Tallahassee, FL.
Irish, McClung, and Lillycrop 2000
Irish, J. L., McClung, J. K., and Lillycrop, W. J. 2000. Airborne Lidar Bathymetry: The
SHOALS System, PIANC Bulletin, No. 1032000, pp 43-53.
JBF Scientific Corporation 1974
JBF Scientific Corporation. 1974. The Collection of Data on the Turbidity Associated with
Sand and Gravel Mining and a Comparison to Predictions Using a Dispersion Model,
Wilmington, MA.
JBF Scientific Corporation 1978
JBF Scientific Corporation. 1978. An Analysis of the Functional Capabilities and Performance
of Silt Curtains, Technical Report D-78-39, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-39.pdf

A-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Jeane and Pine 1975
Jeane, G. S., and Pine, R. E. 1975. Environmental Effects of Dredging and Spoil Disposal,
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol 47, pp 553-561.
Johanson 1977
Johanson, E. E. 1977. Application and Performance of Silt Curtains. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol. D-77-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-10.pdf
Johanson, Bowen, and Henry 1976
Johanson, E. E., Bowen, S. P., and Henry, G. 1976. State-of-the-Art Survey and Evaluation of
Open-Water Dredged Material Placement Methodology, Contract Report D-76-3, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/trd76-3.pdf
Johnson 1990
Johnson, B. H. 1990. Users Guide for Models of Dredged Material Disposal in Open Water,
Technical Report D-90-5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/trd90-5.pdf
Johnson 1993
Johnson, B. E. 1993. Development and Verification of Numerical Models for Predicting the
Initial Fate of Dredged Material Disposal in Open Water. Report 1, Physical Model Test of
Dredged Material Disposal from a Split-Hull Barge and a Multiple Bin Vessel, Technical
Report DRP-93-1, Report 1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Johnson and Schroeder 1993
Johnson, B. H. and Schroeder, P. R. 1993. Numerical Disposal Modeling, Dredging Research
Program Technical Notes DRP-1-02. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp1-02.pdf
Johnson and Sraders 2003
Johnson, K. D., and Sraders, G. A. 2003. Geotechnical Investigations for Dredging Projects: A
Contractors Perspective, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-Third
Technical Conference and Thirty-Fifth Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 10-13, 2003,
Chicago, IL, pp 254-263.
Johnson, Franklin, and Krebill 1984
Johnson, J. L., Franklin, J. F., and Krebill, R. G., ed. 1984. Research Natural Areas: Baseline
Monitoring and Management, Proc. Symposium in Missoula, MT, USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-173, Ogden, UT.

A-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Johnson et al. 1977
Johnson, S. J., Cunny, R. W., Perry, E. B., and Devay, L. 1977. State-of-the-Art Applicability
of Conventional Densification Techniques to Increase Disposal Area Storage Capacity,
Technical Report D-77-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/crd77-4V1/cover.pdf
Jones 1984
Jones, G. 1984. New Geophysical Techniques in Seabed Sand Surveys, Dredging and Port
Construction, Vol 11, Number 6, p 25.
Jones et al. 2004
Jones, N. L., Jones, R. D., Butler, C. D., and Wallace, R. M. 2004. A generic format for multidimensional models, Proceedings World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2004.
Jones, Williams, and Moore 1978
Jones, R. H., Williams, R. R., and Moore, T. K. 1978. Development and Application of Design
and Operation Procedures for Coagulation of Dredged Material Slurry and Containment Area
Effluent, Technical Report D-78-54, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-54.pdf
Jorgeson and Scott 1994
Jorgeson, J. D., and Scott, H. L. 1994. An Automated System for Hopper Dredge Monitoring,
Technical Report HL-94-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Jutte, Van Dolah, and Levisen 1999a
Jutte, P. C., Van Dolah, R. F., and Levisen, M. V. 1999a. An Environmental Monitoring Study
of the Myrtle Beach Renourishment Project: Intertidal Benthic Community Assessment of
Phase ICherry Grove to North Myrtle Beach, Final Report, prepared by the Marine Resources
Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Charleston, SC.
Jutte, Van Dolah, and Levisen 1999b
Jutte, P. C., Van Dolah, R. F., and Levisen, M. V. 1999b. An Environmental Monitoring Study
of the Myrtle Beach Renourishment Project: Intertidal Benthic Community Assessment of
Phase II.- Myrtle Beach, Supplemental Report, prepared by the Marine Resources Division,
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Kantor 1984
Kantor, R. A. 1984. A Review of the Potential Environmental Effects of Dredging in New
Jerseys Tidal Waters with Recommendations on Seasonal Restrictions, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Kaplan, Welker, and Kraus 1974
Kaplan, E. H., Welker, J. R., and Kraus, M. O. 1974. Some Effects of Dredging on Populations
of Macrobenthic Organisms, Fishery Bulletin, Vol 72, pp 445-480.

A-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Kay 1984
Kay, S. H. 1984. Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants Within Marine and Freshwater Food Webs, Technical Report D-84-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/trd84-7.pdf
Kendall 1983
Kendall, D. R. 1983. The Role of Physical-Chemical Factors in Structuring Subtidal Marine and
Estuarine Benthos, Technical Report EL-83-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kendeigh 1944
Kendeigh, S. C. 1944. Measurements of Bird Populations, Ecological Monographs, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp 68-106.
Kershaw 1973
Kershaw, K. A. 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology, American Elsevier, New York.
King and Costanza 1994
King, D., and Costanza, R. 1994. The Cost of Wetland Creation and Restoration, University of
Maryland Contract Report to the Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Kiorboe et al. 1981
Kiorboe, T., Frantsen, E., Jensen, C., and Sorensen, G. 1981. Effects of Suspended Sediment on
Development and Hatching of Herring (Clupea harengus) Eggs, Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf
Science, Vol 13, pp 107-111.
Klesch 1987
Klesch, W. L. 1987. Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for the Disposal of Dredged
Material: Corps-Wide Implementation, Environmental Effects of Dredging, Information
Exchange Bulletin Vol. D-87-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Koba 1984
Koba, H. 1984. Dispersion of Sediment Resuspension Caused by Dredge Operations,
Proceedings of the 9th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting on Toxic Bottom Sediments, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 90-105.
Koba and Shiba 1983
Koba, H., and Shiba, T. 1983. Sediment Resuspension in the Vicinity of the Cutterhead,
Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Japan Experts Meeting on Toxic Bottom Sediments, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 434-441.
Koh and Chang 1973
Koh, R. C. Y., and Chang, Y. C. 1973. Mathematical Model for Barged Ocean Disposal of
Waste, Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA 660/2-73-029, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Knutson and Inskeep 1983
Knutson, P. L. and Inskeep, M. R. 1983. Shore Erosion Control with Salt Marsh Vegetation,
CETA 83-4, U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, 1983.
Kraus 1991
Kraus, N. C., ed. 1991. Mobile, Alabama, Field Data Collection Project, 18 August2 September 1989; Report 1, Dredged Material Plume Survey Data Report, Technical Report
DRP-91-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kraus and Thevenot 1992
Kraus, N. C., and Thevenot, M. M. 1992. The PLUme Measurement System (PLUMES): First
Announcement, Technical Note DRP-1-06, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp1-06.pdf
Krinitsky, Hynes, and Franklin 1997
Krinitzsky E. L., Hynes M. E., and Franklin A.G., 1997 Earthquake safety evaluation of sanitary landfills, Engineering Geology, Volume 46, Number 2, 23 May 1997, pp. 143-156(14).
Krizek, Fitzpatrick, and Atmatzidis 1976
Krizek, R. J., Fitzpatrick, J. A., and Atmatzidis, D. K. 1976. Investigation of Effluent Filtering
Systems for Dredged Material Confinement Facilities, Contract Report D-76-8, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Krumbein and Sloss 1963
Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, L. L. 1963. Statigraphy and Sedimentation, 2nd ed., W. H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, CA.
Kucharski and Clausner 1990
Kucharski, W. M., and Clausner, J. E. 1990. Underwater Inspection of Coastal Structures Using
Commercially Available Sonars, Technical Report REMR-CO-11, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Kuo, Welch, and Lukens 1985
Kuo, A. Y., Welch, C. S., and Lukens, R. J. 1985. Dredge Induced Turbidity Plume Model,
Journal of Waterway, Ports, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, Vol I 1, pp 476-494.
Lackey 2007
Lackey, T, and MacDonald, N. 2007. Particle Tracking Model: Description and Processes.
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/LackeyandMcDonald_2007.pdf
Lackey and MacDonald 2007
Lackey, T.C., and MacDonald, N.J. 2007. The Particle Tracking Model Description and
Processes, Proceedings, XVIII World Dredging Congress 2007, Western Dredging Association,
Lake Buena Vista, FL.

A-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Lambe 1962
Lambe, T. W. 1962. Soil Testing for Engineers, John Wiley, New York.
Land and Bray 1998
Land, J. M., and Bray, R. N. 1998. Acoustic Measurement of Suspended Solids for Monitoring
of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, Proceedings, 15th World Dredging Congress,
World Dredging Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Landin 1978
Landin, M. C. 1978. Annotated Tables of Vegetation Growing on Dredged Material Throughout
the United States, Miscellaneous Paper D-78-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/mpd78-7.pdf
Landin 1980
Landin, M. C. 1980. Building and Management of Dredged Material Islands for North
American Wildlife, Proceedings 9th World Dredging Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Western Dredging Association, Arlington, VA, pp 527-539.
Landin 1982
Landin, M. C. 1982. Habitat Development at Eight Corps of Engineer Sites; Feasibility and
Assessment, Miscellaneous Paper D-82-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Landin 1984
Landin, M. C. 1984. Habitat Development Using Dredged Material, Proc. Dredging and
Dredged Material Disposal Conference, Tampa, FL, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, pp 907-918.
Landin 1986a
Landin, M. C. 1986a. Building, Developing, and Managing Dredged Material Islands for Bird
Habitat, Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-07-01, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/eedp07-1.pdf
Landin 1986b
Landin, M. C. 1986b. The Success Story of Gaillard Island: A Corps Confined Disposal
Facility, Proceedings of the 19th Dredging Seminar, October 1986, Baltimore, MD. Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX, pp 41-54.
Landin 1990
Landin, M. C. 1990. Reclamation of an Abandoned Salt Pond as Salt Marsh in South San
Francisco Bay, CA, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in the Western United States, May
1990, San Diego, CA. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.

A-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Landin 1992a
Landin, M. C. 1992a. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Projects: How, When, Where, and
What to Monitor and Why it Matters, Proceedings, Ports 92, Permanent International
Association of Navigation Congresses, July 1992, Seattle, WA. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, pp 142-148.
Landin 1992b
Landin, M. C. 1992b. Need, Construction, and Management of Dredged Material Islands for
Wildlife, Handbook of Dredging Engineering, J. B. Herbich, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
pp 9.81-9.100.
Landin 1993
Landin, M. C. 1993. Pointe Mouillee: A 4600 Acre Multiple Purpose Habitat Constructed and
Restored in Western Lake Erie, USA, Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
Management, July 1993, New Orleans, LA. O. R. Magoon, et al., eds., American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, pp 2705-2715.
Landin 1995
Landin, M. C. 1995. The Role of Technology and Engineering in Wetland Restoration and
Creation, Proceedings of the National Wetlands Engineering Workshop, St. Louis, MO, August
1993. Technical Report WRP-RE-08, 1995, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, pp 3-16.
Landin 1997a
Landin, M. C. 1997a. Concept, History, and Examples of Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material,
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial Uses, July 28August 1,1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 3-12.
Landin 1997b
Landin, M. C. 1997b. Current Agricultural Applications of Dredged Material in Washington,
New Jersey, South Carolina, and Mississippi, Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Dredged Material Beneficial Uses, July 28-August 1,1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed.,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 101-102.
Landin 1997c
Landin, M. C. 1997c. The History, Practice, and Studies of Construction, Nourishment,
Protection, Monitoring, and Management of more than 2000 Dredged Material Islands in U.S.
Waterways, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial Uses,
July 28-August 1,1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 82-85.

A-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Landin 1997d
Landin, M. C. 1997d. Twenty-five Years of Long-Term Monitoring of Wetland Projects
Constructed with Dredged Material, with Comparisons to Natural Wetlands, throughout the
United States, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial
Uses, July 28-August 1,1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 26-30.
Landin 1998a
Landin, M. C. 1998a. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: Island and Wetland Habitat
Restoration and Creation, Proceedings, 15th World Dredging Congress, June 28-July 2, Las
Vegas, NV. Western Dredging Association, Portland, OR, pp 733-747.
Landin 1998b
Landin, M. C. 1998b. Long-Term Monitoring of Manmade Wetlands in Comparison to Natural
Wetlands: A 26-Year Track Record (On CD-ROM), Proceedings of the Wetlands, Engineering,
and River Restoration Conference, March 1988, Denver, CO. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Landin and Miller 1988
Landin, M. C., and Miller, A. C. 1988. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: A Strategic
Dimension of Water Resource Management, Transactions of the 53rd North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference, March 1988, Phoenix, AZ. Wildlife Management Institute,
Washington, DC, pp 316-325.
Landin et al. 1999
Landin, M. C., Brooke, J., Adnitt, C., and Meakins, N. 1999. Saltmarsh Restoration in the
United Kingdom Using Manipulations and Dredged Material, Proceedings of the 19th Technical
Conference of the Western Dredging Association, May 1999, Louisville, KY. R. E. Randall, ed.,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 369-377.
Landin, Dardeau, and Miller 1992
Landin, M. C., Dardeau, E. A., and Miller, J. L. 1992. Wetland Restoration and Creation Guidelines for Mitigation, Water Forum 92, Baltimore, MD, pp 439-444.
Landin, Fowler, and Allen 1994
Landin, M. C., Fowler, J., and Allen, H. H. 1994. New Applications and Practices for Beneficial
Uses of Dredged Material, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging
and Dredged Material Placement, November 1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL. E. C. McNair, Jr.,
ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 526-536.
Landin, Hayes, and Payne 1997
Landin, M. C., Hayes, D. F., and Payne, B. S. 1997. Wetland Monitoring and Success Evaluation with Emphasis on the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Technical Report furnished to the Gulf of
Mexico Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Landin, Webb, and Knutson 1989
Landin, M. C., Webb, J. W., and Knutson, P. L. 1989. Long-Term Monitoring of Eleven Corps
of Engineers Habitat Development Field Sites Built of Dredged Material, Technical Report
D-89-01, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd89-1/cover.pdf
Langan 1987
Langan, P. 1987. Benefits of Underwater Berms, Proceedings of the First Interagency
Workshop on Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material, October 1986, Pensacola, FL. Technical
Report D-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. pp 226231.
Larson and Moehl 1990
Larson, K. W., and Moehl, C. E. 1990. Entrainment of Anadromous Fish by Hopper Dredging
at the Mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon and Washington,, Proceedings, Workshop on the
Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Fishes on the Pacific Coast, Washington Sea Grant
Program, Seattle, WA, pp 100-110.
LaSalle 1990
LaSalle, M. W. 1990. Physical and Chemical Alterations Associated with Dredging: An Overview, Proceedings of a Workshop on the Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast
Fishes, 8-9 September 1988, Seattle, WA. C. A. Simenstad, ed., Washington Sea Grant Program,
University of Washington, pp 1-12.
LaSalle and Sims 1989
LaSalle, M. W., and Sims, L. G. 1989. Effects of Unconfined Disposal of Dredged Material on
Macrobenthic Assemblages in Winyah Bay, South Carolina, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer
District, Charleston, Charleston, SC.
LaSalle et al. 1991
LaSalle, M. W., Clarke, D. G., Homziak, J., Lunz, J. D., and Fredette, T. J. 1991. A Framework
for Assessing the Need for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations,
Technical Report D-91-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/trd91-1.pdf
Leathem et al. 1973
Leathem, W., Kinner, P., Maurer, D., Biggs, R., and Treasure, W. 1973. Effects of Spoil
Disposal on Benthic Invertebrates, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol 4, pp 122-125.
Lee 2001a
Lee, L. T. 2001a. In Situ Expedient Test Methods to Determine Geotechnical Properties of
Dredged Material, DOER Technical Notes Collection ERDC TN-DOER-N12, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/doern12.pdf

A-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Lee 2001b
Lee, L. T. 2001b. Geotechnical Properties and Sediment Characterization for Dredged Material
Models, DOER Technical Notes Collection ERDC TN-DOER-N13, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
doern13.pdf
Lee and Skogerboe 1983
Lee, C. R., and Skogerboe, J. G. 1983. Prediction of Surface Runoff Water Quality from an
Upland Dredged Material Disposal Site, Proceedings, International Conference on Heavy
Metals in the Environment, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lee, Engler, and Mahloch 1976
Lee, C. R., Engler, R. N., and Mahloch, J. L. 1976. Land Application of Waste Materials from
Dredging, Construction, and Demolition Processes, Miscellaneous Paper D-76-5, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/mpd76-5.pdf
Lee, Sturgis, and Landin 1976
Lee, C. R., Sturgis, T. C., and Landin, M. C. 1976. A Hydroponic Study of Heavy Metal Uptake
by Selected Marsh Plant Species, Technical Report D-76-05, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Lee et al. 1975
Lee, G. F., Piwoni, M. D., Lopez, J. M., Mariani, G. M., Richardson, J. S., Homer, D. H., and
Soleh, F. 1975. Research Study for the Development of Dredged Material Disposal Criteria,
Contract Report D-75-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/crd75-4/cover.pdf
Lee et al. 1978
Lee, C. R., Smart, R. M., Sturgis, T. C., Gordon, R. N., and Landin, M. C. 1978. Prediction of
Heavy Metal Uptake by Marsh Plants Based on Chemical Extraction of Heavy Metals from
Dredged Material, Technical Report D-78-06, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-6.pdf
Lee et al. 1985
Lee, C. R., Skogerboe, J. G., Eskew, K., Price, R. A., Page, N. R., Clar, M., Kort, R., and
Hopkins, H. 1985. Restoration of Problem Soil Materials at Corps of Engineers Construction
Sites, Instruction Report EL-85-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Lee et al. 1991
Lee, C. R., Tatem, H. E., Brandon, D. L., Kay, S. H., Peddicord, R. K., Palermo, M. R., and
Francingues, N. R., Jr. 1991. General Decisionmaking Framework for Management of Dredged
Material Example Application to Commencement Bay, Washington, Miscellaneous Paper
91-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/dots/pdfs/mpd91-1/cover.pdf

A-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Lewis and Phillips 1981
Lewis, R. R., and Phillips, R. 1981. Experimental Seagrass Mitigation in the Florida Keys,
Proceedings U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the
Southeastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, pp 143-152.
Little and Quick 1976
Little, E. J., and Quick, J. A., Jr. 1976. Ecology, Resource Rehabilitation, and Fungal
Parasitology of Commercial Oysters in Pensacola Estuary, FL, Florida Marine Research
Publication No. 21, 89 pp
Lohrmann and Huhta 1994
Lohrmann, A., and Huhta, C. 1994. Plume Measurement System (PLUMES) Calibration
Experiment, Technical Report DRP-94-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Loosanoff and Tommers 1948
Loosanoff, V. L., and Tommers, F. D. 1948. Effects of Suspended Silt and Other Substances on
Rate of Feeding of Oysters, Science, Vol 107, pp 69-70.
Loucks 1970
Loucks, O. L. 1970. Evolution of Diversity, Efficiency, and Community Stability, American
Zoologist, Vol 10, pp 17-25.
Lunz 1986
Lunz, J. D. 1986. Application of the Benthic Resources Assessment Technique (BRAT) to the
Foul Area Disposal Site, prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, Waltham,
MA.
Lunz and LaSalle 1986
Lunz, J. D., and LaSalle, M. W. 1986. Physicochemical Alterations of the Environment Associated with Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredging, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition
No. 3, pp 31-36.
Lunz, Diaz, and Cole 1978
Lunz, J. D., Diaz, R. J., and Cole, R. A. 1978. Upland and Wetland Habitat Development with
Dredged Material: Ecological Considerations, Technical Report DS-78-15, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd7815A.pdf
Lunz, LaSalle, and Houston 1988
Lunz, J. D., LaSalle, M. W., and Houston, L. J. 1988. Predicting Dredging Impacts on
Dissolved Oxygen, Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA, pp 331-336.

A-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Lunz, Nelson, and Tatem 1984
Lunz, J. D., Nelson, D. A., and Tatem, H. E. 1984. Aquaculture in Dredged Material Containment Areas, Proceedings Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Conference. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Tampa, FL, pp 811-819.
MacDonald et al. 2006
MacDonald, N. J., Davies, M. H., Zundel, A. K., Howlett, J. D., Demirbilek, Z., Gailani, J. Z.,
Lackey, T. C., and Smith, J. 2006. PTM: Particle Tracking Model; Report 1: Model Theory,
Implementation, and Example Applications, Technical Report ERDC/CHL-TR-06-20, U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/
client/search/asset/1000777
Mackin 1961
Mackin, J. G. 1961. Canal Dredging and Silting in Louisiana Bays, Publications of the
Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, Vol 7, pp 262-314.
Mang et al. 1978
Mang, J. L., Lu, S., Lofy, R. J., and Stearns, R. P. 1978. A Study of Leachate from Dredged
Material in Upland Areas and/or in Productive Uses, Technical Report D-78-20, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/trd78-20/cover.pdf
Mann et al. 1975
Mann, R., Niering, W. A., Sabbatina, R., and Wells, P. 1975. Landscape Concept Development
for Confined Dredged Material Sites, Contract Report D-75-5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Maragos et al. 1977
Maragos, J. E., Roach, J., Bowers, R. L., Hemmes, D. E., Self, R. F. L., Macneil, J. D., Ellis, K.,
Omeara, P., Vansant, J., Sato, A., Jones, J. P., and Kam, D. T. O. 1977. Environmental Surveys
Before, During and After Offshore Marine Sand Mining Operations at Keouhou Bay, Hawaii,
Sea Grant College Program, Working Paper No. 28, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
Marion and Shamis 1977
Marion, W. R., and Shamis, J. D. 1977. An Annotated Bibliography of Bird Sampling Techniques, Bird Banding, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp 42-61.
Markey and Putman 1976
Markey, J. W., and Putnam, H. D. 1976. A Study of the Effects of Maintenance Dredging on
Selected Ecological Parameters in the Gulfport Ship Channel, Gulfport, Mississippi,
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Dredging and Its Environmental Effects, American
Society of Civil Engineers, pp 821-832.

A-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Marsh 1994
Marsh, J. 1994. Monitoring of a Dredging Operation Using Innovative Sediment Tracing
Techniques, Dredging 94; Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging
and Dredged Material Placement, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 13-16 November 1994. E. C. McNair,
Jr., ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 1360-1369.
Mathis and Payne 1984
Mathis, D. B., and Payne, B. S. 1984. Guidance for Designation of Ocean Sites for Dredged
Material Dumping, Environmental Effects of Dredging Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol
D-84-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Matthews et al. 1999
Matthews, G. P., Knoesel, E. C., Nocera, J. J., and Wakeman, T. H., III. 1999. Operating the
Newark Bay Confined Disposal Facility, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association
Nineteenth Technical Conference and Thirty-First Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, May
15-18, 1999, Louisville, KY, pp 475-482.
Maurer 1967
Maurer, D. L. 1967. Burial Experiments on Marine Pelecypods from Tomales Bay, California,
Veliger, Vol 9, pp 376-381.
Maurer et al. 1974
Maurer, D. L., Biggs, R., Leathern, W., Kimer, P., Treasure, W., Otley, M., Watling, L., and
Klemas, V. 1974. Effect of Spoil Disposal on Benthic Communities Near the Mouth of
Delaware Bay, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware, Lewes and Newark, DE.
Maurer et al. 1986
Maurer, D. L., Keck, R. T., Tinsman, J. C., Leathem, W. A., Wethe, C., Lord, C., and Church,
T. M. 1986. Vertical Migration and Mortality of Marine Benthos in Dredged Material: A
Synthesis, International Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie, Vol 71, pp 49-63.
May 1973
May, E. B. 1973. Environmental Effects of Hydraulic Dredging in Estuaries, Bulletin No. 9,
Alabama Marine Resources, Dauphin Island, AL.
May 1974
May, E. B. 1974. Effects on Water Quality When Dredging a Polluted Harbor Using Confined
Spoil Disposal, Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin, Vol 10, pp 1-8.
McCauley, Parr, and Hancock 1977
McCauley, J. E., Parr, R. A., and Hancock, D. R. 1977. Benthic Infauna and Maintenance
Dredging: A Case Study, Water Research, Vol I 1, pp 233-242.

A-45

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
McDonnell and Tillman 1992
McDonnell, T. M., and Tillman, R. K. 1992. Dredge Data-Logging System; A Prelude to the
Silent Inspector, Dredging Research Program Information Exchange Bulletin DRP-92-2,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McGee, Ballard, and Caulfield 1995
McGee, R. G., Ballard, R. F., and Caulfield, D. D. 1995. A Technique to Assess the Characteristics of Bottom and Subbottom Marine Sediments, Technical Report DRP-953, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
McLellan et al. 1989
McLellan, T. N., Havis, R. N., Hayes, D. F., and Raymond, G. L. 1989. Field Studies of Sediment Resuspension Characteristics of Selected Dredges, Technical Report HL-89-9, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/
u2/a207922.pdf
McNair and Banks 1986
McNair, E. C., Jr., and Banks, G. E. 1986. Prediction of Flow Fields Near the Suction of a
Cutterhead Dredge, American Malacological Bulletin, Special Edition No. 3, pp 37-40.
Merkle 1990
Merkle, K. 1990. The Use of Dredged Material in the Development of Eelgrass Meadows,
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in the Western United States: Proceedings of a Technical
Workshop, May 1990, San Diego, CA. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Mesa 1995
Mesa, C. 1995. Containerization of Contaminated Dredge Sediments the Marina Del Rey
Experience, Proceedings of the 25th Texas A&M Annual Dredging Seminar, TAMU Center for
Dredging Studies, College Station, TX.
Montgomery 1978
Montgomery, R. L. 1978. Methodology for Design of Fine-Grained Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report D-78-56, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a207922.pdf
Montgomery et al. 1978
Montgomery, R. L., Ford, A. W., Poindexter, M. E., and Bartos, M. J. 1978. Guidelines for
Dredged Material Disposal Area Reuse Management, Technical Report DS-78-12, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/ds78-12/trds78-12a.pdf

A-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Moore, Spadaro, and Degens 2000
Moore, R. F., Spadaro, P. A., and Degens, S. 2000. Ross Island Lagoon - A Case Study for
Confined Disposal of Contaminated Dredged Material, Portland, Oregon. Proceedings of the
Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal - Dredging 02 - Key
Technologies for Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002, Orlando, FL. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr., ed.,
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Morang, Larson, and Gorman 1997a
Morang, A., Larson, R., and Gorman, L. 1997a. Monitoring the Coastal Environment; Part I:
Waves and Currents, Journal of Coastal Research, 13(1), 111-133. Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Morang, Larson, and Gorman 1997b
Morang, A., Larson, R., and Gorman, L. 1997b. Monitoring the Coastal Environment; Part III:
Geophysical and Research Methods, Journal of Coastal Research, 13(4), 1064-1085. Fort
Lauderdale, FL.
Morgan, Rasin, and Noe 1983
Morgan, R. P., Rasin, V. J., and Noe, L. A. 1983. Sediment Effects on Eggs and Larvae of
Striped Bass and White Perch, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 112, pp
220-224.
Moritz, Johnson, and Scheffner 2000
Moritz, H. R., Johnson, B. H., and Scheffner, N. W. 2000. Numerical Models for Predicting the
Fate of Dredged Material Placed in Open Water, Chapter 16 in Handbook of Coastal
Engineering, J. B. Herbich, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Morris and Fredette 2002
Morris, J. T., and Fredette, T. J. 2002. Development and Long-Term Fate of a Capped Disposal
Mound at an Open Water Dredged Material Disposal Site. Proceedings of the Third Specialty
Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal - Dredging 02 - Key Technologies for
Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002, Orlando, FL. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr., ed., American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Morrison 1971
Morrison, G. 1971. Dissolved Oxygen Requirements for Embryonic and Larval Development of
the Hard Shell Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Vol 28, pp 379-381.
Morton 1977
Morton, L. W. 1977. Ecological Effects of Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal: A Literature
Review, Technical Paper No. 94, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Mudroch and Azcue 1995
Mudroch, A., and Azcue, M. A. 1995. Aquatic Sediment Sampling, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, FL.

A-47

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Murray et al. 1998
Murray, P. M., Fredette, T. J., Jackson, P. E., Wolf, S. H., and Ryther, Jr., J. H. 1998.
Monitoring Results from the First Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project Confined
Aquatic Disposal Cell. Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Dredging Congress, Dredging into
the 21st Century and Exhibition, 28 June to 2 July 1998, Las Vegas, NV. R. E. Randall, ed., pp
415-430.
Myers 1990
Myers, T. E. 1990. Preliminary Guidelines and Conceptual Framework for Comprehensive
Analysis of Migration Pathways (CAMP) of Contaminated Dredged Material, Environmental
Effects of Dredging Technical Notes, EEDP-06-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp06-11.pdf
Myers 1996
Myers, T. E. 1996. Leachate Testing and Evaluation for Estuarine Sediments, Technical
Report D-96-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Myers and Bannon 1991
Myers, T. E., and Brannon, J. M. 1991. Technical Considerations for Application of Leach
Tests to Sediments and Dredged Material, Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes
EEDP-02-15, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.
erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-15.pdf
Myers, Gambrell, and Tittlebaum 1991
Myers, J. E., Gambrell, R. P., and Tittlebaum, M. E. 1991. Design of an Improved Column
Leaching Apparatus for Sediments and Dredged Material, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-3,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Myre, Walter, and Rollings 2000
Myre, P. L., Walter, P. J., and Rollings, M. P. 2000. Geotechnical Evaluation of Sediment Data
Collected in Boston Harbor Confined Aquatic Disposal Cell. Proceedings of the Western
Dredging Association, Twentieth Technical Conference and Thirty-Second Texas A&M
Dredging Seminar, June 25- 28, 2000, Warwick, RI. pp 303-315.
Nakai 1978
Nakai, O. 1978. Turbidity Generated by Dredging Projects, Management of Bottom Sediments
Containing Toxic Substances, Proceedings of the 3rd U.S. Japan Experts Meeting, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, pp 25-34.
Naqvi and Pullen 1982
Naqvi, S. M., and Pullen, E. J. 1982. Effects of Beach Nourishment and Borrowing on Marine
Organisms, Miscellaneous Report No. 82-14, U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.

A-48

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Nathans and Bechtel 1977
Nathans, M. W., and Bechtel, T. J. 1977. Availability of Sediment-Adsorbed Selected Pesticides to Benthos with Particular Emphasis on Deposit-Feeding Infauna, Technical Report D-7734, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-34.pdf
National Dredging Team 1998
National Dredging Team. 1998. Local Planning Groups and Development of Dredged Material
Management Plans, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1980
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1980. Narrative Summaries, Tables, and
Maps for Each State, Climates of the States, 2nd ed., Vol 1 and 2, Gale Research Company,
Detroit, MI.
National Research Council 1994
National Research Council. 1994. Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Council 1997
National Research Council. 1997. Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup
Strategies and Technologies, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Research Councils Transportation Research Board-Marine Board 2001
National Research Councils Transportation Research Board-Marine Board. 2001. A Process
for Setting, Managing, and Monitoring Environmental Windows for Dredging Projects, Special
Report 262, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service 1992
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1992. Engineering Field Handbook: Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation, EM 210-EFH, 1/92, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service 1998
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices, PB98-158348LUW, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, Washington, DC.
Neal, Henry, and Greene 1978
Neal, R. W., Henry, G., and Greene, S. H. 1978. Evaluation of the Submerged Discharge of
Dredged Material Slurry During Pipeline Dredge Operations, Technical Report D-78-44,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-44.pdf

A-49

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Neff 1968
Neff, D. J. 1968. The Pellet-Group Count Technique for Big Game Trend, Census, and
Distribution: A Review, Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp 597-614.
Neff, Foster, and Slowey 1978
Neff, L. W., Foster, R. S., and Slowey, J. F. 1978. Availability of Sediment-Adsorbed Heavy
Metals to Benthos with Particular Emphasis on Deposit-Feeding Infauna, Technical Report
D-78-42, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-42/cover.pdf
Nelson 1985
Nelson, W. G. 1985. Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects. Part 1 Biological, Florida Sea
Grant Report 76, 66 pp.
Nelson 1993
Nelson, W. G. 1993. Beach Restoration in the Southeastern U.S.: Environmental Effects and
Biological Monitoring, Ocean and Coastal Management 19:157-182.
Nelson and Pullen 1985
Nelson, D. A., and Pullen, E. L. 1985. Environmental Considerations in Using Beach Nourishment for Erosion Protection, Proceedings of the Second Water Quality and Wetlands Management Conference, Louisiana Environmental Professionals Association, pp 357-377.
Nester and Rees 1988
Nester, R. D., and Rees, S. I. 1988. Thin-Layer Dredged Material Disposal - Fowl River,
Alabama, Test Case, Information Exchange Bulletin D-88-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Newell, Seiderer, and Hitchcock 1998
Newell, R. C., Seiderer, L. J., and Hitchcock D. R. 1998. The Impact of Dredging Works in
Coastal Waters: A Review of the Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent Recovery of
Biological Resources on the Sea Bed, Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review
1998, Vol 36, pp 127-78, UCL Press.
Newling and Landin 1985
Newling, C. J., and Landin, M. C. 1985. Long-Term Monitoring of Habitat Development at
Upland and Wetland Dredged Material Disposal Sites: 1974-1982, Technical Report D-85-5,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Nilson, Hadden, and Giard 1998
Nilson, S., Hadden, D., and Giard, Jr., P. 1998. The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project: Dredging Today for a Deeper Tomorrow. Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Dredging
Congress, Dredging into the 21st Century and Exhibition, 28 June to 2 July 1998, Las Vegas,
NV. R. E. Randall, ed., pp 783-797.

A-50

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Nimmo et al. 1982
Nimmo, D. R., Hamaker, T. L., Matthews, E., and Young, W. T. 1982. The Long-Term Effects
of Suspended Particulates on Survival and Reproduction of the Mysid Shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia,
in the Laboratory, Ecological Stress in the New York Bight: Science and Management,
Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC, pp 414-422.
Noakes, Noakes, and Dvoracek 2000
Noakes, J. E., Noakes, S. E., and Dvoracek, D. K. 2000. Seafloor Survey Systems for Rapid
Coastal Assessment: Point and Nonpoint Contamination Sources, Proceedings, International
Conference on Coastal and Ocean Space Utilization; North American and European Perspectives on Ocean and Coastal Policy 1, 1-7. Biliana Cicin-Sain and Evelia Rivera-Arriaga, eds.
OConnor, Neumann, and Sherk 1976
OConnor, J. M., Neumann, D. A., and Sherk, J. A. 1976. Lethal Effects of Suspended Sediment on Estuarine Fish, Technical Paper No. 76-20, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Office, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army 1960
Office, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. 1960. The Unified Soil Classification
System, Standard 619, Washington, DC.
Ofuji and Naoshi 1976
Ofuji, I., and Naoshi, I. 1976. Antiturbidity Overflow System for Hopper Dredge, Dredging,
Environmental Effects and Technology: Proceedings of Seventh World Dredging Conference,
WODCON VII, San Francisco, CA, pp 207-234.
Ohman and Ream 1971
Ohman, L. F., and Ream, R. R. 1971. Wilderness Ecology: A Method of Sampling and Summarizing Data for Plant Community Classification, USDA Forest Research Paper NC-49, North
Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 14 pp.
Olin, Miller, and Palermo 1993a
Olin, T. J., Miller, A. C., and Palermo, M. R. 1993a. Environmental Effects Evaluation for
Thalweg Disposal of Dredged Material, Technical Note EEDP-01-30, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp0130.pdf
Olin, Miller, and Palermo 1993b
Olin, T. J., Miller, A. C., and Palermo, M. R. 1993b. Implementation Approach for Thalweg
Disposal of Dredged Material, Technical Note EEDP-01-31, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp01-31.pdf

A-51

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Oliver et al. 1977
Oliver, J. S., Slattery, P. N., Hulberg, L. W., and Nybakken, J. W. 1977. Patterns of Succession
in Benthic Infaunal Communities Following Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal in
Monterey Bay, Technical Report D-77-27, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://aquaticcommons.org/2612/1/Tech_Report_D-77-27.pdf
Olsen 1984
Olsen, L. A. 1984. Effects of Contaminated Sediment on Fish and Wildlife: Review and
Annotated Bibliography, FWS/OBS-82/66, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Onuschuk 1982
Onuschuk, E. 1982. Distribution of Suspended Sediment in the Patuxent River, Maryland,
During Dredging Operations of Construction of a Pipeline, Bulletin of the Association of
Engineers and Geologists, Vol 19, pp 25-34.
Orians 1974
Orians, G. H. 1974. Diversity, Stability, and Maturity in Natural Ecosystems, Proceedings of
the 1st International Congress Ecology, Center for Agricultural Publications and Documents,
Wageningen, Canada, pp 139-150.
Otis 1994
Otis, M. J. 1997. New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, Dredging/Disposal of PCB Contaminated Sediments, Dredging 94: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Dredging and Dredged Material Placement, Orlando, FL, 14-16 November 1994. E. C. McNair,
ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 579-587.
Palermo 1977
Palermo, M. R. 1977. An Evaluation of Progressive Trenching as a Technique for Dewatering
Fine-Grained Dredged Material, Miscellaneous Paper D-77-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/mpd77-4/cover.pdf
Palermo 1985
Palermo, M. R. 1985. Predicting Effluent Quality from Confined Dredged Material Disposal
Areas, Environmental Effects of Dredging, Information Exchange Bulletin. Vol D-85-1.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Palermo 1992
Palermo, M. R. 1992. Long Term Storage Capacity of Confined Disposal Facilities. Chapter 8,
Handbook of Dredging Engineering, John B. Herbich, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Palermo 1997
Palermo, M. R. 1997. Contained Aquatic Disposal of Contaminated Sediments in Subaqueous
Borrow Pits, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Eighteenth Technical Conference and Thirtieth Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 29-July 2, 1997, Charleston,
SC, pp 249-262.

A-52

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Palermo 1999
Palermo, M. R. 1999. Sizing of Constructed CAD Pits for Lower New York Bay. Proceedings
of the Western Dredging Association, Nineteenth Technical Conference and Thirty-First Texas
A&M Dredging Seminar, May 15-18, 1999, Louisville, KY. pp 53-66.
Palermo 2002
Palermo, M. R. 2002. Dredging Operations and Environmental Research: Focus on Contaminated Sediment, Proceedings of the Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Disposal - Dredging 02 - Key Technologies for Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002,
Orlando, FL. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr., ed., American Society of Civil Engineers.
Palermo and Averett 2003
Palermo, M. R., and Averett, D. E. 2003. Environmental Dredging State of the Art Review,
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Contaminated Sediments, Characterization, Evaluation, Mitigation/Restoration, Ottawa, Canada.
Palermo and Randall 1989
Palermo, M. R., and Randall, R. E. 1989. Evaluation of Hopper Loading and Overflow for
Saginaw River, Michigan. Miscellaneous Paper D-89-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/mpd89-3.pdf
Palermo and Randall 1990
Palermo, M. R., and Randall, R. E. 1990. Practices and Problems Associated with Economic
Loading and Overflow of Dredge Hoppers and Scows, Technical Report DRP-90-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/
pdfs/trdrp90-1.pdf
Palermo and Schroeder 1991
Palermo, M. R., and Schroeder, P. R. 1991. Documentation of the EFQUAL Module for
ADDAMS: Comparison of Predicted Effluent Water Quality with Standards, Environmental
Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-06-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elmodels/pdf/ee-06-13.pdf
Palermo and Thackston 1988
Palermo, M. R., and Thackston, E. L. 1988. Refinement of Column Settling Test Procedures for
Estimating the Quality of Effluent form Confined Dredged Material disposal Areas, Technical
Report D-88-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.
erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/trd88-9.pdf
Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998
Palermo, M. R., Ebersole, B., and Peyman-Dove, L. 1998. Siting of Containment Island and
Subaqueous Pit Options for the Port of New York/New Jersey. Proceedings of the Fifteenth
World Dredging Congress, Dredging into the 21st Century and Exhibition, 28 June to 2 July
1998, Las Vegas, NV. R. E. Randall, ed., pp 63-78.

A-53

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Palermo, Francingues, and Averett 2003
Palermo, M. R., Francingues, N., and Averett, D. E. 2003. Equipment Selection Factors for
Environmental Dredging, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twenty-Third
Technical Conference and Thirty-Fifth Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Chicago, IL.
Palermo, Montgomery, and Poindexter 1978
Palermo, M. R., Montgomery, R. L., and Poindexter, M. 1978. Guidelines for Designing,
Operating, and Managing Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report DS-78-10,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-10/ds78-10a.pdf
Palermo, Shields, and Hayes 1981
Palermo, M. R., Shields, F. D., and Hayes, D. L. 1981. Development of a Management Plan for
Craney Island Disposal Area, Technical Report D-81-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel81-11/cover.pdf
Palermo, Teeter, and Homziak 1990
Palermo, M. R., Teeter, A. M., and Homziak, J. 1990. Evaluation of Clamshell Dredging and
Barge Overflow, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, North Carolina, Technical Report
D-90-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd90-6.pdf
Palermo et al. 1998
Palermo, M. R., Clausner, J. E., Rollings, M. P., Williams, G. L., and Myers, T. E. 1998.
Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping, Technical Report DOER-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/trdoer1.pdf
Palermo et al. 2008
Palermo, M. R., Schroeder, P. R., Estes, T.J., and Francingues, N.R. 2008. Technical Guidelines
for Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediments Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-0829, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-29.pdf
Pankow 1989
Pankow, V. 1989. Laboratory Tests of Production Meter Instruments, Technical Note
DRP-4-01, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp4-01.pdf
Parnell, Dumond, and McCrimmon 1985
Parnell, J. F., Dumond, D. M., and McCrimmon, D. A. 1985. Colonial Waterbird Habitats and
Nesting Populations in North Carolina Estuaries: 1983 Survey, Technical Report D-86-03,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd86-3.pdf

A-54

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Parr, Diener, and Lacy 1978
Parr, T., Diener, E., and Lacy, S. 1978. Effects of Beach Replenishment on the Nearshore Sand
Fauna at Imperial Beach, California, Miscellaneous Report 78-4, U.S. Army Engineer Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Payonk, Palermo, and Teeter 1988
Payonk, P. M., Palermo, M. R., and Teeter, A. M. 1988. Clamshell Dredging and Overflow
Monitoring, Military Ocean Terminal, Sunny Point, N.C., Proceedings of the Symposium on
Coastal Water Resources, American Water Resources Association, pp 95-108.
Pearson 1975
Pearson, T. H. 1975. The Benthic Ecology of Loch Linnee and Loch Eli, a Sea-Loch System on
the West Coast of Scotland; IV. Changes in the Benthic Fauna Attributable to Organic Enrichment, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Vol 20, pp 1-4 1.
Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn 1974
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. 1974. Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed., John
Wiley, New York.
Peddicord and McFarland 1978
Peddicord, R. K., and McFarland, V. A. 1978. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on
Aquatic Animals, Technical Report D-78-29, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-29.pdf
Peddicord et al. 1975
Peddicord, R. K., McFarland, V. A., Belfiori, D. P., and Byrd, T. E. 1975. Effects of Suspended
Solids on San Francisco Bay Organisms, Dredge Disposal Study; Appendix C Physical
Impact, U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Pembroke et al. 1998
Pembroke, A., Bajek, J., Hansen, J. and Hadden, D. 1998. Creative Resolution to the Problem
of Disposal of Boston Harbor, MA (USA), Maintenance Material Unsuitable for Unconfined
Open Water Disposal - Success Through Coordination and Cooperation. Proceedings of the
Fifteenth World Dredging Congress, Dredging into the 21st Century and Exhibition, 28 June to
2 July 1998, Las Vegas, NV. R. E. Randall, ed., pp 821-833.
Pequegnat 1975
Pequegnat, W. E. 1975. Meiobenthos Ecosystems as Indicators of the Effects of Dredging,
Estuarine Research, Vol II, Academic Press, New York, pp 573-583.
Pequegnat 1984
Pequegnat, W. E. 1984. Specifications of a Model Ocean Disposal Site for Dredged Material,
Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances, Proceedings of the 8th U.S./
Japan Experts Meeting, U.S. Army Engineer Water Resources Support Center, Fort Belvior, VA.

A-55

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Pequegnat and Sikora 1978
Pequegnat, W. E., and Sikora, W. B. 1978. Meiofauna and Macroinfauna from Submarine
Banks in the Gulf of Mexico, Chapter _, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Topographic Features
Study, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, for Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Pequegnat, Gallaway, and Wright 1990
Pequegnat, W. E., Gallaway, B. J., and Wright, T. D. 1990. Revised Procedural Guide for
Designation Surveys of Ocean Dredged Material Sites, Technical Report D-90-8, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/trd90-8/cover.pdf
Per Bruun 1990
Per Bruun. 1990. Port Engineering, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) 1996
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. 1996. Handling and Treatment
of Contaminated Dredged Material from Ports and Inland Waterways - CDM, Report of
Working Group No. 17 of the Permanent Technical Committee I, Supplement to Bulletin No. 89,
1996, Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium.
Perrier, Llopis, and Spaine 1980
Perrier, E. R., Llopis, J. L., and Spaine, P. A. 1980. Area Strip Mine Reclamation Using
Dredged Material: A Field Demonstration, Technical Report EL-80-4, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel804/trel80-4.pdf
Pfitzenmeyer 1970
Pfitzenmeyer, H. T. 1970. Benthos, Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, Gross Physical and
Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, Natural Resources
Institute Special Report 3, University of Maryland, Solomons, MD, pp 26-38.
Phillips 1980
Phillips, R. 1980. Planting Guideline for Seagrasses, EA 80-2, U.S. Army Engineer Coastal
Engineering Resources Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Pierce 1977
Pierce, R. J. 1977. Wetland Plants of the Eastern United States, U.S. Army Engineer Division,
North Atlantic, NY.
Plumb 1981
Plumb, R. H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples, Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.

A-56

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Poindexter 1988
Poindexter, M. E. 1988. Current District Dredged Material Dewatering Practices, Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-06-4, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp064.pdf
Poindexter 1989
Poindexter, M. E. 1989. Equipment Mobility in Confined Dredged Material Disposal Areas;
Field Evaluations, Environmental Effects of Dredging Program Technical Note EEDP-09-4,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/dots/pdfs/eedp09-4.pdf
Poindexter-Rollings 1989
Poindexter-Rollings, M. E. 1989. Storage Capacity Evaluation for Craney Island Expansion
Alternatives, Technical Report EL-89-6. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a208124.pdf
Poindexter-Rollings 1990
Poindexter-Rollings, M. E. 1990. Methodology for Analysis of Subaqueous Mounds,
Technical Report D-90-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd90-2.pdf
Poindexter-Rollings and Stark 1989
Poindexter-Rollings, M. E., and Stark, T. D. 1989. PCDDF89 Updated Computer Model to
Evaluate Consolidation/Desiccation of Soft Soils, Environmental Effects of Dredging Program
Technical Note EEDP-02-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-10.pdf
Pollack 1968
Pollack, J. W. 1968. The Effect of Chemical Flocculants on Dredging Overflows from the
Hopper Dredge MARKAM, Dredging Water Quality Problems in the Great Lakes, Vol 7,
Appendix C3, pp 1-93.
Pope, Lewis, and Welp 1996
Pope, J., Lewis, R. D., and Welp, T. 1996. Beach and Underwater Occurrences of Ordnance at a
Former Defense Site: Erie Army Depot, Ohio, Technical Report CERC-96-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/
7/6/9/CERC-TR-96-1.pdf
Pope et al. 1996
Pope, J., Lewis, R. D., Morang, A., and Welp, T. 1996. A Pilot Study to Characterize Ordnance
Contamination Within the Sea Bright, New Jersey, Sand Borrow Site, Technical Report CERC96-8, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset/1001125

A-57

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Price, Brannon, and Myers 1997
Price, C. B., Brannon, J. M., and Myers, T. E. 1997. Development of Laboratory Procedures to
Predict Volatile Losses from Contaminated Sediments, Environmental Effects of Dredging
Technical Notes EEDP-02-23, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-23.pdf
Price, Brannon, and Yost 1999
Price, C. B., Brannon, J. M., and Yost, S. L. 1999. Prediction of Volatile Losses from Contaminated Exposed Sediments, Environmental Effects of Technical Note EEDP-02-26, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp02-26.pdf
Priest 1981
Priest, W. L. 1981. The Effects of Dredging Impacts on Water Quality and Estuarine Organisms: A Literature Review, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Report in Applied
Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, No. 247, pp 240-266.
Pritchard and Carpenter 1960
Pritchard, D. W., and Carpenter, J. H. 1960. Measurement of Turbulent Diffusion in Estuarine
and Inshore Waters, Bulletin of the International Association of Science and Hydrology, Vol 20,
pp 37-50.
Profiles Research and Consulting Groups, Inc., 1980
Profiles Research and Consulting Groups, Inc. 1980. Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging
Projects by NMFS in the Northeast, Vol 1, prepared for Environmental Assessment Branch,
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Puckette 1998
Puckette, T. P. 1998. Evaluation of Dredged Material Plumes: Physical Monitoring Techniques, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E5), U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
doere5.pdf
Pullen and Naqvi 1983
Pullen, E. J., and Naqvi, S. M. 1983. Biological Impacts on Beach Replenishment and
Borrowing, Shore and Beach, Vol. 51, pp 27-31.
Ray 2008
Ray, G. L. 2008. Thin Layer Placement of Dredged Material on Coastal Wetlands: A Review of
the Technical and Scientific Literature, ERDC/EL-TN-07-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/eltn07-01.pdf
Raymond 1983
Raymond, G. L. 1983. Field Study of the Sediment Resuspension Characteristics of Selected
Dredges, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX.

A-58

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Raymond 1984
Raymond, G. L. 1984. Techniques to Reduce the Sediment Resuspension Caused by Dredging,
Miscellaneous Paper HL-84-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
Rakocinski et al. 1996
Rakocinski, C. F., Heard, R. W., LeCroy, S. E., McLelland, J. A., and Simons, T. 1996.
Responses by Macrobenthic Assemblages to Extensive Beach Restoration at Perdido Key,
Florida, U.S.A, Journal of Coastal Research Vol 12, pp 326-353.
Reilly and Bellis 1978
Reilly, F. J., Jr., and Bellis, V. J. 1978. A Study of the Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment
with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone, Technical Report No. 4, Institute for Coastal and
Marine Resources, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Reilly and Bellis 1983
Reilly, F. J., Jr., and Bellis, V. J., 1983. The Ecological Impact of Beach Nourishment with
Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone at Bogue Banks, North Carolina, Miscellaneous
Report 83-3, U.S. Army Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke 1998
Reine, K. J., Dickerson, D. D., and Clarke, D. G. 1998. Environmental Windows Associated
with Dredging Operations, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E2),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere2.pdf
Rhoads and Boyer 1982
Rhoads, D. C., and Boyer, L. F. 1982. The Effects of Marine Benthos on Physical Properties of
Sediments, A Successional Perspective, Animal-Sediment Relations, Plenum, pp 3-52.
Rhoads, McCall, and Yingst 1978
Rhoads, D. C., McCall, P. L., and Yingst, J. Y. 1978. Disturbance and Production on the
Estuarine Seafloor, American Scientists, Vol 66, pp 577-586.
Rhoads, Muramoto, and Ward 1996
Rhoads, D. C., Muramoto, J. A., and Ward, R. 1996. A Review of Sensors Appropriate for
Efficient Assessment of Submerged Coastal Habitats and Biological Resource, Technical
Report EL-96-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Richardson 1984
Richardson, T. W. 1984. Agitation Dredging: Lessons and Guidelines from Past Projects,
Technical Report HL-84-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-59

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Riley et al. 1994
Riley, M. Biswas, G., Boatman, C., Brockhaus, R., Utting, M., and Hotchkiss, D. 1994.
Groundwater Model Simulation of Chemical Transport from a Nearshore Confined Sediment
Disposal Facility, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement, Orlando, FL, 14-16 November, 1994. E. C. McNair, ed., American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, 1517-1526.
Rishel, Boston, and Schmidt 1984
Rischel, H. L., Boston, T. M., and Schmidt, C. J. 1984. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Pollution Technology Review, No. 15.
Ritchie 1970
Ritchie, D. E. 1970. Fish, Chesapeake Bay Laboratory, Gross Physical and Biological Effects
of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay, National Resources Institute Special
Report 3, University of Maryland, Solomons, MD, pp 50-59.
Ritchie and Menzel 1969
Ritchie, T. P., and Menzel, R. W. 1969. Influence of Light on Larval Settlement of American
Oysters, Proceedings of the National Shell Fisheries Association, Vol 59, pp 116-120.
Robertshaw, McLaughlin, and Love 1993
Robertshaw, S., McLaughlin, R. J., and Love, D. 1993. Legal and Institutional Constraints on
Aquaculture in Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report EL-93-7, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/
GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA266335
Rogers 1969
Rogers, B. A. 1969. Tolerance Levels of Four Species of Estuarine Fishes to Suspended
Mineral Solids, M.S. thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Rogers 1976
Rogers, R. M. 1976. Distribution of Meiobenthic Organisms in San Antonio Bay in Relation to
Season and Habitat Disturbance, Shell Dredging and Its Influence on Gulf Coast Environments,
Gulf Publications Company, Houston, TX, pp 92-108.
Rogers and Darnell 1973
Rogers, R. M., and Darnell, R. M. 1973. The Effects of Shell Dredging on the Distribution of
Meiobenthic Organisms in San Antonio Bay, Texas; Vol III: Environmental Assessment of Shell
Dredging in San Antonio Bay, Texas, U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston, Galveston, TX,
pp 159-167.
Rollings 2000
Rollings, M. P. 2000. Geotechnical Considerations in Contained Aquatic Disposal Design,
DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-N5), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doern5.pdf

A-60

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Rosati 1998
Rosati, J. 1998. The Silent Inspector System, Proceedings of the 15th World Dredging
Congress, World Organization of Dredging Associations, pp. 93-104
Rosati and Howell 2001
Rosati, J., III, and Howell, G. 2001. Uniform Corps Specification for Dump Scow Monitoring
to Interface with Silent Inspector, DOER Technical Bulletin Notes Collection, Vol. 4,
Number 4, December 2001, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/drv4n4.pdf
Rosati and Prickett 2001
Rosati, J., III, and Prickett, T. L. 2001. Silent Inspector Implementation Procedures for Hopper
and Pipeline Dredges, DOER Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN-DOER-I6, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/doeri6.pdf
Rosati and Welp 1999
Rosati, J., and Welp, T. 1999. Case Studies: Monitoring Pipeline Dredges, DOER Technical
Notes Collection ERDC TN-DOER-I1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doeri1.pdf
Rose 1973
Rose, C. D. 1973. Mortality of Market-sized Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) in the Vicinity of a
Dredging Operation, Chesapeake Science, Vol 14, pp 135-138.
Rosenthal and Alderdice 1976
Rosenthal, H., and Alderdice, D. F. 1976. Sublethal Effects of Environmental Stressors, Natural
and Pollutional, on Marine Fish Eggs and Larvae, Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Vol 33, pp 2047-2065.
Rubinstein, Gilliam, and Gregory 1984
Rubinstein, N. I., Gilliam, W. T., and Gregory, N. R. 1984. Dietary Accumulation of PCBs
from a Contaminated Sediment Source by a Demersal Fish Species (Leiostomus xanthurus),
Technical Report D-84-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd84-6.pdf
Sabol and Burczinski 1998
Sabol, B. M., and Burczinski, J. 1998. Digital Echo Sounder System for Characterizing
Vegetation in Shallow-Water Environments. Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on
Underwater Acoustics. Rome, Italy, pp 165-171.
Sabol and Johnston 2001
Sabol, B. M., and Johnston, S. A. 2001. Innovative Techniques for Improved Hydroacoustic
Bottom Tracking in Dense Aquatic Vegetation, ERDC/EL MP-01-2, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/mpel01-2.pdf

A-61

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Sabol et al. 2002

Sabol, B. M., Melton, R. E., Chamberlain, R., Doering, P., and Haunert, K. 2002. Evaluation of
a Digital Echo Sounder System for Detection of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Estuaries
25, 1.
Saila et al. 1972
Saila, S. B., Pratt, S. D., and Polgar, T. T. 1972. Results of Studies Related to Dredged Sediment in Rhode Island Sound. Proceedings, Annual Northeastern-Regional Anti-Pollution
Conference, Newport, RI, pp 71-80.
Saila, Polgar, and Rogers 1968
Saila, S. B., Polgar, T. T., and Rogers, B. A. 1968. Results of Studies Related to Dredged
Sediment Dumping on Rhode Island Sound, Proceedings of the Annual Northeastern
Regulatory Anti-Pollution Conference, pp 71-80.
Saila, Pratt, and Polgar 1972
Saila, S. B., Pratt, S. D., and Polgar, T. T. 1972. Dredge Spoil Disposal in Rhode Island Sound,
University of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report 2, Kingston, RI.
Salem and Krizek 1973
Salem, M. A., and Krizek, R. J. 1973. Consolidation Characteristics of Dredging Slurries,
Journal of Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol 99, No. WW4, pp 439-458.
Sales and Appy 1994
Sales, L. W., and Appy, R. G. 1994. Restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon, Special Paper presented at Dredging 94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and
Dredged Material Placement, November 1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL. E. C. McNair, Jr., ed.,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Saloman and Naughton 1977
Saloman, C. H., and Naughton, S. P. 1977. Effects of Hurricane Eloise on the Benthic Fauna of
Panama City Beach, Florida, U.S.A., Marine Biology, Vol 42, pp 357-363.
Saloman and Naughton 1984
Saloman, C. H., and Naughton, S. P. 1984. Beach Restoration with Offshore Dredged Sand:
Effects on Nearshore Macrofauna, NOAA Technical Report NMFS-SEFC-133. https://grunt.
sefsc.noaa.gov/P_QryLDS/download/TM133_TM-133.pdf?id=LDS
Sanderson and McKnight 1986
Sanderson, W. H., and McKnight, A. L. 1986. Survey of Equipment and Construction Techniques for Capping Dredged Material, Miscellaneous Paper D-86-6, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/mpd866.pdf

A-62

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Scheffner 1991
Scheffner, N. W. 1991. A Generalized Approach to Site Classification - Dispersive or NonDispersive, Dredging Research Information Exchange Bulletin, Vol DRP-91-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://cirp.usace.army.mil/pubs/
archive/TR-DRP-91-1.pdf
Scheffner et al. 1995
Scheffner, N. W., Thevenot, M. M., Tallent, J. R., and Mason, J. M. 1995. LTFATE: A Model
to Investigate the Long-Term Fate and Stability of Dredged Material Disposal Sites; Users
Guide, Instruction Report DRP-95-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/7/8/6/DRP-IR-DRP-95-1.pdf
Schroeder 1983
Schroeder, P. R. 1983. Chemical Clarification Methods for Confined Dredged Material
Disposal, Technical Report D-83-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/mpd83-2/cover.pdf
Schroeder and Ammon 1984
Schroeder, P. R., and Ammon, D. C. 1984 The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model: Volume I, Users Guide for Version I: Technical Resource Document for Public
Comment, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Schroeder and Palermo 1990
Schroeder, P. R., and Palermo, M. R. 1990. Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives
Management System, Users Guide, Technical Note EEDP-06-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Schroeder et al. 2004
Schroeder, P. R., Palermo, M. R., Myers, T. E., and Lloyd, C. M. 2004. The Automated
Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS), Environmental Effects of
Dredging Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN EEDP-06-12), U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp06-12.pdf
Schubel and Carter 1978
Schubel, J. R., and Carter, H. H. 1978. Field Investigations of the Nature, Degree, and Extent of
Turbidity Generated by Open-Water Pipeline Disposal Operation, Technical Report D-78-30.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-30/cover.pdf
Schubel and Wang 1973
Schubel, L. R., and Wang, L. C. 1973. The Effects of Suspended Sediment on the Hatching
Success of Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch), Morone americana (White Perch), Morone saxatilis
(Striped Bass), and Alosa pseudoharengus (Alewife) Eggs, Special Report No. 30, Chesapeake
Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

A-63

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Schubel, Carter, and Wise 1979
Schubel, J. R., Carter, H. H., and Wise, W. M. 1979. Shrimping as a Source of Suspended
Sediment in Corpus Christi Bay (Texas), Estuaries, Vol 2, pp 201-203.
Schubel, Williams, and Wise 1977
Schubel, J. R., Williams, A. D., and Wise, W. M. 1977. Suspended Sediment in the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal, Special Report 11, Ref. 77-7, Marine Science Research Center, State
University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.
Science Applications International Corporation 1985
Science Applications International Corporation. 1985. REMOTS Survey of Zones of Siting
Feasibility, Puget Sound, Washington. Report No. SAIC-85/7526&91, prepared by Science
Applications International Corporation, Newport, RI, for Cooper Consulting, Inc., Bellevue,
WA.
SCS Engineers 1977
SCS Engineers. 1977. Feasibility of Inland Disposal of Dewatered Dredged Material: A
Literature Review, Technical Report D-77-33, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-33.pdf
Schemnitz 1980
Schemnitz, S. D., ed. 1980. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, The Wildlife Society,
Washington, DC, 686 pp.
Semmler 1990
Semmler, J. A. 1990. PCB Volatilization from Dredged Material, Indiana Harbor, Indiana,
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-02-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp0212.pdf
Shaw, Whiteside, and Ng 1998
Shaw, J. K., Whiteside, P. G. D., and Ng, K. C. 1998. Contaminated Mud in Hong Kong: A
Case Study of Contained Seabed Disposal. Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Dredging
Congress, Dredging into the 21st Century and Exhibition, 28 June - 2 July 1998, Las Vegas, NV.
R. E. Randall, ed., Western Dredging Association, pp 799-810.
Sherk 1972
Sherk, J. A. 1972. Current Status of the Knowledge of the Biological Effects of Suspended and
Deposited Sediments in Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Science, Vol 13, Supplement, pp 137144.
Sherk, OConnor, and Neumann 1975
Sherk, J. A., OConnor, J. M., and Neumann, D. A. 1975. Effects of Suspended and Deposited
Sediments on Estuarine Environments, Estuarine Research, Vol 11, Academic Press, New
York, pp 541-558.

A-64

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Shields, Schroeder, and Palermo 1989
Shields, F. D., Schroeder, P. R., and Palermo, M. R. 1989, Economic Optimization of Confined
Disposal Area Dimensions, EEDP-06-5. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp06-5.pdf
Shulenberger 1970
Shulenberger, E. 1970. Responses of Gemma gemma to a Catastrophic Burial, Veliger, Vol 13,
pp 163-170.
Silberhorn 1976
Silberhorn, G. M. 1976. Tidal Wetland Plants of Virginia, VIMS Science Education Series
No. 19, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, 86 pp.
Simmers, Rhett, and Lee 1986
Simmers, J. W., Rhett, R. G., and Lee, C. R. 1986. Upland Animal Bioassays of Dredged
Material, Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-02-2, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp065.pdf
Simmons 1966
Simmons, H. B. 1966. Field Experience in Estuaries, Estuary and Coastline Hydrodynamics,
Chap 16, A. T. Ippen, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 673-690.
Simon and Dauer 1977
Simon, L. L., and Dauer, D. M. 1977. Reestablishment of a Benthic Community Following
Natural Defaunation, Ecology of Marine Benthos, University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia, SC, pp 139-154.
Sindermann et al. 1982
Sindermann, C. J., Esser, S. C., Gould, E., McCain, B. B., McHugh, J. L., Morgan, R. P.,
Murchelano, R. A., Sherwood, M. J., and Spitzer, P. R. 1982. Effects of Pollutants on Fishes,
Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management, Estuarine Research
Federation, Columbia, SC, pp 23-38.
Skjei 1976
Skjei, S. S. 1976. Socioeconomic Aspects of Dredged Material Disposal: The Creation of
Recreation Land in Urban Areas, Contract Report D-76-06, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/crd76-6/cover.pdf
Skogerboe and Lee 1987
Skogerboe, J. G., and Lee, C. R. 1987. Upland Disposal Site Management for Surface Runoff
Water Quality, Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes EEDP-02-3, U.S Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/
pdfs/eedp02-3.pdf

A-65

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Slotta et al. 1973
Slotta, L. S., Sollitt, C. K., Bella, D. A., Hancock, D. R., McCauley, J. E., and Parr, R. 1973.
Effects of Hopper Dredging and In-Channel Spoiling in Coos Bay, Oregon, Schools of
Engineering and Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Smart and Laidlaw 1977
Smart, D. L., and Laidlaw, I. M. S. 1977. An Evaluation of Some Fluorescent Dyes for Water
Tracing, Water Resource Research, Vol 13, pp 15-33.
Smith 1978
Smith, H. K. 1978. Introduction to Habitat Development on Dredged Material, Technical
Report DS-78-19, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Smith et al. 1976
Smith, J. M., Phipps, J. B., Schermer, E. D., and Samuelson, D. F. 1976. Impact of Dredging on
Water Quality in Grays Harbor, Washington, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on
Dredging and Its Environmental Effects, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 512-528.
Soots and Landin 1978
Soots, R. F., Jr., and Landin, M. C. 1978. Development and Management of Avian Habitat on
Dredged Material Islands, Technical Report DS-78-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Souder et al. 1978
Souder, P. S., Jr., Tobias, L., Imperial, J. F., and Mushal, F. C. 1978. Dredged Material Transport Systems for Inland Disposal and/or Productive Use Concepts, Technical Report D-78-28,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-28/cover.pdf
Sowers 1979
Sowers, G. F. 1979. Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Edition,
Macmillan, New York, p 82.
Spaine, Llopis, and Perrier 1978
Spaine, P. A., Llopis, J. L., and Perrier, E. R. 1978. Guidance for Land Improvement Using
Dredged Material, Technical Report DS-78-21, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-21/ds78-21.pdf
Spigolon 1993
Spigolon, S. J. 1993. Geotechnical Site Investigation Strategy for Dredging Projects, Contract
Report DRP-93-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/e2d2/pdfs/drp93-3-R1.pdf

A-66

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Stafford, Simmers, and Rhett 1987
Stafford, E. A., Simmers, J. W., and Rhett, R. G. 1987. Contaminant Mobility at Dredged
Material Disposal Sites. Assessment Using Invertebrates Naturally Colonizing the Sites.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment, New Orleans,
LA. Consultants Ltd. 424-426.
Stanley and DeWitt 1983
Stanley, J. G., and DeWitt, R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic)-Hard Clam, Technical
Report EL-82-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (also
published as FWS/OBS-82/11.18, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC).
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-018.pdf
Stark 1991
Stark, T. D. 1991. Program Documentation and Users Guide: PCDDF89, Primary Consolidation and Desiccation of Dredged Fill, Instruction Report D-91-1, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/ird911.pdf
Stark 1995
Stark, T. D. 1995. Soil-structure interaction parameters for structures/cemented silts. Technical
Report ITL-95-5. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA299101
Stern and Stickle 1978
Stern, E. M., and Stickle, W. B. 1978. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic
Environments: Literature Review, Technical Report D-78-21, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd78-21.pdf
Stevens 1981
Stevens, B. G. 1981. Dredging-Related Mortality of Dungeness Crabs Associated with Four
Dredges Operating in Grays Harbor, Washington, Report No. DA-79-45, Washington Department of Fisheries and U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Stickney and Perlmutter 1975
Stickney, R. R., and Perlmutter, D. 1975. Impact of Intracoastal Waterway Maintenance Dredging on a Mud Bottom Benthos Community, Biological Conservation, Vol 7, pp 211-226.
Streeter 1971
Streeter, V. L. 1971. Fluid Mechanics, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sturgis 1990
Sturgis, T. L. 1990. Guidance for Contracting Biological and Chemical Evaluations of Dredged
Material, Technical Report D-90-10, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd90-10.pdf

A-67

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Sturgis, Lee, and Langan 1997
Sturgis, T. C., Lee, C. R., and Langan, P. 1997. Manufactured Soil from Mobile Harbor
Dredged Material, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial
Uses, July 28-August 1,1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, p. 46.
Sturgis, Lee, and Taplin 1997
Sturgis, T. C., Lee, C. R., and Taplin, K. A. 1997. Manufactured Soil from St. Lucie Muck,
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dredged Material Beneficial Uses, 28 July - 1
August 1997, Baltimore, MD. M. C. Landin, ed., U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS, p. 48.
Sustar, Wakeman, and Ecker 1976
Sustar, J. R., Wakeman, T. H., and Ecker, R. M. 1976. Sediment-Water Interaction During
Dredging Operations, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Dredging and Its Environmental Effects, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 736-767.
Sutherland 1981
Sutherland, J. P. 1981. The Fouling Community at Beaufort, North Carolina: A Study in
Stability, American Naturalist, Vol 118, pp 499-519.
Swafford and Gorini 1994
Swafford, R., and Gorini, R. F. 1994. Site Selection for Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material in
Galveston Bay, TX, USA, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging
and Dredged Material Placement, November 1994, Lake Buena Vista, FL. E. C. McNair, Jr.,
ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 399-409.
Tagatz 1976
Tagatz, M. 1976. Effect of Mirex on Predator-Prey Interaction in an Experimental Estuarine
Ecosystem, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol 105, pp 546-549.
Tatem and Johnson 1978
Tatem, H. E., and Johnson, J. H. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations, Duwamish
Waterway Disposal Site, Puget Sound, Washington: Evaluative Summary, Technical Report
D-77-24, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.
usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-24-G.pdf
Tavolaro et al. 2007
Tavolaro, J. F., Wilson, J. R., Welp, T. L., Clausner, J. E., and Premo, A. Y. 2007. Overdepth
Dredging and Characterization Depth Recommendations, EEDP-04-37, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
eedp04-37.pdf
Taylor and Saloman 1968
Taylor, J. L., and Saloman, C. H. 1968. Some Effects of Hydraulic Dredging and Coastal
Development in Boca Ciaga Bay, Florida, Fishery Bulletin, Vol 67, pp 213-241.

A-68

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Teeter 1992
Teeter, A. M. 1992. Erosion of Cohesive Dredged Material in Open-Water Disposal Sites,
Dredging Research Technical Note DRP-1-07, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=
GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA365381
Teeter 2000
Teeter, A. M. 2000. Underflow Spreading from an Open-Water Pipeline Disposal, Doer
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-N7), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doern7.pdf
Tegelberg and Arthur 1977
Tegelberg, H., and Arthur, R. 1977. Distribution of Dungeness Crabs (Cancer magister) in
Grays Harbor, and Some Effects of Channel Maintenance Dredging; Appendix N, Maintenance
Dredging and Environment of Grays Harbor, Washington, U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle,
Seattle, WA.
Tetra Tech, Inc. and Averett 1994
Tetra Tech, and Averett, D. 1994. Options for Treatment and Disposal of Contaminated Sediments from New York/ New Jersey Harbor, Miscellaneous Paper EL-94-1, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
mpel94-1.pdf
Terzaghi and Peck 1967
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley, New York.
Thayer, Kenworthy, and Fonseca 1984
Thayer, G. W., Kenworthy, W. J., and Fonseca, M. S. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows
of the Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile, FWSIOBS-84/02, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Thevenot, Prickett, and Kraus 1992
Thevenot, M. M., Prickett, T. L., and Kraus, N. C., ed. 1992. Tylers Beach, Virginia, Dredged
Material Plume Monitoring Project, 27 September to 4 October 1991, Technical Report DRP92-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a261036.pdf
Thibodeaux 1989
Thibodeaux, L. J. 1989. Theoretical Models for Evaluation of Volatile Emissions to Air During
Dredged Material Disposal with Applications to New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts,
Miscellaneous Paper EL-89-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/e2d2/pdfs/mpel89-3.pdf

A-69

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Thom and Wellman 1996
Thom, R. M., and Wellman, K. F. 1996. Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring
Programs, IWR Report 96-R-23, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/96r23.pdf
Thorhaug 1981
Thorhaug, A. 1981. Seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, and Caribbean Including
Restoration and Mitigation of Seagrasses, Proc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop on
Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States, pp 161-178.
Thorhaug 1985
Thorhaug, A. 1985. Large Scale Seagrass Restoration in a Damaged Estuary, Marine Pollution
Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp 55-62.
Thunhorst 1993
Thunhorst, G. A. 1993. Wetland Planting Guide for the Northeastern United States: Plants for
Wetland Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement, Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels,
MD.
Togashi 1983
Togashi, H. 1983. Sand Overlaying for Sea Bottom Sediment Improvement by Conveyor
Barge, Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances: Proceedings of the 7th
US/Japan Experts meeting, prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waters Resources
Support Center by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
pp 59-78.
Tramontano and Bohlen 1984
Tramontano, J. M., and Bohlen, W. F. 1984. The Nutrient and Trace Metal Geochemistry of a
Dredge Plume, Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, Vol 18, pp 385-401.
Trueman and Foster-Smith 1976
Trueman, E. R., and Foster-Smith, R. L. 1976. The Mechanisms of Burrowing of Sipunculus
nudus, Journal of Zoology, London, Vol 179, pp 373-386.
Truitt 1986
Truitt, C. L. 1986. Fate of Dredged Material During Open Water Disposal, Environmental
Effects of Dredging Technical Note EEDP-01-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp01-2.pdf
Truitt 1987
Truitt, C. L. 1987. Engineering Considerations for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping Background and Preliminary Planning, Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Note
EEDP-01-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/pdfs/eedp01-3.pdf

A-70

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Tubman 1994a
Tubman, M. W. 1994a. The PLUme MEasurement System (PLUMES); A Commercially
Available System, Technical Note DRP-1-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Note DRP-1-16
Tubman 1994b
Tubman, M. W. 1994b. The PLUme MEasurement System (PLUMES); Operational and Data
Processing Procedures for Deepwater Monitoring, Technical Note DRP-1-18, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/drp1-18.pdf
Tubman 1995
Tubman, M. W. 1995. Plume Measurement System (PLUMES) Technical Manual and Data
Analysis Procedures, Technical Report DRP-95-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=
GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA293040
Tubman, Brumley, and Puckette 1994
Tubman M. W., Brumley, B., and Puckette, P. T. 1994. Deep-water Dredged-Material Disposal
Monitoring Offshore of San Francisco Using the PLUme MEasurement System (PLUMES),
Dredging 94, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Tubman and Corson 2000
Tubman, M. W., and Corson, W. D. 2000. Acoustic Monitoring of Dredging-Related
Suspended-Sediment Plumes, DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E7),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere7.pdf
Turner 1977
Turner, T. M. 1977. Dredging Systems and the Basic Dredge Laws, presented at Florida
Atlantic University, 1972, and Personal Communication, 1977.
Turner 1996
Turner, T. 1996. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Dredging American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA.
Uetz et al. 1979
Uetz, G. W., Van Der Laan, K. L., Summers, G. F., Gibson, P. A. K., and Getz, L. L. 1979. The
Effects of Flooding on Floodplain Arthropod Distribution, Abundance and Community
Structure, American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp 286-299.
Urban Research and Development Corporation 1980
Urban Research and Development Corporation. 1980. Recreation Carrying Capacity Handbook:
Methods and Techniques for Planning, Design, and Management, Instruction Report R-80-1,
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-71

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
USACE 1954
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1954. The Hopper Dredge, Its Development and Operation,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE 1985
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredged Material Beneficial Uses, Engineer Manual 1110-25026, Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, DC, 1985.
USACE 1987
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Environmental Engineering for Deep-Draft Navigation
Projects, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1202, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE 1995
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Coastal Geology, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1810,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
USACE 2003a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Contract Specifications for Hopper Dredge Use.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville.
USACE Navigation Data Center 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center. 2000. Dredging Information System.
USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse 2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sea Turtle Data Warehouse. 2006. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/seaturtles/intro.cfm
U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland 1982
U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland. 1982. Water Quality Effects of Hopper Dredging on
Isthmus Slough During Late Summer Temperature Regimes, Portland, OR.
U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco 1976
U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco. 1976. Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay
and Estuary, Appendix C, San Francisco, CA.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington 1996
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington. 1996. Dredging Inspectors Environmental Handbook, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England 1990
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 1990. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Pilot Study,
Evaluation of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, U.S. Army Engineers Division, New
England, Waltham, MA.

A-72

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1956
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1956. Investigation of Underseepage and
Its Control, Lower Mississippi River Levees, Technical Memorandum No. 3-424, Vicksburg,
MS.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station 1960
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1960. The Unified Soil Classification
System, Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Department of Defense (1964)
U.S. Department of Defense. 1964. Military Standard: Subgrade, Subbase, and Test Method for
Pavement Base-Course Materials, MIL-STD-621A, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Army 1987
U.S. Department of the Army. 1987. Field Manual FM 5-530: Materials Testing, Department
of the Army FM 5-530, Department of the Navy NAVFAC MO-330, and Department of the Air
Force AFM 89-3, Washington, D.C. http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/
pdf/fm5_472.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation 1994
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1994. The Dredging Process in the United States: An
Action Plan for Improvement, by the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process,
Maritime Administration, Washington, DC. http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/oceandumping/
dredgedmaterial/upload/oceans_ndt_publications_1994_report.pdf
USEPA 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, EPA Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1979, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation
Handbook, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC.
USEPA 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Handbook: Remedial action at waste disposal
sites (revised), EPA 540/2-85/001, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio
USEPA 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Remediation Guidance Document, EPA 905R94-003, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program, Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/arcs/EPA-905-B94-003/EPA905-B94-003.html

A-73

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
USEPA 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment,
Federal Register, Vol 63(93), pp 26845-26924.
USEPA 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses, Technical Manual EPA 823-B-01002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/collection.html
USEPA 2005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance
for Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA-540-R-05-012, OSWER 9355.0-85, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/guidance.htm
USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) 1989
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1989.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), EPA/540/1-89/002, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Effects on Fish Resources of Dredging and Spoil
Disposal in San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, California, Unnumbered Special Report,
Washington, DC.
Valente and Fredette 2002
Valente, R. M., and Fredette, T. J. 2002. Benthic Recolonization of a Capped Dredged Material
Mound at an Open Water Disposal Site in Long Island Sound. Proceedings of the Third
Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal - Dredging 02 - Key
Technologies for Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002, Orlando, FL. Stephen Garbaciak, Jr., ed.,
American Society of Civil Engineers.
vant Hoff and Nooy van der Kolff (Editors) 2012
vant Hoff, J., and Nooy van der Kolff, A. (Editors). 2012. Hydraulic Fill Manual for Dredging
and Reclamation Works, CRC Press/Balkema Taylor & Francis Group, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Van Dolah, Calder, and Knott 1984
Van Dolah, R. F., Calder, D. R., and Knott, D. M. 1984. Effects of Dredging and Open Water
Disposal on Benthic Macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina Estuary, Estuaries, Vol 7,
pp 28-37.
Van Dolah et al. 1979
Van Dolah, R. F., Calder, D. R., Knott, D. M., and Maclin, M. S. 1979. Effects of Dredging and
Unconfined Disposal of Dredged Material on Macrobenthic Communities in Sewee Bay, South
Carolina, Technical Report 39, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.

A-74

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Van Wijck and Smits 1991
Van Wijck, J., and Smits, J. 1991. Underwater Disposal of Dredged Material: A Viable Solution
for the Maintenance of Dredging Works in the River Scheldt, Bulletin No. 73, Permanent
International Association of Navigation Congresses.
Verna and Pointon 2000
Verna, T., and Pointon, M. 2000. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredging of Channels and
Waterways, Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Twentieth Technical Conference
and Thirty-Second Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 25-28, 2000, Warwick, RI,
pp 213-227.
Viosca 1958
Viosca, P. 1958. Effect of Dredging Operations, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
Biennial Report (1956-1957).
Wakeman 1977
Wakeman, T. H. 1977. Release of Trace Constituents from Sediments Resuspended During
Dredging Operations, Chemistry of Marine Sediments, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp 118-221.
Wakeman, Sustar, and Dickson 1975
Wakeman, T. H., Sustar, J. F., and Dickson, W. J. 1975. Impacts of Three Dredge Types
Compared in San Francisco District, Proceedings of the World Dredging and Marine
Construction Conference, Vol I 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 9-14.
Wallen 1951
Wallen, L. E. 1951. The Direct Effect of Turbidity on Fishes, Bulletin of the Oklahoma
Agricultural College, Biological Series 2, Vol 48, pp 1-27.
Walsh and Malkasian 1978
Walsh, M. R. and Malkasian, M. D. 1978. Productive Land Use of Dredged Material Containment Areas: Planning and Implementation Considerations, Technical Report DS-78-20,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.
mil/elpubs/pdf/ds78-20/ds78-20a.pdf
Walski and Schroeder 1978
Walski, T. M., and Schroeder, P. R. 1978. Weir Design to Maintain Effluent Quality from
Dredged Material Containment Areas, Technical Report D-78-18, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd7818.pdf

A-75

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Walter, Valente, and Fredette 2002
Walter, P. J., Valente, R. M., and Fredette, T. J. 2002. Evaluating Sub-channel Confined
Aquatic Disposal Cells: Experience from the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project.
Proceedings of the Third Specialty Conference on Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Dredging 02 - Key Technologies for Global Prosperity, 5-8 May 2002, Orlando, FL. Stephen
Garbaciak, Jr., ed., Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Wang and Chen 1977
Wang, C. C., and Chen, K. Y. 1977. Laboratory Study of Chemical Coagulation as a Means of
Treatment for Dredged Material, Technical Report D-77-39, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trd77-39.pdf
Watt 1965
Watt, J. P. C. 1965. Development of the Dye-Dilution Method for Measuring Water Yields
from Mountain Watersheds, M.S. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Weber 1973
Weber, C. I., ed. 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of
Surface Waters and Effluents, EPA-670/4-73-001, EPA Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Welp and Rosati 2000
Welp, T. L., and Rosati, J., III. 2000. Initial Corps Experience with Tons Dry Solid (TDS)
Measurement, DOER Technical Notes Collection ERDC TN-DOER-I2, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/
pdf/doeri2.pdf
Welp, Clausner, and Pilon 1998
Welp, T. L., Clausner, J. E., and Pilon, R. L. 1998. Toussaint River Unexploded Ordnance
(UXO) Demonstration Dredging Project, Miscellaneous Paper CHL-98-6, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA353974
Welp, Pilon, and Bocamozo 1998
Welp, T., Pilon, R., and Bocamozo, L. 1998. Dredging in Unexploded-Ordnance (UXO)contaminated Sediment, Proceedings of the 15th World Congress, Las Vegas, NV.
Welp et al. 1994
Welp, T., Clausner, J., Pope, J., Lewis, R., and Pilon, R. 1994. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
and Dredging, Dredging 94, Proceedings of the Second international Conference on Dredging
and Dredged Material Placement, Lake Buena Vista, FL, November 13-16, 1994. E. C. McNair,
ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 48-55.

A-76

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Welp et al. 2001
Welp, T., Hayes, D. Tubman, M., McDowell, S., Fredette, T., Clausner, J., and Albro, C. 2001.
Dredge Bucket Comparison Demonstration at Boston Harbor, ERDC/CHL CHETN-VI-35,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://chl.erdc.usace.
army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/chetn-vi-35.pdf
Welp et al. 2008
Welp, T., Follett, F., Crull, M., and Pollock, C. 2008. Dredging in Sediments Containing
Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC), ERDC/CHL TR-08-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trchl08-12.pdf
Westley et al. 1973
Westley, R. E., Finn, E., Carr, M. I., Tarr, M. A., Schotz, A. I., Goodwin, L., Stemberg, R. W.,
and Collias, E. E. 1973. Evaluation of Effects of Channel Maintenance Dredging and Disposal
on the Marine Environment in Southern Puget Sound, Washington, Washington Department of
Fisheries, Olympia, WA.
Whiteside, Ng, and Lee 1996
Whiteside, P., Ng, K., and Lee, W. 1996. Management of Contaminated Mud in Hong Kong.
Terra et Aqua, Vol 65, pp 10-17.
Wilber 1971
Wilber, C. G. 1971. Turbidity, Animals, Marine Ecology, Vol 1, John Wiley and Sons,
London, pp 1181-1189.
Wilber 1993
Wilber, P. 1993. Managing Dredged Material Via Thin-Layer Disposal in Coastal Marshes.
Technical Notes EEDP-01-32. Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. Technical Notes EEDP-01-32
Wilber et al. 2005
Wilber, D. H., Brostoff, W., Clarke, D. G., and Ray, G. L. (2005). Sedimentation: Potential
biological effects from dredging operations in estuarine and marine environments, DOER
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E20), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere20.pdf
Williamson and Nelson 1985
Williamson, K. L., and Nelson, P. C. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow
Suitability Curves: Gizzard Shad, Biological Report 82(10.112), Western Energy and Land Use
Team, Division of Biological Services, Research and Development, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

A-77

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Willoughby 1977
Willoughby, W. E. 1977. Low-Ground-Pressure Construction Equipment for Use in Dredged
Material Containment Area Operation and Maintenance: Performance Predictions, Technical
Report D-77-7, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wilson 1950
Wilson, W. B. 1950. The Effects of Sedimentation Due to Dredging Operations on Oysters in
Copano Bay, Texas, M.S. thesis, Texas A&M, College Station, TX.
Wilson 1968
Wilson, J. F. 1968. Fluorometric Procedures for Dye Tracing, Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Vol 3, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Windom 1972
Windom, H. L. 1972. Environmental Aspects of Dredging in Estuaries, Journal of Water,
Harbor, and Coastal Engineering, Vol 98, pp 475-487.
Windom 1976
Windom, H. L. 1976. Environmental Aspects of Dredging in the Coastal Zone, CRC Critical
Review in Environmental Control, No. 6, pp 91-110.
Winfield and Lee 1999
Winfield, L. E., and Lee, C. R. 1999. Dredged Material Characterization Tests for Beneficial
Use Suitability, DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN DOER-C2), U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/
doerc2.pdf
Winter 2002
Winter, T. C. 2002. Subaqueous Capping and Natural Recovery: Understanding the Hydrogeologic Setting at Contaminated Sites, DOER Technical Notes Collection (TN DOER-C26),
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.
army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerc26.pdf
Wolf, Shanholtzer, and Reimold 1970
Wolf, P. L., Shanholtzer, S. F., and Reimold, R. J. 1970. Population Estimates for Uca pugnax
(Smith, 1970) on the Dublin Estuary Marsh, GA, U. S. A., Crustacean, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp 79-91.
World Dredging Mining and Construction 2003
World Dredging Mining and Construction. 2003. Worldwide Dredge Fleets, Suppliers &
Engineers, World Dredging Mining & Construction, 39(3), pp 8-63.
Wright, Mathis, and Brannon 1978
Wright, T. D., Mathis, D. B., and Brannon, J. M. 1978. Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations,
Galveston, Texas, Offshore Disposal Site; Evaluative Summary, Technical Report D-77-20,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

A-78

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Yagi, Koiwa, and Miyazaki 1977
Yagi, T., Koiwa, T., and Miyazaki, S. 1977. Turbidity Caused by Dredging, Proceedings of
WODCON VII: Dredging, Environmental Effects and Technology, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX. pp 1079-1109.
Yagi et al. 1975
Yagi, T., Miyazaki, S., Okyama, Y., Koreishi, A., Sata, Y., Saito, M., Nakazono, Y., Masuda, K.,
Kono, S., Shibuya, Y., Kikuchi, K., and Kikya, T. 1975. Influence of Operating Conditions
Against Dredging Capacity and Turbidity, Technical Note No. 228, Port and Harbor Research
Institute, Ministry of Transport, Japan.
Yotsukura and Kilpatrick 1973
Yotsukura, N., and Kilpatrick, F. A. 1973. Tracer Simulation of Soluble Waste Concentration,
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 9,
No. 8.
Zeller and Wastler 1986
Zeller, R. W., and Wastler, T. A. 1986. Tiered Ocean Disposal Monitoring Will Minimize Data
Requirements, Oceans 86, Vol. 3: Monitoring Strategies Symposium. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, New York, pp 1004-1009.
Zieman 1982
Zieman, J. C. 1982. The Ecology of the Seagrass of South Florida: A Community Profile.
National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Zundel 2005
Zundel, A. K. 2005. Surface-Water Modeling System Reference Manual, Version 9.0 Brigham
Young University Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory, Provo, UT. http://www.emsi.com/SMS/SMS_Overview/sms_overview.html

A-79

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A-80

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX B
Dredging Environmental Considerations
B.1 Introduction. This appendix presents environmental considerations associated with the
excavation and placement processes of the different types of dredges. Biological considerations
of dredging include suspended sediments, sedimentation, chemical release, dissolved oxygen
(DO) reduction, channel blockage, and entrainment. Equipment to control, or mitigate, impacts
at the excavation (as opposed to placement) site are also described. The term impact, as used in
the environmental realm, denotes detectable changes in physical, chemical, or biological
components of an ecosystem. In its simplest form, an impact refers to a biological response to
some physical or chemical alteration to preexisting conditions as the result of human activities or
natural events. These effects may result from suspended sediments, turbidity, direct physical
impact, changes in habitat, and, in certain situations, by contaminant levels.
B.2 Sediment Resuspension Caused by Different Dredges.
B.2.1 The nature, degree, and extent of dredged material dispersion around a dredging
operation are controlled by many factors (Barnard 1978). These factors include the characteristics of the dredged material, such as its size distribution, solids concentration, and
composition; the nature of the dredging operation, such as the dredge type and size, discharge
cutter configuration, discharge rate, and operational procedures being used; and the characteristics of the hydrologic regime in the vicinity of the operation, including salinity and hydrodynamic forces (for example, waves and currents). The relative importance of these factors
varies from site to site.
B.2.2 With a given set of environmental conditions, different types of dredges generate
different levels of turbidity. In this appendix, the term turbidity is used when an optical
measurement of water quality was made, and the term total suspended sediments (TSS) is used
when a gravimetric measurement of water quality was made. Also, the term sediment
resuspension is used to describe the mixing of sediment into the water column due to dredging
activities. Though the type of dredging equipment has a major effect on the amount and
concentration of sediment that is resuspended, the techniques for operating this equipment also
assume importance. Studies carried out by Huston and Huston (1976) indicate that operator
training and performance are important contributing factors controlling sediment resuspension.
While Barnard (1978) indicates that it is difficult to evaluate the various parameters of the
operation of a dredge that reflect the skills of the operator, Huston and Huston (1976) observed
that there was a lack of formal training, research, and development for dredging. As a result, it
has been found in most of the literature concerning this topic that turbidity levels were measured
with little regard to the operation of the dredges or their production rates. With this in mind,
Barnard (1978); Herbich and Brahme (1991); McLellan et al. (1989); and Hayes, Borrowman,
and Welp (2000) examined the turbidity levels generated by different types of conventional
dredges.

B-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.3 Generation of Turbidity by Type of Dredge.
B.3.1 Hydraulic cutterhead dredging.
B.3.1.1 The cutterhead dredge, the most commonly used dredge in the United States, is very
versatile. As described in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management, this type
of dredge uses a rotating cutter, located at the end of a ladder, that excavates the bottom sediment
and guides it into the suction. For conventional cutterhead dredges, the diameter of the cutter is
approximately three to four times the diameter of the suction pipe. Most of the sediment
resuspended by a cutterhead dredging operation (exclusive of placement) is usually found in the
vicinity of the cutter (Barnard 1978). The levels of sediment are directly related to the type and
quantity of material cut but not picked up by the suction. The amount of material supplied to the
suction is controlled primarily by the rate of cutter rotation, the vertical thickness of the dredge
cut, and the horizontal velocity of the cutter moving across the cut. In addition to the dredging
equipment used and its mode of operation, sediment resuspension can also be caused by
sloughing of material from the sides of vertical cuts and inefficient operational techniques.
B.3.1.2 Field data are available for sediment in suspension in the vicinity of cutterhead
dredges at various places. The limited data collected under low-current conditions show that
elevated levels of suspended material appear to be localized to the immediate vicinity of the
cutter as the dredge swings back and forth across the dredging site (Barnard 1978). Within 3 m
(10 ft) of the cutter, suspended solids concentrations are highly variable, but they may be as high
as tens of grams per liter (g/L); these concentrations decrease exponentially from the cutter to the
water surface. Near-bottom suspended solids concentration was found to be on the order of a few
hundred milligrams per liter (mg/L) at distances of a few hundred meters from the cutter. Yagi
et al. (1975) concluded from these observations that in the case of a steady dredging of a thin
sedimented mud layer, the effect of dredging on turbidity was almost found to be imperceptible
at locations several tens of meters distance from the cutter.
B.3.1.3 A properly designed cutter efficiently cuts and guides the bottom material toward
the suction, but the cutting action and the turbulence associated with the rotation of the cutter
resuspends a portion of the bottom material being dredged. Excessive cutter rotation rates tend to
propel the excavated material away from the suction pipe inlet. Huston and Huston (1976)
conducted measurements of turbidity created by a cutterhead dredge in the Corpus Christi Ship
Channel. The top 1.5 to 2 m (5-6.5 ft) of material was sandy clay while the underlying layer of
about 6 m (20 ft) depth consisted of medium clay. The various samples collected in this channel,
described by Bartos (1977), showed that the sediment consisted of inorganic clays of high
plasticity (CH) with the percent passing the No. 200 sieve varying from 76 to 98. Table B-1
indicates the turbidity readings at three different cutter speeds. This table shows that the nearbottom suspended solids level within 2 m (6.5 ft) of the cutter of a 69 cm (27 in.) cutterhead
dredge widening a portion of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel ranged from background
concentrations to 580 mg/L relative to the background levels of 39-209 mg/L measured 73 m
(240 ft) to the side of the dredge (Huston and Huston 1976). Similar data around a 61 cm (24 in.)
cutterhead dredge excavated fine-grained maintenance material (96-98% passing No. 200 sievehighly plastic inorganic clay [Bartos 1977]) from the Mobile Bay Ship Channel showed nearbottom TSS levels of up to 125 mg/L as opposed to background levels of 25-30 mg/L, which
occurred approximately 300 m (985 ft) in front of the cutterhead (Barnard 1978). The increase in
B-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the TSS was found only within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the bottom. Field data are also available from
Yokkaichi Harbor, Japan (Barnard 1978). Levels of suspended solids under low-current
conditions near the cutter of a 61 cm (24 in.) cutterhead dredge excavating fine-grained material
in this harbor ranged from 2 mg/L to 31 g/L at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) above the cutter relative
to the background levels of 1-18 mg/L. Average TSS levels appeared to decrease exponentially
from the cutter to the water surface. At a distance of 60 m (200 ft) in front of the cutter, TSS
levels in the near-surface water ranged from 1 to 17 mg/L whereas near-bottom levels ranged
from 5 to 205 mg/L (Yagi et al. 1975).
Table B-1. Turbidity and Suspended Solids Concentrations at Different Cutter Speeds Using a
69 cm (27 in.) Dredge (Huston and Huston 1976)
Depth of
Sample
m/ft

10 rpm
%T

20 rpm

mg/L

NTU
%T
mg/L
Cut No. 1, 6.1 m/20 ft
0.9/3
55
26
8
70
22
2.7/8.9
65
89
10
65
12
5.4/17.7
42
161
43
5
187
Cut No. 2, 9.1 m/30 ft
0.9/3
47
114
3
56
-3.0/10
41
64
9
45
46
6.1/20
44
102
15
38
-9.1/30
17
55
14
5
37
Cut No. 3, 12.2 m/40 ft
0.9/3
54
144
3
55
75
3.0/10
48
150
10
58
-6.1/20
52
25
7
60
165
9.1/30
30
-5
47
94
12.2/40
7
52
12
24
176
Note: %T = percent transmission

30 rpm
NTU

%T

mg/L

NTU

6
6
44

72
68
24

154
91
580

4
4
45

7
7
8
37

66
65
50
4

106
80
11
208

4
5
15
26

5
6
10
8
30

66
66
63
26
2

125
72
56
138
266

4
8
9
22
57

B.3.1.4 The various studies show that operational conditions exert considerable influence on
sediment resuspension in the vicinity of a cutterhead dredge. As indicated earlier, the levels of
turbidity found near the cutter depend primarily on the type and amount of material that is
excavated but not drawn into the dredge suction. This residual material may remain in suspension or may settle into the existing cut, where it again becomes susceptible to resuspension by
ambient currents and turbulence generated during subsequent cuts. Analysis of the data collected
at Yokkaichi Harbor, Japan, indicates that as the amount of this residual material increases, the
turbidity levels around the cutter apparently increase exponentially. According to calculations
made by Yagi, as explained by Barnard (1978), the amount of residual material increases as the
swing rate increases. Barnard examined the data further and found that in most cases the amount
of residual material generally increases as the thickness of the cut increases. Consequently, as the
thickness of the cut and the swing rate increase, the turbidity levels generated by the operation

B-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
increase exponentially (Barnard 1978). A similar relationship exists between sediment resuspension and rate of cutter rotation (Huston and Huston 1976).
B.3.1.5 As stated in the previous paragraph, the amount of material remaining in suspension
from the previous cuts also controls the level of turbidity in the vicinity of the cutter. Yagi et al.
(1975) found that during the first four swings of dredging operation monitored, the levels of
turbidity around the cutter increased with each successive cut. This was found to continue until a
quasi-steady-state condition was reached. Barnard (1978) further analyzed the data in detail and
found a relationship between the levels of turbidity around a cutterhead and the dredge
production rate. The relationship for fine-grained material is shown in Figure B-1. There is some
scatter in the data, but a general trend can easily be seen. The data within the shaded portion in
the figure indicate that it is possible to increase the rate of dredge production up to a maximum
rate without generating excessive levels of turbidity. (The shaded area shows more than 75% of
the data points). Kuo, Welch, and Lukens (1985) developed a model to describe the turbidity
plume induced by dredging a ship channel using a cutterhead hydraulic dredge. The model
predicts the suspended sediment concentration within the plume and the resulting sediment
deposition alongside the dredged channel. Additional numerical models are described in
Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management.
B.3.1.6 Huston and Huston (1976) collected large amounts of information on cutterheaddredge-induced turbidity and also carried out field studies at Corpus Christi Ship Channel. Based
on the analysis of the turbidity data, they concluded that the turbidity data show the following
trends:
a. In most cases, the transmission and scattering of data show an increase in turbidity above
background levels only in the immediate vicinity of the cutter. The increased levels of turbidity
around the cutter are probably due to suspension of fine-grained material created by the
turbulence generated by the cutter.
b. Apparently little of the turbidity created by the cutter goes into the upper water column,
especially from depths of 9-12 m (30-40 ft). This is also supported by the fact that no substantial
visible surface turbidity is ever observed.
c. Although the turbidity data collected in the immediate vicinity of the cutter are quite
variable, probably due to cutter-generated turbulence, there also may be a general, but
inconsistent, increase in turbidity with increasing revolutions per minute (rpm). This
inconsistency may be due to cutter-generated turbulence, variability in the material being
dredged, or suction velocity.
B.3.1.7 Grimwood (1983) collected sediment resuspension data during cutterhead
maintenance dredging off the Louisiana coast in an effort to assay potential environmental
damage during both dredging and placement operations. It was generally concluded that the
material dredged during these investigations did not present a hazardous waste disposal problem,
as dilution was rapid and increased concentrations of pollutants were confined to the placement
area or mixing zone.

B-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure B-1. Relationship Between the Levels of Turbidity Around a

Cutterhead and the Dredge Production Rate (from Barnard 1978)
B.3.1.8 Measurements of suspended sediment fields around cutterhead dredge operations
summarized in Table B-2 and in additional studies (Markey and Putnam 1976; Smith et al. 1976;
Sustar, Wakeman, and Ecker 1976; Koba and Shiba 1983; Kuo, Welch, and Lukens 1985)
demonstrate that elevated levels of suspended sediments appear to be restricted to the immediate
vicinity of the cutterhead with little suspension in surface waters. Maximum levels of suspended
sediment, on the order of tens of g/L, are confined to within 3 m (10 ft) above the cutterhead and

B-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
decline exponentially to the water surface. Near-bottom levels may be on the order of hundreds
of mg/L at distances of up to a few hundred meters laterally from the cutterhead. Upper-water
column levels are usually quite low or even undetectable, depending on water depth.
Table B-2. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields During
Hydraulic Cutterhead Dredging Operations
Location
Mobile Bay, AL

Suspended Sediment Field Characteristics

Suspended sediment concentrations around a 61 cm (24 in.)
cutterhead dredge were elevated above background levels only
within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the bottom. Near-bottom concentrations of up
to 125 mg/L occurred approximately 300 m (1000 ft) in front of the
cutterhead. Silts and clay.

Reference
Barnard
(1978)

Corpus Christi
Ship Channel, TX

Near-bottom suspended sediment concentrations within 2 m

(6.5 ft) of the cutterhead of a 69 cm (27 in.) cutterhead dredge
ranged from background levels to 580 mg/L measured 73 m (29
in.) to the side of the dredge. Fine-grained.

Huston and
Huston (1976)

Yokkaichi Harbor,
Japan

Concentrations of suspended sediment under low-current

Yagi et al.
conditions near the cutterhead of a 61 cm (24 in.) cutterhead
(1975)
dredge ranged from 2 mg/L to 31 g/L, 1 mg/L to 16 g/L, and 1 mg/L
to 4 g/L at distances of 1, 2, and 3 m (3.3, 6.5, and 9.8 ft) above
the cutterhead, respectively, relative to background levels. Average
concentrations decreased exponentially to the water surface. Finegrained.

James River, VA

Average suspended sediment concentrations over a 4-day period

within 800 ft (200 m) of a 46 cm (18 in.) cutterhead dredge ranged
from background levels to 282 mg/L above background. Levels
greater than 200 mg/L above background were restricted to the
lower water column while average values for flood and ebb tide for
the upper water column were 11.5 mg/L and 37.5 mg/L,
respectively. Clay.

Raymond
(1984)

Savannah River,
GA

Suspended sediment concentrations within 480 m (1,600 ft) of a

cutterhead dredge were generally less than 200 mg/L in the lower
water column and less than 200 mg/L and 50 mg/L in the middle
and upper water column, respectively. Silts.

Hayes (1986)

Imari and Osaka

Bays, Japan

Suspended sediment concentration, above background, measured Koba (1984)

around three dredges. Mean values of suspended sediment levels
for upper and lower water column ranged from 2-5 mg/L at 50 m
(165 ft), 2-3 mg/L at 100 m (330 ft), and 2 mg/L at 200 m (660 ft).
Maximum levels never exceeded 72 mg/L above background.
Clay.

B-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Suspended sediment levels generated by the cutterhead apparently increase exponentially as the
thickness of the cut, rate of swing, and cutterhead rotation increase. Current speeds above
0.6 m/sec (2 ft/sec) associated with ebb and flood tidal action can, however, significantly affect
the suspended sediment field by propelling materials higher into the water column. High-velocity
ebb tides have the greatest effect.
B.3.2 Trailing suction hopper dredge.
B.3.2.1 The operational characteristics of a hopper dredge are described in Chapter 2,
Dredging and Navigation Program Management. Resuspension of the fine-grained,
maintenance-dredged material during hopper dredge operations is caused by the dragheads as
they are pulled through the sediment, by turbulence generated by the vessel and its propeller
wash, by overflow of turbid water during hopper filling operations, and by dispersion of dredged
material during open-water disposal. Overflow water is the most obvious source of near-surface
turbidity. Distributions of suspended solids in these overflow plumes are dependent on many
factors, such as nature of the sediment being dredged; the design and operation of the dredge;
and the nature, concentration, and volume of the overflowed material.
B.3.2.2 Field measurements of suspended solids concentrations in the vicinity of the hopper
dredge Chester Harding during a maintenance dredging operation at San Francisco Bay are
available (Barnard 1978). These measurements indicate that a near-bottom turbidity plume of
suspended dredged material extended up to 700 m (2,300 ft) downcurrent from the dredge. In the
immediate vicinity of the dredge, a well-defined upper plume was generated by the overflow
process, and a near-bottom plume was generated by draghead resuspension; 300-400 m (1,0001,300 ft) behind the dredge, the two plumes merged into a single plume. With the increase in the
distance from the dredge, the suspended solids concentrations in the plume generally decreased,
and the plume became increasingly limited to the near-bottom waters. According to the studies
conducted by Bartos (1977), the type of seabed material in the San Francisco Bay is inorganic
clay of high plasticity with 58% passing the No. 200 sieve. Suspended solids concentrations in
the upper and middepth water column were rarely found to exceed several hundred mg/L in
relation to the background concentration of 31-35 mg/L.
B.3.2.3 Near-surface measurements for suspended solids concentrations were also made in
the overflow plumes generated by hopper dredge Markham in Saginaw Bay Ship Channel, Lake
Huron, and by hopper dredge Goethals in the Thimble Shoal Channel, Chesapeake Bay (Barnard
1978). These measurements are summarized in Figure B-2. It can be seen that the suspended
solids concentrations were as high as 200 g/L in the overflow plume of the dredge Markham.
The solids concentrations dropped to 800 mg/L at a distance of 1,200 m (4,000 ft) from the
dredge overflow ports. A similar trend is seen for the dredge Goethals in Chesapeake Bay. The
corresponding values for suspended solids concentrations were 2 g/L and 200 mg/L,
respectively. These measurements indicate that the suspended solids levels generated by a
hopper dredge are caused primarily by overflow in the near-surface water and draghead
resuspension in the near-bottom water. Suspended solids concentrations may be as high as
several tens of g/L near the discharge port and as high as a few g/L near the draghead. It was
found that plume concentrations exceeded the background levels even at distances in excess of
1,200 m (4,000 ft).

B-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure B-2. Near-Surface Measurements for Suspended Solids

Concentrations of Various Hopper Dredges
B.3.2.4 A comparison of hopper dredge operations with and without overflow (Hayes,
Raymond, and McLellan 1984) indicated that, in the absence of overflow, a turbidity plume was
not encountered in the surface or middepth levels and that the maximum suspended sediment
level in the near-bottom plume was 70 mg/L.
B.3.2.5 Measurements of suspended sediment fields around hopper dredge operations are
summarized in Table B-3. Suspended sediment levels may be on the order of tens of g/L near the
hopper overflow and on the order of a few g/L or less near the draghead. Suspended sediment
levels in the near-surface plume decrease exponentially with distance from the dredge. However,
a plume may occasionally be perceptible at distances in excess of 1,200 m (4,000 ft), largely
because this type of dredge is in constant motion.

B-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table B-3. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields
During Hopper Dredging Operations
Location
San Francisco
Bay, CA

Suspended Sediment Field Characteristics

Suspended sediment concentrations in the near-bottom plume
were usually less than a few grams per liter while the upper nearsurface plume concentrations ranged from several hundred
milligrams per liter away from the dredge to several grams per
liter adjacent to the dredge overflow. Both plumes extended
700 m (2,300 ft) or more downcurrent. Silty clay.

Reference
U.S. Army
Engineer District,
San Francisco
(1976)

Saginaw Bay,
Lake Huron, MI

Near-surface suspended sediment concentrations ranged from

100 g/L at the dredge to near 80 mg/L 1,200 m (4,000 ft)
downstream. Overflow concentrations decreased exponentially
with distance from the dredge.

Pollack (1968)

Thimble Shoal,
Chesapeake
Bay

Near-surface suspended sediment concentrations ranged from

100 g/L at the dredge overflow to near 20 mg/L 850 m (2,800 ft)
downstream. Concentrations decreased exponentially with
distance from the dredge.

JBF Scientific
Corp. (1974)

Grays Harbor,
WA

In the absence of hopper overflow, the suspended sediment

Hayes, Raymond,
plume was restricted to the near-bottom waters and appeared to and McLellan
be 60 m wide (200 ft) and 1,100 m (3,600 ft) long with maximum (1984)
concentrations of 70 mg/L. In the presence of hopper overflow
the surface plume appeared to be 60 m (200 ft) wide and 1,200 m
(4,000 ft) long with concentrations reaching 857 mg/L at 30 m
(100 ft) behind the dredge. The near-bottom plume appeared to
be greater than 120 m (400 ft) wide and 2,600 m (8,500 ft) long
with concentrations as high as 891 mg/L and 460 mg/L at 30 m
(100 ft) and 60 m (200 ft) behind the dredge, respectively. Silty
clay.

B.3.3 Bucket (or clamshell) dredging.

B.3.3.1 The operational characteristics of clamshell and bucket dredges are described in
Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Program Management. Turbidity generated by a bucket
dredge operation comes from four major sources: sediment suspension occurring upon bucket
impact and withdrawal from the bottom, loss of material from the top and sides of a bucket as it
is pulled up through the water column, spillage of turbid water out of the bucket when it breaks
the water surface, and inadvertent spillage of material during barge loading or intentional
overflow operations intended to increase barge effective load. A number of variables can affect
the quantity of material suspended by the dredge, such as sediment type, bucket size and type
(open or enclosed), volume of sediment dredged, hoisting speed, and hydrodynamic conditions at
the dredging site.

B-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.3.3.2 Measurements of suspended sediment fields around bucket dredging operations
summarized in Table B-4 and in additional studies by Sustar, Wakeman, and Ecker (1976) and
Nakai (1978) suggest a general pattern for the spatial extent of sediment suspension. A typical
operation can produce a downstream turbidity plume that extends 300 m (1,000 ft) at the surface
and 500 m (1,600 ft) near the bottom (depth dependent). Maximum suspended sediment
concentrations in the surface plume are generally less than 500 mg/L above ambient in the
immediate vicinity of the operation and decrease rapidly with distance due to settling and
dilution of the material. Average surface water column concentrations are generally less than
100 mg/L, while near-bottom concentrations are usually higher. The visible surface plume
usually dissipates within an hour or two after the operation ceases, depending upon the type of
material being dredged.
Table B-4. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Suspended Sediment Fields
During Bucket Dredging Operations
Location
San Francisco
Bay, CA

Suspended Sediment Field Characteristics

Nearfield concentrations of total suspended sediments were 21282 mg/L.

San Francisco
Bay, CA

Suspended sediment concentrations in the water column 50 m

(165 ft) downstream from the dredge were generally less than
200 mg/L and averaged 30-90 mg/L relative to background
concentrations outside the plume of approximately 40 m/L. The
visible plume was about 300 m (1000 ft) long at the surface and
approximately 450 m (1,500 ft) long at a bottom depth of 10 m (33 ft).

Reference
Williamson
and Nelson
(1985)
U.S. Army
Engineer
District San
Francisco
(1976)

Lower Thames
Maximum suspended sediment concentrations of 68, 110, and
Bohlen and
River Estuary, CT 168 mg/L at the surface, mid depth (3 m [10 ft[), and near bottom
Tramontano
(10 m [33 ft]), respectively, were noted within 100 m (330 ft)
(1977)
downstream. These maximum concentrations decreased very rapidly
to the background levels of 5 mg/L within 300 m (1,000 ft) at the
surface and 500 m (1,650 ft) near the bottom. Fine-grain sands and
silts.
Lower Thames
Suspended sediment concentrations adjacent to the dredge were
River Estuary, CT 200-400 mg/L and approached background within approximately
700 m (2,300 ft). Major perturbations were confined within 300 m
(1,000 ft) of the dredge. Fine-grain sands and silts.

Bohlen,
Cundy, and
Tramontano
(1979)

New Haven
Harbor, CT

Suspended sediment plume (defined by transmissometer readings)

was a well-defined small-scale feature extending over a distance of
approximately 1,000 m (3,300 ft) downstream.

Gordon (1973)

Patapsco River,
MD

Suspended sediment concentrations 22 m (72 ft) downstream from

the dredging operation were 30 mg/L at near-bottom depths of 10 m
(33 ft) relative to background water column concentrations of
approximately 10 mg/L or less.
(continued)

Cronin et al.
(1976)

B-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Location
Japan

Suspended Sediment Field Characteristics

Maximum suspended sediment concentrations 7 m (23 ft)
downstream from the dredging operation ranged from 150 to
300 mg/L (defined using turbidity measurements) relative to
background levels of less than 30 mg/L. These levels decreased by
50% at a distance of 23 m (75 ft). Turbidity near the surface was
generally lower than levels at middepth or near the bottom. Finegrained.

Reference
Yagi, Koiwa,
and Miyazaki
(1977)

St. Johns River,

FL

Sediment resuspension caused by bucket dredges showed that the Raymond

plume downstream of a typical bucket operation may extend
(1983)
approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) at the surface and 450 m (1,500 ft)
near the bottom. The average suspended sediment concentrations of
all samples collected within 240 m (800 ft) of the dredge along upper
water column and near-bottom transects were approximately 106 and
134 mg/L, respectively. Silts.

St. Johns River,

FL

A comparison of suspended sediment concentrations from open and

enclosed bucket dredge operations showed considerable reductions
in suspended sediment concentrations in the upper water column
(>50%) but increases in concentrations in the lower water column
(>50%) due to shock waves created by the closed bucket. Silts.

Hayes,
Raymond, and
McLellan
(1984)

Thames River
Estuary, CT

The composition of material suspended by the dredge indicates that

variations are similar to those produced by local storm events. Storm
events affect a significantly larger area and display a higher
frequency of occurrence than that characterizing typical dredging
schedules. Both storm events and dredges increase particulate
organic carbon concentrations and bias the material composition in
favor of the inorganic fractions. Sands and silts.

Bohlen,
Cundy, and
Tramontano
(1979)

Patuxent River,
MD

Total suspended sediment concentrations measured before, during Onuschuk

and after dredging. Downstream stations showed increases of
(1982)
42 mg/L (1,200 m [4,000 ft]) and 25 mg/L (600 m[2,000 ft]); upstream
stations, 2 mg/L (1,000 ft) and 12 mg/L (2,000 ft). Postdredging
concentrations returned to predredging levels of 34.44 mg/L within 19
days. Clayey-silt.

B.3.3.3 Comparisons of open and watertight (or enclosed) bucket types indicate that
surface-water suspended sediment concentrations may be reduced by 30-70% by using an
enclosed bucket (Barnard 1978; Hayes, Raymond, and McLellan 1984). Near-bottom concentrations, however, were shown to increase by as much as 50-70% due to the effect of the
enclosed bucket as it descends through the water. A shock wave of water precedes the bucket
and serves to suspend loosened material prior to impact.
B.3.3.4 Bohlen, Cundy, and Tramontano (1979) describe bucket dredge-induced suspension
as primarily a near-field phenomenon representing a relatively small-scale perturbation within an
estuary. Sediment suspended by a dredge is likened to a small-scale storm that begins very
suddenly, increases the concentrations and modifies the quality of suspended sediment fields
compared with undisturbed conditions, and then produces a turbidity plume that decays very
B-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
rapidly following the reduction of energy required to suspend and maintain sediments in
suspension.
B.3.3.5 Welp et al. (2001) investigated sediment resuspension and loading characteristics of
a conventional (open-faced) clamshell bucket, an enclosed clamshell bucket, and a cable arm
clamshell bucket under similar operating and environmental conditions in Boston Harbor during
August 1999. Monitoring was conducted to characterize near and far-field sediment resuspension
characteristics of each bucket.
B.3.3.6 Turbidity observations were the primary near-field data collected during the study.
However, a limited number of discrete water samples were taken coincident with turbidity
readings. Thirty-three samples were collected and analyzed for total suspended solids to corroborate the turbidity data during the bucket operations. Turbidity can be used as a surrogate for TSS,
but it must be recognized that factors other than sediment concentration influence turbidity.
These factorswhich include particle size, shape, and organic contentcomplicate conversion
of turbidity measurements to TSS concentration. Although the data correlating turbidity and TSS
values in this study were scattered, they show a definite relationship: r2 = 0.65. Over 226,000
turbidity observations were collected during three partial days studying the three buckets. The
primary advantage of using turbidity is the rapid number of measurements that can be obtained at
very little additional cost per sample measurement. Additionally, the observations can be
monitored in real time to gather direct knowledge about the dredging operation itself. Turbidity
data collected during extended downtimes were assumed to represent background conditions and
used to adjust turbidity data. Measured ambient turbidity conditions are summarized in Table
B-5. The results show turbidity conditions with relatively small ranges and standard deviations.
These data seem to reasonably represent ambient turbidity conditions. Thus, average values were
subtracted from all other turbidity observations to adjust them for ambient conditions.
Table B-5. Summary of (Near-Field) Background Turbidity Statistics, FTU
Depth m/ft
1.5/4.9
5.5/18.0
8.0/26.2
10.5/34.4

Average
3.9
3.3
4.0
21.4

Standard Deviation
0.34
0.56
1.0
3.8

Minimum
3.0
2.2
2.7
13.3

Maximum
7.4
11.7
9.0
31.0

B.3.3.7 The turbidity measurements (adjusted for ambient turbidity conditions) of the cable
arm, enclosed, and conventional buckets are presented in Figures B-3, B-4, and B-5,
respectively. The vertical line inside the box represents the median turbidity while the shaded
box represents upper and lower quartiles on either side of the mean. The whiskers extend over
the range of observed data.
B.3.3.8 The conventional bucket generated the highest turbidity and suspended sediment,
probably because of erosion of sediments from the open top. The depth-averaged turbidity for
the conventional bucket was 57.2 formazin turbidity units (FTUs), and suspended solids
concentration was 210 mg/L (not adjusted for ambient TSS). Consistent with a prior study
(McLellan et al. 1989), the conventional bucket distributed turbidity throughout the water

B-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
column. The TSS ranged from 105 mg/L in the middle of the water column to 445 mg/L near the
bottom. Average turbidity varied a bit less and ranged from 46 to 64 FTU.

Figure B-3. Turbidity Measurement

of a Cable Arm Bucket

Figure B-4. Turbidity Measurement

of an Enclosed Bucket

Figure B-5. Turbidity Measurement

of a Conventional Bucket

B-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.3.3.9 Although both the cable arm and enclosed buckets leaked substantially through the
seals and grated vents in the upper part of the buckets, neither resulted in as much turbidity or
TSS as did the conventional bucket. The depth-averaged turbidities for the cable arm and
enclosed buckets were 31 FTU and 12 FTU, respectively, and their depth-averaged TSS values
were, respectively, 31 mg/L and 50 mg/L (compared with 210 mg/L for the conventional
bucket). Six water samples were collected for TSS analysis for the cable arm bucket. However,
uncharacteristically only four samples were used to calculate the TSS depth-averaged value
because two of these samples were taken at a time when excessive debris was being encountered,
keeping the bucket from closing properly and, thus, leading to high TSS values (200+ mg/L),.
B.3.3.10 The most significant difference was in the middle water column, where turbidity
values were substantially less than at the bottom and near the surface. Turbidity for the cable arm
bucket ranged from 6 to 55 FTU, and TSS from 14 mg/L to 66 mg/L. The enclosed bucket
resulted in turbidity from 1 to 31 FTU and TSS from 14 to 112 mg/L.
B.3.4 Barge and hopper overflow.
B.3.4.1 The process of overflow usually involves the intentional loading of sediment-laden
water beyond the capacity of the barge or hopper in an effort to increase the effective solids
content within the vessel. The basic assumption behind the practice is that, given time, heavier
sediment particles will settle out within the barge or hopper, and relatively low-solids water can
be displaced by additional material. In the case of barges, the material simply flows over the
gunnel. In hopper dredges, multiple inflow pipes and hopper compartments and baffles act to
reduce the flow rate of water and sediments after they enter the vessel, thereby enhancing
settling. Overflow from hopper dredges comes from a point farthest from the inflow after most of
the heavier sediment particles have settled out.
B.3.4.2 Measurements of suspended sediment fields around hopper dredge overflow
operations have been reported by Barnard (1978); Hayes, Raymond, and McLellan (1984); Hayes
(1986); Havis (1988a); McLellan et al. (1989); and Palermo and Randall (1990). Similar data are
available on barge overflow activities associated with cutterhead (Clarke et al. 1990) and bucket
dredge operations (Payonk, Palermo, and Teeter 1988; Palermo, Teeter, and Homziak 1990).
B.3.4.3 Overflow events can increase suspended sediment levels throughout the water
column. Hopper dredge operations with overflow, as previously mentioned for Grays Harbor,
WA (Hayes, Raymond, and McLellan 1984), can increase levels by 200 mg/L at the surface and
1,000 mg/L near the bottom. Turbidity plumes can extend from the dredge by as much as a few
hundred meters at the surface and a few thousand meters along the bottom. Overflow tests (fine
silts and clays) associated with a cutterhead operation in Mobile Bay, AL (Clarke et al. 1990),
showed maximum levels of 60 mg/L for the surface and 6,000 mg/L along the bottom, with most
levels falling below these. A study of overflow associated with a bucket dredge operation (silts
and clays) in the Cape Fear River, NC (Payonk, Palermo, and Teeter 1988), reported maximum
levels of suspended sediment (above background) of 87 mg/L for surface and 162 mg/L along
the bottom at a distance of 100 m (330 ft) downstream. Another evaluation of clamshell dredging
and barge overflow in Sunny Point, NC, (Palermo, Teeter, and Homziak 1990) concluded that
the average suspended solids concentration of samples in the plume generated by dredging was

B-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
47 mg/L above background while that for the plumes generated by dredging with overflow was
65 mg/L above background.
B.3.4.4 Overall, overflow events can increase suspended sediment concentrations by as
much as 100 mg/L at the surface and 1,000 mg/L along the bottom, with suspended sediment
plumes extending a few hundred meters downstream for cutterhead and bucket dredges (stationary operations) and a few thousand meters for hopper dredges (mobile operations).
B.3.5 Dustpan dredge. The operational characteristics of a dustpan dredge are described in
Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management. The suspended solids concentration
in the vicinity of a dustpan dredge depends on the type of soil being dredged. In the case of freeflowing sand, the turbidity developed for the dustpan dredge can be very small. Significant
turbidity is expected at the bottom because of the water jets. In 1982, Amalgamated Dredge
Design carried out dredging tests using a modified dustpan on the James River, Norfolk, VA, for
the USACE. Preliminary analysis indicated that turbidity was as high for the dustpan dredge as
for the cutterhead. The low output and high turbidity of the dustpan dredge were attributed to the
very poor hydraulic radius of the dustpan head, especially when pumping plastic clay. A
comparison of the turbidity generated by cutterhead and dustpan dredges in the James River
showed that there was no clear advantage to using a dustpan dredge over a cutterhead dredge.
B.3.6 Dredge comparisons.
B.3.6.1 The suspended sediment fields around the three commonly used dredge types can be
described in general terms of the range of concentrations at surface and bottom and the range of
spatial dispersion away from the dredge (Table B-6). Overall, the cutterhead dredge seems to
produce the least amount of suspended sediments, followed by the hopper dredge without
overflow, and finally the bucket dredge (Wakeman, Sustar, and Dickson 1975; Hayes, Raymond,
and McLellan 1984; Raymond 1984). The spatial extent of the plume is greatest for bucket and
hopper dredges in both surface and bottom waters. Comparing dredges operating in clay,
however, Herbich and Brahme (as cited in Raymond 1984) reported that sediment suspension
was similar for a hopper dredge without overflow and a cutterhead dredge, while a bucket dredge
could produce about 2.5 times as much sediment suspension. Observed differences among
dredge types are largely attributable to the mode of operation of the two general types of dredges
(mechanical and hydraulic) as well as operational parameters. Regardless of the type of dredge
used, a number of dredge modifications and operational adjustments have been suggested to
control sediment suspension (Barnard 1978; Raymond 1984).
Table B-6. General Characteristics of Suspended Sediment (SS) Fields Around Three
Commonly Used Dredge Types
SS Concentrations, mg/L
SS Plume Length, m/ft
Dredge Type
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Cutterhead
0-150
<500
0-100/0-330
<500/1,600
Hopper*
0-100
<500
0-700/0-2,300
<1,200/3,900
Bucket
0-700
<1,100
100-600/330-2,000
<1,000/3,300
Sources: Barnard 1978; Raymond 1984; and McLellan et al. 1989
* Without overflow

B-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.3.6.2 Worst-case suspended sediment fields for each dredge type, including a hopper
dredge operation with overflow, are shown in Figure B-6. A generalized worst-case field was
described by LaSalle (1990) as having suspended sediment concentrations greater than or equal
to 500 mg/L at distances greater than or equal to 500 m (1,600 ft) from the dredge, with
maximum concentrations generally restricted to the lower water column within 50 (165 ft) to 100
m (330), decreasing with distance.

Figure B-6. Worst-Case Suspended Sediment Fields for each Dredge Type
B.3.6.3 Bohlen, Cundy, and Tramontano (1979) described the field around a bucket dredge
as a near-field phenomenon and compared it to that produced by storm surges. They pointed out
that a single storm surge can introduce baywide as much as 2.5 times the quantities of sediment
resuspended by a dredge into the water column, that a storm affects the entire body of water, and
that major storms can occur up to four times per year. A dredge, on the other hand, affects a
much smaller portion of a given system. Dredging operations have also been compared to other
anthropogenic activities that can generate suspended sediments, including shrimp trawling, in the
range of 500 to 600 mg/L (Schubel, Carter, and Wise 1979), and ship traffic (Slotta et al. 1973),
which affects a given channel year-round.
B.4 Measures to Reduce Sediment Resuspension.
B.4.1 Fine-grained drained material. One of the major concerns about dredging operations
involves the possible environmental impact associated with the resuspension and subsequent
dispersion of fine-grained dredged material. This concern is particularly significant considering
the fact that the vast majority of potentially toxic chemical contaminants present in bottom
sediments is associated with the fine-grained fraction, which is most susceptible to dispersion
(Barnard 1978). Under certain environmentally or aesthetically sensitive circumstances, control
of this dispersion may be advisable. Various measures and devices used to reduce sediment
resuspension in the dredging process for different types of dredges are briefly described in the
following paragraphs.

B-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.4.2 Factors controlling resuspension. The nature, degree, and extent of dredged material
dispersion around a dredging operation are controlled by many factors, as indicated previously.
The relative importance of these factors varies from site to site. The sediment resuspension and
its dispersion would be different depending upon the type of dredge and the dredging operation,
the nature of the bed material, and the environmental conditions. The skills of the operator are
also very important.
B.4.3 Cutterhead dredges.
B.4.3.1 Huston and Huston (1976) discussed in detail the various measures to reduce
sediment resuspension by the present dredges and dredging procedures. Design of the cutterhead
assumes great importance in the production and sediment resuspension by the dredge during the
dredging process. The dredge suction, which picks up the material that has been cut by the cutter,
can be partially responsible for sediment resuspension around the cutter if the energy provided to
the suction by the dredge pump is not great enough to pick up all of the material disturbed by the
cutter. Water-jet booster systems or ladder-mounted submerged pumps installed on cutterhead
dredges have been found to enhance the pickup capability of the dredge, increase the slurry
density and potential production rate, and decrease sediment resuspension (Barnard 1978).
According to Huston and Huston (1976), a proper cutter-suction combination can help achieve
the necessary increase in output and reduction in sediment resuspension.
B.4.3.2 The operational parameters of the cutterheadsuch as the cutter rotation rate, swing
rate, and thickness of the cutaffect sediment resuspension at the cutter and must be controlled
relative to the production of the dredge. After studying in detail the operational techniques of
cutterhead dredges, Huston and Huston (1976) found that the levermans techniques for
operating a dredge assume great importance in increasing production and minimizing sediment
resuspension. These techniques are given by Barnard (1978) as follows:
a. Large sets and very thick cuts should be avoided since they tend to bury the cutter and
may cause high levels of suspended solids if the suction cannot pick up all of the dislodged
material.
b. The leverman should swing the dredge so that the cutter covers as much of the bottom as
possible. This action minimizes the formation of windrows or ridges of partially disturbed
material between the cuts; these windrows tend to slough into the cuts and may be susceptible to
resuspension by ambient currents and turbulence caused by the cutter. Windrow formation can
be eliminated by swinging the dredge in close, concentric arcs over the dredging area. This may
involve either modifying the basic stepping methods used to advance the dredge or using a
wagger or spud carriage system.
c. Side slopes of channels are usually dredged by making a vertical box cut; the material
on the upper half of the cut then sloughs to the specified slope, which should be cut by making a
series of smaller boxes. This method, called stepping the slope, will not eliminate all sloughing,
but it will help reduce it.
d. On some dredging projects, it may be more economical to roughly cut and remove most
of the material, leaving a relatively thin layer for final cleanup after the project has been roughed

B-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
out. This remaining material may be subject to resuspension by ambient currents or propwash
from passing ship traffic.
e. When layer cutting is used, the dredge removes a single layer of material over a large
portion of the channel; the dredge is then set back to dredge another layer. This continues down
to the required depth of the project. Since loose material is often left on the bottom after each
layer is dredged, this technique should be used only where resuspension of the remaining
material will not create serious problems.
f. The propwash from the tenders (tugboats) used to move anchors, sections of pipeline,
barges, and the dredge itself can resuspend a great deal of bottom material, especially in shallow
water adjacent to the channel. Although propwash cannot be eliminated, oversize tenders should
not be used in shallow-water areas.
g. In addition to propwash, significant resuspension of bottom material often occurs when
the anchors used in support of the operation are dragged along the bottom while the dredge is
being moved to a new location. Anchor dragging should be avoided.
h. During the course of a typical operation, the length of the pipeline may have to be
adjusted by adding or removing sections. Before the pipeline is broken, it should be flushed
thoroughly with water, not only to prevent clogging when pumping is resumed, but also to
maintain low turbidity levels around it. Obvious leaks from poorly sealed ball joints between
pipeline sections should also be repaired.
B.4.4 Hopper dredges.
B.4.4.1 In the case of hopper dredges, the most obvious source of near-surface turbidity is
the overflow water. Japan has developed a relatively simple submerged discharge system for
hopper dredge overflow (Ofuji and Naoshi 1976). The overflow collection system in the dredge
was streamlined to minimize incorporation of air bubbles, and the overflow discharge ports were
moved from the sides to the bottom of the dredge hull. With this arrangement, the slurry
descends rapidly to the bottom with a minimum amount of dispersion within the water column.
The system can be incorporated in the existing dredges through simple modifications of existing
overflow systems.
B.4.4.2 There are various other techniques by which the turbidity in the overflow of the
hopper is reduced. One of the techniques is to reduce the flow rate of the slurry being pumped
into the hoppers during the latter phases of the hopper-filling operation (deBree 1977). By using
this technique, the solids content of the overflow can be decreased substantiallyfrom 200 to
100 mg/L or less (Barnard 1978)while the loading efficiency of the dredge is simultaneously
increased. Among other techniques, increasing the rate of settling of sediments in the hopper by
adding flocculant has been attempted by several researchers (Barnard 1978). These techniques,
however, have not been found to be very effective, primarily because of the high solids content
of the slurry (Barnard 1978).
B.4.4.3 In the case of trailing suction hopper dredges, turbidity resulting from overflow is
generated at the surface whereas turbidity caused by the draghead pulling through the soil is

B-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
along the bottom. The turbidity generated at the draghead is low compared with that at the overflow. At present, no techniques can be found in the literature to reduce turbidity generated at the
dragheads.
B.5 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Reduction and Contaminant Mobilization.
B.5.1 Dissolved oxygen reduction.
B.5.1.1 Dredging-induced dissolved oxygen (DO) reduction in the water column around a
dredge or placement operation is a direct consequence of the suspension of anoxic sediment
material and results in the creation of both chemical and biological oxygen demands. Available
information about DO depletion around dredged material placement operations (Biggs 1970;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1970; May 1974; Slotta et al. 1973; Westley et al. 1973; Smith et
al. 1976; Wright, Mathis, and Brannon 1978) suggests that within the placement plume levels in
DO reach zero, but that DO depletion is often difficult to detect from background away from the
plume. Dissolved oxygen depletion around dredging operations has been reported at varying
levels (Brown and Clark 1968; Slotta et al. 1973; Markey and Putnam 1976; Smith et al. 1976;
Sustar, Wakeman, and Ecker 1976; U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, 1982; Lunz, LaSalle,
and Houston 1988; Houston, LaSalle, and Lunz 1989).
B.5.1.2 DO levels around a bucket dredge were depleted in a highly industrialized channel
in New York (Brown and Clark 1968) by 16-83% in the middle-to-upper water column and by as
much as 100% in near-bottom waters. A cutterhead dredge operation in Grays Harbor, WA
(Smith et al. 1976), caused periodic reductions in bottom water DO by as much as 2.9 mg/L
(about 35% of ambient). Reduction in DO (from 1.5 to 3.5 mg/L and from 25% to 30% of
ambient) associated with a hopper dredge operation in a tidal slough in Oregon (U.S. Army
Engineer District, Portland, 1982) was restricted to slack-water conditions in the lower third of
the water column. When tidal flow resumed (within 2 hours), DO levels increased by as much as
2 mg/L under floodwater conditions. The effect of a bucket dredge operation on DO in the
Hudson River, NY (Lunz, LaSalle, and Houston 1988; Houston, LaSalle, and Lunz 1989), was
minimal (generally <0.2 mg/L) in the immediate vicinity of the dredge during dredging. Percent
DO saturation on a baywide basis was also minimally reduced (by 10%) corresponding to a drop
in DO of about 1 mg/L. Other studies have reported minimal or no measurable reduction in DO
around dredges (Slotta et al. 1973; Markey and Putnam 1976; Sustar, Wakeman, and Ecker
1976).
B.5.1.3 A review of the processes associated with DO reduction (Lunz and LaSalle 1986)
suggested that DO demand is a function of the amount of suspended sediment being placed into
the water column, the oxygen demand of the sediment, and the duration of resuspension. While
the high levels of suspended sediment (tens of grams) associated with the fluid mud layer of
placement operations may reduce DO levels substantially, the relatively low levels of suspended
sediment associated with a cutterhead operation are predicted to have a relatively small effect on
DO (Lunz and LaSalle 1986).
B.5.1.4 Efforts to predict DO depletion around dredging operations (Lunz and LaSalle 1986;
Lunz, LaSalle, and Houston 1988) have been based on the assumption that any reduction in DO
is the direct consequence of oxidation of suspended reduced constituents in anoxic sediments.

B-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Two basic models of DO reduction have been developed, differing only in the kinds of material
causing DO demand and the relative time interval over which the reactions are expected to occur.
One model was based on levels of total organic carbon (TOC) and an estimated relationship with
volatile solids, which can act over hours or days. A second model was based on measurements of
the most commonly encountered reactive chemical components found in estuarine sediments
(ferrous iron and free sulfides), which would create an immediate oxygen demand.
B.5.1.5 Both models predicted minimal DO depletion (from 0.5 to 1.9 mg/L) around a
bucket dredge operation. Results of actual monitoring of DO around a dredge (Houston, LaSalle,
and Lunz 1989) showed minimal (<0.2 mg/L) immediate DO depletion in the immediate vicinity
of the dredge, which was difficult to detect relative to background fluctuations of as much as
1 mg/L. Baywide monitoring, however, showed slightly greater levels of DO depletion (measured as percent saturation) by as much as 10% (about 1 mg/L). Predicted values based on iron
and sulfur levels appeared to be a better predictor of immediate reductions while those based on
TOC appeared to be a better predictor of baywide conditions. Given the relatively low levels of
suspended material generated by dredging operations and considering factors such as flushing
(not accounted for in either model), DO depletion around these operations should be minimal.
B.5.2 Chemical contaminant mobilization.
B.5.2.1 The release of naturally occurring (such as nutrients, sulfides, and iron) and industrially derived (such as metals, organohalogens, and pesticides) substances by the suspension of
sediments during dredging or dredged material placement is of particular interest when
contaminated sediments are known or suspected to be involved. As with DO reduction, most
available information comes from studies of dredged material placement (reviewed by Lee et al.
1975; Chen et al. 1976; Burks and Engler 1978; Stern and Stickle 1978), which indicate that the
levels are generally low and that releases are highly transient. The processes involved with the
fate of these compounds have been studied, and Lunz and LaSalle (1986) provide a condensed
review of the information concerning these processes and associated controlling factors.
B.5.2.2 In general, most metals and other compounds are generally not readily available in a
soluble form in the water column, but only as part of an iron complex or in association with
organic matter and clays (Windom 1972, 1976; May 1974). Reduced iron, once oxidized during
suspension of sediment material, actively scavenges metals and other compounds. As these
compounds settle to the bottom, they are again reduced under anoxic conditions. Similar
associations of chlorinated hydrocarbons with silts, clays, and organic detritus also limit their
availability as soluble forms.
B.5.2.3 The effect of release of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus via sediment
suspension varies. Both beneficial (stimulated photosynthesis) and detrimental (excessive biological growth, ammonia toxicity) effects have been documented in aquatic ecosystems.
B.5.2.4 Direct measurements of chemical releases around dredging operations are reported
in Smith et al. (1976), Wakeman (1977), Tramontano and Bohlen (1984), and Havis (1988b).
Wakeman (1977) reported significantly higher concentrations of four metals in San Francisco
Bay. Average concentrations (filtered water) above background in surface samples were 0. 16
mg/L for zinc, 0.01 mg/L for lead, 0.03 mg/L for chromium, and 0.01 mg/L for nickel. Bottom

B-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
sample levels were 0.05 mg/L for chromium and 0.08 mg/L for nickel. Copper and mercury
levels were unaffected by dredging. Smith et al. (1976) observed elevated concentrations of
sulfides (range 3.9 to 1,690 g/L) in Grays Harbor, with levels generally <50 g/L. Tramontano
and Bohlen (1984) observed elevated quantities of phosphate, ammonia, and silica in nearbottom waters within 180 m of the dredge and elevated amounts of manganese and copper within
12 m; cadmium levels were unaffected. While concentrations of these compounds in the
immediate vicinity of the dredge (3-6 m [10-20 ft]) exceeded background levels by as much as
2-9 times, the absolute levels remained low: 17.1 M/L for ammonia, 1.0 M/L for phosphate,
14.5 M/L for silica, 0.4 M/L for manganese, and 0.1 M/L for copper. These authors also
suggested that, when compared with background levels of the whole system, dredging operations
would increase these constituents by no more than 2% for ammonia, 1% for phosphate, 0.5% for
silica, 0.1% for manganese, and 0.2% for copper. Studies of release of contaminants associated
with dredging of contaminated sediments at three sites (Havis 1988a) serve to provide some
comparative information (Table B-7). Relative levels for chemical species common between
sites were similar.
Table B-7. Average Concentrations (mg/L, Absolute Values) of Selected Contaminants
Released During Dredging of Contaminated Sediments
Site
Black Rock Harbor, CT
Duwamish River, WA
James River, VA
Source: Havis 1988a

Zn
0.03
0.02
0.002

Pb
0.003
0.007
0.009

Compound
Cd
Hg
As
0.001 0.0001 0.01

Cu
0.01
0.002
0.01 0.003

Cr
Ni
0.001 0.01

Mn
0.12

Fe
0.70

B.6 Biological Considerations.

B.6.1 This paragraph summarizes the available technical literature concerning impacts to
biological resources from physical and chemical environmental alterations associated with
dredging activities (primarily from LaSalle 1990). Clarke and Wilber (2000) summarize the
known biological responses of estuarine and coastal fish and shellfish to suspended sediments
and relate these findings to suspended sediment conditions associated with dredging projects. An
objective approach toward evaluation of sediment resuspension impacts, which requires full
consideration of the following, is proposed:
a. The existing state of knowledge concerning the effects of suspended sediments on fish
and shellfish, including recognition of the gaps therein.
b. Concentration-exposure duration combinations likely to be encountered by organisms in
the vicinity of dredging operations.
Exposure of organisms to sediments in the water column will be addressed first, and effects of
deposited sediments will be treated separately later.

B-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.6.2 Wilber et al. (2005) summarize the current scientific literature with emphasis on
effects of uncontaminated, bedded sediments on estuarine and marine organisms. This review
consolidates existing information on sedimentation effects, identifies aspects of natural and
anthropogenic sedimentation processes that may be problematic, and identifies gaps in the
current state of knowledge necessary for prudent dredging project management and resource
protection.
B.6.3 While the understanding of the potential effects of far-field sediment deposition is
limited, some estuarine organisms may be highly sensitive to suspended sediments. Certain life
stages (eggs, juveniles) may be particularly affected by resuspension and deposition. Germano
and Cary (2005) review potential impacts of sedimentation (bedded materials) with emphasis on
those habitats believed to be most sensitive.
B.6.4 Major classes of alterations include suspended sediments, sedimentation, chemical
release, DO reduction, channel blockage, and entrainment. Major categories of biological
resources include fishes, shrimps and crabs, shellfishes (for example, oysters and clams), benthic
assemblages, a miscellaneous group that includes threatened or endangered species (for example,
marine mammals and sea turtles), and colonial-nesting birds.
B.6.5 Of these alterations, the bulk of available information comes from studies of effects of
suspended sediments, sedimentation, and to some degree, entrainment. For this reason, information on these classes of alterations is presented under each of the major categories of resources
except endangered species, for which there is a unique set of alterations. Each section on a given
class of alteration includes a brief summary and general conclusions. For the remaining classes
of alterations, discussions are based largely on the potential effects of these alterations and
available information on the degree of each. It should be noted that these discussions are
presented not as exhaustive reviews of all available information but for the purpose of providing
pertinent information relative to dredging issues. Morton (1977), Allen and Hardy (1980),
Profiles Research and Consulting Groups, Inc. (1980), and Kantor (1984) provide similar
reviews on these topics. When references giving more extensive information on a given topic are
available, they are listed in the text.
B.6.6 An attempt has been made to separate discussions of various effects by life history
stage, when possible. The reason for this approach is to emphasize the realization that the early
life history stages of most organisms are generally more sensitive or susceptible to environmental alterations than are adult stages. Therefore, it is important to consider effects on each life
stage when reviewing a project.
B.7 Effects of Environmental Alterations on Fishes.
B.7.1 Introduction.
B.7.1.1 The ultimate survival and strength of a given year class of fishes are determined
largely by events that occur during egg and larval developmental stages. The relative success or
failure of transitions through critical phases, such as at the time of first extrogenous feeding (that
is, deriving nutrition from planktonic prey rather than yolk reserves) or during metamorphosis
from larval to juvenile form, can be influenced by extant environmental conditions. In

B-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
comparison with juvenile and adult fishes, egg and larval stages seem generally more sensitive to
stress of whatever origin (Rosenthal and Alderdice 1976). Also, because of their dependence on
local hydrodynamic conditions for transport into and out of project areas and limited or nonexistent escape capabilities, egg and larval stages have been asserted to be more susceptible to
the effects of unfavorable environmental conditions than motile juvenile and adult life history
stages (Auld and Schubel 1978). As a result, resource agency concerns over detrimental effects
of dredging and placement operations have focused on how environmental alterations affect egg
and larval stages of marine and estuarine species. In addition, concerns regarding anadromous
fishes involve the supposition that turbidity fields constitute a barrier to migration of adult and
juvenile fishes and a concern about entrainment of eggs, larvae, and juveniles by hydraulic
dredges.
B.7.1.2 Two basic reproductive patterns that occur among fishes are important
considerations in relation to dredging operations. Many coastal or estuarine-dependent species
produce pelagic eggs (free-floating, unattached, or in gelatinous masses), which, depending on
their specific gravities, may occur at various levels in the water column from surface to bottom.
Potential impacts on pelagic eggs may therefore be related to both spatial distributions of suspended sediments and duration of exposure to specific concentrations. In the case of most
estuarine-dependent species, however, this life stage occurs in offshore water away from most
dredging and placement operations. Other fish species, including anadromous species, produce
demersal, nonbuoyant eggs that may either adhere to substrates at the spawning site, and therefore remain in place for short to extended periods prior to larval hatching and release, or are
carried downstream in bottom currents. In addition to the problem of exposure duration,
demersal eggs may be subject to burial by accumulated deposited sediments and/or entrainment
by suction dredges.
B.7.2 Suspended sediments.
B.7.2.1 The causal factors by which suspended sediments affect eggs and larval fishes are
complex. Cairns (1968) provided a detailed summary of these factors, which include direct
mechanical abrasion of egg and larval surficial membranes, reduction of available light in the
water column, and sorption of contaminants carried by the sediments. Indirect effects of elevated
suspended sediments may also be of consequence. Examples include interference with feeding
behavior of visually oriented larvae or delayed development resulting in asynchronous occurrences of larvae and their prey. Very little is known of the importance of synergistic effects
resulting from combinations of causal factors or how physical features of the suspended particles, such as size or angularity, contribute to the effects observed. Stresses caused by chemical,
physical, or biological conditions may be manifested in chronic rather than acute biological
responses (Sherk 1972), further complicating the determination of detrimental effects.
B.7.2.2 Given these complexities, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions from published
studies on effects of suspended sediments on fish eggs and larvae. Because they do not produce
accurate quantitative mortality estimates, information that is critical to assessing project impacts
(Dovel 1970), field studies have yielded largely inconclusive results (for example, Flemer et al.
1967). The dual constraints of logistics and the inability of field designs to isolate effects of
experimental factors have relegated meaningful studies to the laboratory.

B-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.7.2.3 A meaningful summary of laboratory results is hindered by the lack of standardization in experimental protocol (for example, selection of test concentrations, exposure
durations, or suspensions of natural versus processed sediments) and equipment used to maintain
sediments in suspension. A review of studies evaluating suspended sediment effects on fish eggs
and larvae is provided by Schubel, Williams, and Wise (1977). A number of pertinent references
on this issue are products of investigations in the upper Chesapeake Bay system, particularly in
connection with striped bass spawning grounds in the vicinity of the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal (Schubel and Wang 1973; Auld and Schubel 1978; Priest 1981; Morgan, Rasin, and Noe
1983). Table B-8, although not a comprehensive compilation, represents a sample of the results
of relevant investigations.
B.7.2.4 Laboratory studies have focused on three aspects of responses of fish eggs and
larvae to elevated, suspended concentrations. Effects have been demonstrated at various levels of
suspended sediment concentrations in terms of percent successful hatch of eggs, time elapsed
between fertilization and hatching, and percent survival of larvae after known durations of
exposure. For example, Schubel, Williams, and Wise (1977) concluded that striped bass eggs
(semibuoyant) can tolerate very high suspended sediment levels (1,000 mg/L) for periods of
many hours. Similarly, Kiorboe et al. (1981) reported that embryonic development and hatching
of herring (Clupea harengus) were unaffected by either long-term exposure (10 days) to low to
moderate concentrations (5 to 300 mg/L) of suspended silt or short-term exposure (2 hours) to
higher concentrations (500 mg/L) of silt.
B.7.2.5 There is some indication that larval stages may be more sensitive to elevated
suspended sediment concentrations than are eggs of the same species. For example, Auld and
Schubel (1978) reported that striped bass, yellow perch, and American shad larvae were less
tolerant than eggs of these respective species at equivalent experimental suspended sediment
concentrations. This trend may be attributable to loss of protection provided by the chorion
(outer egg membrane) upon hatching of the larvae (Boehlert 1984). Additionally, many fish larvae are highly dependent on the epidermis as a respiratory surface. Adhesion of sediment particles to the epidermis may exert a smothering effect although adhesion was noted by Boehlert
(1984) only at concentrations above 1,000 mg/L, which is well above that found in dredging
operations. Priest (1981) critically reviewed the literature pertaining to effects of total suspended
solids on fish eggs. He concluded that for the four species considered, the only effect caused by
the highest levels of suspended solids expected at a dredging operation was a slight delay in time
to hatching. Lethal concentrations sufficient to produce a 50% mortality in laboratory
experiments of larvae of the studied species were far in excess of levels characteristic of
dredging operations.

B-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table B-8. Results of Experimental Determinations of Effects of Suspended Sediments on
Various Life History Stages of Fishes (modified from Priest 1981)

Species
Stage
Yellow perch Eggs
White perch
Striped bass
Alewife

Suspended
Sediment
Concentration Exposure Type of
mg/L
Duration Sediment Degree of Effect
500
Not
Natural No significant effect on
stated
hatching success; some time
delay in hatching noted in
samples at ~100 mg/L (all
species)

White perch

Eggs

50-5,250

Not
stated

Natural
(fine)

No significant effect on
hatching success; definite
delay in development at
>1,500 mg/L

Striped bass

Eggs

20-2,300

Not
stated

Natural
(fine)

No significant effect on
hatching success; definite
delay in development at
>1,300 mg/L

Atlantic
herring

Eggs

5-300
500

10 days Natural
2 hrs

No significant effect on
development or hatching
success

Blueback
Eggs
herring
Alewife
American
shad
Yellow perch

50-5,000

Not
stated

Natural
(fine)

No significant effect on
hatching success at all test
concentrations

White perch

Eggs

50-5,000

Not
stated

Natural
(fine)

Significant effect on hatching

success at 1,000 mg/L, but
not at lower concentrations

Striped bass

Eggs

50-5,000

Not
stated

Natural
(fine)

Significant effect on hatching

success at 1,000 mg/L, but
not at lower concentrations

White perch

Larvae 1,626-5,380

24-48 hrs Natural

(fine)
(continued)

B-25

15-49% mortality

Reference
Schubel and
Wang
(1973)

Morgan,
Rasin, and
Noe (1983)

Kiorboe et
al. (1981)

Auld and
Schubel
(1978)

Morgan,
Rasin and
Noe (1983)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
Striped bass

Suspended
Sediment
Concentration Exposure Type of
Stage mg/L
Duration Sediment Degree of Effect
Larvae 1,557-5,210 24-48 hrs Natural 20-57% mortality
(fine)

Yellow perch Larvae 50-1,000

4 days

Striped bass

Larvae 50-1,000

2-3 days Natural

Survival significantly reduced

at >500 mg/L

Alewife

Larvae 50-1,000

4 days

Natural

Survival significantly reduced

at >500 mg/L

24 hr

Artificial
Natural
Artificial
Natural
Artificial
Artificial
Artificial
Natural
Artificial

LC 10

Sherk,
OConnor,
and
Neumann
(1975)

21 days Natural

LC 10

Peddicord
and
McFarland
(1978)
Rogers
(1969)

Spot
Adult
Striped
killifish
Mummichog
Atlantic
silverside
Bay anchovy
White perch

13,090
68,750
23,770
97,200
24,470
580
2,300
9,970
3,050

Natural

Reference

Survival significantly reduced Auld and

at >500 mg/L
Schubel
(1978)

Striped bass

Subadult

4,000

Cunner

Adult

133,000
100,000
72,000

12 hr
24 hr
48 hr

Natural
(silt)

Median tolerance limit

Mummichog

Adult

300,000

24 hr

Natural
(silt)

No mortality

Sheepshead Adult
Minnow

300,000

24 hr

Natural
(silt)

< 30% mortality

Cunner

Adult

100,000

24 hr

Natural
(silt)

Median tolerance limit

Stickleback

Adult

52,000

24 hr

Natural
(silt)

Median tolerance limit

B-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.7.2.6 Mechanical abrasion has been identified by Cairns (1968) as an important suspended sediment effect, yet little attention has been given to differential effects of sediments of
different particle characteristics. The premise here is that delicate surficial membranes such as
gills or the epidermis of larval fishes are particularly susceptible to abrasive damage. Several
lines of evidence support this view. Rogers (1969) reported that processed sediments (highly
angular incinerator residues) were much more toxic to experimental fishes than were naturally
weathered estuarine sediments. Coarse sediments were also shown to exert greater detrimental
effects on fish survival rates than fine sediments of equal concentration. Boehlert (1984)
compared the effects of natural, weathered estuarine sediments to those of sharp, angular
Mount St. Helens volcanic ash on yolk sac larvae of Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi).
Severe abrasion and puncture damage of larval epidermal membranes were observed via light
and electron microscopy at volcanic ash concentrations of 1,000 mg/L whereas comparable
effects were evident for natural sediments only at concentrations at or above 4,000 mg/L (all
larvae exposed to experimental concentrations for 24 hours). Although larvae did not show
significant mortality at any experimental concentration (up to 8,000 mg/L), observed effects
could represent sublethal stress that may contribute to later mortality.
B.7.2.7 Although juvenile forms might be suspected to be somewhat less tolerant of
elevated suspended sediment concentrations than adults, the literature is sparse and incomplete
on the direct physical effects of elevated suspended sediment concentrations on juvenile stages.
Wallen (1951) exposed both adults and juveniles of a number of freshwater fish species to a wide
range of silt-clay suspensions, all of which were well above concentrations found under typical
dredging conditions. While results for juveniles were not presented separately, he concluded that
direct effects of turbidity due to montmorillonite (hydrous aluminum silicate) type silt-clay is not
a lethal condition and seldom produced observable symptoms in juvenile or adult fish. Sherk,
OConnor, and Neumann (1975), working with juvenile Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia
tyrannus), determined that a lethal concentration producing 10% mortality (LC 10 value) of
1,540 mg/L was obtained after a 24-hour exposure to Fullers earth (a combination of clay and
siliceous material). Jeane and Pine (1975) compared the effects of elevated turbidities at dredging sites characterized by suspension of fine versus coarse sediments through in situ bioassays
using juvenile chinook salmon. No significant mortality was observed among juveniles exposed
to fine sediment suspensions. Exposure to coarse sediments led to mortalities, but these were
greater at stations away from the actual dredging site. This led the authors to suggest that toxic
contaminants or some other artifact confounded the results.
B.7.2.8 Determination of direct physical effects of elevated suspended sediment concentrations on adult fishes lends itself to both field and laboratory examination. As a result, a
considerable body of relevant literature exists (Table B-8). Interpretation of this literature, however, is limited by the lack of standardization among experiments and differing experimental protocols. The most widely used approach employs basic bioassays in which fishes are exposed to
incremental concentrations of suspended sediments until some lethal concentration is
determined, generally that which produces a 10% or 50% mortality (LC 10 or LC 50 ) after a specified period (for example, Sherk, OConnor, and Neumann 1975; OConnor, Neumann, and
Sherk 1976; Peddicord and McFarland 1978). Another common approach is to measure
threshold concentrations of suspended sediments above which a given species is adversely
affected.

B-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.7.2.9 A widely referenced study on 16 species of freshwater fishes (Wallen 1951) found
lethal turbidity thresholds to be equal to or greater than 16,500 mg/L following exposure
durations ranging from 3.5 to 17 days. Behavioral signs of stress for most species were not
apparent at suspended sediment concentrations under 20,000 mg/L. Peddicord and McFarland
(1978) determined that rainbow trout showed no significant mortality after 22 days at concentrations below 2,000 mg/L, and 95% survival occurred at concentrations approaching
4,300 mg/L. Although under less controlled conditions, other studies exposing caged specimens
to in situ levels of suspended and deposited sediments at actual dredging sites (Ingle 1952;
Ritchie 1970) have reported little or no detrimental effect.
B.7.2.10 Several workers have employed histological preparations of gill tissues to
demonstrate effects of elevated suspended sediments. Ritchie (1970) found no evidence of gill
pathology in specimens of 11 estuarine fish species prior to and after exposure to dredging
conditions. Sherk, OConnor, and Neumann (1975), however, found disrupted gill tissue and
increased mucus production in white perch exposed to sublethal suspended sediment concentrations (650 mg/L).
B.7.2.11 Based on studies conducted to date (Table B-8), all life stages of estuarinedependent and anadromous fish species appear to be fairly tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations. In all probability, fishes that use naturally turbid habitats as spawning and
nursery grounds are adapted to and highly tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations, which, in some cases (for example, striped bass), correspond to periods of greatest ambient
suspended sediment levels. Such conditions would not be expected to prevail at a dredge site for
sufficient lengths of time to merit special concern; however, placement operations may be of
such duration as to cause concern. These investigations suggested that a conservative safe level
at which no impact would be anticipated would be 500 mg/L. A strong case can be presented that
a 1,000-mg/L limit would also be acceptable.
B.7.3 Sedimentation.
B.7.3.1 A number of fish species deposit demersal (often adhesive) eggs that generally
remain in place on the bottom until larval hatching. There is a concern that heightened sedimentation rates in project areas may lead to smothering of these eggs. Morgan, Rasin, and Noe
(1983) studied effects of sediment deposition on white perch (Morone americans) eggs and
showed that hatching was not significantly affected by sediment layers 0.45 mm or less thick
(egg diameter approximated 0.9 mm). Sediment layers 0.5-1.0 mm thick resulted in over 50%
mortality, and a deposited sediment layer 2.0 mm thick caused nearly 100% mortality.
B.7.3.2 Naqvi and Pullen (1982) reviewed the impacts of beach nourishment projects on
fishes, suggesting that these operations may have significant effects on deposited eggs of
spawning species. Parr, Diener, and Lacy (1978), however, observed that beach nourishment
apparently did not affect subsequent spawning activity of grunion (Leuresthes tenuis). Juveniles
and adults of practically all fishes are sufficiently mobile to avoid burial due to increased sedimentation rates or prolonged exposures to suspended sediments at a dredging site. Fishes generally return shortly after the disturbance ceases (Courtenay et al. 1972; Parr, Diener, and Lacy
1978; Reilly and Bellis 1978, 1983; Courtenay, Hartig, and Loisel 1980; Holland, Chambers, and

B-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Blackman 1980). The major impact on these stages is the potential loss of benthic food
resources.
B.7.3.3 Given the potential deleterious effects of sedimentation on demersal eggs of fishes,
precautions should be considered (including the option for seasonal restrictions) if the path of
dredging activities ties within an identified fish spawning area. This is especially important in
water characterized by slack-water or low-flow conditions where high sedimentation rates will
occur following suspension of sediments by dredging or placement activities. Under certain
conditions (for example, when coarse sand is involved), effects of sedimentation may be
confined to a much smaller area.
B.7.4 Entrainment.
B.7.4.1 Both demersal and pelagic fish eggs and larvae are susceptible to entrainment by
suction dredges due to their inability to escape the suction field around the intake pipe (McNair
and Banks 1986). Demersal eggs and larvae may be picked up directly with the sediment while
pelagic forms may be drawn in from the surrounding water column. Of particular concern is the
potential entrainment of fishes exemplified by migrating salmon fry. Depending on the species,
fry may be present at various times of the year either throughout the water column or restricted
to different portions of it (usually the upper portions), thereby affecting the potential for
entrainment.
B.7.4.2 Arseneault (1981) reported rates of entrainment for chum and pink salmon fry by
hydraulic dredges to be within the range of 0.04-0.00004% of the total migration in the Fraser
River (Canada) in 1981. While these estimates appear very low, the operation of the dredges
involved was modified to avoid migrating fry by restricting operations to water depths in excess
of 3-4.6 m (10-15 ft) and by restricting the activation of suction pumps to within 1.5 m (5 ft)
from the bottom. Mortality of entrained fry was, for all practical purposes, 100%, since the
majority of fry were buried by sediment in the disposed material, while the remainder suffered
abrasion of external and gill surfaces. Boyd (1975) reported 98.8% mortality for fry entering a
pipeline dredge and observed that eggs entrained by both pipeline and hopper dredges were
killed by the action of the dredge.
B.7.4.3 Entrainment rates for several species of fishes were reported by Armstrong, Stevens,
and Hoeman (1982) for Grays Harbor, WA, and by Larson and Moehl (1990) for the mouth of
the Columbia River, OR and WA (Table B-9). Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982) reported
species-specific rates ranging from 0.001 to 0.135 fish/yd3, which included several commercially
important species. Both large (up to 234 mm [9.2 in.]) and small fishes were entrained; however,
comparisons with trawl data indicated that many species were apparently capable of avoiding the
dredge. Larson and Moehl (1990) reported average rates of entrainment, ranging from 0.001 to
0.38 fish/yd3 of material dredged. The only species consistently entrained at moderate levels
(range 0 to 18.89 fish/ yd3) was the bottom dwelling sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus).
Entrainment of commercially important salmonids was reported only for a single species (chum
salmon) at low levels in Grays Harbor (Table B-9). Reine, Dickerson, and Clarke (1998)
summarize existing literature regarding potential impacts to aquatic organisms caused by
entrainment during dredging operations.

B-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table B-9. Entrainment Rates (Organisms/Yd3 Dredged) of Fishes Reported for Dredges
in Grays Harbor, WA, and the Columbia River, OR and WA
Species

Pipeline1

Hopper1

Hopper2

Staghorn sculpin
Leptocottus armatus
Pacific sanddab
Citharicthys sordidus
Pacific tomcod
Microgadus proximus
Snake prickleback
Lumpenus sagitta
Prickly sculpin
Cottus asper
Saddleback gunnel
Pholis ornate
Three-spined stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
English sole
Parophrys vetulus
Northern anchovy
Engraulis mordax
Sand sole
Psettichthys melanostictus
Speckled sanddab
Citharichthys stigmaeus
Lingcod
Ophiodon elongatus
Pacific sandfish
Trichodon trichodon
Chum salmon
Oncorhynchus keta
Sand lance
Ammodytes hexapterus
Showy snailfish
Liparis pulchellus
Eulachon
Thaleichthys pacificus
Cabezon
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Spiny dogfish
Squalus acanthias

0.001

0.016-0.092

>0.01

0.003-0.076
0.008

>0.001

0.008-0.135
0.004

0.020

0.023

0.005

0.004
0.001

0.035
0.018
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002

>0.001

0.008
0.38
>0.01
>0.01
>0.01
>0.001
(continued)

B-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Species
Pipeline1
Big skate
Raja binoculata
Poacher (Agonidae)
Perch (Embiotocidae)
Gunnel (Pholididae)
Juvenile flatfish
Herring and anchovy
Sources:
1 Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982)
2 Larson and Moehl (1990)

Hopper1

Hopper2
>0.001
0.01
>0.001
>0.001
0.01
0.01

B.7.4.4 Although reported entrainment rates for fishes (in the northwest) are low, the
potential for entrainment may increase if operations occur during migration periods and work is
in heavily used narrow-channel habitats. For example, Arseneault (1981) recommended that for
riverine habitats in the Canadian Pacific Northwest, suction dredging should be permitted only in
water that is at least 4.6 m (15 ft) deep during the migratory period of salmonid fry and that the
cutterhead be at least 1.5 m (5 ft) from the bottom before the pump is activated. Both suggestions
would minimize entrainment of fry in the upper water column. Restrictions would also be recommended when dredging in known spawning grounds to avoid entrainment of eggs. Partial
restrictions may be appropriate in bodies of water of larger dimensions (>300 m [1000 ft] wide)
in which spawning grounds are present.
B.7.4.5 Paddlefish and sturgeons (Acipenseriformes) collectively constitute one of the most
imperiled groups of fishes in North America. Some instances of entrainment have been
documented by observers on coastal dredges, but effects of entrainment on adult fish are
presumed low. For the period 1990-2005, there are fewer than 25 confirmed instances of
sturgeon entrainment by dredges operating in Gulf and Atlantic waters (unpublished data, Dena
Dickerson, Research Biologist, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS). Recently, resource agencies have expressed concern that inland dredging may
impact populations of some species by entraining juveniles. Small young-of-year fish (<200 mm
[8 in.]) are believed to be especially susceptible. Entrained fishes would likely go undetected
during normal dredging operations because dredged material discharges are not monitored and
because the remains of these largely cartilaginous fishes, especially very small individuals, may
be unrecognizable. Risk of entrainment, however, could be estimated by comparing the suction
velocities generated by dredges, or flow fields, with swimming performance data for these
fishes. Hoover et al. (2005) assess potential entrainment-related losses of paddlefish and
sturgeons from dredging operations using measures of swimming performance as descriptors of
risk.

B-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.8 Effects of Environmental Alterations on Shellfishes.
B.8.1 Introduction.
B.8.1.1 The term shellfish, as used here, denotes a catch-all group of largely commercially
important invertebrates including mobile crustaceans (such as shrimps and crabs) and sessile
molluscs (such as oysters and clams). Marine and estuarine invertebrates display a tremendous
diversity of reproductive strategies; nevertheless, analogies can be drawn between potential
impacts on invertebrates and those described for fish eggs and larvae in the previous paragraph.
The fundamental demersal/pelagic dichotomy among most coastal fish egg and larval stages is
somewhat more pronounced among invertebrates. For example, all commercially important
crustaceans (such as shrimps, crabs, lobsters) maintain their developing eggs attached to
abdominal appendages until hatching, lessening the risk of acute impacts due to dredging
operations. However, eggs retained prior to hatching by some forms of sessile invertebrates are
subject to the same potential impacts as demersal eggs of fishes. Local hydrodynamic conditions
and, in some cases, active movement may contribute to the dispersal and distribution patterns of
pelagic invertebrate larvae.
B.8.1.2 Additional concern is warranted with regard to sessile forms of estuarine and coastal
invertebrates (such as oysters and clams). Sessile forms, having very limited powers of locomotion, can be assumed to be susceptible to long-term exposures of elevated suspended concentrations in the immediate vicinity of dredging and placement operations. Most shellfishes,
adapted to naturally turbid estuarine conditions, have adequate mechanisms (for example, valve
closure or reduced pumping activity of oysters) to compensate for short-term exposures.
Dredging jobs of long duration (months), however, may exceed these defensive mechanisms.
B.8.2 Suspended sediments.
B.8.2.1 The literature relevant to this issue has been reviewed by Stern and Stickle (1978)
and Priest (1981). Because of their economic importance, crustaceans and bivalve molluscs have
received the most attention. Table B-10 summarizes the results of these studies.
B.8.2.2 Shellfish species, particularly benthic forms inhabiting turbid estuaries, are
undoubtedly very tolerant of naturally elevated suspended sediment concentrations (for example,
concentrations generated during storm events and seasonal flooding conditions or even local
wind and tide events) for reasonable durations. Most of the detrimental effects noted in Table
B-10 were responses to suspended sediment levels several to many times higher than those
occurring at typical dredging operations and for periods of time ranging from 5 to 21 days.
Reduced respiratory pumping rates observed by Loosanoff and Tommers (1948) for oysters held
at suspended sediment concentrations between 100 and 4,000 mg/L are an example of a
compensatory mechanism that enables these sessile bivalves to effectively limit their exposure
over at least short-term durations. Davis and Hidu (1969) reported substantial (22%) incidences
of abnormal development in American oyster eggs exposed to suspended sediment
concentrations within the range expected during dredging operations, although exposure
durations were not stated. In contrast, developing oyster and hard clam larvae showed enhanced
growth rates at suspended sediment concentrations up to 500 mg/L (Davis 1960; Davis and Hidu
1969). Higher concentrations did hinder growth and result in increased mortality. Bricelj,

B-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Malouf, and de Quillfeldt (1984), however, reported a decreased growth rate of juvenile hard
clams at concentrations above 25 mg/L.
Table B-10. Results of Experimental Determinations of Effects of Suspended Sediments on
Various Life History Stages of Shellfishes (Modified from Priest 1981)

Species
American
oyster

Stage
Eggs

Larvae
Hard clam

Eggs
Larvae

Spot-tailed Adult
sand shrimp
Black-tailed Subsand shrimp adult
Dungeness Adult
crab
Juvenile

Suspended
Sediment
Concentration
mg/L
188

Exposure Type of
Duration Sediment
Not stated Artificial

250

Artificial

375

Natural (silt)

1,000
2,000
750
2,000
500
750

Artificial
Artificial
12 days
Natural (silt)
12 days
Artificial
Not stated Artificial
Not stated Natural (silt)

1,000

Natural (silt)

1,500

Natural (silt)

125

Artificial

125

Artificial

4,000

Artificial

Degree of Effect
22% abnormal
development
27% abnormal
development
34% abnormal
development
No significant effect
No significant effect
31% mortality
20% mortality
78% mortality
8% abnormal
development
21% abnormal
development
35% abnormal
development
18% abnormal
development
25% abnormal
development
31% abnormal
development
No significant effect
50% normality
LC 50

1,000
500
50,000

12 days
200 hr

Natural (silt)
Artificial
Artificial

21,500

21 days

Natural
20% mortality
contaminated

3,500

21 days

2,00020,000

Natural
LC 10
contaminated
25 days
Natural
No mortality at
<4,300 mg/L; 38%
mortality at
9,200 mg/L;
abnormalities between
1,800 and 4,300 mg/L
(continued)

B-33

Reference
Davis and
Hidu (1969)

Davis
(1960)

Davis and
Hidu (1969)
Davis
(1960)
Peddicord et
al. (1975)
Peddicord
and
McFarland
(1978)
Peddicord
and
McFarland
(1978)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
American
lobster

Stage
Adult

American
oyster

Adult

Blue mussel Subadult

Adult

Suspended
Sediment
Concentration
mg/L
50,000

Exposure Type of
Duration Sediment
Not stated Artificial

Degree of Effect
No mortality

4,000-32,000 Extended Not stated

100-700
Not stated Mud
100-4,000
Not stated Silt

Detrimental

100,000

5 days

10% mortality

100,000
96,000

11 days
200 hrs

Artificial

No effect
Reduced pumping

10% mortality
LC 50

Reference
Saila,
Polgar,
Rogers
(1968)
Wilson
(1950)
Mackin
(1961)
Loosanoff
and
Tommers
(1948)
Peddicord et
al. (1975)

B.8.2.3 Carriker (1986) provides an excellent review of the literature dealing with
suspended sediment effects on oyster larvae. In general, concentrations below about 180 mg/L
for embryos (in the egg membrane) and below 500 mg/L for veligers can be beneficial while
higher concentrations become increasingly harmful. Suspended sediment apparently has little
effect on feeding or movement of larvae through the water column. However, toxic compounds
may affect larvae of all stages, and sediment films may affect attachment of larvae to suitable
substrates. Peddicord and McFarland (1978) reported that juvenile American lobsters
experienced no mortality after 25-day exposures to suspended sediment (contaminated)
concentrations approaching 20,000 mg/L.
B.8.2.4 Long-term effects have received less attention than acute impacts. Nimmo et al.
(1982) examined the long-term effects of suspended particulates on survival and reproduction of
a mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia). Average suspended sediment concentrations were maintained at three levels (45, 230, and 1,000 mg/L) for durations up to 28 days, sufficient time for
the mysids to complete an entire life cycle. No significant effects were observed on adults within
4 days. After 28 days, however, test mysid populations were reduced to 75% of controls. Nimmo
et al. (1982) observed reduced numbers of juveniles produced and increased mortality of the
original adult mysids with time, and speculated that suspended sediments interfered with feeding
and mating behavior, clogged gill surfaces, and led to disorientation in water currents. The
authors concluded that continuous long-term production of suspended particulates in excess of
1,000 mg/L could reduce populations of either planktonic or nektonic organisms in estuaries.
B.8.2.5 Shellfish species inhabiting turbid estuaries and coastal waters can be expected to be
adapted to and highly tolerant of naturally elevated suspended sediment concentrations for
reasonable durations of time. Long-term operations (months), however, may present problems in

B-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
spawning and/or nursery habitats. Otherwise, there is little reason to suspect that shellfishes
cannot tolerate the suspended sediment levels typical of most dredging or placement operations.
B.8.3 Sedimentation.
B.8.3.1 Although various coastal invertebrates exemplify a wide range of reproductive
strategies, a large number of representative species produce planktonic egg and larval stages.
Relatively few commercially important shellfish species (for example, certain gastropods such as
whelks that employ egg cases) deposit eggs on or attach eggs to bottom sediments or hard
substrates. Therefore, a concern for potential smothering effects resulting from increased
sedimentation rates is less prevalent for shellfish eggs in contrast with demersal fish eggs.
Certain egg and larval stages, in particular those of neutral or negative buoyancy which are
subject to passive dispersal by water currents, may settle to the bottom and be smothered in
project areas characterized by slack- or slow-water flows. Hence, sedimentation effects could
become a factor for some species under certain site-specific circumstances.
B.8.3.2 Juveniles of shellfishes that assume sessile (such as oyster spat) or burrowing (such
as surf clam) modes of existence may be particularly vulnerable to increased sedimentation rates
in the vicinity of dredging operations. Rose (1973) and Saila, Pratt, and Polgar (1972) reported
significant mortality of oysters and mussels around dredging and placement operations,
respectively, when deposited material remained in place for some time. Wilson (1950) and Ingle
(1952), however, reported little apparent detrimental impact on oysters around dredging operations in situations where settled material was dissipated by currents. Ability to maintain depth
position within the sediments and to remove accumulated sediments from burrows varies among
species. Sedimentation rates induced by dredging operations, however, are generally no higher
than those resulting from storm events and may be subsequently removed by currents. Sedimentation rates induced by placement operations, on the other hand, may be such that burial is a
concern.
B.8.3.3 Relative organism size influences whether burial will occur. Although meiofaunal
organisms such as nematodes and harpacticoid copepods are relatively mobile, they may be more
affected by sedimentation than larger, less mobile macrofauna simply based on scale.
B.8.3.4 In addition to smothering effects, increased sedimentation could manifest itself in
other ways. Frequent repositioning to maintain a relative distance to the sediment-water interface
requires that a shellfish shift its energetic allotments away from other functions such as growth
or reproduction. Trueman and Foster-Smith (1976) have suggested that the energetic costs of
burrowing can be quite large. In a similar vein, shellfishes such as infaunal shrimps that maintain
extensive burrow systems, often with multiple surface openings, need to increase maintenance
operations to prevent infilling.
B.8.3.5 The ability of certain benthic organisms to burrow through varying amounts of overburden has been well documented (Glude 1954; Maurer 1967; Shulenberger 1970; Westley et al.
1973; Diaz and Boesch 1977; Chang and Levings 1978; Stanley and DeWitt 1983; Maurer et al.
1986). In most of these cases, the organisms studied were capable of moving up through as much
as 10-30 cm (4-12 in.) of material without significant mortality. Factors such as particle size and
the rate of sediment deposition must, however, be considered. The long-term effects of rapid

B-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
sedimentation episodes are not well understood. As noted by Diaz and Boesch (1977), lowdensity fluid muds produced from fine-grained material can present severe problems for benthic
organisms. This type of material is highly unstable, provides little physical support, and has a
low oxygen concentration, which hinders respiration and feeding.
B.8.3.6 An additional concern involves the possible hindrance of settling by oyster larvae on
hard surfaces covered by silt. Galtsoff (1964) suggested that as little as 1-2 mm (.04-.08 in.) of
silt may be sufficient to prevent settling on shell cultch. As pointed out by Carriker (1986),
however, the fact that larvae can attach to surfaces fouled by mucoid films, microbes, and detritus suggests that oyster larvae are indeed capable of dealing with relatively unclean surfaces.
B.8.3.7 Sessile or sedentary species are most vulnerable to adverse impacts, the most
obvious of which are burial and smothering of organisms. This is especially important in waters
characterized by slack-water or low-flow conditions where high sedimentation rates occur
following suspension of sediments by dredging/placement activities. Organisms that are sessile
will simply be buried in situ at high sedimentation rates, but mobile and active burrowing
organisms may also be affected when sedimentation rates are sufficiently high to result in burial,
as may occur during placement operations. Concern may also be warranted when low-density
fluid muds are involved.
B.8.4 Entrainment.
B.8.4.1 Both demersal and pelagic eggs, larvae, and juveniles of shellfishes are susceptible
to entrainment by suction dredges due to their inability to escape the suction field around the
intake pipe. Demersal forms may be picked up directly with the sediment, while pelagic forms
may be drawn in from the surrounding water column. With regard to the Dungeness crabs
(Cancer magister), which should be considered mobile, Tegelberg and Arthur (1977) reported no
apparent avoidance of a dredge by crabs resting, partially buried, in the bottom sediments. Direct
study of entrainment of shellfishes is limited to the Dungeness crab (Tegelberg and Arthur 1977;
Stevens 1981; Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman 1982) and the sand shrimp, Crangon spp.
(Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman 1982), both of which were studied in Grays Harbor, WA. The
only other consideration of entrainment involved a workshop on the potential for entrainment of
larval oysters (American Malacological Union 1986), discussed at the end of this section.
B.8.4.2 Entrainment rates for Dungeness crabs and sand shrimp by clamshell, hopper, and
pipeline dredges are summarized in Table B-11. Rates of entrainment of Dungeness crab ranged
from 0.035 to 0.502 crab/yd3 and were lowest for clamshell dredges followed by pipeline and
hopper dredges. Overall mortality of those organisms entrained was highest for pipeline dredges
(100%) versus hopper dredges (56 to 73%) (Stevens 1981; Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman
1982), given differences in delayed mortality. In the case of clamshell dredges, mortality is
restricted to potential burial and abrasion during transport or deposition of dredged material
while suction dredges may impart additional damage from the suction mechanisms and, in the
case of hopper dredges, the splash plates used to disperse material within the hopper. The 100%
mortality rate reported for crabs entrained by pipeline dredges reflects the entrainment of crabs.
B.8.4.3 Both Stevens (1981) and Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982) observed lower
overall mortality (45.9% versus 85.6%) for small crabs (<50-mm carapace width) with that of
B-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
large crabs (50-mm carapace width). Small crabs are apparently less susceptible to physical
damage due to their size. Stevens (1981) estimated a potential overall mortality rate of 0.1
crab/ yd3 for a typical dredging year in Grays Harbor, or about 100,000 crabs per year.
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982) estimated a year-round figure for Grays Harbor of
2.6-3.5 million crabs and a restricted winter-only dredging figure of 2 million crabs (a reduction
of 44%). In both cases entrainment was correlated with crab abundance. Both studies also
suggested that restrictions be imposed on dredging during the summer months (March-August),
when crabs were most numerous. Entrainment rates of sand shrimp were up to six times greater
than the highest rates reported for Dungeness crab (Table B-10); however, these rates were
observed during the summer months (May-August) when shrimp were most abundant. Ghost
shrimp (Callianassa californiensis) were also reported to be entrained at a rate of
0.727 shrimp/yd3, but for only one area of Grays Harbor. While these rates seem insignificant
taken alone, they become more meaningful when used to predict the total impact on a given
population in a particular area, as was done for Dungeness crab in Grays Harbor. Reine,
Dickerson, and Clarke (1998) summarize existing literature regarding potential impacts to
aquatic organisms caused by entrainment during dredging operations.
Table B-11. Entrainment Rates Reported for Three Dredge Types in Grays Harbor, WA
Dredge Type

Rate1

Reference
Cancer magister
Clamshell
0.012
Stevens (1981)
Hopper
0.131-0.327
Tegelberg and Arthur (1977)
0.182-0.231
Stevens (1981)
0.055-0.518
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982)
Pipeline
0.0017-0.241
Stevens (1981)
0.015-0.200
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982)
Crangon spp
Hopper
0.063-3.375
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982)
Pipeline
0.001-3.404
Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982)
1 Number of organisms per cubic yard dredged
B.8.4.4 In addition to direct entrainment, Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982) also
speculated on the indirect impacts of dredging on crabs as well as on other organisms. These
impacts include direct removal of food sources for crabs, shrimps, and fishes; alteration of intraspecific competition; burial of crabs; and toxicant release from suspended sediments.
B.8.4.5 The potential for entrainment of larval oysters by hydraulic cutterhead dredges was
addressed by a workshop sponsored and conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer District,
Baltimore, and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) (American
Malacological Union 1986). Participants in this workshop reported on state-of-the-art knowledge
about oyster distribution and biology and the physicochemical effects of hydraulic dredging
operations that could potentially affect oyster larvae. The goal of the workshop was to determine
if this information could be used to help predict whether entrainment of larval oysters would be
problematic. From this exercise, a model of entrainment was proposed that predicted dredge-

B-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
induced mortality at rates between 0.005 and 0.3% of late-stage larvae (Carriker et al. 1986);
thus, minimal impact would be expected. However, concern over entrainment would be justified
under certain site-specific conditions, such as dredging within a narrow channel or other
restrictive water body. A contrasting view of the extent of entrainment of oyster larvae was
presented by Carter (1986), who predicted that larval survival (all stages) would be reduced by
12-51% through dredge-induced mortality. Both models are based on a somewhat different set of
assumptions about larval biology, and both remain untested.
B.8.4.6 The potential for entrainment is increased in restricted bodies of water, such as
narrow channels, where mobile organisms may not be able to avoid the dredge or where more
passive organisms may be concentrated. The importance of site-specific conditions in project
areas is readily apparent and should be the foremost consideration in planning and scheduling
dredging/placement operations.
B.9 Effects of Environmental Alterations on Benthic Assemblages.
B.9.1 Introduction.
B.9.1.1 Benthic communities, as discussed here, compose a general category including both
hard- and soft-bottom assemblages (such as mollusc beds, grass beds, and coral reefs). Kendall
(1983) provides an excellent review of the role of physical-chemical factors in structuring subtidal marine and estuarine benthos. Effects on fish and shellfish spawning grounds have been
discussed in previous sections. In addition to direct disturbance through removal, sedimentation,
and chemical contamination, concerns have also been raised about recovery of the given assemblage after disturbance and the relative resource value of the resulting assemblage compared with
what previously existed. The difficulties encountered in seeking answers to these questions
reflect the limited understanding of how organisms in these habitats are adapted to often highly
variable environmental conditions.
B.9.1.2 A number of studies (Loucks 1970; Holling 1973; Orians 1974; Oliver et al. 1977;
Sutherland 1981; Newell, Seiderer, and Hitchcock 1998) point to a positive relationship between
community resilience (rate of recovery from disturbance) and environmental and community
variability (such as higher variability and faster rate of recovery). To a larger degree, this
relationship reflects the life history characteristics of the organisms inhabiting a given area and,
to a lesser degree, chance. Both factors are themselves related. Consideration should also be
given to the dredging/placement-induced physical changes to the habitat (such as alteration of
grain size, slope, and compaction) and how these parameters can affect the nature of the resultant
community. This is a particularly important concern relative to beach nourishment projects
(Naqvi and Pullen 1982; Nelson and Pullen 1985). Timing of disturbance is also quite important
since many benthic species have distinct peak periods of reproduction and recruitment. Recovery
of a community disturbed after peak recruitment, therefore, will be slower than that of one
disturbed prior to peak recruitment. A general consensus among researchers reporting on effects
of dredged material placement (Boone, Granat, and Farrell 1978; Tatem and Johnson 1978;
Wright, Mathis, and Brannon 1978) is that impacts on benthic communities are primarily physical (for example, burial) and not chemical (for example, bioaccumulation).

B-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.9.1.3 Benthic assemblages of estuarine muds and sands generally require from 3 months
to 1 year to recover after placement of maintenance dredged material. McCauley, Parr, and
Hancock (1977) monitored infaunal populations immediately before and after dredging and
dredged material placement in a muddy mesohaline (15-20 ppt) portion of Coos Bay, OR, and
reported that predredging densities were achieved within a month of placement. Van Dolah et al.
(1979) found that 6 months were necessary for muddy euhaline (30 ppt) communities in Sewee
Bay, SC, to return to preplacement conditions. The same recovery period has been reported by
Leathem et al. (1973) after dredged material placement on sandy bottoms in the Delaware Bay.
Van Dolah, Calder, and Knott (1984) also studied dredging and open-water disposal impacts at a
sandy site within the Dawho-North Edisto River system, SC, and reported recovery within
3 months. Clarke and Miller-Way (1992) have reported infaunal recovery within a year for a
muddy oligohaline reach of the Mobile Bay. Flemer et al. (1967) reported that natural
disturbances were more important in structuring infauna at Louisiana dredged material
placement areas than placement events.
B.9.2 Suspended sediment/sedimentation.
B.9.2.1 The effect of burial of benthic organisms largely depends on the ability of organisms
to migrate upward through the overlying deposits. In the case of sedentary species (such as
oysters and coral reef organisms), relatively small quantities of silt may be enough to cause high
rates of mortality, especially in coral reef organisms that are highly intolerant of silt. Saila, Pratt,
and Polgar (1972) and Rose (1973) reported mortality of oysters and mussels from direct burial
associated with placement and dredging operations, respectively. Wilson (1950) and Ingle
(1952), however, reported no apparent impact to oysters around dredging operations in situations
where settled material was dissipated by currents. In addition to quantity of material, the physical
properties or quality of the material may also be an important consideration. As noted by Diaz
and Boesch (1977), low-density fluid muds produced from placement of fine-grained materials
presented immediate problems for benthic organisms; however, recovery did occur within a few
months. This type of material is characterized by instability and low oxygen concentration,
which provides little physical support for organisms, hinders respiration, and inhibits feeding. In
the case of beach nourishment projects, the type of material deposited (sand, silt, clay) and its
physical characteristics can have important consequences to the organisms being covered and
controls the assemblage that will subsequently develop there (Naqvi and Pullen 1982; Reilly and
Bellis 1983; Nelson and Pullen 1985).
B.9.2.2 In addition to direct smothering and/or burial, suspended sediments and/or a blanket
of silt can affect organisms by hindering their settlement on hard substrates and by screening out
incoming light. In the case of oyster larvae, a layer of silt only 1 to 2 mm ().04-0.08 in.) thick can
physically hinder the attachment of settling larvae. In addition, sediment particles may act to
hinder or block attractive chemical cues on hard substrates or waterborne pheromones (Crisp
1967; Hidu 1969), as noted previously, thereby preventing attachment. It is likely that silt may
affect a number of organisms in this way. Carriker (1986) points out that oyster larvae are indeed
capable of dealing with relatively unclean surfaces.
B.9.2.3 Light attenuation may be either detrimental or beneficial depending on the
organism. In the case of submersed plants, high turbidity or a deposit of silt on leaf blades has
the potential to reduce photosynthetic activity substantially although quantitative estimates have
B-39

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
not been determined (Zieman 1982; Thayer, Kenworthy, and Fonseca 1984). Similarly reduced
light levels over coral reefs can affect growth of symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) (Courtenay et
al. 1972; Bak 1978). However, in the case of oyster larvae, reduced light levels may act to simulate the shaded conditions on the underside of shell material, the preferred settling site (Ritchie
and Menzel 1969). These authors point out that the effect would be increased settling of the latestage larvae. Another possible effect of a turbidity screen would be the protection of gametes and
larvae from the detrimental effects of ultraviolet radiation near the surface (Wilber 1971). As
pointed out by Carriker (1986), however, these and other effects of suspended sediment and silt,
although interesting possibilities, remain unstudied.
B.9.2.4 A high rate of sedimentation, particularly for placement operations, is an obvious
concern because of the potential for burial of benthic communities. Sedentary organisms (for
example, reef-forming molluscs, submersed plants, and coral reefs) are particularly vulnerable to
burial. Less severe but potentially damaging films of silt or suspended sediment plumes may
affect feeding, respiration, or photosynthetic activity.
B.9.3 Bottom disturbance/recolonization.
B.9.3.1 Whether a benthic assemblage is destroyed by a dredging operation or is buried by
sediment, concerns are raised about the significance of the loss as it relates to organisms that
depend on this resource for food. Benthic organisms are important food sources for a host of
demersal fishes and shellfishes of all stages (juvenile-adult). At present, however, little is known
about how much production a given benthic community can support, and even less is known
about the relative importance of different types of assemblages (for example, vegetated versus
nonvegetated and early versus late successional stage) to production. Major points of contention
in this debate are questions about rates of recovery of benthic assemblages after impact and the
relative importance of early versus late successional stages of the postimpact community as
forage for fishery resources. Studies conducted by Flemer et al. (1967) on macrobenthic community colonization and community development in dredged material placement habitats off the
Louisiana coast suggest that frequent natural disturbances can explain differences in macrobenthic animal community structure more than the effects of dredged material placement.
B.9.3.2 Newell, Seiderer, and Hitchcock (1998) present a review that provides a
framework within which the impact of dredging on biological resources that live on the sea bed
(benthic communities) can be understood, and places in perspective some of the recent studies
that have been carried out in relation to aggregates dredging in European coastal waters. The
impact of dredging works on fisheries and fish themselves, and on their spawning grounds is
outside the scope of this review.
B.9.3.3 Recovery rates of macrobenthic assemblages following both dredging and
placement operations generally range from only a few weeks or months to as much as a few
years, depending on the type of project (dredging or placement), the nature of the bottom,
physical characteristics of the environment, and the timing of disturbance. Most placement
operations result in initial smothering of organisms, followed by rapid recovery within weeks or
months (Pfitzenmeyer 1970; Saila, Pratt, and Polgar 1972; Leathem et al. 1973; Maurer et al.
1974; Oliver et al. 1977; Bingham 1978; Boone, Granat, and Farrell 1978; Tatem and Johnson
1978; Wright, Mathis, and Brannon 1978; Bokuniewicz and Gordon 1980, Newell, Seiderer, and
B-40

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Hitchcock 1998). Other studies have reported minimal or no impact on macrofaunal assemblages
under conditions of high current flows that acted to dissipate suspended materials (Van Dolah et
al. 1979; Van Dolah, Calder, and Knott 1984; LaSalle and Sims 1989). Similar short-term
recovery rates, following natural defaunation events (such as storms and anoxia), have also been
reported (Saloman and Naughton 1977; Simon and Dauer 1977). Meiobenthic assemblages, on
the other hand, have been reported to have very low rates (years) of recovery (Rogers and
Darnell 1973; Pequegnat 1975; Rogers 1976). For reviews of impacts from beach nourishment,
see Naqvi and Pullen (1982) and Nelson and Pullen (1985). Literature reviews by Nelson (1985,
1993) and Hackney et al. (1996) indicate that recovery times for beach infauna after renourishment range from 2 to 7 months. Saloman and Naughton (1984) reported infaunal recovery
within 5-6 weeks for a Florida beach while studies in South Carolina by Van Dolah, Calder, and
Knott (1984) and Jutte, Van Dolah, and Levisen (1999a, 1999b) have reported recovery periods
ranging from 3 to 6 months. The longest recovery times (1-1.5 years) have been reported for
beaches where the silt/clay content of nourishment materials exceeded those of natural beach
sediments (Reilly and Bellis 1983; Rakocinski et al. 1996)
B.9.3.4 In the case of maintenance dredging operations, minor impacts have been reported
(Stickney and Perlmutter 1975; McCauley, Parr, and Hancock 1977) while for shell dredging,
initial reduction in benthic abundance was followed by rapid recovery (Harper 1973). Dredging
of new channels, however, may result in drastic and long-term (years) changes in nearby
macrofaunal assemblages (Taylor and Saloman 1968; Kaplan, Welker, and Kraus 1974), in part
due to changes in the hydrologic regime and potential alteration in salinity patterns.
B.9.3.5 A number of studies (Loucks 1970; Holling 1973; Orians 1974; Oliver et al. 1977;
Sutherland 1981; Newell, Seiderer, and Hitchcock 1998) point to a positive relationship between
community resilience (rate of recovery) and environmental variabilitycommunities inhabiting
highly variable habitats have higher rates of recovery. To a large degree, this relationship is
related to the life history characteristics of the organisms composing the assemblage and the
timing of the disturbance (Rhoads, McCall, and Yingst 1978; Rhoads and Boyer 1982; Newell,
Seiderer, and Hitchcock. 1998). High reproduction and turnover rates and high dispersal ability
allow opportunistic species to colonize newly exposed material very rapidly and, in fact, these
abilities allow these species to inhabit highly variable environments. Timing of disturbance is
also quite important since many benthic species have distinct peak periods of reproduction and
recruitment.
B.9.3.6 The nature of the assemblage in terms of species composition also varies depending
on both the availability of species in adjacent areas and, to some degree, chance events. Pearson
(1975) describes two stable benthic assemblages that develop after an oxygen depletion event
(induced by organic enrichment) defaunates the bottom. Initial colonization of either assemblage
is largely a chance event. Each assemblage is composed of two or three dominant species. Once
such an assemblage colonizes the bottom, it is capable of blocking establishment of the second.
A general pattern of marine succession, as proposed by Rhoads, McCall, and Yingst (1978),
entails a deterministic progression of colonizers governed by facilitation (each assemblage in the
succession enhances the development of the next). Homziak (1985), however, describes
estuarine succession as a stochastic process governed more by the availability and composition
of colonists, which are, to a large degree, chance events. Brenchley (1981) points to the

B-41

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
importance of the ability of certain species to affect colonization by other species. She suggests
that physical events, such as bioturbation of the sediment (for example, burrowing activity), act
to control community structure and may be more important than the previously implied
importance of key species (for example, keystone predators) in certain trophic levels.
B.9.3.7 Predicting a rate of recovery and the nature (composition) of the resultant
assemblage is not always possible. In general, however, comparisons of the nature of earlyversus late-stage species composing assemblages can be made and related to their value as a food
resource for other species (Rhoads, McCall, and Yingst 1978). Early colonists tend to be opportunistic species characterized by small size, rapid growth, short life span, and high rates of turnover and reproduction. These species are readily attracted to newly available sources of organic
carbon, which usually characterize newly disturbed sediments. These organisms inhabit the
surface layers of the bottom and are readily available to epibenthic and demersal predators. By
comparison, later arriving species are characterized by larger size, slower growth, longer life
span, and slower rates of turnover and reproduction. These species live at greater depths in the
sediment and are, therefore, less readily available to predators (for details, see Rhoads, McCall,
and Yingst 1978, and Rhoads and Boyer 1982). From this comparison, it can be predicted that
from a fisheries standpointearly-stage assemblages may be of higher value by virtue of high
production and availability.
B.9.3.8 To evaluate the relative value of such bottom assemblages to fisheries production,
the Benthic Resources Assessment Technique was developed by the Environmental Laboratory,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (now the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center) (Clarke and Lunz 1985). Application of the technique by Lunz (1986) has
shown that early successional assemblages, established on dredged material placement sites,
have higher fisheries value in terms of available biomass and higher potential usage by benthic
feeding fishes (particularly juveniles) than nearby reference areas. In effect, disturbance by
dredged material placement (burial of the preexisting assemblage) serves to reset the progression
of the assemblage along a successional gradient, as would occur naturally following storm
events. These observations, however, should not be misinterpreted as suggesting that earlysuccessional assemblages are better and/or of higher value in terms of all functional
parameters than late-stage assemblages. For example, late-successional stages do serve other
equally important functions in sediment processes, such as organic matter turnover and aeration.
B.9.3.9 Given the highly variable nature of most estuarine and marine benthic assemblages,
disturbances by dredging/placement activities usually represent relatively minor and short-lived
impacts, similar to those induced by storm events, oxygen depletion events (natural or
industrially induced), and other disturbances. Some concern, however, may be warranted in cases
when the areal extent of impacted bottom represents a large proportion of the parent body of
water. In that event, some consideration should be given to the characteristics of the habitat itself
(for example, highly variable versus relatively stable) and the relative condition of the
unimpacted area, given its potential value to the overall ecosystem. When possible, consideration
should also be given to scheduling activities before peak periods of recruitment by the benthic
fauna. This would help decrease the recovery time for the assemblage.

B-42

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
B.10 Effects of Environmental Alterations on Endangered Species, Sea Turtles, Marine
Mammals, and Colonial-Nesting Birds. Issues involving endangered species are based largely on
concerns about disturbances to critical physical habitat and/or noise interruptions of nesting/
breeding activities. In the case of the latter, seasonal restrictions applied to dredging/placement
operations are common (see Table 2-18 and Chapter 5, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material)
and, in many cases, criteria concerning a buffer zone around a site are designated. Operations are
permitted outside this zone. Similarly, issues involving sea turtles, marine mammals, and
colonial-nesting birds largely concern disturbance of nesting areas, either directly through
physical alteration or indirectly through noise disturbance in proximity to a nesting/breeding site.
In the case of colonial-nesting bird sites, particularly those on dredged material placement sites,
concerns include either periodic placement of new dredged material on the island or noise
disturbance by dredging/placement operations in the immediate vicinity of a colony. In addition
to these habitat-related issues, the issues of interference with movement (for example, channel
blockage) of marine mammals in restricted areas and the potential entrainment of sea turtles in
channel areas have also been raised.
B.10.1 Noise disturbance.
B.10.1.1 Human activities near the nesting sites of any animal have the potential to disrupt
behavior, which may lead to lowered hatching success or nest abandonment. In the case of some
colonial-nesting birds, noise disturbances may lead to adult birds leaving the nest, which may
affect the eggs or young chicks in a number of ways. Nervous adult birds may accidentally crush
or knock eggs or young out of nests. Prolonged absence of an incubating adult bird may
effectively increase incubation time and may increase exposure of eggs or young chicks to the
environment and predators. Additionally, activities in the vicinity of colonies or feeding grounds
may affect the birds ability to gather food for themselves and their chicks.
B.10.1.2 It has been suggested that dredging/placement activities on or in the vicinity of
dredged material islands, as well as other colonial-nesting bird colonies, be restricted to nonbreeding seasons to avoid disturbances to the birds (Landin 1986a). Activities may be allowable
outside a buffer zone (about 100 m [300 ft]) around the nesting site.
B.10.2 Chemical release.
B.10.2.1 Concern is always warranted when dealing with sediments known to be contaminated with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or other potentially toxic compounds. The possibility exists that contaminants, released by sediment suspension, may adversely affect organisms
in a number of ways. Contaminants may become adsorbed onto eggs and ingested or absorbed by
larval, juvenile, or adult forms (Cairns 1968). Organisms may bioaccumulate contaminants
through feeding (Chen et al. 1976; Nathans and Bechtel 1977; Burks and Engler 1978; Neff,
Foster, and Slowey 1978; Kay 1984; Rubinstein, Gilliam, and Gregory 1984). It appears, however, that soluble fractions of most compounds have greater effects than sediment-sorbed
fractions. Evidence also suggests that many contaminants may lower the threshold concentration
of suspended sediments at which detrimental effects on survival and development of eggs and
larvae are produced. These effects may take the form of altered morphology, physiology,
behavior, and/or pathology in fish (Sindermann et al. 1982) and shellfish (Tagatz 1976; Farr
1977, 1978). For example, the exposure of the grass shrimp Palaemontes vulgaris to sublethal
B-43

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
concentrations of mirex (Tagatz 1976) and Palaemontes pugio to sublethal concentrations of
parathion and methyl parathion (Farr 1977, 1978) impaired both species antipredatory behavior
to predatory fishes, resulting in increased mortality in controlled experiments.
B.10.2.2 In general, water-soluble fractions of compounds have a greater effect on
organisms than sediment-sorbed fractions. In addition, toxicity is more pronounced under conditions of low salinity and high temperature. The enormous diversity of chemical compounds and
possible synergistic effects further complicates the issue. Good general reviews of the literature
on the availability and bioaccumulation of heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, synthetic
organic compounds, and radionuclides contained in sediments are provided by Kay (1984) and
Olsen (1984). More specific information on the toxicity, sublethal effects, and bioaccumulation
of selected chemical compounds on various organisms is given by Eisler (1985a, 1985b, 1985c,
1985d, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d, 1987a, 1987b, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c) and Eisler and
Jacknow (1985).
B.10.2.3 In light of these concerns, existing regulatory guidelines for the management of
contaminated sediments (USEPA/USACE 1991, USEPA/USACE 1998) should be consulted
whenever dredging activities involve such sediments.
B.10.3 Dissolved oxygen reduction.
B.10.3.1 The reduction of DO to levels below 1-2 ppm has the potential to affect nonmobile organisms or life history stages (for example, demersal eggs) in the vicinity of a dredging
and/or placement operation. Morrison (1971) reported that the eggs of the hard clam, Mercenaria
mercenaria, were tolerant of oxygen concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm, with death occurring only
at 0.2 ppm. Available information suggests that, in typical dredging/placement operations, reductions in DO are restricted to the bottom waters (in fluid mud) and are short-term phenomena (on
the order of hours). Sediments having a high organic content and those affected by organic
loading (such as sewage sludge) may, however, cause significant reductions in DO (Brown and
Clark 1968) for longer periods of time. As with sedimentation, mobile juvenile and adult
organisms are capable of avoiding localized areas of low oxygen content.
B.10.3.2 The apparent relationship between suspended sediment concentration and levels
of DO leads to recommendations similar to those presented earlier for suspended sediments.
Given the levels of suspended sediment and associated short-term reductions in DO around
typical dredging/placement operations, impacts should be minimal. Detrimental effects on
demersal eggs and larvae would not be expected except in cases of long-term placement operations when DO levels are kept low for extended periods.
B.10.4 Channel blockage.
B.10.4.1 Channel blockage, by the physical presence of the dredging/placement equipment
or by the suspended sediment plume, is suspected to have an effect on the distribution and
movement of juvenile and adult organisms, particularly anadromous fishes, turtles, and some
marine mammals. In the case of fishes and shellfishes, the only available information on the
subject consists of a few observations of the attraction of fishes and shellfishes to dredging

B-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
operations (Ingle 1952; Viosca 1958; Maragos et al. 1977) and a report of trawl data taken in a
dredge placement plume versus clear ambient water (Harper 1973).
B.10.4.2 In the case of fishes, the average number collected in clear water was quite similar
in summer and winter; the average number of individuals in turbid plume waters was much
larger in winter (Harper 1973). Only one species (bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchelli) showed a
pronounced tendency to avoid the plume during the summer while another (Gulf menhaden,
Brevoortia patronus) showed a preference for clear water in summer and winter. Additional
comparisons of fish abundances in naturally turbid versus clear water showed that the average
number of individuals and fish biomass values were higher in the turbid water during the winter
but were similar during the summer. Brevoortia patronus, previously shown to avoid the dredge
plume, was collected only in turbid waters and at high densities, suggesting that some factor
other than sediment suspension may have been a factor.
B.10.4.3 In the case of shellfishes, the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, was collected in
equal numbers in both clear and turbid waters during the summer, but it was collected in much
larger numbers in turbid waters during the winter (Harper 1973). Brown shrimp, Penaeus
aztecus, and grass shrimp, Palaemontes pugio, showed a preference for turbid water, but they
were common components of the samples in only one season. White shrimp, Penaeus setiferus,
seemed to have no preference for either clear or turbid water.
B.10.4.4 Little information is available on vertical movements of fishes or shellfishes in
response to turbidity/light availability. Dadswell, Melvin, and Williams (1983) observed a direct
relationship between turbidity in the water column and the density of American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) in an offshore open-water situation. In this case, the fish may have been responding
to ambient light levels and not directly to turbidity.
B.10.4.5 In the case of sea turtles and marine mammals, concerns are based on the potential
for dredging/placement equipment to directly interfere with these organisms in narrow or
confined channel areas. Sea turtles are suspected of hibernating in some deep navigational
channels (for example, Cape Canaveral, FL) during the winter (Carr, Ogren, and Moven 1980)
where they may be entrained by dredges operating in these channels. Dredges operating in
borrow areas in the vicinity of beach nourishment operations may also entrain young nestlings
(sea turtles) coming from nearby beaches. In the case of manatees, the potential exists for
dredges, barges, or support craft to directly collide with individuals or block the movement of
individuals in narrow channel areas.
B.10.4.6 Consideration of project area morphology should be made relative to potential
inhibition of movement of juvenile and adult fishes and shellfishes. Restrictions may be justified
in cases where the turbidity plume generated by an operation extends across the entire waterway
or channel. Given the supposition that sea turtles hibernate in some deep channel areas (Carr,
Ogren, and Moven 1980) during winter, concern about potential entrainment seems justified and
should be considered. Careful planning and caution during dredging operations can also
minimize any impacts to turtles or mammals in channel areas.

B-45

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-46

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX C
Confined Aquatic Disposal
C.1 Background.
C.1.1 Confined aquatic disposal (CAD) (placement) is the dredging of unacceptable
contaminated sediments from one or more locations, transporting of the material to a placement
site, and controlled capping or covering of contaminated material in open water (Shaw,
Whiteside, and Ng 1998). Unacceptable sediments are those that have potential detrimental
effects to the environment and human health and are not suitable for unrestricted open-water
disposal (Palermo 2002). Examples of sediment contaminants are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and heavy metals (Morris and Fredette 2002). Caps usually
involve the use of some type of relatively uncontaminated (acceptable) material to prevent lateral
and vertical spreading (physical, chemical, and biological isolation) (Moore, Spadaro, and
Degens 2002) of the contaminated material. A conceptual illustration of a CAD pit is found in
Figure C-1. The objective of the cap is minimal future loss and environmental impact of the
contaminated material, which is often silty, fine-grained sediments (Fredette et al. 2000).

Figure C-1. Conceptual Illustration of a Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Pit (Palermo 1999)
C.1.2 Contaminated sediments unsuitable for conventional placement may be confined,
contained, treated, or simply not dredged. CAD pits (cells) offer both practical and effective
management of contaminated sediments and have been successfully used in many locations since
the 1970s. Long-term effectiveness, water depth, and exposure to high-energy environments are
issues that should be investigated during the planning of CAD pits (Nilson, Hadden, and Giard
1998).
C.1.3 CAD pit construction has several advantages over other placement options (for
example, artificial islands and decontamination) (Fredette et al. 2000), including the following:
a. Construction in a relatively short period of time.
b. Construction on an as-needed basis.
c. Logistical efficiency.
C-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Minimal equipment needs.
e. Location near dredging sites.
C.1.4 CAD pits may be naturally occurring depressions or newly constructed subaqueous
pits. (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).
C.1.5 Advantages (Headland et al. 2002) of CAD pits include the following:
a. Construction with conventional dredging equipment.
b. Chemical and biological environment unchanged.
c. Relatively low cost solutions.
C.1.6 Disadvantages of CAD pits include the following:
a. Possible loss of contaminated sediments during transport and placement.
b. Locating potential placement sites.
c. Obtaining approval of permitting agencies.
C.1.7 The following permits and regulations (Pembroke et al. 1998) must be considered:
a. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
b. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
c. Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
d. National Environmental Policy Act.
e. Council on Environmental Quality.
f. Local and/or state regulations concerning navigation.
g. United States Coast Guard Navigation requirements.
C.2 Site Selection and Evaluation. The key environmental issue with any dredging project is
how and where to place the dredged material. Difficulty in location of placement sites increases
with the volume and quality of the sediments to be dredged. The following factors should be
considered for CAD pit placements.
C.2.1 Engineering requirements. The sizing of the pits will depend upon the volume,
excavated depth and surface area exposure (Shaw, Whiteside, and Ng 1999). Depths of pits may
vary between 1.2 and 12 m (4 and 40 ft). Horizontal dimensions may also have great variation,
with some pits as wide as 457 m (1,500 ft) and as long as 1,524 m (5,000 ft). Pits that have
widths less than 152 m (500 ft) and lengths less than 610 m (2,000 ft) show significant lessening
C-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
of sediment retention efficiency. Large pits with an aspect ratio (length to width) between 3 and
4 have been found to be highly desirable. Most CAD sites are constructed on sites with bottom
slopes less than 6%. Bathymetric surveys will be required to determine suitable locations
(Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998). The higher the bottom slope, the less desirable the
site for CAD pits. Generally, sites with slopes greater than 5% are excluded. Filling may occur
incrementally with the initial placement being capped before the entire pit is filled. The cost of a
CAD site depends directly upon the volume of material dredged and placed. Bulking should also
be considered since the volume of dredged material may be altered due to sediment disturbance
and increased water content (Fredette et al. 2000). The size of the pit depends on the volume to
be contained, the estimated bulking, and the volume needed for the cap. Another important consideration is the surface area exposure of the CAD pit and potential losses of sediment due to
turbulent water conditions (tide, current, and storm effects). Submerged sand berms may be
constructed around some pits to reduce current velocities and wave activity. Berm construction
could reduce the cost of pit material removal, and the pit material might be used for the final
capping (Palermo 1999).
C.2.2 Single CAD site versus a series of CAD sites. Several small CAD pits have comparable costs to one large CAD pit because the cost of excavation is a function of the volume
dredged. However, several small pits, capped as the work progresses, have the advantage of less
exposure of contaminated material prior to capping. Construction of new CAD pits could result
in slope failures and in the exposure and resuspension of contaminated material. For example,
slope failures that occur during seismic events could potentially release material into the marine
environment. If the material from which the excavation is made is comprised of sands, silty
sands, or gravels, the slope of the pit usually will be 1V on 3H. If the bottom material is very
soft, stable slopes may need to be flatter and should be 1V on 4H (Palermo 1999).
C.2.3 Water depth. Water that is too shallow may cause an access problem for dredging,
transport, and placement. While shallow water has the advantage of less dispersion of material
during the placement process, deeper water has the advantage of less erosion due to wave action
and propeller wash by the passage of large deep-draft vessels (Fredette et al. 1999). However
deep water also has the disadvantage that pit preparation and monitoring become problematic.
Depths of approximately 37 m (120 ft) are about the practical limit for excavation with conventional dredging equipment, and as water depths increase, the efficiency of the dredging process
decreases. The depth to bedrock presents a potential economic constraint related to pit excavation depth (Palermo 1999).
C.2.4 Operational logistics. CAD pits should be located as near as possible to the center of
the hauling distances. Increasing the hauling distance directly increases the project costs.
C.2.5 Hydrodynamics. CAD pits in relatively low-energy environments are generally
preferable to locations in higher energy areas though site-specific considerations must factor into
such decisions (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998). Material in CAD pits may be
exposed to current fields, wave action from storms, and storm surges (Puckette 1998). Another
consideration of CAD pit location is the possibility of exposure to seasonal floodwaters (Winter
2002).

C-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
C.2.6 Sediment characteristics. If a CAD pit must be excavated, one strong consideration is
the potential beneficial use of the excavated material. If the excavated material is highly suitable
for construction purposes, the site is highly preferable. In contrast, excavated material not
suitable for construction purposes make the pit less advantageous, and the excavated material
must still be placed (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).
C.2.7 Water quality/far field contaminant transport. Another factor to be considered in
selecting CAD pit placement locations is the possibility of spillage during the placement or
resuspension due to extreme storm conditions. Sites with high currents that might take
contaminants to bathing beaches, environmentally sensitive areas, or water intakes are
undesirable (Hayes, Borrowman, and Welp 2000).
C.2.8 Biological resources. New construction of pits, placement of contaminated material,
and placement of caps will result in temporary loss of aquatic habitat (Palermo, Ebersole, and
Peyman-Dove 1998). It is assumed that the pit areas will be returned to pre-existing bathymetry
after capping. Limited research shows that benthic recolonization over the surface of a cap
returned to an equilibrium state approximately 5 years after capping. Areas that provide habitat
to threatened or endangered species or that have a high use for commercial fishing or
commercial shellfish should be carefully evaluated (Valente and Fredette 2002).
C.2.9 Cultural resources. Areas of known historical/archeological value should be protected
from excavation and/or contaminated material placement.
C.2.10 Infrastructure. Areas that include navigation channels, military exclusion zones,
bridges, tunnels and pipelines need careful evaluation. However, areas with easy access to
navigation channels may be desirable (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).
C.2.11 Jurisdictional consideration. The political jurisdiction of the CAD areas must be
strongly considered. Areas outside of the 19 km (12 mi) limit are in international waters and
should not be considered for CAD pits.
C.2.12 Previously impacted areas. Areas previously impacted by dredging placement should
receive strong consideration for future sites.
C.2.13 Location of capping material. Usually the capping material is taken from an area near
the area requiring the contaminated dredging, and economics become a prime consideration.
C.2.14 Recreational use. The location of CAD pits may cause the temporary loss of
recreational boating and fishing areas (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).
C.2.15 Seismic activity. Preliminary seismic studies should be undertaken in areas of
potential CAD pits. CAD pits should not be located within 3 km (2 mi) of known active faults
(Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).
C.2.16 Aesthetics. Aesthetics is usually a small consideration in the location of CAD pits.
The frequent activity that takes place around a CAD cell may be undesirable near recreational
beaches (Palermo, Ebersole, and Peyman-Dove 1998).

C-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
C.3 Design, Construction, and Operations.
C.3.1 Sequence. The sequence of pit excavations may vary. For example, a large CAD pit
may be excavated in its entirety before any contaminated material is placed in it, or a small pit
may be filled with contaminated material and capped with clean excavation material from a
second small pit, which is then filled with contaminated material and capped with clean
excavation material from a third small pit, and so on. The construction of several small pits close
to one another with the use of the excavated material as cap reduces the cost of CAD pit
construction because of the reduction in haul distances of suitable clean capping material
(Rollings 2000).
C.3.2 Slope stability. The stability of the excavated pit slope is an important consideration
because the failure risk of the excavated slope is greatest immediately following excavation.
However, this poses a relatively small problem because contaminated material is usually placed
in and resides in the deepest part of the pit due to its liquid nature (Palermo 1999).
C.3.3 Layering. If dredging schedules allow, materials with higher levels of contamination
should be sandwiched between layers of materials with lower levels of contamination. Also, if
dredging schedules allow, less contaminated material should be placed in the upper portion of
the CAD pit.
C.3.4 Safety precautions. All necessary safety precautions in the dredging and disposal areas
should be maintained to prevent accidents, injuries, and loss to any person or property. Forecast
weather and sea conditions at the expected operation sites should be monitored continuously to
prevent extremely difficult and dangerous procedures. Placement of contaminated material in the
CAD pit and placement of capping material should not occur during severe weather events
because they provide a greater possibility of contaminant losses.
C.3.5 Silt curtains. During the placement of contaminated material, a silt curtain may be
considered for deployment between barges to limit the dispersion of plumes formed during the
placement procedures and to distribute the material evenly in the pit (Shaw, Whiteside, and Ng
1998). Some CAD pit management suggest, however, that silt curtains have little benefit in
containing released sediment and may actually be a detriment to placement operations
(Whiteside, Ng, and Lee 1996).
C.3.6 Resuspension. An important concern is the resuspension of unconsolidated
contaminated material while it is uncapped (Walter, Valente, and Fredette 2002). The frequency
of passage of large vessels and the speed of these vessels greatly influence the amount of
material resuspended; however, research shows that the amount of material lost is relatively
small (Fredette et al. 2000). Most of the resuspended material settles to the bottom within 1 hour
of disturbance.
C.4 Cap Design and Material.
C.4.1 Cap design. Caps are useful for providing immediate isolation of the contaminated
material. Cap design should consider the composition, thickness, and the placement method of
the capping material for long-term subaqueous containment. (Clarke, Palermo, and Sturgis

C-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
2001). A cap may consist of one or more layers of material over the contaminated sediment
deposit, and it is usually composed initially of a homogeneous layer of granular material. The
cap must be designed to account for the following:
a. Bioturbation, the movement or alteration of sediment particles or pore water mediated by
organisms (Clarke, Palermo, and Sturgis 2001).
b. Erosion of cap material.
c. Consolidation of contaminated material.
d. Long-term chemical and physical isolation.
C.4.2 Bioturbation. Bioturbation generally results in increased sediment water content,
decreased sediment cohesion, and increased pore-water exchange, which is likely to increase the
surface mixing. The bioturbation process tends to decease with increasing depth into the cap
material, and investigations tend to show that bioturbation activity is very slight below
approximately 15-45 cm (0.5-1.5 ft), depending on the local benthic community (Clarke,
Palermo, and Sturgis 2001).
C.4.3 Storage capacity. A cap on a CAD facility reduces the storage capacity of the pit.
However, the cap has the advantage of immediate isolation when rapid sediment accumulation
over the contaminated material is not expected (Morris and Fredette 2002).
C.4.4 Material placement. Spreading techniques should be used to achieve the desired
thickness, uniform capping, and complete coverage. When mechanical spreading is employed,
care should be exercised to minimize the mixing of capping and contaminated material that is
likely to occur during the spreading process. Placement of capping material at equal or lesser
density than the contaminated material generally meets this requirement. Careful monitoring of
cap placement operations should be undertaken to ensure design objectives are met. Slow
placement of cap material has been found to minimize mixing of cap material with contaminated
sediments found below. The cap material must also be stable against long-term erosion (Myre,
Walter, and Rollings 2000).
C.4.5 Consolidation. The need for the contaminated material to consolidate for some time to
develop enough strength to support the capping material needs to be evaluated. As much information as possible should be known about the geotechnical behavior of the dredged material
because cohesion and strength of the sediments are altered by the dredging process. The shear
strength of the material is lowered, and the water content is increased. Capping may take place in
stages of placement of clean sand, clean mud (optional), and additional clean mud (optional)
after allowing for consolidation of the contaminated material (Whiteside, Ng, and Lee 1996).
Final capping may be delayed for a period of up to 1 year to allow for maximum consolidation,
but generally the allowable consolidation time period is approximately 3-6 months. Consolidation rates have been found to be highest immediately following placement and are reduced
considerably with time. Little data exist that provide guidance on how to determine when
sediments have sufficient strength to be capped.

C-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
C.4.6 Consolidation of material varies widely and volume reduction up to 50% has been
observed depending upon water content and material composition. Consolidation rates also are
dependent upon drainage paths, pore pressure gradient, and rate of filling (Myre, Walter, and
Rollings 2000).
C.4.7 Mixing of the contaminated dredged material and the cap is significantly reduced by
maximizing the consolidation of the contaminated material. Mixing of the contaminated
sediment and the cap is minimized by the minimal use of props on vessel placing the cap
material.
C.4.8 If erosion is the only consideration, coarse material may be the most desirable cap
material. Coarse sand may be a problem if the contaminated material is a fine silty material with
a high water content. Clean silty sediment may be used if consolidation of the contaminated
sediment is not allowed to take place. As the difference between the density of the contaminated
material approaches zero, the potential for mixing will also substantially decrease.
C.4.9 Interim caps may be required for large pits for temporary isolation of contaminated
material due to varying dredging schedules.
C.4.10 Consolidation of the contaminated sediments near the sediment-cap boundary is
promoted by the placement of capping material. Also the shear strength increases with depth in
the consolidated material due to the weight of the capping material. Some data suggest that the
processing of pre-capping was more effective in increasing the bearing strength of the sediment
than self-weight consolidation.
C.5 Monitoring.
C.5.1 Monitoring of the CAD pit is an essential part of the isolation process of contaminated
sediments. Monitoring is useful before, during, and following the placement of contaminated
material to ensure that the cap is properly constructed and that the amount of material released to
the surroundings is within acceptable limits. The monitoring plans should be more intensive
during and shortly after placement operations and will decline in future years. Monitoring should
involve both the cumulative impact on the surrounding environment and pit-specific compliance
(Whiteside, Ng, and Lee 1996; Shaw, Whiteside, and Ng 1998).
C.5.2 The monitoring plan should consider the following components:
a. Physical.
b. Chemical.
c. Ecological/biological.
C.5.3 The physical components are the release of small amounts of pore water with
associated contaminants during consolidation and the very slow process (thousands of years) of
diffusion of contaminants (Murray et al. 1998).

C-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
C.5.4 Post capping monitoring techniques include the following:
a. Precision bathymetry.
b. Subbottom profiling.
c. Coring.
C.5.5 Bioaccumulation of contaminants by plants and animals that inhabit the CAD pit
environment should be considered as part of the monitoring process.
C.5.6 Upon completion of filling of the CAD pits and capping with clean material, detailed
bathymetric surveys and penetrometer testing should be performed to verify the integrity of the
cap thickness and composition. Bathymetric surveys may be of limited use because of varying
rates of consolidation of sediments.
C.6 Conclusions. Confined aquatic disposal of contaminated sediments is a practical and
effective means of permanently isolating the material from the environment. Factors that should
be considered are pit site selection, construction, operation, cap design and monitoring.

C-8

APPENDIX D
Plant Materials for Beneficial Use Sites
D.1 Plants for Habitat Development. Table D-1 identifies and describes selected upland plant specifies for habitat development on
dredged material sites.
Table D-1. Selected Upland Plant Species for Habitat Development on Dredged Material Sites (Landin 1978)
Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses

D-1

American
beachgrass1,2,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

In wet sand beds or Feb-May MA, NE, GL

in pots of sand

To 1.5 m/ Perennial cool season grass Tolerates saline conditions,

5 ft
with stiff stems, full sun
beach/dune areas, excellent
for sandy beach/dune areas

American dunegrass1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In wet sand beds or Mar-Jun

in pots of sand

NE, RNW

To 1.5 m/ Strong, erect fast growing,

5 ft
full sun

Bahia grass1,3

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

SE, MA, FL, MS To 15 cm/ Summer perennial, creeping Cultivated for pasture, good
6 in
base, upright stems, full sun cover, wide range of soils

Barley1,2,3

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Oct-Nov

Entire U.S.

Barnyard grass1,3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

May-Sep Entire U.S.

except FL

Beach panic grass1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In wet sand beds or Mar-Jun

pots of sand

MA, SE, FL, MS To 1.2 m/ Perennial, few flowered, full Prefers sandy soils
4 ft
sun

Beaked panic grass1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, SE, FL, MS, To 1.8 m/ Perennial, hardy, fast

MRV, SP, MP 6 ft
growing, full sun

Prefers moist sandy soil

Big bluestem1,3

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 1.8 m/ Perennial, robust, tufted,
except PNW, CA 6 ft
dense sod, full sun

Important forage grass, prefers

well-drained soils

Prefers sand areas, good soil

stabilizer

To 1.2 m/ Annual winter cover crop

4 ft
grass, full sun

Extensively cultivated for cover/

grain, requires good soil bed

To 1.8 m/ Annual grass, arching

6 ft
heads, full sun

Prefers moist soils, cultivated

for waterfowl food

(Sheet 1 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

* Numbers given after species names indicate the following information:

1 - Known to occur on dredged material.
2 - Planted on dredged material sites.
3 - Known to be available commercially or from State and Federal nurseries.
** Collection periods, storage requirements and planting periods are only for best propagules. Many of these species may be handled in other ways for other propagule types not
portrayed in this table.
SE = southeast; MS = midsouth; SP = south plains; MP = mid plains; NP = north plains; NE = northeast; MA = mid Atlantic; PNW = Pacific northwest; SW = southwest;
FL = Florida; GL = Great Lakes; MRV = Mississippi River Valley; CA = California; MW = Midwest.

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)
Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Bromesedge1

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

May-Sep Entire eastern

U.S. and CA

Browntop millet3

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jul

SE, MA, MS, FL To

23 cm/
9 in

Bull paspalum1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool room

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, FL, MS To 1.8 m/ Stout summer annual, fast Prefers moist soils, good seed
6 ft
growing, spreading, full sun producer

Bushy beardgrass1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, SP,
SW, CA

Calley Bermuda grass3 Transplants,

rootstock

Yearround

In soil beds

Mar-Jun

SE, MS, SP, FL To

15 cm/
6 in

Perennial, fast growing,

sterile, full sun

Vigorous new hybrid Bermuda,

pasture use

Coastal Bermuda grass3 Transplants,

rootstock

Yearround

In soil beds

Mar-Jun

SE, MA, FL,

SP, MS

To
15 cm/
6 in

Perennial, fast growing,

sterile, full sun

Planted extensively in
southern pastures for grazing/
hay, tolerates salt spray

Common Bermuda
grass1,3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
except MW,
PNW, NP, NE

To
Perennial, fast growing,
5-10 cm/ abundant seeds, full sun
2-4 in.

Common reed1

Rootstock,
rhizomes

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or pots Feb-Jun

of sand

GL, NE, MA,

To 3.7 m/ Perennial, fast growing
SE, FL, MS, SP 12 ft
persistent, full sun

Pest plant in many areas, not

recommended for any use
other than soil stabilization

Corn1,2,3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Entire U.S.

Cultivated extensively for

grain/silage/human
consumption

D-2

Bromegrass1,3

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 1.8 m/ Perennial, creeping
except SE, FL, 6 ft
rhizomes, erect stems,
MS, SP
dense sod, full sun

(Sheet 2 of 35)

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, dense culm,

3 ft
upright stems, full sun

Pest plant in pastures/crops,

grows under most soil
conditions

Summer annual, erect

Prefers wet soils, excellent
stems, good seed producer, waterfowl food, no soil prepafull sun
ration necessary in many
cases

To 1.8 m/ Erect dense, fast growing,

6 ft
full sun

To 2.73.0 m/
9-10 ft

Important forage, grass,

prefers well-drained soils

Summer annual, upright

heavy seed producer, full
sun

Prefers moist soils

Pasture crop, lawns, pest in

cultivated areas, tolerates wide
range of conditions

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)

D-3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

YearSE, MS, FL,

round
MA, SP, SW
(MS, FL);
Apr-May
(north)

To 1.5 m/ Dense perennial, full sun

5 ft

Cultivated pasture grass

Deertongue1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Oct-Nov; NE, MA, SE,

Mar-Apr MS, MP, NP,
MRV

To 1.5 m/ Warm season, full sun,

5 ft
dense clumps

Tolerates acid soils, seeds

have strong dormancy

European beachgrass1,3 Transplants

Oct-Mar

Hold in wet sand

Feb-May PNW, CA
beds or in sand pots

To 1.5 m/ Perennial, cool season

5 ft
grass, rigid stems, full sun

Tolerates saline conditions,

excellent for sand beach/dune
areas

Fall panic grass1

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S. NP, To 0.9 m/ Coarse, summer annual,

PNW
3 ft
fast growing, good seed
producer, full sun

Tolerates wide range of soil

conditions including wet areas,
considered crop pest plant

Foxtail millet3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.
To 1.8 m/ Summer annual, upright,
except MW, FL, 6 ft
fast growth, full sun
SP

Cultivated extensively for

grain/silage, prefers moist soils

Goose grass1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.
except NP,
PNW

To
15 cm/
6 in

Small culmed perennial,

heavy seed producer, full
sun

Pest plant in cultivated areas,

grows in most soil conditions

Green bristlegrass1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Vigorous summer annual,

3 ft
clumped, full sun

Occurs in many soils, pest in

crops, not palatable to
browsers

Italian ryegrass1

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Oct-Nov

Eastern U.S.
and SP, NP,
PNW, CA

To 0.9 m/ Perennial in south, in north, Cultivated for winter grazing/

3 ft
hardy, forms dense root
quick winter cover/lawns
system, full sun

Japanese millet3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.
except FL

To 1.5 m/ Tall heavy annual, abundant Occurs in all soils, grown for
5 ft
seeds, full sun
waterfowl/cattle feed, is salt
tolerant to some extent

(Sheet 3 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Dallis grass1,3

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 1.5 m/ Hardy, fast growing, erect,

5 ft
strong seed producer, full
sun

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)

D-4

Johnson grass1,3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.
except NP,
MW, PNW

Jungle rice1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

May-Sep Entire U.S.

To
Perennial, prostrate to erect, Good seed producer, prefers
except NP, MW 8-10 cm/ full sun
wet to moist soils
3-4 in

Large crabgrass1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.
except NP

To 0.3 m/ Creeping annual fast

1 ft
growing, full sun

Little hairgrass1

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, PNW, CA

To 25 cm/ Annual, tufted culms, full sun Prefers sand, dry coastal soils
10 in

Oats3

Seeds

May-Jun

Dry, cool area

Sep-Oct

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Cool season annual, agro3 ft

nomic cereal crop, full sun

Occurs in almost all soil

conditions, needs wellprepared seed bed

Orchardgrass1,3

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Sep Entire U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Clumped, perennial hardy,

4 ft
full sun to shade

Prefers well-drained soils, does

well in many soils, cultivated for
grazing/hay/ silage

Panic grass1

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Dense clumped perennials,

4 ft
strong rhizomes, full sun

Prefers moist sandy soil

Pearl millet3

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, SP,

SW

To 1.8 m/ Robust, summer annual,

6 ft
heavy seed producer, full
sun

Cultivated for grain/silage,

prefers moist soil but tolerates
drought

Perennial ryegrass1,3

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Sep-Nov SE, MS, SP, FL To 0.9 m/ Hardy, dense root system,

3 ft
full sun

Good winter cover, good

winter wildlife food/cattle
forage in the south

Prairie cordgrass1,2,3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 2.7 m/ Tall perennial, full sun
except SE, FL, 9 ft
MS, CA

Occurs in wet, coastal areas

Proso millet3

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

MW, SP

Produces seeds 4 months

after planting, good food value,
cultivated for grain

(Sheet 4 of 35)

To 1.2 m/ Summer annual, erect

4 ft
stems, full sun

Planted for pastures/hay, pest

plant in cultivated areas

Occurs in all soils, pest in

cultivated areas, immune to
herbicides

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)

D-5

Rootstock

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or pots Mar-Jun

of sand

Red fescue1,3

Seeds

May-Aug
(north)

Dry, cool area

Mar-May Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Hardy robust creeping grass Cultivated extensively in mixed
(north)
except FL, SP, 3 ft
forms a dense sod, shade to stands for pastures/lawns/and
MS, SE
full sun
rights-of-ways

Redtop1,3

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Tall hardy, stoloniferous, full Cultivated for silage/hay/

3 ft
sun
grazing

Red canary grass1,3

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 1.8 m/ Summer perennial, robust,

6 ft
fast growth, full sun

Prefers moist soil, but grows

anywhere, cultivated on
sewage areas/for pastures,
good seed producer

Rescue grass1,3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

SE, MA, CA,

SW

To 0.9 m/ Robust, summer perennial,

3 ft
full sun

Cultivated in south as forage

Rice cutgrass1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Dense culms, perennial,

4 ft
much branched, shade to
full sun

Prefers moist/wet soils

Rye3

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Sep-Nov Entire U.S.

(south);
Apr-May
(north)

To 0.9 m/ Hardy cool season annual,

3 ft
high speed producer, full
sun

Cultivated extensively for

grain/cover/green forage
crops, especially in north

Saltgrass1,2,3

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-May
Jul-Sep

In wet sand beds or Mar-Jun

in pots of sand

Entire U.S. in
saline areas
except PNW,
CA

To 0.3 m/ Dense perennial, hardy,

1 ft
many rhizomes, good seed
producer, full sun

Prefers moist coastal areas,

occurs in salt marshes/on
sand dunes

Saltmeadow
cordgrass1,2,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Yearround
(south);
Mar-Oct
(north)

In wet sand beds or Feb-Jun

in sand pots

NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, SP

To 0.9 m/ Densely rooted, summer

Occurs in flooded saline areas
3 ft
perennial, spreads best from to dry sand dunes, is
tillers
successfully planted on
dredged material

Sand dropseed1

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Erect perennial, hardy, slow Prefers sandy soils, grows on

3 ft
growing, full sun
prairie areas

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.

(Sheet 5 of 35)

To 1.2 m/ Perennial, long running root Pest plant, exotic

4 ft
stock, hardy, full sun

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Quackgrass1

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)

D-6

Sea oats1,2,3

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar
(trans);
Aug-Oct
(seeds)

In wet sand beds

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, FL, MS To 1.8 m/ Robust perennial, dense

6 ft
roots, full sun

Seashore bluegrass1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In wet sand beds or Mar-Jun

pots of sand

PNW, CA

To 0.3 m/ Creeping rhizomous

Prefers coastal sand dunes
1 ft
perennial with upright culms,
full sun

Seashore paspalum1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In wet sand beds or Sep-Jun

in sand pots

SE, FL, MS

To 0.3 m/ Dense perennial, fast

1 ft
growing, full sun

Tolerates flooding/salt spray,

occurs on dredged material
islands in dense stands

Shoredune panic grass1 Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-May NE, MA, FL,

MS, SP

To 1.8 m/ Upright, coarse, perennial,

6 ft
fast growing, full sun

Prefers sandy beach soils,

tolerates salt sprays, occurs
on dredged material islands

Sixweeks fescue3

Seeds

May-Jun

Dry, cool area

Mar-May Entire U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Annual, fast seed producer, Cultivated as forage/hay crops

1 ft
full sun or shade

Smooth crabgrass1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.
except SW

To 0.3 m/ Creeping, fast growing,

1 ft
annual, full sun

Occurs in many soil types, a

pest in cultivated fields/gardens

Sorghum3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.

To 1.8 m/ Upright, summer annual,

6 ft
heavy seed producer, full
sun

Cultivated extensively as
grain/silage crop, tolerates
wide range of soils

Sudan grass3

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.
To 2.7 m/ Wandering, upright annual, Cultivated for hay/silage,
except NP, NE, 9 ft
hardy, fast growing, full sun tolerates wide range of soils
PNW

Switchgrass1,3

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

Entire U.S.
except NP,
PNW, CA

Tall fescue1,2,3

Seeds

Apr-Jun
(south);
May-Aug
(north)

Dry, cool area

Oct-Nov Eastern U.S.

To 1.5 m/ Cool weather grass in south, Cultivated for pastures
(south); except FL; MP, 5 ft
summer grass in north, full
Mar-May PNW
sun
(north)
(Sheet 6 of 35)

To 1.8 m/ Summer perennial, fast

6 ft
growing, hardy, full sun

Prefers sandy, coastal areas,

excellent dune stabilizer,
tolerates salt spray

Prefers moist soils, grows at

waters edge, tolerant of salt
spray

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 1.8 m/ Summer annual with

6 ft
spreading stems, full sun

Growth Habits

Remarks

Grasses (Continued)

D-7

Texas millet

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Aug MA, SE, FL,

MS, SP

Timothy1,2,3

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 0.9 m/ Summer perennial, fast
except SP, FL, 3 ft
growing, erect, full sun
MS

Cultivated extensively in North

America for hay

Torpedo grass1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In wet soil beds or

pots of sand

Sep-Jun

FL, MS, SP

To 10 cm/ Stout perennials, many

4 in
rhizomes, dense cover, full
sun

Sea beaches, prefers sandy

moist soils, tolerates salt spray

Vasey grass1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

FL, SE, MA,

MS, SP, CA

To 1.8 m/ Clumped, stout perennial,

6 ft
erect, hardy, full sun

Prefers moist soil, pasture

grass, roadside cover

Virginia dropseed1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, FL, MS

To 0.3 m/ Perennial, branching

1 ft
rhizomes, erect, culms, full
sun

Occurs on sandy/muddy
seashores, tolerates salt spray

Walters millet1,3

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Sep

SP, MS, FL,

SE, MA, NE,
GL

To 2.7 m/ Stiff stems, abundant seeds, Occurs in all soils, cultivated

9 ft
annual, full sun
for waterfowl food, prefers wet
soils

Wheat3

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Oct-Nov Entire U.S.

(winter);
Mar-May
(spring)

To 0.9 m/ Winter annual, good seed

3 ft
producer, hardy, full sun

Wild rye1

Seeds

Mar-Jul

Dry, cool area

Sep-Jun

Entire U.S.
except CA

To 1.2 m/ Perennial, tufted, erect

Prefers moist soils, good seed
4 ft
culms, heavy seeds, full sun producer, tolerates salt spray
somewhat

Wooly panic grass1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, SE, FL, MS To 0.6 m/ Perennial, clumped

2 ft
spreading shade/sun

Yellow bristlegrass

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.
To 0.9 m/ Summer annual, good seed Occurs in many soil
except SW, CA 3 ft
producer, full sun
conditions, pest in crops, not
palatable to browsers

Cultivated extensively,
tolerates cold, good cover/food
crop

Prefers moist soils, grows in

woods/open areas, occurs on
sea coast

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 7 of 35)

Fast growing, considered crop

weed, grows well on sand
dunes

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs

D-8

Alfalfa3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Aug-Sep; Entire U.S.

or FebApr

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, much-branched

2 ft
legume, full sun

Requires good seedbed

preparation, occurs on most
soils, prefers rich, moist areas

Alsike clover

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Apr
(south);
Jun-Sep
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Entire U.S.

(south);
Mar-Jun
(north)

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, ascending

2 ft
branches, full sun

Prefers moist, acidic soils,

cultivated in areas where
clovers wont grow

Arrow-leafed tearthumb1 Transplants,

seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Viney, annual, weak

2 ft
stemmed, spiny, full sun

Prefers moist soils

Beach pea1

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

Entire coastal
U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Perennial, viney plant,

1 ft
hardy, full sun

Prefers sandy moist soils,

occurs on coastal beaches/
dunes/islands

Beach strawberry

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or in
pots of sand

Mar-Jun

PNW, SW

To 20 cm/ Perennial plants with

8 in
runners, full sun to shade

Prefers moist sandy soils

Big filaree

Seeds

Apr-Jul

Dry, cool area

Sep-Nov CA

To 20 cm/ Winter annual, full sun

8 in

Pest plant, occurs in most

well-drained soils

Birds foot trefoil1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

To 0.6 m/ Long rooted perennial, full

2 ft
sun

Pest plant, occurs in most

soils, common coasts

Bittersweet nightshade1 Seeds

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-May NE, MA, NP

To 2.4 m/ Perennial, climbing stem, full Prefers moist soils/in woods,

8 ft
sun to shade
but grows in open areas

Black medic1,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Jun
(south);
Jun-Aug
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Entire U.S.

(south)
Mar-Jun
(north)

To 0.3 m/ Annual, shallow taproot, full Prefers well-drained or dry

1 ft
sun
soils, dormant in south in the
summer

Black nightshade1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Erect, annual, hairy, hardy,

3 ft
full sun

Blackseed plaintain1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, rootstock, stout, Pest plant, occurs in woods/

3 ft
thick, erect, hardy, full sun or fields/waste areas
shade

NE, MA

(Sheet 8 of 35)

Pest in cultivated areas,

occurs in most soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-9

Bottlebrush1

Seeds

May-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, many branched

3 ft
stem, full sun

Bracted plantain1

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
except, MW,
PNW, CA, SW

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, stout root- stock, Prefers dry open areas

2 ft
erect, full sun

Broadleaf plantain1

Seeds

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 20 cm/ Perennial, rootstock short,

8 in
thick, erect, full sun

Buckthorn plantain1

Seeds

Apr-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Perennial, pubescent, short In fields/waste places

1 ft
root-stock, full sun

Bush lupine

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area; soak Apr-Jun

in hot water before
planting

PNW, CA

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, many branched,

2 ft
shrubby, full sun

In dry, open areas

Calandrinia

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

CA

--

In dry scrub areas, sandy

coastal beaches

Camphorweed1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, SE, FL,

MS, SW, SP,
MP

To 0.9 m/ Biennial, many branched,

3 ft
many flowered, full sun

Chufa1,2,3

Tubers, seeds Jul-Oct

Moist cold room

(tubers)
Dry, cool area
(seeds)

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Perennial sedge, robust, fast Prefers wet to moist soils,

2 ft
growing, numerous edible
prime wildlife food, extremely
tubers, full sun
prolific

Coast deervetch

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

PNW, CA

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, long roots,

2 ft
slender stems, full sun

Prefers dry, well-drained soils

Common chickweed1

Seeds

Dec-Feb

Dry, cool area

Oct-Dec

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Weak, tufted annual, much

2 ft
branched, full sun

Pest plant in all agronomic

situations

Common filaree1

Seeds

Apr-Jul

Dry, cool area

Sep-Nov NE, MA, SE, SP, To 15 cm/ Winter annual, taproots,

GL, PNW, CA
6 in
many branched, full sun

Pest plant, occurs in most

soils, prefers well-drained soils

Common
lambsquarters1

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Pest plant, occurs in most

soils, occurs on dredged
material islands

(Sheet 9 of 35)

To 1.2 m/ Annual erect, bushy

4 ft
common, shade to full sun

Occurs in most soils, in waste

places

Prefers dry, sandy soils, sea

beaches, occurs commonly on
dredged material islands

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Entire U.S.

--

Prefers well-drained open

areas

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)
Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 2.1 m/ Erect, stout, biennial, full sun Pest plant, occurs in open
7 ft
well-drained areas

Common purslane1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 15 cm/ Annual, prostrate, free

6 in
branching, deep roots, full
sun

Prefers dry sandy areas

Common ragweed1

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Annual, shallow roots,

2 ft
robust, common full sun

Pest plant, occurs in most

soils, tolerates salt spray,
occurs on dredged material
islands

Common spikerush1

Transplants,
seeds

Apr-Sep

In sand beds (trans.) Apr-Sep

moist, cool area

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, upright, slender

2 ft
stems, full sun

Occurs in moist soils in interior

areas

Common threesquare1

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar
(trans);
Jul-Oct
(seeds)

In sand beds (trans.) Mar-Jun

moist cool area

Entire U.S.
except SW

To 1.8 m/ Perennial, upright, triangular Occurs in moist soils in fresh/

6 ft
stems, full sun
brackish areas, good wildlife
food

Cow pea1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Sep Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Summer annual, viney, fast

2 ft
growing, good seed
producer, full sun

Crimson clover3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Apr
(south);
Jun-Sep
(north)

Dry, cool area

Dec-Feb Entire U.S.

(south);
Mar-Jul
(north)

To 0.6 m/ Strong perennial in south,

Cultivated on most soils for
2 ft
annual in north, procumbent hay/grazing and on rights-ofstems, fast growing
ways

Croton

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

CA, SW

To 0.9 m/ Many branched, stout

3 ft
annual, robust, full sun

Occurs in waste areas/dry

soils, pest plant

Curly dock1

Seeds

Apr-Jul

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Perennial, stout, deep tap

4 ft
root, erect, persistent, full
sun

Pest plant, occurs in waste

areas/crops and in most soils

Deerweed

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

CA

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, long tap roots, full Occurs in waste areas, dry
2 ft
sun
soils

D-10

Common mullein1

(Sheet 10 of 35)

Cultivated in most soils for

human food/hay/forage,
especially in the south

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, tiny stems, turf3 ft

like, full sun

Occurs in moist soils in fresh,

brackish areas
Occurs in most soils, waste
places/fields, prefers welldrained areas

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-11

Dwarf spikerush1

Transplants,
seeds

Mar-Nov
(trans);
Jun-Sep
(seeds)

In sand beds; dry,

cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.
except SW

Filaree

Seeds

Apr-Sep

Dry, cool area

Nov-May PNW, CA

To 0.3 m/ Annual, tufted, ascending

1 ft
stems, full sun

Flat pea1,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

NE, MA, MRV,

GL, PNW

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, viney plant, forms Occurs in most soils, very slow
2 ft
mats, full sun to shade
growing

Flowering spurge1

Seeds

Apr-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, long stout

3 ft
rootstock, erect, full sun

Prefers dry soils

Giant ragweed1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
except PNW,
CA

To 4.6 m/ Annual, stout, erect,

15 ft
persistent, full sun

Pest plant, prefers soil,

tolerates salt spray, common
on coasts

Goosefoot1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, scruffy, erect,

3 ft
branched, full sun

Pest plant, occurs in most

soils, in waste places

Hairy vetch3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Apr
(south);
Apr-Jul
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Entire U.S.

(south);
Mar-May
(north)

To 0.9 m/ Annual or biennial, viney,

3 ft
weak, stemmed, fast
growing, full sun

Cultivated for forage, occurs in

most soils, excellent erosion
control

Hardstem bulrush1,2

Rhizomes,
transplants

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 1.8 m/ Perennial, stout, sharp stem Prefers moist soils, pest in low
6 ft
tips, persistent, full sun
ground pastures, extremely
hardy

Hemp sesbania1

Seeds

Aug-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

SW, MA, SE,

FL, MS, SP

To 3.7 m/ Annual, legume, widely

12 ft
branched, robust, full sun

Hop clover3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jan-Mar
(south);
Mar-Jun
(north)

Dry, cool area

Oct-Feb
(south);
Jan-Apr
(north)

Entire U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Winter annual, low, forms

Occurs on poor dry soils,
1 ft
carpet, procumbent, full sun excellent nitrogen fixing
legume, crowds out grasses

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 11 of 35)

Occurs in most soils, in

soybean fields

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-12

Horse nettle1

Seeds

May-Sep

Remove pulpy coat; Apr-Jun

dry, cool area

Eastern U.S.
and SP

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, erect, spiny,

2 ft
branched, full sun

Occurs in most dry soils, pest

plant in agricultural situations

Horseweed1

Seeds

Jun-Nov

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 3 m/
10 ft

Pest plant, occurs on most

soils, tolerates salt spray,
common on dredged material
islands

Japanese clover3

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Apr

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, erect, many

3 ft
branched, full sun

Jerusalem artichoke

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern U.S.
mid-U.S.

To 3.7 m/ Perennial, fleshy, rootstock, Prefers moist soil, tubers are

12 ft
tubers, stout, erect
edible

Korean clover1

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Apr

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, erect, many

3 ft
branched, full sun

Cultivated for forage/hay/

silage, excellent on poor, welldrained soils

Ladino clover3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Apr
(south);
Apr-Jul
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Jan Entire U.S.

(south);
Feb-Mar
(north)

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, fast growing,

3 ft
fleshy stems, creeping, full
sun

Cultivated for forage/hay/

silage, excellent on poor, welldrained soils

Ladysthumb1

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Annual, ascending stems,

2 ft
variable branching, full sun

Prefers moist soils, in waste

places, pest plant in some
areas

Lespedeza3

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-May Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, shrubby, full sun

2 ft

Cultivated for forage/hay/

silage, highway rights-of-ways,
well-drained soils

Lupine

Seeds

May-Sep

Dry, cool area; soak Apr-Jun

with hot water prior
to planting

PNW, CA, SW

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, shrubby, full sun

2 ft

Prefers dry, sandy soils

Malta starthistle1

Seeds

Apr-Sep

Dry, cool area

Entire U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Annual, much branched,

Occurs in most soils and in
4 ft
spiny yellow flowers, full sun waste/cultivated areas, pest
plant

Feb-Apr

(Sheet 12 of 35)

Annual, stout, erect, fast

growing, full sun

Cultivated for forage/silage,

excellent on poor, well-drained
soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-13

Mapleleaf goosefoot1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
except PNW,
CA

To 2.4 m/ Annual, erect, bright green,

8 ft
branched, shade to full sun

Marsh pea1

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Perennial, viney shrub, very Prefers moist areas

4 ft
persistent, full sun

Marsh pepper1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Annual, erect, reddish

Occurs in moist waste places,
2 ft
green, may be branched, full sometimes in standing water
sun

Maximillians sunflower Seeds

Aug-Nov

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

MA, SE, MS,

SP, MP, NP,
PNW

To 1.8 m/ Upright, coarse, stout,

6 ft
annual, full sun

Mexican tea1

Transplants,
seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual in north, perennial in Pest plant, occurs in most

3 ft
south, much branched,
soils, in cultivated/waste areas
erect, full sun

Musk filaree

Seeds

Feb-Jul

Dry, cool area

Nov-Apr

CA

To 0.6 m/ Winter annual, semi-erect,

2 ft
full sun

Prefers dry, well-drained soils

Narrowleaf vetch1,3

Seeds

Feb-Apr
(south);
Apr-Jun
(north)

Dry, cool area

Oct-Dec Entire U.S.

(south);
Feb-May
(north)

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, viney, trailing,

3 ft
spreading, full sun

Cultivated for pastures/hay/

silage

Nodding smartweed1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, much branched,

3 ft
nodes, swollen, good seed
producer, full sun

Occurs in most soils and in

waste/cultivated areas

Nutsedge1

Corms, seeds Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

NP, MP, SP, FL To 0.6 m/ Perennial, hard oblong

2 ft
corms, ascending, full sun

Occurs in dry fields/on hills

Olney threesquare1

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or in
sand pots

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
coastline

To 2.1 m/ Perennial, upright, stems

7 ft
three-winged, full sun

Occurs in coastal/fresh moist

areas, tolerates salinity

Orache1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
coastline

To 0.9 m/ Annual, widely branched

3 ft
fruiting bracts, fleshy, full
sun

Occurs in saltmeadows/along
coasts/in inland areas

Occurs in most soils, attractive

flowers

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 13 of 35)

Occurs in woods/thickets or in
open, most soil types

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-14

Partridge pea1,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area; soak Apr-Jun

seeds in water
before planting

Eastern U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, widely branched,

3 ft
erect, spreading, full sun

In dry soils, common in south

in cultivated fields/disturbed
areas

Pennsylvania
smartweed1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 1.2 m/ Annual, ascending,

4 ft
branched stems, full sun

Occurs on most soils, prefers

moist soil, a sometimes pest
plant

Pickleweed1

Seeds

May-Aug

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

CA, PNW, NE,

SW

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, stout stem, erect, Prefers wet places

3 ft
unbranched, full sun

Pokeberry1

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 2.7 m/ Robust perennial, with
except NP,
9 ft
several purple stems, full
PNW, MW, SW
sun to shade

Occurs in most soil types and

in waste places

Prostrate knotweed1

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Annual, prostrate or

2 ft
ascending stems, creeping
full sun

Pest plant in many areas,

occurs in most soils

Prostrate pigweed

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

NE, GL, MRV,

NP

To 0.6 m/ Annual, many branched,

Prefers well-drained soils,
2 ft
prostrate, spreading, full sun occurs in waste areas, pest
plant

Prostrate spurge

Seeds

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, procumbent

Prefers well-drained soils
2 ft
branches, stout at rootstock,
full sun

Purple nutsedge1

Tubers, seeds Jul-Sep

Moist, cool area

(tubers) dry, cool
area (seeds)

Mar-Jul

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, extremely

2 ft
hardy/persistent, full sun

Pest plant in lawns, gardens,

fields, pastures

Purple vetch1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-May
(south);
May-Jul
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Entire U.S.

(south)
Mar-May
(north)

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, viney, trailing,

3 ft
spreading, full sun

Cultivated for pastures/hay/

silage

Red clover1,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-Apr
(south);
Apr-Sep
(north)

Dry, cool area

Jan-Mar
(south)
Mar-Jun
(north)

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, ascending stems, Cultivated as forage/hay

2 ft
many branched, full sun
crops, soil conservation areas

Entire U.S.
except MW

(Sheet 14 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-15

Redroot pigweed1

Seeds

Jun-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Coarse, summer annual,

Occurs on most soil types,
3 ft
deep red taproot, very hardy, pest plant in agronomic/feedlot
persistent, shade to full sun situations

Reseeding soybean3

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jul

SE, MS

To 3.7 m/ Annual legume, viney stems, Cultivated as waterfowl food,

12 ft
full sun
occurs in most soils

River bulrush1

Rootstock

Sep-Apr

In sand beds or pots Apr-Jun

of sand

NE, MA, SE,

CA

To 1.8 m/ Perennial, erect, widely

6 ft
spreading, seed head, full
sun

Occurs in moist areas/interior

U.S.

Saltmarsh bulrush1,2

Rootstock

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or pots Mar-Jun

of sand

MS, SP, CA,

PNW

To 1.8 m/ Perennial, spiny seed,

6 ft
triangular stems, full sun

Prefers marshes, occurs on

dredged material islands

Saltwort1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or in
pots of sand

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, SE, FL To 0.6 m/ Annual, spiny, much

2 ft
branched, gray leaves, full
sun

Schweinitzs nutsedge1 Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

NE, GL, MRV,

NP, MP

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, thickened corms, Prefers sandy soils/moist

3 ft
slender stems, full sun
areas

Sea blite1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S. in
salt marshes

To 0.9 m/ Annual, much branched, full Prefers coastal moist areas,

3 ft
sun
tolerates salt spray

Sea ox-eye3

Seeds,
transplants

Jul-Sep
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Dry, cool area

(seeds)
balled/burlapped
(B&B) or potted
(trans.)

Feb-May Eastern and

southern U.S.
coasts

Seashore lupine1

Seeds

May-Sep

Dry, cool area, soak Mar-Jun

in water before
planting

PNW, CA

Seaside dock1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Entire U.S.
To 10 cm/ Perennial, deep roots, erect, Prefers moist sand areas,
except SE, FL, 4 in
fast growing, full sun
tolerates salt spray
MS

Seaside goldenrod1

Seeds

Aug-Dec

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern and
southern U.S.
coasts

To 0.6 m/ Shrubby, fleshy, gray

2 ft
foliage, full sun

Occurs in sandy, coastal

areas, tolerates salinity

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, scrubby, full sun

2 ft

Prefers sandy
beaches/marshes

To 2.4 m/ Perennial, stout, erect, very Occurs on coasts/dredged

8 ft
leafy, large flower, full sun material islands

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 15 of 35)

Prefers coastal moist areas,

tolerates brackish soils

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-16

Seaside plantain1

Transplants,
seeds

Mar-Oct
(trans);
Jun-Sep
(seeds)

In sand beds or pots, Mar-Jun

dry, cool area

Entire coastal
U.S.

To 20 cm/ Annual/perennial, fleshy

8 in
rootstock/stems, full sun

Sericea lespedza3

Seeds

Sep-Dec

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

FL, MP, MA,

SE, MRV, SP,
MS

To 0.9 m/ Woody perennial, dense fine Occurs in moist soils, used on

3 ft
foliage, good seed
rights-of-ways, in pastures/
production, full sun
hay fields/conservation
projects

Sheep sorrel1

Seeds

May-Jun

Dry, cool area

Feb-Apr

Entire U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Perennial, basal rosette, full Grows in infertile acid soils, will
1 ft
sun
die in fertile soils

Showy tick-trefoil1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern U.S.

To 1.5 m/ Perennial, erect, much

Prefers rich soils, grows in
5 ft
branched, pubescent, shade woods or open areas
or sun

Silverleaf croton1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

FL, SE, MS

To 0.9 m/ Annual, many branched,

3 ft
silver leaves, full sun

Southern bulrush1

Rootstock

Sep-Mar

In sand beds or pots Mar-Jun

of sand

SE, MS, FL, CA To 3.7 m/ Perennial, triangular stems, Occurs in coastal moist areas,
12 ft
upright, droopy spikelets, full tolerates brackish soils
sun

Southern ragweed1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

SE, MS, SP

To 0.9 m/ Annual, hirsute, many

3 ft
branched, full sun

Occurs in dry upland soils,

pest plant, occurs in waste
areas

Soybean1,2,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

Entire U.S.

To 0.6 m/ Annual, fast growing, high

2 ft
seed production, full sun

Cultivated extensively for

beans, excellent wildlife food

Spotted burclover

Seeds
(inoculated)

Feb-Apr
(south);
Apr-Jul
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Jan Entire U.S.

(south);
Feb-May
(north)

To 0.6 m/ Annual, spreading, stout,

2 ft
spiny seeds, full sun

In poor, dry soils

Spotted spurge1

Seeds

Jun-Nov

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jul

To 0.3 m/ Annual, branched stem,

Prefers dry soils
1 ft
prostrate, spreading, full sun

Entire U.S.

(Sheet 16 of 35)

Prefers salt
marshes/seashores, tolerates
salinity

Occurs in coastal soils,

tolerates salt spray, tolerates
drought

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-17

Transplants,
seeds

Apr-Jul
(trans.);
Jun-Aug
(seeds)

In sand beds or pots Mar-Jul

(trans.), dry, cool
area (seeds)

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, slender stems,

3 ft
square stems, full sun

Prefers moist areas, occurs on

coasts in fresh water

Sunflower1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 3.7 m/ Perennial, fleshy roots,

12 ft
creeping rootstock,
branching, full sun

Prefers moist areas, stems

often purple, showy flowers

Tansy mustard1

Seeds

May-Jul

Dry, cool area

Mar-May Entire U.S.

except SW

To 0.6 m/ Annual, erect, branched,

Prefers dry soils
2 ft
slender ascending branches,
full sun

Tropic croton1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

SE, FL, MS,

SP, MA, MRV

To 1.8 m/ Annual, rough, hardy, full

6 ft
sun

Pest in pasture areas, occurs

in moist soils

Tumble-weed1

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, pale green, erect,

3 ft
bushy branched

Occurs in most soils, prefers

dry

Virginia pepperweed1

Seeds

May-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.
except CA,
PNW

To 0.6 m/ Many branched, hardy, full

2 ft
sun

In dry soils, pest plant in fields,

on many dredged material
islands

Western ragweed1

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MW, CA, SW,

NE, GL, NP,
MP, SP

To 1.8 m/ Perennial, creeping

6 ft
rootstock, hardy, full sun

Prefers well-drained soils, a

pest plant

White clover1,2,3

Seeds
(inoculated)

Mar-May
(south);
May-Sep
(north)

Dry, cool area

Jan-Mar
(south)
Mar-Jun
(north)

Entire U.S.
except MW

To 0.3 m/ Shallow rooted perennial

1 ft
with creeping branches, full
sun

Cultivated as pasture/hay
crops, occurs on moist soils

White sweetclover1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Apr-May
(south);
Jun-Nov
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Eastern U.S.

(south);
Mar-May
(north)

To 3 m/
10 ft

Wild bean1

Seeds
(inoculated)

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

To 2.7 m/ Summer annual legume,

9 ft
viney, full sun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

(Sheet 17 of 35)

Annual, erect or ascending, Roadsides, pastures, lawns,

branching, full sun
occurs in moist soils
Occurs on beaches, tolerates
salt spray

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Squarestem spikerush

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Herbs (Continued)

D-18

Wild buckwheat1

Seeds

Jun-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Annual, viney plant, rapid

3 ft
growth, full sun

Occurs in most soils, a pest

plant in crops

Wild sensitive pea

Seeds
(inoculated)

Jun-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 0.3 m/ Annual, erect, branching, full Prefers dry soil

1 ft
sun

Wild strawberry

Seeds,
transplants

Mar-May
(south);
May-Jul
(north)

In sand beds (trans.) Sep-Feb Eastern and

dry, cool area
mid U.S.
(seeds)

To 10 cm/ Perennial, stout, slender

4 in
stalks, shade or sun

Prefers dry, rich soil, edible

berries

Wooly croton1,3

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

MA, SE, MS,

SP, MP, MRV

To 2.1 m/ Robust, branching annual,

7 ft
good seed production, full
sun

Pest in pastures, grows in

most soils, prefers sandy
areas

Wooly indianwheat1

Seeds

May-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

MW, SP, NP,

MP

To 0.3 m/ Annual, ascending leaves,

1 ft
slender stems, full sun

Prefers dry plains/prairies,

other dry areas

Yellow starthistle1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Apr-Jun

NE, MA, MRV,

MW, CA

To 0.6 m/ Annual, branched, winged

2 ft
stems, full sun

Pest plant in cultivated areas

Yellow sweetclover1

Seeds
(inoculated)

May-Jun
(south);
Jul-Nov
(north)

Dry, cool area

Nov-Feb Eastern U.S.

(south);
Apr-Jun
(north)

To 0.3 m/ Annual, erect or ascending, Occurs in waste areas/fields,

1 ft
branching, full sun
most soils

American bittersweet

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, SP,

SW, GL, MRV

To over
7.3 m/
24 ft

Twining, woody vine,

ascending trees or trailing
on ground

Prefers rich, moist soil

Bamboo vine

Tubers, seeds Sep-Mar

(tubers);
Jun-Sep
(seeds)

In soil beds, dry,

cool area

Feb-Jun

MA, SE, FL,

MS, SP

Long
trailing
stems

Tuber rootstocks, stout,

hardy, evergreen, spines,
shade

Prefers moist areas in woods/

thickets

Vines

(Sheet 18 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Vines (Continued)

D-19

Beach morning glory1

Stems, seeds

Sep-Apr

In sand beds, dry,

cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern U.S.
and SP

To 3.7 m/ Perennial, twining, large

12 ft
roots

Common greenbrier1

Seeds

May-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

Long
trailing
stems

Crossvine

Seeds

May-Aug

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

SE, MS, FL,

MRV

To 18.3 m/ Woody, cross visible in cross Prefers moist woods, occurs in

60 ft
section, shade or sun
moist open areas

Fox grape1

Seeds

Aug-Sep

Remove pulpy coat; Mar-Jun

dry, cool area

MA, NE, MRV,

SE

To 27.4 m/ Climbing, large stem, shade Prefers thickets, native stock

90 ft
for cultivated grape hybrids

Fringed catbrier1

Tuber, seeds

Sep-Mar
(tubers);
Apr-Jul
(seeds)

In soil beds (tubers) Apr-Jun

dry, cool area
(seeds)

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

Long
trailing
stems

Woody, four-angled, large

tubers, spiny leaves/stems,
shade or sun

Frost grape1

Transplants

Jun-Oct

Remove pulpy coat; Mar-Jun

dry, cool area

NE, MA, SE,

MW

Long
trailing
stems

Climbing, pubescent, thin

Prefers moist rocky areas,
shining leaves, shade or sun occurs in open moist areas

Japanese honeysuckle1 Rootstock,

transplants

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

Long
climbing
stems

Pubescent, fragrant,
persistent, shade or sun

Pest plant in unkept areas,

excellent forage plant

Kudzu3

Rootstock,
transplants

Sep-Mar

In soil beds or pots

of soil

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

Long
climbing
stems

Hairy, three-foliate leaves,

sun or shade

Pest plant in unkept areas,

excellent cover vine,
ornamental

Lanceleaf greenbrier

Seeds

Apr-Aug

Dry, cool areas

Mar-Jun

SE, FL, SP, MS Long

trailing
stems

Woody, slender, no tubers

or spines, shade or sun

Prefers dry thickets

Muscadine grape1,3

Seeds ,
transplants

Aug-Oct

Remove pulpy coat; Mar-Jun

dry, cool areas

SE, MA, FL,

MP, MS, SP

Woody, slender stems, large Prefers moist sand soil in

leaves, shade or sun
thickets, occurs in silt/clay in
open

Woody, four-angled shoots, Prefers moist areas in woods/

spiny, shade to sun
thickets, occurs in dry areas

Prefers thickets, moist areas,

occurs in dry habitats

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 19 of 35)

Long
trailing
stems

Prefers sandy beaches/dunes

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Long
climbing
stems

Numerous tendrils, aerial

roots, fast growing, dense
cover, sun or shade

Prefers wood/thickets, dry soil,

but occurs in open areas

Long
trailing
stems

Deep, tuberous rootstock,

stout spines, shade or sun

Prefers dry sandy soil, also

called sarsaparilla

Long
trailing
vine

Evergreen, coarse
Prefers dry soil in woods, it
stemmed, persistent, sun or occurs in open
shade

Vines (Continued)

D-20

Peppervine1

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

Sawbrier

Seeds

Sep-Mar
(tubers);
Jun-Aug
(seeds)

In soil beds (trans.)

dry, cool area
(seeds)

Mar-May Eastern U.S.

and SP

Summer grape1

Seeds

Sep-Oct

Remove pulpy coat, Mar-Jun

dry cool area

SE, MS, FL

Supplejack1

Seeds,
transplants

May-Aug

Dry, cool area

ME, SE, FL, SP High

climbing
stems

Shrub, tough, stout leaves/

stems

Prefers moist woods, but

occurs in open areas

Virginia creeper1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Remove pulpy coat; Mar-Jun

dry, cool areas

NE, MA, MRV,

MS, SP, MP,
NP

High
climbing
stems

Large leaves, bark loose/

shreddy, tendrils, shade or
sun

Prefers dry soils in thickets,

occurs in the open

Wild bamboo1

Seeds

Oct-Nov

Remove pulpy coat; Mar-Jun

dry, cool area

SE, MS, FL

Long
trailing
vine

Evergreen, coarse
Forms low thickets in the open
stemmed, persistent, sun or or wood areas
shade

American elderberry1

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar; In nursery, dry cool

Jul-Sep
place

Feb-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, many stemmed, Prefers moist soils, but occurs

30 ft
large flowers, full sun
over wide soil ranges

American hornbeam

Transplants

Sep-Mar

Feb-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, round crown,

30 ft
partial or full shade

Prefers dry soils, often is

understory in open woods

American plum1

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar; B&B or potted in

Jul-Sep
nursery; dry, cool
(seeds)
place

Feb-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, spreading

30 ft
crown, full to partial sun

Prefers moist soils, occurs in

dense thickets, edible fruit

Arrowwood viburnum

Transplants

Sep-Mar

Feb-May MS, SE

To 2.7 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, large

9 ft
flowers, partial sun

Prefers moist soils, common

as understory

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

Shrubs and Small Trees

B&B or potted in
nursery

B&B or potted in
nursery

(Sheet 20 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-21

Autumn olive1,2,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, MS,

FL, SP

To 4.6 m/ Evergreen in south, decid15 ft

uous in north, full sun,
shrub, full to partial sun

Prefers dry soils, drought

resistant, very hardy

Bayberry1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

NE, MA

To 2.7 m/ Evergreen, very dense, full

9 ft
sun, shrub

Prefers sandy soils, occurs in

coastal areas, common on
dredged material, important
habitat plant

Beach plum1

Transplants,
seeds

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, NE

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, low growing,

6 ft
many branched, full sun

Prefers sandy, coastal soils;

edible fruit

Bearberry

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery, cleaned/
stratified (seeds)

Feb-Jun

NE, MA, GL,

To
MRV, NP, MW, 20 cm/
CA, PNW
8 in

Beautyberry1

Transplants.
seeds

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

SE, MS, FL, MA To 2.4 m/ Deciduous, shrubby

8 ft
abundant fruit, full sun to
partial shade

Bicolor lespedeza

Transplants

Sep-Nov
Mar-Jun

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, FL, SP To 2.7 m/ Deciduous legume, irregular Tolerates poor soils/drought
9 ft
shrub, full sun
conditions, prefers welldrained, dry areas

Black raspberry1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

Potted in nursery or Feb-Jun

soil bed

NE, MA, SE,

SP, MP

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, spiny, glaucous, Occurs in most soils,

12 ft
roots from stem tips, full sun persistent, pest plant in
pastures

Blue brush

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, shade

3 ft
to sun

Blue elderberry

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Cleaned/stratified
seeds

Feb-Jun

SW, CA, PNW

To 7.6 m/ Deciduous, many stemmed, Occurs in most soils in open or

25 ft
showy flowers, full sun
in edges of woods

Brazilian peppertree1

Cuttings,
transplants

Oct-Apr

In rooting medium
(cuttings), B&B or
potted (trans.)

Oct-Jun

FL

To 9.1 m/ Evergreen, many branched, Occurs in most soils below

30 ft
tropical, showy flowers, full freeze line in Florida, common
sun
on dredged material islands

Brewer saltbush

Seeds

Jun-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

CA, SW

To 0.6 m/ Shrubby, dense, full sun

2 ft

Grows in variety of soil

conditions, does best as
understory plant

Occurs in dry, rocky, sandy

areas, used for tea substitute
by pioneers

Occurs in dry, saline soil, also

known as sage brush

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 21 of 35)

Evergreen, spreading
Occurs in dry/sandy/rocky
shrubby, slow growth, shade soils
to full sun

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-22

Buffaloberry1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, GL,

NP, SW

To 2.4 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, shade

8 ft
to sun

Occurs in moist soils

Bush lupine

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Dry, cool area

Mar-Jun

PNW, CA

To 0.6 m/ Perennial, shrubby, many

2 ft
seed pods, full sun to part
shade

Occurs in dry/well-drained
soils, both in open and in
edges of woods

California blackberry1

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Apr
(trans.);
Jun-Jul
(seeds)

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.)
cleaned/stratified
(seeds)

Feb-May PNW, CA

To 0.9 m/ Perennial, woody, many

3 ft
branched, arching, full sun

Occurs in dry, well-drained

areas in most soils, very dense
wood

California buckthorn

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May PNW, CA

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, thorny, Occurs in dry soils

6 ft
full sun

Canadian serviceberry1 Seeds,

transplants

Sep-Apr
(trans.);
May-Jun
(seeds)

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.)
cleaned/stratified
(seeds)

Mar-Jun

SE, NE, MA

To 6.4 m/ Deciduous, upright, shrubby, Prefers moist areas, occurs in

21 ft
pubescent young twigs, full most soils
to partial sun

Carolina ash

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, FL,

MP, MS, SP

To 13.7 m/ Deciduous, pubescent, five

45 ft
to seven leaflets, shade or
sun

Carolina rose1

Hips, cuttings

Jul-Oct
Cleaned/stratified
(hips);
(hips), in rooting
Apr-Oct
medium (cuttings)
(cuttings)

Feb-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 1.5 m/ Deciduous, thorny, arching, Occurs in most soils, well5 ft

fast growing, full sun
drained to dry, open areas

Cascara buckthorn1

Seeds

Jul-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Apr-Jun

PNW, CA

To 6.4 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, shade

21 ft
to full sun

Cherry laurel1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

SE, MS, MA

To 9.1 m/ Evergreen, shrubby,

Occurs in most soils, cultivated
30 ft
ascending branches, full sun as an ornamental
to partial shade

Chickasaw plum1

Seeds

Jun-Jul

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-May SE, MS, MA,

SP

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, thorny, Ferns, thickets, occurs in most

6 ft
large fruit, full sun
dry/well-drained soils

Common buckthorn

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

SE, FL, MS, SP To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, shrub or tree,

30 ft
few seeds, shade or sun

(Sheet 22 of 35)

Occurs in moist or wet soils, in

woods or in open

Occurs in most soils, open

areas or in woods

Prefers moist soils, in open or

edges of woods

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, shrubby

30 ft
underground stems, forms
thickets, shade or sun

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-23

Common chokecherry1

Seeds

Aug-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Mar-Jun

MS, MRV, GL,

MP, MW, SW,
PNW, CA

Common deerberry

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar
(trans.);
Apr-Jun
(seeds)

B&B or potted,
cleaned/stratified

Feb-May Eastern U.S.

Common juniper1

Seeds,
seedlings

Sep-Mar B&B or potted in

Mar-Jun
(seedlings nursery, stratified at
); Sep-Nov 5C
(seeds)

Common sweetleaf1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Crabapple1

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar
(trans.);
May-Jul
(seeds)

Dahoon1

Transplants

Downy serviceberry

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, much branched, Occurs in dry soils in woody

6 ft
irregular, shade or sun
thickets and in edges of woods
Used as an ornamental shrub
over a large range, quite
hardy, tolerates alkaline soils

Feb-May MA, SE, MS

To 2.7 m/ Deciduous, large waxy

9 ft
leaves, sweet taste, shade
or sun

Occurs in woody areas/

thickets, mostly in shade,
sometimes in open areas

B&B or potted
(trans.) cleaned/
stratified (seeds)

Feb-May MA, SE, FA,

MS

To 6.4 m/ Deciduous, thorny, bitter

Occurs in most dry soils, in
21 ft
fruit, showy flowers, full sun open thickets

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, FL, MS

To 7.6 m/ Evergreen, thorny, slow

25 ft
growing, full sun

Prefers sandy moist areas, in

woods or open, in coastal
areas

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

SE, MS

To 13.7 m/ Deciduous, large leaves,

45 ft
pubescent, shade or sun

Prefers dry soils, in woods or

open areas

Eastern hophornbeam1 Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

NE, GL, MP,

SP, MRV, SE,
MA, FL, MS

To 10 m/ Deciduous, hardwood,
33 ft
leaves yellow-green, shade
or sun

Prefers dry soils, in woods or

in open areas

Elderberry1

Jun-Aug

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Jun

MW, PNW, CA, To 7 m/

SW
23 ft

(Sheet 23 of 35)

Deciduous, large seedheads, few branches

Occurs in dry soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

To 3.7 m/ Spreading, narrowleaf

12 ft
evergreen shrub, full sun

Seeds

GL, MS, SE

Occurs in most soils including

sand dunes/rocky areas

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks
Pest plant in pastures,
cultivated for fruit

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-24

Evergreen blackberry1

Seeds

Jun-Jul

Cleaned/replanted

Aug-Sep Eastern U.S.

To 4 m/
13.1 ft

Stout, deciduous, arching

branches, persistent

Firethorn3

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Jan
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Cleaned/stratified
(seeds), B&B or
potted

Feb-May MA, SE, SP,

FL, MS

To 4 m/
13.1 ft

Evergreen, irregular, hardy, Occurs in most soils, grows

showy flowers/fruit, full sun well in wet or dry areas,
cultivated as ornamental

Flowering dogwood1

Transplants

Oct-Feb

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Apr

To 15 m/ Deciduous, bushy crown,

Occurs in dry soils, cultivated
49.2 ft
showy flowers, shade or sun as ornamental, in woods or in
open areas

Gallberry1

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS

To 2 m/
6.6 ft

Evergreen, shrubby, dotted

underside of leaves, shade
or sun

Prefers sandy soil, occurs on

coasts

Gray dogwood1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May Eastern and

mid-U.S.

To 2 m/
6.6 ft

Dense deciduous, shrubby,

gray bark, shade or sun

Prefers moist soils, occurs in

thickets, woods, open areas

Ground blueberry1

Seeds

May-Jun

Cleaned/stratified

Jan-Mar

To 2 m/
6.6 ft

Evergreen, pubescent, few

branches, shade or sun

Prefers moist areas, in woods

or in open areas

Groundsel tree1

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Nov

B&B or potted
(trans.) dry, cool
area (seeds)

Jan-May SE, MA, MS,

SP, NE

To 3.5 m/ Many branched, deciduous, Prefers moist areas, occurs on

11.5 ft
shrubby, full sun
sea coasts, tolerates salinity

Halberd-leaved willow1,3 Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 10 m/ Many branched, deciduous, Cultivated as ornamental

32.9
full sun

Hibiscus1

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Mar
(trans.);
Jun-Aug
(seeds)

B&B or potted
(trans.) dry, cool
area (seeds)

Feb-Jun

NE, SE, MA,

FL, MS, SP

To 2.3 m/ Deciduous, many branched, Prefers moist soils, tolerates

7.5 ft
erect, large seed pods, full some salinity, occurs on
sun
coasts/inland

Highbush blueberry1,3

Seeds,
cuttings

Jan-Feb
(trans.);
Jun-Aug
(seeds)

Cooled/cleaned/
planted (seeds)
layered in rooting
medium (trans.)

Feb-Jun

NE, SE, MA,

FL, MS

To 4 m/
13.1 ft

Eastern U.S.
and SP

SE, MS, MA

(Sheet 24 of 35)

Deciduous, erect, hardy,

many branched, shade to
full sun

Occurs in moist soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Evergreen, serrated hollylike leaves, full sun

Prefers dry soils

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-25

Hollyleaf cherry

Seeds,
transplants

Jul-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Nov-May CA

To 8 m/
26.2 ft

Honey mesquite1

Seeds

Aug-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-May SP, SW

To 14 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, thorny, Prefers dry/sandy/loan soils,

45.9
irregular crown, full sun
pest plant in western pastures

Hooker=s willow1

Cuttings

Yearround

Layered in rooting
medium

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA

To 10 m/ Deciduous, shrubby
32.9 ft
pubescent, full sun

Prefers moist areas, tolerates

shifting sand/flooding

Japanese lespedeza

Seeds,
inoculated

May-Sep

Dry, cool area

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 1 m/
3.3 ft

Cultivated for grazing

Low blueberry

Seeds

Jun-Jul

Cleaned/stratified

Oct-May SE, MA, MS

To 0.6 m/ Shrubby, erect, rhizomous,

2 ft
stout, shade or sun

Prefers dry areas/thickets/

woods

Mapleleaf viburnum

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-May SE, MS, MA

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, maple

3 ft
shape leaf, shade or sun

Thickets or open areas

Marsh elder1

Transplants

Oct-Apr

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, SP

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, many branched, Prefers sandy, moist areas,

12 ft
serrated leaves, full sun
occurs on coastal islands/
dunes/marshes

Mountain blackberry

Seeds,
rootstock

Jun-Jul
Cleaned/replanted
(seeds); (seeds), in soil beds
Year-round (rootstock)
(rootstock)

Sep-Nov NE, MA, GL,

(seeds); MRV
Feb-May
(rootstock)

To 3 m/
10 ft

Multiflora rose1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.
except NP

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, arching, thorny, Pest plant in unkept pastures/

12 ft
showy flowers, full sun
fields, cultivated for
windbreaks/cover

Myrtle oak

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Oct-Mar

FL

To 13.7 m/ Evergreen, leathery, full sun Prefers sandy coastal soils,

45 ft
tolerates salt spray

Northern bayberry1

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

NE, MA

To
13.7 m/
45 ft

Evergreen, pubescent,
dense, dark green, full sun

Prefers sandy coastal soils,

tolerates salt spray

Oleander1,2,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Apr

SW, FL, MS

To 9.1 m/ Evergreen, dense, upright

30 ft
stems, showy flowers, full
sun

Prefers dry sand soils,

tolerates salt spray/drought,
not freeze tolerant

Deciduous, hardy, very

robust, prolific fruiting, full
sun, spiny

Pest plant in pastures, occurs/

thrives almost anywhere

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 25 of 35)

Shrubby, woody perennial,

full sun

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-26

Pacific bayberry

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

PNW, CA

To 8.2 m/ Evergreen, shrubby, dense

27 ft
foliage, full sun

Prefers sand sites, occurs in

coastal areas, tolerates salt
spray

Pacific dogwood1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA

To 2.7 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, erect,

9 ft
bushy, full sun/shade

Prefers well-drained areas

Pacific wax myrtle

Transplants

Oct-Feb

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May PNW, CA,

coasts

Pacific willow1

Cuttings,
transplants

Year-round In rooting medium

Feb-May PNW, CA
(cut.);
(cut.), B&B or in pots
Sep-Mar (trans.)
(trans.)

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, fast

12 ft
growing, full sun

Poison ivy1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or in pots in
nursery

Feb-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, fast growing, full Prefers moist areas, vine form
15 ft
sun
not recommended for planting

Possumhaw1,3

Seeds

Sep-Dec

Cleaned/stratified

Mar-Jun

GL, SP, MP,

MRV, SE, MS,
MA, FL

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, red berries, very Prefers moist areas, cultivated

30 ft
showy, shade or sun
as ornamental

Possumhaw viburnum

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Cleaned/stratified

Mar-Jun

SE, MS, MA, FL To 7.6 m/ Deciduous, large leaves,

25 ft
shade or sun

Occurs in moist soils, in woods

or in open

Purple osier willow

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

In rooting medium,
or potted

Mar-Jun

MA, MRV, NE

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, purple stems,

12 ft
slender, full sun

Cultivated as an ornamental,
prefers moist places, used in
bank stabilization

Pussy willow3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE, NP, GL

To 7.3 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, full sun Prefers moist soils, widely

24 ft
used as an ornamental

Quail brush

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Mar-May SW

Red alder1

Transplants,
cuttings

Year-round In rooting medium

Feb-May PNW, CA
(cut.);
(cut.), B&B or in pots
Sep-Mar (trans.)
(trans.)
(Sheet 26 of 35)

To
10.7 m/
35 ft

Evergreen, thick shrubs,

Prefers moist areas, occurs in
ascending branches, full sun marshes, gullies, sand dunes,
islands

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, pale

3 ft
green, full sun

Prefers moist areas

Prefers dry, sandy soils;

tolerates salinity

To 13.7 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, upright Occurs on most soils, on

45 ft
branches, full sun
cutover forest land, beaches,
streams

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 7.3 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, shade

24 ft
or sun

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-27

Red buckeye

Transplants,
seeds

Aug-Oct
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Stratified (seeds),
B&B or in pots

Feb-May SE, MS, SP

Red osier dogwood1,3

Cuttings,
transplants

Aug-Apr
(cut.);
Sep-Apr
(trans.)

In rooting medium
B&B or potted

Apr-Jun

Riverflat hawthorn

Seeds

Apr-Jun

Cleaned/stratified

Mar-May SE, MA, MS

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, leathery, thorny, Prefers dry soils, in woods or

15 ft
shade or sun
in open, red fruit

Rough-leafed dogwood1 Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-May SE, MA, MS,

SP, NP, MP

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, showy flowers,

15 ft
fast growing, sun or shade

Prefers moist areas, occurs in

most soils

Russian olive1,2,3

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Oct
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Cleaned/stratified
(seeds), B&B or
potted (trans.)

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 6.4 m/ Evergreen, shrubby, spiny,

21 ft
irregular crown, full sun

Occurs in most soils, cultivated

for wind break, roadside,
ornamental

Rusty blackhaw

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Apr

SE, MS, MA, FL To 2.7 m/ Deciduous, leathery, shiny

9 ft
green, shade

Prefers dry areas, in woods,

but occurs in thickets/open
areas

Salal1,3

Transplants,
root stock

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA

To 1.8 m/ Evergreen, dark shiny

6 ft
leaves, shade

Prefers moist areas, cultivated

for florist industry

Salmonberry1

Seeds

Jun-Aug

Cleaned and in dry

cool area

Mar-Jun

PNW

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, branching, leafy, Occurs in moist areas, in

15 ft
shrubby, showy flowers,
woods/thickets
large fruit, shade

Saltbush1

Seeds

Jul-Oct

Dry, cool area

Feb-May SW

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, pale

3 ft
green, full sun

Prefers dry, sandy soils,

tolerates drought/salinity

Saltcedar1,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, SW, SP,

MS, FL

To 4.6 m/ Evergreen, small foliage,

15 ft
irregular crown, full sun

Prefers dry, sandy soils,

tolerates drought/salinity

Sandbar willow1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

To 8.2 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, dense, Prefers moist soils, riverbanks

27 ft
full sun

NE, MRV, GL, To 2.4 m/ Deciduous, shrubby

NP, SW, PNW, 8 ft
stoloniferous, full to partial
MW
sun

(Sheet 27 of 35)

Occurs in moist soils, prefers

moist, poorly drained areas

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

NE, MRV, GL,

MP, SP, MW

Large fruit is inedible, occurs

in most soils

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, arching, erect,

3 ft
spiny, robust, full sun

Prefers dry, sandy areas

To 5.5 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,

18 ft
shrubby, full sun

Grows in poor soils, tolerates

droughty, sandy conditions,
occurs on coasts

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

Seeds

May-Jul

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Jun

Sand pine1,2,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May FL, MS

Sawtooth oak1,2,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, MS, FL, SP To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, irregular growth, Cultivated for wildlife food,
30 ft
full sun
occurs on most soils

Scotch broom1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May PNW

To 2.1 m/ Evergreen showy flowers,

7 ft
dense growth, full sun

Pest plant in some areas,

cultivated as ornamental
elsewhere

Sharp-toothed
blackberry1

Rootstock,
seeds

Year-round In soil beds (root.)

(root);
cleaned/stratified
Jun-Jul
(seeds)
(seeds)

Sep-Nov SE, ME, FL,

(seeds); MS, MRV
Feb-May
(rootstock)

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, hardy, very

6 ft
robust, prolific fruiting, full
sun, spiny

Pest plant in pastures,

occurs/thrives almost
anywhere

Shining sumac1

Seeds,
rootstock

Sep-Nov; Cleaned/stratified
Feb-Jun
Sep-Mar (seeds), in soil beds
(rootstock)

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, little branching,

12 ft
lateral spreading roots,
forms thickets, full sun

Occurs in moist soils, in open

areas

Shore pine1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May PNW, CA

To 11 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,
36 ft
spreading, full sun

Coastal dunes plant, very

hardy, can be grown from
seeds

Shrub verbena1,3

Seeds,
transplants

May-Sep
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Dry, cool area

(seeds) B&B or
potted (trans.)

Jan-Apr

FL, SE, MS, SP To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, tropical, showy

3 ft
flowers, full sun

Cultivated as ornamental,
prefers moist, sandy soils

Silky dogwood1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-Jun

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

To 3 m/
10 ft

Prefers moist soils, in woods/in

open areas

Silky willow1

Transplants,
cuttings

Year-round In rooting medium,

(cut.);
B&B or potted
Sep-Mar (trans.)
(trans.)

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, GL,

MRV

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, purplish stems,

12 ft
pubescent, full sun

D-28

Sand blackberry1

MA, SE, FL

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

(Sheet 28 of 35)

Deciduous, purplish stems,

full sun

Prefers wet to moist soils, in

open areas

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

D-29

Sitka alder1

Transplants,
cuttings

Year-round In rooting medium,

(cut.);
B&B or potted
Sep-Mar (trans.)
(trans.)

Feb-May PNW

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, multi30 ft

stemmed, full sun

Prefers moist soils, in open

areas

Smooth sumac1

Seeds

Sep-Feb

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Jun

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, few

6 ft
branches, forms thickets
from roots, full sun

Occurs in most soils, in open

areas

Southern bayberry1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-May SE, MA, FL,

MS, SP

To 4.6 m/ Evergreen, dense, upright

15 ft
branches, full sun

Prefers moist, sandy areas,

occurs on seacoasts/islands

Southern dewberry1

Seeds,
transplants

Apr-May Cleaned/stratified
(seeds); (seeds), B&B or
Year-round potted (trans.)
(trans.)

Jan-Mar

Sparkleberry

Seeds

May-Jul

Cleaned/stratified

Jan-May SE, MA, SP,

MS

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous in north,

Occurs in dry soils, in woods
30 ft
evergreen in south,
or open thickets
sprawling, shrubby, shade or
full sun

Squaw huckleberry

Seeds

May-Jun

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Jun

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, leathery,

15 ft
shrubby, shade or sun

Occurs in dry woods or open

thickets, edges of woods

Staghorn sumac1

Seeds

Oct-Dec

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-May Eastern and

mid-U.S.

To 3.7 m/ Deciduous, few branches,

12 ft
showy fruit, full sun

Forms thicket, occurs in dry

soils

Summersweet

Seeds

Sep-Nov

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-May SE, MS

To 1.5 m/ Deciduous, ascending

Occurs in most soils, in woods/
5 ft
stems, pubescent, shade or open areas, cultivated as
sun
ornamental

Swamp privet1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-May SE, MS

To 7.3 m/ Deciduous, many branches, Prefers moist, bottomland type

24 ft
shrubby, shade or sun
soils (silt, clay)

Swamp rose1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-Jun

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, arching

3 ft
branches, full sun

Entire U.S.

SE, MS, FL, SP To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, persistent, large Occurs in most soils, excellent
3 ft
fruit, full sun
wildlife food

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

(Sheet 29 of 35)

Prefers moist soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

MA, SE, MS

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Feb-May NE, MA, MS,

SP, MRV

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, rusty,

15 ft
pubescent, shade or sun

Occurs in moist soils, in woods

or in open areas
Cultivated as ornamental
shrub

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs and Small Trees (Continued)

Tag alder1

Transplants,
cuttings

Year-round In rooting medium,

(cut.);
B&B or potted
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

D-30

Tartarian honeysuckle1 Transplants,

rootstock

Sep-Mar

B&B, potted or in soil Feb-Jun

beds

Entire U.S.

To 1.8 m/ Deciduous, showy flowers,

6 ft
full sun

Texas huisache1

Seeds

Aug-Oct

Dry, cool area

Jan-Apr

SP, MS, SW

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, large seed pods, Prefers dry, sandy soils,

15 ft
full sun
tolerates drought/salinity

Thorny eleagnus1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Apr

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

Entire U.S.

To 3.7 m/ Evergreen, robust, thorny,

12 ft
spreading, arching, full sun

Toothache tree1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, FL, MS, SP To 11 m/ Deciduous, fast growing,

36 ft
spiny, full or partial sun

Prefers well-drained soils,

occurs on dredged material in
Texas/North Carolina

Turkey oak1

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, MA, FL

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, large leathery

30 ft
leaves, full sun

Prefers sandy coastal areas

Wax myrtle1,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

SE, FL, MS,

MA, SP

To 3 m/
10 ft

Western blackberry1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA

To 0.9 m/ Arching, deciduous, full sun Occurs in dry soils, pest plant
3 ft
in pastures

Western chokecherry

Seeds

Aug-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-May CA, PNW

To 7.3 m/ Deciduous, bushy, full sun

24 ft

Occurs in most soils, smells

bad

Western dogwood

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-May PNW, CA

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, irregular

15 ft
branches, shade or sun

Occurs in most soils, in woods

or in open areas

Western huckleberry

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

To 2.4 m/ Evergreen, erect, slow

8 ft
growth, shade to sun

Occurs in dry woods

Wild apple1

Seeds,
transplants

Aug-Oct
(seeds);
Sep-Mar
(trans.)

Cleaned/stratified,
B&B or potted

Feb-May Entire U.S.

To 6.4 m/ Deciduous, thorny, showy

21 ft
flowers, large fruit, full sun

Occurs in most soils, parent

stock of all commercial apple
trees

PNW, CA

(Sheet 30 of 35)

Cultivated as ornamental,
tolerates poor soil/salt spray

Evergreen, dense, shrubby, Prefers moist areas, does well

ascending branches, full sun on poor, sandy coastal sites

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Shrubs/Small Trees (Continued)

D-31

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted

Feb-Jun

Northern U.S.

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, arching erect

3 ft
branches

Occurs in most soils

Wild cherry1

Seeds

Aug-Sep

Cleaned/stratified

Feb-Jun

PNW, CA, SW

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, bitter fruit, full

30 ft
sun

Occurs in most soils

Wild indigo1

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Oct

Dry, cool area

(seeds) B&B or
potted (trans.)

Jan-Mar

SP, MS, SE

To 0.9 m/ Deciduous, tumbles, seed3 ft

pods rattle, full sun

Occurs in dry soils, prefers

sand or silt, tolerant of salt
spray

Wild rose1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in nur- Feb-Jun

sery (trans.) in rooting medium
(cuttings)

MA, SE, MS,

SP, FL

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, arching

15 ft
branches, thorns, profuse
flowers, full sun

Prefers moist soils, fast

growing, tolerant of wide range
of soil conditions

Wingscale

Seeds

Nov-Dec

Dry, cool place

Jan-May MW, SW, CA

To 2.4 m/ Evergreen, shrubby, much

8 ft
branched, full sun

Tolerates drought/wide range

of soil conditions, prefers dry
sandy soil

Winterberry3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

To 4.6 m/ Deciduous, arching, rounded Wide range of soil conditions,

15 ft
crown, full sun or shade
prefers moist soils

Witch hazel

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

MS, MP, GL,
MRV

To 9.1 m/ Deciduous, shrubby, partial

30 ft
sun to full shade

Prefers moist soils

Yaupon1,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Jan-Apr

SE, MA, MS,

SP, FL

To 5.5 m/ Evergreen, forms dense

18 ft
thickets, has ornamental
dwarf form, full sun

Prefers sandy soils, grows on

coast, tolerates salt spray

Yellow paloverde3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Jan-Apr

SW, CA

To 6.4 m/ Deciduous, legume,

21 ft
shrubby, full sun

Tolerates extreme drought/

some salinity, prefers sandy
soil

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, SE,

MS, GL, MRV,
SP

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, with shallow root Best in moist conditions,

90 ft
system, full sun
poorly drained soils

SE, MS

Large Trees
American beech1,3

(Sheet 31 of 35)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Wild black currant1

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Large Trees (Continued)

D-32

American sycamore1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE,MA, SE,
MS, SP, MP,
NP, GL, MRV

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, wide spreading

90 ft
crown, full sun

Best in moist soils, but grows

under a variety of conditions

Australian pine1,3

Transplants

Oct-Feb

B&B or potted in
nursery

Dec-Apr

FL, GL

To 41.1 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,

135 ft
drooping branches, full sun

Grows well in sandy soils,

exotic naturalized in U.S.

Black cherry1,3

Transplants

Aug-Oct

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE,MA, SE, FL, To

MS, SP, MP,
6.8 m/
NP, GL
55 ft

Deciduous, upright crown,

full sun

Can be grown from seed,

wood highly prized for furniture

Black cottonwood1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.)
layered in rooting
medium (cuttings)

Mar-Jun

PNW, SW, CA

To 35 m/
115 ft

Deciduous, fast growing,

large, full sun

Used for paper products,

prefers moist soils, used for
windbreaks/shade

Black gum1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, SP,
MP, NP, MRV,
GL

To 24.4 m/ Deciduous, upright crown,

80 ft
slow growing, full sun

Black locust1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

MS, MA, MP

To 22.9 m/ Deciduous, fragrant flowers, Tolerates drought/poor soil

75 ft
spiny, full sun
conditions, a legume

Black walnut1,3

Seeds,
seedlings

Sep-Nov Stratified (seeds),

(seeds); B&B or potted
Sep-Mar (trans.)
(seedlings)

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, MS,

SP, NP, MRV

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, edible, upright

90 ft
crown, sun to shade

Black willow1

Transplants,
cuttings

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.)
layered in rooting
medium

Feb-Jul

SE, MS, MA,

SP, FL

To 11 m/
36 ft

Cow oak3

Seeds,
transplants

Sep-Nov
(seeds);
Oct-Mar
(trans.)

Stratified at 5 C,
B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, FL,

MS, SP

To 21.9 m/ Deciduous, large edible

Prefers moist soils, fast
72 ft
seeds, full sun to part shade growing

(Sheet 32 of 35)

Prefers moist soil

Varied soil conditions, good

plant food, excellent furniture
wood, grows slowly

Deciduous, shrubby, full sun Very fast growing, prefers

moist/flooded soils

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Continued)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Large Trees (Continued)

D-33

Eastern cottonwood1,3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.)
layered in rooting
medium (cut.)

Mar-Jun

MA, SE, GL,

MRV, NP, MP,
SP, MS

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, very fast grow90 ft

ing, full sun

Used for paper products,

shade, prefers moist soil

Eastern red cedar1,3

Transplants,
seeds

Sep-Mar
(trans.);
Sep-Nov
(seeds)

B&B, potted in
nursery (trans.),
stratified at 5C
(seeds)

Feb-Jun

SE, MS, SP,

MRV

To 11 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,
36 ft
drought tolerant, full sun

Produced commercially by tree

nurseries, tolerates alkaline
soil, has shrub form under
stressed conditions

Eastern white pine3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

NE, GL, MA

To 27.4 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,

90 ft
pyramidal crown, full sun

Prefers moist sandy soil

Green ash1

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

Eastern and
mid U.S.

To 21.9 m/ Deciduous, full or partial

72 ft
shade

Prefers moist soils, tolerates

poor soil conditions

Hackberry1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

SE, MS, SP,

MRV, MP

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, large spreading Tolerates alkaline/sandy soils

90 ft
crown, full sun

Honeylocust1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

SE, MA, GL,

MRV, SP, MP,
MS

To 21.9 m/ Deciduous legume, spiny,

72 ft
full or partial sun

Laurel oak1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Jan-Mar

SE, SP, MS

To 27.4 m/ Flat topped crown, broadleaf Prefers moist soils, occurs on

90 ft
evergreen, full sun
coasts

Live oak1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Jan-May SE, SP, MS,

MA

To 13.7 m/ Evergreen, large spreading

45 ft
crown, full sun

Loblolly pine1,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

To 19.8 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen, large Coastal/interior plant, on

65 ft
crown, full sun
sandy/silty soils (poorly
drained)

Longleaf pine1,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, SE, MS,

FL, SP

To 33.5 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen, tall

110 ft
open crown, full sun

Prefers sandy conditions, but

occurs in other soils, occurs on
coasts

Mockernut hickory3

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, MRV,
SP, MP

To 22.9 m/ Deciduous, arching

75 ft
branches, full or partial sun

Prefers driers soils, edible

nuts, hardy, common

SE, SP, MS,

MA

Prefers sandy moist soils,

occurs on coasts, tolerates salt
spray

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 33 of 35)

Prefers moist fertile soils

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage

by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Large Trees (Continued)

D-34

Paper mulberry

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

Eastern U.S.

To 13.7 m/ Deciduous, arching

45 ft
branches, full or partial sun

Exotic, naturalized in U.S., fast

growing, forms thickets

Peachleaf willow1

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery (trans.),
layered in rooting
medium (cuttings)

Mar-Jun

GL, NP, MP,

MW

To 16.8 m/ Deciduous, drooping

55 ft
branches, full sun

Prefers moist soils, grows on

dredged material islands

Pecan3

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, MS, SP,

MP

To 39.6 m/ Deciduous, irregular crown, Prefers moist soils, but grows

130 ft
full sun
in wide range of soil
conditions, edible nuts

Persimmon1

Rootstock

Sep-Mar

In soil beds in
nursery

Feb-Jun

To 16.8 m/ Deciduous, drooping

55 ft
branches, full sun

Pignut hickory

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

FL, MS, MRV,
SP, MP

To 21.3 m/ Deciduous, open crown, full Prefers drier soils than other
70 ft
sun
hickories

Redbay1

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, FL, SE,

MS, SP

To 16.8 m/ Evergreen, upright

55 ft
branches, full or partial sun

Often occurs in dense woods,

prefers moist soils

Red maple1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

Entire eastern
U.S.

To 22.9 m/ Deciduous, upright

75 ft
branches, full or partial sun

Prefers moist soils, widely

used as an ornamental

Red mulberry1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

Entire eastern
U.S.

To 20.1 m/ Deciduous, rounded dense

66 ft
crown, full or partial shade

Prefers moist, fertile soils,

edible fruit

River birch1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

MA, SE, MS,

SP, MP, MRV

To 22.9 m/ Deciduous, irregular multi75 ft

stemmed, full or partial sun

Prefers moist soils, used as

ornamental, common in South

Sassafras1,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May NE, MA, SE,

MS, SP, MP,
NP, GL, MRV

To 24.4 m/ Deciduous, spreading

80 ft
branches, full or partial sun

Prefers upland soils but occurs

over wide range of soil conditions, forms dense thicket

Slash pine1,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, FL, MS

To 27.4 m/ Narrowleaf evergreen,

90 ft
dense, rounded crown, full
sun

Grows rapidly, commercial

forest tree, occurs on coast

MA, SE, FL,

MS, SP, MP,
MRV

(Sheet 34 of 35)

Prefers moist, rich soils, but

tolerates wide range of soil
conditions, edible fruit

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table D-1 (Continued)

Table D-1 (Concluded)

Species* (Alphabetized Best Propagule Collection Temporary Storage
by Common Name)
Type
Periods** Requirements**

Planting
Periods** Range

Mature
Height

Growth Habits

Remarks

Large Trees (Continued)

D-35

Southern red oak3

Transplants,
seedlings

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, SE, MS,

SP

To 22.9 m/ Deciduous, rounded crown, Prefers poor upland soil, used

75 ft
full sun
as an ornamental

Sugarberry1,3

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

SE, FL, MS,

SP, MP

To 11 m/
36 ft

Sugar maple1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

GL, NE, MRV,

NP, MP, MA

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, rounded crown, Prefers moist soils, used for

90 ft
full sun
wood/for furniture/as an
ornamental/for syrup

Sweetbay1

Transplants

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May MA, SE, FL, MS To 16.8 m/ Evergreen, shrub in north,

55 ft
tree in south, full sun to
partial shade

Sweetgum1

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

MA, SE, FL,

MS, SP, MRV

To 33.5 m/ Deciduous, spreading

Prefers well-drained soil,
110 ft
crown, fast growing, full sun tolerates many soil conditions,
used for furniture

Tulip poplar1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-Jun

NE, MA, SE,

MS, MRV, GL

To 42.7 m/ Deciduous, fast growing, full Prefers moist soil

140 ft
sun

Water oak1,3

Transplants,
seedlings

Oct-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-May SE, MA, FL,

MS, SP

To 19.8 m/ Deciduous, rounded crown, Prefers moist soil, fast grow65 ft

full sun
ing, produces abundant, small,
bitter acorns

White ash1,3

Transplants

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Mar-Jun

To 21.9 m/ Deciduous, upright crown,

72 ft
full sun

Prefers upland well-drained

areas, fast growing

White oak3

Transplants,
seedlings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-June NE, MA, SE,

MS, GL, MRV,
SP, MP, NP

To 27.4 m/ Deciduous, spreading

90 ft
rounded crown, full sun

Tolerates wide range of soil/

climatic conditions, edible
acorns

White poplar3

Transplants,
cuttings

Sep-Mar

B&B or potted in
nursery

Feb-June Entire U.S.

To 21.9 m/ Deciduous, multi-trunked,

72 ft
full sun

Fast growing, exotic

naturalized over much of U.S.

Eastern and
mid-U.S.

Prefers alkaline, well-drained

soils

Prefers moist, soils, deciduous

in north

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

(Sheet 35 of 35)

Deciduous, spiny, irregular

crown, full sun

Species
Alkali bulrush

Table D-2. Recommended Propagules and Techniques for Selected Marsh Species (Landin 1978)
Recommended Propagules
Transplants, tubers

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques

Dig plants/tubers; divide; replant onsite at the same depth or
pot for holding in a nursery or greenhouse.

Arrow arum2

Transplants, seeds

Beak rush2

Seeds

Beggars ticks2

Seeds

Dig plants; separate; replant at the same depth onsite or pot

for holding.
Gather seeds when mature; store in fresh water at 33-37;
broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Gather seeds when mature (July-September); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Gather seeds when mature (July-September); store dry at 41;
broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig young plants from natural stands; separate; replant onsite
at the same depth or pot for holding.
Germinate seeds and grow seedlings until ready for planting
(3-6 months).

Remarks
Seeds frequently eaten by waterfowl and other birds;
used for soil stabilization; prefers fine-textured soils.
Fresh/brackish water.
Primarily a good soil stabilizer although seeds are
infrequently eaten by waterfowl, and muskrats use the
plants for lodge material. Potential pest plant. Fresh
water.
Seeds eaten primarily by waterfowl. Fresh water.

D-36

Good food source for songbirds, game birds, and chicks.

Potential pest plant. Fresh water.
Big cordgrass2
Transplants, seedlings
Excellent soil stabilizer in low, brackish marshes. Salinity
prevents this species from competing with smooth
cordgrass. Seeds eaten by many birds; rodents eat
young, tender foliage. Potential pest plant.
Fresh/brackish water.
Bigelows glasswort2 Cuttings, rootstock
Collect 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots and
Low tidal area soil stabilizer away from shorelines.
broadcast in a wet area onsite. If cuttings must be stored, they Tolerates fairly high salinities. Easily propagated. Poor
must remain moist.
source of wildlife foods. Occasionally used by nesting
Dig rootstock; replant onsite at the same depth.
colonial seabirds. Brackish/saline water.
Black mangrove2
Seed, seedlings
Collect seed pods when mature (summer and fall); plant
Excellent soil stabilizer in south Florida. Frequently
whole pods upright in the soil with the stem end up and out of occurs on dredged material islands and is used by
the soil.
colonial nesting wading bird species. Tolerates up to 40
Dig seedlings from a natural stand or grow them from seed
ppt salinity. Saline.
pods.
Black needlerush2
Transplants
Dig clumps; divide into sections with a cutting device; replant Good high marsh soil stabilizer. Will not tolerate
onsite at the same depth or pot for holding.
extended inundation and naturally occurs on tidal creek
banks and high spots in the marsh. Seeds eaten by birds
and small animals. Fresh/brackish water.
Bladderworts
Cuttings
Collect quantities of cuttings in buckets of water by scooping Good waterfowl food source, especially for dabbling
plants out of natural stands (in water); transfer to standing
ducks. Potential pest plant in reservoirs. Fresh water.
water on site.
(Sheet 1 of 9)
Sources of information used in the preparation of this table came from unpublished data by the author (Landin) and the following references: Adams (1963), Barbour and Davis
(1970), Britton and Brown (1970), Brockman (1968), Broome et al. (1973), Burkhalter et al. (1974), Chabreck (1970), Correll and Johnston (1970), Duncan (1974), Eyles and
Robertson (1963), Fassett (1960), Harris and Marshall (1960), Hitchcock (1950), Hotchkiss (1967), Hotchkiss (1970), Kadlec and Wentz (1974), Long and Lakela (1971), Martin
et al. (1951), Mason (1969), Palmisano (1972), Radford et al. (1968), Salyer (1949), Seneca (1972), and Woodhouse et al. (1972).
1 Transplants include plugs, sprigs, groups of individuals, very large seedlings, and large whole plants.
2 Known to occur on dredged material.
3 Commercially available.

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

D.2 Recommended Propagules. Table D-2 lists recommended propagules and techniques for selected marsh species.

Species
Recommended Propagules
Broadleaf arrowhead2 Transplants

D-37

Transplants, tubers

Burreed2

Transplants

Buttercups

Cuttings

Buttonbush2

Transplants, seeds

Chufa2,3

Tubers

Common reed2

Transplants, rootstock

Common
threesquare2

Transplants, tubers

Delta duckpotato2,3

Transplants

Dock2

Seeds

Dotted smartweed2

Seeds, cuttings

Duckpotato2

Transplants

Duckweeds2

Whole plants

Collect quantities of cuttings in buckets of water by scooping

plants out of natural stand (in water); transfer to standing
water on site.
Dig small plants (large seedlings); transplant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect seeds in August-September; store seeds in fresh water
at 41.
Dig tubers when mature (July-Sept.); separate from other
plant material; store moist but not wet at 41; broadcast onsite
and rake into the soil. Tubers are very small and may be
treated as seeds.
Dig plants; divide; replant onsite or pot for holding. Dig
rootstock; separate into sections with at least one growth
point; plant onsite.
Dig plants, divide, replant onsite at the same depth or pot for
holding.
Dig tubers; divide; cut off the top shoots, if present; replant
onsite.
Dig plants, separate individuals; replant onsite at the same
depth or pot for holding.
Collect seeds when mature (May-July); store dry at room
temperature or less; plant broadcast onsite and rake into the
soil.
Collect seeds; store dry at room temperature or less;
broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Take cuttings from natural stand; broadcast on wet area on
site (not standing water).
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect buckets of plants from a natural stand in water; place
the whole plant in standing permanent water onsite.
(Sheet 2 of 9)

Remarks
Good waterfowl food source; good cover for wildlife;
muskrat food. Fresh water.
Excellent waterfowl and songbird food (seeds); foliage
eaten by muskrats; used for cover, breeding, and nesting
by many species. Fresh/brackish water.
Seeds infrequent source of wildlife food. Fresh/brackish
water.
Good waterfowl food source. Potential pest plant in
reservoirs. Fresh water.
Seeds good source of food for waterfowl and other birds,
insects, beavers, and muskrats. Provides cover and
nesting habitat for birds. Fresh water.
Excellent food source for waterfowl, turkeys, deer, wild
boar, songbirds; highly productive plants may produce
hundreds of tubers per plant. Seeds, tubers, foliage all
relished. Fresh water.
Used for nesting by songbirds, marsh birds, and water
birds. Stabilizes soil; rapid growth with tall, rank form.
Definite pest plant on placement sites. Fresh/brackish
water.
Good source of food for waterfowl, muskrats, and nutria.
Used for soil stabilization. Fresh/brackish water.
Excellent waterfowl food source; good soil stabilizer; only
grows well on fine-textured soils. Fresh water.
Good food source for songbirds (seeds). Hardy species
that is good soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
Good soil stabilizer; good cover for ducklings; seeds
eaten by waterfowl, muskrats, and deer. Foliage not
palatable to herbivores. Fresh water.
Excellent food source for waterfowl. Fresh water.
Excellent food source for waterfowl, especially wood
ducks. Good cover. In deep south can be a pest plant in
standing water in reservoirs. Fresh water.

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Bulrushes2

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Dig clumps; separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
holding.
Dig plants; divide; replant onsite or pot for holding.
Dig tubers; separate; cut off the top shoots to 15 cm (6 in.), if
present; replant onsite or pot for holding.
Dig plants; divide; replant onsite or pot for holding.

Recommended Propagules
Transplants

European glasswort2

Cuttings, rootstock

Fimbristylis2

Transplants, seeds

Foxtail grasses

Sprigs, seeds

Frankenia

Transplants

Frog bit2

Seeds

Giant reed2

Seeds, transplants

Groundsel tree2

Seedlings

Hardstem bulrush2

Transplants, tubers

Horned pondweed

Cuttings, rootstock

Horsetails2

Transplants

Japanese millet2,3

Seeds

Ladysthumb2

Cuttings, seeds

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Dig clumps with coring devices; replant in shallow seawater
with a minimum of current and wave action.

Remarks
Good soil stabilizer in bay bottoms; food source for
diving ducks; provides cover for marine organisms.
Saline.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; broadcast Used primarily for soil stabilization, but not for shorelines.
on a wet area onsite.
Poor wildlife food use; occasionally used by nesting
colonial seabirds. Brackish/saline water.
Dig rootstock; divide into clumps; replant onsite at the same
depth.
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite at the same
Fair food source for songbirds and occasionally for
depth or pot for holding.
waterfowl. Fresh/brackish water.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store dry;
broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig young plants; replant as sprigs on site at the same depth Good source of food for most birds, browsers and
or pot for holding as transplants.
grazers, and rodents. Cover for many wildlife species.
Collect seeds when mature (June-October, depending upon
Fresh water.
species); store dry at 41; broadcast onsite.
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite at the same
Soil stabilizer; poor source of food but some use as
depth or pot for holding.
cover by wildlife. Fresh/brackish water.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store dry at
Good seed source for songbirds; cover for small animals
room temperature or less; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil. and birds; some use for stabilization. Fresh water.
Collect seeds when mature; store dry at room temperature or Hardy plant; good seed source for wildlife; used for soil
less; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
stabilization. Fresh water.
Dig plants; divide; replant onsite or pot for holding.
Dig seedlings in natural stands; at least 30-45 cm (12-18 in.) Excellent cover for nesting/breeding species; used
is the minimum height for best survival; replant onsite at the
frequently by colonial nesting wading birds on dredged
same depth or pot for holding.
material islands. Poor food source. Fresh/brackish water.
Dig plants; divide; replant onsite or pot for holding.
Excellent seed source for birds; hardy species; used by
Dig tubers; divide from the other plant material; cut off the top muskrats and for soil stabilization. Fresh water.
shoots to 15 cm (6 in.), if present; plant onsite at the same
depth.
Gather plant material from standing water; place onsite in
Fair food source for waterfowl, especially dabbling
permanent standing water areas.
ducks; good sediment stabilizer. Fresh water.
Dig rootstock from shallow water areas where possible; plant
intact on site.
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
Poor food source; only use is soil stabilization. Fresh
holding.
water.
Buy seeds from a commercial seed source.
Excellent upland and marsh bird food; relished by
waterfowl; eaten by turkeys, raccoons and other small
animals, and deer. Used in game management as a food
plot source. Fresh water.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; broadcast Excellent source of food for waterfowl and for upland
on wet areas onsite; rake into the soil.
game and songbirds. Fresh water.
Collect seeds when mature; store in fresh water; broadcast
onsite; rake into the soil.
(Sheet 3 of 9)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

D-38

Species
Eelgrass2

D-39

Recommended Propagules
Transplants, seeds

Lobelia

Transplants

Lotus

Seeds, rootstock

Lyngbyes sedge2

Transplants, seeds

Manna grass2
(G. acutiflora)

Seeds, sprigs

Manna grass2
(G. fluitans)

Seeds, sprigs

Marsh elder2

Seedlings

Marsh hibiscus2

Seeds, transplants

Marsh pepper2

Cuttings, rootstock

Marsh smartweed2

Cuttings, seeds

Mud plantain2

Cuttings

Nodding smartweed2

Seeds

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect seeds when mature (June-August); store in fresh
water; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig plants; separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect seeds when mature (August-October); remove from
pods; store in fresh water at 41; broadcast in shallow water
onsite.
Dig rootstock when water is very low (late summer, fall); plant
in shallow water onsite.
Dig plants, separate individuals; replant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store dry at
room temperature; broadcast onsite.
Collect seeds when mature; store dry at room temperature or
less; broadcast onsite.
Dig young plants for sprigs; replant onsite or pot for holding as
transplants.
Same procedures as for Manna grass (G. acutiflora).

Remarks
Fair food source; used for soil stabilization in intermittent
ponded areas. Fresh water.
Fair food source; possibly used for soil stabilization.
Fresh water.
Fair food source for waterfowl; relished by wild boars
(roots); excellent cover for ducklings; potential pest plant
in standing water and shallow reservoirs. Fresh water.
Good food source for waterfowl and other birds; good
cover for many species. Fresh water.
Excellent seed source for many bird species; foliage
eaten by small and large animals; good cover. Fresh
water.
Excellent seed source for many bird species and other
wildlife. Good cover. Grows in wetter areas than Manna
grass (G. acutiflora). Fresh water.
Excellent cover species for birds and small animals;
used by colonial nesting wading birds for nesting
substrate. Potential pest plant. Fresh/brackish water.
Good cover for birds and sunning turtles; grows on the
banks of streams and ponds, and in ditches; good soil
stabilizer. Fresh water.
Excellent seed source for waterfowl and other birds;
foliage bitter to browsers; good cover and soil stabilizer.
Fresh water.
Excellent seed source for waterfowl and other birds;
good cover for many wildlife species. Not palatable to
herbivores. Fresh water.
Good soil stabilizer in intermittent ponds and streams.
Fresh water.

Dig seedlings in natural stands near parent plants; separate

individuals; replant onsite or pot for holding. Seedlings should
be at least 30 cm (12 in.) tall.
Collect seeds when mature (August-October); store dry at 41;
plant onsite at least 5-7.5 cm (2-3 in.) deep.
Dig plants; replant onsite or pot for holding.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; broadcast
on wet areas onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig rootstock; divide into sections; plant in wet areas onsite.
Cuttings: Same procedure as for Marsh pepper.
Collect seeds when mature (June-September); store or plant
immediately onsite; rake in soil.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) sections from the top shoots; replant in
mud and wet areas onsite, taking care to bury portions of
cutting in soil.
Collect seeds when mature (June-September); store in fresh Abundant seed source for upland and waterfowl birds;
water at 41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
grows in drier soils than do most smartweeds. Potential
pest plant. Not palatable to herbivores. Fresh water.
(Sheet 4 of 9)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
Lizards tail2

Olneys threesquare2
Orache2
Pacific cordgrass2

Red mangrove2
Reed canary grass2,3

D-40

Reed grass2

Reed manna grass2

Rice cutgrass2

River bulrush2

Rushes2

Saltgrass2

Recommended Propagules
Tubers, rootstock

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Dig tubers in late summer and fall; divide; plant onsite or pot
for using as transplants.
Dig rootstock; divide into sections; plant onsite, same depth.

Remarks
Excellent food source for most wildlife, especially chufa
and red-rooted sedge. Some species are commercially
available; potential pest plant in agronomic areas. Fresh
water.
Transplants, tubers
Dig plants, separate individuals; plant onsite or pot for holding. Excellent food source for waterfowl, muskrats, nutria,
Dig tubers; separate; plant onsite at the same depth.
and other small animals. Good soil stabilizer. Fresh
water.
Seeds
Collect seeds when mature; store dry at room temperature or Good source of seeds for birds and rodents; good soil
less. Broadcast onsite and rake into the soil.
stabilizer. Fresh/brackish water.
Transplants, sprigs
Dig young plants from edge of marsh; plant at the same depth Only low marsh soil stabilizer on west coast that
immediately as sprigs, or grow in pots and transplant into site tolerates both high salinities and strong tidal action.
as larger plants.
Good soil stabilizer; good cover; very slow growth.
Growing from seeds not recommended as seeds have very
Saline.
low viability rate.
Seeds, seedlings
Collect seed pods when mature; plant whole pod upright in
Excellent soil stabilizer in south Florida. Frequently
soil with stem end up and out of the soil.
occurs on dredged material islands and used by colonial
Dig seedlings from natural stand or grow from seed pods.
nesting wading birds for nesting. Saline.
Seeds
Buy seeds from a commercial seed source.
Excellent soil stabilizer; seeds good wildlife food source;
used to dewater and filter wastewater. Fresh water.
Seeds, sprigs
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store dry at 41; Excellent seed source for birds; grazed heavily by
broadcast onsite.
mammals and rodents. Good soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
Dig young plants to use for sprigs; separate individuals; plant
onsite or pot for growing as transplants.
Seeds, sprigs
Same procedures as for Reed grass.
Same as for Reed grass. Fresh water.
Seeds, sprigs
Collect seeds when mature (May-July); store in fresh water at Good seed and foliage food source for many wildlife
41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil (in wet areas).
species, especially waterfowl and marsh birds. Good soil
Dig young plants; separate individuals; plant in wet areas
stabilizer of banks. Fresh water.
onsite at the same depth.
Transplants, rootstock
Dig rootstock, divide into sections; plant at the same depth on Used frequently by nesting waterfowl and marsh birds;
site.
seeds good food source for many wildlife species. Good
Dig plants; separate individuals; transplant onsite or pot for
soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
holding.
Transplants, rootstock, seeds Dig plants; separate individuals; transplant to site or pot for
This group of plant species excellent for waterfowl, small
holding.
animal, other birds food; used as nesting substrate by
Dig rootstock; divide into sections; plant at the same depth on waterfowl and marsh birds; good soil stabilizers; hardy
site.
plants. Fresh water.
Collect seeds when mature (July-Oct); store in fresh water at
41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Sprigs, rhizomes
Dig young plants, divide into sections; plant onsite or pot for
Excellent soil stabilizer; grows well in high brackish
holding.
marshes; used as lodge material by muskrats; seeds fair
Dig roots; divide rhizomes into small sections; plant onsite;
food source, but foliage poor source. Brackish/saline
rake into the soil.
water.
(Sheet 5 of 9)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
Nutsedges2

D-41

Recommended Propagules
Seeds

Saltmarsh bulrush2

Transplants, tubers

Saltmarsh cattail2

Transplants, rootstock

Saltmarsh jaumea2

Transplants

Saltmeadow
cordgrass2

Transplants, sprigs

Saw grass2

Sprigs, seeds

Sea lavender2
L. carolinianum)
Sea lavender2
(L. vulgare)
Sea ox-eye2

Seeds

Sea purslane2

Seeds

Seaside arrowgrass2

Transplants

Sedges2

Transplants, seeds

Shoal grass2

Transplants

Seeds
Transplants, seeds

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store dry at
room temperature or less; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig plants; divide; plant onsite at the same depth or pot for
holding.
Dig tubers; separate tubers; cut off the top shoots, if present;
plant onsite at the same depth.
Dig plants; separate individuals; plant onsite at the same
depth.
Dig roots; separate; cut off the top shoots, if present; plant
onsite.
Dig plants, separate individuals; plant onsite at the same
depth or pot for holding.
Dig plants; divide into clumps; plant onsite at the same depth
or pot for holding.
Dig young plants; separate; plant onsite at the same depth.
Dig young plants; separate individuals; plant onsite or pot for
holding.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Collect seeds when mature (July-August); store dry at 41;
broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Same procedures as for Sea lavender (L. carolinianum).
Dig plants; separate individuals; plant onsite at the same
depth or pot for holding.
Collect seed heads when mature (July-October); store seeds
in fresh water at 41; plant onsite; rake into the soil.
Collect seeds when mature; store dry at room temperature or
less; plant onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig plants; divide into individuals or clumps; plant onsite at the
same depth or pot for holding.

Remarks
Good soil stabilizer in high coastal marshes. Fresh/
brackish water.
Excellent food source for waterfowl and muskrats, nutria,
other small animals. Good cover; good soil stabilizer;
used by muskrats for lodge material. Brackish water.
Good soil stabilizer. Occurs in ditches, intermittent
ponds, primarily on coasts. Low food value; fair cover.
Fresh/brackish water.
Fair soil stabilizer on west coast in high brackish
marshes. Brackish/saline water.
Excellent soil stabilizer in brackish marshes; also used in
dune stabilization on Atlantic coast. Seed production
often poor; low food value; some cover value. Brackish
water.
Species very site specific; occurs only in Florida and in
isolated spots along the Gulf Coast. Will not tolerate high
nutrient levels. Good soil stabilizer; good cover; seeds
eaten by some wildlife. Fresh water.
Fair soil stabilizer; cover. Low food value. Some nesting
substrate value. Fresh/brackish water.
Same values as for Sea lavender (L. carolinianum).
Fresh/brackish water.
Excellent soil stabilizer; grows in high marshes and on
shores. Low food value; some cover and nesting value.
Brackish water.

Fair soil stabilizer value; low food value; some seed

value as food. Some cover use. Fresh/brackish water.
Excellent soil stabilizer in brackish tidal marshes in
Pacific northwest; some cover value; low food value.
Fresh/brackish water.
Dig plants; separate into clumps or individuals; plant onsite or This group of species far-ranging and widely varied.
pot for holding.
Usually excellent seed value for wildlife; also good cover.
Collect seeds when mature (June-September); store dry at
Prolific plants. Fresh water.
41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig plugs with coring device in water at low tide; plant at site Propagules must be stabilized to prevent tidal scour.
immediately at the same depth.
Good cover value for marine organisms; good sediment
stabilizer. Saline water.
(Sheet 6 of 9)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
Saltmarsh aster2

Recommended Propagules
Transplants, seeds

Slough sedge2

Transplants, seeds

Smartweeds2

Cuttings, seeds

Smooth cordgrass2,3

Sprigs, transplants

Soft rush2

Transplants

Softstem bulrush2

Rhizomes, transplants

Dig roots; divide rhizomes leaving at least one growth point on

each; plant onsite 2.5-7.5 cm (1 to 3 in.) deep.
Dig plants; divide into sections; plant onsite or pot for holding.

Southern bulrush

Rhizomes, transplants

Same procedures as for Softstem bulrush.

Southern cutgrass2

Seeds, sprigs

Collect seeds/sprigs when mature (May-July); store in fresh

water at 41; broadcast in wet areas onsite; rake into the soil if
necessary.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; broadcast
in wet areas onsite; rake or place cuttings into the soil.
Collect seeds when mature (July-October); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig plants; separate individuals; plant onsite at the same
Good waterfowl food; good soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
depth or pot for holding.
Dig plants, divide into clumps; plant onsite at the same depth Excellent soil stabilizer; fair waterfowl food. Fresh water.
or pot for holding.
(Sheet 7 of 9)

Southern smartweed2 Cuttings, seeds

Spatterdock2

Transplants

Spikerushes2

Transplants

Remarks
Good food value for waterfowl and other seed-eating
birds; foliage eaten by small animals. Good soil
stabilizer. Fresh water.
Excellent wildlife seed source; foliage also eaten. Good
soil stabilizer. Fresh water.

Excellent group of plants for wildlife value; seeds readily

consumed by waterfowl and many other birds and small
animals. Good soil stabilizers. Not palatable to
herbivores.
Best soil stabilizer of low salt marshes on east and gulf
coasts. Used extensively for stabilization and marsh
creation projects. Good cover value; good food value.
Tolerant of tidal inundation for long periods. Saline water.
Persistent high marsh species; good cover value. Some
seed value, but foliage inedible. Known pest in pastoral
areas. Fresh water.
Excellent soil stabilizer of fresh water coastal and interior
marshes. Good seed value for wildlife. Used as cover
and nesting material by waterfowl and other wildlife.
Fresh water.
Same values as for Softstem bulrush except that this
species does not occur as extensively and grows much
larger and more robust. Fresh water.
Excellent seed value for waterfowl and other birds;
foliage eaten by small animals and grazers when tender
and young. Good soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
Excellent food source for waterfowl and marsh birds.
Prolific growth habits; forms dense tall stands. Good
cover value. Not palatable to herbivores. Fresh water.

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

D-42

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Dig plants; divide into clumps or individuals; plant at the same
depth onsite or pot for holding.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast in wet areas onsite.
Dig plants, separate into clumps; plant onsite at the same
depth or pot for holding.
Collect seeds when mature (July-October); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast in wet areas on site; rake into the soil
if necessary.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; broadcast
onsite; rake into the soil, taking care to cover parts of the
cuttings (the site should be wet).
Collect seeds, store in fresh water or dry, depending on
species; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig young plants; separate individuals; plant as sprigs on site
or pot to hold as transplant.
Dig transplants from natural marsh or grow from seeds; plant
onsite, taking care to cover all roots.
Dig clumps; divide into sections with a cutting device; plant
onsite at the same depth or pot for holding.

Species
Slough grass2

D-43

Recommended Propagules
Whole plants

Sprangletop2

Seeds, sprigs

Sweet flag

Transplants

Tufted hairgrass2

Transplants, sprigs

Turtle grass2

Transplants

Walters millet2,3

Seeds

Water hemp2

Seeds

Water hyssop

Cuttings, sprigs

Water lilies2,3

Rootstock

Watermilfoils

Cuttings

Water nymphs
Water plantain2

Cuttings
Transplants

Water shield

Rootstock

Water smartweed2

Cuttings, seeds

Water willow

Transplants

Table D-2 (Continued)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Scoop buckets of plants from standing water; transfer to
standing water onsite.
Collect seeds when mature (summer, fall); store dry at room
temperature or less; broadcast onsite; rake into the soil.
Dig young plants; plant onsite as sprigs.
Dig plants; divide individuals; plant onsite in high marsh at the
same depth.
Dig plants; divide individuals; plant onsite or pot for holding.
Dig young plants; plant as sprigs on site.
Dig clumps with a coring device from water at low tide, taking
care that there is at least one growth point in each clump
(otherwise, it will not reproduce); plant onsite in the water.
Buy from a commercial seed source.
Collect seeds when mature; store in fresh water at 41;
broadcast in wet area on site; rake into the soil if necessary.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; plant in
mud onsite.
Dig young plants; divide; plant in wet areas onsite.
Dig rootstock in late summer and fall when water levels are
low; transplant to shallow water onsite.
Gather containers of plant segments from standing water
onsite.
Same procedures as for Watermilfoils.
Dig plants; divide individuals; plant onsite at the same depth.
Dig roots in shallow water in late summer and fall; transfer to
standing shallow water onsite.
Take 5-15 cm (2-6 in.) cuttings from the top shoots; plant in
wet areas onsite, taking care to bury part of each cutting.
Collect seeds when mature (July-September); store in fresh
water at 41; broadcast in wet areas on site.
Dig plants; divide individuals; plant onsite at the same depth.
(Sheet 8 of 9)

Remarks
Good waterfowl food, especially wood ducks. Fresh
water.
Excellent seed source for wildlife; good soil stabilizer;
used for cover. Fresh water.
Good soil stabilizer; fair wildlife value; potential pest
plant. Fresh water.
Excellent low marsh species for the Pacific Northwest;
prolific growth; good cover and fair food wildlife value.
Good soil stabilizer. Fresh/brackish water.
Excellent cover and wildlife value; good cover for marine
organisms. Species susceptible to environmental
changes by humans; rare in some areas. Saline water.
Excellent food value from waterfowl and other wildlife,
such as raccoons, turkey, deer, and muskrats. Good
temporary soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
Good seed source for wildlife; fair soil stabilizer. Fresh
water.
Good soil stabilizer; fair wildlife food. Fresh water.
Good cover for ducklings; some food value. Excellent
sediment stabilizer; potential pest. Fresh water.
Excellent dabbling duck food; good cover. Potential pest
plant in standing water and reservoirs. Fresh water.
Same values as for Watermilfoils. Fresh water.
Good food source for wildlife; fair soil stabilizer. Fresh
water.
Good cover value, good sediment stabilizer. Fresh water.
Excellent waterfowl food, good cover. Excellent sediment
and soil stabilizer. Fresh water.
Fair soil stabilizer; low wildlife value. Fresh water.

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
Spirodella2

Recommended Propagules
Seeds, seedlings

Widgeongrass2

Cuttings

Wild celery

Whole plants

Wild rice2

Sprigs, seeds

Willows2

Cuttings

Wolffias

Whole plants

Yellow flag

Transplants, rhizomes

Table D-2 (Concluded)

General Collection, Handling, and Planting Techniques
Collect seeds when mature; plant immediately on site.
Dig seedlings from natural stands; plant onsite.
Remove buckets of segments of plants from standing water;
transfer to standing water onsite.
Remove whole plants from standing water; transfer to
standing water onsite.
Dig young plants, divide individuals; plant in shallow water on
site.
Collect seeds when mature; plant in wet areas onsite.
Take 10-30 cm (4-12 in.) cuttings from dormant trees (winter
months, early spring); plant cuttings onsite with the butt end
two-thirds into the soil.
Remove buckets of plants from standing water; transfer to
standing water onsite.
Dig plants; divide individuals; plant in high marsh on site.
Dig rhizomes; divide, keeping one growth point on each
rhizome; plant shallowly onsite.
(Sheet 9 of 9)

Remarks
Excellent soil stabilizer; good cover; low food value; used
by nesting birds. Saline water.
Excellent waterfowl food; grown by waterfowl managers
for attracting waterfowl. Brackish water.
Excellent cover value; harbors many invertebrates fed on
by wildlife. Shades out aquatic plants; pest in Florida and
the Deep South in isolated locations. Fresh water.
Low tolerance for pollution; must have fine-textured soils
in slow-moving water. Excellent wildlife food, good soil
stabilizer. Fresh water.
Excellent soil stabilizer of stream and pond banks. Good
cover and food value for songbirds. Very fast growing,
potential pest plant. Fresh water.
Excellent waterfowl food; good cover value. Fresh water.
Good soil stabilizer, low wildlife value; showy flowers.
Fresh water.

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Species
White mangrove2

D-44

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX E
Common and Scientific Names of Plants
and Animals Mentioned in this Manual
E.1 Plants. Table E-1 identifies both the common and the scientific names of the plants
mentioned in this manual.
Table E-1. Common and Scientific Names of the Plants Mentioned in this Manual
Common Name

Scientific Name

Alders

Alnus spp.

Alfalfa

Medicago sativa

Alkali bulrush

Scirpus sp.

Alsike clover

Trifolium hybridum

American beachgrass

Ammophila breviligulata

American beech

Fagus grandifolia

American bittersweet

Celastrus scandens

American dunegrass

Elymus mollis

American elderberry

Sambucus canadensis

American elm

Ulmus americana

American hornbeam

Carpinus caroliniana

American plum

Prunus americana

American sycamore

Platanus occidentalis

Apples

Malus spp.

Arrow arum

Peltandra virginica

Arrow-leafed tearthumb

Polygonum sagittatum

Arrowwood viburnum

Viburnum dentatum

Australian pine

Casuarina equisetifolia

Autumn olive

Eleagnus umbellata

Bahia grass

Paspalum notatum

Bald cypress

Taxodium distichum

Bamboo vine

Smilax laurifolia

Barley

Hordeum vulgare
(Sheet 1 of 18)

E-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Barnyard grass

Echinochloa crusgalli

Bayberry

Myrica pennsylvanica

Beach morning glory

Ipomoea stolonifera

Beach panic grass

Panicum ararum

Beach pea

Lathyrus japonicus

Beach plum

Prunus maritima

Beach strawberry

Fragaria chiloensis

Beak rush

Rynchospora tracyi

Beaked panic grass

Panicum anceps

Bearberry

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Beautyberry

Callicarpa americana

Beet

Beta vulgaris

Beggars ticks

Bidens spp.

Bermuda grass

Cynodon dactylon

Bicolor lespedeza

Lespedeza bicolor

Big bluestem

Andropogon gerardi

Big cordgrass

Spartina cynosuroides

Big filaree

Erodium botrys

Bigelows glasswort

Salicornia bigelowii

Birds foot trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

Bittersweet nightshade

Solanum dulcamera

Black cherry

Prunus serotina

Black cottonwood

Populus trichocarpa

Black gum

Nyssa sylvatica

Black locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

Black mangrove

Avicennia nitida

Black medic

Medicago lupulina

Black needlerush

Juncus romerianus
(Sheet 2 of 18)

E-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Black nightshade

Solanum nigrum

Black raspberry

Rubus occidentalis

Black walnut

Juglans nigra

Black willow

Salix nigra

Blackseed plantain

Plantago rugeli

Bladderworts

Utricularia spp.

Blue brush

Ceanothus thryiflorus

Blue elderberry

Sambucus caerulea

Bottlebrush

Plantago arenaria

Bracted plantain

Plantago aristata

Broadleaf arrowhead

Sagittaria latifolia

Broadleaf cattail

Typha latifolia

Broadleaf plantain

Plantago major

Brazilian peppertree

Schinus terebinthifolius

Brewer saltbush

Atriplex breweri

Bromegrass

Bromus inermus

Broomsedge

Andropogon virginicus

Browntop millet

Panicum ramosum

Buckthorn plantain

Plantago lanceolata

Buffaloberry

Shepheria canadensis

Bull paspalum

Paspalum boscianum

Bulrushes

Scirpus spp.

Bur reed

Sparganium americanum

Bush lupine

Lupinus albifrons

Bushy beardgrass

Andropogon glomeratus

Buttercups

Ranunculus spp.

Buttonbush

Cephalanthus occidentalis

Buttonwood

Conocarpus erecta
(Sheet 3 of 18)

E-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Cabbage palm

Sabal palmetto

Calandrinia

Calandrinia maritima

California blackberry

Rubus ursinus

California buckthorn

Rhamnus californica

Calley Bermuda grass

Cynodon dactylon var. Calleyi

Camphorweed

Heterotheca subaxillarsis

Canadian serviceberry

Amelanchier canadensis

Carolina ash

Fraxinus caroliniana

Carolina rose

Rosa carolina

Cascara buckthorn

Rhamnus purshiana

Cattails

Typha spp.

Chufa

Cyperus esculentus

Cherry laurel

Prunus caroliniana

Chickasaw plum

Prunus angustifolia

Coastal Bermuda grass

Cynodon dactylon hybrid

Coast deervetch

Lotus formosissimus

Common Bermuda grass

Cynodon dactylon

Common buckthorn

Rhamnus caroliniana

Common chickweed

Stellaria media

Common chokecherry

Prunus virginiana

Common deerberry

Vaccinum stamineum

Common filaree

Erodium cicutarium

Common greenbrier

Smilax rotundifolia

Common juniper

Juniperus conmunis

Common lambsquarters

Chenopodium album

Common mullein

Verbascum thapsus

Common purslane

Portulaca oleracea
(Sheet 4 of 18)

E-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Common ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Common reed

Phragmites australis

Common spikerush

Eleocharis palustris

Common sweetleaf

Symplocos tinctoria

Common three-square

Scirpus americanus

Corn

Zea mays

Cotton

Gossypium hirsutum

Cow oak

Quercus michauxii

Cow pea

Vigna sinensis

Crabapple

Malus angustifolia

Crimson clover

Trifolium incarnatum

Crossvine

Bignonia capreolata

Croton

Croton californicus

Curly dock

Rumex crispus

Dahoon

Ilex cassine

Dallis grass

Paspalum dilatum

Deertongue

Muhlenbergia rigens

Deerweed

Lotus scoparius

Delta duckpotato

Sagittaria platyphylla

Dock

Rumex spp.

Dotted smartweed

Polygonum punctatum

Downy serviceberry

Amelanchier arborea

Duckpotatoes

Sagittaria spp.

Duckweeds

Lemna spp.

Dwarf spikerush

Eleocharis parvula

Eastern cottonwood

Populus deltoides

Eastern hophornbeam

Ostrya virginiana

Eastern red cedar

Juniperus virginiana
(Sheet 5 of 18)

E-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Eastern white pine

Pinus strobus

Eel grass

Zostera marina

Elderberry

Sambucus glauca

Elderberry

Sambucus callicarpa

Eucalyptus

Eucalyptus spp.

European beach grass

Ammophila arenaria

European glasswort

Salicornia europea

Evergreen blackberry

Rubus laciniatus

Fall panic grass

Panicum dichotomiflorum

Filaree

Erodium obtusiplicatum

Fimbristylis

Fimbristyis castanea

Firethorn

Pyracantha coccinea

Flat pea

Lathyrus sylvestris

Flowering dogwood

Cornus florida

Flowering spurge

Euphorbia corollata

Fox grape

Vitis labrusca

Foxtail grasses

Setaria spp.

Foxtail millet

Setaria italica

Frankenia

Frankenia grandifolia

Fringed catbrier

Smilax bona-nox

Frog bit

Limnobium spongia

Frost grape

Vitis vulpina

Gallberry

Ilex glabra

Giant ragweed

Ambrosia trifida

Giant reed

Arundo donax

Glassworts

Salicornia spp.

Goose grass

Eleusine indica
(Sheet 6 of 18)

E-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Gray dogwood

Cornus racemosa

Green ash

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Green bristlegrass

Setaria viridus

Ground blueberry

Vaccinium myrsinites

Groundsel tree

Baccharis haminifolia

Gulf cordgrass

Spartina spartinae

Gum plant

Grindelia integrifolia

Hackberry

Celtis occidentalis

Halberd-leaved willow

Salix hastata

Hairy vetch

Vicia hirsuta

Hardstem bulrush

Scirpus acutus

Hemp sesbania

Sesbania exaltata

Hibiscus

Hibiscus mascheutos

Hickories

Carya spp.

Highbush blueberry

Vaccinium corymbosum

Hollyleaf cherry

Prunus ilicifolia

Honeylocust

Gleditsia triacanthos

Honey mesquite

Prosopis juliflora

Hookers willow

Salix hookeriana

Hop clover

Trifolium procumbens

Horned pondweed

Zannichellia palustris

Horse nettle

Solanum carolinense

Horsetails

Equisetum spp.

Horseweed

Erigeron canadensis

Ice plant

Mesembryanthemum crystallinum

Italian ryegrass

Lolium multiflorum

Japanese clover

Lespedeza striata

Japanese honeysuckle

Lonicera japonica
(Sheet 7 of 18)

E-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Japanese lespedeza

Lespedeza japonica

Japanese millet

Echinochloa crusgalli hybrid

Jerusalem artichoke

Helianthus tuberosus

Johnson grass

Sorghum halepense

Jungle rice

Echinochloa colonum

Korean clover

Lespedeza stipulacea

Kudzu

Pueraria lobata

Ladino clover

Trifolium repens latum

Ladysthumb

Polygonum persicaria

Lanceleaf greenbrier

Smilax smallii

Large crabgrass

Digitaria sanguinalis

Laurel oak

Quercus laurifolia

Lespedeza

Lespedeza spp.

Lettuce

Lactuca sativa

Little hairgrass

Aira praecox

Live oak

Quercus virginiana

Lizards tail

Saururus cernuus

Lobelia

Lobelia dartmanna

Loblolly pine

Pinus taeda

Longleaf pine

Pinus palustris

Lotus

Nelumbo lutea

Low blueberry

Vaccinium vacillans

Lupine

Lupinus polyphyllus

Lyngbyes sedge

Carex lyngbyei

Malta starthistle

Centaurea melitensis

Manna grass

Glyceria acutiflora

Manna grass

Glyceria fluitans

Mapleleaf goosefoot

Chenopodium hybridum
(Sheet 8 of 18)

E-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Mapleleaf viburnum

Viburnum acerifolium

Marsh elder

Iva frutescens

Marsh hibiscus

Hibiscus moscheutos

Marsh pea

Lathyrus palustris

Marsh pepper

Polygonum hydropiper

Marsh smartweed

Polygonum hydropiperoides

Maximillians sunflower

Helianthus maximilliani

Mexican tea

Chenopodium ambrosioides

Millets

Echinochloa spp.

Mockernut hickory

Carya tomentosa

Mountain blackberry

Rubus allegheniensis

Mud plantain

Plantago reniformis

Multiflora rose

Rosa multiflora

Muscadine grape

Vitis rotundifolia

Musk filaree

Erodium moschatum

Myrtle oak

Quercus myrtifolia

Narrowleaf vetch

Vicia angustifolia

Nodding smartweed

Polygonum lapathifolium

Northern bayberry

Myrica pennsylvanica

Nutsedges

Cyperus spp.

Oaks

Quercus spp.

Oats

Avena sativa

Oleander

Nerium oleander

Olneys three-square

Scirpus olneyi

Orache

Atriplex patula

Orchardgrass

Dactylis glomerata

Pacific bayberry

Myrica californica

Pacific cordgrass

Spartina pacifica
(Sheet 9 of 18)

E-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Pacific dogwood

Cornus nuttallii

Pacific glasswort

Salicornia pacifica

Pacific sedge

Carex obnupta

Pacific wax myrtle

Myrica californica

Pacific willow

Salix lasiandra

Palmetto

Serena repens

Panic grasses

Panicum spp.

Paper mulberry

Broussonetia papyrifera

Partridge pea

Cassia fasciculata

Peach

Persea spp.

Peachleaf willow

Salix amygdaloides

Pear

Persea spp.

Pearl millet

Pennisetum glaucum

Peas

Vignia spp.

Pecan

Carya illinoiensis

Pennsylvania smartweed

Polygonum pensylvanicum

Peppervine

Ampelopsis arborea

Perennial ryegrass

Lolium perenne

Persimmon

Diospyros virginiana

Pickleweeds

Salicornia spp.

Pignut hickory

Carya glabra

Poison ivy

Rhus radicans

Pokeberry

Phytolacca americana

Pondweeds

Potomogeton spp.

Possumhaw

Ilex decidua

Possumhaw viburnum

Viburnum nudum

Prairie cordgrass

Spartina pectinata

Proso millet

Panicum miliaceum
(Sheet 10 of 18)

E-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Prostrate knotweed

Polygonum aviculare

Prostrate spurge

Euphorbia supina

Purple loosestrife

Lythrum salicaria

Purple nutsedge

Cyperus rotundus

Purple osier willow

Salix purpurea

Purple vetch

Vicia americanus

Pussy willow

Salix discolor

Potatoes

Solanum tuberosum

Quack grass

Agropyron repens

Quail brush

Atriplex lentiformis

Red alder

Alnus rubra

Redbay

Persea borbonia

Red buckeye

Aesculus parvia

Red clover

Trifolium pratense

Red mangrove

Rhizophora mangle

Red maple

Acer rubrum

Red mulberry

Morus rubra

Red osier dogwood

Cornus stolonifera

Red fescue

Festuca rubra

Red-rooted sedge

Cyperus erythrorhizos

Redroot pigweed

Amaranthus retroflexus

Redtop

Agrostis alba

Reed canary grass

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed grass

Calamogrostis canadensis

Reed manna grass

Gylceria grandis

Rescue grass

Bromus catharticus

Reseeding soybean

Glycine ussuriensis

Rice

Oryza sativa
(Sheet 11 of 18)

E-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Rice cutgrass

Leersia oryzoides

River birch

Betula nigra

River bulrush

Scirpus fluviatilis

Riverflat hawthorn

Crateagus opaca

Rough-leaved dogwood

Cornus drummondii

Rushes

Juncus spp.

Russian olive

Elaeagnus angustifolia

Rusty blackhaw

Viburnum rufidulum

Rye

Secale cereale

Salal

Gautheria shallon

Salmonberry

Rubus spectabilis

Saltbush

Atriplex polycarpa

Saltcedar

Tamarisk parviflora

Saltgrass

Distichlis spicata

Saltmarsh aster

Aster tenuifolius

Saltmarsh bulrush

Scirpus robustus

Saltmarsh cattail

Typha angustifolia

Saltmarsh jaumea

Jaumea carnosa

Saltmeadow cordgrass

Spartina patens

Saltwort

Salsola kali

Sandbar willow

Salix interior

Sand blackberry

Rubus cuneifolius

Sand dropseed

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sand pine

Pinus clausa

Sassafras

Sassafras albidum

Saw grass

Cladium jamaicense

Sawbrier

Smilax glauca

Sawtooth oak

Quercus acutissima
(Sheet 12 of 18)

E-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Schweinitzs nutsedge

Cyperus schweinitzii

Scotch broom

Cytisus scoparius

Sea blite

Suaeda maritima

Sea lavender

Limonium carolinianum

Sea lavender

Limonium vulgare

Sea oats

Uniola paniculata

Sea ox-eye

Borrichia frutescens

Seaside arrowgrass

Triglochin maritima

Seaside dock

Rumex maritima

Seaside goldenrod

Solidago sempervirens

Seaside plantain

Plantago maritima

Seashore bluegrass

Poa macantha

Seashore lupine

Lupinus littoralis

Seashore paspalum

Pasplaum vaginatum

Sedges

Carex spp.

Sericea lespedeza

Lespedeza sericea

Sharp-toothed blackberry

Rubus argutus

Sheep sorrel

Rumex acetosella

Shining sumac

Rhus copallina

Shoal grass

Halodule wrightii

Shoredune panic grass

Panicum amarulum

Shore pine

Pinus contorta

Showy tick-trefoil

Desmodium candense

Shrub verbena

Lantana camera

Silky dogwood

Cornus amomum

Silky willow

Salix sericea

Silverleaf croton

Croton punctatus

Sitka alder

Alnus sinuata
(Sheet 13 of 18)

E-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Sitka spruce

Picea sitchensis

Sixweeks fescue

Festuca octoflora

Slash pine

Pinus elliottii

Slough grass

Beckmannia syzigachne

Slough sedge

Carex trichocarpa

Smartweeds

Polygonum spp.

Smooth cordgrass

Spartina alterniflora

Smooth crabgrass

Digitaria ischaemum

Smooth sumac

Rhus glabra

Soft rush

Juncus effusus

Softstem bulrush

Scirpus validus

Sorghum

Sorghum vulgare

Southern bayberry

Myrica cerifera

Southern bulrush

Scirpus californicus

Southern cutgrass

Zizaniopsis mileacea

Southern dewberry

Rubus trivialis

Southern ragweed

Ambrosia bidentata

Southern red oak

Quercus falcata

Southern smartweed

Polygunum densiflorum

Soybean

Glycine max

Sparkleberry

Vaccinium arboreum

Spatterdock

Nympha lutum

Spikerushes

Eleocharis spp.

Spirodella

Spriodella polyrhiza

Spotted burclover

Medicago arabica

Spotted spurge

Euphorbia maculata

Sprangletop

Leptochloa fascicularis

Squarestem spikerush

Eleocharis quadrangulata
(Sheet 14 of 18)

E-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Squash

Cucurbita spp.

Squaw huckleberry

Vaccinium stamineum

Staghorn sumac

Rhus typhina

Sudan grass

Sorghum sudanese

Sugarberry

Celtis laevigata

Sugar maple

Acer saccharum

Summersweet

Clethra alnifolia

Sunflower

Helianthus gigantus

Supplejack

Berchemia scandens

Swamp privet

Forestiera acuminata

Swamp rose

Rosa palustris

Sweetbay

Magnolia virginiana

Sweet flag

Acorus calamis

Sweet gum

Liquidambar styraciflua

Switchgrass

Panicum virgatum

Tag alder

Alnus serrulata

Tall fescue

Festuca arundinacea

Tansy mustard

Descurainia pinnata

Tartarian honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica

Telegraph weed

Heterotheca graniflora

Texas huisache

Acacia smallii

Texas millet

Panicum texanum

Thorny eleagnus

Elaeagnus pungens

Timothy

Phleum pratense

Tomato

Lycopersicon esculentum

Toothache tree

Zanthoxylum clava-herculis

Torpedo grass

Panicum repens

Tropic croton

Croton glandulosus
(Sheet 15 of 18)

E-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Tufted hairgrass

Deschampsia caspitosa

Tulip poplar

Liriodendron tulipifera

Tumbleweed

Amaranthus albus

Tupelo gum

Nyssa aquatica

Turkey oak

Quercus laevis

Turtle grass

Thlassia testudinum

Vasey grass

Paspalum urvillei

Virginia creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Virginia dropseed

Sporobolus virginicus

Virginia pepperweed

Lepidium virginicum

Walters millet

Echinochloa walterii

Water hemp

Acnida cannabina

Water hyssop

Bacopa caroliniana

Water lilies

Nymphaea spp.

Watermilfoils

Myriophyllum spp.

Water nymphs

Najas spp.

Water oak

Quercus nigra

Water plantain

Plantago aquatica

Water primrose

Jussiaea leptocarpa

Water shield

Brasenia schriberi

Water smartweed

Polygonum amphibum

Water willow

Decodon verticillatus

Wax myrtle

Myrica cerifera

Western blackberry

Rubus vitifolia

Western chokecherry

Prunus virginiana dimissa

Western dogwood

Cornus occidentalis

Western huckleberry

Vaccinium ovatum

Western ragweed

Ambrosia psilostachya
(Sheet 16 of 18)

E-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Wheat

Triticum aestivum

White ash

Fraxinus americana

White clover

Trifolium repens

White mangrove

Laguncluaria racemosa

White oak

Quercus alba

White poplar

Populus alba

White sweetclover

Meliotus alba

Widgeongrass

Ruppia maritima

Wild apple

Malus pumila

Wild bamboo

Smilax auriculata

Wild bean

Strophostyles helvola

Wild black currant

Ribes americanum

Wild buckwheat

Polygonum convolvulus

Wild celery

Vallisneria americana

Wild cherry

Prunus emarginata

Wild indigo

Baptisia leucophaea

Wild rice

Zizania aquatica

Wild rose

Rosa rugosa

Wild rye

Elymus virginicus

Wild sensitive pea

Cassia nictitans

Wild strawberry

Fragaria virginiana

Willows

Salix spp.

Wingscale

Atriplex canescens

Winterberry

Ilex verticillata

Witch hazel

Hammamelis virginiana

Wolffias

Wolffia spp.

Woolly croton

Croton capitata

Woolly indianwheat

Plantago purshii
(Sheet 17 of 18)

E-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-1 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Woolly panic grass

Panicum lanuginosum

Yaupon

Ilex vomitoria

Yellow bristlegrass

Setaria lutescens

Yellow flag

Iris versicolor

Yellow paloverde

Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow starthistle

Cercidium microphyllum

Yellow sweetclover

Melilotus officinalis
(Sheet 18 of 18)

E.2 Animals. Table E-2 identifies both the common and the scientific names of the animals
mentioned in this manual.
Table E-1. Common and Scientific Names of the Animals Mentioned in this Manual
Common Name

Scientific Name

Bait shrimp

Penaeus spp.

Black-necked stilt

Himantopus mexicanus

Black skimmer

Rynchops niger

Blue crab

Callinectes sapidus

Brown pelican

Pelenacus occidentalis

California grunion

Leuresthes tenius

Canada goose

Branta canadensis

Cat (feral)

Felis cattus

Catfish

Ictalurus spp.

Cattle

Bos taurus

Clams

Pelecypoda

Clapper rail

Rallus longirostris

Common tern

Sterna hirundo
(Sheet 1 of 3)

E-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-2 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Cormorants

Phalacrocorax spp.

Coyote

Canis latrans

Crayfish

Astacidae

Dog (feral)

Canis domesticus

Dusky jawfish

Opistognathus whitehursti

Fiddler crab

Uca pugnax

Foxes

Vulpes spp.

Goats (feral)

Capra hircus

Gull-billed tern

Gelochelidon nolotica

Gulls

Larus spp.

Killdeer

Charadrius vociferus

Laughing gull

Larus atricilla

Least tern

Sterna albifrons

Marsh rabbit

Sylvilagus spp.

Minnows

Cyprinidae

Muskrat

Ondatra zibethica

Mussels

Pelecypoda

Nutria

Myocastor coypus

Oyster

Crassostea virginica

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

Prawns

Palaemonidae

Rabbits
Raccoon

Syvalagus spp.
Procyon lotor

Rails

Rallus sp.

Redfish

Sebastes marinus

Roseate spoonbill

Ajaia ajaja

Sheep

Ovis aries

Shrimp

Penaeus spp.
(Sheet 2 of 3)

E-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table E-2 (Continued)
Common Name

Scientific Name

Striped bass

Morone saxatilis

Terns

Sterna spp.

Trout

Salmo spp.

White pelican

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

White shrimp

Penaeus setiferus

White-tailed deer

Odecoilus virginiana
(Sheet 3 of 3)

E-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX F
Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS)
F.1 Purpose. This appendix presents information from Technical Note EEDP-06-12 (Schroeder et
al. 2004), which describes the capabilities and availability of the Automated Dredging and
Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS). The technical note may be read in its
entirety at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/eedp06-12.pdf.
F.2 Background. Planning, design, and management of dredging and dredged material placement
projects often require complex or tedious calculations or involve complex decision-making
criteria. In addition, the evaluations must often be done for several placement alternatives or
placement sites. ADDAMS is a PC-based system developed to assist users in making such
evaluations in a timely manner. It includes a collection of applications designed to assist in
managing dredging projects. This appendix describes the system, currently available applications,
mechanisms for acquiring and running the system, and provisions for revision and expansion.
F.3 Description of ADDAMS.
F.3.1 Objective. ADDAMS is an interactive PC-based design and analysis system for dredged
material management. It is composed of individual modules or applications, each of which has
computer programs designed to assist in the evaluation of a specific aspect of a dredging project.
The system was developed in response to requests by USACE field offices for tools to evaluate
dredged material management alternatives more quickly. The objective of ADDAMS is to
provide state-of-the-art computer-based tools that will increase the accuracy, reliability, and costeffectiveness of USACE dredged material management activities in a timely manner.
F.3.2 Available applications.
F.3.2.1 Reflecting the nature of dredged material management activities, the applications
contained in ADDAMS and their methodologies are richly diverse in sophistication and origin.
The contents range from simple algebraic expressions, both theoretical and empirical in origin, to
numerically intense algorithms spawned by the increasing power and affordability of computers.
F.3.2.2 Figure F-1 shows the currently available applications under the ADDAMS umbrella.
Initially, the ADDAMS applications were all written for DOS-based computers. The most
frequently used applications have either been converted or are currently in the process of being
converted for 64-bit Windows operating systems. Figure F-1 shows the current mix of DOSbased and Windows-based applications. They are divided into two groups: dredged material
management and environmental effects evaluation.

F-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure F-1. Current Applications in ADDAMS

F.3.2.3 A summary description of each ADDAMS application, including a listing of
capabilities and technical points of contact, is found in Section F-6. As applications are updated
or new applications are added, Technical Note EEDP-06-12 will be updated by changes to this
technical note. A demo that includes SETTLE, DYECON, PSDDF, STFATE, D2M2, EFQUAL,

F-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
RUNQUAL, and HELPQ is available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?
Topic=model&Type=drgmat.
F.3.2.4 Each ADDAMS application has documentation describing how to run that it;
Schroeder et al. (2004) is intended to serve as the users guide and documentation for the overall
ADDAMS system. All ADDAMS files are available at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
products.cfm?Topic=model&Type=drgmat. A detailed list of references is provided both in
Schroeder et al. (2004) and directly onscreen within the applications, including those concerned
with the technical background and theory involved and documentation for the programming as
appropriate. Points of contact for each application are also listed directly on the screens for
answering questions regarding the respective applications.
F.4 General Instructions.
F.4.1 Target Hardware Environment. The strong preference of USACE field offices is for the
system to reside in a commonly available desktop hardware environment. The system is,
therefore, designed for PCs resident at USACE field offices, running Windows operating
systems. Since components of ADDAMS have been developed over a number of years, different
components were designed for different operating systems. Early components were designed to
run in DOS; later components were designed for Windows 95 and 98 and, subsequently,
Windows XP. Upgrades are currently being prepared for Windows 7.
F.4.2 Installation and Startup.
F.4.2.1 On the ADDAMS website, each ADDAMS application has a program file that is a
self-extracting compressed archive of the applications installation routine. Download the file
into a temporary subdirectory on your computer; then run the program file to extract the
installation files. After the files have been extracted, double-click the INSTALL.EXE file to
install the application. If you download more than one application program, you must both
extract and install each application before extracting the next program file; otherwise, the
program files should be downloaded to different subdirectories.
F.4.2.2 It is recommended that the ADDAMS files be saved in a directory dedicated for the
ADDAMS system on your workstations hard disk (for example, C:\ADDAMS).
F.4.2.2.1 To begin a session using one of the DOS-based applications, go to the DOS or
command prompt, make the ADDAMS directory the current default directory, and type
ADDAMS or the name of the application. In Windows, you can start a DOS-based application by
using either the Run command or the Open option to execute the application batch file (*.BAT).
Menus will then be displayed.
F.4.4.2.2.2 To begin a session using one of the Windows-based applications, double-click the
appropriate icon on the desktop.

F-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.4.2.3 Note that ADDAMS supporting documents are also available on the ADDAMS
website. The available documents are in Adobe Acrobat format (PDF). Download the document
files into any subdirectory. View or print the documents using Adobe Reader.
F.4.3 User Interface.
F.4.3.1 The DOS version applications are SETTLE, DYECON, PSDDF, STFATE, CDFATE,
MDFATE, D2M2, EFQUAL, LAT-E, RUNQUAL, LAT-R, HELPQ, PUP, and RECOVERY.
F.4.3.2 These DOS applications employ a menu-driven environment and support full-screen
data entry. Single keystrokes (usually the F1-F10 function keys, number keys, Esc key, cursor
keys, and Enter key) select menu options in the system. The vast majority of these applications
do not use mouse controls.
F.4.3.3 Cursor keys highlight input fields (displayed in reverse video) much like a
spreadsheet program. To enter alphanumeric data, move the cursor to the cell of interest using the
Up or Down arrows to move vertically and the Tab and Shift+Tab keys to move horizontally.
The Enter key moves forward through the cells. The Left and Right arrow keys can be used to
move the cursor within a selected cell in order to edit the cell contents. The Backspace key
deletes characters in a cell. The space bar inserts spaces in a cell. The Delete and Insert keys,
respectively, delete and insert a row of data on a screen of tabular data.
F.4.3.4 Page Down moves the cursor to the next screen of data entry and the Page Up key
moves the cursor to the previous screen of data entry. The End key or Esc key allows you to quit
data entry and exit the application without saving the data. The Home key exits the current data
entry activity screen to the activity selection menu for the application and retains the entered data
in memory.
F.4.3.5 More recent ADDAMS applications (DREDGE, CDF, EFFLUENT, and RUNOFF)
have been written in Windows format with all the Windows programs except DREDGE
supporting all Windows operating systems (95/98, NT, 2000 and XP). DREDGE operates only in
Windows 95/98 and XP. Online help is available. In addition, Windows versions of STFATE,
CDFATE, and RECOVERY are available, and a Windows version of PSDDF and CAP (a
combination of RECOVERY and PSDDF) are being prepared. Results from computations are
generally displayed in tabular or graphic format on the screen or written to print files or devices.
F.4.4 Applications and File Management.
F.4.4.1 Each ADDAMS application consists of one or more stand-alone computer programs
or numerical models to perform a specific analysis. ASCII files store input data from previous
runs and are used to store output of results. The DOS version of ADDAMS displays an initial
menu of applications. Once an application is selected, an activity selection menu will be
displayed at several levels for entering and editing data, executing the application, printing the
results, performing file operations, and exiting the program.

F-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.4.4.2 The File Manager is accessible within each application. The File Manager acts only
on data files for the selected application. The File Manager can select, name, or copy files, or
display a directory listing the files.
F.4.4.3 The Windows applications of ADDAMS employ standard Windows file management
methods including a File option drop-down menu and icons on the toolbar to open new or
existing files and print or save data.
F.4.5 Printing. A hard copy of input data, output of results, data files, and file directories can
be printed in both DOS and Windows applications. The DOS commands Control+Print Screen
and Shift+Print Screen can also be used to print, respectively, all information written to the
screen or currently on the monitor. Many of the print functions of the DOS applications do not
work in a Windows environment; however, the Print Screen functions operate when the DOS
applications are run from a window as opposed to full screen. The screen captures can be printed
in word processing or presentation/graphics software. The output files from the DOS applications
can be printed from any Windows application for ASCII files, such as Notepad, Wordpad, or
Word using fixed (non-scalable) fonts.
F.4.6 Ending. Normal termination is recommended at all times to avoid data loss.
a. For DOS applications, terminate data entry by paging from the data entry screens or
pressing the Home key to return to the activity selection menu. Press the Esc key or the function
key for file operations to save the data, and then press the Esc key to exit each menu and return,
ultimately, to DOS. Note that it is sometimes necessary to wait for lengthy computations to
complete before exiting. A program can also be terminated by pressing Control+Break, ending
the task, closing the window, or turning off the computer, but these methods of ending are not
recommended because data may be lost.
b. For Windows applications, use the Save or Save As command in the File menu before
closing a window or exiting the application.
F.5 Availability of ADDAMS. The ADDAMS system and applications are available on the
Internet at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/products.cfm?Topic=model&Type=drgmat. For users
who do not have Internet access, a request form for obtaining the ADDAMS applications on CD
is provided in Schroeder et al. (2004).
F.6 Revisions, Updates, and Workshops.
F.6.1 The ADDAMS applications will be revised and updated as new technical approaches
become available, and new applications will be developed to address additional management
needs. Each application is designed as a module so that revisions or the addition of new
applications can be easily accomplished. The ADDAMS website has the most current version of
each application. Version numbers are displayed on-screen for the ADDAMS system and the
various applications. Periodically, a new version of the entire system may be required.

F-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.6.2 Changes to Schroeder et al. (2004) will provide information on new applications. In
addition, workshops are held on an as-needed basis to familiarize USACE personnel with use of
the ADDAMS system. Also, upon request, workshops can be held within a District to provide
training on specific applications needed for a particular project. Requests for additions to the
mailing list for the technical note series and inquiries regarding the scheduling of ADDAMS
workshops should be sent to the following address:
USACE Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station
ATTN: CEERD-EM-D
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
F.7 Description of ADDAMS Applications.
F.7.1 Design of Confined Disposal Facilities for Suspended Solids Retention and Initial
Storage Requirements (SETTLE) application (DOS).
F.7.1.1 Description. Confined disposal facilities (CDFs) must be designed to provide both the
storage volume required for the dredged solids and the hydraulic retention time for removal of
suspended solids from the effluent discharged from the area during hydraulic filling operations.
Various settling processes occurring in the CDF control the initial storage during filling,
clarification, and effluent suspended solids. This application assists users in designing a CDF for
solids retention and initial storage in accordance with the design procedures in this EM.
Laboratory column settling tests are an integral part of these design procedures, and the data from
these tests are required in order to use this application. The SETTLE application analyzes
laboratory data from the settling tests and calculates design parameters for CDFs.
F.7.1.2 Major Capabilities. SETTLE has the following capabilities:
a. Analyzes laboratory settling test data for zone, flocculant, and compression settling.
b. Determines the maximum allowable in situ volume that can be dredged and placed in a
CDF with a given available storage volume.
c. Determines the maximum allowable dredge size (or inflow rate) that can be used with a
given CDF surface area and ponding volume to obtain clarification and maintain satisfactory
retention of suspended solids.
d. Determines the required CDF surface area and volume to accommodate a given dredge
size and a given in situ volume to be dredged.
e. Determines the required weir crest length for a given dredge size.
F.7.1.3 Current Version: 3.00 updated October 1995.
F.7.1.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.

F-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.2 Determination of Hydraulic Retention Time and Efficiency of Confined Disposal
Facilities (DYECON) application (DOS).
F.7.2.1 Description. This application determines mean hydraulic retention time and hydraulic
efficiency of a CDF from a dye tracer slug test. Determination of retention time of ponded water
is an important aspect of CDF design. Dye tracer studies may be undertaken to provide retention
time data for large sites or those with unusual characteristics. Procedures for conducting such dye
tracer tests are presented in Appendix P, Dye Tracer Technique to Estimate Mean Residence
Time and Hydraulic Efficiency. In the absence of dye tracer data, the hydraulic efficiency can be
estimated empirically.
F.7.2.2 Major Capabilities. DYECON has the following capabilities:
a. Determines the theoretical and mean retention times of a CDF and the resulting hydraulic
efficiency.
b. Determines the mean and maximum dye concentrations, time of peak dye concentration,
and related characteristics of the dye concentration curve.
F.7.2.3 Current Version: 3.00 updated June 1993.
F.7.2.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.3 CDF Design Module (CDF) application (Windows).
F.7.3.1 Description. The CDF application has all the basic components of both the SETTLE
and DYECON modules already described, but it was written for Windows operating systems.
CDF has an intuitive, easy-to-use graphical user interface for data entry, an on-line help system,
and a design wizard for evaluating various design scenarios.
F.7.3.2 Major Capabilities. CDF has the following capabilities:
a. Determines the theoretical and mean retention times of a CDF and the resulting hydraulic
efficiency.
b. Analyzes laboratory settling test data for zone, flocculant, and compression settling.
c. Determines the maximum allowable in situ volume that can be dredged and placed in a
CDF with a given available storage volume.
d. Determines the maximum allowable dredge size (or inflow rate) that can be used with a
given CDF surface area and ponding volume to obtain clarification and maintain satisfactory
retention of suspended solids.
e. Determines the required CDF surface area and volume to accommodate a given dredge
size and a given in situ volume to be dredged.

F-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
f. Determines the required weir crest length for a given dredge size.
F.7.3.3 Current Version: 1.00.
F.7.3.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.4 Evaluation of Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of
Dredged Fill (for Determining Long-Term Storage Requirements) (PSDDF) Application (DOS).
F.7.4.1 Description. This application provides a mathematical model to estimate the storage
volume occupied by a layer or layers of dredged material in a CDF as a function of time.
Management of CDFs to provide maximum storage capacity is becoming more necessary as both
the storage capacity of existing sites and availability of land for new sites decrease. Maximum
site capacity is achieved through densification of the dredged material by removal of interstitial
water. The volume reduction and the resulting increase in storage capacity are obtained through
both consolidation and desiccation (drying) of the dredged material. PSDDF can also simulate
underwater placement of cohesive or noncohesive soil. PSDDF relies on the results of laboratory
consolidation tests to estimate the magnitude and rate of consolidation and on climatic data for
estimation of the rates of drying at a given site. The predictive procedures are described in
Appendix L, Estimation of Dredged material Consolidation by Finite Strain Technique, and
Appendix N, Monthly Standard Class A Pan Evaporation for the Continental United States.
F.7.4.2 Major Capabilities. PSDDF has the following capabilities:
a. Determines the final or ultimate thickness and elevation of multiple lifts of dredged
material placed at given time intervals.
b. Determines the time rate of settlement for multiple lifts and, therefore, the surface
elevation of the dredged material fill as a function of time.
c. Determines the water content, void ratio, total and effective stress, and pore pressure for
multiple lifts as a function of time.
F.7.4.3 Current Version: 2.1 updated November 1996; an update is currently being prepared.
F.7.4.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.5 System Optimization for Regional Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (D2M2)
application (DOS).
F.7.5.1 Description. This application provides the Dredged-Material Disposal Management
Model (D2M2), developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), a
simulation-optimization model for systematic analysis of long-term operation and expansion of
multiple placement sites. The model provides a means of determining the optimum usage of
multiple placement areas to meet the dredging requirements at multiple dredging sites, for
example, along the length of a navigation channel. D2M2 uses a linear-optimization approach in

F-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
determining the optimum usage based on input data for dredging volumes, location, frequencies,
transportation facilities, and associated costs.
F.7.5.2 Major Capabilities. D2M2 has the following capabilities:
a. Determines the optimum usage of multiple placement sites to meet dredging requirements
at multiple dredging locations.
b. Identifies the minimum-net-cost, short-term operation policy for a system of placement
sites and dredging areas.
c. Analyzes placement capacity expansion alternatives and determines the minimum cost
placement site acquisition schedule.
F.7.5.3 Current Version: CESPN (U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco), updated
August 1995.
F.7.5.4 Points of Contact: Hydrologic Engineering Center, CEWRC-HEC, (916) 756-1104;
Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.6 Prediction of Contaminant Uptake by Freshwater Plants (PUP) application (DOS).
F.7.6.1 Description. This application predicts metals uptake from dredged material by
freshwater plants using DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaaceticacid) extract data. The application
compares the predictions with reference sites to determine the acceptability of the uptake in
upland and flooded environments.
F.7.6.2 Major Capabilities. PUP has the following capabilities:
a. Provides a quick screening tool for metals uptake by freshwater plants by comparing
database values to sediment test results.
b. Indicates contaminants of concern for further evaluation.
F.7.6.3 Current Version: 1.0 updated January 1990.
F.7.6.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Bobby L. Folsom, Jr., CEERD-EP, (601) 634-4297; Dr. Paul
R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.7 Hydraulic Evaluation of Leachate Production and Leachate and Quality (HELPQ)
application (DOS).
F.7.7.1 Description. This application couples the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model with an equilibrium
partitioning model for contaminant transport. The model estimates leachate production,
collection, and leakage from upland confined dredged material disposal facilities and also
estimates contaminant concentrations and mass fluxes in the leachate.

F-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.7.2 Major Capabilities. HELPQ has the following capabilities:
a. Balances the water budget at the ground surface and then routes the infiltrated water and
the available contaminants throughout the soil profile.
b. Uses sand or gravel layers for lateral drainage or leachate collection and clay and synthetic
materials as liners.
c. Provides special treatment for estuarine sediments to simulate salt washout effects on
contaminant partitioning.
d. Accepts user-supplied sequential partitioning coefficients or calculates partitioning
coefficients from user-supplied sequential batch leach data or column leach data.
e. Calculates contaminant concentrations in the CDF profile, contaminant concentration and
mass releases through the bottom of the CDF, and contaminant masses captured by leachate
collection systems.
F.7.7.3 Current Version: 2.1 updated October 1999.
F.7.7.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.8 Analysis of Modified Elutriate Test Results for Prediction of Chemical Effluent Quality
and Dilution Requirements for Confined Disposal FacilitiesEffluent (Water) Quality
(EFQUAL) application (DOS)
F.7.8.1 Description. This application provides a computer program to analyze the results of
modified elutriate tests and predict the chemical quality of effluent discharged from CDFs during
hydraulic filling operations. Such predictions are necessary to evaluate the acceptability of the
effluent discharge under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The effluent may contain both
dissolved and particle-associated contaminants. The modified elutriate test was developed for use
in predicting both the dissolved and particle-associated concentrations of contaminants in the
effluent. Results of the modified elutriate and column settling tests may be used to predict the
total concentrations of contaminants for a given set of CDF operational conditions.
F.7.8.2 Major Capabilities. EFQUAL has the following capabilities:
a. Computes predicted dissolved, particle-associated, and total concentrations of contaminants of the effluent.
b. Compares predicted concentrations with given water quality criteria and standards and
determines the required dilution, if any, in a mixing zone to meet the standards.
F.7.8.3 Current Version: 3.00 updated October 1995.
F.7.8.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.

F-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.9 Laboratory Analysis of Toxicity for CDF Effluent to Compute LC50 (LAT-E)
application (DOS).
F.7.9.1 Description. The Decision-Making Framework (DMF) for the management of
dredged material has been developed and used at several sites (Lee et al. 1991). Among the many
components of the DMF is effluent water quality, which is one pathway that is investigated when
confined placement is considered. The LAT-E Program compares survival data for various
aquatic organisms at several elutriate dilutions and computes the LC50 for the effluent. Using the
LC50 and a mixing zone model, the toxicity of the discharge can be evaluated for compliance
with water quality regulations.
F.7.9.2 Major Capability. LAT-E statistically analyzes survival data for various aquatic
organisms from a suite of water column bioassay tests for acute toxicity in accordance with the
guidance in the Inland Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1994).
F.7.9.3 Current Version: 1.00 updated February 1997.
F.7.9.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Dennis L. Brandon, CEERD-EP-R, (601) 634-2807; Dr. Paul
R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.10 Combined (EFQUAL and LAT-E) Effluent Pathway Evaluation Module
EFFLUENT application (Windows).
F.7.10.1 Description. The EFFLUENT application has all the basic components of both the
EFQUAL and LAT-E modules already described and was written for Windows operating
systems.
F.7.10.2 Major Capabilities. EFFLUENT has the following capabilities:
a. Computes predicted dissolved, particle-associated, and total concentrations of
contaminants of the effluent.
b. Compares predicted concentrations with given water quality criteria and standards and
determines the required dilution, if any, in a mixing zone to meet the standards.
c. Statistically analyzes the survival data from a suite of water column bioassay tests for acute
toxicity in accordance with the guidance in the Inland Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1994).
F.7.10.3 Current Version: 1.00 updated January 2000.
F.7.10.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709;
Dr. Dennis L. Brandon, CEERD-EP-R, (601) 634-2807.

F-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.11 Comparison of Predicted Runoff Water Quality with Standards (RUNQUAL)
application (DOS).
F.7.11.1 Description. This application provides a computer program to analyze the results of
surface runoff quality tests and to predict the chemical quality of the surface runoff discharged
from CDFs. Such predictions are necessary to evaluate the acceptability of the surface runoff
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The surface water runoff may contain both dissolved
and particle-associated contaminants. Results of the surface runoff quality tests and the column
settling tests may be used to predict the dissolved and total concentrations of contaminants for a
given set of CDF operational conditions.
F.7.11.2 Major Capabilities. RUNQUAL has the following capabilities:
a. Computes predicted dissolved and total contaminant concentrations in the surface runoff
discharged from a confined placement site using surface runoff quality test data.
b. Compares predicted surface runoff concentrations with specified water quality standards.
c. Computes required dilutions of surface runoff discharge to meet specified water quality
standards, considering background concentrations in the receiving water.
F.7.11.3 Current Version: 1.00 August 1993.
F.7.11.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.12 Laboratory Analysis of Toxicity for CDF Runoff to Compute LC50 (LAT-R)
application (DOS).
F.7.12.1 Description. The Decision-Making Framework (DMF) for the management of
dredged material has been developed and used at numerous USACE projects (Lee et al. 1991).
Among the many components of the DMF is surface runoff water quality, which is one of the
pathways investigated when confined placement is considered. Evaluation of surface runoff
quality, like the evaluation of effluent quality, is based on the chemical composition of the
discharge as well as the biological effects (toxicity). To perform these evaluations, surface runoff
tests are performed on wet, anaerobic sediment and oxidized, aerobic sediment to generate
representative samples of the runoff immediately after placement and later when the dredged
material has dried out. The LAT-R program compares survival data for various aquatic
organisms at several runoff dilutions and computes the LC50 for the runoff under both wet and
dried conditions. Using the LC50 and a mixing zone model, the toxicity of the discharge can be
evaluated for compliance with water quality regulations.
F.7.12.2 Major Capability. LAT-R statistically analyzes the survival data from a suite of
water column bioassay tests for acute toxicity in accordance with the guidance in the Inland
Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1994).
F.7.12.3 Current Version: 1.00 updated February 1997.

F-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.12.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Dennis L. Brandon, CEERD-EP-R, (601) 634-2807; Dr. Paul
R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.13 Combined (RUNQUAL and LAT-R) Runoff Pathway Evaluation Module (RUNOFF)
application (Windows).
F.7.13.1 Description. The RUNOFF application has all the basic components of both the
RUNQUAL and LAT-R modules already described and was written for Windows operating
systems.
F.7.13.2 Major Capabilities. RUNOFF has the following capabilities:
a. Computes predicted dissolved and total contaminant concentrations in the surface runoff
discharged from a confined placement site using surface runoff quality test data.
b. Compares predicted surface runoff concentrations with specified water quality standards.
c. Computes required dilutions of surface runoff discharge to meet specified water quality
standards, considering background concentrations in the receiving water.
d. Statistically analyzes the survival data from a suite of water column bioassay tests for acute
toxicity in accordance with the guidance in the Inland Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE 1994).
F.7.13.3 Current Version: 1.00 updated January 2000.
F.7.13.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Dennis L. Brandon, CEERD-EP-R, (601) 634-2807; Dr. Paul
R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709
F.7.14 Computation of Mixing Zone Size or Dilution for Continuous Discharges Fate
(CDFATE) application (DOS and Windows).
F.7.14.1 Description. This application predicts (1) mixing zone requirements to meet water
quality standards and (2) compliance with water quality standards given a mixing zone. It is
applicable for continuous discharges from dredged material placement operations. The operations
considered by the module include discharge of effluents or runoff from upland confined
placement from a weir, pipe, or stream; leakage through porous dikes; overflows from hopper
dredges or barges; and discharges of dredged material from a pipeline.
F.7.14.2 Major Capabilities. CDFATE has the following capabilities:
a. Accommodates 6 types of surface or near-surface discharges.
b. Predicts mixing zone requirements to meet water quality standards.
c. Predicts compliance with water quality standards given a mixing zone.

F-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.14.3 Current Version: 1.0 updated November 1994 (Windows conversion September
2001).
F.7.14.4 Point of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.
F.7.15 Short-Term Fate of Dredged Material Disposal in Open Water (STFATE) application
(DOS and Windows).
F.7.15.1 Description. This application mathematically models the physical processes
determining the short-term fate of dredged material disposed at open-water sites (that is, within
the first few hours after disposal). It was developed from the DIFID (DIsposal From an
Instantaneous Dump) model. In STFATE, the behavior of the material is assumed to be separated
into three phases: convective descent, dynamic collapse, and passive transport-dispersion. The
model estimates receiving water concentrations of suspended sediment and dissolved constituent
and the initial deposition of material on the bottom. Estimates of water column concentrations
are often needed to determine mixing zones whereas the initial deposition pattern of material on
the bottom is required in long-term sediment transport that assesses the potential for erosion,
transport, and subsequent redeposition of the material. This model can also serve as a valuable
aid in field monitoring programs, and it can be used in evaluating water column effects of openwater disposal of dredged material in accordance with Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuary Act and Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
F.7.15.2 Major Capabilities. STFATE has the following capabilities:
a. Estimates receiving water concentrations of suspended solids, dredged material liquid and
suspended phases, and dissolved contaminants as a function of time and location and compares
contaminant concentrations with water quality standards.
b. Estimates the percentage of suspended solids deposited on the bottom as a function of
time and location and the thickness of deposition.
c. Estimates mixing zone requirements to meet water quality standards.
F.7.15.3 Current Version: 5.01 May 2000 (Windows Version December 2004)
F.7.15.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709; Jarrell
Smith, CEERD-HC-CT, (601) 634-4310
F.7.16 Multiple Disposal Fate of Dredged Material in Open Water (MDFATE) application
(DOS).
F.7.16.1 Description. MDFATE, a multiple dredged material placement model, predicts postdisposal bathymetry for ocean dredged material disposal sites. This PC-driven numerical
simulation incorporates existing numerical models to simulate the overall (short- and long-term)
behavior of dredged material placed within an open-water disposal site. The MDFATE model
spatially accounts for bathymetric changes within an offshore disposal area and can be used to

F-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
assist with selection of the most efficient layout for a proposed disposal site or provide guidance
for optimizing dredged material placement operations.
F.7.16.2 Major Capabilities. MDFATE has the following capabilities:
a. Simulates multiple placement events at one site to predict mound buildup.
b. Simulates the effects of local currents and waves on the sediment as it falls through the
water column and settles on the mound.
c. Accounts for effects of grain size and bulk density on settling, changes in volume during
deposition, and various dredging and placement methods.
F.7.16.3 Current Version: 1.1 updated August 1996.
F.7.16.4 Point of Contact: Jarrell Smith, CEERD-HC-CT, (601) 634-4310.
F.7.17 Sediment Resuspension and Contaminant Release by Dredge (DREDGE) application
(Windows).
F.7.17.1 Description. This application assists users in making a priori assessments of
environmental impacts from proposed dredging operations. DREDGE estimates the mass rate at
which bottom sediments become suspended into the water column as the result of hydraulic and
mechanical dredging operations and the resulting suspended sediment concentrations. These are
combined with information about site conditions to simulate the size and extent of the resulting
suspended sediment plume. DREDGE also estimates particulate and dissolved contaminant
concentrations in the water column based upon sediment contaminant concentrations and equilibrium partitioning theory.
F.7.17.2 Major Capabilities. DREDGE has the following capabilities:
a. Provides rapid calculation of dredge plume concentrations resulting from mechanical and
hydraulic dredging operations.
b. Contains an extensive toxic organic chemical and heavy metal database system plus default
Kow (octanol-water partitioning coefficient) values for over 200 chemicals.
c. Has source strength models for mechanical and hydraulic dredging operations.
d. Provides a 2-D analytical transport model to predict the fate of resuspended sediments
without particle flocculation in a water column.
F.7.17.3 Current Version: 1.1 updated October 1997.
F.7.17.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Paul R. Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709; Thomas
D. Borrowman, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-4048.

F-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
F.7.18 Evaluation of Contaminant Release from Bottom Sediments (RECOVERY)
application (DOS).
F.7.18.1 Description. This application is a screening-level model to assess the long-term
impact of contaminated bottom sediments on surface waters. The model couples contaminant
interaction between the water column and the bottom sediment, as well as between the contaminated and clean bottom sediments. The analysis is intended primarily for organic contaminants
with the assumption that the water column is well mixed. Processes incorporated in the model
are sorption, decay, volatilization, burial, resuspension, settling, bioturbation, and pore-water
diffusion. The solution couples contaminant mass balance in the water column and in the mixed
sediment layer along with diffusion and bioturbation in the deep sediment layers.
F.7.18.2 Major Capabilities. RECOVERY has the following capabilities:
a. Allows for a rapid analysis of recovery scenarios for contaminated sediments and cap
evaluations.
b. Simulates behavior of organics in a real system with a limited amount of data.
c. Predicts desorption of contaminants from sediments.
F.7.18.3 Current Version: 3.00 updated December 1999.
F.7.18.4 Points of Contact: Dr. Carlos E. Ruiz, CEERD-EP-W, (601) 634-3784; Dr. Paul R.
Schroeder, CEERD-EP-E, (601) 634-3709.

F-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

G-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

G-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX H
Column Settling Test Procedures
H.1 General. A Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) must be designed and operated to provide
adequate initial storage volume and surface area to hold the dredged material solids during an
active filling operation and, if hydraulically filled, to retain suspended solids such that clarified
water is discharged. The required initial storage capacity and surface area are governed by zone,
flocculant, and compression-settling processes that occur in a CDF during placement of finegrained dredged material. Procedures to evaluate the required surface area and volume during
active filling operations, to estimate effluent suspended solids concentrations, and to design other
features for CDFs are described in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement of this EM.
H.2 Settling Processes.
H.2.1 Settling types. The settling process can be categorized according to four basic
classifications:
a. Discrete settling, where the particle maintains its individuality and does not change in
size, shape, or density during the settling process.
b. Flocculant settling, where particles agglomerate during the settling period with a change
in physical properties and settling rate.
c. Zone settling, where the flocculant suspension forms a lattice structure and settles as a
mass (the high solids concentration partially blocks the release of water and hinders settling of
neighboring particles), and a distinct interface between the slurry and the supernatant water is
exhibited during the settling process.
d. Compression settling, where settling occurs by compression of the lattice structure. All of
the above sedimentation processes may occur simultaneously in a placement area, and any one
may control the design of the placement area.
H.2.2 Governing factors. Discrete settling describes the sedimentation of coarse particles.
The important factors governing the sedimentation of fine-grained dredged material are the initial
concentration of the slurry, the salinity of the carrier water, and the flocculating properties of the
solid particles. Because of the high influent solids concentration and the tendency of fine-grained
particles to flocculate, either flocculant or zone settling behavior normally describes
sedimentation in containment areas. Sedimentation of freshwater sediments at slurry concentrations of 100 g/L can generally be characterized by flocculant settling properties. As slurry
concentrations or salinity is increased, the sedimentation process may be characterized by zone
settling properties. Compression settling occurs in the lower layers of settled material for both the
flocculant and zone settling cases. As more settled material accumulates, excess pore pressures
develop in the lower layers, and further consolidation occurs as water is expelled and the excess
pore pressures dissipate.
H-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
H.2.3 Zone versus flocculant settling as a function of salinity. The tendency of a fine-grained
dredged material slurry to settle by zone or flocculant behavior in the initial stages of settling is
strongly influenced by the presence of salt as a coagulant. If salinity is less than 1 ppt, indicative
of freshwater conditions, flocculant processes normally describe the initial settling, and no
clearly defined interface is seen. If salinity is greater than 1 ppt, indicative of brackish or
saltwater conditions, zone settling processes normally describe the initial settling, and a clear
interface between the clarified supernatant water and the more concentrated slurry is evident. For
the zone settling case, some of the fine particles remain in the supernatant water as the interface
falls. Flocculant processes, then, describe the settling of these fine particles from the supernatant.
H.3 Testing Equipment and Procedures.
H.3.1 Test objective. The objective of running settling tests on sediments to be dredged is to
define their settling behavior in a dredged material containment area. The tests provide numerical
values for the design criteria that can be projected to the size and design of the containment area.
Procedures for computer-assisted plotting and reduction of settling column data are available as
discussed in Appendix F, Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System
(ADDAMS).
H.3.2 Settling column. The settling column shown in Figure H-1 should be used for dredged
material settling tests. The column is constructed of 20 cm (8 in.) diameter Plexiglas tubing and
can be sectioned for easier handling and cleaning. Ports are provided for extraction of samples at
various depths during sampling. A bottom-mounted AirStone is also provided for agitation and
mixing of slurries in the column by using compressed air. Shop drawings of the column with
bills of material are shown in Appendix G, Plans and Specifications for Settling Column.
H.3.3 Samples. Samples used to perform settling tests should consist of fine-grained
(<No. 200 sieve) material. Any coarse-grained (>No. 200 sieve) material present in the sample
would normally be hydraulically separated when the sample is mixed prior to sedimentation
testing. A composite of several sediment samples may be used to perform the tests if this is
thought to be more representative of the dredged material. Approximately 55 L (15 gal) of
sediment is usually required for the tests. Water used to mix the slurries can be taken from the
proposed dredging site or can be prepared by mixing tap water and salt to the known salinity of
the dredging site water.
H.3.4 Pilot test. A pilot test conducted in a graduated cylinder (4 L is satisfactory) is a useful
method for determining if flocculant or zone process will describe the initial settling. The pilot
test should be run at a slurry concentration of approximately 150 g/L. If an interface forms within
the first few hours of the test, the slurry mass is exhibiting zone settling, and the fall of the
interface versus time should be recorded. The curve will appear as shown in Figure H-2. The
break in the curve defines the concentration at which compression settling begins. Only lower
concentrations should be used for the zone settling test in the 20 cm (8 in.) column. If no break in
the curve is evident, the material has begun settling in the compression zone, and the pilot test
should be repeated at a lower slurry concentration. It should be emphasized that use of a small
cylinder as in the pilot test is not acceptable for use in design. Wall effects for columns of small
H-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
diameter affect zone settling velocities and data obtained using small diameter columns will not
accurately reflect field behavior. If no interface is observed in the pilot test within the first few
hours, the slurry mass is exhibiting flocculant settling. In this case, the pilot test should be continued until an interface is observed between the turbid water above and more concentrated
settled solids below. The concentration of the settled solids (computed assuming zero concentration of solids above) is an indication of the concentration at which the material exhibits
compression settling.

Figure H-1. Schematic of the Apparatus Used for Settling Tests

H-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure H-2. Conceptual Plot of Interface Height Versus Time

H.3.5 Required number of column loadings for tests. Three types of settling tests in the
20 cm (8 in.) column may be needed to fully define the settling properties of the dredged
material. However, in most cases the 20 cm (8 in.) settling column used for the settling tests
needs to be loaded with slurry only once. A compression settling test is needed to define the
volume that will be occupied in the placement area by a newly deposited dredged material layer
at the end of the placement operation. A flocculant settling test for either the slurry mass or for
the supernatant water above any interface is required to predict effluent suspended solids
concentrations. A zone settling test is required to define the minimum surface area needed for
effective zone settling. These tests should be conducted at a slurry concentration equal to the
expected influent concentration; therefore, only one loading of the test column is required to
collect data for all purposes.
H.4 Flocculant Settling Test.
H.4.1 The flocculant settling test consists of measuring the concentration of suspended
solids at various depths and time intervals in a settling column. If an interface forms near the top
of the settling column during the first day of the test, sedimentation of the material below the
interface is described by zone settling. In that case, the flocculant test procedure should be
continued only for that portion of the column above the interface.
H.4.2 Information required to design a containment area for the flocculant settling process
can be obtained using the following procedure:
H.4.2.1 Use a settling column such as that shown in Figure H-1. The slurry depth used in the
test column should approximate the effective settling depth of the proposed containment area. A

H-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
practical limit on depth of test is 1.8 m (6 ft). The column should be at least 20 cm (8 in.) in
diameter with sample ports at 0.15 m (0.5 ft) intervals (minimum). The column should have
provisions for slurry agitation with compressed air from the bottom to keep the slurry mixed
during the column filling period.
H.4.2.2 Mix the sediment slurry to a suspended solids concentration C equal to the expected
concentration of the dredged material influent Ci. The slurry should be mixed in a container with
sufficient volume to fill the test column. Field studies indicate that for maintenance dredging of
fine-grained material, the placement concentration average about 150 g/L. This concentration
should be used in the test if better data are not available.
H.4.2.3 Pump or pour the slurry into the test column using compressed air or mechanical
agitation to maintain a uniform concentration during the filling period.
H.4.2.4 When the slurry is completely mixed in the column, cut off the compressed air or
mechanical agitation, immediately draw off samples at each sample port, and then determine the
suspended solids concentration of each sample. Use the average of these values as the initial
slurry concentration at the start of the test. The test is considered initiated when the first samples
are drawn.
H.4.2.5 If an interface has not formed on the first day, flocculant settling is occurring in the
entire slurry mass. Allow the slurry to settle and withdraw samples from each sampling port at
regular time intervals to determine the suspended solids concentrations. Substantial reductions of
suspended solids will occur during the early part of the test, but reductions will lessen at longer
retention times. Therefore, the intervals can be extended as the test progresses. Recommended
sampling intervals are 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96 hours, and so on, until the end of the test. As a
rule, a 50 mL (1.7 oz) sample should be taken from each port. Continue the test until an interface
can be seen near the bottom of the column and the suspended solids concentration in the fluid
above the interface is 1 g/L. Test data are tabulated and used to plot a concentration profile
diagram, as shown in Figure H-3. Examples are shown in Appendix I, Design Calculations for
Retention of Solids and Initial Storage.
H.4.2.6 If an interface forms the first day, zone settling is occurring in the slurry below the
interface, and flocculant settling is occurring in the supernatant water. For this case, samples
should be extracted from all side ports above the falling interface. The first of these samples
should be extracted immediately after the interface has fallen sufficiently below the uppermost
port to allow extraction. This sample can usually be extracted within a few hours after the beginning of the test, depending on the initial slurry concentration and the spacing of ports. Record the
time of extraction and the port height for each port sample taken. As the interface continues to
fall, extract samples from all ports above the interface at regular time intervals. As an alternative,
samples can be taken above the interface at the desired depths using a pipette or syringe and
tubing. As before, a suggested sequence of sampling intervals would be 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96
hours, and so on. The samples should be taken continuously until the suspended solids
concentration of the extracted samples shows no decrease. For this case, the suspended solids in
the samples should be less than 1 g/L, and filtration is required to determine the concentrations.

H-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
The data should be expressed in milligrams per liter for these samples. Tabulate the data and plot
a concentration profile diagram, as shown in Figure H-3. In reducing the data for this case, the
concentration of the first port sample taken above the falling interface is considered the initial
concentration C o . Examples are shown in Appendix I, Design Calculations for Retention of
Solids and Initial Storage.

Figure H-3. Conceptual Concentration Profile Diagram

H.5 Zone Settling Test.
H.5.1 The zone settling test consists of placing a slurry in a sedimentation column and then
reading and recording the fall of the liquid-solids interface with time. These data are plotted as
depth to interface versus time. The slope of the constant velocity settling zone of the curve is the
zone settling velocity, which is a function of the initial test slurry concentration. This test is
required if the material exhibits an interface within the first day. The test should be run at the
expected influent slurry concentration, or the highest expected to persist for several hours if a
range is expected.
H.5.2 Information required to design a containment area for the zone settling process can be
obtained by using the following procedure:

H-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Use a settling column, such as that shown in Figure H-1. It is important that the column
diameter be sufficient to reduce the wall effect and that the test be performed with a test slurry
depth near that expected in the field. Therefore, a 1 L graduated cylinder should never be used to
perform a zone settling test for sediment slurries representing dredging placement activities.
b. Mix the slurry to the desired concentration and then either pump or pour it into the test
column. Air may not be necessary to keep the slurry mixed if the filling time is less than
1 minute.
c. Record the depth to the solid-liquid interface as a function of time. Readings must be
taken at regular intervals to gain data for plotting the curve of depth to interface versus time, as
shown in Figure H-2. It is important that enough readings be taken to clearly define this curve.
d. Continue the readings until sufficient data are available to define the maximum point of
curvature of the depth to interface versus time plot. The test may require from 8 to 48 hours to
complete.
e. Calculate the zone settling velocity (vs) as the slope of the constant velocity settling zone,
as shown in Figure H-2 (straight-line portion of curve). The velocity should be in feet per hour.
H.6 Compression Settling Test.
H.6.1 A compression settling test must be run to obtain data for estimating the volume
required for initial storage of the dredged material. For slurries exhibiting zone settling, the
compression settling data can be obtained from the zone settling test with interface height versus
time recorded. The only difference is that the test is continued for a period of 15 days, so that a
relationship of log of concentration versus log of time in the compression settling range, as
shown in Figure H-4, can be obtained. For slurries exhibiting flocculant settling behavior, the test
used to obtain flocculant settling data can be used for the compression settling test if an interface
is formed after the first few days of the test. If an interface is not formed, an additional test is
required, with the slurry concentration for the test sufficiently high to initially induce
compression settling. This concentration can be determined by the pilot test.

H-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure H-4. Conceptual Time Versus Concentration Plot

H.6.2 Information required to design a containment area for the compression settling process
can be obtained using the following procedure:
a. Tabulate the interface height H t for various times of observation during the 15-day test
period.
b. Calculate concentrations for various interface heights as follows:
C=

Co H i
Ht

(I-1)

where
C = slurry concentration at time t, grams per liter
C o = initial slurry concentration, grams per liter
H i = initial slurry height, ft
H t = height of interface at time t, ft
Neglect solids in the water above the interface to simplify calculations.
c. Plot concentration versus time on log-log paper, as shown in Figure H-4.
d. Draw a straight line through the data points.

H-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX I
Design Calculations for Retention of Solids and Initial Storage
I.1 General. This appendix presents the procedures for designing a Confined Disposal Facility
(CDF) for suspended solids retention and initial storage volume. Data from column settling tests
described in Appendix H, Column Settling Test Procedures, are used in the design. The
generalized flowchart shown in Figure I-1 illustrates the design procedures presented in the
following paragraphs. These steps were adapted from procedures used in water and wastewater
treatment and are based on field and laboratory investigations of sediments and dredged material
at active dredged material containment areas. The procedures in this chapter are presented in the
manner required to calculate the minimum required placement area geometry for a given inflow
rate (dredge size) and dredged volume. The same procedures can be used in reverse fashion to
calculate a maximum flow rate (dredge size) allowable for a given placement area geometry.
Numerical examples of both approaches are presented in this appendix. Procedures for computerassisted design for sedimentation and initial storage are also available as discussed in Appendix
F, Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS).
I.2 Volume for Initial Storage.
I.2.1 General. Containment areas must be designed to meet volume requirements for a
particular placement activity. The total volume required in a containment area includes volume
for storage of dredged material, volume for sedimentation (ponding depths), and freeboard
volume (volume above water surface). Volume required for storage of the coarse-grained
(>No. 200 sieve) material must be determined separately since this material behaves independently of the fine-grained (<No. 200 sieve) material.
I.2.2 Calculation of design concentration. The design concentration C d is defined as the
average concentration of the dredged material in the containment area at the end of the placement
activity and is estimated from the compression (15-day) settling test described in Appendix H,
Column Settling Test Procedures. This design parameter is required both for estimating initial
storage requirements and for determining minimum required surface areas for effective zone
settling. The following steps can be used to estimate C d from the compression settling test.
a. Step 1Estimate the time of dredging by dividing the dredge production rate into the
volume of sediment to be dredged. Use Figure I-2 for estimating the dredge production rate if no
specific data are available from past dredging activities. (Note that curves in Figure I-2 were
developed for sand.) The total time required for dredging should allow for anticipated downtime.
b. Step 2Enter the concentration versus time plot, as shown in Figure I-3, and determine the
concentration at a time t equal to one-half the time required for the placement activity determined
in step 1.
The value computed in Step 2 is the design solids concentration C d . Examples are shown in
Section I.6.

I-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-1. Flowchart of the Design Procedure for Settling and Initial Storage

I-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-2. Relationships Among Solids Output, Dredge Size, and Pipeline Length for Various
Dredging Depths

I-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-3. Conceptual Time Versus Concentration Plot

I.2.3 Volume estimation. The volume computed in the following steps is the volume
occupied by dredged material in the containment area immediately after the completion of a
particular placement activity. This value is critical in determining the dike height requirements
for the containment area. The volume is not an estimate of the long-term needs for multipleplacement activities. Estimates for long-term storage capacity can be made using the procedures
outlined in Section 4.5. The design for initial storage may be a controlling factor regardless of the
settling behavior exhibited by the material. If the material initially exhibits compression settling
at the expected inflow concentration, the design for initial storage is the only consideration (this
is expected to be an exceptional case).
a. Using the design concentration C d determined in Figure I-3, compute the average void
ratio of the fine-grained dredged material in the containment area at the completion of the
dredging operation. Use the following equation to determine the void ratio:
=
eo

Gs w
1
Cd

(I-1)

where
e o = average void ratio of the dredged material in the containment area at the completion of the
dredging operation
w = density of water, g/L (normally 1,000 g/L)

I-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Compute the volume of the fine-grained channel sediments after placement in the
containment area:
eo ei

+ 1
1+ ei

=
V f Vi

(I-2)

where
V f = volume of the fine-grained dredged material after placement in the containment area, ft3
V i = volume of the fine-grained channel sediments, ft3
e i = average void ratio of the in situ channel sediments
c. Compute the volume required to store the dredged material in the containment area:
=
V V f + Vsd

(I-3)

where
V = total volume of the dredged material in the containment area at the end of the dredging
operation, ft3
V sd = volume of sand (use 1:1 ratio), ft3
d. If there are limitations on the surface area available for placement or if an existing
placement site is being evaluated, check whether the site conditions will allow for initial storage
of the volume to be dredged. First, determine the maximum height at which the material can be
placed H dm(max) , using the following equation:
H dm (max)= H dk (max) H pd H fb

(I-4)

where
H dm(max) = maximum height at which the material can be placed
H dk(max) = maximum allowable dike height due to foundation conditions, ft
H pd = ponding depth, ft
H fb = freeboard (minimum of 2 ft can be assumed), ft

I-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Compute the minimum surface area that can be used to store the material:
Ads =

V
Hdm (max) (43,560)

(I-5)

where
A ds = design surface area for storage, acres
If A ds is less than the available surface area, then adequate volumetric storage is available at the
site.
I.3 Minimum Surface Area for Effective Zone Settling.
I.3.1 General. If the sediment slurry exhibited zone settling behavior at the expected inflow
concentration, the zone settling test results are used to calculate a minimum required ponded
surface area in the containment for effective zone settling to occur. The method is generally
applicable to dredged material from a saltwater environment, but it can also be used for
freshwater dredged material if the laboratory settling tests indicate that zone settling describes the
initial settling process. Additional calculations using flocculant settling data for the solids
remaining in the ponded supernatant water are required for designing the containment area to
meet a specific effluent quality standard for suspended solids.
I.3.2 Computation of area required for zone settling. The minimum surface area determined
according to the following steps should provide removal of fine-grained sediments so that
suspended solids levels in the effluent do not exceed several hundred milligrams per liter. The
area is required for the zone settling process to remove suspended solids from the surface layers
at the rate sufficient to form and maintain a clarified supernatant that can be discharged.
a. Determine the zone settling velocity V s at the influent suspended solids concentration C i ,
as described in Appendix H, Column Settling Test Procedures.
b. Compute area requirements as
Az =

Qi (3,600)
Vs

(I-6)

where
A z = containment surface area requirement for zone settling, ft2
Q i = influent flowrate, ft3/sec
3,600 = conversion factor hours to seconds
V s = zone settling velocity at influent solids concentration Ci, ft/hr

I-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Multiply the area by a hydraulic efficiency correction factor HECF to compensate for
containment area inefficiencies:
Adz =

( HECF ) Az
43,560

(I-7)

where
A dz = design basin surface area for effective zone settling, acres
HECF = hydraulic efficiency correction factor (determined as described in Section I.5)
A z = area determined from Equation I-6, ft2
I.3.3 Calculation of required retention for flocculant settling.
I.3.3.1 Sediments dredged from a freshwater environment normally exhibit flocculant settling
properties. However, in some cases, the concentration of dredged material slurry is sufficiently
high that zone settling will occur. The method of settling can be determined from the laboratory
tests.
I.3.3.2 Sediments in a dredged material containment area are composed of a broad range of
particle flocculant sizes and surface characteristics. In the containment area, larger particle
flocculants settle at faster rates, thus overtaking finer flocculants in their descent. This contact
increases the flocculant sizes and enhances settling rates. The greater the ponding depth in the
containment area, the greater is the opportunity for contact among sediments and flocculants.
Therefore, flocculant settling of dredged sediments is dependent on the ponding depth as well as
the properties of the particles. For this reason, it is important that settling tests be performed with
column heights corresponding to ponding depths expected under field conditions.
I.3.3.3 The concentration of suspended solids in the effluent depends on the total depth at
which fluid is withdrawn at the weir, which is related to the hydraulic characteristics of the weir
structure. The depth of withdrawal is equivalent to the depth of ponded water for weir
configuration and the flow rates that are normally encountered in containment areas. For this
reason, the term ponding depth is used interchangeably with withdrawal zone in this manual
in the context of effluent quality evaluations.
I.3.3.4 Evaluation of the sedimentation characteristics of a sediment slurry exhibiting
flocculant settling is accomplished, as discussed in Appendix H, Column Settling Test
Procedures. The design steps to determine the required retention time for a desired effluent
quality are as follows:

I-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. Calculate the removal percentage at the selected minimum average ponding depth H pd for
various times using the concentration profile plot as shown in Figure I-4. As an example, the
removal percentage for H pd = depth d 2 and time t 2 is computed as follows:

R=

Area right of profile

Area 0, 1, 2, 3, 0*
(100) =
(100)
Area Total
Area

(I-8)

where R is the removal percentage. Determine these areas by either planimetering the plot or by
direct graphical measurements and calculations. This approach is used to calculate removal
percentages for the selected ponding depth as a function of time.

Figure I-4. Conceptual Concentration Profile Diagram

b. Plot the solids removal percentages versus time, as shown in Figure I-5.
c. Mean detention times can be selected from Figure I-5 for various solids removal
percentages. Select the residence time T d that gives the desired removal percentage.

I-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Multiply the required mean residence time T d by an appropriate hydraulic efficiency
correction factor HECF to compensate for the fact that containment areas, because of inefficiencies, have field mean detention times less than theoretical (volumetric) detention times. The
HECF is determined as described in Section I.5. The basin volumetric or theoretical residence
time is estimated as follows:

T = HECF (Td )

(I-9)

where T is the volumetric or theoretical residence time and T d is selected from Figure I-5.

Figure I-5. Conceptual Plot of Solids Removal Versus Time for

Slurries Exhibiting Flocculant Settling
e. Note that for the case of flocculant settling of the entire slurry mass, the solids are removed
by gravity sedimentation to a level of 1-2 g/L. For this case, the selection of a required residence
time for a percentage removal is more convenient. For the case of flocculant settling in the
supernatant water, where the slurry mass is undergoing zone settling, selection of a required
residence time for an effluent suspended solids standard is more appropriate. Examples are
shown in Section I.6.
I.4 Required Retention Time of Suspended Solids.
I.4.1 Data analyses. For slurries exhibiting zone settling, flocculant settling behavior
describes the process occurring in the supernatant water above the interface. Therefore, a

I-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
flocculant data analysis procedure as outlined in the following paragraphs is required. The steps
in the data analysis are as follows:
a. Use the concentration profile diagram, as shown in Figure I-4, to graphically determine
percentages removed, R, for the various time intervals and for the minimum ponding depth. This
is done by graphically determining the area to the right of each concentration profile and its ratio
to the total area above the depth, as described for the case of flocculant settling above.
b. Compute the percentages remaining as follows:
=
P 100 R

(I-10)

c. Compute values for the average suspended solids concentration in the supernatant at each
time of extraction as follows:
Ct = PC
t o

(I-11)

where
C t = suspended solids concentration at time t, mg/L
P t = percentage remaining at time t
C o = initial concentration in the supernatant, mg/L
d. Tabulate the data and plot a relationship for suspended solids concentration versus time
using the value for each time of extraction, as shown in Figure I-6. An exponential curve fitted
through the data points is recommended.
I.4.2 Determination of retention time to meet an effluent suspended solids concentration. The
relationship of supernatant suspended solids versus time developed from the column settling test
is based on quiescent settling conditions found in the laboratory. The anticipated retention time
in an existing placement area under consideration can be used to determine a predicted
suspended solids concentration from the relationship. This predicted value can be considered a
minimum value capable of being achieved in the field, assuming little or no resuspension of
settled material. The relationship in Figure I-6 can also be used to determine the required
retention time to meet a standard for effluent suspended solids. For dredged material slurries
exhibiting flocculant settling behavior, the concentration of particles in the ponded water is 1 g/L
or higher. The resuspension resulting from normal wind conditions does not significantly
increase this concentration; therefore, an adjustment for resuspension is not required for the
flocculant settling case. However, an adjustment for anticipated resuspension is appropriate for
dredged material exhibiting zone settling. The minimum expected value and the value adjusted
for resuspension would provide a range of anticipated suspended solids concentrations in the
effluent. The following procedure should be used:

I-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
a. A standard for effluent suspended solids C eff must be met, considering anticipated
resuspension under field conditions. Calculate a corresponding maximum concentration under
quiescent laboratory conditions as follows:
Ccol =

Ceff
RF

(I-12)

where
C col = maximum suspended solids concentration of effluent as estimated from column settling
tests, milligrams suspended solids per liter of water
C eff = suspended solids concentration of effluent considering anticipated resuspension,
milligrams suspended solids per liter of water
RF = resuspension factor selected from Table I-1
Table I-1 summarizes recommended resuspension factors based on comparisons of suspended
solids concentrations as predicted from column settling tests and field data from a number of
sites with varying site conditions.
Table I-1. Recommended Resuspension Factors for the Zone Settling Case for Various Ponded
Areas and Depths
Anticipated Average Ponded Depth
Anticipated Ponded Area
Less than 2 ft
2 ft or Greater
Less than 100 acres
2.0
1.5
Greater than 100 acres
2.5
2.0
b. Using Figure I-6, determine the required minimum mean residence time corresponding to
C col .
c. As in the case for flocculant settling of the entire slurry mass, increase the mean residence
time by an appropriate hydraulic efficiency correction factor HECF using Equation I-9. Then use
the resulting minimum volumetric or theoretical residence time T to determine the required
placement area geometry.

I-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-6. Conceptual Plot of Supernatant Suspended Solids

Concentration Versus Time from Column Settling Tests
I.4.3 Computation of design surface area for flocculant settling. Calculate the design surface
area for flocculant settling as follows:
Adf =

TQ j

(I-13)

Hpd (12.1)

where
A df = design surface area for flocculant settling, acres
T = minimum mean residence time, hr
Q i = average inflow rate, ft3/sec
H pd = average ponding depth, ft
12.1 = conversion factor acre-ft/ft3/sec to hours

I-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.5 Estimation of Hydraulic Efficiency Correction Factor.
I.5.1 Estimates of the field mean retention time for expected operational conditions are
required for prediction of suspended solids concentrations in the effluent. These estimates must
consider the hydraulic efficiency of the placement area, defined as the ratio of mean retention
time to theoretical retention time. Field mean retention time T d for given flow rate and ponding
conditions and the theoretical residence time T are related by a hydraulic efficiency correction
factor as follows:
Td =

T
( HECF )

(I-14)

where
T d = mean residence time, hr
T = theoretical residence time, hr
HECF = hydraulic efficiency correction factor (HECF > 1.0) defined as the inverse of the
area right of profile area 1230
hydraulic efficiency, T d /T. R14 =
=
= 0.78
area Total
area 1240
I.5.2 The HECF can be estimated by several methods.
a. The most accurate estimate is that made from dye tracer studies to determine T d at the
actual site under operational conditions at a previous time, with the conditions similar to those
for the operation under consideration (see Appendix P, Dye Tracer Technique to Estimate Mean
Residence Time and Hydraulic Efficiency). This approach can be used only for existing sites.
b. Alternatively, the ratio T d /T = 1/HECF can be estimated from the equation:

Td
L

= 0.9 1 exp 0.3

T
W

(I-15)

L
L
is the length-to-width ratio of the proposed basin. The
ratio can be increased
W
W
greatly by the use of internal spur dikes, resulting in a higher hydraulic efficiency and a lower
required total area.
where

I.5.3 Determination of placement area geometry. Previous calculations have provided the
minimum required surface area for storage A ds , a minimum required surface area for zone settling
(if applicable) A dz , and a minimum required surface area for flocculant settling A df . A ponding
depth H pd was also assumed. These values are then used, as described in the following paragraphs, to determine the required placement area geometry. Throughout the design process, the
existing topography of the containment area site must be considered since it can have a significant effect on the resulting geometry of the containment area. Any limitations on dike height
I-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
should also be determined based on an appropriate geotechnical evaluation of dike stability (see
Chapter 4, Confined [Diked] Placement).
I.5.3.1 Select the design surface area. Select the design surface area A d as the largest of A ds ,
A dz , and/or A df . If A d exceeds the real estate available for placement, consider a smaller flow rate
(dredge size), deeper average ponding depth, chemical clarification, or an alternate site, and
repeat the design. If the surface area for an existing site exceeds A d , the existing surface area may
be used for A d .
I.3.5.2 Use the following procedure to compute the height of the dredged material and dikes:
a. Estimate the thickness of the dredged material at the end of the placement operation:
Hdm =

V
Ad

(I-16)

where
H dm = thickness of the dredged material layer at the end of the dredging operation, ft
V = volume of dredged material in the basin, ft3 (from Equation I-3)
A d = design surface area, ft2 (as determined above)
b. Add the ponding depth and freeboard depth to H dm to determine the required containment
area depth (dike height):

Hdk = Hdm + Hpd + H fb

(I-17)

where
H dk = dike height, ft
H pd = average ponding depth, ft (a minimum of 2 ft is recommended)
H fb = freeboard above the basin water surface to prevent wave overtopping and subsequent
damage to confining earth dikes, ft (a minimum of 2 ft is recommended)
I.6 Example Design Calculations for Retention of Solids and Initial Storage. This section
presents example manual calculations for containment area designs for the retention of suspended solids and initial storage. The examples are presented to illustrate the use of field and
laboratory data, and they include designs for sedimentation, weir design, and requirements for
initial storage capacity. Only those calculations necessary to illustrate the procedure are included
in the examples.

I-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.6.1 Example I: Containment Area Design Method for Sediments Exhibiting Flocculant
Settling.
I.6.1.1 Project information.
a. Each year an average of 300,000 yd3 of fine-grained channel sediment is dredged from a
harbor. A new in-water containment area is being constructed to accommodate the long-term
dredged material placement needs in this harbor. However, the new containment area will not be
ready for approximately 2 years. One containment area in the harbor has some remaining storage
capacity, but it is not known whether the remaining capacity is sufficient to accommodate the
immediate placement requirements. Design procedures must be followed to determine the
residence time needed to meet effluent requirements of 4 g/L and the storage volume required for
the 300,000 yd3 of channel sediment. These data will be used to determine if the existing
containment area storage capacity is sufficient for the planned dredged material placement
activity. The existing containment area is about 3 mi from the dredging activity.
b. Records indicate that for the last three dredgings, a 18 in. pipeline dredge was contracted to
do the work. The average working time was 17 hr/day, and the dredging rate was 600 yd3 of in
situ channel sediment per hour. The project depth in the harbor is 50 ft.
I.6.1.2 Results of containment area survey. The existing containment area has the following
dimensions:
a. Size: 96 acres.
b. Shape: length-to-width ratio of about 3.
c. Volume: 1,548,800 yd3 (average depth, from surveys, is 10 ft).
d. Weir length: 24 ft (rectangular weir).
e. Minimum ponding depth: 2 ft (assumed).
I.6.1.3 Results of laboratory tests and analysis of data. Sediment and dredging-site water
characterization was conducted as described in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project
Management. A pilot settling test was conducted, and no interface was observed during the first
4 hr of the test. A 8 in. column test was then run to determine flocculant and compression settling
properties. The following data were obtained from the laboratory tests:
a. Salinity of dredging site water: <1 ppt.
b. Channel sediment in situ water content w: 85%, equivalent to a void ratio e i of 2.29.
c. Specific gravity G s : 2.69.
d. Grain size analysis indicates approximately 20% of the sediment is coarse grained.

I-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Observed flocculant settling concentrations as a function of depth (see Table I-2).
f. Determine the percent of initial concentration with time (see Table I-3):
(1) Column concentration at the beginning of tests is 132 g/L.
(2) Concentration at 1 ft level at time = 30 min. is 46 g/L (Table I-2).
(3) Percent of initial concentration = 46 132 = 0.35 = 35%.
(4) These calculations are repeated for each time and depth to develop Table I-3.

g. Plot the percent of initial concentration versus the depth profile for each time interval from
data given in Table I-3 (Figure I-7).
h. Determine concentration as a function of time (15-day settling column data) (Table I-4).
i. Plot time versus concentration from data in Table I-4 as shown in Figure I-8.
Table I-2. Observed Flocculant Settling Concentrations with Depth,1 in Grams per Liter
Depth from Top of Settling Column, ft
Time, min

1
2
3
4
5
6
0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
132
30
46.0
99.0
115.0
125.0
128.0
135
60
25.0
49.0
72.0
96.0
115.0
128
120
14.0
20.0
22.0
55.0
78.0
122
180
11.0
14.0
16.0
29.0
75.0
119
240
6.8
10.2
12.0
18.0
65.0
117
360
3.6
5.8
7.5
10.0
37.0
115
600
2.8
2.9
3.9
4.4
14.0
114
720
1.01
1.6
1.9
3.1
4.5
110
1020
0.90
1.4
1.7
2.4
3.2
106
1260
0.83
1.14
1.2
1.4
1.7
105
1500
0.74
0.96
0.99
1.1
1.2
92
1740
0.63
0.73
0.81
0.85
0.94
90
1 Although a 6 ft (1.8 m) test depth is recommended, an 8 ft (2.4 m) depth was used in this test.

I-16

132
146
486
227

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Table I-3. Percent of Initial Concentration with Time1

Depth from Top of Settling Column, ft
Time T, min

1
0
30
60
120
180
240
360
600
720

2
100.0
35.0
19.0
11.0
8.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
1.0

3
100.0
75.0
37.0
15.0
11.0
8.0
4.0
2.2
1.2

Initial suspended solids concentration = 132 g/L.

Table I-4. Concentration of Settled Solids as a Function of Time

Time, days
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
15

Concentration, g/L
190
217
230
237
240
242
244
249
247
256

I-17

100.0
87.0
55.0
17.0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
1.4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-7. Percent of Initial Concentration Versus Depth Profile

Figure I-8. Time Versus Concentration

I-18

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.6.1.4 Design concentration. Compute the design concentration as follows:
a. The project information is as follows:
(1) Dredge size: 18 in.
(2) Volume to be dredged: 300,000 yd3.
(3) Average operating time: 17 hr/day.
(4) Production: 600 yd3/hr.

b. Estimate the time of dredging activity:

300,000 yd3
= 500 hr
600 yd3 /hr
500 hr
= 29.4(30 days)
17 hr/day

c. Average time for initial dredged material consolidation is:

30 days
= 15 days
2
d. Design solids concentration C d is the concentration shown in Figure I-8 at 15 days:

Cd = 253 g / L
I.6.1.5 Volume required for dredged material. Estimate the volume required for dredged
material as follows:
a. Compute the average void ratio e o using Equation I-1:
=
eo

Gs w
1
Cd

where G s = 2.69; w = 1,000 g/L; and C d = 253 g/L. Thus,

eo
=

2.69(1,000)
1
253

eo = 9.63

I-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Laboratory tests indicate that 20% of the sediment is coarse-grained material; therefore, the
volume of coarse-grained material V sd is
=
Vsd 300,000(0.20)
= 60,000 yd3
and the volume of fine-grained material V i is:

Vi = 300,000 60,000 = 240,000 yd3

c. Compute the volume of fine-grained channel sediments after placement in the containment
area using Equation I-2:
eo ei

+ 1
1+ ei

V f Vi
=

ei = 2.29
Vi = 240,000 yd3
Vf = 775,440 yd3
9.63 2.29

Vf
=

1+ 2.29

+ 1 (240,000)

d. Estimate the total volume required in the containment area using Equation I-3:

=
V V f + Vsd
Vsd = 60, 000 yd 3
V = 775, 440 + 60, 000
V = 835, 440 yd 3

I-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
e. Determine the maximum height of dredged material. Foundation conditions limit dike
heights to 10 ft. A ponding depth of 2 ft is assumed using Equation I-4:

= H dk

H dm

(max)

(max)

H pd H fb

H dm

= 10 ft - 2 ft - 2 ft

H dm

= 6 ft

(max)

(max)

f. The minimum surface area that could be used must be compared to the available surface
area of 96 acres. Using Equation I-5:

Ads

Ads

Ads

= 3,739,480 ft

(min)

(min)

(min)

Hdm(max)
835,440 yd3 27 ft 3

6ft
yd3

g. Since the minimum required surface area is less than the available 96 acres, the dredged
material can physically be stored during the dredging operation.
I.6.1.6 Residence time required for sedimentation. The design residence time is computed as
in the following example:
a. Calculate removal percentages for the assumed ponding depth of 2 ft. Calculating the total
area down to a depth of 2 ft from Figure I-7 gives an area of 200 (scale units). Calculating the
area to the right of the 30 min timeline down to a depth of 2 ft gives 124 (scale units). These
areas could also have been determined by planimetering the plot. Compute removal percentages
as follows (see Equation I-8):

R=

124
100 = 62
200

For a settling time of 30 min, 62% of the suspended solids are removed from the water column
above the 2-ft depth.
b. Repeat the calculations illustrated in Step a for each time. The results are tabulated in
Table I-5.
c. Plot the data in Table I-5, as shown in Figure I-9.

I-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Td
L

= 0.9 1 exp 0.3

T
W

= 0.9 1 exp(0.3(3))
= 0.53
HCEF =

T
d
1
0.53

= 1.87
T = HECF (Td )
= 1.87(365)
= 683 min
The required theoretical or volumetric retention time equals 683 min or 11.4 hr.
Table I-5. Removal Percentages as a Function of Settling Time
Time, min
30
60
120
180
240
360
600
720

Removal, percentage
62.0
81.0
90.2
93.1
95.5
97.0
98.4
99.3

I-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-9. Solids Removal Versus Time

I.6.1.7 Design surface area required for flocculant sedimentation. Compute this value using
Equation I-13 as follows:
18in.
12

=
Qi

= 26.5

15

ft
sec

ft 3
sec

Adf =

TQi
H pd (12.1)

11.4(26.5)
2(12.1)

= 12 acres

I-23

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.6.1.8 Design surface area. Since both the A ds and A df are smaller than the available 96 acres,
use 96 acres as the design surface area A d .
Ad 96 acres 43,560
=

ft 2
acre

Ad = 4,181,760 ft 2
I.6.1.9 Thickness of dredged material layer. Determine the thickness of the dredged material
layer from as follows:

H dm =

V
Ad
835,440 yd3 27
4,181,760 ft 2

H dm = 5.4 ft
I.6.1.10 Required containment area depth (dike height). Determine the required containment
area depth as follows:
D = 9.4 ft is less than the maximum allowable dike height of 10 ft.
I.6.1.11 Weir length.
a. The existing effective weir length L e equals the weir crest length L for rectangular weirs:
Le = 24 ft
Qi = 26.5

ft 3
sec

H pd = 2ft
Using Figure I-10, a 2-ft ponding depth at the weir requires an effective weir length of approximately 60 ft. The existing 24-ft weir length is therefore inadequate, and additional weir length
should be provided.

I-24

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-10. Weir Design Nomograph

I-25

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. The remaining volume of 1,548,800 yd3 in the existing containment area is sufficient to
accommodate placement of the 300,000 yd3 of maintenance channel sediment into the basin
under a continuous placement operation. Since the required basin depth is less than the existing
depth, no upgrading will be necessary to accommodate the first dredging operation.
I.6.2 Example II: Containment Area Design Method for Sediments Exhibiting Zone Settling.
I.6.2.1 Project information. Fine-grained maintenance dredged material is scheduled to be
dredged from a harbor maintained to a project depth of 50 ft. Channel surveys indicate that
500,000 ft3 of channel sediment must be dredged. All available placement areas are filled near
the dredging activity, but an available tract of 80 acres is available for a new site 2 miles from the
dredging project. An evaluation of the foundation conditions indicate that the maximum allowable dike height is 15 ft. The containment area must be designed to accommodate initial storage
requirements while meeting effluent suspended solids levels of 75 mg/L. In the past, the largest
dredge contracted for the maintenance dredging has been a 24-in. pipeline dredge. This is the
largest size dredge located in the area.
I.6.2.2 Results of laboratory tests. Sediment and dredging site water characterization was
conducted as described in Chapter 2, Dredging and Navigation Project Management. A pilot
settling test was conducted, and an interface was observed within a few hours. A column settling
test for zone settling was then conducted as described in Appendix H. Flocculant settling data
were collected above the interface. The test was also continued for 15 days for purposes of
evaluating initial storage requirements. The following data were obtained from the laboratory
tests:
a. Salinity: 15 ppt.
b. Channel sediment in situ water content w: 92.3%, equivalent to a void ratio e i of 2.5.
c. Specific gravity G s : 2.71.
d. Depth to suspended solids interface as a function of time for a series of zone settling tests
(see Table I-6).
e. Concentration of settled material as a function of time data (15-day settling column data)
(Table I-7).
f. Concentration of settled solids versus time curve (see Figure I-11).

I-26

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table I-6. Depth to Solids Interface as a Function of Settling Time at C i = 150 g/L
Time, hr
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Note: From plot of depth versus time V s = 0.24 ft/hr.

Depth, ft
0
0.050
0.090
0.170
0.230
0.420
0.475
0.505
0.530
0.553
0.565
0.575
0.595
0.655
0.690

Table I-7. Concentration of Settled Solids as a Function of Time1

See Figure I-9.

Time, days
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
15

Concentration, g/L
192
215
219
140
251
272
280
290
320

I-27

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-11. Concentration of Settled Solids Versus Time

g. Representative samples of channel sediments tested in the laboratory indicate that 15% of
the sediment is coarse-grained material (> No. 200 sieve).

Vsd = 500,000(0.15) 75,000 yd3

Vi = 500,000 75,000 = 425,000 yd3
where
V sd = volume of sand (use 1:1 ratio), ft3 (Section I.2.3[3])
V i = volume of the fine-grained channel sediments, ft3 (Section I.2.3[2])
h. Suspended solids concentration data for port samples taken above the interface for the
flocculant test (Table I-8).

I-28

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table I-8. Observed Flocculant Settling Data
Sample Extraction Time
t, hr
3
3
7
7
14
14
14
24
24
24
48
48
48

Depth of Sample
Extraction z, ft
0.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

Total Suspended Solids

C, mg/L
93
169
100
105
45
43
50
19
18
20
15
7
14

Fraction of Initial
, %
55
100
59
62
27
25
30
11
11
12
9
4
8

i. Concentration profile diagram plotted from data in Table I-8 (Figure I-12). The initial
supernatant suspended solids concentration C o was assumed equal to the highest concentration of
the first port samples taken, 169 mg/L. The concentration profile diagram was, therefore,
constructed using 169 mg/L as 100%.

I-29

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure I-12. Suspended Solids Concentration Profile Diagram

I.6.2.3 Design concentration. Compute this value as follows:
a. The project information is as follows:
(1) Dredge size: 24 in.
(2) Volume to be dredged: 500,000 yd3.

b. Good records are available from past years of maintenance dredging in this harbor. They
show that each time a 24-in. dredge was used, the dredge operated an average of 12 hr/day and
dredged an average of 900 yd3/hr.

I-30

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
c. Estimate the time of dredging activity:
500,000 yd3
= 556 hr
yd3
900
hr
where operating time per day = 12 hr. Thus,
556 hr
= 46 days
hr
12
day

d. Average time for dredged material consolidation:

46 days
= 23 days
2

e. Design concentration is the solids concentration of settled solids shown in Figure I-11 at 23
days:

Cd = 340

g
L

or 21.1 lb/ft3
I.6.2.4 Volume required for dredged material. This volume is estimated as follows:
a. Compute the average void ratio using Equation I-1:
eo
=

Gs w
1
Cd

Gs = 2.71
w =
1,000
Cd = 340
eo
=

g
L

g
L

2.71(1,000)
1
340

eo = 6.97

I-31

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Compute the volume of fine-grained channel sediments after placement in containment
area using Equation I-2:
eo ei

+ 1
1+ ei

=
V f Vi
ei = 2.5

Vi = 425,000 yd3
6.97 2.50
+ (425,000)
1 + 2.50

Vf
=

= 967,785 yd3
c. Estimate the volume required by dredged material in containment area using Equation I-3:
= V f + Vsd
V
Vsd = 72,000 yd3
=
V 967,785 + 75,000
= 1,042,785 yd3

I-32

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.6.2.5 Maximum possible thickness of dredged material at end of placement operation.
a. Because of foundation problems, dike heights are limited to 15 ft. Therefore, the placement
area must be increased to accommodate the storage requirements. Use Equation I-4 to determine
the allowable dredged material height:

H dm(max)= H dk(max) H pd H fb
H dk(max) = 15 ft
H pd = 2 ft
H fb = 2 ft
H dm(max) = 15 2 2
H dm(max) = 11 ft
b. Compute the minimum possible surface area using Equation I-5:
Ads =

V
Hd(max)
1,042,785 yd3

Ads =

27 ft 3
yd3

11 ft

Ads = 2,559,563 ft 2
Ads = 59 acres
Since this value is less than the 80-acre tract available, the dredged material can be physically
stored.
I.6.2.6 Minimum area required for zone sedimentation. This value is computed as follows:
a. From data in Table I-6, V s = 0.24 ft/hr.

I-33

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Compute the area requirement using Equation I-6:
Az =

Qi (3,600)
Vs

Qi = Ap Vd
V p = 15

=
Q
i
=
Az
=
Az

ft
sec

24in.
12

ft
ft 3
15 = 47.12
sec
sec

47.12(3,600)
= 706,800 ft 2
0.24
706,800
= 16.22 acres
43,560

c. Increase the area by a factor of 1.87 (from Equation I-15) to account for hydraulic
inefficiencies (assuming the containment area can be constructed with a length-to-width ratio of
approximately 3):
Adz = 1.87(16.22 acres)
Adz = 30.3 acres

Thus, the minimum area required for effective zone settling is 30.3, or approximately 30 acres.
This is less than the 80 acres available at the site.
I.6.2.7 Retention time for suspended solids removal.
a. A relationship of suspended solids remaining versus retention time was developed using
the laboratory data in Figure I-12. Ratios of suspended solids removed as a function of time were
determined graphically using the step-by-step procedure described in Section I.3.3. The lower
horizontal boundary for the determined areas corresponded to the minimum average ponding
depth of 2 ft. An example calculation for removal ratio for the concentration profile at T = 14 hr
and ponding depth of 2 ft using Equation I-8 is as follows:
R14 =

area right of profile area 1230

=
= 0.78
area Total
area 1240

I-34

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
The areas were determined by planimeter. The portion remaining at T = 14 hr is found using
Equation I-10 as follows:
P 14 = 1 - R 14 = 1 - 0.78 = 0.22
The concentration of suspended solids remaining is found using Equation I-11 as follows:
C 14 = P 14 C o = 0.22 (169 mg/L) = 37 mg/L
Values at other times were determined in a similar manner. The data were arranged in Table I-9.
A curve was fitted to the data for total suspended solids versus retention time and is shown in
Figure I-13.
Table I-9. Percentage of Initial Concentration and Suspended Solids Concentration versus
Time, Ponding Depth of 2 Ft
Sample Extraction Time t, hr
3
7
14
24
48

Removal
Percentage R t
14
47
78
90
94

Remaining
Percentage P t
86
53
22
10
6

Suspended Solids, mg/L)

145
90
37
17
10

Figure I-13. Plot of Supernatant Suspended Solids Concentration

Versus Time from Column Settling Tests

I-35

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Since the final site configuration is not known beforehand, an appropriate value should be
selected from Table I-1 for the resuspension factor. The minimum ponding depth of 2 ft required
by the site design is used. A resuspension factor of 1.5 was selected corresponding to an available
area <100 acres and ponding depth of 2 ft.
c. The value of effluent suspended solids of 75 mg/L, which must be met at the point of
discharge, considers anticipated resuspension. The corresponding value for total suspended solids
concentration under quiescent settling conditions is determined using Equation I-12 as follows:
C=
col

Ceff 75 mg/L
=
= 50 mg/L
1.5
RF

d. The required configuration of the placement area must correspond to a retention time that
will allow the necessary sedimentation. Using Figure I-13, 50 mg/L corresponds to a field mean
retention time of 10 hr. To determine the required placement site geometry, the theoretical
retention time should be used. The hydraulic efficiency correction factor was calculated from
Equation I-14 to be 1.87 for an L/W of 3. The theoretical retention time was calculated using
Equation I-8 as follows:
T = T d (HECF) = 10 (1.87) = 18.7 hr
e. The placement area configuration can now be determined using data on the anticipated
flow rate and the theoretical retention time. Since the dredging equipment available in the project
area is capable of flow rates up to 47 ft3/sec, the high value should be assumed. The ponded area
required is calculated using Equation I-13 as follows:

Adf =

TQi
Hpd (12.1)
18.7(47)
2(12.1)

= 36 acres
The placement site should therefore encompass approximately 36 acres of ponded surface area if
the dredge selected for the project has an effective flow rate not greater than 47 ft3/sec. In this
case, the surface area of 36 acres required to meet the water quality standard is greater than the
minimum surface area of 30 acres required for effective zone settling. However, the area required
for storage, 59 acres, is the controlling surface area. The design surface area A d is therefore
59 acres.

I-36

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
I.6.2.8 Determination of placement area geometry. From previous calculation, the minimum
design area is 59 acres as required for initial storage. This corresponds to the following values as
previously calculated:
H dm = 11 ft
H pd = 2 ft
H fb = 2 ft
Ad = 59 acres
I.6.2.9 Design for the weir.
a. The design parameters are as follows:
Q i = 47 ft3/sec
H pd = 2 ft
b. Using Figure I-10, approximately 55 ft of effective weir length is required.

I-37

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I-38

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX J
Dredged Material Consolidation Test Procedures
J.1 General. The accuracy of any calculation of the consolidation behavior of fine-grained
dredged material is only as good as the soil parameters used. It is, therefore, very important that
the necessary time and resources be allocated to field sample testing and interpretation of the
results. Procedures for obtaining sediment samples are found in Chapter 2, Dredging and
Navigation Project Management. This appendix describes methods of consolidation testing,
recommended oedometer test procedures for dredged material, and test data interpretation.
J.2 Consolidation Testing.
J.2.1 General. There are essentially three methods of conducting consolidation tests on finegrained dredged material. They are the self-weight settling test, the controlled rate of strain test,
and the oedometer test. Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages, and a
combination is usually desirable.
J.2.2 Self-weight settling test (Figure J-1). The self-weight settling test is advantageous in
determining the void ratio-effective stress relationship at very low levels of effective stress.
However, to cover the range of stresses encountered during the consolidation of a prototype
dredged fill deposit, the settling column height must equal that of the prototype. If the settling
column height equals that of the dredged fill layer, then the time required to complete the test
could be on the order of years for typical layers. This is not practical in most situations; so for
efficiency, the settling test should be supplemented with one of the other tests for the higher
effective stresses.

Figure J-1. Self-Weight Consolidation Device

J-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
J.2.3 Controlled rate of strain test
(Figure J-2). A large-strain controlled rate of
strain device specifically for the purpose of
testing fine-grained dredged material is now
under development. When such a device is
available, it is recommended that it be routinely
used to define consolidation properties at the
high void ratios common to dredged fill.
J.2.4 Oedometer test (Figure J-3). The most
common type of consolidation testing currently
available is the oedometer test. The apparatus
required by this test is found in all well-equipped
soils laboratories, and the test has been used
successfully on numerous dredged materials.
Regardless of the disadvantages, because it is the
most common and readily available test, the
oedometer test is the most attractive for dredged
material today. Disadvantages of the test include
the following:
a. Void ratio-effective stress relationships at
very low levels (<0.005 ton/ft2) of effective
stress are generally not possible.
b. The time required between load
increments may sometimes be 2 weeks or more.

Figure J-2. Large-Strain, Controlled-Rateof-Strain Test Chamber

c. Large strains during a given load increment add to the uncertainties of test data analysis for
coefficients of consolidation and permeabilities.
d. The question of whether a thin oedometer sample with no initial excess pore pressure when
subjected to a sudden load increment reacts the same as an under-consolidated thick sample
whose excess pore pressure is slowly decreased.
J.3 Recommended Oedometer Test Procedure.
J.3.1 Oedometer testing of very soft dredged fill materials is accomplished essentially as
specified in EM 1110-2-1906 for stiffer soils. The major difference is in the initial sample
preparation and the size of the load increments. The majority of dredged fill samples are in the
form of a heavy liquid rather than a mass capable of being handled and trimmed.

J-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure J-3. Oedometer Testing Apparatus

J.3.2 Before testing begins, both accurate and buoyant weights of the top porous stone and
other items between the sample and dial gage stem should be determined because this will be a
major part of the seating load. The force exerted by the dial indicator spring must also be
determined for the range of readings initially expected because this will constitute the remainder
of the seating load and will be considered the first consolidating load applied to the sample. The
dial gage force is determined using a common scale or balance. Samples are prepared for testing
by placing a saturated bottom porous stone, filter paper, and consolidometer ring on the scale and
then recording their weights. Without removing this apparatus from the scale, material is placed
in the ring with a spatula. The material is placed and spread carefully to avoid trapping any air
within the specimen. After slightly overfilling the ring with material, the excess is screeded with
a straightedge, with care being taken not to permit excess material to fall onto the scale. After a
level surface flush with the top of the ring is obtained, the ring top is wiped clean and a final
weight is recorded.
J.3.3 The ring with bottom stone is next assembled with the remainder of the consolidometer
apparatus. Care must be taken not to jar or otherwise disturb the sample during this process.
Once the consolidometer is ready, it is placed on the loading platform, and assembly is
completed. As soon as the seating load is placed, the water level in the consolidometer should be
brought level with the top of the top porous stone and held there through at least the first three
load increments or until the difference in the actual weight and buoyant weight of the seating
load is insignificant. Thereafter, the level of the water is not important so long as the sample is
kept inundated.

J-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
J.3.4 Since some consolidation normally occurs very rapidly when the seating load is placed,
it is important that this first load is placed very quickly to include the dial gage. If all induced
settlement is not accounted for, later calculations may be inconsistent. It may be necessary to use
a table level or some other measuring device to check the height of the top of the porous stone
above the sample ring at some time during this first load increment. Of course, the thickness of
the top porous stone and filter paper must have been measured previously. In this way, a
reconciliation between deformation recorded by the dial gage and actual deformation can be
made.
J.3.5 After the sample has been subjected to the seating load, dial gage readings are taken at
0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 15.0, and 30.0 minutes; 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours; and then daily
thereafter until primary consolidation is complete as determined by the time-consolidation curve.
The first series of readings is valid for determination of the first point of the e-log- curve and
may be used in coefficient of consolidation or permeability determinations if the seating load is
placed quickly and in a manner so as not to induce extraneous excess pore pressures.
J.3.6 Consolidation of the sample is continued according to the following recommended
loading schedule: 0.005, 0.01, 0.025, 0.05, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00 ton/ft2. Exactly what the
first load increment will equal depends on the weight of the top porous stone, loading column,
and dial gage force. To keep the dial gage force relatively constant throughout testing, the dial
gage may have to be reset periodically. If so, it should be reset just before the next load increment
is placed and not during a load increment. If consolidation behavior at loads much greater than
about 1.0 ton/ft2 is required, it is recommended that samples which have been preconsolidated to
0.5 ton per square foot be used, since most typical dredged fill samples will have undergone more
than 50% strain by the time the above loading schedule is completed. Experience has shown that
extrapolation of the e-log- curve produced from the recommended loading schedule to lower
void ratios should yield reasonably accurate results, providing that the void ratios through the
extrapolated range are greater than about 1.0.
J.3.7 When primary consolidation is completed under the final load of the schedule, the
difference between the tops of the top porous stone and the top of the sample ring should again
be determined by a table level or other measuring device as a second check on final sample
height as determined from dial gage readings. This check is considered important, since the dial
gage will probably have been reset several times during the loading schedule. Before the dial
gage is removed, the sample should be unloaded and allowed to rebound under the seating load
and dial gage force only. When the sample is fully rebounded, a final dial gage reading is made,
and the sample is removed for water-content and weight-of-solids measurements.
J.3.8 The preceding recommended test procedure is not meant to replace the more
comprehensive treatment of EM 1110-2-1906 or other soils testing manuals. Its purpose is
merely to point out where the conventional procedure must be modified or supplemented to
handle extremely soft dredged fill material. A final recommendation is that a specific gravity of
solids test always be accomplished for the actual material consolidated since calculations are very
sensitive to this value, and typical estimated values may lead to significant error.

J-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
J.4 Calculation of Permeability. Since the conditions of the oedometer test correspond very
closely with those assumed in small strain consolidation theory when data are analyzed for each
load increment, there is probably no advantage in using the more complicated finite strain theory
in deducing permeability. Then the expression can be written as follows:
2

T H w av
k= u
1+ e t

(J-1)

( )

where
k = coefficient of permeability, cm/sec
T u = time factor for specified percent consolidation
H = effective specimen thickness, cm

w = unit weight of water

a v = coefficient of compressibility, cm3/g
e = void ratio

t = time required to reach specified percent consolidation, sec

The bar indicates average values during the load increment. If 50% consolidation is assumed to
occur simultaneously with 50% settlement, the equation can be written as follows:
2

0.197 H w a v
k=
1 + e t50

(J-2)

( )

where t 50 is the time required for 50% settlement from the compression-time curve for the
particular load increment. The values for k are then plotted versus e, and a smooth curve is drawn
through the points.

J-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

J-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX K
Jar Test Procedures for Chemical Clarification
K.1 General.
K.1.1 Laboratory jar tests. Jar tests have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of various
coagulants and flocculants under a variety of operating conditions for water treatment. The
procedures and evaluation process (Black et al. 1957) and (Hudson 1981) have been adapted to
dredged material (Schroeder 1983). However, conducting jar tests and interpreting the results to
determine design parameters are not simple tasks because there are many variables that can affect
the tests. Only experience can assist in applying the following jar test procedures to a specific
project. Additional information (Jones, Williams, and Moore 1978) is available on equipment
requirements and the importance of flocculant type, flocculant concentration, flocculant addition
methods, temperature, mixing and test equipment, and intensity and duration of mixing on the jar
tests results.
K.1.2 Jar test uses. Jar tests are used in these procedures to provide information on the most
effective flocculant, optimum dosage, optimum feed concentration, effects of dosage on removal
efficiencies, effects of concentration of influent suspension on removal efficiencies, effects of
mixing conditions, and effects of settling time.
K.1.2.1 The general approach used in these procedures is as follows:
a. Using site-specific information on the sediment, dredging operation, containment areas,
and effluent requirement, select mixing conditions, suspension concentration, settling time, and
polymers for testing.
b. Prepare a stock suspension of sediment.
c. Test a small number (4-6) of polymers that have performed well on similar dredged
material. The tests should be run on 2-g/L suspensions, which is a typical concentration for
effluent from a well-designed containment area for freshwater sediments containing clays. If
good removals are obtained at low dosages (10 mg/L or less), then select the most cost-effective
polymer. If good removals are not obtained, examine the polymer under improved mixing and
settling conditions and test the performance of other flocculants.
d. After selecting a polymer and its optimum dosage, examine the effect of polymer feed
concentration over the range of 1-30 g/L, typical concentrations used in the field, at the optimum
dosage.
e. Determine dosage requirements for the expected range of turbidity and suspended solids
concentration to be treated at the primary weir.
f. Examine the effects of the range of possible mixing conditions on the required dosage of
flocculant for a typical suspension.
K-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
g. Examine the effects of settling time on the removal of suspended solids and turbidity from
a suspension of average concentration, using the selected dosage and likely mixing conditions.
K.1.2.2 The purpose of the approach described is to select an effective polymer for a
suspension of a standard concentration, 2 g/L, which is a typical effluent solids concentration. In
this manner, the effectiveness and dosage requirements of various polymers are easy to compare.
The other test variables are set to simulate anticipated field conditions. After a polymer is
selected, other variables are examined: polymer feed concentration, solids concentration of
suspension to be treated, and mixing and settling time. The approach may be changed to fit the
needs and conditions of the specific study.
K.1.2.3 Typically the details of each test are modified to satisfy the constraints and
conditions of the project and test. This procedure generally requires judgment from experience
with jar tests and chemical treatment. Detailed procedures are found in the following paragraphs.
K.2 Selection of Test Conditions.
K.2.1 Mixing intensity and duration. Prior to testing, the mixing intensity and duration for
the jar tests should be selected based on project conditions. Assuming that mechanical mixing
will not be used in the treatment system, the amount of mixing should be based on the available
head between the two containment areas (in other words, the difference between the water
surfaces of the two areas that can be maintained throughout the project) (Figure K-1). The depth
of the secondary area must be sufficient to provide 2-3 ft of storage and 2-3 ft of ponding for
good settling. Preferably, 2-3 ft of head should be available for mixing. The object is to convert
the head into mixing energy in the culverts joining the two containment areas. The amount of
head loss is a function of flow rate, culvert diameter, and length. Table K-1 presents typical
mixing values for good culvert mixing designs under a variety of conditions assuming a
maximum of five culverts and a maximum culvert length of 100 ft. The net mixing G t is the
product of the mean velocity gradient (intensity) and the duration. The mixing intensity in terms
of the mean velocity gradient G for the design conditions in Table K-1 varied from about 250 to
500 sec-1. The effectiveness of polymers increased as the mixing G t increased to about 30,000.
a. The designer may select a G t value from Table K-1 for an example with similar flow and
mixing head, but preferably the designer should calculate the head loss, mixing intensity, and
duration for the existing or designed culvert according to the following procedure for pipe flow
(Streeter 1971). Assuming a submerged inlet and outlet and corrugated metal pipe,

Lf v 2

=
H 1.5 +

D 2g

(K-1)

where
H = head loss, ft
L = culvert length, ft
f = friction factor = 185 n2/D1/3 (n = Mannings coefficient, 0.024 for corrugated metal pipes)
K-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
D = culvert diameter, ft
v = maximum velocity through culvert, ft/sec = 4 Q max /D2
Q max = maximum flow rate, ft3/sec
g = gravity, 32.2 ft2/sec
Alternate methods and sources for fraction factor and Mannings coefficient are available in
Hydraulics Design Criteria 224-1/2 to 224/1/4. The mean velocity gradient G can be calculated as
follows:
G=

s f v 3
2 gD s

(K-2)

where
G = mean velocity gradient, sec-1
s = specific weight, 62.4 lb/ft3
v = average velocity, ft/sec

s = absolute viscosity, 2.36 10-5 lb/sec/ft2 at 60 F

The duration t of the mixing in seconds is determined by
t=

L
v

(K-3)

The mixing increases with increases in head loss, culvert length, and duration and with decreases
in culvert diameter. Long, multiple, small-diameter, corrugated culverts provide the best mixing
conditions. Good mixing requires a G t of about 30,000, though a G t of about 8,000 provides
adequate mixing.

K-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure K-1. Example of a Weir Mixing System

Table K-1. Design Mixing Values G t
Flow
ft3/sec

5
8
12
16
21
27
36
47
60
74
106

2
8,200
7,800
7,500
7,200
7,000
6,800
6,600
6,400
6,200
6,000
5,700

3
9,800
9,300
9,000
8,700
8,400
8,200
7,900
7,600
7,400
7,200
6,800

Available Head, ft
4
11,300
10,800
10,400
10,000
9,700
9,500
9,100
8,800
8,500
8,300
7,900

5
12,200
11,600
11,200
10,800
10,500
10,200
9,800
9,500
9,200
8,900
8,500

6
12,900
12,300
11,900
11,500
11,100
10,800
10,400
10,100
9,800
9,500
9,000

b. After determining G and t for field conditions, use the same G and t for rapid mixing
conditions in the laboratory jar test. If the G is greater than the G available on the jar test
apparatus, mix at maximum speed and increase the duration to obtain the same G t . The relationship between G and revolutions per minute of a jar test apparatus is shown in Figure K-2. For
slow mixing, mix at 20 rpm (G = 10 sec-1) for 300 sec to simulate the exit loss conditions as the
water dissipates its kinetic energy upon entering the secondary cell.

K-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure K-2. Velocity Gradient G Calibration Curves for Jar Test Apparatus
K.2.2 Suspension concentration. The next step is to predict the average solids concentrations
and turbidity of the suspension to be treated at the primary weir. This can be estimated from past
records of dredging at the site or flocculant settling tests. Procedures for containment area design
considering both flocculant and zone settling are found herein. The results of flocculant settling
tests, when available, should be used to determine the suspension concentration.
K.2.3 Settling time for flocculated material. The next variable to establish is settling time.
Flocculated (chemically treated) material settles at a rate of about 0.25 ft/min. The required
ponding depth for good settling is about 2-3 ft; therefore, a minimum of 10 min is needed for
settling. Also, due to basin inefficiencies, some of the water will reach the secondary weir in
10-20% of the theoretical residence time. For secondary containment areas, this may be as short
as 10-20 min, though the mean residence time may be about 50 min. Based on this information,
the settling time in the jar test should be set at 10 min. The effect of settling time on suspended
solids removal can be evaluated in the jar test procedures.

K-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
K.2.4 Selection of polymers for testing. The final consideration before starting the jar tests is
the selection of polymers to be tested. To simplify the operation of feeding and dispersing the
polymer at the project, a low viscosity liquid polymer should be used. The following list
identifies some polymers effective on dredged material:
a. Betz

1180
1190

b. Calgon

M-503

c. Hercofloc

815
849
863
876

d. Magnifloc

573C
577C

e. Nalco

7103
7132

Polymer manufacturers may be able to suggest others. They can also recommend maximum
polymer feed concentrations. Polymer selected for testing should be nontoxic, nonhazardous, and
unreactive. Polymer manufacturers can provide detailed information on the properties of their
products. Also, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has approved many
polymers for use on potable water at the desired dosages. Very little of an applied dosage is
expected to be discharged from the containment area since the polymer adsorbs on the solids and
settles in the containment area. Therefore, polymers should not be detrimental to the quality of
the receiving waters. Polymers do not increase the long-term release of contaminants or nutrients
from treated dredged material (Wang and Chen 1977).
K.2.5 Suspension preparation. Dredged material that is discharged over the weir is
composed of only the finest fraction of the sediment. In many cases, this material has been
suspended and mixed in the primary containment area for several days while the coarser material
settled. Therefore, to obtain representative suspensions for testing, the following procedure is
recommended:
a. Thoroughly mix each sediment sample to ensure homogeneity. Then, blend equal portions
of each sample to form a representative composite of the sediment. Grain size analysis and soil
classification may be performed on this material to characterize the mixture and to compare it
with previous characterizations of the sediment.
b. If the sediment mixture contains more than 10% (dry weight basis) coarse-grained
(>No. 200 sieve) material, the material should be sieved through a standard U.S. series No. 200
sieve. The fines can be washed through the sieve using water from the bottom of the water
K-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
column at the dredging site. If this water is unavailable, tap water may be used in its place, but
the salinity of the suspension of fines (<No. 200 sieve) must be adjusted to naturally occurring
salinity of the bottom waters at the project site.
c. Prepare a supply of 2.0-g/L suspensions by diluting a well-mixed portion of the slurry of
fines with water from the dredging site or with tap water adjusted with salt to the same salinity.
Suspensions at other concentrations would be prepared in the same manner.
K.2.6 Jar test procedures. Having established the test variables, the designer is ready to start
the laboratory jar test procedures. Care must be exercised in the tests to ensure that each sample
is handled uniformly. The tests must be performed in a standard manner to evaluate the results.
The following variables must be controlled: identical test equipment and setup, suspension
preparation, sample temperature, polymer feed concentration and age, polymer dosage, sample
premix time and intensity, polymer addition method, duration and intensity of rapid mixing,
duration and intensity of slow mixing, settling time, sampling method, and laboratory analyses of
samples. All of the following procedures are not necessary for every project. The required tests
are dependent on the purpose of the study, and some tests can be eliminated based on past
experience of treating dredged material under similar circumstances.
K.2.6.1 Selection of polymer. The laboratory jar test procedures are as follows:
a. Step 1Fill a 1- or 2-L beaker with a 2.0-g/L suspension of fine-grained dredged material.
b. Step 2Mix at 100 rpm and incrementally add polymer at a dosing of 2 mg/L until flocs
appear. Note the total dosage applied. (Use a polymer feed concentration of 2 g/L or 2 mg/mL.)
c. Step 3Fill six 1- or 2-L beakers with a 2.0-g/L suspension of dredged material and measure the suspended solids concentration and turbidity of the suspension.
d. Step 4Mix at 100 rpm for 1 min and then rapidly add the desired polymer dosage to each
beaker. Use a range of polymer dosages from 0 mg/L to about twice the dosage determined in
Step (2).
e. Step 5Immediately adjust the mixing to the desired G for rapid mixing as determined
earlier. Mix for the desired duration t also determined earlier.
f. Step 6Reduce the mixer speed to a G of 10 sec-1 and slow mix for 300 sec.
g. Step 7Turn off the mixer and allow to settle for 10 min.
h. Step 8Withdraw the samples from the 700-mL level of 1-L beakers and from the
1,400-mL level of 2-L beakers.
i. Step 9 Measure the suspended solids concentration and turbidity of the samples. Record
the test data on a report form similar to the one shown in Figure K-3. Also record any significant
K-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
observations such as nature, size, and settling characteristics of the flocs, time of floc formation,
and any peculiarities.
j. Step 10Repeat Steps (3) through (9) as needed to adequately define the effects of dosage
on clarification.
k. Step 11Repeat Steps (1) through (10) for the other polymers. A dosage of 10 mg/L
should reduce the solids concentrations by 95% if the polymer is effective. Examine enough
polymers to find at least two effective ones.
l. Step 12Select the most cost-effective polymer that can be easily fed and dispersed.
K.2.6.2 Selection of polymer feed concentration. After selecting the best polymer, the effects
of polymer feed concentration and polymer solution age on the removals can be evaluated. Some
polymers require great dilution and aging following dilution to maximize their effectiveness.
This test is not required if adequate dilution water and solution aging are provided in the design
to meet the manufacturers recommendations. Often, to simplify the treatment system design,
these recommendations are not met. The test is performed as follows:
a. Step 1Prepare 6 fresh solutions of the selected polymer ranging in concentration from
about 1 to 40 g/L.
b. Step 2Fill 6 beakers as in Step (3) of paragraph K.2.6.1.
c. Step 3Mix at 100 rpm for 1 min and then rapidly add the polymer solutions at the
effective dosage established earlier and in the same manner.
d. Step 4Continue to follow the procedures outlined in Steps (5) through (9) of paragraph
K.2.6.1.
e. Step 5Allow two solutions to age as desired (between 1 hr and 1 day) and repeat
Steps (2) through (4) of this paragraph.

K-8

Figure K-3. Jar Test Report Form

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

K-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
K.2.6.3 Determination of required dosage. The dosage requirements of the selected polymer
for the anticipated average solids concentration of the primary effluent suspension to be treated at
the primary weir should be evaluated. This concentration was determined previously from past
records or flocculant settling tests. The procedure is as follows:
a. Step 1Fill 6 beakers with suspensions at the desired concentration of the fine-grained
fraction of dredged material. Measure the suspended solids concentration and turbidity of the
suspension.
b. Step 2Mix at 100 rpm for 1 min and then rapidly add the desired polymer dosage to
each beaker. The range of dosages should be proportional to the solids concentration.
c. Step 3Continue to follow the procedures outlined in Steps (5) through (10) of paragraph
K.2.6.1. Other suspensions with different solids concentrations may be examined in the same
manner to determine the possible range of dosages required for the project and the possible range
of effluent quality obtainable under conditions of variable primary effluent solids concentration
to be treated.
K.2.6.4 Effects of mixing. Other mixing conditions can be examined to determine the
impact of low flow conditions and to evaluate whether the mixing is adequate. The effects of
increasing the mixing by a Gt of 5,000 and 10,000 and of decreasing flow rate by 50%, 75%, and
90% on the polymer dosage requirements can be evaluated as follows:
a. Step 1Calculate the new mixing intensity and duration.
b. Step 2Fill 6 beakers with a suspension at the anticipated average solids concentration.
c. Step 3Mix at 100 rpm for 1 min and then rapidly add the desired polymer dosage to
each beaker. Select a range of dosages surrounding the optimum dosage determined in the last set
of experiments on the same suspension.
d. Step 4Immediately adjust the mixing to the G value calculated in paragraph K.2.1 for
rapid mixing and mix for the calculated duration t.
e. Step 5Follow the procedures outlined in Steps (6) through (9) of paragraph K.2.6.1.
K.2.6.5 Effects of settling time. The effects of settling time on effluent quality can be
examined as follows:
a. Step 1Determine the range of settling time of interest, bearing in mind that the
secondary basin will be hydraulically inefficient and the settling conditions will not be quiescent.
b. Step 2Follow the procedures outlined in Steps (3) through (9) of paragraph K.2.6.1, but
adjust the settling time and sampling schedule to cover the range determined above.

K-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX L
Estimation of Dredged Material Consolidation by Finite Strain Technique
L.1 General. In this appendix, the method for estimating consolidation by finite strain techniques
is described. Also, the practical problem of a single dredged fill layer deposited on a
compressible foundation is solved for settlement as a function of time by both small strain and
linear finite strain theories. The solutions involve only hand calculations and the appropriate
percent consolidation curves given previously in this EM.
L.2 Estimation of Consolidation Using the Finite Strain Technique.
L.2.1 Laboratory test data. Consolidation of dredged material due to self weight must be
estimated using results from appropriate laboratory tests. The following procedure for hand
computation uses standard consolidation (oedometer) laboratory test data. Procedures for these
tests are described in Appendix J, Dredged Material Consolidation Test Procedures. The
laboratory tests yield a relationship between void ratio and effective stress as shown in Figure
L-1. An exponential form for the relationship should be determined by curve fitting techniques.
The fit should be of the form
=
e (eoo e )exp() + e

(L-1)

where e oo is void ratio at zero effective stress and e is the void ratio at infinite effective stress.
Such a curve is also shown in Figure L-1, where , e oo , and e were chosen to give the best
apparent fit to the test data.
L.2.2 Determination of layer thicknesses. The void ratio at the end of the sedimentation
phase as well as initial thickness of the deposited layer will be determined from column settling
tests as described in Appendix H, Column Settling Test Procedures. The layer thickness in
reduced coordinates for each deposited layer should be calculated as follows:
=

h
(1 + eoo )

(L-2)

where h is the layer thickness as deposited, and e oo is the initial void ratio since the effective
stress is assumed initially zero throughout the layer. In a normally consolidated layer or layer
having any other than uniform void ratio distribution, can be calculated to sufficient accuracy
by dividing the layer into a number, m, of sublayers and using

i i
=

i
i 1 + ei

(L-3)

= 1= 1

where h i is the sublayer height, and e i is the average void ratio in the sublayer. The sublayer void
ratio is obtained from the e - log curve for the material by considering the effective weight of

L-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
all material and surcharge above the center of the sublayer or by direct measurement of the
saturated water content of the sublayer.

Figure L-1. Exponential Void Ratio-Effective Stress Relationship

Compared to Oedometer Data, 0-12.0 tons/ft2
L.2.3 Calculation of ultimate settlement.
a. The ultimate settlement of a consolidating fine-grained layer is defined as that which has
occurred after all excess pore pressures have dissipated. Within the layer, the material assumes a
void ratio distribution due to the buoyant weight of material above plus any surcharge, and this
void ratio is related to the effective stress by the materials e-log- curve as determined by
laboratory testing. Therefore, initial and final void ratio distributions are known or can be
calculated.

L-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Ultimate settlement is calculated by dividing the total layer into a number, m, of sublayers
such that
()=

i,= (ei,o ei, ) i

(L-4)

=i 1 =i 1

where is the settlement, i is defined in Equation L-3, and e i,o and e i, are the average initial
and final void ratios of each sublayer, respectively. The ultimate average effective stress is then
calculated for each sublayer by

=
i

effective weight
1

i ( s w ) + of allsublayers + (surcharge)
2

above it

(L-5)

where the effective weight of each sublayer is i ( s - w ). Then, using this average effective
stress, an average void ratio is picked from the oedometer test data and substituted into
Equation L-4.
L.2.4 Calculation of settlement versus time.
a. The coefficient of consolidation for finite strain, g, should be determined from a plot such
as shown in Figure L-2 for the void ratio corresponding to an average effective stress during the
consolidation process if the coefficient is relatively constant over the range of expected void
ratios. If there is substantial variation in the coefficient of consolidation over the expected range
of void ratios, the coefficient can be periodically updated during the calculation to conform to the
average void ratio in the layer at the time consolidation is calculated.
b. Calculate nondimensional time factor for the real time in question as follows:
T fs =

gt
2

(L-6)

c. Calculate the dimensionless parameter N as follows:

N = ( s w )

(L-7)

d. Read the percent consolidation, U, from Figures L-3 through L-6, depending on the value
of N and both initial conditions and boundary conditions for the calculated time factor.

L-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-2. Typical Permeability and Coefficients of Consolidation as a Function of

Void Ratio

Figure L-3. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Normally
Consolidated, Singly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory

L-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-4. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Normally
Consolidated, Doubly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory

Figure L-5. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Dredged Fill,
Singly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory

L-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-6. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Dredged Fill,
Doubly Drained Layers by Linear Finite Strain Theory
e. With the percent consolidation known, settlement is then at the real time t chosen in
calculating T fs .
(T fs ) = U (T fs )

(L-8)

f. An example of this procedure for a single dredged fill layer deposited on a compressible
foundation is solved in Equation L-4 by both a small strain and linear finite strain formulation. In
the example, an updated coefficient of consolidation and layer height are used in calculating the
dimensionless time factor.
L.3 Empirical Estimate of Settlement due to Desiccation.
L.3.1 Determination of void ratio at saturation and desiccation limits.
a. The void ratio at the saturation limit, e SL , can be determined empirically as follows:
eSL =

1.8 LL Gs
100

(L-9)

L-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
where
e SL = void ratio at saturation limit
LL = Atterberg liquid limit of dredged material in percent
Gs = specific gravity at the dredged material
b. The void ratio at the desiccation limit can be determined empirically as:
eDL =

1.2 PL Gs
100

(L-10)

where
e DL = void ratio of desiccation limit
PL = Atterberg plastic limit of dredged material in percent
L.3.2 Calculation of desiccation depths.
c. As long as the material remains saturated and the free water table is at the surface, the
effects of evaporative drying cannot extend deeper than the intersection of the ordinate denoting
e SL and the ultimate void ratio distribution curve (Figure L-7). Thus, the maximum depth to
which first-stage drying can occur is
h1st =
( zSL ) (1 + eSL )

(L-11)

where
h 1st = maximum depth of first-stage drying
z SL = material coordinate at intersection of e SL and ultimate void ratio distribution curve
While void ratios lower than e SL may exist in the dredged material below z SL , they are due to
self-weight consolidation and not surface desiccation during first-stage drying.

L-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-7. Maximum Depth of Material Desiccated by First-Stage Drying

d. The absolute maximum depth to which second-stage drying can occur is the water table
depth (which sometimes can be measured in the field) or the intersection of the ordinate denoting
e DL with the ultimate void ratio distribution curve that is based on the surcharge induced (Figure
L-8). In equation form
h2 nd =
( z DL ) (1 + eDL )

(L-12)

where
h 2nd = maximum depth of second-stage drying
z DL = material coordinate at intersection of e DL and ultimate void ratio distribution curve
Again it can be seen that void ratios lower than e DL may exist below z DL due to consolidation
effects. It is also important to note that h 1st can be larger than h 2nd due to the low void ratio of a
completely desiccated dredged material. A field indicator of the depth to which second-stage
drying can be effective is the depth of cracks in the dredged material. Of course, cracks subjected
to periodic rainfall are probably shallower than they would be under constant evaporative
conditions.

L-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-8. Maximum Depth of Material Desiccated by Second-Stage Drying

e. The preceding two equations form a rational basis for estimating the depths of crust
formation in dredged material under first- and second-stage drying. They should be applicable
whenever sufficient dredged material is present to provide an intersection between the ultimate
void ratio distribution and the appropriate limiting void ratio, and there is no external influence
limiting the water table depth. If insufficient material is present, the entire dredged fill layer may
be subjected to first- and second-stage drying processes in turn. If the water table depth is
limited, the second-stage drying depth will be similarly limited. Again, the practical maximum
depth of second-stage drying is best estimated from the maximum depth of desiccation cracks.
f. The maximum depth of first-stage drying as expressed in Equation L-11 should be a
realistic measure for most fine-grained soils whose e SL intersects the consolidated void ratio
curve above the material coordinate defining the soils maximum field crust thickness. For those
soils with an e SL so low that z SL is greater than z DL when based on the preceding considerations,
the z SL should be limited to no greater than z DL .

L-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
L.3.3 Evaporation efficiencies. The expression for defining the drying rate during secondstage evaporation is simply a linear function of the water table depth:
h
CE =
CE 1 wt for hwt h2 nd
H 2 nd

(L-13)

where
C E = evaporation efficiency

CE = maximum evaporation efficiency for soil type

hwt = depth of water table below surface
h 2nd = maximum depth of second-stage drying
L.3.4 Water loss and desiccation settlement.
a. The water lost from a dredged material layer during first-stage drying can be written
W = CS CE EP + (1 CD ) RF

(L-14)

where
W = water lost during first-stage drying
CS = water supplied from lower consolidating material
EP = pan evaporation rate
C D = drainage efficiency
RF = rainfall
Even though some minor cracks may appear in the surface during this stage, the material will
remain saturated, and vertical settlement is expected to correspond with water loss or
D =
W

(L-15)

where D = settlement due to second-stage drying.

L-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Water lost during second-stage drying can be written
W = CS CE

hwt
EP + (1 CD ) RF
h2 nd

(L-16)

where
W = water lost during second-stage drying.
c. Two things prevent an exact correspondence between water loss and settlement during
second-stage drying. First is the appearance of an extensive network of cracks that may
encompass up to 20% of the volume of the dried layer. Second is the probable loss of saturation
within the dried material itself. Combining these two occurrences into one factor enables the
vertical settlement to be written
D =W 1

PS
hwt
100

(L-17)

where
D = settlement due to second-stage drying

PS = gross percent saturation of dried crust that includes cracks

In determining the second-stage drying settlement, there are three unknowns and only two
equations. Therefore, hand calculation involves an iterative procedure.
d. The empirical approach as outlined and interaction of consolidation and desiccation are
incorporated in the computer solutions described in Appendix F, Automated Dredging and
Disposal Alternatives Modeling System (ADDAMS). Use of the computer solutions is
recommended for evaluation of the long-term storage capacity of confined disposal areas.
L.4 Example Consolidation Calculations.
L.4.1 Problem statement. It is required to determine the time rate of surface settlement of a
10.0-foot-thick, fine-grained dredged fill material having a uniform initial void ratio after
sedimentation of 7.0. The layer will be deposited on a normally consolidated compressible
foundation 10.0 ft thick that overlies an impermeable bedrock. Laboratory oedometer testing of
the dredged material resulted in the -e relationship shown in Figure L-1 and k(e), c v (e), and g(e)
relationships as shown in Figure L-10. Laboratory oedometer testing of the foundation material
resulted in the relationships shown in Figures L-9 and L-10. Laboratory testing also revealed
specific gravity of solids Gs = 2.75 in the dredged material and Gs = 2.65 in the foundation
material.

L-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-9. Relationship Between Void Ratio and Effective Stress, e-log- Curve, for
Compressible Foundation for Eedometer Testing

Figure L-10. Permeability and Coefficients of Consolidation as a Function of Void Ratio for
a Compressible Foundation

L-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
L.4.2 Void ratio distributions.
a. For the most accurate calculations, it is necessary to know the distribution of void ratios
throughout the consolidating layers both before consolidation begins and after it ends. As an aid
in this and later calculations, Table L-1 is set up where the layers are subdivided into ten
increments each. Entries in the table correspond to average conditions at the center of each
sublayer.
Table L-1. Void Ratio Distribution and Ultimate Settlement Calculations1
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10

h i,o , ft
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
= 10

i , ft

0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
= 1.250

i,o , p/ft2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.0
0.259
13.3
1.0
0.275
40.9
1.0
0.286
69.7
1.0
0.293
99.5
1.0
0.299
130.0
1.0
0.305
161.1
1.0
0.308
192.6
1.0
0.312
224.6
1.0
0.314
256.8
1.0
0.317
289.2
= 10
= 2.968
1 Symbols are defined in the main text.

e i,o
Dredged Fill
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Foundation
2.86
2.64
2.50
2.41
2.35
2.28
2.25
2.21
2.18
2.15

i,4 , p/ft2

e i,

h i, , ft

i, , ft

6.8
20.5
34.1
47.8
61.4
75.1
102.4
116.0
129.7

6.52
5.93
5.57
5.34
5.14
4.98
4.75
4.65
4.57

0.94
0.87
0.82
0.79
0.77
0.75
0.72
0.71
0.70
= 7.80

0.06
0.13
0.18
0.21
0.23
0.25
0.28
0.29
0.30
= 2.20

149.8
177.4
206.2
236.0
266.5
297.6
329.1
361.1
393.3
425.7

2.31
2.26
2.23
2.20
2.17
2.14
2.11
2.09
2.07
2.05

0.86
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.90
= 9.38

0.14
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
= 0.61

b. Completion of the table is a straightforward exercise for the dredged fill layer. The
column for e i,o is given in the problem statement and the initial effective stress i,o will always
be zero by definition. The sublayer depth in reduced coordinates is calculated directly from
Equation L-2.
=
i

hi ,o
1.0
=
= 0.125 ft
1 + ei ,o 1 + 7.0

L-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
The ultimate effective stress i, column is computed from Equation L-5.
Thus

=
1,

1
0.125
1 ( s =
w )
= 6.8 lb/ft 2
(2.75 1.0) 62.4
2
2

2,
=

1
2 ( s w ) + 1 ( s =
w ) 20.5 lb/ft 2
2

and

The final void ratio ei, is read from the laboratory oedometer test curve. The usual e-log-
curve is more accurate for this purpose than the curve given in Figure L-3. The final sublayer
height hi, is also calculated by substitution into Equation L-3:
h1, = 1 (1 + e1, ) = 0.125 (1 + 6.52) = 0.94 ft

c. Completion of the table for the compressible foundation layer is not quite as simple since
the initial void ratio is not usually known. However, it can be calculated given its e-log- curve
in the normally consolidated state as shown in Figure L-9. An iterative process is required. First
assume an initial void ratio for the first layer, e 1,o . Based on this void ratio, calculate from
Equation L-2. Thus, assuming e 1,o = 3.0
i
=

h1
1.0
=
= 0.250 ft
1 + e1,o 1 + 3.0

Using this value of 1 , 1, o is calculated from Equation L-5 as

o

=
1,

1
0.250
1 ( s =
w )
= 12.9 lb/ft 2
(2.65 1.0) 62.4
2
2

Based on this value of 1, o , a new estimate of e 1,o is made from Figure L-9 and the process is
repeated until no further iterations are required. (Usually three iterations are required for an
accuracy 0.01 in the void ratio.) Using the total effective weight of the first layer, a first
estimate of the void ratio in the second layer is made from Figure L-1 and its true average void
ratio is determined as was done with the first sublayer. The first estimate of each following
sublayer is based on the effective weight of those above it.

L-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. Once the initial void ratios and effective stresses have been determined throughout the
compressible foundation, the final void ratios and effective stresses are easily found. The final
is its initial value plus the effective weight of the dredged fill layer. Thus if
effective stress 1,
d.f. ( s =
dredged =
136.5 lb/ft 2
w)
fill
then
i , =
i ,o + 136.5

for the foundation. The final sublayer void ratio can then be read from the e-log- curve, and the
final sublayer height hi, can be calculated from Equation L-3.
L.4.3 Ultimate settlement. Ultimate settlements for the compressible layers are calculated
directly from Equation L-4 or from the difference in the sum of the sublayer heights initially and
finally. As shown in Table L-1, for the dredged fill, = 2.20 ft, and for the foundation, , =
0.61 ft. The fact that ultimate settlement plus total sublayer final heights in the foundation does
not equal the initial total sublayer heights is due to round-off errors in the calculations.
L.4.4 Settlement as a function of time.
a. A prerequisite to determining settlement as a function of time is the selection of an appropriate coefficient of consolidation during the course of consolidation, and in the case of linear
finite strain theory, appropriate values for and N.
b. For the dredged fill layer, a look at Table L-1 shows the void ratio will vary between the
extremes 7.00 to 4.57. Figure L-2 is used to determine the appropriate coefficient of consolidation for the average void ratio during consolidation. For the foundation, where the void ratio
extremes are 2.86 to 2.05, Figure L-10 is used.
c. The value of must be determined by approximating the laboratory-determined curve
with one of the forms of Equation L-1. Figure L-11a shows that an appropriate value for the
dredged fill is
=0.026

ft 3
lb

and Figure L-11b shows that an appropriate value for the foundation is
ft 3
=0.009
lb

L-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-11. Exponential Void Ratio-Effective Stress Relationship Fitted to Oedometer Data

L-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
These curves were fitted in the range of expected void ratios only and should not be used in
computations outside those ranges.
d. All that remains is to calculate the dimensionless time factor from Equation L-6
where H = 10.0 ft initially for both layers with appropriate constants. By small strain theory,
Figure L-12 is used to determine percent consolidation. Curve Type I is used for the foundation
and Type III for the dredged fill. By linear finite strain theory, Figure L-3 is used for the
foundation and Figure L-5 for the dredged fill. The calculations are organized in Table L-2, and
the results are plotted in Figures L-13 and L-14.

Figure L-12. Degree of Consolidation as a Function of the Time Factor for Various Initial
Conditions by Small Strain Theory

L-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Table L-2. Percent Consolidation and Settlement Calculations
Linear Finite Strain
Theory

Small Strain Theory

t, days

H , ft

c v , ft2/day

e
U, % , ft
Dredged Fill

500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500

6.8
6.5
6.3
6.1
5.9
5.8
5.7

9.75
9.38
9.13
8.88
8.63
8.50
8.38

1.25 10-2
1.20 10-2
1.17 10-2
1.15 10-2
1.14 10-2
1.13 10-2
1.13 10-2

0.066
0.136
0.211
0.292
0.383
0.469

14
26
39
50
60
68

0.31
0.57
0.86
1.10
1.32
1.50

4,000
4,500
5,000

5.6
5.5
5.4

8.25
8.13
8.00

1.13 10-2
1.13 10-2
1.14 10-2

0.56
0.66
0.77
0.89

74
80
85
89

1.63
1.76
1.87
1.96

9.79
9.79
9.65
9.65
0.65
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50
9.50

10-2

H , ft

g, ft2/day

6.4
5.9
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.3

9.25
8.63
8.13
7.87
7.87
7.87

2.16 10-4
2.41 10-4
2.73 10-4
2.96 10-4
2.96 10-4
2.96 10-4

0.069
0.154
0.262
0.379
0.474
0.57

5.3

7.87

2.25
2.20
2.20
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15

9.65
9.50
9.50
9.35
9.35
9.35
9.35
9.35

U, % , ft
33
64
85
94
97
99

0.73
1.41
1.87
2.07
2.13
2.18

2.96 10-4 0.66

100
100
100
100

2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20

1.19 10-3
1.30 10-3
1.30 10-3
1.45 10-3
1.45 10-3
1.45 10-3
1.45 10-3
1.45 10-3

62
78
87
93
96
98
99
100
100
100

0.38
0.48
0.53
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.61

Foundation
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000

2.30
2.30
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20

1.15
1.15 10-2
1.24 10-2
1.24 10-2
1.24 10-2
1.32 10-2
1.32 10-2
1.32 10-2
1.32 10-2
1.32 10-2

0.060
0.120
0.200
0.266
0.333
0.439
0.51
0.59
0.66
0.73

28
40
51
58
65
73
77
81
84
87

0.17
0.24
0.31
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.47
0.49
0.51
0.53

Note: Dredged material: = 2.20 ft; N = 3.55; Foundation: = 0.61 ft; N = 2.75

L-18

0.068
0.148
0.221
0.329
0.412
0.494
0.58
0.66

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-13. Comparison of Consolidation Percentages in the Dredged Fill Layer as a Function
of Time

L-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure L-14. Comparison of Settlement Predictions by Small Strain and Linear Finite Strain Theories

L-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX M
Procedures and Example Calculations for Design of a Chemical Clarification System
M.1 Design Procedures.
M.1.1 Polymer feed system.
M.1.1.1 This design assumes that a low- to medium-viscosity liquid polymer is being used
to minimize handling, pumping, and dilution problems. In most cases, the simplest system
(shown in Figure M-1) is adequate. Polymer manufacturers should be able to inform the designer
if this system is adequate. The experiments on polymer feed concentrations and aging should
also indicate its adequacy. If the viscosity of the polymer is high or if low polymer feed concentrations are needed, systems like those shown in Figures M-2 and M-3 should be used. If the
polymer requires aging prior to being fed, the two-tank system should be used. These systems
are suitable for all but the smallest projects. Polymers requiring predilution should be avoided in
systems like those in Figures M-2 and M-3 because they increase the equipment and operating
labor requirements.
M.1.1.2 The polymer can be stored at the site in the delivery containers, either 55-gal drums
or bulk shipping tanks. The polymer can be fed directly from these containers or transferred to a
polymer feed tank. Provisions should be made to guard against freezing. The feed tank may need
to be heated or stored in a heated shelter to lower the viscosity and facilitate pumping on cold
days. The size of the feed tanks and storage facilities is project dependent.

Figure M-1. Schematic of a Simple Liquid Polymer Feed System

M-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure M-2. Schematic of a Single-Tank Liquid Polymer Feed System

Figure M-3. Schematic of a Two-Tank Liquid Polymer Feed System

M-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.1.1.3 The volume of polymer required for the project is calculated as follows:
total volume of inflow, L = (volume to be dredged, yd 3 )
(in situ sediment conc., g/L)
764.4 L/yd 3

(M-1)

(dredged material slurry conc., g/L)

total volume of settled material, L = (total volume of inflow, L)

(influent slurry conc., g/L)

(M-2)

(conc. of settled material, g/L)

If the concentration of settled material is unknown, it is generally conservative to let

total volume of settled material, L = 2 (volume to be dredged, yd 3 )
764.4 L/yd 3

(M-3)

Then,
total volume to be treated, L = (total volume of inflow, L)
(total volume of settled material, L)

(M-4)

total volume of polymer required, gal = (required dosage, mg/L)

(total volume to be treated, L)
(specific weight of polymer, kg/L)

(M-5)

106 mg/kg 3.785 L/gal

total poundage of polymer, lb = (total volume of polymer, gal)
3.785 L/gal
(specific weight of polymer, kg/L)

(M-6)

2.205 lb/kg

M.1.1.4 Concentrated polymer solutions should be fed using a positive displacement pump.
The pump speed should be regulated by either a manual or automatic controller, and the pump
should be capable of discharging a wide range of flows to handle the possible range of required
polymer dosages and flow rates of water to be treated. The pump capacity should be at least
twice the maximum anticipated polymer feed rate or four times the average feed rate. The
minimum pumping rate must be less than 10% of the average anticipated polymer feed rate to
handle low flow conditions. The average polymer feed rate is

M-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
avg. feed rate, mL/sec = (avg. flow rate, ft 2 /sec)
(avg. required dosage, mg/L) 28.31 L/ft 3

(4-30)

(specific weight of polymer, g/mL)

1, 000 mg/g

The polymer pump flow capabilities should range from about

pump range, mL/sec = (0.1 to 4) (avg. feed rate, mL/sec)

(M-7)

Two polymer pumps operated in parallel may be required to provide the desired range of feed
rates.
M.1.1.5 If the polymer requires a tank for predilution, as in Figures M-2 and M-3, it should
be diluted by a factor of 10 or 20 in the tank. The polymer feed rate would then increase by this
same factor.
M.1.1.6 The polymer feed tanks and dilution tanks should be large enough to feed polymer
for 1-2 days under average conditions. The average daily concentrated polymer feed volume is
daily volume, gal/day = (avg. feed rate, mL/sec) 86,400 sec/day 3,785 mL/gal (M-8)
M.1.1.7 The polymer must be diluted to aid feeding and dispersion. The amount of dilution
required can be determined from the manufacturer or experimentally. As a practical limitation,
the dilution factor should not exceed 200 under average conditions due to excessive requirements
for water at higher dilutions.
M.1.1.8 Supernatant from the containment area, preferably treated supernatant from the
secondary cell, can be used for dilution water. However, if the polymer is to be prediluted in a
tank, water of good quality should be used to minimize deposition of material in the tank and to
maintain the effectiveness of the polymer. The dilution water can be collected from a screened
intake suspended near the surface at a place free of debris, resuspended material, and settled
material.
M.1.1.9 The dilution water may be pumped by any water pump. The pump capacity should
be about 200 times the average polymer feed rate of concentrated polymer. A controller is not
needed to regulate the dilution water flow rate since maximizing the dilution aids in dispersion.
The polymer and dilution water may be mixed in-line using a mixing eductor.
M.1.1.10 Any injection system can be used as long as it distributes the polymer uniformly
throughout the water to be treated. It may consist of a single nozzle or a perforated diffuser pipe
running along the weir crest. The system should be as maintenance-free as possible. Fine spray
nozzles should be avoided because suspended material from the dilution water may clog them.

M-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.1.1.11 The feed lines may be constructed of rubber hoses or PVC pipe. They must be
designed to carry the design flows of the viscous polymer solution at low temperatures. Provisions must be made to prevent freezing, particularly when the system is not operating.
M.1.2 Mixing system. The weir box and discharge culvert(s) should, if possible, be designed
to provide adequate mixing. A 2-ft drop between the water surface of the first basin and the
second basin is sufficient energy for mixing if efficiently used. Mechanical mixers should be
considered if sufficient energy is unavailable. The design of mechanical mixing systems has been
presented in Jones, Williams, and Moore (1978) and, therefore, is not be duplicated here.
M.1.2.1 Weir. The weir should be designed to collect supernatant from the primary
containment area and to disperse the polymer thoroughly. The weir box does not provide efficient mixing, and, therefore, it is undesirable to lose all the energy of the water by a free fall into
the weir box. The system should provide a small drop into the weir box and high head loss
through the discharge culvert(s) between the primary and secondary containment areas.
a. The weir box should be designed to prevent leakage; the bottom of the box should be
sealed. To minimize leakage, only one section of the box needs to be adjustable to the bottom of
the box. Weir boards with tongue and groove joints also decrease leakage. The weir box should
be submergible without the weir boards floating from their positions, and all sections of the weir
should be level and at the same elevation. An example is shown in Figure M-4.

Figure M-4. Frontal View of a Weir

M-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. The height of the weir crest should be adjustable, so the flow can be stopped when it is
too low to treat or so it can be maintained in order to keep treating it when the dredge has
stopped. The depth of flow over the weir must be controlled by increments of 1-2 in. to maintain
a fairly constant flow rate. The weir must also be able to stop the flow when the treatment system
is down for maintenance or repair. The simplest mode of operation is to stop the flow over the
weir by adding weir boards when the flow rate is low and then to remove the added weir boards
and resume operation after the elevation of the water surface returns to its height at average flow.
M.1.2.2 Discharge culvert. Discharge culverts must be designed to provide the required
mixing and to discharge the design flow rate safely. The design procedure presented here determines the length, diameter, and number of culverts that maximize mixing within the constraints
of most projects. Frictional head loss provides the mixing and increases with increasing culvert
length and decreasing diameter. Multiple culverts increase the duration of mixing but decrease its
intensity. Static mixers may be used in-line to increase the head loss of a culvert without
increasing its length or decreasing its diameter. The use and design of static mixers is not
discussed here, but information on their use is available from their manufacturers.
a. The design approach is to size culverts for the maximum flow rate and the minimum
available head and then to calculate the available mixing under average flow conditions. The
maximum flow rate is assumed to be the average dredge flow rate with continuous, 24-hr/day
production. The designer should also consider other possible sources of inflow. The average flow
at the weir is assumed to be the product of average dredge flow rate and fractional production
time ratio (generally about 0.75 or 18 hr/day). In this manner, culverts will be able to discharge
the design flow safely. It is important to estimate the flow rates fairly accurately in order to
properly size culverts. Undersizing can result in overtopping the dikes or in forcing the dredge to
operate intermittently, and oversizing can result in inadequate mixing. The amount of mixing can
be compared with the mixing requirements determined experimentally to evaluate the design. If
the amount of mixing is inadequate, the designer may want to change the containment area
design to provide a greater head for mixing. The required head can be determined using the
design equations.
b. The design procedure is as follows (Figure M-5 presents an example weir mixing
system). Assume that the maximum flow rate is the average dredge flow rate with continuous
production, 24 hr/day. Also assume a 0.5-ft drop into the weir box under maximum flow. Then
determine the difference in elevation (h), in feet, between the water surface of the basins at
their highest operating levels from the design. Let H, in feet, = h - 0.5 where H is the maximum
permissible head loss through the culvert at maximum flow. Assuming a submerged inlet and
outlet and a corrugated metal culvert (though less head loss and better mixing for low flows
would be realized if the outlet were not submerged), then

Lf v 2

=
H 1.5 +

D 2g

(M-9)

M-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
where
f = friction factor
D = culvert diameter, ft
Select the range of culvert lengths from containment area layouts.

185(0.025) 2 L 8Q 2
=
H 1.5 +
2 2 4
D4 / 3

g Nc D

(M-10)

where
Q = maximum flow rate, ft3/sec
N c = number of parallel culverts
Rearranging the above equation gives

8Q 2 1.5 D 4 / 3 + 185(0.025) 2 L
D=

g 2 HN 2

3 /16

(M-11)

This equation converges to the minimum diameter in three or four iterations by using 2 ft for the
initial D and then substituting the calculated D for the next iteration. Solve the above equation
using the minimum and maximum culvert length based on the containment area layout for up to
five culverts. For each number of culverts, choose the largest commercially available diameter
between the calculated diameters for the minimum and maximum culvert lengths. If there are not
any commercial sizes between these diameters, select the next larger commercial size and the
maximum length. Calculate the culvert length for the selected commercial sizes.

g 2 HN 2 D 4

D4 / 3
=
L

1.5

2
2
8Q

185(0.025)

(M-12)

Calculate v and f for the selected sizes at average flow.

=
v 4Q / D 2
(M-13)
f =

185(0.025) 2
D1/ 3

M-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
where
v = mean velocity at average flow, ft/sec

Q = average flow rate, ft3/sec

f = friction factor
Calculate the mixing Gt of each design at average flow.
Gt =

s f vL2
2G s D

(M-14)

where
Gt = mixing effort
s = specific weight, 62.4 lb/ft3
s = absolute viscosity, 2.36 10-5 lb/sec/ft2
Calculate the head loss at average flow and the maximum carrying capacity of the culvert at a
head of Dh to determine the limits of the design. Select the best overall design based on mixing,
cost, operating flexibility, and so on.

Figure M-5. Example Weir Mixing System

M-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.1.3 Secondary containment area.
M.1.3.1 Design approach. The secondary area must be designed to provide adequate
residence time for good settling and sufficient volume for storage of settled material. The total
volume of the cell is the sum of the ponded volume and storage volume. The required ponded
volume is a function of the hydraulic efficiency of the cell and the flow rate. The storage volume
depends on the solids concentration entering the basin, the depth of the cell, the total volume to
be treated, the flow rate, and the mud pumping schedule.
M.1.3.2 Ponded volume. Effective settling requires a ponded depth of 2-3 ft and a minimum
of 20 min of detention. Due to short-circuiting, the mean residence time should be at least 60 min
and the theoretical residence time of the ponded volume should be at least 150 min. The shape of
the cell should have a length-to-width ratio of at least 3:1 to reduce short-circuiting.
M.1.3.3 Storage volume. The settling properties of flocculated dredged material resulting
from chemical clarifications have not been well defined. Solids concentration or density profiles
have been measured at only one field site. The settled material was very fluid and, as such, did
not clog the inlet culvert, even though settled material accumulated near the inlet to a depth 1 ft
higher than the top of the culvert. The kinetic energy of the inflow was capable of keeping the
inlet clear of material. Resuspended material settled rapidly in the basin. The concentration of
settled material at the interface between the supernatant and settled layer was 50 g/L, and the
concentration increased with increasing depth at a rate of 25 g/L/ft. Therefore, deeper basins
stored more material in a given volume due to compaction. The concentration of the material
increased rapidly upon dewatering.
M.1.3.4 Storage requirements estimation. Knowing the average available depth of the
secondary basin, the total storage requirements can be estimated as follows:
a. The total mass of material to be stored or pumped from the secondary area (M) is

M, g = (primary effluent conc. secondary effluent conc., g/L)

(volume to be treated, L)

(M-15)

b. The average concentration of settled material (C s ) is

Cs , g/L = [2 50 g/L + 25 g/L ft

(average depth of storage, ft)] 2

(M-16)

c. Total volume of settled treated material (V s ) is

Vs , L = ( M, g ) (Cs , g/L)

(M-17)

Vs , ft 3 = (Vs , L) 28.32 L/ft 3

M-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
d. The maximum area required (A s ) is

As , acre = (Vs , ft 3 )
(average depth of storage, ft)
2

43,560 ft /acre

(M-17b)

(4 42)

M.1.3.5 Ponded area. The required area and volume for ponding (A p and V p , respectively) is
A p = V p (average depth of ponding, ft)

(M-18)

V p = (average flow rate, ft2/sec) 9,000 sec

(M-19)

M.1.3.6 Design area. The containment area should be designed to have a total depth of the
sum of the ponded depth and the depth of storage. The area of the cell should be the larger of the
areas required for ponding and for storage. If the area required for storage is greater than the area
required for ponding, the depth of ponding can be reduced to a minimum depth of 2-3 ft, thereby
increasing the available depth of storage. If the area for storage is still greater, the only way to
reduce the area requirements further would be to decrease the required storage volume by
transferring settled treated material from the basin to the primary containment area. In the overall
basin design, it is important to use the greatest practical depth and to optimize its use to provide
good mixing through the discharge culvert, ponding for good settling, and storage for treated
material. To minimize the size of the secondary area and to maximize the energy available for
mixing, the secondary area should be used only for temporary storage, except for small one-time
projects. Therefore, the settled treated material should be regularly removed from the basin. This
approach would also facilitate dewatering and recurring use of the area for chemical treatment.
M.1.3.7 Mud pumping. If the settled material is to be pumped, the required pumping rate
would be

mass pumping rate, g/day = (influent conc., g/L - effluent conc., g/L)
(average flow rate, ft 2 /sec) 28.31 L/ft 3

(M-20)

(seconds of production per day)

volumetric pumping rate, ft 3 /day = (mass pumping rate, g/day)
[2 50 g/L + 25 g/L - ft

(M-21)

(average depth of storage, ft)] 2

M.1.3.8 Inlet baffles. The inlet hydraulics of the secondary area can have a significant effect
on settling performance. Inlet baffles can reduce the effects of short-circuiting and turbulent flow
and assist in distributing the flow laterally. The baffles should be placed about one culvert
diameter directly in front of the inlet. The baffle should be at least two diameters wide and may
be either slotted or solid. Slotted baffles are better and may be made of 4 in. x 4-in. wooden posts

M-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
spaced several inches apart. The main purpose of the inlet baffles is to dissipate the kinetic
energy of the incoming water and reduce the velocity of the flow toward the weir.
M.1.3.9 Effect on dewatering. Design of the secondary area must consider dewatering of the
primary area. If the primary area is to be dewatered using the primary weir box to drain the
water, the elevation of the surface of the water or stored material in the secondary area must be
lower than the final elevation of the stored material to be attained during dewatering. The elevation difference should be at least 2 ft if the drainage is to be treated. The point is demonstrated in
Figure M-6.
M.1.3.10 Alternatives. There are several alternatives that can be used to provide for
dewatering:
a. The secondary area can be constructed at a lower elevation.
b. The settled, treated material stored in the secondary area can be dewatered and thereby
consolidated first.
c. The material can be pumped out of the secondary area.
d. The water can be pumped out of the primary area.
e. A special drainage structure can be constructed to drain the primary cell.
f. A channel can be cut through the settled material in the secondary area to permit drainage
through the basin. The best approach depends on site- and project-specific considerations. The
effect of treatment on dewatering of the primary area is just one example showing that the
designer should consider the entire placement operation when designing the treatment system.
Treatment should not be added to a placement operation as an afterthought.
M.1.4 General design considerations.
M.1.4.1 Shelter. A building should be provided to house the equipment and to furnish
shelter for the operators. An 8-ft x 12-ft portable building is sufficient unless the polymer storage
tank and dilution tanks must be housed.
M.1.4.2 Equipment. The equipment should be simple, rugged, heavy-duty, continuous-duty,
and low-maintenance. Backup equipment must be provided for all essential components.
M.1.4.3 Safety. Good lighting must be provided for the entire work area. The weir must be
furnished with a walkway and railings. Provisions should be made for safe, simple adjustments
of the weir boarding.

M-11

Figure M-6. Example Elevations in Containment Areas During the Dewatering Sequence

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

M-12

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.1.5 Operating guidelines. Prior to the start of the project, an operators manual and
treatment log book should be prepared to minimize problems during the operation of the treatment system. The operators manual should contain the maintenance schedule, procedures for
operating each piece of equipment and the weir, and the procedures for adjusting the polymer
dosage. The treatment log book should be used to keep a complete record of the treatment operation. The record should include hours of operation, flow rate, polymer dosage, influent and effluent turbidity, basin depths, depth of settled treated material, maintenance actions, problems, and
significant observations.
M.1.5.1 Maintenance schedule. The maintenance schedule and operating procedures for the
equipment are dependent on the equipment selection and should be developed specifically for the
selected pieces. To set the polymer dosage, it is first necessary to calibrate the polymer pump.
The polymer flow rate should be measured for the range of controller settings. Next, based on the
laboratory results, a table should be prepared that gives the required dosage as a function of
influent turbidity. Then, a table of controller settings should be prepared for a variety of dosages
and flow rates. At low flow rates, there is less mixing, and the polymer is less effective.
Therefore, higher dosages are often required at low flow. If a relationship between mixing and
the required dosage was developed in the laboratory, that relationship should be converted to
relate the flow rate and the dosage so the operator can readily adjust the dosage. The required
dosages must be verified during the start of operation, and the values in the tables must be
adjusted accordingly. After verification of the dosages, the operator has only to measure the
influent turbidity and flow rate to determine the controller setting for the polymer pump.
M.1.5.2 Field dosage verification. During verification of the required dosages, the
effectiveness of a particular dosage can be evaluated immediately by grabbing a sample of
treated suspension from the end of the discharge culvert connecting the two containment areas
and running a column settling test on the sample. If the supernatant is clear after 10 min of
settling, the dosage should be decreased until the supernatant is slightly cloudy. Better
clarification is achieved in the settling basin, where the material can flocculate. This is especially
true when the system has been operating continuously for a long period. After a dosage is
selected, the effluent turbidity should be monitored to determine whether the dosage should be
adjusted further. The dosage should be minimized to reduce chemical costs, but the effluent
quality should not be allowed to deteriorate beyond the effluent requirements.
M.1.5.3 Flow measurement.
a. The flow rate can be estimated by measuring the weir length and the depth of water
flowing over the weir crest, as described in Chapter 4, Confined (Diked) Placement.
b. A table relating the depth of flow over the weir h and the flow rate Q should be generated
and included in the operators manual. The weir length should be measured, not taken from
design drawings, to ensure accuracy. Using this table, the operator can easily estimate the flow
rate by measuring the depth of flow without performing any difficult computations or requiring
additional information. The operator should measure the depths at several locations along the
weir crest and average the resulting flow rates to determine the overall flow rate. This method
minimizes the estimating errors caused by an unlevel or uneven weir crest.

M-13

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

c. The weir crest may become submerged at flow greater than 20% above the average. The
actual flow rate that submerges the weir is dependent on the weir length and culvert design. The
flow rate over submerged weirs is controlled by the discharge capacity of the culvert.
M.1.5.4 Weir operation.
a. The weir must be properly operated to maintain good mixing conditions. The weir crest
must be kept sufficiently high to maintain the required difference in elevation between the water
surfaces of the two containment areas. The weir should also be used to maintain the required
flow rate for good mixing. When the flow decreases below the minimum rate for good mixing,
the operator should either lower the weir crest by 1 or 2 in. to increase the flow to its average rate
or raise the weir crest sufficiently to stop the flow.
b. The minimum flow rate is based on the experimentally determined minimum acceptable
mixing (Gt) for effective treatment. The minimum flow can be determined as follows:
Qmin = Qavg

2
Gtmin
Gtavg

(M-22)

An example computation is provided below:

Given:

Average flow = 25 ft3/sec

Gt of average flow = 9,000
Minimum acceptable Gt = 6,000

The minimum allowable flow is

ft 3
=
Qmin 25
=
sec

6, 0002
ft 3
=
11.1
sec
9, 000

c. In general, the weir crest should be operated at the highest practical elevation, and the
primary containment area should be allowed to fill to this elevation before any water is discharged over the weir and treatment is started. This maximizes the depth and provides the best
conditions for mixing, settling, and storage. Maintaining the maximum ponded depth in the
primary area also minimizes the turbidity of the discharge to be treated and, therefore, reduces
the required polymer dosage.
M.1.5.5 Other considerations.
a. General operation. During the project, the primary and secondary effluent turbidities and
the flow rate should be measured at least six times per day, and the polymer flow rate should be
adjusted as needed. Each piece of equipment should be inspected regularly, particularly the water
intake, injection rig, and pumps. The fuel and chemical levels should also be checked as
M-14

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
required. Regular maintenance must be performed throughout the project. The buildup of settled
treated material should be followed, and the material should be pumped out of the basin as the
storage volume is depleted.
b. Leakage. The operator should try to eliminate leakage through the weir when the treatment system is turned off. The flow rate of the leakage is too low to treat, but after a couple of
days of downtime, the leakage can completely exchange the contents of the secondary area if left
unchecked. Since it is untreated, the effluent quality will deteriorate markedly.
c. Dewatering. At the end of the project, the treatment system can be used to treat the
drainage from the primary containment area during dewatering. The elevation of the interface of
the settled material in the primary area must be greater than the elevation of the water surface of
the secondary area. Therefore, the secondary area must be dewatered first to compact the settled
treated material and then to provide the depth required to treat the drainage at the lower weir
height. It is possible that treated material may need to be pumped from the secondary area before
the primary area can be dewatered through the weir.
M.2 Polymer Feed System Design Example. Given the following project information and
laboratory results, the design would proceed as follows:
M.2.1 Project information:
In situ sediment volume
In situ sediment concentration
Specific gravity of sediment
Dredged material slurry concentration
Dredge discharge pipe size
Production time
Average concentration of settled material
Mean daily temperature

200,000 yd3
900 g/L
2.68
150 g/L
14 in.
100 h/week
400 g/L
50 F

M.2.2 Laboratory results:

Selected polymer
Specific weight of polymer
Required dosage at average flow and turbidity
Polymer feed concentration

low viscosity liquid

1.0 kg/L
10 mg/L
20 g/L

M.2.3 Polymer requirements:

volume of inflow, L = 200,000 yd3 900 g/L 764.4 L/yd3 150 g/L
= 9.17 108 L

(M-23)

volume of settled material, L = 9.17 108 L 150 g/L 400 g/L

= 3.44 108 L

(M-24)

M-15

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
volume to be treated, L = 9.17 108 L - 3.44 108 L
= 5.733 108 L

(M-25)

volume of polymer required, gal = 10 mg/L 5.733 108 L

1.10 kg/L 106 mg/kg
3.785 L/gal = 1,380 gal

(M-26)

pounds of polymer required, lb = 1,380 gal 3.785 L/gal

1.10 kg/L 2.205 lb/kg
= 12,640 lb

(M-27)

M.2.4 Storage. Since less than 2,000 gal of polymer is required, drums should be used for
storage instead of a bulk tank. The drums may be stored outside since they are not expected to
freeze during the project. However, barrel warmers should be used to aid in transferring the
polymer to the feed tank due to the cool temperature. A hand pump or a small electric positive
displacement pump should be used for the transfer from storage.
M.2.5 Polymer pump. The feed system shown in Figure M-1 should be used since the
selected polymer is a liquid of low viscosity requiring a fiftyfold dilution. The average polymer
flow rate is
avg. dredge flow rate = 15 ft/sec p/4 (14 in. 12 in./ft)2 = 16.04 ft3/sec
avg. polymer flow rate = 16.04 ft/sec 10 mg/L 28.31 L/ft3
1.10 g/mL 1,000 mg/g = 4.13 mL/sec
= 0.065 gal/min or 94.2 gal/day
The polymer pump capacity should be about four times the average rate or 0.25 gal/min. The
pump should be capable of pumping as low a flow as 0.4 mL/sec or 0.0065 gal/min.
M.2.6 Polymer feed tank. The polymer feed tank should be sized to hold a 2-day supply of
polymer. The tank should be kept in a heated shelter with the pumping equipment.
tank volume = 94.2 gal/day 2 days (0.8, the production efficiency)
= 150 gal

M-16

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.2.7 Dilution water pump. To reduce the polymer feed concentration below 20 g/L, the
dilution factor must be 55. At average polymer flow rate, the required dilution water flow rate
would be 3.6 gal/min. The dilution water pump capacity should be twice this rate to dilute higher
polymer flow adequately. Therefore, the dilution water flow rate should be
dilution water pump rate = [(1.1 1,000 g/L) 20 g/L]
2 0.0654 gal/min = 7.20 gal/min
The pump must deliver this flow rate and produce high pressure (60 lb/in.2) to force the viscous
polymer solution through the eductor, feed lines, and injector.
M.2.8 Feed lines. The size of the feed lines should be determined by head loss analysis for
pipe flow. This subject is discussed in any fluid mechanics textbook or hydraulics handbook. The
pipe diameter is dependent on the viscosity, flow rate, length of line, minor losses, and losses
through the eductor and injector. One-inch inside diameter (ID) rubber hose or PVC pipe should
be used for this example. The head loss would be less than 30 lb/in.2.
M.3 Example Culvert Design. Given an 18-in.-diam dredge pipeline, a minimum head difference
of 3 ft between the primary and secondary cells, and a range of culvert lengths between 50 and
100 ft based on the containment area design, the culvert design would proceed as follows:
M.3.1 Q max = 15 ft/sec (18 in./12 in./ft)2 4
= 26.5 ft3/sec
Q ave = 26.5 ft3/sec (production ratio, 0.75)
= 19.9 ft3/sec
M.3.2 Dh = 3 ft
H = 3 ft - 0.5 ft = 2.5 ft

M-17

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.3.3 Using Equation M-11, the calculated minimum diameters for given lengths and
numbers of culverts are presented in the following tabulation.
L, ft
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100

N
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5

D, ft
2.23
2.44
1.67
1.85
1.42
1.57
1.26
1.41
1.15
1.29

D, in.
26.8
29.3
20.0
22.2
17.0
18.8
15.1
16.9
13.8
15.5

M.3.4 Using Equation M-12, the selected commercial sizes and calculated lengths are as
follows:
D, in.
27
21
18
18
15

N
1
2
3
4
5

L, ft
54.1
69.3
73.3
100.0
83.0

M.3.5 Using Equation M-13, the friction factor and velocity at average flow are as follows:
N
1
2
3
4
5

D, in.
27
21
18
18
15

v, ft/sec
5.00
4.14
3.75
2.82
3.24

ft
0.0882
0.0959
0.1010
0.1010
0.1073

M.3.6 Using Equation M-14, the mixing Gts at average flow are as follows:
N
1
2
3
4
5

D, in.
27
21
18
18
15

L, ft
54.1
69.3
73.3
100.0
83.0

G, sec-1
449
400
382
249
346

M-18

t, sec
10.8
16.7
19.5
35.5
25.6

Gt
4,855
6,690
7,470
8,830
8,870

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.3.7 Head loss at average flow is calculated to be
H = 1.41 ft
M.3.8 Flow through a completely submerged weir is calculated to be
Q = 29.0 ft3/sec
M.3.9 Generally, a Gt of about 8,000 provides adequate mixing for chemical treatment. In
this example, either three 18-in.-diam, 73-ft-long culverts; four 18-in.-diam, 100-ft-long culverts;
or five 15-in.-diam, 83-ft-long culverts could be used. However, four 18-in.-diam culverts would
be the best design since it would provide considerably more mixing than three culverts and about
the same mixing as five culverts. Also, this design would provide better mixing at lower flow
rates.
M.4 Design Example. Given the following project information, the settling basin size would be
determined as follows:
M.4.1 Project information.
Primary effluent solids concentration
Secondary effluent solids concentration
Volume to be treated (as determined in the polymer
feed system design)
Depth of basin
Average flow rate

2 g/L
50 mg/L
5 108 L
6 ft
16 ft3/sec

M.4.2 Volume of settled treated material (assuming a ponded depth of 3 ft).

From Equation M-15
mass of settled material = (2 - 0.05) g/L 5 108 L
= 9.75 108 g
From Equation M-16
avg. conc. of settled material = [(2 50 g/L)
+ (25 g/L-ft 3 ft)] 2 = 88 g/L
From Equation M-17
volume of settled material = 9.75 108 g 88 g/L = 1.11 107
= 3.91 105 ft3 or 9.0 acre-ft

M-19

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
M.4.3 Required area based on storage.
From Equation M-18
Area = 9.0 acre-ft 3 ft = 3.0 acres
M.4.4 Volume of ponding.
From Equation M-19
Ponded volume = 16 ft2/sec 9,000 sec = 1.44 105 ft3 or 3.3 acre-ft
M.4.5 Required area based on ponding.
From Equation M-20
Area = 3.3 acre-ft 3 ft = 1.1 acres
M.4.6 Second trial. The areas based on storage and ponding are quite different. Therefore,
the ponded depth should be decreased to reduce the area required for storage.
Using a ponded depth of 2 ft and, therefore, a storage depth of 4 ft,
From Equation M-15
Avg. conc. of settled material = [(2 50 g/L) + (25 g/L-ft 4 ft)] 2 = 100 g/L
From Equation M-17
Volume of settled material = 9.75 108 g 100 g/L
= 9.75 106 L
= 3.45 105 ft3
= 7.9 acre-ft
From Equation M-17b
Area for storage = 7.9 acre-ft 4 ft = 1.98 acres
From Equation M-18
Ponded volume = 16 ft3/sec 9,000 sec
= 1.44 105 ft3
= 3.3 acre-ft

M-20

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
From Equation M-19
Area for ponding = 3.3 acre-ft 2 ft = 1.65 acres
M.4.7 Final design. The two areas in the second trial are similar, indicating a better design.
Therefore, the secondary cell should have the following characteristics:
Volume

12 acre-ft or 5.2 105 ft3

Area

2 acres

Depth

6 ft

Storage depth

4 ft

Ponded depth

2 ft

M.5 Mud Pumping.

M.5.1 If the basin is not used for storage (that is, if the settled material is pumped out
regularly, the area and depth of the basin can be reduced further to about an area of 1.0 acre and
a depth of 5 ft. With a shallow storage depth, the solids concentration of the settled material
would be about 60 g/L.
M.5.2 The mud pumping rate, assuming 16 hr of production per day would be
From Equation M-20
solids pumping rate = (2.0 - 0.05) gal/L
28.31 L/ft3 16 ft3/sec
16 hr/day 3,600 sec/hr
= 5.09 107 gal/day
From Equation M-21
volumetric pumping rate = 5.09 107 gal/day 60 gal/L
= 8.5 105 L/day
= 0.347 ft3/sec or 156 gal/min

M-21

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

M-22

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX N
Monthly Standard Class A Pan Evaporation
for the Continental United States

N.1 Purpose. This appendix presents evaporation charts for the Continental United States.
N.2 Evaporation Charts. The evaporation charts in figures N-1 through N-12 are based on U.S.
National Weather Service (NWS) data.

Figure N-1. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of January, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

N-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-2. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of February, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

Figure N-3. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of March, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

N-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-4. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of April, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

Figure N-5. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of May, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960
N-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-6. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of June, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

Figure N-7. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of July, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960
N-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-8. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of August, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

Figure N-9. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of September, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

N-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-10. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of October, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

Figure N-11. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of November, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960
N-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure N-12. Average Pan Evaporation, in Centimeters, for the Continental United States for the
Month of December, Based on Data Taken from 1931 to 1960

N-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

N-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX O
Procedures for Selecting Equipment for Dewatering Operations

O.1 General Procedures. In order to predict whether draglines and other equipment can operate
successfully on perimeter dikes, on interior berms composed of dewatered dredged material, or
inside placement sites, criteria have been developed relating vehicle ground pressure, with or
without mats, and the rating cone index (RCI) of the supporting soil, as shown in Figure O-1.
One or two technicians can rapidly obtain the RCI in the field by hand-pushing a small cone
penetrometer through the soil and determining the resistance to penetration. (Under some conditions, field penetration resistance data for remolded material must also be determined.) The critical layer RCI is the lower of the 0-15 cm (0-6 in.) or 15-30 cm (6-12 in.) layer resistance values
encountered in the field because if the dragline (or other type of vehicle or equipment) breaks
through these layers, soil strength usually decreases even further, and the vehicle becomes
immobilized. Caution should be exercised when selecting a vehicle whose ground pressure just
equals that obtained from Figure O-1 for the available RCI because of possible undetected soft
spots in the area or possible vehicle operation errors that could cause immobilization. WES
Technical Report D-77-7 (Willoughby 1977) should be consulted for more exact procedures.
O.2 Effects of Trenching. Once the dragline has moved onto the interior berms to continue the
periodic trench deepening operation, criteria are also available, as shown in Figure O-2, to
predict the rate at which trenching operations may be conducted. In this figure, which shows
linear trenching in feet per hour versus RCI, the RCI is for the soil supporting the dragline. The
relationships in Figure O-2 are, at this stage, based on limited data. However, in the absence of
better data, they may be used for approximate preliminary estimates of expected behavior.

O-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure O-1. Relationship Between the RCI Necessary to Ensure Adequate

Mobility and the Vehicle Ground Pressure for Single- and Multiple-Pass
Operations in Confined Dredged Material Placement Areas

O-2

Figure O-2. Relationship Between the RCI of the Confined Disposal Area Surface Crust and the Linear Trenching Rate Obtainable
by Dragline Equipment

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

O-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

O-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
APPENDIX P
Dye Tracer Technique to Estimate Mean Residence
Time and Hydraulic Efficiency
P.1 Fluorescent Dyes.
P.1.1 General. Determination of retention time of ponded water is an important aspect of
containment area design for retention of solids. Dye tracer studies may be undertaken to provide
retention time data for better operation or management of existing dredged material containment
areas. Various artificial tracers have been used to generate inflow and settling data characteristics. Radioactive tracers are effective; however, their use involves troublesome special handling
and safety precautions. Commercially produced fluorescent dyes are easier and safer to handle
and have been used extensively in inflow studies. Fluorescent materials used in tracing are
unique in that they efficiently convert absorbed light into emitted light with a separate characteristic spectrum. Using the proper light source and filters, a fluorometer can measure small
amounts of fluorescent material in a sample. Thus, when a fluorescent dye is mixed with a given
parcel of water, that parcel may be identified and traced through a water system. The mean
residence time and the amount of mixing of the water parcel in the system can be quantified by
measuring the time variation of dye concentrations of the water leaving the system.
P.1.2 Physical-chemical considerations. For a given fluorescent dye, the interaction of the
dye with surrounding environmental conditions should be considered. Use of a dye in natures
water normally is not affected by chemical changes. However, if the dye were to be used in
waters having high chloride concentrations, the dye loss could be significant. Photochemical
decay of dye concentration must also be considered when planning a dye tracer study. Factors
influencing photochemical decay are light intensity, cloud cover, water turbidity, and water column depth. Other physical-chemical impacts on dyes are related pH, temperature, and salinity.
Under acidic conditions, adsorption occurs more strongly, resulting in a reduction in fluorescence. A general rule of thumb on temperature impacts is that fluorescence decreases 5% for
every 2 C (3.6 F) increase in temperature. Tests have shown that dye decay occurs at a slower
rate under saline conditions (7.02 m sodium chloride solution) (Smart and Laidlaw 1977).
Additional guidance for designing dye tracer studies and details of physical-chemical effects on
dyes are found in Abood, Lawler, and Disco (1969); Pritchard and Carpenter (1960); Feuerstein
and Selleck (1963); Watt (1965); Smart and Laidlaw (1977); Yotsukura and Kilpatrick (1973);
Wilson (1968); and Deaner (1973).
P.1.3 Dye types. Fluorescent dyes have been used since the early 1900s. Several have been
developed and used with varying degrees of success in the tracing of surface and ground waters.
Smart and Laidlaw (1977) evaluated eight dyes: Fluorescein, Rhodamine B, Rhodamine WT,
Sulpho Rhodamine B, Lissamine FF, Pyramine, Amino G Acid, and Photine CU. Rhodamine B
is stable in sunlight, but it is readily adsorbed to sediments in water. Rhodamine WT was
developed specifically for water tracing and is recommended for such routine use.

P-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
P.2 Measurement Techniques.
P.2.1 Theory of operation. Unlike sophisticated and complex analytical laboratory
spectrofluorometers, filter fluorometers are relatively simple instruments. Basically, filter
fluorometers are composed of six parts: a light (excitation energy) source, a primary or
excitation filter, a sample compartment, a secondary or emittance filter, a photomultiplier,
and a readout device.
P.2.1.1 When a fluorescent material is placed in a fluorometer, that spectral portion of the
light source that coincides with the peak of the known excitation spectrum of the test material is
allowed to pass through the primary filter to the sample chamber. This energy is absorbed by the
fluorescent material, causing electrons to be excited to higher energy levels. In returning to its
ground state, the fluorescent material emits light that is always at a longer wavelength and lower
frequency than the light that was absorbed. It is this property that is the basis of fluorometry, the
existence of a unique pair of excitation and emission spectra for different fluorescent materials.
Finally, only a certain band of the emitted light, different from that used for excitation, is passed
through the secondary filter to the photomultiplier, where a readout device indicates the relative
intensity of the light reaching it. Thus, with different light sources and filter combinations, the
fluorometer can discriminate between different fluorescent materials.
P.2.1.2 The selection of light sources and filters is crucial since they determine the
sensitivity and selectivity of the analysis. Fluorometer manufacturers recommend and supply
lamps and filters for most applications, including Rhodamine WT applications.
P.2.1.3 Two types of fluorometers are in common field use today. The standard instrument
used in water tracing by many groups, including the USGS (Wilson 1968), has been the Turner
Model III manufactured by G. K. Turner Associates. Turner Designs has capitalized on recent
advances in electronics and optics and developed a fluorometer, the Model 10 series, that is
better adapted to field use than the Turner Model III, but it is also more expensive.
P.2.2 Field use. Once a fluorometer is calibrated, it must be decided where and how field
samples will be analyzedin situ or in a laboratory, continuously or discretely. During in situ
analysis, the operation of the fluorometer in flow-through mode (where water from a given
discharge point in the containment area is pumped continuously through the sample chamber in
the fluorometer) is advantageous over its operation in cuvette mode (where a discrete sample is
analyzed). Specifically, in situ flow-through analysis allows the homogeneity of fluorescence in
the discharge to be easily observed, and eliminates the need for handling individual samples.
Also during in situ flow-through analysis, a strip chart recorder can be attached to the fluorometer, simplifying data collection by providing a continuous record of the fluorescence measured. During laboratory analysis, however, the flow-through system is seldom used, since
discrete samples are homogeneous and usually lack the volume needed to fill the system. Instead,
the fluorometer is operated in cuvette mode, where only a small portion of a sample is required
for analysis.
P.2.2.1 Each method of analysis also has its inherent problems. Laboratory analysis requires
that discrete samples be collected, bottled, labeled, stored in the field, and then transported to the

P-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
laboratory; this introduces many opportunities for samples to be lost through mislabeling,
misplacement, or breakage. In addition, the frequency of sampling may be insufficient to clearly
define the changes in dye concentration as a function of time.
P.2.2.2 In situ analysis, on the other hand, is usually performed under adverse environmental
conditions, often at a fast pace, in a cramped and unsteady work space or in less than ideal
weather conditions. Thus, it is more likely that an error will occur during in situ analysis than
during analysis in the controlled environment of a laboratory. It is also usually necessary to
compute and apply many more temperature correction factors to fluorescence values during in
situ analysis than during a laboratory analysis since the samples to be analyzed in situ have not
had a chance to reach a common temperature. This also increases the chances for error during
analysis. In addition, in situ analysis is usually final. That is, if questions are raised about the
validity of a measurement after the analysis, no sample is available for verification. In situ
analysis may not be used when significant turbidity interference occurs.
P.2.2.3 To minimize the risk involved in relying on either method alone, a combination of
the two may be employeda preliminary in situ analysis to help guide the sampling effort and a
final laboratory analysis to ensure accurate results for quantitative analysis.
P.2.2.4 Regardless of when and where fluorometric analysis takes place, several general
precautionary measures should be taken to ensure that the analysis is reliable.
a. The fluorometer should be accurately calibrated.
b. Sample contamination should be avoided by rinsing or flushing the sample chamber
between readings.
c. The fluorometer operator should have experience with the instrument that is used.
Experience can be gained through practice prior to the analysis.
d. Sample temperatures should be observed and recorded during analysis to determine the
necessary fluorescence correction factors.
e. All information used to determine concentration units should be recorded (for example,
scale and meter or dial deflection).
f. The calibration should be checked on a regular basis (every hour or so). This is especially
important if the fluorometer is powered by a battery. When the battery is drained, readings are no
longer accurate.
P.2.2.5 For flow-through analysis in particular, all connections between the sampling hose,
fluorometer, and pump must be tight to prevent air bubbles from entering the sample chamber.
Air bubbles may also be introduced by a leaky pump seal. Thus, it is recommended that the
pump be connected to the system so that water is drawn up through the fluorometer to the pump.
A screen placed at the intake end of the sampling hose prevents sand and pebbles from altering

P-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
the optics of the system since they may scratch the glass in the sample chamber as they travel
through the system.
P.2.2.6 When analyzing samples in cuvette mode, the optics of the system may be distorted
by scratches or smudges on the cuvette, making it necessary to wipe the cuvette clean prior to its
insertion in the sample chamber. Once the cuvette is inside the warm sample chamber, a reading
must be made quickly to prevent warming of the sample or condensation forming on the cuvette.
Warming reduces fluorescence, and condensation distorts the system optics.
P.2.2.7 A person who has handled dye should never touch the fluorometer, or else he/she
should use rubber gloves to handle dye and then discard them. Extremely small traces of dye on
cuvettes or sample tubes can cause extremely large errors.
P.3 Sampling.
P.3.1 Sampling equipment. The basic equipment needed to perform a dye tracer study
includes the following:
a. Fluorometers and accessories (filters, spare lamps, recorders, cuvettes, and sample
holders). A spare fluorometer should be included, if available, since the entire field study centers
around its operation.
b. Standard dye solutions for calibrating the fluorometers.
c. Generators or 12-volt deep-cycle marine batteries (with charger) to power fluorometers
and pumps if the dye concentration is to be monitored continuously.
d. Sampling equipment: pump and hoses, automatic sampler or discrete sampler (for
example, a Van Dorn sampler), bottles, labels, waterproof markers.
e. Temperature-measuring device for measuring sample temperatures if the temperature of
the samples being analyzed will vary significantly.
f. Dye, dilution vessels, and injection equipment (for example, bucket, pump, and hoses).
g. Description and dimensions of the containment area and surveying equipment to measure
dimensions of the containment area.
h. Equipment and records to determine the flow rate of the effluent from the containment
area (for example, production records, dredge discharge rate, weir length, depth of flow over the
weir, and head above the weir).
i. Miscellaneous equipment (for example, life jackets and tool kits).
j. Data forms.

P-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
Additional equipment might include cameras, radios, rope, and lights. All equipment should be
checked for proper performance prior to transporting to the field.
P.3.2 Preparatory tasks.
a. Prior to conducting the dye tracer study, the average discharge rate at all points of
discharge from the containment area should be measured or estimated. Equipment should be
prepared, calibrated, and installed to measure or estimate the discharge rate during the dye tracer
study. If production records are to be used to estimate the discharge, the discharge should be
correlated to production. The average discharge rate, Q, is equal to the sum of the average
discharge rate at each discharge point, q.
b. A survey of the containment area should be performed to determine the area, depth, and
volume of ponding, V p , at the site for determination of the theoretical residence time, T. The
volume can be estimated from as-built or design drawings of the site, but the depth of fill and
ponding should be verified in the field to ensure that an accurate estimate of the hydraulic
efficiency is determined from the dye tracer study. The ponded volume is needed to estimate dye
requirements. An accurate determination of the volume is not needed to determine only the mean
residence time.
c. Using the average discharge rate and the ponded volume, the theoretical residence time of
the site should be computed to plan the duration of the dye tracer study and to determine the
hydraulic efficiency.
T =

Vp

(P-1)

d. The background fluorescence should be measured at the site. Background fluorescence is

the sum of all contributions to fluorescence by materials other than the fluorescent dye. The best
method to determine the background fluorescence is to measure the fluorescence of the discharge
from the site several times prior to addition of dye at the inlet. If the background fluorescence is
expected to be variable, the fluorescence of supernatant from the influent should be measured
before and during the dye tracer study. The fluorescence of the water at the dredging site should
not be used as the background fluorescence since some of the sediment that is mixed with the
site water may remain suspended and exhibit fluorescence. Similarly, the sediment may release
or adsorb fluorescent materials that would alter the fluorescence of the site water.
e. The effect of turbidity on the measurement of fluorescence should be examined to
determine whether the discharge samples should be filtered prior to measuring their
fluorescence. Turbidity reduces the fluorescence by absorbing and scattering the light from the
fluorometer lamp. Filtering is necessary only when samples are highly turbid or when the
turbidity varies significantly. The effect of turbidity can be tested very simply. A sample of the
discharge is divided in half, and a small amount of dye is added to one of the portions. The
fluorometer is blanked or zeroed on the portion without dye in it, and the fluorescence of the
portion containing dye is measured. Next, both samples are filtered or centrifuged to remove the
turbidity. The process is then repeated using the filtrates or supernatants blanking the fluorometer
P-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
on the portion without dye in it and measuring the fluorescence of the portion containing dye. If
the measured fluorescence of the sample without turbidity differed from the measured
fluorescence of the sample with turbidity, then it is evident that turbidity affected the analysis.
Alternatively, distilled water could be used as the blank when the turbidity or the background
fluorescence is expected to vary significantly during the study.
P.3.3 Dye dosage requirements.
a. Dye is usually released instantaneously as a slug in studies performed to measure the
mean residence time or hydraulic efficiency of a basin. The dye marks a small parcel of water
that disperses as the parcel passes through the basin. Ideally, the dispersion in a settling basin is
kept very low, and the parcel moves as a slug through the basin by plug flow. In practice, the net
flow-through velocity is very low, sufficiently low that the parcel would move by plug flow in
the absence of external forces. However, containment areas are subject to wind forces that transform the basins into partially mixed basins, where the velocities induced by wind are much
greater than the net flow-through velocity. Consequently, the flow through the basin more
closely represents completely mixed conditions than plug flow conditions. Therefore, the dye
requirements are determined based on the assumption that the dye is completely mixed in the
basin rather than longitudinally dispersed.
b. A typical dye tracer curve for a dredged material containment area (Figure P-1) shows a
residence time distribution that is characteristic of a partially mixed basin. Dye appears quickly
at the discharge point at time t i and then shortly thereafter the peak concentration is discharged at
time t p . After the peak concentration reaches the discharge point, the dye concentration quickly
decreases to about 30-60% of the peak concentration, depending on the wind and the theoretical
residence time of the basin. The dye concentration then gradually decreases until all of the dye is
finally discharged at time t f . The mean residence time and theoretical residence time are shown
in the figure as t and T, respectively. The residence time distribution indicates that some of the
water short-circuits to the discharge point before the dye is completely mixed throughout the
containment area. However, the dye becomes well mixed soon after the peak concentration is
discharged, and then the dye concentration decreases gradually (instead of rapidly as it did
before being completely mixed) to zero.
c. Before determining the dye dosage requirements for a study, a standard calibration curve
should be developed for the dye and the fluorometers to be used. This consists of plotting the
fluorometer response for at least five known concentrations of dye. The design dye concentration
is based on the ability to measure the dye concentration accurately for the length of the study,
while not exceeding the maximum fluorometer response or excessively coloring the water.

P-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

Figure P-1. A Typical Plot of the Residence Time Distribution for Dredged Material
Containment Areas
d. The dye dosage requirements are based on achieving an initial concentration of 30 parts
per billion (ppb) in a completely mixed basin. This concentration of Rhodamine WT corresponds
to 30% of the full-scale deflection of many commonly used fluorometers. With this quantity of
dye, the peak concentration will generally be less than 100 ppb (or 100% of the maximum
fluorometer response) except for very small containment areas (<15 acres) or for areas with very
bad channeling and short-circuiting. Since the peak concentration may exceed the capacity of the
fluorometer, discrete samples should be taken during the period when the peak concentration is
being discharged. These samples may be diluted to measure the peak concentration.
e. The dye dosage requirements are computed as follows:
Dye Dosage, lb = 0.00272 (Co , ppb)(V p , acre-ft)
= 6.24 108 (Co , ppb)(V p , ft 3 )
= 2.21 109 (Co , ppb)(V p , L)

P-7

(P-2)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
where
C o = desired dye concentration (generally 30 ppb for Rhodamine WT)
V p = ponded volume
Dye Dosage = quantity of pure dye to be added to containment area, pounds
f. Fluorescent dyes are not generally produced at 100% strength. For example, Rhodamine
WT is typically distributed at 20% dye by weight. Consequently, the quantity of manufacturer
stock dye would be five times as large as computed in Equation P-2. The stock dye dosage can
be computed as follows:
Stock Dye Dosage =

Dye Dosage
Stock Concentration

(P-3)

where the stock concentration is the fractional dye content by weight.

g. The volume of stock dye required can be computed as follows:
Volume of Stock Dye =

Stock Dye Dosage

Specific Weight

(P-4)

The specific weight of liquid Rhodamine WT dye at a concentration of 20% by weight is about
1.19.
P.3.4 Dye addition. The dye should be added to the influent stream in liquid form in a
quantity and manner that is easy to manage. If the dye comes in solid form, it should be
dissolved prior to its addition. Solid dye is easier to transport, but it is often inconvenient to
dissolve at field locations. The dye may be diluted to a volume that will ensure good mixing with
the influent stream, but the quantity should not be so large that it takes more than about 5-10 min
to add the dye. The dye may be pumped into the influent pipe or poured into the influent jet or
pool. Greater dilutions should be used to ensure good mixing if the dye is to be poured into the
influent. Care must be taken that the dye is distributed so that it flows into the containment area
in the same manner that the influent does.
P.3.5 Sampling procedures.
a. Sampling should be conducted at all points of discharge from the containment area.
b. The dye concentration may be measured continuously at the discharge, or discrete
samples may be collected throughout the test. Discrete samples must be taken when turbidity
interference occurs since the samples must be filtered or centrifuged. Discrete samples should be
taken when the dye is being measured continuously to provide a backup in the case of equipment
malfunction and to verify the results of the continuous monitor.

P-8

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15

c. The sampling frequency should be scheduled to observe any significant change in dye
concentration (about 5-10% of the peak dye concentration). Sampling should be more frequent
near the start of the test, when dye starts to exit from the containment area, and when the peak
dye concentration passes the discharge points. About 40 carefully spaced samples should clearly
define the residence time distribution or dye tracer curve.
d. The sampling duration should be sufficiently long to permit the dye concentration to
decrease to 10% of the peak concentration or less. For planning purposes, the duration should be
at least about 2.5 times the theoretical residence time.
e. The flow rate at all points of discharge from the containment area should be measured. If
the flow rate varies significantly (more than 20% of average), it should be measured periodically
throughout the test. Production records may be used to provide an indication of the variability of
the flow rate. The flow rate over weirs may be estimated by measuring the depth of flow over the
weir and the length of the weir crest and applying the weir formula for sharp-crested weirs:
Q = 3.3 LH 3 / 2

(P-5)

Q = 2.6 Lh3 / 2

(P-6)

or

where
Q = flow rate, ft3/sec
L = weir crest length, ft
H = static head above weir crest, ft
h = depth of flow above weir crest, ft
P.4 Data Analysis.
P.4.1 Data reduction. The data should be tabulated in the following form:

Sample
I

Time from
Dye Addition
ti

Flow
Rate
Qi

Dye Concentration
Above Background
Ci

Time Interval
t i

a. Column 1 is the number of the sample, i. If the dye concentration was monitored
continuously, discrete points on the dye concentration curve may be used as samples.

P-9

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
b. Column 2 is the amount of time, t i , that elapsed between when the dye was added to the
influent and when the sample was taken from the effluent.
c. Column 3 is the flow rate, Q i , at the time the sample was taken. The flow rate is needed
only when it is not constant during the test.
d. Column 4 is the dye concentration of the sample discounted for the background
fluorescence, C i ; that is
=
Ci Csi Cbi

(P-7)

where
C i = dye concentration discounted for background fluorescence of sample i
C si = measured fluorescence of sample i
C bi = background fluorescence at time t i
If the background fluorescence does not vary, C bi is a constant, and it may be eliminated from
the expression for calculating C i if the fluorometer is blanked or zeroed with the site water.
e. Column 5 is the interval of time, ti, over which the sample is representative of the
results. The value of this interval is one-half of the interval between the times when the samples
immediately preceding and following the sample of interest were taken.
ti + 1 ti 1
ti =
2

(P-8)

where
t i = time interval over which sample i is representative
t i+1 = time when the following sample was taken
t i-1 = time when the preceding sample was taken
A data table is produced for each point of discharge.

P-10

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
P.4.2 Determination of mean residence time.
a. After generating the data tables, the mean residence time is computed as follows:
n

t =

ti Ci Qi ti
i =0
n

(P-9)

Ci Qi ti
i =0

where
t = mean residence time
n = total number of samples
b. If the flow rate is nearly constant throughout the test, the equation may be simplified to
n

t =

ti Ci ti
i =0
n

(P-10)

Ci ti
i =0

c. If the sampling interval is constant (that is, t i = constant) but the flow rate is not, the
equation may be simplified to:
n

t =

ti Ci qi
i =0
n

(P-11)

Ci qi
i =0

d. If both the sampling interval and the flow rate are constant, the equation may be
simplified to
n

t =

ti Ci
i =0
n

(P-12)

Ci
i =0

P-11

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
P.4.3 Determination of hydraulic efficiency.
a. The hydraulic efficiency is the ratio of the mean residence time to the theoretical
residence time where
Hydraulic Efficiency =

t
T

(P-13)

b. The correlation factor for containment area volume requirements is equal to the reciprocal
of the hydraulic efficiency. This correction is applied by multiplying the volume by the correction factor.
Hydraulic Efficiency Correction
Factor for Volume Requirements =

1
Hydraulic Efficiency

P-12

(P-14)

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
GLOSSARY
Abbreviations
AASHTO

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AC

Alternating Current

ADCIRC

Advanced CIRCulation model

ADCP

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ADDAMS

Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System

ADMODUS

Advanced MODular Ultrasound System

ALMO

Automatic Light Mixture Overboard

APHA

American Public Health Association

ASCE

American Society of Civil Engineers

ASCII

American Standard Code for Information Exchange

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials; American Soils Testing Manual

BBADCP

Broadband Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

BRAT

Benthic Resources Assessment Technique

CAD

Contained Aquatic Disposal

CAIS

Center for Applied Isotope Studies

CAMP

Comprehensive Analysis of Migration Pathways

CDF

Confined Disposal Facility; CDF Design Module (ADDAMS application)

CDFATE

(Computation of Mixing Zone Size or Dilution for) Continuous Discharges

Fate

CEC

Cation Exchange Capacity

CEDEP

Cost Estimating Dredge Estimating Program

CEERD

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

CEERD-EP

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental

Laboratory

CEERD-EP-E

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental

Laboratory, Environmental Engineering Branch

CEERD-EP-R

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental

Laboratory, Environmental Risk Assessment Branch

CEERD-EP-W

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental

Laboratory, Water Quality and Contaminant Modeling Branch

CEFMS

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Financial Management System

Glossary-1

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
CEMVN

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, New Orleans

District

CESAM

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Mobile District

CESPN

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, San Francisco District

CEWRC-HEC

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center, Hydrologic

Engineering Center

CH

inorganic Clay of High plasticity (USCS classification)

CHARTS

Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey

CE-Dredge

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Dredge

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CHL

Coastal & Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer

Research & Development Center)

CIRP

Coastal Inlets Research Program

CL

CLay (USCS classification)

CMS

Coastal Modeling System

CMS-Wave

Costal Modeling System Wave

CoP

Community of Practice

CORMIX

CORnell MIXing Zone Expert System

CPF

Confined Placement Facility

CPT

Cone Penetration Test

CS3

Continuous Sediment Sampling and Analysis System

CTD

Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth/pressure

CWA

Clean Water Act

D2M2

System Cost Optimization of Regional Dredging and Dredged Material

Disposal (ADDAMS application)

DARM

Disposal Area Reuse Management

DC

Direct Current

dbh

Diameter Breast Height

DGPS

Differential Global Positioning System

DIFID

DIsposal From an Instantaneous Dump

DIG

Dredging Innovations Group

DMF

Decision-Making Framework

DMM

Dredged Material Management

Glossary-2

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
DMMP

Dredged Material Management Plan

DMRP

Dredged Material Research Program

DO

Dissolved Oxygen

DOD

Department of Defense

DOER

Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program

DOS

Disk Operating System

DOT

Department of Transportation

DOTS

Dredging Operations Technical Support Program

DQM

National Dredging Quality Management Program

DQMOBS

Dredging Quality Management On-Board Software

DROPMIX

Dredging Operations Mixing Zone Model

DRP

Dredging Research Program

DTPA

Diethylenetriaminepentaaceticacid

DYECON

Determination of Hydraulic Retention Time and Efficiency of Confined

Disposal Facilities (ADDAMS application)

E2-D2

Environmental Effects and Dredging and Disposal (DOTS literature database)

EA

Environmental Assessment

EC

Engineering Circular

eCoastal

Enterprise Coastal

EEDP

Environmental Effects of Dredging Program

EFQUAL

Effluent (Water) Quality (ADDAMS application)

eGIS

Enterprise Geographic Information System

Eh

Redox potential

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

EM

Engineer Manual

EP

Engineering Pamphlet

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

ER

Engineer Regulation

ERDC

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

ERP

Environmental Resources Protection

ESD

Environmental Services Division (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

ESTCP

Environmental Security Technology and Certification Program

ETL

Engineer Technical Letter

Glossary-3

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
FDA

Food and Drug Administration

FONSI

Finding of No Significant Impact

FTU

Formazin Turbidity Units

FVP

Field Verification Program

FWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY

Fiscal Year

g/L

Grams per Liter

GFC

Geosynthetic Fabric Container

GIMS

Gamma Isotope Mapping System

GIMS/ CS3

Gamma Isotope Mapping System/Continuous Sediment Sampling System

GIS

Geographic Information System

GPS

Global Positioning System

GUI

Graphical User Interface

ha

hectare (about 2.5 acres)

HEC

U.S. Army Engineer Hydrologic Engineering Center

HECF

Hydraulic Efficiency Correction Factor

HELP

Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance

HELPQ

Hydraulic Evaluation of Leachate Production and Leachate and Quality

HQUSACE

Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HRDP

High Resolution Density Profiler

IAG

Interagency AGreement

ID

Inside Diameter

IT

Innovative Technologies

ITM

Inland Testing Manual

JALBTCX

Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise

KGME

Potassium Glyme Methoxy Ethanol

kHz

kiloHertz

LAT-E

Laboratory Analysis of Toxicity (for CDF) Effluent (to Compute LC50)

(ADDAMS application)

LAT-R

Laboratory Analysis of Toxicity (for CDF) Runoff (to Compute LC50)

(ADDAMS application)

LBC

Level-Bottom Capping

LEDO

Long-Term Effects of Dredging Operations

Glossary-4

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
LL

Liquid Limit

LPC

Limiting Permissible Concentration

LSCRS

Large Strain, Controlled Rate of Strain

LSST

Laser In Situ Scattering and Transmissometry

LTMS

Long-Term Management Strategy

MDFATE

Multiple Disposal Fate (of Dredged Material in Open Water)

MEC

Munitions and Explosives of Concern

mg/L

milligrams per Liter

MHHW

Mean High High Water

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

MPRSA

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

NAVOCEANO U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office

NCDB

Navigation and Coastal Data Bank

NDC

Navigation Data Center

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NM

Nautical Mile

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC

National Research Council; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRCTRB-MB

National Research Councils Transportation Research Board-Marine Board

nT

nanoTesla

NTU

Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NWP

Nationwide Permit

NWS

U.S. National Weather Service

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

OBS

Optical Back Scatter

ODD

Ocean Disposal Database

ODMDS

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site

OERR

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

OMBIL

Operations and Management Business Information Link

OSHA

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Glossary-5

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
OTM

Ocean Testing Manual

PAH

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PC

Personal Computer

PCB

Polychlorinated byphenyl

PCDDF

Primary Consolidation and Desiccation of Dredged Fill

PDF

Portable Document Format

PGL

Policy Guidance Letter

PI

Plasticity Index

PIANC

Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses

PL

Plastic Limit; Public Law

PLUMES

PLUmes MEasurement System

ppt

parts per thousand

PROSPECT

PROponent-SPonsored Engineer Corps Training

PSDDF

Primary consolidation, Secondary compression, and Desiccation of Dredged

Fill (ADDAMS application)

PTM

Particle Tracking Model

PUP

Prediction of contaminant Uptake by freshwater Plants (ADDAMS

application)

PVC

PolyVinyl Chloride

R&D

Research and Development

RCI

Rating Cone Index

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RGB

Red, Green, Blue

rpm

Revolutions Per Minute

RQD

Rock Quality Designation

RSM

Regional Sediment Management

RUC

Riverine Utility Craft

RUNQUAL

(Comparison of Predicted) RUNoff (Water) QUALity (with Standards)

(ADDAMS application)

S/S

Solidification/Stabilization

SAM

South Atlantic Division, Mobile District (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

SAVEWS

Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Early Warning System

SDS

Spatial Data Standards

Glossary-6

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
SETTLE

Design of Confined Disposal Facilities for Suspended Solids Retention and

Initial Storage Requirements (ADDAMS application)

SHOALS

Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey

SI

Silent Inspector (obsolete; see DQM); International System of Units

SMS

Surface water Modeling System

SPT

Standard Penetration Test

SS

Suspended sediment

STFATE

Short-Term Fate (of Dredged Material Disposal in Open Water)

STWAVE

STeady STate spectral Wave

TBP

Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential

TDS

Tons Dry Solids

TM

Technical Manual

TOC

Total Organic Carbon

TSS

Total Suspended Solids

TVA

Tennessee Valley Authority

UCS

Unconfined Compressive Strength

USCS

Unified Soil Classification System

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAEDH

United States Army Engineer Division, Huntsville

USC

United States Code

USCG

United States Coast Guard

USCS

Unified Soil Classification System

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

USDOT

United States Department of Transportation

USEPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

United States Geological Survey

UTC

Coordinated Universal Time

UTM

Upland Testing Manual

UU

Undrained Unconsolidated

UV

UltraViolet light

UXO

UneXploded Ordnance

WABED

Wave-Action Balance Equation with Diffraction

Glossary-7

EM 1110-2-5025
31 Jul 15
WES

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station

WID

Water Injection Dredge; Water Injection Dredging

WQS

Water Quality Standard

WRP

Wetlands Research Program

WRDA

Water Resources Development Act

XMDF

eXtensible Model Data Format

ZSF

Zone of Siting Feasibility

Glossary-8