A little clarifacation on the connection of "dredge" to the 1899 Harbor and Rivers Act ( https://www.epw.senate.gov/rivers.pdf ):
It's not a definition in the Act. The Act directs an agency purpose but the act to "dredge" has only one function under the Act as implemented.
To dredge is a method creating material subject to the purpose of the Act, such as.
for the construction of any structure,
the creation of any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction,
rechannelization,
or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity,
By the rules implementing that Act, such as.
And for our summary purposes relating to:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/323.2
(c) The term dredged material means material that is excavated or dredged from waters of the United States.
(d) (1) Except as provided below in paragraph (d)(2), the term discharge of dredged material means any . . .
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/324.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/329.5
And applicable to "civil works":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/part-329
§ 329.2 Applicability.
This regulation is applicable to all Corps of Engineers districts and divisions having civil works responsibilities.
So, and really because of wrongful governmental misapplication, or non-application of any jurisdictional limits, if some one says they "dredge" that "operation" or "operator", (See:
https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/supreme-court-rules-a-dredge-is-a-jones-act-vessel ), will come under the Harbors and Rivers Act and be presumed to be doing any of the subject matter activities for purpose of regulation of dredged material.
So this is how we get to the point a MEG doesn't do or is not a part of any of this so we should not use the term "dredge" in any form.