Inland Harbors: The Corps of Engineers Should Assess Existing Capabilities to Better Inform Dredging Decisions
Released: 2017-07-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Waterway Transportation and the 13 Inland Ports

Inland ports along the section of the Mississippi River between St. Louis, Missouri, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, provide “on and off ramps” for shippers using the river, such as agricultural or chemical-processing companies, that need to move a large amount of bulk commodities. The 13 ports selected for our review vary in size, ranging from the Port of Memphis, Tennessee, the 5th largest inland port in the United States, to small ports, such as the Port of Osceola, Arkansas, that may serve one or two companies. Inland ports may be located on the banks of the river, or in harbors that are located off the main channel of the river. See figure 1 for the locations of inland ports on the Mississippi River, including the 13 ports we selected for this review (the starred ports in the figure).

As shown in figure 2, a number of entities are involved in moving commodities through ports. Shippers may have facilities, such as grain silos, inside the port, or they may be located offsite and simply use the port to receive or ship commodities. Shippers enter into contracts with barge companies to move commodities along the river. If the shipper is sending cargo, then a barge company will drop off empty barges that the shippers load. The barge company then picks up the loaded barges, lashes them to a flotilla or “tow” (a number of barges or vessels), and transports the barges along the river to their destination. Within the port, a harbor services/fleeting company will move individual barges to docks within the port for loading or unloading, use “fleeting areas” along the sides of the harbor to store barges waiting to be moved, and take the barge back out to the river when it is ready to be added to a tow. On the landside of the port, trucks and trains deliver or pick up commodities, and a variety of port tenants, such as grain and fertilizer companies, have on- site facilities to store and move freight.

Dredging and the Corps

The Mississippi River carries a large amount of sediment, which travels downstream and can accumulate in various spots (shoaling) within the river’s main channel and harbors. If the shoaling is too high or the river level drops, these spots can become impassable for fully loaded barges.

See figure 3 for an example of shoaling at the mouth of a harbor. To help maintain navigable waters, some inland harbors require dredging. A vessel called a “dredge” removes sediment from the bottom of the harbor and deposits it elsewhere. Dredging needs vary among ports. For example, industry and port officials told us that harbors located off the main stem of the river provide port and tenant infrastructure some protection from the river’s current and large debris in the river, but these harbors also tend to accumulate more sediment, particularly at the mouth, or entrance, of the harbor. Finally, flooding events can deposit large amounts of sediment in the channels and harbors, which becomes more problematic as water levels fall.

The Corps is responsible for dredging the nation’s federally authorized inland waterways, harbors, and channels, which are those that Congress defined in statute as federal projects and approved their construction and maintenance by the Corps to certain dimensions (depth, width, and length). To maintain the harbors and channels, the Corps may hire contractors or use its own vessels to dredge the harbors. The Corps does not dredge outside of the federally authorized areas, but ports and their tenants may dredge around their private docks and in other areas not maintained by the Corps. Dredging is part of the Corps’ Civil Works navigation mission, which includes the provision of safe, reliable, efficient, effective, and environmentally sustainable waterborne transportation systems for the movement of commerce, national security needs, and recreation in the United States. The Corps is also responsible for the operation and maintenance of locks and dams, as well as a number of other missions, such as flood risk management and hydropower.

The Corps is organized into three tiers: a national headquarters in Washington, D.C.; 8 regional divisions; and 38 Civil Works districts nationwide. District offices are generally responsible for managing dredging projects located within their district boundaries, including planning, awarding, and administering maintenance-dredging contracts with industry. Regional oversight is provided through the division. All three tiers are involved in the budget development process. For example, districts will compile a list of funding requirements for work packages in the districts (for example, dredging an inland harbor). These work packages are ranked and reviewed by the division and headquarters, and the approved packages become the basis for the President’s Budget proposal for the Corps’ Civil Works program. The Corp’s fiscal year appropriation, as passed by Congress, may provide more or less funding than what was requested in the President’s Budget proposal.

Methods for Funding Dredging and Other Transportation Needs

The federal government uses a variety of methods to fund transportation networks. The Corps pays the dredging costs for federally authorized harbors and channels with funds appropriated by Congress and generally reimbursed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The trust fund is supported through collections of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which is a tax collected on imports, domestic shipments, Foreign-Trade Zone admissions, and passengers primarily at coastal ports. The annual cost to fully dredge the harbors at each of the 13 selected inland ports varies by harbor, with one harbor requiring about $300,000 to be fully dredged, and another requiring over $3 million (although this could also change each year, based on flows from the Mississippi River and the conditions of each harbor). Prior to 2010, Congress used line-item appropriations to provide dredging funds for the harbors of specific ports. In contrast to the Harbor Maintenance Tax—which is paid by shippers primarily using coastal ports (and thus, is not directly linked to use of the inland ports)—the maintenance of other transportation networks, such as highways, is paid by users through a fee or tax. In addition, state and local governments are required to match federal funds for transportation infrastructure, such as highways and landside infrastructure at ports.

Selected Ports Varied in Terms of Type and Amount of Freight Moved, and Did Not Show a Consistent Traffic Trend from 2010 through 2015

Types of Freight

From 2010 through 2015, the 13 selected ports we reviewed moved the following types of freight: agricultural commodities (primarily soybeans, corn, and rice); petroleum products; crude materials (sand, gravel, and similar materials); chemicals; coal; and primary manufactured goods (such as lime and concrete). As shown in figure 4, the bulk of the freight tonnage moved through these ports was composed of agricultural commodities, petroleum products, and crude materials.

With respect to the contribution of the selected ports to the total tonnage moved on the Mississippi River, the 13 ports included in our review represented 15 percent of all agricultural freight; 9 percent of all crude materials; 8 percent of all primary manufactured goods; and 9 percent of all tonnage moved on the river from 2010 through 2015. The vast majority (99 percent) of the agricultural freight departing from the selected ports went downriver to deep-draft coastal ports primarily used for export purposes, such as Baton Rouge, South Louisiana, New Orleans, and Houston.

However, individual ports varied with respect to the type of freight moved through the port, with some ports specializing in certain commodities. For example, as shown in table 1, eight ports primarily transported agricultural commodities from 2010 through 2015, and the remaining five ports transported a range of types of commodities.

The industries located in a port’s geographic area tend to influence the products handled by that port. For example, port stakeholders told us and our review of Corps data confirmed that a number of ports primarily serve the local farming industry by shipping out agricultural commodities and bringing in fertilizer through the port. In addition, through site visits and document reviews, we found that the Port of Southeast Missouri has a lead facility in its region and a substantial amount of the freight moved through that port is lead concentrate, classified as crude materials.

Amount of Freight

As shown in table 2, the amount of tonnage transported through individual ports can fluctuate significantly from year to year; however, the 13 selected ports fell into three broad groups. For the purposes of this report, we will describe these groups in relation to the Corps’ definition of low-, moderate-, and high-use ports, which is based on the 5-year average of annual tonnage transported through the port. While tonnage fluctuated annually, based on the 5-year averages, 6 ports transported less than 1- million tons; 6 ports transported 1-million tons to less than 10-million tons; and 1 port consistently transported over 10-million tons.

Freight Trends

The total annual amount of freight transported through the 13 selected ports fluctuated substantially at the individual selected ports, making it difficult to identify a consistent trend (see table 2). None of the 13 selected ports consistently experienced a year-to-year increase or decrease throughout the 6-year time period. Stakeholders we interviewed told us that some of the fluctuations in the total amount of tonnage moved at individual ports is due to increases and declines in specific commodities handled by the port. For example, at the Port of Pemiscot County, total tons of freight increased by about 465 percent from 2012 to 2013, because of a large spike in crude petroleum shipments. The port’s total tonnage declined in later years as those shipments declined. According to stakeholders, changes in individual commodities are also sometimes related to changes in export market demand or crop yields, or situations in which freight movement is impeded by harbor conditions (discussed later in the report). For example, stakeholders told us that if export market conditions improve for American agricultural commodities due to a drought in another country, farmers may sell more of their product, as opposed to storing it when prices are low. In addition, crop yield per acre determines the amount of crop harvested, and can be affected by weather, seed quality, and other factors. Stakeholders also told us that individual businesses decide where and by which mode to transport their commodities based on many different long-term and short- term factors, such as transportation time and cost, and market demand, among others.

Stakeholders Identified Challenges That Funding Constraints Pose to Dredging Inland Harbors and Concerns about the Corps’ Fund Allocation Process Funding Constraints Limit the Corps’ Ability to Fully Dredge Harbors, Which Negatively Affects Freight Movement

A majority of the stakeholders we interviewed, as well as officials from USDA and the Corps, cited funding constraints as a challenge that prevents the Corps from fully dredging all inland harbors, including the harbors at the selected ports. Port stakeholders told us that their harbors generally need annual dredging, particularly at the entrance to the harbor, where sediment flowing down the river tends to accumulate. Corps officials in one district agreed that the dredging needs for the ports are fairly consistent, although weather events and river levels can affect the amount of dredging needed. According to Corps officials, the Corps has dredged most of the 13 selected ports’ harbors most years from 2010 through 2016 (see table 3). However, port authorities we interviewed and Corps officials noted that the Corps does not dredge all of the harbors to their authorized dimensions (length, width, or depth) primarily due to funding constraints. According to local Corps officials, the Corps needed approximately $20.6 million, and received approximately $13.1 million to dredge all of the harbors and channels associated with the 13 selected ports to their full dimensions in fiscal year 2016. While Congress provided much more than this for the Corps to address operations and maintenance needs, the Corps must allocate operation and maintenance funds among hundreds of harbors and waterway projects. Nonetheless, according to Corps officials in one district, the Corps has been able to distribute the funds so that it can dredge enough of each harbor in that district to keep barges moving. Some stakeholders echoed this sentiment, stating that the Corps does a good job working with the funds that it receives.

As shown in table 3, the Corps has dredged most of the 13 selected ports’ harbors most years from 2010 through 2016. However, port stakeholders provided some examples of how unmet dredging needs have negatively affected freight movement at these ports, particularly with respect to limiting the amount of freight moved per barge or creating temporary harbor closures. Some of these stakeholders noted that these situations can further lead to increased transportation costs and freight congestion, which can have negative consequences for the industries reliant on these ports, particularly agricultural industries.

Light-loading: Light-loading refers to situations in which shippers cannot load a barge to its full capacity (see figure 5). Shippers have to light load a barge when a harbor is experiencing shoaling because a fully loaded barge would not have enough clearance for the bottom of the barge to pass over the shoaled areas of the harbor. Light-loading may refer to loading a barge so that it sits anywhere from several inches to a few feet higher above the water; but stakeholders explained that every inch taken off the barge’s draft corresponds to about 15 to 18 fewer tons of cargo on the barge. Light loading was the negative effect most commonly cited by port stakeholders when discussing the effects of unmet dredging needs. Since light-loaded barges carry less cargo than fully loaded barges, shippers must use more barges to move the same amount of product, an outcome that may lead to increased transportation costs. For example, one shipper explained that its agreement with a barge company requires that the shipper pay as if the barge is carrying a certain amount of tonnage, regardless of the load size. Thus, during a period of light-loading, the shipper would have to pay the barge company to move seven barges, instead of six, and the shipper would be required to pay as if the barges were carrying full loads. In addition to increased transportation costs, stakeholders said that since light-loading requires the use of more barges to move the same amount of freight; barge shortages can occur if light-loading is widespread. One port stakeholder told us that during periods of light-loading, it takes more time to load the same amount of product onto barges (because of the need to use multiple barges and the time it takes to switch each barge out), which can lead to long lines of trucks waiting to unload their cargo at the port.

Harbor closures: Port stakeholders provided examples in which their ports were shut down due to unmet dredging needs. Several stakeholders, as well as the Corps, cited the 2012 drought as being particularly problematic. Over the course of 15 months, the Mississippi River fluctuated from historic flood stages in 2011 to record lows in 2012, dropping over 50 feet in some places. A significant amount of sediment from the 2011 flood settled along the river and in harbors, and as the water level fell, numerous harbors along the river were shoaled in and needed dredging. In this case, the shoaling occurred during the harvest season, which is the busiest time of year for the agricultural ports. Representatives from two ports told us they were shut down for 2 to 3 months, with barges full of grain stuck inside the harbor. Stakeholders said that grain silos at ports filled because barges could not get out of the harbors and farmers were at risk of losing grain due to spoilage in the field. Corps officials told us that initially, four of the ports’ harbors in one district were closed during the 2012 drought; so the Corps worked to dredge two of those ports’ harbors so that agricultural shippers could move cargo from some ports. Harbor shutdowns led to increased costs as companies began trucking product to other ports. (One company estimated it lost $5 million.) Some companies said that the increased costs led to downward pressure on the prices paid to farmers for grain. Port shutdowns affected non-agricultural stakeholders as well. For example, one port representative said that the area surrounding the port ran out of gas and diesel fuel three times because temporary harbor closures made it difficult to bring in fuel by barge. The 2012 drought was an unusual event, but the experiences at ports during that time provide useful insight into the critical nature of dredging at inland harbors. Moreover, port and tenant representatives provided other examples in which ports were temporarily shut down for a few weeks to as much as a month in more typical years. For example, a tenant told us that due to harbor shoaling at its port, the company spent $98,000 to reroute 14 incoming barges to another location on the river, unload the cargo at that location, and truck the cargo into its port.

Port and industry representatives explained that the increased transportation costs created by light-loading and harbor closures are of particular concern because the affected industries operate on very small profit margins. In particular, agricultural companies and trade associations noted that one of the main reasons that their exports can compete in the global market is because of their low transportation costs. Some industry representatives raised concerns about their ability to switch to shipping cargo by truck or rail, explaining that shipping by barge is far more economical.

In addition, port stakeholders noted that funding constraints that limit the Corps’ ability to fully dredge their ports have led to increased costs for them. Although port stakeholders varied in their financial ability to pay for dredging, some stakeholders reported that they took their own steps to open their harbor by hiring a dredge or excavating part of the harbor themselves. For example, one port representative said that his port recently spent an additional $75,000 to further dredge the harbor because the Corps did not have enough funding to fully dredge it. In addition, another port used funds from other sources to pay to dredge its harbor in 2010, 2011, and 2013.

Port and industry stakeholders also told us that the uncertainty related to the annual decisions made in the federal budget process and whether the Corps will have enough funding to dredge their harbors creates challenges in attracting tenants. The Corps and the ports are not sure of how much funding will be provided in a given year until Congress passes the Corps’ annual appropriation, as is the case with any activity funded through the annual federal budget process. Once the funding amounts and allocations are known, the Corps releases a work plan outlining which harbors will be dredged and the amount of funding allocated to each harbor. Port stakeholders stated that the funding uncertainty can affect their ability to attract tenants, which need clarity about the reliability of dredging when determining whether to spend millions of dollars to build facilities, such as grain silos, that will last decades at the port. One port provided an example in which a new tenant faced significantly increased costs because the harbor was not dredged and the tenant had to light- load its cargo. Corps officials and researchers echoed these concerns, noting the importance of reliable dredging when ports are attempting to attract new tenants.

The Corps’ Prioritization Process for Allocating Funds to Dredge Harbors Creates Challenges for Low Tonnage Ports

According to Corps officials, within current funding levels, the Corps must make decisions about which harbors to dredge, and the amount of dredging each harbor should receive. Based on interviews with Corps officials and our reviews of budget guidance documents, when assessing which projects to fund during the annual budget process, the Corps uses a risk-based matrix that considers condition versus consequence, and based on each value, assigns the project an overall risk score. With respect to dredging inland harbors, the anticipated condition is based on the expected level of shoaling, and the consequence is based on the average annual tonnage moved by the port over the past 5 years, and other factors, such as imminent life-safety impacts. Consequence is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most severe. For example, ports that move less than 1-million tons of freight are ranked as “4,” or “low economic impact.” In interviews, Corps officials identified other factors that they consider when allocating funds for dredging, such as whether nearby ports will be dredged, but several Corps officials pointed to tonnage shipped as the primary factor they use to make dredging decisions. In addition, Corps officials noted that funding for low- commercial use ports—ports that on average ship less than 1-million tons per year—was reduced in the fiscal year 2012 budget and subsequent budgets, in response to a 2010 Memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget.

Stakeholders, including representatives of smaller ports as well as a barge operator and industry associations that we spoke to, raised concerns about the Corps’ emphasis on tonnage and its effects on which ports are selected for dredging, with some stating that other factors should be considered (such as economic impact or cargo value). Some stakeholders and an expert stated that if ports do not receive dredging and barges moving through that harbor have to light-load or temporarily cannot move through the port, then industries may leave the port; the cost of dredging may increase as sediment builds, and the port may face more difficulties meeting the 1-million-ton threshold. Corps officials acknowledged stakeholders’ concerns related to the low-commercial use ports’ ability to compete in the prioritization process and stated that they have worked to request more funding for these ports since funding was cut in fiscal year 2012. However, a senior Corps official also noted that the inland ports make up a very small percentage of the Corps’ overall national navigation project portfolio and therefore competition for constrained resources is very keen.

Congress has taken steps to try to address this issue, such as requiring the Corps to allocate a minimum amount of the funds to be reimbursed from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on low tonnage ports. In addition, Congress has emphasized the importance of considering factors beyond tonnage. For example, when allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund among eligible harbors and channels, the Corps is directed by statute not to base its allocation of funds solely on the amount of tonnage transiting through the harbors. In addition, in determining an equitable allocation, the Secretary of the Army is required to consider: the national and regional significance of harbor operations and maintenance; and a biennial assessment of the needs and uses of the harbors, which should include, to the extent practicable, the national, regional, and local benefits of such uses, including the use of harbors for: commercial navigation and the movement of goods; domestic and international trade; commercial fishing; subsistence; harbors of refuge; transportation of persons; domestic energy production; use by the Coast Guard or Navy; emergency response; recreation purposes; and other authorized uses.

When providing appropriations for the Corps, Congress has also suggested the Corps consider issues beyond tonnage when allocating funds for dredging. Based on our reviews of budget guidance documents and interviews with Corps officials, the Corps does collect data on many of the factors identified by Congress in law and in the language accompanying the appropriations act. For example, the Corps collects information on whether the harbor is used for some of the purposes outlined in the statute (for example; commercial fishing, transportation of persons, whether the harbor is used by the Coast Guard); however, a senior Corps official noted that many of these factors are more applicable to the coastal harbors and channels and are not as applicable to the inland harbors. In addition, Corps officials told us they may note specific circumstances about the regional importance of a port when submitting a budget package to dredge its harbor (for example, if industries in the port lack access to other modes of transportation). However, Corps officials told us that due to funding limitations, they have not conducted the statutorily required assessments of the national and regional significance of the harbor operations and maintenance, or of the local, regional, and national benefits from the use of the harbors. A senior Corps official noted that the cost to do an in-depth economic analysis of a port may be equivalent to the cost of dredging some of these harbors, and the results of the economic analyses may not change which harbors are ultimately prioritized for dredging.

However, the Corps has developed some internal tools that might help it assess data related to some of the factors that Congress has required the Corps to consider when allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, such as the national and regional significance of harbor operations and maintenance, and the use and benefit of the harbor for domestic trade. For example, a Corps official from the Corps’ Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) explained that ERDC developed a web-based “channel portfolio tool” that collates, summarizes, and visualizes detailed data from the Corps’ Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center to help district officials understand the direct role of dredging on the movement of cargo through coastal ports and the inland waterway system. The tool is scalable, meaning that users can view the data for the entire river system, for specific combinations of harbors, or for specific harbors. Corps officials using the tool can select specific harbors and quickly access annualized data on how many tons of various commodities moved through the location, the depths of loaded barges (which can be compared to present shoaling conditions), and the origin and destination of the cargo. Further, the official explained that the Corps has also used the tool to generate metrics on the amount and the dollar value of cargo at risk when harbors lose 5 feet of depth. The official further added that these metrics capture the cargo most at risk during periods of shoaling or low water conditions, thereby enabling objective comparisons across harbors. In addition, according to a Corps official, the Corps’ Institute for Water Resources has a tool that provides a detailed model that uses a variety of data about the coastal harbors, including their ship depths and cargo value, to better inform budgetary decisions. The official added that this tool potentially could be expanded to inland harbors.

The tools described above suggest that the Corps has tools already available that may help it better assess the additional factors that Congress required it by statute to consider when allocating dredging funds. For example, information about vessel depths, barge traffic, cargo value, and destination used in the channel portfolio tool could help the Corps assess the needs, use, and significance of harbor operations and maintenance by demonstrating the effects from unmet dredging needs (e.g., the frequency and duration of light-loading and the estimated impact on shipping costs), and comparing the relative effects among inland ports. However, Corps officials told us that additional work would be needed to develop useful metrics for inland ports, since the existing analyses have focused on coastal ports. For example, as previously noted, one tool estimates impacts from a loss of 5 feet of draft at a deep-draft coastal harbor, but an official stated it would be rare for an inland harbor to lose that much depth. Furthermore, the value of using the existing tools in this new context would depend on the reliability and the costs of this new approach, which are currently unknown. As noted above, Corps officials stated that funding constraints have prevented them from conducting the statutorily required assessments of the significance of harbor operations and maintenance. However, we developed a framework for examining agencies’ efforts to manage declining resources, and a key sub-theme within that framework is the importance of consulting with Congress to consider how budget decisions align with congressional goals, constituent needs, and industry concerns. A senior Corps official agreed that it may be beneficial for the Corps to provide Congress with information on the extent to which the Corps’ existing tools could be adapted to allow it to consider factors beyond tonnage when allocating dredging funds, the limitations of using these tools, as well as the amount of additional resources that may be needed to pursue such an approach.

Many Stakeholders Favored Continued Use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Identified Potential Challenges of Alternative-Funding Options

Stakeholders Preferred the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Funding Dredging

Many stakeholders and experts we interviewed said that the federal government should make more use of the current mechanism for funding dredging—the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—before considering alternative-funding options. Stakeholders representing shippers, as well as a state department of transportation official stated that dredging inland harbors is in the national interest as it promotes U.S. exports and transports freight through coastal ports such as New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Stakeholders also noted that the fund has a balance that is available for such projects. However, the money from this fund is only available for these purposes if Congress makes an appropriation out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Congress has taken steps to increase spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; however, other factors may affect the use of the trust fund. For example, to balance competing priorities among government programs and meet budgetary spending caps, Congress may choose to appropriate more or less funding from a trust fund than requested by an agency. In addition, as we have previously reported, due to fiscal pressures imposed by the nation’s budget deficit, any decisions about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would need to be considered within the context of all major federal spending and tax programs.

Stakeholders Cited Potential Challenges Related to Alternative Funding Options

We asked selected stakeholders and experts about three options for funding inland harbors’ dredging: contributions from state and local governments; expanding the use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (currently used for new construction and major rehabilitation of locks and dams as well as other channel and waterway improvements) to include maintenance dredging; and a new user fee or tax.

Stakeholders and experts identified challenges, some of which apply to multiple options and some of which apply to specific options. Additional details on the challenges are below: Financial effects on users and local governments: Stakeholders raised concerns that a user fee or tax or a state and local contribution would negatively affect users and those governments. For example, stakeholders representing port tenants, shippers, and trade associations stated that a user fee could raise waterborne transportation costs and negatively affect shippers. State department of transportation officials stated that there could be a shift to alternative transportation modes if barge rates increased, which could lead to more congestion and surface degradation on roads. However, experts noted that alternative modes are more costly than water transportation, so any diversion to these modes would depend on the extent of the increase in water transportation costs. Stakeholders such as ports, port tenants, and state departments of transportation officials also stated that many of the selected ports in our review do not have the financial resources to provide a funding contribution, and that it may be difficult to secure state or local funds from rural, low income counties and states where a number of the inland ports are located. More generally, we have reported that state and local governments face long-term fiscal pressures, which may limit their ability to contribute to dredging costs for harbors in their jurisdiction.

Impact on Inland Waterways Trust Fund: Stakeholders representing ports, port tenants, and state department of transportation officials stated that the Inland Waterways Trust Fund has a backlog of lock and dam projects that need funding, and any expanded use (absent an increase in the fuel tax) of the fund’s revenues on maintenance dredging would reduce available funds for locks and dams. In addition, port tenants, ports, and a state department of transportation official noted that directing funds to locks and dams, many of which are decades old and in need of repairs, may be a better use of funds than for dredging. For example, a port tenant noted that a lock failure would have more significant effects to more users than shoaling at one harbor.

Alternative funding options may not result in more predictable funding for dredging: Stakeholders and a state department of transportation official stated that requiring a state or local contribution may not result in more consistent funding given state and local budget processes and priorities. A state department of transportation official noted that funds for dredging could compete with other local needs, such as schools. When discussing alternative options generally, a Corps official said that since there is an existing mechanism that collects funds that can be appropriated for dredging—the Harbor Maintenance Tax—other options may not be feasible. This official noted that any new funding option may impose administrative burdens that might outweigh additional revenue collection.

Stakeholders Cited Potential Benefits Related to Alternative Funding Options

The majority of experts and a number of stakeholders we spoke to identified potential benefits related to users directly paying for their infrastructure use and using state and local revenues for dredging instead of devising an entirely new funding mechanism.

Users pay for infrastructure use: Some of the experts noted that many benefits of dredging inland harbors are local and that a state or local contribution from their budgets or a fee or tax paid by port users may be more appropriate than other funding options as those who benefit most from a project would pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and the Transportation Research Board have also noted the benefits of maritime users paying more for their infrastructure use. State department of transportation officials as well as experts noted that a new user fee may be more appropriate than a tax as it would mean one is paying for their use rather than paying a general tax. However, experts and some of the state departments of transportation officials cautioned that any alternative funding option imposed on just one section of the inland waterways would likely raise equity concerns and could put those inland ports at a competitive disadvantage. Thus, they emphasized that any alternative funding option should be applied to all U.S. inland waterways and not just those in the scope of this report.

Use of state and local revenues for dredging: Some stakeholders, including port tenants and shippers, believe that they already pay for dredging through state, local, and port taxes and fees. Some of these stakeholders gave reasons why a state or local contribution could be warranted. First, one port tenant, one state department of transportation official and two experts noted that state and local governments benefit from operating ports, which contribute to their economies. In addition, stakeholders representing port tenants and a state department of transportation agency, as well as one expert, noted that state and local governments and ports have provided funding for landside investments at ports, and it is therefore in their interest to maintain port access to the river. We have previously reported that investments being made in maritime infrastructure should be considered as part of state and national freight planning. In addition, some stakeholders noted that using state and local revenues to fund dredging could be an option if it could be used to match federal government funds. A Corps official noted that it is currently possible for non-federal entities to provide “contributed funds” to the Corps for dredging, but none has done so yet for this particular segment of the Mississippi River. However, Corps officials stated that they have received contributed funds for dredging in other regions, and as previously noted, some ports have paid for their own dredging in certain cases and port tenants are already financially responsible for dredging around their docks.

Stakeholders representing shippers said that they might be more inclined to consider an alternative-funding option if the benefits of a particular option outweighed the costs. In addition, some stakeholders also said that they would be more willing to consider a funding option for emergency dredging as opposed to routine dredging and would be more willing if there were a cost-share with the federal government.

Conclusions

The Mississippi River and its inland ports are important to the movement of freight, particularly agricultural goods destined for export. However, natural shoaling in many of these ports’ harbors negatively affect vessel operations, potentially resulting in freight congestion and increased shipper costs. The Corps, responsible for dredging these particular harbors as well as hundreds of other harbors and channels around the country, operates in a federally constrained budgetary environment and will likely continue to do so. It therefore must choose which harbors to dredge, with what frequency, and to what depth and width. In making these decisions, the Corps primarily relies on tonnage data—a potentially reasonable approach. The Corps is statutorily required to consider other factors such as the harbors’ national, regional, and local benefits when allocating funding for dredging inland harbors. Although the Corps has cited funding constraints as the reason for being unable to fulfill the statutory requirements, it has tools available that could potentially be adapted to help it consider all the factors Congress identified in statute and better inform its decisions regarding inland harbor dredging. However, some of these tools were developed for coastal harbors, and the feasibility, potential limitations, and costs of adapting the Corps’ existing analytical tools and capabilities will need to be assessed before these tools could be successfully utilized.

Recommendation

We recommend the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works direct the Director of Civil Works to determine whether existing tools and capabilities (such as the Corps’ analyses and models related to inland harbors’ conditions and freight traffic, as well as shoaling effects at coastal ports) can be adapted to help evaluate other factors when allocating funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The Corps should report to Congress on the feasibility, limitations, and potential costs and on an estimate of any additional funds needed to use such an approach to meet the statutory requirements.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense for review and comment. In comments, reproduced in appendix II, the Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works), stated that it concurred with the recommendation; with comment, and that it would work with the Corps to address the recommendation. The office also provided comments that focused on the recommendation in the broader context of the development of the Corps’ overall Civil Works budget, which we considered and incorporated as appropriate. In addition, the Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Civil Works) and the Corps of Engineers provided technical comments, which we considered and incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on our website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, contained a provision for us to study freight flows, dredging, and funding of dredging with respect to the harbors of inland shallow-draft ports on the Mississippi River between St. Louis and Baton Rouge. This report addresses three objectives: (1) what is known about the freight traffic (including types of freight and trends in traffic) of selected inland ports on the Mississippi River between St. Louis and Baton Rouge since 2010; (2) stakeholders’ views on any challenges that the current federal approach to funding dredging presents for inland ports and the reported effect on the movement of freight at these ports; and (3) stakeholders’ views on the potential benefits and challenges of using alternative options for funding dredging of inland harbors.

The 13 selected ports included in this review are (listed in geographic order, southbound): Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority, Missouri; Hickman-Fulton County Riverport Authority, Kentucky; New Madrid County Port Authority, Missouri; Pemiscot County Port Authority, Missouri; Osceola Port Terminal, Arkansas; International Port of Memphis, Tennessee; Helena-West Helena/Phillips County Port Authority, Arkansas; Port of Rosedale, Mississippi; Yellow Bend Port, Arkansas; Port of Greenville, Mississippi; Port of Lake Providence, Louisiana; Madison Parish Port, Louisiana; and Port of Vicksburg, Mississippi.

To determine what is known about freight traffic of selected inland ports between St. Louis and Baton Rouge since 2010, we reviewed and analyzed data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center for the 13 inland ports included in our review. Specifically, we analyzed the types and amount of freight transported through these ports annually, as measured by weight, from 2010 through 2015. These data are referred to as annual tonnage data, and include total waterborne tonnage, whether the tonnage was moving into or out of the port, and the amount and types of commodities moved through the port. We analyzed these data to determine whether we could identify any trends in the movement of freight in these ports. To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed a 2009 GAO report that discussed the reliability of Corps’ tonnage data and then interviewed Corps officials at the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center about any changes that had occurred in the data collection, receipt, handling, and storage processes since that review, as well as their current processes for ensuring the reliability of the data. We also interviewed port officials to discuss any concerns they had about the data and companies responsible for filing the reports that the Corps uses to assess port tonnage, to discuss their methods for ensuring the accuracy of the data. We found the data to be reliable for the purposes of our review.

To determine stakeholders’ opinions on whether the current federal- funding approach for dredging presents any challenges for inland ports and on the reported effects on freight movement at these ports, we interviewed port directors and in some cases port tenants at 11 of the 13 inland ports. We also conducted site visits at 7 of the 13 selected ports to interview port directors, harbor services companies, and tenants in person, and to gain an in-depth understanding of how shoaling can affect their harbors. To select the ports we interviewed and visited, we used information provided by the Corps on relevant federal dredging projects and the corresponding inland shallow-draft ports in this section of the river. Through initial research and interviews, we determined which factors may contribute to variations in ports’ dredging needs, extent of dredging received, and the effect of unmet dredging needs. Based on those factors, we selected ports for site visits and interviews to ensure diversity in total tonnage, the percentage of inbound and outbound freight traffic at the port, the types of commodities most frequently handled, geographic location (including which Corps District they were located in), the funding source for dredging, and prior dredging history, based on information provided by the Corps. In addition to interviewing port directors and tenants, we also conducted interviews with industry stakeholders such as barge companies, trade associations, and shippers as well as academic experts. We also interviewed officials at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service’s Transportation Services Division to discuss their research on agricultural transportation. See tables 4 and 5 for a list of stakeholders and experts we interviewed. We selected industry and academic stakeholders based on a review of our prior reports on waterway transportation, as well as through recommendations from other interviewees.

In addition, to understand how the Corps budgets and implements dredging activities and the role of the federal budget process, we reviewed relevant statutes, the Corps’ budget guidance documents, as well as prior President’s Budget requests and congressional appropriations, and interviewed Corps officials from the headquarters, division, and district offices. We reviewed statutes, regulations, and legislation to understand what factors Congress has directed the Corps to consider when allocating funds for dredging harbors. We also used prior frameworks developed by GAO to assess the Corps’ actions with respect to collecting and analyzing data to help inform its budgeting decisions. We received data from the Corps on the prior dredging history for each port, for 2010 through 2016. To determine the reliability of the dredging history data, we compared these data to documentation publicly available, such as Corps work plans that outline the dredging plan for each year, and cross-checked the data against what port stakeholders told us in terms of prior dredging activities. We followed up with Corps officials to discuss the data and obtain supplementary information as necessary to get the most complete, reliable information possible. Except where otherwise noted, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine stakeholders’ opinions about the potential benefits and challenges of using alternative funding methods for dredging inland harbors, we identified funding options through a literature search and conducted 14 initial interviews with 11 stakeholders representing industry, including representatives of some of the ports we previously described, and 4 experts. We used these initial interviews to collect the stakeholders’ general views on potential alternative-funding options, as well as the benefits and challenges of those options. From these interviews and literature searches, we identified the three types of options that were most commonly discussed: a new user fee or tax, a state or local contribution, and expanding the use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for dredging. We then interviewed 33 stakeholders representing ports, tenants, shippers, barge companies, and state transportation agencies to collect their opinions on the benefits and challenges of each of the three types of options. We selected stakeholders to interview based on a review of related reports and suggestions from other interviewees, and we included port tenants and representatives from the ports we interviewed. In addition to these stakeholders, we interviewed five experts on their views of the benefits and challenges of the alternative funding options. The experts were identified through a literature search and our prior, related reports on inland waterways and surface transportation funding and financing. We selected these experts based on their knowledge of the inland waterways and/or infrastructure funding and judgmentally chose at least two individuals from academia and consulting firms. See tables 4 and 5 for a list of stakeholders and experts we interviewed With respect to research objectives 2 and 3, because we asked stakeholders for their opinions and did not conduct a survey in which every stakeholder could provide a response as to whether a certain issue was relevant for them, we do not enumerate responses in the report. Instead, we analyzed the responses and reported on common themes that arose in multiple interviews. In addition, considering the number of inland ports outside of this section of the river and the fact that we selected a non-generalizable sample of stakeholders, ports, tenants, and experts to discuss dredging issues and funding options related to the selected ports in this section of the river, the information cannot be used to make inferences about a population. However, the description of the Corps’ budget development process is representative of its process for all dredging projects.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to July 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Army

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact:

Susan A. Fleming, (202) 512-2834, or Flemings@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgements:

In addition to the contact named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant Director); Crystal Huggins (Analyst in Charge); Amy Abramowitz; Alexandra Edwards; Carol Henn; Alyssa Hundrup; Delwen Jones; Elke Kolodinski; Hannah Laufe; Maureen Luna-Long; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Joshua Ormond; and Cheryl Peterson made key contributions to this report.