1 Memorandum To: Mr. Nathaniel E. Robinson, Chairman National Sea ...
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Nathaniel E. Robinson, Chairman
National Sea Grant Review Panel
FROM:
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D, Co-Chair
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Review Panel
Dr. Frank Kudrna, Ph.D, Co-Chair
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Review Panel
DATE:
January 20, 2006
SUBJECT:
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
The National Ports and Harbors Extension Review Panel (P&H Review Panel) is transmitting to
you its report on the National Sea Grant College Program’s (NSGCP) National Ports and
Harbors Extension Program (P&H Extension Program). The review of the program was initiated
on August 1, 2005 by your predecessor, Dr. Jerry Schubel. The attached report contains
assessments of the program as well as recommendations for its improvement (summarized
below).
As you know, ports and harbors are an integral part of the U.S. economy. Through the P&H
Extension Program, the NSGCP has positioned itself to support and enhance the services that the
ports industry provides to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, it has positioned itself in support of
the Department of Commerce’s historic mission “to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and
domestic commerce” of the U.S., as well as NOAA’s mission “to…conserve and manage coastal
and marine resources to meet our nation’s economic, social and environmental needs”. The
program can be strengthened, focused, and better aligned with these missions by:
• Re-establishing the National Sea Grant Ports and Harbors Specialist position in Washington,
D.C.;
• Re-titling the existing Specialists to Regional Ports and Harbors Specialists;
• Formally partnering with a marine transportation system industry organization, such as the
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), to host the National Sea Grant Ports and
Harbors Specialist;
• Establishing an on-going advisory body to provide oversight and direction to the P&H
Extension Program;
• The National Sea Grant Ports and Harbors Specialist should be specifically tasked to:
a. Develop a strategic plan for the Ports and Harbors Initiative;
b. Develop a national research agenda for ports and harbors issues;
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
1
c. Establish a network with the Regional Ports and Harbors Specialists and others
within the Sea Grant community working on ports and harbors issues;
d. Execute a communication plan to share information about the Ports and Harbors
Initiative;
e. Coordinate implementation of the ports and harbors strategic plan, research agenda
and communication plan with the following:
i.
NOAA Program Offices, Coastal Services Center, Law Center and NSGCP
ii.
National Ocean Council, Interagency Committee on the Marine
Transportation System, and the Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Committee;
iii.
Industry stakeholders, such as the American Association of Port Authorities
iv.
Research organizations, such as the Marine Board and the American Society
of Civil Engineers.
f. Preparing and distributing an annual report on services provided to the port sector.
This report should include services provided by all NOAA programs, which would
require cross-coordination between the NSGCP, other OAR and NOS programs, as
well as NOAA Fisheries.
Cc:
Mary Baker
Tom
Chase
James
Murray
Jacques
Oliver
Melissa
Pearson
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
2
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
January 20, 2006
Table of Contents
Page
Section 1: Introduction
4
Section 2: Panel Review Process
a. Charge to National Sea Grant Review Panel
5
b.
Methodology 6
Section 3: Findings
a. Evaluation
7
b. Recommendations
11
Appendix A: P&H Extension Program Review Participants
a. Specialists
13
b. Ports
and
Harbors
Review
Panel
14
Appendix B: Specialist Dr. Jim Kruse Research Portfolio
16
Appendix C: Specialist Dr. Jim Fawcett Research Portfolio
21
Appendix D: Specialist Mr. Justin Farrell Research Portfolio
26
Appendix E: Specialist Mr. David Knight Research Portfolio
31
Appendix F: Specialist Mr. David Chapman Research Portfolio
36
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
3
Section 1: Introduction
NOAA, as an agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, has responsibilities for ocean
and coastal stewardship and for sustainable economic development. Ports and harbors are of
enormous economic significance to this country, and marine commercial and recreational
transportation involves significant environmental issues as well. U.S. ports must keep pace with
growth in waterborne trade and changes in ship design and technology. They must
accommodate other waterfront user interests and deal with increasingly complex transportation
links. They also must address critical environmental issues such as dredging and dredged
material placement and the transport of non-indigenous aquatic species. Recreational vessels are
a growing element of ports management.
NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program (NSGCP) plays a leading role in national marine
and coastal research and in the development of marine resources for economic benefits. This is
accomplished through an extensive network of state Sea Grant programs which promote
research, education, and outreach. Individual Sea Grant programs have invested in ports and
harbors issues in the past and Mr. Tom Dowd of Washington Sea Grant played a major role in
this area. There has not been any national leadership within the NSGCP in this critically
important area.
In 2001, the NSGCP initiated a request for proposals (RFP) for a National Ports and Harbors
Extension Program (P&H Extension Program). This program called for establishing a NSGCP
Ports and Harbors Specialist, hereafter called Specialist, who would lead Sea Grant’s overall
effort in ports and harbors issues, coordinate with individuals within the Sea Grant network on
specific ports and harbors issues, and promote the growth and development of Sea Grant
leadership in ports and harbors issues. It was envisioned that the Specialist would be located at a
Sea Grant institution with an active academic unit dealing with ports and harbors issues. The
Specialist was expected to be affiliated with that unit and be involved on both an extension and
academic level with national and regional ports problems. The Specialist’s duties and
responsibilities were to include a minimum of 50% time devoted to national and regional
outreach on ports issues. The primary responsibilities, according to the original RFP, were:
1) Serving as a focal coordinating point for expanding NSGCP activities on national
ports and harbors and related marine transportation issues;
2) Helping develop a network of Sea Grant researchers and extension staff working on
ports and harbors issues;
3) Conducting research and analyses on ports and harbors issues;
4) Providing outreach, extension, and other pertinent services to the Sea Grant network,
NOAA and other Federal agencies, and to the ports and harbors industry;
5) Representing or organizing representation by the Sea Grant network at national and
regional meetings, briefings, and hearings;
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
4
6) Collecting and disseminating information on ports and harbors through periodic
workshops and conferences; and
7) Maintaining contacts with trade organizations, interacting with port managers, and
developing contacts with leaders in the U.S. ports community.
These activities were intended to help the NSGCP develop a leadership role in addressing urgent
national and regional issues confronting ports and harbors and in engaging our research
universities in ports-related activities. Potential issues ranged from economic, planning, and
management topics, to environmental issues, to developing technology needs.
After a national competition, Texas Sea Grant, located at Texas A&M University, was successful
in its bid to assume the functions of the P&H Extension Program. Mr. John Basilotto was
designated the Specialist within Texas Sea Grant. Soon after the award in 2002, Mr. Basilotto
departed Texas Sea Grant and was replaced by the current Specialist, Dr. Jim Kruse. Since fiscal
year (FY) 2002 and through FY 2006, Texas Sea Grant has been funded at a rate of $100,000 per
year in NSGCP funds for a total of $500,000 in Federal funds. Those funds have been matched
over the same time frame at a rate of 50% of Federal funds per year for a total of $250,000 in
leveraged funds. In total, the funding for the P&H Extension Program has been $750,000
through FY 2006.
Subsequent to the NSGCP’s award to Texas Sea Grant, three other Ports and Harbors Specialists
were funded. These additional Specialists are: Dr. Jim Fawcett (University of Southern
California Sea Grant), Mr. Justin Farrell (Louisiana Sea Grant), and Mr. David Knight (Great
Lakes Commission). Mr. David Chapman (Delaware Sea Grant) has also been participating in
research related to ports and harbors and was asked to be part of this review (Appendix A). The
additional Specialists have been working on a variety of regional ports and harbors-related issues
and are funded by a variety of sources (Appendices B-E), including by the NSGCP and NOAA’s
National Ocean Service Coastal Services Center (NOS CSC). At present, these five Specialists
represent a loose affiliation of the NSGCP’s efforts in the P&H Extension Program.
Section 2: Panel Review Process
a. Charge Letter
On August 1, 2005, Dr. Ronald Baird, Director, NSGCP, requested Dr. Jerry Schubel, then Chair
of the NSGRP, to convene a review panel (P&H Review Panel) to review and assess the P&H
Extension Program. In his charge letter, Dr. Baird suggested that the P&H Review Panel address
specific questions in its review. They were:
“1) Although Sea Grant has had programs related to ports for many years, has there been
value-added with the recent national focus?
2) What is the optimum structure and staffing level for the ports and harbors extension
program?
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
5
3) Given limited resources, what are the priority focus areas for ports and harbors
extension programming?
4) What are the long-term goals and performance measures for the national ports and
harbors extension program?
5) Should the ports and harbors extension program expand its international reach? If so,
how should an enhanced international program be structured to benefit U.S. ports
interests?
6) Should there be a national leader, and what would be the job responsibilities?
7) How can coordination with other parts of NOAA be improved?
8) Strategic advice regarding funding and a build-out plan.”
b. Methodology
The NSGRP appointed two of its members, Dr. Geraldine Knatz and Dr. Frank Kudrna, as co-
chairs of the P&H Review Panel. The co-chairs worked with Dr. Mary Baker and Mr. Tom
Chase as the full P&H Review Panel. Two members of the NSGCP’s National Sea Grant Office
(NSGO) staff were assigned to work with the P&H Review Panel (Appendix A).
On September 1, 2005 the co-chairs of the P&H Review Panel conducted the first conference
call to discuss the following issues: the initial scope of the review and methodologies for
evaluation, logistics, and a time frame of the review. A formal request by the P&H Review
Panel for information was sent to each of the five Specialists. In addition, a survey was
circulated to the members of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) to garner
their impression of the impact and utility of the P&H Extension Program in their community.
Specialists were encouraged to contact other end users to submit information to the P&H Review
Panel. The solicited information is on file with the NSGO.
On October 11, 2005 the entire P&H Review Panel convened a second conference call to discuss
the information provided by the Specialists, end users, and the members of the AAPA. Based on
this input, the following issues were identified: there should be an examination of whether the
goals in the original RFP were met or not met, there is a need for national leadership in the P&H
Extension Program, there is an need for more collaborative research within the P&H Extension
Program, the value of the P&H Extension Program should be more visible within and outside of
NOAA, there is a need for an on-going advisory body to provide oversight and direction to the
P&H Extension Program, and there should be enhanced coordination with Dr. Margaret
Davidson, Director, NOAA’s NOS CSC, regarding the CSC’s participation and support of the
P&H Extension Program. Also during this teleconference, the P&H Review Panel planned a
December meeting to discuss in greater detail the issues in the P&H Extension Program relating
to national leadership, strategic planning, and advisory functions. Furthermore, the meeting was
designed so that the P&H Review Panel could interact and discuss the aforementioned issues
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
6
with each Specialist, as well as engage other members of the Sea Grant community as to their
impressions of and recommendations for the P&H Extension Program.
On December 14-15, 2005, the P&H Review Panel met in Washington, D.C. The agenda
included meetings with Dr. Davidson, Dr. Jonathan Kramer, President, Sea Grant Association
(SGA), members of the Sea Grant Extension Assembly, the five Specialists, and Dr. Baird. The
P&H Review Panel asked for input on the strengths of the existing program and how the
program could be made more effective. Following the meetings with the participants, a closed
session of the P&H Review Panel was held to develop findings and organized them around the
questions posed in the Dr. Baird’s charge letter to the Dr. Schubel and the P&H Review Panel.
Throughout the P&H Review Panel’s deliberations information was requested from the
Specialists regarding their research portfolios. Specifically, each Specialist was asked to provide
their research project titles, funding support and sources, collaborators, and applications and/or
benefits of each of their research projects. In addition, brief synopses of each of those projects
were requested. This information is included in Appendices B-E.
Section 3: Findings
a. Evaluation
1) Although Sea Grant has had programs related to ports for many years, has there been
value-added with the recent national focus?
The P&H Review Panel believes the NSGCP’s P&H Extension Program and the
companion NOS CSC’s Ports and Harbors Programs have provided added value at a
regional level. However, they have not fully realized their potential at the national level.
The P&H Review Panel was pleased to see the leverage and extent of research identified
in Appendices B-E, which provides a multiplier for NSGCP and NOS CSC’s
investments.
2) What is the optimum structure and staffing level for the ports and harbors extension program?
The optimum structure of a comprehensive and proactive P&H Extension Program would
consist of one National Ports and Harbors Specialist position stationed in the Washington
D.C. area and Regional Port and Harbors Specialists located around the country.
Minimum regional coverage would consist of four Specialists, one located on the East,
West, and Gulf coasts and a fourth in the Great Lakes area.
The National Ports and Harbors Specialist would serve as the overall program
coordinator and be responsible for identifying resources and capabilities within the entire
sea great network that could be accessed to address a specific problem. The National
Ports and Harbors Specialist should be housed in the offices of a marine transportation
system industry association such as the American Association of Port Authorities
(AAPA) under a contractual arrangement with NOAA’s NSGCP. Initial contacts with
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
7
the AAPA are supportive of this concept pending resolution of the financial
arrangements. By housing the National Ports and Harbors Specialist in the AAPA
offices, the National Ports and Harbors Specialist would have the ability to stay on top of
emerging port issues. This first hand knowledge will be vital in assisting the Regional
Port Specialists with developing a national research agenda serving the ports and harbors
sector. A National Ports and Harbors Specialist located in Washington, D.C. would also
have the ability to interact with all branches within NOAA and provide outreach to the
port community on behalf of all branches of NOAA. A timely and relevant research
agenda supported by national ports and NOAA, working together, would enhance the
success of funding such endeavors.
3) Given limited resources, what are the priority focus areas for ports and harbors extension
programming?
Should funding for the program be limited, the priority position for funding should be the
National Ports and Harbors Specialist located in Washington, D.C. Even without
regional specialists, the National Ports and Harbors Specialist still has the resources of
the Sea Grant network to draw upon. Thus, the National Ports and Harbors Specialist
would still have the ability to serve as a focal point for port inquiries, develop the
national research agenda on port issues, facilitate collaboration with NOAA, and work
with AAPA to identify and coordinate funding for port research.
4) What are the long-term goals and performance measures for the national ports and harbors
extension program?
The P&H Extension Program currently has no strategic planning effort and is not well-
connected to or nested within NOAA’s larger strategic plan. However, the P&H
Extension Program goals do fit within NOAA’s strategic goal of “Supporting the
Nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound
transportation”. Aligning the P&H Extension Program strategic plan with this NOAA
strategic goal would provide additional focus and support for the program within NOAA
and within the port industry. For example, simplifying the goals to developing a network
of researchers and experts; conducting port related research; and providing services to
port industry representatives with the goal of supporting safe, efficient, and
environmentally sound marine transportation would clarify the intent of the program.
Outcomes that NOAA is pursuing within its commerce and transportation strategic goal
include environmentally sound development and use of the U.S. transportation system.
The NOAA performance measure associated with this outcome is “increasing the
percentage of port communities using NOAA environmental information, products and
services for NOAA’s Marine Transportation System (MTS) planning” (referring to the
nation’s top 150 commercial ports).
No formal performance measures have been established for the P&H Extension Program.
However, ad hoc performance measures seem to include: numbers of meetings attended,
numbers of research or outreach projects conducted, and general satisfaction of port
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
8
industry representatives during and after encounters, although limited responses were
received. During the P&H Review Panel’s discussions, a number of more focused
performance measures were suggested.
The P&H Extension Program should develop more concrete and quantifiable
performance measures that should focus on delivery of port planning services to the 150
top U.S. port communities. Specific assistance with environmental regulation
compliance, dispute mediation, delivery of observation data to the port sector, and
representation of ports interests within the development of the international ocean
observing system are suggested. The P&H Extension Program could also participate in
and link to environmental performance measure development being conducted by the
AAPA. The concept of resilient infrastructure, communities, and ecosystems should be
explored further. For example, how can the port sector define and improve their
resiliency to natural disasters and climate change? Can we define and measure our
progress toward developing resilient infrastructure, resilient economic strategies, and
developing ports that maintain or improve ecosystem resiliency?
5) Should the ports and harbors extension program expand its international reach? If so, how
should an enhanced international program be structured to benefit U.S. ports interests?
While opportunities exist for the NSGCP to have involvement in international ports and
harbors activities, the P&H Review Panel does not believe that current resource levels
support international activities at this time. Additionally, a strong national program
should be a pre-requisite to expansion internationally.
6) Should there be a national leader, and what would be the job responsibilities?
When the NSGCP sought proposals in 2001 for a National Sea Grant Ports and Harbor
Specialist, it identified its desire to assume a national leadership role on ports and harbor
issues because –
“Ports and harbors are of enormous economic significance to this country, and
marine commercial and recreational transportation involves significant
environmental issues as well. U.S. ports must keep pace with growth in
waterborne trade and changes in ship design and technology. They must
accommodate other waterfront user interests and deal with increasingly complex
transportation links. They also must address environmental issues such as
dredging and dredged material placement and the transport of non-indigenous
aquatic species.”
The P&H Review Panel believes the need for national leadership by the NSGCP is as
important today as it was in 2001. The lack of national leadership on ports and harbors
issues, generally, was recognized by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In response
to this call for greater leadership, the Bush Administration elevated the stature of ports
and harbors issues when it moved the Interagency Committee on the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) and the MTS National Advisory Council from the
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
9
Department of Transportation to the newly created National Ocean Council. Similarly,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently addressed this need by
appointing a port-sector liaison within the Office of the Administrator to work with the
industry to improve its environmental performance. (For more information on the EPA
Port Sector Initiative, see www.epa.gov/sectors/ports.)
The NSGCP is commended for funding a National Port and Harbors Specialist within the
Texas Sea Grant Program. In addition, NOAA’s Coastal Services Center has funded port
and harbors specialists in Southern California, Louisiana and the Great Lakes region,
which, together with the NSGCP specialist, has raised the profile of port and harbor
issues, particularly within the regions served by the specialists. While efforts have been
made to build a broader network within the NSGCP and with outside stakeholder groups
(e.g., the AAPA), the panel does not believe that the level of national leadership
originally envisioned has been realized. This view was shared by the Specialists
surveyed for this report.
7) How can coordination with other parts of NOAA be improved?
Currently, there appears to be little understanding and knowledge within NOAA of the
P&H Extension Program. Furthermore, the Specialists have little exposure to other
NOAA programs. The P&H Review Panel discussed several ideas for improving this
situation.
Most importantly, visibility for this program should be improved. Accomplishments
should be reported to NOAA management through the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR). The Department of Commerce should also take interest in
the accomplishments and activities of the program.
The P&H Extension Program would be more effective if it were more closely connected
to the NOAA strategic planning effort and NOAA’s Marine Transportation System
(MTS) Program. By participating in the NOAA MTS Program, the P&H Extension
Program would maintain its relevance and connection to the NOAA budget process.
Through this venue, connections can also be made to other NOAA goal teams.
The program could focus on providing a few key NOAA services of great interest to
many ports. Examples might include ballast water/invasive species research, pilot whale
regulations, and observing system data delivery. The program should expand, update,
and distribute a menu of NOAA port services, and remain connected to other relevant
NOAA programs to be able to keep the menu current.
8) Strategic advice regarding funding and a build-out plan.
The P&H Extension Program could be expanded by re-establishing a National Ports and
Harbors Specialist position within the NSGCP office in formal partnership with a marine
transportation system industry organization, such as the AAPA. The National Ports and
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
10
Harbors Specialist should become an expert on national ports and harbors issues,
providing a resource to NOAA and the NSGCP and creating ad hoc partnerships with
essential stakeholders, including industry leaders, state and local officials, and others to
advance the NSGCP leadership on ports and harbors issues.
The National Ports and Harbors Specialist should develop a strategic plan for the
initiative which addresses the 1) building of a network of Regional Ports and Harbors
Specialists, 2) coordination and partnership with NOAA program offices and external
organizations, 3) development and implementation of a ports and harbors research
agenda, and 4) execution of a communication plan. Specific performance measures of
P&H Extension Program Initiatives should also be identified, monitored and highlighted
in a more comprehensive way.
b. Recommendations
The P&H Review Panel recommends that the NSGCP strengthen the National Sea Grant Ports
and Harbors Initiative by undertaking the following actions:
• Re-establish the National Sea Grant Ports and Harbors Specialist position in Washington,
D.C.;
• Re-title the existing Specialists to Regional Ports and Harbors Specialists;
• Formally partner with a marine transportation system industry organization, such as the
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), to host the National Sea Grant Ports and
Harbors Specialist;
• Establish an on-going advisory body to provide oversight and direction to the P&H
Extension Program;
• The National Sea Grant Ports and Harbors Specialist should be specifically tasked to:
a. Develop a strategic plan for the Ports and Harbors Initiative;
b. Develop a national research agenda for ports and harbors issues;
c. Establish a network with the Regional Ports and Harbors Specialists and others
within the Sea Grant community working on ports and harbors issues;
d. Execute a communication plan to share information about the Ports and Harbors
Initiative;
e. Coordinate implementation of the ports and harbors strategic plan, research agenda
and communication plan with the following:
i.
NOAA Program Offices, Coastal Services Center, Law Center and NSGCP
ii.
National Ocean Council, Interagency Committee on the Marine
Transportation System, and the Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Committee;
iii.
Industry stakeholders, such as the American Association of Port Authorities
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
11
iv.
Research organizations, such as the Marine Board and the American Society
of Civil Engineers;
f. Prepare and distribute an annual report on services provided to the port sector. This
report should include services provided by all NOAA programs, which would
require cross-coordination between the NSGCP, other OAR and NOS programs, as
well as NOAA Fisheries.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
12
Appendix A: P&H Extension Program Review Participants
a. Specialists
Dr. Jim Kruse, Ph.D
National Sea Grant Ports and Harbors Specialist
Sea Grant Extension/Marine Advisory
701 N. Post Oak, Suite 430
Houston, Texas 77024-3827
Phone: (713) 686-2971
FAX: (713) 686-5396
j-kruse@ttimail.tamu.edu
Dr. James A. Fawcett, Ph.D
Marine Transportation/Seaport Specialist, Marine Outreach Coordinator
University of Southern California
University Park, AHF 209
3616 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, California 90089-0373
Phone: (213) 740-4477
FAX: (213) 740-5936
fawcett@usc.edu
Mr. Justin Farrell
Research Associate, Coastal Ports Specialist
212 Sea Grant Bldg.
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-7507
Phone: (225) 578-6348
FAX: (225) 578-6331
jfarrell@lsu.edu
Mr. David Knight
Transportation and Sustainable Development
Great Lakes Commission
Eisenhower Corporate Park
2805 S. Industrial Hwy, Suite 100
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-6791
Phone: (734) 971-9135
FAX: (734) 971-9150
dknight@glc.org
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
13
Mr. David Chapman
Marine Advisory Service Agent
Marine Transportation Specialist
Delaware Sea Grant
Newark, Delaware 19716
Phone: (302) 645-4268
FAX: (302) 831-4389
dchapman@udel.edu
b. Ports and Harbors Review Panel
Dr. Frank L. Kudrna, Jr., Ph.D
Chief Executive Officer, Kudrna & Associates, Ltd.
Chief engineer, Port of Chicago
203 North Cass Avenue
Westmont, Illinois 60559
Phone: (630) 969-3060
Chicago Office Phone: (312) 738-1522
FAX: (630) 969-3122
fkudrna@kudrna.com
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D
Executive Director
Port of Los Angeles
425 S. Palos Verdes Street
San Pedro, California 90731
Phone: (310) 732-7678
gknatz@portla.org
Dr. Mary Baker, Ph.D
NOS WASC Route: N/ORR2
BLDG: 3
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, Washington 98115-6349
Phone: (206)526-6315
FAX:(206)526-6865
mary.baker@noaa.gov
Mr. Tom Chase
Director of Environmental Services
Moffatt & Nichol
1418 Mt. Vernon Ave.
Alexandria, Virginia 22301
Phone: 202-277-0123
FAX: 703-838-2924
tchase@moffattnichol.com
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
14
(National Sea Grant Office Staff)
Dr. Jim Murray, Ph.D
National Sea Grant Office
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
SSMC3, R/SG, Rm 11752
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Phone: (301) 713-2431
FAX: (301) 713-0799
jim.d.murray@noaa.gov
Dr. Jacques L. Oliver, Ph.D
National Sea Grant Office
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
SSMC3, R/SG, Rm 11718
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Phone: (301) 713-2431
FAX: (301) 713-0799
jacques.oliver@noaa.gov
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
15
The P&H Review Panel requested additional information from the Specialists regarding their research portfolios. Specifically, each
Specialist was asked to provide their research project titles, funding support and sources, collaborators, and applications and/or
benefits of each of their research projects. In addition, brief synopses of each of those projects were requested and are listed below
each table.
Appendix B: Specialist Dr. Jim Kruse Research Portfolio
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
A. User Assessment of
$15,000
Sea Grant
9/1/03 – 5/31/04
GCOOS organizing
Coastal Ocean Observation
committee
Systems in the Gulf of
Mexico
B. Analysis of Start-Up
$57,500 Southwest
Texas Transportation
9/1/03 – 8/31/04
Ports, marine
Cross-Gulf Activities with
University
Institute
transportation
Mexico since 1990
Transportation
providers, elected
Center (DOT)
officials
C. Container on Barge
$35,000 Trinity TTI
1/9/06 – 4/9/06
Trinity Marine
Analysis
Industries
marketing
department
D. Container on Barge
Free N/A Texas
A&M-University
at
2/6/04 – 12/15/04
Broad group of port
Feasibility Study
Galveston & TTI
and transportation
interests, as well as
Maritime
Administration
E. The Effect of the New
$45,000 Southwest
TTI
9/1/04 – 8/31/05
Ports, MARAD, and
Security Paradigm on Port
University
elected officials
Infrastructure
Transportation
Development And
Center (DOT)
Finances
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
16
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
F. Comparison of
$32,000 for First Maritime
TTI
10/19/05 – 1/24/06 MARAD,
Environmental Impacts by
Phase (2nd Phase Administration
transportation
Mode
??)
interests on Inland
Waterway System,
elected officials
G. Texas Ports
$10,000 Texas
Ports
7/1/05 – 11/18/05
Texas Ports and their
Association Web Site
Association
customers, prospects,
and elected officials
H. Analysis of U.S.-
$25,000 for
Gulf Ports
TTI
10/21/05 – 1/21/06 Gulf Ports
Mexico Border Trade
Phase 1 (Phase 2 Association
Association
Targets for Short Sea
= $35,000)
membership
Shipping
I. The Value of Texas
$81,000 our
Texas
University of Texas
1/17/06 – 10/31/07 TxDOT and Texas
Seaports in an
share (total is
Department of
Center for Transportation
port system
Environment of Increasing $311,000)
Transportation
Research and TTI
Global Trade
J. Texas Recreational
$18,000 Center
for
TTI
3/1/05 – 8/31/05
Texas Parks &
Boating Accident and
Transportation
Wildlife Department
Statistical Report
Safety (State of
and US Coast Guard
Texas)
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
17
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
K. Handheld Intensified
Up to $10,000
Department of
TTI, Space and Naval
11/1/05 – 12/31/05 DHS, port security
Night Vision Assessment
Homeland
Warfare Systems Center,
departments, and
and Validation
Security
and Center for Domestic
first responders
Preparedness (Dept of
Justice)
L. Impacts of Climate
$46,000 (our
US Department
TTI, Cambridge
12/6/05 – 6/30/06
Variety of US
Change and Variability on
share)
of
Systematics, Houston-
(?)
government agencies
Transportation Systems
Transportation
Galveston Area Council,
and university
and Infrastructure: Gulf
and US
Louisiana State
researchers
Coast Study
Geological
University, University of
Survey
New Orleans, Wilbur
Smith Associates, and
Texas A&M
M. Peer Review of (1)
$25,000 Panama
Canal
TTI
4/16/03 – 7/3/03
Panama Canal
Transportation Study On
Authority
Authority
The Grain Market
Segment And The Panama
Canal, and (2)
Transportation Study On
The Dry Bulk Market
Segment And The Panama
Canal
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
18
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Description
Outcomes/Applications
A Survey & Interviews conducted to determine main
Used by GCOOS director at Texas A&M to determine
user groups and the data they would like to see from
workshops needed
GCOOS
B Identification and analysis of efforts to set up US-
Journal of Commerce has asked me to share findings
Mexico shipping services—description of strengths
at conference in March 2006. TxDOT has been
and weaknesses with policy implications
interested in expanding the research.
C First phase involves identify inland ports that could be In progress
part of Container On Barge network and identifying
most important logistical concerns
D Survey of inland port authorities to determine current
Used by MARAD’s Inland Waterway Intermodal
situation and possibility/interest in promoting
Cooperative Program to develop approach to setting
Container On Barge
up COB network
E
Detailed analysis of financial condition, infrastructure
Just Completed. Both Port of Houston and Port of
financing methods, port security grant program, and
Galveston have been very interested, but have not
impact of new security expenses on Texas Ports
shared how they will use it.
F
Detailed evaluation of differences between freight
In progress
transportation modes in the areas of environment and
safety
G Developed new web site for Association
Web site now in use. Includes information they have
been trying to get out to politicians and general public.
H Study to determine what is crossing border in Texas
In progress
that Gulf States could move by water
I
Essentially an expanded economic impact study for
About to kick off
both deep draft and shallow draft ports in Texas
J
Analysis of boating accidents in Texas Waters
Texas Parks & Wildlife makes this available to public
K Field testing of handheld night vision equipment in
In progress
port environment (Charleston & Beaumont)
L
Analysis of how climate changes in the next 50 years
In progress
could affect Gulf Coast Transportation System. Our
portion is pipelines
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
19
M Peer review of studies done in support of Panama
Consultant revised original report to address our
Canal Expansion Program
comments
Associated Extension/Outreach Activities:
•
Involvement with Summer Transportation Institute (FHWA) at two universities
•
Provide testimony and data to legislators in several states
•
Serve as resource to SG network (have assisted various states)
•
Organize and conduct biennial Texas Ports & Waterways Conference
•
Have provided information to and been interviewed by several newspapers in major metropolitan areas around the country
•
Have supplied information to Governor’s Office
•
Have been asked to share research findings at Journal of Commerce’s Short Sea Shipping Conference in March 2006
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
20
Appendix C: Specialist Dr. Jim Fawcett Research Portfolio
Duration
User Group(s)
Funding
Collaborating Partners and
Research Project (Title)
Funding Source(s)
(m/d/yr –
(current or
Support ($)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
intended)
A. Maritime Cargo Security
$40,000 NOAA
National
Ocean
US Coast Guard, FBI, Port of
03/04/2005
Both funding source list
Conference
Service, USC School of
Los Angeles, Port of Long
and Collaborating
Int’l. Relations, USC
Beach, Southern California
Partners list and various
School of Policy,
Marine Exchange, Int’l
consultants, local
Planning and
Longshore and Warehouse
governments and State
Development, Port of
Union, USC College of Letters,
of California Office of
Long Beach
Arts & Sciences, NOAA Corps,
Emergency Services
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
(OES)
Department (Office of
Emergency Services), Los
Angeles County Supervisor
Don Knabe, Office of
Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher
B. Coastal Storms Program
$10,100
National Ocean Service
NOAA environmental data
02/17/2005 Agriculture,
flood
collection agencies
control agencies,
Southern California
Coastal Ocean
Observing Program,
California OES,
researchers, Los
Angeles County
Lifeguards,
C. Devolution, Port
None
Prof. Mary Brooks,
Dalhousie University
09/2004 and
Seaport researchers,
Privatization and Port
Dalhousie Univ., Halifax,
continuing
legislators, other port
Management
N.S., Canada
management officials
D. Marine Transportation
$266,000
CalFed Bay Delta Project
NOAA Corps, NOAA Office of
08/2002
Environmental
Extension including the
the Coast Survey, various
through
managers, seaport
research entitled, “Short-Sea
seaports in the San Francisco
03/2005
managers, state
Shipping: Reducing Vessel
Bay
legislators and
Traffic Impacts to the San
legislative staffs,
Francisco Bay and Delta”
federal environmental
managers, seaport
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
21
Duration
User Group(s)
Funding
Collaborating Partners and
Research Project (Title)
Funding Source(s)
(m/d/yr –
(current or
Support ($)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
intended)
managers in the San
Francisco Bay and
adjacent seaports in the
Delta
E. Graduate course in the
$16,000
USC School of Policy,
Port of Los Angeles
Spring
Current and potential
USC School of Policy,
Planning and
Semester
future environmental
Planning and Development,
Development
2003, Spring
and marine
“Coastal Policy and
Semester
transportation managers
Planning,” PPD 694
2004, Spring
Semester
2006
F. Integrating Maritime
$66,283
USC Sea Grant
USC METRANS Program; Los
03-2004
LA County MTA;
Transportation Movements
Angeles County Metropolitan
through 02-
CALTRANS;
with the Urban
Transportation Authority,
2006
transportation
Transportation System
CALTRANS
researchers;
(UTS): A Corridor-Centered
transportation planning
Approach
students
G. Paul Hall Marine
$280.000
The Transportation
USC Sea Grant Program
2005 and
Marine transportation
Transportation Lectureship
(endowment
Institute
ongoing
professionals
corpus)
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
22
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
Maritime Cargo Security Conference: (Outreach and Research) Conceived and organized by James Fawcett. One-day
conference involved approximately 200 participants from the marine transportation industry, government officials at all levels,
academics and elected officials to discuss how the region can best respond to an incident (accidental or deliberate) arising from
cargo moving through the region in intermodal cargo containers. The Los Angeles County Supervisor responsible for the
harbor areas (and who has been appointed by the president as a member of the advisory committee of the Department of
Homeland Security) was the keynote speaker. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher whose district includes the ports was invited as the
luncheon speaker. His district director delivered his remarks. The three discussion panels included representatives of
academia, maritime labor, the US Coast Guard, the maritime industry and the Los Angeles Economic Development
Corporation. Outcome: Post-conference evaluations demonstrated that the conference was useful to the attendees because the
meeting provided a means of linking various parties who might not otherwise have known with whom they could coordinate
on matters of transportation safety and security. This was especially true for researchers in the USC Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) who developed personal links with agencies who can further their
research.
B.
Coastal Storms Program: (Research and Outreach) James Fawcett and Ruth Dudas assisted Rebecca Smyth, California
Regional Coordinator for the National Ocean Service to bring together for a one-day workshop approximately 60 users of
NOAA storms data in the Southern California area. The attendees were from a wide range of NOAA coastal storms data users
who met with representatives of the NOAA agencies that produce storm data. The objective of the workshop was twofold:
increase the awareness of data users as to the range of storm data but also to inform NOAA managers of the ways in which
their data is currently used and can better be used in the future. While NOAA has the prime responsibility for improving data
delivery, many attendees noted that they did not realize the wealth of data types produced by NOAA. Attendees included
flood control agencies, the Southern California Marine Exchange that monitors all shipping traffic between San Diego and Pt.
Conception, the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (Ocean
Lifeguard Division), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and
many other jurisdictions. Outcomes: The workshop provided information for NOAA’s data managers that they will use to
modify the types of data that they collect as well as modifying its methods of delivery. This is research feedback that is
otherwise difficult to obtain. The workshop also provided education for NOAA data users on the wide array of data products
available to predict and document the impact of storms.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
23
C. Devolution,
Port
Privatization and Port Management: (Research) James Fawcett wrote a chapter in the new book, Devolution,
Port Privatization and Port Management, edited by Professor Mary Brooks, William A. Black Chair of Commerce, School of
Business Administration, Dalhousie University. The book discusses port privatization in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the US
and Canada. Fawcett’s chapter discusses privatization in the US, gives historical background and explains why privatization
has not made as large an impact on US seaports as elsewhere in the world. The book explicates the process of privatization
and explores differences in that process in various corners of the world. Outcome: Elsevier will publish the book in the late
spring 2006. It is designed for students of port management, business, economic development, as well as practitioners and
public officials who seek to make decisions about whether to privatize seaports, how it has been done elsewhere and how it
might be done in their home country. Funding: no funds were provided for the work but the importance of the book dictated
participation in the project.
D.
Marine Transportation Extension including the research entitled, “Short-Sea Shipping: Reducing Vessel Traffic Impacts to the
San Francisco Bay and Delta”: (Research and Outreach) The CalFed Bay Delta Project is a multi-agency joint state-federal
endeavor to investigate and prescribe best practices for managing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta that feeds fresh
water into San Francisco Bay as well as providing irrigation water to the San Joaquin Valley. James Fawcett’s research
concentrated on the impact of merchant shipping on the delta as well as potential impacts of that shipping on expanded
facilities at both Bay and delta seaports from Stockton on the east to San Francisco and Redwood City on the west. Among the
products of the two-and-a-half years of work was a presentation on short-sea shipping at the 2004 CalFed Bay Delta Science
Conference in Sacramento. The project provided a substantial amount of match funding for the years 2002-2005. Outcome:
The research identified the likely impacts of expanded shipping on the Bay and Delta, especially the Delta and educated
resource managers as to the likely impacts of increased ship movements on both Bay and delta seaports the lasting effects of
which will be borne out in policy decisions related to further development of the seaports in San Francisco Bay, Carquinez
Straits, Suisun Bay and eastward to Stockton.
E.
Graduate course in the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development, “Coastal Policy and Planning,” PPD 694:
(Research/Curriculum Development) Upon first rejoining USC’s Sea Grant Program in 2002, Dr. Fawcett was approached by
the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development to teach a graduate level course on coastal management. He agreed to
do and has devoted a significant portion of the course on use allocation and conflict to seaports and the attendant
environmental policy issues related to locating these essential coastal-dependent facilities along the nation’s shoreline. He
taught the course for two years as an experimental “Special Topics” course but in 2004 the course was approved as a
permanent graduate course in the Public Policy Graduate curriculum. Outcome: The course takes advantage of seaports as a
model system through which to discuss resource allocation dilemmas along the nation’s coastline and teaches the skills of
resolving those dilemmas to graduate students in public policy, urban planning, architecture, geography and environmental
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
24
studies. The class is taught after normal working hours and because Dr. Fawcett is a full-time university employee, his
additional salary from teaching is routed to a special account in Sea Grant where it is used for expenses related to the marine
transportation program. However, over the past three years the School of Policy, Planning and Development has derived
tuition of $120,000 from this class.
F.
Integrating Maritime Transportation Movements with the Urban Transportation System (UTS): A Corridor-Centered
Approach: (Research) This Sea Grant funded project was the direct result of conversations between Dr. Fawcett and Prof. Le
Dam Hanh of the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. Dr. Le has extensive experience as an industrial and systems engineer
as well as considerable experience with the marine transportation industry. Through their discussions, she conceptualized this
project to explore the inefficiencies in the terrestrial transportation system in the Los Angeles region. The objective has been
to examine transportation corridors, understand how they are used, especially for marine freight, and to then develop models of
how those corridors could better be utilized to improve freight flow through the region. She has worked with Dr. Fawcett and
the METRANS project at USC as well as with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority of Los Angeles County (MTA), the local metropolitan planning organization known as SCAG
(Southern California Association of Governments) and other agencies. Outcome: she and Dr. Fawcett will take the results of
the project in the spring of 2006 and make them available to these authorities as well as to the academic audience to leverage
the benefits from this Sea Grant sponsored work.
G.
Paul Hall Marine Transportation Lectureship: (Research and Outreach) The Paul Hall Marine Transportation Lectureship was
established at USC in the early 1980s with funds given by his friends and colleagues in memory of Paul Hall, the legendary
maritime labor leader. Since that time the lectureship has sponsored meetings both in Los Angeles and Washington, DC on
marine transportation themes. In 2005 the university transferred responsibility for the lectureship and the endowment to Sea
Grant recognizing Dr. Fawcett’s involvement in this field. Anticipated outcomes: Our expectation is to revitalize the lectures
and through them, to develop research themes on this campus as well as a greater awareness and appreciation of marine
transportation and its impact on the Los Angeles region.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
25
Appendix D: Specialist Mr. Justin Farrell Research Portfolio
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Outreach Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
A. NOAA Portfields
NA1
NA
NOAA, FEMA, USACE,
December 2005
Lower Mississippi
Project: Coastal Louisiana
City of New Orleans
through December River Port Complex,
Pilot
Brownfields, Regional
2007
Port of New Orleans,
Planning Commission
Port of South
(RPC),
Louisiana, Port of St.
Bernard, Port of
Plaquemines
B. LNG Traffic on the
NA NA Louisiana
Sea
Grant
May 2005 to
Propeller Club of
Calcasieu River
(LSG) Extension
present.
Southwest Louisiana,
personnel,
Calcasieu River
Waterway Harbor
Safety Committee
(CRWHSC),
C. Vessel Salvage,
NA
NA
Port of Valdez (AK),
December 2005
Plaquemines Parish,
Recovery, & Marine
Louisiana Seafood
through February
St. Bernard Parish,
Debris Issues
Marketing & Promotion
2006.
Port of St. Bernard,
Board, Plaquemines
Commercial fishing
Parish, LSG Extension
industry
personnel, Alaska Fishing
Industry Relief Mission
(AFIRM),
D. Environmental Impacts NA
NA
NOAA
May 2005 to
Coastal Society,
of LNG Development
present.
CRWHSC, Coastal
Zone Managers
1 NA = Projects included in the plan of work for Louisiana Coastal Ports Extension Project grant from Coastal Services Center (2005-2008)
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
26
E. Ports Association of
NA
NA
PAL, NOAA Osborn
July 2005 to
27 ports throughout
Louisiana (PAL)-
present.
Louisiana, Associate
Technical Support
membership = 90+
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
None at this time.
---
---
---
---
---
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
27
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. NOAA Portfields Project: Coastal Louisiana Pilot
Emerging partnership with NOAA and other federal agencies to bring a Portfields Initiative Pilot Project to the Lower
Mississippi River Port Complex (Port of South Louisiana, Port of New Orleans, Port of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish Port,
Harbor & Terminal District). Serving as liaison to ports for NOAA Kenneth Walker and the FEMA ESF-14 long-term recovery
effort, including speaking at various Portfields meetings and at the Ports Critical Actions Team meeting, a part of the Governor’s
Long-term Recovery Authority (LRA) planning process. Kickoff for the pilot is scheduled for April 2006.
B & C. LNG Traffic on the Calcasieu River & Environmental Impacts of LNG Development
Met with Port of Lake Charles staff and discussed LNG operations, along with LSG Extension Kevin Savoie. Conducted self-
guided tour of Panhandle Energy’s Trunkline LNG facility and met with VP Tommy Stone. Attend and speak at Propeller Club of
Southwest Louisiana and Calcasieu River Waterway Harbor Safety Committee (CRWHSC) meetings and provided additional
information on the liability of Harbor Safety Committees (6/17/05). Attended a special meeting of the CRWHSC Navigation
Subcommittee and provided technical review and comment of controlled copies of the permitted Cameron LNG (Sempra) facility’s
Allision Study (MSI) and Passing Ship Study (MNI).
Submitted successful abstract to the Coastal Society for a panel on environmental solutions in offshore liquefied natural gas
(LNG) development. Peer-reviewed publication will follow in 2006.
D. Salvage, Recovery, & Marine Debris Issues
Initiated partnership opportunities on a derelict vessel removal program for Plaquemines, Terrebonne, and Lafourche Parishes.
Conducted tour of Plaquemines Parish Port Authority’s southern reaches, including the Venice Marina, Venice facilities, Pilottown,
the Pilottown anchorage/West Bay sediment diversion, and the Associated Branch Pilot’s facility at the Southwest Pass outlet.
Conducted a tour of Terrebonne Port facilities with Terrebonne Parish governmental officials including Coastal Zone Managers James
Miller, and Leslie Suazo, and Port Administrator Ed Watson. This is expected to blossom into a funded research project in 2006.
Through the combined efforts of the Louisiana, Washington, and Alaska Sea Grant programs, FEMA, the Pacific Coast
Congress of Harbormasters (PCCH) and Valdez Port Director Alan Sorum, the Valdez City Council approved a donation of a surplus
Marine Travelift donation to Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Plaquemines Parish was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, with an
estimated 3,000 commercial vessels and 35,000 to 45,000 recreational vessels missing or damaged throughout Southeast Louisiana. A
Marine Travelift is a mobile boat hoist, often used by marinas, shipyards, fishing ports and naval installations – a new, 60-ton unit
would cost between $250,000 and $300,000. Plaquemines Parish officials plan to use the Travelift to recover boats damaged or
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
28
displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Other agencies and organizations involved in the acquisition include the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board, among others. Additionally, the
Alaska Fishing Industry Relief Mission donated $20,000 toward transportation of the Travelift; PCCH, $1,200; and the Alaska Sea
Grant program is donating a portion of its publication sales.
E. Ports Association of Louisiana (PAL)- Technical Support
Assist in drafting various post-Hurricane press releases and damage assessments for use by PAL and other state agencies (DOTD,
DED)—distributed this information to the Associated Press, Reuters, and numerous local media outlets. Drafted and distributed
whitepaper on the status of Louisiana ports following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Provide articles and research updates for PAL’s
monthly newsletter “News from the Docks,” which is an excellent outreach tool, with an audience of all 27 ports in Louisiana and an
associate membership of 90+ throughout the maritime industry.
ADDITIONAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES FOR 2005:
• Involvement with the 2005 Ocean Commotion Educational Fair at Louisiana State University;
• Contributed to Louisiana Sea Grant’s Louisiana Hurricane Recovery Resources website and post-Hurricane efforts;
• Served as resource to Louisiana Sea Grant network;
• Have provided information to WorkBoat Magazine, Louisiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board, and other news
sources, Louisiana Department of Economic Development (LDED), NOAA Portfields, Lower Mississippi River Waterways
Safety Advisory Commission (LMRWSAC), and the Propeller Club of Southwest Louisiana;
• Organizing/moderating a panel on Environmental Impacts of LNG at the Coastal Society’s 20th International Conference in
May 2006 (paper to follow).
PUBLICATIONS FOR 2005:
Farrell, J.E. and R. Kron. 2005. Travelift to be Used in Boat Salvage. News From the Docks 6(12): 9-10. Publication of the Ports
Association of Louisiana, retrieved on January 4, 2006, from http://www.portsoflouisiana.org/December2005.pdf.
Farrell, J.E. 2005. Louisiana Sea Grant Launches Hurricane Recovery Website. News From the Docks 6(11): 11. Publication of the
Ports Association of Louisiana, retrieved on January 4, 2006, from http://www.portsoflouisiana.org/Nov2005.pdf.
Farrell, J.E. 2005. Tradeoffs in Coastal Restoration: The Pilottown Anchorage. News From the Docks 6(9-10): 7-8. Publication of
the Ports Association of Louisiana, retrieved on January 4, 2006, from http://www.portsoflouisiana.org/SeptOct2005.pdf.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
29
Farrell, J.E. 2005. Ports Featured at Coastal Zone 2005. News From the Docks 6(8): 7-8. Publication of the Ports Association of
Louisiana, retrieved on January 4, 2006, from http://www.portsoflouisiana.org/August2005.pdf.
Farrell, J.E. 2005. The LNG debate heats up: ORV vs. SCV. News From the Docks 6(7): 7-9. Publication of the Port Association of
Louisiana (PAL), retrieved from http://www.portsoflouisiana.org/Nov2005.pdf.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
30
Appendix E: Specialist Mr. David Knight Research Portfolio
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
A. NOAA Great Lakes
$655,000 for
NOAA: ($355K) NOAA National Ocean
Needs
Great Lakes marine
Regional Needs
entire project,
Great Lakes
Service, Coastal Services
Assessment:
transportation
Assessment –
including coastal Commission:
Center
12/15/05 -6/1/06
interests, including
Ports/Navigation
zone mgmt. and
($350K)
deep draft and
Component
data monitoring
Total project
shallow draft ports
components
timeline:
and harbors.
9/23/04 – 8/1/09
B. Update on 1993 study: $36,000
$6K each from:
Tennessee Valley
10/1/03 – 2/1/06
Commercial marine
Great Lakes and St.
St. Lawrence
Authority, Limno-Tech
interests in the Great
Lawrence River
Seaway
Inc., funding source
Lakes/St. Lawrence
Commerce: Safety, Energy
Management
organizations
Seaway system,
and Environmental
Corp.; St.
including ports,
Implications of Modal
Lawrence
vessel operators,
Shifts
Seaway
commodity interests,
Development
cargo handlers
Corp.; Canadian
Shipowners
Assoc.; Lake
Carriers’ Assoc.;
American Great
Lakes Ports; and
Chamber of
Maritime
Commerce
C. Economic Benefits of
$203,400 U.S.
Army
Foundation for
11/1/03 – 3/31/06
Recreational boating
Recreational Boating in
Corps of
Recreational Boating
interests in the Great
the Great Lakes
Engineers
Safety, Education and
Lakes including
(Authorized in
Environmental
marina operators,
WRDA 1999)
Awareness;
boating
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
31
Recreational Marine
manufacturers and
Research Center at
dealers, shallow draft
Michigan State University
harbor communities
D. Great Lakes Observing $248,000 for
NOAA National
NOAA, US EPA, US Fish 12/1/03 - ongoing
Great Lakes
System
FY06
Ocean Service
& Wildlife Service, US
navigation interests,
Geological Survey, US
including
Army Corps of Engineers,
commercial shipping,
US Coast Guard, States,
recreational boaters,
Universities, and Industry
commercial fishing
interests, port and
harbor managers,
Coast Guard
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
32
Funding Support
Funding
Collaborating Partners and Duration (m/d/yr –
User Group(s)
Research Project (Title)
($)
Source(s)
Agencies
m/d/yr)
(current or intended)
The two following projects
are in development:
E. Port-based program for
To be
American Great
Northeast Midwest
To be determined
Commercial Great
early detection and
determined
Lakes Ports
Institute, NOAA, US EPA
Lakes port interests,
monitoring of aquatic
Association
including port
nuisance species in the
authorities, private
Great Lakes.
vessel and dock
operators,
environmental and
resource
management groups
F. Valuation of Great
To be
US Army Corps
To be determined
To be determined
Great Lakes port and
Lakes/St. Lawrence
determined
of Engineers
harbor communities,
Seaway System
marine transportation
and recreation
interests
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
33
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. This project originated from a Joint Project Agreement between the Great Lakes Commission and the NOAA Coastal Services
Center (CSC) designed to explore a greater regional presence for the CSC in the Great Lakes. Specifically, the Needs Assessment will
focus on three areas: coastal community development, ports/navigation and information management. Within each of these issue
areas, data will be collected among relevant public and private sector groups to identify specific needs and/or gaps, with the ultimate
goal of developing products and services, and efficient delivery systems, to meet the needs.
B. The impetus for the Modal Shift Study comes from commercial transportation interests in the Great Lakes eager to research and
document quantifiable advantages to the marine transportation mode, specifically as compared to rail and highway transportation. The
original study conducted by the Great Lakes Commission in 1993 has been widely circulated; the update now underway uses similar
cargo movement scenarios to compare the three modes on the basis of safety, fuel efficiency and toxic air emissions. The outcome will
hopefully demonstrate continuing advantages of marine transportation, and encourage greater consideration of the marine mode in
transportation planning and policy making.
C. The Recreational Boating Economic Benefits Study was largely designed to demonstrate a federal interest in maintaining
authorized recreational harbors by documenting their full economic impact. The core of the project was the most comprehensive
calculation of boater spending (both trip spending and craft spending) ever done in the U.S., using a nationwide on-line “boater panel”
of some 10,000 participants. The study also calculated economic impacts in the Great Lakes of charter fishing, marina operations and
the manufacturing and sales of recreational boats in the region.
D. The Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) is the regional node of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). GLOS is
committed to providing integrated, remotely-sensed and in situ information about the Great Lakes, their interconnecting waterways,
the St. Lawrence River, and the hydrology, sediment nutrient, and pollutant contributions from their tributaries and airsheds for use by
researchers, managers, industry, educators and others engaged in commerce, education and science on or about the system. GLOS has
to date been housed at and facilitated by the Great Lakes Commission; my role has been as a liaison with the navigation user group to
identify its specific needs, and to identify and engage appropriate representatives within that group to participate in the formation of
the GLOS Regional Association. Currently, GLOS is one of the more advanced RAs in the country, with a draft business plan and
articles of incorporation awaiting adoption.
E. Port authorities in the Great Lakes have indicated a desire to engage in a meaningful way the issue of aquatic nuisance species in
the Great Lakes, particularly those suspected to have been introduced and/or spread by commercial vessel ballasting operations. I am
currently working with the American Great Lakes Ports Association and the other partners identified above to develop a port-based
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
34
ANS detection and monitoring system, using the port of Detroit as a prototype, and some early detection/monitoring research already
assembled by the Great Lakes Commission as a potential model.
F. New metrics have been developed by the Corps of Engineers to assess dredging needs among deep draft commercial ports, and to
develop operation and maintenance budgets accordingly. These metrics are largely driven by performance based budgeting concepts
dictated by the Office of Management and Budget. To better qualify (i.e.”compete”) for adequate O&M allocations in its Great Lakes
districts, the Corps is in early stages of working with the Great Lakes Commission to develop, for the first time, an accurate valuation
of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system and its navigation infrastructure.
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
35
Appendix F: Specialist Mr. David Chapman Research Portfolio
A. Delaware Clean
10,000
DNREC
EPA
10/1/01-9/30/02
Marina owners and
Marina Program
10,000
CIB
EPA
10/1/01-9/30/02
operators;
14,445
DNREC
NOAA
1/30/03-3/31/04
recreational boaters
13,000
CIB
EPA
10/1/03-9/30/04
20,000
DNREC
NOAA
2/17/04-9/30/04
20,000
NFWF
NOAA
10/1/04-9/30/05
10,500
CIB
EPA
10/1/04-9/30/05
B. Boating Infrastructure
30,027
DNREC
EPA/CVA
3/14/02-9/30/02
Transient boaters
Grant (Big) Program
21,000
DNREC
EPA
2/25/03-9/30/03
C. Passenger Vessel
9,700 US
Access
DOT
9/23/02-3/22/03
Public users of water
Accessibility Guidelines
Board
transportation
(ADA)
D. Professional Education-
7,494 NDI Kvaerner Philadelphia
10/4/02-12/31/02 Kvaerner
Marine Engineering
Engineering,
Shipyard, Inc.
Philadelphia
Inc.
Shipyard production
supervisors
E. Oceanographic
94,197 NSF
UNOLS
10/1/05-9/30/07
Disabled
science
Research Vessel
students who want to
Accessibility for Persons
use oceanographic
with Disabilities
research vessels
(ORVs); ORV
operators
F. National Ferry Database 6.824
Prime
J. Corbett, PI - UD
10/8/02-2/5/03 Ferry
MARAD
owners/operators and
researchers
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
36
G. Ferry Emission
121,158 Rutgers J. Corbett, PI – UD
8/28/03-8/30/04
Federal, state, and
Reduction
University
FTA
local policy makers
for air quality
H. Right Whale strike
253,510
NOAA
J. Firestone, PI – UD
9/1/04-8/31/07
Federal and state
avoidance
NOAA
policy makers for
coastal and
deepwater shipping
I. Operations Development 15,000 (est)
TechICON
City of Gloucester, MA
Sep 2001-Mar
City of Gloucester,
Scoping and Evaluation
2002 (est)
MA
for Gloucester –
Shelbourne International
Ferry
J. Vessel Operator
50,000 (est)
Marine Chemist
J. Corbett, PI - UD
Oct 2001-Sep
US Maritme
Engine Emissions
&
MARAD
2002 (est)
industry; Federal,
Measurement Guide
Environmental
state, and local
Consultants
policy makers for air
quality
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
37
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Develop and manage a program to encourage environmental stewardship by boaters and marina operators and owners
B. Provide administrative and outreach services to enhance marina facilities for transient boaters
C. Assist the U.S. Access Board in developing Federal regulations for passenger accessibility to commercial and public vessels
D. Provide training in marine engineering and naval architecture to shipyard professionals
E. Enhance accessibility of ORVs to disabled scientists; educate ORV operators in accessibility responsibilities and opportunities;
develop and document best management practices for accommodating disabled scientists on ORVs
F. Assist in developing national database of ferry operations
G. Evaluate commercial vessel traffic characteristics and whale strike probabilities along the North Atlantic coastline
H. Evaluation of public-private incentives to reduce emissions from regional ferries
I. Feasibility study for Gloucester, MA to Shelburne, Nova Scotia high-speed vehicle ferry
J. Development of Vessel Operator Engine Emissions Measurement Guide
National Ports and Harbors Extension Program Report
38
