U.S. Harbor Improvements: Planning for the Future and Protecting the Environment

Presented to

The First Hemispheric ConventionOn Port Environmental Protection

21-24 July, 2009 Foz do Iguaçu - Paraná - Brasil

Presented to

The First Hemispheric ConventionOn Port Environmental Protection

21-24 July, 2009 Foz do Iguaçu - Paraná - Brasil

Lillian AlmodovarSenior Manager and Deputy Director

Institute for Water ResourcesU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lillian AlmodovarSenior Manager and Deputy Director

Institute for Water ResourcesU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

National Challenge: Marine Transportation System

Value of all foreign trade represents nearly 30% of nation’s GDP (vs 13% in 1970)

Overseas waterborne trade 95% of overseas trade by volume 75% of overseas trade by value 16 million direct jobs

About $2.3 trillion in economic activity

System nearing capacity until current downturn

Cargo volumes still projected to double by 2025-30

Already a generation behind in channel design – but West Coast in better shape

Capacity constraints increase transportation costs, pollution, congestion

U.S. Ports: Vital to Trade…and to Our National Economy

MillionTons

Over 100

50 - 100

25 - 50

10 - 25

Houston

Corpus ChristiS. Louisiana

New Orleans

Baton Rouge

Texas City

Lake Charles

PlaqueminesTampa

New York/NJ

Valdez

Long Beach

Beaumont

Lower DelawareRiver (9 harbors)

Duluth/Superior

Los Angeles

Port Arthur

St. Louis

Portland

Seattle

Freeport

Huntington

Richmond

Oakland

Tacoma

Boston

Hampton Roads

Port Everglades

Jacksonville

Memphis

Detroit

Cleveland

SavannahCharleston

Indiana Hbr

Cincinnati

Portland

Two Harbors

Anacortes

Honolulu

Chicago Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Pascagoula

53 harbors – coastal, inland, Great Lakes - handled over 10 million tons each in 2007…

Toledo

Mobile

Matagorda

Kalama

Barbers Pt

Nearly 12,000 Miles 9 ft & Over

196 Lock Sites / 242 Chambers

Moving Over 600 Million Tons

About 2/3rds Cost of Rail and1/10 Cost of Truck

Inland Waterway System:

Forecast Total World Container Trade2000 - 2024

Doubled from 60 million TEUs in 2000 to about 120 million in 2008

Slight decline forecast in 2009

Renewed growth to about 260 million TEUs by 2024

That is down 40 million TEU from earlier forecasts

Source: IHS Global Insight, Inc. Dec 08

Million TEUs

Decline fromPrevious forecast

Forecast Top 5 Container Exporters2000 - 2024

And China accounts for 1/3rd of this trade…• (But exports down 20% from earlier forecasts)


Top 20 Container Ports by TEUs

Rank in

2000

Rank in

2007

Rank in

2008 Port name Country

2000 Million

TEU

2007 Million

TEU

2008 Million

TEU

Percent change 2000–08

Percent change 2007–08

Av annual rate (%) 2000–08

2 1 1 Singapore Singapore 17.0 27.9 29.9 76 7.1 7.36 2 2 Shanghai China 5.6 26.2 28.0 398 7.0 22.21 3 3 Hong Kong China 18.1 23.9 24.2 34 1.5 3.7

11 4 4 Shenzhen China 4.0 21.1 21.4 436 1.5 23.43 5 5 Busan South Korea 7.5 13.3 13.4 78 1.2 7.5

13 7 6 Dubai UAE 3.1 10.7 11.8 287 11.0 18.465 11 7 Ningbo China 0.9 9.4 11.2 1,145 19.9 37.038 12 8 Guangzhou China 1.4 9.2 11.0 669 19.6 29.15 6 9 Rotterdam Netherlands 6.3 10.8 10.8 72 0.1 7.0

24 10 10 Qingdao China 2.1 9.5 10.3 387 9.1 21.99 9 11 Hamburg Germany 4.2 9.9 9.7 128 -2.0 10.94 8 12 Kaohsiung Taiwan 7.4 10.3 9.7 30 -5.7 3.4

10 14 13 Antwerp Belgium 4.1 8.2 8.7 112 6.0 9.932 17 14 Tianjin China 1.7 7.1 8.5 398 19.7 22.212 16 15 Port Klang Malaysia 3.2 7.1 8.0 149 11.9 12.17 13 16 Los Angeles United States 4.9 8.4 7.8 61 -6.0 6.18 15 17 Long Beach United States 4.6 7.3 6.5 41 -11.3 4.4

113 18 18 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 0.4 5.5 5.6 1,239 1.8 38.317 20 19 Bremen/Bremerhaven Germany 2.7 4.9 5.5 103 12.4 9.214 19 20 New York/New Jersey United States 3.1 5.4 5.3 73 -2.5 7.1

Forecast Asia Container Tradewith North America: 2000 - 2024

Asia-North America eastbound flows over 13 million TEU in 2007

May fall by 10% in ’08-09

Projected to reach over 30 million TEU by 2024

Despite current downturn, will be huge challenge for U.S. ports to handle projected volume


U.S. Harbor Deepening Challenges Future Trade Volumes and Vessels

Study Process: The difficult and lengthy process to study, design, authorize and appropriate funds for channel improvements;

Funding: The uncertainties associated with the annual federal appropriation process for projects underway;

Dredging: The escalating costs of dredging and dredged material placement, and associated environmental mitigation activities; and

Handling Facilities and Space: The need for vastly expanded cargo handling facilities and improved intermodal connections, coupled with limitations on port expansion and encroachment of other land uses on port facilities.

SEALEVEL

Pre-19701,700 TEU

<10 Containers

Wide

1970-19802,305 TEU

10-11 Containers Wide

19853,220 TEU


1986-20004,848 TEU


2000-20058,600+ TEU


Ever Larger ContainershipsDriving Need for Ever Deeper Channels

> 14m12.8-14m11.6-12.8m10m<9m

Deep Draft Challenges: Mega-ships

EMMA MAERSK11,000 (14,000?) TEUs

S Class6800 TEUS Class

6800 TEU

L Class14,000 TEU

L Class14,000 TEU

Source: Journal of Commerce August 2006, Marine Log December 2006, TranSystems 2007

“M/S Emma Maersk” christened Aug 2006

Capacity could be as high as 14,000 TEUs

LOA of 397 m Beam of 56 m Draft 15.5 m 170,974 gt Speed 25.5

knots

PacificCoast

4.53.8

14.0

AtlanticCoast

7.4

5.1

17.7

Depth-Constrained Containership Calls in 2020, with and without Planned Harbor Projects

(in thousands of ship calls)

Gulf Coast

1.1 1.62.5

Construction /Design Funds

Study Funds

Under Construction/Study for AdditionalImprovements

Authorized – FundsPending

As of 2009:

Meeting the Challenge: Key Harbor Improvement Projects Funded in 09

Houston/ Galveston

Mobile

New York/NJ

Los Angeles Main Channel

Oakland 50-ft

Boston

Port Everglades

Indiana Hbr

Sault Ste Marie(Soo Locks)

(multiple projects)

Wilmington

Savannah (2 projects)

Great LakesSystem Study

Corpus Christi(Main Chnl & LaQuinta Chnl)

Delaware River

Texas City

SF Bay to Stockton

Columbia R

James River

St. Paul Hbr MaalaeaFreeport

Iberia

Anchorage

Unalaska

Searsport

33 harbor improvements in ’09 appropriation/ARRA

$468 million federal Long-term investment of

over $5.6 billion

Yakutat

Brazos Island Hbr

Sabine-Neches

Portsmouth

Elizabeth R

MiamiHomer

Construction /Design Funds

Study Funds

Under Construction/Study for AdditionalImprovements

Authorized – FundsPending

Sacramento

Jacksonville

Norfolk Harbor

Sitka

Tampa

Burlington

Valdez

Seward

Barbers Pt

Hilo

Redwood City Poplar Is. (Balt)

Long Beach

Canaveral

Bucks Hbr

Bass Hb

Akutan

Principal US Harbor ImprovementsFunded in 2009*

* Includes 2-year ARRA funding.

SELECTED PROJECTS STATE FY 2009FEDERAL

COSTSNON-FEDERAL

COSTTOTAL COST

PERCENT COMPLETE

DEPTH FEET

DEPTH METERS

MOBILE HARBOR AL 29,770 244,126 284,874 529,000 15% 55 16.8

LOS ANGELES HARBOR CA 885 58,100 135,900 194,000 80% 53 16.2

OAKLAND HARBOR CA 32,892 224,798 183,288 408,086 100% 50 15.2

JACKSONVILLE HARBOR FL 18,149 21,200 36,100 57,300 100% 40 12.2

PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR FL 1,435 76,298 41,083 117,381 92% 36 11.0

INDIANA HARBOR CDF IN 8,390 63,000 60,000 123,000 21% 27 8.2

GULFPORT HARBOR MS 21,000 28,715 17,981 46,696 100% 38 11.6

NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY HARBOR NY 90,000 1,165,437 1,314,698 2,480,135 70% 50 15.2

WILMINGTON HARBOR NC 2,075 276,300 190,700 467,000 76% 42 12.8

COLUMBIA RIVER CHNL IMPROV OR 34,451 110,024 60,784 170,808 100% 43 13.1

HOUSTON-GALVESTON CHANNELS TX 108,178 541,369 240,991 782,360 85% 45 13.7

TEXAS CITY CHANNEL TX 46,000 82,153 135,926 218,079 100% 52 15.8

OTHERS 74,723 N/A N/A N/A Varies Varies Varies

TOTAL 467,948 2,891,520 2,702,325 5,593,845

($USD in Thousands)

Major Port ImprovementEnvironmental Mitigation Initiatives

Environmental Sustainability Goals & Policies• Meet the needs of the present without compromising the quality

of life of future generations. • Maintain economic growth while producing an absolute

minimum of pollution, repairing environmental damages of the past, producing less waste, and extending opportunities to live in a pleasant and healthy environment.

• Meet human needs by maintaining a balance between development, social equality, ecology, and economics.

• Demand systematic considerations of environmental impact, energy use, natural resources, economy, and quality of life.

• Has optimal benefit only when addressed at the inception of a project, and throughout the entire life cycle of a project -- from concept to planning, to programming, design, construction, and ownership.

Elizabeth Port AuthorityMarine Terminal

KillVan KullChannelArthur Kill

Channel

NewarkBay

UpperNew York

Bay

New York & New Jersey 50-Ft (15.2m) Harbor Deepening Project by Increment

Authorized WRDA 2000 50-foot (15.2m) channels to four

container terminals (5.3m TEUs in 07) 53-foot (16.2m) Ambrose (entrance)

Channel Kill Van Kull Channel – 50 ft Parts of Newark Bay Channels - 50 ft Arthur Kill Channel – 50 ft Port Jersey Channel and the Bay

Ridge Channel - ft Estimated Cost: $1.6 billion About 70% complete


New York & New Jersey Harbor:• Reestablish attributes of a natural, functioning, and self-

regulating ecosystem;• Comprehensively restore the New York and New Jersey

Harbor to become a world-class harbor estuary; • Improve sediment quality, water quality and enhance

habitat within the Harbor Estuary;• Preserve and restore wetlands and

rivers, protecting public drinking water, create habitats for endangered wildlife, and cleanup hazardous material from residential communities.

Houston-Galveston

45-foot (13.7m)Deepening Project

Entrance Channel and Houston Ship Channel sections completed in 05 (53 miles/86km)

Construction of “Barge Lanes”

Numerous beneficial use sites

Galveston Channel being completed (ARRA)

$782 million ($541 federal / $241 local)

Over 200 million tons of cargo annually (1.8m TEUs in 07)

GalvestonChannel Reach

EntranceChannel Reach

Bay Reach: Houston Ship

Channel

Bayou Reach

Bird I.BolivarMarsh

Berm

Mid-BayMarsh

AlexanderIsland

Lost L.


Houston-Galveston Navigation Improvement Project Included Many Environmental Initiatives:• 118 acres of oyster reef in mid-Galveston Bay near

the Houston Ship Channel; • Other shallow water habitat areas created for birds,

fish and other species• Dredged material used to create an island for bird

habitat which quickly attracted users; • Levees were built to create confined

dredge material disposal areas that will eventually be marsh grass;

• A portion of eroded Red Fish Island is being reconstructed.

Oakland 50-Ft (15.2m) Deepening

Handled 2.4 m TEUs in 2007 5th largest container handling port

in U.S. (just passed by Savannah) 50-ft (15.2m) Deepening Underway Auth WRDA 99 13 mcy dredge material removal, including:

• 7 mcy for shallow draft habitat• 2.6 mcy for tidal wetlands restoration

Total Cost: $408 million ($225m Federal) Will be 100% complete with FY09-10 ARRA funds About $700 million in port facility expansions

underway associated with channel deepening

Deepen & WidenInner Harbor

Turning Basin (2)

DeepenInner HarborChannel (2)

Deepen Entrance& Outer Harbor

Channel

ConstructMiddle Harbor

Complete Outer HarborDeepening & Turning Basin

DikeConstruction

DeepenInner HarborChannel (1)

OAKLAND HARBORDEEPENINGTO 50 FEET (15.2M)

Complete Underway in 09 FY09-10 ARRA

TurningBasin (1)


Oakland Harbor 45 and 50-foot Channels:• Sonoma Baylands: This completed project restored tidal salt

marsh habitat on a 348‑acre-diked hayfield on the north shore of San Pablo Bay utilizing 1.7 million cubic yards of dredge material from Oakland Harbor. After the dredge material was consolidated, tidal action was reintroduced.

• Montezuma Wetlands: Dredged material is being used for restoration and habitat creation at this upland site.

• Hamilton Army Airfield: The project site is located on San Pablo Bay and includes 988 acres of a former military airfield and an adjacent site. The levee-protected site has subsided below the elevation of surrounding properties, including the tidal wetlands immediately adjacent to the Bay. This wetlands restoration project provides beneficial reuse of dredge material from Oakland and San Francisco Bay. The California State Coastal Conservancy is the non- Federal sponsor.

Uncertainties Impact Harbor Investment Decisions

Future trade growth rate Future vessel fleet – and where

will they call? Panama Canal expansion –

implications for vessel routings Use of Transhipment Hubs –

Bahamas? Caribbean? Stimulus funds accelerate some

projects, but then funding uncertain Future funding levels may be

constrained by growing federal deficit

Development of transhipment ports in the Caribbean and Bahamas may affect size and number of vessels calling US East and Gulf coasts

Canal traffic nearly 60% containerized cargo

Forecast to grow from 3.2m TEUs in 2007 to 7.4m TEUs in 2015

New locks 1400’ x 180’ x 60’ Designed to accommodate 12,600

TEU vessel with max draft of 50’ How will this change fleet calling

US ports?

Canal traffic nearly 60% containerized cargo

Forecast to grow from 3.2m TEUs in 2007 to 7.4m TEUs in 2015

New locks 1400’ x 180’ x 60’ Designed to accommodate 12,600

TEU vessel with max draft of 50’ How will this change fleet calling

US ports?

A Way ForwardA Way Forward

Reliable funding stream to complete ongoing projects and ensure completion of associated environmental mitigation and restoration actions;

Work with various government agencies, NGOs and stakeholders toward consensus on how to move forward on critical improvements;

Streamline study, design and authorization process; Improve analytical tools to better assess future trade routes

and vessel fleets; and Work with state and local port authorities to move quickly

to add cargo handling facilities and improve intermodal connections in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Reliable funding stream to complete ongoing projects and ensure completion of associated environmental mitigation and restoration actions;

Work with various government agencies, NGOs and stakeholders toward consensus on how to move forward on critical improvements;

Streamline study, design and authorization process; Improve analytical tools to better assess future trade routes

and vessel fleets; and Work with state and local port authorities to move quickly

to add cargo handling facilities and improve intermodal connections in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Documents

U.S. Harbor Improvements: Planning for the Future and Protecting the Environment