View non-flash version
16Maritime Reporter & Engineering News GOVERNMENT UPDATE Strategic SeaportsTheir importance to the nation in a time of needThe U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), in conjunctionwith the U.S. Department of Transportation?s (DOT) Maritime Administration (MARAD), has designated par- ticular ports around the United States as ?strategic sea- ports.? Strategic seaports are designated because of their ability to support major force and material deployments in times of war and national emergency, based on their proximity to deploying military units and their transportation links close to those units, and varying other capabilities the DOD has deemed important, including theimportance of having strategic ports on all four of the nation?s coasts (Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and Alaska). Currently, there are 22 strategic seaports in total; 17 are com- mercial ports and five are owned by the military. The current list of 22 strategic seaports includes the Ports of Anchorage, AK; San Diego, CA; Long Beach, CA; Hueneme, CA; Oakland, CA; Con- cord, CA; Jasonville, FL; Savannah, GA; Morehead City, NC; Wilmington, NC; Sunny Point, NC; Port of Port Elizabeth, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Charleston, SC; Beaumont, TX; Port of Port Arthur, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Tacoma, WA; Indian Island, WA; Norfolk, VA; Newport News, VA; and Guam. This article describes how strategic ports are designated by the DOD and MARAD, what needs to be done to ensure that they can continue to carry out their strategic missions while still maintain- ing their day-to-day commercial missions, and a brief overview of recent Congressional interest in strategic ports. How Ports are Designated and Examples of their Use by DODStrategic seaports are designated as ?strategic? because they are significant transportation hubs that are important to the readiness and cargo throughput capacity of the DOD. One of the major re- sponsibilities of strategic seaports is to be prepared to make the port and its facilities available within short notice for the deploy- ment of military forces and supplies in support of DOD operations.MARAD administers the Strategic Port Program and is charged with facilitating the movement of deploying military forces through strategic ports while minimizing commercial disruptions. Within DOD, it is the Surface Deployment & Distribution Command (SDDC), under the purview of the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), that has jurisdiction over the program. Strategic seaports need to be able to make their facilities avail- able to the military with as little as 48 hours? notice, and for long periods of time, if necessary. Since the inception of the program, strategic seaports have been used to help deploy troops and ma- teriel. As an example, between 2005 and 2010, the Port of An- chorage has supported over 20 military deployments including Stryker Brigade deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. During that same time period, over 18,000 pieces of military equipment passed through the Port's facilities. Another example is the Port of Philadelphia, which was one of the four busiest ports serving the Iraq war. During the war, the Port of Philadelphia handled heavy military equipment and weapons headed to the Middle East, in-cluding helicopters and fuel tank trucks. The military is a significantly large cargo shipper, even in peace time. The responsibility that strategic seaports have to the military has the potential to put additional pressure on their infrastructure,facilities and operations, especially as U.S. port cargo traffic con- tinues to increase. Furthermore, as noted in a recent America So- ciety of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report (?Failure to Act ? The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Airports, Inland Waterways, and Marine Ports Infrastructure?), our nation?s airports, inland waterways, and marine ports infrastructure investment is not keeping up with the needs of our nation?s waterways and seaports. Total public port investment needs are expected to exceed $30 bil- lion by 2020, but current investment levels by the ports will amount to only $18 billion over that period, leaving a serious gap. MARAD?s Role in Strategic Port Manage- ment and Infrastructure Funding Options One of the roles of MARAD is to promote U.S. ports and supportport infrastructure development. Unfortunately, however, U.S. ports, including strategic seaports, do not have a dedicated source of federal funding for infrastructure and intermodal improvements unlike most other modes of transportation. There was hope that this might change when, in 2009, Congress codified MARAD?s port oversight role by creating the ?Port Infrastructure Develop- ment Program? (Section 3512 of Pub.L.111-84). The law directed the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime Ad- ministrator, to establish a port infrastructure development program for the improvement of port facilities. The law also established a ?Port Infrastructure Development Fund? within MARAD?s purview to receive federal, non-federal, and private funds for port infrastructure. Unfortunately, Congress has not appropriated any funds for this Program and the authority has been languishing. MARAD and DOT have recently used the ?Transportation In- vestment Generating Economic Recovery? (TIGER) program, a discretionary grant program, to support some infrastructure at ports.Ports, however, have had to compete for limited funds with nu- merous other transportation projects of national or regional signif- icance and have not fared as well in the competition. The TIGER Program has not been funded for FY2013 as the U.S. Government remains under a Continuing Resolution until March 27, 2013. The recent two-year reauthorization of the surface transportation reauthorization bill, otherwise known as ?MAP 21?, called for the establishment of a new freight mobility program, including the de- velopment of a National Freight Strategic Plan. However, DOT does not expect the Plan will be fully developed for another five years! MAP 21 also authorizes ports to derive funds, in certain cir- cumstances, from federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) formula funds?authorized at $20 billion under MAP 21?allo-cated to states. However, without a specific allocation for ports, they will once again have trouble competing at the state level with traditional high- way projects. DOT is also investigating whether its ?Transportation Infrastruc- ture Finance and Innovation Act? (TIFIA) loan program may be available to finance port infrastructure. TIFIA was reauthorized by MAP-21 at $1.7B over two years. Joan Bondareff , of counselat Blank Rome, focuses herpractice on marine trans-portation, environmental, and legislative issues. Bondareff@BlankRome.com Kate Scontras, member ofBlank Rome Government Re- lations, coordinates andmonitors appropriations re-quests and provides legisla-tive support to clients on issues relating to the mar-itime industry, U.S. Coast Guard, and water resources. Scontras@BlankRome.comMR#12 (10-17):MR Template 12/3/2012 11:48 AM Page 16
