Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2. Findings
Pages 4-12

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 4...
... · Many major ports of the United States cannot easily accommodate the range of medium-size vessels -- for example, those designed to the maximum dimensions allowed by the Panama Canal, and the latest-generation containerships -- a range requiring water depths of 40 ft to 45 ft (or more)
From page 5...
... This alternative already exists in the United States, and offers a flexible response to the need to load and unload bulk carriers in some contexts. Finding 3: The nation needs to assure, on an accelerated basis, the existence of permanent, multipurpose port capacity to handle bulk vessels requiring at least 50 ft of water depth on each of the coasts.
From page 6...
... If federal funding is involved, emphasis should be given to ports that handle all types of cargoes, as a variety of vessels in the world fleet require water depths of 40 ft to 45 ft. Attention also needs to be given to the ports' inland transportation system, to populations and inland markets served, to the comparative costs among the candidate ports of construction and subsequent maintenance dredging costs, and to the environmental consequences (that is, emphasis needs to be given to the reduction of potentially adverse consequences and the demonstration of environmental benefits in selecting dredging projects)
From page 7...
... The planning mechanism or process, then, needs to include all the appropriate governmental agencies as well as port users, commercial interests, and environmental and public interests concerned about port development. Since each port is unique, what is required will vary from port to port, but given the complexities of the issues that now surround port decision making, any route other than a local consensus building mechanism appears to offer little chance of success.
From page 8...
... . Finding 16: A comprehensive interagency agreement needs to be developed for consistent and timely consideration of environmental mitigation by all agencies commenting on dredging or filling projects under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
From page 9...
... The potentially undesirable environmental effects of the two activities are quite different, however. The potential for persistent undesirable effects associated with the dredging of materials for maintenance is very small, regardless of the character and quality of materials dredged.
From page 10...
... The costs of controlling toxic contaminants at the source may very well be less than those associated with the disposal and management of toxic materials dredged from ports. For existing contaminated sediments, a properly designed and executed program of dredging and containment may have beneficial environmental consequences.
From page 11...
... Such responsibilities, not required of users of ocean disposal sites, limit the attractiveness of the upland alternative independent of benefits that might be realized. Finding 30: Designated containment sites, whether specially constructed (e.g., diked alongshore structures, containment islands, or upland containment facilities)
From page 12...
... Finding 33: Procedural specifications used within federally sponsored dredging projects should increasingly encourage the use of high-efficiency dredges and dredging techniques specifically intended to reduce sediment loss and associated turbidity during dredging and to provide routine, highly accurate placement of dredged materials. Where predredging surveys indicate contaminated "hot spots," selective dredging and disposal techniques should be used.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.