Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Port Experts Group by b3JZgfan

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 52

									                          TPTWG17/PEG/1/4 (TPTWG16/4/1)

   APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation)
             Port Experts Group
    Theme 4: Environmental Consideration



Dredging Needs Survey
          of
     APEC Ports

             PREPARED FOR THE
  APEC Transportation Working Group
        Ports Experts Group

                   BY THE
        Maritime Administration
   U.S. Department of Transportation
        United States of America


               November 1999
                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS



Foreword .............................................................................................1

Findings ...............................................................................................2

Background .........................................................................................4

Channel Depth Information .................................................................5

Volume of Dredged Material ................................................................8

Dredged Material Disposal Sites .........................................................12

Contaminated Dredged Material .........................................................17

Financial Responsibility for Dredging ..................................................19

Regulatory Agencies/Organizations that Regulate Dredging
  Activity ............................................................................................20

Dredging Issues ...................................................................................21


Appendices:

   A ・ Jurisdictional Location of Ports by Economy
   B ・ Navigation Channel Depths by Port
   C ・ Berthing Depths by Type of Port Facility
   D ・ World・s Top 50 Containerports
   E ・ APEC Transportation Working Group Dredging Needs Survey




                            APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                  DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                        PAGE1


                                               FOREWORD

One of the primary goals of transportation in the APEC region is to facilitate the
efficient movement of freight in domestic and international trade and to enhance
economic growth and international competitiveness in a safe and healthy
environment. To accomplish this, APEC ports and harbors must be maintained and
improved in a timely manner to accommodate safely modern vessels and growing
waterborne commerce. The attainment of this goal is becoming a major challenge,
particularly in the area of dredging and dredged material management, due to
increasing environmental awareness and mounting environmental problems. At the
same time, expanding regional trade and the rapid evolution of shipping practices
and technology ・ containerization, intermodalism, and larger ship sizes ・ all have
increased the need for sustained port and harbor development.

The purpose of this report is to gather information on dredging and dredged material
management activities in the APEC economies. Data were gathered through a
survey to identify common problems among the APEC economies and to form the
basis for developing action programs for accomplishing dredging work in a timely
manner while preserving the environment. A total of 13 APEC economies, covering
a total of 127 ports 1, responded to the survey. It should be noted that the response
rate to individual survey questions varied.

The U.S. Maritime Administration, on the behalf of the APEC Port Experts Group,
prepared this report. For further information and copies of the report, please contact
the Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping, U.S. Maritime Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 or telephone 202-366-4357 and fax
202-366-6988.




1
        The Australian survey summarized the information for 60 ports into one entry.
                                                                            PAGE2



                                     FINDINGS

Port Authority Governance

The majority of the responding ports are governed by public entities ・ 35 percent by
their national/federal government with most of the remaining 65 percent governed by
a range of state/provincial, local, and special districts.

APEC Container Ports

Currently half of the world・s top 50 container ports are located in APEC economies.
Of the 25 leading APEC container ports, 14 (56%) ports have or will have adequate
berth depths, 45 to 50 feet, to handle the new generation of containerships. Three
ports will not have adequate depth with the remaining 8 ports not included in the
survey data. At this time, it appears that the APEC region is well on its way in
addressing the waterside needs of these vessels.

Dredged Material Volume
While the largest volume of dredging for maintenance occurred in 1995, the total
amount dredged or projected for dredging in each successive year through the year
2000 is expected to decline.

National/federal governments conducted or are expected to complete about 50
percent of dredging for maintenance (168.8 million cubic yards) and 46 percent for
deepening (120.1 million cubic yards), during the survey period.

Port authorities completed or are expected to complete 33 percent of maintenance
dredging (113.2 million cubic yards) and 42 percent of the deepening dredging
(109.7 million cubic yards).

With only four economies providing information on the volume of contaminated
dredged material, there was insufficient information for meaningful analysis.

Dredged Material Disposal Sites

Ports possess the largest capacity for the disposal of dredged material.

Aside from the designation of ・all other・, confined upland, open water (ocean),
and beneficial use are clearly the dominant types of dredged material disposal.

The amount of dredged material relocated for beneficial use in the APEC region
shows a clear recognition of dredged material as a valuable resource. Ports cite a
wide range of beneficial use disposal options including backfill, exhausted marine
sand borrow pits, levee borrow pits, replenishment of over dredged shallows,



                     APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                           DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                               PAGE3

construction fill, wetland creation and restoration, and manufactured s oil.

Contaminated Dredged Material

Half of the APEC economies responding reported to have some type of criteria for
determining whether dredged material is contaminated.

The criteria for determining whether dredged material is contaminated ranged from
national standards, to test samples taken in situ, to physical appearance and smell.

While no one contaminant was consistently identified, contaminants included heavy
metals, petroleum, and, PCBs. There was insufficient information to analyze
treatment and disposal methods for contaminated dredged material.

Financial Responsibility for Dredging

The national/federal governments, port authorities, and all other/ private are each
making significant contributions towards the funding of dredging activities.

With the exception of berth maintenance dredging, which was clearly financed by
port authorities and all other/private, there were no clear trends in the financing of
the other dredging activities・either by type of dredging activity or by maintenance
vs. deepening.

Regulatory Agencies/Organizations that Regulate Dredging Activity

The survey data highlights the variety of agencies and organizations, both in number
and responsibility, which are involved in dredging activity. The amount and type of
regulatory activity vary greatly in each APEC economy.

Dredging Issues

Approximately 30 percent of respondents indicated that they had dredging problems
associated with maintenance and deepening. Problems related to dredged material
disposal were noted by 52 percent of the respondents.

Approximately 40 percent of the dredging problems focused on issues surrounding
disposal sites・location, capacity, and cost. Other problems raised included lack of
finances (15%), permit approval delays (12%), and public opinion concerns (11%).




                      APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                            DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                        PAGE4



                                          Background

1.         HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE YOUR PORT AUTHORITY ?

Ports were asked to identify themselves based upon the following categories:

    Local/Municipal Government
    National/Federal Government
    Special District/Authority
    State/Provincial Government
    Other (specify).

The responses were as follows:

    RESPONDENTS FOR QUESTION 1.1:
       C ATEGORIZATION                          PORT (ECONOMY)                    # RESPONDENTS
    LOCAL/MUNICIPAL         HONG KONG (China), KITA-KYUSHU (Japan), KOBE
    GOVERNMENT              (Japan), LONG BEACH, CA (USA), LOS ANGELES, CA        18
                            (USA), NAGOYA (Japan), NINGBO (China), OAKLAND,
                            CA (USA), OSAKA (Japan), PORTLAND, OR (USA),
                            RIZHAO (China), SEATTLE, WA (USA), SHIMONOSEKI
                            (Japan), TACOMA, WA (USA), TIANJIN (China),
                            XIAMEN (China), YOKKAICHI (Japan), YOKKAICHI
                            (Japan)
    NATIONAL/FEDERAL        ALTAMIRA, TAM. (Mexico), BANGKOK & LAEM
    GOVERNMENT              CHABANG      (Thailand),   COATZACOALCOS,      VER.   25
                            (Mexico), DALIAN (China), ENSENADA, B.C. (Mexico),
                            FRASER (Canada), FRONTERA, TAB. (Mexico), GOLFO
                            DE MEXICO (Mexico), GUAYMAS, SON. (Mexico),
                            INCHEON (Korea), KWANG YANG (Korea), LAZRO
                            CARDENAS, MICH. (Mexico), MANZANILLO, COL
                            (Mexico), OCEANO PACIFICO (Mexico), PHUKET DEEP
                            SEA (Thailand), PTO. MADERO, CHIS. (Mexico),
                            PUSAN (Korea), QINHUANGDAO (China), SALINA
                            CRUZ, OAX (Mexico), SHIMIZU (Japan), SINGAPORE
                            (Singapore), SONGKHLA DEEP SEA (Thailand),
                            TAMPICO, TAM. (Mexico), TUXPAN, VER. (Mexico),
                            VANCOUVER (Canada)
    OTHER    ・      Local   PUERTO MONTT (Chile), PUNTA ARENAS (Chile), SAN
    Autonomous              ANTONIO (Chile), TALCAHUANO & SAN VICENTE             5
                            (Chile), VALPARAISO (Chile)
    SPECIAL   DISTRICT/     HOUSTON, TX (USA), LIANYUNGANG (CHINA ), MANILA
    AUTHORITY               INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL (PHILIPPINES ),      7
                            MURORAN (J APAN), NEW ORLEANS (USA), MANILA
                            SOUTH HARBOR (PHILIPPINES ), TOMAKOMAI (J APAN)
    STATE/PROVINCIAL        AUSTRALIAN PORTS (60+), FUSHIKI-TOYAMA (J APAN),
    GOVERNMENT              GEORGIA PORTS (USA), HAMPTON ROADS, VA                15
                            (USA), HIMEJI (J APAN), HIROSHIMA (J APAN), HUALIEN
                            (Chinese Taipei), KAOHSIUNG (Chinese Taipei),
                            KEELUNG (Chinese Taipei), NEW YORK & NEW
                            JERSEY (USA), NIIGATA (J APAN), SAKAI-SEMBOKU




                            APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                  DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                        PAGE5

                          (J APAN), TOKUYAMA-KUDAMATSU (J APAN), TOKYO
                          (J APAN), WAKAYAMA-SHIMOZU (J APAN)
The majority of responding ports reported governance by public entities ・ 35
percent by their national/federal government with most of the remaining 65 percent
governed by a range of state/provincial, local, and special districts.
The economies of China, Japan, and the United States reported multiple forms of
public governance. Ports of China were characterized as local/municipal
government, national/federal government, and special district/authority. Ports of
Japan were characterized as local/municipal government, national/federal
government, special district/authority, and state/provincial government. U.S. ports
were characterized by local/municipal government, special district/authority, and
state/provincial government organization.


                                 Channel Depth Information

1.      Channel Characteristics of APEC Ports

As part of the APEC Transportation Working Group Dredging Needs Survey, Part 2
contained several questions concerning the region・s channel depths for entrances
and marine terminal facilities. This information described existing depth data and
identified proposed deepening projects. Appendices B and C summarize the
channel and berth depth information contained in the surveys.

Appendix B provides the existing and proposed depths of the region・s approach,
entrance and connecting channels. This information is arranged by economy. There
                                                                                  1
were 11 APEC economies that provided information covering a total of 114 ports .
With respect to the existing channel data, the figure in bold represents the deepest
channel for that particular economy. In addition, the appendix shows the average
depth by economy for each of the three channel categories.

The appendix also includes information concerning proposed channel deepening
projects. Five economies indicated that they had plans to deepen one or more of the
three channel categories. There are a total of 41 proposed deepening projects
affecting 25 APEC ports.

Appendix C provides similar information on the berth depths at APEC marine
terminals. There were 11 APEC economies that reported berth data for seven types
of marine terminals located in of 58. The terminal types that predominated in the
survey were general cargo and container. The survey data included 57 general
cargo and 46 container facilities. In addition, there were a total of 87 dry bulk (27
grain, 27 coal, and 33 dry bulk) and 50 liquid bulk facilities (30 petroleum and 20
liquid bulk).


1
        The Australian survey summarized the information for 60 ports into one entry.




                         APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                               DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                             PAGE6

With respect to the berth deepening projects, the survey cataloged 48 projects
covering 23 ports and six economies. The distribution of these projects by terminal
type showed that container facilities will account for 19 of the deepening efforts
followed by general cargo with 12 projects. The combined dry bulk segment totaled
12 deepening projects with liquid bulk facilities representing the remaining five
projects.

It should be noted that if an economy provided a berth depth range (i.e. 35 to 40
feet), the deeper figure (i.e. 40 feet) was entered in Appendix C. In some cases, the
proposed depth for a particular port and terminal type is equal to or less then the
existing depth value. This means that the existing depth value represented a range
and that the proposed improvement is to deepen those facilities at the shallower end
of the range.

Table 1 was developed to provide a general indication of the different vessel sizes
that could be handled by the channel and berth depths shown in Appendices B and
C.    The table shows loaded drafts for various sized dry bulk, tanker, and
containerships. The draft figures represent nominal values. Actual values for a
given vessel type and size may vary by several feet due to differences in vessel
design.

                                      Table 1

             COMPARISON OF SELECTED VESSEL TYPES BY SIZE AND DRAFT

       DEADWEIGHT      DRY BULK      TANKER           TEUS      CONTAINER
                         DRAFT        DRAFT                        DRAFT
                          (FT )        (FT )                        (FT )


           30,000         33.4         34.3           1,000         29.5

           40,000         37.6         36.2           1,500         34.4

           60,000         42.2         40.9           2,000         36.1

           80,000         45.2         43.5           2,500         37.7

           100,000        48.7         45.2           3,000         39.4

           125,000        51.6         51.8           4,000         41.3

           150,000        56.2         55.2           5,400         41.7

           175,000        58.5         57.3           6,500         45.9




                     APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                           DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                            PAGE7



           250,000               67.2               65.6

One of the common interests shared by the APEC economies is the need for an
efficient intermodal transportation system. With the emergence of the APEC region
as a major marketplace in the global economy, the importance of waterborne
transportation will become more critical for the region・s continued economic
growth. APEC・s establishment of the Transportation Working Group (TPT)
underscores their recognition that future economic development will require an
effective and efficient regional intermodal transportation system.

The TPT initiated the Congestion Points Study to improve regional transportation by
identifying congestion points, their causes, and possible solutions. The seaport
element concentrated on the movement of containerized cargo. The data collected
in this survey provides some insights into the region・s ability to handle the new
generation of containerships with cargo capacities of 6,000 TEUs or greater. These
vessels are now being introduced into the transportation system. The APEC
economies contain half of the world・s top 50 container ports including the top three
・ Hong Kong, Singapore, and Kaohsiung 2. See Appendix D for a complete listing.

It is generally accepted that the new container vessels with require channel and
berths depths of approximately 50 feet. The data from Question 2.3 shows the
present and future capability of APEC ports to handle these ships. Of the 11
economies that reported information, four had at least one port with adequate
terminal depth with four other economies having facilities with marginal depths of
45/46 feet. The survey included responses covering 46 container ports. There were
seven ports with the ability to handle these vessels with seven other ports at the
margin (45/46 feet). When the data on proposed improvements is included, the
number of economies with adequate depths increases to six with two other
economies having marginal depths. Similarly, the number of ports grows to 15 with
eight other ports at 45/46 feet.

Of the 25 leading APEC container ports shown in appendix D, 14 (56%) of these
ports have or will have adequate berth depths to handle this new class of container
vessel. Three ports will not have adequate depth with the remaining 8 ports not
included in the survey data.

While not all ports need the capability to handle these vessels and maybe not every
economy, the failure to provide an adequate number of these channels in a timely
manner will seriously impact the efficiency of APEC・s regional intermodal transport
system and the competitiveness of its trade.




2       Figures include only those U.S. ports located on the West Coast.




                          APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                         PAGE8



                                 Volume of Dredged Material

3.1       WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR MAINTENANCE
          OF CHANNELS AND BERTHS?

      RESPONDENTS FOR QUESTION 3.1:
      ECONOMY             # PORTS                          REPORTING PORTS
                         R EPORTING
      CANADA                     1    Fraser
      CHILE                      5    Puerto Montt, Punta Arenas., San Antonio, Talcahuano & San
                                      Vicente, Valparaiso
      CHINA                      7    Dalian, Hong Kong, Lianyungang, Ningbo, Qinhuangdao, Tianjin,
                                      Xiamen
      J APAN                    15    Fushiki-Toyama, Himeji, Hiroshima, Kita-Kyushu, Kobe, Muroran,
                                      Nagoya, Niigata, Okasa, Sakai-Semboku, Shimizu, Tokyo,
                                      Tomakomai, Wakayama-Shimozu, Yokkaichi
      KOREA                      2    Incheon, Pusan
      PHILIPPINES                2    Manila Int'l Container Terminal, Manila South Harbor
      SINGAPORE                  1    Singapore
      CHINESE T AIPEI            2    Haulien, Kaohsiung
      T HAILAND                  3    Bangkok & Laem Chabang, Phuket Deep Sea, Songkhla Deep Sea
      USA                        8    Georgia Ports, Hampton Roads, VA, Houston, TX, Long Beach, CA,
                                      New Orleans, LA, New York & New Jersey, Oakland, CA, Tacoma,
                                      WA


Respondents reported a total of 339,555,876 cubic yards of material dredged for
maintenance for the period from 1995 and estimating through the year 2000. The
federal/national government category accounts for half of the total with port
authorities accomplishing 33 percent and ・other・ accomplishing 17 percent.

The greatest amount of maintenance dredging is reported to have occurred in 1995.
Respondents reported a total of 83,236,765 cubic yards dredged in 1995 with a
decline in the total amount dredged or projected for dredging in each successive
year.

          QUESTION 3.1: ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF MAINTENANCE DREDGING (CUBIC
          YARDS )
                             Annual        Federal/National                         All
             Year             Totals         Government       Port Authority   Others/Private
          1995               83,236,765          22,362,435       34,465,205       26,409,125
          1996               66,484,934          34,929,912       17,900,057       13,654,965
          1997 EST           58,179,011          32,350,179       20,096,307        5,732,525
          1998 EST           48,747,116          24,563,560       17,422,616        6,760,940
          1999 EST           46,374,220          31,347,730       12,423,490        2,603,000
          2000 EST           36,533,830          23,052,000       10,981,830        2,500,000
                Total:    339,555,876          168,605,816      113,289,505        57,660,555




                          APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                                PAGE9

      BY NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT :           Responses      show      that   the
      federal/national government category conducted or is expected to conduct 50
      percent of maintenance dredging. In total, the amount of dredged material for
      maintenance dredging conducted by the federal or national government
      ranged from 22,362,435 cubic yards reported for 1995 to a total of 34,929,912
      cubic yards dredged in 1996.

      BY PORT AUTHORITY:         Port authorities completed or are expected to
      complete 33 percent of maintenance dredging. Annual quantities dredged by
      port authorities ranged from 10,981,830 cubic yards estimated for the year
      2000 to 34,465,205 cubic yards dredged in 1995.

      BY ALL OTHERS/PRIVATE: Ports report ・other・ as the dredger for 17
      percent of maintenance dredging. A total of 57,660,555 cubic yards of
      material was dredged or is expected to be dredged for maintenance by other
      than the federal or national government and the port authorities. The range
      of material dredged by ・other・ is from 2,500,000 cubic yards estimated for
      the year 2000 to 26,409,125 cubic yards dredged in 1995.


                            3.1 Total Annual Quantities for Maintenance (cubic yards)


  90,000,000   83,236,765
  80,000,000
                                 66,484,934
  70,000,000
                                                 58,179,011
  60,000,000
                                                                 48,747,116      46,374,220
  50,000,000
                                                                                              36,533,830
  40,000,000
  30,000,000
  20,000,000
  10,000,000
         -
                 1995               1996         1997 EST        1998 EST        1999 EST     2000 EST




The data reported for question 3.1 shows a steady decline in the amount of material
dredged for maintenance. It is not clear if improved dredging technology, an
increasing awareness of environmental issues, or some other reason is behind the
decline. This may be an issue that APEC can explore further.
3.2




                        APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                              DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                            PAGE10

          WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR DEEPENING OF
          CHANNELS AND BERTH ?


      RESPONDENTS FOR QUESTION 3.2:
      ECONOMY            # PORTS     REPORTING PORTS
                        R EPORTING
      CANADA                    1    Vancouver
      CHILE                     1    Valparaiso
      CHINA                     5    Dalian, Hong Kong, Qinhuangdao, Tianjin, Xiamen
      J APAN                   14    Fushiki-Toyama, Kita-Kyushu, Kobe, Muroran, Nagoya,
                                     Niigata, Osaka, Sakai-Semboku, Tokuyama-Kudamatsu,
                                     Tokyo,      Tomakomai,      Wakayama-Shimozu,        Yokkaichi,
                                     Yokohama
      KOREA                     2    Incheon, Kwang Yang
      PHILIPPINES               2    Manila Int'l Container Terminal, Manila South Harbor
      SINGAPORE                 1    Singapore
      CHINESE T AIPEI           1    Kaohsiung
      USA                       7    Georgia Ports, Hampton Roads, VA, Houston, TX, Long
                                     Beach, CA, New York & New Jersey, Oakland, CA, Tacoma,
                                     WA


Respondents reported a total of 261,374,074 cubic yards of material dredged for
deepening. The economies of Japan, United States and Singapore account for 73
percent of the amount of dredged material reported for deepening. The ports of
Japan reported the highest amount of dredged material for deepening at 71,961,904
cubic yards. The ports of the United States and Singapore were a close second and
third with 61,764,000 cubic yards and 55,705,130 cubic yards respectively.

         BY NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT :           Respondents      reported   the
         national/federal governments as conducting the majority of dredging for
         deepening, slightly higher than port authorities. The governments accounts
         for 46 percent of the total of dredging for deepening.       The amount of
         dredged material (98,263,454 cubic yards) for Japan and the United States
         combined account for 45 percent of national/federal government conducted
         deepening activities.

         BY PORT AUTHORITY:         Port authorities complete 42 percent of the
         deepening dredging as reported by respondents. The greatest amount of port
         authority dredging for deepening was reported for Singapore ・ accounting
         for 22 percent of the total. The total amount of material dredged for
         deepening by port authorities was 109,731,010 cubic yards.

         BY ALL OTHERS/PRIVATE: The amount of material dredged for deepening by
         ・other,・ as reported by respondents, was 31,227,780 cubic yards. With
         only China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore providing data for ・other,・ the
         total amount dredged by ・other・ accounts for 12 percent of the total
         amount dredged for deepening.

3.3



                         APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                               DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                            PAGE11

        HOW   MUCH OF          THE       DREDGED      MATERIAL         INDICATED     ABOVE      WAS
        CONTAMINATED ?


There were only three economies that responded to question 3.3 -- China (Dalian,
Hong Kong), Japan (Osaka), and Philippines (Manila International Container
Terminal). These economies supplied information for 1995, 1996 and an estimate
for 1997. No further data was submitted. The total amount of co ntaminated dredged
material was 2,841,731 cubic yards. Federal/national governments dredged a total
of 786,000 cubic yards of contaminated material, 1,557,931 cubic yards was dredged
by port authorities and 497,800 cubic yards was dredged by ・others.”

With only three economies reporting, there is insufficient information to provide
analysis on the contamination of materials dredged as reported in questions 3.1 and
3.2.


3.4     IS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING REQUIRED AT YOUR PORT ?

       RESPONDENTS FOR QUESTION 3.4:
                       APPROACH             ENTRANCE           CONNECTING
         ECONOMY       CHANNEL              CHANNEL             CHANNEL
                     Dredging Required    Dredging Required       Dredging              BERTH
                                                                  Required         Dredging Required
       Canada        Fraser              Fraser               Fraser               Fraser
       Chile                                                                       Valparaiso
       China         Lianyungang,        Lianyungang,         Lianyungang,         Dalian,
                                         Ningbo, Tianjin      Ningbo,              Lianyungang,
                                                                                   Ningbo,
                                                                                   Qinhuangdao,
                                                                                   Tianjin, Xiamen
       Japan         Fushiki-Toyama,     Fushiki-Toyama,      Muroran, Osaka,      Kobe,     Muroran,
                     Kita-Kyushu,        Muroran,             Yokkaichi            Nagoya, Niigata,
                     Muroran, Tokyo,     Nagoya, Osaka,                            Osaka, Shimizu,
                     Yokkaichi           Tokyo, Yokkaichi                          Tokyo,
                                                                                   Tomakomai,
                                                                                   Wakayama-
                                                                                   Shimozu,
                                                                                   Yokkaichi
       Korea         Pusan               Incheon, Kwang       Incheon, Pusan       Incheon, Pusan
                                         Yang, Pusan
       Philippines                                                                 Manila      South
                                                                                   Harbor
       USA           Georgia   Ports,
                     Hampton Roads,
                     VA, Houston, TX,
                     New Orleans, LA



Canada, China, Japan, and Korea each listed at least one port requiring annual
maintenance dredging for approach, entrance, and connecting channels. The same
economies, with the addition of Chile and the Philippines, also listed ports with



                       APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                             DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                               PAGE12

berths that require annual maintenance dredging.

The responses to this question conflict, in part, with data provided in part 3.1. The
following ports listed annual quantities of dredged material for maintenance of
channels and berth and provided information for question 3.1 but not for question
3.4:

             Japan・s ports of Himeji, Hiroshima, and Sakai-Semboku
             Chile・s ports of Puerto Montt, Punta Arenas, San Antonio,
              and Talcahuano & San Vicente
             U.S. ports of Long Beach, CA, New York and New Jersey,
              Oakland, CA, and Tacoma, WA
             Philippine・s port of Manila International Container Terminal
             China・s port of Hong Kong

None of the above listed ports reported channels or berths requiring annual
maintenance. Chilean ports and the Port of Hong Kong specified information as
recorded for a general dredging program and dredging provided on an ・as
needed・ basis respectively. Neither necessarily corresponds to an ・annual・
dredging requirement, thus explaining the appearance of conflicting data.


                              Dredged Material Disposal Sites

4.1            DOES YOUR PORT HAVE ADEQUATE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL CAPACITY
               FOR PORT AND RELATED CHANNEL DREDGED MATERIAL?


Eight economies responded to question 4.1.            The following ports report having
adequate dredged material disposal capacity:

              Canada・s ports of Fraser and Vancouver
              Chile・s ports of Puerto Montt, Punta Arenas, San Antonio,
               Talcahuano & San Vicente, and Valparaiso
              China・s ports of Hong Kong, Lianyungang, Ningbo,
               Qinhuangdao, Tianjin, and Xiamen
              Japan・s ports of Hiroshima, Kita-Kyushu, Kobe, Muroran,
               Nagoya, Niigata, Tokuyama-Kudamatsu, Tokyo, Yokkaichi,
               and Yokohama
              Korea・s ports of Incheon, Kwang Yang, and Pusan
              Philippines・ ports of Manila International Container
               Terminal, and Manila South Harbor
              Singapore・s port of Singapore

Each of the ports listed reported dredging activity for maintenance or deepening for



                           APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                 DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                          PAGE13

part 3.1 or 3.2 of the survey.


4.2




                      APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                            DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                           PAGE14

           WHAT IS THE REMAINING DREDGED DISPOSAL CAPACITY AND WHEN IS IT
           EXPECTED TO BE REACHED?


The port authorities, as reported by respondents, possess the largest capacity for the
disposal of dredged material. Port authorities have 234,589,666 cubic yard disposal
capacities in a variety of disposal types (reporting from 1997-2030), while the
federal/national government and ・Others・ reported 157,231,621 cubic yards and
119,825,131 cubic yards respectively.

The disposal types, along with the ・year capacity reached・ if indicated are
provided in the following table:

        RESPONDENTS FOR QUESTION 4.2:
                                              Year
                Disposal Types              Capacity     #               Economies
                                            Reached    Ports
        Beneficial Use                    1998-2030        7   China, Japan, Korea , USA
        Coastal Waters                    No               1   China
                                          indication
        Confined Upland                   2000-2030        5   China, Japan, Korea, USA
        In-water/Containment Island       1997-2008       11   Japan
        Open Water (Ocean)                1997-2003        2   China, USA
        Other:       Confined    Marine   2003             1   China
        Disposal
        Other: Not Specified              2000             1   China



         BY NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT :          The range of disposal capacity
         remaining by federal/national governments was 144,207,000 cubic yards to a
         total of 157,231,621 cubic yards. The year capacity was/will be reached
         ranged from 1997 (as reported by the U.S. Port of New York & New Jersey for
         Open Water disposal) to 2030 (as reported by the U.S. Port of Hampton
         Roads, VA for confined upland disposal).

         BY PORT AUTHORITY:         The range of disposal capacity remaining by port
         authorities was 111,300,000 cubic yards to a total of 234,589,666 cubic
         yards. The year capacity was/will be reached ranges were identical to those
         reported for federal/national government.

         BY ALL OTHERS/PRIVATE: The range of disposal capacity remaining by
         ・Others・ was 110,000,000 cubic yards to a total of 119,825,131 cubic
         yards. The year capacity was/will be reached ranges were identical to those
         reported for federal/national government.

The following ports that identified remaining disposal capacities also reported having
adequate disposal capacity for question 4.1:

         China・s ports of Hong Kong, Ningbo, and Xiamen



                          APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                      PAGE15

        Japan・s ports of Hiroshima, Kita-Kyushu, Kobe, Muroran,
        Nagoya, Tokuyama-Kudamatsu, Tokyo, Yokkaichi, and
        Yokohama
       Korea・s ports of Incheon, and Kwang Yang



4.3        WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF DREDGED MATERIAL PLACED IN EACH DISPOSAL
           CATEGORY?




                           4.3 Percentage Use of Disposal Methods

                                      All Others
                                         32%
                                                                 Beneficial Use
                                                                     15%




              Open Water
                                                                     Coastal Waters
               (Ocean)
                                                                          8%
                 19%

                              In-water/Contain-    Confined Upland
                                 ment Island             20%
                                    6%




The primary disposal category reported was ・all others.・           Aside from ・all
others・, confined upland, as reported by 11 ports in 4 economies, accounts for the
second largest method of disposal at 20 percent of the total. Open water (ocean)
accounts for 19 percent, beneficial use follows with 15 percent. The remaining
categories, coastal waters and in-water/containment island, reported 8 percent and 6
percent respectively.

          BY NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT :          The federal/national governments
          disposed of 59,374,715 cubic yards of dredged material. The primary
          disposal category by government is open water (ocean) disposal that
          accounts for 36 percent. Confined upland follows with 29 percent of the total.
          Beneficial uses accounts for 17 percent and the remaining categories, coastal
          waters, in-water/containment island and ・others・ report 9 percent, 2
          percent, and 7 percent respectively.

          The disposal categories used by the government are as follows:



                        APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                              DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                         PAGE16



Beneficial Use:                        10,101,600   cubic   yards
Coastal Waters:                         5,279,160   cubic   yards
Confined Upland:                       16,982,687   cubic   yards
In-water/Containment Island:            1,472,440   cubic   yards
Open Water (Ocean):                    21,150,328   cubic   yards
All others:                             4,388,500   cubic   yards

BY PORT AUTHORITY:        The port authorities disposed of 45,584,506 cubic
yards of dredged material. Allowing for the 60 percent identified as disposed
of by ・all others・, the second largest disposal category was in-
water/containment island at 13 percent of the total disposed by port
authorities.. Beneficial uses and confined upland followed with 9 percent
each. Coastal waters reported 8 percent with open water disposal accounting
for 1 percent.

The disposal categories used by the port authorities are as follows:

Beneficial Use:                         3,905,775   cubic   yards
Coastal Waters:                         3,858,872   cubic   yards
Confined Upland:                        4,097,067   cubic   yards
In-water/Containment Island:            5,801,388   cubic   yards
Open Water (Ocean):                       373,350   cubic   yards
All others:                            27,548,054   cubic   yards

BY ALL OTHERS/PRIVATE: ・All others・ disposed of 14,157,890 cubic yards
of dredged material. Again, allowing for disposal by ・other・, beneficial use
at 31 percent of the total was the second largest category of disposal.
Confined upland follows at a distant third with 18 percent of the total amount
disposed by ・all others.・        Open water and coastal waters disposal
accounted for 11 percent and 1 percent respectively.

The disposal categories used by ・Others・ are as follows:

Beneficial Use:                         4,323,000 cubic yards
Coastal Waters:                           131,000 cubic yards
Confined Upland:                        2,536,000 cubic yards
Open Water (Ocean):                     1,510,000 cubic yards
All others:                             5,657,890 cubic yards

 QUESTION 4.3:
                 Disposal Types                     Amount Disposed
 In-water/Containment Island                           7,273,828 (6%)
 Coastal Waters                                        9,269,032 (8%)
 Beneficial Use                                      18,330,375 ( 15%)
 Open Water (Ocean)                                  23,033,678 ( 19%)




              APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                    DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                PAGE17

           Confined Upland                                  23,615,754 ( 20%)
           All others                                       37,594,444 ( 32%)
                                      Total Disposed :    119,117,111 (100%)


         Aside from the designation of ・all others,・ confined upland, open water
         (ocean) and beneficial use disposals are easily the dominant types of
         disposal. The amount of dredged material disposed as a beneficial use
         shows a clear recognition of dredged material as a vital resource.

4.4       WHAT BENEFICIAL USES ARE DISPOSAL OPTIONS ?

Ports cite a diversity of beneficial use disposal options, i.e., backfill, exhausted
marine sand borrow pit, levee borrow pits, replenishment of over dredged shallows,
construction fill, wetland creation and restoration, manufacture soil, etc.

The Ports of Niigata, Nagoya, and Fraser identified construction sand as a beneficial
use. The Ports of Kwang Yang, Tomakomai, Pusan, Incheon, Lianyungang, and
Singapore cited a variety of reclamation uses ・ reclamation back of coasts,
reclamation for the container terminal, reclamation for the port construction, and
reclamation of land.

Dredged material was used as beach nourishment and construction fill for the Ports
of Sakai-Semboku, Tokuyama-Kudamatsu, Hiroshima, Wakayama-Shimozu, and
Niigata.

The port authority of New York and New Jersey cited construction aggregate and
structural fill as beneficial uses. Georgia port authorities reported using material as
borrow for dike construction.


4.5       WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE COST PER CUBIC /METER FOR THE DISPOSAL OF
          DREDGED MATERIAL FOR NON-CONTAMINATED AND DEEPENING MATERIAL AND
          FOR CONTAMINATED MATERIAL ?


Of the five available disposal types (beneficial use, confined upland, coastal waters,
in-water/containment island, and ocean), in-water/containment island is reported as
the most costly by Japan. No economy listed in-water/containment island as a
disposal type in response to question 4.5 except Japan. Japan listed 13 ports that
use in-water/containment island as a type of disposal.

It is not clear if all economies responded in U.S. dollars, therefore the following
statements may be in error.

     Open water (ocean) disposal is the second most costly disposal
      type following in-water/containment island.



                      APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                            DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                             PAGE18



     Beneficial use, with responses from China, Japan, Korea, and the
      United States, ranked third in cost.

     Confined upland is the fourth most costly type of disposal based on
      responses from the economies of China, Japan, Korea and the
      United States. The disparity in cost can be seen in the United
      States where costs ranged from $2.00 per cubic meter (Georgia
      ports) to $25.00 per cubic meter (Oakland, CA).

     With responses from China, Japan and the United States, coastal
      waters is reported as the least costly type of disposal of dredged
      material.


                           Contaminated Dredged Material

5.1       WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DREDGED MATERIAL IS
          CONTAMINATED ?


Fifty percent of the economies responding to this question reported to have some
criteria for determining whether dredged material is contaminated. Criteria used
ranged from national standards, to test samples taken in situ, to physical appearance
and smell.

The following ports reported the use of some form of testing, mostly chemical testing
for heavy metals: Hong Kong, Muroran, Puerto Montt, Punta Arenas, San Antonio,
Singapore, Talcahuano & San Vicente, Tokuyama-Kudamatsu, Tomakomai, and
Valparaiso.


5.2       HOW DO YOU TREAT CONTAMINATED MATERIAL

Only six respondents provided information on treatment of contaminated material.
Notably, the Port of Osaka listed 108,599 cubic yards of PCBs as a contaminant
used for land filling.


5.3       LIST PRINCIPAL DREDGED MATERIAL CONTAMINANTS AND SOURCE.

This is an area where the report could serve as a guide for future discussion.
Unfortunately not enough information was received to provide meaningful analysis.
While no one contaminant was consistently identified, contaminants included heavy
metals, petroleum and PCBs. There is significant discussion in the United States on
how much liability falls on ports to deal with contamination.



                       APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                             DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                           PAGE19



Six respondents supplied information on possible sources of contamination. The
Port of Dalian identified dredging as a source of contaminants affecting fisheries.
The Port of Hong Kong cited industrial processes such as electroplating as a source
for heavy metals. The Port of Vancouver listed ・various・ sources for metal
contaminants. The Port of Pusan listed ships and sewage as a source for rope and
fishing nets contamination. The Port of Osaka listed as ・unknown・ the sources of
PCBs. Lastly, the Port of Tokuyama-Kudamatsu listed ・a factory・ as a source, but
did not list the contaminant.

Based upon experience with contaminated dredged material identified in U.S. ports,
upstream sources such as industry, agriculture, and general storm water runoff
appear to contribute significantly to sediment contamination. The limited responses
from other economies suggest similar sources are at least partly the cause of
contamination elsewhere.

In the United States, environmental regulations and standards have been
implemented to reduce industrial, agricultural and storm water runoff. Those
standards should reduce the amount of additional contamination entering the
waterways and sediments. Similar strategies may be useful in other economies.


5.4     INDICATE THE PERCENT OF CONTAMINATED DREDGED MATERIAL PLACED IN EACH
        DISPOSAL CATEGORY .


Respondents were asked to indicate the percent of contaminated dredged material
placed in open water (ocean), coastal waters, confined upland, in-water/containment
island, identified for beneficial use or used/disposed in an ・Other・ category.

Only four respondents provided information. Unless noted, the year of disposal was
not identified. The Port of Hong Kong identified 100 percent of contaminated
dredged material disposed of by confined marine disposal in 1997. In 1997, the
Ports of Osaka and Tokuyama-Kudamatsu disposed 100 percent by in-
water/containment island. While the Port of Manila South Harbor disposes of 50
percent in coastal waters.




                     APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                           DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                    PAGE20




APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
      DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                                                PAGE21

                                  Financial Responsibility for Dredging

      6.1         HOW ARE MAINTENANCE AND DEEPENING EXPENDITURES FINANCED ?




                                     Part 6.1: Financial Responsibility for Dredging

25%

                                                                                                          20%
20%                                                                                                    19%

        16%           16%
                                                                                                                    15%
15%                                               14%                    14%                                           14%
            13%
                                                                  12%             12%   12%
                        11%         11%11%           11%
               10%         10%            10%           10%          10%             10%                         10%
10%                                                                                               9%



5%


0%
         Approach     Approach       Entrance       Entrance      Connecting      Connecting        Berths         Berths
         Channel       Channel       Channel        Channel        Channels        Channels       Maintenance     Deepening
        Maintenance   Deepening     Maintenance    Deepening      Maintenance     Deepening

                            By Federal/National Government     By Port Autority   By All Others/Private




      The above chart represents:

                  5 economies (with 22 ports) reporting maintenance
                   and deepening dredging expenditures financed by
                   federal/national governments

                  9 economies (with 32 ports) reporting maintenance
                   and deepening dredging expenditures financed by
                   port authorities

                  8 economies (with 76 ports) reporting maintenance
                   and deepening dredging expenditures financed by
                   all others/private

      The revenue source most often cited for non-U.S. ports was the port authority, while



                                  APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                        DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                         PAGE22

U.S. ports more often cited the federal government. U.S. deepening is cost shared
between federal and non-federal sponsors.




                    APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                          DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                          PAGE23



       Regulatory Agencies/Organizations that Regulate Dredging Activity

7.1      IDENTIFY THE VARIOUS REGULATORY AGENCIES /ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR AREA
         OF RESPONSIBILITY .


Respondents listed a diversity of regulatory agencies and organizations that are
connected with dredging activity. Following is a select list:


     Coast Guard                              Maritime and Port Authority
     Department of Environment and            Maritime Safety Department
      Natural Resources                        Ministry of Transportation
     Department of Public Works and           National Bureau of Oceanology
      Highways                                 National Ocean Administration
     Department of Transportation and         Port and Harbor Bureau
      Communications
                                               Port    Construction    Commanding
     Environment and Public Health             Headquarters
      Bureau
                                               Public Health Ministry
     Environment Protection Bureau
                                               State Environment Commission
     Fisheries and Oceans
     Harbour Superintendent


The variety of responsibilities included:

     Management of all disposal sites and allocation of disposal capacity
     Checking of water quality
     Construction of port
     Control of maritime safety, dumping waste materials
     Examination of dredged material
     Confirmation of disposal site
     Issuance of dumping licenses and dumping permits for contaminated and
      uncontaminated materials
     Maintenance of berths
     Management and protection of the environment and ecosystem
     Monitoring of dredging, new port projects
     Oversight of operation and maintenance of public ports
     Safety of ships for reclamation and dredging
     Supervision of dredging work




                      APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                            DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                            PAGE21


                                   Dredging Issues

Are there problems related to:

   Maintenance Dredging

Eight out of 25 respondents indicated problems with maintenance dredging.

   Deepening Dredging

Seven out of 25 respondents indicated problems with deepening dredging.

   Disposal of Dredged Material

Thirteen out of 25 respondents indicated problems with disposal of dredged material.



8. WERE THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING :

Respondents were asked to identify problems from the following list:

    Delays in obtaining permit approvals
    Overlapping regulatory agency reviews/authorizations
    Disposal sites unavailable or nearing capacity
    Cost of constructing new disposal sites
    Locating new disposal sites
    Limited land based disposal options
    Testing protocols for dredged material
    Concerns about endangered species
    Lack of mitigation options
    Public opinion
    Lack of financing/funding
    Other ・ please specify:

The U.S. respondents cited delays in obtaining permit approvals as the primary
impediment to dredging and disposal. Half of the U.S. respondents replied that
obtaining environmental approval caused delays of maintenance dredging and
deepening (new work).




                     APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                           DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                                                        PAGE22

The United States is the only respondent to provide a response to ・other.・ The
United States・ response to ・other・ was given as:

   unrealistic agency expectations
   occasional objection from environmental groups
   coastal resources program requirements for beneficial use of
    dredge material
   delays caused by a long standing dispute regarding use of open
    water disposal vs. confinement
   conflicting agency mandates (e.g., public access vs. requirements
    for exclusive buffer zones)
   completing forms

The following pie chart represents the identification of maintenance, deepening and
disposal problems as reported by 26 ports.



                             Maintenance, Deepening and Disposal Problems
                              (26 of 67 Reporting Ports Provided Responses)




                                                            Permit Approval Delays
                              Lack of Finances
                                                                     12%
                                    15%

                                                                        Overlapping Authority
                                                                                4%




                  Public Opinion
                       11%                                                    Disposal Sites Unavailable or
                                                                                       Far Away
                                                                                          12%




               Endangered Species
                                                                          Cost to Construct New Sites
                     12%
                                                                                      8%

                Testing Dredged Material
                           3%
                                                             Locating New Sites
                                    Limited Land Sites
                                                                    12%
                                           11%




                        APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                              DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                    PAGE23




APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
      DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                             PAGE24

Provide examples illustrating successful resolution of dredging problems or issues.
Give a brief description outlining the problem and the resolution.

Responses were:

Australia

    Increasing draft capacity ・ A number of Australian ports employ
    ・world・s best practice・ Dynamic Under Keel Clearance (DUKC)
    programmes. This is the sophisticated and highly accurate system of
    controlling the passage of deep draft vessels using observed real time
    data of wave, wind and tidal conditions, together with channel
    deepening. This allows the port to accommodate vessels with larger
    cargoes and increased draft without the need for extensive dredging.

    Dredge spoil management ・ A number of Australian ports have
    adopted a fully integrated approach to environmental management.
    The Environmental Management Systems of port authorities and
    those of port users are being integrated to ensure that all port
    operations are being managed to meet unified objectives in an
    integrated and cooperative manner.

    A consequence of this integrated approach is that Technical Advisory
    Consultative Committees (TACC) oversee various port authorities・
    dredging/dumping activities. The TACCs include representatives of
    Environment Australia・s Environment Protection Group, Marine Park
    representatives, the Port Authority, Harbour Master, and the relevant
    State and local government departments. The purpose of the TACC
    is to enable agreement on long-term dumping permits rather than the
    one-year permit that has been the case. The new arrangements
    provide for three-year permits but having a TACC is virtually a
    prerequisite.

Xiamen (China)

    Dredged materials from the Dongdu Phase I project were disposed
    at convenient sites near the operational site. In construction of
    Phase II project, the disposal site of dredged materials was
    previously determined to be at Bai Keng which was over 30 km
    from the operational site, and would increase cost and lengthen
    construction period. Therefore, Port Construction Command of
    Xiamen Port held sand testing at the disposal area jointly with the
    Third Institute of Oceanography under National Maritime Bureau.
    The tests decided a disposal site at Ta Jiao, which shortened the
    transportation distance of dredged materials for about one third of



                     APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                           DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                                                               PAGE25

   the formerly decided distance, and reduced cost several millions
   yuan.

Hong Kong (China)

   Problem ・ concerns regarding risks to public health and the Chinese
   White Dolphin which frequents the area in the vicinity of the
   contaminated mud disposal facility.

   Approach ・ an extensive public consultation exercise was
   undertaken to address public concerns about contaminated mud
   disposal.     It included presentations to Legislative Council
   Environmental Affairs Panel, District Boards, Fisherman Liaison
   Committee, Advisory Council on the Environment (including green
   groups representatives), and individual Legislative Council and
   District Boards Members.

Bangkok & Laem Chabang (Thailand)

   Traffic jam in channel all day and night ・ in this case the Harbour
   Department solves the congestion problem by dredging another
   channel for lighters and little vessels in order to reduce the congestion
   and increase safety in the main channel.




                    APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                          DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                                    A
                                    P
                                    P
                                    E
                                    N
                                    DI
                                    C
                                    E
                                    S




APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
      DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                             Appendix A ・ Jurisdictional Location of Ports by Economy


  ECONOMY                    PORT NAME                               CATEGORIZATION
Australia        AUSTRALIAN PORTS (60+)                STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

Canada           FRASER                                NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Canada           VANCOUVER                             NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Chile            PUERTO MONTT                          OTHER   --   LOCAL   AUTONOMOUS
Chile            PUNTA ARENAS                          OTHER   --   LOCAL   AUTONOMOUS
Chile            SAN ANTONIO                           OTHER   --   LOCAL   AUTONOMOUS
Chile            TALCAHUANO & SAN VICENTE              OTHER   --   LOCAL   AUTONOMOUS
Chile            VALPARAISO                            OTHER   --   LOCAL   AUTONOMOUS

China            DALIAN                                LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            HONG KONG                             LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            LIANYUNGANG                           LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            NINGBO                                LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            QINHUANGDAO                           NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
China            RIZHAO                                LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            TIANJIN                               LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
China            XIAMEN                                LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Chinese Taipei   KAOHSIUNG                             STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Chinese Taipei   KEELUNG                               STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Chinese Taipei   HUALIEN                               STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

Japan            KITA-KYUSHU                           LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            KOBE                                  LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            NAGOYA                                LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            OKASA                                 LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            SHIMONOSEKI                           LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            YOKKAICHI                             LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            YOKOHAMA                              LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            SHIMIZU                               NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            MURORAN                               SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY
Japan            TOMAKOMAI                             SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY
Japan            FUSHIKI-TOYAMA                        STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            HIMEJI                                STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            HIROSHIMA                             STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            NIIGATA                               STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            SAKAI-SEMBOKU                         STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            TOKUYAMA-KUDAMATSU                    STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Japan            TOKYO                                 STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT



                      APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                            DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
                          Appendix A ・ Jurisdictional Location of Ports by Economy

Japan         WAKAYAMA-SHIMOZU                      STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

Korea         INCHEON                               NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Korea         KWANG YANG                            NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Korea         PUSAN                                 NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mexico        ALTAMIRA, TAM.                        NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        COATZACOALCOS, VER.                   NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        ENSENADA, B.C.                        NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        FRONTERA, TAB.                        NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        GOLFO DE MEXICO                       NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        GUAYMAS, SON.                         NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        LAZARO CARDENAS, MICH.                NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        MANZANILLO, COL.                      NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        OCEANO PACIFICO                       NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        PTO. MADERO, CHIS.                    NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        SALINA CRUZ, OAX.                     NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        TAMPICO, TAM.                         NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT
Mexico        TUXPAN, VER.                          NATIONAL/FEDERAL      GOVERNMENT

Philippines   MANILA     INT'L   CONTAINER SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY
              TERMINAL
Philippines   MANILA SOUTH HARBOR          SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY

Singapore     SINGAPORE                             NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Thailand      BANGKOK & LAEM CHABANG                NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thailand      PHUKET DEEP SEA                       NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thailand      SONGKHLA DEEP SEA                     NATIONAL/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

USA           LONG BEACH, CA                        LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
USA           OAKLAND, CA                           LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
USA           TACOMA, WA                            LOCAL/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
USA           HOUSTON, TX                           SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY
USA           NEW ORLEANS                           SPECIAL DISTRICT/AUTHORITY
USA           GEORGIA PORTS                         STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
USA           HAMPTON ROADS, VA                     STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
USA           NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY                 STATE/PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT




                  APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                        DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY
Appendix B ・ Navigation Channel Depths by Port (in feet)
  ECONOMY              PORT NAME                Approach Channel      Entrance Channel    Connecting Channel
                                               Existing Proposed      Existing Proposed   Existing Proposed
Australia   AUSTRALIA PORTS (60+)                      39                    39                  39
                                    Average:           39                    39                  39
Canada      FRASER                                     35                                        35
Canada      VANCOUVER                                  50                   50
                                    Average:           43                   50                  35
Chile       PUERTO MONTT                               40
Chile       TALCAHUANO & SAN VICENTE                   36
                                    Average:           38
China       DALIAN                                     66        79         66       79         33
China       LIANYUNGANG                                30        39         30       39         30        39
China       NINGBO                                     58                   58       70         13
China       QINHUANGDAO                                  2                  39       44          2
China       RIZHAO                                     31                   56                  62
China       TIANJIN                                      3        3          4       49
China       XIAMEN                                     39        46         49                  28        30
                                    Average:           33                   43                  28
Hong Kong   HONG KONG                                  69                   50                  46
                                    Average:           69                   50                  46
Japan       FUSHIKI-TOYAMA                             33                   46
Japan       HIROSHIMA                                  52                   41
Japan       KITA-KYUSHU                                33        52
Japan       KOBE                                       46        52         46       52         46        52
Japan       MURORAN                                    59                   54
Japan       NAGOYA                                                          46       49
Japan       NIIGATA                                    43        46         82
Japan       OKASA                                                           43       49
Japan       SAKAI-SEMBOKU                                                   33       52         33        52
Japan       SHIMIZU                                    72
Japan       TOKUYAMA-KUDAMATSU                         39        46         39       46         30
Japan       TOKYO                                      33        39         46       49         56
Japan       TOMAKOMAI                                  46        49         46                  39
Japan       YOKKAICHI                                  39                   39                  39
Japan         YOKOHAMA                         98         46   52
                                   Average:    49         47        41
Korea         INCHEON                          43    51   49        49
Korea         KWANG YANG                       74   105   74   79   49   50
Korea         PUSAN                            49         44   46   41   41
                                   Average:    55         56        46
Mexico        ALTAMIRA, TAM.                   39         39        39
Mexico        COATZACOALCOS, VER.                         36        36
Mexico        ENSENADA, B.C.                   33         33        33
Mexico        FRONTERA, TAB.                              18        18
Mexico        GUAYMAS, SON.                               39        39
Mexico        LAZARO CARDENAS, MICH.                      46        46
Mexico        MANZANILLO, COL.                            46        46
Mexico        PTO. MADERO, CHIS.               34         34        34
Mexico        SALINA CRUZ, OAX.                39         33        33
Mexico        TAMPICO, TAM.                    36         33        33
Mexico        TUXPAN, VER.                     33         33        33
                                   Average:    36         35        35
Philippines   MANILA     INT'L   CONTAINER     38    41   39   41
              TERMINAL
Philippines   SOUTH HARBOR, PORT OF MANILA     36    41   36   41   36   39
                                   Average:    37         38        36
Thailand      BANGKOK & LAEM CHABANG           25         25        24
Thailand      PHUKET DEEP SEA                  30         30        30
Thailand      SONGKHLA DEEP SEA                30         30        30
                                   Average:    28         28        28
Taiwan        KEELUNG                                     46
Taiwan        HUALIEN                                     46
                                   Average:               46
USA           LONG BEACH, CA                   63    76   76
USA           LOS ANGELES, CA                             51        45   50
USA           OAKLAND, CA                                 42   50
USA           PORTLAND, OR                     55         40   43
USA           SEATTLE, WA                      60
USA           TACOMA, WA                      150
Average:   82   87   45
                                                                                Appendix C ・ Berthing Depth by Type of Port Fcility (in feet)




ECONOMY      PORT NAME             Container          General Cargo               Grain                 Coal                Dry Bulk            Petroleum             Liquid Bulk
                               Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed   Existing   Proposed

Canada    FRASER                    39                    35
Canada    VANCOUVER                 49                    49                    52                    52                    49                    39
                    Average:        44                    42                    52                    52                    49                    39
Chile     PUERTO MONTT                                    42
Chile     PUNTA ARENAS                                    56
Chile     SAN ANTONIO               43                    33                                                                43                    43
Chile     TALCAHUANO       &        40                    41
          SAN VICENTE
Chile     VALPARAISO                43         43         43         36
                    Average:        42                    43                                                                43                    43
China     DALIAN                    46         49         33                    51                    33                    41         67         57         79         33
China     HONG KONG                 46         49         36                                          54                    46                    48
China     LIANYUNGANG               36                    40         40         39                    39                    36         49         36                    36
China     NINGBO                    44                    41                    41                    67                    67                    61                    46
China     QINHUANGDAO               43                    43         46         48                    35                    43                    48                    48
China     RIZHAO                                          39                                          59                                                                31
China     TIANJIN                   41         49         34                    41                    41         43         41         49         44         49         36
China     XIAMEN                    44                    38                    38                    44                    38                    55
                    Average:        43                    38                    43                    47                    45                    50                    38
Chinese   KAOHSIUNG                 42                    32                    40                                          35                    28
Taipei
Chinese   HUALIEN                                         25                                          54                    37
Taipei
                    Average:        42                    29                    40                    54                    36                    28                      0
Japan     FUSHIKI-TOYAMA            33                    46
Japan     HIMEJI                                          39         39                                                                           69
Japan     HIROSHIMA                 25         46         33         39         33         39                               33         39         15                    28
Japan     KITA-KYUSHU               39         49         39         25         36                    30         30         39         43                               36
                                                      Appendix C ・ Berthing Depth by Type of Port Fcility (in feet)



Japan    KOBE                     49   52
Japan    MURORAN                            46                      54           54             54            28
Japan    NAGOYA                   49   49   46        39            33           46             85            46
Japan    NIIGATA                  39   46   43   46   43            43           43      46     43            46
Japan    OSAKA                    43   46   39   46   36            33           30             39
Japan    SAKAI-SEMBOKU            39   49   39   39
Japan    SHIMIZU                  40   49   39        39                         39             30     39     30
Japan    SHIMONOSEKI              33        33        43            25           33             59            18
Japan    TOKUYAMA-                39   39   33                      33           33      46
         KUDAMATSU
Japan    TOKYO                    46   49   39        39            23     39    39
Japan    TOMAKOMAI                39   46   39        46            46           39             46            25
Japan    WAKAYAMA-                33   43   39   46
         SHIMOZU
Japan    YOKKAICHI                39   46   39        18            46           33             39
Japan    YOKOHAMA                 46   52   39        57            25           57             69
                     Average:     39        39        39            36           40             50            32
Korea    INCHEON                  44        44        43            49           44             46            46
Korea    KWANG YANG               49        54   54                              74      74     77     77     38      38
Korea    PUSAN                    43        30        44            41
                     Average:     45        43        44            45           59             62            42
Mexico   ALTAMIRA, TAM.           39        39
Mexico   COATZACOALCOS, VER.
                                            36
Mexico   GUAYMAS, SON.                      39        36
Mexico   LAZARO CARDENAS, MICH.
                                            46
Mexico   MANZANILLO, COL.         46        46
Mexico   PTO. MADERO, CHIS.                 33
Mexico   SALINA CRUZ, OAX.        39        33
Mexico   TAMPICO, TAM.                      33
Mexico   TUXPAN, VER.                       33
                                                         Appendix C ・ Berthing Depth by Type of Port Fcility (in feet)



                      Average:       41        38        36             0            0              0             0
Philippines MANILA           INT'L   38        38
            CONTAINER
            TERMINAL
Philippines MANILA          SOUTH    33   39   33   38
            HARBOR
                      Average:       36        36
Thailand   BANGKOK      &    LAEM    46        46
           CHABANG
Thailand   PHUKET DEEP SEA           33        33        33            33           33             33            33
Thailand   SONGKHLA          DEEP    33        33        33            33           33             33            33
           SEA
                      Average:       37        37        33            33           33             33            33
USA        LONG BEACH , CA           50        43                      50           50             76            43
USA        LOS ANGELES, CA           45        45                      52           40             46            46
USA        OAKLAND, CA               40        39
USA        PORTLAND, OR              40        40        40                         40             40
USA        SEATTLE, WA               50        40        80                         40             40
USA        TACOMA, WA                50        45        70                         50             40
                      Average:       46        42        63            51           44             48            45
                                                                                             Appendix D



                                       World's Top 50 Containerports
                                                      In
                                      Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs)



Rank                            1997           1996      Rank                         1997        1996
             Port                                                      Port
  1    Hong Kong               14,539,000 13,460,000       26   Seattle              1,475,813   1,473,561
  2    Singapore               14,135,200 12,943,900       27   Gioia Tauro          1,448,531     571,951
  3    Kaohsiung                5,693,339 5,063,048        28   Manila               1,385,448   1,289,682
  4    Rotterdam                5,445,000 4,971,000        29   Hampton Roads        1,232,725   1,141,357
  5    Pusan                    5,233,880 4,760,507        30   Osaka                1,200,000   1,177,468
  6    Port of Long Beach       3,504,603 3,067,334        31   Le Havre             1,184,729   1,020,040
  7    Hamburg                  3,370,000 3,054,320        32   Genoa                1,179,954     825,752
  8    Los Angeles              3,000,000 2,700,000        33   Port of Tacoma       1,158,685   1,073,529
  9    Antwerp                  2,969,189 2,653,909        34   Charleston           1,151,401   1,028,502
 10    Dubai                    2,600,000 2,250,000        35   Bangkok              1,099,005   1,295,267
 11    Shanghai                 2,527,000 1,971,000        36   Laem Chabang         1,036,063     728,630
 12    New         York/New     2,456,866 2,269,000        37   Melbourne            1,029,194     963,404
       Jersey
 13    Tokyo                    2,382,625    2,311,453     38   Durban                984,629    1,006,872
 14    Yokohama                 2,327,937    2,334,433     39   Barcelona             971,921      767,227
 15    Felixstowe               2,251,379    2,064,947     40   Tianjin               935,000      823,000
 16    Keelung                  1,981,175    2,108,579     41   Jeddah                920,861      830,488
 17    Kobe                     1,944,208    2,072,315     42   Southampton           891,401      806,392
 18    San Juan                 1,781,250    1,640,624     43   Montreal              870,368      852,530
 19    Bremerhaven              1,703,000    1,545,000     44   Taichung              841,971      694,806
 20    Colombo                  1,687,200    1,356,300     45   Valencia              831,510      708,332
 21    Port Klang               1,684,506    1,409,594     46   Santos/Sao Paulo      829,486      772,313
 22    Tanjung Priok            1,670,744    1,424,083     47   Gulftainer/Sharjah    815,381      708,462
 23    Algeciras                1,537,627    1,306,825     48   Houston               797,713      704,010
 24    Oakland                  1,531,188    1,498,200     49   Sydney                764,756      720,022
 25    Nagoya                   1,498,137    1,469,186     50   Miami                 761,183      706,217




Source: Cargo Systems International
                                                                               Appendix E


                   APEC TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP
                                DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY

                       SPONSORED BY THE PORT EXPERTS GROUP


Name of Port:      ____________________________________________________________


Address:           ____________________________________________________________
                   ____________________________________________________________


Contact Person:    ____________________________________________________________
Title:             ____________________________________________________________




Telephone:         _____________________       Fax:     __________________________
Address:           ____________________________________________________________




Please return completed survey by April 15, 1998 to:
John M. Pisani, Director
Office of Ports and Domestic Shipping
Maritime Administration
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590


Should you have any questions contact John Pisani at:

Telephone:      202-366-5759
FAX:            202-366-6988
E-mail: John.Pisani@Marad.dot.gov




                                           1
PART 1 - BACKGROUND

1.1      Please indicate which of the following best categorizes your port authority.

         ___         National/Federal Government
         ___         State/Provincial Government
         ___         Local/Municipal Government
         ___         Special District/Authority
         ___         Other (specify__________________________)



PART 2 - CHANNEL DEPTH INFORMATION (m)

2.1       What is the channel depth at mean low water (MLW)?

                                         Existing
         Approach Channel                ___._ m
         Entrance Channel                ___._ m
         Connecting Channel              ___._ m


2.2       What is the berth depth (MLW) at your terminals?

         Berth Type                      Existing Depth

         Container                       from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         General Cargo (non-container) from ___._ m       to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         Grain                           from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         Coal                            from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         Other Dry Bulk                  from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         Petroleum                       from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)
         Other Liquid Bulk               from ___._ m     to ___._ m    (if only one depth is applicable use ・from・
depth)




2.3       If your port is planning to deepen any of the following channels or berths, plea se provide:

                                         Existing Depth         Proposed Depth
         Approach Channel                 ___._ m               ___._ m
         Entrance Channel                 ___._ m               ___._ m
         Connecting Channel               ___._ m               ___._ m

         Container                        ___._   m             ___._   m
         General Cargo (non-container)    ___._   m             ___._   m
         Grain                            ___._   m             ___._   m
         Coal                             ___._   m             ___._   m
         Other Dry Bulk                   ___._   m             ___._   m
         Petroleum                        ___._   m             ___._   m
         Other Liquid Bulk                ___._   m             ___._   m



                                                      2
Note: For purposes of this survey, all questions concerning annual data or information should b e
      based on a calendar year.




                                               3
PART 3 - VOLUME OF DREDGED MATERIAL

3.1      What are the annual quantities of dredged material for maintenance of channels and berths
(m³)?


             By Federal/National Government          By Port Authority     By All Others/Private

 1995

 1996

 1997 est

 1998 est

 1999 est

 2000 est



3.2     What are the annual quantities of dredged material for deepening channels and berths (m³)?


             By Federal/National Government          By Port Authority     By All Others/Private

 1995

 1996

 1997 est

 1998 est

 1999 est

 2000 est



3.3      How much of the dredged material in Items 3.1 and 3.2 was contaminated (m³)?


             By Federal/National Government          By Port Authority     By All Others/Private

 1995

 1996



3.4     Is annual maintenance dredging required at your port?

        Approach Channel            Yes   ___   No   ___
        Entrance Channel            Yes   ___   No   ___
        Connecting Channel          Yes   ___   No   ___
        Berths                      Yes   ___   No   ___


                                                 4
5
PART 4 - DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES

4.1    Does your port have adequate dredge material disposal capacity for port and related channel
       dredged material? Yes ___ No ___


4.2    What is the remaining dredged disposal capacity and when is it expected to be reached ?


                          By Federal/National   By Port Authority   By All Others/Private
                             Government

                          Quantity     Year     Quantity    Year     Quantity       Year
                          (000 m³)              (000 m³)             (000 m³)

 Open             Water
 (Ocean)

 Coastal Waters

 Confined Upland

 In-water/
 Containment Island

 Beneficial Use

 Other (specify -
 ________________)

4.3      What is the amount of dredged material placed in each disposal category ( m³)?
       Indicate year - 19__

                          By Federal/National   By Port Authority   By All Others/Private
                             Government

 Open             Water
 (Ocean)

 Coastal Waters

 Confined Upland

 In-water/
 Containment Island

 Beneficial Use

 Other (specify -
 ________________)



4.4    If beneficial use is a disposal option, please indicate use or uses (e.g. construction
       sand/aggregate, beach replenishment, wetland creation, wetland restoration).


       1.           _______________________________________

                                                  6
2.   _______________________________________
3.   _______________________________________




                              7
4.5    What is the approximate cost ( in U.S.$) per cubic/meter for the disposal of dredged material
       for non-contaminated maintenance and deepening material and for contaminated material?


                              Non-contaminated Material             Contaminated Material

                          Maintenance            Deepening

 Open             Water
 (Ocean)

 Coastal Waters

 Confined Upland

 In-water/
 Containment Island

 Beneficial Use

 Other (specify -
 ________________)




PART 5 - CONTAMINATED DREDGED MATERIAL

5.1    What are the criteria used to determine whether dredged material is contaminated?

_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________


5.2    Do you treat contaminated dredged material, if so, how?

      Contaminant             Treatment Method                Volume (m³)         Cost ($U.S./m³)
1.    ______________        ____________________             __________           ____________
2.    ______________        ____________________             __________           ____________
3.    ______________        ____________________             __________           ____________
4.    ______________        ____________________             __________           ____________
5.    ______________        ____________________             __________           ____________


5.3    List principal dredged material contaminants and source.

                Contaminant                                  Source (s)
       1. ______________________             ___________________________________________
       2. ______________________             ___________________________________________
       3. ______________________             ___________________________________________


                                                 8
4. ______________________   ___________________________________________
5. ______________________   ___________________________________________




                               9
  5.4       Indicate the percent of contaminated dredged material placed in each disposal category.
            Indicate year - 19__.
                                                            Contaminated Dredged Material
            Open Water (Ocean)                                         _____ %
            Coastal Waters                                             _____ %
            Confined Upland                                            _____ %
            In-water/Containment Island                                _____ %
            Beneficial Use                                             _____ %
            Other (Specify type of site __________________)            _____ %

  PART 6 - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DREDGING

  6.1       How are maintenance and deepening dredging expenditures financed?

                              By Federal/National           By Port Authority      By All Others/Private
                                 Government
Approach Channel
     - Maintenance

          - Deepening


Entrance Channel
      - Maintenance

          - Deepening


Connecting
Channels
     - Maintenance

          - Deepening


Berths
         - Maintenance

          - Deepening




  PART 7 - REGULATORY AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS THAT REGULATE DREDGING ACTIVITY

  7.1       Identify the various regulatory agencies and their area of responsibility.

  1.        Name:                   _________________________________________________________
            Area of Responsibility: _________________________________________________________

  2.        Name:                     ____________________________________________________
            Area of Responsibility:   ____________________________________________________

  3.        Name:                    ____________________________________________________
            Area of Responsibility: _________________________________________________________



                                                       10
4.   Name:                    ____________________________________________________
     Area of Responsibility: _________________________________________________________

5.   Name:                   _________________________________________________________
     Area of Responsibility: _________________________________________________________




                                          11
PART 8 - DREDGING ISSUES

Are there problems related to:
        Maintenance Dredging                  Yes ____          No ____
        Deepening Dredging                    Yes ____          No ____
        Disposal of Dredged Material          Yes ____          No ____


Were the problems related to any of the following:
                                                                             Dredged
Material
                                                  Maintenance    Deepening       Disposal
-Delays in obtaining permit approvals             __________     _________       _______
-Overlapping regulatory agency reviews/
  Authorizations                                  __________     _________       _______
-Disposal sites unavailable or nearing capacity   __________     _________       _______
-Cost of constructing new disposal sites          __________     _________       _______
-Locating new disposal sites                      __________     _________       _______
-Limited land based disposal options              __________     _________       _______
-Testing protocols for dredged material           __________     _________       _______
-Concerns about endangered species                __________     _________       _______
-Lack of mitigation options                       __________     _________       _______
-Public Opinion                                   __________     _________       _______
-Lack of Financing/Funding                        __________     _________       _______
-Other (s) (please specify ______________)        __________     _________       _______


Please provide any examples illustrating the successful resolution of dredging
problems or issues, such as permitting, disposal sites, etc. Give a brief description
outlining the problem and the approach used to resolve it.




                                                  12

								
To top