RMIPA Port Master Plan

August 2014
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 ABB-1

ABBREVIATIONS

CFS Container Freight Station
IALA International Association of Lighthouse Authorities
J EMFAC J oint Economic Management Committee
LYON Lyon Associates, Inc.
MEC Marshalls Energy Company
MIFC Marshall Islands Fishing Company
MIFV Marshall Islands Fishing Venture
MIMRA Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority
MISC Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation
MIVA Marshall Islands Visitors Authority
MSTCO Majuro Stevedoring and Terminal Company
MV Motor Vessel
MWSC Majuro Water & Sewer Company
RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands
RMIPA RMI Ports Authority
RMI EEZ RMI Exclusive Economic Zone
RMI EPA RMI Environmental Protection Authority
RMI EPPSCO RMI Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office
RMI MT&C RMI Ministry of Transportation & Communications
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDOI OIA United States Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs
USAKA United States Army Kwajalein Atoll

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 TOC-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Demographic and Economic Trends ........................................................................................... ES-1
Existing Port Facilities ................................................................................................................ ES-2
Marine Transport Trends Influencing Future Port Development ............................................... ES-5
Cargo Handling Systems........................................................................................................... ES-10
The Environment ...................................................................................................................... ES-11
Port Facility Needs .................................................................................................................... ES-12
Port Management and Operations ............................................................................................. ES-13
Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................. ES-15

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Significance of the Port ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Purpose of the Master Plan ................................................................................................. 1-4
1.4 Scope of the Master Plan .................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Project Approach ................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.6 Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 1-7
1.7 Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 1-9

Chapter Two Demographic and Economic Trends

2.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Resident Population ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Workforce ........................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.4 Income................................................................................................................................. 2-8
2.5 Cost of Living ..................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.6 Primary Industry Trends ................................................................................................... 2-10
2.7 Anticipated Population Growth ........................................................................................ 2-21

Chapter Three Existing Port Facilities

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Calalin Channel ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Port Fairway ........................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.4 Uliga Dock .......................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.5 Delap Dock ....................................................................................................................... 3-25

Chapter Four Marine Transport Trends

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Interisland Passenger and Cargo Traffic ............................................................................. 4-1
4.3 International Cargo Vessel Traffic ...................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Oil Tankers........................................................................................................................ 4-18
4.5 Fishing Vessel Traffic ....................................................................................................... 4-20
4.6 Cargo Handling Systems................................................................................................... 4-26

Chapter Five Environmental Consideration

5.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Wind Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Tidal Variations .................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.4 Wave Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.5 Current Patterns .................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.6 Ecology of Majuro Lagoon ................................................................................................. 5-4

Chapter Six Port Facility Needs

6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Calalin Channel ................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Port Fairway ........................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.4 Uliga dock ........................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.5 Delap Dock ....................................................................................................................... 6-14
6.6 Economic Development Opportunities ............................................................................. 6-44

Chapter Seven Port Management and Operations

7.1 Statutory Authority ............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Port Division Personnel ..................................................... 7-4
7.4 Port Security........................................................................................................................ 7-5
7.5 Financial Position................................................................................................................ 7-9
7.6 Port Management, Operations and Maintenance Needs ................................................... 7-12
7.7 RMIPA Facility Leases ..................................................................................................... 7-16

Chapter Eight Port Objectives and Strategies

8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Establishment of Priorities .................................................................................................. 8-2
8.3 Port Improvement Objectives and Strategies ...................................................................... 8-5

Chapter Nine Cost-Benefit Analysis

9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Port Improvement Considerations and Assumptions .......................................................... 9-2

Chapter Ten Implementation Plan

10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Adopt and Enable Convenient Access to the Master Plan ................................................ 10-1
10.3 Establish a Process for Project Project Implementation ................................................... 10-2

Table of Figures
Figure ES-1
Port Improvement Implementation Schedule .......................................................................... ES-11

Figure 1-1
Regional Location Republic of the Marshall Islands .................................................................. 1-2

Figure 1-2
Republic of the Marshall Islands ................................................................................................. 1-3
Figure 1-3
Majuro Atoll ................................................................................................................................. 1-3

Figure 2-1
Population Growth, 1980-2011 Republic of the Marshall Islands ............................................. 2-3
Figure 2-2
Crude Birth Rates Per One Thousand Population 1988, 1999-2011 Republic of the Marshall
Islands .......................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3
Crude Deaths Rates Per One Thousand Population 1988, 1999-2012 Republic of the Marshall
Islands .......................................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-4
Republic of the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zones ................................................ 2-11

Figure 3-1
Majuro Atoll ................................................................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-2
Calalin Channel ........................................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3
Fairway to Port of Majuro ........................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-4
Vessel Moorage Area ................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-5
Uliga Dock Layout ..................................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-6
Uliga Dock Area Electrical Distribution ................................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3-7
Uliga Dock Area Fuel Distribution ........................................................................................... 3-21
Figure 3-8
Uliga Dock Area Water Distribution ......................................................................................... 3-23

Figure 3-9
Delap Dock Layout .................................................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3-10
Delap Dock Area Electrical Distribution .................................................................................. 3-51
Figure 3-11
Delap Dock Area Fuel Distribution ........................................................................................... 3-55
Figure 3-12
Delap Dock Area Water Distribution ........................................................................................ 3-57

Figure 6-1
Potential Southeast Expansion of Uliga Dock A ......................................................................... 6-6
Figure 6-2
Potential 180 Meter Extension of Uliga Dock A ......................................................................... 6-7
Figure 6-3
Long Term Uliga Dock Improvement Plan ................................................................................ 6-13
Figure 6-4
Proposed Delap Dock Layout (Option A) .................................................................................. 6-19
Figure 6-5
Proposed Delap Dock Layout (Option B) .................................................................................. 6-20
Figure 6-6
Proposed Delap Dock Layout (Option C) ................................................................................. 6-21
Figure 6-7
Proposed Delap Dock Layout (Option D) ................................................................................. 6-22
Figure 6-8
Proposed Delap Dock Area Electrical Power Distribution ...................................................... 6-33
Figure 6-9
Delap Dock Area Proposed Utility and Fuel Distribution ........................................................ 6-43
Figure 6-10
Proposed Fisheries Dock Complex ............................................................................................ 6-45

Figure 7-1
Organizational Chart RMI Ports Authority Seaport Division ..................................................... 7-3
Figure 7-2
Delap Dock Area Land Lease Boundaries................................................................................. 7-18

Figure 10-1
Port Improvement Implementation Schedule ........................................................................... 10-10

Tables
Table ES-1
Anticipated Inbound and Outbound Caro Volumes (TEU) with Limited Transshipment Activity
2014-2033 ................................................................................................................................. ES-7
Table ES-2
Anticipated Inbound and Outbound Caro Volumes (TEU) with Expanded Transshipment Activity
2014-2033 ................................................................................................................................. ES-8

Table ES-3
Anticipated International Cargo Vessel Traffic 2014-2033 ..................................................... ES-9

Table 2-1
Republic of the Marshall Islands Population and Growth Rate by Atoll/Island Census Years
1980, 1988, 1999 and 2011.......................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2
Natural Growth and Migration Trends - Republic of the Marshall Islands ................................ 2-4
Table 2-3
Full and Part-Time Employment by Industry - Republic of the Marshall Islands FY1998-FY2011
...................................................................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-4
1998-2011 Average Annual Wage and Salary Rates Private and Public Sector Jobs by Industry
Republic of the Marshall Islands ................................................................................................. 2-9
Table 2-5
Number of Foreign Purse Seine Vessels Licensed to Fish in the Marshall Islands EEZ by Year
and Flag, 2006-2010 .................................................................................................................. 2-10
Table 2-6
Annual Catches by Purse Seine Fleets in the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone by Flag
and Species, 2006-2010 ............................................................................................................. 2-12
Table 2-7
Number of Foreign Longline Vessels Licensed to Fish in the Marshall Islands EEZ by Year and
Flag, 2006-2010 ......................................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-8
Annual Catches by Foreign Longline Fleets in the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone by
Flag and Species, 2006-2010 ..................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-9
Visitors to Majuro by Year and Purpose of Visit 1996, 2001-2010 .......................................... 2-18
Table 2-10
Anticipated Population Growth 2012-2024 ............................................................................... 2-23

Table 3-1
Facility Condition Assessment Criteria Port of Majuro .............................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2
Calalin Channel Facility Condition Assessment ......................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3
Port Fairway Facility Condition Assessment .............................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-4
Uliga Dock Facility Condition Assessment ............................................................................... 3-13
Table 3-5
Uliga Dock Warehouse Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-14
Table 3-6
USAID Disaster Mitigation Relief Building Characteristics .................................................... 3-15
Table 3-7
Uliga Dock Guardhouse Building Characteristics .................................................................... 3-16

Table 3-8
Uliga Dock Pump Vault Characteristics ................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-9
Delap Dock Facility Condition Assessment ............................................................................... 3-29
Table 3-10
Bollard Load P and Approximate Spacing ................................................................................ 3-30
Table 3-11
RMIPA Office Building Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-36
Table 3-12
MSTCO Office and CFS Warehouse Building Characteristics ................................................. 3-37
Table 3-13
Delap Guard House Building Characteristics ........................................................................... 3-39
Table 3-14
Container Yard Entry Office Building Characteristics ............................................................. 3-40
Table 3-15
Abandoned Restroom/Shower Building Characteristics ........................................................... 3-40
Table 3-16
Electrical Generator Buildings Characteristics ........................................................................ 3-41
Table 3-17
Stevedore Recreational Building Characteristics ...................................................................... 3-42
Table 3-18
Boat House Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 3-44
Table 3-19
Yard-Shop Building Characteristics .......................................................................................... 3-45
Table 3-20
Delap Dock Office Building Characteristics ............................................................................. 3-46
Table 3-21
Fuel Building Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3-47
Table 3-22
Delap Dock Maintenance Building Characteristics .................................................................. 3-48

Table 4-1
Selected Vessel Dimensions and Details Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels ......................... 4-2
Table 4-2
2012 Inbound and Outbound Cargo Volumes (in TEU) Port of Majuro ..................................... 4-6
Table 4-3
2013 Inbound and Outbound Cargo Volumes (in TEU) Port of Majuro .................................... 4-7
Table 4-4
Anticipated Inbound and Outbound Cargo Volumes (TEU) with Limited Transshipment Activity
2014-2033 .................................................................................................................................. 4-10
Table 4-5
Anticipated Inbound and Outbound Cargo Volumes (TEU) with Expanded Transshipment
Activity 2014-2033 .................................................................................................................... 4-10
Table 4-6
Anticipated International Cargo Vessel Traffic 2014-2033 ...................................................... 4-12

Table 4-7
Vessel Particulars International Cargo Vessels Calling upon Port of Majuro 2010-2012 ... 4-15
Table 4-8
Container Ship Size Categories ................................................................................................. 4-17
Table 4-9
Vessel Particulars International Oil Tankers Calling upon Port of Majuro 2010-2012 ....... 4-19
Table 4-10
Vessels Licensed to Fish in Marshall Islands EEZ 2006-2010.................................................. 4-20
Table 4-11
Vessel Particulars International Fishing Vessels Calling upon Port of Majuro 2010-2012 . 4-23

Table 5-1
Monthly Surface Wind Characteristics Uliga Dock 1994-2011 .................................................. 5-2

Table 6-1
Delap Dock Electrical Loading (Options A, B, or D)................................................................ 6-36
Table 6-2
Delap Dock Electrical Loading (Options C) ............................................................................. 6-37

Table 7-1
Anticipated Annual Cost Preventative Maintenance Program Port of Majuro ........................ 7-15

Table 8-1
Prioritization of Future Port Improvement Objectives Port of Majuro ...................................... 8-3
Table 8-2
Objectives in Order of Priority Based on Cumulative Scores Port of Majuro Port Improvements
...................................................................................................................................................... 8-4

Table 9-1
Cost-Benefit Analysis - Calalin Channel, Port Fairway, Vesssel Anchorage Area With Expansion
of Transshipment .......................................................................................................................... 9-4
Table 9-2
Cost-Benefit Analysis Uliga Dock ............................................................................................... 9-8
Table 9-3
Cost-Benefit Analysis Delap Dock ............................................................................................. 9-13
Table 9-4
Cost-Benefit Analysis Fishing Dock .......................................................................................... 9-18
Table 9-5
Cost-Benefit Analysis Cumulative Port Improvements with Limited Expansion of Transshipment
.................................................................................................................................................... 9-20
Table 9-6
Cost-Benefit Analysis Cumulative Port Improvements with Greater Expansion of Transshipment
.................................................................................................................................................... 9-21


References

References ............................................................................................................................... REF-1

Appendix
Appendix A
Conditional Assesments .............................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B
Initial Port Stakeholder Meeting Notes ...................................................................................... B-1

Appendix C
Port Improvement Objectives and Strategies Meeting Notes ..................................................... C-1

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

The Port of Majuro is entering an auspicious time in its history that presents genuine
opportunities for the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority (RMIPA) to:

enhance the safety of vessel traffic in the Port of Majuro;
increase the efficiency of interisland passenger and cargo operations;
increase the berthing capacity of Delap Dock to accommodate more container
transshipment activity;
re-organize the overall container yard area, further increase the safety and efficiency of
cargo handling operations, and attract greater transshipment;
sustain the operation of a secure port;
sustain and improve the financial viability of the Port of Majuro;
make new economic investments that will generate new port-related jobs, generate
secondary employment in the Marshall Islands private sector, as well as expand revenues
for the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority (RMIPA) and the Republic of
the Marshall Islands; and,
establish a new preventative maintenance program for all port facilities that will extend
the life of existing port facilities and improve the reliability of port operations.

These opportunities will require the pursuit of technical and financial resources to achieve an
aggressive port improvement plan that is outlined in the Port of Majuro Master Plan. During the
coming decade, this master plan outlines the accomplishment of roughly $65,000,000 in port
improvement projects (Figure ES-1). These projects, which are described in greater detail in
Chapters 6, 8 and 10, encompass a wide range of physical improvements to Uliga Dock and
Delap Dock. The development of a new fisheries dock is recommended for a yet, undetermined
location with the Majuro Lagoon. In Chapter Seven, various institutional changes are also
recommended to sustain and improve effective port management, port security, as well as facility
operations and maintenance activities.

Anticipated benefits and costs that would be generated from all planned port improvements
during the next two decades (FY 2014 through FY 2033) are examined in Chapter Nine. The
subtraction of cumulative, discounted costs between FY 2014 and FY 2033 from cumulative
discounted benefits yields a positive net present value of $272,532,908 for all port improvements
outlined in the Port of Majuro Master Plan. The benefit-cost ratio for all port improvements is
estimated to be 2.9. These statistical outputs indicate that significant benefits can be gained
through very substantive investments in port infrastructure. But, long-term potential benefits
significantly outweigh investment costs.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS

Chapter Two of the Port of Majuro Master Plan examines various demographic and economic
trends that will influence future volumes of inbound and outbound cargo that will be transported
to and from the Port of Majuro. This analysis culminates with a forecast of the future resident
population during the coming decade. Three population growth scenarios are identified. A
moderate growth scenario appears to be the more likely growth trend.

Under the moderate growth scenario, modest gains in population growth, ranging between 0.5
and 1.0 percent per year, are anticipated during the coming decade. The crude birth rate and
crude death rate are expected to decline at rates comparable to the 1999-2011 period. The level
out migration will slow somewhat in the face of short-term (one to two years) economic
slowdowns in Hawaii and the US mainland that result in fewer employment opportunities
abroad.

At the same time, sustained commercial interest in the fishery of the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone will provide some new job opportunities associated with fish processing in Majuro. It is
also anticipated that the US Government will renew its commitment toward the continued
operation of USAKA before 2016 through the successful renegotiation of leases with local
landowners. These factors are expected to encourage more Marshallese to remain home rather
than relocate.

EXISTING PORT FACILITIES

Chapter Three provides a detailed inventory and evaluation of the condition of existing port
facilities associated with the Calalin Channel, port fairway, and vessel anchorage area, Uliga
Dock and Delap Dock. This analysis also examines what improvements are necessary to sustain
the future operation of existing facilities.

Calalin Channel

No repairs or improvements to the Calalin Channel are envisioned to support ongoing port
operations. However, it is essential that channel markers and related lighting systems are
periodically inspected to confirm the adequacy of their condition to support the navigation of
vessels through the Calalin Channel.

Port Fairway

A review of available bathymetry within Majuro Atoll, as well as discussions with the RMIPA
Seaport Manager and local agents for various fish and shipping companies, suggest that there is
ample open water of navigable depth within the port fairway to accommodate existing levels of
vessel traffic. Available design criteria for navigable outer channels recommend that:

channel bottom widths for one-way vessel traffic in a straight channel should be 3.6 to six
times the beam of port's design ship depending on relevant sea and wind conditions.
However, the minimum bottom width for oil and gas tankers should be five times the
beam of the port's design ship (Thoresen, 2010).

two-way vessel traffic in a straight channel should contain a channel bottom width of
roughly 6.2 to 9.0 times the beam of the design ship (Thoresen, 2010).

Between 2010 and 2012, the largest vessels calling on the Port of Majuro included several cargo
vessels that have a beam of 25 meters (RMI Ports Authority, 2013). Assuming this dimension
for the Port of Majuro's design ship, the port fairway would need to be roughly 155 to 225 meters
wide to accommodate two-way vessel traffic. As stated earlier, shoals near the middle of the
Majuro Lagoon and along the Lagoon's northern margin reduce the effective width of the port
fairway to between 2,400 and 7,500 meters. Despite those limitations, the width of the port
fairway is more than adequate to support two-way vessel traffic.

Vessel Anchorage Area

Available bathymetry data and navigation information for the anchorage area suggests that water
depths generally range between 27 and 47 meters. The bottom is characterized by sand, coral or
soft rock (IHS, 2013). A review of the ship dimensions for purse seiners and refrigerated carrier
vessels calling on the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012 indicates that refrigerated carrier
vessels have a draught of up to 12 meters (RMI Ports Authority, 2013). Consequently, the
existing anchorage area is very capable of providing moorage to incoming fishing vessels.

Other than the communication of recently established coordinates for the vessel anchorage area
to incoming vessels, no new facilities or facility improvements are believed to be needed to the
anchorage area. However, the installation of an Automatic Identification System (AIS) would
enable the RMI Ports Authority to more efficiently monitor the location of vessels moored in the
anchorage area.

Uliga Dock

A repair of the quay face and related cathodic protection is needed in the short term to sustain the
facility life of Dock A. However, the most significant recommendation for Uliga Dock relates to
the recommended extension of Dock A in order to provide greater moorage area that is necessary
to support operations associated with a growing interisland passenger/cargo fleet. With that
recommendation, there are various other improvements outlined in Chapter Three associated
with the recommended development of a small passenger terminal building and substantive
improvements to water, wastewater, fire suppression, electrical power, and fuel distribution
systems.

Delap Dock

Berth and Quay

The short-term repair of the quay face and the installation of related cathodic protection is also
needed to sustain the structural integrity of the main Delap Dock quay face.

Dock Apron

The dock apron, which is constructed of concrete, is in fair to good condition and varies over the
course of the entire dock length. Areas exhibiting greater wear and deterioration appear to have
been influenced by cargo handling operations, e.g., movement of containerized cargo by forklifts
and toplift equipment. The patching of damaged concrete areas (or replacement of certain slabs),
as well as the paving of the entire cargo handling and storage area, would significantly help
reduce future damages to the decking of the Delap Dock apron. A paved concrete surface would
concurrently help increase the efficiency of cargo handling operations. New fenders, bollards,
cleats, and concrete curbing are also needed along the main dock, Delap East Dock, and Delap
West Dock.

Container Yard

The efficiency of the cargo handling area is hampered significantly by:

the storage of various solid waste materials in selected areas of the overall cargo
handling area. These materials are not related to stevedoring operations or the storage of
cargo.
encroachment of the western portion of the Delap container yard by the RMI Ministry of
Public Works.

All discarded solid waste material and other equipment and supplies unrelated to port and
stevedoring operations need to be removed from the cargo handling area as soon as possible.
The presence of these materials significantly reduces the effective amount of area available for
cargo handling. They also represent obstacles that hinder the efficient movement of cargo
handling equipment in the container yard.

There are several buildings in the container yard which are recommended for demolition. Some
of the building functions are recommended to be incorporated into other proposed facilities in the
container yard. Other facilities have reached their useful facility life or purpose.

Supporting Utility Systems

There are a number of significant issues associated with the utility systems supporting the
operation of Delap Dock facilities.

In the short term, the existing backup power supply system needs to be modified to
enable an automatic start-up and transfer of power from the backup generator when a
power outage occurs that interrupts power distribution to the RMIPA office (Table 3-9).
Electrical service to buildings in the cargo handling and container storage yard, which are
recommended for demolition or replacement, should be disconnected prior to demolition.

Future international cargo shipments to Delap Dock will include the delivery of a greater
number of refrigerated containers. More refrigerated containers will require the
installation of additional refrigerated container electrical outlets which, in turn, will
increase the connected electrical load generated by port related activities at Delap Dock.

Fuel transmission lines, between the fuel manifold building and the neighboring Marshall
Energy Company tank farm, are situated under the rear wall of the Delap Dock
Maintenance Building which is used by MSTCO for the maintenance, repair and storage
of cargo handling equipment. Tobolar warehouses are also located immediately east of
fuel supply and distribution lines. In the event of a fuel leak or structural fire, access to
the fuel lines would be extremely difficult.

The Majuro Water and Sewer Company (MWSC) provide potable water and fire flow to
the Delap Dock area via two separate water distribution systems. There are three supply
valves located along the dock apron. However, Lyon Associates observed that no water
could be released from the distribution lines serving the dock apron in May 2013. The
potable water valves were filled with cobwebs and appeared as if they had not been
opened in many years. Currently, any vessels requiring potable water are serviced by
water trucks from MWSC.

An 8-inch saltwater distribution line is located along the main shoreline roadway to
provide water that is to be used for fire suppression. This distribution system extends to
the Delap Dock apron, where there are three in-ground hydrant connections, via an 8-inch
lateral.

In May 2013, the saltwater distribution lines did not release water when their related
valves were turned on. The saltwater distribution system and in-ground fire suppression
hydrants appear to have not been used or maintained for many years. The in-ground
hydrant covers were concaved in due to heavy loading likely from vehicles and
stevedoring equipment. The hydrants were also completely filled with silt and sand. The
availability of salt water is necessary for the protection of structures located at Delap
Dock.

The demand for potable water distribution system on Delap Dock is not significant. A
majority of the cargo vessels and purse seine fishing vessels contain their own reverse
osmosis seawater desalination systems that enable them to be self-sufficient. At the same
time, there are some fishing companies, e.g., Koo's Fishing Company, that occasionally
use fresh water for the periodic cleaning of salt water brine systems on their fleet of purse
seine vessels. Consequently, the availability of potable water at Delap Dock for dock
maintenance and occasional vessel maintenance is also desirable.

MARINE TRANSPORT TRENDS INFLUENCING FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT

Interisland Passenger and Cargo Transportation

Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) vessels made 15 voyages to the Outer Islands in
FY 2011. The average passenger and cargo volumes transported on each voyage included 81
passengers, 48 freight tons of general cargo, and 56 freight tons of copra (Milne, 2011).
Comparable passenger and cargo volumes were not available from MISC for FY 2012.
However, the volume of inbound shipments of copra to Tobolar Copra Processing Authority has
increased significantly in FY 2012 and 2013. Tobolar Copra Processing Authority reported the
delivery of 6,335 tons of copra in FY 2012. During the first 10 months of FY 2013, 6,115 tons
were delivered to TCPA; by the end of the fiscal year, TCPA representatives anticipate that
inbound cargo shipments may reach as much as 8,000 tons (Marshall Islands J ournal, 2013).

A recently expanded fleet of interisland passenger/cargo vessels are increasing their delivery of
food, materials, and supplies to the Outer Islands. The same vessels return from the Outer
Islands with a growing supply of copra that is delivered to the Tobolar Coconut Processing
Authority complex at Delap Dock.

International Cargo Traffic

International cargo vessels, which primarily transport containerized cargo to and from the
Marshall Islands, made fifty-six vessel calls to the Port of Majuro in 2012. Majuro Shipping and
Terminal Company handled some 6,603 TEU of total inbound and outbound cargo.

In 2013, the number of vessel calls doubled to 112. Total inbound and outbound cargo volume
rose to 10,610 TEU due to a substantive increase in container transshipment by Marianas
Express Lines, Ltd. (MELL). This was a significant turning point for the Port of Majuro as the
port is now clearly recognized by, at least, one prominent Asian shipper as a feasible point of
transshipment within Micronesia.

During the next 20 years, it is anticipated that future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will
primarily be impacted by:

the size of the resident population and its consumption of imported goods and materials;
potential improvements at Delap Dock that would enable the concurrent berthing of two
international cargo vessels, significantly increase the efficiency of cargo handling
operations, and expand the capacity of container stacking/storage area; and,
the extent of future container transshipment at Delap Dock.

This assumption led to the preparation of two forecasts of inbound and outbound cargo for the
2014-2033 period which, together, identify a forecast range for future cargo volumes during the
next 20 years.

The forecast presented for a limited transshipment activity scenario (Table ES-1) assumes
future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will generally increase at the same rate of
anticipated resident population growth along with some modest growth in transshipment
even if no substantive improvements were made to Delap Dock.
In contrast, the forecast for an expanded transshipment activity scenario (Table ES-2)
assumes that future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will be impacted by both the
anticipated resident population growth, as well as new potential improvements at Delap
Dock, that will generate expanded transshipment activity.

In combination, the two alternate forecasts suggest that future total annual cargo volumes will
range somewhere between 13,386 and 17,776 TEU by 2023. By 2033, total annual cargo
volumes are expected to range between 16,112 and 28,248 TEU.

INBOUND CARGO VOLUME (TEU) OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUME (TEU)
Cargo
Volume
Trans-
shipment
Total
Inbound
Cargo
Volume

Trans-
shipment
Total
Outbound
2012 3,520 41 3,561 2,985 57 3,042 6,603
2013 4,105 1,002 5,107 4,580 923 5,503 10,610
2014 4,134 1,109 5,243 4,613 1,030 5,642 10,886
2015 4,155 1,215 5,370 4,636 1,135 5,771 11,141
2016 4,181 1,322 5,503 4,664 1,242 5,906 11,409
2017 4,222 1,435 5,657 4,710 1,354 6,064 11,721
2018 4,241 1,542 5,783 4,732 1,460 6,192 11,975
2019 4,269 1,652 5,921 4,763 1,570 6,333 12,254
2020 4,294 1,762 6,056 4,791 1,679 6,470 12,526
2021 4,329 1,876 6,205 4,830 1,793 6,623 12,828
2022 4,358 1,989 6,347 4,863 1,905 6,767 13,115
2023 4,382 2,099 6,482 4,889 2,015 6,904 13,386
2024 4,404 2,210 6,614 4,914 2,125 7,039 13,653
2025 4,426 2,321 6,747 4,938 2,236 7,174 13,920
2026 4,448 2,432 6,880 4,963 2,347 7,309 14,190
2027 4,470 2,545 7,015 4,987 2,459 7,446 14,460
2028 4,492 2,657 7,149 5,012 2,571 7,583 14,732
2029 4,515 2,770 7,285 5,037 2,684 7,721 15,006
2030 4,537 2,884 7,421 5,062 2,797 7,859 15,280
2031 4,560 2,999 7,558 5,087 2,911 7,998 15,556
2032 4,582 3,114 7,696 5,113 3,025 8,138 15,834
2033 4,605 3,229 7,834 5,138 3,140 8,278 16,112
Year
TOTAL
CARGO VOLUME
(TEU)
TABLE 4-4
ANTICIPATED INBOUND AND OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUMES (TEU)
WITH LIMITED TRANSSHIPMENT ACTIVITY
2014-2033
Source: Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2014.

With these assumptions, inbound cargo volumes in 2033 are anticipated to include
approximately 13,897 TEU of inbound cargo and 14,351 TEU of outbound cargo, or a total
cargo volume of 28,248.

ES-1
Cargo
Volume
Trans-
shipment
Total
Inbound
Cargo
Volume

Trans-
shipment
Total
Outbound
2012 3,520 41 3,561 2,985 57 3,042 6,603
2013 4,105 1,002 5,107 4,580 923 5,503 10,610
2014 4,134 1,262 5,396 4,613 1,183 5,796 11,192
2015 4,155 1,522 5,677 4,636 1,443 6,079 11,757
2016 4,181 1,782 5,963 4,664 1,703 6,367 12,330
2017 4,222 2,042 6,264 4,710 1,963 6,673 12,937
2018 4,241 2,417 6,658 4,732 2,338 7,070 13,728
2019 4,269 2,792 7,061 4,763 2,713 7,476 14,537
2020 4,294 3,167 7,461 4,791 3,088 7,879 15,340
2021 4,329 3,542 7,871 4,830 3,463 8,293 16,165
2022 4,358 3,917 8,275 4,863 3,838 8,701 16,976
2023 4,382 4,292 8,674 4,889 4,213 9,102 17,776
2024 4,404 4,792 9,196 4,914 4,713 9,627 18,822
2025 4,426 5,292 9,718 4,938 5,213 10,151 19,869
2026 4,448 5,792 10,240 4,963 5,713 10,676 20,915
2027 4,470 6,292 10,762 4,987 6,213 11,200 21,962
2028 4,492 6,792 11,284 5,012 6,713 11,725 23,009
2029 4,515 7,292 11,807 5,037 7,213 12,250 24,057
2030 4,537 7,792 12,329 5,062 7,713 12,775 25,104
2031 4,560 8,292 12,852 5,087 8,213 13,300 26,152
2032 4,582 8,792 13,374 5,113 8,713 13,826 27,200
2033 4,605 9,292 13,897 5,138 9,213 14,351 28,248
TOTAL
CARGO VOLUME
(TEU)
TABLE 4-5
WITH EXPANDED TRANSSHIPMENT ACTIVITY
2014-2023
Year

If anticipated total annual cargo volumes fall within the anticipated forecast range for inbound
and outbound cargo and international cargo vessels continued to transport roughly 95 TEU per
call, the annual number of international cargo vessel calls in 2023 would range somewhere
between 141 and 187 vessel calls. By 2033, the annual number of vessel calls would be
expected to range between 170 and 297 vessel calls (Table ES-3).

ES-2
Year
Number of Vessel Calls with
Limited Transshipment
Expanded Transshipment
2013 112 112
2014 115 118
2015 117 124
2016 120 130
2017 123 136
2018 126 145
2019 129 153
2020 132 161
2021 135 170
2022 138 179
2023 141 187
2024 144 198
2025 147 209
2026 149 220
2027 152 231
2028 155 242
2029 158 253
2030 161 264
2031 164 275
2032 167 286
2033 170 297
TABLE 4-6
ANTICIPATED INTERNATIONAL CARGO VESSEL TRAFFIC
2014-2033

Oil Tankers

Local coastal tankers make scheduled deliveries of diesel, jet, and gasoline fuels to the Port of
Majuro. Diesel fuels are periodically transported to Delap Dock where supply lines carry fuels
to the Marshalls Energy Company tank farm. Diesel, jet and gasoline fuels are delivered to
Uliga Dock where supply lines transport fuels to the Mobil Micronesia tank farm that is situated
about 0.5 mile southwest of Uliga Dock.

In 2012, 12 monthly fuel deliveries transported a total of 900,000 gallons (3,407 kiloliters) of
diesel fuel, 4.3 million gallons (16,277 kiloliters) of jet fuel, and 1.3 million gallons (4,921
kiloliters) of gasoline (Hawley, 2013). Fuel deliveries to Marshalls Energy Company included
13,000,000 gallons (49,200 kiloliters) of diesel fuel (Wakefield, 2013).

ES-3
It is anticipated that the volume of fuel imports to the Marshall Islands will rise in response to a
modest increase in resident population. Rising fuel imports will likely reflect growing demands
for diesel fuel at the Marshall Energy power plant in Delap and gasoline consumed by private
and commercial vehicles. If fuel consumption generally parallels the increase in resident
population, fuel imports during the 2010-2023 period can be expected to increase almost nine
percent during the coming decade. If an attractive location is eventually established for the
servicing of fishing vessels, additional fuel sales can be made to some international fishing
vessels, as well as to the national fishing fleet that is based in the Port of Majuro.

International Fishing Fleet

The expansive and calmer waters in the Majuro Lagoon continue to represent an attractive
transshipment location for the international fishing fleet. In 2012, a log of vessel movements
within the Port of Majuro, which are recorded by the RMI Ports Authority, reveal that
approximately 482 fishing vessels called upon the Port of Majuro in 2012 and remained in the
Port of Majuro for an average of 9.8 days. During the same year, 371 transshipments of fish
were made in the Port of Majuro by 290 purse seiners and 81 refrigerated fish carrier vessels
(Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2013).

During the coming decade, it is reasonable to assume that fishing activity and harvests in the
RMI Exclusive Economic Zone will, on an annual basis, continue to rise and fall, but trend
toward somewhat greater fishing activity. The consequence of this assumption is a related rise in
international fishing vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro. It is anticipated that the annual
number of international fishing vessel calls in 2023 will peak to not more than 10 to 15 percent
over the number of fishing vessel calls made in 2012, or between 530 and 555 vessels per year.

CARGO HANDLING SYSTEMS

The Need for Transition

Existing volumes of inbound and outbound international cargo at the Port of Majuro do not
justify a significant capital expenditure for the short-term installation of a mobile harbor crane
along Delap Dock apron. At the same time, the Port of Majuro is the hub of the Marshall Islands
economy. The future import of food, household goods, fuel, building materials, etc. are essential
to sustaining the lifestyle of Marshallese residents. And in view of significant changes to
international cargo vessels, it is important that RMIPA transition toward the installation and use
of more efficient cargo handling systems.

During the coming decade, it is anticipated that the Port of Majuro along with its neighboring
ports in the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Nauru will remain on several routes
made by feeder container vessels that have onboard cargo cranes. However, because of the Port
of Majuro's strategic location, there is growing interest among international shippers to make an
expanded use of the Port of Majuro for the transshipment of containers to other Pacific Islands.

Short Term Modifications

In this context, the focus of short-term improvements to cargo handling should be to increase the
efficiency of inbound container storage and delivery to local consignees. This will require a re-
organization of the container stacking/storage area and the overall Delap Dock complex, as well
as various facility improvements outlined in Chapter Six.

Some greater efficiency in cargo handling could be achieved through the demolition of selected
structures in the container yard, the reorganization of the container stacking/storage area, as well
as the combined use of reach stackers and terminal tractor-trailer units. Onboard ship cranes
could unload containers on to terminal tractor-trailer units which would transport inbound
containers to the container stacking/storage area. Reach stackers would unload containers from
the terminal tractor-trailer units and stack them into container blocks. Containers would continue
to be stacked an average of three containers high.

Medium Term Modifications

During the next several years, RMIPA will also need to be prepared to address the potential
opportunity for increased transshipment operations at Delap Dock. Re-organization of the
container stacking/area will need to be adaptable to the incorporation of additional cargo
handling equipment that will be necessary to achieve more efficient cargo handling.

Expanded transshipment operations will require widening of the dock apron for the installation
of a mobile harbor crane that would increase the efficiency of container loading and unloading at
Delap Dock. The mobile harbor crane would lower containers on to terminal tractor-trailer units
that would transport inbound containers to the container stacking/storage area. Reach stackers
would unload the terminal tractor-trailer units and stack containers an average of three high in
container blocks.

Forklifts and top picks would continue to be used to transport empty containers from the CFS
warehouse to empty container stacks, as well as load inbound containers from the container
stacks on to chassis, or semi-truck trailers, that are used to deliver containers to local consignees.

Existing forklifts and top picks could continue to be used. This equipment could transport
empty containers from the CFS warehouse to empty container stacks, as well as the load inbound
containers from the container stacks on to chassis, or semi-truck trailers, that are used to deliver
containers to local consignees.

THE ENVIRONMENT

Various environmental forces and climatic conditions influence the operation and berthing of
international vessels in the Port of Majuro. These considerations primarily include wind
characteristics, wave patterns, and currents.

Conversely, the operation of vessels within the Port of Majuro also impacts the environment of
Majuro Lagoon. It is important that future port operations and the planning of future
improvements within the Lagoon consider these impacts and identify effective mitigative
measures that can be used by the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority and other
national agencies to enhance the water quality and ecology of Majuro Lagoon. The long-term
challenge is to balance the social and economic needs of the Marshall Islands residents with the
concurrent responsibility to conserve the natural resources of Majuro Lagoon.

PORT FACILITY NEEDS

Chapter Six examines future port facility improvements that are needed to address the
anticipated vessel traffic and cargo demands of the coming decade. Recommended facility
improvements are presented to meet longer term demands, as well as sustain existing port
operations.

Uliga Dock

Strategies are provided for Uliga Dock that outline specific recommended actions to:

repair damages to the Dock A quay face and install new cathodic protection;
expand available moorage space for interisland passenger/cargo vessels;
provide greater moor space for non-interisland passenger/cargo vessels;
construct an interisland passenger terminal building;
establish a back-up power supply; and,
establish reliable water distribution systems for potable water and fire suppression.

Delap Dock

Specific facility improvement recommendations for Delap Dock are presented in Chapter Six
that focus upon the development of facilities that can accommodate expanded transshipment
operations and, at the same time, establish a more safe and efficient cargo handling environment.
These improvements primarily include:

the replacement of fenders along the quay face, as well as bollards, front curbs, and
cleats along the dock apron;
the gradual widening of the dock apron;
paving of the entire container yard;
re-organization of container yard that would designate ground slots for containers and
aisles for cargo handling equipment;
a gradual transition to more efficient cargo handling equipment;
construction of a new container freight station;
an improved secondary container yard area that would provide more efficient container
loading for offsite deliveries, vehicular access, onsite vehicular parking, and egress from
Delap Dock;
a renovated or new facility for cargo handling equipment maintenance and repair;
a new electrical supply and distribution system to accommodate more refrigerated
containers and improved onsite lighting;
the relocation and establishment of a more safe fuel transmission and distribution
system;
the development of new water supply and distribution system for both potable water and
fire suppression; and,
connections of existing facilities to the Majuro Water and Sewer Company wastewater
system.

Four alternate site layouts are provided to achieve the development of these improvements
during the coming decade.

Fisheries Dock Complex

The development of a new fisheries dock complex in the Port of Majuro is recommended to
provide dock area for the servicing of international fishing vessels calling upon the Port of
Majuro prior to or following the transshipment of their harvests to fish carrier vessels, as well as
the delivery of fish to local fish processing operations. Land area inland of the dock apron
should include potential lease area for fish processing facilities, as well as an additional lease
area for one or more companies to provide dry docking, engine repair, net repair, fuel bunkering,
and other vessel services.

PORT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

Capability to Meet Future Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

An unaudited profit loss statement for FY 2012, which reports a net income of about $323,994,
strongly suggests that RMIPA will continue to be able to meet normal operation and
maintenance expenditures with incoming revenues. An increasing volume of vessel calls will
continue to expand the amount of revenues gained from various port related fees. However, the
establishment of a preventative maintenance program will also increase the volume of
expenditures for port facility operations and maintenance. Despite these expenditures, it is
anticipated that RMIPA revenues will exceed operation and maintenance expenditures during the
coming decade.

Reserve Fund for Unanticipated Repairs and Maintenance

In view of the prospects for a lower net income, it is recommended that a reserve fund for
unanticipated repairs is established within the RMIPA Budget. An annual budgetary allocation
should be made to this fund in order to ensure the financial capability of RMIPA to respond
effectively to unforeseen emergency repairs.

The 2012 profit-loss statement indicates that RMIPA is receiving some interest income from
profits gained on an annual basis. These funds could be used to establish such a fund within
future budgets of RMIPA.

Lack of Capital to Support Future Port Improvements

While the balance between Seaport Division revenues and expenses appears favorable, it is
abundantly clear that RMIPA will continue to need capital for the design and construction of any
significant facility repairs, facility renovations, or new construction. The continued commitment
of the Nitijela will be necessary to provide some financial support for the replacement and
renovation of some existing facilities, as well as the construction of new facilities, for the Port of
Majuro. Concurrently, RMIPA will need to borrow capital, as well as seek and obtain grants
from multi-national organizations and other government agencies to complete the port
improvements recommended in the Port of Majuro Master Plan.

Automated Identification System

RMIPA needs to establish an automated identification system (AIS) in the Port of Majuro that
can provide vessel location data to RMIPAs Seaport Manager and Seaport Operations Manager,
as well as international shipping companies, vessel owners, shipping agents, and other related
organizations around the world. Through the use of an existing vertical high frequency (VHF)
antenna on the RMIPA office building, RMIPA can link local vessel locations to an international
vessel database for cargo, fishing, and oil tanker vessels. Through its cooperation with
companies, e.g., Fleetmon or AISLive, RMIPA could receive complimentary software that
would enable its access to the same vessel databases accessed by international shipping
companies.

The use of this technology will enable RMIPAs Seaport Manager and Operations Manager to
readily locate and monitor the position of most incoming international vessels once they enter the
Port of Majuro. The use of software that is used to display vessel locations and other vessel data
will enable operation managers to confirm authorized and unauthorized vessel movements.

Preventative Maintenance Program

The establishment of a preventative maintenance program for all port facilities is needed to
extend the service life of all facilities, reduce expenditures for unanticipated repairs, organize the
activities of facility operations personnel, minimize disruptions to port activities, and establish
realistic annual budgets for facility maintenance and repairs. Onsite observations of Uliga Dock
and Delap Dock in J anuary 2013 reveal that some facility maintenance is taking place, but only
to a limited extent. RMIPA can rely upon its lessees to provide only limited general
maintenance in specific work areas, but not the maintenance of supporting facilities and utilities,
e.g., lighting and bollards, that are located within specific work areas.

The basic approach to preventative maintenance generally involves identifying the tasks and time
needed to maintain each port facility, determining how often the tasks should be completed,
identifying which personnel are needed to get the job done, as well as estimating and
documenting the cost of labor, equipment, materials and supplies for each maintenance task.
Various computerized maintenance management software applications are available to help
organize and support the development of a preventative maintenance program.

For the Port of Majuro, the development of a preventative maintenance program would ideally
be broken down into facility maintenance tasks for each facility within each functional area of
the port. For example, navigation aids are facilities located within the Calalin Channel and port
fairway. Bollards and fenders are facilities that support vessel berths at both Uliga Dock and
Delap Dock. The CFS warehouse is located in the secondary container yard area.

On a cumulative basis, it is estimated that the annual costs of the preventative maintenance
program will require an expenditure of roughly $156,042.

Port Regulations

A formal set of port regulations needs to be adopted by the Board of the RMI Ports Authority. A
new set of regulations should be better organized to incorporate a wide range of issues.
Regulations and procedures should also be formatted to facilitate a convenient review by a wide
range of port users. Illustrations and digital photos should be incorporated into the regulations to
enable a better understanding of port regulations and procedures. Consideration should also be
given to how the port regulations will be made available to port users given the range of
available technologies, e.g., the Internet, smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices.

RMIPA Facility Leases

RMIPA needs to re-survey and map the land and water use areas that it currently uses as well as
the land area RMIPA anticipates using during the coming decade. Using this approach, its future
lease payments will become consistent with actual and planned land and water use areas. This
effort needs to be coordinated with appropriate representatives of local landowners, Tobolar
Coconut Processing Authority, the Ministry of Public Works, and the Marshalls Energy
Company.

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter Eight of the Port of Majuro Master Plan outlines a series of port improvement objectives
and specific strategies for achieving each objective. Each of the strategies include a scope of
work for each task, the responsibility for implementation, an estimated order-of-magnitude cost,
and tentative schedule for completion of each task. Figure ES-1presents an overall
implementation schedule for all of the port improvement strategies included in Chapter Eight.
Consequently, the Master Plan provides RMIPA with substantive direction in terms of defining
what improvements need to be accomplished, how they will be made, who will take on the
responsibility, and when they need to be completed.

Some of these strategies can be pursued and completed through the use of existing operational
funds of RMIPA. However, many of the improvement projects that are outlined in the Master
Plan will need to rely upon capital investments by various multi-national organizations, national
governments having security and economic interests in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, as
well as potential public-private partnerships. In this context, the tentative schedule for the
completion of each port improvement strategy will likely require frequent adjustments. Other
factors associated with the availability of off-island technical resources, the delivery of
equipment, materials and consumable supplies, and other factors will also influence the ability to
complete various tasks within established project schedules.

These realities require RMIPA to establish a practical process for the following:

monitor and encourage the completion of port improvement strategies;
build technical capacity of RMIPA personnel;
update and refine port improvement strategies;
search and apply for outside financial resources;
administer and monitor project expenditures associated with grants and loans for capital
investments; and,
communicate the status of all improvement projects.
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 FigureES-1 Port Improvement Implementation Schedule
1
Maintain safe vessel navigation thru Calalin Channel and
port fairway and extend the service life of navigation aids
A Navigation aid inspections N/A
B Repair damaged navigation aids $500 (for fuel)
2
Improve berthing and docking facilities supporting the
interisland transport of passengers and cargo
A Repairs phase $720,000
B Design phase $400,000
C Construction phase $9,650,000
3
Provide moorage space for non-interisland
passenger/cargo vessels at Uliga Dock
A Design phase $150,000
B Construction phase $3,625,000
4
Provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland
passengers at Uliga Dock
A Planning Phase $40,000
B Design Phase $75,000
C Construction Phase TBD
5
Establish a back-up power supply within the Uliga Dock
area to sustain the delivery of electrical energy to
facilities and supporting utiliites
A Desing $118,000
B Installation/Construction $67,000
6
Establish an independent water supply and distribution
system for Uliga Dock
A Design Phase $75,000
B Construction Phase $610,000
7 Establish a fire suppression system at Uliga Dock
Delap Dock
8
Protect main Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel
damages
C Installation Phase $560,000
9
Protect east Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel
damages
B Installation Phase $110,000
10
Increase the efficiency of cargo handling at Delap Dock
and service life of cargo handling equipment
A
Demolish and remove structures, equipment, and
materials in the Delap Dock complex $38,000
B Design of Reorganized Dock Complex $392,000
C Construction of Utilities and Paving $6,300,000
D Construction of CFS, Reefer Towers, Fuel Building, FireS
$1,550,000
E Terminal tractors and bomb cart trailers $332,000
F Modify cargo handling procedures/acquire reach stacker
$705,500
2022 2023
LONG - TERM
Uliga Dock
2016
SHORT - TERM
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
MEDIUM - TERM
RMIPA Port Capital Improvement Plan
Calalin Channel and Port Fairway
2014 2015 Year Commencing 2014-2023 Budget
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 FigureES-1 Port Improvement Implementation Schedule
Delap Dock (Cont'd)
11
Encourage expansion of transshipment operations at
Delap Dock
A Discussions with shipping companies $0
B Design (Option C) $805,000
C Construction (Option C) $16,000,000
D Acquire mobile harbor crane $5,165,000
E Revise cargo handling procedures $30,000
12
Establish a preventative maintenance program for all port
facilities
A Maintenance Software $25,300
B
Maintenance supervisor, organize resources needed to
operate a facility maintenance organization $26,000
13
Enhance monitoring of incoming international cargo and
fishing vessels
A Establish AIS base $2,314
B Review vessel movements and correlate with daily logs
$0
14
Sustain and update processes for evaluating port security
threats and establishing appropriate security measures
A Annual updates to current Port Security Plan $2,314
B Perform regular security inspections of the port faciltiy
$0
C Organize and perform periodic security drills $0
15 Update boundary surveys for Delap and Uliga Docks
A Revise boundary survey for Delap Dock $25,000
B Revise boundary survey for Uliga Dock $22,000
Economic Development Opportunities
16
Increase the economic value of fisheries by establishing a
new fisheries dock complex in the Port of Majuro
A Planning phase $200,000
Year Commencing 2014-2023 Budget
SHORT - TERM MEDIUM - TERM LONG - TERM
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 1-1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) is situated in the central Pacific Ocean and within
the eastern portion of the Pacific Ocean region known as Micronesia (Figure 1-1). The Republic
comprises approximately 1,225 islands and islets that represent 29 atolls and five solitary, low
coral islands. The atolls and islands are arranged in two, almost parallel island chains (RMI
Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office, 2008):

The Eastern Ratak (Sunrise) Chain includes 15 atolls and two islands; and,
The Ralik (Sunset) Chain comprises 14 atolls and three islands (Figure 1-2).

The Port of Majuro is located in Majuro Atoll in the Ratak Chain. The capitol and economic
center of the RMI is situated in Majuro Atoll (Figure 1-3).

Islands and atolls of the Republic that are situated outside of Majuro Atoll are generally referred
to as the "Outer Islands", or Outer Atolls.

1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PORT

The Port of Majuro is the hub of the Marshall Islands cash economy. The Port of Majuro is the
primary gateway for incoming imports that support the lifestyle of RMI residents and families,
the operation of private businesses and local and national government agencies, as well as related
jobs in both the private and public sectors of the economy. The following is a list of the primary
functions of the Port of Majuro;

International cargo vessels deliver a wide variety of imported foods, household supplies,
construction equipment and materials, and other goods that are delivered to local
residents, small businesses, as well as local and national governmental agencies.
Local passengers and cargo are transported to and from the Port of Majuro to the Outer
Islands.
Copra harvested by Outer Island residents is transported to the Port of Majuro where the
copra is processed by the Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority to make various coconut
products.
The Port of Majuro is the transshipment point for tuna harvested by the international
fishing fleet both inside and outside of the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone (RMIEEZ).
International cargo vessels are loaded at the Port of Majuro to transport various fish
product exports to markets in Asia, the Far East and the United States.

The safe and efficient operation of the Port of Majuro is an essential link to the continuous flow
of goods and products to and from the Republic. The port is a major community asset that is
critical to the future operation and expansion of existing businesses, the formation of new
economic development opportunities, and the key to sustaining a vital transportation link from
Majuro to the Outer Islands.


Figure 1-1
Regional Location
Republic of the Marshall Islands

Figure 1-2

Figure 1-3
Majuro Atoll


1.3 PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN

In recognition of its importance to the lifestyle and economy of the Marshall Islands, the RMI
Ports Authority (RMIPA) desires to establish and outline a vision for:

future uses of the Port of Majuro;
future improvements to existing port facilities;
new facilities aimed at promoting safe and more efficient port operations;
new facilities that attract future private and public investments; and,
enhanced port management that increases the sustainability and service life of port
facilities.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE MASTER PLAN

The Port of Majuro Master Plan examines the condition and adequacy of existing port facilities
to support existing and future commercial traffic in the Port of Majuro during the coming decade.
Commercial port traffic in the Port of Majuro includes international cargo and fishing vessels, as
well as RMI interisland cargo and passenger vessels.

Port needs are identified and facility improvements are recommended for each functional
component of the port. These components include:

Calalin Channel, the port fairway and related vessel anchorage area;
Uliga Dock facilities that support interisland passenger and cargo vessels;
Delap Dock facilities that primarily support international cargo vessels, cargo handling
and storage, the delivery of copra to the Tobolar Coconut Processing Plant, and the
occasional servicing of some international fishing vessels;
stevedoring services provided by RMIPA's contractor;
port operation, maintenance, and management activities of the RMIPA.

In order to address the needs associated with these port facilities, the Master Plan considers
various factors influencing the type, volume and frequency of future vessel traffic, as well as the
type and volume of incoming and outgoing cargo. Regional demographic and economic trends
are reviewed to analyze and forecast potential population growth between 2014 and 2024.
Marine transport trends associated with fishing, cargo, and interisland passenger/cargo vessels
are examined to estimate the type and number of vessel calls, forecast anticipated cargo volumes,
and identify potential dimensions of future incoming vessels. Several environmental
characteristics of Majuro Lagoon are also presented in view of their influence upon vessel
movements and berths in the Port of Majuro. The analysis of various environmental factors is
also used to help determine potential environmental issues that may need to be addressed in the
context of future port operations, maintenance, and management activities.

The Port of Majuro Master Plan subsequently presents a series of recommended port
improvement objectives and strategies. The strategies are organized in a manner that enables the
RMIPA to effectively plan, schedule, budget and allocate funds for specific projects, and carry
out specific port improvements. The Master Plan ultimately presents a related implementation

plan that recommends a plan adoption process, as well as how recommended improvement
objectives and strategies are integrated into day-to-day port management activities.

Recognizing that the Master Plan will be used, in part, by RMIPA to secure funds from the RMI
National Government, multi-national organizations, and other national governmental agencies,
the Master Plan also includes a cost-benefit analysis of the overall port improvement program.
Anticipated social and economic benefits are used to determine the net present value and benefit-
cost ratios of recommended port improvements.

1.5 PROJECT APPROACH

1.5.1 Use of Inter-Disciplinary Project Team

In November 2012, RMIPA retained the services of Lyon Associates, Inc. (LYON), based in
Honolulu, Hawaii, to complete a master plan for the Port of Majuro. Selection of the firm was
based, in part, upon LYON's organization of an inter-disciplinary project team for the project
that had considerable planning, design, and construction management experience in the Pacific
Islands. In order to properly assess the variety of components associated with the Port of Majuro
Master Plan, the team included the following disciplines:

Civil Engineering
Mechanical/Electrical Engineering
Architecture
Demographic and Economic Analyses
Port Planning
Surveying
Tank Design

1.5.2 Facility Inventory

The LYON project team completed an inventory of existing facilities during a field trip to
Majuro from J anuary 8 through 18, 2013. Project team members observed and photographed
existing facilities. Selected building characteristics were documented and preliminary
assessments were made of facility conditions. As-built plans relating to the port and utility
infrastructure were acquired, and a topographic survey of the Delap and Uliga Docks was
performed. Supplemental information was obtained by LYON representatives during a
subsequent trip to Majuro in May 2013.

1.5.3 Public Information Meeting

RMIPA and LYON organized a public information meeting that was intended to provide port
stakeholders with information concerning the purpose and scope of the master plan, as well as
the intentions of the LYON project team to interview all available stakeholders. RMIPA
transmitted invitations to a wide variety of port stakeholders that included representatives of
local fishing vessel agents, international shipping companies, as well as a few national
governmental agencies.

Some 30 persons attended the public information meeting which was held on J anuary 9, 2013 at
the Marshall Islands Resort. The meeting opened with a presentation by J ack Chong-Gum,
Executive Director of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority, who outlined the
purpose of the Port of Majuro Master Plan, highlighted recent port improvement efforts by
RMIPA, and encouraged the participation of stakeholders in the planning process. The need for
the master plan and the identification of some relevant port planning issues were also put
forward by Captain J oe Tiobech, Deputy Director, of the RMI Ports Authority. LYON prepared
a sign-up sheet that enabled stakeholders to indicate their potential availability for an interview
with LYON project team members.

1.5.4 Interviewed Port Stakeholders and Selected RMI Agency Representatives

LYON contacted stakeholders to schedule interviews with various port stakeholders and RMI
agency representatives. Information gained from these informal discussions was documented by
project team members for future reference during the course of the master plan process.

1.5.5 Port Facility Needs Assessments

The determination of port facility needs and improvements was initially considered in the
context of facility conditions observed by the project team during the J anuary 2013 facility
inventory. The observation of these conditions enabled project team members to identify the
type and scope of improvements needed to sustain and improve the operation of existing
facilities, as well as other facilities needed to support future vessel traffic, cargo volumes and
potential economic development opportunities.

Project team members also reviewed relevant design and operations criteria for selected port
facilities, e.g. bollards. Available criteria were also considered in the context of anticipated
vessel calls, anticipated cargo and passenger volumes, the dimensions of cargo, passenger, and
fishery vessels, and other relevant considerations.

1.5.6 Refinement of Port Facility Needs

LYON prepared and provided a preliminary list of recommended objectives and specific port
improvement strategies that was based upon its port facility needs assessment. These
recommendations were initially transmitted to the RMIPA Executive Director and Deputy
Director for their review. Their insights led to a subsequent refinement of the recommended port
improvement objectives and strategies.

LYON subsequently presented the refined set of objectives and strategies to various port
stakeholders in Majuro on December 11, 2013. The stakeholders invited to this presentation
included the Secretary of Transportation and Communications; local shipping agents; fishing,
shipping and petrochemical company representatives; and other port interests. Some of the
invitees to this meeting included stakeholders who were invited and/or previously attended the
initial public information meeting on J anuary 9, 2013. Following the initial presentation of
recommended objectives and strategies, port stakeholders were requested to provide their
concerns and any suggested deletions, revisions or additions to the draft recommendations.
Various comments were received during the facilitated discussion of the port improvement

objectives and strategies. A summary of the comments received during this discussion is
presented in Appendix C.

The comments and recommendations expressed by port stakeholders during the December 11,
2013 meeting were used to further revise draft port improvement recommendations prior to its
presentation of the draft objectives and strategies to the RMIPA Board of Directors on December
13, 2013. RMIPA Board members provided additional insights to these recommendations that
enabled further refinement of the proposed port improvement objectives and strategies.

1.5.7 Determination of Port Improvement Priorities

In order to establish priorities for the recommended objectives, LYON designed a matrix
evaluation form that was presented to RMIPA executive management and the RMIPA Board of
Directors on December 11, 2013. During this presentation, representatives of the LYON project
team outlined how the form would be used by RMIPA to rate the importance and priority of each
port improvement objective. RMIPA Board Members, the Executive Director, Deputy Director,
and Comptroller each provided their personal scores without further discussion with other board
members or executive management personnel. The scores for each port management objective
were tallied on a cumulative basis and divided by the number of persons, who scored the port
improvement objectives, to determine average scores for the importance and priority of each
objective. Average scores were calculated and used to ultimately determine the priority of each
port improvement objective.

LYON applied the priority rankings to the specific strategies outlined for each port improvement
objective. Each recommended strategy included a statement of work to be completed, an order-
of-magnitude cost, responsibility for implementation, and project schedule. The priority
rankings of RMIPA Board, Executive Director, Deputy Director and Comptroller guided the
timelines that LYON identified for each strategy.

1.5.8 Distribution and Review of the Pre-Final Master Plan Report

Lyon Associates completed and published a pre-final master plan report in March 2014. This
report was placed on the website (www.rmipa.com) of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports
Authority to facilitate public review.

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The master plan report is organized into the following chapters.

Chapter One provides an overview of the purpose of the Port of Majuro Master Plan, the
approach used to prepare the plan, how the plan report is organized, and the parties consulted
during preparation of the Master Plan.

Chapter Two includes an evaluation of selected demographic and economic trends in the
Republic of the Marshall Islands. This analysis focuses upon trends that are expected to
influence the type and extent of future port traffic. A brief analysis is also devoted to the
identification of potential economic opportunities that could strengthen the national RMI

economy. This chapter concludes with the presentation of a population forecast for the coming
decade.

Chapter Three examines the condition of existing port facilities in Calalin Channel, the port
fairway and related vessel anchorage area, Uliga Dock, and Delap Dock. Relevant port design
and operational criteria is presented for some facilities to provide insights concerning the
adequacy of existing facilities. Improvements needed to sustain existing port operations are
recommended.

Chapter Four assesses marine transport trends associated with fishing vessels, international
cargo vessels, as well as interisland passenger and cargo vessels. Each type of vessel traffic is
reviewed in the context of existing and anticipated vessel traffic, recent and anticipated cargo
volumes, and vessel dimensions. Ever-changing trends associated with cargo handling and
storage are also examined to assess potential options for achieving greater cargo handling
efficiency.

Chapter Five identifies several environmental characteristics of Majuro Atoll in view of their
influence upon port operations and the design of future facility improvements.

Chapter Six identifies port facility needs for Calalin Channel, the port fairway and vessel
anchorage area, Uliga Dock, Delap Dock, and potential new port facilities. In contrast to
Chapter Three, Chapter Six determines future port facility needs in the context of anticipated
cargo volumes and vessel calls, potential changes in the size of incoming vessels, and potential
opportunities associated with expanded cargo transshipment.

Chapter Seven reviews ongoing port management, operations and maintenance activities. This
analysis considers the authority of RMIPA, its organizational structure and financial position.
Chapter Seven also identifies port operations and management needs that are necessary to
strengthen the sustainability of the quasi-public agency, and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of future port operations and management.

Chapter Eight outlines recommended port improvement objectives and related strategies that
are necessary to meet or address the recommended objectives. The recommended schedules for
completion of these strategies reflect the guidance of the RMIPA Board of Directors and
executive management.

Chapter Nine presents a cost-benefit analysis of the overall port improvement program. The
cost-benefit analysis determines net present value and cost-benefit ratios for recommended
improvements to Calalin Channel, port fairway and vessel anchorage area, Uliga Dock, Delap
Dock, as well as the development of a new fishing dock complex.

Chapter Ten is an implementation plan that recommends specific strategies for plan adoption,
and outlines a process for the completion of all recommended port improvement projects.

1.7 CONSULTATION

RMIPA and the project team consulted with a significant number of individuals during the
preparation of the Port of Majuro Master Plan. Many of these individuals represented various
private sector companies and public agencies. The names and affiliations of those persons
consulted are summarized as follows.

Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority
Board of Directors

David Paul, Chairman
J ames Bing, II, Vice Chairman
Risi Graham
Mayor J ames Matayoshi
J ohn Peralta
Steve Philip, Secretary

Executive Management and RMIPA Staff

J ack Chong-Gum, Executive Director
J oe Tiobech, Deputy Director/Seaport Manager
Robert Heine, Port Operations Manager
Rowena Manalo, CPA, Comptroller
Carrie J unior, Statistician

Private Sector
Mike Banzuela, Executive Director, Tobolar, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Charles Dominick, Managing Director, Anil Development, Inc., Majuro, Marshall Islands
Francis Carlos Domnick, Chief Executive Officer, Anil Development, Inc., Majuro, Marshall
Islands
Michael Cheng, Chief Operations Officer, Robert Reimers Enterprises, Inc., Majuro, Marshall
Islands
Charles Domnick, Managing Director, Anil Development, Inc., Majuro, Marshall Islands
J ohn Hawley, Aviation Depot Manager, ExxonMobil Aviation, Amata Kabua International
Airport
Len Isotoff, Director, Sales, Pacific Region, Matson Navigation Company, Honolulu, Hawaii
Kem Kabua, MGAS, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Kenneth Kramer, Operations Manager, Pacific International, Inc., Majuro, Marshall Islands
May Li, KMI Fishing Vessel Agency, Majuro, Marshall Islands
J in Liang, Base Manager, Marshall Islands Fishing Venture (MIFV), Inc., Majuro, Marshall
Islands
J yrki Luukkonen, Manager, Port Cranes Division, Cargotec, Helsinki, Finland
Pony Ma, Shipping Agent for Ching Fu Shipping Company, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Wally Milne, General Manager, Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation, Majuro, Marshall
Islands
Eugene Muller, Manager, Koos Fishing Company, Ltd., Majuro, Marshall Islands
Paul Orlande, Koo's Fishing Company, Ltd., Majuro, Marshall Islands
J yrki Luukkonen, Manager, Port Cranes Division, Cargotec, Helsinki, Finland

Dave Plothow, West Coast Regional Sales Manager, Kalmar Counterbalanced Products,
Morrison, Colorado
Ramsey Reimers, President/CEO, Robert Reimers Enterprises, Inc., Majuro, Marshall Islands
Yen Tsung Sheng, KMI Fishing Vessel Agency, Majuro, Marshall Islands
J oe Sill, Waterfront Technical Services, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Brian Spain, Vice President, Sales, Liebherr, Miami, Florida
Charles Stinnett, Majuro Shipping and Terminal Company, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Hackney Takju, Pacific Shipping, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Peter Torres, retired longshoreman at Port of Los Angeles, California, Majuro, Marshall
Islands
Casey Tubbert, Regional Manager, Western United States/Canada, Kalmar North America,
Los Angeles, California
Frank Tubbert, General Manager, Terminal Investment Corporation (TICO), Savannah,
Georgia
Bernadette Valencia, General Manager, Matson Navigation Company, Piti, Guam
Mike Vrendenburg, Robert Reimers Enterprises, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Bori Ysawa, Majuro Marine (Shipping Agent for Pacific Direct Line and Matson), Majuro,
Marshall Islands
Don Xu, Vice President, Pan Pacific Foods (RMI) Inc., Majuro, Marshall Islands

Public Sector
Bruce Bilimon, Assistant Secretary of Finance, Ministry of Finance, Custom, Revenue,
Taxation and Treasury, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Glen J oseph, Director, Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Russell Moore, General Professional, Hawaii Department of Transportation, Harbors Division,
Port of Hilo, Hawaii
Phil Philippo, Secretary, Ministry of Transportation & Communications, Majuro, Marshall
Islands
Paul Tonyokwe, RMI Office of Immigration, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Steve Wakefield, Chief Technical Officer, Marshall Island Combined Utilities, Majuro,
Marshall Islands
Reginald White, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Majuro, Marshall Islands
Hemline Ysawa, Acting Director, RMI Environmental Policy, Planning & Statistics Office,
Majuro, Marshall Islands

CHAPTER TWO
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS

2.1 GENERAL

An evaluation of relevant demographic and economic trends represents an important element of
the port master plan. Ever changing trends associated with the resident population and the
economy that helps sustain the people and lifestyle of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
(RMI) exert considerable influence upon the Port of Majuro.

The growth in resident population increases consumer demands for imported foods,
supplies, vehicles, and equipment.
Increased consumer demands generate international vessel calls that bring containerized
and general cargo to Delap Dock.
Interisland vessels owned by the RMI carry residents and cargo to the Outer Islands of
the Republic.
Small business activity generates demands for materials, supplies, equipment and food
needed to support local construction, retail establishments, visitor accommodations,
eating and drinking establishments, and other business activity.
Raw copra produced on the Outer Islands is shipped and unloaded at the Tobolar coconut
processing facility at Delap Dock. Coconut oil, copra meal, and other by-products
processed by Tobolar are exported to international markets via oil tankers and container
vessels.
The international fishing fleet regularly enters Majuro Atoll and transships skipjack,
yellowfin and bigeye tuna to carrier vessels that transport fish harvests to Asia and Far
East markets. A smaller portion of the catch harvested by the international fishing fleet is
delivered to local fish processing facilities operated by Marshall Islands Fishing Venture
and Pan Pacific Foods, Inc.
The operation of government requires the delivery of imported materials, supplies and
equipment necessary to support the delivery of its services to the general public.

2.2 RESIDENT POPULATION

2.2.1 2011 Population Estimate

The RMI Economic Policy Planning and Statistics Office (EPPSO) completed a population and
housing survey in 2011. Available data from this survey indicates that the resident population of
the RMI included roughly 53,158 persons in 2011 (RMI, Economic Policy, Planning, and
Statistics Office, 2013).

2.2.2 Population Distribution

About 74 percent of the resident population in 2011 resided on the more urbanized atolls of
Majuro (27,797 persons) and Kwajalein (11,408 persons). The remaining 26 percent of the
population (13,953 residents) lived on 24 of the more remote and rural atolls/islands of the
Republic (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1 Population and Growth Rates by Atoll
The distribution of the Marshallese population in 2011 indicates the population on 29 atolls of
the Republic declined between 1999 and 2011. At the same time, the residential populations of
Majuro, Kwajalein, and J aluit Atolls expanded. This trend reflects a growing out-migration from
the Outer Islands that stems from a growing dependence upon the cash economy and the lack of
job opportunities. The extent to which the out-migration relocated to Majuro, Kwajalein or J aluit
Atolls is unknown.

2.2.3 Age Characteristics

About 40 percent of the 2011 resident population comprised children and youth that were under
15 years of age. This characteristic reflects higher birth and fertility rates among the Marshallese
population. However, the proportion of youth in 2011 was less than 51 percent reported in 1988
and 43 percent in 1999 which may suggest that much of the recent out-migration has taken place
1980 1988 1999 2011 1980-1988 1988-1999 1999-2011
Marshall Islands 30,873 43,380 50,840 53,158 5.1 1.6 0.4
Ailinglaplap 1,385 1,715 1,959 1,729 3.0 1.3 1.0
Ailuk 413 488 513 339 2.3 0.5 2.8
Arno 1,487 1,656 2,069 1,794 1.4 2.3 1.1
Aur 444 438 537 499 -0.2 2.1 -0.6
Bikini - 10 13 9 0.0 2.7 2.6
Ebon 887 741 902 706 -2.1 2.0 -1.8
Enewetak 542 715 853 664 4.0 1.8 -1.8
Jabat 72 112 95 84 6.9 -1.4 -1.0
Jaluit 1,450 1,709 1,669 1,788 2.2 -0.2 0.6
Kili 489 602 774 548 2.9 2.6 -2.4
Kwajalein 6,624 9,311 10,902 11,408 5.1 1.6 0.4
Lae 237 319 322 347 4.3 0.1 0.6
Lib 98 115 147 155 2.2 2.5 0.5
Likiep 481 482 527 401 0.0 0.8 -2.0
Majuro 11,791 19,664 23,676 27,797 8.3 1.9 1.5
Maloelap 614 796 856 682 3.7 0.7 -1.7
Mejit 325 445 416 348 4.6 -0.6 -1.4
Mili 763 854 1,032 738 1.5 1.9 -2.4
Namdrik 617 814 772 508 4.0 -0.5 -2.8
Namu 654 801 903 780 2.8 1.2 -1.1
Rongelap 235 0 19 79 -12.5 9.1 6.3
Ujae 309 448 440 364 5.6 -0.2 -1.4
Ujelang - - - - - - -
Utirik 336 409 433 435 2.7 0.5 0.0
Wotho 85 90 145 97 0.7 5.6 -2.8
Wotje 535 646 866 859 2.6 3.1 -0.1
Source: RMI Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office, 2012; Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2013.
TABLE 2-1
REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
POPULATION AND GROWTH RATE BY ATOLL/ISLAND
CENSUS YEARS 1980, 1988, 1999, AND 2011
Average Annual Growth Rate (%) Population
Atoll/Island
Note: Rows in blue indicate atolls/islands with declining populations

Figure 2-1
Population Growth, 1980 - 2011
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1 2 3 4
Population
on a family basis rather than by specific age cohorts, e.g., 15 to 19 years of age (RMI, Economic
Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office, 2012).

The primary working age population of the Marshall Islands includes residents ranging from 15
to 64 years of age. This age group represented roughly 56 percent of the population in 2011
(Republic of the Marshall Islands, Economic Policy Planning and Statistics Office, 2012).
Despite the lack of job opportunities and the loss of fisheries-related employment in the past
decade, the proportion of the 15-64 age group surprisingly rose somewhat compared to 1988 and
1999.

The remaining four percent were 60 or more years old. The proportion of this age group has
generally remained stable since 1988 (RMI, Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office,
2012).

2.2.4 Population Growth Trends

2.2.4.1 General

The RMI has experienced sustained population growth since, at least, 1980. While the
population of the Marshall Islands continues to rise, the rate of annual population growth has
slowed considerably during the past 23 years. This is evidenced through a review of population
data derived from population censuses that were conducted in 1980, 1988, 1999 and, most
recently, in 2011. Figure 2-1 RMI Population Growth

The annual rate of population growth
averaged almost 5.1 percent between
1980 and 1988, but fell to only 1.5
percent per year between 1988 and 1999
(Figure 2-1). Between 2004 and 2011,
the annual rate of population growth
continued to decline at a rate of just
under 0.4 percent per year (RMI
Economic Policy, Planning, and
Statistics Office, 2012).

The sharp decline in the annual
population growth rate between 1988 and 1999 appears to have been a consequence of greater
out-migration by the resident population. This out-migration was primarily generated by the lack
of job opportunities and a growing reliance upon the cash economy. By 1999, only two percent
of the Marshallese population relied completely upon a subsistence lifestyle. The rate of
unemployment in the cash economy was approximately 25 percent (RMI Economic Policy,
Planning, and Statistics Office, 2008).

In response to military force reductions mandated by the US Congress around 2000, the US
Department of Defense made significant reductions in the number of personnel working at the
US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) between 2000 and 2003. A significant out-migration of
residents from both Kwajalein and Majuro Atolls occurred during this period. This out-
migration did not generate an overall decline in the resident population of the Marshall Islands,
but significantly reduced the rate of annual population growth.
1980 1988 1999 2011

Between 2004 and 2011, natural growth (births minus deaths) regularly added between 1,396
and 1,630 persons to the resident population each year (Table 2-2). However, these gains were
offset by a steady out-migration of residents which consistently exceeded the number of
incoming or returning new residents (in-migration) to the Marshall Islands.

le 2-2 Natural
Growth and Migration
Trends
2.2.4.2 Natural Growth

Natural growth generally surpassed net migration (in-migration less out-migration) between
2000 and 2011. Exceptions occurred in 2000, 2001 and 2008 when net migration was greater
than natural growth.

Since 1988, natural growth (births minus deaths) of the resident population has been influenced
by a continuing decline in the number of live births for every 1,000 persons of the resident
population (crude birth rate) and the
number of deaths for every 1,000
persons of the resident population
(crude death rate). The crude birth
rate gradually slowed from 49.2
births per 1,000 residents in 1988 to
41.8 births per 1,000 residents in
1999 and 23.0 births per 1,000
persons in 2011 (Figure 2-2).
Substantive reductions in the crude
birth rate may reflect a growing
dependence of households upon the
cash economy and an increased participation of women in the local workforce. The out-
migration of women in their child-bearing years may also be influencing the declining crude
birth rate. Figure 2-2 Crude Birth Rates
Year Live Births Deaths Natural Growth In Out Net
1999 1,630 233 1,397 13,111 13,568 -457
2000 1,576 295 295 32,083 33,999 -1,916
2001 1,561 284 284 15,068 17,097 -2,029
2002 1,355 256 256 17,011 17,924 -913
2003 1,565 293 293 16,818 17,599 -781
2004 1,512 248 248 17,397 17,950 -553
2005 1,589 299 278 17,370 18,407 -1,037
2006 1,576 315 279 15,594 16,572 -978
2007 1,591 276 278 16,187 16,907 -720
2008 1,526 299 279 14,742 16,209 -1,467
2009 1,603 339 279 14,349 15,038 -689
2010 1,396 286 281 13,643 14,683 -1,040
2011 1,487 361 284 13,553 14,420 -867
2012 N/A N/A N/A 7,492 7,809 -317
Migration
Sources: RMI Economic Policy Planning and Statistics Office, 2001 and 2008; RMI Ministry of Health, 2012.
N/A: Not Available
TABLE 2-2
NATURAL GROWTH AND MIGRATION TRENDS
Available Birth and Death Data
Figure 2-2
Crude Birth Rates Per One Thousand Population
1988, 1999 - 2011
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Year
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

B
ir
t
h
s

P
e
r

T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
1988 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

Figure 2-3
Crude Death Rates Per One Thousand Population
1988, 1999-2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Year
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
e
a
t
h
s

P
e
r

T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
In contrast, the crude death rate similarly fell from 8.9 deaths per 1,000 residents in 1988 to 4.9
deaths per 1,000 persons in 1999 (Figure 2-3). But, in 2000, the crude death rate escalated to 5.8
deaths per 1,000 persons and gradually slid downward to 4.6 persons per 1,000 residents in 2007.
Since 2008, the crude death rate has gradually declined to 4.3 deaths per 1,000 persons in 2012.
This trend likely points to significant improvements in local health care.

Figure 2-3 Crude Death Rates
2.2.4.3 Migration

Net migration represents the number of persons migrating into a country such as the Marshall
Islands (in-migration) less the number of persons who are leaving the country and relocating to
another location outside of the Republic (out-migration). In and out-migration from the Republic
of the Marshall Islands can be estimated through the use of available data from RMI Customs
and Immigration Office. This information is obtained from air passengers arriving and departing
from Amata Kabua International Airport on the Island of Majuro and the US Army at Kwajalein
Atoll Airport on the Island of Kwajalein.

Between 2000 and 2011, out-migration regularly exceeded in-migration. As stated earlier, this
was particularly true in 2000, 2001, and 2008 in response to job reductions at the US Army at
Kwajalein Atoll complex between 2000 and 2003, as well as the subsequent closure of the
Majuro-based PMO tuna loin processing facility in 2004. Although, the extent of annual net
migration, which ranged from as many as -2,029 persons in 2001 to as low as -553 persons in
2004, varied considerably.

The sustained trend of greater out-migration is likely tied to a general lack of job opportunities
and occasional job reductions in both the public and private sectors. This reality, combined with
lower incomes and a rising cost-of-living, have, in the past 11 years, encouraged many
Marshallese residents to leave the Republic and seek potential job and educational opportunities
in Hawaii, the US mainland, Guam and other locations.

1988 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

2.3 WORKFORCE

2.3.1 General

Employment in the Marshall Islands must be viewed in the context of dual cash and subsistence
economies. The predominant cash economy includes jobs in the public and private sectors of the
economy where workers receive a monetary compensation for their work. The subsistence
economy includes persons who complete tasks necessary to sustain the lifestyles of themselves
and their families, but receive no monetary compensation. In many Marshallese households,
particularly on the atolls outside of Majuro and Ebeye, residents participate in both economies.

2.3.2 Potential Labor Force

The potential labor force of the Marshall Islands is defined by the RMI Economic Policy,
Planning, and Statistics Office as persons who are 15 years of age and older. Preliminary results
from the 2011 Census, conducted by the RMI Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office,
reported that the potential workforce of the RMI included 31,307 persons.

2.3.2.1 Employed Labor Force

Residents who were actually employed or pursuing employment in 2011 included 12,924
persons, or roughly 41 percent of the total workforce population. The employed labor force was
comprised predominantly by 8,417 males who represented about 65 percent of the employed
labor force. The remaining 4,507 females accounted for approximately 35 percent of the
employed labor force.

It is important to note that the number of employed persons reported from the 2011 Census
included, in part, persons involved in the home production of goods, e.g., farming, fishing and
handicrafts, for sale or personal consumption. Participation in these economic activities was
considered as employment in the cash economy (RMI Office of Economic Policy Planning and
Statistics, 2012).

When compared with comparable data from the 1999 Census, it is readily apparent that the
employed labor force in 2011 represents a smaller proportion of the potential workforce
population. In 1999, the employed labor force comprised about 51 percent of the 15-years-and-
older population versus 41 percent of the same age group in 2011. This change may signal that a
substantive part of out-migration during the past decade included persons who were previously
part of the employed labor force of the Marshall Islands.

2.3.2.2 Unemployment

Responses to questions posed during the 2011 Census further revealed that 612 persons of the
employed labor force were unemployed at the time of the Census. This represented an
unemployment rate of 4.7 percent (RMI Office of Economic Policy Planning and Statistics,
2012).

Almost 40 percent of those unemployed were workers ranging from 25 to 39 years of age.
Thirty-one percent of the unemployed persons were 40 years and older. Younger workers,
between 15 and 24 years of age, comprised the remaining 29 percent of unemployed persons
(RMI Office of Economic Policy Planning and Statistics, 2012).

Differing definitions regarding economic activities used for the 2011 Census do not enable a
reliable comparison of longer term unemployment trends between 1999 and 2011.

2.3.2.3 Sources of Employment

Preliminary data from the 2011 Census indicates that almost 75 percent of the employed persons
received wages or salary from jobs in the private and public sectors of the economy. Another 21
percent were involved in producing goods mainly for sale. The remaining four percent of
employed persons were self-employed, employed in a family-owned and -operated farm or
business (either paid or unpaid), or involved in volunteer work (RMI Office of Economic Policy
Planning and Statistics, 2012).

While volunteer work is a valuable contribution to any community, volunteer work would
typically not be considered as employment for statistical purposes. Consequently, the rate of
unemployment in 2011 may be slightly higher than originally estimated by the RMI Office of
Economic Policy Planning and Statistics.

J obs in the public sector comprised almost 33 percent of all employment in the Marshall Islands
economy in FY 2011. Historical employment information from FY 1998 through FY 2011
indicates that the number of public sector jobs grew more than any other industry in the private
sector between FY 1998 and FY 2011 (Table 2-3). During that period, for example, the number
of public administration jobs rose 23 percent. Much of that job growth was associated with the
national government jobs which grew 73 percent. The expansion of public administration
employment can be attributed largely to:

the establishment of a new republic in 1986;
the related expansion of local and national governmental activities;
supporting financial aid from the United States, other countries, and various multi-
national organizations; and,
higher wages and salary rates in the public sector.

Industry FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Agriculture, Hunting & Forestry 9 8 7 1 - 21 24 24 27 31 28 25 23 20
Fisheries
(1
84 48 546 618 735 902 1,002 280 343 313 463 712 1,136 1,261
Mining and Quarrying N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturing 117 92 79 72 78 75 71 94 96 106 96 77 76 112
Electricity, Gas & Water Supply 233 220 218 231 251 261 278 276 270 276 278 312 319 312
Construction 610 613 424 490 636 563 522 557 729 857 820 681 593 564
Wholesale & Retail Trade 1,369 1,391 1,552 1,747 1,720 1,636 1,744 1,805 1,819 1,810 1,826 1,715 1,738 1,754
Hotels & Restaurants 241 232 257 266 267 309 270 238 263 295 282 253 242 222
Transport, Storage & Communications 394 393 409 411 451 475 541 562 577 708 672 706 649 657
Financial Intermediation 133 139 140 168 159 152 169 174 193 208 211 208 222 227
Real Estate, Renting & Business Activities 230 194 212 224 221 220 231 249 211 220 224 241 230 222
Public Administration 2,830 2,708 2,673 2,769 2,919 2,986 3,150 3,326 3,640 3,574 3,548 3,436 3,413 3,487
Education
(2
401 520 561 627 624 606 590 624 383 435 399 416 457 485
Health & Social Work 177 178 181 195 203 205 225 239 246 248 251 249 246 247
Community, Social, Personal Svc Activities 62 71 87 94 80 78 81 82 83 86 119 127 143 158
Private Households w/Employed Persons 4 4 3 4 5 9 9 5 3 4 13 16 12 14
Extra-Territorial Organizations & Bodies 1,120 1,169 1,254 1,296 1,240 1,467 1,243 1,222 1,254 1,210 1,113 1,044 1,007 971
Totals 8,012 7,978 8,602 9,211 9,589 9,961 10,149 9,755 10,137 10,380 10,340 10,218 10,506 10,709
TABLE 2-3
FULL AND PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
FY 1998 - FY 2011
Source: McKinlay, Sturton, and Graham, 2011.
Note: N/A: Not Available. Annual employment totals may not add up due to rounding.

able 2-3 - Employment by Industry
Employment associated with extra-territorial organizations and bodies, e.g., RMI Ports
Authority, accounted for roughly nine percent of all jobs in the RMI economy in FY 2011.
However, the number of jobs in this sector has gradually declined between FY 1997 and FY
2011.

Private sector jobs represented roughly 67 percent of all employment in the Marshall Islands
economy in FY 2011. Private sector employment rose roughly 63 percent between 1998 and
2011. The gradual expansion of fisheries related employment provided the greatest boost to
private sector employment during this period. Although part-time jobs associated with fish
processing and vessel support services represented a significant portion of this employment.

2.3.2.4 Participation in Subsistence Economy

Historical census and labor force data suggests that the number of residents who relied
completely upon a subsistence lifestyle ranged from roughly 2,281 residents in 1973 to 3,367
persons in 1979. Somewhat less participation in the subsistence economy was reported in 1980
(3,002 persons), 1988 (2,073 persons), and 1999 (2,920 residents) (RMI Office of Economic
Policy, Planning and Statistics, 2001).

The RMI Office of Economic Policy, Planning Statistics organized a community survey of 1,205
households on Majuro, Ebeye, Eniburr, Wotje, J aluit, Arno and Ailuk in 2006. Data gathered
from this survey revealed, in part, that only 123 persons were working in the subsistence
economy. Over half of these people resided on Majuro. While the survey sample represented
only about 17 percent of the Republics total population, available data suggests that the total
number of Marshall Island residents, who were working on a subsistence basis, was probably
less than 1,000 residents.

While the work skills necessary to sustain a subsistence lifestyle remains for many Marshallese
residents, the level of participation in this lifestyle is clearly on the decline. And, as residents
continue to seek and purchase more imported goods and services, the demand for more job
opportunities in the cash economy will only increase.

2.4 INCOME

Average annual wage and salary rates in the private sector of the Marshall Island economy were
roughly $9,586 in FY 2011. Higher income levels averaging $16,338 per year were received by
those residents working in financial intermediation, or a financial institution such as a bank. In
contrast, residents working in fish processing and vessel support services annually earned an
average wage of about $2,874; hotel and restaurant employees earned roughly $5,501 (Table 2-
4).

Public sector jobs, or those employed in public administration, earned an average wage or salary
of $11,869. This income level surpassed average wage and salary rates for most private sector
jobs except for those persons working in extra-Territorial organizations ($16,623), banking
($16,338), electric, gas and water utilities ($14,661) and education ($13,220).


Table 2-4 Annual Wage and Salary Rates
These income trends point to a reality that will influence future expansion of the private sector
and related small business development. The employed labor force (those holding or pursuing
jobs) is more likely to pursue jobs associated with government or quasi-public agencies which
typically pay higher wages and salaries than jobs in the private sector. At the same time, lower
wages in industries such as fisheries could be viewed as a competitive advantage to investors
contemplating investments related to fish processing and the export of potential fish products.

2.5 COST OF LIVING

The RMI Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office established a consumer price index for
Majuro and Ebeye in 2002. The index tracks the cost of some 61 consumer items on Majuro,
Ebeye, J aluit and Likiep on a quarterly basis. The costs for the 61 items are aggregated into 10
major groups of consumer items. The most recent base period established the consumer price
index was the first quarter of 2003 which enables a comparison of more recent costs with those
documented by EPPSO in 2003.

The most recently published cost-of-living information was published by EPPSO in September
2010. Available information for the third quarter of 2010 indicates the cost-of-living in Majuro
rose roughly 37 percent over consumer prices for the same consumer items in 2003. In contrast,
the cost-of-living on the Island of Ebeye in 2010 was only about 27 percent higher than prices
experienced in 2003.

While available information does not reflect more recent changes in consumer prices, the
consumer price index information clearly demonstrates an overall trend of rising consumer prices
from 2003 through 2010. During the same seven year period, average wage and salary rates for
the entire employed workforce in the Marshall Islands increased just over 13 percent.
Consequently, local wages and salaries are not keeping pace with the cost-of-living for many
workers in the Marshall Islands economy.
Industry FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Agriculture, Hunting &Forestry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,614 2,830 3,315 2,713 2,741 2,966 3,132 3,163 3,504
Fisheries
(1
4,966 8,865 3,088 3,093 2,747 2,443 2,542 5,456 5,382 5,929 4,727 3,885 2,991 2,874
Mining and Quarrying N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Manufacturing 4,486 4,317 4,726 5,193 5,554 5,563 6,185 5,357 5,249 5,521 5,128 5,639 6,499 6,447
Electricity, Gas &Water Supply 11,522 11,025 11,983 11,211 11,350 12,631 12,245 13,090 13,172 12,219 13,278 13,131 13,873 14,661
Construction 5,904 6,239 6,111 6,141 5,297 5,361 5,281 5,132 5,547 5,523 5,911 6,412 6,660 6,817
Wholesale &Retail Trade 5,334 5,465 5,494 5,422 5,246 4,742 4,563 4,525 4,317 4,516 4,644 5,062 5,133 5,255
Hotels &Restaurants 5,314 5,406 5,216 4,800 5,214 4,658 4,463 4,947 5,086 4,976 4,709 5,217 5,208 5,501
Transport, Storage &Communications 10,067 9,912 9,782 9,869 9,396 9,677 9,245 8,373 8,164 7,743 8,997 8,802 9,834 9,872
Financial Intermediation 13,560 12,788 12,252 11,381 13,418 14,366 14,437 16,418 16,483 16,510 16,079 16,836 16,594 16,338
Real Estate, Renting &Business Activities 6,386 7,117 6,679 6,659 7,346 7,340 5,662 5,504 6,450 6,293 6,451 6,786 7,723 8,634
Public Administration 8,771 9,157 9,716 9,928 10,294 10,256 11,205 11,188 11,080 11,232 11,395 11,569 11,576 11,869
Education
(2
6,846 8,099 8,965 8,560 9,337 10,559 10,749 10,755 12,122 11,522 12,277 12,779 12,822 13,220
Health &Social Work 4,650 4,680 4,820 4,945 5,139 5,768 5,849 6,048 7,271 7,385 7,064 7,075 8,589 8,275
Community, Social, Personal Svc Activities 4,798 4,967 4,694 5,132 5,974 5,649 5,811 5,317 5,488 6,046 6,179 6,658 6,320 6,772
Private Households w/Employed Persons N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,754 3,428 3,216 4,025
Extra-Territorial Organizations &Bodies 12,002 12,617 13,575 13,708 13,477 12,162 14,532 15,217 16,201 16,077 15,525 16,754 16,460 16,823
Average Annual Wage/salary 8,138 8,517 8,556 8,487 8,468 8,340 8,734 9,355 9,471 9,398 9,396 9,622 9,458 9,586
TABLE 2-4
1998-2011 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE AND SALARY RATES
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS BY INDUSTRY
Sources: McKinlay, Glenn; MarkSturton, andBenGraham, 2011.
Notes: N/A= Not Available. Information provided is based upon Marshall Islands Social Security Administration data and unreported estimates by the RMI Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office.

2.6 PRIMARY INDUSTRY TRENDS

In the Marshall Islands economy, there are four industries in the private sector that provide
significant employment opportunities to local residents, as well as generate revenues to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands and various quasi-public enterprises. These industries include:
fisheries, copra, wholesale and retail services, and the visitor industry.

2.6.1 Commercial Fisheries

The predominant commercial fisheries of the Marshall Islands involve longline, purse seine, and
pole-and-line fishing activity by an international fishing fleet and a national fishing fleet that
operate within the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as well as other areas of the Western
and Central Pacific Ocean. The RMI EEZ and territorial waters (Figure 2-4) encompass around
two million square kilometers of oceanic waters within and adjacent to the RMI (Western and
Central Pacific Fishing Commission, 2011).

The international fishing fleet is comprised primarily by vessels from several countries outside of
the Marshall Islands. The national fishing fleet represents a smaller number of RMI-flagged
purse seine and longline vessels that is based in the Port of Majuro (Marshall Islands Marine
Resources Authority, 2011).

Since 1990, the combined annual catch of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna in the RMI EEZ
by longline, purse seine and pole-and-line has varied between 4,464 and 91,345 metric tons (mt).
Since 2004, however, total annual catches have more consistently ranged between 20,811 and
24,516 metric tons. The majority of this harvest has been made by the purse seine fishery
(Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Program, 2011).

2.6.1.1 Purse Seine Fishery

In 2010, approximately 117 international purse seiners were licensed to fish in the RMI
Exclusive Economic Zone (RMI EEZ). These included purse seiners from the United States,
J apan, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, the Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, the Republic of
China, and the Solomon
Islands (Marshall Islands
Marine Resources Authority,
2011). The number of
licensed purse seiners
declined considerably from
149 vessels in 2008 and 142
vessels in 2009 (Table 2-5).
The decline in the number of
licensed purse seiners may
have been influenced by
global economic conditions
and the related lack of
investment motivation by
international fish buyers.

Table 2-5 Number of Foreign Purse Seine Vessels
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Peoples Republic of China 8 12 10 4 1
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) 1 3 4 4 6
Japan 33 35 28 30 31
Kiribati 1 1 1 1 2
Korea 20 20 27 26 0
New Zealand 3 0 1 1 0
Papua/New Guinea (HomeParty) 16 17 15 17 19
Republic of China (Taipei) 19 13 27 18 16
Vanuatu 8 7 4 3 3
Solomon 0 0 0 0 1
United States of America 12 22 32 38 38
Total 121 130 149 142 117
TABLE 2-5
NUMBER OF FOREIGN PURSE SEINE VESSELS
LICENSED TO FISH IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS EEZ
BY YEAR AND FLAG, 2006-2010
Flag (Country)
Year
Source: Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Oceanic and Industrial Affairs Division, 2011.


Figure 2-4
Exclusive Economic Zones

Figure 2-4 RMI Exclusive Economic Zone

Between 2006 and 2010, purse seine vessels
operating in the RMI EEZ made combined
annual catches of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye
tuna that ranged from 11,666 metric tons in 2007
to 24,043 metric tons in 2008 (Table 2-6).

Table 2-6 Annual Catch by Purse Seine Fleets
Year Big Eye Tuna Skip J ack Tuna Yellow Fin Tuna TOTAL
China 2006 3 334 111 448
2007 0 0 0 0
2008 0 0 0 0
2009 0 203 0 203
2010 3 335 7 345
2006 118 6,419 639 7,176
2007 184 4,189 384 4,756
2008 236 7,177 1,824 9,237
2009 308 7,121 211 7,639
2010 48 3,687 311 4,046
Japan 2006 0 3,221 177 3,398
2007 0 0 0 0
2008 0 675 283 958
2009 6 690 41 737
2010 0 0 0 0
Kiribati 2006 25 1,242 255 1,523
2007 7 170 109 286
2008 18 304 150 472
2009 2 683 6 691
2010 0 0 0 0
Taiwan 2006 9 1,676 224 1,908
2007 29 1,669 341 2,039
2008 139 3,587 1,606 5,331
2009 7 1,477 45 1,530
2010 25 1,574 289 1,888
United States of America 2006 3 155 4 163
2007 7 394 20 422
2008 104 3,586 2,071 5,762
2009 77 2,797 98 2,972
2010 131 9,691 248 10,071
Vanuatu 2006 25 760 184 969
2007 37 3,956 170 4,162
2008 24 1,967 293 2,284
2009 7 130 37 174
2010 0 1,085 90 1,175
2006 183 13,807 1,594 15,584
2007 264 10,378 1,024 11,666
2008 521 17,296 6,227 24,044
2009 407 13,101 438 13,946
2010 207 16,372 945 17,524
TABLE 2-6
ANNUAL CATCHES BY PURSE SEINE FLEETS
IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
BY FLAG AND SPECIES, 2006-2010
Fleet (Flag/Country)
Catch (Metric Tonnes)
Source: Marshall IslandsMarine ResourcesAuthority, Oceanicand Industrial AffairsDivision, 2011.
Note: The totals may not add up due to rounding.
TOTAL EEZ (Exclusive
Economic Zone)
Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM)

Purse seiner American Victory

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Peoples Republic of
China 40 36 39 33 22
Federated States of
Micronesia 9 6 6 6 11
Japan 34 21 6 6 14
Korea 1 0 0 0 0
Republic of China
(Taipei) 6 1 2 0 2
Belize 0 0 0 0 0
TotalS 90 64 53 45 49
Source: Marshall IslandsMarine ResourcesAuthority, Oceanicand Industrial AffairsDivision, 2011.
TABLE 2-7
NUMBER OF FOREIGN LONGLINE VESSELS
LICENSED TO FISH IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS EEZ
BY YEAR AND FLAG, 2006-2010
Year
Flag
Year Albacore Big Eye Tuna Yellow Fin Tuna Other TOTAL
Peoples Republic of China 2006 39 1,908 1,478 388 3,811
2007 14 2,028 727 348 3,116
2008 58 2,270 554 394 3,275
2009 57 2,156 732 359 3,304
2010 108 1,877 791 395 3,171
2006 4 417 235 76 732
2007 3 359 133 66 561
2008 9 434 112 76 631
2009 23 711 227 98 1,059
2010 34 709 281 175 1,199
J apan 2006 25 195 118 0 338
2007 7 259 91 0 357
2008 0 0 0 0 0
2009 23 147 68 0 238
2010 39 124 89 0 251
Republic of China (Taipei) 2006 0 5 7 0 12
2007 0 0 0 0 0
2008 0 10 2 0 12
2009 0 0 0 0 0
2010 0 113 28 1 142
2006 68 2,525 1,838 463 4,894
2007 24 2,646 951 415 4,034
2008 67 2,714 668 470 3,918
2009 103 3,014 1,027 457 4,601
2010 181 2,823 1,189 571 4,763
TABLE 2-8
ANNUAL CATCHES BY FOREIGN LONGLINE FLEETS
IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
BY FLAG AND SPECIES, 2006-2010
Catch (Metric Tonnes)
Fleet (Flag)
Source: Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Oceanic and Industrial Affairs Division, 2011.
Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM)
Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
TOTAL EEZ (Exclusive
Economic Zone)
2.6.1.2 Longline Fishery
Table 2-7 Number of Foreign Longline Vessels
In 2010, the international longline fishery
fleet licensed to fish in the Marshall Islands
comprised 49 vessels. This fleet included
vessels from the People's Republic of China,
J apan, the Federated States of Micronesia,
and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Since
2006, the number of longline vessels has
generally declined. Only a slight increase in
the number of vessels occurred between
2009 and 2010 (Table 2-7).

Between 2006 and 2010, the combined catch
of this fleet in the RMI EEZ ranged between
3,918 metric tons in 2008 and 4,894 metric
tons in 2006 (Table 2-8). Bigeye and
yellowfin tuna represent the primary species
caught by the longline fishery fleet (Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011).
However, a significant portion of the longline catch, roughly 1,000 metric tons per year, includes
various by catch species such as blue marlin, sharks, wahoo, dolphinfish, swordfish and albacore
tuna (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Program, 2011). Table 2-8 Annual

2.6.1.3 Pole-and-Line Fishery

Twenty-six pole-and-line vessels were licensed to fish in the Marshall Islands in 2010. All of
these vessels were from J apan. With the exception of 2009 when only 12 vessels were licensed,
the number of pole-and-line vessels has typically included 22 or more vessels between 2006 and
2010 (Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011).

Annual catches by the international pole-and-line fleet, which were licensed to operate in the
Marshall Islands between 2006 and 2010, ranged between 476 and 4,988 metric tons (Marshall
Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011).

2.6.1.4 National Fishing Fleet

The national commercial fishing fleet represents RMI-flagged purse seine and longline vessels
that are based in the Port of Majuro. The national fishing fleet includes 10 purse seiners, four
longline vessels, nine fish carriers, and four fuel bunker vessels (Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission, 2013). The national fishing fleet operates throughout the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean, but longline vessels of the fleet fish primarily in the RMI EEZ (Marshall
Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011).

In 2010, purse seine vessels of the national fishing fleet caught roughly 56,835 tons of skipjack,
yellowfin and bigeye tuna. The rising volume of catch in 2010 reflects, in part, the addition of
four purse seine vessels during the second half of 2010 (Marshall Islands Marine Resources
Authority, 2011). Nevertheless, recent catch volumes in 2008 through 2010 demonstrate an
upswing in tuna catch volumes by RMI-flag purse seine vessels.

In contrast, longline vessels of the national fleet landed roughly 257 metric tons of bigeye and
117 tons of yellowfin tuna, as well as considerably smaller volumes of blue marlin, albacore, and
swordfish in 2010 (Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011). This catch volume was
considerably less than previous annual catches in 2008 (552 metric tons) and 2009 (567 metric
tons).

Pole-and-line vessel

2.6.1.5 Transshipment to International Markets

The international fishing fleet currently transships virtually all of its catch to markets in the Far
East and Southeast Asia. The transshipment process involves the combined effort of fish buyers,
fishing boat owners, fish boat crews, and shipping agents who all work together to transship fish
from the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone to market channels in the Far East and Southeast Asia
(Ma, 2013).

Three major fish buyers dominate and influence the purchase of fish in the Pacific Ocean. These
companies include Tri Marine, FCF Fishery Company, and Itochu (Campling et al, 2007; Muller,
2013).

Commercial fishing vessels that operate within
or near the RMI EEZ transload their catch to
larger carrier vessels that accompany the fishing
trips of purse seine and longline vessels. One
fish carrier vessel typically travels with two
purse seiners. The transshipment of fish takes
place in the calmer and protected waters of
Majuro Lagoon. When in the Majuro Lagoon,
purse seiners will, for example, transfer a catch
of roughly 1,000 to 1,200 metric tons to a carrier
vessel. Purse seiners may remain a few days in
port, but then these vessels will return to the
RMI EEZ to continue fishing and subsequently
return to the carrier vessel, or return to their
home port in the Far East. If the fishing boats
elect to fish more in the RMI EEZ, the carrier
vessel will likely remain moored offshore in the
Port of Majuro until its holding capacity is
saturated (Ma, 2013).

Fish buyers charter fish carrier vessels which are
primarily owned by larger companies based in
Korea, China, and Taiwan. Carrier vessels have
an average holding capacity of 3,000-4,000
metric tons of fish; although, some larger carrier
vessels have capacities of 4,000-5,000 metric
tons (Ma, 2013).

Carrier vessel deliveries of lower-priced skipjack tuna are generally destined for lightmeat
canned tuna market channels in Thailand where larger fish cannery operations are based (Forum
Fisheries Agency, 2011; Ma, 2013). Higher-priced tuna species such as yellowfin and bigeye are
delivered to sashimi market channels in J apan (Muller, 2013).

2.6.1.6 Pan Pacific Foods

Pan Pacific Foods (PPF) operates a tuna loining plant on Majuro. Skipjack personnel cut and
package loins into three or four kilo bags which are subsequently loaded into refrigerated
containers. Each container can accommodate about 25 metric tons of skipjack tuna. Pan Pacific
Foods processes about 8,000 metric tons per year (Xu, 2013).

Unloading tuna from purse seine vessel

Transferring tuna to carrier vessel


PPF transships its skipjack tuna to the cannery markets in Thailand, as well as canneries such as
Bumble Bee, StarKist, and Chicken of the Sea along the US west coast (Xu, 2013).

Pan Pacific Foods is operated and managed by about 10 full-time personnel. An additional 200
part-time workers are employed by PPF when vessels arrive with loads of fish for processing
(Xu, 2013).

2.6.1.7 Marshall Islands Fishing Venture

Marshall Islands Fishing Venture (MIFV) is a joint venture between the RMI Marshall Islands
Marine Resources Authority and Luen Thai Fishing Venture, Ltd. MIFV operates a long line
fish base with international long line vessels based in the Port of Majuro, as well as long line
vessels from the national fleet (Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011).

Marshall Islands Fishing Venture operates 42 long line vessels in the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone. MIFV primarily catches yellowfin, bigeye, blue marlin, and some bi-catch. These vessels
harvest roughly 300 metric tons per month, or about 3,600 metric tons of fish from the RMI EEZ
per year (Liang, 2013).

Thirty to forty percent of the catch, which represents their best class of fish, is air shipped to the
US mainland. Another 20 percent of the catch is cut into fish loins and packaged into 3-kilo size
bags. The remaining 20 percent are packaged into small plastic bags containing one fish steak
that are sold to wholesalers in Seattle, Washington and Los Angeles, California (Liang, 2013).
Frozen bycatch is shipped to China via refrigerated containers or sold locally (Marshall Islands
Marine Resources Authority, 2011).

2.6.1.8 Marshall Islands Fishing Company

Marshall Islands Fishing Company (MIFC) is a joint venture between the RMI Marshall Island
Marine Resources Authority and Koo's Fishing Company in Majuro. MIFC began operations in
March 2006.

Koos Fishing Company operates seven purse seiners and three carrier vessels in the RMI
Exclusive Economic Zone. Each of its seven purse seiners makes about 10 fishing trips to RMI
EEZ in a given year. Each fishing trip extends for three to five weeks. Each purse seiner has a
fish holding capacity of 900 metric tons (Muller, 2013).

Fish processing at Pan Pacific Foods

Koos Fishing Company primarily sells its catch of skipjack tuna to fish canneries in Thailand.
Yellowfin and bigeye tuna are transported to J apan (Muller, 2013).

2.6.2 Copra Production and Processing

Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority is a quasi-public agency that produces several coconut
products that are distributed to various international markets. Some of these products are also
sold to local consumers. Tobolar is financially supported by funds made available by the
Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Asian Development Bank, as well as price
subsidies from the US Government (Banzuela, 2013).

The Tobolar complex is situated on the northeast
side of Delap Dock where it receives copra from
farmers located throughout the Marshall Islands.
Local farmers harvest coconuts from their respective
coconut plantations, de-husk the coconuts, and
export the remaining copra to Majuro via RMI
interisland cargo and passenger vessels.

Tobolar receives about 500 metric tons of copra per
month from the Outer Islands. About 80 percent of
the copra is transshipped from the Outer Islands to Tobolar via RMI interisland vessels. The
remaining 20 percent is received from farmers in Majuro and Outer Island via privately owned
small boats (Banzuela, 2013).

Tobolar processes the copra into several products. The primary product is coconut oil;
approximately 300 metric tons of coconut oil is produced each month. About 15 TEU of
coconut oil is loaded into one large plastic bladder that, when filled, contains about 20 metric
tons. Much of that oil is shipped to market channels in Malaysia (Banzuela, 2013).

When some of the produced coconut oil (approximately 300 metric tons) remains unsold during
a given month, Tobolar will make arrangements to load the excess oil to incoming oil tankers
that have about a 1,500 metric ton capacity. The oil is transported to bulk buyers of oil in
Europe and the United States, e.g., Proctor and Gamble (Banzuela, 2013).

Pure coconut oil must be stored below 32 degrees Centigrade; otherwise, the oil solidifies.
Tobolar sells the solidified oil for roughly $650 per metric ton and produces roughly 300 tons per
month of the solidified oil product (Banzuela, 2013).

Another product derived from coconut processing is copra meal. Approximately 150 metric tons
of copra meal is processed each month. The copra meal is packaged into smaller zip lock bags.
About 450 of these bags can be loaded into one TEU container. The copra meal is sold to market
channels in Taiwan, Federated States of Micronesia, Australia and New Zealand for use in
secondary products such as fish food, fertilizer and other products (Banzuela, 2013).

Virgin oil is also sold for local consumption on Majuro. Local residents use the virgin oil for
cooking.

Tobolar coconut processing complex

2.6.3 Visitor Industry

The visitor industry in the Marshall Islands primarily represents accommodations, as well as
eating and drinking establishments on Majuro, Ebeye, and some Outer Islands. In addition, some
private fishing and scuba diving tours are occasionally provided by private companies or
individuals.

While stunning views and recreational opportunities abound throughout the Marshall Islands,
most visitor travel to the Marshall Islands is made for business purposes. Business travelers
accounted for approximately 51 percent of all visitors to the Marshall Islands in 2010. The
average length of stay for these visitors was just over five days in 2009.

Travelers coming to the Marshall Islands for a holiday or vacation, which represented about 21
percent of all visitors in 2010, remained in the Republic for about four days in 2009. Almost 13
percent of the visitors to the Marshall Islands were friends and relatives coming to spend time
with family. Their average length of stay was roughly five days in 2009. The remaining visitors
did not respond to visitor surveys.

Since 2001, the annual number of visitors coming to the Marshall Islands has ranged between
4,391 visitors in 2010 and 7,583 visitors in 2005 (Table 2-9). More recent declines in 2008
through 2010 are believed to be reflect the impact of the nationwide recession in the United
States and troubling financial trends in the Far East and Asia upon both business and holiday
travel. The upcoming 44th Pacific Forum conference in September 2013 is anticipated to
generate increased business travel volumes to the Marshall Islands in 2013.

TABLE 2-9
VISITORS TO MAJURO
(1
BY YEAR AND PURPOSE OF VISIT
1996, 1996, 2001-2010
Purpose 1991 1996 2001 2002
(2
2003
(2
2004 2005 2006
(3
2007 2008 2009 2010
Business

2271 2513 1892 2165 2245 2999 3061 2033 2218 2147 2119 2257
Holiday/
Vacation
947 1113 1483 1445 1380 2683 2727 1255 2060 1385 1430 934
Visiting Friends/
Relatives
606 634 662 763 769 810 931 661 718 587 511 562
Other/
Not Stated
415 409 731 632 813 736 864 866 548 578 539 638

Totals

4,239

4,669

4,768

5,005

5,207

7,228

7,583

4,815

5,544

4,697

4,599

4,391
Notes: 1) Prior to 2004, only visitors travelling by air were included; 2) In 2002 and 2003, visitors who arrived at Kwajalein Airport were not included;
3) In 2006, some visitors arriving by sea were not included.
Source: Marshall Islands Visitors Authority (MIVA), EPPSO, 2012.
Table 2-9 Visitors to Majuro
2.6.4 Opportunities to Strengthen the RMI Economy

2.6.4.1 Expanded Fish Processing and Fish Product Transshipment

The Marshall Islands is blessed with an abundance of fish in the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone
and other nearby economic zones in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
Convention Area. It is also fortunate that the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority

maintains a watchful eye over the condition of tuna fish stocks in the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone and the related operations of the international fishing fleet.

The previous overview of the demographic and economic trends clearly reveals a need for
expanded investments into the private sector of the Marshall Islands economy. These
investments are needed to retain and attract an expanded employed workforce that can provide
new job and income opportunities for local residents.

It is recommended that the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority continues to encourage
the private sector to expand the transshipment of processed fish products to international
markets. The expansion of fish processing operations in the Marshall Islands can facilitate the
creation of new jobs and income opportunities in the fishing industry.

The Compact of Free Association with the United States offers attractive opportunities for the
export of tuna products to the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau. The Compact allows for duty-free
exports to the United States from any of the freely associated states if:

the product is directly imported from the freely associated state and does not pass through
any other country or territory before entering the customs territory of the United States;
and,
processing and production of tuna products within the freely associated state must add, at
least, 35 percent of economic value to the product (Campling, Havice, and Ram-Bidesi,
2007).

Discussions with representatives of both Pan Pacific Foods and Marshall Islands Fishing Venture
indicate that existing fish processing operations desire to expand their operations. But the
potential opportunity to expand local fishing operations is hampered by:

limited land area that is necessary to support any facility expansion;
insufficient dock area needed for the unloading of incoming fish catches and the
servicing of fishing vessels; and,
the lack of vessel repair services.

There is also a growing demand for the use of refrigerated containers for the transshipment of
processed fish from Majuro. This trend is occurring because fish can be shipped faster to
wholesale customers compared to the time required by carrier vessels. With a shorter product
transportation time, fishing companies can be paid earlier by their wholesale customers. The
traditional transport of frozen whole fish via carrier vessels is made for about $100 per ton
(Muller, 2013).

In order for the Marshall Islands to take advantage of this transportation trend, the Port of
Majuro will need to have more electric reefer plugs available at Delap Dock and/or at any other
future docks in the Majuro Lagoon that may support the transshipment of processed fish from
Majuro.

In addition to this improvement, it is important to remember that international fish buyers and
fishing vessel owners have a choice among various Pacific Island ports regarding where to
transship their tuna catches. Their port selection will be based primarily on the proximity of a

port to their fishing grounds. Tuna trading companies and fishing vessel owners desire to
complete transshipment as soon as possible after a purse seiner leaves its fishing grounds
(McCoy, 2012). Other factors may also encourage or negate a decision to use a specific port.
Such factors include:

market channel used for the sale of the catch and related logistics requirements;
weather conditions;
potential requirements that transshipping purse seiners hold fishery access licenses in the
country where transshipment takes place;
convenient access to international air travel for key fishing vessel personnel;
past experience with local governmental officials and potential delays associated with
local regulatory processes;
the availability of area for purse seine net repair; and,
the availability of supplies, equipment and repair facilities (McCoy, 2012).

2.6.4.2 Other Exports

As a new emerging nation, the RMI is keenly aware that more exports by the private sector are
needed to provide more job opportunities in the cash economy. Private sector investments that
produce exports can, in turn, generate more revenues to help support the management and
operation of its national and local governmental agencies, as well as various quasi-public
agencies that provide important supporting infrastructure.

Many of the exports from the Marshall Islands originate with initial public investments or
private-public partnerships that focus upon discovering technical and economic feasibility. A
recent example is a promising pilot project related to the farming of Pacific Threadfish
(Polydactylus sexfilis) in Marshall Island waters. This fish, which presently is found only in
Hawaiian waters and commonly known there as moi, was once a treasured white meat fish that
was raised and harvested for traditional Hawaiian leaders in enclosed fish ponds located along
selected island shorelines. Today, a rising demand for Pacific Threadfish or moi has surfaced in
Hawaii because of its popular incorporation into various Hawaiian, Asian, and European dishes
(Hukilau Foods, 2013). This ongoing project, which is being spearheaded by Rongelap Local
Government, College of the Marshall Islands, and Hukilau Foods of Hawaii, could lead to export
of moi to Hawaii and generate new jobs in the local economy (Marshall Islands J ournal, 2013).

The transition of promising projects from an initial incubation stage to self-sustaining, profitable
businesses in the private sector requires the development of feasible economic investment
opportunities. A feasible private export opportunity in the Marshall Islands relies, in part, upon
the availability of initial investment capital, a trained workforce, a potential market, supporting
infrastructure for product transportation, and prospects for a favorable return-on-investment.

The export of moi is presently being accomplished via air transportation. However, future
exports may require the use of marine cargo vessels for product transportation. If so, product
transportation requirements of that enterprise may require, in part, efficient cargo handling,
storage area, and dock space for vessel berthing. The same three ingredients will be key assets
needed to support other potential exports from the Marshall Islands.

2.7 ANTICIPATED POPULATION GROWTH

2.7.1 Relationship of Population Growth to Future Port Needs

Imported foods, supplies and equipment purchased for sale to local consumers in the Marshall
Islands represent a large proportion of all incoming cargo to the Port of Majuro. Future
population growth is an important factor that will predominantly influence the future volume of
incoming cargo to the Port of Majuro.

2.7.2 Future Growth Assumptions and Application of Statistical Model

2.7.2.1 Introduction

Chapter Three of the Port of Majuro Master Plan presents, in part, anticipated cargo volumes and
vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro in the coming decade. In order to make those forecasts, a
statistical model was developed that includes forecasts of future resident population, future
incoming cargo volumes, and the anticipated number of annual vessel calls. For the purposes of
estimating future resident population, the model uses the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011
preliminary population estimate as its base year.

The model forecasts future population growth for three potential growth scenarios that represent
limited, moderate, and high growth forecasts for the Republic of the Marshall Islands during the
next 10 years. The population and employment assumptions used for each scenario are
described in the following paragraphs.

2.7.2.2 Limited Growth Scenario Assumptions

A gradual decline in annual population growth due will take place due to growing out-migration
from RMI to Hawaii, US mainland, and other international locations. Growing out-migration
will be generated from a continued lack of job opportunities in Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls.
Under this scenario, a US commitment associated with the maintenance of the US Army at
Kwajalein Atoll will terminate due to unsuccessful negotiations with property owners in
Kwajalein Atoll.

There are no substantive prospects for new economic development projects that are expected to
generate new or expanded employment in the private sector. The international fishing fleet will
gradually decline in terms of the number of vessels operating in the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone due to expanded regulatory measures. As a consequence, tuna harvests will slide
downward. Copra production will become less attractive in the face of falling commodity prices
and a concurrent reduction in future price subsidies. Any significant growth in employment will
occur only in the public sector, i.e., government jobs.

Despite growing out-migration, higher crude birth rates are expected to gradually fall less than
2011 levels. But, a stable or declining crude death rate will, for the most part, result in a very
modest increase in natural growth (births minus deaths in any given year). However, modest
increases in natural growth will not exceed the extent of out-migration. Consequently, the rate of
annual population growth will vary and range from 0 to -2.0 percent.

2.7.2.3 Moderate Growth Scenario Assumptions

Modest gains in population growth, ranging between 0.5 and 1.0 percent per year, will
materialize during the coming decade. The crude birth rate and crude death rate will decline at
rates comparable to the 1999-2011 period. The level out migration will slow somewhat in the
face of short-term (one to two years) economic slowdowns in Hawaii and the US mainland that
result in fewer employment opportunities abroad.

At the same time, sustained commercial interest in the fishery of the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone will provide some new job opportunities associated with fish processing in Majuro. The
US Government renews its commitment toward the continued operation of USAKA before 2016
through the successful renegotiation of leases with local landowners. These factors will
encourage more Marshallese to remain home rather than relocate.

2.7.2.4 Higher Growth Scenario Assumptions

The higher growth scenario assumes strong prospects for new and expanded job opportunities in
fisheries and other private economic activities in Majuro Atoll. On a regional basis, international
shipping companies and international fishing interests continue to view Majuro as a desirable
transshipment point for containerized cargo, general cargo, and fish. With this vision, new or
expanded private investment opportunities are made and more new job opportunities are created
in the private sector. Increased governmental employment opportunities also emerge as RMI and
local government agencies monitor activities of the private sector, as well as the operation and
maintenance of supporting quasi-public facilities and utility systems. In addition, The US
Government renews its commitment toward the continued operation of USAKA before 2016
through the successful renegotiation of leases with local landowners.

Crude birth rates and death rates will gradually diminish during the coming decade. However,
natural growth will continue to surpass net migration in the face of new job opportunities in both
the private and public sectors. Under this scenario, population growth will be variable, but
annually rise between 1.0 and 2.5 percent.

2.7.3 Population Forecast

Each of the three population growth scenarios are considered to be plausible given the
demographic and economic trends that characterize and influence the Marshall Islands. With
that possible reality, population estimates for the three potential growth scenarios enables the
identification of a forecast range for future population growth and/or the selection of one
scenario as the most probable demographic and economic condition during the coming decade.

Under the limited growth scenario, LYON estimates that the resident population of the Marshall
Islands would gradually decline to about 47,822 residents by 2024. This scenario suggests a 10
percent decline from the 2011 population of 53,158 residents (Table 2-10).


TABLE 2-10
ANTICIPATED POPULATION GROWTH
2012-2024
Year Limited Growth
Scenario
Moderate Growth
Scenario
Higher Growth
Scenario
2012 52,679 53,414 53,463
2013 52,371 53,819 53,841
2014 51,794 54,206 54,261
2015 50,827 54,484 54,728
2016 50,242 54,818 55,182
2017 50,538 55,359 55,707
2018 50,125 55,615 56,340
2019 49,718 55,987 57,199
2020 49,228 56,316 57,817
2021 48,728 56,781 58,730
2022 48,352 57,165 59,424
2023 47,844 57,478 60,027
2024 47,822 57,823 60,914
Table 2-10 Anticipated Population Growth
Population growth associated with the moderate growth scenario suggests a resident population
of 57,823 persons in 2024. Such growth would represent an increase of almost nine percent from
the estimated 2011 resident population.

Anticipated population growth for the high growth scenario would include roughly 69,187
persons in 2024. Under this scenario, the resident population is expected to rise about 30 percent
from the 2011 population.

LYON considers the moderate growth scenario to be the most probable outlook during the
coming decade. LYON anticipates that lease agreements between Kwajalein Atoll landowners
and the US Government will eventually be negotiated to satisfy all appropriate parties. Ongoing
fish processing operations in Majuro appear to be financial viable and demonstrating signs that
may result in some modest expansion of fish product exports.

At the same time, available fish resources in the RMI EEZ, growing international demands for
fish, existing private and public investments in the processing and export of fish products to
smaller niche markets, and potential improvements to the Port of Majuro could easily lead to a
more substantive expansion of a private fisheries industry in the coming decade. Under these
conditions, LYON believes that the future population would gradually tilt closer to the high
growth scenario.

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 3- 1

CHAPTER THREE
EXISTING PORT FACILITIES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter Three provides an overview of the location, type and condition of port facilities in the
Port of Majuro. The overview is based upon an inventory made by Lyon Associates in J anuary
and December 2013 that mapped the type and location of existing port facilities, photographed
and documented selected facility characteristics, as well as made a preliminary assessment of
facility conditions. Observations made during the preliminary field assessment were
subsequently expanded to include consideration of relevant port facility design, construction, and
facility maintenance criteria, as well as the development of a general ranking system for facility
conditions.

The overall condition of each facility in the Port of Majuro was assessed in the context of several
general criteria (Table 3-1). Using these criteria, facility condition scores were determined and
provided for each facility. These scores provide a useful overview of existing facility conditions
and their adequacy to support ongoing port operations.

Chapter Three also includes recommended improvements that are considered necessary to
sustain existing port operations and vessel traffic. Potential improvements necessary to support
future port expansion and potential economic development opportunities are addressed in
Chapter Six concerning future port facility needs.

Purse seiner and carrier vessels in Port of Majuro

TABLE 3-1
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
PORT OF MAJURO
Facility Condition
Rating Criteria
A
Building, support facility, or utility system is in relatively good condition, appears to not
require any repairs or improvements, and is already receiving some periodic maintenance.
B
Building, support facility, or utility system was in fair condition in January 2013 and
appears to not require any immediate repairs or improvements. But, periodic maintenance
should be scheduled to extend facility life.
C
Building, support facility, or utility system is in need of repair, renovation, and/or periodic
maintenance to support or improve the reliability and efficiency of ongoing and future port
operations and related services. Repairs, which are not urgent, can probably be made
cost-effectively by RMIPA, local contractors, or off-island companies.
D
Building, support facility or utility system is in poor operating condition, lacks sufficient
capacity, or is inoperable, due to age, damage, and/or lack of maintenance. Potential
costs of repair likely exceed the cost of facility or system replacement.
E
Building, support facility or utility system conditions are posing significant safety issues
that could endanger port operations personnel and port users. Immediate repairs are
needed.
F
Building, supporting facility, or utility system is presently abandoned and should be
demolished or relocated to provide additional space for other port uses.

3.2 CALALIN CHANNEL

3.2.1 Channel Characteristics

Majuro Atoll extends approximately 12 km from north to south, and about 40 km from east to
west (Kendall, Battista, and Menza, 2012). Within the Atoll, Majuro Lagoon encompasses
roughly 289 square kilometers of water area (Figure 3-1).

International and local vessels enter Majuro Atoll and the Port of Majuro from an entrance
channel, known as Calalin Channel (Figure 3-2), which is located along the north side of Majuro
Lagoon. The channel entrance, which is situated between Eroj Island and Calalin Island, is about
3,704 meters (2 nautical miles) wide.

3.2.1.1 Channel Depth and Width

A shoal area, with a minimum depth of 0.9 meters, is situated in the middle of the entrance and
divides the channel entrance into east and west channels. The west channel has a width of
roughly 370 meters (0.2 nautical miles) and a depth of roughly 34 meters. The east channel,
having a depth of roughly 8.8 meters, is suitable only for smaller vessel traffic (IHS, 2013).

The overall channel is about 3.4 kilometers long while the channel width ranges roughly between
350 and 450 meters. Depths within this channel generally range from approximately 34 to 45
meters; although, the shallowest sounding in the channel is approximately 23.5 meters (National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 2011).

Figure 3-1
Majuro Atoll

Figure 3-2
Calalin Channel

3.2.1.2 Channel Markers and Lighting

At the entrance to Calalin Channel, there is a lighthouse located on Eroj Island to assist vessels in
their location of and navigation to the channel entrance. The channel itself is lined with six
different lighted channel markers with dayboards that mark the limits of the channel and direct
vessels safely into Majuro Lagoon. Shallow coral reefs and some coral pinnacles are situated
immediately east and west of the channel along the Lagoon's northern boundary. The Calalin
channel markers consist of International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) System
A lateral marks.

In September 2012, RMIPA made improvements to the inner most channel markers #5 and #6
because these channel markers had sustained damage over the years from a combination of
wave/storm activity and vessel impact. The entire structure of both channel markers, including
the pylons, platform, day boards, and solar powered rotating beacons, were replaced.

The remaining channel markers, #1 through #4, were also in various states of deterioration in
September 2012, but their structural pylons remained intact. For these channel markers, the day
boards and solar powered rotating beacons were replaced in October 2013 by mounting them to
the pylons. These repairs significantly improved the visibility and effectiveness of the channel
markers.

Informal discussions with RMIPA's Deputy Director, local fishing agents, and representatives of
international shipping companies did not reveal any navigational issues or constraints that stem
from the condition of existing channel markers and buoys, the need for other supporting
facilities, channel depth limitations, or the need to remove physical obstructions in selected areas
of the Calalin Channel. Consequently, no further repairs or improvements to the existing
channel are envisioned to support ongoing port operations (Table 3-2).

Existing Facilities
Facility Condition
Score
Improvement(s) Needed to Sustain Existing Port Operations
Channel Characteristics A Good depth. Can accommodate 2-way traffic.
Channel Markers/Lighting B Replaced and renovated in August 2013.
Note: Refer to Table 3-1 for Facility Condition Score criteria.
TABLE 3-2
CALALIN CHANNEL
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT


However, it is essential that channel markers and related lighting systems are periodically
inspected to confirm the adequacy of their condition to support the navigation of vessels through
the Calalin Channel. Facility conditions can be regularly observed by recommended RMIPA
facility maintenance personnel who would periodically monitor facility conditions on a quarterly
basis. Local pilots, who navigate vessels through the channel and port fairway, could also be
required to document their observations on a short form that subsequently would be submitted to
RMIPA's Seaport Manager. Periodic maintenance necessary to extend the service life of
existing channel markers, buoys, and lighting systems will entail periodic re-painting of channel
markers and the occasional repair or replacement of related light fixtures.

3.3 PORT FAIRWAY

3.3.1 Size, Configuration, and Depth of the Fairway

Once vessels pass through the channel entrance, they enter an expansive port fairway (Figure 3-
3) that leads to Uliga Dock and Delap Dock which are both located on the east end of Majuro
Lagoon. Delap Dock and Uliga Dock are situated roughly 21.2 kilometers and 21.4 kilometers
from the Lagoon side of Calalin Channel, respectively.

Excluding fringing coral reefs, coral pinnacles, shallower depths, and water area west of Calalin
Channel, the navigable port fairway includes roughly 36 square kilometers of water area.
Available nautical charts for Majuro Lagoon suggest that depths within the Port of Majuro
fairway range from 36 to 64 meters (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 2011).

The physical width of Majuro Lagoon is roughly 10 kilometers near the center of Majuro
Lagoon, but gradually reduces to about 2.4 kilometers near the east end of the Lagoon. The
potential width of the Lagoon for the navigation of larger commercial vessels is considerably
reduced by the presence of several intermittent shoals within the Lagoon. These shoals
essentially reduce the effective width of the port fairway to between 2,400 and 7,500 meters.
Because of the presence of shoals within the expansive Majuro Lagoon, port fairway
characteristics require the use of local knowledge, and/or attentiveness these conditions.

A review of available bathymetry within Majuro Atoll, as well as discussions with the RMIPA
Seaport Manager and local agents for various fish and shipping companies, suggest that there is
ample open water of navigable depth within the port fairway to accommodate existing levels of
vessel traffic. Available design criteria for navigable outer channels recommend that:

channel bottom widths for one-way vessel traffic in a straight channel should be 3.6 to 6
times the beam of the port's design ship depending on relevant sea and wind conditions.
However, the minimum bottom width for oil and gas tankers should be five times the
beam of the port's design ship (Thoresen, 2010).
two-way vessel traffic in a straight channel should contain a channel bottom width of
roughly 6.2 to 9.0 times the beam of the design ship (Thoresen, 2010).

Between 2010 and 2012, the largest vessels calling on the Port of Majuro included several cargo
vessels that have a beam of 25 meters (RMI Ports Authority, 2013). Assuming this dimension
for the Port of Majuro's design ship, the port fairway would need to be roughly 155 to 225 meters
wide to accommodate two-way vessel traffic. As stated earlier, shoals near the middle of the
Majuro Lagoon and along the Lagoon's northern margin reduce the effective width of the port

fairway to between 2,400 and 7,500 meters. Despite those limitations, the width of the port
fairway is more than adequate to support two-way vessel traffic (Table 3-3).

Figure 3-3
Fairway to Port of Majuro

Existing Facility
Facility Condition
Score
Size, Configuration, Depth, Width A
Good depth, adequate width for two-way traffic
Aids to Navigation B Visibility adequate during daytime hours.
Anchorage Area A Considerable open water area available.
Note: Refer to Table 3-1 for Facility Condition Score criteria.
TABLE 3-3
PORT FAIRWAY

3.3.2 Aids to Navigation

There are several shallow shoals and islets located within the port fairway. Two of these areas
are identified by lights; a third area is identified by a green beacon (National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, 2011). The remaining areas can be visually observed via the presence of
small rock piles or revetments that outline the margins of shallower depth areas.

During Lyons public information meeting and individual interviews with port stakeholders in
J anuary 2013, there were no issues or concerns related to the existing navigation aids that were

identified. General observations of the port fairway by Lyon Associates in J anuary 2013 suggest
that all navigation aids remain in operating condition. Planned repairs to channel markers 1
through 4 were subsequently completed in October 2013. However, similar to the Calalin
Channel, it is essential that channel markers and related lighting systems are periodically
inspected to confirm the adequacy of their condition to support the navigation of vessels through
the port fairway. The condition of these navigation aids can be regularly observed by
recommended RMIPA facility maintenance personnel. Local pilots, who navigate vessels
through the channel and port fairway, could also be required to document their observations on a
short form that subsequently would be submitted to RMIPA's Seaport Manager.

Periodic re-painting of channel markers and the occasional repair or replacement of related light
fixtures are necessary to extend the service life of existing channel markers, and related lighting
systems (Table 3-3). The scheduling and completion of these maintenance tasks will help ensure
a timely response to any changes in facility condition and help sustain safe vessel navigation in
the port fairway.

3.3.3 Vessel Anchorage Area

Majuro Lagoon provides a well-sheltered and extensive anchorage area for incoming vessels
calling upon the Port of Majuro. The anchorage area is situated seaward of Djarrit Village along
the northeast end of the port fairway (Figure 3-3). While this vessel anchorage area is available
to any commercial vessel entering the Port of Majuro, the area is almost exclusively used by
international fishing vessels and related refrigerated carrier vessels. Larger international cargo
vessels and oil tankers calling on the Port of Majuro typically berth at Delap Dock, unload cargo
or fuels, and remain in port for not more than one day.

Specific anchorage locations are not defined by moorage pins or other devices. Local pilots
authorized by the Republic of the Marshall Islands were previously required to navigate all
incoming vessels from Calalin Channel, through the port fairway, and to specific vessel
anchorage locations. These locations were determined by RMIPA's Seaport Manager (Tiobech,
2013) and varied dependent upon the size and location of other vessels, as well as the potential
need for dock access and other shore side services. If piloting services become optional, RMIPA
will need to establish and communicate the desired coordinates that identify the boundaries of
the vessel anchorage area. As of J une 2014, coordinates were developed to further define the
desired boundaries of the anchorage area.

The size of the anchorage area has historically contracted and expanded with the variable number
of arriving and departing fishing vessels which come to the Port of Majuro to transship tuna
harvests onto fish carrier vessels. In J anuary 2013, several purse seine and carrier vessels were
moored in the anchorage area. At that time, the overall area encompassed about 740 hectares.
RMIPA has recently adopted coordinates for the anchorage of vessels in this area which can be
seen in Figure 3-4.

Available bathymetry data and navigation information for the anchorage area suggests that water
depths generally range between 27 and 47 meters. The bottom is characterized by sand, coral or
soft rock (IHS, 2013). A review of the ship dimensions for purse seiners and refrigerated carrier
vessels calling on the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012 indicates that refrigerated carrier

vessel have a draught of up to 12 meters (RMI Ports Authority, 2013). Consequently, the
existing anchorage area is very capable of providing moorage to incoming fishing vessels.

Other than the communication of newly defined coordinates for the vessel anchorage area, no
new facilities or facility improvements are believed to be needed to more specifically identify the
boundaries of the anchorage area (Table 3-3). However, the installation of an Automatic
Identification System (AIS) would enable the RMI Ports Authority to more efficiently monitor
the location of vessels moored in the anchorage area compared to the desired boundaries. This
potential improvement is discussed more fully in Chapter Six concerning port operations and
management.

Figure 3-4
Vessel Moorage Area


3.4 ULIGA DOCK

3.4.1 General

Uliga Dock is used primarily for the moorage of governmental vessels owned and operated by
the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA), the RMI Ministry of Transportation
and Communications (MT&C), the Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) and the RMI
Ports Authority. Each of these agencies also operates facilities situated inland of the dock.
These facilities include:
the Outer Island Fish Market Center which is operated by the Marshall Islands Marine
Resources Authority;
offices and dock warehouse owned by RMI Ports Authority and leased by MISC and the
RMI Ministry of Transportation and Communications; and,
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Disaster Mitigation Relief
Building that is owned by the RMI Ports Authority (Figure 3-5) and leased by USAID
and MISC.

3.4.2 Docks and Berthing Space for Interisland Cargo and Passenger Vessels

The RMI Ministry of Transport and Communications provides marine transportation services for
the delivery of Outer Island passengers and cargo to and from the Port of Majuro. These
services are provided through the agency's contracting of services from local marine
transportation companies. The primary contractor is Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation
(MISC), a quasi-public corporation established by the Marshall Island Shipping Corporation Act
of 2004. MISC makes scheduled voyages into five designated shipping regions of the Republic
which include: Lower Northern, Upper Northern, Central Eastern, Southern and Western.

At the time of this report, three passenger and cargo vessels are being used to support interisland
shipping by MISC. The Republic of the Marshall Islands Government owns these vessels. MV
Majuro and MV Kwajalein are two additional passenger and cargo vessels, which will be added
to the fleet in 2014 (Milne, 2013).

Two outer docks adjacent to the port fairway have a northwest and northeast orientation. Both of
these docks are primarily used by interisland passenger and cargo vessels. For the purposes of
this report, these docks are referred to as Docks A and B, respectively (Figure 3-5).

PORT OF MAJ URO MASTER PLAN ULIGA DOCK LAYOUT

3.4.2.1 Dock A

Dock A extends approximately 120 meters in the
northwest-southeast direction and is about 15
meters wide. It provides access to vessels
moored on the north, east and west sides of the
dock. In December 2013, Lyon measured
depths along the north side of Dock A quay face
which ranged from roughly 4.5 to 8.0 meters.
However, depths along the west side of Dock A
increased to between 8.5 and 9.5 meters. On the
east side of Dock A (inner basin), depths range
from 3.5 to 4.5 meters. However, the inner
basin of Uliga Dock only serves smaller
governmental and private vessels that require
considerably less draft.

Uliga Dock was built using a sheet pile bulkhead
construction method. The construction
methodology involved driving a steel sheet pile
into the seafloor along the perimeter of the pier
with a concrete beam structure, commonly
referred to as a bulkhead, built atop of the steel
sheet pile. This created a watertight barrier in
which the center of the pier structure was filled
with soil from the original seafloor contours up
to the concrete deck.

With this construction method, the sheet piles typically have a metal tie back which anchors
itself in the soil to support the sheet piles. A concrete slab is then poured atop the soil to
complete the pier structure. With the steel sheet piles being located underwater in direct contact
with salt water, they are subjected to corrosion. Depending on a metals interaction with
seawater and air, there are varying degrees of corrosion based upon where the metal is located,
i.e. completely underwater, in the intertidal zone, or the marine zone (above the intertidal zone
and exposed to the air, splashing, salt spray, etc.). The standard rates of corrosion of metals
exposed to saltwater, or marine environments typically range from 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm per year.

In order to reduce the rate of corrosion of the steel, cathodic protection is typically installed, or
applied to the pier structure. A commonly used method of cathodic protection is through the
installation of a sacrificial metal, such as zinc, which is placed in direct contact with the steel.
This attracts the electrical currents that contribute to the corrosion process. The electrical current
runs through the steel structure to the zinc, which will corrode instead of the steel sheet piles (in
the case of Uliga Dock). Cathodic protection in the form of zinc metal was installed at
approximately 58 different locations along the Uliga Dock when it was originally constructed. A
U.S. Navy underwater construction team performed an inspection of the Uliga Dock quay face in
J uly 2013. The underwater construction team subsequently reported that all of the zincs were 90
Dock A facing southeast

Dock A facing northwest


Bollards and curbing along
west side of Dock A

percent disintegrated. Although the disintegration of the
zincs does not result in an immediate vulnerability of
the pier structure, they should be replaced. Otherwise,
corrosion will continue to degrade the structural steel
sheet piles.

In addition to the observations of deteriorated zinc
cathodic protection, the U.S. Navy underwater
construction team also observed that one area of the
quay face appeared to be damaged. There is a blowout,
or damaged section of the steel sheet piles, near the
southwest corner of the quay face that is approximately
2.5 meters high by 1.2 meters wide. This section,
which is located along the bottom base of the quay face,
will also require repair to prevent any of the fill
material from escaping from behind the steel sheet piles. Otherwise, the remaining sections of
the quay face appeared to be stable and in good condition in December 2013 (U.S. Navy, 2013).

Onsite observations made by Lyons in J anuary 2013 indicate the concrete deck surfaces of Dock
A to generally be in good condition. Some portions of the dock
surface show signs of deterioration; selected areas that require some
repair are regarded to be in fair condition.

Eleven bollards, spaced approximately 10 meters apart, are located
along the west side of Dock A to enable the securing of berthed
vessels to the dock. Concrete curbing is interspersed between each of
the bollards. The bollards and concrete curbing along the dock are in
need of re-painting to minimize corrosion and extend the service life
of these supporting dock facilities (Table 3-4).

3.4.2.2 Dock B

Dock B, which is situated southwest of the RMIPA warehouse used by MISC and USAID
Disaster Mitigation Relief Building, extends roughly 40 meters in a northeast-southwest
direction (Figure 3-5). In December 2013, depths along the southeast side of Dock B ranged
from roughly 5.25 to 6 meters.

Dock B was also built using a sheet pile bulkhead construction method. The zinc metals were
installed on the steel sheet piles along both Docks A and B. The zinc metals along Dock B were
also about 90 percent disintegrated in December 2013 and in need of replacement (U.S. Navy,
2013). When replaced, the zinc metals will continue to reduce corrosion of the steel piles.

Four bollards are located along the south side of Dock B. Each bollard is spaced approximately
10 meters apart. Similar to Dock A, concrete curbing is interspersed between each of the
bollards. The bollards and concrete curbing along the dock are in need of re-painting to
minimize corrosion and extend the service life of these supporting dock facilities (Table 3-4).

Photo of deteriorated zinc observed by U.S. Navy

The concrete decking on Dock B is generally in good condition. However, selected areas exhibit
spalding and signs of some surface deterioration, and require repair (Table 3-4).

Facility Condition Rating
A
B
C
D
E
F
Building, support facility or utility system conditions are posing significant safety issues that could endanger port
operations personnel and port users. Immediate repairs are needed.
Building, supporting facility, or utility system is presently abandoned and should be demolished or relocated to
provide additional space for other port uses.
TABLE 3-1
FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
PORT OF MAJURO
Criteria
Building, support facility, or utility system is in relatively good condition, appears to not require any repairs or
improvements, and is already receiving some periodic maintenance.
Building, support facility, or utility system was in fair condition in January 2013 and appears to not require any
immediate repairs or improvements. But, periodic maintenance should be scheduled to extend facility life.
Building, support facility, or utility system is in need of repair, renovation, and/or periodic maintenance to support
or improve the reliability and efficiency of ongoing and future port operations and related services. Repairs,
which are not urgent, ca
Building, support facility or utility system is in poor operating condition, lacks sufficient capacity, or is inoperable,
due to age, damage, and/or lack of maintenance. Potential costs of repair likely exceed the cost of facility or
system replacement.


3.4.3 Buildings Supporting
Interisland Cargo and Passenger
Transport

3.4.3.1 Uliga Dock Warehouse

The Uliga Dock warehouse building is
situated along the northeast side of Dock
B and immediately adjacent to the inner
basin of Uliga Dock. This structure is
apparently used for the storage of some
materials associated with Docks A and B, and may have once provided some limited shop and
office space for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

This structure is a pre-engineered metal building containing a large open storage area, an office
area and a smaller storage room (Table 3-5). A lean-to structure covers one concrete and one
fiberglass holding tank that are believed to have been used for water and fuel storage.

TABLE 3-5
ULIGA DOCK WAREHOUSE CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
FLOOR Concrete Concrete
ROOF Steel Galv. Metal
WALL CMU/Steel Paint
DOORS Hollow Metal Paint
WINDOWS Aluminum Factory
UTILITY Elec. /Tel.
FUNCTION Storage

With the exception of the lean-to which is the structure covering the old fuel tanks on the north
side of the building, the building could beremodeled. For example, the building could be
renovated and used as a marine terminal. However, this option should be compared with the cost
of total building replacement. The leanto structure is severely corroded and requires complete
replacement if its use is to be continued. The metal siding and roofing will require a partial or
total replacement. If the building is renovated, all windows and doors should be replaced, and
the interior refurbished to the building's future function (Table 3-4).

Decking along Dock B

3.4.3.2 U.S. Agency for International Development Disaster Mitigation Relief Building

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Disaster Mitigation Relief Building
was built and is owned by RMIPA and is leased to the Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation
(MISC) and USAID. MISC primarily uses this facility for the temporary storage of domestic
and international cargo that is shipped to the Outer Islands via interisland cargo vessels. This
facility is also to be used by USAID as a transshipment point for the transportation of food,
equipment and supplies following the occurrence of regional disasters.

This structure is a pre-engineered building with a steel rigid frame and concrete floor (Table 3-
6). A masonry wall surrounds three exterior walls. A roll-up door on the east side of the
building enables the loading and unloading of materials from the building. The building
remains in relatively good condition and reflects its recent construction.

TABLE 3-6
USAID DISASTER MITIGATION RELIEF BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Steel Galvanized Metal
WALL CMU/Corrugated Metal Paint
DOORS Roll-Up, Hollow Metal Paint
WINDOWS
UTILITY Electric
FUNCTION Storage

USAID Disaster Mitigation Relief Building

USAID Disaster Mitigation Relief Building

Uliga Dock Warehouse


While this building provides a considerable amount of floor area for cargo storage and handling,
the building does not provide a passenger terminal area where residents can wait prior to a vessel
departure to, or arrival from, the Outer Islands. As stated earlier, this important function could
be achieved through the remodeling or replacement of the Uliga Dock Warehouse building that
is situated behind.Dock.B.

3.4.3.3 Guard House

The guard house is a portable wood structure that serves its functional requirements of housing
security staff for use as a checkpoint for controlling access to and from the Uliga dock (Table 3-
7). It contains a desk, telephone, and VHF radio.

TABLE 3-7
ULIGA DOCK GUARDHOUSE BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
FLOOR Wood Wood
ROOF Wood Galv, Metal
WALL Wood Wood - Paint
DOORS Wood Paint
WINDOWS Wood/Alum. Paint
UTILITY Elec./Tel.
FUNCTION Security


3.4.3.4 Pump Vault

The pump vault is a concrete masonry structure with a concrete roof that houses a saltwater
pump, which is used as a booster pump for the salt-water fire mains (Table 3-8). Adjacent to the
building is a self-contained photovoltaic panel and battery that provides power to a tidal gauge
used to monitor sea level rise at the dock. The vault building and saltwater pump are presently
not serving their intended function to provide pressurized fire protection. In addition, the
concrete masonry wall facing the Lagoon, as well as the edge spalls of the concrete roof, are
degraded from salt spray and require repair (Table 3-4).

TABLE 3-8
ULIGA DOCK PUMP VAULT CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Concrete Concrete
WALL CMU None
WINDOWS
UTILITY Electrical
FUNCTIION Utility


3.4.4 Supporting Utility Systems

3.4.4.1 Electrical Distribution and Overhead Lighting Systems

The Marshalls Energy Company provides electrical power to the island of Majuro. The main
power plant, located at Delap Dock, contains seven diesel-engine generators. The current
maximum capacity of the existing generators is around 18 megawatts (MW), but the plant can
comfortably produce about 10 MW. Current peak demand and output nears 8.5 MW (Wakefield,
2013). The plant generation bus is operated at 4,160 volts; but, outside the plant, electricity is
distributed using 15 kilovolt (KV) distribution arrangements.

From the Delap power plant towards the east end of Majuro Atoll, an overhead 15-kilovolt
electrical distribution line and an underground 15-kilovolt electrical distribution line deliver
power. The overhead distribution line is used to provide primary electrical service to homes,
businesses, and restaurants while the underground distribution line delivers service to the Capitol
building, the Hospital, Uliga Dock, and other essential facilities.

The underground distribution line runs along the main shoreline roadway. The electrical feed for
the Uliga Dock tees off the main underground distribution line to a transformer in front of an old
abandoned Majuro Terminal and Stevedoring Company (MSTCO) warehouse building. This
building is located along the south side of the primary vehicular access to Uliga Dock. The
transformer reduces the distribution to 480 volts where it continues underground to Uliga Dock.
The distribution line connects to a seawater pump station adjacent to the Uliga Dock warehouse
and then extends to a manhole adjacent to the warehouse. A feed from that manhole is
connected to various electrical panels within the warehouse building. The distribution line
continues to another manhole at the southern corner of the Uliga Dock warehouse and then
proceeds northwest along Uliga Dock A to feed overhead lights (Figure 3-6).

Several overhead light standards provide general lighting to selected portions of the Uliga Dock
area. These standards are located and provide lighting in the vicinity of the boat launching ramp
southeast of the Outer Island Fish Market Center, the Uliga Dock warehouse behind Dock B,
three points along Dock A, as well as the dock fronting the Outer Island Fish Market Center.

Overhead lighting along Dock B Overhead lighting along Dock A

3.4.4.2 Fuel Supply and Distribution System

Mobil Oil Micronesia operates a fuel tank farm which is located approximately 0.5 kilometer
south of the intersection of the main shoreline roadway and the primary vehicular access to Uliga
Dock. Mobil Oil Micronesia makes periodic deliveries of various fuels to this tank farm via fuel
lines located at Uliga Dock.

Oil tankers periodically calling upon Uliga Dock discharge fuels via two six-inch fuel intake
lines that are located along the west side of Dock A and the southeast side of Dock B (Figure 3-
7). These fuel lines are covered by
paneling along both Docks A and B to
provide access to the lines when
necessary. The supply lines continue to
the main shoreline roadway where the
line turns south along the Lagoon side
of the shoreline roadway before
terminating at the fuel tank farm.

There is one fuel manifold along Dock
A and one fuel manifold along Dock B.
These manifolds enable the distribution
of fuel from the delivery of fuel farm
tankers along Docks A and B, which
gets sent to a nearby tank farm,
approximately 1 km down the road from the Uliga dock.

Fuel lines along Dock B
PORT OF MAJ URO MASTER PLAN
ULIGA DOCK AREA
FUEL DISTRIBUTION

3.4.4.3 Water

The Majuro Water and Sewer Company (MWSC) provides potable water and fire flow to the
Uliga Dock area via two separate water distribution systems.

Potable Water Distribution

There are two parallel 12-inch water mains that extend along the main shoreline roadway from
catchment tanks and treatment plant at the Amata Kabua International Airport to the primary
vehicular access to Uliga Dock. The mains in the vicinity of the Airport are 12-inch lines, but
then reduce to 10, 8, and 6-inch lines as the mains progress towards the Rita area of Majuro.

One potable water main is located along the primary vehicular access to Uliga Dock. This main
is a 10-inch line that connects to a 75-millimeter lateral to the Uliga Dock. A water lateral
connects the main to the western face of Dock A. There are two connections along Dock A that
provide access to potable water (Figure 3-8).

The distribution of potable water to Uliga Dock is unreliable; this is primarily due to larger
issues relating to Majuros overall water distribution system. Informal discussions with MWSC
representatives indicate that the overall water distribution system on Majuro is in need of some
maintenance, repair, and improvements (Table 3-4) (Stewart/Deacon/Pressler, 2013).

One of the two main water distribution lines, which is approximately 40 years old, has
degraded seals at the joints which cause significant leakage.
Approximately half of the water that is pumped from the airport treatment plant is
unaccounted for due to leakage through pipes as well as illegal connections.
The main pumping system has no backup system and is at the end of its economic life.
With the airports water catchment system being the main supply of fresh water, the
volume is highly dependent upon weather patterns. A combination of low rainfall events
with a leaky distribution system requires the need for constant rationing and monitoring
of the fresh water supply.
The water pressure in the water distribution system fluctuates depending on water
consumption, available water supply, etc.

Due to the nature of the water system, any requests for larger volumes of fresh water have to be
arranged with MWSC, which will make deliveries of potable water via truck. In view of this
requirement, MWSC strongly recommends the use of onsite fresh water catchment and storage
rather than reliance upon MWSC for future water deliveries (Stewart/Deacon/Pressler, 2013). In
this regard, a couple of water catchment and storage tank systems have already been constructed
adjacent to offices and support facilities at Uliga Dock.

Larger system issues associated with Majuros water distribution system are further compounded
by the condition and unreliability of the water laterals (both potable and fire suppression) at
Uliga Dock. The potable water line at the Uliga Dock is in need of replacement. The entire line,
as well as related valves and distribution services along the

ULIGA DOCK AREA
WATER DISTRIBUTION

face of Dock A, are nearing the end of their life cycle. The original water system at the dock did
not have any water meters installed. Since MWSC had no way of monitoring the distribution of
water at the docks, they incapacitated the distribution valves by placing concrete over the valves
(Tiobech, 2013) rendering them inoperable. As of May 2013, the valve covers were unable to be
opened, possibly due to concrete binding the covers shut.

Fire Flow Distribution

A seawater line along the main shoreline roadway distributes seawater to fire hydrants, as well as
toilets at businesses and residences. A 150-mm diameter lateral extends from the main shoreline
road, along the south side of the primary Uliga Dock access road, to a fire hydrant at the entrance
to Uliga Dock (Figure 3-8). There is also a saltwater pump enclosed in a CMU building next to
the Uliga Dock Warehouse, which was intended to provide pressure to the system, but currently
does not.

The saltwater distribution system itself is not reliable enough to support a water pressure that is
adequate for fire suppression. During a recent fire on Majuro, local fire trucks were only able to
obtain a trickle of water for fire suppression. In response, airport fire trucks were dispatched to
extinguish the fire (Chong-Gum, 2013).

The existing fire hydrant water supply is pump-based and has no emergency back up power.
Consequently, when the power fails, there is not enough water pressure in the hydrant system to
suppress fires.

Even if adequate flow were available, the fire hydrant at the entrance to Uliga Dock is severely
corroded and in need of replacement (Table 3-4). This reflects, in part, that fire hydrants tied to
the saltwater distribution system are not regularly flow tested or flushed, nor are the pumps U/L
or FM (industry approval agencies) listed for fire protection service. In addition, Majuro Water
and Sewer Company has no fire hydrant or main fire operation and maintenance program
(Stewart/Deacon/Pressler, 2013).

3.4.4.4 Wastewater

As-built drawings of the island-wide water and sewer system show a 450mm gravity sewer line
running along the main roadway in front of the Uliga Dock. There is also a smaller 150mm
sewer line that starts in front of the USAID warehouse and traverses along the Uliga Dock road
to the main 450mm sewer line. This sewer line services the buildings surrounding the Uliga
Dock complex.

3.5 DELAP DOCK

3.5.1 General

Delap Dock is the primary commercial dock in Majuro Atoll (Figure 3-9). This dock
predominantly serves international cargo vessels that deliver a wide variety of imported food and
household items, construction equipment and materials, as well as diesel fuel, jet fuels, and
refined gasoline products. Secondarily, interisland cargo vessels periodically offload copra to
the dock where it is delivered to the Tobolar Copra Processing Authority (TCPA), a coconut
processing operation located on the northeast side of Delap Dock. A limited number of other
international vessels use Delap Dock to load coconut oil produced by TCPA. International
fishing vessels also make occasional use of Delap Dock for purse seine net repairs, fuel
resupplies, and other vessel maintenance.

Local stevedores from Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company (MSTCO) process the loading
and unloading of imports and exports to and from Delap Dock. A 3.2 hectare cargo handling
area, equipment repair shop, container freight station, and MSTCO administrative offices support
the processing and storage of container and general cargo.

The Marshalls Energy Company (MEC) occupies a significant portion of Delap Dock.
Approximately 0.803 hectares of land on Delap Dock include facilities associated with the MEC
power plant and related administrative offices.

RMI Ports Authority operates and maintains an administrative facility at the back of the Delap
Dock complex. This facility is accessed by RMIPA personnel and private lessees from the main
shoreline roadway.

3.5.2 Main Delap Dock

3.5.2.1 Vessel Berth and Quay Face

The main Delap Dock is situated on the southeast side of Majuro Lagoon. East to west, the main
dock extends about 308 meters.

Lyon measured depths along the quay face of the main dock in December 2013. Depths along
the quay face ranged between 11.5 and 13.0 meters in depth. Berth depths become increasingly
deeper with increased distance from the dock.

Delap Dock was constructed in the mid to late 1970s utilizing a similar sheet pile bulkhead type
construction as the Uliga Dock. The sheet piles were driven into the seafloor with a concrete
bulkhead constructed atop of the sheet piles. The concrete bulkhead is mostly out of the water
with the average lower low waterline located about 60 centimeters above the bottom of the
concrete bulkhead. There are also a series of tieback rods from the steel sheet piles that extend
back into the soil behind the quay face and attach to another structure set in the soil which is
referred to as a deadmans anchor. The purpose of this deadmans anchor is to provide an anchor
in the soil for additional support from the face of the dock structure which consists of the metal
sheet piles and concrete bulkhead.

The underwater inspection that was performed by the U.S.
Navy in J uly 2013 included inspections of both the Uliga
and Delap Docks. During the inspection, the divers noted
an area along the center of the main dock face that
appeared to have sustained some collision damage. This
area is approximately 4.5 meters tall by 3 meters wide.
The remaining areas of the structure appeared to be in
stable condition. However, the divers did notice that there
were no visible signs of cathodic protection installed
along the sheet piling. It is recommended that the
damaged section of the quay face be repaired and proper
cathodic protection installed.

Photo of damaged quay face as observed by U.S. Navy
DELAP DOCK LAYOUT PORT OF MAJ URO MASTER PLAN

3.5.2.2 Bollards, Cleats and Fenders

Fenders

The dock face of the main dock includes fenders that are
situated below most of the bollards along the main dock.
However, some fenders have evidently been torn from the
dock face. The remaining fenders are functional, ranging
from fair to good condition in J anuary 2013, but showing
signs of considerable wear. RMI Ports Authority's Seaport
Manager reported that existing fenders are in need of
replacement (Tiobech, 2013).

The replacement of all fenders is recommended to ensure
adequate protection of the dock face (Table 3-9). The potential
installation of other styles of fenders, such as those at Port of
Hilo in Hawaii, should be considered to afford greater
protection to the dock face.

Bollards and Cleats

21 double bitt bollards and 20 cleats are installed along the northern
edge of the dock. The bollards and cleats are interspersed apart at 15-
meter intervals. Concrete curbing is installed between all bollards and
cleats. Various sections of the concrete curbing are in disrepair due to
possible damage from the operation of cargo handling equipment
along the dock apron.

Fenders at Pier One, Port of Hilo, Hawaii


Facility
Condition
Score
Vessel Berth (depth, width, length) B
Bollards, Cleats and Fenders C Replace bollards and fenders. Repair or replace concrete curbing.
Dock Apron C
Patch deteriorated sections of concrete dock. In long term, expand
width of dock apron.
Quay Face C Install cathodic protection and repair underwater collision damage
Vessel Berth (depth, width,length) A
Bollards, Cleats and Fenders C Replace bollards and fenders. Patch deteriorated concrete sections.
Concrete Decking B Patch deteriorated concrete sections
Dock Face, Bollards, Cleats, Fenders C See Chapter 6
Concrete Decking C See Chapter 6
Cargo Handling & Container Storage Area C
Remove all discarded solid waste material, equipment, and supplies
unrelated to port operations.
RMIPA Office Building A
MSTCO Office & CFS Warehouse B
Delap Guard House A
Container Yard Entry Office F Demolish building. Shift functions to Guard House.
Abandoned Restroom/Shower Building F Demolish building.
Electrical Generator Buildings A/F
Maintain new building. Remove abandoned electrical generator
building.
Stevedore Recreational Building A/D
Replace adjacent container storage; construct supporting structure that
connects to recreational building.
Boat House D Remove building from cargo handling and container storage area
Yard-Shop Office D
Demolish building. Replace w/new facility that combines stevedore
waiting area, port maintenance functions, & storage needs.
Delap Dock Office D
Demolish building. See recommended improvements for Yard-Shop
Office.
Fuel Building D Construct new facility to semi-enclose fuel supply/distribution system.
Dock Maintenance Building C Evaluate options for facility renovation
Water Storage/Distribution D
Install water storage tank that would be connected to MWSC system.
Replace potable distribution lines, valves and fire hydrants.
Maintenance of water storage and distribution system should be made
by RMIPA
Fuel Supply/Distribution C
Relocate fuel supply and distribution lines in conjunction with eventual
paving of cargo handling and storage area.
Electrical Energy Distribution C
Disconnect electrical distribution to buildings recommended for
demolition. Modify backup power supply to enable automatic startup
and transfer of power from backup generator. Install more 480v outlets
for refrigerated containers. See Chapter 6.
TABLE 3-9
DELAP DOCK
Main Dock
East Dock
West Dock
Location/Existing Facilities
Utilities and Vehicular Access
Buildings


In J anuary 2013, all of the bollards and cleats along the main Delap Dock contained a
significant amount of rust and corrosion. These conditions are likely due to long-term
exposure to salt water and a lack of periodic maintenance.

The size and intervals of existing bollards suggest that existing bollards along the main
dock were originally sized to support a load of roughly 20 metric tons (200kN). In the
context of recent vessel traffic, existing bollards appear to be undersized to support the
berthing of larger international cargo vessels.

Lyon Associates reviewed ship particulars for all cargo vessels and oil tankers that called
upon the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012. This review identified Mell Seringat, a
cargo vessel which has a deadweight tonnage of 17,159 metric tons, as one of the larger
incoming cargo vessels to the Port of Majuro. Angel 2, an oil/chemical tanker having a
deadweight tonnage of 7,682 metric tons, represents the largest incoming oil tanker.
Available design criteria (Thoresen, 2010) enabled the calculation of fully loaded vessel
displacement for the largest vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro's main dock. This
information was applied to available design criteria (Thoresen, 2010) that correlate
maximum vessel displacement with bollard loads and spacing intervals (Table 3-10).
Available design criteria suggest that bollards along the main Delap Dock should be
capable of:

Supporting roughly 30 metric tons (300kN) of load for the berthing of the largest
oil tanker. Bollards should be spaced approximately 20 meters apart.
Supporting up to 60 metric tons (600kN) of load for the berthing of the largest
incoming cargo vessel. Bollards should be spaced about 25 meters apart.

TABLE 3-10
BOLLARD LOAD P AND APPROXIMATE SPACING
Ships with
displacement in
tons up to
Bollard
Load P
In kN
Approximate spacing
between bollards
(meters)
Bollard load normal
fromthe berth in
kN/mberth
Bollard load along
the berth in kN/m
berth
2000 100 10 15 10
5000 200 15 15 10
10,000 300 20 20 15
20,000 500 20 25 20
30,000 600 25 30 20
50,000 800 25 35 20
100,000 1,000 30 40 25
200,000 1,500 30 50 30
>200,000 2,000 35 65 40
Source: Thoresen, 2010.


The preceding conclusions concerning potential bollard loads are associated with larger
cargo vessels and oil tankers that are presently calling upon the Port of Majuro. Chapter
Four concerning marine transport trends identifies the potential size of cargo vessels and
oil tankers that may call upon the Port of Majuro by the end of the coming decade.
Vessels having a greater fully loaded displacement will generate increased load
requirements for bollards along the main dock.

3.5.2.3 Dock Apron

The dock apron extends about 15 meters south of the north-facing main dock. A chain-link
fence and two related gates are located along the south end of the dock apron to provide security
to the adjacent cargo handling area, as well as vehicular access for cargo handling equipment
used by local stevedores.

The width of dock aprons in most ports typically range from 15 to 50 meters depending upon the
type of equipment used for cargo loading and unloading (Thoresen, 2010). A 20-meter width is
considered to be a minimum acceptable apron width (Agerschou et al, 2004).

In J anuary 2013, Lyon Associates observed the nighttime unloading of containers from a
container cargo vessel berthed along the main Delap Dock, as well as the related movement of
unloaded containers to the adjoining container storage yard via toplift equipment. Toplift
operations by a capable, experienced operator required the full width of the dock apron that
allowed for little or no margin of error. This reality suggests that the width of the dock apron
needs to be expanded even if future cargo handling continues to be made only through the use of
toplifts and forklifts (Table 3-9).

The dock apron, which is constructed of concrete, is in fair to good condition and varies over the
course of the entire dock length. Areas exhibiting greater wear and deterioration appear to have
been influenced by cargo handling operations, e.g., movement of containerized cargo by forklifts
and toplift equipment. Forklifts and toplifts move containerized and general cargo from the dock
apron to an unpaved container storage yard. Smaller gravel on the surface of unpaved container
storage yard is carried to the concrete dock apron on the tires of forklifts and toplifts. Smaller
pieces of gravel have, over time, been gradually ground into selected areas of the concrete dock
apron. Ultimately, selected areas of the concrete dock surface have been impacted and damaged
to varying degrees by the higher wheel loads of forklifts and toplifts.

Delap Dock Apron


The patching of damaged concrete areas, as well as the paving of the entire cargo handling and
storage area, would significantly help reduce future damages to the decking of the Delap Dock
apron (Table 3-9). A paved concrete surface would concurrently help increase the efficiency of
cargo handling operations.

3.5.3 Delap East Dock

A second dock, referred in the master plan as Delap East Dock, is situated on the east side of
Delap Dock (Figure 3-9). This dock is primarily used by interisland cargo vessels for the
offloading of copra to the Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority.

3.5.3.1 Vessel Berth

Delap East Dock extends approximately 82 meters in
length. Water depths along the quay wall, which were
measured by Lyon Associates in December 2013,
ranged from 4 to 12 meters. Use of the entire dock
length is sometimes constrained by the moorage of
government patrol vessels on the south end of this
dock.

Otherwise, the length, depth, and width of this berth
appear to be adequate to support the unloading of
copra from interisland cargo vessels. The largest
interisland vessel used by Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation is the vessel Aemman. This
vessel has a vessel length of 48.55 meters, a breadth of 8.5 meters, and a 3.2 meter draught.


3.5.3.2 Bollards, Cleats and Fenders

Four bollards and five cleats are located along Delap East Dock. The bollards and cleats are both
spaced approximately 15 meters apart. Fenders are installed below most of the bollards along
the dock face, although some were missing in May 2013. Similar to the main dock, the bollards
and cleats also exhibit considerable rust and corrosion and require replacement (Table 3-9).

The size and spacing of the bollards suggest that existing bollards were originally rated to
support a load of roughly 20 metric tons. To assess the adequacy of the bollards loads, Lyon
Associates examined the characteristics of the interisland passenger and cargo vessel Aemann.
This vessel is the newest and largest vessel owned and operated by Marshall Islands Shipping
Company. This vessel is used for the inbound transport of copra, the outbound shipment of other
domestic freight, and the transportation of passengers to and from the Outer Islands.

The design of any new bollards on the Delap East Dock should assume, in part, the primary use
of the dock by the largest interisland cargo/passenger vessel. The Aemman has a deadweight
tonnage of 547.82 metric tons. Lyon Associates estimates that the fully loaded displacement of
this vessel is approximately 175+tons. Using available design criteria, bollards along the East
Dock should be capable of supporting a 10 ton load and be spaced roughly 10 meters apart.

3.5.3.2 Concrete Decking

The concrete decking of the Delap East Dock appears to be in relatively good condition.
Selected areas of the decking may require some limited patching (Table 3-9). Cargo handling
along the East Dock is primarily manual as copra deliveries to Tobolar are typically loaded in
bags and carried by stevedores into one of the adjacent Tobolar warehouses. The infrequency of
heavy equipment operations along this dock has helped sustain the condition of the concrete
decking.

3.5.4 Delap West Dock

A third dock is located on the west side of the main Delap Dock (Figure 3-9). For the purposes
of this master plan, this dock is referred to as Delap West Dock.

This dock extends about 64 meters in a north-south direction. Water depths along the quay wall
range between 6.25 and 11.50 meters.

A small boat was berthed at this dock in J anuary 2013 that apparently supports activities of the
RMI Ministry of Public Works. Otherwise, no other use of the dock appeared to have been made
during Lyon Associates 11-day field visit in J anuary 2013.

3.5.4.1 Dock Face, Bollards, Cleats and Fenders

In J anuary 2013, Lyon Associates observed considerable deterioration of the dock face. Some
well-worn fenders were in place along the dock face. No bollards or cleats were installed along
the West Dock.


Potential repairs to this dock should be considered in the context of future use since its existing
use appears to be limited. Representatives of Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company
suggested to Lyon Associates in J anuary 2013 that the Delap West Dock should be rehabilitated
and used as a small fisheries dock. This potential use and fishery dock needs are discussed in
Chapter Six concerning future port facility needs.

3.5.4.2 Concrete Decking

Concrete decking and curbing along the Delap West
Dock are in fair to poor condition. Some areas have
been damaged or excessively worn by cargo
handling equipment operations. The cause of these
damages was previously described in the description
of the dock apron (see section 3.5.2.3). The repair
of concrete decking and curbing should be
undertaken in the context of planned uses of this
dock, which are recommended in Chapter Six.

3.5.5 Cargo Handling and Container Storage
Area

The cargo handling and container storage area behind the dock apron includes roughly 3.2
hectares of land area that is presently used for the movement and storage of dry and refrigerated
containers, general palletized cargo, and empty containers (Figure 3-9). Within this area, there
are several structures that directly support the maintenance and repair of cargo handling
equipment, as well as provide enclosed areas for stevedore rest and recreation area. Existing
structures are more specifically described in section 3.5.6.

3.5.5.1 Stored Solid Waste Material and Other Smaller Equipment

The efficiency of the cargo handling area is hampered significantly by:

the storage of various solid waste materials in selected areas of the overall cargo
handling area. These materials are not related to stevedoring operations or the storage of
cargo.
encroachment of the western portion of the Delap container yard by the RMI Ministry of
Public Works.

All discarded solid waste material and other equipment and supplies unrelated to port and
stevedoring operations need to be removed from the cargo handling area as soon as possible.
The presence of these materials significantly reduces the effective amount of area available for
cargo handling. They also represent obstacles that hinder the efficient movement of cargo
handling equipment in the container yard.

3.5.5.2 Lack of Paved Surface

The second issue impacting the efficiency and cost of stevedoring operations is the lack of a
continuous paved surface over the entire expanse of the cargo handling area.


"Very even pavements are required where forklifts and other small wheel
equipment are used. Both the high front-wheel loads for forklifts, as well as the
grinding effect of their turning rear wheels when the forklift is empty and the rear
wheels carry the full load of the counterweight, are hard on pavements"
(Agerschou, 2004).

There are, at least, three options to consider for the potential paving of the cargo handling area.

1. Bituminous pavements are easier and less costly to repair. But pavements in cargo
handling areas are frequently exposed to petroleum products leaking from cargo handling
equipment. These and other chemicals sometimes soften bituminous pavements. This
characteristic can sometimes lead to their complete disintegration (Agerschou, 2004).

2. Concrete pavements in cargo handling areas are more resistant to most chemicals and can
be easily cleaned. At the same time, concrete pavements are more susceptible to cracking
when differential settlements occur. This characteristic makes it more difficult to operate
small-wheel equipment (Agerschou, 2004).

3. Most general cargo and container terminals use smaller concrete blocks, which have been
used for heavy duty pavements for over 25 years (Howe and MacLeod, 2008). The
installation of concrete blocks requires an underlayment of stone, gravel, sand or other
materials (Agerschou, 2004).

The use of concrete block pavements has been used based on the ability of concrete block
pavements to withstand severe dynamic and static loadings, resistance to fuel and hydraulic oil
damage, and settlement. This pavement option can also be attractive in terms of construction
cost and is often more economical than asphalt or rigid concrete pavements. While concrete
block pavements have performed well for many cargo-handling areas, there are instances where
premature pavement failures have occurred. Pavement failures have occurred in container
terminals using heavier container handling equipment, e.g., Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes,
Automatic Guided Vehicles and Straddle Carriers, that create channelized wheel paths (Howe
and MacLeod, 2008).

The preceding review of pavement options suggests that the use concrete block pavement in the
cargo handling area is an attractive approach. The construction of a concrete block pavement
may possibly generate some savings in construction costs. The availability of, at least, one local
construction company in Majuro that makes construction blocks, which meet the quality and
specifications of industry standards, might enable the use of locally manufactured concrete
blocks for construction of a paved cargo handling area. Although, it is likely that any local
company would need to have the design and manufacturing process approved and independently
tested by a third party to insure that the blocks meet the rigid requirements and specifications for
a heavy block pavement application.

Each of these preceding options will require a more detailed review during any future design of a
paved cargo handling area. This review will need to, at least, consider alternate costs and the
risks associated with each option. An important consideration associated with the potential
design of this improvement will also be the type of cargo handling equipment that will be used at
Delap Dock in the future. This topic is addressed in Chapters Four and Six.


3.5.6 Buildings that Support Cargo Handling, Transit Storage, and Port Operations

There are several buildings on Delap Dock that support stevedoring operations related to cargo
handling and related cargo transit storage. In addition, there are other facilities owned and
operated by the RMI Ports Authority that are used to support port administration. The function
and condition of these facilities are described in the following paragraphs and summarized in
Table 3-9.

3.5.6.1 RMI Ports Authority Office Building

The RMI Ports Authority owns a two-story office building along the southern boundary of the
overall Delap Dock area. The ground floor of this building provides floor space for some local
shipping agents. Floor space on the second floor contains offices occupied by RMIPA
management and other administrative staff, a conference room, and other administrative areas.

The building structure is comprised of a concrete frame, floor and roof slabs with concrete
masonry walls. Other building characteristics are summarized in Table 3-11. In J anuary 2013,
this building was found to be in good physical condition and receiving daily and periodic
maintenance.

TABLE 3-11
RMIPA OFFICE BUILDING CHARACERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
FLOOR Concrete Tile
WALL CMU Plaster/Paint
DOORS Wood Paint
UTILITY Elec./Tel./Plumbing
FUNCTION Office


3.5.6.2 MSTCO Office and CFS Warehouse

The Delap stevedore building is situated immediately east of the RMIPA office building along
the main shoreline road. This building is occupied by Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company
(MSTCO) that presently provides all stevedoring services at Delap Dock for the RMI Ports
Authority.

An upper floor and part of the ground floor of this structure houses the management and
administrative offices of MSTCO. The ground floor also includes an enclosed cargo transit
storage area where local consignees receive and
retrieve a portion of incoming container freight
station (CFS) cargo that is shipped to the Port of
Majuro within one container.

This building is a pre-engineered metal building
consisting of a tall warehouse portion and a two-story
office within the building envelope. The office
portion consists of a concrete floor supported on a
concrete and steel frame. Other building
characteristics are summarized in Table 3-12.

This building was observed to be in fair to good condition in J anuary 2013; the building interior
exhibited signs of limited maintenance. Despite this constraint, this building can continue to
serve its present functions. However, alternate uses of this building are discussed in Chapter Six.

TABLE 3-12
MSTCO OFFICE AND CFS WAREHOUSE
BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Steel Galv. Metal
WALL CMU/Steel Paint
FUNCTION Office/Storage


.3.5.6.3 Delap Guard House

Delap Guard House is located along the main shoreline road and represents the initial check-
point where incoming visitors must pass and gain clearance before entering Delap Dock's cargo
handling area. This facility is manned by security personnel from the RMI Ports Authority.

The building consists of a concrete masonry bearing wall, exterior columns with sloped wood
truss roof, as well as a shingle roof covering. Other building characteristics are summarized in
Table 3-13. This building is a relatively new structure that appeared to be in good condition in
J anuary 2013.

This facility requires daily maintenance of the
building exterior and concrete sidewalk that provides visitor access to a front service window.
Vehicular traffic entering and departing from the cargo handling area, as well as traffic passing
along the main shoreline road, transport dust and debris onto the building exterior and concrete
sidewalk area.

The presence of two security checkpoint facilities at the cargo handling area entrance appears to
be a duplication of security facilities. Although, the container yard entry office building (on the
west side of the Delap entrance), which is also located at cargo handling entrance, may have
represented the only security facility prior to the construction of the new guard house. Given the
condition of the container yard entry office building, the newer guard house should continue to
be used as the sole checkpoint facility.


3.5.6.4 Container Yard Entry Office

The container yard entry office is situated at the vehicular entrance to the container storage yard,
immediately west of the guard house. This structure is apparently used as a checkpoint for cargo
consignees, other visitors and vehicles
leaving the container storage yard.

The one-story building consists of a concrete
masonry bearing wall with a concrete roof
that has been overtopped with a wood frame
and corrugated metal roof. Other building
characteristics are summarized in Table 3-
14.

The building is in poor condition, is
substandard in serving its functional need,
and has exceeded its useful life. Further, it
duplicates the purpose of the new adjacent
guardhouse. It is recommended that this
building be demolished and that the newer guardhouse be used as the sole security facility at the
entrance to the cargo handling area (Table 3-9).

TABLE 3-13
DELAP GUARD HOUSE BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Wood Galv. Metal
DOORS Wood Paint
WINDOWS Aluminum. Factory
UTILITY Elec./Tel/Plumbing.
FUNCTIION Office


3.5.6.5 Abandoned Restroom/Shower Building

An abandoned restroom building is situated in southwest corner of the Delap Dock area along
the north side of the main shoreline road. This facility contains a concrete foundation with
concrete masonry walls and a corrugated metal roof. Other building characteristics are
summarized in Table 3-15. This facility
should be demolished and removed from the
Delap Dock area as it serves no function to
RMIPA, Majuro Stevedore and Terminal
Company, or other port users (Table 3-9).

TABLE 3-15
ABANDONED RESTROOM/SHOWER
Item
Description
Structure Finish
DOORS Wood Paint
LOUVERS Wood Stain
UTILITY None
FUNCTION Restroom/Shower
TABLE 3-14
CONTAINER YARD ENTRY OFFICE
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Concrete/Wood Galv. Metal
DOORS Wood Paint
WINDOWS Wood/Aluminum. Paint/Factory
UTILITY Elec./Tel.
FUNCTION Office


3.5.6.6 Electrical Generator Buildings

An electrical generator building is situated
on the north side of the RMIPA office
building. This facility houses a 50
kilowatt generator which provides an
electrical back-up supply to the RMIPA
office building.

The electrical generator building is a
recently built concrete masonry structure
that contains a concrete floor, no
windows, and a concrete roof. Other
building characteristics are summarized in
Table 3-16. In J anuary 2013, this
structure appeared to be in relatively good
condition and should continue to serve its
intended function.

TABLE 3-16
ELECTRICAL GENERATOR BUILDINGS CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
WINDOWS
UTILITY Electrical.
FUNCTION Utility


There is also an abandoned electrical generator/storage building
that is situated between the MSTCO building (as described in
3.5.6.2) and the container yard entry office (as described in
3.5.6.4). This building consists of a concrete masonry bearing
wall and a concrete roof and can be seen in the photo to the right.

The original purpose of this structure has been replaced by the
newer electrical generator building and is now underutilized for
storage. Its useful life has been exceeded, and its function can be
more effectively addressed through its demolition and the
construction of a new storage building, or the storage of supplies
in another existing building on Delap Dock (Table 3-9).

3.5.6.7 Delap Stevedore Recreational Building

A recreational building for local stevedores is located along the west boundary of the Delap
Dock area. This facility provides a rest and relaxation area for stevedores working at Delap
Dock, mainly in overnight operations.

This is a relatively new structure consisting of a concrete masonry wall and a sloped wood-
framed roof with corrugated metal roofing. Other building characteristics are summarized in
Table 3-17. The storage of some supplies is located in an adjacent cargo container.

TABLE 3-17
STEVEDORE RECREATIONAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
FLOOR Concrete Tile
FUNCTION Social/Entertainment


The stevedore recreational building is in good condition and should continue to serve its function
over a normal useful life of many more years. However, the adjacent container storage is a
makeshift answer to a storage need. This need should be addressed through the construction of a
new supporting structure that could be connected to the recreational building (Table 3-9).

3.5.6.8 Boat House

A small boathouse is situated along the west boundary of the Delap Dock area, immediately
north of the recreational building. The structure is used to house a small boat owned by
MSTCO.

This structure is a wood-framed structure built upon a concrete foundation. The front wall of
this building is open, but enclosed by a chain-link fence. Other building characteristics are
summarized in Table 3-18. In J anuary 2013, this structure was in fair to poor condition.

The location of this building within the cargo handling area is questionable since its function
does not directly support stevedoring or general port operations. Its presence within the cargo
handling area reduces the effective land area that is available for cargo handling. For this reason,
it is recommended that the building and small boat be removed from the cargo handling area
(Table 3-9).


TABLE 3-18
BOAT HOUSE CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
WALL Wood Paint
DOORS Metal Fence Galv.
WINDOWS Fence Galv.
UTILITY
FUNCTION Storage


3.5.6.9 Delap Yard-Shop Office

The Yard-Shop Office is situated along the south side of the dock apron between two of three
gate openings that provide access from the dock apron to the cargo handling area. The building
appears to be primarily used as a place for stevedores to wait for incoming cargo vessels to berth
along the main dock until cargo unloading begins.

This building is a wood framed structure that is supported by two attached containers. Other
building characteristics are summarized in Table 3-19. This building appeared to be in fair to
poor condition in J anuary 2013. This building should be demolished and replaced with a new
facility that combines the need for stevedore waiting areas with other stevedoring functions
(Table 3-9).

TABLE 3-19
YARD-SHOP BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Concrete/Wood Galv. Metal
DOORS Wood Paint
WINDOWS Wood/Aluminum. Paint/Factory
UTILITY Elec./Tel.
FUNCTION Office


3.5.6.10 Delap Dock Office

A small dock office is located along the easternmost gate opening between the dock apron and
the cargo handling area. It is unclear whether this facility serves any administrative purpose,
with the exception of it being a storage location for the control center of the Delap security
camera equipment. It is believed that it also provides another covered waiting/rest area for
stevedores.

This building is a repurposed shipping container set on concrete foundation blocks. The walls of
the container shell have been covered with corrugated metal siding. Other characteristics of this
structure are summarized in Table 3-20. In J anuary 2013, this building was observed to be in
fair to poor condition.
Similar to the yard office building, this structure should be replaced by a new building that
addresses stevedore employee and supply storage needs (Table 3-9) as well as a secure area for
the security system control center. Smaller structures scattered at various points throughout the
cargo handling area contribute to a reduction of the land area that is available for cargo handling
and container storage.
TABLE 3-20
DELAP DOCK OFFICE BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
FLOOR Metal Wood
ROOF Metal Galv, Metal
WALL Metal Paint
WINDOWS
UTILITY Elec./Security
FUNCTION Office


3.5.6.11 Fuel Building

This fuel building provides shelter to the fuel manifold, valves, as well as supply and distribution
lines located on the south side of the dock apron. Oil tankers deliver fuels to the main dock,
which are transported via a 16-inch line to the Marshall Energy Company tank farm. MEC
storage tanks are located on the south side of the main shoreline road across from Delap Dock.

The fuel building is a concrete masonry structure that includes a wood framed roof with
corrugated roofing. Other characteristics associated with this structure are summarized in Table
3-21. This structure is in poor condition. A new facility should be constructed to semi-enclose
fuel supply and distribution system connections and provide a safer operational location for the
resupply of MEC fuel storage tanks and the occasional distribution of diesel fuels to vessels
requesting the purchase of fuel (Table 3-9).

TABLE 3-21
FUEL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
WALL CMU Paint
DOORS Metal Fence Galv.
WINDOWS Wood Paint
UTILITY Elec.
FUNCTION Utility


3.5.6.12 Delap Dock Maintenance Building

The Delap Dock Maintenance Building is situated along the east side of the cargo handling area.
This facility is used by local stevedores for the maintenance, repair and storage of cargo handling
equipment.

This structure, which appears to have been constructed in at least three phases over time,
contains steel frame columns and beams along with wood roof trusses that are covered with
corrugated metal roofing. The front wall of the structure is open to enable convenient vehicular
access. Other characteristics of this structure are summarized in Table 3-22. This building is
considered to be in fair condition based upon observations in J anuary 2013.

While the basic structure could be utilized in a renovated structure, the exterior wall enclosure
and interior partitions will require replacement (Table 3-9). In addition, the north end of this
may need to be demolished to enable a potential widening of the dock apron. However, prior to
completing any specific improvements to the building, a more detailed study of this structure
should be made in the context of equipment maintenance and repair needs, as well as planned
improvements to the overall container yard area.

TABLE 3-22
DELAP DOCK MAINTENANCE BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Item
Description
Structure Finish
ROOF Steel/Wood Galv. Metal
WALL CMU/Wood Galv. Metal
DOORS Wood/Metal Paint
WINDOWS
UTILITY Elec/Tel/Plumbing
FUNCTION Maintenance/Storage



3.5.7 Supporting Utilities

Delap Dock includes water, electrical, and fuel systems that are installed to support general port
operations, cargo handling and container storage, fuel deliveries by oil tankers, and the
distribution of diesel fuels to incoming fishing and other vessels. The type and condition of
these facilities are described in the following paragraphs.

3.5.7.1 Electrical Distribution and Overhead Lighting Systems

Energy Supply and General Distribution

An overhead 15-kilovolt electrical distribution line and an underground 15-kilovolt electrical
distribution line deliver power generated at the Marshall Energy Corporation power plant to the
Djarrit-Uliga-Delap/Rita area, as well as the residential and commercial areas west of the power
plant. The overhead distribution line is used to provide primary electrical service to homes,
businesses, and restaurants while the underground distribution line delivers service to the Capitol
building, the Hospital, Uliga Dock, and other essential facilities.

Delap Dock Entrance, Offices and CFS Warehouse

A utility pole is located in front of the RMIPA office building and Majuro Stevedore and
Terminal Company (MSTCO) office/warehouse building (Figure 3-10). Three distribution
transformers on the utility pole reduce the voltage from the main distribution line. From these
transformers, there is a 240-volt electrical service to both the RMIPA office and the MSTCO
office/warehouse. The feed to the RMIPA office building powers the RMIPA administrative
offices on the first floor of the building, as well as offices for various shipping agents and other
RMIPA offices on the ground floor.

The other power feed delivers electrical power directly to the MSTCO offices and warehouse
(Figure 3-10). MSTCO operates and maintains an administrative office and a container freight
station (CFS) warehouse on the ground floor. Other administrative offices are located on the
first floor of the building. The same electrical service feeds a smaller building at the Delap Dock
entrance and an overhead floodlight east of the MSTCO office.

There is a smaller single-phase 240V electrical feed that powers the RMIPA security guard
shack. This shack is located at the entrance gate to the Delap container yard located off of the
main roadway. The security shack contains lighting, computers, and an air conditioning unit.

Refrigerated Container Storage Area

The other main feed to the Delap dock comes from a utility pole that is located in front of the
RMIPA security building at the main entrance to the Delap container yard. This feed extends
underground from the utility pole to a series of transformers that are situated directly east of the
RMIPA security building. From the transformers, there is a 480V feed to a refrigerated
container storage area.

Gate
Gate
Gate
Gate
Culvert
GasManifold
Guard Rail
DELAP DOCK AREA
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION


Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company (MSTCO) installed eighteen 480V electrical hookups
in the refrigerated container storage area in 2012 (Figure 3-10). East of the security buildings at
the Delap Dock entrance, six of the eighteen 480V electrical hookups are located approximately
seven meters from the security fence that runs parallel to the main shoreline roadway in front of
the transformers. This same fence continues toward the Marshall Energy Company complex and
then turns north towards the Majuro Lagoon for approximately 64 meters. An additional twelve
480V electrical connections are installed along this section of fencing. The security fence then
turns east towards the Delap Dock Maintenance Building where MSTCO repairs and stores their
cargo handling equipment.

MSTCO plans to install an additional 12 electrical hookups along this section of fencing.
However, this improvement requires review and approval by RMIPA which is pending at the
time of this report.

Cargo Handling and Dry Container Storage Yard

Additional electrical feeds come off of the ground-based transformers to the cargo handling and
dry container storage area. Another underground single-phase 240V electrical feed traverses the
Delap container yard (Figure 3-10).

The underground electrical feed transverses the perimeter of the Delap container yard providing
power to the Delap Dock Maintenance Building that borders the adjacent Tobolar coconut-
processing complex. This underground line feeds overhead lighting and various electrical outlets
and hookups that are contained in the Delap Dock Maintenance Building.

The underground electrical line continues along the security fence that is located behind the dock
apron. Four flood light poles are installed along this fence, which extends from the fuel pump
manifold to the western face of the dock. Each flood light pole consists of two overhead metal-
halide lamps. The flood light installations have one lamp facing towards the Delap dock apron
and the other facing towards the container yard.

During the master plan process, various port stakeholders and MSTCO representatives indicated
that lighting along the dock and container storage area was inadequate to support cargo handling
and general security purposes. MSTCO representatives suggested that any supplemental lighting
should be installed along the perimeter areas of the container yard so that lighting standards do

Reefer container electgrical hookups


not hamper the efficiency or safety of stevedoring operations. High-pressure sodium vapor
lamps would be preferred to provide better illumination than can be achieved with a metal-
halide, and, at the same time, use less energy.

The underground electrical distribution line along the security fence also delivers electrical
power to the Delap Dock Office and the Delap Yard-Shop Office. Both of these facilities are
located along the security fence behind the dock apron, and support stevedoring operations. The
Delap Dock Office contains interior lighting and a wall mounted air conditioning unit, as well as
security cameras that are mounted on this structure (see section 3.5.6.10). The Delap Yard-Shop
Office (see section 3.5.6.9) has interior lighting, wall-mounted air conditioning, and security
cameras.

The electrical feed then continues along a security fence line that extends along the western
limits of the container yard. In this area, there is the Delap Stevedore Recreational Building that
is used by stevedores during the offloading of cargo from international cargo vessels. Electrical
service to this recreational lounge provides electrical energy to a kitchen area, interior lighting,
and air conditioning units.

Continuing along the western limits of the container yard, the electrical feed powers an
abandoned restroom facility and overhead floodlight at the southwest corner of the Delap Dock
property. The abandoned restroom facility is situated adjacent to the RMIPA office building.

Power Outages and Back-Up Power Supply

Marshall Energy Company typically
carries out one planned power outage for
the main electrical feed for Majuro. This
intentional power outage is made for
maintenance purposes. In addition to the
one monthly planned outage, there are
normally two to three unplanned outages
that are caused by issues associated with
the distribution system (Wakefield,
2013).

To sustain electrical service to RMIPA
and the shipping agent offices, RMIPA
has installed a backup generator behind
its office building. A 50-kilowatt (kW)
Kohler generator is housed in a concrete
masonry unit building, which is used to
supply backup power when there is a power outage. The generator was installed to require a
manual start in the event of a power outage.

RMIPA Backup Generator
Housing

RMIPA Backup Generator


Electrical System Needs

Both short and long term solutions are required to sustain the delivery of electrical power to
Delap Dock on a continuous basis.

In the short term, the existing backup power supply system needs to be modified to enable an
automatic start-up and transfer of power from the backup generator when a power outage occurs
that interrupts power distribution to the RMIPA office (Table 3-9). Electrical service to
buildings in the cargo handling and container storage yard, which are recommended for
demolition or replacement, should be disconnected prior to demolition.

Future international cargo shipments to Delap Dock will include the delivery of a greater number
of refrigerated containers. More refrigerated containers will require the installation of additional
refrigerated container electrical outlets which, in turn, will increase the connected electrical load
generated by port related activities at Delap Dock. The potential demand for additional electrical
outlets that are needed to support the storage of refrigerated containers is evaluated in Chapter
Six (Table 3-9).

On a longer-term basis, the sustained delivery of electrical power to Delap Dock will require the
development of an independent power supply and distribution system at Delap Dock (Table 3-9).
The options associated with this longer-term need are also discussed more fully in Chapter Six
concerning future port needs.

3.5.7.2 Fuel Supply and Distribution

The Marshalls Energy Company (MEC)
operates a fuel tank farm south of Delap
Dock on the ocean side of the main
shoreline roadway. The tank farm
includes eight larger tanks for the storage
of diesel fuel.

An intake and distribution manifold is
located on the Delap Dock apron
adjacent to the Tobolar Coconut
Processing Authority complex. A 16-
inch line is used to transfer diesel fuel
from arriving oil tankers to the storage tanks (Figure 3-11). Two parallel 6-inch lines, which
deliver fuel from the storage tanks to the fuel manifold on the dock apron, are located along the
same alignment. MEC typically receives fuel deliveries about once every two months, but sells
fuel almost every day to purse seine and other fishing vessels. The sale of fuel to these vessels
provides a critical component of MECs operating budget (Wakefield, 2013).

DELAP DOCK AREA
FUEL DISTRIBUTION
PORT OF MAJ URO MASTER PLAN PORT OF MAJ URO MASTER PLAN


The alignment of the fuel lines is a straight north-south route from the fuel farm to the fuel
manifold at the dock apron. Unfortunately, fuel lines along this route are situated directly under
the rear portion of the Delap Dock Maintenance Building which is used by MSTCO for the
maintenance, repair and storage of cargo handling equipment. Tobolar warehouses are also
located immediately east of fuel supply and distribution lines. The location of this fuel line is
non-compliant with international standards which require that no structures are built atop of the
fuel line and require offset distances on both sides of the line. In case of an emergency, the
maintenance building would have to be demolished in order to get to the fuel line. In addition,
the loading of the buildings and equipment being stored or repaired within the buildings is
placing additional stress on the pipelines. RMIPA, MEC, and MSTCO shall coordinate
immediate and long terms plans for the maintenance building and pipeline.

MEC currently has plans to rearrange and expand its fuel tank farm on the ocean side of the main
shoreline roadway (Table 3-9). The expansion of fuel storage capacity at the tank farm would
provide an emergency gasoline supply for the South Pacific and Micronesia region. MEC is also
interested in replacing any outdated fuel lines, which may be recommended for the port. The
scheduling of these improvements will require close coordination with RMIPA, as well as the
establishment of access easements, so that future structures are not built on top or immediately
adjacent to fuel lines. When the lines are replaced, it is very important that they be designed and
constructed according to current international petroleum engineering codes and standards.

Fuel Line Route

Fuel Line Route


3.5.7.3 Water Systems

The Majuro Water and Sewer Company (MWSC) provide potable water and fire flow to the
Delap Dock area via two separate water distribution systems (Figure 3-12).

Potable Water Distribution

Two parallel 12-inch water mains extend along the main shoreline roadway from catchment
tanks and the treatment plant at Amata Kabua International Airport to a lateral near the entrance
to Delap Dock. The 12-inch main along the main shoreline roadway connects to a 4-inch lateral
that originally enabled distribution of potable water to the dock apron at Delap Dock. It is
uncertain whether or not existing offices of RMIPA and Majuro Terminal and Shipping
Company, or other facilities in the cargo handling and storage area, are connected to the potable
water system via the same 4-inch lateral.

There are three supply valves located along the dock apron. However, Lyon Associates observed
that no water could be released from the distribution lines serving the dock apron in May 2013.
The potable water valves were filled with cobwebs and appeared as if they had not been opened
in many years. Currently, any vessels requiring potable water are serviced by water trucks from
MWSC.


An 8-inch saltwater distribution line is located along the main shoreline roadway. This
distribution system extends to the Delap Dock apron, where there are three in-ground hydrant
connections, via an 8-inch lateral.

In May 2013, the saltwater distribution lines did not release water when their related valves were
turned on. The saltwater distribution system and in-ground fire suppression hydrants appear to
have not been used or maintained for many years. The in-ground hydrant covers were concaved
in due to heavy loading likely from vehicles and stevedoring equipment. The hydrants were also
completely filled with silt and sand.

Water System Needs

As previously mentioned in section 3.4.4.3, the overall potable and fire suppression system for
Majuro is in need of significant repairs and sustained maintenance (Table 3-9). Leaky
distribution mains and a system of pumps at the main reservoir area need replacement to help
rectify low and varied system pressures. Due to the high cost of electricity, the three main
conveyance pumps at the treatment area are kept operating for only a few hours a day.
Consequently, system pressures occasionally drop considerably during periods of high demand.

In order for the potable and saltwater distribution system at Delap Dock to be operable, the
potable distribution valves and fire suppression hydrants will, at a minimum, need to be replaced.
The lateral lines will also likely need to be replaced due to their age. Further volumetric and
pressure testing should be done to determine if the lines could still be used. But, for increased
performance and pressures, replacement of the entire system is recommended (Table 3-9).


If the water systems are to be upgraded, such improvements would require close coordination
between RMIPA and MWSC. MWSC would have to be consulted regarding the capacity of the
municipal water system to supply potable water to incoming vessels via shore side lateral
connections. If the pressure is not reliable or the supply volumes are not adequate, it would not
be feasible to replace or upgrade the infrastructure.

An alternative to connecting to the municipal system is the installation of a water storage tank
somewhere on or near Delap Dock (Table 3-9). This option would provide a reliable pressure
and supply if the tank was kept filled during time periods when there was lower domestic water
consumption.

The availability of salt water is necessary for the protection of structures located at Delap Dock.
The availability of potable water at Delap Dock for dock maintenance and occasional vessel
maintenance is also desirable. However, the demand of potable water from vessels at the Delap
dock is not significant.

A majority of the cargo vessels and purse seine fishing vessels contain their own reverse osmosis
seawater desalination systems that enable them to be self-sufficient. At the same time, there are
some fishing companies, e.g., Koo's Fishing Company, that periodically request the delivery of
fresh water to one or more of its purse seine vessels. Informal discussions with representatives
of locally based fish companies suggest that long line fishing vessels and the interisland
passenger/cargo vessels probably represent the largest market for freshwater. Long line vessels
associated with Luen Thai Fishing Venture, Ltd. can presently obtain water storage tanks located
at Marshall Islands Fishing Venture.

CHAPTER FOUR
MARINE TRANSPORT TRENDS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

A combination of domestic and international cargo and fishing vessels, as well as interisland
cargo and passenger vessels, regularly call upon the Port of Majuro.

Interisland cargo and passenger vessels essentially have exclusive use of Uliga Docks A
and B for the boarding and disembarking of passengers, as well as the loading and
unloading of domestic general cargo.
International cargo vessels typically enter the port via the Calalin Channel and proceed
directly to Delap Dock via the port fairway to deliver containerized and general cargo, as
well as load some exports of fish and coconut oil. International cargo vessels usually
berth at Delap Dock for not more than 24 hours.
Oil tankers berth at Uliga Dock and Delap Dock to deliver resupplies of fuel to Mobil
Oil Micronesia and the Marshalls Energy Company.
Vessel calls by the international fishing fleet consist of their anchorage in the vessel
moorage area at the east end of the port fairway and occasional use of the main Delap
Dock for provisioning, fuel and water.
Locally based long liners use the fishery dock that is adjacent to the Marshall Islands
Fishing Venture fish processing facility.
Smaller domestic fishing vessels and pleasure craft access offshore waters outside
Majuro Lagoon, as well as properties and fishing locations within the Lagoon, and moor
at various locations in the near shore waters of the Lagoon.

The future operation, use, improvement, and/or potential expansion of the Port of Majuro will be
influenced, in part, by ever-changing trends associated with each of the preceding types of vessel
traffic. Such trends include factors such as the type and volume of anticipated vessel traffic, the
size of international cargo and fishing vessels, the type and volume of inbound and outbound
cargo, cargo handling systems, and the future demand for shore-side services and support
facilities. The evaluation of these and other trends facilitates the identification of additional port
needs and/or confirms the adequacy of existing facilities to support future port operations.

4.2 INTERISLAND PASSENGER AND CARGO TRAFFIC

4.2.1 Vessel Traffic

The RMI Ministry of Transport and Communications provides marine transportation services for
the delivery of Outer Island passengers and cargo to and from the Port of Majuro. These
services are primarily provided by Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) which
operates three passenger/cargo vessels to support interisland marine transportation. The vessels
include the Aemann, Ribuuk Ae, and Landrik; all of these vessels are based at Uliga Dock.

Available vessel performance information from Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation indicates
that four interisland vessels made 31 voyages in FY 2011 compared to 45 voyages in 2010 and
57 voyages in FY 2009 (Milne, 2011). The steady decline of voyages reflected the loss of
J eljelat Ae in J anuary 2011 and the neglect of vessel maintenance for the entire interisland vessel
fleet. For example, MISCs shipping fleet was temporarily reduced in J uly 2011 when the
Landrik was taken out of service for approximately two months to undergo major repairs and dry
dock services in Fiji (Deloitte & Touche LLP, 2011).

4.2.2 Passenger and Cargo Volumes

As stated earlier, Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) vessels made 15 voyages to the
Outer Islands in FY 2011. The average passenger and cargo volumes transported on each voyage
included:

81 passengers;
48 freight tons of general cargo; and,
56 freight tons of copra (Milne, 2011).

Comparable passenger and cargo volumes were not available from MISC for FY 2012.
However, the volume of inbound shipments of copra to Tobolar Copra Processing Authority has
increased significantly in FY 2012 and 2013. Tobolar Copra Processing Authority reported the
delivery of 6,335 tons of copra in FY 2012. During the first 10 months of FY 2013, 6,115 tons
have already been delivered to TCPA; by the end of the fiscal year, TCPA representatives
anticipate that inbound cargo shipments may reach as much as 8,000 tons (Marshall Islands
J ournal, 2013). More recent copra volumes represents a significant increase from prior copra
deliveries in 2010 (5,302 tons) and 2011 (4,168 tons). Expansion of the interisland vessel fleet is
credited in part, for the delivery of greater copra volumes to TCPA.

4.2.3 Vessel Particulars

Selected vessel dimensions and related details of the interisland passenger/cargo vessels being
operated by Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation are presented in Table 4-1 along with two
additional vessels that will soon be added to the interisland passenger/cargo vessel fleet. The
RMI Ministry of Transport and Communications has purchased one additional landing craft and
one combination cargo-passenger vehicle from ship builders in J apan. (Milne, 2013).

TABLE 4-1
SELECTED VESSEL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS
INTERISLAND PASSENGER/CARGO VESSELS
Vessel Dimensions/Details Vessels
Aemman Ribuuk Ae Landrik Kwajalein Majuro
Year Built 2004 1996 1984 2013 2013
Gross Registered Tonnage (metric tons) 600 375 500 580 463
Net Tonnage (tons) 161 125 160 188 185
Passenger Capacity (persons) 150 125 150 150 50
General Cargo Capacity (freight tons) 302 100 303 N/A N/A
Copra Cargo Capacity (freight tons) 347 124 317 N/A N/A
Length Overall (meters) 45.00 31.10 48.01 49.85 44.09
Breadth (meters) 8.60 7.62 8.10 9.00 10.80
Draft (meters) 1.80 2.60 3.35 2.10 3.20
Source: Philippo, 2013; Milne, 2013.

A new cargo-passenger vessel, Kwajalein, which was recently built in J apan for the RMI
Ministry of Transportation and Communications, has an overall length of approximately 50
meters and carries about 150 passengers. A new landing craft, Majuro, has an overall length of
roughly 44 meters and is able to carry approximately 50 passengers.

During the coming decade, it is anticipated that the maximum cargo-passenger vessel(s) serving
the Outer Islands will have an overall length of roughly 50 to 60 meters, vessel drafts under 6.0
meters, a cargo capacity of 300 to 350 freight tons, and a passenger capacity of 150 to 200
persons.

4.3 INTERNATIONAL CARGO VESSEL TRAFFIC

4.3.1 Service Routes of Primary Cargo Shipping Companies

4.3.1.1 Matson Navigation Company, Inc.

Matson Navigation operates a fleet of 17 vessels that include containerships, combination
container and roll-on/roll-off ships and barges that serve the island economies of Hawaii, Guam
and the South Pacific. Matson Navigation Company's service routes include both inbound and
outbound service to and from the Port of Majuro. Inbound and outbound service is provided
every 14 days.

Matson's inbound route to Micronesia originates on the U.S. West Coast at the Port of Long
Beach, California. From Long Beach, Matson vessels proceed to other U.S. West Coast ports at
Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. Matson cargo vessels then
continue to the Port of Honolulu, Hawaii and Guam. At the Port of Guam, smaller feeder vessels
transport cargo to the Island of Ebeye and the neighboring Island of Kwajalein in Kwajalein
Atoll, the Port of Majuro, and subsequently proceed through the States of Kosrae, Pohnpei and
Chuuk of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) before returning to Guam.

Matson Navigation's outbound service begins in Kwajalein Atoll at the Island of Ebeye. A
feeder vessel continues to the Island of Kwajalein and Port of Majuro before making calls at
other FSM ports at Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Chuuk. Outbound cargo is then transshipped to a larger
cargo vessel at the Port of Guam which transports cargo to U.S. West Coast ports at Long Beach,
Oakland, Portland and Seattle.

4.3.1.2 Reef Shipping, Limited

In early 2013, Matson Navigation Company, Inc. acquired the assets of New Zealand-based Reef
Shipping, Limited (Matson Navigation Company, Inc.). The acquisition of assets included, in
part, four vessels.

Prior to its acquisition, Reef Shipping operated two different service routes that included vessel
calls at the Port of Majuro. Matson continues to operate these service routes in the South Pacific.
Vessel calls associated with these routes result in vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro every 28
days (Tiobech, 2013).

The first service route originates in Auckland, New Zealand and proceeds to Noumea, Caledonia,
as well as Lautoka and Suva, Fiji. From Fiji, international cargo is transshipped via another
vessel that carries cargo to Wallis and Futuna Islands, Funafuti, Tuvalu, Tarawa, Kiribati, and
the Port of Majuro. Cargo is then transshipped from the Port of Majuro to the Federated States
of Micronesia and Guam.

A second service route begins in Melbourne, Australia and continues to ports at both Sydney and
Brisbane. From Australia, Reef vessels go on to Noumea, Caledonia, as well as Lautoka and
Suva, Fiji. Cargo is then transshipped at the Port of Suva to another vessel that brings cargo to
the Port of Majuro. All cargo destined for the FSM and Guam is transshipped from the Port of
Majuro.

4.3.1.3 Mariana Express Lines, Limited.

Mariana Express Lines Limited (MELL) is a regional marine container carrier, based in
Singapore that provides service between various Pacific Islands, Asia and Australia. In
December 2012, MELL announced its launch of a U.S. West Coast service to several
Micronesian locations. The carrier's Micronesia Express service offers weekly departures from
Los Angeles and Oakland, California and Tacoma, Washington to the Port of Majuro; the FSM
States of Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Yap; the Republic of Palau; and Saipan of the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas Islands (Marianas Express Lines, Limited, 2012).

Source: Marianas Express Line, 2012

Horizon Lines, LLC, is the dedicated shipping agent for the Micronesia Express container
service. In that capacity, Horizon coordinates U.S. sales, vessel connections and logistics
support. In addition, Horizon Lines transports MELL containers between U.S. West Coast ports
and Honolulu, where they are transferred on to MELL vessels destined for Micronesia (Marianas
Express Lines, Limited, 2012).

4.3.1.4 Kyowa Shipping Company, Limited

Kyowa Shipping Company, Limited, in cooperation with FSM Line Ltd. and Western Pacific
Shipping Company, transports international cargo from several Asian ports to various ports in
Micronesia. Kyowa primarily uses three multi-purpose ships that have a deadweight tonnage of
8,500 metric tons (Kyowa Shipping Company, Limited, 2013).

MELL Micronesia Express Service Route
The service routes to Micronesia typically originate in Busan, South Korea or the Ports of
Nagoya and Yokohama, J apan. From J apan, Kyowa cargo vessels travel to Saipan, Guam,
Palau, the States of Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae in the Federated States of Micronesia, and
finally to the Marshall Islands where cargo is delivered at the Port of Majuro, as well as docks at
the Island of Kwajalein and Island of Ebeye. The primary service routes are supplemented by
the transshipment of cargo from other service ports in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Philippines,
Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand (Kyowa Shipping
Company, Limited, 2013).

4.3.2 Cargo Volumes

4.3.2.1 Recent Cargo Volumes

Containerized cargo represents most all of the inbound and outbound cargo to and from the Port
of Majuro. Some vessels also contain some limited volumes of break bulk cargo, as well as
motorized vehicles; but these cargo deliveries are very limited. Incomplete annual reports by
authorized vessel operating common carriers to the Micronesia Shipping Commission suggest
that break bulk cargo probably represents roughly two percent of total inbound cargo volumes.

In calendar year 2012, the total cargo volume to and from the Port of Majuro included 6,603
TEU of containerized cargo. This included 3,561 TEU of inbound cargo and 3,402 TEU of
outbound cargo (Table 4-2). Fifty-six vessel calls by international cargo vessels transported an
average of about 118 TEU of containerized cargo per call.

In calendar year 2013, a significant increase in inbound and outbound cargo volumes occurred.
Comparable information for calendar year 2013 indicates that inbound cargo volumes rose to
5,107 TEU and outbound volumes bounced upward to 5,503 TEU, or a total of 10,610 TEU
(Table 4-3). One hundred and twelve calls by international cargo vessels transported roughly 95
TEU of containerized cargo per vessel call. The substantive jump in overall cargo volumes to
almost 61 percent in one year reflects the establishment of regular transshipment operations by
Marianas Express Lines, Ltd. that began in December 2012.

Inbound containerized cargo shipments typically include a combination of construction
materials, cement, beverages, foodstuffs, and clothing. In 2012, 94 percent of the inbound cargo
represented loaded containers; the remaining six percent included empty or transshipped
containers. With increased transshipment operations, 72 percent of inbound cargo volumes in
2013 comprised loaded containers, 20 percent were transshipped containers, and eight percent
represented empty containers.

Outbound cargo volumes predominantly represent empty containers, as well as the export of
various fish products that have been processed and packaged by Pan Pacific Foods or Marshall
Islands Fishing Venture. In 2012, roughly 70 percent of all outbound cargo comprised empty
containers. Another 28 percent of outbound cargo included loaded containers. Two percent of
the outbound containers were transshipped to other locations. In 2013, the composition of
outbound cargo changed to about 65 percent empty containers, 18 percent loaded containers, and
17 percent transshipped containers. The change in composition between 2012 and 2013 again
reflected the expanded use of Delap Dock for transshipment operations.

40'
Full
20'
Full
40'
Empty
20'
Empty
40'
T/S
20'
T/S
Total
TEU
40'
Full
20'
Full
40'
Empty
20'
Empty
40'
T/S
20'
T/S
Total
TEU
1 1/11 4 24 0 0 0 0 28 8 0 0 16 0 0 24 52
2 1/14 46 27 0 1 0 0 74 14 11 2 14 0 0 41 115
3 1/25 4 18 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 14 36 0 0 50 72
4 1/27 24 30 0 0 0 0 54 16 5 8 52 4 0 85 139
5 2/2 0 10 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 36
6 2/11 48 29 0 1 0 0 78 18 10 0 0 0 0 28 106
7 2/23 0 12 6 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 8 0 0 9 27
8 2/25 46 38 0 1 0 0 85 10 6 0 44 0 0 60 145
9 3/8 10 51 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 10 29 0 0 39 100
10 3/9 40 40 4 1 0 0 85 24 11 40 19 0 0 94 179
11 3/20 0 16 8 1 0 0 25 6 0 6 16 0 0 28 53
12 3/22 68 30 0 0 0 0 98 4 6 4 0 0 0 14 112
13 4/5 4 41 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 4 43 0 0 47 92
14 4/6 52 41 0 0 0 0 93 18 5 10 34 0 0 67 160
15 4/10 0 21 4 0 0 0 25 4 0 4 16 0 0 24 49
16 4/21 60 41 0 1 0 0 102 18 11 100 71 0 0 200 302
17 5/3 2 16 2 0 0 1 21 4 0 0 20 0 0 24 45
18 5/4 50 30 10 0 0 0 90 6 6 118 28 0 0 158 248
19 5/17 68 42 4 0 0 0 114 18 9 104 16 0 0 147 261
20 5/22 14 68 0 0 0 0 82 0 14 6 15 0 0 35 117
21 5/24 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 2 15 0 0 17 44
22 5/31 44 62 8 0 0 0 114 18 12 76 32 0 0 138 252
23 6/14 80 40 12 0 0 0 132 16 9 48 5 0 0 78 210
24 6/19 24 47 0 0 0 0 71 0 33 0 49 0 0 82 153
25 6/19 0 23 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 24
26 6/29 44 49 8 1 0 0 102 36 8 8 13 0 0 65 167
27 7/12 54 58 10 0 0 0 122 18 14 4 0 0 0 36 158
28 7/26 6 15 0 0 0 0 21 0 5 20 11 0 0 36 57
29 7/28 66 55 12 0 0 0 133 34 15 36 61 0 0 146 279
30 7/29 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 46 0 0 49 62
31 8/11 60 28 6 1 0 0 95 22 9 40 59 0 0 130 225
32 8/27 6 18 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 33
33 8/30 4 12 0 0 0 0 16 0 12 8 8 0 0 28 44
34 9/3 54 43 0 0 0 0 97 0 3 44 17 0 1 65 162
35 9/13 78 47 4 6 0 0 135 36 20 6 29 0 2 93 228
36 9/19 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 4 11 0 0 16 21
37 9/28 80 52 0 6 0 1 139 10 12 34 43 0 0 99 238
38 9/30 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 18
39 10/9 0 6 0 12 0 0 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 20
40 10/9 10 20 0 0 0 0 30 0 24 8 11 0 0 43 73
41 10/18 90 44 0 0 0 1 135 18 20 34 31 0 0 103 238
42 10/30 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 8 0 0 20 32
43 11/1 90 55 0 0 0 0 145 14 2 0 0 0 0 16 161
44 11/9 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
45 11/16 112 70 0 0 0 0 182 6 7 88 2 0 0 103 285
46 11/17 8 21 0 0 0 0 29 0 16 6 22 0 0 44 73
47 11/25 0 16 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 31
48 11/30 46 22 0 0 0 0 68 20 12 26 16 0 0 74 142
49 12/6 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 6 0 1 13 22
50 12/9 62 28 30 2 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122
51 12/12 6 11 0 0 0 0 17 4 8 26 13 0 0 51 68
52 12/16 56 24 0 0 0 0 80 6 7 0 0 0 0 13 93
53 12/21 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 20
54 12/22 28 58 20 0 12 12 130 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 150
55 12/22 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 30 1 48 8 20 8 115 127
56 12/28 28 26 0 0 0 0 54 10 6 6 81 0 0 103 157
Totals: 1,676 1,656 150 38 24 17 3,561 472 368 1,002 1,143 44 13 3,042 6,603
TABLE 4-2
2012 INBOUND AND OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUMES (IN TEU)
PORT OF MAJURO
INBOUND CONTAINERS OUTBOUND CONTAINERS
2012
Arrival
Date
TOTAL
CARGO
VOLUME
(TEU)
V
e
s
s
e
l

C
a
l
l
s

Arrival
Date
40'
Full
20'
Full
40'
Empty
20'
Empty
40'
T/S
20'
T/S
Total
TEU
40'
Full
x2
20'
Full
x1
40'
Empty
x2
20'
Empty
x1
40'
T/S
x2
20'
T/S
x1
Total
TEU
1 1/4 24 40 0 0 16 8 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
2 1/4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 14 20 20 7 69 69
3 1/12 0 26 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
4 1/14 24 20 2 0 0 0 46 12 1 6 13 0 0 32 78
5 1/19 26 16 0 0 4 14 60 8 0 28 15 0 11 62 122
6 1/19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
7 1/25 8 11 22 0 0 0 41 2 13 24 42 0 0 81 122
8 1/29 4 17 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 2 13 0 0 15 36
9 2/2 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 8 2 14 17 2 8 51 62
10 2/2 20 13 0 0 2 8 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
11 2/8 32 16 2 20 0 0 70 6 6 20 56 0 0 88 158
12 2/16 24 27 4 1 4 12 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
13 2/16 4 3 0 0 0 0 7 10 0 14 17 4 12 57 64
14 2/21 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 4 13 0 25 0 12 54 60
15 2/22 6 14 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 22
16 2/24 30 27 4 0 0 0 61 16 4 12 29 0 1 62 123
17 3/1 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 22 0 12 23 8 10 75 86
18 3/2 10 10 0 0 8 10 38 2 0 20 8 0 0 30 68
19 3/3 0 30 0 0 0 0 30 0 14 0 8 0 0 22 52
20 3/7 44 14 0 0 0 2 60 4 8 64 28 0 0 104 164
21 3/8 4 22 0 0 0 0 26 0 8 4 0 0 0 12 38
22 3/15 0 0 4 9 0 1 14 4 5 0 2 0 2 13 27
23 3/15 12 5 0 0 0 0 17 6 3 12 35 6 10 72 89
24 3/16 16 7 0 0 6 10 39 2 4 2 2 0 0 10 49
25 3/22 32 11 26 0 0 0 69 10 11 0 5 0 1 27 96
26 3/27 2 32 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 23 0 0 23 57
27 3/28 18 10 0 0 0 0 28 16 5 6 13 22 10 72 100
28 3/30 30 38 16 5 22 10 121 2 0 8 2 0 0 12 133
29 4/4 2 13 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 33 0 0 33 48
30 4/6 22 18 0 0 0 0 40 16 3 10 46 0 0 75 115
31 4/15 18 9 0 0 0 0 27 16 1 14 26 16 28 101 128
32 4/15 64 18 4 9 16 28 139 2 0 8 3 0 0 13 152
33 4/18 30 29 10 0 0 1 70 10 5 60 8 0 0 83 153
34 4/18 2 10 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 20
35 4/22 6 9 0 0 0 0 15 0 8 0 21 0 0 29 44
36 4/23 0 7 0 0 0 1 8 2 7 0 3 0 1 13 21
37 4/27 22 39 8 3 24 6 102 2 9 10 1 0 0 22 124
38 4/27 22 11 0 0 0 0 33 0 3 16 16 24 15 74 107
39 5/3 30 14 0 0 0 1 45 6 4 86 3 0 2 101 146
40 5/4 6 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 14
TABLE 4-3
2013 INCOMING AND OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUMES (IN TEU)
PORT OF MAJURO
(Page 1 of 3 Pages)
TOTAL
CARGO
VOLUME
(TEU)
V
e
s
s
e
l

C
a
l
l
s
2013 INBOUND CONTAINERS OUTBOUND CONTAINERS

41 5/11 20 23 10 0 22 30 105 2 2 10 4 4 0 22 127
42 5/11 18 7 0 0 22 30 77 12 0 30 28 4 0 74 151
43 5/18 30 16 0 0 0 17 63 4 8 10 11 0 0 33 96
44 5/18 2 13 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 35
45 5/25 14 13 0 0 20 25 72 2 1 10 3 0 0 16 88
46 5/25 28 4 0 0 0 0 32 6 8 18 11 20 26 89 121
47 5/31 24 11 0 0 0 1 36 0 2 66 27 0 0 95 131
48 6/2 0 5 0 0 0 3 8 0 3 0 7 0 18 28 36
49 6/8 22 27 0 0 8 16 73 0 1 10 13 0 0 24 97
50 6/8 18 10 0 0 0 0 28 14 1 36 12 8 16 87 115
51 6/10 12 22 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 46
52 6/15 34 25 0 6 0 2 67 8 3 64 25 0 0 100 167
53 6/17 6 16 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 8 35 0 0 43 65
54 6/22 18 14 0 0 0 0 32 12 10 20 30 10 25 107 139
55 6/22 16 17 0 0 10 25 68 2 0 6 2 0 0 10 78
56 6/30 58 18 0 0 0 12 88 2 4 18 13 0 0 37 125
57 7/5 0 16 0 0 0 0 16 0 8 12 12 0 0 32 48
58 7/6 32 24 4 0 18 21 99 0 0 2 4 0 0 6 105
59 7/6,7/13, 12 75 2 62 0 0 151 0 4 2 76 0 0 82 233
60 7/7 16 11 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 70 9 42 9 131 158
61 7/12 34 14 0 1 0 4 53 6 7 52 8 0 0 73 126
62 7/16 8 7 0 0 0 0 15 0 20 0 1 0 0 21 36
63 7/20 16 20 22 2 12 35 107 4 1 4 1 0 0 10 117
64 7/20 22 9 0 0 0 0 31 22 0 26 31 12 35 126 157
65 7/25 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 8 66 0 8 0 8 90 94
66 7/25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 7/26 40 10 0 0 0 0 50 2 6 138 8 0 0 154 204
68 7/28 2 15 0 0 0 2 19 0 0 0 18 0 0 18 37
69 8/3 26 20 0 0 6 24 76 2 1 4 1 0 0 8 84
70 8/4 30 7 0 0 0 0 37 6 5 30 29 6 24 100 137
71 8/10 32 21 0 0 0 6 59 2 6 112 16 0 0 136 195
72 8/12 0 18 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 4 10 0 0 14 32
73 8/17 24 12 0 0 0 0 36 10 3 22 26 12 29 102 138
74 8/17 66 39 2 0 12 29 148 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 151
75 8/23 30 21 0 2 0 0 53 2 2 52 19 0 0 75 128
76 8/27 10 14 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 28
77 8/31 26 15 0 0 16 15 72 0 12 16 8 0 0 36 108
78 9/1 18 7 0 0 0 0 25 20 7 68 28 16 15 154 179
79 9/5 0 19 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 2 13 0 0 15 34
80 9/6 28 13 0 0 0 0 41 0 4 38 12 0 0 54 95
81 9/7 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 8 0 0 14 17
82 9/14 26 5 0 0 0 0 31 14 1 34 39 10 29 127 158
83 9/14 36 28 0 0 10 29 103 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 108
84 9/21 44 19 2 0 0 0 65 0 2 28 12 0 0 42 107
85 9/26 2 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 20 6 0 2 0 28 37
86 9/27 4 8 0 60 0 0 72 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 83
87 9/28 24 15 0 0 26 24 89 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 91
88 9/28 6 7 0 0 0 0 13 10 13 44 14 26 24 131 144
89 10/2 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 3 0 1 6 10
90 10/7 16 15 2 0 0 0 33 0 2 98 25 0 0 125 158
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
2013 INCOMING AND OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUMES (IN TEU) - PORT OF MAJURO
(Page 2 of 3 Pages)

91 10/16 42 21 0 0 26 46 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
92 10/17 20 11 0 0 0 0 31 20 2 40 40 26 46 174 205
93 10/18 38 12 0 0 0 0 50 0 1 38 17 0 0 56 106
94 10/20 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 8 2 3 0 0 13 25
95 10/30 18 10 0 0 0 0 28 28 6 24 27 8 31 124 152
96 10/30 8 13 0 0 12 29 62 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 65
97 11/6 2 9 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 4 5 0 0 10 21
98 11/13 6 9 0 0 0 0 15 4 2 24 6 0 0 36 51
99 11/13 26 10 0 0 0 0 36 10 2 42 14 28 29 125 161
100 11/14 34 20 0 0 24 28 106 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 108
101 11/17 12 18 0 0 0 0 30 0 11 0 16 0 0 27 57
102 11/19 30 16 2 0 0 4 52 0 2 14 12 0 0 28 80
103 11/28 12 12 0 0 0 0 24 22 5 32 30 12 25 126 150
104 11/28 24 47 16 10 12 25 134 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 137
105 11/30 34 14 0 0 0 0 48 2 1 34 12 0 0 49 97
106 12/1 6 4 4 0 0 0 14 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 39
107 12/5 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 0 4 2 6 0 4 16 29
108 12/11 34 21 0 0 0 0 55 34 2 36 44 18 30 164 219
109 12/12 36 46 36 3 20 30 171 2 9 4 2 0 0 17 188
110 12/14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 12/16 34 17 0 13 0 0 64 6 3 30 12 0 0 51 115
112 12/26 12 7 0 0 0 0 19 26 10 38 40 2 1 117 136
1,984 1,708 204 209 378 624 5,107 538 474 2,020 1,548 368 555 5,503 10,610
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
2013 INCOMING AND OUTBOUND CARGO VOLUMES (IN TEU) - PORT OF MAJURO
(Page 3 of 3 Pages)

4.3.2.2 Anticipated Cargo Volumes

During the next 20 years, it is anticipated that future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will
primarily be impacted by:

the size of the resident population and its consumption of imported goods and materials;
potential improvements at Delap Dock that would enable the concurrent berthing of two
international cargo vessels, significantly increase the efficiency of cargo handling
operations, and expand the capacity of container stacking/storage area; and,
the extent of future container transshipment at Delap Dock.

This assumption led to the preparation of two forecasts of inbound and outbound cargo for the
2014-2033 period which, together, identify a forecast range for future cargo volumes during the
next 20 years.

The forecast presented in Table 4-4 assumes future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will
generally increase at the same rate of anticipated resident population growth. However,
anticipated inbound and outbound cargo volumes would also be expected include some modest
growth in transshipment even if no substantive improvements were made to Delap Dock. The
anticipated growth in transshipment would annually include about 100 TEU of inbound and 100
TEU of outbound cargo. Under this scenario, annual cargo volumes in 2033 would be expected
to include 7,834 TEU of inbound cargo and 8,278 TEU of outbound cargo, or a total cargo
volume of 16,112.


Cargo
Volume
Trans-
shipment
Total
Inbound
Cargo
Volume

Trans-
shipment
Total
Outbound
2012 3,520 41 3,561 2,985 57 3,042 6,603
2013 4,105 1,002 5,107 4,580 923 5,503 10,610
2014 4,134 1,109 5,243 4,613 1,030 5,642 10,886
2015 4,155 1,215 5,370 4,636 1,135 5,771 11,141
2016 4,181 1,322 5,503 4,664 1,242 5,906 11,409
2017 4,222 1,435 5,657 4,710 1,354 6,064 11,721
2018 4,241 1,542 5,783 4,732 1,460 6,192 11,975
2019 4,269 1,652 5,921 4,763 1,570 6,333 12,254
2020 4,294 1,762 6,056 4,791 1,679 6,470 12,526
2021 4,329 1,876 6,205 4,830 1,793 6,623 12,828
2022 4,358 1,989 6,347 4,863 1,905 6,767 13,115
2023 4,382 2,099 6,482 4,889 2,015 6,904 13,386
2024 4,404 2,210 6,614 4,914 2,125 7,039 13,653
2025 4,426 2,321 6,747 4,938 2,236 7,174 13,920
2026 4,448 2,432 6,880 4,963 2,347 7,309 14,190
2027 4,470 2,545 7,015 4,987 2,459 7,446 14,460
2028 4,492 2,657 7,149 5,012 2,571 7,583 14,732
2029 4,515 2,770 7,285 5,037 2,684 7,721 15,006
2030 4,537 2,884 7,421 5,062 2,797 7,859 15,280
2031 4,560 2,999 7,558 5,087 2,911 7,998 15,556
2032 4,582 3,114 7,696 5,113 3,025 8,138 15,834
2033 4,605 3,229 7,834 5,138 3,140 8,278 16,112
Year
TOTAL
CARGO VOLUME
(TEU)
TABLE 4-4
WITH LIMITED TRANSSHIPMENT ACTIVITY
2014-2033

In contrast, Table 4-5 assumes that future inbound and outbound cargo volumes will be impacted
by both the anticipated resident population growth, as well as new potential improvements at
Delap Dock, that will generate expanded transshipment activity. With these assumptions,
inbound cargo volumes in 2033 are anticipated to include approximately 13,897 TEU of inbound
cargo and 14,351 TEU of outbound cargo, or a total cargo volume of 28,248.

In combination, the two alternate forecasts suggest that future inbound cargo volumes will range
between 7,834 and 13,897 TEU in 2033. Outbound cargo volumes are expected to range
between 8,278 and 14,351 TEU. If realized, total annual cargo volumes in 2023 would likely
range between 16,112 and 28,248 TEU.

Cargo
Volume
Trans-
shipment
Total
Inbound
Cargo
Volume

Trans-
shipment
Total
Outbound
2012 3,520 41 3,561 2,985 57 3,042 6,603
2013 4,105 1,002 5,107 4,580 923 5,503 10,610
2014 4,134 1,262 5,396 4,613 1,183 5,796 11,192
2015 4,155 1,522 5,677 4,636 1,443 6,079 11,757
2016 4,181 1,782 5,963 4,664 1,703 6,367 12,330
2017 4,222 2,042 6,264 4,710 1,963 6,673 12,937
2018 4,241 2,417 6,658 4,732 2,338 7,070 13,728
2019 4,269 2,792 7,061 4,763 2,713 7,476 14,537
2020 4,294 3,167 7,461 4,791 3,088 7,879 15,340
2021 4,329 3,542 7,871 4,830 3,463 8,293 16,165
2022 4,358 3,917 8,275 4,863 3,838 8,701 16,976
2023 4,382 4,292 8,674 4,889 4,213 9,102 17,776
2024 4,404 4,792 9,196 4,914 4,713 9,627 18,822
2025 4,426 5,292 9,718 4,938 5,213 10,151 19,869
2026 4,448 5,792 10,240 4,963 5,713 10,676 20,915
2027 4,470 6,292 10,762 4,987 6,213 11,200 21,962
2028 4,492 6,792 11,284 5,012 6,713 11,725 23,009
2029 4,515 7,292 11,807 5,037 7,213 12,250 24,057
2030 4,537 7,792 12,329 5,062 7,713 12,775 25,104
2031 4,560 8,292 12,852 5,087 8,213 13,300 26,152
2032 4,582 8,792 13,374 5,113 8,713 13,826 27,200
2033 4,605 9,292 13,897 5,138 9,213 14,351 28,248
TOTAL
CARGO VOLUME
(TEU)
TABLE 4-5
WITH EXPANDED TRANSSHIPMENT ACTIVITY
2014-2023
Year


4.3.3.1 Recent Vessel Traffic

The number of international cargo vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro included 56 calls in
2012. Vessel calls associated with the delivery of international cargo were and continue to be
made primarily by Matson Navigation Company, Inc., Mariana Express Lines, Ltd., Reef
Shipping, Ltd.(now owned by Matson Navigation Co.), and Kyowa Shipping Company, Limited.
International cargo vessels included a combination of general cargo vessels, container cargo
vessels, and refrigerated cargo vessels. Available vessel movement data indicates that the
average time in port by these vessels was about 22 hours or 0.9 days in 2012.

The number of vessel calls doubled from 56 international cargo vessel calls in CY 2012 to 112
vessel calls in CY 2013. During 2013, vessel calls by international cargo vessels occurred every
three to four days, but there were several dates when two vessel calls occurred in one day. In CY
2011 and CY 2012, that occurred occasionally. Even though only a single berth is available at
Delap Dock, transshipment operations by Marianas Express Lines, Ltd. were made possible
through the scheduling and arrival of a second MELL vessel on the same or following day.

4.3.3.2 Future Vessel Traffic

International cargo vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro are expected to gradually increase during
the coming two decades. The extent of that increase will depend largely upon how much and
when inbound and outbound cargo volumes rise. For the Port of Majuro, the potential use of
Delap Dock for limited or expanded transshipment appears to be the primary determining factor.

If anticipated total annual cargo volumes were to range between 16,112 and 28,248 TEU in 2033
(see section 4.3.2.2) and international cargo vessels continued to transport roughly 95 TEU per
call, the annual number of international cargo vessel calls would range somewhere between 170
and 297 vessel calls (Table 4-6).

Year
Limited Transshipment
Expanded Transshipment
2013 112 112
2014 115 118
2015 117 124
2016 120 130
2017 123 136
2018 126 145
2019 129 153
2020 132 161
2021 135 170
2022 138 179
2023 141 187
2024 144 198
2025 147 209
2026 149 220
2027 152 231
2028 155 242
2029 158 253
2030 161 264
2031 164 275
2032 167 286
2033 170 297
TABLE 4-6
ANTICIPATED INTERNATIONAL CARGO VESSEL TRAFFIC
2014-2033

However, the anticipated number of vessel calls is viewed as a conservative estimate. It is
conceivable that the future number of vessel calls associated with the delivery of international
cargo could expand beyond the anticipated inbound and outbound cargo volumes presented in
Table 4-6 if one or more authorized vessel operating carriers would choose to use the Port of
Majuro as a transshipment point for cargo destined to the Federated States of Micronesia,
Kiribati, Nauru, or other Pacific Islands.


4.3.4.1 Characteristics of Existing International Cargo Fleet

Roughly 21 international container and cargo vessels, which are affiliated with the four primary
cargo carriers, transported most all of the inbound cargo to the Port of Majuro between 2010 and
2012. Container, general cargo and refrigerated cargo vessels comprise the international cargo
fleet. Container vessels transport a combination of dry and refrigerated containers; some
container vessels also have some space available for some break bulk cargo, or cargo that cannot
be accommodated in a freight container due to size and/or weight.

International cargo vessels that called on the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012 ranged from
67 to 162 meters in overall length; six of 13 cargo vessels had a vessel length of 161 or 162
meters. Vessel breadths were between 15.2 and 25.0 meters, but almost half of the vessels
contained a breadth of 25 meters. The drafts of incoming cargo vessels ranged between 6.7 and
14.9 meters (Table 4-7).

4.3.4.2 Preferences of International Cargo Carriers

Representatives of Mariana Express Lines (MELL), which presently employ some of the larger
container ships calling on the Port of Majuro, recently expressed their desire to operate 1,700+
TEU container vessels for their calls upon the Port of Majuro (Cruz, 2013). Vessel particulars
associated with the present MELL cargo fleet indicate that existing container vessels, having a
container capacity of 1,732 to 1,794 TEU, have overall vessel lengths ranging from 175 to 180
meters.

With the establishment of MELL's Micronesia Express service in December 2012, the company
concurrently brings two container vessels to the Port of Majuro every 22 days. One vessel from
Asia travel east toward Hawaii. A second vessel from the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii would
move west to other ports in Micronesia and ultimately return to Asia. In order to accommodate a
ship-to-ship transshipment of cargo from one vessel to another, the length of Delap Dock will
need to be extended to concurrently berth both vessels at Delap Dock.

The berth box along side the main dock should extend, at least, 1.2 times the overall length of the
largest vessel calling upon the Port of Majuro and contain a width that is 1.5 times the beam of
the largest vessel using the berth (Thoresen, 2010). The concurrent berthing of two MELL
container vessels, each having an overall length of 180 meters, would require roughly 432 meters
of dock length. The existing main Delap Dock extends about 308 meters. Consequently, an
additional 124 meters of dock length would be needed to accommodate the transshipment of
containerized cargo from two 1,700+TEU container vessels. The dock extension could also be
achieved via a combination dock extension and dolphin pier to reduce construction costs while
still enabling the concurrent berthing of two vessels.

The breadth or width of the somewhat larger container vessels envisioned for the transshipment
of containerized cargo is 27 to 28 meters. Average vessel drafts would range from roughly 8.3 to
9.8 meters; but, when fully loaded, the draft of some of arriving cargo vessels could be as much
as 11.3 meters.

The existing berth extends the full length of the main Delap Dock. Lyon measured depths along
the quay face of the main dock in December 2013. Depths along the quay face ranged between
11.5 and 13.0 meters in depth. Berth depths become increasingly deeper with increased distance
from the dock. If the reported water depths alongside the main dock remain between 11.5 and
13.0 meters, the depths of the berth along the main Delap Dock would be adequate to support the
1,700+TEU container vessels.

Nameof Vessel Port of Registry Nameof Owner Affiliation
Gross
Registered
Tonnage
1
(Metric Tons)
Net Tonnage
2
(Metric Tons)
Deadweight
Tonnage
3
(Metric Tons)
Length
Overall
(Meters)
Breadth
(Meters)
Vessel
Draft
4
(Meters)
Container
Capacity
(TEU
5
)
Loadable
Reefer
(TEU
5
)
Fuel
Capacity
(Kiloliters)
Islander Netherland
Scheepvaartbedrijf MS IJSSEL
Trader C.V. Matson 6,704 3,557 9,214 132.60 19.20 5.7 658 116 N/A
Sentosa USA N/A MELL
6
18,480 N/A 23,745 177.00 27.00 8.9 1,722 379 N/A
Singapore N/A N/A MELL
6
9,966 N/A 13,742 148.00 23.00 6.8 1,118 200 N/A
Sebarok N/A N/A MELL
6
9,948 N/A 13,997 N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A
Sambawang N/A N/A MELL
6
9,948 N/A 13,997 N/A N/A N/A 1,100 N/A N/A
Roro Hibiscus Panama N/A Kyowa 7,945 N/A 8,289 117.00 20.00 6.1 416 40 N/A
Sudong Cyprus N/A MELL
6
16,000 N/A 13,760 161.00 25.00 9.4 1,304 258 N/A
Sayang Antigua/Barbuda N/A MELL
6
16,107 N/A 16,509 161.00 25.00 7.9 1,347 449 N/A
Tropical Islander Panama N/A Kyowa 18,174 N/A 18,144 151.00 25.00 7.9 966 N/A N/A
Capitaine Wallis N/A N/A RHIA
(6
5,234 N/A 5,945 N/A N/A N/A 513 N/A N/A
Coral Islander II Panama Trio Happiness S.A Kyowa 17,111 9,912 17,913 160.73 25.00 12.8 914 100 N/A
Pacific Islander II Panama PHECDA Shipping S.A Kyowa 17,134 9,912 17,916 160.73 25.00 12.8 912 100 N/A
South Islander Panama Vega Marine LTD S.A Kyowa 18,174 11,005 18,091 160.73 25.00 12.8 966 100 N/A
Southern Pasifika St. John's Werse Schiffahrts GmbH & Co. Reef Shipping 5,234 2,724 6,030 109.39 18.20 6.7 510 N/A 419
Pacific Condor Panama Pacific Line Trading Inc. Kyowa 8,483 3,050 8,635 117.72 20.50 13.5 403 70 N/A
Southern Pearl Singapore Neptune Pacific Line Pte LTD N/A 5,234 2,724 6,030 109.39 18.20 4.3 519 N/A 486
Southern Tiare Cook Islands South Tiare Cook Islands Ltd N/A 1,185 361 1,210 67.35 12.00 3.5 61 N/A N/A
Cattleya Panama Pacific Line Trading Inc. Kyowa 7,945 2,847 8,292 117.52 20.20 13.1 416 40 N/A
Reef Nauru Antigua/Barbuda N/A N/A 2,800 1,516 4,064 86.00 15.20 3.8 N/A N/A N/A
Stamford Monrovia HS PUCCINI Shipping Company MELL
6
16,162 6,128 13,000 161.30 25.00 14.9 1,347 449 2,179
Springwood Antigua/Barbuda Tammo mbH & Co. KG MELL
6
16,137 6,126 13,000 161.32 25.00 9.5 1,347 449 2,223
Seringat Antigua/Barbuda Arian Shipping Company MELL
6
16,137 6,126 13,000 161.23 25.00 14.9 1,347 449 2,223
Notes: 1) Gross registered tonnage is the inernal volume of an entire ship including engine, crew, and storage spaces.
2) Net Tonnage is the internal volume of cargo spaces, but does not include engine, crew, and storage spaces.
3) Deadweight tonnage is the difference between load displacement and light displacement (vessel with no fule, water, stores, crew, or cargo aboard.
4) Vessel Draft is the distance between a vessel's waterline and the lowest oint of the vessel. The draft changes when the vessel becomes heavier or lighter.
5) TEU: Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit - A unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard twenty-food container. Used in stating the capacity of container vessel or
storage area. One 40 ft. container is equal to two TEU's.
6) MELL: Marianas Express Line, Ltd.
N/A: Information not available.
Sources: Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority, 2013; www.fleetmon.com; 2013.
TABLE 4-6
VESSEL PARTICULARS
INTERNATIONAL CARGO VESSELS CALLING UPON THE PORT OF MAJURO
2010-2012
4-7
4.3.4.3 Changing Vessel Dimensions and Potential Impacts Upon Delap Dock Berth

Container ships represent the largest type of vessel that calls on the Port of Majuro and berth
along the main Delap Dock. For over two decades, container vessels have been increasing in
size to obtain a greater economy of scale (Vallo, 2013).

Since the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914, the
size of cargo vessels passing through the canal from
either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean was limited to
the size of its two existing locks. The maximum
vessel dimensions presently required for vessels
moving through the Canal are:

Overall vessel length of 289.6 meters;
Vessel beam of 32.3 meters;
Draft of about 12.0 meters (Panama Canal
Authority, 2013).

These and other requirements are changing as the
Panama Canal is expanding to incorporate, in part, two new sets of
locks that are scheduled for completion in 2015. Under "New
Panamax" limits, the new lock at the Panama Canal will be able to
accommodate vessels with an overall length of 366 meters, a 49-
meter beam, and 15.2 meter draft (Panama Canal Authority, 2013).

Maersk Line, the world's largest container shipping company, already uses a PS-type container
vessel, the Emma Maersk, which is capable of carrying 14,770 TEU. This post Panamax vessel,
one of the larger container vessels in the world, has an overall length of 397 meters, a 56 meter
beam, and a 16 meter draft (Maersk Line, 2013). Maersk Line recently ordered 20 ultra-large
container vessels which will have a carrying capacity of 18,000 TEU. The dimensions of these
vessels will be comparable to the Emma Maersk (Vallo, 2013).

The marine shipping industry continues to expand the size of container vessels to ensure a fast,
efficient and competitive means of international transportation. Larger container vessels call
upon several large ports between continents which are referred to as hubs. Containers from
smaller ports, e.g., Port of Majuro, are delivered to hubs by small container vessels called feeders
which have a container capacity ranging from roughly 500 to 2,000 TEU (Table 4-8).

MSC ELA passing through Gatun Lock at Panama Canal


TABLE 4-8
CONTAINER SHIP SIZE CATEGORIES
Category Name Container Capacity (TEU) Vessel Example
Post-Suezmax ULCV
(Ultra Large Container Vessel)
14,501 and higher Emma Maersk
Container capacity: 14,500 TEU
L=397m, B=56m, T=15.5m,
Suezmax (New Panamax)

10,001-14,500 COSCO Guangzhou
Container Capacity: 9,500 TEU
Beam of 43 m to wide to fit through Panama
Canal's old locks, but could fit through the new
built expansion
Post-Panamax 5,101-10,000
Panamax 3,001-5,000 Providence Bay
Container Capacity: 4,224 TEU
L=292,15m, B=32,2m,
upper dimension limit of the Panamax class, can
pass through the Panama Canal
Feedermax 2,001 3,000 TransAtlantic
Container Capacity: 384 TEU
Container ships under 3,000 TEU are called
feeders; many are equipped with cargo cranes

Feeder 1,001 - 2,000
Small feeder Up to 1,000
Note: TEU = Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit; a unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard twenty foot
container. Used in stating the capacity of container vessel or storage area. One 40 ft. container is equal to two TEU's.
Source: Gorski and Giernalczyk, 2013?; Pedersen Planning Consultants, 2013

Future cargo demands in the Marshall Islands are not expected to motivate shipping companies
to the use of an ultra-large container vessel for the delivery or export of cargo to and from
Majuro in the coming decade. But, it is important to recognize the direction that naval architects
and ship builders are moving toward a continuing expansion in the size and carrying capacity of
international cargo vessels. For this reason, somewhat larger feeder vessels with increased
carrying capacity can be expected to call upon the Port of Majuro in the coming decade.

In view of these trends, it is reasonable to assume during the coming decade that the:

existing berth will be able to serve only one larger feeder vessel.
existing berth along Delap Dock will need to be extended to accommodate cargo
transshipment.
length, width and/or depth of the berth at Delap Dock may eventually need to be
expanded to accommodate larger cargo vessels.

4.4 Oil Tankers

4.4.1 Fuel Imports

4.4.1.1 Recent Fuel Volumes

Local coastal tankers make scheduled deliveries of diesel, jet, and gasoline fuels to the Port of
Majuro. Diesel fuels are periodically transported to Delap Dock where supply lines carry fuels
to the Marshall Energy Company tank farm. Diesel, jet and gasoline fuels are delivered to Uliga
Dock where supply lines transport fuels to the Mobil Micronesia tank farm that is situated about
0.5 mile southwest of Uliga Dock.

In 2012, 12 monthly fuel deliveries transported a total of 900,000 gallons (3,407 kiloliters) of
diesel fuel, 4.3 million gallons (16,277 kiloliters) of jet fuel, and 1.3 million gallons (4,921
kiloliters) of gasoline (Hawley, 2013). Fuel deliveries to Marshall Energy Company included
13,000,000 gallons (49,200 kiloliters) of diesel fuel (Wakefield, 2013).

4.4.1.2 Future Fuel Imports

During the coming decade, the demands for fuel will largely be influenced by the needs
associated with:

the operation of diesel engine generators at the Marshalls Energy Company's power
plant;
the operation of private automobiles;
the operation of construction equipment and other commercial vehicles;
the sale of J et B fuels to incoming jet aircraft; and,
the sale of diesel fuel to fishing vessels.

In this regard, the Marshalls Energy Company (MEC) is planning to rearrange and expand its
existing fuel tank storage area, which is located on the south side of the main shoreline road, to
lands situated immediately west of the fuel tank storage area. MEC wants to incorporate new
storage tanks for jet and gasoline fuels. The sales of fuel by Marshall Energy Company help
offset financial losses associated with the operation and maintenance of MEC's overall electrical
system (Wakefield, 2013).

It is anticipated that the volume of fuel imports to the Marshall Islands will rise in response to a
modest increase in resident population. Rising fuel imports will likely reflect growing demands
for diesel fuel at the Marshall Energy power plant in Delap and gasoline consumed by private
and commercial vehicles. If fuel consumption generally parallels the increase in resident
population, fuel imports during the 2010-2023 period can be expected to increase almost nine
percent during the coming decade. If an attractive location is eventually established for the
servicing of fishing vessels, additional fuel sales can be made to some international fishing
vessels, as well as to the national fishing fleet that is based in the Port of Majuro.


4.4.2.1 Recent Vessel Traffic

Petroleum products delivered to the Marshall Islands are produced by refineries in Singapore.
Products are then shipped by medium range tankers to larger fuel storage facilities in Guam.

Subsequently, fuels are then shipped to the Marshall Islands by smaller local coastal tankers.
Local coastal tankers transporting fuel to the Port of Majuro made 19 vessel calls in 2012. Oil
tankers remained in port for an average of 1.1 days per vessel call.

4.4.2.2 Anticipated Vessel Traffic

While the outlook for future fuel imports point to increased fuel demands in the coming decade,
it is expected that fuel consumption on Majuro Atoll will generally parallels the anticipated
increase in resident population. If so, fuel imports during the 2010-2023 period can be expected
to increase almost nine percent. Such volumes can be expected to generate, at least, 21 vessel
calls by 2023.

If an attractive location is eventually established for a new fishing dock complex and related
fishing vessel service area, greater volumes of diesel fuel sales would likely be made to
international fishing vessels, as well as to the national fishing fleet that is based in the Port of
Majuro.


Between 2010 and 2012, there were seven different oil tankers that delivered various fuels to
both Uliga Dock and Delap Dock. Selected vessel particulars, presented in Table 4-9, indicate
that the maximum oil tanker vessel, Golden Micronesia, has an overall length of 120 meters, a
breadth of 17.8 meters, and a draft of 9.8 meters.

Name of Vessel
Port of
Registry Name of owner
Gross Registered
Tonnage
1
(Metric Tons)
Net Tonnage
2
(Metric Tons)
Length Overall
(Meters)
Breadth
(Meters)
Vessel Draft
3
(Meters)
Fuel Capacity
(Kiloliters)
Golden Micronesia Panama Triton Shipping S.A. 5,489 2,749 120.00 17.80 9.80 9,790
Angel 101 Sierra Leone Winson Int'l Shipping 4,974 2,351 110.00 17.50 9.00 N/A
Angel 2 Freetown Winson Int'l Shipping 5,847 2,984 119.40 18.80 9.50 N/A
Akri Panama Arouka Tankers Corp. 4,202 1,946 105.00 16.00 N/A N/A
YC Clover Panama Macos Shipping Co., S.A. 5,667 2,743 114.40 18.20 10.00 N/A
YC Lilac South Korea Shinhan Capital Co., LTD 5,340 2,543 112.00 19.00 10.00 9,422
YC Ivy South Korea Shinhan Capital Co., LTD 4,984 2,543 113.95 18.40 9.80 N/A
TABLE 4-8
VESSEL PARTICULARS
INTERNATIONAL OIL TANKERS CALLING UPON PORT OF MAJURO
2010-2012
3) Vessel Draft is the distance betgween a vessel's waterline and the lowest oint of the vessel. The draft changes when the vessel becomes heavier or lighter.
N/A - Informaton not available.
Sources: Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority, 2013; www.fleetmon.com, 2013.

4-9

4.5 Fishing Vessel Traffic

4.5.1 Recent Vessel Traffic

On an annual basis, there are roughly 200 or more fishing vessels that are annually licensed to
fish in the Marshall Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (Table 4-10). During fishing trips in the
Marshall Islands, most of these vessels will call upon the Port of Majuro for a variety of reasons
such as:

transship their catch to larger refrigerated fish carrier vessels;
deliver catch to local fish processing operations;
make vessel or net repairs;
replenish food or other vessel supplies; and/or,
provide some onshore time to fishing vessel crews.

In 2012, 371 transshipments of fish were made in the Port of Majuro by 290 purse seiners and 81
refrigerated fish carrier vessels (Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2013).

Incoming fishing vessels are piloted by a representative of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
Harbor Pilots Association to the vessel moorage area that is situated on the east end of the port
fairway. A log of vessel movements within the Port of Majuro, which are recorded by the RMI
Ports Authority, reveals that approximately 482 fishing vessels called upon the Port of Majuro in
2012 and remained in the Port of Majuro for an average of 9.8 days.

Occasional requests are made by fishing vessel captains for vessel access to the main Delap
Dock for net or vessel repairs, fuel resupply, or other crew and vessel needs. But these requests
are limited as all incoming international vessels incur expenses for the piloting of their vessels to
the dock, as well as their use of the dock.

The limited use of the main Delap Dock by fishing vessels generates few, if any, vessel conflicts
at the main dock. The Republic of the Marshall Islands Port Authority gives priority to
international cargo vessels for access and use of the main dock. In the event that a fishing vessel
is temporarily moored at the dock when an international cargo arrives in the Port of Majuro
earlier than scheduled, RMIPA representatives request the fishing vessel to depart from the main
dock and return to the vessel anchorage area.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Purse Seine 121 130 149 142 117
Longline 90 64 53 45 49
Pole and Line 23 22 25 12 26
Total: 234 216 227 199 192
TABLE 4-9
VESSELS LICENSED TO FISH IN MARSHALL ISLANDS EEZ
2006-2010
Source: Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, 2011.
4-10
The preceding policy eliminates delays for international cargo vessels and enables a shorter
period of time in port. However, this policy concurrently discourages fishing vessels from
making local expenditures for fuel resupply, food and other vessel supplies, as well as equipment
and engine repairs. Consequently, fishing vessels seek these services from other ports prior to or
following their calls on the Port of Majuro.

4.5.2 Anticipated Vessel Traffic in the Coming Decade

Future fishing vessel traffic depends upon numerous factors such as global and regional demands
for tuna, the price of tuna in regional fish markets, harvested fish volumes in the RMI Exclusive
Economic Zone, regional and local fishery management policies, and the cost of diesel fuel.
These factors are ever-changing influences upon the motivation of fish buyers, fishing vessel
owners, fishing companies, as well as the two fish processing operations in Majuro.

The RMI Exclusive Economic Zone remains a favorable location for commercial tuna fishing
and transshipment. "Pohnpei, Majuro, Rabaul, Honiara, and Tarawa are the ports that the
industry has become accustomed to using and which currently provide the best options under
most transshipping scenarios" (McCoy, 2012).

During the coming decade, it is reasonable to assume that fishing activity and harvests in the
RMI Exclusive Economic Zone will, on an annual basis, continue to rise and fall, but trend
toward somewhat greater fishing activity. The consequence of this assumption is, of course, a
related rise in international fishing vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro. During the coming
decade, it is anticipated that the annual number of international fishing vessel calls in 2023 will
peak to not more than 10 to 15 percent over the number of fishing vessel calls made in 2012, or
between 530 and 555 vessels per year.


International fishing vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro primarily include purse seine and
refrigerated carrier vessels. Secondarily, this fleet also includes a considerably smaller number
of long line and pole and line fishing vessels.

4.5.3.1 Purse Seine Vessels

Between 2010 and 2012, the largest purse seine vessel calling upon the Port of Majuro was the
Friesland which has a gross registered tonnage of 2,437 metric tons. Her overall length is 77.81
meters and the vessel breadth is 14.33 meters (Table 4-11).

Most of the incoming purse seine vessels during this period had an overall length between 50 and
70 meters and a vessel breadth ranging between 11 and 13 meters.

4.5.3.2 Refrigerated Carrier Vessels

The largest refrigerated carrier vessel, commonly referred to as a "reefer carrier", that called
upon the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012 was the Tai Fu 1. This vessel has a gross
registered tonnage of 6,049 metric tons, an overall length of 137 meters, and a breadth of 17.5
meters (Table 4-11).

Other incoming refrigerated carrier vessels were characterized by an overall length between 80
and 120 meters and breadth of 14 to 17 meters.

4.5.3.3 Implications of Fishing Vessel Sizes

In the event that the RMIPA or other RMI agencies desire to provide a designated service dock
for fisheries vessels, the maximum vessel size of incoming fishing vessels suggest a required
dock length of roughly 175 meters. The largest incoming refrigerated carrier vessel, Ostrov
Beringa, had an overall length of only 124.5 meters. Providing an additional allowance of 50
meters would provide additional length for future vessels that may extend beyond the length of
the fleet that currently calls upon the Port of Majuro, as well as additional area for vessel
maneuvering to and from the berth along the dock.


Name of Vessel Port of Registry Name of Owner Type of Vessel
Gross Registered
Tonnage
(1
(Metric Tons)
Net Tonnage
(2
(Metric Tons)
Length
Overall
(Meters)
Breadth
(Meters)
Vessel
Draft
(3
(Meters)
Fuel
Capacity
(Kiloliters)
Hsieh Feng 707 Taiwan Min Shuen Ocean Co., LTD purse seiner 1,098.00 340.00 58.03 12.24 7.25 N/A
Fong Seong 767 Taiwan Fong Haur Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,895.00 568.50 86.11 13.55 8.13 N/A
Jih Yu 212 Taiwan Chernlung Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.59 330.89 55.90 12.20 7.20 504
Oriental Marine Vanuatu Oriental Marine Fishery Co. purse seiner 1,099.00 416.00 60.71 12.20 7.20 N/A
Marshalls 202 Marshall Is. Koo's Fishing Co., LTD purse seiner 1,517.00 455.00 64.40 12.80 7.25 N/A
Koo's 101 Marshall Is. Koo's Fishing Co., LTD purse seiner 1,100.00 416.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Fox A. Samoa Sea Global Fisheries Inc. purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 69.98 12.20 12.00 440
Ocean Conquest A. Samoa South Pacific Tuna Co., LTD purse seiner 1,416.00 515.00 72.37 12.20 7.25 N/A
Fong Kuo 889 Taiwan N/A purse seiner 1,428.00 428.00 63.50 12.20 4.71 N/A
Pacific Ranger A. Samoa Pacific Ranger, LLC purse seiner 1,415.00 515.00 72.37 7.25 5.44 440
Yung Hsing Fa 168 Taiwan yung Hsing Fa Fishery Co.LTD purse seiner 1,416.00 424.00 63.65 12.20 7.20 476
Fong Seong 779 Taiwan Ching Fong Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,735.00 520.00 68.75 13.55 8.13 N/A
Eastern Marine Vanuatu Fong Kuo Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,099.00 416.00 71.23 12.20 7.20 N/A
Ocean Expedition A. Samoa Ocean Global Fisheries LLC purse seiner 1,415.00 515.00 63.85 12.20 7.20 476
Fong Kuo 788 Taiwan Fong Kuo Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.00 330.00 64.70 12.20 7.20 N/A
Fu Kuan 808 Yuh Yow Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,416.00 424.00 71.79 12.20 4.25 N/A
Shun Tien 606 Taiwan Shun Tian Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.00 571.00 64.40 11.80 7.50 N/A
Ocean Challenger A. Samoa Sea Global Fisheries Inc. purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 63.13 12.30 6.70 N/A
American Triumph A. Samoa American Triumph Fishery LLC purse seiner 1,691.00 685.00 69.14 13.60 7.31 511
Ocean Encounter A. Samoa Ocean Global Fisheries LLC purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 63.13 12.30 7.25 440
Win Far 626 Taiwan Win Chang Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,098.00 338.00 58.03 12.24 7.25 N/A
American Victory A. Samoa American Legacy Fishing LLC purse seiner 1,691.00 685.00 69.14 13.60 7.31 N/A
LimDiscoverer South Korea Hansung Enterprise Co., LTD purse seiner 1,207.71 465.00 61.15 12.80 5.56 N/A
Sea Quest A. Samoa Sea Global Fisheries Inc. purse seiner 1,416.00 515.00 63.75 12.20 7.25 440
Jih Yu 712 Taiwan Jih Yu Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.02 330.52 56.54 12.20 7.20 N/A
American Enterprise A. Samoa American Enterprise Fishing LLC purse seiner 2,310.00 1,248.00 78.77 13.91 9.07 606
Sea Honor A. Samoa Sea Global Fisheries Inc. purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 63.13 12.30 7.25 440
Koo's 108 Marshall Is. Koo's Fishing Co., LTD purse seiner 1,100.00 416.00 72.00 N/A N/A N/A
Eastern Star Vanuatu Eastern Star Shipping Co., LTD purse seiner 2,386.00 716.00 89.21 14.32 7.50 N/A
Win Far 636 Taiwan Win Hsiung Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,098.00 338.00 65.70 12.24 7.25 388
TABLE 4-10
VESSEL PARTICULARS
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS CALLING UPON PORT OF MAJURO
2010-2012
Page 1 of 3 Pages
4-11

Gross Registered
Tonnage
1
(Metric Tons)
Net Tonnage
2
(Metric Tons)
Length
Overall
(Meters)
Breadth
(Meters)
Vessel
Draft
3
(Meters)
Fuel
Capacity
(Kiloliters)
Lojet Marshall Is. Pan Pacific Fishing(RMI) Inc. purse seiner 2,135.00 635.00 79.80 13.51 7.00 N/A
Zhong Tai 3 China Chernlung Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,284.00 405.00 70.59 12.30 7.25 N/A
Taumoana Tuvalu Tuvalu Tuna Fishing Co., LTD purse seiner 1,738.00 522.00 75.38 13.60 7.70 N/A
Tai Jin 18 Kiribati Kiribati And Tai Jin Fishing Co., LTD purse seiner 1,016.00 304.00 56.30 11.40 6.40 N/A
Jih Yu 612 Taiwan Jih Yu Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.59 330.89 64.70 12.20 4.70 N/A
Sea Bounty A. Samoa Sea Global Fisheries Inc. purse seiner 1,152.00 416.00 72.37 12.20 7.20 434
Friesland USA Friesland Fishing Company LLC purse seiner 2,437.00 731.00 77.81 14.33 8.90 N/A
Jin Hui 2 China Shanghai Kaichuang Deep Sea Fisherie purse seiner 995.00 330.00 56.64 12.20 7.20 N/A
Jin Hui 7 China Shanghai Kaichuang Deep Sea Fisherie purse seiner 1,769.00 530.00 79.77 12.19 5.84 N/A
Jin Hui 8 China Shanghai Kaichuang Deep Sea Fisherie purse seiner 1,640.00 702.00 66.18 12.80 7.75 N/A
San Nanumea New Zealand Sanford Limited purse seiner 1,678.00 419.00 77.16 N/A N/A N/A
Raffaello USA Fishing Company Raffaello LLC purse seiner 1,097.00 330.00 53.11 12.20 5.95 N/A
Yap Seagull Yap Diving Seagull Inc. purse seiner 972.77 461.00 67.06 11.61 4.51 N/A
Tomoe A. Samoa Pacific Global Fisheries Inc purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 69.85 12.20 5.44 440
Sea Defender USA Sea Defender, LLC purse seiner 1,415.00 515.00 69.42 12.20 7.25 N/A
Ocean Warrior A. Samoa Ocean Global Fisheries LLC purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 63.13 12.30 7.25 N/A
Jih Yu 812 Taiwan Chernlung Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 995.00 330.00 56.64 12.20 5.00 N/A
Ocean Galaxy A. Samoa Ocean Global Fisheries LLC purse seiner 1,517.00 605.00 70.59 12.30 4.80 440
Fong Seong 696 Vanuatu Fong Yi Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 2,234.00 670.00 84.32 N/A 8.78 N/A
Ocean Breeze New Zealand Sanford Limited purse seiner 1,355.00 406.00 61.20 11.99 8.84 N/A
Lometo Marshall Is. Pan Pacific Fishing(RMI) Inc. purse seiner 1,344.00 403.00 61.85 12.20 7.20 N/A
Lomalo Marshall Is. Pan Pacific Fishing(RMI) Inc. purse seiner 1,344.00 403.00 61.85 12.20 7.20 N/A
Ching Feng 767 Taiwan Supreme Universal Fishery Co.,LLD purse seiner 996.00 572.00 58.90 11.80 4.55 414
Cape Ferrat A. Samoa Cape Ferrat Fishing LLC purse seiner 2,019.00 650.00 75.27 12.80 8.57 N/A
American Eagle A. Samoa American Eagle Fishing LLC purse seiner 2,310.00 1,248.00 89.21 13.91 9.07 N/A
Ta Ching 666 Taiwan Ever Glory Co., LTD purse seiner 1,052.00 358.00 58.70 11.80 4.55 N/A
Fong Seong 666 Vanuatu Fong Hong Fishery Co., LTD purse seiner 1,921.00 670.00 84.32 N/A 8.78 N/A
Lake Glory South Korea Shinhan Capital Co., LTD reefer carrier 5,122.00 2,860.00 118.92 17.20 10.00 N/A
Syota Maru Panama Koo's Fishing Co., LTD reefer carrier 4,491.00 2,125.00 120.75 16.60 10.00 N/A
Kenta Maru Panama Koo's Fishing Co., LTD reefer carrier 2,856.00 1,302.00 84.00 N/A N/A N/A
Ostrov Beringa Panama Seajet Overseas S.A. reefer carrier 5,757.00 2,483.00 124.50 18.00 10.40 N/A
Salgir Panama Salgir Shipping LTD reefer carrier 3,767.00 1,568.00 100.72 16.60 9.90 N/A
Page 2 of 3 Pages
TABLE 4-10
VESSEL PARTICULARS
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS CALLING UPON PORT OF MAJURO, 2010-2012 Continued fromprevious page
4-11
Gross Registered
Tonnage
1
(Metric Tons)
Net Tonnage
2
(Metric Tons)
Length
Overall
(Meters)
Breadth
(Meters)
Vessel
Draft
3
(Meters)
Fuel
Capacity
(Kiloliters)
Hua Jian 107 Kiribati United Ocean Transportation Limitd reefer carrier 4,238.00 1,695.00 107.95 16.00 9.80 N/A
Sun Flower 7 South Korea Ji Sung Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 3,244.00 1,593.00 92.23 16.20 9.50 N/A
Frio Canarias Panama Marine Growth S.A. reefer carrier 4,109.00 2,105.00 112.00 16.20 9.80 973
Tai Fu 1 Kiribati Sun Big Reefer Shipping S.A. reefer carrier 6,049.00 2,680.00 137.00 17.50 10.00 1,357
Cherry Star South Korea Shinhan Capital Co., LTD reefer carrier 3,919.00 2,039.00 106.03 16.60 9.90 N/A
Arctic Panama Blue Ocean Inc, Panama reefer carrier 3,526.00 1,678.00 99.02 16.00 10.00 N/A
Fong Kuo 819 Panama Fong Kuo Overseas Co., LTD reefer carrier 5,131.00 3,149.00 115.00 17.80 10.10 138
Han Xing Freetown Smart Fortune Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 1,998.00 978.00 80.68 13.20 7.20 202
Frio Hamburg Panama SeaviewMaritime S.A. reefer carrier 4,988.00 3,118.00 124.70 17.80 9.85 N/A
Fong Kuo 818 Panama Fong Kuo Overseas Co., LTD reefer carrier 5,286.00 3,150.00 115.00 17.80 10.10 N/A
Sohoh South Korea KDB Capital Corp' reefer carrier 4,519.00 2,220.00 120.75 16.60 10.00 N/A
Hikari 1 Vanuatu NewPower Ship reefer carrier 4,521.00 2,131.00 120.75 16.60 10.00 387
Sea Star Kiribati Habitat International Corporation reefer carrier 4,574.00 2,474.00 120.20 16.40 9.95 N/A
Jonathan Ace Panama Jonathan Shipping Inc. reefer carrier 3,520.00 1,678.00 99.02 16.00 10.00 N/A
Yung Da Fa 108 Panama Yung Wang Fa Fishery Co., LTD reefer carrier 5,024.00 2,893.00 117.81 17.80 10.02 1,206
Sea Mark Panama Habitat International Corporation reefer carrier 5,321.00 2,658.00 125.67 17.80 10.20 1,096
Sea Glory Kiribati Shandong Zhonglu Fishery Shipping Co reefer carrier 4,444.00 2,287.00 120.70 16.60 10.00 N/A
Sein Ocean South Korea Sein Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 4,071.00 2,444.00 110.03 16.40 9.45 N/A
Sea Trader Kiribati Habitat International Corporation reefer carrier 4,574.00 2,474.00 120.20 16.40 9.95 N/A
Kraskino Panama Daeyoung Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 5,286.00 3,150.00 115.00 17.80 10.10 N/A
Angara Panama Angara Shipping Limited reefer carrier 3,767.00 1,568.00 100.72 16.60 9.90 N/A
Pharo Star Marshall Is. Ji Sung Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 4,490.00 2,125.00 120.75 N/A 10.00 N/A
Frio Spain Panama Ocean Tradewings Limited reefer carrier 5,323.00 2,926.00 125.67 17.80 10.20 158
NewHayatsuki Panama Vega Line S.A. reefer carrier 4,287.00 2,026.00 116.20 16.20 9.75 N/A
Fortuna Reefer Kiribati Habitat International Corporation reefer carrier 3,493.00 1,874.00 99.59 15.80 9.30 N/A
Win Uni Panama Win Uni Marine Corporation reefer carrier 2,910.00 1,417.00 104.50 15.00 7.80 N/A
Eita Maru Panama Koo's Fishing Co., LTD reefer carrier 2,581.00 774.00 88.94 14.50 8.60 N/A
Katah South Korea Jisung Shipping Co., LTD reefer carrier 4,457.00 2,252.00 120.75 16.60 10.00 848
Kai Yuan China Shanghai Kaichuang Deep Sea Fisheri reefer carrier 2,487.00 1,918.90 86.33 14.50 8.25 N/A
228,930.68 104,052.70 7,711.83 1,199.44 711.93 13,254
Source: Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority, 2013.
TABLE 4-10
VESSEL PARTICULARS
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS CALLING UPON PORT OF MAJURO, 2010-2012 Final page of 3 pages
TOTALS:
3) Vessel Draft is the distance betgween a vessel's waterline and the lowest oint of the vessel. The draft changes when the vessel becomes heavier or lighter.
N/A: Information not available.
4-11
4.6 Cargo Handling Systems

4.6.1 General

Delap Dock is essentially a container terminal given that an estimated 98 percent of incoming
international cargo represents containerized cargo. One of the important issues facing the
Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority is: How large of a container yard is needed to
accommodate anticipated cargo volumes during the coming decade? The answer to this question
is largely influenced by the cargo handling equipment used to move containers to and from the
container yard, stacking containers, the pickup and delivery of containers to consignees, and the
receipt of containers for export.

4.6.2 Range of Equipment Options

Larger container terminals typically operate with a wide range of container yard equipment.
This equipment typically includes a combination of the following equipment:

Reach stackers used for container stacking, the loading and unloading of terminal tractor-
trailers, as well as the inter-modal loading and unloading of containers on to rail cars.
Containers are placed on or picked up from terminal tractor-trailers by quay cranes.
Trailers, which are built for use only inside the container terminal, are pulled to and from
the container yard by terminal tractors.
Straddle carriers stack containers two or three high, as well as retrieve and move
containers from a stack of containers.
Yard gantry cranes on rubber wheels are typically used in combination with terminal
tractor-trailer transport between the dock apron and container yard.
Yard gantry cranes on rails are also used in combination with terminal tractor-trailer
transport. Containers are stacked four to five high.
Large span gantry cranes on rails that provide direct container handling between the
container ship and container yard; and,
Mixed yard-gantry crane and straddle carrier systems (Agerschou, 2004).

Given the extensive capital investment associated with gantry cranes and other cargo handling
equipment, smaller Pacific ports that handle considerably smaller volumes of containers typically
operate with no gantry cranes. Cargo from container ships is typically offloaded using onboard
ship cranes. Although some higher volume Pacific Island ports, e.g. Port of Guam, rely upon the
use of mobile harbor cranes. Once offloaded to the
dock apron, containers are handled through the use
of forklifts, toplifts, reach stackers, and terminal
tractor-trailers.

4.6.3 Cranes on Container Ships

Smaller Pacific ports, e.g., the Port of Majuro, have
been able to avoid investments in costly gantry
cranes and straddle carrier systems because they are
served by feeder container vessels with ship gear
that provides the capability to unload and load

cargo from the ship. As stated earlier, feeder container vessels have a container capacity
that generally ranges between 500 and 2,000 TEU.

Some container vessels (below 3000 TEU) are equipped with cargo cranes thus can call (upon)
ports not equipped with container handling facilities. Larger container vessels are not equipped
with cargo cranes and become entirely dependent on port facilities (Gorski and Giernalczyk,
2013).

4.6.4 The Need for Transition to More Efficient Cargo Handling Systems

4.6.4.1 General

Existing volumes of inbound and outbound international cargo at the Port of Majuro do not
justify a significant capital expenditure for the installation of ship-to-shore crane systems along
Delap Dock apron. At the same time, the Port of Majuro is the hub of the Marshall Islands
economy. The future import of food, household goods, fuel, and building materials are essential
to sustaining the lifestyle of Marshallese residents. And in view of significant changes to
international cargo vessels, it is important that RMIPA transition toward the installation and use
of more efficient cargo handling systems.

During the coming decade, it is anticipated that the Port of Majuro along with its neighboring
ports in the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Nauru will remain on several routes
made by feeder container vessels that have onboard cargo cranes. However, because of the Port
of Majuro's strategic location, there also appears to be growing interest among international
shippers to make an expanded use of the Port of Majuro for the transshipment of containers to
other Pacific Islands.

4.6.4.2 Short Term Modifications

In this context, the focus of short-term
improvements to cargo handling should be to
increase the efficiency of inbound container
storage and delivery to local consignees. This
will require a re-organization of the container
stacking/storage area and the overall Delap Dock
complex, as well as various facility improvements
outlined in Chapter Six.

Feeder container vessels, which are supplied with
shipboard cranes, currently discharge loaded containers on to the dock apron along the main
Delap Dock. Smaller 20-foot containers are loaded on to small flatbed trucks. Stevedores
remove cables holding the 20 or 40-foot container. MSTCO operators then mobilize a forklift or
top pick to lift and transport the inbound containers to a designated location in the container
yard. However, in order for the container to be delivered or picked up by a consignee, the
container must be picked up and loaded again on a chassis or semi truck trailer before it is
transported to the consignee's location.

Vessel offloading onto Delap apron


Observations of container handling in J anuary and December 2013 suggest that some greater
efficiency in cargo handling could be achieved through the demolition of selected structures in
the container yard, the reorganization of the container stacking/storage area, as well as the
combined use of reach stackers and terminal tractor-trailer units. Onboard ship cranes could
unload containers on to terminal tractor-trailer units which would transport inbound containers to
the container stacking/storage area. Reach stackers would unload containers from the terminal
tractor-trailer units and stack them into container blocks. Containers would continue to be
stacked an average of three containers high.

Existing forklifts and top picks could continue to be used. This equipment could transport
empty containers from the CFS warehouse to empty container stacks, as well as the load inbound
containers from the container stacks on to chassis, or semi-truck trailers, that are used to deliver
containers to local consignees.

4.6.4.3 Medium Term Modifications

During the next several years, RMIPA will also need to be prepared to address the potential
opportunity for expanded transshipment operations at Delap Dock. Re-organization of the
container stacking/storage area will need to be adaptable to the incorporation of additional cargo
handling equipment that will be necessary to achieve more efficient cargo handling.

Expanded transshipment operations will require widening of the dock apron for the installation
of a mobile harbor crane that would increase the efficiency of container loading and unloading at
Delap Dock. The mobile harbor crane would lower containers on to terminal tractor-trailer units
that would transport inbound containers to the container stacking/storage area. Reach stackers
would unload the terminal tractor-trailer units and stack containers an average of three high in
container blocks.

Forklifts and top picks would continue to be used to transport empty containers from the CFS
warehouse to empty container stacks, as well as load inbound containers from the container
stacks on to chassis, or semi-truck trailers, that are used to deliver containers to local consignees.

Delap apron transferring container to the yard

Delap placement of container in the main yard
CHAPTER FIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GENERAL

Various environmental forces and climatic conditions influence the operation and berthing of
international vessels in the Port of Majuro. These considerations primarily include wind
characteristics, wave patterns, and currents.

Conversely, the operation of vessels within the Port of Majuro also impacts the environment of
Majuro Lagoon. It is important that future port operations and the planning of future
improvements within the Lagoon consider these impacts and identify effective mitigation
measures that can be used by the Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority and other
national agencies to enhance the water quality and ecology of Majuro Lagoon. The long-term
challenge is to balance the social and economic needs of the Marshall Islands residents with the
concurrent responsibility to conserve the natural resources of Majuro Lagoon.

5.2 WIND CHARACTERISTICS

A Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment (SEAFRAME) station and related
tidal gauge was installed on Uliga Dock in May 1993. This instrument records sea level, air and
water temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction (Commonwealth of Australia,
Bureau of Meteorology, 2012).

Available data from this station, between 1994 and 2011, indicates that surface winds in Majuro
Lagoon blow predominantly from the northeast and east throughout the year. Stronger wind
speeds, ranging from 10 to 20 kilometers/hour, occur from J anuary through April. Weaker wind
speeds, ranging between 5 and 10 kilometers, are more prevalent between August and October
(Table 5-1).

In response to a recent questionnaire distributed to the authorized vessel operating carriers in
Micronesia, Lyon Associates learned that Pacific Direct Line (PDL) has occasionally
encountered northwest-northeast winds that have been strong enough to push their cargo vessels
into Delap Dock and constrain their vessels' ability to depart from the Dock. Without the
assistance of a tug boat, the captains have had difficulty leaving the dock under power against
the force of the wind. In these infrequent situations, PDL has had to obtain assistance from
nearby fishing vessels to help some of their cargo vessels pull away from Delap Dock since no
tugboat is based in the Port of Majuro (Simpson, 2013). However, it is not believed that this
occurs frequently enough to warrant the need for a dedicated tug, or other vessel, to assist cargo
vessels pulling away from the Delap dock face.

TABLE 5-1
MONTHLY SURFACE WIND CHARACTERISTICS
ULIGA DOCK
1994-2011
Month Primary
Wind
Direction
Occurrence
(Percent of
time)
Secondary
Wind
Direction
Occurrence
(percent of
time)
Wind Speed
(km/hour)
Occurrence
(percent of
time)
J anuary NE 72 E 23 10-20 62
February NE 76 E 20 10-20 66
March NE 73 E 23 10-20 66
April NE 70 E 26 10-20 65
May NE 62 E 31 10-20 56
J une NE 54 E 36 10-20 50
J uly NE 44 E 38 10-20
5-10
41
39
August NE 32 E 30 5-10
10-20
38
29
September E 31 NE 25 5-10
10-20
36
30
October E 31 NE 28 5-10
10-20
36
31
November NE 38 E 33 10-20
5-10
38
34
December NE 61 E 29 10-20 58
Source: Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology,2012

5.3 TIDAL VARIATIONS

In port master planning, fluctuations in tidal levels represent one of several important
considerations that are used to determine adequate water depths for the front and alongside
berths, as well as water depths in port fairways and channels. Chart datum used for these
evaluations is typically the lowest astronomical tide (Thoresen, 2010).

The tides in Majuro Atoll are semi-diurnal and characterized by pronounced diurnal inequalities,
i.e., two tidal cycles per day of unequal tidal range. Tides fluctuate from a neap range of 1.2
meters and a spring tide of 1.8 meters (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 2013).

The nautical chart for Majuro Atoll (nautical chart 81782) displays information that suggests the
mean sea level at Djarrit (located roughly 1,000 meters northwest of Uliga Dock) is
approximately 3.2 feet above lowest astronomical tide. Site revetment design criteria, recently
developed by Beca International Consultants, Ltd for the Amata Kabua International Airport
runway safety area, concluded, in part, that more recent data obtained from the SEAFRAME
tidal gauge at Uliga Dock is more prudent to use in view of generally rising sea levels (Beca
International, 2012).

Available data from the SEAFRAME tidal gauge at Uliga Dock, which extends from J une 1993
through J une 2012, indicates that the mean difference between lowest astronomical tide and
mean sea level is approximately 1.053 meters or 3.45 feet (Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau
of Meteorology, 2012). While this mean tidal level is only slightly higher than data gained from
the nautical chart, Lyon Associates concurs with the conclusion of Beca International to use
more recent tidal data from Uliga Dock.

5.4 WAVE PATTERNS

Majuro Atoll is exposed to sea and swell generated from nearly all directions. The primary wave
types affecting the atoll are:
the prevailing easterly tradewind waves,
south and north pacific swell, and,
waves generated by tropical storms and typhoons.

Tradewind waves may be present throughout the year and are highest from December through
April. They result from the steady tradewinds blowing from the east-northeast over open ocean.
Typically, the deep water tradewind waves have periods of 5 to 8 seconds and heights of less
than 6 feet (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro, and Sullivan, 1992).

South Pacific swell is generated during
the southern hemisphere winter and is
most prevalent during the months of April
through October. North Pacific swell is
produced by severe storms in the Aleutian
area of the North Pacific Ocean and by
mid-latitude low pressure systems. North
Pacific swell may occur throughout the
year but is largest and most frequent
during the northern winter months of
October through March. South swell is
generally characterized by long, low waves approaching from the southeast through southwest,
with periods of l2 to 20 seconds and deepwater wave heights of 2 to 6 feet. North Pacific swell
typically has periods up to 16 seconds and heights of 5 to l5 feet (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro,
and Sullivan, 1992).

5.5 CURRENT PATTERNS

The Marshall Islands are influenced by the effects of both the North Equatorial Current and the
Equatorial Countercurrent into the North Marshall Islands and South Marshall Islands. Majuro
Atoll is located in the vicinity of North Equatorial Current's southern boundary where currents
generally tend westward between 0.5 and 1.5 knots. When the Equatorial Countercurrent shifts
north of its northern boundary, currents in the North Equatorial Current may temporarily set to
the east (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 2013).

Within Majuro Lagoon, currents consistently move westward and typically do not exceed 0.5
knots. Currents in Calalin Channel are approximately 1.0 knot during both flood and ebb tide
conditions (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, 2013).

Tradewind wave refraction on ocean side of Uliga

5.6 ECOLOGY OF MAJURO LAGOON

5.6.1 Coastal Erosion

Coastal erosion is one of the more significant factors influencing the water quality and marine
resources of Majuro Lagoon. Increased erosion along the south side of the Lagoon has
established a growing number of passages between the Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean that have
significantly diminished sediment transport within Majuro Lagoon. The westward longshore
sediment transport within the Lagoon is important for the stability of the coast of Majuro
Lagoon's south and southwest rims (Xue, 1997).

A variety of natural events and land use development activities have, on a cumulative basis,
contributed to the erosion of Majuro Lagoon's shoreline.

Typhoons of 1905 and 1918, which likely approached Majuro from the southeast, washed
over the narrow parts of the long island from Delap to Laura. A total land area extending
some five kilometers was lost at two locations on the south atoll rim, apparently close to
Delap. Prior to1905, it is likely there was a continuous land connection between Delap
and Laura (Xue, 1997).
The construction of various military and transportation facilities, e.g., causeways, in 1944
and 1945. However, more large-scale construction occurred following World War II and
induced severe erosion on Majuro Atoll (Xue, 1997).
Construction of a new airport in 1970-1972, as well as a long causeway that connected
the airport with the Woja-Ajeltake area (Xue, 1997).
During the late 1970's and early 1980's, Delap Dock was built on the lagoon coast west of
Delap and land was reclaimed on the ocean reef flat for a fuel tank farm. In the first half
of the 1980's, a channel west of Delap Dock was cut and a bridge over it was constructed
(Xue, 1997).
Significant increases in the resident population of Majuro Atoll, combined with new
business and employment opportunities in the cash economy, improved health facilities
and new educational opportunities, resulted in a gradual relocation of many residents to
the east side of Majuro Atoll. Community growth encouraged greater land use
expansion. Such development required, in part, the excavation of sand and gravel from
local beaches. Homeowners constructed more seawalls for protection from erosion
and/or land reclamation (Xue, 1997).

The erosion caused by historical natural events and past land use development cannot be
restored. However, in terms of future port operations and potential port expansion, there are
steps that can be taken to significantly minimize coastal erosion within Majuro Lagoon.

The study of Coastal Sedimentation Erosion and Management of Majuro Atoll, prepared and
published by Chunting Xue in September 1997, offers a substantive list of strategies for
stabilizing the westward longshore transport of sediments in Majuro Lagoon. While beyond the
scope of this master plan, the recommendations contained in that study warrant further
evaluation and subsequent actions by the Republic of the Marshall Islands to conserve the coast
of Majuro Lagoon's south and southwest rims.

5.6.2 Water Quality

5.6.2.1 Drinking Water Supply and Groundwater Resources

Majuro Atoll has a very fragile water supply that is derived from two sources:

the airport runway catchment area in the south side of Majuro Atoll; and,
the Laura groundwater lens located along the west side of Majuro Atoll (Figure 5-1).

Rainwater harvested from the airport runway has a surface catchment area that includes
approximately 32.4 hectares. The airport catchment area annually yields about 844,147 cubic
meters (223 million gallons), but the potential dependable yield is about 643,520 cubic meters
(170 million gallons) annually. Water obtained from the airport catchment is pumped to a series
of reservoirs that hold 138,168 cubic meters or about 36.5 million gallons (Secretariat of the
Pacific Community, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division, 2007).

The airport catchment water supply is supplemented by ground water pumped from seven wells
in Laura Village to reservoirs which are estimated to have a maximum daily yield of up to 1,514
cubic meters (400,000 gallons). However, the current rate of production is only about 379 cubic
meters (roughly 100,000 gallons) daily. Unauthorized connections and leakage in the
transmission and distribution system are key problems that have been identified by the Majuro
Water and Sewer Company (MWSC). The dependable annual yield of the Laura wells is, at least,
196,841 cubic meters (52 million gallons). The reservoirs feed MWSC's water distribution
system on Majuro (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Applied Geoscience and Technology
Division, 2007). The reliance upon the groundwater resource at Laura for drinking water
underscores the need to safeguard groundwater resources of Majuro Atoll from two potential
risks: saltwater intrusion and pollution of the groundwater aquifer (Overman, 2001).

Pollution of the groundwater resources of Majuro atoll are typically impacted by land uses which
generate some type of chemical discharge into the small fragile basal lens beneath the islands
that comprise Majuro Atoll. For example, an unexpected fuel spill in the Marshall Energy
Company tank farm, Mobil Oil Micronesia tank farm, or potential leakage from buried fuel lines
underneath Delap Dock could infiltrate the groundwater, and effect either the basal lens (if
present), or infiltrate into lagoon waters. In this context, it is essential that the fuel lines on
Delap Dock are located appropriately to facilitate convenient access for scheduled maintenance
tasks and emergency response.

5.6.2.2 Surface Waters in Majuro Lagoon

The quality of surface waters in Majuro Lagoon influences subsistence and commercial fishing
activity, recreational activities, coral communities, and other marine resources in the Lagoon.
Use of the Port of Majuro by the international fishing fleet, international cargo vessels, oil
tankers, interisland cargo vessels, etc. can significantly diminish surface water quality in the
Lagoon in the absence of effective port management strategies.

While the RMI Environmental Protection Authority (RMIEPA) has the authority and
responsibility for management of coastal and lagoon waters of Majuro Atoll, RMI Ports
Authority can be an effective partner that can help support the resource conservation objectives
of RMIEPA. For example, RMIPA could be an effective partner that could help address the
nagging issue of vessel discharges within Majuro Lagoon. Such discharges are extremely
difficult to effectively monitor given the size of Majuro Lagoon, the length of time spent in port
by fishing vessels, and the lack of any technical approach that can link vessels to unauthorized
vessel discharges. One potential opportunity is for RMIPA to provide port staff and/or pilot
boats that could be deployed (or utilized during existing activities), on a part-time basis, to
provide greater unscheduled vessel surveillance in and around the vessel anchorage area. While
surveillance does not enable the identity of vessels making discharges within the Lagoon, it
reminds vessel captains and mates that their operations inside the Port are being watched. In
addition, the establishment and enforcement of some stringent regulatory consequences, e.g.,
heavy fines and loss of vessel access to Port of Majuro for extended lengths of time, could also
help encourage incoming vessels to discharge their bilge waters outside of Majuro Lagoon. All
vessels arriving in the Port of Majuro could also be advised of regulatory consequences by the
RMI boarding party that meets the captain of all incoming international vessels.

5.6.3 Marine Resources

One of the more substantive descriptions of the ecology of Majuro Lagoon is contained in a 1992
Vulnerability Assessment of Accelerated Sea Level Rise in Majuro Atoll. This study examined
four areas of Majuro Lagoon which included:

the Djarrit-Uliga-Delap area;
Laura;
South side of Majuro Lagoon between Laura and Delap; and
Northeast side of Lagoon between Enigu and Anemwanot.

The study provided, in part, general descriptions of the marine resources and related habitat
conditions that were observed in each of the preceding study areas within Majuro Lagoon.

5.6.3.1 Djarrit-Uliga-Delap Area

Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, whom conducted the 1992 study, observed that the
inshore portion of lagoon side reefs in the Djarrit-Uliga-Delap area was characterized by a
terrace of silt, sand and rubble. These reef areas often supported Podina and Dictyota algae
cover and synaptid and other sea cucumbers. Where no significant hard substrate development
occurred, the sediment slope descended gradually with very low coral cover on occasional reef
blocks with scattered larger Porites coral heads on the slope. Where there was suitable substrate
for coral development, coral coverage varied from 5 to 25 percent on the rock and rubble bottom,
mixed with Dictyota algae. Coral coverage greater than 50 percent occurred in some areas that
exhibited sufficient water quality and substrate. These areas were primarily characterized by
branching Porins. Digitate Acropora and small massive Porites mounds were relatively
abundant or common.

The four scientists concluded that the fish habitat of the lagoonside reefs in the Djarrit-Uliga-
Delap area were generally in poor condition, polluted and over-fished. The diversity of reef fish
was low. The level of fishing pressure, combined with the harvesting of various reef fish and
octopus, were attributed to these declining environmental conditions (Holthus, Crawford,
Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

5.6.3.2 Laura

The four scientists observed a reef flat on the lagoon side of Laura. The reef flat was about 0.8
kilometer-wide at the northern tip of the island, but remained fairly wide to the southern end of
this study area. Much of the lagoon side reef represented a moderately deep reef hole. The reef
flat consisted of a sand flat that graded into a sand and rubble flat that was mixed with seagrass
and algae (Padina, Halimeda, and Dictyota) cover, as well as large numbers of Hohthurio sea
cucumbers (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

Midway across the reef flat, the project team observed a mixed coral cover that primarily
included small Porites mounds and digitate Acropora, as well as Caulerpa algae. Some larger
Porites mounds occurred where the reef flat gradually deepened. The outer reef contained areas
of significant coral cover (up to 80 percent) that consisted of branching Porites, Pocilloporao
and digitate Acropora. Some Tridacna maxima was also discovered on the outer reef (Holthus,
Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

The narrow reef flat adjacent to the reef hole supported dense seagrass beds and patches of
Dictyota algae. The sand bottom sloped rapidly into the sandy reef hole which contained
scattered reef patches supporting high coral cover. Other patches supported thickets of fine
branching Millepora, branching Porites and digitate Acropora in shallow areas; the upper
portion of these patches were often dead. Relatively large Porites mounds were scattered on
portions of the sand bottom of the reef hole (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan considered the reef fish diversity to be moderate on
the lagoon side reef flat where large numbers of surgeonfish were observed. The scientists
concluded, in part, that there was moderate potential for subsistence fishing in the lagoon side
reef, as well as a potential marine tourism opportunity at the edge of the lagoon side reef drop-
off.

5.6.3.3 South Side of Majuro Lagoon between Laura and Delap

The project team observed a lagoon side reef that was almost 100 meters wide. The reef flat in
the western portion of this study area was a solid reef flat, with turf algae, that graded into a
mixed rubble and sand platform of irregular relief. The reef flat supported low coral cover,
mainly encrusting and low, digitate Acropora and small Porites mounds, and contained
numerous gastropods. Coral cover reached 60 to 80 percent as the irregular reef surface dipped
into the wave zone. The reef front rapidly dropped off into a sand and rubble slope that extended
broadly into the Lagoon (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

A reef flat was also located in the middle portion of this study area. This area was entirely
exposed during low tide conditions and contained no coral cover.

The two reef flats were separated only by the causeway. A large beach rock platform occurred
midway across the reef flat. The project team concluded that the presence of the rock platform
indicates that the area supported islets for some period of time.

The lagoon side reef flat, adjacent to the airport runway and reservoir, was completely
obliterated in places. The four scientists concluded that this condition was due to the extensive
filling which previously occurred on the reef flat to create land.

The project team also concluded that the lagoon side reefs supported a moderate to high diversity
of reef fish species. Rabbitfish, parrotfish, goatfish, surgeonfish, snapper and rudderfish were
particularly abundant (Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

5.6.3.4 Northeast Side of Lagoon Between Enigu and Anemwanot

On the lagoon side of existing islets, there was a 6 to 30 meter-wide reef flat. The reef flat
dropped off on to a shallow sand and rubble terrace that was 1 to 2 meters deep. The terrace
exhibited scattered coral patches and coral heads. Coral coverage was predominantly Porites
mounds, branching Porites, and Porites rus colonies. Some digitate Acropora and Goniopora
was observed in areas of higher coral cover. The coral colonies often formed microatolls closer
to the reef flat. Towards the lagoon, the terrace became a broad sand slope that descended into
the depths of the Lagoon. Scattered large Porites mounds were found on the upper slope
(Holthus, Crawford, Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

At the areas between islets, where rubble and gravel extensions of the islands reached into the
Lagoon, the reef extended further into the Majuro Lagoon. The gravel deposits encroached
directly on the broad sand lagoon slope as it began to descend into the Lagoon. There was little
coral in this area.

There was a moderately high diversity of reef fish on the lagoon reefs in this study area.
Surgeonfish, goat fish and parrotfish were particularly abundant. Some pelagic fishing,
especially for tuna, was taking place in the Lagoon waters of this study area.

The project team identified a potential marine park and a potential site opportunity for marine
tourism on the Lagoon side of the northwestern portion of the study area (Holthus, Crawford,
Makroro and Sullivan, 1992).

5.6.3.5 Conclusions

While the preceding information gained from the 1992 survey is now over two decades later, it is
reasonable to assume that the marine resources in the Djarrit-Uliga-Delap area remain as a highly
degraded marine environment. Since that time, the volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Majuro
has grown in response to a growth in fish harvests within the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone, as
well as more modest increases in international cargo vessel traffic.

Any improvement to the marine habitat of this area can only be achieved through a gradual,
long-term improvement in surface water quality. RMIPA and RMIEPA can work cooperatively
together to expand efforts to monitor and curb vessel discharges inside Majuro Lagoon. Such
efforts would help to sustain existing water quality levels and prevent a further degradation in
water quality. However, more significant changes in water quality will likely require greater
water circulation along the east side of Majuro Lagoon. Greater water circulation could be
achieved by establishing other openings to marine waters on the east (ocean) side of Majuro
Lagoon.

Openings should be provided in two areas: the east rim (DUD area) and the south rim. These
openings would provide improved circulation and flushing of the water in the lagoon in DUD
area. An additional and equally important consequence of these openings may be a significant
impact on the water level balance between the east end of the lagoon and the open sea (Rosti
1990).

Rosti (1990) concluded that the closure of the pre-existing passages resulted in water quality
decrease and water level rising in the lagoon, which resulted in erosion of the lagoon shore,
therefore reopen passages to improve the water quality, and reduce the water level and erosion
(Xue, 1997).

CHAPTER SIX
PORT FACILITY NEEDS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter Three earlier identified the type, location and condition of various facilities in the Port of
Majuro. The improvements recommended in Chapter Three identify port facilities needs that are
necessary to sustain existing port operations, the level of vessel traffic in 2012, recent volumes of
inbound and outbound cargo, as well as the number of residents and cargo being transported to
and from the Outer Islands.

In contrast, Chapter Six outlines port facility needs that are necessary to meet the demands
anticipated during the coming decade between 2013 and 2023. Future port needs are based, in
part, upon anticipated vessel traffic and cargo demands, vessel particulars, and other related
factors influencing future port development. These planning issues are discussed in Chapter
Four concerning marine transport trends.

The recommendations outlined in Chapter Six are more long-term in nature. They address both
marine transport trends anticipated for the coming decade, as well as potential economic
development opportunities that can be generated through the construction, operation and
maintenance of various port improvements. Similar to Chapter Three, recommended port
improvements are presented for each component of the existing port. These recommended
improvements are supplemented with recommendations for other facilities that presently do not
exist within the Port of Majuro.

6.2 CALALIN CHANNEL

During the coming decade, the Port of Majuro will continue to serve a combination of
international cargo vessels, fishing vessels, and interisland passenger/cargo vessels.
International cargo vessels will represent the larger vessels that call upon the Port of Majuro.

As discussed in Chapter Four, Mariana Express Lines has expressed interest in using somewhat
larger feeder container vessels for its delivery of inbound cargo and transport of outbound cargo.
The size of these vessels will require the Calalin Channel to accommodate a container vessel that
has an overall length of about 175 to 180 meters, a breadth of 27 to 28 meters, and a draft of
roughly 8.3 to 9.8 meters. When fully loaded, some of these 1700+TEU vessels could have a
draft up to 11.3 meters.

The west channel of the Calalin Channel is roughly 3.4 kilometers long, between 350 and 450
meters wide, and has a depth that ranges between 34 to 45 meters. Consequently, the present
dimensions of the channel appear adequate to serve the largest vessels that are expected to call
upon the Port of Majuro during the coming decade.

The periodic inspection of channel markers and related lighting systems is essential to maintain
safe vessel navigation within the Calalin Channel. RMIPA should use pilots from the Republic
of the Marshall Islands Pilot Association, who navigate vessels through the Calalin Channel,
and/or RMIPA port staff, to observe and report the condition of channel markers and lighting
systems. Their observations can be used to help identify needs for future facility repairs and
equipment replacements. Scheduled periodic inspections will help prolong the service life of
these important aids to navigation.

6.3 PORT FAIRWAY

From the Lagoon side of the Calalin Channel, the port fairway extends roughly 21.2 kilometers
to Uliga Dock and 21.4 kilometers to Delap Dock. Despite the presence of shoals near the center
of the port fairway, the effective width of the fairway ranges between 2,400 and 7,500 meters
(see section 3.3).

Available design criteria for navigable outer channels are correlated with the breadth of
incoming cargo and container vessels in section 3.3. This correlation indicates that the existing
port fairway is more than adequate to serve the largest feeder container vessel and oil tanker
vessel that called upon the Port of Majuro between 2010 and 2012. The same conclusion can be
reached for the 1,700+TEU feeder container vessels that Mariana Express Lines desires to use
for future cargo transshipment at Delap Dock.

The width and depth of the port fairway is also more than adequate to support two-way vessel
traffic. However, two-way vessel traffic through the port fairway is infrequent. Annual vessel
traffic in 2012 included roughly 463 calls by international fishing vessels, 56 vessel calls by
international cargo vessels, and another 19 calls by oil tankers. But, a substantive increase in
overall vessel traffic occurred in 2013 with an expansion of containerized cargo transshipment
operations at Delap Dock.

The size, configuration, and depth of the fairway can accommodate a significantly larger volume
of vessel traffic, as well as considerably larger vessels. Growing vessel traffic volumes in the
Port of Majuro are anticipated in the coming decade. It is anticipated that international vessel
calls will rise to between 141 and 187 vessel calls in 2023 unless more authorized vessel
operating carriers choose to use the Port of Majuro as a transshipment point to other Pacific
Islands. Annual oil tanker traffic is expected to include not more than 21 vessel calls by 2023.
Annual fishing vessel traffic in the coming decade will be variable and probably range between
509 and 532 vessels per year in 2023(see Chapter Four).

Despite the anticipated growth in future vessel traffic, no dredging activity in the port fairway is
envisioned to accommodate future vessel traffic at the Port of Majuro. However, in view of the
presence of shallow shoals and islets within the fairway, it is essential that existing aids to
navigation are periodically inspected to confirm their condition and adequacy to support safe
vessel navigation. As stated earlier, pilots from the RMI Pilot Association and RMIPA port staff
can be used to observe and document these conditions. The periodic re-painting of channel
markers, as well as the repair or replacement of light fixtures, is necessary to sustain the service
life of these aids to navigation.

6.4 ULIGA DOCK

6.4.1 Future Use

The outer docks at Uliga Dock, referred to in this master plan as Docks A and B, should continue
to be used to primarily support the moorage of interisland passenger/cargo vessels. Secondarily,
Dock A should also be used for periodic fuel resupplies of the Mobil Oil Micronesia tank farm
(see section 3.4.4.2).

6.4.2 Dock Issues

6.4.2.1 Dock Lengths

The overall length of the five interisland passenger/cargo vessels is 218.05 meters. Assuming a
minimum separation of 7.5 meters between each vessel for bow and stern lines, the concurrent
moorage of all five vessels would require roughly 263 meters of dock space along Docks A and
B. This exceeds the amount of dock space currently provided by Dock A (120 meters) and Dock
B (40 meters).

The occasional use of Dock A for fuel resupplies by Mobil Micronesia is an inconvenience to the
operations of Marshall Island Shipping Corporation since all passenger/cargo vessels have to be
relocated away from the dock during fuel resupply operations. Since oil tankers carry and
discharge highly flammable material, this cautionary procedure provides an important safety
measure for Marshall Island Shipping Corporation personnel who are working the dock,
residents delivering or retrieving cargo from the dock, residents working at other offices at Uliga
Dock, as well as passengers who are embarking or arriving on interisland vessels.

Docks A and B are occasionally used by Marshall Island Shipping Corporation for the unloading
of copra that it delivers from various Outer Islands. This situation occurs when MISC needs to
unload one of the interisland vessels and the main dock at Delap Dock is occupied by a larger
international cargo vessel or oil tanker (Milne, 2013). In order to maintain its scheduled voyages
to various Outer Islands, Marshall Island Shipping Corporation typically has a short turn-around
time for the unloading and loading of cargo on to interisland passenger/cargo vessels. At the
same time, RMIPA gives priority to the berthing of international cargo vessels at the main dock
at Delap Dock.

6.4.2.2 Competing Dock Uses

In 2012, there were, at least, 29 vessel calls on Docks A and B that were made by vessels
unrelated to the interisland passenger/cargo fleet. About twelve of these vessels were smaller
fishing vessels that typically had a gross tonnage of roughly 3,000+/- metric tons. Nine of the
calls were made by oil tankers. The remaining vessels included smaller cargo vessels, other
general ships, a tugboat, one military vessel, and one sailboat.

The moorage time of these vessels varied from three to four hours to just over four days. The
average moorage time was approximately 36 hours.

The number of vessels unrelated to interisland passenger and cargo does not represent a
significant amount of traffic along Dock A. But, their use of Dock A or B occasionally impacts
the loading and unloading of interisland vessels which typically are loaded or unloaded by
Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation personnel in one week. When a non-interisland vessel
occupies a moorage space along Docks A or B, the temporary unavailability of moorage space
for interisland passenger and cargo vessels delays the loading and unloading of inbound and
outbound interisland cargo, as well as scheduled Outer Island voyages.

6.4.3 Future Improvements

Several improvements are envisioned for the Uliga Dock area in order to address existing and
future port facility needs that are primarily associated with the transport of interisland passengers
and cargo. Each of these improvements is discussed more fully in the following paragraphs.

6.4.3.1 Repair Damages to the Quay Face and Install New Cathodic Protection

A damaged section of the existing sheet piles near the southwest corner of the quay face, which
was observed by a U.S. Navy underwater construction team in J uly 2013, should be repaired as
soon as possible to prevent the loss of any fill material from behind the steel sheet piles. In
conjunction with this repair, the original cathodic protection of the sheet piles along the entire
quay face should be replaced with the installation of new sacrificial metal, e.g., zinc, to reduce
the rate of corrosion of the steel sheet piles that support the foundation of the Uliga Dock quay
face.

6.4.3.2 Expand Available Moorage Space for Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels

Docks A and B at Uliga Dock should be extended to accommodate the concurrent moorage of
the five vessels that will soon comprise the entire interisland vessel fleet. During the coming
decade, it is possible that one or more of the existing vessels will be replaced with new
passenger/cargo vessels that would have an overall length of up to 50 meters.

Using this assumption, the overall length of the interisland passenger/cargo fleet, as well as
reasonable space allowances between each vessel, suggest the docks need roughly 300 meters of
moorage space along these docks. Dock A presently extends 120 meters and Dock B includes
only 40 meters of dock space. Consequently, there is a need for an additional 140 meters of
moorage space along these docks.

The need for additional moorage space along these docks could be achieved through a southeast
extension of Dock A. A southeast extension would extend Dock A for an additional 120 meters.
This extension would essentially create a T-pier configuration, but eliminate the functionality of
the existing Dock B (Figure 6-1). With this improvement, four interisland vessels could be
accommodated along the west side of Dock A. An additional vessel could be moored on the
northeast side of the dock. The width of the dock extension would match the 15 meter width that
characterizes the present Dock A. It would also be logical to fill a 40 x 35 meter water area that
is situated immediately southeast of Dock B via land reclamation or an expansion of the concrete
pier structure. This improvement would provide greater cargo handling area for Marshall Islands
Shipping Corporation. Some dredging would be required to enable vessel moorage and
maneuvering on the northeast side of the dock.

During the master plan process, RMIPA received comments from a landowner of property
southeast of Uliga Dock B that, in part, expressed concern regarding a potential southeasterly
extension of Uliga Dock A. Mr. Ben Chutaro, of Ben Chutaro, Inc., indicated that a private
investment for the development of a smaller hotel and small boat marina operation is under
consideration. While the proposed extension of Dock A would change shoreline views from the
potential visitor accommodation facility, it is believed that the proposed small boat marina
operations and nearby interisland cargo/passenger operations could safely co-exist without
impacting either operation. However, RMIPA would need to closely coordinate plans for the
proposed Dock A extension with the developer and owner of the proposed development(s).

6.4.3.3 Provide Moorage Space for Non-Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels

While Docks A and B primarily support interisland passenger and cargo transport, these docks
are secondarily used for the delivery of fuels by oil tankers, the temporary moorage of smaller
fishing and cargo vessels, as well as the temporary moorage of occasional military vessels,
private yachts and sailing vessels. In order to provide moorage space for these non-interisland
vessels and avoid impacts upon interisland passenger and cargo operations, the preceding
recommendation for a southeast extension of Dock A should be further extended.

An additional 60 meter extension would enable the use of the concurrent moorage of five
interisland passenger/cargo vessels (with a length of 48.5 meters) along both sides of a 180 meter
extension. The existing 120 meter Dock A could be used for the moorage of one or more non-
interisland vessels when all interisland vessels are in port at Uliga Dock (Figure 6-2).

If the recommended extension to Dock A were expanded to 180 meters, RMIPA could consider
marketing fuel sales to smaller fishing and cargo vessels and other itinerant vessels calling on
Uliga Dock. However, this potential opportunity would require the establishment of a fuel
purchase and sales agreement between RMIPA and Mobil Oil Micronesia, as well as fuel
dispensing facilities along a designated section of Uliga Dock.

A longer term opportunity for RMIPA could be the sale of potable water to smaller fishing
vessels. However, this would require substantive improvements to the potable water distribution
system and the installation of a new water distribution system within the Uliga Dock area (see
section 6.4.3.5).
D
O
C
K

B
D
O
C
K

B
DOCK A
DOCK A
FILL AREA FILL AREA
120.00m
120.00m
POTENTIAL SOUTHEAST EXPANSION
OF ULIGA DOCK A
D
O
C
K

B
D
O
C
K

B
DOCK A
DOCK A
FILL AREA FILL AREA
180.00m
180.00m
POTENTIAL 180 METER EXTENSION
OF ULIGA DOCK A
6.4.3.4 Construct an Interisland Passenger Terminal Building

A new passenger terminal is needed to provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland
passengers. The proposed terminal should accommodate, at least, the number of passengers that
can be carried by the interisland vessel having the greatest passenger carrying capacity. The
recently purchased Kwajalein has the capacity to transport 150 passengers. The passenger
terminal building would generally need to include:

seating area for outbound and inbound passengers;
a small office for Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation personnel with a counter for
passenger check-in;
an office for RMIPA employees;
a beverage and snack area;
maintenance closet for storage of maintenance tools and supplies;
utility room that would contain electrical panels, pressure tank for potable water
distribution, etc.; and,
two restrooms.

Other potential building requirements and uses will require further coordination with the
Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation.

It is recommended that the passenger terminal building be supported by the installation of a pre-
fabricated water storage tank that would be used to store potable water gained via a roof
catchment system. Due to the high cost of electricity in Majuro and the fairly limited connected
load of the building, it should include solar and/or wind power generation. If possible, the
building should be designed so that the primary electrical supply comes from the solar array
and/or wind generation systems with a connection to the Marshalls Energy Companys electrical
distribution system to supplement the solar and wind generation.

Restroom facilities should be connected to the Majuro Water and Sewer Company's wastewater
collection system. This will require the installation of a sewer lateral from the existing
warehouse site to an existing 6-inch sewer collection line. The 6-inch sewer collection line
traverses the Uliga Dock and extends near the USAID warehouse. This sewer collection line
then flows via gravity to the 18-inch sewer main along the main shoreline roadway.

As discussed in section 3.4.3, the existing Uliga Dock warehouse could possibly be redesigned
and renovated for use as a passenger terminal building. A second option is to construct a new
passenger terminal building and demolish the existing dock warehouse building.

6.4.3.5 Establish a Back-Up Power Supply

As is discussed in Chapter Three, electrical energy supplied by Marshall Energy Company is
distributed to Uliga Dock area where it connects to the USAID Disaster Mitigation Relief
Building, Uliga Dock warehouse, the overhead lighting system along Docks A and B and the
inner basin, and various offices operated by Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation, Marshall
Islands Marine Resource Authority, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications
(MT&C), and other agencies.

The distribution of energy to the Uliga Dock area is generally reliable but is characterized by, at
least, one planned system outage per month. An additional two or three unplanned outages occur
each month due to the lack of system capacity and/or errors by operating personnel (Wakefield,
2013).

Marine transportation associated with interisland passenger and cargo transport, as well
operation of the Outer Island Fish Market Center, are two primary functions of Uliga Dock.
These activities represent important private enterprise and government functions which require
the availability of reliable continuous electrical energy to the Uliga Dock area.

In order to meet this objective, a back-up power supply should be established within the Uliga
Dock area. The main items recommended for connection to a backup power supply would be the
dock lighting, the jockey pumps for the fire suppression system (which keep the system
pressurized), the dock warehouse/passenger terminal, and USAID warehouse building. It is
estimated that a 75 kilovolt amp (KVA) generator would be required to supply back-up power
for these facilities. The generator should have an automatic transfer switch so the generator will
start up when the power from the MEC distribution system is temporarily lost. The generator
would ideally be installed within a concrete masonry building in the Uliga Dock area. If the
section of dock southeast of the existing dock warehouse is filled in, this would be an ideal
location for the generator enclosure.

In addition to the development of a back-up power supply, the incorporation of solar panels and
other approaches of reducing power consumption should be included in all planning and design
efforts. In an effort of sustainability, the design of the dock complex energy supply should
consider utilizing renewable energy, such as solar array and/or wind turbines, as the primary
source of power supply with a connection to MECs grid as a supplement to the system.
However, reliance on this type of alternative power supply will require specialized knowledge
and training in order to maintain and operate the docks energy needs. This would likely involve
RMIPA acquiring maintenance personnel with a background or experience with these types of
systems, or acquiring these services from a third party. There are various alternative energy
installations at businesses and organizations throughout Majuro which RMIPA should consult
with early on in the design phase. Along with alternate supplies of electricity, the dock extension
and other facilities should incorporate reductions in power consumption. This could be
accomplished with the installation of energy efficient fixtures and the replacement/installation of
LED overhead lighting. At a cost of $0.50 per kilowatt hour for electricity (MEC government
electricity rate as of April 2012), this will have a positive impact on reducing operating costs
related to power consumption. The power consumption of LED lighting is typically about 15
percent of the consumption of a metal halide bulb. The recommended 180 meter dock extension,
which would include a total of 11 overhead flood lights and a change from 500 watt metal halide
to LED lighting, would generate an annual savings of approximately $11,000. The incorporation
of solar panels and energy efficient fixtures in other areas, such as a new passenger terminal,
could also add further savings in ongoing electricity costs.

6.4.3.5 Establish Reliable Water Distribution Systems for
Potable Water and Fire Suppression

Larger systemic issues associated with the Majuro Water and Sewer Company potable and salt
water (fire suppression) distribution systems will continue to influence the reliability of water
distribution to Uliga Dock until they are addressed. While these issues are beyond the scope of
this port master plan, it is recommended that the following improvements should eventually be
made at Uliga Dock.


Peerless Fire Pump Enclosure
Potable Water System

An independent potable water distribution system should be established for Uliga Dock. The
system would serve the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Marshall Islands
Shipping Corporation, and RMIPA. It would also serve an interisland passenger terminal if and
when one is constructed, as well as enable fresh water delivery to interisland passenger and cargo
vessels. The Outer Island Fish Market Center is believed to have their own water distribution
system.

A water storage tank should be constructed adjacent to the USAID Disaster Mitigation Relief
Building between the warehouse and the MISC offices. In general, it is better to have water
storage tanks not be sized too much larger than needed in order to encourage flushing of water
thru the system. Estimates of the storage capacity needs for the dock system would generally fall
around 75 kiloliters. However, due to the overall limited supply of fresh water to the island, a
larger volume tank around 150-225 kiloliters should be considered. Having a tank of this size
could accommodate increased freshwater delivery to vessels, as well as provide an additional
source of freshwater in emergency situations such as prolonged island wide droughts on Majuro
or the outer atolls. In this location, the building would be able to utilize the warehouse roof to
aid in water catchment for the tank, which at an average monthly rainfall of 27.86 cm would
result in approximately 190 kiloliters a month, or 2,280 kiloliters per year. Additionally, water
catchment from the roofs of the MISC building and even the Ministry of Transportation and
Communications office building could also be piped to the tank. An alternate location for a
water storage tank could be adjacent to the abandoned Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company
building which is located along the primary vehicular access to Uliga Dock. However, this
option would have to be coordinated with the landowner and included in the RMIPA land lease.

The potable water distribution system serving Uliga Dock should either be abandoned or
replaced with a similar sized distribution line to enable potable water delivery to offices along
the primary vehicular access road and the adjoining inner basin, Docks A and B, and the dock
areas of the inner basin. Distribution valves should be installed at selected locations. Hose bibs
should be located along Docks A and B to facilitate the maintenance of interisland passenger and
cargo vessels. Meters should be installed to ensure that water consumption is appropriately
billed and paid for by each water consuming customer. Depending on who the user is, there
could be a system implemented where the primary user would have a key to access a valve to
turn the water on and off. This would further aid in regulating the water usage of that particular
hose bib. This water distribution system would be connected to the water tank.


As described in Chapter 3 section 3.4.4.3, the
existing fire distribution line and fire hydrant
at the Uliga Dock is unreliable. The fire
hydrant at the Uliga Dock is severely
corroded and in need of replacement. In
addition, the existing fire hydrant system is
not periodically tested or flushed and does
not produce adequate pressure.

It is recommended that a standalone fire suppression system be installed at the Uliga Dock. This
could be achieved thru a series of pumps and an intake in the lagoon water. An approximately
100 Hp fire pump could be placed in a metal or CMU building along a possible southeastern
extension of Dock A across from the Uliga warehouse. The pump house would hold a small
water tight system with two fire pumps in parallel, a jockey pump to maintain pressure at all
times, and the main fire pump for actual fire flow conditions. The existing fire hydrant at the
entrance to the Uliga Dock should be replaced and hydrants embedded into the pier along the
Northwestern and Southeastern sections of an expanded Dock A. RMIPA would then have a
hose available at the Uliga Dock to hook up to the hydrants if a fire were to occur. The pump
and fire hydrants would be connected with a 200-millimeter line. There are various standalone
fire pump enclosures and systems on the market that are designed for this type of installation.
Peerless pump is one American company that provides these systems.

Long-Term Operation and Maintenance of Water Distribution Systems

As recommended improvements are completed, it is essential that they are periodically
maintained and tested on a scheduled basis. The local MWSC water distribution system is not set
up to deliver a constant supply of fresh water 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The population
demands, available supply, and overall capacity of fresh water prevent this type of potable water
distribution. The long term plan for water distribution on the atoll has been to increase the
populations personal water storage capacities and eventually increase the ability for MWSC to
provide bulk distribution of water to those tanks. Since the Delap port facility is required to
maintain constant operations including utilities, a self-reliant system for long term maintenance
should be established.

One possible option is for RMIPA to utilize a water tank installed adjacent to the USAID
warehouse for its own independent water supply system. The tank would utilize freshwater
catchment from the USAID building as well as the MISC and Ministry of Transportation and
Communications office buildings as described earlier. Depending on local weather conditions,
the distribution system should rely on water catchment as its primary supply of freshwater. The
tank would still be connected to the MWSC water distribution system with the connection
located halfway up the height of the tank with a ballcock auto shut off system. This way, the
tank would only receive municipal water when the tank is less than half full leaving capacity in
the tank for capturing additional rainwater.

A water meter and valve could be installed along the water main adjacent to the primary
vehicular access to Uliga Dock. The water meter valve would be located prior to the connections
to any of the offices or other facilities at Uliga Dock. Using this approach, RMIPA could turn
off access to MWSC water and operate their own self-contained distribution system. Water
meters could be installed at any of the office buildings in the Uliga area that use water, as well as
the recommended passenger terminal. Any water consumers within the Uliga Dock area would
then be required to pay RMIPA a reasonable fee for the delivery of potable water and seawater
fire flow. The water consumption fees would be based upon bulk water rates, the cost of
operation and maintenance, anticipated repairs, and long-term capital reserve for the eventual
replacement of the distribution system.

The water tank would be filled by rainwater catchment, the delivery of bulk water supplies by
MWSC or via the MWSC water line during off hours. The tank levels would be monitored by
RMIPA which would also dictate the need for water truck deliveries or delivery through the
water lateral as described above. The supply of water from rainfall catchment and MWSC
deliveries to the tank should be sufficient for standard water needs for the office buildings and
passenger terminal, as well as typical usage at the hose bibs on the docks. If any larger vessels
such as the interisland cargo and passenger vessels, or possibly fishing vessels desire freshwater
to fill their tanks, they would need to secure prior authorization from RMIPA. Using this
approach, RMIPA can monitor the levels in the tanks and defer water delivery to MWSC if the
water levels are too low.

The distribution of water through the independent water distribution system would require the
monitoring of water tank levels by RMIPA personnel and their coordination with water
consumers. During periods of little or no rainfall, and/or MWSC is rationing delivery to the
tank, the valve could be opened to allow access to the MWSC municipal lines (if available). In
addition, the fire pump system will require periodic maintenance and servicing that would be
achieved through the scheduling of regular fire drills. The preceding process would serve to
maintain adequate system function. In addition, it would provide a valuable training tool for
RMIPA personnel, the local fire department, and any other agencies within the Uliga Dock area.

6.4.4 Uliga Dock Improvement Plan

If all recommended improvements for Uliga Dock were pursued and completed, the long-term
site plan for Uliga Dock would include an extension of Dock A, the construction of a new
passenger terminal building, as well as improvements to supporting electrical and water systems
(Figure 6-3). Such a plan would help increase the efficiency of interisland passenger and cargo
operations, enhance the reliability of interisland voyage schedules, as well as generate increased
sales of fuel and water to smaller commercial fishing and cargo vessels.
D
O
C
K

B
D
O
C
K

B
DOCK A
DOCK A
POTENTIAL FILL OR POTENTIAL FILL OR
120.00m
120.00m
180 METER DOCK EXPANSION 180 METER DOCK EXPANSION
SEWER LINE
FUTURE WATER TANK FUTURE WATER TANK
FIRE LINE FIRE LINE
SEWER LINE
NEW WATER
DISTRIBUTION LINES
NEW WATER VALVE
AND METER
NEW WATER VALVE
AND METER
DEMOLISH AND REPLACE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
NEW WATER
DISTRIBUTION LINES
SEWER LATERAL EXTENSION
TO THE PASSENGER TERMINAL
DEMOLISH AND REPLACE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
RENOVATED PASSENGER
TERMINAL
SEWER LATERAL EXTENSION
TO THE PASSENGER TERMINAL
RENOVATED PASSENGER
TERMINAL
HOSE BIB HOSE BIB
FIRE FUEL PUMP HOUSING FIRE FUEL PUMP HOUSING
BACKUP GENERATOR BACKUP GENERATOR
INLAID FIRE HYDRANT INLAID FIRE HYDRANT
FUEL MANIFOLD FUEL MANIFOLD
INLAID FIRE HYDRANT INLAID FIRE HYDRANT
PIER AREA PIER AREA
LONG TERM ULIGA DOCK
IMPROVEMENT PLAN

6.5 DELAP DOCK

6.5.1 Options for Future Port Development and Operations

Future improvements at the Delap Dock complex need to be viewed in the context of, at least,
four port operational and facility improvement options for the coming decade.

Reorganization of the existing 2.7 hectare site and continued use of the current cargo
handling system (Option A).

Reorganization of the existing 2.7 hectare site, expansion of dock apron, and a modified
cargo handling system to achieve greater efficiency in cargo handling (Option B).

Extension of the berth and main dock, expansion of dock apron, and expansion of
existing 2.7 hectare site to encourage potential transshipment operations at Delap Dock
(Option C).

Reorganization of the existing 2.7 hectare site, expansion of dock apron, and a modified
cargo handlings system similar to Option B, but with the addition of one mooring
dolphin west of the West Dock and an additional mooring dolphin east of the East Dock,
to encourage potential transshipment operations at Delap Dock (Option D).

While the implementation of each of these options can be achieved independently, it is also
feasible for all four options to be implemented in order to achieve a gradual transition toward an
expanded Delap Dock complex.

The following description of future port needs for Delap Dock identifies variable approaches to
improving facilities in the context of these four options.

The implementation of longer term improvements at Delap Dock for all four options are
predicated, in part, upon the initial demolition or relocation of selected buildings or building
functions, as well as materials and equipment that have reached their useful service life and/or
are not associated with stevedoring activities or other port operations. The buildings
recommended for removal are identified in Chapter Three. The clearance of these buildings,
equipment and materials from the Delap Dock property are needed to improve the safety and
efficiency of port operations, increase the width of the dock apron, as well as facilitate the design
and construction of longer term improvements to Delap Dock.

6.5.2 Delap Main Dock

6.5.2.1 Adequacy of the Dock and Berth to Support Future Vessel Traffic

The main dock, which extends approximately 308 meters in length, is more than adequate to
support the berthing of the largest incoming feeder container vessel that presently calls upon the
Port of Majuro. The present length of dock is also more than adequate to support the size of any
feeder cargo vessels that are anticipated to call upon the Port of Majuro during the coming
decade.

6.5.2.2 Adequacy of the Dock and Berth to Support Potential Transshipment

During preparation of the master plan, a number of shipping agents in Majuro indicated that the
Port of Majuro has an opportunity to become a small transshipment hub for cargo that is destined
for other central and western Pacific ports. Transshipment is a cargo transfer operation carried
out by two marine vessels. As discussed in Chapter Four, Marianas Express Lines, Ltd. (MELL)
has specifically expressed interest in using Delap Dock for the transshipment of containerized
cargo to other Pacific Islands (Cruz, 2013). This is an economic development opportunity that
would, at a minimum, benefit local stevedoring and shipping agencies on Majuro, as well as
generate increased revenues to the Port of Majuro.

MELL representatives have suggested that the shipping company would need to concurrently
berth two 1,700+TEU container vessels at Delap Dock. Container vessels in the MELL fleet,
which have a 1,700+ TEU capacity, have an overall length ranging between 170 and 180 meters.
In order to accommodate the concurrent berthing of two 1,700+TEU container vessels by MELL,
or other authorized vessel operating carriers serving Micronesia, Delap Dock would likely
require a 110 to 130-meter dock extension. The length of vessels envisioned for transshipment
should be more specifically identified through discussions with Mariana Express Lines, or other
shipping companies, that may consider the Port of Majuro for future transshipment.

A 110 to 130-meter berth extension
could be achieved by a westerly
extension of the present dock for about
60 to 70 meters combined with the
construction of a 50 to 60 meter mooring
dolphin and related bridge access, or
access via a dingy. Expansion of the
present dock and adjacent vessel berth
would require the lease of additional land
area that is immediately north of the
lease area and presently occupied by the
RMI Ministry of Public Works. Another
option (Option D), would involve the installation of a mooring dolphin west of the West Dock
and another mooring dolphin east of the East Dock. This option is envisioned to allow
incremental expansion of the Delap Dock complex by allowing the concurrent moorage of two
1,700+TEU container vessels while utilizing the existing land in a reorganized container yard.
Option D is envisioned as an expansion of, or variation of Option B.

6.5.2.3 Quay Face

As discussed in Chapter Three, a U.S. Navy underwater construction team inspected the quay
face of the main Delap Dock in J uly 2013. U.S. Navy divers observed an area along the center
of the main dock face that appeared to have sustained some collision damage. This area, which
is approximately 4.5 meters tall by 3 meters wide, should be repaired to avoid the loss of any
material behind existing sheet piles. In addition, cathodic protection should also be installed
along the quay face to minimize any future corrosion of the sheet piles.

Dolphin at Port of Oakalnd, CA

Mobile Harbor Crane in Kenya

Straddle Carrier

6.5.2.4 Bollards, Front Curbs, Cleats, and Fenders

Whether RMIPA continues to use the existing berth, or extends the present berth to
accommodate potential transshipment, all bollards, front curbs, cleats and fenders along the main
Delap Dock need to be replaced because of missing fenders and the condition of remaining
fenders, past damage to front curbs, as well as the condition and load capacity of existing
bollards. Bollards having load capacity of roughly 60 metric tons, at intervals of about 25 meters,
will be needed to support the international cargo vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro.

The replacement of fenders along the dock face is recommended as a short-term improvement.
The replacement of bollards should also be viewed as a short-term improvement unless the
repaving of the entire dock apron is undertaken (see section 6.5.2.5) and new bollards are
installed as part of that improvement project.

Front curbs, which prevent vehicles, e.g., cargo handling equipment, from rolling over the berth
line into the water, should be about 0.20 meters. In addition, they should be designed to support
a horizontal point load of 15 to 25 kilonewtons (kN) (Thoresen, 2010).

6.5.2.5 Dock Apron

The present dock apron is approximately 15 meters wide.
The width of the dock is adequate to support the continued
use of forklifts and top picks for the handling of containers
that are lowered on to the dock apron by onboard ship
cranes.

The present dock apron width is not adequate to incorporate
the use of other cargo handling equipment options such as
the use of terminal tractor-trailer units and reach stackers.
Consequently, the width of the dock apron should be expanded to 20
to 25 meters even if RMIPA elects to make continued use of the
existing Delap Dock site and make some modifications to existing
cargo handling systems.

However, in order to accommodate a more substantive expansion of
transshipment operations, the width of dock apron would need to
extend to about 30 meters. A wider dock apron would be required to
provide adequate area for the operation of a mobile harbor crane.

Use of a mobile harbor crane would be necessary to achieve
greater cargo handling efficiency at Delap Dock. Mobile harbor cranes
typically can make up to 20 container moves in one hour. It is envisioned
that the mobile harbor crane would lower containers on to terminal tractor-
trailer units which would transport the containers to the adjacent container
stacking area.

At the container stacking area, there are, at least, three options for the transport and stacking of
containers.

Reach Stacker
Rubber-Tired Gantry Crane

Rubber Tire Gantry Crane, Oakland, CA
The primary use of reach stackers and secondary use of forklifts and top picks. While
forklifts are very economical and appropriate for smaller container terminals such as
Delap Dock, greater productivity and higher stacking density can be achieved through the
use of reach stackers (Thoresen, 2010).

A rubber-tire gantry (RTG) or a rail-mounted gantry
(RMG) system. A rubber-tire gantry crane, can
typically handle about 15 to 25 containers per hour
(Thoresen, 2010).

A third option is use of a straddle carrier system
where the ship-to-shore crane places the containers
on the dock apron. Subsequently, the straddle carrier
moves the container to the stacking area and stacks
containers two to three high.

In view of anticipated cargo volumes in the coming decade, as well as the costs associated with
the three cargo handling options, the primary use of terminal-tractor units and reach stackers
appears to be the most practical option for transporting and stacking containers from the dock
apron to the container stacking/storage area more efficiently.

In order to increase the width of the dock apron, the security fence that presently separates the
dock apron and primary container stacking area will need to be removed to provide direct access
to the container stacking/storage area. Aside from the need for additional width of the dock
apron, the existing fence also slows the time expended to transport containers from the dock
apron to the container stacking/storage area.

The existing fuel building, Delap Yard-Shop Office, and some warehouse facilities within the
Tobolar complex, are also located within the recommended expansion area. In Chapter Three,
the replacement of both the Delap Yard Office and the fuel building is recommended. The
functions of the Delap Yard Office could be incorporated into a new container freight station
warehouse. The fuel building could also be relocated along the western boundary of the dock
apron.

In contrast, the demolition of some existing Tobolar warehouse facilities, which are located
within the proposed dock apron expansion, is not feasible due to disruptions to copra processing
and storage operations. However, potential options for some facility consolidation should be
explored with representatives of Tobolar.

6.5.2.6 Paving of the Dock Apron

While the condition of the main dock apron ranges from fair to good condition, sections of the
dock apron need patching to repair damage caused by the operation of forklifts transporting
heavier container loads from the dock apron to the container yard. The patching of deteriorated
concrete sections is recommended as another short-term improvement (see Chapter Three).

One of the long-term recommendations presented later in this chapter is the paving of the
primary container stacking/storage area. This improvement will require that the paving of the
container stacking/storage area is consistent with the elevation of the dock apron. However, if it
is necessary and/or more cost effective to raise the elevation of the dock apron, a repaving of the
entire dock apron may be necessary to make a continuous paved surface that matches the
elevation of the adjoining container yard area. Depending on the elevation difference, an
alternative to a complete repaving may be to pave a portion of the dock apron in order to provide
a transition slope from the yard area to the apron.

If a mobile harbor crane is envisioned to operate behind the berth line, the design of pavements
for the dock apron should consider the bearing pressures that may be imposed by the maximum
size of crane anticipated for potential use. In the absence of any more detailed information from
mobile harbor crane manufacturers, the dock apron should be designed for a concentrated point
load of, at least, 700 kN on an area 1.0 x 1.0 meter in the least favorable position (Thorsen,
2010).

Gate
Entrance
Gate
Culvert
GasManifold
Guard Rail
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
(4 FIXTURES), TYPICAL
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
EXIST. FUEL PUMPING STATION
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
CONTAINER
STACKING/STORAGE AREA
CONTAINER
SECONDARY YARD AREA SECONDARY YARD AREA
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
15m 15m
15m 15m
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
1
5
m
1
5
m
PROPOSED DELAP DOCK LAYOUT
(OPTION A)
Gate
Entrance
Gate
Culvert
Guard Rail
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
1
5
m
1
5
m
15m
TYP.
15m
TYP.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
2
5
m
2
5
m
(OPTION B)
Gate
Entrance
Gate
Culvert
Guard Rail
3
0
m
3
0
m
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXIST. SHORELINE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXIST. SHORELINE
RECLAIMED LAND FOR
DOCK AND YARD EXTENSION
RECLAIMED LAND FOR
DOCK AND YARD EXTENSION
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
15m
TYP.
15m
MIN.
15m
TYP.
15m
MIN.
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
DOLPHIN PYLON DOLPHIN PYLON
1mWIDE
ACCESS WALKWAY
1mWIDE
ACCESS WALKWAY
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
NOTE: ACCESS WALKWAY
IS OPTIONAL IF PYLON IS
ACCESSED VIA SKIFF OR
DINGHY
NOTE: ACCESS WALKWAY
IS OPTIONAL IF PYLON IS
ACCESSED VIA SKIFF OR
DINGHY
(OPTION C)
Gate
Entrance
Gate
Guard Rail
1
5
m
1
5
m
15m
TYP.
15m
TYP.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
15m
MIN.
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y

Y
A
R
D

A
R
E
A
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
R
E
F
R
I
G
E
R
A
T
E
D
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
1
5
m
M
I
N
.
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
METAL HALIDE
FLOOD LIGHTING
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
(OPTION D)
6.5.3 Delap East Dock

6.5.3.1 Future Vessel Moorage

The vessel berth along the Delap East Dock will need to continue the moorage of interisland
passenger/cargo vessels for the unloading of copra to the Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority
complex. The berthing of these vessels does not need to be an exclusive use of this dock. But, a
priority should always be given to the moorage of interisland vessels to help sustain interisland
vessel schedules. Non-interisland vessels should be allowed to berth along Delap East Dock
only on a temporary basis when no copra delivery is scheduled.

6.5.3.2 Vessel Berth Dimensions

The vessel berth, which is approximately 82 meters in length, is adequate to accommodate one
interisland passenger/cargo vessel during the coming decade. Kwajalein, which was recently
added to the interisland fleet, has an overall length of almost 50 meters, a nine meter breadth, and
draft of approximately 7.5 meters. The length and breadth of this vessel can easily be
accommodated at this berth. The depth of the berth at Low Astronomical Tide should be
confirmed through the performance of soundings along this berth.

6.5.3.3 Bollards and Fenders

The condition of existing bollards and the loss of some fenders from the dock face warrant
replacement. However, the size of existing bollards appears to be sufficient for securing
interisland passenger/cargo vessels.

In view of the limited number of vessel berths along this dock, the replacement of existing
bollards and fenders could be delayed somewhat, particularly if a re-paving of the entire dock
apron of the main dock is anticipated.

Available design criteria (Table 3-10) suggest that bollards along the East Delap Dock should be
capable of supporting, at least, a 100 metric ton load. Bollards should be located at an interval of
about 10 meters (Thoresen, 2010).

6.5.4 Delap West Dock

The rehabilitation and future use of Delap West Dock represents a potential opportunity if
RMIPA chooses to use the existing 2.7 hectare site, but not extend the present dock. These
potential uses are described in the following paragraphs.

A westerly extension of the main dock (Option C) would negate the potential use of the existing
Delap West Dock. As stated earlier, expansion of the main dock would include the
recommended fill of water area adjacent to the Delap West Dock and construction of a new
mooring dolphin. However, consideration could be given to using the west end of a main dock
extension for the refueling of smaller fishing vessels. If existing depths are adequate, or if
further dredging is performed, the West Dock could be used for refueling of smaller fishing
vessels or the moorage of RMIPA pilot vessels.

6.5.4.1 Potential Fuel Dock for Fishing Vessels

Delap West Dock extends only about 65 meters in length. As discussed in Chapter Three, the
dock face is in fair to poor condition. Any future use of this dock would require repairs to the
existing dock face, the construction of new front curbs, as well as the installation of bollards and
fenders, to support operation of a small vessel berth.

While the dock length is limited, a rehabilitated Delap West Dock could be used to support the
refueling of some smaller international fishing vessels. The use of the Delap West Dock for the
refueling of fishing vessels would require the installation of a new fuel distribution line from the
Marshall Energy Company tank farm along the southwest boundary of Delap Dock. In addition,
a related building for the housing of the fuel manifold would be necessary for the connection of
fuel resupply lines to smaller international fishing vessels. Most of the incoming purse seine
vessels calling on the Port of Majuro have an overall length that ranges between 50 and 70
meters.

Beyond re-fueling, available dock space is too limited to provide adequate area for net repairs
and other vessel services. Available dock space along the dock apron behind the main Delap
Dock is frequently absorbed during the unloading of containerized cargo from larger
international cargo vessels berthing along the adjacent main Delap Dock.

If the Republic of the Marshall Islands desires to gain increased economic benefits from the
international fishing fleet, the rehabilitation of West Delap Dock would be a useful first step
toward demonstrating the national governments desire to provide expanded port services to the
incoming international fishing vessels. While the West Delap Dock is entirely too small to
provide any meaningful range of fishing vessel services, it could provide a short or long-term re-
fueling location within the Port of Majuro until a substantive fisheries dock facility is developed
at a suitable location somewhere inside Majuro Lagoon. As a result, Marshall Energy Company
would derive increased revenues from the sale of diesel fuel stored in its nearby tank farm. With
the redevelopment of the tank farm across the street from the Delap Dock, MEC is anticipating
increased fueling operations back to previous distribution volumes, which were almost double
the current flows.

6.5.4.2 Moorage Location for RMIPA Pilot Boats

A second potential long-term use of this dock would be for the moorage of the pilot boats
operated by RMIPA. These boats are presently moored along the inner basin at Uliga Dock.
However, the relocation of the pilot boats to West Delap Dock would place the boats further
away from the port fairway but closer to the vessel moorage area. The port fairway and vessel
moorage area are the primary destinations of the pilot boats. The location of the pilot boats
along West Delap Dock would probably generate somewhat greater fuel expenditures for the
operation of these boats. Otherwise, the moorage of these vessels could easily be accommodated
along the West Delap Dock.

The moorage of the RMIPA pilot vessels along the West Delap Dock would provide a good
moorage location that would be conveniently accessible to RMIPA personnel whom are based at
the nearby RMIPA office complex at Delap Dock. Since moorage space is already available at
Uliga Dock, it is not essential that the relocation of the pilot boat moorage take place
immediately. Consequently, relocation of the pilot boats could be accomplished on either a short
term or long-term basis.

6.5.5 Container Stacking/Storage Area

6.5.5.1 Adequacy of Available Land Area

One of the primary long-term considerations associated with the cargo handling and container
storage area surrounds the adequacy of the existing 2.74 hectare (27,402 square meters) area to
support future cargo handling and container storage needs. The area required for container cargo
handling and storage is dependent upon the type of container handling system that is used at the
Port of Majuro, the container stacking density, the internal layout of the container yard, the type
of equipment used for container stacking, internal road access, and maximum stacking height
(Thoresen, 2010).

For the purposes of this master plan, this evaluation relied, in part, upon the use of the following
calculation of total container yard area and related assumptions for the preceding factors
influencing operation of the container yard area.

A
T
= C
TEU
x D x A
TEU
x (1+B
f
)
365 x H x N x L x S

The following assumptions were used for each factor included in the calculation of required total
container yard area.

C
TEU =
Container movements per year. Available inbound and outbound cargo data indicates that
about 10,610 TEU of containerized cargo were moved on Delap Dock in 2013. Anticipated
cargo volumes presented in Chapter Four suggest that future total cargo volumes will range
between 13,385 and 17,776 TEU by 2023.

A
T
=Total yard area required in square meters.

A
N
=Net container stacking area.

H =Ratio of average stacking height to maximum stacking height of the containers which
typically varies between 0.5 and 0.8. This factor depends upon the need for shifting and digging
of the containers in the storage area, and the need for containers to be segregated by destination.
A ratio of 0.8 was assumed for this value.

A
TEU
=Area requirement per TEU. The area required for each TEU is dependent upon the type
of container handling system used. Reach stackers, for example, require considerably less area
than the use of forklifts. Lyon Associates assumed the continued use of forklifts and toplifts for
moving containers from the dock apron to the primary container stacking/storage yard. This
container handling method requires approximately 72 square meters for one TEU of
containerized cargo if the stacking height is one or two containers high. The stacking height
presently used in the container yard is typically two or three containers. A conservative
assumption was made for the continued use of forklifts for cargo handling and a stacking height
of two containers, or an area of 72 square meters of area needed to store each TEU of container
cargo.

D =Cargo dwell time or the average number of days that a container remains in the stacking area
in transit. In view of existing schedules of shipping companies calling on the Port of Majuro, a
cargo dwell time of 14 days was used.

B
f
=Buffer storage factor in front of the container storage or stacking area. This factor typically
ranges between 0.05 and 0.10. A buffer storage factor of 0.10 was assumed.

N =Primary container storage area or container stack area compared to the total container yard
area. The primary container storage area of most ports usually comprises between 60 and 75
percent of the total container yard area. The calculation assumed the primary container storage
area would represent about 70 percent (0.70) of the entire container yard area.

L =Layout factor due to the shape and configuration of the cargo terminal area. This factor
typically ranges between 0.7 for triangular shaped areas and 1.0 for rectangular shaped areas.
The calculation assumed a layout factor of 1.0 given the rectangular configuration of the existing
container storage area.

S =Segregation factor due to different container destinations, custom procedures, etc. that
usually vary between 0.8 and 1.0. A segregation factor of 1.0 was assumed.

Through the application of the preceding formula and related assumptions to existing and
anticipated cargo volumes, the preceding calculation of container yard area requirements
suggests the following:

The overall container yard area presently contains roughly 27,402 square meters (2.74
hectares) of land area. If the existing dock apron is expanded to a recommended 30
meter width, the size of the primary container stacking/storage area would diminish to
only 24,096 square meters of land area.
Cargo volumes in 2013 suggest a need for roughly 12,892 square meters of land area.
This estimate suggests that the overall container yard presently contains ample available
land area. However, the recommended reorganization of existing facilities, the
development of new facilities, the rearrangement of container stacks, and establishment
of specific vehicular routes in the primary container stacking/storage area, which are
necessary to make cargo handling operations more efficient, could significantly reduce
the theoretical surplus of land area.
By 2023, the overall container yard area is expected to require somewhere between
16,266 and 21,600 square meters of land area. This suggests that the existing container
yard may continue to have adequate land area if the container yard is reorganized and
operated efficiently.
In 2033, it is expected that between 19,578 and 34,325 square meters of land area will be
needed to support rising cargo volumes. If the upper end of this range would be realized,
the container storage area would theoretically require roughly 6,923 square meters of
additional land area. For this reason, it would be prudent for RMIPA to seek all
reasonable opportunities to secure, via lease or purchase, additional properties that are
situated adjacent to the east and west sides of Delap Dock.

6.5.5.2 Anticipated Ground Slot Requirements

While the preceding calculations presented in section 6.5.5.1 provide some useful insights
concerning overall land requirements for the container yard, the recommended re-organization of
the container stacking/storage area must also take into account the number of anticipated ground
slots needed to support the movement and storage of inbound and outbound containers. This
information is also essential to help determine the type and number of cargo handling equipment
that are necessary to support future cargo handling operations.

In order to calculate anticipated ground slot requirements, Lyon applied the following calculation
that is frequently used by some cargo handling equipment manufacturers to determine equipment
requirements (Luukkonen, 2013):

G
SR
= C
TEU
x D x P
F

A
DO

T
F

The following assumptions were used for each factor included in the calculation of the ground
slots required in the container stacking/storage area.

G
SR
= Container ground slot requirements on any given day of port operation.

C
TEU
=Container movements per year. Available inbound and outbound cargo data indicates
that about 10,610 TEU of containerized cargo were moved on Delap Dock in 2013. Anticipated
cargo volumes presented in Chapter Four suggest that future total cargo volumes will range
between 13,385 and 17,776 TEU by 2023.

D =Cargo dwell time or the average number of days that a container remains in the stacking area
in transit. In view of existing schedules of shipping companies calling on the Port of Majuro, a
cargo dwell time of 14 days was used.

P
F
=Cargo peaking factor. Lyon assumed a factor of 1.3 to account for occasional higher
volumes of inbound and outbound cargo.

A
DO
=Annual days of operation. It was assumed that the Port of Majuro operates 365 days per
year.

T
F
=Transshipment factor. A factor of 2 was used to account for containers transshipped
through the port. Transshipped containers actually occupy only one space or ground slot as they
are positioned directly for loading on to a second vessel that is concurrently berthed along the
same or an adjacent quay (Luukkonen, 2013).

Through the application of the preceding formula and related assumptions to anticipated cargo
volumes in 2023, the preceding calculation of container yard area requirements suggests that
Delap Dock will require somewhere between 339 to 444 ground slots available to support
anticipated inbound and outbound cargo handling and storage operations.

6.5.5.3 Paving of the Primary Container Stacking/Storage Area

The unpaved surface of the existing container stacking and storage area contributes greatly to the
deterioration of the dock apron surface as heavily-loaded forklifts and top picks transport loose
gravel to the dock apron from the adjacent container stacking and storage area. Forklifts
handling 40-foot containers can have axle loads up to 1,200 kN.

"In order to highlight the relatively big damaging effect of forklifts on pavements, it is significant
to note than an axial load up to 1200 kN on a forklift will give a wheel load slightly higher than
the maximum wheel loads transmitted to the pavement during take-off by a Boeing 747 B"
(Thoresen, 2010).

The lack of a paved surface also impacts the efficiency of cargo handling operations and reduces
the service life of existing cargo handling equipment (Stinnett, 2013).

As discussed in Chapter Three, there are various options available for the design of a suitable
paved surface that generally include bituminous surface, in-situ concrete, and concrete block
pavers, or a combination of these different surfaces. The advantages, disadvantages, and life
cycle costs associated with these pavement options should be carefully evaluated in conjunction
with the design of this improvement. The existing dock apron should also receive a structural
analysis of the existing slabs to determine their current anticipated lifespan. Some patching of
existing cracked slabs with an Elastomeric Concrete, such as Del Patch elastomeric concrete by
D.S Brown, could increase their useful life. Other slabs may need a complete replacement if the
cracking covers the entire slab and/or exhibits approximately three or more major cracks.

The eventual paving of the primary container stacking/storage area will also enable the painting
of lines, arrows, and other markings in the container stacking/storage area that will establish the
location of aisles for equipment movements, identify container storage rows and container
loading zones, and indicate other important features. This improvement will also help sustain the
amount of available container storage and improve the efficiency of cargo handling movements.

Paving of the container yard will increase the amount of impervious ground cover at the Delap
Dock. The current compacted crush coral surface results in approximately 40-50 percent of
rainwater falling on to the surface to either percolate into the ground or evaporate shortly after a
rainfall event. Paving the container yard will reduce the amount of percolation and evaporation
to approximately 10-20 percent, thereby increasing the volume of storm water runoff. The main
roadway adjacent to the container yard has a trench drain along the edge of the paved roadway in
order to capture storm water runoff. However, this trench drain is typically filled with sand and
debris and provides little to no storage of storm water, often resulting in flooded streets
surrounding the Delap container yard. Therefore, accommodations for drainage or increased
storage of storm water needs to be incorporated into the paving planning and design phases.

6.5.6 Secondary Yard Area

The secondary yard area for most ports includes security entrance facilities, vehicular parking
area, office buildings, container freight station (CFS) with an area for container stuffing and
stripping (unloading), empty container storage, as well as cargo handling equipment and
container maintenance and repair. Chapter Three describes the general condition of these
facilities, as well as recommends the demolition, replacement, and/or relocation of some existing
facilities in the secondary yard area.

Whether the existing 2.7 hectare site is continued to be used or is expanded, the secondary yard
area at Delap Dock needs to be reorganized to make a more efficient use of available land area
and, at the same time, establish an exclusive area for primary container stacking/storage. At the
present time, the container stacking/storage area and secondary support facilities are mixed in the
overall container yard area. A clear separation of primary cargo handling operations from
support facilities is one critical step needed to achieve more safe and efficient cargo handling, as
well as sustain the capacity of the primary container stacking and storage area.

If RMIPA chooses to implement port improvements that would encourage and accommodate
expanded transshipment operations (Option C), it is recommended that RMIPA also seek to lease
additional land area to expand the size of the secondary yard area to include lands south of the
area presently subleased by the RMI Ministry of Public Works. This area presently contains the
RMI Procurement Office, a vehicular access to the Ministry of Public Works, and an older
warehouse facility.

While some of the following recommendations are viewed more as short to medium-term
improvements, it is prudent that the type and location of supporting facilities are envisioned as
part of an overall long-term site plan for Delap Dock. Site plans for each of the four operational
and development options are presented in Figures 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7. The rationale for the
type and location of all recommended facilities in the secondary yard area are presented in the
following paragraphs.

6.5.6.1 Entrance/Security Facility/Vehicular Access

In the coming decade, entry to the Delap Dock area will continue to primarily include stevedore
management and operations personnel reporting for work, local consignees making arrangements
for the delivery of inbound containers, local consignees receiving and stripping containerized
cargo at the container freight station, and stevedores that are returning from their delivery of
incoming containers to local consignees. For security purposes, all persons and vehicles entering
and departing from the Delap Dock area must be cleared and authorized by port security
personnel.

The present entry point to Delap Dock should continue to serve this function. The recently built
security facility adjacent to the Delap Dock entrance should also continue to house port security
personnel who are monitoring all persons seeking entrance to Delap Dock.

The various types of entries to Delap Dock require a safe and convenient vehicular ingress and
egress from the main shoreline roadway in Delap. Vehicular access and circulation can be
effectively achieved through the establishment of a one-way, looped circulation pattern through
selected parts of the secondary yard area. The looped vehicular route should provide access to a
vehicular parking for employees and customers of Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company,
vehicular access to the container freight station (CFS) for customers receiving inbound CFS
cargo, as well as a designated loading area for dry and refrigerated containers being loaded on to
trailers for delivery to local consignees.

The looped circulation route should exit in the vicinity of the abandoned restroom facility near
the southwest corner of the Delap Dock area. This facility is located along the north side of the
main shoreline roadway. In Chapter Three, it is recommended that this facility be demolished
since this building provides no function to RMIPA. With the establishment of a looped access,
security personnel will also need to monitor this new exit point to curtail any unauthorized
access to the Delap Dock complex.

In the event that additional land area, south of the area subleased by the RMI Ministry of Public
Works, is leased by RMIPA, a second option is for the looped circulation route to exit at the
present vehicular access to the Ministry of Public Works. This access begins along the main
shoreline roadway.

The establishment of the looped vehicular circulation route will also require a slight relocation of
mobile trailer chassis, which are presently located on the north side of the RMIPA office
building. The chassis would need to be relocated just east of their present location and be
situated behind both the RMIPA and MSTCO office buildings. If the land presently occupied by
the RMI Procurement Office is vacated and removed from the site, this area could also be for the
storage of chassis because of its proximity to a recommended container loading zone.

6.5.6.2 RMIPA Office Building

The office building presently occupied by RMIPA should continue to be the primary
administrative center for the RMI Ports Authority. The size of the RMIPA staff and related floor
space requirements of the agency enable RMIPA to lease the ground floor of its administrative
building to some local shipping agencies. If and when the RMIPA workforce expands and
requires additional floor space, the ground floor of the building should provide ample floor space
to accommodate reasonable staff increases during, at least, the next 10 years.

6.5.6.3 Stevedore Office/Container Freight Station Building

Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company, which occupies the stevedore office and container
freight station building, is in a desirable location near the main entrance to the Delap Dock
complex. In this context, it is recommended that the administrative functions of Majuro
Stevedore and Terminal Company remain in the existing stevedore office building. The present
CFS warehouse on the ground floor could, if necessary, be used to expand administrative office
space and/or the storage of consumable supplies, tools and small equipment.

6.5.6.4 New Container Freight Station Warehouse

There is no available information that identifies what proportion of inbound containerized cargo
is delivered to the existing container freight station. However, one experienced shipping agent in
Majuro indicates that about 35 percent of the inbound container cargo represents CFS cargo that
consignees strip from a single container at the existing container freight station (Ysawa, 2013).

Consignees receiving CFS cargo are required to obtain what is known as a house bill and
related cargo release from the RMI Customs office before they can receive cargo at Delap Dock.
This process requires local residents and small business representatives to make visits to two
offices, in different locations, before obtaining authorization to retrieve cargo items from a single
container. The geographical separation between the offices of MSTCO and RMI Customs also
hampers timely coordination between both organizations which often delay the clearance of
incoming cargo and frustrate local residents. For this reason, it is recommended that any new
CFS facility at Delap Dock would incorporate a small RMI Customs office along with covered
storage for incoming CFS containers. A second option is to locate a branch RMI Customs office
in the ground floor of the existing CFS warehouse facility.

Assuming that roughly 35 percent of the anticipated inbound cargo in 2023 (13,386 to 17,776
TEU) will represent CFS cargo, Lyon estimates that a new container freight station would
require about 3,200 to 4,250 square meters of covered container storage area. Roughly 20 square
meters of additional floor area will also be needed to provide some administrative floor area for a
branch office of RMI Customs unless this floor area is accommodated within the existing CFS
warehouse. Another 10 square meters of floor space will be needed to incorporate the
administrative functions that are presently supported by the Delap Yard Office. Additional land
area will also be needed for a vehicular entrance from the recommended loop access and the
backing of vehicles to one side of CFS warehouse facility.

In terms of location, a new container freight station would ideally be located along the west
boundary of the neighboring Marshall Energy Company site. This location would place the CFS
warehouse adjacent to the primary container stacking/storage area. Ample area would also be
available for the movement of incoming light trucks that are arriving and departing the CFS
warehouse with cargo unstuffed from inbound containers.

The new CFS warehouse could be constructed with concrete masonry walls and prefabricated
steel columns. However, in order to avoid potential structural damage to the building, concrete
footings should be raised or enlarged to prevent cargo handling equipment from any collisions
with the steel columns of the building(Agerschou, 2004).

6.5.6.5 Cargo Handling Equipment Maintenance and Repair Area

The area presently used by Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company for the storage,
maintenance and repair of cargo handling equipment should remain in its present location along
the west side of the Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority complex. However, this area should
extend further west to provide more area for the movement of cargo handling equipment. The
timing of the maintenance building expansion/rehabilitation also will have an impact on what
type of redevelopment is needed. Prior to the relocation of the existing fuel line and pumping
station, MEC, MSTCO, and RMIPA shall coordinate the rehabilitation of the maintenance
buildings, and/or relocation of the fuel facilities. This coordination would result in a
prioritization of addressing the fuel lines located under the maintenance and storage building.

The existing Delap Dock Maintenance Building should be replaced with a renovated or new
facility. The north end of the present building is located within the proposed 30-meter dock
apron area associated with Option C. A more specific recommendation for the improvement of
the building should be determined following the completion of a more specific facility plan for
this structure. The plan for the Delap Dock Maintenance Building would consider, at least,
operational needs of the maintenance and repair area, supporting utility requirements, facility
improvement options, and anticipated improvement costs. No portion of the renovated or new
facility should be located within the recommended 30-meter dock apron area.

6.5.6.6 Delap Stevedore Recreational Building

The Delap stevedore recreational building should remain in its present location and continue to
serve as a rest and relaxation area for stevedores during their working hours at Delap Dock. This
building is in generally good condition and is located along the perimeter of the primary
container stacking/storage area.

The adjacent storage facility should be removed from the site. Additional storage for
consumable supplies can be provided in another facility in the secondary yard area.

6.5.6.7 Existing Yard Office Functions

The existing yard office and adjacent storage shed need to be
removed from the dock apron area to facilitate more efficient
cargo handling. The functions of the existing yard office, which
is recommended for replacement, should be incorporated into the
new CFS warehouse facility. The storage functions associated
with the present facility should be relocated into the existing CFS
warehouse.

The size and layout of the floor space within the new CFS warehouse should be designed in
close coordination with the management of Majuro Stevedore and Terminal Company to ensure
that the new facility accommodates administrative office and storage needs.

6.5.7 Utilities Supporting Future Dock Operations

6.5.7.1 Electrical Power Supply, Distribution and Outdoor Lighting

While the Marshall Energy Company is taking constructive steps toward the development of a
more reliable power supply on Majuro, the operation of a primary port facility requires long-term
system reliability. Incoming international cargo vessels operate on tight schedules and desire to
unload and leave all ports as soon as possible in order to maintain their respective delivery
schedules. Any interruptions caused by power outages or other circumstances can impact the
cost of vessel operations and product transportation for shipping companies serving the Marshall
Islands. In order to sustain a reliable supply of electrical power to Delap Dock, RMIPA will
need to develop, operate and maintain backup power supply at the Delap Dock (Figure 6-8) in
addition to the existing backup generator for the RMIPA office building. In order to maintain
operational requirements, the backup generators should supply power to the container yard
lighting of the container stacking/storage area, including the yard lighting, interior and exterior
lighting for the proposed CFS warehouse, and the refrigerated containers.
Gate
Entrance
Gate
Culvert
GasManifold
Guard Rail
PROPOSED DELAP DOCK AREA
ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION
Anticipated Connected Loads

Of the proposed improvements to the Delap Dock, there will be several areas requiring increased
electrical loads. One such load will be associated with the new CFS warehouse. The warehouse
would require typical interior lighting and electrical outlets for the interior offices, as well as
more powerful interior and exterior lighting associated with the main warehouse where CFS
goods will be stored until being picked up by the end customer.

An additional significant electrical load will be necessary to
support the storage of refrigerated containers within a
designated area of the primary container stacking and storage
area. Most inbound refrigerated containers unloaded at the Port
of Majuro are capable of being operated at 240 or 480-volts
(Valencia, 2013).

An example from the
Centerm container facility at
Port Metro Vancouver in British Columbia illustrates how
refrigerated containers can be efficiently stacked and stored
adjacent to reefer towers containing electrical outlets.
Approximately 60 electrical outlets spread out across four
levels and sixteen panels (four panels to each level) are
installed on each reefer tower as shown, but can vary depending
on specific port needs. A single high voltage substation was
installed at the ground level of every other tower to distribute power to the outlets across two
reefer towers. At the Delap yard, the electrical conduit and infrastructure can be set in place to
allow for expansion of additional reefer towers at a later date. Assuming that reefer containers
comprise roughly 20 percent of all inbound containers in the coming decade, the container
stacking/storage area would require the installation of approximately four towers for options A
or B. An additional tower would be needed for Option C. However, the installation and erection
of the reefer towers can be designed so that they can be installed incrementally in response to
demand.

Another essential load will be associated with container yard
lighting. Various port stakeholders have identified the need for
better outdoor lighting of the overall container yard at Delap
Dock. Some shipping company representatives have, for
example, suggested that the lack of adequate lighting may be a
contributing factor to a number of thefts that have taken place at
the existing container freight station (Valencia, 2013). The use
of more effective light standards and fixtures can also shift the
location of exterior lighting to adapt to variable port operations, e.g., nighttime unloading and
loading of containers, and weather conditions. It is anticipated that installation of new lighting in
the primary container stacking/storage area and secondary yard area would generate a connected
load of approximately 50 kilovolts.

The use of pole mounted metal halide lamp flood lights with weatherproof fixtures is
recommended for use at the Delap Dock. Either 1000 watt lights, or fixtures with dual 600 watt
lights, should provide sufficient output for the container yard. Fixtures with dual 600 watt lights
would allow lighting to be emitted from one light if the other blows out and provides a notice to
change the light without causing a blackout of that area). The locations of the pole mounted
lights would be based on the arrangement of the containers within the primary container stacking
area, as well as consider lighting coverage per pole and the maneuverability of container stacking
equipment.

Another option for lighting, which would have higher initial costs but lower power consumption,
would be the use of higher output LED lighting. In a case study by GE lighting, a car dealership
in Atlanta, Georgia replaced 1,000 watt metal halide pole mounted fixtures with LED lighting.
Since the LED lighting technology is much more energy efficient, the auto dealership reduced
their electrical consumption by almost 87 percent. With the high cost of electricity in Majuro,
this may be an economically viable option. However, a detailed study should be performed to
evaluate this option for the needs of the Delap Dock.

With the recommended improvements for Options A, B,
or D at the Delap Dock, the amount of overhead lights
would greatly increase. Options A, B, or D would
involve 34 x 1000 watt Metal Halide lights. The energy
consumption of LED lights compared to Metal Halides,
typically result in a power consumption reduction of
around 85 percent. Assuming the lights would operate for
approximately 12 hours a day, the incorporation of LED
flood lighting would result in an annual savings of
approximately $70,000 for Options A, B, or D if electrical
rates remained at the current rate of $0.50 per kilowatt-
hour. For the expansion of the Delap Dock in Option C, the amount of overhead lights would
increase to 45. The annual savings in electrical energy consumption for Option C would be
approximately $92,000 per year.

Layout Lights
Load
(kW)
Time
(Hours)
Power /
Year (kW
Hours)
Cost
($0.5 per
kW Hour)
LED
Efficiency Savings
A, B, or D 34 1.1 12 163,812 $81,906 85% $69,620
C 45 1.1 12 216,810 $108,405 85% $92,144

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 below provide a summary of the anticipated electrical loading for the Delap
Dock Complex for Options A, B, C, and D.

Location Area (m^2) Electrical Load Total Unit
Overhead
Lighting N/A 1.1 KVA/Light 40 kVA
Refrigerated
Containers N/A 6 kVA/container 500 kVA
Delap Dock
Maintenance
Buidling 1620 0.06 kVA/m^2 100 kVA
CFS Warehouse 700 0.06 kVA/m^2 45 kVA
Fuel Pump
Buidling N/A
10hp Pump +
Ovehead Lights 10 kVA
Fire Pump
Building N/A
Overhead Lights /
Exhaust Fan 5 kVA
Backup Power
Supply Building N/A
Overhead Lights /
Exhaust Fan 5 kVA
Stevedore
Recreational
Building 84 0.11 kVA/m^2 10 kVA
Guard House(s) N/A
Lighting, Computer,
Radio, Small A/C 5 kVA
RMIPA Office
MSTCO Building 700 0.08 kVA/m^2 60 kVA
865 kVA TOTAL ANTICIPATED MAX ELECTRICAL LOAD
TABLE 6-1
DELAP DOCK ELECTRICAL LOADING (OPTIONS A, B, OR D)
Location Area (m^2) Load Total Unit
Overhead
Lighting N/A 1.1 KVA/Light 50 kVA
Refrigerated
Containers N/A 6 kVA/container 650 kVA
Delap Dock
Maintenance
Buidling 1620 0.06 kVA/m^2 100 kVA
CFS Warehouse 1500 0.06 kVA/m^2 90 kVA
Fuel Pump
Buidling N/A
10hp Pump +
Ovehead Lights 10 kVA
Fire Pump
Building N/A
Overhead Lights
/ Exhaust Fan 5 kVA
Backup Power
Supply Building N/A
Overhead Lights
/ Exhaust Fan 5 kVA
Stevedore
Recreational
Guard House(s) N/A
Lighting,
Computer,
Radio, Small A/C 5 kVA
RMIPA Office
MSTCO Building 700 0.08 kVA/m^2 60 kVA
1070 kVA
TABLE 6-2
DELAP DOCK ELECTRICAL LOADING (OPTIONS C)
TOTAL ANTICIPATED MAX ELECTRICAL LOAD

Power Distribution

As shown in Figure 3-10, the main container yard is powered by an electrical feed from a
transformer within the MEC property. With the removal and relocation of the existing yard
lighting and the construction of a new CFS warehouse, the electrical requirements will be
scattered throughout the property. The existing electrical feed should be abandoned and replaced
with a new feed traversing the yard (Figure 6-7). This feed would provide electrical power to the
yard lighting, the fire and fuel pump buildings, the Delap Dock maintenance building, the new
CFS cargo building, and the MSTCO recreational building.

The existing electrical power supply for reefer containers is distributed from the underground
15kV along the main road to a series of transformers east of the security building. With the
relocation of the reefer container storage to the recommended reefer towers on the east side of
the primary container storage yard, a high power transmission line should be installed at the
location of the reefer towers. The existing transformers should also be removed and the 15kV
power supply should be installed underground (adjacent to the MEC fence) to the location of the
reefer towers. The transformers and electrical distribution would then be located at the reefer
towers along the last two rows of containers. Installation of the conduits in the ground would
allow for a possible incremental installation of the towers.

The existing electrical feeds for the RMIPA office building and MSTCO building should remain.

Backup Power Supply

A diesel-engine generator system should be installed to supply backup power to, at least, the
container stacking/storage area, lighting for the proposed CFS warehouse, and the refrigerated
containers. This would enable the continuance of port operations during any power outages in
the Delap area.

Given the proximity of the Marshall Energy Company tank farm and the availability of diesel
fuel, it is recommended that the independent power supply would be provided by, at least, three
diesel engine generators. The installation of three generators would allow for the possibility of
phasing improvements as well as enabling one generator unit to be placed on stand-by for
periodic maintenance while another generator(s) remains in operation. As shown in Tables 6-1
and 6-2, three 500 kW generators should sufficiently handle electrical requirements for the
highest anticipated electrical loading occurring for option C. However, for the reefer container
power supply, there are several different variables and possible quantities. Consequently, the
sizing of the generators can vary based on different possible configurations. The generator
enclosure should be laid out with generator pads and spacing for the three 500 kW generators.
This approach enables the potential use of smaller generators depending on the phasing of
improvements and/or use of a different yard layout option.

6.5.7.2 Fuel Supply and Distribution

As stated earlier, there is an opportunity to provide fuel to smaller purse seine fishing vessels that
would have an overall length of less than 65 meters. This could be accomplished by a
rehabilitation of the Delap West Dock (see section 6.5.4.1).

One important aspect of this rehabilitation would be the relocation of existing fuel supply and
distribution lines from the Marshall Energy Company (MEC) tank farm that is located on the
seaward side of the main shoreline roadway. Existing fuel lines from the tank farm are situated,
in part, between existing buildings in the MEC complex, and then underneath the eastern portion
of the dock maintenance building. The location of these lines is against international standards
and is an environmental and safety hazard as they cannot be accessed without demolition of at
least a portion of the dock maintenance building.

In order to address these issues, it is recommended that fuel lines from the MEC tank farm be
relocated along the southwest boundary of the Delap Dock lease area. A five meter setback of
the fuel supply and distribution lines from all structures is recommended to sustain long-term
access to the fuel supply and distribution system. However, this setback shall be confirmed with
the latest industry standards during the design phase. In addition, the size of new supply and
distribution lines should be coordinated with Marshall Energy Company in view of MEC's desire
to expand fuel storage capacity of its tank farm as well as including jetfuel and gasoline products
as desired by the Government. The fuel manifold facility should be located approximately five
meters inland of the Delap West Dock face and not less than 35 meters south of the main dock
apron (Figure 6-5), but should also be confirmed with industry standards during the design
phase.

The potential rehabilitation and long-term use of the Delap West Dock for fuel bunkering of
fishing vessels could be negated by the recommended development of a new mooring dolphin if
an access bridge extended from the southwest corner of the main dock (see section 6.5.2.1).
However, if the dock was extended to the west, the fuel line could be extended and the dolphin
could be located to provide adequate dock space for the moorage of smaller international fishing
vessels and/or RMIPA pilot boats along the west dock face. In view of this opportunity, it may
be possible, in the short-term, to locate a fuel building and fueling manifold based on the current
layout of the dock apron. Then, if and when the dock apron is widened, the fuel line could also
be extended and the mooring could be placed approximately two to three times the width of a
typical purse seine beam beyond the face of the dock. The installation and placement of a
pedestrian bridge to the mooring dolphin, perpendicular to the shoreline would leave adequate
space to berth a vessel for fueling. Alternatively, RMIPA could utilize either a dingy or other
vessel to attach lines to the mooring dolphin.

In addition to the fueling option along the west face, there will also be a primary fuel manifold
along the main dock face. The fuel manifold would be used to enable the delivery of fuel to the
MEC fuel farm, as well as the fueling of larger vessels. If the dock face is extended, at least 60
meters (as presented in conjunction with Option C), the length of the dock face should allow the
unloading of a cargo vessel concurrently with the fueling of a purse seine fishing vessel.
Initially, it is recommended to place this fuel manifold along the dock face at midship of the
largest tanker vessel size that calls upon the Delap dock. Then, if the dock face is extended via
an extension of the dock (Option C) or installation of dolphin pylons (Option D), the fuel
manifold can either be relocated westward or an additional manifold installed so that it is located
midship of the largest container vessel docked and tied to the dolphin pylon. This would allow
for the vessel to be docked at the western edge of the quay, while allowing the remaining dock
face open to other operations.

The fuel line may also be located on a more direct route from the MEC Fuel farm thru the middle
of the container yard. This will eliminate some of the bends in the pipeline which is more
conducive to clearing and cleaning the line and will also allow more open space along the length
of the fuel line. However, this would also require the fueling pump station to be located along
the center of the container yard/dock apron, which would impede on stevedoring operations and
overall container yard capacity.

6.5.7.3 Water Systems

Potable Water

In May 2013 both the freshwater service(s) and fire hydrant(s) at the Delap Dock were opened
and valves turned on with no water exiting the line. This is likely due to a combination of the
age of the distribution lines and valves and a lack of flow through both the fire suppression and
freshwater supply. Despite these conditions, there is limited demand for fresh water at Delap
Dock since international cargo vessels and purse seine vessels typically have onboard
desalination units. However, there are occasional requests for the use of potable water that is
used in conjunction with the occasional changing of brine on some purse seine fishing vessels.

Modest long-term water demands remain for the offices of RMIPA and Majuro Stevedoring and
Terminal Company, as well as stevedore employee facilities adjacent to the primary container
stacking/storage area. The RMIPA and MSTCO offices are served directly by the Majuro Water
and Sewer Company and supplemented with raw water catchment, but other facilities located in
the container yard only obtain drinking water via raw water catchment systems.

If the yard area is eventually paved, the water main service to the main Delap Dock apron and
west dock should be replaced with a 100 mm High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe (Figure 6-
5). A new water meter and distribution valve should be installed along with this water
distribution line in order to monitor any water delivery to vessels or other possible usage. In
addition, the water line should have a cross installed along its length prior to entering the primary
container stacking/storage area. One line would head east to the proposed CFS warehouse
associated with Options A or B. Another line would extend westerly to the location of the
proposed CFS warehouse for Option C. This line could be installed with the end capped so that,
if and when the dock is expanded to accommodate transshipment operations, it could easily be
tapped to provide water to the CFS warehouse.

It is recommended that a water catchment system be installed for the CFS warehouse. The
construction of a water lateral to the MWSC distribution is also recommended to provide a
secondary source of water during drought periods.

If pressure issues continue with the municipal supply, and/or the demand for freshwater services
to vessels increases, a water tank could be installed on the north side of the MSTCO building.
The capacity of the tank would be in the 50-100 kiloliter range and should tie into the water
distribution system. It would have a similar setup as the Uliga Dock utilizing rainfall catchment
from the roofs of the MSTCO and RMIPA buildings with a valve and water meter. This would
allow the tank to be operated as an independent water system for the Delap Dock, but maintain
the option to use the municipal supply in times of repair or when supply issues arise.
Fire Flow Supply and Distribution

Although conditions at the Delap Dock reveal inconsistencies with available as-built drawings,
those drawings, combined with existing in ground hydrants, reveal that there is a 200 mm fire
supply line to the Delap Dock apron. There are three in-ground hydrants spaced along the dock
apron (Figure 3-12). However, it is believed that these lines have not been tested in many years
since the system is inoperable. This was confirmed in May 2013 when the hydrants were turned
on with no resulting flow. Due to systemic issues with the existing municipal fire suppression
system, it is recommended that a new fire suppression system be installed at the Delap Dock.

Chapter 3 provides recommendations for the demolition of various buildings around the Delap
container yard. The functions associated with some of these buildings are recommended to be
incorporated in the existing MSTCO building, proposed new CFS cargo warehouse, RMIPA
office building, or main security checkpoint building. However, none of the existing buildings
have fire protection. The fire protection system recommended for the Delap Dock would be the
same standalone pumping system and enclosure as recommended for the Uliga Dock. This
system would be enclosed in either a packaged enclosure from the supplier or within a concrete
masonry unit building. The supply system would consist of an intake in the Majuro Lagoon
along the west dock face, a small water tight piping system with two fire pumps in parallel, a
jockey pump to maintain pressure, and an approximately 100hp main fire pump for actual fire
flow conditions. The pumping system would be housed adjacent to the west dock with the intake
in the lagoon. A ladder into the water should be installed at the intake to enable maintenance and
inspection that are necessary to prevent debris from clogging the system.

MEC has plans to install a saltwater firefighting system around its fuel tank farm for fire
protection purposes as well as in anticipation of future J et Fuel and Gasoline storage. Some
initial proposals incorporated a salt water intake somewhere along the Delap west dock with
distribution lines running across the street. The installation of any fire protection system at the
Delap Dock shall be coordinated with MEC in order to accommodate both fire suppression at the
Delap Dock complex as well as the fuel farm.

From the main pumps and intake, a 200 mm fire main would traverse the Delap Dock property as
shown in Figure 6-5. The fire main should traverse east along the dock apron with
approximately two in-ground hydrants in the dock apron. The main would also traverse south,
counterclockwise, along the property. Fire hydrants should be located at the stevedore recreation
building, north of the MSTCO warehouse, adjacent to the proposed CFS warehouse, and
adjacent to the Delap Dock maintenance building. The spacing of hydrants and would follow
international fire code hydrant spacing requirements which vary from 90 to 180 meters
depending on the type of land use. However, it is essential that each of the fire hydrants would
be installed in locations that would not impede port operations.

In addition to the fire main and exterior fire hydrants, an interior fire sprinkler system should be
installed in the main buildings, such as the RMIPA office building, MTSCO office/warehouse,
and proposed CFS warehouse. The sprinkler system would be connected to the fire mains, but
designed so that the sprinkler system is recirculated back to the fire main to avoid organic growth
that could otherwise foul the pipes with raw seawater. In order to reduce threat from corrosion,
the transmission lines should consist of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipes and fittings
that are designed for fire protection services.

6.5.7.4 Wastewater

Wastewater is collected from restroom facilities in the offices of RMIPA and Majuro
Stevedoring and Terminal Company, as well as the Delap Dock maintenance building. The main
sewer line that traverses the Delap-Uliga-Djarrit area begins east of the Delap Dock.
Consequently, some of the existing facilities at the Delap Dock are connected to individual septic
tank systems.

Since there is already a municipal wastewater collection system that traverses from the Delap
area to Rita, it is recommended that the Delap Dock facilities be tied into the municipal system.
The sewer line extension would have to be installed by the Majuro Water and Sewer Company.
RMIPA would support the extension of sewer laterals from the buildings within the Delap
complex to the sewer main. The sewer main along the roadway was not extended to the Delap
dock due to various utility crossings along the main road at different heights which would
require a very deep sewer line. Therefore a local gravity collection to a pump station is
recommended. The pump station could then connect to the municipal gravity sewer system via a
force main.
Culvert
GasManifold
400mmAND 2x150mm
FUEL LINES
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
DEMOLISH &RELOCATE
400mmAND 2x150mm
FUEL LINES
NEW FIRE HYDRANT NEW FIRE HYDRANT
WATERLINE TO CFS
CARGO BUILDING
(OPTIONS A or B)
WATERLINE TO CFS
CARGO BUILDING
(OPTIONS A or B)
400mmAND 2x150mm
FUEL LINES
400mmAND 2x150mm
FUEL LINES
WATERLINE TO CFS
CARGO BUILDING
(OPTIONS C)
WATERLINE TO CFS
CARGO BUILDING
(OPTIONS C)
EXIST. FIRERLINE
TO BE ABANDONED
IN PLACE
EXIST. FIRERLINE
TO BE ABANDONED
IN PLACE
EXIST. WATERLINE
TO BE REPLACED WITH
150mmHDPE WATERLINE
EXIST. WATERLINE
TO BE REPLACED WITH
150mmHDPE WATERLINE
FIRE PUMPING
STATION
FIRE PUMPING
STATION
FUEL PUMPING
STATION
FUEL PUMPING
STATION
EXIST. 12" WATER EXIST. 12" WATER
INLAID FIRE
HYDRANT
INLAID FIRE
HYDRANT
INLAID FIRE
HYDRANT
INLAID FIRE
HYDRANT
NEW 200 MM
FIRE MAIN
NEW 200 MM
FIRE MAIN
SEWER FORCE MAIN
TO EXIST. GRAVITY
LINES
SEWER FORCE MAIN
TO EXIST. GRAVITY
LINES
SEWER PUMP
STATION
SEWER PUMP
STATION
GRAVITY
SEWER LINES
GRAVITY
SEWER LINES
DELAP DOCK AREA PROPOSED
UTILITY AND FUEL DISTRIBUTION
6.6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

6.6.1 Fisheries Dock Complex

A new fisheries dock complex in the Port of Majuro would establish a significant economic
development opportunity for the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The development of a new
fisheries dock would provide dock area for the servicing of international fishing vessels calling
upon the Port of Majuro prior to or following the transshipment of their harvests to fish carrier
vessels, as well as the delivery of fish to local fish processing operations. Land area inland of the
dock apron should include potential lease area for fish processing facilities, as well as an
additional lease area for one or more companies to provide dry docking, engine repair, net repair,
fuel bunkering, and other vessel services (Figure 6-7).

6.6.1.1 Potential Market

The Port of Majuro is already an attractive port due to its proximity to nearby fishing areas of the
RMI Exclusive Economic Zone. The expansive Majuro Lagoon also provides a large protected
water area that facilitates the transshipment of fish from purse seiners to fish carrier vessels.
With these available assets, it is not surprising that international fishing vessels made
approximately 463 vessel calls upon the Port of Majuro in 2012. International fishing vessels
remained in the Port of Majuro for an average of 9.6 days.

Captains of incoming fishing vessels already request dock access for net repair, fuel bunkering,
and, the use of fresh water for the cleaning of salt brine. But, their access to these services is
limited since RMIPA gives priority to larger international cargo vessels that berth at the main
Delap Dock. Some calls are also made at Uliga Dock, but the long-term moorage of the
interisland passenger/cargo fleet and the size of the dock significantly limit the potential use of
this dock for the servicing of fishing vessels.

Some vessels of the international fishing fleet that call upon the Port of Majuro are not licensed
to fish in the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone. These vessels pursue the tuna fishery in other
regional water areas that are situated outside of the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone. The
availability of various vessel services at a designated fisheries dock in the Port of Majuro can
also be expected to attract some of these vessels for vessel repair services, fuel bunkering, the
purchase of food and other items supporting the operation of fishing vessels, as well as the use
local eating and drinking establishments by fishing vessel crews. These expenditures will further
strengthen new job creation in the private sector and generate additional governmental revenues.

6.6.1.2 Berthing Requirements

Vessel berths would be required for the berthing of fishing vessels unloading fish at two fish
processing facilities. Additional berths would also be needed for the adjacent vessel servicing
area.

Informal discussions with representatives of Pan Pacific Foods and Marshall Islands Fishing
Venture suggest that the vessel berths fronting two fish processing facilities would each need to
be approximately 200 meters in length, or a total of 400 meters for both fishing processing
facilities (Xu, 2013; Liang, 2013). Marshall Islands Fishing Venture, for example, operates 42
long line vessels in the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone. These vessels range from 50 to 65
MAIN ROAD
MAIN ROAD
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 1
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 1
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 2
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
Y
1
5
0
-
2
0
0

M
.
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
Y
1
5
0
-
2
0
0

M
.
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 2
PROPOSED
FISHERIES DOCK COMPLEX
MAIN ROAD
MAIN ROAD
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 1
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 1
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 2
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
APPROXIMATELY
400 M.
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
Y
1
5
0
-
2
0
0

M
.
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
L
Y
1
5
0
-
2
0
0

M
.
FISH PROCESSING
FACILITY/LESEE 2
meters in overall length (Liang, 2013). This would enable the simultaneous unloading of three
to four long-line vessels, or two purse seiners at each fish processing facility.

Fish processing representatives in Majuro suggest that the vessel berth would need to be, at least,
8 meters deep at lowest astronomical tide to support the draft of fully loaded fishing vessels (Xu,
2013). However, if the dock is to have the capacity to support the future sale of fish from
international purse seiners, the minimum depth should be closer to 12 meters. The same
minimum depth should be available at the dock fronting the vessel service area in order to
provide services to both long line and purse seine vessels.

6.6.1.3 Dock Requirements

The dock apron will need to be, at least, 20 meters wide to support the operation of one or more
mobile cranes and the unloading of fish to each fish processing facility. A similar dock width
should be adequate for the vessel service area which will provide fuel bunkering facilities, as
well as connections for fresh water and electrical power.

6.6.1.4 Lease Area for Fish Processing

The lease area for fish processing would generally include facilities for the grading and sorting
of fish, refrigeration, processing, and packing. Other areas of the facility would provide storage
for product packing supplies and the storage of empty refrigerated containers.

6.6.1.5 Lease Area for Vessel Services

The lease area for fishing vessel services will generally include covered warehouse area that will
accommodate engine repair, electrical, and other mechanical services, as well as supporting
administrative office space. It is envisioned that separate warehouse facilities will be established
by each contractor or company that leases land area within the vessel service area.

The vessel service area would ideally include a marine railway system that can be used to dry
dock vessels for the performance of vessel maintenance and repairs. The marine railway would
be designed to serve only long line and purse seine fishing vessels.

6.6.1.5 General Development Concept

The preparation of a more specific master plan for a new fisheries complex is initially needed to
identify and evaluate potential sites for the complex. If a feasible location is identified and
required water and land areas are determined to be available for future development, the second
phase of the master plan would determine more specific design criteria and cost estimates for
construction of a new dock, dock apron and adjoining lease area for fish processing and vessel
repair operations. The third phase of the master plan would address potential environmental
consequences of the fisheries complex, identify practical strategies for the mitigation of all
significant environmental impacts, and consult with appropriate public agencies and local
residents regarding specific community and project issues.

Completion of the master plan would enable the RMI Ports Authority to seek funds for the
subsequent design and construction of the vessel berths and dock apron, the primary access road
to the complex, and any utility extensions to the vessel service lease areas. Otherwise, the design
and construction of fish processing facilities, vessel service facilities, and supporting utilities
would be the responsibility of fish processing companies and vessel service contractors. The
likelihood of securing funds for the project will be enhanced considerably if preliminary lease
agreements with fish processing companies and vessel repair companies are already completed to
demonstrate the commitments of both government and private enterprise to implement
development of the fisheries complex.

A possible likely funding source or mechanism for the development of a fisheries dock could be
derived from a portion of the licensing fees collected for fishing activities in the RMI EEZ. A
portion of the fees collected for fishing could be placed in an interest bearing account to develop
funding. This funding could either be used as a down payment on a loan and/or used to pay back
any borrowed capital. Using this approach, the licensing fees derived from fishing activities in
and around the RMI EEZ could be reinvested in developing infrastructure that would directly
benefit the Marshallese economy and local residents via the creation of new jobs, increased tax
revenue, longer vessel calls by international fishing vessels, and greater onshore expenditures by
international fishing fleet crews.

The long-term operation and maintenance of the new fisheries dock complex should remain the
responsibility of the RMI Ports Authority. With this responsibility, appropriate regulations
concerning use of the fisheries dock would be appropriately prepared, adopted, and enforced.
Consequently, the fisheries dock and adjacent vessel services dock would represent a public
facility that would be primarily used by lessees of adjoining lease areas. However, RMIPA
would retain its authority to allow other vessel movements to the dock as long as they did not
hamper the ongoing activities of primary dock users.


CHAPTER SEVEN
PORT MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

7.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY

7.1.1 Scope of Responsibilities

The original Marshall Islands Ports Authority was authorized by the Marshall Islands Ports
Authority Act of 1999. However, the assets and liabilities of the original Ports Authority were
merged with the Marshall Islands Airports Authority in 2003 to create the present day Republic
of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority (RMIPA). The merger of these authorities and the
related transfer of assets and liabilities are stipulated in the Marshall Islands Ports Authority Act
of 2003.

Title 22, Chapter 1 of the Revised Marshall Islands Code authorizes the Marshall Islands Ports
Authority to establish, maintain, and operate Amata Kabua International Airport, all known
ports at Majuro, Ebeye, and J aluit, as well as any other publicly owned and operated port that
may be designated by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Part VIII of Chapter
1 further clarifies that the authority of the director of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority
extends to all facilities and other structures that are situated within all public port and airport
areas.

In terms of ports, Part II of Chapter 1 requires that RMIPA will also:

Provide port facilities and services;
Provide navigational aides and regulate the movement of ships in the vicinity of ports;
Provide port security;
Provide services and facilities to ships using its ports;
Support overall governmental strategies for the development of shipping plans within the
Republic; and,
Other functions related to the use of ports.

RMIPA is also authorized to carry on commercial activities at, or in relation to, all public ports.

Part VI of Chapter 1 provides RMIPA with authority for the establishment of charges, rates and
fees for services that it provides at all public ports. This authority extends to charges, rates and
fees associated with port entry, pilotage, general navigation services, dockage, site occupation,
wharfage, berthing, anchorage, storage, use of Authority equipment, and port access. Charges
for these services may be calculated on the basis of the gross tonnage of vessels, the quantity of
cargo and number of passengers on a vessel, the term of service, or other relevant considerations.

In the context of enforcement, the director of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority, or an
authorized employee of RMIPA, may also give instructions to the master (captain) of any vessel
or vessel owner regarding:

vessel movements, berthing, or moorage at any established public port;
the discharge and loading of passengers and cargo; and,
the movement of vehicles or personnel within public port areas.

However, Part IX of the RMI Ports Authority Act of 2003 indicates that the Secretary of the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications may establish regulations regarding:

port security;
the movement of people, vehicles, or vessels;
the loading and unloading of passengers and cargo;
the prevention and containment of fuel and other petroleum product spills;
the erection of private wharves and docks;
the use of anchorages, moorings, wharves and docks;
the information to be provided to masters and owners of vessels arriving and departing
from public ports, as well as the goods discharged or loaded at such ports; and,
the amount of charges, rates or fees payable for services provided by the Authority;

Consequently, the development of appropriate port regulations would require a coordinated
effort between RMIPA and the Secretary of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

7.1.2 RMI Ports Authority Fund

Part V of the RMI Ports Authority Act of 2003 authorizes the establishment of a RMI Ports
Authority Fund. This is a separate fund apart from the Marshall Islands General Fund. This
provision of the RMI Ports Authority Act enables RMIPA to operate as a corporation that
generates and balances revenues and expenditures. At the same time, RMIPA is accountable and
subject to review by the Secretary of Transportation and Communications whom is required to
annually transmit his findings to the Nitijela (the National Parliament, or legislative body).

7.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority (RMIPA) is a public corporation
established by the Marshall Islands Ports Authority Act of 2003. The corporation is governed by
a seven member Board of Directors. The RMI Cabinet designates one member of the Board as
Chairman of the RMI Ports Authority Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is required to
meet, at least, once every two months.

The director of RMIPA serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. The director is
responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Authority, carrying out the activities
delegated by the Board of Directors, and performing the functions outlined in Title 22, Chapter
One, of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority Act of 2003.

Part IV of Chapter 1 also authorizes the Board of Directors to employ other technical and
professional staff to carry out the various functions of the Authority. In 2013, the RMIPA staff
associated with its Ports Division included approximately 28 management and staff that
comprised the Deputy Director who is concurrently serving as the acting Seaport Division
Manager, the operations manager and technical assistant, 20 security personnel, as well as two
pilot boat operators, one mechanic, one electrician, and one boat operator helper (Figure 7-1).


RMIPA
Board of Directors

Director
Jack Chong-Gum
Deputy Director
Joe Tiobech
Chief Financial Officer
Rowena Manalo

Seaport Division
Seaport Manager
Operations Manager
Robert Heine
Port Security
Personnel
Pilot Boat
Operations/Maintenance
Personnel
Statistician
Carrie Junior
FIGURE 7-1
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
RMI PORTS AUTHORITY
SEAPORT DIVISION
October 2013


RMIPA is functionally organized into two operating divisions: the Seaport Division and
Airports Division. This structure enables RMIPA to effectively plan, budget, expend funds, and
monitor the performance of both public ports and airports.

7.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PORT DIVISION PERSONNEL

7.3.1 Director and Deputy Director

Overall direction for the operation of RMIPA's Seaport Division (Figure 7-1) comes from the
director of RMIPA, J ack Chong-Gum. His directions are supplemented with the insights and
experience of RMIPA's Deputy Director, Captain J oe Tiobech.

7.3.2 Middle Management

Middle management of the Seaport Division includes a Seaport Manager and Operations
Manager. In recent years, RMIPA incurred the loss of two valuable middle managers who
previously served as Seaport Manager and Operations Manager (Chong-Gum and Tiobech,
2013). In response, Deputy Director, Captain J oe Tiobech, concurrently serves as Seaport
Manager.

The Operations Manager position was capably filled by Robert Heine. The Operations Manager
is assisted by Statistician, Carrie J unior. The Operations Manager and his staff authorize and
monitor incoming vessel traffic by international vessels, coordinate vessel calls and departures
with local shipping agents, authorize and document vessel movements within the Port of Majuro,
coordinate requests for pilotage services, and document relevant data concerning inbound cargo
and ship particulars for vessels calling on the Port of Majuro.

Day-to-day responsibilities for financial management lie with Rowena Manalo, a Certified
Public Accountant. The Accountant is responsible for the Authority's disbursements for
employee payroll, the management of accounts receivable and accounts payable, and preparation
of all financial statements for the organization. Off-island contractors are used for the
preparation of all financial audits (Manalo, 2013).

7.3.3 Operations Personnel

Operations personnel carry out port security, operations, and maintenance tasks that are
requested by the seaport manager. Informal observations of their activities in J anuary 2013
suggest that their primary activities involve the manning of the security gates at Uliga Dock, as
well as two entrances to Delap Dock. Secondarily, other operations personnel are associated
with the operation and maintenance of pilot boats that transport pilots to incoming and outgoing
international vessels.


7.4 PORT SECURITY

7.4.1 Introduction

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a member state of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO). Since its formation in 1948, the IMO has established a variety of
conventions related to the safety of merchant ships, the prevention of oil pollution from ships,
maritime search and rescue, and a host of international marine transportation issues.

One of the more prominent conventions of the IMO is the International Convention for Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) which was adopted by IMO in 1974 and put into force in 1980. The 1974
Convention has been amended on numerous occasions. For example, the International Maritime
Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) in
December 2002; the ISPS Code became Chapter XI-2 of the International Convention for Safety
of Life at Sea.

7.4.1 International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

7.4.1.1 General

The ISPS Code, which came into force in J uly 2004, establishes an international framework of
measures that are intended to enhance maritime security through cooperative efforts by port
facility operators and marine transportation companies. Part A of the ISPS Code includes
mandatory requirements for governments, port authorities and shipping companies that establish
a process for evaluating port security threats and establishing appropriate security measures. Part
B provides guidelines concerning how to meet the mandatory requirements presented in Part A
(International Maritime Organization, 2013).

7.4.1.2 Responsibilities of Contracting Governments

Section Four of Part A outlines the responsibilities for contracting governments which represent
member states such as the Republic of the Marshall Islands. These responsibilities require the
national government to:

set applicable security levels;
approve a Port Facility Security Assessment and any subsequent amendments to an
approved assessment;
determine the port facilities that will be required to designate a Port Facility
Security Officer;
approve a Port Facility Security Plan and subsequent amendments to an
approved facility security plan;
exercise control and compliance measures;
establish requirements for a Declaration of Security and,
test the effectiveness of Ship or the Port Facility Security Plans, or related amendments to
such plans (International Maritime Organization, 2013).


7.4.1.3 Responsibilities for Port Facilities

Sections 14 through 18 of Part A pertain to requirements for port facilities. Section 14 requires
port facilities to act upon the security levels that are established by contracting government. In
the case of the Marshall Islands, this presumably requires RMIPA to carry out appropriate
security measures for each of the following levels of security that are established by the
Secretary of Transportation and Communication.

Security Level 1: This is the level of security required which port facilities and ships
should normally operate. Security measures made under this minimum security level
should generally include controlling access to port facilities, monitoring restricted areas
and providing access to only authorized persons, the monitoring of berthing and
anchorage areas, the routine monitoring of inbound cargo that is discharged and stored at
port terminal facilities, and ensuring the availability of security communications
(International Maritime Organization, 2013).

Security Level 2: This security level applies to a period of time when there is a
heightened security risk. This security level is established when intelligence from a
reliable source indicates a potential threat to a port, type of vessel, or general
geographical area even though no specific target has been identified. At this level of
security, the port facility is required to carry out more intensified security measures such
as a detailed inspection of all cargo operations inside the port terminal (Thoresen, 2010).

Security Level 3: This security level applies to a period of time when there is a probable
or imminent risk of a security incident. This security level would be established when a
specific vessel or port facility has been identified as a specific target. Under this security
level, cargo movements to and from the port may be suspended within all or a portion of
a port terminal (Thoresen, 2010).

7.4.1.4 Port Facility Assessments

Section 15 of Part A requires port facilities of Contracting Governments, i.e., Republic of the
Marshall Islands, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, to complete a Port Facility
Assessment. Completion of the port facility security assessment is used to determine which port
facilities require port security personnel, as well as identify issues that need to be addressed in a
required port facility security plan. The Port Facility Assessment can be made by the
Contracting Government, a designated authority, e.g., RMIPA, or a recognized security
organization, but the Assessment must be reviewed and approved by the Contracting
Government. The requirements associated with this assessment include, at least, the following:

identification and evaluation of important port assets,
identification of potential threats to port assets and related infrastructure, and an
evaluation of the likelihood of potential threats to establish and prioritize security
measures;
identification, selection and prioritization of counter measures and procedural changes,
as well as a related analysis of their effectiveness to reduce vulnerability to potential
security threats;

identification of potential security weaknesses including consideration of policies,
procedures and human factors.

The Port Facility Assessment may apply to more than one port facility. If and when this
approach is taken, the Contracting Government agency is required to communicate this to the
International Maritime Organization.

7.4.1.5 Port Security Plan

Section 16 requires that a recognized port security organization complete a port security plan.
The plan is to be reviewed by the Contracting Government.

The security plan is to determine the operational and physical security measures needed to
address the three different security levels. More specifically, section 16 requires that the security
plan address the following:

measures designed to prevent weapons or other dangerous substances and
devices from being introduced into the port facility or on board a ship;
measures that prevent unauthorized access to the port facility, ships
moored at the port facility, and restricted areas of the port facility;
procedures for responding to security threats or breaches of security;
response procedures for any security instructions that the Contracting
Government may give at security level 3;
evacuation procedures in case of security threats or breaches of security;
duties of port facility personnel assigned security responsibilities, as well as the
responsibilities of other facility personnel;
procedures for interfacing with ship security activities;
procedures for the periodic review and update of the security plan;
reporting procedures associated with security incidents;
identification of the port facility security officer and related points of contact;
measures to ensure the security of the information contained in the plan;
measures designed to ensure the security of cargo and cargo handling
equipment;
auditing procedures for the port facility security plan;
response procedures when the security alert system of a ship at the
port facility has been activated; and,
procedures for facilitating shore leave for ship personnel or personnel changes,
as well as access of visitors to ships.

7.4.1.6 Port Facility Security Officer

Chapter 17 of Part A requires that a port facility security officer is designated for each port
facility. However, a port facility security officer may serve more than one port facility. Part A
requires that the responsibilities of the port facility security officer shall include, at least, the
following:


conduct an initial comprehensive security survey of the port facility;
ensure development and maintenance of the port facility security plan;
implement the port facility security plan;
make regular security inspections of the port facility;
recommend and incorporate modifications to the port facility security plan;
enhance security awareness and vigilance of port facility personnel;
ensure that adequate training has been provided to other security personnel at the port
facility;
report to the relevant authorities and maintain records of occurrences which
threaten the security of the port facility;
coordinate implementation of the port facility security plan with the appropriate
shipping company representatives and ship security officers;
coordinate with any security services that may be used for port security;
ensure that standards for port security personnel are met;
ensure that security equipment is properly operated, tested, calibrated and
maintained; and
assist ship security officers, when requested, in confirming the identity of those persons
seeking to board ships.

7.4.1.7 Security Training, Drills and Exercises

Section 18 of Part A outlines requirements for training, drills and exercises on port facility
security. These requirements indicate that the port facility security officer and appropriate port
security personnel will receive security training and have an understanding of their duties and
responsibilities for port security. To ensure effective implementation of the port facility security
plan, drills are to be carried out at appropriate intervals to take into consideration the types of
operations occurring at the port, the type of vessels serving the port, changes in port facility
personnel, and other relevant circumstances. The port facility security officer is also required to
participate in security exercises at appropriate intervals to ensure that the port facility security
plan is effectively coordinated and implemented.

7.4.1.8 Implementation of International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
Requirements
The Republic of the Marshall Islands, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as well
as the RMI Ports Authority, are well aware of the requirements and guidelines contained in the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. The RMI Ports Authority has already
completed a port security plan for all port facilities in the Port of Majuro, as well as the vessel
anchorage area. The security system has been tested with drills and exercises, as well as internal
audits by RMIPA. Independent maritime auditors have also recently completed a follow-up audit
of the security system (Tiobech, 2013). These accomplishments and actions indicate complete
compliance with the establishment and sustained operation of a port facility security system that
meets the requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.


7.4.1.9 Modifications to Security Fencing and Procedures at Delap Dock
A security fence is located along the south side of the existing dock apron at Delap Dock. There
are two openings along the security fence that enable the movement of cargo handling equipment
during the loading and unloading of cargo vessels. When cargo handling operations are
completed, these openings are closed with the replacement and locking of movable gates. The
past installation of a security fence on the south side of the dock apron is understandable given
the potential accessibility of unauthorized pedestrian access from the Tobolar Coconut
Processing Authority complex on the east side of the dock apron.

However, any fence between the dock apron and adjacent container stacking/storage area slows
the movement of forklifts and top picks that move containers and other general cargo to and from
the dock apron. The efficient movement of inbound and outbound cargo is vital to achieve more
efficient turn-around times for incoming cargo vessels. In addition, existing gates are just wide
enough to enable the passage of existing cargo handling equipment.
To eliminate this constraint, the fence between the dock apron and container stacking/storage
area should be removed and replaced by the continued presence and patrolling of RMIPA
security officers along the dock apron. The north entry of the northernmost Tobolar warehouse
building should also be locked and opened only by port security officers during the loading of
copra from the interisland cargo/passenger vessels that moor along the Delap East Dock or the
performance of other maintenance activities on the warehouse exterior.
7.5 FINANCIAL POSITION

7.5.1 General

In order to assess the general financial position of RMI Ports Authority, available data from
audited financial reports for FY 2010 and 2011 were reviewed, as well as an unaudited financial
report for FY 2012. The fiscal year for RMIPA extends from October 1 through September 30.

This brief analysis devotes particular attention toward the revenues and expenditures of the
Seaport Division in order to assess the sustainability of its management and port operations.

7.5.2 Revenues

In FY 2012, the Seaport Division received a gross income of roughly $2,097,018. This income
reflected various sources of revenues that RMIPA received for the use of various port facilities in
the Port of Majuro. The top five sources of incomes included pilotage fees (27 percent),
wharfage fees (20 percent), pilot boat usage fees (17 percent), vessel entry fees for international
and domestic vessels (12 percent), and dockage fees for international and domestic vessels (10
percent). On a cumulative basis, these five sources of income accounted for about 86 percent of
the revenue generated from port uses supported by the operations of the Seaport Division in FY
2012.


Each of the primary sources of revenue generated by seaport operations rose between FY 2010
and 2012. However, wharfage fees declined almost 12 percent between FY 2011 and FY 2012
due to a significant reduction in fees collected for the delivery of petroleum products.

At the time of this report, port regulations are in the process of being revised to address various
port management considerations, as well as concerns of some port users. One anticipated
revision is making the pilotage of vessels an optional service that can be provided by RMIPA in
cooperation with local pilots from the Republic of the Marshall Islands Pilots Association.
While this change will be welcomed by some shipping companies, vessel captains and owners,
incoming vessels will continue to be required to pay pilotage fees. However, local pilots will no
longer be compensated for their performance of pilotage services (Chong-Gum, 2013).

7.5.3 Cost of Management, Operations and Maintenance

In FY 2012, RMIPA expended approximately $1,861,813 for the management, operation and
maintenance of port facilities in the Port of Majuro. This included an estimated $436,419
associated with the depreciation of related RMIPA assets. Consequently, actual FY 2012 costs
for management, operations and maintenance included expenditures of only $1,425,394.

Aside from estimated depreciation, the more prominent expenditures in FY 2012 included
employee payroll and fringe benefit expenditures, pilotage expenses associated with payments to
local pilots of the Republic of the Marshall Islands Pilot Association, contributions to the RMI
General Fund, and pilot boat expenses. These four expenditures comprised almost 62 percent of
all expenditures in FY 2012.

Between FY 2010 and FY 2012, salaries and wages associated with the Seaport Division
decreased from $430,595 in FY 2010, rose to $466,090 in FY 2011, and fell to $412,939 in FY
2012. The decline in FY 2012 reflects no salary payments for, at least, one unfilled middle
management position within the Seaport Division.

Pilots from the Republic of the Marshall Islands previously received approximately 40 percent of
all total pilotage fees collected by RMIPA. In FY 2012, RMIPA paid roughly $254,890 for the
performance of these services. As stated earlier, it is unclear if these expenditures will continue
due to discussions of revisions to port regulations regarding piloting services.

RMIPA contributed approximately $500,000 to the RMI General Fund in FY 2011 and a
subsequent contribution of $250,000 in FY 2012. These payments were made to demonstrate the
commitment of RMIPA to assist the national government when its financial condition allows.
However, there are no provisions in the Marshall Islands Ports Authority Act of 2003 that require
annual payments to the RMI General Fund. In the coming decade, it is anticipated that increased
expenditures will need to be made for the repair and maintenance of port facilities.
Consequently, any future contributions to the RMI General Fund will likely need to decrease, or
be discontinued, until operational expenditures can be offset by a greater increase in future
revenues.


Between FY 2010 and FY 2012, expenses associated with the operation of the RMIPA pilot
boats decreased slightly. These expenses largely reflected purchases of gasoline and oil for the
operation of outboard motors. In FY 2010, total pilot boat expenses totaled about $192,535.
These expenditures then declined to $74,426 in FY 2011, but then spiraled upward to
approximately $186,447 in FY 2012. The significant rise and fall of pilot boat expenses is
probably due to a smaller number of vessel trip by pilot vessels in FY 2010 and some variability
in local prices for gasoline and oil.

Total repairs and maintenance costs in FY 2012 included only $3,490 in expenditures associated
with office equipment, transportation equipment, buildings and other port facilities. This
suggests that port facilities received a very limited amount of maintenance and few repairs.
Repair and maintenance costs incurred in FY 2012 are significantly less than what was expended
for repair and maintenance in both 2010 ($11,248) and 2011 ($6,094). Needed facility repairs
and the establishment of a more aggressive, preventative maintenance program can be expected
to generate a significant increase in repair and maintenance expenditures.

7.5.4 Sustainability of Future Port Operations

7.5.4.1 Demonstrated Capability to Meet Future Operation and Maintenance
Expenditures

An unaudited profit loss statement for FY 2012, which reports a net income of about $323,994,
strongly suggests that RMIPA will continue to be able to meet normal operation and
maintenance expenditures with incoming revenues. An increasing volume of vessel calls will
continue to expand the amount of revenues gained from various port related fees. However, the
establishment of a preventative maintenance program will also increase the volume of
expenditures for port facility operations and maintenance. Despite these expenditures, it is
anticipated that RMIPA revenues will exceed operation and maintenance expenditures during the
coming decade.

7.5.4.2 Reserve Fund for Unanticipated Repairs and Maintenance

In view of the prospects for a lower net income, it is recommended that a reserve fund for
unanticipated repairs is established within the RMIPA Budget. An annual budgetary allocation
should be made to this fund in order to ensure the financial capability of RMIPA to respond
effectively to unforeseen emergency repairs.

The 2012 profit-loss statement indicates that RMIPA is receiving some interest income from
profits gained on an annual basis. These funds could be used to establish such a fund within
future budgets of RMIPA.

7.5.4.3 Lack of Capital to Support Future Port Improvements

While the balance between Seaport Division revenues and expenses appears favorable, it is
abundantly clear that RMIPA will continue to need capital for the design and construction of any
significant facility repairs, facility renovations, or new construction. The continued commitment
of the Nitijela will be necessary to provide some financial support for the replacement and

Majuro. Concurrently, RMIPA will need to borrow capital, as well as seek and obtain grants
from multi-national organizations and other government agencies to complete the port
improvements recommended in the Port of Majuro Master Plan.

7.6 PORT MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS

7.6.1 Automated Identification System

RMIPA needs to establish an automated identification system (AIS) in the Port of Majuro that
can provide vessel location data to RMIPAs Seaport Manager and Seaport Operations Manager,
as well as international shipping companies, vessel owners, shipping agents, and other related
organizations around the world. Through the use of an existing vertical high frequency (VHF)
antenna on the RMIPA office building, RMIPA can link local vessel locations to an international
vessel database for cargo, fishing, and oil tanker vessels. Through its cooperation with
companies, e.g., Fleetmon or AISLive, RMIPA could receive complimentary software that
would enable its access to the same vessel databases accessed by international shipping
companies.

Establishment of an automated identification system for the Port of Majuro is possible because
most international cargo ships, fishing vessels, and oil tankers have AIS transponders on board.
In December 2004, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) required all vessels over 299
Gross Tonnage to carry an AIS transponder on board. AIS transponders typically include a
global positioning system (GPS) receiver, which collects vessel position and movement
information, as well as a VHF transmitter that transmits vessel position, speed and course, and
other information such as vessel name, dimensions and voyage details to designated VHF
channels.

This enables vessel location data to be transmitted to the public domain, e.g. port authorities.
Other vessels or base stations are also able to receive the information using available computer
software applications.

Vessels having an AIS receiver connected to an external antenna that is installed 15 meters
above sea level will typically receive information within a range of 15-20 nautical miles. Base
stations at higher elevations may extend 40 to 60 nautical miles. The extent of coverage is also
dependent on other factors such as the type of antenna used, potential obstacles around the
antenna, and local weather conditions.

The use of this technology will enable RMIPAs Seaport Manager and Operations Manager to
readily locate and monitor the position of most incoming international vessels once they enter the
Port of Majuro. The use of software that is used to display vessel locations and other vessel data
will enable operation managers to confirm authorized and unauthorized vessel movements.


7.6.2 Preventative Maintenance Program

7.6.2.1 Program Development

The establishment of a preventative maintenance program for all port facilities is needed to
extend the service life of all facilities, reduce expenditures for unanticipated repairs, organize the
activities of facility operations personnel, minimize disruptions to port activities, and establish
realistic annual budgets for facility maintenance and repairs. Onsite observations of Uliga Dock
and Delap Dock in J anuary 2013 reveal that some facility maintenance is taking place, but only
to a limited extent. RMIPA can rely upon its lessees to provide only limited general
maintenance in specific work areas, but not the maintenance of supporting facilities and utilities,
e.g., lighting and bollards, that are located within specific work areas.

The basic approach to preventative maintenance generally involves identifying the tasks and time
needed to maintain each port facility, determining how often the tasks should be completed,
identifying which personnel are needed to get the job done, as well as estimating and
documenting the cost of labor, equipment, materials and supplies for each maintenance task.
Various computerized maintenance management software applications are available to help
organize and support the development of a preventative maintenance program.

For the Port of Majuro, the development of a preventative maintenance program would ideally
be broken down into facility maintenance tasks for each facility within each functional area of
the port. For example, navigation aids are facilities located within the Calalin Channel and port
fairway. Bollards and fenders are facilities that support vessel berths at both Uliga Dock and
Delap Dock. The CFS warehouse is located in the secondary container yard area.

7.6.2.2 Program Implementation

Once a preventative maintenance program is established, RMIPA will likely need to bring on
board a new facility maintenance supervisor for the Seaport Division. The facility maintenance
supervisor will need to survey existing facilities and input relevant facility asset information into
a computerized maintenance management software, e.g., MEX CMMS. Based upon the
experience of the facility maintenance supervisor, specific work orders will be created and
scheduled for all port facilities using the selected computerized maintenance management
software.

Subsequently, RMIPA will need to hire additional personnel to establish a small maintenance
crew to carry out scheduled work tasks. The maintenance crew will be supervised by the facility
maintenance supervisor. The maintenance crew will need to comprise a combination of
technical skills associated with the maintenance and repair of electrical and mechanical systems,
repairs and maintenance of dock surfaces, the servicing of back-up of diesel or gas engine
generators, the maintenance of a stand-alone fire protection system, painting, the operation of
various types of small maintenance equipment, cleaning of offices and warehouse facilities, and
other general maintenance tasks.

Existing pilot boat operators and crew could also be added to the facility maintenance crew.
While these personnel primarily transport pilots to vessels requesting pilotage services, these
personnel will be needed to support the maintenance of navigation aids, dock fenders, and the
occasional collection of solid wastes in Majuro Lagoon.

7.6.2.3 Anticipated Cost for Preventative Maintenance Program

The establishment of a preventative maintenance program will require expenditures for:

RMIPA personnel who will supervise and carry out scheduled maintenance tasks;
Purchase of computerized maintenance management software;
the purchase of materials, maintenance equipment, replacement parts, and consumable
supplies need;
the purchase of some small equipment supporting maintenance activities and,
the maintenance of pilot boats that support pilotage services and the maintenance of
facilities in Calalin Channel and port fairway.

The start-up costs associated with establishing the preventative maintenance program include the
employment of a facility management supervisor and maintenance crew, as well as the purchase
of computerized maintenance management software. Annual labor costs will require an
expenditure of roughly $93,080. The purchase of maintenance management software will
initially cost approximately $3,525 for the first year of use. Thereafter, annual support
agreements for the software will require annual expenditures of $800.

Various types of equipment are envisioned for use by the Facility Maintenance Section of
RMIPA's Seaport Division. Small maintenance trucks will be needed for the electrician and
mechanic who will typically carry a range of small tools to various locations on both Uliga Dock
and Delap Dock. General dock maintenance workers will need access to a small skid steer for
the removal and delivery of materials and replacement parts to port facilities. A pick-up truck
will help facilitate the collection of solid waste materials from the Port of Majuro and the
delivery to Majuro's sole landfill facility. Ladders and other small tools will be required to
support all maintenance and repair activities.

On a cumulative basis, it is estimated that the annual costs of the preventative maintenance
program will require an expenditure of roughly $156,042 (Table 7-1). While pilot boats are
included in the equipment that will be used for the preventative maintenance program, RMIPA
already owns and operates two pilot boats. RMIPA may also own other existing equipment, e.g.,
used trucks, and small tools, and available consumable supplies that could be assigned to the new
preventative facility maintenance program. If so, other available equipment, small tools, and
consumable supplies would help defray the initial expenditures required to initially organize the
preventative maintenance program.


TABLE 7-1
ANTICIPATED ANNUAL COST
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PORT OF MAJURO
LABOR
Personnel Number Annual Salary
$
Extension
$
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 1 14,000 14,000
Electrician 1 7,800 7,800
Electrician Helper 1 6,000 6,000
Mechanic 1 9,880 9,880
Mechanic Helper 1 5,000 5,000
General Dock Maintenance Worker 2 5,000 10,000
Pilot Boat Operator 2 13,000 26,000
Pilot Boat Crew 2 7,200 14,400
Subtotal 93,080
EQUIPMENT

Type No. of
Units
a) Unit Amortization
$
Extension
$
Pilot Boats 2 Already owned by RMIPA 0
Small Maintenance Truck ($10,000 each) 2 $2,880 per vehicle 5,760
Skid Steer ($8,000) 1 $2,304 2,304
Pick-up Truck ($15,000) 1 $4,320 4,320
Ladders 4 N/A 1,200
Small Tools N/A 5,000
Subtotal 18,584
CONSUMABLE SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
Item Cost $
Paint 3,000
Electrical Parts and Supplies 2,000
Boat/Engine Parts and Supplies 2,500
Fuel 10,000
Trash Bags and Cleaning Supplies 3,000
Computer Software Purchase 2,725
Annual Computer Software Support 800
Subtotal 24,025

Total 135,689
15% Contingency 20,353
GRAND TOTAL $156,042
Notes: a) Annual cost assumes 4-year amortization of total equipment cost @ 7 percent per
annum.

7.6.3 Revised Port Regulations

A set of informal port regulations have been put into practice at the Port of Majuro for, at least,
two decades (Tiobech, 2013). These informal regulations generally encompass:

vessel entry;
pilotage;
authorization, procedures, and priorities related to the berthing and anchorage of vessels;
vessel movements within the Port of Majuro;
procedures necessary to gain authorization to complete in-port vessel repairs;
the prevention of pollution from vessels;
responsibilities, procedures, and liabilities associated with the handling of inbound and
outbound cargo; and,
port security.

A formal set of port regulations needs to be adopted by the Board of the RMI Ports Authority. A
new set of regulations should be better organized to incorporate a wide range of issues.
Regulations and procedures should also be formatted to facilitate a convenient review by a wide
range of port users. Illustrations and digital photos should be incorporated into the regulations to
enable a better understanding of port regulations and procedures. Consideration should also be
given to how the port regulations will be made available to port users given the range of
available technologies, e.g., the Internet, smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices.

The scope of existing regulations should initially be discussed with the Seaport Manager to
determine which existing regulations should remain, be revised, or deleted from the new
regulations. Other regulatory issues, e.g., vessel discharges, should be modified to reflect any
new regulatory authorities of the RMI Environmental Protection Agency and/or other national
agencies. Port security regulations need to be updated in view of changed security procedures
that have been established since the implementation of the International Ship and Port Facility
Security Code requirements.

7.7 RMIPA FACILITY LEASES

7.7.1 Delap and Uliga Leases

In Marshallese culture, land is considered to be a very valuable asset. Traditionally, land
holdings are typically divided into sections of land known as wetos which extend from the
lagoon to the ocean in variable widths. These strips of land divide the islets of the atoll into
various land parcels. The wetos are held communally by lineage, or bwij members, and
generally inherited on a matrilineal basis. Control of the wetos is the responsibility of four
traditional community and family representatives.

The Iroijlaplap (paramount chief) is the overall owner and final distributor of all land
interests under his jurisdiction. He does not need to be a member of the bwij that lives on
that parcel of land, but he has ultimate say in land disputes or other matters.


The Iroij Edik is a sub-chief who acts as an intermediary between the Iroijlaplap and
the Alab and Dri Jerbal.

The Alab is the person in immediate charge of a piece of land and is the head of the
bwij. The Alab would represent the bwij in all negotiations with the Iroijlaplap or Dri
Jerbal.

The Dri Jerbal is typically the person who plants, clears and makes improvements on
the land. In return, the Dri Jerbal and his or her immediate family live on the land (Boer,
1995).

In Majuro, and throughout the Marshall Islands, the RMI government sometimes does not own
the land where their facilities or offices are located. As a result, some public facilities are
constructed on privately-held lands. Similarly, RMIPA has entered into long term leases with
landowners in the vicinity of Delap and Uliga docks. The current lease rate is $3,000 per acre
per year.

7.7.1.1 Delap Dock Lease

The Delap Dock area is under two different ground lease agreements. The first ground lease
agreement is part of the Enedrik Weto and is referred to as MI-012-95. This agreement is signed
by the local Iroijlaplap, Iroij Edik, Alab, Sr. Dri Jerbal of the Enedrik Weto and the RMI
Ministry of Internal Affairs. MI-012/95 is the survey plat map that illustrates the land area
encompassed by the first ground lease; this survey plat map is filed in the Office of the Division
of Lands and Surveys. This plat is for a square section of land that comprises approximately
0.4117 hectares (1.0173 acres) of land area. This area is situated almost entirely outside of the
fenced container yard. There is a small section of land on the east side of this plat that, which
comprises approximately 0.0072 hectares (0.18 acres), that falls within the fenced container yard.
This section of land is located within the purple shaded area depicted in Figure 7-1. Most all of
the remaining plat is occupied by the Ministry of Public Works which operates an office west of
the Delap container yard.

The second ground lease agreement is part of the Lobotin Weto and is referred to as MI-05-1187.
This agreement is signed by the local Iroijlaplap, Alab, Dri Jerbal of the Lobotin Weto and the
RMI Ministry of Internal Affairs. The original plat of land associated with this lease was
rectangular in shape and comprised 2.4125 hectares (5.9614 acres) of land. This land area is
depicted on survey plat map SK/007/94 which is filed with the Division of Lands and Surveys.
However, on J une 14, 2010, the original ground lease was amended to reflect the updated survey
plat map MI-044/09 which is also filed with the Division of Lands and Surveys. The amended
plat added 1.7181 hectares (4.2455 acres) of land to the original ground lease agreement.
Consequently, lots A and B comprise a combined land area of 4.1306 hectares (10.2069 acres).

Although the updated plat map is a closer resemblance of the land area for the Delap container
yard, there are several discrepancies and areas that are outside of the main fenced in Delap
container yard (Figure 7-1). They consist of approximately 0.2534 hectares (0.626 acres) of land
Gate
Entrance
Gate
Gate
Gate
Culvert
GasManifold
Guard Rail
Guard Rail
DELAP DOCK AREA
LAND LEASE BOUNDARIES

west of the Delap fence that are situated within the Ministry of Public Works complex, 0.2867
hectares (0.7085 acres) of land that is actually north of the dock apron completely within the
lagoon waters, and 0.1970 hectares (0.4868 acres) that is east of the Delap container yard within
the MEC complex. In addition, there is approximately 0.2802 hectares (0.6924 acres) of land
that is within the Delap container yard, but is not a part of the ground lease agreement. This
section of land is located at the Delap Dock Maintenance building (Figure 7-1). There is also a
portion of land that is apparently covered under both ground lease agreements, which suggests
that the ground lease for this section of land may be being leased twice. This section of land,
which includes approximately 0.019 hectares (.0470 acres), is located within the Ministry of
Public Works complex (Figure 7-1). On a cumulative basis, RMIPAs ground lease includes
about 0.8686 hectares (2.1464 acres) of land that is located outside of the general limits of the
Delap container yard area.

Since RMIPA is paying an annual ground lease for the land at Delap Dock, it is recommended
that the plat map for the Delap dock be corrected to reflect the actual boundaries of the Delap
Dock area that is being used and/or intended to be used by the RMI Ports Authority during the
coming decade. Subsequently, the RMIPA ground lease should be amended to reflect the land
area depicted on the revised plat map. Separate lease agreements would need to be established
for lands associated with the Tobolar Coconut Processing Authority and the Marshalls Energy
Company complex. The plat amendment process would require the cooperative effort of
RMIPA, the Ministry of Public Works, the Marshalls Energy Company, and the Tobolar Copra
Processing Authority.

In order to define its intended lease area, RMIPA should retain a licensed surveyor to create a
new boundary map of the Delap Dock area that could encompass the container stacking/storage
area and the secondary yard area, as well as any planned expansion area. It is also recommended
that this survey be tied into both local survey benchmarks, as well as nearby National Geodetic
Survey (NGS) benchmarks for horizontal control which are based on the World Geodetic System
of 1984 datum. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates are typically based upon this
datum. The closest NGS benchmark would be the Delap benchmark which is a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) aluminum disk that is cemented in a concrete sidewalk near the RMI
Capitol building.

7.7.1.2 Uliga Dock Lease

The Uliga Dock and surrounding area is located in the Toeak Weto. There is one ground lease
for this portion of land which is signed by the local Iroijedrik, Alab, Dri-Jerbal, and the
Secretary of the RMI Ministry of Internal Affairs. The lease agreement is based on plat map MI-
027-90 which was registered by the Division of Lands and Surveys which in 1990. Although the
maps are over 20 years old, they generally conform to the area of operations at Uliga Dock and
surrounding buildings. This lease expires on December 31, 2019.

It is recommended that this ground lease be updated to reflect the most current survey plat map
for the area. RMIPA will need to retain a licensed surveyor to review the plat map and perform a
boundary survey. This will enable the surveyor to provide a map that displays the limits of the
plat, as well as highlight the limits of the lease area included in the ground lease. The boundary

survey should be tied into the NGS benchmark referred to as Majuro which is located on the
southwest corner of the Uliga Dock pier. This would allow the survey to be referenced to the
WGS 84 worldwide coordinate system. If the current plot map is only referenced to a local
coordinate system, it is recommended that a licensed surveyor be retained to tie the plot map to
that benchmark. When any of the recommended improvements are planned and designed, the
ground lease agreement should be updated to reflect any changes or expansion of the Uliga Dock
area.

CHAPTER EIGHT
PORT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter Eight presents a series of port improvement objectives and related strategies that
address:

physical improvements to existing port facilities;
economic development and related port expansion opportunities;
the potential use of alternate cargo handling systems; and,
port management, operations and maintenance needs.

The objectives and strategies were derived from conclusions and recommendations that are
presented in the earlier analysis of demographic and economic trends (Chapter Two), the
inventory and evaluation of existing port facilities (Chapter Three), the examination of marine
transport trends (Chapter Four), the review of environmental factors influencing future port
development and operations (Chapter Five), the determination of port facility needs (Chapter
Six), and the identification of future port management, operation and maintenance needs
(Chapter Seven).

LYON initially submitted a draft set of port improvement objectives and strategies to the
Director and Deputy Director of RMIPA for their review. The strategies associated with each
objective included one or more specific tasks to be completed, the responsibility for
implementation, and an estimate of the financial resources needed to complete each task. Based
upon their review, refinements were made to the initial draft set of recommendations.

LYON presented the refined set of objectives and strategies to various port stakeholders in
Majuro on December 11, 2013. The stakeholders invited to this presentation generally included
the Secretary of Transportation and Communications; local shipping agents; fishing, shipping
and petrochemical company representatives; and other port interests. Some of the invitees to this
meeting included stakeholders who were invited and/or previously attended the initial public
information meeting in J anuary 9, 2013. Following the initial presentation of recommended
objectives and strategies, port stakeholders were requested to provide their concerns and any
suggested deletions, revisions or additions to the draft recommendations. Various comments
were received during the facilitated discussion of the port improvement objectives and strategies.
A summary of the comments received during this discussion is presented in Appendix C.

The comments and recommendations expressed by port stakeholders during the December 11,
2013 meeting were used to further revise draft port improvement recommendations prior to its
presentation of the draft objectives and strategies to the RMIPA Board of Directors on December
13, 2013. RMIPA Board members provided additional insights to these recommendations that
enabled further refinement of the proposed port improvement objectives and strategies.

8.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES

The Port of Majuro Master Plan provides an ambitious plan for the future improvement of
various port facilities, supporting utilities, and facility operations and maintenance in the coming
decade. However, the availability of limited financial resources for future capital
improvements, combined with expanded responsibilities envisioned for port management,
operations and maintenance, required that RMI Ports Authority establish priorities for all of the
port improvement objectives outlined in the Port of Majuro Master Plan.

The determination of priorities for each port improvement objective was made by the RMIPA
Board, as well as its director and deputy director, who will lead future efforts to implement the
recommendations contained in the Port of Majuro Master Plan. A matrix evaluation sheet (Table
8-1) was prepared that enabled RMIPA Board members and executive staff to assign numerical
values (1 to 10) to each recommended port improvement objective. A score of 10 reflected the
highest level of need for a recommended improvement; conversely, a score of 1 would indicate
an objective that has limited need or importance. The scoring of each objective was completed
independently, anonymously, and without discussion to ensure that the insights and experience
of Board members and executive staff would be considered equally and without influence by
fellow Board and staff members.

Individual scores were calculated and combined to determine a cumulative average score for
each port improvement objective. Objectives receiving a higher average score were assigned a
higher ranking for implementation; lower average scores received a lower ranking for
implementation (Table 8-2). The ranking of port improvement objectives enabled the
subsequent establishment of more realistic project schedules for the completion of the
implementation strategies associated with each port improvement objective. These schedules
were added to the refined strategies for each port improvement objective.

The results of the preceding prioritization process are reflected in the following port
improvement objectives and strategies. References to relevant information, conclusions and
recommendations that are presented in earlier chapters of the master plan report are included to
provide the rationale for each port improvement objective.


TABLE 8-1: INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET
PRIORITIZATION OF FUTURE PORT IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES
PORT OF MAJURO

INSTRUCTIONS:
Please review each of the following port improvement objectives in the context of how important you believe the
achievement of each objective is needed to: a) improve the physical condition and reliability of existing port
facilities, b) pursue economic development and related port expansion opportunities, c) improve the efficiency cargo
handling operations, and/or d) address port management, operations and maintenance needs.
Prioritize each of the following objectives by assigning a rating from 1 to 10 for each objective. A rating of 1
indicates an objective that you believe has very limited importance. A rating of 10 indicates an objective that you
consider to be very important.
Reference
No.

Port Improvement Objective
Rating Range
1-Low to 10-High
1 Maintain safe vessel navigation through the Calalin Channel and port fairway
and extend the service life of navigation aids

2 Improve berthing and docking facilities supporting the interisland transport
of passengers and cargo

3 Provide Moorage Space for Non-Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels at
Uliga Dock

4 Provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland passengers at Uliga
Dock

5 Establish a back-up power supply within the Uliga Dock area to sustain the
delivery of electrical energy to all administrative, cargo handling and
passenger loading, and supporting utility functions

6 Establish an Independent Water Supply and Distribution System for Uliga
Dock

7 Establish a fire suppression system at Uliga Dock to provide some protection
of RMIPA facilities

8 Protect main Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel damages

9 Protect Delap East Dock and reduce potential vessel damages

10 Increase the efficiency of cargo handling at Delap Dock and service life of
cargo handling equipment

11 Encourage expansion of transshipment operations at Delap Dock

12 Establish a preventative maintenance program for all port facilities

13 Enhance monitoring of incoming international cargo and fishing vessels

14 Sustain and update processes for evaluating port security threats and
establishing appropriate security measures

15 Update boundary surveys for Delap Dock and Uliga Dock

16 Increase the economic value of fisheries by establishing a new fishing dock
complex in the Port of Majuro


Reference
No. Port Improvement Objective
Cumulative
Score Average
PRIORITY
RANK
1
Maintain safe vessel navigation through the Calalin Channel and port
fairway and extend the service life of navigation aids 76 8.44 8
2
Improve berthing and docking facilities supporting the interisland
transport of passengers and cargo 84 9.33 3
3
Provide Moorage Space for Non-Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels
at Uliga Dock 73 8.11 10
4
Provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland passengers at
Uliga Dock 80 8.88 7
5
Establish a back-up power supply within the Uliga Dock area to
sustain the delivery of electrical energy to all administrative, cargo
handling and passenger loading, and supporting utility functions 68 7.55 11
6
Establish an Independent Water Supply and Distribution System for
Uliga Dock 68 7.55 11
7
Establish a fire suppression system at Uliga Dock to provide some
protection of RMIPA facilities 73 8.11 10
8 Protect main Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel damages 76 9.50 2
9 Protect Delap East Dock and reduce potential vessel damages 83 9.22 4
10
Increase the efficiency of cargo handling at Delap Dock and service
life of cargo handling equipment 80 8.88 7
11 Encourage expansion of transshipment operations at Delap Dock 86 9.55 1
12 Establish a preventative maintenance program for all port facilities 81 9.00 6
13
Enhance monitoring of incoming international cargo and fishing
vessels 76 8.44 8
14
Sustain and update processes for evaluating port security threats and
establishing appropriate security measures 75 8.33 9
15 Update boundary surveys for Delap Dock and Uliga Dock 58 6.44 12
16
Increase the economic value of fisheries by establishing a new
fishing dock complex in the Port of Majuro 82 9.11 5
TABLE 8-2
OBJECTIVES IN ORDER OF PRIORITY BASED ON CUMULATIVE SCORES
PORT OF MAJURO PORT IMPROVEMENTS
8.3 PORT IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.2 concerning Calalin Channel. Section 6.3 concerning
port fairway.

Implementation Strategies:

Task 1-A: Make visual inspections of all navigation aids within the Calalin Channel and port
fairway on a quarterly basis. Require pilots providing pilotage services to complete form that, in
part, documents the general condition of navigation aids, potential damages, and type of repairs
needed. Review pilot reports and schedule work orders for inspections and repairs.

Responsibility for Implementation: proposed RMIPA Facility Maintenance Supervisor
and Crew and Pilots from Marshall Islands Pilot Association.

Anticipated Cost: Planning/Design: Not applicable
Construction: Not applicable

Project Schedule: Four times per year beginning FY 2015

Task 1-B: Repair damaged navigation aids. Replace parts as needed. Re-paint navigation aids,
at least, one time per year.

Responsibility for Implementation: proposed RMIPA Facility Maintenance Supervisor
and Crew.

Anticipated Cost: $500 (fuel for pilot boats)

Project Schedule: Four times per year beginning FY 2015

Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.4.3.1 concerning available moorage space for interisland
passenger/cargo vessels


Task 2A: Design, prepare construction drawings and related specifications, and estimate costs
for the repair of a damaged section of the quay face that a U.S. Navy underwater construction
team observed in J uly 2013 near the southwest corner of the quay face. The design and repair
work will also include the installation of cathodic protection along the the quay face to minimize
any future corrosion of the sheet piles.

Solicit bids for repair of the Uliga Dock A quay face and related installation of cathodic
protection. Following a review of the bids, RMIPA will select a contractor and monitor the
Objective 2: Improve berthing and docking facilities supporting the interisland
transport of passengers and cargo.
Objective 1: Maintain safe vessel navigation through the Calalin Channel and port
fairway and extend the service life of navigation aids.
performance of the repair services. RMIPA may also secure the services of a construction
manager that would oversee and inspect the work of the repair work.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director and Seaport
Division Manager.

Anticipated Cost: Design: $200,000
(includes Delap and Uliga Docks and underwater inspections)
Construction: $570,000
Construction Management: $100,000
(includes Delap and Uliga Docks)

Project Schedule: FY 2015

Task 2B: Design, prepare construction drawings, preliminary cost estimates, and bid documents
for a 120 x 15 meter extension southeast of Uliga Dock A and related improvements. This
improvement project will generally include the following improvements:
underwater inspection of the existing Uliga dock including visual, surface cleaning for
enhanced inspection of steel sheet piles, ultra sound thickness measurements, and
cathodic potential measurements;
construction of concrete post and pier dock, or sheetpile/bulkhead type pier extension and
installation of proposed utilities;
installation of bollards and light standards along the dock apron;
installation of fenders at appropriate intervals along the dock face;
fill and paving of an existing water area immediately southeast of Dock B that is roughly
35 x 45 meters in size. This improvement, which will be accomplished by either land
reclamation or concrete post and pier construction, will provide greater cargo handling
area for Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation; and, if necessary, the dredging of water
areas on the northeast side of the dock extension to depths that are adequate to support
the moorage and maneuvering of interisland passenger/cargo vessels

Division Manager.



Task 2C: Solicit bids for construction of Uliga Dock extension project and related
improvements. Select contractor for completion of all improvements. Inspect all work to be
completed by selected building contractor.

Division Manager, construction management consultant.

Anticipated Cost: Construction Management: $350,000
Construction: $9,300,000

Project Schedule: Construction: FY 2019

Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.4.3.2 concerning moorage space for non-interisland
passenger/cargo vessels


Task 3A: Design, prepare construction drawings, preliminary cost estimates for an additional
60-meter extension to the 120 x 15 meter extension project southeast of Uliga Dock A (see
Objective 2). If adequate financial resources are available, the 60 meter extension should be
combined with the implementation strategies associated with Objective 2 (Tasks 2B and 2C).
Otherwise, this project would become a second phase of improvements for the 120 meter dock
extension project.
This improvement project will generally include the following improvements:
construct concrete post and pier dock extension and installation of proposed
utilities;
installation of bollards and light standards along the dock apron;
installation of fenders at appropriate intervals along the dock face; and,
if necessary, the dredging of water areas on the northeast side of the dock
extension to depths that are adequate to support the moorage and maneuvering
of interisland passenger/cargo vessels.

Division Manager.



Task 3B: Prepare bid documents and solicit bids for construction of the 60 meter Uliga Dock
extension project and related improvements. Select contractor for completion of all
improvements. Inspect all work to be completed by selected building contractor.
As stated earlier, if adequate financial resources are available, the 60 meter extension
should be combined with the implementation strategies associated with Objective 2 (Tasks 2B
and 2C). Otherwise, this project would become a second phase of improvements for the 120
meter dock extension project.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, Seaport Division
Manager, and construction management contractor.

Construction: $3,500,000

Objective 3: Provide Moorage Space for Non-Interisland Passenger/Cargo Vessels at
Uliga Dock

Master Plan Rationale: Section 3.4.3 concerning the existing Uliga Dock warehouse.
Section 6.4.3.3 concerning need for interisland passenger terminal
building.


Task 4A: Prepare a master plan report for a new passenger terminal facility at Uliga Dock. The
master plan will evaluate and compare the feasibility and cost of a potential renovation of the
existing Uliga Dock warehouse building with the construction of a new passenger terminal
building.
This report will outline specific building and supporting utility requirements and design
options for the terminal facility which will include, at least, the following:
seating area for, at least, 150 passengers;
a small office for Marshall Island Shipping Corporation personnel with a counter for
passenger check-in;
maintenance closet for storage of maintenance tools and supplies; and,
utility room that would contain an electrical panel, pressure tank for potable water
distribution, and small back-up gasoline or diesel engine generator;
two restrooms;
raw water catchment system; and,
back-up power supply system.
The determination of potential building requirements and uses will be coordinated, in part,
with Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation.

Division Manager.

Anticipated Cost: $40,000


Task 4B: Design, prepare construction drawings, and bid documents for construction of new
passenger terminal for selected terminal option.

Manager, and RMIPA contractor


Task 4C: Solicit bids for construction of new passenger terminal. Select building contractor for
completion of all site and facility improvements. Inspect all work to be completed by selected
building contractor.

Manager, and RMIPA contractor
Objective 4: Provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland passengers at
Uliga Dock.

Anticipated Cost: Construction Management $80,000
Construction: $ to be determined during preparation of passenger
terminal master plan


Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.4.3.4 concerning need for back-up power supply at Uliga
Dock.


Task 5A: Develop design drawings and bid documents for any additional required electrical
distribution, or other improvements, as well as for the generator housing. Make detailed
calculation of anticipated connected loads in the Uliga Dock area that are expected during the
coming decade. This calculation should assume the loads generated by existing facilities at
Uliga Dock, as well as those improvements recommended in the Port of Majuro Master Plan. A
design of the generator enclosure shall also be developed.
Solicit bids from reliable distributors for the purchase, delivery, installation and testing of
a diesel engine generator that can support anticipated connected loads. The bids should also
require the training of selected RMIPA personnel for the operation and maintenance of the
generator and the construction of a generator enclosure. Prepare purchase order and inspect the
installation and testing process. Solicit bids from local contractors for the construction of the
generator enclosure and any additional electrical distribution lines or improvements.

Manager, and RMIPA Accountant



Task 5B: Procure services for the installation of electrical wiring and related control panel that
tie the back-up generator to the Marshall Energy Company electrical distribution system. The
services will also include the installation of appropriate connections that enable automatic
transfer of connected loads to the back-up generator during future power outages and/or
intermittent periods of significant surges in electrical energy.

Responsibility for Implementation: Seaport Division Manager and electrical contractor



Objective 5: Establish a back-up power supply within the Uliga Dock area to sustain the
delivery of electrical energy to all administrative, cargo handling and passenger loading
facilities, and supporting utility functions.
Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.4.3.5 concerning the need for a reliable water distribution
system for potable water and fire suppression at Uliga Dock.


Task 6A: Design and prepare construction drawings and preliminary cost estimates for an
independent water system at Uliga Dock that will generally include a water storage tank and
related water distribution system.
The water storage facility will have a capacity of, at least, 75 kiloliters and be located
adjacent to the USAID Mitigation Relief Facility warehouse. The collection of rain water from
the roof of the warehouse will be achieved through the installation of a seamless roof collection
system that directs rainwater into the water storage tank. The roof collection system will use
non-corrosive materials to extend the service life and durability of the system.
The distribution system will include the installation of:
100 millimeter HDPE water distribution lines from the new water storage tank to
offices along the primary vehicular access road and the adjoining inner basin, Docks
A and B, and the dock areas of the inner basin.
distribution valves at selected locations.
hose bibs along Docks A and B to facilitate the cleaning and maintenance of
interisland passenger and cargo vessels.
Meters to ensure that water consumption is appropriately billed and paid for by
each water consuming customer.

Manager, and engineering consultant



Task 6B: Prepare bid documents and solicit bids for the installation of the independent water
system. Select construction contractor. Inspect all water system improvements.

Manager, RMIPA Accountant, construction management contractor

Anticipated Cost: Construction Management $70,000

Objective 6: Establish an Independent Water Supply and Distribution System for Uliga
Dock

Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.4.3.5 concerning the need for a reliable water distribution
system for potable water and fire suppression at Uliga Dock.


Task 7A: Design and prepare construction drawings, and preliminary construction cost
estimates, for a stand-alone fire suppression system along the recommended southeast extension
to Dock A. The system would be achieved through a series of pumps and an intake in the
lagoon water. A metal or concrete masonry building would house a 100 Hp fire pump. The
pump house would hold a small water tight system with two fire pumps in parallel, a jockey
pump to maintain pressure at all times, and the main fire pump for actual fire flow conditions.
Distribution of the fire flow would be accomplished through the replacement of the
existing fire hydrant at the entrance to Uliga Dock and installation of a 200-millimeter HDPE
line between the pumps and fire hydrant(s), as well as selected locations along the dock apron.
Hoses with quick disconnects would be stored in a facility adjacent to the dock apron to facilitate
an effective response to any fires that occur.

Manager, and engineering consultant



Task 7B: Prepare bid documents and solicit bids for the installation of a stand-alone fire
suppression system. Select construction contractor. Inspect and test the fire suppression system
and inspect the completion of related water distribution improvements.

Manager, RMIPA Accountant, construction management contractor



Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.5.2.3 concerning bollards, cleats and fenders.


Task 8A: Design, prepare construction drawings and related specifications, and estimate costs
for the repair of a damaged section of the quay face that a U.S. Navy underwater construction
team observed in J uly 2013. The damaged section of the quay face, which was observed along
the center of the main dock face, is approximately 4.5 meters tall by 3 meters wide. The design
Objective 7: Establish a fire suppression system at Uliga Dock to provide some
protection of RMIPA facilities.
Objective 8: Protect main Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel damages.
and repair work will also include the installation of cathodic protection along the quay face to
minimize any future corrosion of the sheet piles.

Solicit bids for repair of the Delap main docks quay face and related installation of cathodic
protection. Following a review of the bids, RMIPA will select a contractor and monitor the
performance of the repair services. RMIPA may also secure the services of a construction
manager that would oversee and inspect the work of the repair work.

Division Manager.

(includes Delap and Uliga Docks and underwater inspections)
(includes Delap and Uliga Docks)


Task 8B: Determine the type, size, and specifications for new bollards that are needed to
replace existing and missing bollards along the main Delap Dock. During the coming decade, it
is anticipated that the new bollards will need to support a load capacity of roughly 600 metric
tons and be installed at intervals of about 25 meters. However, these preliminary assumptions
will be confirmed by a structural engineer and marine equipment suppliers prior to procurement,
as well as closely coordinated with the Assistant Director of RMIPA.
Determine the type, size and other relevant specifications for new fenders that are needed
to replace existing and missing fenders along the main dock face. The desired type and
specifications of the fender will be evaluated and recommended by a structural engineer and
closely coordinated with the Assistant Director of RMIPA.
Solicit bids for the selected bollards and fenders will subsequently be requested from
reliable distributors. Following a review of the bids, RMIPA will select a supplier(s) for the
procurement of bollards and fenders, as well as prepare and transmit related purchase orders to
the selected supplier.
Concurrently, RMIPA will solicit bids for the installation of selected bollards and fenders
at intervals determined by the structural engineering consultant. RMIPA will select a contractor
following its review of contractor bids.

Manager, and structural engineering consultant

Anticipated Cost: $30,000 (total for tasks 8A and 9A)


Task 8C: Install new fenders along the face of Delap Dock and install new bollards along the
main Delap Dock apron. Inspect the installation of bollards and fenders.




Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.5.3.3 concerning bollards, cleats and fenders.


Task 9A: Determine the type, size, and specifications for new bollards that are needed to
replace existing and missing bollards along Delap East Dock. The desired type and specifications
of the fender will be evaluated and recommended by a structural engineer and closely
coordinated with the Assistant Director of RMIPA.

These specifications should assume that interisland passenger/cargo vessels will be the
primary users of this dock during, at least, the coming decade. It is anticipated that the new
bollards will need to support a load capacity of, at least, 100 metric tons and be installed at
intervals of about 10 meters. However, these preliminary assumptions will be confirmed by a
structural engineer and marine equipment suppliers prior to procurement, as well as closely
coordinated with the Assistant Director RMIPA.

Solicit bids for the selected bollards and fenders will subsequently be requested from
reliable distributors. Following a review of the bids, RMIPA will select a supplier(s) for the
procurement of bollards and fenders, as well as prepare and transmit related purchase orders to
the selected supplier.
Concurrently, RMIPA will solicit bids for the installation of selected bollards and fenders
at intervals recommended by the structural engineering consultant. RMIPA will select a
contractor following its review of contractor bids.


Anticipated Cost: $30,000 (total for tasks 8B and 9A)


Task 9B: Install new fenders along the face of Delap Dock and install new bollards along the
main Delap Dock apron. Inspect the installation of bollards and fenders.




Objective 9: Protect Delap East Dock and reduce potential vessel damages

Master Plan Rationale: Section 3.5.5.1 concerning stored solid waste material and other
smaller equipment. Section 4.6.4 regarding the need to transition to more efficient cargo
handling systems. Section 6.5.2.4 concerning the need for an expanded dock apron width to
accommodate more efficient cargo handling systems.


Task 10A: Demolish and remove structures, equipment, and materials in the Delap Dock
complex that have reached their useful service life and/or are not associated with stevedoring
activities or other port operations. These facilities include, at least, the following:
container yard entry office;
abandoned restroom/shower building;
abandoned electrical generator/storage building;
container storage adjacent to stevedore recreational building;
boat house;
Delap Dock yard-shop office;
Delap dock office; and,
Fuel building.
The demolition of the Delap Dock yard-shop office, Delap Dock office, and fuel building
will need to await the construction of new facilities where existing building functions can be
accommodated. Chapter Six of this master plan outlines that the two dock offices will be
incorporated with a new container freight station. The existing fuel building will be replaced by
a new facility in a different Delap Dock location.
The demolition of the preceding facilities will also require the disconnection of the facilities
from the existing electrical distribution system, security system, and fuel distribution system.

Manager, MSTCO, and RMIPA Facility Maintenance Section.



Task 10B: Design and prepare construction drawings and related specifications for a
reorganized Delap Dock complex. The scope of this design effort will generally involve, at least,
the following improvements:
incremental expansion of the dock apron to accommodate short and long-term
modifications to cargo handling operations. This gradual dock expansion would enable
an initial transition to use of a reach stacker with terminal tractors and trailer tractor units,
as well as eventual installation of mobile harbor crane that would operate with terminal
tractors and trailer tractor units to support increased transshipment operations;
installation of underground and overhead distribution lines for all electrical service,
lighting, security and communication systems supporting the Delap Dock complex;
paving and striping of the dock apron, a re-organized container stacking/storage area with
designated aisles and ground slots, cargo handling equipment repair and maintenance
Objective 10: Increase the efficiency of cargo handling at Delap Dock and service life of
cargo handling equipment.
area, a looped vehicular access road, container loading zone for offsite deliveries, and
customer parking area.
a new container freight station and CFS loading area;
construction of reefer towers and installation of related electrical system supporting the
operation and storage of reefer containers;
fuel building containing fuel manifold and other related improvements;
a fire suppression system including the main pumps, an enclosure, intake, fire main
distribution lines, and fire hydrants;
replacement of existing water lines, as well as installation of additional laterals to the
dock apron (including in-ground distribution valves) and new CFS warehouse; and,
sewer laterals in anticipation of extended municipal sewer lines by MWSC, or sewer
gravity force mains to tie into existing sewer lines down the main road.

The design and construction drawings should assume that underground utility connections
will be stubbed out even if potential new facilities are not yet constructed in the container
stacking/storage area or secondary yard area.

Manager, MSTCO, and engineering consultant



Task 10C: Prepare bid documents for the first phase of improvements designed during the
completion of Task 10B. These improvements would include the relocation, replacement and
installation of all underground distribution lines for all supporting utility systems that are needed
to provide services to all facilities in a reorganized container yard, as well as paving and striping
of the entire container yard area. Solicit bids for construction for these improvements.

Solicit bids for construction for these improvements. Select contractor for completion of all
improvements. Inspect all work to be completed by selected building contractor.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Assistant Director, Seaport
Division Manager, MSTCO, RMIPA accountant, and construction management
consultant

Anticipated Cost: $6,300,000


Task 10D: Prepare bid documents for the second phase of improvements designed during the
completion of Task 10B. These improvements would include the construction of a new
container freight station, reefer towers, fuel building, and interior fire sprinkler systems for the
RMIPA Office Building, MSTCO Office building, and new CFS warehouse.
Solicit bids for construction for these improvements. Select contractor for completion of
all improvements. Inspect all work to be completed by selected building contractor.

Manager, MSTCO, RMIPA accountant, and construction management consultant



Task 10E: Determine specifications for a new reach stacker, terminal tractors and trailers, or
bomb carts, that will be used to transport containers from the dock apron to the container
stacking storage area. Prepare bid documents for purchase and delivery of a new reach stacker
and two terminal tractors, as well as related operator training for local stevedores.

Request shipping company representatives to replace existing chassis with new trailers or bomb
carts that can help enable a more efficient loading and unloading of containers at Delap Dock.

Responsibility for Implementation: Majuro Stevedoring and Terminal Company,
representatives of shipping companies serving the Marshall Islands.

Anticipated Cost: $705,500 (one reach stacker)
$212,000 (two terminal tractors @ $106,000 per unit)
$120,000 (three bomb cart trailers @ $40,000 per unit)


Task 10F: Modify cargo handling procedures at Delap Dock. Ship gear from feeder container
vessels and general cargo vessels will initially continue to lower containers on to trailers or bomb
carts which terminal tractors will transport to the container stacking/storage area. A reach
stacker will transport and stack containers in designated ground slots and related container
blocks within the container stacking/storage area.

Existing forklifts and top picks will be used to transport containers between stacking area to the
container freight station and container loading zone. Top picks will occasionally substitute for
the reach stacker during periodic maintenance of reach stacker,

Coordinate modified cargo handling procedures at Delap Dock with all authorized shipping
companies serving the Marshall Islands. Provide written notice of revised cargo handling
procedures to these companies and discuss changes with appropriate company representatives.
Stress the intent of RMIPA and local stevedores to provide a more efficient and cost-effective
cargo handling process.

Manager, MSTCO, RMIPA accountant, Majuro Stevedoring and Terminal Company,
Shipping companies serving the Marshall Islands.



Master Plan Rationale: Section 4.6.4.3 concerning the need to address the potential
expansion of transshipment operations through the establishment of more efficient cargo
handling systems. Section 6.5.2.2 regarding the adequacy of the main Delap Dock and berth to
support potential transshipment. Section 6.5.2.4 concerning the need for an expanded dock
apron width to accommodate more efficient cargo handling systems.


Task 11A: Invite representatives of Mariana Express Lines and other shipping companies
serving the Marshall Islands to come to Majuro to discuss short and long-term outlook for future
potential transshipment opportunities at Delap Dock. These discussions should focus, in part,
upon planned improvements for Delap Dock, planned modifications to cargo handling
procedures at Delap Dock, available container storage capacity for dry and reefer containers,
minimum vessel turn-around requirements, shipping routes and schedules, and other related
issues. The same conversations should include a discussion of options concerning how the
installation of some facility improvements, e.g., mobile harbor crane and dock extension, might
be financed via a public-private partnership.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director

Anticipated Cost: $ 500


Task 11B: Design and prepare construction drawings and specifications for the construction of a
southeast extension of the berth and main Delap Dock, as well as construction of a related
mooring dolphin, that would extend the present berth and docking capabilities 120 meters. The
design will also include the installation of appropriate bollards along the extended dock apron
and the installation of fenders along the new dock face.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, engineering
consultant



Task 11C: Prepare construction bid documents for improvements included during the
completion of Task 11B. Solicit bids for construction for these improvements. Select contractor
for completion of all improvements. Inspect all work to be completed by selected building
contractor.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, construction
management consultant


Objective 11: Encourage expansion of transshipment operations at Delap Dock.

Task 11D: Determine specifications for a mobile harbor crane that would operate along the
Delap Dock apron. Prepare bid documents and solicit bids for the purchase, installation, start-up,
and delivery of the mobile harbor crane, as well as operator training for local stevedores.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Assistant Director, shipping
company representatives, MSTCO representative, equipment manufacturer/distributor
representative.



Task 11E: Revise cargo handling procedures at Delap Dock. Mobile harbor crane will lower
containers on to trailers or bomb carts which terminal tractors will transport to the container
stacking/storage area. A reach stacker will continue to transport and stack containers to
designated ground slots and related container blocks in the container stacking/storage area.

Existing forklifts and top picks will be used to transport containers between stacking area to
container freight station and container loading zone. Top picks will occasionally substitute for
reach stacker during periodic maintenance of the reach stacker,

Coordinate revised cargo handling procedures at Delap Dock with all authorized shipping
companies serving the Marshall Islands. Provide written notice of revised cargo handling
procedures to these companies and discuss changes with appropriate company representatives.
Stress the intent of RMIPA and local stevedores to provide a more efficient and cost-effective
cargo handling process.

Manager, MSTCO, RMIPA accountant, Majuro Stevedoring and Terminal Company,
Shipping companies serving the Marshall Islands.

Anticipated Cost: $30,000 (Training)


Master Plan Rationale: Section 7.5.2 concerning the need to establish a preventative
maintenance program, how it could be implemented, and the anticipated annual costs associated
with program implementation.


Task 12A: Evaluate alternate computer maintenance management software, e.g., MEX CMMS,
that can be used to organize a preventative maintenance program for all facilities in the Port of
Majuro. Select and purchase one single-user license of the preferred software.
Input existing facility assets and related data into the software. Input work orders,
schedules, labor, equipment, supply, and material requirements for all maintenance tasks
Objective 12: Establish a preventative maintenance program for all port facilities.
envisioned for the coming fiscal year. Coordinate scope of maintenance tasks with RMIPA
Seaport Manager.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, operations/
maintenance consultant

Anticipated Cost: Software: $3,525 (single user license) or $6,300 (two concurrent users)
Operations/Maintenance Consultant: $19,000


Task 12B: Hire a facility maintenance supervisor to manage and oversee all facility maintenance
and repair activities. Ensure that the facility maintenance supervisor understands the scope of
job responsibilities, as well as type and frequency of required coordination with the Seaport
Manager, Director and Deputy Director of RMIPA. If necessary, train the supervisor in the use
and application of the computer maintenance management software to the planning, scheduling
and budgeting of future maintenance and repair activities.
Establish and organize resources needed to operate a facility maintenance organization.
Identify existing RMIPA personnel, office and/or warehouse space, equipment, available
materials and supplies that can be assigned and/or dedicated to RMIPA facility maintenance and
repair activities.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, facility
maintenance supervisor, operations/maintenance consultant (if necessary)

Anticipated Cost: $14,000 (Facility Maintenance Supervisor)
$12,000 (operations/maintenance consultant)


Master Plan Rationale: Section 7.5.1 concerning the need to establish an automated
identification system in the Port of Majuro.


Task 13A: Establish automated identification system (AIS) base station on the roof of the
RMIPA office building. Begin this task by reviewing and evaluating available websites of
selected information companies that presently provide vessel location data vessel particulars for
cargo and fishing vessels, as well as oil tankers, over 299 gross tonnage. Obtain authorization
from, at least, three companies for a complimentary review of their subscription-based websites,
as well as available information concerning how the VHF antenna would be connected to a
computer within the RMIPA building. Determine how many RMIPA personnel would require
access to this information as data providers, e.g., RMIPA, typically receive one complimentary
single user license of the software and related data access in exchange for the regular transmittal
of data to the information companies.
Obtain vertical high frequency (VHF) antenna requirements for an automated
identification system (AIS) base station and instructions concerning how related connections
should be made to computer within RMIPA building. Purchase any minor supplies that may be
Objective 13: Enhance monitoring of incoming international cargo and fishing vessels.
necessary for the installation. Install the VHF antenna on the roof of the RMIPA office building
and make appropriate connections to one or more computers within the RMIPA office building.
Coordinate and make formal agreement with the selected provider of vessel information.
Begin transmittal of relevant data to the information company.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Deputy Director, Seaport Manager, RMIPA
Facility Maintenance personnel



Task 13B: Make daily review of vessel locations identified on website and correlate with vessel
movement logs already being completed by RMIPA Port Operation Manager. In the event that
vessel movement logs differ with vessel locations reported on website, provide updated
information to the vessel information provider. Conversely, if local vessel movement logs do not
reflect the presence of all vessels identified on the vessel information website, RMIPA should
make contact and/or visit with representatives of any unauthorized vessels that have entered the
Port of Majuro.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Deputy Director, Seaport Manager, RMIPA
Port Operations Manager

Anticipated Cost: $ 0 (labor provided by existing personnel)


Master Plan Rationale: Section 7.4.1 concerning International Ship and Port Facility
Security Code requirements.


Task 14A: Prepare annual updates to most current version of the port security plan for the Port
of Majuro.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Deputy Director, Seaport Manager, Port
Facility Security Officer


Project Schedule: Every year beginning in FY 2014

Task 14B: Make regular security inspections of the port facility. Ensure that security equipment
at Uliga Dock and Delap Dock are properly operated, tested, calibrated and maintained.

Facility Security Officer,

Objective 14: Sustain and update processes for evaluating port security threats and
establishing appropriate security measures.
Anticipated Cost: $0

Project Schedule: Every fiscal year beginning in FY 2014

Task 14C: Organize periodic drills and exercises of the security system, as well as conduct
internal audits of the security system. Prepare follow-up audits of the security system.

Facility Security Officer, independent maritime auditors

Anticipated Cost: $0

Project Schedule: Every fiscal year beginning in FY 2014

Master Plan Rationale: Section 7.6.1 concerning the Delap and Uliga ground lease
agreements and recommended updates to the survey plat maps.


Task 15A: Retain a licensed surveyor to create a new boundary map of the Delap Dock area.
The boundary map should encompass the existing container stacking/storage area, the secondary
yard area, as well as any planned expansion area(s).

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Deputy Director, Seaport Manager,
licensed surveyor



Task 15B: Retain a licensed surveyor to perform a boundary survey of Uliga Dock that reflects
the dock areas managed, operated and maintained by RMIPA, as well as any planned expansion
area(s).

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, licensed
surveyor


Objective 15: Update boundary surveys for Delap Dock and Uliga Dock.

Master Plan Rationale: Section 6.6 regarding a recommended fisheries dock complex.


Task 16A: Prepare a master plan for a new fisheries complex in the Port of Majuro. The first
phase of plan will seek to identify potential alternate sites that are feasible in terms of, at least,
land ownership, site and oceanographic characteristics, environmental issues, and available land
area. An important part of this plan would involve consultation with residents of Majuro Atoll
and appropriate public agencies.

If a feasible and acceptable site is identified, a second phase of the master plan would prepare a
detailed master plan for the fishing dock complex. The master plan will outline berthing and
dock requirements for fishing vessels, the unloading of fish, the provision of vessel maintenance
and repair services, supporting utilities needed to support lease areas for fish processing facilities
and vessel maintenance and repair operations, management requirements for the fishing dock
complex, as well as an organized facility maintenance program.

The detailed master plan would also include cost estimates for the planned dock improvements,
as well as supporting utility systems for the lease areas behind the fishing dock and vessel
services dock. Future lessees would be responsible for the costs associated with the design and
construction of all facilities in their respective lease areas.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, port planning
consultant



Task 16B: Prepared detailed design construction drawings for the fishing dock complex. These
drawings will include vessel berths and docking facilities, paved dock apron, as well as
supporting utility systems in proposed lease areas.

Prepare detailed construction cost estimates and bid documents for the construction of the fishing
dock complex. Solicit construction bids from qualified marine construction contractors. Select
preferred construction bid.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, port engineering
and construction management consultant, marine construction contractor



Objective 16: Increase the economic value of fisheries by establishing a new fisheries
dock complex in the Port of Majuro.

Task 16C: Construct fishing dock complex improvements included in construction drawings
prepared during completion of Task 15B. Inspect all construction work.

Responsibility for Implementation: RMIPA Director/Deputy Director, port engineering
and construction management consultant, marine construction contractor




CHAPTER NINE
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

A cost-benefit analysis is often used by multi-national organizations and other national
government agencies to help determine or compare the desirability of potential loan and grant
applications. The cost-benefit study is not an economic impact analysis or financial analysis, but
some of the same considerations encompassed in these analyses are considered for this cost-
benefit analysis.

Chapter Nine presents an analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the
implementation of recommended port improvements which are outlined in Chapter Eight. This
analysis quantifies the cumulative economic impact of capital improvements associated with the:

maintenance and periodic repair of navigation aids and channel markers within Calalin
Channel, the port fairway, and vessel anchorage area;
maintenance, repair, replacement, enhancement, and expansion of interisland passenger
and cargo berthing and dock facilities, as well as supporting utility systems, at Uliga
Dock;
maintenance, repair, replacement, enhancement, and expansion of berthing and related
cargo handling facilities and supporting utility systems at Delap Dock; and,
the development of a new fisheries dock complex.

This cost-benefit analysis attempts to quantify potential social costs and benefits that are
associated with the four preceding areas of port improvements. The cost-benefit analysis
considers a combination of direct, indirect and induced economic benefits, as well as costs
associated with facility construction, operation and maintenance. The quantification of benefits
includes, in part, considerations which financial markets do not provide a satisfactory measure of
economic value. For these considerations, e.g., sustainability of interisland transport, arbitrary
economic values were assigned.

The economic values for anticipated cost and benefits were determined on an annual basis
between FY 2014 and FY 2033. The initial implementation of some recommended port
improvements is expected to begin in FY 2014. Economic values associated with the cumulative
port improvements for each of four general port areas were subsequently discounted to determine
how the value of anticipated benefits and costs will change over time. A discount rate of 5
percent was applied to net present values based upon recent assessments made by the
International Monetary Fund in December 2013.

Two important outputs are derived from the analysis: Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit-
Cost Ratio (BCR).

NPV is the present value of a project's benefits minus the present value of its costs.
Multi-national organizations and other international governmental agencies typically


consider projects which are expected to generate long-term benefits that exceed long-
term costs.
BCR is calculated by dividing long term economic benefits by project costs. Projects
having a cost-benefit ratio of 1.0 or greater are typically viewed as "acceptable" projects.

A "before" and "after" comparison of anticipated costs and benefits can also be made through the
comparison of actual and estimated costs that are presented for FY 2012. These economic values
can be readily compared with the economic values between FY 2014 and 2033.

A statistical model was developed to calculate anticipated economic costs and benefits, as well
as net present values and benefit-cost ratios. The model generally incorporates assumptions
regarding anticipated marine traffic, cargo volumes, and port entry fees. Anticipated capital
investments, or costs, reflect estimated costs for various port improvements that are presented in
Chapter Eight, as well as estimated expenditures associated with a recommended preventative
maintenance program, that are outlined in Chapter Seven. The considerations encompassed and
assumptions used for each of the four port improvement areas are discussed more fully in the
following sections of this chapter.

In Chapter Four, the master plan presents two different scenarios for anticipated future volumes
of international cargo and related vessel calls. For this reason, the cost-benefit analyses of
improvements for the Calalin Channel, port fairway, vessel anchorage area, as well as Delap
Dock, were calculated for both scenarios.

9.2 PORT IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

9.2.1 Calalin Channel, Port Fairway, and Vessel Anchorage Area

9.2.1.1 Direct Benefits

The direct economic benefits derived from an improved Calalin Channel, port fairway, and
vessel anchorage are increased vessel traffic and greater vessel anchorage that, in turn, will
generate increased port entry revenues. These revenues include fees associated with vessel
pilotage, pilot boat usage, disembark/crew changes, foreign vessel entry, vessel anchorage, light
dues, port security, as well as port boarding party fees.

An improved Calalin Channel, port fairway, and vessel anchorage will also provide greater
vessel safety to international fishing vessels, international cargo vessels, local coastal oil tankers,
and other international vessels that call upon the Port of Majuro. This benefit can reasonably be
expected to reduce potential damages to these vessels as they travel through Calalin Channel and
the port fairway, and operate within other parts of Majuro Lagoon. Improved vessel safety was
assigned a value of $1,000 per anticipated vessel call.

9.2.1.2 Costs

A continuing expenditure associated with the Calalin Channel, port fairway, and vessel moorage
area is the overall management and operation of the Seaport Division. It was estimated that


roughly 50 percent of this cost can be allocated to this part of the Port of Majuro since present
management and operations focus largely upon the monitoring and coordination of inbound and
outbound vessel traffic.

Future improvements to the Calalin Channel, port fairway, and vessel anchorage will require the
establishment of a new preventative maintenance program within the Seaport Division.
Recommended port improvement strategies outlined in Chapter Eight indicate that RMIPA
would organize a new facility maintenance section in FY 2014. Since the preventative
maintenance program would be applied to all port facilities in the Port of Majuro, it was assumed
that only 10 percent of total annual costs associated with the preventative maintenance program
would be applicable to Calalin Channel, the port fairway, and vessel anchorage area.

Following the planned organization of a new facility maintenance section within the RMIPA
Seaport Division in FY 2014, the condition of navigation aids and channel markers would be
periodically monitored by RMIPA facility maintenance personnel. These inspections would
generate the scheduling and completion of required maintenance tasks and occasional repairs of
these facilities.

9.2.1.3 Net Present Value and Cost-Benefit Ratio

The calculation of net present value and cost-benefit ratio for improvements to Calalin Channel,
the port fairway, and vessel anchorage area were made for two different scenarios. For the
limited expansion of transshipment scenario, the subtraction of cumulative, discounted costs
from cumulative discounted benefits between FY 2014 and FY 2033 yields a positive net present
value of $25,188,907 and a cost-benefit ratio of 2.4 for improvements to the Calalin Channel,
port fairway, and vessel anchorage area (Table 9-1). With a greater expansion of transshipment,
proposed improvements generate a net present value of $28,492,808 between FY 2014 and FY
2033 and a cost-benefit ratio of 2.6. Consequently, under both scenarios, these statistical outputs
suggest a favorable set of port improvements that are worthy of required investments by RMIPA.

9.2.2 Uliga Dock


Diesel, jet, and gasoline are regularly delivered to Uliga Dock. Imported fuels transported to
Uliga Dock are essential for providing diesel fuel to kerosene to Marshallese households, the
fueling and operation of private and commercial vehicles, and the fueling and operation of
international and interisland aircraft at Amata Kabua International Airport. Planned
improvements for Uliga Dock will help sustain the delivery of fuel imports that are necessary to
support the lifestyle of Marshallese residents, particularly those who reside and work in the
communities that comprise Majuro Atoll. While some of the fuels delivered to Uliga Dock may
provide similar benefits to some Outer Island residents, these benefits were not included to avoid
a potential double-counting of sustainability of fuel import benefits to Outer Island residents.
The economic value assigned to the sustainability of fuel imports was $100 for every resident of
Majuro Atoll.


RMI DIRECT BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS
2012 568,906 362,900 1,708 105,277 47,584 21,810 27,250 48,900 N/A 1,184,335 N/A
2013 642,506 409,849 1,929 118,897 49,361 25,840 32,300 96,900 N/A 1,377,581 N/A
2014 655,435 418,096 1,968 121,289 50,348 26,360 32,950 98,850 659,000 2,064,297 2,064,297
2015 652,452 416,193 1,959 120,737 49,855 26,240 32,800 98,400 656,000 2,054,635 1,956,796
2016 680,300 433,957 2,042 125,891 52,323 27,360 34,200 102,600 684,000 2,142,673 2,040,641
2017 678,311 432,688 2,036 125,523 51,829 27,280 34,100 102,300 682,000 2,136,068 2,034,350
2018 701,187 447,281 2,105 129,756 53,803 28,200 35,250 105,750 705,000 2,208,332 2,103,173
2019 714,116 455,528 2,144 132,148 54,791 28,720 35,900 107,700 718,000 2,249,048 2,141,950
2020 688,257 439,033 2,066 127,363 51,829 27,680 34,600 103,800 692,000 2,166,628 2,063,455
2021 681,295 434,592 2,045 126,075 50,842 27,400 34,250 102,750 685,000 2,144,249 2,042,141
2022 699,197 446,012 2,099 129,388 52,323 28,120 35,150 105,450 703,000 2,200,739 2,095,942
2023 725,057 462,507 2,177 134,173 54,791 29,160 36,450 109,350 729,000 2,282,664 2,173,966
2024 713,122 454,894 2,141 131,964 53,310 28,680 35,850 107,550 717,000 2,244,511 2,137,629
2025 721,078 459,969 2,165 133,437 53,803 29,000 36,250 108,750 725,000 2,269,453 2,161,384
2026 720,084 459,335 2,162 133,253 53,310 28,960 36,200 108,600 724,000 2,265,903 2,158,003
2027 737,986 470,755 2,216 136,566 54,791 29,680 37,100 111,300 742,000 2,322,393 2,211,803
2028 726,051 463,142 2,180 134,357 53,310 29,200 36,500 109,500 730,000 2,284,240 2,175,466
2029 735,997 469,486 2,210 136,198 53,803 29,600 37,000 111,000 740,000 2,315,294 2,205,042
2030 748,927 477,734 2,248 138,590 54,791 30,120 37,650 112,950 753,000 2,356,010 2,243,819
2031 736,992 470,120 2,213 136,382 53,310 29,640 37,050 111,150 741,000 2,317,856 2,207,482
2032 744,949 475,196 2,237 137,854 53,803 29,960 37,450 112,350 749,000 2,342,799 2,231,237
2033 747,932 477,099 2,245 138,406 53,803 30,080 37,600 112,800 752,000 2,351,967 2,239,968
Total Cumulative Discounted Benefits: 42,688,545
TABLE 9-1
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
CALALIN CHANNEL, PORT FAIRWAY, VESSEL ANCHORAGE AREA
WITH LIMITED EXPANSION OF TRANSSHIPMENT
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
Pilotage
Fees
Pilot Boat
Usage Fees
Disembark/
Change
Crew Fees
Foreign
Vessel Entry
Fees
Anchorage
Fees
(fishing
vessels only)
Light Dues
# vessels x
$40/vessel
Port Security

# vessels x
$50/vessel
Boarding
Party Fees
#vessels x
$150/vessel
Improved
Vessel Safety
$1,000 per
vessel call
TOTAL
ANNUAL
BENEFITS
Discounted
5%


RMI INVESTMENT (COSTS) TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
2012 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A
2013 0 726,900 N/A 0 N/A
2014 0 741,438 2,530 743,968 743,968 1,320,329 1,320,329
2015 2,314 756,267 15,700 771,967 735,206 1,282,669 1,221,589
2016 0 771,392 15,700 787,092 749,611 1,355,581 1,291,030
2017 0 786,820 15,700 802,520 764,305 1,333,548 1,270,045
2018 0 802,556 15,700 818,256 779,292 1,390,075 1,323,881
2019 0 818,607 15,700 834,307 794,578 1,414,740 1,347,372
2020 0 834,980 15,700 850,680 810,171 1,315,949 1,253,284
2021 0 851,679 15,700 867,379 826,075 1,276,869 1,216,066
2022 0 868,713 17,500 886,213 844,012 1,314,526 1,251,929
2023 0 886,087 17,500 903,587 860,559 1,379,077 1,313,407
2024 0 903,809 17,500 921,309 877,437 1,323,202 1,260,192
2025 0 921,885 17,500 939,385 894,652 1,330,068 1,266,731
2026 0 940,323 17,500 957,823 912,212 1,308,081 1,245,791
2027 0 959,129 17,500 976,629 930,123 1,345,764 1,281,680
2028 0 978,312 17,500 995,812 948,392 1,288,428 1,227,074
2029 0 997,878 17,500 1,015,378 967,027 1,299,916 1,238,015
2030 0 1,017,835 17,500 1,035,335 986,034 1,320,675 1,257,785
2031 0 1,038,192 17,500 1,055,692 1,005,421 1,262,164 1,202,061
2032 0 1,058,956 17,500 1,076,456 1,025,196 1,266,343 1,206,041
2033 0 1,080,135 17,500 1,097,635 1,045,367 1,254,332 1,194,602
Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 17,499,638 NPV: 25,188,907
Net Present Value: 25,188,907
Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.4
TABLE 9-1
CALALIN CHANNEL, PORT FAIRWAY, VESSEL ANCHORAGE AREA
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
Enhanced
Monitoring
of Vessel
Traffic
Seaport
Division
Mgt &
Operations
Preventative
Maintenance
Program
TOTAL
ANNUAL
INVESTMENT
(COSTS)
Discounted
5%
Total or Net
Benefits
(Costs less
Benefits)
Net Present
Value


Planned improvements for Uliga Dock (see Chapter Eight) have a direct bearing upon the
sustainability of interisland marine transportation between Majuro Atoll and the Outer Islands of
the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The movement of passengers and cargo to and from
Majuro enables Outer Island residents to receive medical care, seek and obtain temporary
employment opportunities in the cash economy, shop for foods and household items, obtain
supplies supporting copra production and other small business operations, and visit extended
family members. The movement of copra from the Outer Islands to Majuro provides Outer
Island residents with the opportunity to transport and sell copra to the Tobolar Coconut
Processing Authority. These sales represent an important source of cash income to many Outer
Island residents. Between FY 2014 and 2019, it was assumed that the sustainability of
interisland marine transportation was valued at $100 per year for every Marshallese resident that
lives outside of Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls. Between FY 2020 and 2033, the value of
sustained marine interisland transportation was increased to $200 per resident per year.

Passenger and cargo revenues collected by Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC)
represent two additional economic benefit derived from improvements to Uliga Dock. These
revenues are essential to maintaining and improving the financial viability of the quasi-public
entity that provides marine transportation to the Outer Islands.

RMIPA leases a warehouse to MISC at Uliga Dock. The warehouse is used for the storage of
interisland cargo that is transported to the Outer Islands. A portion of the floor space in the
warehouse is also used for the storage of equipment, materials, and supplies that enable the
national government to promptly respond to emergencies that occasionally take place on the
Outer Islands. Lease payments generate revenues to RMIPA that help offset the operating
expenses of the Ports Authority.

9.2.2.2 Indirect Benefits

Two indirect benefits will be generated from the operation of interisland cargo vessels.

Retail sales of various consumer amenities are frequently sold by MISC personnel upon
the moorage various Outer Island docks. These sales contribute revenues that are needed
to offset MISC operating expenditures.
The planned construction of a new passenger terminal at Uliga Dock will also generate
retail sales of consumer items, e.g., convenience food, drinks and snacks. However, it is
anticipated that these indirect benefits will not be realized until FY 2023.

9.2.2.3 Induced Benefits

Majuro Atoll Local Government imposes a local sales tax of four percent upon retail sales.
Retail sales made by MISC from the planned passenger terminal will be taxable and generate
additional revenues to Majuro Atoll Local Government.


9.2.2.4 Costs

The primary costs associated with Uliga Dock improvements will be expenditures made for the
planning, design and construction of repairs to the quay face of Dock A, planned dock
extensions, a new passenger terminal, fire protection system, independent water system, and
back-up power supply. These expenditures are scheduled to be made between FY 2018 and FY
2024. Roughly $15,250,000 of planning, design, and construction costs are required during this
period to complete recommended improvements to Uliga Dock.

A significant continuing cost will be expenditures related to the operation of Marshall Islands
Shipping Corporation (MISC). These expenditures are necessary to continue the interisland
marine transportation services provided by MISC.

As stated earlier, RMIPA plans to establish a planned preventative maintenance program for all
port facilities in the Port of Majuro. A portion of the expenditures necessary for RMIPA will be
required to effectively maintain dock and related support facilities at Uliga Dock. It was assumed
that 30 percent of total annual costs associated with the preventative maintenance program would
be applicable to Uliga Dock between FY 2014 and FY 2021. Following completion of the
planned fishing dock in FY 2021, it was assumed that the proportion of total operation and
maintenance costs would decrease to 25 percent.


The subtraction of cumulative, discounted costs from cumulative discounted benefits between
FY 2014 and FY 2033 yields a positive net present value of $14,241,741 for planned
improvements to the Uliga Dock (Table 9-2). The benefit-cost ratio for improvements to Uliga
Dock is estimated to be 1.2. These statistical outputs suggest a favorable level of benefits that
exceeds the level of required investments by RMIPA.


RMI DIRECT BENEFITS INDIRECT BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS
2012 1,388,324 1,396,511 57,139 458,347 86,543 2,700 280,000 0 0 3,669,564 N/A
2013 1,381,382 1,407,020 57,139 467,514 88,274 2,700 280,000 0 0 3,684,029 N/A
2014 1,374,475 1,417,066 57,139 476,864 97,101 2,700 308,000 0 0 3,733,345 3,733,345
2015 1,367,603 1,424,296 57,139 486,402 100,014 2,700 314,160 0 0 3,752,313 3,573,632
2016 1,360,765 1,432,974 57,139 496,130 100,014 2,700 320,443 0 0 3,770,165 3,590,633
2017 1,353,961 1,446,978 57,139 506,052 100,014 2,700 326,852 0 0 3,793,696 3,613,044
2018 1,347,191 1,453,639 62,853 516,173 100,014 2,700 333,389 0 0 3,815,959 3,634,247
2019 1,340,455 1,463,297 62,853 526,497 100,014 2,700 340,057 0 0 3,835,873 3,653,212
2020 1,333,753 1,471,846 62,853 537,027 100,014 2,700 346,858 0 0 3,855,050 3,671,476
2021 1,327,084 1,483,899 62,853 547,767 100,014 2,700 353,795 0 0 3,878,113 3,693,441
2022 1,320,449 1,493,867 62,853 558,722 100,014 2,700 360,871 0 0 3,899,476 3,713,787
2023 1,313,846 1,502,002 62,853 569,897 100,014 2,340 368,089 260,000 10,400 4,179,041 3,980,039
2024 1,307,277 1,509,475 65,996 581,295 101,014 2,340 371,769 260,000 10,400 4,199,166 3,999,206
2025 1,300,741 1,516,985 65,996 592,921 101,014 2,340 375,487 260,000 10,400 4,215,483 4,014,746
2026 1,294,237 1,524,532 65,996 604,779 101,014 2,520 379,242 260,000 10,400 4,232,320 4,030,781
2027 1,287,766 1,532,116 65,996 616,875 101,014 2,520 383,034 260,000 10,400 4,249,321 4,046,973
2028 1,281,327 1,539,739 65,996 629,212 101,014 2,520 386,865 260,000 10,400 4,266,673 4,063,498
2029 1,274,920 1,547,399 65,996 641,796 101,014 2,880 390,733 260,000 10,400 4,284,739 4,080,704
2030 1,268,546 1,555,098 65,996 654,632 101,014 2,880 394,641 260,000 10,400 4,302,807 4,097,911
2031 1,262,203 1,562,835 65,996 667,725 101,014 2,880 398,587 260,000 10,400 4,321,240 4,115,466
2032 1,255,892 1,570,610 65,996 681,080 101,014 2,880 402,573 260,000 10,400 4,340,044 4,133,376
2033 1,249,613 1,578,424 65,996 694,701 101,014 2,880 406,599 260,000 10,400 4,359,226 4,151,644
TABLE 9-2
ULIGA DOCK
Page 1 of 2 Pages
INDUCED
BENEFITS
Fiscal
Year
Sustainability
of Outer
Island
Transport
Sustaina-
bility of Fuel
Imports
Lease of
RMIPA
Warehouse
Interisland
Cargo
Revenue
Passenger
Revenue
Dockage
Fee
MISC
On-Board
Sales of
Goods
Retail Sales
at
Passenger
Terminal
4%Sales Tax
Revenue on
Retail Sales at
Pass Terminal
TOTAL
ANNUAL
REVENUE
Discounted
5%

INVESTMENT (COSTS) TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
2,012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 N/A
2,013 0 0 0 0 0 145,380 0 0 2,040,000 2,185,380 N/A
2,014 0 0 0 0 0 148,288 7,590 0 2,244,000 2,399,878 2,399,878 1,333,467 1,333,467
2,015 720,000 0 0 0 0 151,253 47,100 0 2,288,880 3,207,233 3,054,508 545,080 519,124
2,016 0 0 0 0 0 154,278 47,100 0 2,288,880 2,490,258 2,371,675 1,279,906 1,218,958
2,017 0 0 0 0 0 157,364 47,100 0 2,288,880 2,493,344 2,374,613 1,300,352 1,238,431
2,018 0 400,000 0 0 0 160,511 47,100 0 2,288,880 2,896,491 2,758,563 919,468 875,684
2,019 0 9,650,000 0 0 0 163,721 47,100 0 2,288,880 12,149,701 11,571,144 -8,313,829 -7,917,932
2,020 0 0 0 0 0 166,996 47,100 0 2,288,880 2,502,976 2,383,787 1,352,074 1,287,690
2,021 0 0 40,000 0 0 170,336 47,100 0 2,288,880 2,546,316 2,425,063 1,331,797 1,268,378
2,022 0 150,000 155,000 40,000 173,743 43,750 185,000 2,288,880 3,036,373 2,891,783 863,104 822,004
2,023 0 3,625,000 0 320,000 75,000 177,217 43,750 0 2,288,880 6,529,847 6,218,902 -2,350,806 -2,238,863
2,024 0 0 0 0 610,000 180,762 43,750 0 2,311,769 3,146,281 2,996,458 1,052,885 1,002,748
2,025 0 0 0 0 0 184,377 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,539,896 2,418,948 1,675,587 1,595,797
2,026 0 0 0 0 0 188,065 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,543,583 2,422,460 1,688,736 1,608,320
2,027 0 0 0 0 0 191,826 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,547,345 2,426,042 1,701,977 1,620,930
2,028 0 0 0 0 0 195,662 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,551,181 2,429,696 1,715,492 1,633,802
2,029 0 0 0 0 0 199,576 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,555,094 2,433,423 1,729,645 1,647,281
2,030 0 0 0 0 0 203,567 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,559,086 2,437,225 1,743,721 1,660,686
2,031 0 0 0 0 0 207,638 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,563,157 2,441,102 1,758,083 1,674,364
2,032 0 0 0 0 0 211,791 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,567,310 2,445,057 1,772,734 1,688,318
2,033 0 0 0 0 0 216,027 43,750 0 2,311,769 2,571,546 2,449,091 1,787,680 1,702,553
Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 63,349,419 14,241,741
TABLE 9-2
ULIGA DOCK
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
Quay Repair
and
Cathodic
Protection
Dock
Extensions
Passenger
Terminal
Fire
Protection
System
Independent
Water System
Seaport
Division Mgt
and
Operations
Preventative
Maintenance
Program
Back-Up
Power
Supply
MISC
Operating
Expenses
TOTAL
ANNUAL
INVESTMENT
(COSTS)
Discounted
5%
Total or Net
Benefits
(Costs less
Benefits)
Net Present
Value
Discounted
at 5% per
year


9.2.3 Delap Dock


Residents of Majuro Atoll are highly dependent upon the sustainability of Delap Dock where all
imported foods, household items, construction materials and equipment, and other lifestyle
amenities are delivered via international cargo vessels. This essential dock complex was
assigned an economic value of $200 for every resident of Majuro Atoll. It is without question
that the sustainability of Delap Dock is also important to some Outer Island residents as some
marine cargo is transshipped from Delap Dock to the Outer Islands. But, these economic
benefits were not included to avoid a potential double-counting of sustainability of port operation
benefits.

Local coastal tankers deliver diesel fuel to Delap Dock where supply lines are linked to the
adjacent fuel tank farm owned by Marshall Energy Company (MEC). The electrical power
system serving Majuro Atoll is operated using diesel engine generators. Consequently, the
sustainability of fuel imports to Marshall Energy Company are also essential to the residents of
Majuro Atoll who are dependent upon electrical energy for their households, small business
operations, as well as the operation of governmental facilities. While most homes, businesses
and governmental facilities on Majuro Atoll are connected to the MEC electrical distribution
system, an economic value of $100 was assigned to one-half of all Majuro Atoll residents. It
was assumed that other 50 percent of residents were dependent upon those fuels delivered to
Uliga Dock.

The performance of stevedoring services at Delap Dock by Majuro Shipping and Terminal
Company (MSTCO) generates income to Majuro's private sector. In turn, MSTCO operations
provide jobs and income to its local employees. A rough estimate of annual gross income was
calculated and input into the model based upon information gained from reliable sources. These
economic benefits are expected to increase as the volume of inbound and outbound cargo
continues to rise.

Wharfage fees and docking fees are another direct benefit of improvements to Delap Dock.
Wharfage fees are collected for all inbound and outbound marine cargo that crosses Delap Dock.
Docking fees are collected for all international cargo vessels over 30 meters in overall length.
Both of these fees, which are collected by RMIPA, are important sources revenue that help
support the operation and maintenance of Delap Dock and the overall Port of Majuro. Planned
improvements to Delap Dock include a repair of the main quay wall and the installation of
cathodic protection, an extension of the main dock, the paving and reorganization of the
container stacking/storage yard, new cargo handling equipment, utility system improvements,
and other enhancements that are expanded to attract greater volumes of transshipped cargo. As a
result, expanded transshipment activity will generate increased dockage and wharfage fees.


Enhanced cargo handling efficiency will be derived from planned improvements to Delap Dock.
The planned dock extension, the construction of a paved and reorganized container


stacking/storage area, and the introduction of new cargo handling equipment will significantly
reduce the turn-around times of international cargo vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro. In
FY 2012, the average time in port for these vessels was about 22 hours. Planned improvements
would likely reduce their time in port to about 11 hours.

Industry charter rates suggest that the operational cost of international cargo vessels calling upon
the Port of Majuro is roughly $7,000 per day, or about $292 per hour. With this assumption,
planned improvements to Delap Dock are expected to generate a savings of about $3,212 for
every international cargo vessel call.

While potential economic savings are more than welcomed by international shippers, they also
recognize that a more efficient port also represents a potential economic opportunity. With
greater cargo handling efficiency, some international shipping companies will likely have a
growing interest in the use of the Port of Majuro for expanded transshipment within Micronesia
and other Pacific Islands.

9.2.3.3 Costs

The primary costs associated with improvements to Delap Dock will be capital expenditures for
the repair of main quay wall and installation of related cathodic protection, design and
construction of an extended dock, the installation of new dock fenders and bollards, the paving
and reorganization of the container yard, the procurement of some new cargo handling
equipment, the installation of new reefer towers, the construction of a new container freight
station and fuel building, as well as the relocation and installation of supporting utility systems.
These planned improvements, which have been scheduled for completion between FY 2014 and
FY 2018, will require a cumulative expenditure of roughly $32,046,000.

These capital improvements will be supplemented with the establishment of a preventative
maintenance program, as well as updates to the existing port security plan to ensure that vessel
and dock operations continue to operate in a safe and secure working environment. Since the
establishment of a preventative maintenance program encompasses all port facilities, only 60
percent of these costs were assigned to the improvements for Delap Dock between FY 2014 and
FY 2021. Following the completion of a planned fisheries dock in FY 2021, it was assumed that
approximately 50 percent of the preventative maintenance program expenditures would be
allocated to Delap Dock improvements between FY 2022 and FY 2033.

A continuing expenditure associated with Delap Dock is the overall management and operation
of the Seaport Division. Between FY 2014 and FY 2021, it was assumed that roughly 40 percent
of this cost would be allocated to Delap Dock due to required coordination with MSTCO,
representatives of various shipping company representatives, and construction companies that
will make future improvements to Delap Dock. Following completion of various Delap Dock
improvements and development of the planned fisheries dock in FY 2021, it was assumed that
the proportion of management and operation expenditures will drop to 30 percent of total
management and operation expenditures between FY 2022 and FY 2033.



The calculation of net present value and cost-benefit ratio for improvements to Delap Dock were
made for two different scenarios. For the limited expansion of transshipment scenario, the
subtraction of cumulative, discounted costs from cumulative discounted benefits between FY
2014 and FY 2033 yield a positive net present value of $198,913,434 and a cost-benefit ratio of
5.5 for improvements to Delap Dock. (Table 9-3). With a greater expansion of transshipment,
proposed improvements generate a net present value of $239,018,853 between FY 2014 and FY
2033 and a cost-benefit ratio of 6.3. Under both scenarios, these statistical outputs suggest that
planned improvements to Delap Dock will generate a significant amount of long-term benefits
even though substantive investments will be required to complete all planned improvements.


RMI DIRECT BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS INVESTMENT (COSTS)
2012 1,349,533 5,586,045 1,396,511 17,280 39,437 75,986 195,170 344,969 0 9,004,931 N/A 0 0 0
2013 2,699,066 5,628,081 1,407,020 17,280 39,437 N/A 390,340 689,938 0 10,871,162 N/A 0 0 0
2014 2,771,362 5,668,262 1,417,066 17,280 39,437 N/A 400,796 708,418 0 11,022,621 11,022,621 0 0 0
2015 2,819,560 5,697,184 1,424,296 17,280 39,437 N/A 407,766 720,739 0 11,126,262 10,596,440 805,000 38,000 0
2016 2,891,856 5,731,896 1,432,974 17,280 39,437 N/A 418,221 739,219 0 11,270,885 10,734,176 16,000,000 0 6,692,000
2017 2,964,153 5,787,912 1,446,978 17,280 39,437 N/A 428,677 757,700 0 11,442,136 10,897,273 0 0 0
2018 3,036,449 5,814,554 1,453,639 18,144 39,437 N/A 439,133 776,180 404,712 11,982,248 11,411,664 0 0 0
2019 3,108,746 5,853,188 1,463,297 18,144 39,437 N/A 449,588 794,661 414,348 12,141,409 11,563,246 0 0 0
2020 3,181,042 5,887,383 1,471,846 18,144 39,437 N/A 460,044 813,141 423,984 12,295,020 11,709,543 0 0 0
2021 3,253,338 5,935,597 1,483,899 18,144 67,263 N/A 470,499 831,622 433,620 12,493,982 11,899,031 0 0 0
2022 3,325,635 5,975,468 1,493,867 18,144 68,070 N/A 480,955 850,102 443,256 12,655,498 12,052,855 0 0 0
2023 3,397,931 6,008,008 1,502,002 19,051 32,707 N/A 491,410 868,583 452,892 12,772,585 12,164,366 0 0 0
2024 3,470,228 6,037,899 1,509,475 19,051 69,588 N/A 501,866 887,063 462,528 12,957,698 12,340,664 0 0 0
2025 3,542,524 6,067,938 1,516,985 19,051 70,344 N/A 512,321 905,544 472,164 13,106,871 12,482,734 0 0 0
2026 3,590,722 6,098,127 1,524,532 19,051 71,100 N/A 519,292 917,864 478,588 13,219,275 12,589,786 0 0 0
2027 3,663,018 6,128,466 1,532,116 19,051 71,868 N/A 529,747 936,344 488,224 13,368,835 12,732,224 0 0 0
2028 3,735,315 6,158,956 1,539,739 20,004 72,629 N/A 540,203 954,825 497,860 13,519,530 12,875,743 0 0 0
2029 3,807,611 6,189,597 1,547,399 20,004 73,403 N/A 550,658 973,305 507,496 13,669,474 13,018,546 0 0 0
2030 3,879,907 6,220,391 1,555,098 20,004 74,176 N/A 561,114 991,786 517,132 13,819,608 13,161,531 0 0 0
2031 3,952,204 6,251,339 1,562,835 20,004 74,955 N/A 571,569 1,010,266 526,768 13,969,939 13,304,704 0 0 0
2032 4,024,500 6,282,440 1,570,610 20,004 75,739 N/A 582,025 1,028,747 536,404 14,120,468 13,448,065 0 0 0
2033 4,096,797 6,313,696 1,578,424 21,004 76,523 N/A 592,480 1,047,227 546,040 14,272,191 13,592,563 0 0 0
TABLE 9-3
DELAP DOCK
Page 1 of 2 Pages
INDIRECT
BENEFITS
Fiscal
Year
MSTCO
Gross
Income
Sustainability
of Port
Operations
Sustainability
of Fuel
Imports
Income from
Lease of
Office Space
Income from
Lease of
Land
Bunkering
Fee
Dockage
Fee
Wharfage
Fee
Reduced
Cargo Vessel
Turn-Around
Time
TOTAL
ANNUAL
BENEFITS
Discounted
5%
Dock
Extensions
Demolition
of Selected
Structures
DockRe-
Organization


INVESTMENT (COSTS) continued TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
Discounted 5%
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,012 N/A
2013 0 0 0 0 0 581,520 0 0 0 583,533 N/A
2014 0 0 0 0 0 593,150 15,180 5,000 0 0 615,344 615,344 10,407,277 10,407,277
2015 0 0 0 0 30,000 605,013 94,200 5,000 25,000 870,000 2,474,228 2,356,408 8,652,034 8,240,032
2016 0 0 0 0 670,000 617,114 94,200 5,000 0 0 24,080,330 22,933,647 -12,809,445 -12,199,471
2017 1,061,000 5,200,000 0 0 0 629,456 94,200 5,000 0 0 6,991,673 6,658,736 4,450,464 4,238,537
2018 1,550,000 0 0 642,045 94,200 5,000 0 0 2,293,263 2,184,060 9,688,985 9,227,604
2019 0 0 0 0 0 654,886 94,200 5,000 0 0 756,105 720,100 11,385,304 10,843,147
2020 0 0 0 0 0 667,984 94,200 5,000 0 0 769,204 732,575 11,525,817 10,976,968
2021 0 0 0 0 0 681,343 94,200 5,000 0 0 782,564 745,299 11,711,418 11,153,731
2022 0 0 0 0 0 521,228 87,500 5,000 0 0 615,750 586,428 12,039,748 11,466,427
2023 0 0 0 0 0 531,652 87,500 5,000 0 0 626,175 596,357 12,146,409 11,568,009
2024 0 0 0 0 0 542,285 87,500 5,000 0 0 636,809 606,485 12,320,888 11,734,179
2025 0 0 0 0 0 553,131 87,500 5,000 0 0 647,656 616,815 12,459,215 11,865,919
2026 0 0 0 0 0 564,194 87,500 5,000 0 0 658,720 627,352 12,560,556 11,962,434
2027 0 0 0 0 0 575,477 87,500 5,000 0 0 670,004 638,099 12,698,831 12,094,124
2028 0 0 0 0 0 586,987 87,500 5,000 0 0 681,515 649,062 12,838,015 12,226,681
2029 0 0 0 0 0 598,727 87,500 5,000 0 0 693,256 660,244 12,976,218 12,358,303
2030 0 0 0 0 0 610,701 87,500 5,000 0 0 705,231 671,649 13,114,376 12,489,882
2031 0 0 0 0 0 622,915 87,500 5,000 0 0 717,446 683,282 13,252,493 12,621,421
2032 0 0 0 0 0 635,374 87,500 5,000 0 0 729,906 695,148 13,390,563 12,752,917
2033 0 0 0 0 0 648,081 87,500 5,000 0 0 742,614 707,251 13,529,577 12,885,312
Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 44,684,343 NPV: 198,913,434
TABLE 9-3
DELAP DOCK
Page2 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
Purchase of
Two Terminal
Tractors, one
reachstacker,
andfour
trailers
Purchase
of mobile
harbor
crane
Construction of
CFSwarehouse,
fuel building,
Reefer tower,
sprinkler systems
Construction
of water and
fuel
distribution
Systems
Installation of
newfenders
&bollardsat
Main &East
Docks
Seaport
Division Mgt
&Operations
Preventative
Maintenance
Program
Update
Port
Security
Plan
Update
Boundary
Survey
Quay
Repair and
Cathodic
Protection
TOTAL
ANNUAL
INVESTMENT
(COSTS)
Total or Net
Benefits
(Costs less
Benefits)
Net Present
Value
(Discounted
at 5%/year)


9.2.4 Fishing Dock


Direct benefits gained from the development of the fishing dock complex will primarily
represent RMIPA's receipt of revenues from the leasing of adjoining lands for the operation of
two fish processing operations and three vessel service operations.

Secondarily, RMIPA will also receive a modest amount of docking fees from fishing vessels
unloading fish and/or servicing their vessels at the new fishing dock. It was assumed that 25
percent of future fishing vessel calls would choose to temporarily dock at the new fishing dock
for one or both of these purposes. Otherwise, all fishing vessels would continue to moor in the
vessel anchorage area.


Fishing Crew Expenditures

One of the ongoing indirect benefits associated with fishing vessel traffic in the Port of Majuro
are fishing vessel crew expenditures at local stores, restaurants, and entertainment facilities. No
available data provides an insight to the extent of these expenditures, but they are believed to
represent a sizeable contribution to local retail trade, eating and drinking establishments, and
entertainment facilities.

At the same time, available vessel movement data for the Port of Majuro does indicate that
fishing vessels remained in port for an average of 9.8 days in FY 2012. Given the length of time
in port, it is reasonable to assume that many fishing crews will continue to spend some time on
shore while in port.

With this perspective, it was estimated that each international fishing vessel has an average crew
size of about 30 persons. It was further assumed that the crews from half of the incoming fishing
vessels will spend five days onshore between FY 2013 and FY 2021. While onshore, each crew
member is expected to spend approximately $100 per day.

Following completion of the fishing dock complex in FY 2021, it is anticipated that fishing
vessels will remain in port for about 15 days because of the availability of new fishing vessel
services at the fishing dock complex. With greater time in port, it was assumed that roughly half
of the incoming fishing vessel crews will spend 7.5 days onshore between FY 2022 and 2033.

Employment at Fish Processing and Vessel Service Facilities

Informal discussions with the management of these facilities suggest that both fish processing
facilities will likely elect to lease lands at the planned fishing dock complex to enable future
expansions in production. Whether existing or new fish processing operations choose to develop
fish processing facilities adjacent to the new dock, the development of a new fishing dock
complex can be expected to generate increased employment beginning in FY 2022. On a


cumulative basis, it was assumed that the operation of two fish processing facilities would
generate 10 new full-time management and administrative jobs, as well as additional 400 part-
time jobs associated with the unloading of fishing vessels and fish processing.

The fishing dock will also include land area for fishing vessel services. It was assumed that
adequate land area would be available to support the establishment of three new vessel service
operations. Each service company would employ four persons.

9.2.4.3 Induced Benefits

Majuro Atoll Local Government imposes a local sales tax of four percent upon retail sales.
Retail sales generated by fishing vessel crew expenditures will be taxable and generate additional
revenues to Majuro Atoll Local Government.

9.2.4.4 Costs

The primary costs associated with the development of a new fishing dock complex will be the
planning, design and construction of a new dock along with supporting utility systems in
adjoining lease areas for fishing processing and vessel services. It was assumed that these costs
will require an expenditure of around $15,000,000.


The subtraction of cumulative, discounted costs between FY 2014 and FY 2033 from cumulative
discounted benefits yields a positive net present value of $92,306,985 for the development of a
new fishing dock complex (Table 9-4). The benefit-cost ratio for development of a new fishing
dock complex is estimated to be 6.3. These statistical outputs suggest the generation of
significant project benefits that are worthy of a substantive investment by RMIPA.


RMI DIRECT BENEFITS INDIRECT BENEFITS INDUCED BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS
Dockage Fee Discounted 5%
2012 0 0 429,000 0 3,615,000 144,600 4,188,600 N//A
2013 0 0 429,000 0 3,750,000 150,000 4,329,000 N//A
2014 0 0 429,000 0 3,825,000 153,000 4,407,000 4,407,000
2015 0 0 429,000 0 3,787,500 151,500 4,368,000 4,160,000
2016 0 0 429,000 0 3,975,000 159,000 4,563,000 4,345,714
2017 0 0 429,000 0 3,937,500 157,500 4,524,000 4,308,571
2018 0 0 429,000 0 4,087,500 163,500 4,680,000 4,457,143
2019 0 0 429,000 0 4,162,500 166,500 4,758,000 4,531,429
2020 0 0 429,000 0 3,937,500 157,500 4,524,000 4,308,571
2021 0 0 429,000 0 3,862,500 154,500 4,446,000 4,234,286
2022 106,500 23,850 2,044,000 133,680 3,975,000 159,000 6,442,030 6,135,267
2023 106,500 24,975 2,044,000 133,680 4,162,500 166,500 6,638,155 6,322,052
2024 106,500 24,300 2,044,000 133,680 4,050,000 162,000 6,520,480 6,209,981
2025 106,500 24,525 2,044,000 133,680 4,087,500 163,500 6,559,705 6,247,338
2026 106,500 24,300 2,044,000 133,680 4,050,000 162,000 6,520,480 6,209,981
2027 106,500 24,975 2,044,000 133,680 4,162,500 166,500 6,638,155 6,322,052
2028 106,500 24,300 2,044,000 133,680 4,050,000 162,000 6,520,480 6,209,981
2029 106,500 24,525 2,044,000 133,680 4,087,500 163,500 6,559,705 6,247,338
2030 106,500 24,975 2,044,000 133,680 4,162,500 166,500 6,638,155 6,322,052
2031 106,500 24,300 2,044,000 133,680 4,050,000 162,000 6,520,480 6,209,981
2032 106,500 24,525 2,044,000 133,680 4,087,500 163,500 6,559,705 6,247,338
2033 106,500 24,525 2,044,000 133,680 4,087,500 163,500 6,559,705 6,247,338
TABLE 9-4
FISHING DOCK
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
RMIPA Lease
Revenues
Employment
at Fish
Processing
Employment
at Vessel
Services
Fishing Vessel
Crew
Expenditures
4%Sales Tax Revenue
on Fishing Crew
Expenditures
TOTAL
ANNUAL
BENEFITS


INVESTMENT (COSTS) TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
2012 0 0 0 0 N//A
2013 0 0 0 0 N//A
2014 0 0 0 0 0 4,407,000 4,407,000
2015 0 0 0 0 0 4,368,000 4,160,000
2016 0 0 0 0 0 4,563,000 4,345,714
2017 0 0 0 0 0 4,524,000 4,308,571
2018 0 0 0 0 0 4,680,000 4,457,143
2019 200,000 0 0 200,000 190,476 4,558,000 4,340,952
2020 400,000 0 0 400,000 380,952 4,124,000 3,927,619
2021 15,000,000 0 0 15,000,000 14,285,714 -10,554,000 -10,051,429
2022 0 173,743 26,250 199,993 190,469 6,242,037 5,944,798
2023 0 177,217 26,250 203,467 193,778 6,434,688 6,128,274
2024 0 180,762 26,250 207,012 197,154 6,313,468 6,012,827
2025 0 184,377 26,250 210,627 200,597 6,349,078 6,046,741
2026 0 188,065 26,250 214,315 204,109 6,306,165 6,005,872
2027 0 191,826 26,250 218,076 207,691 6,420,079 6,114,361
2028 0 195,662 26,250 221,912 211,345 6,298,568 5,998,636
2029 0 199,576 26,250 225,826 215,072 6,333,879 6,032,266
2030 0 203,567 26,250 229,817 218,873 6,408,338 6,103,179
2031 0 207,638 26,250 233,888 222,751 6,286,592 5,987,230
2032 0 211,791 26,250 238,041 226,706 6,321,664 6,020,632
2033 0 216,027 26,250 242,277 230,740 6,317,428 6,016,598
Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 17,376,429 92,306,985
TABLE 9-4
FISHING DOCK
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Fiscal
Year
Development
of Fishing
Dock Complex
Seaport
Division Mgt &
Operations
Preventative
Maintenance
Program
TOTAL
ANNUAL
INVESTMENT
(COSTS)
Discounted
5%
Total or Net
Benefits (Costs
less Benefits)
Net Present
Value
Discounted at
5% per year


9.2.5 Net Present Value and Benefit Cost Ratio for Cumulative Port Improvements

The combining of all anticipated benefits and costs that would be generated from all planned port
improvements during the next two decades (FY 2014 through FY 2033) enable completion of an
overall cost-benefit analysis for all recommended port improvements (Table 9-5 and Table 9-6).
The costs and benefits identified in Table 9-5 and Table 9-6 are drawn, in part, from previous
tables for each port improvement area (Tables 9-1 through 9-4), as well as the calculations made
for two alternate transshipment scenarios.

For the limited expansion of transshipment scenario, the subtraction of cumulative, discounted
costs between FY 2014 and FY 2033 from cumulative discounted benefits yields a positive net
present value of $330,651,067 and a cost-benefit ratio of 3.3 for all port improvements outlined
the Port of Majuro Master Plan (Table 9-5). In contrast, a net present value of $374,060,386 and
a cost-benefit ratio of 3.6 would be realized under the greater expansion of transshipment
scenario (Table 9-6). The statistical outputs associated with both transshipment scenarios
indicate that significant benefits can be gained through very substantive investments in port
infrastructure. The long-term potential benefits significantly outweigh investment costs and
provide the Republic of the Marshall Islands with the opportunity to:

improve the safety of vessel movements within the Calalin Channel and port fairway;
increase the capacity of the Port of Majuro's vessel anchorage area;
improve the base of operations for RMI's interisland passenger/cargo vessels;
accommodate greater vessel traffic and process increased volumes of international cargo;
establish a fisheries dock that can encourage the delivery of more fish to local fish
processing facilities; and,
expand the type and number of vessel services for the international fishing fleet.


BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS COSTS TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
U
l
i
g
a

D
o
c
k
D
e
l
a
p

D
o
c
k
F
i
s
h
i
n
g

D
o
c
k
D
e
l
a
p

D
o
c
k
U
l
i
g
a

D
o
c
k
F
i
s
h
i
n
g

D
o
c
k
2012
2013
2014 2,064,297 3,733,345 11,022,621 4,407,000 21,227,264 21,227,264 743,968 615,344 2,399,878 0 3,759,190 3,759,190 17,468,074 17,468,074
2015 2,054,635 3,752,313 11,126,262 4,368,000 21,301,211 20,286,867 771,967 2,474,228 3,207,233 0 6,453,428 6,146,122 14,847,782 14,140,745
2016 2,142,673 3,770,165 11,270,885 4,563,000 21,746,723 20,711,165 787,092 24,080,330 2,490,258 0 27,357,680 26,054,933 -5,610,957 -5,343,769
2017 2,136,068 3,793,696 11,442,136 4,524,000 21,895,900 20,853,238 802,520 6,991,673 2,493,344 0 10,287,537 9,797,654 11,608,363 11,055,584
2018 2,208,332 3,815,959 11,982,248 4,680,000 22,686,538 21,606,227 818,256 2,293,263 2,896,491 0 6,008,011 5,721,915 16,678,528 15,884,312
2019 2,249,048 3,835,873 12,141,409 4,758,000 22,984,329 21,889,837 834,307 756,105 12,149,701 200,000 13,940,114 13,276,299 9,044,215 8,613,539
2020 2,166,628 3,855,050 12,295,020 4,524,000 22,840,699 21,753,046 850,680 769,204 2,502,976 400,000 4,522,859 4,307,485 18,317,840 17,445,562
2021 2,144,249 3,878,113 12,493,982 4,446,000 22,962,343 21,868,899 867,379 782,564 2,546,316 15,000,000 19,196,259 18,282,152 3,766,084 3,586,747
2022 2,200,739 3,899,476 12,655,498 6,442,030 25,197,743 23,997,850 886,213 615,750 3,036,373 199,993 4,738,327 4,512,693 20,459,415 19,485,157
2023 2,282,664 4,179,041 12,772,585 6,638,155 25,872,445 24,640,424 903,587 626,175 6,529,847 203,467 8,263,077 7,869,597 17,609,368 16,770,827
2024 2,244,511 4,199,166 12,957,698 6,520,480 25,921,854 24,687,480 921,309 636,809 3,146,281 207,012 4,911,410 4,677,534 21,010,444 20,009,947
2025 2,269,453 4,215,483 13,106,871 6,559,705 26,151,512 24,906,202 939,385 647,656 2,539,896 210,627 4,337,564 4,131,013 21,813,948 20,775,189
2026 2,265,903 4,232,320 13,219,275 6,520,480 26,237,978 24,988,551 957,823 658,720 2,543,583 214,315 4,374,440 4,166,133 21,863,538 20,822,418
2027 2,322,393 4,249,321 13,368,835 6,638,155 26,578,705 25,313,052 976,629 670,004 2,547,345 218,076 4,412,054 4,201,956 22,166,651 21,111,096
2028 2,284,240 4,266,673 13,519,530 6,520,480 26,590,922 25,324,688 995,812 681,515 2,551,181 221,912 4,450,420 4,238,495 22,140,502 21,086,193
2029 2,315,294 4,284,739 13,669,474 6,559,705 26,829,212 25,551,630 1,015,378 693,256 2,555,094 225,826 4,489,553 4,275,765 22,339,658 21,275,865
2030 2,356,010 4,302,807 13,819,608 6,638,155 27,116,579 25,825,314 1,035,335 705,231 2,559,086 229,817 4,529,470 4,313,781 22,587,110 21,511,533
2031 2,317,856 4,321,240 13,969,939 6,520,480 27,129,515 25,837,633 1,055,692 717,446 2,563,157 233,888 4,570,184 4,352,556 22,559,331 21,485,077
2032 2,342,799 4,340,044 14,120,468 6,559,705 27,363,016 26,060,015 1,076,456 729,906 2,567,310 238,041 4,611,713 4,392,107 22,751,303 21,667,908
2033 2,351,967 4,359,226 14,272,191 6,559,705 27,543,089 26,231,514 1,097,635 742,614 2,571,546 242,277 4,654,072 4,432,449 22,889,017 21,799,064
Total Cumulative Discounted Benefits: 473,560,896 Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 142,909,830 NPV: 330,651,067
.
Net Present Value 330,651,067
Benefit Cost Ratio 3.3
TABLE 9-5
CUMULATIVE PORT IMPROVEMENTS
Fiscal
Year
C
a
l
a
l
i
n

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

e
t

a
l
Total Annual
Benefits ($)
Discounted
5%
C
a
l
a
l
i
n

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

e
t

a
l
Total
Annual
Investment
(Costs) ($)
Discounted
5%
Total or Net
Benefits
(Costs less
Benefits)
Net Present
Value
Discounted at
5% per year


BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS COSTS TOTAL COSTS NET PRESENT VALUE
U
l
i
g
a

D
o
c
k
D
e
l
a
p

D
o
c
k
F
i
s
h
i
n
g

D
o
c
k
D
e
l
a
p

D
o
c
k
U
l
i
g
a

D
o
c
k
F
i
s
h
i
n
g

D
o
c
k
2012
2013
2014 2,073,465 3,733,345 11,123,854 4,407,000 21,337,664 21,337,664 743,968 615,344 2,399,878 0 3,759,190 3,759,190 17,578,474 17,578,474
2015 2,076,028 3,752,313 11,362,471 4,368,000 21,558,812 20,532,202 771,967 2,474,228 3,207,233 0 6,453,428 6,146,122 15,105,384 14,386,080
2016 2,173,234 3,770,165 11,608,326 4,563,000 22,114,725 21,061,643 787,092 24,080,330 2,490,258 0 27,357,680 26,054,933 -5,242,955 -4,993,291
2017 2,175,796 3,793,696 11,880,810 4,524,000 22,374,303 21,308,860 802,520 6,991,673 2,493,344 0 10,287,537 9,797,654 12,086,766 11,511,206
2018 2,266,397 3,815,959 12,684,414 4,680,000 23,446,770 22,330,257 818,256 2,293,263 2,896,491 0 6,008,011 5,721,915 17,438,760 16,608,342
2019 2,322,393 3,835,873 13,028,356 4,758,000 23,944,622 22,804,402 834,307 756,105 12,149,701 200,000 13,940,114 13,276,299 10,004,509 9,528,103
2020 2,255,254 3,855,050 13,366,749 4,524,000 24,001,053 22,858,146 850,680 769,204 2,502,976 400,000 4,522,859 4,307,485 19,478,194 18,550,661
2021 2,251,211 3,878,113 13,796,918 4,446,000 24,372,241 23,211,659 867,379 782,564 2,546,316 15,000,000 19,196,259 18,282,152 5,175,982 4,929,507
2022 2,326,037 3,899,476 14,181,660 6,442,030 26,849,203 25,570,670 886,213 615,750 3,036,373 199,993 4,738,327 4,512,693 22,110,876 21,057,977
2023 2,423,244 4,179,041 14,472,621 6,638,155 27,713,061 26,393,391 903,587 626,175 6,529,847 203,467 8,263,077 7,869,597 19,449,984 18,523,794
2024 2,409,538 4,199,166 14,968,007 6,520,480 28,097,191 26,759,230 921,309 636,809 3,146,281 207,012 4,911,410 4,677,534 23,185,781 22,081,696
2025 2,458,929 4,215,483 15,415,041 6,559,705 28,649,158 27,284,913 939,385 647,656 2,539,896 210,627 4,337,564 4,131,013 24,311,595 23,153,900
2026 2,482,884 4,232,320 15,862,262 6,520,480 29,097,946 27,712,329 957,823 658,720 2,543,583 214,315 4,374,440 4,166,133 24,723,506 23,546,196
2027 2,563,823 4,249,321 16,309,671 6,638,155 29,760,970 28,343,781 976,629 670,004 2,547,345 218,076 4,412,054 4,201,956 25,348,916 24,141,824
2028 2,550,118 4,266,673 16,758,220 6,520,480 30,095,491 28,662,372 995,812 681,515 2,551,181 221,912 4,450,420 4,238,495 25,645,071 24,423,877
2029 2,605,620 4,284,739 17,206,013 6,559,705 30,656,078 29,196,265 1,015,378 693,256 2,555,094 225,826 4,489,553 4,275,765 26,166,524 24,920,499
2030 2,670,785 4,302,807 17,653,991 6,638,155 31,265,737 29,776,893 1,035,335 705,231 2,559,086 229,817 4,529,470 4,313,781 26,736,268 25,463,112
2031 2,657,080 4,321,240 18,102,165 6,520,480 31,600,965 30,096,157 1,055,692 717,446 2,563,157 233,888 4,570,184 4,352,556 27,030,781 25,743,601
2032 2,706,471 4,340,044 18,550,527 6,559,705 32,156,747 30,625,473 1,076,456 729,906 2,567,310 238,041 4,611,713 4,392,107 27,545,034 26,233,366
2033 2,740,087 4,359,226 19,000,087 6,559,705 32,659,106 31,103,910 1,097,635 742,614 2,571,546 242,277 4,654,072 4,432,449 28,005,034 26,671,461
Total Cumulative Discounted Benefits: 516,970,216 Total Cumulative Discounted Costs: 142,909,830 NPV: 374,060,386
.
Net Present Value 374,060,386
Benefit Cost Ratio 3.6
TABLE 9-6
CUMULATIVE PORT IMPROVEMENTS
WITH GREATER EXPANSION OF TRANSSHIPMENT
Fiscal
Year
C
a
l
a
l
i
n

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

e
t

a
l
Total Annual
Benefits ($)
Discounted
5%
C
a
l
a
l
i
n

C
h
a
n
n
e
l

e
t

a
l
Total
Annual
Investment
(Costs) ($)
Discounted
5%
Total or Net
Benefits
(Costs less
Benefits)
Net Present
Value
Discounted at
5% per year
CHAPTER TEN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Implementation of the recommendations contained in the Port of Majuro Master Plan represents
a significant challenge in light of the limited resources available for future capital investments.
But, implementation of plan recommendations requires more than future inputs of financial
assistance. The achievement of objectives and related strategies must also be based upon the
establishment of internal organizational processes that are needed to refine strategies and adjust
project schedules as potential opportunities for financial support are pursued and obtained. In
that context, Chapter Ten provides guidance to the RMI Ports Authority concerning how to:

organize efforts for implementing the strategies outlined in Chapter Eight;
incorporate recommended implementation strategies into future annual budgets of
RMIPA; and,
pursue and obtain potential sources of financial support for selected capital investments.

10.2 ADOPT AND ENABLE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO THE MASTER PLAN

10.2.1 Adoption Process and Sharing of the Vision

The first step toward implementation of the plan is perhaps the easiest: Adopt the Master Plan.
The RMIPA Board can accomplish this step by the issuance of a formal resolution. Adoption of
the Master Plan by the RMIPA Board essentially formalizes the port improvement objectives and
related strategies that RMIPA intends to use to achieve its objectives during the coming decade.

Distribution of the Port of Majuro Master Plan represents a tremendous opportunity for RMIPA
to communicate its vision for future port improvements in the Port of Majuro. It is essential that
port improvement objectives are shared with residents of the Marshall Islands, local and national
governmental agencies in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, shipping and fishing companies,
local shipping agents, multi-national institutions such as the Asian Development Bank and
World Bank, various governmental agencies of the United States, China, J apan, and Korea, as
well as other Pacific Island nations. Through the communication of its intentions, both private
and public agencies will gain an appreciation of various port issues influencing the operation and
potential expansion of the Port of Majuro, port needs, as well as potential port expansion and
investment opportunities.

The Master Plan can be conveniently shared with these interests if the adopted master plan report
is placed on a website that is established and maintained by the RMI Ports Authority. The
website can subsequently be linked to the websites of professional organizations which RMIPA
is a member of, e.g., Association of Pacific Ports, or other organizations associated with port
operations, shipping, and fisheries.


10.2.2 Relationship to RMI Ports Authority Act of 2003

Title 22 of the Marshall Islands Revised Code, known as the RMI Ports Authority Act of 2003,
includes no provisions that require the adoption of any port improvement plans by the RMIPA
Board, RMI Ministry of Transportation and Communications, or other agency of the national
government.

Section 160 of the RMI Ports Authority Act of 2003 does require RMIPA to submit an annual
corporate plan that includes a forecast of the Authority's receipts and expenditures, the financial
targets of RMIPA, and the performance indicators adopted for the coming three years. In
addition, the RIMPA Board must also submit a report on the operations of the Authority to the
Minister of Transportation and Communications after the end of each fiscal year. This report is
to comprise an evaluation of RMIPA's overall performance against performance indicators
identified in the Corporate Plan for the financial year, as well as audited accounts of RMIPA for
the fiscal year.

While these plans and reports differ significantly from the scope of this master plan, the Port of
Majuro Plan does, where possible, provide order-of-magnitude cost estimates for most all
recommended port improvement strategies. This information can be used to facilitate the
preparation of future forecasts for anticipated Authority expenditures.

10.3 ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter Eight of the Port of Majuro Master Plan outlines a series of port improvement objectives
and specific strategies for achieving each objective. Each of the strategies include a scope of
work for each task, the responsibility for implementation, an estimated order-of-magnitude cost,
and tentative schedule for completion of each task. Figure 10-1 presents an overall
implementation schedule for all of the port improvement strategies included in Chapter Eight.
Consequently, the Master Plan provides RMIPA with substantive direction in terms of defining
what improvements need to be accomplished, how they will be made, who will take on the
responsibility, and when they need to be completed.

Some of these strategies can be pursued and completed through the use of existing operational
funds of RMIPA. However, many of the improvement projects that are outlined in the Master
Plan will need to rely upon capital investments by various multi-national organizations, national
governments having security and economic interests in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, as
well as potential public-private partnerships. In this context, the tentative schedule for the
completion of each port improvement strategy (Figure10-1) will likely require frequent
adjustments. Other factors associated with the availability of off-island technical resources, the
delivery of equipment, materials and consumable supplies, and other factors will also influence
the ability to complete various tasks within established project schedules.

These realities require RMIPA to establish a practical process for the following:

monitor and encourage the completion of port improvement strategies;
build technical capacity of RMIPA personnel;
update and refine port improvement strategies;
search and apply for outside financial resources;
administer and monitor project expenditures associated with grants and loans for capital
investments; and,
communicate the status of all improvement projects.

The following paragraphs provide an approach to each of these organizational needs.

10.3.1 Monitor and Encourage Completion of Port Improvement Strategies

The successful completion of port improvement strategies obviously begins at the top of any
effective organization such as the RMI Ports Authority. The Director and Deputy Director of
RMIPA will need to lead this charge and stress the importance of tackling and completing the
overall port improvement program to personnel in the Seaport Division, as well as other
supporting administrative personnel. Personnel will require considerable encouragement and
support during this process as some personnel may be unfamiliar with the steps associated with
project implementation. The participation of all personnel in the port improvement process is
vital. Once personnel sense their contribution, small or large, to the completion of a port
improvement project, their interest and commitment to the overall program can be expected to
grow considerably.

Everyone in any successful organization needs encouragement, direction and reminders from
management. For this reason, the Director and Deputy Director should hold periodic meetings,
e.g., weekly, monthly or quarterly, with personnel concerning the status of all project tasks
which require action in order to meet schedules associated with each port improvement strategy.
During these meetings, the Director should seek to identify and discuss project successes, as well
as any significant obstacles that may be influencing the completion of any ongoing strategies.
Personnel should also be provided with a course of action to address unresolved project issues or
constraints to the completion of any task. The Director should also remind personnel of
schedules which have been determined for the completion of each strategy. Personnel should
also be advised of the status of other strategies that may, in part, be completed by RMIPA
consultants or other agencies organizations.

At the time of this report, the Deputy Director is concurrently serving as Seaport Division
Manager. In the absence of another person holding this position, the Deputy Director will bear
considerable responsibility for the implementation of port improvement strategies. For that
reason, the Deputy Director should be prepared to delegate parts of various tasks that are within
the technical capabilities of other personnel in the Seaport Division.

10.3.2 Build Technical Capacity of RMIPA Personnel

The building of technical capacity among existing RMIPA personnel is best learned from
someone else who has considerably more professional and/or technical experience and has
successfully completed the task that RMIPA personnel are planning to undertake. But,
everyone learns differently. Some personnel learn better by reading a manual, attempting
completion of a new task on their own, and seeking help from experienced persons if they hit a
roadblock. Other employees gain more understanding through off-island training that provide
approaches used in other communities. And other employees acquire skills more effectively at
home by working with other personnel within the organization.

There are, at least, two general approaches to building capacity within RMIPA. These
approaches can be used independently or in combination.

10.3.2.1 Building Capacity from within RMIPA

In the Pacific Islands, one of the more prominent, successful examples of building technical
capacity comes from American Samoa. In the late 1970s, a young engineer named Abe Malae,
who worked in the American Samoa Department of Public Works, began the establishment of a
capacity building process. He conducted weekly training sessions for a small number of Water
Division personnel. These sessions were organized to help Water Division personnel, who were
operating a centralized water system for a portion of the Island of Tutuila, better understand the
scope of their jobs, acquire new skills, as well as motivate them to become more productive
employees. As months and years passed, many division personnel gained new skills, selected
water personnel then trained others. Subsequently, Water Division personnel became part of a
larger governmental authority known as the American Samoa Power Authority which is
responsible for the management and delivery of water, wastewater, electrical, and solid waste
management services to most villages in the Territory. This enabled an extension of capacity
building to three additional governmental functions.

A similar process can be applied to RMIPA. The process would begin with the Director and
Deputy Director of RMIPA assessing the capabilities of existing personnel, defining the scope of
responsibilities for each personnel, and sharing these expectations with each worker in the
Seaport Division. Subsequently, training sessions could be established to help personnel better
understand the scope of their jobs, acquire new technical skills and technology applications, and
motivate personnel.

10.3.2.2 Building Capacity through Use of Consultants

Various tasks outlined in Chapter Eight recommend the use of consultants to assist or support the
completion of some strategies. When consultants are used to complete one or more specific
tasks, RMIPA should incorporate into their overall technical scope of work a requirement to
provide some onsite or off-island training to selected RMIPA staff. Personnel that display
interest and aptitude for certain types of work, e.g., procurement, facility maintenance, would be
chosen in advance by the Director and Deputy Director to attend one or more training sessions,
as well as observe and participate in the completion of some or all tasks being completed by a
selected consultant. This approach will help build the technical capacity and knowledge of
RMIPA personnel. With greater hands-on experience and understanding of certain tasks,
selected personnel can gradually apply their hands-on training and experience to the completion
of similar assignments for other port improvement strategies.

10.3.3 Update and Refine Port Improvement Strategies

There are various financial factors, logistical considerations, facility conditions, and personnel
changes that will influence the completion of all port improvement strategies. These influences
will prompt the need for future changes to the direction, scope, responsibility of implementation,
project budgets, and completion schedules for specific port improvement strategies.

These realities should be addressed through an annual update of port improvement objectives
and strategies. These revisions should be incorporated into a master plan status report.

Preparation of the master plan status report would be updated by the Director or Deputy Director
of RMIPA, selected RMIPA staff member, or a consultant. Completion of this task will require
close coordination with the RMIPA project managers who are responsible for the
implementation of one or more port improvement strategies. The type of information requested
from RMIPA project managers would include, at least, the following:

progress made during the past fiscal year toward completion of strategies associated with
each port improvement objective;
national government appropriations, grants or loans that may have been received by
RMIPA to support the completion of port improvement strategies;
expenditures made toward the completion of each implementation strategy; and,
potential project issues and needs to revise the scope of project tasks, budgets, and
schedules for each implementation strategy.

Completion of the master plan status report would ideally be completed by not later than March
or April of every fiscal year. This would provide the Director and Deputy Director with
adequate time to incorporate financial requests into RMIPA's annual budget process.

The master plan status report would subsequently be used by the Director and Deputy Director as
a new benchmark for the monitoring of work progress and project issues associated with each
implementation strategy.

10.3.4 Search and Apply for Outside Financial Resources

The search for capital to support the completion of more costly capital improvements will
involve a combination of steps. Various multi-national institutions and of international
governmental agencies provide grants and/or loans for the achievement of one or more program
objectives. Frequently, grant and loan programs are directed toward addressing a specific issue,
e.g., climate change, heath, and education. This is important consideration as some grant and
loan programs stipulate the completion of data collection efforts, studies, and other projects that
often deviate applicants and grant funds away from the tasks that need financial support.
Consequently, one of the initial challenges in searching for potential sources of grants and loans
is to narrow potential opportunities to programs that are more relevant to, or consistent with, the
mission of the RMI Ports Authority.

In the following paragraphs, several potential sources of grant funding and loans are identified to
provide a starting point for the determination of potential sources of capital for improvements at
the Port of Majuro. These include programs offered by the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs,

10.3.4.1 Export-Import Bank of the United States

Program Objectives: The Export-Import Bank (EIB) desires, in part, to provide financing to
international buyers of goods and services from the United States in order to generate jobs in the
U.S. economy.

Eligible Loans: EIB offers guarantees and direct loans to finance the construction and operation
of projects through structured finance transactions. Direct loans are available for projects that
cost, at least, $10 million (Chong-Gum, 2013). Larger projects outlined in the Port of Majuro
Master Plan could meet this threshold. Loans supporting smaller improvement, i.e. projects less
than $10 million, would need to be processed through a commercial bank recognized by the EIB.

Types of Available Financing: Direct loans are made with a fixed rate of interest and a loan
amortization period of about 12-14 years. Interest accrued during construction may also be
financed.

Application Requirements: EIB has a review and approval process that includes an applicant's
initial letter of intent, a preliminary commitment from EIB, and a final commitment from EIB.
Some form of loan guarantee would need to be provided to the Export-Import Bank. EIB also
charges a one-time exposure fee on their loans. The fee typically represents approximately seven
percent of the total loan amount.

10.3.4.2 Asian Development Bank

Program Objectives: The Asian Development Fund (ADF) is guided by Asian Development
Bank's (ADB) Strategy 2020 vision of an Asia-Pacific region that is free of poverty. The
Strategy 2020 vision promotes three complementary development agendas: inclusive economic
growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional cooperation and integration (Asian
Development Bank, 2013). To promote a more inclusive growth, ADB has, in the past,
supported various types of infrastructure projects, e.g., roads, water, energy and other services, to
help increase productivity, create jobs, reduce poverty and promote trade and investments. One
example is the Avatiu Port Development Project in the Cook Islands.
A Country Operations Business Plan for the 2014-2016 period, published by ADB in October
2013, provides greater insight to the intention of ADB to focus its financial support to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands for macroeconomic and fiscal management, human capacity
development, and infrastructure development projects. The infrastructure development program
identifies planned technical assistance for an Ebeye Water and Sanitation project.

Eligible Loans: As a member country of the Asian Development Bank, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands is eligible to borrow capital from the Asian Development Fund which is a
potential source of grants and loans. Through 2010, RMI received $87.63 million
in loans and $19.58 million in technical assistance since becoming a member in 1990. But, ADB
suspended its loans to RMI between 2004 and 2009 due to non-payment of some ADB loans and
its disappointment with some project outcomes, but continued providing some technical
assistance. The ADB loan program was reinstated in 2010 following RMI's payment of
outstanding loan amortization balances (Asian Development Bank, 2011).

Types of Available Financing: As of April 2013, ADB can provide loans to a government
ministry, department, or agency for a specific investment project for a loan period up to 25 years.
A fixed interest rate of 2.0 percent per annum is applicable to all investment projects.
Disbursements are expenditure-based.

Application Requirements: RMI ministry, department or agency must complete and submit an
initial loan application to Asian Development Bank.

10.3.4.3 United States Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs

Program Objectives: The Compact of Free Association between the Republic of the Marshall
Islands and the United States provide for U.S. economic assistance (including eligibility for
certain U.S. federal programs), defense of the RMI, and other benefits in exchange for U.S.
defense and certain other operating rights in the RMI, denial of access to RMI territory by other
nations, and other agreements. The main areas of support from the United States Department of
the Interior Office of Insular Areas (USDOI OIA) are education, health, infrastructure,
environment, private sector, and capacity building/technical assistance.

The OIAs mission is to empower insular communities. Currently, OIA pursues strategies
outlined in DOIs Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-2016 that focus on improving the quality
of life, creating economic opportunity, and promoting efficient governance for the insular
communities.

Eligible Grants: The two basic types of assistance administered by OIA are Mandatory
assistance through the Compacts of Free Association with RMI, and Discretionary Assistance.
Through 2023, the RMI Government is allocated an annual allotment of grant money that ranges
from $76.2 million in 2004 down to $62.6 million in 2023. A large portion of that money is
allocated towards land lease payments for US Army Kwajalein Atoll with remaining funds used
to support projects.

The Discretionary Assistance funding is a separate source of funding that annually represents
approximately $50 million. This funding is divided between the Insular areas of the United
States that include the Territory of Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Freely Associated States; Federated States of
Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The programs
available for possible Port improvement projects come from General Technical Assistance
Grants and the Maintenance Assistance Program. The General Technical Assistance program
typically has a much larger budget than the Maintenance Assistance Program.

Types of Available Financing: The Mandatory Assistance program grants are tied only to annual
auditing and reporting requirements. The Technical Assistance Program also consists of grant
money, but looks favorably towards projects which have a local matching component.

Application Requirements: The Mandatory Assistance program must be requested by the RMI
National Government. The RMI Government is requested to develop a list of proposed projects
that are to be funded. The final decision on which projects are to be funded is left to a J oint
Economic Management Committee (J EMFAC), which is composed of a U.S. chair, two
additional members from the Government of the United States, and two members from the
Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The Discretionary Assistance programs require an applicant to fill out a grant application and
submit the application via the www.grants.gov website. The grant awards are prepared by an
OIA grant manager thru the DOIs Financial and Business Management System. The award
identifies the recipient, the purpose(s) of the grant, the dollar value of the award, the CFDA
number, the period of performance, and is assigned an award number. The grants are then sent
to the respective embassies in Washington, DC.

10.3.4.4 World Bank

Program Objectives: The World Bank Group has set two goals for the world to achieve by 2030:

End extreme poverty by decreasing the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a
day to no more than 3 percent; and,
Promote shared prosperity by fostering the income growth of the bottom 40 percent for
every country.

Established in 1944, the World Bank Group is headquartered in Washington, D.C. The World
Bank, which comprises five institutions managed by their member countries, is a source of
financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. The World Bank
Group, is not a financial institution, in the ordinary sense, but a unique partnership to reduce
poverty and support development.

Eligible Loans: The World Bank provides low interest loans, interest-free credits, and grants to
developing countries. These support a wide array of investments in such areas as education,
health, public administration, infrastructure, financial and private sector development,
agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management. Some of the World Bank
Group projects are co-financed with governments, other multilateral institutions, commercial
banks, export credit agencies, and private sector investors.

The World Bank also provides for facilitates financing through trust fund partnerships with
bilateral and multilateral donors.

10.3.5 Administer and Monitor Project Expenditures Associated with Grants and Loans

A critical component of borrowing capital or receiving grants from multi-national organizations,
e.g., Asian Development Bank or World Bank Group, and other national governmental agencies
is the administration of funds and monitoring of project expenditures. These organizations have
very specific expectations concerning how and when project expenditures should be reported
and audited. These requirements should be carefully reviewed prior to executing any loan or
grant agreements with these entities.

It is likely that RMIPA will have to establish separate accounting systems for each grant or loan
in order to meet specific reporting requirements, as well as separate reimbursable project
expenditures from normal operational costs. However, prudent bookkeeping and accounting of
project expenditures will generate greater confidence and interest from multi-national
organizations and other national governmental agencies to support future port improvements.

10.3.6 Communicate the Status of Port Improvement Projects

Another essential part of the implementation process is the communication of progress toward
completion of port improvement strategies. This represents an effective way to gain community
support for the overall port improvement program. This can be accomplished by preparing
periodic news releases to the Marshall Islands J ournal and the local radio station. Informal
presentations can be made to port stakeholders on an annual basis that include, at least,
representatives of shipping agents, shipping and fishing companies, local fish processing
operations, and some national government agencies.

Since many of the port improvement strategies will require capital investments by multi-national
institutions or other national government agencies, it is equally important that these agencies are
aware of the progress being made toward completion of port improvement strategies. While
these agencies are generally interested in supporting projects that generate significant social and
economic benefits, their representatives prefer to provide grants and loans to applicants that are
more likely to successfully implement their projects. They need to learn of the progress being
made by the RMI Ports Authority in order to substantiate approval of future grant and loan
applications.

For these agencies, the annual master plan status report (see section 10.3.3) could be distributed
to selected multi-national and national governmental agencies for their review. This information
will enable grant and loan program representatives to maintain an awareness of RMIPA's port
improvement program and envision potential opportunities for future financial support to
RMIPA.
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 Figure10-1 Port Improvement Implementation Schedule
1
Maintain safe vessel navigation thru Calalin Channel and
port fairway and extend the service life of navigation aids
A Navigation aid inspections N/A
B Repair damaged navigation aids $500 (for fuel)
2
Improve berthing and docking facilities supporting the
interisland transport of passengers and cargo
3
Provide moorage space for non-interisland
passenger/cargo vessels at Uliga Dock
A Design phase $150,000
B Construction phase $3,625,000
4
Provide a secure waiting and arrival area for interisland
passengers at Uliga Dock
A Planning Phase $40,000
C Construction Phase TBD
5
Establish a back-up power supply within the Uliga Dock
area to sustain the delivery of electrical energy to
facilities and supporting utiliites
A Desing $118,000
B Installation/Construction $67,000
6
Establish an independent water supply and distribution
system for Uliga Dock
7 Establish a fire suppression system at Uliga Dock
Delap Dock
8
Protect main Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel
damages
C Installation Phase $560,000
9
Protect east Delap Dock and reduce potential vessel
damages
B Installation Phase $110,000
10
Increase the efficiency of cargo handling at Delap Dock
and service life of cargo handling equipment
A
Demolish and remove structures, equipment, and
materials in the Delap Dock complex $38,000
B Design of Reorganized Dock Complex $392,000
C Construction of Utilities and Paving $6,300,000
D Construction of CFS, Reefer Towers, Fuel Building, FireS
$1,550,000
E Terminal tractors and bomb cart trailers $332,000
F Modify cargo handling procedures/acquire reach stacker
$705,500
Calalin Channel and Port Fairway
2014 2015 Year Commencing 2014-2023 Budget 2022 2023
LONG - TERM
Uliga Dock
2016
SHORT - TERM
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
MEDIUM - TERM
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 Figure10-1 Port Improvement Implementation Schedule
Delap Dock (Cont'd)
11
Encourage expansion of transshipment operations at
Delap Dock
A Discussions with shipping companies $0
B Design (Option C) $805,000
C Construction (Option C) $16,000,000
D Acquire mobile harbor crane $5,165,000
E Revise cargo handling procedures $30,000
12
Establish a preventative maintenance program for all port
facilities
A Maintenance Software $25,300
B
Maintenance supervisor, organize resources needed to
operate a facility maintenance organization $26,000
13
Enhance monitoring of incoming international cargo and
fishing vessels
A Establish AIS base $2,314
B Review vessel movements and correlate with daily logs
$0
14
Sustain and update processes for evaluating port security
threats and establishing appropriate security measures
A Annual updates to current Port Security Plan $2,314
B Perform regular security inspections of the port faciltiy
$0
C Organize and perform periodic security drills $0
15 Update boundary surveys for Delap and Uliga Docks
A Revise boundary survey for Delap Dock $25,000
B Revise boundary survey for Uliga Dock $22,000
Economic Development Opportunities
16
Increase the economic value of fisheries by establishing a
new fisheries dock complex in the Port of Majuro
A Planning phase $200,000
Year Commencing 2014-2023 Budget
SHORT - TERM MEDIUM - TERM LONG - TERM
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 REF-1
REFERENCES

Agerschou, Hans; Ian Dand; Torben Ernst; Harry Ghoos; Ole J uul J ensen; J ens Korsgaard; J ohn
Land; Tom McKay; Hocine Oumeraci; J akob Petersen; Leif Runge-Schmidt; and Hanne
Svendsen. 2004. Planning and Design of Ports and Marine Terminals. Second Edition.
Thomas Telford Publishing. London, England.

Aregheore, Eroarome Martin, Ph.D. 2009. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles:
Marshall Islands. University of the South Pacific, School of Agriculture, Alafua Campus, Apia,
Samoa.

Asian Development Bank. 2013. Asian Development Fund. http://www.adb.org/site/adf.
Manila, Republic of the Philippines.

Campling, Liam; Havice, Elizabeth; and Ram-Bidesi, Vina. 2007. Pacific Island Countries,
the Global Tuna Industry and the International Trade Regime. Pacific Islands Forum
Fisheries Agency. Honiara, Solomon Islands.

Cathodic Protection Company, Ltd. 2013. Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete
Structures. Grantham Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.

Chong-Gum, J ack, Director, Republic of the Marshall Islands Port Authority. September 2009.
Micronesian Shipping Commission: A Regional Cooperation Initiative. Presentation to
Association of Pacific Ports Conference. Taipei, Taiwan.

Chong-Gum, J ack, Director, Republic of the Marshall Islands Port Authority. October 29, 2013.
Notes from Meeting with Craig OConnor of U.S. Export-Import Bank. Washington, D.C.

Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology. 2012. Sea level, air and water
temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction data obtained from
SEAFRAME station at Uliga Dock between 1994 and 2011.

Deloitte & Touche LLP. September 30, 2011. Financial Statements and Independent
Auditors' Report: Years Ended September 30, 2011 And 2010. Tamuning, Guam.

Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office, Office of the President. February 14, 2012.
The RMI 2011 Census of Population and Housing (Summary and Highlights Only).
Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office, Republic of the Marshall Islands and South
Pacific Commission, Statistics for Development Programme. 2012. RMI 2011 Census Report.
Noumea, New Calendonia

Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office, Office of the President, Republic of the
Marshall Islands. J une 2008. Statistical Yearbook 2005/2006, 18th Edition. Majuro,

Economic Policy Planning and Statistics Office, Office of the President, Republic of the
Marshall Islands. 2001. Republic of the Marshall Islands 2001 Statistical Abstract, 14
th

Edition. Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands.

Ellor, J ames, Young, Walter, and Repp, J ohn, Corrpro Companies, Inc., Ocean City Research
Group. 2004. Thermally Sprayed Metal Coatings to Protect Steel Pilings: Final Report and
Guide. Transportation Research Board and National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
NCHRP Report 528. Washington, D.C.

Gorski, Zygmunt and Giernalczyk, Mariusz, Gdynia Maritime University. 2013. Energetic
Plants of Container Ships and Their Development Trends. J ournal of Polish CIMAC,
Gdansk University of Technology, The Faculty of Ocean Engineering and Ship Technology.
Gdynia, Poland.

Hawley, J ohn, Aviation Depot Manager, ExxonMobil Aviation, Amata Kabua International
Airport. Inbound Fuel Volumes in 2012. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Holthus, P., M. Crawford, C. Makroro, and Scott Sullivan. 1992. Vulnerability
Assessment for Accelerated Sea Level Rise Case Study: Majuro Atoll, Republic of the
Marshall Islands. SPREP Report and Studies Series No. 60. Apia, Western Samoa.

IHS, Inc. April 11, 2013. AISLive and Sea-Web Information Concerning Vessel Navigation at
Port of Majuro. http://www.aislive.com. Penang, Malaysia.

International Maritime Organization. 2013. SOLAS 1974: Brief History-List of Amendments.
London, England.

International Maritime Organization. 2013. International Ship and Port Facility Security
Code (ISPS Code). London, England.

Kendall, M.S., T.A. Battista, and C. Menza. 2012. Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall
Islands Coral Reef Ecosystems Mapping Report. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
NCCOS 144. NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal
Monitoring, Biogeography Branch. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Kyowa Shipping Company, Limited. 2013. Micronesia Service. http://www.kyowa-
line.co.jp/service/. Tokyo, J apan.

Maersk Line. J une 2013. http://www.maerskline.com/. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Marianas Express Line, Limited. December 13, 2012. Marianas Express Lines Launches U.S.
West Coast Service. www.mariana-express.com. Republic of Singapore.

Marshall Islands J ournal. April 26, 2013. Blocks Good. Volume 44, Number 17. Majuro,

Marshall Islands J ournal. J anuary 25, 2013. Good Year for Copra Farmers. Majuro, Marshall
Islands.

Marshall Islands J ournal. March 8, 2013. Making Moi Money. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Oceanic and Industrial Affairs Division. August
2011. Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Part 1:
Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics. WCPFC-SC7-AR/CCM-12. Majuro,

Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority. 2013. Summary of Transshipment: January 1
to December 31, 2012. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Matson Navigation Company, Inc. 2013. Matson 2012 Annual Report and Form 10K.
Matson, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii.

McCoy, Mike. J uly 2012. A Survey of Tuna Transshipment in Pacific Island Countries:
Opportunities for Increasing Benefits and Improving Monitoring. Pacific Islands Forum
Fisheries Agency. Honiara, Solomon Islands.

McKinlay, Glenn; Mark Sturton, and Ben Graham. August 2011. Republic of the Marshall
Islands FY2011 Economic Statistics Tables. Graduate School, Pacific Islands Training
Initiative. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Milne, Wally. Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation Strategic Plan: 2012-2015. Majuro,
Marshall Islands.

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. April 9, 2011. Nautical Chart 81782 for Majuro
Atoll. OceanGrafix, LLC. St. Paul, Minnesota.

National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. 2013. Sailing Directions (Enroute), Pacific Islands.
10th Edition. Springfield, Virginia.

Overmars, Marc. 2001. Water Resources Assessment Laura, Majuro, Marshall Islands.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC).
SOPAC Technical Report 342. Suva, Fiji.

Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. October 2011. Tuna Economic Indicators Update.
Honiara, Solomon Islands.

Panama Canal Authority. J anuary 16, 2013. Vessel Requirements. OP Notice to Shipping No.
N-1-2013 (Rev. 1). Panama, Panama.

Personal Communication. J anuary 9, 2013. Bernadette Valencia, Regional Sales & Customer
Service Manager, Matson, Piti, Guam.

Personal Communication. J anuary 18, 2013. Don Xu, Vice President, Pan Pacific Foods (RMI),
Inc. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J uly 9, 2013. Ed Cruz, Country Manager Guam/Saipan/Micronesia,
Mariana Express Lines Ltd. Koror, Palau

Personal Communication. J anuary 16, 2013. Eugene Muller, Manager, Koos Fishing
Company, Ltd. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 18, 2013. J in Liang, Base Manager, Marshall Islands Fishing
Venture (MIFV), Inc. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 11-12, 2013. J oe Tiobech, Deputy Director/Seaport Manager,
Republic of the Marshall Islands Ports Authority. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. September 2013 and J uly 2014. J yrki Luukkonen, Kalmar Terminals
Development and Automation. Helsinki, Finland

Personal Communication. J uly 9, 2013. Kennedy Simpson, General Manager/Australia, Pacific
Direct Lines. Koror, Palau

Personal Communication. J anuary 14, 2013. Mike Banzuela, Manager, Tobolar Coconut
Processing Authority. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 12, 2013. Pony Ma, Shipping Agent, Ching Fu Shipping
Company. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 11-12, 2013. Steve Wakefield, Chief Technical Officer,
Marshall Island Combined Utilities. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 17-18, 2013. Rowena Manalo, CPA, Republic of the
Marshall Islands Ports Authority. Majuro, Marshall Islands.
Personal Communication. J anuary 14, 2013. Wally Milne, General Manager, Marshall Islands
Shipping Corporation. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Personal Communication. J anuary 11, 2013. Wally Stewart, Engineer and Nigel Deacon,
Engineer, Majuro Water and Sewer Company. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Philippo, Phil, Secretary of Transportation and Communications, Republic of the Marshall
Islands. August 16, 2013. Government Ship Particulars for Interisland Passenger/Cargo
Vessels. RMI Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Republic of the Marshall Islands Ministry of Health. 2012. Birth and Deaths for FY 2007-
2012. Majuro, Marshall Islands.


Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division (SOPAC).
November 2007. National Integrated Water Resource Management Diagnostic Report,
Republic of the Marshall Islands. SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 639. Suva, Fiji.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. August 2011. Republic of
the Marshall Islands: National Tuna Fisheries Status Report No.23. Noumea, New
Caledonia.

Thoresen, Carl. 2010. Port Designer's Handbook. Second Edition. Thomas Telford
Publishing. London, England.

U.S. Navy, Underwater Construction Team. 2013. After Action Report UCT TWO
Construction Diving Detachment Alfa Deployment FY13, May 13th 2013 to AUG 15th 2013
Pacific Partnership 2013, USS Pearl Harbor. Port Hueneme, California.

Vallo, Niels, CEO, ContPort Consult. March 21, 2013. "Are the Terminals Ready for ULCVs--
indeed they are!" Copenhagen, Denmark.

Xue, Chunting, SOPAC Secretariat. September 1997. Coastal Sedimentation Erosion and
Management of Majuro Atoll, Republic of Marshall Islands. SOPAC Technical Report 254.
Government of the People's Republic of China.

Port of Majuro Pre-Final Master Plan February 2014 Appendix A
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A:
CONDITIONAL ASSESMENTS

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS

STRUCTURES

Uliga Port

1. Uliga Dock Electrical Vault
2. Uliga Dock Guard House
3. Uliga Dock Warehouse

Delap Port

1. Delap Dock Abandoned Restroom
2. Delap Dock Boat House
3. Delap Dock Dock-Side Office
4. Delap Dock Electrical General Building
5. Delap Dock Fuel Building
6. Delap Dock Guard House
7. Delap Dock Maintenance Building 1
8. Delap Dock Maintenance Building 2
9. Delap Dock Recreational Building
10. Delap Dock RMI PORT OFFICE 1
11. Delap Dock RMI PORT OFFICE 2
12. Delap Dock Stevador Building
13. Delap Dock Electrical Storage Building
14. Delap Dock Yard Office Building
15. Delap Dock Yard Shop-Office
NOTE: The rank on the following building condition assessments relate to the condition of the
facility and its components. The rankings are on a 1 to 5 scale in relation to the buildings and
facilities on the island of Majuro. A ranking of 1 is the lowest or worse condition, and a ranking
of 5 is the highest or best condition.

A-1

BUILDING EXTERIOR BUILDING EXTERIOR

BUILDING PLAN AND ELEVATIONS


DELAP DOCK
ABANDONED RESTROOM
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR CONCRETE CONCRETE 2
ROOF WOOD GALV. METAL 1
WALL CMUL PLASTER/PAINT 1
DOORS WOOD PAINT 0
LOUVERS WOOD. STAIN 1
UTILITY NONE. 0
FUNCTION RESTROOM/SHOWER 0
OVERALL 0
A-2



BUILDING INTERIOR BUILDING EXTERIOR
DELAP DOCK
BOAT HOUSE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

WALL WOOD PAINT 1
DOORS METAL FENCE GALV. 1
WINDOWS FENCE GALV. 1
UTILITY
FUNCTION STORAGE 3
OVERALL 2
A-3




DELAP DOCK
DOCK-SIDE OFFICE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR METAL WOOD 2
ROOF METAL GALV, METAL 2
WALL METAL PAINT 2
DOORS HOLLOW METAL PAINT 4
WINDOWS .
UTILITY ELEC./SECURITY. 1
FUNCTION OFFICE 3
OVERALL 2
A-4




DELAP DOCK
ELECTRICAL GENERATOR BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

ROOF CONCRETE CONCRETE 5
WALL CMU PLASTER/PAINT 5
WINDOWS .
UTILITY ELECTRICAL. 5
FUNCTION UTILITY 5
OVERALL 5
A-5




DELAP DOCK
FUEL BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

WALL CMU PAINT 1
DOORS METAL FENCE GALV. 1
WINDOWS WOOD PAINT 1
UTILITY ELEC. 2
FUNCTION UTILITY 3
OVERALL 2
A-6




DELAP DOCK
GUARDHOUSE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

DOORS WOOD PAINT 3
WINDOWS ALUMINUM. FACTORY 3
UTILITY ELEC./TEL/PLUMBING. 3
FUNCTION OFFICE 3
OVERALL 3
A-7


BUILDING EXTERIOR

DELAP DOCK
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

ROOF STEEL/WOOD GALV. METAL 3
WALL CMU/WOOD GALV. METAL 2
DOORS WOOD/METAL PAINT 2
WINDOWS 3
UTILITY ELEC./TEL./PLUMBING 3
FUNCTION MAINTENANCE/STORAGE 3
OVERALL 3
A-8
BUILDING EXTERIOR


BUILDING EXTERIOR (BACKGROUND BUILDING) BUILDING EXTERIOR

DELAP DOCK BUILDING EXTERIOR
MAINTENANCE BUILDING
A-9




DELAP DOCK
RECREATIONAL BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR CONCRETE TILE 5
WINDOWS ALUMINUM FACTORY 4
FUNCTION SOCIAL/ENTERTAINMENT 5
OVERALL 5
A-10

BUILDING EXTERIOR


BUILDING EXTERIOR

DELAP DOCK
RMI PORT OFFICE BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR CONCRETE TILE 5
DOORS WOOD PAINT 4
FUNCTION OFFICE 5
OVERALL 5
A-11

BUILDING EXTERIOR


BUILDING EXTERIOR

BUILDING EXTERIOR
DELAP DOCK
RMI PORT OFFICE BUILDING
A-12

BUILDING EXTERIOR



DELAP DOCK
STEVADOR BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

ROOF STEEL GALV. METAL 5
WALL CMU/STEEL PAINT 5
FUNCTION OFFICE/STORAGE 5
OVERALL 5
A-13



BUILDING EXTERIOR

DELAP DOCK
ELECTRICAL STORAGE BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

DOORS WOOD PAINT 2
WINDOWS .
UTILITY .
FUNCTION STORAGE 3
OVERALL 3
A-14




DELAP DOCK
YARD OFFICE BUILDING
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

ROOF CONCRETE/WOOD GALV. METAL 3
DOORS WOOD PAINT 1
WINDOWS WOOD/ALUMINUM. PAINT/FACTORY 2
UTILITY ELEC./TEL. 3
FUNCTION OFFICE 3
OVERALL 3
A-15




DELAP DOCK
YARD SHOP - OFFICE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR CONCRETE/METAL CONCRETE/PAINT 2
WALL WOOD/METAL PAINT 1
DOORS WOOD PAINT 1
WINDOWS WOOD/ALUMINUM PAINT/FACTORY 2
UTILITY ELEC./PLUMBING 2
FUNCTION OFFICE/STORAGE 2
OVERALL 2
A-16

BUILDING EXTERIOR (CMU DETERIORATED FROM SALT SPRAY) BUILDING EXTERIOR


BUILDING EXTERIOR (ROOF EDGE SPALL)

BUILDING EXTERIOR
ULIGA DOCK
ELECTRICAL VAULT

ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

WALL CMU NONE 3
WINDOWS
UTILITY ELECTRICAL 5
FUNCTION UTILITY 5
OVERALL 4
A-17



ULIGA DOCK BUILDING INTERIOR BUILDING EXTERIOR
GUARD HOUSE

ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

FLOOR WOOD WOOD 1
ROOF WOOD GALV, METAL 1
WALL WOOD WOOD - PAINT 1
DOORS WOOD PAINT 1
WINDOWS WOOD/ALUM. PAINT 1
UTILITY ELEC./TEL. 1
FUNCTION SECURITY 2
OVERALL 1
A-18




ULIGA DOCK
WAREHOUSE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION RANK
STRUCTURE FINISH

ROOF STEEL GALV. METAL 4
WALL CMU/STEEL PAINT 3
UTILITY ELEC../TEL. 1
FUNCTION STORAGE 3
OVERALL 3
A-19
Port of Majuro Pre-Final Master Plan February 2014 Appendix B
APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B:
INITIAL PORT STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES

M E E T I N G M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: J anuary 8-16, 2013

TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel & J im Pedersen

MEETING LOCATION: Various Locations (and dates)

ATTENDEES: Captain J oe Tiobech, RMIPA
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

1. The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority oversees operations of the small
vessels docked at the Outer Island Fish Market Center.

2. The interisland cargo and passenger ferries typically have a capacity of around 125
people, but many times go over this amount. And a number of the fishing vessels in
Majuro lagoon are not up to international standards because the fishing vessels do not
fall under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations.
While the ports authoritys first priority is the cargo ships, they should not ignore net
repair operations.

3. At the Uliga Dock, the Ports Authority attempts to abide by International Ship and Port
Facility Security Code (ISPS) for security, safety for fueling operations, immigration, etc.
The warehouse adjacent to the security gate at the Uliga dock is jointly used by the U.S.
AID, as well as storage and machinery related to the interisland cargo operations. The
RMIPA used to have an office at the Uliga dock for customs, immigration, etc. but do not
anymore. The office was built, but not all of the agencies moved in so it was not fully
utilized.

4. In response to our question concerning monitoring of incoming vessels to the Lagoon,
Mr. Tiobech said that he is aware that most cargo vessels have on board an automated
identification system (AIS) that ports use to monitor the location of vessel moorage and
movements following initial berthing or moorage. We said that we would look more into
available systems that we might consider for supporting future port management. The
vessels that are anchored in the lagoon should be placed at least two cable lengths
away from each other. A local vessel traffic service (VTS) would be used in conjunction
with the ships AIS.

5. Within about 72 hours of an anticipated vessel arrival in port, a vessel contacts its local
shipping agent. The shipping agent advises RMIPA and other agency representatives
that will meet the vessel before or after the vessel enters the entrance to the Lagoon.
Soon after arrival, a small boat transports reps from RMIPA, RMIEPA, Customs and
Immigration, and MIMRA(?) to inspect the incoming ship, collect passports, and related
fees. RMIPA pilots pilot the vessel into port. Mr. Tiobech reported that roughly two to six
vessels enter the port every day.
B-1

DATE: J anuary 9, 2013

TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Marshall Island Resort

ATTENDEES: Bernie Vallencia, Matson
Bori Ysawa, Majuro Marine
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

General

Bernie formerly represented Mobil Oil Micronesia before joining Matson.

Schedules and Cargo Volumes

1. Matson is in and out of Port of Majuro in about one day.

2. In terms of empty containers, Matson likes to pick up about the same amount that it
delivers. However, Matson has left more than it usually picks up due to some problems
associated with its vessels that serve Micronesia.

3. Matson has shared with Bernie that they believe cargo volumes will remain flat for the
next three to five years.

4. Even though more refrigerated containers represent an increasing proportion of
international cargo, Matson does not envision investing in the purchase of more reefer
containers. Reefer containers range from $30,000 - $40,000 each.

Port Deficiencies

1. Container yard lighting is not adequate. Matson has experienced a significant amount of
consignees not receiving containerized cargo. Cargo arrives but somehow is stolen once
cargo is taken to container freight station (CFS) facility awaiting clearance by Customs
or pickup by customers. RMIPA has responded by installing some security lighting, but
more is needed.

2. Bori mentioned that there are about 18 reefer plugs at Delap port, but more are needed.
The reefer plugs are 220v, but Matson containers can plug into 220 or 440 v outlets.

3. Lyon Associates needs to speak with RMI Customs because there seems to be a bottle-
neck there that is delaying the clearance of cargo. Although payment of applicable fees
by some consignees may be part of the problem.

B-2
Additional Points

1. Recommended discussions/interview with Tom Billings, the operations manager of
Matson out of Guam.

2. There are currently two fueling entities and locations at Majuro. Mobil provides fueling
services for smaller fishing vessels, and local outer islands shipping/ferry boats. The
Marshalls Energy Company sells fuel out of the Delap dock for mainly larger fishing
vessels such as purse seiners and the occasional Navy boats and/or private yachts
passing through the area.

3. The Delap dock is only large enough to offload one vessel at a time. However, when
fueling operations are occurring, there is often not enough room for a larger container
vessel to be offloaded while a purse seiner or other vessel is taking on fuel.

4. Matson will typically ship the containers to Majuro, but there are often cash problems for
the customers to pay for their cargo. Matson is often times taking a risk in delivering the
cargo without sure payment in order to not cause any delays in the shipping of goods.
This problem is especially evident in CFS shipping.

5. Matson typically has at least 1 to 2 CFS containers per arrival, or about 35% of their
business. Majuro Marine is the local shipping agent for CFS containers. Coming out of
Hawaii or the US mainland, customers will work through Triple B forwarders, and coming
out of Australia, customers will work through J effrey Hughes.

6. When the containers arrive in Majuro, the containers are offloaded and unloaded in the
Stevedores warehouse. The customer has a house bill that has to be showed to
Customs who will clear the items. Customs will sign off on the house bill when the cargo
tariffs are paid, which will allow them to pick up the goods.

7. Matson is currently in the process of setting up a one stop shop in Guam which would
have a building for offloading cargo accepting CFS, containers, etc. with a customs
office right there. The customer can then clear customs on their cargo and pick up the
items in one location. Matson was not interested in setting up the same operation in
Majuro, but was no opposed to it.

8. Since there is only one fairway to enter the lagoon area, is it advantageous to have the
different vessels that are anchored offshore segregated into certain areas with a more
clearly defined activities and routes? This question was referred to a Matson captain.

9. There are currently 18 reefer plugs installed at the Delap dock with an additional 12
more planned for installation. They range from 220V to 480V.

10. The ships come twice a month on the Matson ships. Of the containers coming to
Majuro, approximately 75 a month are from the U.S. with approximately 60 containers a
month coming from Asia. Of those containers, approximately 25% are reefers.

11. For Matson, the super reefer are not currently worth the investment. Since the
containers take such a long time to reach China, Thailand, Asia, etc. (and back) they
would need a larger quantity in order to have enough in circulation at any given point in
time. Other shipping companies may be interested in the super reefer containers.
B-3

12. The delivery goal for a Matson container ship coming through Majuro is to drop off 75 full
containers and pick up 75 empty ones. But that is not always the case.

13. Matson does not have any issues with the local RMI EPA. However, when doing capital
improvements or infrastructure projects, they can run into issues with the US EPA region
9 regulations.

14. Comments regarding RMIPA include the need to communicate with other agencies, and
to improve security at the Delap container yard. Items in the containers have come up
missing in Majuro. Matson would track the seal number from Guam to Majuro and
sometimes it would change here in Majuro with some items missing from the load. The
missing items are typically from the same vendor.

15. Matson has partnered with Kyowa to ship through FSM, Guam, Korea, and J apan.

B-4


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: RMIPA Office, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Hackney Takju, Marianas Express Line (MEL)
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

1. Pacific Shipping is an agent for MEL. MEL started shipping in November 2012 and
began with the export of frozen fish to Asia and the US West Coast. Luenthai and RMI
have a joint venture that is taking fish harvested primarily by longline vessels.
Refrigerated containers used by MEL provide temperatures ranging between -25F and -
45 degrees Fahrenheit. The main fishing company that MEL works with is Luen Thai
which is a joint venture between the RMI Government and Luen Thai.

2. Two of the larger fishing operations in Majuro are Pan Pacific Foods, which is a joint
venture with the Marshall Islands government, and another company from China that
has a joint venture with the Marshall Islands Ministry of Resource and Development. Mr.
Takju is not aware of any long term contracts for selling fish. However, the Ministry of
Resource and Development has all of the information on fishing throughout Micronesia.

3. The largest volumes of containers are predominately being shipped to Asia with a much
smaller amount going to U.S. markets. The containers are sent out twice a month with
December 2012 having an approximate total of 36 containers sent to Asia and 4 sent to
the U.S. These amounts were sent on two different container vessels. In addition to
transportation of fish from Marshallese waters via ocean freight, there is also daily air
freight service that flies out fish from the airport, as well as fish being transported on
United Airlines flights to Hawaii.

4. Fish are brought to the processing plant which is east of the Delap port where it is
processed and packaged for shipment via air or ocean freight. The ocean freight is
loaded into refrigerated containers at the processing plant and transferred to the Delap
port where it is loaded onto the cargo ships.

5. Luen Thai has a water tanker located at the fish processing plant to fill up vessels with
fresh water. Currently the fishing vessels can either purchase fresh water from the
Majuro Water and Sewer Company or through Luen Thais water tanker at the fish
processing plant. This alleviates some of the burden placed on Majuros natural
resources.

B-5


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Robert Reimers Hotel

ATTENDEES: Peter Torres
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Reimer family invited Torres to Majuro to help family plan improvements to different properties
throughout RMI. He was invited because of his extensive experience (40+years) in cargo
handling and a personal relationship with one family member who formerly lived and worked
with Torres in California. Torres also attended public information meeting on J anuary 9.

Port Issues and Recommendations

Pedersen asked Torres to provide his recommendations for future port improvements by
assuming that the president of RMI gave him the authority to identify relevant issues and
determine the future direction of the port.

Torres responded with the following:

1. There is inadequate electrical power capacity to support future port improvements. A
substation that serves only the port needs to be constructed at the port. Marshalls
Energy Corporation would need to cooperate with RMIPA to support additional
connected loads.

2. The layout of the port does not work.

a. Inadequate dock space is available to use other cargo handling equipment, e.g.,
gantry crane or transtainer, for unloading containers from container vessels and
related cargo handling. Public works items need to be removed from the yard
area.

b. Torres recommends the use of a gantry crane for the unloading of containerized
cargo from container vessels. The gantry crane would be situated about six feet
from the dock face. A trench, several feet deep would be situated where an
electrical cable, providing power to the crane, would move along the trench.
Immediately adjacent to the trench, one of two rails would be installed to enable
the movement of the crane on the shore side of the crane. The gantry crane
would consume about 30 x 50 feet of dock area and extend about 90 to 100 feet
high. Above the base of the gantry crane, an operators cab would extend the 30
B-6
feet dimension another 30 feet. A used gantry crane would cost about $2 million
and possibly require another $1 million for mobilization to the Port of Majuro.
Utility truck(s) (UTR) would pass under the crane, receive the container unloaded
by the crane, and relocate the container need the stack where the container
would be stacked by a forklift or reach stacker.

c. A second option would be to purchase a used rubber wheeled transtainer for
about $1million and another one million for mobilization. While Torres prefers the
gantry crane, he recognizes that the transtainer would require a lower capital
expenditure; further, the transtainer is able to be moved around port yard area. In
contrast, the gantry crane remains on one track several feet behind the dock
face.

d. Refrigerated containers and related reefer plug system need to be located
nearby a new electric substation.

e. New container freight station (CFS) is needed for the unstuffing of individual
containers by more than one consignee. Container chassis should be backed
into the enclosed facility. Need, at least, 100-200 feet of backup space from front
of CFS to enable the efficient delivery of CFS cargo to the facility via container
chassis.

f. Lighting is the yard area is inadequate, but could be improved by the installation
of roughly six new lights running north-south and 20 lights running east and west
across the yard. He recommends 90 w solar lights which he sells. Otherwise,
lighting could be energized by electric power from Marshall Energy Corporation.

g. Torres said that delays caused by slow documentation by RMI Customs officials
could be alleviated through the use of hand-held scanning devices that could
read contents of each container.

The potential expansion of the cargo yard would be to construct a seaward expansion of the
existing dock roughly 200 feet or more to enable the use of a gantry crane or rubber wheeled
transtainer for container unloading. Torres mentioned that he recently observed construction of
an expanded dock through the use of reinforced, precast concrete piers that are about 3x3- foot
columns that are driven down to ocean floor. A concrete wharf was constructed on top of the
piers.

Additional Points

1. In viewing the Stevedoring operations at the port, Robert noted that it took approximately
one hour to offload the first container. He also noted that safety was not up to
standards.

2. With proper equipment and standards, containers can legally be stacked 5 high.

3. Rollo container ships do not have as high of a capacity of traditional ships and also need
a large area for the offloading ramp.

B-7
4. Infrared scanners for customs to clear cargo may reduce the paperwork over the current
manual system.

5. Lighting and optimal port layout options were also discussed.

B-8

DATE: J anuary 11 and 12, 2013

TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel and J im Pedersen

MEETING LOCATION: Majuro Energy Company, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Steve Wakefield, Chief Technical Officer, Marshall Island Combined Utilities
Cell: 692-455-5191
J im Pedersen, Lyon
Sean Dunckel, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Wakefield has lived and worked in the Marshall Islands for 26 years.

System Capacity

The rated capacity for Majuros electrical power system is about 26 megawatts (MW), but
operates more in the range of 10 MW. Majuro Energy Company (MEC) operates seven diesel
engine generators which are linked together. But, Wakefield reports that five of these generators
are down rated due, in part, to past damages caused by fire in the power plant. Engine 4 is not
operable at this time.

Distribution

There are three primary feeders that distribute power to the overall distribution system.

System Demand

Around 2000, the demand for electrical power was near 13.5 MW. As electrical rates were
increased, consumers made significant adjustments in their use of electrical energy. Average
daily loads are about 6 MW; peak demands approximately 8.5 MW.

Service to Port of Majuro

Voltage to the Port of Majuros Delap dock is roughly 14.5 kV. MEC typically provides
transformer and meters to larger customers and their development projects. Customers would
pay for cost of construction and installation of equipment for any new substation and related
distribution from the meter. Underground distribution is preferred by MEC. These general
policies would be applicable to any expanded service that would be provided to RMIPA.

System Reliability

B-9
MEC typically schedules one planned system outage per month. An additional two or three
unplanned outages occur due to lack of system capacity and/or errors by operating personnel.

Electrical Standards

MEC would provide guidance concerning specifications for new, expanded electrical system.
However, they have not adopted any design or construction standards. Informally, MEC
generally follows the latest edition of the National Electric Code.

Planned Improvements

MEC continues to attempt to upgrade its existing diesel engine generators to increase its overall
system capacity. Its personnel perform maintenance and repairs on its generators due to lack of
funds and the cost of transporting generation units off-island. When they are stumped, MEC
occasionally brings in a generator specialist to oversee repairs of selected generator units.

Fuel Storage

MEC is planning to expand its existing fuel tank storage area, which is located on the south side
of the main shoreline road, to lands situated immediately west of the fuel tank storage area.
MEC wants to incorporate new storage tanks for J et B and mo-gas. Wakefield says that sales of
fuel, supplied by Mobil Oil Micronesia, are what help offset financial losses in electrical system
operation and maintenance. With this perspective, the delivery and sale of diesel fuel to
incoming fishing vessels represents an important revenue opportunity. Along the east side of
the port area, there is one 16-inch line that oil tankers use to deliver diesel fuel to MEC; two
adjoining six-inch lines are used by MEC to provide diesel fuel to incoming fishing vessels.

Land Ownership

Wakefield reported that RMIPA is needlessly providing lease payments to private landowners as
the landowner of this property signed a quick claim deed to the government when the port was
established in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Wakefield said he would transmit a digital copy of
the quick claim deed to me.
B-10


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel & J im Pederson

MEETING LOCATION: Amata Kabua International Airport, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Thomas Madisson Airport Manager
J im Pedersen, Lyon
Sean Dunckel, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Thomas is an employee of RMIPA as the airport Manager.

Fish Exports

Whole fish are being transported to Asia, Hawaii and Mainland US by air. Maddison said that
personnel at downtown Majuro office would probably have whole fish volumes. We should
contact him early next week to see if he was able to locate information.

Outdoor Lighting Standard

We observed light standard outside of the main AARF facility at the Airport. The light standard
was manufactured by Millerbernd Manufacturing Company based in Winsted, MN. Light
standard can be lowered by manual crank to facilitate bulb replacement or light repair at safe
height.

Additional Points

1. Thomas Madisson provided a tour of the ARFF facility pointing out any deficiencies in
building operations and/or performance as well as pointing out the facility details.

2. Asia Pacific Airlines handles the air freight for the fishing industry. There is a flight every
other day that will transport sashimi grade tuna as well as aquarium fish, coral, etc. for
the aquarium trade. Special chartered flights will also supplement the normal flight
operations if there is a particularly large valuable tuna that is caught.

3. A majority of the fish are flown directly to Asia. However, when there is a particularly
high value fish, it may go other places depending on the buyer.

4. Rongelap and Namdrik atolls cultivate pearls for jewelry which are typically flown out via
the airport.

B-11


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel

MEETING LOCATION: RMI Immigration Office

ATTENDEES: Paul Tonyokwe, Immigration Officer
Sean Dunckel, Lyon

MINUTES

General

1. When international vessels arrive in Majuro lagoon, the pilot will take them to either the
Delap dock or the Uliga dock where a boarding party will clear the vessel for any crew
or cargo can come ashore. For immigration, the immigration officer will receive a list of
all of the ships officers and crew and compare that list with their passports. The
passports are then brought to the immigration office, and the vessels crew are given
shore passes.

2. The shore passes have certain criteria, such as 10pm curfew where are crew members
must be either back on the ship or inside at 10pm. Upon departure, the vessel gets
boarded again and the passports are stamped and returned.

3. The vessels must notify immigration at least 24 hours in advance of their arrival. The
shipping agents typically will coordinate with the different agencies involved in the
boarding party. They will typically either call or email the arrival information.

4. One issue that Paul has with the Ports Authority is the security at the Delap and Uliga
ports. The security guards, in his opinion, do not keep an adequate record of who
comes and goes through the port, which is needed for immigration control.

5. Another item that was requested is a system that will integrate the data collected from
immigration at both the airports and seaports. There is also currently no immigration
control at the airport for local Marshallese residents returning to Majuro. The data is
collected when they leave the airport, but there is inadequate space for immigration
control upon return. This makes it difficult to keep track of population emigration
information.

6. Immigration would be interested in having an office at the Port in order to facility the
processing of incoming and outgoing vessels.

B-12


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Ministry of Transportation and Communications Office at the Uliga
Docks

ATTENDEES: Phil Phillipo, Secretary, Ministry of Transportation and Communication
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Micronesian Shipping Commission

Micronesia Shipping Commission (MSC) is comprised of three ministers. MSC formed to
ensure:

Ensure the operation of safe ports in RMI, FSM, and Republic of Palau.
Regulate maritime activity.
Ensure fair competition.

MSC does not control shipping rates.

Marine cargo transport companies, e.g., Matson, must obtain entry assurance certificates to
operate in RMI, FSM, and Palau. MSC annual reviews the operation of each company even
though licenses extend for five years. Companies pay as much as $20,000 per year for these
licenses. Licenses can be revoked for non-payment or breaches of service commitments to the
MSC.


Philippo desires to see Majuro become a regional hub more marine transportation in
Micronesia.
Port should make an expanded use of available technology to ensure safe and effective
operations.
RMI should expand the capacity of its port management, operations and maintenance
personnel.

Additional Points

1. The Micronesian Shipping Commission (MSC) consists of members from the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. One of their main
goals is to provide safe and secure ports in the region requiring ships and ports to
conform to International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS).

B-13
2. Marianas Express Lines has recently been given approval by the MSC to conduct
shipping operations in the region.

3. Before acquiring a license to conduct business in the region, a company must submit a
proposal to the MSC that is reviewed by the 3 ministers or commissioners of the 3
countries (RMI, FSM, and Palau) that make up the MSC. The MSC reviews the
application to ensure that their proposed acitivites do not encroach on another
companys business. If the proposal is approved, the entity would receive an Entry
Assurance Certificate (EAC), which would allow them to do business within RMI, FSM,
Palau waters.

4. When reviewing applications, the MSC takes in to account the different economic
activities and licenses that have already been issued. For instance, the MSC would
likely not be interested in granting more fishing licenses unless there are increased local
benefits. However, if there is a company that offers to transport metals off island for
recycling, than they would be more likely to grant approval. The MSC ensures that the
local country or region adequately benefits from the companys operations.

5. The annual fee, referred to the Vessel Operator Common Carrier has gone up to
approximately $20,000 per year. Fishing vessels are not included in this category, but
general shippers would be. The MSC also ensures that the companies abide by their
proposals that were submitted. If desired, the companies can arrange ongoing contracts
with the MSC, for example, a 5 year contract.

6. The MSC concept is being accepted worldwide and is being emulated across the Pacific.

7. Mr. Philippos main goals for the future, with respect to the Majuro seaports, are security
compliance with ISPS codes, attempting to adopt worldwide standards, and increased
capacity building.

8. Modern technology is encouraged to be used if manpower is insufficient.

9. One main obstruction in expansion for facilities is land owner compliance. Plans need to
seek approval from 3 different levels of land ownership; the Chief, the Head of the Clan,
and the Family. The Land Registration Authority was established as a one stop shop
for land usage requests. They keep an active list of landowners that are open to
development on their lands.

10. Companies that seek to do business in the Marshall Islands, need to have a localship, or
partnership with a local resident.

11. The Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA) oversees fishing operations,
and operate under several different agreements.

12. All vessels coming in to the port need to be piloted by the Ports Authority (at or above
100 ton displacement).

13. Currently, the residents are saying that fishing activities or vessels are coming too close
to the residential areas.
B-14


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel

MEETING LOCATION: Robert Reimers Hotel, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Pony Ma, Shipping Agent for Ching Fu Shipping Company
Sean Dunckel, Lyon Associates
J im Pedersen, Pedersen Planning Consultants

MINUTES

1. Pony Ma has been working in RMI for about eight years. He provided us with an
overview of commercial fishing activity in RMI and related uses of the Port of Majuro.

2. There are fish buyers, fishing boat owners and shipping agents who all work together to
transship fish from the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone to market channels in Asia and
Thailand.

3. Fish buyers charter fish carrier vessels (aka mother ships) which are primarily owned
by larger companies based in Korea, China, and Taiwan. Carrier vessels have an
average holding capacity of 3,000-4,000 metric tons (MT) of fish. Some carrier vessels
have capacities of 4,000-5,000 MT capacity. There are about 25-30 Chinese carrier
vessels, 30+carrier vessels from Korea, and other 23 carrier vessels from Taiwan that
are operating within the Port of Majuro.

4. Of the different shipping agents in Majuro, Ching Fu does about 100 fishing trips a year,
Uliga Shipping does about 150, KMI does about 100, Koos does about 80, and Pan
Pacific Fishing does about 80 fishing trips a year. One fishing trip consists of filling one
purse seiner.

5. Throughout the Pacific, a majority of the purse seiners are owned by Taiwan, or
Taiwanese companies. The J apanese salaries are too high for them to be economical.
In Majuro, Chinese companies own approximately 25 +/- purse seiners, 30-35 are
Korean, and Taiwan owns around 80. Of those 80, only about 20 are Taiwanese
flagged ships, with the rest registered in various parts of the world. Pan Pacific Fishing
also has their own fishing boat(s).

6. Fishing boat owners from Asia typically own about 10 fishing vessels, but some own only
two or three boats. One fish carrier vessel typically travels with the purse seiners. When
in the Port of Majuro, purse seiners will transfer their catch of say 1,000 to 1,200 metric
tons to the carrier vessel. Purse seiners may remain a few days in port but then return to
the RMI EEZ to fish and return to the carrier vessel, or return to their home port. If the
fishing boats elect to fish more in the RMI EEZ, the carrier vessel will likely remain
moored offshore in port.

B-15

7. The price for a ton of fish is $1,200-$1,500 per ton. The licensing fees are currently
around $150,000/month, or $1,000,000 per year for a ship.

8. Most of the purse seiners and mother ships fuel at sea, depending on the prices.

9. Fueling of purse seiners when fueled in the lagoon is done at the Delap dock. A purse
seiner would typically take on approximately 50,000-100,000 gallons of fuel. The long
liners would take on approximately 3,000 gallons. ARLO is a local fueling operation that
purchases fuel from Mobil and MEC, and has one truck for fueling operations.

10. The purse seiners if they were to take on water would need about 6,000-10,000 gallons
of potable water. Ma says that the availability of water is important for some fishing
boats. For net repair operations, the purse seiner would need about 400-500 of dock
space for net repair. If they have a power block, then they can get by with only 300 of
dock space.

Note: We learned from captain of American Victory that his purse seiner has its own
desalination system aboard boat; he does not need to dock, incur dockage fees, and obtain
fresh water from Port of Majuro.

Additional Points

1. A 1,000 ton capacity purse seiner is the optimum size vessel for at least the next ten
years. It is unknown if that is metric of US tons. The length is around 230.

2. Comparing similar port operations, Guam had 6 harbor masters working 24 hours a day
for their harbor.

3. The mother ships store the fish at -40 F. The price of skipjack tuna is $1.50 per
kilogram while the price of Bigeye Tuna is $30 per kilogram.

4. There is a need for a net repair area. Some repairs are made along the dock apron at
Delap Dock. However, when international cargo ships and fuel tanks arrive at port,
RMIPA gives them priority and fishing vessels are asked to move away from the dock.

5. Ma believes that a reasonable design size for fishing vessels is a purse seiner that has a
1,000 ton capacity. Vessel length will range between 300 and 500 feet.

Note: Ma later came back to Sean and I and asked if we would be interested in boarding
American Victory on Sunday morning so that we could observe the captains interaction with
the RMI boarding party, as well as the transshipment of purse seiner catch to its carrier
vessel. We gladly accepted the invitation to see these procedures firsthand and take some
digital photos.
B-16

TO: Pat Campanella
FROM: Sean Dunckel
MEETING LOCATION: Capitol Building
ATTENDEES: Staff at RMI Customs
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon
MINUTES

1. Upon arrival at the customs office in the capitol building, Daniel was not available, so we
interviewed one of his staff members.

2. The parliament is currently working on setting up an office as a one stop shop for
incoming container vessels. This office was previously set up around 2005, but the
other agencies never came and it closed sometime in 2006 or 2007.

3. Customs and the boarding party is typically an efficient process, but can cause a hold up
when it comes to Container Freight Station (CFS) cargo if the customer does not pay the
tariffs. The container ships are pre-cleared before the ship arrives in port.

4. Customs typically applies risk management to inspect containers randomly. Of a cargo
shipment, only about 3-5 containers will be thoroughly inspected. The shipping agents
prepares the cargo manifest for the customs agents.

5. The customs officer has seen a mobile scanning vehicle in Taiwan, which could aid in
inspecting the cargo containers.

6. Many of the ports in the Pacific are moving towards a Post Clearance Audit (PCA). This
is a procedure which expedites the clearing of cargo by immediately accepting all cargo.
The customs agent would then do periodic inspections when the customer offloads their
cargo at their business. This procedure is currently done in Fiji, where some of the
customs agents went for a workshop in Suva around August of 2012. The workshop
was sponsored by the European Union and the Oceanic Customs Organization. There
is another one scheduled for March 2013.

7. The cargo is tracked manually at the RMI Customs office.

8. General cargo information comes in to the Customs office. When the customer picks up
the goods, they would come to the Customs office to clear the cargo. The customer
would come with the bill of label to the customs office to pay the tariffs. The customs
B-17
agent would then randomly inspect the customers containers. This inspection process
takes approximately 1-2 hours, but can take up to 4 hours for certain goods, such as
propane. For propane, as an example, the customs officer will inspect the propane tank
to determine if that particular type of container is banned in RMI.

9. For CFS cargo, the container is released without inspection. The CFS cargo is full
release.

10. There is one company in Majuro, Pacific Trading Company, that will accept cargo if the
customer does not pay the tariffs. The company will hold the goods for about 2-3
months and if the customer does not pay, they will sell it.

11. If the customer makes specific arrangement with the chief of customs, they can hold it
until payment is submitted. The items are typically held in the Stevedores warehouse.

12. RMI Customs currently has 8 officers that oversee operations at both the airport and
seaport. They were planning on having an office at the Stevedores building for the
customs officers, which would rotate between the seaports and airport.

13. General cargo is taxed at 8% and food is taxed at 5%.

14. It was requested that customs provide a report for cargo going back three years. When
asked specifically about CFS cargo, we were referred to the Stevedores.

15. There currently is no specific law for the amount of time a customers cargo can sit on
the dock before it can clear customs. If a law were enacted, 90 days would be the
preferred time span. Most of the cargo containers get paid on time. However,
sometimes the shipping agents will misplace or oversee a bill of label, in which case it
may sit at the dock for up to 6 months. However, that is rare.

B-18


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: KMI Fishing Vessel Agency, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Yeng Tsung Sheng, KMI Fishing
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

1. In 1998, Taiwan government wanted to build a dry dock facility for long line vessels and
purse seiners at a site owned by or adjacent to PII (across bridge). Ching Fu was in
charge of constructing the dry dock facility which was donated by Taiwan. The project
had initially began in 1998, and had constructed an entire drydock which was to be
shipped to Majuro. However, there was resistance from both the RMI EPA and the local
landowners of where the dry dock facility was to be located. With no adequate dry dock
facility in Majuro, ships have to go to Fiji, Tahitit, Australia,or the ships home country in
order to make repairs. Sheng believes that a new dry dock facility for these vessels is
still needed.

Note: Interesting that Sheng did not recognize available dry dock facilities in Guam or
Kosrae as a viable option.

2. Need berthing space at a fisheries dock that is primarily used by smaller longliners, e.g.,
15>30 meter class, and smaller purse seiners, e.g., 40-60 meter class. When these
vessels presently berth temporarily dock at Delap dock for net repair, vessel captains
are told to move away from the dock when an international cargo vessel is calling on the
Port of Majuro.

3. When purse seiners need refueling, they are typically met by oil tankers. Purse seiners
typically operate in offshore waters that are about 100 meters which tend to be
considerably calmer than the locations where long liner vessels operate. In contrast,
long liners often operate in rougher sea conditions, e.g., 150 meter depths, which is
typically less conducive to safe refueling operations. Consequently, any new fisheries
dock would have the capability to refuel long line vessels.

4. Desired berthing space depths at a fisheries dock would be about six meters for long line
vessels and 8 meters for purse seiners.

Additional Points

1. If the price was right and the infrastructure was in place, Majuro could do up to 300
containers of fish exportation. In addition, the approximately 500 long lining boats could
add to that transshipment quantity.

B-19

2. Prior to Pan Pacific Fishing Company, the processing plant was owned by PMNO. In
order for operations to be cost effective, Pan Pacific would need to import approximately
200 people from Asia to run the plant and teach the local Marshallese workers.
Currently the local employees are too slow at processing that the plant is not
economically feasible.

3. The long liners fish farther away from the purse seiners because they do not want their
fishing lines tangled up with the purse seiners nets. They also fish in much deeper,
cooler water down to approximately 150 meters.

4. An adequate dock length for two purse seiners would be approximately 200-300 meters.

B-20


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation, MISC office

ATTENDEES: Wally Milne, Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) is responsible for the transportation of general
cargo to the outer islands of RMI, as well as transport of copra from the outer islands to Tabolar
at Delap dock in Majuro.

In terms of marine transport to the Outer Islands, PII has one vessel and two tugboats that it
uses primarily for transporting cargo associated with their own construction projects.

1. After copra is unloaded in Majuro, residents in Majuro have about one week to deliver
cargo to MISC for their loading onto the next vessel traveling to the Outer Islands.

2. If the existing warehouse leased by MISC is renovated, a new restroom is needed.

3. Milne suggested that pilings at Uliga Dock are about 20 years old and need
replacement.

4. Security at Uliga Dock needs to be more efficient and effective.

a. Some MISC personnel have been unable to gain access to warehouse when
RMIPA security personnel are unable or unavailable to provide access to MISC
personnel.
b. Items have been taken from interisland vessels a day or two after loading of
cargo by MISC.

5. RMI continues to seek ways to cut MISCs budget for interisland transportation. Labor
rates have been reduced for some MISC personnel. Budget cuts are being made even
though more cargo is being imported to the Outer Islands and more copra is being
transshipped to Majuro by MISC.

6. MISC personnel offload copra at Uliga Dock when Delap dock is not available.

B-21
Additional Points

1. The Marshall Islands Shipping Corporation (MISC) operates out of the Uliga docks and
transports cargo to the outer islands. The cargo typically consists of personal items,
food, construction materials, general cargo, and passengers.

2. The Ministry of Transportation and Communication had bought 4 vessels, but currently
have two. In addition, there are many smaller private boats that provide transit for
passengers and cargo. MISC currently owns 3 vessels with an additional 2 more
coming. The two new vessels are donations from the J apanese. One will be for
cargo/passengers and the other will be a landing craft. The vessels are approximately
350-400 tons in size.

3. The Delap dock is being used for offloading copra from the outer atolls. However, when
the Delap dock is full, it is sometimes offloaded at Uliga and delivered via truck to the
copra processing plant.

4. The only other outer atoll besides Ebeye that has a dock is Likiep. For other atolls, the
vessels will anchor offshore.

5. The outer island fish market has fiberglass boats for their operations.

6. The Asian Development Bank recently performed a report for the RMI cabinet about
shipping rates. Currently the rates are the same as they had been in 1983.

7. Adjacent to the Uliga dock entrance is a warehouse that was donated by USAID. The
warehouse is used for the storage of interisland cargo until it can be loaded on to the
vessels.

8. MISC gives the cargo ships one week to load the vessels. However, they always wait
until the last minute to load the ships, which causes a lot of congestion on the dock.
Currently, all of the passengers and passengers families come on to the dock. There is
no waiting facility and no toilets. The passengers are issued tickets.

9. The busiest times of the year are during the summer months when the teachers and the
church groups are travelling to and from Majuro to the outer atolls.

10. J aluit and Wotje have two of the largest schools of the outer atolls.

11. There is a sewer line along the main road, but it does not come to the Uliga dock (to
Wallys knowledge).

12. Some things needing improvement are; security, an automated gate system, the zincs
on the dock also need replacing (they are over 20 yrs. old).

13. The recent installation of cameras at the Uliga and Delap docks has brought down levels
of theft at both dock facilities.

14. MISC is a quasi-public/private entity where the government owns the vessels. However,
the government keeps trying to reduce their budget and wont let them increase the
shipping rates.
B-22

15. There has been a trend towards increased cargo to the outer atolls due to the
government keeping copra prices high. The sentiment is that the government cannot
continue to keep the copra prices artificially high.

B-23


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) Office, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Glen J oseph, Director, Marshall Island Marine Resources Authority
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

1. Mr. J oseph says that RMI has a national, regional and international role in the
management of fisheries in Micronesia. RMI is a party to the Nauru Agreement which
involves RMI, FSM, Republic of Palau, Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and
Papua New Guinea. RMI also has responsibilities associated with its participation in the
FFA and Western Central Pacific Agency. Tarawa/Kiribati have designated Majuro as
the transshipment port of choice in the region.

2. One key responsibility is to maintain a profile of transshipment activities, such as
tracking where the international fishing fleets are in the RMI Exclusive Economic Zone.
Other responsibilities include verifying catch volumes, conservation and sustainability of
fishery resources, the administration of needed regulations, and expanding economic
development opportunities.

Fishery Trends in the RMI EEZ

1. Previously, Hawaii and Guam were the major transshipment ports for fishing activities.
However, since 9/11, the government has enacted much tighter regulations which
spurred the fishing fleets too look elsewhere. Although the regional regulations require
certain things, such as transshipment within the port(s), ultimately the decision lies with
the fishing companies and their business models.

2. In 2012, commercial fishery activities involved 371 fishing vessels that included 209
purse seiners, 81 carrier vessels, and 81 (?) long line vessels. About 30+vessels per
month come into the Port of Majuro for transshipment of tuna. Purse seiners typically
load their catches onto carrier vessels which transport to the canned tuna market in
Thailand or other points in Asia. Currently, about 5% of the fishing activities in the region
are offloaded on to shore in Majuro. The other 95% is transshipped via mother ships and
other avenues.

3. Members of the FFA are considering a ban on the transshipment of fish on the high seas
that would require fishing vessels to land fish on the shore of established transshipment
ports such as Pohnpei, Tarawa, Point Moresby, Majuro and others. FFA contemplating
B-24
the potential impacts of this and other potential conservation measures as fisheries
represents an important source of revenue for each member country of the FFA.

4. About 95 percent of catch transshipped in Majuro Atoll Lagoon is transshipped from
purse seiners; the remaining 5 percent obtained by long liners are transported via
refrigerated containers. 90 percent of the long liner catch goes to COSTCO on US West
Coast. Ten percent of the catch is yellow fin and bigeye tuna sold to the sashimi market.
Another regulation bans the transshipment of purse seiner vessels in the open ocean,
requiring that the transshipment activities occur in port. The long liners annual fee is a
percentage of the market value of their catch.

5. The Pan Pacific Food, Inc., which was originally owned and operated by PMPO (?),
folded around 2000. A new Chinese company came from Shanghai sometime after 2000
to take over the processing plant which is used to pack skipjack loins into six kilo sized
bags. These are loaded into refrigerated containers. This operation employs up to 1,000
part-time workers. The processing plant is supplied by fish caught by 40-50 long line
vessels that make just under 100 trips per year. Ten to fifteen of the 100 days are spent
fishing for deeper albacore tuna. Fish processing activities seems to cater to the long
liners. Currently, the capacity of the port is limited with the current size of the container
yard and length of dock.

6. A simple rapid assessment of the fishing operations in the region also seems to indicate
that 99% of the benefits go directly to Asia. But a much more comprehensive look
needs to occur at each member country to get a better feel for the real benefits. All of
the countries agree to not getting the full benefits in order to keep the activity in the area.
One goal is to integrate the fisheries as a whole.

7. On an annual basis, 8,470 metric tons of whole fish are transshipped in the RMI EEZ.
Another 2,000 metric tons are tuna loins processed by Pan Pacific Foods, Inc. and
exported via refrigerated containers. Consequently, just over 10,000 metric tons are
exported from RMI on an annual basis.

8. The regulating agency that requires fishing operations to transship in the port must
provide the necessary support for the fishing fleets. MIMRA and other agencies look out
for illegal activities such as smuggling, verifying fish catches and the locations of those
catches, etc. MIMRA mandates need to be threefold incorporating regulatory, economic
development, and conservation/sustainability. Although, since No man is an island,
RMI needs to work closely with the other countries in the region. This especially true
with the migratory nature of the fish that are being transported to the Majuro port.

9. The quick turnaround and availability of fuel, water, and provisions encourages
businesses to come to Majuro. When considering this kind of activity and that at fisheries
docks, there needs to be a better understanding of when Majuro has hit its limits with
regard to the resources it can supply. Additionally, the Republic of the Marshall Islands
needs to find ways to spur economic growth in the outer atolls as opposed to
concentrating it all in Majuro, i.e. the government wanting to set up infrastructure in
outlying atolls to compliment the economic activity in Majuro.

10. Mr. J oseph agrees with the need for a standalone fisheries dock in Majuro, but also
believes that it must be researched and done properly. It needs to be looked at
integrally to determine what can be tapped into with the resources that are available.
B-25
One issue to overcome is the availability and need for fresh water. It would be better for
the dock to be privately owned over government owned. Both have their own set of
positives and negatives but the recently developed land authority might be able to help
mediate the situation.

11. All fishing vessels which are members of the PNA are required to have Vessel
Monitoring Systems (VMS) which allows the vessel to be tracked so that the countries
can monitor which economic activity zone they are fishing at a given time. The local Sea
Patrol monitors the VMS as part of the boarding process for clearing vessels in to the
Majuro port. The J apanese have tried to vary the rate for fishing licenses for increased
offloading capabilities, which is termed islandization. The term represents adjusting
the fishing license rates to what best fits the country. The ideology has been slow to
implement, with the recent global recession contributing to the slowdown.
B-26


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel

MEETING LOCATION: Copra Processing Plant, Delap Dock

ATTENDEES: Mike Banzuela, Tobolar Copra Processing
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

1. Current yearly copra exports are approximately 500 metric tons. A vast majority of that
Copra is shipped via the Marshall Islands Shipping Coporation with about 20% coming
from small vessels.

2. The copra shipments get offloaded at the Delap dock for processing into coconut oil with
a byproduct of copra meal. Both the coconut oil and copra meal are exported in 20
containers. For the coconut oil, the containers have bladders that are placed inside to
transport the oil. The copra meal is transported either in 100 lb. bags or directly placed
in the container. One container can fit approximately 450 bags.

3. Approximately 300 tons of coconut oil is exported a month in about 15 containers. One
20 container can transport approximately 20 metric tons. Approximately 150 tons of
copra meal is exported monthly.

4. The main market for the coconut oil is Malaysia while the main markets for the copra
meal is Taiwan, Vietnam, FSM, Australia, etc. The copra meal can be used as fertilizer,
feed, or turned into fish feed pellets.

5. The virgin oil is made from green coconuts, while the crude coconut oil is made from
dried brown copra. The virgin coconut oil is for local consumption and not for export.
The US FDA has strict regulations on the importation of virgin coconut oil for
consumption, which prevents the export to US markets.

6. The processing plant used to be a semi-private company, but is now government owned,
operated, and subsidized by the government.

7. Tobolar is open to new markets such as coconut water and/or coconut oil for
consumption.

8. MISC offloads the copra on the dock adjacent to the copra warehouse on the Delap
dock face. The copra needs to be dry, so the transport to the warehouse needs to be
either close by, or the transport needs to keep the product dry.

B-27
9. The Asian Development Bank has recently sponsored the development of a ten year
plan for the processing plant. They are also getting a 305 ton ship for transporting copra
from the outer atolls. It was donated by Taiwan.

10. The copra is sent from Arno, Namdrik, Ailinglinglap, Ebon, Majuro, and J aluit atolls.

11. Tobolar currently has the Stevedores manually offload the vessels carrying copra. The
Stevedores manually offload the copra into nets where it then gets loaded onto a flatbed
truck and transferred into Tobolars warehouse. It currently takes up to 2 weeks to
offload a full vessel.

12. The capacity of the ships are around 250-300 tons of copra at an offloading price of
$17.50 per ton as well as dock space and rental of the truck. Tobolar requested a need
for a mechanized system for offloading the copra because of the prices that it costs to
offload manually. However, increasing the quality and amount of copra are of a higher
priority than purchasing their own offloading equipment.

B-28


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel

MEETING LOCATION: RMIPA Conference Room, Delap Dock

ATTENDEES: Robert Heine, RMIPA Port Operations Manager
Carrie J unior, RMIPA Port Staff
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon
MINUTES

Port of Majuro Operational Issues

1. Mr. Heine reported that shipping agents typically call within 24 hours of vessels calling
on Port of Majuro. Vessel reps provide, at least, estimated time or arrival at Calalin
channel, name of vessel, and call sign of vessel. Most of the time this information is
transmitted via fax.

2. Ship pilots radio once they are outside the channel. Ships contact Robert Heine for
authorization to dock at Delap dock or moor in the Lagoon.

3. Heavier vessel traffic occurs during the summer months.

4. When fishing vessel request access to Delap dock, they are typically directed by Heine
to berth at the center of dock for net repair and the east side of the dock for refueling.
Pilots at RMIPA will begin or make all vessel movements within the Lagoon.

5. The potential installation of a berthing system (using combination of radar and sonar
technology) that provides guidance for the berthing of vessels within 200 meters of dock
are not necessary since RMIPA pilots make these vessel movements.

6. Some type of marker on the dock is needed to help navigate cargo vessels that facilitate
the location of onboard cranes near the two container yard gates.

7. An office upstairs of the proposed Uliga warehouse/passenger terminal should be
established for all port operations personnel including, at least, J oe Tiobech, other
RMIPA pilots, Carrie J unior, and Robert Heine. This location would enable improved
visibility of vessel movements. Heine was receptive to the idea of a computerized vessel
tracking system that would monitor the location of all vessels while in port.

Additional Points

1. If a cargo ship comes into port when a fishing boat is offloading nets, they must leave
the dock and give way to the cargo vessel. If more than one vessel arrives at the
channel at once, it is first come first served for piloting the boat into the harbor.

B-29
2. The pilots will pull the vessel up to the dock. When leaving the dock, the pilot will take
the vessel off of the main dock face and then guide the captain out of the channel.

3. A vessel tracking system may assist in coordination of vessels.

B-30


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: NOAA Majuro Weather Station

ATTENDEES: Reginald White, Director of NOAA Majuro Weather Station
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

General

1. The tide guage at the Uliga dock was installed and operated by the Australian
government. It is being used to monitor sea level rise. There used to be a tide guage at
the Delap dock but it is not there any more.

2. There are all kinds of weather, tide, and wave data available. The climactic report has
all of the weather averages and information. In addition, Australia does a quarterly
report for sea level trends based on information from the Uliga tide guage.

3. The prevailing current and winds are from the Northeast. However, during El Nio
weather patterns, the winds shift out of the westerly direction, which makes the Uliga
dock and surrounding areas very choppy.

4. In the winter time, low pressure systems originating from Japan come across the North
Pacific and sometimes come through Calalin Channel and inundate areas of the atoll
near the airport and surrounding areas.

5. The last cyclonic activity occurred in 1997. There is a higher chance of cyclonic activity
during El Nio weather patterns. The monsoon trough shifts its location and creates
favorable conditions for storm development.

6. Reginald provided an overall weather and rainfall summary for Majuro atoll.

7. Wave Watch 3 is an online wave model forecast and history of wave activity around
Majuro.

B-31


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel & J im Pederson

MEETING LOCATION: Majuro Marine Office, Majuro (RMIPA office building, downstairs)

ATTENDEES: Bori Ysawa, Majuro Marine, Shipping Agent for Pacific Direct Line and Matson
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Bori Ysawa is a shipping agent for Matson through Majuro Marine and is also a shipping
agent for Pacific Direct Line. Different follow up interviews were held with Bori Ysawa and
Bernie Valencia who is with Matson. Majuro Marine also is a shipping agent for Pacific
Direct Line. Kyowas shipping agent is through Robert Reimers.

PDL originates its voyages to RMI from Australia and New Zealand via Fiji. Pacific Direct
Line calls upon the Port of Majuro every 22 days and is always late according to Ysawa. All
cargo delivered by PDL represents dry cargo; no reefer containers are delivered. PDL
vessels typically offload less than 20 shipping containers. While good products are delivered
from Australia and New Zealand, Ysawa says that RMI residents seem to prefer products
from United States. Ysawa says that is why more cargo comes via Matson.

Note: Questionable conclusion in light of Matsons monopoly of marine transportation to
Majuro and Ebeye.

Port Issues

1. There is a very small area available for container freight station (CFS) cargo. Ysawa
estimates that 35 percent of container cargo represents CFS cargo since Majuro only
has small businesses.

2. Consignees receiving CFS cargo typically pick up what is known as a housebill from
RMI Customs before they pick up cargo from the CFS at Delap dock.

3. Container yard lighting is not adequate.

4. The availability of water is not very important as few vessels are seeking water.

5. There is a need for more reefer plugs. There are presently 18 plugs. Matson containers
have dual outlets that enable the use of 240v or 480v plugs.
B-32


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: RMI EPA Office, Majuro

ATTENDEES: EPA Staff
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Attempts were made to schedule an appointment with J ulian Alip, director of RMI Environmental
Protection
Agency (RMI EPA), but he was out of town. So, we initially spoke with a RMI EPA
representative who also had attended the public information meeting held on J anuary 9.


1. RMI EPA has authority to regulate water quality issues via RMIs delegation of
responsibilities to administer and regulate water quality issues associated with the U.S.
Clean Water Act and Safe Water Drinking Act. As part of that responsibility, RMI EPA
continues to be part of the boarding party that meets incoming vessels to the Port of
Majuro. The agency wishes to expand its monitoring to include an outbound vessel
inspection that seek to identify any illegal vessel discharges of bilge waters, sewage, fuel
or materials into the Lagoon.

2. Vessel discharge into the Lagoon is a significant problem that has yet to be solved. We
were shown copies of draft inbound and outbound monitoring forms. A man that heads
up their water quality section wanted our input concerning the type of information
requested from outgoing vessels. RMI EPA is a bit frustrated with the time it is taking to
determine what information can legally be requested before a vessel leaves port and
how vessels can be held accountable for any illegal activity.

3. The EPA would like to see better infrastructure for treating ship waste. They are
attempting to enforce no dump rules into the lagoon, yet there is no proper infrastructure
to accept and treat that waste.

4. There are currently minimum fines in place for illegal dumping into the lagoon because it
is difficult to pinpoint which vessel performed the dumping activities.

5. Mr. Pedersen stressed to the RMI EPA representative that delaying a vessel departure
would be more effective than the administration of fines which could be fought in court,
antagonize fishing companies, and ultimately discourage fishing vessels from coming to
the Port of Majuro. With fishing vessels, delays in port represent a deterrent to obtaining
B-33
another catch which produces significant income to a fish buyer and fishing vessel
owners.

6. If reasonable information is requested and information collected that strongly suggests
illegal dumping, an in-port inspection of such a vessel could likely be required. If the
vessels captains are made aware of what information they have to provide in advance
of their call on the Port of Majuro, ship captains would make sure that their vessels are
operating up to snuff when they arrive and before they depart.

7. Under current protocol, all of a crew passports are collected in the initial boarding party
activities. Returning of the passports could be delayed if any suspicious activity is
identified. The EPA needs to work with the shipping agents to get a better feel for the
vessels monitoring systems and equipment.

8. 100 ton displacement is the size in which a vessel needs to be piloted in to Majuro
harbor. It is also only for foreign vessels.

9. The EPA is currently having issues with adequate space to dispose of used batteries
across Majuro and the outer atolls.

B-34


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: RMIPA Office

ATTENDEES: Kenneth Kramer, Operations Manager for Pacific International, Inc.
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES


Pacific International, Inc. (PII) has developed a very conceptual plan for a new fisheries dock in
the Lagoon. PII envisions the development of a 1,200-foot dock with considerable land area
behind the dock that would accommodate a dry dock facility, engine repair services, and other
support services. PII has estimated the amount of fill required for the project. He promised to
provide us with this information and contacted an engineer by cell phone while we were with
him. But, he never provided information to us, even after I later left a phone message while on-
island. However, Kramer did provide an aerial photo obtained from Google with a hand-drawn
line depicting the location of the seaward edge of the proposed dock. We visited the proposed
dock site with Kramer, took digital photos, and walked through land area behind proposed dock
area. This area contains a considerable amount of land area that is contains a wide variety of
larger construction and marine transport equipment, various materials from past construction
projects, unfinished warehouse structures, as well as a concrete foundation for a planned cold
storage facility that was never built.

PII has already completed a few hundred feet of sheet piling along the seaward edge of the
proposed dock. Kramer says PII has enough sheet pile available to complete the first 500 feet of
the proposed dock. The depth immediately seaward of the dock face would be about -30 feet at
low tide.

What has stymied this planned project is the lack of capital for dock construction. We asked
Kramer if PII might be amenable to the development of a public dock if RMI and/or RMIPA were
to obtain financing for dock development. I indicated to Kramer that if a public dock were to be
constructed, RMIPA would be the likely agency to lease back lands to private entities that might
wish to offer services. Kramer remained receptive to any and all options.

We asked Kramer what support services might be particularly interested in providing in the
lands behind the dock. Of particular interest would be the operation of a dry dock and engine
repair facility. Kramer said that Suva, Fiji was the closest dry dock facility that is used by purse
seiners and long line vessels coming to the Port of Majuro.

The Taiwanese government made a proposal several years ago to construct a dry dock at a site
nearby the bridge in Delap. But local land disputes stopped this project.

B-35

Additional Points

1. A lot of the power in the RMI government lies with outer island senators. Majuro only
has around 5 senators compared to the numerous outer atolls and representatives.

2. The Kramers own a large plot of land just west of the bridge in Delap. They have been
working incrementally on constructing a concrete dock face and reclaiming the land out
to the dock face. The overall length of the dock face is currently planned to be around
1200. The length of the dock would be the same as the Delap dock with a depth of 30
at low tide. There is currently no official design or master plan for the dock. It is currently
in the concept phase with ideas of what entities and/or infrastructure the site will have.
PII is interested in a dry dock facility that would complement the fisheries dock.

3. Two 750,000 diesel fuel tanks were disassembled and shipped to Majuro from
Kwajalein. The tanks are envisioned to be reconstructed onsite at the dock. Currently,
the project is being financed incrementally on a cash flow basis as capital becomes
available. However, PII would be interested in all types of financing options from private
to government partnerships.

4. Currently there is an area that is being used to turn carbide into acetylene as well as
another area being used to create oxygen for welding activities. There are also plans to
construct a cold storage facility that was shipped to Majuro from an abandoned facility in
Saipan. The storage capacity would be 2,500 tons.

5. A concept that is envisioned is to secure the entire dock so that crew members can
come ashore without needing to clear immigration. There would be a restaurant,
store(s), and possibly a hotel. It would be able to accommodate offloading capabilities of
fish cargo. The loining plant has provided interest in expanding their facility if a fisheries
dock is constructed.

B-36

DATE: January 11 and 16, 2013

TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pedersen

MEETING LOCATION: DAR Restaurant, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Charles Domnick, Anil Development, Inc.
Carlos Domnick, Anil Development, Inc.
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Anil Development, Inc. (ADI) is involved in several enterprises in RMI. Their relevance to master
plan is that ADI is the shipping agent for Mariana Express Lines (MELL). ADI also provides ship
chandlery services for larger yachts, e.g., 100-200 foot length. But this business is limited to
providing these services to about 1-2 yachts and 1-2 purseiners per year. Shipping agency
competitors include, in part, Robert Reimer Enterprises who represent Kyowa Line.


1. There are too many cargo containers in a limited yard behind the Delap dock.

2. Tobolar copra warehouses, oil storage facilities use much of the space in the container
yard behind Delap dock. Copra storage and processing facilities were built around 1974.
Charles Domnick, Carlos father, sought and obtained financing for the development of
copra facilities that originally cost around $3.2 million. $2.2 million of the financing was
obtained from wealthy individual in Nauru. The Domnicks believe it would be appropriate
to relocate copra facilities out of the Delap dock site. They recommend that the facilities
be located west of the Mobil Oil Micronesia facilities on the ocean side of the main road
adjacent to the Marshall Stevedoring Company. However, relocation to this site would
require the fill of inshore waters.

3. In view of MELLs ongoing shipping of refrigerated containers of fish to Asia, Hawaii, and
mainland US, Dominick envisions greater need for more reefer plugs in the container
yard area. MELL had two container vessel calls in December 2012, the first included 70
containers; the second call exported 110 containers. Most of the fish exported from RMI
are skipjack tuna sent to cannery market channels.

4. Carlos Domnick envisions that Majuro will experience little growth in cargo volumes
during the coming decade. The presence of MELL in the region places Majuro in a
strategic position to increasingly become a strategic port for fish transshipment, as well
as other international cargo moving through the region. A reactivation of phosphate
mining in Nauru is expected to generate a demand for more consumer goods and foods
to an expanded workforce. Planned infrastructure on Ebeye, beginning in 2013, are
anticipated to increase demands for a wide range of cargo during the next few years.
B-37
5. Carlos Domnick would like to see a Free Trade Zone established in the port area where
shipping companies could conduct business.

6. Carlos Domnick also envisions that a bonded warehouse operation also be established
in the Delap dock area.

Had follow-up discussion with both Charles and Carlos Domnick on J anuary 16 to briefly visit a
potential site for a new fisheries dock on the Lagoon side of the main shoreline road. Charles
Domnick is the Alab for a property situated across the shoreline road from the Marshall Energy
Company office (ocean side of road).

1. Both Charles and Carlos were quite receptive to the idea of using the land, which
Domnick apparently holds title to, for a new fisheries dock. The Domnicks are presently
using the nearshore waters for the dredging of sand.

2. The potential site has a considerable amount of land area available for a new dock and
inshore water area that could be filled to accommodate support services.

3. However, several homes are situated between the main shoreline road and the inshore
waters.
B-38


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: MSTC Office (Delap dock area), Majuro

ATTENDEES: Charles Stinett, Majuro Shipping and Terminal Company
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Charles is the former airport manager at Amata Kabua International Airport in Majuro. He has
been managing the Majuro Shipping and Terminal Company operations for about one year.


1. Charles recommends that the container storage and handling area needs to be
completely paved with concrete. Lack of concrete surfacing is hard on forklifts and other
cargo handling equipment, and slows cargo handling operations.

2. Charles believes that the limited width of the dock apron thwarts the use of other cargo
equipment. He said this in response to question if cargo unloading could be enhanced if
CY containers could be lowered on the dock apron and subsequently loaded onto
container chassis. This would enable CY containers to be conveniently delivered to
consignees on the following day.

3. Charles provided a list of available cargo handling equipment which is used by MSTC.
Available equipment list does not provide rating or capacity of equipment. Available
equipment generally includes two toplifts, two side lifts, several forklifts, skid steers, four
tractors, and other equipment.

4. Charles reported that a net repair area, about 100 x 300 feet in size, is needed at Delap
dock. MTSC intends to provide RMIPA with a plan for a small fisheries dock on the
northwest side of Delap dock. Note: J oe Tiobech is adamantly against this proposal
which Tiobech said was initially proposed by some Chinese company.

5. I scheduled to meet with Charles on Friday, J une 18 @ 1pm to discuss the cost of
stevedoring services that I will need for the cost-benefit analysis.

Note: Charles was not in his office for that meeting, but secured some needed information
from other MSTC representatives.

B-39


TO: Pat Campanella


MEETING LOCATION: Koos Fishing Company Office, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Eugene Muller, Manager, Koos Fishing Company
Sean Dunckel, Lyon
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Koos Fishing Company (KFC) operates seven purse seiners and three carrier vessels in the
RMI Exclusive Economic Zone (RMI EEZ). Each purse seiner has a fish holding capacity of
900 metric tons (MT).

KFC probably makes more use of on-island services for the support of its fishing fleet.
KFC recognizes that Marshall Islands want to gain more economic benefits from
transshipment activities in the RMI EEZ.

Each of its seven purseiners makes about 10 fishing trips to RMI EEZ in a given year.
Each fishing trip extends for three to five weeks.

Support Services Used by Purse Seiners:

1. Koos purchases diesel fuel for its purse seiners from Marshall Energ Company.

2. Koos purchases about 10,000 gallons of fresh water. I believe that this is the
fresh water holding capacity for each purse seinver, but not certain. Need to re-
check with Muller or other reliable sources. Purse seiners use fresh water for
showering and other potable uses.

3. Koos also purchases salt that each purse seiner uses to refresh the brine used
in conjunction with the cold storage of the fish catch. The salt water brine used
by each purse seiner is changed out about every 1.5 to 2 fishing trips. Every 2.5
to 3.0 months, purse seiners change out about 5 TEU of salt.

4. During each fishing trip, Koos purse seiners usually make one trip to the Delap
dock for one or more of the preceding onshore support services.

Destination and Value of Fish Catch:

1. Three major fish buyers dominate and influence the purchase of fish in the
Pacific Ocean. These companies include Tri Marine, FCF, and Itochu.

B-40
2. Koos Fishing Company primarily sells its catch of skipjack to fish canneries in
Thailand. Other species such as yellowfin and bigeye delivered to J apan.

3. Skipjack sells on a wholesale basis for about $2,000 per metric ton. The value
of yellowfin is approximately $5,500 while bigeye sells for roughly $6,000 per
metric ton.

4. Bi-catch is shipped via refrigerated containers, refrigerated containers can hold
about 25 tons per TEU.

5. There is growing trend for the use of refrigerated containers for the
transshipment of fish from Majuro and other parts of Micronesia because fish
can be shipped quicker to wholesale customers and fishing companies can get
paid earlier. In contrast, fish can be transshipped by carrier vessel for about
$100 per ton.

Long Line Vessels in Port of Majuro:

1. Muller estimates that less than 10 percent of long liners working in the RMI EEZ come to
the Port of Majuro for fish transshipment and/or support services.

2. In 2000, approximately 30 long line vessels were based in Majuro.

B-41


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pedersen

MEETING LOCATION: RMI EPPSO Office, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Hemline Ysawa, Acting Director, RMI Environmental Policy, Planning &
Statistics Office, Majuro
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Hemline replaced a past director who recently resigned as director of RMI EPPSO. Spoke to her
on two different occasions. Provided her with background concerning the RMI Port Master Plan
and the need for demographic and economic data needed to forecast future cargo volumes, as
well as prepare a cost-benefit analysis of the recommended plan.

Available Demographic and Economic Data

1. A census of population and housing was completed by EPPSO in 2011 which included
questions concerning a combination of demographic and economic characteristics.
Hemline said that she was not able to provide me with this information without prior
authorization by Chief Secretary Casten Nemra. To obtain that authorization, I needed to
prepare a written request to the Chief Secretary. Note: I prepared this request and
provided the letter to Chief Secretary to Hemline Ysawa on 17 J anuary. She said she
would deliver it to the Chief Secretarys Office. Once approved, she would transmit
population survey results to me via email.

2. Hemline said that the 2011 population and housing survey generally segregated
population data by urban and rural population, as well as place of residence, e.g., atoll or
island within atoll.

3. No reliable survey of the population has been made since about 1989 or 1999. But, she
says that following 2000 growth rate has diminished to about one percent per year.

4. There is a considerable amount of out migration that is occurring as the Compact of Free
Association enables Marshallese to migrate freely to Hawaii or continental US. Since
2000, job opportunities in the cash economy have been scarce. So, most out migration
has been to the US. This can be confirmed through the examination of selected 2010
Census data. Hemline said she would send me a link to the location of this data on the
US Bureau of the Census website.

5. In September 2012, a separate labor force survey was conducted. She said that my
letter to Chief Secretary would suffice for gaining access to this data.
B-42
6. I explained to Hemline that we would be preparing a population forecast model for the
project unless EPPSO already had some forecasts. She said no forecasts have been
made recently. I indicated that I would be willing to share the population forecast model
with her so that EPPSO could refine and revise their own forecasts as circumstances,
e.g., employment trends, in RMI changed. She greatly appreciated that offer. I said in
exchange for the model, I would like to obtain her input for various statistical
assumptions that we would need to make to develop the population model. I reported
that we would likely be preparing and employment-based population forecast as future
opportunities and resident participation in the cash economy would likely be the primarily
factor influencing future population growth along with natural growth rate (births minus
deaths).

7. Hemline did provide me with a considerable amount of historical population and
economic data found in past RMI statistical reports that were previously published. She
copied numerous files on to my thumb drive.

B-43


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pedersen

MEETING LOCATION: Robert Reimers Hotel, Majuro

ATTENDEES: Mike Vrendenburg, Robert Reimers Enterprises
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

1. I ran into Mike while having lunch at the Tide Table Restaurant. I thanked him again for
his insights provided when Sean and I had group meeting with representatives of Robert
Reimer Enterprises. Mike followed up by saying that he had some ideas of his own for
the development of the Port of Majuro. Further, his potential development opportunity
would be a venture of his own and other potential investors rather than Robert Reimer
Enterprises. Mike is a marine engineer that graduated from University of Texas or other
institution there. Prior to joining RRE, he worked at the RMI Marine Registry Office. He
has traveled extensively and reports that he has a considerable number of contacts with
larger shipping companies based in Asia.

2. He provided his thoughts to me on a confidential basis and said that he would soon be
contacting J ack Chong-Gum regarding his proposed project. In that regard, I believe that
our project team should review available information about his type of business
enterprise before recommending it as a proposed development opportunity. He said that
he would send us some pictures of related facilities in order that we could present the
concept more effectively to reviewers of the master plan.

Proposed Lay-Up Port

1. Mike would like to establish a lay1up port where large shipping companies could
temporarily moor larger vessels for longer periods of time, e.g., 6 months, as they await
more business contracts. Mike says smaller and larger versions of these ports are
located throughout the world. The key is to work with top flight companies and newer
vessels that do not pose problems, e.g., older vessels left and never retrieved by
shipping companies, to the port.

2. A larger mooring area, roughly two by two miles in size, would be established for the
moorage of international cargo vessels. The moorage area would be adjacent, but not in
the path of incoming cargo and fishing vessels.

3. Ship anchors and, possibly, some underwater moorage blocks would be used to
stabilize each vessel. No dock facilities would be constructed. A floating drydock would
be used to support some occasional vessel repairs.

B-44
4. Other services, e.g., piloting, bunkering of fuel, could be obtained at Delap. I suggested
to Mike that the services could be directed toward a new fisheries dock to sustain the
viability of services that could be provided there by other onshore support service
companies. Mike agreed.

5. I asked Mike if was assuming that RMI Port Authority would obtain some revenues from
the fees associated with the moorage. He said he was. I said that we would be happy to
include this concept in the master plan and would appreciate him transmitting more
details associated with the amount of employment and revenues associated with the
project, as well as digital photos of typical operation to help make the concept more
understandable. Mike said he would e-mail this information to me. In addition, he would
soon be contacting J ack Chong-Gum and present it to him for his consideration.

B-45


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pedersen


ATTENDEES: Rowena Manalo, CPA, RMIPA
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Rowena Manalo is a Certified Public Accountant since 1996. Not certain, but believe that
certification is from the Republic of the Philippines. I explained to Rowena that the Lyon project
team needed to have information that would identify the revenues and costs associated with
port management and operations. I requested profit-loss (P/L) statements for 2010-2012.
Rowena reported that RMIPAs fiscal year begins Oct 1 and ends on September 30. She is
confident with FY 2011 and FY 2012 P/L statements even though FY 2012 statement remains
unaudited. She did not prepare the original P/L statement for 2010 but believes it to be reliable.

Rowena provided me with a hardcopy and digital copies of the financial data on Friday, 18
J anuary.
B-46


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: Sean Dunckel


ATTENDEES: J in Liang, Base Manager, Marshall Islands Fishing Venture (MIFV), Inc., Majuro
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Marshall Islands Fishing Venture operates 42 long line vessels in the RMI Exclusive Economic
Zone. These vessels range from 160-200 in length.

MIFV primarily catches yellowfin, bigeye, blue marlin, and some bi-catch. These vessels harvest
roughly 300 metric tons (MT) per month, or about 3,600 MT of fish from the RMI EEZ per year.

Thirty to forty percent of the catch, which represents their best class of fish, is air shipped to the
U.S. mainland. Another 20 percent of the catch is cut into fish loins, gased with CO gas, and
packaged into 34kilo size bags. The remaining 20 percent are small plastic bags containing one
fish steak that are sold to wholesalers in Seattle and Los Angeles.

Fisheries Dock

Liang said that MIFVs present dock was too small for what MIFV needed. Liang said that there
was a need for a fisheries dock that would primarily or exclusively be used by long line and
purse seiner vessels.

I asked Liang how MIFV might envision a new fisheries dock somewhere along the Majuro
Lagoon. Similar to my discussions with Pan Pacific, Liangs description enabled me draw his
concept for a potential fisheries dock and related area that could be used by MIFV to meet their
dock and facility needs.

1. MIFV would need about 170 meter of dock space for the concurrent berthing of three
long line vessels and a four long line vessel that would be repaired and serviced for the
next fishing trip.

2. Fresh water and fuel bunkering would be available at the dock.

3. The dock apron would be about 40 meters wide to accommodate fish unloading
operations, as well as the related operation of a mobile crane that would be used to
facilitate the unloading of fish.

B-47
4. Inland of the dock apron would be an area approximately 150 x 170 in size. This area
would include a fish grading and sorting area, fish soaking room, fish packing room, fish
processing room and cold storage facilities.

5. Behind this area would be a storage area, about 40 x 170 meters in size that would be
used for the storage of 404foot containers and packing materials. The same area would
also contain some portable housing units for MIFV personnel working at the fisheries
dock.

B-48


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pederson


ATTENDEES: J ack Chong-Gum, Director, RMIPA, Majuro
J oe Tiobech, Deputy Director, RMIPA, Majuro
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

I met with J ack Chong-Gum and J oe Tiobech to discuss existing organizational management
and what they envisioned for future management of RMIPA.

Existing Management

1. J oe Tiobech is the deputy director of RMIPA but serves primarily as seaport manager.
Former personnel who served as seaport manager and operations manager both died in
recent years.

2. Personnel serving under the seaport manager include the following:
Robert Heim, operations manager
J unior Lejjena, statistician/trainee who compiles data regarding vessel
movements, incoming cargo, ship particulars, and other relevant data.
Boat operators (2 persons operating pilot boats based at Uliga dock)
Boat crew (one person supporting boat operators at Uliga Dock)
Mechanic (one person who maintains and repairs RMIPA boats and 5-6 autos)
Security personnel (14 persons monitoring security at Uliga Dock)

3. There are three pilots that provide piloting to incoming cargo and fishery vessels. RMIPA is
paid by incoming vessels or their local agents for these services. A proportion of that
payment is provided to each of the three pilots. J oe Tiobech is one of the three pilots; the
other two pilots are employed elsewhere on island and called upon when needed, but not
employees of RMIPA. I asked J oe if he thought they should be employees; he was
uncertain, but did not express opposition to that concept.

Future Management Objectives

1. J ack Chong-Gum said that he would like RMIPA move closer to going paperless.
Considerable expenditures associated with the use of paper and the related space for
hardcopy records.
B-49
2. J ack said he would like to establish a computerized port management system. A
company approached him a while back to provide a comprehensive software package
that could be used for overall port management. But, subsequently, he never back from
them again after he requested costs for installation of the system.

3. J ack indicated that he would like to see an improved system established for the clearing
of vessels calling upon the Port of Majuro.

Note: Earlier during our stay on Majuro, Jack also asked Sean and I what should be the
objectives of RMIPA? He said that the recent airport master plan reflected management
and operational objectives and he was asked about his objectives during the master plan
process.

Port Regulations

1. I asked Mr. Tiobech whether or not there were any port regulations that had been
adopted by RMIPA. He said that over the years he had informally established some
operational policies. But none were currently adopted by RMIPA.

2. J oe said that he copies of regulations he had found in regulations of other ports that he
liked. He later provided some copies to review and evaluate.

3. J oe said that any future regulations would need to address topics such as notices of
arrival and departure, berthing practices, and stowage of cargo.

4. I suggested to J oe that perhaps the Lyon Associates contract could later be amended to
include Lyons preparation of new port regulations. He expressed some mild support of
that suggestion and no opposition.

5. Existing statutes for the Republic of the Marshall Islands give authority to the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications for the management of vessel traffic in the Lagoon,
as well as the delegation of Transportation and Communication responsibilities to
RMIPA. J ack said he would provide me with a copy of relevant statutes via e-mail.

B-50


TO: Pat Campanella

FROM: J im Pedersen


ATTENDEES: Don Xu, vice president, Pan Pacific Foods (RMI) Inc., Majuro
J im Pedersen, Lyon

MINUTES

Background

Pan Pacific Foods, Inc. owns and operates about 100 fishing vessels around the world. It leases
its present site for $3,000 per acre. Pan Pacific Food, Inc. (PPF) opened in 2007. PPF has 11
purse seiners based in Majuro, which make about 60 fishing trips per year. These vessels
primarily catch skipjack, as well as some Yellowfin tuna. PPF purse seiners have a fish holding
capacity ranging between 950 and 1,100 metric tons.
Incoming fish are sorted. Skipjack are cut and packaged into three or four kilo bags which are
subsequently loaded into refrigerated containers. Each container can accommodate about 25
metric tons of skipjack tuna. Pan Pacific Foods processes about 8,000 metric tons per year.
PPF transships its skipjack tuna to the cannery markets in Thailand, as well as canneries such
as Bumble Bee, StarKist, and Chicken of the Sea along the U.S. west coast.

Workforce

Pan Pacific Foods has about 10 full-time personnel. It also employs up to 200 part-time people
when vessels arrive with a load of fish for processing.

Fisheries Dock

Xu confirmed the need for a fisheries dock that could support purse seiner and long line
vessels. I asked him to envision the amount of area needed for vessel berthing and support
facilities if a new fisheries dock would be constructed by RMI or RMIPA. He offered to provide a
conceptual layout of the dock, as well as uses behind the dock area. I copied his drawing
freehand, but a summary of this drawing is as follows:

1. Xu envisions the need for two berths that could accommodate two 73 meter purse
seiners. This would require a dock about 200 meters long. The berth would require, at
least, 8 meters of depth at low tide.

2. Immediately inland of the dock face would be operational wharf space that would extend
15920 meters inland of the dock face. Consequently, the operational wharf space would
be roughly 20 x 200 meters.

B-51
3. Behind the operational wharf area would be a loading area for 40 to 60 refrigerated
containers, as well as a potential net repair area. This area would be 20930 meters by
200 meters wide. I asked whether or not the net repair area could be relocated to
another part of the area, an area which could be used by other vessels other than those
owned by Pan Pacific. He said it certainly could be.

4. Further inland, would be a warehouse facility approximately 30 x 100 meters. An
adjoining cold storage facility, about 30 x 100 meters, would accommodate a freezer for
skipjack (925 F), as well as an adjoining freezer for yellowfin (down to as much as
960F).

A fisheries dock, which would be distant from the Delap dock, would require international cargo
vessels to stop at both Delap dock and the new fisheries dock. Otherwise, refrigerated
containers would unnecessarily be moved twice. Even if a new fisheries would be constructed,
Pan Pacific would continue to operate its existing
facilities for fish processing and packaging. Xu said his company would not be interested in
helping finance construction of a new fisheries dock, but would have interest in developing its
own facilities behind a public fisheries dock and lease land area for new facilities described
above.

Other Support Services

Xu envisions that no fresh water at the fisheries dock would be necessary because purse
seiners make their own fresh water with desalination units aboard each purse seiner. However,
Xu said that the fisheries dock should include systems for the discharge of waste oil and
wastewater given the expanding requirements of RMI EPA. It would also be important for the
fisheries dock to include systems for the purchase of diesel (for purse seiners) and aviation
fuels (for helicopters).

Impact of New Fisheries Dock

Xu anticipates that the availability of a new fisheries dock and related land area behind the dock
would increase Pan Pacific Foods production by 30 to 40 percent.
B-52
6. The shipping agents either call or email RMIPA 36-72 hours prior to entering the Calalin
Channel. The pilot will take the vessel into the lagoon with fishing vessels anchoring in
the lagoon while cargo vessels are taken dockside. RMIPA gets a percentage of gross
receipts. The boarding party then boards the ship and clears it before any cargo can be
offloaded or any crew members can go ashore. For cargo vessels, the boarding party
consists of; immigration, customs, quarantine, and EPA. For fishing vessels, the
boarding party consists of; immigration, customs, quarantine, EPA, MIMRA, and Sea
Patrol (which checks the vessel tracking system).

7. The cargo vessels come to the dock where the boarding party boards the ship. The
fishing vessels and mother ships typically touch the dock, or send out a skiff for the
boarding party to clear the vessel. Typically, the mother ships will have at a minimum 2-3
purse seiners designated to that vessel with a maximum of up to 5-6.

8. When RMIPA personnel pilot vessels into port, they randomly pilot vessels to an
undefined moorage area about 0.25-0.50 mile offshore of Uliga Dock. In order to gain a
better sense of these locations, Mr. Tiobech obtained coordinates for almost all of carrier
vessels in port on J anuary 11-12 since purse seiners are also moored immediately
adjacent to the carrier vessels. I shot pictures of all carrier vessels from the RMIPA pilot
boat. J oe provided the following carrier vessel location coordinates for carrier vessels in
port on J anuary 11-12.

Coordinates of Vessels in Port

Carrier Vessel: Sein Ocean (carrier with one purse seiner in port)
Lat: 07-06.09 N
Long: 171-21.04E

Carrier Vessel: Syota Maru (carrier with two purse seiners in port; each about 70m length)
Lat: 07-05.80N
Long: 171-21.58E

Carrier Vessel: Sea Trader (carrier with one purse seiner)
Lat: 07-05.65 N
Long: 171-21.98E

Carrier Vessel: Kai De (carrier with no purse seiner)
Lat: 07-05.88 N
Long: 171-22.01E

Carrier Vessel: Lake Glory (carrier with no purse seiner)
Lat: 07-05.63 N
Long: 171-21.40 E

Carrier Vessel: Kai Yuan (carrier with one purse seiner)
Lat: 07-06.10 N
Long: 171-21.43 E

Carrier Vessel: Yung Dafa 108 (carrier with two purse seiners)
Lat: 07-06.30 N
B-53
Long: 171-21.68 E

Carrier Vessel: Hua J ian 109 (carrier with no purse seiner)
Lat: ? Long: ?
Carrier Vessel: Win Uni (carrier with no purse seiner)
Lat: ? Long: ?

B-54
Port of Majuro Pre-Final Master Plan February 2014 Appendix C
APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C:
PORT IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
MEETING NOTES

Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations Presentation to Port
Stakeholders
Attendees:
J oe Tiobech Deputy Director, RMI Ports Authority
Phil Phillipo Secretary, Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Bobby Muller Chief Operations, Pacific International Inc.
Kenneth Kramer Vice President, Pacific International Inc.
May Li KMI
Orlando Paul Koos Fishing Co.
Charles Stinett Manager, MSTCO
Len Isotoff Chief Operations, Matson
Kem. Kabua Mobil Gas
Bori Ysawa Shipping Agent, Majuro Marine (Matson)
J oe Silk Waterfront Tech. Solutions
J . Hunnley

Summary of Discussions:
Delap Dock Improvements

Secretary Philipo asked whether improvements to Delap Dock would impact ongoing
port operations. Lyon team responded that some impacts would take place, but a
gradual transition would minimize those impacts.

Secretary Philipo said that removal of the fence behind the dock may generate some
changes in port security procedures.

We should take baby steps to undertake port improvements at Delap Dock. From
cargo carrier perspective, anything that hampers cargo-handling efficiency would not be
viewed favorably. Adding more equipment to a smaller container yard could pose
problems.

Paving the container yard would be a good improvement to the container yard and help
improve cargo handling efficiency.

Len had cautioned about port improvements being supported only by private financing
resulting in increased shipping rates and other costs that would offset the benefits
gained by the improvements. Port of Guam is a good example. If RMIPA is to obtain
significant capital for port improvements, then these potential disadvantages would not
occur.

Extension of Delap Dock

The potential expansion of the dock may require dredging.

Landowners need to be consulted concerning any potential dock expansion.

Bobby Mueller said that incremental expansion would be the most practical approach to
overall improvement of Delap Dock. Lyon team agreed said that a gradual transition
from Option A to B would be more feasible and would not recommend Option C unless
there is buy in and commitment from shipping companies using Delap Dock for
expanded transshipment.
C-1

J oe Tiobech mentioned that a combination of mooring dolphins on the east and west
ends of the main Delap Dock could be an interim solution to providing an extended main
dock for transshipment.

Changes in Cargo Handling Procedures

Is it possible to harden dock apron rather than revising existing cargo handling
equipment and procedures? The dock apron can be hardened, but existing cargo
handling procedures will continue to damage the dock apron.

Fishing Dock Complex

Will the fishing dock complex attract more fishing vessels? Yes, but new vessels will
need to obtain appropriate licensing.

Company reps involving shipping of domestic cargo recognized that the relocation of
fishing vessels to a different dock would eliminate competing use of Delap Dock. Cargo
vessels have priority over fishing vessels for the use of Delap Dock.

Bobby Mueller said there is a misconception that all fishing vessels are fishing in the
RMI EEZ. In reality, they are fishing in the Kiribati, Nauru, and other central and western
Pacific locations. But, the advantages associated with Majuro Atoll continue to make the
Port of Majuro an attractive transshipment. And any improvements will only enhance the
attractiveness of the Port of Majuro.

Stinnett said that we are seeing more longliners shipping high grade tuna via super flash
frozen containers.

Container Freight Station

Charles Stinnett believes that about 15 percent of cargo is processed through the CFS.
Bori Ysawa told Lyon Associates that he thought about one-third of inbound cargo was
CFS.

Cruise Ship Industry Impacts

Be aware of cruise ships that might desire to call upon the Port of Majuro. Lyon
Associates team said that it was well aware of other Pacific Islands that seek the
economic benefits of increased cruise vessel traffic. However, no substantive
consideration was given to this potential economic opportunity since more substantive
economic benefits could be derived from greater fishing vessel traffic, expanded fish
processing, cargo transshipment, and enhanced cargo handling efficiency.

Sincerely,

Sean Dunckel
Project Manager
C-2

RMIPA Port Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

RMIPA Port Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

August 2014

Port of Majuro Master Plan August 2014 ABB-1

You might also like