Posted on February 8, 2022
SWAMPSCOTT — To dredge or not to dredge?
While the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Commission is conducting a feasibility study for refurbishing the existing pier or constructing a new one, the town’s commercial fisherman say that a new pier won’t help either boaters or residents whose properties are prone to flooding. The town officials are referring to the abandoned dredging plan from the 2010s, saying that dredging is too expensive and would need a costly replanting of protected eelgrass. But with the current investments the federal government is doing into infrastructure, combined with recent grants distributed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, should the town look into dredging again?
The need for dredging is not unique to Swampscott. A report published by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in April 2021 states that 62 percent of interviewed Massachusetts harbormasters said that their harbors were in need of dredging, while commercial fishermen across the state identified it as the biggest obstacle for commercial fishing.
Funding, permitting and environmental impact on productive shellfishing grounds were listed among the challenges related to dredging.
Swampscott Harbor was previously dredged in 1958 and in 1993. The last dredging project was considered unsuccessful, as not enough material was removed from the harbor and the talk about new dredging began as soon as late 1990s. The town and the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee worked on a new dredging plan in 2010-2013.
“It never got out of discussion,” said Neil Rossman, who was a member of the committee back then.
After discussions with different agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it was determined that dredging would be financially unattainable for the town, said Rossman, as a permit would require a pricey replanting of the protected eelgrass. Thus, the town did not apply for a dredging permit.
On Jan. 19, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will invest $14 billion across the country into supply chains and climate resilience. Massachusetts is to receive $20 million in 2022 for port and waterway improvements, including grants for dredging Salem Harbor ($2.95 million), Essex River ($4.43 million), Wareham Harbor ($4.89 million) and Newburyport Harbor ($2.5 million).
“Why didn’t Swampscott ask to be included in this funding?” said Rossman.
According to the Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald, the town has every intent of applying for state and federal funding and looked at the Army Corps grants. But he sees a specific sequence of waterfront projects that Swampscott resolved to pursue in the Harbor and Waterfront Plan, adopted by the Select Board in May 2020.
“I don’t think dredging is out of the question,” said Fitzgerald. “We have to be open to the balance of all of these issues and it has to be strategically coordinated.”
The pier project, in Fitzgerald’s opinion, will support both the people who work on the ocean as well as broader community interests, including resiliency and the need for public spaces.
Although the Harbor and Waterfront Plan stated that dredging the harbor will be difficult due to the abundant eelgrass population, harbor dredging was still the second recommendation in the plan after building a protective living reef. The plan suggested funding an engineering dredge plan, obtaining regulatory backing and procuring funding, as dredging would “optimize natural resource needs and fishing/recreational boating needs for the Swampscott Harbor.”
The current discussion of the new pier is part of a feasibility study that the town was able to initiate after receiving a $80,000 grant from the Seaport Economic Council, said Jackson Schultz, chair of the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee. The town had applied for a grant for the living reef as well, but didn’t receive it. That is why the Town Meeting allocated additional $100,000 to finance the town’s 20 percent required share in the pier feasibility study and to begin a feasibility study for the breakwater and the living reef.
“The purpose of the feasibility study is to find out if you can even do what you’re planning on doing,” said Schultz. “And once you make the determination that, yes, it is a feasible option, then you go back for future money to begin the actual design and construction.”
McAllister Marine Engineering is currently performing test borings to measure the sand layer and determine where the bedrock begins. The feasibility study will also include mapping out of the harbor and finding out where exactly the eelgrass grows and where the clam population is.
Schultz agrees with the fishermen that dredging would be “the complete answer.”
“We’re not even abandoning dredging,” Schultz said. “If we (decide to) put in a new pier, there is going to be a dredging component to the new pier because right at the end of this pier now it is too shallow. The sailboats can’t come in at low tide, the fishing boats can’t come in at low tide.”
However, he is still pessimistic about the regulators.
“We met with them last month and they’re still holding firm to the fact that they won’t let us do any dredging in the harbor,” Schultz said.
The EPA wouldn’t be the deciding authority on a dredging application, said Regina Lyons, chief of the National Estuary Program and Marine Protection Section. To initiate a dredging project, Swampscott would need to submit an application to the Army Corps of Engineers.
“They’ll be looking at the applicant application to balance the different interests,” said Lyons.
The process involves multiple advising agencies, including the town’s Conservation Committee, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, the Department of Environmental Protection, the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The EPA might conduct pre-application meetings with communities to give guidance to the applicant as to what questions they need to face to go through the permitting process, but it does not make any determinations at those meetings.
The Swampscott Conservation Commission does not currently have a position on dredging since the town does not have a plan for it and is not seeking a permit, said Randall Hughes, member of the Conservation Commission.
“The Conservation Commission is charged with protecting the resource, but we also are mindful of people needing to live their lives and have their livelihoods,” said Hughes.
