BIDDEFORD — City officials are hopeful projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dredge portions of the Saco River and Biddeford Pool will receive congressional funding early next year, allowing them to move forward simultaneously next fall.

Craig Martin, of the Corps’ New England District, said at a City Council workshop last Tuesday that if the projects are performed jointly, the federal government will save $350,000-$400,000 of taxpayers’ money. Martin said he is hopeful the Corps will know by February or March whether the projects have received funding, so it can begin dredging in November.

It has been more than two decades since dredging – a process that removes sediment, such as sand and silt, from the beds of water bodies, deepening channels and anchorages to ensure safer and easier navigation – has been performed in the river or pool.

“We’re currently gathering data, writing our environmental assessments, getting ready,” he said, estimating that about 85 percent of the environmental assessment work, which includes testing sediments for contamination, is complete.

Concerns brought up at the workshop over the Saco River dredging, which officials say is the more important of the two projects, included ice and miscellaneous debris sitting on the riverbed.

Councilor John McCurry asked Martin what would happen if the river starts freezing before the dredging is finished. Although the dredging equipment does not work in ice, Martin predicted this wouldn’t be a problem because the work would be completed in five to six weeks, before the river starts to freeze substantially.

“The idea would be to be here on the very first day that we’re allowed to dredge and complete that work in five or six weeks and get out before the cold gets to us,” he said.

Dredging is only allowed during the colder months because it could harm threatened species that inhabit coastal areas in the warmer months, Martin explained.

Assistant Harbormaster Paul Lariviere also raised the concern of debris, such as old power cables and car parts, on the bottom of the river that could damage the dredging equipment and interfere with the project. The last time the river was dredged debris clogged and damaged some of the equipment, said Lariviere.

“There’s pieces and parts of everything down there,” he said. “Until you clear the debris out of that area, there’s no sense in coming in and doing it.”

Christine Ohman, Biddeford’s grant writer and special projects manager, said the city is currently working on a marine debris removal program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to determine “what’s down there, what did we run into last time and how do we mitigate that.”

Lariviere also asked Martin if the city would be liable for any damages caused by unseen debris. In response, Martin said the city should do its “due diligence to remove things that (it knows) of ” but the city would not be responsible for costs associated with unknown debris.

For the Biddeford Pool dredging, officials at the workshop mainly discussed the options for relocating the sediments removed by the dredging.

The cheapest option, said Martin, would be to pump the sand onto Biddeford Pool Beach. The beach is not necessarily in need of sand, he said, but the addition of sand would not harm the environment either.

The one cost for the city associated with pumping sand onto Pool Beach would be paying to monitor piping plover populations there through the summer, said Martin. Other options, he said, include pumping the sand to different areas, such as Camp Ellis or Ferry Beach in Saco, or dumping it into a deep area in the middle of Saco Bay.

McCurry said the council will soon discuss these options for relocating the sediment. Martin said that decision will also be influenced by whether Congress chooses to fund both dredging projects at the same time or one before the other.

— Staff Writer Angelo J. Verzoni can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 329 or averzoni@journaltribune.com.