DOCSLIB.ORG

Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center Tier 1 University Transportation Center U.S. Department of Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center Tier 1 University Transportation Center U.S. Department of Transportation MARITIME TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER TIER 1 UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transit-Oriented Development and Ports: National Analysis across the United States and a Case Study of New Orleans Project Start Date: October 2013 Project End Date: September 2017 Principal Investigator: John L. Renne, Ph.D., AICP Director and Associate Professor, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions School of Urban and Regional Planning Florida Atlantic University Building 44, Room 284 777 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33431 561-297-4281 [email protected] Honorary Research Associate Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment University of Oxford Final Report Date: November 2017 FINAL RESEARCH REPORT Prepared for: Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center University of Arkansas 4190 Bell Engineering Center Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-6021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation under Grant Award Number DTRT13-G-UTC50. The work was conducted through the Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center (MarTREC) at the University of Arkansas. In partnership with and as a member of the MarTREC consortium, this project was funded through the University of New Orleans Transportation Institute, where Dr. John L. Renne was employed until the end of 2015. Dr. Renne would like to acknowledge Tara Tolford and Estefania Mayorga for their efforts on the data analysis and assistance with the report. He is grateful to all of the interviewees who donated their time for the benefit of this study. Finally, Dr. Renne wishes to thank James Amdal for his expertise and assistance on this project. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Required MarTREC Final Research Report Content and Format 1. Project Description 2. Methodological Approach 3. Results/Findings 4. Impacts/Benefits of Implementation (actual, not anticipated) 5. Recommendations and Conclusions 1. Project Description This study is grounded on the premise that there is one transportation system with many components. Public debates often pit one mode against another mode, such as: automobiles vs. transit, buses vs. trains, walking vs. driving, and freight vs. passenger. However, the reality is that while some people may predominately use one mode, the public should be concerned with all modes that serve communities. The U.S. Department of Transportation is a multimodal agency but the massive nature of the organization has resulted in a structure where various administrations, based on modes, typically focus on their own domain. Local government and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) often have a multimodal approach when it comes to passenger transportation, but freight and passenger interest groups and stakeholders rarely collaborate on unified transportation plans that span both. For example, in South Florida, the airports, ports and transit agencies are all located in close physical proximity, but a tourist arriving at one of the three international airports is not able to easily connect to one of the three major cruise ports utilizing regional transit. The same is true in many other port cities, including New Orleans, which is a focus of this study. The aim of this study is to examine the extent that freight and passenger transportation planning overlap within the context of transit-oriented developments (TODs) near ports. This study also includes a case study of New Orleans. The following research questions explore the geographic connections between fixed-route transit stations, TODs, and their proximity to major ports across the United States. The study applied a TOD-typology, developed and applied in other studies (Renne, Tolford, Hamidi, & Ewing, 2016) to examine the transportation, population and economic characteristics of station areas near ports. Research Questions: RQ1. How many fixed-transit stations, including TODs, in the United States are located within close proximity to port facilities? RQ2. What are the jobs and transportation characteristics of fixed-transit station areas by TOD-typology in the last-mile of ports? RQ3. What lessons can be drawn from the coordination, or lack thereof, between passenger and freight interest groups seeking to promote TOD in neighborhoods in close proximity to the Port of New Orleans? This report summarizes the results of a quantitative analysis on fixed-transit station areas, by TOD- typology, within close proximity of major port facilities across the United States. This study examines the population, jobs, transportation, housing and built environment characteristics of fixed-transit station areas by TOD-typology near major ports, including coastal and major river port facilities. The National TOD Database was combined with the National Transportation Atlas Database, coastline data from the Census and data on major rivers from ArcGIS. The GIS analysis was isolated to all fixed-route transit stations located within a half-mile, 1-mile and 3-miles of coastlines, major rivers and ports. 1 The study also presents a case study of New Orleans, where the revitalization of historic neighborhoods, including the construction of new streetcar lines, bicycle infrastructure and improved pedestrian facilities along with an influx of new residents has created tensions between neighborhoods and freight operators. Communities have been fighting for passenger-transport safety and community livability through a variety of requests that were viewed as potentially restricting freight operations within close proximity of the Port of New Orleans. Freight interests maintained their large employment base with job growth as well as their longstanding presence in the community as vital to the local economy. In the course of this research, the following factors became apparent as indicators of need for success: a transparent planning process and infrastructure investment and coordination across community groups, government agencies, and industry representing both passenger and freight modes. 2 2. Methodological Approach A. Introduction In port cities across the country, thriving neighborhoods surround some ports, but less economically successful areas are found around others. When transit-oriented development solutions are presented to improve struggling communities, some of the proposals fail based on fear or misaligned goals and objectives. The research asks, within the planning process, is there a better way to keep stakeholders aligned with each other’s goals in the areas of freight, passenger, and real estate development? Can agencies better collaborate and members of the community be part of that process? Can more transparency on analysis and implementation result in better outcomes? Would better solutions emerge from more open conversation among stakeholders? The quantitative study helps understand the typologies of ports and development around them. Two categories were identified for purposes of analysis: 1. Ports with lots of warehouses and few people, housing and jobs 2. Ports with highly intensive development in close proximity, including housing, employment and entertainment districts The City of New Orleans was identified as a port city in transition from category 1 to category 2, and therefore a useful case study. A series of stakeholder interviews in the city showed that significant investment in infrastructure is required to progress from category 1 to category 2. B. Background Port cities across the globe have seen a dramatic increase in freight and terminal operations due to increasing globalization (Read, 2004; Hesse & Rodrigue, 2004) . At the same time, neighborhoods around ports have been revitalized into trendy waterfront districts with large-scale reinvestments in residential, employment, tourist, retail and entertainment uses, as illustrated in Conery West in London, Docklands in Melbourne, Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, Sydney’s Darling Harbor, New Orleans and many other port cities (Butler, 2007; Hall, 1998; Levine, 1987; Campanella, R & APA Planners Press, 2010; Shaw, 2013). In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in what was the costliest disaster in United States history. As New Orleans recovered the city experienced an influx of new residents, including baby boomers, millennials, the creative class, and social and economic entrepreneurs, particularly in neighborhoods on high-ground next to the river. As shown in Figure 1, the “sliver by the river” was the unflooded high ground along the Mississippi River, consisting of historic neighborhoods that were ripe for redevelopment and became the destination for many new residents and business establishments that cater to locals and tourists. The sliver by the river also includes the majority of the Port of New Orleans terminal operations. Neighborhoods including Uptown, Central Business District/Warehouse District, French Quarter, Marigny, and Bywater include major freight terminals. Moreover, this close proximity is in the last mile of freight operations yet also experiencing major reinvestment and gentrification, characterized by rapidly 3 increasing property values,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • V. Inland Ports Planningand Cargos Handling Opera Tion*
    V. INLAND PORTS PLANNINGAND CARGOS HANDLING OPERA TION* Inland Ports Planning General The term inland waterway port or an inland waterway terminal conveys the idea of an end point. Indeed, traditionally, ports were perceived as end points of the transport system whereby water transport of cargoeswas either originated or terminated. However, from a broader point of view, the one encompassingthe so-called "c~ain of transport", ports or terminals are neither starting nor ending points; they are simply the intermediate points where cargoesare transferred between the links in the transport chain. The emphasis on the transfer function in this introductory section is made since: (a) Ports' main function is to move the cargo and to avoid accumulating and damaging it; (b) In order to efficiently fulfill their transfer function, ports or terminals have to possess convenient access(rail and road) to the connecting modes of transport. broader definition ora port seems especially appropriate for our discussion on inland waterway transportation (IWT). IWT is part of the domestic transportation system which also includes rail and road transpiration. IWT, unlike rail and road transportation, can oQly connectpoints which are locatea on the waterway network. Consequently, in most caSes othercomplementary land transportation modes are required for the entire origin-to-destinationtransport. In other words, since in most casesthe IWT cargo does not originate or terminate atthe port site itself, the main function of the inland port is to transfer the cargo between IWTvessels, trains, and trucks. The inland ports are important for the economic development of a country. The inland port, therail, the road and the seaport are equally important.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Transporation Plan.Indd
    Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland Water transportation is the most economical, energy effi cient and environmentally friendly transportation that exists for major cities today. The vast river network that was the original lifeblood of the Washington, DC region remains underutilized. The Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan is a comprehensive master plan outlining a water based transportation network on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia, for commuters, tourists and the federal government (defense and civilian evacuations). This plan outlines an enormous opportunity to expand the transportation network at a fraction of the cost (both in dollars and environmental impact) of other transportation modes. The plan includes intermodal connections to the existing land based public transportation system. See Detail Plan GEORGETOWN REGIONAL PLAN KENNEDY CENTER RFK STADIUM NATIONAL MALL THE WHARF BASEBALL The plan to the left GEORGETOWN STADIUM NAVY YARD PENTAGON BUZZARD POINT/ SOCCER STADIUM POPLAR POINT illustrates the reach of FORT MCNAIR JBAB the transporation plan KENNEDY CENTER that includes Virginia, NATIONAL AIRPORT RFK STADIUM JBAB / ST. ELIZABETHS SOUTH Maryland, and the DAINGERFIELD ISLAND NATIONAL MALL GENON SITE District of Columbia, CANAL CENTER ROBINSON TERMINAL NORTH fully integrated with THE OLD TOWN- KING STREET existing land based WHARF ROBINSON TERMINAL SOUTH BASEBALL PENTAGON STADIUM NAVY YARD JONES POINT transporation. NATIONAL HARBOR POPLAR POINT BUZZARD POINT/SOCCER STADIUM FORT MCNAIR JBAB A TERMINAL ‘A’ Both Plans illustrate B TERMINAL ‘B’ C TERMINAL ‘C’ potential routes and landings for D TERMINAL ‘D’ MOUNT VERNON FORT WASHINGTON Commuters, Tourists NATIONAL AIRPORT and the Federal JBAB / ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Marinas of Anne Arundel County
    Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County July 2018 Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Long Range Planning Division ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Office of Planning and Zoning Philip R. Hager, Planning and Zoning Officer Lynn Miller, Assistant Planning and Zoning Officer Project Team Long Range Planning Division Cindy Carrier, Planning Administrator Mark Wildonger, Senior Planner Patrick Hughes, Senior Planner Andrea Gerhard, Planner II Special Thanks to VisitAnnapolis.org for the use of the cover photo showing Herrington Harbor. Table of Contents Background Marinas Commercial Marinas Community Marinas Impacts of Marinas Direct Benefit Census Data and Economic Impact Other Waterfront Sites in the County Appendix A – Listing of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Appendix B – Location Maps of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marinas of Anne Arundel County Background Anne Arundel County has approximately 533 miles of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This resource provides the opportunity for the marine industry to flourish, providing services to the commercial and recreational boaters. In 1980, the first Boating and Marina Study was completed in the County. At that time, the County had 57 marinas and 1,767 boat slips.1 Since that time the County has experienced significant growth in all aspects of its economy including the marine industry. As of June 2018, there are a total of 303 marinas containing at total of 12,035 boat slips (Table 1). This report was prepared as an update to the 1997 and 2010 marina inventories2 and includes an updated inventory and mapping of marinas in the County.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Analysis
    Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis prepared for World Trade Center - Utah Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc Global Logistics Development Partners, Inc www.camsys.com report Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis prepared for World Trade Center - Utah & Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Global Logistics Development Partners 14362 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. Suite 1000 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA date December 29, 2017 Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2-7 Summary of Recommendations: .............................................................. 2-8 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-14 2.0 Inland Port Typology ....................................................................................... 2-17 2.1 What is an Inland Port?............................................................................ 2-17 2.2 Where are Existing Inland Ports? ........................................................... 2-17 Inland Port Types ..................................................................................... 2-17 Port Profile: DuisburgPort ....................................................................... 2-19 Port Profile: CentrePort Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Houston Authority
    Port of Houston Authority Tariff No. 14 January 1, 2020 Additional Rates, Rules, and Regulations Governing the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut Container Terminal EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 111 East Loop North - Houston, Texas 77029 USA P. O. Box 2562 - Houston, Texas 77252-2562 Phone (713) 670-2400 - Fax (713) 670-2564 Barbours Cut Container Terminal 1515 East Barbours Cut Boulevard – La Porte, Texas 77571 Phone (281) 470-1800 - Fax (281) 470-5580 PORT OF HOUSTON TARIFF NO. 14 Page No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS SUBJECT SUBRULE PAGE NO. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 048 ......................................... 11 Agent or Vessel Agent .............................................................................................. 001 .......................................... 6 Baplie ....................................................................................................................... 002 ........................................... 6 Berth ......................................................................................................................... 003 ........................................... 6 Bonded Storage ....................................................................................................... 004 ........................................... 6 Checking .................................................................................................................. 005
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Maritime Transport 2012
    UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 New York and Geneva, 2012 ii REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 NOTE The Review of Maritime Transport is a recurrent publication prepared by the UNCTAD secretariat since 1968 with the aim of fostering the transparency of maritime markets and analysing relevant developments. Any factual or editorial corrections that may prove QHFHVVDU\EDVHGRQFRPPHQWVPDGHE\*RYHUQPHQWVZLOOEHUHƅHFWHGLQDFRUULJHQGXPWREHLVVXHGVXEVHTXHQWO\ * * * 6\PEROVRI8QLWHG1DWLRQVGRFXPHQWVDUHFRPSRVHGRIFDSLWDOOHWWHUVFRPELQHGZLWKƄJXUHV8VHRIVXFKDV\PEROLQGLFDWHVD reference to a United Nations document. * * * The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * 0DWHULDOLQWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQPD\EHIUHHO\TXRWHGRUUHSULQWHGEXWDFNQRZOHGJHPHQWLVUHTXHVWHGZLWKUHIHUHQFHWRWKHGRFXPHQW QXPEHU VHHEHORZ $FRS\RIWKHSXEOLFDWLRQFRQWDLQLQJWKHTXRWDWLRQRUUHSULQWVKRXOGEHVHQWWRWKH81&7$'VHFUHWDULDWDWWKH following address: Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. UNCTAD/RMT/2012 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales no. E.12.II.D.17 ISBN 978-92-1-112860-4 e-ISBN 978-92-1-055950-8 ISSN 0566-7682 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Review of Maritime Transport
    [Show full text]
  • Gpm Demolition
    Sheet 7 of 11 MONTH 11 - 40 GPM DEMOLITION 525 11 PHASE 1 B COMPLETE A 6 7 8 9 10 THE TERRACE WATERFRONT 1 2 PARK C 3 C B A GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION YACHT CLUB PIER Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: The Terrace A. Excavation of P9 & P10 Garage 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: The Terrace B. Site Prep and Excavation of P6 – P8 Garage 3. Slip Access: Waterfront Park C. Demolition of A-C Docks (Month 12) 4. Marina Parking: Offsite ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 11-03J ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.11-03J EXHIBITDeleted NO.82A2 Sheet 8 of 11 MONTH 11 - 40 PH 2 CONSTRUCTION 525 11 PHASE 1 C COMPLETE A 6 7 8 9 10 THE TERRACE WATERFRONT 1 2 PARK 3 B GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION YACHT CLUB PIER Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: The Terrace A. Construction of P9 & P10 Garage & Buildings 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: The Terrace B. Construction of West Wharf Marina 3. Slip Access: Waterfront Park C. Excavation/Construction of P6 – P8 Garage & Buildings 4. Marina Parking: Offsite Sheet 9 of 11 MONTH 40 P9 & P10 COMPLETION 525 11 PHASE 1 A 9 COMPLETE 6 7 8 3 10 THE TERRACE WB1 WB2 4 3 WATERFRONT 1 2 C PARK B GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION PIER YACHT CLUB V W Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: WB2 A. Construction of P6-P8 & Buildings 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: WB2 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaped by Function: Boston's Historic Warehouses
    124 Sara E. Wermiel Shaped by Function: Boston’s Historic Warehouses This paper discusses the history of warehouses built before had the leading port. Boston’s port remained one of the busi- 1920 in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., with a focus on est through the nineteenth century, and in the latter nine- those in the Fort Point Channel Landmark District (FPCLD). teenth century, port facilities – including piers, warehouses, The FPCLD is a roughly 55-acre (22.3 hectares) area in the and railroad service – expanded in the South Boston area. South Boston neighborhood of the city, and it contains 85 In the twentieth century, other North American ports grew Figure 1: Warehouses in Fort Point Channel District, photo 1925 historic warehouses and lofts, which were built between to outrank Boston. Today, most of the wharves and facilities 1880 and 1930. This is the largest collection of warehouses of the old harbor have disappeared. In South Boston, the in a definable area in the city, and it probably is also one warehouses and lofts of the FPCLD survive. Although they of the most intact warehouse districts in the United States. now serve purposes other than storage and manufacturing, Before discussing the history of the FPCLD, the paper pres- these warehouses and lofts continue to physically represent ents an overview of the development of Boston’s old har- a time when maritime commerce and industry dominated bor and the distinctive warehouse blocks that were once a the city’s economy. These building feature a special form prominent feature of it. Until the mid-eighteenth century, of heavy-timber interior framing, adapted from a regional Boston was the most populous North American town and construction tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of San Francisco Vessel Schedule 2020-09-25
    Port of San Francisco Vessel Schedule Pier 1, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 2020-09-25 (415) 274-0400 [email protected] Pier Arrival Date (ETA) Vessel Name Departure Date (ETD) Agent/Operator Remarks Pier 15-17 Exploratorium Vacant Pier 17 Baydelta Vacant Pier 19 South Vacant Pier 27 Cruise Terminal Vacant Pier 29 North Vacant Pier 31 South Longterm Assignment Alcatraz Cruises Vessel TBA Alcatraz Cruises Layberth Pier 30-32 04/06/2020 CityTestSF TBA City of SF City First Responders Pier 35 North 05/26/2020 SS Jeremiah O'Brien TBA National Liberty Ship Emergency Layup Pier 35 South Vacant Pier 45 East (A) Longterm Assignment USS Pampanito TBA Maritime Park Assn Homeport Pier 45 East (C) Vacant Downtown Ferry Terminal Gate B Daily Vallejo Daily WETA/Blue & Gold Commuter Service Gates C and D Daily Tiburon-Sausalito-Larkspur Daily Golden Gate Ferry Commuter Service Gate E Daily Richmond WETA/Blue & Gold Gate F Daily Harbor Bay WETA/Blue & Gold Gate G Daily Alameda-Oakland Daily WETA/Blue & Gold Commuter Service Excursions Open China Basin Ferry Terminal Temporarily Closed Oracle Park Events WETA/B&G/GGF Pier 48.5 Ferry Terminal Temporarily Closed Chase Center Events WETA/Golden Gate Ferry Pier 50 East (inboard) Longterm Assignment Cape Horn TBA California Sealift/MARAD Layberth Pier 50 East (outboard) TBA Cape Hudson California Sealift/MARAD Layberth Pier 50 D Vacant Pier 54 North Vacant Pier 54 South Vacant Pier 68-70 Shipyard Wharf 3 East Vacant Wharf 3 West Longterm Assignment Marine Express Barges TBA Marine Express Layberth
    [Show full text]
  • Port Safety Plan
    Partnering in growth, connecting people and supporting potential PORT SAFETY PLAN Published Month Year Teamwork | Respect | Integrity | Honesty | Safety XXX-LEG-XX Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Port Safety Plan HSE-LEG-03 Partnering in growth, connecting people and supporting potential CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 2 AMENDMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 2. HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 11 3. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)......................................................... 16 4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION, COMMUNICATION AND INVOLVEMENT .................................... 17 5. IMPLEMENTING, REVIEWING AND REVISING PLAN ....................................................................... 23 6. AUDITING AND REPORTING ........................................................................................................... 25 7. PUBLICATION .................................................................................................................................. 27 8. VESSEL MOVEMENT ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Wharf and Dredging Project Consultation Report
    APPENDIX P PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT NOVEMBER 2017 AUGUST 2017 PAGE | 1 NAPIER PORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT CONTENTS DOCUMENT APPROACH ............................................................................... ..2 PART 1: PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT ........................................................... 3 PART 2: CONSULTATION APPROACH .......................................................... 5 PART 3: CONSULTATION IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 23 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 24 VERSION CONTROL ....................................................................................... 24 DOCUMENT APPENDICES ............................................................................. 25 DOCUMENT APPROACH This document has been prepared for use by Napier Port to support resource consent applications for the development of the Proposed Wharf and Dredging Project (PWDP). THE CONSULTATION REPORT IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS: PART 1: PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT; Sets out the foundation of the consultation campaign; the governance structure, the agreed approach and the resources put in place to support the process. PART 2: CONSULTATION APPROACH; AND Sets out
    [Show full text]
  • Zone of Siting Feasibility Study: Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, Apra Harbor, Guam: Final Report (September 2006)&Q
    Architect-Engineering Services for Environmental Engineering Services at Various Navy and Marine Corps Activities, Pacific Basin and Indian Ocean Areas Contract No. N62742-05-D-1873 Task Order No. 0007 Zone of Siting Feasibility Study Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Apra Harbor, Guam Final Report Prepared For: Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3134 September 2006 Zone of Siting Feasibility Study Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Apra Harbor, Guam Final Report Prepared For: Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3134 Prepared By: Weston Solutions, Inc. 2433 Impala Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 In Association With: Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 2153 North King Street, Suite 200 Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 September 2006 FINAL Report Zone of Siting Feasibility Study Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, Apra Harbor, Guam September 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 London Convention
    [Show full text]