ERDC/CHL MP-23-2

Ranking Ports by Vessel Demand

for Depth
David L. Young, Brandan M. Scully, Sean P. McGill, December 2023
Ashley J. Elkins, and Marin M. Kress
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the
nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops
innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water
resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense,
civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil.

To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library
at https://erdclibrary.on.worldcat.org/discovery.
 ERDC/CHL MP-23-2
December 2023

Ranking Ports by Vessel Demand

for Depth

David L. Young, Brandan M. Scully, Sean P. McGill,

Ashley J. Elkins, and Marin M. Kress
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL)
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Final Report

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for USACE-Jacksonville District

Under Scope of Work for Port Connectivity and Under-keel Clearance for South
Atlantic Division Ports. Processing and analysis were funded by the USACE
Coastal Inlets Research Program
ERDC/CHL MP-23-2 ii

Abstract
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) traditionally uses two metrics
to evaluate the maintenance of coastal navigation projects: tonnage at the
associated port (representing relative importance) and the controlling
depth in the channel (representing operating condition). These are
incorporated into a risk-based decision framework directing funds where
channel conditions have deteriorated and the disrupted tonnage potential
is the highest. However, these metrics fail to capture shipper demand for
the maintained depth service provided by the USACE through dredging.
Using automatic identification system (AIS) data, the USACE is pioneering
new metrics describing vessel demand for the channel depth, represented
by vessel encroachment volume (VEV). VEV describes the volume of the
hull intruding into a specified clearance margin above the bed and
captures how much vessels use the deepest portions of USACE-dredged
channels. This study compares the VEV among 13 ports over 4 years by
combining AIS, tidal elevations, channel surveys, and sailing draft. The
ports are ranked based on the services demanded by their user base to
inform the decision framework driving dredge funding allocations.
Integrating demand for-depth metrics into the Harbor Maintenance Fee
assessment and/or Trust Fund disbursements could alleviate the
constitutionality concerns and several criticisms levied against Harbor
Maintenance funding.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to
be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
ERDC/CHL MP-23-2 iii

Preface
This work was conducted for the USACE-Jacksonville District under the
Scope of Work for Port Connectivity and Under-keel Clearance for South
Atlantic Division Ports. Processing and analysis were funded by the
USACE Coastal Inlets Research Program.

The work was performed by the US Army Engineer Research and

Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (ERDC-CHL). At
the time of publication, the deputy director of ERDC-CHL was Mr. Keith
Flowers, and the director was Dr. Ty Wamsley.

This paper was originally published as D. L. Young, B. M. Scully, S. P.

McGill, A. J. Elkins, and M. M. Kress, “A Ranking Ports by Vessel Demand
for Depth,” Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering
150 no. 1 (January 2024), https://doi.org/10.1061/jwped5.Wweng-2015.

COL Christian Patterson was commander of ERDC, and Dr. David W.

Pittman was the director.
This page intentionally left blank.
 Ranking Ports by Vessel
Demand for Depth
Introduction
US ports are an integral part of the national supply chain, moving
over 90% of US imports/exports and supporting more than $4.6
trillion in yearly economic activity (USCG 2018). The US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) is charged with designing and main-
taining the coastal and inland waterways that connect these ports to
the open ocean. The USACE spends approximately $1 billion an-
nually, primarily through dredging, to ensure the safe passage of
transiting vessels. The waterways are vulnerable to a range of dis-
ruptions which are expected to worsen in the future (PIANC 2020).
Simultaneously, the demands on the funding the USACE receives
for navigation channels and infrastructure continue to grow. In-
creasing consumer demand and other economic drivers have
acted to increase ship size (Fritelli 2011; Garrido et al. 2020).
Ports competing for the revenue of larger vessels pressure the
USACE to deepen and widen their connecting waterways, but
larger channels are more costly to maintain (Waters et al. 2003).
Historically, the USACE prioritized the selection of mainte-
nance projects, including timing and dredging depth, using the
total tonnage of ports served by each waterway as part of a risk-
based approach described in annual budget guidance (USACE
2020a). Where possible, the USACE maintains navigation chan-
nels to the originally authorized depth. Depending on dredging
costs and available funds, a shallower maintained depth or inten-
tional overdredging may be alternatively performed. Traditionally,
the USACE has allocated maintenance funding based on the criti-
cality of a port to nationwide commerce (as estimated by tonnage)
and by channel condition (as estimated by channel depth relative to
authorized depth). This approach took advantage of the best avail-
able information, but the US Supreme Court has noted in United
States v. United States Shoe Corp. 532 U.S. 360 (1998), that it
fails to link the supply of the service provided by the USACE
(i.e., channel depth and width) to the users’ demand for that service.
Tonnage is also an imperfect approximation of user demand for
channel depth in the US, as large volumes of cargo are transported
on shallow-drafting vessels at many ports (Mitchell 2009;
USACE-CPT 2022). Measuring novel vessel encroachment vol-
ume (VEV)—which describes the volume of the vessel hull that in-
trudes into a specified sailing clearance margin of safety above the
bed—contextualizes individual user demand for the service the
USACE provides through dredging.
The recently matured marine vessel automatic identification sys-
tem (AIS) provides a spatiotemporal record of vessels transiting US
waterways and a resource for computing user demand metrics such
as vessel encroachment volume. The USACE has already demon-
strated AIS’ utility for monitoring waterway activity. Scully and
Mitchell (2017) used AIS to estimate the reliability of vessel tran-
sits for a single port (Charleston, South Carolina) in 2011. Young
and Scully (2018) demonstrated how AIS could be used to monitor
vessel sheltering by USACE-maintained jetties, and Scully et al.
(2020) showed how portfolio-scale management of USACE
navigation structures can be informed with AIS data. AIS may be
combined with USACE (2020b) survey data aggregated through
the eHydro system, NOAA (2020) tide gage data, and vessel
draft information (USACE-IWR 2018) to measure vessel demand
for the depth available in USACE-maintained navigation channels,
i.e., the space between the keels of transiting vessels and the bed.
Scully and Young (2021) demonstrated that this metric (underkeel
clearance) accurately captures the extent to which individual water-
way users require the service provided by the USACE. Underkeel
clearance and similar metrics can identify reaches, where either (1)
vessels are not observed to be obstructed by shoaling; or (2) vessels
are observed to transit at drafts far shallower than the available
channel depth, and thus not using the service offered through
USACE dredging. Reaches alternatively exhibiting a high propor-
tion of vessels with minimal clearance or frequently observed near-
miss keel strikes indicate both the potential risk of cargo throughput
disruption and a high demand for the depth provided by the
USACE.
User depth demand information can be employed during main-
tenance prioritization in setting dredging depths or when assessing
future capital dredging requirements, thereby providing a data-
driven update to the USACE’s funding allocation approach. Rank-
ing ports by shippers’ use of USACE-maintained channel depth al-
lows supplying the existing channel conditions (through dredging)
to be weighed against user demand. The USACE can then account
for both the existing demand for channel depth and the economic
criticality of dredging at specific ports (through measuring tonnage)
when considering funding options. This study presents novel VEV
as a user demand metric and demonstrates its application across 13
ports in the USACE South Atlantic Division (SAD) within the risk-
based decision framework that informs maintenance dredge fund-
ing allocation.
Background
The USACE uses channel-controlling depth, defined as the shal-
lowest part of a navigation channel or channel section, as a measure
of the navigability of USACE-maintained waterways (USACE
2006). Controlling depths shallower than the authorized project
depth imply an impact on vessel traffic (Fritelli 2011). The
USACE has recognized that this approach is overly conservative.
The spatial distribution of accumulated sediment, in combination
with each vessel’s draft and the available channel depth, governs
the impact the shoal has on navigating vessels. Therefore, modern
USACE channel condition surveys frequently report the control-
ling depth for channel quarters, wherein the channel is broken up
into four parallel lanes (quarters) and the shallowest depth is re-
ported in each (USACE 2022). Although the controlling depth
for each quarter provides more spatial resolution for navigation de-
cisions than reporting it for the entire channel, it is still insufficient
to describe navigability because the along-channel position of the
shoals within each channel quarter is not considered. If the shoals
are at the same mile marker along the channel, then navigation may
be impacted. If the shoals are instead separated by a long along-
channel distance, vessels may be able to sail around the respective
shoals with sufficiently large safety margins where navigation is
not meaningfully impacted. Water surface elevation due to tidal
variation contributes to channel navigability for some areas of the
country (Scully and Mitchell 2017) and is not considered in this ap-
proach. Regardless, the available channel depth only describes the
supply of clearance available in the channel. The position and draft
of transiting vessels must be known to understand the correspond-
ing demand for the available depth. In this respect, the USACE
metrics of channel navigability lag behind that of shippers, who
may receive information from commercially available real-time
underkeel management systems (e.g., OMC’s DUKC—OMC
International 2022) that incorporate tidal and wave information in
addition to vessel characteristics. They also lag behind the metrics
typically used for modern channel design, which has shifted toward
channels with relatively smaller cross sections while optimizing the
underkeel clearance of the design vessel (Parker and Huff 1998;
Curtis 2018; Mahar 2018).
Scully and Young (2021) piloted the computation of vessel’s
underkeel clearance and the intersection of vessel swept paths
and shoals to examine the navigability of vessels within the South-
west Pass, Louisiana, from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017.
This is one of the earliest attempts to modernize the channel navi-
gability metrics used for maintenance decision-making by consid-
ering vessel clearance (also see Scully and Mitchell 2017). It was
observed that minimum underkeel clearance was often smallest
over areas of the navigation channel not shoaled, indicating vessel
operators transit large ships with minimal safety margins over full-
depth channel sections. It was further observed that instances of
small underkeel clearance were generally rare and most frequently
due to shipper-selected vessel draft rather than shoals. Vessels pass-
ing over shoals in the Southwest Pass tended to have more, not less,
underkeel clearance due to their overall shallower drafts. The au-
thors assume that self-selection on the part of vessel operators is re-
sponsible. The few exceptions to these tendencies occurred when
sediment migrated into the center of the navigation channels
along the paths preferred by the deepest drafting ships.
Scully and Young (2021) proposed that for the underkeel clear-
ance metric to be valuable as a decision-making tool for navigation
maintenance, “it is necessary to make a comparison between the
performance of all waterways managed within the portfolio.” How-
ever, reporting the minimum underkeel clearance in specific chan-
nel reaches for a given period is deficient for comparing values
between entire ports. By definition, the minimum underkeel clear-
ance in a given channel describes the tail of the distribution of ob-
served underkeel clearance values. It is, therefore, sensitive to
outliers in the underlying data and provides no information about
the cumulative effects of multiple transits. Minimum underkeel
clearance indicates the worst value that occurred over the time
frame under consideration, excluding all other transits. Scully
and Young (2021) acknowledge that due to high variability in ves-
sel draft, the minimum underkeel clearance across reaches or
through time can be so noisy that interpreting their meaning/iden-
tifying trends is difficult. Consequently, while direct reporting of
the minimum underkeel clearance is valuable for determining the
channel depth demand of individual vessels, it does not lend itself
to descriptions of demand for channel depth aggregated across
many transits at ports. Therefore, this study proposes a new vessel
clearance–related metric ideal for comparing depth demand and
prioritizing maintenance decisions across multiple ports called
the VEV.
VEV takes inspiration from ship domain violations used to
study unsafe encounters between vessels (Szlapczynski and
Szlapczynska 2021). There is great human/commercial interest in
preventing collisions between vessels, but the rarity of vessel col-
lisions limits the availability of data for research (Szlapczynski
and Szlapczynska 2016). Ship domains, or artificial buffer dis-
tances around transiting vessels, remedy this issue. Collisions be-
tween vessel ship domains, so-called domain violations,
correspond to near-misses between vessels and are studied exten-
sively. VEV transfers this concept to close encounters between a
vessel and the channel bed. To calculate the VEV, the channel
bed is artificially raised a specified distance (the bed domain
Table 1. Average annual tonnage, NOAA station ID, and maximum tidal range over study duration for each port
Average tonnage, Maximum tidal
Study area 2015–2018 (short tons) WCSC record name NOAA station ID range (m)
Mobile, Alabama 58,352,985 Mobile Harbor, Alabama (PORT) 8735391, 8735180, 0.55
8736897, 8737048
Savannah, Georgia 38,197,215 Port of Savannah, Georgia (PORT) 8670870 1.76
Tampa, Florida 33,860,230 Tampa Port Authority, Florida (PORT) 8726384, 8726607, 0.70
8726520
Pascagoula, Mississippi 26,617,217 Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi (PORT) 8741533 0.53
Port Everglades, Florida 24,302,209 Port Everglades, Florida (PORT) 8722956 0.77
Charleston, South Carolina 24,157,487 Charleston Harbor, South Carolina (PORT) 8665530 1.37
Jacksonville, Florida 18,155,433 Jacksonville, Florida (PORT) 8720219 0.95
San Juan, Puerto Rico 10,946,421 San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico (WATERWAY) 9755371 0.41
Miami, Florida 8,008,071 Port Miami, Florida (PORT) 8723214 0.62
Wilmington, North Carolina 6,182,423 Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina 8658120 1.01
(WATERWAY)
Canaveral, Florida 4,854,292 Canaveral Port District, Florida (PORT) 8721604 1.11
Brunswick, Georgia 2,618,569 Port of Brunswick, Georgia (PORT) 8720030 1.56
Palm Beach, Florida 2,316,722 Port of Palm Beach District, Florida (PORT) 8722670 0.83

offset—Fig. 3). Then, the metric reported as the VEV for a given
vessel position report is the volume of the vessel hull that intrudes
into (encroaches) on the fictitious bed domain region—the space
between the true channel bed and the bed domain offset. As with
ship domain violations, the VEV reported is necessarily dependent
on the selection of the bed domain offset—effectively the minimum
allowable margin of underkeel clearance.
Mariners and waterway managers approach the available depth
constraint from opposite perspectives. Mariners maximize profit by
maximizing vessel draft but risk keel strike by loading vessels too
aggressively. Waterway managers maximize global system perfor-
mance by minimizing local maintenance costs by providing mini-
mally adequate depth. The present study suggests that two bed
domain offsets can be used: one to demarcate vessels with an ele-
vated potential risk of keel strikes due to the extreme proximity of
the bed and one to identify vessels at low risk of disruption that are
still using the majority of the available depth in the channel—the
Goldilocks region. The bed domain offset used to quantify the
VEV in the elevated risk region is informed by the PIANC recom-
mendation for the maneuverability margin in full-depth channels
that are not impacted by significant wave action—“the greater of
61 cm or 5% of sailing vessel draft” (PIANC 2014). To demarcate
the elevated risk VEV to maintain consistency across vessels/ports
and to ensure a uniform change in the resulting sensitivity to bed
domain offset selection, 61 cm was ultimately selected. For the
ports in this study, the selection of 61 cm versus 5% of vessel
draft has little effect on the results. The authorized depth of the
deepest navigation channel in this study (Mobile, Alabama en-
trance channel) was 13.72 m (USACE 2020b). The difference be-
tween 61 cm of clearance and 5% of vessel draft for a vessel
drafting 13.72 m is 8 cm, well below the USACE surveyed depth
uncertainty (Byrnes et al. 2002). A bed domain offset of 1.52 m
was used as the upper bound of the Goldilocks region. This selec-
tion is not supported by formal guidance but was informed by the
findings in the study by Scully and Young (2021), who demon-
strated that most vessels transit with clearances well above
PIANC recommendations. In that study, 75% of the vessels draft-
ing over 13.72 m in the Southwest Pass, Louisiana, transited with
1.52 m of clearance or more. VEV quantifies how much vessels
are utilizing the full depth of the channel and can be easily aggre-
gated by spatial extent/across time to compare demand for available
clearance across ports. Using two distinct bed offsets allows this
demand to be segregated by risk.
Research Area
This study encompasses the eight high-tonnage coastal ports and
five additional coastal ports within the USACE-SAD. Table 1 dis-
plays the average tonnage at each port between January 1, 2015,
and January 1, 2019 (USACE-WCSC 2021), sorted by average ton-
nage rank over the study duration from the largest to the smallest.
These 13 ports accounted for $109.1 million of average annual
dredge expenditure for the studied period. Fig. 1 shows the loca-
tions of the ports.
Methods
Calculation of the VEV for multiple ports is a large-scale data fu-
sion exercise from multiple open-source data sets. Marine Cadastre
AIS data (BOEM and NOAA 2019) are the source of the time-
stamped vessel location, horizontal vessel dimensions, and heading
information, with a temporal resolution of 1 min. The available
channel depth during the vessel position report is computed by
summing the eHydro survey depth data (USACE 2020B) with
the tidal elevation from the nearest NOAA tide gauge at the time
of the vessel transit. The temporal frequency of USACE channel
surveys varies from daily to annually across projects due to differ-
ences in bathymetric survey practices (Scully and Young 2021) that
reflect differences in the underlying morphodynamic behavior of
the bed for individual USACE navigation projects. The vessel
draft at the time of the vessel position report is obtained from for-
eign vessel entrance and clearance data published by IWR
(USACE-IWR 2018). The process by which these data are inte-
grated into VEV results is depicted in Fig. 2. More details on the
underlying data sources, associated processing steps, and filtering
criteria are found in the study by Scully and Young (2021). The
novel methodology presented in this paper is the additional compu-
tation of the VEV (Fig. 3) and comparison among ports.
Calculation of the Vessel Encroachment Volume
The VEV was calculated for every vessel position report identified
within the navigation channels of the 13 ports. To compute the
VEV for one vessel position report, the “vessel shell,” defining
the horizontal spatial extents of the reporting vessel, was
 Fig. 1. (Color) Map of the 13 SAD ports in this study. (Map from Esri, HERE, Garmon, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA.)
constructed from the vessel’s horizontal dimensions and heading in
AIS. The eHydro survey points that fell within this vessel shell
polygon were determined by spatial intersection. The time stamp
of the vessel position report was used to determine the most tempo-
rally proximate survey elevation for each of the survey points iden-
tified within the vessel shell. This allowed the identification of the
surveyed bathymetry beneath the vessel at the time of the vessel
transit. The survey data are reported as positive down from mean
lower low water (MLLW), and the NOAA tidal elevation data
are reported as the water surface elevation deviation from
Fig. 2. (Color) Flowchart of the data processing workflow. The first
three steps required manual input, and the last 5 steps are largely
automated.
MLLW (positive higher and negative lower); thus, the depth avail-
able to the vessel at each survey point beneath the vessel shell is the
sum of the depth and the tidal elevation. For each vessel position
report, the available depth at the ith survey point intersecting the
vessel shell was defined as the sum of the surveyed depth zi and
the time-interpolated tidal elevation ζi(t) at the nearest
gage (Fig. 3). The VEV for the ith survey point is calculated as
follows:
VEVi = [d(t) − (zi + ζ i (t) − CBDO )] × A (1)
where d(t) = time-interpolated vessel draft; A = area of the survey
cell; and CBDO = bed domain offset (61 cm and 1.52 m here)–a
user-specified constant representing the vertical offset distance
above the surveyed channel bed (above zi) that a vessel transiting
over the ith survey point must pass within to encroach on the
bed. A positive value of VEVi for a CBDO of XX cm indicates
that the vessel keel came within XX cm of the bed at this point,
and the magnitude divided by the cell area (A) represents how
close it came. Negative VEVi values are set to 0 at this stage be-
cause these indicate no encroachment. The VEV for each vessel po-
sition report (VEVpr) is the sum of the VEVs for the survey points
Fig. 3. (Color) Cross-sectional view of the shoaling channel and tran-
siting vessel illustrating vessel encroachment.
within the vessel shell


VEVpr = VEVi (2)
i
VEVpr can be aggregated over any desired temporal and spatial do-
main (in this case, to determine the average annual VEV for each
port). Note that the VEV does not represent the volume of sediment
necessary to be removed from the channel to eliminate shoals in the
path of vessels. Multiple vessels may encroach on one shoaled sur-
vey cell, or the same vessel may encroach on a shoaled survey cell
multiple times (e.g., during its inbound and outbound transits).
Rather, it describes how many vessels transiting a given waterway
are using the deepest portions of the available channel depth (i.e.,
the volume of all vessel hulls transiting within the bed domain off-
set from the bed). VEV results are directly related to the selection of
CBDO; thus, VEVs reported in the results will be preceded by the
associated CBDO value (61 cm VEV refers to the VEV for a
CBDO = 61 cm). The advantage of VEV over raw counts of en-
croaching vessels is that it incorporates the effects of (1) the se-
verity of the encroachment and (2) the size of the encroaching
vessel. The advantage over quantifying the volume of sediment
necessary to remove to eliminate shoaling is that it incorporates
the number/size of vessels impacted by the shoaling.
Results
An example of the raw results is shown in Fig. 4, displaying posi-
tion reports of a cargo vessel outbound from Mobile, Alabama
drafting 13.72 m in the northern portion of the entrance channel
of Mobile Bay. The background color is the available depth in
the channel (channel depth plus tidal elevation), and the overlaid
vessel icons (quadrilaterals) are shaded red based on underkeel
clearance for the given vessel position report. White vessel icons
have a clearance greater than 1.52 m. This vessel transit is the
sixth observed in this section of the channel for the week of
February 11, 2018. The figure text notes the aggregate 1.52 m
VEV for all transits during this week until the time specified in
the figure (the first six transits in the week of February 11, 2018).
These results can be viewed in cross section to visualize the
61 cm and 1.52 m VEVs for specific vessel position reports. The
dashed black line in Fig. 4 shows the position of the channel
cross section displayed in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 highlights the contributions of the input data to the result-
ing VEVs for Mobile Bay. Gulf coast ports like Mobile experience
relatively small tidal ranges, limiting the impact tidal elevation has
on available depth. In such microtidal channels, atmospheric effects
Fig. 4. (Color) Position reports for vessel transit outbound from
Mobile, Alabama. The background color is the available channel depth.
Red-shaded quadrilateral icons indicate underkeel clearance. The dashed
black line shows the channel cross section displayed in Fig. 5.
and riverine inputs may have a more significant effect on the chan-
nel depth and are not included in the NOAA predictions. For ports
with larger tidal ranges, the tidal elevation contribution is more sig-
nificant (e.g., Savannah, Georgia—Table 1), and there are ramifica-
tions related to the draft of vessels able to call at ports with similar
maintained depth but different tidal ranges. The positions of the
61 cm and 1.52 m bed domain offsets are shown as dashed red
and dashed-dotted blue lines, respectively. The intrusion of the ves-
sel hull (solid green outline) into these 61 cm (red region) or 1.52 m
(blue + red region) bed domains represents the vessel encroach-
ment area for this cross section. Integrating this over the length
of the vessel results in 1.52 m VEVpr = 5,707.54 m3, the volume
of intrusion into the 1.52 m bed domain for this position report.
Vessel hulls are simplified by representing them as rectangular
prisms with depth equal to the vessel draft. The accuracy of this
representation depends on the individual block coefficient of
each vessel (Rawson and Tupper 2001). The precision of the results
may be improved by modifying the hull shape based on vessel
class; however, this improvement must be weighed against the
more intensive computations required to discretize the vessel
draft over the hull.
Figs. 4 and 5 provide qualitative descriptions of the factors im-
pacting each vessel in the channel. As with the underkeel clear-
ances in the study by Scully and Young (2021), the VEVs in
these figures describe the available depth demand of individual ves-
sel transits in selected sections of single channels. Aggregating
these values for comparison across ports makes them valuable as
management metrics. To that end, Table 2 displays the average an-
nual 61 cm VEV, the average number of 61 cm encroaching tran-
sits (ETs), and the average 61 cm VEV normalized by the
average number of ETs for each port. It also displays each port’s
respective ranking by average 61 cm VEV and ET-normalized
61 cm VEV, as well as the difference between those rankings
and the port’s ranking by average tonnage. The ports are sorted
by tonnage, as in Table 1.
Table 2. Average 61 cm VEV (Mcy X T), average 61 cm ET, average 61 cm VEV per ET (m3), rank by average 61 cm VEV (difference in rank from rank by
tonnage), and rank by average 61 cm VEV per ET (difference in rank from rank by tonnage)
Avg. 61 cm VEV Avg. 61 cm ET Avg. 61 cm VEV per ET Rank–61 cm VEV Rank–61 cm VEV per ET
Port (Mm3 X T) (#) (m3) (Δ) (Δ)
Mobile, Alabama 4.47 125 35,760 2 (−1) 1 (0)
Savannah, Georgia 5.50 459 11,983 1 (+1) 4 (−2)
Tampa, Florida 1.09 59 18,474 3 (0) 2 (+1)
Pascagoula, Mississippi 0.01 6 1,372 10 (−6) 11 (−7)
Port Everglades, Florida 0 3 159 13 (−8) 13 (−8)
Charleston, South Carolina 0.35 31 16,436 5 (+1) 3 (+3)
Jacksonville, Florida 0.06 14 4,025 8 (−1) 9 (−2)
San Juan, Puerto Rico 0.33 28 10,317 6 (+2) 7 (+1)
Miami, Florida 0 3 334 12 (−3) 12 (−3)
Wilmington, North Carolina 0.32 26 11,470 7 (+3) 5 (+5)
Canaveral, Florida 0.01 3 11,449 9 (+2) 6 (+5)
Brunswick, Georgia 0.66 141 4,227 4 (+8) 8 (+4)
Palm Beach, Florida 0.01 2 1,481 11 (+2) 10 (+3)

VEV results can be considered through the lens of either total
demand (average 61 cm VEV) or demand per transit that en-
croaches on the bed domain (average 61 cm VEV per ET). These
metrics give the USACE a description of the demand navigation
channel users place on the channel maintenance service provided
through USACE dredging at their respective projects, including
how that demand is distributed. For example, Table 2 shows that
large numbers of vessels demand the full channel depth at Savan-
nah, Georgia, which has the largest overall 61 cm VEV and the
largest number of average ETs. However, the severity of the aver-
age 61 cm VEV per ET is smaller in magnitude than at other high-
tonnage SAD ports (Mobile, Alabama and Tampa, Florida). This
suggests that the large total 61 cm VEVs at Savannah, Georgia,
are the result of many smaller encroachments rather than fewer
large magnitude encroachments. This was also the case (albeit on
a smaller scale) for Brunswick, Georgia. Brunswick had a relatively
large 61 cm VEV for its size and had relatively large numbers of
ETs—by the ratio of ET to total transits, Brunswick, Georgia,
ranks the highest of all ports in the study. From a usage perspective,
large numbers of vessels slightly encroaching on the bed are indic-
ative of the efficient use of available depth in the navigation chan-
nel, as large numbers of users demand close to the full channel
depth, but the encroachment is minor on a per-vessel basis. In con-
trast, Mobile, Alabama has an average annual 61 cm VEV near that
of Savannah, Georgia (4.47 versus 5.50 Mm3 X T) despite far
fewer ETs. Thus, the risk of the average 61 cm VEV per ET in
Mobile, Alabama is elevated, indicating higher demand placed
on the full depth on the part of a smaller subset of users. The
61 cm VEV also highlights ports with low demand for the existing
channel depth. Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Port Everglades, Flo-
rida, were consistently ranked among the lowest ports in SAD by
61 cm VEV metrics, yet they are the fourth and fifth largest ports
by tonnage.
Discussion
While VEV metrics describe the demands waterway users place on
the available channel depth, they do not fully describe waterway
management economics. To inform funding allocations, depth de-
mand must be weighed against the effort required to supply the
channel dimensions. This level of effort can be expressed either
through the volume of sediment removed by maintenance dredging
of a port’s navigation channels or the associated costs in dollars. To
account for this, the volume of sediment removed and associated
costs from 2015 to 2018 at the 13 studied ports were obtained
from the USACE Dredge Information System (DIS, USACE-DIS
2022). Table 3 displays the average 61 cm VEV, the average num-
ber of 61 cm ETs, the average annual dredged volume, the average
annual dredging expenditures, the ratio of dredge volume to

Fig. 5. (Color) Channel cross section displayed in an aerial view in Fig. 4. The shaded red region represents the 61 cm VEV, and the blue +
red-shaded region represents the 1.52 m VEV.
Table 3. Average 61 cm VEV (Mm3 X T), average 61 cm ET, average annual dredge volume (Mm3), average annual dredging expenditures (in millions),
ratio of average dredge volume to average 61 cm VEV, and ratio of average dredge cost per average 61 cm ET ($1,000/ET)
Avg. 61 cm VEV Avg. 61 cm Avg. dredge Avg. annual cost Avg. dredge vol./ Avg. cost/Avg. 61 cm
Port (Mm3 X T) ET (#) vol. (Mm3) ($ million) Avg. 61 cm VEV ET ($1,000/ET)
Mobile, Alabama 4.47 125 3.5 $7.80 0.78 $62.40
Savannah, Georgia and 6.15 600 5.7 $34.20 0.92 $57.00
Brunswick, Georgiaa
Tampa, Florida 1.09 59 0.4 $10.30 0.37 $174.58
Pascagoula, Mississippi 0.01 6 0.3 $1.40 35 $233.33
Port Everglades, Floridab 0 3 0 $0.00 N/A $0.00
Charleston, South Carolina 0.35 31 1.5 $9.40 4.35 $303.23
Jacksonville, Florida 0.06 14 0.5 $16.20 6.88 $1,157.14
San Juan, Puerto Rico 0.33 28 0.2 $1.70 0.35 $60.71
Miami, Floridab 0 3 0 $0.00 N/A $0.00
Wilmington, North Carolina 0.32 26 3.0 $21.60 9.23 $830.77
Canaveral, Florida 0.02 3 0.2 $3.30 12.5 $1,100.00
Palm Beach, Florida 0.01 2 0.1 $3.20 12.5 $1,600.00
a
Savannah, Georgia, and Brunswick, Georgia, are combined in DIS—the avg. 61 cm VEV and ET values are summed here for comparison.
b
No dredging is recorded in DIS for 2015–2018.

average 61 cm VEV, and the ratio of dredge expenditure to the av-
erage number of ETs for each port.
USACE waterway management traditionally weighs the level of
effort required to supply the existing channel dimensions (either
through sediment volume removed or dredging expense) against
the throughput tonnage of the associated port. VEV-related metrics
allow consideration of alternative perspectives incorporating vessel
demand for the full channel dimensions (i.e., available depth). One
alternative highlighted in Table 3 is to normalize the volume of
sediment removed by the impact of accumulated sediment on tran-
siting vessels as measured by the average 61 cm VEV. Smaller val-
ues of this ratio indicate greater user demand for the deepest 61 cm
of the navigation channels relative to the volume of sediment re-
moved. Conversely, large values of this ratio indicate large vol-
umes of sediment removed relative to the observed demand for
full channel depth. Wilmington, North Carolina and Charleston,
South Carolina are distinct among the large ratio ports, as they
have roughly an order of magnitude larger average 61 cm VEVs
than the other ports with ratios greater than unity. Therefore,
their larger ratios are due to relatively larger volumes of sediment
removed rather than smaller average 61 cm VEVs.
A second alternative perspective is to consider the USACE as
spending dredging resources to obtain safe passage of deep drafting
vessels. For large commercial vessels, any encounter between the
vessel’s keel and the channel bottom can result in adverse out-
comes. These range in severity and may include costs to vessel
owners, traffic delays, and major environmental catastrophes.
Thus, the USACE could consider the ratio of the average dredging
expenditure at a port relative to the number of average 61 cm ETs,
also displayed in Table 3. Smaller values of this ratio indicate that
more vessels are transiting within 61 cm of the bed (i.e., at higher
risk) relative to the dollars spent maintaining the channel (note this
ratio interpretation does not apply to ports with zero expenditure,
such as Miami, Florida, and Port Everglades, Florida). Comparing
dollars spent rather than volume dredged includes effects related to
the unit cost of dredging at each port (Frittelli 2019). For example,
Tampa, Florida has a larger average unit cost than higher-tonnage
ports in the SAD (e.g., Mobile, Alabama) and consequently has the
fourth smallest ratio of average dredging expenditure per 61 cm ET
(174.58 $1,000/ET) despite the fact that it had the second smallest
ratio of dredged volume to 61 cm VEV. Conversely, relatively
cheap unit cost causes Pascagoula, Mississippi, to have the fifth
smallest ratio of average dredging expenditure per 61 cm ET
(233.33 $1,000/ET) despite having the largest ratio of dredged
volume to 61 cm VEV. Incorporating dredging costs captures the
information necessary for decision makers to evaluate whether
the cost per encroaching transit at Palm Beach, Florida ($1.6M/
ET) is justified relative to the cost at Miami, Florida, or Port Ever-
glades, Florida (each $0), or with other high- (e.g., Mobile, Ala-
bama, $62.4 K/ET) to midtonnage ports (e.g., San Juan, Puerto
Rico, $60.71 K/ET).
Regardless of the metric used to quantify the effort required to
supply the existing channel dimensions (dredge volume or ex-
pense), the novel aspect of this approach is the ability to weigh
against the quantifiable user demand for the deepest parts of the
channels. Examining the VEV-related metrics at CBDO = 61 cm
identifies ports where vessels are more frequently observed to tran-
sit the channel with elevated risk underkeel clearance. Based on the
observed demand, the USACE can determine which ports’ user
base would benefit from additional dredging investment. However,
the resources available to maintain channels are finite. Therefore,
the natural follow-up question is “Which ports’ users do not de-
mand the full extent of the channel depth and what would the im-
pact of a reduction in dredging at those ports be?” In this respect,
relying on 61 cm VEV metrics is insufficient, as they do not con-
sider vessels utilizing the large majority of the available channel
depth but maintaining lower risk clearance margins (i.e.,
>61 cm). To remedy this, this study uses the VEV calculations
for CBDO = 1.52 m, specifically the difference between the 61 cm
and 1.52 m VEVs (dVEV = 1.52 m VEV − 61 cm VEV). dVEV
represents the volume of the vessel hull that encroaches on the
1.52 m bed domain excluding the portion that encroaches on the
61 cm bed domain. Vessels encroaching on the 1.52 m bed domain
but not the 61 cm bed domain maintain low-risk clearance margins
at extant channel conditions but are sufficiently close to the bed that
they would have been adversely impacted by a reduction in dredg-
ing. dVEV allows the estimation of the extent of the adverse impact
for each port and the identification of those where impacts would be
minimized.
Table 4 displays the average dVEV, the average 61 cm VEV,
and average annual dredging expenditures per port. Each port’s
rank among the studied ports by the average dVEV and average
61 cm VEV appears in parentheses after the respective value. It
highlights ports where vessels were observed to transit with low
risk (i.e., low ranking by average 61 cm VEV) and adverse impacts
due to potential reduction in dredging would have been minimized
(i.e., low ranking by dVEV). Palm Beach, Florida (13th by dVEV,
11th by 61 cm VEV); Miami, Florida (12th by dVEV and 61 cm
Table 4. Average dVEV (Mm3 X T), average 61 cm VEV (Mm3 X T), and average annual dredging expenditure ($ million)
Port Avg. dVEV Mm3 X T (rank) Avg. 61 cm VEV Mm3 X T (rank) Avg. annual cost ($ million)
Mobile, Alabama 44.50 (1) 4.47 (2) $7.80
Savannah, Georgia 29.18 (2) 5.50 (1) $34.20a
Tampa, Florida 7.78 (3) 1.09 (3) $10.30
Pascagoula, Mississippi 0.18 (10) 0.01 (10) $1.40
Port Everglades, Floridab 0.11 (11) 0 (13) $0.00
Charleston, South Carolina 1.82 (7) 0.35 (5) $9.40
Jacksonville, Florida 1.66 (8) 0.06 (8) $16.20
San Juan, Puerto Rico 2.80 (4) 0.33 (6) $1.70
Miami, Floridab 0.07 (12) 0 (12) $0.00
Wilmington, North Carolina 2.48 (5) 0.32 (7) $21.60
Canaveral, Florida 0.27 (9) 0.02 (9) $3.30
Brunswick, Georgia 2.29 (6) 0.66 (4) $34.20a
Palm Beach, Florida 0.02 (13) 0.01 (11) $3.20
Note: Each port ranked by dVEV and 61 cm VEV in parentheses.
a
Savannah, Georgia, and Brunswick, Georgia, are combined in DIS–this average annual cost represents the sum for both.
b
No dredging expenditure is recorded in DIS for 2015–2018.

Table 5. Average 61 cm VEV (Mm3 X T), average 61 cm ET, average annual dredge volume (Mm3), average annual dredging expenditures ($ million), ratio
of average dredge volume to average 61 cm VEV, and ratio of average dredge cost per average 61 cm ET ($1,000/ET) for Southwest Pass, Louisiana
Avg. 61 cm VEV Avg. 61 cm Avg. dredge vol. Avg. annual cost Avg. dredge vol./Avg. Avg. cost/Avg. 61 cm ET
Port (Mm3 X T) ET (#) (Mm3) ($ million) 61 cm VEV ($1,000/ET)
Southwest Pass, 0.66 113 42.82b $131.00b 65.12 $1,159.29
Louisianaa
a
Does not include 2018.
b
Actual/projected dredge volumes and actual/projected costs found in USACE (2017) were used.

VEV); Port Everglades, Florida (11th by dVEV, 13th by 61 cm Reanalysis of Southwest Pass, Louisiana
VEV); Pascagoula, Mississippi (10th by dVEV and 61 cm VEV);
The Southwest Pass, Louisiana, data presented in Scully and
and Canaveral, Florida (9th by dVEV and 61 cm VEV) meet
Young (2021) was reanalyzed with the methodology outlined
these criteria. However, the observed dredging expenditures at
here to compare the studied SAD ports with a navigation channel
Port Everglades, Florida, and Miami, Florida ($0), indicate that
supporting extremely high cargo tonnage. Southwest Pass,
these two ports require little maintenance. Consequently, while
Louisiana averaged 265 million tons over the 2015–2017 time pe-
these low values of the 61 cm VEV and dVEV translate to ineffi-
riod covered in the Scully and Young (2021) data set, exceeding the
cient use of available depth on the part of the users of Port
combined average annual tonnage of all 13 studied SAD ports by
Everglades, Florida, and Miami, Florida, navigation channels,
6 million tons. Tables 5 and 6 display the results for Southwest
from the perspective of waterway management, they are highly ef-
Pass, Louisiana, specifically the same metrics found in Tables 3
ficient ports regardless. In contrast, Palm Beach, Florida;
and 4.
Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Canaveral, Florida collectively cost
Despite its high tonnage, Southwest Pass, Louisiana, has a com-
$7.9 million to dredge on average; however, their user base on av-
paratively low average 61 cm VEV (0.66 Mm3 X T), less than that
erage encroaches on the 1.52 m bed domain nearly 10 times less
of Jacksonville, Florida (which ranked eighth by average 61 cm
than the Mobile, Alabama, user base encroaches at 61 cm
VEV within the studied SAD ports). The average annual dredge
(1.52 m VEV of 0.49 Mm3 X T versus 61 cm VEV of 4.47). Effec-
volume was also nearly an order of magnitude larger than the clos-
tively, the USACE expends similar levels of resources ($7.9 mil-
est SAD port (42.82 Mm3 versus 6.15 for Savannah, Georgia/
lion for Palm Beach/Pascagoula/Canaveral versus $7.8 million
Brunswick, Georgia). Consequently, its ratio of average dredge
for Mobile) to meet one-tenth the demand for the bottom 1.52 m
volume to average 61 cm VEV is nearly double the closest SAD
of the available channel depth at these three ports as it does to
port (65.12 versus 35.00 for Pascagoula, Mississippi). Southwest
meet the higher risk demand of vessels for the bottom 61 cm of
Pass, Louisiana, costs $131.00 million per year to dredge on aver-
the available channel depth at Mobile, Alabama.
age, exceeding the combined average annual spending for all 13
studied SAD ports by $21.90 million. As a result, Southwest
Table 6. Average dVEV (Mm3 X T), average 61 cm VEV (Mm3 X T), and
Pass, Louisiana, has an average cost per 61 cm ET higher than
average annual dredging expenditures ($ million) for Southwest Pass,
Louisiana
any port in SAD apart from Palm Beach, Florida ($1.2 million/
ET versus $1.6 million/ET at Palm Beach, Florida). The average
Avg. annual annual dVEV for Southwest Pass, Louisiana, is comparatively
Avg. dVEV Avg. 61 cm VEV cost larger relative to the studied SAD ports, 18.11 Mm3 X T, but
Port (Mm3 X T) (Mm3 X T) ($ million)
would still rank behind Mobile, Alabama, and Savannah, Georgia.
Southwest Pass, 18.11 0.66 $131.00b Thus, the adverse impacts on observed vessel transits due to the po-
Louisianaa tential reduction in dredging at Southwest Pass, Louisiana, are non-
a
Does not include 2018. trivial, though not larger than Mobile, Alabama or Savannah,
b
Actual/projected dredge volumes and actual/projected costs found in Georgia, despite Southwest Pass’s, Louisiana, higher average ton-
USACE (2017) were used. nage. This analysis is meaningful because dredges have been
rerouted from active projects in other USACE districts to relieve
Southwest Pass, Louisiana shoaling recently (Hartman et al.
2022) at great expense to the USACE and the original project
schedules. Using VEV-related metrics, the USACE can weigh
the implications for trafficking vessels when making active dredge
redeployment decisions in the future.
Policy Implications
Underkeel clearance-related metrics for vessel transits, such as
VEV, quantify the extent to which each vessel makes use of
the USACE depth-provision service. The applicability of VEV
to waterway maintenance prioritization is demonstrated previ-
ously, but this capability could have broader ramifications for
addressing the constitutional questions and international percep-
tion of the present structure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund (HMTF) and associated fee assessment. VEV directly
links individual waterway users and the environmental condi-
tions (including USACE-maintained depth) at the time of transit.
An HM fee based on vessel clearance addresses the key defi-
ciency identified by the US Supreme Court in United States v.
United States Shoe Corp. 532 U.S. 360 (1998), which held
that the HMTF fee was a de facto tax violating the Export Clause
of the Constitution and did not apply to exporters. The US Su-
preme Court noted in the same decision that the Export Clause
does not “rule out a ‘user-fee’”; that is “a charge designed as
compensation for government-supplied services, facilities, or
benefits” [Pace v. Burgess (1875)]. However, the “connection
between a service the government renders and the compensation
it receives for that service” was not sufficiently close for a user
fee as the HM fee is currently assessed (based on cargo value).
This also addresses concerns by US international trade partners
that the HM fee represents a tariff on imported products (rather
than a usage fee) and violates US obligations under the World
Trade Organization (Fritelli 2011). Similarly, the aggregate an-
nual VEV values for each port could inform HMTF disburse-
ments, alleviating other concerns raised in the study by Fritelli
(2011). Specifically, (1) certain channels that receive little-to-no
deep draft vessel traffic (and pay little-to-nothing into the
HMTF) receive an outsized percentage of disbursements; and
(2) vessels with high cargo value but lower draft (frequently con-
tainer vessels) pay a disproportionate amount into the HMTF rel-
ative to their channel usage.
Conclusions and Future Work
This study presents metrics related to the clearance between the
keels of transiting vessels and the channel bed, specifically vessel
encroachment volume [VEV, Eqs. (1) and (2)], to quantify the
user demand for the deepest portions of the navigation channels
for 13 SAD ports managed by the USACE. The specific bed do-
main offsets used to compute the VEV (61 cm versus 1.52 m)
allow this demand to be segregated by the risk of disrupted tran-
sits. The metrics are explored to demonstrate the feasibility of up-
dates to the USACE dredge maintenance funding rubric. The
USACE currently prioritizes maintenance funding allocations
based on the criticality of a port to nationwide commerce (as es-
timated by tonnage) and by channel condition (as estimated by
channel depth relative to authorized depth). This approach does
not link the supply of the service provided by the USACE (i.e.,
channel depth and width) to the users’ demand for that service
(i.e., how much of the available depth navigating vessels use).
Tonnage has been recognized as an imperfect approximation of
user demand for channel depth in the United States, as large vol-
umes of cargo are transported on shallow-drafting vessels at many
ports (USACE-IWR 2012).
Of the studied ports, the top three by tonnage (Mobile, Alabama;
Savannah, Georgia; and Tampa, Florida, respectively) consistently
rank highly by the 61 cm VEV metrics described here: average an-
nual 61 cm VEV, average number of 61 cm encroaching transits,
and average encroaching-transit-normalized 61 cm VEV. The VEV-
related metrics at a bed domain offset of 61 cm identify ports where
vessels are more frequently observed to transit the channel with
higher-risk underkeel clearance and may benefit from additional
dredging investment. That such large ports may benefit is not surpris-
ing as they are likely to have the most vessel transits, which provides
more opportunities for vessel encroachment. To determine in which
ports users do not require the full extent of the extant channel depth,
this study proposes the difference between the 1.52 m and 61 cm
VEVs (dVEV). The dVEV metric accounts for ports where vessels
transit with low-risk clearance margins at the extant level of dredging
but are sufficiently close to the bed where they would be adversely
impacted by a reduction in dredging. Based on the low 61 cm
VEV and dVEV metrics, as well as the dredge funding allocations
over the study period, Palm Beach, Florida; Pascagoula, Mississippi;
and Canaveral, Florida would be least impacted by a reduction in
maintenance dredging.
VEV represents a new data-driven methodology to quantify
channel maintenance requirements based on measured usage by
transiting vessels, allowing waterway managers to consider
dredge funding and active dredge redeployment decisions
through the lens of supply (of available depth) and demand (for
that depth by users). At the local port level, VEV and related
underkeel clearance metrics provide USACE District personnel
with independent data-driven information on vessel usage of
available depth in their navigation channels. As the methodology
is scaled up across the USACE portfolio, additional features may
be desirable to include. Although the selection of 61 cm of bed
domain offset to demarcate high-risk transits follows general
PIANC guidance for vessels drafting ≤12.19 m, vessels carrying
specific commodity types [e.g., liquefied natural gas (LNG) or pe-
troleum tankers] may require different levels of clearance to
maintain appropriate safety margins. Similarly, the selection of
1.52 m of bed domain offset to identify vessels at risk of disrup-
tion due to a reduction in dredge maintenance could be modified
to incorporate the USACE Corps Shoaling Analysis Tool’s
(CSAT—Dunkin et al. 2018) shoaling rates for each respective
channel to better approximate the expected change in the bed
over a specified temporal duration in the absence of dredging.
These effects could be incorporated into the processing steps by
varying the higher-risk bed domain offset (61 cm) based on the
AIS-reported vessel type and the lower-risk bed domain offset
(1.52 m) based on channel-specific shoaling rates without altering
the proposed approach. Additionally, crowdsourced bathymetry
measurements could be incorporated into the methodology to pro-
vide more temporal resolution to the available channel depth mea-
surements. The CSAT shoaling rates could also be used to
interpolate between USACE channel surveys, accomplishing
the same goal of improving the temporal resolution of the avail-
able depth. This improvement would be particularly impactful
in areas where channel surveys are conducted less frequently. Fi-
nally, in certain channels, the horizontal clearance experienced by
vessels (the distance between the vessel and the channel edge) is
of greater concern than the underkeel clearance. The horizontal
clearance calculation could be integrated into the workflow de-
scribed here and reported as an additional metric.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes generated or used during the
study are available in a repository or online in accordance with
funder data retention policies: Marine Cadastre AIS data (Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (BOEM and NOAA 2019)), eHydro sur-
veys (USACE 2020b), tidal elevation (NOAA 2020), vessel draft
(USACE-IWR 2018), and dredging records (USACE-DIS 2022).
References
BOEM and NOAA (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2019. “Automatic identifi-
cation system data.” Accessed January 23, 2019. https://
marinecadastre.gov/ais.
Byrnes, M. R., J. L. Baker, and F. Li. 2002. Quantifying potential measure-
ment errors and uncertainties associated with bathymetric change
analysis. ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-50. Vicksburg, MS: Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory, USACE.
Curtis, B. 2018. “An integrated approach to port planning, operations, and
risk management through technology.” In Proc., 34th PIANC World
Congress, 1–17. Brussels, Belgium: World Association of
Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC).
Dunkin, L. M., L. A. Coe, and J. J. Ratcliff. 2018. Corps shoaling analysis
tool: Predicting channel shoaling. ERDC/CHL TR-18-16. Vicksburg,
MS: Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, USACE.
Fritelli, J. 2011. “Harbor maintenance trust fund expenditures.
Congressional research service.” Library of Congress. Washington,
DC: Congressional Research Service.
Frittelli, J. 2019. Harbor dredging: Issues and historical funding.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Garrido, J., S. Saurí, Á. Marrero, Ü. Gül, and C. Rúa. 2020. “Predicting the
future capacity and dimensions of container ships.” Transp. Res. Rec.
2674 (9): 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120927395.
Hartman, M. A., K. N. Mitchell, L. M. Dunkin, J. Lewis, B. Emery, N. F.
Lenssen, and R. Copeland. 2022. “Southwest pass sedimentation and
dredging data analysis.” J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng. 148 (2):
05021017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000684.
Mahar, I. D. 2018. “Dynamic under keel clearance project.” Coast Guard
J. Saf. Secur. Sea 75 (2): 30–32.
Mitchell, K. W. 2009. “Depth-utilization analysis for estimating economic
activity supported by dredging.” Terra Aqua 116: 22–30.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. Tides
and great lakes water levels—NOAA tides and currents. Washington,
DC: NOAA.
OMC International. 2022. “Dynamic under keel clearance.” Accessed
October 31, 2022. https://omcinternational.com/products/dukc/.
Parker, B. B., and L. C. Huff. 1998. “Modern under-keel clearance manage-
ment.” Int. Hydrogr. Rev. 75 (2): 143–165.
PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure).
2014. Harbour approach channels—Design guidelines. PIANC Rep.
No. 21. Brussels, Belgium: PIANC.
PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure).
2020. Resilience of the maritime and inland waterborne transport sys-
tem. PIANC Environmental Committee Task Group 193. Brussels,
Belgium: PIANC.
Rawson, K. J., and E. C. Tupper. 2001. Basic ship theory. 5th ed. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Scully, B. M., and K. N. Mitchell. 2017. “Underkeel clearance reliability
model for dredged navigation channels.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2611: 41–
49. https://doi.org/10.3141/2611-05.
Scully, B. M., and D. L. Young. 2021. “Evaluating the underkeel clearance
of historic vessel transits in the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi river.”
J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng. 147 (5): 05021008. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000655.
Scully, B. M., D. L. Young, and J. E. Ross. 2020. “Mining marine vessel
AIS data to inform coastal structure management.” J. Waterw. Port
Coastal Ocean Eng. 146 (2): 04019042. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000550.
Szlapczynski, R., and J. Szlapczynska. 2016. “An analysis of domain-based
ship collision risk parameters.” Ocean Eng. 126: 47–56. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.08.030.
Szlapczynski, R., and J. Szlapczynska. 2021. “A ship domain-based model
of collision risk for near-miss detection and collision alert systems.”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 214: 107766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress
.2021.107766.
USACE. 2006. Hydraulic design of deep-draft navigation projects. EM
1110-2-1613. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2017. “Mississippi river ship channel Gulf to Baton, LA final in-
tegrated general reevaluation report and supplemental environmental
impact statement Appendix K – preliminary assessment of the dredge
material management plan.” Accessed December 22, 2022. https://www
.mvn.usace.army.mil/Portals/56/docs/Projects/Miss%20Deep/13_Append
ix%20K_Dredge%20Material%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
USACE. 2020a. Civil works direct program development policy guidance.
Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2020b. USACE hydrographic surveys. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2022. Charleston entrance channel. CCR Rep. No. 4020
20220328. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE-CPT (Channel Portfolio Tool). 2022. Channel portfolio tool.
Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE-DIS (Dredge Information System). 2022. Dredge information sys-
tem webtool. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE-IWR (Institute for Water Resources). 2012. U.S. port and inland
waterways modernization: Preparing for post-panamax vessels.
Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE-IWR (Institute for Water Resources). 2018. Waterborne foreign
cargo. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE-WCSC (Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center). 2021. Ports
and waterways webtool. Washington, DC: USACE.
USCG (US Coast Guard). 2018. “Maritime commerce strategic outlook.”
Accessed July 21, 2021. https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/
Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Marine-Transpo
rtation-Systems-CG-5PW/Maritime-Commerce/.
Waters, J. K., R. H. Mayer, Jr., and D. L. Kriebel. 2003. “Dredging-related
implications of current and future trends in the international shipping
industry.” In Dredging’02: Key Technologies for Global Prosperity,
edited by S. Garbaciak, 1–14. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Young, D. L., and B. M. Scully. 2018. “Assessing structure sheltering via
statistical analysis of AIS data.” J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng.
144 (3): 04018002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460
.0000445.
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED
December 2023 Final Report START DATE END DATE

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Ranking Ports by Vessel Demand for Depth

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)
David L. Young, Brandan M. Scully, Sean P. McGill, Ashley J. Elkins, and Marin M. Kress

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) REPORT NUMBER
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) ERDC/CHL MP-23-2
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S

USACE-Jacksonville District ACRONYM(S) REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

USACE-Jacksonville District under the Scope of Work for Port Connectivity and Under-keel Clearance for South Atlantic Division Ports.
Processing and analysis were funded by the USACE Coastal Inlets Research Program. This paper was originally published as D. L. Young, B.
M. Scully, S. P. McGill, A. J. Elkins, and M. M. Kress, “A Ranking Ports by Vessel Demand for Depth,” Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal,
and Ocean Engineering 150 no. 1 (January 2024), https://doi.org/10.1061/jwped5.Wweng-2015.

14. ABSTRACT
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) traditionally uses two metrics to evaluate the maintenance of coastal navigation projects:
tonnage at the associated port (representing relative importance) and the controlling depth in the channel (representing operating
condition). These are incorporated into a risk-based decision framework directing funds where channel conditions have deteriorated and
the disrupted tonnage potential is the highest. However, these metrics fail to capture shipper demand for the maintained depth service
provided by the USACE through dredging. Using automatic identification system (AIS) data, the USACE is pioneering new metrics
describing vessel demand for the channel depth, represented by vessel encroachment volume (VEV). VEV describes the volume of the
hull intruding into a specified clearance margin above the bed and captures how much vessels use the deepest portions of USACE-dredged
channels. This study compares the VEV among 13 ports over 4 years by combining AIS, tidal elevations, channel surveys, and sailing
draft. The ports are ranked based on the services demanded by their user base to inform the decision framework driving dredge funding
allocations. Integrating demand for-depth metrics into the Harbor Maintenance Fee assessment and/or Trust Fund disbursements could
alleviate the constitutionality concerns and several criticisms levied against Harbor Maintenance funding.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Automatic identification system (AIS); Navigation; Dredging; Optimization; Harbor maintenance

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT C. THIS PAGE SAR 17
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

Report Documentation Page (SF 298)STANDARD FORM 298 (REV. 5/2020)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18