Cited by 1Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsCoastal and Marine ManagementEnvironmental and Sediment Control

Stakeholder feedback on ecological benefits at dredged material placement sites

Open access
Littles, Chanda J., Russ, Emily R., Lemasson, Bertrand H., Schultz, Martin T., Tidwell, Kyle S., Moritz, Hans R., Carroll, Sean T.·2025·Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

We adopted a matrix framework to evaluate potential ecological benefits at beneficial use of dredged material (BUDM) placement sites. Monitoring protocols developed in California (U.S.A.) were adapted to solicit feedback on ecosystem functions and indicators most relevant for BUDM applications. We present feedback received in the context of estuaries and a large coastal river in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, though methods are easily transferable. Through a series of workshops, stakeholders were asked to identify and prioritize functions and indicators they deemed most applicable to BUDM assessment. From a stakeholder group of over 50 invitees representing 21 organizations, we received matrices from just under half (n=9). Matrix input often reflected collaborative feedback from multiple individuals within a single organization. Top ecosystem functions identified were support for protected species, sea level rise amelioration, nursery habitat, support for vascular plants, and nekton habitat. Top indicators selected for assessing those functions were the marsh vegetation, benthic infauna, water quality, distribution of submerged vegetation and macroalgae, and the marshplain elevation. Not all indicators were applicable to selected functions and there was high variability in the indicator prioritization. A final stakeholder workshop was held to discuss results and participants expressed support for monitoring indicators (e.g., biomass) with the greatest potential to capture changes in benefits across multiple ecological functions and over time. We demonstrate a process to facilitate ongoing stakeholder collaboration to proactively plan for evaluating ecological priorities and selecting relevant indicators that enable users to effectively monitor and quantify BUDM benefits.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fevo.2025.1686792

Cites

48 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Berkowitz, 2022, A multi-decadal assessment of dredged sediment beneficial use projects part 1: ecological outcomes, WEDA J. Dredging, 20
  2. Berkowitz, 2022, A multi-decadal assessment of dredged sediment beneficial use projects part 2: ecosystem functions, goods, and services, WEDA J. Dredging, 20
  3. Heip, 1998, Indices of diversity and evenness, Oceanis, 24, 61
  4. Lee, 1991, Fuzzy decision making in dredged-material management, J. Environ. Eng., 117, 614, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1991)117:5(614 · DOI
  5. 2015, Dredging and dredged material management. Engineering manual, EM 1110-2-5025
  6. Walker, 2023, Estuary marine protected area monitoring protocol, 29

Cited by

Authors
Littles, C. J., Russ, E. R., Lemasson, B. H., Schultz, M. T., Tidwell, K. S., Moritz, H. R., & Carroll, S. T.
Affiliations
  • United States Army Corps of Engineers (US)
  • U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (US)
  • United States Army (US)
Corresponding author
Littles, Chanda J.
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Published
2025-12-12
Volume
13
ISSN
2296-701X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7114919090
Cited by
1
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Sediment Control
Keywords
beneficial use of dredged material, stakeholder feedback, ecosystem functioning, ecological indicators, estuaries, coastal rivers, sea level rise, nursery grounds, benthic infauna, marsh vegetation, water quality, submerged macrophytes, seaweed, monitoring protocols, stakeholder collaboration, Pacific Northwest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review