Dredged Down: Part II

I’ve been committed to getting the Essex River dredged since my earliest days in Congress. I share the frustration of Essex residents, boaters, and local marinas with the delays, and I’m going to keep pushing until we secure the necessary funding and finish the job.”

US RepCongressman Seth Moulton

When the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded the Essex River dredging contract to Atlantic Coast Tug & Marine (ACT&M) late last year, it was the company’s first major federal navigation project — and, by many accounts, a disappointment.   But a closer look shows a more complex mix of miscalculations, cost structures, and changing conditions that left town officials, legislators, and the town’s three private marinas frustrated.

And, when it put out the project’s final RFP, it was an up-and-comer out of New Hampshire, Atlantic Coast Tug & Marine that won the bid by promising to get the job done at a price—$2.28 million—that bested the two other competitive bids by Coastline Consulting & Dev. ($2.75 million) and Land Remediation ($4.45 million).

But Atlantic’s bid was also 40% lower than the government’s own estimates for what it would take to complete the project in four months.  In its bid, Atlantic’s pricing was built on sharply tiered unit costs that differed significantly from the Army Corps estimates.

Atlantic’s bid included mobilization/demobilization of $1.15M (gov’t estimate was $2.04M); removal of sand at $80/CY for the first 2,400 CY and $35 beyond that amount (gov’t $112.55/$122.55); and the removal of silt at $120/CY for the first 4,600 CY and $35 beyond that amount (gov’t $90.28 for both tiers).

The 17,500 cubic yards they were hired to remove was more like 33,500.

Atlantic sounded the alarm quickly with the Army Corps.  This type of revelation isn’t unheard of with dredging, said Craig Martin, the Corps’ New England senior project manager who oversaw the Essex River dredging contract.  He said a pre-dredge survey of the Essex River performed after the RFP award and Atlantic’s own review of the channel revealed the job was nearly 33,500 cubic yards—almost double the expected volume.

“We work in a dynamic environment that can change from one harbor to the next,” he said. “The Essex River is extremely dynamic.”

Martin said the difference on this project was highly “atypical,” adding that the dramatic changes required that more material may need to be removed not just because of the basic job, but to also address shoaling that could worsened after the job (it did.)

The Army Corps immediately raised the level of dredged material with Atlantic, knowing there was a race with the clock underway: environmental requirements meant Atlantic had to be done no later than Feb. 15.

But there was more at play than just the clock, and it’s a fundamental issue that brought back the initial rates that helped Atlantic Coast Tug & Marine win the bid.  Atlantic’s pricing, unlike Army Corps’ estimates, was tiered by amount of material dredged.  The first 2,400 cubic yards of removal in Atlantic’s bid, for instance, was $80/cy for sand and $120/cy for silt.  Over that, the price plunges to $35/cy for sand or silt, giving Atlantic no financial incentive to dredge more material over the initial amount.

Its margins squeezed, Atlantic continued dredging beyond the contracted 17,500 cubic yards.  And when the window closed on Feb. 15, Atlantic had dredged approximately 22,000 cubic yards, below what the Army Corps had said was likely required.  By then, it was too late.

This is especially so for Essex, and its private marinas—Pike Marine, Perkins Marine, and Essex Marina.  They were invited to “piggyback” on the project by contracting separately with Atlantic.  The big advantage?  They were able to save the nearly one million dollars in mobilization costs for the equipment.  With Atlantic’s equipment already mobilized in the Essex Harbor for the Army Corps project, the marinas coule save that money.  This is one of the benefits of an Army Corps-managed project.

Heading into last fall, the marinas shelled out more than $300,000 to GZA GeoEnvironmental, a well-established consulting firm in Norwood, MA go secure all the required permitting for their part of the project. 

And as the project started, the three met with Atlantic to confirm the plan for what was estimated to be an additional $1 million in dredging work, the marinas said Atlantic verbally quoted $98/cubic yard for removal.  They balked and eventually Atlantic agreed to a blended rate of $68/cy.

When Atlantic sent a separate contract to the marinas, the piggyback opportunity began to sting.  Beyond the cubic yard pricing, the company’s proposed contract required a $20,000 deposit after pre-dredge survey, plus $75,000 due upon “mobilization at the marina” — even though mobilization costs were already covered by the federal contract.  Also, the proposed start date was Dec. 10 with completion by Jan. 30 and, while there was no delay penalty in the US Army Corps agreement, delays would have cost the marinas $12,000/day, according to the contract.

And when the federal schedule slipped, the private work just never happened.

The marinas were left with sunk permitting and survey costs totaling more than $300,000.  And to this day, the family-owned marinas are the only players in the dredging saga that have actually paid cash toward a dredging project that, for them, didn’t happen.

Longtime boater and Essex Selectman Peter Phippen works as a wetlands environmental scientist and knows the Essex River well.  He recently described this past summer’s navigation as “difficult.” “If I didn’t know they’d dredged, I wouldn’t have thought they did,” he said.

The Corps has permits from the Massachusetts DEP and Coastal Zone Management and is exploring an extension beyond their current 2027 expiration to allow time for a second dredge.  It’s unclear whether such as extension would be given to the private marinas, which remain on the outside looking in with this project.  The Army Corps, for its part, is sympathetic.

“We want to be transparent with the town in executing the next step,” he said.

The Corps has committed to reviewing options for a targeted second round of dredging in winter 2026–27, focusing only on the worst chokepoints. Senator Bruce Tarr has pledged to explore possible state matching funds.  Essex officials, including Assistant Harbormaster Andrew Spinney, are mapping trouble spots now for discussion at a follow-up meeting after Labor Day with the Corps, Representative Ann-Margaret Ferrante, Senator Tarr, and Congressman Seth Moulton’s office.

This week, Moulton reiterated his commitment to a solution.

“I’ve been committed to getting the Essex River dredged since my earliest days in Congress,” he said.  “I share the frustration of Essex residents, boaters, and local marinas with the delays, and I’m going to keep pushing until we secure the necessary funding and finish the job.”

Meanwhile, USACE has confirmed access to necessary permits and is working to extend them past 2027.  The Corps plans to re-evaluate whether limited, targeted work in 2026–27 can alleviate the worst problem areas—even if it’s not a full re-dredge.