The expense of the permitting process – in money, time and mental anguish – has frustrated commercial harbor development interests for years. That Portland’s harbor dredge committee took just five years to secure permits to remove one million cubic yards of bottom is considered a resounding success. Even smaller harbors with small commercial and recreational vessel traffic are not immune to dredge permitting’s confusing torment.
To call the process vexing would understate the problem. Getting into the details of dredge permitting can be likened to reading the federal tax code; it’s one of those necessary evils that we have to face to keep the country’s commerce moving.
Confronted with 52 active federal channel “maintenance dredges” statewide and many more private pier operations adjacent to these channels that require dredging, the Maine Department of Transportation has partnered with harbor and marine interests along the coast to develop a Dredge Management Action Plan, or DMAP.
“The overall goal is to find a way to make dredging happen in environmentally safe and economically sound manner,” says Brian Nutter, who oversees the work as Ports and Marine program manager in the Department of Transportation’s Office of Freight Transportation.
“Dredging is necessary; it’s not a bad thing,” says Nutter. “It keeps harbors safe and clean, it helps keep navigation safe so there’s less chance for an accident. We’re hoping to keep all of that functioning well.”
Everyone involved agrees that for ports to continue to function, the permit process has to change. Topping the list of frustrations is the complete lack of certainty over what a project will cost, how long it will take, and its chances of success. Federal approval is required from the Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Marine Fisheries Service make comments to the Corps if they have concerns about potential environmental and fisheries impacts of projects. Maine’s Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, and Marine Resources review projects for essentially the same criteria as the federal agencies. Obviously, agencies with different areas of interest will differ in their assessment of projects, causing the delays and uncertainty that applicants dread.
One case sums up this frustration. Five years ago, the Corps of Engineers did a pilot study using clean Royal River dredge material to cover, or cap, other dredge material dumped at sea. If the capping worked, the presumption was that clean dredge material could be used to cover dredge material that might not be as clean, thereby preventing it from contaminating the environment. But since the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act doesn’t address capping, EPA took the position that it means capping isn’t allowed. The Corps assumes it is. The agency disagreement has yet to be resolved, leaving one possible disposal option in limbo.
To sort out the problems and come up with recommendations for improving the existing system, the DMAP oversight committee hired Boston-based consulting firm Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Public meetings were held in Rockport, Milbridge and Portland in an attempt to collect public comments on and hear concerns about dredging. While attendance at the midcoast and downeast meetings was sparse, Bill Muellenhoff, Foster Wheeler’s project manager, says they were beneficial. “We wanted to give wanted to give public an opportunity to comment on their concerns.”
The approach is an indication that the state Department of Transportation has learned from prior experience that people need to have their voice heard – before a plan is completed. The Department of Transportation’s initial development of the port plan for Mack Point in Searsport drew local fire when it was unveiled, sending the agency back to the drawing board. When the next version was presented a year later, it embodied the shared goals and sacrifices of everyone, from fishermen to port planners. “We came out with a better project that required give and take on both sides,” says Nutter. “They (lobstermen) said thanks for listening, and we appreciate that they’re listening too. We live there together.”
Confronting the uncertainties
Foster Wheeler is looking at five principal issues associated with dredging, starting with the permitting process and how to streamline it. They are also looking at how to get money for non-federal dredge projects, sampling procedures and costs, and dredging “windows” – the time period when dredging is allowed.
The cost associated with dredging varies widely. The most important determinant there is disposal of dredged material, where estimates range from $10 per cubic yard of clean material hauled out to sea and dumped – to $200 per cubic yard for contaminated material requiring special treatment and disposal at a secure landfill on the mainland.
“Most dredge projects are 10 or 20 thousand to 100,000 cubic yards,” says Nutter. “Rockland is looking at dredging 100,000 cubic yards. Compare the overall cost of $10 per yard to $100 on a project that scale.”
When evaluating disposal options, regulators look at both the chemical and physical composition of dredge material. Ideally, dredged material will match the composition of the ocean bottom where it is being deposited. If the material is clean but contains wood chips, for example, it can be disqualified for ocean disposal. Costs will jump.
If the chemical composition of the dredge material is skewed by contaminants, there are several options: take it offshore and cap it for $9-$12/cubic yard (if permitted); take it to an upland site and use it as an admixture in paving or foundation concrete for $40 to $60/cubic yard, which requires additional permits because it becomes a special waste (it must be shown that it won’t pollute the land). For material too contaminated for ocean disposal or upland re-use, the only remaining option is disposal at a secure landfill -$200/cubic yard.
Silk purse from a sow’s ear
Ask Brian Nutter his dream solution to the nagging disposal problem, and he’ll tell you it’s finding a way to economically use dredge material as an asset instead of a liability. “We haven’t explored enough ways to use it. It’s a waste,” says Nutter. “To be able to use it more frequently is a real win, whether it’s in foundations for buildings or creating marshlands for wetland mitigation projects.”
Nutter’s not entirely fantasizing. Dredge material has been stabilized and used as an aggregate before; the giant “dolphins” protecting the Casco Bay Bridge are full of dredge material deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal.
First, the muck is brought onto land and drained. It is then mixed with drying agents, primarily cement factory kiln dust, which absorbs water and stabilizes it, and kills odors. It’s then ready to be poured into a concrete foundation slab. “We’re just scratching the surface of the beneficial re-use concept,” says Nutter. “We’re hoping for more opportunities for it.” Although recycling the material involves costs, it would inevitably be cheaper than the $200/yard to truck it up to the secure landfill in Norridgewock.
When Foster Wheeler makes its recommendations to DMAP’s oversight committee, most predict that the report will recommend overhauling the permitting process to allow one-stop permitting. Foster Wheeler’s Muellenhoff says his company has looked at different models from throughout the U.S. where such options exist. Seattle and San Francisco have a Dredge Material Management Office made up of federal and state agencies who coordinate the permitting process; New Jersey also has one agency that coordinates the permitting.
Joe Payne, Casco Baykeeper and DMAP oversight committee member, guesses what will come out of the report “is a recommendation to go to the legislature and say that there ought to be an office of dredging, or a staff person in charge of dredging, who can coordinate harbor needs. The staff person would guide pier owners through the permitting process, which at this point is very confusing,” says Payne.
After prohibitive disposal costs, confusion ranks near the top of people’s frustrations with the existing system. Maybe the legislature will take the committee’s recommendation to heart. The alternative is to continue along doing business as usual, as mapped out by Muellenhoff’s team in a graphical representation of Maine’s dredge permitting process. It’s in the form of a flow chart, like a taxonomic key, leading the applicant through a series of “If – Then” questions.
“It’s really mind boggling when you look at the flow charts,” says Joe Payne. “It really points out what the private pier owners have been saying: it’s incomprehensible.”
Foster Wheeler’s report and recommendations to the DMAP oversight committee are expected to be complete in January or early February 2002.
Financial relief for private pier owners (dredging article sidebar)
When the Maine Department of Transportation needs money for dredging, the state issues a bond or raises taxes. Lacking that ability, private pier owners must foot the bill on their own. Dredging is hard to fund in part because when a pier owner goes to a bank to get a loan for dredging or piling repair, the project doesn’t improve the borrower’s cash flow, says Elizabeth Sheehan, Fisheries Program Director at Coastal Enterprises Inc., a private non-profit community development organization. “Their debt increases without their income increasing, so it’s not an interesting, bankable loan.”
That’s where Coastal Enterprises (CEI) comes in. CEI administers the Working Waterfront Loan Fund to fund projects like dredging, pier maintenance and repair, and environmental upgrades on private commercial wharf operations. The fund’s initial $1 million capitalization came from proceeds of the sale of the Bath Iron Works’ Portland drydock. Its low-interest (6.5 percent) loans require a match and have favorable payback terms. Borrowers are currently restricted to the Portland waterfront, but that may change if the fund is successful. Those outside of Portland who are interested should contact Sheehan at CEI’s Portland office, 772-5356.