National Academies Press: OpenBook

Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues (1985)

Chapter: G: Figures and Tables

« Previous: F: Commissioned Papers and Background Materials Prepared for Study of National Dredging Issues
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"G: Figures and Tables." National Research Council. 1985. Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/608.
×
Page 212

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX G FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1 Selected Forecasts of Oceanborne Trade FIGURE 2a Relationship of Tanker and Bulk Carrier Vessel LEanSpO~ t posts per Ton of Cargo Relationship of Container-Carrying Capacity to Cost/Container 160 Worldwide Trend Toward Larger Vessels 161 A Production Meter System With a Nucleonic Density Gauge and a Crossed-Pointer Display 162 The Leverman and a Production Meter System as Parts of a Closed-Loop Control System FIGURE 6 Crossed Pointer DisPlaY ~. FIGURE 7 FIGURE 2b FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 159 160 Dredging Program of the U.S. Army Corps town, FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 Engineers Characterization of Materials Dredged by afar ran ~ f Urn; ~ ^~ ~ e! An Example of a Precision Dumping Operation Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (1983) FIGURE 10 Suspended Material Concentrations in the Wake of a Mechanical Dredging Operation....................... Relationship Between the Concentration of Suspended ~ _ ~_ J _ ~ ~. ~ FIGURE 11 163 164 ...... 165 Army 166 167 168 o''as' m From the Cutter and the Relative Production of a 61 cm (24 in.) Cutterhead Dredgee ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 169 FIGURE 12 Relationship Between Concentration of Suspended Solids in the Near-Surface Overflow Plume and the Distance (in my Downstream of the Overflow Ports170 FIGURE 13 Relationship Between Suspended Solids Concentration Along the Plume Centerline and Distance Downcurrent From Several Open-Water Pipeline Disposal Operations.... 171 FIGURE 14 Mid-Depth (0.9 m) Turbiditv Plume Generated by a 71 cm FIGURE 15 TABLE 1 TABLE 2 (28 in.) Pipeline Disposal Operation in the Atchafalaya Bay. Current Flow is Generally Toward the Northeast.... 172 Characteristics of the Descending Mass of Sediment Discharge From a Surface Barge ~173 Number of Vessels in Foreign Trade Calling on Ports of the United States, 1980, by Type and Design Draft 174 Proposed Deep-Draft Port Dredging Projects 175 157

158 TABLE 3 Draft Of Vessels Sailing To Or From Selected U.S. Ports 1981 ~179 TABLE 4 Port Calls of Bulk Carriers and Tankers at Four Ports in 1980, by Actual and Design Drafts 181 TABLE 5 Approximate Cargo Tons/Foot of Draft for Selected TABLE 6 Port Calls by General Cargo Vessels by Draft, 1980 TABLE 7 TABLE 7b TABLE 8 TABLE 8b TABLE 9 TABLE 9b TABLE 10 TABLE 11 TABLE 12 TABLE 13 TABLE 14 TABLE 15 181 Foreign Dry Bulk Carriers In the worry fleet, tuba. Dry Bulk and Combination Carriers on Order, 1984. Crude Oil Tankers in the World Fleet, 1984, hv DWT and Draft 182 183 184 185 187 . Tankers on Order, 1984, Containerships and Roll-On/Roll-Off Vessels World Fleet, 1984, by Draft and Length Over-All 188 ContainershiPs and Roll-On/Roll-Off Vessels on Order 189 190 by DWT and Draft.............. in the , Freight Rates for Bulk Carriers World Ports Capable of Handling 150,000 DWT (+) Vessels Port Improvement Activities Worldwide (Responses Query of Committee on National Dredging Issues) 192 Estimated Costs and Trade by Selected Ports, 1990 194 Planning, Approval, Authorization, and Funding Process 191 tor Major Navigation Pro j eats . Average schedule for navigation Projects, ,` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ it: _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _--_ _ Army TABLE 16 Year of Authorization of Main Channels TABLE 17 TABLE 18 TABLE 19 TABLE 20 TABLE 21 . 195 197 Selected . Proposals for Dredging to Depths Between 40' and Cost of Maintenance Dredging............................ Federally Funded Maintenance Dredging Projects.......... Concentrations of Selected Constituents in Dredged Sediments and Average Global Crustal Materials.......... Summary of Biological Effects of Contaminants in Marine 198 206 209 210 211 212

Spew seat lea,` 6u!~se~aJo~ A~;uno~ _ _ co co C5) ~ z z <: <: ~

-to o en o 100 O 50 cat it o 160 1 ~ --I ....... ....... _ .. ... _ _ 1 50,000 nm voyage 2 25,000 n m voyage Bu I k carrier oily , - ,L I .... . ~ _ _ _ Tanker 2 2 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 15 50 100 150 DEADWEIGHT IN 1,000 TONS 200 300 FIGURE 2a Relationship of Tanker and Bulk Carrier Vessel Size to Transport Costs per Ton of Cargo SOURCE: Schonknecht et al., 1983 25 LL ~20 oh it he _ 8 o LL o x 'I. 1 5 10 5 - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VESSEL CAPACITY (TEU) FIGURE 2b Relationship of Container-Carrying Capacity to Cost/Container SOURCE: C. R. Cushing, 1984.

161 t I ~ 1 ~ ., ~ .~ _: at. 7 ~ ~ it. ~ I ~ m; ^- -_ 2,l,'''~., .~ ~ _ _ ~ . = :. ):,~,~,~,,,~,~,~,~,, . i~ .,..' _ r _ 1 ~. ~.~ _ : = _ _ I. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iS 1 quo] ooo ~ U! pew .. .... ..... _ . .. .......... - - m.~_ -A ~.. ~ I.~ ~ .0 W ~ . rat ~ .... d. 1r ~ ~.. ......... ~ Cal U) . - U2 . - .~ ~ ~ V O ~ 3 ^ o Q ~ _' ~ 0e U2 o ~ O Ed _` %_ .H U2 ~ ~ U] U] U2 ~2 CO 3 o Ed Ed ~ V -A ~ 3 ~ ~ o o V U) _. · U] . ~ . . o ·e ~ At .e v ~ ~ H O ~ :s

162 MAGN ETIC FLOWN ETER I t ~ I I It DATA ~- PROCESSOR 1 _~ RECORDER L Lo DENSITY GAUG E ,W, DISPLAY FIGURE 4 A Production Meter System With a Nucleonic Density Gauge and a Crossed-Pointer Display

163 J o o ) r I CD DJ I CE ~ llJ Z ~U2 _ En ~ 1 llJ 1 o o C) o C] of En: O ~ U) <: <~ O fir: ~ ' 1 1 It LO C] _ _ ~1 o ~5 U] o . . . fO o I so U] a) U] En O ~ LL o .,, ~5 o So So a' a) En Lr H

164 . ~ O A Al ant \ _ CU Yr)~/~c _ FIGURE 6 Crossed Pointer Display

165 z Cal ~ _ cr 00 c) ~uJ z ~ . ee e ~ of on o e ~.,% 0 l o . ~ t~ ~ ~ 1 lL a: a:, ~Z G ~ ~1 ~irk 1 ~ / Zg I ~ I Zip ~1 0 / Hi: ~/ ~ / ~= / 0= Z / Z ~ ~/ mm _ #_ , \2..' .: ~ I )/ in A C] A:- Lo m CE C.) 0 AL CI: cn Z . <: OI a to O 00 U] a) ·-' o A o so cn . a) o At o all a) a; H

166 C~ ~o ~ o: C) C) Z z o J t - C~ ~ o _ 6 O ~ C G ~n C: 6 y cn 6 J ~ _ C~ ~ ° Z U,J <: O J cL ~ m O ~ o _ LL Z ° Z O ~ cn in ~ cr -~ LL > 0 I 1z(, O ~: UJ o 45: - j .` ; r ~ ~ _~ ~ e~, gl ! ~_ ~ ~n ( UJ , %N ~ , Z C' . ~ 6, o <t ~ _ - __ ~ ~ ~J , ... ..... Wo - ~.] ~........... ........... o, · 't ~N -~;L ~ ~D . _ ~,, (D ~ ~u~ ~ . . .. . a: r~ (DO 00 ~ C ~C~ UJ IW U' J'UJ Oo Cl) C~ ~ C~ <t ~ C} ~ ~ C) tI) Z UJ ~ Z (t) 6 6 ~ CC (.) ~ Ci ·~ Z C) Z uJ 6 ~ ~ X cn ~ O ~ ~ <: a~ ~ c~ uJ __ - ~: C) >~ 6 UJ 6 U. O ~n Z Z - O J UJ ~ 6 z Q a) U] - . CO · - a Z Z J J ~- U' o m - 0 0 C3~ ~ 0 ~:o ~ ~W O O N · - a, a a) O ·. ~; o . U)

167 41 09.6 41 09.2 72 52.0 72 51.8 _ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 G: i%~: l 1~< ¢~; _- {~ _ '-~*. C) ~ .~ -- 1 - c ~ -'~- - . . _ . . 'WAS ~ SAC ~ £~J A. ~ \~ A,: , SAC 0 80 160 SCALE (m) art__, '~^5 / W it; S~` ;~.-'0\iI . . . . 72 51.4 51.4 . . . I FIGURE 9 An Example of a Precision Dumping Operation at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site (1983) 41 09. 41 09. 41 09.

168 200 - of O 50 100 cr z30 Ul Z20 10 L1J5 He LL cn ct) DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM DREDG E m x 10 - 2 FIGURE 10 Suspended Material Concentrations in the Wake of a Mechanical Dredging Operation SOURCE: Bohlen, et al. t \ \ \ - \ \ / THAMES RIVER AUG UST 9, 1977 SU RFACE ~~~~~~ M I D-DEPTH BOTTO M - - - - - BACKG ROU N D ~_, ~1 1 6 7 8 7

169 ~ . 350 300 o E E 250 An -~ 200 In Q J o In C) c, 150 z LL An In 100 o _ (80; 2,628) (139~31,002) O O O (132 ;30,979) o o REGIO N OF EXCE SSIVE TURBIDlrY o o o 1 LLI I CL 10 o o X Z G 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 RELATIVE PRODUCTION, P FIGURE 11 Relationship Between the Concentration of Suspended Solids 1 m From the Cutter and the Relative Production of a 61 cm (24 in.) Cutterhead Dredge SOURCE: Barnard, 1978

170 1 000 coo 400 200 100 so so so so coo _ 3,, ~ l ~ _ z' ~t Zig ~\ o ~ 2 _ I ~O~E~O~ ~ z ~ ~ l on _ \, I"_ on _ . . \_ GOETh1ALS _ _` on _ Pa _ OVEf7FLOW ll an_ - ~, 84CA=40U ~- s +30 /~C't - 2 - o ~_ _ · so D.sr^~c£ room OVERfL ~~~1, "ETRES A_ B~C~G~D = S NIL 1 1 1 FIGURE 12 Relationship Between Concentration of Suspended Solids in the Near-Surface Overflow Plume and the Distance (in m) Downstream of the Overflow Ports SOURCE: Barnard, 1978

171 coo t400 1 300 1200 1tOO 1 000 90e 800 - SOO 400 300 200 100 DREDGE 5 I ZE SYMBOL LOCATION cm In AT_HAFA',AYA BAY APALACH I COLA BAY COR PUS CHR I ST I MOBILE BAY JADES R I VER _L ~ - 1 1 \ -A 1 ~ ~_ \ \\ - ~ \ O \ \Ci ~ 71 28 41 16 76 50 24 46 18 - - - - \ ~o 9AC K GRO U ~D SUSPE~iDED SOL I DS mg/1 30- 100 25-S0 1S-25 1S-25 20-2S 04 1 0 200 400 6= ~OC ~ 000 1 200 ~ 400 DlST^~CE f~ DISCH^RCE, ~ 16= t8= 2~0 FIGURE 13 Relationship Between Suspended Solids Concentration Along the Plume Centerline and Distance Downcurrent From Several Open-Water Pipeline Disposal Operations SOURCE: Barnard, 1978

172 DOE - 't 13 FAT) SUSPENDE1) SOLIDS COt.C£~TRATlONS 2S)0 - 3m m~/1 300 - see m'/1 500 - I 000 mt/ I > 1~Q mL'' LEGEND · Ch10~E L / / / / 7,~ / / ~ *? // ~ , / \ / / 3l~/ / /~: D'SCt`4 ~ FIGURE 14 Mid-Depth (0.9 m) Turbidity Plume Generated by a 71 cm (28 in.) Pipeline Disposal Operation in the Atchafalaya Bay. Current Flow is Generally Toward the Northeast SOURCE: Barnard, 1978

173 ~1 1 ~.~ TEMPERATURE (°C) , . . 25 1 30 - - ~ - ~ - r ~ ~ I rEa - serum Duct - /~ 100 200 300 a) - 400 500 900 so- ~ art All // ) \ (/ `: 20 `. SAL - TY C='~ ' ~- --- ~-7~- PYCH _ Her .~. . Do_ ~ / ,~ ~ ~ ~. .t / )-~~ an' BORIC, ~1 'I'-, ~ / ~ : ,' fi, Jo.-,. i,, ~N , ~I i f~- ~ r\~I')~) ~t 1 000 33.0 33 5 34.0 34 5 35.0 35.5 36.0 - ,' 11 cost ~LLl~G RAU ., Is - / .' ~O~RY a~T <if= so em/ - c "~" tromp FIGURE 15 Characteristics of the Descending Mass of Sediment Discharge From a Surface Barge SOURCE: Pequegat et al., 1978

Vessel Type Freighter Tanker Freighter/refrig. Bulk carrier Combo. pass. & cargo Combo/refrig. Ore/oil carrier Whaling tanker Container ship Ore carrier Car carrier LPG tanker Colliers Asphalt tanker Bitumen Chemical tanker LNG tanker Molasses tanker Phosphorus tanker Sulphur tanker Wine tanker Barge carrier Cattle carrier Container/barge car. Container/car car. Container/Ro-Ro Pallet carrier Partial container Roll-on/Roll-off Timber carrier Bauxite carrier Bulk car carrier Bulk/container ship Bulk/oil Bulk/timber car. Cement carrier Limestone Ore/bulk/oil Salt carrier Wood chip carrier Barge (dry cargo - domes) Barge (tanker -domestic) Total Total 1730 1077 329 2642 85 4 54 1 322 84 103 95 7 9 5 193 12 6 6 1 2 20 1 16 6 421 153 6 1 98 30 22 1 180 5 31 3 11 5 174 TABLE 1 Number of Vessels in Foreign Trade Calling on Ports of the United States, 1980, by Type and Design Draft Number of Vessels by Design Draft 16-45 46-50 51-55 1698 742 318 2532 80 4 29 1 325 81 102 2 93 7 9 s 192 12 6 6 1 2 20 1 12 6 416 139 6 1 97 30 21 1 48 1 55 5 14 123 57 96 113 449 13 339 2 1 5 Other 61 30 41 5 3 7802 84 7105 258 174 173 8 SOURCE: Maritime Administration, Office of Port and Intermodal Development.

175 TABLE 2 Proposed Deep-Draft Port Dredging Projects* Project/ Proposed New Port Dimensions Design Basis Baltimore Harbor 50' depth Bulk carrier: 140,000 DWT, and channels, 950' length, 141' beam, Baltimore, Maryland 55' draft (light-loaded to less than 55') Hampton Roads: 55' depth, existing Increments below existing Norfolk, Newport channels; depths analyzed, design News, Virginia possibly new vessel selected to fit. 57' depth segment Design basis being refined in Atlantic through vessel simulations Current design vessel: Bulk carrier (coal), 120,000 DWT, 901' length, 133' beam, 52' draft Mississippi 55' depth, 750' Optimal net benefits for River, Gulf of width various channel depth Mexico to increments--vessel selected New Orleans and to fit. Baton Rouge, For depth: 122,000 DWT, 905' Louisiana length, 132' beam, 51' draft For width: 105,000 DWT, 880' length, 134' beam, 51' draft turning basin, For turning basin: 122,000 1360' x 4000' DWT, 905' length, 132' beam, 51' draft Mobile Harbor, 57' depth, bar 150,000 DOT, 953' length, Alabama channel 142' beam, 57' draft, assuming light-loading by 55' depth, 550' up to 5' of draft width, main channel Proposed Deepening/Widening for Latest-Generation Containerships Gowanus Creek Channel, New York/New Jersey 45' depth Kill van Kull 45' depth New York/New Jersey Charleston, South 40' depth, 600' Carolina width; 1200' turn ing basin Existing vessels using channel: 880' length, 106' beam, 41' draft Containership: 880' length, 106' beam, 41' draft For width, contain- ership: 800' length, 110' beam, 40' draft For depth, 47,000 DWT tanker: 800' length, 105' beam, 38' draft

176 TABLE 2 (continued) Project/ Proposed New Design Port Dimensions Basis Savannah, Georgia Oakland, California 500' width (section of channel); widen- ing turning basin from 400' to 500' 42' depth, 800' width, outer harbor; eliminate dogleg; add turning basin, 1800' diameter Richmond, California (same as for Oakland Other Deepening Proposals 35 ft to 45 ft ________________________________________________ Elizabeth River, Norfolk, Virginia Elizabeth River, South Branch, Norfolk, Virginia 45' depth 40' depth Northwest Branch, 49' depth East Channel, Baltimore, Maryland Northwest Branch, 40' depth West Channel, Baltimore, Maryland New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 40' depth, 500' width, main channel, realign- ment of one seg- ment, widening bend from 560' to 780', 1200' turn · , . Ping Dasln Container ship: 863' length, 105' beam, 38' draft Existing and expected containerships: Panamax length and width selected for design basis: 950' length, 105' beam, 28' to 43' draft Vessels carrying grain, residual fuel: 60,000 DWT, 729' length, 104' beam, 42' draft Vessels carrying fertilizer, grain, residual fuel: 37,000 DWT, 660' length, 90' beam, 37' draft Bulk carrier: 100,000 DWT, 850' length, 124' beam, 49' Am =~. ~ ~ I- 80~000 DWT, 811' length, 122' beam, 43.6' draft Bulk carrier: 100,000 DWT, 850' length, 124' beam, 49' draft (grain) Bulk carrier: 40,000 DWT, 650' length, 91' beam, 37' draft (sugar) Coastwise tanker: 62,000 DWT, 780' length, 110' beam, 42' draft (assuming use of tide and light- loading)--design vessel selected to fit maximized net benefits at 40' depth 1

177 TABLE 2 (continued) Project/ Port Proposed New Design Dimensions Basis Blair Waterway, 45' depth, new turn- Existing vessels using Tacoma, Washington ing basin, 1200' waterway: 90,000 DWT, 820' length, 122' beam, 46' draft 41' depth upper reach 44,000 DWT, 658' length, 201' beam, 37' draft Sitcum Waterway, 40' depth outer channel 65,000 DWT, 850' length, Tacoma, Washington 115' beam, 40' draft 35' depth, inner 25,000 DWT, 661' length, Sitcum Waterway 87' beam, 33' draft Wilmington Harbor, 500' width, jetty New benefits optimized at North Carolina entrance channel 35'; various design vessels tested--Tanker: 25,000 35' depth, 900' x DWT, 585' length, 80' 1000' turning basin beam, 32' draft; Bulk carrier: 21,000 DWT, 560' length, 74' beam, 32' draft For widths--47,000 DWT 736' length, 99' beam, 38' draft For turning basin- 36,000 DWT, 660' length, 91' beam, 35' draft St. Thomas Harbor, 38' depth, 500' Cruise ships: 10,800 DWT, Virgin Islands width, new turn- 760' length, 90' beam, ing basin, 1200' x 32' draft 1600' Sacramento River, 35' depth Sacramento, Cali fornia John F. Baldwin and Stockton Channels, Stockton, California 35' depth, widening one reach and turns For width: 4,800 DWT, 640' length, 80' beam, 28' draft Summary design vessel based on combination of broader-beam wood- chip vessel, and deeper- draft dry bulk carrier able to use channel if deepened: 20,000 DWT, 520' length, 83' beam, 32' draft Summary design vessel: 23,000 DWT, 575' length, 75' beam, 32' draft

178 TABLE 2 (continued) Project/ Port Proposed New Dimensions Design Basis Freeport, Texas Brazos Island Harbor, Brownsville Texas Corpus Christi, Texas 471 depth, 4001 width, entrance channel, realign- ment and extension 451 depth, 4001' width, jetty channel, relocation of north jetty 44' depth, 400' width, extension of north jetty 42' depth, 300' width, main channel 42' depth, 1200' turning basin 47' depth, outer bar channel 45' depth, remain- ing waterway - Tanker: 63,000 DWT, 800' length, 110' beam, 41' draft Tanker: 43,000 DWT, 665' length, 93' beam, 38' draft (+ 56' barge lane in turning basin) Bulk carrier: 75,000 DWT, 800' length, 113' beam, 41' draft (grain) aProposed projects ~ ~ ~ `~d _ c~ ~ _ ~ ~ ·Z beyond. *SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Directorate of Civil Works.

179 TABLE 3 Draft Of Vessels Sailing To Or From Selected U.S. Ports - 1981 Au th . Port Anchorage, AK Anacor tes, WA Bellingham, WA Everett, WA Grays Harbor, WA Kalama, WA Long v i ew, WA Olympia, WA Seattle, WA Tacoma, WA 5 24 25 10 16 12 9 23 21 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50-60 16 18 54 73 11 36 19 71 1 112 69 23 98 49 36 35 33 39 163 7 0 1 18 5 4 1 Vancouver, WA 4 ~ Astoria, OR 40 (b) 4 1 Coos Bay, OR 3525155 2 Portland, OR 40 (b) 29 220 1 Yaquina Bay, OR 40 (c) Humboldt, CA 3 5864 San Francisco, CA 40 2 Redwood City, CA 30 6 1 1 Oakland, CA 35 129 89 28 19 9 ~ Richmond, CA 35 66 71 46 28 11 8 3 0 1 35 San Pablo, CA 35 300 89 36 14 7 6 3 3 2 13 4 1 11 S took ton, CA 3 0 Sacramento, CA 30 76 Los Angeles, CA 45 (d) 1652 2513 Long Beach, CA 45 (e) 282116 41211100 San Diego, CA 35 16 6 ~ Searsport, ME 35 6 5 5 Por bland, ME 4 5 102 31 Por tsmouth, NH 35 Salem, MA 32 Weymouth, MA 3 5 Boston, MA 40 8 3 Dorchester, MA 35 Fa ichaven, MA 3 9 Fall River, MA 35 8 32 New Bedford, MA 30 Providence, RI 40 1 New London, CT 3 3 2 8 New Haven, CT 35 17 16 2C Br idgepor t, CT 3 5 10 Albany, NY 3 2 19 5 New York, NY 45 28 3233547 23 Newark, NJ 40 4. Camden, NJ 40 (f ) 10 20 6 4 2

180 TABLE 3 (continued ~ Port Philadelphia, PA Delaware R. Wilmington, DE Baltimore, MD Hampton Roads, VA Newport News, VA Norfolk, VA Wilmington, NC Morehead City, NC Charleston, SC Brunswick, GA Savannah, GA Jacksonville, Canaveral, FL FL Palm Beach, FL Port Everglades, FL Miami, FL Ponce, PR St. Thomas, VI Tampa, FL Panama City, FL Pensacola, FL Auth. Depth 40(f) 40(f) 40(f) 42 45 45 45 38 40 35 30 38 38 36 33 42 38 30 33 36 32 33 25 1 272 54 30 5 5 2 2 1 98 1 2 10 1 12 1 39 _ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31 63 9 1 2 2 3 124 122 37 16 15 13 9 14 15 4 2 3 51 7 64 39 6 6 1 1 47 13 33 2 3 2 159 3 24 113 7 73 17 50 41 87 46 47 48 49 50-60 9 7 8 32 20 16 12 64 Mobile AL40 157 Pascagoula, MS38 13 8 Gulfport, MS30 7 New Orleans, LA40 381 415 Baton Rouge, LA40 111 Beaumont, TX40 114 31 Port Arthur, TX40 179 46 1 Galveston, TX40 227 73 3 Texas City, TX 40 51 8 Houston, TX 40 150 60 Freeport, TX 38/36 100 168 11 Corpus Christi, TX 45 Channel 47/45 4 1 1 Harbor IS 47/45 3 1 i Corpus CH 40/45 35 29 25 . . ab No federal project Columbia River Bar limitation of 37 ft c Maintained at 32 ft d Port maintains 51 It outer channels, 45 ft inner channels e Port maintains 62 It entrance channel, 50 ft and 55 ft inner channels f Maintained at 35 ft SOURCE: Data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981.

181 TABLE 4 Port Calls of Bulk Carriers and Tankersa at Four Ports in 1980, by Actual and Design Drafts Design Draft Actual Draft (ft) | Ex. Total Existing Planned Dep. 51 to = or or or 41 to 46 to Port Port Depth Depth to 50 55 1 56 = 40 = 42 50 50 Calls Baltimore 42 50 165 12 29 897 974 Norfolk 45 55 126 81 53 141 1299 New Orleans 40 55 126 81 53 40 2621 Mobile 40 55 171 2 2 519 532 aBulk carriers, oil/ore carriers, ore carriers, ore/bulk/oil carriers, and crude oil tankers. Source: U.S. Maritime Administration, Office of Port and Intermodal Development. TABLE 5 Approximatea Cargo Tons/Foot of Draft for Selected Vessels Vessel: DWT (length x beam x draft, in ft) Cargo (Long) Tons/Draft Ft Panamax Bulk Carrier: 80,000 (850 x 106 x 49, fully loaded, or 40 for Panama Canal transit) 2300 Panamax containership: 915 x 106 x 35 2260 Panamax Tanker: 80,000 (764 x 106 x 40) 2700 Bulk Carrier: 150,000 (915 x 145 x 55) 3380 Tanker: 390,000 DWT (1143 x 228 x 74) 6627 Bulk Carrier: 225,000 (1085 x 178 x 55) 4900 aSeveral factors affect actual cargo tons/ft of draft

182 a) o En .,1 a' o of Go a Q U] U] U2 . o a) Q A C: Q U] C) O o~ a .-, U] Q U] Cal O o Lr) Us l ~1 U) l ~1 U] O ~ EN C) 0 a) PI Q m EN . +1 ~ 0 a) a' US ~ 1 tO US ~00 ~ Id an ~ret °~ ~L, , ~oo 1 o ~ ~1 ~Ln ~ ~ ~) 00 ~ ~) H ~1 u~ ~ a: ~ao a~ co ~a~ 1 ~) ~1 ~1 ~L ~ O +1 ~ ~ O O 00 ~ ~ ~d. ~00 ~ 0 ~ ~Ln Ln ~ ~a, 00 ~ C ~LO u ~kD r ~r ~r~ U] U] a a' a,1 ~1 lL~ __ O O .,. U] .,1 . - .- O ~t- ~1- ~ ~O ., CD ~1 ~11 ~ ~S~ ~Ln ~kD ~O 00 ~U] 1~ ~1 a~ \ ~·- ~ ~ ~ ' - ~1 S a'a) ~ ~ ~ ~a) ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ - ~ - O ~·e ·~1 ,= ~ ~ ~ ~-1 0 ~ ~ ~ tI5 ~ (!4 ~ -1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O =-~t ~ ~ O dJ ~1 ~J 1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y'- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ` - ~ ~3 O u~ ~ ~) 1:C4 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o: m E~ u:

183 Q U] a) ._, V 8 .,, .,4 Q o .,, V .,1 - d4 oo o a) ,4 U] a) -hi I_ lu C: ~5 So a a ED 3 a Olin m1 ~1 cot ~1 I ~1 ~1 ED ~ rat a, ~ oo rat ~ ~ ~ cat ~ ~ ~ ~ or rat ~ rat r Cal rat ~ Go rat o as ' - a, d' -1 ~ o ~ ~ ~ d.~ ~ran - 1 - ~ a: d' 1HI d' ~1 of Or 0 US Cal I as ~ ~ ED m1 - - 1 1 ~ - 1 - =1 - 1 m1 us m1 - oo - 1 - ~ 1 ~ m1 - 1 co - 1m m1 - 1 - 1 CO o o. o CD kD OD a, c~ a~ ~ o o a, 0 0 ' o o < ~310 ~= ~= E~ C~ O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O o O o O o O o O o O o O O O o O o O o O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 00 o O o O o O o O o O o O O ~ ~ ~ ~ =4 U~ ~ r- 0D ~ O ~, - ~, - ~0 0O o cn 0D a~ r~ C~ 00 C~ C~ ao C~ o O O O O O O O O o O o O O O o O o O O O o O o O u~ ~ ~ oo a~ C~ ~ C~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ' ~ ' ~ O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ =4 ~ dF O U] a _. ~ + + Y ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ e, a, 0 0 a, ~r U~ H O O O O O O .. O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' O o 0 0 ° o 4 ~3 LO ~ r- ~ ~ 0 0 O CO ~ d' E ~u'

184 w sat _I Ed :~ Q Dot Go a' o o en a) A' o ,1 A' set ol ~ - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ - - ~ US ~Cat ~1 dt1 a 1 - 1 o ~1 - 1 o kD1 - 1 ~,1 o 0 - 1 - 1 m1 ~ cat d41 can ~ Or - 1 1 - 1 ol ~ 0 - 1 ~1 m1 c~)1 oft - ~ED 1 - 1= ~ cat ~)1 =1 - Or - 1 - o o o us ~ ~rep Cat - 1 - - 1 - - 1m {~ m1 ~so 1 ~,,1 - 1 - old ~ 1 ~, - a, 0 Q a, Ed a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =, ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ' =~ Oo ~ ~ ~ L,~ Lo ~ ~ ~ OD ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~·e o o o o o ~ o (o~ o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n

185 Q Go o a) S ._1 U] En a' o C: of in; En Io ~1 - 1 =1 - =1 to - - 1 - 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LO Cat u~1 ~1 al 0 co ~ ~ 0 ED ~ O co o al co ~ ~ ~ ~ Cat I~ ~ o m1~i - |~ ~ N - 1~ ~ o ~ ~1 - 1~ ~ ~ ~1 - 1 Hi ~ ~ ~ cat o - 1 ~ ~ rat °1 - - 1 - us =1m o 0 ~1 ~ ~ I~ o ~ ~ LO Us Us o Us I~ Or ~ as ~ I~ o rn ~)1 - 1 I~ o a, a~ 0 C~ 0 a~ U~ o, a~ 1 . 0 ~ 0 ~ o ., ~ ~ o E~ 3 V o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ CO ~ o ~ ~ C~ O ~ ~ ~ u~ 0 u~ 0 ·n ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o o kD ~ 00 a~ O C~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ o o o o o o ·n ~ ~ co C~ o o o o o

186 CO ~k0 ~1 ~O L ~1 1 ~1 ~1 C ~1 1 1 ~i ~ C ~CO r~ ~r oo oo o ~r o _` a) ,1 o - oo ~n Y + 4 o ~ 1 CO a~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ·~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o o o o o o cr3 ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ kD ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ E~ o o o o o o o o ~ o' H <: =; O O O O O O O O O O 0 J0 0 0 0 0 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln ~ ~ 0O ~ o =4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~) L1~ Lr) Ln ·0 L ~O O E~ u: ~ - - o V 1 a,

187 Ed Q Go a) o o In So A Ed Q L' a at I ~1 ~1 -1 ~1 =1 Ifir - 1 - ~( - 1 ~ Cat Io ~ ~Go o ~ Ioo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ 1= 1 - ~1 - - 1 - Id. ~ I~ oo - 1Co - , °1m - 1 .~ ~r a, a, ~' ~ a~ a~ ~r 1 1 1 o o o ~o o m E~ O O 3 E~ o o U~ oo oo r~ CSi CS) ~ °~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, 0\ ~ cn kD ~ 0D a~ 1 1 1 1 1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ oo a~ ~ a~ a, a, o~ a, ~ a, 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D ~ o E~

188 Q a) a) a' S .,, U] a) En U] U] 1 ~ Sol s a' U] Sol O a) O m ~ EN ~ + Ln1 m1 - =1 as - 1 I or ILn or m1 =1 c41 - =1 - 1 - - 1 , - /, - Cal ~L - ) Cal Hi LO ~ ~ O CM I0 rn ~ Cal or aN | hi Lie Lie ~ ~ ~o ~1 - JO cot ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~4 ~ rot ~ ~Lea - 1 - r~1 tan ~ ~1 ~ cn kD ~ kD ~ ~ Cal ~ ~ ~ ,- - 1 - IkD ~ ~ CO ~ or rut ~ ~cat ~or Lr)1 ° ~ 0 nO - 1= ~ ~ o I of US ~ kD ~ a~ 0 o o oo co ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - Io oo ~ 03 ~ ~ 1- °1 =1= N i.' cn ._t 4~ 0o :^ 4~ 4J cn _d ~C cn =^ c: ~ _ cn O + I q~ O ~; O ~ CM kD a~ a, ~ ~ cr~ · ~ · e cn ~r a~ ~ cs~ ~ · C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~e. k0 ~ ~ ~U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LD O It) 0 L~ O L~ O O O O O O O O O O ~ O L~ O L~ o L~ O ~ O u~ O L^. O L~ O L~ O L~ O L~ O ~ O L~ O L~ O L~ O ~ ~ I ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ln ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ o O O kD ~ kD ~ kD ~t~ I ~')3 {= Q{3 oo oo ;~::} a) cc co u:

189 U] U] U] o 1 o 1 pow UD . - U2 .,, o c) n d' ~ 00 An, - E~ _ I ~-1 o -1 o °1 =1 ~ ~ ~ ~1 A' 1 =1 - m! I Cal ~Cal Ik9 ~1 ~ ~At, -1 Or - 1 - , -1 Cal ~ Cal . - °1 - 1 l o o o ~ ~ ~ LO C51 · · · ~ ~ ' a:' 00 ~ u' vC' O Up O Up O LO O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 up O ~O up O up 1 1 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ln , O ~ ~D ~D ~ ~ kD ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ CO ~ 0O ~ 0O ~ 03 ~ · · Co · · · Ce . · · ~ O o Ul Q~ --1 s U' a . - 4U o - dP - L. o . O H ~: ~D ·e l ~ :~ ~ o u]

Coal U.S. East Coast to Rotterdam/Antwerp Cost 12.58 Savings for Larger Vessel Highest and Lowest Rates* Grain U.S. Gulf ports to Rotterdam or Antwerp Coal Hampton Roads to Japanese ports High Low High Low 22.00 8.75 28.50 17.50 190 TABLE 10 Freight Rates for Bulk Carriers in $/ton of cargo 1981 1982 1983 12.00 5.74 19.60 10.80 9.00 7.00 17.50 12.35 Iron Ore Brazil to Northwest High 15.00 7.00 6.50 European ports Low 7.00 4.45 5.95 SOURCE: Maritime Transport Committee, 1984. Transportation Savings: Cost_vs. Price* Panamax 125,000 DWT 1980 1983 1980 1983 10.97 9.64 8.57 2.94 2.40 Market 10.29 5.51 7.45 4.12 Rate Savings for Larger Vessel 2.84 1.39 U.S. East Coast or Gulf to Japan Cost 40 .23 35.993 28.63 25.35 Savings for Larger Vessel 11.60 10.58 Market 33.08 18.08 21.91 11.57 Rate Savings for Larger Vessel 11.17 6.51 SOURCE: Poten & Partners, 1983.

191 TABLE 11 World Ports Capable of Handling 150,000 DWT (+) Vessels North Pacific Nigata Mizushima Kurf Kashima Kimitsu Chiba Oita Kiire Tsurusaki Okinawa Tokyo Bay Kawasaki Yokkaichi South Pacific Port Hedlund Dampier Hay Point Caves Beach Sydney Clutha Kembla Bonython North America Roberts Bank Seven Islands Come-by-Chance Point Tupper St. John South America Bolivar Puerto La Cruz Sepetiba Tubarao Huasco San Nicolas (exec. USA) North Atlantic Narvik Foulness Heligoland Clyde Port Glasgow Tees-Port Bantry Bay Liverpool Milford Haven Bilbao Gijon Algeciras Gothenburg Port Talbot Hamburg Dunkirk Rotterdam/Europoort Le Havre Zeebrugge Antwerp Mediterranean - Fos/Marseilles Genoa Marsa E1 Breg Taranto Trieste Port Said Persian Gulf Ras al Khafji Ras Tanura Mina al Ahmadi Kharg Island Das Island South Africa Richards Bay Port Elizabeth Algoa Bay Saldanha Bay

192 TABLE 12 Port Improvement Activities Worldwide (Responses to Query of Committee on National Dredging Issues) Entrance Channel Width Depth Country Port m (ft) m (ft) Expansion Australia Kembla 305 (1000) 16.75 (54.0) Physically not practical Melbourne 125 (410) 13.1 (43.0) - Newcastle Expansion possible, but not planned to accommodate tankers up to 200,000 DWT Bonython 20.0 (65.6) Not practical Belgium Antwerp 500 (1640) 17.75 (58.2) Underway Zeebrugge 300 (984) 18.00 (59.0) Underway Brazil Santos 150-250 (492-820) 14.0 (45.9) Expansion possible Tubarao 280 (191) 22.5 (73.8) No plans at present Canada 200-250 (656-820) 10.0 (33) - Montreal 244 (800) 10.7 (35~0) - St. John N.E. 10.4 (34) No plans at present Vancouver 305 (1000) 15.2 (50) Roberts Bank 457 (1500) 19.5 (64) Deep port recently completed Halifax 22.9 (75) No plans China Su-Ao 250 (820) 22 (72.2) Need exists for a new deep water port Denmark Aalborg 280 (919) _ Extension planned 1984-86 Arhus - 14 (45.9) Recently completed (1983) Ecuador Guayaquil 122 (400) 9~5 (31) Planned England Tyne Coal terminal planned Southampton 335 (1,100) 12.7 (41.5) No plans at present Port Talbot 168 (550) 9~5 (31.0) No plans at present Immingham 213 (700) 8.8 (29.0) No plans at present Southampton 325 (1066) 12.8 (42.0) No immediate plans Finland Helsinki 250-350 (820-1148) 9.6 (31.5) No plans at present France Rouen 100-200 (328-650) 12.0 (39.4) No Maximum Germany Hamburg 250 (820) 13.5 (44.0) Plan new deep water ports 16.5 (54~0) (at high tide) India Bombay Naturally wide 10.0 (32.8) Construction of a new deep access channel 13.3 (43.6) water port underway (at high tide) Mormugao 250 (820) 13.7 (45.0) Proposal to deepen to 16.5 m x 18-20(59-65.6) (54 ft) under consideration (outer harbor) Kandla 183 (600) 10.4 (34.1) Kandla Naturally wide 31.0 (101.7) Construction underway Offshore access channel 37.0 (121.4) Oil Terminal (at high tide) Indonesia Semarang 60 (197) 5 (16.4) Deepening to 9 m (29.5 ft) planned Ireland Cork Development of a deep-water harbor stopped (1983)

193 TABLE 12 (continued) Entrance Channel Width Depth Port m (ft) m (ft) Expansion Italy Voltri Development of a deep-water port delayed Jamaica Kingston 244 (800) 11.1 (36.5) - Japan Nagoya 12.0 (39.4) Deepening completed (1984) Kenya Mombasa 300 (984) 20.0 (65.6) Plan to construct a deep 36.0 (118) water port to Lamu (depth in shelter area) Shuwaikh Malaga Malaysia Nether- lands New Zealand Nicaragua New Port Tanjung Berhala Rotterdam- 600 (1968) 27.5 (90.0) Europort Auckland 300 (984) 11.0 (36.1) Taranaki Tauranga 2500 (8202) Saudi Yanbri 200 (656) Arabia Spain South Africa Santander Richards Bay 400 (1312) Major expansion underway, to be completed 1986 Expansion planned for the next 10 years Major port handling ships up to 220,000 DWT to be completed in 1984 Deepening to allow ships of 350,000 DWT to enter port No evidence for the need of a deeper port Being deepened, completion (1986) No 11.3 (37.0) (at low tide) 12.0 (39~4) 12.0 Deep water port under construction (39.4) Five general ports under construction. Completion 1985 (42.7) Under construction (64.0) Deepening to 23 m depth underway Saldanha Bay 500 *1640) 23.0 (75.5) Durban 183 (600) 12.7 (41.7) Port Elizabeth 310 (1017) 12.2 (40.0) Sri Lanka Colombo 230 (754) 11.5 (37.7) No plans Taiwan Kaohsiung 150 (492) 16.0 (52.5) No plan at present Keelung 276 (906) 20.0 (65.6) Taichung 300 (984) 20.0 (65.6) Deeper port planned Thailand Mabtapud To be constructed in future Laem Chalang Construction to start in 1987 UAE, Dubai Jebel All 280-235 (919-771) 15.0 (49.2) Expansion plans curtailed Ras Al Khaimah 14.2 (46.6)

194 o o s U] o .,, .,' o _ of U] o Pi a, v a) U] U] o ED o U] o .,, U] o ~ ·,1 ~5 _ .,, U] m EN . - a) As a), - ~ in, a' ~a · - ~ 0 0 A 0 X ~ an, ~ ~ ~ · - · - ~ ~ U] 0 SO En En U] ~ 0 ~ a) · - c: a) ~ u, . - U] c: ~ ~ ~ 0 H O ~' ~ (a) I U] U] O O En C.) o 3 ~ a) ~ ,0 ~ ·_1 u] o ~ c) a) u] c) ~ o ~ ~ · - -' ~a) ~ ] v, ·x ~ ~ ·m ~ : o a u~ o o ~u~ o o un z ~ ~ c ~Z . ~ - ~ ~ 0 oo · ~ ~ ~ oo~r O · ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~u~ ~ co ~ o ~ ~oo o · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o u~ 0 ~ ~a, ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~) 00 t~ ~ U) ~ ~ ~0D · ~ O cn =1 ~ ~ t~ ~ U] U] ~U] ~ ·- O ~ O a 0' a' m ~ ~ O 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m ·- 0 ~ ~ <: ·- 0 a' - 3m~ m (~5 i-, ~ ~ O 0 m z ~ O a) E~ ~q :5 ~5 u: 0 c: ._' · - ~ )~ Q · - ~ S ~ U] cn 3 Z O U] ~ ~ ~ ~ oo oo O O 3 P4 a) ~ ~ Z O O O · - S~ O u, ~ a a ~5 0 ~ a) ~ O ~ O O Z H C) C-) Q5 Q ~ ~ ~D O O · · ~ . S~ ~ O O fO a ~5 ~ Z Z C' ..' ..t U] U] cn tn o o s~ o U2 a p] z ~ c' o · - a U] U2 · - 3 U] ~ U] O o oo a, ~n O O Q, ·,1 a U] a ~ O O X C) · ] a - ~5 V2 a) ~ o U] O ~ U] O ~ · - U] S~ a) ~ .,, · - . - o . U2 (Q - ~ i~ o C) ~ o a · U] · ~ 3 · - ' U] · - O O QJ :^ O Q a) a · - o ·e U] O C) ,~ o o a~ (Q ~n 11 ~ U] O v ~ V s~ O ~ S U] o o U] U] V a s~ o o a · · ~ O ~ V .-, a,1 S O U] · - a O · - U] o C- V ._, · - U] O O O ·~1 Q a S~ V ~ O O h ~S -,1 V ·_' o · - U] ._' a' o ~ · - S~ O ~ U] ._' S: · - ~ ~5 E~ ~ O · - ·_l o .- ~ ) 3 a O H =1

195 TABLE 14 Planning, Approval, Authorization, and Funding Process for Major Navigation Projects. 1. Congress authorizes study. 2. Congress appropriates funds. 3. Following appropriation of funds, District Engineer conducts initial public meeting to review draft plan of study. This provides opportunity to identify and discuss local problems and alternatives emphasizing national economic efficiency and environmental quality. 4. District Engineer · Investigates all alternatives · Performs limited - technical feasibility studies - environmental assessments · Proposes most feasible solutions in preliminary feasibility report. 5. Formulation stage--Stage public meeting to discuss most feasible alternatives. 6. District Engineer · Investigates formulation stage alternatives · Performs detailed - technical feasibility studies - environmental assessments Selects plan for proposal in detailed Feasibility Report (FR) · Distributes draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) & FR (15 days prior to state public meeting) · Files draft EIS with EPA. 7. Public meeting--tentative plan proposed and discussed. 8. States, agencies, interest groups, public respond to draft EIS and draft FR. 9. District Engineer · Reviews comments to draft EIS & PR · Prepares recommended - Final EIS - Final FR. 10. Division Engineer · Reviews · Modifies as Appropriate - Final FR as Appropriate - Final EIS · Issues public notice requesting public views be sent to Board of Engineers for Rivers & Harbors (BERM) · Forwards recommendations to BERM. 11. Board of Engineers for Rivers & Harbors · Considers Views of - Public - States - Agencies

196 TABLE 14 (continued) o Reviews and provides recommendations - Final EIS - Final FR. O Transmits to chief of engineers. 12. Chief o Reviews Board report o Prepares his draft recommendations o Distributes for outside review o Files final EIS with EPA o Circulates to public for 30-day review period and to governors, federal departments (90-day review period). 13. Chief o Reviews comments received o Modifies report as appropriate o Prepares record of decision (ROD). 14. Chief o Forwards recommendations to Secretary of the Army for consideration - Final Report - Final EIS - ROD. 15. Secretary of the Army o Reviews o Coordinates with OMB o Prepares his recommendations o Forwards final PR, final EIS o ROD to Congress (6 fop. 16. Project Authorization 17. OMB o Congress holds hearings o Congress includes in Water Resources Development Act or other legislation o President signs. o Reviews Corps budget o Submits to Congress. 18. Project Funding o Congress includes in Appropriations Act o President Signs. 19. Local interests guarantee to fulfill obligations required by law (e.g., real estate, cost sharing, maintenance, operation, flood zoning). 20. District Engineer o Formulates pre-construction planning general design memoranda - Updates EIS as required for Sec. 404 compliance, obtains necessary Water Quality certificates - Issues public notice and conducts at least one public meeting (36 mot) o Obtains additional congressional authorization as appropriate (24 mot) 0 Initiates and completes construction (60 mot) o Operates and maintains.

197 TABLE 15 Engineers ACTIVITY Survey/study authorized Funds for study appro- priated Study/survey sent to divi sion Report sent to Congress Project authorized Initial funds appropriated for preconstruction planning & engineer ing - Initial construction funds appropriated First contract award YEARS Average schedule for navigation projects, U.S. Army Corps of 4.9 years 4.1 years 1.5 years 0.6 year SOURCE: General Accounting Office, 1984. 1.9 years 5.8 years 2.8 years TOTAL TIME 21.6

198 TABLE 16 Year of Authorization of Main Channels of Selected Ports Port and State Project Alaska Anchorage Alabama Mobile California Humboldt Harbor and Bay Stockton (J.F. Baldwin overlays this and other projects) San Joaquin R. Aug. 26, 1935 30'x 400' lower/225' upper land cut and river J. F. Baldwin Oct. 27, 1965 35'x 400/225' (under construction) Suisun Bay Channel Jan. 21, 1927 J. F. Baldwin Oct. 27, 1965 Date Channel Size and Type July 3, 1958 Oct. 22, 1976 Sept. 3, 1954 July 26/ Dec. 15, 1970 July 16, 1952 Aug. 13, 1968 35'x irregular berthing area 35' berthing area relocated 42'x 600' entrance, 40'x 400' bay 40'x 400' extension to Theodore 40'x 500' entrance 35'x 400' bay San Pablo Bay Jan. 21, 1927 J. F. Baldwin Oct. 27, 1965 Oakland Richmond March 2, 1945 Oct. 23, 1962 Sept. 3, 1954 J. F. Baldwin Oct. 27, 1965 30'x 300' bay 45' lower bay, 35' upper bay (under way) (35'x 400' lower and upper, per redesign) 30'x 700', Mare Island Strait 30'x 400' Pinole Shoal 45' Pinole Shoal (35'x 400' per redesign) 35'x 800/950' outer basin 35'x 600' inner harbor 35'x 600' bay approach and inner harbor 45' maneuver basin at Long Wharf (construction/design under way) San Francisco (most piers on deep water, except Islais Creek) Aug. 30, 1935 35' bay shoal (Islais approach) J. F. Baldwin Oct. 27, 1965 55'x 2000' bar and entrance (completed) 45' bay shoals (small, completed) 45'x 600' Southampton Shoal design under way, present size 25' x 600') 45'x 1000' entrance, 45'x 750 outer 45' basins 35'x 300/500' entrance, 35'x 400/ 1200' basins (Local overdredging to 52' LA, 65' LB) 40'x 800' entrance, 35'x 1500/5200' inner basins 30'x 2200', bay (Navy overdredging to 42') Los Angeles Oct. 22, 1976 Long Beach July 3, 1930 (LA-LB Project) San Diego July 3, 1930 Aug. 30, 1935 (widening)

199 TABLE 16 (continued) Port and State Project Connecticut Bridgeport New Haven New London Date Channel Size and Type July 3, 1950 35'x 400' entrance and main harbor July 24, 1946 35'x 500' entrance, 35'x 800/400 harbor Aug. 26, 1937 33'x 600' entrance and harbor Oct. 22, 1976 40' design only, restudied, deferred Delaware C&D (Canal Sept. 3, 1954 35'x 450' land cut and Chesapeake (Inland water- Bay (Latter connects with way: Delaware Baltimore 35'x 600') River, Chesa peake Bay) Wilmington July 14, 1960 35'x 400' at Delaware R. upper reaches shallow New Castle June 20, 1938 40'x 1000' entrance, 40'x 800' to & Delaware City Philadelphia (Delaware R.-Phila delphia to sea) Florida Charlotte May 17, 1950 32'x 300' bar and entrance (to Boca Grande) July 3, 1930 lO'x 100' inner (Boca Grande/ Punta Gorda) Canaveral Oct. 23, 1962 37'x 400' entrance, 36x 300' inner, 36' basins Panama City June 30, 1948 34'x 450' entrance, 32'x 300' bay (June 14, 1972) [42'x 450' entrance, 40'x 300' bay, 38' inner and basins (not built)] Port St. Joe Sept. 3, 1954 47'x 500/400' entrance, 35'x 300' bay Pensacola Aug. 27, 1962 35'x 500' entrance, 33'x 300' bay, 33'x 500' inner Palm Beach July 14, 1960 35'x 400' entrance, 33'x 300' bay 33' basins Jacksonville Oct. 27, 1965 42/40'x 400' entrance, 38'x 400/ 1200' lower river March 2, 1945 34'x 400/1200' upper river (above Blount Island Key West Harbor July 25, 1912 30'x 300' entrance, 26'x 800' basin Tampa Harbor Dec. 31, 1970 46'x 700' bar, 44'x 600' entrance, 44'x 500' bay, 42/40'x 400/300' inner Miami Harbor Aug. 13, 1968 38'x 500' entrance, 36'x 400' bay, 36' basins Port Everglades May 9/31, 1974 45'x 500' entrance, 42'x 450' bay 42' basins Georgia Brunswick May 17, 1950 32'x 500' bar, 30'x 400' entrance and upstream

200 TABLE 16 (continued) State Hawaii . Port and Project l Savannah Port Allen Nawiliwili Kahului Hilo Honolulu Louisiana Lake Charles (Calcasieu R. & Pass New Orleans Baton Rouge (Miss. R.-Baton Rouge to Gulf) Maine Portland Maryland Baltimore Date - Oct. 27, 1965 Aug. 30, 1935 Sept. 3, 1954 March 2, 1919 June 25, 1910 July 14, 1960 March 3, 1925 Oct. 27, 1965 Sept. 3, 1954 July 14, 1960 March 2, 1945 Oct. 23, 1962 Oct. 23, 1962 Aug. 8, 1917 July 3, 1958 Massachu- Cape Cod Canal Jan. 21, 1927 setts Fall River July 24, 1946 Sept. 3, 1954 (Aug. 13,1968) Channel Size and Type 40'x 600' bar, 38'x 500' entrance and lower river, 38/36'x 400 upper river 35'x 500' entrance, 35' basin 40'x 600' entrance 35' basin 35'x 600' entrance, 35' basin 35' basin extension 35'x 1400' basin, breakwater protected 45'x 500' entrance, 40' basins 35'x 400' second entrance 42'x 800' bar, 42/40'x 400' entrance 40'x 400' river and cut, 35 x 250 above Lake Charles 40'x 600' SW Pass Bar, 40'x 800' SW Pass 30'x 600' SW Pass Bar, 30'x 450' SW pass 40'x 1000' between New Orleans and Passes (35' at and above New Orleans) 40'x 500' New Orleans to Baton Rouge (overlays prior 35 x 1500 at New Orleans) 45'x 1000' entrance, 45' anchorage 35'x 1000/400 inner channels 42'x 1000/800' bay entrance & shoals 42'x 800' harbor entrance & main channel 42'x 600', 42/35 x 400, 39 x 400 side channel 35'x 600' bay channel to C&D canal (Dec. 31,1970) [50'x 1000' bay entrance & shoals] 50'x 800' harbor entrance & main channel 50'x 600', 42/35'x 400', 40/49'x 400 side channel (deepening not started on 1970 project)] 32'x 540/480' land cut, 32'x 700/ 500' bay approach (south end) 35'x 400' bay and river 35'x 400' bay side channel [40'x 400' all of the above (not built)]

201 TABLE 16 (continued) Port and State Project Date Boston Harbor Aug. 30, 1935 Channel Size and Type 40lx 9001 (45' in rock) + 35lx 600' adjoining, main entrance; 30'x 1200' auxiliary entrance 40'x 600' + 35'x 600' adjoining inner channels 35' connections w/Chelsea, Charles, Mystic R. July 13, 1892 27'x 1000' auxiliary entrance, partly overlays 35'x 500' Weymouth Fore R. entrance ia Boston Harbor project) 35'x 1000' + 35'x irregular Massachu- Boston (other projects entered v setts Mystic River May 17, 1950 Chelsea River Oct. 23, 1962 Dorchester Bay Oct. 23, 1962 35'x 300' Mississippi Gulfport June 30, 1948 Pascagoula Oct. 23, 1962 New Hampshire New York Sept. 3, 1954 Portsmouth (Portsmouth Harbor & Pis cataqua River) New Jersey Camden March 2, 1919 (Delaware R. at Camden) (Del. R. Phila. June 20, 1930 to Sea) Gloucester (see Camden projects) Paulsboro (Delaware R.- June 20, 1938 Philadelphia to sea) Albany (Hudson R., NY) Sept. 3, 1954 32'x 300' bar, 30 x 220 bay 40'x 350' bar, 38'x 350' bay, 38'x 225' bay to Bayou on Casotte (refinery) 35'x 400' river/strait channel w/ widened bends (natural entrance) 30'/18'x 800' + (adjoins 37' portion of Delaware R. Phila delphia to sea project) (Mar. 2, 1945) [37'x 800' access to marine terminal (not built)] 40'x 1000' entrance, 40'x 800' to Philadelphia-Camden, 37'x 1000' at Philadelphia-Camden Camden, 37'x 1000' at Phila delphia-Camden (west half of channel now 40'- see Phila delphia) 30' portion of Camden project Direct acce-ss to/from 40'x 800' channel 32'x 600' lower river (to Kingston), 32'x 400' upper (34' in rock)

202 TABLE 16 (continued) Port and State Project Date Channel Size and Type New York/ New York (Port includes 16 projects deeper than 14 New Jersey NY Entrance & Aug. 26, 1937 45'x 2000' entrance (Ambrose Anchorages channel) 45'x 2000' anchorages (Upper Bay) Aug. 30, 1935 35'x 800' entrance (Sandy Hook) July 5, 1884 30'x 1000' Sandy Hook/Ambrose Channel connection Hudson R., NY Aug. 26, 1937 45'x 2000' w/ 48'x 2000' at upper & NJ end, 40'x 30' side channels (Weehawken, etc.) NY & NJ Channel May 28, 1935 35'x 600/500' Sandy Hook Bay & Arthur Kill 35'x 800/1000' in Kill van Kull (37' in rock) Oct. 27, 1965 Kill van Kill widened East River Sept. 22, 40'x 1000', 35'x 550' upper, 1922 35'x 1000' at Long Island Sound Buttermilk Jan. 13, 1902 35'x 500' Adjacent Brooklyn Channel May 1935 40'x 500' channels Waterfront & Bay Ridge & Red March 3, 1899 40'x 1200' & East R./ Hook channel July 3, 1930 40'x 1750'Upper Bay Connections Newton Creek July 3, 1930 23'x 130'East R./Brooklyn Wallabout Chan March 3, 1899 20'x 230/350' side channels Gowanus Creek July 16, 1952 30'x 500/200' Newark Bay Mar. 22, 1945 35'x 700' bay (500' above Port Newark) 37' at turn connecting w/Kill van Full (access to sea via NY & NJ channel project) Hackensack R. Sept. 3, 1954 32'x 400/300' (34' in rock) Passaic R. July 3, 1930 30'x 300' lower river North Morehead City Dec. 31, 1970 42'x 450' entrance, 40x 400/600 Carolina bay Wilmington May 17, 1950 40'x 500' bar & entrance 38'x 400' river Oregon Yaquina Bay July 3, 1950 40'x 400' entrance, 30'x 300' bay and Harbor Coos Bay Dec. 30, 1970 45'x 700' entrance, tapers to 35'x 300 35'x 300 bay (w/bend widenings) Portland (Columbia R. Sept. 3, 1954 48'x 1/2 mile bar channel Mouth) (Columbia R. & Oct. 23, 1962 40'x 600' river Lower Willamette) Astoria (same as Portland, plus 40'x 800' basin)

203 TABLE 16 (continued) Port and State Project Date Channel Size and Type vanla Puerto Rico South Carolina Texas Pennsyl- Penn Manor (Del. R. Phila- Sept. 3, 1954 delphia /Trenton) Delaware R. June 20, 1938 Philadelphia to Sea (Schuylkill R.) July 24, 1946 Aug. 8, 1917 Chester & Marcus Hook (Delaware R. Philadelphia at sea) Mayaguez Ponce San Juan Charleston (Shipyard R.) (Ashley R.) Brownsville (Brazos Is) Matagorda Freeport (July 18, (Oct. 22, 1976) March 2, 1945 Aug. 26, 1937 May 17, 1950 July 3, 1958 May 17, 1950 40'x400' river Philadelphia to Fairless Works (35x 300, 12x 200 above Penn Manor) 40'x 1000' entrance, 40'x 800' to Philadelphia 40'x 400/500 west side + 37'x 500/600' east side (adjacent channels at Philadelphia-Camden 33'x 400', 33'x 300', lower river 26'x 200, 22'x 200', upper river June 28, 1938 Aug. 30, 1935 Sept. 23, 1976 Oct. 1, 1976 Aug. 4, 1976 Direct access to/from 40'x 800' channel to Philadelphia (40'x 1000' bay entrance) 30'x 1000/500' entrance 36'x 600' entrance, 36'x 400' inner 48'x 800' bar, 46/40'x 800' bay, 40'x 400', 450' inner channels Oct. 17, 1940 35'x 1000' entrance, 35'x 600/400' Cooper River [40' conditionally authorized, not built] [Phase I design for 42' entrance, 40' river] 30'x 300/200' 30'x 300' 38'/36'x 300' bar & entrance, 36'x 200' bay and land cut, 36 x 300/ 500 upper 38'x 300' bar & entrance, 36'x 200' bay 38'x 300' bar, 36'x 200' entrance 36'x 200/400' inside, 30 x 200 side channel (Dec. 31,1970) [47'x 400' bar, 45'x 400' entrance 45'x 400/375 inside, 30 x 200, 36 x 200 sides (1970 project not built)] Galveston Harbor and Channel (channel is Gulf entrance for Galveston, Houston, Texas City) July 3, 1958 42'x 800' outer bar, 40'x 800' inner bar and bay entrance June 23, 1971 40'x 1125' harbor channel

204 TABLE 16 (continued) . Port and State Project Date Houston July 3, 1958 Texas City July 14, 1960 Corpus Christi Aug. 13, 1968 Sabine Pass Oct. 23, 1962 Port Arthur Beaumont Orange Sept. 3, 1954 (Sabine Neches Waterway) Virginia Norfolk (Thimble Shoal's channel is entrance for Norfolk, Newport News and other ports) Norfolk project bay channel also used by Newport News and other ports) (Thimble Oct. 27, 1965 45'x 1000' bay channel with Shoals) 32 x 450 adjacent channels (both sides) part way 45'x 1500' bay, 45'x 800' to Lamberts Point 40'x 750/450' above Lamberts point and up Elizabeth R., lower South Branch 35'x 250' Elizabeth R., upper South Branch 25'x 500/200 Elizabeth R., East Branch Channel Size and Type 40'x 400' bay and lower 1/2 land cut 40'x300' upper land cut to Sims Bayou June 30, 1948 36'x 300' above Sims Bayou (Manchester) 40'x 400' bay 47'x 700' outer bar, 45'x 600' jetty entrance, 45'x 600/500/ 400' bay 45'x 300/400' to La Quinta (Reynolds) 45'x 300/400' harbor & basins 42'x 800' bar, 40'x 800/500' entrance 40'x 500' pass & land cut (Port Arthur) 40'x 400' Neches R. (Beaumont) 30'x 200' Sabine R. (Orange) (Norfolk) Oct. 27, 1965 Oct. 22, 1976 March 2, 1907+ Newport News (Channnel to Oct. 27, 1965 Newport News) Washington Grays Harbor Chehalis R. Kalama & Longview (Col. R. Mouth) (Col. R. & Lower Willamette) March 2, 1945 Sept. 3, 1954 Sept. 3, 1954 Oct. 23, 1962 45'x800' 30'x600' bar, 30'x350' bay 30'x200' river 48'xl/2 mile bar channel 40'x600' Columbia R.

205 TABLE 16 (continued) Project Date Channel Size and Type Vancouver (on Columbia but with three different depths) (Col. R. Mouth) 48'xl/2 mile bar channel Col. & Lwr 40'x600' to mile 1055, 35'x500' Willamette) above (Col. R. Auk. 26, 1937 27' Vancouver to the Dalles) Everett (Everett Hbr & Snohomish R.) Bellingham Seattle Port Angeles (Ediz Hook) Tacoma Sept. 3, 1954 Aug. 26, 1937 July 3, 1930 July 3, July 3, March 2, 1930 1958 1919 March 3, 1925 March 7, 1974 June 13, 1902 30'x700/900' to bay waterfront 26'x200' Squalicum Waterway 30'x363.2' Whatcom Waterway 34'x750' West Waterway 34'x7 5 0/400 East Waterway (local overdredging to 40') 30 'x200 ' lower, 20x150, 15x150 upper Duwamish R. Breakwater project W/12 '-15' small boat basin. 30' shoal removal Reauthorized 29 'x500', 22'x500 ', 19'x500/250 ' City WW Reauthorization proposed) 35'x300' N1/2, 30'x350' S1/2 lower WW 35'x600/300 upper Blair WW Aug. 26, 1927 & 30'x200' w/widenings, Hylebos July 3, 1930 waterway Note: Authorization dates shown are the earliest dates with the specified channelts) at present depth and width. Subsequent authorizations for extensions, bend widenings and other minor modifications not shown. Dimensions for channels with tapering width or depth shown with a slash. Dual-depth channels have separate dimensions shown for each side (i.e., Boston, Philadelphia). A series of dimensions is shown for channels that taper in steps. SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Civil Works.

206 TABLE 17 Proposals for Dredging to Depths Between 40' and 46' Port Fall River, Mass. New London, Conn. New Haven, Conn. Bridgeport, Conn. Newark, N.Y. (Kill van Kull) Existing Proposed Cost Depth Depth (106) 35 33 35 35 35 Howland Hook 35 (Arthur Kill) N.Y. Gowanus Creek 30 Channel, N.Y. Port Jefferson, N.Y. 16 Elizabeth R., 30/35 Norfolk, Va. Elizabeth R., 35/40 Norfolk, Va. Charleston, S .C. Savannah, Ga. Jacksonville, Fla. Ft. Pierce, Fla. San Juan, P.R. Tampa, Fla. 25 36 40 40 ~0 40 40 40 $ 66 unav $ 23 unav $229 $ 15 $ 26 40 $ 3 40 40/45 40/45 35 42 38 38 40 44 40 40 34 32 36 45 43 Charlotte Harbor, Fla. Preeport, Tex. Corpus Christi, 40 45 Tex. 40 Status Approved; deferred Recommended by federal study; being reviewed for approval 11 Being studied Recommended by federal study; being reviewed for approval Being studied Recommended by federal study; being reviewed for approval unav. Approved; deferred $ 5 Approved; under way $ 73 Recommended by federal study; being reviewed with other Norfolk deepening proposal (cost included in over-all proposal) Being studied $ 30 $ 80 $160 Being studied $ 51 $ 65 $178 unav $ 90 $ 90 11 Recommended by federal study; being reviewed for approval Approved; nearing completion Being Studied Approved Approved; under way

207 TABLE 17 (continued) Existing Proposed Cost Port Depth Depth (106) Status Brownsville, 36 42 $ 23 Recommended by federal Tex. study; being reviewed (port has explored private financing) Grays Harbor, 30 46 $ 71 Recommended by federal Wash. study; being reviewed Everett 30 40 unav. Being studied Blair Waterway 35 45 $ 30 Recommended by federal Tacoma, Wash. study; being reviewed Sitcum Waterway 35 40 $ 32 " Tacoma, Wash. San Pablo Bay, 35 45 $166 Approved; under way Calif. Oakland, 35 42 $ 38/ Outer harbor ($38 Calif. $ ? million) recommended; inner harbor deepening being studied Richmond 35 41 $ 51 Recommended by federal Calif. study; being reviewed for approval Honolulu, 35 40 unav. Approved; underway Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii 35 40 $ 4 Being studied Apra Harbor, 35 40 $ 4 Guam Baltimore, 42 50 $420 Approved; no appropria Md. tion Norfolk/ 45 55 $480 Recommended by federal Newport News, study; being reviewed for Va. approval York R., 22 50 $500 Being studied Va. Mobile, Ala. 40 55 $407 Recommended by federal study; being reviewed for approval Pascagoula, 38 55 unav. Being studied Miss. New Orleans/ 40 55 $525 Recommended by federal Baton Rouge, study; being reviewed for La. approval Sabine-Neches 40 50 3344 Being studied Waterway, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange, Sabine Pass Harbor, Tex. \

208 TABLE 17 (continued) Existing Proposed Cost Port Depth Depth (106) Status Galveston, 40 55 $139 Being studied; port has Tex. sought private funding- now completing new envi ronmental impact state ment required by court decision Texas City, 40 50 $167 Recommended by federal Tex. study; being reviewed for approval Houston, Tex. 40 50 $270 Being studied Freeport, 36 50 unav. " Tex. Corpus Christi, 40 50 unav. " Tex. Columbia R. 48 60a unav. Bar, Ore., Astoria, Ore., Kal ama, Longview, Vancouver, Wash. Astoria, Ore. 40 50 unav. " N.Y. Harbor & 45/35 70/60 $413 Being studied adjacent channels, Stapleton/ Port Jersey Delaware R., transshipment facility, Pa. Los Angeles/ Long Beach, Calif. 40 55/60 80 90 unav. 11 $460 Being studied San Francisco, 45 55 unav. Approved; under way Calif. aWill not result in 60' port channel - bar subject to waves and swell; greater depths required - would be compatible with Columbia River depths of perhaps 50'. SOURCE: Heiberg (1983).

209 TABLE 18 Cost of Maintenance Dredging Annual Average Cost/ Annual Average Cost/ State/ Maintenance Cost Cargo State/ Maintenance Cost Cargo Port($ thousands)Ton Port ($ thousands)Ton Alaska Mississippi Anchorage1453.6.83 Gulfport 1899.21 53 Alabama Pasacagoula 2485.5.10 Immobile5303.2.83 New Hampshire California Portsmouth 140.7· 05 Humboldt1243.9· 94 New Jersey Long Beach72.0.00 Camden 264.4· 09 Los Angeles72.0.00 Gloucester 245.4 Oakland1143.3.16 Paulsboro 2522.9 Redwood City Trenton Richmond118.21.06 New York/ Sacramento New Jersey 12905.7.13 San Diego0New York San Francisco39.1.02 Albany 1907.5.22 San Pablo503.1.02 North Carolina Stockton9 79.8.49 Morehead C. 19 69.6.65 Connecticut Wilmington 3041.6.39 Bridgeport224.8.07 Oregon New Haven566.9.06 Astoria 881.7.56 New London7.8.00 Coos Bay 3652.3.66 Delawarea10322.9Portland 12567.1.04 Delaware City516.5Yaquina Bay 1379.219.99 New Castle1202.2Pennsylvania Wilmington1851.0.52 Chester 4.1 Florida Marcus Hook 3446.4 Canaveral2438.7.90 Penn Manor 1376.6 Charlotte1322.5.98 Philadelphia 6702.0.06 Fernandinab Puerto Rico Jacksonville3098.7.20 Mayaquez 106.7.28 Key West25.7.14 Ponce 77.7.00 Miami20.3.00 San Juan 852.9.08 Palm Beach209.9.13 Rhode Island Panama City210.0.13 Providence Pensacola633.6.26 South Carolina Port Evergla.83.7.00 Charleston 5816.9 Port St. Joe167.8.13 Texas Tampa2309.41.90 Beaumont 3990.9.08 Georgia Brownsville 3116.61.21 Brunswick3409.52.38 Corpus Christi 6202.1.16 Savannah10429.8.85 Freeport 3590.8.18 Hawaii Galveston 1638.8.02 Hilo352.2.32 Houston 8312.5.08 Honolulu167.7·03 Port Arthur 3990.9.13 Kawaihae Texas City 19545.1.08 Keweenaw Virgin Islands Nawiliwili535.3.68 St. Thomas Port Allen63.7.62 Virginia Louisiana Newport News 932.0.04 Baton Rouge18297.5.23 Norfolk 2801.7.05 New Orleans 16661.9 . og Washington Maine Anacortes Portland 613.4 .05 Bellingham 140.8 .08 Searsport Everett 457.0 .20 Maryland Grays Harbor 4668.4 1.44 Baltimore 2477.6 .05 Ralama 199 .6 .15 Massachusetts Longview 4645.5 .54 Boston 181.1 too Port Angeles 19.3 .00 Fall River 133.2 .03 Seattle 376.5 .02 New Bedford/ Tacoma 44.5 .00 Fairhaven Vancouver 1185.5 · 43 Salem aSee consolidated Delaware River summary. bMaintained by U.S. Navy.

210 Q ~ O En Ed a) V O ~ a) ,1 it, O i, Q. o ' - - U] a' An, o A' a) C) A' a) :5 a' EM rat ~ up ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1- ~ d' ~00 ~ ~ d. Us o o _ ~ '' ID Ln ~Q O CQ Ed _ ~ O lo O ~ O ~ do a) a) Cal ~ o ~ US ~ · ~ ~ V O Go - 0 fir LO 0 0 a, - dF . U~ - ~ ~ _ O O X) ~ O~ d ~1 ~ o O ~ u~ O~ dF u~ [_~ ~a · ~ ~ Q] - ~ - ~ ~ ~- - ° ~ a,~° ° ~ ~~ - -- m ~ a) ~5 a ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 o ~ 0 ~ d ~cn u~ ~ O a) ~ ~ ~ ~ n a) ~ ~ ~ ~oo O ~ ~ · O ~ ~ a) ~ <: ~ a ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ :^ ~ ~0 n Q ~a a) ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ - z ~ o, .,. ~ a~ ~U ~.- a, d' ~ r~ a) Qa, _' ~ ~ ~`.o P4 ~1 ~ - dP . d. - 0 ~1 c~) ~ o ~ oo ~ o - d~ . - - dP U~ . ao - U] .,, a, ~: ~ 0 ~ a) ao 0~ dR ~ ~ ~ d4 ~ O0~ ^ U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dF · ~ ~ ~ ~'o ~ U 0 ~ ~ r ~ ~Oco ~ ~ - ~- ,1 ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ d ~a) ~ ~ ~ r~ ~Lr, dR ~ a, ~ oo oo ~ ~Y V ~ ~ ~ d. ~U~ · V · ~' ~:, ~ u ~a, ~ ~_ U] ~U2 ] u] ~3 ~ ~3 Q5 0 ~n ~G5 0 u~ 0 0 0) 3 ~ ~O C) 0 3 U1 C_) - ~ U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ O O V ~ ~ O E~ O V ~ ~ O E~ C) ~ ~ ~C) . - ~ ~ ~ ~ n, aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a) ~ ~v ~ a) ~c`, ~ ~v ~ a) ~cn ~ V p~ ~(~ H ~ C ~ ~V H U1 a) a' a,1 W o U1 o SJ ~: ~n ·e 3 O

211 TABLE 20 Concentrations of Selected Constituents in Dredged Sediments and Average Global Crustal Materials Dredged Materials Range in Moles Kg~' Average Crustal Materials Constituent of Sediment (except as noted) Range in Moles Kg Trace Metals Iron 0.02 - 0.90 0.61 - 1.03 Manganese (0.4 - 10) x10-3 (12 - 18) x10-3 Zinc (0.5 - 8) x 10-3 (0.92 - 1.26) x 10-3 Copper (0.8 - 9400) x 10-6 (460 - 1090) x 10-6 Nickel (0.2 - 2.6) x 10 3 (0.62 - 1.69) x10 3 Chromium (0.02 - 3.8) x 10-3 (0.92 - 1.92) x 10-3 Lead (5 - 1900) x10-6 (48 - 77) x10 6 Cadmium (0.4 - 600) x 10-6 (0.89 - 1.6) x 10-6 Mercury (1 - 10) x 10-6 (0.149 - 0.398) x 10 6 . _ . . . . . . . Synthetic Organic Substances Chlorinated Pesticides Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds 0 - 10 mg kg~ 0 - 10 mg kg~ Other Properties pH Chemical Oxygen Demand Oil and Grease 6 - 9 0.03 - 0.04 0.1 - 5 g kg~ SOURCES: Dredged materials adapted from Engler, 1981; average crustal materials adapted from Rahn, 1976.

212 o I, 3 o . - , x A: U] U] U] .,' _1 to .,, o o U] a) t) .,' o o . - m o A EN U] .,4 o a) at: ^ - Y a) ~ - U] a: o I a) a) .,, ,1 U) U] o A: a) U] o U] at; o .- 4~ ~ ^ At - JJ 1 a' Y 0 C: - o . ^ i, - a' JJ 1 i: a) Y 3 o ~ ~ o ~ Z U] C) _ :^ I. O' ~ 1 a' a) ~ 4 .- 3 ~ ye - U] n cO 4~ y o ~ ~ ~ uD m-- ~ m~ o ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ·- >, u~ C~ a~ 0 o oo o oo ~ ~o ~ _ ~ n U] s~ Ul a O SJ 4 ~ a .,, ._' D Q X X r) o o ,4 S O ~ 3 Q ~ O a) s 4~ 3 O a) ~ y ~ 3 ~ ~3 0` O X O >, S o 04~ ~ ~ U] S 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a: aJ ~ S S d. ~; ~ U] ~Q ._, 4~ o o o o o o o o o o O kD O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~i U) U~ ~ a) ~r 0 0 0 0 ~ o UO~y .~ S =: 1 1 ~S) ~ X o o X ~ o o ~ o o o o ~ . ~ . . ~o o _ a, ~ ~ O C~ ~ C: ,1 O U) E~ s ao ~ a CO - a) U] ·. ~; :~ 0 cn

Dredging Coastal Ports: An Assessment of the Issues Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Are the nation's ports adequate for our present and future needs? This volume points out that no significant new deep-water construction has occurred for a decade, and provides the information and analysis needed to goad the ports and the federal government into action. The book asks three questions: Is additional port construction and maintenance dredging needed now or over the next 20 years? What would prevent dredging if it is needed? What alternatives could make additional dredging possible? The book identifies several problems in dredging ports, including the long interval between a decision to deepen a port and the time the alterations are complete. The United States needs to speed port construction to meet changing needs, and the committee recommends that we prepare for future needs by dredging now.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!