[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Port Authorities and Coastal Management One of a series of papers presented to the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by coastal user groups A@01 UTIO/V C-' Washington, D.C. HE July 1976 553 ,P82 1976 PUBLIC SEAPORT CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING TO COASTAL ZONE PLANNI'NG prepared by The American Association of Port Authorities for the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration July 197.6 US Dnpartrnnnt of cornmerce MAI, C, ",-@nter Library 2 2 3 4 Charleston, Z@C: 05-2413 PREVACE The following information came to the Office of Coastal Zone Management in response to requests to various interest groups to present their views and concerns in relation to coastal management programs to planners.of coastal management programs. The Office of Coastal Zone Management thanks the American Association of Port Authorities for providing this report and we hope that it will provide coastal managers with a better feel. for the concerns of port authorities. The views presented here are those of the American Association of Port Authorities, and are passed on as a means of facilita-, ting communication. No endorsement by the Office of Coastal Zone Management is intended or implied. Questions about the content can be directed to the American Association. of Port Authorities at 1612 K. Street, NI'V', SuitE 1000, Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 331-1263. INTRODUCTION With the excepIL-Ii-on of the Federal interest in various aspects of navigational safety and [email protected], U S port development, promotion and administration is i*n the hands of public agencies organized at the State, County, or Munici- pal level. As such, tqese 3gencies function according to the powers granted and within a structure of,port vs.. port, or region vs, region competition for trade. It is usually a frie:.dly, but most certainly a serious, business rivalry. As an industry, ports are not assured Political or economic sur- vival. They must usually earn that status, and continue to earn it. I am one who believes that the Coastal Zone Management Act of'1972 should be good for ports. I say this becai.1-se where ports are unwelcomed neigh- bors in tiae coastal zone, the Act can do little that is hostile to ports that other individually available means cannot accomplish.' On the other hand, a.coastal zone plan that ta'1-es intelligent accoant of present and future port activity helps to stabilize the essential political and economic existence of ports. The issue thus narrows down to the plan as conceived, and how it cares for ports. Those who framed the 1972 Act must have thought that ports were important clients of the coastal zone. Section 3o6. (c) (1) states, for example, that prior -to granting approval of a management program submitted by a coastal zone state, the Secretary shall find that the state has developed and adop- ted a management program for its coastal zone . . . with the opportunity of full participation by . . . port authorities". Subparagraph (2) of this section. further reauires that the "management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature". With @orts handling $123 billion of the nation's foreign trade in'1974, generat- ing over $4 billion in Customs duties annually, and a Federal investment in ship channels of about $1.7 billion since 1824, proper attention to port activity in coastal zone plans is clearly in the national interest. So much for the basic statistics. .In keeping with Section 306 of the 1972 Act, it would be the recommendation of the AAPA that all coastal zone plans be required to consider present and future port activities, and that a requirement also be established in sub-- mitting such plans to NOAA that calls for an evaluation of plan treatment of such activities in a separate, but annexed' 'document prepared by the con- cerned port agency. This will focus State attention on the port role in the coastal zone, and possibly surface two points of view on that role-for concideration by NOAA in reviewing the coastal zone plan in fulfilling its concern for the port contribution to the national interest. -2- Each State has, and should have, a prerogative in its treatment of port activity within its own coastal zone planning. Though an admittedly strong and perhaps biased advocate of the legitimacy of port activity within the coastal zone, the AAPA cannot intrude upon this local or regional juris- diction. However, it can suggest a process or an approach'. This would be based on an assessment of existing and future . t ctivity set against _Ror a State.policy in acco:nmodating such activity. IThat activity which is to be accomt-nodated by this policy should then be expressed in land and water re- source demands distributed within the coastal zone so as to balance port efficiency with the characteristics of those land and water areas deemed to VOoe most compatible'vith port activityJ. While other interim uses may be 'allowed for such alloted land and wa:ter areas, they should be made subject to dispossession as and when demanded by-plahned-for-port activity. In this process a realistic attitude must prevail that recognizes that while unspoiled beachfronts may not be ideal for port usage within the coastal zone, likewise current and future port-oriented land and water areas are not ideal hosts for beachfronts. It would be delightful from the multi- use planning concept to have shipping and swimming coexist.".but such oppor- tunities will be rare. In summary, good coastal zone planning is good for ports, for it assures merce of their .them a proper place in the coastal zone in serving the com, Zegion and. that of.the nation. Good and objective planning approaches should achieve this. We believe state planning agencies will be competent to design state plans that reflect the coastal zone priorities within their respective states. We are not as certain that those state agencies are fully aware how their treatment of ports withdn their state will affect those ports' competitive posture, and have regional and national implica- tions. To that end the staff of AAPA has prepared "Public Seaport Consid- erations Applying Go Coastal Zone Planning".to assist state planners with this broader perspective. Alfred Hammon, Chairman AAPA Committee III; Ship Channels and Harbors As presented before the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Cotmnittee on May 13, 1970" Contents INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I Concerns Identified with the American Seaport System Global Concerns Political Trends Economic Trends Population Trends Shipping Growth National Concerns The Seaport System as an.Economic Factor Consumer Values Employment Values The Seaport System as a Demographic Factor The Seaport System as a Political Factor Regional Concerns Low Population Densities High Population Densities Migrations and Growth Developments Population Shifts Industrial Shifts Local Concerns Consumer Concerns Employment Concerns Economic Impact Concerng Financial Concerns Seaport Contribution to the Balance of Payments Customs Collections CHAPTER II Public Port AdM4 nistrations of the United Statesi. .Port Administrations as Political Entities Port Facility Investment and Growth Tecluiologi.cal Responsiveness Checks., Ba3cinces and Disciplines Federal Project Steps Channel Project Authorization Channel Project Appropriations Maintenance of Existing Projects Appropriation Totals Pier and Wharf Project Steps Construction Permits Economic Justification Port Facility Redundancy CHAPTER III- Coastal Zone Management and Public Port Development, Seaport Criteria in Coastal Zone Planning Identification of Port Districts and Responsibilities Assessment of National and Regional Port Requirements Assessment of Individual Port Requirements Dedication of Established Port Areas-for Port Expansion Identification of Alternative Areas for Future Expansion Seaports in Coastal Zone Plans Boundaries Per,missable Uses Geographic Areas of Particular Concern Public anr. Governmental Involvement State - Foderal Interaction and National Interests Organizations Authorities Individual Port Authority Data Sources CHAPTER I. Concerns Identified with the American Port System Global Concerns: There is a positive correlation between pop- ulation growth and trade growth, an absolute correlation between Gross National Product and trade. Long-term growth in port requirements is predictable. National Concerns: The U.S. has a balanced system of ports, relatively evenly distributed along all four coastlines, - Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes and Gulf. This gives shippers a multiple choice of ports based on time/cost/convenience fac- tors. Regional Conderns: Ports may promote either population concen- tration or.dispersal. Commercial ports.dep,end on trade which is related to urban locations. Industrial ports iiiav be supply r market oriented and more flexible as to location. 'shippers have freedom in routing and Local Concerns: Because choice of port, uneven application of Coastal Zone Management will disturb interport competitive relacionships, - to the det- riment of some, benefit of others. Financial Concerns: The U.S. port system handles more ivate-.@- borne coiimierco than any other system in the world. Sometimes it is not recognized as a system because it is decentralized. Due -to the size of the system, it is doubtful that centralized control or plannin,-, would work. Channels and related harbor improvements are provided by the federal government, piers and related port facilities are provided by local interests, - with federal andk'local investment in the system about co-equal. -2- Global Concerns By any standard the United States of America is the focal point of the se.alanes of the world. It is by far the largest consumer of raw materials on a global basis and the largest world distributor of manufactures; and is feeding substantial porti'ons of the world population through its agricultural output. According to the 1974 st atistics, U. S. trade as carried by vessel amounted to: /1 Value (mil. dol;) Shipping Wt. mil. lb.-I EXPORTS' 55@9011-8 529,656.2 IMPORTS 67,165.-2 893.1790.0 TOTAL 1239070.0 10232446.2 The above figures may not be considered as static levels, most of the principle categories having shown strong growth curves in the post W-11 period. The dry cargo trades have shown a four-fold increase over the past 25 years. /2 Trends in petroleum imports and grain exports are a matter of daily reading. UNITED STATES OIL SUPPLY BY SOURCE MILLION MILLION BARRELS BARRELS PER DAY PER DAY 30 7-SHARE 25- -25 20-7 50 20 7.SHARE Ov;:RSEAS 1,MPORTS 15- 19 4 7 10 - 10 :X" DC'JESTIC 77 5 01 0 1970 1975 1980 1935 It seems soundly predictable the U S. trade growth will continue at an increasing rate into the long-term future. The principal indicators are as follows: -3- 1. Political T-rends. The trading capability of the United States is being extended into vast -additional world areas. 2. Economic Trends. There has been grieatly increased attention to fhe reduction or elimination of artificial trade barriers . between nations, such as customs duties. A world common market is foreseen by some in the long term future. This would mean something similar to interstate commerce as enjoyed in the United States, on a world-wide basis. .3. Population Trends. As of midnight, March 29, 19769 world population reached a figure of 4-billion, an iner5aZ@e of one billion persons having taken place in the past a years. A By way of contrast the previous one billion addition, ''from two billion to three billion, took 80 years. The prediction for year 2000 is a world population of 7-billion. /5 In the western hemisphere a late 1975 study notes that-by 2000 Latin American population will have grown from 278-million to 645-million, outranking Europe, which will then have 527- million, and the United States and Canada combined (354-million). Mexico 'will have a larger population than Japan. /6 ..Becaus*e of the high percentages of population growth taking. place in relatively undeveloped nat-ions (presently unequipped with economies supportive of this kin-d of growth in terms of distribution of goods, services, and jobs) it is obvious that much support ivill come from the more developed nations, led by Vhe United States. The support will ennsist of both consumner and capital goods, in hitherto unheard of quantities. 4. Ship '.ng Growth. The three trends noted abcve are reflected in the rapid growth of the world fleet of cargo vessels. -Such ships (in excess of 1,000 gross tons) totalled 22,591 as of June 30, 1975, representing a deadweight tonnage of 53Op669@000 in all. Six months prior, as of December 30, 1974, these same totals were 22,449 and 503,348,000 respectively. A fleet addition of 142 ships representing 27,321,000 deadweight tons took place in the latest six-month period for which data is available. /7 Recent world shipping demands have already overwhelmed or severely taxed the port s@stems of such nations as India, Nigeria, Ecuador in recent months, with severe economic consequences and, where movement of foodstuffs.has been restricted by port breakdowns, human suffering. As a reverse example, the longshore labor strikes CD of recent years which have shut down many or all of the United States ports have provided a working example of world wide effects of even a temporary paralysis of the United States port system. -4- Because it is predictable that the,'United States will continue as the central nation Of the world in the flow of trade and commodities, the impacts upon the port system of the nation are obvious. The effectiveness and capacity Of that system become matters of world- wide concern. U. S.' Seaborne Imports and Exports of Selected Bu.1k Commoditi.es, 1969, and Projected 1980 and 2000. (Millions of short,tons) Item 1969 1980 2000 Imports Crude petroleum ............ 51.3 280.5 965.8 Residual fuel oil ......... a/ 168.5 129.2 Other petroleum products.. 83.4'. 56.2 Iron ore ................... 29..'0 34.1 48.3 Alumina ................... 1.8 5.7 15.2 Bauxite ... ............... 16.3 15.9 15.9 Exports Food grains ............ 14.5 23.0 25.0 .Feed grains ............... 16.4 32.0 54.0 Soybeans and meal ......... 11.7 24 .0 38.7 Bituminous coal ........... 40.3 54.7 53.7 Phosphate rock ............. 10.01 17.9 26.5 a/ Included in other /3 petroleum products. National Concoi-ns 'Because it is the busiest trading nation in the world, the United States,'as has been stated, is the principal focal point for the sealanes of world shipping. Such shipping is of three general categories, namely: .1. Private carriage of company-owned commodities in com- pany-owned vessels (such as crude or refined petroleum). 2. Contract carriage of commodities-by shipping lines s'pecialized in the trades (ore, petroleum, etc.) 3. Common carriage of various kinds of cargo by steamship lines catering to the needs of the broad range of world trade and general cargo. In instances I and 2 above the port facilities involved are accessorial to a production facility such as a refinery or steel mill, so that the shipping,and port operation is,simply a linlic in a processing__qy@l-. The type of heavy indiistry requiring lo- cation- on or near deep water must eit'her develop its own harbor/ channel needs or select a site on a waterfront already developed in terms of deep-water access, namely a commercial harbor area. In this sense port@-linked industry is heavily established in many of the port developmental areas-of the United States, and the'siting requirement for such industry is a matter of national concern. In instance 3 above, steamship lines of the maritime na.- tion's of the world, U. S. companies included, are organized into "conferencesff serving between common ranges of ports (U.S. North Atlantic/Nortl-lern Europe, for example) f@r purposes of sett-ing rates for transporting world commerce. These rates, combined with inland transportation rates, port handling costs, and cus- toms duties, determine the delivered price of U. S'. goods abroad or foreign goods in the United States. In the United States, cargo moving inland to final destina- tion or to seaboard for shipment takes advantalge of highly de- veloped transportation system, consisting of 35,000 miles of .interstate highways; 205,000 miles of railroad trackage; and 21,000 miles of developed waterways for barge traffic. /8 Forming the-interface between the 'commercial ocean traffic and these inland transportation wodes'are ranges of public ports located on all coastlines. As public seaports they are open to the vessels of all'nations enjoying trading relationships. In this manner every U.S. community is given access to world trade. The principal national concerns relating to commercial shipping as served by the nationfs port system are economic, demographic, and political. The.Seaport System as an Economic Factor The U. S. seaport system may be @riewcd from several stand- points as a factor in the economic well being of the nation. Consumer Values. The transportation/distribution system of the nation has developed in such a manner as to permit a high order of national marketing of consumer products. The advantages are universally enjoyed and too well known to bear repetition.. Not as well appreciated is that the decentralized national port system has developed on a well dispersed basis as a product of the same forces and in much the same fashion. In the mat'ter of cargo r 'outings from abroad the overseas supplier will specify a combination,of steamship, rail/truck or inland water rates which will deliver to an inland U. S. destination at least cost. Truck and water rates'are levied on a mileage basis; rail rates on a complex system of freight territory, commodity and class factors. In general, however, such costs are a function of the distance between producer and consumer. Careful port selection is critical in-permitting world products to compete in the U. S. market to the advantage of the consumer. Conversely the U. S. manufacturer competing in world mar- kets will select routings to various overseas destinations .which provide the most favorable delivered cost for the U. S. product competing in the fcreign. mark et. In the selection process he has the strong advantage of a range of ports from which to construct an optimum land-wa ter combination. In the si@aplest terms, the U. S. port system effectively e*xtends a 'highly developed domestie'distribution structure to world patterns. It does so by offering in itself a market place of selection and service factors oi-. a competitive basis. Its ability to do so returns to local initiative factors that have provided the dispersal and responsiveness required in competi- tive*world marketing. Employment Values. The contribution of seaports to nation- al employment may be extended to cover all persons employed in export and,importing related activity. In terms of exports alone, a study made in the late 19601's showed that manufacturin g and farming export related activity in States having port fa- cilities were responsible for the employment of 2,500,000 per- sons. /9 On the basis of 2.5 dependents per job (employee plus 1.5 family members), it can be said.that 5,230,000 regional res- idents rely on the flow of export trade. A 1971 study by the American Association of Port Authori- ties indicated that 1,136,162 port community residents owed . their livelihood to the existence of.the port. Results are -detailed under Lo-al Concerns. /10 The AAPA study was developed for congressional testimony 'on trade legislation. The Congress-of the United States to- gether with all adi,,iinistrations since World War II has consist- ently adopted a policy of minimum restrictions upon world trade, and may be said to have done so on the premise of fuller employ- ment. The "Smoot-Hawley" tariff Act o *f the 1920's, a highly restrictive measure, is generally regarded as a leading contrib- utor to the world-wide depression which followed. I'n terms of national concerns, i't x@ould be difficult to overstate the need for careful consideration of the. employment relationships of the U. S. seaport system. The S2.@rt_SZstem as a Demographic Factor k/ The history of urban development in the United States leaves little doubt that seaports are city builders. Maps showing density of manufacturing establishments depict den- sities closely tracking the nation's seaport locations. /11 There are spectacular modern-day examples such as the popu- lation growths of Houston and Los Angeles in the'periods following the development of man-.made,harbors at these loca- tions. The ability.of harbor development to attract heavy indus- try and accompanying satellite industrial development makes the - port a center of employment and therefor a center of population growth. In that contoxt a national concern arises in the -form of population dispersal as a desirable objective.- Planning cri- teria which would concentrate seaport development into fewer sites will result in concentration rather than dispersal of coastal populations. It should be noted that the westward development of the United States has resulted in a well dispersed pattern of coastal port communities under local public initiative. Excep- tions are easily.identifiable as originating from topographical constraints. The Seaport System as a Political Factor The highly responsive U.S. seaport system has a well proven ability to handle sometimes enormous peak-load requirements occasioned by the nation's international-relationships. These arise in the form of @Yrain movements (India, Russia); and war- time shipping requirein:ents (World War II, Korea, Viet Nam). The proven ability of the system to quickly respond to -shipping demands of such vast scale gives it sound dimension as *a vital national emergency resource.. From a pl.anninrr standpoint it may be considered that the decentralized and competitive port'system enjoyed-by the United States is of the strongest national concern in terms of inter- national relationships. Nationally, it is deeply interwoven with the manner in which the nation has developed in terins of population distribution, inland transportation systems and delivered costs. It is an'essential force of the national economy. 1411 -rT M@T ANGn, T G$ZAYf FARtO AA ASTO;,LA V C*as P, kL 41 V'7; GAEEM SAY N A. V@ N-J--V1AV<fE E E@ O'SACAhMeNTO V SAN 1R-L`IC:S.'O RJOWC06 CITY mcAtMiAZI C;.,f Los ANCiI.I.S BE;.C)4 OACE-Tawpi AM!0.100 PASCAC PORT ARTHUR CIIA 1@1 W0030r.. $EAU" '-!W CAL'-@-s 4ALVi J@' I*'C r-A -3Lm tlic-1 MANATEE Z C-A-STi IC-1 L-CA LVAMI WATERMORNE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATUS, 1974 lkgLf 3__CC?,-ERCE AT SELECTED P091S EXCLUOIN. GRE&Y LVES PORTS. CALES@Av YEAR 1174 114 TONS or Z.ODO POUND51 rOREI-,N [email protected] PORT 7011. IKPOQTS EXPORTS COAS IsTERNAL LOCAL SHIP-ENT$ R-@FJPTS S.:--E4TS AL13A-.A r*U%TFZS'lILLE-- ----- 1.353,42 .d----------- ---------- ----------- ----- ----------- 33,153,954 9,415,532 3,962.sq9 447,61! 3.77t.101 7.1.45,739 71CI616.46 1.391,9125 NtASKA APSCW@qi,.E - - I --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2,340,151 675.631 70 1.5a5.08 73,08. a97 - - - - - - - - 5.408 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 7- - - - 2,L62.374 . 25, 365 271,230 226,977 ;77.12@ 329.739 40.335 IL ---------- *----- - 2.3,126 ----------- 0,173 8.5.7 2,',51 172,6@5 AZ,5.5 ----------- SITAA ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90.701 178 156,583 6.93- 6@5:4026 11 : 2 4 6- - - - - - - - - - - SK4:vAf 1,111,711 821 557 65 514 22.@" 3.. 7 41 4 1 0----------- V, 356,V57 8.740 ---------- 223,255 224,941 ----- ----------- ----------- W@,jTT,=, ... ------------------------ 6@2,315 ----------- ---------- -------- -- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- WRANGELL PAR301 ------------------------- %.@2).323 4355,015 71969 1.101 524.125 135-109 --------- "KANSAS ------ --------------7---------------- 31233,699 ------- 7--- ----7----- ------------- ------------ 895.296 2,261.603 79.800 CALIFORNIA CAR-?I%TE;?14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -344. 840 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRESCc%T CITY @&22^Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2U,3ci - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 257,562 15t 4 .597 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EL [email protected]:)C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -8 15: 4 1 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._"C - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -727, 74 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EST-;I 3-T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4,5C9,7521 -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WA', S-Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. J91,567 11 -53 933,30! 393,785. 9,421 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - q----------- 9"__. Aq3c ------------------------ 20,8;3-761 11,142.6% 6.124,6-3 1,221,169i 1,561,49@ [email protected]@ .253,5At -i53.541 LOS A%SE-ES -Ala@Q ------------------- 7- 25,919,3!7 10,462,766 3,347-5-7 .786.1211 5-272,@I' 453.557 522,197 574.29, 71,1:171 121:1,1@ --------- 417,744 ----------- 3.7"D ----------- ----------- OAKs4A. - - - - -:- - - - - - - 81. 77C 67 8 61,5@6,65'3 952.33; 1,667,42- 957. ,51 255, 9@8 2, * 32 Pcp@ A _%E-E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -584,C60 27 ,846 9 34 6 5 1.4D7 I S. 728 6,293 - - - - - - - - - - - .j, A.",I:ITT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 447,135 28.525 96. 625 - - - - - - - - - - - 35. 141 279, 421 7, 320 - - - - - - - - - - - ajc-:;@D @IIF9SZ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -14, 76@,122 3,431. , ! 7 3634.C45 5, 248, 471 3,133,'51 1.451. 153 792, 7CI 103, 773 SACR4r4!O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.346,aS9 91.27, 1. CC3,063 - - - - - - - - - - - 117. ; 4 1 118,912 9, 64 1 - - - - - - 511 lll@l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - - -2,,,1,111 411,1-,l 178, 72@ 677. 167 1,9S7 19@,441 - - - - - - - - - - - 12,531 s&M rRA:%-jsco .4,Qs:2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3, 7.3- C 71 913. 83 71.31 t.107 47. 576 S2 1 53' 9221337 656 - 122 4,Z31 SAM LL'15 0315P0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . 2 16 3e 5a53i:5? 239, 359 2 0 , 6 C q 259, 4.16 2 9 , ? 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -I- - - - - - VENT0A 38OR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1, 7.19,862 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CowytcTICUT 8qT3C,S'JlT SAQ3:@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3,295,195 786. 251 50,624 1;285,304 100,t2@ - - - - - - - - - - - 72,78. 14-W "AVE4 4A-,33R.: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -12, 054 '957 3,07-2^7 229.3C5 [email protected] 1, 435, 117 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jli,.i3 10jW LO%O@N WAR304 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4.573, 655 269, 721 - - - - - - - - - -2.275. 61, 1. 409, 265 6-4 599. 244 4. 1,0 11 01WALK -(A49:R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -779.9, 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 793,Oto - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I SYA@F340 NARiCl - - - - - - - - - -77 - -7 - - - - - -7- - - -9E9.766 - - - - - - - - 7--7- - -7- - - - -aS?,6;5 95,691 - - - - - - - - - - - 4 , 3- - - - - - -!:l! DELLWIRE NEW CASTLE &NO VIC14ITY - - - -77 - - - - - - - - - - 12,oi6,269 4,652, 111 - - - - - - - - - -1,357,785 4. 0 76 , 011 1. 227,193 765,9@4 3. 264 W!L414@fcm R"Rao - - - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - - 3,665,843 1, la., 540 43,333 60.433 - - - "-7-- 2.564, 357 32, 449 3. 735 DISTRICT OF CDLU@HSIA -q. 1,41Z.631 1.412.631 .45141,IGTON KA.R3. - - - - - - - - -7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - -7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7- - - - - - - FLORIDA CANAVERAL -AQ9:R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3,211, 18c1, 664, 670 6,1@i 236,625 7.199 12,4U 1.294.6^161 - - - - - - - - - - CklqLOTTE .1;9:q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I! 497,C3j $97,74; J7?,11.3, 41 4 .ZC1 1, 4;5 776.',,@5 rE44ANDINA H423:; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1c, 75 - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - - -351.2 3 11,7!2 'I ----------- .7 4 , 5 2 ! @ 9. . ?@3 FZQT Pj:@C= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z4@ 02 7 '7@,5.1 - - - - - - - - - - - 4, - - - - - - - - - - - JACXsz"%'qT,,5- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14. J@.,43dt 5. 1, 7. 70@21 4 , - 5 474:! 9 75 . - 1- 11'. i 1633 .4 4 21 17 5 , 2 3 5 1 - - - - - - , .'_ . 10 4 : 11 1,!.:, 471 4 3 3 1 - -1 3;@5 51 Il 975@ 14.!@3 1434' 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - A . . . . . . .i t,Cg?,2 - 757,@4: 2,6.1 20 a5l 1 2 @' 5 6 41 A.A:I Ty i @'s :q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - zd- 2 0 6 l31, .77 97z.!32 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.33 '-:57 966, 4 s. 6g; ,I I ;1 11 :1 .1 11 , 6 5 1 27;. - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - 3. 718, 1 - 43 '. 9 ,9 56. 4 . 1. Z 1951. 121 4 3 f 3 1. . . . . . _a rev@ rS, - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - '.5, 7 43, 3 711 .5,14-@l 261,15:; - - - - - - - - - - -J., Z's 6 4 :7 4'. PET_ Si,,^. J.'6, 354 ,! @z - - - - - - - - - -153 . 367 - - - - - - - - - - -2 5 23 : 5 2- - - - - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - - 4@' 9 -.3, !:'. 1..'12 , 591 t2,443-127 14.321, 5 3 : 7,240.!31 9. 22'. 422,2$. 24 1, 247 Ts-la .443- EE:).'4 ISLANC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -331, !92 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GeoqCl A 1q,JNs,f!:4 WAZO:R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -11955,799 1-35,445 31,123 2 2".9 1 . 7 4 5 2-.243 22%, 5 56 292,5!1 SA11.11A"l K'16:1-- - - - - - -I- - - - - - - --- - 9. 098 . 6 71 4,251.,9"1 1.464, 124. 1.962 41.,l 441, 362 159,611 375.@,@ 49.,.9!9 CA111: - - -::-::-: I -30,272 la I :_:: IANaEas POINT HAQS" . 41a-,22'. 902 - - - - - - - w^ wWJ0R. HA.111 - - - - - - - - - - 2A.619 363le 51 724 47 174 01 278 sy TYPE or Tasrric kot 4EP-RTED. TADIt 3--CO%t'ERCE Al SEtACIED PORTS EXCLUDING CREA?- LAKLS POPIS. CALENCAll VEAR 1974--.0'411'AUED (IN 7045 Of 2,G00 POU%DS) Fc'1j1cN D-ESTIC poar TOT&L CCA TWISE L%TER';kL Irpon's EXPORTS LOCAL RECEIPIS skjp-E-@rs qccFfPTS smjp@E%Ts "AWAII-(CONTINQFol MONOLUL@; HIP304. t)A@Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.556.891 1,593.924 75021 3.877.922 2, [email protected] 73 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9'atq 932 1(, 21.1al 5,541 60 531 j;7:141 116 :: ------- ] ----- 29 1* " 36 6 5 : 9 ,9, 2 5 ,37 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- IR @'RIAI I II NAR , K A@j ":_: ----------- J50,495 IC.372 ---------- 17211.53 197'@3- 22 ----------- ----------- PEARL .449GR. OA.U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 55J,27i ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----- 7----- ----------- ----------- 140 t ANA mou@ IV E RMON - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3.562,966 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.761 fiAc. 125 2,960.376 - - - - - - - - - - - KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.172,141 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.278 - - - - - - - - - - - 7. 611 4ti 403,34a 156 10 4 LOUISIANA 8004 no-ic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -59,126,282 12,427,379 7,659,65ql 1,721, 713 5. 964 1 66 s 11 17,315, 5 75 81"cs" LAK6C, AqLES C:ALCISIEU RIVEP A'@O PASS7- lt'@64.654 2,254,374 1, , 73, 991 4@5,759 2, 178,65 ' 7.1%@!72 2,3@3. 42; 196 .565 LAKE PP3410ENCE - - - :- 75, 257 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - is!'!62 - - - - - - - - - - - -------- :-:-: --- ------ - 169.@Qy 13,536,5.5' 37.1e!1^92 2,3;8.1'5 14,7C6.997 45.679,732 NW0ALEA45-: 144,j 23.4;;, @!6 4 2 35 15 MAINE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,153,52C 599, 316 - - - - - - - - - - 475,!62 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7a,342 - - - - - - - - - - - IOORTL4@0wtR 13q- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -27, 606, 174 22,791, 223 16 7 3 6 , 7 t 2 a ? 4 . 16 5.3@3 1 155,543 SEAqSPC4T HARBOR - - - - - - - - - -7- - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,216. 294 913,269 12.229 175, 026 108.14@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7,54., PAPTL'ANO f1ALTf"ORE.HAQB3R ANO CHANNELS - - - - - - - - - - - 59,991,066 25,231,358 12,175.867 6,265,547 2, 236, 04 4 5.0'10.235 2.597.441 5.652.569 MASSACHUSETTS 254.136 - - - - - - - - - - - 25 1 '6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------- -: ---- ----------- "'3 7!3 1,LL qj ER ---3@; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,122. 2.3@a,1771- 115 "E. r.!q*.Av5-; - - - - - - - - - [email protected] 6@, 763 1771zoo @0:502 39, 4452 18 25.33@ : LY-"T-i WIF33:z ( INCL -473;r-4 PLV@OUT41-- 264. 47Z 2%7 3'.2 3 , 349 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.1ij . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - r3-4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25, 72!,q@5 3777 521 119 12,2,,5,;i2 J.059.17;, 362 - - - - - OR OF, 125TO a .: 1,174:38,3 SALE" 63R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2,030, 773 X.340,94q - - - - - - - - 677, 934 7,5582 5- - - - - 4 33 MINNESOTA ?'S2e'96! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M2!, 632 1 , 737, 336@ - - - - - - - - - - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,143,251 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PA L----- - -- ---------------- -- ------ ----------- 2.615,574 2,457,6771 ---------- 4ISSISSIPPI ILOXI mkQ304 -------------------------- I.E21,557 ----------- ----------- 275 5,6211 6!2 1 A:_ RE %-F ------------------------------ 2,427,-l -- ----------- ---------- 1,255 -2 9.31 ULFPOR T 14AR-04 ------------------------ ---------- ----------- E ,, , d21-24 49!.7:C 235,47-'. 69.@11; 50 ------------------------------- 1,162,815 ----------- ---------- I ----------------------- 42',J-5' 741 56@: ------------ PASCA@;,-J@_A HAr3oll ---------------------- 13,,73,1531 1,742.7- 1. -fl 1 121,1,3 .6@ _1,823,552 .... 947,9391 2,413,!--t I,"- 4.447:7@ 1 - ----------------------------- 2,654,131 ----------- ---------- ------- 11,351 missuRf :OqRr or ---------- ----------- ----------- 0:&"S@s3ctry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,'14,91 6- - - - - - - - - - - 1 215,';1- 579 0 TFETR-P LIT&4 ST. L0415 - - - - - - - - - - 21,662,11 6- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,807 13.141 6. S 43. 3',7 13, 754.j3, NEW "A4PIHIRI PQRrS43jfH IIAQ304 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 , 36 4 , 2 9 C I . a 56 , 3 45 7 1 00'4 , 6 C 1 249.72, - - - - - - - - - - - 53,6@9 NEW JERSEY PwFE4@ i 1,464, .2 3 . 3 7 2 . 7 A 5, 13 . 5 11 i Dic-S 'E'-@ I- , 8 5 2 , V4 1 2 44 1 ,793@ 3,212.1":1 16 '49. 1.9 -- - --------------- bu-S-1 '7 @!@; :T;r:: --------------- 29 5;3136..; 62,9!5 4 , . 7 9 , - 5, 73t, 7' ; 3. 414, 5, 4!4, :7 1'; Z5 .4A-12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1'0 Is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -NEd YCqK - - - - - - - 54. . 26 - - - - - - - - - - - J Q0@1;:@ - - - Z56 42- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pc4t J--1;4 -3@; -------------- . .- - , !! 3 . ! t 42. - - - - - - - - - - - - o,r jr -L3-." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a-- 26.1; 4.741:1.1" t - I Z 5 t 1: 1 ;CR rC rE- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 5 1 . t t i . 6 3 7' 7 . 2 1 22,65;.'.2't 6.2!1 s-.. 4 i 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 i ell --: - - - - - - - . . . 37 . 7 tj --- - - - - - - - - - - - T -1 144 zsq - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- rONMA:E Gy IT'i IF TQ1rrlC: 43T RE-OAt'-2, 7AILE 3-COA-ERCE 'AT SELE:-.ED P@RTS EXC041ht GREAT LAIS PORIS, CALENCAq YEAR jV74--CDAd1j4UEO 41M TONS C@ 2,00.' M;%:S11 DO-ESTIC PORT TOTAL IKPQRTS EXPORTS CCAST61SE t 2 CA L RECEIPTS S-1P 711-IT E:zl. Ts S.:1-E,TS N3R-4 CAROLINA A. 3"512,683 ----------- OnE.EAD CITY*AAQBDQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j 171.14C - - - - - - - - - - - R91393 112.793 1 PrQT Or [email protected] - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 4.71 8 . ;8 1 2.2.744 1.497.3c2 112 . 73' 1 z-t .52 1. V6.273 36.781 owto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.633,459 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.5t2 - - - - - - - - - - -6.237,129 2. 43719S6 C*EGCN CO2S 9 &,v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 1411 5.467o4Z2 658.34.1 3631i2. 2 63 1_69.75$ CaiGC, S,Oj;@ (%.,.,4 P,'PTLA@@ ILPS:R) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4, 0 3 5- - - - - - - - - - - X.1 777 P-QY CASTCp A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2, 213 754 59, 356 1d3 9 5 t3.6.1 IC1.35. -4 98 1 : 3 2 A . 2 5 2 PC V T 20, 17 8 5 5 2,2-4,918 6 . a 2 115 53,2.'9,61Z 245 , 7-.1 3- 1.994. . 1 9. T I L42AY W -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - - - 365,251 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 362,26! 1 1 @, I., I 19 x 3! - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - TAzVIAIA 3AY A" Z. .Aq 0_, q- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 319,250 - - - - - - - - - - - 176,220 - - - - - - - - - - - 151421 6.463 171,146 - - - - - - - - - - - PENNSYLVA41A AL12UI--& R:-STEP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6 , 1! 8 , 4 4- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ts S., A2352 ""Ili C @a '72 i 2 3 77 13,: A.-ST= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 - - - - - - - - - - A - - - - - - - - X:t. - - - - - - - - - - - 823 14 5, 5 3 Q5 , ; 9 7-,7 2,231,!'.' 2, 2, @t! 2. 6;2. 4 i A . 21; @,; @DCK AND - - - - -- 2 5 9,51.4 PEW. @A4,1 AND V:::417, - - - - - - - - V.173, 296, 6,E6,-5al 245,7e9 21 7 12 125.1 2 36 35-. - - - - - - - - - - - ;239 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 59115, 31.112,2,0 6,C21,79, 7 , 5331 2 1 - . 5 A 2,1 911, 616 PH IL AD Z@,- W! A @A :1 2, 4 3 11,2;@,25! P I YJ S3 --- q- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9,6C4o 267 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. IS', !@S 2. 2!1. 3 53 212,;;a P RT F Z 781.;!5 ----------- 00LAI T3K - ELIZASET@ ------------ 9.1,94,22 ---------- ---- ----- ----------- - 7--------- 8-7"1837 RHODE ISLA40 PPOVIDE4,.:E AlViR AND WA03CP - - - - - --- - - - - - - 3.856,215 2,246.19B 369,692 5.399,46-, 368,607 1M3,373 309.350 59.587 SOUTH CAROLINA C-AQLESIO?4 WAR3CR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8,992, 563 3.11?,711 1, 1 c 2C 7 23.076,5,0 358, @5- 2@7,392 795 , S- 4 10.526 C EoqGET3.h A4Aq310 (*@Ihyi@ SLY) - - - - - - - - - - 1,619,9ab 170 .522 213,7C6- 317.216 19,53, $37. 4 36 1,, 1 7 4- - - - - - - - - - - TENNESSEE CH! TA@J:GA ------- ---------------------- 1.796,77C ----------- ---------- ----------- - T 1.105 11719.179 a6.4861 ----------- I- -- - - - - - - - - - - 357,e.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 35, 9 17 21, - - - - - - - - - - - - w--------------------------------- 11,06,773 ----------- ---------- 9,791 43, 9.2-.3.7-.1 41 'ci 4 - , I ;'- @- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,5!3 5% 2 ! 7 PORT Of 14.AS4ViLLE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.9-6,914 - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2. 7@3,@ib 153. i- - - - - - - - - - - - TEX&$ E A V 4 a It y- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 D 3 1 a S 6253 9 8 4 , 2 3 21 e 611.376 11,977 12 3 0 6 . 6 5 1 I ' ' 472, 573 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z.836:55! 4 7 5:2@j Ca A ,,, A.-;1-22@ - - - - - - - - - - - 2, 8 6S 5 41- - -- - - - - - - - - DR. is ISTI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I - 2574 597. 736 5 77, 2589A1, 5". 1@5 141 5- -.4* F-P A, 12- 1 1 1:"!:1 -:"2 REET-P;:l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6.@Qd. 941 4 7 4 6'1 @722. '42.4;41 ?'2 55 I -'"' 9 @ 9,5:@2, CCALYESTLN "AN';EL) --- 760. 17 11 A ,! I @, z - - - - - - - GILV 7 @:2 7 9952 2 31 55 2 1 Is 2 ESTIN `10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , @ @ 1 :, 63 57 73 ;2 - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - 72 Q, T1 I -1,ST,1, S-1- C-A-Ct 11 1 ;1 -13 9 P. 762 - 7 11 V-'i .2- 233 633 9, %51 6@- 13, 6@3, 4,;, 4 1 5 AT AAS.IP C@ANNEL - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 4:; :. '5 A 3. 927, t 4 -- 2 ; 2 :115 t 5, 2- - - - - - - - - I 12 7 1: ! ? - - - - - - --- OR - - - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ,3 ' .,'6@ 1 . . . . - - - - - - - - 3@5 - - - - - - - - - - - AD 4T AqT@t;l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 , 435 3. 41,7,12tj J.@34,J;7 3 @2. 27 S.3T-1F @ASS -1a7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 3;G,37;1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.2@1 7A 22 A213 - - - - - - 51C,C54 5.0;'72?l 9 '. 3; 4 ,9 ,- ,. -. Z, -, -5 3' TEXAS :III ttE..S ::T@ C-%%@L) - - - - - - - - - 2c, -51, ;771 2,5.4,359 457.07@1 5 T R . . . . . . . VIC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.IJ5,92i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -335,Vt 2. 3. 5 35 - - - - - - - - - - - VERMONT BUQLI%rf3N HIP304 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 555,953 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 555,953 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14A1-9TR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 55 BC4 017i 2.0,; V;^ 547 .61-@ 3. 075 .5-11 5,,141, fis!,A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I: _s: 122@ 97,272@ 37 2.5, 5 - 9! 3 2 5: - - - - - - - - - - - 64 .t 6 1 P:4T E.0-i -,c S- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 172 0 6& 4. 1 .1 4 d7 9. 3),z2 33. 7 d -. 2. 7.;.3371 .3 .7 15 PORT -f 41CHIONC-: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A1 73,31, 23 .427 2, 7 3 41- 1. 1@712131 33.;l - - - - - - - - - - WIS-114STOM 'A A%1.-OqT:S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,971, !251 1 97, 767 zi1 72 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9@ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A , , : A , :7 -", -1 ,3. 61-1 248.1-@, 11, -LLII@@A all -4-5. et..; 1-2 2,7-1-! jb@ :.,:I ...j. ?:., .:, - -53 ls@ 2:iE - - - - - - 3 2 '.: 15.! 616.j:, 1 1. -2 ,4 1 if 2t2, @ 1 EYE;---tT A- --'4 1% - - - - - - - - - - 3.A2@152 2,@,d 2 5515. !2-1 512, s 2 ri C ---------- ------------ ------ -Y I L- ------------ ---------- ------- NE - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.35! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4%3:L:S -1Q5 1; - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 !!a 1;2 . 4 73, 7@Sc 11;d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - D, - A - A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 3 2S:z 7 31 .1 - - - - - - - 3, 2!j - - - - - - - - - - S. .571 4;1,7i I I ;-5 :64' 5--;; A 4 T- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7, I " " ; :1" 7 :-, @ 1 5- 7 Car 61ti 11 '. I , , AIC U i A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 114 72 5' 1 -2 @@5 76;A 14. :. 126 @b 5 91 4;11 ac.Z,j 4 J-@; PVT Soo @06::q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3j3301i 211 -ses 51.895 16. 7%5 - - 757.6 6 94. 117 - - - - - - - - - - - T&BLE 3--COMIERCE At SELECTED PORTS ExCLUCIhC GREAT LAKES PORTS. CALENC'Aq 1EAR 1174-104TINVED. Ith T04S Of 2,000 POUI@Sj r0RE JQ% clwcsy Ic Pon r TOTAL COAST6tSE WERNAL 1HPORTS EXPORTS I LOCAL 14CCEIPTS SH!P-E4'S Q@_E:pys I S@:P-E%Ts NASH1IifCTON.(C34rj%UEOj SEATTLE 4AQS'R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -14.251,987 3.670,.43 2' 1. 776.318 1,645.AbA 3'[email protected] 1. 317,353 414.G66 2.176,357 3:111,258 TACO"A 4ARS04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7,600,030 165,595 435,93J 93.39* t.C,6,512 446, 616 224,465 'WEST VIAG1141A truflittNGTO4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -12.020,612 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?15,641 11.3n,554 13.417 PUERTO RICO HATAr-JEt @'&RaO-4 --------------- --------- 308.116 143.s89 3,257 57,973 5.9,* 9! 15-3 - --- ------- PUiCV .449:0 ---------------------------- 960,568 47t,994 119,484 62,721 231,5@- 41,231 6:4 IIA% JuAld 14AR804 ------------------------- 11,904,669 4.2^,3.171 01,204 4.450.714 1.645,94% 742.511@ 3CO.313 2,889 VIRGIN ISLA%CS CWRtSrtA'.STED 4AQ80R. ST. CROIx - - - - - - - - -542,77 68 2 3901 279:42! 155:'6:! - - - - - - - 7 9 5 19 7,1 241 93 241 3 ST. TOO-45 HAR3CQ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 71 1 7 0 4-COMmERCE AT SELECTED P24TS 04 THE G4E&T WES, C&LE40AR YEAR 1274 (1h %NS or 21013 POU'. .S) Ic-ESTIC rcREIaN PORT TOTAL .Mpcqys 5 Lei AS -ISE CA40114 OVEqS@15 ICIERSEIS QECF! T$ :..s ILLINGIS -------------- 45'"S'S79 1,375,876 aIst5l,5621 1.075.715 11,06.,406 4.M.564 7'Qf3 52,485,21, FORT or MIC&' 474.335 .......... .......... .......... 60 ---- ----- ---- --- AUKEC03CN4R3oq ------------------- ---------- 474.1 ---------- ---------- 175 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- -- --- ---------- 04 ------- ------ ---------- ,ua%s A-A'E'@A' .'z2a &.03.763 63.69 "112,431 IC2,705 4.9a2 5,331,435 117,9771: ---------- ------ - 33,012 Ie A'ac ----- -- I ------ .......... --------- --- ---------- ---------- .A4.;ajR_: 11.1 ".6" '66 - ---------- ---------- IIA4011A 17.q.4,765 2.213 a155,931 ---------- ---------- 4,759.422 3.342.d73 "tCKIrA% % &ST ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- A---------------- '0"239 ---------- ---------- --------- ------ --------- ---------- R;Z ----------- ---- ---------- -------- E 3,Cf2,1@i 7L.323 ---------- 39,456 -------- 459,1cl 2,3I2,'ld C CAL ------- --- ---------- ---------- - -------- --------- ----------- :------ --- ----------------- ------ ------------------ ---------- ------- ------ 1'!52 61-I 1A------------- - ----- ... ......... At-, P 32,7111 ---------- 1---------- 917331 47 IR :@ ---------- ---------- ---------- 411 ';1 '75-,577 ---------- ---------- ---------- .CO4,9 5 4Wj'%Or-4iEN -A@8c'A*@C G I- kCLLANO -49C4 -------------------- 3te'8)@ I -- ------- ---------- ---------- -- 11 ------ 365.71q ------- ---------- -------------------- 72 Lutf@c':' ------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 653.4,5 ----- ---- ---------- --------- 135 251'71@ 336..1351 ----- ---- ---------- ---------- i 24 ------------ 3------ ::-: ---------- -- ---------- ---------------- - ---------- - ----- - ---------- 1.:35'q3' - ---------- RYS ---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 5'1.'t3 ---------- --------- --------- .......... ----------- -------- - VC!!LLE:'A 2.5! 6 4.926 2.361,)33 117'e, - ---------- i---------- ---_----- ------ -------- -- ----------- ------------ ------------- I---------------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ---------- -- --- ------------------ --------- ---------;-------- ;- ---------- - __ __ ;1 1 -:: ------ "4_ 3ca.ct8 11,855 -5 119al 212.2 -- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------- . . ...... __; ------------------- A32"12 - ---------- - -------- - ---------------------------- ---------- --------- ------- p0q? I.JLj%O ------------------------ I---- 1 7_4l 1'[email protected] 11'11:'538 165,35,1 'e3,225i22,34t,3!l 57,,!2! .9.72.@ ---------- 2. P04t C1 CET. 2:@ S: ;5. 3.Ila 3-------- ---------- ------------ 43 3--------- -------- pA@SO@5 IS'E xgf ------- ------ 6-?! 3117116@ ---------- I-------- --- -------- - - -------- 3,.5:,2 --------- St. CL114 ------------------------- 14 , 70 - ------- ------ ---------------- ---------- ST ---------- 133,013 ---------- 133 -------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------- 1--- 4------ ------ ---------- ------- ---------- - --------------------- ---- -------_------------ i ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ISE CITY AROIR -------------- ---- - -------- ------- - ---------- 4.05.15t PIMMESOTA -ERIGA --9,,q ------ 162.88 2,746.415, 2-15,.5,7 --------- CULUT4 ;,SJ 702@ c109,649 2 All,'553 32,671,781. 126 .2,5.3 - ------------ --------- ----------- ---------- ------------- ------ ---- - ---------- :----- ------- 3IL111 Y: ---- -------------------- :'1:4'11 ----- --------- --- II'll "S " 11; @: -------------- '121, ---------- two W1131.1 tAG,E GA Y) ------------- 1-76,1,50 ---------- ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- new YORK '2@!' IZI 31 1..111 7,11el ------ 52,266 ---------- ---------- - OSWEGO wa,,434 --- ------ :OAT or au-rAlo --- ----- ---- ---- '2 0362 8J.'J91 il'q.i4.L12,1Z@1 35C.41:1 ---------- (CoAiLavrEl Wkad@R ------- U9.866 2 5.A9r ---------- --- --------- --------- ------- OHIO 25 q6.11 -- ------ ---1---------- ----------- ---------- AS-TAqULA AA914 ------------------- t3.6-2 1. c:6'c7'1 1.2.911 3,C25.f5'j s,4.4'3!jj ---------- q.732 5C6,273j I^i'7s5A 7-.: 9'j'152 ----------- ------- 2, @. 7; 4_2t2 eLE'F'.A15 I;a ------------------- Z..93 :JI:33 * 1 H. e.tld,'35; 2,:4',9-3j ---------- ------- - ------------_------- ........... ------- ^---------------------- -------- i----- - I 5,231 --- ------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ..Ajcq: 6.11 --------------------- --------- --------------------- - ---- ----------- ----- - -- ----- --------- ---- ---------- i ---------_------- -------- A--------- 41. .6 ---------- :-------- 1.1 111,1,4 11',111 111,11, 1,111,111 1'.011,171 ---------- i---------- 21 06973 .'Rajq - ---- -------------- 1j,556 P[%.STLV.-IA ------------- - ------ 913.157 14Z.1.9 11.31. zl.zjo 4.1.1 78 - ---------- ---------- *--------- ---------- ISCONSIM ------ ---- 37j.2!l! ----_--------------- -------------- ------ 3,8.3 -- ----------- ---------- ---------- - ----- I, ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- 21i 0:1, ---------- L.t;! A; ...... ....... .. ....... ---------- -i,4 ------- Vi'41 I---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ---- --- ...... ---- I .!'.%', ------------ ..... ----- ........... -t 21111.:,.; ----------- ---------- 46, .. ...... .. ...... - ------------------ ---------- ------- YC44A-ii Of TYPE Of tft&rflt ICT RENZ4TE3 Regional ConcerAs There are several kinds of regional concerns of interest to coastal planning. Two of these are found at the.extremes of population density. Low Population Densities In coastal areas of low population density the seaport may be the major employment center of a considerable region. Plan- ning decisions adversely impacting such a port will have dis-, proportionately wide repercussions. Higi Population Densities Seaport concerns arising in highly industrialized and/or urbanized areas relate to the substantial degree of overlapping of various political entities and jurisdictions. Such major port areas as urban and industrial estuaries remain confronted with the same social and environmental con- straints followed in less complex regions, but with fewer co- ordinated developmental policies in which'port development occupies an agreed-upon level of importance. In such an area, port developmen t decisions on a decentral- ized and purely local basis under which.priorities vary involve .a substantial niuub,.@@r of Federal, State and local approvals with public hearings, permits, environmental assessments and the like. *These'steps add to project cos,ts, but more importantly they involve excessive delays, denying the project on a timely basis. Properly d.eveloped in an objective way, coastal zone man- agement plans for such regions could be an asset to port activity. Such a plan would recognize that a port is an urban and indus :' trial center whose coastal zone management goals do not equat@ej with those of an ocean beachfront. Swimming, water skiing, fish nourishment and bird sanctuaries may not necessarily be compatible with port activities and should perhaps be stressed elsewhere, though not necessarily excluded where it is sensible to encourage such activities within the port area. In this.sonse the coastal zone management process would set goals structured to the realities of the different sectors of the zone. /12 Migrations and Growth Dove 1. o rmlent s In another regional context, planning criteria should recognize that the coastal areas of the United States are under the continual impact of change, as the nation continues to de- velop in a fluid manner. Coastal re-, ions simply cannot be treated in a static sense. Significant examples are: Population shifts. Continuing mGvement of population to the South and West must be considered-.in terms of its.long range impact upon ports and shipping. Industrial shifts. Continuing movement and development of industry must t)e considered as affecting coas-tal planning. Some recent examples are: -Migration of textile industry to the South Atlantic states Development of the petrochemical industry in the central and west Gulf Coast. Development of export markets. for U.S. minerals including: North Carolina and Florida phosphate. Western coal and ore via Pacific Coast ports. Eastern coal via mid-Atlantic ports. Petroleum Import trends including: Alaska pipeline impacts upon Pacific Coast ports. Impacts of offshore port encouragement by Gulf, Coast States. Ore import trends and impacts on-all coastlines. Primary metals industries of the Great Lakes. Su-ch existing or emerging regional port impacts require careful evaluation in the development of plans by individual states. Local- Concerns. Concerns of the local port community in coastal zone plan- ning are those of the consumer, port employment, and port eco- nomic impacts. Consumer concerns. Consumer concerns relate to large poris 'in* highly urban-' ized surroundings wherein the city.in itself is a major con- tributor to the import and export pattern of the port as a. localized,hinterland. In these instances-there is a close re- lationship, built in, as between port services and production and consumption by the population base. Restrictions on devel- 6pment will impact the consumer. Employment concerns. Employment concerns have already.been alluded to under "National Conce*rns". From the localized standpoint the port as employer is profiled in the accompanying Table entitled Survey of U.S. Port Area Employment Dependent on International Trade and Waterborne Transportation". Indicated.is a port oriented work force in excess of one-million persons on the ocean seaboards, -who could be adversely impacted by development- al restrictions. Economic 1.rnpac,t Concerns. Cohsumer values and employment are results of the ability of the seaport to generate economic input. There have been various exercises in the measurement of seaport economic im- p.--,.t, probably the most ividely recogiiized being "The Economic Impact of the Port of Baltimore to Maryla.,,-idll, done for the Maryland Port Authority (now Maryland'Port Administration) by Stanley J. Hille and James E. Suelflow for the Department of Business Administration of the University of 'Maryland. So," e principal findings were: A ton of general cargo (non-bulk) leaves more than $32.00 in the economy of the port area. A ton of trans-shipped bulk cargo (moving through the port) leaves $7.69 in the economy of the port area. The processing (in the port area) of a ton of port dependent primary metals uts $27.43 into the com- m ity (import ores, etc . un The shipping out of finished products from port de- pendent primary metals leaves 1,116.62 per ton in the community. In the same fashion, other port.dependent raw ma- terials imported (chemicals, fertilizers, gypsum, sugar, refractory products, etc.) leave $41.85 per ton in the community. The annual tonnages of these commodities being known quantities the researchers were able to show a primary im- pact of $631,000,000 generated by activity of the Port of Baltimore. Using a standard multiplier of 2.5 the port's economic impact was rated at $1.5-billion or 11.8% of the Gross State Product of Maryland. The general cargo impact figure was constructed as follows: Vessel Disbursements $ 15.281 Crew Expenditures .557 Inland Transportation 9.6-85 Insurance and Banking .36o Harbor Services 3.'360 Shipbuilding and Repai@r 2.329 .Government Expenditures .757 TOTAL PER TON 32.329 It seems clear that in the economic sense an enormous responsibility descends upon the coastal zone planner in the avoidance of planning rigidities which would adversely affect this kind of dollar input. On the other hand, there is in coastal zone planning an opportunity to develop the full con- sideration of the seaport as a coastal zone asset through well- ordered co:-,ipatible planning. nLiKV- A M, ;;A7-"@=41 V.A.'-'SrQTkTAjION "-rAL STEVEDORES :4.056 2,344 4,407 2,609 466 625 .91 14,598 RFCISTERED IXNGSHCRL%TN 34,930 6,852 12.390 1%371 3,113 4,277 is n,948 CAS mus 2,395 3,339 7,010 7,150 2,103 1,916 5 24,116 TOWIWI 7.199 594 8,305 1,227 1'"s 799 19,613 IOTA 454 305 480 159 129 54 1,58L 11,529 602 1,724 1,377 279 1,891 17,403 CUSTV.5 BRCKZRS WAREHOUSE"EvIl 61 EXPORT 8,ow 2. Z50 5,495 8.595 35 3 1,067 25,626 PACKERS 23,922 7,323 580 1,010 130 653 14 33,6 A4. MARINE INSURANCE 3,049 200 $Is 1,360 277 255 5 5,964 MARITIliE @QU17@SNT 15,616 2,432 2,596 6,928 1,047 402 28 29,0.'+9 SUPPLY &' SERVICE slap cnYSTRUCTION 51,609 4,393 37,170 12,910 3,369 1,415 141 1111007 RE PA IBM STV4115FIlp co@42ANIZS 21,712 4,7n 7,933 8,825 2,347 459 46,005 LOC&L MOTCR CARRI.Ell 12,1.86 1,413- 2,407 13,690 815 2,068 18 32.397 OVLR-THE-RU,'Z 36,624 2.660 3,504 6.375. 1,248 2,026 - 52.'457 KOTOR CAI@,Rlr.RS RAIT-ROADS 30,381 945 6,391 2,100 458. 2,057 9 42,341 DOMESTIC -FORWARDERS 3.016 543 3,629 7222 161 381 8,452 EXPORT/LXPORT 56,593 5,131 2,426 7,061 21-.133 2,449 25 94,818 WHOLESALING. ETC. MARINE TERMINAL 3.195 1,020 2,447 1,884 715 418 46 9,725 CONSTRUCTION 61 MT%C. LOCAL & U.S. 45,293 2,587 5,746 3,058 I'm 2,580. 7 60,997 GOVERKItENT FORT AUTHORITIES 9,334 2.583 2,949 2,520 1.120 467 82 19'055@ FOREIr-N TRADE ZONES 113 3,500 8 33 23 3,679 CHk'! BZR5 OF Cl--XZRCE, 1.548 33 225 207 41 195 7 2.256 ASSOCIATIONS, ETC. CONSULTANTS 3,380 20 36 194 52 78 .3.960 TIDEWATER MY USTRIES 148.295 58,678 97,227 35,702 26.341 16,093 205 382.541 FOREXCH GOVEJUL%[ENTS .4,153 157. 310 3,703 100 263 8,693 mmm 1.190 752 2,665 8.838 80 338 13.363 540,238 113,335 218.878 148.613 66,971 42.996 1,081 , 1.136,162 Financial Concerns There are several seaport impacts not widely appreciated or known, but none-the-less highly significant to the United States. Seaport Contribution to the Dalance of Payi-iients- Because more than 90-percc-nt of U.S. trade is carried in foreign flag vessels, much of the @@32.00 per ton of general cargo economic impact is in the form of foreign funds being expended in the U.S. port area. Port services by U.S. sea- ports represent a significant factor in the U.S. Balance of Payments picture. -Customs Collection Customs collections on imports at U.S. seaports represent a substantial contribution to the Federal Treasury, being on the order of 3 to 4 billion dollars annually. 19 CHAPTER II Public Port Administrations of the United'States Port Administrations as Political Entities Although. port or- ganizations within any one state will -be similar because they are creatures of state law, no two.ports are identical, - and ports Nvill not be'equal in their input to Coastal Zone Manage- ment planning. Port Facilitv Investment and Growth: There is more price re- sistance in necessities than in luxuries, and return on invest- ment in transportation infrastructure is under constant pressure, Studies indicate an overall average return from port facilities between V/lo and 5%. This explains the withdrawal-of private enterprise and the growing predominance of authorities in pro- viding over 80% of U.S. postivar investment in facilities, successfully. Technolo. Even though port facilities are marginally self-supporting, this introduces business discipline, in co,mbination with the authority concept. This has produced a competitive climate in the port industry that requires public port agencies to have an alert and-continually vigi"lant manage- ment attitude. The result has been management professionaliza- tion and a delicately balanced and responsive national. port system, It' has become a, world mo(Jel and c-reater! strong trends -mong nations of more collectivistic bent. Checks, Balances and Disciplines: There are built@in disciplines Co_p:F6-@_e_H! -1;-37i7overbuila7 Ej. The benefit/cost catio test is a prerequisite to authorization of federal investment in channels. The local investment in facilities is subject to the market- place, - cowpetition and/or the economic analvsis underwriters require for the bonds used to finance facilities. Those fa- .cilities are also subject to the requirements for safety, security and environmental protection.. -20- Port Administrations as Polij,"ic al- Entities It has been noted that. the public.port agencies of the United States are entities of government. Virtually all are creatures of State government. Many of these entities derive their powers and obligations directly 'from the State as Depart- ents or special. Districts. Others are indirectly State con- trolled, powers having been passed through a municipality m or county, which may in turn create a port authority. Allowing for .state-to-state variation, the enabling leg- islation and related statutes1for autonomous port authorities generally have several common features. In many cases the non- autonomous State City or County ori afrency (all collectively 9 p C) referred to as "authorities" hereafter) also incorporates these same features: A public trust is created in the interests of commerce and navigation. A Commission is created for purposes of upholding the trust. The mariner of appointment of members of the Commission (usually citizens serving without compen- sation) by the governor or mayor is described as is the manner of ratification by courfeil or assembly. In some States (Orerron except for Port-land; CD Florida-except for Jacksonville,_Miami and Tampa; isolated examples in Texas) boar'd members run for office and are elected officials serving at token salaries. The Act autho,@.-izes the Authority.to do those things (build, finance, promote, develop) necessary to the public port enterprise and its objectives. .(There is custoi-@iarily in Authority statutes a power of eminent domain, giving condemnation authority as re- quired in the development of the port facilities. There are arrangements provided in the area of public @finance, authorizing the issuance of general obligation ibonds-under conditions of public.referendum; revenue 1@bonds under prescribed conditions; authorizing appro- priations from the public treasury; and outlining the manner of submitting budgets.. Many port authorities are empowered to retain their earnings for purposes of meeting obligations, includ- ing financing of capital improvements. Others return earnings to the treasury of the parent government and submit an arinual budget. -21- There are some regional patterns*as to types of port authorities. State Authorities predominate on the Atlantic Coast from Maine through Georgia with the exception of the City administrations at Providence, Rhode Island and Wilming- ton, Delaware. The Manhattan Island piers are administered .by the City of New York; and the City of Philadelphia admin- sters its piers through a public corporati.on.. State agencies in various forms apply for Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire aind.Massachusetts. Bi-state authorities, the result of com- pacts approved by the U.S. Congress, apply for the New York/ New Jersey port area other than the city piers; and for the Delaware River area. State authorities are responsible for port administration in South Jersey (Camden), Maryland, Vir- ginizi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The ports of Florida, A,,j-th*the exception of Jacksonville, Miami and Tampa are predominately navigation districts at the county level; Jacksonville and Tampa represent specially cre- ated port authorities, while the Port of Miami is operated by a department of the Miami "Metroll government.. The state agency applies for Alabama. The ports of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Lake Charles derive their authority from the Stafe of Louisiana. A state agency applies for the Mississsippi ports of Gulfport and Pascagotila' ' The ports of Texas derive their powers from the state through navigation . tD district-s at the county level. An exception is Galveston, operated under city auspices through a board of trustees,. City port commissions apply througliout Californ--ia, with the excepti6n of San Diego, at which there is a regional port district encompassing a number of comm'unities. The ports of Oregon and Washington operate on navigation district patte -'- s descended from the states. Great Lakes port authorities a re mixed, showing both city and state type administrations and@ special district authorities. -22- Port Facility Tnvestment and Growth Historically,- the total local public investment in port facilities had reached $,861,000,000 by 1941. /13 Since World War II an additional @3,243,093,526, predominately local pub- lie funds, was expended for.deepwater pier and wharf facilities (Jan., 1946 - Dec., 1972). More than one-third of the post 'fArar expenditure took place in the late 1960's - early 1970ts pe,riod, reflecting.the trade growth impacts previously out- lined.. An additional $1,484,450,440 ivas spent or committed for the period 1973 -1977, an increase over the 1966 - 1972 period. /14 Total investment by the local public agencies which com- prise the U.S. seaport system may be estimated today at approx- imately $'-billion. The funds have been drawn from, in descending order, bond issues (,general obligation.and revenue), reinvestment of earnings, local taxes, and appropriations by CD state and city government. -23- gical Responsiveness Technolo,.-, Again reflecting the responsiveness of the U.S. system, increasing trends toward specialized types of port facilities are shown in the following breakdown: /14 P'ercent of Total Investment 1966/72 1 Typle of Facility Conventional General Cargo 30% ($330@185,920) 23% ($332,282@996) Specialized General Cargo 39% ($4329553v410) 38% ($561,671,164) (Container, RO/RO, Bargeship) Liquid and Dry Bulk Cargo 31% ($352,889,996) 39% ($590,4969280) It is clear from the above that increasing amounts of capital funds are being spent by U.S. public port agencies, with added input from private industry, to assist in the objectives of high technology shipping. It should be-pointed out, however, that this is not necessarily being done at the expense of the conventional general cargo facility. The 23% figure for 1973/77 represents a dollar total in excess of the 30% figure for.1966/72. The percentage drop is because of the tremendous additional input for high technology facilities. Said in another way, the U.S. port systert) is flexible enough to respond to high technology,shipping demands without sacrifice to the conventional facilit'y. The latter remains the standard of the world, particul-ariy among under-developed. countries,'as confirmed by Panania Canal transit data and new vessel orders.* Y -24- Ch cks-,_ Balances and Di scij2lines The'relatively regular dispersal of deepwater coastal ports, and resulting population dispersal, owes something to federal/ local ship channel relationships in addition to market place control through competitive forces.- Ship channels and turning basins serving local public ports are a federal'responsibility and their development, and later improvement by. deepening and widening, are done by congressional approva*l.- A lengthy and arduous process of public input accompanies sucli a project. Central to the cono-ressional. decision is the economic impact statement.(ratio 0f economic benefit to the port area versus the cost of the channel). Obviously if the area is already being served by a nearby port, economic benefit becomes neg- ligible. Federal Project Steps. The principal steps of a federal project, which takes some 12 to 14 years from initiation to completion, ar-e as follows: Channel Pro ect Authorization. /15 a. Local interests inform their Congressman of.an improvement they desire, and request that Federal provision of the desired,improvement be 'investigated. Two courses of action 'are open to the Con- gressman. He may request the Senate or House Committee on Public Works to authorize a review o'f a-ny previous reports for tl-.c arc,a to deter- mine whether any modification in such reports would be advisable. If a review report is ap- propriate, the Comy-,iittee will adopt a resolution authorizing the Corps of Engineers to make the CD review. If no previous report has been made, the Congressman may introduce a bill in Congress to authorize the desired investigation. When passed the bill becomes authorization for the study. b. When the investigation is authorized, the Chief of Engineers assigns it to the appropriate Division Engineer, who refers it to a District Engineer for accomplishment. Following the re- ceipt of the directive and funds for the studies, the District Engineer, in cooperation with the local interest and other Federal agencies, begins the necessary engineering and economic investi- gations. A public hearing is held to ascertain the views of local people as to the e--\..tent and type of improvement desired and the need for the im- provement. After consideration of these views, and data obtained through field an ,d office studies, the District Engineer develops a plan of improve- ment believed best suited to the problem area. Estimates of 'benefits and,costs are prepared, and requirements of local cooperation*ai@e*determined. Local interest must indicate their support of the proposed improvement and their ability to meet the requirements of local cooperation. These data and recommendations of the District Engi- 4eer, including an environmental impact state- ment, are included in the report. A favorable recommendation by the District Engineer is largely dependant upon local acceptance and economic justification of the proposed project. c, The Division Engineer reviews the report, adds his recommendations, and transmits it to the Chief of Engineers. The report is referred 'to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors for review. All interested parties receive a p -61 i 11 u C notice that summarizes the findings and recommendations to the District'and.Division Engineers, and informs them that t.h.ey may pre- sent their views on the' matter to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. d. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors reviews the reports o-L' the District and Division Engineers, and considers any additional information received from.interested parties. The Board prepares its report, including recom- mendations, and transmits it to the Chief of Engineers, who prepares the report for submittal to Congress. Interested Federal agencies and Governors of affected States are given opportunity to comment on the recommended improvements. After consideration of these comments, the Chief of Engineers submits the report to the Secretary of the Army, who obtains the views of the Office of Management and Budget before transmitting the ireport to Congress. e. The House and Senate Committee on Public Works may hold hearings on the report with a view toward formulation of a bill including authori- zation of the recommended project. If the project is included in an authorization bill, enactment of this bill constitutes authorization of the project. -26- Channel Project Ap=opLiations. Funds for engineering design and construction of author- ized port projects are not provided by the authorizing act, but are supplied by subsequent appropriation acts. The procedure for obtaining the appropriation of funds is very,similar to the procedure outlined for authorization. First, the request is made .for preconstruction planning funds, which will be utilized to complete all required planning and detailed engineering prior to t@ ZD au,ard of the first major -contract. This fund request must be incorporated into a Presidential Budget and approved by Congress. Close liaison is maintained by the Corps with local interests through this process. Upon completion of preconstructi'on planning, the Corps makes a request for construction funds. These also must be incorporated into a Presidential Budget and approved by Congress through the process of Congressional Hearings. H.erc again, support by local interests is important in securing funds for a given project. Congress, of course, determines the rate at which funds will be appropriated and construction proceeds accordingly. The role of the local interests throughout this process is'critical, There are about 53 points in the authorization process where progress can be slowed or stopped, depending upon ,the interest, coordination and support given a project by the local interests. During the planning period, there are 20 more points in time -when the proposal is subject to the will of the p3ople. Finally, -there are IS additional time-points from the beginning request for construction funds until Congress actuallj makes the appropria.tion. Maii-tenance of Existing Projects Maintenance of existing projects to authorized depths is performed through an annual maintenance budget based on local =1 needs and processed up from District to Division to Chief of Engineers; thence through the Office of Management and Budget; and through the appropriate committees of Congress and finally, Congressional appropriation. Appropriation Totals. The all-time federal investment in ship channels since 1$24 totals about $,1-7 billion, about one-third of the -total of local investment in piers and wharves./16 Pier and 1,.'harf Project Steps. Like the federal channel, construction of pier and wharf facilities by local interests requires economic justificaticn and public approvals. Construct ion permits are required by the federal authorities including environmental impact state- ments. Economic Justification must be proven as follows: a. To the voting public if financing is to be t> tn- through a general obligation bond issue pledging the full faith and credit of a governmental entity; and to the bond market. b. Through appropriate local government channels and to the bond market if financing is to be done through revenue bonds pledging,indentified or gen- eral,port revenues toward debt service and retire- ment. c. To appropriate governmental entities respon- sible for budgeta 7-Y control if financing is to be from reinvestment of revenues. d. To the voting public in instances involving tax millages for developmental financing. The above. procedures are time consuraing, and complicated, including lengthy consultation with -legal firms, engineers, con- tractors`@' financial institutions and other spccialists. For purposes of bond financing a special gtudy involving feasibility will be made by a firm of independent 'consultants who will issue a repoirt on the project. Port Fac,litv Re!lundancv Under the series of rigid disciplines, checks and balances racited above, it is difficult to coaceive that any redundant port facilities could have made an appearance in the last half- century. Never-the-less local pride or political zeal has given birth to occasional exceptions. These are sooner or later seized upon as the ansiver to some new impact of world commerce and become productive. Redundancies also occur throu(yh obsolescense; piers and wharves so outdated in design that they no longer are a market_ able factor; and through major changes in shipping pat-terns. The outstanding example of the latter. was the temporary over- supply of pier space on the Pacific Coast following ' the dis- appearance of intra-coastal shipping during 11orld War II arid prior to the beginnings of the strong Pacific Basin trade flows of the last several decades. The question today is whether, in the face of the above constraints and the equally preponderant question of available funds, facilities can indeed be provided in timely fashion against projected demand. Permits for activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters (b) Laws requiring authorization of structures or work. (1) Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 401) pro- hibits the construction of any dam or dike across any navigable water of the United States in the absence of Congres- sional consent and approval of the plans by the Chief of Engineers and the Secre- tary of the Army. Where the navigable portions of the waterbody be wholly within the limits of a single State, the structure may be built under authority of the legislature of the State, if the loca- tion and plans or any modification thereof, are approved by the Chief of En- giners and by the Secretary of the Army. The instrument of authorization is desig- nated a permit. Section 9 also pertains to bridges and causeways but the authority of the Secretary of the Army adn Chief of Engineers with respect to bridges and causeways was transferred to the Secre- tary of Transportation under the De- partment of Transportation Act on Oc- tober 16, 1960 (80 Stat. 941, 49 U.S.C. 1165g(6)(A)). (2) Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the un- authorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States The construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, the excavation from or depositing of material in such waters, or the accom- plishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters are unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Sec- retary of the Army. The instrument of authorization is designated a permit or letter of permission. The authority of the Secretary of the Army to prevent ob- structions to navigation in the navigable waters of the United States was extended to artificial islands and fixed structures located on the outer continental shelf by section 4(f) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (67 Stat. 463; 43 U.S.C. 1333(f)). (3) Section 11 of the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 404) authorizes the Secre- tary of the Army to establish harbor lines channelward of which no piers, wharves, bulkheads, or other works may be ex- tended or deposits made without approval of the Secretary of the Army. Regula- tions (ER 1145-2-304) have been pro- mulgated relative to this authority and published at $ 209.150. By policy stated in those regulations effective May 27, 1970. harbor lines are guidelines only for defin- ing the offshore limits of structures and fills insofar as they impact on navigation interest. Except as provided in para- graph (e)(1) of this section below, per- mits for work shoreward of those lines must be obtained in accordance with sec- tion 10 of the same Act, cited above. (4) Section 13 of the River and Har- bor Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152; 33 U.S.C. 407) provides that the Secretary of the Army, whenever the Chief of Engineers determines that an- chorage and navigation will not be in- jured thereby, may permit the discharge absence of a permit, such discharge of refuse is prohibited. While the prohibi- tion of this section, known as the Refuse Act, is still in effect, the permit authority of the Secretary of the ARmy has been superseded by the permit authority pro- vided the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, under sections 402 and 405 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-50, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1342 and 1345). (5) Section 14 of the River and Har- bor Act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152; 33 U.S.C. 408) provides that the Secretary of the Army on the recom- mendation of the Chief of ENgineers may grant permission for the temporary oc- cupation or use of any sea wail, bulkhead. Jetty, dike, levee, wharf pier, or other work built by the United States. This permission will be granted by an appro- priate real estate instrument in accord- ance with existing real estate regulations. (6) Section 1 of the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 371; 33 U.S.C. 565) allows any persons or cor- porations desiring to improve any navi- gable river at their own expense and risk to do so upon the approval of the plans and specifications by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers. Improvemnets constructed under this authority, which are primarily in Federal project areas, remain subject to the con- trol and supervision of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers. The instrument of authorization is designated a permit. (7) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1344) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public -29- hearings, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites. The selection of disposal sites will be in accordance with guidelines devloped by the Admin- istrator of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army. Furthermore, the Administrator can prohibit or restrict the use of any defined area as a disposal site whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such areas will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies shell fish beds and fishery areas, wildlife or recreational areas. (8) Section 103 of the Marine Protec- tion. Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052, 33 U.S.C. 1413) authorizes the Secretary of the Army to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it in ocean wa- ters. However, similar to the EPA Ad- ministrator's limiting authority cited in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, the Administrator can prevent the issuance of a permit under this authority if he finds that the dumping of the material will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries or rec- reational areas. (9) The New York Harbor Act of June 29, 1888 as amended (33 U.S.C. 441 et seq.) provides for the issuance of per- mits by the Supervisors of the New York, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads Harbors for the transportation upon and/or dis- charge in those harbors of a variey of materials including dredgings, sludge and acid. The District Engineers of New York, Baltimore and Norfolk have been designated the Supervisors of these har- bors, respectively. However, section 511 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act (PL 92-500, 86 Stat. 816) pro- vides that the discharge of these mate- rials into navigable waters shall be regu- lated pursuant to that Act and not the New York Harbor Act except as to the effect on vavigation and anchorage. In addition, section 100(a) of the Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 32-532, 86 Stat. 1052) provides that all permits for discharges in ocean waters shall only be issued in accordance with the Act after April 23, 1973. Therefore, the supervisors of these three harbors will no longer issue permits under the authority of the New York Harbor Act, as amended, for transporta- tion and/or discharge of these materials. (c) Related Legislation. (1) Section 401 for the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act (PL 92-500; 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. 1411) requires any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in a dis- charge into navigable waters to obtain a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the Interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge orginates or will originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effuent limi- tations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construc- tion of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. (2) Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92- 583, 86 Stat. 1280, 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)) requires any applicant for a Federal Li- cense or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the State's coastal zone to furnish a certification that the propsed activity will comply with the State's coastal zone manage- ment program. Generally, no permit will be issued until the State has concurred with the applicant's certification. This provision becomes effective upon approv- al by the Secretary of Commerce of the State's coastal zone management pro- gram. (3) Section 302 of the Marine Pro- tection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052, 16 U.S.C. 432) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, after consultation with other interested Federal agencies and with the approval of the President, to designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of the ocean waters or of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters or of other coastal waters which he determines nec- essary for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas for their conser- vation, recreational, ecological, or es- thetic values. After designating such an area, the Secretary of Commerce shall is- sue regulations to control any activities within the area. Activities in the sanc- tuary authorized under other authorities are valid only if the Secretary of Com- merce cerifies that the activities are consistent with the purposes of Title III of the Act and can be carried out within the regulations for the sanctuary. (4) The National Environmental Pol- icy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) de- clares the national policy to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony be- tween man and his environment. Section 102 of the Act directs that "to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies, regula- tions, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and adminis- tered in accordance with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . in- sure that presently unquantified envi- ronmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in de- cision making along with economic and technical considerations. . .." See also paragraph (I)(1) of this section on en- vironmental statements. -30- (5)The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Migratory Marine Game-Fish Act (16 U.S.C. 760c- 760g) and the Fish and Wildlife Coor- dination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) and other acts express the concern of Con- gress with the quality of the aquatic en- vironment as it affects the conservation, improvements and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources. Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 transferred certain func- tions, including certain fish and wildlife- water resources coordination responsi- bilities, from the Secretary of the In- terior to the Secretary of Commerce. Un- der the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and Reorganization Plan No. 4, any Federal Agency which proposes to con- trol or modify any body of water must first consult with United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Ma- rine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and with the head of the appropriate State agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the affected State. (6) The Federal Power Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 1063; 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), as amended, authorizes the Federal Pow- er Commission (FPC) to issue licenses for the construction, operation and maintaining of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, and other physical structures of a power project. However, where such structures will affect the navigable ca- pacity of any navigable waters of the United States (as defined in 16 U.S.C. 796), the plans for the dam or other physical structures affecting navigation must be approved by the Chief of Engi- neers and the Secretary of the Army. In such cases, the interests of navigation should normally be protected by a recom- mendation to the FPC for the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the FPC li- cense rather than the issuance of a sep- arate Department of the Army permit under 33 U.S.C. 401 ed seq. As to any other activities in navigable waters not constituting construction, operation and maintenance of physical structures li- censed by the FPC under the Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended, the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq. re- main fully applicable. In all cases in- volving the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters or the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping in ocean waters, Department of the Army permits under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act, or under section 103 of the Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 will be required. (7) The National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 915, 16 U.S.C. 470) created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to advise the Pres- ident and Congrss on matters involving historic preservation. In performing its function the Council is authorized to re- view and comment upon activities li- censed by the Federal Government which will have an effect upon properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places. (8) The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) prohibits any developer or agent from selling or leasing any lot in a subdivision unless the purchaser is furnished in ad- vance a printed property report including information which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may, by rules or regulations, require for the protection of purchasers. In the event the lot in question is in a wetlands area, the report is required by Housing and Urban Development regulation to state that no permit has been granted by the Corps of Engineers for the development under Section 10 of the River Harbor Act of 1899. (9) The Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962 et. seq.) provides for the possible establishment upon request of the Water Resources Council or a State of river basin water and related land resources commissions. Each such commission shall coordinate Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovern- mental plans fo rth edevlopment of water and related land resources in its area, river basin, or group of river basins. In the event the proposed Corps of Engi- neers permits to non-governmental de- velopers or other agencies under section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Act may affect the plans of such river basin commissions, the per- mits will be coordinated with the appro- priate concerned river basin commissions. The same is true of Corps of Engineers authorizations to private persons or cor- porations to improve navigable rivers at their own expense under section 1 of the River and Harbor Act of 1902. CHAPTER III Coastal Zone Management and Public Port Development In a linear sense the, question of port development is not a large one among coastal planning elements. The ocean shore- line of the United States measured point-to-point at 100-ft intervals totals 93,653 miles /17. Developed seaport water- fronts occupy 1,650 miles, or approximately 2% of the total. /18 There appears to be ample dimensional latitude for planning for ports and port linked industry in a positive and construc- tive manner befitting the global, national and local concerns expressed in this discussion. In addition to dimensional latitude, there appears to be excellent opportunity, in terms of the environmental objectives of a balanced coastal plan, for a compatability-oriented ap- proach. Such an approach would identify harbor systems as vital elements of the plan provided for specified usages. Its objective would be rational port development in a positive and timely manner, as an alternative to the restrictive multi- jurisdictional case-by-case permitting which presently applies. Central to a compatible approach is an appreciation of the commercial port and accompanying merchant shipping operations as being of minimal environmental concern in their present pro- portional use of the coastal zone. Further that the economic disciplines previously described are sufficiently restrictive in themselves to contain future expansions to necessary minimums. It should be further understood that the harbor as an environmental concern due to degredation of water quality and contamination of bottom sediments stems not from its commercial shipping activities but from the seaport attraction for industry and populations, with resulting industrial wastes and sewage outfalls. It is suggested that this concern is essentially one of water quality control, and ought to be answerable to day-by- day regulation rather than to restrictive spatial conceptuali- zations which may impact merchant shipping and the port-linked industrial-base in a manner conducive to migrations. -32- Seaport Criteria in Coastal Zone Planning Employing a balanced approach will require the establishment of criteria for making and evaluating coastal zone management plans in relation to port development concerns. Despite the latitude for compatibility, the State-by-State variables are extreme, both in attitude and historic development, in addition to the uneven segmentation of the planning units themelves (State coastlines). A further consideration arises in the impacts of State plans on other States. The following suggested criteria have been carefully select- ed as planning and evaluation tools permissive of a balanced and rational approach to port development as an aspect of coastal zone management. CRITERION NO. 1 The State plan should identify its public port districts and their boundaries, and should further identify the legislatively constituted responsibilities of the respective public port agencies. The purpose of this criterion is for primary recognition of the local initiative aspects of the decentralized and competitive national port system. CRITERION NO. 2 The State plan should contain an authoritative assessment of future volumes of that portion of the nation's ocean commerce which may be expected to require the services of the State's port districts. The purpose of this criterion is to assure that planning involving ports is done from baseline data identified with the State's primary coastal responsibilities in behalf of the nation's ocean commerce. Under-planning or over-planning on the basis of State opportunism should be carefully avoided as artificially diversionary of the flow of commerce. The impact of such prac- tice upon other coastal states is obvious, as is the impact of such practice upon concerns previously identified as national, regional, or local. -33- CRITERION NO. 3 The State plan should contain an assessment by port agencies of its coastal area of future port development and expansion nec- essary to serve the traffic flow estimates and the extent to which increased traffic can be accommodated within the spatial resources of existing port districts. The purpose of this criterion is as follow-on to the base- data requirement set forth in criterion no. 2: and further that assessments of port capability be done by port professionals. Port capacity has so many variables as to defy precise measure- ment. It is geared to an irregular series of peak loads and involves the entrance and clearance of vessels and of inbound and outbound cargoes, the timing of which will be unscheduled in the operation of a public berth. CRITERION NO. 4 Nothing in the State plan should inhibit port development within established port areas including dredging, filling, and the making of land for marine terminal sites. To the extent that property is under the control of the public port agency, iden- tification of such property as being dedicated for port expan- sion should be included in the plan. The purpose of this criterion is to permit the fullest possible development of existing port areas as a response to growth demands. Further, to aid in the timely development of such areas through the dedication process. CRITERION NO. 5 The State plan should include, on an alternative use or a multiple use basis, identifications of alternative areas for future port development as determined by potential for deep water access and inland transport interface. The purpose of this criterion is for the long range accomo- dation of ocean commerce volumes in excess of the capacities of existing port facilities and to create future opportunities for local initiative and population dispersal as previously outlined by allowing new port areas to come into being as required. Seaports in Coastal Zone Plans Coastal zone legislation gives planners wide latitude as to how ports are to be incorporated in individual state plans. Al- I though these plans may take a wide variety of forms, they have a common objective of bringing activities in the coastal zoneo into compliance with standards compatible with the intent of coastal zone management. The Coastal Zone Manageqment Act of 1972 is not specific a- bout how such compliance is to be achieved. However, the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, has drafted guidelines to as-_ sist planners in evaluating whether their plans will achieve an appropriate level of compliance. These guidelines, or "Thresh- old Papers", examine compliance from seven different aspects. Based on that subdivision, comment is extended as follows: 1.Boundaries. In defining the boundaries of the Coastal Zone, the port district may be identified under Acceptable Ap- proachs as "Admisistrative", and also as. "Urban or Greatly Al- tered Areas" under "dependency of use upon water sites". 2. Permissable Uses. The Act specifies that ports are ac- tivities in the Coastal Zone of regional benefit "greater than local concern" and "uses in the national interest." Hence prior- ity designation is warranted. 3. Geographic Areas of Particulat Concern. There are few alternatives in port location. Ports must be located where land and water meet,-preferably in protected waters with convenient overland transportation. This is a "highest and best use" of a limited resource,- coastline,- particularly when the secondary and tertiary economic benefits are considered. 4. Public and Governmental Involvement. The Act requires each plan to show "how the state viewss its port activity, its present and future port needs, and how the plan cares for these matters". (PL 92-538, Section 306 (c) (8)). Also, Section 306 (c) (1) requires "full participation" port authorities" in state devolopment and adoption of plans. Submission of a plan by a state to NOAA should be accompanied by a separate comentary from the concerned port agencies certifying that it has reviewcd the state treatment, and indicating where the agencyc agrees and disagrees with it. 5. STATE FEDERAL INTERACTION AND NATIONAL INTERESTS. SEC- TION 307 (F) OF THE ACT REQUIRES INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL WATER AND AIR POLLUTION REQUIREMENTS. BY THEIR NATURE, BECAUSE THEY ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PORTS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE WHOLE ARRAY OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER,AND SAFETY AND SECURITY. ALMOST INVARIABLY THEY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAWS AND "NATIONAL INTEREST". 6. ORGANIZATION. BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF CORPS OF ENGINEER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AND LONG EXPOSURE TO THE REGULATION CITIED IN #5, MANY PORTS HAVE A LONGER HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES RATHER THAN WITH OTHER STATE OR LOCAL AGEN- CIES. THE PORT AGENCIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE ORGANIZATIONALLY STRUC- TURED FOR INPUT TO STATE COASTAL ZONE PLANNERS;- AND EVEN IF SO, THERE MAY BE HIDDEN POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS. THERE SHOULD BE SOME TEST OF WETHER SOME NEW NETWORKS WILL BE NEEDED. 7.AUTHORITIES. SINCE PORT AGENCIES ARE CREATURES OF STATE GOVERNMENT, APPLICATION OF STATE COASTAL ZONE PLANES WILL BE AL- MOST AUTOMATIC. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANY NEW AUTHORITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE CONTROL OVER SEAPORT ACTIVITIES. INDIVIDUAL PORT AUTHORITY DATA IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES IS AN APPROPRIATE CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN STATE/LOCAL; STATE/FEDERAL; OR LOCAL/FEDERAL ELEMENTS OF GOV ERMENT AS TO THE PASSING OF DEFINITIVE DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL PORTS. IT WILL THEREFOR BE NOTED THAT THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN CONCERENED WITH PORT DATA IN AN INDUSTRY-WIDE SENSE. DATA FROM INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC PORT AUTHORTIES MAY BE OBTAIN- ED THROUGH THE USE OF THE ATTACHED LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC PORT AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES. IF DESIRED, THE ASSOCIATION WILL BE GLAD TO ASSIST OCZN IN THE COLLECTION OF SUCH DATA AFTER MEMBER PORTS HAVE REVIEWED THIS PAPER. AN ATTACHMENT LISTS OTH- ER PORT DATA SOURCES OF INTEREST. -37- FOOTNOTES 1. "Waterborne Commerce of the United States", Calendar Year 1974. Part 5 - National Summaries. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. 2. Foreign Trade Statistics of Bureau of the-Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. 3. MARAD Studies, Office of Ports and Systems. 4. CBS News 5. Cens uS Director George Hay Brown (mid-1971) 6. "Urban Population Growth Trends,in Latin America., Inter-Ainerican Development Bank, November, 1975. 7@ MARAD, Office of Ports and Systems. 8. D. 0. T.;. A. A. R.; A. W. 0. 0. MARAD,.Office of Ports and Systems. 10. Annual Report of Committee XI, Foreign Comxiierce, AAPA, September 30, 1971. 11. Dun and Bradstreet U. S. Map "Manufacturing Establishments in the United States. 12.1 Paper'by Alfred Hammon, Chairman, Committee of Ship Channels and Harbors, AAPA. (draft of January, 1976). 13. Tidelands Case, U. S. Supreme Court, about 1948 (AAPA testimony). 14. "North American Port Development Expenditure Survey", MARAD, March, 1974. 15.' Presentations of U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to Committee IV, Construction and Maintenance, AAPA, Denver, June, 1969. 16. Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1970, plus appropriations since. 17. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. 18. AAPA estimate, 1969. Port Authority Data Sources ALABAMA Alabama State Docks Department P.0. Box 1588 Mobile, Ala. 36601 (205) 438-2481 Robert M. Hope, Director & General Manager ALASKA Port of Anchorage 2000 Anchorage Port Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 272-1531 W.D. McKinney, Asst. Port Director CALIFORNIA Port of Long Beach P. 0. Box 570 Long Beach, Ca. 90801 (213) 437-0041 Thomas J. Thorley, General Manager Port of Los Angeles P.0. Box 151 San Pedro, Ca. 90733 (213) 775-3231 Fred B. Crawford,, General Manager Port of Oakland 66 Jack London Square 0akland, Ca. 94607 (415) 444-3188 Ben E. Nutter, Executive Director Oxnard Harbor District P. 0. Box 608 Port Hueneme, Ca. 93041 (805) 488-3677 Edward J. Millan, General Manager Port of Redwood City 775 Harbor Blvd. Redwood City, Ca. 94063 (415) 365-1613 F. J. Di Pietro, Port Manager Richmond Port Commission City Hall Richmond, Ca. 948O4 (415) 232-1212, ext. 501 Thomas R. Eddy, Port Director CALIFORNIA (contd) Port of Sacramento World Trade Center West Sacramento, Ca. 95691 (916) 371-8000 Melvin Shore, Port Director San Diego Unified Port District 3165 Pacific Highway San Diego, Ca. 92112 (714) 291-3900 Don L. Nay, Port Director Saii-Francisco Port Commission Ferry Building San Francisco, Ca,, 94111 (415) 391-8000 Thomas T. Soules, Port Director Port of Stockton P. 0. BoX, 2089 Stockton, Ca. 95201 (209) 466-6011 William J. Turner, Port Director CONNECTICUT Connecticut Department of Commerce Marine Coiniiierce Unit 210 St. Hartford, Conn. 06106 (201) -66-.56o3 Edson B. Gerks, Marine Specialist Bureau of Waterways State Pier New London, Conn. 06320 (203) 443-4338 Joseph P. Trantino, Deputy Transportation Commissioner DELAWARE Port of 1@ilmington P. 0. Box 1191 Wilmington, Dela. 19699 (302) 571-4600 Donal J. Alfieri, Port Director FLORIDA Canaveral Port Authority P. 0. Box 267, Port Canaveral Sta. Cape Canaveral, Fla. 32920 (305) 783-7831 George J. King, Port Manager -40- FLORIDA (cont'd) Fort Pierce Port Authority P. 0. Box 700 Fort Pierce, Fla. 33450 Weldon B. Lewis, Administrator Jacksonville Port Authority P. 0. Box 3005 Jacksonville, Fla. 32206 (904) 633-5240 James J. Scott, Managing Director Dade County Seaport Department 1015 North America Way Miami, Fla. 33132 (305) 579-5252 Robert Waldron, Port Director Port Everglades Authority P. 0. Box 13136 Port Everglades, Fla. 33316 (305) 523-3404 Paul D. deMariano, Port Director Port of Palm Beach District P. 0. Box 9935 Riviera Beach, Fla. (305) 842-4201 F. W. Donahue, Port Director Manatee County Port Authority Route No. 1 Palmetto, Fla. 33562 (813) 722-6621 J. E. Jaudon, Port Director Panama City Port Authority P. O. Box 388 Panama City, Fla, 32401 (904) 763-8471 E. Harris Mercer, Port Director Port of Pensacola P. 0. Box 889 Pensacola, Fla. 32594 (904) 438-8537 Alexander Krygsman, Port Manager Tampa Port Authority P. 0. Box 2192 Tampa, Fla. 33601 (813) 248-1924 Guy N. Verger, Port Manager GEORGIA Brunswick Port Authority P. 0. Box 1039 Brunswick, Ga. 31520 (912) 265-3700 John A. Stubbs, General-Manager Georgia Ports Authority P. 0. Box 24o6 Savannah, Ga. 31.402 (912) 964-1721 J. D. Holt Executive Director Savannah Port Authority P. 0. Box 128 Savannah, Ga. 31402 (912) 233-9604 B. Sanford Ulmer, Executive Director HAWAII Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 548-3205 Eb Alvey Wright, Director ILLINOIS Department of the Port of Chicago Na vy F i e r Chicago, Ill. 60611 (312) 744-4200 Capt. V. J. Soballe, Port Director Chicago Regional Port Di@,trict Lake Calumet Harbor Chicago, Ill. 60633 (312) 646-4400 Maxim M. Cohen, General Manager Waukegan Port District 3500 N. McAree Waukegan, Ill. 60085 (312) 244-0055 Michael T. Kobylanski, Manager. INDIANA Indiana Port Commission P. 0. Box 189 Portage, Ind. 46368 (219) 787-s636 J. P. Fitzgerald, Port Director LOUISIANA Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission P. 0. Box 380 Port Allen, La. 70767 (504) 387-4207 C. If. Herbert, Executive Director Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District P o 0 * B ox- AAA Lake Charles, La. 70601 (318) 439-3661 James E. Sudduth, Port:Director Port of New Orleans P. 0. Box 60046 New Orleans, La. 70160 (504) 50-2-2551 Edward S. Reed, Executive Port Director South Louisiana Port Commission P. 0. Box 87 Hahnville, La. 70057 (5011) 729-3164 S. E. Creel9 President MAINE Bureau of Waterways Department of Transportation 40 Commercial Street - Portland, Maine 04111 (207) 773-5608 A. Edward Langlois, Director MARYLAND Maryland Port Administration 19 South Charles Street Baltimore, Md.. 21201 (301) 383-5700 J. L. Stanton, Port Administrator MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Port Authority 99 High Street Boston, Mass. 02110 (617) 482-2930 David If. D.avis, Focecutive Director Fall River Port Authority State Pier Fall River, Mass. 02721 (617) 674-5707 William J. Torpey, General Manager MICHIGAN Detroit-Wayne County Port Commission 900 Lafayette West Detroit, Mich. 48226 (313)224-5656 David E. Clark, Manager, Port Office Michigan Dept. of State highways and Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning P. 0. Drawer K Lansing, Mich. 48904 (517) 373-6393 Sam F. Cryderman, Deputy Director Monroe Port Commission P. 0. Box 26 Monroe, Mich. 48161 (313) 241-6480 Max M. McCray, Executive Director MINNESOTA Seaway Port Authority of Duluth P. 0. Box 310 Duluth, Minn. 55801 (218) 727-8525 C. Thomas Burke, Executive Director MISSISSIPPI Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport P. 0. Box 40 Gulfport, Miss. 39501 (601) 863-3851 Capt. Robert C. Engram, Port Director Jackson County Port Authority P. 0. Box 878 Pascagoula, Miss. 39567 (601) 762-4041 Donald H. Inskip, Port Director NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire State Port Authority 555 Market Street Portsmouth, N.H. 03801 (603) 436-8500 John P. Regan Chairman. NEW JERSEY Delaware River Port Authority P. 0. Box 1949 Camden, N.J. 08101 (609) 963-6420 William W. Watkin, Jr., Executive Director NEW JERSEY (cont'd) South Jersey Port Corporation 2500 Broadway Camden, N.J. 08104 (609) 541-8500 Robert L. Pettegrew, Executive Director NEW YORK Albany Port District Commission Administration Building Albany, N.Y. 12202 (518) 463-1103 Frank IV. Dunham, Jr., General Manager Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 1600 Statler Hilton Buffalo, N.Y. 14202 M6) 856-6524 Arthur J. Fallon, Executive Director The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey One World Trade Center New York, N.Y. 10048 .(212) 466-7000 A. Gerdes Kuhbach, Executive Director New York City Dept. of Ports & Terminals Bat-ttlery Maritime Building New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 566-6612 Frank J. Pannizzo, First Depu-L-,y Commissioner Port of Oswego Authorit Foot of East First Street Oswego, N.Y. 13126 (315) 34--'-4503 Sherwood L. Hamilton, Executive Director Rochester-Monroe County Port Authority P. 0. Box 4755 Rochester, N.Y. 14612 (716) 663-6600 William A. Carr, Port Director NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina State Ports Authority State Port Terminal Wilmington, N.C. 29401 (919) 763-1621 E. E. Lee, Jr., Acting Executive Director OHIO Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 101 Erieside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (2i6) 241-8004 Noel C. Painchaud, Executive Director Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority 241 Superior Street Toledo, Ohio 43604 (419) 243-S251 John A. McWilliam, General Manager OREGON Port of Astoria P. 0. Box 569 Astoria, Ore. 97103 (503) 325-4521 George R. Grove, General Manager The Port of Portland P. 0. Box 3529 Portland, Ore, 97208 (503) 233-8331 Lloyd Anderson, Executive Director PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Port Corporation 940 Public Ledger Building 6th & Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 (215) 925-9301 Irvin J. Good, Executive Director Western Pennsylvania Port Authority 507 Municipal Building Erie Pa. 16501 (814)456-8561 Joseph G. Rosenthal, General Manager RHODE ISLAND Port of Providence 700 Allens Avenue Providence, R.I. 02905 (401) 781-4717 Eugene G. Neary, Port Director Rhode Island Port Authority & Economic Development Corporation 1 Weybosset Hill Providence, R.I. 02903 (401) 277-2601 James 0. Roberson, Executive Director SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina State Ports Authority P. 0. Box 817 .Charleston, S. C. 29402 (803) 723-8651 W. Don Welch, Executive Director TEXAS Port of Beaumont P. 0. Drawer 2297 BeaumontY Texas 77704 (713) 835-5367 James 1;,. Martin, Port.-Director Brazos River Harbor Navigation District P. 0. Box 615 Free ort, Texas 77541 OM 233-2667 P. R. Schaff, General Manager Brownsville Navigation District P. 0. Box 3070 Brownsville, Texas 78520 (512) 831-4592 Al Cisneros, General Manager Port of Corpus Christi P. 0. Box 1541 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 (512) 882-5633 Harry G. Plomarity, Port Director Port of Galveston r. o. Box 328 Galveston, Texas 77550 (713) 765-9322 C. S. Devoy, Executive Director Port of Houston Authority P. 0. Box 2562 Houston, Texas 77001 (713) 225-0671 George 1Y. Altvater, Executive Director 0'range County Navigati on & Port District P. 0. Box 516 Orange? Texas 77630 (71-3) 88@-4363 S. E. Pomeroy, Port Director Port of Port Arthur P. 0. Box 1428 Port Arthur, Texas 77640 (713) 983-2011 Dow Wynn, Port Director TEXAS (cont'd) Port Isabel-San Benito Navigation District P. 0. Box 218 Port Isabel, Texas 785.78 W. C. McConnell* Port Director Calhoun County Navigation District P. 0. Box 107 Port Lavaca, Texas 77979 D. L. Buchanan, Business Manager VIRGINIA Virginia Port Authority 1600 Maritime Tower Norfolk, Va. 23510 (8n) 622-1671' Norfolk Port and Industrial Authority Norfolk Regional Airport Norfolk, Va. 23518 (804) 857-3351 Kenneth R. Scott, Executive Direcior WASHINGTON Port of Bellingham P. 0. Box 728 Bellingham, Vash. 98225- (2o6) 676-2500 T. J. Glenn, General Manager Por-'k-1 of Everett Pier One Everett, Wash. 98206 (2o6) 533-3620 John G. Belford, General Manager Port of Grays Harbo-- P. 0. Box 660 Aberdeen, Wash. 98520 (2o6) 533-3620 H. E. Soike, General Manager Port of Olympia P. 0. Box 827 Olym ia, Wash. 98507 (206 357-4433 Gene IV. Sibold, Manager Port of Port Angeles. P. 0. Box 791 Port Angeles, Wash. 98362 (206) 457-8527 Thomas C. Neal, Manager -Its- WASHINGTON (cont'd) Port of Seattle P. '0. Box 1209 Seattle, Wash. 98111 (2o6)587-3300 J. Eldon Opheim, General Manager Port of Tacoma P. 0. Box 1837 Tacoma, Wash. 98401 (2o6) 383-5841 Port of Vancouver P. 0. Box 1180 Vancouver, Wash. 98660 (206) 693-3611 Alex Tyrpak, Manager WISCONSIN Brown County Board of Harbor Commissioners Courthouse Green Bay, Wis. 54301 - (414) 437-3211, ext. 260 Robert W. Barclay, Port Director Port of Milwaukee 500 N. Harbor Drive Milwaukee, Wis. 53202 (414) 278-3511 John A. Seefeldt, Municipal Port Director Superior Board of Harbor Commissioners 1407 Hammond Ave, Superior, Wis. 54880 (715) 394-0210 James C. Sauter, Port Director TERRITORIES Panama Canal Zone Transportation & Terminals Bureau Box 5067 Cristobal, Canal Zone Tel: Cristobal 43-19Q4. Col. Charles R. Clark, Director Commercial Port, Government of Guam P. 0. Box 1445 Agana, Guam 96910 Harry P. Schnell, Deputy Director Puerto Rico Ports Authority G.P.O. Box 2829 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00.936 (809) 723-2260 Julio Maymi Pagan, Executive Director TERRITORIES (cont1d) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Department of Transpo.rtation & Communications Saipan, Marianas 9 950 Tel: 9300-9731 Elias Okamuraf Deputy Director Virgin Islands Port Authorit In y P. 0. Box 597 Charlotte Amalie, St.'Thomas, V.I. Tel: 809-774-1921 John E. Harding, Executive Director ADDITIONAL DATA S06RCES TRADE STATISTICS: MW aterborne Commerce of.the United States", issued annually by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, in five voluifies: Part 1. Waterways and Harbors - Atlantic Coast Part 2. Waterways and Harbors - Gulf Coast, Mississippi River and Antilles. Part 3. Waterways and Harbors.- Great Lakes. Part 4- Waterways and Harbors Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. Part 5. National Summaries.* -"Highlights of U. S. Export and'Import Trade" (FT990) Issued _mv-nthly. U. S. Department of CcT.=.erce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. PORT FACILITIES: MARAD, Officeof Ports and Systems." A national inventory of physical facilities is maintained. PORT AUTHORITIES: Management of a Seaport", National Maritime Research Center, M. J. Schwimmer and Paul A. Amundsen, NTIS COM-74-11786... I I I Ii 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111 Fil 1111 3 6668 00000 3287