Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures
. 2026 Jul 21;4:e22. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046

The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities

Justin L Shawler 1,2,✉, Brian D Harris 1, Brooke M Walker 1, Susan E Bailey 3, Paul Schroeder 3
PMCID: PMC13458092  PMID: 42582677

Content of image described in text.

Open in a new tab

Keywords: confined disposal facility, dredged material management area, beneficial use of dredged material, marsh restoration, wetland restoration, marsh nourishment

Abstract

Saltmarshes along the United States South Atlantic Coast, and globally, face critical threats from sea-level rise, edge erosion, ponding and historical human modifications, all of which are exacerbated by sediment deficits. Uncontaminated sediment stored in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) represents a significant and often overlooked resource for marsh restoration. As a result of management practices in the second half of the twentieth century, many unnaturally high earthen structures occur adjacent to drowning saltmarshes in the United States. In this perspective article, we explore the potential for mining CDFs to provide the sediment necessary to restore and sustain at-risk saltmarshes. Using publicly available data from the US South Atlantic coast, we estimate that reclaiming sediment from existing CDFs could offset sea-level rise impacts by 2100 for 13% of South Atlantic marshes. While the potential benefit is substantial, scientific, planning and implementation hurdles are presented. These pitfalls include potential issues with sediment characterization, limited guidance on chemical evaluation to reduce environmental risks, construction complications due to soft soils and legal and financial considerations. Despite these barriers, we conclude with a path forward for researchers and practitioners to address the hurdles through dedicated case studies, adaptive management principles and stakeholder engagement.

Impact statement

This perspective moves beyond identifying the problem of wetland sediment deficits by providing a tangible solution. We demonstrate that reclaiming material from uncontaminated dredged material stockpiles called confined disposal facilities is not only feasible but essential for large-scale coastal restoration to better protect our coastal communities. By outlining a clear path forward that addresses key hurdles in research, planning and implementation, this article provides practitioners with the strategic framework needed to turn this concept into a cornerstone of sustainable coastal management.

Key points

  1. Over 596 million m3 of dredged material currently stockpiled is potentially available for restoration of US South Atlantic marshes.

  2. Sediment reserves offer potential value of $10 billion annually to raise saltmarshes 1.1 m to address sea-level rise from 2000 to 2100.

  3. Numerous challenges and hurdles must be overcome to successfully use these stockpiles for marsh restoration.

Introduction

The loss of 46.6% of global saltmarsh underscores the urgent need for innovative coastal restoration strategies (Brook et al., 2025; Suedel et al., 2021). Traditional sediment sourcing from inland and offshore borrow areas is becoming prohibitively expensive and potentially environmentally damaging (e.g., Nairn et al., 2004). While recent guidance in the United States promoting the beneficial use of dredged material (118th Congress, 2024) is a positive step, it does not fully address the saltmarsh sediment deficit. A more comprehensive solution may lie in an often-overlooked resource: the vast stores of sediment locked away in coastal confined disposal facilities (CDFs) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

(a) Map of CDF locations and volumes along the southeast coast, (b) Aerial photo of a CDF with earthen dikes next to a degrading marsh, and (c) Diagram of a dredge pumping material into a CDF and excavators removing material to place on a marsh. See long description.

Open in a new tab

A) Confined disposal facilities (CDF) and volumes along the US South Atlantic coast. B) Example of a CDF located along a waterway and adjacent to a degrading marsh in coastal New Jersey, USA. Photo credit: David White/USACE. C) Conceptual diagram of CDF sediment management and beneficial re-use for saltmarsh restoration.

Figure 1. long description.

CDFs are essentially stockpiles of dredged material that represent a sediment management solution following the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. CDFs are a necessary tool to maintain marine navigation. Although environmental testing would be required, most sediment in CDFs outside of highly industrialized, contaminated zones is likely suitable for coastal restoration. Many of these facilities are at or nearing capacity, which limits their future use and could compromise coastal navigation. Building new CDFs is often infeasible due to high construction and permitting costs (HDR and LMS, 2006). A more practical approach involves emptying existing CDFs and repurposing the sites as processing facilities for future sediment (Bailey et al., 2010), transforming them into a largely untapped “goldmine” for coastal restoration.

With this perspective piece, we aim to spur action by highlighting the strong potential of CDF sediment as a solution for coastal restoration. Using the southeast US Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, a shallow-draft estuarine navigation channel located between offshore barrier islands and the mainland coast, as a case study, we quantify the available CDF sediment and its potential benefits to adjacent marsh environments. Next, we identify challenges to large-scale CDF mining and propose a research framework for sustainable CDF management. The insights and strategies presented here are broadly applicable to coastal regions worldwide, offering a path toward more resilient coastal environments.

Coastal restoration needs

Coastal areas are among the most densely populated in the United States, with the southeast states experiencing particularly rapid growth, now exceeding 20 million residents (NOAA Office for Coastal Management, n.d.). These communities, along with seasonal tourists, depend heavily on the services of over 400,000 ha of saltmarsh along the US southeast coast (SASMI, 2023). These marshes act as vital natural infrastructure, reducing storm surge and flooding impacts (Wamsley et al., 2010; Möller et al., 2014; Narayan et al., 2017; Rezaie et al., 2020) and providing habitat for numerous species (Boesch and Turner, 1984; Rush et al., 2009). With an estimated ecosystem service value of $193,843 per hectare annually, the marshes of the US South Atlantic alone are worth ~$78 billion per year (Mitsch et al., 2015; SASMI, 2023).

Despite their immense value, these critical ecosystems are in decline due to a combination of threats, including sea-level rise, historical land claims, edge-erosion and anthropogenic disturbances (Day et al., 2011; Couvillion et al., 2017). While saltmarshes can naturally migrate inland to adapt to rising seas, this migration is often blocked by development and steep slopes (Enwright et al., 2016; Molino et al., 2022). This “coastal squeeze” amplifies the impacts of vegetation loss and pond expansion, which degrade marsh function (Mariotti, 2016; Cadigan et al., 2022).

To counter these losses, solutions that increase sediment supply, such as the beneficial use of dredged material, are essential for raising marsh elevation (Ganju, 2019; Suedel et al., 2021). Techniques like hydraulic pumping and nearshore berm placement are growing in practice (Harris et al., 2021; Piercy et al., 2023; Perkey et al., 2024; Harris et al., 2026). However, beneficial use of dredged material during navigation maintenance events alone cannot offset the scale of marsh degradation. Additional sediment sources are desperately needed, but conventional upland and offshore sand are often prioritized for beach nourishment projects and are typically considered too costly for large-scale marsh restoration. This is why we must turn to a largely overlooked resource lying adjacent to these threatened marshes: the sediment stored in CDFs.

Prospects of the coastal restoration goldmine

While the beneficial use of dredged material is a critical first step toward restoring wetlands, annual dredging cycles cannot supply the sediment volume required to maintain marsh productivity against projected rising seas. The reclamation of material from CDFs, however, presents a transformative and sustainable solution. Wetland nourishment can utilize the full range of grain sizes found in CDFs, unlike other beneficial uses often limited to sand, such as beach nourishment.

The concept of reclaiming CDF sediment is not new, dating back to the 1970s with proposed uses like wetland creation, mine reclamation and landfill capping (Saucier, 1976). A series of studies in the early 2000s further developed frameworks for assessing and processing CDF material, aiming to establish a circular management system where sediment is only stored temporarily (Olin-Estes and Palermo, 2001; HDR and LMS, 2006; Bailey et al., 2010). Although limited, successful case studies—including beach nourishment, construction fill and island creation—demonstrate that removing and repurposing this material is feasible (Taylor Engineering, Inc., 2020).

This opportunityʼs scale is immense. Along the southeast US Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway alone, an estimated 596 million m3 of dredged material is stored in 164 CDFs (Figure 1a; USACE, 2024). This sediment has the potential to offset projected sea-level rise (Sweet et al., 2022) for 149,000 ha of saltmarsh (37% of US Southeast Atlantic marshes) until 2050 or 54,000 ha of saltmarsh (13% of US Southeast Atlantic marshes) until 2100. If used for wetland restoration (Mitsch et al., 2015), the total ecosystem service value of sediment stored in CDFs is at least $48/m3 per year ($62/yd3 per year) and represents a total potential saltmarsh restoration value of $10 billion per year based on raising saltmarshes 1.1 m to address sea-level rise from 2000 to 2100. Even accounting for the need to iteratively place sediment to stay within the local tidal range, this represents an enormous potential value. Tapping into this resource is a compelling prospect, but significant planning and implementation hurdles must be overcome to make large-scale CDF mining a widespread reality for coastal restoration.

Pitfalls of the coastal restoration goldmine

While CDFs represent a potential “goldmine” for coastal restoration, mining this resource is fraught with significant pitfalls that span planning, environmental and operational domains. Like many ambitious restoration projects, these efforts can stall in the planning phase if the complexities are not proactively addressed (e.g., Abelson et al., 2020).

Sediment characterization and feasibility

The first hurdle is sufficient site assessment. A project is only viable if the CDF contains sufficient sediment volume of the right type to justify the high costs of sediment extraction and relocation. However, CDFs are not uniform stockpiles. Their complex histories of receiving mixed sediments, which are often reworked for berm maintenance or dewatering, create highly heterogeneous pockets. This makes it difficult to accurately quantify the percentages of sand and fines, a critical step that dictates both the ideal beneficial use (marsh, beach or upland; Saucier, 1976; Bailey et al., 2010) and the necessary extraction equipment (Olin-Estes and Palermo, 2001; Olin-Estes et al., 2002).

Environmental risks

A primary concern for CDF sediment extraction for wetland restoration is contaminant risk. While material is often tested before being placed in a CDF, the standards for confined disposal are different from those for unconfined use in saltmarshes (Bailey et al., 2010). Contaminant mobility can change significantly within a CDF as aerobic processes alter sediment chemistry, meaning that original pre-dredge testing required by the Clean Water Act (Schroeder et al., 2006; Schroeder et al., 2008) is often insufficient (Hoeppel et al., 1978). Furthermore, large-scale placement of mixed-grain-size material could have unknown cumulative impacts on marsh biodiversity and sediment transport as colonization patterns are tightly linked to sediment properties and elevation (Stoorvogel et al., 2024; Wilburn et al., 2024). While contamination in industrialized areas and their CDFs (e.g., Indiana Harbor and Canal; Ingersoll et al., 2002) is usually well documented, material such as that found along much of the southeast US Intracoastal Waterway is not typically associated with a long industrial history where the presence of industrial contaminants is as common. As such, these sites are likely more viable and warrant detailed sampling and analysis to verify their viability. Currently, optimized guidance for characterizing and sampling CDFs for beneficial use is still lacking.

Logistical and construction risks

Coastal environments present inherent challenges, including extremely soft soils, tidal fluctuations and sensitive wildlife habitats that restrict access and working windows (Jafari et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2025). The structural integrity of the CDF itself is a concern as equipment must operate on potentially unconsolidated material and steep containment slopes. Transportation methods, often the costliest component of the project, must be carefully selected to enable equipment mobilization and use over soft soils and minimize impacts on surrounding habitats. The presence of hidden debris from past dredging and construction (e.g., wood scabbing and pipeline offcuts; Bailey et al., 2010) can interfere with extraction machinery, causing costly delays. As with beneficial use of dredged material, adding material to wetland and subtidal surfaces leads to compaction of both the placed and underlying materials. The result is that there is not a 1:1 ratio of elevation gained to sediment placed.

Legal and financial hurdles

Overarching these technical challenges are significant administrative hurdles. Securing adequate funding is a primary obstacle. Furthermore, projects often involve multiple land parcels for extraction, transport and placement, creating a complex web of legal and liability concerns. Establishing clear ownership of the sediment itself and the authority to transfer it can also be a surprising roadblock requiring extensive time to navigate permits and agreements.

The need for adaptive management

Given that CDF reclamation is a nonroutine construction activity, many challenges are unforeseeable. This underscores the critical need for adaptive management. Continuous monitoring during and after construction is essential to ensure project objectives – such as achieving target marsh elevations, minimizing impacts on existing habitats and evaluating the need for reapplication of dredged material – are met, allowing teams to adjust their approach in real time (Harris et al., 2026).

The path forward

Forging a path forward requires a multifaceted approach that addresses challenges in research, planning and implementation. By systematically tackling these hurdles, the immense potential of CDFs can be unlocked for large-scale coastal restoration.

Ecological and sediment implications

The initial challenges are stacked toward research, particularly understanding the potential impacts of variable grain sizes on wetland biodiversity and sediment transport. While thicker sediment placements can cause initial vegetation dieback (Walters and Kirwan, 2016; Raposa et al., 2022), studies indicate these effects are often temporary and ultimately lead to greater stability in the long-term. For the placement of dredged material in wetlands, research shows native vegetation recovery within three to four growing seasons regardless of dredged material thickness (Raposa et al., 2022; Raposa et al., 2023; Harris et al., 2025), almost immediate use by avian species (Harris et al., 2026) and multiyear recovery of infaunal communities (Posey et al., 1997; Fleeger et al., 2020). Moreover, studies point to increased plant productivity (VanZomeren et al., 2018) and significant long-term biodiversity gains from beneficial use projects (Suedel et al., 2021). The key insight is that marsh function is controlled by a complex interplay of elevation, soil nutrients and microbial communities, not just grain size alone (Stagg and Mendelssohn, 2010; Jafari et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2024). Additionally, knowing the heterogeneity of the grain size in the saltmarsh of interest would inform the importance of knowing the consistency (or lack thereof) of the grain size of the dredged material. Future research should therefore focus on how to leverage the natural sorting of mixed-grain material, which creates gradients of elevation and soil type, to strategically enhance habitat diversity for species like shorebirds and terrapins.

Planning and collaboration

Beyond research, the path forward must address significant planning-level concerns spanning stakeholder engagement, regulatory frameworks and technical requirements. For stakeholder engagement, planners can draw from successful community-informed approaches implemented in coastal Louisiana (Hemmerling et al., 2020). A key advantage is that CDF reclamation projects often achieve stakeholder buy-in more easily than traditional dredging; stockpiled material decouples restoration schedules from rigid navigation timelines, offering greater operational flexibility. This process can be further streamlined by sediment-match portals, such as Maryland’s “Beneficial Use: Identifying Locations for Dredge” tool (Specht, 2019), which align the interests of sediment “brokers” (such as the US Army Corps of Engineers) with coastal restoration practitioners. These tools also help to identify and justify projects in sediment-starved marshes using remote sensing metrics like the unvegetated-to-vegetated ratio (Ganju, 2019).

To navigate regulatory and contaminant testing hurdles, the path forward should leverage lessons from successful wetland beneficial use of dredged material projects. New Jersey’s Seven Mile Island Innovation Lab (SMIIL), for example, reduced stakeholder concerns through pilot projects and open dialogue, demonstrating a highly collaborative, science-based approach founded on “trust, persistence, [and] proactive leadership” among diverse partners (Chasten et al., 2023). For contaminant testing, planners must account for potential mismatches between current sediment chemical quality of CDF material and requirements for use in wetland restoration, which may vary from state to state in the United States. In such cases, it may not be cost-effective or feasible to treat the sediment.

Practitioners can overcome physical characterization hurdles by utilizing rapid assessment methods during the planning phase. Technologies like ground-penetrating radar can characterize the distribution of sand and mud, while dynamic cone penetrometer tests assess soil strength (Gallegos et al., 2026). These methods allow for more targeted use of costly physical sampling to confirm material chemical suitability (Estes et al., 2012). However, for these rapid characterization techniques to be widely adopted, dedicated studies must continue to demonstrate their specific successes and limitations.

Finally, project teams can leverage lessons learned from beneficial use of dredged material projects to predict how soil consolidation will impact the success of using CDF sediment for wetland restoration. Numerous recent papers detail the geotechnical methods and modeling required to understand wetland consolidation (e.g., Harris et al., 2025; Zoccarato et al., 2025). For example, consolidation and surface erosion reduced original placement thicknesses by 60% at a site in coastal New Jersey (Harris et al., 2025). Developing these sorts of estimates using current best practices can increase the likelihood of project success.

Funding and implementation

In terms of implementation, funding and construction methods remain the biggest challenges. Construction methods can be tested by similarly leveraging lessons learned from SMIIL, which involved the use of early pilot projects before taking a more system-wide approach (Chasten et al., 2023). Additionally, implementation success will require early (pre-bid) engagement (e.g., Mehany et al., 2018) with marine contractors and construction experts who have experience with soft sediment removal and transportation options specific to marshes. Thankfully, sediment transportation costs, which are high for many beneficial uses of CDF sediment opportunities (HDR and LMS, 2006), should be relatively low as sediment could be directly placed or fluidized and pumped only a short distance given the proximity of most CDFs and surrounding marshes (Figure 1b, c). While funding could be the biggest hurdle, cost-sharing may split expenses and associated risks among stakeholders (federal, state, private and nonprofit conservation landowners) who value saving existing wetlands and waterway managers who need to free up capacity in CDFs. Funding for pilot projects could leverage National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funding and similar conservation grants aimed at moving projects through conceptualization, design and implementation phases.

Summary

Many coastal saltmarshes are degrading under a critical sediment deficit. This perspective proposes a practical but overlooked solution: reclaiming the vast dredged sediment “goldmine” stockpiled within CDFs. Using this material restores vital ecosystems while freeing additional capacity in CDFs for sediment unsuitable for restoration. While significant research, planning and operational hurdles exist, they are surmountable. We have outlined a strategic path for researchers and practitioners to overcome these challenges, turning a legacy liability into a key component of coastal resilience.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the staff of the US Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia, Jacksonville, San Francisco and Galveston Districts and the South Atlantic Division Regional Sediment Management Center of Expertise for participation in sensing sessions, which greatly informed this commentary piece; David White and Heath Hardwood of the Interagency Airborne Technologies for Lidar, Analysis and Surveying team (formerly Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise) for aerial imagery, which appears in Figure 1b; and Steven Bailey (Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory) for support on figure generation. Additionally, the authors thank Associate Editor Ken Krauss and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback which improved this perspective piece. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was utilized solely for language polishing. Specifically, Gemini was used to improve readability and grammatical correctness. No AI was used for data generation, interpretation or the drawing of scientific conclusions. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Figure 1. Long description

(a) Map of Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) locations and volumes along the U.S. southeast coast showing orange dots for each CDF. There are concentrations of high volume CDFs along the South Carolina coast in particular, (b) Low angle aerial photo of a CDF with earthen dikes next to a degrading marsh as indicated by ponding and edge erosion, and (c) Diagram of a dredge pumping material into a CDF (which was common practice in the late 1900s) and excavators removing material to place on a marsh for restoration (which is the solution proposed by this perspective piece).

Navigate back to Figure 1..

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2026.10046.

Data availability statement

The data referenced in text and included in Figure 1a are available from USACE (2024) and further summarized by Taylor Engineering, Inc. (2020).

Author contribution

J.L.S.: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; supervision; validation; visualization; writing – original draft. B.D.H.: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; supervision; validation; visualization; writing – original draft. B.M.W.: Data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; validation; visualization; writing – review and editing. S.E.B.: Investigation; methodology; supervision; validation; writing – original draft. P.R.S.: Investigation; methodology; supervision; validation; writing – review and editing.

Financial support

This study was funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers through the Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) program, Project 25-02 “Enhancing Confined Disposal Facilities Operation to Support Coastal Resiliency.”

Competing interests

All authors are employees of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center.

References

  1. 118th Congress (2023–2024) Public Law 118–272—Jan. 4, 2025 Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. Public Law118–272, 241 (2025). Available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4367/text (accessed 1 June 2026).
  2. Abelson A, Reed DC, Edgar GJ, Smith CS, Kendrick GA, Orth RJ, Airoldi L, Silliman B, Beck MW, Krause G, Shashar N, Stambler N and Nelson P (2020) Challenges for restoration of coastal marine ecosystems in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 544105. 10.3389/fmars.2020.544105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey SE, Estes TJ, Schroeder PR, Myers TE, Rosati JD, Welp TL, Lee LT, Gwin WV and Averett DE (2010) Sustainable Confined Disposal Facilities for Long-Term Management of Dredged Material (DOER Technical Notes Collection No. ERDC TN-DOER-D10). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boesch DF and Turner RE (1984) Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: The role of food and refuge. Estuaries 7(4), 460. 10.2307/1351627. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brook T, Millington-Drake M, Garbutt A, McGarrigle A, Rodriguez K and du Plessis N (2025) The State of the Worlds Saltmarshes 2025: A Global Call to Action for Coastal Resilience and Adaptation. Gland, Switzerland: The World Wildlife Fund. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cadigan JA, Jafari NH, Stagg CL, Laurenzano C, Harris BD, Meselhe AE, Dugas J and Couvillion B (2022) Characterization of vegetated and ponded wetlands with implications towards coastal wetland marsh collapse. Catena 218, 106547. 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chasten M, Tedesco L and Kopkash G (2023) Advancing sediment solutions in the seven Mile Island innovation laboratory. Coastal Engineering Proceedings, (37), 64. 10.9753/icce.v37.papers.64. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Couvillion BR, Beck H, Schoolmaster D and Fischer M (2017) Land Area Change in Coastal Louisiana (1932 to 2016) (No. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3381). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Day JW, Kemp GP, Reed DJ, Cahoon DR, Boumans RM, Suhayda JM and Gambrell R (2011) Vegetation death and rapid loss of surface elevation in two contrasting Mississippi delta salt marshes: The role of sedimentation, autocompaction and sea-level rise. Ecological Engineering 37(2), 229–240. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Enwright NM, Griffith KT and Osland MJ (2016) Barriers to and opportunities for landward migration of coastal wetlands with sea-level rise. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(6), 307–316. 10.1002/fee.1282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Estes TJ, Clarke JU and McGrath CJ (2012) Confined disposal facility characterization for beneficial reuse of dredged material: A case study to demonstrate a structured approach to sampling and data analysis. Journal of Soils and Sediments 12(4), 636–651. 10.1007/s11368-012-0474-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fleeger JW, Johnson DS, Zengel S, Mendelssohn IA, Deis DR, Graham SA, Lin Q, Christman MC, Riggio MR and Pant M (2020) Macroinfauna responses and recovery trajectories after an oil spill differ from those following saltmarsh restoration. Marine Environmental Research 155, 104881. 10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gallegos D, Shawler J, Harris B, McPherran K, White D, Hubler J and Chasten M (2026) Supporting coastal shorelines through site characterization of a confined dredged material disposal Facility in Southern New Jersey. In Geo-Congress 2026. Presented at the Geo-Congress 2026: Geo Tools, Technologies, and Techniques in an Environment of Change. Salt Lake City, UT: American Society of Civil Engineers. 10.1061/9780784486757.01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ganju NK (2019) Marshes are the new beaches: Integrating sediment transport into restoration planning. Estuaries and Coasts 42(4), 917–926. 10.1007/s12237-019-00531-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Harris BD, Day DJ, Cadigan JA, Jafari NH, Bailey SE and Tyler ZJ (2021) Establishment of soil strength in a nourished wetland using thin layer placement of dredged sediment. PLoS One 16(5), e0251420. 10.1371/journal.pone.0251420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Harris BD, Ostojic A, Tedesco LP, VanDerSys K, Bailey S, Shawler JL, Jafari NH and Chasten M (2025) Wetland elevation change following beneficial use of dredged material nourishment. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 13, 1518759. 10.3389/fevo.2025.1518759. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Harris BD, Shawler J, Ostojic A, Chasten M, McGill S, White D, Tedesco L, Bruder B, Falcone F, Gallegos D, Stark N, Grilliot M and Kinney T (2026) Scalable geomorphic monitoring for tidal wetland sediment nourishments. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 152(1), 04025037. 10.1061/JWPED5.WWENG-2347. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. HDR & LMS (2006) Feasibility Analysis - Reclamation of Confined Disposal Facility Storage Capacity Through Opportunities Presented by USACE Projects. NJ Department of Transportation Office of Maritime Resources, p. 34. Available at https://nj-dot.nj.gov/transportation/freight/maritime/pdf/feasibilityanalysis.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjY7NWs4OGKAxV7EGIAHSx9NZcQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QF71gfFYq2v9SphqPqSbO (accessed 7 July 2025). [Google Scholar]
  19. Hemmerling SA, Barra M, Bienn HC, Baustian MM, Jung H, Meselhe E, Wang Y and White E (2020) Elevating local knowledge through participatory modeling: Active community engagement in restoration planning in coastal Louisiana. Journal of Geographical Systems 22(2), 241–266. 10.1007/s10109-019-00313-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoeppel RE, Engler RM and Myers TE (1978) Physical and Chemical Characterization of Dredged Material Influents and Effluents in Confined Land Disposal Areas (Technical Report No. WES-TR-D-78-24). Vicksburg, MS: Waterways Experiment Station, p. 320. Available at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/ADA057460/index.html (accessed 11 October 2025). [Google Scholar]
  21. Ingersoll CG, MacDonald DD, Brumbaugh WG, Johnson BT, Kemble NE, Kunz JL, May TW, Wang N, Smith JR, Sparks DW and Ireland DS (2002) Toxicity assessment of sediments from the grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor canal in northwestern Indiana, USA. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 43(2), 156–167. 10.1007/s00244-001-0051-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jafari NH, Harris BD, Cadigan JA, Day JW, Sasser CE, Kemp GP, Wigand C, Freeman A, Sharp LA, Pahl J, Shaffer GP, Holm GO Jr and Lane RR (2019) Wetland shear strength with emphasis on the impact of nutrients, sediments, and sea level rise. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 229, 106394. 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jafari NH, Harris BD, Morris JT and Cadigan JA (2024) Interplay of Hydroperiod on root shear strength for coastal wetlands. Geophysical Research Letters 51(11), e2023GL106531. 10.1029/2023GL106531. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu Z, Fagherazzi S, He Q, Gourgue O, Bai J, Liu X, Miao C, Hu Z and Cui B (2024) A global meta-analysis on the drivers of salt marsh planting success and implications for ecosystem services. Nature Communications 15(1), 3643. 10.1038/s41467-024-47769-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mariotti G (2016) Revisiting salt marsh resilience to sea level rise: Are ponds responsible for permanent land loss? Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 121(7), 1391–1407. 10.1002/2016JF003900. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mehany MSHM, Bashettiyavar G, Esmaeili B and Gad G (2018) Claims and project performance between traditional and alternative project delivery methods. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction 10(3), 04518017. 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000266. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mitsch WJ, Bernal B and Hernandez ME (2015) Ecosystem services of wetlands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11(1), 1–4. 10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Molino GD, Carr JA, Ganju NK and Kirwan ML (2022) Variability in marsh migration potential determined by topographic rather than anthropogenic constraints in the Chesapeake Bay region. Limnology and Oceanography Letters 7(4), 321–331. 10.1002/lol2.10262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Möller I, Kudella M, Rupprecht F, Spencer T, Paul M, Van Wesenbeeck BK, Wolters G, Jensen K, Bouma TJ, Miranda-Lange M and Schimmels S (2014) Wave attenuation over coastal salt marshes under storm surge conditions. Nature Geoscience 7(10), 727–731. 10.1038/ngeo2251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nairn R, Johnson JA, Hardin D and Michel J (2004) A biological and physical monitoring program to evaluate long-term impacts from sand dredging operations in the United States outer continental shelf. Journal of Coastal Research 201, 126–137. 10.2112/1551-5036(2004)20[126:ABAPMP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Narayan S, Beck MW, Wilson P, Thomas CJ, Guerrero A, Shepard CC, Reguero BG, Franco G, Ingram JC and Trespalacios D (2017) The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the northeastern USA. Scientific Reports 7(1), 9463. 10.1038/s41598-017-09269-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. (n.d.) Economics and Demographics. Available at https://coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/economics-and-demographics.html (accessed 15 August 2025).
  33. Olin-Estes TJ, Bailey SE, Heisey SA and Hofseth K (2002) Planning Level Cost-Benefit Analysis for Physical Separation at Confined Disposal Facilities (Technical Note No. ERDC TN-DOER-C27). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available at https://hdl.handle.net/11681/8707 (accessed 8 July 2025). [Google Scholar]
  34. Olin-Estes TJ and Palermo MR (2001) Recovery of dredged material for beneficial use: The future role of physical separation processes. Journal of Hazardous Materials 85(1–2), 39–51. 10.1016/S0304-3894(01)00220-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Perkey DW, Tedesco LP, Fall KA, Huff TP and Chasten MA (2024) Stability of marsh edge berms constructed from fine-grained dredged sediment. Frontiers in Marine Science 11, 1401225. 10.3389/fmars.2024.1401225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Piercy C, Welp T and Mohan R (2023) Guidelines for How to Approach Thin Layer Placement Projects. Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.). 10.21079/11681/47724. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Posey MH, Alphin TD and Powell CM (1997) Plant and Infaunal communities associated with a created marsh. Estuaries 20(1), 42. 10.2307/1352718. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Raposa KB, Bradley M, Chaffee C, Ernst N, Ferguson W, Kutcher TE, McKinney RA, Miller KM, Rasmussen S, Tymkiw E and Wigand C (2022) Laying it on thick: Ecosystem effects of sediment placement on a microtidal Rhode Island salt marsh. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 939870. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.939870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Raposa KB, Woolfolk A, Endris CA, Fountain MC, Moore G, Tyrrell M, Swerida R, Lerberg S, Puckett BJ, Ferner MC, Hollister J, Burdick DM, Champlin L, Krause JR, Haines D, Gray AB, Watson EB and Wasson K (2023) Evaluating thin-layer sediment placement as a tool for enhancing tidal marsh resilience: A coordinated experiment across eight US National Estuarine Research Reserves. Estuaries and Coasts 46(3), 595–615. 10.1007/s12237-022-01161-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rezaie AM, Loerzel J and Ferreira CM (2020) Valuing natural habitats for enhancing coastal resilience: Wetlands reduce property damage from storm surge and sea level rise. PLoS One 15(1), e0226275. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rush SA, Soehren EC, Woodrey MS, Graydon CL and Cooper RJ (2009) Occupancy of select marsh birds within northern Gulf of Mexico tidal marsh: Current estimates and projected change. Wetlands 29(3), 798–808. 10.1672/08-174.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. SASMI (2023) Marsh Forward: A Regional Plan for the Future of the South Atlantic Coast’s Million-Acre Salt Marsh Ecosystem. South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative. Available at https://marshforward.org/media/4bvhppi3/sasmi-plan.pdf (accessed 15 August 2025).
  43. Saucier RT (1976) Dredged Material as a Natural Resource—Concepts for Land Improvement and Reclamation (Final Report No. Miscellaneous Paper D-76-13). Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Effects Laboratory, p. 27. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schroeder PR, Bailey SE, Estes TJ and Price RA (2008) Screening Evaluations for Upland Confined Disposal Facility Surface Runoff Quality (Technical Note No. ERDC TN-DOER-R12). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available at https://sav.el.erdc.dren.mil/elpubs/pdf/doerr12.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiErOnR37GVAxVh4ckDHY8nHEEQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3TaqZOXXTCTKIsmOU4OppU (accessed 11 October 2025). [Google Scholar]
  45. Schroeder PR, Estes TJ and Bailey SE (2006) Screening Evaluations for Upland Confined Disposal Facility Effluent Quality (Technical Note No. ERDC TN-DOER-R11). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Available at https://dtic.minsky.ai/ADA453709/text (accessed 11 October 2025). [Google Scholar]
  46. Specht J (2019) BUILD User Manual, Beneficial Use: Identifying Locations for Dredge. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, p. 20. Available at https://dnr.geodata.md.gov/CoastalAtlas/StepbyStep_Guides/BUmanual/BUILDUserManual.pdf (accessed 12 October 2025). [Google Scholar]
  47. Stagg CL and Mendelssohn IA (2010) Restoring ecological function to a submerged salt marsh. Restoration Ecology 18(s1), 10–17. 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00718.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Stoorvogel MM, Van Belzen J, Temmerman S, Wiesebron LE, Fivash GS, Van IJzerloo L, Van De Koppel J and Bouma TJ (2024) Salt marshes for nature-based flood defense: Sediment type, drainage, and vegetation drive the development of strong sediment beds. Ecological Engineering 207, 107335. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107335. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Suedel BC, McQueen AD, Wilkens JL, Saltus CL, Bourne SG, Gailani JZ, King JK and Corbino JM (2021) Beneficial use of dredged sediment as a sustainable practice for restoring coastal marsh habitat. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 18(5), 1162–1173. 10.1002/ieam.4501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Sweet WV, Hamlington BD, Kopp RE, Weaver CP, Barnard PL, Bekaert D, Brooks W, Craghan M, Dusek G, Frederikse T, Garner G, Genz AS, Krasting JP, Larour E, Marcy D, Marra JJ, Obeysekera J, Osler M, Pendleton M, Roman D, Schmied L, Veatch W, White KD and Zuzak C (2022) Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Up-dated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAATechnical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National OceanService, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf.
  51. Taylor Engineering, Inc. (2020) SAD SAND DMMA Offloading and Sediment Exchange Study (Final Report No. C2019-032-03). Jacksonville, FL: Taylor Engineering, Inc. Available at https://www.sad.usace.army.mil/Portals/60/siteimages/SACS/SAD%20DMMA%20Offloading%20and%20Sediment%20Exchange%20Study.pdf?ver=tNAb1ZW8DGPHrxbOZZ1RZQ%3D%3D (accessed 7 July 2025). [Google Scholar]
  52. USACE (2024) DMMA [Data set]. Feature Service. Available at https://data-sacs.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/a8c2d5b3260c464e9152a2cd54989837/about (accessed 9 July 2025).
  53. VanZomeren CM, Berkowitz JF, Piercy CD and White JR (2018) Restoring a degraded marsh using thin layer sediment placement: Short term effects on soil physical and biogeochemical properties. Ecological Engineering 120, 61–67. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.05.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Walters DC and Kirwan ML (2016) Optimal hurricane overwash thickness for maximizing marsh resilience to sea level rise. Ecology and Evolution 6(9), 2948–2956. 10.1002/ece3.2024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wamsley TV, Cialone MA, Smith JM, Atkinson JH and Rosati JD (2010) The potential of wetlands in reducing storm surge. Ocean Engineering 37(1), 59–68. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.07.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Wilburn BP, Raper K, Raposa KB, Gray AB, Mozdzer TJ and Watson EB (2024) Promoting success in thin layer sediment placement: Effects of sediment grain size and amendments on salt marsh plant growth and greenhouse gas exchange. Restoration Ecology 32(5), e14141. 10.1111/rec.14141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Zoccarato C, Baldan S, Gatto F, Zorzan P, Cosma M, Da Lio C, Donnici S, Tosi L, Minderhoud PSJ, Bergamasco A and Teatini P (2025) How Compressible Are Salt Marshes? Unique Field Experiments Combined With Advanced Modeling Provide Novel Insights From the Venice Lagoon. JGR Earth Surface 130, e2025JF008539. 10.1029/2025JF008539. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr2

Review: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R0/PR2

Thomas McGinnis 1

Mining Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs) to address marsh surface elevation and sediment limitations is relevant, and a perspective article from USACE employees is a good introduction to the issues involved with using CDFs. Three issues to address are:

(1) Elaborate a little more on the work that has been done in Louisiana towards this issue. Programs such as CWPPRA has utilized BUDMAT and has attempted to mine CDF, especially along the Calcasieu Ship Channel. Mining CDFs has proven to be tricky. This may strengthen your perspective.

(2) Develop the premise described at the end of Sect 3 regarding raising saltmarshes 0.4 m to address sea-level rise from 2000 to 2050.

a. Sediment additions are typically within the context of remaining within the tidal prism which may require an iterative approach over years.

b. If possible, update the date range from 2000 to 2050.

(3) Ecological and Sediment Implication: knowing the heterogeneity of the grain size in the saltmarsh of interest would also inform the importance of knowing the consistency (or lack thereof) of grain size of the dredged material.

Otherwise, my remaining comments are editorial in nature:

39 and 46: Use Oxford Comma in complex sentences and compound lists. This was done well elsewhere in the ms.

66: Use “goldmine” (figurative/conceptual) rather than “gold mine” (actual, specific location). “Goldmine” was used throughout the rest of the ms.

80-81: Combine paragraphs

107: Don’t split technical terminology/lingo with “annually”. Try this: While the beneficial use of dredged material....wetlands, annual dredging cycles cannot...

110-111: Change the order and add an example: Wetland nourishment...unlike other beneficial...sand such as beach fill.

158 and 177: Remove comma

219: Add “(SMIIL)” for later usage in Line 232.

241: Remove commas after “expenses” and “risks”

241: Add “stakeholders”: ...risk among stakeholders (federal, ...landowners)

243: Delete “specifically”.

References Section (check throughout for these examples)

- “and” and “&” are both used in authors' lists; pick one for consistency.

309: All caps for journal title

312: Authors' list format different from others.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr3

Review: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R0/PR3

Anonymous

This perspective manuscript outlines arguments for the reuse of sediment stored in CFD for environmental restoration projects. The authors highlight the value of this stored sediment, then possible barriers and finally suggest solutions based mainly on research, funding, and early planning. This is a timely perspective suggesting a single solution to solve two problems: reuse of unused sediment kept in CDFs to feed retrieving saltmarshes.

I have only a few minor comments to the perspective.

I would urge the authors to include information also about the barriers and paths forward in the abstract. As it reads now, the abstract has a long introduction to the subject, but it does not represent the manuscript.

Within the environmental risks section, it isn’t clear how much of the confined stored sediment is expected to actually be clean to the necessary standards/requirements in terms of hazardous chemicals. I am from Europe where there are requirements, so I am unaware of similar requirements in US. Assuming there are, it is important to put into perspective how clean the sediment kept in CDFs is, in relation to the levels they are expected to be for reuse in such projects.

It also misses some information on how to overcome potential mismatch between current sediment chemical quality of stored sediment and the requirements for use in wetland restoration projects. If the sediment is not clean to the necessary requirements, would it be feasible, both in practical terms and economically, to clean the sediment? I understand that this is a perspective, and thus not an exhaustive list, but perhaps mention this barrier that can be decisive for these projects.

Given that the manuscript is a perspective, and not a review, I would urge the authors to reduce the list of references substantially.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr4

Recommendation: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R0/PR4

Editor: Ken Krauss1

Associate Editor (Krauss): I think this perspective could make a nice contribution to Coastal Futures. I was unaware of this source of sediment, and I commend the authors for writing this perspectives article. Reviewers were in agreement, but also offered a number of edits to consider, particularly associated with contamination concerns (Reviewer 2). Also, the reviewers were split on requesting more relevant citations versus already having too many for this perspectives piece. I recommend being very diligent to include only the most important references throughout, perhaps selecting peer reviewed journal articles over government reports where you can. Also, delete citations to meeting talks. Those are not peer reviewed and are thus not scientifically authoritative.

Major point:

There are important reasons why we do not implement BUDM projects everywhere. Issues associated with all BUDM projects still apply to the usage of confined disposal facility usage, and should be mentioned. For example, adding new material to existing wetland surfaces (or even subtidal surfaces) lead to greater compaction, so it is not a 1:1 replacement. This will affect the overall volume of this sediment source in terms of potential area of benefit, and dampen its benefit for offsetting sea-level rise in any specific location. Also, BUDM projects often do need re-application plans, particularly when root zones do not establish rapidly. This swells costs significantly. Please interject these important details.

Minor points:

Abstract. Clarify what the 2100 and 13% refer to? Assuming 13% by 2100 in the modeling. Suggest stating that if so.

Title does not really describe the story being told. Should add some reference to “for tidal wetland restoration”? How about something like “Opportunities, prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities for tidal wetland restoration”?

For the use of the phrase “U.S. Southeast Intracoastal Waterway”, consider defining for the reader what this is? The US is unique in having this infrastructure, so it might not be too clear for international readers.

I look forward to reading your revised manuscript. Please detail how all comments were addressed in your cover letter or appropriate space.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr5

Decision: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R0/PR5

Editor: Thomas Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr7

Recommendation: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R1/PR7

Editor: Ken Krauss1

Associate Editor (Krauss): Very nice job with the revisions! I like this paper a lot and I feel that it will be quite useful. People talk a lot about nature-based solutions, but this has actual potential and is a straightforward approach, though expensive. I have a couple of additional edits to suggest, but this is ready to be accepted after you consider these. No need for a reconciliation. My first comment is my biggest concern for you all! Nice job on this Perspective.

L. 69. Do the authors intend to suggest using CDFs as a “primary” tool, or as a tool? Primary meaning prioritize this over all other restoration approaches (e.g., FW diversions, dredged sediments, gapping, terracing)? Just checking. Worried that Corps leadership might not want this stated in this fashion.

L. 82. Space after “)”

L. 167. Suggest deleting this sentence: “Beyond planning, operational logistics can be a nightmare.” Use of “nightmare” is strange, and turns out to be redundant with next sentence.

L. 222. “a priori” is not used properly. It cannot be used to split an infinitive. I would take a priori out. It’s implied by the rest of the sentence.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10046.pr8

Decision: The tidal wetland restoration goldmine: Prospects and pitfalls of mining confined disposal facilities — R1/PR8

Editor: Thomas Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    The data referenced in text and included in Figure 1a are available from USACE (2024) and further summarized by Taylor Engineering, Inc. (2020).

    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES