Much has been made of a supposed alternative to the Searsport Navigation Improvement Project. Opponents of the project hired a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm to write a report critical of the project, proposing what they call “a nonstructural alternative that could accommodate most of the desired future fleet.” That alternative requires ships calling at Searsport to wait on tides to enter the port and to wait at the berth to leave it.
The purpose of the Searsport project is to keep the port competitive in today’s and tomorrow’s markets and keep it safe for modern ships to navigate. It calls for deepening the federal navigation channel and providing an improved turning basin adjacent to the piers at the Mack Point terminal.
The channel was last dredged more than 50 year ago. Since that time, the nature of shipping has changed considerably. Ships are larger, longer, wider and deeper. Rules and best practices have been developed to increase safety for vessels and the environment. Modern ships require larger channels and more maneuvering room.
For opponents to suggest that improvements to the channel are not necessary disregards this progress. Imagine if we continued to design and maintain our roads and bridges to the standards of cars and trucks of more than half a century ago.
The proposed alternative would simply maintain the channel at its 1964 design. This proposition doesn’t make sense at a number of levels.
First, it assumes that carriers — the businesses that carry freight to and from the port — are willing to wait on tides to get into and out of the port. Ships are generally chartered at a daily rate. Every minute a ship is waiting on tides is costing the ship money. Waiting, in turn, makes the port less competitive. A decline in ship calls becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy under this scenario.
Second, the proposed alternative would likely lead to a large increase in truck traffic on our roads. Shipping is the greenest form of transportation, with per-ton fuel miles the lowest of any form of freight transportation — better than trains and vastly better than trucks. If the Port of Searsport is not a cost-effective option for shippers, they will find other forms of transportation.
The commodities handled at Searsport include salt for our roads, raw materials for our paper industry, fuel for our cars, trucks and boats, heating oil for our homes, fuel for other industries and wind turbines for generating renewable energy. All these commodities would likely have to find other ways into Maine if the Port of Searsport is not viable. The result would be more trucks on our roads, creating more congestion, more emissions and more wear and tear on our roads and bridges — a transportation network that is already over taxed and under maintained.
Third, it is assumed, incorrectly, that the dredge materials from maintaining the 1964 channel could be disposed of on land at the federal government’s expense. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — the federal entity that would do the maintenance dredge — is required to dispose of the materials in the most cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner by law. If materials are found to be suitable for ocean disposal, as they have been in two separate environmental studies, then the Army Corps is required to pursue ocean disposal instead of the significantly more expensive disposal on land.
A great deal of misinformation has also been circulated by opponents regarding the environmental science conducted by the Army Corps. A full environmental assessment was conducted on the site, including core sample surveys. Those surveys found that with appropriate precautions and mitigation, the dredge material can be safely disposed at sea. Dredging projects are a part of life in Maine’s marine economy, and this project can and will be done in a way that improves navigation while protecting the natural environment.
Finally, an alternative that “accommodates most of the future fleet” hardly constitutes a sound business practice. It would be like telling your customers you will be able to accommodate most of them in the future but the rest are simply out of luck. That is not a promising business model for the Port of Searsport or the people of Maine.
John Henshaw is the executive director of the Maine Port Authority.