Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 4
Findings
1. DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED ADDITIONAL
PORT CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE
LARGER SHIPS?
Finding 1: The United States should act expeditiously to increase its
capacity to handle large ships. Two general categories of need
exist: first, the capacity to accommodate liquid- and dry-bulk
carriers of between 90,000 DWT and 150,000 DWT (or more); and second,
a capacity to accommodate such modern vessels as the latest-generation
containerships, which require water depths of 40 ft to 45 ft. Several
facts and trends lead to this finding:
Large vessels offer economies of scale.
Large liquid- and dry-bulk carriers (100,000 DWT and more) now
dominate world trade in several commodities, and are rapidly
increasing their share of other commodity movements
T ~ ~ ~ _ · ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Large Aqua- ana ary-ou'~ carriers cannot transit the major
ports of the Atlantic or Gulf coasts fully loaded. (There is
some deep-water loading/unloading capability on the Pacific
Coast.)
· Many major ports of the United States cannot easily accommodate
the range of medium-size vessels--for example, those designed
to the maximum dimensions allowed by the Panama Canal, and the
latest-generation containerships--a range requiring water
depths of 40 ft to 45 ft (or more).
A substantial number of ports worldwide have the capacity to
accommodate large ships, and several more are planning or
developing this capacity.
Some combatant vessels, and (increasingly) the commercial
vessels that would be relied on to support any major defense
mobilization require greater water depths or widths than are
now provided in some designated defense ports.
Future patterns of trade and the vessels that will carry that
trade are uncertain. In the face of uncertainty, prudence
dictates having sufficient flexibility to respond rapidly to a
range of possible developments.
4
OCR for page 5
5
2. WHAT ARE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE WAYS FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE SHIPS?
Finding 2: The preferred options for developing additional capacity
to handle large ships are: (1) dredging existing multicommodity ports
and (2) lightering/topping-off.
For a range of vessels and cargoes, there is no adequate
alternative to conventional ports and harbors for loading or
unloading. Existing ports offer sheltered water for unloading or
loading without delay, access to developed storage and cargo transfer
facilities, well-developed connections to inland transportation, and
established worldwide marketing networks. Dredging to increase the
capacity of existing ports yields maximum future flexibility to
respond to changes in trade, and to support defense mobilization, as
well as offering the broadest base for recovering the cost of dredging
and distributing the benefits.
Several alternatives to dredging existing ports are specific to one
or more bulk commodity. The attractiveness of these options depends
on several factors such as location, commodity, and volumes to be
handled that can only be evaluated or compared in specific proposals.
The lowest-cost alternative to dredging is lightering/topping-off.
This alternative already exists in the United States, and offers a
flexible response to the need to load and unload bulk carriers in some
contexts.
Finding 3: The nation needs to assure, on an accelerated basis, the
existence of permanent, multipurpose port capacity to handle bulk
vessels requiring at least 50 ft of water depth on each of the coasts.
Finding 4: If federal funding is involved, the choice of which ports
to deepen to 50 ft or 55 ft or more is particularly important because
the high cost of port construction and maintenance and present
uncertainty associated with need suggests that only a limited number
of such port deepening activities are warranted. Selection of port
deepening projects should consider four criteria: (1) Emphasis should
be given to dredging ports that handle all types of cargoes, and
therefore, a variety of vessels--containerships, roll-on/roll-off
ships, break-bulk vessels, and both liquid- and dry-bulk carriers.
(2) Major attention should be paid to the port's inland transportation
systems. Two factors are important here. First, the most attractive
ports would be those serving a broad range of economic activities,
from manufacturing to agriculture to mining, as well as serving large
populations or markets. Second, wherever possible, the port should be
served by multiple inland transportation systems. The ideal would be
ports served by multiple rail lines, highway transportation, and
inland waterway transportation. Such multiple inland transportation
options offer a competitive environment which should serve to keep
inland transportation costs low. (3) Consideration should be given to
the costs of construction and maintenance dredging. Particular
emphasis should be placed on minimizing maintenance dredging since it
is a recurring cost. (4) Ports should be judged in terms of the
OCR for page 6
6
environmental consequences of dredging. To the extent that
environmental consequences can be reduced and other criteria
satisfied, the optimum situation would exist.
Finding 5: The navigational facilities of some major ports need to be
enlarged by dredging to handle the range of medium-size vessels
requiring 40 ft to 45 ft of water depth (or more).
Dredging existing ports to handle Panamax vessels and the
latest-generation containerships requires less dredging than that
required for larger vessels. If federal funding is involved, emphasis
should be given to ports that handle all types of cargoes, as a
variety of vessels in the world fleet require water depths of 40 ft to
45 ft. Attention also needs to be given to the ports' inland
transportation system, to populations and inland markets served, to
the comparative costs among the candidate ports of construction and
subsequent maintenance dredging costs, and to the environmental
consequences (that is, emphasis needs to be given to the reduction of
potentially adverse consequences and the demonstration of
environmental benefits in selecting dredging projects).
Finding 6: Lightering/topping-off should be encouraged.
Even on an accelerated basis, dredging projects will take time.
Where needs now exist to accommodate large bulk carriers,
lightering/topping-off can be implemented with speed and flexibility.
Private-sector investments have already been made in these systems,
and where their use is attractive, it should be encouraged.
In sum, the committee concludes that the nation will have adequate
flexibility to handle bulk commodities in the future with (at a
minimum) deep-draft capacity on each coast and lightering/topping-off
capability, and medium-draft capacity in some major ports.
3. HOW SHOULD DREDGING BE FUNDED, AND WHAT ARE
THE IMPLICATIONS FOR DREDGING OF
VARIOUS FUNDING APPROACHES?
Finding 7: Some form of federal funding is warranted, given the
importance of enhanced port capacity to the nation's economic
well-being, and national security/defense needs.
Ports are a national resource. The U.S. and world economies are
increasingly interdependent, and most trade among nations is
oceanborne. Enlarging the physical capacity of U.S. ports could make
our exports more competitive and reduce the landed cost of imports.
These conclusions, as well as the potential role of ports in national
security and defense, argue for some continued federal funding.
Finding 8: Congressional consideration of port projects should be
independent of other water resources projects, and Congress should
identify the criteria to be used in selecting among competing projects
for which there is a federal funding role.
OCR for page 7
7
Finding 9: Resolving the funding stalemate will require addressing
the following issues: (1) the sources of revenue, (2) who will
collect the revenues, (3) how the revenues will be allocated, (4) who
will handle the management and implementation of port dredging, and
(5) what the preceding four changes will mean for the management and
regulatory approval process associated with port dredging projects.
It is important that Congress address all these issues if port
dredging is to be expedited.
4. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THE SLOWDOWN IN DECISION MAKING
FOR LOCAL PROJECTS AND THE STALEMATE FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS,
AND WHAT ARE THE WAYS OF BRINGING INCREASED SPEED,
PREDICTABILITY, AND STABILITY TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS?
Finding 10: The complexity of the institutional decision making
system for port dredging reflects the need to address and manage a
large and difficult set of real needs and concerns. But the system
does not allow timely port development, either of federally or locally
funded projects. Actions need to be taken by Congress, the regulatory
agencies, and the ports to achieve speed, predictability, and
stability in decision making, as suggested in succeeding findings.
Findina 11 Ports need to establish mechanisms and procedures for
developing and evolving comprehensive port plans.
In general, regulatory decisions governing port dredging have only
been made when consensus is achieved--that is, when no significant
participants have objected so strongly to proposed action that they
are willing to mobilize and oppose it. A planning process is the
essential beginning of continuing consensus-building for ports.
Any planning process needs to identify the needs of the port both
in the short and long term and the implications of those needs for the
range of concerns reflected by the interested parties. The planning
mechanism or process, then, needs to include all the appropriate
governmental agencies as well as port users, commercial interests, and
environmental and public interests concerned about port development.
Since each port is unique, what is required will vary from port to
port, but given the complexities of the issues that now surround port
decision making, any route other than a local consensus building
mechanism appears to offer little chance of success.
Finding 12: Resolving environmental issues in a timely fashion has a
direct bearing on the economics of a dredging project. Delays
occasioned by the actual or perceived failure to address environmental
concerns adequately can result in significantly increased costs, which
may undermine or negate the economic benefits expected from the
dredging projects--and even in the abandonment of worthwhile projects.
Finding 13: In the interests of preserving the right of those with
strongly held objections to have their day in court, while not
OCR for page 8
8
subjecting project proponents to unreasonable and protracted
opposition, Congress should consider placing appropriate time limits
on the ability to seek judicial review once a final regulatory
decision has been made on a port dredging project.
Finding 14: A review of existing dredging-related regulations needs
to be undertaken to determine their consistency with the intent of
federal law, their necessity, efficacy, and clarity.
Finding 15: New procedures are needed to allow the comments of state
and federal agencies on proposed dredging projects to be consolidated
to the extent possible, both for the review of environmental impact
statements and for the review of permit applications (that is, for
both federally and locally funded projects).
Finding 16: A comprehensive interagency agreement needs to be
developed for consistent and timely consideration of environmental
mitigation by all agencies commenting on dredging or filling projects
under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. In addition, each U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service region should be given the authority and
responsibility to develop a regional mitigation plan with specific
resource management goals to guide the formulation of project-specific
mitigation requirements.
Finding 17: In the formulation of project-specific requirements,
regulations should clearly state that wildlife resource agencies
include and consider the economic costs and environmental benefits of
mitigation proposals. At a minimum, these agencies need to
demonstrate that mitigation (1) will achieve significant benefits for
environmental resources within the statutory authority of the
commenting agency, (2) is reasonably available to the applicant, and
(3) is feasible and practicable.
5. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF DREDGING PROJECTS,
AND HOW CAN THEY BE DEALT WITH?
Finding 18: The design of new construction and dredging projects is
impeded by the length and character of the decision making process.
As proposals age, the world fleet and port structures change, but
engineering redesign is confined to the limits of project
authorization, if the proposal is approved. Systematic port
engineering is discouraged by the length and fragmentation of
institutional processes.
Finding 19: Safety margins that would otherwise be provided by
engineering are in many ports now provided by compensating operational
practices.
Because there are as yet no consensus standards for navigational
safety, the design of new construction and ongoing maintenance
OCR for page 9
9
dredging projects should be carried out with full cooperation and
coordination among all relevant interested parties: the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, harbor pilots, shipowners and
other shipping interests, to ensure local consensus on navigational
safety.
Finding 20: Design, layout, and dimensions of dredged navigational
facilities must be site-specific. The consensus standards developed
by international organizations should be adopted as general
guidelines, where applicable. Better understanding can and should be
gained of vessel maneuvering characteristics, and efforts need to be
made to improve and use the techniques and tools of design analysis
for accommodating vessels; e.g., the full-scale vessel simulator of
the U.S. Maritime Administration. Techniques and tools are well
developed for observing and modelling local circulation and
sedimentation (cf. Finding 24~. The use of these sets of tools needs
to be encouraged.
Finding 21: The use of existing state-of-the-art dredging plant needs
to be encouraged, and impetus given to developing needed modern
capability.
Finding 22: Contracting with private dredging companies should be
handled to achieve maximum efficiency and optimum use of resources.
Improvements can be made by providing long-term dredging contracts
that allow dredging contractors to make investments in equipment
offering greater efficiency. Review of procurement and other
procedures may suggest further revisions to reduce costs, maximize
efficiency, or both.
6. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH DREDGING AND
HOW CAN THEY BE MOST EFFECTIVELY MANAGED?
Finding 23:Since dredging leads to disposal, the two activities are
tightly coupled. The potentially undesirable environmental effects of
the two activities are quite different, however.
The potential for persistent undesirable effects associated with
the dredging of materials for maintenance is very small, regardless of
the character and quality of materials dredged. The potential for
persistent undesirable effects associated with the disposal of these
materials may be significant. It is a function of the quality of
materials dredged, their physical characteristics, and the levels of
associated contaminants. ~
The potential for persistent undesirable effects associated with
the dredging of material for new work may be significant. It is a
function of the quantity of material dredged, the changes in channel
geometry, and the local hydraulic regime. The potential for
persistent adverse environmental effects associated with the disposal
of this material, on the other hand, is small.
OCR for page 10
10
Scientific understanding of the environmental effects of dredging
and dredged-material disposal is sufficient to enable predictions of
the short- and long-term effects of maintenance and construction
dredging, and, at least, the short-term effects of disposal with a
level of accuracy sufficient to ensure adequate environmental
protection.
Finding 24: The greatest potential for environmental problems
associated with dredging is with construction dredging, which can
produce persistent and significant changes in the hydraulic regime as
a result of channel deepening. The potential for such effects
requires particular attention in estuaries, where changes in
cross-sectional geometry can alter estuarine circulation patterns and
as a result, the distribution of salinity, dissolved oxygen, and other
important environmental parameters.
The greatest potential for environmental problems associated with
disposal of dredged materials is associated with maintenance materials
which contain moderate to high concentrations of toxic material.
Typically, this contaminated fraction constitutes a relatively small
percentage of materials removed, and enough is known to select
appropriate disposal options to contain the contaminated material and
thereby minimize the potential for adverse effects.
Finding 25: Sedimentation within many port areas is significantly
affected by sediments introduced by the activities of man, including
construction, farming, and a variety of municipal and industrial
discharges. Greater efforts should be made at the federal, state, and
local levels to control these sources throughout the tributary
drainage basin.
Finding 26: Parallel efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate
inputs of toxic contaminants entering drainage basins and rivers or
estuaries leading to ports. The costs of controlling toxic
contaminants at the source may very well be less than those associated
with the disposal and management of toxic materials dredged from
ports. For existing contaminated sediments, a properly designed and
executed program of dredging and containment may have beneficial
environmental consequences.
Finding 27: A comprehensive dredging and dredged-materials management
plan should be developed for each port with a specific long-term
objective being to assure that maintenance projects can be carried out
on schedule while minimizing adverse environmental effects.
The plan should be based on: (1) a thorough characterization of
the kinds and qualities of material to be dredged, (2) a detailed
determination of the spatial distribution of contaminants (both
horizontally and vertically) within channel deposits that permits
definition of the degree of homogeneity in the sediments to be dredged
and to delineate prominent contaminant "hot spots," (3) a rigorous
assessment of the physical and chemical behavior of these materials if
placed in each of the alternative disposal environments, (4) con
OCR for page 11
11
sideration of beneficial use (cf. Finding 29) as an alternative, (5)
an assessment of the effects resulting from each of the dredging and
disposal alternatives for public health, the environment, the biota,
other uses of that segment of the environment, and the relative costs,
and (6) consideration of long-term continuing costs and effects
associated with the plan.
Such a plan should eliminate the need for a complete new assessment
every time a maintenance project is scheduled. Given that the
material accumulating within any development area varies little over
relatively long periods of time (unless there is a major spill or
other accidental release of contaminants, or natural event such as a
flood or violent storm), analysis of representative materials should
be sufficient to determine whether the quality of sediment falls
within the normal range. Careful development of a dredging and
dredged-materials management plan should reduce, if not eliminate, the
need for repeated bioassay and bioaccumulation tests.
Finding 28: From the point of view of environmental protection, a
major problem associated with regulatory procedures and criteria is
their lack of responsiveness to new information about the
environmental effects (positive and negative) of dredging and the
disposal of dredged material. Far more is known about environmental
effects and probable causes than is incorporated in present regulatory
criteria. Thus, streamlining the regulatory process is necessary--not
just for port management, but for the improvement of regulatory
criteria.
Finding 29: Dredged sediment should be regarded as a resource rather
than as a waste.
Materials should be carefully screened to determine suitability for
use as construction aggregate, sanitary landfill cover, for beach
replenishment, for the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and for
other uses prior to disposal. The attractiveness of these
alternatives, as well as a balanced assessment of upland sites versus
ocean sites for disposal, would be encouraged if the "local
cooperation" policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were
modified. That policy requires that the project proponents assume
responsibility for "all necessary lands, easements, and rights of way"
for upland sites in addition to ongoing operation and maintenance
costs. Such responsibilities, not required of users of ocean disposal
sites, limit the attractiveness of the upland alternative independent
of benefits that might be realized.
Finding 30: Designated containment sites, whether specially
constructed (e.g., diked alongshore structures, containment islands,
or upland containment facilities) or remnants of previous commercial
activity (e.g., subaqueous borrow-pits), should be reserved for the
disposal of dredged materials known to be contaminated with toxic
compounds.
OCR for page 12
12
Contaminant-free sediments should be placed within these areas only
as cover or "capping" materials, and every effort should be made to
minimize the volume occupied by these clean materials. Storage of
contaminated sediments in these sites should be managed so as to
maintain a physically and geochemically stable environment, to
minimize the exposed surface area of the deposit, and to preserve
essentially anaerobic conditions.
Finding 31: Characterization and designation of ocean disposal sites
by the Environmental Protection Agency should be completed as rapidly
as possible.
The present use of historical disposal areas does little to
minimize the probability of adverse short-term effects and may
ultimately result in long-term continuing problems. So long as ocean
disposal sites are not officially designated, it is difficult to
justify detailed analyses of sediments, since these analyses have
little influence on management of the sediments.
Finding 32: The approach that characterizes many studies of the
environmental effects of dredged-material disposal needs to be
modified.
There should be reduced emphasis on survey techniques (counting,
sorting, diversity, and the like) and more emphasis on biological
response, including physiological processes. There is a particular
need for some reasonably long-term studies modelled on the lines of
ongoing public health or epidemiological research. Associated with
the initiation of these studies should be the termination of the
majority of the short-term investigations typically associated with
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). While the EIS process
continues to represent a valuable component of over-all environmental
management and regulation, it has been reasonably well demonstrated
that routine field and laboratory studies lack the resolution required
to detail all but the most evident acute effects.
Finding 33: Procedural specifications used within federally sponsored
dredging projects should increasingly encourage the use of
high-efficiency dredges and dredging techniques specifically intended
to reduce sediment loss and associated turbidity during dredging and
to provide routine, highly accurate placement of dredged materials.
Where predredging surveys indicate contaminated "hot spots,"
selective dredging and disposal techniques should be used. These
techniques need to be considered in contracting for dredging plant
(cf. Findings 21 and 27~.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
effects associated
